The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 1989-05-17 if COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 22 31 52 62 72 11, 13 AND 14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING ON MAY 17, 1989 �,�t-rarloN 2�� S��SaQclitaa fro Ols,�•. r GE GARDEN GROVE COMMUNITY CENTER ROOM A 11300 STANFORD AVENUE GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA '• a ROLL CALL An adjourned regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, was held on May 17, 1989, at 7:30 p.m., at the Garden Grove Community Center, Room A, 11300 Stanford Avenue, Garden Grove. Following the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation the roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present for Districts Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 14 as follows: ACTIVE DIRECTORS ALTERNATE DIRECTORS DISTRICT NO. 1: x Robert Hanson, Chairman Orma Crank -7—Dan Griset, Chairman pro tem Dan Young x Ronald B. Hoesterey Ursula Kennedy —a—Roger Stanton Don R. Roth DISTRICT NO. 2: A.B. "Buck" Catlin, Chairman x Chris Norby -7—William D. Mahoney, Chairman pro tem Beth Graham Roland E. Bigonger x Henry W. Wedaa a Dan Griset Dan Young Ron Isles x Carrey Nelson -7—James Neal George Scott a Arthur G. Newton Carol Downey x Bob Perry Norman Culver x Iry Pickier Fred Hunter x Wayne Silzel James T. Fasbender x Don E. Smith Fred Barrera a Roger Stanton Don R. Roth DISTRICT NO. 3: x Richard Polis, Chairman Orbrey Duke x Carrey Nelson Wayne Wedin x Edward L. Allen Paul Verellen a Wes Bannister John Erskine A.B. "Buck" Catlin x Chris Norby x Norman Culver Bob Perry x Don R. Griffin Donna L. Chessen a Dan Griset Dan Young 7—John Kanel • x William D. Mahoney Beth Graham —7--James Neal George Scott x Iry Pickier Fred Hunter x J.R. "Bob" Siefen Dewey Wiles -7—Roger Stanton Don R. Roth a Charles Sylvia Robert Wahistrom x Edna Wilson Joe Hunt DISTRICT NO. 5: x John C. Cox, Jr., Chairman Evelyn Hart Donald A. Strauss, Chairman pro tem x Evelyn Hart 7—Don R. Roth Roger Stanton DISTRICT NO. 6: x James Wahner, Chairman Harry Green x Ruthelyn Plummer, Chairman pro tem Evelyn Hart a Don R. Roth Roger Stanton DISTRICT NO. 7: x Don E. Smith, Chairman Fred Barrera x Richard Edgar, Chairman pro tem Ursula Kennedy —a—Dan Griset Dan Young a Don R. Roth Roger Stanton —a—Sally Anne Sheridan Larry Agran +. Donald A. Strauss x John C. Cox, Jr. x James Wahner Harry Green DISTRICT NO. 11: x Tom Mays, Chairman Jim Silva -7—Grace Winchell , Chairman pro tem Wes Bannister a Roger Stanton Don R. Roth DISTRICT NO. 13: x Henry W. Wedaa, Chairman Roland E. Bigonger a Iry Pickier, Chairman pro tem Fred Hunter 7—Don R. Roth Roger Stanton x Don E. Smith Fred Barrera _2_Wayne Wedin Ron Isles DISTRICT NO. 14: x Peer A. Swan, Chairman Darryl Miller x Ursula Kennedy, Chairman pro tem Richard B. Edgar a Don R. Roth Roger Stanton a Sally Anne Sheridan Larry Agran x Don E. Smith Fred Barrera -2- 05/17/89 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, Rita J. Brown, Board Secretary, Blake P. Anderson, William N. Clarke, Thomas M. Dawes, Gary G. Streed, Corinne Clawson, Bob Ooten and Rich von Langen OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel , Jamel Demir, Kris Lindstrom, Curtis Spencer, Gary Robbins, Dewey Wiles, Andrea Berens, Jim Bevington, Renee Bevington, Rich ten Bosch, Chuck Bragg, Steve Brown, C. Burns, Roseann Cacciola, Allyn Cooksey, Larry Coonradt, Jeff Cross, Ed Evans, Scott 0. Flodin, Glen Frank, Kelly Hamilton, Mike Heineke, John S. Hingtgen, Gary Hoffman, Trude Hurd, Shannon Jakosky, Margaret Johnson, Sonja Klick, Bill Knopf, Beth Leeds, James Lenoci , Bernard Lipman, John Locke, Chris Ludlow, Mark S. Ludlow, Mike Luke, Dr. Yash Manchanda, Marcia Manker, Will Manker, Mitch Martinez, Monica Maur, Richard G. Maus, Patrick McNelly, Barry McPhee, Mark Melgian, Douglas Montague, Jerrell Lofton Moore, Jr. , • Moira Nonnweiler, Matt Nussbaum, J.A. Oliger, Jeff Page, Michael Pearson, Sam W. Peterson, Noelle Plack, Thomas Pratte, Lee Risner, Mary E. Rossi , Amy Rudell , Bill Samuel , R.J. Schwichtenberg, Bob Stokes, Jerry Thibeault, Patrick Wall , Roger Warren, Rick Wilson, Jean Winterfect * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DISTRICT 1 This 17th day of May, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. , Adjournment of meeting due to lack being the time and place for the of quorum adjourned regular meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1, and there not being a quorum present in District No. 1, the meeting of said District was thereupon adjourned by the Secretary to 5:30 p.m. , Thursday, June 1, 1989 to consider modifications to the District' s supplemental user fee program. DISTRICT 13 This 17th day of May, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. , Adjournment of meeting due to lack being the time and place for the of quorum adjourned regular meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation • District No. 13, and there not being a quorum present in District No. 13, the meeting of said District was thereupon adjourned by the Secretary. -3- 5/17/89 ALL DISTRICTS The Joint Chairman reported that for Public Hearing on Draft Program EIR the past two years a team of on Collection, Treatment and consulting experts and staff have been Disposal Facilities Master Plan engaged in a comprehensive