Santa Clara County Clerk- Recorder's Office

State of California
Document No.: 19146
County of Santa Clara Number of Pages:
Office of the County Clerk-Recorder 4
Business Division 1111111111111 U Im! 111 Filed and Posted On:
Through:
1/29/2015
2/28/2015
County Government Center CRO Order Number:
70 West Hedding Street, E. Wing, 1st Floor Fee Total: 3,119.75
San Jose, California 95110 (408) 299-5688 REGINA ALCOMENDRAS, County Clerk- Reco.~d'1°.
CEQA DOCUMENT DECLARATION by Mike Louie, Clerk-Recorder Office Spe, ~
ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE RECEIPT

PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:

1. LEAD AGENCY: Santa Clara Valley Water District

2. PROJECT TITLE: Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project with Notice of Determination for Final EIR
3. APPLICANT NAME: Santa Clara Valley Water District PHONE: 408-630-3096
4. APPLICANT ADDRESS: 5750 Almaden Expressway

5. PROJECT APPLICANT IS A: D Local Public Agency 0 School District IE! Other Special District 0 State Agency 0 Private Entity
6. NOTICE TO BE POSTED FOR _ _ _3_0___ DAYS.
7. CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

a. PROJECTS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO DFG FEES

IE! 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE §21152) $ 3,069.75 $ 3,069.75

0 2. NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE §21080(C) $ 2,210.00 $ 0.00

D 3. APPLICATION FEE WATER DIVERSION (STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ONLY) $ 850.00 $ 0.00

0 4. PROJECTS SUBJECT TO CERTIFIED REGULATORY PROGRAMS $ 1,043.75 $ 0.00

IE! 5. COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE (REQUIRED FOR a-1 THROUGH a-4 ABOVE) $ 50.00 $ 50.00
Fish & Game Code §711.4(e)

b. PROJECTS THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM DFG FEES

0 1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION ($50.00 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE REQUIRED) $ 50.00 $._ _-"-o--'.o..;:..o__

0 2. A COMPLETED "CEQA FILING FEE NO EFFECT DETERMINATION FORM" FROM THE

DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME, DOCUMENTING THE DFG'S DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT
WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON FISH, WILDLIFE AND HABITAT, OR AN OFFICIAL, DATED RECEIPT I
PROOF OF PAYMENT SHOWING PREVIOUS PAYMENT OF THE DFG FILING FEE FOR THE *SAME
PROJECT IS ATTACHED ($50.00 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE REQUIRED)

DOCUMENT TYPE: IE! ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION $ 50.00 $._ _ _o.:.:·.::.oo=----

c. NOTICES THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO DFG FEES OR COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEES

0 NOTICE OF PREPARATION 0 NOTICE OF INTENT NO FEE $_ _ _'-'N=O_,.F-=E=E

8. OTHER: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ FEE (IF APPLICABLE): $_ _ _ _ __

9.TOTALRECEIVED ........................................................................................................................................................ $ 3,119.75

*NOTE: "SAME PROJECT MEANS NO CHANGES. IF THE DOCUMENT SUBMITTED IS NOT THE SAME (OTHER THAN DATES), A "NO EFFECT
DETERMINATION" LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FOR THE SUBSEQUENT FILING OR THE APPROPRIATE FEES ARE
REQUIRED.

THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND ATTACHED TO THE FRONT OF ALL CEQA DOCUMENTS LISTED ABOVE (INCLUDING COPIES)
SUBMITTED FOR FILING. WE WILL NEED AN ORIGINAL (WET SIGNATURE) AND THREE COPIES. (YOUR ORIGINAL WILL BE RETURNED TO
YOU AT THE TIME OF FILING.)

CHECKS FOR ALL FEES SHOULD BE MADE PAYABLE TO: SANTA CLARA COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER

PLEASE NOTE: FEES ARE ANNUALLY ADJUSTED (Fish & Game Code §711.4(b); PLEASE CHECK WITH THIS OFFICE AND THE DEPARTMENT
OF FISH AND GAME FOR THE LATEST FEE INFORMATION .

. NO PROJECT SHALL BE OPERATIVE, VESTED, OR FINAL, NOR SHALL LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERMITS FOR THE PROJECT BE VALID,
UNTIL THE FILING FEES REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION ARE PAID." Fish & Game Code F11.4(c)(3)

(Fees Effective 01-01-2015)

 Page 1 of 2

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

Santa Clara Valley Water District

5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
(408) 265-2600

[8] Office of planning and Research [8] County of Santa Clara County Clerk
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 70 West Hedding Street
Sacramento, CA 95818 San Jose CA 9511 O
Subject: Filing of Notice of determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the
Public Resource Code.

Contact Person: Telephone No: State Clearinghouse No:

Michael F. Coleman 408-630-3096 2014012012
Environmental Planner
Project Title: Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project

Project Location: The project is located at 400 More Avenue in the Town of Los Gatos,
within the western portion of Santa Clara County in Northern California (refer to Figure 3-
1). The proposed project is located entirely within the existing approximately 39-acre
Rinconada Water Treatment Plant (RWTP) facility. The RWTP lies within a residential
area bounded by More Avenue to the west, Granada Way to the north, the La Rinconada
County Club and Smith Creek to the east, residential uses to the southeast, and the
Rinconada and San Jose Water Company enclosed reservoirs to the south. The project
site is located on Assessor's Parcel Numbers 407-34-002, 407-34-003, and 407-10-007.

Project Description: The District proposes to improve the existing water treatment train at
the aging Rinconada Water Treatment Plant (RWTP) to improve drinking water quality and
reliability of operations. The Project proposes demolition/removal of many of the existing
treatment facilities and processes and reconstruction of a new state-of-the-art water
treatment facility within the existing water treatment plant property, while keeping the plant
running at all times. The four principal modifications to the RWTP are as follows:

1) Addition of raw water ozonation facilities and processes;

2) Replacement of the existing water clarification process/facilities with conventional
flocculation and sedimentation processes with plate settlers;
3) Removal and replacement of the water process filters; and
4) Increase in plant capacity from 80 million gallons per day (mgd) to a maximum of
100 mgd to provide an increase in peaking capacity for plant reliability.

In plain terms, the project is the systematic tear down of much of the existing steel and
concrete structures (old water treatment facilities and processes) to reconstruct a new
state-of-the-art water treatment facility on the existing water treatment plant property, while
keeping the plant running at all times. The project includes the onsite temporary conversion
of the lower sludge drying bed to a construction staging area and the offsite-temporary
addition of adjacent parking through a lease agreement with San Jose Water Company to
add 30-50 construction worker parking spaces during construction. The project includes
green development features such as solar panels, a truck tire-wash (to keep trucks from
tracking soil into the streets during construction), and recycling of construction/demolition
debris (minimum 50% ).

Construction duration is expected to last five to seven years due to phasing and
requirements to keep the plant running during construction. Construction is slated to start
in 2015.
 Page 2 of 2

This is to advise that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has approved the above
•
. I
described project on 01/27/2015, and has made the following determinations regarding
the above described project:

1. The project ~ will, D will not, have a significant effect on the environment.
2. ~ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the
provisions of CEQA

3. Mitigation measures ~ were, D were not made a condition of the approval of the
project.

4. A statement of Overriding Considerations ~ was, D was not adopted for this project.
5. Findings ~ were, D were not made pursuant to the provision of CEQA.

This is to certify that the final Environmental Impact Report with comments and responses
and record of project approval is available to the General Public at:
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118

Date Received for Filing and Posting at OPR:

Title: Date:
CEO I rze;'/5

Fife#: 19146 1/29/2015

RINCONADA WATER TREATMENT PLANT
RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Final Environmental Impact Report

SCH# 2014012012
Project# 93294057
January 2015

Prepared for

Santa Clara Valley

Water District

Denise Duīy &

Associates, Inc.
 RINCONADA WATER TREATMENT PLANT
RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Final Environmental Impact Report

Project No. 93294057
SCH No. 2014012012

January 2015

Prepared for:
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, California 95118-3614

Contact Person:
Michael F. Coleman, AICP
Environmental Planner
[email protected]
(408) 630-3096

District Board of Directors

Dennis Kennedy District 1 Nai Hsueh, Chair District 5

Barbara Keegan District 2 Tony Estremera, Chair District 6
Richard P. Santos District 3 Gary Kremen District 7
Linda J. LeZotte District 4
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Authorization...........................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report..........................................................1-1
1.3 Decision to Prepare an EIR for this Project .............................................................1-1
1.4 Public Review Process ...........................................................................................1-2
1.5 Interagency Collaboration and Regulatory Review .................................................1-3
1.6 Organization of this Document ................................................................................1-3
2. Summary...........................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Summary of Project Description..............................................................................2-1
2.3 Alternatives Evaluated in this EIR ...........................................................................2-2
2.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ......................................................................2-2
2.5 Summary of Project Impacts ...................................................................................2-3
3. Project Description ..........................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Project Location and Area.......................................................................................3-1
3.2 Project Background ................................................................................................3-1
3.3 Project Overview ....................................................................................................3-1
3.4 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................3-2
3.5 Project Characteristics ............................................................................................3-5
3.6 Required Permits and Approvals ..........................................................................3-27
3.7 Intended Use of EIR .............................................................................................3-28
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures .........................................4.0-1
4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................4.1-1
4.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources .......................................................................4.2-1
4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................4.3-1
4.4 Biological Resources ...........................................................................................4.4-1
4.5 Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................4.5-1
4.6 Geotechnical and Geological Hazards .................................................................4.6-1
4.7 Greenhouse Gases..............................................................................................4.7-1
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................4.8-1
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...............................................................................4.9-1
4.10 Land Use and Planning .....................................................................................4.10-1
4.11 Noise .................................................................................................................4.11-1
4.12 Public Services ..................................................................................................4.12-1
4.13 Traffic and Circulation ........................................................................................4.13-1
4.14 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................4.14-1
5. CEQA Considerations ......................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Growth Inducement ................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................5-4
5.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ...........................................................................5-14
5.4 Effects Found Not to be Significant .......................................................................5-14
6. Alternatives ......................................................................................................................6-1
6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................6-1
6.2 Summary of Project Objectives and Significant Impacts .........................................6-2
6.3 Alternatives Analysis ...............................................................................................6-3
6.4 No Project .............................................................................................................6-17

i Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 Table of Contents

6.5 Reduced Project ...................................................................................................6-17

6.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative ....................................................................6-20
7. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ..............................................................7-1
8. References ........................................................................................................................8-1
8.1 Report Preparation .................................................................................................8-1
8.2 Persons and Agencies Contacted ...........................................................................8-1
8.3 Literature Cited .......................................................................................................8-1

List of Figures
Figure 3-1 Location Map .................................................................................................3-3
Figure 3-2 Revised Aerial ................................................................................................3-4
Figure 3-3 Existing RWTP Facilities ................................................................................3-6
Figure 3-4 Site Plan .....................................................................................................3-11
Figure 3-5 Rendering of Proposed Improvements ........................................................3-13
Figure 4.1-1a Site Photos .................................................................................................4.1-2
Figure 4.1-1b Site Photos .................................................................................................4.1-3
Figure 4.1-2 Rendering of Proposed RWTP Improvements.............................................4.1-7
Figure 4.1-3 Viewpoints Map ...........................................................................................4.1-9
Figure 4.1-4a Viewpoint 1: More Avenue Main Entrance (Existing) .................................4.1-10
Figure 4.1-4b Viewpoint 1: More Avenue Main Entrance (Project) ..................................4.1-11
Figure 4.1-5a Viewpoint 2: Lower More Avenue (Existing) ..............................................4.1-12
Figure 4.1-5b Viewpoint 2: Lower More Avenue (Project with Mature Landscaping) .......4.1-13
Figure 4.1-6a Viewpoint 3: Granada Way/Capistrano Place (Existing) ............................4.1-14
Figure 4.1-6b Viewpoint 3: Granada Way/Capistrano Place (Project) .............................4.1-15
Figure 4.1-6c Viewpoint 3: Granada Way/Capistrano Place
(Project with Mature Landscaping) ............................................................4.1-16
Figure 4.3-1 Sensitive Receptors ..................................................................................4.3-18
Figure 4.4-1 Revised Habitat Map ...................................................................................4.4-3
Figure 4.4-2 Revised Valley Oak Woodland Impacts.....................................................4.4-16
Figure 4.4-3A-L Trees to be Removed................................................................................4.4-33
Figure 4.11-1 Noise Measurement Locations ..................................................................4.11-3
Figure 4.11-2 Unmitigated Operational Noise Contours ................................................ 4.11-10
Figure 4.11-3 Locations of Primary Noise Generating Construction Activities ............... 4.11-13
Figure 4.11-4 Temporary Sound Barriers ...................................................................... 4.11-20
Figure 4.13-1 Project Roadway Network and Study Locations ........................................4.13-2
Figure 4.13-2 Quito Bridge Detour ..................................................................................4.13-6
Figure 4.13-3 Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes ....................................4.13-8
Figure 4.13-4 Trip Distribution Patterns ......................................................................... 4.13-14
Figure 4.13-5 Truck Routes and Project Scenario Traffic Volumes ............................... 4.13-15
Figure 4.13-6 Proposed Parking Areas ......................................................................... 4.13-22
Figure 6-1 Alternative 1 Site Plan ....................................................................................6-5
Figure 6-2 Alternative 2 Site Plan ....................................................................................6-6
Figure 6-3 Alternative 3 Site Plan ....................................................................................6-7
Figure 6-4 Alternative 4 Site Plan ....................................................................................6-8
Figure 6-5 Alternative 5 Site Plan ....................................................................................6-9
Figure 6-6 Alternative 6 / Reduced Project Site Plan .....................................................6-10
Figure 6-7 Comparison of Engineering Alternatives ......................................................6-11

ii Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation .........................2-4

Table 3-1 Summary of Proposed Facilities......................................................................3-14
Table 3-2 New Chemical Feed System Storage Capacities ............................................3-23
Table 4.3-1 Criteria Pollutants...........................................................................................4.3-3
Table 4.3-2 Highest Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations .............................................4.3-4
Table 4.3-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards .......................................................................4.3-7
Table 4.3-4 Air Quality Significance Thresholds ..............................................................4.3-12
Table 4.3-5 Emissions Estimates for Proposed Diesel Generator Engines .....................4.3-13
Table 4.3-6 Construction Phase & Equipment Data ........................................................4.3-15
Table 4.3-7 Construction Phase & Activity Data ..............................................................4.3-15
Table 4.3-8 Construction Parameters .............................................................................4.3-16
Table 4.3-9 Construction Period Emissions ....................................................................4.3-16
Table 4.4-1 Trees to be Removed ..................................................................................4.4-20
Table 4.6-1 Results of Soil Borings ...................................................................................4.6-1
Table 4.6-2 Proposed Grading Quantities .........................................................................4.6-7
Table 4.7-1 Construction Period GHG Emissions .............................................................4.7-6
Table 4.8-1 Existing and Proposed Hazardous Materials Use...........................................4.8-2
Table 4.11-1 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data......................................4.11-4
Table 4.11-2 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria .......................................................4.11-5
Table 4.11-3 Los Gatos Town Outdoor Limits ...................................................................4.11-6
Table 4.11-4 Construction Phases/Equipment ................................................................ 4.11-14
Table 4.11-5 Typical Ranges of Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet, dBA Leq ............ 4.11-15
Table 4.11-6 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Limits (at 50 feet) ....................... 4.11-16
Table 4.11-7 Calculated Construction Noise Levels for Each Phase of Construction ...... 4.11-17
Table 4.11-8 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ................................. 4.11-22
Table 4.13-1 Existing Intersection Levels of Service .........................................................4.13-7
Table 4.13-2 Project Trip Generation .............................................................................. 4.13-13
Table 4.14-1 Historic Energy Intensity ..............................................................................4.14-7
Table 4.14-2 Additional Electrical Requirements...............................................................4.14-7
Table 5-1 Cumulative Projects List....................................................................................5-6
Table 6-1 Principal Advantages/Disadvantages of Alternative Treatment Trains.............6-12

Attachments

1. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Appendices (on CD)

A. Responses to Notice of Preparation (NOP)

B. Air Quality Calculations
C. Biological Evaluation
D. Tree Surveys
E. Geotechnical Investigation
F. Noise Assessment
G. Traffic Study

iii Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 Table of Contents

List of Acronyms

ACM asbestos containing material

AF acre feet
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMP Best Management Practice
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CBC California Building Code
CalEEMod California Emission Estimator Model
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
cfs cubic feet per second
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents
dB decibels
dBA decibels on A-weighted scale
District Santa Clara Valley Water District
DHS California Department of Health Services
DNL Day-Night Noise Level
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substance Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
GHG greenhouse gas
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
LID Low Impact Development
LOS level of service
LOX liquid oxygen
mgd millon gallons per day
MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether
MT metric ton
NAAQS National Air Quality Standards
NESHAPS National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
N2O nitrous oxide
NOx nitrogen oxides
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
O3 ozone

iv Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 Table of Contents

PCB polychlorinated biphenyls

PM particulate matter
ppm parts per million
REL reference exposure level
ROG reactive organic gases
RWTP Rinconada Water Treatment Plant
RWQCB San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCCDEH Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health
SCCFD Santa Clara County Fire Department
SCVURPPP Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District (or District)
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SJWC San Jose Water Company
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SWCB State Water Control Board
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
Ug microgram
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USGS United States Geologic Survey
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
Vdb vibration decibels
VOC volatile organic compound
VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

v Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 Table of Contents

Key Terminology

Beneficial Impact: A project impact is considered beneficial if it would result in the

enhancement or improvement of an existing physical condition in the environment – no
mitigation is required.

Best Management Practices: These practices, typically derived from standardized District
operating procedures, have been identified as methods, activities, procedures, or other
management practices for the avoidance or minimization of potential adverse environmental
effects.

Significance Criteria: A set of criteria used by the lead agency to determine whether an impact
would be considered significant. The District relied upon the significance criteria set forth in the
CEQA Guidelines and criteria based on the regulatory standards of local, state and federal
agencies.

Less-than-Significant Impact: This is indicated in the EIR where the impact does not reach
the standard of significance set for that topic and the project would, therefore, would not result in
a substantial change in the environment - no mitigation is required.

Potentially Significant Impact: An environmental effect that may cause a substantial adverse
change in the environment; however additional information is needed regarding the extent of the
impact to make a determination of significance. For the purposes of review such are treated as
if significant and mitigation measures are identified.

Significant Impact: An impact that would likely result in a substantial adverse change in the
physical conditions of the environment. Mitigation measures and/or project alternatives are
identified to avoid or reduce these effects to the environment.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation includes: a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a
certain action or parts of an action; b) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of
the action and its implementation; c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring
the impacted environment; d) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action; and, e) compensating for the impact by
replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

vi Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 1.0 Introduction

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Authorization
This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Rinconada Water Treatment
Plant (RWTP) Reliability Improvement Project (project), prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 and CEQA Guidelines, as amended. This
EIR has been prepared by Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc. (DD&A) for the Santa Clara Valley
Water District as the “Lead Agency,” in consultation with the appropriate local, regional and
state agencies.

The project includes a broad range of improvements to the RWTP, all within the existing plant
boundaries. The main objective of the project is to upgrade the existing RWTP to ensure the
reliability of the plant’s operation and meet stringent drinking water standards.1

1.2 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report

The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District), acting as the Lead Agency, has prepared this
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to provide the public, responsible agencies, and
trustee agencies with information about the potential environmental effects of the proposed
Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project (proposed project).

This EIR was prepared consistent with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code
of Regulations 15000 et seq.), and District procedures for implementation of CEQA
(Environmental Management System - Environmental Planning Q520D01). CEQA requires that
public agencies such as the District evaluate and consider environmental impacts of a project
that it is proposing to undertake or fund before it approves the project. Beneficial impacts should
be encouraged and expanded where possible and adverse impacts should be avoided or
minimized, or mitigated in cases where avoidance and minimization are not possible.

In addition to acting as the CEQA Lead Agency for its projects, the District’s mission includes
objectives to conduct its activities in an environmentally sensitive manner as a steward of Santa
Clara Valley watersheds. The District strives to preserve the natural qualities, scenic beauty and
recreational uses of Santa Clara Valley’s waterways by using methods that reflect an ongoing
commitment to conserving the environment.

1.3 Decision to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report for

this Project
The CEQA Guidelines require preparation of an EIR when a Lead Agency determines that there
is evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The District has
determined that the project may have a significant impact on the physical environment, and has
decided to prepare an EIR to provide full disclosure of environmental effects and give ample

1
For disinfection, disinfection by-products, and constituents that could be regulated under the Candidate
Contaminant List. Further details are provided in the planning study for the project (Planning Study
Report - Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project, CDM Smith, May 2012).

1-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 1.0 Introduction

opportunity for public disclosure and public participation in the planning and decision making
process.

1.4 Public Review Process

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project was circulated to interested agencies and
organizations for the required 30-day review period from January 6, 2014 to February 5, 2014.
The responses to the NOP are contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.

The This Draft EIR was will be circulated for agency and public review during a 45-day public
review period. The Draft EIR will commenced the 45-day public review period per CEQA
Guidelines §15105(b) from September 26, 2014 to November 10, 2014. The review period
was extended and closed on December 8, 2014. Comments received by the District on the Draft
EIR were will be reviewed and responses to comments are will be provided in this the Final EIR.

Please refer to Attachment 1, which contains all comment letters received on the Draft EIR,
responses to the comments, and text/figure revisions. All revisions are also incorporated into
this Final EIR, with additions shown in underline and deletions shown in strike out.

State law requires that a public agency adopt a monitoring program for mitigation measures that
have been incorporated into the approved project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the
environment. The purpose of the monitoring program is to ensure compliance with
environmental mitigation during project implementation and operation. A Mitigation Monitoring &
Reporting Program is included in Section 7.0 of this EIR.

The Final EIR, along with all comments and supporting information, will be considered by the
District Board of Directors prior to their making a decision on the project. The District must
certify that it has reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR and that the Final
EIR has been completed in conformity with the requirements of CEQA.

The Draft and Final EIRs and supporting documents are available for review at:

Santa Clara Valley Water District

Headquarters Building
5700 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118

Copies of the report are available for review at:

Los Gatos Public Library

110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030

1-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 1.0 Introduction

The Draft and Final EIRs are is also posted on the District website: http://www.valleywater.org,
or can be obtained via written request for a copy from the District. Written comments or
questions regarding the Draft EIR should be submitted to the name and address indicated
below:

Michael F. Coleman, AICP

Environmental Planner
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118-3614
Phone: (408) 630-3096
[email protected]

1.5 Interagency Collaboration and Regulatory Review

The CEQA review process is intended to provide both trustee and responsible agencies with an
opportunity to provide input into the project. Trustee agencies are state agencies that have
authority by law for the protection of natural resources held in trust for the public. Responsible
agencies are those that have some responsibility or authority for carrying out or approving a
project; in many instances these public agencies must make a discretionary decision to issue a
local permit, provide right-of-way, funding or resources that are critical to the project’s
proceeding. For this project, the Town of Los Gatos and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) are considered responsible agencies and the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is considered a trustee agency. The District will work
with the Town of Los Gatos, RWQCB, and CDFW to ensure that the proposed project satisfies
applicable policies and requirements.

1.6 Organization of this Document

This document is organized to assist the reader in understanding the potential impacts that the
project may have on the environment and to fulfill the requirements of CEQA. The report is
organized into the following chapters:

Chapter 1. Introduction outlines the EIR purpose, public review process, and report format.

Chapter 2. Summary provides a summary of the project, its impacts, and identified mitigation
measures. Table 2-1 summarizes the project’s impacts, mitigation measures, and level of
impact significance after mitigation.

Chapter 3. Project Description describes the proposed project, its objectives, background, and
characteristics as well as the approvals necessary for project implementation.

Chapter 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures describes the existing
conditions and environmental setting before project implementation, the potential impacts
resulting from the project, and mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce significant
environmental impacts.

Chapter 5. CEQA Considerations discusses the long-term implications of the project including
unavoidable adverse impacts, significant irreversible impacts, and growth inducement.

1-3 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 1.0 Introduction

Chapter 6. Alternatives provides a discussion of alternatives to the proposed project.

Chapter 7. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program identifies the mitigation measures, and
the responsibility, timing, and reporting of these measures.

Chapter 8. References provides a bibliography of all reference sources and persons contacted
during preparation of the EIR.

1-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

2.0 Summary
2.1 Introduction
This summary provides a description of the proposed project, project alternatives, significant
impacts, and mitigation measures identified during the environmental analysis. Responsibility for
implementation of mitigation measures lies with the District unless otherwise noted. This
summary is intended as an overview and should be used in conjunction with a thorough reading
of the EIR. The text of this report, including figures, tables, and appendices, serves as the basis
for this summary.

2.2 Summary of Project Description

The Rinconada Water Treatment Plant (RWTP) is located on approximately 39 acres at 400
More Avenue in the Town of Los Gatos. The RWTP is the oldest of the Santa Clara Valley
Water District’s water treatment plants constructed in 1968 and has numerous plant
components nearing the end of their useful lives. In addition, water quality and code
requirements for potable water treatment have become more stringent, requiring that the RWTP
be upgraded to ensure the reliability of its operation and product water quality. The District
proposes to improve the existing water treatment processes and facilities at the RWTP through
four principal modifications:

1) Addition of raw water ozonation facilities and processes;

2) Replacement of the existing water clarification process/facilities with conventional
flocculation and sedimentation processes with plate settlers;
3) Removal and replacement of the water process filters; and
4) Increase in plant capacity from 80 million gallons per day (mgd) to a maximum of 100 mgd
to provide an increase in peaking capacity for plant reliability.

The major facility elements of the project are detailed in Chapter 3.0 Project Description. In plain
terms, the project is the systematic tear down of much of the existing steel and concrete
structures (old water treatment facilities and processes) to reconstruct a new state-of-the-art
water treatment facility on the existing water treatment plant property, while keeping the plant
running at all times. The project includes the onsite temporary conversion of one of the sludge
drying beds to a construction staging area and the offsite-temporary addition of adjacent parking
through a lease agreement with San Jose Water Company to add 30-50 construction worker
parking spaces during construction. The project includes green development features such as
solar panels, a truck tire-wash (to keep trucks from tracking soil into the streets during
construction), and recycling of construction and demolition debris (50% level).

Construction is expected to last five to seven years due to phasing and requirements to keep
the plant running during construction. Construction is slated to start in 2015.

2-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

2.3 Alternatives Evaluated in this EIR

In compliance with CEQA, the EIR evaluates the comparative advantages and disadvantages of
project alternatives. The alternatives considered in this EIR are summarized below.

No Project Alternative. No Project Alternative represents the “no build” scenario in which the
site is left in its current condition (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)) and the existing
treatment plant continues to operate in its current configuration and capacity. The No Project
Alternative would avoid all of the environmental impacts of the proposed project, including the
significant unavoidable noise impacts during construction. However, the No Project Alternative
would fail to meet the project objectives to provide upgrades to an aging water treatment facility
intended to improve drinking water quality and ensure reliable service. The treatment plant
would remain vulnerable to probable seismic events disrupting service and would also be at risk
in its ability to meet regulatory requirements and future projected demand.

Reduced Project Alternative. The Planning Study for the Rinconada Water Treatment Plant
Reliability Improvement Project evaluated six alternative treatment options on the site. For the
purposes of CEQA, Alternative 6 of the Planning Study was selected as the Reduced Project
Alternative because it maintains and refurbishes the four existing upflow clarifiers on the site
and reduces demolition activities. By requiring less demolition, the Reduced Project could
possibly reduce noise and air pollutant emissions associated with demolition and decrease
vehicle trips required to remove construction debris.

The Reduced Project Alternative would meet the basic objective of the project to provide reliable
water supply. Although this alternative could somewhat reduce environmental impacts
associated with reduced demolition, it would still result in significant and unavoidable noise
impacts during construction. In addition, it has many disadvantages compared to the proposed
project, including frequent shutdowns, diminished plant capacity during construction staging,
and more complex operations.

2.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative

CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project be specified,
if one is identified. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is intended to minimize
adverse impacts to the project site and surrounding environment while achieving the basic
objectives of the project. The "No Project" alternative could be considered the environmentally
superior alternative because adverse impacts associated with project construction and
operation would be avoided. However, CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(2) states that if the
environmentally superior alternative is the No Project alternative, “the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.”

Given the nature of the project, which consists of upgrades to an aging water treatment facility
to improve drinking water quality and reliability, few alternatives are available that would meet
the project’s most basic objectives. An alternative location is not feasible. The Planning Study
evaluated six options for upgrading the RWTP. The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce
the proposed project’s impacts related to demolition noise and dust by maintaining the existing
clarifiers. Although it would meet the basic project objectives, it has higher operational
difficulties and would require long shutdown periods and diminished plant capacity during
construction staging than the project. In light of the constrained project location within a
residential neighborhood, alternatives for reducing the unavoidable construction noise impacts

2-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

of the project to a less-than-significant level are not available. The proposed improvements to
the RWTP are critical to providing quality drinking water with reliable service. For the reasons
presented above, there does not appear to be an environmentally superior alternative to the
proposed project. Extensive study of possible alternative designs identified the project as the
best option for meeting the District’s objectives for upgrading the RWTP.

2.5 Summary of Project Impacts

A summary of significant project impacts and mitigation measures are provided in Table 2-1 on
the following pages. Mitigation measures have been identified to either avoid the impact or
reduce the level of significance. The significance after mitigation implementation is noted within
the table.

2-3 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

Revised Table 2-1

Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
4.1 Aesthetics

No significant impacts. None required. N/A

4.2 Agricultural Resources

No significant impacts. None required. N/A

4.3 Air Quality

The project would expose existing sensitive AIR-1 The District shall implement BAAQMD Recommended Best Less-than-Significant
receptors to substantial fine particle pollutant Control Measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions during
concentrations generated during construction construction and include in the plans and specifications. These
of the project as described above. To reduce measures are as follows:
the potentially significant air quality impacts of  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas,
the project during construction, the District soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall
would implement the mitigation measures be watered two or more times per day;
below. These mitigation measures are intended  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose
to minimize fugitive dust to protect the health material off-site shall be covered;
and safety of nearby sensitive receptors.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads
shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers
at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited;
 All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15
mph;
 All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall
be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be
laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or
soil binders are used;
 Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum
idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of
California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be

2-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

Revised Table 2-1

Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
provided for construction workers at all access points;
 All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition
prior to operation; and
 A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone
number and person to contact at the District regarding dust
complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective
action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number
shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
 In addition to the BAAQMD measures above, all haul trucks
will go through the proposed built-in tire wash at the plant
before exiting to the public street.
4.4 Biological Resources

Construction of the project would potentially BIO-1 Not more than seven (7) thirty (30) days prior to the start of Less-than-Significant
impact special-status wildlife species through construction (including vegetation removal) on the project site,
direct disturbance to individuals, habitat the District biologist or a qualified biologist retained by the
modification, and/or disturbance to active
District shall conduct a survey of the project site to locate
nests. Special-status species that may be
impacted by valley oak woodland removal, as existing SFDFW nests. All SFDFW nests shall be mapped and
well as other construction activities within and flagged for avoidance. Graphics depicting all SFDFW nests
adjacent to valley oak woodland habitat include shall be provided to the District. Any SFDFW nests that cannot
the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat be avoided shall be relocated according to the following
(SFDFW), nesting raptors, and other protected procedures. The District shall submit a woodrat nest relocation
avian species. Construction of the project in plan to CDFW for review prior to any nest relocation activities.
proximity to the drying beds may impact
All personnel conducting relocation activities shall wear safety
western pond turtles. These impacts are
considered potentially significant, since gear during nest relocation activities.
construction of the project could result in direct
impacts to these special-status species. Areas within the valley oak woodland habitat that are outside of
the proposed impact area shall be identified prior to the
relocation process. These shall be referred to as the SFDFW

2-5 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

Revised Table 2-1

Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
mitigation area. Large woody material, if present, shall be
relocated from areas within the valley oak woodland, where
impacts are expected, to the SFDFW mitigation areas. After
large woody material has been relocated to the SFDFW
mitigation areas, all understory vegetation shall be cleared
within the areas where impacts are expected (but the nests
should not be removed at this stage). Relocation of nest
material shall commence only after the large woody debris and
understory has been removed.

After all cover (except the nests themselves) has been

removed, each active nest shall be disturbed by the District
biologist or a qualified biologist retained by the District) to the
degree that SFDFW leave the nest and seek refuge elsewhere.
After the nests have been disturbed, the nest sticks shall be
removed from the impact areas and piled at the base of newly
placed large woody material within the SFDFW mitigation area.
Nests shall be dismantled during the non-breeding season
(between October 1 and December 31), if possible. If a litter of
young is found or suspected, nest material shall be replaced
and the nest left alone for 2-3 weeks, after this time the nest
would be rechecked to verify that young are capable of
independent survival before proceeding with nest dismantling.
The spacing distance between the newly placed piles of sticks
shall not be fewer than 25 feet from each other.

BIO-2 Prior to construction activities, the District biologist or a

qualified biologist retained by the District shall conduct an
Employee Education Program for the construction crew. The
biologist shall meet with the construction crew at the project
site at the onset of each construction phase to educate the
construction crew on the following:

1) A review of the project boundaries;

2-6 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

Revised Table 2-1

Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
2) The special-status species that may be present, their
habitat, and proper identification;
3) The specific mitigation measures that would be
incorporated into the construction effort,
4) The general provisions and protections afforded by the
USFWS and the CDFW, and;
5) The proper procedures if a special-status animal is
encountered within the project site as determined by
the District biologist or a qualified biologist retained by
the District.

BIO-3 Construction activities, including ground disturbance and tree

removal, that may affect nesting birds shall be timed to avoid
the nesting season. Specifically, tree removal shall be
scheduled after September 15 and before January 31 15 or at
the discretion of the District biologist or a qualified biologist
retained by the District. Alternatively, if construction activities or
tree removal are to occur during the breeding season (February
1 January 15 through September 15), the District shall conduct
surveys for active nests no more than 30 14 days prior to
construction, and a lapse in construction related activities 15
days or longer will require another preconstruction nesting
survey. If nesting birds are identified during the pre-
construction surveys, a buffer shall be imposed within which no
construction activities or disturbance shall take place until the
young of the year have fledged and are no longer reliant upon
the nest or parental care for survival. The size of the buffer
shall be determined by the District biologist or a qualified
biologist retained by the District, dependent on the species and
site conditions. The biologist must be onsite at a frequency
required to ensure that nesting birds are not disturbed by
Project activities and that nest abandonment or other
potentially significant impacts do not occur. The biologist shall
have the authority to halt project activities or increase the size

2-7 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

Revised Table 2-1

Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
of the buffer, if necessary to prevent or minimize impacts.

BIO-4 Prior to beginning construction or staging activities in the

proximity of the drying beds, the District biologist or other
qualified biologist selected by the District, shall perform a site
inspection for western pond turtles. If pond turtle(s) are found in
the pre-construction survey or encountered while conducting
construction activities the affected turtles shall be relocated
outside the construction area and into suitable habitat and a
barrier system shall be installed and maintained around the
affected construction area.
The project would impact approximately 1.92 BIO-5 Prior to construction, the District, with the guidance of a District Less-than-Significant
acres of valley oak woodland habitat, a approved biologist and arborist, shall develop an Oak
sensitive habitat. The removal of vegetation Woodland Mitigation Management Plan to be implemented by
within the valley oak woodland habitat resulting the District. This Mitigation Management Plan would will
from project construction is considered a incorporate the guidelines of the SCVHP Condition 14, Santa
potentially significant impact. The District would Clara County Planning Office’s “Guide to Evaluating Oak
implement the following mitigation measure to Woodlands Impacts, the Town of Los Gatos Tree Preservation
reduce the project impacts on valley oak Ordinance, and the recommendations of the arborist reports
woodland. contained in Appendix D (HortScience), to the extent
applicable and feasible. Details of the Oak Woodland Mitigation
Management Plan would will include the following at a
minimum:

 Description of applicable guidelines from the sources listed

above SCVHP, Santa Clara County Planning Office’s
“Guide to Evaluating Oak Woodlands Impacts”, the Town
of Los Gatos Tree Preservation Ordinance, and
HortScience arborist reports;
 Construction of temporary project access points as close
as possible to the work area to minimize necessity for tree
removal;
 Mitigation for tree removals at a the ratios listed below of at
least 1:1;

2-8 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

Revised Table 2-1

Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
 Tree replacement timing and amount of tree replacement;
 Size of replacement trees;
 Species selection;
 Tree densities and spacing;
 Enhanced habitat in the proposed restoration areas
through the salvage and redistribution of coarse woody
debris;
 Implementation, maintenance, and monitoring plans, and
performance and success criteria.
 Tree protection measures for remaining trees, including,
o Aligning roads and pathways outside of tree root
protection zone whenever possible;
o Conducting pruning during winter dormant period for
valley and blue oaks, under the supervision of a
District approved arborist;
o Minimizing trenching for utility lines and other purposes
within root protection zones; and
 Off-site mitigation or in lieu fee payment, if necessary.

Mitigation Ratios for Native Trees. The District will mitigate for
its removal of native trees by one of two options as described
below.

 Under Option 1, mitigation ratios for native trees will be

calculated based on the following mitigation ratios.

Tree Replacement Ratios for Oak Woodland Restoration

(Option 1)
Replacement Ratio
Size of Tree Removed (number of trees replaced to
(dbh, in inches)1 number of trees removed)
<6 3:1
6–18 4:1

2-9 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

Revised Table 2-1

Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
>18 6:1
1
Diameter at breast height (dbh) is defined as the diameter of the
tree at breast height, or the diameter of the tree at 54 inches above
existing grade.

 Under Option 2, mitigation ratios will be based on the

canopy approach in Table 3-1 of the Town of Los Gatos
Tree Protection Ordinance. These ratios increase the
number and size of replacement trees based on the
canopy size of the removed tree.

Mitigation for Non-native Trees. To mitigate for non-native trees

(ornamentals) the District will pay impact fees to the Town of
Los Gatos as described in the Town of Los Gatos Tree
Protection Ordinance. Non-native tree replacement ratios will
be based on tree canopy size measured as the maximum
distance across the canopy. The mitigation ratios would range
from 3:1 to 6:1.

Tree Protection Measures. The Oak Woodland Mitigation Plan

will incorporate a variety of tree protection measures, including
those set forth in the arborist reports. These measures will
include:

 Aligning roads and pathways outside of tree root protection

zone whenever possible;
 Minimizing trenching for utility lines and other purposes
within root protection zones;
 Using stem wrap to minimize damage to tree trunks;
 Avoiding stockpiling of materials within the tree critical root
zones;
 Using high visibility fencing around the tree critical root
zones to minimize root compaction that otherwise would be
caused by parking of vehicles or equipment on top of or

2-10 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

Revised Table 2-1

Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
near these root zones;
 Conducting pruning during winter dormant period for valley
and blue oaks, under the supervision of a District approved
arborist.
Removal of trees in the valley oak woodland See Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-3 above. Less-than-Significant
habitat could result in significant impacts to
SFDFW through individual mortality, nest
destruction, and nest abandonment. In
addition, removal of trees in the valley oak
woodland habitat could result in significant
impacts to raptors and other protected avian
species through individual mortality, nest
destruction, and nest abandonment.
All of the trees to be removed are defined as Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would require the development and Less-than-Significant
protected by the Town of Los Gatos Ordinance implementation of an Oak Woodland Mitigation Management Plan. This
(Section 2114) and require a permit for removal Plan would incorporate the requirements of the Los Gatos Tree
as well as replacement or payment to the Town Ordinance.
Forestry Fund.

4.5 Cultural Resources

The project could disturb archaeological CR-1 If, during the course of project construction, archaeological Less-than-Significant
resources and/or human remains if resources or human remains are encountered during
encountered during construction, which construction, the District shall halt work within 20 feet of the find
represents a significant impact. until a qualified professional archaeologist can evaluate it.
Work shall not recommence until the project archaeologist has
submitted documentation to the District (as CEQA lead Agency)
and Town of Los Gatos indicating that discovered resources
have been adequately salvaged and no further resources have
been identified within the area of disturbance.

CR-2 Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and
Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of
California, in the event of the discovery of human remains

2-11 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

Revised Table 2-1

Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
during construction, the District shall discontinue further
excavation or disturbance on the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa
Clara County Coroner shall be notified and make a
determination as to whether the remains are Native American.
If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to
his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission who shall attempt to identify descendants of the
deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be
reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this
State law, then the District shall be responsible for insuring re-
interment of human remains and items associated with Native
American burials on the property in a location not subject to
further subsurface disturbance.
4.6 Geotechnical and Geological Hazards

No significant impacts. None required. N/A

4.7 Greenhouse Gases

No significant impacts. None required. N/A

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Demolition of existing buildings and structures HAZ-1 The District shall retain a qualified professional to perform the Less-than-Significant
could result in the release of asbestos and following before and during demolition activities:
lead-based paint, posing a risk to the 1. Test for and remove all potentially friable asbestos-
environment and public health. This represents containing materials in accordance with National Emissions
a potentially significant impact. Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation
activities that may disturb the materials. All demolition
activities must be undertaken in accordance with
Cal/OSHA standards contained in Title 8 of the California
Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect
workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing

2-12 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

Revised Table 2-1

Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
more than one percent asbestos are also subject to Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
regulations.
2. During demolition activities, all building materials
containing lead-based paint shall be removed in
accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard,
Title 8, California Code of Regulations 1532.1. Required
safety measures shall be adhered to, including employee
training and employee air monitoring and dust control. Any
debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings shall
be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for
the waste being disposed.
3. During demolition activities, a qualified professional shall
inspect all potential sources of PCBs and remove and
dispose of them in accordance with all regulatory
requirements.
4.9 Hydrology & Water Quality

No significant impacts. None required. N/A

4.10 Land Use and Planning

No significant impacts. None required. N/A

4.11 Noise

Operation of the RWTP with the proposed NSE-1 Final project design plans and specifications shall incorporate Less-than-Significant
improvements in place would result in exposure noise control measures to reduce operational noise levels to 43
of persons (nearby residents) to noise levels in dBA Leq (Town of Los Gatos’ noise limit for weekend nighttime
excess of standards established by the Town of hours) or less at all adjacent residential property lines. Possible
Los Gatos. Operational noise would also result noise control measures include the use of a combination of
in a significant permanent increase in noise parapet walls, enclosures/housing for noisier equipment,
levels above the existing noise level at some selection of ‘quiet’ equipment, locating enclosure openings,
residences along Capistrano Place/Granada venting, etc., away from residences, and/or the construction of
Way. This represents a significant impact. noise barriers. The District shall retain a qualified acoustical

2-13 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

Revised Table 2-1

Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
consultant to prepare and implement the recommendations of a
project-level noise analysis based on the final design plans, to
identify the specific controls necessary to reduce operational
noise levels to 43 dBA Leq or less. The District would perform
post-construction noise monitoring one time after the project is
completed to ensure compliance with the Town of Los Gatos’
noise limit at the closest residential property line. Additional
noise controls would be implemented as necessary to reduce
noise levels to 43 dBA or less if the results of the noise
measurements show that operational noise levels exceed the
limit.
Construction of the project would substantially NSE-2 The District shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to Significant
increase noise levels in the surrounding develop a Construction Noise Mitigation Plan, and include it in Unavoidable Impact
residential area, resulting in a temporary the final construction plans and specifications The District shall
increase in ambient noise levels. This also retain a qualified acoustical consultant to be on-call during
represents a significant impact. Onsite the construction phase to assist the contractor in complying
construction activities and construction traffic and adaptively responding to any noise issues that may arise.
would cause significant temporary noise The Construction Noise Mitigation Plan shall incorporate the
increases at nearby sensitive receptors for a following controls to reduce construction noise levels:
period of 5-7 years.
 Indicate the requirement to minimize construction noise
impacts at pre-bid conferences. Potential contractors
should be requested to submit information on their noise
management procedures, and to demonstrate a successful
track record of construction noise management on prior
projects.
 Construct or utilize temporary noise barriers (ready-made
solutions by the acoustical industry or constructed onsite by
the contractor) to shield on-site construction and concrete
demolition noise from nearby receptors. To be most
effective, the barrier should be placed as close as possible
to the noise source or the sensitive receptor. Examples of
barriers include portable acoustically lined
enclosure/housing for specific equipment (e.g.,

2-14 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

Revised Table 2-1

Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
jackhammer and pneumatic-air tools, which generate the
loudest noise), temporary noise barriers (e.g., solid
plywood fences or portable panel systems, minimum 8 feet
in height), and/or acoustical blankets. The portable
enclosure/housing can be constructed with noise control
curtains and lightweight frame structure, with a small door
or opening facing away from sensitive noise receptors, and
fastened with Velcro. Acoustical blankets or curtains would
be set up on a supporting structure, such as a cyclone-type
fence or on guy-wire strung between temporary supports.
An example of the appearance of a temporary acoustical
blanket and temporary sound walls are presented in Figure
4.11-4. At a minimum, temporary noise barriers shall be
installed for any construction activity located within 50 feet
of residences and for any use of the hydraulic breaker or
wrecking ball within 100 feet of residences.
 Require all equipment driven by internal combustion
engines be equipped with mufflers, which are in good
condition and appropriate for the equipment.
 Require use of “quiet” models of air compressors and other
stationary noise sources where technology exists.
 Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
 Establish construction staging areas at locations that would
create the greatest distance between the construction-
related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors
nearest the project site during all project construction.
 Locate stationary noise sources as far from sensitive
receptors as feasible. If they must be located near
receptors, adequate muffling (with enclosures where
feasible and appropriate) would be used as necessary to
comply with local noise ordinance limits. Any enclosure
openings or venting would face away from sensitive
receptors.
 Locate material stockpiles as well as

2-15 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

Revised Table 2-1

Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
maintenance/equipment staging and parking areas as far
as feasible from residential receptors.
 Notify neighbors located adjacent to the construction site of
the construction schedule in writing.
 The District shall designate its Construction Manager for
the project or assign a District staff person as liaison with
the community to be responsible for responding to noise
complaints during the construction phase. The name and
phone number of the liaison shall be conspicuously posted
at construction areas and on all advanced notifications.
This person shall take steps to resolve complaints,
including periodic noise monitoring. Results of noise
monitoring shall be presented at regular project meetings
with the project contractor, and the liaison shall coordinate
with the contractor to modify any construction activities that
generated excessive noise levels to the extent feasible.
 The District shall institute a reporting program that
documents complaints received, actions taken to resolve
problems, and effectiveness of these actions.
 The District and its Construction Manager shall hold a
preconstruction meeting with the job inspectors and the
general contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that
noise mitigation and practices (including construction
hours, construction schedule, and noise coordinator) are
completed. Weekly reports shall be forwarded to the
District Planner and District Outreach staff for review and
compliance with the Town of Los Gatos Noise Ordinance
and noise monitoring program (see above).

NSE-3 The District shall limit weekend construction activities as

follows:
 No Sunday construction permitted.
 No construction except within buildings on Saturdays.
 No construction truck or tractor work on the outside of

2-16 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

Revised Table 2-1

Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
buildings on Saturdays (dump trucks, backhoes,
jackhammers, or any motorized equipment, etc.).
 No outside construction lighting or outside generators to
operate on Saturdays (except regular security lighting or
regular safety lighting).
4.12 Public Services

No significant impacts. None required. N/A

4.13 Traffic and Circulation

Traffic hazards in the project area include TRF-1 The District shall develop final site plans that relocate the main Less-than-Significant
limited sight distances along More Avenue due (upper) entrance to More Avenue to improve the sight distance.
to the hills and curves along the main upper At the upper main gate, the access point shall be relocated a
entrance and lower entrance. Project short distance to the south where the driveway intersects More
construction would generate additional traffic Avenue.
including larger slower trucks. The additional
traffic generated by project construction would TRF-2 The District shall implement one of the two following
increase the risk of traffic accidents due to the improvements along More Avenue and incorporate into final
insufficient sight distance on More Avenue. site plans and specifications, subject to District and Town of
This represents a significant traffic hazard. Los Gatos concurrence:

1. Add a continuous turn lane in the middle of More Avenue

between Capistrano Place and the main entrance. This
lane would connect with the existing left-turn storage
pocket in the southbound direction at the main entrance.

2. 1. Add warning signs, speed feedback signs, and other

appropriate signage as part of a specific sign package to
be approved by the Town of Los Gatos. The sign package
would provide prominent warning signs informing drivers on
More Avenue that there are driveways ahead that cannot
be seen. New signs stating “Caution Hidden Driveway,”
“Blind Driveway Ahead,” or similar language, and signs
posting the 25 mph speed limit before both entrances

2-17 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 2.0 Summary

Revised Table 2-1

Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
would be part of the proposed sign package to be approved
by the Town of Los Gatos.
4.14 Utilities and Service Systems

No significant impacts. None required. N/A

2-18 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

3.0 Project Description

3.1 Project Location and Area
The project is located at 400 More Avenue in the Town of Los Gatos, within the western portion
of Santa Clara County in Northern California (refer to Figure 3-1). The proposed project is
located entirely within the existing approximately 39-acre Rinconada Water Treatment Plant
(RWTP) facility. The RWTP lies within a residential area bounded by More Avenue to the west,
Granada Way to the north, the La Rinconada County Club and Smith Creek to the east,
residential uses to the southeast, and the Rinconada and San Jose Water Company enclosed
reservoirs to the south (refer to the aerial in Figure 3-2). The project site is located on
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 407-34-002, 407-34-003, and 407-10-007.

3.2 Project Background

The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) owns and operates three treatment plants that
provide potable water supply to Santa Clara County. The District draws water from various
sources including the State Water Project (SWP) water via the South Bay Aqueduct, the Central
Valley Project water via the San Luis Reservoir, local reservoirs (i.e., Anderson and Calero
reservoirs), Hetch Hetchy water via an intertie with the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission, and local groundwater sources. The combined treatment capacity of the District’s
water treatment plants is approximately 222 million gallons per day (mgd). The RWTP has a
capacity of 80 mgd. The District’s three water treatment plants (WTPs) serve two distinct service
areas. The Santa Teresa and Penitencia WTPs are located on the East Pipeline (EPL), with
each plant capable of serving as a back-up supply to the other. This redundancy provides a
level of reliability not present in the western service area, where the RWTP is the sole provider
via the West Side Treated Distribution System (consisting of West Pipeline, Santa Clara,
Sunnyvale, Campbell and Mountain View). This area is highly vulnerable to seismic events.
Reliability in the western service area, therefore, is a major concern for the District and water
retailers in the western service area.

The RWTP was commissioned in 1968 and is the oldest of the District’s treatment plants.
Numerous components of the RWTP are nearing the end of their useful lives. This, coupled with
increasingly more stringent water quality and code requirements, make upgrades to the plant
essential to ensure compliance with drinking water quality regulations and the reliability of its
operation and the water supply for the western service area.

3.3 Project Overview

The District proposes to improve the existing water treatment train at the RWTP through four
principal modifications:

1. The addition of raw water ozonation facilities and processes. Ozone would be used to
provide superior disinfection, enhance the removal of particulates from the water,
improve the taste of the water, and accelerate removal of other contaminants that might
be present in the water sources treated at the RWTP. Ozone functionally replaces
chlorine in the treatment process, although chlorine would continue to be used for
providing a disinfection residual in the water distribution system.

3-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

2. Replacement of the existing water clarification process/facilities with conventional

flocculation and sedimentation processes with plate settlers. The horizontal flow
flocculation-sedimentation process is more stable operationally than the existing vertical
flow clarifiers and provides greater resiliency for fluctuations in the quality of water
treated at the RWTP. In addition, the new basins would be designed to withstand
seismic forces during an earthquake.

3. Removal and replacement of the water process filters. The 12 new filters would meet all
current seismic standards, allowing for deep bed filter media to be used and providing
greater flexibility for washing the filters, as each new filter would be half the size of the
current filters.

4. Increase the plant capacity from 80 million gallons per day (mgd) to a maximum of 100
mgd (increase in peaking capacity) for plant reliability. This increase in plant capacity,
while not increasing the amount of water treated annually, provides the flexibility to
reliably meet peak summer demands in the water distribution system. The new capacity
would enable peak demands to be met reliably and lower potential risk of a water quality
violation.

In plain terms, the project is the systematic tear down of much of the existing steel and concrete
structures (old water treatment facilities and processes) to reconstruct a new state-of-the-art
water treatment facility on the existing water treatment plant property, while keeping the plant
running at all times. The project includes the onsite temporary conversion of the lower sludge
drying bed to a construction staging area and the offsite-temporary addition of adjacent parking
through a lease agreement with San Jose Water Company to add 30-50 construction worker
parking spaces during construction. The project includes green development features such as
solar panels, a truck tire-wash (to keep trucks from tracking soil into the streets during
construction), and recycling of construction/demolition debris (minimum 50%).

Construction duration is expected to last five to seven years due to phasing and requirements to
keep the plant running during construction. Construction is slated to start in 2015.

3.4 Project Objectives

In 2007, the District outlined five planning objectives for improvement of the RWTP.

1. Maintain aging infrastructure to reduce the risk of system interruptions/failures.

2. Improve reliability to address plant redundancy, seismic risks, and business continuity
issues.
3. Contribute to energy self-sufficiency and minimize the carbon footprint.
4. Evaluate and implement cost-effective treatment technologies to meet current drinking
water regulations, taste and odor control, and forecasted new contaminants to result in a
robust plant design to take the RWTP into the future.
5. Improve operability of the plant.

3-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, HERE, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN,
Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom

Project Site

I
I
0
00

Location Map
500
500
1 21,000
Feet
Miles

1,000
Copyright:© 2014 Esri, DeLorme, HERE, TomTom, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA,
USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Source: ESRI, 2014

Figure
Feet Copyright:© 2014 Esri, DeLorme, HERE, TomTom, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,

January 2015
Sources:USGS,
Rinconada
Esri
AEX, Getmapping,
Esri, DeLorme,
WTPEsri
Japan, METI,
HERE,Aerogrid,
Reliability
USGS, IGN,
Improvement
China (Hong
IGP, swisstopo,
Intermap,
Project
Kong), Esri
incrementandPthe
(Thailand), TomTom
GIS User
Corp.,
3-1
Community
NRCAN,

Final EIR
 Prince S t
to n
el Po r

Ma
Wed
ge wo

tts o
od A
ve

nA
ve
Mo
re A
i llo
el A l t Ln
ry
bu

ve
x
Ro

l
oP
an
r

Rinconada
va

pi s tr
u le

Ca La s Uvas Ct Country
B

G rana
as
si t

Club
l

a tio
So
Ca
el

P
ad

da Wa
Los
e st
Pu

ve
re A

y
Mo

Rinconada Water
Treatment Plant

Sm ith Creek
SJWC Reservoirs
Chippendale Ct

Vine yard
Ct Ash Ct
Bickne ll Rd
Scarsb orou gh Way
Hepplewhite Ct

Montclair Rd

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
I 0 500 1,000
Feet

Revised Aerial Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
3-2
Final EIR
 3.0 Project Description

The proposed project was developed based on the above objectives and to address aging
components critical to on-going operations and the major capital improvements necessary for
providing reliable capacity and better water quality. The project is intended to achieve the
following:

 Provide a water process train that a) enables the plant to produce treated water that is
aesthetically pleasing and complies with current and reasonably anticipated regulations, b)
is adaptable for addressing emerging contaminants under a wide range of source water
quality scenarios, and c) is cost-effective, environmentally sustainable, and operator-
friendly;
 Improve overall plant reliability by addressing seismic vulnerability and increasing the plant’s
peaking factor and capacity (from 80 to 100 mgd)1;
 Implement in a single stage (rather than incrementally) to minimize overall costs, reduce
impacts to the RWTP’s neighborhood, and maintain plant operations during construction;
and
 Minimize stranded costs (i.e., costs associated with temporary facilities).

3.5 Project Characteristics

3.5.1 Existing Facilities
The current major facilities at the RWTP are listed below. An oblique aerial of the RWTP
showing existing facilities is presented in Figure 3-3.

 Operations and administration building (control building)

 Four upflow clarifiers
 Six dual media filters
 Residuals management facilities including washwater recovery ponds, sludge drying basins,
and dewatering facilities
 Two 1 million gallon clearwells and one 15 million gallon treated water reservoir (Rinconada
reservoir)

The RWTP contains a control building that houses administrative and operation offices,
chemical metering, electrical and pumping systems, water quality laboratories and control
systems. In addition, two clearwells (enclosed reservoirs containing one million gallons each of
treated water) are located east and west of the control building. Four existing upflow contact
clarification basins (clarifiers) are located north of the control building, and six existing filter
basins are located between the clarifiers. Between the filters and clarifiers are enclosed
galleries that house piping and appurtenances.

1
Based on the contract requirements between the District and RWTP retailers, a peaking water demand factor of 1.8
has been established along with a projected highest average daily demand of 58.5 mgd in the next 25 years.

3-5 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 8 SJW
CR
ese
9 rvo
irs

6 4
7
1

5 2
7
3

10 ue
n
Ave
r e
Mo

ts
en
vem
pro
em n Im

ts
en
100

ts
’

tio
ing
100

vem
en

mp infec
tag
1“=

ro
v
1) Control Building 5) Sludge Drying Beds 9) Open Land

nS

p
tio d Dis
ro
N

50
N

r Im
tio
2) Upflow Clarifiers 6) Dewatering Facilities 10) Overflow Parking/Storage

he
Filt ance
c

nI
ru

Ot
3) Dual Media Filters 7) 1 Million Gallon Clear Wells

nst
0

v
a

Ad
4) Washwater Recovery Ponds 8) Drying Beds

r
C o
Source: CDM Smith, 2014

l
tia
ten
Existing Site Facilities

Po
Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project 3-3
Final EIR
 3.0 Project Description

Two washwater recovery ponds, a belt press building, and eight sludge drying beds (upper
beds) are located east of the clarifiers. These are currently being replaced by sludge thickeners
and centrifuge facilities as part of the District’s Residuals Management Project)2. The potassium
permanganate building and the powdered activated carbon building are located between the
clarifiers and the upper sludge drying beds. North of the upper sludge drying bed stands a
2,000 square foot maintenance warehouse. Two lower sludge drying ponds are located farther
to the east.

A 130-space parking lot (upper parking lot) is located between the control building and the three
reservoirs. The westernmost Rinconada reservoir is owned by the District, and the other two
reservoirs are owned by the San Jose Water Company (SJWC). Chemicals are stored in the
ground-level area between the control building and the upper parking lot. These chemicals
include sodium hypochlorite, zinc orthophosphate, aluminum sulfate/ferric chloride, caustic soda
and aqua ammonia. A phosphoric acid storage and feed facility is located east of the east
clearwell. The portion of the property north of the existing four clarifiers is currently unoccupied,
covered in gravel, and used for overflow parking and staging.

The delivery of raw water to the RWTP is conveyed through the District’s 72-inch Rinconada
force main (RFM). Water is routed through the Vasona Pump Station located off Oka Road and
Highway 85 in Los Gatos and delivered to the RWTP.

3.5.2 Existing Operations

Water to the RWTP is supplied by the State (the State Water Project via South Bay Aqueduct),
the Federal government (via the Central Pipeline and the San Felipe Project), and local sources
(Anderson Reservoir and San Luis Reservoir water via the Almaden Valley Pipeline). The above
pipelines are connected to the Vasona Pump Station, which delivers flows to the RWTP.
Treated water from the RWTP is subsequently delivered to water retailers, including San Jose
Water Company, California Water Service Company, and the cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara,
Mountain View, and Sunnyvale.

The water treatment process consists of flocculation, sedimentation and filtration for removing
solids, and disinfection for killing waterborne diseases. Solids removal occurs in the upflow
contact clarifiers, and consists of flocculation (clumping of solids material), and sedimentation
(settling of the solids). The settled water then flows from the clarifiers to the filter basins where
finer particles are filtered out through sand and anthracite (granulated coal). In the final
treatment process, (disinfection), water is discharged from the filters through a treated water
pipe and into the clearwells and ultimately to the Rinconada reservoir. Chloramine (combined
chlorine and ammonia compound) is used to provide residual disinfection of the potable water to
maintain disinfection in the distribution network.

Filters are backwashed periodically to extract particles captured during the filtering process.
Water used for backwashing is sent to the washwater recovery ponds and subsequently
returned to the raw water pipeline. Sludge from the clarifiers is discharged by gravity to the
upper sludge drying beds. Solids within each bed are mixed prior to pumping into the solids
blend tank and belt filter press where it is further filtered. The filtrate from the press is pumped to
the upper sludge drying beds. Decant water is gravity fed into lower sludge drying beds from the
upper sludge drying beds. This process results in accumulation of sediments and sludge in the

2
The Residuals Management Project is a separate project for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration
was prepared and adopted by the Board on April 23, 2013.

3-7 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

lower sludge drying beds. The District alternates use of the beds; as one bed is filled with
sediment, flows are routed to the other bed. This allows for the initial bed to dry and later
dredging. Sludge material from the lower drying beds must be removed periodically
(approximately every 5 years) to maintain capacity and function; sludge is hauled off for proper
disposal or reuse. Sludge from the upper sludge drying bed is processed at the belt press and
loaded onto sludge trucks for proper disposal in approved landfills or reused as a soil
amendment. Sludge treatment and handling is currently being modified under the residuals
management project, which is replacing the sludge drying beds and belt press with gravity
thickeners and centrifuges.

3.5.3 Proposed Operations

The RWTP would continue to be supplied by state, federal, and local water, and the RWTP
would continue to deliver potable water to the water retailers. The proposed water treatment
process consists of raw water ozonation, flocculation, sedimentation and filtration for disinfection
and removing solids.

Ozonation of the raw water would occur within the ozone contact basins. Carbon dioxide would
be added to the raw water to stabilize pH for more effective ozonation. Chlorine and ammonia
would also be added, when needed, upstream of the ozone contactors to control bromate
formation. Ozone would be added to the raw water through two parallel ozone contactor trains
to kill most disease-causing organisms, reduce organic taste and odor compounds, oxidize
metals, and oxidize trace synthetic organic compounds.

Following ozonation, flocculants and flocculant aids would be added to the water at the flash mix
facility to enhance the coagulation and flocculation process. The flocculation basins would
consist of four stages of tapered mixing to provide gentle mixing of the coagulated water to
promote agglomeration of particulates. These larger particles would settle within the
sedimentation basins where they would be conveyed to the solids (residuals) processing area of
the RWTP for dewatering and disposal as described for existing processes. As discussed
above, the District is currently implementing the Residual Management Project, an independent
project allowing the District to replace the existing sludge drying beds and belt press area with
gravity thickeners and centrifuges that would be operable before this proposed project is
developed.

The clarified settled water from the sedimentation basins would gravity flow to the new filters
where fine suspended particles would be removed by passing the water through sand and
anthracite (coal) porous media similar to that described for the existing operations. Backwash
water and filter-to-waste water would be sent to the new washwater recovery basins and
subsequently returned to the raw water pipeline. In the final treatment process, redundant
disinfection would be provided within the chlorine contact basins downstream of the filters and
upstream of the existing clearwells. Ammonia would be fed near the outlet channel of the
chlorine contact basins to form chloramines for residual disinfection in the distribution network.
As is the case for existing operations, water would flow into the clearwells and would be
pumped to the Rinconada reservoir.

3-8 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

Schematic of Proposed Water Treatment Train

3.5.4 Proposed Facilities

The project would improve the existing treatment train through three principal modifications: 1)
the addition of raw water ozonation, 2) the replacement of the existing clarification process with
conventional flocculation and sedimentation with plate settlers, and 3) replacement of the filters.
These improvements would introduce ozone and carbon dioxide into the treatment process and
provide for re-circulation of wash water and filter-to-waste water to meet all state and federal
water quality regulations.

The proposed improvements/facilities would occur entirely within the existing approximately 39
acre RWTP site. Site plans of the proposed facilities are presented in Figure 3-4. A rendering of
the proposed improvements is provided in Figure 3-5. The project would consist of the major
elements listed below. Detailed descriptions of these project elements are provided later in this
section.

 Raw water flow control and metering facility

 Ozone contactor structure
 Ozone generation building
 Liquid oxygen (LOX) facility
 Flash mix facility
 Flocculation basins
 Sedimentation basins
 Access bridge
 Filters
 Chlorine contact basin
 Washwater recovery facility
 One finished water booster pump
 Carbon dioxide facility (carbon dioxide carriage water pump station, carbon dioxide
storage tank and feed panel)
 Sodium hypochlorite facility
 Electrical equipment pad and electrical enclosure (emergency & standby generators,
switchgear, fuel tank, unit substations, enclosures)
 Waste containment tanks
 Lower More Avenue entrance improvements
 Upper More Avenue entrance improvements
 Removal of trees within the proposed footprint of the new plant design, along certain
fence lines, and overtop critical water pipes

3-9 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

 Landscaping
 Outdoor lighting
 Chemical storage
 Storm water bioretention basin
 Demolish existing clarifiers and filters
 Demolish existing washwater recovery basins
 Install future solar (photovoltaic) panels onsite
 Replace existing perimeter chain link fencing with black vinyl-coated chain link fence
about 7 feet high, using small 1” mesh (un-climbable),with 3-strand barbed wire
 Install wrought iron fence along More Avenue with new gates and architectural features
 Construct new guard shacks
 Provide temporary parking for construction workers, including parking on the adjacent
SJWC property through agreement

Based on the contract requirements between the District and its RWTP retailers, a peaking
water demand factor of 1.8 has been established along with a projected highest average daily
water demand over the next 25 years.3 In order to meet this demand, the capacity of the RWTP
would need to be increased to approximately 100 mgd to meet the contracted maximum day
demand.

The proposed facilities would be sited to ensure adequate separation distances for non-
compatible materials (chemicals), and would be designed with secondary containment and
other safety features (leak detection, warning systems, fire sprinklers, etc.) to ensure protection
of public health and safety for both workers and adjacent residents. The District would comply
with all local, state, and federal regulations for the storage, handling, and use of hazardous
materials, including fire codes, Cal-EPA requirements, Cal-OSHA requirements, Bay Area Air
Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) air quality regulations, California Regional Water
Quality Board regulations, and all City and County ordinances. In addition, District staff would
monitor RWTP operations 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and is available to respond to any
emergencies.

Table 3-1 presents the proposed project components, including proposed changes to the
physical plant, location of the proposed facility footprint, height, and whether the component is
new, an expansion, or an improvement.

A summary of each of the proposed components of the RWTP improvement project is provided
in the discussion below.

Raw Water Flow Control and Metering Facility (Project Element No. 1 on Table 3-1)
This facility would consist of above grade piping ranging from 42” to 72” diameter with flow
control valves, flow meters and chemical injection ports to meter the raw water entering the
plant and distribute flow to the ozone contactors. A concrete pad would be constructed under
the piping to facilitate maintenance. Downward oriented, shielded lights mounted on poles
would be installed at the facility.

3
The peaking factor is used to evaluate the capability of a water system or water treatment plant to meet peak water
demand. The District forecasts overall growth in average daily water demand to increase from 54 mgd in 2015 to 57.3
mgd by 2035.

3-10 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Figure
Site Plan
January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project 3-4
Draft
Final EIR
 3.0 Project Description

This page intentionally left blank.

3-12 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 25
SJW
CR
ese
rvo
irs
d
Roa
vice
Ser

16
R
Re WTP
22 ser
vo
ir
10
12
3
11
4
15
5
2 14 17
9
6
1 15 8
e
7 nu
13 17 ve
r eA
Mo

ts
en
vem
pro
em n Im

ts
en
100

ts
’

tio
ing
100

vem
en

Im nfec
g
1“=

Sta

ro
v
Notes:

ion Disi

p
pro
N

50
N

r Im
on
Rendering is conceptual and subject to revision

d
cti

he
Filt ance
ru
Numbers correspond to components listed in Table 3-1

Ot
nst
0

v
a t

Ad
r
C o
Source: CDM Smith, 2014

l
tia
ten
Rendering of Proposed Improvements

Po
Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project 3-5
Final EIR
 3.0 Project Description

Table 3-1
Summary of Proposed Facilities
Project Proposed General Description of Existing Existing Footprint of New Type of Facility/Activity
Element Modifications/ Improvements Facility Height (ft) New Facility Structure New Expan Improve-
1 5 4
No. New Facilities (square feet) Height (ft) -sion ment

1 Raw water flow Construct facility consisting of 1,450 8-11 X

control and metering above grade piping ranging in
facility size from 42” to 60” diameter
containing flow control valves,
flow meters and chemical
injection ports.
2 Ozone contactor Construct concrete structure 9,000 29-31 X
structure containing two ozone contactor
basins, central gallery, and
ozone destruct system.
3 Ozone generation Construct facility containing See Note 6 16 7,700 22-25 X
building ozone generation room, air (clarifier)
scour blower room,
mechanical room, HVAC room,
electrical room, and satellite
control room.
4 Liquid oxygen (LOX) Construct facility containing See Note 6 16 2,800 24-27 X
facility tanks, evaporators, and (clarifier)
metering equipment.
5 Flash mix facility Construct facility containing an 1,000 12-15 X
above grade 84-inch diameter
pipeline, two mixing pumps,
injectors and associated piping
under a metal canopy.
6 Flocculation basins Construct concrete structure 18,500 22-25 X
consisting of four parallel
basins, each with four stages
with two mechanical mixers
per stage.
7 Sedimentation basins Construct concrete structure 18,000 22-25 X
consisting of four parallel
basins, each basin equipped
with submerged stainless steel
plate settlers and sludge
collectors.

3-14 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

Table 3-1
Summary of Proposed Facilities
Project Proposed General Description of Existing Existing Footprint of New Type of Facility/Activity
Element Modifications/ Improvements Facility Height (ft) New Facility Structure New Expan Improve-
1 5 4
No. New Facilities (square feet) Height (ft) -sion ment

8 Access bridge Construct a walkway bridge NA 24-27 X

connecting the decks of the
sedimentation basins to the
filters.
9 Filters Construct concrete structure See Note 6 20 28,600 23-24 X
consisting of 12 filters and a (clarifiers)
center gallery.
10 Chlorine contact Construct concrete enclosed See Note 6 20 9,250 14-17 X
basin water retention basin (clarifier)
11 Washwater recovery Construct concrete structure See Note 6 1 10,400 1-4 X
facility with two parallel basins to (sludge
receive and pump used drying beds)
backwash and filter-to-waste
water back into the raw water
pipeline.
12 Addition of a treated Increase potable water NA NA X
water booster pump pumping capacity from 80 mgd
to existing control to 100 mgd.
building
13 Carbon dioxide Construct facilities including 2,500 12-15 X
facilities (storage storage tank, feed panel and
tank, feed panel & carbon dioxide carriage water
pump station) pump station.
14 Sodium hypochlorite Replace existing sodium See Note 6 20 3,200 25-28 X
facility hypochlorite system with new (filters)
facility including storage tanks,
metering and transfer pumps,
and containment area under a
metal canopy.
15 Electrical equipment Install emergency and standby 6,000 15-18 X
pad and electrical generators and fuel tank;
enclosure electrical substations; and
enclosures.

3-15 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

Table 3-1
Summary of Proposed Facilities
Project Proposed General Description of Existing Existing Footprint of New Type of Facility/Activity
Element Modifications/ Improvements Facility Height (ft) New Facility Structure New Expan Improve-
1 5 4
No. New Facilities (square feet) Height (ft) -sion ment

16 Waste containment Install two tanks to capture 500 15-18 X

tanks & contained accidental spills.
hazardous materials
storage area
17 Lower and upper Install new gates, guard 75 each 10-13 X
More Avenue houses, and appurtenances
entrance and improve upper entrance
improvements driveway.
18 Landscaping Plant vegetation to replace NA NA X
removed plants and screen
new facilities.
19 Replace fencing Black chain link fence with 3- NA 7-10
around perimeter of strand barbed-wire along top.
plant site.
20 Outdoor lighting Install new lights at existing NA NA X
and proposed facilities.
21 Underground utilities Install pipelines and conduits Varies NA X
throughout the WTP.
22 Storm water Construct bioretention basin to 46,500 NA X
bioretention basin hold and biologically treat
storm water runoff.
23 Demolish existing Demolish basins 1 and 2 and See Note 6 15 NA 0 X
washwater recovery associated equipment. (washwater
basins recovery
basins)
24 Increase WTP Increase WTP capacity from NA NA X
capacity from 80 to 80 to 100 mgd
100 mgd
25 Temporary Formalize agreement with X
construction parking adjacent SJWC facility to use
at SJWC site for temporary parking
during construction

3-16 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

Table 3-1
Summary of Proposed Facilities
Project Proposed General Description of Existing Existing Footprint of New Type of Facility/Activity
Element Modifications/ Improvements Facility Height (ft) New Facility Structure New Expan Improve-
1 5 4
No. New Facilities (square feet) Height (ft) -sion ment

26 New chemical use New chemicals required for -- -- X

new treatment processes
(liquid oxygen and carbon
dioxide)

27 Tire Wash Install a tire wash system with TBD NA X

(construction trucks) wash rack and water tank
Notes
1. Please refer to Figure 3-5 for the locations of the proposed improvements and new facilities.
2. NA = Not applicable
3. TBD = to be determined during final design
4. Heights of structures are based on finished grade or existing grade (whichever is less). Railing and parapets are included with the structure height. However,
equipment heights on top of structure decks and roofs are not included in the height estimates.
5. Areas are approximate.
6. Existing structure will be removed to accommodate new facility; structure(s) in parentheses to be removed.

3-17 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

Ozone Contactor Structure (Project Element No. 2 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
The proposed ozone contactor structure would consist of two ozone contactor basins, an interior
gallery, an ozone destruct system within the gallery, and associated equipment and
appurtenances. Portions of the structure would be below ground level. The structure would be
equipped with small sump and underdrain pumps. The ozone contactor would contain safety
features in compliance with fire codes and BAAQMD requirements.

Ozone gas would be piped to the structure from the ozone generation building and bubbled into
the flowing water within the contactor basins. The contactor basins would be sealed and the gas
space above the water would be kept at a slightly negative pressure to avoid ozone gas from
escaping through the structure. Residual ozone would be drawn off and broken down by the
ozone destruct system. The ozone destruct system would consist of three heaters and catalyst
units and three blowers that convert ozone to oxygen, which would be vented at the structure
roof. The associated electrical equipment would be located in the ozone contactor structure
north gallery near the ozone destruct system. Similar to the other ozone facilities, the destruct
system would be designed with safety features complying with applicable codes.

