draft eir public review summary report - scwd2 Desalination Program

DRAFT EIR PUBLIC REVIEW SUMMARY REPORT

City of Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek

Water District (scwd2)

Regional Seawater Desalination Project

October 2013

Prepared for:

City of Santa Cruz Water Department Soquel Creek Water District

Prepared by:

scwd2 Regional Seawater Desalination Project Draft EIR Public Review Summary Report

City of Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek Water District i

Table of Contents

1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT .................................................................................. 2

2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ................................................................. 2

3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ....................................................... 4

3.1 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY ....................................................................................... 4 3.2 NOTIFICATION OF EXTENSION OF PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD ....................................... 6 3.3 OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ................................................................. 7

4 PUBLIC HEARINGS ................................................................................................ 8

4.1 OPEN HOUSE ....................................................................................................... 8 4.2 PRESENTATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ...................................... 9

5 SUMMARY OF COMMENTERS ............................................................................ 10

List of Appendices

Appendix A – Notification Materials Notice of Availability and Mailers Press Releases Display Ads Email Notices On-Site Posted Notices On-Site Hearing Notices

Appendix B – Public Hearing Materials Agenda and Open House Programs Open House Exhibit Boards Presentation

Appendix C – Comments Received on the Draft EIR Submitted Written Comments Transcripts of Verbal Comments


City of Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek Water District 2

1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

The City of Santa Cruz (City) and the Soquel Creek Water District (District), as joint Lead Agencies, prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed scwd2 Regional Seawater Desalination Project (proposed project). The proposed project, as described in the Draft EIR, entails the construction and operation of a seawater desalination plant and related facilities that would be shared by the City and the District, with a capacity of 2.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and potential expandability to 4.5 mgd. The Draft EIR provides an overview and detailed project description for the proposed project (http://www.scwd2desal.org/Page-EIR_Docs.php).

On May 13, 2013, the Lead Agencies formally issued a Notice of Availability stating that the Draft EIR was available for a 60-day public review period from May 13, 2013 until July 15, 2013. The original 60-day public review period constituted an extension of the normal 45-day review period required by CEQA. Two public hearings were held on June 3, 2013 and July 1, 2013, to solicit comments on the Draft EIR. As a result of initial comments received from the public, the review period was extended an additional 30 days, to August 12, 2013, to provide more time for the public to participate in the review process.

This report summarizes the Draft EIR public review process and provides a detailed account of the public noticing and public hearings that were conducted, and the comments received on the Draft EIR. This report was prepared in response to requests from some community members that the Draft EIR comments be made available as soon as possible and in advance of completion of the Final EIR. Under CEQA, public comments on a Draft EIR are not required to be published and are not typically published until a Final EIR is completed. Responses to these comments have not yet been prepared, but under CEQA are required to be prepared and included in a Final EIR. This report’s appendices contain copies of all the public notices, meeting materials and public comments received during the public review period.

In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, all comments are required to be responded to in writing as part of the Final EIR.

2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

In compliance with CEQA, the City and District are conducting a thorough environmental review of the proposed project. CEQA is a California statute that requires state and local agencies to identify any significant environmental impacts of the projects they propose and/or approve.

The proposed project has been studied in a Draft EIR. An EIR is an informational document that evaluates the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project and provides key data and analysis for decision-makers and the public. An EIR must be considered by a public agency or



agencies and certified prior to approval or disapproval of a project. An EIR identifies and evaluates the significant environmental impacts of a project, whether the impacts can be avoided or reduced, and alternatives to the project that should also be considered.

The Integrated Water Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #203102140) (IWP Program EIR) was prepared and certified by the Santa Cruz City Council in 2005 (City, 2005a). This document evaluated the City’s IWP elements, including fully implementing the City’s Water Conservation Plan, curtailing water use during droughts, and developing a supplemental water supply consisting of a seawater desalination plant and related facilities, to address water supply shortages during drought. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions, such as the IWP elements noted above, that can be characterized as one project, and are related in some way. The IWP Program EIR evaluated both a City-only and a regional desalination project in conjunction with the District.

