HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-24-2000 Board Minutes Item No. 17-Environmental Impact Report-
-
CERTIFIED COPY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
REGULAR MEETING -AGENDA ITEM 17
Re ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR
RELOCATION CENTER AND PROTECTION CONTRACT
Reporter:
Wednesday, May 24, 2000
8:00 P.M.
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
Pamela Cotten, CSR, RDR
Certificate No. 4497 TORNELL & ('(OTTEN
PROFESSIONAL COURT REPORTERS
721 S. PARKER ST., STE. 190
ORANGE, CA 92868
(714) 543-1600
FAX (714) 543-1614
1
_.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
REGULAR MEETING -AGENDA ITEM 17
Re ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR
RELOCATION CENTER AND PROTECTION CONTRACT
Reporter:
Wednesday, May 24, 2000
8:00 P.M.
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
Pamela Cotten, CSR, RDR
Certificate No. 4497
1
li!!I/I
1
e 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
Speaker: Page
DAVID LUDWIN --------------------------------3, 13
KRIS LINDSTROM (Environmental Consultant) -------7
TOM WOODRUFF-----------------------------------21
PUBLIC HEARING---------------------------------27
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21.
22
23
24
25
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA -WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2000
8:00 P.M.
MS. DeBAY: Item 17, our actions regarding the
Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Ana River
Interceptor Relocation Center and Protection contract,
and we would have a verbal report from our director of
engineering, Mr. Ludwin.
MR. WOODRUFF: Madam Chairman, before David starts,
for the directors who are wondering, sometimes we have a
court reporter here we think, "Oh, we have some disaster
on our hands or somebody is challenging something and
sent in a reporter." Actually, the staff and
consultants at my office for these major environmental
hearings, we prefer to have a court reporter, and so
Ms. Cotten is here with us tonight just to take the
verbatim transcript of the hearing. We don't know if
any people will be here to testify. If so, we'll have a
good record for it. That's the sole reason. I'm sorry
I didn't mention it earlier.
David.
MR. LUDWIN: Thank you.
This project has been discussed with this board
of directors on several occasions in the past, and
tonight we are here as a result of the action you took
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
last month which established a public review hearing for
this project from April 12th to May 31st. You also
established last month today's board meeting as a public
hearing for this project.
I'm going to give you a very brief overview of
the project. We've been through this several times, but
I want to go through this for the public who weren't
here. Then Kris Lindstrom, our environmental
consultant, will come up to speak and talk a little
about the Environmental Impact Report itself, talk to
you about some of the considerations we looked at and
also some of the findings we developed.
Again, the purpose of the public hearing
tonight has several purposes. In an effort to keep the
public informed of the project, it is a public
disclosure process that we are going through here with
this particular project. It also allows the public to
come before this board to give comments. We are here
tonight to receive those comments and not to reply to
those tonight. We will reply fully to any comments we
receive tonight in the final Environmental Impact
Report.
Also, although it is not specifically required
by the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA as
we normally talk about it, a public hearing is a policy
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we've had here at the District where we have, again, the
ability to facilitate the ability to have the public
come in front of this board to speak directly to you
about their concerns about the project.
Again, a brief overview. This map here shows
the proposed project. And to get you oriented, it is
located in our northern part of our service areas, for
those who can see this. The county line is
approximately right here, and this is Weir Canyon Road.
This is the city of Yorba Linda, the 91 Freeway, and
this is the Santa Ana River essentially.
The Santa Ana River interceptor, which is shown
in red here, the existing line was constructed back in
1975. It was constructed in the flood plane here.
Because of the geology of the hills and the freeway,
that's really the only location where the line could be
constructed. At the time it was constructed, about four
miles of pipeline was actually in the riverbed, and it
was constructed with about 15 or 20 feet of cover over
the top of the pipe at the time it was constructed 25
years ago.
