Loading...
Minutes 1986/04/29 5288 Roll Call Long-term Wastewater Manage.Plan April 29 t 1986 Special Joint Meeting of Gilroy/Morgan Hill City Councils GilroYt California The Special Joint Gilroy/Morgan Hill City Council Meeting was called to order in the Gilroy City Council Chamberst 7351 Rosanna Streett GilroYt Californiat at 7:06 p.m. Mayor Hughan led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Present: Gilroy Councilmembers: Sharon A. Albertt Donald F. Gaget Paul V. Kloeckert Larry Mussallemt Daniel D. Palmer- leet Pete Valdezt Jr.t and Roberta H. Hughan. - ... Present: Morgan Hill Councilmembers: William H. Brownt Dean FlorYt J. Robert Foster and Lorraine Barke. Absent: Councilmember Neil Heiman. Also present: City Administrator Jay Baksa (Gilroy); City Manager Fred Mortensen and City Clerk Barbara Little (Morgan Hill). Mayor Hughan stated that the Special Meeting was called for a Continued Public Hearing to consider the adoption of a Long-term Wastewater Management Plan for the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. She noted that considerable input was heard at the April 22t 1986t Public Hearing and will continue to do so this evening. She called for a report from the City of Gilroy Planning Department. Planning Director Dorn addressed the Councils and presented the following to the Councils for their review: Minutes of the Citizens' Advisory Sewer Committee Meetings as well as the Final Report of said Committee; Letter from Super- visor Susanne Wilson regarding the Sewer Treatment Plant issuet read and distributed to Councils; noted several questions were inquired about at the April 22t 1986 Special Joint Meeting and he was not present to answer same regarding the growth potential of Gilroy and the sewer treatment plant and if same were in conformance with the City's General Plan relating to overall growth policies. He presented a staff report entitledt Planning Policies regarding Wastewater Treatment Facilitiest dated April 25t 1986t summarizing Gilroy's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as they relate to the need for additional treatment capacity. He further submitted copies of the General Plan as well as latest update of the Housing Element; the Housing Element Technical Appendix and Zoning Ordinancet which is the primary method of implementation of the General Plant including the City's Residential Development Ordinance incorporated within. -- ....." Councilmember Neil Heiman entered and took a seat at the Council table at 7:16 p.m. Planning Director Dorn further continued to answer questions of Councilmembers pertaining to population growth referred to in the General Plan and Housing Element. Councilwoman Albert inquired of the discrepancy between various population figures referred to in the E1Rt 66t600 by 2005 and 95t100 by 2008. ...... .."....~ Planning Director Dorn stated that ABAG's fair share allocation is different than the ABAG projectionst which are an estimate of what they believe will occur based on existing general planst etc.; estimate of the future. The fair share allocation assigned by ABAG is lower than that number and that is what they expect and will require a city to be able to provide in each segment of the income levels of the housing market. He stated that the other issue is the EIR and the numbers projected in it. The ABAG projection is somewhat different than the Gilroy numbers because the Gilroy General Plan numbers reflect Gilroy City Limits; ABAG used the Gilroy 5289 area and noted that the same applies to Morgan Hill; therefore, for ABAG's projections they do use the Gilroy area which includes a large number of residents outside the City Limits, in the County. Councilwoman Albert noted that ABAG in the ErR refers to 66,600 by 2005, yet the ErR is projecting that Gilroy will have 95,100 by 2008, which is a very large discrepancy. ~ Planning Director Dorn noted that the percent growth rate was projected in the ErR based on the present growth rates for both Morgan Hill and Gilroy. - Councilman Palmerlee agreed with Councilwoman Albert that the contents indicated that the population projection was only for the City of Gilroy. He further noted that he believed it was basically on a historical 6%, different than ABAG projec- tions. Planning Director Dorn agreed and further stated that it is projected beyond the ABAG projections at the same rate. He further stated that it was also based on the Engineer's Report on the Alternatives and noted that Christopher Cain, James Montgomery Engineers, might be able to further comment on same. Mr. Christopher Cain, James Montgomery Engineers, addressed the Councils and further explained the growth popula- tion figures. He stated that regarding the 62,000 in the year 2000, if a 5.5% growth rate, same can either be considered compounded or simple; simple would be I.44 x 62,000 = 89,000 people; compounded population rate (Engineers used when pre- paring the Study) = 95,000 or(I.53 x 1.055 to the 8th power = 95,000). He further stated that's where the 95,000 figures came from; taking a 5.5% assumed compounded growth rate between the year 2000 and the year 2008, assuming there was a 62,000 population in the year 2000 per the footnote in the General Plan. - Planning Director Dorn stated that the footnote on the General Plan is only a projection, not a goal. He noted that the only goals as to housing allotment and assignments are the fair share allocations assigned by ABAG and at today's population would equal about 4 1/2-5% growth rate for the City of Gilroy. Mayor Barke stated that Morgan Hill's growth rate is 3.4%. Councilman Brown noted that he believes ABAG's projec- tions are based on spheres of influence, rather than city boundaries. Mayor Hughan opened the continued Public Hearing to consider the adoption of a Long-term Wastewater Management Plan for the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill and asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak. f :. Mr. Bob Stannard, Superintendent of Morgan Hill Unified School District, addressed the Council and noted that they are more concerned about the solution rather than which alternative is chosen. He noted that in the near future there may be the need to construct additional schools and if there is insuffi- cient sewer capacity at that time, it would be an unacceptable alternative for the School District. He noted that schools do need a certain amount of sewer capacity and is essential to a safe and sanitary operation. He noted they are very concerned about the short-term (5 years) sewer capacity. He further stated that they are also concerned about water quality and concerned about maintaining and improving the quality of the water. He further stated that Morgan Hill is a community base and are very concerned that the decisions that are made in planning and development in a community not be based on the availability of sewer capacity, but based on all of the things desirable for a community for its future and health; sewer being only one. He stated that they do not believe that sewer is the only issue facing a community and would hope that the planners in Morgan Hill at some time can make those decisions ~ ... 5290 for the City of Morgan Hill and the planners for the County and the planners for the City of San Jose all of whom they relate with, can make decisions based on all of the good elements of a community and not be forced into just one set of decisions which are directed by the availability of sewer capacity. He stated that they urge a solution and will not comment on which solution. Councilman Heiman inquired of the sewer capacity needed by the Morgan Hill School District in the next five years. Mr. Stannard stated that he would not have that figure at this meeting; an available figure, but unknown to him. Mr. Stannard was asked if this was the official position of the School District that he presented. Hes tated that this was his official position. He stated that the Board of Educa- tion has not adopted his comments. Mayor Barke inquired of the percentage of population of Morgan Hill students compared to population of the San Jose students (percentage). Mr. Stannard stated that the Morgan Hill School District has 8200 students; San Jose 32,000, approximately, noting that San Jose is considerably larger. He noted that as an estimate of 1/4 of Morgan Hill students live in the City Limits of San Jose and approximately 1/2 of the Morgan Hill students live in the City Limits of Morgan Hill and the other 1/4 live in the unincorpotated areas. Mayor Barke inquired if San Jose did grow and Morgan Hill did not have the sewer capacity would Morgan Hill School District be forced to construct a school outside the City Limits of Morgan Hill? Mr. Stannard stated that City Limits are not a part of the School District's decision in locating