Loading...
Minutes 1986/07/29 Roll Call 7:07 p.m. Consent Calendar Minutes Cont.P.H. re:Long- term Waste- Water Manage. Plan 5369 July 29J 1986 Special Joint Meeting of Gilroy/Morgan Hill City Councils Gilroy, California Mayor Hughan called the Joint Special Meeting and con- tinued Public Hearing to order and led the pledge of allegiance to the Flag. Present: Gilroy Councilmembers: Donald F. Gage, Paul V. Kloecker, Larry MussallemJ Daniel D. Palmerlee, Pete ValdezJ Jr. and Roberta H. Hughan. Absent: Sharon A. Albert. Present: Morgan Hill Councilmembers: Lorraine Barke, Curtis Wright and Dean Flory. Absent: Linda English and Robert Foster. Motion was made by Councilman Gage seconded by Councilman Kloecker that the following items under the Consent Calendar be approved by the following Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Gilroy Councilmembers: GageJ KloeckerJ Mussallem, Palmerlee, Valdez and Hughan; Absent: Gilroy Councilmember: Albert: Approved the Minutes of the Joint Gilroy/Morgan Hill Special Meetings of May 6J 1986 and June 10J 1986. Morgan Hill City Councilwoman Linda English entered at 7:10 p.m. and took her seat at the Council table. Mayor Hughan noted that this was the time and place scheduled for the Continued Public Hearing to consider the Adoption of a Long-term Wastewater Management Plan for the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. C717") .,) ,) l. She noted the following items received as a matter of record for this meeting: Letter from Monterey County-Office of the County Counsel, dated July 15, 1986; James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. - Renderings of Flip-Chart used in JMM presentation at the Joint City Council Hearing on June 10, 1986; Letter from the Wastewater Group, dated July 21, 1986; James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated July 28J 1986; Earth Metrics Incorporated, dated July 28, 1986; Newspaper Article from the Monterey HeraldJ dated July 29, 1986, submitted by Mr. Dennis Bates; and Letter from BerlinerJ Cohen & Biagini, Attorneys, dated July 28, 1986 including their Memorandum in response to letter dated July 15, 1986 from Ralph R. Kuchler concerning proposed findings, and revised resolutions for each alternative making the required findings under CEQA. Mayor Hughan requested a Staff Report from Mr. Andy Faber, Attorney. Mr. Andy Faber, AttorneYJ addressed the Council, and briefly summarized where the Councils are in the legal process as far as the Environmental Impact Reporting and adopting an Alternative for the Plan. He noted that is has been a long process and the Cities have complied with the dictates of CEQA, to the best of our ability. He noted that there has been very extensive public input at a number of public hearings, at a number of meetings; there's been extensive public input as well through written communications received at all stages of the process. He noted that where we are now is that if the Councils decide to make a decision tonight on an Alternative, then Councils must decide which Alternative and must adopt suitable findings for that Alternative. He noted that the law requires that certain findings be made for any action that Councils decide to do for which you have prepared an EIR. He noted that he has prepared several sets of draft findings. He noted that these findings are somewhat confusing, because they are very similiarJ yet there are differences among them. He noted basically what is before the Councils is a set of two sets of findings, each in the form of a resolution that apply to each of the Alternatives that are presently under consi- deration. In other words there are two resolutions for the SL Alternative; there are two resolutions for the LD Alternative; and there are two resolutions for the combination of SL/LD Alternatives. He noted that for each Alternative one resolu- tion is two pages and bears the date at the bottom of 5-30-86 because these findings were prepared sometime ago. This resolution would be the resolution that actually adopts the proposed Alternative as the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan. He noted that for whichever one is adopted, assuming this is doneJ you have to adopt the appropriate short resolu- tion. He noted that said resolution would be adopted first by the Gilroy City Council tonight and then adopted by the Morgan Hill City Council next weekJ separately by Morgan Hill, with the same wording but changed to reflect that it's Morgan Hill and not Gilroy adopting the resolution. Secondly, he noted that the Councils must adopt a resolution of findings under the Environmental Quality ActJ which are the long resolutions. And again there was a draft prepared in May which was circulated to the Councils before the last Joint Hearing (6-10-86). He noted that revisions have been made to that resolution based upon a letter received from County Counsel for the County of Monterey, which he notes he will explain briefly. The net result is that there are three new sets of long findings: one for SLJ one for LDJ and one for the combination of the two. He noted that the new ones bear the date July 28, 1986 at the very bottom. Those - ... ....."'''\<1'\ - ..... 