Minutes 1986/04/22
Roll Call
5271
Special Joint Meeting
Gilroy/Morgan Hill Councils
April 22. 1986
The Special Joint Gilroy/Morgan Hill City Council
Meeting was called to order in the Gilroy City Council
Chambers. 7351 Rosanna Street. Gilroy. California, at 7:35 p.m.
Mayor Hughan led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Present: Gilroy Councilmembers: Donald F. Gage. Paul
V. Kloecker, Larry Mussallem. Daniel D. Palmerlee. Pete Valdez.
Jr. and Roberta H. Hughan. Absent: Councilmember: Sharon A.
Albert.
5272
Long-term
Wastewater
Management
Plan
Present: Morgan Hill Councilmembers: William H. Brown,
Dean Flory, J. Robert Foster and Lorraine Barke. Absent: Coun-
cilmember: Neil Heiman.
Also present: City Administrator Jay Baksa (Gilroy)
and City Manager Fred Mortensen (Morgan Hill).
Mayor Hughan stated that the Special Meeting was called
for a Public Hearing to consider the adoption of a Long-term
Wastewater Management Plan for the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan
Hill. She noted that the two City Councils acting independent-
ly have certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Long-term Wastewater Management Plan of the Cities of Gilroy
and Morgan Hill and are now proceeding to consider which
alternative will be chosen. She noted that this Public Hearing
was scheduled to solicit testimony for those present in the
audience and by correspondence received in order to hear
opinions of the different alternatives.
~
.....
Mayor Hughan noted receipt of Resolution No. 1677 from
the City of Soledad supporting the establishment of a Marine
Sanctuary for Monterey Bay and the prohibition of discharges
into Monterey Bay by jurisdictions and agencies outside the
AMBAG Region.
Mayor Hughan noted receipt of a letter from the City of
Santa Cruz dated April 18, 1986; City of Monterey dated April
17, 1986.
Mayor Hughan opened the Public Hearing for public
testimony.
Mr. Sam Karas, Chairman of the Monterey Board of Super-
visors, addressed the Councils, presented and read a letter
from the City of Carmel objecting to discharges into Montoerey
Bay. Supervisor Karas further stated that the Monterey County
Board of Supervisors reaffirms their strong opposition to
dumping of sewage either directly or indirectly into Monterey
Bay. He noted that their decision was based upon a rational
appraisal of the Alternatives. He noted that the protection of
Monterey Bay is essential to the economic well-being of
commercial fishing and tourist industries; the home of the
world-famous Aquarium, as well as other outstanding marine
research and educational facilities; the Monterey Bay is rich
in a variety of fish species, shell fish and other wonderful
marine life. Because of these important concerns, the Board of
Supervisors of Monterey County wish to inform the Cities of
Gilroy and Morgan Hill, that any alternative selected that
directly or indirectly results in dumping sewage into Monterey
Bay will prompt them to initiate legal proceedings to halt any
attempt to proceed. He noted that as elected officials,
millions of dollars are about to be committed for a project
that will forever alter the character of Gilroy and Morgan
Hill; effects on traffic, water and other infrastrucuters will
be irreversible, yet no where in the Plan, in his opinion, is
there any consideration that allows the citizens of the respec-
tive cities, the right to decide what alternatives they wish to
implement. He stated that any proposal of this magnitude that
will affect future generations and transform both cities into
possible urban sprawl, in his opinion, should be decided at the
ballot box; in a democracy, the public must be made a part of
any significant decision; only then can due process be best
served. He noted that in recent years, elected bodies have
yielded to the pressures of outside developers and other
special interest groups. He noted that they overlook the
concerns of the community as a whole. He requested that the
Councils consider their positions very carefully before
deciding on any plans.
.....''''~
-
...",,,"'*'
.......
Ms. Ruth Vreeland, City Councilmember of Monterey,
addressed the Councils and expressed their concern regarding
the proposed Long-term Wastewater Management Plan that
~)273
-
the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill are considering. She
noted that the City of Monterey feels that three of the five
alternatives for the proposed Waste Management Plan pose
serious potential environmental impacts to Monterey Bay and the
surrounding communities. She noted that these three
alternatives, Surface Discharge to pajaro River; Ocean
Discharge; and Winter Pajaro River Discharge, can be eliminated
from discussion in the Wastewater Management Plan, and that
other alternatives can be explored. She stated that they feel
that these alternatives would seriously threaten the delicate
acqua system in Monterey Bay. She noted that in the past
years, ocean outfall lines have resulted in closure of many of
Monterey beaches, due to the outfall pollution and pollutants.
She noted that today this problem has been eliminated through
active monitoring and appropriate wastewater treatment
methods. She stated that the addition of a major ocean outfall
line, such as proposed by the alternative (the Ocean Discharge
Plan) would aggravate an otherwise delicately balanced
situation to an undetermined degree. To emphasize a delicate
balance in Monterey Bay, AMBAG and the City of Monterey have
submitted letters to Congressman Leon Panetta, Senator Henry
Mello and to Assemblyman Sam Farr, requesting that legislation
be enacted to designate Monterey Bay as a Marine Sanctuary.
She noted that in response to their concerns, Assemblyman Farr
and Assemblyman Seastrand have authored two Bills, AB 3804
which help them establish a marine sanctuary, and AB 3805 which
would require the Regional Water Pollution Control Board to do
a study to assess the cummulative impacts that would be
effected by the Plan from Gilroy and Morgan Hill. She noted
that they were presented in February and are in action plan now
in Sacramento. The City of Monterey strongly urges the Cities
of Gilroy and Morgan Hill to solve the wastewater treatment
problems within their own resources and not tax the whole
Region. Other Alternatives which can be explored might
include, but not be limited to, connection of Morgan Hill into
the San Jose-Santa Clara Wastewater Treatment Plant to
eliminate their flow in the Gilroy Treatment Plant, construc-
tion of Morgan Hilll's own treatment plant facility and/or
curtailing what appears to be an ambitious growth program which
generates the need for additional capacity in Gilroy and Morgan
Hill areas. She noted that economic pressures for development
could ultimately result in some growth within the service area,
as stated in Page 2.4-27 of the EIR, and does not really negate
nor justify the pursuit of such an ambitious growth plan in the
Morgan Hill and Gilroy area which could have significant
environmental impacts on Monterey Bay. She noted that the City
of Monterey Bay strongly urges the Cities to consider these
other alternatives in their deliberations. She noted that it
is their hope that a best alternative will be chosen for a
Long-term Wastewater Management Plan which could be helpful to
all.
......
-
(Councilwoman Albert entered at 7:49 p.m.and took her
seat at the Council table.)
