Resolution 1986-45
h~
> "
"
,.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-45
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF GILROY
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN CONNECTION WITH A
PROJECT CONSISTING OF ADOPTING A LONG-TERM WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITIES OF GILROY AND MORGAN
HILL FOR WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS
BEEN PREPARED.
WHEREAS, the wastewater treatment plant servicing the
Ci ties of Gilroy and Morgan Hill has reached capaci ty and
virtually all residential, commercial and industrIal growth
beyond the year 1988 will be severely curtailed unless addi-
tional sewage capacity is provided; and
WHEREAS, at the direction of the two ci ties, James M.
Montgomery Engineers analyzed alternatives for sewage treat-
ment expansion as described in their Wastewater Management
Alternative Analysis and Long Term Draft Project Report
("Montgomery Engineers Report") dated July 1984; and
WHEREAS, for more than two years expansion of sewage
treatment capaci ty has been studied by James M. Montgomery
Engineers as consultants to the two ci ties, by the Citizens
Sewer Advisory Committee, by the Joint Powers Committee of the
two City Councils, and by the City Councils themselves; and
WHEREAS, the Council intends to adopt a Long Term Waste-
water Management Plan ("Planll), described as alternative SL
(Winter Surface Discharge to the pajaro River and Summer Land
Treatment) as discussed in the Montgomery Engineers Report and
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Long Term Waste-
water Management Plan of the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill
dated March 1986, prepared by Earth Metrics Incorporated
("Final EIR"), hereinafter referred to as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, prior to drafting an environmental impact report
("EIR") the lead agencies held two agency scoping meetings and
three public Scoping meetings both wi thin and wi thout the
County of Santa Clara to provide an opportunity for interested
persons to comment on topics they would like addressed in the
EIR; and
WHEREAS, such Project was the subject of a program EIR
prepared for the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill as lead
agencies, and the Council held a public hearing on the draft
EIR on December 14, 1985 for public comment, and a public
meeting on April 8, 1986 to consider the proposed Final ErR;
and
~.
RESOLUTION NO. 86 - 45
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
'}7/28/86
. ~..
.
.
WHEREAS, the Council certified the Final EIR as complete
in compliance with the CalifornL:> Environmental Quali ty Act
("CEQA,i) on April ~, 1986;, and
WHEREAS, CEQA requires that, in the approval of a project
for which an EIR has been prepared, the decision-making body
shall review and consider the final EIR prior to approving the
project and make certain findings regarding the significant
effects on the environment identified in said final EIR,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Gilroy as follows:
1.
CEQA CERTIFICATION:
The Council as the decision-
making body hereby certifies that the Final EIR was presented
to it and that it has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the Project.
2. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE
FINAL EIR FOR ALTERNATIVE SL;
Hydrology/Water Resources
A.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Possible construction of perco-
lation ponds (123 acres) within the 100 year flood plain
reduces existing flood storage areas and creates a potential
increase in flooding hazards to other uses in the area.
MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Alternative SL requires 123
acres for percolation ponds in addition to those already ex-
~.
isting at the wastewater treatment facility.
The most suit-
able acreage is loca ted in Si tes 12 (140 acres) and/or 19
(1,180 acres), those si tes totaling 1,320 acres.
The 123
LIT:Fi~d-002
L0183/001
07/28/86
-2-
.
.
lOa-year flood plain.
and to the extent possible should be constructed outside the
acres for SL will be selected from the 1,320 acres available,
disposal pond design may prevent complete avoidance of the
Considerations of topography and final
flood plain, but this al terna ti ve requires less acreage for
ponds than Alternatives Land LD.
Design and placement of
ponds required within the 100 year floodplain shall be
order to minimize potential increased flooding hazards.
coordinated with the Santa Clara Valley Water District in
above mitigation incorporated "ill avoid potential flooding
hazards by location of ponds outside the 100 year floodplain
FINDING: Implementation of this alternative with the
design and placement of the ponds.
or substantially lessen such hazards to an acceptable level by
B. Additional percolation wastewater recharge to the
Upper semi-perched aquifer of the Llagas Subbasin would po-
tentially ~esult in, oversaturation of the upper aquifer,
resulting in elevated groundwater levels and potential agri-
culture impacts and spillage to the north to the deeper
aquifer.
MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
Monitoring of groundwater
conditions is required.
For si tes where high groundwater
occurs as a result of percolation pond recharge, dewatering
wells or underdrains shall be constructed to lower the ground-
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
07/28/86
-3-
.
, .
.
.
water levels. Additional treatment (precipitation and clari-
fication) will be required to remove iron prior to discharge.
FINDING:
The project incorporates mitigation mea-
environmental effect thereof.
sures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
The following significant effects may OCCur as a result of
incorporating underdrains or dewatering wells with Possible
discharge to the pajaro River during summer months as a miti-
gation measure for high groundwater:
to downstream beneficial uses of the Pajaro River as a result
1. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Potential turbidity impacts
river in late summer.
of channel sCouring if wastewater discharge is pumped into the
MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
Groundwater or underdrain
only during
pumpage discharge into the Pajaro River should be utilized
times of high groundwater conditions at the
Construction of the proposed outfall to the
treatment plant.
Pajaro River shall be equipped with an energy dissipating
structure and other appropriate structures, as required, to
minimize stream bed erosion and channel alteration impacts. A
ing initial river recognizance, to minimize potential tur-
river monitoring and management plan will be devised, includ-
bidity impacts.
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
07/28/86
.
.
",
State law grants jurisdiction to the California Department
affecting the natural flow or bed of the pajaro River, includ-
of Fish and Game with regard to any proposed activities
ing reviewing the proposed project and proposing reasonable
modifications to the construction.
The project will require
Department of Fish and Game.
application for a Streambed Alteration Agreement to the
FINDING:
The project incorporates mi tigation mea-
environmental effect thereof.
sures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
qUired, the potential for turbidity impacts is insignificant.
If summer pumping is not re-
sion and sCouring in the pajaro River due to increased steam
2. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Possibility of channel ero-
benthic invertebrate communi ties in the affected area, af-
flows i ncr eas ing sedimen t load and tu r b i di ty , alt e ring the
fecting filter feeding fish and burying nonmotile benthic
organisms.
MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
Construction of the pro-
posed outfall to the pajaro River shall be equipped wi th an
as required, to minimize stream bed erosion and channel al-
energy dissipating structure and other appropriate structures,
be devised, including initial river recognizance, to minimize
teration impacts. A river monitoring and management plan will
potential erosion and turbidity impacts. .. The project will
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
07/28/86
-j-
.
.
the Department of Fish and Game.
require application for a Streambed Alteration Agreement to
able modifications to the construction.
the proposed project and has jurisdiction to propose reason-
The Department will review
FINDING:
The project incorporates mitigation mea-
environmental effect thereof.
sures which avoid Or substantially lessen the significant
able habitat and optimum growth and Spawning water tempera-
tures for steelhead trout caused by elevated ~emperatures of
3. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Potential impacts to avail-
effluent discharge to the pajaro River during summer months.
MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
Al terna ti ve SL discharges
thus minimizing the effects of elevated effluent temperatures
primarily during winter wet weather and increased river flows,
entering the river.
However, it is Possible that some dis-
dent upon groundwater conditions.
charge to the river could occur during summer months, depen-
of steelhead trout habitat and other aquatic resources shall
be conducted to determine the potential impacts from the point
of discharge to the mouth of the pajaro River. Post-discharge
A pre-disCharge inventory
monitoring will be required, and if degradation is detected in
steelhead trout habitat, fishways to facilitate trout movement
Upstream to suitable habitats and around the point of dis-
charge should be constructed. Alternatively, modifications to
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
07/:31 6 _~_
"
.
.
the wastewater treatment processes could be required to reduce
effluent temperatures.
FINDING:
The
project
incorporates
mitigation
environmental effect thereof.
measures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
WATER QUALITY
C.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Discharge of wastewater to the
down river from the discharge point.
pajaro River could have a significant effect on domestic users
18 residences along the pajaro River which obtain their water
PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: There are at least
either directly from the river or from wells directly adjacent
to the river.
Such use is not recommended, particularly for
drinking water, eVen without the proposed discharge into the
pajaro River due to the uncertainty of the existing water
quality of the river. Accordingly, at present these domestic
domestic water treatment.
Users should secure alternative domestic water Sources or use
the Pajaro degrades the quality of their domestic water
If the discharge of waste water to
further, that would make such provision of alternative sources
or treatment more important.
