Staff Report — Simi Valley City Council, October 24, 2022

A2297.SR.JD

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
O
ctober 24, 2022
TO
: City Council
Board of Directors of Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 F
ROM: Department of Public Works
S
UBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION REGARDING PRIOR EFFORTS

FOR THE USE OF RECYCLED WATER IN THE COMMUNITY

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
I
t is recommended the City Council review the information provided in this report and provide direction to staff.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The
City Council/Board of Directors ( “Council/Board”) adopted a Recycled Water Master Plan in June 2008, and subsequently considered and discussed several aspects of the City's Reclaimed/Recycled Water Program (Program). The program included the proposed implementation of the West Simi Valle y Water Recycling Project ( “Project”) serving the west end of the City, and discussions with an agricultural company to provide recycled water to a potential large avocado grove adjacent to the landfill. There were also discussions with "downstream" parti es interested in ensuring that effluent flow from the Water Quality Control Plant (“WQCP”) continued to replenish groundwater basins at the eastern end of the County. The City/ Board also made a proposal to purchase the Calleguas owned assets from them, but the offer was not accepted. Progress on the City's Recycled Water Program stalled due to, among other issues, the high cost of the Project’s infrastructure and the volatility of the financial success dependent upon high volume users, and subsequently the program was suspended in 2017.

Cr
itical to the Program success was ensuring customers would use recycled water should the water be available to their properties. It was also important that large water users were committed to using recycled water because large recycled water users are necessary for the financial viability of the P rogram. For example, the Project could not be constructed until large water users, such as golf courses, parks, schools, commercial properties, etc., had agreed to connect to the Project’s system. Without such commitments, the City/Board could have expended up to $25 million (in 2011 dollars) to build the Project’s recycled water infrastructure without assurances that there would be revenue to offset the construction and operating costs. As discussed below, the City was not able to secure commitments from large users to ensure the Program’s success.

AGENDA ITEM NO.

FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
In December 2008, the Council /Board adopted the Feasibility Study for Extending Recycled Water Service ( “Feasibility Study ”), which provided guidance to expand recycled water use thereby improving the Board’s water resource diversity. Increasing the use of local water resources enhances the water supply reliability and may reduce costs. Having customers use more recycled water and less imported water reduces the dependence on water purchases from wholesale providers, such as the Calleguas Municipal Water District ( “Calleguas”). The Feasibility Study evaluated previous plans and assumptions, inventoried recycled water use opportunities, explored new alternative concepts for recycled water delivery, and provided a cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the cost-feasibility of the new concepts. In 2008, the existing recycled water distribution system, originating at the City’s Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) property, extends east within West Los Angeles Avenue about 1, 500 feet before extending north (under unimproved property) to the Simi Valley Landfill.

In July 2011, the Council/Board approved the Project. The Project would have extended the existing 2008 recycled water system generally east and south fr om the WQCP along West Los Angeles Avenue/Eas y Street, south on M adera Road, east on Royal Avenue with reaches to Fitzgerald Road, Fir st S treet, and Cochran Str eet.

Staff had identified potential customers along these corridors including golf courses, the Simi Valley Town Center (which is plumbed with the required purple pipe), Caltrans, and a number of parks, school s, and cemeteries. When fully implemented, the Project could have potentially delivered 380 million gallons per y ear of recycled water to several customers identified in the Feasibility Study. In 2011, the total estimated cost to implement the entir e Project was approximately $25 million and would have been completed in several phases. Developing the infr astructure would require the installation of large pumps at v arious locations to move the water through the system, storage tanks for the water to s erve the various customers, and the breaching of City streets in order to install the new recycled water lines. In addition to the construction costs, the City would need to acquire property to install storage tanks and pumps needed for the Project.

California Health and Safety Code provides that all pipes installed above or below ground after June 1, 1993 that are des igned to carry recycled water shall be colored purple or distinctively wrapped with purple tape. While potable (drinkable) water can flow through purple pipe, non-potable (not drinkable) water can only flow through purple pipe or purple marked pipe. This is to ensure the public does not drink water from a purple pipe. Exceptions include municipal or industrial facilities that have established a labeling or marking system for recycled water on their premises, as otherwise required by a local agency that clearly distinguishes r ecycled water from potable water and for agricultural use. Therefore, if the Pr oject were to provide recycled water to a user , that user by law must install a pur ple pipe water system, or wrap their existing system with purple tape, to distribute the supplied r ecycled water throughout their property.

As indicated above, it was necessary to obtain com mitments from large water users (golf courses, parks, schools , etc.) to use recycled water before the City constructed these planned recycled water main lines. However, the main concer n for those customers was
A2297.SR.JD
2 the cost to modify and install a purple pipe irrigation system for recycled water, and maintaining separate systems between potable and recycled non -potable water. For large water users, these costs were substantial, potentially ranging from $500,000 to $1,000.000.

Staff held several meetings and discussions with executives from American Golf Company (“American Golf”), the owner/operator of the Wood Ranch and Sunset Hills Country Clubs. American Golf was clearly concerned about the capital cost to convert their golf courses to become compatible with using recycled water for irrigation. American Golf also expressed concerns regarding the quality of the recycled water and the consistency in the quality. Ultimately, American Golf was not able to commit to making the capital investment, despite the District offering assistance in financing the capital investment that American Golf would have to make on their properties.

In addition, the Simi Valley Unified School District and the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District also expressed the same concern about the initial capital costs to convert their irrigation systems for recycled water and water quality. Without commitments from all of these large water users, it was not financially prudent to move forward with construction of the Project. Additionally, a financial analysis of the Project, based on the estimated water that would be distributed to the large users as well as the infrastructure cost and debt service for the Project, did not return a positive cash flow without American Golf.

One of the major funding sources for the Project ’s construction was a loan (not grant) from the State for the construction of the necessary infrastructure. That funding is no longer available. The City also secured a $3 million grant for planning and building the P
roject. The City could reengage discussions with the large users noted above regarding their current position on the use of recycled water. However, restarting the Project would necessitate the City to seek funding sources through loans and grants.

Should the City Council desire to re-commit to the Project, staff would recommend a first step in analyzing the availability of funding as the City’s current 5-y ear rate structure does not include funding for a $25+million Projec t.

Between 2015 and 2017, the City had discussions with an avocado grower (Simpatica) about supplying recycled water to a potential large grove of avocado trees adjacent to the landfill north of the City. In September 2016, the Council/Board authorized staff to execute a Letter of Intent (“LOI”) with the grower to develop a conceptual outline to supply recycled water. However, subsequent to the execution of the LOI, as the grower continued to evaluate all the aspects of their proposed avocado ranch development, they ultimately decided not to move forward with their plans.

Staff had also been contacted by interested parties downstream and west of Simi Valley about using recycled water (effluent) from the WQCP to continue to replenish the groundwater basins in Ventura County west of Simi Valley . Those parties included the Camrosa Water District, the County Waterworks Districts, the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (“FCGMA”), and the North Pleasant Valley Desalter Project. They had offered to purchase recycled water rights west along the Arroyo Simi/Arroyo Santa A2297.SR.JD
3 A2297.SR.JD
Rosa corridor, downstream of the WQCP. Unlike the Project, where the City would need to make a substantial capital investment at risk, these offers and proposals would happen without capital investment by the City. While an agreement with these downstream entities would not result in the use of recycled water in the Simi Valley community, it would reduce the region’s dependence upon potable water from Calleguas or other water providers and provide a revenue source to the City for the water sales. Those discussions have not concluded and are continuing in a conceptual phase; staff would bring any future proposal to the Council/Board for consideration.

C
onsiderable discussions have taken place regarding the us e of recycled water by the City Council. Exhibits 1-7 attached to this report are staff reports from 2008 through 2018 regarding those discussions. Exhibit 7, a June 4, 2018 staff report, was the last action that authorized staff to enter discussions with the FCGMA for rights to the WQCP’s effluent as well as discontinuing work on the Project.

Other Potential Uses of Recycled Water
Inq
uiries have been made regarding public access to the WQCP’s recycled water system for filling personal containers for use on residential or commercial property. This is a permitted use in nearby communities, including the City of Ventura and in the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District service area. The City’s WQCP system does not have the infrastructure for dispensing recycled water into containers as the delivery system is currently owned by Calleguas and does not facilitate this option. Further, except for what is distributed through the existing recycled water system, all water treated at the WQCP is discharged into the Arroyo Simi in accordance with the WQCP’s permits to operate.

While it could be designed and constructed, there would be considerable challenges and expense to make a publically available filling station operational. In addition, once the filling station is operating, permits would need to be secured from the State to operate.

A
dditionally, the State Water Resources Board regulates the use of recycled water by commercial and residential users. These users, prior to taking any recycled water, would need to be trained in the use and transportation of the recycled water. For example, users would need to be trained on proper hygienic practices and the potential health risks associated with contact or ingestion of recycled water, recycled water cannot be used for direct human consumption or for the processing of food or drink and cannot be used for domestic or animal water supply. Further, there are regulations on the type and labeling of containers used to hold recycled water (the containers cannot be cross contaminated with potable water containers). These trainings would require additional staff resources as well as a fulltime monitor of the recycled water filling station.

T
here is a growing trend in recycled water projects to return recycled water to the potable (drinking) water supply. Termed “Potable Reuse,” the concept involves fully treating wastewater to remove harmful organics and concentrated minerals to restore it to potable water quality and blend it into a potable water supply/distribution system. Two agencies nearby were considering such projects: the City of Ventura and the joint venture of Triunfo Sanitation District and Las Virgenes Municipal Water District. For Simi Valley customers, the concept of potable reuse is a practical means for reusing effluent water within the 4 A2297.SR.JD
community. Local water storage resources, including the Simi Valley Basin and Calleguas’ Lake Bard, could be ideally situated to make a potable reuse system feasible and practical. The feasibility would need to be analyzed more specifically, and a thorough review of benefits and costs, along with consideration of possible impediments, needs to be evaluated.

T
he following alternatives are available to the City Council:

1. R
eceive and file this report;

2. D
irect staff to investigate loans and grants that may be available to re- start the former recycled water Project;

3. D
evelop a plan for the public to access recycled water from the Water Quality Control Plant;

4. P
rovide staff with further direction.

S
taff makes no recommendation.

SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTION
N
o staff recommendation is offered.

SUMMARY
F
rom 2008 through 2017, staff pursued the implementation of a recycled water program.

The program included the proposed implementation of the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project ( “Project”) serving the west end of the City, discussions with an agricultural company to provide recycled water to a potential large avocado grove adjacent to the landfill, and discussions with "downstream" parties interested in ensuring that effluent flow from the Water Quality Control Plant continued to replenish groundwater basins at the eastern end of the County. The City Council/Board of Directors also made a proposal to purchase the Calleguas owned assets from them, but the offer was not accepted. Progress on the City's Rec ycled Water Program stalled due to the lack of securing high volume recycled water customers and financial viability. In 2017, the active pursuit of a recycled water program was suspended.
___
_________________________________
Ronald K. Fuchiwaki
Public Works Director
P
repared by: Ron Fuchiwaki, Public Works Director
Joe Deakin, Assistant Public Works Director
5 A2297.SR.JD
INDEX Page
E
xhibit 1 - 2008 Staff Report ............................................................ 7 Exhibit 2 - 2011 Staff Report .......................................................... 13 Exhibit 3 - 2012 Staff Report .......................................................... 74 Exhibit 4 - 2015 Staff Report .......................................................... 81 Exhibit 5 - 2016 Staff Report ......................................................... 98 Exhibit 6 - 2017 Staff Report ........................................................ 104 Exhibit 7 - 2018 Staff Report ........................................................ 113 6 EXHIBIT 1
7 FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
The Feasibility Study addresses the following:
• Potential recycled water customers and their projected annual usage • Alternative conceptual facility plans to serve potential recycled water customers • Cost estimates for alternative conceptual facility plans • Regulatory requirements governing recycled water use
• Economic analysis comparing and evaluating alternative conceptual facility plans and costs • Determining the most feasible project, or Base Project The Feasibility Study considers recycled water a commodity and evaluates alternative delivery routes proximate to the recycled water source, which is the Simi Valley Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP). The Feasibility Study identifies potential recycled water users and estimates their potential irrigation demands. These demand estimates are summed in the Feasibility Study and delivery routes were conceptualized along with associated storage and pump needs.

These "conceptual facility plans" were compared, with an emphasis on estimated capital costs, estimated operating costs, potential recycled water sales revenue, and "avoided cost" (the cost savings from purchasing water, from Calleguas). This economic analysis, comparing estimated costs and benefits, determined the most cost-feasible conceptual facility plan.

Alternatives 1 and 2 and the Supplement are the only fully independent alternatives studied.

The remaining Alternatives, IA, 3, 4, 5, and 6 all depend upon new infrastructure extending delivery beyond the current terminus of the existing recycled water distribution system.

The Feasibility Study finds Alternative 1 (Expanded Landfill) the most cost-feasible conceptual facility plan. This concept is to extend recycled water service facilities generally southward along Madera Road to major water consuming customers such as the Sinaloa and Wood Ranch Golf Courses in Simi Valley and the Sunset Hills Golf Course in Thousand Oaks. The feasibility analysis includes costs for additional pump units at the WQCP, installation of pipeline, and a recycled water storage tank. Property acquisition was not foreseen as needed.

The feasibility analysis comparison with the other alternatives (introduced below) found that Alternative 1 was the most feasible alternative.

Alternative 2 (Moorpark) is a concept to extend recycled water service west of the WQCP along West Los Angeles A venue to serve large irrigation customers outside the City limit westward, such as Moorpark College and Rustic Canyon Golf Course in Moorpark. The Alternative 2 feasibility analysis includes the cost of additional pump units at the WQCP, installation of pipeline, and a recycled water storage tank. The cost feasibility is the most favorable but does not include the estimated cost for property acquisition. Alternative 2 is not recommended for further study due to the priority for recycled water delivery within the District service area versus exporting all of it.

The Feasibility Study includes a Supplement that analyzes a specific concept to place a recycled water line in the Caltrans 118 Freeway right-of-way to serve uses along the corridor to Erringer Road and the Simi Valley Town Center. This is a modification of Alternative 4 in U5208.SR.DB
8 the Update. The Supplement estimated the capital cost at $1 million, not including property acquisition. The potential estimated demands along the route are 61 AFY. Although the construction and operating costs would be less than the Alternative 1 project, the annual estimated recycled water demands are less than 10 percent of the Alternative 1 potential estimated demands. In addition to the less favorable cost-benefit analysis, placing a water line within the Caltrans 118 Freeway right-of-way is uncertain. Caltrans staff indicates they do not permit longitudinal pipeline easements as a matter of policy, though they would consider an exception. This alternative is inferior to Alternative 1.

Alternative IA (Royal Avenue) is a concept to extend recycled water service from the Alternative 1 project to the east, generally along Royal A venue. The concept explores serving large irrigation use customers, including several schools, cemeteries, and the Rancho Simi Community Park. The Alternative IA feasibility analysis includes the cost to install an additional pump unit at the WQCP and an additional easterly oriented pipeline. The Alternative 1 storage remains sufficient even with the added Alternative lA demands.

Alternative lA is shown in the report as cost-feasible, but is dependent upon Alternative 1 being in place.

Alternative 3 (Tierra Rejada) is a concept to extend recycled water service from the Alternative 1 project west along Tierra Rejada Road to potentially large recycled water users, including the Tierra Rejada Golf Course, agricultural users, and the future Butler Ranch Golf Course. All of these potentially large users are located outside the District service area. The Alternative 3 feasibility analysis identifies additional pump units at the WQCP, upsizing some of the Alternative 1 project pipeline, a recycled water storage tank, pipeline along Tierra Rejada Road, and a lift station. With the potential customers not clearly defined and not within the District service area, a cost estimate was not completed, as the project is fundamentally unpredictable and infeasible.

Alternative 4 (Central Simi Valley) is a concept to extend recycled water service from the Alternative 1 project easterly along City streets. Potential customers along this route include several schools, the Simi Valley Civic Center, Rancho Tapo Community Park, the Caltrans 118 Freeway landscaping, and the Simi Hills Golf Course. The Alternative 4 feasibility analysis includes the costs for additional pump units at the WQCP, upsizing of some Alternative 1 project pipeline, a recycled water storage tank, a lift station, and the easterly pipeline. The cost estimates did not include property acquisition. The cost feasibility for Alternative 4 is inferior to Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 (South Central Simi Valley) is a concept to extend recycled water facilities from Alternative 4 easterly to serve several moderate to large irrigation customers including some parks and schools. The Alternative 5 feasibility analysis includes additional pump units at the WQCP and an easterly pipeline connected to Alternative 4 pipeline. The cost feasibility for Alternative 5, considering the dependence on Alternative 4, is inferior to Alternative 1.

Alternative 6 (Mt. Sinai) is a concept to extend recycled water facilities from Alternative 4 easterly to serve the Mt. Sinai Cemetery planned expansion. The Alternative 6 feasibility analysis includes additional pump units at the WQCP, a recycled water storage tank, a lift station, and pipeline connected to Alternative 4 pipeline. The analysis did not include property U5208.SR.DB
9 acquisition estimated costs. The cost feasibility for Alternative 6, considering the dependence on Alternative 4, is inferior to Alternative 1.

Alternative 1 is recommended for further study due to its cost-benefit analysis being the most favorable. In addition, it offers the benefit that additional pumping and property right-of-way acquisition are not needed. The estimated capital cost, including engineering, contingency, and debt issuance costs, for the Alternative 1 project is $14 million. Estimated annual operating costs are $106,000. The cost-benefit analysis indicates that all Alternative 1 project costs could be recovered within 20 years (11 years with grant funding), thereafter generating a positive cash flow exceeding $500,000 annually.

The estimated construction costs for Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6 do not include the cost for needed property right-of-way acquisition for tanks, pump stations, and connecting water lines.

Right-of-way acquisition costs can be significant. The potential customers served by Alternatives 2 and 3 are outside the District service area and outside the City of Simi Valley.

Alternative 5 is a proposed extension of Alternative 4, and cannot be accomplished without completion of Alternative 4.

The Update was submitted to the DWR prior to August 27, 2008, to satisfy the grant requirement and for the District to receive its $65,000 grant reimbursement. The Supplement will be forwarded to the DWR to complete their records.

The Feasibility Study does not request or presume approval, adoption, or funding of a project by the District Board. Approving the Feasibility Study does not have a legally binding effect on later activities. The Feasibility Study is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Statutory Exemption pursuant to Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared as shown in Attachment A, page 6.

Staff recommends further study of Alternative 1 (Expanded Landfill) including initiating environmental documentation in compliance with CEQA, negotiating long-term user agreements with large users, developing an interagency agreement with the City of Thousand Oaks, modifying the existing "Agreement for a Pilot Recycled Water Project" with Calleguas, and seeking grant funding opportunities. The CEQA environmental documentation, agreements, amendments, and grant applications would be initiated by staff and brought to the Board for approval and execution.

The following alternatives are available for the Board's consideration:

1. Approve the Feasibility Study for Extending Recycled Water Service, and authorize staff to further investigate the Base Project (Alternative 1 - Expanded Landfill);

2. Do not approve the Feasibility Study and do not authorize staff to further investigate the Base Project;

3. Provide staff further direction.

Staff recommends Alternative No. 1.

U5208.SR.DB
10 SUMMARY
The Feasibility Study for Extending Recycled Water Service is comprised of a 2008 Recycled Water Master Plan Update, dated July 2008, and a Recycled Water Supplement. The 2008 Recycled Water Master Plan Update provides several possible projects for the non-potable use of recycled water generated at the Water Quality Control Plant, including a Base Project to provide recycled water generally southward along Madera Road to major water consuming customers such as the Sinaloa and Wood Ranch Golf Courses in Simi Valley and the Sunset Hills Golf Course in Thousand Oaks. The Recycled Water Supplement considers the feasibility of expanding recycled water service along the 118 Freeway to the Simi Valley Town Center. Staff is requesting that the Board of Directors approve the. Feasibility Study and authorize staff to further investigate implementation of the Base Project.

U5208.SR.D8
Ro aid K. Fuchiwaki, Director
Department of Public Works
11 ATTACHMENT A

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
From: City of Simi Valley To: County Clerk
County of Ventura
800 S. Victoria A venue
Ventura, CA 93001
29 29 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Project Title: Feasibility Study for Extending Recycled Water Service Project Location - Specific: Not applicable __ .....,_, _________________________ _ Project Location - City: _____ S_im_i _V_a_ll_e__,_y ___ _ Project Location - County: Ventura Description of Project: The Feasibility Study is made up of two documents: The 2008 Recycled Water Master Plan Update, dated July 2008 (Update), and the Recycled Water Supplement - Highway 118 to Erring er Road (Supplement). The Feasibility Study evaluates previous plans and assumptions, inventories recycled water use opportunities, explores new alternative concepts for recycled water delivery, and provides a cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the cost-feasibility of the new concepts.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: _T_h_e_C_it__,_y_o_ f_S _im--'-i _V_:a_ll--=-e__,_y ____________ _ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: The City of Simi Valley Exempt Status: (check one)
Ministerial [Sec. 21080(b)( 1}; 1 5268);
Date of Approval
Declared Emergency [Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)];
Emergency Project [Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)];
Categorical Exemption - State type and section number -------------x Statutory Exemptions - State code number _1_5_2....:..6_2 ______________ _ General Rule [Sec. 15061 (b)(3)]
Text of exemption and reasons why project is exempt:

Section 15262, titled "Feasibility and Planning Studies," reads as follows:
"A project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration but does require consideration of environmental factors. This section does not apply to the adoption of a plan that will have a legally binding effect on later activities." The Feasibility Study does not request or presume approval, adoption, or funding of a project by the District Board. Approving the Feasibility Study does not have a legally binding effect on later activities. Therefore, the project is exempt from further review under CEQA.

Lead Agency
Contact Person: Ernest Wong Area Code/Telephone -'--( 8=--0=--5=--)'---...:...5..::.8..::.3_-6=--8=--9=--6.::.._ ______ _ Signature��
Lauren Funaiole
_K_ Signed by Lead Agency
Date: t1/�jo'?Title: Senior Planner
Dept. of Environmental Services
12 EXHIBIT 2
13 to the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center. The existing recycled water system was constructed and is owned by the Calleguas Municipal Water District (Calleguas). The proposed Project includes the possible purchase of the existing system from Calleguas.

Currently, Calleguas is the wholesale recycled water purveyor in Simi Valley. Calleguas purchases recycled water from the City (Sanitation Fund) and sells it to Waterworks District No. 8 (District), which in turn sells the water to a single customer, the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center. Informal inquiries with Calleguas staff indicate a willingness to sell the system because they are unlikely to develop any future recycled water projects. Purchase of the existing system would provide the District with complete jurisdiction of recycled water program and facilities in the City.

FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
The proposed West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project would include upgrading the existing recycled water pump station at the WQCP, and constructing another small pump station, a reservoir, and underground pipelines. As indicated, the Project includes West Los Angeles Avenue/Easy Street, Madera Road, Royal Avenue, Fitzgerald Road, First Street, and Cochran Street. When fully implemented, the Project could potentially deliver an additional 380 million gallons per year of recycled water to 28 customers identified in the Recycled Water Master Plan Update. The total estimated cost to implement the entire Project is $22.7 million, including purchase of the existing recycled water system from Calleguas.

The Project will be completed in several phases. The first phase is the extension of the existing recycled water pipeline from its existing terminus along West Los Angeles Avenue/Easy Street to Madera Road. A 4,000-foot long, 20-inch diameter pipeline would be constructed in conjunction with the West Los Angeles A venue street widening project. Staff estimates the pipeline would cost $1.1 million. The FY 2011-12 Waterworks Budget contains $2 million for Recycled Water Projects, and sufficient funds are available for the new pipeline and purchase of the existing system from Calleguas.

For each future phase of the proposed Project, Board approval and funding authorization will be requested prior to any activity. In addition, staff will continue to investigate future financing options, including private-public partnerships, for the Project and provide alternatives for the Board to consider with future Project actions.

Environmental Review and CEQA Requirements
An Initial Study was prepared for the Project in accordance with Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the conclusions of the Initial Study, the Project has the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment from potential impacts to biological and cultural resources. However, the District amended the project application to incorporate revisions to the Project that will mitigate the effects to a point where no potentially significant effects will occur.

To mitigate potential indirect impacts to downstream riparian habitat as a result of a decrease in the volume of recycled water flowing into the Arroyo Simi due to the Project, the District included a mitigation measure to map and monitor the condition of downstream riparian habitat to ensure that reducing the flow of recycled water will not result in significant habitat loss.

The Monitoring program will be coordinated with and must be acceptable to the California U0711.SR.DB
14 Department of Fish and Game. Construction on the site will be scheduled to avoid the February to August nesting season of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Act. Additionally, prior to construction, a survey will be conducted to avoid impacting nesting birds (see mitigation measures BR1-BR5, pages 19 and 20).

The potential impacts of construction on cultural resources will be mitigated through the implementation of a Discovery Plan that includes research, monitoring, and training of onsite construction personnel so that, in the event artifacts are discovered, they will be handled appropriately (see mitigation measures CR-1 and CR-2, pages 20 and 21).

There is no substantial evidence that the Project as revised could have a potentially significant effect on the environment. Therefore, in accordance with Sections 15070 and 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment A, page 17) was prepared and advertised for a 30-day public review period from March 30, 2011 through April 28, 2011. In that the City prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), the documents reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

During that review period, the City received six comment letters relating to the MND. The letters, in the order received, were from the following agencies:
• State Water Resources Control Board (Attachment C, page 51); • California Department of Fish and Game (Attachment D, page 56); • County of Ventura (Attachment E, page 60).

The comments in each letter, along with City responses, are described below. Generally, based on the comments received, either staff has provided clarification of the Project to address comments from the agencies or staff has recommended conditions that would specifically address recommendations from the agencies.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Comments and Response The SWRCB provided standard comments on air quality, cultural resources, and compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The MND included a detailed Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis, a detailed Cultural Resources Assessment, and Biological Resources Assessment. These documents and the recommended mitigation measures relating to the identified impacts were incorporated into the Project. In addition, the SWRCB commented specifically regarding potential of the Project to impact special status species that potentially occur downstream and offsite. As described in the Biological Resources Assessment, the Project will have no direct impacts on riparian habitat. Potential indirect impacts could include changes to downstream riparian habitat for special status species from reduced volume of recycled water flowing into the Arroyo Simi. These reductions are estimated to be up to 11 percent of the total volume of water currently flowing to the Arroyo from the WQCP. The MND's consultant biologist consulted with the Department of Fish and Game on the indirect project impacts. As described in the assessment, the impacts will be monitored to determine significance. Staff recommends the following mitigation measure be added to the Mitigated Negative Declaration:

BR-6 If District monitoring determines that downstream habitat is significantly reduced as a result of the project, District must implement downstream remediation including habitat U0711.SR.DB
15 restoration, arundo (perennial grasses) removal, trash and debris removal, and increase the volume of treated water into the Arroyo Simi to levels that will restore habitat to sustainable levels, as determined and authorized by the Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Comments and Response The CDFG recommended that the project include a survey for roosting bats as part of the nesting bird survey required by mitigation measure BR-5. Staff recommends that the measure be revised to include this survey as part of the nesting bird survey.

County of Ventura Comments and Response
The County comments included a request from the Watershed Protection District to be identified as a Responsible Agency with regard to permitting for the project. Staff acknowledged their status and, although no potential impacts are anticipated by placement of pipelines in public rights-of-way near to culverts or bridges that cross their jurisdictional channels, the District routinely follows existing regulations regarding required notifications.

The County Public Works Transportation Department commented regarding Encroachment Permit requirements, truck traffic, and damages to County roads. The Project, as proposed, does not require work within County rights-of-way. The County Air Pollution Control District commented on minimizing fugitive dust from project construction. The recommended practices are part of the Project grading plan. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required.

The following alternatives are available for the Board's consideration:

1. Adopt the attached resolution (page 6) approving the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment A, page 17);

2. Authorize construction of a recycled water pipeline in West Los Angeles Avenue/Easy Street between the Public Services Center and Madera Road;

3. Authorize the District Manager to initiate negotiations with the Calleguas Municipal Water District to purchase the existing recycled water system;

4. Not approve the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project and Mitigated Negative Declaration;

5. Provide staff with further direction.

Staff recommends Alternative Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

Approval of these recommendations would implement Green Community Action Plan (GCAP) Action WW 2-6 that states, "Design and construct initial expansion of the District's existing recycled water distribution system to serve golf courses, parks, and other large non-potable water users that will increase recycled water use to approximately 4. 8 % , or 1, 100 AFY, of the District's supply. "
U0711.SR.DB
16 SUMMARY
On December 8, 2008, the Board of Directors (Board) approved the Recycled Water Master Plan Update, and approved the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project (Project) to expand the existing recycled water system. The proposed Project would extend the existing recycled water system generally east and south from the Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) along West Los Angeles Avenue/Easy Street, Madera Road, Royal Avenue, Fitzgerald Road, First Street, and Cochran Street. Staff has identified 28 potential customers along these corridors including the Simi Valley Town Center, Caltrans, and a number of parks, schools and cemeteries. The Project would include upgrading the existing recycled water pump station at the WQCP, and constructing another small pump station, a reservoir, and underground pipelines. The total estimated cost to implement the entire Project is $22.7 million, including the purchase the existing recycled water system from Calleguas. The first phase for Board consideration is the extension of the existing recycled water pipeline from the WQCP along West Los Angeles A venue/Easy Street to Madera Road in conjunction with the West Los Angeles A venue street widening project. It is recommended that the Board adopt the attached resolution approving the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project and Mitigated Negative Declaration, authorize construction of a recycled water pipeline in West Los Angeles Avenue/Easy Street between the Public Services Center and Madera Road, and authorize the District Manager to initiate negotiations with the Calleguas Municipal Water District to purchase the existing recycled water system located in Simi Valley.

Ron d K. Fuchiwaki, Director
Depa tment of Public Works
INDEX Page
Resolution ................................................................................ 6 Attachment A - Mitigated Negative Declaration ................................. 17 Attachment B - Location Map ...................................................... 50 Attachment C - Letter from State Water Resources Control Board .......... 51 Attachment D - Letter from California Department of Fish and Game ...... 56 Attachment E - Letter from County of Ventura ................................. 60 00711.SR.DB
17 RESOLUTION NO. WWD-

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 8

APPROVING THE WEST SIMI VALLEY WATER

RECYCLING PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors approved the Recycled Water Master Plan Update on December 8, 2008 and thereafter authorized preparing environmental documentation for the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project (Project); and WHEREAS, the Project would provide alternative irrigation water from a local resource thereby reducing dependence on imported water; and WHEREAS, the Project would implement the City of Simi Valley's Green Community Action Plan Action Goal WW 2-6, "Design and construct initial expansion of the District's existing recycled water distribution system to serve golf courses, parks, and other large non-potable water users that will increase recycled water use to approximately 4.8 % , or 1,100 AFY, of the District's supply"; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project was prepared and submitted to the State Clearinghouse on March 28, 2011 for a 30-day review and comment period, and all comments were provided for the record.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF VENTURA
COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 8 DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, which reflects the Ventura County Waterworks District No. S's independent judgment and analysis, and comments received during the public review process (including the Initial Study and comments received) together with the remainder of the public record provide no substantial evidence that the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project will have a significant impact on the environment.

SECTION 2. The findings for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, contained in the staff report dated, July 25, 2011, and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted.

SECTION 3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached hereto as Exhibit 1, prepared for the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project is hereby approved.
approved.

SECTION 4. The West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project is hereby SECTION 5. The District Secretary will retain the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated documents that constitute the record for its adoption. 00711.RES.DB
18 RES. NO.

SECTION 6. The District Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall retain a certified resolution.

PASSED and ADOPTED this
Attest:

Wendy K. Green
Assistant City Clerk/District Secretary
Approved as to Form:

U0711.RES.DB
Robert O. Huber, Chair of the Ventura
County Waterworks District No. 8
Approved as to Content:

Mike Sedell, District Manager
ald K. Fuchiwaki, Director
Department of Public Works
19 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

WEST SIMI WATER RECYCLING PROJECT
EXHIBIT 1
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document that includes measures to mitigate or avoid potentially significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a -reporting or monitoring program. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be potentially significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).

In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, this attached MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN (MMP) is prepared for the West Simi Water Recycling Project. The MMP is intended to provide verification that all applicable Conditions of Approval relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation measure; and 3) retention of records in the West Simi Water Recycling Project file. The Director of Environmental Services or his/her designee shall verify compliance with the mitigation measures. Reporting to the file is the responsibility of the environmental planner.

The MMP delineates responsibility for monitoring the project, and also allows the City flexibility and discretion in determining the best method to monitor implementation of mitigation measures. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure.

Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented.

Minor changes to the MMP, if necessary, will be made in accordance with CEQA and allowed following review and approval by the City. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibility, program redesign to make any appropriate improvements or modifications of mitigation measures subject to the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. No changes will be authorized unless the MMP continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

The mitigation measures listed in the table below are required to reduce the potentially significant impacts of West Simi Water Recycling Project to less than significant levels. 20 Mitiga
tion
Measure
No.

BR-
1 BR-
2 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

WEST SIMI WATER RECYCLING PROJECT
Mitigation Measure

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Prior to construction, the District, m
consultation with the California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG), must initiate
phase one "Baseline Data Collection" of the
monitoring plan that is part of the project
application. The data collection shall
document existing conditions and be
accomplished by a qualified biologist. Data
collection must include measurement of
flow data, selection of stations to photo
document any changes in vegetative
structure, and evaluation of aerial imagery
to develop a vegetation map of the Arroyo
Simi.

Upon construction completion, the District
must implement phase two, "Annual Data
Collection" of the monitoring plan that is
part of the project application and attached
to this Initial Study. A qualified biologist
must conduct three years of studies in order
to identify any significant changes in the
vegetation or flows in the Arroyo Simi.

Monitoring
Milestone
Prior to
constructio
n of water
tank
Department
with
Implementation
Monitoring
Responsibility
Public Works
Completion Public Works
of
constructio
n and
commence
ment of
diversion
of recycled
water
Pllo-P. 7 ofQ
Verification
of
Compliance
(Responsible
Monitor to
Initial and
Date)
21 Mitiga
tion
Measure
No.

BR-
3 BR-
4 BR-
5 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

WEST SIMI WATER RECYCLING PROJECT
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Milestone
The District must prepare a final project After three
evaluation, conducted by a qualified years of
biologist, in the third and final year of data diversion collection, as described in the monitoring of recycled
plan that is part of the project application. water
The evaluation must include an analysis of
flow data to determine whether reduction in
flow is measurable downstream, an analysis
of all photographs to determine whether
there is a significant change in vegetation
structure downstream, and a comparison of
aerial imagery to assess any changes in
vegetative cover.

At the conclusion of the study period, the Following
District must submit a report of the final three-year
project evaluation, prepared by a qualified monitoring
biologist and ready for submittal to period
applicable regulatory agencies, which must
provide a detailed description of the
methods, results and discussion of the
findings, with recommendations for future
monitoring actions related to the project.

During the February 1 to August 1 nesting
season of birds protected by the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, the ·District must complete
a pre-construction survey for nesting birds
and nesting bats, to be conducted by a
qualified biologist with at least two years of
experience carrying out field surveys for
breeding and nesting birds and bats in
Southern California. The District must
schedule construction activity so that no
Prior to
start of
constructio
no n West
Los
Angeles
Avenue,
and other
rights-of
way that
may more than seven days elapse between the contain pre-construction survey and the trees that commencement of any construction activity will be
that would potentially trim or remove trees. affected by The pre-construction survey must determine constructio
if birds are breeding and/or nesting in the n
construction zone or within 100 feet (300
Department
with
Implementation
Monitoring
Responsibility
Public Works
Public Works
Public Works
P�o-P 1 nf Q
Verificatjon
of
Compliance
(Responsible
Monitor to
Initial and
Date)
22 Mitiga
tion
Measure
No.

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

WEST SIMI WATER RECYCLING PROJECT
Mitigation Measure
feet for raptors) of the construction zone.

The District must prohibit construction
activities within the fence barrier around the
nest zone until the qualified biologist clears
the nest zone. The District must monitor
construction activities that occur .near active
nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent
adverse impacts affect the nest. The District
must provide the consultant contract for the
pre-construction survey and monitoring to
the Deputy Director/City Planner for review
and approval prior to start of construction.

Monitoring
Milestone
Department
with
Implementation
Monitoring
Responsibility
P�uP. 4 nfQ
Verificat ion
of
Compliance
(Responsible
Monitor to
Initial and
Date)
23 Mitiga
tion
Measure
No.

BR-
6 CR-
1 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

WEST SIMI WATER RECYCLING PROJECT
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Milestone
If District monitoring determines that After final
downstream habitat is significantly reduced evaluation
as a result of the project, District must study
implement downstream remediation described
including habitat restoration, arundo in BR-4
removal, trash and debris removal, and
increase the volume of treated water into the
Arroyo Simi to levels that will restore
habitat to sustainable levels, as determined
and authorized by the Department of Fish
and Game
A cultural resources and paleontological Prior to
discovery plan (Discovery Plan) shall be start of
prepared and implemented by the District constructio
prior to the start of construction. The no n West
Discovery Plan must consist of the Los
following components: Angeles
• The District must ensure that the Avenue
Discovery Plan and training program
shall be implemented prior to the start
of construction. The Discovery Plan
must outline procedures for
identification and treatment of either
cultural resources or paleontological
resources found along the routes during
construction.
• The District's training program must
be prepared by a trained archaeologist
and paleontologist and presented to all
construction personnel. The emphasis
of the training is to educate all
construction personnel on the potential
archaeological and paleontological
resources that could be found on the
project during excavation and the
proper procedures for dealing with
resources if encountered.
• Should resources be identified during
construction, the District must cease
work in the immediate area (within 100
Department
with
Implementation
Monitoring
Responsibility
Public Works
Public Works
PHoP." nf Q
Verification
of
Compliance
(Responsible
Monitor to
Initial and
Date)
24 Mitiga
tion
Measure
No.

Pl'!uP. h nf Q

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

WEST SIMI WATER RECYCLING PROJECT
Mitigation Measure
feet) and notify a qualified
archaeologist to determine if the
resource is significant. Work must not
continue until the qualified
archaeologist makes a determination.
• If a significant resource is encountered,
the District must follow steps outlined
m the Discovery Plan before
construction can continue. The
Discovery Plan procedures must
include the following steps:

1. Any recovered cultural
resources must be identified,
sites recorded and mapped, and
artifacts catalogued as required
by standard professional
archaeological practices.

Examination by an
archaeological specialist must
be included where necessary to
identify date and/or determine
significance potential.

After the archaeologist
determines the artifacts are
recovered and/or the site has
been mitigated to the extent
necessary, trenching may
resume.

3. If it 1s determined by the
archaeologist that a significance
determination is required for the
encountered cultural site, the
site must be evaluated and
Monitoring
Milestone
Department
with
Implementation
Monitoring
Responsibil ity
Verification
of
Compliance
(Responsible
Monitor to
Initial and
Date)
25 Mitiga
tion·
Measure
No.

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

WEST SIMI WATER RECYCLING PROJECT
Mitigation Measure
recorded m accordance with
requirements of the State Office
of Historic Preservation (for
example, Phase 2 testing and
creation of a DPR 523 form for
each site). In this case, if the
State determines the site is not
significant, no measures
subsequent to recording the site
on appropriate forms are
required.

If any of the sites are determined to be
significant, the archaeologist must collect an
adequate amount of artifacts at the specific
archaeological site. The archaeologist must
determine the amount of artifacts needed to
be collected.

Monitoring
Milestone
Verification
Department of
with Compliance
Implementation (Responsible
Monitoring Monitor to
Responsibility Initial and
Date)
P�oP. 7 nf Q
26 Mitiga
tion
Measure
No.

CR-
2 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

WEST SIMI WATER RECYCLING PROJECT
Mitigation Measure
The Discovery Plan shall be prepared and
implemented as described in CR-1 prior to
the start of construction. The District must
follow the steps in the Discovery Plan as
outlined below:
• If it 1s determined by the
paleontologist that suitable intact
soils are present along portions of
the route with a high potential for
buried paleontological resources, a
qualified paleontologist must be
present to monitor excavation
activities in those specific areas. If
significant resources are
encountered, the procedures
outlined in the Discovery Plan must
be followed, before construction
can continue.
• Paleontologic monitors (if required)
must be equipped to salvage fossils
as they are unearthed, to avoid
construction delays and to remove
samples of sediments likely to
contain the remains of small fossil
invertebrates and vertebrates.

Monitors must be empowered to
temporarily halt or divert
equipment to allow removal of
abundant or large specimens.

Monitoring may be reduced or
eliminated at the discretion of the
qualified paleontologist. If the
monitoring program results in
positive findings, then Mitigation
Measures CR-2.1 through 2.4 must
be implemented by the District.

1. Preparation of recovered
specimens to a point of
identification and permanent
Monitoring
Milestone
Prior to
start of
constructio
no n West
Los
Angeles
Avenue
Department
with
Implementation
Monitoring
Responsibility
Public Works
P::ioP R ofQ
Verification
of
Compliance
(Responsible
Monitor to
Initial and
Date)
27 Mitiga-
tion
Measure
No.

MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

WEST SIMI WATER RECYCLING PROJECT
Department
with
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Implementation Milestone Monitoring Responsibility
preservation, including
washing of sediments to
recover small invertebrates
and vertebrates.

2. Preparation and stabilization
of all recovered fossils are
essential in order to fully
mitigate adverse impacts to
the resources.

3. Identification and curation
of specimens into an
established accredited
museum repository with
permanent retrievable
paleontologic storage.

Preparation of a report of findings with an
appended itemized inventory of specimens.

Pi:iuP Q nfQ
Verification
of
Compliance
(Responsible
Monitor to
Initial and
Date)
28 ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF SIMlVALLEY
Home of The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

NOTICE OF THE RELEASE

FOR PUBLIC REVIEW BY THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY OF A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WEST SIMI

WATER RECYCLING PROJECT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the release for public review of and the intent to approve by the City of Simi Valley of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the West Simi Water Recycling Project.

The West Simi Water Recycling Project would upgrade and expand the existing Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 recycled water distribution system in the western area of Simi Valley. The expansion would potentially supply 1, 170 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water for irrigation of turf areas or other non-potable water usage. The project includes placing recycled water pipeline in public rights-of-way and construction of a recycled water storage tank.

The project is located. within properties owned by the City of Simi Valley or the District (the Water Quality Control Plant property and an existing graded water tank site, respectively) and within public streets and rights-of-way including West Los Angeles Avenue, West Easy Street, Madera Road, Olsen Road, Royal Avenue, Cochran Street, First Street, Fitzgerald Road, Country Club Drive, and Westranch Lane.

Based upon the results of the Initial Study prepared for the project, it has been determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. The public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration is from March 30, 2011 through April 28, 2011. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are available for public review at the Department of Environmental Services, 3855-A Alamo Street, and at the Public Library, 2969 Tapo Canyon Road. Copies of the studies cited in the Initial Study can be reviewed at the Department of Environmental Services, 3855-A Alamo Street. Comments or questions should be directed to Cynthia Sabatini, Department of Environmental Services, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063-2100, or at (805) 583-6776. • - . . . X!J . . .

No Public Hearing has been set at this time.

PAUL DRURY
Deputy Director/City Planner
Cy,:ithia Sabatini
Associate Planner (805) 583-6776
Department of Environmental Services
Legal Ad #15-11 P.O. #4800002252
. Non-Billable #ES99-NB .PWPRO.LEGAL
SV Acct. No. 5014
Bob Huber, Mayor Steven T. Sojka, Mayor Pro Tem Barbra Williamson, Council Member Glen T. Becerra, Council Member Mike Judge, Council Member P 86/3-11 (klk) 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063-2199 805.583.6700 www.simivalley.org 29 30

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT)
REVIEW PERIOD: March 30, 2011 through April 28, 2011
APPLICANT:

ADDRESS:

Ventura County Waterworks
•· District #8
2929 Tapo Canyon Rd
Simi Valley, CA 93063
CASE ENGINEER: Ernest Wong

ENVIRONMENT AL
PLANNER: Lauren Funaiole
PROJECT DESIGNATION: West Simi Water Recycling Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The West Simi Water Recycling Project would upgrade and expand the existing Ventura County Waterworks District No .. 8 (District) recycled water distribution system in the western area of Simi Valley. The expansion would potentially supply 1,170 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water to customers that have large demand for irrigation of turf areas or other non-potable water usage. The project· includes improvements to the existing recycled water pump station, placing approximately 64,320 feet of recycled water pipeline in public rights-of-way, construction of a .recycled water storage tank, and placement of a small pump station on right-of way north of the intersection of First and Cochran Streets. Roadway improvements along West Los Angeles Avenue, including widening and sidewalk construction, will occur during recycled water pipeline installation there.

PROJECT LOCATION: The new, underground water pipelines and associated water tank will be located within properties owned by the City of Simi Valley or the District (the Water Quality Control Plant property and an existing graded water tank site, respectively) and within public streets and rights-of-way including W_est Los Angeles Avenue, West Easy Street, Madera Road, Olsen Road, Royal Avenue, Cochran Street, First Street, Fitzgerald Road, Country Club Drive, and Westranch Lane.