5371 findings are required by the Environmental Quality Act itself. The procedure if Councils decide to adopt one of these Alter- natives would be to adopt both appropriate resolutions. He noted that if in factJ in any way, the findings that are made in the long resolution do not comport with Councils' reasoning, or if there are some changes that Councils feel that should be made; if Councils disagree with some of the statements and Councils' reasoning is different or Councils think additions or subtractions should be made, then that also should be the subject of a motion as Councils adopt the findings. Otherwise Mr. Faber noted that they would recommend that Councils adopt the findings in the form now presented. - ... Mr. Faber noted that the draft findings are adequate under CEQAJ meaning "good". He noted that they received a letter from Monterey County Counsel, last weekJ raising a number of challenges to the findings. He noted that in the event of litigation over an environmental decision, one of the standard challenges that is made routinely to any EIR process, is the claim that the findings are inadequate. The findings for a project for which you have done an EIR have to deal with each significant impact that's identified in the EIR; have to explain what mitigation measures the Councils are adopting for it; and have to make the finding that either it's adequately mitigated with respect to each one, or the mitigation is under the jurisdiction of some other agency, and in a sense therefore outside the Councils control, or that even though you cannot completely mitigate the impact, nevertheless you've decided to carry out the project in which case you must issue what's called a statement of overriding concerns. Such a statement is part of the findings hereJ because for each of these Alterna- tives most of the impacts are adequately mitigated, but some of them are not completely mitigated. The statement of overriding concerns explains why the Councils could elect to proceed with the project anyway, in spite of the fact that some impacts are not completely mitigatedJ and explains with respect to each impact what the reasoning is. He noted that is also required by the California Environmental Quality Act. -- Mr. Faber further noted that the County Counsel for the County of Monterey raised a number of questions about the find- ings and noted that they have responded in a memorandum which was distributed to Councils. He noted that some of his com- ments were helpful and perhaps well taken, although he believes the original findings were adequate. In response to his letter, and other in-put that they have received as well, he noted that they have made certain changes to the findings which is why they are new ones. He noted that these are outlined in his letter to Councils as to which paragraphs are changed. He noted that most of the findings themselves relating to specific impacts are changed only a little bit, if at all. One finding concerned with the problem of inorganic salts in groundwater has extensive changes and will be technically commented on by Mr. Christopher Cain (James Montgomery Engineers). He noted that the findings 3 and 4 toward the end of the proposed find- ings, which deal with the evaluation among Alternatives) in other words, why is this particular one being selected and not another one) and the statement of overriding concerns have had additional material added to reflect in-put that has been received at various Council Meetings and the reasoning collec- tively between the Councils and Staff at the Public Meetings. ,~ He noted that many of the comments made by the County Counsel are wrong. Many of the ones complaining about the findings are not really proper comments about the findings. He noted that they are really more in the nature of comments the EIR should have said something and didn't; and therefore the findings ought to be different. He noted that the findings don't have to be changed to reflect that. He noted that the findings have to reflect impacts that are identified as significant by the EIR itself. He noted that furthermore some of the comments on things that are claimed not to be in the EIR really are; some of his comments are in the nature of saying thatJ well the EIR discusses a certain thing but there's no finding about that thing. He noted that the answer to that -- 5372 (and to be further explained in more technical detail by Mr. Cain) is that the EIR discusses a great many things, but it doesn't find them all to be potentially significant impacts. He noted that we only need make findings about the potentially significant impacts. Things that the EIR discusses, but concludes are insignificant do not have to have findings. Mr. Faber noted that one of the sources of confusion reflected in Monterey Council's letter as well as in various public input received at meetings is the question of whether this EIR must identify a best Alternative and explain why the other certain alternatives are being rejected. In other wordsJ in a typical case you might have a proposal before you to build 80 houses; the EIR, if one is requiredJ might analyze the effects of building the 80 houses, though it also analyzes alternatives, like building 40 houses perhaps, orbuilding a shopping centerJand a no project alternative which would con- sist of not building any houses. Typically in that case, one of those other alternatives is going to be better environment- ally. Usually it's no project. It could be reduced density and that's kind of the typical paradigm environmental impact report case. He noted that this case is different thoughJ be- cause Councils' consultants that wrote the EIR and Staff have identified none of the Alternatives as being perferred from an environmental standpoint. In other words, even the No Project Alternative has significant environmental impacts. And there- fore, there is no best alternative from an environmental stand- point. There are different environmental impacts with some of the different alternativesJ but no one is identified in the EIR as being clearly better than any of the others. And therefore you do not have to adopt findings that say that one Alternative is really the best one, but we're not going to go with it be- cause we have certain other reasons. And that's the nature of some of the criticism that has been made to the findings. He stated that in other words, the findings have to deal with the expected impacts of the project alternative; they have to ex- plain why you selected that Alternative over the others, which is all in here; and they have to contain a statement of over- riding concerns as sto why you want to go ahead with the pro- ject even though some impacts cannot be completely mitigated. Mr. Faber noted that Chris Cain has some technical data that he would like to present to Councils and Mike Hogan from Earth Metrics may arrive with certain input also. He noted there is a letter from Earth Metrics that