The URL can be used to link to this page

Resolution 1987-66 - t. ~ ...-J:- J' -. 'I ------r------ I (- t-._ . . r .~ RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 66 RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF GILROY AUTHORIZING STAFF TO APPLY TO THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD FOR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATION OF A DENITRIFICATION WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY AND MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. WHEREAS, denitrification is needed to avoid future discharge of nitrate from municipal sewage to the groundwater in the Gilroy area; and WHEREAS, the wastewater treatment plant servicing the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill will require additional capacity by the year 1991; and WHEREAS, at the direction of the two cities, James M. Montgomery Engineers analyzed alternatives for sewage treatment expansion as described in their Wastewater Management Alternative Analysis and Long Term Draft Project Report ("Montgomery Engineers Report") dated July 1984; and WHEREAS, at the direction of the two Cities, the firm of Earth Metrics, Inc. was retained to prepare a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Program EIR") analyzing the five viable alternatives identified in the Montgomery Engineers Report. In the process of drafting the Program EIR, the Cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy held two agency scoping meetings and three public scoping meetings, both within and without the County of Santa Clara, to provide an opportunity for interested persons to comment on topics they would like addressed in the program EIR. Public meetings and public hearings were held both by the City of Morgan Hill and the City of Gilroy on the Draft EIR, and a further public meeting was held to consider the proposed Final EIR by each City; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Morgan Hill certified the Final Program EIR as complete in compliance with CEQA on April 16, 1986 by Resolution No. 3014, and the City Council of Gilroy certified the Final Program EIR as complete in compliance with CEQA on April 8, 1986; and WHEREAS, on July 29, 1986 the Council adopted by resolution a Long Term Wastewater Management Plan ("Plan"), described as alternative SL (Winter Surface Discharge to the pajaro River and Summer Land Disposal) as discussed in the Montgomery Engineers Report and the Program EIR; and RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 66 -1- i{_ ~ \ . {' r ~ . . ( .~ WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 86-45 dated July 29, 1986 the Council certified that the Program EIR was adequate prior to making their decision to adopt alternative SL and that the Council had reviewed and considered the information contained in the program EIR. Said Resolution further adopted written findings required by CEQA which identified numerous significant effects from the project, and for each significant effect analyzed available mitigation or avoidance measures. The findings also contained a statement of overriding concerns explaining the reasoning of the City Council in approving the project even though certain significant impacts cannot be fully mitigated. A copy of this Resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the first step in implementation of the Long Term Wastewater Management Plan is construction of secondary treatment facilities with denitrification on the existing Gilroy/Morgan Hill Wastewater Facilities site (the "Activity"). This Activity was the subject of an extensive report prepared by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. entitled City of Gilroy, City of Morgan Hill, Predesign Report for Denitrification Facilities, June 1987 (the "Denitrification Facilities Predesigned Report"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the guidelines implementing it, the Program EIR was prepared as a "program" EIR under CEQA Guidelines ~15168. It was explicitly contemplated by the Cities and acknowledged in the Program EIR as well as in the hearings held in connection with it that the Program EIR would in itself be sufficient to allow certain stages of implementation of the project, but that further environmental analysis would be required at some stages of project implementation. For example, prior to the winter surface discharge into the pajaro River contemplated by the chosen SL alternative, certain predischarge studies of the pajaro River would have to be completed and analyzed. These studies might lead to the preparation of further environmental documents, such as a negative declaration or a supplemental or focused Environmental Impact Report. Guideline Section 15168(c) states that where subsequent activities under a program EIR are contemplated, a checklist should be prepared to see whether the impacts of those activities are adequately covered in the original program EIR. If there are new impacts not covered in the Program EIR, or if new mitigation measures would be required, then either a negative declaration or some form of further environmental impact report may be required. On the other hand, if all impacts of the project are in fact covered in the Program EIR and no new mitigation measures are required, then no further environmental documentation is required; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the foregoing mandate of CEQA and the guidelines, an Environmental Review has been prepared for the proposed Activity dated August 19, 1987, a copy of which -2- '(r _ ~ l,\ -. rlf 1 . . is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Environmental Review"). The Environmental Review analyzes with respect to many potential impacts whether the proposed Activity would impact that topic, and if so whether the impacts are significant and whether the topics are covered in the Program EIR. The conclusion of the Environmental Review is that the proposed Activity would have certain environmental impacts, but that each impact that the Activity would have is covered in the Program EIR. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Gilroy as follows: 1. The Council as the decision-making body hereby adopts the attached Environmental Review and finds that all environmental effects of the proposed Activity are adequately covered in the Program EIR. The Council finds that no new impacts would occur that are not covered in the Program EIR, and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, the Council concludes pursuant to Guideline Section 15168 that no further environmental documentation is required in order to carry out the implementation of the Activity. 2. The Council hereby approves the Denitrification Facilities Predesign Report and authorizes staff to obtain the appropriate approvals for construction of the facilities contemplated therein. Accordingly, staff is authorized to submit an application to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for Waste Discharge Requirements for operation of the Denitrification Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Similarly, the staff is authorized to submit to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District an application for authority to construct and operate the Denitrification Facilities. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of September , 1987, at a regular meeting of the Gilroy City Council by the following called vote: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ALBERT, GAGE, KLOECKER, PALMERLEE, VALDEZ and MUSSALLEM. COUNCILMEMBERS: None AYES: ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: HUGHAN APPROVED: ~PR~ -3- ~.. . . 'I", '... 1., .r'lt.,. . . CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, Susanne E. Steinmetz , City Clerk of the City of Gi lroy, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 87-hh' of the City Council of the City of Gilroy, passed and adopted this 21st day of September , 1987. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the City of Gilroy, 25th day of September , 1987. -4- "f" ,'" 1 i ~ " .. f.'--.!' ..] te \. " ... 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 P~OJECT CONSISTING OF ADOPTING A LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGL~NT PLAN FOR THE CITIES OF GILROY AND MORGAN HILL FOR WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN P~EPARED. WHEREAS, the wastewater treatment plant servicing the Ci ties of Gilroy and Morgan .Hill has reached capacity and virtually all residential, commercial and . industr'ial 'growth beyond the year 1988 will be severely curtailed unlessaddi- tional sewage capacity is provided; and WHEREAS, at the direction of the two cities, 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 Reportll) dated July 1984; and WHEREAS, for more than two years expansion of sewage treat:nent capaci ty has been studied by James M. Montgomery Engineers as consultants to the two cities, by the Citizens Sewer Advisory Committee, by the Joint Powers Committee of the two City Councils, and by the City Councils themselves; and WHER~~S, the Council intends to adoot a Lona 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 (IIFinal EIR")", hereinafter referred to as the "Project II; 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 Ci ties 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 EIR; and RESOLUTION NO. 86 - 45 LIT:E'ind-002 L0183/001 17/23/86 EXHIBIT A lJ.lDOOl ~""1 i t Y' '1 ~ \. r WEE~~;S, the Council certified the Final EIR as complete in comoliance wi th the CalifornL" Environmental Quali ty Ac~ ("CEQA") on April ~, 1986; _ and w~EREAS, CEQA requires that, in the approval of a projec~ for which an EI~ 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 C1ty 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. SIG~IFIC.;NT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL EI~ FOR ALTERNATIVE SL: Hvdroloav/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: Alt~rnative 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 located in Si tes 12 (140 acres) and/or 19 (1,180 ac:-es), those sites totaling 1,320 acres. The 123 LIT:Fi::d-002 L0183/001 07/28/86 -2- lO.1f10r2 t t "t t . . r' r . . f .. acres for SL will be selected from the 1,320 acres available, and to the extent possible'sh6uld be constructed outside the lOa-year flood plain. Considerations of topography and final disposal pond design may prevent complete avoidance of the flood plain, but this alternative requ~res less acreage for ponds than Alternatives Land LD. Design and placement of ponds required within the 100 year floodplain shall be coordinated with_,theSa.nta Clara Valley Water Disttict in order to minimizs potential increased flooding haiards. FINDING: Implementation of this alternative with the above mitigation incorporated will avoid potential flooding hazards by la_cation. oaf -ponds-:..:out:si-de--th-e-l-OO yea-i;<-flooclp-lai'n J::irv:s:Ubstantially .:le.ssen -such hazards to an acceptable level by design and placement of the ponds. -. ..