The current Draft EIR provides a more focused project-level analysis of the proposed 2.5-mgd desalination plant and related facilities. While it is unknown if or when an expansion or expansions up to 4.5 mgd would take place, the Draft EIR also provides an updated program-level analysis within each topical section to address the potential future expansion of the project.

The first step in the preparation of the Draft EIR, called scoping, allowed the public and interested parties to help define the issues and alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR. A Notice of Preparation/Initial Study was issued on November 15, 2010, to notify all interested parties that the Lead Agencies would be preparing an EIR to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. During the scoping period (November 15, 2010 to January 10, 2011), the public provided input on the environmental topics, potential effects, mitigation measures, and alternatives to be analyzed in the EIR, as summarized in the Scoping Report for the project (http://www.scwd2desal.org/documents/Draft_EIR/Draft_EIR_Appendices/Appendix%20A_scwd2ScopingSummary.pdf). Following scoping, technical and environmental studies were conducted to inform and complete the Draft EIR.

During the 90-day public review period the public had the opportunity to provide formal comments on the Draft EIR: in writing for the duration of the comment period, and orally and/or in writing at two public hearings held on June 3, 2013 and July 1, 2013. All comments received during the public review period are included in Appendix C to this report. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, all comments are required to be responded to in writing as part of a Final EIR. A Final EIR can also include revisions to a Draft EIR. Additional information about the environmental review process for the proposed project is provided in Section 2, Introduction, of the Draft EIR (http://www.scwd2desal.org/documents/Draft_EIR/2%20-0_Intro_DEIR.pdf).



3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

3.1 Notice of Availability

The City and District formally initiated the public review period for the Draft EIR by publicly issuing the Notice of Availability (NOA) on May 13, 2013. The NOA provided a summary of the project description, environmental impacts, and alternatives. It also provided information about the public review period, how to access the Draft EIR, details regarding the two public hearings, and instructions on how to submit comments on the Draft EIR.

A variety of methods were used to inform the public of the availability of the Draft EIR and public review period, as described below.

NOA or NOA Mailer Sent via Postal or Overnight Mail: At the beginning of the public review period, local agencies, relevant regulatory agencies, and property owners and occupants within approximately 300 feet of the project area received a NOA or NOA mailer describing the Draft EIR, the public review period, and public meeting information for the proposed project. The NOA was sent to the agencies and elected officials and the NOA mailer was sent to property owners. The NOA was also hand-delivered to the County Clerk of the Board and the City Clerk and Planning Department for posting. The NOA and NOA mailer both included a description of the project, maps of the project area, and information on the opportunities for public input. (See Appendix A)

Press Release Sent to Local Media: A press release was distributed to local media outlets on May 10, 2013 for distribution to their readers. The press release announced the release of the Draft EIR. It included a brief description of the project and information on the opportunities for public input, including information about the date, locations, and times of the public hearings. (See Appendix A)

Display Advertisement Placed in Local Newspapers: Display advertisements were placed in local newspapers to inform readers of the availability of the Draft EIR and public hearings. The display advertisement provided a brief description of the project and information about the date, locations, and times of the public hearings. Additional advertisements for the July 1st public meeting were also placed in these newspapers (except for City on a Hill Press, which is not published during the summer). (See Appendix A)

o Aptos Times: May 15 and July 1, 2013 editions

o City on a Hill Press: May 16, 2013 edition

o Good Times: May 16 and June 27, 2013 editions

o Capitola-Soquel Times: June and July 2013 editions

o Santa Cruz Sentinel: May 13, 2013 and June 25, 2013 editions



o Santa Cruz Weekly: May 15 and June 26, 2013 editions

Notices Sent via Email: Email notices were sent to addresses on the project email list to notify the recipients about the availability of the Draft EIR and public hearings. The emails included a brief description of the project, information on how to access the Draft EIR and information on the opportunities for public input, including information about the date, locations, and times of the public hearings. (See Appendix A)

Information Posted to Project Website: Electronic copies of the NOA, Draft EIR and information on the public hearings were made available on the scwd2 Desalination Program website at http://www.scwd2desal.org/Page-EIR_Docs.php.