he can present verbally if not it's part of the record which responds to some of the public commentary that was made at the last meeting and also in writing since that meeting. He noted that that kind of response is not required absolutely by law at every stage of the process. He noted that there has been an awful lot of responses and that is why the EIR is about four inches thick. He further noted that nevertheless Earth Metrics has given a response to the specific comments that were made at the last meeting and in general summarizing his response briefly: He finds that essentially all of the points raised were matters that had been previously considered in the EIR and he basically directs people to a discussion of where those points exist and discusses that issue a little bit further. Mr. Faber stated that if there were no questions it would be appropriate at this point to hear from Mr. Christopher Cain, James Montgomery Consulting Engineers. Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions of Mr. Faber. Mr. Christopher CainJ JMM, addressed the Council and noted that in listening to Mr. Faber he believes that there are two things that were brought up that he should address. One is the letter regarding the TDS impacts, total dissolved solids, or salt impacts that could potentially occur for percolation in the vicinity of the existing plant; and the second major thing is comment (noting in his presentation he would use the letter- ring system in the Monterey letter) "E" on Pg. 3 of the Mon- terey County letter, which lists twelve different items which were supposedly significant impacts which were not addressed in .... - - -- .... - 5373 the findings specifically. He noted that he is prepared to address each of those twelve individually for the record, if Councils feel same is appropriate. ~"'-~ Mr. Cain refers back to the TDS issue. He noted that he submitted a letter discussing salt impacts. He noted that he didn't want to go into great detail; the letter is about four pages long. He noted that it quotes some material from the Basin Plan and basically makes the point that we have water quality criteria, we have water quality objectives and we have effluent standardsJ and when we address the effluent from a treatment plant and figure out whether it's meeting or not meeting its appropriate requirements, we should look at efflu- ent standards. Effluent standards in turn should be set so that water supplies will meet water quality criteria, EPA or State Health requirements, and to the extent economically, or reasonably possible should be aimed toward water quality objectives. Water quality objectives for groundwater are typically set on the basis of the water quality criteria. For exampleJ specifically, total dissolved solids - salt. We'd like to not have that in our water if we can help it. So State Health looks at it and they decide that as a maximum they'd like to see that no body has more than 1500 in their water supply. The EPA has not even seen fit to establish a limit on salt because of different areas of country or the world, people are willing to drink 2,000 or 3,000 or whatever they have tOJ to have water. They won't drink sea water. But the exact line for where you get hurt with salt is hard to draw. At any rate State Health has said 1500. Gilroy area groundwater runs around 300. So the Regional Board has said the objectiveis to maintain that 300. So they set the objective at 300. That is for two different reasons. One we want to preserve the exist- ing groundwater and two, we'll certainly stay below the 1500 limit. In contrast if you go to Hollister, the existing groundwater is 1200. So we say the objective will be 1200. Again, let's not lose any ground toward the direction that we don't want to go. He noted that although it points out in the EIR that the effluent from the Plant does not meet the ground- water quality objective for the entire Gilroy area, that is not the same as saying this is terrible, we don't meet our stand- ards. This is sayingJ our effluent is not drinkable. It does not meet the objective we have for water that is better than drinking water standard. - .... - "~ He noted that the other thing that the letter points out is that the objective for the Gilroy area is set based pri- marily on the lower aquifer. And we are deliberately in the SL and LD Alternatives and in the combination aiming the percola- tion at the perched aquifer, which is not the potable aquiferJ it's separated from the potable aquifer by some clay layers. There is a potential for leakage between the aquifers. The plan includes mitigation measures to avoid that potential. So what we are doing is trying to keep from getting into the high quality aquifer and that means that the potential TDS impact should really be addressed in terms of what the water quality existing is in the perched aquifer. Unfortunately because of the state of that aquifer and the data, etc., we're not quite sure what to call background there. It appears that the exist- ing condition is very close to the Plant condition, but it hasn't been clearly established. If indeed the existing condi- tion is close to the Plant effluent, then the logical ground- water objective, if you set a separate objective for the upper aquifer, would be approximately six or seven hundred Total Dis- solved Solids which is about equivalent to the Plant effluent. In which case, it would meet the objective. The correlary case that the letter brings up iSJ in the Monterey area, toward the mouth of the Salinas River, the objectives have been set separately for the deep aquifer and the upper aquifer, with a 400 objective for the deep aquifer and a 1500 objective for the upper aquifer, which is setting the upper aquifer at the drink- ing water criteria. IIIiIlIoolI Mr. Cain asked if there was any further question on the salt issue? 