-
Mr. Walter Wong, Director of Environmental Health,
Monterey County, addressed the Councils and noted that the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Long-term Wastewater
Management Plan, Cities of Gilroy/Morgan Hill, Volume I, Text
Volume II - Comments and Response, is inadequate and incom-
plete; thus the selection of any alternative to discharge
directly or indirectly into Monterey Bay is inappropriate at
this time. The issues raised at the December 14, 1985,
Hearing and written comments submitted have not been adequately
responded to for the following reasons: 1) The EIR fails to
provide information on Monterey Bay circulation and tidal
currents and its relationship to dilution and transportation of
contaminates; the Final EIR responds, concludes that dilution
would be adequate at the initial discharge point but fails to
provide supporting data or scientific information to support
this conclusion. It also concludes that the discharge meets
Ocean Plan requirements, but fails to recognize that the Ocean
Plan only includes maximum allowable limits for twenty-three
...
5274
chemicals and contains no maximum allowable level for primary
toxic chemical pollutants and other chemicals; 2) The EIR
fails to provide information analysis on wastewater
constituents mixing with Monterey Bay and pajaro River water
and synergistic reactions. The Final EIR response fails to
address this issue completely; 3) The EIR fails to provide
chemical analysis of influent, effluent and sludge and its
affect on human, plant, fish and marine life. Also, it fails
to provide information of the cumulative impact on Monterey Bay
or pajaro River resulting from discharge of this wastewater.
The Final EIR response only provides chemical analysis for
influent, effluent for the following dates: December 27, 1985,
January 24, 1985, February 6, 1985, February 6, 1986, and
February 15, 1986. Three samples per year is not an adequate
testing frequency. The results show that some toxic chemicals
in the sewage effluent exceed water quality standards for toxic
chemicals. This has serious health implications because these
chemicals will percolate into the groundwater through discharge
in the Pajaro River or contaminate recreational areas near
shore waters of Monterey Bay. Some of the examples where high
concentration of toxic chemicals found in the Gilroy-Morgan
Hill treated sewage are as follows: tetrachloro-ethylene, 9
parts per billion, where the maximum allowable concentration is
4 parts per million, or exceeds by 225%; nitrothyldimethyla-
mine 50 parts per million with maximum allowable concentration
is one part per billion, or exceeds by 5000%; phenol 6.5 parts
per billion with maximum allowable concentration is one part
per billion, or exceeds by 650%. So these are already existing
in your sewage in Gilroy-Morgan Hill. There were no test
results for sludge, nor was any information provided on
toxicity effects on human, fish, plant and marine life in the
Final EIR; 4) The EIR fails to provide oceanographic studies
and data for location of this in the pajaro River discharge.
The Final EIR fails to address this issue; 5) The EIR fails
to provide recent water quality analysis in Monterey Bay or
pajaro River at the discharge points. The Final EIR fails to
address this issue. The EIR fails to provide detailed
information on a pretreatment program of toxic wastes of
Gilroy-Morgan HIll. The Final EIR does not include the items
requested concerning the toxic material pretreatment program of
Gilroy and Morgan Hill. It fails to provide a list of all the
existing facilities storing and/or producing hazardous waste.
AB 2185 (Waters) or Section 2550 to 25521 of the California
Health and Safety Code mandates this information as public
right-to-know information. Also, the type of toxic materials
of each of these businesses should have been provided. Other
information requested was the number of businesses being
registered and inspected; the number of businesses that provide
pretreatment and those that do not; the number of businesses
that have been monitoring programs and the number that do not;
the number of violations; the number enforcement and
compliances and a frequency of inspection and monitoring; 7)
The EIR fails to address the financial liability--who pays for
damages from contamination of groundwater, recreational, fish
and life. The Final EIR fails to address this issue. The EIR
fails to recognize that four of the five alternatives are
required to comply with Monterey County Coastal Plan, the
General Plan and requirements to obtain a health permit. The
Final EIR fails to address this issue correctly. For the
foregoing reasons, you are in no position to select any project
alternative which could cause your sewage, directly or
indirectly, to deposit in Monterey Bay. Monterey County has
spent over one hundred million dollars of federal, state and
local money to clear Monterey Bay of sewage pollution and in
this effort, have eliminated eight sewage outfalls in Monterey
Bay. He noted that they believe the sewage alternatives that
deposit effluent in Monterey Bay would not only defeat their
efforts, but would cause hundreds of millions of dollars of
damage to the Bay environment for which Gilroy and Morgan Hill
Councils and Cities will be responsible. They have not
considered the effect of Gilroy and Morgan Hill Cities taking
of personal and real property in Monterey and Santa Cruz
Counties. He also noted that previous mention that the EIR
has been certified should recognize that no public comments
were received during the certification of the EIR.
.-..-
......
~
......
~
"',,~..
f)?75
,_.... l_
-
Dr. James Hughes, Vice Mayor of Pacific Grove, addressed the
Councils and presented a resolution passed by his Council on
March 5, 1986, with backup information included. He noted that
he is a 20 year member of Pacific Grove City Council, on the
Coastal Commission for 8 1/2 years,and served on AMBAG for 7
1/2 years, which has bearing on his statements to be made. He
noted that his remarks will be in the political and planning
realm, rather than environmental. He noted that Monterey Bay
communities are discharging into the Monterey Bay and have been
involved with this matter for 20 years. He noted that AMBAG
Study was a 3 year study and he was president the year the
study began, and it referred to 176 alternatives which were all
studied, and they were ordered to do a certain alternative
based upon the carrying load of their area which is planned
into it; not only their area, but the fact that they are a
tourist area and have a large influx of population on weekends
and during the summer months, especially. The choice that they
had was ordered as to where and how and under what criteria
they were going to be allowed to do it. It was designed for
the Monterey Bay area only, basically the AMBAG Region of Santa
Cruz and Monterey Counties. It was not anticipated that the
alternatives that were chosen would reach out beyond those
areas. It also includes a five year reclamation study called
the Merrissa Project which looks at irrigation of crops for
human consumption from the reclaimed water of this project. It
also would be used for irrigation and groundwater recharge,
cutting down a lot of the effluent also going into the Bay. He
noted that their area is greatly concerned and the reason is
that the Bay is a vital part of their economy; fishing is one
of the reasons, tourism and recreation - is a tourism and
recreation destination for a good part of the State and from
allover the United States and world. It is also a research and
educational area. There's such institutions as U.C., Santa
Cruz; Hawkins Marine Lab; the Naval Post Graduate School, Moss
Landing Marine Lab; the Monterey Bay Aquarium and Granite Creek
Lab. All are vitally interested in keeping the quality of
Monterey Bay to a certain level so that these institutions can
flourish and operate. The reason that they are concerned in
these areas is because they are the ones that lose; if some-
thing happens to that Bay, you lose it in the pocketbooks.
