Minutes 1986/04/08
,...
Roll Call
r'l61
) " I
',. L_ I
April 8 t 1986
Special Joint Meeting of Gilroy and
Morgan Hill Councils
GilroYt California
The Special Joint Gilroy/Morgan Hill Council Meeting
was called to order in the Gilroy City Council Chamberst 7351
Rosanna Streett GilroYt Californiat at 7:09 p.m.
Mayor Hughan led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Present: Gilroy Councilmembers: Sharon A. Albertt
Donald F. Gaget Paul V. Kloeckert Larry Mussallemt Daniel D.
Palmerleet Pete Valdezt Jr. and Roberta H. Hughan.
Present: Morgan Hill Councilmembers: Dean FlorYt J.
Robert Foster and Lorraine Barke. Absent: William H. Brown
and Neil Heiman.
(Councilmember Willaim H. Brown entered and took a
seat at the Council table following Roll Call.)
Also present: City Administrator Protempore Cecil A.
Reinsch and City Manager Fred Mortensen.
Heard from Mr. Michael Hogant President and principal
in charge of the project of the EIR for Earth Metricst who
prepared the EIR.
5262
Long-term
STP
Mayor Barke noted that any official action by the City
of Morgan Hill would have to be taken at Morgan Hill in their
jurisdiction at their next regular meeting.
Mr. Hogan continued his presentation, thanking both
Cities' staffs for their cooperation in preparation of the EIR
for the long-term Sewer Treatment Plant. He noted that the
Draft EIR has been circulated; the comment period has been
closed; all the comments that were received within that period
have been responded to in a Final EIR. He further noted that
the Final EIR has been prepared in full, responsive to all
comments received, written and oral; therefore, before
Councils is a Final Environmental Impact Report as defined by
the California Environmental Quality Act. He noted that it is
their opinion that the Final Environmental Impact Report
accomplishes all of the missions as set forth in the
California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines thereto.
"H~
.....
He further explained the format of the Report because
of the complexity of the document and the number of
commentors. All the comments have been published verbatim in
Volume 2. Volume 1 is the Draft EIR. Volume 2 sets forth all
of the comments received, verbatim. Each comment is given a
number in the margin and this number is followed through with
the responses that are given point by point, and the re-
numbering of the response is given with the light number in
the margin to allow one to follow the comment to response. In
addition, where there is any text change to the draft, the
comment number is used as a locator or signal in the margin.
The comment number is placed in the margin where the comment
applies to the text. Any deletion between draft and final,
the deletion will be noted by mark-outs, so the text can be
read before and after. If there is an insert, there is a
symbol in the draft that means there is an insert of text and
you can look to the appropriate place in the Final EIR and
find that insert. The aim of this is that you can follow
through index by comment. He noted that there were a number
of alternatives that were looked at in the Environmental
Impact Report which are summarized as follows: Land Disposal;
Surface Discharge to pajaro with advanced treatment; SO is the
Ocean Discharge with secondary treatment; SL is the Winter
pajaro Discharge and Summer Land Disposal; LD is Land Disposal
with underdrain discharge; and NP No Project. All
alternatives were analyzed in the EIR. All of the
alternatives represent some significant impacts to
environment, including the No Project alternative.
not one clear alternative which is environmentally
all others.
..-
the
There is
superior to
He further noted that Chris Cain, Montgomery
Engineers, is also present to respond with additional detail
on the project and Joe Edney, from Earth Metrics, available
for responses to technical matters, and Andy Faber, Counsel to
the Project, available to respond to procedural matters.
He inquired whether Councils desired additional
information regarding the project and the EIR, noting that the
main objective tonight is the consideration of the
certifiability of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
He introduced Mr. Andy Faber who commented on
procedural matters.
f'P',......
Heard from Mr. Andy Faber, noting that this is a Joint
Public Meeting and noticed for the sole topic only of
discussing whether or not Councils wish to certify that the
Environmental Impact Report was completed in accordance with
the dictates of the California Environmental Quality Act. He
further noted because the notice is limited to that topic, it
is not appropriate to disuss the merits of the individual
proposals or to get into the various alternatives, except
insofar as Councils may be interested in the issue of whether
they are adequately treated according to law in the document
itself. He further noted that the action each Council takes
has to be taken separately as the Gilroy City Council and the
Morgan Hill City Council. (Morgan Hill to vote again within
their City Limits.)
-
5263
Mayor Barke inquired if a vote could
be taken as a Joint Council with official action,
i.e., Morgan Hill City Council to be taken in their
own jurisdiction.