evaluation of the engineering, environmental , public health, social and economic aspects of the County -Sanitation Districts' plan of action for their wastewater management program for the next 30 years. He advised that one of the major elements of the "Action Plan" has been the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report that will be used as the basis for application to the EPA and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for renewal of the Districts' ocean discharge permit for the next five-year period. Mr. Smith stated that the purpose of the hearing was to receive public commentary on the Draft Program Environmental but that the official comment period remains open through May 30th. He added that it is not intended that there will be any response to the public comments at the hearing that evening. Rather, following the hearing, the Boards will direct the consultants to address the oral and written comments received in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report which will be considered by the Boards at a later date. Open Public Hearing The Joint Chairman declared the hearing open at 7:42 p.m. Summary of Draft Program EIR by environmental consultant The Chair recognized Mr. Curtis Spencer of Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. , the independent environmental consultant that prepared the Draft EIR. Mr. Spencer briefly explained the Districts' function and presented a five-minute video on its operations. He reported that the Sanitation Districts serve 450 square miles of Metropolitan Orange County from the Newport Beach-Irvine area north and west to county lines. The Districts today serve a population of 1.8 million. Service is provided by nine Sanitation Districts serving 23 cities and unincorporated County territory within ,this highly urbanized area. The Sanitation Districts treat an average of 260 millon gallons per day of wastewater. The wastewater reaches the two treatment plants through more than 800 miles of Sanitation Districts' sewers, fed by local sewers in upstream communities. Mr. Spencer further reported that the Districts control hazardous materials entering sewers through an aggressive industrial toxics source control program. Mr. Spencer stressed that this was an important means of reducing toxics in wastewater and sludge. All of the Districts' flows receive primary or advanced primary treatment and about half receive secondary treatment. Seventy-five percent of suspended solids reaching the plant are separated from the waste stream before discharge and come off as a wet sludge. Chemicals are also added to facilitate treatment and control odors. -4- 5/17/89 k" Mr. Curtis briefly described and showed the various treatment processes ' used by the Districts. The -residual solids called sludge are trucked to disposal and reuse locations. About half of the sludge is disposed of at landfills where it is mixed with municipal refuse. The balance of the sludge is reused in agricultural applications to enhance soil fertility. Composting and use as a soil amendment is also practiced. ' ''I The video also showed the Districts' ocean outfall where treated :E'1 effluent is discharged from the plants to the ocean through a booster pumping station pipeline and diffuser complex. The diffuser begins '" discharging four miles offshore and extends another 6,000 feet, ' releasing effluent at depths from 170 to 195 feet. The underwater views of the pipe structure showed the marine life that live on and around it. He also advised that not all of the Districts' wastewater goes to the ocean, up to 15 million gallons per day currently receive tertiary ''':_ E teatment and is reused for groundwater recharge and landscape irrigation. The consultant stated that the Sanitation Districts undertook ji preparation of an "Action Plan" study to evaluate how to best accommodate future service demands and treatment requirements. The ' {' I''= actions proposed to meet those future needs are evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report, which he noted was the subject of the ',i` meeting that evening. : ( . Mr. Spencer then began his overview of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report on the Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilites Master 0 ''I f Plan. A slide presentation accompanied his report depicting the various elements covered by the EIR. The Program EIR is just one element of the Districts' 30-year "Action Plan" for wastewater management. This "Action Plan" study began in 1987 with issuance of the Districts' proposed "Action Plan for Balanced Environmental Management: Preserving Orange County' s Coastal Ocean Waters" and incoporates a complete review of the Sanitation Districts' activities includi h n t e followin 9 9� Scientific review of the Districts comprehensive, , five-year, $8 million, ocean monitoring program ) A 30-Year Facilities Master Plan by Carollo-Boyle, ',,. a Joint Venture I,Elf ° An Environmental Impact Report by Jones & Stokes , Associates and Willdan Associates { �' A Financial Plan by Bartle-Wells ° A Public Participation Program by Urban Alternatives The consultant noted that all of these studies, programs and documents will culminate in the Districts' application to the Environmental Protection Agency and Regional Water Quality Control Board for