They saw that when their beaches were posted. They had a
serious cutback of people coming to their area and were very
concerned, and that's why they have been working to address
that. They are worried about losing control. If they start
having discharges into Monterey Bay from outside the area, it
is very difficult to pin-point where the problems are. He
noted that if there are problems in Monterey Bay now, they know
where to look and who to blame; they can find the areas and
they can address them. But if they start expanding out beyond
the areas, they are going to have a difficult time finding out
what the cumulative impact is, where it's coming from and how
to address it. Finally, the Basin Plan, which was done by
Brown and Caldwell, was designed with Monterey and Santa Cruz
Counties in mind and no other areas. He noted that the time
has come in California where each area and each basin has to
address their own problems. They can't be looking to export
their problems to another area any longer. His reasons are
based upon 20 years ago, Monterey Bay was being looked at by
the San Francisco region for a pipeline to their area to also
take care of some of their problems and through the years,
recently the Fresno area and the Central Valley area have
considered discharging into Monterey Bay. And the Delta gets
somewhat of the same talk when they talk about Kesterson, to
discharge to Monterey Bay or discharging it into the Delta. He
noted that we have to begin keeping the problems in-house. He
believes that is a very sound principal, in the fact that it
has a great bearing on the decisions they make and these
Councils make, because if you have to live with the impacts
which you create, it makes you a little more creative in what
is decided, because you know that you have to live with the
good and the bad; every good thing creates some bad things and
if you have to live with both of them, it will make your
planning a little more creative. He noted that they have been
working for 20 years to solve this problem and it is just about
solved; spent close to one hundred thirty to one hundred fifty
~"'....
.......
5276
million dollars and they don't like to see anything happen to
upset the balance. They wish the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan
Hill good luck in their deliberations and hope that the
problems will be solved in-house and not send them to Monterey
Bay.
Ms. Judy pennycook, North Monterey County resident,
residing in Elkhorn, addressed the Councils. She noted that
for too long people have decided that the best solution for
sewage disposal is to put it in somebody else's backyard. She
noted here amazement that the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill
have the gall to entertain a proposal that suggests Monterey be
a home for their wastes. She noted that the Cities of Gilroy
and Morgan HIll would choose to reek environmental havoc with
such a delicate section of the California coast. She noted
that in Monterey County they look to tourism, fishing industry,
marine lab research and ~lkhorn Estuary and Sanctuary as an
integral part of their community. She noted that the Monterey
County community will not allow the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan
Hill to use their bay as a sewer disposal. She further noted
that if there is not room to properly dispose of the waste,
Gilroy and Morgan Hill should not be expanding. She re-
quested that Monterey County's needs be viewed as well as this
Council.
Mayor Barke noted that Mr. pennycook made a state-
ment that he believed that the City of Morgan Hill was growing
by 300% and that she checked with Councilmember Bill Brown,
CPA, and confirmed her belief that the City of Morgan Hill is
growing by 3.4% annually.
Gary Patton, Chairperson of the Santa Cruz County Board
of Supervisors, addressed the Council and stated that if Gilroy
and Morgan Hill have sewage to dispose of, that ways are found
to dispose of it in the Gilroy and Morgan Hill area and not
dispose of it in their county for them to deal with. He
further noted that if there are toxic wastes to dispose of and
they are pretreated and planned to be disposed of in Monterey
Bay, to look elsewhere. He stated that they do not think it
fair and neighborly to use the Monterey Bay as a receiving pond
for the industries of Santa Clara County. He stated that they
do not believe the EIR was good; they have mailed in their
comments; they have appeared. He further stated a major
decision is being made here as elected officials of Gilroy and
Morgan Hill Cities and a decision which will affect the
entirety of southern Santa Clara County; the formative decision
of the future of Santa Clara County in the southern part of
Santa Clara County. He is surprised that no one from that area
has spoken at this hearing. He noted a couple of aspects of
the the Wastewater Management Plan are: where you might
discharge wastewaters produced and what kind of wastewaters are
you planning for and how much are you planning for? He stated
that he comes here as a tourist and enjoys it here; grew up in
northern Santa Clara County; his family moved out of there when
the mass of industrialization of northern Santa Clara County
led to traffic jams, air pollution, and the increase in crime
and taxes, and general deterioration of community character
that is well known. He noted that this is a nice area - garlic
fields and small farms that would be eliminated if this
proposed Wastewater Management Plan was adopted.
He noted that many in Santa Cruz County are trying to
control and manage growth to protect agricultural lands which
have been paved over everywhere in north Santa Clara County; to
preserve air quality; to try to keep their communities and
their character somewhat the way it is as growth inevitably
comes and to try to minimize and reduce that. He noted that
they would say that here is a plan that goes far beyond the
needs, for the present population in terms of sewage, and that
is financed in a very interesting way. He notes that the
financing in the proposed plan is extraordinary and as a
government official for 12 years, he doesn't know of any other
sewer improvement project that has no federal or state assist-
ance because the people benefitting from it are going to pay
for it with assessments. He further noted that the people who
....
....
...
.......
-.
......
r.; ') 7 '7
'w L.
~~
who are going to benefit from it now are those that own nowt
the rawt largely agricultural lands that are going to be
converted into industriest so when this plan is put into
operationt you are going to not only permit the industrializa-
tion of Santa Clara CountYt you're going to mandate itt because
you will owe a lot of money and the bill will be paid by the
assessments on the land and the land will only be able to
support the assessments if the industries are developed. He
further noted that what's being talked about here is the basic
transformation of southern Santa Clara Coiunty into something
much like northern Santa Clara County and the extenson of
Silicon Valley south. He further noted that he is well awaret
as well as these Councilst of how important it is to industrial
development that this plan proceed. He further states that he
is testifying as a citizen who likes this areat comes to the
Garlic Festivalt who likes to see it the way it is; that he
believes that the Counc~ls should think seriously about keeping
it the way it is and this plan will fundamentally change it for
the worse. He stated that they do not like the fact that on
behalf of industrYt as a trustee for industrial developmentt
the Councils should require the developers to pay the full cost
to take care of their waste products in their own area as
opposed to shipping it cheaper to somewhere else and letting it
degrade their environment and their economy and put them at
risk. He stated that they are going to fight that.
--
-
In conclusiont if the Councils really want to deal with
their waste products and expand them in the way that he
believes is so inappropriatet he would suggest to really
seriously think about choosing one of the alternatives that
doesn't get yourself into one of a majort knock-down drag-out
fight with every jurisdiction in the Monterey Bay are and two
counties who are prepared to go to the mat with you; who will
take you through the permit process insofar as they can; who
will sue you and who will probably come over here and start
making speeches on a regular basis like the one he is making
tonight. In other wordst he noted one way to stop this is to
get the people concerned about what it really means to them.
He suggested that the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill take
care of their plans in such a way that doesn't pick a fight
that they are not likely to win. He further stated that that's
his evaluation of the fight that the Cities of Gilroy and
Morgan Hill are about to pick if sewage is disposed to their
Bay.