The ci ties of Morgan Hill and
Gilroy cannot enforce such a requirement,
since these
residences are located ou tside of their territorial limits.
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
07/28/86
-/-
.
.
The County of San Benito Health Department is urged to work
with each such domestic water user to ensure that an adequate
water source is available.
FINDING:
The project identifies mitigation measures
which substantially lessen or avoid the significant environ-
mental effect thereof.
Complete mitigation, cannot be imple-
mented unilaterally by the Cities because the potential impact
other public utili ties to mi tigate.
OCCurs outside their jurisdiction and is within the control of
need for sewage capacity, the environmental risk will be tol-
In view of the Cities'
erated as an acceptable level of impact.
D.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Percolation pond effluent would
salts, i.e., total dissolved solids, sodium, chloride and
exceed Basin Plan groundwater quality objectives for inorganic
of the upper semi-perched aquifer of the Llagas SUbbasin.
sulfate, potentially causing groundwater quality deterioration
shallow upper aquifer is less critical than disposal into the
deeper aquifer potentially associated with alternative L (Land
PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
Disposal into the
Disposal).
The lower aquifer is considered to be important
for water SUpply by the Santa Clara Valley Water Distr ict,
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be continued
whereas the upper is not. Groundwater monitoring as required
to identify potential impacts due to borganic salts at the
LIT:Find-002
L0183/0 1
07/28/8
-8-
.
.
earliest Possible stage.
Current practice for groundwater
recharge wastewater treatment processing does not include
removal of inorganic salts.
In addition to "objectives,"
which are more in the nature of goals, the Basin Plan contains
that should be met.
standards for discharges, which are the actual recommendations
from the expanded plant is consistent with Basin Plan
Disposal of the effluent to be produced
charges in the basin.
standards and with normal restrictions put on effluent dis-
treatment to limit salts.
control" of water quali ty factors, which does not include
The Basin Plan requires "reasonable
disposal of the resul tant salt br ines.
environmental and resource impacts associated with the
costly, require large amounts of energy and involve additional
Processes to remove salts are
to meet Basin Plan objectives.
ents, the effluent should be treated, to the extent Possible,
For other constitu-
FINDING:
The removal of inorganic salts is not a
standard sewage treatment process, and has ser ious environ-
mental consequences associated with it, particularly involving
disposing of the resulting brine.
the large amounts of energy required and the difficul ty of
effluent is not required by Basin Plan standards, nor is it
Such treatment of the
expected to be required by the Regional Water Quality Control
plant.
Board, which will set waste discharge requirements for the
The EIR does not specifically recommend treatment to
meet Basin Plan groundwater objectives with respect to
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
07/28/86
-9-
.
.
inorganic salts.
Except for alternatives SO (surface
discharge to the ocean) & SP (surface discharge to the pajaro
River), which raise other environmental issues, all other
alternatives including the No Project alternative have the
same potential for groundwater quality deterioration. There-
fore, in view of the Ci ties' need for sewage capaci ty to
risk will be tolerated as an acceptable level of impact.
support existing and planned urban uses, the environmental
E.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Potential degradation to Llagas
Creek and pajaro River water quali ty on an infrequent, tem-
porary basis from accidental discharges of untreated or
partially treated sewage due to plant shutdown or failure,
industrial pretreatment failure and chemical spills, or a
major seismic event.
shall be designed to include provisions for emergency storage
PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: The treatment plant
capacity and emergency standby power to provide immediate
response to plant shutdown or failure. Influent and effluent
monitoring shall be required to detect industrial pretreatment
failure and chemical spills. The design of the facilities and
structures shall comply with seismic requirements of the
current Uniform Building Code.
Some unavoidable discharges
of Spillage at the plant would be limited by probable break-
would occur as a result of a major earthquake, but the extent
downs in the sewer collection pipelines and;the water system.
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
07/28/86
-10-
.
.
FINDING:
The project incorporates mitigation mea-
sures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect, and in view of the need for sewage
risk as acceptable.
capacity, the Cities will tolerate any remaining environmental
Bioloqy
F.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Percolation pond disposal of
treated effluent would potentially impact adjacent trees due
to excessive water in the root zone.
MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
Effluent shall be applied
and consistent with proper engineering practice to avoid over-
at the rates recommended in the Montgomery Engineers Report
saturation.