On the basis of the Initial Study for the project, it has been determined that the project would not have a potential for a significant effect on the environment. This document constitutes a Mitigated Negative Declaration. based upon the inclusion of the following measures into the project by the applicant:

BR-1 Prior to construction, the District, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), must initiate phase one "Baseline Data Collection" of the monitoring plan that is part of the project application and attached to this Initial Study. The data collection shall document existing conditions and be accomplished by a qualified biologist. Data collection must include measurement of flow data, selection of stations to photo-document any changes in vegetative structure, and evaluation of aerial imagery to develop a vegetation map of the Arroyo Simi.

BR-2 Upon construction completion, the District must implement phase two, "Annual Data Collection" of the monitoring plan that is part of the project application and attached to this Initial Study. A qualified biologist must conduct three years of studies in order to identify any significant changes in the vegetation or flows in the Arroyo Simi.
2 P 83/3-11 (klk)
31 BR-3 The District must prepare a final project evaluation, conducted by a qualified biologist, in the third and final year of data collection, as described in the monitoring plan that is part of the project application. The evaluation must include an analysis of flow data to determine whether reduction in flow is measurable downstream, an analysis of all photographs to determine whether there is a significant change in vegetation structure downstream, and a comparison of aerial imagery to assess any changes in vegetative cover.

The District must submit the results of this survey and any subsequent surveys to the Deputy Director/City Planner within five days of survey completion and prior to the start of construction in the area of the survey. If construction is delayed for more than 14 days past the date of the first pre-construction survey, then additional pre-construction surveys must be conducted so that no more than seven days elapse between the survey and construction activity. If active nests are found, the District must erect a fence barrier around the nest site as determined by the biologist. The District must prohibit construction activities within the fence barrier around the nest zone until the qualified biologist clears the nest zone. The District must monitor construction activities that occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent adverse impacts affect the nest. The District must provide the consultant contract for the pre-construction survey and monitoring to the Deputy Director/City Planner for review and approval prior to start of construction.

CR-1 A cultural resources and paleontological discovery plan (Discovery Plan) shall be prepared and implemented by the District prior to the start of construction. The Discovery Plan must consist of the following components:

P 83/3-11 (klk)
• The District must ensure that the Discovery Plan and training program shall be implemented prior to the start of construction. The Discovery Plan must outline procedures for identification and treatment of either cultural resources or paleontological resources found along the routes during construction. • The District's training program must be prepared by a trained archaeologist and paleontologist and presented to all construction personnel. The emphasis of the training is to educate all construction personnel on the potential archaeological and paleontological resources that could be found on the 3 32
project during excavation and the proper procedures for dealing with resources if encountered.
• Should resources be identified during construction, the District must cease work in the immediate area (within 100 feet) and notify a qualified archaeologist to determine if the resource · is significant. Work must not continue until the qualified archaeologist makes a determination. • If a significant resource is encountered, the District must follow steps outlined in the Discovery Plan before construction can continue. The Discovery Plan procedures must include the following steps:

1. Any recovered cultural resources must be identified, sites recorded and mapped, and artifacts catalogued as .required by .standard professional archaeological practices. Examination by an archaeological specialist· must be included where necessary to identify date and/ot determine significance potential.

2. If the archaeological specialist discovers cultural deposits, trench excavations must be diverted temporarily around the deposits until the deposits have been evaluated, recorded, excavated and/or recovered, as necessary by the archaeologist. After the archaeologist determines the artifacts are recovered and/or the site has been mitigated to the extent necessary, trenching may resume.

3. If it is determined by the archaeologist that a significance determination is required for the encountered cultural site, the site must be evaluated and recorded in accordance with requirements of the State Office of Historic Preservation (for example, Phase 2 testing and creation of a DPR 523 form for each site). In this case, if the State determines the site is not significant, no measures subsequent to recording the site on appropriate forms are required.

4. If any of the sites are determined to be significant, the archaeologist must collect an adequate amount of artifacts at the specific archaeological site. The archaeologist must determine the amount of artifacts needed to be collected.

CR-2 The Discovery Plan shall be prepared and implemented as described in CR-1 prior to the start of construction. The District must follow the steps in the Discovery Plan as outlined below:

P 83/3-11 (klk)
• If it is determined by the paleontologist that suitable intact soils are present along portions of the route with a high potential for buried paleontological resources, a qualified paleontologist must be present to monitor excavation activities in those specific areas. If significant resources are encountered, the procedures outlined in the Discovery Plan must be followed, before construction can continue.
• Paleontologic monitors (if required) must be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist. If the monitoring program results in positive findings, then Mitigation Measures CR-2.1 through 2.4 must be implemented by the District.

1. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates.
4 33

2. Preparation and stabilization of all recovered fossils are essential in order to fully mitigate adverse impacts to the resources.

3. Identification and curation of specimens into an established accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable paleontologic storage.

4. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens.

RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES:

California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Reclamation Requirements [WRR]) California Department of Public Health (Engineering Report and Conditions for the WRR) City of Thousand Oaks (encroachment permits, agreement) Calleguas Municipal Water District (agreement)
State Water Resources Control Board (grants and loans)
Metropolitan Water District (grants)
TRUSTEE AGENCIES: California Department of Fish and Game (monitoring) �&\-£� Lauren Funaiole, Senior Planner
5 P 83/3-11 (klk)
34 CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

PLANNING DIVISION

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

INITIAL STUDY

1. Project Title: West Simi Water Recycling Project (WSWRP)

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Simi Valley/Ventura County Waterworks District #8

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Ernest Wong (805) 583-6896

4. Project Location: The project facilities will be located within properties owned by the City of Simi Valley or the Water Works District #8 and within public streets and rights-of-way including West Los Angeles Avenue, West Easy Street, Madera Road, Olsen Road, Royal Avenue, Cochran Street, First Street, Fitzgerald Road, Country Club Drive, and Westranch Lane.

5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 2929 Tapo Canyon Rd
Simi Valley, CA 93063 .

6. General Plan Designations: Public Services Center (Water Treatment Plant); Low Density (residential) at the water tank site; various public streets; and various General Plan designations for each potential customer.

7. Zoning: GI (General Industrial) at the Water Treatment Plant; RL(CZ) (Residential Low density) at the water tank location; various public streets; and various zoning designations for each potential customer.

8. Description of Project:

The West Simi Water Recycling Project (WSWRP) would upgrade and expand the existing recycled water distribution system operated by the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 (District) in the western area of Simi Valley to supply up to 1,170 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water to· customers that have large demand for turf area irrigation or other non-potable water usage. The project includes improvements to the existing recycled water pump station, placing approximately 64,320 feet of recycled water pipeline in public . rights-of-way, construction of a recycled water storage tank at a site that was graded to accommodate a water tank, and placem.ent of a small hydropneumatic pump station. Currently, the Simi Valley Water Quality Control Plant (SVWQCP) discharges an average of 10,600 AFY of tertiary treated effluent into the Arroyo Simi. The WSWRP would make use of a percentage of this local water resource to increase the reliability of the potable water supply for all District customers by reducing dependence on imported water supplies from the State Water Project for non-potable uses. The WSWRP is based on a study of alternatives in the District's 2008 Recycled Water Master Plan Update. The WSWRP will consist of the following primary facilities as shown on the location.map below:
• Upgrade of the existing pump station located at the SVWQCP by adding pump units (1,600 gallons per minute, each) to increase its capacity;
• Construction of a recycled water storage tank (1.25 million gallons) on the District-owned Lower McCoy Tank site located at the northern end of Westranch Lane; 6 P 83/3-11 (klk)
35 • Roadway improvements, including widening and sidewalk construction, will occur during recycled water pipeline installation along West Los Angeles Avenue; • Placement of a small pump station on right-of-way north of the intersection of First and Cochran Streets;
• Pipeline (approximately 64,320 feet in length), to be constructed within West Los Angeles Avenue, West Easy Street, Madera Road, Olsen Road, Royal Avenue, Cochran Street, Fitzgerald Road, Country Club Drive, and Westranch Lane, connecting the upgraded SVWQCP Pump Station, the proposed recycled .water storage tank, and the potential recycled water customers along the pipeline route, including the Sinaloa Golf Course, golf courses in Wood Ranch and Thousand Oaks, the public cemetery, several local parks and school playing fields, up to three City-maintained freeway interchange areas, and the Simi Valley Town Center mall; and,
• All customers receiving recycled water will have their on-site water facilities modified to separate potable and non-potable (for recycled water) systems and to meet all applicable requirements by the California Department of Public Health.

The upgraded pump station will · operate in conjunction with the recycled water storage tank to deliver tertiary-treated effluent from the SVWQCP to the recycled water customers for turf irrigation and non-potable water use. The storage tank will regulate the recycled water pressure received by the customers and will control the pump unit operation to maintain a desired water level range within the tank. To maintain reliability for customers, a back-up supply is planned that will supply potable water into the tank from a pipe inlet to be located above the high-water level of the tank, maintaining the required an air-gap separation. The hydropneumatic pump station will pump recycled water for use by the Simi Valley Town Center and other higher elevation recycled water customers.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project facilities will be located within properties owned by the City of Simi Valley or the District (the SVWQCP and a graded water tank site) and within public streets such as West Los Angeles Avenue, West Easy Street, Madera Road, Royal Avenue, Cochran Street, Fitzgerald Road, Country Club Drive, and Westranch Lane as shown in the location map and aerial photograph below. Land uses surrounding the project areas include: contractor storage and light industrial facilities near the SVWQCP, and light industrial buildings adjacent to West Los Angeles Avenue and West Easy Street. The new line would be placed in rights-of way that are adjacent to various residential, commercial and institutional uses.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement).

11. • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Reclamation Requirements [WRR])
• California Department of Public Health (Engineering Report and Conditions for the WRR) • Calleguas Municipal Water District (agreement)
• State Water Resources Control Board (grants and loans) • Metropolitan Water District (grants)
Date Deemed Complete/Ready to Process: Not Applicable
7 P 83/3-11 (klk)
36 12. A site inspection was performed on:

Date: January 8, 2009
Date: August 18, 2009
Date: December 9, 2010
By: Lauren Funaiole, Senior Planner
By: Scott Crawford, Biologist
By: Cynthia Sabatini, Associate Planner

13. Are any of the following studies required? ("Yes" or "No" response required) No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
P 83/3-11 (klk)
Traffic Study
Noise Study
Geotechnical Study
Hydrology Study
Tree Study and Appraisal (pursuant to Section 9-38 et seq. SVMC) Biological Study
Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Survey
Wetlands Delineation Study
CEQA-Plus Cultural Resource Assessment
Historical Study
Other (List) Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis Report 8 37

14. Location Map
.. .........._
p 83/3-11 (klk) 9
. .. -·
,, .. ··
i /
�-
r--··· .......
!
..... - ...... - . ..,_ .. •,.•
/
/'
/ . .
38 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

Indicate either "Yes" or "No" in terms of which factors listed below would involve one or more "Potentially Significant Impact(s)":

No Aesthetics
No Air Quality
No Biological Resources
No Cultural Resources
No Geology /Soils
No Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
No Hydrology /Water Quality
No Land Use/Planning
No Mineral Resources
No Noise
No Population/Housing
No Public Services
No Recreation
No Transportation/Traffic
No Utilities/Service Systems
No Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there .will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

Cyntl\ia Sabatini, Associate Planner
z
o
c
eNi�S •
Lauren Funaiole, Senior Planner for Peter Lyons, Director Department of Environmental Services
10 39
I.
. Issues and Supporting Sources:

Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? D D � D b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited · to, trees and rock outcroppings? D D � D
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? D .D � D
The major, above-ground project components that may be visible consis.t of pumps that will be installed at the existing Water Quality Control Plant (SVWQCP), and a new water tank that will be constructed at a previously prepared location to the northwest of the terminus of Westranch Lane.

The SVWQCP has many other above-ground pumps and the new pumps will not substantially change the visual characteristics of this treatment plant in an industrial area. The proposed tank location is graded and designed to accommodate a water storage tank, and includes substantial, existing and proposed screening through the use of earthen berms and natural hillsides. This site was previously approved for a water tank as part of the approval of the residential subdivision to the southeast, but the tank was not constructed at that time. No scenic resources, including trees or rock outcroppings will be disturbed during construction or operation of the project. The existing visual character of the surroundings of the tank site and water quality plant will not be substantially degraded by the construction or operation of the project. Therefore, the project would have no potential for a significant impact on the environment through damage or degradation of scenic resources. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? . D D � D
Security lighting will be provided for the water storage tank site (SVMC 8-11.12-13). Lighting fixtures will include shields to direct lighting to the tank, tank roadway, pipes, valves, meter, and control panel. The shielded lighting, plus the existing berms around the tank will ensure that no glare from the tank area will interfere with day or night views from adjacent properties. Therefore, the project would have no potential for a significant impact on the environment form substantial light or glare.

II. AIR QUALITY:

The significance criteria established by the City or the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District may be relied upon to make the following determinations. 11 P 83/3-11 (klk)
40 Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan? D D � D
b) Result in emissions from the project at the estimated date of completion of the project which would exceed 13.7 tons per year of either reactive organic compounds (ROC) or oxides of nitrogen (NOx)? D D � D
c) Expose sensitive receptors, i.e., young children , the elderly, and hospital patients, to substantial pollutant concentrations? D D � D
A comprehensive air quality and climate change analysis (Ref. #5: Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis Report, West Simi Water Recycling Project, November 1, 2010) was conducted for the entire project, including potential and cumulative emissions of criteria pollutants from construction-related activities, operational activities, and for project-related impacts for locally significant emissions (particulate matter, ozone, as shown in Table 3 "Attainment Status", page 14 of Ref. 5). The analysis utilized the URBEMIS air quality modeling software (Ref. 5, pg.31) to estimate emissions from the project. Emissions anticipated from the project were quantified and then assessed . for significance on a local and regional level. Per this assessment, operational emissions from the project would not result in a significant local or cumulative impact from ozone pre-cursors ROC, NOx; and, the project is consistent and in conformance with local, State and Federal air quality standards (Ref. 5, Section 6). The analysis also states that construction-related emissions from the project could potentially create localized, temporary air quality impacts (Ref. 5, pg. 38-40). While the City does not consider the limited scope and duration of construction emissions to produce substantial adverse effects, it is recognized that certain best management practices (BMPs) will minimize construction-related emissions from equipment operation and the grading and excavation needed to place underground pipes in existing roadways. The District's requirements include such BMPs as: construction, earth moving equipment and work vehicles will be properly maintained at an offsite location; with maintenance records kept and available for review through project completion; construction diesel engines, which have a rating of 50 hp or more, shall meet the California Emission Standards for Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines as specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2423(b)(l); the construction manager will enforce restrictions on idling of construction equipment onsite to 5 minutes .or less, unless idling is necessary for equipment use; during the ozone season of May through October, equipment use shall be scheduled to limit unnecessary concurrent operation; the use of a NOx catalyst will be encouraged on all appropriate construction equipment and labels will identify that equipment; if biodiesel is used, the construction manager shall ensure that appropdate NOx reduction additives are in the fuel to reduce emissions; the District will require a Fugitive Dust Control Plan, including methods to control dust from disturbed surfaces, from construction traffic and activities to be developed and complied with during construction.

Operational, or long..:term, emissions occur over the life of the project. Operational emissions include mobile and area source emissions. Area source emissions are from consumer products, heaters that consume natural gas, gasoline-powered landscape equipment, and architectural coatings 12 P 83/3-11 (klk)
41 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan No
Significant Impact
Impact
(painting). This project consists of the construction of a pipeline to deliver existing recycled water to existing end users. The project would not result in operational emissions (Ref. 5: pg.39).

The Air Quality analysis concludes that, based on limited temporary construction emissions and the lack of operational emissions, the project will not exceed federal, state or local air quality standards.

The Federal general conformity rule for ambient air quality standards specifies de minimis thresholds, which are based on the severity of an area's nonattainment with the federal standards. If a project's air quality impact is less than the de ininimis threshold, additional analysis is not required.

For Ventura County, the Federal de minimis threshold is 25 tons per year of ROC or NOx, which will not be exceeded by the project at any phase (Ref. 5: pg. 43). The AQMP is the regional Air Quality Management Plan for Ventura County. The AQMP accounts for projections of population growth provided by SCAG, and it identifies strategies to bring regional emissions into compliance with federal and State air quality standards. Because population growth and vehicle miles traveled projections are the basis of the AQMP's strategies, a project would conflict with the plan if it results in more growth or vehicle miles traveled relative to the plan's projections. Th� VCAPCD's criterion for significance dealing with AQMP consistency is if a project would require a general plan amendment or revision that would directly or indirectly increase population above that forecasted by the most recently adopted AQMP. The project does not involve plan amendments that would directly or indirectly affect population, the current population for the City is below the forecasted population, and so the project is not inconsistent with the AQMP. d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? D D D
The recycled water that will be distributed to potential customers will have less than a two-day retention time in the distribution system to protect against water quality degradation, and will not result in odors being produced. Only when recycled water remains stagnant in the distribution system for extended periods of time (weeks), will recycled water possibly develop objectionable odors; however, the WSWRP will have sufficient demand to limit the recycled water detention time to less than three days. Furthermore, if a problem develops with the treatment of the recycled water, the WSWRP is designed to switch to potable water that will be supplied to the Recycled Water Tank from a pipe inlet. The inlet is designed to discharge potable water into the tank above its high-water elevation providing the necessary air gap. Further, the project does not result in a land use that is typically associated · with creation of objectionable odors, such as landfills, painting and coating manufacturing, agricultural or petroleum operations (Ref. #4, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, (2003), pg 6-12). Therefore, the project does not have. the potential for a significant. odor impact. e) Result in substantial emissions of greenhouse gases, including diesel engine exhaust? D D � D
Per the Climate Change Analysis for the project (Ref. #5: pg. 45-46), the total, temporary construction-related greenhouse gas emissions for the project is 3,564 MTC02E, and the operation of the project is calculated to permanently offset the annual emissions associated with transport and use 13 P 83/3-11 (klk)
42 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
of potable water by 1,638 MTCOiE. On June 19, 2008, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued a Technical Advisory that provided a recommended approach for lead agencies to perform a CEQA climate change analysis for projects that generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The approach includes direction on identifying GHG emissions, determining significance, and mitigating impacts. The proposed project would generate substantially_ fewer emissions · than the 25,000 MTC02 per year required for mandatory reporting to the California Air Resources Board, the l0,000-MTC02-per-year limit under the Assembly Bill 32 cap and trade program, and the 10,000-MTCOz-per-year threshold used by SCAQMD for stationary sources where the SCAQMD is the Lead Agency. The majority of these emissions were calculated to originate from vehicle exhaust. Until a statewide significance threshold for GHG is established by OPR, the City has determined that consistency with the AQMP and emissions below mandatory reporting thresholds will result in a project that does not exceed significance for emissions of GHG.

III. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? D � D D
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? D � D D
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? D � D D
The project includes upgrading pump equipment at the City's existing recycled water pump station, placing approximately 64,320 feet of recycled water pipeline in public rights-of-way, and construction of a recycled water storage tank at a sjte that was graded to accommodate a water tank.

Roadway improvements, including widening and sidewalk construction, will occur during recycled water pipeline installation along West Los Angeles Avenue. All of the proposed facilities construction will occur in areas that are currently graded and developed with urban uses, and no wildlife habitat that supports sensitive species will be directly or indirectly affected during project construction. The project facilities will be located within properties owned by the City of Simi Valley or the Waterworks District (the Simi Valley Water Quality Control Plant and a graded water tank site) and within public streets. No riparian areas or wetlands would be disturbed by construction of the pumps, pipelines or water tank. The ultimate project could divert up to 1, 170 acre-feet, or approximately 11 %, of the 10,600 acre-feet of tertiary treated water annually discharged from the SVWQCP. This water will be used to irrigate existing, large turf areas such as golf courses, certain existing parks and existing large landscape installations. The Biological 14 P 83/3-11 (klk)
43 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Resources Study (Reference #6: Michael Brandman Associates, Biological Resources Study, West Simi Water Recycling Project, November 1, 2010, pg. 34) evaluated potential effects of the project, both during construction and operation, and concludes that any potential. impacts from the project on sensitive species or habitat would come from the reduction in the flow of treated water to the Arroyo Simi when it is· distributed for irrigation uses in the City, and the potential for disturbing nesting birds in trees that are in the area of project construction.

A sensitive species database search and reconnaissance-level field survey was conducted as part of the Biological Resources Study (Reference #6: Michael Brandman Associates, Biological Resources Study, West Simi Water Recycling Project, November 1, 2010, pg.22-24). There are no sensitive plant communities, plants or wildlife species were found in, or considered likely to occur, within the project site. The Biological Resources Study determined that offs1te impacts could occur from the anticipatec:l 1.04 million gallon per day reduction in the current 9.7 million gallon per day discharge of treated water into the Arroyo Simi. Accordingly, a monitoring program was developed (Ref. #7; Michael Brandman Associates, Biological Resources Monitoring Program West Simi Water Recycling Project, December 2009) that would assess the effects of the project operation on downstream habitat in the. Arroyo Simi, and was submitted as part of the project application. The monitoring plan was developed in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Game and will provide State trustee agencies. with sufficient data to assess long-term project impacts. The project has been amended to include the following mitigation measures:

Data collection must include measurement of flow data, selection of stations· to photo document any changes in vegetative structure, and evaluation of aerial imagery to develop a vegetation map of the AJ;"royo Simi.

BR-2 Upon construction completion, the District must implement phase two, "Annual Data Collection" of the monitoring plan that is part of tne project application and. attached to this Initial Study. A qualified biologist must conduct three years of studies in order to identify any significant changes in the vegetation or flows in the Arroyo Simi.

BR-3 The District must prepare a final project evaluation, conducted by a qualified biologist, in the third and final year of data collection, as described in the monitoring plan that is part of the project application. The evaluation must include an analysis of flow data to determine whether reduction in flow is measurable downstream, an analysis of all photographs to determine whether there is a significant change in vegetation structure downstream, and a co�parison of aerial imagery to assess any changes in vegetative cover.