a new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit in August 1989, for the next five-year period. � dl 'II -5- ' 5/17/89 Mr. Spencer itemized the major facilities identified in the 30-year Facilities Master Plan which could have environmental impacts including trunk sewers, expansion of treatment plant capacity, a second ocean outfall and additional satell.ite water reclamation plants. He also defined some of the terminology used in the Facilities Plan and EIR as a measure of treatment effectiveness and effluent quality. One term commonly used is "Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) " which is a laboratory test which measures the wastewater' s potential effect upon the oxygen levels of a receiving water. The treatment plants are expected to expand to 399 mgd capacity by 2020 to keep pace with the anticipated flow increases. These flow estimates are based on the City and County general plans and are consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments regional growth projections. The consultant emphasized that treatment would be provided, as necessary, to protect beneficial uses of the Pacific Ocean and meet environmental regulations and permit requirements. Mr. Spencer then reviewed the three alternative treatment levels under consideration by the Boards of Directors to achieve the above-referenced objectives, as follows: SCENARIO NO. 1 - California Ocean Plan ° 30% Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Removal • ° 75% Solids Removal (One-third of flow would receive secondary treatment) SCENARIO NO. 2 - Existing Permit Conditions ° 60% Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Removal ° 75% Solids Removal (One-half of flow would receive secondary treatment, same as existing concentration) SCENARIO NO. 3 - Full Secondary Treatment (by 2005) ° 85% Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Removal ° 85% Solids Removal The consultant continued with his summary of the proposed future treatment facilities and operations that may have an impact on the environment. With regard to sludge management, the Districts' objective is to promote multiple, independent reuse alternatives and maintain at least one reliable disposal alternative. He pointed out three possible satellite water reclamation plants. Reclaimed water would be used for groundwater recharge, landscape irrigation and industrial supplies. The Districts are considering from one to three plants which would supplement the existing Water Factory 21 and the planned Green Acres Project, for a total reclamation capacity of 50 mgd. -6- 5/17/89 Mr. Spencer reiterated that an important part of the "Action Plan" is continuation of the toxics source control program. Under the Districts' ; current program, heavy metals have decreased from over 2,000 pounds per ' day to 500 pounds per day, a 75% reduction over the last 12 years. A €'I cornerstone of the Districts' "Action Plan" is continuation of the aggressive source control program. The cost of the proposed facilities included in the 30-year Facilities Plan will be about $3 to 3.8 billion in 1989 dollars. Approximately ' half of that cost is for operations and maintenance over the 30-year period. If the effects of inflation are taken into account, total costs reach from $7 to over $9 billion at 5% inflation. The cost to the users will increase from 1.5 to 3 times the current charges within the next 10-15 years. This will vary_ by service area and depending which t' a Scenario of treatment level is selected by the Boards. ', The consultant advised that the Program Environmental Impact Report covers the entire Master Plan and evaluated the Master Plan facilities in comparison to existing conditions relative to growth impacts, construction impacts, resource impacts, operations impacts, public ' ,° health and marine environmental issues. 5 � ,,, Said EIR also addresses alternatives to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The alternatives considered `°; ';'', n i clude the three treatment scenarios, a no-project alternative, j ' 18 reclamation sites, 36 sludge management alternatives and trunk sewer alternatives. p Mr. Spencer added that a Supplemental EIR would be necessary prior to i construction of the second outfall , the reclamation plants and interplant pipeline. The "Do-Nothing Option" or no-project alternative would result in significant adverse impacts, such as sewer overflows, inadequate sewage 1 treatment, environmental and public health impacts, construction ',, , ' moratoriums and fines against the Districts. ', ; ' He also addressed the growth-inducing issue in connection with plant expansion. He concluded that sewerage system expansion is growth E R inducing as defined by CEQA. However, he observed that the Sanitation Districts do not have land use authority, responsibilities nor I ' mitigation responsibilities. The County of Orange and the cities do have that authority and responsibility. Flow projections are based on their land use plans. Growth and population projections used are consistent with the projections of SCAG and SCAQMD. Mr. Spencer stated '; ' .! that there is no difference between the treatment scenarios in terms of : ';'.j ''i growth impacts. Impacts resulting from construction of the proposed facilities were also reviewed by the consultant. { ' ' He pointed out