Over the last 25 years, substantial erosion has
taken place where the cover over the pipe in some places
is only five or six feet deep over the pipe, and the
manholes in the river, which are shown by the red dots
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
._ 21
22
23
24
25
here, are actually exposed above the riverbed and they
are actually sticking up above the riverbed. They have
been protected with some rod and riprap to prevent any
kind of damage, but they are certainly subject to some
kind of risk.
The Army Corps of Engineers has a project where
they are going to be raising Prado Dam 30 feet. That
project is not underway yet, but it is in the planning
stages and will be moving forward. When they do that,
the potential discharge from the dam will increase by
upwards of five times what the past discharges have been
from the dam. So that poses a significant risk to our
pipeline. We are looking at ways to protect and
relocate the pipeline out of the river.
This is a cooperative project with the Santa
Ana Watershed Protection Agency. They own about 75% of
the capacity in this line, so therefore they will be
paying about 75% of the project costs that we are
looking at here.
These are the five alternatives that were
viewed as part of engineering studies that have been
going on currently, and I won't go into too much detail
here. I think I discussed with you last month that they
include alternatives locating --relocating the middle
section out of the river, the middle section as well as
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the upstream section, the middle as well as the
downstream section, and then there's two alternatives, c
and D, which locate the entire pipeline out of the
river. They vary from two miles of relocation up to
about five miles of relocation.
The environmental impact rating you see here is
in the Environmental Impact Report, and the lower the
score, the better the environmental the better the
environmental impacts, the less impact that it has. The
environment impacts we're talking about here is such
things as traffic disruption, noise, air quality, plant
resources, et cetera, et cetera. So there's quite a few
different impacts we're talking about here.
The construction cost varies quite widely from
around 15 million dollars to up to over 40 million
dollars for the project for the construction costs.
Then when you add on the engineering costs and
administration costs, the cost of the project goes up
substantially.
With that, I'm going to introduce Kris
Lindstrom. He is going to talk to you a little bit
about the CEQA process.
MR. LINDSTROM: Thank you, Dave.
The California Environmental Quality Act and
both the --this is also known as the environment impact
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
statement which is required under federal projects. We
have gone ahead and done both to facilitate future
permitting with the Corps of Engineers who has
jurisdiction over the river.
The purpose of compliance with the
Environmental Quality Act and EIR is to disclose the
environmental impacts, identify the best alternative
that is protective of environmental assets of the area,
environmental resources, and disclose the public agency
decisions that have to be made in permitting, and to
foster the inter-agency coordination that's necessary
when you are dealing with such a sensitive area.
The objective of this combined Environmental
Impact Report and Environmental Impact statement is to
address the environmental topics specific to this
project. A variety of environmental topics were
addressed in each of the separate chapters. We went
through and analyzed each of the alternatives separately
to come up and help guide the decision making on which
of these alternatives, because the costs were so large
and the environmental consequences were so great, which
one had the least environmental impacts and what were
the costs to mitigate and bring minimize those
impacts. So these are the list of topics that were
addressed in the chapters in this large document.
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Copies are on the back table.
So we looked at mineral resources. A lot of
sand and gravel and cement was used in this project. so
just the trucks alone to accomplish this are --a number
of impacts are associated with the mining and bringing
in materials.
Noise and local public transportation issues;
moving the bikeway where the pipe is aligned on
Alternative D. That is going to require relocation of
the bikeway.
The biological resources, as I'll get into in a
moment, are immense along this area of the river. The
existing river --you can't get access to these manholes
that are exposed because of the sensitivity for nesting
birds in the area. There are a lot of endangered
species. Now recently there's the Santa Ana sucker,
which is a fish which is unique to this stretch of the
river, that is being listed as an endangered species.
So that requires even more protection.
So we have had problems getting access to the
river at certain times of the year, and that makes, as
you heard earlier, the routine maintenance of facilities
so critical to maintain the viability. So that's a
difficulty. So there's significant challenges in
filling a project to meet these needs.
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The potentially significant impacts associated
with the project are taking out some citrus trees in
this area here.
