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