Loading...
Minutes 1986/06/10 Roll Call Consent Calendar Cont.P .H. Long-term Wastewater Plan '-7r9 .) ,) L-' June 10, 1986 Special Joint Meeting of Gilroy/Morgan Hill City Councils GilroYJ California The Special Joint Gilroy/Morgan Hill City Council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Hughan in the Gilroy City Council Chambers, 7351 Rosanna Street, GilroYJ California at 7:10 p.m. Mayor Hughan led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Present: Gilroy Councilmembers: Sharon A. Albert, Donald F. Gage, Paul V. KloeckerJ Daniel D. Palmerlee, Pete Valdez, Jr. and Roberta H. Hughan; Absent: Councilmember: Larry Mussallem; Present: Morgan Hill Councilmembers: William H. Brown, Dean Flory, J. Robert Foster and Lorraine Barke; Absent: Councilmembers: Neil Heiman. Mayor Hughan requested action on the Consent Calendar. Motion was made by Councilman Gage seconded by Councilman Kloecker that the following item under the Consent Calendar be approved: Minutes of the Special Meeting of April 29J 1986. Councilman Brown noted a spelling correction of Mr. Defelt's name in the Minutes of the April 29J 1986 Special Meeting, on Page 3. Roll Call: Ayes: Gilroy Councilmembers: Albert, Gage, Kloecker, Palmerlee, Valdez, and Hughan; Absent: Mussallem. Roll Call: Ayes: Morgan Hill Councilmembers: Brown, Flory, Foster and Barke; Absent: Heiman. The Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of April 29, 1986 were approved by the above Roll Call vote as corrected. Mayor Hughan noted that this is the time and place sched- uled for the continued Public Hearing to consider the Adoption of a Long-Term Wastewater Plan for the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. Mayor Hughan and Mayor Barke announced the Councils would not make any final decisions at this meeting nor vote on an Alternative. They noted that they would like to have several more weeks to attempt to have further dialogue with the coastal cities and counties to perhaps come to some ~)330 " agreement or some way to do this that will be agreeable to all and any time in doing that has to be positive. Mayor Hughan noted the following correspondence received to be a part of the record: Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District; Councilwoman Ruth Vreeland, City of Monterey; Supervisor Susanne Wilson, South County Joint Planning Advisory Committee Chairperson; *",,"-. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency Resolution 86-4 Opposing Discharge of Effluent into the Pajaro River by the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. ..... Mayor Hughan also noted the following correspondence received too late to be agendized with copies forwarded to each Councilmember: ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments); Don Christopher, Chairman of the Santa Clara County Planning Commission; John D. & Bobbie HarmsJ 26500 Val Verde Drive, Carmel; Peter Giles; Earth Metrics Incorporated; and Newspaper Article from the Monterey Herald, dated June 7, 1986. Mayor Hughan noted that discussion on the Long-Term Wastewater Management plan Alternatives would continue, begin- ninwith discussion of the findings as prepared and asked Andy Faber, Attorney, to come forward at this time. Mr. Andy Faber, Attorney, addressed the Councils, noting that at the last hearing Staff was directed to prepare findings for three different Alternatives and combinations. The first was the SL Alternative, the second was the LD Alternative and the third was a combination of SL and LD. In consultation with the Gilroy and Morgan Hill Planning Staffs, Earth Metrics, Montgomery Engineers and his law firm of Berliner, Cohen & Biagini, draft findings were prepared for all of the previously stated three Alternatives. He noted that there are substantial similarities among the findings because many of the environ- mental effects and mitigations are in fact the same. He noted that Chris Cain (J. Montgomery Engineers) is available to explain the inter-relations of the SL and LD Alternatives and how the combination relates to these from a technical stand- point. He further noted that the Councils received today, a one page memorandum, dated June 10J 1986, listing a few corrections to the proposed findings of things that have just been omitted or typographical errors. He noted for the record that there is an additional correction received courtesy of Morgan Hill's new CouncilwomanJ Linda English who apparently read the findings very carefully: in the SL finding on Page 16J change the reference in line 9 from "M" to "L". He further noted that before Councils are three sets of proposed findings, any of which they believe would be adequate in terms of legally constituting the findings that must be made. Each set of findings is in a resolution form because CEQA requires that findings be made by a specific type of resolution. In addition there is a separate resolution adopting each proposed alterna- tive. He noted that if Councils were to decide to adopt a specific Alternative, from a legal standpoint they should adopt both resolutions of finding, including any corrections or additions or changes that Councils may make as well as the resolution that formally adopts that Alternative. - "lO'o;."...... ........ (Councilman Mussallem entered at 7:17 p.m. and took his seat at the Council table.) 5331 Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions of Mr. Faber. There was no comment. - Mr. Christopher B. CainJ Consultant with James Montgomery Engineers, addressed the Councils, and presented a re-work of a previous presentation that he made to describe the Alterna- tives. He noted that with the direction to prepare findings they essentially focused in on two Alternatives and a combina- tion of those two. He noted that what he intends to do is explicate those this evening. He noted that the Management Plan Alternatives that are currently being considered are the SL, the LD and a combination of the two. SL stands for surface discharge to the pajaro in winter, Land Discharge in summer. LD stands for land disposal with drains (installation of under drains under the land disposal area with discharge of the drainage to the Pajaro River). The SL-LD Alternative is a combination where part or all the flow is treated as in SL and part of or all is treated as in LD. He noted~that he would later explain why these two Alternatives apparently work well in concert; essentially it's because they both include land disposal in summer-type conditions with a highly treated discharge to the River in winter (wet weather) conditions. He presented and explained a diagram for the SL Alternative as follows: There is a primary and secondary and tertiary treatment plant. The primary section is standard. Looking for not only biological oxidation, that is secondary treatment. Also looking for biological denitrification to first convert ammonia to nitrate and then to remove the nitrate by converting it to nitrogen gas. And in addition look for some biological phosphorus removal. Follow on with a filtration/disinfection plant which also includes chemical addition coagulation for additional phosphorus removal. We have a secondary plant with filtration/disinfection and nutrient removal, to produce water that can go to the Pajaro River and avoid impacts on the BODs in the river. At the same time we are producing a water that can be put on the Perc Ponds. The standards that we are applying in general for percolation are the basin plan stand- ards, which basically call for primary treatment plus in this area we are looking for nitrogen removal; therefore we have to go through the whole treatment process to get that nitrogen removal to protect the groundwater from the point of view of "drinking water". He noted that the nitrogen levels that we look for to go to the river are in general below 5 milligrams per liter. The nitrogen levels that are looked for to go to a percolation pond are in the neighborhood of 10 milligrams per liter, which is the drinking water standards. We would expect more treatment in the land treatment and therefore aim to have groundwater at or below the groundwater standard of 5 milligram per liter (nitrogen). p..;~ - .... Mr. Cain presented and explained a diagram for the LD Alternative as follows: He noted there is a biological denitri- fication system. The diagram looks a little different, but basically it is the same kind of process. There are adjust- ments to be made to facililtate high efficiency vs. normal efficiency; that is: 70-75% nitrogen or vs. 90-95%, in general we're looking at a biological process going to Perc Ponds and in the South Santa Clara County Valley we have high groundwater problems, we would install underdrains to relower or to control the groundwater levels to prevent the Plant from raising them from their current levels, pump the underdrainage out through an iron removal sedimentation process to the Pajaro River. He explained a diagram of the two Alternatives together, noting that this can either be looked at as a diagram of SL & LD or it can be the combination Alternative. What he shows in red is the disposal in summer and in both cases the water is treated in Primary, Secondary and Denitrification disposed of in perco- lation ponds with percolate going to the perched groundwater at the southern end of the valley, so that both SL and LD have essentially the same summertime treatment and disposal mech- anism. In the winter it's shown in the blue arrows, the blue letter designations, the flow would either be 'split or we would decide which way we wanted it to go. With the SL Alternative it goes through the tertiary coagulation, filtration and disinfection processes to meet BOD suspended solids, coliform ,...... 5332 and nitrogen and phosphorus limits before going to the river. In contrast the LD water would go to percolation ponds just as in the summertime. However, in the wintertime the drains would be operated, the iron removal system would be operated and the water would go to the Pajaro. In the case of this system the standards at this point would be the same. We would be look- ing, for exampleJ for similar coliform removal. We expect to have very very efficient coliform removals through the filtra- tion process without having to go through disinfection. If however, disinfection is necessary it's going to be relatively low dosage disinfection and it doesn't change the cost picture of the treatment very much. The point is, whatever is neces- sary to meet the Rec I Standards of Pajaro River, would be met with either of these alternatives. Not only does the drain pump wastewater that is percolated in the ground, it also pumps the groundwater that's flowing up due to the surrounding groundwater table. So this water flow is a larger volume flow than that one, due to the additional groundwater that's in there. That serves to both increase the volume, that increases the volume impact on the river and it dilutes the water which decreases the water quality impact. He explained two tables: One tabulates the disposal and the other tabulates the treat- ment for purposes of comparison of the Alternatives. The three Alternates that we'd be looking at: SL, LD and the combina- tion. If we were to be describing the combination, what he would say is part of the flow goes this way and part of it goes this way. In the spring and fall you have a preponderance of usage of LD. As the groundwater came up and this pumping rate began to really increase and as the river dilutional flow came up, then the preponderance of usage would go the tertiary route. But it's quite likely that the system would be built, construction of both of these facilities and use of both of the facilities, depending on the weather, groundwater level, and conditions in the river. With