Information Posted On-Site at Project Locations: Informational signs were posted at the sites of all proposed aboveground project facilities, including all eight alternative intake pump station sites, all three alternative plant sites, and the site of the Morrissey Pump Station upgrades. At least one sign was posted at each site. In most cases more than one sign was posted, especially on the larger sites. A total of 21 signs were posted. The signs were 22 17 inches and placed in the public right-of-way directly in front of or adjacent to the sites.

The NOA and Notice of Completion form, along with copies of the Draft EIR, were sent to the State Clearinghouse, which distributed it to involved state agencies. In addition, the NOA, the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR, and an electronic copy of the Draft EIR were sent directly to federal, state, and local agencies. The NOA and Draft EIR Executive Summary were also sent to individuals and organizations who had requested a copy.

The Draft EIR was also available for public review during the comment period at the following locations:

Public libraries within the agencies’ service areas:

o Downtown Branch, 224 Church Street, Santa Cruz

o Branciforte Branch, 230 Gault Street, Santa Cruz

o Garfield Park Branch, 705 Woodrow Avenue, Santa Cruz

o Live Oak Branch, 2380 Portola Drive, Santa Cruz

o Capitola Branch, 2005 Wharf Road, Capitola

o Aptos Branch, 7695 Soquel Drive, Aptos

o La Selva Branch, 316 Estrella Avenue, La Selva Beach

o Scotts Valley Branch, 251 Kings Village Road, Scotts Valley

o Porter Memorial Library, 3050 Porter Street, Soquel



Soquel Creek Water District Offices, 5180 Soquel Drive, Soquel

City of Santa Cruz Water Department, 212 Locust Street, Suite C, Santa Cruz

County Clerk of the Board, 701 Ocean Street, Room 500, Santa Cruz

City of Santa Cruz, City Clerk, 809 Center Street Room 9, Santa Cruz

Via the original NOA and NOA mailer, interested agencies, public officials, and members of the public were invited to submit formal comments on the Draft EIR until 5 p.m. on July 15, 2013. See the section below for notifications regarding the further extension of the public review period.

3.2 Notification of Extension of Public Review

Period

Initially, the City of Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek Water District provided an extended 60-day period for the public to read and provide comments on the Draft EIR. Several Santa Cruz and District area residents asked the agencies for an extension to the comment period, citing the desire for more time to read the Draft EIR and prepare their comments. The public review period was therefore extended by an additional 30 days, bringing it to a 90-day review period which ended on August 12, 2013. Notice of the extension was provided through the following means:

Notice of Extension Mailer Sent via Postal Mail: On July 9, 2013, a mailer describing the extension of the public review period was sent to property owners and occupants within approximately 300 feet of the project area, as well as those people who had provided postal addresses on the sign-in sheets from the June 3rd public meeting. The mailer also included information on how to access the Draft EIR and how to submit comments. (See Appendix A)

Notice of Extension of Public Review Period Sent via Overnight Mail: On July 3, 2013, a Notice of Extension of Public Review Period was sent to the State Clearinghouse and to federal, state and local agencies that previously received the NOA. This document was also hand-delivered to the County Clerk of the Board and the City Clerk and Planning Department for posting. (See Appendix A)

Press Releases Sent to Local Media: A press release was distributed to local media outlets on June 28, 2013 for distribution to their readers. The press release announced the extension of the public review period and also issued a reminder about the second public meeting on July 1, 2013. A correction to the June 28 press release was distributed on June 30, 2013, correcting the name of the church where the second public meeting was to be held. (See Appendix A)



Display Advertisement Placed in Local Newspapers: Display advertisements were placed in the following local newspapers to inform readers of the extension of the public review period. (See Appendix A)

o Aptos Times: July 15, 2013 edition

o Good Times: July 25, 2013 edition

o Santa Cruz Weekly: July 24, 2013 edition

o Capitola-Soquel Times: August 2013 edition

o Santa Cruz Sentinel: July 14, 2013 edition

Notices Sent via Email: Email notices were sent to addresses on the project email list to notify the recipients about the extension of the public review period. (See Appendix A)

Information Posted to Project Website: Information on the project website, http://www.scwd2desal.org, was updated to reflect the new deadline for public comments on the Draft EIR.

