Loading...
Minutes 1986/05/06 5310 Present Flag Salute Opening Statement Public Comments ~ May 6t 1986 Special Joint Meeting of Gilroy/Morgan Hill City Councils Morgan Hillt California Mayor Lorraine Barket Mayor Roberta Hughan; Council Members Larry Mussallemt Dan Palmerleet Sharon Albertt Paul Kloeckert Don Gget Pete Valdezt Bill Brownt Robert Fostert Dean FlorYt Neil Heiman. Staff Present: City Manager Mortensent City Administrator Baksat Director of Public Works for Morgan Hill Howardt City Clerk Little. The flag salute was conducted by Linda English. Mayor Barke stated that the purpose of this continued Public Hearing was to take testimony from the public regarding the proposed long-term wastewater sewer treatment plant. Mayor Barke opened the Public Hearing. Sharon Kolhmannslehner presented an update on the Hazard- ous Waste Material Program in the City of Morgan Hill. Ms. Kolhmannslehner stated that the City of Morgan HIll adopted the Hazardous Material Storage Ordinance in 1983. This ordinance is for above and below ground storage. Mayor Hughan noted that the Santa Clara County Inter- governmental Council put together the model ordinance for the Sher Bill. Mayor Hughan of Gilroy and Councilman Heiman of Morgan Hill served on that committee. Mayor Barke noted that she is currently serving on the Environmental Safety Committee for IGC. Mayor Barke mentioned that Dr. David Morrillt Staff for the CountYt is submitting a letter stating that the County iis the first in the country to adopt such as ordinance as Morgan Hill and Gilroy have previously adopted. Councilman Brown asked Sharon Kolhmannslehner about the impact the new ordinance has on the reduction of the risk of contaminating our sewage outfall with hazardous materials. Sharon Kolhmannslehner stated that as the enforcement of the ordinance time lengthenst the problem will decrease. Ms. Kolhmannslehner noted that her department notifies the companies that have above ground storage that they are being monitored as to what they are storing and where it is going. Councilman Mussallem noted that at the Joint Sewer Agree- ment meeting held a few months agot the members received a report and audit of our pre-treatment program. Supervisor Susanne Wilson commended the two City Councils for the great effort that they have been undergoing for the last couple of years in planning sewage capacity expansiont and Morgan Hill had been very careful to consult the citizens about 5311 - the concerns. Supervisor Wilson also commented on the great need for a sewer plant in South County. Supervisor Wilson stated she is concerned about the water quality of this County and particularly about this region for the future. Supervisor Wilson commented that the unincorporated areas have a great nitrate problem and that a plant expansion of this kind would help to mitigate the nitrate problem. Supervisor Wilson pledged to work towards that goal. Supervisor Wilson noted that her personal preference would be to move up to tertiary treatment as quickly as possible and that discharging at the pajaro River is not detrimental to the stream, in fact, it is beneficial instead of negative. -- Mayor Barke asked if the South Couny Planning Report had been entered into the record. Mayor Hughan stated that Dr. Eric Carruthers would be putting together a package to be submitted for the record. City Administrator Baksa, Gilroy, requested to speak on the toxics. Baksa commented that the City of Gilroy likewise has a Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Storage Ordinance and that David Olds has been administering the program. In addi- tion, the fire department will be reorganized to incorporate two lieutenants who will do nothing but fire inspections and hazardous materials inspections as part of the company inspections. Baksa stated that the City of Gilroy also works very closely with the City of Morgan Hill in a pretreatment program. This program is sponsored by the Joint Powers Agree- ment of the two cities. It has two full time people that staff it and their first priority is to monitor and inspect the busi- nesses that we have in both towns. Baksa commented that the recent audit conducted by the EPA was complimentary of the procedures. 'w,.,.. Councilman Brown asked about a program to eliminate hazardous waste problems at the residential level. - Baksa noted that the two cities would be conducting a program on May 10 for household clean-up program. This very expensive program is being implemented to encourage citizens to bring their household chemicals to a central location for proper disposal. Baksa noted that while the program is expen- sive, the ramifications of the hazardous materials being dumped into the sewer makes the program cheap in reality. Mayor Barke noted that she is serving on the Environmen- tal Safety Committee for IGC and the committee has found that the general public is a worse offender of toxic pollutants than commercial or industrial. Baksa stated that he felt the citizens of Santa Clara County are very informed citizens about groundwater and toxic materials. - City Manager