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