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