5374 Mayor asked if there were any questions of Mr. Cain. Councilman Palmerlee inquires on Page 2 of the letter it says in all groundwater basins known to have an adverse bal- ance....Does that apply to our groundwater basin? Mr. Cain responds "no"J not to his knowledge. Councilman Palmerlee inquires if that whole sentence then not apply? Mr. Cain responds that that whole sentence expresses a strategy in the Basin Plan, because is you have a salt problem, then this is what you do about it. We are identifying a poten- tial salt impact for a basin that is in pretty good shape. That's a responsible approach. What we are saying is that there are no rules that apply to our case because we are not in trouble; if we did get in troubleJ this is the rule that would apply. Not having a rule, we're looking to the first rule that would apply as we got into trouble. Councilman Palmerlee stated that the sentence goes on....the total salt content of the discharge shall not exceed that which normally results from domestic use and control of salinity shall be required by local ordinances which effec- tively limit municipal and industrial contributions to the sewage system. Do we have any kind of local ordinance similiar to that or is that something that the Cities should look to before there's a problem? Mr. Cain responded that the City has the ordinance. Councilman Palmerlee further asked if the ordinance applies to that? Mr. Cain responded that the Regional Board periodically looks at the existing Gilroy Plant with this question in mind and decides whether they are seeing TDS in excess of domestic levels. They reviewed this in 1984 last and there were several letters that went back and forth between the Board and the City on this issue. The Staff decided that we were not up to the level where they would require that we have an ordinance that limits sources of TDS. We do have such an ordinance anyway, but it hasn't been imposed on us from the Regional Board. Mayor Hughan asked if there were any other questions of Mr. Cain. There was no comment from anyone. Mr. Cain further stated that with respect to on the twelve items in the Monterey letterJ the Staff have not written a letter to Councils explaining these twelve items and if Council wishes same in the record that specifically addresses them, he noted that he could do that at this time. Mr. Faber recommended that Mr. Cain explain same. Mr. Cain explained as follows:Starting on Page 3 of the Monterey letter under paragraph E, the EIR comments on perco- lation recharge into the semi-perched aquifer and it preambles by saying this is a significant impact that wasn't addressed in the finding. It talks about potential over-saturation of the aquifer. This is covered in the EIR. It is a significant impact. It is in the findings. It's in finding B and that's what finding B does, it addresses this impact. E.2 discusses bank or streambed erosion due to SL and the EIR specifically states that increased Alternative SL stream flows are minor when compared to total winter flows (bear in mind that you are discharging only in the winter) and goes on to say..and would not result in adverse channel impacts - Pg. 3.2 - 27 of the EIR. So the EIR found specifically this was not significant impact; it doesn't need to be covered in the findings. It doesn't need to be included in the findings for SL. Alternative LD does have this impact; does need it and finding D for Alter- native LD covers that impact. No. 3 - This mentions tempera- ure and toxic impacts on river water quality due to discharges during summer months and puts them forward as a significant - - ... - ..... J.,;,.,ilM 5375 .~ impact. The EIR points out that since you're not discharging in the summerJ you don't have those impacts in the summer months; it's not an impact at all for either of these alterna- tives. In the EIR it addresses, specifically toxics and tem- perature impacts for the SP Alternative where there is a summer discharge and concludes that even in that case the impacts are insignificant. Item No.4 discusses sulfate Jsodium, chloride and other dissolved solids passing through to the groundwater. The findings do address this. Also the letter that we just discussed on the subject of salt is specifically aimed at that. Likewise comment No.5 is a restatement of the same com- ment. That is, there are potential impacts due to salt or other materials in the wastewater percolating into the upper perched aquifer and then potentially leaking into the lower aquifer. The findings recognize that underdrains are included in the SL Aternative and are inherent in the LD Alternative and those underdrains mitigate this particular impact. Item No.6. The comment or says the EIR states that long-term groundwater quality deterioration of the potable deeper aquifer of the Bolsa sub-basin could result from Alternative SL, and this impact is not discussed in the findings. In fact the EIR says quote "SL would not impact the other groundwater basins." So what the EIR says is that it won't impact. Comment No.7 points out that the discharge would not comply with the prohi- bition against discharge and that BPT should be included per Regional Board policy. The Basin plan does not specifically call for BPT, if that is the proper representation of Regional Board policy, however if it did, BPT would be secondary treat- ment according to the EPA's interpretations. The Alternatives that we're proposing includes secondary treatment plus addi- tional treatment and goes behond it and the EIR describes those treatments. The EIR notes the impact on the pajaro River that is discussed in the comment and judges that it is not signifi- cant. Comment No.8 comments on Pajaro River runoff as a potential source of water for the Pajaro Valley and discusses the possible San Felipe use of the river. The findings do not address this because neither these is identified as a signifi- ficant impact. One comment that we could make at this point is that the use of the river for San Felipe water would most likely be in summertime when you would use the San Felipe water to use the riverbed to recharge groundwater basins. Under those circumstances we would not be discharging in the river and the river would be free to be used for the San Felipe Project. As far as the use of winter Pajaro River