Adopt a resolution approving the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Crown Hill Water Storage Tank and Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project — Simi Valley City Council, May 11, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

City of Simi Valley
Staff Report

May 11, 2026

To: Board of Directors, Ventura County Waterworks No.8

From: Public Works Department
Ron Fuchiwaki, Public Works Director

Subject: Adopt a r esolution approving the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Crown Hill Water Storage Tank and Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project

Staff Recommendation

It is recommended that the Board of Directors adopt Resolution No. WWD-305 (Attachment A) approving the Initial Study -Mitigated Negative Declaration ( IS-MND) (Attachment B) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment C) for the Crown Hill W ater Storage Tank and Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project (Project) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Background

The Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 (District) identified the need for additional water storage in the Knolls Pressure Zone to increase storage capacity and provide adequate water pressure to higher-elevation customers. The Knolls community is located in the southeast section of the District’s service area and is currently served by two water storage tanks, Alta Vista Tanks No. 1 and 2, with a combined capacity of 250,000 gallons.

The Project is located at the southern terminus of Crown Hill Drive in the unincorporated community of Santa Susana along the southern limits of the City of Simi Valley (Attachment D).

In 2015, the District acquired real estate for the new water storage tank site and proceeded with the water facilities design. As part of the environmental permitting process, the District evaluated the environmental impact of this Project and concluded that the Project will not fall under California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) statutory or categorical exemptions. An Initial Study (IS) was prepared in accordance with Section 15063 of CEQA , and it was determined that the Project would not have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration (ND) was prepared. On September 28, 2015, the Board of Directors (Board) adopted Resolution No. WWD -253, approving the Project and the IS-ND.

Due to the complexity of the proposed water facilities operation, the District performed a constructability evaluation of the original design in July 2024 and determined that a design modification was required to improve the proposed water facilities' performance. The design modification included a new landscape area around the proposed water storage tank site to visually screen the tank site from surrounding residences. The landscape area

Agenda Item No.

Consent (9)

resulted in a n expansion of the water storage tank site ( Attachment E). Since the new landscape area was not included in the 2015 original design, the environmental impact of the Project had to be re -evaluated. In 2024, the District retained Rincon Consultants (Consultants) to conduct an environmental review and prepare environmental documentation in compliance with CEQA.

Discussion

This P roject consists of the construction and operation of a new aboveground water storage tank (the Crown Hill Tank) and associated piping and electrical infrastructure. The proposed tank would be a welded steel tank approximately 74 feet in diameter and 35 feet in height, with a storage capacity of one million gallons. In addition to the tank, the Project would also include the installation of a 10- inch pipeline and appurtenances to connect the Crown Hill Tank to the existing Alta Vista Tanks No. 1 and 2, construction of an access roadway and retaining walls, and landscaping in the areas surrounding the Project components. The Consultant’s findings, which staff recommends the Board of Directors approve, are below.

Initial Study Findings:

The Initial Study evaluated all environmental topics identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and identified potentially significant effects associated with biological resources, tribal cultural resources, geology, and noise. All other topic areas were determined to have less than significant impacts with no mitigation required. Based upon the results of the IS prepared for the Project, it was determined that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, the implementation of mitigation measures would reduce these effects to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the Project.

Mitigation Monitoring Measures:

The analysis identified that the Project could result in potentially significant effects to the environment, which can be reduced to less -than-significant levels through mitigation.

CEQA requires that when adopting an IS -MND, the lead agency must also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the Project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). The District prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( MMRP), which is intended to track and ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during the Project implementation phase.

Cultural Resources Assessment:

In addition, the District prepared a cultural resources assessment to support the evaluation of cultural resources in the IS -MND. The cultural resources assessment included background research and a cultural field survey to identify any archaeological resources within the Project site. The geoarchaeological review concluded that the Project site is considered to have a low , to no potential for subsurface archaeological resources. H owever, it is possible that Project -related ground disturbance could 2 inadvertently encounter archaeological resources . Consequently, mitigation measures will be required during the construction to reduce potential impacts related to archaeological resources. The cultural resources assessment is confidential as it identifies the locations of sensitive archaeological resources, and it cannot be shared publicly. The District shall retain a copy of the cultural resources assessment on file for its records.

Assembly Bill 52:

The Project site is in a geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with three Native American tribes: the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI), the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians, and the Gabrieleno San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians (SGBMI). In compliance with Assembly Bill 52, as the lead agency, the District sent consultation letters to representatives of each tribe on October 3, 2024.

Responses were received from the FTBMI and the SGBMI. No response was received from the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians.

The District reviewed the suggested mitigation measures from the tribes and incorporated them into the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources mitigation measures in the IS -MND. A ll outreach efforts , r esponses, and other communications between the District and the tribes were documented and included in the IS-MND.

IS-MND Circulation and Public Comments:

On October 21, 2025, the IS -MND and a Notice of the Release for Public Review and Intent to Adopt a MND (Attachment F) was distributed for a 30- day review period from November 3 to December 4, 2025. During the review period, comment letters were received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Department of Transportation, and Ventura County Public Works Watershed Protection. The comments in each letter, along with District responses, are summarized in Attachment G.

The District revised the IS-MND to address the comments accordingly.

Based on the analysis in the IS -MND and implementation of the MMRP, the P roject will not have a significant effect on the environment , and adoption of the IS -MND satisfies CEQA requirements. The current IS-MND would supersede the previously approved IS- ND under Resolution No. WWD-253 in its entirety.

Financial Impact

Approval of the IS-MND and MMRP has no financial impact. However, implementation of the MMRP could increase project construction costs . T he percentage of construction costs associated with environmental mitigation and monitoring measures varies widely and is difficult to estimate at this time. For standard infrastructure projects with moderate environmental requirements, these costs are commonly estimated to range from 1% to 5% of total construction costs. Based on an estimated construction cost of $3.7 mil lion, implementation of the MMRP could therefore increase costs by approximately $37,000 to $185,000. The approved budget for the Knolls Zone Water Facilities (CP980320) currently includes sufficient funds to accommodate this potential increase. 3 City Council Priority

This item supports the Reliable Infrastructure Pillar of Excellence.

Suggested Motion

I move to adopt Resolution No. WWD-305 approving the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Crown Hill Water Storage Tank and Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

Summary

The District identified the need to improve the conditions within the Knolls Pressure Zone.

This Project will construct a new above ground 1-million-gallon tank and a 10-inch pipeline at the southern terminus of Crown Hill Drive. The Board approved the Project and the Negative Declaration in September 2015; however, a recent design modification resulted in the need for an additional environmental review.

The recent environmental analysis determined that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, the implementation of mitigation measures would reduce these effects to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, an IS-MND has been prepared for the Project. This IS-MND would supersede the previously approved IS -ND under Resolution No. WWD-253 in its entirety. It is recommended that the Board of Directors adopt Resolution No. WWD-XXX, approving the IS-MND and approving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Prepared by: Michel Kadah, Principal Engineer

Attachments:

Attachment A – Resolution No. WWD-305
Attachment B – Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) Attachment C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Attachment D – Project Vicinity and Location Map
Attachment E – 2015 and 2024 Project Area Comparison
Attachment F – Notice of the Release for Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment G – Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND

4 Attachment A

RESOLUTION NO. WWD-305

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

APPROVING THE INITIAL STUDY- MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE CROWN HILL WATER

STORAGE TANK AND KNOLLS ZONE WATER FACILITIES

PROJECT

WHEREAS, a water storage shortage has been identified for the area served by the District’s Knolls (1404) Pressure Zone; and

WHEREAS, a suitable site for a one- million gallon water storage tank on Crown Hill Drive has been identified; and

WHEREAS, the Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project (Project), which includes a one-million gallon water storage tank, pressure reducing station, and pipeline, would increase and improve the water storage capacity for the area served by the Knolls (1404) Pressure Zone; and

WHEREAS, a constructability evaluation was performed and determined that modifications to the Project site are required which necessitated an update to the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

WHEREAS, the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 (District) is the “Lead Agency” for the proposed Project under the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines; and

WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project; and

WHEREAS, the Initial Study identified potentially significant environmental effects, but mitigation measures have reduced those effects to a less -than-significant level; and

WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15070; and

WHEREAS, an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project were prepared and circulated for public review from November 3, 2025 to December 4, 2025, consistent with CEQA requirements; and

WHEREAS, the District considered all comments received during the public review period and provided responses as appropriate; and

5 Res. No. WWD-305
WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the District; and

WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15097 to ensure implementation of mitigation measures; and

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have been satisfied.

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

SECTION 1. The Findings regarding the Initial Study -Mitigated Negative Declaration contained in the staff report dated May 11, 2026, and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby approved.

SECTION 2. The Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project, attached to the staff report dated May 11, 2026 and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted and wholly supersedes the Initial Study-Negative Declaration prepared in 2015 and approved via Resolution No. WWD - 253.

SECTION 3. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project implementation, , which is attached to the staff report dated May 11, 2026 and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted.

SECTION 4. The Board of Directors directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the Ventura County Clerk / State Clearinghouse in accordance with CEQA.

SECTION 5. The District Secretary will retain the Initial Study -Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated documents that constitute the record for its adoption.

SECTION 6. The District Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a certified R esolution to be filed in the Office of the District Secretary.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 11
th day of May 2026.

Attest:

Lucy Blanco, City Clerk/ Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Chair of the Ventura District Secretary County Waterworks District No. 8
6 Res. No. WWD-305
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

Algeria R. Ford, District Counsel Samantha C. Argabrite, District Manager

Ronald K. Fuchiwaki
Public Works Director
7 Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project
Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration prep
ared by
Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, California 93063
prep
ared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
180 North Ashwood Avenue
Ventura, California 93003
Nove
mber 2025
Attachment B
8 Table of Contents

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration i
Table of Contents
Initial Study .............................................................................................................................................1

1. Project Title .........................................................................................................................1

2. Lead Agency/Project Sponsor and Contact .........................................................................1

3. Project Location ..................................................................................................................1

4. Surrounding Land Uses .......................................................................................................1

5. General Plan Designation ....................................................................................................5

6. Zoning..................................................................................................................................5

7. Description of Project .........................................................................................................5

8. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ..........................................................8 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...........................................................................................9 Determination ........................................................................................................................................9 Environmental Checklist ...................................................................................................................... 11 1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 11 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................. 15 3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 17 4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 27 5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 39 6 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 45 7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 47 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................. 55 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... 61 10 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 65 11 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................... 69 12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 71 13 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 73 14 Population and Housing ................................................................................................... 81 15 Public Services .................................................................................................................. 83 16 Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 85 17 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 87 18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 89 19 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................... 95 20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................ 99 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................... 103 References ......................................................................................................................................... 107 List of Preparers ......................................................................................................................... 111 9 ii

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
Tables
Table 1 Project Average Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) ................................................. 19 T
able 2 Project Maximum Daily Operational Period Emissions ................................................... 20 T
able 3 Mitigated Project Construction Emissions....................................................................... 21 T
able 4 Construction Activity Potential to Impact Paleontological Resources............................. 51 T
able 5 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions .......................................................................... 56 T
able 6 Operational GHG Emissions ............................................................................................. 57 T
able 7 Consistency with Applicable SCAG RTP/SCS GHG Emission Reduction Strategies .......... 58 T
able 8 Project General Plan Consistency .................................................................................... 70 T
able 9 Short-Term Noise Level Measurement Results ............................................................... 74 T
able 10 FTA Daytime Construction Noise Criteria ........................................................................ 76 T
able 11 FTA Groundborne Vibration Criteria – Architectural Damage......................................... 77 T
able 12 Estimated Construction Noise Levels - Alta Vista Tank No. 1 Demolition ....................... 77 T
able 13 Estimated Construction Noise Levels - Pipeline and Access Roadway Installation ......... 78 T
able 14 Estimated Construction Noise Levels – Crown Hill Tank Construction............................ 78 Figu
res
Figure 1 Regional Project Location ...................................................................................................2 Fi
gure 2 Project Site Location ...........................................................................................................3 Fi
gure 3 Site Photographs .................................................................................................................4 Fi
gure 4 Noise Measurement Locations ........................................................................................ 75 Ap
pendices
Appendix A Geotechnical Report
A
ppendix B CalEEMod Modeling Results
A
ppendix C Roadway Construction Noise Model Results
10 Initial Study

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 1
Initial Study

1. Project Title
K
nolls Zone Water Facilities Project

2. Lead Agency/Project Sponsor and Contact
Lea
d Agency/Project Sponsor
Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, California 93063
Conta
ct Person
Michel Kadah, Principal Engineer
Ventura County
Waterworks District No. 8
(805) 583-6893
[email protected]

3. Project Location
T
he Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project (project) is located in unincorporated Ventura County, at the southern terminus of Crown Hill Drive in the unincorporated community of Santa Susana along the southern city limits of Simi Valley. The project site encompasses portions of Assessor’s Parcel Nos. (APNs) 646016207, 646016106,
646016102, and the right-of-way of Crown Hill Drive between Lyon Place and its southern terminus. The project site is located within the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin.

The project site includes the existing two Alta Vista Tanks, located west of the intersection of Crown Hill Drive and Lyon Place.

Fi
gure 1 s
hows the regional location of the project site, and Fi gure 2 a
nd shows the project site at a
local scale. Fi
gure 3 s
hows photographs of the project site.

4. Surrounding Land Uses
T
he project site is surrounded by single family residences to the north, east, and west, and undeveloped areas to the south. A single family residence is located immediately west of the project site along Crown Hill Drive, and another is located approximately 120 feet north of the project site east of Crown Hill Drive.
11 2
Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project
Figure 1 Regional Project Location
12 Initial Study

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 3
Figure 2 Project Site Location

13 4

Photograph 1. Existing paved access road adjacent to Alta Vista Tank No. 1, facing south toward the proposed Crown Hill Tank site.

Photograph 2. Existing paved access road adjacent to
Alta Vista Tank No. 1, facing north toward the Alta Vista tanks and nearby residence.

Photograph 3. Proposed Crown Hill Tank site, facing west. Photograph 4. Pro posed Crown Hill Tank site, facing north.

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project
Figure 3 Site Photographs
14 Initial Study

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 5

5. General Plan Designation
T
he project site is designated as Very Low Density Residential by the Ventura County 2040 General Plan, which typically allows for four dwelling units per acre. A portion of the project site would be located within the public right-of-way within Crown Hill Drive, which does not have a Ventura County 2040 General Plan designation (County of Ventura 2020).

6. Zoning
T
he project site is zoned Rural Exclusive with a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet (RE-10,000).

The Rural Exclusive zone is intended to provide for and maintain rural residential areas in conjunction with horticultural activities, and to provide for a limited range of services and institutional uses which are compatible with and complementary to rural residential communities. A portion of the project site would be located within the public right-of-way of Crown Hill Drive which does not have a County of Ventura zoning designation (County of Ventura Resource Management Agency 2024).

7. Description of Project
Project Bac
kground
Water services in Simi Valley and surrounding unincorporated areas are provided by two suppliers:

Golden State Water Company, a private water company, and the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 (District), which is managed by the City of Simi Valley and governed by the Simi Valley City Council/Board of Directors. The District provides approximately 60 percent of the city’s water supply via approximately 24,000 service connections, and operates 40 water storage facilities, 22 pump stations, and approximately 357 miles of water pipeline. The District primarily sources water from the Calleguas Municipal Water District, and also operates two wells in the Tapo Canyon area which supply water to the Tapo Canyon Water Treatment Plant.

T
he District’s service area includes the western, northern, and eastern areas of the city of Simi Valley and several areas of unincorporated Ventura County beyond Simi Valley city limits, including the project site. The project site is located in the Knolls Pressure Zone, which is currently provided water via the two existing Alta Vista Tanks located along Crown Hill Drive. The Alta Vista Tanks have a total storage capacity of approximately 250,000 gallons. The District has identified a need for
additional water storage in the Knolls Pressure Zone in order to increase and improve water storage capacity and to provide proper water pressure to some higher elevation lots in the Knolls Pressure Zone.

Project Desc
ription
To improve water storage capacity and to provide proper water pressure to some higher elevation lots in the Knolls Pressure Zone, the District proposes to construct a new water storage tank, the Crown Hill Tank, and associated piping and electrical infrastructure. The Crown Hill Tank would be a welded steel aboveground tank approximately 74 feet in diameter and 35 feet in height, with a storage capacity of one million gallons. In addition to the tank, the project would also include installation of a 10-inch pipeline and appurtenances to connect the Crown Hill Tank to the existing Alta Vista Tank No. 2 (the northernmost Alta Vista Tank, as shown in Fi gure 2)
, construction of an
15 6

Ve
ntura County Waterworks District No. 8
Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project
access roadway and retaining walls, and demolition of Alta Vista Tank No. 1 (the southernmost Alta Vista Tank, as shown in Fig
ure 2)
. Anticipated construction activities are discussed further below.

Construction Activities
Project construction would occur over approximately 14 months. Project construction would occur in stages and are anticipated to include the construction of Crown Hill Tank; installation of pipelines, an access roadway and retaining walls; and demolition of Alta Vista Tank No. 1. The specific construction stages and the order in which they occur would be determined by the District’s construction contractor.

C
onstruction work is anticipated to occur between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays. No weekend or nighttime work is anticipated. Construction occurring on weekends, during nighttime, or outside of the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. would require special permission from the District. If construction lighting is required during construction hours, it would be shielded and downcast.

Partial or full closures of Crown Hill Drive may be required during certain stages of project construction. The District’s construction contractor would coordinate closures with applicable agencies, such as the Ventura County Fire Department, the Simi Valley Police Department, and the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office, and would implement traffic control measures.

T
he maximum depth of excavation during project construction would be approximately 10 feet. Based on the Geotechnical Report prepared for the project (Appendix A), groundwater levels at the project site are beneath the anticipated depth of excavation and it not anticipated that groundwater dewatering would be required. However, groundwater levels vary seasonally, and it is possible that groundwater would be encountered during project excavation activities. If groundwater dewatering is necessary, the construction contractor would operate a dewatering system which would lower groundwater levels to six inches below the depth of excavation. Dewatered groundwater would be discharged
consistent with the waste discharge requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board for discharges of groundwater from construction and project dewatering (Order No.

R4-2023-0429; General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] Permit No.

CAG994004).

CROW

N HILL TANK CONSTRUCTION
T
he Crown Hill Tank would be constructed on an existing excavated pad near the southern terminus of Crown Hill Drive, approximately 500 feet south of the existing Alta Vista Tanks, within APN 646016207 (Photographs 3 and 4 in Fi
gure 3)
. The proposed tank site is partially underlain by sandstone bedrock and artificial fill. To provide a foundation with uniform thickness and soil strength for the tank, the project would involve excavation and removal of the artificial fill and replacing it with soil cement. The tank site would be graded and covered with an aggregate base prior to construction of the Crown Hill Tank. The tank itself would have a stairway, roof hatches, and inlet and drain pipes installed along its exterior for operation and maintenance.

D
ue to the difference in elevations between the tank site elevation and surrounding areas, two retaining walls would be constructed adjacent to the tank pad. Retaining Wall 1 would be located on the southern side of the tank pad, extending from the terminus of the access roadway toward the eastern side of the tank. Retaining Wall 1 would be approximately 90 feet in length and would vary between two to five feet in height. Retaining Wall 2 would be located northwest of the tank and would generally
follow the alignment of the proposed access roadway. Retaining Wall 2 would be 16 Initial Study

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 7

a
pproximately 170 feet in length and would vary between two and five feet in height. Both retaining walls would be constructed with concrete blocks.

PIPELINE AND ACCESS ROADWAY INSTALLATION
T
he project would involve installation of a 10-inch welded steel inlet-outlet pipe, which would connect Alta Vista Tank No. 2. The inlet-outlet pipe would travel from Alta Vista Tank No. 2 along Crown Hill Drive and a portion of the proposed access roadway alignment. West of the Crown Hill Tank, the pipeline would fork into two separate inlet and outlet pipelines; the inlet pipeline would connect to the northern side of the Crown Hill Tank and the outlet pipeline would connect to the southern side.

The common inlet-outlet pipe would be used to both fill and empty the Crown Hill Tank. The project would also involve installation of an 8-inch drainpipe, which would follow a similar alignment to the inlet-outlet pipe. Pipelines would be installed via open-cut excavation.

U
pon completion of pipeline installation, the project would involve construction of an access roadway from the terminus of Crown Hill Drive to the tank site, as shown in F igure 2.

Soil within the proposed
access roadway alignment would be excavated to a depth of approximately 12 inches to expose bedrock prior to installation of the concrete roadway. Curbs and gutters would be constructed on either side of the roadway. A gate, approximately eight feet in height and 13 feet wide, would be constructed at the terminus of the access roadway to prevent public access to the tank site.

ALTA VISTA TANK NO. 1 DEMOLITION
W
ater storage in Alta Vista Tank No. 1 would no longer be required once the Crown Hill Tank is operational. The District may demolish Alta Vista Tank No. 1 to provide space for additional future facilities at the Alta Vista Tank site. To provide a conservative analysis, it is assumed that demolition of Alta Vista Tank No. 1 would occur as part of the project.

LANDS
CAPING
Demolition of Alta Vista Tank No. 1 would require the removal of up to 10 trees. Three trees, as well as several shrubs, would be planted to the north and west of the Alta Vista Tank No. 1 site to visually screen the tank site from surrounding residences. At the proposed Crown Hill Tank site, approximately 50 percent of existing vegetation within 10 feet of the access roadway and tank pad

would be removed. Four trees and several shrubs would be planted in the area west of the proposed tank and east of the access
roadway to visually screen the tank from surrounding
residences.

Post-Construction Testing and Disinfection
After completion of construction, the District would test and disinfect the Crown Hill Tank, pipelines, and appurtenances with chlorinated water prior to operation. Once testing and disinfection is complete, the chlorinated water would be treated to neutralize residual chlorine and would either be discharged via the proposed drainpipe or into the City’s sewer system. Either discharge method would require approval from the
District.

Op
eration and Maintenance
Once the Crown Hill Tank is operational, water would be pumped to the tank via the Oak Knolls Pump Station, a pump station operated by the
District that is being improved under a separate project.

The Oak Knolls Pump Station would pump existing water supplies to the Crown Hill Tank. Water would 17 8

Ve
ntura County Waterworks District No. 8
Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project
flow down the inlet-outlet pipe via gravity to fill Alta Vista Tank No. 2; once full, water would fill the Crown Hill Tank.

Electricity would be provided to the project site via existing Southern California Edison (SCE) utility infrastructure. The project would include a small emergency generator (anticipated to be a
pproximately 20 kilowatts/less than 50 horsepower), which would be used to power radios, tank valves, and motor-operated gates in the event of a power outage.

T
he project would include exterior lighting. Four light poles, located in the northwest, northeast, southwest, and southeast portions of the tank site, would provide exterior lighting. Light poles would b
e approximately 23 feet tall. Lighting would be downcast to focus light within the tank site.

Maintenance activities are anticipated to occur approximately every five years. If maintenance activities require flushing of the tank and/or pipelines, water would be discharged via the proposed draiVentura County Waterworks District No. 8 nstruction Testing and Disinfection.

The project’s anticipated lifetime is approximately 50 years.

8. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
T
he Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 is the lead agency for this project.

The project may also require approval from the California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water.
18 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 9
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “ Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated ” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
■ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Energy
■ Geology and Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology and Water
Quality
□ Land Use and Planning □ Mineral Resources
■ Noise □ Population and
Housing
□ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation ■ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities and Service
Systems
□ Wildfire ■ Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
■ 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 to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to appl icable legal
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 19 10
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) ha ve been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

Printed Name Title

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
20 Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? □ □ □ ■
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
□ □ □ ■
c. In non -urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from a publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality? □ □ ■ □
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area?
□ □ ■ □
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The City of Simi Valley General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) defines scenic resources and viewsheds, and establishes areas of scenic resources and locations of viewsheds. “Scenic resources” can include natural open spaces, topographic formations, and landscapes, as well as urban open spaces and the built environment . A “viewshed” is typically the range of vision in which scenic resources may be observed (City of Simi Valley 2012a). Figure 4.1-1 of the General Plan EIR identifies visual resources. The nearest visual resources to the project site includes deciduous woodlands and evergreen woodlands west of Black Canyon Road, approximately 0.2 mile west of the project site.

The project would involve construction of a new water storage tank and associated piping and electrical infrastructure. During construction, equipment and construction worker vehicles would be staged on site and would be visible from surrounding public roadways and pathways. However, construction and equipment staging would be temporary, and views of open space and hillsides would return to their existing conditions once construction is completed. In addition, the project site is not located within an ident ified scenic resource area and would not result in adverse effects to scenic 21 12

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
resources. In operation, the project site generally would not be visible from surrounding publicly- accessible areas due to intervening trees and topography. The project would also include planting trees and shrubs alongside the tank sites to visually screen the project site from surrounding areas.

Therefore, the project would not affect the view from a scenic vista and no impact to scenic vistas would occur.

O IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The nearest officially designated state scenic highway is State Route (SR) 118, which is located approximately 1.6 miles west of the project site (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2019). The project site is not visible from SR 118 due to distance and intervening development and topography. Furthermore, there are no scenic resources within the project site. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway.

O IMPACT
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The project site is within the City of Simi Valley, which is an urbanized area. There are policies in the Simi Valley General Plan and standards within Simi Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) that pertain to scenic quality. Specifically, General Plan Policy LU-4.2 requires development to integrate natural scenic features, such as mature trees, rock outcroppings, watercourses, and views into project design, except where infeasible for public safety (City of Simi Valley 2012b). Additionally, Municipal Code Chapter 9-24.020 outlines standards for Residential and Open Space zones in Simi Valley that intend to provide a range of housing types that are affordable and attractive, in well-designed residential neighborhood and maintain community open space resources for purposes ranging from conservation, to preserving community land use options.

T
he project involves construction of a welded steel, aboveground water storage tank and associated piping and electrical infrastructure. During construction, equipment and construction worker vehicles would be staged on site and would be visible from surrounding public roadways and pathways.

However, construction and equipment staging would be temporary, and views of the surrounding area would return to their existing conditions once construction is completed. In addition, the project would not involve the removal of trees or rock outcroppings, and would not interrupt views of scenic resources as the project site would not be publicly accessible. The project would include planting trees and shrubs alongside the tank sites to visually screen the project site from surrounding areas.

Accordingly, the project would not conflict with General Plan Policy LU-4.2.

T
he project would improve water storage capabilities and would provide proper water pressure to some higher elevation lots in the Knolls Pressure Zone. The project would not impact community open space resources, and, thus, would be consistent with Municipal Code Chapter 9-24. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
22 Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Existing sources of light in the vicinity of the project site include lights from nearby residences, vehicle headlights, and glare associated with windows and vehicles. During construction, equipment and construction worker vehicles would be staged on site and would be visible from surrounding public roadways and pathways. Construction equipment would create a new source of light from vehicle headlights and glare from windshields and materials, and would affect daytime views in the area.

However, these new sources of light and glare would be temporary and limited to the construction period (approximately 14 months), and views of the project area would return to existing conditions once construction is complete. Construction would occur between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and no nighttime construction is anticipated; accordingly, project construction activities would not adversely affect nighttime views in the area. If construction lighting is required during construction hours, it would be shielded and downcast. Therefore, project construction would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.

The project would include exterior lighting during project operations. Four light poles, located in the northwest, northeast, southwest, and southeast portions of the tank site and each light pole would be approximately 23 feet tall. Exterior lighting would not adversely affect daytime views in the area, and lighting would only be turned on at night during emergency repair work. If nighttime emergency repair work is needed, lighting would be downcast to focus light within the tank site and minimally spill into nearby residential properties. Therefore, the project would result in a less -than-significant impact related to creation of new sources of light or glare affecting nighttime and daytime views in the area.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

23 14

This page intentionally left blank.

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
24 Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non- agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as def ined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 25 16

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land and is not located on or near mapped Farmland (California Department of Conservation 2022) and is not designated or zoned for agricultural use. The project site is not enrolled in a Williamson Act contract (California Department of Conservation 2023). Furthermore, the project would not convert important farmland to non- agricultural use or conflict with existing zoning, no impact to agricultural resources would occur.

T
he project site and surrounding area is not designated or zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Implementation of the project would not convert any forest land to non-forest use, nor would it conflict with existing zoning for such lands. No impact would occur.

T
he project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.

O IMPACT
26 Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 3 Air Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non -attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard? □ ■ □ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
□ ■ □ □
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? □ □ □ ■
The California Clean Air Act requires that air districts create a Clean Air Plan that describes how the jurisdiction will meet air quality standards. The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and State of California CAA mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants. These laws are administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U SEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB), respectively, which have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other pollutants.

Some pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC s) and reactive organic gases (ROG )
1, nitrogen oxide (NO X), particulate matter (PM) with diameter of ten microns or less (PM 10) and 2.5 microns or less (PM 2.5), sulfur dioxide, and lead. Other pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as ozone, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between VOC and NO X. Secondary pollutants include oxidants and ozone, as well as sulfate and nitrate particulates (smog).

Air pollutant emissions are generated by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories:
 Point sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack.

Examples include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat.

1 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term ROG is used in this IS-MND.
27 18

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
 Area sources are widely distributed and include such sources as residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and some consumer products.

Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and can also be divided into two major subcategories:
 On-road sources that may be legally operated on roadways and highways.  Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment.

A
ir pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when high winds suspend fine dust particles.
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? According to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District’s (VCAPCD’s) Guidelines, a project may be inconsistent with the applicable air quality plan if it would cause the existing population to exceed forecasts contained in the most recently adopted Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The VCAPCD adopted the 2022 Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to demonstrate a strategy for, and reasonable progress toward, attainment of the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The 2022 Ventura County AQMP relies on the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) forecasts of regional population growth in its AQMP population projections.

A
ccording to SCAG, Ventura County’s population in 2020 was 887,000 with projected growth of 29,000 persons to 906,000 by 2030. Employment in 2020 was 348,000 with projected growth of 21,000 employees by 2030 to 369,000 (SCAG 2020).

T
he project includes the construction and operation of a water tank and ancillary facilities, and would not result in either additional residents or new full-time employees. Therefore, the project would not result in the County exceeding forecasts used in the 2020 RTP/SCS and no impact would occur.

O IMPACT
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Criteria pollutants include some pollutants that are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide, ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5, sulfur dioxide, and lead. Other air pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as ozone, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between ROG and NOX. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone, and sulfate and nitrate particulates (i.e., smog).

V
CAPCD is the designated air quality control agency in the South Central Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is designated nonattainment for the 8-hour federal and State ozone standard, federal hourly ozone standard and State PM10 standards (CARB 2024a; CARB 2024b). The Basin is designated unclassifiable or in attainment for all other federal and State standards (CARB 2024b; USEPA 2022). 28 Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 Construction Impacts
Construction activities associated with development of the project would temporarily generate emissions associated with equipment and fugitive dust. Construction emissions modeled include emissions generated by construction equipment used on the site and emissions generated by vehicle trips associated with construction, such as worker and vendor trips. It is assumed all construction equipment used would be diesel- powered. ROG generated primarily during architectural coating phases of project construction.

Estimated maximum daily ROG , NO
X, CO, SO 2, PM10, and PM 2.5 construction emissions are shown in Table 1. The VCAPCD’s 25 pounds per day thresholds for ROG and NOX do not apply to construction emissions because such emissions are temporary; however, VCAPCD requires that ROG and NO x emissions should be mitigated if estimated emissions from heavy -duty construction equipment exceed the 25 pounds per day threshold. Table 1 shows NOx emissions would exceed the 25 pounds per day threshold during construction, without mitigation. Therefore, construction-related emissions would be potentially significant without mitigation. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would be required to reduce construction impacts.

Table 1 Project Average Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
Construction Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2025 3 29 29 <1 5 2
2026 1 5 9 <1 1 <1
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 3 29 29 <1 5 2
VCAPCD Regional Thresholds 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A
lbs/day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix B for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulatory compliance me asures.

Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions. Maximum daily construction emissions are the highest total emissions from a construction phase or overlapping construction phases. Emissions from overlapping construction pha ses are added together.

Operational Impacts
Operational emissions are comprised of area source emissions, energy emissions, and mobile source emissions. Area source emissions are generated by consumer products such as solvents and propellants contained in aerosol and non -aerosol products and archite ctural coating. Emissions attributed to energy use include electricity consumption for pumping water. Mobile source emissions are generated by the increase in motor vehicle trips to and from the project site associated with the periodic maintenance and testing of the generator (typically monthly) and maintenance and cleaning of the tank itself (every five years).

Table 2 summarizes the project’s operational emissions by emission source. Project operation would not exceed the VCAPCD 25 pounds per day emission thresholds for ROG and NO x. Therefore,
operation of the project would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. In addition, because criteria pollutant emissions and regional thresholds are cumulative in nature, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants.

Operational impacts would be less than significant.
29 20
Project Maximum Daily Operational Period EmissionsTable 2 Emission Source
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs./day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mobile <1 <1 2 <1 <1 <1
Stationary Source <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Total Project Emissions <1 <1 2 <1 <1 <1
VCAPCD Regional Thresholds 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A N/A N/A
lbs/day = pounds per day; ROC = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SO 2 = sulfur dioxide.

Notes: Area, energy, and mobile emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod; see Appendix B for modeling results. Some num
bers may not add up due to rounding. Emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results that include compliance with regulat ory compliance measures. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.

Mitigation Measure
AQ-1 Construction Emissions Reduction
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the following measures shall be noted on all construction p
lans. These requirements shall be incorporated into the contract agreement with the construction contractor. A copy of the equipment’s certification or model year specifications shall be available upon request for all equipment on-site.
 All m
obile off -road equipment (wheeled or tracked) greater than 50 horsepower used during construction activities shall meet the U.S. EPA Tier 4 interim standards. Tier 4 certification can be for the original equipment or equipment that is retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 interim standards.  Alt
ernative f uel (natural gas, propane, electric, etc.) construction equipment shall be incorporated for all vehicles less than 50 horsepower, and for equipment greater than 50 horsepower where available.
 E lectricity shall be supplied to the site from the existing power grid to support the electric construction equipment. If connection to the grid is determined to be infeasible for portions of the project, a non-diesel fueled generator shall be used.  The p
roject shall be required to comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at a location, and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these would minimize emissions of TACs during construction.

With incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ -
1, the construction contractor would be required to
use off-road diesel-powered construction equipment that meets or exceeds the most stringent and environmentally protective CARB and USEPA Tier 4 off -road emissions standards, or alternatively fueled equipment which would substantially reduce criteria pollutant emissions. As shown in Table 3 NOX emissions would not exceed the 25 lbs/day threshold for any construction phase with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1. Impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
30 Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 Table 3 Mitigated Project Construction Emissions
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2025 1 9 33 <1 4 2
2026 <1 1 10 <1 1 <1
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 1 9 32 <1 4 2
VCAPCD Regional Thresholds 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A N/A N/A
lbs/day = pounds per day; ROC = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix B for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulatory compliance me asures.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive receptors are members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. The closest sensitive receptors are single-family located approximately 25 feet north of the project site during the installation of the pipeline. The VCAPCD states that localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors typically result from fugitive dust, CO, toxic air contaminants, and entrained fungal spores that cause Valley Fever (VCAPCD 2003). The project’s impacts related to each of these pollutants is detailed below.

Fugitive Dust
The VCAPCD recommends that the fugitive dust control measures described in Section 7.4.1 of the Air Quality Assessment Guidelines be implemented as part of all project -related dust -generating operations and activities (VCAPCD 2003). These measures address both PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions from construction activities. Further , the project would be subject to the following rules associated with fugitive dust emissions.
 Rule 50 (Opacity). This rule sets opacity standards on the discharge from sources of air contaminants. This rule would apply during construction of the project.  Rule 51 (Nuisance). This rule prohibits any person from discharging air contaminants or any other material from a source that would cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public or which endangers the comfort, health, safety, or repose to any considerable number of persons or the public. The rule would apply during construction and operational activities.
 Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust). This rule requires fugitive dust generators, including construction and demolition projects, to implement control measures limiting the amount of dust from vehicle track-out, earth moving, bulk material handling, and truck hauling activities. The rule would apply during construction activities.
31 22

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
 Rule 55.1 (Paved Roads and Unpaved Roads). This rule requires fugitive dust generators to begin the removal of visible roadway accumulation within 72 hours of any written notification from the VCAPCD. The use of blowers is expressly prohibited under any circumstances. This rule also requires controls to limit the amount of dust from any construction activity or any earthmoving activity on a public unpaved road. This rule would apply during construction activities.  Rule 55.2 (Street Sweeping Equipment). This rule requires the use of PM10-efficient street sweepers for routine street sweeping and for removing vehicle track-out pursuant to Rule 55. This rule would apply during construction activities.