The final engineering plans designing land dis-
posal areas shall avoid the riparian vegetation areas whenever
feasible.
FINDING:
The project incorporates mitigation mea-
sures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect thereof.
~.
G.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Increased Pajaro River stream
flows could potentially alter migration responses in steelhead
trout with resultant effects of fish stranding and increased
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
07/28/86
, ,
"
.
.
susceptibility to poaching and disease.
MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
Large discharges to the
river should be timed with, to the extent possible, the com-
mencement of winter rains and higher stream flows to minimize
potential steelhead migratory responses.
At the discharge
point, the river should be enlarged by widening and dredging a
small section of the river to create holding pond areas for
migration, and enclosures should be constructed around the
holding pond to keep out poachers. River banks and bottom
should be stabilized wi th gravel, riprap or other feasible
materials.
FINDING:
The project incorporates mitigation mea-
sures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect thereof.
Air Qualitv/Odor
H.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Temporary potential air quality
effects on localized areas adjacent to construction activity
caused by construction related dust.
MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
Standard dust control measures
as required by the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Manage-
ment District (BAAQMD) shall be required during construction
of the project.
(See Final EIR, p. 3.5-12).
LIT:Find-Q02
L0183/001
07/:::C1/86
-12 -
.
.
FINDING:
The project incorporates mitigation mea-
sures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect thereof.
.,..~->l":'.;. ..-~:~".
I.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Potential odor impacts from
operation of the wastewater treatment plant to adjacent sensi-
tive land uses.
MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
Odor impacts can be fully
mitigated through the use of standard odor controls in the
design of the facili ties.
The facility headworks will be
covered and the recovered off-gases will be scrubbed. Poten-
tial headworks odors may also require in-sewer chemical treat-
ment to reduce hydrogen sulfide.
Standard odor control
engineering techniques shall be included in the design of the
primary clarifiers.
The influent flow measuring structures
should be covered with subsequent off-gas scrubbing if adverse
odors occur .at this process point.
FINDING:
The project incorporates mitigation mea-
sures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect thereof.
~.
Cultural Resources
J.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Percolation. pond preparation,
LIT:Find-Q02
L0183/001
07/28/8f
-13-
"
.
.
treated effluent disposal and pond maintenance (discing and
plowing) on site 19 could potentially impact cultural re-
sources to one known prehistoric site, as well as other yet
unrecorded sites.
MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
Prior to project construc-
tion, cultural resource testing of the selected disposal acre-
age shall be unqertaken, including field mapping, sampling and
excavation. Final design of land disposal areas should avoid,
to the extent feasible, any significant cultural resources
identified by the archaeological testing.
If a significant
cultural resource disturbance is unavoidable, a data recovery
program should be implemented under the direction of a quali-
fied archaeologist to preserve the cultural information at the
disturbed site.
Should archaeological resources (prehistoric
or historic cultural materials) be encountered during subsur-
face construction, work in that area should be stopped and an
archaeologist notified.
Provisions of current state law must
then be follDwed.
Should human remains be encountered, the County Coroner's
office shall be contacted.
If the remains are of Native
American origin, the procedures set forth in Section 7050.5 of
the California Health and Safety Code shall be followed.
FINDING:
The project incorporates mitigation mea-
sures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect thereof.
LIT:Find-Q02
[,0183/001
07/28/86
-'4-
I ,
.
.
Growth Inducing Imoacts
K.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Implementation of the Long Term
Hill by eliminating the current constraint of lack of waste-
Plan would have a growth inducing effect in Gilroy and Morgan
water treatment and disposal capacity.
PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
The project is
designed for the purpose of accommodating the planned growth
of the Cities. Development of the wastewater treatment plant
will be phased to allow adjustments as necessary in the timing
and amount of capacity to match the actual rate of growth for
Gilroy and Morgan Hill, as governed by their General Plans and
growth management programs.
The complete implementation of
any alternative will expand wastewater treatment plant ca-
pacity to 14.9 mgd.
This capaci ty would be required based
upon ABAG and Montgomery Engineers' growth projections for the
year 2008. . However, growth in Gilroy and Morgan Hill is
managed under their General Plans, by Gilroy I s Residential
Development Ordinance and initiative Measure E in Morgan Hill,
and may not reach the 2008 predictions.