Mr. Faber answered in the affirmative, further noting
that each Council's vote must be taken separately.
Councilman Brown inquired why the EIR is not certifi-
able in its present form.
'WiIIIiMIIi
Mr. Faber noted that a lot of legal issues have been
raised in the course of preparation of the EIR; there's been
public input at every stage. A lot of the public input has
consisted of rather legalistic type of public input; people
questioning the process, questioning the adequacy of
alternatives; questioning the adequacy of analysis at
different levels. Many of the comments received are similarly
legalistic in tone and raise specific questions. All of those
questions have been dealt with and dealt with satisfactorily,
and that doesn't mean that the EIR can't be challenged and
doesn't mean that it is or is not a perfect document, but all
of the issues that have been raised, they have attempted to
deal with. In the process of preparing the EIR legal issues
have been on everyone's mind because of the ever-present
threats that have come in from various sources. As far as he
knows, the EIR does, in fact, comply with CEQA. He further
noted that there is always a possibility of a lawsuit; there
is always a possibility of some technical problem somewhere
along the line, or some judgment call that wasn't correct, but
as far as they know, they do believe it is adequate.
Councilman Kloecker noted that several of the comments
raised a point about the environmentally superior
recommendation and he does not feel confident that that was
legally handled or satisfied.
....
Mr. Faber noted that there were several specific
comments on that subject and several specific responses in the
EIR in the responses to comments that now appear in the Final
EIR, and the conclusion that they came to is that because the
No Project alternative is not clearly environmentally
superior, there is no need to designate one of the other
alternatives as the environmentally superior alternative. He
noted that the EIR consultants who prepared the EIR found that
the No Project alternative also had significant impacts and
that it could not be deemed to be superior to all of the other
alternatives; based on that there was, in Counsel's judgment,
no legal requirement to choose an environmentally superior
alternative from among the others.
Councilman Kloecker noted that because there were six
alternatives, it seemed to him that the law indicated that an
environmentally superior alternative had to be chosen out of
those six.
-
Mr. Faber stated that if the No Project Alternative
had been better than the other five, then a best alternative
has to be selected among the other five. He stated that the
consultants found that all of the projects had different
impacts; and based on that finding there is not a legal
requirement that you actually select among either the five or
all six which one is best. He further noted that Councils
could select one project and do it because you believe it is
the best project, but the EIR is not required to do so.
Councilman Palmerlee asked Mr. Faber to explain what a
program EIR is and what decision Councils will have to make
after an individual alternative is selected, whether further
environmental review is necessary at that point.
Mr. Faber stated that, basically, a program EIR is an
EIR that begins at a level of detail that is appropriate for
this kind of action where you're deciding among alternatives
but you're not necessarily deciding exactly where, for
example, a certain thing will go or where a pipeline or
5264
exactly which piece of property is involved in a surface
discharge, or whatever. The next stage of that is a Project
EIR. In other words, once an alternative is selected there
will then have to be further analysis to determine whether, in
fact, this document is adequate to actually go ahead and build
the project, and it may be, depending on the alternative,
that, in fact, it is adequate and the issue, of course, is
whether it addresses all of the environmental impacts
associated with the specific project in sufficient detail to
satisfy the requirements of an EIR for that project.
Depending on what is selected and depending on some additional
information that will probably have to be produced, that
judgment will have to be made. He noted that most likely,
additional environmental work will be required. It may be a
supplemental type EIR; it may be a fairly detailed EIR,
depending on the project and various factors surrounding the
exact project. Mr. Faber further noted that they believe that
this EIR is adequate for this level of choosing among the
alternatives. He stated that it is clear, and this EIR does
spell out, that further environmental work may be necessary.
He noted that a number of the commentors criticized that.
Their comment to that was that this is the reasonably possible
thing to do at this stage, and believe that the way that this
was performed is an adequate way to do it. Depending on the
alternative chosen and depending on some precise engineering
that will be associated with that, there may well be further
environmental work which would be necessary but, hopefully,
would not be of a scope commensurate with this one.
Mr. Faber stated, in terms of decision making, how to
decide the further EIR work, and after this meeting
CEQArequires, if you decide to do a project, then you must do
several things. You must further certify that you have
reviewed and considered the EIR. Typically, what is expected
to happen is there would be a public hearing on a project and
at that hearing or meeting, Councils would review and consider
the EIR as issues that would bear on the selection of the
project, of a specific alternative, and then in the resolution
that is decided to approve any of the projects, if Councils
decided to do that, Councils would certify that they have
reviewed and considered the EIR in making that conclusion.