,~
Marc del Pierot Board of Supervisorst Monterey CountYt
addressed the Councils and noted that in some of his comments
he would be representing the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollu-
tion Control District and other comments representing his
constituents of the First Supervisoral District as well as
other members of the Board of Supervisors. Regarding the Air
Pollution Control District's behalft preliminary comments----
were sent in in regard to the Draft EIR and requests for
additional information to be providedt and to this datet no
response received regarding said correspondence. On behalf of
both the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District as
well as the Monterey County Board of Supervisorst the Draft EIR
was not made available to themt even though requested. The copy
obligated to utilize in preparation of comments this eveningt
were obliged to use a copy that they spent $60 to reprint from
a copy procured from one of the Gilroy/Morgan Hill Council-
members. He further noted that this does not meet the intent
of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act. He noted that he will be bearing the consequences of the
Citiesof Gilroy/Morgan Hill's decision because he is the
Supervisor for North Monterey County. He further noted that
anything that is discharged north of or about the Monterey
County-Santa Cruz County line travels in a southerly fashion
down and is washed upon the coast of North Monterey County. He
commented on two issues. He noted that two alternatives being
consideredt discharging into the river and discharging directly
into the ocean. River Discharge..allusions have been made in
the EIR document that indicate that on-site discharge or dis-
charge of waste in Santa Clara County would pose a serious
health threat to the residents of the areat primarily
-
5278
because of concern of groundwater contamination. He noted that
the threat to public health of local constituents and residents
is no greater and no less than the threat to the public health
of his constituents who reside in the pajaro Valley who will be
the unwilling and unwelcome recipients of the contaminants pro-
posed to be discharged into the pajaro River. He noted that
the pajaro River serves as a recharge mechanism for the
aquifers that are tapped into by both the City of Watsonville
as well as the pajaro Community Service District for the
provision of groundwater for potable purposes in the pajaro
Valley. He noted that the proposal to discharge waste into
that River will in fact, because of hydrology tests that have
been conducted by the Monterey County Flood Control and Water
Cconservation District and also by the U.S.G.S., will in fact
contribute to the contamination of groundwater aquifers in the
pajaro Valley. He questioned if any consideration by the
Cities of Gilroy/Morgan Hill consultant in regard to this issue
has taken place. He was not able to discover any comprehensive
analysis of this issue. He noted that the Federal Government
through the Department of Interior and the National Oceano-
graphic and Atmospheric Administration as well as the State of
California and a number of educational institutions have
literally spent millions of dollars establishing the Elkhorn
Slough Estuary Sanctuary. He further noted that this Sanctuary
is immediately downstream wherever this proposed plan proposes
to discharge, regardless of whether it is an ocean discharge or
discharge into the Pajaro River. He further noted that this
Estuary Sancturary is an issue involving the State of Califor-
nia as well as the Federal Government. He suggested that the
Cities of Gilroy/Morgan Hill's constituents might be somewhat
concerned if they would have to bear the burden of a law suit
by not only those less than accommodating governmental agencies
within Santa Cruz and Monterey County, but also by the State of
California and the Federal Government in the interest of
protecting what they have seen fit to establish as an estuary
sanctuary for permanent preservation. He noted that not only
would the Cities be challenging the governmental agencies but
also to the non-profit resource type of organization that
proliferates in Monterey County as well as Santa Cruz County.
He further suggested that this type of action should be
considered very closely and carefully by the respective
Councils prior to any decision being made.
Mr. Del Piero noted that he reviewed correspondence
from the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District to
the Cities of Gilroy/Morgan Hill requesting comments in regard
to the questions asked during the environmental review
process. He further noted that he understands that this is not
a hearing on the EIR but this has a direct bearing on the
Councils' ability to competently, rationally and intelligently
be able to render a decision; without adequate information it
is difficult for anyone to argue that a decision of that
magnitude can be made correctly or intelligently. He noted that
the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District,
pursuant to a number of studies conducted over the last three
years, has discovered that there is a significant problem in
terms of air pollution transport into the Monterey Bay Region.
He noted that the Monterey Bay Region is the only region in the
State of California that has attained federal air quality
standards. He noted that in the EIR it does not address how
you are going to guarantee that the icnreased air pollution
from your development is not going to compromise that air
quality standard that has been achieved by their district.
Additionally, he noted that they have very definitive studies
indicating the transport from the Santa Clara Valley from the
Santa Clara County Air Polluition District is in fact
contaminating their air quality and is in fact one of the
primary problems for them not being able to attain air quality
standards that have been established at the federal level until
this past year. He noted that without that information it will
be very difficult for an informed decision to be made as to the
alternatives wished to be pursued.
.....
....J
---
....
~
.......
5279
.....
He further noted that he recently met with two representatives
of the City Councils of Gilroy and Morgan HIll in regard to
this matter and comments were made by both representatives that
there was serious concern that in event that an action was not
taken now pursuant to some of the land use plans that you havet
that developers would exercise influence over the state legis-
lature that they would in fact find legislative remedies to
cure whatever opposition that might be generated in the
Monterey Bay region to the dumping of this type of effluent
into Monterey Bay. He noted that that may be the case and may
be tried; howevert the fact that he has now raised the issue it
will cause any state legislator to be very worried about
introducing such legislation becauset it will be very apparent
that the legislator who does do that will have been bought by
the very development interests that are proposing to provide
for the financial mechanism that will allow for the construc-
tion of this project. He noted that he questions whether or
nott given those circumstancest and given the nature of politi-
cianst whether or not anyone is going to wish to bear that
burden. He noted that additionallYt in as muich as the issue
has been raised nowt it will be continued to be raised by other
individuals so that the option of going to Sacramento and
getting a cure to a problem created by those nasty locals in
Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties may nott in factt be a viable
alternative for those development interests that apparently
your representatives are so concerned about. He further noted
that he does not relish being here at this hearing; his con-
stituents do not relish the idea of having to worry about the
proposal that is being considered. He further noted that he
believes that it would be most prudent for your combined bodies
to seriously consider alternatives other than direct or
indirect discharge into Monterey Bay. He respectfully re-
quested that other alternatives be seriously considered. He
noted that no one in Monterey or Santa Cruz Counties is
interested in getting actively involved in litigation with
their neighbors to the north; they are not interested in having
to spend the money necessary to file a lawsuit and become
involved in the litigation that will be necessary to stop a
proposal to discharge into Monterey BaYt but they will and the
option of litigation is very much alive. He further requested
that the Councils seriously consider whether or not the
treasuries of Morgan Hill and GilroYt the tax dollars that the
citizens are payingt the tax dollars that the Councils are
responsible fort are best spent fighting lawsuits that he feels
Gilroy and Morgan Hill will not win.
....