BR-4 At the conclusion of the study period, the District must submit a report of the final project evaluation, prepared by a qualified biologist and ready for submittal to applicable regulatory agencies, which must provide a detailed description of the methods, results and 15 P 83/3-11 (klk)
44 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
discussion of the findings, with recommendations for future monitoring actions related to the project.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? D D 181 D
There is a relatively undeveloped strip of land that is bisected by the existing Olsen Road in the project area, that is part of the open space that separates the City of Simi Valley from the City of Thousand Oaks. This undeveloped land provides one of the local linkages between the Simi Hills to the south and the Santa Susana Mountains to the north. The proposed recycled water pipeline would be placed under the existing Olsen Road in this area. However, the project activities will be completely contained within disturbed/developed areas in the · road and right-of-way. Common wildlife species such as skunks, opossums, and raccoons now cross the road in this area, and can be expected to travel across the area of work and neighboring developed areas. Project activities in this location would not interfere substantially with wildlife movement between large areas of open space on a local or regional scale (Ref. #6: pg.32). Therefore, the project has no potential to interfere substantially with wildlife movement, established movement corridors, or wildlife nursery sites. e) Result in impacts to any trees subject to the Mature Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 9-38 ��M� D 181 D D
The pipelines will be placed in existing, below-grade utility trenches under existing roads, and no trees are· proposed for removal or relocation to accommodate underground placement of the recycled water pipeline. The proposed water tank will be placed at a site already graded and accessed by a dirt road, and no trees will be affected by the construction of the tank. (Ref. #6: pg.34). However, a portion of West Los Angeles A venue will be widened with this project. This roadway widening will result in the removal of nine oak trees that are in the right-of-way. The project proposal includes a 3: 1 replacement for the removed oaks, and the replacement trees will be planted within one mile of the location where they are removed. The removal of the trees has the potential to impact nesting birds covered by the Migratory Bird Treat Act (50 CPR, Part 21). Therefore the following mitigation measure is incorporated into the project.

BR-5 During the February 1 to August 1 nesting season of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the District must complete a pre-construction survey for nesting birds, to be conducted by a qualified biologist with at least two years of experience carrying out field surveys for breeding and nesting birds in Southern California. The District must schedule construction activity so that no more than seven days elapse between the pre construction survey and the commencement of any construction activity that would potentially trim or remove trees. The pre-construction survey must determine if birds are breeding and/or nesting in the construction zone or within 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) of the construction zone. The District must submit the results of this survey and any subsequent surveys to the Deputy Director/City Planner within five days of survey completion and prior to the start of construction in the area of the survey. If construction is delayed for more than 14 days past the date of the first pre-construction survey, then 16 P 83/3-11 (klk)
45 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
additional pre-construction surveys must be conducted so that no more than seven days elapse between the survey and construction activity. If active nests are found, the District must erect a fence barrier around the nest site as determined by the biologist. The District must prohibit construction activities within the fence barrier around the nest zone until the qualified biologist clears the nest zone. The District must monitor construction activities that occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent adverse impacts affect the nest. The District must provide the consultant contract for the pre-construction survey and monitoring to the Deputy Director/City Planner for review and approval prior to start of construction.
t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

D D IZI D
All of the proposed construction and operation of facilities for the project will be located in areas that are currently graded and developed. The pipelines will lie under existing roads. The proposed water tank will be placed at a site already graded and accessed by a dirt road. No areas subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan are within the area of potential effect by project construction or operation. Therefore, the project has no potential for a significant impact from a conflict with the provisions of any habitat conservation or preservation plans.

IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? D D IZJ D
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? D IZJ D D
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic re�� D � D D
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? D D � D
A Cultural Resource Assessment, including historic, Native American, and paleontological resource review, was conducted for the proposed project (Ref. #8: Michael Brandman Associates, CEQA-Plus Cultural Resource Assessment for the Propos�d West Simi Water Recycling Project, November l, 2010). Generally, this study determined that the project construction will have "no effect" to nearby historic properties; that there is a low potential that any significant intact cultural resources would be affected by the project (Ref. #8: pg. 12); and, that portions of the project area may possibly be within known fossil localities (Ref. #8: pg.16). According to best practices to address even a low potential for a significant impact, the following mitigation measures are incorporated into the project:
17 P 83/3-11 (klk)
46 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CR-1 A cultural resources and paleontological discovery plan (Discovery Plan) shall be prepared and implemented by the District prior to the start of construction. The Discovery Plan must consist of the following components:
• The District must ensure that the Discovery Plan and training program shall be implemented prior to the start of construction. The Discovery Plan must outline procedures for identification and treatment of either cultural resources or paleontological resources found along the routes during construction. • The District's training program must be prepared by a trained archaeologist and paleontologist and presented to all construction personnel. The emphasis of the training is to educate all construction personnel on the potential archaeological and paleontological resources that could be found on the project during excavation and the proper procedures for dealing with resources if encountered. • Should resources be identified during construction, the District must cease work in the immediate area (within 100 feet) and notify a qualified archaeologist to determine if the resource is significant. Work must not continue until the qualified archaeologist makes a determination.
• If a significant resource is encountered, the District must follow steps outlined in the Discovery Plan before construction can continue. The Discovery Plan procedures must include the following steps:

1. Any recovered cultural resources must be identified, sites recorded and mapped, and artifacts catalogued as required by standard professional archaeological practices. Examination by an archaeological specialist must be included where necessary to identify date and/or determine significance potential.

CR-2 The Discovery Plan shall be prepared and implemented as described in CR-1 prior to the start of construction. The District must follow the steps in the Discovery Plan as outlined below:

P 83/3-11 (klk)
• If it is determined by the paleontologist that suitable intact soils are present along portions of the route with a high potential for buried paleontological resources, a 18 47
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
qualified paleontologist must be present to monitor excavation activities in those specific areas. If significant resources are encountered, the procedures outlined in the Discovery Plan must be followed, before construction can continue. • Paleontologic monitors (if required) must be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist. If the monitoring program results in positive findings, then Mitigation Measures CR-2.1 through 2.4 must be implemented by the District. •

1. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates.

2. Preparation and stabilization of all recovered fossils are essential in order to fully mitigate adverse impacts to the resources.

3. Identification and curation of specimens into an established accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable paleontologic storage.

4. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens.

With incorporation of these mitigation measures, there is no potential for a significant impact from the project on cultural resources.

V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. D D � D
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? D D � D
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117. D D � D
iv) Landslides? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117.

D D � D
The project does not irivolve the construction of any structures intended for human habitation, and the construction area will not affect any existing habitable structures. The underground, recycled water lines will be placed within existing streets, and not .within a known earthquake fault zone. As 19 P 83/3-11 (klk)
48 Potentially
Significant
Impact
P.otentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
with any underground, high-pressure water line, a rupture due to strong seismic ground shaking could result in damage to the street and to other underground utility lines. However, the recycled water line will be designed and constructed in accordance with the adopted standards by the Ventura County Waterworks District No� 8, City of Simi Valley (Ref. #31: Tetra Tech, Inc., Design and Construction Standards, Rules and Regulations for Recycled Use, City of Simi Valley, February, 2004) to limit the possibility of a pipeline failure from a seismic event. Additionally, the project design includes sensors installed to detect excessive flows and shut down the recycled water pump station and close the valve on the recycled water tank outlet line to halt supply to the ruptured line in the event of pipe failure which will limit any street and substructure damage. Therefore the project has no potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death from construction of the recycled water line. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? D D D All of the proposed facilities will be located in areas that are currently graded and developed. The pipelines will lie under existing roads. The proposed water tank will be placed at a site already graded and accessed by a dirt road. Minimal grading and excavation will be required to place the ,new tank and pipelines. The project will include regular watering and best management practices to minimize any loss of soil during construction. Therefore, the project has no potential for substantial erosion or loss of topsoil.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? D D · 181 D
A geotechnical report for the tank site was prepared by Nesblett and Associates (N&A) in April 2001. The site was to accommodate a 1 million gallon tank with a high-water elevation of 1,035 feet, a ?iameter of 73 feet and a height of 32 feet for Tract 4313. However, the tank was not constructed. This site is now proposed for the recycled :water storage tank that may be as large as

1.25 million gallons (80 feet in diameter and 32 feet high). The tank pad was graded in accordance with previous referenced geotechnical studies, project plans and grading requirements of the City of Simi Valley with observations, soils compaction tests, slope stability analyses, and recommendations for foundations, retaining wall and fill berm construction being reported in the April 2001 N&A report. The 2001 N&A report indicated that the tank pad was excavated entirely in competent bedrock materials, that faulting was not observed beneath or within the pad, and that the pad is considered suitable for construction of the proposed tank and retaining walls.

The recycled water lines will be constructed within public streets that have numerous existing substructures (potable water lines, sewer lines, power and communications systems, storm drain, etc.) that were placed in accordance with all applicable safety standards. The recycled water lines will be constructed in accordance with the adopted standards (Ref.#31), which require that "whenever wet or otherwise unstable soil incapable of properly supporting and restraining the pipe is encountered in the bottom of the trench, such soil will be removed to the depth required and the trench backfilled to the top of the pipe zone with an appropriate material of coarse sand or crushed 20 P 83/3-11 (klk)
49 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
rock to provide stable support." Therefore, project will not result in substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death due to unstable soil. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? D D D IZI The project does not involve the construction of any structures intended for human habitation.

Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving expansive soil as defined by the Building Code. e) Have soils . incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

D D D IZI
The project does not involve any septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there is no potential for substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death.

VI. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? D D IZI D
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

D D IZI D
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

D D IZI D
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? D . D IZI D
The WSWRP pipeline itself involves materials that are not hazardous and meet current National Sanitation Foundation standards, and that are designed to convey and/or store potable and recycled water. In the unlikely event that excavation in the streets contacts contaminated soils, the adopted recycled water construction standards (Ref. #31) include procedures that require all excess excavated material or material unsuitable for backfill for pipeline construction shall be removed and disposed to a legally approved and appropriate location. Excavated material within public streets and right-of way for pipeline construction has not been shown to be hazardous based on numerous prior substructure installations. The project area is not listed on the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Database (Ref. #19: California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/, 21 P 83/3-11 (klk)
50 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
reviewed November .2010). Therefore, the project has no potential to create a significant hazard to the public from hazards or hazardous materials.
e) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? D D 181 D
Emergency response and evacuations will not be impacted by the temporary traffic diversions.

There will be no street closures; only normal lane closures will occur during normal construction activities during off-peak traffic hours allowing traffic flow to proceed unimpeded around the construction site. Temporary lane closures will be authorized by the City to ensure emergency vehicles can operate within established time frames. Therefore the project will not result in a substantial adverse effect by interfering with emergency response plans or evacuations. f) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas where residences are intermixed with wildlands? D D D �
No structures intended for human habitation are proposed as part of the project. The project wili not result in construction of residences or other vulnerable st�ctures in potential wildfire areas.

Therefore, there is no potential for any impact from exposure of people or structures to wildland fires.

VII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? D D D
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? D D � D
The project is subject to City, county and state regulations regarding water quality and discharge.

These requirements include implementing stormwater pollution prevention plans prior to start of construction. The project construction will be in accordance with the adopted recycled water construction standards. Minor amounts of potable water used for dust control, equipment clean-up, and other construction activities will be controlled to limit the amount entering into street drains that ultimately lead to the Arroyo Simi. If groundwater is encountered during excavations, it will be removed via approved methods and handled as permitted by Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations.

Project operation will result in recycled water being used for irrigation and· other non-potable uses.

Irrigation will be controlled to avoid over-watering and subsequent surface water flow. Potential 22 P 83/3-11 (klk)
51 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
percolation of recycled water would be into the underlying Simi Valley Basin, which has levels of total dissolved solids that are higher than the recycled water. No regular, substantial removal of groundwater is proposed by the project.
c) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site as a result of substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area? D D IZ! D To prevent soil erosion during grading and construction, the project is required to adhere to SVMC Section 9�64.030-Grading & Erosion Control (Ref. #2), and is also required to comply with the Ventura County Stormwater Quality Urban Impact Mitigation Plan (SQUIMP) and the Countywide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The purpose of these codes is to prevent siltation, protect off-site property, and prevent soil loss on the property. These codes, combined with the fact that the existing drainjlge pattern will not be altered, will result in a project that would have no potential significant impact on the environment from substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil as a result of alteration of an existing drainage pattern. d) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? D D !ZI D
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems? D D !ZI D
The project pipelines will be installed under existing streets and construction of the water tank will not create a large area of impervious surfaces that could result in excessive runoff. Irrigation systems using recycled water will be controlled to avoid over-watering that could result in . some surface runoff. Existing water uses will be unchanged, except that the potable water now used for irrigation will be replaced with recycled water. The project will provide irrigation. water to existing customers and will not create or contribute new sources of stormwater runoff. Therefore, the project would not have a potential for a significant impact on the environment from a substantial increase in surface runoff or from the creation of stormwater runoff that could exceed capacity of existing drainage systems.
t) Provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise substantially degrade water �� D D IZI D
The water that will be distributed for irrigation will be subjected to tertiary treatment, meeting drinking water standards, at the SVWQCP. Project operation will result in this recycled water being .used for irrigation and other non-potable uses. Irrigation will be controlled to· avoid over-watering and subsequent surface water flow. I>otential percolation of recycled water would be into the underlying Simi Valley Basin, which has levels of total dissolved solids that are higher than the recycled water. As described earlier, the project is required · to adhere to the Ventura County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and prevent polluted runoff from entering the public storm drain system during construction and operation through the preparation of a Storm Water Quality Urban Impact Mitigation Plan (Ref. #21: Larry Walker and Associates, 23 P 83/3-11 (klk)
52 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program: Technical Guidance Manual for Storniwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002, pg. 2-1). The project is required to observe best management practices to limit polluted runoff from entering the public stormwater drainage system during construction and operation. Therefore, the project would have no potential to create a significant impact to the environment from substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or substantial degradation of water quality.
g) Place any structure intended for human habitation within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? D D D �
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? D D � D
The project does not involve the construction or placement of any structures intended for human . habitation within a 100-year flood hazard area. A short (under 3000 foot) section of underground recycled water pipeline will be placed under a street that is shown to be within a Special Flood Hazard Area on the January 2010 Flood Insurance Rate. Maps issued by FEMA. FEMA regulations do not prohibit the placement of underground utilities below areas shown to have an annual 1 % chance of transporting surface floodwater. In previous, rare, localized instances of surface flooding, the existing underground utilities in City streets were not affected, nor did they pose a risk to residents as a result of flooding, which demonstrates that the careful placement of underground water line, as proposed, will not result in damage from flooding. The proposed water tank will be constructed at a site previously designed, approved and graded for a water tank, and is outside any special flood hazard area as shown of the January 2010 Flood Insurance Rate Map issued by FEMA. The water tank will be designed to current seismic standards in accordance · with the current American Waterworks Standards and the Uniform Building Code, which include design strategies to minimize any risk from flooding from tank or supply line failure. The tank site includes a drainage control system that will collect any water that could potentially be discharged from a rare tank or inlet-outlet line failure, and convey it to the existing storm drain system with sufficient capacity to accommodate these potential flows to ensure that catastrophic flooding of nearby structures will not occur. Therefore, the project will not cause a significant threat of flooding to any people or structures and there is no potential for a significant impact on the environment.

VIII. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of the City (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? D D � D The Simi Valley General Plan contains the following policies that encourage the use of reclaimed water:
24 P 83/3-11 (klk)
53 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conservation/Open Space Element Policy IV-1. 7 .2 Recycling of water by both the public and the private sectors consistent with the health and welfare of the public shall be encouraged.

Community Services Element Policy IX-5.4 The use of reclaimed water shall be encouraged, consistent with cost feasibility and the maintenance of public health standards.

This project expands the City's use of recycled water, consistent with the Recycled Water Master Plan. This plan was prepared in order to implement the above policies. The plan explored the feasibility of delivering recycled water to various areas of the City and its vicinity. Cost and public health issues were factors that were considered when preparing the plan. This project will deliver recycled/reclaimed water to public and private customers consistent with cost feasibility and maintenance of public health standards. Therefore, the project has no potential for a significant impact on the environment by conflicting with land use plans or policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental. impact.

IX. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? D D D �
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? D D D �
The project does not propose any facilities within areas identified by the City's General Plan as containing important mineral resources. Therefore, there is no potential for any impact on the environment.

X. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance? D D � D ·
b) The creation of a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity by 10 dB(A) Ldn above levels existing without the project? D D � D
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels, from other than construction related noise, in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D D � D
The City of Simi Valley General Plan has established a standard for noise exposure for sensitive land uses such as residential units, mobile homes, hotels, hospitals, school classrooms, churches and libraries from mobile sources, such as automobiles, trucks, and trains. This standard is 45 dB(A) Ldn inside, and 63 dB(A) Ldn in outdoor residential environments (Ref. #17: City of Simi Valley, 25 P 83/3-11 (klk)
54 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
General Plan, Resolution No. 88-142, October 18, 1988. pg. 10.2 & Table 10.1). Since noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, and traffic is the predominant source of noise in the City, the project would need to produce 10 times the current amount of traffic (a 1,000-percent increase) in order to increase noise energy by 10 dB (A). This proposed operation of a recycled water distribution system: underground pipelines, water storage, irrigation; does not involve manufacturing, processing, or generation of large amounts of traffic which could produce substantial, temporary, or periodic increase in ambient noise that might affect sensitive land uses.

There are no sensitive noise receptors within one half mile of the SVWQCP, where existing pumps will be upgraded to handle the increased diversion of recycled water from discharge to the Arroyo Simi. Therefore, while the pumps do have the potential to increase noise levels at the SVWQCP, any such noise will not have a potential to significantly affect noise sensitive land uses.

The ·Community Noise Equivalent Level for the areas subject to temporary, construction-related impacts currently ranges from 60 to 70 dB based on 2007 average daily traffic volumes. The City has implemented many underground utility projects over the years, and has developed policies and procedures to minimize noise impacts on our residents. Project construction will occur during daylight hours, and project equipment will be maintained and operated in compliance with current City requirements to limit even temporary increases in noise for our residents.

XI. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? D D � D
The project will serve existing uses only, and is in an urban area surrounded by existing urban uses.

Water supply for existing development in California is under increased threat. The use of recycled water for large turf area irrigation helps to ensure that potable water supplies will be adequate for existing customers. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact on the environment from inducing substantial population growth.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing dwelling units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? D D D �
The project facilities are proposed for the SVWQCP, existing streets, and a water tank site. No dwelling units would be affected by the project. The project will not displace any dwelling units, or require construction of replacement housing elsewhere as a result of the project.

XII. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered 26 P 83/3-11 (klk)
55 · Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
. Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire Protection? D D D 181
Police Protection? D D D 181
Schools? D D D 181
Parks? D D D 181
Other public facilities? D D D 181
The project will supply irrigation water to existing uses only. It will provide increased reliability within the water supply system that serves the region by providing a new source of water for non potable uses. It will not result in construction of new land uses that would create increased demand for public services. Therefore, there will not be any affect on public services.

XIII. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? D D D 181
The project will supply irrigation water to existing uses. Therefore, there will not be any affect on the use of recreational facilities.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? D D 181 D
The project will provide irrigation water to existing recreational facilities. Tberefore, there is no potential for a significant impact on the environment.

XIV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Result in the level of service at any significantly impacted intersection falling below Level of Service (LOS) "C"?
D D D
b) Result in the level of service, based on the volume/capacity ratio, at any intersection deteriorating by O .10 greater? D D 181 D,
c) Result in any significant traffic impacts even though the level of service at local intersections would remain at Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better?
D D D
27 P 83/3-11 (klk)
56 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)? D D D �
e) Result in inadequate access?
t) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
D
D
D
D
D
D
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0 D � D
The existing levels of service (LO�) at the intersections within the construction area are at C or better. Construction activities will be scheduled to occur outside of the peak traffic hours so there is no significant impact from the construction activities that would cause the LOS to fall below C.

The volume-to-capacity ratio at all of the intersections that could be· potentially affected by construction traffic will in no case deteriorate by 0.10 or greater. The existing streets and intersections that could be affected by temporary construction activities do not have any hazards due to design features and during construction, required standard traffic detour plans to route the traffic around the construction area will be implemented. The required traffic detour plans will be reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer so that construction will not substantially increase hazards to flow of traffic. The construction activities will not change the alignment, width or other features of the existing streets or intersections, and will not block bus stops or bike paths.

XV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? D D � D
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? D D �- D
The project will not generate any wastewater. Rather, it will distribute tertiary treated water to recycled water customers. Therefore, the project will not require ihe construction of new treatment facilities and will not have a potential for a significant impact on the environment. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? D D D �
The project will not create significant new areas of impervious surface. Therefore, it will not generate significant amounts of stormwater runoff. It will not result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities. Therefore, there is no potential for any effect on the environment. d) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? D D D IZJ 28 P 83/3-11 (klk)
57 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The project will distributed recycled water to existing land uses for irrigation purposes. The project will not generate a demand for potable w.ater. In fact, by distributing tertiary treated water to existing customers, demand for potable water will be decreased. Therefore, there is no potential for any effect on the environment.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? D D D IZ!
The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, there is no potential for any effect on the environment.
t) Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? D D D IZ!
The project will not generate any solid waste. Therefore, there is no potential for any effect on the environment.

XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? D IZ! D D Based on the answers to Section III, Biological Resources, there could be significant impacts to offsite habitat after project construction, and impacts to nesting birds during construction, and these impacts will be mitigated to less than significant levels. Based on the answers to Section IV, Cultural Resources, there could be significant impacts to cultural resources during project construction, and those impacts will be mitigated to less than significant levels. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact to the environment from degradation of the quality of the environment, substantial reduction of habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are . considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other 29 P 83/3-11 (klk)
58 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
current projects, and the effects of probable future projects as defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines?) · D D [81 D
A cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of project impacts plus effects from other projects that cause related impacts. In this case, project impacts relating to Air Quality, Biological and Cultural Resources were examined · for individual and cumulative effect. In the case of Biological and Cultural Resources, cumulative effects were discussed and mitigated to less than significant levels. Temporary Air Quality impacts related to grading and excavation for placement of underground pipe would be limited in scope and duration and therefore not result in a cumulative effect. As described in Section II, above, the project is consistent with the Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan and other state and federal standards that are adopted for the purpose of addressing individual and cumulative air quality impacts. Therefore the project would have no potential for a significant impact to the environment from project impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? D D � D
Significant impacts to air quality, hydrology and significant impacts from hazardous materials, geologic conditions and noise have the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Based on the answers to questions II. a), b), c), and d), the project would not have a significant impact due to pollution, ,consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan, exposure of sensitive receptors to significant pollution concentrations, or odors. Based on the answers to questions VII. a), b), d), e), and f), the project would not have a significant impact due to erosion, flooding, and polluted runoff. Based on the answers to questions VI. A), b), c), d), the project would not have a significant impact due to the use or transport of hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous materials, release of hazardous materials within a quarter mile of a school, or development on a hazardous materials site. Based on the answers to questions V. a) i), ii), and iii), the project would not have a significant impact due to surface rupture, seismic ground failure, or landslides. Based on the answers to questions X. a), b), and c), the project would not have a significant impact on the environment due to the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, the increase of ambient noise by 10 dB (A), or a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. 30 P 83/3-11 (klk)
59 XVII. REFERENCES USED IN RESPONDING TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE INCLUDES:

1. City of Simi Valley, Project Site Plan, October 2010.

2. City of Simi Valley, Development Code, Title 9 of the City of Simi Valley Municipal Code, January 5, 2006.

3. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Regulation IV - Prohibitions: Rule 51 - Nuisance, July 2, 1968.

4. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, (2003).

5. Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis Report, West Simi Water Recycling Project, November 1, 2010

6. Michael Brandman Associates, Biological Resources Study, West Simi Water Recycling Project, November 1, 2010.

7. Michael Brandman Associates, Biological Resources Monitoring Program West Simi Water Recycling Project, December 2009.

8. Michael Brandman Associates, CEQA-Plus Cultural Resource Assessment for the Proposed West Simi Water Recycling Project, November 1, 2010.

9. Lander, E. Bruce "Geology and Vertebrate paleontology of Cenozoic Non-marine Rock Units in Simi Valley, 11 Simi Valley: A Journey Through Time (1997), pp. 302-319.

10. Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Paleontologic Resource Assessment Overview, Simi Valley, Ventura County, California, 1986.

11. Richard L. Squires, "Geologic Profile of Simi Valley", Simi Valley: A Journey Through Time (1997), p. 296.

12. Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board, Ventura County Historical Landmarks and Points of Interest, April 1996.

13. California Department or' Conservation, California Geologic Survey, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Simi Valley West Quadrangle, April 7, 1997.

14. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, State of California Earthquake Fault Zones, Simi Valley West Quadrangle, May 1, 1999.

15. City of Simi Valley, Building Code, Title 8 of the Simi. Valley Municipal Code, January 4, 2008.

16. State of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Article 1.

17. City of Simi Valley, General Plan, Resolution No. 88-142, October 18, 1988.

18. City of Simi Valley, Street Map (Current).

19. California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov, reviewed November 2010.

20. City of Simi Valley, Master Plan of Drainage, Hawk and Associates (December 1990).

21. Larry Walker and Associates, Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program: Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002. . 22. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map· (FIRM), Community Panel Number 06111C0863E, January 20, 2010.

23. Ventura County Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit (Board Order No. 00-108, Permit# CAS 004002).

24. California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas, Regional Wildcat Map, Map Wl, June 12, 2001.

25. California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas, District 2 Oil Fields Map, March 22, 2001.
31 P 83/3-11 (klk)
60 26. "Noise Control: A Basic Program for Local Governments," Management Information Service, Vo. 7, No. 3 (March 1975), p. 6.

27. Briiel & Kjrer, Environmental Noise, http://www.nonoise.org/library/envnoise/index.htm.

28. U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment . and Pla�ing, Noise and Air Quality Branch, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, June 1995.

29. City of Simi Valley Managed Growth Plan, "Measure Q", July, 1996. . 30� Scien� .. :,i.\ppl�c:at!O.��. �n,ternational Corporation, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, Ventura County, California, September 27,2002.

31. Brown and Caldwell Environmental Engineers & Consultants, Southern California Water Company: Water Supply Assessment for Simi Valley System, July 23, 2003.

32. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 5th Edition, 1991.

33. American Association of State Highway and Transportation, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1994.

30. Nesblett and Associates, Soil Compaction Report, Tanlc Site Berm, Tract 4313, City of Simi Valley, California, April 2001.

31. Tetra Tech, Inc., Design and Construction Standards, Rules and Regulations for Recycled Use, City of Simi Valley, February, 2004.

XVIII. LIST BELOW THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO PREPARED OR PARTICIPATED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY.

Environmental Planner:

Project Engineer:

P 83/3-11 (klk)
32 Lauren Funaiole
Ernest Wong
61 ESTIMA.TED

POTENTIAL RECYCLED WATER CUSTOMERS AVERAGE
ANNUAL
DEMAND
NO. CUSTOMER AFY
1 PRE-CON PRODUCTS / CEMEX 50
2 SIMI WASH CENTER 2
3 SINALOA GOLF COURSE 39
4 WOOD RANCH CONFERENCE CENTER 5
5 RANCHO MA.DERA COMMUNITY PARK 37
6 MA.DERA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 13
7 SINALOA MIDDLE SCHOOL 37
8 ST. ROSE OF LIMA. CHURCH 10
9 ROYAL HIGH SCHOOL 56
10 SIMI CEMETERY 13
11 RANCHO SIMI COMMUNITY PARK 101
12 LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 10
13 LINCOLN PARK 11
14 ASSUMPTION CEMETERY 25
15 HOLLOW HILLS FUNDAMENTAL SCHOOL 11
16 HILLSIDE MIDDLE SCHOOL 30
17 CRESTVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 20
18 GRACE BRETHREN SCHOOL 15
19 CALTRANS (118 [email protected] RD) 13
20 SIMI VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT CENTER 4
21 CAL TRANS (118 FWY@ FIRST ST) 13
22 SIMI VALLEY TOWN CENTER (MA.LL) 15
0 23 CAL TRANS (118 FWY@ ER.RINGER RD) 20
24 WOOD RANCH GOLF COURSE 300
25 CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 2
26 SHERIFF STATION 1
27 CAL TRANS (23 FWY @ OLSEN RD) 15
28 SUNSET HILLS GOLF COURSE 300

LINE DESCRIPTION
NO. DIAMETER (IN.) LENGTH(FT)
L1 20 4,100
L2 20 5,000
L3 20 4,900
L4 24 2,000
L5 8 4,800
L6 12 5,200
L7 12 3,000
L8 6 900
L9 10 1,200
L10 10 1,700
L11 6 300
L12 10 1,300
L13 10 2,700
L14 10 2,400
L15 6 900
L16 6 1,300
L17 6 400
L18 6 7,700
L19 4 500
L20 12 14,000

RECYCLED WATERLINE
,________, POTENTIA L USERS

WEST SIMI VALLEY

WATER RECYCLING PROJECT
N
A
FIGURE 1
62 e
Linda S. Adams
State Water Resources Control-Board
Division of Fin · · . ·
. · 1 - .
!��I . 1001 I Street, Sacramento, C��y9 4• 3 - 9�6E)
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 944212 • Sacramento, California 94244-2120 FAX (916) 341-5707 • httpfl�A,Rtefb�.d�gj§: 2 7Secretary for Environmental Protection !V! /4. K 9 2009 HNIRONMEHTAL SEHViCES OEPARTMElfl Ms, Lauren Funaiole, Senior Planner
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon. Road
Simi Valley, CA, 93063
Dear Ms. Funaiole:

ATTACHMENT C
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND) FOR CITY OF SIMI VALLEY (CITY); WEST SIMI WATER RECYCLING PROJ[:=CT (PROJECT); VENTURA COUNTY; STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2009021023 . .

We understand the City may be pursuing Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) financing for this Project. As a funding agen.cy and a State agency with jurisdiction by law to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California's water resources, the State Water.

Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is providing tlie following information for the environmental document prep_ared for the Project.
· ·
. .

Please provide us with the following documents applicable to the proposed Project if seeking CWSRF or other State Water Board funding·: (1) Two copies of the draft and final ND, (2) the resolution adopting the ND and making California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings, · (3) all comments received during the review period and the City1s res·ponse to those comments, and (4) the- Notice of Determination filed with the Gbverlior's Office of ·Planning and Research State Clearinghouse. In addition, we would appreciate notices of any hearings or meetings held regarding environmental review of any projects to be funded by the State Water Board.

The CWSRF Program is partially funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and requires additional "CEQA-Plus" environmental documentation and review; Three enclosures are included that further explain the environmental review process and some additional federal requirements in the-CWSRF Program: The State Water Board is required to consult directly with agencies -responsible. for implementing fecteral environmental laws and regulations. Any environmental Issues raised by federal agencies or their representatives will need to be resolved prior to State :W�ter.Boarc;l �pprnval of a C.WSRF funding commitment for the proposed Project. For further informa�ion on the CWSRf .Program, pleas� contact · · Ms. Miohelle·L Jone�:at(9·16)'341-6983: ·· · · ·
It is important to note that prior to a CWSRF funding commitment, projects are subject to provisions of the Federal Endangered Species Act, and must obtain Section 7 clearance from the U.S .. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for any potential effects to ·special status species. Please be advised that the State Water Board will consult with L!SFWS, and/or N.MFS regarding all federal special status species the Project has the potential to impact if the Project is to be funded under the CWSRF Program.

The City will need to identify whether the Project will involve any direct effects from construction activities or indirect effects,.such as growth inducement, that may affect federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species that are known, or have a potential to occur on site, in the surrounding areas, or in the service area, and to identify applicable conservation measures to reduce such effects.

California Environmental Protection Agency
19'cled Paper
63 64
65 66
"
Ms. Lauren Funaiole
The NAHC can be contacted at
915 Capitol Mall, Room 364
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 653-4082
MAR 9 2000
Note: The NAHC will provide a list of Native American tribes and individuals that are culturally affiliated with your Project area and recommend that they all be contacted.

Thank you again for the opportunity to review the City's N"O. If you have any questie>ns or concerns, please feel· free to contact me at (916) 341-5415 or by email .at LJarvis@waterboards .. ca.gov, or contact Duran Fiack by email at [email protected] . . Sincerely,
��
Lowell Jarvis
Environmental Scientist
cc: State Clearinghouse
(Re: SCH# 2009021023)
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
bee: Lauma Jurkevics, DFA
Cookie Hirn, DFA
Lowell Jarvis, DFA
Duran Fiack, DFA
Pete Mizera, DF A
Michelle Jones, DFA
- - . .

S:\Databases Web & lnRegional Programs Unit\SCH Commentletters\SimiValleyCityof.docpm3-5 . California Environmental Protection Agency
O Recycled Paper
67 '' ATTACHMENT D
California Natyral Resource§ &.qency

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
South Coast Region
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GQVl31T.!Q!
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
(658) 467--4201
http://www.dfg.ca.gov
March 11, 2009
Ms. Lauren Funaiole
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Rd.

Simi Valley, CA 93063
Fax #: (805)583-7922
DONALD KOCH, Director
Subject: Review of Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration for · the West Simi Water Recycling Project, SCH20090210231 Ventura Co.

Dear Ms. Funaiole:

The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the above referenced Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration (DND) prepared by the City of Simi Valley (City), relative to impacts to biological resources. The project is proposed by the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 and the purpose is to expand an existing recycled water distribution system to supply an average increase of 750 acre-feet (0.66 million gallons per day - mgd) to customers in the western area of Simi Valley that have large irrigation or other non-potable water usage.

The following statements and comments have been prepared pursuant to the Department's authority as Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project (CEQA Section 15386) and pursuant to our authority as a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. regarding impacts to streams and lakes.

The California Wildlife Action Plan, a recent Department guidance document, identified the following stressors affecting wildlife and habitats within the project area: 1) growth and development; 2) water management conflicts and degradation of aquatic ecosystems; 3) invasive species; 4) altered fire regimes; and 5) recreational pressures. The Department looks forward to working with the City of Simi Valley to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources with a focus on these stressors.

The Initial Study (IS) states that no riparian areas or wetlands would be disturbed by construction of the pumps, pipelines or water tank. The IS also indicates that the Regional Water Quality, Control Board (State Water Board) determined that Conservino Califomia 's WilifCife Since 1870
68 Lauren Funaiole
March 11 , 2009

Page 2 of 3 ends

up to one-half of the average discharge of 9.5 mgd can be diverted for recycled water uses without having an adverse affect on downstream riparian areas. This project proposes to divert an average of 0.66 mgd or 7% of the total discharge.

Department Staff contacted Mr. Ernest Wong from the Ventura County Wate,works District '118 (referenced as a point of contact for this project in the JS) to discussed the State Water Board detem,inations. Mr. Wong kindly offered to send a copy of the determination to the Department for our review.

The Department sincerefy appreciates the City·and County's effort to recycle water and supports efforts of water conservation. However, due to the sensitive · biological resources that could be potentially impacted by a reduction in effluent and due to difficulty in detennining What the impact of a reduction in flows of even 7% may have on the riparian plant community function and the associated fish and wildlife resources, the Department recommends that biological resource monitoring be required prior to project approval, for three years following project implementation and again at year 10 and 1.5 following project implementation.

Department Staff prepared a map (using the BIOS online mapping tool) illustrating the location of sensitive resources below the effluent discharge point including southern willow scrub, arroyo chub, and least Bell's vireo. The biological resources map is included as an attachment to this comment letter for your reference.

The Department recommends that a monitoring plan include a strategy to map and quantify vegetation communities down to the end of the mapped polygon identifying the range of arroyo chub below the effluent discharge point. The Department recommends stream cross-sections be taken at appropriate intervals determined by a professional ecologist to measure vegetation community characteristics (tree and shrub canopy coverage and plant species diversity), as well as stream channel cross section, flows, surface water elevation, dissolved oxygen and water temperature. Photo stations should be .established along each cross-section. The monitoring should be conducted In spring following leaf out and again in later summer (August). An overall aerial image should be included that calculates the extent of the riparian polygon, as well as the water quality of the stream and its ability to support aquatic species. This monitoring should take place prior to the diversion in order to establish a baseline of data. The monitoring should continue for three years to ensure that the extent and function of the stream surface flows and riparian study area Is maintained post project.

Monitoring should· also occur again during post project year 1 O and 15 to determine long-term sustainability of the stream and riparian habitat for supporting fish and wildlife. If in any one year the total riparian polygon shrinks by 20% or if canopy coverage estimates or stream flow drops by 20%, Department Staff should be consulted to work with City and County Staff to determine the cause of the change and if necessary develop an appropriate course of action to change the decline in vegetation community cover. 69 Lauren Funaiole
March 11, 2009

Page 3 of 3 ends

The Department recommends that our staff be included in monitoring strategy . reviews and offers to work With City and County Staff to.develop an adaptive monitoring pfan that Is functional and cost effective. Without Implementing a monitoring strategy, we ·w111 not be abte to quantify any changes in biological resources caused by a reduction in flows. The Department believes that implementation of biological monitoring will· provide needed input to help with adaptive management of future effluent flows.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment. Please. cpntact Mr. Dan Blankenship, Staff Environmental Scientist, at (661) 259-3750 if you should have any questions and for further coor
d
ination on the proposed project.

Sincerely,
dt�A�� Jr Edmund J. Pert
· Regional Manager
South Coast Region
Attachment
cc: Helen Birss, Los Alamitos
Dan Blankenship, sa·nta Clarita
Betty Courtney, Newhall
Jeff Humble, Ventura
State Clearinghouse, Sacramento
70 71
72 73

CITY OF SIMI V ALLEY

MEMORANDUM
Agenda
Item:

Date:
7C
November 19, 2012
TO: Board of Directors, Ventura County Waterworks District No.8 FROM: Department of Public Works
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR

THE WEST SIMI VALLEY WATER RECYCLING PROJECT AND

ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board of Directors of Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8:

1. Authorize staff to apply for a Proposition 84 grant in the amount of $3 million to construct Phases 1 and 2 of the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project;

2. Adopt the attached resolution (page 4) authorizing staff to submit a Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan application in an amount not to exceed $23 million for the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project. .

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
On July 25, 2011, the Board approved the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project (Project) and certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project serves the west end of the City with recycled water lines along West Los Angeles Avenue, Easy Street, Madera Road, Cochran Street, First Street, Royal A venue, and Fitzgerald Road. The first segment of the project is under construction along West Los Angeles Avenue between the Public Services Center and Easy Street (near the Waste Management offices). This phase will also extend the recycled water line to Madera Road in conjunction with the Easy Street Overlay project. The remaining portions of the project are proposed to be constructed in five subsequent phases (Vicinity Map and Project Phases. Attachment A, page 6).

FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
Staff has been monitoring funding opportunities and recently the Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County (WCVC) supported including a portion of the City'S Project into the Coalition's Proposition 84 (Prop 84) regional grant application which covers the three watersheds that they oversee in the County. Prop 84 grants are administered by the State Department of Water Resources. The WCVC's total Countywide grant application is $18 million, of which $3 million is for the City'S Project. Based upon a potential $3 million grant , staff proposes to construct Phases 1 and 2 of the Project (Attachment B, page 7).

The Phase 1 portion would construct a recycled water line in Cochran Street from Madera Road to its western terminus, and join the existing Calleguas-owned recycled water line at the end of Cochran Street. Phase 2 pipelines would start at the intersection of Madera Road and U28 12.SR.DB
EXHIBIT 3
74 Easy Street and extend five miles south along Madera Road to Wood Ranch Parkway. Also in Phase 2, two pumps would be added to the pump station located at the City's Water Quality Control Plant, and a 1.25 million gallon tank for the recycled water would be constructed on District-owned land north of the intersection of Madera Road and Country Club Drive East.

Project Phases 1 and 2 would potentially serve 45 customers that currently use approximately 200 million gallons per year (MGY) of potable water for irrigation. Customers include the industrial parks and businesses along Cochran Street, Westhills Court, Park Center Drive, Wood Ranch Golf Course, Sinaloa Golf Course, and the Rancho Madera Community Park.

The total estimated cost for Project Phases 1 and 2 is $9.5 million (approximately $900,000 for Phase 1 and approximately $8.6 million for Phase 2). Currently, there is an unencumbered balance of approximately $2.5 million contained in the Waterworks budget, which is available for Project Phases 1 and 2. Assuming receipt of the Prop 84 grant in the amount of $3 million, the unfunded balance for Project Phases 1 and 2 would be $4 million.

An economic analysis has been developed by staff to estimate Project payback. Assuming the $3 million grant, full cost recovery for Project Phases 1 and 2 could be achieved in 15 years.

In addition, implementing Phases 1 and 2 would reduce water costs for recycled water customers, reduce imported water dependence, improve drought resilience (especially for recycled water customers), and reduce regional salt loadings to surface waters.

Staff investigated another potential funding source through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program also through the Department of Water Resources. The advantages of SRF loans include low interest rates, no bond fees, no matching funds required, and the potential for loan balance pay-off grants for a s uccessfully operating project at some future time. SRF loans are similar to a line of credit in that only the actual funds borrowed accrue interest. Staff evaluated SRF funding compared to other funding options, and found the SRF loan to be one of the best financing options for the Project.

Staff recommends applying for a SRF loan for the entire Project in the amount of $23 million.

If the loan is approved, there would be no obligation to borrow the entire amount. By requesting a loan for the entire amount, the Board would have an option for funding all future project phases and be obligated to pay back those funds that are actually borrowed, accruing interest only from the date the funds are remitted. The SRF application requires a resolution authorizing an agency representative to sign and file the application with the State Water Resources Control Board, therefore staff recommends the Board adopt the attached resolution (page 4).

If the Board approves the Prop 84 grant application, staff anticipates requesting the $4 million matching funds for Phases 1 and 2 in the FY 2013-14 Waterworks Capital Improvements budget, or offering the Board the option to fund it through an SRF loan if that loan is approved.

It should be noted that partnering with local business owners to be future recycled water customers is fundamentally necessary to proceed with the Project since commodity usage and corresponding revenues are needed. Potential partners in recycled water would need to convert their irrigation or industrial water systems to meet State public health requirements for water systems. These conversions can range from $10,000 to $60,000 for a relatively simple irrigation system, and potentially much more for a complex system, such as for a school, public park, golf course, or cemetery.

U2812.SR.DB
75 .,
Staff investigated the typical means to develop partnerships with future recycled water customers used by other agencies operating recycled water systems. Some agencies offer financial assistance for irrigation system conversions, often in the form of a loan to the property owner to cover the costs to modify their systems. The agency is paid back by initially charging the potable water cost for the recycled water and applying the extra to the loan until it is paid. Then, the typical discount (15 % off the price of potable water) would be applied for future recycled water purchases. Such financial assistance is likely necessary to develop recycled water use partnerships with local business or property owners. In the spring of 2013, staff will return to the Board with more details and options to provide capital financing for potential recycled water partners in exchange for their committing to recycled water purchases for a sustained time.

The following alternatives are available for the Board's consideration:

1. Authorize staff to apply for a Proposition 84 grant in the amount of $3 million to construct Phases 1 and 2 of the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project;

3. Not authorize staff to apply for funding;

4. Provide staff with further direction.

Staff recommends Alternatives No. 1 and 2.

SUMMARY
On July 25, 2011, the Board of Directors approved the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project (Project) and certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Project will be constructed in six phases at an estimated capital cost of $23 million. Project Phases 1 and 2 would serve 45 additional customers an estimated 200 million gallons of recycled water per year at an estimated capital cost of $9.5 million. There are two current funding opportunities for the construction of the Project. It is recommended that the Board of Directors authorize staff to apply for a Proposition 84 grant in the amount of $3 million to construct Phases 1 and 2 of the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project, and adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to submit a Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan application in the amount of $23 million for the Project. ._.· ---..
uchiwaki, Director
Department of Public Works
INDEX Page
Resolution ............................................................. 4 Attachment A - Vicinity Map and Project Phases .............. 6 Attachment B - Project Phases 1 and 2 .......................... 7 U2812.SR.DB
76 RESOLUTION NO. WWD-

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 8

AUTHORIZING A CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING

FUND APPLICATION FOR THE WEST SIMI VALLEY

WATER RECYCLING PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors approved the Recycled Water Master Plan Update on December 8, 2008, to expand recycled water use in Simi Valley and the region; and WHEREAS, the recommended West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project (Project) was studied further, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified by the Board of Directors on July 25, 2011, and the Project was approved; and WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board offers financial assistance for water resource projects, and the Project appears to be viable candidate for this funding.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF VENTURA
COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 8 DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The District Manager is hereby authorized to sign and file, for and on behalf of the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 (District), a Financial Assistance Application for a financing agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board, specifically, to design and construct the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project; and

2. The Board of Directors hereby agrees, and further authorizes the District Manager or his/her designee to certify that, the District has complied and will comply with all applicable state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements related to any financing or financial assistance received from the State Water Resources Control Board; and

3. The District Manager or his/her designee is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute a financial assistance agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board and any amendments or change orders thereto and certify financing agreement disbursements on behalf of the District, and

4. The District Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall retain a certified resolution.
77 PASSED and ADOPTED this
Attest:

Ky Spangler
Assistant City Clerk/District Secretary
A
p
lU�
c._(,__ __
�r. Ma1jorie Baxter, District Counsel
U2812.RES.DB
RES. NO.

Robert O. Huber, Chair of the Ventura
County Waterworks District No. 8
A
pproved as to Content:

Laura Behjan, Districtiinager
Ro ald K. Fuchiwaki, Director
Department of Public Works
78 ; _.'-
Phase 4
Phase 5
- - - . Existing RWL

WEST SIMI VALLEY

WATER RECYCLING PROJECT
.
$;;
tr:i Z
~
:>
79 RECYCLED WATER

PUMP STATION
UPGRADE -;I
2~3.5 CFS UNITS

ATTACHMENT B
-- Under Const.
-- Phase 1
-- Phase 2
Existing RWL

WEST SIMI VALLEY N

WATER RECYCLING PROJECT A
FIGURE 1
80 WATER\RECYCLED WATER\RWA\RWA.SR-FINAL 2015-08-21

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
August 31, 2015
TO: Ci
ty Council
Board of Directors, Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 FROM: De
partment of Public Works
SUBJECT: RE

PORT ON THE AVAILABILITY OF RECYCLED WATER

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council/Board of Directors review this report on the availability of recycled water and provide direction to staff regarding serving potential customers, both inside and outside of the City/District service area.