that whenever waste is generated, it has to go somewhere. There are only three media to assimilate wastes--air, land and water. The EIR evaluated all of these. It found that all air quality �' c standards would be met under all three scenarios. ;! , -7- 5/17/89 There would be a significant impact on the land from the additional sludge resulting from higher treatment levels. He noted that impacts on the water were especially important. Public health is of primary concern. Environmental issues evaluated relative to discharge to the Pacific Ocean included toxics, bacteria/viruses, water quality, marine life, beneficial uses of marine environment, and cumulative impacts of the Sanitation Districts' discharge considered in context with other ocean dischargers. With respect to viruses and bacteria, he pointed out that the EIR concludes for all three scenarios the location and depth of the outfall and favorable current conditions effectively preclude adverse impacts on public health. Mr. Spencer reiterated that industrial toxics control will remain an important part of the Sanitation Districts' program. He reviewed a graph showing the beneficial impacts of the ongoing industrial waste source control program. He added that there are no environmentally significant differences between the three scenarios with respect to discharge of toxics because of the source control program. He reported that some of the remaining suspended solids may settle near the diffuser including degradable organic matter, heavy metals and trace toxicants. It was pointed out that the area of impact by deposition, as estimated by change in feeding patterns of life forms near the diffusers, was approximated to be 28 acres for Scenario 1, 18 acres for Scenario 2, and 5 acres for Scenario 3. If the two outfalls were • separated, the acreage impacted would only be about 1/3 of these fiigures. The consultant summarized the findings of the EIR indicating the document addressed each of- the following major public health and environmental issues: ° Toxics ° Bacteria/viruses ° Water quality ° Marine life ° Beneficial uses ° Cumulative impacts Based on their study of the above issues, they concluded that they predict no standards violations will occur for any of the three scenarios, and expect no significant adverse marine impacts for any of the three scenarios. Water quality standards would be met by all three scenarios. Marine life would be protected and there would be no significant adverse impacts on beneficial uses. In looking at the cumulative impacts, they looked at long-term trends and found a decreasing level of impacts for the last decade. Mr. Spencer reiterated that the EIR indicates no significant adverse impacts on the marine environment. There would be significant increase in energy demands for the new treatment facilities. The Districts do, however, produce energy from digester gas. Under Scenario No. 1 the least energy would be required to be purchased and Scenario No. 3 would require the most. -8- 1 5/17/89 '' Other resources affected by the various scenarios would be construction ! materials, chemicals used, personnel requirements and costs to construct, operate and maintain additional facilities. { Mr. Spencer said that Jones & Stokes concluded that resource allocations h! would increase, with Scenario No 3 requiring the greatest amount of resources. The land impact increases with Scenario 3 also. The marine environment impact decreases under Scenario 3. - i" He reiterated that the Draft EIR finds that all three scenarios meet existing regulations; protect beneficial uses; and protect the environment from significant impairment. Mr. Spencer stated that the ! - Districts must weigh the tradeoffs of alternatives, balancing small ,',- changes in the ocean against larger changes on land. p' Receive and file written comments 'I' It was moved, seconded and duly carried: y That the written comments received from the persons listed on Attachment 1 to these minutes relative to the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report on the Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan, be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed. Oral public comments Chairman Smith reiterated that the purpose of the meeting was to receive J comments on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. He requested that their remarks be kept to approximately five minutes and that in the interest of time that speakers not repeat previous commentary. The Chair then recognized the following persons who addressed the Boards: - Margaret Johnson, 19742 Shorecliff Lane, Huntington Beach Mrs. Johnson stated that she represented the Huntington Beach Homeowners Association as well as the American Cetacean Society and that she was there to request the Boards to go to full secondary treatment. She questioned the validity of the facts contained in the EIR relative to biological community. She commented on her view of the ' ° ocean conditions based on her personal observations. She also commented on the condition of the mouth of the Santa Ana River after a ; wall heavy rain. ; She also expressed concern relative to the sludge issue. She "i questioned whether different levels of purity were required for the ', sludges used for agricultural purposes and those that were discharged `f into the