The phasing of
capacity gives the Cities the ability to limit the project to
conform wi th actual growth.
This phasing is not possible
under alternative SO.
FINDING:
The project IS designed to accommodate
LIT:Find-002
[,0183/001
07/22/86
-15-
.
.
growth, but incorporates mi tigation measures which subs tan-
tially lessen the further growth-inducing impact of the
project itself.
L.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Potential effect on the balance
between employment and housing in Gilroy and Morgan Hill due
to growth in commercial and industrial uses.
.-
MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
Implementation of any al-
housing and growth relating to employment opportunities, and
ternative would not differentiate between growth relating to
therefore will not cause imbalance of itself.
Continuing
implementation of the existing policies for balanced growth
would reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
Both
Gilroy and Morgan Hill have existing policies for achieving a
balance in jobs and housing, described in the Urban Growth and
Development element of Gilroy's General Plan and through
Hill.
growth regulations, along wi th the General Plan, in Morgan
FINDING:
The project incorporates mi tigation mea-
effect thereof.
sures which substantially lessen the significant environmental
M.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Employment growth would indi-
in San Beni to County, especially in San Juan Bautista and
rectly create potential pressures for residential development
HOllister, if the demand generated for housing and the pro-
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
"'7/28/86
_1 ~ _
.
.
jected lack of housing supply in the Gilroy and Morgan Bill
area by the year 2000 occur.
City policies for a balance between jObs and housing in Gilroy
and Morgan Hill as described in mitigation measure Labove
will minimize this effect. . San Benito County and the Ci ties
MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Continued implementation of
of San Juan Bautista and Hollister have juriSdiction and
control over housing growth within their boundaries to limit
development. These juriSdictions are urged to control housing
growth within their boundaries in order to prevent or limit
the adverse environmental affects resulting therefrom by use
of their general plans and appropriate growth control
ordinances as necessary.
FINDING:
The project incorporates mitigation mea-
effect thereof.
sures which substantially lessen the significant environmental
unilaterally. by the Cities because the potential impact occurs
Complete mi tiga tion cannot be implemented
public agencies to mitigate.
outside their juriSdiction and is within the control of other
Land Use
N.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Acquisition of property for
affected property owners on site 19 (31 residences).
percolation land disposal area would potentially impact
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
07/28/86
.1 ...,_
"
.
.
tial uses.
site shall avoid, to the extent Possible, sites with residen-
percola tion pond land disposal areas wi thin each candidate
MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Final selection of suitable
will receive fair market value for such rights.
Owners of property rights which must be acquired
FINDING:
The project incorporates mi tigation mea-
environmental effect thereof.
sures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
O.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Conversion of agricultural land
due to community growth accommodated by any alternative would
agricultural land in Santa Clara County.
contribute to a continuing trend of a cumulative reduction of
PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
Wi th the growth
South County area through the year 2008, this effect is una-
projected by ABAG, the Cities, and their consultants for the
voidable. Growth will result in loss of agricultural land for
all project alternatives, including the No Project alterna-
tive, which, as discussed in the Final ErR, predicts growth
serviced by septic tanks or individual package treatment
plants creating significant environmental concerns regarding
groundwater quality.
Phasing of the expansion of treatment
Cities' growth management programs rather than predicted
plant capacity to match actual growth as governed by the
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
07/28/86
-::. 8 -
"
.
.
growth reduces the impact of this effect.
Final ErR result in this unavoidable impact including the No
FINDING: All project alternatives identified in the
Project alternative.
Phasing of treatment plant expansion
will reduce this impact. Due to the Cities' need for sewage
capaci ty to support existing and planned urban uses, this
environmental riSk will be tolerated as an acceptable impact.
Public Services and Utilities
P.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Uncertainty of landfill availa-
bility and capacity, and cumulative solid wastes generated by
other development both in and outside the service area, create
wastes.
a potentially significant impact regarding disposal of solid
MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
Neither direct wastes, the
grit and sludge generated by this alternative, nor secondary
impacts.
wastes of themselves create significant solid waste disposal
However, the Cities should enter into agreements
for such disposal.
with landfill operators or make other arrangements to provide
The Cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy and
the San Martin area currently have a franchise agreement with
dary solid waste disposal service.
the South Valley Refuse Disposal Company of Gilroy for secon-
the Company's Pacheco Pass landfill, with" current remaining
Refuse is disposed of at
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
07/28/86
-:"9-
.