a school. He noted that if Morgan Hill did not have the capacity to allow the con- struction of a school, they would probably build the school where there was capacity and bus students. He noted that they try to locate schools where the students are; that's their goal. Mr. Danny Avila, Morgan Hill Businessman and Director of the Chamber of Comerce, addressed the Councils and urged the decision-makers to take care of sewers. He further spoke to the quality of water and noted that he is not a professional in this regard. He further noted that the problem is not finan- cial; we cannot afford not to take care of the problem but build a facility to treat the water and make the communities better. Mr. Pete Welton, President of the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Councils and expressed their support to the Councils in efforts to find a solution to the problem. They are aware of the difficulties and ramifications that are being faced and will continue to work with the Councils in everyway possible to assure that the problem is solved. Mr. D. W. Derfelt, Vice President of the Economic Development Committee for the Chamber of Commerce in Morgan Hill, addressed the Councils and assured the Councils that the community of Morgan Hill and specifically the Morgan Hill Chamber of Commerce is in full support of this Body and fine work that they are doing. He noted that the Morgan Hill Chamber of Commerce is interested to encourage the Councils to make a decision. He stated that the growth and development of both communities is essential to the survival of the future generations in the communities; and to do that a decision has to be made. He noted that at the conclusion when a decision is made it will not be apparent immediately as to whether or not the decision was right or wrong. He further noted that he is employed by a large corporation in Morgan Hill and that cor- poration as well as many need the support of good planned and solid growth; without growth, new technology that is developed - ~ ..... ...... - d 5291 in the community and throughout the world, sometimes those goods and services in that technology does not reach a community that is not in a good growth posture. He stated that the procedures in which a decision is made certainly are admirable but would encourage and that it be paramount in priorities to look for a decision and look for it now, and proceed now in making the decisions. He further stated that it is time to bite the bullet and damn the torpedoes full speed ahead. ... Mr. Brad Smith, President of South Valley National Bank, addressed the Councils noting that his bank is a local independent bank in both Gilroy and Morgan Hill communities. He offered his support and confirmed some newspaper comments, that in his position he has intimate knowledge of many of the businesses in South Valley and can confirm that no-growth will definitely affect the mini-economy which most all live on and enjoy in this area. He stated that no-growth will be the result of no sewer capacity, will severely affect this economy and requests that the Councils torpedo ahead and move towards a decision that will aid or control growth situation that all are striving for. He stated that he is not striving for rapid growth, but for the surviving economy of the entire South Valley. He noted that whatever decision is made, that is the ultimate decision and that being a new plant or whatever options Councils are considering. He understands that this process will be a long process, hopefully, less than that. He urges Counciils to strongly consider some interim capacity measure to preclude the no-growth. He feels that an interim capacity system has to be developed to keep the growth enertia moving forward. He believes that if there is a no-growth situation for just a year, it will take three years to get that inertia moving again. - <I~ Mr. Mark Lazzarini addressed the Councils and expressed his support that an answer is found for the problem as soon as possible. He further expressed a student's view of the problem and noted that they look upon the Councils as guardians and adults to make their lives easier so that they won't have to worry about their children and can support them, and will know that the water that they will be drinking will be safe for all. He further thanked the Councils for all the work that has been done to date. - ....... Mr. Sebastian TyFreiberg, Senior at Live Oak High School, addressed the Councils and noted that he became aware of this matter in his Civics Class and has had speakers before this class who are candidates for Council positions in Morgan Hill and the topic of discussion has been the sewage treatment plant. They have been telling them that it is very important that Morgan Hill and Gilroy work together to try to build a sewage treatment plant or some kind of system so that their drinking water will be better; that the cities will not have to worry about expansion and generally will have a more promising future. He further noted that the water quality in Morgan Hill is very low. He further stated that they receive notices every month with their utility bills that the water has high nitrate level and is poisonous to infants. In his family, they only drink bottled water and have to very careful. He further stated that even if the water in Morgan Hill is boiled, that just compounds the problem. He stated that he would like to realize a time when the water in Morgan Hill can be drunk safely. He noted that some of the problems spoken to is the clay base in Morgan Hill is very inadequate for the sewage treatment plant to be located in Morgan HIll; because their clay base is very porous and if there was a percolation pond the water would go directly into their underground water system and the drinking water would be only semi-treated sewage, which is pretty close to what they have right now. He stated that while the clay base in Gilroy is much thicker, much less porous and the chances are that the water would be much purer. He urges that the Councils consider a joint Morgan Hill/Gilroy Water Treatment Plant. .... Mr. Ed Lazzarini, Chairman of the Citizens Sewer Advisory Committee, addressed the Councils and presented a letter from Custom Chrome requesting immediate construction of additional 5292 sewer treatment capacity. He stated that it is imperative to use the technology available to develop a system of sewage treatment that answers the needs of this community; as stated clean pure water, protection of the aquifer. He stated that he would encourage, no matter what system is selected, that the newest technology be used. He stated that he believes that is tertiary treatment and discharge right back into the under- ground system. He stated that the cost factor should not enter into the deliberations. He stated that we cannot afford to not do it; we can afford whatever the cost is to do it. He stated that it is just a matter of determination and discipline and willingness to resolve the problem. He stated that all have heard what would happen in a no-growth economy for four or five years. He stated that it is the hope that the problem would be resolved by going with the highest treatment form and with discharge in the cities' own aquifer. Councilman Brown stated that Mr. Lazzarini's remarks seem to be a change from the Committee's recommendation and the recommendation that was given some six months ago. Mr. Lazzarini responded that the Committee's recommenda- tion was the sewer outfall line and recognized the severe political problems that would be had from the Counties of Monterey and Santa Cruz. His own personal opinion of recent months has indicated to him that that could be a protracted legal battle that could take many years to resolve. He is concerned that we have in the interim a zero growth rate while trying to resolve the problems through the courts. He stated that certainly an ocean discharge system with adequate treat- ment so that the environment of the Monterey Bay is protected was and still is the most ideal system and at a cheaper operating rate than tertiary treatment and discharge in our own aquifer, but he has come to the conclusion after attending many meetings and reading many reports, including the South County Planning Committee studies, that the real solution would be to clean up our act, clean up our water, and try to conserve it and use it again. Mr. Jason Chandler, Live Oak High School Student, addressed the Councils noting that he is currently talking on proposals of the present sewage treatment. He noted his concerns with one of the solutions brought before this body. He stated that in the past, septic tanks have been installed in a resident's own property and did not do same in their neighbor's property which could be paralleled with the present idea of disposing of