the SL Alternative it goes to the land in the summer; to the Pajaro in the winter and in the fall and spring we're balancing between the land and the river, depending on whether it's a dry spring or a dry fall, what- ever. Again, depending on weather and land conditions. In the spring and fall, it's likely that if we have a low groundwater dry period, then it goes to the land; if it's a high ground- water dry period, then the water would go to the river. If it's a high groundwater wet period, with a high river flow, then the water would definitely go to the river. In the case of LD the summer disposal is to the land; winter is by drainage pumpage to the Pajaro and in the spring and fall the ground- water table would be controlled by the drainage pumping. So that we'd be looking at using the drainage for disposal in spring and fall. In the combination we would have a prepond- erance of land in the summer, preponderance of direct discharge to the Pajaro in the winter, during high flow periods and then the LD drainage would tend to be used most in those periods of low rain fall/high groundwater than we would experience in the spring and fall. Mayor Hughan inquired whether in the combination of the two AlternativesJ there be a duplication of facilities so much that it's too costly. Mr. Cain stated that the presumption is that you would not build 100% of the SL capacity here and 100% of the LD capacity here (indicating on the diagrams); you would build 50- 50. In fact this is a phased project. We would build a first phase that was part of the ultimate capacity here and part of the ultimate capacity here. In fact the combination of those two part capacities would probably not in the first phase situation, even amount to a total of a full capacity. We are 6.1 mgd now. The first phase would be aiming at a number between 8 and 10 mgd., perhaps, with some of that capacity provided by means of the tertiary plant and some of it provided by means of the underdrainage. We are also going to be con- verting from the present system which involves primary treat- ment and percolation year round to a system that is primary/ secondary in denitrification for the same percolation life. So we are upgrading the treatment going to that land. That up- grading can be phased. You would not build a 15 mgd line there - ... ..... - ...... It,;.,. 5333 - and a 15 here; you'd build a 7 and a 7; or a 3 and 12, whatever it is. What he is referring to there for example is if you say you are going to do a 15 mgd SL system, totally Sl, then you need a 37 mgd tertiary plant and it doesn't run in the summer- time so it never actually runs at 15 mgd. Whereas a normal plant would be designed for an average dry weather flow of 15 mgd in the summerJ would run at 15 in the winter, would run at winter flow. This one's going to be designed nominally for an average dry weather flow capacity, but it's going to be de- signed to run under only wet weather conditions. So it will see higher flow. For examples in order to be a "4 mgd plant" you'll have to have a 10 mgd unit here. And that 10 will run in the wet weather and this 10 mgd unit will run in the dry weather. So ultimately you would look at a system that in order to handle an 8 mgd dry weather flow, you'd have an 8 mgd plant hereJ and a 4 mgd plantJ 4 mgd capacity down here, some- thing like that. ..... Mr. Cain further noted that the actual flow capacities of the units in the first phase cannot be defined without further study. As with all the 5 Alternatives there were things that had to be defined for further study that the Engineers did not feel that the City should spend money defining until they de- cided that this was the direction they wanted to go. It won't change the environmental impacts. What we're looking at is saying that we are going to have between 323 and 600 acres of perc land depending upon which alternative you have. You're going to have a system here that has up to 37 mgd flowJ etc.And we've looked at the EIR to see whether any of the mitigation measures that were impacts would change depending upon the mix between these two Alternatives and subject to Council looking at the findingsJ you can see that the conclusions drawn in the EIR would not change if you combine the two Alternatives together. ~ Mr. Cain noted that in terms of treatment, Primary, Secondary and Tertiary, a more descriptive way of defining these treatments is to look exactly at the materials that are being removed and the removal rates that are being applied to them. For SL in the winter time you are looking at an effi- cient removal of nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, BOD - that is, biochemical oxygen demands, suspended solids and a high degree of disinfection. The BOD suspended solids and disinfec- tion level of removal is comparable to a Title 22 reclamation pond. In the addition, the nutrient removal is to protect the river against algae growth. In the summertime the same treat- ment facilities would be readjusted to achieve, to stop the process of removing phosphorus since the land absorbs that and since we're not concerned about it in the groundwater. It would back off on the removal of nitrogen to a level appropri- ate for groundwater discharge and it would continue BOD sus- pended removal and put the water to land treatment. And the land treatment in itself would achieve additional nitrogen removal, it would achieve phosphorus removal, it would achieve bacteria virus removal, coliform removal and clarification, the same as the effects of a filtration and disinfection process. .... Mr. Cain further noted in the case of LD, the treatment plant is exactly the same. The goals of the treatment plant is exactly the same as the goals of the SL plant in the summer- time. The secondary treatment plus nitrogen removal and in this case when we repump the groundwater we expect to have high iron. And we expect to have to run to a clarification process to remove that. That is, aeration to oxidize the iron and then settle it. Finally under SL and LD there will'be elements of both. In the summertime we would be again running the 75% removal process and in the wintertime for any water that went to the river we would be meeting the limits corresponding to this level of treatment. - He further noted two additional charts showing physical details. Both the LD and the SL Alternative require discharge to the Pajaro River. Both of these Alternatives require about a 2.5 mile pipeline and indicated same on a diagram. He noted the current treatment plant alongside Llagas Creek and the ~?):;t1 ,..' ,--. '- r projected alignment for that pipeline would be along the creek either in the dike of the creek or inboard of the dike of the creek. A point of comparison of the two Alternatives: both the Alternatives require this pipeline to get down to the point where optimal dilution waters is available in the Pajaro River. He noted from a land disposal site point of view, this map shows a number of disposal sites that were considered, evaluated, rated and then given a priority for selection. We can't do a final selection until we get into discussions with landowners, etc. and again that isn't appropriate unless the Cities are headed for that particular Alternative. But for both of these Alternatives we would be looking at sites 12J 19, 11 and 14, and indicates on the diagram the location of the current treatment plant. He noted that what they are doing is looking at other sites down and along the northwest side of the Pajaro River. Councilwoman Albert inquired whether saying SL & LD are comparable to the SL in the winter means that it is not the same Mr. Cain noted that "yes" it means that it is not the same. It means that it is comparable. He further noted that what they are doing is comparing these two lines. We're saying that in one case it's gone through a technological treatment plant, above ground, in tank, the chemical additions and mani- pulations to meet such-in-such nitrogenJ such-in-such a phos- phorus, coliformJ etc. limit. In the other case it's gone through this treatment, then through the land, and through the land treatment essentially, then through an iron removal step and then at this point it's sampled to make sure that it is meeting the same nitrogen, phosphorusJ BOD suspended solids limits. So it doesn't receive the same denitrification treat- ment, the same process but you have to strive for the same limits. If the limits to the Pajaro River is for example 3 miligram per liter nitrate, both these streams would have to meet the same limits. Getting there by a different route. Councilman Flory asked about land disposal: after a period of time, you'd have the effluent going through the land, and going through the land, does that filter not break down after a while? It would seem to him that you do not have as much control on that kind of filtration. Mr. Cain answered, depending on what you are filtering out. If you're filtering out things like bacteria and viruses, what you're doing is catching those organisms in what is either an unfriendly environment or what is a friendly environment. If it's an unfriendly environment, those organisms die out in the soil, so that essentially the filter regenerates itself. If it's a friendly environment, they are the same bacteria that are in the soil already, they tend to stay in the upper soil layers. The fact that they don't show up in natural ground- water is indicative of the fact that they don't tend to migrate down, they tend to stay where they can get at organics, air from above and would stay in biologically active on the soil layer. For suspended solids, from the filtration point of view, what we are doing is filtering out dirt with dirt supported by sand. The more dirt we put on tOPt the more we build up our filter. The particles we're putting in there, biodegrade to a certain extent and then simply become indis- tinguishable from the soils. The effect is similar to using sludge as a soil amendment to add to the humid material in the earth, into the soil. To prove its value to crop land, it continues to function as a filter. It would be like filtering out sand with a sand pile. The sand pile would just keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger. For phosphorus and heavy metals and certain other irons etc. in the soil, there is a capacity, there is an exchange capacity in the soilJ whereby you can exceed that capacity if you put too much material there. Therefore certain metals would be monitored to make sure we were staying well below the capacity of the soil. We are looking at a clay type soil. That's goodJ it has a very high exchange capacity; it holds onto a lot of things. Ulti- - .. ..... - ...... ,i;IH. 5335 - mately 20-30-40 years down the line, you would expect theo- retical failure of the land disposal system. He noted that he did not know of any documented cases where anyone has pushed the system out that far. In the case of phosphorus we have run experiments to find out that if you push it hard enough, you can push the phosphorus through the soil, with a heavy loader, assuming that you don't have any plant up-date for other mech- anisms going on. However we are looking at a situation for phosphorus is not of great concern from a groundwater point of view. We don't have any drinking water or groundwater problems associated with it. Yet it's probably the most significant impact. In this case it would be due to this effect that he shows at the bottom of the diagram. The perched groundwaterin the south part of the Valley exchanges with the River. During high groundwater conditions it flows into the River and during low groundwater conditions it flows back; therefore phosphor- ous, nitrogen in the groundwater they tend to flow into the River. And