-~ - _.__._-~_. - -'_...._._---,~..".._--~--- -,", .'~.__.. B. Additional percolation wastewater recharge to the tentially r.esult in oversaturation of the upper . aquifer, upper semi-perched aquifer of the Llagas Subbasin would po- r'e'sulting in elevated groundwater levels and potential agri- c'ulture impacts and 'Spillage to the north to the deeper aquifer. MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: . Monitoring of groundwater ~. conditions is required. . For~' --sites' 'where high groundwa ter wells or underdrains shall be constructed to lower the ground- occurs as a result. of percolation pond recharge, dewatering LIT:Find-002 L018.3/001 07/28/86 -3- 104'~nor 3 " t" .... t ~ t 1_-- la (. ~~tional treatment (precipitation and clari- . 'r' I I water levels. r fication) will be required to remove iron prior to discharge. FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation mea- sures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect thereof. The following significant effects may occur as a result of incorpora ting underdrains or de'Na ter ing wells with possible discharge to the pajaro River during summer months as a miti- gation measure for high groundwater: 1. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Potential turbidity impacts to downstream beneficial uses of the Pajaro River as a result of channel scouring if wastewater discharge is pumped into the river in late SU~~er. HITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Groundwater or underdrain pumpage discharge into the Pajaro River should be utilized only dur ing times of high groundwater conditions at the treatment plant. Construction of the proposed outfall to the pajaro River shall be equipped with an energy dissipating structure and other appropr ia te structures, as required, to minimize stream bed erosion and channel alteration impacts. A river monitoring and management plan will be devised, includ- ing ini tial rIver recognizance, to minimize potential tur- bidity impacts. LIT::ind-002 L0183/001 07/28/86 _.~ - .' .' ~,r:. ~ n00'1 I .. . ,- - .- ,..:...- ~," . . '. ~'?. i - ...... f l' I. .~ . f. ~. ~. of Fish and Game with regard to any proposed activities State law grants jurisdiction to the California Department affecting the natural flow or bed of the pajaro River, includ- ing re'liewing the proposed project and proposing reasonable modifications to the construction. The project will require application for a Streambed Alteration Agreement to the Department of Fish and Game. FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation mea- environmental effect thereof. sures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant If summer pUmpIng is not re- quired, the potential for turbidity impacts is insignificant. 2. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Possibility of channel ero- sion and scouring in the pajaro River due to increased steam benthic inyertel:)ra te communi ties in the affected area, af- flows inc:-easing sediment load and turbidi ty, al ter ing the fecting filter feeding fish and burying nonmotile benthic organisms. HITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Construction of the~ pro- posed outfall tc? the ?ajar:o River shall be equipped with an ~nergy dissipating st~ucturec?ndothe~'appropriate structures, as require~, to minimize stream bed erosion and channel al- .,.~ ~. ~. . ,- . .... be devised, including initial river recognizance, to minimize teration impacts. A river ~onitoring and management plan will potential erosion and turbidi ty impacts. .. The project will LIT:Find-002 L0183/001 07/28/86 1.1.......:1I,-'r S ~..."~"~'" \..1 ~ ~ -5- - " r' .. t . . requi:e application for a Streambed Alteration Agreement to the Department of Fish and Game. The Department will review the proposed project and has juriSdiction to propose reason- able modifications to the construction. FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation mea- sures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect thereof. 3. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Potential impacts to avail- able habi ta t and optimum growth and spawning water tempera- tures for steelhead trout caused by elevated temperatures of effluent discharge to the pajaro River during summer months. MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Al terna ti ve SL discharges primarily during winter wet weather and increased river flows, thus minimizing the effects of elevated effluent temperatures entering the river. However, it is possible that some dis- charge to the river could occur during summer months, depen- dent upon groundwater conditions. A pre-discharge inventory 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 Pajafo River. Post-discharge monitoring will be required, and if degradation is detected in " steelhead trout habitat, fishways to facilitate trout movement upstr-eam to sui table habi ta ts and around the point of dis- charge should be constructed. Alternatively, modifications to LIT:E'ind-002 L0183/nOl 07/28/ 6 1r' ., -r-., 0'" r: _ ". ....:: -~ (" tl ..1 -"J- I f ~ ,J te ~ . r the wastewate~ treatment processes could be required to reduce effluent tempe~atures. FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect thereof. WATER QO'ALI~Y C. SIGNIFICANT EF~ECT: Discharge of wastewater to the pajaro River could have a significant effect on domestic users down river from the discharge point. PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: There are at least 18 residences along the Pajaro Rive~ which obtain their water either direc~ly 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 users should secure alternative domestic water sources or use domestic water treatment. If the discharge of waste water to thepajaro degrades the quality oi, their domest~c water further, that would make such provision of -alternative SOurces ,- or treatment more important. ," The cities-of Morgan Hill.and Gilroy cannot enforce such a requirement, since these residences are located outside of their ter r i tor iaIIimi ts. LIT:F:.nd-002 L0183/00I 07/28/86 1 :~ ,i/: ~'Y,-/'7 -.- -- . -/- l' ':c. , , I' . \e .r The County of San Beni to Health Department is urged to work with eac~ suc~ domestic water user to ensure that an adequate water source is available. FI}J'DING: The project identifies mitigation measures which substantially lessen or avoid the significant environ- mental effect thereof. Complete mi tiga tion. cannot be imple- mented unilaterally by t~e Cities because the potentia~ impact Occurs outside their jurisdiction and is within the control of other public utilities to mi tiga te. In view of the Cities' need for sewage capacity, the environmental risk will be tol- 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 sulfate, potentially causing groundwater quality deterioration of the upper semi-perched aquifer of the Llagas Subbasin. PART:::AL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Disposal into the shallow upper aquifer is less critical than disposal into the deeper aquifer potentially associated with alternative L (Land DisDosal) . The lower aquifer is considered to be important for water supply by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, ,. whereas the upper is not. Groundwater monitoring as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be continued to identify potential impacts due to i:1organic salts at the LIT:F.:.nd-QO:: L0183/001 07/28/86 -9- 1).10008 . r :c, . 1 i. " . (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 Basiri.Plan Disposal of the effluent to be produced charges in the bas in. 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 environmental and costly, requrre large amounts of energy and involve additional Processes to remove salts are resource impacts associa ted wi th the disposal of the resultant salt brines. For other constitu- to meet Basin Plan objectives. ents, the ef=luent should be treated, to the extent possible, 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 difficulty of effluent is not required by Basin PI~'n standards, nor is it expected to be required by- the Regional Water Quality Control Such treatment of the .. plant. Board, which will set -- waste discharge requirements Ear the meet Basin Plan ground'Nater objectives : with respect to The ErR does not specifically recommend treatment to LIT:Find-002 L0183/001 07/28/86 -9- "'- lG<1DOG9 t -.. ~ tit inorganic salts. ~ Except for alternatives SO (surface River), which raise other environmental issues, all other discharge to the ocean) & SP (surface discharge to the pajaro al terna ti ves including the No proj ect al terna ti ve have the same potential for groundwater quality deterioration. There- fore, in vier,y of the Ci ties I need for sewage capaci ty to support existing and planned urban uses, the environmental risk w~ll be tolerated as an acceptable level of impact. E. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Potential degradation to Llag~s 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 PART:AL 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 selsm:c requirements of the current Uniform Building Code. .' would Occur as a result of a major earthquake, but the extent Some unavoidable discharges of spillage at the plant would be limited by probable break- downs in the sewer collection pipelines and:the water system. LIT:Find-002 L0183/001 07/28/86 -10- J. !~1.10010 -. I f - \ T I' . . '\ FINDING: The project incorporates mi tigation mea- sures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, and in view of the need for sewage capacity, the Cities will tolerate any remaining environmental risk as acceptable. Bioloav F. SIGNIFICANT EFFEC~: Percolation pond disposal of treated effluent would potentially impact adjacent trees due to excessive water in the root zone. MIT!GAT!ON OR AVOIDANCE: Effluent shall be applied at t:.e rates rec:::r.unended in the Montgomery Engineers Report and c:::nsistent with proper engineering practice to avoid over- saturation. The final engineering plans designing land dis- posal areas shall avoid the r~par~an 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 wit:' resultant effects of fish stranding and increased LI~:Find-I}02 L0183/001 07/28/86 10.; .! ~,(\~ "7 _ ..,. 4..~ ,",-'-b..--. - ~ , - . t . .- . susceptibility to poaching and disease. MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Large discharges to the r~ver 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 Qualit7/0dor H. SIGNI?ICANT E?FECT: 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-002 L0183/001 J7/:-/86 - ~:- 1~ .,. ....."