waste into another city. For expample, building a pipeline into Monterey Bay. He stated that this will cost an exorbitant amount of money for those having to pay. He noted that he is against disposing of waste into Monterey Bay. He noted that present pipelines along the beaches already have a terrible odor; and does not feel that additional waste should be continued to be disposed of at the ocean and corrode the beaches. He proposed that the water be treated as clean as possible and used as a resource, rather than destroying the natural resources. Mr. Greg Faulk, recent resident of Gilroy is and very concerned if the vibrant community is not allowed to continue. He stated that he is also a Director at Gilroy Foods, representing a large industry in this area and have long-term potential and long-term growth objectives, and will not be considering leaving Gilroy, but certainly want to look at the ability to grow when they desire to do so, because they do have a considerable investment. He further stated that over the next several years they will be adding jobs, more income into the community. They do not want to see uncontrolled growth. They do want to get to the long-term solution; that there is probably an interim solution, but hopefully not a perpetuation of interim solutions. He stated that we need a final good solution to take us far into the future. Mr. John M. Filice, Jr., Chairman of the Wastewater Group established by Morgan Hill and Gilroy Chambers of Commerce. He submitted into testimony the report that was - IIiIilIlI ...... .",,"-l ... (,.... ~)293 ..... completed as part of said Committee's program. He noted that they had quite a broad spectrum of the communities involved in this forum that was held on April 11; that included the Citizens for Progress in Gilroy together with various industrial groups, etc. He noted that the main impact of that committee and of that forum was the fact that some growth is necessary in this community, whether it is a slow or moderate growth or a rapid growth. The future of this community has to be viewed and the impact was that there would be some growth that would have to be looked at. A decision has to be made; it is a difficult decision and they would hope that the Councils would get on with it. Enormous amount of testimony has taken place; enormous amounts of data have been supplied, and they would hope that Councils would make that decision and select the process that these two communities could grow from this point. He noted that a lot of testimony has been heard from adjoining communities, Monterey and Santa Cruz, with respect to their concerns about what decision Gilroy and Morgan Hill would make and the impact on their particular environments. He noted that we are a part of that central coast community. He stated that possibly an application should be made to AMBAG to join the Monterey Bay Area Association of Bay Area Governments. He noted that we do have a lot in common with that region from a topographical standpoint and this is an example of that in terms of the sewer and the particular situation with the flows that we're dealing with. He noted that a decision will have to be made; look at the needs of these communities and he stated that they would hope that the Councils will do that in a prompt way as there is a real need for interim growth here; both of the cities are at almost capacity with respect to their sewer facilities and will have to look at a situation that will develop as early as 1988 in terms of a complete shut-down. He further stated that the forum was an unanimous consensus that something has to be done; be it slow or rapid growth, that is not the issue. He stated that they know that additional capacity has to be developed. He further stated that they also know as evidence by the group on a unanimous basis that it has to be done within a relatively short period of time; that in 1988 we are looking at a limitation in terms of capacity. An interim solution has to be looked at as well as a long-term solution. He stated that he would hope that Councils will not be intimidated by Monterey and Santa Cruz. He further stated that we are citizens of the central coast, whatever laws or ordinances are passed in those communities will have to be applied on objective standards; something that we could apply to; something that Santa Cruz, the City of Santa Cruz, the City of Watsonville or Monterey or Salinas, being an inland community will also have to be judged by the same standards as the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy. He further noted that the fact that the county line was drawn south of Gilroy vs. north of Morgan Hill is really irrelevant to that issue. He noted that we are a part of the central coast and they would hope that Councils would make that decision in light of those circumstances and that it be done as expeditiously as possible. - ~..... - !!JIMIIl"!II Mr. Wally Mead, developer, addressed the Councils noting that he has his sewer permits and is on his way to completing his project. He noted that they work on a set formula with their banks; they haveto make a certain amount of profit to receive a loan for their projects. He noted that at this time Morgan Hilland Gilroy are in a situation where single-family lots encompassing about 6,000 sq. ft. is a thing of the past. He noted that some on the Councils may be enjoying these types of homes. He further stated that they are a low-in builder and are trying to deliver a low-in house. He stated that in Morgan Hill this type of house with the limited amount of space allowed under Measure E is giving them a duplex that starts at $139,000.00. He stated that here in Gilroy a 6,000 sq. ft. lot with 1038 sq. ft. house in order to meet the banks' require- ments, that house costs the buyer $125,000.00. He further stated that he makes 10% and if 10% is not made, he doesn't get the loan. He believes that to be ridiculous. He further stated that he has another house that is 1220 sq. ft. and was built in Morgan Hill ten years ago for $38,000.00; that same house today in Gilroy costs $130,000.00. He does not believe that that is progress. He stated that Councils are sitting here tonight and deliberating whether or not a new plan is going to be approved - 5294 for the riddance of sewage. He stated that a lot of the comments and testimony is nothing but a veiled ability to slow growth and to drive the price of housing in South County up even further. He asked whatever happened to trying to provide affordable housing. He noted that they limit their profit to 10%; take a tremendous risk to make 10% on those houses. He further stated that he believes if Councils hide behind the threat from the no-growth communities and certain people in this community that Councils are advocating their responsibility to their constituency. He feels that we all have, us builders, us greedy developers; advocating the responsibility to provide housing that they can afford to do and can afford to build. He urged Councils to proceed and approve the most economical force that can be approved to develop housing for people who want it, who can afford to pay for it; for the people who want it because that's our American dream. At 8:05 p.m., Mayor Hughan declared a recess and reconvened the meeting at 8:18 p.m. She asked if there was anyone further in the audience wishing to speak. There was no comment from anyone in the audience. She asked Christopher Cain to respond to some of the questions that arose during the first half of the meeting. Ms. Ruth Vreeland, Councilmember from Monterey and Director on AMBAG, wanted to respond to AMBAG and noted that their joint powers as established for AMBAG would not allow Gilroy/Morgan Hill to participate in that the constraints of AMBAG region are Santa Cruz, San Benito and Monterey Counties. She requested that Councils respond to the problem and as stated before that the problem be responded to within your own areas. She further stated that they have spent over $70 million in their area to make sure that everything that is put into Monterey Bay is as safe as they can make it and that they are monitoring carefully anything that would disturb the balance; and anything more that comes in would have a great deal of an effect on that. She noted that they are doing that already and are finding tremendous constraints. She believes that the evaluation of the constraints would be added to this problem if any of the three alternatives are added that they request the Councils don't do and could be a serious problem for all of them involved. She further noted that she feels regionally that the Gilroy/Morgan Hill's own region should respond to the problem that exists; you have your own restraints, you have your own growth; there are ways in which you can resolve the problems. You have some of the problems present to you in this and requests very strongly from her City and from AMBAG that Councils do not take three of the five alternatives. They do not like Surface Discharge to the pajaro Rover; the Ocean Discharge, or the Winter pajaro River Discharge. She stated that Councils can, they hope, find the other alternatives can be explored in your own area. She stated that she has faith and she knows that it can be done and resolved in your own area because you want to. Mr. Christopher Cain, James Montgomery Engineers, addressed the Councils noting that he has been informally asked four different questions that he will address. 