Mortensen, Morgan Hill, presented reasons why we are talking about an expansion of the sewer plant. City Manager Mortensen began his presentation by referring to the campaign statements of J. Robert Foster during the 1984 City Council elections. Mr. Foster's comments were directed to the need for an additional sewer plant for the growth of both Gilroy and Morgan Hill. Mr. Foster's comments were discussed regarding protection of the quality of drinking water. Mr. Foster's statements included concerns that if the proper sewer plant planning did not take place, the existing septic systems will continue and affect the drinking water. Mr. Foster pointed out that Measure E mandates that the City grows at a prescribed rate each year. Because of the lack of sewer capacity, we are unable to issue the prescribed number of housing permits that Measure E allows, and will be unable to meet our ABAG fair share housing allocations unless we have sewage capacity expansion. Mortensen stated that ABAG projections for the year 1985 indicate that the job ratio is closer to 2 to 1 rather than the 1 to 1 desired, and we need sewage capacity for industrial and commercial to bring the community into balance. The community needs revenues from -- 5312 planned development to support the unbalanced residential demands we now have. Mayor Barke asked if Monterey County had a pretreatment ordinance. Walter Wong, Director of Environmental Health, Monterey County, stated that Monterey County has a pretreatment program that is administered regionally. Mayor Barke requested a copy of the pretreatment ordi- nance. ...... Mr. Wong reaffirmed the concern for the household toxic waste discharge problems. ....',~ Mayor Hughan asked about AB 2185 (Maxine Waters Bill). Mr. Wong stated that this Bill would not only mandate the registration of the companies dealing with hazardous waste but computerization of the data and requires public information. Mayor Hughan presented a letter from Don Christopher, Chairman for the Santa Clara Planning Commission, expressing the need for a new wastewater treatment system for South County. Dennis Navarro, Custom Chrome, Inc., submitted a letter for the record. As a large employer in the Morgan Hill area, Mr. Navarro addressed the concerns for housing availability, schools for the children to attend. Mr. Navarro felt that the people working in Morgan Hill want to live in Morgan Hill to avoid the commute. Therefore, sewage treatment capacity re- quires expansion to provide commercial and industrial expan- sion. Bruce Sweeney, Gilroy, expressed concern over the fact that Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties are virtually closing in South County with no outlet. Mr. Sweeney commented that tertiary treatment of water makes that water virtually drink- able, and how could any reasonable judge hold back the South County from putting tertiary water into the pajaro River or any other creek. He continued by saying that it would be unreason- able to disallow the discharge. Sweeney stated that he suppor- ted Mr. Lazzarini's statement of last week. ...... ..... No further comments were made from the public. Mayor Barke suggested that the Councils review the alter- natives one at a time. Councilmember Heiman suggested that one choice is the interim immediate capacity that some land disposal will be necessary. Secondly, in the long run, the land disposal will not be acceptable to the needs of both communities. The third item is the cost of the sewerage treatment plant. Heiman sug- gested that the additional cost be borne by future develop- ment. In order to meet the various needs of both communities, perhaps a combination of alternatives is the answer. Mayor Hughan responded that the citizens that are in the community now would be responsible for the treatment of nitrates. Hughan continued that anything beyond that would be generally the responsibilities of the new companies and new people. ...... ..","".. Councilmember Foster clarified that if we go to tertiary treatment which would take us beyond the quality that we are now discharging, that it would be a benefit to all citizens, not just the newcomers. Mayor Barke requested that the alternatives be reviewed one at a time. Councilmember Valdez stated that Chris Cain had spoken with him several times regarding a combination of alternatives. s 3 1 7.... \.