.
capacity through the year 2010.
capaci ty of five to ten years and approval of expansion for
FINDING:
The project incorporates mi tigation which
thereof.
substantially lessens the significant environmental effect
All alternatives, including the No Project alter-
impacts due to growth.
native, result in potential secondary cumulative solid waste
reduces this risk to an acceptable level.
The Cities' need for sewage capacity
Q.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Potential impacts on secondary
public services and utili ties due to increased demands for
fire and police protection, water supplies, storm drainage,
by growth.
wi thin the GilroY/Morgan Hill/San Martin service area caused
roadway maintenance, parks and recreation and school services
PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
New development
occurr ing in the Ci ties should be evaluated for effects on
service providers and conditions of mitigation imposed as
required on the development, including but not limi ted to,
formation of assessment districts and imposition of develop-
ment impact fees to finance expansIon of services. New
development in the unincorporated area is controlled by the
County of Santa clara and it is within County jurisdiction and
authority to similarly regulate such growth.
Morgan Hill
Unified School District and Gilroy Unified School District
LIT:Pind-002
L0183/001
07/:::8/86
-20-
,-' .
.
.
should consider methods to increase school capacity, including
year-round school terms and double sessions, in addi tion to
mitigation provided by local governments pursuant to Govern-
financing provided by the state and pursuing new development
ment Code 5565970 et seq.
FINDING:
The project incorporates mi tiga tion mea-
effect thereof.
sures which substantially lessen the significant environmental
unilaterally by the Cities because the potential impact OCcurs
Complete mi tigation cannot be implemented
public agencies to mitigate.
outside their jurisdiction and is within the control of other
Traffic and Transoortation
L
R.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Growth-induced traffic volumes
within the service area (GilroY/Morgan Hill/San Martin) would
create a potentially significant effect on U. S. Highway 101
and State Route 152, east of U.S. Highway 101, on carrying
capacities by the year 2008.
MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
The Ci ties of Gilroy and
Morgan Hill should continue to plan and fund traffic improve-
ments identified to accommodate growth pursuant to their
General Plans.
They should moni tor traffic growth as new
developments are approved, and impose traffic mitigation mea-
sures if required to increase capacity along major routes in
LIT:Pind-002
L0183/001
07/28/86
-21-
.
.
the Cities to accommodate expansion of Highway 101 and State
Route 152.
The State Department of Transportation, Caltrans, is cur-
four lanes between State Route 156 and Bell Station.
rently planning the improvement of State Route 152 from two to
struction is scheduled to be completed by 1990.
Con-
plans to widen State Route 152 between State Route 156 and
Caltrans
for the widening of U. S. Highway 101 to eight lanes between
U~S. Highway 101 by the year 1995. Long-range plans also call
State Route 152 and Bernal Road, and to six lanes between
Gilroy and the San Benito County line to the south.
projects will not be completed before the year 2000.
These
FINDING:
The project incorporates mi tigation mea-
effect thereof.
sures which substantially lessen the significant environmental
unilaterally by the Cities because the potential impact occurs
Complete mitigation cannot be implemented
public agencies to mitigate.
outside their jurisdiction and is within the control of other
3.
nificant effects as discussed above can be eliminated or sub-
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES:
Because not all sig-
alternatives for an environmentally Superior means of achiev-
stantially lessened, this Council carefully evaluated several
ing the Project objective. Alternatives reviewed in addition
to 8L included L (land disposal), LD (land disposal with de-
watering wells or underdrainage discharge to the pajaro River)
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
n7/23/8E
-22-
.
.
the Pajaro River) and No Project. As discussed in the Final
SO (surface discharge to the ocean), SP (surface discharge to
EIR, no alternative was found to be environmentally superior;
each had significant unmitigatable effects, including the
cumulative impact caused by the loss of agricultural land due
to growth. Alternatives L and SO had significant effects
regarding geology; all alternatives but SO had significant
effects with regard to water quality; ,all but the No Project
alternative had significant effects with regard to biology and
air quality; all but SP and No Project had significant effects
on cultural resources; all alternatives had significant
effects with regard to hydrology/water resources, odor,
ties, and secondary effects from traffic and transportation.
growth-induction impacts, land use, public service and utili-
the primary reasons for rejecting the other alternatives are
cated process that is difficult to summarize simply. However,
The evaluation of the alternatives was a long and compli-
as follows:
(a} SO Alternative.