The ozone contactor structure would be constructed of concrete. The roof would consist of
sealed concrete with a metal guardrail around the perimeter for fall protection. Access to the
roof would be via an exterior walkway along the east wall of the structure. Vent pipes from the
ozone destruct units and pressure/vacuum valves to relieve pressure or vacuum that may occur
within the gas space above the water would be located on the roof approximately 12 feet above
the roof deck. Skylights would also be installed on the roof deck. Downward oriented, shielded
lights would be installed at all exterior doors, walls, stairs and around the perimeter of the roof
deck.

Ozone Generation Building (Project Element No. 3 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
The proposed ozone generation building would be located in an area currently occupied by
clarifier #4. The ozone generation building would house the equipment that converts oxygen to
ozone, heat exchangers for ozone generation system equipment cooling, air scour blowers, and
plant controls and a satellite control room.

The ozone generation building would have wall material and exterior finish of concrete. The roof
would consist of truss and steel decking covered with membrane roofing materials. Ventilation
equipment and vents would be mounted on the roof deck. Downward, shielded lights would be
installed on the exterior of the building, including at doors and along walkways.

Liquid Oxygen (LOX) Facility (Project Element No. 4 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
The uncovered Liquid Oxygen (LOX) storage facility is proposed to house two 15,000-gallon,
horizontally-mounted LOX storage tanks, three vaporizers, and metering equipment. The LOX
facility would be located outdoors north of the new ozone generation building and contain a
concrete pad for truck unloading. The LOX facility would deliver LOX to the ozone generators
where it would be converted into ozone gas for disinfection. The tanks would be painted a light
gray or earth tone. Piping conveying the oxygen to the ozone generation building would be
installed underground between the two facilities.

The LOX storage tanks and vaporizers would be installed on a concrete slab-on-grade with a
roughened surface to protect against slipping. The LOX tanks would consist of horizontal
cylinders mounted on steel and concrete support legs. Each tank would consist of a nickel steel

3-18 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

inner pressure vessel and a coated carbon steel shell, with composite insulation and vacuum in
the annular space. The proposed storage tanks are 9.5-foot diameter, with a total installed
height of approximately 12 feet. The LOX vaporization system would consist of three ambient air
vaporizers made of aluminum or stainless steel, providing the design vaporization capacity
continuously with one unit on duty, one in defrost, and one in standby. The three vaporizers
would have heights of approximately 24 feet each and would constitute the tallest features in the
LOX facility.

A fence would enclose the LOX facility, preventing access to the LOX equipment by untrained
personnel. The fence would be architecturally designed to match the surrounding structures and
environment. The LOX facility would have pole-mounted light fixtures oriented downward.

Flash Mix Facility (Project Element No.5 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
A flash mixing facility is proposed that includes an 84-inch diameter above-grade pipeline, two
mixing pumps, injectors, and associated piping located under a metal canopy. The purpose of
this facility would be to provide chemical addition and efficient mixing of treatment chemicals in
the raw water or raw-ozonated water. It would be located near the southwest corner of the
ozone contactor structure. Downward oriented, shielded lights would be installed under the
canopy.

Flocculation Basins (Project Element No. 6 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
Flocculation basins are proposed to provide controlled mixing of the ozonated and coagulated
raw water to form large particles that will settle and reduce solids loading to the filters. The
flocculation system would consist of four parallel basins, each 85 feet long by 42 feet wide with
an average water depth of 18 feet. Each basin would have 8 mixers (32 total) with motors
varying in size from 1.5 to 3 horsepower (hp). The flocculation basins would have exterior
concrete walkways with guard rails along the perimeter, between the basins and along each
stage for access to the mixers and for other maintenance activities. Exterior stairs along the
structure’s south wall would be used to access the deck level walkway from ground level.
Downward oriented, shielded lights would be installed along the exterior walls, walkways and
stairs. The flocculation basins would have foam suppression at the first and last (fourth) stages
of flocculation. The spray system would consist of PVC pipe headers mounted along each
basin. Spray nozzles would direct flow to the water surface to disperse any accumulated foam.

Sedimentation Basins (Project Element No. 7 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
Sedimentation basins are proposed to provide removal of flocculated particles from the process
water. The sedimentation basins would be connected to the flocculation basins with a baffle wall
separating the processes. As with the flocculation basins, the sedimentation process consists of
four parallel basins, each 85 feet long by 42 feet wide with an average water depth of 18 feet.
Each basin would be equipped with submerged stainless steel plate settlers and sludge
collectors. Each of the four sludge collectors would be driven by ¼ hp motors.

The basins would have metal grating intermediate walkways with guardrails running north to
south at approximately the midpoint of the settlers to accommodate washdown of the plates.
Walkways would be designed to be removable by crane should the plates or plate packs need
to be removed in the future. Downward oriented, shielded lights would be installed along the
walls and walkways. The sedimentation basins would not include covers at this time, but the
structures would be designed to allow for future installation of a retractable, structurally-
supported cover system.

3-19 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

Access Bridge (Project Element No. 8 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
An access bridge is proposed to connect the sedimentation basin walkway at the southwest
corner of the facility to the north end of the filter deck. The walkway would span over the access
road between these two structures and contain metal guardrails.

Filters (Project Element No. 9 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)

The proposed filtration system would consist of 12 filters arranged in 2 banks of 6 filters (east
and west). A wide exterior walkway would be provided down the center of the filters. Guard rails
and handrails would be installed at walkways and stairs. Guard rail gates would be provided at
expected access points. Downward oriented, shielded lights would be installed along the
walkways. Three prefabricated metal buildings are proposed along the walkway to house the
filter controls, each approximately 12 feet by 12 feet and 10 feet in height. The filters would have
an interior gallery housing piping and equipment that would be approximately 6 feet below
grade. A ramp would be provided along the north and east sides of the filters to gain access to
the gallery area. Stairs would also be provided at various locations for access.

Chlorine Contact Basin (Project Element No. 10 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
A chlorine contact basin is proposed to provide backup disinfection. The new chlorine contact
basin would be an enclosed water retention basin. Guard rails would be provided around the
perimeter of the deck. The basin would have a solid concrete roof deck supporting pumps
serving the ozone generation system cooling system, chemical mixing, and basin dewatering.
Gate control actuators would also be mounted on the deck. Exterior stairs would be provided for
access to the roof deck. Downward oriented, shielded lights are proposed on the roof deck and
along the stairs.

Washwater Recovery Facility (Project Element No. 11 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
A washwater recovery (WWR) facility is proposed to retain filter-to-waste water, backwash
water, and other residual water that is to be pumped back to the headworks for treatment. The
WWR basins would be located in an area currently occupied by sludge drying beds #1 and #2.
The water retention structure would consist of two parallel basins that can be operated
independently. The WWR basins would consist of concrete walls and deck/walkways for
access. Four water pumps would be mounted on the deck to convey water from the basins to
the raw water pipeline. Each basin and the wet well would have submerged sludge/drain
pumps. Washdown monitors would also be mounted on the deck. Downward facing shielded
lights would be mounted on poles to illuminate the equipment area and deck surface.

Improved Finished Water Booster Pump (Project Element No. 12 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
The existing pumping system consists of three finished water booster pumps located inside the
basement of the control building. The system would be expanded to accommodate an additional
finished water booster pump to increase the pumping capacity from 80 mgd to 100 mgd.

Carbon Dioxide Facility (Project Element No. 13 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
A carbon dioxide facility is proposed to inject carbon dioxide into the raw water to lower the pH
prior to ozonation. Depressing the raw water pH helps limit the formation of bromate, a by-
product of ozonation; reduces the required ozone dose; reduces the need for frequent ozone
dose adjustment, and; enhances the removal of natural organic matter.

3-20 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

This facility would consist of two main components: a horizontal steel storage tank (10-foot
diameter by approximately 72 feet long) and a 5 foot wide by 12 foot long feed panel located
north of the ozone contactor structure. The feed panel would contain gas flow meters, pressure
gauges, and motorized valves to monitor and control the gas feed rate. Carbon dioxide gas
withdrawn from the storage tank would enter the feed panel and mix with carrier water under
pressure to form a carbonic acid solution. The solution would then be piped to the raw water
pipe upstream of the ozone contactor and injected into the raw water through a diffuser. The
carrier water will be fed from a pump station located just north of the existing Potassium
Permanganate Building. These facilities would be located on an exterior concrete slab-on-
grade. Downward oriented, shielded lights would be provided for this facility.

Sodium Hypochlorite Facility (Project Element No. 14 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
A new sodium hypochlorite facility is proposed to replace the existing sodium hypochlorite
facility due to its age and high maintenance requirements. The new sodium hypochlorite system
would serve several purposes including backing up the ozone system for primary disinfection of
raw water, providing residual disinfection when combined with chloramines, oxidizing organic
and inorganic compounds for taste and odor control, and providing backup disinfection.

The sodium hypochlorite facility would be located west of the proposed liquid oxygen facility and
consist of a covered storage, metering, and unloading area. The facility would consist of three
vertical 13,000-gallon, cylindrical storage tanks with secondary containment. The storage tanks
would be fiberglass, 12-foot diameter and approximately 18 feet tall. The facility would also
include metering pumps, transfer pumps and a sump pump along with electrical motor control
centers and panel boards. The tanks would be painted light gray or a light earth tone to reduce
heat gain. The canopy over the facility would have a flat steel truss and membrane roofing with
metal fascia panels.

The roofing system would extend over the chemical unloading area. The unloading area would
have its own containment controls so that spills can’t migrate to the storm drain system. The
sodium hypochlorite facility would have downward-oriented light fixtures under the roof canopy
and on poles near equipment.

Electrical Pad & Electrical Enclosure (Project Element No. 15 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
A concrete pad would be constructed east of the ozone contactor structure to accommodate two
diesel engine driven electrical generators (1-2,500 kilowatt and 1-150 kilowatt) and fuel tanks;
two unit substations; switchgear; and an enclosure housing panel boards and control panels.

The 150 kilowatt emergency generator would provide electrical service to critical systems for
lighting and emergency alarm systems for the life and safety equipment within and around the
new structures in the event of power loss. This generator would be skid-mounted and housed
within a weatherproof, sound-attenuated enclosure having a footprint approximately 10 feet by
15 feet. The 2,500 kilowatt generator would provide electrical service to certain process units to
enable continued water treatment in the event of power loss. This generator would also be skid-
mounted and housed within a weatherproof, sound-attenuated enclosure having a footprint
approximately 20 feet by 35 feet. A 15,000-gallon fuel tank would be installed to serve the
emergency and standby generators.

The pad would also have electrical support equipment including two unit substations
(approximately 10 feet by 35 feet each) containing transformers and distribution equipment; 12
kilowatt switchgear (approximately 10 feet by 27 feet); and electrical equipment enclosures that

3-21 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

would house panel boards and control panels. Downward oriented, shielded lights mounted on
poles would be installed at the facility.

A prefabricated steel enclosure would be provided north of the ozone contactor structure that
would house electrical equipment including motor control centers, adjustable speed drive
controls for the flocculation basin mixers, panel boards, and other electrical power, control and
distribution equipment. The enclosure would be climate controlled and comply with applicable
codes.

Liquid Waste Containment Tanks (Project Element No. 16 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
The District proposes to install two new waste containment tanks at the location currently
occupied by washwater recovery basin #1. These tanks would receive discharges by gravity
from the drainage trench east of the chemical delivery area and within the delivery area. The
tanks would capture any chemical leaks from the delivery areas as well as runoff and any spills
from the phosphoric acid delivery area. If the tanks capture chemical spills or leaks, the contents
would be pumped out and disposed of by a hazardous waste disposal service.

The waste containment tanks would be double walled, consist of high density polyethylene
(HDPE), and be located on a concrete slab. The tank capacity would be a minimum of 3,000
gallons for 6,000 gallons total storage, to be able to contain one full truck load of spilled
chemical. Downward oriented, shielded lights mounted on poles would be installed at the
facility.

Lower More Avenue Entrance Improvements (Project Element No. 17 on Table 3-1 and Figure
3-5)
The following improvements are proposed for the lower More Avenue entrance to the RWTP:

 Relocate the existing single sliding gate entrance with a dual-cantilevered decorative gate;
 Install a quieter, more secure gate that can withstand heavy use;
 Reduce traffic safety hazards by moving the gate farther east, providing a deeper entry road
to avoid delivery trucks blocking traffic on More Avenue when the gate is closed;
 Widen the entrance driveway and increase turning radii to improve truck ingress/egress;
 Install motion sensing lighting as appropriate;
 Install closed circuit TV at the gate for security;
 Provide decorative walls or fencing along each side of the entry driveway;
 Provide decorative landscaping to better screen views of the RWTP facilities from More
Avenue;
 Install a new guard house inside the gate that is consistent with the architectural features of
the new facilities.

Upper More Avenue Main Entrance Improvements (Project Element No. 17 on Table 3-1 and
Figure 3-5)
The following improvements are proposed for the upper More Avenue entrance:

 Replace the existing chain link gate entrance with a decorative gate matching the new lower
entrance gate;
 Install a quieter, more secure gate that can withstand heavy use;
 Install motion sensing lighting as appropriate;
 Install closed circuit TV at the gate for security;

3-22 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

 Install a new guard house that is consistent with the architectural features of the new
facilities;
 Construct divided entrance and exit roads.

New Landscaping (Project Element No. 18 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
New vegetation would be planted throughout the RWTP property in available areas, including
portions of the construction staging areas after construction has been completed. Some of the
vegetation would be strategically planted to screen public views of the new proposed facilities to
the extent feasible. All new landscaping would be drought tolerant. The timing for installation of
the vegetation would be coordinated to avoid interference with construction activities related to
project improvements, and to ensure vegetation survival.

New Fencing ((Project Element No. 19 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
The existing chain-link fencing around the perimeter of the RWTP would be replaced with new 7
to 8-foot tall black chain link fencing. In addition, a new wrought iron fence and gate would be
installed along More Avenue.

Outdoor Lighting (Project Element No. 20 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
The project includes the installation of bollards, wall fixtures, and other outdoor lighting
throughout the RWTP at proposed and modified facilities, as described above. In addition,
downward oriented, shielded lights mounted on poles would be installed along the internal
RWTP access roadways.

New Chemical Storage Project Element No. 26 on Table 3-1

New chemicals introduced to the RWTP for the new treatment processes include liquid oxygen
(to be converted to ozone) and carbon dioxide. Although a new sodium hypochlorite facility
would be constructed, this is not considered a new chemical since the project is replacing the
existing sodium hypochlorite facility. Table 3-2 identifies the proposed storage amounts of the
new chemicals.

Table 3-2
New Chemical Feed System Storage Capacities
Location Proposed Total Storage
Liquid oxygen Two 15,000 gallon tanks
Carbon dioxide One 30,000 gallon tank
Hydrofluosilicic acid (fluoride)* Two 6,100 gallon tanks
*Not part of the Reliability Improvement Project and listed for informational purposes only. This chemical will be
added to proposed operations pursuant to a separate CEQA project (fluoridation at SCVWD treatment plants)
for which a Notice of Exemption was filed in 2013. The fluoridation project has independent utility from the
Reliability Improvement Project because each project could be implemented without the other project, and
because each does not rely on the other for its justification.

3-23 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

Underground Utilities (Project Element No. 21 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
New underground utilities required as part of the project are listed below:

 raw water to the ozone contactor and through subsequent processes;

 chemical piping to processing and application points;
 used backwash, filter-to-waste and overflows to the new washwater recovery facility;
 recovered washwater to the raw water pipeline;
 collected solids to the residuals processing area;
 air scour piping to the filters;
 storm drains to a storm water detention basin;
 facility drains to sanitary sewer;
 plant water to various services within the plant;
 irrigation lines to landscaped areas;
 other miscellaneous utilities.

Underground utilities also include electrical duct banks and individual conduits routing power
and control wiring to the various facilities.

Storm Water Management (Project Element No. 22 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
Storm water runoff from areas surrounding the new process structures would be routed via
storm drains to a new bioretention (or detention) basin (refer to Figure 3-4a) with a capacity of
0.24 acre feet (AF). The new storm water bioretention basin is proposed to manage storm water
runoff from the RWTP, located in a topographically depressed area near the Granada Way
entrance to the RWTP. The outlet from the bioretention basin would tie into the existing 36-inch
storm drains on the site and discharge into Smith Creek.

The existing storm drains that collect runoff from the southern and eastern portions of the
RWTP would continue to discharge into an existing concrete V-ditch located north and generally
parallel to the service road accessing the lower sludge ponds. The V-ditch would be intercepted
and tied into the new bioretention basin. The existing discharge structure would be demolished,
and the upstream ends of the two existing 36-inch storm drains downstream of the discharge
structure would be plugged. The existing storm drain that currently discharges into the V-ditch
immediately upstream of the discharge structure would tie into the new bioretention basin. The
proposed drainage/storm water management system would be further detailed upon final
design, and comply with all regulatory requirements.

The project has been designed to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local
requirements, including applicable provisions of the Municipal Regional Stormwater permit
under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The District
would prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in compliance with Section
402 of the Federal Clean Water Act and file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Control
Board (SWCB) to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. The SWPPP
would include provisions to control erosion and sedimentation as well as spill prevention
measures to avoid and, if necessary, clean up accidental releases of hazardous materials.

3-24 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

Demolition of Existing Clarifiers, Filters and Washwater Recovery Basin (Project Element No. 23
on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
After the proposed new facilities that replace the existing pre-filter processes are constructed,
tested and commissioned, the four existing upflow clarifiers would be demolished to provide
space for the new filters, chlorine contact basin, ozone generation building and liquid oxygen
storage facility. Each existing clarifier is approximately 115 feet by 115 feet, with a depth of
approximately 25 feet. Demolition would include complete removal and disposal of the steel
rake mechanisms, walkways, piping and appurtenances. The concrete structure (foundation and
walls) would also be demolished and removed from the site. Demolition of the existing clarifiers
would occur over a period of approximately six months.

Once all new facilities are constructed and in service, the existing filters would also be
demolished and removed from the site. All piping, concrete, equipment, etc. within the filters
would be removed and either salvaged are hauled off site. Demolition activities would be
monitored for safety, dust control and compliance with applicable codes. The use of explosives
would not be permitted. In addition, the equipment and lining of the existing washwater
recovery basins will be demolished and removed from the site. The area will then be filled and
paved. Demotion of these facilities would occur over a period of approximately 18 months.

Increase Plant Capacity (Project Element No. 24 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
While the RWTP currently has a design capacity of 80 mgd, it has routinely operated above this
capacity to meet maximum day demand. Under its current configuration, the RWTP could not
meet the projected maximum day demand in the next 25 years. A capacity of 100 mgd for the
RWTP was selected in order to meet the peaking factor, and because there are no hydraulic
restrictions in the treated water system at this time. This increase in plant capacity, while not
increasing the amount of water treated annually, provides the flexibility to reliably meet peak
summer demands in the water distribution system. The new capacity would enable peak
demands to be met reliably and lower potential risk of a water quality violation.

Temporary Parking (Project Element No. 25 on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-5)
Temporary parking for construction workers during construction of the project is proposed as
follows:

1. RWTP Parking Lot. The main parking lot would use space that is currently unmarked,
increasing the lot’s capacity to a total of 136 spaces.

2. San José Water Company Site. Directly to the south of the RWTP site is a reservoir site
owned by the SJWC that would accommodate 36-50 vehicles for construction workers
through an agreement between the SCVWD and SJWC.

3. Staging Areas. The southern staging area (refer to Figure 3-4) may also be used for parking
a few vehicles on peak construction days. In addition, the lower (east) sludge drying bed
would be temporarily converted to a staging area that may also be used for parking on peak
construction days. The entrance on Granada Way would be used to access these staging
areas.

3-25 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

Tire Wash (Project Element No. 27 on Table 3-1

A tire washing system is conceptually planned near the More Avenue main access to clean
truck tires before exiting the site to prevent tracking mud onto the roadways. The type of system
is not determined but may be fixed or portable, includes a fast installation, and provides a low-
cost way to clean the truck’s tires thoroughly. Furthermore, this station would be of use after
construction by chemical delivery trucks, sludge trucks, and others. The tire washing system
would require a water connection at the RWTP for this use.

Sustainability Measures.
The proposed have been designed to include sustainability and energy efficient measures to the
extent feasible. These features are listed below.

 Reuse existing sodium hypochlorite storage area for housing the new fluoride chemical feed
system
 Reuse existing potassium permanganate building for storage
 Optimize use of cut material for improvements on-site
 Install solar (photovoltaic) panels onsite
 Verify that the project's energy related systems are installed, calibrated, and perform
according to project requirements
 Establish the minimum energy efficiency for buildings and systems (does not apply to
process equipment)
 Achieve increasing levels of energy performance (does not apply to process equipment)
 Design controllability of lighting systems (except where life/safety could be compromised)
 Specify maximum power consumption/efficiency of ozone generation equipment
 Recycle a minimum of 50% of construction debris, including concrete, wood, metals/steels,
copper wiring, and vegetation.
 Reuse former raw water line as overflow.

3.5.5 Temporary Staging Areas

Three construction staging areas are proposed for the project, referred to as the northern,
southern, and lower sludge drying bed staging areas (refer to Figure 3-4). The northern staging
area is located at the northwest corner of the RWTP site and is bisected by the north service
road. The southern staging area is located south of the south service road, generally between
the service road and the lower sludge drying basins. The southern staging area consists of
undeveloped hillside with some trees and other vegetation concentrated along the perimeter. An
existing access road is located at the western edge of the southern staging area, connecting it
to the north service road. The lower sludge drying bed staging area is located in the lower east
portion of the site.

The northern and southern staging areas would not require any grading or improvements other
than providing a gravel base. The lower (east) drying bed staging area would require filling of a
portion or all of the basin and putting down a gravel base. A ramp into the basin would be
provided if needed. The existing upper drying bed (to the west) is used to retain any process
overflows and would remain in that capacity during construction. The portion of the east lower
drying bed used for staging would be converted back to its original condition after construction
and would be used in conjunction with the west lower drying bed to contain overflows.

3-26 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

Temporary fencing would be constructed along the property boundary on the south side of the
RWTP site to screen the southern and lower drying bed staging areas from adjacent residences
at 686 Bicknell Road and 205 Chippendale Court. The temporary fencing would consist of 7 ½
foot high redwood fence extending 80 – 100 feet in length (see Figure 3-4).

3.5.6 Construction Duration and Phasing

Construction of the proposed project would last from five to seven years, beginning in 2015.
Project construction would be phased, with some activities occurring simultaneously. The major
anticipated phases of construction are summarized below.

 Phase 1: Mobilization of equipment and offices; site preparation for site offices, staging,
personnel parking; establish traffic control measures; relocate utilities; establish security
measures; tree removal (outside of nesting season); finalize storm water pollution
prevention plan. Approximate duration: 1 – 3 months
 Phase 2: Construct the following facilities: raw water flow control and metering facility; ozone
contactor structure; flash mix facility; flocculation and sedimentation basins; washwater
recovery facility; raw water pipeline tie-in; temporary settled water conveyance to existing
filters; sludge connection from sedimentation basins to gravity thickeners; overflow
protection pipelines to new washwater recovery facility; construct permanent and temporary
support facilities (electrical, instrumentation and control, chemical system modifications,
piping). Start work on carbon dioxide facility and electrical equipment pad. Construct
temporary paving and other measures for dust control (to be maintained throughout
construction). Approximate duration: 13 – 19 months
 Phase 3: Relocate infrastructure mounted to and adjoining existing clarifier structures;
demolish and remove clarifier equipment/structures and prepare area for new structures;
install stabilization measures for existing clearwells and other key infrastructure; modify
existing filter structure for protection and continued operation; continued work on electrical
pad and buried utilities and replacement of guard house. Approximate duration: 6-10 months
 Phase 4: Construct new filters, chlorine contact basin, ozone generation building, liquid
oxygen facility, new backwash pump, new finished water booster pump, and waste
containment tanks; install supporting chemical, electrical, instrumentation and other
infrastructure improvements; construct new lower and upper More Avenue entrance
improvements. Approximate duration: 14 – 27 months
 Phase 5: Demolish and remove old filter structure and galleries; construct new sodium
hypochlorite and fluoride facilities; demolish washwater recovery ponds; construct waste
containment facility, modify multiple other facilities onsite. This phase also includes final
pavement overlay of plant roadways; complete landscaping; complete area lighting; removal
of temporary traffic controls; demobilization; and final cleanup. Approximate duration: 17 –
25 months

3.6 Required Permits and Approvals

The EIR is an informational document for both agency decision-makers and the public. The
District is the lead agency responsible for certification of the EIR. The EIR is also available for
the use of responsible, trustee, and other agencies that have jurisdiction or approval authority
for the project. These agencies may include:

3-27 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 3.0 Project Description

 California Department of Fish & Wildlife: and possible Lake and Streambed Alteration Permit
requirement, and possible permit requirement related to Oak Woodland habitat loss.
 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board: General Permit for Construction
Activities (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
 Bay Area Air Quality Management District: Permit to operate an internal combustion engine
(for diesel generators)
 Town of Los Gatos: Tree removal permit

3.7 Intended Use of EIR

It is the intent of this EIR to provide the District, public agencies, and the general public with the
relevant environmental information to use in considering the project. The District would use the
EIR for approval of the project. This EIR would be used by other agencies requested to provide
permits or other discretionary approvals for implementation of the project (i.e., resource
agencies and other agencies listed above).

3-28 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts and

Mitigation Measures
This section describes each of the environmental categories affected by the proposed project.
Each category consists of three parts: introduction, environmental setting, and impacts and
mitigation measures. Environmental impacts are described in one of the following ways: no
impact, less-than-significant impact, or significant impact. The specific criteria for determining
the significance of a particular impact are identified prior to the impact discussion in each issue
section, and are consistent with significance criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines and local,
regional, state or federal standards.

A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (as required by PRC §21081.6) is provided in
Section 7.0 of this EIR that outlines the mitigation measures and the monitoring and reporting
methods that would be employed. The Mitigation Monitoring Program will be considered for
adoption by the District Board of Directors at the time the Final EIR is certified.

Under CEQA, a significant impact is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse

change in the environment (Public Resources Code 21068). The guidelines implementing
CEQA direct that this determination be based on scientific and factual data. The specific criteria
for determining the significance of a particular impact are identified prior to the impact
discussion in each section, and are consistent with significance criteria set forth in the
guidelines implementing CEQA.

4.0-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

This page left intentionally blank.

4.0-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.1 Aesthetics

4.1 Aesthetics
This section assesses the existing visual quality and aesthetics of the project site and potential
changes to the visual environment that would result from the proposed RWTP improvements.
The assessment of potential impacts to the existing visual quality and character of the area is
based on the physical attributes of the project as well as the project’s relationship with the
surrounding visual environment.

The visual/aesthetics analysis for the project was performed based on field surveys conducted
by the EIR consultant, photos of the project site, review of project plans, and draft visual
simulations of the site prepared by the project engineer. The EIR consultant conducted field
surveys and documented views of the project site from various public views from public right-of-
way within the project vicinity. As part of the visual reconnaissance, aerial photographs, project
plans, and visual simulations were studied and areas of special interest or potential scenic value
were noted for assessment.

4.1.1 Setting
The proposed project is located on the existing approximately 39 acre RWTP site. The project
site lies within a single family residential area in the Town of Los Gatos and is bounded by More
Avenue to the west, Granada Way to the north, the La Rinconada County Club golf course and
Smith Creek to the east, single family homes to the southwest, and enclosed reservoirs owned
by the District and San Jose Water Company to the south.

The RWTP is located on a hillside area consisting of natural and constructed slopes. The RWTP
has occupied the site since circa 1966, when the property was graded into terraces to
accommodate the water treatment facilities. Elevations on the site range from approximately
280 feet in the east portion to about 435 feet at the main parking lot. Photos of the existing site
are presented in Figure 4.1-1. An aerial view of the property is provided in Figure 3-2 in Section
3.0 Project Description.

The existing visual character of the project site consists of existing water treatment plant
buildings and facilities along and east of More Avenue, with two sludge drying ponds and
undeveloped hillside on the eastern portion of the site. Existing facilities include an
operations/administration building (two floors above grade with two basement levels), a
maintenance warehouse, parking lot, service roads, clarifiers, media filters, enclosed clearwells,
residuals management facilities (under construction), and other more minor buildings and
structures. Three reservoirs are located south of the project site (outside the areas of project
disturbance). The westernmost Rinconada reservoir is owned by the District and the other two
reservoirs are owned by the San Jose Water Company (SJWC). The northern portion of the
property does not currently contain any physical structures and consists of gravel areas used for
overflow parking and staging. Undeveloped portions of the site contain trees, landscaping, non-
native grassland, and oak woodland. Smith Creek parallels the eastern boundary of the RWTP
site. Chain-link fencing extends along the entire perimeter of the site.

4.1-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
Photo 1: View of the Main Entrance from More Avenue to Photo 2: View of the existing administrative/operations
RWTP. building.

Photo 3: View of the northwest portion of the site. Photo 4: View of the central portion of the site, showing
existing clarifier and filter structures.

Site Photographs Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project 4.1-1a
Final EIR
Photo 5: View of the north portion of site and proposed Photo 6: View of the undeveloped southern staging area.
northern staging area.

Source: Google Maps, 2014

Photo 7: View of site from Granada Way. Photo 8: View of the Granada Way access to RWTP.

Site Photographs Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project 4.1-1b
Final EIR
 4.1 Aesthetics

The main entrance to the RWTP is located at 400 More Avenue. Two additional entrances to
the RWTP are located on lower More Avenue north of the main entrance and on Granada Way.
Public views of the site are available within the immediate project vicinity from More Avenue,
Granada Way, and Capistrano Place. Existing views of the site from these locations are
described below.

More Avenue: Views of the RWTP site are available along More Avenue in the immediate
vicinity of the project, roughly from the higher elevations of More Avenue north of Montclair
Road to Granada Way. From More Avenue north of Montclair Road, the enclosed Rinconada
reservoir is visible as a very low-profile flat structure. Views of the RWTP are obstructed by
topography until the main project entrance, where views of the site to the east are generally
limited to the plant’s signage, a gatehouse, portions of the administration/operations building,
and landscaping. Between the main and lower entrances, views of the lower portion of the site
are readily available, though somewhat obstructed by vegetation, revealing the unoccupied
gravel lots, gatehouse, and other structures. Topography generally limits views of the site north
of Granada Way. (See Photo 1 in Figure 4.1-1.)

Granada Way: Limited views of the RWTP site are available along Granada Way looking south,
generally from More Avenue to the plant’s Granada access road (located at the northeast corner
of the RWTP). Views to the south consist of a landscaped hillside with some views of the
northern portion of the site, currently used periodically for storage and parking. Views at most of
these locations are highly obscured by existing mature vegetation. Views at the east end of
Granada Way toward the plant show the existing access road extending up the hillside, a gate,
and other minor structures. (See Photos 7 and 8 in Figure 4.1-1.)

Capistrano Place: The northwest portion of the RWTP is somewhat visible from Capistrano
Place near its intersection with Granada Way. Views of the site are currently very limited due to
the screening by mature vegetation and the lack of structures on this portion of the RWTP site.
(See Figure 4.1-6a.)

The project site is visible from several private residences within the immediate project area as
follows: 1) along the east side of Los Patios west of More Avenue and the site, 2) along portions
of Granada Way and Capistrano Place north of the site, and 3) at the end of Chippendale Court.
In general, CEQA does not require a detailed evaluation of individual private views, particularly
when only a limited number of private views would be affected by site development activities.1
However, a general assessment of potential changes to private views from the project is
provided in the analysis below to address the Town of Los Gatos policy that calls for new
development to respect and protect views from surrounding properties.

4.1.2 Regulatory Environment

4.1.2.1 State

The California State Scenic Highway program was created by the Legislature in 1963. Its
purpose is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish
the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The program includes a list of highways that
are either designated or eligible for designation as a scenic highway. The state laws governing

1
Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah, 2 Cal. App. 4th (1991); Porterville Citizens for Responsible
Hillside Development v. City of Porterville, 157 Cal. App. 4th 885 (2007) Under CEQA, the question is whether a
project will affect the environment of persons in general, not whether a project will affect particular persons.

4.1-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.1 Aesthetics

the Scenic Highway Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260
through 263. A highway may be designated as scenic depending upon how much of the natural
landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which
development intrudesw 17 is designated as a state scenic highway. Highway 9 is located more
than a mile south of the project site and the project would not be visible from this location.
Interstate 280 north of Highway 17 and Highway 17 south of Highway 9 are both eligible as
state scenic highways. However, these roadways are located from two to four miles from the
project site and the project would not be visible from these highways.

4.1.2.2 Local

There are no designated scenic vistas of regional importance identified in the Santa Clara
County or Los Gatos general plans, and no designated scenic routes within the project vicinity.
Relevant policies from the Town of Los Gatos General Plan are described below.

Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan

The Town of Los Gatos General Plan contains goals and policies to preserve the aesthetic and
visual quality within the Town. Those applicable to the proposed project are presented below.

General Plan Policies: Aesthetics

Relevant Goals, Policies and Description

Actions
Goal LU-1 To preserve, promote, and protect the existing small-town
character and quality of life within Los Gatos.
Policy CD-1.2 New structures, remodels, landscapes and hardscapes
shall be designed to harmonize and blend with the scale
and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in
the area.
Policy CD-1.3 Buildings, landscapes and hardscapes shall follow the
natural contours of the property.
Policy CD-3.2 Street and structural lighting shall be required to minimize
its visual impacts by preventing glare, limiting the amount
of light that falls on neighboring properties, and avoiding
light pollution of the night sky.
Policy CD-3.4 Encourage the use of landscaping such as trees, large
shrubs, and trellised vines to mitigate the effects of
building mass, lower noise, and reduce heat generation.
Goal CD-16 Promote and protect viewsheds and scenic resources
Policy CD-16.1 Prevent development that significantly depletes, damages
or alters existing landscape vistas.
Policy CD-16.3 New structures or remodels shall be designed to respect
views from surrounding properties while allowing all
affected properties reasonable access to views.

4.1-5 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.1 Aesthetics

4.1.3 Impacts and Mitigation

4.1.3.1 Thresholds of Significance

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project
impact would be considered significant if the project would:
 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within view from a state scenic highway;
 Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings; or;
 Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.

4.1.3.2 Overview of Project Design

A rendering of the proposed RWTP improvements compared with the existing site is presented
in Figure 4.1-2. Development of the proposed RWTP improvements would involve the
demolition of existing structures, construction of new structures, and grading of about 70,000
cubic yards of cut/fill. The project would also require clearing of existing vegetation and trees,
including the removal of approximately 277 trees, based on the proposed site plan and tree
surveys completed for the project. Many of these trees would be replaced and a landscaping
plan implemented as part of the final project design to help minimize the visual effects of
vegetation removal and provide landscape screening. The District also plans to replace the
existing gray chain-link fencing around the perimeter of the RWTP with new 7 to 8-foot tall black
chain link fencing, and install new wrought iron fence and gate along More Avenue.

The project would be constructed in several phases over a five to seven-year period. The
following analysis of visual and aesthetic impacts is generally based on buildout conditions after
all proposed improvements have been completed. Temporary construction impacts related to
visual resources may include ground disturbance, construction staging, and similar activities;
these are temporary in nature, would not permanently change the existing visual character of
the area, and are generally not considered significant.

4.1.3.3 Impacts to Scenic Vistas

There are no designated scenic vistas of regional importance identified in the Santa Clara
County or Los Gatos general plans, and no designated scenic routes within the project vicinity.
Scenic vistas in the RWTP area include views across the Santa Clara Valley toward the Diablo
Mountain Range to the east. The project would have a less-than-significant impact on scenic
vistas based on the visual analysis and visual simulations prepared for the project. Further
discussion is provided below under 4.1.3.5. This is a less-than-significant impact and no
mitigation measures are required.

4.1-6 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
Existing Site

Proposed Improvements

*Rendering is conceptual and subject to revision

Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Rendering of Proposed RWTP Improvements Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.1-2
Final EIR
 4.1 Aesthetics

4.1.3.4 Impacts to State Scenic Highway

No designated scenic vistas of regional importance are identified in the Santa Clara County or
Los Gatos general plans, and no designated scenic routes are present in the project vicinity.
The project would not impact a scenic route, since it is not visible from any state scenic
highways or other designated scenic routes.

As described in 4.1.2.1, there are no designated or eligible state scenic highways within the
project viewshed. The project would not affect scenic resources along a state scenic highway.
The project would have no impact on scenic highways or routes.

4.1.3.5 Impacts to Visual Character and Quality

The existing RWTP site is developed with water treatment and related facilities on much of the
currently developed portions of the project site. The proposed project would introduce new
structures that may be visible from public viewpoints on the developed portions of the property.
The tallest and most prominent new structures proposed on the site and their maximum heights
are listed below (refer to the site plans in Figure 3-3 for locations):

 ozone contactor structure: 32 feet;

 ozone generation building: 25 feet;
 liquid oxygen (LOX) facility: 27 feet;
 flocculation/sedimentation basin: 25 feet;
 access bridge: 26 feet;
 filters: 27 feet.

The locations of these structures are illustrated in the site plans in Figure 3-4. The most visible
structures are those located on the northern portion of the site, including the ozone contactor
structure, flocculation/sedimentation basin, and filters that range in height from 25-32 feet. Most
of the other structures and improvements are of a lower profile and/or are located near the
center of the site where these structures would be obstructed by the site’s topography. Existing
above ground structures on the RWTP site do not exceed 50 feet. The operations/administration
building is 50 feet in height. The existing clarifiers are 16 to 20 feet in height. The filters are 20
feet in height.

Public Views
For the purposes of this EIR, four vantage points that represent views from the public right-of-
way within the project vicinity were considered, as follows: 1) More Avenue at the RWTP main
entrance; 2) More Avenue at the project lower entrance, 3) Capistrano Place at Granada Way,
and 4) Granada Way east of Capistrano Place. The locations of the four viewpoints are
presented in Figure 4.1-3. Visual simulations and/or renderings prepared for the project have
been developed by the project engineer for the More Avenue and Capistrano Place at Granada
Way vantage points. These simulations are presented in Figures 4.1-4 to 4.1-6. The visual
effects at the studied locations are discussed below.2

2
Please note that some of the simulations do not show replacement of the existing gray chain-link fencing with the
new 7 to 8-foot black chain-link perimeter fencing with three-strand barbed wire. The replacement fencing is not
expected to substantially change the visual simulations or anticipated future views of the site.

4.1-8 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 .
Pl
no
ra
p ist
Ca
3

ue
ven
Gr

re A
an
ad

Mo
aW
ay
2

I
0 500 1,000
Feet Copyright:© 2014 Esri, DeLorme, HERE, TomTom, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA,
USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Viewpoints Map Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project 4.1-3
Final EIR
Existing

Viewpoint 1: More Avenue Main Entrance Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project 4.1-4a
Final EIR
Project
Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Viewpoint 1: More Avenue Main Entrance Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project 4.1-4b
Final EIR
Existing

Viewpoint 2: Lower More Avenue Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project 4.1-5a
Final EIR
Project with Mature Landscaping Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Viewpoint 2: Lower More Avenue Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project 4.1-5b
Final EIR
Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Architectural and Landscaping – Current view

Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project

2 |
Existing

Viewpoint 3: Granada Way at Capistrano Place Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.1-6a
Final EIR
Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Architectural and Landscaping – View with new facilities

Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project

3 |
Project

Viewpoint 3: Granada Way at Capistrano Place Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.1-6b
Final EIR
Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Architectural and Landscaping – View with new facilities and screening

Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project

4 |
Project with Mature Landscaping

Viewpoint 3: Granada Way at Capistrano Place Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.1-6c
Final EIR
 4.1 Aesthetics

Viewpoint 1: Main Entrance at More Avenue. As shown in Figures 4.1-4a and 4.1-4b, the
view from More Avenue near the main entrance would be altered by development of the
proposed new filter and basin structures and bridge. These structures would be 27 feet or less
in height and would be partially screened by a decorative gate and landscaping. The new
structures would partially block an existing vista east toward the Santa Cruz Mountains from the
higher elevations along More Avenue (southbound). Given the relatively small scale the
proposed structures on portions of the site that are already largely developed, this change in
visual character is not considered significant.

Viewpoint 2: Lower More Avenue Entrance. As shown in Figures 4.1-5a and 4.1-5b, the view
from More Avenue near the lower Main Avenue entrance would be altered by development of
the new proposed basin structure. The basin would be 25 feet in height and somewhat
screened by landscaping. The new structures would partially block distant views of further
vistas of the Diablo Mountains to the northeast of the site from More Avenue. Given the
relatively small scale the proposed structures on portions of the site that are already largely
developed, this change in visual character is not considered significant.

Viewpoint 3: Capistrano Place at Granada Way. As shown in Figures 4.1-6a and 4.1-6b, the
view from Capistrano Place at Granada Way would be very slightly altered by development of
the proposed new basin structure, which is somewhat visible at the top of the project bluff from
this location. As shown in Figure 4.1-6c, proposed landscaping would largely obscure the
proposed structures in the future, resulting in a less-than-significant impact to the visual
character of the site from this vantage point.

Viewpoint 4: Granada Way east of Capistrano Place. No visual simulations were performed
from this vantage point. The existing view at this location is shown in Photo 7 of Figure 4.1-1.
It is expected that the view from Granada Way east of Capistrano Place towards the south
would be somewhat altered by development of the proposed ozone contactor structure and
sedimentation/flocculation basin. The proposed structures would be relatively low-profile and
obstructed by existing vegetation on the hillside as shown in Photo 7. Proposed landscaping
would further obscure the new structures, resulting in a less-than-significant impact to the visual
character from this vantage point.

Private Views
As described earlier, the project site is visible from several private residences within the
immediate project area, located along portions of Los Patios, Granada Way, Capistrano Place,
and Chippendale Court. CEQA does not require a detailed evaluation of individual private
views, particularly when only a limited number of private views would be affected by site
development activities. However, a general assessment of potential changes to private views
from the project is provided below to address the Town’s policy that new development respect
views from surrounding properties.

4.1-17 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.1 Aesthetics

Views of the site, as seen from residences

located along the east side of Los Patios
west of More Avenue near the project site,
would be affected by the proposed project
(see rendering on right from 116 Los Patios).
The project would result in the construction of
new site improvements, including the
proposed basin and ozone contactor
structures, on a portion of property that is
currently unoccupied. Views of this portion of
the site currently consist of existing gravel
and disturbed areas of the site and other
minor structures. The project engineer
created a visual simulation showing the view
of the project improvements with landscaping from Los Patios looking east toward the valley.
Changes to the site would not substantially affect views from this location since the proposed
structures are relatively low-profile, are located on a previously disturbed site, would be partially
screened by new landscaping, and would not obstruct distant views of the valley and Diablo
Range to the northeast.

Views of the northern portion of the project site from residences along Granada Way and
Capistrano Place are generally addressed in the assessment of visual impacts above from
public vantage points in these areas. The project would not result in significant changes to the
visual environment from these properties.

Views of the eastern portion of the project site are available from residences located at the end
of Chippendale Court and Bicknell Road. No permanent improvements are proposed on the
majority of the eastern portion of the project site. However, some residences at these locations
have views of the proposed southern and lower sludge bed staging areas. During construction,
the existing vacant natural area and lower drying bed would be transformed into staging areas
for materials and parking. Temporary 7 ½ foot high redwood fencing would be constructed along
the property boundary on the south side of the RWTP site to screen the southern and lower
drying bed staging areas from adjacent residences (see Figure 3-4). The staging areas would
be restored to their current condition to the extent feasible upon project completion, although
some large trees would be permanently removed from the project site. Landscaping, tree
replacement, and tree transplanting would reduce the visual impacts. The change in view at
these locations, therefore, is not considered significant.

In conclusion, based on the review of potentially sensitive viewpoints, the proposed RWTP
improvements would not significantly affect the existing visual character/quality of the area. This
is a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

4.1.3.6 Light/Glare Impacts

The project site is currently improved with existing sources of lighting for site security and
access purposes. Existing sources of nighttime lighting in the project area are generated from
street lighting along adjacent streets and security lighting at the RWTP. The project proposes
new exterior lighting at new specific process areas and security areas such as the main gates
and building entrances. Additional lighting would be provided for security. Security lighting
would be incorporated into site lighting controls. These fixtures would be fluorescent or LED

4.1-18 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.1 Aesthetics

fixtures installed on reduced height poles and building walls. Bollard style lights may also be
used for walkway or parking lot lighting during final design.

Nighttime lighting of proposed facilities would be designed consistent with current practices to
control fugitive light and glare while maintaining safety and compliance with applicable
standards. Lighting would be low intensity and, where possible, directed downward, shielded,
and oriented away from surrounding residential areas.

The project would not create new sources of substantial glare due to the low-profile design of
the proposed structures, limited use of glass or other reflective materials, and the existing
developed nature of the site. The proposed improvements would not create a new source of
substantial light or glare that would adversely affect views in the area. Impacts related to lighting
are considered less-than-significant and no mitigation is required.

4.1-19 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.1 Aesthetics

This page left intentionally blank.

4.1-20 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources

4.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources

Agricultural and forest resources are afforded protection under various federal and state acts
and programs. The project site is currently developed with water treatment facilities and also
contains some natural hillside areas with limited vegetation. A discussion of the potential
agricultural and forest resources on the project site and potential impacts from the project on
these resources is presented in the following section.

4.2.1 Setting
4.2.1.1 Agricultural Resources

According to the 2010 Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map (accessed online at
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/fmmp/pdf/2010/scl10.pdf), the project site contains lands
classified as “Urban and Built Up Land.” According to the California Department of
Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection, “Urban and Built Up Land” land is defined
as land that “is occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or
approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. Common examples include residential,
industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills,
sewage treatment, and water control structures.” The project site is not located on land that is
designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Local Importance.

4.2.1.2 Forest Resources

The project site is occupied by the RWTP and associated facilities, vacant areas, and some
natural lands. Land use on the property, where the project site is located, is subject to the
activities and requirements affiliated with the water treatment plant. The project site currently
contains over 1,000 trees based on past surveys of the property, some of which are within areas
of valley oak woodland. CEQA requires the evaluation of forest and timber resources where
they are present. The project site contains areas of valley oak woodland (refer to 4.4 Biological
Resources); however, these woodland areas do not constitute forest land or timber resources
as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g), timberland as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526, or property zoned for Timberland Production as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g).

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting

Agricultural resources are afforded protection under various federal and state acts (such as the
Williamson Act), programs, and local governance (General Plans, specific and other types of
plans, zoning ordinance, etc.). Some of the agencies involved with stewardship of agricultural
resources include the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), and the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land
Resource Protection. In California, agricultural land is also given consideration under CEQA.
According to Public Resources Code §21060.1, “agricultural land” means prime farmland,
farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmland, as defined by the USDA land inventory
and monitoring criteria, as modified for California.

The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) produces maps and statistical data
that are used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. The FMMP was

4.2-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources

established in 1982 in response to a critical need for assessing the location, quality, and
quantity of agricultural lands and conversion of these lands over time. The FMMP is a non-
regulatory program and provides a consistent and impartial analysis of agricultural land use and
land use changes throughout California. The goal of the FMMP is to provide consistent and
impartial data to decision makers for use in assessing present status, reviewing trends, and
planning for the future of California’s agricultural land resources. Under the FMMP, agricultural
land is rated according to irrigation status and soil quality; the best quality land is called Prime
Farmland. The FMMP produces Important Farmland Maps, which are a hybrid of resource
quality (soils) and land use information. (http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/index.htm)

CEQA requires the evaluation of forest and timber resources where they are present. Forest
and timber resources are evaluated based on the definitions in the following regulations: forest
land as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g); timberland as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526; or property zoned for Timberland Production as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g).

4.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation

4.2.3.1 Thresholds of Significance

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered significant if the
project would:

 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance

(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use;
 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract;
 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));
 Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses; or
 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.

4.2.3.2 Impacts to Agricultural Resources

The project site is located within the RWTP and is surrounded by residential and open space
uses. The site is designated in the Santa Clara County Important Farmlands map as Urban and
Built-up Land. No active agricultural activities are occurring on the project site, which is
predominantly developed, and no portion of the site is under Williamson Act contract. In
addition, no agricultural lands or activities are located adjacent to the project site. The project,
therefore, would not conflict with agricultural lands, lands zoned for agricultural use, or
Williamson Act contracts. This is a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required.

4.2-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources

4.2.3.3 Impacts to Forest Resources

The proposed improvements would require the removal of 277 trees to accommodate the water
treatment facilities; some of these trees are located within areas identified as valley oak
woodland. Mitigation is identified in Section 4.4 Biological Resources for the removal of trees
and impacts to valley oak woodland on the project site. The valley mixed oak woodland does
not meet the definition of forest land, timberland, or property zoned Timberland Production as
specified in applicable codes as described earlier. The project site does not contain active forest
land or timberland, nor is the site zoned for forest land use or timberland production. The project
would not impact forest or timberland (or related uses) since none are found on the project site
or in the vicinity.

4.2-3 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources

This page left intentionally blank.

4.2-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

4.3 Air Quality

The air quality evaluation for the project was performed based on guidance provided by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). This section evaluates the potential air quality
and public health impacts of the proposed RWTP project, considering both operational and
construction effects. This analysis includes an evaluation of operational emissions, construction
emissions and potential health risks from toxic air contaminants.

4.3.1 Setting
4.3.1.1 Meteorology

The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is comprised of the
nine Bay Area counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. While the other counties are fully included in the air basin,
Sonoma County and Solano County are only included in part, by their southern portion and
southwestern portion, respectively. Air quality in the region is affected by natural factors such as
proximity to the Bay and ocean, topography, meteorology, and existing air pollution sources.

The Bay Area is characterized by the Mediterranean type climate with warm, dry summers and
cool, wet winters. The terrain of the project area influences both the climate and air pollution
potential. The Town of Los Gatos lies in the Santa Clara Valley climatological subregion of the
Bay Area Air Basin. The northwest-southeast oriented Santa Clara Valley is bounded by the
Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, the Diablo Range to the east, the San Francisco Bay to the
north, and the convergence of the Gabilan Range and the Diablo Range to the south. Winter
temperatures are mild, except for very cool but generally frostless mornings. At the northern end
of the Santa Clara Valley, the San Jose Airport reports mean maximum temperatures ranging
from the high 70s to the low 80s during the summer to the high 50s-low 60s during the winter,
and mean minimum temperatures ranging from the high 50s during the summer to the low 40s
during the winter. Further inland, where the moderating effect of the Bay is not as strong,
temperature extremes are greater.

The wind patterns in the Valley are influenced greatly by the terrain, resulting in a prevailing flow
roughly parallel to the Valley's northwest-southeast axis with a north-northwesterly ocean
breeze that flows up the valley in the afternoon and early evening and a light south-
southeasterly flow during the late evening and early morning. In the summer, a convergence
zone is sometimes observed in the southern end of the Valley between Gilroy and Morgan Hill
when air flowing from the Monterey Bay through the Pajaro Gap is channeled northward into the
south end of the Santa Clara Valley and meets with the prevailing north-northwesterly winds.
Speeds are greatest in the spring and summer; nighttime and early morning hours have light
winds and are frequently calm in all seasons while summer afternoons and evenings can be
windy.

Air pollution potential in the Santa Clara Valley is high. The valley has a large population and
the largest complex of mobile sources in the Bay Area, making it a major source of carbon
monoxide, particulate and photochemical air pollution. In addition, photochemical pollution
precursors from San Francisco, San Mateo, and Alameda counties can be carried along by the
prevailing winds to the Santa Clara Valley. Geographically, the valley tends to channel
pollutants to the southeast because of its northwest/southeast orientation and its narrowing to
the southeast.

4.3-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

There are meteorological factors that have an effect on emissions levels, as well. On summer
days, pollutants can be recirculated by the prevailing north-westerly winds in the afternoon and
the light flow in the late evening and early morning. This recirculation increases the impact of
emissions significantly. Inversions, created by warm, stable air aloft that limits the vertical
dispersion of air pollutants, increase the emissions impact in all seasons. During days in the late
fall and winter, clear, calm and cold conditions associated with a strong surface-based
temperature inversion tend to prevail, which can result in high levels of particulate and carbon
monoxide. Though they can be found during all seasons in the Bay Area, inversions are
particularly prevalent in the summer months when they are present about 90 percent of the
time, both in the morning and in the afternoon.

4.3.1.2 Criteria Air Pollutants

Evaluation of air quality generally focuses on five criteria pollutants that are most commonly
measured and regulated: carbon monoxide (CO), ground level ozone (O3) formed through
reactions of nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases, nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and suspended particulate matter (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5). In the Bay Area, ozone and
particulate matter are the pollutants of greatest concern since measured air pollutant levels
exceed these concentrations at times. Table 4.3-1 below identifies the characteristics, health
effects and typical sources of these major air pollutants.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is primarily responsible for assuring that the
national and state ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area.
The BAAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning
air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting
stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air
quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions,
conducting public education campaigns, and other activities.

4.3.1.3 Air Quality Monitoring Data

Air quality in the region is controlled by the rate of pollutant emissions and meteorological
conditions. Meteorological conditions such as wind speed, atmospheric stability, and mixing
height may all affect the atmosphere’s ability to mix and disperse pollutants. Long-term
variations in air quality typically result from changes in air pollutant emissions, while frequent,
short-term variations result from changes in atmospheric conditions. The San Francisco Bay
Area is considered to be one of the cleanest metropolitan areas in the country with respect to air
quality. BAAQMD monitors air quality conditions at more than 30 locations throughout the Bay
Area. The closest monitoring stations to the project are the Los Gatos and San Jose (Central)
sites. Summarized air pollutant data for these stations is shown in Table 4.3-2. This table shows
the highest air pollutant concentrations measured at the stations.

4.3-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

Table 4.3-1
Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Characteristics Health Effects Major Sources
Ozone (O3) A highly reactive photochemical pollutant created by the action  Respiratory function impairment. Sources of ozone precursors (nitrogen oxides and
of sunshine on ozone precursors (primarily reactive reactive hydrocarbons) are combustion sources,
hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen). Often called such as factories and automobiles, and evaporation
photochemical smog. Highest concentrations of ozone are of solvents and fuels.
found downwind of urban areas.

Carbon Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless gas that is highly  Impairment of oxygen transport Automobile exhaust, combustion of fuels,
Monoxide toxic. It is formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels. CO in the bloodstream. combustion of wood in woodstoves and fireplaces.
(CO) concentrations are highest in the winter, when radiation  Aggravation of cardiovascular
inversions over large areas can limit vertical dispersion. disease.
 Fatigue, headache, confusion,
dizziness.
 Can be fatal in the case of very
high concentrations.

Nitrogen Reddish-brown gas that discolors the air, formed during  Increased risk of acute and Automobile and diesel truck exhaust, industrial
Dioxide combustion. Nitrogen dioxide levels in California have chronic respiratory disease. processes, fossil-fuel powered plants. Also formed
(NO2) decreased in recent years due to improved automobile via atmospheric reactions.
emissions. Ambient standards are typically not exceeded in
NCCAB.
Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas with a pungent, irritating odor.  Aggravation of chronic Diesel vehicle exhaust, oil-powered power plants,
(SO2) Ambient standards for sulfur dioxide are rarely exceeded in the obstruction lung disease. industrial processes.
NCCAB.  Increased risk of acute and
chronic respiratory disease.

PM10 & PM2.5 Solid and liquid particles of dust, soot, aerosols and other  Aggravation of chronic disease Combustion, automobiles, field burning, factories
matter which are small enough to remain suspended in the air and heart/lung disease and unpaved roads. Also, formed secondarily by
for a long period of time. PM10 is particulate matter with symptoms. photochemical processes of combustion emissions.
diameter less than 10 microns. PM2.5 is particulate matter with PM2.5 is primarily a secondary pollutant.
diameter less than 2.5 microns. PM2.5 has been found to be
more harmful to humans.

4.3-3 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

Table 4.3-2
Highest Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations
Measured Air Pollutant Levels
Average
Pollutant Time 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Los Gatos and San Jose Central
1-Hour .109 .091 .085 ND ND
Ozone (O3) ppm
8-Hour .087 .075 .072 ND ND
Carbon Monoxide
8-Hour 2.2 2.3 1.9 ND ND
(CO) ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide 1-Hour .064 .061 .067 ND ND
(NO2) ppm Annual .014 .015 .013 ND ND
Respirable 24-Hour 47 44 60 ND ND
Particulate Matter
Annual 19.5 19.2 18.8 ND ND
(PM10) ug/m3
Fine Particulate 24-Hour 41.5 50.5 38.4 ND ND
Matter (PM2.5) ug/m3 Annual 8.8 9.9 9.1 ND ND
3
Notes: ppm = parts per million and ug/m = micrograms per cubic meter
Values reported in bold exceed ambient air quality standard
ND = data not available.
Los Gatos for ozone only. San Jose Central for all other pollutants.
Source: BAAQMD Air Quality Summaries for 2010, 2011, 2012.

4.3.1.4 Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)

Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a broad class of compounds known to cause various acute,
chronic, and cancer related health impacts. They include, but are not limited to, the criteria air
pollutants listed above. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and can be
caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations. TACs are typically
found in low concentrations, even near their source; for example, while diesel particulate matter
and benzene may be present near a freeway, the concentration of these materials in the air is
typically low. However, chronic exposure to these low levels can result in adverse health effects.
As a result, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and federal level.

BAAQMD initiated its Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program in 2004 to evaluate and
reduce health risks associated with exposures to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area. The program
examines TAC emissions from: point sources; area sources; on-road mobile sources, such as
cars and trucks; and off-road mobile sources, such as construction equipment, trains, and
aircraft. The CARE program focuses on Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions, which is the
major contributor to airborne health risk in California. Its goal is to identify areas with high
emissions of TACs that have sensitive populations nearby, then reduce exposure to TACs
through new regulations, incentive funding, and other programs.

In Phase I of the program, a 2-kilometer by 2-kilometer gridded inventory of TAC emissions was
developed for the year 2000. The data were then updated to include 2005 emission data. This
emissions inventory was risk-weighted to reflect the differences in potency of the various TACs.
For example, benzene has far higher cancer potency than many other compounds, such as
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). In contrast, while DPM is not as potent as benzene, DPM
emissions are much more prevalent. The Phase I study identifies diesel emissions from heavy-

4.3-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

duty trucks as a major source of TAC emissions and identifies programs available to reduce
these emissions.

In Phase II of the CARE program, BAAQMD is performing regional and local-scale modeling to
determine the significant sources of DPM and other TAC emissions locally in priority
communities, as well as for the entire Bay Area. The BAAQMD has partnered with CARB, the
Port of Oakland, the Pacific Institute, the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, and
major railroads to prepare specific health risk assessments.

One highlight of the CARE program is the development of a Mitigation Action Plan, in which risk
reduction activities are focused on the most at-risk communities. This plan identified six different
at-risk communities that would benefit from targeted mitigation, based on TAC emissions and
presence of sensitive land uses. Los Gatos is not located in any of these at-risk communities.

In Phase III, BAAQMD plans to conduct an extensive exposure assessment to identify and rank
the communities as to their potential TAC exposures and determine the types of activities that
place the communities at highest risk. BAAQMD will also pursue additional mitigations and
attempt to develop a metric to measure the effectiveness of these efforts. The new BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines included new significance thresholds for community risk and hazards that
originated from this process. These new thresholds address both project (i.e., single-source)
and cumulative exposures.

Smoke from residential wood combustion can also be a source of TACs. There are typically
higher levels of wood smoke emissions during wintertime when dispersion conditions are poor.
Localized high TAC concentrations can result when cold stagnant air traps smoke near the
ground and, with no wind, the pollution can persist for many hours, especially in sheltered
valleys during winter. Wood smoke also contains a significant amount of PM10 and PM2.5. Wood
smoke is an irritant and is implicated in worsening asthma and other chronic lung problems.

4.3.1.5 Attainment Status

The EPA administers the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Federal
Clean Air Act. EPA sets the NAAQS and determines if areas meet those standards. Violations
of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are judged for
each air pollutant. Areas that do not violate ambient air quality standards are considered to have
attained the standard. EPA has classified the region as a nonattainment area for the 8-hour O3
standard and the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The Bay Area has met the CO standards for over a
decade and is classified as an attainment area by the U.S. EPA. The U.S. EPA has deemed the
region as attainment/unclassified for all other air pollutants, which include PM10. At the State
level, the Bay Area is considered nonattainment for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5.

4.3.1.6 Sensitive Receptors

Sensitive receptors consist of groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB
has identified the following as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14,
the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases.
Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include
residential areas, hospitals, daycare centers, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and
parks. The project site is surrounded by single family residential areas to the north, west, and
south. To the east lies the La Rinconada Country Club, with more residential areas on the east
side of the course. There are no schools within 1,000 feet of the project site. The nearest school

4.3-5 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

lies about 3,200 feet north of the site. The nearest residences are located 40 to 55 feet from the
RWTP boundary. No other sensitive receptors have been identified in the project vicinity.

4.3.2 Regulatory Environment

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) is the primary federal law regulating air quality in the United
States. In addition to being subject to federal requirements, air quality in California is also
governed by more stringent regulations under the California Clean Air Act. At the federal level,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) administers the CAA. The California Clean
Air Act is administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the state level and by
the appropriate air quality management district at the regional and local levels. The BAAQMD
regulates air quality at the regional level, which includes the nine-county Bay Area. Following is
a discussion of regulation programs and policies.

4.3.2.1 Federal

As required by the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) have been established for seven major air pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen
oxides, ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur oxides,
and lead.

United States Environmental Protection Agency

The U.S. EPA is responsible for enforcing the CAA. The U.S. EPA is also responsible for
establishing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS are required under
the CAA. The U.S. EPA regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the
federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain types of locomotives. The agency has
jurisdiction over emission sources outside state waters (e.g., beyond the outer continental shelf)
and establishes various emission standards, including those for vehicles sold in states other
than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission standards
established by CARB.

In addition to major pollutants, the U.S. EPA regulates Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). One
means by which the U.S. EPA addresses HAP exposure is through the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)1, which include source-specific regulations
that limit allowable emissions of such pollutants.

The U.S. EPA recently adopted a new, more stringent standard of 35 µg/m3 for 24-hour
exposures based on a review of the latest new scientific evidence. At the same time, U.S. EPA
revoked the annual PM10 standard due to a lack of scientific evidence correlating long-term
exposures of ambient PM10 with adverse health effects.

4.3.2.2 State

California Air Resources Board

In California, CARB, which is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is
responsible for meeting the state requirements of the CAA, administering the California Clean
Air Act (CCAA), and establishing the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The
1
The NESHAPs are promulgated under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 61 & 63.

4.3-6 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

CCAA requires all air districts in the state to endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS. CARB
regulates mobile air pollution sources, such as motor vehicles. The agency is responsible for
setting emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for other emission sources, such
as consumer products and certain off-road equipment. CARB has established passenger
vehicle fuel specifications and oversees the functions of local air pollution control districts and
air quality management districts, which in turn administer air quality activities at the regional and
county level. CARB also conducts or supports research into the effects of air pollution on the
public and develops innovative approaches to reducing air pollutant emissions. Both state and
federal standards are summarized in Table 4.3-3.

State Ambient Air Quality Standards

The state also regulates Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) separately from those pollutants with
CAAQS primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots
Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). A discussion of TACs was provided earlier
in this section.

4.3.2.3 Regional

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

BAAQMD is primarily responsible for assuring that the national and state ambient air quality
standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area as described above.

Bay Area Clean Air Plan

To protect public health, BAAQMD has adopted plans to achieve ambient air quality standards.
BAAQMD must continuously monitor its progress in implementing attainment plans and must
periodically report to CARB and the EPA. It must also periodically revise its attainment plans to
reflect new conditions and requirements.

Table 4.3-3
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Averaging California National
a b
Pollutant Time Standards Standards
8-hour 0.07 ppm 0.075 ppm
Ozone c
1-hour 0.09 ppm —
8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm
Carbon monoxide
1-hour 20 ppm 35 ppm
Annual 0.03 ppm 0.053 ppm
Nitrogen dioxide d
1-hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Annual — 0.03 ppm
e
Sulfur dioxide 24-hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
1-hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm
3
Annual 20 µg/m --
PM10 3 3
24-hour 50 µg/m 150 µg/m
3 3
Annual 12 µg/m 15 µg/m
PM2.5 3f
24-hour — 35 µg/m

4.3-7 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

Table 4.3-3
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Notes:
3
ppm = parts per million µg/m = micrograms per cubic meter
a
California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour),
nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be
exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are
not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except
for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded. In particular, measurements
are excluded that CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average.
b
National standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. National standards other
than for ozone, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year.
The 1-hour ozone standard is attained if, during the most recent three-year period, the average number of days
per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour ozone
standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.075 ppm (75 ppb) or less.
The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations
3
is less than 150 µg/m . The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less
3
than 35 µg/m .
Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the
standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below
the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-
averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard.
c
The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked by EPA on June 15, 2005.
d
To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each
monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100ppm (effective January 22, 2010).
e
On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on
the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm
annual and 0.14 ppm 24-hour SO2 NAAQS however must continue to be used until one year following EPA initial
designations of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
f 3 3
EPA lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 µg/m to 35 µg/m in 2006. EPA designated the Bay Area as
nonattainment of the PM2.5 standard on October 8, 2009. The effective date of the designation is December 14,
2009, and the Air District has three years to develop a SIP that demonstrates the Bay Area will achieve the revised
standard by December 14, 2014.

Source: CARB, 2012

In 1991, the BAAQMD, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) prepared the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan. This air quality plan
addresses the California Clean Air Act. Updates are developed approximately every three
years. The plans are meant to demonstrate progress toward meeting the more stringent 1-hour
ozone California AAQS. In 2010, BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. This
Clean Air Plan updates the most recent ozone plan, the 2005 Ozone Strategy. Unlike previous
Bay Area Clean Air Plans, the 2010 Clean Air Plan is a multi-pollutant air quality plan
addressing four categories of air pollutants:

 Ground-level ozone and the key ozone precursor pollutants (reactive organic gases and
NOx), as required by State law;
 Particulate matter, primarily PM2.5, as well as the precursors to secondary PM2.5;
 Toxic air contaminants; and
 Greenhouse gases (GHGs).

4.3-8 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

While the Clean Air Plan addresses State requirements, it also provides the basis for developing
future control plans to meet federal requirements (NAAQS) for ozone and PM2.5. The region was
required to prepare (by December 2012) a federally enforceable plan to meet the NAAQS for
PM2.5. In addition, U.S. EPA will provide formal designations for O3 under the NAAQS. These
new standards will trigger new planning requirements for the Bay Area and more stringent
federally enforceable control measures.

While previous Clean Air Plans have relied upon a combination of stationary and transportation
control measures, the 2010 Clean Air Plan adds two new types of control measures: 1) Land
Use and Local Impact Measures, and 2) Energy and Climate Measures. These types of
measures would indirectly reduce air pollutant and GHG emissions through reductions in vehicle
use and energy usage. In addition, the plan includes Further Study Measures, which will be
evaluated as potential control measures.

The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan proposes expanded implementation of transportation control
measures (TCMs) and includes public outreach programs designed to educate the public about
air pollution in the Bay Area and promote individual behavior changes that improve air quality.
New measures in the Clean Air Plan are aimed at helping guide land use policies that would
indirectly reduce air pollutant emissions. Some of these measures or programs rely on local
governments for implementation. The clean air planning efforts for O3 also will reduce PM10 and
PM2.5, as a substantial amount of particulate matter comes from combustion emissions such as
vehicle exhaust. Conversely, strategies to reduce O3 precursor emissions will reduce secondary
formation of PM10 and PM2.5.

The Bay Area 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan was prepared to achieve the 1-hour NAAQS for
ozone. Since that plan was submitted, the region was designated as a marginal nonattainment
area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked. This plan was a
proposed revision to the Bay Area part of California's plan (State Implementation Plan, or SIP)
to achieve the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The plan was prepared in response to EPA's partial
approval and partial disapproval of the Bay Area's 1999 Ozone Attainment Plan. This plan
contains the most recent federally required control measures to reduce ozone concentrations.
EPA plans to designate the Bay Area as nonattainment with respect to the new 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. This would require the region to develop a new Ozone Attainment Plan to meet
this standard. A new plan would likely contain many of the components listed in the 2010 Clean
Air Plan described above, since that plan addresses the more stringent State ozone standards.

There is no clean air plan addressing PM10 or PM2.5 that is required to meet regulatory
requirements. Currently, BAAQMD is developing a federally required plan to address the PM2.5
NAAQS. In addition, the BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan addresses control of PM10 and PM2.5.
The clean air planning efforts for ozone will also reduce PM10 and PM2.5, since a substantial
amount of this air pollutant comes from combustion emissions such as vehicle exhaust. In
addition, California’s Senate Bill 656 (SB 656, Sher, 2003) that amended Section 39614 of the
Health and Safety Code, required further action by CARB and air districts to reduce public
exposure to PM10 and PM2.5. Efforts identified by BAAQMD in response to SB 656 are primarily
targeting reductions in wood smoke emissions, adoption of new rules to further reduce NOx and
particulate matter from internal combustion engines, and reductions in particulate matter from
commercial charbroiling activities.

4.3-9 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

4.3.2.4 Local

Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code

The Town of Los Gatos adopted Ordinance 1905 on June 1st, 1992 to ban installation of wood-
burning fireplaces in new residential construction. The ordinance requires installation of either a
wood heater or fireplace insert certified by the US EPA, or a gas- or pellet-fueled wood heater in
new housing construction.

Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan

The Town’s General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid impacts to air quality. Relevant
policies to the project are listed below.

General Plan Policies: Air Quality

Relevant Goals, Policies and Description

Actions
Goal ENV-12 Conserve the air resources of the Town and maintain
and improve acceptable air quality in Los Gatos.
Policy ENV-12.4 Support Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC), State, and federal planning efforts and
programs aimed at reducing air pollution within the
airshed.
Policy ENV-12.7 During construction, ensure all applicable best
management practices are used in accordance with
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
standards to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants.
Policy ENV-12.8 Best Available Control Measures including compliance
with California vehicle emissions standards shall be
incorporated to reduce construction emissions.
For significant projects, require project proponents to
prepare and implement a Construction Management
Plan, which will include Best Available Control
Measures, among other measures. Appropriate control
measures will be determined on a project-by-project
basis, and should be specific to the pollutant for which
the daily threshold is exceeded. Such control measures
may include, but not be
limited to:
a) Minimizing simultaneous operation construction
equipment units.
b) Watering the construction area to minimize
fugitive dust.
c) Requiring off-road diesel powered vehicles used
for construction to comply with California vehicle
emissions standards.
d) Minimizing idling time by construction vehicles.

4.3-10 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

4.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation

4.3.3.1 Thresholds of Significance

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered significant if the
project would:
 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation;
 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors);
 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
 Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

In June 2010, the BAAQMD adopted significance thresholds for agencies to use to assist with
environmental review of projects. These thresholds were designed to establish the level at
which BAAQMD believed air pollutant emissions would cause significant impacts under CEQA.
The BAAQMD’s recommended significance thresholds were included in its updated CEQA
Guidelines (updated May 2012). In March 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court ruled that
BAAQMD needed to comply with CEQA prior to adopting the Guidelines. The Superior Court
did not determine whether the thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of
the thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering
BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until BAAQMD complied
with CEQA. On appeal, the First Appellate District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s
decision. The Court of Appeal’s decision was appealed to the California Supreme Court, which
granted limited review, and the matter is currently pending. In view of the trial court’s order
which remains in place pending final resolution of the case, BAAQMD is no longer
recommending that their thresholds be used as a general measure of project’s significant air
quality impacts; however, BAAQMD noted that lead agencies may rely on its updated CEQA
Guidelines (May 2012) for assistance in calculating air emissions, obtaining information
regarding health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures.

The District has independently reviewed the BAAQMD recommended thresholds from June
2010, including BAAQMD’s Justification Report, which explains the agency’s reasoning for
adopting the thresholds, and determined that they are supported by substantial evidence and
appropriate for use in determining significance in the environmental review of this project.
Specifically, the District has determined that the BAAQMD thresholds are well-founded on air
quality regulations, scientific evidence, and scientific reasoning concerning air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions. The BAAQMD recommended significance thresholds are provided
in Table 4.3-4 below.

4.3-11 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

Table 4.3-4
Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
Average Daily Average Daily
Emissions Emissions Annual Average
Pollutant (lbs./day) (lbs./day) Emissions (tons/year)
Criteria Air Pollutants
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 82 15
PM2.5 54 54 10
9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm
CO Not Applicable
(1-hour average)
Construction Dust Ordinance or
Fugitive Dust Not Applicable
other Best Management Practices
Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources
Excess Cancer Risk 10 per one million 10 per one million
Chronic or Acute
1.0 1.0
Hazard Index
Incremental annual 3 3
0.3 µg/m 0.3 µg/m
average PM2.5
Health Risks and Hazards for Sensitive Receptors (Cumulative from All Sources within 1,000-Foot
Zone of Influence) and Cumulative Thresholds for New Sources
Excess Cancer Risk 100 per 1 million
Chronic Hazard Index 10.0
3
Annual Average PM2.5 0.8 µg/m
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = course particulate matter or particulates with
an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, and PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an
aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less. Source: BAAQMD, 2014.

4.3.3.2 Consistency with Air Quality Plan

The BAAQMD, with assistance from the Association of Bay Area Governments and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, has prepared and will implement specific plans to
meet the applicable laws, regulations, and programs. Among them are the Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Plan (1994), the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air
Plan. The BAAQMD has also developed CEQA guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating
the significance of air quality impacts. In formulating compliance strategies, the BAAQMD relies
on planned land uses established by local general plans. When a project proposes to change
planned uses by requesting a general plan amendment, the project may depart from the
assumptions used to formulate BAAQMD in such a way that the cumulative result of incremental
changes may hamper or prevent the BAAQMD from achieving its goals. This is because land
use patterns influence transportation needs, and motor vehicles are the primary source of air
pollution. The proposed improvements to the RWTP would not conflict with implementation of
control measures contained in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan since it does not propose any

4.3-12 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

changes in use or long-term traffic conditions. The project, therefore, would not conflict with
clean air planning efforts.

4.3.3.3 Violation of an Air Quality Standard, Substantial Contribution to Air

Quality Violation, or Exposure of Existing Sensitive Receptors to
Substantial Air Pollutants

The Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level ozone and fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is
also considered non-attainment for respirable particulates or particulate matter with a diameter
of less than 10 micrometers (PM10) under the CCAA, but not the Federal act. The area has
attained both State and Federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide.

The nearest sensitive receptors (at the residential property lines) are located 40 to 55 feet from
the RWTP boundary. Additional residences are located farther away in all directions around the
site.