The project would be required to implement all appropriate fugitive dust control measures through compliance with the above VCAPCD rules. Therefore, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant.

Carb
on Monoxide
The VCAPCD has not established quantitative thresholds for CO for either construction or operation.

However, the VCAPCD states a CO hotspot screening analysis should be conducted for any project with indirect CO emissions greater than the applicable ozone project significance thresholds (i.e., 25
pounds per day) that may significantly impact roadway intersections currently operating at, or that are expected to operate at
a Level of Service (LOS) of E or F.

Ar
eas with high vehicle density, such as congested intersections, have the potential to create high concentrations of CO, known as CO hotspots. A project’s localized air quality impact is considered significant if CO emissions create a hotspot where either the California one-hour standard of 20 parts per million or the federal and State eight-hour standard of 9.0 parts per million is exceeded. This typically occurs at severely congested intersections (LOS E or worse).

A
s shown in T
able 2, operational CO emissions would not be greater than 25 pounds per day. As shown in T
able 3,
CO emissions would exceed the 25 pounds per day; however, the project would not have daily traffic that would substantially impact any roadway. Traffic is anticipated to one or two trips per month for general inspection and testing/maintenance of the emergency generator.

Maintenance of the project would occur approximately every five years and is estimated at 20 or less vehicle trips per day during this limited time.

E
xisting CO levels in Ventura County have been historically low enough that VCAPCD monitoring stations throughout Ventura County ceased monitoring ambient CO concentrations in March and July 2004. Because ambient CO concentrations in Ventura County are relatively low, and because the project would not result in a substantial addition of traffic or congestion to any area intersection (especially not any high-volume or already-congested intersection), the project would not be expected to result in a CO hotspot. Impacts would be less than significant.

Toxic Air
Contaminants
Construction-related activities would result in temporary project-generated emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for demolition, site preparation, trenching, infrastructure installation, paving, and other construction activities. DPM was identified as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by CARB in 1998 (CARB 2022a).

G
eneration of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period of time. Construction of the project would occur in phases over approximately 14 months. The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function 32 Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the maximally exposed individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. However, young children are more sensitive to exposure to some carcinogens than adults. Therefore, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has implemented age sensitivity factors that take into account the increased sensitivity of children during early development stages (i.e. 3
rd trimester exposure to 16 years). Given the age sensitivity factors, exposure at a young age to even short term projects have the potential to result in substantial risk exposure.

The maximum daily PM10 emissions would range from less than 0.19 to 1.11 pounds per day of exhaust (assumed to be DPM), with the maximum emissions occurring during grading activities. The project would be consistent with the applicable AQMP requirements and control strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. The project would comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at a location, and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these requirements would minimize emissions of TACs during construction. Given the pounds per day of PM
10 exhaust, and the close sensitive receptors, there is the potential for construction of the project to result in a significant TAC impact without mitigation.

According to VCAPCD’s Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (2003) and CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005), typical sources of acutely and chronically hazardous TACs include industrial manufacturing processes (e.g., chrome plating, electrical manufacturing, and petroleum refining).O peration of the project would not include these types of potential industrial manufacturing process sources. The project does include the implementation of an emergency generator, but this would need to be permitted through the VCAPCD and therefore would not result in emissions that would result in potential significant health risks. Therefore, impacts from TACs during operation would be less than significant.

San Joaquin Valley Fever
Construction activities, including site preparation and grading, would have the potential to release Coccidioides immitis spores. However, the population of Simi Valley has been and will continue to be exposed to Valley Fever from agricultural and construction activities occurring throughout the region, not just from construction of the project. In addition, substantial increases in the number of reported cases of Valley Fever tend to occur only after major ground -disturbing events such as the 1994 Northridge earthquake (VCAPCD 2003). Construction of the project would not result in a comparable major ground disturbance, and because of compliance with VCAPCD Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust), the project would not release a large number of spores. As discussed under Air Pollutant Emission Thresholds, the VCAPCD does not hav e a recommended threshold for Valley Fever Impacts, but instead recommends consideration of the following factors that may indicate a project’s potential to result in significant impacts related to Valley Fever:
 Disturbance of the topsoil of undeveloped land (to a depth of about 12 inches)  Dry, alkaline, sandy soils
 Virgin, undisturbed, non-urban areas
 Windy areas
 Archaeological resources probable or known to exist in the area (Native American midden sites) 33 24

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
 Special events (fairs, concerts) and motorized activities (motocross track, All Terrain Vehicle activities) on unvegetated soil (non-grass)
 Non-native population (i.e., out-of-area construction workers) The project would involve grading of previously undisturbed soils on the edge of a rural residential area. Due to the relatively small size of the project, it is anticipated that construction workers would be from the local or regional area and would therefore have previous exposure to and immunity from Valley Fever. However, with disturbance of previously undisturbed areas, construction of the project would have the potential to result in a substantial increase in entrained fungal spores that cause Valley Fever above existing background levels. Impacts related to Valley Fever would be potentially significant without mitigation. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (above) and Mitigation Measure AQ-2 (presented below) would be required.

Miti
gation Measures
A
Q-2 Valley Fever Mitigation Measures
T
he following measures shall be implemented to reduce potential exposure of workers and nearby sensitive receptors to the exposure of Valley Fever spores:
 Implementation of Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures in Section 7.4.1 of the APCD Guidance including:
 The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
 Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be graded or excavated before commencement of grading or excavation operations. Application of water (preferably reclaimed, if available) should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities.
 Fugitive dust produced during grading, excavation, and construction activities shall be controlled by the following activities:
− All trucks shall be required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
− All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways, shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally-safe soil stabilization materials, and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible.
 Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored by the construction contractor at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll-compaction, and environmentally-safe dust control materials, shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally-safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust.  Signs shall be posted on-site limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. 34 Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 25  During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off -site or on-site. The site superintendent/supervisor shall use his/her discretion in conjunction with the APCD in determining when winds are excessive.
 Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads.  Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors, should be advised to wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations.
 Restrict employment to persons with positive coccidioid in skin tests where feasible (since those with positive tests can be considered immune to reinfection).  Hire crews from local populations where possible, since it is more likely that they have been previously exposed to the fungus and are therefore immune.  Require crews to use respirators during project clearing, grading, and excavation operations in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations.  Require that the cabs of grading and construction equipment be air-conditioned.  Require crews to work upwind from excavation sites.
 Pave construction roads.
 Where acceptable to the fire department, control weed growth by mowing instead of discing, thereby leaving the ground undisturbed and with a mulch covering.  During rough grading and construction, the access way into the project site from adjoining paved roadways should be paved or treated with environmentally-safe dust control agents.

Significance after Mitigation
With incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the project would be required to use off-road diesel- powered construction equipment that meets or exceeds the most stringent and environmentally protective CARB and U SEPA Tier 4 off-road emissions standards, or alternatively fueled equipment which would substantially reduce DPM emissions. The Tier 4 standards reduce DPM emissions by approximately 81 to 96 percent as compared to equipment that meet the Tier 2 off -road emissions standards, depending on the specific horsepower rating of each piece of equipment. Thus, with implementation of M itigation Measure AQ -1, construction activities would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations that would potentially exceed cancer risk greater than ten per one million population. Construction-related health impacts would be reduced to a less-than- significant level.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would require measures to further reduce fugitive dust emissions and limit the exposure of onsite workers and offsite sensitive receptors to Valley Fever spores that may be disturbed during the grading of the top f oot of the site during grading activities.

Based on VCAPCD guidance, the implementation of these measures would reduce potential impacts from exposure to Valley Fever spores to less-than-significant levels.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
35 26

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
For construction activities, odors would be short-term in nature and are subject to VCAPCD Rule 51, Nuisance. Construction activities would be temporary and transitory and associated odors would cease upon construction completion. Accordingly, the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during construction, and short-term impacts would be less than significant.

B
ased on the VCAPCD Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (2003), a project may have a significant impact if it would generate an objectionable odor to a degree that would cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to a considerable number of persons or to the public, or which would endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which would cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Land uses
and industrial operations known to emit objectionable odors include wastewater treatment facilities, food processing facilities, coffee roasters, fiberglass operations, refineries, feed lots/dairies, and composting facilities (VCAPCD 2003). The project would include the construction and operation of
new water tank that would not have daily activities. Therefore, because the project would not directly or indirectly generate any objectionable odors or other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people,
there would be no impact.

O IMPACT
36 Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 4 Biological Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ □ ■
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
□ □ ■ □
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance? □ □ ■ □
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? □ □ □ ■
37 28

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
The analysis presented in this section is based on Rincon’s desktop review of available technical information (literature and databases) on biological resources in the project vicinity and a biological reconnaissance survey of the project site and a 50-foot survey buffer area. The literature review included: a nine United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle (9-quad) search, including the Santa Susana quadrangle in which the project site is located, and the eight surrounding quadrangles (Val Verde, Newhall, Oat Mountain, Canoga Park, Calabasas, Thousand Oaks, Simi, and Piru); a refined five-mile radius search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online inventory; the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) special- status species list, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation database.

A
Rincon biologist conducted a biological reconnaissance field survey of the project location and 50- foot survey buffer on September 24, 2024. The purpose of the field survey was to document existing biological conditions, including plant and wildlife species, vegetation communities, and riparian resources. Rincon evaluated the potential for presence of special-status species, jurisdictional waters and/or sensitive vegetation communities in the study area and assessed the potential for significant impacts to these resources under CEQA. The results of the field survey, literature and database review, and review of previous mapping and documentation were used to inform the baseline environmental setting and the following impact analysis, as presented below.

Regi
onal and Project Site Setting
The project site occurs in the southern edge of Simi Valley in unincorporated Ventura County at the terminus of Crown Hill Drive. The project site encompasses approximately 0.6 acre along a north- facing slope. Elevations range from 1,377 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the northern boundary to 1,464 feet amsl at the site’s southern boundary. The site contains a developed water storage facility, existing access road, and graded area for the proposed tank location. Two existing water tanks (the Alta Vista Tanks) are in a graded area that has a paved driveway leading to the tanks. The adjacent area surrounding the project site contains mostly yerba santa – deerweed scrub, ornamental woodland, annual grassland, and residential development west and north of the project site.

S
oils
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2024) depicts a single soil type throughout the project site: loam soils in the Gaviota rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes series. This soil series is not hydric and is well- drained.

V
egetation
The project site where work would occur is historically disturbed by the existing water storage facility, access roads, and historical grading. Vegetation communities documented within the 50-foot buffer area consist of coastal sage scrub and include yerba santa-deerweed scrub, California sagebrush scrub, and non-native brome grassland. Vegetation classification was based on the classification system provided in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009). Additionally, some non- native ornamental trees occur along the western side of the existing tanks.

D
eerweed - silver lupine - yerba santa scrub (Lotus scoparius - Lupinus albifrons - Eriodictyon spp.

Shrubland Alliance; Sawyer et al. 2009) consists primarily of thick-leaved yerba santa (Eriodictyon crassifolium) and deerweed (Acmispon glaber) and occurs in the southern portion of the project site, bordering the access route and proposed tank location.
38 Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 Wild oats and annual brome grasslands (Avena spp. – Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance; Sawyer et al. 2009) is present to the east of the access road, which appeared to be disturbed through vegetation management practices, such as mowing. California sagebrush scrub (Artemisia californica Shrubland Alliance; Sawyer et al. 2009) is located between the proposed tank location and the access route.

Native species observed within the project site and 50 -foot survey buffer include deerweed, thick- leaved yerba santa, California sagebrush ( Artemisia californica), California buckwheat ( Eriogonum fasciculatum), chamise ( Adenostoma fasiculatum ), Brickell bush ( Brickellia californica), common sandaster ( Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. filaginifolia), chalk dudleya ( Dudleya pulverulenta), chaparral yucca ( Hesperoyucca whipplei), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia ), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora ), laurel sumac ( Malosma laurina), branching phacelia ( Phacelia ramosissima), coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia), black sage ( Salvia mellifera), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum).

Non-native species observed within the project site and 50-foot survey buffer includes slim oat (Avena barbata), ripgut brome ( Bromus diandrus ), red brome ( Bromus rubens ), tocalote ( Centaura melitensis), rattail six -week grass ( Festuca myuros ), summer mustard ( Hirschfeldia incana), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), jersey cudweed ( Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum ), and spiny sowthis tle (Sonchus asper).

Wildlife
The coastal sage scrub and yerba santa – deerweed scrub communities adjacent to the project site provide habitat for many wildlife species . Common w ildlife species are expected to utilize the vegetation areas that surround the project site for foraging, shelter, and or nesting. Wildlife detected during the survey included acorn woodpecker ( Melanerpes formicivorus), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), California scrub jay ( Aphelocoma californica), California towhee ( Melozone crissalis), house finch ( Haemorhous mexicanus ), lesser goldfinch ( Spinus psaltria), and wrentit ( Chamaea fasciata). Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), a candidate species for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), has a high potential to occur within the 50 -foot survey buffer area.

Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), a federally listed Threatened species and California Species of Special Concern, has a moderate potential to occur within the coastal sage scrub community.

Regulatory Setting
Regulatory authority over biological resources is shared by federal, state, and local authorities under a variety of statutes and guidelines. Primary authority f or general biological resources lies with the land use control and planning authority of loca l jurisdictions. The CDFW is a trustee agency for biological resources throughout the State under CEQA and has authority to regulate impacts to protected species under the Fish and Game Code of California. Under CESA and the Federal Endangered Species Act (F ESA), the CDFW and the USFWS, respectively, have direct regulatory authority over species formally listed as Threatened or Endangered. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board have regulatory authority over specific biological resources, namely wetlands and waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, and wa ters of the State under Section 401 of the Act, respectively.

Special-status species are those plants and wildlife listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as Threatened or Endangered by the USFWS under the FESA; those listed or candidates for listing as 39 30

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
Threatened or Endangered by the CDFW under the CESA or Rare under the Native Plant Protection Act; animals designated as “Fully Protected” by the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC); wildlife listed as “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFW; and CDFW Special Plants, specifically those with California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) of 1 (Presumed endangered/extinct in California and endangered/extinct elsewhere) and 2 (Presumed endangered/extinct in California but common elsewhere) in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2024).

A list of special-status plant and wildlife species with potential to occur on site was developed based on a review of a 9-quad and 5-mile search of the CNDDB (CDFW 2024a) and a 9-quad search of the CNPS online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2024). The potential for each special-status species to occur on the project site was evaluated according to the following criteria.
 Not Expected. Habitat on and adjacent to the project site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime).
 Low Potential. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the project site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the project site.  Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the project site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the project site.  High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the project site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the project site.
 Present. Species is observed or has been recorded (e.g., CNDDB, other reports) on the project site recently (within the last two years).

W
hile common birds are not designated as special-status-species, destruction of their eggs, nests, and nestlings is prohibited by federal and State law. Section 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code of California specifically protects birds of prey, and their nests and eggs against take, possession, or destruction. Sections 3503 and 3513 of the CFGC incorporate restrictions imposed by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) with respect to migratory birds (which includes most native bird species).

Impa
ct Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Special-Status Plants
Fifteen special-status plant species were identified to have occurrence records within 5 miles surrounding the project site (CDFW 2024a; CNPS 2024; USFWS 2024a). Species with the potential to occur have specific habitat requirements (e.g., soil type, elevation, hydrologic condition, etc.) that may or may not be present within the survey area. Ten of the fifteen species with occurrence records were determined to have no potential to occur on the project site based on existing conditions (land 40 Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 cover disturbed by development, mowing, and grading) , a lack of suitable physical or biological features, and the age of the CNDDB records or distance of the records from the project site. The five remaining species were determined to have low potential to occur within the coastal sage scrub or grassland vegetation where landscaping activities will occur , including Braunton’s milk-vetch (Astragalus brauntonii, federally endangered, CRPR 1B.1), Nevin’s barberry ( Berberis nevinii, federal and State endangered , CRPR 1B.1), slender mariposa lily ( Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis, CRPR 1B.2), Plummer’s mariposa lily ( Calochortus plummerae, CRPR 4.2), and chaparral nolina (Nolina cismontana; CRPR 1B.2). Nevin’s barberry and chaparral nolina are perennial species identifiable year round and were not observed during the biological reconnaissance survey. These two plant species are determined not to be present within the project site or the 50 -foot survey buffer. None of the remaining three plant species w as observed during the biological reconnaissance survey; however, the survey was performed outside of the typical blooming period for these species. While the project site contains some habitat characteristics for each of the five special-status plant species, the potential habitat is classified as poor quality, limited, and/or fragmented (i.e., very limited portion of the project site and general area), or CNDDB records for the species are over 20 years old or not within 5 miles of the project site.

Braunton’s milk, slender mariposa lily, and Plummer’s mariposa lily are considered to have a low potential to occur in the project site; however, each of these species is potentially subject to impacts, if present, in areas where landscaping activities will occur. Therefore, mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires installation of fencing around the work area to avoid impacts to the adjacent native vegetation community where these plant species may occur, M itigation Measure BIO -2 includes worker environmental awareness training that would provide all on -site workers with information to help recognize sensitive environments and environmental conditions to avoid impacts to special-status plants, and Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires rare plant surveys to be performed prior to the start of construction. Impacts related to special-status plant species would be less than significant with the above mitigation incorporated.

Special-Status Wildlife
Eighteen special-status wildlife species have occurrence records within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2024a, 2024c). The list of species with potential to occur within the project site was reviewed, and the potential for species to be present was determined (i.e., Not Expected, Low Potential, Moderate Potential, High Potential, Present). Of the 18 species identified during the desktop analysis, 16 species were determined to have no or low potential to occur and are not discussed further herein.

Of the remaining two species, Crotch’s bumble bee has a moderate potential to occur within the 50- foot survey buffer area, and coastal California gnatcatcher has a moderate potential to occur within the 50 -foot survey buffer area. G iven the landscaping activities will occur where native scrub vegetation is present, both species are potentially subject to impacts. These two special-status wildlife species are further evaluated below based on their regional significance and listing status. 41 32

Ve
ntura County Waterworks District No. 8
Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project
Crotch’s Bumblebee
Crotch’s bumble bee is a state candidate endangered species with a high potential to occur within the survey buffer adjacent to the project site. Crotch’s bumble bee occurs in coastal California, east to the Sierra-Cascade crest, and south into Mexico. They require food from plant species in the genera Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum. Five occurrences of Crotch’s bumble bee have been recorded within a 5-mile radius of the project site (USFWS 2024a; CDFW 2024a). No individuals or sign (e.g., burrows) were observed on the project site; however, suitable habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee is present throughout the survey buffer adjacent to the project site in the form of Eriogonum spp. and Phacelia spp., and therefore, the potential for this species to occur is high. If Crotch’s bumble bee individuals or burrows are present adjacent to the project site during work and are injured or killed during construction activities (e.g., grading, excavation), or struck by equipment or vehicles, impacts to individuals would be significant. The species is currently a candidate for State listing under CESA; therefore, injury, mortality, or harassment of individuals would be considered “take” and a significant impact. Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-4 would reduce potential impacts related to the Crotch’s bumble bee to less-than- significant levels by requiring environmental training for all workers, conducting pre-construction surveys for the species, and avoiding impacts to the species, if detected. In accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-4, if direct impacts to individuals cannot be avoided, and if the species becomes formally listed or is still a candidate for listing under CESA, the District shall obtain a Fish and Game Code 2081(b) Incidental Take Permit in coordination with CDFW before any ground disturbance occurs.

C
oastal California Gnatcatcher
Coastal California gnatcatcher is a federally threatened species and California Species of Special Concern and has a moderate potential to occur within the survey buffer adjacent to the project site.

Coastal California gnatcatcher are found in coastal sage scrub below 2,500 ft elevation in southern California and are permanent residents. They are frequently found in low-growing coastal sage scrub in arid washes, mesas, and slopes. There are four recorded occurrences of coastal California gnatcatcher within a 5-mile radius of the project site; the most recent of which was in 2016 (CDFW 2024a), with the closest CNDDB record occurrence approximately 4.5 miles from the project site in the city of Simi Valley. Despite habitat fragmentation and the residential development bordering the project site to the north and west, coastal California gnatcatcher has a moderate potential to occur on the project site where landscaping activities will occur in areas with coastal sage scrub vegetation suitable to support the species. This species is unlikely to be directly impacted by project construction activities unless individuals traverse through the coastal sage scrub vegetation during foraging or dispersal movement. If the species is determined to be present within 300 feet of the site during construction, impacts could occur to the species, including injury or mortality of individuals from construction activities (e.g., grading, excavation) or strikes by equipment or vehicles. Injury, mortality, or harassment of individuals is considered “take” under the federal Endangered Species Act and would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-5 are provided here to reduce potential impacts related to coastal California gnatcatcher to less-than-significant by requiring environmental training for all workers, conducting pre-construction surveys for the species, and establishing measures to avoid impacts to the species through the use of avoidance buffer and biological monitoring for nests, if detected. If avoidance of the species is not possible during construction activities, Mitigation Measure BIO-6 is required to obtain take permission for impacts to the species.
42 Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 33

E
nvironmental Checklist
Biological Resources
N
esting Birds
Nesting bird species are protected under the MBTA and CFGC and have potential to occur within the vegetation that surrounds the project site during the nesting season (February 1 to September 15). If nesting birds are present during construction, direct impacts could occur to individuals, nests, and young. Direct impacts can include the destruction of nests through construction activities or the disturbance of nesting behavior through construction noise and activities. Indirect impacts to nesting birds could include the destruction or disturbance of nesting habitat. Nest destruction or abandonment would be a violation of CFGC code and the MBTA. However, Mitigation Measures BIO- 2 and
BIO-5 are provided to help assure compliance with the MBTA and CFGC by requiring worker environmental awareness training, pre-construction bird nest surveys, and establishing avoidance buffers around active nests of birds protected under the MTBA and CFGC.

P
otential impacts to special-status wildlife species would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Miti
gation Measures
BIO-1 Plant Impact Avoidance
B
efore the start of construction, the contractor shall install high-visibility fencing between the work area and adjacent native vegetation to ensure no vehicle or foot traffic impacts the vegetation community surrounding the work site. The fencing shall be sturdy, weather-resistant, and secured with T-posts or other durable anchoring methods and shall be repaired or replaced as needed to be maintained in good condition. Signs indicating “Environmentally Sensitive Area – Keep Out” shall be posted at regular intervals along the fencing.

B
IO-2 Prepare and Implement Worker Environmental Awareness Program B
efore initiation of construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project construction shall attend a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, provided by a qualified biologist. The intent of this training is to review the sensitive biological resources that may be present during construction activities (e.g., special-status species and nesting birds). This program will include an overview of the habitats of special-status species with potential to occur, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive biological resources, and a review of the limits of construction. Additionally, the biologist will go over the mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall be prepared by the qualified biologist for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction. All personnel shall sign a form provided by the biologist providing the WEAP training, indicating they have attended the WEAP and understand the information presented to them.

B
IO-3 Pre-Construction Surveys for Special-Status Plants A
qualified botanist shall be retained by the District or its contractor to conduct a preconstruction survey on the project site for special-status plant species during the appropriate species-specific identification periods, specifically, May through July when the plants are in bloom,and within one year before ground disturbance. The survey will be in accordance with CNPS’s Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS 2001), CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018), and USFWS’s 43 34

Ve
ntura County Waterworks District No. 8
Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project
Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (USFWS 1996).

If the survey confirms that no special-status plant species are present on the project site, no further actions will be required. If the plant survey reveals the presence of special-status plants on the project site, individuals will be flagged for avoidance during construction. If the populations cannot be avoided during construction, the District or its contractor will retain a qualified botanist or restoration ecologist to prepare a salvage, relocation, or propagation and monitoring plan for special-status plants before construction tis initiated. The plan will include provisions that address the techniques, location, and procedures required for the successful establishment of the plant populations. The plan will include provisions for performance that address survivability requirements, maintenance, monitoring, implementation, adaptive management, and the annual reporting requirements. All directly impacted special-status plants will be documented by a qualified botanist. Documentation of impacts special-status plants will include locations, quantity, density and percent cover; key habitat characteristics, including soil type, associated species, hydrology, and topography; and photo documentation of preconstruction conditions.

BIO-4
Crotch’s Bumble Bee Pre-Construction Survey and Impact Avoidance P
re-construction surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee, including ground nests, shall be conducted within all suitable habitats adjacent to the project site within the 50-foot buffer before initial ground- disturbing activities (e.g., grubbing/removing vegetation, excavation, grading, construction). These surveys aim to identify individuals and/or active nest colonies in areas adjacent to the site. The pre- construction surveys shall follow the methodologies set out in the CDFW Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee (CDFW 2023) or other survey methodology approved by CDFW.

I
f the pre-construction surveys identify individuals or active nest colonies adjacent to the project footprint:
 An appropriate no-disturbance buffer zone shall be established around the active nest colony to reduce the risk of disturbance or accidental take. The buffer distance shall be established by a qualified biologist.
 The project proponent/operator shall consult with a qualified biologist to discuss considerations and recommendations on implementing project activities to avoid take of Crotch’s bumble bee.

If an avoidance buffer is required as described above, construction activities shall not occur within that buffer zone until a qualified biologist determines the nest to no longer be active (i.e., no Crotch’s bumble bee are seen flying in or out of the nest for three consecutive days [during suitable weather conditions
when Crotch’s bumble bee are typically active] indicating the colony has completed its nesting season and the queens have dispersed from the colony), after which construction activities may resume within that buffer zone.

B
IO-5 Nesting Bird Pre-construction Survey and Impact Avoidance T
o avoid impacting active bird nests, juveniles or adults, project activities, including vegetation clearing and tree removal, shall be conducted outside of the breeding season (February 1 through September 15) to the extent feasible.

I
f project activities occur between February 1 and September 15, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 7 working days before the activity to survey for bird nests. The survey area shall include the project footprint and a 100-foot buffer for 44 Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 35

E
nvironmental Checklist
Biological Resources
p
asserine species and a 300-foot buffer for coastal California gnatcatcher and raptor species.

Following the survey, the following shall be implemented:
 A nesting bird survey report shall be submitted to the District prior to the initiation of project activities. The report shall detail the results of the survey including identification of the location of any active nests and shall describe any nest monitoring that shall be conducted and/or whether any avoidance buffers shall be established.
 If active nests are identified during the survey and/or work is scheduled to take place within 100 feet of active passerine nests or 300 feet of active coastal California gnatcatcher and raptor nests, a qualified biologist shall determine appropriate avoidance buffers. The buffer shall be the minimum distance required to avoid take of the nest and shall be determined based on the species identified, activities proposed, level of existing noise, and location of the nest.  A qualified biologist shall determine when nesting is completed and when any avoidance buffers may be removed.
 If nesting bird monitoring is conducted, a nesting bird monitoring report shall be submitted to the District detailing the results of monitoring activities and measures implemented that avoided impacts to the nest. The report shall be submitted within 30 days of the completion of the nesting bird monitoring.

BIO-6 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Protocol Surveys B
efore the start of construction, the District or its contractor shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct protocol coastal California gnatcatcher surveys in accordance with the guidelines issued by the USFWS (USFWS 1997). Surveys shall be conducted by a USFWS-permitted biologist before the start of construction. The results of the survey shall be provided in a report to USFWS within 45 days of completion of the survey, and no less than 30 days before the start of groundbreaking activities.

I
f protocol surveys determine that occupied habitat is present in the project footprint plus a 300- foot buffer where accessible, the following measures shall be implemented during project construction to avoid or minimize direct take of coastal California gnatcatcher:

1. All grubbing or grading taking place within occupied habitat of the coastal California gnatcatcher (defined as within 300 feet of any gnatcatcher sightings) during construction shall be conducted from September 1 through February 14, which is outside the coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season.

2. When conducting any construction activities during the California gnatcatcher breeding season, February 15 through August 30, within or adjacent to occupied coastal California gnatcatcher habitat, a USFWS permitted biologist shall survey for nesting coastal California gnatcatcher approximately once per week within 300 feet of the construction area, where accessible, for the duration of the activity in that area during the breeding season.

3. If an active nest is located, a 300-foot avoidance buffer shall be established around each nest site; however, there may be a reduction of this buffer zone depending on site-specific conditions such as topography, line-of-sight to the nest, or the existing ambient level of activity. The District shall contact USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer zone. No construction shall take place within this buffer until the biologist can verify that the nest is no longer active.

4. Conspicuous construction fencing shall be maintained in place to protect all habitat outside the approved construction area until the conclusion of construction. Before commencement of grading, the project biologist shall confirm with the contractor or a licensed surveyor that the construction fencing has been placed at the outer edge of the construction area. 45 36

Ve
ntura County Waterworks District No. 8
Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project

5. All construction activities shall take place only on the construction side (i.e., inside) of the fenced area. Grading materials shall be stored either inside the fenced development area or in an area approved by the project biologist.

6. A biological monitor familiar with coastal California gnatcatcher and its habitat shall be present during all vegetation clearing and other activities within coastal sage scrub and shall monitor the project to ensure that there are no unanticipated impacts to the species and its habitat.

7. Access to the site shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible.

8. All active coastal California gnatcatcher nests shall be reported within 24 hours to the USFWS upon detection.

9. The biological monitor shall halt work if it is determined that active nests would be disturbed by construction activities, until further direction or approval to work is obtained from the appropriate agencies.

10. The project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food-related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site.

11. In the event that coastal California gnatcatcher individuals or occupied habitat cannot be avoided and incidental take is expected, the District or its contractor shall obtain necessary take authorization from the USFWS.

COMPENSATION FOR CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER HABITAT IMPACTS I
mpacts requiring mitigation include permanent and temporary impacts to occupied and unoccupied habitat. Permanent impacts to occupied habitat shall require acquisition and preservation of occupied habitat off-site at a location approved by USFWS. Mitigation for permanent impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher shall be at a ratio of 2:1 for preserved to impacted habitat. In the event occupied habitat is not available at an off-site location, mitigation credits shall be purchased at a USFWS-approved mitigation bank. Temporary impacts to occupied habitat and impacts to all unoccupied habitat (as determined by protocol surveys) shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio and can include 1:1 on-site restoration and 1:1 acquisition and preservation of occupied habitat off-site.

C
oastal sage scrub habitat that is not designated for removal shall be avoided and protected with appropriate buffer zones marked with high-visibility material. Project work areas shall be clearly flagged or similarly marked at the outer boundaries to define the limit of work activities. No unauthorized entry or construction disturbance shall be permitted within protective buffer zones.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
46 Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 37

E
nvironmental Checklist
Biological Resources
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? N
o riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities were observed within the project site. Therefore, no impacts related to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities would occur.

O IMPACT
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No federal or state jurisdictional waters exist within the project site; as such, no impacts would occur on State or federally protected wetlands. The National Wetland Institute maps the nearest potentially jurisdictional drainage as a freshwater forested wetland approximately 0.2 mile west of the project site. However, this wetland area is separated from the project site by coastal sage scrub and Black Canyon Road. There are no drainages or hydrologic features connecting the project site to this wetland. Therefore, no impacts related to protected wetlands would occur as a result of the project.

O IMPACT
d. Would the project 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?
Some potential exists for wildlife to use the project site as a movement corridor due to its connections to adjacent open space. However, given the considerable amount of open space adjacent to the project site to the east and south, the small footprint of the project, and the temporary nature of work activities, substantial impacts on wildlife movement are not expected. Impacts would be less than significant.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Mature native trees, including oaks, are protected by the City of Simi Valley Mature Tree Preservation Ordinance (City of Simi Valley 2023), the Ventura County Tree Protection Ordinance (County of Ventura 1992), and the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance. Two coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) occur within the outer boundary of the 50-foot buffer portion of the project site. One oak is located in the northern portion of the project site, northeast of the existing water tanks, west of the access road. The other oak tree is in the central portion of the project site, northwest of the proposed tank location, east of the access road. No ground disturbing activity is planned within 5 feet of the oak trees’ dripline or within 15 feet of the trees’ root zone from the trunk. Accordingly, no impacts to the oak trees are anticipated.

D
emolition of Alta Vista Tank No. 1 would require removal of up to 10 trees. The District would obtain a tree removal permit prior to initiation of project construction. In addition, the project would involve planting of shrubs and four replacement trees in the areas surrounding the Alta Vista Tanks.

Therefore, impacts
related to consistency with local policies protecting biological resources would be less than significant.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
47 38

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The project site does not occur within the boundaries of a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

Therefore, there would be no impact related to consistency with approved habitat conservation plans.

O IMPACT
48 Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 39 5 Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
□ ■ □ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ ■ □
Between August 2024 and June 2025, Rincon conducted a Cultural Resources Assessment in support of the project, which included: a cultural resources records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) through the South Central Coastal Information Center located at California State University, Fullerton; a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search; pedestrian field surveys; and historical map and aerial imagery review. The cultural resources assessment also included background research and a field survey of built environment resources. This section incorporates the results of the Cultural Resources Assessment.

This section provides an analysis of the project’s impacts on cultural resources, including historical and archaeological resources, as well as human remains. CEQA requires a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on historical resources (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21084.1). A historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); a resource included in a local register of historical resources; or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript a lead agency determines to be historically significant (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[a] [1-3]).

Pursuant to CRHR criteria, a resource is considered historically significant if it:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

This analysis also evaluated potential historical resources under the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Pursuant to NRHP criteria, a resource is considered historically significant if it:
49 40

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history In addition, if it can be demonstrated that a project would cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC, Section 21083.2[a], [b]).

P
RC, Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The field surveys and background research completed for the project identified the presence of one historic-age structure within the project site, Alta Vista Tank No. 1. The project would include potentially demolishing Alta Vista Tank No. 1, and, if the tank is eligible to be listed as a historical resource, the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and have significant impacts.

A
lta Vista Tank No. 1 was visually inspected, photographed, and its overall condition, construction history, and integrity were evaluated under the historical significance criteria of the CRHR and the NRHP. Alta Vista Tank No. 1 was constructed in Simi Valley to provide water to support the area’s growing population and suburban development. However, research conducted as part of the Cultural Resources Assessment did not indicate that the resource significantly contributed to the area within the context of drinking water development, Post-World War II development, or any other context. It is a utilitarian structure constructed to meet the demands of the day rather than an impetus for growth. Therefore, Alta Vista Tank No. 1 is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A and ineligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1.

R
esearch conducted as part of the Cultural Resources Assessment did not indicate that Alta Vista Tank No. 1 is associated with any individuals significant in national, state, or local history. The tank is therefore recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion B and ineligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 2.

A
lta Vista Tank No. 1 is a bolted steel reservoir constructed around 1960. Steel reservoirs are ubiquitous throughout the surrounding area, and throughout California. Popularized in the 1890s, 50 Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 they typically serve as reservoirs for potable drinking water or water for emergencies. The resource is not a significant example of a bolted steel reservoir, nor does it represent any other type, style, period, or method of construction. It was not designed by a master architect, nor does it possess high artistic value. It is therefore recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C and ineligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 3.

Alta Vista Tank No.1 is not likely to yield valuable information that will contribute to our understanding of human history because the recorded resource is not and never was the principal source of important information pertaining to subjects such as mid-twentieth century reservoirs. It is therefore recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D and ineligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 4.

Therefore, Alta Vista Tank No. 1 does not qualify as a historic resource pursuant to CEQA, and the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The cultural resources field survey identified one historic -period archaeological resource in the Project site, Rincon -Knolls-01H. Rincon-Knolls-01H consists of a historic -period refuse scatter consisting of glass, ceramics, and bullet casings.. Rincon-Knolls-01H appears to be associated with mid-20th-century recreational activities, possibly related to hunting and camping, and may be loosely connected to the Mortimer Park/Susana Knolls development.

Rincon-Knolls-01H was evaluated for listing in the NRHP and CRHR. However, research conducted as part of the Cultural Resources Assessment did not indicate that the resource significantly contributed to the area’s historical development or recreational trends in a meaningful way. Therefore, Rincon - Knolls-01H is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A and ineligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1.

Research did not identify any individuals of historical significance directly associated with Rincon - Knolls-01H. Although Lewis Mortimer, a local land developer, was linked to the broader area, there is insufficient evidence to suggest he played a signific ant role in regional development or that the resource is directly associated with his achievements. Therefore, Rincon-Knolls-01H is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion B and ineligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion

2. No features or artifacts were identified within the resource boundary that would qualify Rincon - Knolls-01H as a significant example of a type, period, or method of construction. The resource does not represent the work of a master, nor does it possess high artistic value. It is th erefore recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C and ineligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 3.