- , ) Councilmember Valdez stated that he would like Mr. Cain to further explain the combinations of alternatives. .. Mr. Cain reiterated that L is defined as a straight land disposal option. SP is a straight discharge option, if it is not a combination. SO is not a combination. LD and SL are combination alternatives. Both of them represent a course of action consistent with a philosophy that recognizes that none of the places that we could put the water is free from problems and that we need to mitigate, adjust and manage perhaps two or more disposal methods. At the same time, take advantage of the good points and try to mitigate the bad points. Mr. Cain stated that an option is for a combination alternative such as SL or LD with the other combination alternative as an auxil- iary. We have put forward in the Engineers Report the concept that reclamation serves as an auxiliary method to any of these alternatives. Mr. Cain also mentioned that the ocean outfall is such that once it is committed to, there is relatively little need to go to any other auxiliary method, because once you open the lines to the ocean, you have a full capacity line, that you can't phase into it very well. Mr. Cain stated in conclusion, there are alternatives which appear you could implement at the same time, that is, you could initiate the first phase with elements of LD and SL Those two alternatives could be combined in some way or another to a greater extent the other three types of alternatives. - Councilmember Albert asked about the LD stating that in the EIR it was stated that there would be a large variation in the winter and the summer treatment and that the iron sludge would be removed manually during the summer. - Mr. Cain replied that in the case of the LD alternative, your pumpage in the winter is much greater than your pumpage in the summer. This changes the treatment in terms of quantity and there is perhaps nothing to treat in the summer to a great deal in a very wet winter. The iron removal system is designed to run full speed and it is unused in the summer, therefore, we can go in and spend several months manually cleaning it to take the sludge out. ..... Councilmember Albert inquired about the pipeline located in the corridor that is approximately 2000 feet wide, as described in the EIR. Mr. Cain responded that at the preliminary stages of this project they were trying to define the location of the outfall to a maximum extent. This was to facilitate final design to miss houses or find less expensive land. Mr. Cain felt that looking from an environmental point of view, that looking at a corridor 2000 feet wide to the pajaro River would sufficiently narrow the scope for the EIR team to look at, and at the same time, provide a wide enough corridor to allow the engineers to select an appropriate route. Councilmember Flory asked which alternative requires the most treatment. - Mr. Cain responded that the highest level of treatment is required for the SP alternative. The SL alternative employes basically the same kind of treatment with perhaps some relaxa- tion of treatment requirement either in the summer when you are going to the land or under very high flow conditions in the winter. In the project report the same plant was proposed for both of those alternatives with operational changes. ..... Councilmember Flory stated that if you went with the combination of LD/SL, that would be the highest form of treatment for the wastewater. Mr. Cain confirmed Councilmember Flory's statement. Councilmember Foster stated that Mr. Ed Lantz (Morgan Hill) had indicated that if we went to tertiary treatment (he was referring to a sequencing batch reactor here) that since the present wastewater contains 45 mg suspended solids, it 5314 would be dropped pown to about 10 mgJ and that would mean a substantial increase in the percolation rates on the land. Mr. Cain responded that based on various calculations prepared based on various factors of the percolation siteJ the amount of suspended solids in the effluentJ either has no effect on the percolation or has a slight improving tendency. The main constraints observed at the treatment plant are what we call site drainage constraints rather than infiltration con- straints. The groundwater is up underneath the site and it really doesn't matter what kind of water you are putting in on tOPJ if there is no room in the groundJ it can't get in. ... Councilmember Albert stated that alternatives SL and LD don't really address the salinity problem. How is it going to be addressedJ or is it part of a future EIR that we will be doing? - Mr. Cain stated that the salinity problem is the impact that is identified in the EIR that is an unmitigable impact. Each of the alternatives manages that salinity problem in a different way. The L alternative manages it by putting that impact in an aquifer that eventually becomes a potable aquifer in another county. The LD and SL alternatives manage that impact by focusing in on a perched aquifer that is currently impacted either due to the treatment plant or natural drainage problemsJ or both. It impacts that aquifer and secondly, the salt is managed through the pajaro. In the case of the LD alternative, the impact on the Pajaro is managed by diluting the groundwater; that is, we would be putting water into the pajaro at a lower salinity level than we currently see in the pajaro. In the winter time, high flows are used to mitigate the salt problem. The SL alternative relies on high flows in the winter to mitigate the salt problem. In the summer, it is mitigated by shifting it to the perched aquifer. Councilmember Albert asked how this affects the drinking ... water. Mr. Cain replied~hat the perched aquifer at the lower end of the Santa Clara Valley is generally recognized to be relatively well-separated from the potable aquifers. There are two major clay aquifer systems between the perched aquifer and the deep aquifer in San Benito County and Santa Clara County. Another aquifer exists between the two layers used in Santa Clara County. The leakage rate is negligible. Drinking water wells and the new agriculture wells are tending to be drilled deeper and with better technology with the upper layers being sealed. .