runoff for recharge, the EIR contains information showing that the summer recharge capability of the base of the pajaro River is rela- tively small. The amount of water available in the winter so totally overwhelms the discharge that what we are doing has an insignificant effect on that recharge. No.9..Again, this is essentially the same thing as the comment about requiring BPT per the Basin plan. The commentor says that the EIR states that the effluent should be treated to basin plan standards and asks that the findings state that it will be. The findings reference the project description which includes treatment that meets the basin plan standards. And the EIR also describes that treatment and documents that it's even more thanJ in some cases, more than what is specifically called out in the basin plan to meet standards. Item No. 10..the commentor says that the EIR states that the Pajaro River and its tributaries recharge approximately 20% of the pajaro Valley's aquifer. And then it goes on the findings fail to address this impact. The EIR concludes that the amount of recharge from the pajaro RiverJ particularly if you're going with winter discharge, is insignificant. Some of the pajaro River tributariesJ particu- larly those down close to the mouth of the Pajaro River re- charge most of that 20%. Santa Cruz and Monterey County streams contribute water to the Pajaro groundwater basin. The river bottom itself is relatively ineffective according to the EIR. No. 11..The commentor essentially asks for more detailed information on how we're going to protect ponds against flood- ing hazards. This kind of information is properly developed during the preliminary design phase. What has been done at this planning stage is to review the characteristics of the available sites. To compare the large area available against the smaller area required and make the judgement that within - - .....- - ..... r -, 7 " " 1'.', ',- ,-) ( ) the area available we can find sites that we can protect against flood hazard. So that is a comment that needs to be addressed at the next stage of the project. FinallYJ comment No. 12 is one that we incorporated in the findings to the effect that an analysis of the alternatives was included in the EIR and the findings now include an explanation as to why each of the Alternatives were not chosen in comparison to the chosen Alternative. Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions of Mr. Cain and thanked him for his explanations. Mayor Hughan asked whether or not the Alternative SL would include as a mitigation measureJ the underdrains so that we didn't have to deal with them as two different alternatives. Mr. Cain responded that the Alternative SL as represented in the findings and the Final EIR includes underdrains. It includes that as a mitigation measure and we're incorporating that mitigation measure. From an engineering point of view considering the way that both projects would be phased, there is no functional difference from our engineering point of view, between SL/LD combination and the SL Alternative. On the other hand the LD Alternative does not include a tertiary discharge in the winter, so that is a difference. So as far as the engineers are concerned, you really have two Alternatives in front of you with one of them called by two different names. Mayor Hughan asked if everyone understood that? It would make their decision easier if they didn't have to deal in combinations. Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions of Mr. Cain. There was no comment. Councilman Kloecker asked for clarification of the last point again. Mr. Cain responded that from an engineering point of view, SL is identical to LD/SL. From an engineering point of view, from the point of view of treatment, from the point of view of disposal, from the point of view of how we plan it, how we'd fund it, the studies that would be done; if you told me to go back and implement LD/SL I'd go through exactly the same engineering tasks; they're identical. I can't find any real differences between them. We'd recommend that we go about it in the same way. Mayor Hughan stated that in fact the SL does include underdrains. Mr. Cain responded in the affirmative. Mr. Andy Faber, addressed the Council, and spoke to two points: One is the one you just asked about that Mr. Cain just mentioned. And, the reason that they are the same is that the SL incorporates underdrains as a mitigation. So that the characteristics of LD that we would use in the combination of SL/LD are now a mitigation for SL itself. Given that identity of SL and the combination SL/LD, if you choose that thing, in other words SL or the combination, my recommendation from a legal standpoint would be that I'd prefer to see you choose SL. He noted that you could choose SL/LD and that would be fineJ however because of Mr. Cain's analysis that they are substantially identical, he would prefer to have the Councils choose the specific alternative identified in the EIR rather than a combination. He noted that he doesn't think from a legal standpoint choosing the combination cannot be done, but he believes that it would make sense to choose SL if you wanted to that instead of LD. The other point he wanted to make that has been discussed before, that does bear mentioning because many of the comments we've receivedJ including the Monterey letter that Mr. Cain's been discussingJ that he has been discussing earlier, don't seem to realize that what we're dealing with is a program EIR. We're with the EIR at the first stage of planning. Once an Alternative is selected, there will - _.. - ..... ..... "'" C)377 - no question about that. Percise details of the design of the Plant and construction issues and all sorts of issues will have to be dealt with. That mayor may not end up with another Environmental Impact Report. CEQA says you have to go through a prescribed series of steps. Typically you start with an initial study, although not always, and then you go forward to an environmental assessment at which point you decide whether you have enough