CITY/DISTRICT MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City/District Manager recommends approval of alternative 1(a) or 1(b). Either of these options allows the City to explore opportunities that benefit the region through the use of recycled water while potentially benefitting the community via using the additional financial income to provide further extensions in the community.

Option 1(a) provides the benefit of not using any potential usage that was provided for in the master plan. The downside is that it could cost the City financial or extension benefits in the near term by setting aside capacity for areas of town that are currently not planned for in the next 10 years or further out.

Option 1(b) provides the benefit of being able to accelerate the use of the recycled water with bigger users. The downside is that potential of taking capacity that could benefit future District users.

Option 1(c) provides the benefit of allocating all capacity to District users. The potential downside is that it may not provide the financial capacity to extend the line very far without community subsidies due to the lack of big users close to the current line.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
On July 13, 2015, the Board of Directors (Board) requested information regarding the total availability of recycled water for potential customers in Simi Valley.

Recycled water/treated effluent is produced at the City’s Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which currently produces approximately 9,100 acre feet per year (AFY). (One acre-foot equals approximate ly 326,000 gallons.) The WQCP is currently operating under a State permit that allows approximately 4,700 AFY of effluent to be used for recycled water customers with the remaining effluent to AGENDA ITEM NO.
8B
EXHIBIT 4
81 WATER\RECYCLED WATER\RWA\RWA.SR-FINAL 2015-08-21
continue to be discharged into the Arroyo Simi. There is currently one customer using recycled water -- the Simi Valley Landfill (within the City ’s Sphere of Influence, but outside City limits). In addition, the City uses Recycled Water at the Public Services Center. These two users use approximately 100 AFY, leaving 4,600 AFY for other recycled water customers.

FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
In December 2008, the Board adopted the Recycled Water Master Plan Update (Master Plan). The Master Plan evaluated the full potential of customers that could use recycled water including those within the City/District service area, the Golden State service area, and outside of these areas based upon their proximity, feasibility, and potential recycled water use. The Master Plan considered potential customers from eastern Thousand Oaks and Moorpark, to the eastern Simi Valley City limits. In total, the Master Plan ide
ntified over 125 potential customers with a projected recycled water use of 2,900 AFY inside the City/District and over 3,200 AFY outside the City/District.

Recycled Water Use for the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project The current West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project (WSVWRP ) at full build-out will serve the west end of the City and it is estimated that the project could achieve an estimated water use of 900 AFY for customers within the City/District. The Project initially proposed serving the Sunset Hills Golf Course and other customers along Madera Road/Olsen Road outside of the City/District, which have a projected use of 3 00 AFY. These potential customers include the Ventura County Sheriff’s Station, the Calleguas Municipal Water District Administration Building, and the Caltrans Highway 23/Olsen Road interchange. Staff recommends that the City Council/Board of Directors approve serving recycled water to the Sunset Hills Golf Course and the other listed customers along Madera Road/Olsen Road outside of the City/District. If approved, the Project could potentially distribute 1,200 AFY of recycled water. A location map and list of potential customers is presented on Attachment A, page 7.

Construction of the project has been divided into five phases with total project completion estimated in 2020. A detailed construction status is provided on Attachment B, page 10.

Recycled Water Use in Other Areas Within the City/District In addition to the WSVWR Project, the Master Plan identified other potential customers within the remainder of the City/District (including Waterworks District and Golden State service areas
) with recycled water use up to 2,0 00 AFY. A map and list of potential customers is presented on Attachment C, page 11. To preserve the availability of recycled water for the WSVWR Project and for other potential users throughout the remainder of the City/District, staff recommends reserving 2,900 AFY (900 AFY+ 2,000 AFY) for these potential recycled water users.

Based upon the availability of 4,600 AFY for recycled water and the recommendation to reserve 2,900 AFY for the City/District portion of the WSVWR Project and other potential City/District customers , a balance of approximately 1,700 AFY of recycled 82 WATER\RECYCLED WATER\RWA\RWA.SR-FINAL 2015-08-21
water is then available for potential customers outside the City/District or for other customers.

Recycled Water Use in Areas Outside of the City/District As indicated, the Master Plan evaluated the full potential of customers that could use recycled water including within the City/District service area, the Golden State service area, and outside of the City/District
. The Master Plan considered potential customers
from eastern Thousand Oaks and Moorpark to the east Simi Valley city limits. T he Master Plan identified several potential customers outside of the City/District with an estimated use of over 3,200 AFY.

Many of these potential customers are in the Tierra
Rejada Valley west of the City and in northeastern Moorpark primarily in the area around Moorpark College.

Among the potential customers the Master Plan identified outside of the City/District were the Sunset Hills Golf Course , the Ventura County Sheriff’s Station, the Calleguas Municipal Water District Administration Building, and the Caltrans Highway 23/Olsen Road interchange. As previously mentioned, initially these customers were included in the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project (Phase 3), (300 AFY) . The remaining
balance of 1,700 AFY (including the Phase 3) of recycled water will be available for potential customers outside of the City/District.

Additional Recycled Water Inquiries
Staff has recently been approached by other potential customers not previously considered in the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project or the Master Plan , including:
 Two agricultural users within the City/District have indicated their interest in using recycled water to irrigate their existing orchards.
 The Camrosa Water District has indicated its interest in developing a recycled water distribution system for its service area using the City’s recycled water as a supply.
 Waste Management has indicated its interest in developing agricultural uses on its property east of the landfill , also outside of the City limits and District service area, to be irrigated with recycled water (see interest letters , Attachment D, page 14).

The two agricultural users within the City/District have indicated their maximum demand would range from 250 to 350 AFY. Staff will need to investigate the feasibility of serving these users in the current West Simi Valley Recycled Water Project. It is likely that additional environmental analysis and CEQA documentation would be needed before the Council/Board could further discuss a project approval for these potential customers. If the City Council/Board of Directors is interested in serving these customers, staff will evaluate and return with specific project information . The potential demand appears to be within the recycled water availability. 83 WATER\RECYCLED WATER\RWA\RWA.SR-FINAL 2015-08-21
The two potential demands outside the City/District , Camrosa and the Waste Management agricultural development, have potential demands that exceed the availability of recycled water if served to the full extent requested. The Waste Management project would exceed demand in excess of 3,000 AFY at maturity. These two additional inquiries exceed the current availability of recycled water from the WQCP if served to the maximum full request.

It should be noted that all four of the potential customers discussed in this section have expressed their concern about the current price of recycled water ($2.60 per billing unit, currently priced at 85% of potable water which is $3.06 per billing unit) and have indicated that price will be a consideration. The pricing concern is consistent with other potential users. Even though the price is at 85% of the current rate and will stay flat through the Proposition 218 process expected to move forward this Fall with water rates, there still remains a concern on price.

Summary of Recycled Water Uses
Based upon this current review, if the City Council/Board of Directors concurs with staff recommendation to reserve 900 AFY for the WSVWR Project, 2,000 AFY for other potential customers in the City/District, approves
the recommendation to serve the
Sunset Hills Golf Course and the other suggested customers along Madera Road/Olsen Road (300 AFY), and finally not serve any additional customers outside the City/District, then approximately 1,400 AFY of recycled water would be available and could be allocated to additional customers. A summary table is provided below.

Recycled Water Supply and Demands
Total Recycled Water Available for Customers 4,700 AFY
Existing Customers (Landfill and PSC) -100 AFY
Current Recycled Water Available for Customers 4,600 AFY Projected Use for the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project (Inside City)
-900 AFY
Projected Reserve for Recycled Water Use for the Remainder of the City per the Master Plan
-2,000 AFY
Projected Use for West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project (Outside City, Sunset Hills Golf Course and Others)
(-300) AFY
Balance Available for Additional Use 1,400 AFY
84 WATER\RECYCLED WATER\RWA\RWA.SR-FINAL 2015-08-21
The following alternatives are available for the Board’s consideration:

1. Provide one of the following authorizations:
a. Allow extension outside of the plan only if it both does not interfere with future availability as provided and can be demonstrated to provide opportunity for local residents benefit (either financially or through the line extension). b. Allow extension outside of the plan to be brought to the City Council on a case by case basis evaluating the impact both positive and negative to the community.
c. Do not extend outside of the plan.
d. Bring back the masterplan for further discussion and possible revision.

2. Continue the discussion to a future meeting with additional requests for information.

Staff requests City Council/Board of Directors direction on these Alternatives.

SUMMARY
At their July 13, 2015 meeting, the Board of Directors (Board) requested information regarding recycled water availability. The Board also deferred on a decision to serve Sunset Hills Golf Course, in Thousand Oaks, before further considering the quantity of recycled water available, and demands for it within the City.

The City’s Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) produces approximately 9,100 acre feet per year (AFY) of treated effluent, of which 4,700 AFY may be recycled per a State permit, and 100 AFY is currently recycled . The 2008 Recycled Water Master Plan Update (Master Plan) identified demands of 2,900 AFY inside the City/District. Of the 4,700 AFY available, there is 1,700 AFY available at the Board’s discretion beyond that identified in the Master Plan as in-City use. 2,000 AFY of the Master Plan is outside of the first five phases. Staff has discussed potentially serving two farmers within the City (not identified in the Master Plan) and been approached by Camrosa Water district and an agricultural use on Waste Management’s property (outside the City). 85 WATER\RECYCLED WATER\RWA\RWA.SR-FINAL 2015-08-21
Staff recommends serving Sunset Hills Golf Course and three customers along the route outside the City, a demand of 300 AFY. Staff recommends the Board consid er authorizing outside use of approximately 1,700 AFY.
____________________________________
Ronald K. Fuchiwaki, Director
Department of Public Works
Prepared by: Ron Fuchiwaki, Director of Public Works
Joe Deakin, Assistant Director of Public Works
Ernest Wong, Principal Engineer/Waterworks
INDEX Page
Attachment A .................................................................................... 7 Attachment B .................................................................................. 10 Attachment C ................................................................................. 11 Attachment D ................................................................................. 14 86 118 Freeway

1.25 MG TANK
WQCP

EXISTING
PUMP

STATION

UPGRADE
NEW
PUMP

STATION
23 FREEWAY

WEST SIMI VALLEY
WATER RECYCLING PROJECT ¯
FITZGERALD RD.

ROYAL AVE.

MADERA RD.

LOS ANGELES AVE.

ERRINGER RD.

COCHRAN ST.

W. LOS ANGELES AVE.

FIRST ST.

Legend
Existing RWL
Completed
Phase 1 (est compl Dec 2016)
Phase 2 (est compl June 2017)
Phase 3 (est compl Dec 2017)
Phase 4 (est compl June 2019)
Phase 5 (est compl June 2020)
87 WATER\RECYCLED WATER\RWA\RWA – ATTACHMENT A - LIST

WEST SIMI VALLEY WATER RECYCLING PROJECT (WSVWRP)

POTENTIAL RECYCLED WATER CUSTOMERS
(All Phase 1, 2, 4 and 5 customers are in Waterworks District No. 8 service area)

POTENTIAL RECYCLED WATER

CUSTOMERS ADDRESS
PHASE 1
Pre-Con / CEMEX USA (A) 240-300 W Los Angeles Ave.

Ritec (B) 125 W Easy St.

Polytainer 450 W Los Angeles Ave.

IQ MS 120 W Easy St.

Ice-O-Plex 131 W Easy St.

Simi Wash Center 75 W Easy St.

Simi at the Plaza Madera Rd and Cochran St.

Car Wash at Simi at the Plaza Madera Rd and Cochran St.

Industrial Park 40 W Cochran St.

Industrial Park 60 W Cochran St.

Tyler Pacific Three/Simpson Co. 74-90 W Cochran St.

Adventist Media Ctr. 101 W Cochran St.

Industrial Park 110 W Cochran St.

Industrial Park 130 W Cochran St.

Industrial Park 160 W Cochran St.

Industrial Park 170 W Cochran St.

Industrial Park 2655 Westhills Ct.

Specialty Fabrication, Inc. 2674 Westhills Ct.

Industrial Park 2688 Westhills Ct.

Industrial Park 2635 Park Center Dr.

Industrial Park 2655 Park Center Dr.

Industrial Park 2665 Park Center Dr.

Costco W Cochran St.

Chili's Restaurant W Cochran St.

Marie Callendar's Restaurant W Cochran St.

SV BUS CTR OWNERS c/o EMMON West Hills Ct & Cochran
SV BUS CTR OWNERS c/o EMMON West Hills Ct & Cochran
SV BUS CTR OWNERS c/o EMMON Cochran
SV BUS CTR OWNERS c/o EMMON West Hills Ct & Cochran
SV BUS CTR OWNERS c/o EMMON West Hills Ct & Cochran
GI Industries 195 W Los Angeles Ave.

Caltrans 118 Fwy@Madera Rd. (C)
PHASE 2
Madera Road Medians
Commercial / Industrial Park 2301 Madera Rd.

Commercial / Industrial Park 2125-2241 Madera Rd.

Landscaped Welcome Corner Madera Rd. and Los Angeles Ave.

Car Wash Madera Rd. ad Tierra Rejada Rd.

Madera Royale Plaza Madera Rd. n/o Royal Ave.

Centre Court Madera Rd. and Royal Ave.
88 WATER\RECYCLED WATER\RWA\RWA – ATTACHMENT A - LIST

POTENTIAL RECYCLED WATER

CUSTOMERS ADDRESS
Wood Ranch Professional Center 1105-95 Madera Rd.

Simi Youth Baseball Madera Rd.

Westwood Ranch HOA Madera Rd.

Laurelwood HOA 200-220 Country Club Dr.

Villas at Wood Ranch HOA 205-397 Country Club Dr.

Country Villas II HOA 224-392 Country Club Dr.

Sorrento Villas HOA 403-447 Country Club Dr.

Country Villas I HOA 402-462 Country Club Dr.

Wood Ranch Senior Condominiums 453-493 Country Club Dr.

Rancho Corrales HOA 603-695 Country Club Dr.

Village on the Green 600-690 Country Club Dr.

Sinaloa Golf Course 980 Madera Rd.

Wood Ranch Conference Center (D) 222 Country Club Dr.

Wood Ranch Golf Course 301 Wood Ranch Parkway
Rancho Madera Community Park 556 Lake Park Dr.

PHASE 3 (Thousand Oaks)
Calleguas Municipal Water District (C) 2100 E Olsen Rd., Thousand Oaks Ventura County Sheriff (C) 2101 E Olsen Rd., Thousand Oaks Caltrans 23 Fwy@Olsen Rd. (C)
Sunset Hills Golf Course (E) 4155 Erbes Rd, Thousand Oaks PHASE 4
Madera Elementary School 250 Royal Ave.

Sinaloa Middle School 601 Royal Ave.

St. Rose of Lima Church 1325 Royal Ave.

Royal High School 1402 Royal Ave.

Simi Cemetery Royal Ave (end of Thompson Ln.)
Rancho Simi Community Park (E) 1765 Royal Ave.

Lincoln Elementary School 1220 Fourth St.

Lincoln Park 1215 First St.

Assumption Cemetery 1150 Fitzgerald Rd.

Hollow Hills Fundamental School 828 Gibson Ave.

Hillside Middle School 2222 Fitzgerald Rd.

Crestview Elementary School 900 Crosby Ave.

Grace Brethren Elementary Sch (D) 1717 E Arcane St.

PHASE 5
Simi Valley School District Center 875 E Cochran St.

Caltrans 118 Fwy@First St.

Simi Valley Town Center 1555 Simi Town Center Way
Caltrans 118 Fwy@Erringer
89 Attachment B
WATER\RECYCLED WATER\RWA\RWA – ATTACHMENT B - LIST
Current Status of the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Water Project The West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project (WSVWR Project) is proposed to serve customers at the west end of the City. The Project at full build-out will extend east to approximately Sycamore Drive, southwest to Wood Ranch and possibly Sunset Hills Golf Courses, and north to the Simi Valley Town Center. The main water lines or backbone of the system include West Los Angeles Avenue, Easy Street, Madera Road, Royal Avenue, Fitzgerald Road, Cochran Street, and First Street. There are 70 potential customers along these corridors including Sinaloa, Wood Ranch, and Sunset Hills Golf Courses, parks, schools, a cemeter y, the Simi Valley Town Center, and Caltrans. Construction of the project has been divided into five primary phases with total project completion estimated in 2020.

The Phases and construction schedules are described as follows:

Phase 1: Phase 1 would include the extension of the recycled water line along West Los Angeles Avenue/Easy Street to Madera Road (complete). This phase would also branch off the main that currently serves the Landfill to serve the West Cochran Street area from its western terminus to Madera Road. Construction is scheduled for completion by December 2016.

Phase 2: The largest construction phase of the project extends the main recycled water line from Easy Street south along Madera Road to Wood Ranch. In addition to the nearly three miles of pipeline, construction of a 1.25 million gallon storage ta nk and a large pump station improvement are included in this phase. The design of the pipeline and storage tank is in progress. Construction is scheduled for completion by June 2017.

Phase 3: After Phase 2 is constructed, Phase 3, if approved by the Board, will extend from the terminus of Phase 2 further southwesterly along Madera Road into Thousand Oaks along Olsen Road to serve the Sunset Hills Golf Course and others along the route. Construction is scheduled for completion by December 2017.

Phase 4: Dependent on Phase 2, Phase 4 extends east along Royal Avenue, south on Hudspeth Avenue, and further east on Fitzgerald Avenue past Erringer Road to Crestview Elementary School. A cemetery and a number of schools and parks are served in this Phase. Construction is scheduled for completion by June 2019.

Phase 5: Dependent on Phase 1, Phase 5 extends east on Cochran Street from Madera Road to First Street, then north on First Street to serve the Simi Valley Town Center and the freeway interchange at First Street. Construction is scheduled for completion by June 2020.
90 133
•
Legend
Potenti, 1 Usel"$
• 3 -10 AFY
9 10· 100AFY
~ 100-SOOAFY
= AIIemlHve 1
= .... emMi .... ,A
_ .... em-'ive3
• ~500AFY
• sw.oc p Pump SUIIion _ :::: ::: ;
j
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Venrufil County Waterworb o;sttict No.8
City 01 Simi Valley
Reeyded Wlter Mastel" Plan Update
Recy cled Water Alternat ives
KlJ 0587102
April 2008
Figure 7_1
91 POTENTIAL RECYCLED WATER CUSTOMERS
PER 2008 RECYCLED WATER MASTER PLAN

EXCLUDING WSVWRP

POTENTIAL RECYCLED

WATER CUSTOMER ADDRESS
WATER

PURVEYOR
Arroyo School 225 Ulysses St. District No. 8
Arroyo Park 2105 Socrates Ave. District No. 8
Mayfair Park 2550 Caldwell St. Golden State
Park View School 1500 Alexander St. District No. 8
Caltrans - Erringer Rd 118 Freeway and Erringer Rd Golden State Citrus Grove Park 2100 N. Marvel Ct. District No. 8
Enchanted Way Nursery 2655 First St. District No. 8
Alamos Canyon Cemetery Alamos Canyon Rd. District No. 8 Tapo Canyon Park 4800 Bennett Rd. District No. 8
American Wholesale Nursery 5000 Bennett Rd. District No. 8 Frontier Park 2163 Elizondo Ave. District No. 8
Justin School 2245 N. Justin Ave. Golden State
Berylwood Park 1955 Bridget Ave. Golden State
Berylwood School 2300 Heywood St. Golden State
Grace Brethern High School 1350 Cherry Ave. District No. 8 Atherwood School 2350 Greensward St. Golden State
Vista School 2175 Wisteria St. Golden State
Sycamore Dr. Community Center 1692 Sycamore Dr. Golden State Sycamore Park 855 N. Planetree Ave. Golden State
Caltrans - Sycamore Dr. 118 Freeway and Sycamore Dr. Golden State Sycamore School 2100 Ravanna St. Golden State
Simi School 2956 School St. Golden State
Mountain View School 2925 Fletcher St. Golden State
Vista del Arroyo Park 3451 Chicory Leaf Pl. Golden State Apollo High School 3150 School St. Golden State
Gateway Park Royal Ave. and Sequoia Ave. Golden State
Santa Susana High School 3570 E. Cochran St. Golden State Caltrans - Sequoia Ave. 118 Freeway and Sequoia Ave. Golden State Rancho Tapo Community Center 3700 Avenida Simi District No. 8 Garden Grove School 2250 N. Tracy Ave. Golden State
Sequoia Park 2150 N. Tracy Ave. Golden State
Darrah Park Royal Ave. and Darrah Ave. Golden State
Brandeis Bardin Institute 1101 . Pepper Tree Ln. Golden State Caltrans - Tapo Canyon Rd. 118 Freeway and Tapo Canyon Rd. Golden State Simi Valley Civic Center 2929 Tapo Canyon Rd. District No. 8 Township School 4101 Township Ave. District No. 8
Houghton-Schreiber Park 4333 Township Ave. District No. 8 Valley View Middle School 3347 Tapo St. District No. 8
92 Caltrans - Tapo St. 118 Freeway and Tapo St. District No. 8 Santa Susana School 4300 Apricot Rd. District No. 8
Caltrans - Fig St. 118 Freeway and Fig St. District No. 8 Belwood School - Private Kadota Ave./Big Springs Ave. District No. 8 Big Springs School 3401 Big Springs Ave. District No. 8 Rancho Santa Susana Park 5005 Los Angeles Ave. District No. 8 Caltrans - Stearns St. 118 Freeway and Stearns St. District No. 8 Simi Hills Golf Course 5031 Alamo St. District No. 8
Simi Valley High School 5400 Cochran St. Golden State
Katherine School 5455 Katherine St. District No. 8
Arroyo Stow Park 1700 Stow St. District No. 8
Verde Park 6045 E. Nelda St. District No. 8
Knolls Park 1300 W. Katherine Rd. District No. 8
White Oak School 2201 Alscot Ave. District No. 8
Santa Susana Park 6503 Katherine Rd. District No. 8
Caltrans - Kuehner Dr. 118 Freeway and Kuehner Dr. District No. 8 Foothill Park 1850 Ardenwood Ave. Golden State
Atherwood Park 2271 Alamo St. Golden State
Tierra Rejada Park 365 Tierra Rejada Rd. District No. 8 P.W. Gillibrand 5810 Bennett Rd. District No. 8
Arroyo Simi Equestrian Center 3495 Chicory Leaf Pl. Golden State Challenger Park 298 First St. / Bluegrass St. District No. 8 Chumash Park Flanagan Dr. and Broken Arrow St. District No. 8 Coyote Hills Park Valley Gate Rd. / Granite St. District No. 8 Stargaze Park 355 Stargaze Ave. District No. 8
Simi Hills Neighborhood Park 5031 Alamo St. / Texas Ave. District No. 8 Sycamore Canyon Park 502 S. Martha Morrison Dr. District No. 8 Happy Camp Canyon Park Happy Camp Canyon Rd. District No. 8 Lost Canyons Golf Club 3301 Lost Canyons Dr. District No. 8 Runkle Canyon Country Club south end of Sequoia Ave. Golden State Reagan Library 40 Presidential Dr. District No. 8
Mt. Sinai Memorial Park 6150 Mt. Sinai Dr. District No. 8 Mt. Sinai Memorial Park Expansion 6150 Mt. Sinai Dr. District No. 8 Oak Park Los Angeles Ave. / Quimesa Dr. District No. 8
Knolls School 6334 Katherine Rd. Golden State
Caltrans - Yosemite Ave. 118 Freeway and Yosemite Ave. District No. 8 Adult Education Center 3192 E. Los Angeles Ave. Golden State Wood Ranch School 455 Circle Knoll Dr. District No. 8
Big Sky Park Lost Canyons Dr. District No. 8
Simi Valley Dog Park Lost Canyons Dr. District No. 8
Corriganville Park 700 Smith Rd. District No. 8
Marr Ranch Park Yosemite Ave. / Presidio Dr. District No. 8 Old Windmill Park 201 Long Canyon Rd. District No. 8
Runkle Canyon Park south end of Sequoia Ave. Golden State 93 WASTE MANAGEMENT
August 27, 2015
Mr. Eric Levitt
City Manager
..