Information Posted On-Site at Project Locations: The existing signs at the sites of above-ground project facilities were updated with stickers explaining the extension of the public review period and stating the new deadline for public comments on the Draft EIR.

3.3 Opportunities for Public Comment

Agencies and members of the public were provided multiple opportunities to submit comments on the Draft EIR. Public comments were accepted in writing for the duration of the public comment period, from May 13, 2013 until August 12, 2013. Written comments were accepted via email and postal mail. Public comments were received by Heidi Luckenbach, scwd2 Desalination Program Coordinator, either by posted mail or email at the addresses below.

Postal Mail: Heidi Luckenbach scwd2 Desalination Program Coordinator City of Santa Cruz, Water Department 212 Locust Street, Suite C Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Email: [email protected]

Verbal and written comments were also accepted at two public hearings, which were held on June 3, 2013 and July 1, 2013, as detailed below in Section 4.



4 PUBLIC HEARINGS

The City and the District held two public hearings, one daytime meeting in the District’s service area on June 3, 2013 and one evening meeting in the City’s service area on July 1, 2013. Interested participants were invited to attend either or both hearings.

The July 1st public hearing was an agenda item on the regularly scheduled City Water Commission meeting, and as such it was a Brown Act meeting and was noticed accordingly. In fact, both public hearings were noticed according to the Brown Act, and the following notice was posted at each public hearing site, as well as City Hall, the City of Santa Cruz Water Department, and the City of Santa Cruz Planning Department: “It is possible that a majority of the City Council, Soquel Creek Water District Board, or City Water Commission could be present at the public hearings.” Such wording was also included on stickers which were added to the onsite posted notices at the potential sites of the aboveground project facilities.

The same presentation, handouts, and staff were available at each meeting. Additionally, each meeting followed the same format: a 30-minute open house, a 30-minute presentation, and then a formal oral comment period where attendees could provide their comments verbally. These comments were transcribed by a court reporter. Transcriptions of the meeting are contained in Appendix C. The table below provides information about the location, time, format, and content of each meeting.

District’s Service Area City’s Service Area

Location Seacliff Inn

7500 Old Dominion Court

Aptos, CA

First Congregation Church

900 High Street

Santa Cruz, CA

Time 12:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. 6:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

Format 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. Open House

1:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. Presentation

1:30 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. Oral Comment Period

6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. Open House

7:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Presentation

8:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. Oral Comment Period

Public Participation

76 participants signed in

26 participants provided verbal comments during the oral comment period

226 participants signed in

48 participants provided verbal comments during the oral comment period

4.1 Open House

The open house provided an opportunity for participants to view exhibit boards with project information and ask questions of staff representatives and project team members. Attendees viewed exhibits on background information describing the purpose of the proposed project, project description and related mapping, conclusions of the Draft EIR impact analysis, alternatives analysis, and the CEQA environmental review process. Specifically, the exhibits stations included:



Welcome Station: Sign-in table, comment sheets, speaker cards, public meeting agenda and open house program, and project information.

Reading Station: Hard copies of the Draft EIR available for review.

Project Background and Need for the Project: Information on why the project is being evaluated and why the proposed project is needed for the City and the District.

Project Description: Description of how the desalination process works; maps and description of project component alternatives; rendering of conceptual architecture and landscaping.

Alternatives: Overview of the alternatives to the proposed project that were considered in the Draft EIR and description of the screening process used to determine which alternatives were evaluated in detail.

Environmental Review Process: Key environmental findings of the Draft EIR; information on how to submit comments and participate in the public review process; timeline and next steps.

Public Comment Station: Comment cards, comment box, information on how to effectively comment, and contact information.

See Appendix B for copies of the agenda and open house program, and exhibit boards.