if you have a 2 milligram per liter phosphorus in the groundwater and algae in the river you would get algae in the river due to that groundwater. That may be well what's happening coming through South Valley - San Martin/Gilroy, nitrogen in the groundwater reaches out in the Llagas Creek at a level high enough to support algae in the river. ..... Mayor Barke asked Mr. Cain if he would actual diagrams available for the Councils. that he would reduce the diagrams for copies Councils. have copies of the Mr. Cain noted of same for the Councilman Palmerlee asked Mr. Cain in the impacts for the SL Alternative, the one that was different from the LD was that additional percolation pond wastewater recharged to the upper semiperched aquifer would result in potentially signifi- cant oversaturation resulting in the elevated groundwater levels of potential agricultural impacts and spillage to the north to the deeper aquifer. That's SL. Now would the combi- nation Alternative eliminate that impact? .... Mr. Cain stated that the proposed mitigation for that impact for Alternate SL incorporates part or all of LD, so in effect the mitigation for SL incorporates LD to mitigate that effect; that is, SL with drains were necessary to prevent that effect on the land chosen. To an engineer that's practically the same as saying SL for part of the flow and LD on land where it's appropriate to run LD. As far as he is concerned, the first phase of a project with either of those descriptions would be practically the same. Mayor Hughan stated that it is appropriate at this time to ask Mr. Cain any questions in the findings that have to do with his work, that anyone has. She asked if anyone had any questions of Mr. Cain. Councilwoman Albert referred to the proposed LD Findings, on Page 17 it speaks about the uncertainty of the landfill availability and capacity and she wanted to know when this would be resolved. We have the solid waste that we would have to deal with and asked when we would resolve that. ~ Mr. Cain noted that the question of sludge removal in general for any of the five alternatives or the no project alternative would be resolved as South Santa Clara County goes along. It's not something that gets resolved in order to decide which of these alternatives to do. It's something that has to be resolved over a long period of time. That is, say we decided not to have a management plan; we decided to freeze Gilroy and Morgan Hill at 6 mgd, then you'd have package plants, they would generate sludge, you'd have to figure out where to put that sludge. Say we opted for the Ocean Outfall, whichever one of the Alternatives we went to, it produces sludge. It produces approximately the same amount of sludge. It will produce more sludge as we go along and we, that is the whole community here, needs a way to handle that sludge. Currently we have ways. It is all being managed one place or the other. Many of the places it is being managed have limited lifetimes. As those lifetimes are reached, other alternatives - 5336 will have to be selected. He noted that this is a vague answer, but right now from an engineering point of view if he looks around and an operator is accepting sludge into a certain kind of landfill and it's a currently valid operationJ that is the selected way of handling sludge this year. If next year the regulatory climate changes, that will no longer be the selected option. He noted that he can't say that we can go out and pick a best option right now that's going to last for twenty years. Councilwoman Albert noted that this was one of the concerns of the groups that corresponded to the Cities and to her before you go out and enlarge something that produces this sludge, wouldn't it seem that you'd have to have a contract guaranteeing that the sludge is going somewhere? - - Mr. Cain commented that very few other people have those contracts and the validity of the contract might be question- able if you did try and sign it. He noted that he read a recent EIR on a package plant that simply said we're going to ship the sludge to the Gilroy/Morgan Hill Plant, the current Gilroy/Morgan Hill Plant. You're not looking at a difference between the Alternatives. He noted that it would be favorable to sign a 20 year agreement to get rid of sludge right now. It is needed for the present facility. Everyone needs it. If you decided to wait for that agreement before planning for waste- water management, you would be deciding not to do something positive to solve problem A, because you haven't figured out to solve problem B; both of which you have to solve eventually. And the problem A doesn't go away while you're waiting for problem B. Councilwoman Albert noted that it seems to her that that's just part of what you do as you are solving the problem. Mr. Cain noted that putting it another way, perhaps we should revise the General Plans of the County, two Cities and all the other entities in Monterey County, Santa Cruz County, Santa Clara County and San Benito County to limit any growth until all of them hae 20 year sludge plans. He noted that is a point of view that could be put forward and asked Councilwoman Albert if that is what she is suggesting. ...... - Councilwoman Albert replied that is not the answer that she is looking for. She noted that she is trying to point out how you're going to deal with this and is getting a vague answer. Mr. Cain noted that she is getting a vague answer because we're going to work on it year by year. We're going to find a place, as every plant does around California right now, you look for a place to put your sludge every year. You sign a 20 year contract; that doesn't take care of it. Maybe it takes care of it for 20 years if things work out, but even then you eventually reach the end of 20 years and you have to go on from there. Councilman Flory noted that the JPA currently is working on a sludge plan and working with the Regional Water Quality Board to try to resolve or at least try to handle the sludge we have right now. He noted that it's been a very active program that we've had for sometime and recently within the last six months have submitted proposals to work out the sludge problems that we have. He noted that it's not something that they are just working on right now, reviewing these Alternatives. - ..,iJU. Councilman Foster asked a parallel question to that, he believes it was the Sierra Club Manazine, about two months ago they had an analysis of the type of plants you choose depending on the sludge and the disposal of it. And he noted they used the example of the northeastern United States where they're using land disposl methods using biodegradable systems without using chemicals to reach a high quality water, especially using the grassesJ as opposed to Washington, DC's plant where they went with a high chemical analysis and therefore have a toxic .5337 sludge. The difference between the two plants is that the one in the northeastern United States is able to use this sludge in farming. Washington, DC now has its sludge backed up in special storage and is presenting a serious economic problem to them because it's toxic and the federal government will not approve its use in farming. So he believes the sludge problem is a very valid question as we choose the Alternative and believes that it does need to be addressed. .. Mr. Cain requested to address differences in the sludge. He noted that you have the same biological system here. He noted that all these systems generate the same amount of sludge. So the sludge coming out of here is the same whichever way you go. He noted that there is a possibility that sludges can be developed here. In general, the design that we have currently for this unit involves alum addition ahead of filtra- tion and it has a very low quantity of a light sludge. It's not a toxic sludge. It is however a sludge that's difficult to dewater. It will at the present time fall afoul of regula- tions. It will be a designated waste, he expects. And we will have to negotiate with people to figure out where it goes. And that negotiation gets weighed in with the benefit that you are yielding by putting the alum in, combining it with the phos- phorus, nutrients that you don't want in the river, take that material and move it to someplace else. In terms of, if you look at the EIR, the quantities of sludge on this process are very much less than the quantities here. This is where the tonnage is degenerate. He noted that Councils have a choice between, 90% sludge here and 10% here, or 100% here. He notes that it is a biological sludge. It's suitable for agri- culture application providing that we maintain a tight pre- treatment system. It will require dewatering, depending on the restrictions on the land disposal site, for landfill. It will give us the opportunity to do anerobic digestion for energy recoverYJ if the economics of that worked out. It would give us the opportunity to do co-disposal in a municipal landfill. It would give us also the opportunity to use these percolation ponds, because they are possible sludge disposal areas. They meet many of the same criteria, that is we carefully monitor the groundwater under site, where in some cases, we are trying to grow crops on the field. He noted that Councilman Flory hit the nail on the head to say that the problem must be solved, but to try to solve it for all times before addressing a major planning problem doesn't seem to him to be reasonable. - - Mayor Barke asked in the last five years, how much sludge have we had to dispose of? Mr. Cain noted in the last five years we've been building it up in the bottom of the primary lagoon. Mayor Barke asked what the quantity is. Mr. Cain noted that we have been distributing it over the percolation fields in the form of suspended solids. So in terms of quantity he noted that he can't remember the figures at this moment in terms of poundages or whatever. He noted that it might be something like two tons per year. .~ Mayor Hughan asked if there were other questions of Mr. Cain. There was no comment from anyone. Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions of Mr. Faber, on findings, any legal questions at this time or questions of how it has been prepared, even though Councils are not going to act upon them this evening? .... Mr. Cain noted a correction, he is sure that the sludge is a lot more than two tons a year. It's more like a ton or two a day; dry, something like that. So several hundred tons a year. Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions of Mr. Faber at this time. There was no comment from anyone. ,5338 Mayor Hughan opened the continued Public Hearing and invited the public to come forward and speak. She requested that there be no repetition in testimony, but invited anyone who had something new to add. Mr. Walter WongJ Director of Environmental Health for Monterey County, addressed the Counciland gave the following testimony: I am Walter Wong, Director of Environmental Health for Monterey County. After review of your Final Environmental Impact Report for Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, all testimony of public hearings conducted by the Gilroy/Morgan Hill Joint Powers Agency, and Resolution of the City Councils of Gilroy and Morgan Hill making certain findings required by California Environmental Quality Act in connection with a project consisting of adopting a Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan for the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, find that alternatives SL, LD, and SL-LD will cause severe environmental damage that can result in danger to public healthJ loss of water supply, loss of recreational waters, fish, shellfishJ marine life, agricultural production, and economic stability to the Monterey County. These severe environmental damages have not been addressed or inadequately mitigated by the EIR and findings. 