1) Give more details on how the different alternatives would be phased; 2) How the projects would be adjusted relative to mismatch between actual population growth and projections of population growth; 3) Give more detail on what's involved in the different processes for the different alternatives; 4) comment on the constraints on providing interim capacity. He noted that in looking at the phasing on the project, he will use the diagrams presented at the last meeting. He went through the five alternatives and discussed what the phase program was in the original plan and some other possibilities. He noted that in the original plan the Engineers first estimated cost of total project capable of handling a 20-year planning period; they then looked at it and said let's take each of the five alternatives and break it into a two-phased project. Some of the alternatives proved easier to break into ..... .... - w4' ....... "'" 5295 JI8lf"'- phases than others but in order to have a comparison of phasingt they divide all of them into two phases. Some of the projects might more logically be done in a sequence of five or six phases; others you will see lend themselves more to a single phase operation. In the case of the Land Alternativet the current facility is a land disposal facility. It does not include nitrification-denitrification. If they were to go forward with the Land Disposal optiont the first questions that would come up would be: Do we provide nitrification-denitrifi- cation for the existing 6.1 flow; the position taken in the engineering work is that "yest" you can't go forward and expand if you haven't brought the rest of the facility up to that standard that you are going forward with. So the first phase would have to include upgrading the present 6.1 mgd capacity to provide denitritification. The first phase as identified in the project report would also include the purchase of all the land needed for 20 years on the premise that as growth occurs and neighbors move int land disposal sites become more and more difficult to site; the City should take the position now and set the land aside so people can make their plans accordingly. So all of the land purchaset $17 milliont was involved in the first phase. The first phase also included taking the 6.1 mgd treatment plant up to 7.5 mgd which is approximately half of the 14.9 mgd or 15 mgd 20 year plan. The second phase involves adding the second half of treatment plant and developing the necessary land facilities. The first phase thus includes a lot of costs that are sunk into looking into the futuretand although the first phase only provides the increment between 6.1 and 7.5 mgdt it is about 2/3 of the cost of the second phase. In terms of other ways to phase thist the Land Alterna- tivet once the question is addressed of denitrification in the existing facilitYt can be incremented up 1 mgd by 1 mgd; once the land has been set aside and the existing system is brought up to standardst there's nothing that says you cannot add 1 mgd every two years; subject to some treatment plant construction restraints. If a treatment plant is builtt we generally want to have ultimately 4 or 8 tankst possibly 3 or 6t depending on the kind of treatment plant it iSt we would not want to have 15 redundant unitst 1 mgd each for a 15 mgd plant; it would be more efficient to have 4 to 6t maybe 8 redundant streams; thus you tend to build the plant in chunks of 1/4 your total flow; 1/8 perhaps. - -- ....... Councilman palmerlee stated that the main problem with this alternative is the unmitigatible impactt at what point did that become a problemt because it seems at the existing plant that is not a problem. He inquired if there would be a problem at the existing plantt or would it be only where you have additional land sites, where you have percolation in those aquiferst specifically in the Bolsa area. ~ Mr. Cain replied that the present site is located in such a way that it behaves as a combination of the Land Alternative and the LD Alternative. Certain areas under the existing plant are relatively well-drained by Llagas Creek through natural aquifers underneath the plant site. Other areas of the exist- ing plant are poorly drained. In a heavy wet winter yeart the poorly drained areas simply refuse to operate and they represent a failure risk. The well-drained areas do continue to operate but they contribute a treated land disposal and land treated and blended underflow to Llagas Creek and to the pajaro River. He stated that if Councils were to adopt a long-term philosophy that avoided impacts on Llagas Creek and the River, and told the Engineers proceed and design something that doesn't leak into the rivert then we would locate a site that was far enough away from the River to avoid it and given that philosophy it would be hard to increment up capacity at the existing site. They would immediately leave the existing site along and find land up on the lower slopes of the valley walls on either side and build it so that it percolates into that deeper aquifer rather than coming in across the clay layer and leaking into the creek. Whatever the policy is that is decided upon at this stage, becomes the guiding principle for the engineers and staff from here on out as they increment UPt first interim capacity and then long-term capacity. He stated -- 5296 that they believe that both the people who are paying for the facilities and the Regional Board would look for consistent philosophy in constructing the facilities. The next increment of capacity would involve water going into the lower aquifer. Councilwoman Albert inquired, how would carbon absorption minimize the groundwater quality impacts and would it work with the land disposal and what would the cost of that be? Mr. Cain replied the identified impacts of this alternative focus in on sodium. Carbon absorption would have no impact at all on sodium and inorganic salts. Carbon absorption could be applied as insurance against any organic contaminents passing through first the treatment plant, then the land disposal system. There is treatment in this unit above ground; there is further treatment as the water moves through the groundwater, although generally it's recognized that there's less treatment down there. Carbon absorption could be applied to be a backup to those, giving three phases of treatment rather than just two. Costs cannot be quoted at this time. In terms of orders of magnitude, carbon absorption is generally found to be a process of a higher magnitude cost than this type of wastewater treatment plant. Both in terms of capital and operating there would be a significant increment and from the engineer's point of view, you're not really addressing the identified impact of the system. The system that has been proposed that would take care of the salt would be reverse osmosis. Alternatively, they could use something like mult-state flash distillation or some other dissolving technique; those techniques would generate a brine-stream; that brine-stream will require discharge and we're back to an ocean outfall alternative. The problem with reverse osmosis, not only is it a cost intensive process, but it has a disposal process associated with it that presents problems that haven't really been solved yet. The two main wastewater RO plants that he knows in this country both utilize ocean discharge for the brine that results. Mr. Cain noted that the LD Alternative involves flat ground where the groundwater table is controlled with underdrains. This is consistent with the exisitng site. In this case the first phase would involve buying more land, not necessarily adjacent to the existing site, but in the bottom land in the lower side of Santa Clara Valley. Again, we'd be looking at upgrading the existing facility to provide denitrification and then incrementing treatment up from there. They would also be addressing the possibility of putting iron removal in, not a very expensive treatment and there would be the cost of the drains and the pumps. The existing site has several ponds that would benefit from underdrainings, so that the first phase in this case would likely be an underdraining pilot project, utilizing