Generally speaking the SO
alternative had insignificant long-term environmental impacts,
but had significant short-term environmental impacts primarily
due to construction.
It would be difficult to phase the
ini tially very extensive pipeline facili ties.
system and to fund it because of the need to construct
this alternative engendered the greatest political opposition.
In addi tion,
(b) 5P Alternative.
The primary drawback of the SP
alternative is the impact on the Pajaro River during the low-
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
07/28/86
-:3-
.
.
flow summer months.
Alternatives 5L and LO reduce these
impacts considerably by using land disposal during the
summer.
Alternative SP also fails to diversify the disposal
by not using any of the existing land disposal facilities.
(c) L Alternative.
The primary disadvantage of the
land disposal alternative is the unmitigatable impact on
potable groundwater.
This impact is much worse for the L
alternative than for LO or SL because the L alternative would
put effluent into the deep aquifer, which is an important
source of domestic water.
The L alternative also has a
greater risk of failure due to extreme weather conditions.
(d) LD Alternative.
This is a viable alternative,
whose primary disadvantage is the lack of a tertiary treatment
plant, which therefore makes it of lower reliability. Adopt-
ing the LO alternative precludes the later phasing in of an SL
option.
(e) No Project Alternative. As discussed in detail
in the EIR, the no project alternative would not result in a
complete lack of growth.
. On the contrary, there would be
growth, and the sewage effluent produced by that growth could
not be accommodated by the community sewage system.
It would
most likely be accommodated through dispersed package treat-
ment plants and other methods that would be much less under
the control of the cities than the proposed plant expansion.
This would lead to significant adverse impacts which would be
much more difficult to monitor, detect, and prevent than would
a planned expansion of the sewage capaci ty centralized into
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
07/28/81)
-24-
" ,
.
.
one well-run central facility.
As discussed above, all of the alternatives do have
certain adverse environmental effects.
Balancing these
environmental effects with the economic, technical, and
feasibility considerations of the various alternatives, the
Council has determined that alternative SL best sui ts their
needs and those of the residents in the service area.
4.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS:
Notwith-
standing the existence of significant effects which cannot be
mitigated to a less than significant level, the Council hereby
finds that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and therefore finds
the adverse environmental effects to be acceptable.
The Council finds that each significant effect identified
in the Final EIR as described in Section 2 above is acceptable
because mitigation measures have been required to reduce these
effects to the extent feasible, and, on balancing the benefits
to be realized by approval of alternative SL as the Plan
against the remaining environmental risks, the following
economic, social and other considerations outweigh the effects
and support approval of the project:
The sewage treatment plant servicing the Cities of Gilroy
and Morgan Hill has reached capaci ty.
.,'
Virtually all resi-
dential, commercial and industrial growth beyond the year 1988
will be severely curtailed unless addi tional sewage capaci ty
is provided.
The Regional Water Quali ty ~ontrol Board, the
LIT:Find-'J02
L0183/001
07; 28/86
-25-
I.
.
.
permitting authority for the current sewage treatment plant,
required the Cities to submit a long term wastewater manage-
ment report. Further expansion of the treatment plant must be
consistent wi th said report.
The alternatives discussed in
the proposed Long Term Wastewater Management Plan satisfy that
requirement.
Santa Clara County has recognized the needs of the South
County region to provide adequate wastewater treatment for the
area by expansion of sewage capacity, and has so informed the
Cities.
(See letter from Supervisor Susanne Wilson dated
April 29, 1986).
The State Department of Housing and Com-
munity Development also urged Gilroy by letter of February 3,
1986 to increase its sewage capacity in the near future so
that residential construction can resume at a rate at least
equal to regional share determinations.
The City of Gilroy's General Plan identifies a pattern of
planned growth and provision of urban services which necessi-
tate addi tional long term wastewater treatment capaci ty. In
"
particular, . the reasons which necessi ta te this addi tional
Wastewater Treatment Facilities" memo to the City Adminis-
capaci ty are detailed in the "Planning Policies Regarding
trator from the Planning Department dated April 25, 1986.