new things that you need to know (so that an an EIR is required) or whether you can use a previous EIR like this one or whether you can use a negative declaration. In this case, probabilities are an additional EIR will be requiredJ but that decision is not one we're making tonight. That's a decision that will be made at the further stage of analysis after you choose a specific Alternative and specific design studies commence to be done. That EIR if it's required, would be much more focused than this one, because it doesn't have to deal with all possible alternatives and it doesn't have to be as general. It would be much more specific and would contain presumably many of the specific further studies that the comments that we have received have asked for. In his opinion those further studies do not have to be in the present EIR, which is at a more general conceptual stage of planning, but would be required, if at all, as part of the further environmental review. So the process doesn't stop here, although many of the comments that have been received on the EIR seem to assume that this is the last environmental word that will be spoken. He noted that Mr. Hogan is present and it would be appropriate to recognize him, unless there are more questions. .... Councilman Kloecker requested that he be directed in the EIR to where it speaks of underdrains as a mitigation for SL, for his reference. (Staff looked for this particular referenceJ and later directed Mr. Kloecker to it, while the Mayor continued with the meeting calling upon Mr. Hogan.) ~ - Mr. Michael Hogan, Earth Metrics, addressed the Council and noted the following comments: He noted that he would like to reaffirm some things that were said at earlier meetings, which he thinks are extremely important to put this analysis into context. First of all, all of the environmental analysis which Councils have undertaken and directed to date, have been voluntary measures; these have not been of environmental re- view that have been compelled by CEQA. These have been voluntary measures of disclosure and analysis that Councils have made to provide early public input and agency input into the planning process. This is one purpose of a program EIR, to allow a lead agency or lead agencies to voluntarily extract this kind of informed input so that you can more intelligently make the decisions ahead of you. As Mr. Faber has indicated, there will be a compulsory environmental review; a CEQA compul- sory environmental review when you have selected, if you select a project and proceed to act upon it. In the context of a program EIR that would become a tiered step, in the environ- mental review process, that is, having reviewed the Alterna- tives at their program level, you would then embark upon an environmental review at the project specific level. And that level would be required by law no matter what had preceded. The first point that he wanted to make is that all of the environmental review that has occurred to date has been volun- tary by Councils. It has not been compelled as a point of law. Councils could have in fact conducted all of the staff planning, all of the decision making, deliberations to date and can even select a preferred Alternative at a program level without any environmental review. Councils have gone to an extreme step of public information and participation to conduct a formal environmental and public hearing process to date. Second point: that Earth Metrics at Councils' direction has responded to the latest comments made at the public hearing, again this is not a compulsory responseJ you are not compelled in any form to respond to comments made upon a certified EIR. Councils have done it as an additional layer ,or level of dis- closure. He believes that the most salient substantive point 1IfI!Jl[!\IIIiI, -- 5378 is that all of the comments that we've analyzed are items that were fully disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Report and this reaffirms their statements made earlier that they believe that the Environmental Impact Report is an adequate decision making document. It has the data in it that you would find adequate to make a decision at this branch point. He noted that one of the things that further strengthens the Environmental Impact Report's adequacy is the fact that there are different views among informed experts. The California Environmental Quality Act encourages experts who have differing opinions to provide input to an Environmental Impact Report process. And this has been accomplished. You have had the expert opinion of the consultants which you have retained; you have had expert opinions from other agencies that have commented and participated. And one very important point to remember is that the EIR is not just what you say is in the EIR; it s not just what Earth Metrics says is in the EIR; it's not just what your Council says is in the EIR. The EIR is the composite of all information, opinion and data supplied by all of the above parties plus all of the commenting members of the public and public agencies. Under CEQA all have valid standing as components of the EIR of your decision making document. He noted that this adds the greatest possible strength to the completeness of an environmental document, the fact that Coun- cils have voluntarily encouragedJ allowed diverse public input. It's not all consistent. It doesn't all agree. And the Cali- fornia State Law says that we recognize that; we recognize that expert opinions don't usually agree; they're not usually con- sistent, but the data base that you have is complete. It has all of the data. It has all of the opinions. He then com- mented on a couple of specific areas of comment of interest. The first is Air Chemistry.. As he previously pointed out, for all the comments on air quality the information had been found in the Final EIR, but it is also important to note that in leading to that information baseJ there were literally dozens of air quality scenarios that were analyzed and run. They were not all reported on in detail because some of them really