..., ~ _ 'oJ. oA.-~ \. .. '-I -L ....", i' 'f . . FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation mea- sures whic~ avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect thereof. 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 mi tiga ted through the use of standard odor controls ~n the design of the facili ties. The facili ty 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 pr:U:lary 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 mi tigation mea- sures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect thereof. ," "CuI tu"ral ResOurces J. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Percolation: pond preparation, "LIT: E'inc-f) 0 2 L0183/001 07/28/8f -lJ- 1r'.~aG13 . 1 (. ;' I. . treated effluent disposal and pond maintenance (discing and plowing) on site 19 could potentially imnact 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 undertaken, 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 cons~=uction, work in that area should be stopped and an archaeologist notified. Provisions of current state law must then be followed. Should human remains be encountered, the County Coroner's office shall be contacted. If the remains are of Na ti ve American origin, the procedures set forth in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code ~hall be followed. " FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation mea- sures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect thereof. LIT:Find-002 S0183/001 07/28/86 _....4.- ;..t..~' <')A 1 :,! ,. '~..... ~ ...... " "';;_,!p f~.1;5.~~;;;; , I . . , 'f ~ . Growth Incucincr Imnacts K. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Implementation of the Long Term Plan would have a growth inducing effect in Gilroy and Morgan Hill by eliminating the current constraint of lack of waste- water treatment and disposal capacity. P&~TIAL 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 cap~city to match the actual rate of growth for Gilroy and Morgan nill, as governed by their General Plans and growth management programs. The complete implementation of any' alter::ative will expand wastewater treatment plant ca- pac:' ty to 14.9 mgd. This capacity would be required based upon ABAG and ~1ontgomery 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 D~velopment Ordinance and initiative Measure E in Morgan Hill, a'nd: may not. reach the 2008 predictions. The phasing of capacity g ivesthe Ci fies 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 acco~~odate GIT:Find-002 :0183/001 07/22/86 -L5- 'A (. '~()'7 J 5.. '..:~ y""...... .1 growth, . incorporates /:-~ ce mi tigation measures which subs tan- . I but tially lessen the further growth-inducing impact of the project itself. L. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Potential effect on the balance bet~een employment and housing in Gilroy and Morgan Hill due to growth in commercial and industrial uses. MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Implementation of any al- ternative would not differentiate between growth relating to housing and growth relating to employment opportunities, and therefore will not cause imbalance of itself. Continuing implementation of the existing policies for balanced growth would reduce this imoact 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 elemenc of Gilroy's General Plan and through growth regulations, along wi th the General Plan, in Morgan Hill. FINDING: The project incorporates mi tiga tion mea- sures which substantially lessen the significant environmental effect thereof. .' M. SIG~nFICANT EFFEC':': Employment growth would indi- rectly c~eate potential pressures for residential development in San Benito County, especially in San Juan Bautista and Hollister, if the demand generated for housing and the pro- LI':':Find-Q02 L01S:;/OOl -7/28/86 -l5- :~" ,r- . " ~ '': ~ ~~ - ......;. . \ . . jected lack of housing supply in the Gilroy and Morgan Eill area by the year 2000 Occur. MITIGATION OR AVOIDfu~CE: Continued implementation of City policies for a balance between jobs and housing in Gilroy and Morgan Eill as described in mitigation measure Labove will minimize this effect. . San Beni to County and the Ci ties of San Juan Bautista and Hollister have jurisdiction and control over housing growth within tpeir boundaries to limit developmen~. These juriSdictions are urged to control housing grm.;rth 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 necessari. FDmnJG: The pro j ect incoroora tes mi tiga tion mea- sures which substantially lessen the significant environmental effect thereof. Complete mi tiga tion cannot be implemented unilaterally. by the Cities because the potential impact occurs outside their jurisdiction and is within the control of other public agencies to mitigate. Land Use ,. N. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Acquisition of property for perc81ation land disposal area would potentially impact affected property owners on site 19 (31 residences). L:T:Find-002 L0183/001 07/28/86 .17- '4 ./'. ~. " -" ?''l ...'l{.. ;''':':~,,'J;..../ , I I ' . . MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Final selection of suitable percolation pond land disposal areas wi thin each candidate site shall avoid, to the extent possible, sites with residen- tial uses. Owners of property rights which must be acquired will receive fair market value for suc~ rights. FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation mea- sures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental ef=ect thereof. O. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Conversion of agricultural land due to community growth accor.~odated by any alternative would contribute to a continuing trend of a cumulative reduction of agricultural land in Santa Clara County. P.Z\..J:tTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Wi th the growt:h projected by ABAG, the Cities, and their consultants for the South County area through the year 2008, this effect is una- voidable. Growth will result in loss of agricultural land for all project alternatives, including the No Project alterna- ti ve, which, as discussed in the Final EIR, predicts growth ", serviced by septic tanks or individual package treatment plants creating significant environmental concerns regarding ." groundwater quality. Phasing of the expansion of treatment plant capacit'l to match actual growth as governed by the Cities' growth management programs rather than predicted LIT:Find-002 L0183/001 07/2e/86 ~t(~'..~n:~~.8 - -:3- . I . - . growth reduces the impact of this effect. FINDING: All project alternatives identified in the Final EI~ result in this unavoidable impact including the No Project alte~native. 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 tole~ated as an acceptable impact. Public Se~vices and Utilities P. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Unce~tainty of landfill availa- bility and capacity, and cumulative solid wastes generated by othe~ development both in and outside the service area, create a potentially significant impact regarding disposal of solid wastes. MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Neither direct wastes, the grit and sludge generated by this alternative, nor secondary wastes of thems~lves create significant solid waste disposal impacts. However, the Cities should enter into agreements with landfill operators or make other arrangements to provide for such disposal. The Cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy and ." the San Martin area currently have a franchise agreement with the South Valley Refuse Disposal Company of Gilroy for secon- dary solid waste disposal service. Refuse is disposed of at the Company I s Pacheco Pass landfill, wi th cur rent remaining LIT:Fir.d-002 L0183/COl 07/28/8 6 -"..9- 1 .' "l f). .0 '1 9 - .. # ~ '.' -,'. . I 1 . I . . capacity of five to ten years and approval of expansion for capacity through the year 2010. FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation which substantially lessens the significant environmental effect thereof. All alternatives, including the No Project alter- native, result in potential secondary cumulative solid waste impacts due to growth. The Cities' need for sewage capacity reduces this risk to an acceptable level. Q. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Potential impacts on secondary public serv:.ces and utili ties due to increased demands for fire and police protection, water supplies, storm drainage, roadway maintenance, parks and recreation and school services within the Gilroy/Morgan Hill/San Martin service area caused by gro.,.,th. P.~~T!AL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: New development occurr :.ng 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 imnact fees to finance expans~on 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 LI'1';E"ind-002 ~,J0193/001 07;:~8/86 -20- ~tn<r.'n2!) . f . (. ., should c8nsider methods to increase school capacity, including year-round school terms and double sessions, in addi tion to financi~g provided by the state and pursuing new development mitigation provided by local governments pursuant to Govern- ment C8de ~~65970 et sea. FINDING: The project incorporates mi tigation 'mea- sures which substantially lessen the significant environmental effect thereof. Complete mi tigation cannot be implemented unilaterally by the Cities because the potential impact occurs outside their jurisdiction and is within the control of other public agencies to mitigate. Traffic and TransDortation R. SIG~E7IC';NT 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 H.ITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: The Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill should conti!1ue to plan ah.d fund tra.ffic" 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::ind-002 L0183/001 07/28/86 -2:- ~r,- " ,..., ~~ ,..., 4J \ ~. ,"~ .,..... t . , r , :" (-It (..~. the Cities to accommodate expansion of Highway 101 and State Route 152. The State Department of Transportation, Caltrans, is cur- rently planning the improvement of State Route 152 from two to four lanes between State Route 156 and Bell Station. Con- struction is scheduled to be completed by 1990. Caltrans plans to widen State Route 152 between State Route 156. and U~S. Highway 101 by the year 1995. Long-range plans also. call for the widening of D.S. Highway 101 to eight lanes between S ta te Route 152 and Bernal Road, and to six lanes bebleen Gilroy and the San Benito County line to the south. These projects will not be completed before the year 2000. FINDING: The proj ect incorporates mi tiga tion mea- sures which substantially lessen the significant environmental ef=ect ther eo=. Comolete mi tiga tion cannot be implemei1. ted unilaterally by the Cities because the potential.impact occurs outside their jurisdiction and is within the control of other public agencies to mitigate. 3. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES: Because not all sig- nificant effects as discussed above can be eliminated or sub- stantially lessened, this Council caretully evaluated several alternatives for an environmentally superior means of achiev- ing the Project objective. .' Alternatives reviewed in addition to SL included L (land disposal), LD (land disposal with de- watering wells or underdrainage discharge :0 the pajaro River) LIT:E'ind-002 L0183/001 n7/28/8E _'"'l"'_ '-- "~ --, ~ ~ (') '" ~ _'...., .' _ _ '.' N'~ &:I-":"f\A.._.:.~. .1 . , , . . SO (sur=ace discharge to the ocean), S? (surface discharge to the pajaro Rive=) and No Project. As discussed in the Final EIR, no alternative was found to be environmentally superior; each had significant unmitigatable effects, including the cumulative i~pac~ 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 S2 ahd No Project had significant effects on c~ltural resources; all alternatives had significant effects . '-' Wi...:! regard to hydrology/water resources, odor, growth-i:!duc~ion impacts, land use, public service and utili- ties, and secondary effects from traffic and transportation. The evaluation of the alternatives was a long and compli- cated p=::cess that is difficult to summarize simply. Hm.;ever, -the prixary reasons for rejecting the other alternatives are as fol2.ows: (a}. SO Alternative. Generally speaking the SO alternative had insignificant long-term environmental impacts, but had sig.ni.:ican-t-snort-term--environmental impacts primarily due - to construction. It would be' difficul t to phase the system and to fund it because of 'the need to construct " initi'ally very extensi ve pipeline facili ties. In addi tion, this alternative engendered the greatest political opposition. (b)- SP Alternative. The primary drawback of the SP alternative is th~ impact on the pajaro River during the low- LIT:E'ind-002 L0183/001 07/28/86 "'i l'"~. ~1' n r\ ".~3 - \...... ......:. '.1 "- , ,I . . . .. , . I t flow summer months. Alternatives SL and LD reduce these impacts considerably by using land disposal during the Alternative SP also fails to diversify the disposal summer. 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 LD 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 LD 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 acco~~odated 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 capacity centralized into LIT:Find-002 L0183/001 07/28/86 1~"':f1024 -24- 'f,. . 1 . . one well-~un central facility. As discussed above, all of the alternatives do have certain adverse environmental effects. Balancing these environ~ental effects with the economic, technical, and feasibility considerations of the various alternatives, the Council has determined that alternative SL best suits their needs and those of the residents in the serVlce area. 4. STATE::1E:~JT OF OVERR!DING CONSIDERAT!ONS: 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 acve-rse envitor.r.l.ental effects, and therefore finds the adverse envi=onmental effects to be acceptable. The Council finds that each significant effect identified in the Final E:IR as described in Section 2 above is acceptable because ~itigation measures have been required to reduce these effects to the extent feasible, arid, on balancing the benefits to be realized by approval of alternative SL as the Plan against the remaining environmental risks, the following -- and support approval of the project: economic, social and other considerations outweigh the effects - and Morgan Hill has reached capaci ty. The sewage treatment plant servicing the Cities of Gilroy .' Virtually all resi- dential, commercial and industrial growth beyond the year 1988 .' will be severely curtailed unless additional sewage capacity is provided. The Regional Water Quality Control Board, the LI':':E'ind-'J02 L0183/001 07/28..d6 -2:;- ~,:- ''"'~~:3 I L ,I , 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 inc:-ease 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 wastefN'ater treatment capaci ty. In particular, ". the reasons which necessi tate this addi tional capaci ty are detailed in the "Planning Policies Regarding Wastewater Treatment Facilities" memo to the City Adminis- trator from the Planning Department dated April 25, 1986. The City of Morgan Hill is not only guided by the growth .' policies ~n 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:E'ind-002 L0183/001 07/23/86 ~ ",'"tn~~~ -::5- .' ,I /~ . " , I . of the Gene~al Plan. the two cities, does not meet the urban se~vice requirements Expansion of sewage treatment capacity, as directed by the Regional Wate~ Quality Control Board, has been studied by Ci tizens Se'....e~ Advisory Commi ttee, by the Joint Powers Com- Montgomery Engineers as consultants to the two cities, by the mi ttee of the t.,.,o Ci ty Councils, and by the Ci ty 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 revie'.... the Plan alternatives. A long term was tewa ter management plan for policies of the two cities. The-economic viability of the two expanded sewage capaci tyis needed to implement the planning communities is unce~tain without the planned growth allocated by the Gene~al Plans. In ce~tain of the preceding findings, the statement is made that the environ~ental risk or impact will be tolerated in view of the importance of planning for expansion of sewage capaci ty, as -outlined above. Briefly=stated, the reasons 'for making this, stat'€ment with respectto'the specific findings is as follows: (a) -'Findina C (Imoact on Use~s of Palaro River Water For Domestic Purooses). .This impact-~~n be tolerated b~~~u~~ it affects very few persons, and because the present usage of ~. the pajaro River for drinking purposes is not recommended. (b) Findina 0 (Inoraanic Salts). Although listed as a potentially significant environmental . .... lmpac~ , further LI'l':=ind-002 L0183/0Jl 07/:3:'86 1 n. .'1 "'{)",~ - " . .' -27- 1 ,r analysis as fit <it presented in submittals from Montgomery Engineers 'I. t and surrrrarized in t.,ese findings shows that the proposed al ter"na- tive would in fact be consistent with discharge standards set by the Easin 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. (c) Findino E (Pollution Due to Accidental Discharoe or Seismic Event). The treatment plant will be designed and operated so that the risk of such an accidental discharge would be extremely low. Some risk is unavoidable, since it is impossible to design a per"fect plant that will function under" all conceivable circumstances, but this risk exists wi th any of the proposed alternatives, including the no project alter- native. (d) Findino 0 (Conversion of Aor icul tural Land Due to Growt::). This impact exists as a result of any develop- ment, and is consistent wi th the growth plans of the Ci ties contained in their general plans and growth control ordi- nances. (e) Findino P (DisDosal of Solid Wastes). This aga~n is a result of any of the project alternatives, includ- 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.~ill continue to be possible. In summary, the Council finds that alternative SL represents a viable, economically and environmentally feasible . . expansion program for sewage treatment whi~h can be phased to LIT:Find-Q02 L0183/001 07/28/'36 -28- '1 r. - ~ ,-,f'! - , ".' '4._-"~~~;.r-"'~:.~>~..."'. '~', ''':'':'''-'.~ ~: '.: -;",: -~ ~"'~'~~':;':':~'...~:~~"':' :.".i.':> .:. '~;'';: :i~~::'::~_ ",r .-'..... ...~:...:.';c i';;'~~"-" :. -:-;!"'Y ",;.~Z:"f~.:~"..;;",~ ~;:,~:~0".::;~.;~:~:t?:'~'~.~~~3.r;:~~,,~. 1 ,1 'I -- . accommodate the planned growth of the two cities. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29thday of a special meeting of the following called vote: Gilroy July , 1986, at City Council by the AYES: COlmCIU~MBERS: GAGE, KLOECKER, MUSSALLEM, PALHERLEE, VALDEZ and HUGHAJ..'1. ~_u__.__..__ NOES: COUNCILXEHBERS: None ABSTAINING: COUNCILME~ffiERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL:MEMBER: ALBERT ~ST:'---" APPROVED: /s/ SUSA~~E E. STEIN}~TZ C:: TY CLZRK /s/ ROBERTA H. HUGHAN MAYOR LIT:Find-002 L0183/001 07/28/86 -2)- .' :' ....4 ,- .~.-."'!. rl "1 -'\.-.... '-'- '. "'.' ;-,.'" I ,I " ,- {e 1 ... I .. r . - ~...,.-. ''''''''''T"":'" .:.., ...L;;:'~ln_ ~--,,~-..,. a ... ~':'~....'\......;:._.w, C~=y Cle=k of =~e Ci=y of Gil=oy, do he=eby, ce==~y tha= the a==ached Resolu=ion No. o=igi~al =esolu=ion, duly adop~ed by -the Council , sDecia1. - 'd " . l' Gi_=oy at a =e~~=~= mee=~ng o~ sa~ Counc~_ ne C 86-~5 is a::l of the Ci=y of on the 29th .-.... day of Jul ~v , 19 ~, at wh.ich meeti::lg. a quo-=-..::::. ~-a.s- p= es e:~:: . IN ---..--... "l.&..l I!"............. n__...\__w !. have he=e..:.::to -----~- W:-"::"~"::"'-.J= , set my hand and aff~~ed the Cfficial Seal 0= the City 0= Gil=oy t~~s 30th 19 86 . day of Ju1v " /~ .'. .'.~ -\ IF' J _~'./ ' ._.... ~.:..J' . 'I ,I ,1 . . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR THE GaROY-MORGANHaL DENITRIFICATION W ASTEW A TER TREATMENT F ACn.ITIES August 19, 1987 The purpose of this environmental review is to evaluate if the environmental effects from the construction and operation of the Denitrification Wastewater Treatment Facilities are covered in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Lon Term Wastewater Mana ement Plan, for the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, March 1986 (Reference 1 (Program EIR). This checklist includes general information and a description of the proposed Activity, followed by a review of the specific environmental effects caused by the Activity and the Program EIR coverage of these impacts. GENERAL INFORMATION Activity Name: Denitrification Wastewater Treatment Facilities Sponsoring Agencies: The City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020 The City of Morgan Hill 17555 Peak Ave., Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Activity Location: The existing Gilroy-Morgan Hill Wastewater Facility 900 Southside Drive, Gilroy, CA 95020 County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number: 841-30-11 Acreage of Property: 15 Zoning: Park/Public Facility Program EIR which covers this Activity: Final Environmental Impact Report for the Long Term Wastewater Management Plan, Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, March 1986, Earthmetrics Incorporated. INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS The addition of secondary treatment with denitrification to the existing Gilroy- Morgan Hill Wastewater Facilities (the Activity) is the first step in the implementation of a 20-year Long Term Wastewater Management Plan (Long Term Plan) for the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. In April 1986 the Final EIR for the Long Term Wastewater Management Plan (Program EIR) was certified by both Cities. The Program EIR evaluated in equal depth five alternatives for long EXHIBIT 8 -1- .. '\ 'J . <.AV"I"( I'HU n ,,<lI5 .11I"" ""-'~"'Io; .'l~.s "",",- .' Ie '.