ocean. Mrs. Johnson added that in her view the organisms in the ocean are showing short and long-term changes, and she felt thati °; , something must be impacting them. f - Shannon Jakosky, 1042 W. Bay Avenue, Balboa '' Ms. Jakosky stated that she represented the Balboa community as well as ',', the American Cetacean Society. Her comment was that she believed ° Orange County should strive to be the best that money can buy which, in f her opinion, included the best sewage treatment available. She urged 1 full secondary treatment. -9- I!f 5/17/89 Shannon Jakosky (Continued) She also questioned whether data in the EIR was up to date quoting surveys done in 1981, 1983 and 1984. Ms. Jakosky claimed that information in the document relative to the Pinneped (sea lion) community was inaccurate. She recommended that more current marine samples be taken and analyzed. She commented that she believed that toxicity, the public health issue and the marine environment were all interdependent and she didn' t think that standard changes or any damaging changes were acceptable. - Moira Nonnweiler, 602 N. Linwood Avenue, Santa Ana Ms. Nonweiler stated that she fully agreed with previous speakers. In addition, she commented that she did not think the greater amount of sludge produced under Scenari.o 3 was a significant disadvantage because one year ago all sludge went to landfills and now 50% is being used for agricultural purposes. She believed if that change could come about in one year, more uses could be found in the future. She requested that her recommendation for full secondary treatment be made a matter of record. - R. J. Schwichtenberg, 4141 Fireside Circle, Irvine Mr. Schwichtenberg expressed concern for future generations with regard to a clean environment. He felt it is a matter of cost and that this area could afford to implement the best treatment method. He stated that his recommendation was to do better than Scenario 3. • - Ed Evans, 4793 Grace Avenue, Cypress Mr. Evans stated he represented Coyote Creek Greens. He stated that he didn't feel the EIR addressed a broad enough environmental range. It does not discuss the full ethological consequences. It should be based on bioregionalism. He indicated that human wastes should be controlled at home, source reduction, and should be recycled and used for agricultural purposes. - Beth Leeds, 1645 Amoya Drive, Laguna Beach Ms. Leeds stated that she is President of the Orange County "Save Our Shores". She added that they believed that the projected growth of Orange County from 1.9 million to 2.8 million within the next 30 years will add to the degradation of the ocean, as well as the quality of life in Orange County. Of paramount concern to her is the capacity/growth issues and potential related health concerns. She urged the public to find ways to clean up the environment and stop future pollution. She opposed the 301(h) waiver and questioned whether the no-project scenario wasn' t viable if the current system was upgraded. Ms. Leeds reiterated that she was against any growth-inducing projects. - Bernard Lipman, 2208 Via Caliente, Fullerton Mr. Lipman indicated that he was a concerned citizen and was also representing the Orange County Group of the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club has gone on record as opposing the 301(h) waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency. He stated that the EIR does not address the cumulative demands on the ocean from storm drains, nor the effects of toxic dumping of dredge materials. He did not feel that the Districts should discharge any wastewater into the ocean unless it received secondary treatment. -10- lil F i 5/17/89 ?; -Bernard Lipman (Continued) He also commented on the differences in heavy metal concentrations +j ' between Scenarios 2 and 3, and expressed his view that these materials could cause a tremendous deleterious effect on the environment. With regard to differences in cost of the scenarios, Mr. Lipman stated that he felt -the additional sludge handling costs were minimal compared to '', the total cost of the initial construction of facilities. , He concluded that the Sierra Club feels that full secondary treatment of sewage is necessary. - Scott Flodin, 200 E. 16th Street, Costa MesaI'III Mr. Flodin stated that he represented the students of Orange Coast College, more particularly the Marine Mammal Research Group on campus. He agreed with previous comments. He also stated he believed that the marine mammals off the coast are not being monitored adequately. He referred to a 1984 survey listed in the EIR and stated that he felt more recent data should be collected. He stated that if there is not a { � fourth scenario, he would have to support Scenario 3. f - John Hingtgen, 916 W. North, Anaheim ' �',I' .} Mr. Hingtgen commented that he felt the graphs in the EIR were misleading. In his opinion they appeared to minimize the differences between the three scenarios. He pointed out several examples which he felt distorted the information because of the scales used. He added _ j that he believed the EIR understates the benefits of going to full secondary treatment while exaggerating the negative effects. Mr. Hingtgen suggested a new EIR be prepared. 