The City of Morgan Hill is not only guided by the growth
policies in its General Plan, but restricted by initiative
~'
Measure E controlling growth wi thin the Ci ty until the year
2000.
Yet the current sewage treatment capaci ty, virtually
all of which has been allocated for the controlled growth in
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
07/28/86
-26-
I.
" .
.
.
the two cities, does not meet the urban service requirements
of the General Plan.
Expansion of sewage treatment capacity, as directed by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, has been studied by
Montgomery Engineers as consultants to the two cities, by the
Ci tizens Sewer Advisory Commi ttee, by the Joint Powers Com-
mi ttee of the two Ci ty Councils, and by the City Councils
themselves.
Written and oral testimony documenting the need
for expansion was introduced by numerous residents and com-
munity groups at the public hearings held to review the Plan
alternatives.
A long term wastewater management plan for
expanded sewage capacity is needed to implement the planning
policies of the two cities. The economic viability of the two
communities is uncertain without the planned growth allocated
by the General Plans.
In certain of the preceding findings, the statement is
made that the environmental risk or impact will be tolerated
in view of the importance of planning for expansion of sewage
capacity as .outlined above.
Briefly stated, the reasons for
making this statement with respect to the specific findings is
as follows:
For Domestic Purposes). This impact can be tolerated because
it affects very few persons, and because the present usage of
(a) Findinq C (Imoact on Users of pajaro River Water
the pajaro River for drinking purposes is not recommended.
(b) Finding D (Inorqanic Salts). Although listed as
a potentially significant environmental
impact,
further
LIT:Fin~' -002
L0183/001
07/28/86
-27-
r
..... ('
.' .
.
.
and SUInn3.rized in these findings shows that the proposed alterna-
analysis as presented in submittals from Montgomery Engineers
tive would in fact be consistent with discharge standards set
by the Basin Plan. Since the upper semi-perched aquifer of
the Llagas Subbasin is not an important source of domestic
water supply, the environmental risk is felt to be very small.
or Seismic Event).
(c) Finding E (Pollution Due to Accidental Discharqe
The treatment plant will be designed and
would be extremely low. Some risk is unavoidable, since it is
operated so that the risk of such an accidental discharge
impossible to design a perfect plant that will function under
'of the proposed alternatives, including the no project alter-
all conceivable circumstances, but this risk exists with any
native.
(d) Finding 0 (Conversion of Agricultural Land Due
to Growth). This impact exists as a result of any develop-
ment, and is consistent with the growth plans of the Cities
contained in their general plans and growth control ordi-
nances.
again is a result of any of the project alternatives, includ-
(e) Finding P (Disoosal of Solid Wastes).
This
ing the no project alternative.
It has always been possible
to dispose of these wastes in the past, and it is expected
that such disposal will continue to be possible.
In summary,
the Council finds that alternative SL
represents a viable, economically and environmentally feasible
expansion program for sewage treatment which can be phased to
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
07/28/36
-28-
.
.
, .
accommodate the planned growth of the two cities.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29thday of
July
, 1986, at
a special meeting of the
following called vote:
Gilroy
City Council by the
AYES: COUNCIU1EMBERS: GAGE, KLOECKER, MUSSALLEM, PALMERLEE, VALDEZ
and HUGHAN.
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER:
ALBERT
~:
rs/ s~~ E.
CITY CLERK
APPROVED:
/s/ ROBERTA H. HUGHAN
MAYOR
LIT:Find-002
L0183/001
07/28/86
-2J-
~ '
.,-)
-
.
.
I, SUSlUmE E. ST:Ih~:Z; C~=y Cle=k 0:: ~he City of Gil=oy, do
hereby, cer~ify that the attached Resolution No.
86-45
is an
original resolution, duly adopted by 'the Council of the City of
., special,.:. d C . 1 h Id h 29th
G~.roy at a ~eg~=a: meet~ng o~ sa~ ounc~_ e on t.e
..-.."
day of
Julv
, 19 ~, at which meeting, a quorum 'Was'
p=esent.
IN 'W'"I.TNESS w6'::"REO~, I have hereunto set my hand and af::ixed the
0_-, . 1 5 ' - . C' - G" --' .
==~c~a_ ea. 0= the ~ty 0= ~_roy ~n~s
30th
day of
July
19 86 .