Rincon-Knolls-01H is not likely to yield valuable information that will contribute to our understanding of human history. Given the limited number of diagnostic artifacts the resource lacks sufficient data potential, and the resource is also unlikely to contain intact subsurface deposits. Any research value has been exhausted through documentation of the existing materials. Therefore, Rincon -Knolls-01H is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D and ineligible for listi ng in the CRHR under Criterion 4.
51 42

Ve
ntura County Waterworks District No. 8
Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project
Under PRC Section 21083.2(g), a unique archaeological resource must meet specific criteria related to scientific value, rarity, or association with significant events or individuals. Rincon-Knolls-01H does not meet these criteria, as it lacks research potential, is not the oldest or best example of its type, and is not directly linked to any important historic event or person.

Accordingly, Rincon-Knolls-01H does
not qualify as a historic resource pursuant to CEQA, and it is not considered a unique archaeological resource.

T
he geoarchaeological review concluded that the project site is considered to have a low to no potential for subsurface archaeological resources and it is unlikely that archaeological deposits will be encountered during project-related ground disturbance. However, the absence of archaeological resources does not preclude their existence and it is possible that unanticipated archaeological deposits could be encountered and damaged during the ground-disturbing activities associated with construction (such as grading and excavation), especially if those activities occur in less-disturbed buried sediments. Consequently, the following mitigation measures are required to reduce potential impacts related to archaeological resources. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3, the project would result in a less-than-significant impacts to archeological resources.

Miti
gation Measures
CUL-1 Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training
A
ll construction personnel and monitors who are not trained archaeologists shall be briefed regarding unanticipated discoveries prior to the start of construction activities. A basic presentation shall be prepared and presented by a Qualified Archaeologist or other designated archaeologist working under the direction of the Qualified Archaeologist to inform all personnel working on the Project about the archaeological sensitivity of the area. The purpose of the training is to provide specific details on the kinds of archaeological materials that may be identified during construction of the Project and explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. Each worker shall also learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that archaeological resources or human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection and the immediate notification of the on-call archaeologist and if appropriate, Native American representative. The necessity of training attendance shall be stated on all construction plans, and the District shall maintain records demonstrating construction worker training participation.

C
UL-2 Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist
P
rior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, the District shall retain an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (Qualified Archaeologist) to respond to and address any inadvertent discoveries identified for the duration of construction activities and to oversee the implementation of all cultural resources mitigation measures. The Qualified Archaeologist shall possess experience and familiarity with historic-period and prehistoric archaeological resources in the region.

E
nvironmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Ar
chaeologist or other designated archaeologist working under the direction of the Qualified Archaeologist, shall provide recommendations regarding the resource’s potential significance and potential treatment in in coordination with the District. If the resource is determined by the Qualified Archaeologist to be indigenous in origin, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the resource. If the Qualified Archaeologist and/or Native American representative determines it to be appropriate, archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be completed. If the resource proves to be eligible for the CRHR and significant impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via project redesign, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of the resource, pursuant to the requirements
of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant impacts related to the resource. Pursuant to the data recovery plan, the Qualified Archaeologist and Native American representative, as appropriate, shall recover
and document the scientifically consequential information that justifies the resource’s significance.

The
District’s project manager or their designee shall review and approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate, and the resulting documentation shall be submitted to the regional repository of the CHRIS, pursuant to CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).

Si
gnificance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level by identifying and avoiding archaeological resources to the extent feasible and evaluating and recovering possible archaeological resources in the event that they are discovered during project construction.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No prehistoric or historic-period burials within or outside formal cemeteries were identified within the project site as a result of the CHRIS records search, SLF search, or pedestrian survey. In the event human remains are inadvertently encountered during ground-disturbing activities, they would be treated consistent with state and local regulations including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, PRC Section 5097.98, and CCR Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In accordance with these regulations, if human remains are found, the County Coroner must be immediately notified of the discovery. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the County Coroner determines the remains are, or believed to be Native American origin,
he or she is required to notify the NAHC, which shall
then notify those persons believed to be the Most Likely Descendant. The Most Likely Descendant has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains.

If the Most Likely Descendant does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance. Adherence to existing
regulations would reduce potential project impacts to human remains to a less-than- significant level.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
53 44

This page intentionally left blank.

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
54 Environmental Checklist
Energy

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 45 6 Energy

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
California, as a state, is one of the lowest per-capita-energy users in the United States, ranked 48th in the nation due to its energy efficiency programs and mild climate (United States Energy Information Administration 2022). The project would only require the usage of energy in the form of petroleum fuels (i.e., gasoline and diesel) for construction activities and maintenance trips. As such , project- related gasoline and diesel consumption are the focus of this analysis.

Construction
Project construction activities would include demolition of Alta Vista Tank No. 1, construction of an access roadway and retaining walls, construction of the Crown Hill Tank, and installation of pipelines.

During these construction activities, energy would be consumed in the form of petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker travel to and from the project site, and vehicles used to transport materials to and from the site.

Energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used would be typical of similar -sized construction projects in the region. In addition, construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel -fueled commercial motor vehicles and off -road diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption.

Construction equipment would be also subject to the United States Environmental Protection Agency Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, so would be required to minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. These practices would result in efficient use of energy necessary to construct the project. In the interest of project cost efficiency, construction contractors also would not utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary. As such, the project would not involve the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction. 55 46

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
Operation
The project would require routine operational maintenance vehicle trips. Energy consumption associated with maintenance trips would be relatively minimal and would only occur as needed.

Water would be pumped into the Crown Hill Tank via the existing Oak Knolls Pump Station, which is being improved under a separate project, and water would flow from the Crown Hill Tank to Alta Vista Tank No. 2; accordingly, the project would not require new sources of energy for water pumping. The project would require electricity from existing SCE infrastructure to operate radios, tank valves and gates,
and energy required for operational activities would be minimal. Furthermore, the project would not introduce new permanent staffing needs. As such, the project would not involve the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation.

T
herefore, the project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation and impacts would be less than significant.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The Simi Valley General Plan and Simi Valley Climate Action Plan do not contain goals or policies related to the energy consumption or energy efficiency of water infrastructure. The project would comply with energy efficiency standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Building Code, which would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation. Further, the project would comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) which requires implementation of energy-efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects, and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which requires newly constructed buildings to meet energy performance standards set by the California Energy Commission. These standards are specifically crafted for new buildings to achieve energy efficient performance.

I
n addition to these requirements, the use of nonrenewable energy resources would be further reduced as the percentage of electricity generated by renewable resources provided by SCE continues to increase to comply with state requirements through Senate Bill 100), which requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 60 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045.

These regulations would result in the efficient use of energy necessary to construct the project.

W
ith the project’s consumption of gasoline and diesel nonrenewable fuels only during construction and in compliance with California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, USEPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, and CALGreen, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact related to consistency with local and State renewable energy and energy efficiency plans.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
56 Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 47 7 Geology and Soils

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

1. 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? □ □ □ ■

2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □

3. Seismic- related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ □ □ ■

4. Landslides? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
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. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property? □ □ □ ■
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? □ □ □ ■
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
□ ■ □ □
57 48

Ve
ntura County Waterworks District No. 8
Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project
The following analysis is based in part on the geotechnical report prepared for the project by Oakridge Geoscience, Inc. in December 2016. The report is included as Appendix A. a
.1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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? T
he nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone is the Simi-Santa Rosa Fault Zone, which is located approximately 3.8 miles northwest of the project site (California Department of Conservation 2021; Appendix A). Therefore, the project site does not overlie a known fault and would not result in the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Sim
ilar to all of Southern California, the project site is subject to strong ground shaking associated with active or potentially active faults within the region. Faults in proximity to the project site include the Northridge Fault approximately 2.1 miles to the south, Simi-Santa Rosa Fault 3.8 miles to the northwest, the Santa Susana Fault 5 miles to the northeast, and the San Cayetano Fault 13 miles to the north (California Department of Conservation 2021; Appendix A).

T
he project involves demolition of an existing water storage tank and construction of a new water storage tank and pipelines. The project would not include habitable structures which could put people at risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Design and construction of the project would consider the seismic environment and would comply with applicable seismic design standards, including the American Water Works Association D100 Seismic Design Parameters. These design standards incorporate seismic design and strength standards for water tanks, including those that may be used for post-earthquake fire suppression (Appendix A). A large seismic event, such as a fault rupture, seismic shaking, or ground failure, could result in breakage of the tank or pipelines and/or underground leakage from the tank or pipelines. In the event an earthquake compromises the pipelines during operation, theDistrict would conduct emergency repairs as soon as practicable.

A
lthough the project site is located within a seismically active area and would place infrastructure in an area that could be affected by seismic activity, impacts related to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? L
iquefaction occurs when strong, cyclic motions during an earthquake cause water-saturated soils to lose their cohesion and take on a liquid state. Liquefied soils are unstable and can subject overlying structures to substantial damage. The project site is underlain by bedrock and does not contain groundwater (Appendix A). Therefore, the project would not result in the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic related ground failure including liquefaction and no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
58 Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 49 a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
The proposed tank site is located within moderately steep hillside terrain, but is not located within a landslide hazard zone (California Department of Conservation 2021). Because the proposed tank and pipelines would be located within bedrock soil layers and the topography of the tank site itself is relatively flat, the potential for slope instability and landslides is low (Appendix A). Therefore, the project would not result in the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides and no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Soil erosion or the loss of topsoil may occur when soils are disturbed but not secured or restored, such that wind or rain events may mobilize disturbed soils, resulting in their transport off the project site. The project site is relatively flat; however, construction of the proposed pipeline would require grading and open cut trenching on land that is currently undeveloped, which would involve exposing soil such that erosion and topsoil loss could occur.

Section 9 -32.110 of SVMC establishes grading standards, which require preparation of a soil stabilization report and implementation of erosion control measures to prevent soil loss. Construction activities would be required to comply with this ordinance and soil erosion would be controlled to the extent feasible. With adherence to the requirements of this ordinance, impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project 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?
As discussed under checklist items (a.1), (a.3), and (a.4), the project would not result in on- or off-site landslide, liquefaction, or collapse. In addition, the project is not anticipated to adversely affect soil stability or increase the potential for local or regional liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence or collapse, as excavated areas would be properly backfilled in accordance with applicable compaction requirements. The project would not include habitable structures and impacts related to lands lide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Expansive soils are soils with high shrink -swell potential. The bedrock and granular fill soils that underlie the project site are considered to have low expansion potential (Appendix A). Accordingly, the project would not be located on expansive soil and would not create risks to life or property. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
59 50

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
e. Would the project 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?
The project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

Therefore, no impact would occur.

O IMPACT
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the evidence of once-living organisms preserved in the rock record. They include both the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof (e.g., trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). Paleontological resources are not found in “soil” but are contained within the geologic deposits or bedrock that underlies the soil layer. Typically, fossils are greater than 5,000 years old (i.e., older than middle Holocene in age) and are typically preserved in sedimentary
rocks. Although rare, fossils can also be preserved in volcanic rocks and low-grade metamorphic rocks under certain conditions (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP] 2010). Fossils occur in a non-continuous and often unpredictable distribution within some sedimentary units, and the potential for fossils to occur within sedimentary units depends on several factors. It is possible to evaluate the potential for geologic units to contain scientifically important paleontological resources, and
therefore evaluate the potential for impacts to those resources and provide mitigation for paleontological resources if they are discovered during construction of a development project.

T
he paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units that underlie the project site was evaluated to assess the project’s potential for significant impacts to scientifically important paleontological resources. The analysis was based on the results of a paleontological locality search and a review of existing information in the scientific literature regarding known fossils within geologic units mapped at the project site. According to the SVP (2010) classification system, geologic units can be assigned a high,
low, undetermined, or no potential for containing scientifically significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Following the literature review, a paleontological sensitivity classification was assigned to each geologic unit mapped within the project site. This criterion is based on rock units within which vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or likely to be present. The potential for impacts to significant paleontological resources is based on the potential for ground disturbance to directly impact paleontologically sensitive geologic
units.

T
he project site is situated in the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province, one of the eleven geomorphic provinces in California (California Geological Survey 2002). The Transverse Ranges extend approximately 275 miles west-east from Point Arguello in Santa Barbara County, east to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the Anacapa-Santa Monica-Hollywood-Raymond-Cucamonga fault zone (Yerkes and Campbell 2005). Locally, the project site is in the Simi Hills, an approximately 13-mile-long range formed of Cretaceous to Miocene-aged marine sedimentary rocks. The Simi Hills are bordered to the north by the Simi Valley, to the east by the San Fernando Valley, to the south by the Santa Monica Mountains, and to the west by the Santa Rosa Valley.

T
he project is located in the Simi Valley East, California United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The geology of the region surrounding the project site was mapped by Campbell et al. (2016), who identified a single geologic unit, Chatsworth Formation, within the project site. The geotechnical report (Appendix A) identifies artificial fill and Quaternary colluvium as well as 60 Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 51 the Chatsworth Formation. The geotechnical investigation represents a much more localized analysis of the project site’s geology, so its interpretations will be primarily relied upon for this report. A records search was conducted with the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County on September 8, 2024. This locality search recovered no known fossil localities within the project site (Bell 2024).

Bell (2024) reported many localities from the Chatsworth Formation within the Simi Hills, which have produced shark (Chondrichthyes) teeth and invertebrates. The nearest locality to the project site comes from Dayton Canyon approximately 2 miles south of the project site.

Artificial fill underlies the proposed Crown Hill Tank location (Appendix A). The depth of this artificial fill varies across the proposed tank location since it was seemingly placed on the naturally sloped land to provide level building surfaces, but the layer is up to 10 feet thick within the tank footprint. The artificial fill within the remainder of project site consists of sandy silt and silty sand. Artificial fill represents human-deposited sediment and, therefore, has no paleontological sensitivity.

A 1- to 3-foot-thick layer of Quaternary colluvium was found beneath artificial fill within the Crown Hill Tank location (Appendix A). This layer likely represents native soil that was not removed prior to placement of the artificial fill and it consists of dark reddish-brown silty sand. Fossils generally are not preserved within active soils (SVP 2010); therefore, Quaternary colluvium has low paleontological sensitivity.

The Chatsworth Formation is mapped across the entire project site (Campbell et al. 2016) and was found at the surface or beneath the artificial fill and Quaternary colluvium by Oakridge Geoscience, Inc. (2016). The Chatsworth Formation is Late Cretaceous in age (Campbell et al. 2016), and it consists of light brown, thick- or massive -bedded, sandstone with siltstone interbeds at various stages of weathering (Appendix A). The Chatsworth Formation has produced numerous fossil localities within the Simi Hills, yielding taxa such as sharks, ammonites, echinoderms, bivalves, and gastropods (Bell 2024; Paleobiology Database 2024). Given this fossil producing history, the Chatsworth Formation has high paleontological sensitivity.

Table 4 summarizes project construction activities and their potential to impact paleontological resources. As shown therein, the retaining wall, access road, and pipeline alignments are located within geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity and therefore have the potential to impact paleontological resources within the project site.

Table 4 Construction Activity Potential to Impact Paleontological Resources Project Component Geologic Unit(s) Affected
Potential to Impact
Paleontological
Resources?
Crown Hill Tank a rtificial fill; Quaternary colluvium No Retaining Wall artificial fill; Quaternary colluvium; Chatsworth Formation Yes Inlet/Outlet Drain Pipeline artificial fill; Quaternary colluvium; Chatsworth Formation Yes Alta Vista Tank No. 1 (Demolition) artificial fill No
Access Road artificial fill; Chatsworth Formation Yes
Construction of the Crown Hill Tank would involve the excavation and replacement/re-compaction of existing artificial fill sediments at the tank site. Therefore, these excavations would not impact previously disturbed sediments and would not pose a risk to paleontological resources. In addition, ground disturbance required for demolition of Alta Vista Tank No. 1 would disturb fill sediments and would not have the potential to impact paleontological resources. Trenching for the inlet -outlet and 61 52

Ve
ntura County Waterworks District No. 8
Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project
drain pipelines is expected to reach up to 6 feet below the surface. The proposed path for these pipelines crosses the existing tank site, which contains up to 10 feet of artificial fill, the existing access road with 1-3 feet of artificial fill, and the hillside which has no artificial fill. Therefore, pipeline installation likely will affect previously undisturbed parts of the Chatsworth Formation, so this activity does have the potential to significantly impact paleontological resources.

G
round-disturbing activities within previously undisturbed sediments with high paleontological sensitivity, such as the Chatsworth Formation, could result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. Impacts would be significant if construction activities result in the destruction, damage, or loss of scientifically important paleontological resources and associated stratigraphic and paleontological data. Excavations for the installation of the retaining walls, particularly Wall 1 on the southern and eastern portions of the Crown Hill Tank site, could impact previously undisturbed portions of the Chatsworth Formation and could significantly impact paleontological resources.

Further, the new access road would involve grading all loose sediment down to bedrock and the installation of curbs and gutters along the side of this roadway. Little to no artificial fill is found in this access
road alignment, so these activities could impact previously undisturbed parts of the Chatsworth Formation and significantly impact paleontological resources. Impacts would be potentially significant and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is required.

M
itigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less- than-significant level by educating construction personnel on the appearance of paleontological resources; monitoring for paleontological resources; and, if discovered, recovering, identifying, and curating paleontological resources.

Miti
gation Measure
GEO-1 Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Q
ualified Professional Paleontologist. Prior to excavation, the District shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 2010) to direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources.

P
aleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist or their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff shall fossils be discovered by construction personnel.

Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a paleontological monitor with experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and who meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010) for a Paleontological Resources Monitor.

E
nvironmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
s
ignificant, then construction activity may resume. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the following shall be completed:
 Fossil Salvage. The paleontological monitor shall salvage (excavate and recover) the fossil to protect it from damage/destruction. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontological monitor with minimal disruption to construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. Bulk matrix sampling may be necessary to recover small invertebrates or microvertebrates from within paleontologically sensitive deposits. After the fossil(s) is (are) salvaged, construction activity may resume.
 Fossil Preparation and Curation. Fossils shall be identified to the lowest (most-specific) possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the Qualified Professional Paleontologist.

Fi
nal Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground-disturbing activities (or laboratory preparation and curation of fossils, if necessary), the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods employed; an overview of project geology; and, if fossils were discovered, an analysis of the fossils, including physical description, taxonomic identification, and scientific significance. The report shall be submitted to the District and, if fossil curation occurred, the designated scientific institution.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
63 54

This page intentionally left blank.

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
64 Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 55 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to directly influence climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to significant cumulative effects, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. As a result, the issue of climat e change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][1]).

According to the VCAPCD Initial Study Assessment Guidelines ( VCAPCD Guidelines) (VCAPCD 2003) the VCAPCD has not yet adopted a threshold of significance for GHG emissions from land use development projects, nor has the VCAPCD developed its own method of determining significance in the area of project GHG emissions. The VCAPCD Guidelines state:

When adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7(c).

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, project analysis can tier from a qualified GHG reduction plan, which allows for project -level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison of the project’s consistency with the GHG reduction policies included in a qualified GHG reduction plan. This approach is considered by the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) in their white paper, Beyond Newhall and 2020, to be the most defensible approach presently available under CEQA to determine the significance of a project’s GH G emissions (AEP 2016). However, the City of Simi Valley has not published a qualified GHG reduction plan. The City of Simi Valley Climate Action 65 56

Year Annual Emissions (MT of CO2e/year)
2023 525
2024 121
Total Emissions 646
Amortized Over 30 Years 22
MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Source: Appendix B
Operational and Total Project Emissions
Operation of the project would generate GHG emissions associated with architectural coating, area, and vehicle trips for the five-year maintenance and cleaning activities. Annual operational emissions during these years are summarized in Table 6. The annual operational GHG emissions are combined w
ith the amortized construction emissions. The project would generate approximately 405 MT of CO2e per year during the 5 -year maintenance and cleaning years, and during the off -years would result in less mobile emissions as the only mobile emission would occur during testing and maintenance of the emergency generator or regular inspections.

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
Plan published in June 2012 established goals to reduce the City’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 but did not identify methods to further reduce emissions by 2030. In addition, the document is not
a qualified GHG reduction plan. Therefore, as neither Simi Valley nor VCAPCD have adopted qualified GHG reduction plans, the analysis is based on the comparison of the project to the SCAG 2022 Scoping Plan Update and the RTP/SCS. In addition, the emissions of GHGs with respect to construction and operation have been quantified for informational purposes.

Cons
truction Emissions
Construction facilitated by the project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily from the operation of construction equipment on-site, as well as from vehicles transporting construction workers to and from the project site and heavy trucks to transport building materials and soil export.

C
onstruction activities for the project would generate an estimated 646 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) as shown in T
able 5.

Amortized over a 30-year period, construction of the
project would generate approximately 22 MT of CO2e per year.

T
able 5 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions
66 Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 57 Table 6 Operational GHG Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT of CO2e/year)
Construction

Amortized over 30 years 22
Operational
Area 1
E
nergy 30
Mobile 329
Stationary Source 23
Total Project Emissions 383
MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Source: Appendix B
Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans
The following subsections demonstrate the project’s consistency with state, regional, and local plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Senate Bill 32 and 2022 Scoping Plan
There are numerous state plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall state plan is Senate Bill (SB) 32, the follow up to Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan outlines a framework to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by AB 1279. The 2022 Scoping Plan emphasizes innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies for GHG emissions reductions. Statewide plans and regulations in support of these strategies, such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles (AB 1493), the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources, are being implemented at the statewide level; as such, compliance at a project-level would occur as implementation continues statewide. Therefore, the project would be consistent with SB 32 and the 2022 Scoping Plan. 2024 – 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SCAG’s 2024 - 2050 RTP/SCS is forecast to help California reach its GHG reduction goals. According to the RTP/SCS, the updated target for the SCAG region is 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035. The revised 2035 target is higher than the previous CARB t arget of 13 percent for the SCAG region. The RTP/SCS includes implementation strategies for focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, supporting implementation of sustainability policies, and promoting a green region. The project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS is discussed in Table 7 . As shown therein, the project would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in the RTP/SCS. 67 58
Strategy/Action Project Consistency
Focus Growth Near Destinations and Mobility Options
 E mphasize land use patterns that facilitate multimodal access to work, educational and other destinations
 Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance to reduce
commute times and distances and expand job
opportunities near transit and along center -focused
main streets
 Plan for growth near transit investments and support
implementation of first/last mile strategies.
 P rioritize infill and redevelopment of underutilized land to accommodate new growth, increase amenities and
connectivity in existing neighborhoods
 Encourage design and transportation options that
reduce the reliance on and number of solo car trips (this could include mixed uses or locating and orienting close to existing destinations)
 Identify ways to “right size” parking requirements and promote alternative parking strategies (e.g., shared
parking or smart parking)
No Conflict. The project is the construction and operation of a water tank and does not result in either residential or employment growth. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with the focus of growth near destinations and mobility options.

Leverage Technology Innovations
 Promote low emission technologies such as
neighborhood electric vehicles, shared rides hailing, car sharing, bike sharing and scooters by providing
supportive and safe infrastructure such as dedicated
lanes, charging and parking/drop-off space
 Identify ways to incorporate “micro -power grids” in
communities, for example solar energy, hydrogen fuel
cell power storage and power generation
No Conflict. T he project is the construction and operation of a water tank and does not result in either residential or employment growth. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with leveraging of technological innovations.

Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies
 Pursue funding opportunities to support local
sustainable development implementation projects that
reduce GHG emissions
 Support statewide legislation that reduces barriers to new construction and that incentivizes development
near transit corridors and stations
 Support local jurisdictions in the establishment of
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs),
Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities
(CRIAs), or other tax increment or value capture tools to finance sustainable infrastructure and de velopment
projects, including parks and open space
 Work with local jurisdictions/communities to identify opportunities and assess barriers to implement
sustainability strategies
 Enhance partnerships with other planning organizations to promote resources and best practices in the SCAG
region
 C
ontinue to support long range planning efforts by local jurisdictions
 Provide educational opportunities to local decision
makers and staff on new tools, best practices and
Consistent. The project would be designed and operated to meet the applicable requirements of all applicable
CALGreen. The project would not result in additional water consumption. Therefore, the project would support
implementation of sustainability policies.

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project
Table 7 Consistency with Applicable SCAG RTP/SCS GHG Emission Reduction Strategies 68 Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 59 Strategy/Action Project Consistency
policies related to implementing the Sustainable
Communities Strategy
Promote a Green Region
 Support local policies for renewable energy production, reduction of urban heat islands and carbon
sequestration
 Promote more resource efficient development focused
on conservation, recycling, and reclamation
 Preserve, enhance, and restore regional wildlife
connectivity
 Reduce consumption of resource areas, including
agricultural land
 Identify ways to improve access to public park space
Consistent. The project would comply with applicable
conservation policies such as the City’s General Plan, Title 24, and CALGreen. The project has no water consumption
or waste generation. Therefore, the project would support development of a green region.

Source: SCAG 2020

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

69 60

This page intentionally left blank.

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
70 Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 61 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ □ ■ □
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? □ □ ■ □
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of
an existing or proposed school? □ □ □ ■
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous material 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? □ □ □ ■
e. For a project located in an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area? □ □ □ ■
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
□ □ □ ■
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires? □ □ ■ □
71 62

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Construction of the project would require the use of limited quantities of construction-related hazardous materials and petroleum products (e.g., diesel fuel, lubricants, and solvents). The transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials would be conducted pursuant to applicable local, state, and federal regulations regarding the handling of potentially hazardous materials, including Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations and Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. Title 49 of
the Code of Federal Regulations requires training of every employee who handles hazardous materials to ensure proper handling, transport, and disposal of the hazardous materials. Title 13 of the
California Code of Regulations regulates transport of hazardous materials to ensure the safe transport of hazardous materials. With adherence to these regulations, project construction would not
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. This impact would be less than significant.

O
peration of the project would use fuels, including the use of maintenance equipment to at the Crown Hill Tank site and its associated pipelines. As discussed above, the project would comply with applicable regulations regarding the use of potentially hazardous materials. Therefore, operation of the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No impact would occur.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project 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?
The presence of hazardous materials during project construction activities could result in an accidental upset or release of hazardous materials if they are not properly stored and secured.

Hazardous materials used during project construction would be disposed of off-site in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. In the event groundwater dewatering is required, the construction contractor would operate a dewatering system which would lower groundwater levels to six inches below the depth of excavation. Dewatered groundwater would be discharged consistent with
the waste discharge requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQB) for discharges of groundwater from construction and project dewatering (Order No. R4- 2023-0429; General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] Permit No.

CAG994004). Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact related to creating hazards through upset and accident conditions.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? The nearest school to the project site is Knolls Elementary School, located approximately 0.5 mile northeast of the project site. As discussed above under checklist items (a) and (b), project construction would involve the temporary transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, but would not involve the emission of hazardous materials. such, the project would not be able to potentially emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of an existing school, and no impact would occur.

O IMPACT
72 Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 63 d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material 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?
The following databases compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 were reviewed w ith
regard to the project site for known hazardous materials contamination:
 E nviroStor Database, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)  G eoTracker Database, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)  C alifornia Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Cortese List According to these d atabase searches, there are no known hazardous material sites within the project site or within 0.25 mile of the project site (DTSC 2024; SWRCB 2024; CalEPA 2024). As such, the project would not be located on a hazardous materials site on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
e. Fo
r a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The nearest airport is the V
an Nuys Airport, located approximately 11 miles southeast of the project site. The project site is not located within the airport’s influence area or within its mapped noise contours (LAWA 2024). Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise to workers in the project area. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to safety hazards or excessive noise associated with an airport.

NO IMPACT
f. W ould the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

T
he project would not involve habitable development nor new facilities that would interfere with adopted emergency plans. Partial or full closures of Crown Hill Drive may be required during certain stages of project construction, which could affect access to an existing residence south of the Alta Vista Tanks. Temporary lane or road closures could be required. The District shall notify the affected residence of planned construction activities. The District’s construction contractor would coordinate closures with applicable agencies, such as the Ventura County Fire Department, the Simi Valley Police Department, and the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office, and would implement traffic
control measures. In addition, the project would not require the construction of new public roadways that could be used as emergency evacuation routes. As such, the project would not block emergency response or evacuation routes or interfere with adopted emergency response and emergency evacuation plans. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to impairment or interference with implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan.

O IMPACT
73 64

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
According to maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), the project site is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) and is within a Local Responsibility Area (CAL FIRE 2024). The project does not include habitable development that could be subject to wildland fire, nor would it result in other physical changes to the environment that could increase the risk of a wildland fire. As described further under Environmental Checklist Section 20, Wildfire, the project would not expose people or structures to a substantial risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Further, one of the purposes of the project is to provide additional water storage in the Knolls Pressure Zone to provide additional water supplies for firefighting.

Therefore, project impacts related to risks associated with exposure to wildland fires would be less than significant.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
74 Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 65 10 Hydrology and Water Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality? □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the Basin? □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or □ □ ■ □
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ ■ □
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
□ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan? □ □ ■ □
75 66

Ve
ntura County Waterworks District No. 8
Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? The project site is located in the South Coast hydrologic region, which includes areas of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. The nearest surface water bodies to the project site are Arroyo Simi wetland, located approximately 1.0 miles north of the project site; Chatsworth Creek, approximately 2.9 miles southeast of the project site; and Chatsworth Reservoir, approximately 3.0 miles southeast of the project site (USFWS 2024b).

Cons
truction
The project would involve excavation, grading, and other construction activities which could adversely impact water quality due to increased erosion and sedimentation resulting from exposed soils and the generation of pollutants such as trash, construction
materials, and equipment fluids.

T
he project site is less than one acre and would not be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit. Rather, Section 9-

32.110 of SVMC establishes grading standards, which require preparation of a soil stabilization report and implementation of erosion control measures to prevent soil loss. Construction activities would be required to comply with this ordinance and soil erosion would be controlled to the extent feasible. In addition, Section 9-32.110 of SVMC also requires compliance with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code, and Chapter 7 of the Ventura County Land Development Manual. Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code outlines general grading requirements for structural foundations and requires professional oversight of grading activities and the maintenance of protective devices (e.g., retaining walls, drainage structures, etc) to reduce potential erosion and runoff. Chapter 7, Construction, of the Ventura County Land Development Manual requires review of grading plans and inspection of grading activities and drainages, and activities that are not in compliance with grading requirements may be required to stop work (County of Ventura 1995). With compliance with SVMC, Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code, and Chapter 7 of the Ventura County Land Development Manual, construction activities would not substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

I
t is possible groundwater may be encountered and dewatering may be required during construction activities.. In the event groundwater dewatering is required, the construction contractor would operate a dewatering system which would lower groundwater levels to six inches below the depth of excavation. Dewatered groundwater would be discharged consistent with the waste discharge requirements of the LARWQB for discharges of groundwater from construction and project dewatering (Order No. R4-2023-0429; NPDES Permit No. CAG994004).

C
ompliance with the requirements of SVMC, the Uniform Building Code, the Ventura County Land Development Manual, and NPDES dewatering requirements would minimize the project’s potential to degrade surface or groundwater quality. This impact would be less than significant.

Oper
ation
The project would not modify the District’s water supply and would not increase water supply production beyond existing permitted operations. The proposed water tank and access road would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site. Precipitation on the water tank would flow into existing natural drainages, and the access road would include the installation of curbs and gutters to manage stormwater on-site. Accordingly, project operation would not substantially degrade surface or ground water quality and impacts would be less than significant.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
76 Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 67

E
nvironmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The project site overlies the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin, which is designated as a low-priority groundwater basin by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR; DWR 2024). The project would not increase the District’s groundwater pumping regime in the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin and would not increase water supply production beyond existing permitted conditions.

Accordingly, the project would not decrease groundwater supplies. While the project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces at the project site, the installation of new surfaces would be minimal and would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? c
.(ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? c
.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
c
.(iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
T
he project would not alter the course of a stream or river and would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. While the project would introduce new impervious surfaces to the project site, the area of impervious surfaces would be minimal; precipitation on the water tank would flow into existing natural drainages, and the proposed access road would include curbs
and gutters which would control stormwater flows. Additionally, as discussed in Section 7, Geology and Soils and above under checklist question (a), the project would be required to comply with applicable grading ordinances and regulations of the SVMC, Uniform Building Code, and Ventura County Land Development Manual which would reduce the potential for erosion or siltation.

T
he curbs and gutters along the proposed access road would collect stormwater and would not result in increased runoff from the project site or flooding. In addition, the proposed retaining walls would further stabilize slopes on the project site, reduce stormwater runoff flows, and prevent ponding and overflow from precipitation, which would reduce erosion, stormwater runoff, and the potential for flooding at the project site.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone (FEMA 2010). Therefore, the Project would result in minimal alterations to the existing drainage pattern of the project site and would have no potential to result in substantial erosion on or off site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; create or contribute runoff water that 77 68

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff water; or impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
As discussed above, the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone. The project site is not proximate to the ocean or a large body of water and is therefore not at risk of tsunami or seiche. The project would not involve the storage of potentially hazardous materials on site. The project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation and no impact would occur.

O IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region Basin, in which the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin is located, is the water quality control plan applicable to the project site. This plan defines beneficial uses, sets forth water quality objectives, and establishes programs to manage the quality of surface water and groundwater and achieve those water quality objectives for protection of beneficial uses (Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board 2024). As stated under checklist item 10(a), the project would be required to comply with applicable grading ordinances and regulations of the SVMC, Uniform Building Code, and Ventura County Land Development Manual which would reduce the potential for erosion or siltation. Compliance with these ordinances and regulations would ensure project construction would not impair beneficial uses of surface water and groundwater identified in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region Basin. Operation of the project would utilize site controls and general housekeeping to prevent debris and pollutants from entering surface waters or the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

A
s described in Item 10(b), the project site overlies the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin, which is designated as a low priority basin. Because this basin is designated as low priority, there is no sustainable groundwater management plan with which the project could comply. Therefore, the project would not conflict with obstruct implementation of a groundwater management plan. No impact would occur.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
78 Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 69 11 Land Use and Planning

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The project would involve the construction of a new water storage tank, associated piping and electrical infrastructure , and an access road in a rural residential area of unincorporated Ventura County. The project would not impede access between existing surrounding residential areas and would not conflict with residential development. As such , the project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Pursuant to California Government Code 53091, the building and zoning ordinances of a county or city do not apply to the location or construction of facilities for the production, storage, or transmission of water, wastewater, or electrical energy by a local agency. Therefore, the project is only evaluated for consistency with the City of Simi Valley General Plan.

The City’s General Plan identifies policies to provide a sustainable water supply and support public safety. The project’s potential consistency with applicable policies is described in Table 8. As shown therein, the project would actively support General Plan policies related to water supply, water quality protection, and public safety. Accordingly, the project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No impact would occur. 79 70

Goal IU -1. Reliable Water Supply. A high -quality water supply, water treatment, distribution, pumping, and
storage system that is reliable for meeting the current and projected future daily and peak water demands of Simi
Valley residents is provided for the community.

Consistent. The purpose of the project is to improve water storage capacity and to provide proper water pressure to some lots in the Knolls Pressure Zone. The proposed water storage tank would provide water storage for existing
development and provide additional water supplies for
firefighting. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy.

Policy IU -1.6. Water Supply During Emergencies.

Maintain an adequate water supply during emergencies.

Consistent. As discussed above, one of the purposes of the project is to improve water storage and provide additional water supplies for firefighting in the project area. Therefore, the project would contribute to adequate water supply
during emergencies and would be consistent with this policy.

NR-2.1 Tree Preservation. Encourage the preservation of trees and native vegetation in development projects.

Require that new development utilize creative land
planning techniques to preserve any existing healthy,
protected trees to the greatest extent possible.

Consistent. It is not anticipated that the project would require the removal of trees.

Source: City of Simi Valley 2012b

NO IMPACT

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
Table 8 Project General Plan Consistency
G
eneral Plan Goal or Policy P
roject Consistency
80 Environmental Checklist
Mineral Resources

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 71 12 Mineral Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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?
□ □ □ ■
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?
□ □ □ ■
a. Would the project 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?
b. Would the project 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? According to the City’s General Plan EIR Aggregate Resource Areas Map, the project site is in an area containing deposits whose significance cannot be evaluated from available data ( City of Simi Valley 2012a). Within the City, the primary resource suitable for mining and conservation is oil. Simi Valley also contains areas of construction aggregate resources that, according to the State Mining and Geology Board Reclamation Regulations, are designated to be of regional significance . These areas include hillside deposits on Oak Ridge and the Simi Hills, portions of Oak Ridge extending from Long Canyon eastward to the Ventura County line, and areas above Meier and Runkle Canyons in the Simi Hills (City of Simi Valley 2012b). The project site is approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the Simi Hills.