-
--
-~
Mr. Bill pennycookt North Monterey County residentt
addressed the Councils and noted he attended D.C. at Irvine and
has a degree in Civil Engineering and his professor had a lot
of input in designing the sewerwater system for the City of
Irvine and for a great time they treated their water for re-use
and did away for the need of shipping it out to the ocean; they
irrigatedt watered their landscapet they used it in industrial
washing processest etc. and contends that those things are
feasible here. He confirmed that the only regret that they had
about that system was that the Irvine area outgrew it and have
now outgrown room for the effluent. He further noted that now
the Councils have the opportunity that this doesn't occur here;
to plan your communities with wisdom and the trust given to the
Councils by the citizens' votes. He noted that the communities
should be looked at in design and plan with the idea that we're
not the last generation. And prove to the world that man's
wisdom has evolved to meet the problems of his shrinking
environment.
-
David Pendergrasst Mayor of Sand CitYt addressed the
Councils and presented a letter from his City against the
alternative of discharging seewage disposal into Monterey Bay.
He noted that they have been watching the situation for a very
long time and requests the Cities specifically not choose any
alternative that would include Monterey Bay. He noted that he
has served on the Regional Agency of the Monterey Bay Area
Pollution Agency for over 8 years and the multi-million dollar
decisions they had to maket mandated by EPAt he never waivered
5280
in his decisions; solved their problem, but does not believe
that sewage disposal into Monterey Bay is the decision that the
Cities of Gilroy and Morgan HIll should make and is not best
for them and requests that this not be done. He noted that the
EIR does not satisfactorily address the serious ramification of
potential pollution that would be devastating to the Monterey
Bay and the communities that rim the Bay area. He requested
that the Cities take serious consideration of their protests
from their area received in letters and major representation
this evening, and not choose the alternatives that would
include emptying into the ocean your sewage disposal. He
further noted that if the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill fail
to listen to the protests that are being heard tonight, he is
certain that his City (member of AMBAG) that the Monterey Bay
AMBAG communities Will be forced to take a much forceful and
stronger defensive against you.
Ms. Penny Lockhart, resident of Gilroy, addressed the
Councils noting that she has been following this issue for
several years. She inquires why some form of tertiary
treatment is not being pursued and not included in the five
alternatives. She noted that she was told that the people that
are financing this project, which is the developers, do not
want to pay this extra cost; they don't want to be forced to
install a tertiary treatment system that may give them addi-
tional cost and liability. She noted that it is her opinion
there are five alternatives, one which is complete land
disposal and is absolutely out because you can't continue to
pollute the groundwater; four other alternatives, all of which
involve some form of opposistion from members of Monterey, and
in her opinion, these alternatives are also not viable
solutions because no one wants to spend money and time fighting
the cities to the south who are going to fight in the courts,
legislature, come here and talk against the solutions that we
want to our citizens. She noted that she does not believe
there is a good alternative. She suggested that the Cities
request another report on tertiary treatment; but unless a
report is seen on the cost one cannot know how expensive is too
expensive. She further noted that she was told that when the
freeway was constructed there was a very large pipe put under
the freeway so later that Morgan Hill or the County wanted to
connect to the sewer systrem, that it could. She suggested
that if a larger treatment plant is used that does tertiary
treatment why can't the County areas that are on septic tanks,
pay to be connected to the sewer system for additonal revenue.
She further noted that she has also been informed that there is
also pipe up to Tree Haven and Western Tree Nursery; if sewage
is excellently treated why can't a lake be created in the Uvas
Park Preserve? Why can't the water be used that will be
acceptable that will not be wastewater that we will not have to
beg somebody to take. She suggests that the Cities create a
resource that will be valuable in the future and that can be
used. Investigate the possibility of creating something worth-
while rather than something to fight about.
Mayor Hughan noted that she did write Ms. Lockhart a
letter explaining that three of these alternatives are tertiary
treated water, and noted that drinking water is beyond tertiary
treatment.
Mr. Howard Harris water geologist and consultant from
Hollister, addressed the Councils with 40 years of experience,
representing San Benito County Water Conservation and Flood
Control District; the San Benito County Farm Bureau and San
Benito County Board of Supervisors. He noted that they are
interested in the statement in the EIR that said significant
environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposal is
implemented.
He recommended that the water be looked at as a
resource and not wasted out to the Bay. He noted that San
Benito County would like the water if treated properly. He
noted particular concerns in San Benito County are that the
recharge of some of their north county water comes from the
....
-
--
....
....
~..
5281
....
Llagas Creek,estimated at approximatley 3,000 feet per
year. The top 60 feet of water contains approximately 1700
parts per million of sodium; deeper aquifers contain
approximately 60 or 70 parts per million. Over the years, the
Bolsa area has been concentrated with sodium. They would
recommend that the water be treated for re-use; the present
design of the treatment plant is not sufficient to justify
discharge into their area or into the pajaro. They would like
to see the money that would be spent on a pipeline used for a
better treatment plant and then they would like to have the
water. He stated that there should be strict enforcement of
industrial wastes prohibited from discharging into the sewer
and disposed of in another manner. He noted that water is a
resource and should be kept out of the Bay; if put into the
pajaro or into the Bay, you would be spreading toxins. He
further noted that pajaro River is one of the routes that is
assumed will be taken to Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties,
using the natural channel; but if contaminated by industrial
wastes and organic solvents, insecticides, etc., this is going
to be extremely objectionable to the Water Districts. He again
stated that the water should be viewed as a resource, cleaned
up so it will be acceptable.
....
Councilman Foster inquired of the sodium levels exist-
ing in actual groundwater. What would be the acceptable sodium
level as an outfall from a sewer plant?
Mr. Harris noted that if the level could be kept belo
70 parts per mjillion be believes they would accept it. He
further noted that he has had very great difficulty determining
the sodium analysis (from Gilroy).
-
Ms. Sheila Baldridge, President of the Monterey Chapter
of the American Crustacean Society, supporting research and
education on marine mammals, particularly whales and dolphins
and they are very much concerned about the health of Monterey
Bay. She stated that they support a sanctuary status for
Monterey Bay and very much oppose the dumping of wastewater
from other watersheds into the Monterey Bay.
-
Ms. Jo Stallard, resident of Pacific Grove, addressed
the Council stating that theEIR is grossly inadequate and is
opposed to the transfer of wastewater from the Gilroy-Morgan
Hill area to the Monterey Bay; the damage to the Bay's ecology
is too great to even consider such action. She stated that in
time past wastewater was discharged in lakes and rivers and we
now know the harm this can cause. She noted in the Wastewater
Alterlnatives Plan for Gilroy-Morgan HIll it states that the
growth projection for that area by the year 2008 will be
between 219 and 670%; if the problem of wastewater treatment
cannot be solved sensibly, how can such growth be contemplated,
especially industrial growth with its additional toxic wastes
disposal problems. She stated that growth, either residential
or commercial, is not right, but consequences must be
considered. She stated that all pollution problems should be
solved where they are created.
