Resolution 1990-68
~,
.
.
',SL
RESOLUTION NO. 90-68
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF GILROY
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRON-
MENTAL QUALITY ACT IN CONNECTION WITH A PROJECT CONSISTING
OF ADOPTING A LONG-TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
CITIES OF GILROY AND MORGAN HILL FOR WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED.
W~EREAS, the wastewater treatment plant servicing the cities
of Gilroy and Morgan Hill has nearly reached capacity, virtually
all residential, commercial and industrial growth for the past
few years has been very limited, and future growth will be
severely curtailed unless additional sewage capacity is
provided; 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, for more than six years expansion of sewage
treatment capacity 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
WHEREAS, in 1986 the Council adopted a Long Term Wastewater
Management Plan ("Plan"), 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 Wastewater
Management Plan of the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill dated
March 1986, prepared by Earth Metrics Incorporated ("First Final
EIR"), hereinafter referred to as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, prior to drafting an environmental impact report
("EIR") the lead agencies held two agency scoping meetings and
three public scoping meetings both 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 EIR; and
WHEREAS, such proj ect was the subj ect of a program EIR
prepared for the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill as lead
agencies, and the Council held a public hearing on the draft EIR
on December 14, 1985 for public comment, and a public meeting on
April 8, 1986 to consider the proposed First Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, On July 29, 1986, by Resolution 86-45 the City
Council of Gilroy, and on August 6, 1986 by Resolution 3075 the
City Council of Morgan Hill, adopted the findings required by
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
RESOLUTION NO. 90 - 68
-1-
, '
, .
.
.
CEQA in connection with their adoption of Alternative SL for the
Long Term Wastewater Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, two lawsuits were filed against the two Cities,
each seeking to overturn the selection of the alternative
selected for the Plan. The suits were coordinated as the
"Gilroy/Morgan Hill Environmental Cases", Judicial Council
Coordination Proceeding No. 2043 (the "Lawsuit"); and
WHEREAS, On June 29, 1988, Judge Peter G. stone issued a
Peremptory writ of Mandate (the "Writ") in the Lawsuit. The writ
rej ected most of the challenges that had been brought in the
Lawsui t and upheld the adequacy of the First Final EIR in most
respects, but did order that a new EIR be prepared to treat the
following issues:
a) Cumulative impacts to the waters of the pajaro River and
pajaro Estuary
b) Cumulative impacts on groundwater
c) Cumulative impacts on waters of Monterey Bay
d) Cumulative air pollution impacts
e) Analysis of al+ potential significant impacts for which
analysis was deferred to later stages of the project
f) Analysis of whether mitigation measures exist to avoid or
substantially lesson significant effects for which
monitoring was proposed as sole mitigation
g) Analysis of whether the above mitigations are feasible
h) Appropriate findings regarding infeasibility of
mitigations, if necessary; and
WHEREAS, The Cities have prepared a new Draft Eir dated
January 1990. The Draft EIR was circulated for comment, and
numerous comments were received in wiritten form, as well as
orally at a public hearing held on February 26, 1990. As a
result of this process, a Final EIR dated May 1990 (the "Final
EIR") was prepared, incorporating the Draft EIR, all comments
received, responses to the comments, the transcript of the public
hearing, and additions, deletions and changes to the Draft EIR;
and
WHEREAS, The cities at a joint special meeting held on June
11, 1990 each certified that the Final EIR was complete and in
accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, The cities at a joint special meeting on July 11,
1990, held a public hearing to obtain public input on the choice
of a Long Term Plan Alternative; and
WHEREAS, CEQA requires that, in the approval of a project
for which an EIR has been prepared, the decision-making body
shall review and consider the final EIR prior to approving the
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-2-
, .
.
.
project and make certain findings regarding the significant
effects on the environment identified in said final EIR; and
WHEREAS, CEQA also requires that in determining to carry out
a project for which an EIR has been prepared, the lead agency
must also adopt a mitigation monitoring plan, which each city
will adopt by companion resolution of even date;
NOW, THEREFORE,
City of
BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the
as follows:
1. CEOA CERTIFICATION: The Council as the decision-making
body hereby certifies that the Final EIR of May 1990 is complete
in accordance with CEQA, that said Final EIR was presented to it
and that it has reviewed and considered the information contained
in the Final EIR prior to approving the Project.
2. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE
FINAL EIR FOR ALTERNATIVE SL
Hydroloqv/Water Resources
H1. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: possible construction of
percolation 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.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Alternative SL
requires 123 acres for percolation ponds in addition to those
already existing at the wastewater treatment facility. The most
suitable acreage is located in sites 12 (140 acres) and/or 19
(1,180 acres), those sites totaling 1,320 acres. The 123 acres
for SL will be selected from the 1,320 acres available, and to
the extent possible should be constructed outside the 100-year
flood plain. Considerations of topography and final disposal
pond design may prevent complete avoidance of the flood plain,
but this alternative requires less acreage for ponds than
Alternatives Land LD. Design and placement of ponds required
within the 100 year floodplain shall be coordinated with the
Santa Clara Valley Water District in order to minimize potential
increased flooding hazards.
FINDING: Implementation of this alternative with the
above mitigation incorporated will avoid potential flooding
hazards by location of ponds outside the 100 year floodplain or
substantially lessen such hazards to an acceptable level by
design and placement of the ponds.
H2. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Additional percolation wastewater
recharge to the upper semi-perched aquifer of the Llagas Subbasin
would potentially result in oversaturation of the upper aquifer,
resulting in elevated groundwater levels and potential
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-3-
.
.
agricul tural impacts and spillage to the north to the deeper
aquifer.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: There is a
potential problem for land disposal sites where high groundwater
occurs as a result of percolation pond recharge. One possible
mitigation would be to construct dewatering wells or underdrains
to lower the groundwater levels as necessary. Unfortunately, it
might become necessary to discharge to the Pajaro River from such
underdrains or dewatering wells occasionally during the summer
months (for example, possibly after an exceptionally wet winter) .
This summer discharge in turn would cause the following
significant effects: (1) 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 summer; (2) Possibility of channel erosion and scouring
in the Pajaro River due to increased stream flows increasing
sediment load and turbidity, altering the benthic invertebrate
communities in the affected area, affecting filter feeding fish
and burying nonmotile benthic organisms; (3) Potential impacts to
available habitat and optimum growth and spawning water
temperatures for steelhead trout caused by elevated temperatures
of effluent discharge to the pajaro River during summer months.
Instead of using underdrains or dewatering wells, the
cities will mitigate this potential effect by drawing off
sufficient treated effluent to use it as reclaimed water either
on city lands for irrigation or for sale to commercial customers
as necessary during the summer months. There is a discussion of
the use of reclamation as a disposal method in the Montgomery
Engineers Report (pp 3-8 to 3-12). That report concludes that
reclamation cannot be the primary method of disposal, but that
landscape and agricultural irrigation are feasible as auxiliary
methods of disposal in the summer months, as would be the case
here.
Monitoring of groundwater levels will be a standard part of
the operations of the plant, and will be required by the terms of
its discharge permit. This monitoring will enable the cities to
determine when they are approaching the holding capacity of the
land disposal sites. Prior to approaching this holding capacity,
the cities shall arrange for such reclamation use in sufficient
quantities to completely mitigate this potential effect. If it
becomes impossible to find users (including the cities
themselves) for sufficient quantities of effluent, then the
cities shall purchase sufficient acreage (e.g., at sites 11
and/or 14 or similar property) to allow sufficient additional
land disposal to prevent saturation of the disposal sites, and
thus fully mitigate this impact.
FINDING:
The project incorporates mitigation measures
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-4-
'.
.
.
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
H3. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Increased pajaro River streamflows
could result in significant bank erosion potential, to the extent
that dispersive soils are present.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: A survey will
be conducted to locate any significant areas of dispersive soils
along the pajaro River, downstream of the San Benito River
confluence. If dispersive soils are found, river banks in these
areas will be stabilized with vegetation to prevent erosion.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-5-
.
.
WATER QUALITY
WQ1. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Discharge of wastewater to the
pajaro River could have a significant effect on domestic users
downriver from the discharge point.
EXPLANATION OF PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: There
are at least 18 residences along the Paj aro River which obtain
their water either directly from the river' or from wells
directly adjacent to the river. Such use is not recommended,
particularly for drinking water, even without the proposed
discharge into the pajaro River due to the uncertainty of the
existing water quality of the river. Accordingly, at present
these domestic users should secure al ternati ve domestic water
sources or use domestic water treatment. If the discharge of
waste water to the pajaro degrades the quality of their domestic
water further, that would make such provision of al ternati ve
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 territorial limits. The
County of San Benito Health Department is urged to work with each
such domestic water user to ensure that an adequate water source
is available.
FINDING: The project identifies mitigation measures
which substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental
effect thereof. Complete mitigation cannot be implemented
unilaterally by the cities because the potential impact occurs
outside their jurisdiction and is within the control of other
public utilities to mitigate. In view of the cities' need for
sewage capacity, the environmental risk will be tolerated as an
acceptable level of impact.