Further, the project would not involve mineral extraction or changes in land use that could affect the availability of mineral resources , and the project site is not currently used for mineral resource extraction. Therefore, no impact related to availability of mineral resources would occur.

NO IMPACT
81 72

This page intentionally left blank.

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
82 Environmental Checklist
Noise

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 73 13 Noise

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? □ ■ □ □
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ ■ □
c. For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the p
roject area to excessive noise
levels? □ □ □ ■
Noise Background
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A -weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A - weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; dividing the energy in half would result in a 3 dB decrease (Crocker 2007).

Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible (8 times the sound energy); and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud as what is readily perceptible (Crocker 2007).

Sound changes occur in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receptor. The most obvious change is the decrease in level as the distance from the source increases.

The manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on f actors such as the type of sources 83 74

Measuremen
t Location
Measurement
Location Sample Times
Approximate Distance
to Primary Noise Source or
Project Site
Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
ST1 Southernmost
portion of Crown
Hill Drive, near
access road to
Crown Hill Tank site.
9:46 – 10:01 a.m. No dominant noise sources;
wind noise through trees and
distance vehicle traffic noise
were observed.
47 37 64
ST2 Near the entrance
to the private road
portion of Crown
Hill Drive
(intersection with
Alta Vista Drive)
10:09 – 10:24
a.m.

No dominant noise sources;
wind noise through trees and
distance vehicle traffic noise
were observed.
49 40 67
dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent noise level; Lmin = minimum noise level, Lmax = maximum noise level Noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses are locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound and vibration could adversely affect the use of the land. The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are the residences located at the following approximate distances from project components:

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
(e.g., point or line, the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions). Noise levels from a point source typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units). Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels
may also be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels.

T
he impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs, and the duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed by academics and industry professionals. One of the most frequently used noise metrics is the equivalent noise level (Leq); it considers both duration and sound power level. Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over time. Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than noise occurring during the day.

Exist
ing Noise Setting
To determine ambient noise levels in the project area, two 15-minute sound level measurements were taken using a Soft dB Piccolo-II, Type 2 integrating sound level meter equipped with a windscreen. The meter was placed 5 feet above ground level. Measurements were conducted during the morning hours on Monday, October 28, 2024. Noise measurement location ST-1 was selected to capture ambient noise near the Crown Hill Tank site, and ST-2 was selected to capture ambient noise near the entrance to the private road portion of Crown Hill Drive. The results of the measurements are shown in
T
able 9,
with noise measurement locations shown on Fi
gure 4.

Table 9 Short-Term Noise Level Measurement Results
84 Environmental Checklist
Noise

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 75 Figure 4 Noise Measurement Locations
85 76

Receiving Land Use Noise Criterion (dBA Leq [8-hour])
Residential 80
Commercial 85
Industrial 90
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = average noise level equivalent Source: FTA 2018
The City has not adopted vibration limits in the SVMC or the City’s General Plan Noise Element.

Therefore, FTA criteria for evaluating the potential for architectural damage to buildings, which are summarized in Table 11, are used in this analysis.

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
 Alta Vista Tank No. 1 Demolition: 100 feet to the north; 150 feet to the west; 150 feet to the east; and 125 feet to the south.
 Pipeline and Access Roadway Installation: 50 feet to the west; 180 feet to the northeast; and 175 feet to the northwest.
 Crown Hill Tank Construction: 200 feet to the west and 370 feet to the north.

Noi
se Standards
The City of Simi Valley’s noise ordinance is codified in Chapter 16, Noise, of the SVMC. The noise ordinance establishes hours of operation for certain uses, standards for identifying noise disturbances, and legal remedies for violations.

SV
MC Section 5-16.02(a) states that, in addition to conducting activities that are specifically identified as unlawful in the noise ordinance, the willful making or continuation of any loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise that disturbs the peace or quiet, or which causes discomfort or annoyance to a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness in an adjacent residence or business, shall be considered a nuisance.

Se
ction 5-16.02(b-k) lists specific noise-producing acts that are considered to be nuisances, including excessive noise from radios, engines, mechanical devices, and domestic animals. For engines and mechanical devices, the code states that operation shall not be allowed between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Friday or Saturday and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Sunday through Thursday unless the device is enclosed within a sound-insulated structure so as to prevent noise and sounds from being plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from such structure or within 10 feet of any residence.

SV
MC Section 5-16.02(i) prohibits the erection, excavation, demolition, alteration, construction, or repair of any structure or building outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., except when the urgent necessity, in the interests of the public health and safety, requires the work and the Simi Valley Engineer consents.

B
ecause the City does not have a daytime construction noise limit, the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance document was used to evaluate construction noise levels. The guidance provides reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise impacts based on the potential for adverse community reaction, which are presented in T
able 10.

T
able 10 FTA Daytime Construction Noise Criteria
86 Environmental Checklist
Noise

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 77 Table 11 FTA Groundborne Vibration Criteria – Architectural Damage Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced-c oncrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second Source: FTA 2018
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction
Temporary noise levels caused by construction activity would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, the location and sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of noise -generating activities. Construction noise was estimated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model Version 1.1. Construction equipment used in modeling was taken from the CalEEMod outputs, described further in Initial Study Checklist Section 3, Air Quality. Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location, and construction equipment would not be in constant use during the eight -hour operating day .

Distances used in the analysis are considered the closest approximate center point of construction over one day to the receptors.

Table 12, Table 13, and Table 14 presents estimated combined noise level from construction equipment used during Alta Vista Tank No. 1 demolition, pipeline and access roadway installation, and Crown Hill Tank construction, respectively. As shown therein, construction noise levels would not exceed the FTA’s daytime construction noise limit of 80 dBA L eq (8-hour) for Alta Vista Tank No. 1
demolition and Crown Hill Tank construction. For pipeline and access roadway installation, construction noise levels would exceed the FTA’s daytime construction noise limit of 80 dBA L eq (8- hour) at the residence to the west (943 Crown Hill Drive) with a noise level of 86 dBA Leq (8-hour) at 50 feet (noise levels would exceed 80 dBA L eq within 100 feet of the residence). Therefore, construction activities f rom the pipeline and access roadway installation would be potentially significant to this residence. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required.

Table 12 Estimated Construction Noise Levels - Alta Vista Tank No. 1 Demolition Construction Phase
Estimated Noise Levels (dBA Leq [8-hour])
Residence to the
North
(100 feet)
Residence to the
West
(150 feet)
Residence to the
East
(150 feet)
Residence to the
South
(125 feet)
Demolition 78 75 75 76
T
hreshold1 80 80 80 80
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = average noise level equivalent 1 Source: FTA 2018
Roadway Construction Noise Model data sheets and assumptions are included in Appendix C. 87 78
Construction Phase
Estimated Noise Levels (dBA Leq [8-hour])
Residence to the
West
(50 feet)
Residence to the
Northeast
(180 feet)
Residence to the
Northwest
(175 feet)
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing 82 71 71
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-G rade 86 75 75
Linear, Paving 80 69 69
Threshold1 80 80 80
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = average noise level equivalent 1 Source: FTA 2018
Roadway Construction Noise Model data sheets and assumptions are included in Appendix C.

Estimated Construction Noise Levels – Crown Hill Tank ConstructionTable 14 Construction Phase
Estimated Noise Levels (dBA Leq [8-hour])
Residence to the North
(370 feet)
Residence to the West
(200 feet)
Grading 66 71
Tank Construction 66 72
Threshold1 80 80
Threshold Exceeded? No No
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = average noise level equivalent 1 Source: FTA 2018
Roadway Construction Noise Model data sheets and assumptions are included in Appendix C .

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
Table 13 Estimated Construction Noise Levels - Pipeline and Access Roadway Installation
Op
eration
On-site noise sources associated with the project would include the 20-kW emergency generator, located at the Crown Hill Tank site. An example generator of this size is the Caterpillar D20, which would generate a noise level of 67 dBA at a distance of 23 feet (see Appendix C for generator specifications). The nearest residences to this location are 200 feet to the west and 370 feet to the north. Conservatively assuming no attenuation from topography or structures, the generator’s noise levels would be 48 dBA at 200 feet and 43 dBA at 370 feet.

T
he District does not have a quantitative threshold for stationary sources. The SVMC does state that mechanical devices shall not operate during the nighttime hours “unless the device is enclosed within a sound-insulated structure so as to prevent noise and sounds from being plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from such structure or within 10 feet of any residence.” As stated under Noise Background,the average healthy ear can barely perceive an increase of 3 dBA and a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible. For the purposes of this analysis, “plainly audible” will be considered a barely perceptible noise increase of 3 dBA. As shown in T able 9,
measured noise levels in the area
were 47 dBA L eq. A noise level of 48 dBA from the generator at the nearest residence would only be a 1 dBA increase,well below a barely perceptible increase of 3 dBA. Therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
88 Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 79

E
nvironmental Checklist
Noise
Off-site Roadway Noise
During project operation, maintenance activities would only be expected to occur once every 5 years.

This minor amount of additional vehicle trips on nearby roadways would result in a negligible addition of roadway traffic noise.

Therefore, the project would not generate a substantial permanent increase i
n ambient off-site roadway noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors, and impacts would be less than significant.

Miti
gation Measure
NOI-1 Construction Noise Reduction Measures
Fo
r construction of the pipeline and access road that occurs within 100 feet of the residence to the west (943 Crown Hill Drive), the District or its construction contractor shall reduce construction noise levels so as not to exceed a noise level of 80 dBA Leq (8-hour). Strategies to achieve this may include, but are not limited to, the following noise reduction measures:
 Heavy duty construction equipment will be controlled with the best available noise control t
echnology. For example, noise control may be achieved by shrouding the equipment, shielding t
he equipment from the residence with temporary noise barriers, and/or by reducing exhaust n
oise with a sound-absorbing muffler.
 Where feasible, hydraulic equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic impact tools, and electric powered equipment shall be used instead of diesel-powered equipment.  At least 21 days prior to the start of construction activities, the residence at 943 Crown Hill Drive s
hall be notified of the planned construction activities. The written notification shall include a b
rief description of the project, the activities that would occur, the hours when construction w
ould occur, and the construction period’s overall duration. The notification shall include the t
elephone numbers of the District’s and the contractor’s authorized representatives that are a
ssigned to respond in the event of a noise complaint.
 If a construction noise complaint(s) is registered, the contractor shall retain a qualified noise c
onsultant to conduct noise measurements at the properties that registered the complaint. The noise measurements shall be conducted for a minimum of eight hours. The consultant shall p
repare a letter report for the District summarizing the measurement results and potential m
easures to reduce construction noise to 80 dBA Leq (8-hour) at the residence at 943 Crown Hill D
rive.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce construction noise during pipeline and access road construction through best available noise control technology. Blocking the line of sight between a noise source and a receptor typically provides at least a 10-dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receptor. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, construction noise levels w
ould be reduced to approximately 76 dBA Leq (8-hour) at the nearest residence to the west and would not exceed the FTA’s construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq (8-hour). Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
89 80

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction activities at the project site have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration because the operation of heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, rollers, loaded trucks) generates vibrations that propagate though the ground and diminish in intensity with distance from the source.

The greatest anticipated source of vibration during project construction would be a roller if a vibratory roller is used during paving. This equipment may be used within 50 feet of the nearest residential structure to the west. A vibratory roller would generate a vibration level of 0.21 peak particle velocity (PPV)
inches per second (in/sec) at a distance of 25 feet (Caltrans 2020); vibration from the roller would attenuate to 0.074 PPV in/sec at a distance of 50 feet. This level of vibration would be well below
the FTA’s vibration damage potential threshold for non-engineered timber and masonry building structures of 0.2 PPV in/sec. Therefore, project construction would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant.

T
he project does not include any substantial vibration sources associated with operation, such as railroad or subway lines. As a result, project operation would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and no impact would occur.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? T
he nearest airport to the project site is Van Nuys Airport, located approximately 10.5 miles to the east of the site. The project site is located outside of the airport’s influence area, and therefore would not be within the airport’s noise contours (Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning 2009). As such, the project would not expose workers to excessive noise in the project area.

Therefore, the project would result in no impacts related to airport noise exposure.

O IMPACT
90 Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 81 14 Population and Housing

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ □ ■
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
Elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned 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)?
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project would involve the construction of a new water storage tank, associated piping and electrical infrastructure , and an access road. The project would not include housing or other infrastructure that would lead directly to population growth. The purpose of the project is to provide water storage for existing development with adequate water pressure, and to provide additional water supplies for firefighting. As a result, the project would not indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth. In addition, the project would not include components that displace existing people or result in the removal of housing. Therefore, no impacts related to population and housing would occur.

NO IMPACT
91 82

This page intentionally left blank.

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
92 Environmental Checklist
Public Services

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 83 15 Public Services

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause si gnificant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1 Fire protection? □ □ □ ■
2 Police protection? □ □ □ ■
3 Schools? □ □ □ ■
4 Parks? □ □ □ ■
5 Other public facilities? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered 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:
1 Fire protection?
2 Police protection?
3 Schools?
4 Parks?
5 Other public facilities?
As described in Environmental Checklist Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would not include development of structures or infrastructure that would directly or indirectly increase the population in Simi Valley. The project would not introduce new habitable structures that require additional police or fire protection services and would not introduce a new population to the area that would require new or physically altered schools, parks, or other public facilities. Therefore, the project would n ot result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities and no impact would occur.
93 84

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project

NO IMPACT
94 Environmental Checklist
Recreation

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 85 16 Recreation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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?
□ □ □ ■
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?
□ □ □ ■
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?
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? As described in Environmental Checklist Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would not include development of structures or infrastructure that would directly or indirectly increase the population in Simi Valley . As such , the project would not increase the population served by local recreation facilities or otherwise result in increased demand for or degradation of those facilities. In addition, the project also would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no project impacts related to recreation facilities would occur.

NO IMPACT

95 86

This page intentionally left blank.

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
96 Environmental Checklist
Transportation

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 87 17 Transportation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle
and pedestrian facilities? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ ■ □
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ □ ■

a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The City’s General Plan Mobility and Infrastructure Element includes goals to promote transportation options and independent mobility, increase community safety, and minimize impacts related to vehicle emissions. Other regional plans and policies addressing the circulation system include the SCAG 2024 – 2050 RTP/SCS (City of Simi Valley 2012b; SCAG 2024). Access to the project site would be provided by Crown Hill Drive. No transit stops, paved sidewalks, or bicycle facilities are located along Crown Hill Drive near the project site. Construction traffic associated with the project would be temporary (approximately 14 months).

T
he proposed pipelines would be installed via open-cut excavation, and would require crossing Crown Hill Drive near an existing residence. Temporary lane or road closures could be required. The District shall notify the affected residence of planned construction activities. Project construction would not otherwise substantially interfere with traffic on Crown Hill Drive.

The District would conduct regular operations and maintenance trips to the Crown Hill Tank site.

These trips would be combined with existing trips to the Alta Vista Tanks, and accordingly the project would not result in a substantial increase in operations and maintenance activities. Operations and maintenance
trips to the project site would not require road closures or otherwise substantially impact transit, roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts related to potentially conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
97 88

Ve
ntura County Waterworks District No. 8
Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) identifies criteria for evaluating transportation impacts.

Specifically, the guidelines state vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. According to Section 15064.3(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may include a qualitative analysis of operational and construction traffic ifexisting models or methods are not available to estimate the VMT for the project being considered.

Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. United has not adopted VMT thresholds.

A
VMT calculation is typically conducted on a daily or annual basis, for long-range planning purposes.

As discussed above under checklist question 17(a), construction of the project would temporarily increase vehicle trips due to the transport of construction workers, vehicles, and equipment to and from the project site. Increases in VMT from construction would be short-term, minimal, and temporary. While the project would involve operations and maintenance trips, additional operations would not increase vehicle trips or generate substantial VMT compared to existing conditions because workers already conduct regular trips to the Alta Vista Tanks. Therefore, impacts related to conflict or inconsistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) would be less than significant.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? T
he project would not involve the construction of new roads or reconfiguration of any roadways or intersections that could result in a substantial increase in traffic hazards. During construction, staging and worker parking would occur on-site and would not inhibit use of Crown Hill Drive. Partial or full closures of Crown Hill Drive may be required during certain stages of project construction. The District’s construction contractor shall coordinate closures with applicable agencies, such as the Ventura County Fire Department, the Simi Valley Police Department, and the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office, and would implement traffic control measures.

Upon
the completion of construction, the proposed tank would not be publicly accessible. The pipelines would be located underground and thus would not substantially increase traffic hazards.

Therefore, impacts related to substantially increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use would be less than significant.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Partial or full closures of Crown Hill Drive may be required during certain stages of project construction, which could affect access to an existing residence south of the Alta Vista Tanks.

Temporary lane or road closures could be required. The District shall notify the affected residence of planned construction activities. The District’s construction contractor would coordinate closures with applicable agencies, such as the Ventura County Fire Department, the Simi Valley Police Department, and the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office, and would implement traffic control measures. Project operation would not result in substantial vehicle travel which could impede emergency access. Therefore, project operation would not result in inadequate emergency access, and no impact would occur.

O IMPACT
98 Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 89 18 Tribal Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in a Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
or cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe,
and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)? □ ■ □ □
b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision I of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set
forth subdivision(c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe. □ ■ □ □
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? On July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was enacted, expanding CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 states, “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cult ural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states the lead agency shall 99 90

Ve
ntura County Waterworks District No. 8
Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project
establish measures to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).

P
RC Sections 21074 (a)(1)(A-B) and 21074 (a)(2) define tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and are:

1. Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k); or

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

AB 52 also established a formal consultation process for California Native American tribes regarding those resources. The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified or adopted. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” California Native American tribes to be included in the process are those having requested notice of projects proposed in the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

R
incon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) as well as an AB 52 specific contact list of Native Americans culturally affiliated with the project site vicinity. On September 13, 2024, the NAHC responded to Rincon’s request, stating the results of the SLF search were negative. On October 3, 2024, the District distributed AB 52 consultation letters for the project, including project information, a map, and District contact information to the following California Native American tribes:
 Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI)  Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians
 Gabrieleno San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians (SGBMI) P
ursuant to AB 52, California Native American tribes have 30 days from receipt of the notification letter to request formal consultation. Responses were received from the FTBMI and the SGBMI. No response was received from the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians.

O
n October 7, 2024, the FTBMI responded via email and stated the project does not require a consultation form, and provided mitigation measures that they requested to be required for the project. These measures included protocols to stop work and evaluate cultural resources and human remains in the event of an inadvertent discovery, and to initiate tribal consultation in the event that any tribal cultural resource is encountered during ground disturbing activities. The District reviewed and considered the FTBMI’s mitigation measures. The FTBMI did not identify tribal cultural resources in or near the project site.

On November 2, 2024, Adrian Morales of the SGBMI responded via email and stated the project would have a high potential to cause significant adverse effects tribal resources and requested consultation with the District. However, the letter did not identify specific tribal cultural resources in or near the project site that could be affected. The District acknowledged receipt of this request for consultation on November 19, 2024. On December 17, 2024, the District proposed via email to hold a consultation meeting on January 9, 2025, and did not receive a response. The District followed up with Mr. Morales via email on January 7, 2025 and 100

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 91

2 Surveys performed by Rincon Consultants on September 24, 2024, and May 29, 2025 did not identify rock shelters or other pre -contact resources within the project site.

E
nvironmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources
requested that the SGBMI confirm their attendance at the proposed January 9, 2025 meeting or p
ropose different dates. The District did not receive a response.

On January 13, 2025, District staff called the telephone number of Mr. Morales provided on the N
AHC AB 52 contact list, and left a message regarding the District’s email communications for the proposed consultation meeting. On January 29, 2025, the District followed up via email and r
equested that the SGBMI propose dates and times to conduct a consultation meeting. On February 6 , District staff called Mr. Morales and left a message regarding the proposed consultation m eeting.

On February 11, 2025, the District received a call from Mr. Morales and agreed to a consultation meeting on February 19, 2025. The District provided the administrative draft C ultural
Resources Assessment to the SGBMI via email on February 11, 2025 for their review prior to t he
proposed meeting on February 19, 2025. On February 18, 2025, Mr. Morales sent the D istrict an
email requesting additional time to review the administrative draft Cultural Resources Assessment, and the proposed meeting for February 19, 2025 was cancelled.

On March 18, 2025, Mr. Morales provided recommended mitigation measures to the District via email. These measures included a Native American monitoring program to occur during ground d
isturbance activities and protocols for identifying and reporting on human remains and tribal c
ultural resources. On March 26, 2025, the District sent an email to the SGBMI acknowledging r
eceipt of their recommendations, and requested documentation supporting the need for the recommended mitigation measures. The District followed up with Mr. Morales via telephone on March 26, 2025 and left a message regarding the requested supporting documentation. The D
istrict did not receive a response.

On April 1, 2025, District staff called Mr. Morales and left a message requesting supporting documentation for the recommended mitigation measures by April 9, 2025. On April 10, 2025, the District received an email from Mr. Morales providing his justification for the recommended mitigation measures. Mr. Morales stated there are at least five recorded prehistoric sites consisting of ceremonial landscapes/rock shelters within

0.5 miles of the project site, which would indicate
that such resources could exist within the project site. 2 O n May 5, 2025, the District responded v
ia
email confirming receipt of the justification, and informed Mr. Morales that the project site would include an additional work area for project-related landscaping. The District provided an updated site figure to Mr. Morales and informed him the administrative draft Cultural Resources Assessment would be updated to include this area.

On July 30, 2025, the District followed up via email and requested the SGBMI’s input on the updated administrative draft Cultural Resources Assessment or the revised mitigation measures, and no response was received. On August 27, 2025, the District followed up via telephone and left a message again requesting the SGBMI’s input, and no response was received.

In accordance with AB 52, consultation is considered concluded when a tribe does not respond to a written notification within 30 days, or when a mutual agreement cannot be reached after a good faith effort.

The District has documented all outreach efforts and has made a reasonable and g ood
faith effort to engage the SGBMI in meaningful consultation. As no response was received, the a
gency is proceeding with the release of this IS-MND for public review in compliance with CEQA and AB 52.
101

92 Ve
ntura County Waterworks District No. 8
Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project
No tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources were identified within the project site. In addition, no tribal cultural resources were identified within or near the project site that have been determined by the District (the lead agency) to be significant. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or that is a resource determined by
the District (the lead agency), in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). However, the SGBMI indicated that the project site is culturally sensitive given the presence of previously recorded Native American resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. As such, the District is including mitigation measures for Native American monitoring (TCR-1) and procedures to follow in the event of the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources (CUL-3) to reduce potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and CUL-3, along with adherence to the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, PRC Section 5097.98, and CCR Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), the project would result in a less-than-significant impacts to tribal cultural resources.

Miti
gation Measures
TCR-1 Native American Monitoring
P
rior to the start of construction and any ground-disturbing activities, the District shall retain a Native American monitor from a California Native American tribe that is culturally and geographically affiliated with the project site and that consulted on this project. The Native American monitor shall attend the pre-construction meeting and participate in the Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training required by Mitigation Measure CUL-1. The Native American monitor shall observe all ground-disturbing activities in native, undisturbed soils (such as pot-holing or augering, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching); activities in previously disturbed soils and backfilling shall not require the presence of a Native American monitor.

T
he District shall provide the Native American monitor with at least 48 hours’ notice prior to the pre- construction meeting and any ground-disturbing activities that require monitoring. In the event that a Native American monitor is not available or fails to report to the site, construction may proceed without the presence of a Native American monitor. The Native American monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs detailing observed construction activities and locations, soil types, and any cultural materials identified and provide non-confidential copies to the District.

I
n the event of a discovery of potential tribal cultural resources, the Native American monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt construction activities within 50 feet of the discovery, shall establish an exclusion zone while the discovery is investigated, and shall notify the onsite construction supervisor or foreman. The Qualified Archaeologist shall be contacted and the procedures outlined in CUL-3 shall be implemented. The District shall consult with the appropriate Native American representatives in determining the significance and treatment of any potential tribal cultural resources discoveries. For any significant resources, avoidance through project redesign shall be the preferred manner of treatment. Construction activities in the vicinity of any discovery may not resume until the significance of the resource has been determined and any data recovery treatment, if necessary, has been completed. Additional treatment may also be required for tribal cultural resources to address significance beyond scientifically consequential information, which could include but would not be limited to installation of a landscaping to include native plants, plaque or mural to inform the public, or other educational or interpretive elements. If the discovery includes human 102

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 93

E
nvironmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources
remains, the District shall implement the procedures outlined in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, PRC Section 5097.98, and CCR Guidelines Section 15064.5(e).

The California Native American tribe providing monitoring services shall prepare a final report documenting compliance with this measure and submit it to the District within 60 days of the completion of Native American monitoring. Should tribal cultural resources or human remains be discovered, the California Native American tribe shall also file a final report of findings with the Native American Heritage Commission for inclusion in the Sacred Lands File database.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
103

94 This page intentionally left blank.

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
104
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 95 19 Utilities and Service Systems

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects? □ □ ■ □
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ ■ □
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments? □ □ ■ □
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
□ □ ■ □
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
□ □ ■ □
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The project would involve construction of a new water storage tank, associated piping and electrical infrastructure, and an access road, the potential environmental effects of which are analyzed throughout this IS-MND. As discussed throughout this IS -MND, the project would not result in significant environmental effects and would include implementation of mitigation measures when necessary to reduce potentially significant environmental effects. As such , the project would not result in significant environmental effects related to the construction of new water supply facilities. 105

96 Ve
ntura County Waterworks District No. 8
Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project
Therefore, impacts related to provision of new or expanded water supply facilities would be less than significant.

The project would not involve construction and operation of wastewater facilities or result in the need for new or expanded wastewater facilities. Therefore, no impact would result related to provision or new or expanded wastewater facilities.

A
s discussed under Environmental Checklist Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would not have a substantial effect on the amount of impervious surfaces as compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the project would not increase stormwater flow such that new or expanded stormwater drainage systems would be necessary. Therefore, no impact would result related to provision or new or expanded stormwater facilities.

A
s discussed under Environmental Checklist Section 6, Energy, the project would connect to existing SCE infrastructure and would not require a substantial amount of additional electricity. The project would also not require natural gas or telecommunication connections or use. As such, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electricity, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. Therefore, no impact would result related to provision or new or expanded electricity, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities.

O
verall, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater, stormwater, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities in a manner that could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, project impacts related to the provision of utility facilities would be less than significant.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? The project would not modify the District’s water supply and would not increase water supply production beyond existing permitted operations. Consistent with the City of Simi Valley’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (City of Simi Valley 2021), the project would facilitate water storage for existing development. In addition, the project would not include habitable uses and would have negligible water demand itself. Therefore, the project would have sufficient water supplies available in normal, dry, and multiple dry years and impacts would be less than significant.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? After completion of construction, the District would test and disinfect the Crown Hill Tank, pipelines, and appurtenances with chlorinated water prior to operation. Once testing and disinfection is complete, the chlorinated water would be treated to neutralize residual chlorine and would either be discharged via the proposed drainpipe or into the City’s sewer system. Either discharge method would require approval from the
District. Testing and disinfection would be a temporary event;in operation, the project would not generate wastewater or discharge water into the wastewater collection system. Therefore, the project would not result in inadequate wastewater capacity and impacts would be less than significant.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
106
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 97 d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Construction activities may temporarily generate solid waste, including soils and construction waste, which would be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations. Soil not used as fill in different construction sites and other construction debris would be transported to the Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center , approximately 8 miles northwest of the project site. The Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center has a remaining capacity of 82.9 million cubic yards, and soils excavated during project construction would represent less than 1 percent of the landfill’s remaining capacity (California Department of Recycling and Resource Recovery 2019). As such, the project would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure.

The
project would be required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations related to solid waste generation, collection, and disposal. The project would result in a short -t erm and temporary
increase in solid waste generation during construction but would not substantially affect standard solid waste operations of any landfill accepting waste. Recycling and reuse activities during construction would comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939).

Once operational, the project would include unmanned facilities that would not generate solid waste.

Therefore, project impacts related to solid waste generation and consistency with solid waste reduction regulations would be less than significant.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

107

98 This page intentionally left blank.

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
108
Environmental Checklist
Wildfire

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 99 20 Wildfire

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas
or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or Emergency
evacuation plan? □ □ ■ □
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? □ □ ■ □
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment? □ □ ■ □
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
□ □ ■ □

a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
According to maps prepared by CAL FIRE, the project site is designated as a Very High FHSZ and is within a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The project site is surrounded by Very High FHSZ in all directions (CAL FIRE 2024).

100

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
control measures. In addition, the project would not require the construction of new public roadways that could be used as emergency evacuation routes. As such, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency response plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
The proposed water tank would be located at the top of a hill, which generally slopes steeply downward to the south and gently downward toward the north and existing residential development.

In addition, although the city has historical patterns of east wind driven fires (City of Simi Valley 2012b), localized shifts in wind direction can occur at any time, and nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed to wildfire pollutants. The project site is surrounded by existing rural residential areas and undeveloped lands.

T
o minimize fire risk during construction, construction personnel would adhere to PRC Section 4442, which requires earth-moving and portable construction equipment with internal combustion engines to use spark arrestors when operating on any forest-covered, brush-covered, or grass-covered land.

In addition, PRC Section 4428 requires construction contractors to maintain fire suppression equipment during the highest fire danger period (April 1 to December 1) when operating on or near any forest-covered, brush-covered, or grass-covered land. The Crown Hill Tank site contains limited vegetation, which would reduce the potential for spark-induced wildfire. Therefore, impacts related to exposure of construction workers to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would be less than significant.

O
ne of the purposes of the project is to provide additional water storage in the Knolls Pressure Zone in order to provide additional water supplies for firefighting. Therefore, in operation, the project would reduce the risk of pollutant concentrations resulting from a wildfire and also reduce the potential for an uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Implementation of the project would have a beneficial impact to the community as it relates to impacts associated with wildfire and impacts would be less than significant.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? The project itself involves the construction and operation of a water storage tank, pipelines, and an access road, which in part would be used to provide emergency water sources for firefighting. As described in this section, the project would not substantially exacerbate fire risk, rather it reduces the potential for the risk of wildfire spreading. During construction, construction personnel would adhere to PRC
Section 4442, which requires earth-moving and portable construction equipment with internal combustion engines to use spark arrestors. In operation, the project would involve routine vehicle trips along paved roadways, which would have minimal fire risk; the project would not involve other 110
Environmental Checklist
Wildfire

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 101 operational activities that would exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runo ff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Vegetation on hillslopes helps to stabilize soil, slow water flow, and support percolation into the soil.

Severe wildfires damage trees, the shrub canopy, vegetation, and soil. Once vegetation burns, a greater surface area of soil is exposed to the elements, and the lack of roots decreases the structural integrity of the soil. Thus, wildfire burn areas typically endure an increased runoff after intense rainfall, which can put residences and structures downslope of a burned area at risk of localized floods and landslides.

As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 7, Geology and Soils, the project site is not located within a landslide hazard zone. Because the proposed tank and pipelines would be located within bedrock soil layers and the topography of the tank site itself is relatively flat, the potential for slope instability and landslides is low (Appendix A). Further, as discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would conform to design requirements associated with proper site preparation and grading practices and would implement surface drainage improvements and erosion control measures. Control measures would be implemented during grading operations, to stabilize graded slopes and prevent excessive runoff and erosion. The project would also include retaining walls to stabilize slopes on the project site, which would reduce runoff, overflow from precipitation, and would reduce the risk for flooding or landslides at the project site. Accordingly, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
111

102

This page intentionally left blank.

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
112
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 103 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
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, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
□ □ □ ■
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
□ ■ □ □
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
□ ■ □ □
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, the project would not have the potential to substantially 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, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. In addition, as discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the project would not
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. No impact would occur.
113

104

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project

NO IMPACT
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual (and potentially less than significant) project
effects which, when considered together or in concert with other projects, combine to result in a significant impact within an identified geographic area. Cumulative development in the vicinity of the project site includes the following (City of Simi Valley 2024):
 Simi Country Mobile Home Park Solar Canopy: Planned Development Permit for the installation of a new solar panel canopy structure at a mobile home park. This project is located approximately 0.9 mile northeast of the project site.
 Stow Villas: Construction of 16 townhomes on East Los Angeles Avenue. This project is under construction and located approximately 1.2 miles northeast of the project site.

P
roject impacts are primarily temporary, localized effects that would occur during construction activities. As discussed throughout this IS-MND, the project would result in no impacts to agriculture and forestry resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and tribal cultural resources, and therefore the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts to these resources. The potential for the project to contribute to cumulative impacts would be limited to the infrequent periods of project activities and the following specific issue areas, for which the project is anticipated to have less-than-significant impacts (with or without mitigation):
 Air Quality: Because the Basin is designated as being in nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS and CAAQS and nonattainment for the PM10 CAAQS, significant cumulative air quality impacts currently exist for these pollutants. As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the project would not generate emissions of these air pollutants which exceed the VCAPCD significance thresholds, which are intended to assess whether a project’s contribution to existing cumulative air quality impacts is considerable. Therefore, the project’s contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
 Biological Resources: Cumulative development in the region would continue to disturb areas with the potential to contain or provide habitat for biological resources. Cumulative development projects have undergone or would be required to undergo CEQA review, which would determine the extent of potential biological resources impacts and mitigate those impacts appropriately. If these cumulative projects would result in impacts to biological resources, impacts to such resources would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Given the uncertainty in the extent of impacts associated with these projects, this analysis conservatively assumes a significant cumulative impact to biological resources would occur. Nevertheless, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 through BIO-4 to reduce its impacts to biological resources to a less-than-significant level such that project-level impacts would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulative impact. 114
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 105  Cultural Resources: Cumulative development in the region would continue to disturb areas with the potential to contain cultural and tribal cultural resources. As mentioned above, cumulative development projects have undergone or would be required to undergo CEQA review, which would determine the extent of potential cultural resources impacts and mitigate those impacts appropriately. If cumulative projects would result in impacts to known or unknown cultural resources, impacts to such resources would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Given the uncertainty in the extent of impacts associated with these projects, this analysis conservatively assumes a significant cumulative impact to cultural resources would occur. Nevertheless, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 and TCR-1 to reduce its impacts to cultural resources to a less-than-significant level such that project-level impacts would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulative impact.  Geology and Soils: Cumulative development in the region would continue to disturb areas with the potential to contain paleontological resources. As discussed above, cumulative development projects have undergone or would be required to undergo CEQA review, which would determine the extent of potential paleontological resources impacts and mitigate those impacts appropriately. This analysis conservatively assumes a significant cumulative impact to paleontological resources would occur. Nevertheless, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1 to reduce its impacts to paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level such that project-level impacts would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulative impact.
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: GHG emissions and climate change are, by definition, cumulative impacts. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the adverse environmental impacts of cumulative GHG emissions, including increased average temperatures, more drought years, and more frequent large wildfires, are already occurring. As a result, cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions are significant. Thus, the issue of climate change involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. As discussed in Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, project emissions would be consistent with adopted plans and would therefore not be cumulatively considerable.
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Similar to the project, cumulative projects would be required to comply with regulations applicable to the use, disposal, and transportation of hazardous materials during construction activities, and compliance with applicable regulations would reduce potential cumulative impacts to less-than-significant levels. With respect to the use and accidental release of hazardous materials in the environment during construction, effects are generally limited to site-specific conditions. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to accidental release of hazardous materials would not be significant.  Hydrology and Water Quality: As discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project’s construction-related water quality impacts would be less than significant with local ordinance and regulatory compliance. The cumulative projects listed above would have less- than-significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality, as they would be required to comply with existing NPDES and/or local regulations to ensure they do not result in substantial erosion or stormwater discharges that would substantially affect water quality in the area.