~
Mr. Paul Eastman, President of Monterey Peninsula
Audubon Society, addressed the Council, presented and read a
resolution supporting the establishment of a marine sanctuary
for Monterey Bay and prohibition of discharge into Monterey Bay
by jurisdictions and agencies outside this region. He stated
to destroy one of the world's best marine sanctuaries by
planning to discharge sewage and/or treated effluent into their
water, would literally destroy Monterey Bay and eventually
spread to the beautiful coastal area. They are doing
everything to dispose of their own sewage in far superior
ways. He stated that they will do all within their power to
prevent the disposal of any sewage or treated effluent into
their water. The cumulative effect of sewage will destroy the
marine life, the kelp beds and otters and cause irrevocable
damage to all. Gilroy-Morgan HIll and all other areas must
learn to treat their own sewage at the source; to dispose of it
with the present plan or proposed plan is merely postponing the
solution necessary for a major and increasing problem.
--
5282
Mr. Bruce Buel, General Manager of the Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District, addressed the Councils and
expressed their strong concern of any of the Monterey Bay
discharge alternatives that are considered in the proposed
Plan. He noted that his District wishes to add their agreement
to the statements and sentiments presented that they do oppose
discharge of effluent as it is currently considered to Monterey
Bay. He stated that Monterey Peninsula has already spent up to
70 million dollars to take care of the outfalls discharging
into Monterey Bay and do not want to see those expenditures
circumnavigated by the addition of new effluent that would
create or re-create the problems that they sought to solve by
expending their funds. He stated that his District commented
earlier on the scoping of the EIR and were very disappointed
with the level of anlysis in the EIR and concerned with the
certification of the Final EIR. He stated that they do not
feel that the FInal EIR provides enough information to make an
informed and intelligent decision. Specifically, they are
concerned that the Final EIR does not provide sufficient
information on the potential impacts to the ecology of Monterey
Bay and strongly feel that those impacts need to be better
analyzed before an alternative can be rationally selected.
Mayor Hughan noted that when an alternative is chosen,
a focused EIR may be required.
Craig Hawkinson, resident of Santa Cruz County and
graduate student at Moss Landing Marine Labs in Monterey
County, addressed the Councils and noted that in recent years,
the issue of off-shore oil development has raised opposition in
both Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties; opposition based on an
attempt to protect and preserve the waters along the coast
lines of both of those counties which include Monterey Bay. He
stated that they feel it is very important to preserve the
health of those waters. He stated that the residents of those
two counties will not stand by and allow those waters degraded
by pollution being pumped in from the neighbors to the north.
Mark Silberstein, Researchers and Education Programs on
the Elkhorn Slough in Monterey Bay, addressed the Councils and
stated that Monterey Bay has not yet been granted sanctuary but
the Elkhorn Slough, south of the pajaro has been granted
sanctuary. Acreage around said Slough is part of a National
Estuary Sanctuary or in public trust either as State Park land
or as refuges and private conservation tracts. He stated his
concern that the proximity of the pajaro and the potential
risks of Monterey Bay outfall would potentially affect the
Elkhorn Slough consisting of hundreds of fish and other wild-
life. Considering the amount of effort spent to protect the
Slough and preserve it in its present state, it would be i1l-
advised, at this time, to propose an outfall, actually have
wastewater dumped into Monterey Bay.
Ms. Faith Stoddard, Secretary-Manager of Gavilan Water
Conservation District, addressed the Councils and presented and
read a letter from said District.
Mr. Tom Swarzmann, veternarian of North Monterey
County, addressed the Councils and stated that the Cities
should ask rather than tell that the wastewaters are going to
be discharged. Opposed to the plans that will put them in
Monterey Bay. He further noted that he suggests do not under-
estimate public opposition by residents of the greater Monterey
Bay area.
Mayor Hughan a noted that mention was made that Mr.
Swarzmann was not aware of said hearing; hearings were held in
Monterey-Seaside area and the public has been notified.
Mr. Doug Quitan, representing the Monterey Bay Unified
Air Pollution Control District, addressed the Councils to
enhance Supervisor del Piero's statements. He noted that in
1980 there was a Transport Study conducted by SRI; in that
study there were two corridors of transport found significant
to impact the North Central Air Basin. To quantify that Study
-
.....
~
-
.......
[087
,J L ,)
-
he noted that there is an effort that involves the Bay Area Air
Quality Maintenance Districtt Lawrence Livermore Labst the Air
Resources Board of the State and the staff of his district.
Said study is supposed to be completed towards the end of next
year. The area of most concern is the Santa Clara Valley.
Growth in this area is of concern in that it directly impacts
Hollister. One of the problems in the Draft EIR was to
emphasize the ozone readings in Gilroy. (A photo chemical
pollutant that is formed from other precurser pollutantst
primarily hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxides.) Hydrocarbons
directly related to population in use of gasoline which would
be the primary source in this area; nitrogen oxides primarily a
combustion pollutantt related mostly to the automobile; both
related to growth in this area; related to impacting Hollister
which is currently experiencing violations of the State and Air
Quality standards. Because Hollister is in the jurisdiction of
this Districtt they are currently viewing a plan to achieve
that standard as required to do in the California Health &
Safety Code. Growth should be looked at in this EIR and
elsewhere in Santa Clara Valley; the impact to Hollister and
San Benito County as well as the remainder of the North Central
Coast Air Basin; unfairly influenced by growth in this area
without receiving the proper planning.
...
Mayor Hughan noted that she represents the County of
Santa Clara on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and
is familiar with said Study; also is a member of the Air
Resources Board representing the District.
'~'-C.'''''
Ms. Lorna Moffettt Carmelt addressed the Councils and
noted that the Montoerey Bay is their birthing place; where
oxygen and food is evolved. Another Yosemite by the Sea. All
the great universities are aware that this area is the paradise
and must be preserved. She stated that Gilroy-Morgan Hill is a
messenger for all. Said area is one of the most beautiful
places in the world; citizens have managed to preserve its
greatness and beauty and that's why the whole world wants to be
there.
-
Mayor Hughan declared a recess at 9:12 p.m.
At 9:26 p.m.t Mayor Hughan called the meeting to order
and requested Walter Wong to explain the ordinance adopted in
Monterey County and the provisions of same having to do with
wastewater.
-
Mr. Walter Wong addressed the Councils noting that
these are amendments to the Coastal Plan as well as the General
Plans and requires the following: Anyone proposing to dis-
charge in Monterey Bay as well as expand an existing discharge
in Monterey BaYt either directly or indirectlYt would be
required to obtain a permit from the Health Department. Before
obtaining said permit they would be required to do the follow-
ing (this would be in addition to the State of California) what
it's proposing must be proven that it is not toxic material and
would not harm the Monterey Bay: 1) Three years of monitoring
records identifying the existing characteristics of the waste-
water discharge. Particular areas of concern include toxic
chemicalst inorganict heavy metalst bacteria and other indica-
tors described as threats to the health and safety of coastal
waters; 2) Provide a comprehensive projection of prospective
wastewaters both quantitative and qualitive characteristics
that must be specifically identified. The specific figures for
indicators identified in A must be included in projections; 3)
Provide a comprehensive monitoring plan for testing waste-
waterst indicators identify A; 4) Before discharging in the
oceant oceanographic studies required before a health permit is
granted. Also concerned with whether Monterey Bay can take
more wastewater. He stated that he would require that the
Cities' representatives go out on a boat and actually take
samples of the Bay to establish a background of the place where
itis proposed to dispose of wastewaters. He noted that they
L) f) 8 Ll.