WQ2. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Percolation pond effluent would
exceed Basin Plan groundwater quality objectives for inorganic
salts, i.e., total dissolved solids, sodium, chloride and
sulfate, potentially causing groundwater quality deterioration of
the upper semi-perched aquifer of the Llagas Subbasin.
EXPLANATION OF PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
Disposal into the shallow upper aquifer is less critical than
disposal into the deeper aquifer potentially associated with
alternative L (Land Disposal). 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 inorganic salts at
the 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
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-6-
, '
.
.
in the nature of goals, the Basin Plan contains standards for
discharges, which are the actual recommendations that should be
met. Disposal of the effluent to be produced from the expanded
plant is consistent with Basin Plan standards and with normal
restrictions put on effluent discharges in the basin. The Basin
Plan requires It reasonable control" of water qual i ty factors,
which does not include treatment to limit salts. Processes to
remove salts are costly, require large amounts of energy and
involve additional environmental and resource impacts associated
wi th the disposal of the resultant salt brines. For other
constituents, the effluent should be treated, to the extent
possible, to meet Basin Plan objectives.
The cities acknowledge the extensive discussion in the Final
EIR concerning the possible use of reverse osmosis (R. 0.) to
remove TDS from the treated effluent. In particular, the cities
received detailed letters from the Attorneys representing the
Committee for Progressive Gilroy and from Dr. Larry Russell, an
expert hired by them, advocating the use of R.O. for this
purpose. These letters are included in the Final EIR. Also
included in the Final EIR are responses by the preparers of the
EIR to the contents of these letters, as well as a report from
Montgomery Engineers discussing the contents of the two letters
and analyzing in further detail the feasibility of TDS mitigation
(Final EIR, app. I). This is all in addition to the original,
detailed discussion contained in the Draft EIR at pp. 3.3-35 to
3.3-39.
Having carefully reviewed and analyzed this material
regarding possible mitigation of TDS, the cities conclude that
full mitigation by the use of R.O. or a similar post-treatment
method is not feasible, and do not incorporate such mitigation
into the project. On the other hand, it is feasible to partially
mitigate the TDS impact through source controls, similarly to the
way that source controls mitigate the intake of hazardous
materials. The cities therefore will adopt the following partial
mitigation for. TDS: Local pretreatment ordinances will be
expanded to include limits for TDS levels released into the
wastewater system. These will include pretreatment limitations
for TDS and water monitoring for water softener companies, as
well as educational programs to inform the public of the TDS
effects of using water softening equipment. In addition, the
discharge will have to comply at all times with limits set by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board for TDS discharge in
the discharge permit under which the plant will be operated.
The primary reasons for the citiesl finding that R.O. is not
a suitable or feasible mitigation for TDS impacts to groundwater
are the following:
(1) Reverse Osmosis is
removing TDS from treated effluent.
not a proven technique for
There is one model plant,
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-7-
, .
.
.
"
"Water Factory 21", which has been in operation in Fountain
Valley, California for almost 20 years, without serious imitator
in the United states. This plant treats only about 10% of the
operating district's wastewater flow. Both operating and
capital costs are high. Water Factory 21 also has the benefit of
special circumstances, in that it is able to dispose of the
resul ting brine through a preexisting ocean outfall. This is
not true for Gilroy, where the cost and environmental impacts of
an ocean outfall would be practically the same as for disposing
of the effluent, without R.O., through the so alternative (direct
discharge of 'treated effluent to Monterey Bay). The total
capitol cost of an R.O. facility is estimated at $89 million,
with present net worth operating costs of $56 million (as
compared to a total cost of $117 for the treatment plant itself).
(2) TDS removal processes are very energy intensive.
The R.O. process analyzed in the Final EIR would require 2550
horsepower to operate. The utilization of this energy would
result in significant air pollution emissions. If this energy
were supplied by an oil-fueled power plant, estimated annual air
pollution emissions would be approximately 15 tons of NOx, 51
tons of SOx, 2.5 tons of CO, and 2 tons of particulates.
(3) Any TDS removal process generates a large quantity
of brine (salt waste). As shown in Table 3.3.4 in the Final EIR,
the TDS removal process can generate as much as 32 tons per day
of salt waste. The amount of concentrated salt waste is
generally equal to or greater than the salts present in the
treated water. Dr. Russell suggests that solar evaporation be
used to dispose of the brine. This is not practical in Gilroy.
The climate is such that annual rainfall can exceed annual
evaporation for several years in a row. As evaporation rates
from brine are significantly lower than from freshwater, any
brine ponds established in Gilroy would be permanently wet. Such
a pond would pose the same type of threat to groundwater
supplies as a hazardous waste pond, and consequently should be
designed to similar rigorous standards for siting and
construction. The apparent policy of the State at this time is
to eliminate existing liquid hazardous waste impoundments, and
prevent new 0nes. A waste that contained extremely high
concentrations of salt as well as measurable concentrations of
the heavy metals present in the Gilroy wastewater would probably
have to be handled in a similar manner as a hazardous or
designated waste.
The remaining possibility is to dispose of the brine in
a secure landfill. The concentration of salt may, in fact, be
classified as a hazardous waste and require disposal as such. At
present, the practical experience with TDS removal from municipal
wastewater is extremely limited, and the State has not
established standardized criteria that specifically address the
acceptable disposal of salt brines produced by TDS removal. The
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-8-
'.
.
.
future availability of disposal sites is thus uncertain. The
cities do not believe it would be a sensible decision to plan a
major TDS removal facility when the ability to dispose of the
substantial quantities of brine is not assured.
FINDING: This impact will be partially mitigated by
the imposition of source controls for TDS removal and the other
procedures described above. Full mitigation through TDS removal
from the treated wastewater is not practical or feasible for this
plant. The removal of inorganic salts is not a standard sewage
treatment process, and has serious environmental consequences
associated with it, particularly involving the large amounts of
energy required and the difficulty of disposing of the resulting
brine. Such treatment of the effluent is not required by Basin
Plan standards, nor is it expected to be required by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, which will set waste discharge
requirements for the plant. The EIR does not specifically
recommend treatment to meet Basin Plan groundwater objectives
with respect to inorganic salts. Except for alternatives SO
(surface discharge to the ocean) & SP (surface discharge to the
pajaro River), which raise other environmental issues, all other
alternatives including the No Project alternative have the same
potential for groundwater quality deterioration. Therefore, in
view of the cities' need for sewage capacity to support existing
and planned urban uses, the environmental risk will be tolerated
as an acceptable level of impact.
WQ3. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Potential degradation to
groundwater, Llagas Creek, and pajaro River water quality on an
infrequent, temporary 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.
EXPLANATION OF PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: The
treatment plant shall be designed to include prov1s1ons for
emergency storage capacity and emergency standby power to provide
immediate response to plant shutdown or failure. Influent and
effluent monitoring shall be required to detect industrial
pretreatment failure and chemical spills. The design of the
facilities and structures shall comply with seismic requirements
of the current Uniform Building Code. Some unavoidable
discharges would occur as a result of a major earthquake, but the
extent of spillage at the plant would be limited by probable
breakdowns in the sewer collection pipelines and the water
system.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
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.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-9-
.
.
Bioloqy
B1. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Percolation pond disposal of
treated effluent would potentially impact adjacent trees due to
excessive water in the root zone.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Effluent shall
be applied at the rates recommended in the Montgomery Engineers
Report and consistent with proper engineering practice to avoid
oversaturation. The final engineering plans for the land
disposal areas shall avoid the riparian vegetation areas.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
B2. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Increased Paj aro River stream
flows could potentially alter migration responses in Steelhead
trout with resultant effects of fish stranding and increased
susceptibility to poaching and disease.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Large discharges
to the river shall be timed with, to the extent possible, the
commencement of winter rains and higher stream flows to minimize
potential steelhead migratory responses.
FINDING: The proj ect incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
B3A. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Wet season discharge of wastewater
to the pajaro River containing copper and ammonia without
sufficient dilution could create an avoidance response in
steelhead, resulting in potentially significant impact to
steelhead populations.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Steelhead trout
migration patterns in the pajaro River shall be monitored prior
to commencing to discharge treated wastewater into the paj aro
River channel, and also after the treatment plant is operational
and wet season discharges are being made to the pajaro River.
If avoidance responses are found to be occurring downstream
of the Uvas/Carnadero Creek confluence, then measures to reduce
residual ammonia and copper in treated wastewater will be
implemented. (Note that although pretreatment for mercury is
mentioned erroneously as a mitigation measure in the Final EIR,
the data do not support the necessity for such pretreatment, so
the cities do not adopt it as a mitigation). Measures to remove
residual ammonia consist of further denitrification. Measures to
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-10-
.:,'
, "
.
.
reduce copper consist of more stringent pretreatment regulation
and/or modifications of the treatment process to extract copper.