Implementation of these regulations minimizes and avoids the potential for cumulative impacts to occur. Therefore, the project’s contribution to significant cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. 115

106

Ve
ntura County Waterworks District No. 8
Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project
 Transportation: The cumulative development projects listed above may occur at the same time as the project. However, the cumulative development projects and the project would not require roadway closures such that they would result in a significant cumulative transportation impact.
 Utilities and Service Systems: The project would involve construction of a new water storage tank and would not modify the District’s water supply and would not increase water supply production beyond existing permitted operations. The project would temporarily generate minimal wastewater and solid waste during construction. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to solid waste or wastewater would not be considerable.  Wildfire: As described in Section 20, Wildfire, potential wildfire impacts associated with the project would be limited to heavy-duty construction equipment possibly producing sparks to ignite vegetation, which would be less than significant with compliance with applicable law.

Project operation would not involve potentially flammable activities. In addition, the project would not introduce habitable structures, and therefore, would not expose new residents to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The cumulative projects listed above would generally involve the continued operation of existing activities, and would not contribute considerably to cumulative wildfire impacts. Since there would be no long- term project
operational wildfire impacts and potential construction-related wildfire impacts would be limited, the project’s contribution to cumulative impact wildfire impacts would not be considerable.

Given the above discussion, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact with mitigation incorporated.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and wildfire. These are discussed in detail in Environmental Checklist Section 3, Air Quality, Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 13, Noise, and Section 20, Wildfire.

The project would include Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which would require implementation of construction emissions reduction measures including the use of Tier 4 construction equipment and limiting vehicle idling. Further, the project would also include Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which would require implementation of construction noise reduction measures to reduce noise levels so as not to exceed a noise level of 80 dBA at the nearest residence. The project’s impact on hazards and hazardous materials and wildfire would be less than significant. Therefore, with incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and NOI-1, the project’s impact on human beings would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
116
References

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 107 References
Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). 2016. Final White Paper Beyond 2020 and Newhall:

A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California. https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf (accessed November 2024).

Bell, A. 2024. Collections search of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County for the Simi Valley Water Tank Project (24-16201), dated September 8, 2024.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf (accessed November 2024).
______. 2022 a. Overview Diesel Exhaust & Health. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview - diesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed November 2024).
______. 2022b. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp.pdf (accessed November 2024). _____. 2024a. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/national- ambient-air-quality-standards. (accessed November 2024). _____. 2024b. “California Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards (accessed November 2024).

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2021. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/ (accessed November 2024). ______. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed October 2024).
______. 2023. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/App/index.html (accessed October 2024).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline (accessed November 2024).
______. 2024a. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind V. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB (accessed September 2024). ______. 2024b. Special Animals List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. Accessed October 2024.
______. 2024c. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS (accessed November 2024). ______. 2024d. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. Accessed October 2024. 117

108

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. https://calfire-
forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597 ab693d008 (accessed November 2024).

C
alifornia Department of Recycling and Resource Recovery. 2019. Simi Valley Landfill & Recycle Center. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/608?siteID=3954 (accessed November 2024).

C
alifornia Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2024. EnviroStor database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=60002757 (accessed November 2024).

C
alifornia Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HW
ANP-RT-13-069.25.2) September. https://dot.ca.gov/-
/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013- a11y.pdf (accessed November 2024).
_
_____. 2019. California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aacaa (accessed October 2024).
_
_____. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (CT-HWANP-RT-20- 365.01.01). April. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf (accessed November 2024).

C
alifornia Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2024. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Basin Prioritization Dashboard. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/ (accessed November 2024).

C
alifornia Geological Survey. 2002. Note 36 – California Geomorphic Provinces. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-

36.pdf (accessed September 2024).

C
alifornia Native Plant Society. 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v-

9.5). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org (accessed October 2024).

C
ampbell, R.H., C.J. Wills, P.J. Irvine, and B.J. Swanson. 2016. Preliminary geologic map of the Los Angeles 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, California: version 2.1. [map.] California Geological Survey.

Preliminary Geological Maps PGM-13-06.2016, scale 1:100,000.

C
rocker, Malcolm J. Crocker (Editor). 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control Book, ISBN:
978-0-471-39599-7, Wiley-VCH, October.

Fe
deral Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2010. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer, FIRM 06111C0868E. https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b552 9aa9cd&extent=-121.94529102661183,36.5159779735144,-
121.90374897338809,36.53322138877889 (accessed November 2024). 118
References

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 109 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

September. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf (accessed November 2024)
Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. 2019. Van Nuys Airport Noise Contours. https://case.planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-van-nuys.pdf (accessed November 2024).

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2024. Water Quality Control Plan: Los Angeles Region Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ (accessed November 2024).

Paleobiology Database. 2024. The Paleobiology Database, http://paleobiodb.org/ (accessed September 2024).

Sawyer, et al. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. https://vegetation.cnps.org/search?page_number=1&search_by_map=true&page_size=25 &alliance_names=&species_names=&endemic_to_ca=either&endemic_to_ca_fpd=either&e levation_min=&elevation_max=&ecoSectionListSelection=section_261B&added_since_by=y ear&edition_added=Edition+1&year_added=&search_submit=Search&ecoSectionsSelected ForSearch=section_261B (accessed November 2024).

Simi Valley, City of. 2012a. Simi Valley General Plan Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2009121004. https://www.simivalley.org/departments/environmental- services/planning-division/documents-applications-and-development-activity/general-plan (accessed October 2024).
______. 2012b. Simi Valley General Plan. https://www.simivalley.org/departments/environmental- services/planning-division/documents-applications-and-development-activity/general-plan (accessed October 2024).
______. 2012c. Simi Valley Climate Action Plan. https://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file- attachments/simi_valley-_climate_action_plan_0.pdf?1472519071 (accessed October 2024).
______. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.simivalley.org/home/showpublisheddocument/23836/637692800991770000 (accessed November 2024).
______. 2023. Mature Tree Preservation Ordinance.
https://www.simivalley.org/departments/environmental-services/planning-division/tree- advisory-board-arbor-day/mature-tree-preservation-ordinance (accessed November 2024). ______. 2024. Q2 Development Summary.
https://www.simivalley.org/home/showpublisheddocument/28529/638562040857070000 (accessed November 2024).

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. https://vertpaleo.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf. 119

110

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Connect SoCal: The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176 (accessed November 2024). _
_____. 2024. Connect SoCal: The 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-connect-socal-2024-final- complete-040424.pdf?1714175547 (accessed November 2024).

St
ate Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2024. GeoTracker database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Sacramento# (accessed November 2024).

U
nited States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 2024. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm (accessed October 2024).

U
nited States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2022. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book). Last updated August 1, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/green-book (accessed November 2024).

U
nited States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Protocol. July 28, 1997. _
_____. 2024.Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (accessed November 2024).
_
_____. 2024b. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html (accessed November 2024). Ventura, County of. 1992. Tree Protection Ordinance.
https://vcportal.ventura.org/BOS/District2/OakPark/docs/VC_Tree_Protection_Ordinance.p df (accessed November 2024).

V
entura, County of. 1995. Ventura County Land Development Manual. http://pwaportal.ventura.org/ONESTOP/ESD/landdev.pdf (accessed November 2024).

V
entura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD). 2003. Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines. October 2003.
http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf (accessed November 2024).

Y
erkes, R.F. and R.H. Campbell. 2005. Preliminary geologic map of the Los Angeles 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, southern California. United States Geological Survey. [map]. Open-File Report 2005-1019, scale 1:100,000.
120

Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 111

R
eferences
List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IS-MND under contract to Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.

Rin
con Consultants, Inc.

Danielle Griffith, JD, Director-in-Charge
Kayleigh Limbach, Environmental Planner/Project Manager Greg Ainsworth, Natural Resources Director
Eric Schaad, Senior Biologist
Alicia McCracken,
Biologist
Linda Kry, Senior Supervisor Archaeologist
Andrew McGrath, Paleontologist
Heather Dubois, Senior Air Quality and Noise Specialist Bill Vosti, Supervising Environmental Planner
121

112

This page intentionally left blank.

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
Kno
lls Zone Water Facilities Project
122

Appendix A
Geotechnical Report
123
OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC.

CROWN HILL DRIVE TANK AND PUMP STATION

PROJECT
Simi Valley, California
Prepared for:

Perliter & Ingalsbe
December 2016
Job No. 032.002
124

www.Oakridgegeo.com
805-368-7765

December 21, 2016
Project No. 032.002
Perliter & Ingalsbe
430 West Colorado Street
Glendale, California 91204
Subject: Geotechnical Report, Crown Hill Drive Tank and Pump Station, Simi Valley, California
Dear Mr. Shah:

Oakridge Geoscience, Inc. is pleased to present this geotechnical report for the Crown Hill Drive Tank and Pump Station Project in Simi Valley, California. The proposed project will consist of construction of a 1 -million-gallon potable water tank, pump station, and associated piping. The purpose of this report is to summarize the anticipated geotechnical conditions at the project sit es and provide geotechnical recommendations in support of the project design by Perliter & Ingalsbe.

Closure
We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services to Perliter & Ingalsbe for the Crown Hill Drive Tank and Pump Station Project. P lease contact us if you have any questions regarding information presented herein.

SINCERELY,
OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Craig D. Prentice, CEG
Principal

Rory “Tony” Robinson, PE, GE
Geotechnical Engineer
Copies Submitted: 4 hard copies and 1 pdf copy (via email)

125
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

i
OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

CONTENTS
Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1

1.1 General Statement ................................ ................................ ........................... 1

1.2 Purpose and Understanding ................................ ................................ ............ 1

1.3 Project Description ................................ ................................ ........................... 1

1.4 Work Performed ................................ ................................ ............................... 1

1.4.1 Data Review and Project Coordination ................................ ................ 1

1.4.2 Field Exploration ................................ ................................ .................. 2

1.4.3 Laboratory Testing ................................ ................................ ............... 2

1.4.4 Geotechnical Analyses and Report ................................ ...................... 2

2.0 FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 3

2.1 Site Description ................................ ................................ ................................ 3

2.2 Geologic Setting ................................ ................................ .............................. 3

2.2.1 Regional Geology ................................ ................................ ................ 3

2.2.2 Local Geology ................................ ................................ ...................... 3

2.3 Previous Site Grading Data Review ................................ ................................ 3

2.4 Subsurface Conditions and Engineering Properties ................................ ........ 4

2.4.1 Artificial Fill (af) ................................ ................................ .................... 4

2.4.2 Colluvium (Qc) ................................ ................................ ..................... 5

2.4.3 Chatsworth Formation (Kcs) ................................ ................................ 5

2.4.4 Engineering Properties ................................ ................................ ........ 6

2.5 Groundwater ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 6

2.6 Potential Variation of Subsurface Materials ................................ ..................... 6

2.7 Seismic Considerations and Geohazards ................................ ........................ 7

2.7.1 Faults ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 7

2.7.2 Ground Rupture Potential ................................ ................................ .... 7

2.7.3 Seismic Considerations for 2013 CBC ................................ ................. 7

2.7.4 2013 CBC Seismic Design Parameters ................................ ............... 8

2.7.5 American Water Works Association (AWWA) D100
Seismic Design Parameters ................................ ................................ . 9

2.7.6 Liquefaction Potential ................................ ................................ ........... 9

2.7.7 Landsliding ................................ ................................ ........................... 9

2.7.8 Expansive and Collapsible Soils ................................ ........................ 10

3.0 OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ............................... 10

3.1 Summary of Subsurface Site Conditions ................................ ....................... 10

3.1.1 Tank Site ................................ ................................ ............................ 10

3.1.2 Pump Station Site ................................ ................................ .............. 11

3.2 Soil Chemistry and Corrosion ................................ ................................ ........ 11

3.2.1 Test Results ................................ ................................ ....................... 11

3.2.2 Corrosion and Cement Considerations ................................ .............. 11

3.3 General Site Clearing and Grubbing ................................ .............................. 12 126
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

ii
OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page

3.4 Site Grading ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 12

3.4.1 Subgrade Preparation ................................ ................................ ........ 12

3.4.2 Fill Material Selection ................................ ................................ ......... 13

3.4.3 Dewatering ................................ ................................ ......................... 13

3.4.4 Fill Placement ................................ ................................ .................... 13

3.4.5 Compaction ................................ ................................ ........................ 14

3.4.6 Concrete, Sand-Cement Slurry, and Soil -Cement ............................. 14

3.5 Foundation Design ................................ ................................ ......................... 15

3.5.1 Shallow Foundation Design ................................ ............................... 15

3.5.2 Allowable Bearing Pressure ................................ ............................... 15

3.5.3 Minimum Embedment Depth and Width ................................ ............ 15

3.5.4 Sliding and Passive Resistance ................................ ......................... 15

3.5.5 Static Settlements ................................ ................................ .............. 16

3.5.6 Lateral Earth Pressures ................................ ................................ ..... 16

3.5.7 Backfill ................................ ................................ ................................ 16

3.6 Construction Considerations ................................ ................................ .......... 17

3.6.1 Excavation Conditions ................................ ................................ ....... 17

3.6.2 Temporary Slopes and Excavations ................................ .................. 17

3.6.3 Permanent Slopes ................................ ................................ ............. 17

3.6.4 Site Drainage ................................ ................................ ..................... 18

3.6.5 Water Pipeline and Dry Utilities ................................ ......................... 18

4.0 LIMITATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 18

4.1 Report Use ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 18

4.2 Hazardous Materials ................................ ................................ ...................... 18

4.3 Local Practice ................................ ................................ ................................ 19

4.4 Plan Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 19

4.5 Construction Monitoring ................................ ................................ ................. 19 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 20 PLATES
PLATE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP
PLATES 2A AND 2B EXPLORATION MAPS TANK SITE AND PUMP S TATION SITE PLATES 3A AND 3B CROSS-SECTIONS TANK SITE AND PUMP S TATION SITE

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION

APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING
127
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

1 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL STATEMENT
This geotechnical report summarizes the findings and recommendations of the geotechnical study performed by Oakridge Geoscience, Inc. (OGI) for the Crown Hill Drive Tank and Pump Station Project in Simi Valley, California . The proposed project will consist of construction of a 74-foot-diameter, 35 -foot-high welded steel potable water storage tank, a pump station, and associated piping as summarized below. The location of the proposed project site shown on Plate 1.

1.2 PURPOSE AND UNDERSTANDING
The purpose of this geotechnical study is to evaluate the geotechnical conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project elem ents and provide opinions and geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the tank and pump station project. Our understanding of the project and requirements are based on review of the Request for Proposal (RFP) by the City of Simi Valley dated February 22, 2016 and discussions with Perliter & Ingalsbe (P&I).

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As indicated in the RFP, the proposed project consists of the following elements:
• Crown Hill Pump Station located in a masonry block building at the City’s Alta Vi sta Pump Station site.
• Crown Hill Tank, a 1 -million-gallon welded steel tank (74 feet in diameter, 35 feet high, with a high- water-level of elevation +1,490 feet. The tank will be located on District-owned property (Ventura County Assessor’s parcel No. 646-0-162-070). • 1,100 feet of 8 -inch diameter ductile iron water pipeline connecting the existing Alta Vista Tanks to the Crown Hill Pump Station and Crown Hill Tank. • Crown Hill Pressure Reducing Station to deliver water from the Crown Hill Tanks to the Alta Vista Tanks.

1.4 WORK PERFORMED
Our proposed work scope for the project was presented in our proposal dated May 3, 2016 and was authorized by a P&I Agreement for Professional Consulting Services, dated July 22, 2016. The work performed for this study consist s of project -specific field exploration , laboratory testing , geotechnical engineering evaluation, and preparation of this report.

1.4.1 Data Review and Project Coordination
We reviewed readily available published geologic data and site-specific data provided by the City of Simi Valley. Prior to subsurface exploration, we contacted Underground Service Alert (USA) for utility coordination.
128
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

2 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

1.4.2 Field Exploration
Field exploration for the project consisted of advancing 13 backhoe test pits to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the proposed tank and pump station sites. Nine backhoe test pits (TP-1 through TP -9) were advanced at the tank site and four backhoe test pits (TP-A through TP-D) were advanced at the pump station site on August 5, 2016 near the locations i ndicated on Plates 2a and 2b. The test pits were excavated with a Case 580E backhoe equipped with a 24-inch bucket by Buzza Backhoe Service of Calabasas, California. The test pits generally met refusal at about 3 to 10 feet on sandstone bedrock. The tes t pits were logged by our field geologist to document excavation conditions and material types . Bulk s amples were collected from selected intervals from the test pits for laboratory testing as indicated on the test pit logs presented in Appendix A .

The t est pits were backfilled to the surface with the excavated materials, tamped and wheel-rolled upon completion of the excavation and logging effort at each location .

1.4.3 Laboratory Testing
Geotechnical l aboratory testing was performed on selected earth materia ls sampled in the test pits to characterize the materials and estimate relevant engineering design parameters.

The testing consist s of moisture content , grainsize, compaction, and limited chemical testing (sulfates, sulfides, chlorides, pH, resistivity , and redox potential ).

The laboratory test results are presented on the test pit logs (Appendix A) and in Appendix B.

1.4.4 Geotechnical Analyses and Report
We evaluated the field and laboratory geotechnical data, developed geotechnical engineering recommendatio ns for design and construction of the project, and prepared this report to summarize our findings, opinions and recommendations. Our report includes the following:
• Summary of work performed and results of our data review, • Test pit logs , cross -sections of interpreted subsurface conditions, and exploration location maps,
• Summary of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered, • Laboratory test results,
• Assessment of seismically -related geohazards such as strong ground motion, fault rupture pote ntial, liquefaction potential, liquefaction -related settlement, and seismically induced settlement,
• Assessment of geologic hazards such as flooding, erosion, slope instability, expansive or collapsible soils,
• California Building Code ( CBC) and AWWA D100 seismic design, • Earthwork and grading recommendations, including clearing and grubbing, subgrade soil preparation, compaction requirements, and earthen roadways, 129
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

3 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .
• Suitability of excavated materials for use as fill and select fill ; suggested specifications for on-site and imported materials used as fill, • Foundation parameters including allowable active and passive pressure, allowable bearing pressure, coefficient of friction, lateral earth pressures, and • Corrosion potential.

2.0 FINDINGS

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed water tank and pump station sites are located near the crest of a north - south trending ridgeline in the southe astern portion of Simi Valley. The elevations along the ridgeline range from about +1 ,460 feet at the proposed tank site to about +1 ,370 to +1,390 at the proposed pump station site. The tank site has been previously graded for residential development and consists of a relatively level pad with a northeast -trending cut/fill contact near the mid-portion of the pad as discussed below. Natural slopes in the project vicinity are inclined at about 2 horizontal to 1 vertical ( 2h:1v) and appear to form a dip -slope nearly parallel to the bedding within the Chatsworth Formation sandstone bedrock. Locally, the bedrock has b een cut at steeper inclinati ons approaching 1h:1v to create access roads. A thin colluvial soil cover was observed overlying the sandstone bedrock in many areas.

2.2 GEOLOGIC SETTING

2.2.1 Regional Geology
The project site is located within the Transverse Ranges geologic/geomorphic province of California. That province is characterized by generally east -west-trending mountain ranges composed of sedimentary and volcanic rocks ranging in age from Cretaceous to Recent. Major east-trending folds, reverse faults, and left -lateral strike -slip fa ults reflect regional north -south compression and are characteristic of the Transverse Ranges. Several authors including Dibblee (1992), and Weber (1973) have mapped the Simi Valley area.

2.2.2 Local Geology
As mapped by the Dibblee (1992), the bedrock in the vicinity of the Crown Hill Drive tank and pump station sites consists of sandstone of the Chatsworth Formation. Dibblee describes the Chatsworth Formation sandstone as massive, thickly bedded sandstone and minor conglomerate interbedded with thinly bedded siltstone and mudstone. Dibblee indicates t he Chatsworth Formation strata strike about N75 to 80E and dip about 24 to 28 degrees to the northwest (downslope direction at the project sites).

2.3 PREVIOUS SITE GRADIN G DATA REVIEW
The RFP by the City of Simi Va lley included an interim soils engineering and geologic report of completed rough grading for a proposed single family residence, Lot F, APN 6460 -162- 070 by Gold Coast Geoservices, Inc. (GCG), dated May 8, 2009 (File No. GC04 -091973F). The grading report by GCG indicates the finished lot is a roughly triangular -shaped pad about 150 feet by 150 feet with a finished elevation of about +1,458 to +1,459 feet. Based on mapping by 130
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

4 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

GCG provided in the RFP , the lot has a cut/fill line near the center of the grade d pad ; the southeastern portion of the lot is underlain by sandstone bedrock of the Chatsworth Formation (Kcs) and the north western portion of the lot is underlain by artificial fill placed to create a level building pad. The GCG map suggests the northern portion of the fill is up to 8 feet thick. GCG indicated the in -place densities of the granular fill materials ranged from 112 to 118 pcf and were compacted to greater than 90 percent relative compaction (based on a maximum density of 122 to 125 pcf at an optimum moisture content of 10 to 11 percent ). In their report, GCG provided foundation design criteria for the residence and recommended the building foundations be founded in Chatsworth Formation sandstone bedrock with an allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 psf.

2.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITION S AND ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
Earth materials encountered in the test pits advanced for this study consist of artificial fill, colluvial soil, and sandstone bedrock of the Chatsworth Formation to the depths explored (about

1.5 to 10 feet; Appendix A). Descriptions of the earth materials are presented in the foll owing sections. Geologic cross -sections depicting the interpreted subsurface conditions and distribution of the earth materials at the proposed tank and pump statio n sites are presented on Cross Sections A -A’ through C-C’ (Plates 3a to 3b).

2.4.1 Artificial Fill (af)
Artificial fill materials were encountered in the majority of the test pits excavated at proposed the tank and pump station sites . The fill materials observed in the test pits consist primarily of silty sand and sand with silt as described on the test pit logs and summarized by site below.

Proposed Tank Site . The fill materials at the proposed tank site consist of compacted fill placed for grading operations to create a residential pad as described in Section 2.3 above.

The fill described in GCG ’s report (2009) and observed in our test pits c onsists primarily of silty sand with lesser amounts of sand with silt. The fill materials observed in the test pits appeared to be medium dense to dense based on excavation with the Case 580E backhoe. GCG reports the fill was placed at a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. The thickness of the fill material varies from less than a foot to about 10 feet as depicted by the interpreted fill thickness contours presented on Plate 2a developed from our subsurface exploration . We note the interpreted fill thickness include s a zone of colluvial soil encountered below the fill materials in several test pits advanced in the northwestern portion of the tank pad.

Proposed Pump Station Site. The fill materials encountered in the test pits advanced at the pro posed pump station site consist of loose, dry, sand with silt and silty sand. The fill at the pump station site does not appear to be a compacted (“engineered”) fill; it appears to be loose soil generated from the cut grading operations to create the dirt access road extending from the southern extent of the existing Alta Vista Tank pad , southwesterly, downslope to th e southwestern corner of the site ( Plate 2b). The granular soil encountered in the test pits ranges from less than a foot to about six feet thick (Appendix A). The contact between the fill soil material and underlying bedrock was sharp and appears to slo pe to the northwest at about the slope inclination (2h:1v).
131
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

5 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

2.4.2 Colluvium (Qc)
Granular soil interpreted to be colluvium was encountered beneath the fill soils and above the Chatsworth Formation sandstone bedrock in test pits TP -6 through TP-8 excavated in the northwestern portion o f the proposed tank pad (Plate 2a; Appendix A). The colluvium consisted of dark reddish brown silty sand with a higher fines content than the overlying yellowish brown sandy fill. The zone of colluvium ranged from one to three fe et thick in the test pits (Appendix A) and appears to be a soil horizon that formed on the bedrock that was not removed prior to placement of the fill during prior grading operations.

2.4.3 Chatsworth Formation (Kcs)
Based on our site observations , the Chatwort h Formation (Kcs) in the vicinity of the water tank and pump station sites consists of sandstone that is slightly to moderately weathered, soft to moderately hard, thickly bedded to massive , with thinly inte rbedded siltstone layers. S iltstone beds were ob served in the cut -slopes for the access roads leading to the tank site but not in the excavations advanced at the tank site (TP-1 through TP -9). The sandstone was difficult to excavate with the 580E backhoe equipped with a 24 -inch bucket; typically, the backhoe met practical refusal after advancing one to two feet into the sandstone rock.

Based on mapping by OGI, the siltstone beds in the access road strike about N55E to N60E and dip 30 degrees to the northwest. Mapping by GCG at the tank site indicates the bedrock strikes about N45E and dip about 31 to 33 degrees to the northwest.

The existing 2h:1v, 5-foot-high cut slopes along the southeastern portion of the pad and the 1.5h:1v, to about 8 -foot-high cut slopes for the access road to the pad were exca vated in the Chatsworth Formation sandstone as part of the residential development in 2009 . Based on discussions with Mr. Scott Holgrefe with GCS (S. Holgrefe, 2016) , the developer ’s contractor used a large excavator equipped with a hydraulic breaker (hoe -ram) to excavate the Chatsworth Formation sandstone bedrock cut slopes.

Fugro West, Inc. (FWI) performed a geotechnical study that included rock coring and laboratory testing for Building 4059 at the Rocketdyne (Boeing) Facility about 3 miles southwest of proposed Crown Hill Road tank site. FWI advanced three rock core holes to depths of 60 feet in Chatsworth Formation sandstone similar to the rock exposed at the tank site . According to FWI, t he Chatsworth Formation bedrock consisted of sandstone (with one 10 -foot thick clay interbed) with the following parameters:
• Rock Core Rate: 2.6 to 7.3 min utes/foot; average 4 minutes/foot . • Percent Core recovery: 25 to 100 percent; average 90 percent . • Rock Quality Designation (RQD): 25 to 100 percent, average 75 per cent. • Rock Density: 146.3 to 149.3 pounds per cubic foot ( pcf). • Rock Unconfined Compressive Strength – pounds per square inch (psi): 433 to 1,624 psi (four samples)
• Shear Strength along slightly undula ting joint surface in sandstone: friction angle 35 degrees and a shear intercept of 2.6 to 3.2 psi.
132
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

6 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

2.4.4 Engineering Properties
A summary of the general engineering parameters for the earth materials encountered in the test pits advanced for this study consists of :
• Moisture contents of tested fill soils ranged from 3 to 6 percent. • A compaction test (ASTM D1557) was performed on a selected bulk sample of granular fill materials from the tank site to evaluate the compaction characteristics.

The test results indicate a maximum dry density of about 123 pcf and an optim um moisture content of 11 percent for the tested sample, which is consistent with the previous maximum density value reported by GCG (2009).
• The results of grainsize analyses indicate fines contents (percent passing No. 200 sieve) ranging from about 8 to 14 percent for the tested granular soil samples. The materials classify as sand with silt and silty sand.
• The results of the grainsize determinations also suggest that gravel contents range from negligible to about 16 percent for the tested samples. • The results of the soil chemistry tests are summarized in Section 3.2 below.

2.5 GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not encountered to the depths explored for this study. Groundwater data available from t he City of Simi Valley indicate groundwater in the Simi Valley area is primarily within the alluvial deposits within the main valley portion of Simi Valley. Also, CGS (2002) suggests historical high groundwater is greater than 50 feet below the ground surface in the project vic inity. Groundwater is not anticipated within the ex cavations for the site grading, however, t here is a potential for groundwater seepage along the soil/bedrock contact and from fractures in the rock following rainfall.

2.6 POTENTIAL VARIATION OF SUBSURFACE MA TERIALS
There is a potential for variation in the consistency, density , and strength/hardness of the materials from what was encountered in our explorations . The potential exists to encounter perched water, zones of poorly consolidated soils, or other con ditions not indicated o n the exploration logs. If significant variation in the geologic conditions is observed during construction, we recommend the geotechnical engineer, in conjunction with the project designer, evaluate the impact of those variations o n the project design.

133
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

7 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

2.7 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIO NS AND GEOHAZARDS

2.7.1 Faults
The project site is located in the seismically active southern California area and t he project most likely will be subjected to strong earthquake ground motion during its lifetime. As summarized in Table 1, numerous active or potentially active faults are known or postulated to exist within about 15 miles of the proposed reservoir and pump station site.

Table 1. Nearby Faults
Fault Approximate
Distance (miles)
Maximum Moment
Magnitude (Mmax)
Northridge 2.1 6.9
Simi-Santa Rosa 3.8 6.9
Santa Susana 5.0 6.9
Oak Ridge (Onshore) 10.8 7.2
San Gabriel 12.7 7.2
Earthquake magnitudes obtained from the USGS website

2.7.2 Ground Rupture Potential
The site is not located within a State of Californi a Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone) and no known active or potentially active faults cross or trend toward the site . The potential for fault rupture to affect the site is considered low.

2.7.3 Seismic Considerations for 2013 CBC
We estimated the probabilistic seismic hazards for the proposed tank and pump station sites using the USGS 2008 Interactive Deaggregations web application (USGS). Due to close proximity of the two sites and similar geotechnical conditions, a single gro und acceleration value is reported for the sites. On the basis of the web -based analyses, the peak horizontal ground acceleration (pga) at the proposed tank and pump station sites is estimated to be about 0.75g for an earthquake event with a 2,475 -year return period (2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years) assuming Site Class B1 soil conditions. Table 2 summarizes the probabilistically estimated strong ground motion parameters for the project site.

1 . The Chatsworth Formation sandstone bedrock materials are soft to moderately hard, met backhoe refusal within 1 to 2 feet, a nd have an estimated unconfined compressive strength ranging from about 500 psi to 1,600 psi based on similarity with previous studies in the area. The Chatsworth Formation sandstone bedrock is consistent with a Class B designation for rock (shear wav e velocity of 2,500 to 5,000 ft./sec). The Clas s B (Rock) designation is based on a shear wave velocity of 2,500 to 5,000 ft./sec.

ASCE 7-10 criteria require an onsite shear wave velocity measurement to characterize the site as Class A or B. This study did not include a seismic survey to characterize the shear wave velocity to a depth of 100 feet as required by ASCE 7 -10. Without site-specific shear wave velocity measurements, geotechnical reviewers lower the rock designation to Site Class C - very dense soil and soft rock. Site Class C is defined in the California Building Code as the soft rock or stiff soil having the following average parameters for the upper 100 foot of the site: 1) shear wave velocity of 1,250 to 2,500 ft./sec, N value >50, and Su>2,000 ps f.

We have provided seismic design para meters for both Site B and Site C conditions. 134
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

8 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

Table 2. Summary of USGS Probabilistic Seismi c Hazard Deaggregation Results Return Period
(years)
Mean Magnitude
(Mw)
Mean Source
Distance (km)
Peak Horizontal
Ground Acceleration
2,475 6.8 13.0 0.75g

2.7.4 2013 CBC Seismic Design Parameters
In accordance with Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2013 CBC, th e following parameters have been obtained from the USGS Seismic Design Maps web application and shall be incorporated into the seismic design at the project site. The subsurface conditions at the site are considered to satisfy the parameters for Site Clas s B as described in footnote on Page 8 of this report. The associated seismic design parameters for both Site Classes B and C for use in generating the risk -targeted maximum considered earthquake and design level spectra are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. 2013 CBC Seismic Design Parameters
2013 California
Building Code
Section 1613
Seismic Parameter Site Class B
Values
Site Class C
Values
--- Latitude 34.2550 34.2550
--- Longitude -118.6699 -118.6699
Figure 1613.3.1(1) Mapped Acceleration Response Para meter (Ss) 1.819g 1.819g Figure 1613.3.1(2) Mapped Acceleration Response Parameter (S 1) 0.602g 0.602g Section 1613.3.2 Site Class B C
Section 1613.3.3
and
Table 1613.3.3(1)
Site Coefficient (Fa) 1.0 1.0
Section 1613.3.3
and
Table 1613.3.3(2)
Site Coefficient (Fv) 1.0 1.3
Section 1613.3.3 PGAM Equation 11.8-1 PGAM=FPGAPGA 0.75g 0.75g Section 1613.3.3 Adjusted Acceleration Response Parameter (S MS) 1.819g 1.819g Section 1613.3.3 Adjusted Acceleration Response Parameter (S M1) 0.602g 0.782g Section 1613.3.3 Adjusted Acceleration Response Parameter (S DS) 1.219g 1.212g Section 1613.3.3 Adjusted Acceleration Response Parameter (S D1) 0.403g 0.521g

135
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

9 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

2.7.5 American Water Works Association (AWWA) D100 Seismic Design Parameters The AWWA D100 seismic design criteri a incorporates the design earthquake ground motion procedure presented in ASCE 7 for an earthquake caused by an event with a 2 percent probability of exceedance within a 50 -year period (recurrence interval of approximately 2,500 years). The estimated peak horizontal ground motion with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 2,475 years is 0.75g as summarized in Table 2. The ASCE 7 earthquake ground procedures are incorporated into the 2013 CBC seismic design parameters presented in Table 3; therefore, the parameters presented in Table 3 can be utilized for design of the proposed tank and pump station.

The AWWA D100 seismic design criteria includes a Seismic Use Group (SUG; Section

13.2) and seismic importance factor (I E; Table 24). The SUG is a classif ication assigned to the tank based on its intended use and expected performance during a seismic event. If the tank is expected to provide post -earthquake fire suppression , it should have a SUG III designation which incorporates a seismic importance facto r IE of 1.5. The response modification factors, R i (impulsive component) and R c (convective component) can be selected from AWWA D100 Table 28 based on the type of tank. The design response spectrum for impulsive components including factors T s, Ti, TL, and Sai can be developed using AWWA D100 equations 13- 9, 13-10, and 3-11 based on the natural period of the tank and using a region -dependent transition period for TL equal to zone 8 (AWWA D100, Figure 19).

2.7.6 Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction is described as the sudden loss of soil strength because of a rapid increase in soil pore water pressures due to cyclic loading during a seismic event. In order for liquefaction to occur, three general geotechnical characteristics must be present:
1) groundwater must be present within the potentially liquefiable zone; 2) the potentially liquefiable soil must meet certain grain size and classification characteristics; and 3) the potentially liquefiable granular soil must be of low to moderate relative density. If thos e criteria are met and strong ground motion occurs, then those soils may liquefy, depending upon the intensity and cyclic nature of the strong ground motion. Liquefaction that produces surface effects generally occurs in the upper 40 to 50 feet of the soi l column, although the phenomenon is not restricted to depths of less than 50 feet.

The site is underlain by bedrock of the Chatsworth Formation at a shallow depth and groundwater was not encountered during this study and is estimated to be in excess of 50 feet below the ground surface. Based on the available information, the potential for liquefaction to occur as a result of a seismic event is considered to be low.

2.7.7 Landsliding
No large-scale landslides are mapped in the vicinity based on regional geol ogic maps or were observed during our field reconnaissance. Both the tank site and pump station are located in moderately steep hillside terrain. The Chatsworth Formation bedrock at the tank and pump station sites consists primarily of sandstone with thi nly interbedded siltstone layers dipping unfavorably (downslope) to the northwest . The sandstone bedrock and siltstone layers observed in the access road cut -slopes can be daylighted in cuts steeper than the bedding 136
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

10 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .
orientations (slope steeper than about 1.5h:1v). Based on our site observations and mapping, the bedding at the tank and pump station sites appears to be supported in the down -dip direction and the potential for slope instability to affect the site s is considered low.

2.7.8 Expansive and Collapsib le Soils
The onsite bedrock and granular fill soils encountered in during site exploration are considered to have low expansion potential . Based on the density of the fill soils and bedrock, the potential for hydroconsolidation (soil collapse) also is considered to be low.

3.0 OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFAC E SITE CONDITIONS
The geotechnical conditions for the project were evaluated based on the test pits advanced for this study supplemented by data from previous geotechnical reports from the site and project area.

3.1.1 Tank Site
A northeast -trending cut/fill contact is located near the mid- portion of the tank pad site creating a dissimilar materials condition across the tank pad (Plate 2a). Chatsworth Formation sandstone bedrock is exposed in t he southeast ern portion of the tank pad and granular fill derived from the Chatsworth Formation is exposed in the northwestern portion of pad. On the basis of findings from our field exploration, the previous site grading did not remove a colluvial soil horizon on top of the bedrock in the vicinity of test pits TP -6 through TP -8. As depicted on Plates 2a and 3a, the fill and colluvial soil thickness beneath the existing pad is up to 10 feet thick in the northwest portion of the potential tank footprint ar ea based on the work performed for this study . Overexcavation should remove all old soil zones down to bedrock , the bedrock surfaces should be prepared in accordance with Greenbook Section 300 -3, and all fill should be placed in accordance with City of Si mi Valley and/or Greenbook Section 300 -4 requirements.