the existing site to prove out the project. He noted that they would then proceed to develop additional land. So even before the completion of the purchase of additional land, it's possible that a Phase I-A of the LD Alternative could bring the capacity up to 7.5; thus this is another alternative where it may be incremented up in more than one or two steps. You'd have one fairly large step to get up to the denitrification point and then you'd be looking beyond that to increment the treatment up by quarters or eighths or whatever, and increment the land disposal facility up by whatever increment; in fact in the Land Disposal system, it's possible to increment that up on a year by year basis as we experiment with the land, gather data, gather soils information and work it on up. Mr. Cain stated that for the pajaro Discharge option, the philosophy behind this would be that we would want to be in long run moving from the existing plant to a river discharge. This would tend to preclude improvements to the existing facility; it would remain as is until a Pajaro Discharge Plant could be completely implemented. The pajaro Plant would be built in halves or quarters or eighths in order to get an initial 7.5 mgd capacity to replace the 6.1 in the existing facility; that would require the construction of one-half the treatment plant. When you build half of a treatment plant that - >w.._ - - - ..... 5297 ~ is ultimately going to be a 15 mgd plantt your cost for the first half is perhaps 2/3 of the cost of the whole plant because you build many of the common facilities; the pipe- galleriest the chemical feed facilitiest the officest the laboratory facilitiest many of the things that you would not want to build half of and then come along and build the other half later. He stated that the pajaro Plant hast as shown for phasing in the 1984 plant is shown in two phases with about 2/3 the cost in the first phase and 1/3 in the second phase. He noted that there is the possibility that the Regional Board would consider a phased transfer from the existing land disposal dependency toward the Pajaro River where 1/4 of the pajaro Plant is built and started up to run 4 mgd there; have 6 mgd some place else that is trying to be phased out. He noted that he believes that the Regional Board would take the attitude that you should clean up shop before you can get an expansion; that is if you did build a 4 mgd pajaro Plant they would say finet having taken the position that pajaro is better than Land Disposal; they would then say fine, your Land Disposal Plant is now a 2.1 Land Disposal Plantt you're still at 6.1 mgd until you have brought your acceptable treatment system up to full strength. If they did agree to a part-part plant what we have looks very much like the 8L Alternative. The 8L Alternative involves continuing to make use of the existing land disposal ponds and in this caset the first phase in the long-term plan inlcudes the purchase of all the land necessary for 20 years and the construction of a half-size plant. That makes it a commparable project for comparison to the other alternatives. Howevert it is quite possible that we could build a 3 or 4 mgd Winter Pajaro discharge plant and in doing so take the pressure off part of our land disposal systemt presuming that we had a denitrification plant included in this for the entire flowt we could build a 1/4 plant by switching to only summer discharge on the existing land, the disposal rating for the existing land would rise significant- IYt possible toward 10 mgd. 1ft thereforet a 4 mgd River Discharge was builtt that might be sufficient to raise the composite capacity of a carefully balanced systemt which includes some of 8L and some of Winter Land Disposal at the present site with denitrification to end up with something approximately an 8 mgd level. He believes that carefully designedt it's possible to implement 8L in an initial stage followed by the purchase of additional land and planning for a larger Pajaro River Plant and those two phases together would add up to the Report cost that's quoted for Phase I. 8L Phase I is dividable into two implementable chunks and unlike most of the other alternativest implementing the first chunk will yield a capacity increase. 80 this is one of the more phasable of the proj ects. - - - Mayor Hughan noted that this alternative concerns her from the point of view of how the switcing back and forth is done. - Mr. Cain noted that the exercise of operating this alternative will be very similar to the exercise of operating the existing plant. He noted that annual operating plans have been submitted to the Regional Board with a relatively complicatedt mathematical calculation in itt showing how we think the plant is going to operate in a normal rainfall yeart in a high rainfall yeart in a high rainfall year after addi- tional growtht etc. Operating this type of system will require the same type of weather projectiont ground performance projectiont etc. The treatment plant operators will have to be diligent in forseeing the conditions that may occur in the future. There will have to be a design margin built int in a number of different placest to allow for contingencies such as a very wet year followed by a cool summert resulting in very little groundwater pumping, resulting in a high groundwater table the following yeart during which there is not much rain; that would put a lot of pressure on this system. We would have to do hydraulic calculations to show that we had land disposal capability for getting rid of the water in that kind of year. Howevert simply being able to discharge some tertiary treated water to the river in a very wet year would remove one of the very tight constraints on the hydraulic balance for the present sitet and cause an increase in the rating that results from the calculation. .... 5298 Councilwoman Albert stated that the EIR states that during periods of high flow in the pajaro the discharge of effluent would be insignificant to the creek, and notes that if there is high flow in the river and we are also discharging effluent, then the flooding that already exists would be impacted. She inquires on how it is considered to be insignificant. Mr. Cain stated that in the EIR the 15 mgd flows are compared against summer low flows; summer average flow; winter low flows; winter average flows and flood condition flows. When you look at a winter average flow of 200 mgd, a 15 mgd flow looks insignificant from a water quality point of view. That is, after that level of dilution of the quality of water coming out of a tertiary plant, we would not be able to find it in the water. We would not be able to analytically go out and tell whether the plant is discharging or not. However, when you look at a flood condition, you're going up a magnitude or two on the river flow; so you're going from 200 mgd to 2,000 or 4,000 mgd and although the 15 mgd number could be looked upon as the straw that broke the camel's back, it becomes a very insignificant number compared to the total. It's a matter of judgement as to whether removing 15 mgd is going to signifi- cantly reduce the flood hazard. Assigning all the flood responsbility to adding that 15 mgd in is not fair. On the other hand, your flood will be 1.5% worse if you have the extra mgd in there. Councilwoman Albert inquired is there somewhere that we can hold back? During these times is there some way to reduce the flow out in order to reduce the impact? Mr. Cain stated that the project report recommends that holding basins be included in each of the alternatives as appropriate. To the extent that we want to build them, each gallon costs so much more money; we could build basins to hold larger and larger quantities to plan for the 10 year storm; for the 20 year storm; for the 100 year stom; for the 1000 year storm. He stated that he would be assured that there will be basin capacity for something like the 10 year storm; there may be for the 100; there would not be for the 10000 in a reasonable system. So ultimately in the worst possible flood that could ever happen, the treatment plant would be flooded out also; it would not be in a position to be in control; therefore, perhaps looking at it that way, whether you chose a land disposal option or a pajaro River in a super flood, it's all going to be mixed in there together. Councilwoman Albert noted that one of the concerns in the EIR was the San Felipe Project water also using the pajaro. Since the EIR stated that they have not applied for a permit to do that, have they applied since this EIR was written? Mr. Cain stated, not to his knowledge. Councilman Kloecker requrested that how the Initial State would go to 8 mgd be explained further. Mr. Cain stated that if the hydrologic balance from the existing site is taken and allowed a 4 mgd discharge in