\l;;l". Mayor Hughan suggested that further discussion take place in regards to the LD and SL alternatives. Mayor Hughan reques- ted additional information regarding the actual mechanical operations and the meeting of discharge requirements. Mr. Cain stated that from an operations standpoint, it would be a giant step toward manageability from where we are with the existing system. They would make the system far more manageable from the system we currently have. The LD or SL is much more manageable than the L alternative, for example. Iron content above the discharge requirement is expected, and we are, therefore, proposing that an iron sedimentation system be ... included. Councilmember Brown inquired about the river flow, taking into consideration the underground river flow and the impact it has on the LD versus the SL alternative. ",,4 Mr. Cain responded that the waters at the site aren't impacted by the underground pajaro water flow. Some Llagas flows or general underground flows affect the current site now. CurrentlYJ there are two general groupings of land at the present site. One part of the site is underlain with a relatively shallow perched aquifer from about 20 to 40 feet deep, which is contiguous with Llagas Creek. The flows in that 5315 - aquifer by my calculations indicate that there are more than 60 million gallons a day flowing under the kinds of conditions that we have had over the past several years. Part of our wastewater flow is entering that 60 million gallons a day flow in the peak of the winter and flowing out into Llagas Creek after passing down through the soil and through the sandy aquifer. Part of the site is naturally underdrained. The difference between that and the SL alternative is that the underdrains are a two-way street, and when the creek comes up, the water flows back the other way. The LD alternative would essentially have a wall over which we are pumping the water. It would keep the stream out while letting us put our wastewater through. The other part of the site does not have that contiguous natural underdrain to the Llagas Creek. .. Mayor Barke asked if there were any comments on the SO alternative. Councilmember Palmerlee stated that he had not been in favor of the SO. He stated that he had been on the Citizens Advisory Committee where it was discussed in depth at the initial stage and there wasJ thereforeJ limited information. Mr. Palmerlee stated that he opposed SO due to the cost of the alternative, the lack of ability to phase it since the develop- ment envisioned may never take place or not at the rate envisioned,_secondary treatment versus the tertiary treatment, and the environmental aspects. Mr. Palmerlee stated that he could not accept the SO alternative. Councilmember Mussallem stated that to never be able to reclaim the water is a factor to consider. ,.,,..,,. Councilmember Albert stated that the SO altnerative requires considerable up-front moneYJ and that may require growth in order to pay for the sewage treatment plant. Coun- cilmember Albert referred to the Planning Commission letter on their environmental impact report dealing with the growth between the years 1995 and 2008, and of a forecast of 143,000 people in this area. Councilmember Albert stated that ABAG stated that the City of Palo Alto had in 1980 7.4 persons per acre, and San Jose 7.7 per acre and we are talking about 8 persons per acre. She stated her concern about such growth. - Mayor Barke asked for clarification about the 143JOOO population referred to. Councilmember Foster stated that these reports are prepared by people in San Francisco, who in 1965 forecasted 120,000 people by 1980. Mr. Foster stated that the people of Santa Clara County do control their own future and that we can control the quality of our underground water supply. We continue to pollute our water supply each day that we operate our present plant. We have an inadequate sewage facility. We are challenging our future right now. We need the new sewer treatment plant as soon as possible, with the highest quality of water that we can put into it. We must monitor growth to allow it incrementally. ,.,... Mr. Cain responded to the 143,000 population projection by stating that the 143,000 population projection made in the 1984 Long-Term Plan Report was based on the perceived planning norms applied to the two communities for the year 2008. Since that reportJ some projections have been lowered, some higher, with more on the conservative side. The population number is in the report to point out the sensitivity to the design of the various alternatives as well as the financing of the various alternatives. .. Mr. Mortensen stated that referencing the EIR and going back to the ABAG