Plans by P&I indicate the 74 -foot-diameter tank and surrounding access road will span the width of the pad in the northwest -southeast direction, straddling the cut -fill line. We recommend the Crown H ill Drive tank pad be founded on a uniform material type (entirely on bedrock or equivalent; or entirely on a uniform thickness of compacted fill) b ased on our previous experience with differential settlement of the Madera 1031 Zone tank in the western part of Simi Valley . The Madera 1031 Zone tank was constructed over a cut/fill line and experienced differential settlement of about 4 inches and de flection of the steel tank wall.

Bedrock or Equivalent Foundation. The tank foundation could be founded ent irely on bedrock (or equivalent) either by : 1) lower the tank pad elevation until bedrock is expos ed across the entire excavation, or 2) overexcavate the soil (fill and colluvial soil) on the northwestern portion of the site from beneath the proposed tank footprint plus 3 fee t laterally outward from the foundation to expose sandstone bedrock and replace the excavated soil with concrete, sand-cement slurry, or soil cement to the base of the proposed footing (see Section

3.4.6).
137
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

11 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

Uniform Thickness of Compacted Fill Foundation. A second approach to providing a uniform foundation material would be to overexcavate the tank foundation area plus a minimum of 3 feet horizontally beyond the edge of the footing to a depth that will provi de for a uniform thickness of compacted fill beneath the entire tank footprint. The tank excavation could then be backfilled to grade with onsite granular fill compacted to 95 percent relative compaction.

Opinion. In our opinion, given the remote proje ct location, limited work area, and presence of competent bedrock material in the southeastern portion of the site , the option to overexcavate the fill and colluvial soil materials to competent bedrock in the northwest portion of the site and replace the excavated soil with concrete, sand -cement slurry, or soil cement appears to be a reasonable approach to provide for a uniform foundation material beneath the Crown Hill Drive tank.

3.1.2 Pump Station Site
Based on the test pits excavated at the proposed pump stat ion site, the pump station site has a fill cover of variable thickness ranging from about 1 foot near the base of the cut slope for the dirt access road (southern side of site) to about 5 to 6 feet on the outside downslope northern edge of the access road (see cross- sections Plate 3b ). The fill is dry , loose, and appears to have been “spoiled” over the edge of the slope during construction of the access road; it does not appear to have been compacted or benched into the underlying sandstone bedrock. The underlying bedrock surface appears to slope northwesterly at about 2h:1v.

Based on our observations , we suggest the loose fill materials be removed and the foundations for the pump station and any associated retaining structures be embedded into sandstone bedrock. All bedrock surfaces should be prepared in accordance with Greenbook Section 300 -3 and all fill should be keyed and benched into the sandstone bedrock in accordance with Greenbook Section 300- 4 requirements. The existing onsite granular soils (SP, SW, SP- SM, and SM) are suitable for use as compacted fill once the soils have been moisture conditioned.

3.2 SOIL CHEMISTRY AND C ORROSION

3.2.1 Test Results
Selected soil samples obtained from our explorations were provided to Cooper Testing Laboratories for resistivity, pH, chloride, and sulfate testing. Test results are summarized below in Table 4 and the laboratory test report is included in Appendix B.

Table 4. Summary of Chemical Test Results
Drill
Hole
USCS
Classification
Depth
(feet)
Sulfate
(mg/kg)/%
Chloride
(mg/kg)
Resistivity
(ohm-cm) pH
TP-5 Silty Sand
(SM) 0 - 3 29 /

0.0029 2 6,800 7.8

3.2.2 Corrosion and Cement Considerations
As summarized in the table above, the measured pH of the tested sample (ASTM G51) is 7.8, the measured electrical resistivity (ASTM G57) is 6,800 ohm-centimeters, the chloride 138
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

12 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .
content (ASTM D4327) of the measured samples is 2 mg/kg, and the sulfate content (ASTM D4327) of the measured sample is 29 mg/kg (0.0029 percent).

Caltrans (2012) classifies soils as non -corrosive if the earth materials have less than 500 ppm chlorides, less than 0.20 percent sulfates (i.e., 2,000 mg/kg or ppm), a pH of 5.5 or more, or an electrical resistivity of 1,000 ohm -centimeters or more. The data suggest the tested soil materials are not corrosive to underground steel. If applicable, the test results should be evaluated by a corrosion engineer to determine how underground utilities should be protected from corrosion.

The cement type should be selected with consideration of the sulfate content of t he tested soils. Available sulfate content data suggest that, per Table 4 -3-1 of ACI 318, Type II cement can be used for concrete that will be in contact with onsite granular soils.

3.3 GENERAL SITE CLEARIN G AND GRUBBING
Soil containing debris, organics, tree s and root systems, and other unsuitable materials should be excavated and removed from improvement areas prior to commencing grading operations. Areas should be cleared of old foundations, slabs, pavement, abandoned utilities, and soils disturbed during the demolition process. Depressions or disturbed areas left from the removal of such material should be replaced with compacted fill.

3.4 SITE GRADING

3.4.1 Subgrade Preparation
Tank Site Prepara tion – Limited Excavation with Concrete, Sand-Cement Slurry, or Soil-Cement B ackfill. If the limited excavation option is selected, the existing fill and colluvial soil (if encountered) should be removed to expose clean intact sandstone bedrock and the bedrock surface prepared in accordance with Greenbook Section 300-3. The excavation should extend a minimum of 3 feet horizontally beyond the edge of the footing. The resulting bedrock surface should be clean of debris and loose soil prior to placement of concrete, sand-cement slurry, or soil-cement fill materials.

Tank Site Preparation – Compacted Fill Option. Following site clearing, we recommended the existing fill and colluvial soils be removed down to intact bedrock, the bedrock excavated to a uniform elevation across the entire tank footprint, and the site be brought back up to grade as a uniform thickness of compacted fill in the tank foundation area.

This likely will require excavation of bedrock in the southeastern portion of the tank pad to create a nearly level bedrock surface under the entire tank footprint. The excavation of bedrock should extend a minimum distance of 3 feet horizontally beyond the foundation of the tank footprint to provide for a uniform layer of compacted fill under the entire tank footprint. The bedrock surface does not need to be scarified.

139
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

13 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

Pump Station Site. It is anticipated the foundations for the pump station and associated retaining wall(s) will be founded on sandstone bedrock. All fill and loose soil beneath the building area should be removed to expose intact, sandstone bedrock and the bedrock surface prepared in accordance with Greenbook Section 300-3.

3.4.2 Fill Material Selection
Recommended fill material selection requirements for subgrade fill, aggregate base, and use of onsite materials are presented below. Areas or zones where th e various fill materials may be used are described below.

Use of Onsite Materials. As described above, onsite m aterials consist of granular soils with some gravel and cobble size rock fragments . Material derived from the bedrock overexcavation can be exp ected to generate oversize material that will need to be processed to use as onsite fill. The material generated from the overexcavation can be utilized as compacted fill as long as those materials satisfy criteria for general fill.

General Fill. General fill should consist of granular soil materials (SP, SW, SP -SM, and SM) free of organics, oversize rock (greater than 6 inches in diameter), trash, debris, and other deleterious or unsuitable materials, and should have an expansion index less than 20. T he fill materials should have less than 15 percent larger than 3 inches in diameter.

Aggregate and Miscellaneous Base. Base materials should consist of material conforming to Caltrans Standard Specifications for Class 2 Aggregate Base, Section 26 -1.02 (Caltrans, 2015) or Section 200 -2.5 of the Greenbook (2015) for Processed Miscellaneous Base.

Imported Fill. Although importing fill is not anticipated, if material is imported, the imported subgrade fill materials should comply with recommendations for general fill or as appropriate for its intended use. Imported fill should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer prior to being transported to the site.

3.4.3 Dewatering
On the basis of our subsurface exploration and previous studies on -site, we do not anticipate groundwater will be encountered during site grading activities . Although we do not anticipate the need for dewatering, groundwater levels may vary seasonally and it is possible some seepage may be encountered in the excavations following rain events.

3.4.4 Fill Placement
Fill should be placed , moisture conditioned , and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction beneath the tank and pump station structures and 90 percent relative compaction adjacent to structures . In general, we recommend the mois ture conte nt of the fill should be 0 to 2 percent above the optimum. We note the tested on -site soils have low moisture contents in the range of 3 to 6 percent. On the basis of the test results, water will need to be added during grading to bring the moi sture content up near the optimum moisture content of about 10 to 11 percent. Each layer should be spread evenly and should be thoroughly blade- mixed during the spreading to provide relative uniformity of material within each layer. Soft or 140
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

14 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .
yielding materials should be removed and be replaced with properly compacted fill material prior to placing the next layer.

Rock, cobbles, and other oversized material greater than 6 inches in dimension in any direction should be removed from the fill material being p laced. The contractor should be prepared to screen all native materials prior to placement as compacted fill. Rocks should not be nested and voids should be filled with compacted material. Organics, foreign matter , and other deleterious materials also should be removed from any material used in constructed fills.

Fill and backfill materials should be placed in layers that can be compacted with the equipment being used. Fill should be spread in lifts no thicker than approximately 8 inches prior to being compacted. Fill and backfill materials may need to be placed in thinner lifts to achieve the recommended compaction depending on the equipment being used. All fill should be keyed and benched into the sandstone bedrock in accordance with City of Simi Val ley and Greenbook requirements.

3.4.5 Compaction
Fill placement and grading operations should be performed according to the City of Simi Valley, Greenbook Specification 300 -4, and the grading recommendations of this report.

Relative compaction should be assesse d based on the latest approved edition of ASTM D1557.

The tank pad over -excavation (if performed) and upper 1- foot of access road sections (subgrade plus base materials ) should be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction .

Existing bedrock does not nee d to be scarified and compacted. We recommend general fill be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction . Recommended specified relative compaction should extend to a minimum of 3 feet horizontally beyond the limits of the improvements.

3.4.6 Concrete, Sand-Cement Slurry, and Soil -Cement
If the partial tank excavation method is selected to remove the existing soil materials beneath the northwestern portion of the tank foundation , the excavation should be backfilled with concrete, sand-cement slurr y, or soil -cement to the base of the proposed tank in the excavation area. The intent of the “strengthened” backfill is to match the engineering parameters of the adjacent sandstone bedrock beneath the southeastern portion of the tank.

We recommend the following material specifications for the excavation fill materials:
• Concrete utilized to fill the excavation should meet project specifications for structural concrete,
• Sand-cement slurry utilized to fill the excavation should have a minimum compressive strength of 500 psi and should meet Greenbook requirements, • Soil-cement utilized to fil l the excavation should have a minimum compressive strength (7 days) of 500 psi and should be constructed in accordance with Soil- Cement Handbook published by the Portlan d Cement Association (PCA) . Site - specific testing was not performed to evaluate the percentage of cement required to achieve a minimum strength of 500 psi. Based on past experience , we estimate a 141
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

15 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .
minimum of 8 percent cement will need to be added to the o nsite granular soil to achieve a minimum strength of 500 psi. If the contractor elects to backfill t he excavation with soil -cement, they should submit test results from a certified laboratory documenting the minimum cement content required to achieve a st rength of 500 psi and a work plan documenting quality control procedures to achieve uniform soil -cement mixing , moisture conditioning , and compacting. Soil -cement should be compacted to 95 percent re lative compaction of the cement -modified maximum soil de nsity in accordance with the Soil-Cement Handbook .

3.5 FOUNDATION DESIGN

3.5.1 Shallow Foundation Design
The proposed improvements tank and pump station improvements can be supported on a shallow foundation system consisting of isolated and continuous footings designed in accordance with current CBC and Greenbook requirements.

3.5.2 Allowable Bearing Pressure
Continuous and isolated spread footings will be supported on recompacted onsite granular fill materials underlain by Chatsworth Formation sandstone bedrock. For these conditions, we recommend shallow footings be designed using a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable value incorporates a factor of safety of at least 3. A one -third increase in the allowable bearing pressure may be used for transient loads such as seismic or wind forces.

Foundations embedded at least 1-foot in sandstone bedrock can utilize a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. A one-third increase in the allowable bearing pressure may be used for transient loads such as seismic or wind forces.

3.5.3 Minimum Embedment Depth and Width
In general, footings embedded in fill materials should extend to at least 2 feet below the lowest adjacent grade and have a minimum width of 18 inches. Isolate d pad footings should be at least 3 feet in least dimension. Footings bearing in bedrock should extend at least 1-foot in intact sandstone rock.

3.5.4 Sliding and Passive Resistance
Ultimate sliding resistance (friction) generated at the interface of concrete foundations and compacted soils can be computed by multiplying the total dead weight structural load by a coefficient of 0.4. The ultimate net passive resistance developed from lateral bearing of foundations against compacted backfill or undisturbed nativ e soil can be estimated using an equivalent fluid weight of 3 00 pcf. The passive resistance for the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected unless the soils are confined at the ground surface by slab -on-grade or pavement.

The passive resistance should be reduced to 150 pcf if the ground surface in front of the wall descends at a 2h:1v slope. Sliding resistance and passive pressure may be used together without reduction, when used with the recommended minimum factors of safety. For static conditions, m inimum factors of safety of 1.5 and 2.0 are recommended for foundation overturning and sliding, respectively. The factor of safety fo r sliding can be reduced to 1.5 if 142
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

16 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .
passive resistance is neglected. The factor of safety for transient (seismic, wind) co nditions should be at least 1.1.

3.5.5 Static Settlements
Static settlements generally will occur in response to foundation loads on the foundation support material. The structure should be designed to accommodate static differential settlements of at least ½ -inch over a distance of 30 feet (i.e., a distortion ratio of approximately 1/720) for similarly sized and loaded footings.

3.5.6 Lateral Earth Pressures
Retaining structures free to rotate or translate laterally (e.g., cantilevered retaining walls) through a horizontal distance to wall height ratio of greater than about 0.004 can be assumed as unrestrained or yielding retaining structures. Such walls can generally move enough to develop active conditions. Retaining structures unable to rotate or deflect later ally (e.g., restrained below-grade or basement walls) are referred to as restrained or rigid walls. We have assumed the below grade walls for vault s and manholes will be rigid and should be designed for at -rest conditions.

Lateral earth pressures (equiv alent fluid weights) for design of the proposed pump station and miscellaneous walls are summarized in Table 5 below.

Table 5. Equivalent Fluid Weights for Estimating Lateral Earth Pressures Backfill Slope
Inclination Behind Wall
Equivalent Fluid Weights (pcf)
At-Rest Conditions
Restrained (At-
rest), Drained
Unrestrained
(active), Drained
Level Granular Backfill 45 40
2h:1v Soil Backfill 75 65

1.5h:1v Soil Backfill 95 95
The equivalent fluid weight for undrained conditions accounts for the buoyant un it weight of soil and includes the unit weight of water. Drained conditions can be utilized if perimeter subsurface drainage devices are provided.

The estimated equivalent fluid pressures should be applied to a vertical plane passing through the backmost extension of the wall. The height of the vertical plane should extend from the point where the vertical plane intersects the ground surface down to the elevation of the lowest retaining wall foundation.

3.5.7 Backfill
We anticipate the retaining walls will be constructed adjacent to temporary bedrock cuts and it is unlikely that a significant volume of backfill materials will be placed behind the wall s.

However, where backfill soils are required , the materials should consist of onsite or imported granular soil with less than 20 percent passing the No. 200. 143
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

17 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

3.6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

3.6.1 Excavation Conditions
Subsurface materials encountered in the exploratory test pits consisted of : 1) loose to dense granular soils with vary ing amounts of gravel - to cobble -size rock fragments, and 2) slightly weathered, soft to moderately hard, thickly bedded to massive, sandstone bedrock.

The bedrock was difficult to excavate with the Case 580E backhoe and resulted in refusal to the exploration equipment as described above. W e expect excavations in the onsite soil materials can be excavated with heavy duty earthwork equipment in good working order. We anticipate the sandstone bedrock will require heavy ripping with a single shank on a large bulldozer to excavate the thickly b edded to massive sandstone bedrock. The excavation likely will generate oversized material (greater than 6 -inches in diameter) that will need to be processed on -site to place as compacted fill.

3.6.2 Temporary Slopes and Excavations
The contractor should be r esponsible for the design of temporary slopes. Within the anticipated depths of excavation, the soil profile is anticipated to consist of loose to dense granular soil materials and intact sandstone bedrock. Temporary slopes should be braced or sloped according to the requirements of OSHA.

As input to design, excavations in granular soil without shoring can be classified as Type C and should be sloped no steeper than 1.5 h:1v as deemed appropriate based upon classification Type determined in the field per OSHA guidelines. Rock excavations classify as a Type A soil although we recommend temporary cut slopes higher than 4 feet be cut at 1h:1v due to the presence of interbedded siltstone layers dipping northward out of slope (downslope).

We recommend all temporary excavations be monitored for signs of instability and appropriate actions (such as flattening the slope, providing shoring, and controlling groundwater, if encountered) should be undertaken if evidence of potential instability is observed. Table 6 summarizes parameters for consideration in the design of temporary slopes or shoring systems.

Table 6. Engineering Parameters for Design of Temporary Slopes and Shoring 1 Soil Unit Total Unit Weight
(pcf)
Friction Angle
(degrees)
Cohesion
(psf)
Fill consisting of a mixture of sand
(SP-SM/SM) 130 32 0
1 Parameters provided here are valid only for the design of temporary slopes and shoring.

3.6.3 Permanent Slopes
Permanent cut -slopes exposing granular soil units susceptible to erosion should be inclined at 2h:1 v or flatter. Cut -slopes in bedrock can be inclined at 1.5h:1v ; if the bedrock is massive, without bedding or siltstone and/or claystone layers, the cut -slopes could be steepened to 1h:1v. However, i f 1h:1v permanent bedrock slopes higher than 4 feet are proposed, OGI and the designer should evaluate them on a site -specific basis. 144
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

18 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

3.6.4 Site Drainage
Site grading should be provided such that positive drainage away from improvements is provided. Water should not be allowed to pond near the improvements. We rec ommend the construction of finish ed slopes of 1 to 2 percent away from the improvements. Erosion control and maintenance of the slopes should be provided to reduce the potential for erosion.

3.6.5 Water Pipeline and Dry Utilities
A water pipeline connecting the new tank to the pump station adjacent to the Alta Vista Tank site will be constructed as part of the project. The pipeline alignment is being defined as part of the preliminary design. Depending on the alignment selected, the site conditions along the a lignment likely will consist of shallow sandstone bedrock. Support options could include anchoring the pipeline to the rock above ground or placement in a standard trench. If the pipeline and/or dry utilities are placed in a trench, we suggest they be bedded in a minimum of 6 inches of clean sand and covered with a minimum of 12 inches of clean sand. The sand should have a minimum sand equivalent of 30 and should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Flooding of the sand should no t be allowed . Onsite materials could potentially be used as trench bedding materials if the granular soil is screened through a 1 -inch screen to produce a uniform granular soil without large gravel, cobbles, or boulders.

The trench zone above the beddin g can be backfilled with general fill and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Ditch plugs such as sacked concrete, should be provided every 30 feet along the length of the trench in areas where the pipeline gradient is steeper than 5 h:1v. The ditch plugs should extend from the bottom of the trench to the ground surface to help reduce runoff. In addition, the trench surface should be protected from allowing surface water to run down the length of the trench.

4.0 LIMITATIONS

4.1 REPORT USE
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Perliter & Ingalsbe and the City of Simi Valley and its agents for the design and construction of the proposed Crown Hill Drive Tank and Pump Station project in Simi Valley, California . The findings, co nclusions, and recommendations presented herein were prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices of the project region. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.

Although information contained in this report may be of some use for other purposes, it may not contain sufficient information for other parties or uses. If any changes are made to the project as described in this report, the conclusions and recommendations in this report shall not be considered valid u nless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations of this report are modified or validated in writing by OGI.

4.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This report does not provide information regarding the presence of hazardous/toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or atmosphere. 145
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

19 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

4.3 LOCAL PRACTICE
In performing our professional services, we have used generally accepted geologic and geotechnical engineering principles and have applied th e degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under s imilar circumstances by reputable geotechnical engineers currently practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report.

4.4 PLAN REVIEW
We recommend OGI be provided the opportunity to review and comment on the geotechnical aspects of any project plans and specifications prepared for th is project before they are finalized. The purpose of that review will be to evaluate if the recommendations in this report have been prop erly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications.

4.5 CONSTRUCTION MONITOR ING
Users of this report should recognize the construction process is an integral design component with respect to the geotechnical aspects of a project, and geotechnica l engineering is inexact due to the variability of natural and man -induced processes, which can produce unanticipated or changed conditions. Proper geotechnical observation and testing during construction is imperative in allowing the geotechnical enginee r the opportunity to verify assumptions made during the design process. Therefore, we recommend OGI be retained during p roject construction to observe compliance with project plans and specifications and to recommend design changes, if needed, in the even t that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated.

146
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

20 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (2014), ACI 318- 14, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
American Society of Civil Engineers (2010), ASCE Standard 7- 10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures .

California Building Code (2013 ), 2013 California Building Code , published by the International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California.

California Geological Survey (1997), Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Simi Valley East Quadrangle 7.5 -Minute Quadrangle, Ventura County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 002, Revised 2002.

Caltrans (2015), Highway Design Manual .

Dibblee, T.W., Jr . (19 92), Geologic Map of the Simi Valley East Q uadrangle, Ventura Cou nty, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Map DF -39, Scale 1:24000.

Fugro West, Inc. ( 2004), Geotechnical Services, Demolition of Boeing Building 4059, Rocketdyne Facility, East Ventura County, California, prepared for Boyle Engineering Corporation, dated March
Jennings, C.W. and Bryant, W.A. (2010), Fault Activity Map of California; California Geological Survey Geologic Data Map No. 6, map scale 1:750,000.

Holgrefe, Scott (2016), personal communication, October 21.

USGS , https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/
Weber, H.F., Jr., et al. (1973), in Geology and Mineral Resources Study of Southern Ventura County, California , California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) Preliminary Report No. 14, 102 pp.

147

PLATES
148
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

SITE LOCATION MAP
Crown Hill Drive Tank and Pump Station Project
Simi Valley, California
PLATE 1
OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

Approx. Pump
Station Location
Approx. Tank
Site Location
149
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002

EXPLORATION MAP – TANK SITE
Crown Hill Drive Tank
and Pump Station Project
Simi Valley, California
PLATE 2a
OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .
?
0' 20'
Approx. Scale
Cross Section
Approx. Test Pit Location
Interpreted Fill Thickness
TP-7 TP-3
TP-9
TP-8
TP-4
TP-5
TP-1
TP-2
TP-6
TP-7
A'
A
Kcs
af
Kcs
10'
8'
6'
4'
2'
2'4'
6'
8'10' F
C
F
C
A
A'
Artificial Fill
Chatsworth Formation
af
Kcs

Source: Perliter & Ingalsbe, Dec. 2016 EXHIBIT A
150
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002
EXPLORATION MAP – PUMP

STATION SITE
Crown Hill Drive Tank and
Pump Station Project
Simi Valley, California
PLATE 2b
OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

TP-A
TP-B
TP-D
TP-C
B
B'
C
C'
20'10'5'0'
Artificial Fillaf
Chatsworth FormationKcs
cut/fill contact
Approx. location of
fill thickness
Contour of estimated
8'
location
Approx. test pitTP-8
Cross-section
A'
A
151
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002
CROSS-SECTION A-A’

TANK SITE
Crown Hill Drive Tank and
Pump Station Project
Simi Valley, California
PLATE 3a
OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC .

1500
1475
1450
1425
1400
1500
1475
1450
1425
1400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
25'
25'
?
? Kcs
af
Approx. ground surfaceApprox. Tank Location
A A'
Apparent bedding dip
in line of section
Interpreted contact
Artificial Fill
Chatsworth Formation
af
Kcs
152
Perliter & Ingalsbe
Project No. 032.002
CROSS-SECTIONS B-B’ AND C-C’

PUMP STATION SITE
Crown Hill Drive Tank and
Pump Station Project
Simi Valley, California
PLATE 3b
OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC.

10'
10'
Apparent bedding dip
in line of section
? Approx. cut/fill contact
Artificial Fill
Chatsworth Formation
af
Kcs
TP-A
?
?
Intersect
TP-C
af
?
Fence
Cross-Section B-B'
?
?
1370'
1380'
1390'
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
B'B

TP-D TP-B
af
Kcs
1370'
1380'
1390'
?
Dirt Path
PCC
Road
?
Property
Line
Line
Kcs
af
1390'
1380'
Elevation (ft)
C'C
1370'
Elevation (ft)
1390'
1380'
1370'
Intersect
Cross-Section C-C'
153

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION
154
Kcs
COMPLETION*DEPTH*(ft):

WATER*DEPTH*(ft):

LOGGED*BY:

CHECKED*BY:

Kcs
COMPLETION*DEPTH*(ft):

WATER*DEPTH*(ft):

LOGGED*BY:

CHECKED*BY:

PLATE)A*1a
PLASTICITY*
(LL/PI)
PASSING*No.*
200*(%)
TV*or*PP*(tsf)
SURFACE*EL.*(ft):*1458'

Perliter*&*Ingalsbe,*Inc. OAKRIDGE)GEOSCIENCE,)INC.Project*No.*032.002 LOG)OF)TEST)PIT)NO.))TP*1
DEPTH***********************************************
(FEET)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
MATERIAL*
SYMBOL
LOCATION:*Tank*Area*_*See*Map
MOISTURE*
CONTENT*(%)
5 **_*bedding*N55E*30NW
7 1 CHATSWORTH)FORMATION)(Kcs)
Silty*SANDSTONE*(Rx):*slightly*weathered,*soft,*medium*to*coarse*grained 3 ****with*1/2"_thick*siltstone*lens
**_*moderately*indurated,*moderately*hard*below*1'.
13 15
9 11
BACKFILL: Excavated*material C*Prentice
DATE: August*5,*2016 L*Prentice
CONTRACTOR: Buzza*Backhoe 1.5'
METHOD: Backhoe,*24"*bucket Not*Encountered
SURFACE*EL.*(ft):*1458'

MATERIAL)DESCRIPTION
The*log*and*data*presented*herein*are*a*simplification*of*actual*subsurface*conditions*encountered*at*the*time*of*exploration*at*the*specific*location*explored.** Subsurface*conditions*may*differ*at*other*locations*and*at*this*location*with*the*passage*of*time. 1 CHATSWORTH)FORMATION)(Kcs)
Silty*SANDSTONE*(Rx):*slightly*weathered,*soft,*medium*to*coarse*grained,*massive LOG)OF)TEST)PIT)NO.))TP*2
DEPTH***********************************************
(FEET)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
MATERIAL*
SYMBOL
LOCATION:*Tank*Area*_*See*Map
MOISTURE*
CONTENT*(%)
PLASTICITY*
(LL/PI)
PASSING*No.*
200*(%)
TV*or*PP*(tsf)
7 9
3 5
15 CONTRACTOR: Buzza*Backhoe 2'
11 13
DATE: August*5,*2016 L*Prentice

CROWN)HILL)PUMP)AND)TANK)SYSTEM)PROJECT
Simi)Valley,)California
METHOD: Backhoe,*24"*bucket Not*Encountered
BACKFILL: Excavated*material C*Prentice
155
af
Kcs
COMPLETION*DEPTH*(ft):

WATER*DEPTH*(ft):

LOGGED*BY:

CHECKED*BY:

PLATE)A*1b

CROWN)HILL)PUMP)AND)TANK)SYSTEM)PROJECT
Simi)Valley,)California
DATE: August*5,*2016 L*Prentice

GRAPHICAL)LOG)OF)TEST)PIT
4'
METHOD: Backhoe,*24"*bucket Not*Encountered
BACKFILL: Excavated*material C*Prentice
7 CONTRACTOR: Buzza*Backhoe
8 6
5 1
ARTIFICIAL)FILL)(af)
Silty*SAND*(SM):*medium*dense,*light*brown,*damp,*with*sandstone*rock*fragments 2 3
CHATSWORTH)FORMATION)(Kcs)
Silty*SANDSTONE*(Rx):*slightly*weathered,*soft*to*moderately*hard,*light*brown,*massive 4 Perliter*&*Ingalsbe,*Inc. OAKRIDGE)GEOSCIENCE,)INC.Project*No.*032.002 LOG)OF)TEST)PIT)NO.))TP*3
DEPTH***********************************************
(FEET)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
MATERIAL*
SYMBOL
LOCATION:*Tank*Area*_*See*Map
MOISTURE*
CONTENT*(%)
PLASTICITY*
(LL/PI)
PASSING*No.*
200*(%)
TV*or*PP*(tsf)
SURFACE*EL.*(ft):*1458'

WATER*DEPTH*(ft):

LOGGED*BY:

CHECKED*BY:

PLATE)A*1c
Perliter*&*Ingalsbe,*Inc. OAKRIDGE)GEOSCIENCE,)INC.Project*No.*032.002 LOG)OF)TEST)PIT)NO.))TP*4
DEPTH***********************************************
(FEET)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
MATERIAL*
SYMBOL
LOCATION:*Tank*Area*_*See*Map
MOISTURE*
CONTENT*(%)
PLASTICITY*
(LL/PI)
PASSING*No.*
200*(%)
TV*or*PP*(tsf)
SURFACE*EL.*(ft):*1458'

MATERIAL)DESCRIPTION
The*log*and*data*presented*herein*are*a*simplification*of*actual*subsurface*conditions*encountered*at*the*time*of*exploration*at*the*specific*location*explored.** Subsurface*conditions*may*differ*at*other*locations*and*at*this*location*with*the*passage*of*time. 1 ARTIFICIAL)FILL)(af)
Silty*SAND*(SM):*medium*dense*to*dense,*light*brown,*damp,*with*sandstone*rock*fragments 2 CHATSWORTH)FORMATION)(Kcs)
Silty*SANDSTONE*(Rx):*slightly*weathered,*soft*to*moderately*hard,*light*brown,*massive 3 4
5 6
7 8
CONTRACTOR: Buzza*Backhoe 4.5'
METHOD: Backhoe,*24"*bucket Not*Encountered
BACKFILL: Excavated*material C*Prentice
DATE: August*5,*2016 L*Prentice

GRAPHICAL)LOG)OF)TEST)PIT

CROWN)HILL)PUMP)AND)TANK)SYSTEM)PROJECT
Simi)Valley,)California
157
1 af 4 8
Kcs
Silty*SANDSTONE*(Rx):*slightly*weathered,*soft*to*moderately*hard,*light*brown,*massive COMPLETION*DEPTH*(ft):

WATER*DEPTH*(ft):

LOGGED*BY:

CHECKED*BY:

PLATE)A*1d
Perliter*&*Ingalsbe,*Inc. OAKRIDGE)GEOSCIENCE,)INC.Project*No.*032.002 LOG)OF)TEST)PIT)NO.))TP*5
DEPTH***********************************************
(FEET)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
MATERIAL*
SYMBOL
LOCATION:*Tank*Area*_*See*Map
MOISTURE*
CONTENT*(%)
PLASTICITY*
(LL/PI)
PASSING*No.*
200*(%)
TV*or*PP*(tsf)
SURFACE*EL.*(ft):*1458'

MATERIAL)DESCRIPTION
The*log*and*data*presented*herein*are*a*simplification*of*actual*subsurface*conditions*encountered*at*the*time*of*exploration*at*the*specific*location*explored.** Subsurface*conditions*may*differ*at*other*locations*and*at*this*location*with*the*passage*of*time. 1 ARTIFICIAL)FILL)(af)
SAND*with*Silt*(SW_SM):*medium*dense*to*dense,*light*brown,*damp,*with*sandstone* 2 ****rock*fragments*and*pods*of*dark*brown*sandy*clay*near*contact*with*Chatsworth* ****Formation*bedrock
3 CHATSWORTH)FORMATION)(Kcs)
4 5
6 7
8 CONTRACTOR: Buzza*Backhoe 5'
METHOD: Backhoe,*24"*bucket Not*Encountered
BACKFILL: Excavated*material C*Prentice
DATE: August*5,*2016 L*Prentice

GRAPHICAL)LOG)OF)TEST)PIT

CROWN)HILL)PUMP)AND)TANK)SYSTEM)PROJECT
Simi)Valley,)California
158
af
Qc
Kcs
COMPLETION*DEPTH*(ft):

WATER*DEPTH*(ft):

LOGGED*BY:

CHECKED*BY:

PLATE)A*1e
Perliter*&*Ingalsbe,*Inc. OAKRIDGE)GEOSCIENCE,)INC.Project*No.*032.002 LOG)OF)TEST)PIT)NO.))TP*6
DEPTH***********************************************
(FEET)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
MATERIAL*
SYMBOL
LOCATION:*Tank*Area*_*See*Map
MOISTURE*
CONTENT*(%)
PLASTICITY*
(LL/PI)
PASSING*No.*
200*(%)
TV*or*PP*(tsf)
SURFACE*EL.*(ft):*1458'

MATERIAL)DESCRIPTION
The*log*and*data*presented*herein*are*a*simplification*of*actual*subsurface*conditions*encountered*at*the*time*of*exploration*at*the*specific*location*explored.** Subsurface*conditions*may*differ*at*other*locations*and*at*this*location*with*the*passage*of*time. 1 ARTIFICIAL)FILL)(af)
Silty*SAND*(SM):*medium*dense*to*dense,*light*brown,*damp,*with*sandstone*rock*fragments 2 ****and*with*pods*of*dark*brown*sandy*clay*near*contact*with*Chatsworth*Formation*bedrock 3 COLLUVIUM)(Qc)
Sandy*CLAY*(CL):*dark*brown,*damp,*about*4"_thick,*appears*to*be*weathered*soil*profile 4 CHATSWORTH)FORMATION)(Kcs)
Silty*SANDSTONE*(Rx):*slightly*weathered,*soft*to*moderately*hard,*light*brown,*massive 5 6
7 8
CONTRACTOR: Buzza*Backhoe 6'
METHOD: Backhoe,*24"*bucket Not*Encountered
BACKFILL: Excavated*material C*Prentice
DATE: August*5,*2016 L*Prentice

GRAPHICAL)LOG)OF)TEST)PIT

CROWN)HILL)PUMP)AND)TANK)SYSTEM)PROJECT
Simi)Valley,)California
159
af
1 Qc 6 8
Kcs
COMPLETION*DEPTH*(ft):

WATER*DEPTH*(ft):

LOGGED*BY:

CHECKED*BY:
af
Qc Sandy*SILT*(ML)f*dark*brown,*damp,*loose
CHATSWORTH)FORMATION)(Kcs)
Kcs
COMPLETION*DEPTH*(ft):

WATER*DEPTH*(ft):

LOGGED*BY:

CHECKED*BY:

PLATE)A*1f
PLASTICITY*
(LL/PI)
PASSING*No.*
200*(%)
TV*or*PP*(tsf)
SURFACE*EL.*(ft):*1458'

Perliter*&*Ingalsbe,*Inc. OAKRIDGE)GEOSCIENCE,)INC.Project*No.*032.002 LOG)OF)TEST)PIT)NO.))TP*7
DEPTH***********************************************
(FEET)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
MATERIAL*
SYMBOL
LOCATION:*Tank*Area*_*See*Map
MOISTURE*
CONTENT*(%)
6 8 COLLUVIUM)(Qc)
2 ARTIFICIAL)FILL)(af)
Silty*SAND*(SM):*medium*dense*to*dense,*light*brown,*damp,*with*sandstone*rock* 4 ****fragments
14 16
10 SAND*with*Silt*(SP_SM):*dark*brown,*damp,*loose*to*medium*dense/medium*stiff, ****with*organics*and*with*roots*to*about*1/2"_diameter 12 CHATSWORTH)FORMATION)(Kcs)
Silty*SANDSTONE*(Rx):*slightly*weathered,*soft*to*moderately*hard,*light*brown,*massive BACKFILL: Excavated*material C*Prentice
DATE: August*5,*2016 L*Prentice
CONTRACTOR: Buzza*Backhoe 11'
METHOD: Backhoe,*24"*bucket Not*Encountered
SURFACE*EL.*(ft):*1458'

MATERIAL)DESCRIPTION
The*log*and*data*presented*herein*are*a*simplification*of*actual*subsurface*conditions*encountered*at*the*time*of*exploration*at*the*specific*location*explored.** Subsurface*conditions*may*differ*at*other*locations*and*at*this*location*with*the*passage*of*time. 2 ARTIFICIAL)FILL)(af)
Silty*SAND*(SM):*medium*dense*to*dense,*light*brown,*damp,*with*sandstone*rock* LOG)OF)TEST)PIT)NO.))TP*8
DEPTH***********************************************
(FEET)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
MATERIAL*
SYMBOL
LOCATION:*Tank*Area*_*See*Map
MOISTURE*
CONTENT*(%)
PLASTICITY*
(LL/PI)
PASSING*No.*
200*(%)
TV*or*PP*(tsf)
8 10
COLLUVIUM)(Qc)
4 ****fragments
6 16
CONTRACTOR: Buzza*Backhoe 11'
12 Silty*SANDSTONE*(Rx):*slightly*weathered,*weak*to*moderately*hard,*light*brown,*massive 14 DATE: August*5,*2016 L*Prentice

CROWN)HILL)PUMP)AND)TANK)SYSTEM)PROJECT
Simi)Valley,)California
METHOD: Backhoe,*24"*bucket Not*Encountered
BACKFILL: Excavated*material C*Prentice
160
af
Kcs
COMPLETION*DEPTH*(ft):

WATER*DEPTH*(ft):

LOGGED*BY:

CHECKED*BY:

COMPLETION*DEPTH*(ft):

WATER*DEPTH*(ft):

LOGGED*BY:

CHECKED*BY:

PLATE)A*1g
PLASTICITY*
(LL/PI)
PASSING*No.*
200*(%)
TV*or*PP*(tsf)
SURFACE*EL.*(ft):*1458'

Perliter*&*Ingalsbe,*Inc. OAKRIDGE)GEOSCIENCE,)INC.Project*No.*032.002 LOG)OF)TEST)PIT)NO.))TP*9
DEPTH***********************************************
(FEET)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
MATERIAL*
SYMBOL
LOCATION:*Tank*Area*_*See*Map
MOISTURE*
CONTENT*(%)
6 8
2 ARTIFICIAL)FILL)(af)
Silty*SAND*(SM):*medium*dense*to*dense,*light*brown,*dry*to*damp 4 14
16 10
CHATSWORTH)FORMATION)(Kcs)
Silty*SANDSTONE*(Rx):*slightly*weathered,*soft*to*moderately*hard,*light*brown,*massive 12 BACKFILL: Excavated*material C*Prentice
DATE: August*5,*2016 L*Prentice
CONTRACTOR: Buzza*Backhoe 9'
METHOD: Backhoe,*24"*bucket Not*Encountered
SURFACE*EL.*(ft):*

DEPTH***********************************************
(FEET)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
MATERIAL*
SYMBOL
LOCATION:*
MOISTURE*
CONTENT*(%)
PLASTICITY*
(LL/PI)
PASSING*No.*
200*(%)
TV*or*PP*(tsf)
8 10
12 4
6 CROWN)HILL)PUMP)AND)TANK)SYSTEM)PROJECT
Simi)Valley,)California
BACKFILL:

DATE:

CONTRACTOR:

METHOD:
14 16
161
af
1 CHATSWORTH)FORMATION)(Kcs)
Kcs
COMPLETION*DEPTH*(ft):

WATER*DEPTH*(ft):

LOGGED*BY:

CHECKED*BY:
1 af 3 12
Kcs
COMPLETION*DEPTH*(ft):

WATER*DEPTH*(ft):

LOGGED*BY:

CHECKED*BY:

PLATE)A*1h
PLASTICITY*
(LL/PI)
PASSING*No.*
200*(%)
TV*or*PP*(tsf)
SURFACE*EL.*(ft):**1,382'

Perliter*&*Ingalsbe,*Inc. OAKRIDGE)GEOSCIENCE,)INC.Project*No.*032.002 LOG)OF)TEST)PIT)NO.))TP*A
DEPTH***********************************************
(FEET)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
MATERIAL*
SYMBOL
LOCATION:*Pump*Station*_*See*Map
MOISTURE*
CONTENT*(%)
5 7 Silty*SANDSTONE*(Rx):*slightly*weathered,*soft*to*moderately*hard,*light*brown,*massive 1 ARTIFICIAL)FILL)(af)
Silty*SAND*(SM):*loose,*light*brown,*dry,*with*subrounded*to*subangular*gravel*to* 3 ****cobble_size*rock*fragments
13 15
9 Note:**Refusal*on*bedrock*at*6'.
11 BACKFILL: Excavated*material C*Prentice
DATE: August*5,*2016 L*Prentice
CONTRACTOR: Buzza*Backhoe 6'*(refusal)
METHOD: Backhoe,*24"*bucket Not*Encountered
SURFACE*EL.*(ft):**1,382'

MATERIAL)DESCRIPTION
The*log*and*data*presented*herein*are*a*simplification*of*actual*subsurface*conditions*encountered*at*the*time*of*exploration*at*the*specific*location*explored.** Subsurface*conditions*may*differ*at*other*locations*and*at*this*location*with*the*passage*of*time. 1 ARTIFICIAL)FILL)(af)
SAND*with*Silt*(SP_SM):*loose,*light*brown,*damp,*with*sandstone*rock*fragments LOG)OF)TEST)PIT)NO.))TP*B
DEPTH***********************************************
(FEET)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
MATERIAL*
SYMBOL
LOCATION:*Pump*Station*_*See*Map
MOISTURE*
CONTENT*(%)
PLASTICITY*
(LL/PI)
PASSING*No.*
200*(%)
TV*or*PP*(tsf)
7 9
11 3 CHATSWORTH)FORMATION)(Kcs)
Silty*SANDSTONE*(Rx):*slightly*weathered,*soft*to*moderately*hard,*light*brown,*massive 5 Note:**Refusal*on*bedrock*at*2'.