1. The EIR page 3.3-2.5 states that wastewater discharge into Pajaro River results in discharge of pollutants into Monterey Bay. Yet all discussions on alternative LD, SL, and Sl-LD fails to make findings on the short-term and long-term cumula- tive impact on Monterey Bay. It also fails to show what the requirements are and that there will be compliance with Mon- terey County's Coastal Plan and General Plan ocean discharge requirements and the other regulatory agencies having juris- diction. ... ...... 2. The Pajaro River discharge alternatives fail to recognize that Pajaro River is used for human body contact sports such as swimming and wading, drinking water supply, and fishing. Dis- charge that causes contamination is a violation of the Calif or- __ nia Health and Safety Code. 3. The EIR and the Council Findings fail to recognize that alternatives SL, LD, and SL-LD which discharge into Pajaro River are groundwater recharge projects and must comply with the requirements of the State Department of Health Services and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements for this type of project and not just surface discharge requirements. 4. The EIR page 3.2-12 states that the Pajaro River corridor inland to the Pajaro Gap, overlies the Pajaro Valley Ground- water Basin. Groundwater of the Pajaro Valley Groundwater Basin occurs in three distinct zones -- the shallow, inter- mediate and deep zones, which merge into a forebay east and north of the City of Watsonville. This forebay area serves as the principal source of replenishment to the intermediate and deep zones. The Pajaro River and its tributaries recharge approximately 20% of the Pajaro Valley's aquifer. The City of Watsonville and the community of Pajaro in Monterey County obtain over two-thirds of their current water needs from groundwater aquifers (EIR page 3.2-17). 5. Stated on page 2.4-12 of the EIR, the advanced secondary level of treatment of SL and discharge into the groundwater recharge area of Pajaro River is equivalent to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District's Whittier Narrow Groundwater re- charge project. Based on a discussion with this district on June 6, 1986, their project differs from Gilroy/Morgan Hill's project in that almost all industrial dischargeJ including the pretreatment discharge, rediverted away from the sewage treat- ment plant. Yet they have found approximately 25 to 30 trace organic compounds present in their sewage. The Whittier Narrow project also discharges into a river. 6. The Gilroy/Morgan Hill groundwater recharge project must be required to meet the same requirement of the Los Angeles County - ........ ,,.......,,iIjI: 5339 Sanitation District in order to protect the people of Pajaro Valley and.City of Watsonville. Therefore, a Health Effects Study must be performed for this area. The Los Angeles County Sanitation District study was a 5 year, three (3) million dollar study. 7. Along with the Health Effects study, the State Department of Health Services should convene the Health Effects Advisory Committee on Wastewater Reclamation to evaluate the Gilroy/ Morgan Hill study and to make recommendations to the State Water Resource Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. - ... This committee continues to have concerns on the potential accumulation of identifiable and unidentifiable trace organic compounds in aquifers serving as drinking water resources for humans. They found that: 1) Percolation does provide an added degree of purification, but some important purifying forces are absent in groundwater. 2) The use of treated effluent for percolation into an aquifer will increase the concentration of trace organics which have unknown health impacts. 3) There is no water quality risk assessment for many of these chemicals in the EIR or findings. 4) Groundwater contamination in general is an irreversible process. 5) There is inadequate risk assessment for Monterey Bay in the EIR and no findings. 8. The alternative LD consisting of advance primary treatment ponds and through dewatering wells and underdrains discharged into the groundwater recharge area of Pajaro River as identi- fied on page 2.4-17 of the EIR is unacceptable. - 9. The level of treatment is not acceptable for river dis- charge nor groundwater recharge. Soil cannot be relied upon as a treatment process because of the findings by the Health Effects Committee and the fact that soil filtration is not available because of the high water table. On page 3.2-9 of EIR the depth to shallow groundwater at the treatment plant and disposal ponds ranged from 2.9 to 14.8 feet, depending upon rainfall. The groundwater depth for land disposal sites 11, 12, 14 and 19 are periodically high, from 2.5 feet to 6 feet from the surface. These sites also recharge the upper semi- perched groundwater (pages 3.2-10 to 3.2-11 of EIR). - 10. The wastewater from the dewatering wells and underdrains .will be mixed with perched water at a ratio of 25% to 75%. This perched water can have serious water quality problems upon the Pajaro River, Monterey Bay and the Pajaro River Groundwater Recharge Area. On page 3.2-13 of the EIRJ the upper semi- perched groundwater bodies in South Santa Clara County are not considered by the SCVWD as usable or potable groundwater supply because of recharge by agricultural return water and percola- ting effluent. Agricultural return water can contain toxic chemicals such as pesticides, herbicidesJ weedicides, as well as nitrates, phosphates and other chemicals. The EIR and Findings fail to provide information or analysis of this perched dilution water and effects on the Pajaro River ground- water and Monterey Bay. -~ On reference of statements made at the last meeting on the water quality of the Pajaro River, have researched the State Resource Control Board's documents, the U.S. Geological Service documents, State Department of Health,' Monterey County Flood Control District and his departments, and in general there is no nitrate contamination in the wells, except for one in the Pajaro River area. In general, in terms of pesticides based upon 1984 State Water Resource Control Board Report of 5340 pesticide findingsJ pesticide level on Pajaro River is zero, extremely low. In terms of other chemicals, inorganics, the Pajaro River, other chemicals, meet all drinking water stand- ards. So the statement that the Pajaro River is not clean, that whatever is discharged improves it, may be misleading. If you are using only biological comparisons such as coliform bacteria and oxygen and setable solids, this may be true, but if you look at more sophisticated comparisons such as trace organics and others, this is not true. So in conclusion, Based upon the above findings, we ask Gilroy/Morgan Hill not to attempt solving your sewage problem through discharge into Pajaro River and Monterey Bay, but to reevaluate your general planJ ABAG, State Department of Housing and Community Development goals. The Consulting Engineers project report must be extensively revised and the EIR extensively supple- mented. - iit~,). Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions of Mr. Wong. There was no comment. Mr. Bob Kraemer, Gilroy Foods, Inc., addressed the Council noting that he has two items to present. 1. Represents Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group and noted their letter previously distributed to Councils. The Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group supports the efforts underway to resolve the sewage treatment and effluent disposal problem being faced jointly by the communities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. The current options being considered have resulted from a thorough investigation and have been well thought out. This is a precedent setting approach of inter- community cooperation to plan for the inevitable future growth of South Santa Clara County in an orderly, environmentally sound and coordinated way. Sincerely, signed Peter B. Giles, President. 2. Gilroy Foods, Inc. re: Position of Gilroy Foods, Inc. on the Sewage Treatment Facility. .. Gilroy Foods, Inc. continues to support a timely final solution to the sewage treatment problem facing the communities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. ..... This solution should support planned, environmentally sound growth that will allow South Santa Clara County to thrive to the benefit of the communities and industry alike. Industries are an important part of the community. provide jobs, infrastructure to the community and a tax A no growth policy is not an acceptable solution as any community looks to the future. They base. Industries like Gilroy Foods look to future growth, expansion and new jobs. It's vital that the City Councils and City Administration take action to support its citizens and its industries as we look ahead to the next 10-20 years. SincerelYJ George E. Clausen, Gilroy Foods. Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions of Mr. Kraemer. There was no comment. Mayor Hughan requested Mr. Kraemer to also thank Peter Giles. Mayor Hughan asked if there was anyone further in the audience wishing to speak. ........ t;.,.".4 Ruth Vreeland, Board of Directors, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments and Councilmember, City of Monterey, addressed the Council and gave the following testimony: I would like to take this opportunity to express the concern of the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) regarding alternatives under consideration for meeting your cities' long-range wastewater treatment needs. 1 5341 We support your decision to eliminate direct ocean dis- charge to Monterey Bay as an alternative, and we urge you to also eliminate those alternatives which propose indirect discharges of effluent into the Monterey Bay to the Pajaro River. The Pajaro River is an important habitat for steelhead, a source of groundwater recharget and a potential conduit for San Felipe Water Project. - Protection of water supplies and water quality in the Pajaro Valley has been a major concern of AMBAG. Studies recently undertaken by AMBAG include the Pajaro Basin Ground- water Management Study and the Steelhead Habitat Management Plan completed in 1984 and 1985, respectively. .... The waterways of the pajaro River provides habitat for game and nongame fish species and a variety of mammals, reptiles, amphibians and birds, including migratory waterfowl. Discharge of effluent into the river under typical conditions could jeopardize the steelhead population which is affected by sedimentation and fluctuations in stream flow and temperature. Accidental discharge of untreated wastes could be devastating to the entire habitat and its population. The Pajaro River is a source for both surface and ground- water supplies. Additionally, it is a potential conduit for San Felipe Water Project if the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency decides to import water. Protection of the water quality of the Pajaro River is vital to maintaining the social and economic well being of the Valley. It must not be jeopar- dized by accidental releases or toxic pollutants from a waste- water treatment facility. .."ll!II The Regional Water Quality Control Board discourages instream discharges and will only sanction this approach if no alternatives exist. Land disposal alternatives including reclamation and irrigation of freeways and recreation areas should be the focus of a future study. Such an approach would prevent the transport of a problem from one region to another region, while meeting Basin Plan objectives. - Finally, we find the final EIR and the proposed findings to be inadequate. In particular, the growth inducing impact of the project on air quality and traffic within the AMBAG region has either not been addressed or given cursory review. The final EIR does not address an environmentally superior alterna- tive nor does it begin to meet the minimum CEQA requirements for a cumulative impact analysis of the disposal of effluent to the Pajaro River and indirectly to the Monterey Bay. Lacking a sound basis, the findings are inherently inadequate and are misleading in terms of the real impacts of the proposed project. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present AMBAG's position. Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions of Councilwoman Vreeland. There was no comment from anyone. - Mr. Gary Patton, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Santa Cruz county addressed the Councils, noting that he is also appearing on behalf of the City of Santa Cruz which was unable to send a representative at this meeting and gave the following testimony submitted in letter form: Mayors and Councilmembers: The City of Santa Cruz continues to object to Gilroy's and Morgan Hill's efforts to dump their wastes into Santa Cruz County's Pajaro River and Monterey Bay. Your new approach of discharging effluent into the Pajaro River is as unacceptable as direct ocean discharge. - The consequences of this proposal have been insuffi- ciently studied. As we understand it, the effluent is not treated to tertiary standards as commonly understood. The water to dilute the effluent itself contains agricultural contaminants. You propose to discharge both industrial and domestic waste. The industrial component contributes a variety of chemicals which treatment apparently will not remove. Your 5342 discharge to the Pajaro will therefore adversely affect aqui- fers used by downstream users. To say that once your effluent is in somebody elses jurisdiction you have no further respon- sibility is insufficient. Many of your mitigation proposals turn on technical solutions which are obviously subject to human and technical error. Your analysis should take into account a system operating at less than 100% optimum efficiency. Many of your mitigations are studies that you will do after the project is underway. Uncertainties with respect to groundwater quality, impact on fish habitat, amount of discharge and impact on stream channel, effectiveness of removing chemicals, levels of toxicity and the like should be studied before a commitment to a project is made. The rationale for this wastewater facility is to accommo- date future growth. Future growth accommodated by this propos- al at the cost of deterioration of water quality and other environmental factors in Santa Cruz County and Monterey Bay is not acceptable to the City of Santa Cruz. Signed: Sincerely, Michael Rotkin, Mayor. Mr. Patton noted that the County of Santa Cruz concurs with the thoughts of the City as presented to Councils in this letter by Mayor Rotkin of the City of Santa Cruz. He noted that he understands that the Councils are not planning to make a final decision this evening, on a particular project choice and the County is happy and he believes many of the people from over the hill are happy that Councils are going to take some time to reflect on what the proper course of action is. And he noted that they hope Councils will listen to the voices of con- cern that have been raised from their part of the world. He noted that he is personally pleased that Councils have decided not to pursue the direct discharge into Monterey Bay alterna- tives; the pipeline to the Bay alternatives. But he believes that it is important that they must still object to a discharge into the River that flows into the Bay and that particularly threatens groundwater quality in Santa Cruz County. He noted that in many ways the proposals that are being discussed this evening are more dangerous to the long-term health and vitality of their economy and their environment than are the direct dis- charge alternatives into Monterey Bay. What they are concerned about most of all, very frankly, is the long-term pollution of the groundwater supplies in their County by toxic and hazardous materials. He noted that as you know, Santa Clara County im- ports water and now wishes to export sewage. They don't have that luxury. They are living within the limits of what nature has provided for them in Santa Cruz County and believes that it is generally true elsewhere as well as around the Monterey Bay. He noted that they are not in a position to be able to import substitute water supplies and the entire South County civili- zation in their county is supported by the groundwater aquifer which is directly fed by the Pajaro River. He noted now, as you know, the very industries which would grow and prosper in your part of the world, if this proposal goes forward are industries which use and discharge to the air, to the land and to the water, toxic materials which are hazardous to human beings in extremely minute quantities. He noted that they have read the newspapers and have read the State reports and they know that Santa Clara County, particularly the northern part of Santa Clara County, is in effect, if not already polluted beyond recall, or very shortly to be polluted beyond any hopes of having a clean and potable water supply for human beings because of toxic chemical pollution. He stated that what you do in your valley is your choice. He stated that he would point out that as he looks at this lovely picture on the wall of Las Animas Technology Park, surrounded by acres and thou- sands of acres of prime farm land, it is not true that it is inevitable that all of those farm land acres be transformed into parking lots and industrial buildings. He noted that this is a choice that human beings here will make and of course the cecisions that you're making on this sewage project are in- timately and directly tied to that choice. He noted that he was very interested in the picture of Las Animas Technology - - .. .AiiIt ...... """"....)jJj 5343 ... Park because he reads The San Jose Business Journal to keep up with what's hapening in business and development over on this side of the hill, and they quoted the site of the Las Animas Park is a real harbinger of the good things that were coming to Morgan Hill and Gilroy and sort of a wave of the future. And a real asset to the valley. And beauty of course, is in the eye of the beholder. As he lookd at this picture, he thought maybe it would be good, since to use another phrase, a picture is worth a thousand words. Maybe it would be good to supplement our understanding by taking a picture like that one and drawing in over all of the fields and farms that will be affected by the proposals you have before you this evening, where all those plants will go. Because that picture over there, beautiful farm lands with the beginnings of incursions of industrial de- velopment out into those farm lands will be radically, if not entirely transformed by the kind of projects you are discussing this evening. That is your choice, but we urge upon you that the choices you make about your future should not involve ex- porting the sewage to our valleys and our Countgy and our coast. - Mr. Roy IngersollJ Councilman from the City of Watson- villeJ addressed the Councils, noting that he is with a repre- sentative of their Public Works Department and requests that any questions following his presentation be directed to this representative. He gave the following testimony: The City of Watsonville continues to have serious concerns regarding the Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan proposed by the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. Further, we do not feel that Watson- ville's concerns were adequately addressed in the Environmen- tal Impact Report prepared for the Wastewater Management Plan. The EIR states that Watsonville obtains two-thirds of its water supply from Pajaro Valley groundwater aquifers. In actuality, however, the City obtains between 85% and 90% of its water from groundwater sources. The maintenance of the excel- lent groundwater quality which currently underlies the Pajaro Valley is crucial to Watsonville's continued well-being. - The wastewater project alternatives currently being proposed by Gilroy and Morgan Hill all involve the discharge of treated wastewater to the Pajaro River. Since the Pajaro River is recognized as a significant source of groundwater recharge in the Pajaro Valley, we are concerned that the discharge of sewage effluent to the river may result in the contamination of our groundwater supplies. The EIR states that the Pajaro River recharges only to the shallow aquifers and indicates that these aquifers are generally of poor quality and not widely utilized as a water source. Watsonville has two concerns regarding this issue: 1. First, the City currently operates three shallow wells in relatively close proximity (1,500', 1,700', 2,800') to the Pajaro River. These wells produce an excellent quality of water from depths of 85 to 150 feet. ~ 2. Second, there is evidence to indicate that there is a flow of water between various aquifers in the Pajaro Valley. Thus, sewage effluent recharged to the shallow aquifer may ultimately find its way to deeper, more heavily utilized aquifers. - The EIR states that the recharge of sewage effluent to the Pajaro Valley groundwater will not have an adverse impact on groundwater quality since the effluent would be treated to satisfy discharge requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. We feel it is important to note, however, that discharge requirements established by the Region- al Board, even for discharge to the Pajaro River, are not likely to be nearly as stringent as the drinking water stand- ards which Watsonville's water supply must meet. The EIR states that potential impacts caused by the generation of toxic industrial wastes will be mitigated through .5344 the use of an industrial wastewater pretreatment program. How- ever, the implementation of such a program does not guarantee compliance by industry nor can it prevent the illegal disposal of hazardous wastes into the sewer system. The tertiary treat- ment plant being proposed would not be capable of removing all toxic constitutents and, in factJ could be rendered inoperable by a large sludge of toxic flows. The result would be a dis- charge of toxic wastes to the Pajaro River. We recognize that the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill are putting forth considerable effort and resources in an attempt to accommodate plannedJ future growth in a responsible manner. HoweverJ we believe that the project alternatives being considered at this time, if implemented, could lead to the degradation of the Pajaro Valley groundwater supplies which are so vital to the City of Watsonville, the community of Pajaro, and other groundwater users in the Pajaro Valley. - ...- Watsonville would appreciate your serious consideration of its concerns and requests your consideration of a project alternative which will not impact areas downstream of your wastewater facilities. Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions and requested that a copy of this presentation be presented to the City Clerk. There were no comments. Mr. Doug Quetin, representing the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, addressed the Councils and gave the following testimony: I have five comments to make tonight that apply to deficiencies in the final EIR for this project, Volumes I and II, April 1986, and the proposed findings with a draft date of May 30, 1986. Our comments and interest are motivated by the impact of population and industrial growth in the Santa Clara Valley on the air quality of San Benito County and the remainder of the north central coast air basin. My comments are as follows and apply to both documents: ...... 