~ " \~ ~ - _- ~ \,GArE '-'~ -~. ."_ .. - R, ~ ~~~,t... 51 "v .~ "- , .... 1 5 ~ i i ~i 1 5 ~ . S ~ .? ~~-, 'iD " .. I, : ;;1 ~ tf/ \ ' \Southside Drive '\,8 \ WASTEWATER ~.\.'.~' ._ FACI ll!!- ES...~.. x-. '---'-',' ~ . /_:, ~~~j 3 :'~ ._0 .". '" ~ '0\. ~ I' ~ ~ \, '. ....' ~ ~~ ' <-' ;.l;:!'Jot 1)". '-, A' \""-. / ~ '-'-~., r"-'r" ':T" i r-\,':"'", ~..... 1- ,. / ", ~... " ~ " 3.9 Ill' ....~....o l, '~'f '~ J ~. FIGURE 1 ~ N SCALE IN MILES I I o 1.15 2.3 -.. ~; ,u -~-- lOCAL SETTING OF THE GilROY/MORGAN Hill WASTEWATER FACiliTIES ~ " 'f ,I . Environmental Review . term wastewater management and a no project alternative. The Program EIR addresses the full range of environmental consequences for a 20 year period which corresponds to a population of 143,000 and a wastewater flow of 14.9 mgd. The Program EIR was prepared with the explicit understanding that further environmental analysis may be required at various stages of implementation of the project. For example, further environmental analysis will have to be completed prior to any surface discharge to the Pajaro River. The proposed Activity, however, covers only an expansion of the treatment facilities to allow a capacity of 7.1 mgd, and does not involve the use of underdrains or surface discharge to the river. This environmental review constitutes a checklist pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) for the purpose of determining whether the program EIR covers this Activity; that is, whether this Activity has significant impacts which are not evaluated in the Program EIR. It is the conclusion of the pre parers of this environmental review that, in fact, the proposed Activity is covered within the scope of the Program EIR. The Activity has no effects not examined in the Program EIR. No new effects could occur, and no new mitigation measures are required. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2), no further environmental documentation is required. BACKGROUND The Denitrification Wastewater Treatment Facilities consists of the construction of a secondary treatment facility with nitrogen removal on the existing wastewater facilities site. This will increase the wastewater facilities average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity from 6.1 mgd to 7.1 mgd. The Denitrification Activity is the first phase of the implementation of the Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan adopted by the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill in July 1986. The facilities need to be operational by 1991 to meet the expected demand, and are expected to provide sufficient capacity until 1994 without additional modification. For more project background please refer to the Denitrification Facilities Predesign Report (Reference 2). E~ONMENTALSETTING The Gilroy-Morgan Hill Wastewater Facilities are located in the City of Gilroy in the south Santa Clara Valley. Figure 1 presents the local setting of the wastewater facilities. The existing wastewater facilities and percolation ponds occupy approximately 500 acres, two miles southeast of downtown Gilroy. The wastewater facilities are in the Llagas Creek drainage basin, adjacent to Llagas Creek, a tributary to the Pajaro River. Llagas Creek is separated from the wastewater facilities by a levee. For more specific environmental information settings please consult the Program EIR. -- --- --------2-- --- " .1 WALDEN PONDS " , I . ~ 'AI ~ ..J SOu THS/Ol2 OPERATIONS BUILDING ~RIIIl2 ~UNIClPAL TREATMENT 08 PONDS 1 2 . PROPOSED SITE FOR ~ DENITRIFICATION FACILITIES . RECLAMATION POND (;J ~~ t:;rJ tal l OJ/? l ~[ C 1 C 2 ~ r;lSILT LJ LJ paN qCENTER PONDS C 3 C 4 UPPER DOMESTIC PONDS NO 7 NEW r r ,.. Gl ,.. en () ::D m m ^ FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN GILROY-MORGAN HILL WASTEWATER FACILITIES ~ " 'I , , >- CI: CI: <{ ~ Ou. Z Ci o <{ U ..J UJ U (I) CI: ~~ o i:j: ti ~~ u ~ ~~ ~ cr; z~ ffi w 0,% -< ~ ~~ i ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ .... I~ M 0,,- a: .. w ~ u > u w a: w " o ~ '" o w ~ > ;:: u .. "c'-' . . . . , . . r,: .' ~C 'C:'" . . . . '.... .... z 52 ... <{ ... z UJ ~ o UJ <Il >- CI: <{ ::; c: <l. ;; <; z .. ~ ~ ~ ~ o ::: UJ w ... ... Cll <{ Ci ::; CI: <.:l ~ w ~ <{ ... z ~ ~ 0;:: -' ::J - " <{ ~ ~: ~~ r- Oc ~~ UJ CJ o :::J ..J (I) UJ .... (I) <{ ~ <.:l Z c:: ::; --/":;:).; <l. z UJ ::J -' u. ~ -' .. ::> ... II: .. z .. " o r .. ~ ~ S ~ .. III (f) OOz ~O ....- :i~ --c ~o u._ Z!!:O Oa:- ~~~ ~Z~ U:WW irQ:!: .... I 0 ZW(I) Wa: o Q. (I) -J-(I) -JWW ~e"O z Q 0 <(:::)a: C!l ~ Q. 0:(1) Ow ~~ >-e" Oz 0:_ =(1) (!J W 0: ::::l S2 U. ~ <!t . f " . I . Environmental Review . .., ACTIVITY LOCATION The Denitrification Facilities will be built on the existing Gilroy-Morgan Hill Wastewater Facilities site as is highlighted on Figure 2. The wastewater facilities are within: the City of Gilroy and is zoned Public Facilities. The surrounding land is unincorporated. Santa Clara County has designated the unincorporated area for Large-Scale Agricultural Uses, which includes parcels under Williamson Act agreements. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION The Activity is the construction and operation of a secondary treatment plant with denitrification. The secondary treatment process is called single sludge/pre-denitrification (SSPD). The SSPD system consists of a single reactor which is separated into two zones, an anoxic and aerobic zone, and is followed by a secondary clarifier. The denitrification occurs in the anoxic zone which precedes the aerobic zone where carbon oxidation and nitrification take place. The process employs two recycle loops: (1) return activated sludge to the influent of the denitrification basin, and (2) nitrified mixed liquor to the denitrification basin. With the nitrified mixed liquor return, the plant can be operated to achieve a range of effluent nitrogen concentrations. A schematic system diagram is shown in Figure 3. Specifically, the Denitrification Facilities consist of constructing and operating the following facilities and/or modific~tions: . Bar Screens . Influent Pump Station Modifications . Headworks Pump Station . Flow Measurement. Modifications . Aerated Grit Chamber . Primary Sedimentation . Single Sludge/Pre-Denitrification Reactor . Secondary Clarification . Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening . Anaerobic Digestion . . Energy Recovery . Sludge Dewatering . Odor Control This' Activity does not change the method of waste disposal, which is by application and percolation on land. Treated effluent will be disposed of on the existing 200 acres of domestic percolation ponds. The treatment plant provides a hydraulic capacity of 8 mgd. However, the disposal capacity of the land disposal...area...is-ca1culated..to be 7.1 mgd, so the plant rating is expected to be 7.1 mgd. The Denitrification Predesign Report discusses the process selection and Activity details, and should be referred to for specific information. -3- ,if " , r . . Environmental Review ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CHECK LIST Explanation of all answers are given in the next section "Discussion of Environmental Evaluation." Does the Activity Is Topic Environmental Topic Impact ke Impacts Covered in Listed Topic? Significant? Program EIR? Will the Activity result in: 1. EARTH No NA NA a. Change in geologic substructure No NA NA b. Disruption of soil No NA NA c. Change in topography No NA NA d. Change unique geologic features No NA NA e. Increase in soil erosion No NA NA f. Change river channel due to increase siltation, deposition or erosion No NA NA g. Expose people/property to geologic hazards No NA NA h. Expose people/property to seismic hazards Z. AIR Yes No Yes a. Deteriorate air quality - construction Yes No Yes b. Deteriorate air quality - operation Maybe Maybe Yes c. Create objectionable odors No NA NA d. Alter climate 3. HYDROLOGY/WATER RESOURCES No NA NA a. Change current or course in marine or freshwater No NA NA b. Change surface water runoff amounts or patterns No 'NA NA c. Alter course or flow of flood waters Yes No Yes d. Change amount of surface waters Yes No Yes e. Alter quantity, direction or rate of groundwater flow No NA NA f. Reduce public water supply -4- '.t . l . Environmental Review . Does the Activity Is Topic Environmental Topic Impact Are Impacts Covered in Listed Topic? Significant? Program EIR? Will the Activity result in: No NA NA 3. g. Increase exposure of people or property flooding No NA NA h. Alter surface thermal springs 4. WATER QUALITY Yes Yes Yes a. Change groundwater quality No NA NA b. Change in surface water quality 5. PLANT LIFE No NA NA a. Change diversity or number of species No NA NA b. Unique, rare or endangered plant species No NA NA c. Introduce new species of plants No NA NA d. Reduce agricultural acreage 6. ANIMAL LIFE No NA NA a. Change diversity or number of species No NA NA b. Unique, rare or endangered species No NA NA c. Introduce new species or create barriers for animal movement No NA NA d. Deteriorate fish or wildlife habitat 7. NOISE Yes No Yes Increase existing noise levels or expose people to severe noise levels 8. LIGHT AND GLARE No NA NA Produce new light or glare 9. LAND USE No NA NA Alter present or planned land use 10. NATURAL RESOURCES No NA NA Deplete nonrenewable natural resource -5- ,<t . r . Environmental Review . Does the Activity Is Topic Environmental Topic Impact Are Impacts Covered in Listed Topic? Significant? Program Em? Will the Activity result in: 11. RISK OF UPSET No NA NA a. Risk of releasing hazardous sub- stance No NA NA b. Interference with an emergency plan Yes Yes Yes c. Risk to water quality due to plant or industrial pretreatment failure 12. POPULATION No NA NA Alter population distribution or growth rate 13. HOUSING No NA NA Create a demand for additional housing 14. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION Yes No Yes a. Increase vehicular traffic No NA NA b. Require new parking Yes No Yes c. Impact existing transportation system No NA NA d. Alter present pattern of circu- lation, or movement No NA NA e. Increase traffic hazards 15. PUBUC SERVICES No NA NA a. Fire protection No NA NA b. Police protection No NA NA c. School No NA NA d. Parks/recreational facilities Yes Maybe Yes e. Road maintenance No NA NA f. Other government service 16. ENERGY Yes No Yes a. Use substantial amounts of fuel/energy No NA NA b. Require the development of new energy sources -6- 'r . I . . Environmental Review Does the Activity Is Topic Environmental Topic Impact Are Impacts Covered in Listed Topic? Significant? Program Em? Will the Activity result in: 17. UTILITIES No NA NA a. Power or natural gas No NA NA b. Communication system No NA NA c. Water No NA NA d. Sewer or septic tanks No NA NA e. Storm water drainage Yes Maybe Yes f. Solid waste and disposal 18. HUMAN HEALTH No NA NA Create or expose people to a poten- tial health hazard 19. AESTHETICS No NA NA Create an aesthetically offensive site or obstruct a scenic vista 20. RECREATION No NA NA Change quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities 21. CULTURAL RESOURCES No NA NA a. Alteration of cultural resources No NA NA b. Alter unique ethnic cultural values No NA NA c. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses 22. SECONDARY IMPACTS Yes Yes Yes Secondary impacts to the above Environmental Topics due to growth 23. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS No NA NA a. Impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable No NA NA b. Impacts from other projects which compiled with the Activity's impacts are considerable NA = non-applicable -7- t"f . r . I . Environmental Review . DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EV ALUA TION 1. Earth Section 3.1 of the Program EIR determined that there were no significant geologic impacts due to constructing treatment structures or percolating wastewater, but none the less, mitigation measures were recommended, including conducting a geotechnical investigation and designing the facility to comply with current Uniform Building Code. Both of these mitigation measures will be incorporated in final design of the Activity. a. The earthwork included in the Activity is limited to the top five to ten feet of earth and will not result in unstable earth conditions or in a change in geologic substructures. b. This Activity will be constructed on about 15 acres of previously disturbed land which is currently used for wastewater percolation ponds. Buildings, tanks, and basins will cover a total of approximately 1.6 acres of the 15 acres, and an additional 0.6 acres will be covered by roads and paved areas. For the structures, the top five to ten feet of soil may be disturbed. Disruption to the soils under the proposed roads and paved areas is limited to about the top two feet. Although the construction of these facilities and roads will disrupt the soils, there will be no impacts since the land is previously and continually disrupted. c. The surface elevation of the wastewater facilities site will be within five feet of the existing ground (pond bottom) elevation, and approxi- mately level with the existing roads and dike tops. d. The Activity site is an existing percolation pond and does not contain any unique geologic or physical features. e. The structures which are built as part of this Activity are too small to alter the wind pattern and cause wind erosion of soils. The runoff from the Activity site will be directed off-site to existing drainage facilities and will therefore not cause erosion of soils. Disturbed areas which will not be built on will be landscaped. f. The increase in groundwater leakage of 0.5 mgd (see response 3d) into the Llagas Creek is not expected to be enough flow to modify the river channel by siltation, deposition, or erosion. The Program EIR evaluated the impact of diverted discharge of at least 3.5 mgd to the Pajaro River and concluded that liThe additional flows would result in insignificant bank erosion potential. . ." (p.3.2-38). g. The Activity will be built on an existing relatively flat wastewater facility site, which is not subject to landslides, mudslides, or ground failure. -8- . ., · r , I . Environmental Review . h. The Activity site is located approximately eight miles northeast of the San Andreas fault, four miles northeast of the Sargent fault, and three miles southwest of the Calaveras fault (Program EIR, p. 3.1-6). The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo special studies zone. Ground shaking may occur during an earthquake. The design of the facilities will be in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. The Program EIR (pp.3.1-17, 18) found that the seismic impacts are insignificant. Z. Air a. Quoting the Program EIR: "Emissions of construction related dust would create insignificant effects to regional air quality and potentially significant air quality effects on localized areas adjacent to construction activity. However, these local impacts could be reduced through implementation of standard dust control measures." (p. 3.5-15). The recommended mitigation measure was to implement the dust control "(M)easures required by BAAQMD to minimize potential particulate impacts resulting from construction activities..." (p. 3.5-16). The Activity will include this mitigation measure. Regarding construction vehicles the Program EIR concluded "Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons would be emitted by construction vehicles in minor amounts. Expected construction vehicle emissions of these pollutants would have an insignificant impact on local and regional air quality." (p. 3.5-10) b. The Activity includes combustion of anaerobic digester off-gases to power an engine generator. The off-gases will be scrubbed to remove hydrogen sulfide prior to combustion. The Program EIR (p. 3.5-13) determined that the emissions from this Activity would not have a significant impact on the air quality of the region. c. A wastewater treatment plant by its nature has the potential for odors. However, the Activity design includes odor control facilities. The headworks, primary clarifiers, the anoxic portion of the single sludge/pre-denitrification (SSPD) reactor, and the sludge thickeners (DAF) will be covered with off-gases scrubbed for odor removal. The intent is to prevent odors but the possibility still exists that odors may occasionally occur. Evaluation of odor impacts by the Program EIR (p. 3.3 -15) concluded that if odors did occur they would create potentially significant impacts to adjacent sensitive land uses. The Program EIR concluded that these potential impacts can be mitigated through the use of standard odor control provisions in engineering design of the facilities. The Activity incorporates this mitigation measure. -9- -{ Jj- r . I . Environmental Review . d. This Activity does not alter any air movement, moisture, or temperature, nor does it change the local or regional climate. 3. Hydrology/Water Resources a. The Activity disposes of the treated wastewater by percolation and therefore does not directly impact the currents, or the course or direction of water movement in any marine or fresh surface waters. b. Although the Activity involves the construction of buildings and paved surfaces, thereby increasing impervious surface area and subsequent volumes of stormwater runoff, the amount of impervious area is only approximately 3 acres of 15 acres. The Activity is not expected to impact the overall site drainage because the amount of impervious area being added to the 500 acre site is small (less than 1 percent). The runoff from the denitrification facilities site will be directed to the existing storm drain ditch north of the 51 pond, which discharges to Llagas Creek. c. This Activity does not change the course or flow of flood waters. The flood control provided for the existing wastewater facility will not be altered by the Activity. d. The Program EIR determined that during above average precipitation years the additional recharge would increase the migration of the treated effluent via groundwater into Llagas Creek and the Pajaro River. (p. 3.2-31). The Program ErR (p. 3.2-40) concluded that this impact would have a minor beneficial impact by recharging the upper zone of the Pajaro Valley Groundwater Basin. e. This Activity will increase the amount of water percolated into the groundwater by 1.0 mgd, which is a 16 percent increase in the total current permitted percolation capacity of the existing facilities. When the existing facility reaches its rated ADWF capacity of 6.1 mgd, the annual volume of percolation to the groundwater will be about 5550 acre-feet. This is based on an annual average flow rate of 6.6 mgd, an average wastewater application rate of 1 inch/day and a 1/4 inch/day of evaporation (thus 75 percent of the applied wastewater will reach the groundwater, and 25 percent will evaporate). The Activity will increase the annual percolation to groundwater by 897 acre-feet (16 percent) for a total of 6,440 acre- feet/year. This increase may result in a slight change in direction and rate of groundwater flow compared to the existing condition. The Program ErR evaluated the impact of recharging 6,260 acre- feet/year, over a 6 month period. (Program ErR p. 3.2-31). This would correspond to about 35 acre-feet/day application. The Activity annual recharge quantity of 6,440 acre-feet is approximately -10- f'{ . I . Environmental Review . equal to the annual recharge evaluated in the the Program EIR. The 6,440 acre-feet is the total amount for year round operation, and therefore is equivalent to 17.7 acre-feet/day. Therefore the Activity daily recharge rate is only about half the rate evaluated in the Program EIR. The Program EIR determined: "Additional percolation pond waste- water recharge to the upper semiperched aquifer of the Llagas Subbasin would result in potentially significant oversaturation of the upper aquifer, resulting in elevated groundwater levels and potential agricultural impacts and spillage to the north to the deeper aquifer. Installation of underdrains or dewatering wells would mitigate these impacts." (p. 3.2-39). At this time, based on the available hydrologic calculations and groundwater studies, (References 3 and 4) underdrains are not considered necessary to prevent groundwater level impacts for an influent flow of 7.1 mgd (ADWF). f. The Activity has an insignificant impact on the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies. (Program EIR p.3.10-18) g. There will be no significant changes in storm drainage or runoff flows that could increase the risk of flooding nearby lands. h. There are no known surface thermal springs in the Activity vicinity. 