CROWN)HILL)PUMP)AND)TANK)SYSTEM)PROJECT
Simi)Valley,)California
BACKFILL: Excavated*material C*Prentice
DATE: August*5,*2016 L*Prentice
CONTRACTOR: Buzza*Backhoe 2'*(refusal)
METHOD: Backhoe,*24"*bucket Not*Encountered
13 15
162
af
CHATSWORTH)FORMATION)(Kcs)
Kcs
COMPLETION*DEPTH*(ft):

WATER*DEPTH*(ft):

LOGGED*BY:

CHECKED*BY:
af
Kcs
COMPLETION*DEPTH*(ft):

WATER*DEPTH*(ft):

LOGGED*BY:

CHECKED*BY:

PLATE)A*1i
Perliter*&*Ingalsbe,*Inc. OAKRIDGE)GEOSCIENCE,)INC.Project*No.*032.002 LOG)OF)TEST)PIT)NO.))TP*C
DEPTH***********************************************
(FEET)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
MATERIAL*
SYMBOL
LOCATION:*Pump*Station*_*See*Map
MOISTURE*
CONTENT*(%)
1 ARTIFICIAL)FILL)(af)
Silty*SAND*(SM):*loose,*light*brown,*dry,*with*subangular*gravel*to*cobble_size*rock 3 ****fragments
PLASTICITY*
(LL/PI)
PASSING*No.*
200*(%)
TV*or*PP*(tsf)
SURFACE*EL.*(ft):**1,378'

MATERIAL)DESCRIPTION
The*log*and*data*presented*herein*are*a*simplification*of*actual*subsurface*conditions*encountered*at*the*time*of*exploration*at*the*specific*location*explored.** Subsurface*conditions*may*differ*at*other*locations*and*at*this*location*with*the*passage*of*time. 11 13
5 7
Note:**Refusal*on*bedrock*at*4'.
9 METHOD: Backhoe,*24"*bucket Not*Encountered
BACKFILL: Excavated*material C*Prentice
15 CONTRACTOR: Buzza*Backhoe 4'*(refusal)
DATE: August*5,*2016 L*Prentice
LOG)OF)TEST)PIT)NO.))TP*D
DEPTH***********************************************
(FEET)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
MATERIAL*
SYMBOL
LOCATION:*Pump*Station*_*See*Map
MOISTURE*
CONTENT*(%)
1 ARTIFICIAL)FILL)(af)
Silty*SAND*(SM):*loose,*moderate*brown,*dry,*with*subangular*gravel*to*cobble_size 3 ****rock*fragments,*contact*with*bedrock*below*roughly*parallel*to*slope CHATSWORTH)FORMATION)(Kcs)
PLASTICITY*
(LL/PI)
PASSING*No.*
200*(%)
TV*or*PP*(tsf)
SURFACE*EL.*(ft):**1,370'

CROWN)HILL)PUMP)AND)TANK)SYSTEM)PROJECT
Simi)Valley,)California
Silty*SANDSTONE*(Rx):*slightly*weathered,*soft*to*moderately*hard,*light*brown BACKFILL: Excavated*material C*Prentice
DATE: August*5,*2016 L*Prentice
CONTRACTOR: Buzza*Backhoe 3'
METHOD: Backhoe,*24"*bucket Not*Encountered
13 15
9 163
OAKRIDGE)GEOSCIENCE,)INC.

Blowcount
Push,
or)grab
1 Bulk Bulk*Sample
Blowcount Description
2 23 Standard*Penetration*Test*(SPT) 63 63*blows*for*1'*penetration*after*initial*6"*seating Sampler*(1_3/8"*ID/2"*OD)*driven 89/11 89*blows*for*11"*penetration*after*initial*6"*seating 33/6 33*blows*for*6"*drive*after*initial*6"*seating
3 (23) Modified*California*Liner*Sampler Ref >50*blows*for*initial*6"*seating driven*(*2_3/8"*ID/3"*OD) (23) Blowcounts*for*modified*California*sampler 4 Push Thin_walled*sampler
pushed**(*2_7/8"*ID/3"*OD)
LEAN*CLAY*(CL) Sandy*SILT*(ML) CLAYSTONE PAVING
FAT*CLAY*(CH) Silty*SAND*(SM) SILTSTONE CONCRETE
Sandy*CLAY*(CL) SAND*with*Silt*(SP_SM) SANDSTONE
SILT*(ML) SAND*(SP) VOLCANIC
ELASTIC*SILT*(MH) Clayey*SAND*(SC) DOLOMITIC
GRAVEL*(GP) SILICEOUS
Silty*SAND*w/Gravel*(SM)
Other)Symbols
Groundwater SAND*w/Gravel*(SP)
Strata*break
PLATE)A*2a

SUMMARY)OF)TERMS)AND)SYMBOLS

USED)ON)LOGS
Summary)of)Sampling)Details
Symbol Number Sampler)Type
Blowcount)Information
Material)Symbols)and)Classifications
164
OAKRIDGE)GEOSCIENCE,)INC.

PLATE)A*2b
Summary)of)Rock)Logging)Descriptions

SUMMARY)OF)ROCK)TERMS

USED)ON)LOGS
Weathering)for)Intact)Rock)(after)USBR)2001)
Rock)Hardness)(after)USBR)2001)
165

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING

166
Project$No. 007.003
Cu
Cc
LOCATION TP@5 (Tank$Site)
DEPTH 0$@$3'
PLATE*B&1a
GRAINSIZE*DISTRIBUTION
PASSING*NO.*200*(%)
Location,*California

CLASSIFICATION
Crown*Hill*Drive*Tank*and*Pump*Station*Project
OAKRIDGE*GEOSCIENCE,*INC.
8 Perliter$&$Ingalsbe
SAND$with$Silt$(SW@SM)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
GRAINSIZE)(mm)

PERCENT) FINER)BY)WEIGHT

US)STD)SIEVE)SIZE) INCHES US)STD)SIEVE)SIZE) NUMBERS
SILT0 or0CLAY

SANDGRAVEL
Coarse Fine Coarse FineMedium
3 1.5 3/ 4 3/ 8 4 10 20 40 100 200
167
Project$No. 007.003
Cu
Cc
LOCATION TP@7 (Tank$Site)
DEPTH 7.5$@$10'
PLATE*B&1b
GRAINSIZE*DISTRIBUTION
Crown*Hill*Drive*Tank*and*Pump*Station*Project
Location,*California
CLASSIFICATION PASSING*NO.*200*(%)
SAND$with$Silt$(SP@SM) 8
Perliter$&$Ingalsbe
OAKRIDGE*GEOSCIENCE,*INC.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
GRAINSIZE)(mm)

PERCENT) FINER)BY)WEIGHT

US)STD)SIEVE)SIZE) INCHES US)STD)SIEVE)SIZE) NUMBERS
SILT0 or0CLAY

SANDGRAVEL
Coarse Fine Coarse FineMedium
3 1.5 3/ 4 3/ 8 4 10 20 40 100 200
168
Project$No. 007.003
Cu
Cc
LOCATION TP@A (Pump$Sta.)
DEPTH 0$@$3'
PLATE*B&1c
GRAINSIZE*DISTRIBUTION
Crown*Hill*Drive*Tank*and*Pump*Station*Project
Location,*California
CLASSIFICATION PASSING*NO.*200*(%)
SAND$with$Silt$(SP@SM) 12
Perliter$&$Ingalsbe
OAKRIDGE*GEOSCIENCE,*INC.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
GRAINSIZE)(mm)

PERCENT) FINER)BY)WEIGHT

US)STD)SIEVE)SIZE) INCHES US)STD)SIEVE)SIZE) NUMBERS
SILT0 or0CLAY

SANDGRAVEL
Coarse Fine Coarse FineMedium
3 1.5 3/ 4 3/ 8 4 10 20 40 100 200
169
CTL$# Date: PJ
Client: Project:

Remarks:

Chloride pH Sulfide Moisture
As$Rec. Min Sat. mg/kg mg/kg % Qualitative At,Test
Dry,Wt. Dry,Wt. Dry,Wt. EH,(mv) At,Test by,Lead %
Boring Sample,$No. Depth,$ft. ASTM,G57 Cal,643 ASTM,G57 ASTM,D4327 ASTM,D4327 ASTM,D4327 ASTM,G51 ASTM,G200 Temp,°C Acetate,Paper ASTM,D2216 TPK5 1 0K3 K K 6,800 2 29 0.0029 7.8 K K K 4.4 Olive,Brown,Silty,SAND PLATE$BH2
Soil$Visual$Description$
903K013
Crown,Hill,Tank
Sample$Location$or$ID Sulfate ORP
Tested$By:

Corrosivity$Tests$Summary
(Redox)
PJ
032.002
Resistivity$@$15.5$°C$(OhmHcm)
Proj.$No:

Checked:9/30/16
Oakridge,Geoscience
170

Appendix B
CalEEMod Modeling Results
171
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
1 / 88
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2025) - Unmitigated

3.2. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2025) - Mitigated

3.3. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2025) - Unmitigated 172
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
2 / 88

3.4. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2025) - Mitigated

3.5. Linear, Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.6. Linear, Paving (2025) - Mitigated

3.7. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated

3.8. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated

3.9. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.10. Grading (2025) - Mitigated

3.11. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.12. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.13. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.14. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.16. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy
173
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
3 / 88

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
174
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
4 / 88

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
175
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
5 / 88

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
176
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
6 / 88

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
177
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
7 / 88

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
178
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
8 / 88

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
179
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
9 / 88

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Simi Valley Water Tank
Construction Start Date 1/1/2025
Operational Y ear 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 19.2
Location 34.25525630963109, -118.6700124101058
County Ventura
City Unincorporated
Air District Ventura County APCD
Air Basin South Central Coast
TAZ 3519
EDFZ 8
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.28

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area
(sq ft)
Population Description
Enclosed Parking
Str
ucture

4.30 1000sqft 0.10 4,300 0.00 0.00 — Tank
180
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
10 / 88
Parking Lot 0.22 Acre 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Grading Acreage Industrial Park 0.31 1000sqft 0.01 308 0.00 0.00 — Pump Station Bldg Road Construction 0.05 Mile 0.08 0.00 0.00 — — Access Road User Defined Linear 0.29 Mile 0.10 0.00 0.00 — — Pipeline

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.56 2.94 28.8 28.9 0.07 1.11 3.81 4.91 1.02 1.36 2.38 — 8,360 8,360 0.29 0.49 7.79 8,520 Mit. 1.01 0.93 8.65 32.8 0.07 0.20 3.81 4.00 0.19 1.36 1.55 — 8,360 8,360 0.29 0.49 7.79 8,520 %
Reduced
72% 68% 70% -14% — 82% — 18% 81% — 35% — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.55 2.94 29.0 28.7 0.07 1.11 3.81 4.91 1.02 1.36 2.38 — 8,343 8,343 0.29 0.49 0.20 8,495 Mit. 1.01 0.88 8.81 32.7 0.07 0.20 3.81 4.00 0.19 1.36 1.55 — 8,343 8,343 0.29 0.49 0.20 8,495 %
Reduced
72% 70% 70% -14% — 82% — 18% 81% — 35% — — — — — — —
181
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
11 / 88
——————————————————Average
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 1.35 1.12 10.4 12.4 0.02 0.40 1.27 1.68 0.37 0.42 0.79 — 3,124 3,124 0.12 0.15 1.40 3,174 Mit. 0.41 0.37 2.91 13.8 0.02 0.06 1.27 1.33 0.06 0.42 0.48 — 3,124 3,124 0.12 0.15 1.40 3,174 %
Reduced
70% 67% 72% -11% — 85% — 20% 84% — 39% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.25 0.20 1.90 2.26 < 0.005 0.07 0.23 0.31 0.07 0.08 0.14 — 517 517 0.02 0.03 0.23 525 Mit. 0.07 0.07 0.53 2.51 < 0.005 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 517 517 0.02 0.03 0.23 525 %
Reduced
70% 67% 72% -11% — 85% — 20% 84% — 39% — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 3.56 2.94 28.8 28.9 0.07 1.11 3.81 4.91 1.02 1.36 2.38 — 8,360 8,360 0.29 0.49 7.79 8,520 2026 0.77 0.66 5.04 9.28 0.01 0.19 0.54 0.73 0.17 0.13 0.30 — 1,889 1,889 0.06 0.04 2.12 1,904 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 3.55 2.94 29.0 28.7 0.07 1.11 3.81 4.91 1.02 1.36 2.38 — 8,343 8,343 0.29 0.49 0.20 8,495 2026 0.77 0.66 5.08 9.05 0.01 0.19 0.54 0.73 0.17 0.13 0.30 — 1,866 1,866 0.06 0.04 0.05 1,879 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.35 1.12 10.4 12.4 0.02 0.40 1.27 1.68 0.37 0.42 0.79 — 3,124 3,124 0.12 0.15 1.40 3,174 2026 0.31 0.27 1.96 3.54 < 0.005 0.07 0.22 0.29 0.07 0.05 0.12 — 725 725 0.02 0.02 0.38 730 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
182
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
12 / 88
2025 0.25 0.20 1.90 2.26 < 0.005 0.07 0.23 0.31 0.07 0.08 0.14 — 517 517 0.02 0.03 0.23 525 2026 0.06 0.05 0.36 0.65 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 120 120 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 121

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.01 0.93 8.65 32.8 0.07 0.20 3.81 4.00 0.19 1.36 1.55 — 8,360 8,360 0.29 0.49 7.79 8,520 2026 0.31 0.29 0.87 10.5 0.01 0.03 0.54 0.57 0.03 0.13 0.15 — 1,889 1,889 0.06 0.04 2.12 1,904 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.01 0.88 8.81 32.7 0.07 0.20 3.81 4.00 0.19 1.36 1.55 — 8,343 8,343 0.29 0.49 0.20 8,495 2026 0.31 0.29 0.91 10.2 0.01 0.03 0.54 0.57 0.03 0.13 0.15 — 1,866 1,866 0.06 0.04 0.05 1,879 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.41 0.37 2.91 13.8 0.02 0.06 1.27 1.33 0.06 0.42 0.48 — 3,124 3,124 0.12 0.15 1.40 3,174 2026 0.13 0.12 0.41 3.97 < 0.005 0.01 0.22 0.23 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 725 725 0.02 0.02 0.38 730 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.07 0.07 0.53 2.51 < 0.005 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 517 517 0.02 0.03 0.23 525 2026 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 120 120 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 121

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
183
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
13 / 88
Unmit. 0.21 0.20 0.36 1.58 < 0.005 0.02 0.30 0.32 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.00 377 377 0.01 0.01 1.30 382 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.18 0.16 0.38 1.32 < 0.005 0.02 0.30 0.32 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.00 365 365 0.01 0.01 0.11 369 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 37.7 37.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 38.0 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 6.24 6.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.28

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.12 0.11 0.13 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 324 324 0.01 0.01 1.22 329 Area 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.82 0.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.83 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Stationa
r
y

0.05 0.04 0.23 0.18 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 22.7 22.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 22.7 Total 0.21 0.20 0.36 1.58 < 0.005 0.02 0.30 0.32 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.00 377 377 0.01 0.01 1.30 382 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.12 0.11 0.15 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 312 312 0.01 0.01 0.03 317 184
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
14 / 88
Area 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Stationa
r
y

0.05 0.04 0.23 0.18 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 22.7 22.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 22.7 Total 0.18 0.16 0.38 1.32 < 0.005 0.02 0.30 0.32 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.00 365 365 0.01 0.01 0.11 369 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.30 4.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.37 Area 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.41 0.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.41 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Stationa
r
y

0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 3.11 3.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 3.12 Total 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 37.7 37.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 38.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.71 0.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.72 Area < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 4.95 4.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.96 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Stationa
r
y
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.52 Total 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 6.24 6.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.28 185
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
15 / 88

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.12 0.11 0.13 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 324 324 0.01 0.01 1.22 329 Area 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.82 0.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.83 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Stationa
r
y

0.05 0.04 0.23 0.18 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 22.7 22.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 22.7 Total 0.21 0.20 0.36 1.58 < 0.005 0.02 0.30 0.32 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.00 377 377 0.01 0.01 1.30 382 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.12 0.11 0.15 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 312 312 0.01 0.01 0.03 317 Area 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Stationa
r
y

0.05 0.04 0.23 0.18 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 22.7 22.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 22.7 Total 0.18 0.16 0.38 1.32 < 0.005 0.02 0.30 0.32 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.00 365 365 0.01 0.01 0.11 369 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.30 4.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.37 186
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
16 / 88
Area 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.41 0.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.41 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Stationa
r
y

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
187
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
17 / 88
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.46 0.39 3.39 3.49 < 0.005 0.21 — 0.21 0.19 — 0.19 — 490 490 0.02 < 0.005 — 492 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.02 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.45 4.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.46 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
188
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
18 / 88
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 95.8 95.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 97.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.29 5.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.37 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.89 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.2. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
189
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
19 / 88
492—< 0.0050.02490490—0.01—0.010.01—0.01< 0.0053.430.840.050.05Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.45 4.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.46 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
190
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
20 / 88
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 95.8 95.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 97.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.29 5.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.37 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.89 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.99 1.67 15.0 16.1 0.03 0.61 — 0.61 0.56 — 0.56 — 3,509 3,509 0.14 0.03 — 3,521 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.62 0.62 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
191
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
21 / 88

0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.99 1.67 15.0 16.1 0.03 0.61 — 0.61 0.56 — 0.56 — 3,509 3,509 0.14 0.03 — 3,521 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.62 0.62 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.42 0.35 3.16 3.39 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 740 740 0.03 0.01 — 743 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.13 0.13 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.08 0.06 0.58 0.62 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 123 123 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 123 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 192
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
22 / 88
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.10 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 301 301 0.01 0.01 1.21 306 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.09 0.12 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 287 287 0.01 0.01 0.03 291 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 61.1 61.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 62.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.1 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
193
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
23 / 88
3,521—0.030.143,5093,509—0.12—0.120.13—0.130.0320.34.060.540.58Off-Roa d
Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.62 0.62 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.58 0.54 4.06 20.3 0.03 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 3,509 3,509 0.14 0.03 — 3,521 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.62 0.62 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.11 0.86 4.27 0.01 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 740 740 0.03 0.01 — 743 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.13 0.13 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.16 0.78 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 123 123 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 123 194
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
24 / 88
Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.10 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 301 301 0.01 0.01 1.21 306 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.09 0.12 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 287 287 0.01 0.01 0.03 291 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 61.1 61.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 62.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.1 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Linear, Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 195
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
25 / 88
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.60 0.51 4.83 6.90 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,046 1,046 0.04 0.01 — 1,050 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.03 0.26 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 57.3 57.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.5 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.49 9.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.52 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 167 167 0.01 0.01 0.67 170 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 196
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
26 / 88
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.81 8.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 8.94 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.46 1.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.48 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.6. Linear, Paving (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.11 0.11 1.11 7.33 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 1,046 1,046 0.04 0.01 — 1,050 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
197
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
27 / 88
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 57.3 57.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.5 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.49 9.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.52 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 167 167 0.01 0.01 0.67 170 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.81 8.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 8.94 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.46 1.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.48 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
198
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
28 / 88
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.56 0.47 4.33 5.65 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.14 — 0.14 — 852 852 0.03 0.01 — 855 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.56 0.47 4.33 5.65 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.14 — 0.14 — 852 852 0.03 0.01 — 855 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.08 0.07 0.65 0.85 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 128 128 0.01 < 0.005 — 129 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
199
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
29 / 88
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.02 0.01 0.12 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 21.3 21.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.3 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 0.54 136 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.01 0.35 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 261 261 0.01 0.04 0.59 274 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 128 128 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 129 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.01 0.36 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 261 261 0.01 0.04 0.02 273 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.4 19.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 19.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 39.3 39.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 41.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.21 3.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.26 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.51 6.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.82

3.8. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 200
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
30 / 88
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.10 0.10 1.47 5.63 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 852 852 0.03 0.01 — 855 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.10 0.10 1.47 5.63 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 852 852 0.03 0.01 — 855 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.22 0.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 128 128 0.01 < 0.005 — 129 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
201
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
31 / 88

21.3—< 0.005< 0.00521.321.3—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.0050.150.04< 0.005< 0.005Off-Roa d
Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

3.9. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 202
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
32 / 88
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.29 1.09 10.1 10.0 0.02 0.46 — 0.46 0.43 — 0.43 — 1,714 1,714 0.07 0.01 — 1,720 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.08 2.08 — 1.00 1.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.34 0.28 2.62 2.62 < 0.005 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 446 446 0.02 < 0.005 — 448 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.26 0.26 — — — — — — —
203
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
33 / 88
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.05 0.48 0.48 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 73.9 73.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 74.1 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 100 100 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 102 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.13 0.06 3.62 0.88 0.02 0.03 0.71 0.75 0.03 0.20 0.24 — 2,736 2,736 0.06 0.43 6.17 2,871 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 95.8 95.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 97.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.12 0.06 3.75 0.89 0.02 0.03 0.71 0.75 0.03 0.20 0.24 — 2,736 2,736 0.06 0.43 0.16 2,866 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 25.1 25.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 25.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 0.02 0.98 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 712 712 0.02 0.11 0.69 746 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.16 4.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.22 204
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
34 / 88
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.18 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 118 118 < 0.005 0.02 0.11 124

3.10. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.16 0.16 0.84 9.79 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,714 1,714 0.07 0.01 — 1,720 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.08 2.08 — 1.00 1.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
205
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
35 / 88
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.04 0.04 0.22 2.55 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 446 446 0.02 < 0.005 — 448 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.26 0.26 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.04 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 73.9 73.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 74.1 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 100 100 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 102 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.13 0.06 3.62 0.88 0.02 0.03 0.71 0.75 0.03 0.20 0.24 — 2,736 2,736 0.06 0.43 6.17 2,871 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 95.8 95.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 97.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.12 0.06 3.75 0.89 0.02 0.03 0.71 0.75 0.03 0.20 0.24 — 2,736 2,736 0.06 0.43 0.16 2,866 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 25.1 25.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 25.5 206
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
36 / 88
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 0.02 0.98 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 712 712 0.02 0.11 0.69 746 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.16 4.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.22 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.18 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 118 118 < 0.005 0.02 0.11 124

3.11. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.62 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.62 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
207
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
37 / 88
594—< 0.0050.02592592—0.09—0.090.10—0.100.013.152.330.240.28Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.05 0.04 0.43 0.57 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 98.1 98.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 98.4 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.17 0.18 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 535 535 0.02 0.02 2.16 543 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 61.6 61.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 64.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.17 0.21 2.28 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 511 511 0.03 0.02 0.06 518 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 61.7 61.7 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 64.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.10 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 234 234 0.01 0.01 0.42 237 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.0 28.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 29.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 38.7 38.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 39.3 208
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
38 / 88
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.63 4.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.85 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.12. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.12 0.64 8.10 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.12 0.64 8.10 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.06 0.29 3.68 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 592 592 0.02 < 0.005 — 594 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
209
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
39 / 88
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 98.1 98.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 98.4 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.17 0.18 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 535 535 0.02 0.02 2.16 543 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 61.6 61.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 64.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.17 0.21 2.28 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 511 511 0.03 0.02 0.06 518 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 61.7 61.7 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 64.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.10 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 234 234 0.01 0.01 0.42 237 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.0 28.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 29.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 38.7 38.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 39.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.63 4.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.85 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
210
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
40 / 88
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.59 0.49 4.81 6.91 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 1,304 1,304 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.59 0.49 4.81 6.91 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 1,304 1,304 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.22 0.18 1.77 2.54 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 480 480 0.02 < 0.005 — 482 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.03 0.32 0.46 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 79.5 79.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 79.7 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
211
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
41 / 88
Worker 0.18 0.16 0.16 2.35 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 524 524 0.01 0.02 1.97 532 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 60.6 60.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 63.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.18 0.16 0.20 2.12 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 501 501 0.01 0.02 0.05 507 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 60.6 60.6 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 63.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 186 186 < 0.005 0.01 0.31 188 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.3 22.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 23.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 30.7 30.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 31.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.69 3.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.86 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.14. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.12 0.64 8.10 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 1,304 1,304 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 212
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
42 / 88

0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.12 0.64 8.10 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 1,304 1,304 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.05 0.05 0.24 2.98 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 480 480 0.02 < 0.005 — 482 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.04 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 79.5 79.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 79.7 Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.18 0.16 0.16 2.35 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 524 524 0.01 0.02 1.97 532 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 60.6 60.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 63.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
213
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
43 / 88
Worker 0.18 0.16 0.20 2.12 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 501 501 0.01 0.02 0.05 507 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 60.6 60.6 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 63.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 186 186 < 0.005 0.01 0.31 188 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.3 22.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 23.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 30.7 30.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 31.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.69 3.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.86 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ur
al
Coating
s

0.06 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 214
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
44 / 88
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.08 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.8 12.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.8 Architect
ur
al
Coating
s

0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.12 2.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.13 Architect
ur
al
Coating
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 262 262 < 0.005 0.01 0.98 266 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
215
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
45 / 88
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.2 24.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 24.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.01 4.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.06 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.16. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.65 0.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ur
al
Coating
s

0.06 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
216
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
46 / 88

12.8—< 0.005< 0.00512.812.8—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.0050.090.06< 0.005< 0.005Off-Roa d
Architect
ur
al
Coating
s

0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 262 262 < 0.005 0.01 0.98 266 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.2 24.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 24.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
217
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
47 / 88
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.01 4.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.06 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.

4.1.2. Mitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.5. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — — 21.9 21.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.0 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7.93 7.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.96 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 218
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
48 / 88
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — — 21.9 21.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.0 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7.93 7.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.96 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3.63 3.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.65 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1.31 1.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.32 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.95 4.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.96

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — — 21.9 21.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.0 219
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
49 / 88
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7.93 7.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.96 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — — 21.9 21.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.0 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7.93 7.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.96 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3.63 3.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.65 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1.31 1.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.32 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.95 4.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.96

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 220
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
50 / 88
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Industria
l
P
ark

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Industria
l
P
ark

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Industria
l
P
ark

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 221
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
51 / 88

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Industria
l
P
ark

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Industria
l
P
ark

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 222
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
52 / 88
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Industria
l
P
ark

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ur
al
Coating
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.03 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.82 0.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.83 Total 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.82 0.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.83 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
223
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
53 / 88
Architect
Coatings
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ur
al
Coating
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.04 0.03 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.82 0.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.83 224
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
54 / 88
Total 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.82 0.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.83 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ur
al
Coating
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ur
al
Coating
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 225
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
55 / 88
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 226
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
56 / 88

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
227
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
57 / 88
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
228
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
58 / 88
Industria
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
229
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
59 / 88
Enclose
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Enclose
d
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
230
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
60 / 88
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
P
ark
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
231
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
61 / 88

0.010.01————————————————Industria
l
Park
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
T
ype
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
T
ype
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
232
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
62 / 88
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
T
ype
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emerge
ncy
Gener
at
or

0.05 0.04 0.23 0.18 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 22.7 22.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 22.7 Total 0.05 0.04 0.23 0.18 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 22.7 22.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 22.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emerge
ncy
Gener
at
or
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.52 233
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
63 / 88
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.52

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
T
ype
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emerge
ncy
Gener
at
or

0.05 0.04 0.23 0.18 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 22.7 22.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 22.7 Total 0.05 0.04 0.23 0.18 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 22.7 22.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 22.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emerge
ncy
Gener
at
or
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.52 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.52

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 234
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
64 / 88
Equipm
T
ype
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
T
ype
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 235
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
65 / 88
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 236
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
66 / 88
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
237
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
67 / 88
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
238
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
68 / 88

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
239
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
69 / 88
——————————————————Sequest
ered
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clear
ing
Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clear
ing
1/1/2025 1/28/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities,
&
Sub-Grade
Linear, Drainage, Utilities,
&
Sub-Grade
1/29/2025 5/15/2025 5.00 77.0 —
Linear, Paving Linear, Paving 5/16/2025 6/12/2025 5.00 20.0 — Demolition Demolition 8/26/2025 11/10/2025 5.00 55.0 —
Grading Grading 1/1/2025 5/13/2025 5.00 95.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 5/14/2025 7/7/2026 5.00 300 — Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/8/2026 8/25/2026 5.00 35.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Linear, Grubbing &
Land
Clearing
Signal Boards Electric Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Grubbing &
Land
Clearing
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43
240
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
70 / 88
Linear, Grubbing &
Land
Clearing
Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Signal Boards Electric Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Rough Terrain Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 96.0 0.40 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Linear, Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Linear, Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Linear, Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Linear, Paving Signal Boards Electric Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82 Linear, Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Sa
ws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40 241
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
71 / 88
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Linear, Grubbing &
Land
Clearing
Signal Boards Electric Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Grubbing &
Land
Clearing
Crawler Tractors Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Linear, Grubbing &
Land
Clearing
Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Signal Boards Electric Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Scrapers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 423 0.48
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Rough Terrain Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 96.0 0.40 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities
, & Sub-Grade
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
242
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
72 / 88
Linear, Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Linear, Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Linear, Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Linear, Paving Signal Boards Electric Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82 Linear, Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 1.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Sa
ws
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 6.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 6.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 3.76 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
243
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
73 / 88
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 39.5 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 40.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 2.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing — — — —
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Gr
ade
— — — —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Gr
ade
Worker 22.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Gr
ade
Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Gr
ade
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Gr
ade
Onsite truck — — HHDT
244
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
74 / 88
Linear, Paving — — — —
Linear, Paving Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Paving Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 3.76 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 39.5 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 40.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 2.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
245
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
75 / 88
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing — — — —
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Gr
ade
— — — —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Gr
ade
Worker 22.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Gr
ade
Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Gr
ade
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Gr
ade
Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Paving — — — —
Linear, Paving Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Paving Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 655 175 0.00
246
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
76 / 88

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Y
ards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Y
ards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building
Square
Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clear
ing

0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Gr
ade

0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 —
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,000 —
Grading 15,000 15,000 71.3 0.00 —

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.10 100%
Parking Lot 0.22 100%
Industrial Park 0.00 0%
Road Construction 0.08 100%
User Defined Linear 0.10 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
247
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
77 / 88
2025 88.1 532 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Total all Land Uses 20.0 0.00 0.00 100 425 0.00 0.00 2,125

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Total all Land Uses 20.0 0.00 0.00 100 425 0.00 0.00 2,125

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq
ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 0.00 175 0.00

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
248
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
78 / 88
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Enclosed Parking Structure 15,056 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Industrial Park 5,442 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Enclosed Parking Structure 15,056 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Industrial Park 5,442 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00
249
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
79 / 88
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Industrial Park 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Industrial Park 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Industrial Park 0.00 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Industrial Park 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced 250
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
80 / 88
Industrial Park Other commercial A/C
and
heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Industrial Park Other commercial A/C
and
heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor Emergency Generator Diesel 1.00 1.00 50.0 27.0 0.73

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
251
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
81 / 88

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 252
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
82 / 88

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes
GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 17.0 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 6.65 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 31.3 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from obser
ved historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if receiv
ed over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider
inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of
climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
253
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
83 / 88
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the g
reatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing
the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures
.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the g
reatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures
.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 75.4
254
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
84 / 88
AQ-PM 43.9
AQ-DPM 4.01
Drinking Water 72.3
Lead Risk Housing 11.8
Pesticides 0.76
Toxic Releases 23.5
Traffic 11.4
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 85.8
Groundwater 54.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 93.0
Impaired Water Bodies 96.3
Solid Waste 91.0
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 44.0
Cardio-vascular 52.6
Low Birth Weights 12.4
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 21.7
Housing 8.50
Linguistic 10.4
Poverty 20.8
Unemployment 30.9

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
255
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
85 / 88
Above Poverty 94.08443475
Employed 69.52393173
Median HI 91.09457205
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 71.83369691
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 81.0727576
Transportation —
Auto Access 85.40998332
Active commuting 15.98870781
Social —
2-parent households 86.68035416
Voting 75.91428205
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 97.0101373
Park access 59.05299628
Retail density 16.6944694
Supermarket access 20.2232773
Tree canopy 68.98498653
Housing —
Homeownership 76.19658668
Housing habitability 91.32554857
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 83.19004235 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 75.86295393
Uncrowded housing 91.95431798
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 84.28076479
Arthritis 84.5
256
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
86 / 88
Asthma ER Admissions 62.2
High Blood Pressure 65.9
Cancer (excluding skin) 42.8
Asthma 72.9
Coronary Heart Disease 88.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 86.1
Diagnosed Diabetes 92.6
Life Expectancy at Birth 41.4
Cognitively Disabled 56.3
Physically Disabled 52.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 24.4
Mental Health Not Good 79.6
Chronic Kidney Disease 90.3
Obesity 79.9
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 89.8
Stroke 91.3
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 8.9
Current Smoker 79.5
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 87.6
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 66.4
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 65.5
Elderly 84.2
English Speaking 83.2
Foreign-born 25.6
257
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
87 / 88
Outdoor Workers 74.9
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 86.1
Traffic Density 19.9
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 8.5
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 86.2

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 30.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 89.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
258
Simi Valley Water Tank Detailed Report, 10/31/2024
88 / 88
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Based on Project Information Construction: Off-Road Equipment all defaults set to 0. made all defaults 1.