4.2 Presentation and Opportunity for Public

Comment

A 30-minute presentation was made at each meeting to explain the purpose of the meeting, provide an overview of CEQA and the environmental review process, and provide an overview of the Draft EIR including the need for the project, primary project objectives, components of the project, environmental design features, summary of key environmental impact conclusions, and information on project alternatives. Information was also presented with respect to how to participate in the Draft EIR review and how comments received will be responded to. (See Appendix B)

The presentation was followed by the oral comment period. Participants who desired to make a formal, verbal comment were able to do so by submitting a speaker card with their name. Speakers were then called to the microphone in order of submittal and either gave their public comment verbally, or requested that a staff member read their comment aloud. Participants were asked to be mindful of a three-minute time limit but were assured that the meeting would last until all public comments were heard. A court reporter was available to record the verbal comments of each person who spoke. (See Appendix C)

Hard copy comment cards were also available at the welcome table and comment station, so that meeting attendees could provide written comments at the meeting.



5 SUMMARY OF COMMENTERS

A total of 403 comments were received on the Draft EIR, which comprised 329 written comments, as well as 74 verbal comments received at the public hearings. Approximately 300 separate individuals, organizations, or agencies commented on the Draft EIR. The following table lists all of the commenters who provided written comments during the public review period.

As indicated previously, responses to these comments have not yet been prepared. CEQA requires that public comments received on a Draft EIR be responded to as part of the Final EIR for a given project.

Commenter Name Date Code

A. FEDERAL AGENCIES

NOAA Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 8/6/2013 A1

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service 7/10/2013 A2

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service 7/19/2013 A2

US Fish and Wildlife Service 8/7/2013 A4

B. STATE AGENCIES

California Coastal Commission 5/20/2013 B1

California Coastal Commission 8/12/2013 B2

California Department of Fish and Wildlife 8/13/2013 B3

California Department of Parks and Recreation 8/12/2013 B4

California Department of Transportation 8/12/2013 B5

California Public Utilities Commission 8/7/2013 B6

California State Lands Commission 8/8/2013 B7

State Water Resources Control Board 5/31/2013 B8

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 8/14/2013 B9

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 8/14/2013 B10

C. REGIONAL AGENCIES

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 8/12/2013 C1

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control Board 8/12/2013 C2

D. LOCAL AGENCIES

Santa Cruz City Schools 6/25/2013 D1

Santa Cruz County Planning and Environmental Health 8/12/2013 D2




E. ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES

Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of California Unions for Reliable Energy 8/12/2013 E1