Operational Emissions
The operational emissions for the (post-construction) RWTP would be essentially the same as
the current facility. The facility at present has three permitted air emitting sources, i.e., a fire
pump system engine, an emergency electrical generator engine, and an above-ground 1,000
gallon gasoline tank. None of these sources are planned to be removed or modified, and thus
none of these sources is expected to have increased emissions.

The project is proposing to add two diesel engine driven electrical generators (1-2,500 kilowatt
and 1-150 kilowatt). Table 4.3-5 presents the preliminary estimated emissions for these two new
engines. The operational emissions associated with these engines would be less than the daily
and annual significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants, and, therefore, would not be
considered cumulatively considerable. These engines would require permits from the BAAQMD
to install and operate. As part of the permitting process these engines must be evaluated for
potential health risks, primarily from emission of diesel particulate matter. Compliance with the
BAAQMD permitting requirements would ensure that the generators are operated properly in
order to avoid impacts from localized emissions.

Table 4.3-5
Emissions Estimates for Proposed Diesel Generator Engines
Engine ID/ NOx CO VOC SOx PM10/2.5 CO2e
Emission Rate
2500 KW, 33.19 19.17 2.21 0.04 1.11 -
lbs/day
2500 KW, tons 0.863 0.499 0.058 0.001 0.029 107.5
per year

150 KW, lbs/day 0.13 0.97 0.06 0.0023 0.01 -

150 KW, tons 0.0034 0.0252 0.0016 0.0001 0.0002 6.42

per year
BAAQMD 82/54 NA
Thresholds
54 54 54 54

4.3-13 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

Table 4.3-5
Emissions Estimates for Proposed Diesel Generator Engines
Engine ID/ NOx CO VOC SOx PM10/2.5 CO2e
Emission Rate
lbs/day
BAAQMD
Thresholds tons 10 10 10 10 15/10 NA
per year
Exceed
No No No No NA NA
Threshold?
Each engine runtime = 1 hr/day, 52 hrs/yr

Carbon monoxide emissions from traffic generated by operation of the upgraded RWTP would
be the pollutant of greatest concern at the local level. Congested intersections with a large
volume of traffic have the greatest potential to cause high-localized concentrations of carbon
monoxide. Air pollutant monitoring data indicate that carbon monoxide levels have been at
healthy levels (i.e., below state and federal standards) in the Bay Area since the early 1990s. As
a result, the region has been designated as attainment for the standard. There is an ambient air
quality monitoring station in San Jose that measures carbon monoxide concentrations. The
highest measured level over any 8-hour averaging period during the last three years is less than
2.3 parts per million (ppm), compared to the ambient air quality standard of 9.0 ppm.
Intersections affected by the project operational traffic would have volumes less than the
BAAQMD screening criteria and thus would not cause a violation of an ambient air quality
standard or have a considerable contribution to cumulative violations of these standards.2

The improved RWTP operations would increase the number of employees by one staff person.
The upgraded operation would also increase truck trips by five deliveries per month. The
increase in mobile emissions from one new employee and five additional truck deliveries would
be negligible and would not result in impacts to existing emissions inventories or ambient air
quality.

Based on the discussion above, operation of the project is not expected to exceed the
significant operational thresholds, violate any air quality standard, contribute substantially to an
existing/projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant
levels.

Construction Emissions
Construction activities are anticipated to include demolition of existing buildings, excavation,
grading, building construction, paving, and application of architectural coatings, which would
result in emissions of air pollutants and dust. Estimated emissions of air pollutants during the
construction phase of the project were compared to the BAAQMD significance criteria, which
include thresholds based on 1) total mass emissions on a pound per day basis, 2) concentration
threshold for fugitive dust (PM2.5) on an annual basis, and 3) health risk based thresholds for
diesel particulate matter. Each of these comparisons is discussed separately below.

2
For a land-use project type, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines state that a proposed project
would result in a less than significant impact to localized carbon monoxide concentrations if the project
would not increase traffic at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.

4.3-14 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

Construction emissions were estimated for the project using CalEEMod (Version 2013.2.2).3
Data supplied by the project engineers was used and supplemented by data from other similar
projects and the use of “best engineering estimates” in cases where actual data was not
available. Table 4.3-6 presents the individual phase data as well as the types and numbers of
construction equipment to be onsite. Tables 4.3-7 and 4.3-8 present summaries of other
relevant construction data that was used for CalEEMod. Construction is expected to occur for
up to 80 months, based on five phases of development.

Table 4.3-6
Construction Phase & Equipment Data
Parameter Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
Phase Length 19 months 12 months 9 months 18 months 22 months
~685 days ~265 days ~195 days ~395 days ~465 days
Estimated Construction Equipment and Number by Phase
Dozer 1
Loader 1 1 1 1
Forklift 1 1 1 1 1
Backhoe 1 1 1 1 1
Skid Loader 1 1
45 ton Crane 1
Excavator 1 1 1
Roller Compactor 1 1 1 1
Grader 1 1
Building/Demolition Area, ~119,000 or 2.73 acres
sq.ft. (Project total)

Table 4.3-7
Construction Phasing & Activity Data
Construction Activity Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
Demolition X X
Site Preparation X X X
Grading X
Building X X X X X
Paving X X
Architectural Coating X X X

3
CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model developed to provide a uniform platform
to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions.

4.3-15 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

Table 4.3-8
Construction Parameters
Construction Activity Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
Demolition (approx sq.ft.- - - 80% - 20%
103,900)
Concrete (yd3) / and # of - 8,950 / - 10,709 / 320 / 40
deliveries 1,120 1,340
Cut/Fill (yd3) - 17,000 - 7,800 16,700
Paving (yd2) - - - -- 9,000
Avg Construction 10 25 15 25 20
Workers/day (be)
Assumes 8 CY per load of concrete. Demolition debris hauled from site.

Mass Based Significance Thresholds. Table 4.3-9 reports the estimated construction
phase/period emissions, annualized emissions, and average daily emissions (computed by
dividing the total annualized construction period emissions by the number of anticipated
construction days). Emissions are shown by each construction phase. Per Table 4.3-9, no
emissions of criteria pollutants during construction would exceed the BAAQMD daily
significance levels, as presented in Table 4.3-4. Details of the emission calculations are
provided in Appendix B. As indicated in Table 4.3-9 below, project emissions of ROG, NOx,
PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed the BAAQMD daily (lb/day) significance thresholds. Thus,
the project construction emissions would not be considered significant when compared to the
mass based significance thresholds.

Table 4.3-9
Estimated Construction Period Emissions
PM10 PM2.5
ROG NOx Exhaust + Exhaust + CO SOx CO2e
Description Fugitives Fugitives
Metric
Tons per Period Tons
Phase 1 .344 3.54 .6521 .4263 2.554 .0033 313
Phase 2 .4693 2.741 .181 .129 1.408 .0029 269
Phase 3 .1637 1.680 .162 .0992 1.170 .0020 188
Phase 4 .459 .993 .1194 .0712 .958 .0018 156
Phase 5 .262 1.219 .1194 .067 1.020 .0023 192
Tons per Year (Annualized) Metric
Ttons
Phase 1 .225 2.31 .426 .279 1.67 .0022 205
Phase 2 .4693 2.741 .181 .129 1.408 .0029 269
Phase 3 .1637 1.680 .162 .0992 1.170 .0020 188
Phase 4 .306 .662 .080 .0475 .639 .0012 104
Phase 5 .143 .665 .065 .037 .556 .0013 105
Lbs/day (Normalized per 264 workdays per year)
Phase 1 1.70 17.5 3.23 2.11 12.65 .017 1,708
Phase 2 3.55 20.77 1.37 .98 10.70 .022 2,242

4.3-16 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

Table 4.3-9
Estimated Construction Period Emissions
PM10 PM2.5
ROG NOx Exhaust + Exhaust + CO SOx CO2e
Description Fugitives Fugitives
Phase 3 1.24 12.73 1.23 .75 8.86 .015 1,567
Phase 4 2.32 5.01 .61 .36 4.84 .0091 867
Phase 5 1.08 5.04 .49 .28 4.21 .0098 875
BAAQMD 54 54 82 54 NA NA NA
Thresholds
Exceed No No No No NA NA NA
Threshold?

Concentration Based Significance Thresholds. During demolition, excavation, grading and

some building construction activities, fugitive dust (PM2.5) could be generated. Most of the dust
would occur during excavation and grading activities. The amount of dust generated would be
highly variable and would be dependent on the size of the area disturbed at any given time,
amount of activity, and soil/weather conditions. In addition to the fugitive dust emissions,
emissions of combustion PM2.5 would also occur. Therefore, in addition to the daily construction
emission significance thresholds, the BAAQMD has also established a concentration based
significance threshold for PM2.5 of 0.3 ug/m3 (annual average).

The CalEEMod model provided total PM2.5 exhaust emissions for the off-road construction
equipment and for exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles (haul trucks, vendor trucks, and
worker vehicles) of 0.515 tons (1,031.1 pounds) for the overall construction period. The on-road
emissions are a result of worker travel and vendor deliveries during building construction. A trip
length of 0.3 miles was used to represent vehicle travel while at or near the construction site. It
was assumed that these emissions from on-road vehicles traveling at or near the site would
occur at the construction site. Fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions were also calculated by CalEEMod
as 0.289 tons (579.9 pounds) for the overall construction period.

The U.S. EPA ISCST3 dispersion model was used to predict concentrations of PM2.5 at existing
sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. The ISCST3 modeling utilized point sources
and a single area source to represent the on-site construction emissions, with the point sources
representing the PM2.5 exhaust emissions and the area source for fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions
(refer to Figure 4.3-1). To represent the construction equipment exhaust emissions, eight
equally spaced point sources were placed within the area of construction activity (see Figure
4.3-1). Each point source had an emission release height of 10 feet. The exit temperature and
stack velocity were based on an average sized construction engine source. For modeling
fugitive PM2.5 emissions, a near ground level release height of 8.2 feet was used for the area
source. Emissions were modeled as occurring daily between 7 AM - 5 PM. The model used a
5-year data set (1991 - 1995) of hourly meteorological data from the San Jose Airport, available
from the BAAQMD. Annual PM2.5 concentrations from construction activities were predicted for
2013 through 2020, with the annual average concentrations based on the maximum year
average concentrations from modeling all five years of meteorological data. PM2.5
concentrations were calculated at nearby sensitive receptors at heights representative of the
ground level exposures for the nearby single-family homes.

4.3-17 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4124200

La Rinconada
La Rinconada
WTP -Project
WTP Area
-Project
and Maximum
Area and Impact
MaximumLocation
Impact Location
86

4124100 92
98
76
61

99 55
113
4124200 4124200 87 40
89 140
54
125
172 36
94 24
83 19 15
162
4124000
49 3
3
79
156 86 86
17

4124100 4124100
64 98 98 32
92 61
92 61
45 132 76 76 16
25 4
13 99 55 99 55 3
103 113 113 22 3
32 19
87 40 87 40
71
89 140 89 140
4123900 12
35 172
125
54
172
36
125
54
22
36
4
3
94 94 24 24 4
83 1983 15 49 19 15
162 162
4124000 4124000
49 3 3
19 43 3 3
UTM North (meters-NAD83/Zone10)

79 79 4
156 156 17 17
5
6
64 64 Project Construction Area
32 32
4

132 132 16 16 4 3
12 45 45 25 25 4 4

4123800 6
13
32
13
103
32
103 22 19 22 19
3
3
3
3

5 6 8 71 71
4
4123900 4123900
4
12
35
12
35
22 22 4
4
4 3
4
3
4 4

19 43 19 43
UTM North (meters-NAD83/Zone10)

UTM North (meters-NAD83/Zone10)

4 4 4
4

4123700 54
6
5
6
Project Construction
Project
Area
Construction Area 4
4
4

4 3 4 3
12 12

4123800 4123800 4 6 6 Maximum Impacted Residence 3

4 5 6 4 8 5 6 8
4 4
4 3
4 4 4 4
4 5

4123600 4 4
3

4 6 4 4
4 49

4123700 4123700 4
4
4 46 25 21
4
3
4
5 40
37 15
3
Maximum Impacted
Maximum
Residence
Impacted Residence
25 3
37 10
4 4 4 30 3 3
4
4123500
23 17 3
13
4 4 3 3
5 4 5 5 27 18
4 4 14 24 22
7 17 9 3
7
4123600 4123600 17
3 3

4 5 46
4 6 4 6 49 23 49 22 20
4623 3
23 25 46 21 25 21
3 3
4 4 40 40
5 5
4123400
37 37 15 15
3 3 3 3
25 25
37 37 10 10
4 4 30 30
4 4
4123500 4123500
23 17 23 17 3 3
13 13
4 5 4 5 27 18 27 18
7 14 7 14 24 22 24 22
17 17 9 7 9 7 3 3

5 5 17 17
6 6
4123300 23 23
23 22 20
23 23
23 22 20
3 3

4123400 4123400

4123200
589600 589700 589800 589900 590000 590100 590200 590300 590400 590500 590600 590700 590800 590900 591000
4123300 4123300
UTM East (meters-NAD83/Zone10)

4123200 4123200
589600 589700
589600
589800
589700
589900
589800
590000
589900
590100
590000
590200
590100
590300
590200
590400
590300
590500
590400
590600
590500
590700
590600
590800
590700
590900
590800
591000
590900 591000
UTM East (meters-NAD83/Zone10)
UTM East (meters-NAD83/Zone10)
UTM= Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates
Source: Atmospheric Dynamics, Inc., 2014

Sensitive Receptor Locations and Maximum Impact Location for Modeling Risk Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project 4.3-1
Final EIR
 4.3 Air Quality

Based on the results of the U.S. EPA ISCST3 dispersion modeling, the modeled maximum
annual PM2.5 concentration from the construction activities was 0.374 ug/m3, which occurred
during the first year of construction in Phase 1. This exceeds the BAAQMD PM2.5 concentration
based significance threshold level of 0.3 ug/m3 and represents a significant impact. All
subsequent phases of construction produced annual PM2.5 concentrations below the BAAQMD
threshold.

Impact

The project would expose existing sensitive receptors to substantial fine particle pollutant
concentrations generated during construction of the project as described above. To reduce the
potentially significant air quality impacts of the project during construction, the District would
implement the mitigation measures below. These mitigation measures are intended to minimize
fugitive dust to protect the health and safety of nearby sensitive receptors.

Mitigation Measures

AIR-1 The District shall implement BAAQMD Recommended Best Control Measures for
reducing fugitive dust emissions during construction and include in the plans and
specifications. These measures are as follows:
 All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two or more times per day;
 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered;
 All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited;
 All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph;
 All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used;
 Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access
points;
 All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation; and
 A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to
contact at the District regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take

4.3-19 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
 In addition to the BAAQMD measures above, all haul trucks will go through the
proposed built-in tire wash at the plant before exiting to the public street.

Conclusion

With the implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1, the potential exposure of sensitive
receptors to air pollutants as a result of the project would be minimized to a less-than-significant
level. Remodeling of the fugitive dust emissions (using ISCST3) with the above mitigation in
place resulted in a maximum annual PM2.5 concentration of 0.185 ug/m3, well below the
BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 ug/m3.

Health Risk Based Thresholds (Diesel Particulate Matter). Construction equipment and
associated heavy-duty truck traffic also generates diesel exhaust (i.e., diesel particulate matter
or DPM), which is a TAC. BAAQMD has developed screening tables for evaluating potential
impacts from toxic air contaminants emitted at construction projects.4 The screening tables are
described by BAAQMD as “environmentally conservative interim guidance” and are meant to be
used to identify potentially significant impacts that should be modeled using refined techniques.
These screening tables indicate that construction activities similar to this project could have
significant impacts at the distances of nearby residences, with the primary impact being excess
cancer risk. Since project construction activities would include demolition, excavation, grading
and building construction that would last longer than six months and would occur adjacent to
neighboring residences, a more refined-level study of community risk assessment was
conducted. Because the gross analysis indicated that impacts were possible, a refined analysis
was conducted to evaluate whether impact would be significant, and if so, identify the project
features or mitigation measures that would be necessary to avoid significant impacts in terms of
community risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors (e.g., adjacent school children and nearby
residences).

Closest sensitive receptors (residences) to the project site are located about 40 feet from the
project site (along Los Patios west of the RWTP). Additional residences are located farther
away in all directions around the site. Much of the emissions would occur during the grading
phase of construction, which would occur over a relatively brief duration. The closest residences
to the project site would be exposed to construction emissions, but this brief exposure period
would be substantially less than the exposure period typically assumed for health risk analysis
which is a 70-year exposure period. However, construction activity would be ongoing to some
degree over a period of years.

A screening health risk assessment analysis of the construction impacts to nearby existing
residences was conducted, utilizing the emissions of DPM. This risk assessment focused on
modeling on-site diesel construction activity using construction period emissions obtained from
the CalEEMod model. Construction of the project was assumed to occur over an 80 month
period. The CalEEMod model provided total PM2.5 exhaust emissions (assumed to be diesel
particulate matter) for the off-road construction equipment and for exhaust emissions from on-
road vehicles (haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicles) of 0.515 tons (1,031.1 pounds)

4
Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction, BAAQMD, May 2010.

4.3-20 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

for the overall construction period. The on-road emissions are a result of worker travel and
vendor deliveries during building construction. A trip length of 0.3 miles was used to represent
vehicle travel while at or near the construction site. It was assumed that these emissions from
on-road vehicles traveling at or near the site would occur at the construction site.

The U.S. EPA ISCST3 dispersion model was used to predict concentrations of DPM at existing
sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. As described above, the ISCST3 modeling
utilized point sources to represent the on-site DPM construction emissions. To represent the
construction equipment exhaust emissions, eight equally spaced point sources were placed
within the area of construction activity (see Figure 4.3-1). Each point source had an emission
release height of 10 feet. The exit temperature and stack velocity were based on an average
sized construction engine source. Emissions were modeled as occurring daily between 7 AM -
5 PM. The model used a 5-year data set (1991 - 1995) of hourly meteorological data from the
San Jose Airport, available from the BAAQMD. Annual DPM concentrations from construction
activities were predicted for 2013 through 2020, with the annual average concentrations based
on the 5-year average concentrations from modeling five years of meteorological data. DPM
concentrations were calculated at nearby sensitive receptors at heights representative of the
ground level exposures for the nearby single-family homes.

The maximum-modeled DPM concentration occurred in the residential area on the southeast
side of the project on Chippendale Court (see Figure 4.3-1). Increased cancer risks were
calculated using the modeled annual concentrations and BAAQMD recommended risk
assessment methods for both a child exposure (3rd trimester through 2 years of age) and for an
adult exposure. Since the modeling was conducted under the conservative assumption that
emissions occur over the entire year, the default BAAQMD exposure period of 350 days per
year was used.

Results of this assessment indicate that, with project construction, the incremental child cancer
risk at the maximally exposed individual (MEI) at a distance of 230 meters from the edge of the
area of disturbance would be 6.47 in one million and the adult incremental cancer risk would be
0.62 in one million. These predicted excess cancer risks are below the BAAQMD significance
threshold of 10 in one million and considered a less-than-significant impact.

Potential non-cancer health effects due to chronic exposure to DPM were also evaluated. The
chronic inhalation reference exposure level (REL) established by the California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment for DPM is 5 ug/m3. The maximum predicted annual
DPM concentration was 0.0246 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) which is much lower than
the REL or the BAAQMD significance criterion of 1.0 or greater.

Thus, the project construction emissions would not be considered significant when compared to
the health risk based significance thresholds.

4.3.3.4 Objectionable Odors

During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use onsite would
create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable for
extended periods of time much beyond the project’s site boundaries. Operation of the project is
not anticipated to produce any offensive odors compared to existing operations; therefore, odor
effects during project operations are considered a less-than-significant impact.

4.3-21 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.3 Air Quality

This page left intentionally blank.

4.3-22 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

4.4 Biological Resources

A biological resources evaluation was performed for the project and the results of the evaluation
were described in the biological resources report, contained in Appendix C (DD&A 2014). The
biological resources report describes existing biological resources within and surrounding the
RWTP. Specifically, the biological resources report identifies any special-status species and
sensitive habitats known to occur, or with the potential to occur, within the RWTP; assesses the
impacts that could occur as a result of the project; and identifies avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation measures. The report also presents an overview of applicable federal, state, and local
regulations and the regulatory and responsible agencies with jurisdiction over sensitive
resources within the RWTP.

Arborist reports were prepared for the RWTP improvement project by HortScience (2006, 2014);
these reports are located in Appendix D. The purpose of the arborist reports were to document
existing trees located within and near the areas of proposed project and construction staging
areas, determine tree conditions and health, and provide recommendations for protection,
transplantation, or removal.

4.4.1 Setting
4.4.1.1 Survey Methodology

Biological surveys were conducted on the RWTP on March 20, 2013 and August 11, 2014 by
DD&A biologists. Additional surveys were conducted for the proposed staging areas on March
6, 2014 and August 11, 2014. Survey methods included walking the survey area and using
aerial maps to identify general habitat types and potential sensitive habitats, including potential
wetlands and potential habitat for special-status plant species. Concurrently, a reconnaissance-
level wildlife habitat survey was conducted to identify suitable habitat and to observe any
special-status wildlife species. Available reference materials were reviewed prior to conducting
the field surveys, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) occurrence reports and Special Animals list (CDFW, 2014
and 2011); the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service’s) list of Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered Species that May Occur in Santa Clara County (Service, 2014) and aerial
photographs of the survey area.

Habitat types were mapped on aerial photographs in the field and then digitized later using
ArcGIS software. Data collected during the surveys were used to assess the environmental
conditions of the RWTP and surrounding areas, evaluate environmental constraints at the site
and within the local vicinity, and provide a basis for recommendations to minimize and avoid
impacts.

4.4.1.2 Habitat Types

Five biotic habitats were identified on the RWTP property during the biological investigation of
the property. The acreages of the five habitat types within the project survey area are presented
below.
 Non-native Grassland (3.5 3.2 acres)
 Valley Oak Woodland (9.7 13.1 acres)
 Drying Beds (2.1 acres)

4.4-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

 Landscaped (7.8 6.3 acres)

 Developed (16.0 acres)
The locations of the onsite habitats are presented on Figure 4.4-1. A brief description of each
habitat can be found below along with the identification of the presence or potential presence of
special-status species within each habitat. Furthermore, the beginning of each habitat type
description lists both the Natural Communities List and Holland types1 for cross-reference
purposes and identifies whether the habitat type is considered sensitive by the CDFW. The
guidance document A Manual of California Vegetation2 (Sawyer et al., 2009) was also utilized to
determine if sensitive habitats on the CNDDB’s working list of high priority and rare natural
communities are present within the project area.

Non-native Grassland
 A Manual of California Vegetation classification: annual brome grasslands (Bromus
diandrus-Avena spp. Association)
 Holland classification: non-native grassland
 CNDDB list of high priority and rare natural communities: Not sensitive
Non-native grassland habitat occurs on the hills and slope of the southeast quadrant of the
RWTP property (see Figure 4.4-1). Throughout California, non-native grasslands typically occur
in open areas of valleys and foothills, usually on fine-textured clay or loam soils that are
somewhat poorly drained (Holland, 1986). Non-native annual grasses and forbs along with
scattered native grasses and wildflowers often dominate non-native grasslands. Non-native
grassland habitat within the RWTP is dominated by non-native annual grasses including ripgut
brome (Bromus diandrus) and slender oat (Avena barbata). Additional species found within this
habitat include filaree (Erodium sp.), sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), soap plant (Chlorogalum
pomeridianum), and blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum).

Non-native grasslands provide habitat to a number of common wildlife species including

California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis),
California vole (Microtus californicus), and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). Non-
native grasslands also provide important foraging habitat for several avian species including
white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) and prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus). No special-status plant
species were identified within this habitat type and none are expected to occur. No special-
status wildlife species were observed within the non-native grassland during field visits;
however, special-status avian species may forage within this habitat type, including Cooper’s
hawk (Accipiter cooperii) and white-tailed kite.

1
Natural Communities (NCs) have been considered part of the Natural Heritage conservation triad, along with plants
and animals of conservation significance, since the state inception of the Natural Heritage program in 1979. The
CNDDB continues to include occurrences of rare NCs despite the fact that funding for the NC part of the program
was cut in the mid-1990s. Many vegetation types included in the current list match well with the existing CNDDB NC
elements, which were based on Holland (1986).
2
This document provides a standardized, systematic classification and description of vegetation in California. The
method of vegetation classification presented in the Manual represents the vegetation classification standards for
large-scale vegetation maps adopted by the state. These state standards meet the National Vegetation Classification
System standards followed by federal agencies.

4.4-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 Approximate RWTP Boundary
Valley Oak Woodland
Non-native Grassland
Developed
Drying Bed
Landscape

Gr
an
ad
aW
ay

k
e
Av

e
Smith Cre
re
Mo

0 125
¯250 500 Feet

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoE ye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, A EX,
Getmapping, A erogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Revised Habitat Map Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.4-1
Final EIR
 4.4 Biological Resources

Valley Oak Woodland

 A Manual of California Vegetation classification: valley oak woodland (Quercus
lobata-Quercus agrifolia/grass Association)3
 Holland classification: Valley oak woodland
 CNDDB list of high priority and rare natural communities: Sensitive
Valley oak woodland habitat is located throughout most of the eastern half of the RWTP
property (see Figure 4.4-1). The valley oak woodland habitat within the RWTP is dominated by
valley oak (Quercus lobata). Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and blue oak (Quercus douglasii)
also occur within this habitat type. The valley oak woodland habitat also includes a mix of exotic
species including several species of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) and several species of acacia
(Acacia sp.), and indigenous species including toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) and California
buckeye (Aesculus californica). Valley oak woodlands are endemic to California, and stands
vary from open savannas to closed canopy forests (Allen-Diaz et al. 2007). Valley oak
woodlands typically occur on alluvial terraces, canyon bottoms, stream banks, and slopes and
flats, with deep sandy or loamy soils that are high in organic matter. Non-native grasses and
poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) dominate the understory of the valley oak woodland
habitat observed on the RWTP.

Wildlife species expected to occur within the valley oak woodland habitat include California grey
squirrels, acorn woodpeckers (Melanerpes formicivorus), dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis)
and red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis). Suitable nesting habitat, for several protected
migratory avian species, is present within the valley oak woodland habitat. San Francisco
Dusky-Footed Woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) (SFDFW), a California species of
special concern, are also known to occur within this habitat type. Several SFDFW nests were
observed throughout this habitat type during project site visits. No special-status plant species
were identified within this habitat type and none are expected to occur.

Drying Beds
 A Manual of California Vegetation classification: none
 Holland classification: none
 CNDDB list of high priority and rare natural communities: Not listed

There are two drying beds located adjacent to Smith Creek on the eastern boundary of the
RWTP (see Figure 4.4-1). The drying beds are used to process water from the upper wash-
water recovery ponds. The hydrology associated with the drying beds is artificial and is
dependent upon the operations of the RWTP. The drying beds are regularly drained and the
built up solid material is removed from the beds and disposed of off-site. The western drying
bed was dominated by tules (Schoenoplectus acutus) and cattails (Typha sp.), while the eastern
drying bed was unvegetated and drained during the 2013 project site visits. Removal of solid
materials by large machinery was observed during the 2013 project site visit.

3
The oak woodland habitat qualifies as valley oak woodland based upon the HortScience reports and an additional
field visit that was conducted on 8-11-2014. During the field evaluation DD&A staff visually compared the canopy
cover of Q. lobata to other oak species within the wooded portions of the RWTP. While there are greater numbers of
Q. agrifolia on the RWTP they are generally smaller trees than the Q. lobata. The canopy cover is dominated (at least
> 30%) by Q. lobata and therefore would meet the membership requirements of this vegetation alliance.

4.4-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

Several species of waterfowl were observed on the western drying bed during the project site
visit, and Sierran treefrogs (Pseudacris sierra) were heard calling. No special-status wildlife
species were observed within the drying beds during field visits. According to the Addendum to
the Final Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Treated Water Improvement Project
Phase 2 Improvements (SCVWD, 2005) a western pond turtle was observed near the drying
beds in 1999. The tules and cattails associated with the western drying beds could provide
habitat for tri-colored blackbirds (Agelaius tricolor), a California Species of Concern. The
maintenance and operations regime, including the draining and dredging of the drying beds,
likely precludes other special-status wildlife species from exploiting this habitat. For example
special-status amphibian species like California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense)
and California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) are likely precluded from making use of these
ponds, as special-status amphibian species that breed in aquatic environments similar to the
drying beds require a specific hydro-period. The hydrology associated with the drying beds is
entirely dependent upon the operations of the RWTP. RWTP operations do not account for the
specific hydro-period required by special-status amphibian species. Therefore, the drying beds
do not provide suitable breeding habitat for these special-status amphibian species. No special-
status plant species were identified within this habitat type and none are expected to occur.

Developed
 A Manual of California Vegetation classification: none
 Holland classification: none
 CNDDB list of high priority and rare natural communities: Not listed
Developed areas within the RWTP include roads, parking lots, and structures (refer to Figure
4.4-1). No vegetation is present within these areas. Some common wildlife species that do well
in urbanized areas may be found foraging within the developed areas, including American crow,
California ground squirrel, raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk, western scrub jay
(Aphelocoma californica), European starling, house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and rock
pigeon (Columba livia).

No special-status plant or wildlife species were identified within the developed areas during
surveys and none are expected to occur.

Landscaped
 A Manual of California Vegetation classification: none
 Holland classification: none
 CNDDB list of high priority and rare natural communities: Not listed

The landscaped habitat occurs within and surrounding the developed habitat of the RWTP
property (see Figure 4.4-1). This habitat type consists of planted exotics and horticultural tree
species including Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthefolius), California pepper (Schinus molle),
Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia), and Japanese privet (Ligustrum japonicum). Common wildlife
species that do well in urbanized areas may be found foraging within the landscaped areas,
including American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and
California ground squirrel.

4.4-5 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

No special-status plant or wildlife species were identified within the landscaped areas during
surveys and none are expected to occur.

4.4.1.3 Special-Status Species

Several species of plants and animals within the state of California have low populations and/or
limited distributions and are considered “rare” and vulnerable to extirpation.4 State and federal
laws have provided the CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a
mechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to the
state. A number of native plants and animals have been formally designated as “threatened” or
“endangered” under state and federal endangered species legislation, while others have been
designated as candidates for such listing. Still others are designated “species of special
concern” by the CDFW. In addition, the CDFW and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) have
developed their own set of native plant lists considered rare, threatened, or endangered. These
plants and animals are referred to as “special-status species.”

Published occurrence data within the survey area and surrounding USGS Quads were
evaluated to compile a table of special-status species known to occur in the vicinity of the
RWTP. Each of these species was evaluated for their likelihood to occur within and immediately
adjacent to the RWTP. The special-status species that are known to or have been determined
to have a moderate or high potential to occur within or immediately adjacent the RWTP are
discussed below and in the impacts and mitigation section. All other species that have been
determined “unlikely to occur” or have a low potential to occur near the project area, and thus
are unlikely to be impacted, are discussed in Appendix C.

Special-Status Wildlife Species

San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat
The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (SFDFW) is a California species of special concern.
This is a subspecies of the dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes), which is common to oak
woodlands and other forest types throughout California. Dusky-footed woodrats are frequently
found in forest habitats with moderate canopy cover and a moderate to dense understory,
including riparian forests; however, they may also be found in chaparral communities. Relatively
large nests are constructed of grass, leaves, sticks, and feathers and are built in protected
spots, such as rocky outcrops or dense brambles of blackberry and/or poison oak. Typical food
sources for this species include leaves, flowers, nuts, berries, and truffles. Dusky-footed
woodrats may be a significant food source for small to medium-sized predators. Populations of
this species may be limited by the availability of nest material. Within suitable habitat, nests are
often found in close proximity to each other.

The CNDDB does not report any occurrences of SFDFW within the nine quadrangles reviewed.
However, several woodrat nests were observed on the RWTP site and this species is known to
occur within the RWTP. SFDFW are known to utilize the valley oak woodland habitat within the
RWTP.

Western Pond Turtle

The CDFW recognizes the western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) as consisting of two
subspecies, the northwestern pond turtle (E. m. marmorata), which occurs from Washington

4
Extirpation is the loss of a local or regional population; although the species continues to survive elsewhere.

4.4-6 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

south to the San Francisco Bay area; and the southwestern pond turtle (E. m. pallida), which
occurs from the San Francisco Bay area south to Baja California Norte, Mexico. The CDFW has
identified both subspecies of western pond turtle as species of special concern. These two
subspecies have historically been distinguished by morphological characteristics, particularly
differences in neck markings and the presence or absence/reduction of inguinal plates.
However, recent genetic studies have identified four geographically distinct clades. One clade is
congruent with the range of the northwestern pond turtle, with the exception that the range is
extended to San Luis Obispo County; however, no clade was congruent with the range of the
southwestern pond turtle. As such, for the purposes of this report the western pond turtle will be
discussed on a species level and not at the subspecies level, and both subspecies and all
clades will be considered special-status and species of special concern as designated by the
CDFW.

Western pond turtles can occur in permanent or nearly permanent aquatic resources in a wide
variety of habitats throughout California, west of the Sierra-Cascade crest, and are absent from
desert regions, except in the Mojave Desert along the Mojave River and its tributaries. Elevation
range extends from near sea level to 4,690 feet. Western pond turtles require basking sites
such as partially submerged logs, rocks, mats of floating vegetation, or open mud banks. The
home range of western pond turtles is typically quite restricted. Ongoing research indicates that
in many areas, turtles may leave the watercourse in late fall and move into upland habitats
where they burrow into duff and/or soil and overwinter. Western pond turtles remain active year-
round, and may move several times during the course of overwintering. The time spent in the
terrestrial habitat appears highly variable; in southern California western pond turtles may
remain in these sites for only a month or two. In pond and lake habitats, however, some turtles
remain in the pond during the winter. Additionally, during the spring or early summer, females
move overland for up to 325 feet to find suitable sites for egg-laying. Nests are typically
excavated in compact, dry soils in areas characterized by sparse vegetation, usually short
grasses or forbs. Three to 11 eggs are laid from March to August depending on local conditions.
This species is considered omnivorous and food sources include aquatic plant material, beetles,
and a wide variety of aquatic invertebrates. Fishes, frogs, and carrion have also been reported
among their food.

The CNDDB reports 15 occurrences of western pond turtle within the nine quadrangles
evaluated, the nearest of which is approximately 1.2 miles from the RWTP. Suitable aquatic
habitat for the western pond turtle may exist in the adjacent Smith Creek and the two drying
beds. A western pond turtle sighting was reported in 1999 near one of the drying beds. The
operations and maintenance regime associated with the RWTP and the drying beds have
degraded the suitability of the habitat. Therefore, there is only a moderate potential for western
pond turtle to occur within the RWTP.

Nesting Raptors, Migratory Birds, and Other Protected Avian Species

Raptors, migratory birds, and their nests are protected under Fish and Game Code and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. While the life histories of these species vary, overlapping nesting and
foraging similarities (approximately February through August) allow for their concurrent
discussion. Most raptors are breeding residents throughout most of the wooded portions of the
state. Stands of live oak, riparian deciduous, or other forest habitats, as well as open
grasslands, are used most frequently for nesting. Breeding occurs February through August,
with peak activity May through July. Prey for these species includes small birds, small
mammals, and some reptiles and amphibians. Many raptor species hunt in open woodland and
habitat edges. Various species of raptors such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-

4.4-7 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), American kestrel (Falco
sparverius), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) have a potential to nest within the mixed oak
woodland habitat located on the RWTP. Additionally, migratory bird species that may be present
within the RWTP include, but are not limited to, killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), Townsend’s
warbler (Setophaga townsendii), western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana), song sparrow
(Melospiza melodia), ash-throated fly catcher (Myiarchus cinerascens), and violet-green
swallow (Tachycineta thalassina).

Avian species identified as CDFW species of special concern, fully protected species, or special
animals (such as the Cooper’s hawk, American peregrine falcon and white-tailed kite) have the
potential to occur within the RWTP. Suitable nesting habitat for several avian species, including
the white-tailed kite, is present within the valley oak woodland habitat. Tule’s and cattails within
and adjacent to the western drying bed could provide suitable nesting habitat for tri-colored
blackbirds. The non-native grassland habitat type provides suitable foraging habitat for several
raptor species, including Cooper’s hawk.

Special-Status Plant Species

The survey area was evaluated for the presence, or potential presence, of a variety of special-
status plant species (Appendix C). A total of 39 special-status plant species have been
documented within the nine quadrangles evaluated. Suitable habitat for 38 of the 39 special-
status plant species does not occur on the RWTP. Suitable habitat does exist for one special-
status species, western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis). This species was not observed during
multiple field surveys that were conducted during the appropriate blooming period. No other
special-status plant species were observed within the RWTP and none are expected to occur.

4.4.1.4 Sensitive Habitats

Valley oak woodlands are considered sensitive by the CDFW (CDFW, 2010). Additionally, as
described above, SFDFW nests were observed within the valley oak woodland habitat type in
the RWTP area. Approximately 9.7 13.1 acres of valley oak woodland were documented within
the RWTP boundaries. Due to the known presence of SFDFW nests and the designation by the
CDFW, valley oak woodland is considered a sensitive habitat.

The hydrology associated with the drying beds is dependent on the operations of the RWTP.
Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the
requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA), are not considered jurisdictional wetlands as
defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Additionally, the District is permitted for discharge
to the drying beds under the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPES)
Permit No. CAG38200. Therefore, the drying beds would not be considered sensitive habitat.

No other sensitive habitat types were identified within the RWTP.

4.4.1.5 Jurisdictional Wetlands

Jurisdictional waters include rivers, creeks, and drainages with a defined bed and bank that
carry ephemeral flows. Jurisdictional waters also include lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands.
Waste treatment systems, including ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of the
CWA are not considered jurisdictional wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. The drying beds located on the RWTP are considered treatment ponds, and therefore are
not considered jurisdictional wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA.

4.4-8 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

Vegetation typically adapted to areas with potential wetland conditions was observed on the
southern portion of the project site during preliminary biological assessment. A wetland
delineation was performed for this area, which determined that no jurisdictional wetlands were
present based on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers criteria (Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.,
Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project Delineation of Potential
Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, March 2014). In
summary, the project site does not contain wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA.

4.4.1.6 Trees

The existing project site contains over 1,000 trees, of which 277 would be removed to construct
the proposed improvements, provide a functional path around the RWTP site perimeter for plant
operators, and optimize on-site staging areas. Tree surveys for the RWTP improvement project
were conducted by HortScience (2006, 2014). These studies included, 1) survey of trees within
and immediately adjacent to the proposed project and construction staging areas, 2)
assessment of the suitability for tree preservation, 3) evaluation of project plans, and 4)
preliminary guidelines for tree preservation/protection during the construction of the proposed
improvements. These studies are contained in Appendix D.

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting

4.4.2.1 Federal

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)

The MBTA of 1918 prohibits killing, possessing, or trading migratory birds except in accordance
with regulation prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. Most actions that result in taking or in
permanent or temporary possession of a protected species constitute violations of the MBTA.
The Service is responsible for overseeing compliance with the MBTA and implements
Conventions (treaties) between the United States and four countries for the protection of
migratory birds – Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. The Service maintains a list of migratory
bird species that are protected under the MBTA, which was updated in 2013 to: 1) correct
previous mistakes, such as misspellings or removing species no longer known to occur within
the United States; 2) add species, as a result of expanding the geographic scope to include
Hawaii and U.S. territories and new evidence of occurrence in the United States or U.S.
territories; and 3) update name changes based on new taxonomy.

4.4.2.2 State

California Fish and Game Code

Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy
the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation
adopted pursuant thereto.” Section 3503.5 prohibits the killing, possession, or destruction of any
birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey). Section 3511 prohibits take or
possession of fully protected birds. Section 3513 prohibits the take or possession of any
migratory nongame birds designated under the federal MBTA. Section 3800 prohibits take of
nongame birds.

The classification of fully protected was the state's initial effort in the 1960s to identify and
provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists

4.4-9 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

were created for fish (§5515), mammals (§4700), amphibians and reptiles (§5050), and birds
(§3511). Most fully protected species have also been listed as threatened or endangered
species under the more recent endangered species laws and regulations. Fully protected
species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued
for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation
of the bird species for the protection of livestock.

As noted above, the CDFW maintains a list of animal “species of special concern.” Although
these species have no legal status, the CDFW recommends considering these species during
analysis of project impacts to protect declining populations and avoid the need to list them as
endangered in the future.

In addition, the CDFW is responsible for conserving, protecting, and managing California's fish,
wildlife, and native plant resources. To meet this responsibility, the Fish and Game Code
requires an entity to notify the CDFW of any proposed activity that may substantially modify a
river, stream, or lake and obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement.5

4.4.2.3 Local

Town of Los Gatos Tree Preservation Ordinance

Trees defined as “protected” by the Town of Los Gatos Ordinance Section 2114 require a permit
for removal, as well as replacement or payment to the Town Forestry Fund. A “protected” tree is
defined as:
1. All trees which have a twelve-inch or greater diameter (thirty-seven and one-half inch
circumference) of any trunk, or in the case of multi-trunk trees a total of twelve inches or
greater diameter or more of the sum diameter (thirty-seven and one-half circumference)
of all trunks, where such trees are located on developed residential property;
2. All trees of the following species which have an eight inch diameter (twenty-five inch
circumference):
a. Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii)
b. Black Oak (Quercus kellogii)
c. California Buckeye (Aesculus californica)
d. Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii)
3. All trees which have four-inch or greater diameter (twelve-and one half-inch
circumference) of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning
approval or subdivision approval is required.
4. Any tree that existed at the time of a zoning approval or subdivision approval and was a
specific subject of such approval or otherwise covered by subsection (2) of this section
(e.g., landscape or site plans);
5. Any tree that was required to be planted or retained by the terms and conditions of a
development permit, building permit or subdivision approval in all zoning districts, tree
removal permit or code enforcement action;

5
The project would not be subject to an Streambed Alteration Agreements since it would not directly impact Smith’s
Creek or any other watercourse.

4.4-10 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

6. All trees which have four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one-half inch
circumference) of any trunk and are located on a vacant lot or undeveloped property;
7. All trees which have four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one-half inch
circumference) of any trunk and are located on a developed commercial, office, or
industrial property;
8. All publicly owned trees growing on Town lands, public places or in a right-of-way
easement;
9. A Protected Tree may also be a stand of trees, the nature of which makes each
dependent upon the other for the survival of the stand.

Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan

The Town of Los Gatos promotes conservation of natural resources and reducing waste. The
Environment and Sustainability Element of the Los Gatos General Plan is designed to protect
and enhance natural resources and the environment. The Environment and Sustainability
Element promotes the sustainability of resources and the Town’s natural ecology for both
current and future generations. In accordance with State law, the Element addresses the
conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, including biological resources,
water resources, greenhouse gases (GHGs), and energy resources. Goal ENV-1 (to preserve
and protect native plants and plant communities in the Town, and promote the appropriate use
of local, native plants in habitat restoration and landscaping) and Goal ENV-4 (to conserve
wildlife populations) are applicable to the RWTP Reliability Improvement Project.

Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plan

The RWTP is not located within the boundaries of any known adopted Habitat Conservation
Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans, including the Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Conservation Plan (SCVHP). The SCVHP, which was prepared by six local agencies (County of
Santa Clara, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and San
Jose, and the District), allows these agencies to receive endangered species permits for
activities and projects they conduct and those under their jurisdiction. Although the RWTP is
located outside the geographic scope of the SCVHP and therefore is not subject to the
requirements of the SCVHP, as discussed in Section 4.4.3.3 below, certain portions of the
SCVHP are relevant to this project because the District proposes to incorporate certain
provisions the SCVHP as measures to reduce project impacts on biological resources.

4.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation

4.4.3.1 Thresholds of Significance

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered significant if the
project would:

 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; or

4.4-11 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; or
 Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; or
 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; or
 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as
tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan;
or
 Impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites or directly harm nesting species protected
under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

4.4.3.2 Direct Impacts to Special Status Species

As described above in the setting section, the following special-status wildlife species are known
to occur, or have the potential to occur within or adjacent to the project site.

 San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) – California Species

of Concern
 Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) – California Species of Concern
 Nesting raptors and other protected avian species, including, but not limited to:
o Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) – CNDDB “Special Animals” list
o White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) – California/Federally Protected Species
o American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) – California/Federally
Protected Species
o Tri-colored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) – California Species of Concern

No special-status plant species were identified within the survey area during field surveys and
none are expected to occur, so the project would not impact special-status plants.

Several SFDFW nests were observed on the RWTP and this species is known to occur within
the RWTP. SFDFW utilize the oak woodland habitat within the RWTP. Construction activities
associated with the project, including grading and vegetation removal, could result in potentially
significant impacts to this special-status species through direct disturbance to individuals and
modification of nesting habitat.

Suitable aquatic habitat for the western pond turtle may exist in the two drying beds on the
eastern portion of the site and at the adjacent Smith Creek. The operations and maintenance
regime associated with the RWTP has degraded the suitability of the habitat present at the
drying beds. Smith Creek is located off of the RWTP property and would not be impacted by the
proposed project. Therefore, the western pond turtle has a moderate potential to occur within
the RWTP. If this species is present, construction activities in the proximity of the drying beds
could result in potentially significant impacts to this species through direct disturbance to
individuals and loss of habitat through habitat modification.

4.4-12 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

Avian species identified as CDFW species of special concern, fully protected species, or special
animals (such as the Cooper’s hawk, American peregrine falcon and white-tailed kite) have the
potential to occur within the RWTP. Suitable nesting habitat for several avian species, including
the white-tailed kite, is present within the mixed oak woodland habitat. Tule’s and cattails within
and adjacent to the western drying bed could provide suitable nesting habitat for tri-colored
blackbirds. The non-native grassland habitat type provides suitable foraging habitat for several
raptor species, including Cooper’s hawk. Construction activities, including vegetation and tree
removal, could result in potentially significant impacts to nesting raptors or migratory birds, if
present, through direct disturbance to individuals, nest abandonment, and/or nesting habitat
modification.

Impact

Construction of the project would potentially impact special-status wildlife species through direct
disturbance to individuals, habitat modification, and/or disturbance to active nests. Special-
status species that may be impacted by valley oak woodland removal, as well as other
construction activities within and adjacent to valley oak woodland habitat include the SFDFW,
nesting raptors, and other protected avian species.

During construction, the lower (east) sludge drying bed would be temporarily used for
construction staging. This would require filling a portion or all of the basin and putting down a
gravel base. A ramp into the basin would be provided if needed. The existing upper drying bed
(to the west) would be used as part of plant operations for overflow water during construction.
The lower drying bed would be converted back to its original condition after construction.
Western pond turtles may be impacted by habitat modification to, and construction activities
near the drying beds, including ground disturbance and heavy machinery use. These impacts
are considered potentially significant, since construction of the project could result in direct and
indirect impacts through habitat modification. The District would implement the following
mitigation measures to address the impacts.

Mitigation Measures

BIO-1 Not more than seven (7) thirty (30) days prior to the start of construction (including
vegetation removal) on the project site, the District biologist or a qualified biologist
retained by the District shall conduct a survey of the project site to locate existing
SFDFW nests. All SFDFW nests shall be mapped and flagged for avoidance. Graphics
depicting all SFDFW nests shall be provided to the District. Any SFDFW nests that
cannot be avoided shall be relocated according to the following procedures. The District
shall submit a woodrat nest relocation plan to CDFW for review prior to any nest
relocation activities. All personnel conducting relocation activities shall wear safety gear
during nest relocation activities.

Areas within the valley oak woodland habitat that are outside of the proposed impact
area shall be identified prior to the relocation process. These shall be referred to as the
SFDFW mitigation area. Large woody material, if present, shall be relocated from areas
within the valley oak woodland, where impacts are expected, to the SFDFW mitigation
areas. After large woody material has been relocated to the SFDFW mitigation areas, all
understory vegetation shall be cleared within the areas where impacts are expected (but
the nests should not be removed at this stage). Relocation of nest material shall
commence only after the large woody debris and understory has been removed.

4.4-13 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

After all cover (except the nests themselves) has been removed, each active nest shall
be disturbed by the District biologist or a qualified biologist retained by the District) to the
degree that SFDFW leave the nest and seek refuge elsewhere. After the nests have
been disturbed, the nest sticks shall be removed from the impact areas and piled at the
base of newly placed large woody material within the SFDFW mitigation area. Nests
shall be dismantled during the non-breeding season (between October 1 and December
31), if possible. If a litter of young is found or suspected, nest material shall be replaced
and the nest left alone for 2-3 weeks, after this time the nest would be rechecked to
verify that young are capable of independent survival before proceeding with nest
dismantling. The spacing distance between the newly placed piles of sticks shall not be
fewer than 25 feet from each other.

BIO-2 Prior to construction activities, the District biologist or a qualified biologist retained by the
District shall conduct an Employee Education Program for the construction crew. The
biologist shall meet with the construction crew at the project site at the onset of each
construction phase to educate the construction crew on the following:

1) A review of the project boundaries;

2) The special-status species that may be present, their habitat, and proper
identification;
3) The specific mitigation measures that would be incorporated into the construction
effort,
4) The general provisions and protections afforded by the USFWS and the CDFW,
and;
5) The proper procedures if a special-status animal is encountered within the
project site as determined by the District biologist or a qualified biologist retained
by the District.

BIO-3 Construction activities, including ground disturbance and tree removal, that may affect
nesting birds shall be timed to avoid the nesting season. Specifically, tree removal shall
be scheduled after September 15 and before January 31 15 or at the discretion of the
District biologist or a qualified biologist retained by the District. Alternatively, if
construction activities or tree removal are to occur during the breeding season (February
1 January 15 through September 15), the District shall conduct surveys for active nests
no more than 30 14 days prior to construction, and a lapse in construction related
activities 15 days or longer will require another preconstruction nesting survey. If nesting
birds are identified during the pre-construction surveys, a buffer shall be imposed within
which no construction activities or disturbance shall take place until the young of the
year have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival.
The size of the buffer shall be determined by the District biologist or a qualified biologist
retained by the District, dependent on the species and site conditions. The biologist must
be onsite at a frequency required to ensure that nesting birds are not disturbed by
Project activities and that nest abandonment or other potentially significant impacts do
not occur. The biologist shall have the authority to halt project activities or increase the
size of the buffer, if necessary to prevent or minimize impacts.

BIO-4 Prior to beginning construction or staging activities in the proximity of the drying beds,
the District biologist or other qualified biologist selected by the District, shall perform a
site inspection for western pond turtles. If pond turtle(s) are found in the pre-construction
survey or encountered while conducting construction activities the affected turtles shall

4.4-14 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

be relocated outside the construction area and into suitable habitat and a barrier system
shall be installed and maintained around the affected construction area.

Conclusion

As described above, the project could have potentially significant direct and indirect impacts on
special-status species. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4
identified above, the impacts to special-status species, including SFDFW, western pond turtles,
and avian species would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.4.3.3 Impacts to Riparian Habitat, Wetlands, or Other Sensitive Natural

Communities

As described in 4.4.1.4, Sensitive Habitats, the presence of SFDFW nests and the CDFW
designation classify valley oak woodland as a sensitive habitat. Approximately 9.7 13.1 acres of
valley oak woodland are documented on the RWTP property. The project would directly impact
approximately 1.9 1.2 acres of valley oak woodland habitat from the removal of oak woodland
vegetation. An estimate of the locations for valley oak woodland habitat that would be removed
is illustrated in Figure 4.4-2.

Impact

The project would impact approximately 1.9 1.2 acres of valley oak woodland habitat, a
sensitive habitat. The removal of vegetation within the valley oak woodland habitat resulting
from project construction is considered a potentially significant impact. The District would
implement the following mitigation measure to reduce the project impacts on valley oak
woodland.

Mitigation Measures

BIO-5 Prior to construction, the District, with the guidance of a District approved biologist and
arborist, shall develop an Oak Woodland Mitigation Management Plan to be
implemented by the District. This Mitigation Management Plan would incorporate the
guidelines of the SCVHP Condition 146, Santa Clara County Planning Office’s “Guide to
Evaluating Oak Woodlands Impacts”7, the Town of Los Gatos Tree Preservation
Ordinance, and the recommendations of the arborist reports contained in Appendix D
(HortScience), to the extent applicable and feasible. Details of the Oak Woodland
Mitigation Management Plan will would include the following at a minimum:

 Description of applicable guidelines from the sources listed above SCVHP, Santa
Clara County Planning Office’s “Guide to Evaluating Oak Woodlands Impacts”,
the Town of Los Gatos Tree Preservation Ordinance, and HortScience arborist
reports;
 Construction of temporary project access points as close as possible to the work
area to minimize necessity for tree removal;
 Mitigation for tree removals at a the ratios listed below of at least 1:1;

6
Condition 14 of the SCVHP includes practices to avoid or minimize impacts on valley and blue oak
woodland.
7
The County’s Guide to Evaluating Oak Woodlands Impacts includes possible mitigation measures for
identified significant impacts to oak woodlands.

4.4-15 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 Approximate RWTP Boundary
Valley Oak Woodland Habitat Impact Areas
Valley Oak Woodland
Non-native Grassland
Developed
Drying Bed
Landscape

Gr
an
ad
aW
ay

ek
e
Av

Smith Cre
re
Mo

0 125
¯ 250 500 Feet

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoE ye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, A EX,
Getmapping, A erogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Revised Valley Oak Woodlands Impacts Map Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.4-2
Final EIR
 4.4 Biological Resources

 Tree replacement timing and amount of tree replacement;

 Size of replacement trees;
 Species selection;
 Tree densities and spacing;
 Enhanced habitat in the proposed restoration areas through the salvage and
redistribution of coarse woody debris;
 Implementation, maintenance, and monitoring plans, and performance and
success criteria.
 Tree protection measures for remaining trees, including,
o Aligning roads and pathways outside of tree root protection zone whenever
possible;
o Conducting pruning during winter dormant period for valley and blue oaks,
under the supervision of a District approved arborist;
o Minimizing trenching for utility lines and other purposes within root
protection zones; and
 Off-site mitigation or in lieu fee payment, if necessary.

Mitigation Ratios for Native Trees. The District will mitigate for its removal of native trees
by one of two options as described below.

 Under Option 1, mitigation ratios for native trees will be calculated based on the
following mitigation ratios.

Tree Replacement Ratios for Oak Woodland Restoration (Option 1)

Replacement Ratio
Size of Tree Removed (number of trees replaced to
1
(dbh, in inches) number of trees removed)
<6 3:1
6–18 4:1
>18 6:1
1
Diameter at breast height (dbh) is defined as the diameter of the tree at
breast height, or the diameter of the tree at 54 inches above existing grade.

 Under Option 2, mitigation ratios will be based on the canopy approach in Table
3-1 of the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance. These ratios increase
the number and size of replacement trees based on the canopy size of the
removed tree.

Mitigation for Non-native Trees. To mitigate for non-native trees (ornamentals) the
District will pay impact fees to the Town of Los Gatos as described in the Town of Los
Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance. Non-native tree replacement ratios will be based on
tree canopy size measured as the maximum distance across the canopy. The mitigation
ratios would range from 3:1 to 6:1.

Tree Protection Measures. The Oak Woodland Mitigation Plan will incorporate a variety
of tree protection measures, including those set forth in the arborist reports. These
measures will include:

4.4-17 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

 Aligning roads and pathways outside of tree root protection zone whenever
possible;
 Minimizing trenching for utility lines and other purposes within root protection
zones;
 Using stem wrap to minimize damage to tree trunks;
 Avoiding stockpiling of materials within the tree critical root zones;
 Using high visibility fencing around the tree critical root zones to minimize root
compaction that otherwise would be caused by parking of vehicles or equipment
on top of or near these root zones;
 Conducting pruning during winter dormant period for valley and blue oaks, under
the supervision of a District approved arborist.

Conclusion

The project could result in potentially significant impacts on the sensitive valley oak woodland
habitat on the project site. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 identified above,
the impact to sensitive habitats would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.4.3.4 Impacts to Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites

As described above in Section 4.4.3.2, SFDFW nests were observed in the valley oak woodland
habitat. The valley oak woodland habitat could be classified as a SFDFW nursery site. In
addition, the valley oak woodland habitat provides nesting habitat for raptors and other
protected avian species. The project would remove 277 trees; 171 of the trees planned for
removal are either coast live, valley, or blue oak trees. The removal of trees, including oaks, and
construction of the project would result in a loss of approximately 1.9 1.2 acre of valley oak
woodland habitat, which provides nesting habitat for SFDFW and could provide nesting habitat
for protected avian species.

Impact

Removal of trees in the valley oak woodland habitat could result in significant impacts to
SFDFW through individual mortality, nest destruction, and nest abandonment. In addition,
removal of trees in the valley oak woodland habitat could result in significant impacts to raptors
and other protected avian species through individual mortality, nest destruction, and nest
abandonment.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-3 described above, in Section 4.4.3.3, would reduce the
impact to SFDFW nursery sites and protected avian species nesting habitat to a less-than-
significant level and no additional mitigation measures are required.

4.4-18 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

Conclusion

The project could result in potentially significant impacts from the loss of avian and woodrat
nursery sites related to removal of valley oak woodland. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-3
described above, in Section 4.4.3.3, would reduce the impacts to avian and woodrat nursery
sites to a less-than-significant level and no additional mitigation measures are required.

4.4.3.5 Consistency with Local Policies/Ordinances Protecting Biological

Resources

The project would require the removal of 277 trees.8 The trees to be removed are identified in
the tree removal exhibits and associated tree type, size, and health survey provided in Table
4.4-1 and shown in Figures 4.4-3A through 4.4-3L.

Impact

All of the trees to be removed are defined as protected by the Town of Los Gatos Ordinance
(Section 2114) and require a permit for removal as well as replacement or payment to the Town
Forestry Fund.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would require the development and implementation of an Oak
Woodland Mitigation Management Plan. This Plan would incorporate the requirements of the
Los Gatos Tree Ordinance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level and no additional mitigation measures are required.

Conclusion

The project could result in potentially significant impacts from the removal of trees. Mitigation
Measure BIO-5 described above, in Section 4.4.3.3, would reduce the impacts to trees to a less-
than-significant level and no additional mitigation is required.

4.4.3.6 Conflict with the Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan

The project is not subject to any adopted habitat conservation plans and thus would not conflict
with the provisions of any other adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional or state
habitat conservation plan and no further mitigation is required.

However, as described above, in Section 4.4.3.3, the District would incorporate the guidelines
from the adopted SCVHP into the Oak Woodland Mitigation Management Plan for purpose of
minimizing and mitigating for impacts on oak woodland habitat.

8
Other tree saplings, 1-4 inches in diameter that were not identified during tree surveys may also require
removal.

4.4-19 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

Table 4.4-1
Trees to be Removed
Trunk Condition
Tree Map Suitability Height Canopy
Species Diameter 1=Poor Comments
No. No. For Preservation (ft.) Class
(in.) 5=Excellent
213 Coast live oak C-15 T 4 4 Moderate 12 10' to 27' Near #337; leans E.
306 Monterey pine C-19 T 17 3 Moderate 25 10' to 27' Thin upper crown.
307 Monterey pine C-19 T 11,10,8,6,5,4,4 3 Poor 20 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ 3'; forms
spreading crown.
318 Bushy yate C-15 T 14 3 Moderate 30 28' to 40' Wide-spreading crown; branches
stubbed off.
331 Red ironbark C-15 T 13 3 Poor 25 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ 12'; bowed W.
332 Red ironbark C-15 T 19 3 Poor 35 10' to 27' Topped; poor form & structure.
333 Red ironbark C-15 T 22 3 Poor 35 28' to 40' Topped; dense regrowth.
334 Red ironbark C-15 T 12 2 Poor 30 10' to 27' Topped; poor form & structure;
337 Buckthorn C-15 T 3,3 4 Moderate 10 10' to 27' S; codominant trunks @ 2'.
340 Bushy yate C-15 T 17,14 3 Poor 30 28' to 40' Codominant trunks @ 3'; topped;
tagged on N.
345 Calif. pepper G-14 T 16 3 Moderate 25 10' to 27' Irregular form; codominant trunks @
4'.
346 Calif. pepper G-14 T 15 4 Good 20 10' to 27' One-sided to NW; otherwise, good
tree.
347 Plum G-14T 3,2 3 Moderate 15 10' to 27' Volunteer.
379 River red gum G-14 T 34 3 Moderate 50 28' to 40' Bowed W.; stubbed on E.; high crown.
380 River red gum G-14 T 25 3 Moderate 50 28' to 40' High, vase-shaped crown; heavy
lateral limb over service road.
381 Red ironbark G-14 T 26 3 Poor 40 40' to 56' Codominant trunks @ 5'; spreading
apart.
382 Red ironbark G-14 T 21 3 Poor 45 28' to 40' Poor form & structure; topped; history
of branch failure.
384 Red ironbark G-14 T 24 2 Poor 30 28' to 40' Corrected lean to NW.; poor form &
structure; history of branch failure.
385 Red ironbark G-14 T 18 2 Poor 35 10' to 27' Numerous branch failures; poor form &
structure.
386 Red ironbark G-14 T 26 3 Poor 40 28' to 40' Topped; codominant trunks @ 6'.

4.4-20 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

Table 4.4-1
Trees to be Removed
Trunk Condition
Tree Map Suitability Height Canopy
Species Diameter 1=Poor Comments
No. No. For Preservation (ft.) Class
(in.) 5=Excellent
387 Red ironbark G-14 T 26 3 Poor 45 28' to 40' Topped; poor form & structure.
393 Calif. pepper C-21 T 19 4 Moderate 20 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ 6'; otherwise
good tree.
394 Calif. pepper C-21 T 17 2 Poor 20 10' to 27' Numerous cavities in scaffold
branches; thin canopy.
402 Bushy yate C-15 T 16,16 3 Poor 28 28' to 40' Codominant trunks @ 2' with trunk
decay; flat-topped.
403 Bushy yate C-15 T 15,13 3 Poor 30 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 2'; topped; flat-
topped
420 Red ironbark C-22 T 14 3 Poor 35 10' to 27' Poor form & structure.
421 Red ironbark C-22 T 14 3 Moderate 35 10' to 27' Open canopy.
422 Red ironbark C-22 T 13 3 Poor 35 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 14'; poor
attachment.
423 Red ironbark C-22 T 13 2 Poor 35 10' to 27' Poor form & structure.
424 Red ironbark C-22 T 10 2 Poor 16 10' to 27' Poor form & structure; suppressed.
427 Red ironbark C-21 T 20 4 Moderate 45 28' to 40' Vase-shape crown.
487 Bushy yate C-19 T 11 2 Poor 25 28' to 40' 1 stem dead; thin canopy; declining.
488 Bushy yate C-19 T 6 2 Poor 18 10' to 27' Declining; twig & branch dieback.
489 Bushy yate C-19 T 11 2 Poor 25 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ 4'; decay in
stems, near attachment; history of
branch failure.
490 Bushy yate C-20 T 11 2 Poor 30 28' to 40' Leans N. near base but bowed S.;
asymmetric form.
496 Toyon C-23 T 3,2,2,2 1 Poor 5 4' to 9' Almost entirely dead.
497 Toyon C-23 T 5 4 Good 12 10' to 27' Not tagged; engulfed in poison oak;
shrub.
523 Camphor C-15 T 15 4 Moderate 20 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 3'; trunk at
fence.
612 Red ironbark G-15 T 19 3 Moderate 45 28' to 40' Multiple attachments high in crown
with poor attachment; history of branch
failure.

4.4-21 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

Table 4.4-1
Trees to be Removed
Trunk Condition
Tree Map Suitability Height Canopy
Species Diameter 1=Poor Comments
No. No. For Preservation (ft.) Class
(in.) 5=Excellent
613 Red ironbark G-15 T 14 3 Poor 30 10' to 27' Topped; resprouts are poorly attached.
614 Red ironbark G-15 T 12 2 Poor 24 10' to 27' Intermediate with dieback in upper
crown.
615 Red ironbark G-15 T 16 3 Poor 30 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ 14' with poor
attachment.
616 Red ironbark G-15 T 14 3 Poor 30 10' to 27' Intermediate; long seam on W.
617 Red ironbark G-15 T 17 3 Poor 35 10' to 27' Vase-shape; history of branch failure;
lost central leader.
618 Red ironbark G-15 T 16 3 Poor 40 28' to 40' Codominant trunks @ 12'; poor
attachment; topped.
619 Red ironbark G-15 T 18 2 Poor 45 28' to 40' Codominant trunks @ 18'; strong
history of branch failure; saw cut at
base.
620 Red ironbark G-15 T 19 3 Poor 45 28' to 40' Asymmetric form due to history of
branch failure.
621 Red ironbark G-15 T 18 4 Moderate 45 28' to 40' Vase-shaped.
636 Olive G-15 T 4 5 Good 12 4' to 9' Good young tree.
637 Olive G-15 T 5 5 Good 14 10' to 27' Good young tree.
638 Olive G-15 T 7 5 Good 15 10' to 27' Good tree; round form.
639 Olive G-15 T 5 4 Moderate 14 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ 5'.
640 Olive G-15 T 7 3 Moderate 14 4' to 9' Long trunk wound on W.
641 Olive G-15 T 5 4 Moderate 15 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ 5'.
665 Blue oak G-15 T 10 3 Moderate 30 10' to 27' Edge; bowed S.; high crown.
670 Blue oak C-23 T 5 4 Good 16 4' to 9' Good young tree; codominant trunks
@ 5'; narrow crown.
671 Blue oak C-23 T 3 4 Moderate 8 4' to 9' Good young tree.
885 Valley oak C-21 T 10 4 Good 24 10' to 27' Vase-shape; minor twig dieback.
886 Coast live oak C-21 T 7,7 4 Good 16 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 1'; good form.
888 Coast live oak C-21 T 8,4,4 4 Moderate 16 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ base; dense
crown but one-sided to NE.
889 Coast live oak C-21 T 4 4 Moderate 12 4' to 9' One-sided to E.

4.4-22 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

Table 4.4-1
Trees to be Removed
Trunk Condition
Tree Map Suitability Height Canopy
Species Diameter 1=Poor Comments
No. No. For Preservation (ft.) Class
(in.) 5=Excellent
890 River red gum C-21 T 3,3,3 2 Poor 10 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ base; add'l.
stems have died-back.
898 Coast live oak C-21 T 4 4 Moderate 10 4' to 9' Codominant trunks @ 4'; good young
tree.
899 Brisbane box C-21 T 5,5,4,4,4,4,4+ 4 Moderate 18 10' to 27' 14 stems, sprouting from stump; good
dense canopy.
900 Blue oak C-21 T 6,5 4 Good 12 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 1'; good young
tree.
902 Willow-leaf peppermint C-21 T 24 1 Poor 30 10' to 27' Extensive twig & branch dieback
throughout upper crown.
908 Blue oak C-21 T 6,5 4 Moderate 12 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 1'; good young
tree.
909 Blue gum C-21 T 2,2,2,2,2 5 Moderate 15 10' to 27' S; stump sprouts; 25 stems.
996 Blue oak C-21 T 3 3 Moderate 18 10' to 27' Sparse canopy.
997 Valley oak C-21 T 6,5 4 Good 20 10' to 27' More low branched than codominant.
1033 Coast live oak C-21 T 7 5 Good 20 10' to 27' Good young tree; edge.
1042 Coast live oak C-21 T 6 3 Moderate 20 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 5'; trunk wound
on S. bowed N.
1044 Coast live oak C-21 T 3 3 Moderate 12 4' to 9' Poor form & structure.
1045 Blackwood acacia C-21 T 7 4 Moderate 20 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 6'; otherwise,
good young tree.
1051 Coast live oak C-21 T 3,2 4 Good 12 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ base; good
young tree.
1052 Coast live oak C-21 T 3,2 4 Good 12 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 2'; good young
tree.
1057 Coast live oak C-21 T 3,2 4 Good 10 4' to 9' Codominant trunks @ base; good
young tree.
1061 Coast live oak C-21 T 4 5 Good 12 10' to 27' Good young tree; edge of road.
1069 Blue oak C-21 T 4 3 Moderate 15 10' to 27' Upright.
1070 Blue oak C-21 T 4 3 Moderate 16 10' to 27' Irregular form; trunk wound on N.
1071 Blue oak C-21 T 3 3 Moderate 15 10' to 27' Interior.

4.4-23 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

Table 4.4-1
Trees to be Removed
Trunk Condition
Tree Map Suitability Height Canopy
Species Diameter 1=Poor Comments
No. No. For Preservation (ft.) Class
(in.) 5=Excellent
1072 Coast live oak C-21 T 5,3 4 Moderate 18 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 4'; 3" stem
broken by trucks; otherwise, nice tree.
1073 Blue oak C-21 T 4 3 Poor 14 4' to 9' Poor form & structure.
1074 Valley oak C-21 T 10,10 3 Poor 25 28' to 40' Codominant trunks @ 2'; bowed N.
over road; thin canopy.
1075 Valley oak C-21 T 5,3 4 Good 20 10' to 27' Good young tree; narrow crown.
1076 Valley oak C-21 T 3 3 Poor 16 4' to 9' Suppressed; interior.
1077 Blue oak C-21 T 10 4 Good 20 28' to 40' Nice tree; up bank from road.
1078 Coast live oak C-21 T 3 4 Moderate 14 4' to 9' Beneath adj. blue oak.
1092 Coast live oak C-21 T 4 4 Good 12 4' to 9' Edge; heavy to N.
1093 Blue oak C-21 T 3 3 Moderate 12 4' to 9' Suppressed; small crown.
1094 Valley oak C-21 T 6,4 3 Moderate 14 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 1'; poor form.
1095 Valley oak C-21 T 11 4 Good 25 10' to 27' Thin canopy; otherwise, good.
1096 Coast live oak C-21 T 9,8,6 4 Moderate 24 10' to 27' One-sided to E.; codominant trunks @
3'.
1099 Coast live oak C-21 T 17,12 4 Moderate 35 28' to 40' Codominant trunks @ 1'; 12" at sharp
angle to road; could be x'd; low
canopy.
1103 Valley oak C-21 T 4,4 4 Moderate 14 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 1'; good young
tree.
1104 Valley oak C-21 T 4 4 Good 16 4' to 9' Codominant trunks @ 8'; good young
tree.
1105 Coast live oak C-21 T 4 5 Good 14 10' to 27' Good young tree.
1106 Coast live oak C-21 T 6,5 3 Poor 12 10' to 27' Bowed N.; codominant trunks @ 5';
poor attachment.
1107 Coast live oak C-21 T 6 5 Good 16 4' to 9' Interior; narrow crown.
1108 Holly oak C-21 T 5 5 Good 18 10' to 27' Interior; good young tree.
1109 Blue oak C-21 T 7 3 Poor 15 10' to 27' Bowed strongly N.
1110 Coast live oak C-21 T 4 3 Moderate 18 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 6' with poor
attachment.

4.4-24 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

Table 4.4-1
Trees to be Removed
Trunk Condition
Tree Map Suitability Height Canopy
Species Diameter 1=Poor Comments
No. No. For Preservation (ft.) Class
(in.) 5=Excellent
1111 Coast live oak C-21 T 8,7,6,4 4 Moderate 20 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ base; kiss at 3 &
5'; crown heavy to S.
1115 Valley oak C-21 T 9 5 Good 24 10' to 27' Good young tree.
1124 Coast live oak C-21 T 10,7,4 4 Moderate 25 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ 1'; spreading
apart.
1125 Coast live oak C-21 T 10,7,7,6,5,5 4 Moderate 25 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ 1'; crown one-
sided to S.
1126 Coast live oak C-21 T 4,4 3 Moderate 18 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 1'; suppressed.
1128 Coast live oak C-21 T 5,3 3 Moderate 18 10' to 27' Interior; small, high crown.
1129 Coast live oak C-21 T 4 3 Poor 18 4' to 9' Interior; small canopy.
1130 Coast live oak C-21 T 5,4 3 Poor 18 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 1'; narrow
crown.
1131 Coast live oak C-21 T 3,2,1,1 3 Poor 10 10' to 27' Suppressed.
1132 Coast live oak C-21 T 6,5,5,4 4 Moderate 18 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ 1'; interior; high
crown.
1133 Coast live oak C-21 T 7,7,7 4 Good 18 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ base; small
dense crown.
1134 Coast live oak C-21 T 5,3 3 Moderate 16 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 1'; one-sided to
S.
1135 Coast live oak C-21 T 10,9,8,6 4 Moderate 18 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ base; one-
sided to S.
1136 Coast live oak C-21 T 5 2 Poor 14 10' to 27' 2 add'l. dead stems; small crown.
1137 Coast live oak C-21 T 4,4 3 Moderate 14 10' to 27' Interior; narrow crown.
1138 Coast live oak C-21 T 5,4,4,2,2,2 3 Moderate 14 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ 1'; thin canopy.
1139 Coast live oak C-21 T 7,7,7,7,6,5 4 Good 18 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ base; nice
dense rounded crown.
1140 Valley oak C-21 T 6,5,3,3,3 4 Moderate 18 10' to 27' Series of low laterals forms small
dense crown.
1144 Valley oak C-21 T 6,6,5,4 3 Moderate 20 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ base; thin
canopy; twig dieback throughout.
1145 Valley oak C-21 T 3,3,2,2 3 Moderate 18 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ base; leans S.

4.4-25 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

Table 4.4-1
Trees to be Removed
Trunk Condition
Tree Map Suitability Height Canopy
Species Diameter 1=Poor Comments
No. No. For Preservation (ft.) Class
(in.) 5=Excellent
1146 Valley oak C-21 T 4,4 4 Good 18 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ base; good
young tree.
1147a Coast live oak C-21 T 10 4 Moderate 20 10' to 27' Interior; high narrow crown.
1147b Valley oak C-21 T 6,5 4 Good 24 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 2'; good young
tree.
1148 Valley oak C-21 T 8,7 4 Good 28 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ base; good
young tree.
1149 Valley oak C-21 T 5 4 Good 24 10' to 27' Narrow crown.
1150 Valley oak C-21 T 6 4 Good 24 10' to 27' Narrow crown.
1151 Valley oak C-21 T 6,5,4 4 Moderate 25 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ base twist
around one another; otherwise, nice
tree.
1159 Valley oak C-21 T 6,5,5,5,4 4 Good 25 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ base & 2' give
rise to nice tree.
1160 Valley oak C-21 T 8,7,7 3 Moderate 28 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ base; twig
dieback throughout ; thin & one-sided
canopy.
1179 Valley oak C-21 T 4,2 3 Poor 10 10' to 27' Flat-topped; suppressed.
1180 Red flowering gum C-21 T 12,4 2 Poor 25 10' to 27' Lost central leader; long trunk wound
on NW; poor form & structure.
1188 Valley oak C-21 T 5,4 4 Good 24 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 1'; good young
tree.
1189 Valley oak C-21 T 8,5,5 4 Moderate 26 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 1' & 3'; nice
form but twig dieback throughout.
1192 Coast live oak C-21 T 4 3 Moderate 18 4' to 9' Interior; small narrow crown.
1193 Valley oak C-21 T 4 3 Moderate 18 4' to 9' Interior; small narrow crown.
1194 Coast live oak C-21 T 5,4,3 3 Moderate 18 10' to 27' Interior; small crown.
1195 Coast live oak C-21 T 6,5 4 Moderate 18 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ base; narrow
crown.
1196 Valley oak C-21 T 6,5,5 4 Moderate 22 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ base & 3'; twig
dieback throughout.
1202 Valley oak C-21 T 5 5 Good 22 10' to 27' Good young tree; narrow crown.