If is is found that Steelhead avoidance does not occur downstream
of the Uvas/Carnadero Creek confluence but does occur upstream of
this confluence, then the outfall shall be relocated to a point
below the Uvas/Carnadero Creek confluence. In any case, the
cities believe that the impact will be fully mitigated.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
B3B. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Elevated temperatures of effluent
discharged to the Pajaro River may have significant adverse
impacts on steel head smol t transformation necessary for ocean
life and smolt survival on the way to the ocean from the pajaro
River tributaries, as well as to the vigor and health of spawning
adults.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Final treatment
plant design shall incorporate suitable cooling facilities (such
as cooling ponds, spray ponds, or cooling towers) to ensure that
discharge temperatures do not exceed ambient river temperatures.
FINDING: The proj ect incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
B4. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: pajaro River fish could potentially
be impacted to the extent that erosion and turbidity is increased
between winter storms. Potentially significant impacts could
result affecting Sacramento blackfish, Sacramento squawfish,
Three spined stickleback, and a small Steelhead population
downstream of the San Benito River confluence.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: A survey will
be conducted to locate any significant areas of dispersive soils
along the pajaro River, downstream of the San Benito River
confluence. If dispersive soils are found, river banks in these
areas will be stabilized with vegetation to prevent erosion.
Establishment of vegetation on'barren or eroded streambanks would
mitigate increased erosion and turbidity caused by the possible
presence of dispersive soils along the pajaro River.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof. Note that this is listed on page 7-1 of the
Final EIR as an impact that cannot be fully mitigated for
Alternatives LD, SL, and SP. For Alternative SL, however, since
direct discharge to the River will not occur during the summer
months, the cities find that in fact the impact is fully
mitigated for the project as proposed with mitigation measures.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-11-
.
.
B5. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Daily variation in treatment plant
discharges could result in abnormal variation of salinity and
temperature and area submerged and exposed, resulting in
potentially significant impacts to pajaro River and estuary
habit.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Impacts to
fish and aquatic wildlife resulting from daily fluctuations of
effluent discharges will be mitigated by treatment plant design
and operation that moderate daily fluctuations and release
effluent at a nearly constant rate. For example, flow
equalization basins and/or sufficient retention ponds will be
constructed to retain wastewater during peak production periods
to be released at a more steady rate throughout the day and
night. Shading will be encouraged around retention ponds to
reduce some warming of the water by the sun.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
B6. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Increased flows in the pajaro
River could result in increased breaches of the sandbar at the
mouth of the paj aro Estuary, which could result in potentially
significant impact to fish habitat as well as the wildlife that
eat the fish, including the Double-crested Cormorant.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: The frequency
of sandbar breaching at the pajaro Lagoon shall be monitored
prior to and after discharges from the wastewater treatment plant
operation. If the frequency of sandbar breaching increases
significantly from treatment plant discharges and adversely
affects fish and wildlife habitat, then a culvert or pump will be
installed. The installation of a culvert or pump will regulate
water levels to prevent significant changes in salinity or
temperature, which will reduce this impact to insignificance.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
B7. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: The Construction of the pipeline
could potentially significantly impact breeding habitat of the
Red-legged Frog and California Tiger Salamander. Loss of
riparian habitat along the pajaro River from pipeline or outfall
construction could have a potentially significant impact on the
Yellow Warbler and Yellow-breasted Chat.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: The final
engineering plans will avoid the riparian vegetation areas where
feasible. Every attempt will be made to avoid impacts to
FINDSLl.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-12-
.
.
"
sensitive and significant botanical resources (trees with trunk
diameters greater than 18" in diameter). Potential impacts to
Red-legged Frog and California Tiger Salamander will be avoided
by surveying the actual locations where habitat would be
disturbed by construction and avoiding any habitat that is
actively in use by either of the species. Construction impacts to
riparian habitat will be reduced to insignificance by the
following mitigation measures: Construction operations (including
grading) shall be restricted to the pipeline construction
corridors to the extent possible to minimize vegetation loss.
Construction activity shall occur out of the riparian corridor,
except where designated and where replacement mitigation has been
approved. A buffer zone of 251 in width, measured outward from
the riparian corridor, shall be established. All construction
activities, including storage of materials, discarding of spent
material, and construction staging should occur outside of the
buffer zone. The buffer zone shall be fenced with plastic mesh
"snow fencing" or chain link fencing prior to construction, such
that the integrity of the buffer is maintained. The loss of
riparian habitat will be mitigated by compliance with the permit
requirements of the Department of Fish and Game, calling for a
one to one replacement (or greater) of impacted riparian habitat.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
B8. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: The discharge of freshwater into the
pajaro River may cause significant impacts to salt marsh
vegetation if there are significant changes in soil salinity.
EXPLANATION OF PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: The only
possible mitigations for the fact that the discharged effluent
will lower the salinity in the lagoon would be to increase the
salinity of the effluent. This would cause even greater impacts
upon the fresh water habitat of the pajaro River for the entire
length of the river from the discharge point to the salt marsh
lagoon. Because these impacts on water quality and fresh water
biologic habitat would likely be more severe than the relatively
limited impact that may be caused by the fresh water discharge
upon the salt marshes, the cities find that such mitigation is
not appropriate and is therefore infeasible (however, this
impact may be reduced if it is decided to install an outlet
culvert or pump that would allow salt water intrusion back into
the marsh). Thus, there is no practical and feasible full
mitigation for impacts to salt marsh vegetation caused by
changes in soil salinity.
FINDING: The salt marsh vegetation and habitat is not
unique; and the impact upon it from the discharge of the treated
effluent is somewhat speculative. On the other hand, the impact
from any poten~ial mitigation that would increase the salinity of
FINDSLl. DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-13-
.
.
the effluent would be much more severe and definite upon the
entire fresh water habitat of the pajaro River from the discharge
point all the way downstream. In view of the speculative nature
of the impact upon the salt marsh vegetation, and the clear
environmental tradeoff that would ensue from lowering the
salinity of the effluent, the cities regard full mitigation as
infeasible. In view of the need for disposal capacity, the cities
will tolerate any remaining environmental risk as acceptable.
B9. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: The uptake of trace amounts 9f
heavy metals in the effluent could potentially impact riparian
vegetation. The significance of this impact is not known.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Vegetation
along the pajaro River shall be monitored downstream of the
discharge point to determine if any adverse impacts are resulting
from uptake of heavy metals present in the effluent. If it is
determined that heavy metals are adversely affecting riparian
vegetation, more stringent pretreatment standards will be
implemented to reduce these metals in the effluent to reduce this
impact to insignificance.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
BID. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Nickel in the effluent could
result in potentially significant toxic impacts to diatoms,
invertebrates, and fish (including Steelhead embryo and larvae).
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Effluent
discharged to the pajaro River will receive industrial
pretreatment and comply with Basin Plan effluent limitations. In
addi tion, nickel concentrations in treated wastewater will be
reduced sufficiently through treatment and pretreatment to
maintain existing concentrations of nickel in the Paj aro River
during both wet season discharge and dry season land disposal.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
B11. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: The loss of grassland,
agricultural lands and ruderal habitat from land disposal sites
could result in a potentially significant impact to Black-
shouldered Kite, Northern Harrier, and Burrowing Owl.
EXPLANATION OF PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Some
loss of habitat resulting from construction of the land disposal
sites can not be mitigated, although Alternative SL has the
benefit, as compared to alternatives Land LD, of requiring less
acreage for land disposal sites, thereby lessening the loss of
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-14-
.
.
agricultural land as well as the potential impact to the three
species of birds mentioned above. Providing suitable replacement
habitat would require alteration of other non-grassland habitat
to adapt it for the three above species. This would diminish the
habitat value of the replacement land and result in additional
biological impacts. Replacement habitat could also be created
by the conversion of existing urban land to grassland. However,
due to the large amount of land required, the Cities find that
this would be infeasible.
FINDING: This impact cannot be mitigated, since by its
very nature the provision of land disposal sites will result in
some loss of terrestrial habitat. For the reasons given above,
provision of suitable replacement habitat is infeasible.In view
of the benefits of this project, as well as the fact that these
species of birds are not rare, endangered or threatened, this
impact is deemed acceptable.
B12. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: There may be potentially
significant impacts on fishery resources due to secondary effects
of the project, i.e., impacts caused not directly by the project,
but rather by growth that will result in part from implementation
of the Long-Term Plan. This growth is of course contemplated by
the general plans of Giroy and Morgan Hill, and the
implementation of the Long-Term Plan would have the effect of
removing a present impediment (lack of disposal capacity) to
allowing the contemplated and planned-for growth to occur. These
impacts could include habitat degradation, increased stranding of
Steelhead migrants, increased Steelhead poaching and increased
risk of mortality due to illegally discharged toxic chemicals.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: This is a
potential impact resulting from increased urban development. The
magnitude or severity of these impacts would be dependent upon
the location and nature of each urban development, as well as
upon various societal factors. For example, it is really
speculative to conclude that there would be increased fish
poaching due to a greater urban population--it is also possible
that a greater urban population would reduce opportunities for
fish poachers to operate undetected, and in any event, law
enforcement and the attitude of residents towards such matters
may well prove to be more important than any simple extrapolation
of an impact from an increase in population.
with respect to modifications to the channels of the pajaro
River or Uvas Creek, impacts shall be mitigated by complying with
the requirements of a Stream Alteration Agreement from the
California Department of Fish and Game; such permits would
include provisions to mitigate any impacts to the riparian
habitat. Protection of the riparian habitats is currently
covered by several development policies of the City of Gilroy:
for example, requiring that in natural drainage areas development
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-15-
.