4. Water Quality a. From the Program EIR: "The final treated effluent to be disposed of on land would contain the following constituents in some concentration: (1) organic compounds (BOD, suspended solids, COD); (2) nitrogen compounds (organic, ammonia, nitrate); (3) pathogenic microorganisms (bacteria, viruses, parasites); (4) dissolved salts (sodium, total dissolved solids); and (5) heavy metals and toxic organic compounds. II (p. 3.3 -3 5). The Program EIR determined no adverse impacts to the shallow or deeper groundwater bodies are expected due to nitrogen, heavy metals and toxic organic compounds, organic compounds or pathogenic microorganisms, because these materials will be effectively removed in the treatment (or pretreatment) processes. (Program EIR p. 3.3 -37 to p. 3.3 -38). Regarding dissolved salts and the upper semi-perched aquifer the Program EIR concluded ". . . the dissolved salts would be expected to cause an increase in the concentration of salts in the groundwater contained in the upper semiperched water bodies." (p.3.3-39). This -11- 't '" r . Environmental Review . would result in creating "...a potentially significant continued groundwater quality deterioration of the upper semi-perched aquifer of the Llagas Subbasin. II (p. 3.3 -44). To understand the Program EIR's conclusion on the impact of increased dissolved salts on the deeper groundwater, a brief explanation on the groundwater system is given. The Program EIR evaluated the impact of recharging 6,250 acre- feet/year (35 acre-feet/day) of treated wastewater. The Program EIR determined that this amount of recharge ". . .could potentially oversaturate the upper semiperched aquifer of the Llagas Subbasin, which could, in turn, spill out into the unconfined deeper aquifer to the north as the effluent groundwater mound reached the edge of the lake bottom clays" (p. 3.2-31). The spilling of the upper aquifer to the deeper aquifer is only a speculative effect and if it does occur it is only expected during heavy drought conditions. Under normal conditions, the groundwater gradient is higher north of the percolation ponds, causing the percolated groundwater to flow south, away from the unconfined deeper aquifer. During a drought year, the groundwater will be pumped down below normal. At the same time, the groundwater elevation below the percolation ponds will remain relatively constant. During this period, a potential exists for the gradient below the percolation pond to exceed the gradient north of the plant, possibly causing the groundwater to reverse its direction and recharge the deeper aquifer. If there is a change in the direction of flow, dissolved salts could possibly reach the deeper groundwater. The Program EIR concluded this could cause ".. .potentially significant groundwater quality impacts. II (p. 3.3 -39). "However, implementation of appropriate mitigation to minimize the impacts may not be readily available. Increased treatment processes to remove salts would be cost prohibitive and also involve additional tradeoff impacts associated with the disposal of the resultant salt brines. II (p. 3.3 -39). In terms of how this impact affects the beneficial uses of ground- water the Program EIR stated: ".. .the potential resultant ground- water quality impacts to the deeper confined drinking water supply aquifer from land disposal and percolation into the upper semiperched body, is not considered significant in the immediate and downgradient vicinity of the treatment plant. II (p. 3.3-40). b. Since the Activity disposes of the treated wastewater by percolation to the groundwater, there is no direct effect on surface water quality. -12- tt . t 1. I . Environmental Review . 5. Plant Life a. The Activity will be built in an existing percolation pond. The site is disturbed, and is repeatedly disced during pond maintenance. b. According to the Program EIR, the Activity site does not contain any rare or endangered species of plants (p. 3.4-17). Some old field and grass vegetation currently exists. c. The Activity will be landscaped with plants and shrubs common to southern Santa Clara County. d. The Activity site is not currently used for agriculture. 6. Animal Life a. The site is disturbed and is repeatedly disced during pond main- tenance. The change in the diversity or number of species due to the change in land use would not be significant. The Program EIR concluded "No significant impacts (to terrestrial wildlife) would result from the loss of ruderal vegetation". (p. 3.4-25). b. According to the Program EIR, the Activity site does not support any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals. (p. 3.4-33). c. The Activity is the construction and operation of wastewater facilities; it will not introduce new species of animals to the area. The facilities built are not expected to create a migration or movement barrier because there is an ample amount of open space on all sides of the Activity site. d. Fifteen acres of a 200 acre facility will be converted from percolation ponds to a wastewater treatment plant. No fish, shellfish or benthic organisms habitate in the site now so there will be no impact to these species. The loss of habitat is insignificant. (p. 3.4-34 of Program EIR). 7. Noise The Activity may increase the existing noise level during both the construction and operation phases, however, the Program EIR has determined the increase would be insignificant (p. 3.12-8). Current noise emissions from heavy equipment used for pond maintenance has not been inconsistent with other farming operations in the area. The Activity may increase the frequency of noise emissions, but not the intensity. 8. Light and Glare The Activity consists of construction of concrete structures and roads which are not expected to produce glare. Night lighting will be comparable to residential street lighting. -13- "_ ? r . . . Environmental Review . 9. Land Use The Activity will not result in a substantial alteration of the land use. The Activity is in conformance with existing zoning and the General Plan for the City of Gilroy. From the Program EIR "Construction of Long Term Plan facilities within the study region would create an insignificant effect to open space and recreational uses". (p.3.9-18). 10. Natural Resources The use of natural resources by this Activity is insignificant. The facilities will be constructed with primarily concrete and steel; a minimum of lumber will be used. 11. Risk of Upset a. The Activity does not include the use, storage, or handling of any hazardous chemicals. b. This Activity is located in a remote location and is not expected to interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. c. Quoting from the Program EIR: "Accidental discharges of untreated or partially treated sewage due to plant shutdown or failure (including industrial pretreatment failure and chemical spills) would create an infrequent and temporary potentially significant risk to surface water quality. Emergency storage capacity and standby power would provide for an immediate temporary response to reduce potential discharge impacts due to power outage or operations breakdown. Some unavoidable discharges would occur as a result of a major earthquake. Effective influent and effluent monitoring would minimize potential impacts of pretreatment failure and chemical spills." (p. 3.3-43) 1 Z. Population The wastewater facility staff will increase from 8 to 15 with the completion of this Activity. The increase in 7 employees is not a significant increase in population. The secondary effects on population growth are discussed in Item 22, page 19 of this Environmental Review. 13. Housing The existing facility employs 8 people. Implementation of the Activity will increase the personnel to about 15 people. The addition of 7 employees is not expected to create a significant housing demand. The Activity will provide sewer service to new housing constructed to serve the needs of planned population growth, but does not itself cause the need for this housing. -14- ft: .. -. 1 . Environmental Review . 14. Transportation/Circulation a. As with most construction activities, a temporary increase in vehicular movement will result. Materials will be hauled to the site and there will be the additional commute of the construction related work force. Approximately 10 truck loads of concrete per day will be delivered to the treatment plant for short periods during concrete pours. Other types of delivery trucks would also be traveling to and from the site on a regular basis. Delivery trucks would be required to use Monterey Highway, Luchessa Avenue, Rossi Lane and Southside Drive to gain access to the wastewater treatment plant. Traffic generated from the operation of the proposed facilities would be minimal. The plant's operating staff would increase from 8 to 15 and ".. .as such would not significantly alter current worker commute volumes to and from the treatment plant". (p.3.11-4 Program EIR). If sludge is hauled from the site, (rather than disposed of on site) two daily truck round trips are expected. The Program EIR found that "Operational traffic from development of additional wastewater facilities at the treatment plant would have an insignificant direct impact on the surrounding traffic and transportation environment." (p. 3.11-4). b. The Activity will not create a demand for new parking. The existing facility has 17 parking spaces and the denitrification facilities will be providing additional parking for service vehicles. There will be adequate off-street parking for employees and visitors. c. The Program EIR determined that the existing transportation systems are adequate to handle the expected traffic "All roadways which would accomodate truck traffic currently have sufficient capacity and should continue to do so." (p.3.11-5). d. As discussed in Items 14a and c, the Program EIR determined the Activity would have an insignificant impact on existing transportation and circulation systems. e. The Activity being built is a wastewater facility which is fenced off from the public and has a controlled entrance. The general motoring public, bicyclists, and pedestrians will not be on the Activity site. The increased traffic during construction is determined to be insignifican t. -15- -. -, ~ . J . . 