Aqueous Jepson Technologies 7/3/2013 E2

Ascent Solutions LLC 8/11/2013 E3

Ecology Action 8/12/2013 E4

Habitat and Watershed Caretakers 5/31/2013 E5

Habitat and Watershed Caretakers 6/25/2013 E6

Monterey Bay Conservancy 8/12/2013 E7

Residents of Westside Santa Cruz 6/22/2013 E8

Santa Cruz County Business Council 8/12/2013 E9

Santa Cruz Desal Alternatives 6/11/2013 E10

Santa Cruz Desal Alternatives 8/12/2013 E11

Surfers Environmental Alliance 7/12/2013 E12

Surfrider 8/12/2013 E13

Villa de Branciforte Historical Preservation Society 7/1/2013 E14

Villa de Branciforte Historical Preservation Society 6/13/2013 E15

Volker, Stephan C on behalf of Habitat and Watershed Caretakers 8/20/2013 E16

Wittwer & Parkin LLP on behalf of Community Water Coalition 5/20/2013 E17

Wittwer & Parkin LLP on behalf of Community Water Coalition 8/12/2013 E18

Wittwer & Parkin LLP on behalf of Save the Habitat 8/12/2013 E19

F. INDIVIDUALS

Adams, Randall 5/12/2013 F1

Aird, John 8/12/2013 F2

Aitken, Erica 5/27/2013 F3



Allen, Jeremiah and Cathy 7/15/2013 F6

Anderson, Jeff 6/3/2013 F7

Barney, Michael 7/11/2013 F8



Baskin Greene, David 6/30/2013 F11

Baskin Greene, David 8/9/2013 F12

Bentley, Jim 6/2/2013 F13




F. INDIVIDUALS (continued)

Bentley, Jim 8/10/2013 F14

Bittner, Kristi 8/12/2013 F15

Boardman, Tom 7/1/2013 F16

Bobbe, Cherie 8/12/2013 F17

Boone, Troy 7/1/2013 F18

Boyd, Michael 7/1/2013 F19

Brocklebank, Jean 8/12/2013 F20

Brodsky, Michael 8/12/2013 F21

Brown, Paul 5/31/2013 F22

Brownlee, Bruce 7/1/2013 F23

Brownlee, Bruce 8/12/2013 F24

Burgess, Karen 6/16/2013 F25

Burgess, Karen 6/17/2013 F26

Bush, Craig 7/1/2013 F27

Cameron, Ken 5/31/2013 F28

Campbell, Kimberly 8/15/2013 F29

Capp, Louisa 7/11/2013 F30

Chapman, Sidney and Backstrom, Jon 7/1/2013 F31

Chen, Dan 7/3/2013 F32

Coffman, Robert and Susan 8/12/2013 F33

Cohen, Sandra 5/14/2013 F34

Cohen, Sandra 6/19/2013 F35

Comito, Bradley 8/12/2013 F36

Cook, James 7/6/2013 F37

Cotton, Greg 6/24/2013 F38

Cotton, Greg 8/11/2013 F39

Cunningham, Bill and Robin 8/12/2013 F40

Daniels, Bruce 7/1/2013 F41

Daniels, Bruce 8/9/2013 F42

Davies, Andy 7/1/2013 F43

Dawson, Megan 6/14/2013 F44

Detloff, Larry 7/1/2013 F45

Dixson, Jim 8/11/2013 F46





Dowling, H. 8/3/2013 F47

Dyer, Meredith 5/14/2013 F48

Easley, Anne 8/11/2013 F49

Elliot, A J 7/8/2013 F50

Elliot, A J 8/9/2013 F51

Engfer, Doug 6/19/2013 F52

English, Richard 6/17/2013 F53

Eselius, D G 6/6/2013 F54

Eselius, D G 6/17/2013 F55

Farmer, Ellen and Douglas, Coleen 8/11/2013 F56

Fieberling, Wilson 7/31/2013 F57

Forbes, Peter 5/14/2013 F58

Gardner, Dave 7/11/2013 F59

Garrett, Brett 8/12/2013 F60

Geer, Judy 7/1/2013 F61

Geiger, Fred 7/7/2013 F62

Giacchino, Aldo 8/8/2013 F63

Gibson, Barbara 7/1/2013 F64

Gibson, Ross 8/12/2013 F65

Go, Chandra 8/12/2013 F66

Go, David 8/11/2013 F67

Graham, Scott 8/12/2013 F68

Gratz, Paul 7/3/2013 F69






Griffith, Jacquy 5/18/2013 F75




Grobe, Karin 7/6/2013 F79





Grodberg, Eric 8/12/2013 F80

Grover, Jamie 8/12/2013 F81

Gruhn, Isebille 8/7/2013 F82

Gruhnstra, Judi 8/7/2013 F83

Haase, Peter 8/12/2013 F84

Haddad, Brent M. 8/6/2013 F85