.
be restricted for a greater distance of 250 feet from the center
of a stream, or within the lOO-year flood plain. Increased
runoff is reduced by requiring that areas within the Llagas Creek
storm drainage system be connected to that system, while
developments outside that area require detention basins. Morgan
Hill is also requiring detention basins where appropriate to
reduce runoff into stream corridors. Dumping of toxic chemicals
is expected to continue to be regulated by existing laws,
including the pretreatment ordinances.
In summary, while urban development can be expected to
have potentially significant biological impacts, it is expected
that continued application of existing practices and regulations,
and continuing review of development applications for conformance
with General Plan policies and procedures will mitigate these
effects. Further analysis of these impacts and mitigations is
beyond the reasonable scope of this EIR, and should be carried
out in the context of the cities' general plans, as the same are
updated from time to time, and in the review of specific
development projects.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-16-
.
.
Air Quality/Odor
AQ1. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Emissions of construction-related
dust would create potentially significant short-term air quality
effects on localized areas adacent to construction activity.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: standard dust-
control construction measures required by the BAAQMD (as set out
in detail in Table 3.5.6 in the Final EIR) to minimize potential
particulate impacts resulting from construction activities will
be implemented to reduce these impacts to an insignificant level.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
AQ2. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Odor resulting from various unit
processes (primary clarifiers, headworks, influent Parshall
flumes, oxidation ditch, anaerobic digesters, sludge thickeners)
at the treatment plant would create potentially significant
impacts to adjacent sensitive land uses.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Odor impacts
can be fully mitigated through the use of standard odor controls
in the design of the facilities. The facility headworks will be
covered and the recovered off-gases will be scrubbed. potential
headworks odors may also require in-sewer chemical treatment to
reduce hydrogen sulfide. Standard odor control engineering
techniques shall be included in the design of the primary
clarifiers. The influent flow measuring structures shall be
covered with subsequent off-gas scrubbing if adverse odors occur
at this process point.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
AQ3. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Incremental increases in regional
emissions associated with growth in Morgan Hill and Gilroy would
result in potentially significant secondary air quality impacts
both locally and in downwind portions of the North Central Coast
Air Basin.
EXPLANATION OF PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: The
secondary air quality impacts resulting from growth-related
emissions will be partially mitigated by policies and
mitigations set forth within the transportation, land use, and/or
air quality elements of the General Plans of Gilroy and Morgan
Hill. These mitigation measures fall into two groups:
transportation control measures and land use measures.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-17-
.
.
Transportation control measures are strategies designed to reduce
vehicle trips, shorten vehicle trips or shift trips to
nonautomobile modes. Land use measures attempt to develop a land
form or land use mix that makes the transportation control
measures more feasible or effective.
The city of Gilroy is in the process of adopting an updated
Circulation Element to its General Plan, which contains the goal
of developing and maintaining a balanced transportation system.
Specific policies to accomplish that goal are detailed in the
Final EIR at page 3.5-15. The City of Gilroy is currently
developing an Air Quality Element to its General Plan. This will
include and perhaps strengthen the transportation and land use
measures elsewhere in the Plan, and examine additional measures
to reduce air quality degradation. The Morgan Hill General Plan
also includes goals, policies, or actions in the circulation and
Land Use Elements that coincide with air quality planning goals.
It is not possible to incorporate mitigation measures into
this project to fully mitigate these secondary effects on air
quality. In fact, the background emission levels are
sufficiently high, even without contributions from Gilroy and
Morgan Hill, that there would be exceedances of state and federal
standards for air quality. The cities do urge other
jurisdictions to adopt and enforce measures similar to those
discussed above in order to attempt to mitigate these continuing
air quality impacts.
FINDING: The proj ect identifies mitigation measures
which substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental
effect thereof. Complete mitigation cannot be implemented
unilaterally by the cities because much of the potential impact
is caused by sources outside their jurisdiction and is within
the control of other public entities to mitigate. In view of the
cities' need for sewage capacity, the environmental risk will be
tolerated as an acceptable level of impact.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-18-
.
.
Cultural Resources
CR1. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Percolation pond preparation,
treated effluent disposal and pond maintenance (discing and
plowing) on site 19 could potentially impact cultural resources
to one known prehistoric site, as well as other yet unrecorded
sites.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Prior to
project construction, cultural resource testing of the selected
disposal acreage shall be undertaken, including field mapping,
sampling and excavation. Final design of land disposal areas
will 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 will be implemented under the direction of a
qualified archaeologist to preserve the cultural information
at the disturbed site. Should archaeological resources
(prehistoric or historic cultural materials) be encountered
during subsurface construction, work in that area will be stopped
and an archaeologist notified. provisions of current state law
must then be followed.
Should human remains be encountered, the County Coroner IS
office shall be contacted. If the remains are of Native American
origin, the procedures set forth in Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. 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.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-19-
.
.
Growth Inducinq Impacts
GIl. 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 wastewater
treatment and disposal capacity.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: The project is
designed for the purpose of accommodating the planned growth of
the cities. Development of the wastewater treatment plant will
be phased to allow adjustments as necessary in the timing and
amount of capacity to match the actual rate of growth for Gilroy
and Morgan Hill, as governed by their General Plans and growth
management programs. The complete implementation of any
alternative will expand wastewater treatment plant capacity to
14.9 mgd. This capacity would be required based upon ABAG and
Montgomery Engineers' growth projections for the year 2008.
However, growth in Gilroy and Morgan Hill is managed under their
General Plans, by Gilroy's Residential Development Ordinance and
initiative Measure E in Morgan Hill, and may not reach the 2008
predictions. The phasing of capacity gives the cities the
ability to limit the project to conform with actual growth. This
phasing is not possible under alternative SO.
FINDING: The project is designed to accommodate
growth, but incorporates mitigation measures which substantially
lessen the further growth-inducing impact of the project itself.
GI2. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: potential effect on the balance
between employment and housing in Gilroy and Morgan Hill due to
growth in commercial and industrial uses.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Implementation
of any alternative 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 appropriate policies for
balanced growth would reduce this impact to an insignificant
level. Both Gilroy and Morgan Hill presently have policies for
achieving a balance in jobs and housing, described in the Urban
Growth and Development element of Gilroy's General Plan and
through growth regulations, along with the General Plan, in
Morgan Hill.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
thereof.
GI3. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Employment growth would indirectly
create potential pressures for residential development in San
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-20-
'.
.
.
Benito County, especially in San Juan Bautista and Hollister, if
the demand generated for housing and the projected lack of
housing supply in the Gilroy and Morgan Hill area by the year
2000 occur.
EXPLANATION OF PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
continued implementation of City policies for a balance between
jobs and housing in Gilroy and Morgan Hill as described in
mitigation measure GI2 above will minimize this effect. San
Benito County and the cities of San Juan Bautista and Hollister
have jurisdiction and control over housing growth within their
boundaries to limit development. These jurisdictions are urged
to control housing growth within their boundaries in order to
prevent or limit the adverse environmental affects resulting
therefrom by use of their general plans and appropriate growth
control ordinances as necessary.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
thereof. Complete mitigation 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.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-21-
.
.
Land Use
LU1. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Acquisition of property for
percolation land disposal area would potentially impact affected
property owners on site 19 (31 residences).
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Final
selection of suitable percolation pond land disposal areas within
each candidate site shall avoid, to the extent possible, sites
with residential uses. Owners of property rights which must be
acquired will receive fair market value for such rights.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
LU2. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Conversion of agricultural land
due to community growth accommodated by any al ternati ve would
contribute to a continuing trend of a cumulative reduction of
agricultural land in Santa Clara County.
EXPLANATION OF PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: with
the growth projected by ABAG, the cities, and their consultants
for the South county area through the year 2008, this effect is
unavoidable. Growth will result in loss of agricultural land for
all project alternatives, including the No project alternative,
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 capacity to match
actual growth as governed by the cities' growth management
programs rather than predicted growth reduces the impact of this
effect.
FINDING: All project alternatives identified in the
Final EIR result in this unavoidable impact including the No
Project alternative. Phasing of treatment plant expansion will
reduce this impact-. Due to the cities' need for sewage capacity
to support existing and planned urban uses, this environmental
risk will be tolerated as an acceptable impact.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-22-
.,:0"
.
.