4.4-26 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

Table 4.4-1
Trees to be Removed
Trunk Condition
Tree Map Suitability Height Canopy
Species Diameter 1=Poor Comments
No. No. For Preservation (ft.) Class
(in.) 5=Excellent
1204 Valley oak C-21 T 13 4 Good 28 10' to 27' In fill from road; nice form; codominant
trunks @ 5'; canopy thin.
1208 Valley oak C-21 T 6,5,4,2 4 Moderate 26 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ base; twisted
around each other; otherwise, good
tree.
1209 Valley oak C-21 T 5 4 Moderate 24 10' to 27' Narrow crown.
1235 Coast live oak C-21 T 4,3,2 4 Good 18 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ base; good
young tree.
1236 Valley oak C-21 T 14 4 Moderate 30 10' to 27' Rangy form; sparse canopy.
1237 Coast live oak C-21 T 16 4 Good 35 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 4' with included
bark; otherwise, good tree.
1238 Coast live oak C-21 T 8 4 Moderate 22 10' to 27' Good tree but with bleeding on lower
trunk & thin crown.
1239 Coast live oak C-21 T 3 3 Poor 12 4' to 9' Interior; suppressed.
1240 Valley oak C-21 T 9 5 Good 20 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 6'; good tree.
1241 Valley oak C-21 T 3 3 Moderate 13 4' to 9' Irregular form.
1242 Valley oak C-21 T 4 4 Moderate 12 4' to 9' Edge of road; flat-topped but vigorous.
1246 Valley oak C-21 T 5 5 Good 16 10' to 27' Edge of road; vase-shape.
1251 Coast live oak C-21 T 6,3,2,2 4 Good 14 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ 2'; rounded
shrubby form.
1354 Corkscrew willow C-21 T 30,15 2 Poor 25 10' to 27' Extensive dieback.trunk decay.
1376 Coast live oak C-25 T 3,2 5 Good 8 4' to 9' Good young shrub.
1377 Coast live oak C-25 T 3,2,2 5 Good 8 4' to 9' Good young shrub.
1398 Coast live oak C-24 T 3 4 Good 12 4' to 9' Edge; good young tree.
1399 Holly oak C-24 T 6,4,3 4 Moderate 20 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ base; edge;
dense canopy.
1415 Coast live oak C-24 T 4 4 Moderate 18 4' to 9' Interior; leans S.
1416 Holly oak C-24 T 6,5,3,2 4 Good 24 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ base; one-
sided to S. & W.
1428 Buckthorn C-24 T 3,2,2 2 Poor 8 4' to 9' S. side is dead leaving small crown.
1429 Valley oak C-25 T 10 5 Good 24 10' to 27' Good young tree; at curb.

4.4-27 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

Table 4.4-1
Trees to be Removed
Trunk Condition
Tree Map Suitability Height Canopy
Species Diameter 1=Poor Comments
No. No. For Preservation (ft.) Class
(in.) 5=Excellent
1446 Coast live oak C-24 T 9,5 4 Moderate 22 10' to 27' Edge; one-sided to NE.
1448 Coast live oak C-24 T 12,6,5 4 Moderate 25 10' to 27' Fence splits trunks; multiple stems
arise @ base; crown heavy to SW.
1453 Coast live oak C-24 T 10,9,9,8 4 Moderate 26 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ base; upright
dense crown; lifted; 1' from fence.
1466 Valley oak C-25 T 12 3 Moderate 28 10' to 27' At fence; vase-shape.
1467 Valley oak C-25 T 4 3 Moderate 14 4' to 9' Small tree with crook in trunk.
1481 Valley oak C-25 T 3 4 Moderate 12 4' to 9' Good young tree.
1483 Blue oak C-25 T 5 4 Moderate 17 10' to 27' Good form but sparse.
1522 Coast live oak C-25 T 4,3,3,2 4 Good 12 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ base forming
large shrub.
1536 Valley oak C-25 T 20 4 Good 40 28' to 40' Major tree; codominant trunks @ 12';
vase shape.
1540 Valley oak C-25 T 12 3 Poor 24 10' to 27' Irregular form.
1542 Valley oak C-25 T 15 3 Moderate 26 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 3'; twig dieback
throughout; could x small stem.
1680 Valley oak G-15 TA 7 4 Good 15 4' to 9' Codominant trunks @ 3'.
1682 Valley oak G-15 TA 7 2 Poor 10 4' to 9' Fence girdling base; declining.
1689 Coast live oak G-15 TA 10 4 Moderate 35 10' to 27' Base of trunk misshapen by fence;
otherwise good.
1791 Calif. buckeye G-15 TA 17 4 Moderate 30 10' to 27' Crack in trunk.
1808 Valley oak G-15 TA 7 4 Good 25 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 12'.
1809 Coast live oak G-15 TA 7,5 3 Moderate 20 4' to 9' Codominant trunks @ base
1810 Valley oak G-15 TA 3,3 3 Moderate 12 4' to 9' Codominant trunks @ base
1813 Coast live oak G-15 TA 8,7 3 Moderate 18 10' to 27' Grows through fence.
1863 Coast live oak G-15 TA 4 3 Moderate 20 4' to 9' High crown.
1864 Coast live oak G-15 TA 3 2 Poor 10 4' to 9' Grows through fence.
1865 Coast live oak G-15 TA 6,4 3 Moderate 60 10' to 27' Grows through fence .
1866 Coast live oak G-15 TA 4 2 Poor 12 4' to 9' Lost central leader.
1869 Coast live oak G-15 TA 5 3 Moderate 16 10' to 27' Crown extends over fence.

4.4-28 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

Table 4.4-1
Trees to be Removed
Trunk Condition
Tree Map Suitability Height Canopy
Species Diameter 1=Poor Comments
No. No. For Preservation (ft.) Class
(in.) 5=Excellent
1873 Coast live oak G-15 TA 12 4 Good 30 10' to 27' Good form & health.
1887 Valley oak G-15 TA 17 3 Poor 32 10' to 27' Twig dieback.
1888 Valley oak G-15 TA 15 4 Good 30 10' to 27' Good form & health.
1907 Coast live oak G-26 T 10 4 Good 25 4' to 9' Codominant trunks @ 5'.
1909 Blue oak G-26 T 2 3 Poor 16 4' to 9' Spindly form.
1910 Valley oak G-26 T 8 4 Good 30 10' to 27' Upright growing crown.
1915 Coast live oak G-26 T 10 3 Moderate 30 10' to 27' 1 trunk was removed .
1916 Valley oak G-26 T 9 3 Poor 30 10' to 27' Sparse crown .
1917 Coast live oak G-26 T 11 4 Good 25 10' to 27' Good form & health.
1918 Coast live oak G-26 T 7 3 Poor 25 10' to 27' Suppressed.
1919 Coast live oak G-26 T 4 3 Poor 16 10' to 27' Suppressed.
1920 Coast live oak G-26 T 4,4 4 Good 12 4' to 9' Codominant trunks @ base
1928 Coast live oak G-26 T 5 4 Good 20 4' to 9' Good form & health.
1929 Valley oak G-26 T 3 3 Poor 16 4' to 9' Thin, narrow crown.
1932 Valley oak G-26 T 6,6 3 Moderate 40 4' to 9' Codominant trunks @ 1'.
1933 Valley oak G-26 T 16 3 Poor 48 10' to 27' Dieback in upper crown.
1935 Coast live oak G-26 T 5,5,3 4 Good 16 10' to 27' Multiple attachments @ base
1936 Valley oak G-26 T 8 3 Moderate 25 10' to 27' Crook in trunk.
1937 Coast live oak G-26 T 3 3 Poor 14 4' to 9' Suppressed.
1940 Coast live oak G-26 T 6 3 Poor 16 10' to 27' Suppressed.
1943 Coast live oak G-26 T 5 4 Good 14 4' to 9' Multiple attachments @ 5'.
1944 Coast live oak G-26 T 3,3 4 Good 14 4' to 9' Multiple attachments @ 3'.
1945 Coast live oak G-26 T 3 3 Moderate 13 4' to 9' Tall, narrow crown.
1975 Coast live oak G-26 T 8 5 Good 22 4' to 9' Excellent form & health.
1976 Valley oak G-26 T 10 3 Poor 25 10' to 27' Twig dieback.
1977 Coast live oak G-26 T 5 4 Good 17 4' to 9' Good form & health.
1978 Valley oak G-26 T 3 3 Moderate 12 4' to 9' Tall, narrow crown.
1980 Valley oak G-26 T 7,6,6 3 Moderate 24 10' to 27' Multiple attachments @ base

4.4-29 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

Table 4.4-1
Trees to be Removed
Trunk Condition
Tree Map Suitability Height Canopy
Species Diameter 1=Poor Comments
No. No. For Preservation (ft.) Class
(in.) 5=Excellent
1981 Coast live oak G-26 T 6 4 Good 20 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 10'.
1983 Coast live oak G-26 T 8,7.6 5 Good 24 10' to 27' Multiple attachments @ 4'.
1999 Coast live oak G-26 T 3 3 Poor 10 4' to 9' Suppressed.
2001 Blue oak G-26 T 4 3 Moderate 12 4' to 9' Tall, narrow crown.
2005 Coast live oak C-25 T 5,4 4 Good 14 4' to 9' Codominant trunks @ 1'
2006 Blue oak C-25 T 8,7 4 Good 25 10' to 27' Good form & health.
2008 Blue oak C-25 T 8 4 Good 20 10' to 27' Good form & health.
2011 Coast live oak C-25 T 5 3 Poor 16 4' to 9' Suppressed.
2012 Coast live oak C-25 T 5 3 Poor 14 4' to 9' Grows on fence.
2013 Coast live oak C-25 T 5 3 Poor 10 4' to 9' Trunk embedded in fence.
2014 Coast live oak C-25 T 3,2 4 Good 14 4' to 9' Codominant trunks @ base
2016 Coast live oak C-25 T 4 4 Good 12 4' to 9' Good form & health.
2017 Valley oak C-25 T 12 4 Good 22 10' to 27' Multiple attachments @ 10'.
2018 Blue oak C-25T 3,3,3 3 Poor 16 4’ to 9’ Stump sprout.
2043 Coast live oak C-25 T 3 4 Good 10 4' to 9' Good form & health.
2044 Coast live oak C-25 T 3 3 Moderate 8 4' to 9' Low crown.
2045 Valley oak C-25 T 3 3 Poor 16 4' to 9' Suppressed.
2046 Valley oak C-25 T 9 4 Good 30 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 6'
2048 Coast live oak C-25 T 3 4 Good 16 4' to 9' Good form & health.
2049 Valley oak C-25 T 8,7 4 Good 28 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ base
579 Japanese privet C-23 T 3,2,2 3 Moderate 13 4' to 9' Emerging through shrubs; poor
form.
581 Coast live oak C-23 T 4 5 Good 10 4' to 9' Shrub form.
582 Coast live oak C-23 T 3,2 4 Moderate 12 4' to 9' Codominant trunks @ base;
leans W.
583 Toyon C-23 T 5,5,4,3,3,3 4 Moderate 18 10' to 27' Shrub.
584 Toyon C-23 T 4,3,2 4 Moderate 15 10' to 27' Shrub.
769 Red ironbark C-23 T 11 3 Poor 26 10' to 27' Bowed SE.; asymmetric form.
770 Bushy yate C-23 T 4 3 Poor 24 10' to 27' Bowed SE.; asymmetric form.

4.4-30 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

Table 4.4-1
Trees to be Removed
Trunk Condition
Tree Map Suitability Height Canopy
Species Diameter 1=Poor Comments
No. No. For Preservation (ft.) Class
(in.) 5=Excellent
974 Coast live oak C-21 T 5 4 Moderate 18 10' to 27' Interior; crook in trunk.
975 Coast live oak C-21 T 3 3 Moderate 15 4' to 9' Interior; small crown.
976 Coast live oak C-21 T 4 4 Moderate 16 10' to 27' Interior; high crown.
977 Coast live oak C-21 T 4 4 Moderate 18 10' to 27' Interior.
988 Coast live oak C-21 T 4 3 Moderate 18 10' to 27' Interior; suppressed.
989 Coast live oak C-21 T 4 3 Moderate 18 10' to 27' Interior; suppressed.
990 Coast live oak C-21 T 6,3 4 Good 18 10' to 27' Interior.
991 Coast live oak C-21 T 4 4 Good 18 10' to 27' Interior.
993 Coast live oak C-21 T 8 4 Good 25 10' to 27' Also tagged as #1035; nice tree;
codominant trunks @ 10'.
1034 Coast live oak C-21 T 7,5,5,3,3 4 Good 20 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ 1'; good
tree.
1062 Valley oak C-21 T 4,3 4 Good 14 10' to 27' Good young tree.
1065 Coast live oak C-21 T 6 4 Moderate 24 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 7'; poor
attachment.
1066 Coast live oak C-21 T 9,7 4 Good 22 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 1'; nice
tree.
1080 Coast live oak C-21 T 7 5 Good 18 10' to 27' Bowed S.
1081 Coast live oak C-21 T 5,5 4 Moderate 14 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 1';
included bark.
1082 Coast live oak C-21 T 4 5 Good 14 10' to 27' Good young tree.
1118 Coast live oak C-21 T 7,7,6,4,4,3 5 Good 18 10' to 27' Series of low codominants gives
rise to full, dense rounded crown.
1119 Blue oak C-21 T 3 4 Good 16 4' to 9' Good young tree; small crown.
1143 Valley oak C-21 T 9,7 4 Moderate 30 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 1' & 10';
included bark at 1'; otherwise,
good tree.
1221 Valley oak C-21 T 4 5 Good 14 4' to 9' Good young tree.
1291 Valley oak C-22 T 14 4 Moderate 30 10' to 27' Codominant trunks @ 12'; high
vase- shape.

4.4-31 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.4 Biological Resources

Table 4.4-1
Trees to be Removed
Trunk Condition
Tree Map Suitability Height Canopy
Species Diameter 1=Poor Comments
No. No. For Preservation (ft.) Class
(in.) 5=Excellent
1292 Coast live oak C-22 T 11 4 Good 22 10' to 27' Below #1291; bowed SW; good
dense canopy; extensive bark
damage.
1293 Valley oak C-22 T 9 4 Moderate 20 10' to 27' High crown; narrow form.
1313 London plane C-22 T 8 3 Moderate 20 10' to 27' Thin canopy; twig dieback
throughout due to lack of water.
1373 Coast live oak C-25 T 7,5 5 Good 10 4' to 9' Codominant trunks @ 1'; good
young tree; shrubby.
1380 Coast live oak C-24 T 7,5,3 4 Moderate 22 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ 1'; one-
sided to N.
1381 Coast live oak C-24 T 5 4 Moderate 14 10' to 27' On e-sided to E.
1445 Valley oak C-24 T 5 3 Moderate 18 4' to 9' Interior; sparse crown.
1447 Coast live oak C-24 T 10 4 Moderate 20 10' to 27' Interior, high, narrow crown.
1454 Blue oak C-24 T 3 4 Good 14 4' to 9' Good young tree.
1455 Blue oak C-24 T 7 2 Poor 16 10' to 27' Partial failure to E.; thin canopy.
1456 Coast live oak C-24 T 6 5 Good 22 10' to 27' Good young tree.

585 Bushy yate C-23 T 8,7,6 3 Poor 16 10' to 27' Partially failed downhill, towards road;
dense crown.
586 River red gum C-23 T 14 3 Poor 28 10' to 27' Multiple stems arise @ 5' where a 4th
stem failed; poor attachment; stubbed
on road side.

4.4-32 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Tree Removal Map Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.4-3a
Final EIR
 Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Tree Removal Map Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.4-3b
Final EIR
 Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Tree Removal Map Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.4-3c
Final EIR
 Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Tree Removal Map Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.4-3d
Final EIR
 Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Tree Removal Map Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.4-3e
Final EIR
 Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Tree Removal Map Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.4-3f
Final EIR
 Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Tree Removal Map Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.4-3g
Final EIR
 Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Tree Removal Map Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.4-3h
Final EIR
 Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Tree Removal Map Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.4-3i
Final EIR
 Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Tree Removal Map Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.4-3j
Final EIR
 Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Tree Removal Map Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.4-3k
Final EIR
 Source: CDM Smith, 2014

Tree Removal Map Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.4-3l
Final EIR
 4.5 Cultural Resources

4.5 Cultural Resources

This section assesses cultural resources including historical, archaeological, paleontological,
unique geologic features, and human remains known to occur at the project site, and identifies
potential impacts to those resources from construction of the proposed improvements. This
discussion is based in part on an Archaeological Survey prepared for the project by Basin
Research Associates in May 2013. This report is on file with the District.

4.5.1 Setting
4.5.1.1 Prehistoric Setting

The larger project area is located within the territory of the Costanoan or Ohlone people. The
Costanoan consisted of distinct sociopolitical groups that spoke at least eight languages within
the same (Penutian) language group. The Costanoan occupied a large territory that extended
from the San Francisco Bay to the north, to Big Sur and the Salinas River to the south. The
primary sociopolitical unit was the tribelet, or village community, which included one or more
chiefs.

The Costanoan economy was based on hunting and gathering. Their territory encompassed
both coastal and open valley environments that contained a wide variety of resources, including
grass seeds, acorns, bulbs and tubers, bear, deer, elk, antelope, a variety of bird species, and
rabbits and other small mammals. The Costanoan acknowledged private ownership of goods
and songs, and village ownership of rights to land and/or natural resources. After contact with
European settlers, Costanoan society was severely disrupted and diminished by the mission
system, disease, and displacement.

4.5.1.2 Historical Setting

The Spanish were the first Europeans to explore the Santa Clara Valley, making their
appearance in the late 1760s and 1770s. After their initial exploration, the Spanish focused on
the founding of presidios, missions, and secular towns. After the independence of Mexico and
the secularization of the missions in the 1830s, the mission’s property was divided into ranchos
and distributed to private citizens. The project area was originally part of the Mexican land grant
known as Rancho Rinconada de Los Gatos. Early Spanish expedition likely followed aboriginal
trails; none of these trails/routes extend through the project site or project vicinity. The RWTP is
located south of the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail. No recorded or known
Hispanic Era dwellings and/or features located in or adjacent to the RWTP or within 0.25 miles.

4.5.1.3 Cultural Resources Investigation

An archival records search for the project area was conducted by Basin Research Associates at
the Northwest Information Center of Sonoma State University (NWIC) on March 25, 2013 to
identify prior archaeological studies and known cultural resources within a ½-mile radius of the
project property. The records search (File No. 12-0842) included a review of the following
archives, registers, and lists:
 Site records for previously recorded sites
 Reports of previous studies
 Listing of California Historical Landmarks

4.5-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.5 Cultural Resources

 The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)

 The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
 The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Historic Properties Directory
 Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California
 List of Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks
Reference material from the Bancroft Library at the University of California at Berkeley was also
consulted by Basin Research Associates. Specialized listings reviewed included: the Historic
Properties Directory for Santa Clara County (CAL/OHP 2012) and the list of California Historical
Resources (CAL/OHP 2013) with the most recent updates of the National Register of Historic
Places; California Historical Landmarks; and California Points of Historical Interest as well as
other properties reviewed by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation. Other
sources consulted included: California History Plan (CAL/OHP 1973); California Inventory of
Historic Resources (CAL/OHP 1976); Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California
(CAL/OHP 1988); Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern
California (ASCE 1977); List of Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks (ASCE 2012); and various
historic maps.

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was also contacted for a search of the
Sacred Lands Inventory on file with the Commission.

4.5.1.4 Results of Cultural Resources Investigation

No prehistoric, combined prehistoric/historic or historic sites have been recorded or reported in

or adjacent within 0.25 miles of the project (CHRIS/NWIC File No. 12-0842). One cultural
resource compliance report on file at the CHRIS/NWIC includes the project and/or adjacent
area. This report is a Cultural Resource Evaluation of Three Treatment Plants for the Santa
Clara Valley Water District (Cartier 2002/S-26184). The report findings were negative, including
the "controlled intuitive reconnaissance" which examined burrows, exposed banks and inclines,
etc., as part of the field survey.

The project appears to be located in an area of low to low-moderate sensitivity for

archaeological resources. This project site is located near the Santa Cruz Mountains adjacent to
Smith Creek, is approximately 0.3 miles west of Mistletoe Creek, is approximately 0.9 miles
further west of San Tomas Aquino Creek, and is approximately 1.0 mile north/northwest of the
confluence of San Tomas Aquino Creek with Vasona Creek. Although proximity to flowing water
resources usually indicates an area sensitive for prehistoric resources, no recorded resources
have been identified in the vicinity of the RWTP.

The NWIC records search was negative for the project site, the area adjacent to the project, and
within a 0.25 mile radius. No known Native American villages, trails, traditional use areas or
contemporary use areas have been identified in, adjacent to, or near the project. The NAHC
search of the Sacred Lands Inventory “failed to indicate the presence of Native American
cultural resources in the immediate project area.” No recorded or known Hispanic Era dwellings
and/or features located in or adjacent to the RWTP or within 0.25 miles of the project. No known
American Era Resources were identified in the project as part of the records search conducted
for the proposed project (CHRIS/NWIC File No. 12-0842) or as a result of the limited map
review. None of the historic maps reviewed show any historic features on or adjacent to the
project. Finally, no listed local, state or federal historically or architecturally significant

4.5-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.5 Cultural Resources

structures, landmarks or points of interest have been identified in or adjacent to the proposed
project.

4.5.2 Regulatory Environment

4.5.2.1 Federal

Archaeological resources are protected through the National Historical Preservation Act)(NHPA)
of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470f), and its implementing regulations. Prior to implementing an
“undertaking” (e.g., federal funding or issuing a federal permit), Section 106 of the NHPA
requires federal agencies to consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties (i.e.,
properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]) and
to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on
any undertaking that would adversely affect properties eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places. Under the NHPA, a property is considered significant if it meets the National
Register listing (under criteria at 36 CFR 60.4).

4.5.2.2 State

According to California Public Resources Code §5024.1, a historical resource is a resource that
is listed in, or determined to be eligible for, listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources; is included in a local register of historical resources; or is identified as significant in
an historic resource survey if that survey meets specified criteria. CEQA Public Resources Code
§21084.1 provides that any project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment. The project site does not contain any known significant historical resources.

4.5.2.3 Local

Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan

The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan contains a variety of policies related to preservation
and protection of historic buildings and cultural resources. In general, the proposed project
would be consistent with goals and policies in the General Plan. Applicable goals and policies in
the plan are included in the table below.

General Plan Policies: Cultural Resources

Relevant Goals, Policies and Description

Actions
Goal OSP-9 To protect Los Gatos’s archaeological and cultural
resources to maintain and enhance a unique sense of
place.
Policy OSP-9.1 Evaluate archaeological and/or cultural resources
early in the development review process through
consultation with interested parties and the use of
contemporary professional techniques in archaeology,
ethnography, and architectural history.
Policy OSP-9.1 Evaluate archaeological and/or cultural resources
early in the development review process through
consultation with interested parties and the use of

4.5-3 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.5 Cultural Resources

contemporary professional techniques in archaeology,

ethnography, and architectural history.
Policy OSP-9.4 Require that if cultural resources, including
archaeological or paleontological resources, are
uncovered during grading or other on-site excavation
activities, construction shall stop until appropriate
mitigation is implemented.

4.5.3 Impacts and Mitigation

4.5.3.1 Thresholds of Significance

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered significant if the
project would:
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as
defined in §15064.5;
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5;
 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature; or
 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

4.5.3.2 Impacts to Archaeological Resources and Disturbance of Human

Remains

The project is located in the close vicinity of flowing creeks in the foothills of the Santa Cruz
Mountains, in an area of low to low-moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources. While
proximity to flowing water resources usually indicates an area is sensitive for prehistoric
resources, no recorded prehistoric resources have been identified near the project.

Impact

It is possible that undetected small, discrete, or isolated archaeological materials or deposits

could be encountered during project construction. In the event that prehistoric or historic-era
cultural resources and/or human remains are encountered during project construction,
disturbance of the resources and/or human remains would represent a significant impact. To
minimize this potentially significant impact, the District will implement the following mitigation
measures.

Mitigation Measures

CR-1 If, during the course of project construction, archaeological resources or human remains
are encountered during construction, the District shall halt work within 20 feet of the find
until a qualified professional archaeologist can evaluate it. Work shall not recommence
until the project archaeologist has submitted documentation to the District (as CEQA
lead Agency) and Town of Los Gatos indicating that discovered resources have been
adequately salvaged and no further resources have been identified within the area of
disturbance.

4.5-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.5 Cultural Resources

CR-2 Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of the
Public Resources Code of the State of California, in the event of the discovery of human
remains during construction, the District shall discontinue further excavation or
disturbance on the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and make a determination as
to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains
are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission
who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no
satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to
this State law, then the District shall be responsible for insuring re-interment of human
remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location
not subject to further subsurface disturbance.

Conclusion

The project could disturb archaeological resources and/or human remains if encountered during
construction, which represents a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-
1 and CR-2 identified above will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.5.3.3 Impacts to Historical Resources

The project site does not contain any significant historical resources. Based on the
archaeological investigation performed for the project, no buildings or structures were identified
that are potentially eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or
National Register of Historic Places.

4.5.3.4 Impacts to Paleontological Resources

No unique paleontological resources or geologic features are known to be located within or

associated with the RWTP site. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly destroy
paleontological resources. This is a less-than-significant impact.

4.5-5 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.5 Cultural Resources

This page left intentionally blank.

4.5-6 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.6 Geotechnical and Geological Hazards

4.6 Geotechnical and Geological Hazards

This section describes the geologic and seismic setting for the project and evaluates its
potential to cause or be subject to geologic hazards such as erosion, expansive soils, seismic
shaking or liquefaction. This section summarizes the results of a geotechnical analysis prepared
for the project by Geotechnical Consultants (October 2013), contained in Appendix E of this
EIR.

The geotechnical investigation included the following tasks: literature review, subsurface
exploration program, review of laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. The subsurface
exploration program included the drilling of 15 test borings to evaluate the subsurface conditions
of the site. Groundwater monitoring wells (piezometers) were installed in five of the borings to
assess the groundwater conditions within the project site. The location of subsurface exploration
points are presented in Appendix E.

As part of the geotechnical investigation, laboratory tests measured moisture, density, grain
size, Atterberg limits1, swell pressure, unconfined compressive strength, unconsolidated
undrained shear strength, and corrosion on soil and bedrock samples from the site. The results
of the test results were then used to make conclusions regarding seismic and geologic hazards,
and recommendations for final design of the proposed RWTP improvements.

Table 4.6-1
Results of Soil Borings
Boring Date Drilled Piezometer
Location
No. Drilled Depth (feet) Installed?

5/24 and
GTC-1 Main Parking lot, East end, North Side 77.8 No
5/28/2013
Adjacent to Control Building on the West side, along
GTC-2 5/17/2013 60.9 Yes
service road
GTC-3 5/28/2013 Plant service road, East of Control Building 51.5 No

GTC-4 5/14/2013 East side of upper level treatment facilities 61.5 Yes

GTC-5 5/22/2013 Mid-slope Bench 51.0 No

5/20
GTC-6 through East side of Sludge Drying Beds Access Road 115.0 Yes
5/22/2013
GTC-7 5/16/2013 SE corner of open area at Upper Level Facilities 41.5 No

GTC-8 5/16/2013 SW corner of open area at the Upper Level 51.5 No

GTC-9 5/29/2013 NE corner of Sludge Drying Beds 31.5 No

GTC-10 5/23/2013 East side of upper level open area 45.5 No

GTC-11 5/24/2013 Northern Center of Upper level open area 51.5 No

GTC-12 5/15/2013 NW side of Upper Level Facilities 51.0 Yes

1
The basic measure of water contents of a fine grained soil.

4.6-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.6 Geotechnical and Geological Hazards

Table 4.6-1
Results of Soil Borings
Boring Date Drilled Piezometer
Location
No. Drilled Depth (feet) Installed?

GTC-13 5/13/2013 NW corner of Upper Level Facilities 31.5 No

GTC-14 5/29/2013 NE corner of Upper Level Facilities 41.5 Yes

GTC-15 5/13/2013 North Access Road 20.5 No

4.6.1 Setting
4.6.1.1 Overview

The project site is located along the southwestern margin of Santa Clara Valley, in the foothills
of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The Santa Cruz Mountains are located in the central part of the
Pacific Coast Range. The Coast Range generally extends from the Oregon border south to the
Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County.

4.6.1.2 Site Characteristics

The RWTP is located within a hillside area with natural and man-made slopes. During
construction of the treatment plant in 1965-1966, the hillside site was widened and leveled into
three main stepped terraces through cut-and-fill grading. The terraces on which the RWTP
facilities lie are surrounded by ascending and descending cut slopes and fill slopes ranging from
approximately 30 feet to approximately 100 feet in height. Ground surface elevations of the site
range from ±280 feet (east of the lower pond) to about ±435 feet (at the main parking lot). The
site is underlain primarily with Santa Clara Formation soil and artificial fill soils.

The project site is mapped within a Santa Clara County Landslide Hazard Zone and has a
California Geologic Survey (CGS) earthquake-induced landslide hazard zone mapped adjacent
to and within the RWTP.

4.6.1.3 Events and Processes

Erosion
Ground disturbing activities, such as grading and tree removal, would increase potential erosion
on the project site. Severe erosion can undermine stability of natural and man-made slopes,
foundations, and roadways. The Santa Clara sediments at RWTP are highly eroded, displaying
more than 100 feet of local relief where older alluvial fan deposits fill the valley between the
project site and La Rinconada Country Club.

Existing Fills
The project site contains artificial fill from the site’s original construction in 1965-1966. The fill
ranges in thickness from 0 feet to 51.5 feet, with thicker fill predominantly in the northeast, east,
and southern portions of the site. Additionally, previous investigations indicate that the northern
to northeastern portion of the project site appears to consist of predominantly undocumented fill,
consisting of sandy and silty clays to clayey silts with sandstone gravels, clasts and fine to
coarse grained sand.

4.6-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.6 Geotechnical and Geological Hazards

Expansive Soils
Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of seasonal fluctuations in moisture levels. This can
cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow
foundations. When soils contain excessive moisture, they can swell and cause stress on
structures above. Excessive changes in moisture in soils can deteriorate structures over time
by leading to differential settlement beneath structures.

The project site is generally underlain by granular soils that are not expansive. However, soils
on the site have been identified as having moderate to high expansion potential. These soils
underlying the project site have potential for expansive behavior due to the presence of clays in
the Santa Clara Formation. Santa Clara Formation clays exhibit potential to be expansive when
subject to changes in moisture content.

Landslides
The project site is not located within or near a mapped landslide, but it is located within a Santa
Clara County Landslide Hazard Zone. Hillside areas such as that on which the project site is
located are commonly mapped in potential landslide hazard zones due to the potential for soils
to become weak over time and fail, eventually leading to landslides. Hillside sites are most
susceptible to landslides during periods of heavy rainfall when near-surface soils become
heavily saturated with water. Site grading during construction of the RWTP removed
near-surface soils and the potential for landslides is thus considered to be very low.

Lateral Spreading, Liquefaction, and Ground Lurching

Liquefaction is the transformation of soil from a solid to a liquid state as a consequence of
increased pore-water pressures, usually in response to strong ground shaking generated during
a seismic event. Lateral spreading is a failure within a nearly horizontal soil zone, commonly
associated with liquefaction, which causes the overlying soil mass to move towards a free face
or down a gentle slope. Ground lurching can occur in soft, saturated clays and silts that are
subjected to strong ground shaking during earthquakes.

The potential for liquefaction and liquefaction-related hazards is very low at the project site due
to the formational nature of the soils and rock underlying the site, and the groundwater’s
position well below the proposed structures’ foundations.

Seismicity
The project site is located within a seismically active area between two major tectonic plates:
the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate. The Pacific Plate and North American Plate
occur at a right lateral movement across a 50-mile wide zone.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that there is a 62 percent probability of
a strong earthquake, magnitude 6.7 or greater, occurring in the area between 2003 and 2032.
Additionally the USGS has estimated the probability of a strong earthquake occurring on
regional fault as follows: 21% chance for the North San Andreas Fault Zone, 31% for the
Hayward-Rogers Fault Zone, 7% for the Calveras Fault Zone, and 6% for the San Gregorio
Fault Zone. Active faults in California have been categorized by their predictability and their
potential strength by the California Geologic Survey. “Type A” faults have higher and more well-
defined slip rates and recurrence intervals. “Type B” faults have well defined slip rates, but
poorly constrained recurrence intervals. “Type A” faults are considered more active and capable

4.6-3 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.6 Geotechnical and Geological Hazards

of generating larger earthquakes than “Type B” faults. Both “Type A” and “Type B” faults are
mapped within the vicinity of the project site, with the nearest being the San Andreas Fault, a
“Type A” fault, located approximately 4.5 miles to the southwest. The nearest “Type B” fault is
the Monte Vista - Shannon Fault zone, located less than one tenth of a mile to the southwest.

The southern portion of the RWTP, near the Rinconada Reservoir, is mapped in the Santa Clara
County Fault Rupture Hazard Zone but no faults are mapped across the RWTP site. The
project, therefore, is unlikely to be subject to seismic surface rupture hazards.

4.6.2 Regulatory Environment

4.6.2.1 State

California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and Seismic Hazard Mapping Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was enacted in 1972 to minimize hazards from
fault rupture by prohibiting structures for human occupancy across the trace of an active fault
(within 50 feet). The Act requires delineation of “Earthquake Fault Zones,” in which cities and
counties cannot issue development permits until geologic investigation shows that development
within such zones is not threatened by future faulting. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act was
adopted in 1990 to protect the public from earthquake hazards including ground shaking,
liquefaction, seismically induced landslides, and other related ground failure. Maps showing
seismic hazard zones, prepared by the California Geological Survey, identify areas susceptible
to seismic hazards that may have special requirements, including additional geotechnical
analysis.

California Building Code (CBC)

The 2013 CBC identifies standards for the design and construction structures, including
excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other elements to mitigate the
effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions.

San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board

The quality of water runoff is regulated by the federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program, administered by Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs)
throughout California. The San Francisco Bay Area RWQCB issues NPDES point source
permits for discharges from major industries and non-point source permits for discharges to
water bodies in the Bay Area for municipalities and other local government entities, including the
District. The project area is currently covered by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP). The
MRP requires stormwater management measures to be included in new and redevelopment
projects to minimize and properly treat stormwater runoff, including measures to minimize
erosion and sedimentation both during and after construction.

4.6-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.6 Geotechnical and Geological Hazards

4.6.2.2 Local

Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan

The Town of Los Gatos General Plan contains policies and regulations to avoid impacts from
geologic and seismic hazards on new development. Goals and policies applicable to the project
are discussed below.

General Plan Policies: Geotechnical and Geologic Hazards

Relevant Goals, Policies and Description

Actions
Policy ENV-2.1 All developments in areas subject to soil erosion and
slippage shall furnish effective erosion control plans to
minimize soil erosion. The erosion control plans shall
be implemented prior to construction operations and
maintained throughout the construction process.
Goal SAF-1 To minimize exposure to geologic hazards, including
slope instability, subsidence, and expansive soils, and
to seismic hazards, including groundshaking, fault
rupture, liquefaction, and landslides.
Policy SAF-1.7 As part of development review, the developer shall
have a qualified geologic/geotechnical consultant fill
out the Town Geologic Hazards Checklist to show that
potential hazards have been identified and that
proposed structures, including grading (cuts and fills),
will be designed to resist potential earthquake effects.
Policy SAF-1.11 Require geologic and geotechnical reports to specify
construction methods to protect the proposed project,
as well as existing residences in the vicinity, from
identified hazards.

Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code

The Town of Los Gatos implements policies and regulations to avoid impacts from geologic and
seismic hazards associated with new development. Chapter 12 of the Los Gatos Municipal
Code establishes uniform standards and procedures for grading and clearing land with the
intent to protect water resources and the public interest. The chapter sets forth regulations to
control excavation, clearing, and grading land; establishes the administrative procedures for
issuing permits; provides design standards for projects; and discusses conditions for
implementation and how grading activities are enforced. All grading in the Town of Los Gatos
requires a permit, unless exempt under § 12.20.015 of the Municipal Code. The District will
work with the Town of Los Gatos (in accordance with the District’s Good Neighbor Policy) to
ensure that the proposed project will conform to applicable regulations related to grading,
erosion control, expansive soils, seismic shaking or liquefaction, although the District and
project are not subject to a grading permit or other Town permits pursuant to the California
Water Code.

4.6-5 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.6 Geotechnical and Geological Hazards

4.6.3 Impacts and Mitigation

4.6.3.1 Thresholds of Significance

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered significant if the
project would:
 Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
o 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,
o Strong seismic ground shaking,
o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction,
o Landslides;
 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;
 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; or
 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.

4.6.3.2 Overview

Based on the results of the geotechnical investigation, the project is feasible from a
geotechnical perspective, provided the geotechnical concerns described in the study are
addressed. Geotechnical concerns identified for the project site are as follows:
 Expansive characteristics of the Santa Clara Formation soil on the site.
 Fill slopes that may be subject to minor slope deformation resulting from strong seismic
ground shaking.

4.6.3.3 Seismic Hazards

The project site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone, and there are
no known active faults passing through the property. The project, therefore, is not considered
subject to seismic surface rupture hazards.

An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region
could cause considerable ground shaking at the site, similar to that which has occurred in the
past. To minimize the effects of seismic shaking, all structures would be designed according to
sound engineering and the 2013 CBC requirements, at a minimum. Seismic design provisions
of current building codes generally prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied statically to the
structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead-and-live loads. The code-prescribed lateral
forces are generally considered to be substantially smaller than the comparable forces that
would be associated with a major earthquake. Therefore, structures should be able to: 1) resist
minor earthquakes without damage, 2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage
but with some nonstructural damage, and 3) resist major earthquakes without collapse but with
some structural as well as nonstructural damage. Conformance to the current building code
recommendations does not constitute a guarantee that significant structural damage would not

4.6-6 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.6 Geotechnical and Geological Hazards

occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake; however, it is reasonable to expect

that a well-designed and well-constructed structure would not collapse or cause loss of life in a
major earthquake.

Final project design would incorporate sound engineering judgment and conform to the CBC
requirements, which would minimize potential safety risks associated with seismic hazards to a
less-than-significant level.

4.6.3.4 Grading and Soil Erosion

The project would require grading on the site for the staging area located on the south hillside
as well as on the southwestern portion of the existing upper sludge drying basins. Grading is
estimated at approximately 60,710 cubic yards of cut and 70,971 cubic yards of fill, combined
over the five phases of construction (refer to Table 4.6-2 below). Site preparation, grading, and
construction activities would disturb soil and increase its susceptibility to erosion. Removal of
soils by wind or water can undermine buildings, roads, and other developments and contribute
siltation of local streams or water bodies. Erosion-related impacts can result from both short-
term construction activities and long-term project conditions where vegetative cover is not re-
established following development. An erosion control plan would be developed and
incorporated into final design plans and specifications and implemented to avoid impacts related
to loss of topsoil. This is a less-than-significant impact.

Table 4.6-2
Proposed Grading Quantities
Phase Cut (CY) Fill (CY)
1 0 0
2 34,833 33,160
3 9,514 22,376
4 13,021 7,190
5 3,342 8,245
Total 60,710 70,971
Source: CDM Smith, 2014.

4.6.3.5 Landslides

Landslide movement can be triggered by changes in groundwater elevation due to rainfall,

saturation by leaking utilities or impounded water, stream incision, man-made excavations of fill
placement as well as by seismic ground shaking. Landslide movement can cause large vertical
and horizontal ground movements, ground warping and bulging, displacement of large masses
of debris from slopes onto roads and structures.

As discussed in section 4.6.1, the project site is not located within or near a mapped landslide; it
is, however, located within a Santa Clara County Landslide Hazard Zone. However, site grading
for the construction of the RWTP resulted in the removal of surficial soils and the exposure of
Santa Clara Formation soil. As a result, the project has a very low chance of being impacted by
landslides. This represents a less-than-significant impact.

4.6-7 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.6 Geotechnical and Geological Hazards

4.6.3.6 Seismically Induced Slope Movement

Seismic events may result in localized rotational or sliding block failure and deformation of the
embankment slopes that surround the RWTP structures. Two slopes on the site were identified
as potentially experiencing permanent ground deformation from seismic slope instability. These
are Sections X-X’ and Y-Y’ as seen on Plate 8 of the Geotechnical Report in Appendix E. It is
predicted that Sections X-X’ and Y-Y’ would experience up to 2 inches of slope deformation in a
manner consistent with the classic rotational and/or sliding block slope failure modes. This
includes tension cracking and settlement along the head scarp at the rest of the slope, shear
displacements along the lateral boundaries of the sliding mass, and soil compression and
having at the toe of the slope.

Proposed structures on the site will be designed and constructed in accordance with the
geotechnical investigation prepared for the project by Geotechnical Consultants (October 2013).
The geotechnical investigation identifies the specific design features that will be required for the
project, including site preparation, compaction, trench excavations, foundation design, drainage,
and pavement design. With proposed implementation of the recommendations in the
geotechnical report, the project would not expose people or property to significant impacts
associated with seismic hazards on the site. This represents a less-than-significant impact.

4.6.3.7 Liquefaction, Lateral Spreading, and Ground Lurching

Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesion-less soils are subject to a temporary

loss of shear strength during seismic shaking. Lateral spreading is a failure within a nearly
horizontal soil zone, commonly associated with liquefaction, which causes the overlying soil
mass to move towards a free face or down a gentle slope. Due to the formational nature of the
soils underlying the project site and the low groundwater level, the potential for liquefaction,
lateral spreading, and ground lurching at the site are considered very low and not regarded as a
significant impact to the proposed project. This is a less-than-significant impact.

4.6.3.8 Soils

Expansive Soils
Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of seasonal fluctuation in moisture content that can
cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow
foundations. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soils can be
reduced through proper foundation design. Successful construction on expansive soils requires
special attention during construction.

A shrink/swell test was performed on a clayey soil sample as part of the geotechnical
investigation, which showed a moderate expansion potential for proposed improvements.
Foundation subgrades that expose Santa Clara Formation clays are considered to have a
moderate potential for expansiveness if subjected to wetting and drying conditions. Most of the
proposed RWTP structures are either water storing or water processing facilities that could be
subject to leakage into the sub-soils over their design/service life. Therefore, the
recommendation in the geotechnical study that locations of the site where foundations expose
clayey soils are over-excavated and replaced with non-expansive soils will be incorporated into
final design.

4.6-8 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.6 Geotechnical and Geological Hazards

Proposed structures on the site will be designed and constructed in accordance with the
geotechnical investigation prepared for the project by Geotechnical Consultants (see Appendix
E). The geotechnical investigation identifies the specific design features that will be required for
the project, including site preparation, excavation, temporary slopes, shoring and bracing,
subgrade preparation, engineered fill placement and compaction, pipe bedding, drainage,
foundation design, and pavement design. With proposed implementation of the
recommendations in the geotechnical report, the project would not expose people or property to
significant impacts associated with hazardous soils conditions (expansive soils) on the site.

Existing Fills
Existing fills are located on the project site as a result of the original construction in 1965-1966.
Fills range in thickness across the site and are found in the northeastern, eastern, and southern
portions of the site. Undocumented fill is also found in the northern and northeastern portions of
the site.

The fill ranges in thickness from 0 feet to 51.5 feet, with thicker fill predominantly in the
northeastern, eastern, and southern portions of the site. In addition, previous investigations
indicate that the northern to northeastern portion of the project site appears to consist of
predominantly undocumented fill, comprised of sandy and silty clays to clayey silts with
sandstone gravels clasts and fine- to coarse-grained sand.

Proposed structures on the site will be designed and constructed in accordance with the
geotechnical investigation prepared for the project by Geotechnical Consultants (October 2013).
The geotechnical investigation identifies the specific design features that will be required for the
project, including site preparation, excavation, temporary slopes, shoring and bracing, subgrade
preparation, engineered fill placement and compaction, pipe bedding, drainage, foundation
design, and pavement design. With proposed implementation of the recommendations in the
geotechnical report, the project would not expose people or property to significant impacts
associated with existing fills on the site.

Conclusion

Proposed implementation of the recommendations identified in the geotechnical investigation for

the project by the District, which include specific design features that will be required including
site preparation, excavation, temporary slopes, shoring/bracing, subgrade preparation,
engineered fill placement and compaction, pipe bedding, drainage, foundation design, and
pavement design, would minimize potential geotechnical hazards. The project would not
expose people and structures to substantial adverse effects resulting from geologic hazards
such as erosion, expansive soils, seismic shaking or liquefaction and thus the impact would be
less-than-significant.

4.6-9 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.6 Geotechnical and Geological Hazards

This page left intentionally blank.

4.6-10 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.7 Greenhouse Gases

4.7 Greenhouse Gases

4.7.1 Setting
Various gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs),
play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth’s
atmosphere from space and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The
Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from
high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases, which
are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this
radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is retained, resulting in a warming
of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect.

Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO 2),
methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are
responsible for enhancing the greenhouse effect (Ahrens 2003). Emissions of GHGs
contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated
with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. In
California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by electricity
generation (California Energy Commission 2006a). A byproduct of fossil fuel combustion is CO 2.
Methane, a highly potent GHG, results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices
and landfills. Processes that absorb and accumulate CO2, often called CO2 “sinks,” include
uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean.

Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and
toxic air contaminants, which are of regional and local concern, respectively. California is the
12th to 16th largest emitter of CO2 in the world (California Energy Commission 2006a). Carbon
dioxide equivalents (CO2e) is a measurement used to account for the fact that various GHGs
have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the
greenhouse effect. This potential, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is also
dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere.

4.7.2 Regulatory Environment

This section describes recent state regulations that specifically address greenhouse gas
emissions and global climate change. At the time of writing, there are no federal regulations
setting ambient air quality standards or emission limits for greenhouse gases except overall
California emission limits set by Assembly Bill 32 (AB32) as described below.

4.7.2.1 State

Assembly Bill 1493

In 2002, Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 was passed requiring that the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) develop and adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve “the maximum feasible
reduction of greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty truck and other
vehicles determined by the ARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal
transportation in the state.”

4.7-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.7 Greenhouse Gases

Executive Order S-3-05

Executive Order S-3-05, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005, proclaims that California
is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures could
reduce the Sierra’s snow pack, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and
potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To combat those concerns, the Executive Order
established total greenhouse gas emission targets. Specifically, emissions are to be reduced to
the 2000 level by 2010, the 1990 level by 2020, and to 80% below the 1990 level by 2050. The
Executive Order directed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA) to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the target
levels. The Secretary must also submit biannual reports to the governor and state legislature
describing: 1) progress made toward reaching the emission targets; 2) impacts of global
warming on California’s resources; and 3) mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these
impacts. To comply with the Executive Order, the Secretary of the CalEPA created a Climate
Act Team (CAT) made up of members from various state agencies and commission.

Assembly Bill 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006

In September 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Climate Solutions
Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the
year 2020. This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG
emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32
directs CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from
stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be
used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating
that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then ARB should develop new
regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32. AB 32 requires
that ARB adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing 1990 emissions levels and
disclose how it arrives at the cap; institute a schedule to meet the emissions cap; and develop
tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the state achieves reductions
in GHG emissions necessary to meet the cap. AB 32 also includes guidance to institute
emissions reductions in an economically efficient manner and conditions to ensure that
businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected by the reductions.

Senate Bill 1368

SB 1368 is the companion bill of AB 32 and was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in
September 2006. SB 1368 required the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to
establish a greenhouse gas emission performance standard. Therefore, on January 25, 2007,
the PUC adopted an interim GHG Emissions Performance Standard in an effort to help mitigate
climate change. The Emissions Performance Standard is a facility-based emissions standard
requiring that all new long-term commitments for baseload generation to serve California
consumers be with power plants that have emissions no greater than a combined cycle gas
turbine plant. That level is established at 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. "New long-
term commitment" refers to new plant investments (new construction), new or renewal contracts
with a term of five years or more, or major investments by the utility in its existing baseload
power plants. In addition, the California Energy Commission (CEC) established a similar
standard for local publicly owned utilities that cannot exceed the greenhouse gas emission rate
from a baseload combined-cycle natural gas fired plant. On July 29, 2007, the Office of
Administrative Law disapproved the Energy Commission’s proposed Greenhouse Gases
Emission Performance Standard rulemaking action and subsequently, the CEC revised the

4.7-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.7 Greenhouse Gases

proposed regulations. SB 1368 further requires that all electricity provided to California,
including imported electricity, must be generated from plants that meet the standards set by the
PUC and CEC.

4.7.2.2 Local

Bay Area Air Quality District (BAAQMD)

As described in Section 4.3 Air Quality, the District has determined that it is appropriate to rely
on the significance thresholds identified in the BAAQMD’s CEQA guidelines (updated May
2012) for determining this project’s impacts from GHG emissions. These thresholds are detailed
in the impact analysis below.
Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
The Town of Los Gatos General Plan contains several goals and policies to support sustainable
planning strategies and reduce GHG emissions. The goals and policies relevant to the
proposed project area presented below.

General Plan Policies: Greenhouse Gases

Relevant Goals, Policies and Description

Actions
Goal ENV-13 To promote a sustainable community that protects
environmental resources and the climate to prevent
negative impacts to future generations.
Goal ENV-14 To reduce overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to
1990 levels by 2020.
Policy ENV-14.1 Support employer incentive programs for carpooling
and use of other forms of transportation.
Policy ENV-14.2 Promote local employment opportunities to reduce
consumption of fuel used for commuting.
Policy ENV-14.4 Support the use of non-polluting fuels by encouraging
the inclusion of facilities for alternative fuels in new
public and private developments and by offering
incentives to encourage retrofits

4.7.3 Impacts and Mitigation

4.7.3.1 Thresholds of Significance

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered significant if the
project would:
 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment; or
 Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulations of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

4.7-3 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.7 Greenhouse Gases

4.7.3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Evaluation and Impacts

Climate change is challenging water utilities in multiple ways. While utilities are forced to adapt
to climate induced variability in their water supplies, the energy used to collect, treat, and
distribute drinking water releases additional greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the environment.
Consequently, water utilities are seeking to limit GHG emissions. The District has been at the
forefront of efforts to evaluate the impacts of climate change with their mitigation, outreach, and
research projects. To reduce their net impact, the District has been implementing GHG
emissions mitigation measures across their water supply portfolio. The District has also been
tracking their carbon footprint since 2006.

Operations

The project proposes to add or modify five processes in the current water treatment train: new
carbon dioxide addition, raw water ozonation, and filter-to-waste systems as well as modified
clarification and filtration systems. The largest source of energy consumption at the RWTP is
the pumping of treated water. This energy consumption from pumping of treated water is
already part of baseline conditions and the operation of the new improvements would not
increase GHG emissions compared with these existing conditions. Of the new improvements,
the largest source of energy consumption is from ozone generation. Energy consumption
related to the new improvements would be optimized through project design to the extent
possible. For example, new pumps would be fitted with variable frequency drives for energy
savings, to the extent that process considerations allow, and the most efficient pumps for the
application would be utilized. Other proposed design measures to reduce energy consumption
include locating equipment and sizing piping to minimize hydraulic loses, and providing for the
efficient use of lighting, motors, and transformers.

The following discussion is based on a GHG evaluation prepared for the project by Trussell
Technologies (April 2012) as part of the Planning Study Report (Rinconada Water Treatment
Plant Reliability Improvement Project Planning Study Report Technical Memorandum No. 4,
Appendix H, 2012). The District has been using an inventorying protocol to quantify annual
emissions for the RWTP,1 which bases GHG emissions on facility activities (e.g., energy usage)
and activity-specific emission factors (e.g., tons of GHG emitted per kWh of electricity used).2
The District’s methodology utilizes facility-wide electrical purchases to quantify indirect
emissions, and adds a 15% allocation to account for all remaining direct emissions.

When assessing the significance of GHG emissions on the environment, lead agencies must
consider the following factors:

1. The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as
compared to existing environmental setting;
2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency
determines applies to the project; and
3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to
implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions.

1
This inventory is based on The Climate Registry’s general protocol.
2
kWh = Kilowatt/hour

4.7-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.7 Greenhouse Gases

As described in 4.3 Air Quality, the District has determined that the June 2010 BAAQMD
recommended significance thresholds are appropriate for analyzing impacts for this project. For
stationary sources, the BAAQMD threshold for operational GHG emissions is 10,000 MT of
CO2e/yr. Projects with GHG emissions below the significance threshold are considered to
comply with applicable plans, policies, and regulations for GHG emissions.

Baseline values for the RWTP were calculated over the 2006 – 2010 time period. The energy
intensity (energy required to treat a unit of water) was calculated using electrical purchase data
from the District’s primary supplier, the Power and Water Resources Pooling Authority
(PWRPA), plus a 2% allocation for the remaining electrical sources. The non-electrical sources
such as natural gas usage and vehicle trips were estimated at 15% of the total electrical
requirements. Over this period, the energy intensity was roughly constant, ranging from 394 to
515 kWh per million gallons (mg). The GHG emissions intensity (GHG released per unit of water
treated) varied significantly over the same time period from the fluctuating emission factors for
the District’s principal electrical source during this time period. To evaluate the GHG emissions
from the RWTP improvements, average values were used for energy intensity (454 kWh/mg),
emission factors, and GHG emissions intensity (160 lbs CO2e/mg).

Proposed improvements to the RWTP would result in an increased energy usage of 108
kWh/mg. Nearly all of the increased demand is related to the proposed ozone and CO2
systems. The additional 108 kWh/MG represents a 24% increase in energy intensity compared
to existing operations. The increase in emissions intensity due to the new processes is 38 lbs
CO2e/mg. Assuming an average flow rate of 60 mgd, the new processes would result in an
increase of 378 MT CO2e/yr in annual GHG emissions.3 The increased GHG emissions are well
below the BAAQMD’s CEQA GHG significance threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e/yr for stationary
sources.

The GHG analysis indicated that energy use at the RWTP is significantly below the typical
Northern California water treatment plant. Even with the proposed improvements, the energy
use at the RWTP would still be more than two times lower than the average plant. Multiple
factors contribute to the RWTP’s low energy usage, particularly the low energy requirements for
raw and treated-water pumping.

Construction

GHG emissions during construction of the project were quantified as part of the calculations
prepared for the air quality analysis. The BAAQMD did not establish significance thresholds for
construction GHG emissions, but recommended that agencies quantify GHG emissions in their
CEQA analysis. The CO2e generated during construction of the project for each phase is
presented Table 4.3-8 in Section 4.3 Air Quality and summarized in Table 4.7-1 below.

GHG emissions associated with construction were computed to be 1,118 MT CO 2e, anticipated
to occur over seven years (based on tons per period), as presented in Table 4.7-1. These are
the emissions resulting from on-site operation of construction equipment, hauling truck trips,
vendor truck trips, and worker trips. The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of
significance for construction-related GHG emissions, though total construction period emissions
would be much less than the BAAQMD operational threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year for
stationary sources. BAAQMD encourages the incorporation of best management practices to

3
The project would not increase mobile GHG emissions since the improvements would generate
negligible traffic from the addition of only one permanent employee.

4.7-5 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.7 Greenhouse Gases

reduce GHG emissions during construction where feasible and applicable (see 4.3 Air Quality
for mitigation in accordance with the BAAQMD’s requirements). . Such best management
practices would include, but are not limited to: recycling at least 50 percent of construction
waste or demolition materials.

Table 4.7-1
Construction Period GHG Emissions1
Phase CO2e
Metric Tons per Period
Phase 1 313
Phase 2 269
Phase 3 188
Phase 4 156
Phase 5 192
Metric Tons per Year (annualized by period)
Phase 1 205
Phase 2 269
Phase 3 188
Phase 4 104
Phase 5 105
Lbs per Day (normalized per 264 workdays per year)
Phase 1 1,708
Phase 2 2,242
Phase 3 1,567
Phase 4 867
Phase 5 875
1
For reporting purposes only.

In conclusion, based on the above analysis, operation of the proposed project would result in an
increase of 378 MT CO2e/yr in annual GHG emissions, which is well below the BAAQMD’s
CEQA GHG significance threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e/yr for stationary sources. As described
earlier, the BAAQMD does not establish significance criteria for construction GHG emissions.
However, the District’s implementation of best management practices as recommended by
BAAQMD and described above and in Section 4.3 Air Quality would ensure that the GHG
emissions from construction of the project would also not rise to a level of significance. The
project, therefore, would not significantly contribute to cumulative global GHG emissions. Since
the project would have a less-than-significant impact on GHG levels, it would not conflict with
any plans adopted for the purposes of minimizing GHG emissions. This is a less-than-
significant impact and no mitigation is required.

4.7-6 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

This section assesses the potential public health and safety impacts associated with the project,
including the handling, storage, and transport of chemicals and other hazardous materials.
Flooding, seismic/geologic, and public service related hazards (such as fire and emergency
response) are discussed within their respective sections of this EIR.

The term “hazardous material” is defined as any material that, because of quantity,
concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential
hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the
environment. (State of California, Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95, Section 25501(o)).
Hazardous materials can refer to both hazardous substances and hazardous wastes. According
to federal and state laws, a material may be considered hazardous if it is listed by statute as a
hazard or if it is 1) toxic (causes adverse human health effects), 2) ignitable, corrosive (causes
severe burns or damage to materials), or 3) reactive (causes explosions or generates toxic
gases).

If improperly handled, hazardous materials and wastes can be released into the soil,
groundwater, or air and result in potential public health hazards. The four basic exposure
pathways are inhalation, ingestion, bodily contact, and injection. Exposure can result from
improper handling and storage, and accidental release during transport. Disturbance of
subsurface soil during construction can also potentially expose workers or the public if
contaminated by hazardous materials (e.g., from prior releases).

4.8.1 Setting
4.8.1.1 Site History & Characteristics

The RWTP was constructed in 1967 and has operated as a water treatment plant since that
time. The RWTP is located in a residential area and is bounded by More Avenue to the west,
Granada Way to the north, La Rinconada County Club to the east, and the Rinconada and San
Jose Water Company Reservoirs to the south. Single family residences generally surround the
property to the north, south, and west.

The majority of the RWTP site is developed with buildings, parking lots, roads, water treatment
and storage facilities, and other structures. Prior to its use as a water treatment plant, the site
consisted of undeveloped hillside. Review of the ENVIROSTOR database maintained by the
California Department of Toxic Substances did not identify any hazardous materials releases in
the project area.

4.8.1.2 Hazardous Materials Storage & Use

Table 4.8-1 presents the existing and proposed hazardous materials used/stored at the RWTP.
Additional small quantities of hazardous materials are used throughout the RWTP. The RWTP
also generates hazardous waste including waste oil, oil filters, empty grease cartridges, and
aerosol cans. All hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are stored, used, and disposed of
in accordance with the plant’s Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) and applicable
regulations, described further under “Regulatory Environment.”

4.8-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The existing RWTP contains a 1,000-gallon above-ground diesel tank and 100-gallon gasoline
tank for vehicle fueling. The site also contains a 2,100-gallon diesel tank for the emergency
standby generator and a 250-gallon diesel tank for the emergency water pump. Diesel fuel
would be required for the new emergency and standby generators and to supply the existing
standby generator. A new above-grade 16,000-gallon diesel fuel tank is proposed near the new
emergency and standby generators. In addition, a new 6,000 gallon diesel fuel tank is proposed
to supply the existing standby generator.

Table 4.8-1
Existing and Proposed Hazardous Materials Use
Current Proposed
Material Operations Operations Amount Stored Onsite
(annual) (annual)
Aqua Ammonia 80,200 gal unchanged 6,700 gal
Alum 1,325,000 gal unchanged 49,000 gal
2
Anionic Polymer 2,400 gal unchanged See notes below
Carbon Dioxide 0 2,741,200 lbs 120 tons
Cationic Polymer 16,000 gal unchanged 6,600 gal
Caustic Soda 306,700 gal unchanged 35,000 gal
Hydrofluosilicic acid (Fluoride)* 0 76,200 gal 12,000 gal
Liquid Oxygen 0 383,300 gal 30,000 gal
NonIonic Polymer (Filter Aid) 100,700 gal unchanged 1,440 gal
NonIonic Polymer (Flocculation 222,900 gal unchanged total
Aid)
Phosphoric Acid 46,900 gal unchanged 12,000 gal
1
Powder Activated Carbon 329,700 lbs unchanged 92,000 gal
Sodium Hypoclorite 651,800 gal unchanged 39,000 gal
Notes:
1
Powder Activated Carbon will be used in the interim and ultimately phased out.
2
Stored in same tank as nonionic polymer.
*This material will be added to proposed operations pursuant to a separate CEQA project (fluoridation
at SCVWD treatment plants) for which a Notice of Exemption was filed in 2013.

The design, construction, operation, and permitting of facilities utilizing hazardous materials is
regulated at the federal, state, and local levels. In addition, Cal-OSHA protects workers through
various programs and requirements. As required by law, the District develops and implements
a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) that identifies hazardous materials storage,
handling, emergency response, and notification procedures as well as employee health and
safety training requirements at RWTP. All chemical storage and handling procedures at the
RWTP are conducted in accordance with specific legal requirements for the safe storage and
handling of hazardous materials. These procedures and requirements include spill control in
storage, handling and dispensing areas, separate secondary containment for each chemical
storage system, separation of incompatible materials, and appropriate signage and marking.

4.8.1.3 Hazardous Building Materials in Existing Structures

Existing buildings and structures to be demolished may also contain hazardous materials such
as asbestos, lead-based paint, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The unregulated or
unprotected exposure to these materials can result in human health and safety hazards, as
described further below. Because many of the existing structures on the project site were
constructed prior to the phase‐out of these substances, they could be encountered during
demolition activities.

4.8-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Asbestos containing material (ACM) has been related to human health and safety concerns.
Both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the EPA regulate asbestos
due to potential health hazards. Buildings on the project site may contain ACM. If not properly
managed, demolition can result in public health hazards associated with release of asbestos.
Exposure to ACM can increase the risk of asbestos related diseases, including certain cancers.

Lead-based paint is likely to occur on the project site in buildings constructed prior to its ban in
1978. If not properly managed, demolition of buildings containing lead-based paint can result in
public health hazards associated with release of lead-based paint. Lead-based paint may result
in human health and safety concerns if not properly managed. The exposure to lead-based
hazards can result in lead poisoning, which may produce neurological damage, including
learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and impaired memories in children.

PCBs have been widely used as coolants and lubricants in transformers and other electrical
equipment, such as fluorescent light ballasts. PCBs are considered, according to the EPA, to be
a carcinogen.

4.8.2 Regulatory Environment

The generation, storage and handling of hazardous materials and wastes are regulated by
various federal, state and local requirements aimed at the protection of public health and the
environment. A summary of relevant regulations is provided below.

4.8.2.1 Federal

The U.S. EPA is responsible for enforcing regulations at the federal level pertaining to
hazardous materials and wastes. The primary federal hazardous materials and wastes laws are
contained in the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and in
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or
Superfund). CERCLA established the National Priorities List for identifying and obtaining
funding for remediation of severely contaminated sites. Federal regulations pertaining to
hazardous materials and wastes are contained in Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR). The
regulations contain specific guidelines for determining whether waste is hazardous based on
either the source of generation or the characteristics of the waste.

Transportation of hazardous materials by truck and rail is regulated by the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT). DOT regulations establish criteria for safe handling procedures. Federal
safety standards are also included in the California Administrative Code.

4.8.2.2 State

The U.S. EPA has delegated much of its regulatory authority to individual states whenever
adequate state regulatory programs exist. The Department of Toxic Substance Control Division
(DTSC) of CalEPA is the agency empowered to enforce federal hazardous materials and waste
regulations in California in conjunction with the U.S. EPA.

California hazardous materials and waste laws incorporate federal standards, but in many
respects are stricter. For example, the California Hazardous Waste Control Law, the state
equivalent of RCRA, contains a much broader definition of hazardous materials and waste.
State hazardous materials and waste laws are contained in the California Code of Regulations

4.8-3 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

(CCR), Titles 22 and 26. Regulations implementing the California Hazardous Waste Control
Law list 791 hazardous chemicals and 20 to 30 more common materials that may be hazardous;
establish criteria for identifying, packaging and labeling hazardous waste; prescribe
management of hazardous waste; establish permit requirements for hazardous waste treatment,
storage, disposal and transportation; and identify hazardous waste that cannot be disposed of in
landfills.

Under RCRA, a facility is classified as a generator of hazardous waste if it generates and stores
hazardous waste on site for less than 90 days; such a facility is required to obtain an EPA
generator's identification number from the EPA or DTSC. If, however, hazardous waste is
stored on site for longer than 90 days, the facility is classified as a Transfer, Storage, or
Disposal facility and is required to obtain a RCRA Part B Storage Permit which can take as long
as two years to obtain. Transportation and disposal of hazardous materials are also regulated;
hazardous waste must be characterized to determine methods of disposal and site disposal
(i.e., class of landfill).

Health and Safety Code, Section 25270, Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act, Health and
Safety Code Sections 25270 to 25270.13.
These regulations ensure compliance with the federal Clean Water Act. The law applies to
facilities that operate a petroleum aboveground storage tank with a capacity greater than 660
gallons or combined aboveground storage tanks capacity greater than 1,320 gallons or oil‐filled
equipment where there is a reasonable possibility that the tank(s) or equipment may discharge
oil in “harmful quantities” into navigable waters or adjoining shore lands. If a facility falls under
these criteria, it must prepare a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan.

Health and Safety Code, Section 25500 et seq.

This code and the related regulations in 19 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 2620, et seq.,
require local governments to regulate local business storage of hazardous materials in excess
of certain quantities. The law also requires that entities storing hazardous materials be prepared
to respond to releases. Those using and storing hazardous materials are required to submit a
HMBP to their local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and to report releases to their
CUPA and the State Office of Emergency Services.

Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act of 1985

The Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act, also known as the
Business Plan Act, requires businesses using hazardous materials to prepare a plan that
describes their facilities, inventories, emergency response plans, and training programs.
Business plans contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of
hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed.

Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified
Program)
This program requires the administrative consolidation of six hazardous materials and waste
programs (Program Elements) under the local CUPA. The following Program Elements are
consolidated under the Unified Program:
 Hazardous Waste Generator and On‐site Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs (a.k.a.
Tiered Permitting)
 Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tanks

4.8-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

 Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program (a.k.a.

Hazardous Materials Disclosure or “Community‐Right‐To‐Know”)
 California Accidental Release Prevention Program
 Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program
 Uniform Fire Code Plans and Inventory Requirements

4.8.2.3 Regional

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is the lead agency
responsible for identifying, monitoring and remediating leaking underground storage tanks in the
Bay Area. Local jurisdictions may take the lead agency role as a Local Oversight Program
(LOP) entity, implementing state as well as local policies.

Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health

The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) is the local CUPA
agency. The SCCDEH is responsible for the following programs in accordance with the State’s
Unified Program:
 Hazardous Materials Business Plans
 Hazardous Waste Generator Program
 Hazardous Waste Tiered Permitting
 Underground Storage Tanks
 Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act
 California Accidental Release Program
In addition, the SCCDEH administers the programs listed below under its local authority:
 California Fire Code
 Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance (Division B11 of Santa Clara County
Ordinance)
 Toxic Gas Ordinance (Division B11 Chapter XIV of Santa Clara County Ordinance)

Santa Clara County Operational Area Emergency Operations

Santa Clara County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan is intended to ensure
effective allocation of resources for the maximum benefit and protection of the population during
times of emergency. The plan establishes emergency organization, assigns tasks, specifies
policies and general procedures and provides for coordination of planning efforts for respective
staff. The plan does not designate emergency response or evacuation routes.

4.8.2.4 Local

Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code

Chapter 13 Article II of the Los Gatos Municipal Code regulates the storage of hazardous
materials in order to protect public health, safety, welfare, the environment and natural

4.8-5 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

resources within the Town. This Article discusses the specific materials regulated, permitting
requirements, and containment standards. Prior to issuance of a permit allowing storage of a
hazardous material, an applicant must complete a hazardous materials management plan
(HMMP).

4.8.3 Impacts and Mitigation

4.8.3.1 Thresholds of Significance

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered significant if the
project would:
 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
 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;
 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment;
 For 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, the project would result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; or
 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the project would result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area.

4.8.3.2 Impact from Hazardous Material Use and/or Release

Operations
The proposed RWTP improvements would involve the storage and use of hazardous materials.
Future use of hazardous materials is related to modifications to the treatment train and other
existing processes. Except for two cationic/non-ionic polymer formulations, all other process
chemicals stored at the RWTP are considered hazardous as per the SCCDEH.

New chemicals required for the proposed water treatment processes include liquid oxygen
(converted to ozone) and carbon dioxide. Although a new sodium hypochlorite facility would be
constructed, this is not considered a new chemical use since the project is replacing the existing
sodium hypochlorite facility. Hydrofluosilicic acid will be added to proposed operations pursuant
to a separate CEQA project (fluoridation at three SCVWD treatment plants), for which a Notice
of Exemption was filed in 2013. Table 4.8-1, presented earlier in this section, provides a
comparison of the existing and future chemical use and storage on the project site.

As required by law, the District implements a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) that
identifies hazardous materials storage, handling, emergency response, and notification
procedures as well as employee health and safety training requirements. The District will update
its HMBP to include the additional hazardous materials required for the proposed

4.8-6 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

improvements. All chemical storage and handling systems will be designed and constructed in
accordance with specific requirements for the safe storage and handling of hazardous materials
set forth by the California Fire Code and SCCDEH. Typical requirements include spill control in
storage, handling and dispensing areas, separate secondary containment for each chemical
storage system, and separation of incompatible materials. These requirements minimize the
potential for hazardous materials accidents and the release of hazardous materials. The HMBP
also contains an emergency response/contingency plan that identifies the procedures to contain
a release or threatened release of hazardous materials and required training for employees that
participate in handling of hazardous materials. The HMBP provides local agencies with
information to plan appropriately for any chemical release, fire, or other incident. Compliance
with legal requirements for the transport of hazardous materials, implementation of the design
features described above for the new chemical storage, and revision of the legally‐required
HMBP, impacts related to the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials during project
operations would be less than significant.

Additionally, the project is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to California Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List or California Superfund) and
would have no impact related to state-listed contamination sites. The project would not result in
any significant impacts related to hazardous material use and/or release.

Construction
The project would use fuels, lubricants, paints, and solvents during construction activities.
Storage and use of hazardous materials on the project site could potentially result in the
accidental release of small quantities of hazardous materials, exposing construction workers
and/or impacting soil, groundwater, and surface water resources.

As discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section, the District will prepare and
implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and appropriate best management
practices (BMPs) to minimize the impact on water quality from release of hazardous materials
during construction. In addition, the District will implement standard protection measures for the
temporary onsite storage of fuel and other hazardous materials used during construction.
These measures are as follows:

 Oily, greasy, or sediment-laden substances or other material that originate from the project
operations and may degrade the quality of surface water or adversely affect aquatic life, fish,
or wildlife will not be allowed to enter, or be placed where they may later enter, any
waterway.

 Vehicles will be washed only at approved areas.

 All servicing of equipment will provide containment to the degree that any spill will be unable
to enter any channel or damage stream vegetation.

 Measures will be implemented to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled and
the quality of water resources is protected by all reasonable means.

1. Prior to entering the work site, all field personnel will know how to respond when toxic
materials are discovered.

4.8-7 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

2. The discharge of any hazardous or non-hazardous waste as defined in Division 2,

Subdivision 1, Chapter 2 of the California Code of Regulations will be conducted in
accordance with applicable State and federal regulations.
3. In the event of any hazardous material emergencies or spills, personnel will call the
Chemical Emergencies/Spills Hotline at 1-800-510-5151.

 Prevent the accidental release of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, and non-storm drainage water
through the following:
1. Field personnel will be appropriately trained in spill prevention, hazardous material
control, and clean-up of accidental spills.
2. No fueling, repair, cleaning, maintenance, or vehicle washing will be performed in a
creek channel or in areas at the top of a channel bank that may flow into a creek
channel.

 Spill prevention kits appropriate to the hazard will always be in close proximity when using
hazardous materials (e.g., crew trucks and other logical locations).
1. Prior to entering the work site, all field personnel will know the location of spill kits on
crew trucks and at other locations within District facilities.
2. All field personnel will be advised of these locations and trained in their appropriate use.

In addition to the above standard measures, as described in the Water Quality section, the
District will also prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program that would
include spill prevention measures. With implementation of these measures, the potential for
release of hazardous materials to the environment would be less-than-significant.

Proximity to Schools
The project is located just over one quarter mile of an existing school (Rolling Hills Middle
School). However, compliance with all legal requirements and implementation of best
management practices identified above would assure that no hazardous materials are released
by the project. This is a less-than-significant impact.

4.8.3.3 Exposure to Existing Hazards in Building Materials

Due to the age of the RWTP, existing buildings and structures on the site may contain asbestos-
containing materials and lead-based paint. Demolition of these structures could result in the
release of these hazardous materials if not properly handled.

Impact

Demolition of existing buildings and structures could result in the release of asbestos and lead-
based paint, posing a risk to the environment and public health. This represents a potentially
significant impact. The District will implement the following mitigation measure to minimize this
impact.