4 - Jim Bevington, 13761 Marquette Street, Westminster Mr. Bevington indicated that he was a member of the Surf Rider ; 5' I Organization of Orange County. He asked that it be recorded that he is { ' against the 301(h) waiver. We should utilize the best technology at hand and use the best available treatment processes, he said. He ;' '' '. believed the added cost would be worthwhile. He added that facilities ' `' ' IF rwould have to be increased to meet the added demand by the year 2000 or 2020, and felt that the Districts should upgrade the facilities at the 9!� ' same time. He didn't think the people of Orange County would object to ffi the additional cost. ; S Jerrell Lofton Moore, Jr. , 913 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach ',! j : Mr. Moore agreed that the additional charge for full secondary y'V treatment seemed like a small price to pay. He didn ' t think it was the best solution but was the better one for now. He believed that additional study must be done and new solutions found. Mr. Moore added that secondary treatment is necessary in his view no matter whatIi '4, �,I . the costs are. �, Thomas Pratte (no address given) 1 Mr. Pratte stated that he was representing the Surf Rider Foundation. He indicated that they felt the current 50% secondary treatment was f inadequate. He noted that the EIR states that there is a 10-fold difference between Scenario 2 and full secondary treatment with regard to bacteria and viruses. He disagreed with those figures and observed 1 that he believed there are a lot of unknowns with regard to the �j I viruses. t ' E 5/17/89 Thomas Pratte (Continued) He also questioned why it would take until 2005 to complete the full secondary treatment facilities and whether it would be possible to obtain that treatment before the year 2000. Mr. Pratte encouraged the Sanitation Districts to take a very conservative approach towards handling their wastewater. He stated that there are less impacts on the marine environment with full secondary treatment, as well as less bioaccumulation and, in his opinion, less risk to swimmers and surfers. Close Public Hearing The Joint Chairman then announced that there being no further oral comments, he would declare the hearing closed at 9:07 p.m. Mr. Smith reminded the attendees that there would be no response to the community at this meeting. Rather, after the close of the official comment period on May 30th, the consultants would address all the oral and written comments in a Final EIR to be considered by the Boards at a later date. Directing consultants to address Moved, seconded and duly carried: written and oral comments received on the Draft EIR and prepare Final That the consultants be, and are Program EIR after close of the hereby, directed to address oral comment period on May 30, 1989 and written comments received on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report on the Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master • Plan and to prepare the Final Program EIR after the close of the comment period on May 30, 1989. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:09 p.m. , May 17, 1989. DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:09 p.m. , May 17, 1989. DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned to 5:30 p.m. , Wednesday, May 31, 1989, to consider modifications to the District' s supplemental user fee program. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:10 p.m. , May 17, 1989. DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 be adjourned to 4:00 p.m. , Wednesday, May 31, 1989, to consider modifications to the District' s supplemental user fee program. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9: 10 p.m. , May 17, 1989. -12- 5/17/89 DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:09 p.m. , May 17, 1989. DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 be adjourned to 5:30 p.m. , Wednesday, June 7, 1989, to consider modifications to the District' s supplemental user fee program. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:10 p.m. , May 17, 1989. DISTRICT 14 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 14 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:09 p.m. , May 17, 1989. I I i Secretary, Boa ds of Directors County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1 , 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 , 13 & 14 -13- ` "ATTACHMENT 1" Written comments have been received from the following relative to the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report on the Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan: Mark Astor City of La Habra 25471 Shoshone 201 E. La Habra Boulevard E1 Toro, CA 92630 La Habra, CA 90633-0337 William M. Behrens Robert Lindsey 1004 Carbon Canyon Road (Address not given) Chino Hills, CA 91709 Mechelle Matson Jim Bevington 21472 Redroso 13761 Marquette Street Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Westminster, CA 92683 William J. Mautz Charles A. Brewer III and family 1860 Genneyre Street 20960 Charter Oak Terrace Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Yorba Linda, CA 92686 Marie Mulroy California State Lands Commission 1739 Candlestick Lane 1807 - 13th Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Sacramento, CA 95814 Mrs. E. R. Robison Costa Mesa Sanitary District 4682 Warner P. 0. Box 1200 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Gordon B. Ruser • R. L. Davis 1221 