Public services and utilities
PS1. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Uncertainty of landfill
availability and capacity, and cumulative solid wastes generated
by other development both in and outside the service area, create
a potentially significant impact regarding disposal of solid
wastes.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: Neither direct
wastes, the grit and sludge generated by this alternative, nor
secondary wastes of themselves 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 secondary
solid waste disposal service. Refuse is disposed of at the
company's Pacheco Pass landfill, with current remaining capacity
beyond the year 2010.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
PS2. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: potential impacts on secondary
public services and utilities 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 growth.
EXPLANATION OF PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: New
development occurring in the cities should be evaluated for
effects on service providers and conditions of mitigation imposed
as required on the development, including but not 1 imi ted to,
formation of assessment districts and imposition of development
impact fees to finance expansion of services. New development in
the unincorporated area is controlled by the County of Santa
Clara and it is within County jurisdiction and authority to
similarly regulate such growth. The Morgan Hill Unified School
District and Gilroy Unified School District should consider
methods to increase school capacity, including year-round school
terms and double sessions, in addition to financing provided by
the state funds or new development impact fees.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
thereof. Complete mitigation 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.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-23-
"
.
.
Traffic and Transportation
T1. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Growth-induced traffic volumes
within the service area would create a potentially significant
effect on U. S. Highway 101 and State Route 152, east of U. S.
Highway 101, on carrying capacities by the year 2008, and would
require roadway improvements to accommodate the traffic.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: The cities of
Gilroy and Morgan Hill will continue to plan and fund traffic
improvements identified to accommodate growth pursuant to their
General Plans. They will monitor traffic growth as new
developments are approved, and impose traffic mitigation measures
if required to increase capacity along major routes in the cities
to accommodate expansion of Highway 101 and State Route 152.
The State Department of Transportation, CalTrans, is
currently planning the improvement of State Route 152 from two to
four lanes between State Route 156 and Bell station.
Construction is scheduled to be completed by 1992. CalTrans
plans to widen State Route 152 between State Route 156 and U.S.
Highway 101 by the year 2000. Long-range plans also call for the
widening of u.S. Highway 101 to eight lanes between state Route
152 and Bernal Road, and to six lanes between Gilroy and the San
Benito County line to the south. These projects will be
completed before the year 2000, and the cities urge CalTrans to
complete them expeditiously.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
thereof. Complete mitigation 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.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-24-
"
.
.
Cumulative Impacts
CUl. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Alternative SL, combined with
other wastewater discharges, would increase TDS concentrations in
the cumulative discharge to the upper semiperched aquifer,
exceeding Basin Plan groundwater quality objectives for inorganic
salts and potentially causing groundwater quality deterioration
of the upper semi-perched ~quifer of the Llagas subb~sin.
EXPLANATION OF PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: As
shown in Table 5.7 in the Final EIR, the TDS discharged by the
treatment plant under alternative SL is only about one-sixth of
the total discharge of TDS to the upper semi-perched aquifer (the
rest coming from other dischargers and, primarily, from the
unsewered area). This cumulative impact can only be partially
mitigated. See the discussion under finding WQ2, above, for an
explanation as to the mitigation adopted and the infeasibility of
further mitigation. The RWQCB is also urged to require similar
mitigations on other dischargers.
FINDING: This impact will be partially mitigated by the
imposition of source controls for TDS removal and the other
procedures described above. Full mitigation through TDS removal
from the treated wastewater is not practical or feasible for this
plant. The removal of inorganic salts is not a standard sewage
treatment process, and has serious environmental consequences
associated with it, particularly involving the large amounts of
energy required and the difficulty of disposing of the resulting
brine. Such treatment of the effluent is not required by Basin
Plan standards, nor is it expected to be required by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, which will set waste discharge
requirements for the plant. The EIR does not specifically
recommend treatment to meet Basin Plan groundwater objectives
with respect to inorganic salts. Except for alternatives SO
(surface discharge to the ocean) & SP (surface discharge to the
Pajaro River), which raise other environmental issues, all other
alternatives including the No Project alternative have the same
potential for groundwater quality deterioration. Therefore, in
view of the ci~ies' need for sewage capacity to support existing
and planned urban uses, the environmental risk will be tolerated
as an acceptable level of impact.
CU2. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Dry season seepage from project
discharges, combined with other discharges, would increase copper
concentrations in the pajaro River in the dry season, which is
currently in excess of Basin Plan water quality objectives,
thereby contributing to potentially significant cumulative water
quality impacts upon the pajaro River.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-25-
"
.
.
EXPLANATION OF PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: The
cities shall adopt more stringent standards for the pretreatment
of copper in the influent and/or include additional treatment to
maintain existing copper concentrations in the River during the
dry season. The Regional Water Quality Control Board is also
urged to adopt more stringent standards for other dischargers to
reduce this potential impact to a level of insignificance.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
from the- project itself. Complete mitigation 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.
CU3. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: The cumulative removal of riparian
habitat for construction of the discharge pipeline combined with
the periodic removal of vegetation for flood control within the
pajaro River would result in significant cumulative impacts to
riparian vegetation, fisheries, and wildlife (including rare,
threatened, endangered, and species of special concern) of the
river.
EXPLANATION OF PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE:
Mitigation for the riparian impacts from construction of a line
or outfall would be provided for by compliance with the
California Department of Fish and Game permit requiring a
minimum one to one (1: 1) replacement (or greater) of impacted
riparian habitat. See also mitigation discussion under Finding B7
above. Mi tigation for riparian vegetation removal from flood
control maintenance (by Santa Cruz County Public Works
Department) would require sufficient channel enlargement or levee
construction so that the channel could accommodate peak flood
flows without removing channel vegetation. The Santa Cruz County
Public Works Department is urged to undertake such mitigation.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
thereof. Complete mitigation 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.
CU4. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: The potential for more frequent
natural or artificial sandbar opening at the mouth of the Pajaro
River may increase under the cumulative discharge for Alternative
SL. This could result in potentially significant impacts to
wetland habitat, fisheries, and wildlife (including rare,
threatened, endangered, or species of special concern) in the
pajaro River and Estuary.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-26-
'....
.
.
EXPLANATION OF MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: The frequency
of sandbar breaching at the pajaro Lagoon shall be monitored
prior to and after discharges from the wastewater treatment plant
operation. If the frequency of sandbar breaching increases
significantly from treatment plant discharges and adversely
affects fish and wildlife habitat, then a culvert or pump will be
installed. The installation of a culvert or pump will regulate
water levels to prevent significant changes in salinity or
temperature, which will reduce this impact to insignificance.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect thereof.
CU5. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: The secondary impacts of future
growth in San Benito County and southern Santa Cruz County could
result in increased runoff into pajaro River drainages, resulting
in potentially significant impacts upon riparian vegetation (from
channel scour, erosion, flood control measures, and pollution)
EXPLANATION OF PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: The
quantity and quality of runoff into the pajaro River could be
controlled by implementation of local storm drainage standards
requiring the construction of stormwater retention systems and
the installation and maintenance of grease and sediment traps.
As discussed in finding B12 above, the Cities are undertaking
these mitigation measures for their own part, but cannot
completely mitigate this cumulative effect by themselves. other
public entities in which this growth may occur are urged to
undertake similar mitigation measures to reduce the cumulative
effect of urban runoff.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
thereof. Complete mitigation 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.
CU6. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: The project alternatives, combined
with other proposed projects, would result in potentially
significant cumulative impacts to regional air quality.
EXPLANA'l'ION OF PARTIAL MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE: The
cumulative secondary air quality impacts resulting from growth-
related emissions will be partially mitigated by policies and
mitigations set forth within the transportation, land use, and/or
air quality elements of the General Plans of Gilroy and Morgan
Hill. These mitigation measures fall into two groups:
transportation control measures and land use measures.
Transportation control measures are strategies designed to reduce
vehicle trips, shorten vehicle trips or shift trips to
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-27-
.
.
nonautomobile modes. Land use measures attempt to develop a land
form or land use mix that makes the transportation control
measures more feasible or effective.
The City of Gilroy is in the process of adopting an updated
Circulation Element to its General Plan, which contains the goals
of developing and maintaining a balanced transportation system.
Specific policies to accomplish that goal are detailed in the
Final EIR at page 3.5-15. The City of Gilroy is currently
developing an Air Quality Element to its General Plan. This will
include and perhaps strengthen the transportation and land use
measures elsewhere in the Plan, and examine additional measures
to reduce air quality degradation. The Morgan Hill General Plan
also includes goals, policies, or actions in the Circulation and
Land Use Elements that coincide with air quality planning goals.
It is not possible to incorporate mitigation measures into
this project to fully mitigate these cumulative secondary effects
on air quality. In fact, the background emission levels are
sufficiently high, even without contributions from Gilroy and
Morgan Hill, that there would be exceedances of state and federal
standards for air quality. The cities do urge other
jurisdictions to adopt and enforce measures similar to those
discussed above in order to attempt to mitigate these continuing
cumulative air quality impacts.
FINDING: The project incorporates mitigation measures
which substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
thereof. Complete mitigation 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.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-28-
.
.
3. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES: Because not all
significant effects as discussed above can be eliminated or
substantially lessened, this Council carefully evaluated several
alternatives for an environmentally superior means of achieving
the Project objective. Alternatives reviewed in addition to SL
included L (land disposal), LD (land disposal with dewatering
wells or underdrainage discharge to the Pajaro River) SO (surface
discharge to the ocean), SP (surface discharge to the Paj aro
River) and No Project. Based upon the Final EIR and other
written and oral evidence in the record, the cities find that no
alternative is environmentally superior. Each has significant
unmitigatable effects. Alternatives L and SO have significant
effects regarding geology; all alternatives but SO have
significant effects with regard to water quality; all but the No
Project alternative have significant effects with regard to
biology and air quality; all but SP and No Project have
significant effects on cultural resources; all alternatives have
significant effects with regard to hydrology/water resources,
odor, growth-induction impacts, public. services and utilities,
and secondary effects from traffic and transportation.
The evaluation of the alternatives was a long and
complicated process that is difficult to summarize simply.
However, the primary reasons for rejecting the other alternatives
are as follows. Note that in the discussion below, all of the
impacts due to the chosen alternative, SL, are not repeated
either in the analysis of the SL alternative, nor in the analysis
of the alternatives. Rather, the emphasis is on the relative
differences among the alternatives.
(A) SO Alternative (Surface Discharqe to the Ocean).
Generally speaking the SO alternative had insignificant long-term
environmental impacts, but had significant short-term
environmental impacts primarily due to construction. These
include:
(1) Impacts on riparian vegetation and wildlife habit (all
alignments), potentially significant loss of Watsonville Slough
wetland vegetation (Alignments 1 and 2), significant disturbance
of coastal beach and dune habitat (all alignments) and
potentially significant displacement of coastal beach and dune
habitat wildlife (all alignments).
(2) Potential wildlife impacts on the Red-legged Frog,
California Tiger Salamander, Yellow-bressted Chat, Yellow
Warbler, smith's Blue Butterfly, rare and endangered plants,
black legless lizard, Snowy Plover, Double-crested Cormorant, and
Elegant Tern.
(3) Disturbance of known cultural resource sites.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-29-
"
.
.
Two long-term environmental impacts would be (1) potentially
significant impact on fresh water riparian vegetation and
wildlife and Steelhead migration as a result of eliminating
seepage into Llagas Creek; and (2) the recharge into the upper
semi-perched aquifer due to the transport of effluent to the Bay
would be eliminated.
One advantage of the SO alternative is the preservation of
agricultural land, since additional land for percolation ponds is
not necessary.
Practical advantages of the SO alternative include (1) the
lowest operating and maintenance costs; (2) the fact that
regulations for ocean disposal are relatively well-defined; (3)
the system would be relatively the most reliable of the
alternatives. Practical difficulties with SO are: (1) it would be
difficult to phase the system and to fund it because of the need
to construct initially very extensive pipeline facilities; and
(2) this alternative engendered the greatest political
opposi tion; (3) uncertain impact of the federal Monterey Bay
Sanctuary legislation; and (4) nonrestricted use of the effluent
for reclamation would require further treatment.
(B) SP Alternative (Surface discharqe to paiaro
River) . The primary environmental advantage of the SP
alternative is that it avoids the impacts on groundwater
resulting from land disposal, and also avoids loss of
agricultural land due to increased need for percolation ponds.
It has generally similar impact as the SL alternative as
regards impact on the pajaro River. However, a disadvantage of
the SP alternative, as compared to SL, is its impact on the
pajaro River during the low-flow summer months. Whereas the SL
alternative would only discharge to the pajaro during the winter
months, the SP alternative discharges year-round. The discharge
during the summer would create potentially greater impacts due to
elevated temperature of effluent (impact on Steelhead habitat and
optimum growth and spawning), increased turbidity, and increased
concentrations of copper. Alternative SL reduces these impacts
considerably by using land disposal during the summer.
Alternative SP also fails to diversify the disposal by not using
any of the existing land disposal facilities. Like Alternative
SO, it also removes significant recharge water from the upper
semiperched aquifer.
Practical advantage include: (1) a low capital cost; (2) the
fact that future expansion would require minimal facilities; and
(3) the effluent would be compatible with all reclamation uses.
Practical disadvantages include (1) the highest operating and
maintenance costs of any of the alternatives; (2) discharge to
rivers is heavily regulated, and it is anticipated that the
Regional Water Quality Control Board would be reluctant to grant
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-30-
.
.
a permit for year-round discharge; and (3) because the SP
discharge requires that the wastewater receive tertiary
treatment, this plant would be the least reliable of the
alternatives, though it is still deemed to be highly reliable.
(C) L Alternative (Land disposal).
environmental advantages of the L alternative are:
The primary
(1) The avoidance of impacts to the Pajaro River and
Monterey Bay hydrology and water quality;
(2) Avoidance of impacts to Steelhead and other native fish
in the pajaro River and estuary, as well as fish-eating wildlife;
(3) Recharge of treated effluent to the deeper confined
aquifer of the Llagas Subbasin could create beneficial impacts to
groundwater supplies of the Llagas Subbasin (as well as possibly
the Bolsa Subbasin).
The primary environmental disadvantages of the land disposal
alternative are:
(1) The unmitigable 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.
(2) Removal of some 1300 acres from agricultural use due to
need for percolation ponds.
(3) Potentially significant impacts on habitat of San
Joaquin Kit Fox, Black-shouldered Kite, Northern Harrier,
burrowing Owl, Yellow Warbler, and Yellow-breasted Chat.
(4) Impact on known sites of cultural resources.
(5) Impact to adjacent trees due to root saturation.
(6) Greater risk of failure due to extreme weather
conditions, though the system is still deemed reliable.
The L alternative has practical advantages that include:
(1) presently land disposal is the least regulated of the various
disposal methods; and (2) the L alternative would be the fastest
to implement. It has the practical disadvantages of: (1) the
highest capital cost (primarily land acquisition); (2) future
expansion would be limited by land availability; and (3) use of
the effluent for nonrestricted reclamation would require further
treatment.
(D) LD Alternative (Land disposal with dewaterinq
wells or underdrains discharqinq to paiaro River. This
alternative features a secondary treatment plant with
denitrification, and would dispose of treated effluent on
approximately 600 acres of land. Underdrains would remove
effluent from beneath the land disposal sites, and the drained
effluent would be then treated to remove iron and discharged into
the pajaro River. Because this alternative has certain features
in common with each of the other alternatives (except SO), its
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-31-
.
.
advantages and disadvantages are closely related to various
advantages and disadvantages of the other alternatives.
Thus, as compared to the land disposal alternative, it has
generally the same impacts, but has less "land-related" impact
because it uses only 600, instead of 1300, acres for land
disposal. Furthermore, while it would have an impact by raising
TDS levels in the upper, semi-perched aquifer, it would not
impact the more important lower aquifer as would the L
alternative. As compared to Alternative SL, it would have
greater impacts on the land, since it requires more acreage for
land disposal than SL. It would have generally similar impacts
related to the pajaro River due to river discharge, but these
impacts would be worse due to the possibility of discharge to the
river during the low-flow summer months.
Alternative LD has the practical advantages of: (1) the
lowest capital and present worth costs; (2) an even funding
pattern (i.e., it does not require as heavy front-end costs as
either the SO or L alternatives); and (3) it does not export all
effluent from the groundwater basin. It has the following
practical disadvantages: (1) discharge to the river is heavily
regulated, and the trend is towards stricter requirements; (2)
expansion may be limited by land availability; and (3)
nonrestricted use of reclamation would require additional
treatment.
(E) No proiect Alternative. As discussed in detail in
the EIR, the no project alternative would not result in a
complete lack of growth. On the contrary, there would be growth,
and the sewage effluent produced by that growth could not be
accommodated by the community sewage system. It would most
likely be accommodated through dispersed package treatment 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
moni tor, detect, and prevent than would a planned expansion of
the sewage capacity centralized into one well-run central
facility. These impacts include hydrology/water resources, water
quality of Llagas Groundwater Subbasin and Bolsa Groundwater
Subbasin, odor, and growth-inducement.
(F) Conclusion. The impacts of the SL alternative are
discussed in great detail in the bulk of these findings. Benefits
of SL, not discussed in these findings include the increased
pajaro River streamflows, with resulting dilution of
concentrations of certain chemicals already present therein,
increased groundwater recharge in the Pajaro Valley,
preservation of open space for land disposal sites, and reduction
in loss of agricultural lands due to not needing as much land for
percolation ponds as alternatives L or LD. Since effluent would
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-32-
.
.
not be discharged to the pajaro year-round, the adverse impacts
of LD and SP due to summer discharge would be avoided.
The SL alternative has the practical advantages of: (1) low
initial capital costs; (2) the ability to phase in the plant
expansion as growth occurs; and (3) the fact that the tertiary-
treated water is comopatible with all reclamation uses without
further treatment. Disadvantages include: (1) high operating
costs; (2) the fact that discharge to the river is heavily
regulated and the trend is towards stricter regulation; and (3)
the fact that the tertiary plant is the most complicated among
the alternatives, and hence may be expected to be less reliable
than a simpler plant, though the cities find that in absolute
terms the reliability of the plant is very high.