Mitigation Measures

HAZ-1 The District shall retain a qualified professional to perform the following before
and during demolition activities:

4.8-8 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

1. Test for and remove all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials in

accordance with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation activities that
may disturb the materials. All demolition activities must be undertaken in
accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained in Title 8 of the California
Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure
to asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also
subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations.
2. During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint
shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction
Standard, Title 8, California Code of Regulations 1532.1. Required safety
measures shall be adhered to, including employee training and employee air
monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or
coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the
waste being disposed.
3. During demolition activities, a qualified professional shall inspect all potential
sources of PCBs and remove and dispose of them in accordance with all
regulatory requirements.
Conclusion

Demolition of existing buildings and structures could result in the release of asbestos and lead-
based paint, posing a risk to the environment and public health. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure HAZ-1 identified above would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.8.3.4 Airport Hazards

The project site is not located within an airport land use plan. The project site is not located
within two miles of any private or public airports or airstrips. As a result, the proposed
improvements to the RWTP would not create any safety or other hazards associated with airport
operations.

4.8-9 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

This page left intentionally blank.

4.8-10 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

This section describes the existing hydrological conditions on the site and evaluates the
potential impacts of the project associated with hydrology and water quality during construction
and after project completion. The analysis contained in this section is based on background
hydrological information for the area, review of site conditions, and evaluation of the proposed
drainage plans.

4.9.1 Setting
4.9.1.1 Hydrologic Setting

The RWTP is located on a mostly graded hillside area with natural and man-made slopes.
During construction of the treatment plant in the mid-1960s, the site was graded into three main
stepped terraces. Ground surface elevations of the site range from +280 feet (east of the lower
pond) to about +435 feet (at the main parking lot). The site is underlain primarily with Santa
Clara Formation soil and artificial fill soils.

There are no drainages on the project site. Smith Creek, a small drainage, lies adjacent to the
RWTP near the site’s eastern boundary. Smith Creek is the headwaters tributary of San Tomas
Aquino Creek and drains an area of about 2.6 square miles, although it is largely dry except
during the winter months. It extends from the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains within the
City of Monte Sereno, then flows north until its confluence with San Tomas Aquino about 1.5
miles north of the site. San Tomas Aquino Creek ultimately discharges to South San Francisco
Bay via the Guadalupe Slough.

The project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain or other flood hazard area on the
Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Map (Panel 0238J, February
19, 2014). The FEMA map shows a narrow band of 100-year floodplain along the Smith Creek
corridor east of the project site.

Surface runoff is currently directed into an underground drainage system and a concrete
V-ditch. The V-ditch generally extends north and parallel to the south access road and drains to
the north until it reaches two 36-inch buried storm lines near the northeast corner of the
property. Runoff is discharged into Smith Creek.

4.9.1.2 Groundwater Resources

Groundwater was present in one boring (piezometer) made as part of the geotechnical
investigation for the project (Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., October 2013). Groundwater was
encountered at a depth of 49 feet below local grade (corresponding to groundwater elevation
+356 feet), occurring within a sandy clay with gravel that contains lenses of sand. Based on
these findings, combined with findings during previous geotechnical investigations, there does
not appear to be any pervasive groundwater beneath the RWTP. The clay-like character of the
soils and the hilltop location of the RWTP limit deep infiltration of precipitation and development
of groundwater resources.

4.9-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.9.2 Regulatory Environment

4.9.2.1 Federal

Federal Clean Water Act

The Federal Clean Water Act is the primary federal law in the U. S. governing water pollution.
The following sections of the Clean Water Act are relevant to the proposed project.

Sections 303 and 304 provide water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines, including the
requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (see below). Section
404 regulates activities that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the
U.S., including wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) administers a permit
program for any discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. Such waters can
include:
 All waters that are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use
in interstate of foreign commerce, including all waters that are subject to ebb and flow of
tide.
 All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands.
 All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers and streams (including intermittent
streams); mudflats; sandflats; wetlands; vernal pools; playa lakes; natural ponds, the
use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate of foreign commerce.
 Tributaries of the above.
The USACE no longer takes jurisdiction over “isolated” wetlands and waters but does take
jurisdiction over “adjacent” wetlands, which are hydrologically connected to navigable waters or
tributaries of navigable water, even if such wetlands appear to otherwise be isolated. Additional
regulations regarding USACE 404 permitting are discussed in Section 4.4 Biological Resources.

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

The quality of water runoff is regulated by the federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program, established by the Clean Water Act. The objective of the NPDES
program is to control and reduce pollutants entering water bodies from non-point discharges.
The program is administered by Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) throughout
California. The San Francisco Bay Area RWQCB issues NPDES point source permits for
discharges from major industries and non-point source permits for discharges to water bodies in
the Bay Area for municipalities and other local government entities, including the District. The
project area is currently covered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San
Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP). The MRP
requires stormwater management measures to be included in new and redevelopment projects
to minimize and properly treat stormwater runoff. Provision C.3 of the MRP regulates the
following types of development projects:
 Projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface.
 Special Land Use Categories that create or replace 5,000 square feet or more of
impervious surface.

4.9-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

The MRP requires regulated projects to include Low Impact Development (LID) practices, such
as pollutant source control measures and stormwater treatment features aimed to maintain or
restore the site’s natural hydrologic functions. The MRP requires that stormwater treatment
measures are properly installed, operated, and maintained.

4.9.2.2 State

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The basis for the water quality regulation in California is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act (California Water Code, Section 13000 et seq.). This Act requires a “Report of
Waste Discharge” for any discharge (liquid, solid, or otherwise) to land or surface waters that
may impair a beneficial use of the state’s surface or groundwater. Based on the reports, the
local RWQCB issues waste discharge requirements to minimize the effect of the discharges.

The Porter-Cologne Act delegates authority to the State Water Resources Control Board to
establish regional water quality control boards. The San Francisco Bay Area RWQCB has
authority to use planning, permitting, and enforcement to protect beneficial uses of water
resources in the project region. Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California
Water Code Sections 13000-14290), the RWQCB is authorized to regulate the discharge of
waste that could affect the quality of the state’s waters, including projects that do not require a
federal permit through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). To meet RWQCB 401
Certification standards, all hydrologic issues related to a project must be addressed, including
the following:
 Wetlands;
 Watershed hydrograph modification;
 Proposed creek or riverine related modifications; and
 Long-term post-construction water quality.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code

The California Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Code Sections 1600-1607 authorizes the Department
of Fish and Wildlife to enter into streambed alteration agreements with applicants to develop
mitigation measures for projects that would obstruct the flow or alter the bed, channel, or bank
of a river or stream in which there are fish or wildlife resources, including intermittent and
ephemeral streams. The CDFW has the authority to regulate work that will:
 Divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake;
 Change the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream or lake; or
 Use material from a streambed.
The CDFW has jurisdiction along a river, stream or creek, usually bounded by the top-of-bank or
the outermost edges of riparian vegetation. Typical activities regulated by the CDFW under
Section 1600 to Section 1607 authority include installing outfalls, stabilizing banks, restoring
creeks, and implementing flood control projects.

4.9-3 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.9.2.3 Local

Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan

The Town of Los Gatos General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid hydrology and water
quality issues within the Town. Those applicable to the proposed project are presented below.

General Plan Policies: Hydrology & Water Quality

Relevant Goals, Policies and Description

Actions
Policy ENV-5.1 Applicants shall demonstrate that new development will
not contaminate surface water and/or groundwater.
Policy ENV-5.3 Cooperate with the Santa Clara Valley Water District
and other agencies to protect watersheds and riparian
habitats from degradation.
Policy ENV-5.4 Preserve existing creeks and avoid disturbances to
these areas.
Policy ENV-5.7 Parking lots should be designed to drain into
landscaped areas.
Policy ENV-9.1 As part of CEQA review for development projects,
require analysis of the single and cumulative impacts
on water drainage (runoff) and contamination (water
quality) in all areas but particularly in or adjacent to
hillsides, riparian corridors, and important undeveloped
watersheds.
Policy ENV-9.2 Promote non-point source pollution control programs to
reduce and control the discharge of pollutants into the
storm drain system.

4.9.3 Impacts and Mitigation

The following discussion addresses the potential impacts of the project associated with
hydrology and water quality. As identified in Section 3.0 Project Description, the project
proposes a storm drainage plan to manage runoff from the site.

4.9.3.1 Thresholds of Significance

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered significant if the
project would:

 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;

 Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted);
 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site;

4.9-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or 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 which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality;
 Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map;
 Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows; or
 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.

4.9.3.2 Impacts to Water Quality

Site preparation and construction activities would disturb soil and could increase siltation of local
streams and water bodies. Construction activities could also result in the release of pollutants
such as oil, grease, and heavy metals from use of equipment. Site clearing, excavation, grading,
fill placement, and stockpiling during project construction have the potential to expose site soils
to erosion and mobilize sediments in stormwater. Accidental discharge of these materials could
adversely affect water quality and/or result in violation of water quality standards.

Construction projects that disturb one acre of land or more are required to comply with the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit. The
District would prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in compliance with
Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act and file a Notice of Intent with the State Water
Control Board (SWCB) to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. The
SWPPP would include provisions to control erosion and sedimentation, as well as spill
prevention measures to avoid and, if necessary, clean up accidental releases of hazardous
materials. In addition to the SWPPP, the District will implement the following standard water
quality protection measures during construction:

 Suitable erosion control, sediment control, source control, treatment control, material
management, and non-stormwater management BMPs will be implemented consistent
with the latest edition of the California Stormwater Quality Association’s “Stormwater
Best Management Practices Handbook.”
 If soil is to be stockpiled, no run-off will be allowed to flow to a creek.
 Oily, greasy, or sediment-laden substances or other materials that originate from the
project operations and may degrade the quality of surface water or adversely affect
aquatic life, fish, or wildlife will not be allowed to enter, or be placed where they may
later enter, any waterway.
 Vehicles will be washed only at approved areas.
 All servicing of equipment will provide containment to the degree that any spill will be
unable to enter any channel or damage stream vegetation.
 Measures will be implemented to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled
and the quality of water resources is protected by all reasonable means.

4.9-5 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

1. Prior to entering the work site, all field personnel will know how to respond when
toxic materials are discovered.
2. The discharge of any hazardous or non-hazardous waste as defined in Division 2,
Subdivision 1, Chapter 2 of the California Code of Regulations will be conducted in
accordance with applicable State and federal regulations.
3. In the event of any hazardous material emergencies or spills, personnel will call the
Chemical Emergencies/Spills Hotline at 1-800-510-5151.

 Prevent the accidental release of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, and non-storm drainage
water through the following.
1. Field personnel will be appropriately trained in spill prevention, hazardous material
control, and clean-up of accidental spills.
2. No fueling, repair, cleaning, maintenance, or vehicle washing will be performed in a
creek channel or in areas at the top of a channel bank that may flow into a creek
channel.

 Spill prevention kits appropriate to the hazard will always be in close proximity when
using hazardous materials (e.g., crew trucks and other logical locations).
1. Prior to entering the work site, all field personnel will know the location of spill kits on
crew trucks and at other locations within District facilities.
2. All field personnel will be advised of these locations and trained in their appropriate
use.

The District is a co-permittee of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention
Program (SCVURPPP) and subject to the NPDES Municipal Permit for discharges of
stormwater to the South San Francisco Bay. The SCVURPPP prepared a Hydromodification
Management Plan to delineate areas where increases in runoff are likely to impact channel
health and water quality, and to identify management options for maintaining pre-project runoff
patterns in these areas. Since the project would increase impervious surfaces by more than one
acre within a sub-watershed that is less than 65 percent impervious, it is subject to the
Hydromodification Management Plan requirements. The project includes an onsite upgraded
drainage system to maintain runoff flow duration at pre-project levels and would, therefore,
comply with the Hydromodification Management Plan requirements (see further discussion
below in Section 4.9.3.4 Impacts to Drainage Patterns and Systems).

Upon project completion, the project could generate urban pollutants affecting water quality from
sources during operations, such as oil, grease, and trace metals from vehicles and trucks using
onsite parking areas and roadways. In addition, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides released
from landscaped areas could impact the quality of receiving waters.

As described above, the District would prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) for the site preparation, construction, and post-construction periods. The SWPPP
would incorporate best management practices consistent with the requirements of the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater permit. The District
would also obtain a NPDES General Construction Permit prior to commencement of
construction. Finally, the District would implement standard water quality control measures
during construction. With proposed implementation of the above measures, the potential for
water quality impacts to from the project would be less-than-significant.

4.9-6 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.9.3.3 Impacts to Groundwater Supply and Recharge

The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater
recharge. Refer to Section 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems for additional discussion of
groundwater and water supply. The proposed project would not use any groundwater supplies
as a water source, reduce groundwater infiltration, or otherwise interfere with groundwater
recharge. The project, therefore, would have no impact on groundwater supply.

4.9.3.4 Impacts to Existing Drainage Patterns and Systems

The proposed project could result in potential hydrology effects from construction of the project
and the post-development increase in impervious area and associated stormwater runoff.
Development of the project will increase impervious surfaces on the site by 102,000 square feet,
potentially increasing runoff flows. Peak runoff flow from the site under post-development
conditions is estimated at approximately 15.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) for the 10 year storm
event and would be managed by the proposed bioretention basin prior to discharge into Smith
Creek. The proposed basin has a total capacity of 0.24 acre feet (AF) to control the stormwater
discharge flow rate to match pre-development (existing) stormwater discharge flow rates.

Storm water runoff from areas surrounding the new RWTP structures would be routed via storm
drains to a new bioretention (or detention) basin (see Figure 3-3). The new bioretention basin is
proposed in a topographically depressed area near the Granada Way entrance to the RWTP
and is proposed to manage storm water runoff from the RWTP. The basin outlet would tie into
the existing 36-inch storm drains on the site and discharge into Smith Creek.

The existing storm drains that collect runoff from the southern and eastern portions of the
RWTP would continue to discharge into an existing concrete V-ditch located north and generally
parallel to the service road accessing the lower sludge ponds. The V-ditch would be intercepted
and tied into the new bioretention basin. The existing discharge structure would be demolished,
and the upstream ends of the two existing 36-inch storm drains downstream of the discharge
structure would be plugged. The existing storm drain that currently discharges into the V-ditch
immediately upstream of the discharge structure would tie into the new bioretention basin. The
proposed drainage/storm water management system would be further detailed upon final
design, and would comply with all regulatory requirements.

In summary, the project proposes an upgraded drainage system that would adequately manage
stormwater runoff. The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff, or contribute runoff
water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. The
drainage effects of the project, therefore, would be less-than-significant.

4.9.3.5 Impacts from Flooding and Related Risks

The project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain or any other flood hazard zones. The
proposed RWTP improvements do not include any housing within the 100-year floodplain or
expose people or structures to significant risks involving flooding. In addition, the project would
not introduce structures within the 100-year flood zone that could impede or redirect flood flows.

The project would alter the existing layout of the RWTP; however, the general drainage patterns
on the site would be maintained. The increase in impervious surfaces from the project would

4.9-7 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

not substantially increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff from the RWTP nor would it
result in flooding on- or off-site.

In addition, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk due to flooding
from storms, levees, or dams, nor would it expose people or structures to a significant risk due
to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow because the site is not located within a flood zone.

4.9-8 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.10 Land Use and Planning

4.10 Land Use and Planning

The following section analyzes the project’s potential land use effects, specifically its
consistency with environmental policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding and/or mitigating a
significant environmental effect as required by CEQA. The physical effects from the project
related to land use are addressed in the topical CEQA sections contained in this EIR (e.g., air
quality, biological resources, noise, traffic, public services, etc.). These CEQA sections also
outline the regulatory background and the project’s consistency with the relevant goals and
policies for each impact area. Please refer to these individual sections for additional discussion.

4.10.1 Setting
The project is located entirely within the approximately 39 acre RWTP site’s boundaries. The
RWTP site lies in a residential neighborhood in Los Gatos just north of Monte Sereno. The
RWTP property is bounded by More Avenue to the west, Granada Way to the north, the La
Rinconada County Club golf course and Smith Creek to the east, residential uses to the
southeast, and the Rinconada and San Jose Water Company enclosed reservoirs to the south.

The RWTP was constructed in 1966 and has been operating at the existing More Avenue
property for over four decades. The site currently contains existing water treatment plant
facilities that are primarily developed on the west and central portions of the site (see Figure
3-2). Undeveloped portions of the site contain trees and landscaping. The southeastern portion
of the site is relatively undeveloped, with the exception of access roads and drying beds, and
contains areas of non-native grassland and oak woodland.

4.10.2 Regulatory Environment

4.10.2.1 Regional

Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan

As described in 4.4 Biological Resources, the RWTP is located outside the boundaries of the
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan (SCVHP). The SCVHP is intended to promote the
recovery of endangered species and enhance ecological diversity and function, while
accommodating planned growth in southern Santa Clara County.

4.10.2.2 Local

Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan

Pursuant to California Government Code §65300, each city in the state is required to adopt a
comprehensive General Plan to guide physical development of the community. The 2020
General Plan consists of goals, policies, and action measures for the development of the Town.
Goals and policies relevant to the proposed project are presented within individual topical
sections of this EIR.

4.10-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.10 Land Use and Planning

4.10.3 Impacts and Mitigation

4.10.3.1 Thresholds of Significance

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered significant if the
project would:

 Physically divide an established community;

 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect;
 Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan;
 Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere; or
 Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.

4.10.3.2 Physically Divide an Established Community

For the purposes of the following analysis, the division or disruption of the physical arrangement
of an established community would occur if a project creates a physical barrier that would
separate or divide portions of a built community. For instance, the construction of a new freeway
through an existing neighborhood or community has the potential to create a physical barrier
that would divide and thereby separate portions of the community. In the absence of mitigation,
the construction of a new freeway or similar facility that would divide an established community
would constitute a significant environmental effect under CEQA.

The physical division of a community is traditionally associated with the construction of large-
scale transportation improvements such as a highway or major thoroughfare. The proposed
project consists of upgrading the existing water treatment plant, which has been in operation
since 1968. The proposed project involves improvements to the existing RWTP and would not
create a barrier that would physically divide the neighborhood by partitioning or separating the
neighborhood in a way that would isolate portions of the existing community.

4.10.3.3 Consistency with Applicable Land Use Plans/Policies

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 53091 (in part), “zoning ordinances of a
county or city shall not apply to the location or construction of facilities for the production,
generation, storage, or transmission of water." However, it is the District’s practice to work with
local jurisdictions during project planning and to conform to local land use plans and policies to
the greatest extent feasible.

The project would be implemented within the existing water plant boundaries consistent with the
existing character of the plant facilities and surrounding neighborhood. Project implementation
would involve only plant improvements and would not conflict with existing land use plans or
policies.

4.10-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.10 Land Use and Planning

The proposed project would ensure that the RWTP efficiently and reliably provided high quality
potable water to water retailers within the District’s western service area. The project is intended
to fulfill the District Board of Directors Ends Policy Number E-2.3.2., which seeks to “Manage,
operate, and maintain the Plant and treated water pipeline assets to maximize reliability, to
minimize life-cycle costs and to minimize impacts to the environment” (SCVWD 2010). The
objective of the proposed project is to provide safe and reliable water to meet existing and future
planned water demands. The project has been designed to be consistent with the District’s
policies, goals, and objectives adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating environmental
effects. The project’s consistency with these policies is presented below.

Policy E-1.3: A net positive impact on the environment is important in support of the District
mission and is reflected in all that we do.

Consistency: Implementation of the project would result in temporary impacts to the

environment during construction activities. Construction noise impacts would be temporary;
however, as discussed in Section 4.11 Noise, the impact would remain significant during
construction even with implementation of feasible mitigation measures due largely to the lengthy
multi-year duration. However, upon completion of the project, all impacts would be mitigated to
a less-than-significant level and the project objectives to provide quality, reliable water will be
achieved. The RWTP project would achieve a net positive impact on the environment by
upgrading the treatment plant onsite and mitigating for all impacts upon project completion,
rather than developing a new plant off-site.

Policy E-2.3.2: Manage, operate, and maintain the Water Treatment Plant and treated water
pipeline assets to maximize reliability, to minimize life-cycle costs and to minimize impacts to
the environment.

Consistency: Appropriate BMPs will be incorporated into the project design to minimize project
impacts. Mitigation has been identified in this EIR to avoid or minimize impacts related to air
quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and traffic. With these measures in
place, the proposed project would not result in any significant environmental impacts with the
exception of construction noise, as discussed in Section 4.11 Noise. Construction noise impacts
would be temporary; however, the impact would remain significant during construction even with
implementation of feasible mitigation measures due largely to the lengthy multi-year duration.
Again, upon project completion all of the impacts of the project would be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level and the project objectives to provide quality, reliable water would be
achieved.

Policy E-4.3.2: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions when reasonable and appropriate.

Consistency: The project would increase energy demands at the plant, primarily related to the
proposed new ozone and CO2 systems. However, analysis found the overall increase in energy
to have a less-than-significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the project
proposes to implement energy reduction and sustainability measures as presented in the project
description to reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible. Refer to Sections 4.7 Greenhouse
Gas and 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems for additional discussion.

4.10-3 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.10 Land Use and Planning

4.10.3.4 Conflict with Applicable Habitat or Natural Community Conservation

Plan

The project is located outside the boundaries of the SCVHP. The project is not subject to the
requirements in, and thus would not conflict with, any adopted habitat or natural community
conservation plan. As described in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, the District proposes to
incorporate certain provisions the SCVHP as measures to reduce impacts on biological
resources.

4.10.3.5 Impacts to Population and Housing

The project consists of improvement to the existing RWTP treatment plant within the existing
plant boundaries. Therefore the project would not displace existing housing that would
necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, nor would it displace
substantial numbers of people that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere. The project would have no impact on population and housing.

4.10-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.11 Noise

4.11 Noise
This section describes the results of a noise and vibration assessment completed for the project
by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (June 2014). This study is contained in Appendix F of this EIR. The
noise and vibration assessment evaluated potential noise and vibration impacts on sensitive
receptors in the area from future plant operations (long-term) and project construction (short-
term).

4.11.1 Setting
4.11.1.1 Noise Characteristics

Noise is defined as unwanted or objectionable sound. State and local regulations define
objectionable noise levels and identify land use compatibility standards. The following analysis
describes the characteristics of sound, the location of sensitive noise receptors, and the
existing/future noise environment.

Sound is comprised of three variables: magnitude, frequency, and duration. The magnitude of
air pressure changes associated with sound waves results in the quality commonly referred to
as "loudness." Variations in loudness are measured on the "decibel" (dB) scale. On this scale,
noise at zero decibels is barely audible, while noise at 120-140 decibels is painful and may
cause hearing damage. These extremes, however, are not encountered in commonplace
environments.

Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels

represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense,
30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective
noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10-decibel increase in sound level is
perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities.

The second characteristic of sound is frequency. The human ear responds to sounds whose
frequencies are in the range of 20 to 20,000 hertz. Within the audible range, subjective
response to noise varies. People generally find higher pitched sound to be more annoying than
lower pitched sounds. Noise is typically characterized using the A-weighted sound level or dBA.
This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies to which the human ear is most sensitive.

The third characteristic of noise is duration. Annoyance due to noise is often associated with
how long noise persists. To adequately describe a noise environment, it is necessary to
quantify the variation in noise levels over time. Acoustical engineers often use a statistical
approach that specifies noise levels that are observed to be exceeded over a given percentage
of time.

For evaluating noise over extended periods, the "Day-Night Noise Level" scale (DNL or Ldn) or
"Community Noise Equivalent Level" (CNEL) are measures of the average equivalent sound
level (Leq) during a 24-hour period. The Leq can be thought of as the steady sound level that, in a
stated period of time, would contain the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level
during the same period. The CNEL and Ldn account for greater sensitivity of noise receptors at
night by penalizing noise occurring during evening and nighttime hours.

4.11-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.11 Noise

The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters
can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA.
Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as
roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the
receptor is from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within
about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA.

4.11.1.2 Vibration Characteristics

Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of
zero. Various methods are used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the Peak Particle
Velocity (PPV) and another is the Root Mean Square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as
the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. The RMS velocity
is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. The PPV and RMS vibration
velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate human response to vibration. For the noise evaluation
prepared for this project, a PPV descriptor with units of mm/sec or in/sec is used to evaluate
construction generated vibration impacts associated with building damage and human
complaints. Vibration may be found to be annoying at different levels, depending on the level of
activity and/or the sensitivity of the individual. For sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching
the threshold of perception can be annoying.

Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors.
The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest
construction related ground-borne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such
activities, the use of the PPV descriptor has been routinely used to measure and assess
ground-borne vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to induce
structural damage and the degree of annoyance for humans.

The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration, the potential to damage a
structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life are evaluated against different
vibration limits. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in
the range of 0.008 to 0.012 in/sec PPV. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual
and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated
ambient vibration levels, such as people in an urban environment, may tolerate a higher
vibration level.

Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic only, such as minor cracking of building
elements, or may threaten the integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied
to assess the potential for damaging a structure vary by researcher and there is no general
consensus as to what amount of vibration may pose a threat for structural damage to the
building. Construction-induced vibration that can be detrimental to the building is very rare and
has only been observed in instances where the structure is at a high state of disrepair and the
construction activity occurs immediately adjacent to the structure.

4.11.1.3 Existing Noise Environment

Field noise monitoring surveys were conducted to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the
project area. Noise levels were measured from Thursday, October 10, 2013 through Monday,
October 14, 2013 in locations that represent nearby residential receptors in the area. The noise
measurement locations are presented in Figure 4.11-1.

4.11-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 ST-3

LT-1
LT-2

ST-2 ST-4

LT-3

ST-1
N
500ft
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin Inc., 2014

Noise Measurement Locations Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project 4.11-1
Final EIR

12
 4.11 Noise

The noise monitoring survey included three long-term (LT) noise measurements, approximately
96 hours in duration, and four short-term (ST) noise measurements. Measurement locations
were selected to quantify baseline noise levels at representative sensitive receptor locations
surrounding the site. The results are summarized in Table 4.11-1 below.

Table 4.11-1
Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data

Noise Measurement
Lmax L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq Primary Noise Source(s)
Location (date, time)

ST-1: End of Chippendale

Court (10/10/2013, 12:10- 58 56 54 51 46 52
12:20 PM)
ST-2: More Avenue, across Traffic on More Avenue. Aircraft flyovers
from Upper Entrance to WTP 75 69 61 54 50 58 and SR 85 traffic audible.
(10/10/2013, 12:30-12:40 PM)
ST-3: Across from 101 Traffic on More Avenue. Aircraft flyovers
Capistrano Pl. 66 60 52 48 45 50 and SR 85 traffic audible.
(10/10/2013, 12:50-1:00 PM)
ST-4: Sidewalk near 212 Traffic on Granada Way and aircraft
Granada Way 56 54 50 44 42 47 flyovers. SR 85 traffic audible.
(10/10/2013, 1:00-1:10 PM)

Measurement location LT-1 was made adjacent to 224 Granada Way, north of the RWTP. The
primary noise sources at this location are traffic on Granada Way and aircraft flyovers. SR 85
traffic was also audible. The Ldn at this location was 54 to 55 dBA with hourly average nighttime
levels as low as 39 to 43 dBA Leq.

Measurement location LT-2 was made along More Avenue across from the lower More Avenue
entrance to the RWTP. The primary noise source at this location is traffic on More Avenue. SR
85 traffic and aircraft flyovers were also audible. The Ldn at this location was 60 to 63 dBA with
hourly average daytime levels in the range of 60 to 65 dBA Leq and hourly average nighttime
levels as low as about 41 dBA Leq.

Measurement location LT-3 was made along the footpath adjacent to the Bicknell Road
residences. The primary noise source at this location is distant traffic. The Ldn at this location
was 46 to 49 dBA with typical hourly average levels ranging from 30 to 50 dBA Leq.

4.11.2 Regulatory Environment

4.11.2.1 Federal

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) establishes the following construction vibration
damage criteria for various structural categories shown in Table 4.11-2.

4.11-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.11 Noise

Table 4.11-2
Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced-concrete, 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
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, United States Department of Transportation, Federal
Transit Agency, Office of Planning and Environment, May 2006.

4.11.2.2 State

California Building Code

The 2013 California Building Code (Chapter 12, Appendix Section 1207.11.2) regulates
environmental noise intrusion. Interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources cannot
exceed 45 CNEL. Regulated structures proposed where exterior noise levels exceed 60 CNEL
require an acoustical analysis demonstrating that the proposed design will maintain interior
noise levels at or below 45 CNEL. Further, if the interior standard can only be met with the
windows closed, then the proposed buildings shall be supplied with some form of mechanical
ventilation.

4.11.2.3 Local

Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code

The Town Noise Ordinance (Chapter 16 of the Town Municipal Code) specifies noise limits for
construction activities (Section 16.20.035) and sets exterior noise limits (Section 16.20.015 and
030).

The construction ordinance restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM
on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekends and holidays. This ordinance limits
construction noise generation by requiring construction to meet either of the following: 1) no
individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 85 dBA at 25 feet from the
piece of equipment; or 2) the noise level at any point outside of the property plane (boundary)
cannot exceed 85 dBA.

Sections 16.20.015 and 16.20.030 specify that no person shall cause, make, suffer, or allow to
be made by any machine, animal, device, or any combination of same, a noise level more than
6 dB above the exterior level specified for a residential zone or a noise level more than 8 dB
above the exterior level specified for a commercial or industrial zone. Based on the Los Gatos
Noise Zone Maps, the following criteria would apply for residential areas in the vicinity of the
project:

 Weekend Nighttime (10 PM-6 AM): 43 dBA Leq

 Weekend Daytime (6 AM-1 PM): 48 dBA Leq
 Weekend Daytime (1 PM-10 PM): 54 dBA Leq
 Weekday Nighttime (10 PM-6 AM): 48 dBA Leq

4.11-5 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.11 Noise

 Weekday Daytime (6 AM – 1 PM): 53 dBA Leq

 Weekday Daytime (1 PM-10 PM): 59 dBA Leq

Based on RWTP operations that would occur 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, the most
restrictive threshold of 43 dBA Leq would apply to the project for the purposes of the noise
assessment.

Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan

The Noise Element of the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan establishes goals and policies for
reducing noise levels in the Town. Policies aimed at reducing noise levels must address
specific sources of unwanted noise, as well as noise-sensitive receptors. The Noise Element
contains guidelines for use in land use planning to reduce future noise and land use
incompatibilities (Figure NOI-1 of the Noise Element). The following guidelines from Figure NOI-
1 of the Noise Element would pertain to the project:

Residential: <60 dB (DNL or CNEL), Normally Acceptable

55 to 70 dB (DNL or CNEL), Conditionally Acceptable
70 to 75 dB (DNL or CNEL), Normally Unacceptable
>75 dB (DNL or CNEL), Clearly Unacceptable

Los Gatos also establishes outdoor noise limits in the Noise Element of the 2020 General Plan,
which represent long-range community goals for different land use designations within the
Town. Table 4.11-3 below presents the Outdoor Noise Limits (listed in Table NOI-2 of the Town
Noise Element). The Outdoor Noise Limits indicate that noise levels of 55 dB DNL are the
desired noise level for residential uses. However, the Town’s Noise Element (Policy NOI-1.3)
states that these noise limits represent the "long range community aspirations" and
acknowledges that such goals may not be attainable at this time.

Table 4.11-3
Los Gatos Town Outdoor Limits
Max DNL Max Leq(24) Comparable
Land Use Value Value Noise Source Response
Residential 55 dBA -- Light auto traffic (100 feet) Quiet
Telephone
Commercial -- 70 dBA Freeway traffic (50 feet)
use difficult
Telephone
Industrial -- 70 dBA Freeway traffic (50 feet)
use difficult
Intensive Open
Space (Developed -- 55 dBA Light auto traffic (100 feet) Quiet
Park)
Passive Open
-- 50 dBA Light auto traffic (100 feet) Quiet
Space (Nature Park)
Hospital -- 55 dBA Light auto traffic (100 feet) Quiet
Education -- 55 dBA Light auto traffic (100 feet) Quiet
Source: Town of Los Gatos, 2011 (Table NOI-2 of the Noise Element).

4.11-6 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.11 Noise

The Noise Element of the General Plan contains policies that pertain to noise. The policies
identified below would be applicable to the proposed project.

General Plan Policies: Noise

Relevant Goals, Policies and Description

Actions
Policy NOI-1.1 The Town, as part of the Environmental Review
process, shall require applicants to submit an
acoustical analysis of projects. All input related to
noise levels shall use the adopted standard of
measurement shown in Table NOI-2 (see Table 4).
Noise impacts of new development shall be evaluated
in terms of any increase of the existing ambient noise
levels and the potential for adverse noise and
groundborne vibrations impacts on nearby or adjacent
properties. The evaluation shall consider short-term
construction noise and on-going operational noise.
Policy NOI-1.2 The Town shall maintain the noise ordinance
standards.
Policy NOI-1.3 Employ the Ldn scale for the evaluation of outdoor
noise for residential land uses and the Leq scale for
evaluation of outdoor noise for non-residential uses.
Pursue the outdoor noise limits as representing the
long range community aspirations and work toward
their accomplishment, even though some may be
presently unattainable (see below).
Policy NOI-5.1 Protect residential areas from noise by requiring
appropriate site and building design, sound walls, and
landscaping and by the use of noise attenuating
construction techniques and materials.
Policy NOI-5.2 For commercial and industrial developments adjacent
to residential neighborhoods, additional restrictions
beyond the Noise Ordinance may be applied to reduce
noise intrusions in residential districts to an acceptable
level.
Policy NOI-7.1 Enforce noise limits and monitor compliance with noise
standards.

4.11.3 Impacts and Mitigation

4.11.3.1 Thresholds of Significance

In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered significant if the
project would:

 Expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in

the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
 Expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels;

4.11-7 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.11 Noise

 Have substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project;
 Have a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project;
 For 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
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or
 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

For the purposes of the noise/vibration assessment for this EIR, the following criteria were used
to evaluate the significance of environmental noise resulting from the project:
a) Excess of Noise Standards: A significant noise impact would be identified if the project
would expose persons to or generate noise levels that would exceed applicable noise
standards presented in the General Plan or Municipal Code.
o Construction noise is limited to meet either of the following: 1) no individual piece of
equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 85 dBA Lmax at 25 feet from the
piece of equipment; or 2) the noise level at any point outside of the property plane
(boundary) cannot exceed eighty-five (85) dBA Lmax.
o Operational noise is limited to meet the most restrictive threshold of 43 dBA L eq
(weekend nighttime) at the closest residential property line.
b) Vibration Exposure: A significant impact would be identified if the project would expose
persons to excessive vibration levels. Ground-borne vibration levels from construction
activities exceeding 0.20 in/sec PPV (peak particle velocity) would result in a significant
impact as such levels would have the potential to result in damage to older residential
buildings.
c) Permanent Noise Increase: CEQA does not specifically define what noise level increase is
considered substantial. Following standard practice, a project is considered to have a
significant impact if the project would permanently increase existing noise levels by 5 dBA or
more but remain below the normally acceptable noise threshold (55 dBA DNL for residential
uses), or permanently increase existing noise levels by 3 dBA or more and exceed the
normally acceptable noise threshold.
d) Temporary Noise Increase: The Town of Los Gatos does not define a temporary noise
increase limit for construction. Temporary noise increases, such as those resulting from
project construction activities, are treated somewhat differently than operational noise
sources because the increase is not permanent. Following standard practice, a significant
noise impact would be identified if construction noise levels exceeded 60 dBA Leq and the
ambient by 5 dBA Leq or more for a period of more than 12 months.

4.11.3.2 Noise Impacts from Exceeding Applicable Noise Standards and

Substantial Increases in Ambient Noise Levels

Operational Noise Impacts

Project operation would result in two types of noise increases: 1) noise from activities
associated with the operation of the project; and 2) noise from additional traffic generated by the
project.

4.11-8 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.11 Noise

Exceedance of Noise Standards from RWTP Operations

Based on the Town’s Noise Zone Maps, operational noise is limited to meet the most restrictive
threshold of 43 dBA Leq (weekend nighttime) at all residential property lines. The following noise
generating equipment would be included in the project1:

 Flocculation/Sedimentation Basins: 32 Mixers, 8 Sludge Collectors

 Flow Control Valve & Meter Facility: 2- 42 inch Throttling Valves
 Raw Water Ozone Contactor: 2 Roof Mounted Exhaust Fans, Ozone Destruct Blowers
Vented Out 2 – 4 inch Diameter Rooftop Vents
 South of Raw Water Ozone Contactor: 2- 40 HP Pumps
 Electrical Equipment Pad: 150 kW Diesel Generator, 2,500 kW Diesel Generator
 Washwater Recovery Facility: 4- 75 HP Pumps on Deck, 5- 15 HP Submersed Pumps
 Sodium Hypo-Chlorite Facility: 8 Fractional HP Displacement Metering Pumps
 CO2 Carriage Water Pump Facility: 2- 100 HP Pumps
 Ozone Generation Building:
o Inside Building: 2- 15 HP Cooling Water Pumps, 30 HP Air Compressor, 5 HP Air
Compressor, 2- Blowers, vented out east wall of building
o Rooftop Mounted: Make-up Air Unit, 2-AC Units, 7 Exhaust Fans
 Filters: 2 Deck Mounted Exhaust Fans
 Chlorine Contact Basin: 2- 15 HP Sump Pumps, 2- 15 HP Cooling Water Pumps, 3- 20
HP Chemical Mixing Pumps

Operational noise contours were calculated using SoundPLAN 7.3, a three-dimensional noise
modeling software. Project area topography was input into the model based on elevation
contours provided by project engineering consultant CDM Smith. Project building footprints and
mechanical equipment locations were based on the project site plans (dated January 2014).
Mechanical equipment noise levels were based on information provided by the equipment
manufacturers, or noise levels measured or provided for similar equipment from the noise
consultant. A noise contour map of the unmitigated operational noise levels is shown in Figure
4.11-2. This figure shows operational noise only and does not account for ambient (non-
operational) noise generated by traffic, aircraft, or other existing ambient noise sources.

As indicated in Figure 4.11-2, without mitigating noise reduction measures, operational activities
would be anticipated to generate hourly average noise levels of 46 to 49 dBA L eq at the closest
residences along Los Patios, 46 to 52 dBA Leq at the closest residences along Capistrano
Place/Granada Way, and 30 to 43 dBA Leq at residences to the south and southeast. These
noise levels could occur 24-hours per day, seven days a week and would exceed the Town’s
noise limits, specifically 43 dBA Leq, for operational noise (as described in the thresholds of
significance in Section 4.11.3.1). This represents a significant noise impact.

Permanent Noise Increases from RWTP Operations

The project would be considered to have a significant impact if it would permanently increase
existing noise levels by 5 dBA or more but remain below the normally acceptable noise
threshold (55 dBA DNL for residential uses), or permanently increase existing noise levels by 3
dBA or more and exceed the normally acceptable noise threshold.

1
Based on construction information provided by the project engineering consultant, CDM Smith, 2014.

4.11-9 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 Pl
ano

Gran
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin Inc., 2014

os
istr
Cap

ati
sP

ada
Lo

Way
ue
en
Av
ore
Mo

Unmitigated Operational Noise Contours Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project 4.11-2
Final EIR
 4.11 Noise

As described above, unmitigated operational activities are anticipated to generate hourly

average noise levels of 46 to 49 dBA Leq at the closest residences along Los Patios, 46 to 52
dBA Leq at the closest residences along Capistrano Place/Granada Way, and 30 to 43 dBA Leq
at residences to the south and southeast. Based on noise monitoring conducted for the noise
study, existing ambient noise levels during the quietest nighttime weekend hours drop to as low
as 40 to 45 dBA Leq at residences located to the northeast and northwest of the site, along Los
Patios and Capistrano Place/Granada Way, and about 32 dBA Leq at noise sensitive locations to
the south and southeast. Existing daytime ambient noise levels are in the range of 55 to 65
dBA Leq at residences located along Los Patios, 48 to 55 dBA Leq at residences along
Capistrano Place/Granada Way, and 40 to 55 dBA Leq at noise sensitive locations to the south
and southeast. Ambient noise in most of these locations is below the Town’s noise and land
use compatibility guideline of 55 dBA DNL.

The noise study logarithmically added the operational noise to the ambient noise levels on an
hourly basis for each receptor, using the measured ambient noise data and the results of the
model for operational noise. The results of this evaluation determined that without mitigation,
operational noise from the project could increase noise levels by about 1 dBA DNL at
residences along Los Patios, by 1 to 5 dBA DNL at residences along Capistrano Place/Granada
Way, and by up to 1 dBA DNL at residences to the south and southeast. Because project
operations could permanently increase existing noise levels at some residential locations by up
to 5 dBA DNL, the noise increase represents a significant impact (based on the thresholds of
significance described in Section 4.11.3.1).
Impact
As described above, operation of the RWTP with the proposed improvements in place would
result in exposure of persons (nearby residents) to noise levels in excess of standards
established by the Town of Los Gatos. Operational noise would also result in a significant
permanent increase in noise levels above the existing noise level at some residences along
Capistrano Place/Granada Way. This represents a significant impact; however, the District
would implement the following mitigation measures to reduce this noise impact.
Mitigation Measures
NSE-1 Final project design plans and specifications shall incorporate noise control measures to
reduce operational noise levels to 43 dBA Leq (Town of Los Gatos’ noise limit for
weekend nighttime hours) or less at all adjacent residential property lines. Possible noise
control measures include the use of a combination of parapet walls, enclosures/housing
for noisier equipment, selection of ‘quiet’ equipment, locating enclosure openings,
venting, etc., away from residences, and/or the construction of noise barriers. The
District shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to prepare and implement the
recommendations of a project-level noise analysis based on the final design plans, to
identify the specific controls necessary to reduce operational noise levels to 43 dBA Leq
or less. The District would perform post-construction noise monitoring one time after the
project is completed to ensure compliance with the Town of Los Gatos’ noise limit at the
closest residential property line. Additional noise controls would be implemented as
necessary to reduce noise levels to 43 dBA or less if the results of the noise
measurements show that operational noise levels exceed the limit.
Conclusion
Implementation of Mitigation Measure NSE-1, which requires noise control measures, would
decrease operational noise levels to a less-than-significant level by reducing noise levels to

4.11-11 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.11 Noise

below the Town of Los Gatos’ noise limits at all times. With inclusion of this mitigation, noise
increases would be 1 dBA DNL or less at all noise sensitive land uses. Operational noise would
generally be inaudible at residences along Los Patios and those to the south and southeast,
except during the quietest nighttime hours. At residences along Capistrano Place/Granada
Way, operational noise could, at times, be audible, but would be 5 dB or more below ambient
levels during daytime hours. Although operational noise could be audible in outdoor areas
during the quietest nighttime hours, residents would typically be inside their homes during these
hours. The additional noise reduction provided by the residential structures (typically about 15
dB with windows open and 20 to 25 dB with windows closed) combined with the noise
generated by indoor noise sources such as home appliances, heating and ventilation, would
make operational noise from the improved RWTP being inaudible inside homes, even during the
quietest nighttime hours.

Exceedance of Noise Standards and Permanent Increase in Noise Level from Operational
Traffic

The project would generate one new employee and five new monthly truck deliveries. The traffic
generated by the updated operation of the project would be negligible once construction is
completed, and would not result in exceedance of applicable noise standards or a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without
the project. This represents a less-than-significant impact.

Construction Noise Impacts

Project construction would result in two types of noise impacts: 1) on-site noise generated from
construction and demolition equipment; and 2) noise from additional construction traffic
generated by project on the local roadway network.

Exceedance of Noise Standards from Construction

The Los Gatos construction ordinance restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 AM to
8:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekends and holidays. In addition,
construction is limited to meet either of the following: 1) no individual piece of equipment shall
produce a noise level exceeding 85 dBA Lmax at 25 feet from the piece of equipment, or 2) the
noise level at any point outside of the property plane (boundary) cannot exceed 85 dBA Lmax.
Noise generating construction activity would be located 100 feet or more from the project
boundary. The nearest sensitive receptors (at the residential property lines) are located 40 to
55 feet from the RWTP boundary and, therefore, 140 to 155 feet from the nearest project
construction. A map of showing the locations of major noise-generating construction activity is
presented in Figure 4.11-3.

Construction equipment noise varies greatly depending on the construction activity performed,
type and specific model of equipment, and the condition of equipment used. Noise impacts
resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction
equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, the distance between
construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors, any shielding provided by intervening
barriers or structures, and existing ambient noise levels.

4.11-12 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
FIGURE 18 Locations of Primary Noise Generating Construction Activities

Ln
ry
x bu
Ro l
noP
is tra Construction of

s
p Flocculation/Sedimentation

atio
Ca
Basins and Raw Water Ozone

P
Los
Contactor (Phase 2)
Gr
an
ad
aW
ay

Demolition of Filters (Phase 5)

ue
ven
re A
Moo

Demolition of Clarifiers (Phase 3),

Construction of Ozone Generation
Building, Chlorine Contact Basin,
Filters, & LOX Storage Area (Phase 4)

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin Inc., 2014

Locations of Primary Noise Generating Construction Activities Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project 4.11-3
Final EIR
 4.11 Noise

The duration of construction could last 5-7 years. Construction would occur Monday through
Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Occasional construction may occur on Saturdays. The
anticipated major phases of construction are presented in Table 4.11-4, along with the
anticipated construction equipment used during each phase.

Table 4.11-4
Construction Phases/Equipment
Construction Phase Tasks/Equipment
Phase 1: Mobilization of equipment and offices; site preparation for site offices,
Extended mobilization staging, personnel parking; establish traffic control measures; plant
screening landscaping; relocate utilities; establish security measures;
tree removal (outside of nesting season); finalize storm water pollution
prevention plan. Anticipated construction equipment includes dozers,
loaders, forklifts, rubber tire backhoes, and a skid steer.
Phase 2: Construct the following facilities: raw water flow control and metering
Ozone Contactors and facility; ozone contactor structure; flash mix facility; flocculation and
Flocculation/Sedimentation sedimentation basins; washwater recovery facility; raw water pipeline
Basins tie-in; temporary settled water conveyance to existing filters; sludge
connection from sedimentation basins to gravity thickeners; overflow
protection pipelines to new washwater recovery facility; construct
permanent and temporary support facilities (electrical, instrumentation
and control, chemical system modifications, piping). Start work on
carbon dioxide facility and electrical equipment pad. Construct
temporary paving and other measures for dust control (to be
maintained throughout construction). Anticipated construction
equipment includes cranes, excavators, loaders, forklifts, rubber tire
backhoes, a skid steer, and a single drum padded compactor.
Phase 3: Relocate infrastructure mounted to and adjoining existing clarifier
Clarifier Demolition. structures; demolish and remove clarifier equipment/structures and
prepare area for new structures; install stabilization measures for
existing clearwells and other key infrastructure; modify existing filter
structure for protection and continued operation; continued work on
electrical pad and buried utilities and replacement of guard house.
Anticipated construction equipment includes motor graders,
excavators, loaders, forklifts, rubber tire backhoes, and a single drum
padded compactor.
Phase 4: Construct new filters, chlorine contact basin, ozone generation
Ozone Generation Building, building, liquid oxygen facility, new backwash pump, new finished
Chlorine Contact Basin, LOX water booster pump, and waste containment tanks; install supporting
Storage Area, and Filters chemical, electrical, instrumentation and other infrastructure
improvements; construct new lower and upper More Avenue entrance
improvements. Anticipated construction equipment includes forklifts,
rubber tire backhoes, a single drum padded compactor, and a motor
grader.

Phase 5: Demolish and remove old filter structure and galleries; construct new
Demolition of Filters and sodium hypochlorite and fluoride facilities; demolish washwater
Wastewater Recovery Basin, recovery ponds; construct waste containment facility, modify multiple
Construct Fluoride Facility, other facilities onsite. This phase also includes final pavement overlay
and Miscellaneous Demolition of plant roadways; complete landscaping; complete area lighting;
removal of temporary traffic controls; demobilization; and final cleanup.
Anticipated construction equipment includes excavators, loaders,
forklifts, rubber tire backhoes, and a single drum padded compactor.
Source: CDM Smith, 2014

4.11-14 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.11 Noise

Construction would be carried out in phases. During each phase of construction, there would
be a different mix of equipment operating. Construction noise levels would vary by phase and
vary within phases based on the amount of equipment in operation and location where the
equipment is operating. Typical construction noise levels at a distance of 50 feet are shown in
Tables 4.11-5 and 6. Table 4.11-5 illustrates the average noise level range by typical
construction phase type and Table 4.11-6 shows the maximum noise level range for different
construction equipment. Table 4.11-6 levels are consistent with construction noise levels
calculated for the project in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction
Noise Model, including the anticipated equipment that would be used for each phase of the
project. Most demolition and construction noise is in the range of 80 to 90 dBA at a distance of
50 feet from the source.

Maximum (Lmax) and average (Leq) noise levels anticipated at a distance of 50 feet during each
phase of construction are indicated in Table 4.11-7. These noise levels are based on noise
modeling conducted in the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, which uses a
conservative approach and does not take acoustical shielding from structures or terrain into
account. Noise levels would be lower in some locations due to intervening structures and/or
terrain.

Table 4.11-5
Typical Ranges of Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet, dBA Leq

Industrial Parking
Domestic Office Building, Garage, Religious
Equipment Housing Hotel, Hospital, Amusement & Public Works Roads
School, Public Recreations, Store, & Highways, Sewers,
Works Service Station and Trenches
I II I II I II I II
Ground Clearing 83 83 84 84 84 83 84 84
Excavation 88 75 89 79 89 71 88 78
Foundations 81 81 78 78 77 77 88 88
Erection 81 65 87 75 84 72 79 78
Finishing 88 72 89 75 89 74 84 84
I - All pertinent equipment present at site, II - Minimum required equipment present at site.
Source: U.S. EPA., Legal Compilation on Noise, Vol. 1, p. 2-104, 1973

As indicated in Table 4.11-7, construction noise levels would exceed 85 dBA Lmax and 85 dBA
Leq within 50 feet of the construction activity. Noise levels from the hydraulic breaker that is
anticipated to be used during Phase 5 of construction could reach 85 dBA Lmax at distances of
up to 90 feet from the equipment, without any shielding provided. Noise levels would typically
drop off at a rate of about 6 decibels per doubling of distance from the construction noise
source.

4.11-15 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.11 Noise

Table 4.11-6
Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels (at 50 feet)
1,2
Equipment Category Lmax Level (dBA) Impact/Continuous*
Arc Welder 73 Continuous
Auger Drill Rig 85 Continuous
Backhoe 80 Continuous
Bar Bender 80 Continuous
Boring Jack Power Unit 80 Continuous
Chain Saw 85 Continuous
3
Compressor 70 Continuous
Compressor (other) 80 Continuous
Concrete Mixer 85 Continuous
Concrete Pump 82 Continuous
Concrete Saw 90 Continuous
Concrete Vibrator 80 Continuous
Crane 85 Continuous
Dozer 85 Continuous
Excavator 85 Continuous
Front End Loader 80 Continuous
Generator 82 Continuous
Generator (25 KVA or less) 70 Continuous
Gradall 85 Continuous
Grader 85 Continuous
Grinder Saw 85 Continuous
Horizontal Boring Hydro Jack 80 Continuous
Hydra Break Ram 90 Impact
Impact Pile Driver 105 Impact
Insitu Soil Sampling Rig 84 Continuous
Jackhammer 85 Impact
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 90 Impact
Paver 85 Continuous
Pneumatic Tools 85 Continuous
Pumps 77 Continuous
Rock Drill 85 Continuous
Scraper 85 Continuous
Slurry Trenching Machine 82 Continuous
Soil Mix Drill Rig 80 Continuous
Street Sweeper 80 Continuous
Tractor 84 Continuous
Truck (dump, delivery) 84 Continuous
Vacuum Excavator Truck (vac-truck) 85 Continuous
Vibratory Compactor 80 Continuous
Vibratory Pile Driver 95 Continuous
All other equipment with engines larger than 5 85 Continuous
HP

Notes:
*Impact activities impact the ground or construction surface, such as pile driving, while continuous activities emit
more constant noise, such as construction vehicles.
1
Measured at 50 feet from the construction equipment, with a “slow” (1 sec.) time constant.
2
Noise limits apply to total noise emitted from equipment and associated components operating at full power while
engaged in its intended operation.
3
Portable Air Compressor rated at 75 cfm or greater and that operates at greater than 50 psi.
Source: FHWA

4.11-16 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.11 Noise

Some individual construction equipment would be anticipated to exceed 85 dBA Lmax at 25 feet
from the piece of equipment. However, noise generating construction activities are expected to
occur 100 feet or further from the RWTP property line. At this distance, noise levels would be in
compliance with the Los Gatos Municipal Code, which indicates that the noise level at any point
outside of the property boundary would not exceed 85 dBA. The nearest sensitive receptors (at
the residential property lines) are located 40 to 55 feet from the RWTP boundary and, therefore,
140 to 155 feet from the nearest project construction. At these locations, construction noise
levels would be about 3 dB lower than those occurring at the property boundary. Therefore, the
project would not generate construction noise that exceeds the noise standard and the impact
would be less-than-significant.

Table 4.11-7
Calculated Construction Noise Levels for Each Phase of Construction
Calculated Leq at 50 feet from
Construction Phase Calculated Lmax at 50 feet, dBA
Construction Activity, dBA
1 85 85
2 85 85
3 84 85
4 83 85
5 83 90

Temporary Noise Increases from On-Site Construction

On-site construction noise is described above with respect to the applicable local limits
contained in the Los Gatos Municipal Code. Construction activities are anticipated to generate
hourly average noise levels of 83 to 85 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet during busy construction
periods. Noise levels would typically drop off at a rate of about 6 decibels per doubling of
distance from the construction noise source. The closest residences would be located about
150 feet from construction activities. At this distance, construction noise levels would be about
10 dB lower, generating hourly average noise levels of about 73 to 75 dBA Leq. The anticipated
locations of noise generating construction activities are shown in Figure 4.11.3.

Construction would occur on weekdays from 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM for a period of about 5-7
years. Based on noise monitoring results, daytime ambient noise levels at noise sensitive
locations in the vicinity of the project range from 40 to 65 dBA Leq. Construction activities,
therefore, would generate noise levels 10 to 30 dBA above ambient levels during busy
construction periods when activities are located closest to noise sensitive areas. Noise levels
would be lower when activities are located farther from sensitive areas, in well-shielded
locations, or during periods of construction when fewer noise generating activities are occurring.
Since the noise levels at some locations could be above 60 dBA Leq with an increase in ambient
noise level of 5 dBA Leq or above for a period of more than one year, the impact would be
significant (based on the thresholds of significance in section 4.11.3.1).

Temporary Increase in Noise Levels from Construction Traffic

Construction would generally occur Monday – Friday from 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM.
Construction may also occur occasionally on Saturdays.

Noise level increases from construction traffic were evaluated in the noise assessment based
on the results of the traffic study prepared for the project (refer to Section 4.13 Traffic and
Circulation for further discussion). A total of 18,700 construction trucks are projected to travel to

4.11-17 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.11 Noise

the RWTP site during the construction period. Although there would be an average of 15 trucks
per day, the truck traffic would be far heavier during periods when there is off-hauling of
excavated materials or delivery of fill materials and concrete. Peak truck traffic is estimated to
be 110 trucks per day for 250 working days occurring intermittently during the 5-7 year
construction period. The types of trucks expected include the following: flatbed, dump, semi-
trailer (end or bottom dump trailer, flatbed trailer, and cargo trailer), crane truck, concrete
transport, garbage, box, van, and platform. The noise analysis evaluated this peak truck traffic
to provide a conservative analysis, although the average truck traffic would be considerably
lower.

Additionally, construction of the Quito Road Bridge Rehabilitation project is expected to overlap
with approximately 20 percent of the construction duration of the RWTP project. The Quito Road
Bridge project consists of replacing two bridges on Quito Road near the Quito Road/Old Adobe
Road intersection. This project is anticipated to take approximately 12 months to construct and
would require closing Quito Road to through traffic between Bicknell Road and Pollard Road,
with one of the detour routes going through two of the RWTP study intersections: More Avenue /
Pollard Road and More Avenue/Roxbury Lane. Because the construction timelines of the Quito
Road Bridge project and the RWTP project would overlap, the traffic analysis includes projected
traffic resulting from both projects. This represents a conservative analysis because the post-
project traffic noise impacts include increased traffic volumes on More Avenue from the Quito
Road detour, and because construction of the Quito Road Bridge Rehabilitation project is
expected to overlap with only 20 percent of the project’s construction duration.

The project traffic report includes traffic volumes for the AM (between 7:00 and 9:00 AM) and
PM (between 4:00 and 6:00 PM) peak hours. The same conservative traffic analysis was used
for both the noise and traffic studies, with the peak number of construction workers (130) and
the peak level of truck traffic (110), rather than the estimated “normal” or average level of truck
traffic, as further set forth below. The AM peak hour analysis assumes all construction workers
and management would arrive at the site and 15% of truck traffic would occur. The PM peak
hour analysis conservatively assumes that all construction workers and management would
leave the site and 15% of truck traffic would occur. The traffic analysis uses a passenger car
equivalent2 of two passenger cars for every construction truck. In terms of traffic noise, a heavy
truck typically generates traffic noise levels that are about 10 dBA higher than a passenger car,
so a construction truck is expected to generate the equivalent noise of 10 passenger cars.
Thus, a passenger car equivalent of 10 passenger cars for each construction truck was
assumed for the traffic noise assessment.

Based on this analysis, traffic noise levels along most roadways in the project vicinity are
anticipated to increase by 1 dBA or less above existing conditions as a result of project
construction. However, noise levels are anticipated to increase by 6 to 10 dBA during the AM
peak hour and 9 to 11 dBA during the PM peak hour on More Avenue between Roxbury Lane
and Pollard Road. On Roxbury Lane, south of More Avenue, traffic noise levels are anticipated
to increase by 7 dBA during the AM peak hour and 9 dBA during the PM peak hour. Traffic
noise levels are anticipated to increase by 2 to 3 dBA during the PM peak hour along Roxbury
Lane, north of More Avenue, along More Avenue, north or Pollard Road, and along Pollard
Road, west of More Avenue. These roads are surrounded by sensitive residential and school
uses. Traffic noise increase on “normal” construction days would be lower. Onsite construction
activities could exceed 60 dBA Leq and increase ambient noise levels at residences by more

2
A passenger car equivalent is used to determine the effects of various types of vehicles on the
transportation system by assigning a greater weight to large, heavy vehicles.

4.11-18 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.11 Noise

than 5 dBA Leq for a period of 5 to 7 years. Due to the long multi-year duration of construction
and the scope of the noise increases in proximity to noise sensitive uses, this is considered a
potentially significant impact.
Impact
Onsite construction/demolition activities and construction traffic would result in a substantial
increase in noise levels in the surrounding residential area for a period of 5-7 years, which
represents a significant impact. The District would implement the mitigation measures below to
reduce the construction noise impacts.
Mitigation Measures
NSE-2 The District shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to develop a Construction Noise
Mitigation Plan, and include it in the final construction plans and specifications The
District shall also retain a qualified acoustical consultant to be on-call during the
construction phase to assist the contractor in complying and adaptively responding to
any noise issues that may arise. The Construction Noise Mitigation Plan shall
incorporate the following controls to reduce construction noise levels:

 Indicate the requirement to minimize construction noise impacts at pre-bid

conferences. Potential contractors should be requested to submit information on their
noise management procedures, and to demonstrate a successful track record of
construction noise management on prior projects.

 Construct or utilize temporary noise barriers (ready-made solutions by the acoustical

industry or constructed onsite by the contractor) to shield on-site construction and
concrete demolition noise from nearby receptors. To be most effective, the barrier
should be placed as close as possible to the noise source or the sensitive receptor.
Examples of barriers include portable acoustically lined enclosure/housing for
specific equipment (e.g., jackhammer and pneumatic-air tools, which generate the
loudest noise), temporary noise barriers (e.g., solid plywood fences or portable panel
systems, minimum 8 feet in height), and/or acoustical blankets. The portable
enclosure/housing can be constructed with noise control curtains and lightweight
frame structure, with a small door or opening facing away from sensitive noise
receptors, and fastened with Velcro. Acoustical blankets or curtains would be set up
on a supporting structure, such as a cyclone-type fence or on guy-wire strung
between temporary supports. An example of the appearance of a temporary
acoustical blanket and temporary sound walls are presented in Figure 4.11-4. At a
minimum, temporary noise barriers shall be installed for any construction activity
located within 50 feet of residences and for any use of the hydraulic breaker or
wrecking ball within 100 feet of residences.

 Require all equipment driven by internal combustion engines be equipped with

mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.

 Require use of “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources
where technology exists.

 Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.

4.11-19 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 Noise Barrier Wall: Front Noise Barrier Wall: Back

Acoustical Blanket: Front Acoustical Blanket: Back

Temporary Sound Barriers Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project 4.11-4
Final EIR
 4.11 Noise

 Establish construction staging areas at locations that would create the greatest
distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive
receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.

 Locate stationary noise sources as far from sensitive receptors as feasible. If they
must be located near receptors, adequate muffling (with enclosures where feasible
and appropriate) would be used as necessary to comply with local noise ordinance
limits. Any enclosure openings or venting would face away from sensitive receptors.

 Locate material stockpiles as well as maintenance/equipment staging and parking

areas as far as feasible from residential receptors.

 Notify neighbors located adjacent to the construction site of the construction

schedule in writing.

 The District shall designate its Construction Manager for the project or assign a
District staff person as liaison with the community to be responsible for responding to
noise complaints during the construction phase. The name and phone number of the
liaison shall be conspicuously posted at construction areas and on all advanced
notifications. This person shall take steps to resolve complaints, including periodic
noise monitoring. Results of noise monitoring shall be presented at regular project
meetings with the project contractor, and the liaison shall coordinate with the
contractor to modify any construction activities that generated excessive noise levels
to the extent feasible.

 The District shall institute a reporting program that documents complaints received,
actions taken to resolve problems, and effectiveness of these actions.

 The District and its Construction Manager shall hold a preconstruction meeting with
the job inspectors and the general contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that
noise mitigation and practices (including construction hours, construction schedule,
and noise coordinator) are completed. Weekly reports shall be forwarded to the
District Planner and District Outreach staff for review and compliance with the Town
of Los Gatos Noise Ordinance and noise monitoring program (see above).

NSE-3 The District shall limit weekend construction activities as follows:

 No Sunday construction permitted.

 No construction except within buildings on Saturdays.
 No construction truck or tractor work on the outside of buildings on Saturdays (dump
trucks, backhoes, jackhammers, or any motorized equipment, etc.).
 No outside construction lighting or outside generators to operate on Saturdays
(except regular security lighting or regular safety lighting).
Conclusion
On-site construction activities could exceed 60 dBA Leq and increase ambient noise levels at
residences by more than 5 dBA Leq for a period of 5 to 7 years (see Section 4.11.3.2). Off-site
construction traffic would generate increase traffic noise levels by up to 11 dBA during the peak
hours at some residences (see Section 4.11.3.2). Reasonable and feasible noise control
measures implemented during construction, as described above, would reduce on-site

4.11-21 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.11 Noise

construction noise levels by 5 to 15 dBA as received by residences but would not reduce off-site
construction traffic noise. No other feasible mitigation measures are available to further reduce
these impacts. Even with the implementation of mitigation, noise levels from on-site construction
activities could exceed 60 dBA Leq and ambient noise levels at residences by more than 5 dBA
Leq for a period of 5 years. As a result, the impact from on-site construction and construction
traffic would be significant and unavoidable.

4.11.3.3 Impacts from Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise

Operation of the project would not result in excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels. Vibration effects during construction activities are discussed below.

For structural damage, the Federal Transit Administration uses a construction vibration limit of
0.5 inches/second, peak particle velocity (in/sec, PPV) for reinforced concrete, steel, or timber
buildings (no plaster), 0.3 in/sec, PPV for engineered concrete and masonry buildings (no
plaster), 0.2 in/sec, PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and a limit of 0.12
in/sec, PPV for buildings that extremely susceptible to vibration damage. The conservative
building damage limit of 0.2 in/sec PPV is used in this analysis.

Construction activities would result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the
equipment used, construction activities, and the location of equipment. Typically, the primary
source of major construction vibration impacts for this type of project would be impact pile
driving, blasting and possibly the movement of large tracked dozers and compactors. For the
RWTP project, the use of blasting, impact pile driving, tracked dozers, and compactors is not
currently anticipated. Typical vibration levels for general construction equipment at a distance
of 25 feet are indicated in Table 4.11-8 below.

Based on an analysis of equipment likely to be used for this project, vibration levels generated
by project construction equipment would be below the 0.2 in/sec PPV criterion used to assess
the potential for cosmetic or structural damage to nearby buildings within a distance of 25 feet.
Distances to the residential structures along Los Patios and Granada Way are approximately 80
feet or further from the closest construction zone. As such, structural damage on the
surrounding structures would not be expected.

Table 4.11-8
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec)
upper range 1.158
Pile Driver (Impact)
Typical 0.644
upper range 0.734
Pile Driver (Sonic)
Typical 0.170
Clam shovel drop 0.202
in soil 0.008
Hydromill (slurry wall)
in rock 0.017
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Hoe Ram 0.089

4.11-22 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.11 Noise

Table 4.11-8
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec)
Large bulldozer 0.089
Caisson drilling 0.089
Loaded trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small bulldozer 0.003
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, United States Department of Transportation, Federal
Transit Agency, Office of Planning and Environment, May 2006.

Although construction vibration levels are anticipated to be well below those considered to
cause structural damage and the project would result in a less-than-significant exposure of
persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during
construction, noted that human sensitivity is such that vibrations can be felt by the occupants of
a building and can lead to complaints well before there is any significant risk of even superficial
structural damage to most buildings. Due to the long duration of construction and as
recommended by an earlier noise study prepared for the District’s in 20063, the District would
implement the following measures to further minimize this impact.

 Prior to commencement of any construction activities, the District shall perform visual
and photographic surveys of a limited number of immediate neighboring residential
properties. In the case where structural damage is suspected, visual and photographic
surveys would be again performed after the construction of the project (and possibly
during the project, given the expected duration). During construction, the District would
also monitor ground vibration levels at representative locations to provide data
confirming that the construction vibration is below the conservative architectural damage
threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV.

4.11.3.4 Impacts from Aircraft Noise

The project is not located within two miles of a public airport or within the vicinity of a private
airstrip. Thus, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels from aircraft.

3
Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Improvement Project, Stage 2 – Review of Draft Noise Report,
prepared for CDM by Wilson Ihrig & Associates, Inc., July 13, 2006.

4.11-23 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.11 Noise

This page left intentionally blank.

4.11-24 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.12 Public Services

4.12 Public Services

Public services that serve the project area include police protection, fire protection, schools and
recreation. In the Town of Los Gatos, individual departments within the government provide law
enforcement, fire protection, and emergency services to the community. This section assesses
the project’s potential impacts on public service. The EIR consultant contacted various entities
and sources in evaluating the project’s impact on public services to gather information on
existing fire and police facilities, staffing for the project area, and current and target response
times. For a full list of persons contacted as part of this EIR, please refer to Section 7.0
References.

4.12.1 Setting
4.12.1.1 Police

Police protection services are provided to the project site by the Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police
Department. The Police Department provides law enforcement services to both the Town of Los
Gatos and the City of Monte Sereno, supported by two Police Captains that report directly to the
Chief of Police. The Department has a total of 37 sworn officers and approximately 18-20
civilian employees which includes three part-time community service officers. The police station
is located at 110 E. Main near downtown Los Gatos. Like most of the Town, the project site is
not subject to much crime and the most common issue near the site is speeding along Moore
Avenue.1 The RWTP falls within the Police Department’s Beat 1, where one officer is assigned
per shift. From March 2013-March 2014 response times were 4:52 minutes for priority 1 calls,
12:05 for priority 2 calls, and 16.51 for priority 3 calls to the RWTP and surrounding residential
area. In addition, there were only four calls directly related to the RWTP made in 2013 and the
average response time to the site was 6:44 minutes.

4.12.1.2 Fire

The Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) provides fire protection services to the
project site. The SCCFD provides services for Santa Clara County and the communities of
Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga. Daily
emergency response staffing includes 68 full-time fire personnel on a 24-hour shift assignment
plus one 40-hour Battalion Chief in Battalion 12, operating 20 pieces of first-line apparatus, plus
four Battalion Chief command vehicles, operating from 17 fire stations.2 Department staffing
also includes 29 trained volunteer firefighters. Combined, the department employs over 288 fire
prevention, suppression, investigation, administration, and maintenance personnel. The
Department employs a form of "peak load staffing" by staffing patrols and other apparatus
during high fire danger periods, during storms and anticipated flooding, and for special events.

4.12.1.3 Schools and Recreation

The project consists of improvements to the existing RWTP and will not affect school or
recreational services. These issues, therefore, are not further discussed in this EIR.

1
Written Communication. Katherine, Moore. Traffic Coordinator, Los Gatos-Monte Serrano Police Department
2
Town of Los Gatos. Hillbrook School CUP Modifications EIR. 2014

4.12-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.12 Public Services

4.12.2 Regulatory Environment

Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
The General Plan provides policies for adequate public services and recreation.

Town of Los Gatos General Plan Policies: Public Services

Relevant Goals, Policies and Description

Actions
Policy LU-4.2 Allow development only with adequate physical
infrastructure (e.g. transportation, sewers, utilities,
etc.) and social services (e.g. education, public safety,
etc.).
Policy LU-4.4 Project applicants shall evaluate and provide
appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts on
urban services including schools, utilities, police, and
fire.
Goal SAF-9 To reduce the potential for injuries, damage to
property, economic and social displacement, and loss
of life resulting from crime.
Policy SAF-9.1 Support the Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police
Department to maintain adequate police staffing,
performance levels, and facilities that serve the
Town’s existing and future population.
Policy SAF-9.2 Pursue community policing and other crime
prevention measures for increased public safety
Policy SAF-10.2 Identify and mitigate law enforcement hazards during
the project review and approval process.

4.12.3 Impacts and Mitigation

4.12.3.1 Thresholds of Significance

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered significant if the
project would:
 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of 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 the following public services:
o fire protection;
o police protection;
o schools;
o parks; and
o other public facilities

4.12-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.12 Public Services

 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response

plan or emergency evacuation plan;
 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands;
 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; or
 Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

4.12.3.2 Police

Police protection services would be provided to the project site by the Los Gatos/Monte Sereno
Police Department. An impact to police services would be considered potentially significant
under CEQA if the additional demand for services would require the construction or expansion
of a new or existing facility in order to meet project generated demands. An impact would be
significant if the project would adversely impact existing response times such that a new or
expanded facility would be necessary to accommodate the additional demand. In this instance,
the proposed project only includes improvements to an existing water treatment facility and
would not increase demand for police protection services.

The Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department currently patrols the project area and would be
able to continue providing a high level of police protection service for the project site. The
proposed project would not have a notable impact on police services and, therefore, would have
a less-than-significant impact on police services.3

4.12.3.3 Fire

Fire protection services would be provided to the project site by the Santa Clara County Fire
Department. An impact to fire services would be considered potentially significant under CEQA
if the additional demand for services would require the construction or expansion of a new or
existing facility in order to meet project generated demands. An impact would be significant if
the project would adversely impact existing response times such that a new or expanded facility
would be necessary to accommodate the additional demand. In this instance, the proposed
project only includes improvements to an existing water treatment facility and would not
increase demand for fire protection services. The project would improve reliability of water
supply within the District’s western service area for fire suppression purposes.

The proposed water treatment improvements would modify the hazardous materials use on the
RWTP. All hazardous materials will be properly handled, stored, and transported in accordance
with local, state, and federal regulations as well as the requirements in the RWTP Hazardous
Materials Business Plan (HMBP). The modification of hazardous material usage would not
result in the need for additional fire protection services. Refer to Section 4.8 Hazards and
Hazardous Materials for further discussion.

3
Written Communication, Jennifer Savage, Associate Planner, Los Gatos Planning Department.

4.12-3 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.12 Public Services

The proposed improvements are located on mostly developed RWTP property within a
residential area. Although the area contains grassland and is oak woodlands, it is not
considered wildlands. In addition, the project site is not located within a fire hazard zone (Figure
SAF-3, Los Gatos 2020 General Plan, 2011). The project would have a less-than-significant
impact on fire services and wildland fires.

4.12-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

4.13 Traffic and Circulation

The following discussion is based on a traffic impact analysis prepared for the project by
Hexagon Transportation Consultants (June 2014). The traffic study is provided in Appendix G
of this EIR.

4.13.1 Setting
4.13.1.1 Roadway System

The roadway network in the project area is presented in Figure 4.13-1. Regional access to the
project area is provided via State Routes (SRs) 17 and 85. SR 17 extends north-south through
the Town of Los Gatos, south to Santa Cruz and north to San José where it provides regional
access to SR 85 and Interstate 880. SR 85 runs east-west through the Town of Los Gatos and
provides regional access to Interstate 101, 280, 880, and SR 17. Local access to the project site
is provided via neighborhood collector streets More Avenue, Wedgewood Avenue, Montclair
Road, and Quito Road.
The truck routes in the project area are located on the following roadways:
1. Highway 17
2. Highway 85
3. Los Gatos Boulevard
4. Los Gatos – Saratoga Road (Highway 9)
5. Winchester Boulevard
6. Los Gatos – Almaden Road
7. Blossom Hill Road
8. Lark Avenue
Below is a summary of the local roadway network.

State Route 17 is a four to eight lane freeway approximately seven miles from the project site. It
extends south to Santa Cruz and north to I-280 in San José where it then connects to I-880 to
Oakland.

State Route 85 is a six-lane freeway in the in the vicinity of the project site. It extends north from
US 101 in South San José and terminates in Mountain View where it joins with US 101 again.

State Route 9 (Los Gatos-Saratoga Road) is an east-west thoroughfare that connects the Town
of Los Gatos with the City of Saratoga. The road has a posted speed limit of 35 mph where
there are two lanes, and a posted speed limit of 40 mph where there are four lanes. The road
has bike lanes extending in both directions extending from State Route 17 to Saratoga Avenue.

Los Gatos Boulevard is a four to six-lane thoroughfare that extends north from Loma Alta
Avenue near Los Gatos High School to State Route 85. The speed limit is 35 mph along the
length of the street except in one section where it is 25 mph. North of SR 85, Los Gatos
Boulevard changes designation to Bascom Avenue, while south of Loma Alta Avenue, it
changes to East Main Street.