City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Re: Recycled Water Discussion
Dear Mr. Levitt,
G.I. INDUSTRIES
195 W. Los Angeles Avenue
Simi Valley, CA 93065
(805) 522-9400/(818) 782-2474
(805) 581-5407 Fax
For the past 40 years, Waste Management (WM) has a long history in Simi Valley and has been a stellar community partner in providing exceptional service, but more importantly looking toward the future of the City of Simi Valley's (City) economic development goals.

In 2004, WM purchased 2,800 acres from Unocal and over the course of the past 12 years, we have dedicated the land to open space, ranching, and filming. In 2011, the landfill expansion was approved and provided many benefits to the community including more than S1M annually in value added services that customers and the City appreciate, including preserving more than 1,200 acres dedicated to open space and wildlife habitat conservation.

In addition, after the expansion and open space preservation efforts, WM has approximately 1,000 acres for sale. We are sensitive to the land use on this property and believe a good fit is the agriculture industry, specifically the development of an avocado ranch.

Simpatica, the largest avocado grower in the United States, is that company. We have been working closely with Simpatica on a purchase option agreement for the past 12 months, and presently in escrow.

Currently, WM is the City's only recycled water customer, which is in the unincorporated area of Ventura County. This project is conveniently located adjacent to WM's property and Simpatica's usage would expand recycled water in the same area.

Because this project is dependent on water availability, we are asking the city to support the use of recycled water for the avocado ranch development.

From everyday collection to environmental protection, Think Green ~H Think Waste Management . 94 Continued

Page 2 ends

There are many advantages of supporting this discussion and include the following:
• Redirecting the recycled water currently flowing at the rate of 9 mgd into the Arroyo Simi.
• The City would generate significant revenue from the sales of recycled water to a reliable local customer expanding the volumes currently sold to WM. • From a land use perspective, the avocado ranch development on this property is very compatible as an aesthetic buffer between the landfill, the Big Sky residential community, and Police Shooting Range Facility.
• Simpatica expects to be responsible for the infrastructure necessary to deliver recycled water to the property. Perhaps the negotiated agriculture water rate can help offset this capital cost.
• Simpatica utilizing 1,000 acres of WM's property as an economic asset would help offset the tremendous cost associated with WM's acquisition of the 2,BOO acres of Unocal property.
• Simpatica would utilize 1 ,2BO-acre feet initially beginning in 2017 and ramp up to 3,200- acre feet per year by 2022 when the avocado ranch is fully developed and producing.

Waste Management is therefore asking the City to consider and discuss Simpactica's needs of a reasonable agriculture recycled water rate for the proposed volumes requested as outlined in the letter to Waste Management dated August 26, 2015. The feasibility of developing 1,000 acres into an avocado production depends upon a reduced agricultural rate.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Michael E. Smith
Director of Operations
95 SIMPATICA
08/26/15
RE: Waste Management Avocado Project
Dear Mike and John,
Simpatica is the largest grower of avocados in the United States with state of the art farming operations, an impeccable safety record, industry leading employee satisfaction, and a strong track record of working closely with local municipalities. With a history of farming avocados in Ventura County that stretches back four generations, we have enjoyed decades of mutually beneficial satisfaction within the communities when we farm.

We believe that we can redevelop Waste Management's buffer land, which is currently cattle grazing farmland, into the country's premium avocado grove. Some of the benefits of our proposed project are as follows:
• Job Creation - we will create at least 100 jobs that previously did not exist. • Ascetic Benefits - we will cover the hillside with beautiful trees that will be visible both from the 118 and the adjacent houses. • Fire Break - we will create an outside perimeter with an irrigated moist surface to prevent fire. We will also develop a substantial reservoir which the Fire Department can utilize for fighting fires. • Emphasis on Organic and Sustainable Farming Practices • Local Sourcing of Equipment and Materials - with over $30 MM in estimated project costs, we will purchase from Simi Valley vendors whenever reasonably feasible.
• Education - we will offer 4H and Forage education programs on farming and sustainability for children and you ng adults. • Mulch - we will require 60,000 tons of mulch per year from Waste Management. This mulch is currently being shipped offsite, congesting freeways and at a significant cost to Waste Management. • Water Conservation - we will employ industry leading conservation techniques with the intention of making this farm the model for water conservation. With the use of the following techniques, we believe we can cut water use 25 - 30%:
o Planting upon raised beds to isolate moisture
o Integration of tensiometers to monitor soil moisture
o Initial use of drip irrigation
o Development of a drainage system to capture runoff and rainfall into a reservoir to be reused At this point, the only major obstacle preventing us from proceeding with this development is the sufficient availability of water at a cost effective rate. We are calculating our water needs as follows:

Year Acre Feet
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022+
1,280
1,707
2,133
2,560
2,987
3,200
We appreciate your assistance in procuring a
long-term contract of recycled water at an affordable rate, which will allow us to make the Simi Valley Ranch the best in America.

Sincerely,
Jamie Johnson and Bryan Berkett
Co-Founders
6230 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. SUITE 2080
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90048
T.310.286.22 36
96 ~
r!
~
~
~
f
i
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
-------
------- 1

WASTE MANAGEMENT OWNED LAND PARCEL BOUNDARY

EXISTING SITE PROPERTY BOUNDARY

PROPOSED SITE PROPERTY BOUNDARY

PERMITTED WASTE BOUNDARY

EXISTING LANDFILL

NEW FACILITIES

PROPOSED WASTE EXPANSION AREA

BUFFER AREA

PRESERVE AREA
Geos~tec'>
ooDsultants

PROPOSED LANDFILL PROJECT

SIMI VALLEY LANDFILL AND RECYCLING CENTER

SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
~ ~ DATE: MARCH 2011 FILE NO.
1500'
! 1150F074
z~ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ -l~PR~O~J~E~CT~N~O~.~H~L~1~15~O~-~O~1 ____ ~F~IG~U~RE~N~O~. __ _l __________ ~ 97 CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
Sept
ember 19, 2016
TO: B
oard of Directors, Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 FR
OM: Department of Public Works
SUBJ
ECT: AUTHORIZATION TO EXE CUTE A LETTER OF INT ENT WITH

SIMPATICA FARMLAND ACQUISITIONS, LLC FOR RECYCLED

WATER DELIVERY

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It
is recommended that the Board of Directors authorize the District Manager to send a Letter of Intent (Attachment B , page 5 ) to Simpatica Farmland Acquisitions, LLC (Simpatica), regarding the potential sale of recycled water to an orchard development.

DISTRICT MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Th
e District Manager recommends approval of the Letter of Intent.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
On
March 21, 2016, the Board of Directors authorized the District Manager to enter into discussions with Simpatica to develop and outline a conceptual plan to provide recycled water for an avocado orchard east of the Simi Valley Landfill.

Staff and Simpatica have met on several occasions resultin g in a formal request from Simpatica (Attachment A, page 4) and a draft Letter of Intent (Attachment B, page 5), including conceptual terms to supply recycled water, which will be executed by both parties.

FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
Th
e proposed development is 1,000 acres of property to be planted with orchards, primarily avocados, located on Waste Management’s property adjacent to, and east of, the Simi Valley Landfill and farmed by Simpatica. District staff has met with Simpati ca’s principals, along with Waste Management staff, and developed a concept for the District to provide recycled water to the landfill property line, and Simpatica/Waste Management would develop the conveyance and storage infrastructure to deliver the water to the orchard.

AGENDA ITEM NO.

8A
EXHIBIT 5
98 WATER\RECYCLED WATER\SIMPATICA\SIMPATICA LOI-final.SR Other significant items include:
• The s
ale of recycled water is expected to commence i n 2019, with at least 600 acre-feet per year (260,000 billing units or BU) delivered/used; • The term of the ultimate agreement would be 30 years; • The price for recycled water would be tiered to maintain the current $2.60/BU for the first 300 acre-feet (equivalent to 130,680 BU) used and would be discounted for greater use with the expected equivalent price of $600/acre- foot at the maximum limit available to reflect the efficiencies gained in recycled water with greater volumes;
• The price would be adjusted for CPI increases starting in 2018; • The District would assure water quality and would assure flow (potable water back - up supplies); and
• The limit on water deliveries/use would be 2,600 AFY (1.13 million BU).

A Lett
er of Intent was drafted by staff . It cites the conceptual elements of the agreement that both parties would attempt to finalize. The parties would agree that there remains no obligation upon either party at this point and that the letter is non- binding upon either party. The final agreement, if reached, would be voluntary and negotiated as discussed between the District and Simpatica, and subject to the Board of Directors approval. Furth ermore, the financial aspects of the proposal are conceived and would be constructed to avoid any subsidy from the revenues for services from other enterprise sources or other recycled water users to fund this operation. The revenue projections based upon the costs to the District for capital development, including purchasing the assets currently owned by Calleguas Municipal Water District, are favorable. The expected payback on the capital based upon projected revenue would occur before the assets are due for replacement.

The
following alternatives are available to the Board of Directors:

1. Author
ize the District Manager to send a Letter of Intent (Attachment B , page 5) to Simpatica Farmland Acquisitions, LLC, regarding the potential sale of recycled water to an orchard development. The Letter of Intent will not be in effect until Simpatica signs the LOI as presented or with minor modifications.

2. Prov
ide staff with other direction.

Staff
recommends Alternative No. 1.

SUGGESTED BOARD MOTION
I mo
ve to a uthorize the District Manager to send a Letter of Intent to Simpatica Farmland Acquisitions, LLC, regarding the potential sale of recycled water to an orchard development.
99 WATER\RECYCLED WATER\SIMPATICA\SIMPATICA LOI-final.SR

SUMMARY
On Marc
h 21, 2016, the Board of Directors authorized the District Manager to enter into discussions with Simpatica Farmland Acquisitions, LLC (Simpatica) to develop and outline a conceptual plan to provide recycled water for an avocado orchard east of the Simi Valley Landfill. Staff and Simpatica have met on several occasions resulting in a formal request from Simpatica (Attachment A, page 4) and a draft Letter of Intent (Attachment B, page 5) , including terms to supply recycled water, to be executed by both parties. The proposed development is 1,000 acres of property to be planted with orchards, primarily avocados, located on Waste Management’s property adjacent to , and east of, the Simi Valley Landfill and farmed by Simpatica. A Letter of Intent was drafted by staff and reviewed by Sim patica. It cites the conceptual elements of the agreement that both parties would attempt to finalize. Staff recommends the Board of Directors a uthorize the District Manager to send a Letter of Intent to Simpatica Farmland Acquisitions, LLC, regarding the potential sale of recycled water to an orchard development.
___________
_________________________
Ronald K. Fuchiwaki, Director
Department of Public Works
Prepare
d by: Joe Deakin, Assistant Director of Public Works
INDEX Page
Attach
ment A - Letter from Simpatica.............................................. 4 Attachment B - Draft Letter of Intent ............................................... 5 100
2435 EAST VENTURA BOULEVARD, SUITE F
CAMARILLO, CALIFORNIA 93010
T. 310.286.2236
July 18, 2016
Eric Levitt, City Manager
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
RE: Simi Water Reclaimed Water Contract
Dear Mr. Levitt:

During our previous meetings, we discussed the following terms, which should be included in a contract to purchase reclaimed water from the City of Simi Valley.  Rate - $600 per acre foot of water used
 Annual CPI Rate Increases
 30 Year Contract Term
 Maximum Annual Water Usage
2018 – 1,280
2019 – 1,707
2020 – 2,133
2021 – 2,560
2022 – 2,987
2022+ - 3,200
 Maximum Allowable Chlorides – 150 PPM
 Maximum Allowable Total Dissolved Solids – 850 PPM
 Estimated Delivery Schedule During Peak Periods – see attached chart  Reservoir – Simpatica will require sufficient onsite storage for one day’s supply  City Requirements – fund all costs and infrastructure to bring pressurized water to property line  Simpatica Requirements – fund all costs and infrastructure once water crosses the property line We look forward to your feedback.

Respectfully,
Jamie Johnson Bryan Berkett
Co-Founder Co-Founder

ATTACHMENT A
101
LOIrev-final
September 20, 2016
Simpatica Farmland Acquisitions, LLC
2435 East Ventura Blvd., Suite F
Camarillo, CA 93010
SUBJECT: SIMPATICA NON-BINDING LETTER OF INTENT (NON -BINDING LOI) Dear Mr. Berkett and Mr. Johnson:

This letter is intended to memorialize the intention by Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 (District) and Simpatica Farmland Acquisitions, LLC to negotiate to develop acceptable terms for the potential sale and use of recycled water.

Simpatica Farmland Acquisitions initiated discussions with District staff expressing an interest in using recycled water to irrigate proposed orchards on land currently owned by Waste Management, Inc. Discussions between Simpatica Farmland Acquisitions and District staff have established a conceptual proposal based upon the following major elements:

Definitions:
 HCF: Hundred Cubic Feet, a standard measure of water sold, also called a “billing unit” (BU)
 AF: Acre Feet, the volume of 43,560 cubic feet
 AFY: Acre Feet per Year
 CPI-U: Consumer Price Index – Utilities
Obligations of the Waterworks District:
 Base rates on two tier system. The tier rate system would reflect that with recycled water the cost of delivery goes down with the greater volume purchased. The initial charge anticipated is$2.60 per HCF, for the first 300 acre-feet, and $1.22 per HCF for any additional water purchased in a calendar year. The final rate for this project and proposed rate for other recycled users would be determined prior to a final agreement.  Adjust the commodity charge annually, on January 1 proportional to the CPI-U for the Los Angeles region commencing in calendar year 2018
 Provide water quality assurances:
o Chloride concentration: Target 150 milligrams per liter or less o Maximum Total Dissolved Solids concentration: 850 milligrams per liter  Construct and fund all costs of infrastructure to deliver pressurized recycled water to Waste Management, Inc. property line near the existing recycled water meter  Provide potable water back-up supply for recycled water service outages

ATTACHMENT B
102
LOIrev-final
Simpatica Farmland Acquisitions, LLC
September 20, 2016

Page 2 ends

Obligations of Simpatica:
 Purchase a minimum of 600 AFY commencing in calendar year 2019  Develop a Use Site Report and attain regulatory approval  Construct, operate, and maintain all on-site infrastructure to convey the recycled water from the point of delivery to the use area(s) and to store no less than the maximum- day demand onsite with a high-water elevation at or below 1,030 feet above mean sea level
Mutual obligations:
 30-year term
 Annual expected volumes for planning purposes:
o 2019: 1,280 AFY
o 2020: 1,707 AFY
o 2021: 2,133 AFY
o 2022: 2,560 AFY
o 2023 and beyond: 2,600 AFY
o
A maximum of 2,600 AFY will be used to ensure adequate water quantities for other eligible users.
 The District’s intent is to work with Simpatica to establish terms that are acceptable to both the District and Simpatica. This letter is not an agreement and does not obligate either party to enter into an agreement but instead is a statement of intent to continue to move forward with negotiations. No specific actions or commitments are required by either party as a result of entering into this Non-Binding LOI. Any agreement to supply recycled water, if reached, will be memorialized in a separate, signed agreement. The term of this Non-Binding LOI begins as of the date executed by the last signatory below, and continues for one (1) year.

This Non-Binding LOI shall be interpreted under California law, and venue lies in Ventura County. In case of dispute, each party shall bear its own fees and costs (including attorneys’ fees).

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 Simpatica Farmland Acquisitions, LLC Dated: Dated:
103

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
Oct
ober 16, 2017
TO: City
Council
Board of Directors, Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 FRO
M: Department of Public Works
SUBJE
CT: CONSIDERATION AND DIRECTION REGARDING THE FUTURE OF THE REUSE OF THE CITY’S TREATED EFFLUENT INCLUDING THE

CITY'S RECYCLED WATER PLAN

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It i
s recommended that the City Council/ Board of Directors consider and provide direction to staff regarding the future of the City's recycled water program.

CITY/DISTRICT MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The C
ity created a Recycled Water Program more than 10 years ago. This program has proceeded slowly.

Based
on the lack of immediate users, the large capital outlay required to continue to extend the system and the emergence of other benefits of other uses of the City’s treated effluent, the City Manager recommends that the City Council direct staff to beg in to explore the alternatives and come back to City Council by the end of March with recommended alternatives on how to best use the treated effluent.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
Ove
r the years, the City Council/Board of Directors (Council/Board) ha s considered and discussed several aspects of the City's R ecycled Water Program.

The current program includes the implementation of the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project (WSVWRP) serving the west end of the City, and discussions with an agricultural (avocado) company (Simpatica) to provide recycled water to a potential large avocado grove adjacent to the landfill . There al so have been discussions with "downstream" parties interested in ensuring that effluent flow from the Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) continue s to replenish groundwater basins at the eastern end of the County.

FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
For t
he most part, progress on the City's R ecycled Water Program has stalled due to the lack of potential major high volume recycled water customers. It is critical and prudent to ensure customers will use recycled water should the water be available to AGENDA ITEM NO.

8E
EXHIBIT 6
104
UTILITIES 2017/W1718.SR.JH
their properties. It is also important that large water users are committed to using recycled water because large recycled water users are necessary for the financial viability of the program. For example, the WSVWRP should not be extended until large water users, such as golf courses, parks, schools, commercial properties, etc. , agree to connect to the system. Without such commitments , the City may be expending up to $25 million to expand the system without assurances that there would be revenue to offset the construction and operating costs.

WSVWRP
The
WSVWRP was developed to supply recycled water from the City's WQCP to customers at the west end of Simi Valley. The main recycled water line runs along West Los Angeles Avenue from the WQCP and Easy Street to Madera Road. The main line is intended to go down Madera Road into Thousand Oaks to serve golf courses and parks. Branches of the main line are also proposed to go east on Royal Avenue and Fitzgerald Road to serve schools and parks. Finally , a pipeline is planned to go east on Cochran Street and ultimately up to the Simi Valley Town Center.

As i
ndicated, it is necessary to obtain commitments from large water users (golf courses, parks, schools, etc. ) to use recycled water before the City constructs these planned main lines. The main concern for these customers is the cost to modify and install an irrigation system for recycled water, maintaining separate systems between potable and recycled water. For large water users , these costs are substantial , potentially ranging from $500,000 to $1 million.

For ex
ample, staff held several meetings and discussions with executives of A merican Golf Company, the owner/operator of Wood Ranch and Sunset Hills Country Clubs .

American Golf was clearly concerned about the capital cost to convert their golf courses to become compatible with using recycled water for irrigation . Ultimately, the executive representing American Golf was not able to commit to making the capital investment, despite the District offering assistance in financing the capital investment that American Golf would have to make on their properties.

Sta
ff has indicated in previous reports to the Council/Board that securing a major user such as Wood Ranch Golf Course as a long -term customer is essential to making the WSVWRP financially viable. Without a commitment of long -term use by an entity such as golf courses, the WSVWRP capital investment would likely require a subsidy from the City’s General Fund or Water District if it became more financially stable.

In addit
ion, the School District and Park District have also expressed the same concern about the initial capital costs to convert their irrigation systems for recycled water.

Without commitments from all of these large water users, it is not financially prudent to move forward with construction of the WSVWRP.

The
Waterworks District received a Proposition 84 ( Water Bond) grant of $3 million to build the WSVWRP.
105
UTILITIES 2017/W1718.SR.JH
Simpatica Avocado Grove
Over
the last two years, staff has been in discussions with an avocado company, Simpatica, about supplying recycled water to a potential large grove of avocados trees adjacent to the landfill. In September 2016, the Council/Board authorized staff to execute a Letter of Intent (LOI) with Simpatica to develop a conceptual outline to supply recycled water. However, subsequent to the execution of the Letter of Intent by both parties, Simpatica continued to evaluate all the aspects of their proposed avocado ranch development, and staff has been informed that they have chosen not to move forward with their plans . For the time being , no direct communications with Simpatica have occurred for over eight months. The Letter of Intent with Simpatica has a term of one year from the last signature and will expire in October 2017 and is not assumable by another entity.

Demand for Recycled Water Downstream of Simi Valley
In the pas
t few years, staff has been contacted by interested parties downstream and west of Simi Valley about using recycled water (effluent) from the WQCP to continue to replenish the groundwater basin at the east end of Ventura County. These parties include the Camrosa Water District, the County Waterworks Districts, the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA), and the North Pleasant Valley Desalter Project. They have offered to purchase recycled water west along the Arroyo Simi/Arroyo Santa Rosa corridor (downstream). Unlike the WSVWRP, where the City would need to make a substantial capital investment at risk, these offers and proposals could be pursued without capital investment by the City.

The Calleguas Municipal Water District (Calleguas) and FCGMA have partnered to develop a study to find alternative water resources for the Las Posas Basins located downstream of Simi Valley. The study, “Las Posas Replacement Water Study (Draft)” identifies the recycled water from Simi Valley as a favorable alternative. The study considers the methods for delivering the water from Simi Valley to the place where it is needed and concludes that an 8.6 mile pipeline and pump station is required. In addition to the capital investment (by the proposed users presumably), the study uses the price for recycled water from t he LOI to Simpatica: $1,133/acre-foot for the first 300 acre feet purchased in a year, then $532/acre- foot for any additional amount purchased within the same year.