population trends for the area, their projec- tion of the year 2005 the population for the combined communi- ties including their surroundings sphere of influence would only be 109,200. By the year 2000, it would be 93JOOO for the combined cities with their combined spheres of influence. In 1985, their estimate for the same area with their surrounding 531(,) areas would be 31,100 for Gilroy and 24,800 for Morgan Hill for a combination of 55,900. That is a lesser projection than that of the EIR, and is probably more realistic. Mayor Barke asked if these figures take into considera- tion Measure E for Morgan Hill. Mr. Mortensen replied that from the numbers, it is conceivable that Measure E has been taken into consideration. Councilmember Brown stated that these numbers are not the numbers within the city limitsJ rather it includes the County areas surrounding the city limits and a significant portion of San Martin. ... Mayor Hughan commented that those projections were reduced as a result of our objections to the original ones. .diIl Councilmember Palmerlee commented that the legal argu- ments presented by Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties did not influence his decision regarding the SO alternative. Mayor Barke stated that the SP, SL and LD alternatives were open now for discussion since it appeared, by consensusJ the joint Councils have elimianted the secondary treatment alternativesJ SO and L. Councilmember Brown stated that as part of the arsenal on the long-term programJ we should continue to look at the SP alternative. He stated that he foresaw a phased program that would eventually move toward the SP alternative as we can demonstrate our ability to appropriately cope with the waste and effluent that we generate. Councilmember Foster stated that he agreed with Councilmember BrownJ but questioned salinity affecting the Pajaro in summertime. .... Mr. Cain pointed out that during summer, the EIR finds the TDS impact a beneficial one to the river. The wastewater would dilute the salinity of the river flow. But there may be an impact on fish since the water enters the river at a different point and is from a different origin. - Mr. Cain stated, referring to a pilot LD using a first increment of an SL plantJ and one part of the existing site that would greatly benefit from under drainage. At the same time we see some interest by some Councilmembers on developing technology to go directly into the River. Philosophically, if a management approach is developed that states that we are going to try to mitigate impacts on land and the RiverJ it seems to be consistent to have a first phase project of a long- term plan that incorporates elements of a pilot LD option using the existing land together with a first increment of an SL Pajaro discharge plant. These can be phased together. If you choose pure SL or pure SO you are ruling out the other alterna- tives. That is not the case with these two. Cain stated that engineers feel more confident in predicting the results from an SL type plant, that is fully guided under their control compared to the LD system when one has to predict what is going on underneath the ground. Mayor Hughan requested more information on the alterna- tive that is the most fail-safeJ the least sensitive to human error. - ....",--. Mr. Cain stated that in the LD alternative all the water that gets discharged has to go through the land first. That introduces a fail-safe feature. However, one has to predict the behavior of the ground. It is possible to not get all the water into the ground risking a discharge over a dike prior to percolation. On the other hand, a different plant allows one to go into a redesign ...anything that doesn't work, but human error could be introduced. 5317 Councilmember Brown asked Mr. Cain if he would feel comfortable with directions that said to take the two alterna- tives, the SL and LD and to come back with plans implementing a mixture of these two. Mr. Cain responded that engineering wise he was comfort- able. Mr. Cain stated that from a CEQA point of view, it should be addressed to Linda Callon. - Ms. Callon stated that she needed to review the EIR on the various alternatives that you are speaking to to see if the combination would meet the analysis. It appears that the CEQA analysis could be met, because each alternative was studied in depth and the impact of these alternatives are known, and the cumulative impacts are known. She stated that she felt a combination of alternatives could be addressed and that we . would find that the environmental analysis had been complete in the EIR. .. Mr. Brown stated that he would like to request Staff to return back with comments on the combination of the two alter- natives. Councilmember Albert asked Mr. Cain if he would be coming back with a technical report. - Mr. Cain felt that the Councils should ask for a statement of findings. This should include a plan direction, that allows for the next phase, that is a relatively detailed pre-design of a first phase of a project for one or more projects which would be identified, designed and