1. The impact of the project is inadequately treated with regard to the State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. In Volume I of the Final EIR, the violations of this standard are omitted. In Volume II, Basinwide numbers are presented that indicate an apparent increase in the occurrence of violations of the 0.10 PPM limit. ...- 2. Air quality trends are not accurately described through the use of generalized San Francisco Bay Area data. The use of this approach biases representation of ozone concentrations in the Gilroy/Morgan Hill area lower than actual. The southern Santa Clara Valley is the impact area for much of, if not the majority of, the pollutants moving out of the heavily populated and industrialized areas to the north. 3. Stationary source emisions are intentionally disregarded as an impact of the project which is not an appropriate assumption in consideration of the nature of the funding of the project and the fact that industry growth necessarily accompanies community growth. 4. The use of basin-wide ozone air monitoring data rather than specific data from Gilroy and Hollister stations precludes consideration of much of the photochemistry leading to ozone formation that occurs over time and distance. - 5. The impact of nitrogen oxides on the ambient air quality standards for ozone is not addressed, thereby omitting one of the primary precursors contributing to the formation of this pollutant. "" From our review of the final EIR and the Draft Findings of May 30, 1986, a good deal of air quality analysis remains to be performed in order to adequately describe the impact of the secondary growth associated with the succcessful completion of this proj ect. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. 5345 Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions. There was no comment. ~~~ Mr. Ralph Kuchler, County Counsel for the County of Monterey, addressed the Councils noting that the comments that Councils have heard tonight, the County of Monterey, agrees with and accepts as part of its own comments. And in addition he noted that he would like to point out, sort of what you've been hearing, that the EIR is not adequate and does not set forth in sufficient detail the requirements of the various regulatory agencies, that you have to comply with. For example, you have just heard from the Air Pollution Control Board, there were no findings concerning their pollution and inadequate discussion of how it was going to be handled to control that. You also had other considerations such as the Regional Water Control Board. There's been no real discussion or findings, how are you going to comply with those? There has been inadequate findings as to what the effect of your project, if you put the sewage into the Pajaro River as to what the effect on the Pajaro River, the community and the aquifer that is along there. On hydrology and water resources findingsJ you've indicated that in the proposed findings, that to the extent possible these ponds would be constructed outside the one hundred flood plain. That means to me that some will be constructed within that one hundred flood plain. Next ques- tion: How many are going to be constructed within? How close are they going to be to the one hundred years? Or to the actual river? Is it going to be within the fifty year flood plain, or the twenty, or the ten? Are the downstream commit- tees going to get a tremendous flood of sewage once every hun- dred years, or every fifty, or every twenty? And do we have to care about that? There's no finding as to what the effect of that once in a lifetime flood is going to be. Water quality, as I've indicated there has been considerable discussion about water quality and how that has not been adequately been taken into consideration as to the effect on the aquifer. The effect on various fish, birds, animals and humans is not discussed, by putting this effluent in the river. The effect on the Monterey Bay when all of this cumulation reaches there is not discussed, nor are there any real findings made. Part of the findings indicates that they're all equal and therefore, you can decide anyone and not have any problems. The reason that's in there is because there's been an inadequate EIR, an inadequate study to give you the information that would permit you to make an intelligent reasoned decision. And until you have that, you should not and cannot make such a decision. Also in your findings you've indicated, the proposed findings, because these are all similar in nature, you might say, is to effect, that you can look solely to the economics. Now I ask you, if after hearing all of these people tonight and at your other meetings, if they are right and you are wrong as to the damage that this project will cause, think of the cost, an economic cost that will bring. And it will bring to your Cities, because you will be sued by inverse condemnation because you have created a project. Even though there is no negligence, you don't have to prove negligence with inverse condemnation. Merely that you have caused a damage and you're responsible. So when you're thinking about economic costs, I ask you to consider that. ~ - - - Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions? She further noted that listening to Mr. Kuchler's testimony, it seems that we're the only ones that will be putting anything into the Bay. And it is her impression that the cities along the Bay are also putting treated sewage into the Bay. .... Mr. Kuchler requested Mr. Wong to respond to that statement. Mr. Wong addressed the Council and stated that it's not in response to your question was, that he believes that they have been trying to treat the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill the same as Monterey County. First in response to the discharge to the river, that all the cities, there's no longer any cities discharging in any rivers in Monterey County. King City, Greenfield, Soledad, Soledad Correctional Facility, Gonzales, r74 ,. ~)J (J Salinas, Castroville have all eliminated discharge into the rivers. In the oceans, the reason why they are allowed to discharge was eliminate nine outfalls and spending $7 million dollars to identify that the location where they would put it, on a quantity that has been approved, do not cause adverse impact. And that was the reason why we passed out coastal planJ that if you discharged we would ask you to do the same type of analysis the Monterey Region would do to prove that you don't cause a problem. So we're not saying that you can't discharge, but we want the same type of analysis. Councilman Mussallem inquired if the City of Salinas was discharging a million gallons a day? Mr. Wong responded, no but not in the River. Salinas was one of the ones that discharged in the Salinas River, in fact they discharge nine million gallons per day, and we (the County) as well as the State joined hands enforcing that they be prohibited from discharging in Salinas River. So as of last November, Salinas is no longer discharging in the River. Mayor Hughan stated that the point was it wasn't just the River. It was just as if we were the only ones coming from anywhere that were doing any discharge of any kind into the Bay. It just seemed to be the tenure of the testimony for the last few people. Mr. Wong stated that Kesterson is also the other one. Mr. Bill HearstJ General Manager of the Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, addressed the Council and noted that one of their prime responsibilities is the groundwater recharge in the Salinas Valley and in the northern part of Monterey County. He noted that they are very very concerned about introduction of any sewage effluent into the Pajaro River, because it's a major resource for the Aromas area. Basically in the area between the Chittenden Pass and Murphy's Crossing we get a major recharge up there. We're very very concerned that, Mr. KuchlerJ County Counsel, briefly spoke aboutJ where are these holding ponds going to be? We have that great concern that if they're in a flood plain what can happen in any kind of a flood, that could take that effluent on into the River. From previous experience before joining Monterey, he noted that he operated an advanced waste treatment plant, sewage treatment plant, and noted that he knows what can happen in those plants, and they do have upsets and things to happen to them. And when you wind up in a situation like that you have to get rid of, or at least store vast amount of effluent, that does not meet discharge requirements by a long shot. So we're very concerned about those things. Those can all wind up in the Pajaro River and can get into that area where we're very concerned about the recharge. He noted that he believes one of the things, in looking through the EIR, numerous times it was mentioned that the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill would tolerate any remaining environmental risks as acceptable. What they are saying is, what about those of us who are down stream on the Pajaro River, we're really not willing to accept those risks. So they ask that when, very strongly, that you recon- sider these of the Pajaro River as a discharge point for your sewage treatment plant. Mr. Sam Karas, Chairman of Monterey County Board of Supervisors, addressed the Councils and thanks Councils for allowing them to participate in the hearing tonight. Before starting his testimony he noted that they are not mad dogs; lovable puppies. The next thing he requested that Councils put yourself in the position of a Supervisor from Santa Cruz County, or a Supervisor from Monterey CountYJ or a Councilper- son from Monterey or Watsonville. And that they live in the most beautiful Bay, probably in the United States; the Monterey Bay. And that's why they are here tonight. They are not attacking Gilroy/Morgan Hill Councils, they want to preserve and protect what they think really is one of the most beautiful spots. And until you can convince us that you have the proper answer to discharge water to Monterey Bay, then maybe they will .... ...",,;. .... '.",~. - , ~<4 5347 - reconsider. But at this point we feel that you have not con- vinced, and made a good case against us. He further thanked Councils for not making a decision tonight and hope that they can meet with Gilroy/Morgan Hill Councils in the next week and try to resolve this problem. He stated that he believes it a very serious problem. It affects everybody up here, it affects future generations and knows it affects many young people who are concerned about jobs. It also affects us down in Monterey Bay area because it also affects the same things. They are concerned about commercial fishing they are concerned about tourism and the greatest thing they are concerned if you put it into Monterey BaYJ what would happen to the aquarium, to them is one of the greatest attractions that they now have and in the United States today. He thanked Councils for allowing them to be here tonight and for not making a decision. ..... - Mr. Marc Del Piero, Monterey County Board of Supervisor, addressed the Council and commented on a number of issues that were not addressed previously at any previous meetings. He noted that he would like to comment in regard to those, parti- cularly in light of the alternatives that it appears that your joint agency is inadequate in regard to its evaluation of down- stream impact on the pajaro River. The potential discharge of effluent into that River, severly threatens the groundwater resources within the Pajaro Valley. Those groundwater resources are utilized for a variety of things, just like