Potential water quality effects during
construction. Large amounts of groundwater have to be
pumped out. The pipes are going to be buried rather
deep. So the alternatives of putting in the sewer are
treating so it to meets all the requirements of putting
it back in the river so it can be used further
downstream in spreading basins.
The potential for spills of fuels being used on
the site is critical.
Then the major impact is looking at the
alternatives, but the long term is what's the
consequences of the pipeline being damaged and being
filled up with sand and silt from the river and then
entering the treatment plants here and disrupting them,
and then the recent project that went on with the gate
valve down by the Savi Ranch project here so that it
could be shut off in case the pipe broke to avoid that
coming in as an interim measure.
Other potentially significant impacts are the
habitat losses in the area. The least is for
Alternative c and D which maximize getting the pipe out
of the river. They only disrupt about an acre of
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
habitat. The other alternatives disrupt up to 53 acres
of habitat. So the permanent losses are greatest when
the vegetation has to be removed from the river, willow
habitat, and there's a lot of orendo which is a growth
that's in there now that they are trying to remove. So
part of this would be to mitigate to remove orendo and
replace it with native vegetation.
The mitigation measures that are proposed have
been done to minimize the significant adverse effects on
wildlife and fisheries. So the whole project there's a
lot of biological surveys of the area to find out where
the sensitive issues are, and there's a lot of them.
As I mentioned, the Santa Ana sucker. There's
a lot of various bird species in the area that deserve
special protection. So you have the Fish and Wildlife
and Fish and Game will have special requirements on when
you can do construction and how you can do it.
So the findings that come out of this are that
the impacts to the biological resources of the river are
a key consideration and that Alternative D, which gets
the pipe totally out of the river, is the
environmentally superior alternative.
Alternative D completely relocates the pipeline
out of the river. It's, as I said, the environmentally
superior alternative and it doesn't require the
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.... 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
construction of grade stabilizers which cross the river,
which require a lot of work in the river, a lot of rock,
concrete and actual work in the river that can disturb
fish and habitat. And also the pipe would be a single
pipe rather than a dual pipe. So by the combined brine
from the upper basin and with the sewage flow that's
going on, there's a proposal, Alternative c, which would
have two separate pipelines. The costs are much higher
and the impacts are greater because you are taking a
wider path of area to install two pipes.
Proposed mitigation measures require the
careful planning and construction of utility crossings.
There's lots of utilities in this area. There's a fiber
cable network that's very sensitive. It has to be
the pipe has to be put --there would be a lot of
tunneling.
Restrictions on the construction times due to
the sensitivity of the wildlife in the area, and the
bikeway along the river would have to be temporarily
relocated to streets. So there will be a rather
detailed traffic control plan. So you will have a lot
of tunneling with staging off the roadway, and then
Alternative D has the least traffic impacts with the
fewest number of truck trips a day, about eight.
So Dave will tell you what the rest of the
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
process will be.
MR. LUDWIN: Real quickly, to wrap it up, as I
mentioned, the public review period is still open. It
will be open until next Wednesday on May 31st. Tonight
we are holding the public hearing to hear comments from
the public if they wish to speak to you. Then we will
finalize the Environmental Impact Report, the EIS, over
the next month or so. We will publish that in July,
July 1st. It will come back to this board of directors
in July, July 19th, for certification by this board and
resolution of findings, also by this board of
directors. We will then file a Notice of Determination
the next day. That opens an appeal period of 30 days
for the public to appeal the decision of this board of
directors. That will end August 19th.
We will begin design immediately on this
project. We are actually underway right now writing
scope of work for the design portion of this project.
We are intending to award the construction contract in
November 2001. It says November 2000. It should be
2001. we are looking at a construction project of about
two years. We are trying to get the project completed
by the winter of 2003.
I think last month when I brought this to you,
we had proposed a construction of 2005. We have since
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
been working very, very hard to find a way to get this
project completed a lot sooner. We believe it is a very
important project, and there's some risk associated with
leaving the pipeline where it is. So we are finding
ways to get the project completed in three years from
this fall. With that, that's the report.
MS. DeBAY: Thank you.