4.13-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2014

Project Roadway Network and Study Locations Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.13-1
Final EIR
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

Winchester Boulevard is a north-south running thoroughfare that runs from Santa Clara
southward to Los Gatos. Within the vicinity of the project site, Winchester Boulevard consists of
four lanes (two lanes in each direction) plus a two-way left turn lane with a posted speed limit of
35 mph. Winchester Boulevard changes designation to North Santa Cruz Avenue south of
Blossom Hill Road in Los Gatos, and to Lincoln Street north of Market Street in Santa Clara.

Lark Avenue is a four-lane east-west arterial that runs between Winchester Boulevard and Los
Gatos Boulevard in Los Gatos with a posted speed limit of 30 mph.

More Avenue is a two lane, north-south running roadway, connecting Bicknell Road to Pollard
Road. It terminates at Rolling Hills Middle School. The road has a posted speed limit of 25 mph.

4.13.1.2 Transit Service

Existing transit service in Los Gatos is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA). However, no transit service is currently available along More Avenue or any
roads fronting the project site. The closest transit service in the area is described below.

Local Route 48 line provides service between the Los Gatos Civic Center and the Winchester
Transit Center in Campbell with 30-minute headways in the a.m. and PM peak hours. Route 48
operates between 6:30 AM and 8:30 PM. Local Route 37 line provides service between West
Valley College and the Capitol Light Rail Station. Route 37 operates between 6:12 AM and 8:23
PM.

4.13.1.3 Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities

There are a limited number of bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site. A portion of More
Avenue, north of Roxbury Lane, is considered bicycle friendly given the existing traffic calming
measures on this portion of roadway, although there is no established bicycle lane.

Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist primarily of sidewalks along the streets near the
project site. Sidewalks are found along the northern end of More Avenue. However, there are no
sidewalks on either side of More Avenue between Bicknell Road and Roxbury Lane.

4.13.1.4 Traffic Study and Methodology

A traffic study was prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (refer
to Appendix G). The analysis of potential traffic impacts (during proposed construction activity)
was conducted using the level of service (LOS) methodology set forth by the Town of Los Gatos
and the City of Campbell, using TRAFFIX software. LOS is a measure of roadway quality of
service and describes traffic conditions on a scale of A to F, with LOS A indicating free flow
conditions with minimum delay and LOS F representing severe congestion with major delay.

The traffic analysis evaluated the AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions for eight intersections,
listed below. These intersections were selected either because the trip distribution and
assignment process indicated that they would be the key intersections most affected by
construction traffic or they were requested by Caltrans for inclusion in the study.

4.13-3 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

1. More Avenue and Roxbury Lane (unsignalized)

2. More Avenue and Pollard Road
3. Winchester Boulevard and Knowles Drive
4. Winchester Boulevard and Lark Avenue
5. Highway 17 SB ramps and Lark Avenue
6. Highway 17 NB ramps and Lark Avenue
7. Winchester Boulevard and Highway 85 NB on-ramp
8. Winchester Boulevard and Highway 85 SB off-ramp
All intersections are located in the Town of Los Gatos, except More Avenue and Pollard Road,
which is located in the City of Campbell. Traffic conditions at the study locations were analyzed
for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The AM peak hour of traffic is generally
between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is
during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average weekday.

Rolling Hills Middle School is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of More Avenue
and Pollard Road, which is a significant traffic generator before and after school hours. During
the peak morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up times, there is heavy traffic on both eastbound
and westbound Pollard Road due to the number of cars waiting to turn north (towards the
school) on More Avenue or waiting to access the passenger loading zone next the school on the
north side of Pollard Road. In addition, there is a large amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic
at this intersection before and after school. The intersection is configured and operated in such
a way as to enhance its safety. The traffic analysis observed the following existing conditions at
the intersection of More Avenue and Pollard Road:

 The intersection is signalized and includes pedestrian “walk” signals, with pedestrian
crosswalks across all four approaches;
 The intersection has a left-turn storage pocket on Pollard Road for vehicles wanting to
turn left onto More Avenue towards the treatment plant. That left turn is “protected” in the
signal phasing so that left turns have a green arrow when they turn left, and they do not
need to yield to oncoming westbound traffic on Pollard Road.
 Two crossing guards are present before and after the school day.

Based on those features, the traffic consultant concurred with the District’s plan to allow truck
access to and from the RWTP site from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.

More Avenue also leads to a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Highway 85. This bridge begins at
the northern terminus of More Avenue, next to the school grounds, and crosses over SR 85 to
Roundtree Drive. The bridge is primarily used by students walking or biking from the
neighborhood north of Highway 85 to the Rolling Hills Middle School, and has little impact on
the operation of the intersection of More Avenue and Pollard Road.

Traffic conditions were evaluated for two scenarios as summarized below:

 Existing Conditions: Existing intersection traffic volumes were obtained from a recent
traffic impact analysis conducted in the same area and from new manual turning-
movement counts, and

4.13-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

 Project Conditions: Projected peak-hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding to the
existing traffic volumes the traffic generated by the construction workers, construction
management, and construction trucks. In addition, traffic related to the detour required
by the Quito Road Bridges Project1 is included in the project scenario (see Figure 4.13-
2). The project conditions scenario also incorporates recent lane configuration changes
to the intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Knowles Drive as discussed further
below.
In order to account for overlapping construction schedules for the Quito Road Bridges Project
and the RWTP project that would both affect traffic volumes in the neighborhood, the Project
Scenario includes traffic volumes projected on More Avenue from the Quito Road detour.
Corresponding traffic volumes were also added to the intersection of More Avenue and Roxbury
Lane for the AM and PM peak hours (“Quito Road Bridges Rehabilitation Project Detour Plans,”
memorandum prepared by Fehr & Peers, 9/27/2013). This represents a conservative analysis
because post-project traffic impacts include increased traffic volumes on More Avenue from the
Quito Road detour, and because construction of the Quito Road Bridge Project is expected to
overlap with only 20 percent of the construction duration of the proposed project.
The project conditions scenario also incorporates changes to the intersection of Winchester
Boulevard and Knowles Drive, where construction has recently been completed to add an
additional left turn lane to the eastbound direction. There were two lanes on the west approach
to this intersection when the traffic counts were completed (for the existing conditions baseline);
three lanes are included in the evaluation of project conditions to reflect conditions that would be
in place at the time when the project’s traffic impacts would occur.
The signalized study intersections are subject to the Town of Los Gatos and City of Campbell
level of service standards. The level of service methodology in both Los Gatos and Campbell is
the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 method for signalized intersections, utilizing the
TRAFFIX software. TRAFFIX evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of
average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection.
Based on the Town of Los Gatos LOS standards, an acceptable operating LOS is defined as
LOS D or better at all intersections, signalized or unsignalized. The City of Campbell defines an
acceptable operating LOS as D or better at most signalized intersections, including the one at
More Avenue and Pollard Road.

Significance criteria are used to establish a traffic impact. In the Town of Los Gatos, new
projects “shall not cause the levels of service for intersections to drop more than one level if it is
at levels A, B or C, and not drop at all if it is at D or worse” (Town of Los Gatos Traffic Impact
Analysis Check List). In the City of Campbell, a project is said to create a significant impact at a
signalized intersection if the level of service degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better to an
unacceptable level of service under project conditions.

1
As described in 4.11 Noise, the Quito Bridge project is the replacement of two bridges on Quito Road near the Quito
Road/Old Adobe Road intersection in Saratoga.

4.13-5 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
Rinconada Water Treatment Plant

South Quito Rd Closed

to Thru Traffic – Use
Ravenwoo
to Thru Traffic

Alternate Route
Dr
South Quito Rd Closed tpere
Mon
Allenda
le Ave

d Dr
Chester Ave

More
South Quito Rd Closed
Dr
Hyde

to Thru Traffic

Elwo
Apric

Ave
od D
ot H

r
l

s Ct
Short Hill Ct
Rd
Fruitvale Ave

Pollard ille D
r

Sobey Meadow
Newv

Wedgewood Ave
e
Av
er

e
Mattson Av
est
vd
Bl

Ch
a s
sit

Prince St
Ca

Quito Rd
Rd
Maclay Ct

Hilltop Way

Evans Ln
od
t

Ln
soro C

Wo
Douglass Ln y

Via La
b ur

Altura
ox

Old

Old Ad
R
Via Te

go
Vis
Om

obe Rd

ol
Cir

Del S
San Marcos Rd
Si

ega
ng
and

ing

Ln

e
Puesta
Lel

Av
Hi

Vessing Rd
ll L

re
Mo
n

Farwell Ave d
ll R
y Hi
Via De Marco

ps
Sobey Rd

Gy

Mo
ntc
lair
da
Woodban
k Way

Rd
Posa
s

e
Av

Old Adobe Rd
p Aqu
ris

a
C ino

Via L
Wa
y

Rd
Bicknell R nell
d Bick
y Ln
Beck

Avon Ln

o
Pan

nt
oram
o Rd

Pi
aD

a
r

Vi
Quit
Glen Una Dr

Monte Vista Dr
Via Caballero

Vinela
n d Ave
ood Dr
Montew
s Dr
Verde

ay Quito Rd Closed
Sara in W
Palos

toga Aust to Thru Traffic

ay -Los
nt er W Gato
s Rd
Bai
Co
nst
itut
Wood

ion
Lanca

Ave
A cres
ster R

= Project Site Location

Rd
d

= Detour Route

= Sign
N

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet = Road Closed (in stages)

Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2014
Figure 2
Quito Bridge Detour Routes Quito Road Bridge Rehab DetourFigure
Routes

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.13-2
Final EIR
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

4.13.1.5 Existing Traffic Conditions

Existing peak-hour traffic volumes were obtained from manual intersection turning movement
counts completed in May 2013 by the traffic consultant. Existing peak hour intersection volumes
at study intersections are shown in Figure 4.13-3. The results of the LOS evaluation for the eight
study intersections under Existing Conditions are summarized in Table 4.13-1. When compared
to applicable level of service standards, all study intersections currently operate at an
acceptable level of service.

The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were obtained from field observations
and previous traffic impact analyses in the study area. Existing traffic volumes were obtained
from previous traffic impact analyses and supplemented with new manual peak-hour turning-
movement counts. All traffic counts are included in Appendix G.

Table 4.13-1
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
# Intersection LOS Average Delay (sec)
AM Peak Hour
1 More Avenue and Roxbury Lane* A 7.3 sec.
2 More Avenue and Pollard Road C 24.2 sec.
3 Winchester Boulevard and Knowles Drive D 35.3 sec.
4 Winchester Boulevard and Lark Avenue C 21.1 sec.
5 Hwy 17 SB Ramps and Lark Avenue C 27.8 sec.
6 Hwy 17 NB Ramps and Lark Avenue B 18.6 sec.
7 Winchester Blvd and Hwy 85 NB On-Ramp B 11.7 sec.
8 Winchester Blvd and Hwy 85 SB Off-Ramp B 14.4 sec.

PM Peak Hour
1 More Avenue and Roxbury Lane* A 7.3 sec.
2 More Avenue and Pollard Road C 20.5 sec.
1
3 Winchester Boulevard and Knowles Drive D 43.7 sec.
4 Winchester Boulevard and Lark Avenue B 16.2 sec.
5 Hwy 17 SB Ramps and Lark Avenue C 32.0 sec.
6 Hwy 17 NB Ramps and Lark Avenue B 16.3 sec.
7 Winchester Blvd and Hwy 85 NB On-Ramp B 15.9 sec.
8 Winchester Blvd and Hwy 85 SB Off-Ramp B 11.2 sec.
* Unsignalized intersection
1
Under the Project Scenario, the intersection of Winchester and Knowles includes an
additional left-turn lane at the West approach.

4.13-7 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2014

Existing Lane Configurations & Traffic Volumes Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.13-3
Final EIR
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

4.13.2 Regulatory Environment

4.13.2.1 State

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for the planning, design,
construction, and maintenance of interstate freeways and state highways. Within the project
study area, SR 85 and SR 17 are within Caltrans’ jurisdiction. Caltrans’ Guide for the
Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December, 2002) identifies Caltrans requirements for
evaluating the effect of local development and land use changes on state highway facilities.

4.13.2.2 Regional

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)

The MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the San
Francisco Bay Area. The MTC functions as both the state-mandated regional transportation
planning agency and the federally-mandated metropolitan planning organization for the region.
As such, it is responsible for regularly updating the Regional Transportation Plan, a
comprehensive blueprint for the development of transportation facilities within the region. The
MTC also screens requests from local agencies for state and federal grants for transportation
projects to determine their compatibility with the plan. Plan Bay Area is the most recent version
of the long-range transportation plan (adopted July 18, 2013). MTC is also responsible for
updating and prioritizing projects within the Regional Transportation Improvement Program.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)

The VTA, formerly the Santa Clara County Transit District, provides bus, light rail, and
paratransit services in much of Santa Clara County. Municipalities served by the VTA include
Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno,
Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale. The
VTA is responsible for regional transportation planning including congestion management,
design and construction of specific highway, pedestrian, and bicycle improvement projects, as
well as promotion of transit oriented development.

4.13.2.3 Local

Town of Los Gatos Traffic Impact Policy and Fee Program

The Town’s Traffic Impact Policy outlines the methodology to be used in reviewing a project for
traffic impacts, defines minor and major traffic impacts, lists the findings the approving body
must make in order to approve a project with major impacts, and states that fees shall be paid to
mitigate traffic impacts. Projects with major traffic impacts are required to make appropriate
improvements to mitigate direct impacts and pay in-lieu fees for cumulative impacts, in
accordance with the Town Municipal Code (Town Council Resolution 1994-55) and the Town
Traffic Impact Policy. The project is not subject to the Town’s mitigation fee program since it
would not have any traffic impacts or violate the Town’s Traffic Impact Policy, as described in
the analysis below.

City of Campbell Traffic Policy

The City of Campbell’s Traffic Level of Service (LOS) Policy is included in their Transportation
Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines. The Policy defines an acceptable operating LOS as LOS D or

4.13-9 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

better at all signalized intersections and LOS F at unsignalized intersections. Significant traffic
impacts are defined as:

 When the addition of the project traffic causes a signalized intersection operating at LOS
D or better under the existing condition to operate at LOS E or F;
 For unsignalized intersections, when the addition of project traffic causes a traffic signal
to be warranted or the intersection or turning movement to operate at LOS F.

Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan

The Town’s General Plan outlines transportation goals that include providing an efficient, safe,
and environmentally sustainable transportation system; increasing transit usage; and improving
the pedestrian environment. The General Plan establishes a transportation level of service
policy that calls for LOS D at most intersections.

General Plan Policies: Traffic and Circulation

Relevant Goals, Policies and Description

Actions
Policy TRA 1.1 Development shall not exceed transportation capacity.
Policy TRA-1.5 Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Los
Gatos’s arterials and collectors while considering the needs
of pedestrians, bicyclists, and adjacent residents.
Policy TRA-3.1 All development proposals shall be reviewed to identify and
mitigate project impacts pursuant to the Town’s impact
policy.
Policy TRA-3.2 Review development proposals to ensure that the circulation
system and on-site or public parking can accommodate any
increase in traffic or parking demand generated by the
proposed development, subject to the considerations and
findings required by the Town’s Traffic Impact Policy.
Policy TRA-3.3 All new developments shall be evaluated to determine
compliance with the Town’s level of service policy for
intersections.
Policy TRA-3.4 New project shall not cause the level of service for
intersections to drop more than one level if it is at Level A,
B, or C and not drop at all if it is at D or below.
Policy TRA-3.5 If project traffic will cause any intersection to drop more than
one level if the intersection is at LOS A, B, or C, or to drop at
all if the intersection is at LOS D or below, the project shall
mitigate the traffic so that the level of service will remain at
an acceptable level.
Goal TRA-5 To ensure that Los Gatos streets are safe for all users,
including drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Policy TRA-5.2 Inhibit the flow of through traffic in established
neighborhoods to the extent feasible, without impacting the
freedom of movement of residents or diverting traffic to other
neighborhood streets.

4.13-10 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

4.13.3 Impacts and Mitigation

4.13.3.1 Thresholds of Significance

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered significant if the
project would:

 Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections);
 Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion/management agency for designated roads or highways;
 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks;
 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);
 Result in inadequate emergency access;
 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).

4.13.3.2 Impacts from Increased Traffic

Operation Impacts
In terms of staffing, the daily operation of the RWTP would be virtually unchanged upon
completion of the proposed improvements, since the project would add one new employee. In
addition, the project would increase truck deliveries during operations by five deliveries per
month as follows (at average plant flow):

 CO2: 2 per month

 Fluoride: 1 per month
 Liquid Oxygen: 2 per month

The increase in traffic from one new employee and five new truck deliveries per month would
have a negligible effect on traffic conditions during project operations.

Construction Period Impacts

The traffic study evaluated potential traffic impacts during construction during the weekday AM
and PM peak hours for intersections in the area, to evaluate site access, and to evaluate
available parking at the RWTP. The traffic analysis used the following assumptions with
regards to construction:

 Construction duration of five years in order to make the traffic estimates as conservative
as possible (although construction could extend to seven years). Construction would
occur Monday – Saturday from 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM. Construction workers would
be allowed to arrive on site as early as 7:30 AM.
 Normal construction worker traffic and parking demand would be 94 vehicles per day,
with a conservative assumption of 10% carpooling. Peak demand is estimated to be 117

4.13-11 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

parking spaces for 200 working days scattered intermittently during the 5-year
construction period.
 Construction management staff would add 15 vehicles, for traffic and parking analysis
purposes, throughout the 5-year construction period, which represents a conservative
approach.
 In an effort to reduce the traffic impacts and parking demand during the construction
period, the District plans to relocate employees whose job function do not require them
to be at the RWTP to other work sites. In addition, the District would reduce the number
of pool cars and service trucks kept at RWTP. Meetings with more than 10 people would
be held elsewhere during the construction period. Due to this effort, there would be
approximately 43 fewer vehicles arriving and departing the site on a daily basis than
there were previously.
 A total of 18,700 construction truck trips would be made to and from the site over the 5-
year construction period, which represents a conservative approach. Although that
means there would be an average of 15 trucks per day (18,700 divided by 1,250
workdays), the truck traffic would be far heavier during periods when there is off-hauling
of excavated materials or delivery of fill materials and concrete. Peak truck traffic is
estimated to be 110 trucks per day for 250 working days scattered intermittently through
the 5-year construction period.
 For purposes of the traffic analysis at study intersections, all truck trips were converted
to a passenger car equivalent (PCE)2 using a factor of 2. Thus, the 110 peak trucks
result in 220 one-way trips and 440 PCE trips.
 For parking demand, this analysis assumes a 10% carpooling rate. Past experience on
other District construction projects indicates that the carpooling rate may be significantly
higher than 10%, but this rate was used in order to provide a conservative estimate.

Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment

The magnitude of traffic produced by a project and the locations where that traffic would occur
are estimated based on 1) trip generation, 2) trip distribution, and 3) trip assignment. In
determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is
estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is
made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip
assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. The number of
trips expected to be generated by the construction activities related to the RWTP project are
summarized in Table 4.13-2. The peak number of construction workers (130) and the peak level
of truck traffic (110) were used for the traffic analysis (rather than the estimated “normal” level of
traffic). Although it is not known if the peak construction days and peak truck traffic days would
coincide, this assumption provides a conservative estimate of the traffic that would be
generated.

The trip distribution pattern for the construction workers and construction management staff was
estimated based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system, the locations of
complementary land uses, and previous traffic impact reports in the study area. The trip
distribution pattern for construction management and workers is shown in Figure 4.13-4.

2
A passenger car equivalent is used to determine the effects of various types of vehicles on the transportation
system by assigning a greater weight to large, heavy vehicles.

4.13-12 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

Table 4.13-2
Project Trip Generation
4 5
Types Peak Units Daily Daily AM Peak Hour PM PEAK HOUR
3
Number One- PCE Total Percent PCE Trips Total Percent PCE Trips
1
Way PCE PCE
Trips Trips Trips
2
In Out In Out In Out In Out
% % % %
Construction workers 117 Vehicles 234 234 117 100 117 117 100 117

Construction 15 Vehicles 30 30 15 100 15 15 100 15

Management Staff
Subtotal (personnel) 132 264 264 132 132 132 132

Construction Trucks 110 trucks 220 440 66 70 30 46 66 30 70 20 46

Total Peak
242 484 704 198 178 20 198 20 178
Construction Trips
Notes:
1
The peak number of construction workers is estimated to be 130 workers for 200 days (intermittently) over the 5-year construction period.
Using a 10% carpooling rate, 130 workers would generate 117 vehicles per day.
The peak number of construction trucks is estimated to be 110 for 250 days (intermittently) over the 5-year construction period.
2
All worker vehicles and construction trucks are assumed to make one inbound trip and one outbound trip per day.
3
Passenger Car Equivalent. Each truck trip assumed to equal 2 passenger car equivalents.
4
During the AM Peak Hour, it is assumed that all construction workers and management would arrive at the site. It is assumed that 15% of the daily truck traffic
would occur during the AM peak-hour and that more traffic would enter than leave in the AM.
5
During the PM Peak Hour, it is assumed that all construction workers and management would leave the site. It is assumed that 15% of the daily truck traffic would
occur in the PM peak-hour and that more trucks would leave than enter during the PM.

4.13-13 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2014

Trip Distribution Patterns Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.13-4
Final EIR
 Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2014

Designated Truck Routes & Project Scenario Traffic Volumes Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.13-5
Final EIR
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

Construction truck traffic would be required to use designated truck routes, so the trip
distribution pattern for the truck trips is different from the pattern for personnel. Whereas cars
may travel between Winchester Boulevard and More Avenue via the residential streets of
Wimbledon Drive, Wedgewood Avenue, and Roxbury Lane, construction trucks would not be
permitted on those roadways. The truck route from Highway 17 (from the Camden Avenue/San
Tomas Expressway exit or the Lark Avenue exit) follows Winchester Boulevard to Knowles
Drive, and then to Pollard Road and More Avenue. Figure 4.13-5 shows the designated truck
routes between Highway 17 and the RWTP. Trucks over 9,000 pounds gross weight are not
permitted on Highway 85 between its southern terminus at Highway 101 and its junction with
Interstate 280. Thus, no trucks are assigned to use the Highway 85 on-ramp and off-ramp on
Winchester Boulevard. The trip distribution for trucks is shown on Figure 4.13-5.

Project impacts were evaluated by adding to existing volumes the new trips generated by the
RWTP construction activities and the estimated trips resulting from the detour route of the Quito
Road Bridge Project. The results of the intersection LOS analysis are summarized in Table
4.13-3. It should be noted that, at some study intersections, the average delay under project
conditions is shown to be better than under no project conditions. This occurs because the
intersection delay is a weighted average of all intersection movements. The addition of project
traffic to movements with delays lower than the average intersection delay (such as right turns)
can reduce the average delay for the entire intersection. In addition, the level of service
improves at the intersection of Winchester Blvd and Knowles Drive in the AM peak hour
because project conditions, as described earlier, include the addition of a new left-turn lane at
the west approach to this intersection.

The results of the level of service calculations show that, under project conditions, all of the
study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (D or better for
all six study intersections).3 The only intersection projected to have a decrease in its level of
service from existing levels is More Avenue and Roxbury Lane during the PM peak hour.
However, because the level of service would only decline by one level (from A to B in the PM
peak hour), this is not a significant impact under Town of Los Gatos standards. In addition, the
project would not substantially degrade the LOS at study intersections or violate the City of
Campbell Level of Service policies.

In summary, construction of the project would not result in an increase in traffic that is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads,
or congestion at intersections), since it would not substantially degrade the LOS at study
intersections or violate the City of Campbell or Town of Los Gatos Level of Service policies.

3
An additional “baseline” level of service calculation was conducted for the intersection of Winchester
Boulevard and Knowles Drive, using the traffic volumes from the existing conditions scenario and the
recently-completed lane configuration from the project scenario, which includes the additional eastbound
left-turn lane. The resulting LOS was found to be C in the AM peak hour and D in the PM peak hour.
Since the project scenario also had an LOS of C in the AM peak hour and D in the PM peak hour, this
evaluation indicates that the project traffic would not result in any change to the LOS at that intersection
when the intersection geometry is held constant.

4.13-16 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

Table 4.13-3
Intersections Level of Service
1
Existing Scenario Project Scenario
Average
Delay Average
# Intersection LOS (sec) LOS Delay (sec)
AM Peak Hour
1 More Avenue and Roxbury Lane* A 7.3 A 9.7
2 More Avenue and Pollard Road C 24.2 C 25.4
2
3 Winchester Boulevard and Knowles Drive D 35.3 C 34.2
4 Winchester Boulevard and Lark Avenue C 21.1 C 21.9
5 Hwy 17 SB Ramps and Lark Avenue C 27.8 C 27.8
6 Hwy 17 NB Ramps and Lark Avenue B 18.6 B 19.1
7 Winchester Blvd and Hwy 85 NB On-Ramp B 11.7 B 11.7
8 Winchester Blvd and Hwy 85 SB Off-Ramp B 14.4 B 14.5
PM Peak Hour
1 More Avenue and Roxbury Lane* A 7.3 B 10.3
2 More Avenue and Pollard Road C 20.5 C 24.4
2
3 Winchester Boulevard and Knowles Drive D 43.7 D 44.6
4 Winchester Boulevard and Lark Avenue C 16.2 B 15.9
5 Hwy 17 SB Ramps and Lark Avenue C 32.0 C 32.5
6 Hwy 17 NB Ramps and Lark Avenue B 16.3 B 16.3
7 Winchester Blvd and Hwy 85 NB On-Ramp B 15.9 B 15.9
8 Winchester Blvd and Hwy 85 SB Off-Ramp B 11.2 B 11.1
* Unsignalized intersection
1
Project Scenario includes added trips for RWTP Construction Project and the Quito Road project detour.
2
Under the Project Scenario, the intersection of Winchester and Knowles includes an additional left-turn lane at
the West approach.

Site Access and On-Site Circulation

Access to the construction activities at the RWTP would occur at four locations, as described
below:

1. The lower (northern) More Avenue entrance would be the primary entrance for all truck
traffic.
2. The upper (southern) More Avenue entrance is commonly referred to as the Main Entrance
and would be used by construction management and workers to provide access to the main
parking lot, which is where District personnel also park.
3. A gated access point on More Avenue south of the main entrance provides access to the
adjoining San José Water Company property. That site would provide additional parking
(30-50 spaces).
4. A secondary truck access point on Granada Way provides access to an additional on-site
truck queuing area that would be needed on peak truck activity days.

A total of 18,700 construction truck trips would be made to and from the RWTP site over the
construction period. Although that equates to an average of 15 trucks per day, the truck traffic
would be far heavier during periods when there is off-hauling of excavated materials or delivery
of fill materials and concrete. Peak truck traffic is estimated to be 110 trucks per day for 250
working days scattered intermittently through the construction period. The types of trucks
expected include: flatbed, dump, semi-trailer (end or bottom dump trailer, flatbed trailer, and
cargo trailer), crane truck, concrete transport, garbage, box, van, and platform.

4.13-17 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

Trucks would have access to the site from 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM, a total of nine hours. If the
peak truck traffic were spread evenly across the day, 220 one-way truck trips per day
represents an average of 25 one-way trips per hour. Following the assumption used in the traffic
analysis that some concentration of trips may occur into the peak hours, approximately 33
trucks would enter/exit the site during the AM and PM peak hours. On peak truck traffic days,
there could be an average of approximately one truck trip every two minutes on the truck route
between the RWTP and Winchester Boulevard, which would access the site from both the lower
More Avenue entrance and the Granada Way entrance. In summary, as described above,
construction of the project would not result in an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system.

4.13.3.3 Impacts to Emergency Access

The project does not propose to alter existing emergency access to the project site, which is
provided via three entrances to the site. Access to the site would be monitored during
construction to assure that emergency access is maintained. The project would not result in
inadequate emergency access.

4.13.3.4 Impacts to Air Traffic

The project site is not located within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport is Mineta San
José International located about eight miles north of the site. The proposed improvements to the
RWTP would not change air traffic patterns or in any way create safety risks associated with
flights or airport operations. The project would not impact air traffic.

4.13.3.5 Increased Traffic Hazards

More Avenue includes both hills and curves (i.e., vertical and horizontal alignment changes) that
severely restrict sight distances at both the main upper entrance and the lower entrance. The
main (upper, southern) entrance is the primary access point for vehicles heading to the main
parking lot, and there is a left turn pocket on southbound More Avenue for cars and trucks
wishing to turn left into this entrance. The left turn pocket is approximately 60 feet long,
providing space for two or three cars. There are signs and flashing yellow lights on More
Avenue both north and south of the main/upper driveway, warning motorists of the presence of
this driveway and the possibility of traffic entering the roadway. However, these signs are not
very prominent and could be overlooked by some drivers.

The main entrance is located at the top of a hill, and the road both curves and descends steeply
south of the entrance such that oncoming northbound cars are not visible to cars wanting to turn
left into the driveway from More Avenue or wanting to exit and turn onto More Avenue.
Northbound cars are visible when they are further away, but they are not visible where the road
dips. Thus, there is a clear problem with sight distance at this entrance for vehicles wanting to
turn left into the driveway and for vehicles wanting to exit the driveway and turn either right or
left onto More Avenue.

At the lower (northern) entrance, which is the primary access point for trucks, oncoming
northbound traffic is only visible after it has passed the crest of the hill, which is about 180 feet
south of this access point. Because trucks are going uphill as they approach this entrance, they
are likely to require extra time to accelerate to make the turn into the site, especially if they had
to stop to wait for oncoming traffic to pass. There is no left turn storage pocket on More Avenue

4.13-18 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

at this driveway, so if trucks stop in order to wait for a gap in traffic before turning left,
southbound through traffic would be blocked.

When trucks leave from this driveway, the limited sight distance means drivers cannot see the
oncoming northbound cars until they are relatively close to the driveway. For large trucks with
slow acceleration, this could present a hazard since the oncoming northbound cars and the
trucks pulling into the roadway are not able to see each other until they are within approximately
180 feet of each other.

The inadequate sight distance at these entrances is exacerbated by the typical travelling speeds
on this segment of More Avenue. The speed of vehicles on More Avenue south of Capistrano
Place was measured on two weekdays (5/29/13 and 5/30/13). Although the posted speed limit
is 25 miles per hour (mph) at this location, only 10% of the traffic was going at 25 mph or less.
The average speed on both days was 32 mph, and the 85th percentile speed on both days was
37 mph. Averaging the two days, 27% of the traffic was travelling at 35 mph or faster. These
traveling speeds increase the potential for conflict for turning left into the RWTP driveways or
pulling out of the driveways where sight distances are inadequate. It should be noted, however,
that despite the sight distance issue, the Town of Los Gatos has no record of accidents on this
segment of More Avenue.

A third access point on More Avenue is the gated driveway that leads to the San José Water
Company (SJWC) site, where contractor cars would be parked. The gate at this location is
normally closed and locked to prevent access to that roadway. On days when the SJWC site is
needed for parking, constructions staff would be available open the gate to allow construction
workers to enter and exit. Since vehicles can see oncoming northbound traffic without difficulty,
the traffic study concluded that this driveway would provide adequate sight distance for the
turning movements that construction workers are expected to make.

Impact

Traffic hazards in the project area include limited sight distances along More Avenue due to the
hills and curves along the main upper entrance and lower entrance. Project construction would
generate additional traffic including larger slower trucks. The additional traffic generated by
project construction would increase the risk of traffic accidents due to the insufficient sight
distance on More Avenue. This represents a significant traffic hazard. Mitigation is identified for
this impact.

Mitigation Measures

TRF-1 The District shall develop final site plans that relocate the main (upper) entrance to More
Avenue to improve the sight distance. At the upper main gate, the access point shall be
relocated a short distance to the south where the driveway intersects More Avenue.

TRF-2 The District shall implement one of the two following improvements along More Avenue
and incorporate into final site plans and specifications, subject to District and Town of
Los Gatos concurrence:

1. Add a continuous turn lane in the middle of More Avenue between Capistrano Place
and the main entrance. This lane would connect with the existing left-turn storage
pocket in the southbound direction at the main entrance.

4.13-19 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

2. 1. Add warning signs, speed feedback signs, and other appropriate signage as part of
a specific sign package to be approved by the Town of Los Gatos. The sign package
would provide prominent warning signs informing drivers on More Avenue that there
are driveways ahead that cannot be seen. New signs stating “Caution Hidden
Driveway,” “Blind Driveway Ahead,” or similar language, and signs posting the 25
mph speed limit before both entrances would be part of the proposed sign package
to be approved by the Town of Los Gatos.

Conclusion

Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRF-1 would eliminate the sight distance problem at the
main entrance and allow drivers to see northbound cars that are now “invisible” while they are in
the dip south of the entrance.

Implementation of TRF-2 would entail either adding a continuous turn lane in the middle of More
Avenue or implementing a traffic sign package. A center turn lane on More Avenue would serve
two purposes, as follows:

a) Adding a center turn lane in between the two existing travel lanes on More Avenue would
require that the travel lanes be narrowed. Narrowing these lanes, especially the downhill
northbound lane where speeds are now well in excess of the posted speed limit, would
serve to slow traffic down. Narrower travel lanes serve as a visual cue to drivers to reduce
their travel speed. Slower travel speeds provide a longer amount of time for drivers to see
each other where sight distances are limited.

b) A center turn lane would provide space for vehicles to wait for a gap in northbound traffic to
turn left into the lower gate. As noted above, there is currently no left turn storage pocket on
More Avenue at this driveway, so if trucks need to stop before turning left into the lower
driveway, southbound through traffic is blocked. By beginning the turn lane just north of the
Capistrano Place intersection, trucks would be able to pull into the center turn lane before
turning left into the lower gate's driveway.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measures TRF-1 and TRF-2, the project impact on traffic
hazards would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.13.3.6 Conflict with Adopted Plans Supporting Alternative Transportation

High numbers of bicyclists and pedestrians have been observed near Rolling Hills Middle
School, located at the northwest corner of Pollard Road and More Avenue, before and after
school hours. More Avenue also leads to the bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Highway 85, adding
to the high level of non-motorized activity at this intersection. With the provision of crosswalks,
pedestrian-activated walk signals, protected left turns on the truck route from westbound Pollard
to southbound More Avenue, and two crossing guards stationed at the intersection before and
after the school day, the intersection would be able to safely accommodate truck traffic
throughout the day, including during the periods prior to and following the beginning and end of
the school day.

Transit service and access would not be impacted by the proposed project, since the project
would only generate one additional employee (two peak hour vehicle trips) under upgraded
RWTP operations. Construction workers are not expected to use transit due to the lack of bus
routes in the immediate project vicinity.

4.13-20 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation.

4.13.3.7 Parking

The following discussion is provided for informational purposes to disclose the provision of
parking during project construction. Upon completion the project would increase onsite staff by
one employee, which would be accommodated by the proposed site plan.

Throughout the 5-7 year construction period of the proposed improvement project, there would
be an increased demand for parking spaces to accommodate the additional vehicles driven to
the site by construction workers. The traffic analysis assumed a five year construction period,
which represents a conservative estimate. Assuming a 10% carpooling rate4, the normal parking
demand for the contractor’s workers is estimated to be 95 parking spaces (for 105 workers), and
the peak parking demand is estimated to be 117 spaces (for 130 workers for approximately 200
days scattered intermittently during the conservative five-year construction period).

In addition, there would be 15 spaces needed for construction management staff throughout the
construction period. The District currently estimates that a total of 55 spaces would be needed
for the construction management staff, District RWTP staff, service trucks, and pool cars
combined. Total normal parking demand and total peak parking demand, for both construction
and non-construction purposes, is therefore estimated at 150 and 172 spaces, respectively.

The parking areas identified by the District to meet this demand are described below and
presented in Figure 4.13-6.

1. RWTP Parking Lot. A District parking plan (dated 4/26/2013) indicates that by dividing the
parking lot into two sections, its capacity can be increased by using some space that is
currently unmarked. The north portion of the parking lot would be reserved for use by District
staff, pool cars, and the construction management staff. After accounting for the 55 spaces
needed for those purposes, there would still be 6 spaces left for the contractor’s workers on
the north side of the parking lot. The south side of the parking lot would be available for use
by the contractor’s workers and would include 75 spaces. This would increase the main
parking lot’s capacity to 136 spaces.

2. San José Water Company Site. Directly to the south of the RWTP site is a reservoir site
owned by the San José Water Company (SJWC), which could accommodate 30-50
vehicles. An agreement between the SCVWD and the SJWC would allow construction
worker vehicles to park on that site during project construction.

4
The 10% carpooling assumption is based on District staff observations that over 30% of workers carpooled during a
previous RWTP construction project; a more conservative estimate of 10% was used in this analysis.

4.13-21 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
Rinconada Water Treatment Plant

Gr
an
ad
aW
y

Parking Spaces

ve
eA
1 Main Parking Lot (175 spaces)

r
Mo
2 San Jose Water Company Site (30-50 spaces)

3 Staging
Staging/Area
Parking Areas

4 More Avenue

Figure2014
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 7
Proposed Parking Areas
Proposed Parking Areas Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.13-6
Final EIR
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

3. Construction Staging Areas. A construction staging area on the southern part of the RWTP
site past the operations building, on the hillside above the lagoons is proposed (referred to
as the southern staging area). This staging area could be used for parking a few vehicles, if
needed, on peak construction days. In addition, the construction staging area on the lower
(east) sludge drying bed could be used for parking vehicles on peak construction days. The
entrance on Granada Way would be used to access these staging areas.

The above parking areas would collectively provide the additional parking spaces to meet the
estimated demand during both normal construction days and peak construction days.

4.13-23 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.13 Traffic and Circulation

This page left intentionally blank.

4.13-24 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems

4.14 Utilities and Service Systems

This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed project on water supply and distribution
facilities, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facilities, and natural gas/electricity
supply and infrastructure. Impacts related to water quality and stormwater/drainage
infrastructure are addressed in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.

4.14.1 Setting
4.14.1.1 Water Supply

The RWTP currently has a capacity of 80 mgd. Water to the RWTP is supplied by the State
(State Water Project via South Bay Aqueduct), the Federal government (via the Central Pipeline
and the San Felipe Project), and local sources (Anderson Reservoir and San Luis Reservoir
water via the Almaden Valley Pipeline). Treated water from the RWTP is delivered to water
retailers, including the cities of Santa Clara, Campbell, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Mountain View,
and Los Altos as well as the towns of Los Gatos and Los Altos Hills.

The District’s 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan (WSIMP) is the strategy for
providing a reliable supply of water for Santa Clara County while protecting the existing water
supply system. The District’s Master Plan identifies the RWTP improvements as part of the
baseline water supply system used throughout the plan. The Water Master Plan specifies the
preferred combination of water supply sources and conservation programs to meet the county’s
future water demands to 2035; new infrastructure and infrastructure capacity increases needed
to treat, store, and convey future water supply sources; and operational approaches to manage
water supplies and infrastructure. The Water Master Plan also identifies the District’s strategy
for ensuring future water supply reliability with future uncertainty and increasing demands for
water.

The District’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) provides information on water
supply, water usage, recycled water, water use efficiency programs, water shortage planning,
water quality, and water supply reliability in Santa Clara County. The plan addresses the water
supply future of Santa Clara County over the next 25 years. The District’s UWMP identifies
improvements to the RWTP to ensure reliable water supply to the West Valley Service Area.

Potable water for use at the RWTP site is provided by the finished (treated) water from the
RWTP before it is sent to the onsite reservoirs.

4.14.1.2 Wastewater

The West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) is responsible for providing wastewater collection
services to approximately 112,000 people in the Town of Los Gatos and the cities of Campbell,
Monte Sereno, and portions of Saratoga. The WVSD’s collection system in Los Gatos flows
north and exits the Town through different trunk sewers. These systems flow north through San
José to the San José /Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant in Alviso.

The San José /Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) uses an advanced tertiary
wastewater system to treat up to 167 million gallons of wastewater per day (mgd) for the
approximately 1.5 million people in the cities of San José, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Campbell,
Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga and Monte Sereno. Water treated at the facility then flows into

4.14-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems

the South San Francisco Bay through the Artesian Slough while about 10% is recycled through
South Bay Water Recycling pipelines for landscaping, agricultural, and industrial needs through
the South Bay. A contract between the WVCD and the City of San José requires WVCD to pay
its share of debt service, operation, and maintenance and improvement costs while the City
provides a percentage of the capacity of their sewage treatment facilities. There are for a total of
12,363 connections in the Town of Los Gatos; approximately 8,419 connections for single-family
residential uses, 3,188 connections for multi-family uses, and 756 connections for
commercial/industrial uses.

4.14.1.3 Solid Waste

The West Valley Collection & Recycling, LLC (WVCR) is the exclusive recycling, green waste,
and garbage hauler for the Town of Los Gatos, the cities of Campbell, Monte Sereno, and
Saratoga and unincorporated Santa Clara County. All recycling, green waste, and garbage are
picked up by WVCR and transported directly to the Guadalupe Landfill, a class III solid waste
landfill, located in the City of San José. As of January 2011, the landfill has used approximately
5.4 million cubic yards (or approximately 33%) of its 16.5 million cubic yard capacity and is
currently expected to reach its capacity in 2048. Single-family residents, multi-family residents,
and commercial customers are provided with single stream recycling services by the WVCR,
meaning all recyclables are placed in a single bin and do not need to be sorted based on the
material type. Recyclable materials are sorted in the City of San José at the WCVR’s Materials
Recovery Facility (MRF) while green waste is taken to the Guadalupe Landfill.

4.14.1.4 Natural Gas and Electricity

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) provides gas and electric service to the project area. Natural
gas is measured in British thermal units (Btu).1 Electricity is measured in kilowatt hours (kwh). A
kilowatt (kw) is a measure of power produced through sources of generation at 3,413 Btu/kw-
hour. Most electricity is produced by consuming other primary energy sources and converting
them into electricity. PG&E operates a grid distribution system that transmits electricity with a
vast network of transmission and distribution lines throughout the service area to the users.

4.14.2 Regulatory Setting

4.14.2.1 Federal

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

The SDWA is the primary federal law, administered by the US EPA, which regulates the quality
of drinking water and establishes standards protecting public health and safety. The California
Department of Health Services (DHS) implements the SDWA and oversees public water system
quality statewide, establishing legal drinking water standards for contaminates that could
threaten public health.

1
The quantity of heat necessary to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit.

4.14-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems

4.14.2.2 State

Assembly Bill 939 and Senate Bill 1016

California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, or Assembly Bill (AB) 939, established
the Integrated Waste Management Board, required the implementation of integrated waste
management plans and also mandated that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all
solid waste generated (from 1990 levels), beginning January 1, 2000, and divert at least 75
percent by 2010. In 2006, Senate Bill 1016 updated the requirements. The new per capita
disposal and goal measurement system moves the emphasis from an estimated diversion
measurement number to using an actual disposal measurement number as a factor, along with
evaluating program implementation efforts. These two factors will help determine each
jurisdictionʹs progress toward achieving its Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939)
diversion goals. The 50 percent diversion requirement is now measured in terms of per‐capita
disposal expressed as pounds per person per day.

4.14.2.3 Local

Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan

The Town’s General Plan contains policies to avoid impacts to public utilities. Relevant policies
are to the project are listed below.

General Plan Policies: Utilities and Service Systems

Relevant Goals, Policies and Description

Actions
Policy LU-4.4 Project applicants shall evaluate and provide
appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts on
urban services including schools, utilities, police, and
fire.
Policy ENV-6.3 Require new construction to incorporate water-
efficient landscaping following the Town’s Water
Efficiency Landscaping Ordinance
Policy ENV-6.6 Promote the installation of water efficient irrigation
management systems and devices, such as
evapotransportation or soil moisture based irrigation
controls.
Policy ENV-8.1 Support the West Valley Sanitation District to maintain
wastewater conveyance, treatment and disposal
infrastructure in good working condition in order to
supply municipal sewer service to the Town’s
residents and businesses.

4.14-3 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems

4.14.3 Impacts and Mitigation

4.14.3.1 Thresholds of Significance

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered significant if the
project would:

 Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or require new or expanded entitlements.
 Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction or which could cause significant
environmental effects.
 Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
 Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project, that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
 Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s
solid waste disposal needs.
 Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
 Include the wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during project
construction, operation, maintenance, and/or demolition activities.

4.14.3.2 Water

Water demand at the RWTP would increase from irrigation of additional landscaping, installation
of a truck tire wash station, construction dust suppression, and similar activities. The additional
landscaping would require approximately 855,055 gallons of water per year. The location of this
feature and the amount of water required for the wash station and dust suppression are not
available at this time. The tire wash station would presumably reclaim much of the wash water.
The increase in water demand is not expected to adversely affect existing water supply
entitlements, nor would it require new or expanded entitlements. This is a less-than-significant
impact.

Note that the proposed RWTP improvements would replace and/or renovate aging components
critical to the ongoing operation of the plant in order to ensure the quality and reliability of
potable water service. The project would have a beneficial effect on water services by providing
adequate capacity and superior treatment of public drinking water to meet existing and future
demand within the District’s western service area.

4.14.3.3 Wastewater

The project would generate an incremental increase in wastewater compared to existing

conditions. The only additional connections to the sanitary sewer system from the project would
be floor drains for the new ozone contractor structure, ozone generation building, and the new
filters. It is estimated that the floor drainage from the new filter galleries would equal those
currently discharged from the existing filter galleries. The ozone contractor structure galleries
are estimated to be washed down twice a year and would use an estimated 3,000 gallons/year.
The ozone generation building will be washed down twice a year and would use an estimated

4.14-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems

1,500 gallons/year. Combined, the ozone contractor structure and ozone generation building will
generate approximately 4,500 gallons/year of wastewater.

The wastewater generated by the project would be treated at the San José /Santa Clara WPCP.
Given the treatment capacity at the WPCP (167 mgd), sufficient treatment capacity is available
to accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the project. The project would not
require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or require the expansion of
existing facilities. Therefore, the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the regional RWQCB. The project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to
wastewater.

4.14.3.4 Solid Waste

Construction
The proposed project would generate solid waste during construction. During construction, the
project would require the disposal of approximately 2,660 tons of construction debris; some soil
may also require deposition at the landfill. This solid waste material would likely be disposed at
the Guadalupe Landfill over the 5-7-year construction period. The landfill recycles construction
debris (soil, concrete, asphalt), which is used on-site as construction materials and daily landfill
cover. The project proposes to recycle a minimum of 50% of construction debris, including
concrete, wood, metals/steels, copper wiring, and vegetation

The remaining capacity of the landfill (as of July 2011) was approximately 11.1 million cubic
yards. The landfill has a maximum permitted disposal capacity of 3,650 tons per day (County of
Santa Clara 2011). The disposal of 1,330 tons of material (after recycling) over the 5-7 year
construction period would constitute a negligible percentage of the remaining capacity. The
landfill would have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
construction material disposal needs. In addition, the project contractor would be required to
properly dispose of all construction related solid waste at appropriate disposal facilities and in
accordance with the applicable local regulations.

Removal of solid waste would continue at the RWTP in accordance with all federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations. This is a less-than-significant impact.

Operation
Project operations after completion of the proposed improvements would not substantially
increase solid waste generation since the proposed new treatment processes would not
introduce new sources of solid waste. The District proposes to promote waste reduction and
comply with recycling regulations to the extent feasible, which may decrease solid waste
production in the future. Proposed operations at the RWTP would not exceed the capacity for
Guadalupe Landfill. The project’s impact on landfill capacity would be less-than-significant.

4.14.3.5 Energy

According to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR shall evaluate the potentially
significant energy implications of a project to the extent relevant and applicable to the project. In
addition, the project incorporates sustainability measures.

For the purposes of CEQA, a project would have a significant effect if it includes the wasteful,
inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during project construction, operation,

4.14-5 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems

maintenance, and/or demolition activities that cannot be feasibility mitigated. The proposed
project would result in both direct and indirect energy consumption. Indirect energy consumption
includes: 1) energy consumed by construction vehicles and energy used for construction
materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes and manufactured or processed materials,
such as lumber and metal; and 2) energy consumption related to project land uses (i.e.,
vehicular traffic). Direct energy demands are associated with the on-site uses. The following
analysis has been prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in Appendix F
of the CEQA Guidelines; both direct and indirect energy demands are considered.

Indirect Energy Consumption

The demolition of existing on-site structures and the subsequent construction of the proposed
project, including project infrastructure, would result in indirect energy consumption due to
construction traffic and the use of construction materials. The primary energy demand during
construction would be associated with the use of gasoline and diesel-powered mobile
construction equipment and use of automobiles to transport workers and materials to and from
the construction site. Electricity would also be used for construction lighting, field services, and
electrically driven construction devices such as air compressors, pumps and other equipment.
The project would result in indirect energy consumption as a result of post-construction traffic
(i.e., operational traffic), as well as energy use in connection with the production of building
materials and use of construction equipment.

Although the proposed project would result in increased indirect energy consumption, the
amount of transportation fuel and potential electricity use required for project operation will not
be used in a wasteful or inefficient manner, since the proposed improvements would require one
additional employee.

Direct Energy Consumption

The proposed project would result in direct energy consumption associated with improvements
to the RWTP. The project would require additional electrical energy as compared to site’s
existing energy consumption. Historic electricity requirements are shown in Table 4.14-1, while
projected electricity requirements for the proposed project are shown in Table 4.14-2.

The increase in energy usage from the proposed project represents a relatively small increase
in overall energy from the existing RWTP. Proposed improvements to the RWTP would result in
an increased energy usage of 108 kWh/MG. Nearly all of the increased demand is related to
the proposed ozone and CO2 systems. The additional 108 kWh/MG represents a 2.8% increase
in energy compared to existing operations. The energy requirements for the RWTP are
significantly below the typical Northern California water treatment plant. Even with the proposed
improvements, energy use at the RWTP would still be more than two times lower than the
average plant. Multiple factors contribute to the RWTP’s low energy usage, particularly the low
energy requirements for raw and treated-water pumping. The increase in energy use combined
with the District’s energy efficiency measures, to be included as part of the project, would not
represent an inefficient or wasteful use of energy and, therefore, this is a less-than-significant
impact.

4.14-6 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems

Table 4.14-1
Historic Energy Intensity
Year Treated Electrical Purchases Energy Intensity
Volume (MWh) (kWh/MG)
PWRPA1 PG&E Electrical Total
2006 21240 7131 143 342 394
2007 20467 7721 154 385 442
2008 19142 7247 145 386 444
2009 15094 6109 122 413 475
2010 15953 7005 140 448 515
Average 395 454
1
Power and Water Resources Pooling Authority (PWRPA) is the District’s primary electrical provider

Table 4.14-2
Additional Electrical Requirements
Process Annual Electricity Energy Intensity % of Total
requirements (MWh) (kWh/MG)
Carbon Dioxide 514 23 22%
Ozone System 1,810 83 77%
Clarification - - -
Filtration - - -
Filter-to-waste 38 2 1%
Total 2,362 108 100%
Source: Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project Planning Study, CDM Smith,
2012.

4.14-7 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems

This page left intentionally blank.

4.14-8 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 5.0 CEQA Considerations

5.0 CEQA Considerations

5.1 Growth Inducement
CEQA requires that an EIR discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster
economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or
indirectly, in the surrounding environment (CEQA Section 15126.2(d)). Included in this
evaluation are elements of the project that would remove obstacles to population growth, such
as unavailability of major utility capacity or infrastructure. Recognizing the inherent difficulties
involved in forecasting the extent and type of development that might be fostered by a particular
project, CEQA calls for a general assessment of possible growth-inducing impacts rather than a
detailed analysis of a project’s specific impacts on growth.

Growth inducement may be considered detrimental, beneficial, or insignificant under CEQA.

Typically, induced growth is considered a significant adverse impact if it:

 Provides infrastructure or capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently

permitted in applicable local and regional plans and policies.
 Encourages growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is planned for in the
applicable general plan or other land use plan, or in projections made by regional planning
agencies such as the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
 Adversely affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services or infrastructure.
 In some other way significantly affects the environment, such as through a substantial
increase in traffic congestion or deterioration of air quality.
Projects that directly induce growth typically consist of development that generates considerable
employment or substantial new residential uses. A typical project that can indirectly induce
growth includes an infrastructure project that may reduce or remove obstacles to growth. The
indirect effects of population and/or economic growth and associated development can include
increased demands on public services and infrastructure, increased traffic, air pollution, and
noise, degradation of water quality, and conversion of agricultural and other open space land to
urban uses.

Local land use plans set forth development requirements and growth policies to guide
development patterns and ensure that future development is adequately supported by public
services. In general, the growth-inducing potential of a project is considered significant if it
encourages growth or a concentration of population in excess of that assumed in appropriate
master plans, land use plans, and/or projections made by regional planning agencies such as
the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Significant growth impacts could also
potentially occur if the project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate
growth beyond the levels anticipated and planned by local or regional plans and policies.

5-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 5.0 CEQA Considerations

5.1.1 SCVWD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan and Water

Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan
The District is an independent special district and the County’s primary water resources agency
and principal water wholesaler. The RWTP has a current capacity of 80 mgd and provides
water for retailers that supply residential and commercial users in the West Valley, including the
cities of Santa Clara, Campbell, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Mountain View, and Los Altos as well as
the towns of Los Gatos and Los Altos Hills. Water is supplied to the RWTP primarily from the
South Bay Aqueduct (SBA) and San Luis Reservoir.

The District prepares a 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which provides long-
term resource planning to ensure that adequate water supplies are available to meet existing
and future water demands based on local general plans and ABAG. The 2010 UWMP evaluates
water supply availability, water usage, recycled water, water use efficiency programs to develop
a policy for water shortage planning, and water supply reliability in Santa Clara County over a
25-year planning horizon.

As set forth in the UWMP, ABAG (2009) projects that the County’s population will increase from
about 1.8 million in 2010 to about 2.4 million by 2035. Jobs are projected to increase from about
0.9 million in 2010 to about 1.4 million in 2035. Even though per capita water use continues to
decline due to water conservation efforts, the District estimates that increases in population and
jobs will result in an increase in water demand from about 329,000 AF in 2010 to about 423,000
AF by 2035 (2010 UWMP).

The District’s 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan (WSIMP) identifies
infrastructure and operational strategies needed to provide a reliable long-term water supply
through 2035. This plan includes an analysis of future water supply availability and demand,
identifies programs and infrastructure to meet demands, sets forth associated costs/benefits,
and provides an implementation timeline.

Based on this analysis the WSIMP identifies the need for the RWTP to provide 100 mgd to
support baseline water supply assumptions to meet water demands through 2035. The
supporting analysis is further summarized below:

As set forth in the UWMP, ABAG (2009) projects that the county’s population will increase from
about 1.8 million in 2010 to about 2.4 million by 2035. Jobs are projected to increase from about
0.9 million in 2010 to about 1.4 million in 2035. Even though per capita water use continues to
decline due to water conservation efforts, the District estimates that increases in population and
jobs will result in an increase in water demand from about 329,000 AF in 2010 to about 423,000
AF by 2035 (2010 UWMP).

The District’s WSIMP identifies the expansion of the RWTP capacity to 100 mgd in its baseline
water supply assumptions to meet water demands through 2035. The supporting analysis is
summarized below:

 The projected average daily demand at the RWTP would be 54 mgd in 2015 and would
increase to 57.3 to 58.5 mgd in the subsequent 20 years to 2035.

5-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 5.0 CEQA Considerations

 Based on the contract requirements between the District and RWTP retailers, a peaking
water demand factor of 1.8 was established along with a projected highest average daily
demand of 58.5 mgd in the next 25 years. The peaking factor is used to evaluate the
capability of a water system or water treatment plant to meet peak water demand. The
peaking factor is calculated using maximum day demand divided by average daily demand.
Maximum day demand is the highest day demand for the selected time period. Average
daily demand is defined as the average daily demand in any one year period and is
calculated as total annual demand in mgd divided by 365 days. In order to meet this
demand, the capacity of the RWTP would need to be increased to approximately 100 mgd
to meet the contracted maximum day demand.

While the RWTP has currently has a design capacity of 80 mgd, it has routinely operated above
this capacity to meet maximum day demand. Under its current configuration, the RWTP could
not meet the projected maximum day demand ranging from 97 to 105 mgd in the next 25 years.
(“Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Future Water Demand and Capacity Needs Analysis,” Erin
Baker and Peter Zhou, April 18, 2011). A capacity of 100 mgd for the RWTP was selected in
order to meet the peaking factor, and also because there are no hydraulic restrictions in the
treated water system at this time. A peaking factor range of 1.5 to 3.0 was developed for the
plant in accordance with general engineering guidance (“Handbook of Public Water Systems,”
HDR Engineering, Inc., 2nd edition, John Wiley & Son, Inc.) as well as the 1.5 to 3.5 factor that
is referenced in the 2007 Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Improvement Program report
(“Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Improvement Program - Needs Assessment and
Conceptual Strategies Development Report,” Tim Nguyen, November, 2007). Additionally, the
District has a water supply contract with each water retailer that identifies a peaking factor of 1.8
as agreed upon by both parties for calculating and meeting the maximum day demand.

5.1.2 Potential Growth Related to the Project

The proposed project would not directly induce growth because it would not generate
considerable employment or new residential development. The proposed RWTP improvements
would create short-term construction jobs. The improved facility would require one additional
full-time employee at buildout. This negligible increase in permanent employment would not
foster economic or population growth in the area or the construction of additional housing in the
surrounding community.

Typically, the growth-inducing potential of a project would be significant if it would foreseeably

result in growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in local agency
general and area plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies such as ABAG.
Infrastructure projects that may potentially reduce or remove obstacles to growth can indirectly
induce growth, depending on factors described earlier. This growth inducement can occur
through the provision of service capacities above and beyond that needed to serve growth, or
by extending services into an area not already served. Significant growth impacts could occur if
the project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels
currently envisioned by local general plans or regional population forecasts.

Conclusion of No Growth Inducement

The proposed project would result an increase in capacity of the RWTP from 80 mgd to 100
mgd. This increase in capacity is intended to serve existing and planned future growth in
service demand. The proposed increase in capacity was identified in the WSIMP in its baseline
conditions to meet anticipated water demand. These improvements would not indirectly induce

5-3 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 5.0 CEQA Considerations

growth, but rather accommodate existing planned growth under existing regional projections
based on growth in the service areas and the projections developed by ABAG.1 It should also
be noted that the District does not have direct jurisdiction over land use plans, policies,
regulations, or development decisions. Additionally, the proposed project would not change the
service area or provide water to an area that is not currently served. Although the proposed
project would indirectly support growth by providing additional reliability and capacity, it is
intended to serve future projected water demand and would not support growth in excess of
regional population projections, since the District’s UWMP water demand projections were
based on ABAG’s population projections through 2035. The project, therefore, would not
provide service capacity beyond that required to serve planned and projected development and
growth as set forth in adopted general plans and regional population projections.

The District proposes improvements to the RWTP to improve the reliability of delivering high
quality water. Currently, the plant already operates above its rated capacity to meet maximum
daily demands. Should there be any operational and capacity issues with the treatment process
at this aging facility, the District might not be able to meet demands (existing and future). Also,
the District needs to increase capacity to meet the peaking factors as specified in its treated
water contracts and be consistent with general engineering guidance. The increase in capacity
is intended to accommodate existing demands (as the District could be hard-pressed to
simultaneously meet 100% of peak demands of all customers) and future demands (as
projected in the UWMP and based on land use plan and ABAG projections). Rather than
inducing growth, the project enables the District to more reliably meet current and future
demands. Without the project, the District system would be less reliable and have an increased
risk of water supply shortages during peak demand periods.

5.2 Cumulative Impacts

The purpose of the cumulative analysis is to identify and summarize the environmental effects
of the proposed project in conjunction with existing, approved, and anticipated development in
the project area. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires that an EIR evaluate the cumulative
effects of a proposed project when the project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively
considerable.” A “cumulatively considerable” effect means that the incremental effects of an
individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15065(a)(3)). A cumulative effect is defined as an impact that is created as a result of
the contribution of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related
impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). When the combined cumulative effect associated
with the project’s incremental effects and the effects of other projects is not significant, the EIR
shall briefly indicate why the cumulative effect is not significant.

An EIR need only evaluate the specific cumulative effects that would result from the project, per
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(1). CEQA further identifies that the discussion of cumulative
effects shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence. The discussion
need not provide the same level of detail as provided for the effects directly attributable to the
project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)). Per CEQA, the cumulative analysis should be
guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.

1
ABAG projections are based on assumptions regarding the Bay Area’s share of national economic growth,
demographic characteristics, distribution of growth, local policies, infrastructure investment, and historic economic
trends.

5-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 5.0 CEQA Considerations

The analysis of cumulative effects can rely on either of two approaches: the list or the plan
approach. The list approach may take into consideration such factors as the nature of
environmental resource being evaluated, the location of the cumulative projects, and the type of
projects (CEQA Guidelines 15130(b)(2)). This EIR relies on the list approach to evaluate
cumulative effects. This list was compiled in consultation with Town of Los Gatos, City of
Campbell, City of Monte Sereno, City of Saratoga, and District staff.2 This list is presented in
Table 5-1.

The geographic scope of the cumulative projects depends on the resource area affected and is
identified for each topical section below. In general, the geographic scope includes the areas
within and adjacent to the project site. However, for some resources, the geographic scope can
extend farther out. For example, the geographic scope for the air quality analysis is the regional
air basin.

The following factors were used to determine which projects should be considered for the
cumulative analysis for each impact area: 1) would the cumulative project affect resources also
affected by the project, 2) would the cumulative project be located within the geographic scope
identified, and 3) would the effects of the cumulative project likely coincide with the
timing/effects of the project.

Because the project proposes improvements to an existing water treatment plant on a mostly
developed site within an urban area, potential impacts of the project are primarily limited to
construction impacts and, for most impact areas, are geographically confined to the immediate
project vicinity. Potentially significant impacts were identified for the project in the following
areas: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazardous materials, noise, and
traffic. With the exception of operational noise, all of these impacts are associated with
construction of the project. Mitigation has been identified in the EIR to reduce these impacts to
a less-than-significant level, with the exception of construction noise impacts, which were found
to be unavoidable even with all feasible mitigation measures incorporated.

The cumulative analysis is generally confined to the immediate project vicinity because the
project impacts are limited to the surrounding neighborhood, unless otherwise identified within
each topical resource area presented below. None of the projects identified on Table 5-1 are
located in the immediate project vicinity, with the exception of three construction projects
currently underway at the RWTP. These three projects are 1) the operations building seismic
retrofit project, 2) the residuals management project, and 3) the fluoridation project, described
below.

The operations building seismic retrofit project consists of minor repair, alteration, replacement,
and reconstruction of building and structure interiors and exteriors to meet current seismic
safety requirements. The project includes a) constructing and connecting reinforced concrete
shear walls; b) reinforcing floor slabs at upper and intermediate levels; c) rehabilitating the
domestic plumbing system; d) reallocating office space; and e) recoating the top of the clear
wells. The majority of the proposed work is interior work. The District filed a Notice of
Exemption for the project in December 2013. Construction is ongoing and scheduled to be
completed in May 2016.

2
The planning mangers of the cities of Campbell and Monte Sereno did not identify any cumulative development in
the project area.

5-5 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 5.0 CEQA Considerations

Table 5-1
Cumulative Projects List
Project Name Project Address Project Status Description
City of Saratoga
Quito Bridge Rehabilitation Project Quito Road just north and south of the Construct 2016 - 2017 Replace 2 bridges on Quito Road near the Quito
Quito Road/Old Adobe Road Road/Old Adobe Road intersection
intersection
Town of Los Gatos
SCVWD: Seismic Retrofit of RWTP 400 More Avenue Under construction, Seismic retrofit of the RWTP operations building
Operations Building complete mid-2016
SCVWD: Residuals Management Project 400 More Avenue Under construction, Upgrade of the residuals management process at
complete end of 2015 the RWTP (e.g., solids treatment/handling)
SCVWD: Fluoridation at RWTP 400 More Avenue Construction planned Implementation of fluoridation at Rinconada and
concurrent with the two water treatment plants
project (six months
starting in 2019)
Albright Office Development 160 Albright Way and 14600 Under construction Construct 485,000 sf office
Winchester Boulevard.
South Bay Honda Housing Project 16213 Los Gatos Blvd Under construction Construct 24 detached homes

Swanson Ford Mixed Use Development 16005 Los Gatos Blvd Under construction Construct 14 detached homes, 11 townhomes,
95-seat high turnover restaurant, 3,366 sf bank,
8,041 sf specialty retail, 4,152 sf office, 1,500 sf
medical office, and 6,073 veterinary clinic
LGB/Gateway Medical Office Development 15400 Los Gatos Blvd Under construction Construct 40,000 sf medical office

Placer Oaks Housing 16980-16998 Placer Oaks Rd, Los Under construction Construct 10 detached homes
Gatos, CA 95032
Riviera Terrace Expansion 135 Riviera Dr Under construction Add 50 apartment units
Highlands of Los Gatos Subdivision 15700 Shady Lane Under construction 22-home subdivision
Bentley Silcon Valley 620 Blossom Hill Road Approved, not yet Add 7,740 sf to existing auto dealership
constructed
Adding 2 homes (3-home subdivision) 146 Gemini Ct Approved, not yet Add 2 homes
constructed
North 40 Specific Plan SE Quad Hwy 17 & Hwy 85 FEIR in process Construct 73 single families, 73-unit apartment,

5-6 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 5.0 CEQA Considerations

Table 5-1
Cumulative Projects List
Project Name Project Address Project Status Description
5-20 year buildout 218-unit condominium, 269 ksf shopping center,
150-room hotel, 62.5 ksf medical office, 62.5 ksf
general office

550 Hubbell Way 550 Hubbell Way Pending 4-condos subdivision on vacant lot
AHOZ Knowles Drive -- Town affordable housing opportunity site (replace
111,348 sf office with 256 units)
Medical office 375 Knowles Dive Pending 33 detached homes
Moore Buick GMC 15500 Los Gatos Blvd Pending, no application Redevelopment
Redevelopment assumption 16212 Los Gatos Blvd Pending, in process 11 homes on vacant auto dealership
16212 Los Gatos Blvd
CVS 15600 Los Gatos Blvd Pending, in process Demolish auto dealer and build commercial
buildings
Hillbrook School 300 Marchmont Drive Pending, in process Add 99 students
AHOZ OKA Lane -- Town affordable housing opportunity site (up to
74 units)
Twin Oaks Twin Oaks Drive Pending existing vacant lot 10-lot subdivision
8-home subdivision 258 Union Avenue Pending 8-home subdivision on vacant lot
Santa Clara County (unincorporated)
San Jose Water Co. - Montevina Water Along Hwy 17 near Lexington Reservoir Pending, construction Upgrades to water treatment plant
Treatment Plant Improvements Project planned for mid-2015
to late 2016

5-7 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 5.0 CEQA Considerations

The residuals management project consists of work to replace and upgrade the RWTP’s
residuals management facilities. The project includes a) constructing two new gravity
thickeners to replace the existing upper sludge drying beds; b) constructing a new dewatering
facility to replace the existing belt filter presses; c) upgrading and relining the washwater
recovery basins; d) constructing a connector road; and d) installing associated mechanical,
electrical, instrumentation and control systems. The District adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration in April 2013 before approving the project. The project is ongoing and is
scheduled to be completed at the end of 2015.

Fluoridation at the RWTP (and two other District water treatment plants) is planned as a
separate CEQA project for which a Notice of Exemption was filed in October 2013. The
fluoridation project has independent utility from the RWTP Reliability Improvement Project
because each project can be implemented without the other, and because each does not rely
on the other for its justification. The project consists of minor alterations to existing utilities to
comply with Health and Safety Code Sections 116410 and 116415. The project requires
construction of chemical feed equipment housed in structures. With respect to the RWTP, a
portion of the equipment will be installed in an existing building and the remaining portion will be
installed in a new canopy-covered containment area adjacent to the building. Minor construction
activities will involve excavating for foundations, trenching for piping, installing pipe and other
equipment, placing engineered fill, completing site grading and paving, and installing minor
auxiliary electrical and control systems. This project is scheduled to begin its six-month
construction period in 2019.

In addition to the ongoing projects at the RWTP, construction of the Quito Road Bridges
Rehabilitation would overlap with construction of the proposed RWTP project. The traffic and
noise analyses for the RWTP considered and addressed the traffic from the Quito Bridges
detour in combination with the proposed project during the construction period. These impacts
are described within the individual sections of the EIR since the detour would occur within the
same timeframe as the project and within the same roadway network. It is also included within
this cumulative analysis to provide full disclosure of the effects from detoured traffic along More
Avenue.

The project, when combined with foreseeable existing, approved, and anticipated development
in the project area, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact on the environment with
the exception of construction noise impacts. Mitigation is identified to minimize the construction
noise impacts to the extent feasible; however, construction noise would remain cumulatively
considerable and, therefore, result in a significant impact after all feasible mitigation measures
are implemented. The evaluation of the cumulative effects for each resource area is presented
below.

Aesthetics
The geographic scope for aesthetic impacts encompasses the project site and immediate
vicinity. The project would not significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings. None of the cumulative developments identified in Table 5-1 are
located in the immediate project vicinity or potentially affected viewshed, with the exception of
the three projects proposed onsite (residuals management, seismic retrofit, and fluoridation
projects). The seismic retrofit and fluoridation projects are both confined to the operations
building and will not substantially alter the visual character of the existing operations building.
The residuals management project consists of modifications to low-profile structures that are not
visible from outside the project boundaries. Therefore, the combined aesthetic effects from the

5-8 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 5.0 CEQA Considerations

proposed project and the onsite projects would not be cumulative considerable. In addition, the
combined aesthetic effects from the project and the other projects in Table 5-1 would be not be
cumulatively considerable since none of these other projects are located within the same
viewshed.

Agricultural and Forest Resources

The project site does not contain any agricultural or forest (timber) resources. Development of
the project, therefore, would not contribute to cumulative impacts affecting these resources.

Air Quality
The geographic scope for the cumulative air quality analysis is the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin. CEQA requires an evaluation to determine if the project would 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 (including releasing emissions
that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). The significance thresholds
applicable to operational aspects of the project represent the levels at which a project’s
individual emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the region’s air quality conditions as determined by BAAQMD. 3 The
project’s operational emissions are below the applicable BAAQMD significance thresholds, and,
therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts relative to operational emissions
would not be cumulatively considerable. As to construction emissions, the impact analysis
shows that the air pollutant emissions would be below the mass based and health based
significance thresholds recommended by BAAQMD (see Section 4.3 Air Quality). While the
analysis shows that emissions during the first year of construction in Phase 1 would exceed the
concentration based on the significance threshold for PM2.5,, mitigation is proposed to reduce
the impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative
impacts relative to construction emissions would not be cumulatively considerable.

Biological Resources
The project site hosts a number of special-status wildlife species and the project could result in
potentially significant impacts related to protection of these species that are protected under
state and federal law. Therefore, the geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts on
biological resources encompasses all of the projects that affect such special-status species in
Table 5-1.

The project could result in impacts to woodrats, western pond turtle, nesting birds, valley oak
woodland habitat, and trees. The other ongoing projects on the RWTP site were previously
evaluated under CEQA and are subject to specific mitigation requirements to reduce and/or
avoid impacts to biological resources, including sensitive species. Mitigation is identified in this
EIR to reduce all of the project’s impacts on biological resources to a less-than-significant level.
Although the majority of the cumulative projects listed in 5-1 consist of infill development on
developed sites, some may impact sensitive species and/or habitat. These projects would be
required to provide mitigation for potentially significant impacts, consistent with regulatory
agency requirements. The proposed project, when combined with cumulative development,
could contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts to special-status wildlife species. However,

3
Recommended by the BAAQMD in its May 2011 California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, which
included the significance thresholds adopted by the BAAQMD in June 2010.

5-9 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 5.0 CEQA Considerations

with the mitigation required for this and the other projects, the combined effects from both the
proposed and other projects would not be cumulatively significant, and the project’s contribution
would not be cumulatively considerable.

Cultural Resources
The geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts on cultural resources encompasses the
project site and vicinity. A significant cumulative impact on cultural resources could occur if the
proposed project and other projects in Table 5-1 were to adversely affect cultural resources
within the project vicinity. There is no indication of archaeological deposits, unique
archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or Native American human remains within
the project site or immediate vicinity. However, in the unlikely event that these resources are
encountered, the project’s contribution to this potential cumulative impact would not be
cumulatively considerable with implementation of mitigation identified in this EIR, which requires
recovery and appropriate management of buried cultural materials and appropriate
management of Native American human remains.

Geotechnical and Geological Hazards

The geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts related to geology, seismicity, and soils
encompasses the project site and immediate vicinity. Although many of the projects listed in
Table 5-1 could result in potential geotechnical and geologic hazards, geologic and soils
impacts are generally site-specific. The combined geologic effects from the proposed project
and the other cumulative projects would not be cumulatively significant.

Greenhouse Gases
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines approach for cumulative GHG impacts establishes an
individual project threshold to determine whether or not the project would result in cumulatively
considerable emissions. To address global climate change, BAAQMD has established
emissions of 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per year as the threshold
of significance for GHG emissions for stationary sources. If a project’s operational GHG
emissions exceed the operational threshold, the project is considered to result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution of GHG emissions and have a cumulatively significant impact on
global climate change. The GHG evaluation performed for the project found that the project
would not exceed the BAAQMD threshold for stationary sources; therefore, its contribution to
cumulative GHG emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable GHG impact (see
Section 4.7 Greenhouse Gases).

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The geographic scope for potential cumulative impacts associated with hazards and hazardous
materials generally consists of the project site and immediate vicinity. With respect to the use of
hazardous materials, effects are generally limited to site-specific conditions. The potential for
cumulative impacts associated with hazardous materials handling and storage, including
fluoride handling and storage for the fluoridation project, would be minimized by implementation
of federal, state, and local requirements regulating the use, storage, and transportation of
hazardous materials for all cumulative development. The project’s compliance with standard
regulatory requirements in addition to the specific demolition mitigation measures identified in
this EIR would ensure that the exposure of the public to environmental hazards is minimized.
The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable effect upon hazards or hazardous
materials release.

5-10 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 5.0 CEQA Considerations

Hydrology and Water Quality

The geographic scope for potential cumulative surface water hydrology and water quality
impacts encompasses the regional watershed. Cumulative development on undisturbed land
within the watershed would increase the amount of impervious surfaces, potentially increasing
runoff rates in the area. Theoretically, cumulative development and increases in localized runoff
could introduce urban pollutants into the drainage system and receiving water bodies, impacting
water quality. Development of the project as proposed would include storm drain facilities in
accordance with all local and state regulations, and would not result in significant impacts to
hydrology or flooding conditions. The project proposes a bioretention basin to allow infiltration of
runoff and remove pollutants from storm water before it enters the ground or surface water. The
implementation of onsite drainage systems and measures in accordance with applicable
requirements for the project would minimize offsite water quality impacts. The project’s
incremental contribution to hydrology and water quality impact would not be cumulatively
considerable.