groundwater resources are utilized up and down the coast of Monterey and Santa Cruz County for both residential purposes, commercial purposes and industrial purposes. He noted that he would point out that your environmental impact fails to do an appropriate analysis of the groundwater as it exists within the Pajaro Valley, also fails to do an appropriate analysis of the aquifers as they exist within the Pajaro Valley. It was clear even from the comments made by the representative of the City of Watsonville that your statistical information in regard to groundwater utilization, in the Pajaro Valley, is incorrect. It is incorrect as it relates to the City of Watsonville, it is equally incorrect as it relates to the community of Pajaro. Pajaro is presently in the process of moving toward 100% utili- zation of groundwater for its domestic purposes. He noted that he would point out that the wells that the community of Pajaro relies on are literally a stone throw from the Pajaro River and it is safe to assume that should you proceed with a proposal to discharge effluent into the Pajaro River, there is a very dis- tinct possibility, contamination will take place in the aquifers that are relied on by the residents of both Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties, and that that contamination ultimately will pose a significant threat to the lives and health of those residents. He further pointed out that, a point that was made earlier, that bears repeating: the Pajaro Valley Groundwater Management Agency is an agency that is established to take advantage of Monterey and Santa Cruz counties increment of San Felipe water. He noted that those of you that are presently benefitting from the increment of San Felipe water that you are enjoying and anticipate utilizing in terms of your urban devel- opment, should appreciate thatJ because the primary conduit for that water as has been anticipated over the past 20 years has been delivery of that water to the Pajaro Valley, both the Santa Cruz and Monterey County sites, through the Pajaro River Utilization of the Pajaro River for sewage effluent disposal will in fact severly compromise the utilization of that water resource in the future. This is of great concern to our agricultural industry; it is equally of grave concern to our residents primarily because that water was to be utilized for two purposes. One, direct irrigation and twoJ for recharge to the Pajaro groundwater aquifers that are presently experiencing some degree of salt water intrusion. He requested, expressing on behalf of himself as well as other members of the Board, in appreciation for Councils decision not to pursu~ a decision this evening. One observation, predicated on 'the testimony that has been given this evening; Monterey County and Santa Cruz County are not unlike other counties within the State of California or throughout the nation. They are the homes for indiiduals of very diverse political philosophiesJ very diverse interests and very diverse opinions. He noted that he would rHf';~ ~ - 5348 indicate to you that one could only look at the parade of testimony that has been brought here this evening as well as past occasions to cause one to think there might in fact be something wrong with the proposal to discharge sewage effluent from Gilroy/Morgan Hill either into the Pajaro River or into Monterey Bay. To get this many municipalities, to get two counties, to get special districts from both of those counties, all to agree on the same thing is a major event. And he noted that you have achieved something that no one within either Monterey or Santa Cruz County could have ever achieved given even thirty or forty years. He noted that he would draw your attention to that because it is a concern that one cannot ignore. It is a concern that cannot be brushed over by inadequate mitigation measures within an Environmental Impact Report that has been perceived by virtually everyone who has reviewed it in Monterey and Santa Cruz County as being inade- quate in terms of its evaluation of the impacts on both of those areas. It is too important not to take note ofJ because the populations. the combined populations of both Monterey and Santa Cruz County and those agencies and municipalities that have been represented here, approaches almost a half a million people. He noted that he would find it difficult to believe that the representatives of that many people and that many agencies could all be wrong. So he requested Councils to give serious consideration to evaluation of an alternative that does not produce discharge into the Pajaro Valley. There are a great many generations of individuals to come who will reside in the Pajaro Valley and whom will have to rely on the groundwater of that basin for not only their livelyhood but their lives. And once that basin is contaminated all of the mitigations outlined in the Environmental Impact Report, all of the good intentions, all of the desires to promote jobs and economic development within our municipalities will not be able to take back the severe environmental damage and the severe damage to the health of the residents of that area. It would be a heavy burden for anyone to bear to have to know that they were responsible for that type of environmental catastrophe. He requested Councils to give serious consideration to a land disposal within the boundaries of Santa Clara County. Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions of Supervisor Del Piero. Councilman Brown noted that they have been furnished a copy of the Monterey Hearld article, dated June 7th, in which Supervisor Del Piero was quoted as saying. Supervisor Del Piero noted that he had not seen said article. Councilman Brown further noted that he was quoted as saying: "at this point we're not talking about anything better than advanced primary". Councilman Brown noted that he assumes that Supervisor Del Piero has been misquoted. Supervisor Del Piero replied: No Sir, no Sir. When asked about that I was responding in regard to your land dispoisal alternative. And to clarify for the record..What you call secondary or advanced secondary, or tertiary, is not what we necessary call advanced secondary or tertiary. And there has been a serious problem in regard to what we have been referring to as standards of treatment and what you have been referring to as standards of treatment. Monterey County and Supervisor Karas eluded to it, is not going to stand in the way of the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill if they can prove, in fact, their effluent is going to be of a quality that is not going to contaminate the groundwater of the Pajaro Valley or compromise of viability of that River as an ecological resource. That is not in fact what you are proposing to discharge. What you are proposing to discharge varies from one standard to another depending on the alternative that you choose. Under no circum- stances however, does it meet clean drinking water quality standard. And if in fact you are proposing to discharge into a recharge mechanism which the Pajaro River is, then one would assume you would be required to discharge water that would meet ... ..... - j~"''''' - 10<'. 5349 - clean drinking water standards to that you would not compromise downstream utilizers of that groundwater that is being re- charged. That's the concern that we have. Your proposed treatment levels are in serious question. You speak to elimination of nitrates, elimination of BODs, but there is a significant absence of response in regard to complex hydro- carbons and toxics that are anticipated to take up almost one- third of your production in terms of sewage output. That is a serious deficiency in your Environmental Impact Report. It has not been proposed under any of these alternatives, none of them propose to be able to guarantee to downstream utilizers of the Pajaro Valley groundwater aquifers, that those toxics are going to be removed prior to discharge into the River. In fact everything leads us to believe that in fact that won't be the case. That's the concern that we have. '.... Councilman Brown noted that he is not sure that Super- visor Del Piero responded to his question. He inquired if Supervisor now had the newspaper article. Supervisor Del Piero replied, yes. Councilman Brown inquired about the fourth paragraph up on the right-hand side. Supervisor Del Piero replied, Correct. I was referring to your land disposal alternative. That your land disposal alternative, your SL alternative, I believe is the one that proposes to discharge advanced primary. Councilman Brown stated that I~OU will note however, that they attribute this to all of the proposals." Superisor Del Piero stated that that (article) is incorrect. He noted that he was speaking in regard to the LD alternative. .... Councilman Brown stated that Supervisor Del Piero was misquoted. .... Supervisor Del Piero stated that he was quoted correctly, the assertion in the first paragraph that's the responsibility of the reporters as incorrect. Mayor Hughan asked if there was anyone further in the audience wishing to speak. She noted that there are some things that would be appropriate for Mr. Cain to respond to. One of them is the question if the plant were not working at 100% efficiency, the aspect of any storage capacity that we might have that would make sure that there weren't any spills to the Pajaro. Also information about a focused EIR and how we are going to handle the toxic situation. Mr. Christopher Cain, addressed the Councils and statedJ that as far as spills are concerned, the various options in- clude storage. That is, this facility would not be able to discharge unless its effulent met effluent restrictions. It would be intercepted and either percolated or stored in perco- lation ponds or in storage ponds. And that's included in the proposal. Mayor Hughan asked about a focused EIR and further studies that have been referred to. - .... Mr. Cain responded, there are many studies that have been suggested or requested during the course of the EIR review which would be appropriate to pursue, depending on which Alternative you chose. That is a focused study of an outfall alignment for an Ocean Outfall would be appropriate if you went for an ocean outfall; a focused study of hydrology, groundwater impacts and river impacts would be appropriate for alternatives such as these that have impacts in those areas. Those studies would be done in a timely fashion such that the action that would cause the impact, we would do the study before we did the action that would cause the impact. What we are addressing right here is a plan, not a single project and one of the 5350 things that's been brought out about these particular projects is that they would be, or this particular plan, or these parti- cular plans, is that they would be relatively easy to phase, compared to some of the others that were looked at. Therefore, we can set up the implementation plan to include appropriate studies of specific impacts ahead of the construction of the facilities that would result in those impacts. Councilman Palmerlee asked if those would be part of an actual Environmental Impact Report or would they just be studies that would just be done for the Councils for their discussion and approval? Mr. Cain stated that generally the studies that would be done, if they were environmental type studiesJ would comply with CEQA and therefore would fall in under the environmental evaluation guidelines of CEQA. -- I .... Councilman Palmerlee noted that was not exactly what he asked. Mr. Cain stated that CEQA requires publication review, discussion, public notice, etc. to the affected parties and asked Mr. Faber if he was correct on this. Mr. Andy Faber, Attorney, addressed the Council