crystalized in sufficient detail to suport a direct application to the Regional Board for a discharge permit and to support steps for financing. Mr. Cain stated that the signal received from the Regional Board several years ago was that they were not going to consider incremental steps permits unless they knew the direction they were going. The permit would be for the first phase, the specific facilities and whatever increment of capacity requested, if any. This permit would probably include some nitrate protection for the groundwater and some element of discharge to the River. -- Councilmember Albert asked if this detailed design is equivalent to an expanded EIR or is an EIR to follow. Mr. Cain stated that legal counsel would determine the additional need for EIR reports. Councilmember Albert specifically asked if the additional EIR (if required) would address the cumulative impacts. Mr. Cain stated that the possible report would include cumulative impacts. ..... Mr. Palmerlee mentioned a letter from a person who inquired about the LD alternative, had it ever been used in a sewage treatment plant before? He stated that he was under the impression from the letter that it had not been used previously, but that it had been used agriculturally. This statement was confirmed as probably true by Mr. Cain. He is aware, however, of such a system permitted by the Regional Board. Mr. Palmerlee asked for clarification about population projections. Is a 14.9 million gallon plant really what we want to plan for 2008? PerhapsJ we want to scale down to reflect other figures presented tonight. - Mr. Cain stated that if we talk about selecting SO or L, you had better make up your mind now. If you select something like LD, SP or SL, it is not necessary to make up your mind now what your ultimate growth goal is, since those plants can be built incrementally. Councilmember Palmerlee questioned the first phase cost of a couple of the alternatives involving land purchased for that ultimate plant size. ~)31 8 Mr. Cain stated that some breakdown phasing in the financial discussion had taken place and that Phase I is now Phase l-AJ I-BJ and l-C, and that the land purchase was placed in I-C. Mr. Cain stated that the current plant is expected to be exhausted in the 1988 time frame, so there is a possibility that there will be a flat spot forced into the growth by the delay in the plant. That is already an adjustment in the population projection. In terms of designing the SL plant, to a certain extent the way you design the units is dependent on what ultimate flow you would pursue going through that plant. If it's 15 mgd the unit size would be different that if it is 12 mgd oor 20 mgd. Mayor Barke summarized that the Councilmembers were assessing the SL and the LD alternatives. Mayor Barke requested Linda Callon to address the amount of work and cost involved in preparing the findings. ... ",-.~.",. Ms. Callon stated that what is required in order for the Councils to approve the alternative that has been presented to you for the plan is that you make findings in regard to the CEQA requirements as to each significant effect that was brought out in the EIR and also a possible statement of over- riding considerations for the unmitigable effects. You are required to make findings regardless of which alternative you choose. Ms. Callon requested three weeks time to prepare the proper findings for the Councils. Findings will be supported by facts that have been brought before the Councils. As to cost, you have to make findings for any alternative you choose. Councilmember Brown required clarification as to the cost effectiveness for findings for two different alternatives. The concern was that the cost was going to double. Ms. Callon indicated that was a possibility. Mayor Barke required clarification on single alternative findings versus combination alternative findings. ...... Ms. Callon stated that findings would be required for combinations. Ms. Callon stated she was under the impression that the Councils wanted findings for the SL and LD and a com- bination of those alternatives. - Mayor Barke stated that the Councils would be requesting the three sets of findings if they are necessary. Mayor Hughan requested indication of interest in the straight LD. Perhaps SL and a combination of SL and LD is what. the findings should reflect. Councilmember Brown stated he was not interested in a straight LD. Ms. Callon stated that what is required of CEQA and what her office will provide are a summary of the facts before the Councils and findings for each alternative that you are considering and address each significant effect of that alter- native. Councilmember Foster stated the value of the findings in the final decision-making process. ...... Mayor Barke reiterated to Staff to return with findings for the LD, SL and combination. Mayor Barke set the next meeting for June 10 in Gilroy. """... The Mayor adjourned the meeting and continued the Public Hearing to June 10 in Gilroy. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Barbara Little City Clerk, City of Morgan Hill