Land Use and Planning

The geographic scope for potential cumulative land use impacts consists of the project site and
the District’s western service area. Development of the project proposes to improve the existing
RWTP to meet the project objectives to provide high quality, reliable water to its service
population. Since the project would not impact any land use and planning, the project’s
incremental effect on land use and planning would not be cumulatively considerable.

Noise
For noise, the geographic scope for cumulative impacts is limited to the immediate project
vicinity. None of the projects in Table 5-1 are located in the immediate project vicinity, with the
exception of the three projects on the RWTP site (residuals management, seismic retrofit, and
fluoridation projects). The residuals management project requires the District’s construction
contractors to include the use of noise attenuating devices to minimize the operational noise
from new facilities. For the seismic retrofit and fluoridation projects, once these projects are
completed, operational noise generated from the upgraded or new facilities are expected to be
similar to existing noise levels. Although the project would increase operational noise on the
site, noise control measures are identified to reduce the project’s operational noise to a less-
than-significant level; thus, the incremental effect from operational noise would not be
cumulatively considerable in light of the minimal operational noise from the three other onsite
projects.

The cumulative effect of multiple construction projects occurring at the RWTP would result in
slightly higher noise levels. The construction schedules for the residuals management, seismic
retrofit, and fluoridation projects overlap in time with the construction schedule for the project.
As described above, construction for the residuals management and seismic retrofit projects
has begun and is expected to be completed in late 2015 and mid-2016, respectively.
Construction for the fluoridation project at RWTP is expected to begin in 2019. The construction
noise from the project combined with the three other onsite projects represents a significant
cumulative impact.

As described in Section 4.11, Noise onsite construction/demolition activities and construction

traffic would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise. Given the construction
noise generated by the project would occur over an extended period of five or more years, this
noise is considered a significant impact. The project’s incremental contribution to significant

5-11 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 5.0 CEQA Considerations

construction noise impacts would be cumulatively considerable. Implementation of mitigation

identified in this EIR would reduce on-site construction noise levels on nearby residences by 5
to 15 dBA but the noise increase would still represent an unavoidable short-term impact.

Public Services
The geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts to police and fire services is within the
Town of Los Gatos. The RWTP has been operating on the site for over four decades and would
not require additional police or fire protection services or require new or physically altered
governmental facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for police or fire protection. Therefore, the project’s incremental
contribution to cumulative impacts on public services, if any, would not be cumulatively
considerable.

Traffic and Circulation

The geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts related to transportation is the roadway
network in the project vicinity (see Section 4.13 Traffic and Circulation). Operation of the project
after construction has been completed would increase permanent staffing on the project site by
one employee and increase truck deliveries by five deliveries per month. In addition, operation
of the residuals management, seismic retrofit, and fluoridation projects would generate minimal
new traffic trips on the existing roadway network. This negligible increase in traffic from the
project operation would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the local jurisdictions for roads or highways.
Cumulative traffic impacts would include potential traffic trips associated with other construction
activities at the RWTP; two of these projects, the residuals management and retrofit projects,
began prior to the start of the proposed project and would overlap for a short time. The
fluoridation project has not begun construction but will overlap with project construction for up to
six months. The amount of traffic trips associated with construction of these onsite projects,
however, is of a much smaller magnitude than the proposed project and these projects have a
relatively short construction period overlap with the project; the residuals management project
will be completed at the end of 2015, the retrofit project will be completed in mid-2016, and the
fluoridation project will begin its six-month construction period in 2019.
As discussed in Section 4.13, Traffic and Circulation, the analysis for the project’s impacts on
traffic already considered traffic from the Quito Bridges Replacement project, which would
detour traffic through the project area. The Quito Bridges Replacement project is expected to
overlap with only 20 percent of the construction duration of the project. The traffic analysis
concluded that the Quito Bridges project combined with the project would not result in significant
cumulative traffic impacts on intersection levels of service. Only three other offsite projects on
Table 5-1 would be expected to affect cumulative traffic volumes when combined with the
project construction traffic due to the project/traffic characteristics of the cumulative projects and
their locations. These projects are as follows:
 North 40 Specific Plan – large mixed use project at the southeast quadrant of SR 17 and
SR 85
 375 Knowles Drive – 33 detached homes
 Albright Way Office – 485,000 square feet of new office

5-12 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 5.0 CEQA Considerations

The North 40 Specific Plan is a long-range development proposal with a 5-20 year buildout
horizon; therefore, the trips generated by future development of the Specific Plan area would
not overlap with the RWTP construction project. The 375 Knowles Drive residential project is
small and would not substantially contribute to cumulative traffic volumes.
The Albright Way office development is currently under construction and would be occupied
during the time that RWTP construction is underway. Using the traffic volumes estimated in the
Transportation Impact Analysis for the Albright Way project and EIR (“Albright Way
Development Traffic Impact Analysis,” Hexagon Transportation Consultants, January 3, 2013.),
calculations were performed to determine if there would be a cumulative impact with added
traffic from the proposed RWTP project. This analysis was based on the cumulative conditions
scenario from the Albright Way EIR, which included existing traffic volumes, trips generated by
other nearby approved and pending projects (not including the North 40 Specific Plan since it
has a much longer time horizon), and trips generated by the Albright Way project. When trips
estimated to be generated by the proposed project were also added to that cumulative scenario,
all study intersections continued to operate at an acceptable level of service.
The project incorporates a traffic control and safety plan that is coordinated with the scheduled
peak truck delivery and haul traffic to minimize traffic impacts during construction. The
proposed project would implement traffic improvements along More Avenue to minimize
potential increased safety hazards from construction traffic from the project and all ongoing
construction projects at the RWTP site, which would minimize cumulative traffic safety impacts
during construction. The project’s incremental contribution to traffic impacts, therefore, would
not be cumulatively considerable.
Utilities and Service Systems
The geographic scope for cumulative impacts related to wastewater treatment is the service
area for the West Valley Sanitation District. For water supply, the geographic scope includes
the District’s western service area. For solid waste/landfill capacity, the geographic scope
includes the portions of the Bay Area served by the Guadalupe Landfill, where disposal of
construction-related and other waste could occur. The geographic scope for energy resources
consists of the PG&E service area.

The project’s contribution to utility impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. The project
would create an incremental increase in water demand, wastewater generation, solid waste
generation, and energy use. In general, the adequacy of public utility systems are evaluated
intermittently and infrastructure improvements implemented as necessary to meet anticipated
future demand. Sufficient utility services (water, wastewater, solid waste, electricity) are
available to accommodate development under the cumulative scenario. Any incremental
increase in demand for such services as part of the project would be insignificant when
combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.

The project, in combination with all of the projects listed in Table 5-1, would result in an increase
in the demand for electricity. However, the incremental increase in electrical demand associated
with the project represents an insignificant increase in electricity use; energy requirements for
the RWTP with the proposed improvements would be significantly below those for the typical
Northern California water treatment plant.4 Multiple factors contribute to the RWTP’s low energy
usage, particularly the low energy requirements for raw and treated-water pumping.

4
Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project Planning Study, CDM Smith, 2012.

5-13 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 5.0 CEQA Considerations

Based on the above analysis, the project would have a less than considerable contribution to
cumulative utilities or energy impacts.

5.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts

The proposed project would result in significant impacts in the following categories, as
described in this EIR: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazardous materials,
noise, and traffic. All project impacts can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of mitigation identified in this EIR with the exception of the following:

 Project and cumulative noise level increases during the approximately five to seven year
construction period.

5.4 Effects Found Not to be Significant

CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15128 states that an EIR shall contain a statement to briefly indicate the
reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be
significant and were, therefore, not discussed in detail. These are as follows:

Mineral Resources. No mineral resources are identified by the State of California Resources
Agency Department of Conservation at the project site. The project site is located in an urban
area, surrounded by residential development, and is unsuitable for mineral extraction.

School Services and Recreation. The project consists of improvements to an existing water
treatment plant and would not increase demands on or otherwise impact school or recreational
services.

5-14 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 6.0 Alternatives

6.0 Alternatives
6.1 Introduction
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6 requires the consideration of a range of reasonable
alternatives to the proposed project that could feasibly attain most of the objectives of the
proposed project. The Guidelines further require that the discussion focus on alternatives
capable of eliminating significant adverse impacts of the project or reducing them to a less-
than-significant level. The key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines regarding analysis of
alternatives are presented below:

 The alternatives analysis should focus on alternatives to the project including alternative
locations that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening the significant effects of
the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of
the project objectives or would be more costly.

 The No Project alternative shall be evaluated along with its impact. The No Project
analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is
published, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable
future if the project were not approved based on current plans.

 The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason” that

considers only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The
alternatives are limited to those that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects of the project. The CEQA Guidelines do not specify a precise
number of alternatives to be evaluated in an EIR.

 For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of
the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.

 An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably

ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.

The range of feasible alternatives analysis is intended to foster meaningful public

participation and informed decision making. Among the factors that may be taken into
account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are environmental impacts, site
suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency,
regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent could
reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site, per CEQA
Guidelines §15126.6(f)(I).

An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The
lead agency may make an initial determination of which alternatives are feasible and merit
in-depth consideration, and which are infeasible (see CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(3)).
Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet
project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid any significant environmental effects.

6-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 6.0 Alternatives

6.2 Summary of Project Objectives and Significant

Impacts
6.2.1 Project Objectives
The primary objectives of the project, as described in 3.0 Project Description of this Draft
EIR, are described below. In 2007, the District outlined five planning objectives for
improvement of the RWTP:

1. Maintain aging infrastructure to reduce the risk of system interruptions/failures.

2. Improve reliability to address plant redundancy, seismic risks, and business
continuity issues.
3. Contribute to energy self-sufficiency and minimize the carbon footprint.
4. Evaluate and implement cost-effective treatment technologies to meet current
drinking water regulations, taste and odor control, and forecasted new contaminants
to assure a robust plant design.
5. Improve operability of the plant.

The proposed RWTP improvement project was developed based on the above objectives
and includes the major improvements necessary for providing reliable capacity and better
water quality, as set forth below.

 Provide a water process train that a) enables the plant to produce treated water that is
aesthetically pleasing and complies with current and reasonably anticipated regulations,
b) is adaptable for addressing emerging contaminants under a wide range of source
water quality scenarios, and c) is cost-effective, environmentally sustainable, and
operator-friendly;
 Improve overall plant reliability by addressing seismic vulnerability and increasing the
plant's peaking factor;
 Implement in a single stage to minimize overall costs, reduce impacts to the RWTP’s
neighborhood, and maintain plant operations during construction; and
 Minimize stranded costs (i.e., costs associated with temporary facilities).

6.2.2 Significant Impacts

The proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts in the following
categories, as described in this EIR: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,
hazardous materials, noise, and traffic. All project impacts can be reduced to a less-than-
significant level with implementation of mitigation identified in this Draft EIR with the
following exception:

 Significant unavoidable project and cumulative noise impacts during project

construction

Although mitigation is included in this EIR to reduce the construction noise impacts to the
extent feasible, due to the intensity and duration of construction activities, the impact would
remain significant with mitigation measures and thus is considered unavoidable.

6-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 6.0 Alternatives

6.3 Alternatives Analysis

6.3.1 Engineering Alternatives Considered
In order to develop the best alternative for improving the RWTP, the Rinconada Water
Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project Planning Study Report considered six
alternative water treatment trains for upgrading the plant (CDM Smith, May 2012).1 These
six alternatives were evaluated to determine which treatment train would best meet the
District’s objectives. These alternatives were developed based on a list of criteria, which the
District used to evaluate and score each of the project alternatives (described further
below). The six alternative treatment trains evaluated in the Planning Study are listed and
summarized below.

Alternative 1: Conventional treatment with pre-ozonation (selected and analyzed as the

proposed project in this EIR)
Alternative 2: Conventional treatment with pre and intermediate ozonation
Alternative 3: Actiflo2 clarification process with ozonation
Alternative 4: Conventional treatment with pre-ozonation and UV disinfection
Alternative 5: Upflow clarification with intermediate ozone
Alternative 6: Upflow clarification with pre-ozonation

Alternative 1 consists of raw water ozonation for both oxidation and disinfection. Due to
fluctuations in the pH of the raw water source, carbon dioxide (CO 2) is added to stabilize
the pH entering the ozone contactor. Chlorine and ammonia are also added, when needed,
upstream of the ozone contactor to enhance bromate control. This alternative includes
decommissioning the existing upflow clarifiers and replacing them with conventional
flocculation/sedimentation basins equipped with plate settlers. Other facilities include the
ozone generation and calcium thiosulfate building, a carbon dioxide facility, a liquid oxygen
(LOX) facility, a filter-to-waste facility (for storage volume and return pumping equipment),
and a washwater clarification facility. This is the project that is under design and analyzed
as the proposed project in this EIR. A conceptual layout of this alternative is presented in
Figure 6-1.

Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 in that it would utilize ozone for oxidation and
disinfection. However, the ozone application is split between two locations: a relatively low
dose of ozone is applied to the raw water for preoxidation only, while ozone disinfection is
achieved with a conventional ozone contactor applied at the settled water. Chlorine and
ammonia are added to the raw water to control bromate formation, if necessary, but no
carbon dioxide is required. This alternative includes decommissioning the existing upflow
clarifiers and replacing them with conventional flocculation/sedimentation basins equipped
with plate settlers. Other facilities added include the ozone generation and calcium
thiosulfate building, a LOX facility, a filter-to-waste facility, and a washwater clarification
facility. A conceptual layout of this alternative is presented in Figure 6-2.

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 1 in that it would utilize raw water ozonation for both
oxidation and disinfection. Also similar to Alternative 1, carbon dioxide is added to the raw
water for pH stabilization, along with chlorine and ammonia for bromate control, when
1
Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project Planning Study Report, Technical
Memorandums No. 2 and No. 3, 2012.
2
Actiflo® is micro-sand ballasted flocculating clarification process that can be used for water treatment.

6-3 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 6.0 Alternatives

needed. However, this alternative utilizes the Actiflo® ballasted clarification process instead
of the conventional flocculation/sedimentation basins with plate settlers process. A key
driver to the use of Actiflo® for clarification is its high loading rate, which allows for a
smaller footprint compared to flocculation/sedimentation basins with plate settlers or upflow
clarifiers. However, this footprint advantage was not considered a significant differentiator
for this alternative since the site could accommodate the flocculation/sedimentation basins
with plate settlers or upflow clarifiers. A conceptual layout of this alternative is presented in
Figure 6-3.

Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 2 in that it would use raw water ozone for oxidation
only. However, UV is used to meet the Giardia disinfection requirements instead of ozone.
Similar to Alternative 2, chlorine and ammonia can be added upstream of the raw water
ozone addition point to help control bromate formation under elevated bromide conditions.
This alternative also includes decommissioning the existing upflow clarifiers and replacing
them with conventional flocculation/sedimentation basins equipped with plate settlers.
Other facilities include the ozone generation and calcium thiosulfate building, a LOX facility,
a filter-to-waste facility, and a washwater clarification facility. A conceptual layout of this
alternative is presented in Figure 6-4.

Alternative 5 differs from the previous four alternatives in that it would use the existing
upflow clarifiers instead of replacing them with different clarification technologies. Ozone is
applied to the settled water to meet the oxidation and disinfection needs of the plant. This is
a similar ozone application to that used at the District’s other two surface water treatment
plants. The existing four upflow clarifiers would be refurbished and their mechanical
components replaced. An additional fifth clarifier would be added to increase the plant’s
capacity to 100 mgd. The settled water would be conveyed to a new intermediate ozone
contactor to be located on the north side of the plant. The ozonated water would then be
conveyed to the filters. Filtered water would be dosed with chlorine before it enters the
clearwell, and ammonia added to the clearwell effluent to form chloramine. Other facilities
include the ozone generation and calcium thiosulfate building, a LOX facility, a filter-to
waste facility, and a washwater clarification facility. A conceptual layout of this alternative
is presented in Figure 6-5.

Alternative 6 would use the existing upflow clarifiers instead of replacing them with a
different clarification technology, similar to Alternative 5. However, unlike Alternative 5, this
alternative utilizes raw water ozonation instead of settled water ozonation. This treatment
process is included and evaluated in this analysis as the Reduced Project, described in
Section 6.5 below. A conceptual layout of this alternative is presented in Figure 6-6.

Alternatives Evaluation

The alternatives analysis in the 2012 Project Planning Study Report concluded that all six
alternative treatment trains would be capable of producing high quality water, although they
varied in their efficiency and ease of optimization. The analysis also concluded that all six
alternatives would fit within the existing RWTP site with minimal visual impacts to the
neighborhood. Differences among the alternatives were primarily related to engineering
concerns including efficiency, reliability, operational issues, maintenance, waste streams,
and construction duration.

6-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 N
0 50 100

1“=100’
Potential Construction Staging
Potential Construction Staging
Filtration Improvements
Filtration Improvements
CO2 Advanced Disinfection Improvements
Advanced Disinfection Improvements
CO2
Flow Control Valve
and Meter
Other Improvements
Other Improvements

Raw Water
Ozone
Flocculation &
Contactor
Plate Settlers Filter-to-
Waste
Facility Washwater

Facility

Flash Mix
Sludge
Gravity
Thickener
Feed
Filter Filter PS
No. 13 No. 14 Sludge
LOX Gravity
Facility Thickener
Abandon

Split Filters
No. 1 to No. 12
Solids
Dewatering
Building

Ozone Bldg.
and Calcium Abandon
Thiosulfate

Source: CDM Smith, 2011

Alternative 1 Site Plan Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
6-1
Final EIR
 N
0 50 100
Ozone Flash
Mix Reactor
1“=100’
Flow Control Valve Potential Construction Staging
Raw Water Ozone and Meter
Pipeline Contactor Potential Construction Staging
Filtration Improvements
Filtration Improvements
Advanced Disinfection Improvements
Advanced Disinfection Improvements

Other Improvements
Other Improvements

Flocculation &
Settled
Water Ozone Plate Settlers Filter-to-
Contactor Waste
Facility Washwater

Flash Mix Facility

Sludge
Gravity
Thickener
Feed
Filter Filter Ozone Destruct PS
No. 13 No. 14 Building
Sludge
LOX Gravity
Facility Thickener
Abandon

Split Filters
No. 1 to No. 12
Solids
Dewatering
Building

Ozone Bldg.
and Calcium Abandon
Thiosulfate

Source: CDM Smith, 2011

Alternative 2 Site Plan Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
6-2
Final EIR
 N
0 50 100

1“=100’
Potential Construction Staging
Potential Construction Staging
Filtration Improvements
Filtration Improvements
Polymer and Advanced Disinfection Improvements
Sand Facility
Advanced Disinfection Improvements
Flow Control Valve

CO2
CO2
and Meter
ACTIFLO® Other Improvements
Other Improvements
Raw Water
Ozone
Contactor
Pumps and Sand
Recycle Piping ACTIFLO®
Filter-to-
Waste Sludge
Facility Gravity Washwater
Thickener
Flash Mix Facility

Sludge
Filter Filter Gravity
No. 13 No. 14 Thickener
Feed
PS
Sludge
LOX Gravity
Facility Thickener
Abandon

Split Filters
No. 1 to No. 12
Solids
Dewatering
Building

Ozone Bldg.
and Calcium Abandon
Thiosulfate

Source: CDM Smith, 2011

Alternative 3 Site Plan Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
6-3
Final EIR
 N
0 50 100
Ozone Flash
Mix Reactor
1“=100’
Flow Control Valve Potential Construction Staging
Raw Water Ozone and Meter
Pipeline Contactor Potential Construction Staging
Filtration Improvements
Filtration Improvements
Advanced Disinfection Improvements
Advanced Disinfection Improvements

Other Improvements
Other Improvements

Flocculation &
Plate Settlers Filter-to-
Waste
Facility Washwater

Flash Mix Facility

Sludge
Gravity
Thickener
Feed
Filter Filter Ozone Destruct PS
No. 13 No. 14 Building
Sludge
LOX Gravity
Facility Thickener
Abandon

Split Filters
No. 1 to No. 12
Solids
Dewatering
Building

Ozone Bldg.
and Calcium
Thiosulfate UV
Facility

Source: CDM Smith, 2011

Alternative 4 Site Plan Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
6-4
Final EIR
 N
0 50 100

1“=100’
Potential Construction Staging
Potential Construction Staging
Filtration Improvements
Filtration Improvements
Advanced Disinfection Improvements
Advanced Disinfection Improvements
LOX Facility

Other Improvements
Other Improvements
Settled Ozone Building &
Water Ozone Calcium Thiosulfate
Contactor

Filter-to-
Waste
Facility Washwater

Facility
No. 6
Filter Filter Sludge
No. 13 No. 14 Gravity
Thickener
Feed
PS
Sludge
Gravity
Replace Replace Thickener

Mechanism Mechanism

Split Filters
No. 1 to No. 12
Solids
Dewatering
Building

Replace Replace

Mechanism Mechanism

Additional Access
Roadway

Source: CDM Smith, 2011

Alternative 5 Site Plan Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
6-5
Final EIR
 N
0 50 100

1“=100’
Potential Construction Staging
Potential Construction Staging
Flow Control Valve
and Meter
Filtration Improvements
Filtration Improvements
Advanced Disinfection Improvements
Advanced Disinfection Improvements
LOX Facility
Raw Water
Ozone
Other Improvements
Other Improvements
CO2
CO2

Ozone Building & Contactor

Calcium Thiosulfate

Filter-to-
Waste
Facility Washwater

Facility
No. 6
Filter Filter Sludge
No. 13 No. 14 Gravity
Thickener
Feed
PS
Sludge
Gravity
Replace Replace Thickener

Mechanism Mechanism

Split Filters
No. 1 to No. 12
Solids
Dewatering
Building

Replace Replace

Mechanism Mechanism

Additional Access
Roadway

Source: CDM Smith, 2011

Alternative 6 Site Plan/ Reduced Project Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
6-6
Final EIR
 Table 10 – Summary of Comparison of Alternatives
(Shading denotes sub-criteria with significant variations amongst alternatives)

Criteria Subcriteria Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6

T&O
TasteRemoval
and odor Removal 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Water Quality
Ability to meet DBPs 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

goals
Barrier
Barrier against
againsttrace
trace
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

cont.
contaminantsPPCPs,
(metals,
EDCs, CECs)
Ability to
Ability to handle
handleWQ water 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

quality variations
variations (Br, TOC, pH,
temp, turb, algae)
Filter optimization
Filter optimization 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Operationaland
Operational andcontrol
control 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

complexity
complexity
Operability

Response to
Response to rapid
rapidflow
flow 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

change
changes
Mech.
Mech. reliability
reliability
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Impact of power outage 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Waste streams 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

requirements
Shutdownsduring
Shutdowns during 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
tion Impact

construction
Construc-

construction

Capacity
Capacity Reduction
Reduction 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Life-cycle Cost 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Financial Impact

Staging
Staging potential
potential 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Need
Need for
for pilot
pilottesting
testing 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Stranded investment
Stranded investment 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

potential
potential
Energy usage 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Environmental
Sustainability

Total concrete used 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Waste stream
Waste streamquantity
quantity 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Chemical usage 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Constructionduration
Construction duration 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Impact
Social

Aesthetics
Aesthetics 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

DPB = disinfection byproduct Source: CDM Smith, 2011

Engineering Alternatives Comparison Figure

January 2015
RWTP Reliability Improvement Project
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
6-7
34
Final EIR
 6.0 Alternatives

Weighting factors were developed for the evaluation of each alternative. These factors
consisted of 1) drinking water quality, 2) operability, 3) construction impact, 4) financial
impact, 5) environmental sustainability, and 6) social impact (on the surrounding
neighborhood, i.e., construction duration and visual effects). A comparison of the six project
alternatives based on the primary selection criteria is presented in Figure 6-7. In addition,
the principal advantages and disadvantages of each of the Alternatives are presented in
Table 6-1 below.

Table 6-1
Principal Advantages and Disadvantages of the Alternative Treatment Trains
Rank Advantages Disadvantages
Alternative 1
 Proven effective with a similarly  Higher ozone doses and pH adjustment
difficult water source (at the Alameda increase chemical and energy costs
County Water District)  Raw water ozone contact basin
 Best T&O removal requires more cleaning than
 Improved filterability intermediate ozone contact basin
 Enhanced coagulation and
1
flocculation due to pH adjustment
 Better potential for control of NDMA
 Less ozone equipment to maintain
compared to alternative 2
 Easier chloramine dosing in raw water
vs. settled water for bromate control
Alternative 2
 Increased ozone flexibility with two  Unknown effect on filterability
ozone application points  Less control in pre-ozonation dosing
 Better disinfection (pre-ozonation  No full-scale precedent with pre- and
provides additional, uncredited dose) intermediate ozonation
 Easier bromate control with settled  Lack of raw water pH control may
water ozonation affect coagulation
 Easier cleaning of settled water ozone  Higher operational complexity
contact basin  More difficult to remove sediment build-
up in raw water ozone pipeline (vs.
contact basin)
2
 No District experience with pipeline
contactor
 District experience with settled water
ozonation filter impacts
 Short raw water ozone contact time
may not provide sufficient T&O
removal
 Challenging to control ozone dosing
and quenching in pipeline (vs. contact
basin)

6-12 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 6.0 Alternatives

Table 6-1
Principal Advantages and Disadvantages of the Alternative Treatment Trains
Rank Advantages Disadvantages
Alternative 3
 Highest capacity to deal with water  No District experience with Actiflo
quality variations clarification
 Highly efficient in removal of T&O and  Uncertainties with filter optimization
trace contaminants  Increased complexity of operation and
 Small footprint control due to new, highly mechanical
Actiflo process
 Produces largest volume of waste
4
streams
 Need for piloting, especially given lack
of facilities using Actiflo after pre-
ozonation on Delta water
 No options for storing off-spec water
while optimizing Actiflo process
 Higher energy usage
Alternative 4
 Low potential for DBP formation  Short raw water ozone contact time
 Low volume of waste streams may not provide sufficient T&O
 Lower energy requirements removal
 Lower concrete usage  Challenging to control ozone dosing
and quenching in pipeline (vs. contact
basin)
 No District experience with UV
 Lowest capacity for removal of T&O
3 and trace contaminants
 Increased complexity of operation and
control due to new UV process
 Additional maintenance requirements
by adding UV process
 Less time to respond to UV failure
given its position at the end of the
treatment train

6-13 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 6.0 Alternatives

Table 6-1
Principal Advantages and Disadvantages of the Alternative Treatment Trains
Rank Advantages Disadvantages
Alternative 5
 Extensive District experience with  District experience with upflow
clarification and ozonation processes clarification and settled water
 Low potential for DBP formation ozonation
 Low chemical usage  Lower capacity for removal of T&O and
 Low visual impact trace contaminants
 Lowest capacity to handle water quality
variations
6  Increased complexity of operation and
control due to upflow clarification
 Lowest mechanical reliability
 Highest construction impact (frequent
shutdowns and long capacity
reductions)
 Highest concrete use
 Longest construction duration
Alternative 6
 Extensive District experience with  District experience with upflow
clarification process clarification
 Highly efficient in removal of T&O and  Lowest capacity to handle water quality
trace contaminants variations
 Low chemical usage  Increased complexity of operation and
 Low visual impact control due to upflow clarification
 Lowest mechanical reliability
5
 Highest construction impact (frequent
shutdowns and long capacity
reductions)
 Highest concrete usage
 Longest construction duration
Source: CDM Smith, 2011

Among the criteria used to evaluate the six alternatives was the impact on the
neighborhood (social impact related to construction duration and aesthetics) and
environmental sustainability. Alternatives 5 and 6 would require the longest construction
duration because of the need to balance plant operation while taking clarifiers off-line for
rehabilitation work. Alternatives 5 and 6 would have the least aesthetic impact on the
neighborhood after construction because the clarifiers and the added facilities would be the
least visible from the outside of the plant compared to all other alternatives.

6-14 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 6.0 Alternatives

None of the alternatives was clearly superior in terms of environmental sustainability. (In
general, alternatives that consume the most energy, concrete and chemicals and that
produce the highest quantity of waste streams were considered less environmentally
sustainable.) While some alternatives consumed less energy (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3), for
example, they also used the most concrete. Overall, Alternative 3 (ACTIFLO) was
considered the least favorable from a sustainability perspective since it has the highest
energy consumption, average concrete use, and largest quantity of waste streams.

Based on the results of weighted scoring, Alternatives 1 and 2 were ranked the highest and
ultimately Alternative 1 (the proposed project) was identified as the preferred alternative.
The primary reasons for selecting Alternative 1 were 1) its ability to produce the highest
quality water, 2) superior operability, and 3) its proven effectiveness in treating South Bay
Aqueduct water (RWTP’s most difficult water source to treat).3 The Planning Study
concluded that Alternative 1, the proposed project, offered the best treatment in terms of
water quality and operation with the fewest number of unknowns. In addition, the proven,
successful use of this treatment train at the Alameda County Water District (to treat South
Bay Aqueduct water) provided strong reassurance that this treatment process would be the
most effective option for the RWTP. The reasons for elimination/rejection of the five other
alternatives are presented below.

Alternative 2: Alternative 2 was ranked second after Alternative 1 and has many
advantages. However, it was rejected in favor of Alternative 1 primarily because it is a less
proven process, filterability concerns, and lack of experience with pipeline contactors.

Alternative 3: This alternative was rejected primarily because the effort and cost of
implementing Actiflo would exceed its benefits. Disadvantages included its potentially
higher risk for clarification failure, a variety of unknowns surrounding the optimization
process, and concerns regarding its ability to treat source water at the RWTP (which is a
blend of sources).

Alternative 4: This alternative presented operational challenges associated with pre-

ozonation, had the lowest capacity for taste/odor and trace contaminant removal, and
utilized a UV process that the District was not experienced in using. For these reasons and
other operational challenges, this alternative was rejected.

Alternatives 5 and 6: The primary disadvantages of these two options were 1) their
decreased operability (e.g., higher operational/control complexity) and 2) difficulties in
construction staging that would require long shutdown periods and diminished plant
capacity. One of the primary reasons for considering these alternatives was the expectation
that refurbishing the existing upflow clarifiers would offer cost savings compared to re-
construction. It was determined that these cost savings would not materialize due to the
high cost of upgrading the existing structures to meet current seismic requirements. Thus,
these alternatives were eliminated because they offered no financial benefits and were the
lowest rated options in the evaluation process. However, this EIR includes Alternative 6 in
its alternative analysis for reasons discussed below in Section 6.3.3.

3
South Bay Aqueduct water travels through open portions of the aqueduct where it can pick up
contaminants that make the water more difficult to treat.

6-15 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 6.0 Alternatives

6.3.2 Location Alternative

CEQA Section 15126.6(f)(2) identifies the criteria for evaluating alternative locations.
Because the basic objective of the project is to upgrade the existing water treatment plant,
any alternative involving a different location would not meet the project objective. The only
possible location alternative would be to develop a new treatment plant offsite. This is not
a feasible option, as the District would not be able to accomplish this alternative within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and
technological factors as described further below.

Developing a new water treatment plant at a different location would require finding an
available property that is sufficiently large and sited to meet the hydraulic requirements
necessary to serve the water retail customers. Development on an offsite location would
require 1) land acquisition, 2) construction of the necessary new infrastructure, new
buildings for operations and maintenance, new parking areas, new raw water and treated
water pipelines, and new treated water storage, 3) obtaining all the necessary
environmental and other permits for the use at a new location, and 4) an extended
schedule to develop a new plant offsite. The environmental impacts and economic cost
related to an alternative location would be far greater than renovating the plant on its
current site. For these reasons, the EIR does not examine an alternative location for the
proposed project.

6.3.3 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis

The following section discusses the alternatives evaluated in this Draft EIR and the
comparative environmental effects of each. The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to
explore options that can potentially avoid or substantially reduce the significant impacts of
the project. The project was found to have significant impacts in the following areas: air
quality, cultural resources, biological resources, hazardous materials, hydrology, noise, and
traffic. All project impacts identified can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of mitigation identified in this EIR except for the significant unavoidable
noise impacts during construction. All feasible noise reducing measures that are currently
available have been presented as mitigation in the EIR in Section 4.11 Noise.

Given the nature of the project, which consists of upgrades to an operating, aging water
treatment facility to improve drinking water quality and assure reliable service, few
alternatives are available that meet the project’s most basic objectives that have not
already been explored. As described above, development of a location alternative is not
feasible. Shortening the construction timeframe (to reduce the duration of construction
impacts) is also not a feasible option because there is not enough room on the project site
to build all facilities concurrently while continuing to provide water supply to customers.

Several feasible alternative treatment processes were evaluated for the Planning Study, as
described in Section 6.3.1 above. All of these alternatives except Alternative 3 have a
similar footprint to the proposed project. Alternative 3 (Actiflo) has a somewhat smaller
footprint, but was rejected due a variety of drawbacks as described in Section 6.3.1. In
addition, it would result in the highest energy consumption, average concrete use, and
largest quantity of waste streams of all the alternatives. The District also considers other
possible alternatives that may avoid or reduce significant impacts of the proposed project,
mainly construction impacts. These construction impacts from the proposed project include

6-16 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 6.0 Alternatives

traffic hazards from additional truck traffic, noise, and increases in dust and diesel exhaust.
An alternative with a reduced scope compared to the proposed project could possibly avoid
or reduce some of the project’s significant impacts. For the purposes of this analysis,
Alternative 6 from the Planning Study was chosen to represent the “Reduced Project”
alternative as described in more detail below, because it maintains some existing structures
and requires less demolition.

Based on the discussion above, the following analysis considers two alternatives: 1) No
Project and 2) Reduced Project (Alternative 6 of the Planning Study).

6.4 No Project
6.4.1 Description
CEQA requires the discussion of the No Project Alternative “to allow decision makers to
compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving
the proposed project.” For the purposes of this analysis the No Project Alternative
represents the “no build” scenario in which the site is left in its current condition (per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)) and the existing treatment plant continues to operate in
its current configuration and capacity.

6.4.2 Impacts
The No Project Alternative would avoid the adverse and beneficial effects of the proposed
project. The No Project Alternative would avoid the significant or potentially significant
environmental impacts of the project, which include impacts on air quality, biological
resources, cultural resources, hazardous materials, hydrology (water quality), noise, and
traffic. As described in previous chapters, all of the above impacts, with the exception of the
construction noise impact, can be reduced to a less-than-significant level under the project
scenario with measures identified in this EIR.

6.4.3 Summary
The No Project Alternative would avoid all of the environmental impacts of the proposed
project as described above, including the significant unavoidable noise impacts during
construction. However, the No Project Alternative would fail to meet the project objectives
to provide upgrades to an aging water treatment facility intended to improve drinking water
quality and ensure reliable service for existing and future demand. The treatment plant
would also remain vulnerable to probable seismic events disrupting service and be at risk
of not meeting regulatory requirements. This is not a feasible alternative.

6.5 Reduced Project

6.5.1 Description
As described above, for the purposes of CEQA, this analysis evaluates Alternative 6 from
the Planning Study as the Reduced Project Alternative, since it maintains and refurbishes
the four existing upflow clarifiers on the site and reduces demolition activities. By requiring
less demolition, the Reduced Project could possibly reduce noise and air pollutant
emissions associated with demolition and possibly decrease truck trips required to remove

6-17 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 6.0 Alternatives

construction debris. Alternative 6 was chosen over Alternative 5 (which also maintains the
existing upflow clarifiers) because Alternative 6 uses raw water ozonation rather than
settled ozonation, which is the preferred treatment by the District.

The Reduced Project Alternative would use raw water ozonation. Carbon dioxide would be
added to the raw water to stabilize the pH. Chlorine and ammonia would also be utilized.
The existing four upflow clarifiers would be refurbished and their mechanical components
would be replaced. An additional fifth clarifier would be added to increase the plant’s
capacity to 100 mgd. The raw water would enter a new ozone contactor located on the
north side of the plant. The ozonated water would then be conveyed to the five upflow
clarifiers followed by filtration. Filtered water would be dosed with chlorine before it enters
the clearwell. Ammonia would be added to the clearwell effluent to form chloramine. Other
facilities added under this alternative include the ozone generation and calcium thiosulfate
building, a carbon dioxide facility, a LOX facility, a filter-to-waste facility, and a washwater
clarification facility.

6.5.2 Impacts
The Reduced Project Alternative would have a similar footprint to the proposed project,
although it would reduce ground disturbance activities compared to the project by avoiding
demolition of the existing clarifiers. Refurbishing of the existing clarifiers would substantially
reduce the amount of demolition activity compared to the proposed project. However, this
would extend the duration of construction activities in order to balance plant operation while
taking clarifiers off-line for rehabilitation work. A comparison of the impacts of this
alternative compared to the project is presented below. Mitigation comparable to that
identified for the project would likely be required for each of the areas of potential impacts.

Aesthetics: The Reduced Alternative would slightly reduce the aesthetic impacts of the
project by maintaining the existing clarifiers and thus avoiding some demolition activities;
however, this alternative would introduce a new ozone contactor building and related
facilities similar to the project.

Air Quality: The Reduced Alternative would reduce the magnitude of construction and
related emission of generate dust and exhaust during construction activities by avoiding
demolition of the four existing clarifiers.

Biological Resources: Depending on the final layout, the Reduced Alternative could avoid
tree removal in some locations. Potential disturbance to special-status wildlife species and
mixed oak woodland habitat during construction activities would likely be similar to the
proposed project, since staging and other construction activities would likely impact special-
status species (nesting birds, woodrats) if present.

Cultural Resources: Because this alternative and the proposed project have a similar
development footprint, possible disturbance of unknown buried cultural resources could
occur under any either scenario. As a result, this alternative would result in potential
environmental effects comparable to the project.

Geology: Because this alternative and the proposed project have a similar development
footprint, both would be subject to the same geotechnical hazards.

6-18 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 6.0 Alternatives

Hazardous Materials: If the clarifiers contain asbestos or lead paint, avoiding demolition of
these structures would reduce the hazardous materials impacts of the project associated
with potential release of these materials during demolition activities.

Hydrology/Water Quality: Because this alternative and the proposed project have a similar
development footprint, short-term water quality impacts from possible release of non-point
pollution would occur under either scenario.

Noise: The Reduced Alternative would reduce the magnitude of construction by avoiding
demolition of the four existing clarifiers, which could reduce the significant noise level
increases. It is unlikely that this alternative would reduce the temporary construction noise
impacts to a less-than-significant level due to the close proximity of residences. This
alternative could also result in permanent operational noise level increases.

Traffic: The Reduced Alternative could slightly decrease truck and construction worker
traffic during construction by requiring less demolition (and associated debris removal).

6.5.3 Summary
The Reduced Project Alternative could potentially reduce some of the environmental
impacts of the proposed project associated with reducing the number of structures that
require demolition and related noise and air pollution emissions. This alternative could also
reduce traffic during construction by requiring less debris removal. The Reduced Project
Alternative would meet the project objectives to provide reliable water supply. However,
this alternative was evaluated extensively in the 2012 Planning Study and ranked fifth of
the six alternatives evaluated. This alternative would have the following major
disadvantages:

 Frequent shutdowns (during construction) and long capacity reductions4

 Diminished plant capacity during construction staging
 Lowest capacity to handle water quality variations
 Increased complexity of operation and control due to upflow clarification
 Lowest mechanical reliability
 Highest concrete usage
 Longest construction duration

In addition, seismically retrofitting the existing clarifier structures was considered to be less
effective than entirely new construction. Although this alternative could slightly reduce
environmental impacts associated with reduced demolition, it would still result in significant
and unavoidable noise impacts during construction.

4
Long plant capacity reductions would occur during development of this alternative since the plant
would have extended periods when it would operate with only 2 - 3 of the 4 clarifiers during
retrofitting.

6-19 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 6.0 Alternatives

6.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative

CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project be
specified, if one is identified. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is one
which minimizes adverse environmental impacts while achieving the basic objectives of the
project. The No Project Alternative would be considered environmentally superior because
all of the adverse impacts associated with the project would be avoided (construction and
operational). However, CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(2) states that if the environmentally
superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, “the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.”

Given the nature of the project, which consists of upgrades to an aging water treatment
facility to improve drinking water quality and reliability, few alternatives are available that
would meet the project’s most basic objectives. An alternative location is not feasible. The
Planning Study evaluated six options for upgrading the RWTP. The Reduced Project
Alternative would reduce the proposed project’s impacts related to demolition noise and
dust by maintaining the existing clarifiers. Although it would meet many of the project
objectives, it has higher operational complexities and would require long shutdown periods
and diminished plant capacity during construction staging than the project.

In light of the constrained project location within a residential neighborhood, alternatives for
reducing the unavoidable construction noise impacts of the project to a less-than-significant
level are not available. The proposed improvements to the RWTP are critical to providing
quality drinking water with reliable service. For the reasons presented above, there does
not appear to be an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project. Extensive
study of possible alternative designs identified the project as the best option for meeting the
District’s objectives for upgrading the RWTP.

6-20 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 7.0 MMRP

7.0 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program

7.1 Introduction
Section 21081.6 of the CEQA Guideline requires that the Lead Agency adopt a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) whenever it approves a project for which measures
have been required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of
the MMRP is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the CEQA
document during project implementation.

The following MMRP presents the mitigation measures identified during the environmental
analysis for significant impacts and prescribes the responsibility, timing, and reporting for each
mitigation measure.

7-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 7.0 MMRP

Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – RWTP Reliability Improvement Project
January 2015 September 2014
NOTES: Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires all state and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs whenever
approval of a project relies upon an environmental impact report (EIR). The purpose of the monitoring or reporting program is to ensure implementation
of the measures being imposed to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the EIR.
Timing of Implementation Verified for
Impacts Mitigation Measures X
Implementation Responsibility Compliance
Construction of the AIR-1 The District shall implement BAAQMD Recommended
project would expose Best Control Measures for reducing fugitive dust
existing sensitive emissions during construction and include in the plans
receptors to and specifications. These measures are as follows:
substantial fine  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging
particle pollutant areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
concentrations from access roads) shall be watered two or more times
fugitive dust (PM2.5). per day;
 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other
loose material off-site shall be covered;
 All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public
roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum
street sweepers at least once per day. The use of
District and as
dry power sweeping is prohibited;
Prior to and delegated District
 All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be
During Project through District Environmental 
limited to 15 mph;
Construction Construction Planner
 All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be Manager
paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible
after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used;
 Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by
the California airborne toxics control measure Title
13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points;
 All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s

7-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 7.0 MMRP

Timing of Implementation Verified for

Impacts Mitigation Measures X
Implementation Responsibility Compliance
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a
certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation; and
 A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the
telephone number and person to contact at the
District regarding dust complaints. This person
shall respond and take corrective action within 48
hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also
be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
 In addition to the BAAQMD measures above, all
haul trucks will go through the proposed built-in tire
wash at the plant before exiting to the public street.
Construction of the BIO-1 Not more than seven (7) thirty (30) days prior to the
project would start of construction (including vegetation removal) on
potentially impact the project site, the District biologist or a qualified
special-status wildlife biologist retained by the District shall conduct a survey
species through direct of the project site to locate existing SFDFW nests. All
disturbance to SFDFW nests shall be mapped and flagged for
individuals, habitat avoidance. Graphics depicting all SFDFW nests shall
modification, and/or be provided to the District. Any SFDFW nests that
disturbance to active cannot be avoided shall be relocated according to the
nests. Special-status following procedures. The District shall submit a District Biologist
species that may be woodrat nest relocation plan to CDFW for review prior and as delegated District
Prior to Project
impacted by valley oak to any nest relocation activities. All personnel through a Environmental 
Construction
woodland removal, as conducting relocation activities shall wear safety gear Qualified Planner
well as other during nest relocation activities. Biologist
construction activities
within and adjacent to Areas within the valley oak woodland habitat that are
valley oak woodland outside of the proposed impact area shall be identified
habitat include the prior to the relocation process. These shall be referred
San Francisco dusky- to as the SFDFW mitigation area. Large woody
footed woodrat material, if present, shall be relocated from areas
(SFDFW), nesting within the valley oak woodland, where impacts are
raptors, and other expected, to the SFDFW mitigation areas. After large
protected avian woody material has been relocated to the SFDFW

7-3 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 7.0 MMRP

Timing of Implementation Verified for

Impacts Mitigation Measures X
Implementation Responsibility Compliance
species. Construction mitigation areas, all understory vegetation shall be
of the project in cleared within the areas where impacts are expected
proximity to the drying (but the nests should not be removed at this stage).
beds may impact Relocation of nest material shall commence only after
western pond turtles. the large woody debris and understory has been
These impacts are removed.
considered potentially
significant, since After all cover (except the nests themselves) has been
construction of the removed, each active nest shall be disturbed by the
project could result in District biologist or a qualified biologist retained by the
direct impacts to these District) to the degree that SFDFW leave the nest and
special-status species. seek refuge elsewhere. After the nests have been
disturbed, the nest sticks shall be removed from the
impact areas and piled at the base of newly placed
large woody material within the SFDFW mitigation
area. Nests shall be dismantled during the non-
breeding season (between October 1 and December
31), if possible. If a litter of young is found or
suspected, nest material shall be replaced and the nest
left alone for 2-3 weeks, after this time the nest will be
rechecked to verify that young are capable of
independent survival before proceeding with nest
dismantling. The spacing distance between the newly
placed piles of sticks shall not be fewer than 25 feet
from each other.

BIO-2 Prior to construction activities, the District biologist or a

qualified biologist retained by the District shall conduct
an Employee Education Program for the construction
crew. The biologist shall meet with the construction
crew at the project site at the onset of each
construction phase to educate the construction crew on
the following:
1) A review of the project boundaries;
2) The special-status species that may be
present, their habitat, and proper identification;
3) The specific mitigation measures that would be

7-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 7.0 MMRP

Timing of Implementation Verified for

Impacts Mitigation Measures X
Implementation Responsibility Compliance
incorporated into the construction effort,
4) The general provisions and protections
afforded by the USFWS and the CDFW, and;
5) The proper procedures if a special-status
animal is encountered within the project site as
determined by the District biologist or a
qualified biologist retained by the District.

BIO-3 Construction activities, including ground disturbance

and tree removal, that may affect nesting birds shall be
timed to avoid the nesting season. Specifically, tree
removal shall be scheduled after September 15 and
before January 31 15 or at the discretion of the District
biologist or a qualified biologist retained by the District.
Alternatively, if construction activities or tree removal
are to occur during the breeding season (February 1
January 15 through September 15), the District shall
conduct surveys for active nests no more than 30 14
days prior to construction, and a lapse in construction
related activities 15 days or longer will require another
preconstruction nesting survey. If nesting birds are
identified during the pre-construction surveys, a buffer
shall be imposed within which no construction activities
or disturbance shall take place until the young of the
year have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the
nest or parental care for survival. The size of the buffer
shall be determined by the District biologist or a
qualified biologist retained by the District, dependent
on the species and site conditions. The biologist must
be onsite at a frequency required to ensure that
nesting birds are not disturbed by Project activities and
that nest abandonment or other potentially significant
impacts do not occur. The biologist shall have the
authority to halt project activities or increase the size of
the buffer, if necessary to prevent or minimize impacts.

BIO-4 Prior to beginning construction or staging activities in

7-5 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 7.0 MMRP

Timing of Implementation Verified for

Impacts Mitigation Measures X
Implementation Responsibility Compliance
the proximity of the drying beds, the District biologist or
other qualified biologist selected by the District, shall
perform a site inspection for western pond turtles. If
pond turtle(s) are found in the pre-construction survey
or encountered while conducting construction activities
the affected turtles shall be relocated outside the
construction area and into suitable habitat and a barrier
system shall be installed and maintained around the
affected construction area.
The project would BIO-5 Prior to construction, the District, with the guidance of
impact approximately a District approved biologist and arborist, shall develop
1.2 acres of valley oak an Oak Woodland Mitigation Management Plan to be
woodland habitat, a implemented by the District. This Mitigation
sensitive habitat. The Management Plan would will incorporate the
removal of vegetation guidelines of the SCVHP Condition 14, Santa Clara
within the valley oak County Planning Office’s “Guide to Evaluating Oak
woodland habitat Woodlands Impacts, the Town of Los Gatos Tree
resulting from project Preservation Ordinance, and the recommendations of
construction is the arborist reports contained in Appendix D
considered a (HortScience), to the extent applicable and feasible.
potentially significant Details of the Oak Woodland Mitigation Management District Biologist
impact. The District Plan would will include the following at a minimum: and as delegated District
would implement the Prior to Project
through a Environmental 
following mitigation Construction
 Description of applicable guidelines from the Qualified Planner
measure to reduce the sources listed above SCVHP, Santa Clara County Biologist
project impacts on Planning Office’s “Guide to Evaluating Oak
valley oak woodland. Woodlands Impacts”, the Town of Los Gatos Tree
Preservation Ordinance, and HortScience arborist
reports;
 Construction of temporary project access points as
close as possible to the work area to minimize
necessity for tree removal;
 Mitigation for tree removals at a the ratios listed
below of at least 1:1;
 Tree replacement timing and amount of tree
replacement;

7-6 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 7.0 MMRP

Timing of Implementation Verified for

Impacts Mitigation Measures X
Implementation Responsibility Compliance
 Size of replacement trees;
 Species selection;
 Tree densities and spacing;
 Enhanced habitat in the proposed restoration
areas through the salvage and redistribution of
coarse woody debris;
 Implementation, maintenance, and monitoring
plans, and performance and success criteria.
 Tree protection measures for remaining trees,
including,
o Aligning roads and pathways outside of tree
root protection zone whenever possible;
o Conducting pruning during winter dormant
period for valley and blue oaks, under the
supervision of a District approved arborist;
o Minimizing trenching for utility lines and other
purposes within root protection zones; and
 Off-site mitigation or in lieu fee payment, if
necessary.

Mitigation Ratios for Native Trees. The District will

mitigate for its removal of native trees by one of two
options as described below.

 Under Option 1, mitigation ratios for native trees

will be calculated based on the following
mitigation ratios.

Tree Replacement Ratios for Oak Woodland Restoration

(Option 1)
Replacement Ratio
Size of Tree Removed (number of trees replaced to
(dbh, in inches)1 number of trees removed)
<6 3:1
6–18 4:1

7-7 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 7.0 MMRP

Timing of Implementation Verified for

Impacts Mitigation Measures X
Implementation Responsibility Compliance
>18 6:1
1
Diameter at breast height (dbh) is defined as the diameter of the
tree at breast height, or the diameter of the tree at 54 inches above
existing grade.

 Under Option 2, mitigation ratios will be based on

the canopy approach in Table 3-1 of the Town of
Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance. These
ratios increase the number and size of
replacement trees based on the canopy size of
the removed tree.

Mitigation for Non-native Trees. To mitigate for non-

native trees (ornamentals) the District will pay impact
fees to the Town of Los Gatos as described in the
Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance. Non-
native tree replacement ratios will be based on tree
canopy size measured as the maximum distance
across the canopy. The mitigation ratios would range
from 3:1 to 6:1.

Tree Protection Measures. The Oak Woodland

Mitigation Plan will incorporate a variety of tree
protection measures, including those set forth in the
arborist reports. These measures will include:

 Aligning roads and pathways outside of tree root

protection zone whenever possible;
 Minimizing trenching for utility lines and other
purposes within root protection zones;
 Using stem wrap to minimize damage to tree
trunks;
 Avoiding stockpiling of materials within the tree
critical root zones;
 Using high visibility fencing around the tree critical
root zones to minimize root compaction that

7-8 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 7.0 MMRP

Timing of Implementation Verified for

Impacts Mitigation Measures X
Implementation Responsibility Compliance
otherwise would be caused by parking of vehicles
or equipment on top of or near these root zones;
 Conducting pruning during winter dormant period
for valley and blue oaks, under the supervision of a
District approved arborist.

Removal of trees in See Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-3 above.

the valley oak
woodland habitat
could result in
significant impacts to
SFDFW through
individual mortality,
nest destruction, and
District Biologist
nest abandonment. In
and as delegated District
addition, removal of Prior to Project
through a Environmental 
trees in the valley oak Construction
Qualified Planner
woodland habitat
Biologist
could result in
significant impacts to
raptors and other
protected avian
species through
individual mortality,
nest destruction, and
nest abandonment.
All of the trees to be Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would require the development and
removed are defined implementation of an Oak Woodland Mitigation Management
as protected by the Plan. This Plan would incorporate the requirements of the Los District Biologist
Town of Los Gatos Gatos Tree Ordinance. or as delegated District
Ordinance (Section Prior to Project
through a Environmental 
2114) and require a Construction
Qualified Planner
permit for removal as
Biologist
well as replacement or
payment to the Town
Forestry Fund.

7-9 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 7.0 MMRP

Timing of Implementation Verified for

Impacts Mitigation Measures X
Implementation Responsibility Compliance
The project could CR-1 If, during the course of project construction,
disturb archaeological archaeological resources or human remains are
resources and/or encountered during construction, the District shall halt
human remains if work within 20 feet of the find until a qualified
encountered during professional archaeologist can evaluate it. Work shall
construction. not recommence until the project archaeologist has
submitted documentation to the District (as CEQA lead
Agency) and Town of Los Gatos indicating that
discovered resources have been adequately salvaged
and no further resources have been identified within
the area of disturbance.

CR-2 Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety

Code and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources
Code of the State of California, in the event of the District and as
discovery of human remains during construction, the delegated District
During Project
District shall discontinue further excavation or through Environmental 
Construction
disturbance on the site or any nearby area reasonably Construction Planner
suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Manager
Clara County Coroner shall be notified and make a
determination as to whether the remains are Native
American. If the Coroner determines that the remains
are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the
Native American Heritage Commission who shall
attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native
American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached
as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this
State law, then the District shall be responsible for
insuring re-interment of human remains and items
associated with Native American burials on the
property in a location not subject to further subsurface
disturbance.

7-10 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 7.0 MMRP

Timing of Implementation Verified for

Impacts Mitigation Measures X
Implementation Responsibility Compliance
Demolition of existing HAZ-1 The District shall retain a qualified professional to
buildings and perform the following before and during demolition
structures could result activities:
in the release of
asbestos and lead- 1) Test for and remove all potentially friable
based paint, posing a asbestos-containing materials in accordance with
risk to the environment National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
and public health. Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines prior to building
demolition or renovation activities that may disturb the
materials. All demolition activities must be undertaken
in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained in
Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR),
Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to
asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent District and as
asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality delegated
Management District (BAAQMD) regulations. Prior to and through District
During Project Construction Environmental 
2) During demolition activities, all building materials Construction Manager & Planner
containing lead-based paint shall be removed in Qualified
accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Consultant
Standard, Title 8, California Code of Regulations
1532.1. Required safety measures shall be adhered
to, including employee training and employee air
monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil
containing lead-based paint or coatings shall be
disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for
the waste being disposed.

4) During demolition activities, a qualified professional

shall inspect all potential sources of PCBs and remove
and dispose of them in accordance with all regulatory
requirements.

Operation of the NSE-1 Final project design plans and specifications shall District and as
District
RWTP with the incorporate noise control measures to reduce Prior to Project delegated
Environmental 
proposed operational noise levels to 43 dBA Leq (Town of Los Construction through
Planner
improvements in place Gatos’ noise limit for weekend nighttime hours) or less Construction

7-11 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 7.0 MMRP

Timing of Implementation Verified for

Impacts Mitigation Measures X
Implementation Responsibility Compliance
would result in at all adjacent residential property lines. Possible noise Manager &
exposure of persons control measures include the use of a combination of Qualified
(nearby residents) to parapet walls, enclosures/housing for noisier Acoustical
noise levels in excess equipment, selection of ‘quiet’ equipment, locating Consultant
of standards enclosure openings, venting, etc., away from
established by the residences, and/or the construction of noise barriers.
Town of Los Gatos. The District shall retain a qualified acoustical
Operational noise consultant to prepare and implement the
would also result in a recommendations of a project-level noise analysis
significant permanent based on the final design plans, to identify the specific
increase in noise controls necessary to reduce operational noise levels
levels above the to 43 dBA Leq or less. The District would perform post-
existing noise level at construction noise monitoring one time after the project
some residences is completed to ensure compliance with the Town of
along Capistrano Los Gatos’ noise limit at the closest residential property
Place/Granada Way. line. Additional noise controls would be implemented
This represents a as necessary to reduce noise levels to 43 dBA or less
significant impact. if the results of the noise measurements show that
operational noise levels exceed the limit.
Construction of the NSE-2 The District shall retain a qualified acoustical
project would consultant to develop a Construction Noise Mitigation
substantially increase Plan, and include it in the final construction plans and
noise levels in the specifications The District shall also retain a qualified
surrounding residential acoustical consultant to be on-call during the
area, resulting in a construction phase to assist the contractor in District and as
temporary increase in complying and adaptively responding to any noise delegated
ambient noise levels. issues that may arise. The Construction Noise Prior to Project through
District
This represents a Mitigation Plan shall incorporate the following controls Construction Construction
Environmental 
significant impact. to reduce construction noise levels: and During Manager &
Planner
Onsite construction Construction Qualified
activities and  Indicate the requirement to minimize construction Acoustical
construction traffic noise impacts at pre-bid conferences. Potential Consultant
would cause contractors should be requested to submit
significant temporary information on their noise management
noise increases at procedures, and to demonstrate a successful track
nearby sensitive record of construction noise management on prior
receptors for a period

7-12 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 7.0 MMRP

Timing of Implementation Verified for

Impacts Mitigation Measures X
Implementation Responsibility Compliance
of 5-7 years. projects.
 Construct or utilize temporary noise barriers
(ready-made solutions by the acoustical industry or
constructed onsite by the contractor) to shield on-
site construction and concrete demolition noise
from nearby receptors. To be most effective, the
barrier should be placed as close as possible to
the noise source or the sensitive receptor.
Examples of barriers include portable acoustically
lined enclosure/housing for specific equipment
(e.g., jackhammer and pneumatic-air tools, which
generate the loudest noise), temporary noise
barriers (e.g., solid plywood fences or portable
panel systems, minimum 8 feet in height), and/or
acoustical blankets. The portable
enclosure/housing can be constructed with noise
control curtains and lightweight frame structure,
with a small door or opening facing away from
sensitive noise receptors, and fastened with
Velcro. Acoustical blankets or curtains would be
set up on a supporting structure, such as a
cyclone-type fence or on guy-wire strung between
temporary supports. An example of the
appearance of a temporary acoustical blanket and
temporary sound walls are presented in Figure
4.11-4. At a minimum, temporary noise barriers
shall be installed for any construction activity
located within 50 feet of residences and for any
use of the hydraulic breaker or wrecking ball within
100 feet of residences.
 Require all equipment driven by internal
combustion engines be equipped with mufflers,
which are in good condition and appropriate for the
equipment.
 Require use of “quiet” models of air compressors
and other stationary noise sources where
technology exists.

7-13 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 7.0 MMRP

Timing of Implementation Verified for

Impacts Mitigation Measures X
Implementation Responsibility Compliance
 Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion
engines.
 Establish construction staging areas at locations
that would create the greatest distance between
the construction-related noise sources and noise-
sensitive receptors nearest the project site during
all project construction.
 Locate stationary noise sources as far from
sensitive receptors as feasible. If they must be
located near receptors, adequate muffling (with
enclosures where feasible and appropriate) would
be used as necessary to comply with local noise
ordinance limits. Any enclosure openings or
venting would face away from sensitive receptors.
 Locate material stockpiles as well as
maintenance/equipment staging and parking areas
as far as feasible from residential receptors.
 Notify neighbors located adjacent to the
construction site of the construction schedule in
writing.
 The District shall designate its Construction
Manager for the project or assign a District staff
person as liaison with the community to be
responsible for responding to noise complaints
during the construction phase. The name and
phone number of the liaison shall be conspicuously
posted at construction areas and on all advanced
notifications. This person shall take steps to
resolve complaints, including periodic noise
monitoring. Results of noise monitoring shall be
presented at regular project meetings with the
project contractor, and the liaison shall coordinate
with the contractor to modify any construction
activities that generated excessive noise levels to
the extent feasible.
 The District shall institute a reporting program that
documents complaints received, actions taken to

7-14 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 7.0 MMRP

Timing of Implementation Verified for

Impacts Mitigation Measures X
Implementation Responsibility Compliance
resolve problems, and effectiveness of these
actions.
 The District and its Construction Manager shall
hold a preconstruction meeting with the job
inspectors and the general contractor/on-site
project manager to confirm that noise mitigation
and practices (including construction hours,
construction schedule, and noise coordinator) are
completed. Weekly reports shall be forwarded to
the District Planner and District Outreach staff for
review and compliance with the Town of Los Gatos
Noise Ordinance and noise monitoring program
(see above).

NSE-3 The District shall limit weekend construction activities

as follows:
 No Sunday construction permitted.
 No construction except within buildings on
Saturdays.
 No construction truck or tractor work on the outside
of buildings on Saturdays (dump trucks, backhoes,
jackhammers, or any motorized equipment, etc.).
 No outside construction lighting or outside
generators to operate on Saturdays (except regular
security lighting or regular safety lighting).
Traffic hazards in the TRF-1 The District shall develop final site plans that relocate
project area include the main (upper) entrance to More Avenue to improve
limited sight distances the sight distance. At the upper main gate, the access
along More Avenue point shall be relocated a short distance to the south
due to the hills and where the driveway intersects More Avenue. Prior to and District
curves along the main During Project District Environmental 
upper entrance and TRF-2 The District shall implement one of the two following Construction Planner
lower entrance. improvements along More Avenue and incorporate
Project construction into final site plans and specifications, subject to
would generate District and Town of Los Gatos concurrence:
additional traffic

7-15 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 7.0 MMRP

Timing of Implementation Verified for

Impacts Mitigation Measures X
Implementation Responsibility Compliance
including larger slower 1. Add a continuous turn lane in the middle of More
trucks. The additional Avenue between Capistrano Place and the main
traffic generated by entrance. This lane would connect with the existing
project construction left-turn storage pocket in the southbound direction
would increase the at the main entrance.
risk of traffic accidents
due to the insufficient 2.1. Add warning signs, speed feedback signs, and
sight distance on More other appropriate signage as part of a specific
Avenue. sign package to be approved by the Town of Los
Gatos. The sign package would provide prominent
warning signs informing drivers on More Avenue
that there are driveways ahead that cannot be
seen. New signs stating “Caution Hidden
Driveway,” “Blind Driveway Ahead,” or similar
language, and signs posting the 25 mph speed
limit before both entrances would be part of the
proposed sign package to be approved by the
Town of Los Gatos.

7-16 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 8.0 References

8.0 References
8.1 Report Preparation
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Lead Agency

DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC.

EIR Preparers

Leianne Humble, Project Manager

Tyler Potter, AICP, Senior Planner
Matthew Johnson, Associate Environmental Scientist
Jami Davis, Assistant Environmental Scientist
Matt Kawashima, Assistant Planner
Diana Buhler, Assistant Planner
Julianne Farrar, Administration

8.2 Persons and Agencies Contacted

Jennifer Castillo, Environmental Services Manager, SCVWD
Rita Chan, Assistant District Legal Counsel, SCVWD
Mike Coleman, Environmental Planner, SCVWD
Phillippe Daniel, Vice President, CDM Smith
Gregory Darvin, Atmospheric Dynamics
Carl Hill, Senior Project Manager, CDM Smith
Janell Hillman, District Biologist, SCVWD
Nina Merrill, District Biologist, SCVWD
Mike Munson, Engineering Unit Manager, SCVWD
Joel Paulson, Principal Planner, Town of Los Gatos
Jessy Pu, Traffic Engineer, Town of Los Gatos
Tara Pozzi, Student Intern, SCVWD
Jennifer Savage, Associate Planner, Town of Los Gatos
Aki Snelling, Planning Manager, City of Campbell
Linda Spahr, District Biologist, SCVWD
Paul Thomas, Associate Civil Engineer
Erin Ventura, Associate Planner, City of Monte Sereno

8.3 Literature Cited

Allen-Diaz, B.H., R. Standiford, R.D. Jackson. 2007. Oak woodlands and forests. Pages 313-
338 in M.G. Barbour, T. Keeler-Wolf, and A. Schoenherr, editors. Terrestrial vegetation
of California, 3rd edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Basin Research Associates, Inc. Archaeological Review - Literature and Archival Search
Update Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project, Los Gatos,
Santa Clara County, May 2013.

8-1 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 8.0 References

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2011.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Clean Air Plan, March 2010.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan, October 1991.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan,
October 1991.

California Department of Conservation, Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map,

accessed online 2013.

California Department of Fish & Wildlife, List of California terrestrial natural communities
recognized by the Natural Diversity Database.

CDM Smith, Planning Study Report - Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement
Project, including all Technical Memorandums, May 2012.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc., Biological Resources Report – Rinconada Water Treatment
Plant Reliability Improvement Project. September 2014

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc., Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement
Project Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, March 2014.

Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Interpretive Report – Rinconada Water Treatment

Plan Reliability Improvement Project, Los Gatos, CA, October 2013

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Rinconada Water Treatment Construction Project.

June 26, 2014

HortScience, Inc., Arborist Report – Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Los Gatos, CA. April
2014

HortScience, Inc., Tree Report – Rinconada Water Treatment Plant 1st & 2nd Utility Alignment
Alternatives Los Gatos, CA. September 2006.

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project
Noise and Vibration Assessment, June 20, 2014.

Mann, Katherine, 2014. Email Communication on April 7, 2014 with Katherine Mann, Los Gatos-
Monte Serrano Police Department.

California Department of Conservation, Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map 2010,
June 2011. Available online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/fmmp/pdf/2010/scl10.pdf

Santa Clara Valley Water District, Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Rinconada
Water Treatment Plant Residuals Management Project, March 2013.

Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan.

8-2 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 8.0 References

Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.

Town of Los Gatos, Los Gatos Municipal Code. Available online at:
http://www.losgatosca.gov/index.aspx?NID=25

Town of Los Gatos, Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan. Available online at:
http://www.losgatosca.gov/index.aspx?NID=27

Trussell Technologies Inc., Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Greenhouse Gas Analysis Santa
Clara Valley Water District, April 5, 2012.

8-3 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 8.0 References

This page intentionally left blank.

8-4 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project

January 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
 ATTACHMENT 1

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DEIR

 Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvements Project EIR
Responses to Comments

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

This document provides an introduction, written comments received during the DEIR public
review period, formal responses to comments, and revisions to the DEIR text for the Rinconada
Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project (project). None of the information added
to the DEIR is considered “significant new information” that would trigger DEIR recirculation
under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a).

1.2 Public Participation

In accordance with CEQA, this document is part of the Rinconada Water Treatment Plant
Reliability Improvement Project Final EIR. The District Board will consider information on the
project’s environmental consequences in the Draft and Final EIRs before making a decision on
the project.

The District notified responsible and trustee agencies, and interested groups, organizations and
individuals that a DEIR had been completed for the project. The District used the following
methods to solicit input during the preparation of the EIR. The following is a list of the actions
taken during the preparation, distribution, and review of the DEIR.

 The Notice of Preparation (NOP) was filed with the California State Clearinghouse for a 30-
day review period from January 6, 2014 to February 5, 2014. The State Clearinghouse
assigned the Clearinghouse Number 2014012012 to the DEIR. The NOP was distributed by
the District to responsible and trustee agencies, and interested groups, organizations and
individuals.

 The District conducted a public meeting on January 15, 2014 to discuss the project and
solicit public input on the scope and content of the EIR.

 On September 26, 2014, the DEIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period to
responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and individuals. The public review
period for the DEIR was extended and closed on December 8, 2014.

 The District held a public meeting on October 29, 2014 to discuss the EIR process and
receive comments on the DEIR.

1
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

This section provides written responses to comments on the DEIR received by the close of the
public comment period, in accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition,
although not required by CEQA (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a)), responses are
provided to the Sierra Club’s late comment letter on the DEIR received on December 9, 2014,
one day after the close of the public comment period.

2.1 List of Public Comments

2.1.1 Written Comments

Following is a list of written comments received during the public review period for the
Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project DEIR.

Agency/Party Date Received

1. California Department of Fish & Wildlife November,7 2014

2. California Office of Planning & Research November 14,2014
3. Ferraro, Patrick T. November 9, 2014
4. Ketchum, Ed October 4, 2014
5. Los Gatos, Town of November 3, 2014
6. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society November 10, 2014
7. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority September 29, 2014
8. Sierra Club December 9, 2014*

*Received after close of the public review period on December 8, 2014.

2.1.2 Oral Comments

The following individuals made oral comments on the DEIR during the public meeting for the
DEIR held on October 29, 2014.

1. Jim Adams
2. Patrick Ferraro
3. Sudevshan Goyal
4. John Kenevey
5. Tim Nguyen

2.1.3 Responses to Comments

Written and oral comments received on the DEIR are presented in this section. Individual letters
are numbered. Corresponding responses to each comment are provided following each
comment letter.

Where comments raise environmental issues that require additions or deletions to the text,
tables, or figures in the DEIR, a brief description of the change is given and the reader is
directed to Section 3.0, Revisions to the DEIR. These revisions are also presented in the
attached Final EIR.

2
Where the same or similar related comments have been made more than once, a response may
direct the reader to another numbered comment and response.

Some comments received do not raise environmental issue and thus do not require a response.
These comments generally express an opinion on whether or not the project should be
approved. CEQA does not require a substantive response to comments on an EIR that do not
raise environmental issues (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). The response to these
comments is generally “comment noted.”

3
 State of California -The Natural Resources Agency
Letter 1
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
Bay Delta Region
7329 Silverado Trail
Napa, CA 94558
(707) 944-5500
www.wildlife.ca.gov

November 7, 2014

Mr. Michael F. Coleman

Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118-3614
[email protected]

Dear Mr. Coleman:

Subject: Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project, Draft

Environmental Impact Report, SCH #2014012012, Santa Clara County

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Santa Clara Valley Water District's (SCVWD)
Rinconada Water Treatment Reliability Improvement Project (Project). The document was
received in our office on September 29, 2014.

CDFW is a Trustee Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Section 15386 with responsibility under CEQA for commenting on projects that could affect
biological resources. As trustee for the State's fish and wildlife resources, CDFW has
jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of the fish, wildlife, native
plants, and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of such species for
the benefit and use by the people of California. CDFW also acts as a Responsible Agency
pursuant to CEQA Section 15381 if a project requires discretionary approval, such as
issuance of a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit (CESA; Fish and Game
Code Section 2080 et seq.), or Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) (Fish
and Game Code Section 1600 et seq.). CDFW is submitting comments on the draft EIR as
a means to inform the Lead Agency of our concerns regarding sensitive resources which
could potentially be affected by the Project.

The proposed Project area is located at 400 More Avenue in the Town of Los Gatos, within
the western portion of Santa Clara County. The proposed Project is located entirely within
the existing approximately 39-acre Rinconada Water Treatment Plant (RWTP) facility. The
RWTP lies within a residential area bounded by More Avenue to the west, Granada Way to
the north, the La Rinconada Country Club and Smith Creek to the east, residential uses to
the southeast, and the Rinconada and San Jose Water Company enclosed reservoirs to the
south.

The draft EIR has identified five biotic habitats in the vicinity of the Project: non-native
grassland, valley oak woodland, drying beds, landscaped, and developed. The proposed
Project area is known to support the State Species of Special Concern San Francisco
dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), and has the potential to support
several special-status wildlife species, such as the State Species of Special Concern

Conserving Ca{ijornia's Wild{ije Since 1870

Mr. Michael F. Coleman
November 7, 2014
Page2

western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and the
fully protected (pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 3511) American peregrine falcon
(Falco peregrinus anatum) and white-tailed kite (Eianus leucurus).

The purpose of the proposed Project is to improve the existing water treatment processes
and facilities at the RWTP through the addition of raw water ozonation facilities and
processes, replacement of the existing water clarification process and facilities with
conventional flocculation and sedimentation processes with plate settlers, removal and
replacement of the water process filters, and increase in plant capacity from 80 million
gallons per day to a maximum of 100 million gallons per day to provide an increase in
peaking capacity for plant reliability. The Project will also include the on-site temporary
conversion of one of the sludge drying beds to a construction staging area, the off-site
temporary addition of adjacent parking through a lease agreement with the San Jose Water
Company, and the installation of solar panels, a truck tire-wash, and recycling of
construction and demolition debris.

BIO-1: Mitigation Measure BIO-1 states that a survey for San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrat nests will be conducted up to 30 days prior to the start of construction. Woodrats
can build nests rapidly if nesting materials are readily available. A duration of 30 days
between the woodrat nest survey and commencement of construction activities may result
in the failure to identify woodrat nests that could be impacted by Project activities, and could
result in a disturbance to, and possible abandonment, of an active nest. CDFW therefore
recommends revising BIO-1 to state that woodrat nest surveys will be conducted no more A
than one week prior to the start of construction.

BIO-1 also describes the possibility of relocating woodrat nests that cannot be avoided by
Project activities. Because the methodology of relocating woodrat nests successfully varies
on a project by project basis (due to proximity to available alternative nesting materials and
food resources, and carrying capacity and availability of woodrat habitat enhancement
opportunities at the relocation site), CDFW recommends that the EIR state that the SCVWD
will submit a woodrat nest relocation plan to CDFW for review prior to any nest relocation
activities.

Please be advised that there are health risks associated with close contact with woodrats
and their nesting materials. CDFW recommends that BIO-1 include language addressing
the need to use appropriate gear [e.g., State of California Division of Occupational Safety
and Health (Cai/OSHA)-certified facial respirator, Tyvec protective suit, and gloves)] when
handling woodrat nesting structure materials during nest relocation activities.

BIO-3: Mitigation Measure BIO-3, which addresses nesting birds, identifies the bird nesting
season as February 1 through September 15. Please be advised that some raptor species,
such as great horned owls (Bubo virginianus) , have been known to begin nesting as early B
as January 15 in Santa Clara County. CDFW recommends that BIO-3 be revised to identify
the bird nesting season as beginning January 15. BIO-3 also states "The District shall
conduct surveys for active nests no more than 30 days prior to construction." Many species
Mr. Michael F. Coleman
November 7, 2014
Page3

of birds may build and occupy a nest within a shorter timeframe than 30 days. A duration of
30 days between the nest survey and commencement of construction activities may result in
the failure to identify bird nests that could be impacted by Project activities, and could result
in disturbance to, and possible abandonment of, a nest which would be unlawful pursuant to B
Fish and Game Code Section 3503 and/or Section 3503.5. CDFW recommends revising
BIO-3 to state that "The District shall conduct surveys for active nests no more than 14 days
prior to construction." In addition, CDFW recommends that BIO-3 include language
indicating that if there is a lapse in Project-related activities 15 days or longer, another
focused bird nesting survey will be initiated.