a wet year, based on his familiarity as to how that calculation reacts to its different inputs, what would result is that the plant capacity would be incremented up to about 8 mgd. The way it would function is in a heavy winter situation we would be percolating about 10 mgd; that's 8 mgd of wastewater plus 2 mgd of infiltration inflow; we would also be discharging another 4 mgd of infiltration inflow. In a wet situation the design flow of 8 mgd is really 16 mgd coming in or 20 mgd coming in depending on whether you are looking at a short-term or long- term basis. So in the calculation in the worst point in the winter, the calculation looks for where we're going to put all the water, being able to put 4 mgd in the river on a day to day basis would relieve the storage pressure on the facility and cause a significant increase in the rating for the plant, including the present land disposal site. Councilman palmerlee inquired to the amount, to the 4 million that's existing there or 10 mgd? - ..... ...... ......... ....... :M 5?99 Mr. Cain stated that it would not increase it up to 10 mgd, depending on the size of the Pajaro Plant that is built. He stated that he is speaking of a 3-4 mgd plant as about 1/4 of a 15 mgd plant. If you chose to build a 1/3 plant it's possible that perhaps the composite would wind up being a 10 mgd composite. Just looking at it from that standpoint, he believes the SL Alternative involves 350 acres and a 15 mgd plant. If there is a 5 1/2 or 6 mgd plant and 200 acres, it can be pushed to 1/2 or 2/3 of the full flow. - Councilman Kloecker inquired if the first phase of that would be a 3-4 mgd treatment plant in conjunction with the present treatment ponds. - Mr. Cain stated that is a possibility. What he is giving are some ideas that have been coming out lately from analysis of Montgomery and are not fully developed yet. They do, how- ever, simply point out that there are possibilities,and whether it's 8 or 10 cannot really be the issue right now. It's probably more like 8 rather than 10. However, we are making use of the existing facilities because the philosophy under- lying the alternative is consistent with improving those facilities at the same time we relieve the biggest problem with them, which is their tendency to fail in a very, very wet winter. What we're doing is cost effectively putting money into the weak point of the existing system and you get more for your money there than you do with a total switch to another type of system. Councilman Palmer lee notes his concern about putting the money into a 4 mgd plant. He asks would it be more cost effective to make it 6 or 7 and try and stretch the length of time to utilize that plant before you'd have to build an additional 7 or 8; you would get another 10 years by building a larger plant at that point. - Mr. Cain agreed. He stated that it would all depend on whether our finances leaned towards bigger of smaller steps. He stated that he is raising the possibility that you can look at that rationally with this alternative; it's very difficult to look at it with the other alternatives. Mr. Cain commented on the SO Alternative, in which a large part of the cost involves the outfall; you cannot implement Alternative SO at all, without the outfall. The first phase of this project is perhaps 80% of the entire project. The only things that can be delayed would be the second half facilities in the treatment plant and this being a secondary treatment facility it is a lower cost facility than the other facilities for the other 4 alternatives; thus the amount of delayed capital is only on the order of $10-15 million out of a $70 million total. In terms of phasing, although we outline two phases in the plan, it really still looks like one phase with a little bit of loose-end collec- tion in the second phase. - Mr. Cain addressed the question raised earlier about the population projections used in the EIR. He stated that in the early discussion of what the design flow should be for alternative selection, the consultants and the Citizens' Advisory Committee discussed varous different scenarios. One scenario was growth in accordance with the two cities' General Plans at that point. Another scenario was slower growth and another scenario was accelerated growth. He believed the numbers talked about for a 20 year population ranged from 100,000 up to 300,000 and the ultimate design number selected was about 143,000; that ultimate number was looked at from a point of view of people per acre, it's about 8-9 people per acre and the Engineers' judgement was that was a reasonable estimated population for which to plan. If either of the cities makes a change in policy from its General Plan, then obviously we should look at making adjustments in the long- term wastewater plan to react to that. Those adjustments might be such as the following: the SO Alternative becomes less and less economical the lower your population projection is; the SO Alternative becomes less economical the longer it takes you to ... 5300 get to your ultimate population, that is if it takes 30 years instead of 20 years, that affects the economics of the system and it makes the SO Alternative less economical compared to some of the others; i.e., as opposed to the Pajaro Discharge Option or to a certain extent, the SL option where much of the cost is being put in an operating money; that operating money would not be spent if the users had not hooked up to put the flow to the plant. So that in general the SO Alternative design criteria are very dependent on the population projec- tion, if the projection is undershot, there would be more financial stress than in some of the other cases. For the LandOption also because we are saying we need to set aside 1600 acres, we need to buy it now, there would be a financial stress. In that case the financial stress could be dealt with by selling off some of the land if ultimately the growth only went to 100,000. If in the case of the Land Option the growth actually went to 300,000, it would find itself constrained at the point where we ran out of land and it's our projection that we would not be able to buy any more land, so that ultimately the Land option puts the tightest cap on development past the projected numbers. The Ocean Outfall Alternative, is designed to economically serve 140,000. There are engineering means for pushing it beyond, that is adding pumps on the pipeline; this would raise the cost per gallon marginally but the step would not be an order of magnitude type step. The pajaro River Option can be incremented simply by building more treatment capacity; it can also be delayed simply by not building, particularly if the plant can be built in 2 quarters now or 1/4 now followed by quarters later, if growth slows in the future we can delay the construction of a later quarter; if growth accelerates beyond then you build 5 quarters. There would be different impacts on the river, since obviously you're pushing more flow through the river. That kind of decision cannot be made without looking at whether there is a carrying capacity in the river, but we are not close to a limit in that case. We are well one side or the other. Thus in the summer time we're way over the dilutional capacity in the river and will have to produce water that is acceptable without dilution; whereas in the winter time we're substantially under and a change from 15 to 17 to 20 mgd average dry weather flow doesn't make a substantial difference in the dilution factor in the river in the winter time. Mayor Hughan requested that it be explained to Morgan Hill Council that one of the areas of discussion that we had when we were talking about how to pay for this was a concern of some of us that we would get into a position where we had to approve development perhaps inconsistent with the ability to provide infrastructure or police officers just to earn enough funds to pay for the treatment plant. The City Administrator provided several scenarios for use fees, development fees, etc. at different rates of growth in order for Council to view how it could be paid for at the different growth rates. Councilwoman Albert noted that is why she inquired about the projected population growth in the EIR, noting that once a figure is established, people work toward fulfilling that capacity for themselves, making the project a much too ambitious project. Mr. Cain noted that the 95,000 population figure comes from the 62,000 for Gilroy in the year 2000, per the footnote in the General Plan with a 5.5% compounded population growth. He further stated that if the Councils do not feel that same is appropriate, or if any political entity doesn't feel same is appropriate,then the obvious thing would be to request Staff and inform them that there is a policy shift to use a different figure. He further