1 Environmental Review 15. Public Services a. Quoting the Program EIR: "The Long Term Plan under any of the alternatives is not expected to have significant direct impacts on demand for fire protection services. The Long Term Plan would not involve the addition of a significant number of new buildings or additional new employees on site." (p. 3.10-7) b. According to the Program EIR: "The Long Term Plan under any of the alternatives is not expected to have significant direct impacts on demand for police services. The Long Term Plan would incrementally increase truck traffic from the treatment plant (Section 3.11, Traffic and Transportation) and could result in subsequent increases in calls for traffic-related aid." (p. 3.10-7). c. The Program EIR had the following conclusion: "The Long Term Plan alternatives would not directly impact schools in the service area. No new residents and few new employees would result from Long Term Plan facilities." (p. 3.10-15) d. From the Program EIR: "The Long Term Plan alternatives would not directly impact parks and recreation facilities or demand for facilities in the service area. No new residents and few new employees would result from Long Term Plan facilities." (p.3.10-14) e. The Program EIR found the following: "The Long Term Plan would involve the transport of solid waste from the treatment plant, increasing truck traffic on plant vicinity roadways. Such usage would cause a minor increase in annual roadway maintenance needs on service area roadways and could require improvements such as curbs and resurfacing on Southside Drive, the access roadway to the plant." (p.3.10-14) The trucks used during construction of the Activity will probably damage the service area roads (Southside Drive and Rossi Lane). Therefore, roads may need repair after construction is complete. The construction contract will hold the contractor responsible for the repair of any damage caused by construction activities. f. The implementation of the Activity will not require additional governmental services. -16- f 11II. ~. . . J 1" I . Environmental Review . ... r 16. Energy a. The construction and operation of the Activity will consume energy. However, according to the Program EIR, the impact would be insignificant. (p.3.13-6) b. The Program EIR has determined the energy consumption of the Activi ty is insignificant. (p. 3.13 -6). The Activity will not require the development of new energy sources. 17. Utilities a. According to the Program EIR, energy consumption for the operation and maintenance of the treatment plant and associated facilities would create insignificant effects to service area energy supplies or availability. (p. 3.13 -6) b. The enlargement of the facilities from 6.1 mgd to 7.1 mgd, and increasing the staff by 7 persons will not require a new communica- tions system. c. The facilities are not expected to involve the use of significant amounts of domestic water. Small amounts of water used for landscaping and washdown of facilities would likely be treated effluent water. Some potable water would be used for drinking and sanitary facilities for employees. (Program EIR p. 3.10-8) d. The proposed Activity is the expansion of the wastewater treatment facilities. The Activity itself would not generate a significant direct increase in sanitary sewage (Program EIR p. 3.10-9). e. The facilities would involve construction of additional buildings and facilities, thereby increasing impervious surface area on the site and subsequent volumes of storm water runoff. However, the additional runoff generated would not significantly increase direct demand for municipal storm drainage facilities (Program EIR p. 3.10-10). f. The Activity will produce about 22 tons of sludge a day (based on about 2.8 tons/mgd) and 1 cubic yard of grit a day. This solid waste will be either hauled to a landfill, or stockpiled and/or composted on- site. If the latter method is chosen there will be no impact to solid waste utilities. If disposal to landfill is selected, sufficient capacity at nearby class III landfill sites will be required. The Program EIR gave the following conclusion for the ultimate volume of solid waste (about 42 tons/day): "Solid wastes generated directly and indirectly by the Long Term Plan and the uncertainty of landfill availability and capacity, in addition to solid waste generated by other developments both in and out of the service area, would create potentially significant impacts to landfill capacity and -17- -. . II ., ~.. . Environmental Review . ? (" disposal of solid wastes". (p. 3.10-17). The Program EIR recommended as a mitigation measure to secure an agreement for landfill disposal prior to production of sludge from the long term plan facility (p. 3.10-18). It will be four years from now when the Activity becomes operational. If off-site disposal is selected, an agreement will be obtained closer to the start-up date. 18. Human Health The Activity is a wastewater treatment plant which will reduce potential health hazards by properly handling sewage. 19. Aesthetics The existing location is not currently within a scenic vista. During construction, the site will look like a typical construction site, but will not be considered aesthetically offensive. The Program EIR recommended "Landscape buffers planted early in the construction process could minimize construction related visual impacts." (p. 3.14-8). The completed Activity will be a well-landscaped facility designed for a pleasing visual impact. The conclusion of the Program EIR is "... there would be no significant visual impact on changes in view corridors from changes at the treatment plant." (p. 3.14-9) 20. Recreation The site on which the facilities will be built is not currently used for recreational purposes, and therefore would not reduce the amount of recreational area. 21. Cultural Resources a. The 1977 EIR (Reference 5) on the original facility concluded that cultural resources are not present on the site. Quoting from the 1977 EIR: "Archaeologic surveys of the existing site and the Bolsa Road site were conducted in October 197 5 by Dr. Joseph Winter, California State University at San Jose. .. Nothing of archaeologic value was found at the existing treatment and disposal site nor was there any indication of a potential archaeologic site. Dr. Winter's opinion was that continuation or expansion of facilities in the vicinity of the existing site would not threaten any archaeologic or historic resources." (pp. 14-15) The following mitigation measure recommended in the Program EIR will be included in the Activity: "In the event that archaeological resources (prehistoric or historic cultural materials) are encountered during subsurface construction, -18- ~ ; J ~ t!' ;, ,.,.., ( . Environmental Review . land alteration work in the general vicinity should be stopped and a professional archaeologist should be notified. Prompt evaluations should be made and appropriate mitigation measures, under the provisions of current state law and acceptable to all concerned parties should be formulated and implemented prior to continuation of any additional earth movement." (p.3.6-14) "The County Coroner's Office and the Native American Heritage Commission should be contacted if human remains of native American origin are encountered during project level actions." (p.4.2-17). "As part of final site design the local Indian community should be consulted to insure mitigation of potential impacts to burial sites and other cultural resources of value to tribal customs." (p.4.2-17). b. No. The Activity site is previously disturbed and does not contain anything of unique ethnic cultural value. c. No. The Activity site is currently a percolation pond and is not used for religious or sacred worship. 22. Secondary Impacts The Program ErR evaluated the secondary impacts that are due to growth. Secondary growth-related development within the service area as a result of implementation of the Activity would encounter impacts. The magnitude or severity of these impacts would depend upon the location and nature of development. The Program ErR recommended site investigations of potential impacts and incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures within the planning and development guidelines of the applicable jurisdictional agency to minimize potential secondary effects. The subjects that have general secondary impacts are: air quality, agricultural land use, public services, traffic, noise, and energy. It should be noted that the Program ErR's evaluation is based on the ultimate Long Term Plan population of 143,500 which is an increase of 84,850 from the current wastewater facilities equivalent population of 58,650. The Activity is being designed to accommodate 68,270 which corresponds to a 9,620 increase in population. Therefore, the secondary impacts resulting from the Activity are addressed in the Program ErR. 23. Cumulative Impacts a. Section 5 of the Program ErR evaluates the cumulative impacts for the Long Term Plan facilities. The areas in which cumulative impacts were found were: growth inducing impacts, land use, public service and utilities, and traffic and transportation. The Activity results in a flow increase of 1.0 mgd compared to the 8.8 mgd increase which the Program ErR addresses. Therefore, due to the -19- · r,- ~ <{a ,.. . 't ,.,'. . Environmental Review . limited scope of the Activity, any cumulative impacts which result from the Activity have been covered by the Program EIR. b. The Santa Clara County Planning Department does not currently have any permit applications on file for any of the land parcels which are contiguous to the wastewater facilities (Reference 6). Therefore there are no other planned projects which need to be considered for cumulative impacts. The Program EIR found the Activity to have a significant impact on groundwater quality. The only other major discharger to the ground- water in the southern Gilroy area is the Gilroy Food's Cogeneration Plant which is located on Pacheco Pass Highway between Llagas Creek and Miller Slough. The cumulative effect of the Gilroy Food TDS discharge would not change the Program EIR finding. The TDS load to the shallow groundwater system from the Gilroy Food's combined project is about 18 percent of the Activity TDS contribution (Reference 7). The TDS contribution from the two activities is within the range analyzed in the Program EIR. -20- ~~, " .. "~ ,- - Environmental Review ~'. . .. REFERENCES (1) City of Gilroy, City of Morgan Hill, Final Environmental Impact Report for the Long Term Wastewater Management Plan, March 1986, Earthmetrics Incorporated. (2) City of Gilroy, City of Morgan Hill, Predesign Report for Denitrifica- tion Facilities, June 1987, James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. (3) City of Gilroy, City of Morgan Hill, Wastewater Facilities, 1986 Operations Plan and Hydrologic Balance, July 1986. James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. (4) City of Gilroy, City of Morgan Hill, Wastewater Facilities Interim Capacity Report, July 1986, James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., Appendix G: "Hydrogeological Analysis." (5) City of Gilroy, City of Morgan Hill, Final Environmental Impact Report, Sewage Treatment and Disposal Facilities, March 1977, J .B. Gilbert & Associates. (6) Telephone Communications. Between Chuck Myer, City of Gilroy Planning Department, and Roanne Ross, James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., July 16, 1987. (7) "Application for Certification, Gilroy Foods Cogeneration Project," prepared for Gilroy Energy Company, August 1984, Woodward-Clyde Consultants. -21-