BIO-5: Mitigation Measure BIO-5 states that mitigation for tree removals will be at a ratio
of at least 1:1. The Draft EIR identifies 277 trees that will be removed as a result of the
Project, and of those, 171 are coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) , valley oak ( Q. /obata) , or
blue oak (Q. douglasit). The draft EIR states that the majority are composed of valley oak,
and identifies valley oak woodland as the habitat type present in the Project area. Valley
oak woodland is identified in the draft EIR as a sensitive community. Because of the high
habitat value that oak woodland provides to native wildlife, its composition of slow-growing
tree species, the substantial loss of oak woodland habitat in California due to extensive
development and disease (e.g., Sudden Oak Death Syndrome), CDFW recommends that C
BIO-5 be revised to include a tree replacement ratio of at least 3:1 (trees replanted: tree
removed) for trees less than 6 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh), 5:1 for trees 6-18
inches dbh, and 10:1 for large, mature trees greater than 18 inches dbh.

BIO-5 also identifies tree protection measures that would be implemented during Project
construction, including aligning roads and pathways outside of the tree root protection zone,
pruning during the winter dormant period, and minimizing trenching for utility lines and other
purposes within root protection zones. CDFW recommends including other tree protection
measures, such as the use of stem wrap to minimize damage to tree trunks, avoidance of
stockpiling materials within the tree critical root zones, and the use of high visibility fencing
around the tree critical root zones to minimize root compaction by equipment.

Tree Assessment: Appendix D of the draft EIR contains a document called "Tree Report,
51
Rinconada Water Treatment Plant, 1 & 2nd Utility Alignment Alternatives", by HortScience
Inc., dated September 19, 2006. The report states that in the tree assessment, trunk
diameters were measured at 36 inches above grade. Tree assessments typically use the
standard practice of determining trunk diameter by measuring the diameter-at-breast-height
at 4.5 feet (54 inches) above grade. It appears that the trunk diameters that were disclosed D
in Table 4.4-1 of the draft EIR describing the trees to be removed were measured 18 inches
lower on the trunk than is the most commonly-accepted standard practice. In addition, the
measurements, which were determined in 2005 and 2006, are now nearly 10 years old.
CDFW recommends that the draft EIR clarify whether the trunk diameters disclosed in the
draft EIR are reasonably reflective of the trunk diameters of the trees (measured at 4.5 feet
diameter-at-breast-height) that currently exist at the Project site.
Mr. Michael F. Coleman
November 7, 2014
Page4

Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code: On page 4.9-5, the draft EIR states
that site preparation and construction activities would disturb soil and could increase
siltation of local streams and water bodies. Figure 3-2 shows a portion of Smith Creek
aligned through one of the drying basins. However, on page 4.4-10, footnote 5 states that
the Project would not be subject to a Streambed Alteration Agreement since it would not
directly affect Smith Creek or any other watercourse. Please be advised that any activity
E
that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (which may
include associated riparian resources) of a river or stream, or use material from a
streambed, may require an LSAA, pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game
Code. To obtain information about the LSAA notification process, please access our
website at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/1600/ or to request a notification package, contact
CDFW's Bay Delta Regional Office at (707) 944-5500.

CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the SCVWD's Rinconada Water

Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project. CDFW staff is available to meet with you
to further clarify our comments and provide technical assistance on any changes necessary
to protect resources. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Tami Schane,
Environmental Scientist, at (415) 831-4640 or [email protected]; or
Ms. Brenda Blinn, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at (707) 944-5541.

Sincerely,

Scott Wilson
Regional Manager
Bay Delta Region

cc: State Clearinghouse

Margarete Beth
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
[email protected]
1: RESPONSE TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE

1A: To incorporate CDFW’s suggestions, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been revised to
indicate that preconstruction surveys for woodrats be conducted no more than seven
days prior to the start of construction. The District will submit a woodrat nest relocation
plan to CDFW for review prior to any nest relocation activities. In addition, the mitigation
has been revised to require that safety gear be worn during nest relocation activities
(see Section 3.0).

1B: To incorporate CDFW’s suggestions, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been revised to
indicate that preconstruction surveys for active avian nests be conducted no more than
14 days prior to construction, that a lapse in construction related activities 15 days or
longer will require another preconstruction nesting survey, and that the nesting season
starts January 15 (see Section 3.0).

1C: With regards to replacement of native trees, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 has been revised
to identify two options for replacement ratios for native trees. Although mitigation ratios
for native trees will be calculated using a different approach than recommended by
CDFW, with either option the impacts to 1.9 acres of valley oak woodland habitat will be
reduced to a less-than-significant level through the creation of sufficient substitute
habitat.

Under Option 1, mitigation ratios for native trees will be calculated consistent with
standard practice replanting densities to ensure long-term success of the planting, thus
reducing impacts to oak woodland habitat to a less-than-significant level. The District’s
revegetation staff has found that in practice, overcrowded plantings increase competition
for moisture and light and can result in increased insect impacts, plant disease, poor
canopy development, and weak branch structure over time. The replacement ratios
under Option 1 are presented below.

Tree Replacement Ratios for Oak Woodland Restoration (Option 1)

Replacement Ratio
Size of Tree Removed (number of trees replaced to
1
(dbh, in inches) number of trees removed)
<6 3:1
6–18 4:1
>18 6:1
1
Diameter at breast height (dbh) is defined as the diameter of the tree at breast height, or the diameter of
the tree at 54 inches above existing grade.

Under Option 2, mitigation ratios will be based on the canopy approach (identified in
Table 3-1 of the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance). These ratios increase
the number and size of replacement trees based on the canopy size of the removed
tree.

In order to mitigate for removal of non-native trees (i.e., ornamental species), the District
will pay impact fees to the Town of Los Gatos as described in the Town’s Tree
Protection Ordinance. Non-native tree replacement ratios will be based on tree canopy

8
 size measured as the maximum distance across the canopy. The mitigation ratios will
range from 3:1 to 6:1.

With regards to tree protection measures, the Oak Woodland Mitigation Plan will
incorporate a variety of tree protection measures. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 has been
revised to include the use of stem wrap to minimize damage to tree trunks, avoidance of
stockpiling materials within the tree critical root zones, and the use of high visibility
fencing around the tree critical root zones to minimize root compaction that may
otherwise be caused by parking of vehicles or equipment on top of or near these root
zones.

1D: The diameters of trees on the project site were measured at 36” above grade, rather
than 54,” consistent with the requirements of the Town of Los Gatos’ Tree Ordinance. A
measurement taken at 36” would be equal to or larger than one taken at 54.” The 2006
tree survey results were compared against the recent 2014 tree survey results
conducted for trees within the project’s proposed northern and southern staging areas. A
comparison of the 2014 tree survey results (for 41 trees) to the 2006 tree survey data
shows that the diameter of these trees at 36” above grade increased an average of 1.6
inches, which represents an average increase of about 8.6%. The trunk diameters
disclosed in the DEIR, therefore, are considered to be reasonably reflective of the
diameters of the existing trees on the project site, although the growth rates would vary
from tree to tree. However, the District will re-survey the trees to be removed by the
project prior to construction, update its tree survey, and replace trees in accordance with
the Oak Woodland Mitigation Plan (see revised Mitigation Measure BIO-5).

1E: The location of Smith Creek in Figure 3-2 of the DEIR was inaccurate. The corrected
figure provided in Section 3.0 Revisions to the DEIR shows that Smith Creek is not
located within the project site. The project, therefore, will not be subject to a Streambed
Alteration Agreement since it will not directly affect Smith Creek or any other
watercourse.

9
 Letter 2
S T A T E OF C A L I F 0 R N I A

Governor's Office of Planning and Research

State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Governor

November 14, 2014

Michael F. Coleman
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118-3614

Subject: Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project

SCH#: 2014012012

Dear Michael F. Coleman:

The enclosed comment (s) on your Draft EIR was (were) received by the State Clearinghouse after the end
of the state review period, which closed on November 10, 2014. We are forwarding these comments to you
because they provide infonnation or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental
document.

The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments.
However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental
document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project.

Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the
environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above-named project, please refer to
the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number (2014012012) when contacting this office.

Sincerely,

.~.~~
Scott~n
Director, State Clearinghouse

Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency

1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044

TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
 S T A T E OF C A L I F 0 R N I A

Governor's Office of Planning and Research

State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Governor

November 12, 2014

Michael F. Coleman
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118-3614

Subject: Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project

SCH#: 2014012012

Dear Michael F. Coleman:

The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. The
review period closed on November 10, 2014, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This
letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the
ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.

Sincerely,

·~-:;%r--
Scott~n - ~
Director, State Clearinghouse

1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044

TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
 Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base

SCH# 2014012012
Project Title Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project
Lead Agency Santa Clara Valley Water District

Type EIR Draft EIR

Description The RWTP was commissioned in 1968 and is the oldest of the District's treatment plants. Numerous
components of the RWTP are nearing the end of their useful lives. This, coupled with increasingly
more stringent water quality and code requirements, make upgrades to the plant essential to ensure
compliance with drinking water quality regulations and the reliability of its operation and the water
supply for the western service area. The District proposes to improve the existing water treatment train
at the aging Rinconada Water Treatment Plant (RWTP) to improve drinking water quality and reliability
of operations. The Project proposes demolition/removal of many of the existing treatment facilities and
processes and reconstruction of a new state-of-the-art water treatment facility within the existing water
treatment plant property, while keeping the plant running at all times.

Lead Agency Contact

Name Michael F. Coleman
Agency Santa Clara Valley Water District
Phone 408 630 3096 Fax
email
Address 5750 Almaden Expressway
City San Jose State CA Zip 95118-3614

Project Location
County Santa Clara
City Los Gatos
Region
Lat/Long 37° 15' 23.9" NI 121° 59' 7.52" W
Cross Streets More Avenue and Granada Way
Parcel No. 409-01-022, 407-34-002, 407-34-003, 407-10-007, 407-24-001
Township Range Section Base

Proximity to:
Highways SR 9, 85, 17
Airports
Railways Existing
Waterways Los Gatos Creek, San Tomas Aquino Creek
Schools Rolling Hills MS, Marshall Lane ES, Westmont High
Land Use PLU: Water Treatment Plant
Z: Single Family Residential
GPO: Low Density Residential

Project Issues Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Biological Resources; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding;
Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Public Services; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Toxic/Hazardous;
Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife; Growth
Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects; AestheticNisual; Agricultural Land; Forest Land/Fire Hazard;
Population/Housing Balance; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Solid Waste

Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 3; Office of Historic Preservation;
Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Office of Emergency Services,
California; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Air Resources Board; State Water Resources
Control Board, Division of Drinking Water; State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water
Rights; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Native American Heritage Commission;
Public Utilities Commission
 Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base

Date Received 09/26/2014 Start of Review 09/26/2014 End of Review 11/10/2014

 State of California - The Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
Bay Delta Region
7329 Silverado Trail v,i1t
Napa, CA 94558 1
\-\u-14
(707) 944-5500
www.wildlife.ca.gov .=e;

November 7, 2014 r=-.--=. ""' f"t {::

/ REc, ..JVED
i NOV 1 4 2014
I
Mr. Michael F. Coleman
Santa Clara Valley Water District ISTME CLEARING HOUSE
h-=.~-~·-----..J
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118-3614
[email protected]

Dear Mr. Coleman:

Subject: Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project, Draft

Environmental Impact Report, SCH #2014012012, Santa Clara County

The California Department of Fish and Wildl,ife (CDFW) has reviewed the draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Santa Clara Valley Water District's (SCVWD)
Rinconada Water Treatment Reliability Improvement Project (Project). The document was
received in our office on September 29, 2014.

CDFW is a Trustee Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Section 15386 with responsibility under CEQA for commenting on projects that could affect
biological resources. As trustee for the State's fish and wildlife resources, CDFW has
jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of the fish, wildlife, native
plants, and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of such species for
the benefit and use by the people of California. CDFW also acts as a Responsible Agency
pursuant to CEQA Section 15381 if a project requires discretionary approval, such as
issuance of a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit (CESA; Fish and Game
Code Section 2080 et seq.), or Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) (Fish
and Game Code Section 1600 et seq.). CDFW is submitting comments on the draft EIR as
a means to inform the Lead Agency of our concerns regarding sensitive resources which
could potentially be affected by the Project.

The proposed Project area is located at 400 More Avenue in the Town of Los Gatos, within
the western portion of Santa Clara County. The proposed Project is located entirely within
the existing approximately 39-acre Rinconada Water Treatment Plant (RWTP) facility. The
RWTP lies within a residential area bounded by More Avenue to the west, Granada Way to
the north, the La Rinconada Country Club and Smith Creek to the east, residential uses to
the southeast, and the Rinconada and San Jose Water Company enclosed reservoirs to the
south.

The draft EIR has identified five biotic habitats in the vicinity of the Project: non-native
grassland, valley oak woodland, drying beds, landscaped, and developed. The proposed
Project area is known to support the State Species of Special Concern San Francisco
dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), and has the potential to support
several special-status wildlife species, such as the State Species of Special Concern

Conserving Ca{ijornia's Wi{cf{ije Since 1870

Mr. Michael F. Coleman
November 7, 2014
Page 2

western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and the
fully protected (pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 3511) American peregrine falcon
(Falco peregrinus anatum) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus).

The purpose of the proposed Project is to improve the existing water treatment processes
and facilities at the RWTP through the addition of raw water ozonation facilities and
processes, replacement of the existing water clarification process and facilities with
conventional flocculation and sedimentation processes with plate settlers, removal and
replacement of the water process filters, and increase in plant capacity from 80 million
gallons per day to a maximum of 100 million gallons per day to provide an increase in
peaking capacity for plant reliability. The Project will also include the on-site temporary
conversion of one of the sludge drying beds to a construction staging area, the off-site
temporary addition of adjacent parking through a lease agreement with the San Jose Water
Company, and the installation of solar panels, a truck tire-wash, and recycling of
construction and demolition debris.

810-1: Mitigation Measure BI0-1 states that a survey for San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrat nests will be conducted up to 30 days prior to the start of construction. Woodrats
can build nests rapidly if nesting materials are readily available. A duration of 30 days
between the woodrat nest survey and commencement of construction activities may result
in the failure to identify woodrat nests that could be impacted by Project activities, and could
result in a disturbance to, and possible abandonment, of an active nest. CDFW therefore
recommends revising BI0-1 to state that woodrat nest surveys will be conducted no more
than one week prior to the start of construction.

BI0-1 also describes the possibility of relocating woodrat nests that cannot be avoided by
Project activities. Because the methodology of relocating woodrat nests successfully varies
on a project by project basis (due to proximity to available alternative nesting materials and
food resources, and carrying capacity and availability of woodrat habitat enhancement
opportunities at the relocation site), CDFW recommends that the EIR state that the SCVWD
will submit a woodrat nest relocation plan to CDFW for review prior to any nest relocation
activities.

Please be advised that there are health risks associated with close contact with woodrats
and their nesting materials. CDFW recommends that BI0-1 include language addressing
the need to use appropriate gear [e.g., State of California Division of Occupational Safety
and Health (Cal/OSHA)-certified facial respirator, Tyvec protective suit, and gloves)] when
handling woodrat nesting structure materials during nest relocation activities.

810-3: Mitigation Measure BI0-3, which addresses nesting birds, identifies the bird nesting
season as February 1 through September 15. Please be advised that some raptor species,
such as great horned owls (Bubo virginianus), have been known to begin nesting as early
as January 15 in Santa Clara County. CDFW recommends that BI0-3 be revised to identify
the bird nesting season as beginning January 15. 810-3 also states "The District shall
conduct surveys for active nests no more than 30 days prior to construction." Many species
Mr. Michael F. Coleman
November 7, 2014
Page 3

of birds may build and occupy a nest within a shorter timeframe than 30 days. A duration of
30 days between the nest survey and commencement of construction activities may result
in the failure to identify bird nests that could be impacted by Project activities, and could
result in disturbance to, and possible abandonment of, a nest which would be unlawful
pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 3503 and/or Section 3503.5. CDFW
recommends revising 810-3 to state that "The District shall conduct surveys for active nests
no more than 14 days prior to construction." In addition, CDFW recommends that 810-3
include language indicating that if there is a lapse in Project-related activities 15 days or
longer, another focused bird nesting survey will be initiated.

810-5: Mitigation Measure 810-5 states that mitigation for tree removals will be at a ratio of
at least 1:1. The Draft EIR identifies 277 trees that will be removed as a result of the
Project, and of those, 171 are coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Q. /obata), or
blue oak (Q. doug/asi1). The draft EIR states that the majority are composed of valley oak,
and identifies valley oak woodland as the habitat type present in the Project area. Valley
oak woodland is identified in the draft EIR as a sensitive community. Because of the high
habitat value that oak woodland provides to native wildlife, its composition of slow-growing
tree species, the substantial loss of oak woodland habitat in California due to extensive
development and disease (e.g., Sudden Oak Death Syndrome), CDFW recommends that
BI0-5 be revised to include a tree replacement ratio of at least 3:1 (trees replanted: tree
removed) for trees less than 6 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh), 5:1 for trees 6-18
inches dbh, and 10:1 for large, mature trees greater than 18 inches dbh.

BI0-5 also identifies tree protection measures that would be implemented during Project
construction, including aligning roads and pathways .outside of the tree root protection zone,
pruning during the winter dormant period, and minimizing trenching for utility lines and other
purposes within root protection zones. CDFW recommends including other tree protection
measures, such as the use of stem wrap to minimize damage to tree trunks, avoidance of
stockpiling materials within the tree critical root zones, and the use of high visibility fencing
around the tree critical root zones to minimize root compaction by equipment.

Tree Assessment: Appendix D of the draft EIR contains a document called "Tree Report,
Rinconada Water Treatment Plant, 151 & 2nd Utility Alignment Alternatives", by HortScience
Inc., dated September 19, 2006. The report states that in the tree assessment, trunk
diameters were measured at 36 inches above grade. Tree assessments typically use the
standard practice of determining trunk diameter by measuring the diameter-at-breast-height
at 4.5 feet (54 inches) above grade. It appears that the trunk diameters that were disclosed
in Table 4.4-1 of the draft EIR describing the trees to be removed were measured 18 inches
lower on the trunk than is the most commonly-accepted standard practice. In addition, the
measurements, which were determined in 2005 and 2006, are now nearly 10 years old.
CDFW recommends that the draft EIR clarify whether the trunk diameters disclosed in the
draft EIR are reasonably reflective of the trunk diameters of the trees (measured at 4.5 feet
diameter-at-breast-height) that currently exist at the Project site.
Mr. Michael F. Coleman
November 7, 2014
Page 4

Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code: On page 4.9-5, the draft EIR states
that site preparation and construction activities would disturb soil and could increase
siltation of local streams and water bodies. Figure 2,-2 shows a portion of Smith Creek
aligned through one of the drying basins. However, on page 4.4-10, footnote 5 states that
the Project would not be subject to a Streambed Alteration Agreement since it would not
directly affect Smith Creek or any other watercourse. Please be advised that any activity
that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (which may
include associated riparian resources) of a river or stream, or use material from a
streambed, may require an LSAA, pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game
Code. To obtain information about the LSAA notification process, please access our
website at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/1600/ or to request a notification package, contact
CDFW's Bay Delta Regional Office at (707) 944-5500.

CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the SCVWD's Rinconada Water

Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project. CDFW staff is available to meet with you
to further clarify our comments and provide technical assistance on any changes necessary
to protect resources. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Tami Schane,
Environmental Scientist, at (415) 831-4640 or [email protected]; or
Ms. Brenda Blinn, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at (707) 944-5541.

Sincerely,

51A5bf ~u--.
Scott Wilson
Regional Manager
Bay Delta Region

cc: State Clearinghouse

Margarete Beth
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
[email protected]
2: RESPONSE TO CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING & RESEARCH

2A: No response required. The CDFW letter attached to this correspondence is addressed
in the responses to Letter 1.

18
 Letter 3
Patrick T. Ferraro
351 Brookwood Avenue
San Jose, CA 95116‐2742
[email protected]

November 9, 2014

Senior Environmental Planner Mike Coleman

5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, Ca. 95118
[email protected]

Subject: Comments on DEIR for Rinconada Water Treatment Plant (RWTP)

Reliability Improvement Project

Honorable Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water District:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide written comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Rinconada Water Treatment Plant
(RWTP) Reliability Improvement Project (SCH# 2014012012). In summary, I would
like to register the following comments related to deficiencies in the DEIR as well as
to related flaws in the design of the project. These written comments are intended to
clarify and elaborate the oral testimony I provided at the public meeting held at the
RWTP on October 29, 2014, and I request that they be addressed in the Final EIR as
required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA.)

1. The DEIR was not prepared in a timely manner.

The State Guidelines clearly state that “the environmental document preparation
and review should be coordinated in a timely fashion with the existing planning,
review and project approval process being used by each public agency.” (15004 (c)).
It appears that the SCVWD (District) has prepared the subject document at the end
of the design process and anticipates accepting construction bids immediately after
the draft EIR is certified by the District Board of Directors. By postponing the public A
review process until the very end of the planning and design phase of this project,
the District may be unduly biased against making significant modifications to the
proposed project design, including the adoption of an alternative that may emerge
through the EIR review process which might significantly reduce environmental
impacts as described further below.
 2. The DEIR does not include a defensible justification for the expansion of
the RWTP treatment capacity from 80 mg to 100 mgd, and the DEIR
does not evaluate the impact of operating the RWTP at the higher
capacity.

One of the four objectives of the proposed project is to “improve overall plant
reliability by…increasing the plant’s peaking factor and capacity (from 80 to 100
mgd)” and further states that “Based on the contract requirements between the
District and RWTP retailers, a peaking water demand factor of 1.8 has been
established along with a projected highest average daily demand of 58.5 mgd in the
next 25 years.” (Project Description, page 3‐5). This approach appears to utilize an
engineering peaking factor commonly applied during the last century to estimate
peak water demand based on average daily flow demand.

Most notably, a peaking factor of 1.8 does not take into account any of the local
water conservation initiatives that have been successfully implemented in Santa
Clara County over the past 30 years, resulting in a steadily declining per capita use
of water. In fact, the District's goals to reduce water demand through efficiency
B
programs are on track to lower water demand by up to 98,500 acre‐feet per year by
2035.1 These efforts will result in major reductions in seasonal usage including a
measurable drop in summer peak usage, as residents and businesses shift to
climate‐appropriate landscaping, high efficiency appliances and other District‐
sponsored behaviors.

Reducing the peaking factor from 1.8 to 1.4 and applying that factor to projected
average daily demand of 57.3 MDG results in a required peak treatment capacity of
only 80 MGD. Since the present plant capacity of is 80 mgd, it appears that a plant
expansion is unnecessary and that upgraded treatment and disinfection facilities
should be adequate for the foreseeable future without increasing hydraulic plant
capacity. Also, there appear to be a number of other measures already in place to
meet extraordinary peaking demands, if necessary. The District has recently
expended $80 million to install emergency wells capable of delivering 72 MGD in the
service area of the RWTP to pump groundwater into the treated water pipelines in
the event of an outage of the two delta aqueducts serving the District. Also, both the
District and its primary retail water agency, San Jose Water Company, currently

1 Santa Clara Valley Water District Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) 2010.)
store treated water within their distribution systems, further reducing or
eliminating the need to expand the treatment capacity of the RWTP.

Keeping the plant capacity at the current level also appears to be more consistent
with current State policy, including the Delta Reform Act of 2009 which
unequivocally states that the “policy of the State of California is to reduce reliance
on the Delta in meeting California’s future water supply needs through a statewide
strategy of investing in improved regional supplies, conservation, and water use‐
efficiency.”2

If, despite the lack of practical foundation, the RWTP is redesigned to operate at B
capacity by treating water diverted from one or more of its current water supplies
(as detailed in Section 4.4.1), the DEIR must evaluate the impact of receiving and
treating the additional of 20 mgd water on local ecology and the Sacramento‐San
Joaquin River Delta, as well as to verify the project’s conformance with other
regional, state and federal water distribution plans.

At a minimum, the impacts considered by the DEIR must include the following:

• Reduction of summer flows by 20 mgd in urban streams currently fed by

surface and ground water supplies, with attendant effects on their riparian
biological resources.
• Reduction of summer flows by 20 mgd in the Sacramento and San Joaquin
Rivers and in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin River Delta with attendant effects
on their riparian biological resources.
3. The DEIR does not include analysis of an alternative to the proposed
project with less than 100 mgd treatment capacity that might further
reduce environmental impacts.

The DEIR should include analysis of an additional alternative that provides for
renovation of existing treatment facilities and construction of new facilities
replacing outmoded treatment modules without increasing the overall capacity
of the RWTP. Such an alternative might reasonably include installation of all the C
proposed filtration and disinfection systems described in “3.5.4 Proposed
Facilities” (p. 3‐9 to 3‐10) as well as site improvements with the exception that
the new facilities would be sized to produce a finished treatment plant capacity
of only 80 mgd. It might be reasonably expected that such a reduction in scale
would result in a reduction in construction impacts due to reduced delivery and
use of materials (“Noise”, “Traffic”) as well as a reduction in the environmental

2 http://mavensnotebook.com/2013/01/24/addendum‐to‐mavens‐minutes‐huffman‐clarifies‐the‐
meaning‐of‐reduced‐reliance‐on‐the‐delta/
 impacts on “Hydrology and Water Quality.” Additional impacts reductions
include:
• Reduction in tree removal and related biological impacts and aesthetic
impacts
• Reduction in construction noise and discharge of air pollution
C
• Reduction in construction duration
• Reduction in hazardous chemicals used and stored on site
• Reduction in operational energy demand
• Reduction of GHG emission during construction and operation

Thank you for your consideration of the above comments.

Very truly yours,

Patrick T. Ferraro, former Director, SCVWD (1972‐1995)

.
3: RESPONSE TO PATRICK T. FERRARO

3A: Please note that CEQA Guidelines Section 15004(c) goes on to state that “…These
procedures, to the maximum extent feasible, are to run concurrently, not consecutively.”
The intent of this guideline is to ensure that EIR document preparation and review be
conducted expeditiously and without undue delay. As acknowledged in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15004(b), “choosing the precise time for CEQA compliance involves
a balancing of completing factors.” An EIR should be prepared as early as feasible in
the planning process to enable environmental considerations to be taken into account in
project design and late enough to provide meaningful analysis of environmental impacts.
A lead agency must consider an EIR before project approval but must also not limit the
choice of alternatives or mitigation measures.

The proposed RWTP improvements were developed based on a comprehensive

planning study conducted from 2010-2012, which took into account engineering as well
as environmental and other concerns. As described in Section 6.0 of the DEIR, the
Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project Planning Study
Report (CDM Smith, 2012) considered six alternative treatment trains for upgrading the
RWTP. These alternatives were developed and evaluated based on a list of criteria,
which included environmental factors such as construction traffic/noise and visual
effects. Shortly after choosing the preferred alternative in 2012, the District determined
that an EIR would be required for the project to address potentially significant impacts of
the project and identify mitigation. The EIR was commissioned in late 2012, and
preparation of the document proceeded upon development of plans at a level that
provided adequate information to provide a meaningful analysis of project impacts. For
example, the evaluation of construction and operational/construction noise, traffic, and
air quality impacts required detailed project data on equipment size, construction
scheduling, and other information that was not available until later phases of design. The
District has been conducting public outreach (i.e., public noticing and neighborhood
meetings) on the project and environmental process for over a year to solicit community
and public agency input on the DEIR.

There is no evidence in the record that the District has prematurely committed to or
approved the proposed project prior to completing the CEQA process or that it has taken
any action that has precluded the District’s ability to consider and implement alternatives
to the proposed project.

Please see response 3C below for a discussion of alternatives.

3B: Reliability of the RWTP is of critical importance because it is the District’s only
water treatment plant serving the western service area. The District selected a 100 mgd
capacity for the RWTP as appropriate based on a variety of factors including the Urban
Water Management Plan, operational flexibility for treating local sources and surplus
surface water in wet years, and other considerations. Additionally, the District took into
account the planned water conservation savings of 98,500 AFY in developing future
water annual demand figures (SCVWD 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master
Plan).

The 1.8 peaking factor is supported by substantial evidence. As described in Section 5.2
of the DEIR, the peaking water demand factor of 1.8 was established based in part on
contract requirements between the District and RWTP retailers. Another consideration in

23
selecting 100 mgd was based on the peaking requirements for meeting maximum day
demands. The projected maximum daily demands for the area served by RWTP ranges
from 97 to 105 mgd. In fact, the peaking factor of 1.8 for RWTP is lower than the
peaking factors used for designing District’s other treatment plants as well as below
industry guidelines (“Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Future Water Demand and
Capacity Needs Analysis,” Erin Baker and Peter Zhou, April 18, 2011). For example, the
Santa Teresa Water Treatment Plant and Penitencia Water Treatment Plant are
designed with peaking factors of 2.1 and 2.2, respectively.

In response to the comment that the 72 mgd emergency well field would render the
RWTP expansion unnecessary, the well field was initially included as part of a separate
District project (Infrastructure Reliability Project). Subsequently, the District removed the
well field from the Infrastructure Reliability Project for budgetary and other reasons. The
District does not have current plans to construct the well field.

The District acknowledges that there is some uncertainty as to the future demand during
the 50-year design life of the improvements beyond 2035, and that future demand may
be less than 100 mgd at various times. However, designing the plant to operate at a
capacity lower than the proposed 100 mgd would not allow the District to provide a
reliable long-term source of high quality water with redundancy and operational flexibility.
Furthermore, the 100 mgd capacity would provide greater assurance that adequate
supplies are available in the event of natural disaster or other similar emergency
situations when main breaks and other leaks may occur.

Finally, the proposed project would not reduce summer flows in urban streams or in the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The
District does not plan to increase the amount of water being treated annually, but the
increase of plant capacity from 80 to 100 mgd would provide more reliability and
flexibility to meet peak summer demands and allow routine and emergency maintenance
of treatment units (refer to DEIR Section 3, Project Description).

The expansion of the plant capacity would not directly or indirectly cause increased
diversions from the Delta. Imported supplies are used to meet a large percentage of
county water needs. Imported water conveyed though the Delta via the State Water
Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) is used to supply District drinking water
treatment plants, groundwater recharge facilities, and irrigators. In addition, when
available, the District stores excess Delta-conveyed supplies in the Semitropic
Groundwater Bank and San Luis Reservoir in the Central Valley, and locally in Anderson
and Calero Reservoirs. The District has a contract for 100,000 AFY of SWP water and
152,500 AFY of CVP water, although the actual amount of water allocated under these
contracts each year is typically less than these contractual amounts and depends on
hydrology/regulatory restrictions (2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan).
The average allocation of Delta-conveyed water has been about 170,000 AFY, and due
to the variety of uses of Delta water described above, the same Delta allocations would
occur in the future regardless of whether the proposed project is implemented (2012
Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan). Similarly, the plant expansion would not
directly or indirectly cause increased diversions of local streams, because the District’s
raw water operation will remain the same after the plant upgrade. As mentioned above,
the District does not plan to increase the amount of water being treated annually.
Therefore, an evaluation of reduced summer flows on biological resources is not
required in the EIR.

24
3C: CEQA requires an EIR to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives. Reasonable
alternatives include those that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the
project but avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the project as per
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a). The DEIR evaluated a range of reasonable
alternatives, as described in Section 6.0 Alternatives.

Making improvements to the RWTP at its existing capacity of 80 mgd would still result in
extensive construction to update/replace aging facilities. Replacement and
improvements to the RWTP would occur within the identical footprint as the project and
would require the same demolition activities. Construction would have similar duration
and would require a similar number of construction employees, equipment, and trucks.
The only major differences between the project and updating/replacing the 80 mgd plant
would be a smaller raw water pipeline and less concrete associated with somewhat
smaller structures. During operation, an 80 mgd plant would require more energy to
operate at peak flows (above the 80 mgd) since these peak flows will incur greater
friction in pumping the water through the plant and will result in risk of regulatory
violation and water delivery shortfalls. In addition, there will be no flexibility for treatment
units to be off-line when plant flows are above 60 mgd.

The 80 mgd alternative, therefore, would result in comparable adverse effects during
demolition and construction activities as the proposed project, including significant noise,
air quality, and traffic impacts. Implementation of an alternative that maintains only the
existing capacity would not substantially lessen any of the project’s impacts.
Furthermore, the 80 mgd alternative is impractical and undesirable from a policy
standpoint because it 1) would not meet the project objective of improving reliability, 2)
would increase energy demand, and 3) would increase operational risks. This
alternative, therefore, was not further considered in the DEIR.

25
From: Ed Ketchum [mailto:[email protected]]
Letter 4
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2014 11:53 AM
To: Mike Coleman
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Rinconada Water Treatment Reliability Project‐ Draft Environmental Impact Report

Dear Mr.Coleman:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject project. The proposed project is in the watershed
of Los Gatos Creek and San Tomas Aquino Creek watersheds. Based upon information provided by Randy
A
Milliken this appears to be Chaloctaca. The people were Tamien speaking people. Please contact the
Muwekma Tribal Band for additional cultural information concerning the project site.

I have some concerns about the environmental process. The subject report is written based upon the existing
conditions at the project site. It does not look at the total impact to the pre‐contact environment. From a
tribal point of view, the base state to measure impact should be the conditions prior to European contact. B
This report looks at the current conditions as a base for change. For example the following map developed by
SFEI shows the historical ecology of the area prior to European invasion. The project site was Oak Savanna and
Oak Woodland. The area now is urban with 99% of the Oak Savanna and Oak Woodland removed.

At the project site, previous site “improvements” have already reduced this habitat by 75%. The proposed
“improvements” will leave less than 10%. What does the Water District proposed to do to mitigate for their
total impact? In addition, the existing Rinconada Water Treatment Plant provides 80mil gallons of water. It is
said that a family of 4 uses 400 gallons of water per day. That means a family would use 146000 gallons of
C
water in a year. 80mil gallons of water provides water for about 550 households. What is the impact on the
environment of 550 houses? The additional 20mil gallons adds another 135 households. What impact does
adding another 135 households have on the already highly impacted Santa Clara Valley. Also, what is the
impact on the California Central Valley by diverting another 20 mil gallons of water to the Santa Clara Valley.

The EIR I believe is insufficient (and perhaps all EIRs) as it focuses on the new impacts at the site, but does not D
measure and discus the total impacts to the original pre‐contact environment.

Ed Ketchum
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
Historian
4: RESPONSE TO ED KETCHUM

4A: A copy of the EIR was forwarded to the Rosemary Cambra of the Muwekma Tribal Band
on September 27, 2014, which was sent back return mail. On 11/19/14, a follow up
email was sent to [email protected] to solicit input on the DEIR. To date, no
response has been received.

4B: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a), the environmental setting
normally constitutes the baseline physical conditions used to determine whether an
impact from project changes is significant. Specifically, “An EIR must include a
description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they
existing at the time the notice of preparation is published…” For the RTWP, existing
conditions are defined as those present on the site in January 2014 when the notice of
preparation was circulated. While an EIR is required to identify mitigation for any
significant impacts of the project relative to existing conditions, it is not required to
address or provide mitigation for impacts resulting from previous development in the
project area (e.g., Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2011) 211
Cal.App.4th 1209). The DEIR, therefore, does not evaluate conditions prior to European
contact or use these conditions as a baseline.

4C: See above response. The DEIR identifies the loss of oak woodland on the project site as
a significant impact and presents mitigation to reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level (see pages 4.4-15 through 4.4-17). Specifically, as set forth in Mitigation
Measure BIO-5 of the DEIR, the District will develop and implement an Oak Woodland
Mitigation Plan that will incorporate the requirements of the Los Gatos Tree Ordinance
as well as other tree replacement and protection measures.

The project would result an increase in capacity of the RWTP from 80 to 100 mgd. As
described in Section 5.1 of the DEIR, this increase in capacity is intended to serve
existing demand and planned future growth in service demand. The proposed increase
in capacity was identified by the District in its planning documents to meet anticipated
water demand. The proposed improvements would not indirectly induce growth, but
accommodate existing planned growth under existing regional projections based on
growth in the service areas and the projections. Although the project would indirectly
support growth by providing additional reliability and capacity, it is intended to serve
future projected water demand and would not support growth in excess of regional
population projections, since the District’s water demand projections were based on the
Association of Bay Area Government’s population projections through 2035. The project,
therefore, would not provide service capacity beyond that required to serve planned and
projected development and growth as set forth in regional population projections. Finally,
the project is intended to meet planned future demand and does not propose to increase
water diversions. See also response 3B.

4D: See response to 4B above.

27
...
Letter 5

Town of Los Gatos

Parks & Public Works
41 Miles Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
(408) 399-5770

November 3, 2014

Mike MW1Son, P.E.,T5

Engineering Unit Manager
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5700 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118-3686

Dear Mr. Munson,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft EIR for the Rinconada Water Treatment
Plant Reliability Project. Here are comments from the Town of Los Gatos:

TRF-1

The TRF-1 recommends relocation of the upper entrance a short distance south for improving
sight distance. The Town fully supports the measure in improving the sight distance. However, it A
should be cautioned that the improvements should be designed with a comprehensive approach.
Additional work may be required as a result of the relocation of the entrance.

TRF-2

The TRF-2 recommends a continuous left turn lane in the southbound direction from Capistrano
Place to the upper entrance. This left turn lane seems unnecessarily long. Please provide
calculation·of potential queue length for the left turn movements.
B
More Avenue between Capistrano and the lower entrance is mostly about 35'wide, except for
about 40' north of the lower entrance, where it widens to about 44'. Adding a continuous left
tum would reduce the through lane width to about12', which would have an impact to bicycle
travel and future provision of a bicycle lane. A future bicycle lane is proposed for More Avenue
in the Town's General Plan.

Encroachment Permit

All work within Town's public right of way will require an encroachment permit, including the
work required for TRF-1 and TRF-2, construction traffic control, and truck hauling operations. C
Truck Hauling Hours of Ooeration

The DEIR limits the construction hours to 8:00AM through 5:00PM. The Town will require that
the hauling of soil on or off-site not occur during the weekday morning or evening peak periods D
(between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00p.m.) as well as during the
periods when the Rolling Hill Elementary School is dismissed.

Road Impact

Preconstruction and post construction pavement survey will be required and repairs may be
required based on the outcome of the pavement survey. At a minimum, the Town requests a 2"
overlay for the following street segments upon completion of the reliability improvement project.
E
• More Avenue from Pollard to the upper entrance on More Avenue.
• Granada Way from More Avenue to the back entrance on Granada Way.

If you have any questions with these comments, please feel free to contact me or Jessy Pu at 408-
395-2859.

Sincerely,

Matt Morley
Director of Parks and Public Works

Cc: Lisa Petersen, Jessy Pu

5: RESPONSE TO TOWN OF LOS GATOS

5A: Regarding relocation of the upper entrance from More Avenue, after several conceptual
designs, a solution to the sight distance issues has been agreed upon between the
District and Town, and the District’s consultant, CDM Smith, has initiated preparation of
construction drawings and specifications for the More Avenue improvements. A
conceptual plan of these improvements is presented in Section 3.0 Revisions to the
DEIR.

5B: Regarding the continuous left-turn pocket, this concept has been deleted from the
design in accordance with the Town’s concerns. The text of the DEIR has been revised
to remove this mitigation as presented in Section 3.0.

5C: The District will apply for an Encroachment Permit as specified in this comment. Based
on the Town’s review and direction, plan for speed feedback signs and/or other signs will
be included in the project. The District will pay the fees for this permit and the District’s
contractor will obtain the permit prior to commencing construction in June 2015.

5D: The District interprets this comment to mean that from 7 am – 9 am and 4 pm – 6 pm,
the contractor will not be allowed to transport soil to or from the site, and will implement
this recommendation. In addition, when school is in session, the District will require the
contractor not to transport soil to or from the site for 30 minutes before and after the
afternoon dismissal time.

5E: The District will include pre- and post-construction surveys of the reaches of More
Avenue and Granada Way identified in this comment. The District is committed to
returning these streets to their pre-construction condition. In addition, the District is
committed to being a good neighbor to the local community and will work with the Town
of Los Gatos to develop a street overlay plan that best accomplishes this policy upon
completion of the construction work.

30
 Letter 6

Santa Clara Valley

Audubon Societ y

November 10, 2014

Michael Coleman
Santa Clara Valley Water District

On behalf of Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS) I submit this comment letter on the
Rinconada Water Treatment Plant reliability Improvement Project (Project. The project proposes
to remove 1.2 acres of valley oak woodland and involves substantial grading and construction
activities.

Mitigation Bio-1 proposes to conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds 30 days prior to
construction.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects all but two of the species that could be found in
or near the Project site (starlings and house sparrows are not protected by the MBTA. A
preconstruction survey 30 days prior to construction is inadequate and biologically irrelevant,
since many woodland bird species can build a nest and raise and fledge young well within a 30-
day time period. A biologically relevant pre-construction survey would take place no longer than
a week prior to construction. A

Mr. Dave Johnston, Environmental Scientist, CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
recommend that pre-construction and pre-vegetation removal surveys should occur no more than
24 hours before work commences. If work in a particular location stops for more than 24 hours
(such as over a weekend or holiday), surveys should be done again before work recommences.
Surveys should take place at all locations within 300 feet of actual project activity and if the
project 'moves" (as with a pipeline), then the buffer and surveys should move as well. Mr.
Johnston also recommends a preliminary survey 30 days ahead of time to give the project
proponent an idea of what to expect once they are ready to begin work.

If nests are found, buffers would be set and maintenance work within the buffer areas should be
postponed until the nestlings have fledged. If raptors or special status species nests are found,
CDFW should be called on to set appropriate buffers.

We wish to caution the District that with the projected removal of hundreds or trees, it is
inevitable that some would contain bird nests during the nesting season. This is not to be taken
lightly, as an active bird nest may delay the project by several weeks. We strongly recommend B
p. 1 of 2

22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 252-3748 * Fax: (408) 252-2850
email: [email protected] * www.scvas.org
that the timeline of project implementation be sensitive to the ecological needs of birds and the
B
requirements of the MBTA, and remove the trees in the window between August and February.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments, and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you

Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D.

p. 2 of 2

22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 252-3748 * Fax: (408) 252-2850
email: [email protected] * www.scvas.org
6: RESPONSE TO SANTA CLARA VALLEY AUDUBON SOCIETY

6A: This comment refers to suggestions made by Mr. Dave Johnston of the CDFW, but
provides no context for Mr. Johnston’s recommendations and does not attach Mr.
Johnston’s recommendations. As indicated in the responses to Letter 1 (letter from Mr.
Scott Wilson of CDFW), the CDFW recommends conducting preconstruction surveys for
nesting birds no more than 14 days prior to construction (not 24 hours). This
recommendation has been incorporated into Mitigation Measure BIO-3 of the EIR as well
as the requirement for additional preconstruction surveys if construction-related activities
lapse for 15 days or longer. This mitigation measure will assure that all nesting birds are
protected throughout the construction period, and its effectiveness is supported by
substantial evidence, including Mr. Wilson’s letter.

This comment indicates that Mr. Johnston of CDFW recommends pre-construction and
pre-vegetation removal surveys to occur no more than 24 hours before work
commences. A 24-hour preconstruction window is not necessary to reduce impacts on
nesting birds to less-than-significant, and is also logistically infeasible since the project
would have to resurvey every weekend. In addition, this comment refers to Mr.
Johnston’s recommendation that a preliminary survey be conducted 30 days in advance.
Again, this measure is not necessary to reduce impacts on nesting birds to less-than-
significant.

The comment also requests that if nests are found, maintenance work within the buffer
areas should be postponed until nestlings have fledged, and if raptors or special status
species nests are found, CDFW should be called on to set appropriate buffers. The
qualified biologist retained by the District to monitor construction activities would have
the authority to implement these recommendations, as needed to assure impacts on
nesting birds would be less-than-significant (refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-3).

6B: See response 6A above. The District will comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
CDFW requirements. These requirements restrict impacts on nesting birds including
raptors. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 includes creation of a buffer around
any active nests and biological monitoring to assure that impacts to nesting birds are
avoided during any construction activities or tree removal occurring during the nesting
season.

33
 Letter 7
From: Mike Coleman
To: Leianne Humble
Subject: FW: Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Project---VTA comment
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 9:59:49 AM

From: Molseed, Roy [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 5:01 PM
To: Mike Coleman
Subject: Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Project

Michael,
A

VTA has no comments on the above project. Thanks.

Roy Molseed
VTA
(408) 321-5784
7: RESPONSE TO SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

7A: No response required.

35
 Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Celebrating 80 years of protecting the planet
3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303
[email protected] ｜ TEL - (650) 390-8411 ｜ FAX - (650) 390-8497

December 9, 2014

Michael Coleman, Environmental Planner

Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118

RE: Comments on Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Draft Environmental Impact Report

Dear Mr. Coleman,

The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter would like to comment on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for A
the Rinconada Water Treatment Plant (RWTP) Reliability Improvement Project in relation to the Notice of
Exemption (NOE) for Fluoridation at Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Treatment Plants
(fluoridation project). We are concerned that the EIR expands upon the project description in the NOE and
indicates that fluoridation will have environmental impacts.

The following information in the EIR was not included in the fluoridation project NOE.
 New chemical feed system, storage, and delivery of hydrofluorosilicic acid into drinking water (EIR
page 3-23)
 Demolition needed to accommodate the fluoridation project (EIR page 3-27) B
 Amount/volume of hydrofluorosilicic acid to be stored for the fluoridation project (EIR page 4.8-2)
 Hazardous materials impacts that would be mitigated by a Hazardous Materials Business Plan and
minimized by implementation of federal, state, and local requirements regulating use, storage and
transportation of hazardous materials (EIR pages 4.8-6 and 5-10)
 New traffic trips generated during the construction and operation phases of the fluoridation project
(EIR page 5-12)

None of this information was included in the NOE project description. Therefore the NOE approved in
November 2013 is incomplete and insufficient and needs to be updated. Otherwise the statement under C
Cumulative Impacts that the fluoridation project has independent utility (EIR page 5-8) is questionable.

Furthermore, the EIR mentions potential impacts during storage and use of hazardous materials, indicating
that the fluoridation project does have potential environmental impacts and an exemption is not warranted.
The risks have not yet been fully described or evaluated.
 What are the risks along transportation routes and at the project sites (how landslide, earthquake, D
flooding, and fire could increase risks at each site).
 What are the specific plans in case a spill occurs – who would be the first responder and do they have
the resources to handle such a chemical spill?
 What is the purity and quality of the product? Supposedly HFA used in drinking water meets ANSI
standards. What does this mean? What are the specific standards that must be met and how are they
verified? What percentage of shipments from the chosen supplier are tested and how will the District
track the results to make sure the product does not contain arsenic, mercury, lead or other substances
deemed dangerous to our water supply?

Page 1 of 3
Information in the Fluoridation at Water Treatment Plants Project Planning Study Report indicates similar
environmental impacts should be evaluated for all water treatment plants. Project information available in E
the RWTP EIR still is not available for the other two treatment plants.

Lastly there is the problem that alternatives to the fluoridation project have not been considered. Is
hydrofluorosilicic acid really the best product and what source will the District use? Will the product be
supplied from China, Florida, or somewhere that requires less transportation and therefore fewer carbon F
emissions to transport to San Jose?

General Follow-up on Fluoridation Project

We have not received any response to other issues raised in our previous comments about the fluoridation
project, so we would like to re-iterate some points we have made in the past that we believe should be
addressed in the name of 21st century program management.

First, the public deserves full transparency about the budget for this project including:
 The costs to implement the project for each fiscal year of the implementation phase starting in 2013
 Updated estimates for costs during the operational phase
 Current funding estimates posted on the website along with estimated costs to ratepayers

Second, there is a great need for outreach to the community regarding both the benefits and risks of
drinking water fluoridation. The District should work with project sponsors and the County Public Health G
Department to develop materials explaining risks to newborns, kidney patients and other vulnerable
populations and telling people how to remove fluoride from drinking water and how to avoid fluorosis.

Last but not least, the District must evaluate the effectiveness of the project. In line with the Santa Clara
County evidence-based public health initiative, the following actions would help provide ongoing
information on project effectiveness.
 Define measurable objectives and criteria of success to assess the effectiveness of the project.
 To create a baseline, evaluate what portion of the community currently is not receiving optimum dental
care and therefore will be served by the project. This evaluation should consider that some low-income
areas receive San Jose Water Company groundwater which will remain un-fluoridated.
 Once fluoridation begins conduct ongoing studies to evaluate how much dental health improves as a
result of the project, and if the dental health benefits are delivered in a cost effective manner.

It costs thousands of dollars per ton to properly neutralize and dispose of hydrofluorosilicic acid
(http://www.waterloowatch.com/hydrofluorosilicic%20acid.html). Something is amiss here. Should our
drinking water really be the destination for such a waste product?

The Sierra Club appreciates the opportunity to comment on the RWTP project in relation to the fluoridation
project. We continue to question the ethics, environmental risks, and costs vs. benefits associated with
fluoridation and therefore the viability of the fluoridation project.

Respectfully Submitted,

Katja Irvin, AICP

Chair, Water Committee
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

Page 2 of 3
Cc: SCVWD Board of Directors
Katherine Oven, Deputy Operating Officer, Water Utility Capital Division
Sara Cody, Santa Clara County Public Health Officer

Page 3 of 3
8: RESPONSE TO SIERRA CLUB

8A: As noted in the DEIR project description on page 3-23, the Fluoridation at Water
Treatment Plants Project (fluoridation project) is a separate CEQA project for which a
Notice of Exemption was filed in 2013. The Statute of Limitations period for legally
challenging the fluoridation project Notice of Exemption (NOE) has expired.

The project described and evaluated in the DEIR is the Reliability Improvement Project
(proposed project), which does not include the fluoridation project. The Board will use
the EIR to make a discretionary decision on whether to approve the proposed project
(see DEIR page 3-28).

The fluoridation project has independent utility from the proposed project because each
project can be implemented without the other project, and because each does not rely
on the other for its justification (see DEIR page 3-23). The DEIR project description does
not and cannot expand upon the fluoridation project description in the NOE because
fluoridation is not part of the Reliability Improvement Project.

8B: The DEIR presents no evidence that the fluoridation project would have new significant
environmental impacts, specifically:

 Proposed project description information on pages 3-23 and 3-27 includes

references to the fluoridation project description as a convenience for the reader
because both projects would be constructed at the same time. Nothing on pages 3-
23 and 3-27 discusses the impacts of the fluoridation project.

 In Section 4.8, no evidence is presented that the impacts of the fluoridation project
on hazards and hazardous materials would be significant.

 In Section 5, the fluoridation project is evaluated as a related project potentially

adding to the proposed project’s cumulative impacts. The information in this chapter
shows that the fluoridation project would not contribute to significant cumulative
impacts on hazards/hazardous materials (page 5-10) and traffic (pages 5-12 and 13),
and indicates that the proposed project’s incremental impacts on these resources
would not be cumulatively considerable.

 When filing the NOE for the fluoridation project, the District properly determined,
based on substantial evidence, that there was no reasonable possibility of significant
impacts due to unusual circumstances per CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2, which
would prevent use of a Categorical Exemption. CEQA does not require any further
consideration of environmental impacts or formal environmental impact analysis in
the NOE, since the NOE is not a CEQA document.

8C: See responses 8A and 8B above. Please note that an NOE is not a CEQA
“environmental document” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15361, and that CEQA
prescribes no procedure for “updating” an NOE. The fluoridation project has independent
utility, because it could be implemented without the proposed project and does not rely
on the proposed project for its justification.

39
8D: The DEIR presents no evidence that impacts of fluoridation project on
hazardous/hazardous materials or water quality would be significant, and as mentioned
in responses 8A and 8B above. The Statute of Limitations period for legally challenging
the fluoridation project NOE has long expired. The list of questions in this comment does
not constitute substantial evidence that significant impacts could occur.

8E: The reference to the fluoridation project planning study report and information contained
in that report do not constitute substantial evidence that significant impacts of the
fluoridation project could occur at the Rinconada Water Treatment Plant. The planning
study report describes the analytical process that the District used to develop and screen
conceptual alternatives during the planning phase of the project. Certain criteria
(financial impact, operability, neighborhood impacts, and environmental impacts) were
evaluated for the purpose of helping the District eliminate alternatives that would be
undesirable, impracticable, or infeasible. The ability of an alternative to a) minimize risk
of chemical leaks and b) optimize building/land use efficiency were considered under the
“environmental impacts” criterion. The consideration of these factors in the fluoridation
project planning study report does not constitute substantial evidence that fluoridation
would result in significant impacts at the Rinconada Water Treatment Plant.

8F: Since the DEIR has been prepared for the proposed project, not the fluoridation project,
CEQA does not require that the DEIR evaluate alternatives or product suppliers for the
fluoridation project.

8G: These comments do not raise environmental issues associated with the proposed
project or the DEIR, and no response is required. As stated above, the fluoridation
project is a separate CEQA project for which a NOE was filed in 2013. Nevertheless, the
District will address these comments regarding the fluoridation project in a separate
letter to Sierra Club. Because it will address comments on a different project, the
separate letter will not be part of the FEIR for the Rinconada Water Treatment Plant
Reliability Improvement Project.

40
RESPONSES TO ORAL COMMENTS
Public Comments Received During the October 29, 2014 Public Meeting

COMMENT

1. Sudevshan Goyal

 Requested noticing neighbors of (construction) truck schedules in advance.

 Requested noticing neighbors of demolition schedules in advance, especially
when removing asbestos/lead-based paints or other hazardous materials.
 Requested regular meetings with neighbors during construction.
 Asked about the status of a landscape plan.

RESPONSE: The District will provide noticing to the neighbors of the construction activities and
schedule and will conduct regular meetings with the community to provide updates on project
construction and status.

A landscape plan will be prepared that incorporates the requirements of Mitigation Measure
BIO-5, which requires that the District develop and implement an Oak Woodland Mitigation Plan
that will incorporate the requirements of the Los Gatos Tree Ordinance as well as other tree
replacement and protection measures.

COMMENT

2. Tim Nguyen

 Expressed concerns with safety from construction truck traffic in the vicinity of,
and on students traveling to/from, Rolling Hills School.

RESPONSE: Pedestrian safety concerns were addressed in the DEIR on pages 4.13-4 and
4.13-20. The traffic analysis for the project concluded that truck traffic would not significantly
impact pedestrian safety and vehicle access to/from Rolling Hills School.

COMMENT

3 John Kenevey

 Concerned with tree removal/replacement

RESPONSE: Tree removal is addressed in the DEIR on pages 4.4-15 through 4.4-17 and again
on 4.4-18. As set forth in Mitigation Measure BIO-5, the District will develop and implement an
Oak Woodland Mitigation Plan that will incorporate the requirements of the Los Gatos Tree
Ordinance as well as other tree replacement and protection measures. A landscape plan will
incorporate the requirements of Measure BIO-5.

41
COMMENT

4. Jim Adams
 Concerned about impacts of construction trucks on surrounding roadway
pavement
 Concerned about queuing of construction trucks in AM

RESPONSE: To minimize roadway pavement impacts, the District will conform to the Town’s
requested pre- and post-construction pavement surveys and overlay on impacted street
segments. The District is committed to returning these streets to their pre-construction condition.
The project will assure truck queuing is appropriately managed by retaining a construction
management firm to supervise/coordinate the proposed RWTP improvements throughout the
construction period.

COMMENT

5. Pat Ferraro
 23 years on SCVWD Board
 Questioned the need to increase capacity
 Requested additional alternatives analysis

RESPONSE: Mr. Ferraro’s oral comments were duplicated in his letter sent to the District.
Please see responses to Letter 3.

Others in attendance at the public meeting that did not speak: John Trone, Bob Norbutas.

42
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR

3.1 Introduction

The following section provides revisions to the text of the DEIR, as a separate section, pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(d). The revisions are listed by page number. All additions
to the text are presented in underline, and all deletions are shown in strike out. These revisions
are made to the text in response to comments offered during public circulation of the DEIR and
to provide minor technical corrections to DEIR information. These changes are considered
clarifications and/or amplifications, but are not “significant new information” that would trigger
DEIR recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a).

3.2 Revisions to DEIR

Page 3-4, Figure 3-2 is revised as shown in the following pages.

Page 4.4-1 & 4.4-2, Section 4.4.1.2 Habitat Types, the first paragraph, is revised as follows to
reflect recently refined and more precise information regarding acreages of habitat types in the
project survey area:

Five biotic habitats were identified on the RWTP property during the biological
investigation of the property. The acreages of the five habitat types within the project
survey area are presented below.

 Non-native Grassland (3.5 3.2 acres)

 Valley Oak Woodland (9.7 13.1 acres)
 Drying Beds (2.1 acres)
 Landscaped (7.8 6.3 acres)
 Developed (16.0 acres)

Page 4.4-3, Figure 4.4-1 Habitat Map is revised as shown in the following pages.

Page 4.4-8, Section 4.4.1.4 Sensitive Habitats, first paragraph, is revised as follows:

Valley oak woodlands are considered sensitive by the CDFW (CDFW, 2010).
Additionally, as described above, SFDFW nests were observed within the valley oak
woodland habitat type in the RWTP area. Approximately 9.7 13.1 acres of valley oak
woodland were documented within the RWTP boundaries. Due to the known presence
of SFDFW nests and the designation by the CDFW, valley oak woodland is considered a
sensitive habitat.

Page 4.4-13, Mitigation Measure BIO-1, first paragraph, is revised as follows:

BIO-1 Not more than seven (7) thirty (30) days prior to the start of construction
(including vegetation removal) on the project site, the District biologist or a
qualified biologist retained by the District shall conduct a survey of the project site
to locate existing SFDFW nests. All SFDFW nests shall be mapped and flagged
for avoidance. Graphics depicting all SFDFW nests shall be provided to the
District. Any SFDFW nests that cannot be avoided shall be relocated according
to the following procedures. The District shall submit a woodrat nest relocation
plan to CDFW for review prior to any nest relocation activities. All personnel

43
 conducting relocation activities shall wear safety gear during nest relocation
activities.

Page 4.4-14, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 is revised as follows:

BIO-3 Construction activities, including ground disturbance and tree removal, that may
affect nesting birds shall be timed to avoid the nesting season. Specifically, tree
removal shall be scheduled after September 15 and before January 31 15 or at
the discretion of the District biologist or a qualified biologist retained by the
District. Alternatively, if construction activities or tree removal are to occur during
the breeding season (February 1 January 15 through September 15), the District
shall conduct surveys for active nests no more than 30 14 days prior to
construction, and a lapse in construction related activities 15 days or longer will
require another preconstruction nesting survey. If nesting birds are identified
during the pre-construction surveys, a buffer shall be imposed within which no
construction activities or disturbance shall take place until the young of the year
have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival.
The size of the buffer shall be determined by the District biologist or a qualified
biologist retained by the District, dependent on the species and site conditions.
The biologist must be onsite at a frequency required to ensure that nesting birds
are not disturbed by Project activities and that nest abandonment or other
potentially significant impacts do not occur. The biologist shall have the authority
to halt project activities or increase the size of the buffer, if necessary to prevent
or minimize impacts.

Page 4.4-15, Section 4.4.3.3 Impacts to Riparian Habitat, Wetlands, or Other Sensitive Natural
Communities, the first and second paragraphs are revised as follows to provide more precise
information regarding impacts to sensitive habitats:

As described in 4.4.1.4, Sensitive Habitats, the presence of SFDFW nests and the
CDFW designation classify valley oak woodland as a sensitive habitat. Approximately
9.7 13.1 acres of valley oak woodland are documented on the RWTP property. The
project would directly impact approximately 1.9 1.2 acres of valley oak woodland habitat
from the removal of oak woodland vegetation. An estimate of the locations for valley oak
woodland habitat that would be removed is illustrated in Figure 4.4-2.

Impact

The project would impact approximately 1.9 1.2 acres of valley oak woodland habitat, a
sensitive habitat. The removal of vegetation within the valley oak woodland habitat
resulting from project construction is considered a potentially significant impact. The
District would implement the following mitigation measure to reduce the project impacts
on valley oak woodland.

Page 4.4-15, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 is revised as follows:

BIO-5 Prior to construction, the District, with the guidance of a District approved
biologist and arborist, shall develop an Oak Woodland Mitigation Management
Plan to be implemented by the District. This Mitigation Management Plan would
will incorporate the guidelines of the SCVHP Condition 14, Santa Clara County
Planning Office’s “Guide to Evaluating Oak Woodlands Impacts, the Town of Los

44
Gatos Tree Preservation Ordinance, and the recommendations of the arborist
reports contained in Appendix D (HortScience), to the extent applicable and
feasible. Details of the Oak Woodland Mitigation Management Plan would will
include the following at a minimum:

 Description of applicable guidelines from the sources listed above SCVHP,

Santa Clara County Planning Office’s “Guide to Evaluating Oak Woodlands
Impacts”, the Town of Los Gatos Tree Preservation Ordinance, and
HortScience arborist reports;
 Construction of temporary project access points as close as possible to the
work area to minimize necessity for tree removal;
 Mitigation for tree removals at a the ratios listed below of at least 1:1;
 Tree replacement timing and amount of tree replacement;
 Size of replacement trees;
 Species selection;
 Tree densities and spacing;
 Enhanced habitat in the proposed restoration areas through the salvage and
redistribution of coarse woody debris;
 Implementation, maintenance, and monitoring plans, and performance and
success criteria.
 Tree protection measures for remaining trees, including,
o Aligning roads and pathways outside of tree root protection zone
whenever possible;
o Conducting pruning during winter dormant period for valley and blue
oaks, under the supervision of a District approved arborist;
o Minimizing trenching for utility lines and other purposes within root
protection zones; and
 Off-site mitigation or in lieu fee payment, if necessary.

Mitigation Ratios for Native Trees. The District will mitigate for its removal of
native trees by one of two options as described below.

 Under Option 1, mitigation ratios for native trees will be calculated based on
the following mitigation ratios.

Tree Replacement Ratios for Oak Woodland Restoration (Option 1)

Replacement Ratio
Size of Tree Removed (number of trees replaced to
1
(dbh, in inches) number of trees removed)
<6 3:1
6–18 4:1
>18 6:1
1
Diameter at breast height (dbh) is defined as the diameter of the tree at breast height, or the
diameter of the tree at 54 inches above existing grade.

 Under Option 2, mitigation ratios will be based on the canopy approach in

Table 3-1 of the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance. These ratios

45
 increase the number and size of replacement trees based on the canopy size
of the removed tree.

Mitigation for Non-native Trees. To mitigate for non-native trees (ornamentals)

the District will pay impact fees to the Town of Los Gatos as described in the
Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance. Non-native tree replacement
ratios will be based on tree canopy size measured as the maximum distance
across the canopy. The mitigation ratios would range from 3:1 to 6:1.

Tree Protection Measures. The Oak Woodland Mitigation Plan will incorporate a
variety of tree protection measures, including those set forth in the arborist
reports. These measures will include:

 Aligning roads and pathways outside of tree root protection zone

whenever possible;
 Minimizing trenching for utility lines and other purposes within root
protection zones;
 Using stem wrap to minimize damage to tree trunks;
 Avoiding stockpiling of materials within the tree critical root zones;
 Using high visibility fencing around the tree critical root zones to minimize
root compaction that otherwise would be caused by parking of vehicles or
equipment on top of or near these root zones;
 Conducting pruning during winter dormant period for valley and blue
oaks, under the supervision of a District approved arborist.

Page 4.4-18, third paragraph, the first sentence is revised as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would require the development and implementation of an Oak
Woodland Mitigation Management Plan.

Page 4.4-18, the sixth paragraph is revised as follows:

However, as described above, in Section 4.4.3.3, the District would incorporate the
guidelines from the adopted SCVHP into the Oak Woodland Mitigation Management
Plan for purpose of minimizing and mitigating for impacts on oak woodland habitat.

Page 4.4-16, Figure 4.4-2 Valley Oak Woodlands Impacts Map is revised as shown in the
following pages.

Page 4.4-17, Section 4.4.3.4 Impacts to Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites, first paragraph is
revised as follows:

As described above in Section 4.4.3.2, SFDFW nests were observed in the valley oak
woodland habitat. The valley oak woodland habitat could be classified as a SFDFW
nursery site. In addition, the valley oak woodland habitat provides nesting habitat for
raptors and other protected avian species. The project would remove 277 trees; 171 of
the trees planned for removal are either coast live, valley, or blue oak trees. The removal
of trees, including oaks, and construction of the project would result in a loss of
approximately 1.9 1.2 acre of valley oak woodland habitat, which provides nesting
habitat for SFDFW and could provide nesting habitat for protected avian species.

46
Page 4.13-19, Mitigation Measure TRF-2 is revised as follows:

TRF-2 The District shall implement one of the two following improvements along More
Avenue and incorporate into final site plans and specifications, subject to District
and Town of Los Gatos concurrence:

1. Add a continuous turn lane in the middle of More Avenue between Capistrano
Place and the main entrance. This lane would connect with the existing left-
turn storage pocket in the southbound direction at the main entrance.

2. 1. Add warning signs, speed feedback signs, and other appropriate signage
as part of a specific sign package to be approved by the Town of Los Gatos.
The sign package would provide prominent warning signs informing drivers
on More Avenue that there are driveways ahead that cannot be seen. New
signs stating “Caution Hidden Driveway,” “Blind Driveway Ahead,” or similar
language, and signs posting the 25 mph speed limit before both entrances
would be part of the proposed sign package to be approved by the Town of
Los Gatos.

Page 4.13-20, the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs under “Conclusion” are revised as follows:

Implementation of TRF-2 would entail either adding a continuous turn lane in the middle
of More Avenue or implementing a traffic sign package. A center turn lane on More
Avenue would serve two purposes, as follows:

a) Adding a center turn lane in between the two existing travel lanes on More Avenue
would require that the travel lanes be narrowed. Narrowing these lanes, especially
the downhill northbound lane where speeds are now well in excess of the posted
speed limit, would serve to slow traffic down. Narrower travel lanes serve as a visual
cue to drivers to reduce their travel speed. Slower travel speeds provide a longer
amount of time for drivers to see each other where sight distances are limited.

b) A center turn lane would provide space for vehicles to wait for a gap in northbound
traffic to turn left into the lower gate. As noted above, there is currently no left turn
storage pocket on More Avenue at this driveway, so if trucks need to stop before
turning left into the lower driveway, southbound through traffic is blocked. By
beginning the turn lane just north of the Capistrano Place intersection, trucks would
be able to pull into the center turn lane before turning left into the lower gate's driveway.

Page 7-3, Mitigation Measure BIO-1, first paragraph, is revised as follows:

BIO-1 Not more than seven (7) thirty (30) days prior to the start of construction
(including vegetation removal) on the project site, the District biologist or a
qualified biologist retained by the District shall conduct a survey of the project site
to locate existing SFDFW nests. All SFDFW nests shall be mapped and flagged
for avoidance. Graphics depicting all SFDFW nests shall be provided to the
District. Any SFDFW nests that cannot be avoided shall be relocated according
to the following procedures. The District shall submit a woodrat nest relocation
plan to CDFW for review prior to any nest relocation activities. All personnel
conducting relocation activities shall wear safety gear during nest relocation
activities

47
Page 7-5, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 is revised as follows:

BIO-3 Construction activities, including ground disturbance and tree removal, that may
affect nesting birds shall be timed to avoid the nesting season. Specifically, tree
removal shall be scheduled after September 15 and before January 31 15 or at
the discretion of the District biologist or a qualified biologist retained by the
District. Alternatively, if construction activities or tree removal are to occur during
the breeding season (February 1 January 15 through September 15), the District
shall conduct surveys for active nests no more than 30 14 days prior to
construction, and a lapse in construction related activities 15 days or longer will
require another preconstruction nesting survey. If nesting birds are identified
during the pre-construction surveys, a buffer shall be imposed within which no
construction activities or disturbance shall take place until the young of the year
have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival.
The size of the buffer shall be determined by the District biologist or a qualified
biologist retained by the District, dependent on the species and site conditions.
The biologist must be onsite at a frequency required to ensure that nesting birds
are not disturbed by Project activities and that nest abandonment or other
potentially significant impacts do not occur. The biologist shall have the authority
to halt project activities or increase the size of the buffer, if necessary to prevent
or minimize impacts.

Page 7-6, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 is revised as follows:

BIO-5 Prior to construction, the District, with the guidance of a District approved
biologist and arborist, shall develop an Oak Woodland Mitigation Management
Plan to be implemented by the District. This Mitigation Management Plan would
will incorporate the guidelines of the SCVHP Condition 14, Santa Clara County
Planning Office’s “Guide to Evaluating Oak Woodlands Impacts, the Town of Los
Gatos Tree Preservation Ordinance, and the recommendations of the arborist
reports contained in Appendix D (HortScience), to the extent applicable and
feasible. Details of the Oak Woodland Mitigation Management Plan would will
include the following at a minimum:

 Description of applicable guidelines from the sources listed above SCVHP,

Santa Clara County Planning Office’s “Guide to Evaluating Oak Woodlands
Impacts”, the Town of Los Gatos Tree Preservation Ordinance, and
HortScience arborist reports;
 Construction of temporary project access points as close as possible to the
work area to minimize necessity for tree removal;
 Mitigation for tree removals at a the ratios listed below of at least 1:1;
 Tree replacement timing and amount of tree replacement;
 Size of replacement trees;
 Species selection;
 Tree densities and spacing;
 Enhanced habitat in the proposed restoration areas through the salvage and
redistribution of coarse woody debris;
 Implementation, maintenance, and monitoring plans, and performance and
success criteria.
 Tree protection measures for remaining trees, including,

48
 o Aligning roads and pathways outside of tree root protection zone
whenever possible;
o Conducting pruning during winter dormant period for valley and blue
oaks, under the supervision of a District approved arborist;
o Minimizing trenching for utility lines and other purposes within root
protection zones; and
 Off-site mitigation or in lieu fee payment, if necessary.

Mitigation Ratios for Native Trees. The District will mitigate for its removal of
native trees by one of two options as described below.

 Under Option 1, mitigation ratios for native trees will be calculated based on
the following mitigation ratios.

Tree Replacement Ratios for Oak Woodland Restoration (Option 1)

Replacement Ratio
Size of Tree Removed (number of trees replaced to
1
(dbh, in inches) number of trees removed)
<6 3:1
6–18 4:1
>18 6:1
1
Diameter at breast height (dbh) is defined as the diameter of the tree at breast height, or the
diameter of the tree at 54 inches above existing grade.

 Under Option 2, mitigation ratios will be based on the canopy approach in

Table 3-1 of the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance. These ratios
increase the number and size of replacement trees based on the canopy size
of the removed tree.

Mitigation for Non-native Trees. To mitigate for non-native trees (ornamentals)

the District will pay impact fees to the Town of Los Gatos as described in the
Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance. Non-native tree replacement
ratios will be based on tree canopy size measured as the maximum distance
across the canopy. The mitigation ratios would range from 3:1 to 6:1.

Tree Protection Measures. The Oak Woodland Mitigation Plan will incorporate a
variety of tree protection measures, including those set forth in the arborist
reports. These measures will include:

 Aligning roads and pathways outside of tree root protection zone

whenever possible;
 Minimizing trenching for utility lines and other purposes within root
protection zones;
 Using stem wrap to minimize damage to tree trunks;
 Avoiding stockpiling of materials within the tree critical root zones;
 Using high visibility fencing around the tree critical root zones to minimize
root compaction that otherwise would be caused by parking of vehicles or
equipment on top of or near these root zones;

49
  Conducting pruning during winter dormant period for valley and blue
oaks, under the supervision of a District approved arborist.

Page 7-7, the mitigation in the last row is revised as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would require the development and implementation of an Oak
Woodland Mitigation Management Plan.

Page 7-13 and 7-14, Page 4.13-19, Mitigation Measure TRF-2 is revised as follows:

TRF-2 The District shall implement one of the two following improvements along More
Avenue and incorporate into final site plans and specifications, subject to District
and Town of Los Gatos concurrence:

1. Add a continuous turn lane in the middle of More Avenue between Capistrano
Place and the main entrance. This lane would connect with the existing left-
turn storage pocket in the southbound direction at the main entrance.

2. 1. Add warning signs, speed feedback signs, and other appropriate signage
as part of a specific sign package to be approved by the Town of Los Gatos.
The sign package would provide prominent warning signs informing drivers
on More Avenue that there are driveways ahead that cannot be seen. New
signs stating “Caution Hidden Driveway,” “Blind Driveway Ahead,” or similar
language, and signs posting the 25 mph speed limit before both entrances
would be part of the proposed sign package to be approved by the Town of
Los Gatos.

Appendix D, cover page, the text is revised as follows:

Tree Surveys Trees to Be Removed

50
 Prince S t
to n
el Po r

Ma
Wed
ge wo

tts o
od A
ve

nA
ve
Mo
re A
i llo
el A l t Ln
ry
bu

ve
x
Ro

l
oP
an
r

Rinconada
va

pi s tr
u le

Ca La s Uvas Ct Country
B

G rana
as
si t

Club
l

a tio
So
Ca
el

P
ad

da Wa
Los
e st
Pu

ve
re A

y
Mo

Rinconada Water
Treatment Plant

Sm ith Creek
SJWC Reservoirs
Chippendale Ct

Vine yard
Ct Ash Ct
Bickne ll Rd
Scarsb orou gh Way
Hepplewhite Ct

Montclair Rd

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
I 0 500 1,000
Feet

Revised Aerial Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
3-2
Final EIR
 Approximate RWTP Boundary
Valley Oak Woodland
Non-native Grassland
Developed
Drying Bed
Landscape

Gr
an
ad
aW
ay

k
e
Av

e
Smith Cre
re
Mo

0 125
¯250 500 Feet

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoE ye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, A EX,
Getmapping, A erogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Revised Habitat Map Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.4-1
Final EIR
 Approximate RWTP Boundary
Valley Oak Woodland Habitat Impact Areas
Valley Oak Woodland
Non-native Grassland
Developed
Drying Bed
Landscape

Gr
an
ad
aW
ay

ek
e
Av

Smith Cre
re
Mo

0 125
¯ 250 500 Feet

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoE ye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, A EX,
Getmapping, A erogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Revised Valley Oak Woodlands Impacts Map Figure

January 2015
Rinconada WTP Reliability Improvement Project
4.4-2
Final EIR