As discussed above, all of the alternatives do have certain
adverse environmental affects. The cities find based upon the
extensive analysis presented in the Final EIR, as well as the
record of written and oral testimony presented to them, that there
is no environmentally best alternative. Balancing these
environmental 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 service area.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-33-
.
.
4. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS:
Notwithstanding the existence of significant effects which cannot
be mitigated to a less than significant level, the council hereby
finds that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and therefore finds
the adverse environmental effects to be acceptable.
The council finds that each significant effect identified in
the Final EIR as described in section 2 above is acceptable
because mitigation measures have been required to reduce these
effects whenever such mitigation methods were feasible, and, on
balancing the benefits to be realized by approval of alternative
SL as the Plan against the remaining environmental risks, the
following economic, social and other considerations outweigh the
effects of any impacts that cannot be fully mitigated or avoided
and support approval of the project:
The sewage treatment plant servicing the cities of Gilroy
and Morgan Hill has nearly reached capacity. virtually all
residential, commercial and industrial growth for the past few
years has been very limited, and future growth will be severely
curtailed unless additional sewage capacity is provided. The
Regional Water Quality control Board, the permitting authority
for the current sewage treatment plant, required the cities to
submit a long term wastewater management report. Further
expansion of the treatment plant must be consistent with 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 Community
Development also urged Gilroy by letter of February 3, 1986 to
increase its sewage capacity in the near future so that
residential construction can resume at a rate at least equal to
regional share determinations. These concerns have only grown
more pressing since 1986 while this matter has been tied up in
litigation.
The city of Gilroy's General Plan identifies a pattern of
planned growth and provision of urban services which necessitate
additional long term wastewater treatment capacity. In
particular, the reasons which necessitate this additional
capacity are detailed in the "Planning policies Regarding
Wastewater Treatment Facilities" memo to the City Administrator
from the Planning Department dated April 25, 1986.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-34-
.
.
The city of Morgan Hill is not only guided by the growth
policies in its General Plan, but restricted by initiative
Measure E controlling growth within the city until the year 2000.
Yet the current sewage treatment capacity, virtually all of which
has been allocated for the controlled growth in the two cities,
does not meet the urban service requirements of the General Plan.
Expansion of sewage treatment capacity, as directed by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, has been studied by
Montgomery Eng ineers 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.
written and oral testimony documenting the need for expansion was
introduced by numerous residents and community groups at the
public hearings held to review the Plan alternatives in
connection with the original proceedings in 1986. A long term
wastewater management plan for expanded sewage capacity is needed
to implement the planning policies of the two cities. The
economic viability of the two communities is uncertain without
the planned growth allocated by the General Plans.
In certain of the preceding findings, the statement is made
that the environmental risk or impact will be tolerated in view
of the importance of planning for expansion of sewage capacity as
outlined above. Briefly stated, the reasons for making this
statement with respect to the specific findings is as follows:
A. IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE FULLY MITIGATED BECAUSE THE
APPROPRIATE MITIGATIONS ARE WITHIN THE CONTROL OF OTHER AGENCIES
The first category of impacts that can not be fully
mitigated by the cities are those where the appropriate
mitigation measures are not within the jurisdiction of the cities
to implement. This includes, for example, five of the six
impacts identified above as cumulative impacts, because the
cumulative impact arises from actions that are not under the
control of the cities. The cities believe that most of these
impacts can be fully mitigated by appropriate actions undertaken
by the proper public entities; they are listed here in the
interest of providing maximum public information. As to each of
these impacts, the cities urge the appropriate jurisdictions to
carry out feasible mitigation measures that are deemed
appropriate to atttempt to fully mitigate these impacts.
(a) Findinq W01 (Impact on Users of paiaro River Water
For Domestic Purposes). Jurisdiction to mitigate this impact
lies with' the County of San Benito Health Department. This
impact can be tolerated also because it affects very few persons,
and because the present usage of the pajaro River for drinking
water purposes is not recommended, even though the tertiarily
treated effluent from Alternative SL comes very close to actually
meeting drinking water standards, and, in many respects, actually
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-35-
.
.
improves the water quality of the water flowing now in the pajaro
River.
(b) Findinq AQ3 (Secondary impacts on air quality). The
secondary air quality impacts resulting from growth-related
emissions should be mitigated by policies and mitigations set
forth within the transportation, land use, and/or air quality
elements of the General Plans of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. These
mitigation measures are discussed in greater detail in the
discussion of impact AQ3 above. It is not possible to
incorporate mitigation measures into this project to fully
mitigate these secondary effects on air quality. In fact, the
background emission levels are sufficiently high, even without
contributions from Gilroy and Morgan Hill, that there would be
exceedances of state and federal standards for air quality. The
cities do urge other jurisdictions to adopt and enforce measures
similar to those discussed above in order to attempt to mitigate
these continuing air quality impacts. In view of the specific
benefi ts of the proj ect, the remaining unmitigated impact is
deemed acceptable.
(c) Findinq GI3 (Housinq pressure on San Benito County).
continued implementation of City policies for a balance between
jobs and housing in Gilroy and Morgan Hill as described in
mitigation measure GI2 above will minimize this effect. San
Benito County and the cities of San Juan Bautista and Hollister
have jurisdiction and control over housing growth within their
boundaries to limit development. These jurisdictions are urged
to control housing growth within their boundaries in order to
prevent or limit the adverse environmental affects resulting
therefrom by use of their general plans and appropriate growth
control ordinances as necessary.
(d) Findinq PS2 (Secondary demand for increased public
services). To the extent that services are to be provided by the
cities themselves, this impact will be mitigated by following
existing development and General Plan policies. For example, new
development occurring in the cities will be evaluated for
effects on service providers and conditions of mitigation
imposed as required on the development, including but not limited
to, formation of assessment districts and imposition of
development impact fees to finance expansion of services. New
development in the unincorporated area is controlled by the
County of Santa Clara and it is wi thin County jurisdiction and
authority to similarly regulate such growth. Morgan Hill Unified
School District and Gilroy Unified School District should
consider methods to increase school capacity, including year-
round school terms and double sessions, in addition to financing
provided by the state funds or new development impact fees.
(e) Findinq T1 (Traffic impacts due to qrowth). The cities
can undertake certain steps to try to mitigate traffic impacts
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-36-
.
.
due to growth, but the major projects are within the
jurisdiction of CalTrans. The cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill
shall continue to plan and fund traffic improvements identified
to accommodate growth pursuant to their General Plans. They
shall monitor traffic growth as new developments are approved,
and impose traffic mitigation measures if required to increase
capacity along major routes in the cities to accommodate
expansion of Highway 101 and state Route 152.
CalTrans is currently planning the improvement of state
Route 152 from two to four lanes between state Route 156 and Bell
Station. Construction is scheduled to be completed by 1992.
Caltrans plans to widen state Route 152 between state Route 156
and u. s. Highway 101 by the year 2000. Long-range plans also
call for the widening of u.s. Highway 101 to eight lanes between
state Route 152 and Bernal Road, and to six lanes between Gilroy
and the San Benito County line to the south. These projects will
be completed before the year 2000.
(f) Findinq CU1 (Inorqanic salts (TDS) in upper aquifer due
to cumulative discharges from all sources). As shown in Table
5.7 in the Final EIR, the TDS discharged by the treatment plant
under Alternative SL is only about one-sixth of the total
discharge of TDS to the upper semi-perched aquifer (the rest
coming from other dischargers and, primarily, from the unsewered
area). This cumulative impact can only be partially mitigated by
actions undertaken by the cities. Further mitigation must come
from permitting and enforcement actions by the Regional Water
Control Board and the County Health Department regarding other
dischargers contributing to the cumulative impact.
This impact will be partially mitigated by the imposition of
source controls for TDS removal and the other procedures
described above. Full mitigation through TDS removal from the
treated wastewater is not practical or feasible for this plant.
See the extensive discussion under impact WQ2, above, for an
explanation of the infeasibility of full mitigation through some
form of desalinization. The removal of inorganic salts is not a
standard sewage treatment process, and has serious environmental
consequences associated with it, particularly involving the large
amounts of energy required and the difficulty of disposing of the
resulting brine. Such treatment of the effluent is not required
by Basin Plan standards, nor is it expected to be required by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, which will set waste
discharge requirements for the plant. The EIR does not speci-
fically recommend treatment to meet Basin Plan groundwater
objectives with respect to inorganic salts. Except for alterna-
tives so (surface discharge to the ocean) & SP (surface discharge
to the pajaro River), which raise other environmental issues, all
other alternatives including the No project alternative have the
same potential for groundwater quality deterioration. Therefore,
in view of the cities' need for sewage capacity to support
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-37-
.
.
existing and planned urban uses, the environmental risk will be
tolerated as an acceptable level of impact.