didn't yield useful information, some yielded redundant infor- mation. But he would like to point out that this is an example area where there's really a great deal of data analysis that went on before the written report. So that in fact they looked at a large number of senarios regarding assumptions of what the limiting factor was. Oxides of nitrogen vs. hydrocarbons. And what you have in the Final EIR are results and runs that were determinative and which we found were the limiting factors. And there is even a larger data base that backs the EIR docu- ment up and can be drawn upon if and as needed. Mr. Hogan stated that another point that was spoken to earlier, but is extremely important is regarding the water quality impacts to the Pajaro and potentially downstream areas. What should really be understood here is that State Law compels certain statements of significance. State Law compels certain data to be reported in an EIR and one of the things that State Law compels concerns an impact area where there are State or Federal standards that are applicableJ as in the quality of effluent that is discharged. If there is a State law that is applicableJ then CEQA requires that if your project or Alternative meets the applicable State standardsJ then the EIR cannot state that there's a significant adverse impact. So that that is not a matter of judgement. It's not a matter of judgement that the EIR reports that there's no adverse impact to the waters of the Pajaro. In fact the EIR cannot state otherwise than that there's no significant impact because of the explicit language in CEQA. He noted that another concern of interest to speakers has been the downstream impacts to the recharge area below the Watsonville area, and he noted that Councils have heard a variety of opinions. The fact is there is no one entity that has all the answers regarding those particular subbasinsJ but the connection of linking the the water quality impacts of the Pajaro to those groundwaters is basically through the fact that the EIR cannot report that there's an adverse impact upon waters of the Pajaro and it's those very waters that commentors have expressed interest in the mixing of the groundwater. If in fact Councils proceed in -- iIil>'." ... ..... - , .. 5379 this matter and select an Alternative that could have any potential impact to those recharge areas, then it might be appropriate to conduct specialized studies to yield more information. He noted that Councils are not even at the point of knowing whether they have an Alternative before them that would require further investigation in that regard. He noted that he is open to any questions. - Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions of Mr. Hogan. There was no comment. Mayor Hughan asked if there were any more questions of Staff. She noted that the Councils have followed a long series of public hearings and meetings, and now the two City Councils have adequate information to make their decision. She noted if there was no objection she would close the public hearing. .. Councilwoman Barke inquired for the recordJ she was curious to know whether or not a letter from Dr. David Morrell was put into the record and if not she would like same put into the record. She further noted that it was forwarded two months ago. Mayor Hughan noted that if it hasn't been, we will enter it into the record. She asked for Council discussion. Mayor Flory noted that the Morgan Hill Council could not vote upon this issue tonight, but can give opinions and alter- native they feel is the best Alternative. He noted that they cannot vote upon same until next Wednesday. Councilman Gage recommended that Alternative SL be selec- ted. Motion was made by Councilman Gage seconded by Councilman Valdez that Alternatiive SL be chosen with mitigation measures of underdrains. Mayor Hughan asked if the Morgan Hill Councilmembers wished to indicate their preferences. - Councilwoman Barke noted that she will hold her comments for Morgan Hill. Councilwoman English noted that she feels that all have done their homework and feels very good that they have researched it and commends all for all the homework. Mayor Flory noted that it has been very informative and feels very comfortable in the SL Alternative and feels that it is the best Alternative through many, many discussions; through many meetings with the people in Monterey and in this long process wants to say that they have not only done their homework but have extended ourselves to other communities to try to inform them of their opinionJ of the technical dataJ the Engineer has gone to several areas to explain very thoroughly what the proposal, what the EIR Alternatives areJ so he noted that he feels very comfortable in Alternative SL. ~ Councilwoman English inquired if and when we adopt a systemJ one of these Alternatives, will be then be looking at exactly, will we be able to put input on what type of operating system we are looking at? She noted that she is looking at, since she is in Energy Management, looking at systems that utilize methane and that type of thing, is this foregone conclusion of the system we're using, or will we be having input in that area for energy efficiency and management for long-term expense cost? - Mr. Chris Cain responded that that would be a design detail yet to be worked out. Councilwoman English inquired, looking at the different percentages of purity of effluent, is that a foregone conclusion with the adoption of one of these systems or will be at that time have the choice of whether we would like to go with secondary or tertiary type of a systemJ whether it be 75% or 95% of the water of the effluent? ["Zoo ,J,] v' Mr. Chris Cain responded that he might not be able to answer that particular question. Councilwoman English inquired if that was a valid question. She noted that she was just looking at the back and again being new that there are a couple of systems here and address them both SL as a 95% removal and a 75% removal and she is looking at the back of the project. She inquired if this is a choice that has