MR. GULLIXSON: I have a question, Madam Chair.
MS. DeBAY: Mr. Gullixson.
MR. GULLIXSON: The construction area you are
talking about, is that assuming the most immaculate,
most expensive part of the project, or the cheapest?
MR. LUDWIN: That assumes Alternative D, which is
the preferred alternative. It is also the most
expensive one or the second most expensive one. It will
relocate the entire pipeline out of the river.
MS. MCGUIGAN: I'm trying to figure out
MR. LUDWIN: Alternative Dis basically take the
pipeline out near the county line, underneath the
railroad track, under La Palma Boulevard, and reconnect
to the existing SARI line downstream at Weir Canyon
Road. So it basically takes the entire pipeline out of
the river currently.
The other portions shown here are areas where
we would have to do tunneling underneath the railroad
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and underneath La Palma Boulevard. This area here we
would be about 60 or 70 feet deep underneath La Palma
Boulevard. Very difficult construction.
cost of the construction is very high.
That's why the
And then this
would be open cut construction along La Palma, mostly
the bike lane, and we would be taking out some traffic
lanes during the construction period. So there would be
disruption to the traffic along this route for some
time.
MR. ANDERSON: You know, I just add as we
approached this project, we asked ourselves the question
why in the world did those guys build the line in the
river. Well, the answer is what David has just
described. It will be one of the toughest construction
projects this agency ever undertakes. It has some
really excruciating demands that we normally do not face
when we build a sewer line in orange County.
MR. LUDWIN: As Kris mentioned, we got to go under
the railroad tracks here, and there's a fiberoptic
cable. I'm not sure who owns it, but it is a very
critical link of communications through there, and we
are going to have to be very careful with that cable.
We have to get underneath it. We have got some
challenges ahead of us.
MS. DeBAY: Don.
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BANKHEAD: What do we do to advertise our
public hearings? Where do we put the information?
MR. IOAN: April 19th it was published in The
Register.
MR. LUDWIN: It was published in The Register, and
it was also at the county recorder's office; was it?
MR. IOAN: Most likely not.
MR. LUDWIN: So it was published in The Register
newspaper.
MR. BANKHEAD: I'm just surprised we don't have
more public here to speak on this topic, and I'm not
sure that we are reaching the public to advise them of
this.
MS. DeBAY: Has there been any outreach to the
cities that would be involved?
MR. LUDWIN: Last week I made a presentation to the
Yorba Linda City Council. That was televised, I think,
to the public.
MR. BANKHEAD: Why don't we contact our cities and
request the cities to advertise our public hearings in
their water bills?
MS. DeBAY: It is a thought.
MS. McGUIGAN: It is such a long cycle in our water
bill cycle. There's three different --three months
long because it continues.
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BANKHEAD: Okay. So it is three months long.
Put it in the water bill.
MS. DeBAY: You might bring it up for discussion at
the committee meeting that you attend, and we will bring
it to steering committee as well.
Pat, you had your hand up.
MS. MCGUIGAN: I wonder what happens, if indeed
the alternate is selected, presumably it would be, what
happens to the existing SARI line.
MR. LUDWIN: After we get the new SARI line
constructed, we will do a demolition project
essentially, remove the manholes, and we will fill the
existing line with sand or grout of some sort and
probably band it in place.
MS. McGUIGAN: I'm noticing in one area, and
correct me if I'm wrong, John, John Gullixson, it goes
through I guess underneath Savi Ranch, the brand new
shopping center.
MR. LUDWIN: Right.
MS. MCGUIGAN: What I call a major center up
there.
MR. GULLIXSON: That's got our Home Depot and our
staples.
MS. MCGUIGAN: My son lives a block up the street.
That's why I'm looking at it very carefully, to see if
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it is going to go underneath his house.
MR. LUDWIN: At that point we would fill it
probably with grout or with sand of some sort and remove
the manholes.
MR. GULLIXSON: It also goes through the area where
we are looking for the Metrolink station, but at least
it is not in yet.