(g) Findinq CU2 (Cumulative water quality impact of seepaqe
and discharqes of Copper into the paiaro River in the dry
season) . As shown in the Final EIR, less than half of the
expected cumulative quantity of copper seeping and/or being
discharged into the pajaro River in the dry season will
originate from the treatment plant. In order to reduce its
contribution, pretreatment for copper and/or treatment of
wastewater shall be undertaken to maintain concentrations in the
river at or below current levels in the dry season. The Regional
Water Quality control Board is also urged to adopt more stringent
standards for other dischargers to reduce this cumulative
potential impact to a level of insignificance.
(h) Findinq CU3 (Cumulative impact to veqetation, fisheries
and wildlife from pipeline construction and ongoinq flood
control) . This cumulative impact arises not from the proj ect
itself or from any secondary effects of the project, but
primarily from ongoing flood control measures that may be
undertaken by other public agencies (such as Santa Cruz County
Public Works Department). Mitigation for the riparian impacts
from construction of a pipeline to the pajaro River itself in
connection with this project would be provided for by compliance
with the California Department of Fish and Game permit requiring
a minimum one to one (1:1) replacement (or greater) of impacted
riparian habitat. Mitigation for riparian vegetation removal
from flood control maintenance (by Santa Cruz County Public Works
Department) would require sufficient channel enlargement or levee
construction so that the channel could accommodate peak flood
flows without removing channel vegetation. The cities urge
other pUblic entities having jurisdiction to undertake flood
control measures as appropriate in ways that result in minimum
disruption to riparian habitat. If they do so, then the
cumulative impact can be fully mitigated. Because the
implementation of such mitigation measures is not under the
control of the Cities, the Cities hereby find that the specific
benefits of the project outweigh any remaining impact that may be
caused by ongoing flood control efforts of other agencies.
(i) Findinq CU5 (Impact on paiaro River from urban runoff
from San Benito County and Santa Cruz County). Control of urban
runoff in these areas is obviously not within the control of the
cities. The quantity and quality of runoff into the Pajaro River
could be controlled by implementation of local storm drainage
standards requiring the construction of stormwater retention
systems and the installation and maintenance of grease and
sediment traps. As discussed in finding B12 above, the cities are
undertaking these mitigation measures for their own part, but
cannot completely mitigate this cumulative effect by themselves.
other public entities in which this growth may occur are urged to
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-38-
.
.
undertake similar mitigation measures to reduce the cumulative
effect of urban runoff.
(j) Findinq CU6 (Cumulative impacts on reqional air
quality) . Cumulative secondary air quality impacts result, of
course, not just from the secondary effects of the project, but
also from the effects of all other sources in the air basin, of
which Gilroy and Morgan Hill form only a relatively small part.
As discussed above, the effects arising from Gilroy and Morgan
Hill will be mitigated by policies and mitigations set forth
within the transportation, land use, and/or air quality elements
of the General Plans of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. These mitigation
measures fall into two groups: transportation control measures
and land use measures. Transportation control measures are
strategies designed to reduce vehicle trips, shorten vehicle
trips or shift trips to nonautomobile modes. Land use measures
attempt to develop a land form or land use mix that makes the
transportation control measures more feasible or effective.
"
The City of Gilroy is in the process of adopting an updated
Circulation Element to its General Plan, which contains the goals
of developing and maintaining a balanced transportation system.
Specific policies to accomplish that goal are detailed in the
Final EIR at page 3.5-15. The city of Gilroy is currently
developing an Air Quality Element to its General Plan. This will
include and perhaps strengthen the transportation and land use
measures elsewhere in the Plan, and examine additional measures
to reduce air quality degradation. The Morgan Hill General Plan
also includes goals, policies, or actions in the Circulation and
Land Use Elements that coincide with air quality planning goals.
Because the major component of the cumulative air quality
impact arises from sources external to Gilroy and Morgan Hill, it
is not possible to incorporate mitigation measures into this
project to fully mitigate these cumulative secondary effects on
air quality. In fact, the background emission levels are
SUfficiently high, even without contributions from Gilroy and
Morgan Hill, that there would be exceedances of state and federal
standards for air quality. The cities do urge other
jurisdictions to adopt and enforce measures similar to those
discussed above in order to attempt to mitigate these continuing
cumulative air quality impacts. In light of the specific benefits
of the project and the fact that primary responsibility for the
mitigation for this effect really lies elsewhere, the Cities
deem the impact to be acceptable.
B. IMPACTS FOR WHICH COMPLETE MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE IS
INFEASIBLE.
(k) Findinqs W02 (Inorqanic Salts (TDS) in upper aquifer).
Although listed as a potentially significant environmental
impact, the analysis as presented in the Final EIR and summarized
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-39-
.
.
in these findings shows that the proposed alternative would in
fact be consistent with discharge standards set by the Basin
Plan. since the upper semi-perched aquifer of the Llagas
Subbasin is not an important source of domestic water supply, the
environmental risk is felt to be very small. Partial mitigation
will be provided as follows: Local pretreatment ordinances will
be expanded to include limits for TDS levels released into the
wastewater system. These will include pretreatment limitations
for TDS and water monitoring for water softener companies, as
well as educational programs to inform the public of the TDS
effects of using water softening equipment. For the reasons given
in detail in the discussion of finding AQ2 above, the cities
find that full mitigation through desalinization is not
feasible. Balancing the small risk to the environment, the
provision of partial mitigation, and the infeasibility of full
mitigation, the cities believe that this impact is acceptable.
(l) Finding W03 (Pollution Due to Accidental Discharqe 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 perfect plant that will function under all
conceivable circumstances, but this risk exists with any of the
proposed alternatives, including the no project alternative. In
view of the low risk and impossibility of prevention for any
sewage treatment system, the cities find that the remaining
environmental impact is acceptable.
(m) Findinq LU2 (Conversion of Agricultural Land Due to
Growth). This impact exists as a result of any development, and
is consistent with the growth plans of the cities contained in
their general plans and growth control ordinances.
(n) Findinq B8 (Impact upon salt marsh of discharqe of
fresh water effluent into the paiaro River). The only possible
full mitigation for the fact that the discharged effluent will
lower the salinity in the lagoon would be to increase the
salinity of the effluent. This would cause even greater impacts
upon the fresh water habitat of the pajaro River for the entire
length of the river from the discharge point to the salt marsh
lagoon. Because these impacts on water quality and fresh water
biologic habitat would likely be more severe than the relatively
limited impact that may be caused by the fresh water discharge
upon the salt marshes, the cities find that such mitigation is
not appropriate and is therefore infeasible. Thus, there is no
practical and feasible full mitigation for impacts to salt marsh
vegetation caused by changes in soil salinity (Although this
impact may be reduced if it is decided to install an outlet
culvert or pump that would allow salt water intrusion back into
the marsh) .
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-40-
.
.
The salt marsh vegetation and habitat is not unique, and
the impact upon it from the discharge of the treated effluent is
somewhat speculative. On the other hand, the impact from any
potential mitigation that would increase the salinity of the
effluent would be much more severe and definite upon the entire
fresh water habitat of the pajaro River from the discharge point
all the way downstream. In view of the speculative nature of the
impact upon the salt marsh vegetation, and the clear
environmental tradeoff that would ensue from lowering the
salinity of the effluent, the cities regard this impact as
acceptable, in light of the specific benefits of the project as
detailed above.
(0) Finding B11 (Loss of habitat for Black-shouldered
Ki te, Northern Harrier, and Burrowing Owl from construction of
land disposal sites). Some loss of habitat resulting from
construction of the land disposal sites can not be mitigated,
although Alternative SL has the benefit, as compared to
alternatives Land LD, of requiring less acreage for land
disposal sites, thereby lessening the loss of agricultural land
as well as the potential impact to the three species of birds
mentioned above. By its very nature, the construction of land
disposal sites causes a change in some terrestrial habitats.
Providing suitable replacement habitat would require alteration
of other non-grassland habitat to adapt it for the three above
species. This would diminish the habitat value of the
replacement land and result in additional biological impacts.
Replacement habitat could also be created by the conversion of
existing urban land to grassland. However, due to the large
amount of land required, the Cities find that this would be
infeasible. In this instance, there is no reason to believe that
the loss of this habitat will be critical to the survival of any
of these bird species. In view of the economic, social and other
benefits of this project, as well as the fact that these species
of birds are not rare, endangered or threatened, this impact is
deemed acceptable.
In summary, the Council finds that alternative SL
represents a viable, economically and environmentally feasible
expansion program for sewage treatment which can be phased to
accommodate the planned growth of the two cities.
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-41-
.
.
'.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
special meeting of the Gilroy
called vote:
24th day of September , 1990, at a
City Council by the following
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GAGE, HALE, KLOECKER, ~mSSALLEM,
NELSON, VALDEZ and HUGHAN
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
FINDSL1.DOC
01501-005
07/11/90
-42-
.
.
I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do
hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 90-68
is an original
resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a special
meeting of said Council held on the 24th day of September , 19~,
at which meeting a quorum was present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this 26th
day of September
(Seal)