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-