been made a foregone conclusion if with the adoption of this SL that's in the EIR or will Councils still have input on the level of the treatment removal? Mr. Chris Cain responded that his part of the answer, to some extent the exact choice of the treatment processJ the establishment of the discharge standards in a permit application for different phases of the project has yet to be determined. And there will be decisions either higher or lower standards could be set. At various stages of the project there will be judgements made as to whether you're staying right on track with exactly what we said in this program EIR or whether you're beginning to deviate a little bit from a program EIR and that would probably effect the judgement as to whether you would have to do more environmental work. He noted that one of the things that might be worth commenting on is that some of the mitigation measures are studies that were called for. And some of the commentors said well if you just do a study that doesn't really mitigate the impact; if you find an impact what are you going to do. Alternative SL would be implimented in a phased manner. If you do a study on the first phase and you find you have a problemJ you have additional phases in which to make corrective actions. So that you haven't plunked all your money down on the table at one time; you haven't built the whole thing. It goesJ gradually and developmentally so there are further decisions to be made. Mr. Faber noted that he believes that the numbers Coun- cilwoman English is referring to in the back of the presenta- tion of the agenda packet, they speak about 95% removal of certain ingredients and then 75%; those are really the winter and summer percentages; not as though they are two different alternatives for SL. Councilwoman English inquired if this was the maximum that they can achieve in the summer - 75% or is this the recommended that we can achieve at the least cost and is it a decision foregone? Mr. Faber noted that the answer to that legally as well as from an engineering standpoint as Mr. Cain statedJ is that the SL Alternative project description could encompass greater treatment; could encompass a greater percentage. It can't encompass something totally different than what we're talking about here, but it can vary to some extent and the exact numbers aren't cast in concrete. Mayor Hughan noted that there is a motion and second on the floor to approve the resolution adopting Alternative SL (Winter Surface Discharge to the Pajaro River and Summer Land Treatment). She asked if there was any more discussion. Hearing none she requested a Roll Call. Ayes: Councilmembers: Gage, KloeckerJ MussallemJ Palmerlee, Valdez and Hughan; Absent: Councilmember: Albert. RESOLUTION NO. 86-44 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY ADOPTING ALTERNATIVE SL (WINTER SURFACE DISCHARGE TO THE PAJARO RIVER AND SUMMER LAND TREATMENT) AS THE LONG TERM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITIES OF GILROY AND MORGAN HILL. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of July, 1986J by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GAGEJ KLOECKERJ MUSSALLEM, PALMERLEE, VALDEZ and HUGHAN ... ...- ... - ""'-II ... 538 -1 NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBER: ALBERT Mayor Hughan noted that a resolution must be passed making certain findings. Motion was made by Councilman Gage seconded by Councilman Kloecker that the reading of Resolution No. 86-45 be waived and that it be adopted. Ayes: Councilmembers: GageJ Kloecker, MussallemJ PalmerleeJ Valdez and Hughan; Absent: Councilmember: Albert. - RESOLUTION NO. 86-45 ... RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF GILROY MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE 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 FOR WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of July, 1986, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBER: GAGE, KLOECKERJ MUSSALLEM, PALMERLEE, VALDEZ and HUGHAN. None Absent It was noted that the resolution just adopted is the resolution dated 7-28-86. - Mr. Andy Faber clarified exactly which two resolutions were just adopted pursuant to the motion. He noted that the first one is the resolution dated May 30, 1986, the two page resolution and it says in the title, Resolution of the City Council of the City of "blank", course this is Gilroy, adopting Alternative SL; that's one of the three little ones that we haveJ it's dated 5-30-86 at the bottom. Secondly, the resolu- tion that you would want to adopt is the resolution dated (the long one) making the CEQA findings. That one has a date at the bottom 7/28/86 and you can tell by the word processing numbers at the bottom: LIT:Find-002, that's the one that's SL. Councilman Mussallem inquired if same included a statement of overriding considerations. Mr. Faber responded that's correct. Mayor Hughan noted that the next step in the process is for Morgan Hill to take action and inquires what the next step will be. Mr. Chris Cain stated that he has an Implementation Plan to present at the next JPA Meeting. Mayor asked if there was any more Council discussion. Councilman Palmerlee inquired if Mr. Cain would then be making a presentation to the Councils or at the JPA. Mr. Cain responded a presentation at the JPA until it comes to the point that enough comment is made and then to Councils. - Mayor Flory stated that anyone is free to attend the JPA Meeting. Mayor Hughan thanked all in the audience who came to all of the meetings and gave valuable input. She noted that they listened carefully and used the information gained from them and in the EIR to make their decision and have made a decision as far as the Gilroy City Council to them that is the most environmentally responsible. She noted that it was not an easy decision and have worked hard on it, the audience has worked hard on it and we'll go forward now and do the best job that they possibly can. 5382 " Adjournment At 8:15 p.m. Mayor Hughan adjourned the mdeting. Respectfully submittedJ ;t{~~:r!~ City Clerk - Gilroy