Councils would also have to make certain very specific
findings. For example, with respect to significant environ-
mental impacts of the chosen project, a finding would have to
be made that they either have been mitigated or by specific
design changes of specific mitigation measures or in the
alternative that there are certain overriding considerations
that allow you to go forward with it even if they are not
mitigatible.
Councilman Foster asked that in this EIR Councils
would certify a specific project has been mitigated or
wouldn't they have to focus the EIR?
Andy Faber stated that based on this EIR, Councils can
select among these alternatives if desired. In selecting
among the alternatives to the extent that environmental
impacts of the alternatives are analyzed in this Report and
mitigation measures proposed, which they are extensively, and
Councils would want to in a Resolution, spell out those
environmental effects and mitigation measures. That would be
subject to being redone, if a further environmental impact
report is necessary.
Councilman Foster noted that Councils are then
narrowing the focus and can question at that point if they
feel that they want additional information.
Councilman Kloecker noted that at the meeting where
the selections of alternative is made, Councils would then
determine that they want to see additional information or want
an EIR on certain aspects of that alternative.
]:
~
...."
~
.....,
-
...
-
Final EIR
-
...
5265
Mr. Faber noted that he does not anticicpate that that would
be a decision to be made at that time, but rather at that time
Councils would select an alternative and as a result of the
chosen alternative, the Staff would have to decide whether in
fact additional work, when additional engineering is done,
what the schedule would be and how the decision will be made on
further environmental work. This is not something that can be
chosen at this time.
Mayor Hughan noted that there has been surfficient
opportunities for public input both through the letters and at
several meetings.
Andy Faber verfied same noting that CEQA does have
certain requirements for public input that both cities have
met; there is no requirement, at this stage, which is
considering the Final Environmental Impact Report. Comments
and letters received are testiment to the fact that sufficient
public input has been received.
Councilman Gage, representing the Joint Powers Sewer
Advisory Committee, noted that they received presentation from
Earth Metrics and also from James Montgomery Engineers and the
Committee recommends certification by both Councils. He noted
that some items were questioned and same are in the revision
sheets now before Councils to be included in the EIR, and when
the EIR is finalized that a Final Draft would be prepared to
incorporate any of these corrections or working changes and
this final copy would be the document to be distributed.
Mayor Hughan asked if there were any Councilmembers
tonight with concerns of wording or ideas that are in the EIR
to be changed or any comments about the EIR. There were no
comments from any Councilmember.
Mayor Barke asked the Morgan Hill City Council if they
are prepared to make a decision in Morgan Hill at their next
Council Meeting. Morgan Hill City Council took an unofficial
vote that they are in agreement and prepared to make a
decision at their next Council Meeting.
Mayor Hughan requested Gilroy Councilmembers take
official action at this time.
Motion was made by Councilman Gage seconded by
Councilman Kloecker and carried by the following Roll Call
Vote that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with
CEQA. Ayes: Councilmembers: Albert, Gage, Kloecker,
Mussallem, Palmerlee, Valdez and Hughan.
Discussion was had in regard to the next Joint Council
Meeting. Mayor Hughan requested that same be scheduled for
April 22, 1986.
Councilman Palmerlee inquired if said meeting would be
an official Public Hearing again.
Mr. Andy Faber noted that at a meeting when Councils
decide to select an Alternative, at that meeting Councils must
certify that they have reviewed and considered the EIR.
Whether that meeting has to be a public hearing is a separate
question. He does not believe that it has to be a public
hearing. CEQA would not require it.
Councilman Palmerlee inquires if said meeting could be
formally open to public input if Councils so chose.
Mr. Faber answers to the affirmative and noted that it
could be noticed as a public hearing as well; and even in a
non-public hearing Councils would be free to take public
input.
Mayor Hughan requested Councils to decide whether they
wished to take public input at that meeting or not.
5266
..
Mayor Hughan requested Councils to decide whether they
w~shed to take public input at that meeting or not.
Councilman Brown stated that the meeting should be
noticed as a public hearing.
Councilman Kloecker inquired if this next meeting is
to discuss it or decide it.
It was noted that the next meeting would be to discuss
it and if a public hearing is scheduled that same would be
continued until a decision is made.
Council set the next Joint Special Council Meeting for
Tuesday, April 22, 1986, at 7:30 p.m., to be noticed as a
public hearing and concurred by Morgan Hill Council that same
be held in the Gilroy Council Chambers at 7351 Rosanna Street,
Gilroy, California.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted~
~--;;..~
/ City Clerk