Loading...
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 .