'.. L. f
would not accept another's historical data. He further noted
that toxicity studies would be required to determine the
impacts of proposed wastewater discharges on marine life and
recreational use of coastal waters. Identify and analyze
methods of wastewater disposal to include hydrologic studies of
applicants' groundwater basin to determine the water quality
problems in that areat if on-site disposal would have an
adverse effect on groundwater quality. Would expect Cities to
view the groundwater areas to determine if own onsite can be
handled and for own protection determine what can be taken into
own groundwater. All data would be reviewed and if shown that
the wastewater can be discharged without a problemt then permit
would be issued and could proceed. Suggested that this be done
one year before even consider applying for a permit.
Mayor Hughan asked if there was anyone further in the
audience wishing to speak on the matter.
Mr. Dennis Batest consultant of Dennis Bates Associ-
atest addressed the Councils noting his involvement in the
process for the past two years both as part of a Citizens Group
viewing the alternatives and involved with a local projectt
stating the need for moving ahead with a decision. He noted
that Gilroy and Morgan Hill are facing decisions regarding
normal growth necessary for the Cities to proceed forward.
These decisions have to be made now in regard to the decisions
that would reflect the growth plans approved. He further
referred to the EIR and noted that most of the questions
tonight have been addressed in the EIR and issues raised are
reflected in the EIR; others have indicated there's going to be
damage to the Monterey Bay as a result of the several alterna-
tives which directly or indirectly discharge effluent into the
Bay. In the EIRt the level of treatment that would be provided
would be at a high level for both the pajaro or the Ocean
Discharget direct pipeline. Important to keep in mindt the
level of treatment would be equal to if not greater than the
level of treatment that's currently being provided and by the
Monterey Bay communities. He stated that some 43tOOOtOOO
gallons is currently being deposited in the Monterey BaYt but
some is only primary treatment by these very same communities
present this eveningt testifying before this Council. He urged
that there should not be a double standard applied - a standard
for Monterey Bay communities that is different from that of
other communities. He stated that the resource is a shared
resource and does not solely belong to the Monterey Bay
communitiest but in fact belongs to others who make up the
State of California. Ample information has been provided for
the Councils to make a decision.
Mr. Jim Schillingt developert addressed the Councils in
defense of developers and noted htat they really don't pay for
things; as a developer they don't have any money. When they
create something they do it in such way by renting or selling
which are eventually passed on the consumer. The consumer is
ultimately the one who pays. This is a community decision. He
further noted the economic impact - no decision will have an
effect on both communities. Commercial and industrial
construction is being curtailed. In Morgan Hillt they are
restricted to 3% yearly growth rate which is mandated by
Measure E process; 200 approximate homes to construct;
$30tOOOtOOO of residential construction per year plus equiva-
lent amount of commercial and industrialt another $30tOOOtOOO-
$60tOOO,000 per year and if Gilroy were included about
$150,000,00 to $180,000,000 per year in construction for both
communitiest which is a significant impact on the economy.
Developers will not suffer; they will look for communities
throughout the area that will need housest industries, etc.
Someone has to make the decision that housing, schools,
businesst etc. must proceed. He further stated that the water
quality proposed to be discharged in Monterey Bay is basically
higher than what is presently being discharged by the Monterey
Bay communities. He noted that it is possible that the level
of treatment by the present Monterey Bay communities might
-
-
......
....
.....
..-
r;085
...... L_ "
have to be reviewed. He stated that the present Gilroy-Morgan
Hill Treatment Plant can treat 12.2 mgd in 99 out of 100 years
in the existing plant; the only problem is the 1 year or 100
year storm, when that takes place during that roughly one-week
period. All that is necessary is to get the Monterey Bay
communities to agree that they allow discharge into the pajaro
in a highly diluted form for that one week only.
.~
Mr. Kenneth Demit, Manager of the Monterey Regional
Water Pollution Control Agency, addressed the Councils, stated
that there is no primary effluent from Monterey County being
discharged into Monterey Bay. He noted that they operate five
treatment plants; one is an advanced primary, a little less
than secondary, in addition now under construction is a
$50,000,000 treatment plant and standards will be even lower
when this treatment plant is completed. One hundred percent of
the time they will be discharging secondary effluent, not ocean
plan as spoken to in Gilroy's EIR. In addition to that they
have accomplished all that Mr. Wong has required and have
satisfied the County, the Regional Board and the State that
discharges are satisfactory to the Bay.
-
Councilman Mussallem inquired about Salinas' effluent.
Mr. Demit stated that the City of Salinas has two treatment
plants. He noted that until Monterey County's treatment plant
is completed, one of their treatment plants discharges to the
Salinas River; the main plant discharges in Monterey County's
outfall to the ocean.
~'fO."
Linda Callon, attorney for the Cities of Gilroy/Morgan
Hill Project, addressed the Councils and noted for the record
that many of the concerns addressed tonight regarding the EIR
were responded to and the comments that were asked to be ad-
dressed, were addressed in the EIR. Specifically, some of the
issues raised, the superior alternative, the environmentally
superior alternative, Counsel has directed that same is not
required under CEQA; that only if the No Project Alternative
had been the superior environmental alternative, would
Councils' be required to choose another alternative as superior
alternative. She noted that this response was written in the
Final EIR. She noted that the comments that Supervisor
DelPiero made as to both the Monterey Board of Supervisors and
the Air Pollution District, said letters are in the Final EIR
and the response to the comments from those letters are in the
Final EIR. She noted that as to the other issues raised, no
new information was brought to Councils regarding the environ-
mental effects. She noted that the Councils are required under
CEQA and that it has been done on their behalf, that there's a
reasoned analysis in response to comments. The Councils have
reviewed the EIR and have looked at the responses to comments.
In terms of Councils' choice of a project, now that the EIR has
been certified, Councils will want to listen to the facts
brought forth by various speakers; Councils will want to have
Staff reports brought back by your own experts; you will need
proposed findings, given which Alternative if you come to
consensus on one or two alternatives. Councils' obligation
under CEQA is to look at the environmental effects which have
been presented. Councils are required before approving the
project to substantially mitigate those effects if possible; if
those effects cannot be mitigated, under CEQA, Councils as the
decision maker are to balance the benefits of the proposed
project against the unavoidable environmental effects and if
the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the environmental
risks, Councils may still approve that project. Those are
issues that will have to be considered as the Councils move
through this process with another hearing or two before coming
to a determination.