noted that he has been trying to explain what would occur if that shift is made a year from now or two years from now. He further noted that it would be hard to make that shift for some alternatives and easier for others. Mayor Hughan also stated for clarification that a 6% growth figure has never been adopted by the City of Gilroy Council and is not a policy. She stated that the policy currently is 400 units to 450 units a year, which is not a percentage number. - - - ""- - .N 530-1 Mayor Barke noted that Morgan Hill does have a growth control Measure E, adopted by the citizens and to change their growth control policy would have to be taken to the voters. The City of Morgan HIll would be consistent in their growth pattern. - Mr. Cain noted that one of the questions that came up during the Study was what happens after the year 2000, and one scenario was proposed that the Measure E cap would be imposed as a frozen cap; another alternative was that all growth controls would be lifted when the Measure E ran out. The alternative that was selected in making the projection was that the rate of growth that Morgan hill would be experiencing at the end of the Measure E period would be continued; that is having established the pattern, simply the removal of an ordinance would not in and of itself cause the city to go into another direction; and the intent of the engineers regarding a policy is to design a plant consistent with a projection. If the Cities were to adopt a future policy aimed at reducing that projection, not that the projection is a policy now, but Cities, per Measure E, could deliberately reduce it, then they would want to look at the impacts of that on their wastewater planning. In some way the impacts would be it would make SO less viable; to a lesser extent L would be less viable and the LD, SL and SP Alternatives would be relatively flexible, relatively adjustable to that type of a future policy shift; that is the choice of those alternatives is not a function whether you do or don't adopt a policy or agree with the population projections. - Councilman Brown inquired whether there was a common start-up date used for purposes of projection of the impact of the operating costs. Mr. Cain answered in the affirmative. ~<'<1i:I! Councilman Brown inquired if those operating cost projections were based on one annual number projected through the entire period. For instance, in the LD it was projected at nine hundred and eighty thousand dollars per year, was it assumed every year? .... Mr. Cain replied that a certain portion of that cost is fixed, a certain portion is flow dependent. Councilman Brown stated, so the growth curves were impacted? Mr. Cain stated that the flow dependent part, out of the nine hundred, four hundred is fixed and five hundred is flow dependent. The four hundred increased every year with the inflation rate. The five hundred increased every year with additional flow and the inflation rate. Councilman Brown inquired if the same was done with the SL Alternative. Mr. Cain replied in the affirmative. Councilman Brown asked if the 1.5 million dollar annual cost was at the end of the period or at the beginning. Mr. Cain stated that it was at the beginning of the period. l'ftJ!!MW Councilman Brown inquired as to what kind of annual cost is looked at the end of the 20 year period. ... Mr. Cain stated there are very high looking annual costs, partly because it is also inflation dependent. The inflation rate in this case is higher than the composite growth rate for the two cities together, for this period it's something on the order of 4-5%, whereas the study assumed an 8% inflation rate. Most of these 4-5 or 6 million dollar operating costs per year result from that higher inflation rate. He noted that Mayor Hughan referred to some of the studies that were done for the Gilroy City Council in looking at user rates, they looked at reducing the inflation rate and all of a sudden the increase in number looks much smaller. So that in the report a large part of those future operation costs was due to inflation. 5302 Councilman Brown requested that Morgan Hill Council Members would have access to those numbers also. Councilman Kloecker noted that those figures were peculiar to Gilroy and couldn't be used by Morgan Hill. Councilman Brown noted that it would indicatet howevert what the growth impacts and the inflation impacts would be. He noted that it is the first time that he has heard that they have assumed an 8% inflation factort which in view of the projections of less than 2% this yeart seems extremely conser- vative. - Councilman Kloecker noted that options were given for different inflation rates - 3t 5 and 8%. \i..,..)H,' Mr. Cain stated that some of the analysis was for the two communities together. It was brought back for sewer fees for Gilroy according to Gilroy's methodt but some of the ultimatet big numbers were independent of--basicallYt they were looking at the total operating cost for the facility divided by the number of users in the two communitiest and that information would be valid for Morgan Hill. He further referred to a diagram noting same to be the most complicated treatment plant involving primarYt secondary treatmentt treatment involving filtration which is normally referred to as tertiary treatment; thus these two alternatives involve a tertiary plant. (Councilman Valdez left the Council Chambers at 9:05 p.m. Mr. Cain further stated that the tertiary treatment for SL is needed in the winter time and with a little adjustment this plant produces what is called Title 22 watert reclamation grade and Recreation Class It body contactt sport type water. Councilman Brown asked if that meant it could be releasable into a flowing stream. - Mr. Cain repliedt into a flowing stream that has a Rec- reation Class I designation which the pajaro does. He noted that other rivers around the country don't have such a desig- nation. j,...,,,4iiiI Councilman Brown asked why other streams don't; because the pajaro has a higher rating? Mr. ratings. effort is meaning a Cain repliedt that some other streams have lower He stated that for most streams in Californiat the being made to make them all fishable and swimable; Recreation I designation. Councilman palmer1ee asked if it was just not feasible to operate the tertiary portion of the plant prior to percolating it into the soil? Mr. Cain replied that the filtration plant consists of two-three beds of sand and/or coal through which the water is percolated; that accomplishes almost as much but not quite as much as percolating the water through six or ten inches of tight clay soil or 24 to 36 inches of sandy soil or what have you. UltimatelYt the water hitting the groundwater is likely to be somewhat better than the water that comes through the filter; howevert a coagulation step adds a chemical that is specific to coagulating out phosphorus which is not a toxint but a nutrient in the river; we try to remove itt it's not looked upon as a problem in the groundwater and tends to get removed in the soil to a degree also. The other step is disinfection and generally disinfection is not tried ahead of land disposal so that the action of the bacteria in the soil is not impeded in degrading the waste. In one waYt it's a wasted cost because the soil will filter out the bacteria and viruses to the same extend that disinfection can kill them; which is to saYt we know they are there to begin witht we can't find them afterwardt but noting is perfect. putting in disinfectiont it either hurts or doesn't helpt so as engineerst we would observe - . 