Hadland, Norma 6/30/2013 F86

Haiken, Claire 7/1/2013 F87

Hall, Donna 7/1/2013 F88

Hambleton, Tom 7/6/2013 F89

Hansen, Kitty 8/10/2013 F90

Hanson, Freddie 6/19/2013 F91

Hanson, Freddie 6/30/2013 F92

Hanson, Michael and Fredericka 5/29/2013 F93

Hartley, David 8/12/2013 F94

Hensinger, Donald 8/9/2013 F95

Hensinger, Dorothy 7/5/2013 F96

Herold, Edward 7/6/2013 F97

Hertel, Nita 6/3/2013 F98

Hietela, Ken 6/30/2013 F99

Hoagland, Jim 7/12/2013 F100

Holt, Sue 8/8/2013 F101

Hurley, Kurt 8/12/2013 F102

Ingram, Leslie 7/1/2013 F103

Irwin, Stephanie 5/16/2013 F104

Jack, Gail 6/14/2013 F105

Johnson, Dion 7/1/2013 F106

Jolly, Jen 6/5/2013 F107

Jones, Helen 7/24/2013 F108

Jordan, Joe 8/12/2013 F109

karlasea03 7/19/2013 F110

Karst, Monica 5/21/2013 F111

Katz, Karen 6/7/2013 F112





Kauffman, Susan 8/12/2013 F113

Kerry, Theodora 5/24/2013 F114

Kirven, Christy 5/21/2013 F115

Kirven, Christy 8/12/2013 F116

Kowalski, Natasha 8/3/2013 F117

Krohn, Chris 7/1/2013 F118



LaFave, Dixie 6/19/2013 F121

Larenas, Monica 8/12/2013 F122

Larkins, Vivian 8/11/2013 F123

Lasciak, Valerie 5/31/2013 F124

Lasciak, Valerie 7/8/2013 F125

Laurain, Janet 6/28/2013 F126

Lawton, James 8/12/2013 F127

Lee, Arthur R. 8/11/2013 F128

Lerg, Judy K. 5/27/2013 F129

Levine, David 5/28/2013 F130

Levine, David 6/28/2013 F131

Levine, Valmarie 6/19/2013 F132

Levy, Liz 8/10/2013 F133

Levy, Seth 7/2/2013 F134

Lewis, Drew 5/20/2013 F135

Llewellyn, Roseann 7/9/2013 F136

Lovett, Jeanine 8/12/2013 F137

Lukasiewicz, Judy 5/13/2013 F138

Lwine, Lynora 8/12/2013 F139

Malone, Bill 8/12/2013 F140

Martin, Laura 7/16/2013 F141

Martin, Steve 8/8/2013 F142

Martinez, Susan 8/3/2013 F143

Matkin, Jack 7/9/2013 F144

Maxwell, Michael 8/12/2013 F145





McEvoy, Melinda 7/12/2013 F146

McGee, Josephine 8/12/2013 F147

McGilvray, Scott 8/12/2013 F148

McGuire, John 6/5/2013 F149

McGuire, John 6/9/2013 F150

McLaughlin, Sigrid 7/8/2013 F151

McLaughlin, Sigrid 8/12/2013 F152

Mead, George 8/12/2013 F153

Meirer, Michael 5/15/2013 F154

Michele 8/10/2013 F155

Miles, Gary 5/21/2013 F156

Miles, Gary 5/24/2013 F157

Miles, Gary 5/29/2013 F158

Miles, Gary 5/30/2013 F159

Miles, Gary 5/31/2013 F160

Miles, Gary 6/3/2013 F161


Miles, Gary 6/21/2013 F163


Miles, Gary and Margaret 6/3/2013 F165

Miller, Alan 5/19/2013 F166

Minardi, Bob and Mary 6/28/2013 F167

Minardi, Kenneth and Mary 8/12/2013 F168

Mio, Jane 8/12/2013 F169

Mirkovic, Marija 7/6/2013 F170

Moore, Mik 8/3/2013 F171

Muller, Alfred and Camilla 6/3/2013 F172

Mulvaney, Dustin 7/25/2013 F173

Munoz, Lilibeth 6/4/2013 F174

Murray, Jessica 6/12/2013 F175

Murtha, Ellen 8/12/2013 F176

Musselman, Mark 7/1/2013 F177

Naccari, Nicholas 7/12/2013 F178





Nelson, Jack 8/12/2013 F179

Newman, Steve 6/8/2013 F180






Noroyan, Richelle 7/1/2013 F186

Obregon, Ivo 7/8/2013 F187

Okimoto, Brian 8/12/2013 F188

Paduano, Daniel 5/13/2013 F189

Parker, Dorinda 6/18/2013 F190

Parker, Dorinda 8/12/2013 F191

Paul, Jerome 7/3/2013 F192



Peoples, Brian 6/6/2013 F195

Philibosian, Michelle 7/21/2013 F196

Plagemun, Lund and Cannon, on behalf of Rittenhouse, Manson, Plageman & Plageman 7/17/2013 F197