-
-
-
Mayor Hughan responded to the idea that Councils are
going to deliberately, or want to, or expect to pollute the
Bay. She stated that Councils care as well and have no
intention to pollute the Bay and requested the Cities' consul-
tant to demonstrate that concerns are taken into account that
concerns have been addressed and will continue to do so as a
decision is made.
5?86
Mr. Christopher Cain, James Montgomery Engineers,
addressed the Councils noting that several years ago studies
were made in order to propose wastewater alternatives for the
communities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. He stated that the
problem faced was where to put the water after it was treated.
It was necessary to consider the capacity of the groundwater
basin that would not admit much more percolation. They had to
pay attention to groundwater quality. They were and are
subject to surface discharge prohibitions listed in the Basin
Plan. The whole arrangement of the studies that have occurred
over the last several years have focused on disposal with
treatment being a by-product. The disposal alternatives that
have been identified include Land Disposal that would involve
spray irrigation of crops in dedicated land disposal areas, on
hillside areas, on either side of Santa Clara Valley; the water
would seep into the ground, part of it would evaporate, the
reaminder would enter the groundwater basin under normally what
is considered to be the drinking water aquifer of southern
Santa Clara and San Benito County. Most of the concerns
surrounding this alternative have focused on drinking water.
Other options involve Surface Discharge. In one case Surface
Discharge would be to Llagas Creek and the pajaro River; the
Pajaro River was designated as a better location than several
smaller streams such as Llagas Creek. One alternative was set
for discharge there, with the proviso that advanced treatment
is utilized. The only material that has caused difficulty is
the sodium. In going to the Ocean Discharge they have found
that the ocean levels of salt, sodium chloride, are signifi-
cantly above those in wastewater and then the main treatment
problem is eliminated. He noted that this alternative was
originally thought to be cost prohibitive because of the
distance to the ocean and the fact that it was assumed that it
would have to pumped over the hill. When it was pointed out
that water runs downhill along the pajaro, the economics
changed-this came into the picture. Under the regulations of
the Regional Board and under the guidelines of the Basin Plan,
this looked like under the environmental, the most acceptable
alternative. The last two alternatives here combine the Surface
Discharge to Pajaro and the Land Disposal option with the
intent of mitigating their respective impacts. In this case,
Winter pajaro Discharge, Summer Land Disposal gives the benefit
of dilution. He further noted that the pajaro River runs dry
in the summertime; all the wastewater we would put in it would
be the river. The typical pajaro TDS level might be in excess
of a thousand milligrams per liter and a very small amount of
one mgd flow. Ultimately, this option might involve putting 15
mgd of treated wastewater with a TDS level of 600 into a river
which had a TDS of 1000. This would decrease the TDS level of
the river and be a benefit. However, treated waste-
water is treated wastewater. To avoid that, Land Disposal
would be utilized in the summer when the groundwater basin can
accept it from a hydraulic point of view and put the water in
the River when there are winter flows to dilute it. The final
option other than No Project involves using Land Disposal with
the use of underdrains to pullout the over-saturated ground-
water underneath the treatment and percolation ponds and then
allow that to go down Llagas Creek and pajaro River, with con-
straints that would be not only treatment in the treatment
plant but there would be treatment on the land; all the water
that would enter the river would have passed through the soil
matrix first and then in addition there would be dilution with
natural groundwater which would be mixed with wastewater.
Finally, the No Project Alternative was evaluated in the EIR.
The No Project Alternative from a Wastewater Management point
of view is no wastewater management. In the EIR, the consult-
ants that prepared that document explored several different
scenarios for the sorts of things that would happen and
typically what that amounts to is some slowing of growth and a
tendency to move toward alternatives such as Land Disposal on a
fragmented and relatively uncontrolled basis with poorer
control by regulatory agencies such as the Regional Board;
therefore, the No Project Alternative is not necessarily a
decision relative to growth as much as a decision relative to
.......
lol.",P.
-
~""...
-
r-087
,) t_
whether Gilroy-Morgan Hill choose to manage wastewater or
choose not to manage wastewater. He further explained the
treatment process for each alternative selected to protect
receiving water quality as follows:
Alternative
L
SP
SO
SL
LD
Treatment
75% Removal of N. DaB, TSS
95% Removal of N, P, BOD, TSS
90% Removalof BOD, TSS
Same as SP (Winter) + L (Summer)
Same as L plus Iron Removal
-
He noted that the treatment plants are tailored to the
needs of the disposal. They are tailored to treat the particu-
lar pollutants that are identified as a problem. Pollutants
that have previously been mentioned this evening include
toxics; toxics are addressed in a pretreatment program. Mr.
Wong had mentioned that there are several compounds that have
been found in wastewaters in Gilroy, for example, tetrachlora
ethylene, PCB, believed to come from some dry cleaners and the
City has a very active program of going after those dry
cleaners to eliminate that particular compound. The Cities of
Gilroy, Morgan Hill, Monterey, Santa Cruz, Salinas, San Jose,
Palo Alto, all of the communities in this whole area are
addressing the toxic problem in the same way, that is treatment
to remove same from the wastewater before it ever gets to the
treatment plant; therefore, these treatment plants would not
have to address those specific compounds. He further explained
diagrams graphically showing Land Disposal, disposal sites in
the final selection process, etc. He further explained the
following Cost Comparison Chart:
--
(In Million Dollars)
Initial 1988 20 Year
Alt. Capital o & M Present Worth
L $48 $1.1 $104
Wl"'l'tlt SP 33 1.6 99.9
SO 61 0.7 92.3
- SL 38 1.5 101
LD 36 0.98 89.2
He further explained the objective was to implement a
Wastewater Management System for Gilroy and MorganHIll that
meets the following long-term goals: Cost-effective; Accept-
able to regulatory agencies; Minimal in environmental impacts;
and acceptable to consensus of community.
Mayor Hughan stated that it is her impression that the
Councils would prefer to adjourn this meeting and proceed to
decision-making discussions at the next meeting of the two City
Councils which is scheduled for April 29, 1986.
Mayor Barke stated the City of Morgan Hill Council does
not wish to make any decision on the matter at this meeting.
Councils agreed that the next meeting be scheduled for
7:00 p.m. Mayor Hughan suggested that the Councilmembers
tentatively schedule May 6 and 13 for additional meetings.
,-
Mayor Hughan thanked all those for attending and input
and assures everyone that they do care and will take into con-
sideration everything presented this evening. She adjourned
the meeting and continued the Public Hearing to Tuesday, April
29, at 7:00 p.m. in the Gilroy City Council Chambers. (IO:2~".h7.)
-
i ii
Respectfully submitted,
Jd~k~ .~~