South Sycamore Street 7 Hawkridge Santa Ana, CA 92707 Irvine, CA 92714 Fred E. Switger Theresa Ebeling 717 E. Virginia Road 5318 W. Lucky Way Fullerton, CA 92631 Santa Ana, CA 92704 U.S. Marine Corps Terri Gautier Marine Corps Air Bases P. 0. Box 15262 Western Area Newport Beach, CA E1 Toro (Santa Ana) , CA 92709 Warner George Elsa L. Weber 862 N. Prospect Park 18091 Westlake Avenue Tustin, CA 92680 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Anita Griffin Martha Wida 2080 Santa Ora, #B 6441 Shawnee Road Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Westminster, CA 92683 Jean Hermanson Jean Winterfelt 17587 Mead Street 1945 Port Weybridge Place Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Newport Beach, CA Eber & Lorraine Knapp Barbara Wood 7152 Santee Avenue 40 Navarre, #301 Westminster, CA 92684-0001 Irvine, CA 92715 David Kobel 16736 Barefoot Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 I certify that those portions of the minutes of the combined adjourned regular meeting of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California, on May 17, 1989, reporting the actions of District No. 2 are a true and correct report of the minutes of said District and that the additional matter reported showing the actions of the other Districts shall be regarded as surplusage. Chairman Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California Secretary, Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California �;: � ' ,�. „ f � I certify that those portions of the minutes of the combined adjourned regular meeting of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California, on May 17, 1989, reporting the actions of District No. 3 are a true and correct report of the minutes of said District and that the additional matter reported showing the actions of the other Districts shall be regarded as surplusage. Cha ran Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California S� • . Secretary, Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California I certify that those portions of the minutes of the combined adjourned regular meeting of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California, on May 17, 1989, reporting the actions of District No. 5 are a true and correct report of the minutes of said District and that the additional matter reported showing the actions of the other Districts shall be regarded as surplusage. A n f Directors of Coty ion District No.ge County, California Secretary, Boa d•of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California I certify that those portions of the minutes of the combined adjourned regular meeting of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California, on May 17, 1989, reporting the actions of District No. 6 are a true and correct report of the minutes of said District and that the additional matter reported showing the actions of the other Districts shall be regarded as surplusage. W Chairman B rd of Directors of County itation District No. 6 of Orange County, California Secretary, Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County, California • • i I certify that those portions of the minutes of the combined adjourned regular meeting of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California, on May 17, 1989, reporting the actions of District No. 7 are a true and correct report of the minutes of said District and that the additional matter reported showing the actions of the other Districts shall be regarded as surplusage. 4f, Chairman Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County, California Secretary, Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County, California I certify that those portions of the minutes of the combined adjourned regular meeting of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California, on May 17, 1989, reporting the actions of District No. 11 are a true and correct report of the minutes of said District and that the additional matter reported showing the actions of the other Districts shall be regarded as surplusage. i rman Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California Secretary, Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California I certify that those portions of the minutes of the combined adjourned regular meeting of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California, on May 17, 1989, reporting the actions of District No. 14 are a true and correct report of the minutes of said District and that the additional matter reported showing the actions of the other Districts shall be regarded as surplusage. Chairman Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 14 of Orange County, California Secretary, Boa d of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 14 of Orange County, California i STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS . COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954 . 2, I hereby certify that the Agenda for the Adjourned Regular Board Meeting of Districts Nos 1-14 held on V'X , 19R1 was duly posted for public inspection at the main lobby of the District' s offices on 1981 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 114*- day of 19 g9 . Rita J. Brow1h, Secretary of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District%No.s I, a�3,51(ol'1, Ili 13 `�14 of Orange County, California