5303 that it doesn't hurt much and you could do it if you really wanted to, but they would not recommend it. Likewise, they could not recommend filtration ahead of a land disposal option. He stated that the reason filtration is used for producing irrigation water for food crops is because it assists in disinfection. and filtration. (At 9:14 p.m. Councilman Valdez entered the Council Chambers and left the Chambers soon thereafter.) - Councilwoman Albert inquired about the difference between tertiary and advanced secondary treatment. ~ Mr. Cain noted that tertiary means that there are three treatment filter processes. Conventionally, the most common tertiary plant is the kind of plant that San Jose has; they have a biological oxidation plant, secondary plant, followed by filters with disinfection; that makes it a tertiary plant. In this case the filters that are used for pajaro discharge as a tertiary plant; likewise the filters necessary for foodcrop irrigation make it a tertiary plant. However, tertiary treat- ment does not include denitrification. San Jose does not denitrify before they discharge in San Francisco Bay. The denitrification is an extra step. If that extra step is taken but not filtered, it is not tertiary, but at the same time, it's not secondary, going beyond secondary. This same sort of semantics problem is faced by other communities discharging into Monterey Bay. There are about three different treatment levels going into the Bay and they all design for specific requirements. One is designed for secondary treatment as defined by EPA; one is designed for ocean plan treatment as defined by the State of California, which is almost secondary but not quite, it removes BOD and suspended solids down to say 40-45 miligrams per liter instead of 30; it isn't quite as efficient. Thirdly, there's another plant that's going into Monterey Bay which has a primary treatment plant, but it is a better than average primary treatment plant; and the same could be said of the Gilroy-Morgan Hill Plant; it is a better than average primary treatment plant. When plants are compared with someone else, they use a term like advanced or whatever to simply signify that there's some detail in there that makes it better. Usually it's a different detail. For example, the Watsonville "advanced primary plant," achieves better suspended solids removal and better biological oxidation than the Gilroy/Morgan Hill "advanced primary plant-" It, however, doesn't do as well as the Monterey Plant which meets secondary standards. In differentiating between what is proposed for the SO Alternative and what the other three Bay communities have, what is proposed here is very comparable to what the Monterey Regional System does. It does include disinfection, which for example, the Watsonville discharge does not include. Watson- ville has gone to a lot of trouble to design its outfall to prevent chloroform bacteria in the undisinfected effluent from coming back and reaching the shoreline. So there has been a lot of discussion of chloroform shorehit, beach closure, etc., relative to chloroform that is relative to an undisinfected effluent. It is relatively irrelevant to the Gilroy/Morgan Hill proposal where disinfection is being done at the treatment plant to prevent problems in the transmission line and dechlor- inate before it goes into the ocean. The economics of Gilroy- Morgan Hill are much different of the economics of Watson- ville. On one hand, it could be said we're treating it better; on the other hand, it's being found such a level of treatment isn't really necessary to prevent unacceptable impact on the ocean. We would be doing the disinfection for a reason other than ocean impact. He further noted that on the chart explaining the treatment, the one thing left off for lack of space was disinfection. The L Alternative would not include specific disinfection treatment; the pathogens would be filtered out on the ground. There in the ground they decay, they oxidize where for most pathogens, it's an unfriendly environment. SP involves efficient disinfection. SO involves disinfeciton mainly to solve problems in the transmission line, but as an end result, it also remmoves any concern over bac- teria in the outfall. SL includes disinfection which would only be run in the wintertime when discharging in the river. .... .... - - 5304 LD does not include disinfeciton. It depends on the land to remove the wastewater. With the term tertiary in mind, SP is a tertiary plant; SL is a tertiary plant; LD would produce a water which would meet Title 22, it would be a unique plant and probably would have the Health Department examine it and make a determination that it would meet Title 22, and at that point that pumped groundwater would be considered tertiary treated wastewater. It's a plant that would look different than most other plants, but it would accomplish the same thing. The SO would be a conventional secondary plant and the L would be a secondary plant plus nitrogen removal which makes it an advanced secondary plant. Finally, interim capacity....The big problem faced by engineers in developing plants for interim capacity is that they do not want to recommend to spend money on something that is going to be useless two or three years down the line. Secondly, you cannot apply and present argu- ments for a wastewater discharge permit to the Regional Board knowing that you may come back six months later and try to impeach all your former witnesses and show that the ground- water impacts that you didn't care about six months ago are now of paramount importance. What is needed at this point is decide what the priorities are so that you don't have to "play games" and can go in with an honest approach that says that you have a plan, a long-term direction, and are going to take systematic steps in that direction. The first systematic step would be to try and provide interim capacity; if you opted for an SL, an LD, an SP or perhaps an L Alternative, you can think of interim capacity plans; if you opt for an SO Alternative, it becomes very hard to think of a way of expanding the present plant which makes it part of the future. It's not impossible, but it's a lot more difficult. As a result, there's probably going to be more wasted money in interim capacity facilities for the SO Alternative relative to the other ones. Councilman palmerlee asked whether in doing one of the other alternatives other than SO, money expended for interim capacity would not necessarily be wasted. Mr. Cain replied in the affirmative. He stated that is the same thing as saying the other alternatives tend to be more easy to phase. You can take a small first phase step which yeilds some capacity that's consistent with the long-term plans. It's very difficult to take a small first step toward the ocean. He noted that he explained the SL possibilities to the best of his ability. He noted that he commented that the L Alternative has a large cost first phase; that is because the presumption in the L Alternative is that they are trying to avoid percolation at the present site. If the engineers adopted a compromise position that a limited amount of additional impact at the present side was consistent with the long-term plan, then you could phase into an L Alternative also. Each of the alternatives is more or less phasable. The SL and LD by their nature are combination alternatives; therefore, more phasable. Councilman Kloecker inquired about changes to the present plant that might yield interim capacity; that would fit in with any of the alternatives. Mr. Cain stated that they are looking at upgrading the treatment facility at the present plant upgrading it as a full secondary facility. If that is done, they may have a secondary facility that would fit within any of these five alternatives. That is, getting the BOD and suspended solids (notes on diagram) here is done with the secondary facilities. If the present plant can be converted to a secondary facility, it can be used whichever way you go. If this was done and option L was selected, you would then have a secondary facility at the present plant; you would have a Land Disposal site rated 6.1 which some calculations have shown may have potential for capacity in excess of that as a result of the construction of the East Pond transfer pipeline. However, to go in with a permit application for enlarging disposal at the present site, that permit application would have to address why that is wise relative to buying the preferred land disposal site on the other two alternative sites. It is not impossible, but that is - ~. ...... - ..... "'.". .. .5305 a ~roblem that would have to be ~ealt with in the permit application program; that is a compromise that would have to be made in order to generate interim capacity that wasn't quite in line with the ultimate direction. Because the ultimate direc- tion for land for the L Alternative would be to freeze the present system at 6.1 and do all further expansion out in an area with less impact. To simply bring it to secondary with no capacity increase, you would not need a permit. He stated that he would not advise the cities to go out and spend any money without first applying for a permit to see that something was going to result from it. Unless the Regional Board made a determination that significant impact was occuring at the treatment plant, which at this point, the evidence does not support, they might come back and say thou shall upgrade right now. That would even change the funding picture. Mayor Barke noted that the noticed Executive Session for Morgan Hill scheduled for 9:00 p.m. this evening has been cancelled, and will be held at the City of Morgan Hill on May 6, 1986 at 6:00 p.m. She also stated that this Public Hearing will be continued at the City of Morgan Hill on Tuesday, May 6, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. at 17555 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill. Mayor Hughan thanked everyone for attending and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, d~~.~: tf /;;:;.k-