MS. DeBAY: Question back in the back.
MR. IOAN: Actually, I don't have a question. I
would like to answer you what Dave said about a portion
of the pipeline which crosses the Savi Ranch. That
portion of the pipe will still remain live; however, we
intend to --re-site is probably not the right word, but
we are looking at the hydraulics. Right now the
diameter is way too large for the flow that the Savi
Ranch generates. We end up actually slip-lining the
pipeline to a smaller diameter pipe, but it will remain
live and will serve the area.
MR. LUDWIN: My mistake. This would have to remain
live to serve the Savi Ranch area, so we would have to
maintain that pipe.
MS. DeBAY: Tom Saltarelli.
MR. SALTARELLI: David, this concerns the bike
trail. Aren't we actually at the moment redoing the
bike trail? It used to go north of Imperial, used to go
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
across the riverbed and up, and now that is all closed.
Are we doing that bike trail continuing north now along
the freeway?
MR. LUDWIN: I can't answer that question now. I
don't have enough information to answer that.
MR. SALTARELLI: Then the follow-up was, if that's
the case, is that a portion of the bike trail we are
going to have to redo again?
MR. LUDWIN: Potentially. If it is certainly we
haven't taken the final alignment yet. We have to do
that during the detailed design portion, but if it is
required to replace it again, we will do that. We are
very restricted on where we can put the line. So we are
going to have to put it where we can. We will work very
closely with the cities of Yorba Linda and Anaheim as
well as the County and other agencies to get the
required permits and the traffic control plans in place
to get this thing filled. We still have some work to do
over the next year or so.
MS. DeBAY: At this point we are taking questions
for our director of engineering. If it is a public
comment, that comes up later. Is this a question on his
report?
MR. HIRSCH: No.
MS. DeBAY: Are there any further questions from
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,., 24
25
the directors to the director of engineering?
MR. SWAN: What is the comments of our partners
upstream who are going to be paying 75% of this?
MR. LUDWIN: SAWPA has been kept apprised of the
project from its inception several years ago. We meet
with them on a regular basis, consult with them. They
are currently looking for funding options for their part
of the project. We are going to be meeting, I think,
very shortly here with SAWPA and the County to go over
the coordination of the project with some work the
County is actually doing with this stretch of the
river. So they are kept apprised, and they are on board
with everything.
MR. SWAN: The comment being that I believe to get
them to pay the last time, John Collins had to threaten
to flood out one of the mobile home parks. So I mean it
is not --I mean it is with some considerable merit I
ask that question.
MR. PATTERSON: Isn't it --they don't have the
funds. Isn't that right?
MR. LUDWIN: At the current time, I don't believe
so. I think we are going to be working very closely
with them to try to figure out how to get the money. I
think we have budgeted in our budget enough money to
build the project on our own if we needed to.
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Is that right, Gary? Did we do that? I think
we did.
MR. STREED: We are budgeted for them to pay their
share like they are supposed to. We'll see how it works
out.
MR. LUDWIN: We do have to find a way for them to
pay us the money.
MS. McGUIGAN: Isn't SAWPA a recipient of some of
the state funding for this coming year?
MR. LUDWIN: Yes, it is --
MS. McGUIGAN: So I'm not sure --okay. I wasn't
sure whether this was on the list.
MS. DeBAY: Needless to say, that's high on our
list of to-dos.
Any other questions before we go to the general
counsel?
Thank you, Dave. Tom.
MR. WOODRUFF: Frankly, the thoroughness of
Mr. Lindstrom and Dave, they have covered all the
procedural aspects. As you know, this is the public
hearing portion of it tonight. The comment period will
still be open for another week. Then all the comments,
either verbal or written, that come in will be addressed
on a one-by-one basis, and the final report will be
brought back to you next meeting.
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. GULLIXSON: The only question I have, Tom, is
procedurally is when this comes back to have the EIR
certified, we approve certification, are we going to
choose which level of project at that point or when
would the board actually take that into consideration?