Plagemun, Lund and Cannon, on behalf of Rittenhouse & Manson 8/12/2013 F198

Pomerantz, Ron 8/9/2013 F199

Pyle, Kathy and Gordon 7/14/2013 F200

Reddington, Susan 5/28/2013 F201

Reddington, Susan 6/20/2013 F202

Reeb, Carol 8/6/2013 F203

Ringwald, Lydia 8/10/2013 F204

Ringwald, Lydia 8/12/2013 F205

Ringwald, Siegfried C. 8/5/2013 F206

Riverwoman, Barbara 5/21/2013 F207

Riverwoman, Barbara 7/25/2013 F208

Robertson, Carol 5/11/2013 F209

Rotkin, Mike 5/31/2013 F210

Ryan, Liz 8/12/2013 F211





Ryhanych, Marty 8/7/2013 F212

Sacco, Francis 6/30/2013 F213

Sanz, Montserrat 8/12/2013 F214

Schiffrin, Andy 6/24/2013 F215

Schlesinger, Zack 5/21/2013 F216



Schmidt, Richard 6/16/2013 F219

Schmuck, Johnathon 8/12/2013 F220

Schulze, Ken and Jan 7/7/2013 F221

Scott, Celia 8/8/2013 F222

Scott, Peter 8/9/2013 F223

Searle, Henry R 8/11/2013 F224

Sevy, Ellen 6/28/2013 F225

Sevy, Ellen 8/12/2013 F226

Shimokawa, Patti 8/1/2013 F227

Shuey, Dorah 7/1/2013 F228



Simmons, Elisa 5/28/2013 F231

Simpson, John W. and Carole Ann 7/4/2013 F232

Smallman, Bill 7/19/2013 F233

Smith, Alene O. 7/1/2013 F234

Smith, Dwight 8/8/2013 F235

Sohuk, Randa 7/1/2013 F236

Solovitch, Sara 5/28/2013 F237

Spalaris, Costas 7/1/2013 F238



Spalaris, Costas and Lenore 7/30/2013 F241

Spelce, Daniel 8/12/2013 F242

Spruit, Howard 6/3/2013 F243

Stanton, Charles 7/19/2013 F244





Steward, Stephen 8/12/2013 F245

Stidolph, Wayne 8/8/2013 F246

Stobbe, Mike 8/2/2013 F247

Svancara, Joe 7/14/2013 F248

Swann, Janet 6/26/2013 F249

Taiz, Lee 7/8/2013 F250

Taiz, Lee 7/9/2013 F251

Taiz, Lee 7/17/2013 F252

Taiz, Lee 8/1/2013 F253

Taiz, Lee 8/2/2013 F254

Taiz, Lincoln 6/28/2013 F255




Timpany, Joan 7/17/2013 F259

Todd, Jude 7/25/2013 F260

Triona, Lara 8/12/2013 F261

Turner, Daryl J 5/15/2013 F262

Vaidya, Hemant 8/12/2013 F263

Vaillancourt, Diane 8/10/2013 F264

Van Allen, Bruce 5/16/2013 F265

Vandegrift, Robert 8/12/2013 F266

Vandegrift, Wendy 8/12/2013 F267

Vortman, Roger 7/2/2013 F268

Wagner, Elissa 8/11/2013 F269

Walliek, Claudia 7/1/2013 F270

Ward, Judy 8/12/2013 F271

Warmuth, Manfred 7/9/2013 F272

Weatherwax, Bill 8/11/2013 F273

Weatherwax, Denise 8/12/2013 F274

Weber, Gerald 8/9/2013 F275

Weisz, Russel 8/10/2013 F276

Whizin, Gary 8/11/2013 F277





Williams, Priscilla 6/11/2013 F278

Williams, Priscilla 7/10/2013 F279

Wilson, Connie and Tom 8/11/2013 F280

Wilson, Craig 5/10/2013 F281

Wirkman, Debra 5/14/2013 F282




Yaninek, Peter 7/12/2013 F286

Yett, Jane 5/22/2013 F287

Yett, Jane 7/8/2013 F288

Yukic, Fred 8/12/2013 F289

Zimmerman, Joan 8/11/2013 F290

Zscheile, Dick 6/12/2013 F291

Knoll, Daniel and Connie 7/15/2013 F292

G. TRANSCRIPTS FROM PUBLIC HEARINGS

Transcript (26 speakers) 06-03-13 G1

Transcript (48 speakers) 07-01-13 G2



APPENDICES

draft eir public review summary report - scwd2 Desalination Program

Documents

Transcript of draft eir public review summary report - scwd2 Desalination Program