The pros and cons of this alternative use of recycled water are:

Pros Cons
• Can be initiated immediately
• No or low capital cost to City/District
• Uses/demands are existing
• Could be viewed as a more regional
and less as a local benefit of the
resource
• May require long term commitment
to achieve best price
106
UTILITIES 2017/W1718.SR.JH
Other Potential Uses of Recycled Water
Ther
e is a growing trend in recycled water projects to return recycled water to the potable (drinking) water supply. Termed “Potable Reuse ,” the concept invol ves fully treating wastewater to remove harmful organics and concentrated minerals to restore it to potable water quality and blend it into a potable water supply/distribution system.

The attached brochure (Attachment A, page 6) entitled “Direct Potable Reuse, A Key Part of California’s Water Supply Solution” by Water Reuse of California provides an overview of the current concept and refers to projects that rely on this resource. Two agencies locally are considering such projects: the City of Ventura and the joint venture of Triunfo Sanitation District and Las Virgenes Municipal Water District. For Simi Valley customers, the concept of potable reuse is the most practical means for reusing effluent water within the community. Local water storage resources, including the Simi Valley Basin and Calleguas’ Lake Bard, could be ideally situated to make a potable reuse system feasible and practical. The feasibility, however, would need to be considered more specifically, and a thorough review of benefits and costs, along with consideration of possible impediments, needs to be analyzed.

The pros and cons of this alternative use of recycled water are:

Pros Cons
• Used within the City
• May satisfy some effluent discharge
load reduction requirements
• Looks financially favorable (offsets
cost of imported water)
• Develops a secondary, local
source of water; adds security
• High cost to develop
• 5 years to develop/build projects
• Needs the Salinity Management
Pipeline to be feasible
The f
ollowing alternatives are available for the Council/Board’s consideration:

1. Suspe
nd work on the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project (WSVWRP);

2. Suspe
nd negotiations with Simpatica;

3. Auth
orize staff to negotiate with the potential downstream consumers to develop a proposed price and deal points for selling recycled water;

4. Dir
ect staff to report back about other potential uses of recycled water , such as water reuse;

5. Suspe
nd all work on recycled water and continue with the status quo;

6. Prov
ide other direction to staff.

Staff rec
ommends Alternative Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4.
107
UTILITIES 2017/W1718.SR.JH

SUGGESTED COUNCIL/BOARD MOTION
I mov
e to approve staff's recommendation to suspend work on the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project , su spend negotiations with Simpatica, a uthorize staff to negotiate with the potential downstream consumers to develop a proposed price and deal points for selling recycled water, and direct staff to report back about other potential uses of recycled water such as water reuse.

SUMMARY
Over
the years, the City Council/Board of Directors (Council/Board) has considered and discussed several aspects of the City's R ecycled Water Program. The current program includes the implementation of the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project (WSVWRP) serv ing the west end of the City, discussions with an avocado company (Simpatica) to provide recycled water to a potential large avocado grove adjacent to the landfill, and discussions with "dow nstream" parties interested in ensuring that effluent flow from th e Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) continues to replenish groundwater basins at the eastern end of the County. For the mos t part, progress on the City's Recycled Water Program has stalled due to the lack of potential customers. It is critical and prudent to ensure customers will use recycled water should the water be available to their properties. It is also important that large water users are committed to using recycled water because large recycled water users are necessary for the financial viability of the program. As outlined in this report, staff is recommending to suspend work on the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project , su spend negotiations with Simpatica, a uthorize staff to negotiate with the potential downstream consumers to develop a proposed price and deal points for selling recycled water, and direct staff to report back about other potential uses of recycled water. _________
___________________________
Ronald K. Fuchiwaki, Director
Department of Public Works
Prepar
ed by: Joe Deakin, Assistant Director of Public Works
INDEX Page
Attac
hment A ................................................... 6 108
The national WateReuse Research
Foundation and WateReuse California
have launched the California Direct
Potable Reuse (DPR) Initiative to
establish DPR as a new water supply
option that is both sustainable and
protective of public
health. DPR
projects treat wastewater, including
sewer water, that has been cleaned for
return to the environment and actually
further clean or purify it to meet all
drinking water standards. This purified
water will be regulated by state water
quality and health officials and
implemented by water utilities in a
safe, cost-effective and environmentally
responsible manner. Scientifically
proven advances in water purification
technologies allow communities to
reuse water for many different purposes
depending on the use for the water.

This includes purifying water to dis-
tilled quality for industrial process use,
as well as purifying water for drinking.

The California DPR Initiative was
undertaken in 2012 as a means of
establishing DPR as a water supply
option that can be implemented by
water utilities. The DPR Initiative’s
primary objective has been to address
the regulatory, scientific, technical, and
attitudinal issues surrounding DPR
projects by late 2016. This is being
accomplished through funding inde-
pendent and rigorous scientific research
and communicating the research find-
ings and data through public outreach
and awareness programs.

The WateReuse Research Foundation
initiated 26 independent DPR-related
research projects in 2014 (or before),
totaling over $11.5 million to evaluate
and demonstrate the feasibility of DPR
opportunities. The research revolves
around developing a robust monitor-
ing and redundant water purification
system. The SB 918 Expert Panel must
provide a report to the Legislature
about feasibility of developing DPR
regulation by December 2016.

Winter 2015 – California Legislative Update
What is DPR?
(Direct Potable Reuse)
DPR is the introduction of highly
purified recycled water directly
into the raw water supply imme-
diately upstream of a water treat-
ment plant, or into the distribution
system downstream of a water
treatment plant. To date, proposals
have been to introduce DPR water
into a water treatment plant intake
rather than into the distribution
system. While identical in many
aspects to indirect potable reuse
(IPR) with highly purified recycled
water, DPR eliminates the need
to pass purified water through an
environmental buffer—such as a
groundwater aquifer or a reservoir.

The direct conveyance of purified
recycled water to the drinking
water system is the main charac-
teristic distinguishing it from the
indirect path of IPR.

DPR Initiative — Part of the Solution to
California’s Water Supply Challenges
Direct Potable Reuse
A Key Part of California’s Water Supply Solution
“California needs
more high quality
water and recycling
is key to getting there.”
— Governor Jerry Brown
At locations like Orange County W ater District (above) and West Basin Municipal W ater District, indirect potable reuse plants are operating and visitors can taste the highly purified water.

ATTACHMENT A
109
Recycled water is water that is used
more than one time before it passes
back into the natural water cycle. It is
wastewater, including sewage, which has
been treated or purified to a level that
allows for reuse for beneficial purposes.

Potable Reuse — Direct and Indirect
Potable reuse refers to reused water
that meets all federal and state drink-
ing water standards and is safe for
human consumption. Potable reuse
may be characterized as either indirect
potable reuse (IPR) or direct potable
reuse (DPR). In IPR, wastewater that
has been highly purified is introduced
into an environmental buffer for a
specified period of time before being
withdrawn for potable purposes. The
environmental buffer may be a ground-
water aquifer or a surface water reser-
voir. The purpose of the environmental
buffer is to provide an additional barrier
for the protection of public health.

In DPR, highly purified recycled water
is introduced with or without the use
of an engineered buffer into the raw
water supply feeding a water treatment
plant, or into the distribution system
downstream of a water treatment
plant. To date, proposals have been
to introduce DPR water into a water
treatment plan intake rather than into
the distribution system.

The way in which potable reused water
is delivered determines whether it is
called indirect potable reuse or direct
potable reuse.

Water reuse, including potable reuse,
happens naturally all over the planet.

Water reuse hap-
pens daily on rivers
and other water
bodies everywhere.

If you live in a
community down-
stream of another,
chances are you are
reusing its water and likewise com-
munities downstream of you are most
likely reusing your water. This has been
called “de facto” or unacknowledged/
unplanned potable reuse.

The amount of water on the planet
does not change, so through nature all
water has been used and reused since
the beginning of time. Using advanced
technology to purify recycled water
merely speeds up a natural process. In
fact, potable reuse provides a needed
water supply that is of higher quality
than what occurs naturally.

Water Reuse Happens Naturally
Multiple Benefits
of Potable Reuse
California’s growing population
and chronic water shortages
continue to stretch the limits of
our state’s water supplies. But each
California community is different
and has its own unique reason
to develop new water supplies,
including potable reuse. Here are
just a few:

Safe, reliable water supply
Potable reuse uses proven tech-
nology to purify recycled water
to provide a safe water source.

Multiple treatment barriers
separate pollutants from water.

The purification process produces
water that is cleaner than most
bottled water.

Sustainable water supply option
Potable reuse provides a sustain-
able and cost-competitive water
supply option that is less energy
intensive than many alternative
options.

Environmental benefits
Potable reuse allows us to leave
more water in rivers, lakes and
streams for the fish, plants and
wildlife, while reducing discharges
to these water bodies and the
ocean.

Drought proof
Potable reuse is a drought proof
water supply. It can help ensure
safe, sustainable water now and
into the future.

Responsive to climate change
Potable reuse is part of a
diversified water portfolio and
is independent of climate or
weather.
2 Understanding and addressing
community and stakeholder concerns
can be a significant challenge toward
fostering acceptance for potable reuse
projects in a community. Research
activities have included gauging a
general understanding of perceptions
of recycled water use, identifying
primary concerns, and developing
educational and communication tools
that can provide greater assurance,
awareness and education.

Research in this area includes various
assessments; in-depth interviews, focus
groups, surveying, and communication
research (message testing and
evaluation) with a focus on fostering
awareness, education and acceptance by:
• Identifying and clarifying health and
safety concer
ns
• Identifying and addressing concer
ns
about reliability and the ability to
stop production
•
Developing a public outreac
h frame-
work and communication tools that
address concerns in layperson terms
and in ways that can be adapted by
utilities for a variety of community
audiences.

Building Trust is Key to Public Acceptance
110
3 Advanced Purified Water is on the Rise
Using purified water for drinking is
not new. In California, advanced water
purification projects are currently
operating throughout the state. These
projects include:

Orange County Water District,
Groundwater Replenishment System
— Operational since January 2008,
this state-of-the-art water purification
project can produce up to 70 million
gallons of high-quality water every day.

The agency has been providing purified
recycled water for a seawater intrusion
barrier since the mid-1970s.

West Basin Municipal Water
District, Edward C. Little Water
Recycling Facility — Operating since
1995, the facility supplies 16.5 million
gallons a day and produces five dif-
ferent qualities of customer-desired,
“designer” water that meet the unique
needs of the municipal, commercial
and industrial customers.

Santa Clara Valley Water District,
Silicon Valley Advanced Water
Purification Center — Began deliv-
eries of advanced purified water for
non-potable uses in 2014. The District
also began conducting a potable reuse
demonstration and piloting effort in
September 2014 that is demonstrating
highly purified water that can be used
for various purposes, including expand-
ing future drinking water supplies.

City of San Diego — The city began
operating a one million gallon a day
Advanced Water Purification Facility
(AWPF) in 2011. The project success-
fully evaluated how purified water
could be blended with imported and
local water supplies in San Vicente
Reservoir before going to a drinking
water treatment plant. The AWPF
is open for tours and is testing
additional equipment for direct
potable reuse research.

Advanced purified water has also been
used since the early 2000s for the sea-
water barriers in Southern California
(Dominguez Gap Barrier and the Los
Alamitos Barrier).

In other states, indirect potable reuse
has been in place since the 1970s.

And communities in Texas and New
Mexico are now implementing direct
potable reuse projects.

This new path forward is very timely
given the decline in traditional water
supply sources along with growing
demand and the uncertainty of climate
change.

The California DPR Initiative
will provide information for
regulators, utilities, and
communities as they consider the
implementation of potable reuse
in the State of California.

For communities that have limited
or no groundwater basins or limited
reservoir augmentation options, DPR
may be an additional approach to
large-scale recycled water use. Other
factors include:
•
Technologies to purify wastewater
ar
e well established and proven
through existing potable reuse
projects;
•
DPR may offer a cost-effectiv
e
approach to diversifying a water
portfolio;
•
DPR may require less energ
y than
other alternatives; and
• DPR avoids potential water quality
issues associated with groundwater
and surface water sour
ces.

DPR would provide communities with
another viable water supply alternative
to increase water supply reliability,
diversify water portfolios, and provide
maximum flexibility in managing water
supply choices.

Legislative Action
Another key driver for DPR success
is legislative action. The State of
California’s Recycled Water Policy
established aggressive goals to increase
recycled water production in order
DPR’s Potential
for a Sustainable,
Cost-Effective
Water Supply
continued on page 4...

Multi-Barrier Water Puriﬁcation Steps
+ + + +
Recycled
Water
Membrane
Filtration
Reverse
Osmosis
UV/
Advanced
Oxidation
Aquifer/
Reservoir
Drinking
Water
Treatment
Drinking
Water
Supply
Water Puriﬁcation Process DPR
Santa Clara V alley W ater District’s Silicon V alley Advanced W ater Purification Center 111
Jennifer West
Managing Director, WateReuse California
1121 L Street, Suite 606
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 669-8401
4 “DPR’s Potential” continued from page 3...

Currently*, the advanced water purifi-
cation process used in California
involves a multi-stage process of micro-
filtration, reverse osmosis, and ultra-
violet light with advanced oxidation:
• The water first goes through micro-
filtr
ation, a pretreatment process,
where water is either pushed or pulled
through tiny tube-like membr
anes.

Each membrane is like a straw with
microscopic holes in the sides of the
straws, 1/300th the width of a human
hair! As the water moves thr
ough the
tubes, protozoa, solids and bacteria
are removed from the water.
•
The water then is treated through
rev
erse osmosis where it’s forced
through the molecular structure of
membranes. Things like fertilizers,
pharmaceutical, viruses and finally
salts or minerals are removed. The
result is near distilled quality water.
•
Now the water is purified, but o
ne
more step provides a safety barrier:

The water is exposed to ultraviolet
light with advanced oxidation to
cause any remaining organic mole-
cules to break down into safe simple
elements, like oxygen, nitrogen,
carbon, etc.

After this process the water is cleaner
than most bottled water.
(*Alternative processes are being evaluated.)
How Does the Advanced Water Purification
Process Work?
to help meet the State’s overall water
supply goal (by 2020, increase recycled
water use by 1 million acre-feet per
year over 2002 levels). While recycled
water for agriculture, landscape, indus-
trial and other purposes will always be
needed in California, we will probably
not be able to meet our recycled water
goals without fully expanding our
potable reuse options.

Significant legislation promoting DPR
has been SB 918 (Pavley 2010), which
requires the State to evaluate the
feasibility of DPR by the end of 2016.
“...providing independent,
peer-reviewed research...”
The California DP
R Initiative aims to
contribute to this effort by providing
independent, peer-reviewed research
for regulators, utilities and communities
as they consider the implementation of
potable reuse in various communities
in the State of California. Subsequent
legislation, SB 322 (Hueso 2013),
directed the Department of Public
Health, in consultation with the State
Water Resources Control Board, to
develop a public review draft of the
DPR report available by September
2016 and established an advisory
group representative of the public to
provide a forum for public discussion
and to assist the expert panel in its
deliberations.

In his SB 322 signing message,
Governor Jerry Brown wrote “This
information is past due … California
needs more high quality water and
recycling is key to getting there.”
People who tour City of San Diego’s demonstration project learn about the various stages of water purification.

West Basin’s W ater Reliability 2020 program is designed to shift their future water supplies to more locally controlled and reliable sources of water. Their Edward C. Little W ater Recycling Facility produces five different qualities of “designer” or custom-made recycled water that meet the unique needs of West Basin’s municipal, commercial and industrial customers. 112
G:\PW\Water\_WaterEngineering\Recycled Water\Recycled Water.SR

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
June 4, 2018
TO: City Co
uncil
Board of Directors, Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 FROM: Depa
rtment of Public Works
SUBJE
CT: CONSIDERATION AND DIRECTION REGARDING THE FUTURE USE OR SALE OF THE CITY’S TREATED EFFLUENT/RECYCLED WATER

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council/Board of Directors:

1. Consider authorizing the City/District Manager and designees to begin negotiating with the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency and the Camrosa Water District to determine if there is a favorable offer for using the treated effluent/recycled water, and report back to the Council/Board;

2. Direct staff to return by January 2019 to discuss the results of the s tudy to Develop the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin as a Potable Water Resource along with the option to include potable reuse as a component;

3. Direct
staff to notify Ventura County staff of the decision to suspend the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project (WSVWRP) and the desire to terminate the Subgrant Agreement.

CITY/DISTRICT MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The District Manager requests City Council/Board of Directors provide authorization to both further discuss a partnership with the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency and further develop the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin study to consider future potable reuse consistent with the May presentation to City Council.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
On October 16, 2017, the City Council/Board of Directors (Council/Board) considered and discussed the City's Recycled Water Program. The Council/Board elected to:

1. Suspend work on the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project (WSVWRP).

2. Suspend negotiations with Simpatica.

AGENDA ITEM NO.
7B
EXHIBIT 7
113
G:\PW\Water\_WaterEngineering\Recycled Water\Recycled Water.SR

3. Authorize staff to look for potential downstream consumers of recycled water, and once identified, to return to the Council/Board for authorization to begin negotiations.

4. Direct staff to report back about other potential uses of recycled water, such as water reuse.

FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
Work on the WSVWRP and negotiations with Simpatica were suspended as Simpatica was no longer looking at locating at the site it initially investigated. Staff has looked for potential downstream consumers interested in compensating the City for continued access to the treated effluent/recycled water. A status report and request for further direction follows.

Demand for Treated Effluent Downstream of Simi Valley
Staff has identified two agencies interested in negotiating: the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency and the Camrosa Water District. Staff members with these agencies have indicated a desire to negotiate with the City.

The pros and cons of this alternative use of treated effluent/recycled water are:

Pros Cons
 Can be initiated immediately
 No or low capital cost to City/District
 Uses/demands are existing
 Could be viewed as a more regional
and less as a local benefit of the
resource
 May require long term commitment
to achieve best price
Staff recommends the Council/Board authorize the City/District Manager and designees to
begin negotiating with the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency and the Camrosa Water District to determine if there is a favorable offer for using the treated effluent/recycled water
.

Potable Reuse
At the October 16, 2017, Council/Board meeting, staff briefed the Council/Board on Potable Reuse, a program to fully treat wastewater effluent to further remove harmful organics and concentrated minerals therefore restoring it to potable water quality. This could then be blended into the District’s
potable water supply/distribution system. At the
May 24, 2018 Council/Board meeting, the General Manager of the Calleguas Municipal Water District, Susan Mulligan, presented the Council/Board an update on local potable reuse and groundwater treatment projects.

For Simi Valley customers, the concept of potable reuse is the most practical means for reusing treated effluent within the community.
114
G:\PW\Water\_WaterEngineering\Recycled Water\Recycled Water.SR The pros and cons of this alternative use of treated effluent are:

Pros Cons
 Used within the City
 May satisfy some effluent discharge
load reduction requirements
 Looks financially favorable (offsets
cost of imported water)
 Develops a secondary, local
source of water; adds security
 High cost to develop
 5 years to develop/build projects
 Needs the Salinity Management
Pipeline to be feasible
There may be an opportunity to combine the concept of potable reuse coupled with the use of the Simi Valley Basin as a potable water resource. Staff will soon present the findings and conclusions of the study to Develop the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin as a Potable Wat er Resource. Staff could further prepare to further discuss the option of potable reuse in this context. Staff recommends the Council/Board direct staff to return within four months to discuss the study to Develop the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin as a P otable Water Resource along with the option to include potable reuse as a component.

West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project (WSVWRP)
The Waterworks District received a Proposition 84 (Water Bond) grant in the amount of $3 million to build the WSVWRP. The grant is administered by the County of Ventura, and they are contracted with the State Department of Water Resources to receive the grant funds and take responsibility for their proper disbursement. The Waterworks District executed a “Subgrant Agreement” with the County to assure that the District build the project in accordance with the grant application and meet all of the State’s requirements. The Board approved the Subgrant Agreement on January 12, 2015.

The Subgrant Agreement identifies a deadline of June 30, 2020, to complete the project. Since work on the WSVWRP is currently suspended, the District will not meet this deadline and will default on the agreement. County staff may be able to find other local projects that could benefit from this $3 million grant funding and work with State staff to keep the funding for the benefit of Ventura County. Staff recommends the Council/Board direct staff to notify Ventura County staff of the decision to suspend the WSVWRP and the desire to terminate the Subgrant Agreement. 115
G:\PW\Water\_WaterEngineering\Recycled Water\Recycled Water.SR The following alternatives are available for the Council/Board’s consideration:

2. Direct staff to return within four months to discuss the results of the study to Develop the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin as a Potable Water Resource along with the option to include potable reuse as a component;

3. Direct staff to notify County of Ventura staff of the decision to suspend the WSVWRP and the desire to terminate the Subgrant Agreement;

4. Provide other direction to staff.

Staff recommends Alternative Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

SUGGESTED COUNCIL/BOARD MOTION
I move to:

1. Authorize the City/District Manager and designees to begin negotiations with the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency and the Camrosa Water District to determine if there is a favorable offer for using the treated effluent, and report back to the Council/Board;

3. Direct staff to notify County of Ventura staff of the decision to suspend the WSVWRP and the desire to terminate the Subgrant Agreement.

SUMMARY
On October 16, 2017, the City Council/Board of Directors (Council/Board) considered and discussed the City's Recycled Water Program. The Council/Board acted to s
uspend work on the West Simi Valley Water Recycling Project (WSVWRP), suspend negotiations with Simpatica, authorize staff to look for potential downstream consumers of recycled water, and once identified return to the Council/Board for authorization to begin negotiations, and direct ed staff to report back about other potential uses of recycled water, such as water reuse.

Staff has identified the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency and the Camrosa Water District as downstream users of treated effluent/recycled water that may be interested in negotiating terms of a purchase agreement. Staff recommends the Council/Board authorize the City/District
Manager to negotiate.
116
G:\PW\Water\_WaterEngineering\Recycled Water\Recycled Water.SR Staff will be prepared to discuss the finding s and conclusions of the study to Develop the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin as a Potable Water Resource and recommends further discussing the option of potable reuse in this context. Staff recommends the Council/Board direct staff to return within the next four months to discuss the s tudy along with the option to include potable reuse.

The Waterworks District received a Proposition 84 (Water Bond) grant of $3 million to build the WSVWRP and signed a Subgrant Agreement with the County of Ventura to execute the grant project. The Subgrant Agreement identifies a deadline of June 30, 2020, to complete the project. As the WSVWRP is currently suspended, the District will not meet this deadline and will default on the agreement. Staff recommends the Council/Board direct staff to notify the County of Ventura staff of the decision to suspend the WSVWRP and the desire to terminate the Subgrant Agreement. ____________________________________
Ronald K. Fuchiwaki
Public Works Director
Prepared by: Joe Deakin, Assistant Public Works Director 117

Simi Valley City CouncilOctober 24, 2022

Simi Valley City Council
October 24, 2022