Construction: Trips and VMT based on size of tank structure Construction: Architectural Coatings No striping of paved areas Operations: Architectural Coatings maintenance every 5 years, just outside of tank. no striping for parking Operations: Energy Use No parking lot lighting. Electricity for parking structure estimated for tank usage. Industrial b
uilding is electric only for pump station activities. No natural gas usage.

Operations: Water and Waste Water no water usage onsite.

Operations: Solid Waste no solid waste collection or generation onsite 259

Appendix C
Roadway Construction Noise Model Results
260
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 11/1/2024
Case Description: Simi Valley Water Tank - Demolition
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential Residential 80 80 80
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 50 0
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 50 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 81.7 77.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Saw 89.6 82.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 89.6 84.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
261
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 11/1/2024
Case Description: Simi Valley Water Tank - Grubbing/Land Clearing ---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential Residential 80 80 80
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Tractor No 40 84 50 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 50 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Tractor 84 80 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 80.7 76.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 84 81.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
262
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 11/1/2024
Case Description: Simi Valley Water Tank - Drainage
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential Residential 80 80 80
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 50 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 0
Pumps No 50 80.9 50 0
Compactor (ground) No 20 83.2 50 0
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 50 0
Grader No 40 85 50 0
Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) No 50 72.8 50 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 83.6 79.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Pumps 80.9 77.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Compactor (ground) 83.2 76.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Compressor (air) 77.7 73.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grader 85 81 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) 72.8 69.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 85 86 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
263
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 11/1/2024
Case Description: Simi Valley Water Tank - Paving
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential Residential 80 80 80
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Roller No 20 80 50 0
Paver No 50 77.2 50 0
Paver No 50 77.2 50 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Roller 80 73 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 77.2 74.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 77.2 74.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 80 79.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
264
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 11/1/2024
Case Description: Simi Valley Water Tank - Grading
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential Residential 80 80 80
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Dozer No 40 81.7 50 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 0
Grader No 40 85 50 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Dozer 81.7 77.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grader 85 81 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 85 83.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
265
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 11/1/2024
Case Description: Simi Valley Water Tank - Building Construction ---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential Residential 80 80 80
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 50 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 0
Grader No 40 85 50 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Crane 80.6 72.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grader 85 81 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 85 83.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
266
Knolls Zone W
ater Facilities Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Re
porting Program
prepared by
City of Simi Val
ley/Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
2929 Tapo Canyon Roa
d
Simi Valley, California 93
063
prepared with
the assistance of
Rincon Consul
tants, Inc.
180 North Ashwood Ave
nue
Ventura, California 930
03 March 2026
Attachment C
267
Mitig
ation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Mitig
ation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1
M
itigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The Cal
ifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). This mitigation monitoring and reporting program is intended to track and ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during the project implementation phase for the City of Simi Valley/Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 (City/District) Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project (project). For each mitigation measure recommended in the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND), specifications are made herein that identify the action required and the monitoring frequency and timing that must occur. For all mitigation measures, the City/District is the agency responsible for implementation and oversight.
268
Sa
nta Clarita Valley Water Agency
Knolls Z
one Water Facilities Project

2 This p
age intentionally left blank.

269
Mit
igation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Mit
igation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3
Mitigation
Measure Ac
tion Required Monito
ring Timing Monito
ring Frequency
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Ini
tial
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Date
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Comments
Bio
logical Resources
BIO-1 Plan
t Impact Avoidance
Before the start of construction, the contractor shall install high-visibility fencing between the work area and adjacent native vegetation to ensure no vehicle or foot traffic impacts the vegetation community surrounding the work site. The fencing shall be sturdy, weather-resistant, and secured with T-posts or other durable anchoring methods and shall be repaired or replaced as needed to be maintained in good condition. Signs indicating “Environmentally Sensitive Area – Keep Out” shall be posted at regular intervals along the fencing.

1. Install fencing and signage between work area and
adjacent native vegetation.

1. Prior to the start of
construction activities.

1. Once.

The intent of this training is to review the sensitive biological resources that may be present during construction activities (e.g., special-status species and nesting birds). This program will include an overview of the habitats of special- status species with potential to occur, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive biological resources, and a review of the limits of construction. Additionally, the biologist will go over the mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall be prepared by the qualified biologist for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction. All personnel shall sign a form provided by the biologist providing the WEAP training, indicating they have attended the WEAP and understand the information presented to them.

1. Retain a qualified biologist to conduct a WEAP
training on special status biological resources for
all construction personnel.

2. Review the WEAP training materials for
consistency with the requirements of Mitigation
Measure BIO-1.

3. Require attendance of all personnel associated
with project construction at the WEAP training.

4. Maintain sign-in form(s) in project files.

1. Prior to the start of
construction activities.

2. Prior to the start of
construction activities.

3. Prior to the start of
construction activities.

4. During construction.

1. Once.

2. Once.

3. Once prior to the start of
construction activities
and as needed if new
personnel are required.

4. Ongoing.

BIO-3 Pr
e-Construction Surveys for Special-Status Plants
A q
ualified botanist shall be retained by the City/District or its contractor to conduct two preconstruction surveys on the project site for special-status plant species during the appropriate species-specific identification periods, the first between May and July and the second between July and November, when the plants are in bloom and within one year before ground disturbance. The survey will be in accordance with CNPS’s Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS 2001), CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018), and USFWS’s Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (USFWS 1996).

If the survey confirms that no special-status plant species are present on the project site, no further actions will be required. If the plant survey reveals the presence of special-status plants on the project site, individuals will be flagged for avoidance during construction. Occurrences of special‑status species will be mapped, and if any are located within 50 feet of project activities, they will be flagged in the field. Subsequently, a minimum 50‑foot buffer shall be established around all such occurrences to avoid impacts to seed banks and supporting microhabitats. These buffers will be clearly flagged or fenced and avoided for the duration of project activities. If the populations cannot be avoided during construction, the City/District or its contractor will retain a qualified botanist or restoration ecologist to prepare a salvage, relocation, or propagation and monitoring plan (Special-status Plant Recovery Plan) for special-status plants before construction is initiated. All occurrences of Santa Susana tarplant shall be documented. Any individuals found within the development footprint shall require consultation with CDFW to determine whether an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) is necessary, while any individuals occurring within the fuel‑modification area shall be fully avoided and protected in place; no salvage or relocation may occur. The Special-status Plant Recovery Plan will include provisions that address the techniques, location, and procedures required for the successful establishment of the plant populations.

The Special-status Plant Recovery Plan shall include clear performance standards requiring:
(1) a minimum survivability rate for restored or transplanted individuals; (2) defined maintenance activities to support successful establishment; (3) a monitoring schedule with measurable success criteria; (4) implementation procedures that identify responsible parties and timelines; (5) adaptive management triggers and corrective actions if performance standards are not met; and (6) annual reporting that documents progress toward meeting these standards.

The qualified botanist shall document all directly impacted special‑status plants, including their locations, abundance, density, percent cover, and key habitat characteristics, such as soil type, associated species, hydrology, and topography, and shall provide photographic records of pre
‑co
nstruction conditions. If any state‑l
isted endangered or threatened

1. Retain a qualified botanist to conduct special-
status plant species surveys.

2. If the survey reveals the presence of special status plants, flag and map individuals for avoidance
during construction. Establish 50-foot buffer
around occurrences.

3. If populations cannot be avoided, retain a
qualified botanist or restoration ecologist to
prepare a Special-status Plant Recovery Plan.

4. Document all occurrences of Santa Susana tarplant
and consult with CDFW as necessary.

1. During the appropriate
species-specific
identification periods, the
first between May and
July and the second
between July and
November, when the
plants are in bloom and
within one year before
ground disturbance.

2. Prior to the start of
construction activities.

3. Prior to the start of
construction activities.

4. Prior to the start of
construction activities.

1. Twice; once between
May and July and once
between July and
November.

2. As needed.

3. As needed.

4. As needed.

270
Sa
nta Clarita Valley Water Agency
Knol
ls Zone Water Facilities Project

4 Mitigation
Measure Ac
tion Required Monito
ring Timing Monito
ring Frequency
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Ini
tial
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Date
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Comments
pl
ants are detected within areas proposed for development, an avoidance strategy consistent with CESA shall be developed and implemented.

The Special-status Plant Recovery Plan shall include a description of the project and mitigation areas; an assessment of impacts on rare‑plant habitat; clearly defined objectives and success criteria; planting palettes tailored to the appropriate vegetation communities; an implementation and maintenance plan; a monitoring program; and contingency measures to support adaptive management.

The plant palette shall include not only target species (e.g., Nevin’s barberry, Brauton’s milk vetch, Santa Susana tarplant, slender mariposa lily, chaparral nolina, and Plummer’s mariposa lily) but also a diverse suite of native species representative of local rare‑plant habitat conditions.

Performance standards for rare‑plant restoration shall include:
 Restoring at least a 2:1 acreage ratio of impacted rare‑plant habitat within five years.  Achieving at least 50 percent absolute cover of target rare plants and other native species within the restoration area by Year 5.
 Demonstrating two consecutive years of meeting all success criteria without active maintenance, aside from invasive‑species control.

Annual monitoring and reporting to the City/District shall be required throughout implementation. A final report shall be submitted in Year 5 evaluating whether the restoration has met all performance standards. If the criteria are not met, the applicant shall coordinate with the City/District to identify and implement appropriate remedial measures.

If impacts to rare‑plant habitat are mitigated through an in‑lieu fee, the City/District shall provide evidence of payment prior to grading. All in‑lieu fees shall be used exclusively to restore or create in‑kind rare‑plant habitat.

All restoration, enhancement, or mitigation lands shall be placed under a conservation easement or another mechanism ensuring long‑term, p
ermanent protection.

BIO-4 Cr
otch’s Bumble Bee Pre-Construction Survey and Impact Avoidance Pre-construction surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee, including ground nests, shall be conducted within all suitable habitats adjacent to the project site within the 50-foot buffer before initial ground disturbing activities (e.g., grubbing/removing vegetation, excavation, grading, construction). These surveys aim to identify individuals and/or active nest colonies in areas adjacent to the site. During the species’ flight season (April to August), a qualified biologist shall conduct pre- construction surveys within all suitable habitat in and adjacent to the project site, consistent with the CDFW Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bees (CDFW 2023) or other methodology approved by CDFW. Surveys shall identify foraging individuals and/or active nest colonies.

If the pre-construction surveys identify individuals or active nest colonies adjacent to the project footprint:
 An appropriate no-disturbance buffer zone shall be established around the active nest colony to reduce the risk of disturbance or accidental take. The buffer distance shall be established by a qualified biologist.  The project proponent/operator shall consult with a qualified biologist to discuss considerations and recommendations on implementing project activities to avoid take of Crotch’s bumble bee.

If an avoidance buffer is required as described above, construction activities shall not occur within that buffer zone until a qualified biologist determines the nest to no longer be active (i.e., no Crotch’s bumble bee are seen flying in or out of the nest for three consecutive days [during suitable weather conditions when Crotch’s bumble bee are typically active] indicating the colony has completed its nesting season and the queens have dispersed from the colony), after which construction activities may resume within that buffer zone.

If construction activities are proposed outside the flight season, when protocol surveys cannot detect dormant individuals, a qualified biologist shall conduct an overwintering habitat assessment within suitable habitat in the project area. The assessment shall identify microhabitats with potential to support overwintering queens, such as undisturbed soils, rodent burrows, leaf litter, or vegetated ground cover.

Where suitable overwintering habitat is present and disturbance cannot be entirely avoided, the project shall assume presence of overwintering individuals. The qualified biologist shall delineate temporary avoidance areas or implement other minimization measures, in coordination with CDFW, to prevent disturbance of likely overwintering sites.

1. Retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-
construction survey consistent with CDFW
methodology.

2. If surveys identify individuals or active nest
colonies adjacent to the project footprint,
establish a no-disturbance buffer zone.

3. If construction activities are proposed outside the
flight season, retain a qualified biologist to
conduct an overwintering habitat assessment
within suitable habitat in the project area.

1. Prior to the start of
construction activities
during the flight season
(April to August).

2. Prior to the start of
construction activities.

3. Prior to the start of
construction activities
outside the flight season
(September to March).

1. As CDFW survey
methodology requires.

2. Once.

3. As CDFW survey
methodology requires.

271
Mit
igation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Mit
igation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5
Mitigation
Measure Ac
tion Required Monito
ring Timing Monito
ring Frequency
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Ini
tial
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Date
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Comments
BIO-5 Nestin
g Bird Pre-Construction Survey and Impact Avoidance
To avoid impacting active bird nests, juveniles or adults, project activities, including vegetation clearing and tree removal, shall be conducted outside of the breeding season (February 1 through September 15 and as early as January 1 for some raptors) to the extent feasible.

If project activities occur between January 1 and September 15, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 7 working days before the activity to survey for bird nests. The survey area shall include the project footprint and a 300-foot buffer for passerine species and a 500-foot buffer for coastal California gnatcatcher and raptor species. Following the survey, the following shall be implemented:
 A nesting bird survey report shall be submitted to the City/District prior to the initiation of project activities. The report shall detail the results of the survey including identification of the location of any active nests and shall describe any nest monitoring that shall be conducted and/or whether any avoidance buffers shall be established.  If active nests are identified during the survey and/or work is scheduled to take place within 300 feet of active passerine nests or 500 feet of active coastal California gnatcatcher and raptor nests, a qualified biologist shall determine appropriate avoidance buffers. The buffer shall be the minimum distance required to avoid take of the nest and shall be determined based on the species identified, activities proposed, level of existing noise, and location of the nest.
 A qualified biologist shall determine when nesting is completed and when any avoidance buffers may be removed.  If nesting bird monitoring is conducted, a nesting bird monitoring report shall be submitted to the City/District detailing the results of monitoring activities and measures implemented that avoided impacts to the nest. The report shall be submitted within 30 days of the completion of the nesting bird monitoring.

1. Schedule vegetation removal, ground disturbance,
and construction activities outside the breeding
season (September 16–December 31), to the
extent practicable.

2. If construction occurs during January 1 and
September 15, retain a qualified biologist to
conduct a nesting bird survey.

3. Review and approve survey report, and establish
appropriate avoidance buffers.

4. If monitoring in conducted, review and approve
monitoring report.

1. Prior to the start of
construction.

2. No more than 7 days prior
to the start of
construction activities.

3. Prior to the initiation of
project activities.

4. Within 30 days of
completion of monitoring.

1. Once.

2. Once.

3. As needed.

4. Once.

BIO-6 Coastal Cali
fornia Gnatcatcher Protocol Surveys
Before the start of construction, the City/District or its contractor shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct protocol coastal California gnatcatcher surveys in accordance with the guidelines issued by the USFWS (USFWS 1997). Surveys shall be conducted by a USFWS-permitted biologist before the start of construction. The results of the survey shall be provided in a report to USFWS within 45 days of completion of the survey, and no less than 30 days before the start of groundbreaking activities.

If protocol surveys determine that occupied habitat is present in the project footprint plus a 300-foot buffer where accessible, the following measures shall be implemented during project construction to avoid or minimize direct take of coastal California gnatcatcher:

3. If an active nest is located, a 300-foot avoidance buffer shall be established around each nest site; however, there may be a reduction of this buffer zone depending on site-specific conditions such as topography, line-of-sight to the nest, or the existing ambient level of activity. The City/District shall contact USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer zone. No construction shall take place within this buffer until the biologist can verify that the nest is no longer active.

1. Schedule grubbing or grading activities located
within coastal California gnatcatcher habitat to
occur September 1 through February 14.

2. When conducting any construction activities
during the California gnatcatcher breeding season,
February 15 through August 30, retain a USFWS
permitted biologist to survey for nesting coastal
California gnatcatcher approximately once per
week within 300 feet of the construction area.

3. If an active nest is located, establish a 300-foot or otherwise appropriate avoidance buffer around
each nest site, in consultation with USFWS.

4. Install fencing around the approved construction
area.

5. Retain a biological monitor familiar with coastal
California gnatcatcher and its habitat to be present
during all vegetation clearing and other activities
within coastal sage scrub.

6. Report all active coastal California gnatcatcher
nests to USFWS.

7. In the event that coastal California gnatcatcher
individuals or occupied habitat cannot be avoided
and incidental take is expected, obtain necessary
take authorization from the USFWS and complete
compensatory mitigation as required.

1. Prior to the start of
construction activities.

2. Between February 15
through August 30.

3. As active nests are
located.

4. Prior to the start of
construction activities.

5. Prior to the start of
construction activities
within coastal sage scrub.

6. Within 24 hours of
locating active nests.

7. As active nests are
located.

1. Once.

2. Once per week.

3. As active nests are
located.

4. Once.

5. As needed.

6. As needed.

7. As needed.

272
Sa
nta Clarita Valley Water Agency
Knol
ls Zone Water Facilities Project

6 Mitigation
Measure Ac
tion Required Monito
ring Timing Monito
ring Frequency
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Ini
tial
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Date
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Comments

7. Access
to the site shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible.

8. All active coastal California gnatcatcher nests shall be reported within 24 hours to the USFWS upon detection.

10. The project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food-related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site.

11. In the event that coastal California gnatcatcher individuals or occupied habitat cannot be avoided and incidental take is expected, the City/District or its contractor shall obtain necessary take authorization from the USFWS.

Impacts
requiring mitigation include permanent and temporary impacts to occupied and unoccupied habitat. Permanent impacts to occupied habitat shall require acquisition and preservation of occupied habitat off-site at a location approved by USFWS. Mitigation for permanent impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher shall be at a ratio of 2:1 for preserved to impacted habitat. In the event occupied habitat is not available at an off-site location, mitigation credits shall be purchased at a USFWS- approved mitigation bank. Temporary impacts to occupied habitat and impacts to all unoccupied habitat (as determined by protocol surveys) shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio and can include 1:1 on-site restoration and 1:1 acquisition and preservation of occupied habitat off-site.

Coastal sage scrub habitat that is not designated for removal shall be avoided and protected with appropriate buffer zones marked with high-visibility material. Project work areas shall be clearly flagged or similarly marked at the outer boundaries to define the limit of work activities. No unauthorized entry or construction disturbance shall be permitted within protective buffer zones.

Cultural R
esources
CUL-1 Worker
Environmental Awareness Program Training
All construction personnel and monitors who are not trained archaeologists shall be briefed regarding unanticipated discoveries prior to the start of construction activities. A basic presentation shall be prepared and presented by a Qualified Archaeologist or other designated archaeologist working under the direction of the Qualified Archaeologist to inform all personnel working on the Project about the archaeological sensitivity of the area. The purpose of the training is to provide specific details on the kinds of archaeological materials that may be identified during construction of the Project and explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. Each worker shall also learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that archaeological resources or human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection and the immediate notification of the on-call archaeologist and if appropriate, Native American representative. The necessity of training attendance shall be stated on all construction plans, and the City/District shall maintain records demonstrating construction worker training participation.

1. Conduct WEAP training for all construction
personnel. Ensure the WEAP is presented by the
qualified archaeologist or their qualified designee.

1. Prior to the start of
construction.

1. Once.

CUL-2 Retention
of a Qualified Archaeologist
Prior to
the start of ground-disturbing activities, the City/District shall retain an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (Qualified Archaeologist) to respond to and address any inadvertent discoveries identified for the duration of construction activities and to oversee the implementation of all cultural resources mitigation measures. The Qualified Archaeologist shall possess experience and familiarity with historic-period and prehistoric archaeological resources in the region.

1. Retain a qualified archaeologist who meets or
exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards.

2. Have the qualified archaeologist resound to and
address any inadvertent discoveries identified
during construction.

1. Prior to the start of
construction.

2. As needed throughout
construction.

1. Once, prior to
construction.

2. As needed throughout
construction.

CUL-3 Inadver
tent Discovery of Archaeological Resources
In th
e event that archaeological resources are inadvertently encountered during ground-disturbing activities that have not been previously identified, work in a 50-foot radius of the find shall be halted and redirected, and the Qualified Archaeologist shall be contacted immediately. The Qualified Archaeologist or other designated archaeologist working under the direction of the Qualified Archaeologist, shall provide recommendations regarding the resource’s potential significance and potential treatment in coordination with the City/District. If the resource is determined by the Qualified Archaeologist to be indigenous in origin, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the resource. If the Qualified Archaeologist and/or Native American representative determines it to be appropriate, archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be completed. If the resource proves to be eligible for the CRHR and significant impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via project redesign, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of the resource, pursuant to the requirements of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan

1. If archaeological resources are inadvertently
encountered, halt work in a 50-foot radius and
contact the qualified archaeologist.

2. If the resource is determined by the Qualified
Archaeologist to be indigenous in origin, contact a
Native American representative.

3. Evaluate and complete testing of the resource.

4. If the resource cannot be avoided, prepare and
implement a data recovery plan.

1. If archaeological
resources are
encountered.

2. If the resource is
determined by the
Qualified Archaeologist
to be indigenous in
origin.

3. As needed throughout
construction.

1. As needed throughout
construction.

2. As needed throughout
construction.

3. As needed throughout
construction.

4. As needed throughout
construction.

273
Mit
igation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Mit
igation Monitoring and Reporting Program 7
Mitigation
Measure Ac
tion Required Monito
ring Timing Monito
ring Frequency
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Ini
tial
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Date
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Comments
sh
all identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant impacts related to the resource. Pursuant to the data recovery plan, the Qualified Archaeologist and Native American representative, as appropriate, shall recover and document the scientifically consequential information that justifies the resource’s significance. The City/District’s project manager or their designee shall review and approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate, and the resulting documentation shall be submitted to the regional repository of the CHRIS, pursuant to CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).

4. As needed throughout
construction.

Geolo
gy and Soils
GE
O-1 Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Q
ualified Professional Paleontologist. Prior to excavation, the City/District shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 2010) to direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources.

Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist or their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff shall fossils be discovered by construction personnel.

Paleontological Monitoring and Salvage. Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be conducted during ground- disturbing activities that could impact previously undisturbed sediments (e.g., inlet-outlet and drain pipeline trenching, retaining wall installation, access road construction). Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a paleontological monitor with experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and who meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010) for a Paleontological Resources Monitor.

The Qualified Professional Paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced in frequency or ceased entirely based on geologic observations. Such decisions shall be subject to review and approval by the City/District. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all construction activity within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall evaluate the find. If the fossil(s) is (are) not scientifically significant, then construction activity may resume. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the following shall be completed:
 Fossil Salvage. The paleontological monitor shall salvage (excavate and recover) the fossil to protect it from damage/destruction. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontological monitor with minimal disruption to construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. Bulk matrix sampling may be necessary to recover small invertebrates or microvertebrates from within paleontologically sensitive deposits. After the fossil(s) is (are) salvaged, construction activity may resume.
 Fossil Preparation and Curation. Fossils shall be identified to the lowest (most-specific) possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the Qualified Professional Paleontologist.

Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground-disturbing activities (or laboratory preparation and curation of fossils, if necessary), the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods employed; an overview of project geology; and, if fossils were discovered, an analysis of the fossils, including physical description, taxonomic identification, and scientific significance. The report shall be submitted to the City/District and, if fossil curation occurred, the designated scientific institution.

1. Retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist.

2. Conduct a Paleontological Worker Environmental
Awareness Program (WEAP) training for all
construction personnel prior to the start of
construction.

3. Implement full-time paleontological monitoring
during ground-disturbing activities in previously
undisturbed sediments with high or undetermined
paleontological sensitivity.

4. If fossils are discovered, halt construction within
50 feet of the find and have the Qualified
Professional Paleontologist evaluate the resource.

5. If fossils are scientifically significant, salvage the fossil(s) using appropriate excavation and recovery
methods.

6. Prepare fossils to curation-ready condition and
curate them in a scientific institution with a
permanent paleontological collection, along with
all associated documentation.

7. Upon completion of ground-disturbing activities
and fossil curation (if applicable), review and verify
the Final Paleontological Mitigation Report
summarizing monitoring results, fossil analysis,
and scientific significance. Submit the report to the
designated scientific institution.

1. Prior to excavation and
start of construction.

2. Before any ground-
disturbing activities
commence.

3. During ground-disturbing
activities in sensitive
sediments.
4 . Immediately upon fossil
discovery.

5. After fossil discovery.

6. After fossil discovery.

7. Upon completion of
ground-disturbing
activities, or laboratory
preparation and curation
of fossils, if necessary.

1. Once.

2. Once, and as needed for
new personnel.

3. Throughout construction
in sensitive sediments.

4. As needed upon
discovery.

5. As needed upon
discovery.

6. As needed upon
discovery.

7. Once.

No
ise
NOI-1 Constructi
on Noise Reduction Measures
For construction of the pipeline and access road that occurs within 100 feet of the residence to the west (943 Crown Hill Drive), the City/District or its construction contractor shall reduce construction noise levels so as not to exceed a noise level of 80 dBA Leq (8-hour). Strategies to achieve this may include, but are not limited to, the following noise reduction measures:
 Heavy duty construction equipment will be controlled with the best available noise control technology. For example, noise control may be achieved by shrouding the equipment, shielding the equipment from the residence with temporary noise barriers, and/or by reducing exhaust noise with a sound-absorbing muffler.

1. Verify inclusion of noise reduction measures as
part of the construction plans and specifications.

2. Notify nearby residence of construction activities.

3. Field verify compliance with noise reduction
measures and maintain record of compliance (e.g.,
verification logs) in project files.

1. Prior to issuance of
construction bid
package(s).

2. 21 days prior to start of
construction.

3. Throughout construction.

1. Once.

2. Once.

3. Throughout
construction.

274
Sa
nta Clarita Valley Water Agency
Knol
ls Zone Water Facilities Project

8 Mitigation
Measure Ac
tion Required Monito
ring Timing Monito
ring Frequency
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Ini
tial
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Date
Compl
iance
Verific
ation
Comments
 Where
feasible, hydraulic equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic impact tools, and electric powered equipment shall be used instead of diesel-powered equipment.  At least 21 days prior to the start of construction activities, the residence at 943 Crown Hill Drive shall be notified of the planned construction activities. The written notification shall include a brief description of the project, the activities that would occur, the hours when construction would occur, and the construction period’s overall duration.

The notification shall include the telephone numbers of the City/District’s and the contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise complaint.  If a construction noise complaint(s) is registered, the contractor shall retain a qualified noise consultant to conduct noise measurements at the properties that registered the complaint. The noise measurements shall be conducted for a minimum of eight hours. The consultant shall prepare a letter report for the City/District summarizing the measurement results and potential measures to reduce construction noise to 80 dBA Leq (8-hour) at the residence at 943 Crown Hill Drive.

Tribal
Cultural Resources
TCR-1 Nati
ve American Monitoring
Prior to the start of construction and any ground-disturbing activities, the City/District shall retain a Native American monitor from a California Native American tribe that is culturally and geographically affiliated with the project site and that consulted on this project. The Native American monitor shall attend the pre-construction meeting and participate in the Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training required by Mitigation Measure CUL-1. The Native American monitor shall observe all ground-disturbing activities in native, undisturbed soils (such as pot-holing or augering, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching); activities in previously disturbed soils and backfilling shall not require the presence of a Native American monitor.

The City/District shall provide the Native American monitor with at least 48 hours’ notice prior to the pre-construction meeting and any ground-disturbing activities that require monitoring. In the event that a Native American monitor is not available or fails to report to the site, construction may proceed without the presence of a Native American monitor. The Native American monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs detailing observed construction activities and locations, soil types, and any cultural materials identified and provide non-confidential copies to the City/District.

In the event of a discovery of potential tribal cultural resources, the Native American monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt construction activities within 50 feet of the discovery, shall establish an exclusion zone while the discovery is investigated, and shall notify the onsite construction supervisor or foreman. The Qualified Archaeologist shall be contacted and the procedures outlined in CUL-3 shall be implemented. The City/District shall consult with the appropriate Native American representatives in determining the significance and treatment of any potential tribal cultural resources discoveries. For any significant resources, avoidance through project redesign shall be the preferred manner of treatment. Construction activities in the vicinity of any discovery may not resume until the significance of the resource has been determined and any data recovery treatment, if necessary, has been completed. Additional treatment may also be required for tribal cultural resources to address significance beyond scientifically consequential information, which could include but would not be limited to installation of a landscaping to include native plants, plaque or mural to inform the public, or other educational or interpretive elements. If the discovery includes human remains, the City/District shall implement the procedures outlined in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, PRC Section 5097.98, and CCR Guidelines Section 15064.5(e).

Native American monitoring shall cease when the onsite ground-disturbing activities in native, undisturbed soils are completed or when the Native American monitor indicates that there is a low potential for tribal cultural resources to be encountered during further ground-disturbing activities. The California Native American tribe providing monitoring services shall prepare a final report documenting compliance with this measure and submit it to the City/District within 60 days of the completion of Native American monitoring. Should tribal cultural resources or human remains be discovered, the California Native American tribe shall also file a final report of findings with the Native American Heritage Commission for inclusion in the Sacred Lands File database.

1. Retain a professional Tribal Monitor from a locally
affiliated tribe to participate in the WEAP and to
observe ground-disturbing activities.

2. Provide written confirmation to Tribe upon
completion of each set of scheduled ground-
disturbing activities.

3. Provide minimum 48 hours’ notice to Tribe prior to
each set of ground-disturbing activities.

4. If cultural resources of Native American origin are
encountered, review and approve implementation
of treatment and avoidance measures, and retain
documentation in project files.

5. Review Native American monitoring logs and
retain in project files.

1. Prior to start of ground-
disturbing activities.

2. Prior to each set of
ground-disturbing
activities.

3. Prior to each set of
ground-disturbing
activities.

4. During the discovery of
cultural resources of
Native American origin
during ground-disturbing
construction activities.

5. During ground-disturbing
activities.

1. Once.

2. As needed.

3. As needed.

4. As needed.

5. Periodically.

275

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO.8
Attachment D
276
2015 and 2024 Project Area Comparison
2015 – Project Area 2024 – New Landscape and Project Area Expansion Additional
Landscape Area
Attachment E
277
Home of the Rona
ld Reagan Presidential Library
2929
Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063
www.
simivalley.org

NOTICE OF THE RELEASE

FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

AND INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION BY THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY FOR

THE KNOLLS ZONE WATER FACILITIES PROJECT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the release for public review of a Mitigated Negative Declaration/Negative Declaration for the Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project.

The project consists of construction and operation of a new aboveground water storage tank (the Crown Hill Tank) and associated piping and electrical infrastructure. The purpose of the project is to improve water storage capacity and to provide proper water pressure to some higher elevation lots on the Knolls Pressure Zone. The Crown Hill Tank would be a welded steel aboveground tank approximately 74 feet in diameter and 35 feet in height, with a storage capacity of one million gallons.

In addition to the tank, the project would also include installation of a 10-inch pipeline and appurtenances to connect the Crown Hill Tank to the existing Alta Vista Tanks No. 1 and 2 (as shown in Figure 1), construction of an access roadway and retaining walls, and landscaping in the areas surrounding the project components.

The project is located at the southern terminus of Crown Hill Drive in the unincorporated community of Santa Susana along the southern city limits of Simi Valley. The project site encompasses portions of Assessor’s Parcel Nos. (APNs) 646016207, 646016106, 646016102, and the right-of-way of Crown Hill Drive between Lyon Place and its southern terminus. No hazardous waste sites identified on lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 are present on the project site.

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, the incorporation of mitigation measures would bring these effects to less than significant. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and the public review period is from November 3 to December 4, 2025. The Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public review on City’s website:https://www.simivalley.org/departments/environmental-services/planning- division/enviro
nmental-documents and at the Department of Environmental Services: 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Si
mi Valley, California 93063. No public hearing has been set at this time.

Comments or questions should be directed to Michel Kadah, Principal Engineer, Department of Public Works, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, California 93063 or [email protected].

Written comment
s must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 4, 2025.

Attachment F
278
Figure 1 Project S
ite Location
279
Knolls Zone
Water Facilities Project
Responses to Comme
nts
prepared by
City of Simi Va
lley/Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
2929 Tapo Canyon
Road
Simi Valley, Califor
nia 93063
prepared wit
h the assistance of
Rincon Cons
ultants, Inc.
180 North
Ashwood Avenue
Ventura, Califor
nia 93003
March 202
6 Attachment G
280
City of Simi Valley/Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project Responses to Comments on the Draft ISMND Responses to Comments
Responses to Comments on the Draft ISMND
This section includes comments received during public circulation of the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) prepared for the Knolls Zone Water Facilities Project.

The Draft IS-MND was circulated for a 31-day public review period that began on November 3, 2025 and ended on December 4, 2025. The City of Simi Valley/Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 (City/District) received three comment letters on the Draft IS-MND. The commenters and the page number on which each commenter’s letter appear are listed below.

Table 1 Comment Letters Received
Letter No. Commenter
1 Yunsheng Su, PWA-WP Case Reviewer, Ventura County Public Works Watershed Planning and Permits Division
2 Miya Edmonson, LDR/CEQA Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation 3 Victoria Tang, Environmental Program Manager, California Department of Fish and Wildlife The comment letters and responses follow. The comment letters are numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter has been assigned a number; Response 1.1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in Comment Letter 1.

Where a comment resulted in a change to the Draft IS-MND text, a notation is made in the response indicating that the text is revised. Changes in text are signified by strikeout font (strikeout font) where text was removed and by underlined font (underlined font) where text was added.

Several comments resulted in a change to a mitigation measure from the Draft IS-MND. The mitigation measures included in the Draft IS-MND, and revisions to mitigation measures included herein, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Revised mitigation measures are consistent with the impact determinations of the Draft IS-MND, and do not result in new impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. Rather, the mitigation measures are being replaced with equal or more effective measures, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, recirculation of the Draft IS-MND is not required.

Page No.
3 7
9 281

WATERSHED PROTECTION

WATERSHED PLANNING AND PERMITS DIVISION
800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California 93009

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 3, 2025
TO: Philip Hess, Case Planner
County of Ventura
FROM: Yunsheng Su, PWA-WP Case Reviewer
SUBJECT: RMA25-036
APN:646016207
CEQA Review Comments and Conditions
Pursuant to your request dated 10/30/2025, this office has reviewed the submitted materials and provides the following comments.

PROJECT LOCATION:

Location Map:

Letter 1

1.1 282
RMA25-036
November 3, 2025

Page 2 of 3 ends

Simi Valley City CouncilMay 11, 2026

Simi Valley City Council
May 11, 2026