and responded briefly noting that Mr. Cain is correct in referring to whatever further investigations may have to be done would comply with the dictates of CEQA that may end up with supple- mental environmental impact reports or further EIR's, or it may not. It may end up with initial studies. It may end up with various kinds of technical things that do not reveal impacts that would require further formal EIRs. And until that work is done, we really don't know what in fact would be required. The idea of this EIR is it's a program EIR. And the program EIR contemplates further environmental work at subsequent stages preceding exact implementation of the precise project. That further environmental work could end up being Environmental Impact Reports. It could end up being analyses that reveal that there's not a necessity for actual Environmental Impact Reports. However, it has to be done in accordance with CEQA which does have certain requirements of public notice, etc. in performing these things. - - Mayor Hughan asked if there were other questions of Mr. Cain. Mayor Barke asked a question about Supervisor Del Piero's comment about a definition of tertiary meaning something to us and something different to Supervisor Del Piero. Mr. Cain, responded that if he opened up a sanitary engi- neering text, the word primary treatment is associated with sedimentation of solids; secondary treatment is associated with after primarYJ you would oxidize the wastewater. Tertiary treatment is a more loosely used term that refers to further processes. The term advanced treatment is also used for fur- ther processes. In California tertiary treatment very fre- quently refers to filtration to comply with the requirements of Title 22 for producing reclamation water of food crop irriga- tion quality. To confuse the words primary-secondary-tertiary wastewater treatment with drinking water treatment simply causes confusion. None of sewage treatment plants in the country either intend to or do produce water of drinking water quality by definition. We try not to drink the water directly out of sewage plants. It's not because necessarily of water quality measurement constraints or treatment constraints it's simply by convention. - ",,* Mayor Barke noted that in other words to shorten your statement, tertiary treatment in text book is tertiary treat- ment. Right? In Santa Clara County, in San Benito CountYJ in Santa Cruz County? 5351 Mr. Cain replied in the affirmative. To shorten his statement, the plant here as it said will include primary and secondary as this first stage ahead of land disposal. He noted that Mr. Del Piero may have a different dictionary, a different Sanitary Engineering text. He welcomes him or one of his support staff to come up and give him a different definition of primary treatment. Councilman Foster inquired if you were to take it to the drinking water standard, what would you call that process? - Mr. Cain stated that he would call that drinking treated effluent. It's just simply a matter of deciding to drink treated effluent. We, as we went through it on the Morgan Hill Council, we reviewed Gilroy/Morgan Hill influent against the numerical drinking water criteria. And the influent sewage meets most numerical drinking water, finished water criteria with the exception of a couple of important ones, that is being taste, odor and appearance. Thus from a toxic point of view raw water meets drinking water criteria. We have an estab- lished pre-treatment program in the area. We have a raw waste- water at this point in time that is relatively low in toxics. It is meeting drinking water criteria for toxics now and all of these treatment processes, although not designed to achieve high efficiency removals of toxics, in many cases they do achieve removals of toxics. For example, most of the solvents that are of concern in northern Santa Clara Valley, in the groundwater, are removed to 90-95-99 or above efficiencies by the kind of processes that we are dealing withihere. Volatile organics tend to strip out very readily in biological systems. Metals are more difficult to remove. We have a much stronger focus in pre-treatment on those as a result. They tend to concentrate in the sludge and complicate the sludge disposal product. - Mayor Hughan asked if there were any further questions of Mr. Cain. ~ iIIIiIloiII Councilman Palmer lee asked how will you determine what further studies need to be done, when we reach a point of making a given alternative, and what similarities in those studies between either of these two individually or the two combined? - Mr. Cain stated that in general the studies, he will answer in terms of an engineering point of view and maybe Mr. Faber needs to answer form a legal point of view...He stated engineers and environmental scientists will look at these questions and they will say we have sufficient data to tell you wht the impacts are. We will describe the impacts. We will present an answer to you. And Councilwoman Albert's comment about his fuzzy sludge answer, you will be able to tell as human beings with judgement that you can exercise whether the answer that you're getting is complete. Likewise the profes- sionals when they get inside the problem, when they really look at it carefully, they will also be able to say, we have com- plete knowledge, we don't have complete knowledge. By compari- son with other systems, relative to the level of concerns over a certain problem, we will be able to judge the adequacy of existing information and the need for further studies. So there will be a professional judgement made. It will be reviewed by political bodies. - Councilman Flory noted that Mr. Wong mentioned land filtration would be a problem because of the high water level and asks Mr. Cain to respond to that. Mr. Cain noted that technically there are differences in the kind and level of treatment you get depending on whether you're running aerobic or anaerobic, depending on whether you're running saturated or unsaturated. Therefore we would be designing these systems to have some unsaturated soil through which the wastewater went to achieve the treatment that you can get in six inches of unsaturated soil. We have found specifi- cally that if you flood a filter the water and the materials ~)352 can short circuit across the flooded zones. If you have on the other hand aerated soil through which soil is percolating, the soil has to go around every soil particle and it takes a long time. It contacts a lot of soil. So there are benefits in having unsaturated flow. There are benefits in having it be at the surface where we can get oxygen to it. We are aware of those and will design the system to have it. In the design constraints we are faced with either the choice of deliberately lowering the groundwater so that we have that aerobic zone or going to a site where the site can accept the water without having the groundwater come up to the land surface. Mr. Walter Wong, addressed the Council and asked, noting that we have it on tape, one of the Councilmen asked him a question (Mr. Cain) yuou stated that this present level of treatment produced is drinking water, so if this does produce and meets the quality of drinking water, why are you consider- ing discharge in the Pajaro River and Monterey Bay, if this is meeting drinking water? Mr. Cain noted that because it's conventional not to drink sewage treated water. He asked Mr. Wong if his Health Department recommends drinking treated sewage. Mr. Wong replied: in that context, yes. Mr. Michael HoganJ representing Earth Metrics, and gives the Cities some credit, one of the points should be noted and has been stated, this is a program EIR. Technically you can probably made it to this point and even so select an alterna- tive without having done any EIR. The fact that the Cities have voluntarily commenced a program EIR has been a commendable activity which is only undertaken by the most enlightened com- munities, who we observe in this State of getting very adequate forewarning of the kinds of impacts that may come from a pro- ject. So instead of selecting a project and then doing an EIR upon it, you really are exposing your entire planning process to public comment and review. So in some sense the whole notion that the EIR is not an acceptable document is rather a vacuous statement, because the information base is really one that you are preparing when you get to the stage of making a project level decision. As has been indicated, and as the California Quality Act recommends, in this case, Guidelines Section 15168, one is looking at a tiering of environmental review, that is you look at the level of impacts that can be adequately re- viewed at the planning process; you've looked at those. When you get to the point of implementing a project you will look at and answer the question at an adequate level of detail under CEQA for a project impact. You're not at that point yet. There's some questions that can't be answered because you don't have a project with a specific design parameters to evaluate. There's no way that you can have answers to a design level project. So some of the questions that have been raised tonight are of real interest and certainly will be answered at a project level stageJ provided that you pursue a project that those are applicable to. He noted that he wants to make sure that the Cities get adequate commendation for exposing their planning process and this kind of environmental review. It provides the kind of data base that the decision makers can find valuable and that the public can utilize for an early warning system to understand a project, when a project, let's say a preferred project is embarked upon. He noted that he would like to respond, but not to all because most of the points raised tonight address matters that already very clearly answered in the EIR itself. But he noted that he would like to comment on the three letters that were received in writing following the publication of the final EIR. He noted that they prepared a written response to those items and for the most part those responses merely direct the reader to places in the EIR where the information is found. Some of the ABAG comments are formatting in nature and indicate what methods or style measures they would prefer to have in order to allow the reader to look at the material in a different way. The comments by Air Pollution Control District that were also made in person tonight are also answered in this. In particular he pointed out since those are relatively straightforward, the stationary - ....,,'. - ;i.<~ - ,,4 " C757 JJ J source emissions are found in Volume 2 page 4.2~28 paragraph 3, th~ air quality trends and ozone data for Gilroy are reported in the Final EIR, Page 3.5-2 to'3.5-f. The final EIR does use an ozone model, the Lirac Model to evaluate both the impacts of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen upon ozone. And he noted that they would respond as needed to other details of ques- tions, but noted that the point in the process that you are at is a reasonable one, that you have exposed the planning level decision to a reasonable amount of environmental information that should allow you to select an alternative and then do the appropriate level, as indicated by Mr. Faber and Mr. Cain, the appropriate level of environmental review as CEQA provides in a tiered process. Mayor Hughan asked if there was anyone further in the audience wishing to speak. There was no further comment from anyone. Mayor Hughan continued the Public Hearing to June 24, 1986 at 7:00 o'clock p.m. and discussion of the Long-Term Wastewater Treatment Plan to that date. The Meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ /s/ SUSANNE E. STEINM~c1-- City Clerk, City of Gilroy