MR. WOODRUFF: I don't think there's going to be a
recommendation specifically next month to pick the
alternative. The report identifies the preferred
alternative, but I think you are always the report
covers all of the alternatives. Somewhere along the
way, and I'm not sure, maybe Dave can comment best, once
we get some preliminary design, you are going to see
whether the cost numbers vary and whatever, and I think
it is somewhere in that stage you will be asked to
finally make a choice. But you are going to have to be
addressing each of the alternatives. I mean you do
address it in the report, each of the alternatives.
Dave.
MR. LUDWIN: Again, the preferred alternative is
Alternative D, which has the least amount of impacts
environmentally. It also is the best alternative from
an operational standpoint, long-term reliability and
operational standpoint from the District's point of
view. That would be the project that would be
recommended to the board to move forward with. We will
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
"" 21
22
23
24
25
move forward to the PDC and to the board with any awards
of any contracts that we come forward with probably
sometime this summer as we move this project forward.
MR. GULLIXSON: You are saying that on the EIR, we
are going to be voting for whatever --the extent of
whatever project at that time, or we are going to have
that in a separate public hearing?
MR. LUDWIN: There won't be another public hearing
related to that.
MR. GULLIXSON: Okay. So this EIR process also
involves this board making a choice of one of the five
proposals you have got in front of us?
MR. WOODRUFF: No.
MR. ANDERSON: No.
MR. WOODRUFF: The report identifies --remember,
the purpose of the report is not to be project approval
but to simply evaluate all of the environmental impacts.
MR. GULLIXSON: When do we get to the point of
project approval where we approve the extent or
limitation of the project we want?
MR. LUDWIN: Did you want to say something, Blake?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, why don't you answer that
question, and then I'll clarify a little bit more about
your question of the alternatives.
MR. LUDWIN: The intent is to come back to the PDC
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
committee and the Board with the recommendation to move
forward with Alternative D and an award of contract to
do design. So at that time the board would make a
decision to move forward with Alternative D.
MR. ANDERSON: Turning to Kris, of the five
alternatives, all of the alternatives are feasible from
an environmental point of view. There's mitigation
that's required, but there's not any impacts that are so
egregious that we wouldn't be able to select any of the
five alternatives. Isn't that true?
MR. LINDSTROM: No. Any of the project
alternatives you would have to adopt a statement of
overriding considerations because there are significant
impacts. Alternative Dis the environmentally superior
alternative, and the Environmental Impact Report lays
out --it's a full disclosure document of what the
impacts are to be used --it is not the decision-making
document. That's the point that the Director Gullixson
is making. This will be used, then, when the District
makes a decision on the selection of the project to move
forward with funding and authorizing the design that is
supported by the --and it is the choice the EIR
covers any project, but you can say this is the
environmentally superior alternative or, if you choose
another one, you have to state the reasons why you
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
didn't select the environmentally superior alternative
and then mitigate those impacts and make a Statement of
Overriding Consideration to your adoption resolution.
That will be --and you are doing that your next meeting
to identify the impacts that you cannot mitigate under
these alternatives.
MR. ANDERSON: But, Kris, it is fair to say that it
is conceivable that any five of the alternatives could
be constructed given that certification of overriding
concern?
MR. LINDSTROM: Yes. They could be constructed,
but if they could be constructed in a time frame that
you would like to with the permitting and other
negotiations for work in the river, that's another
issue.
MR. GULLIXSON: Madam Chair, one consideration
that is, as a representative of Yorba Linda, that we
would like to ask for is that when this board gets to
the point of selecting the extent of this project, that
when that's agendized that we have notices sent to
residents in that general area because --that's not the
most impacted in terms of density of the whole town, but
there are quite a few residents that use that Gypsum
Canyon bridge, and their sole ingress and egress out of
that area is the Camino de Bryant and La Palma Avenue.
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
·g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 -24
25
In fact, if there's any problems with that road, they
just flat can't get out of town. They are kind of
landlocked.
We did get some response after our public
display of Dave's presentation, and so that's what we
would like to at least have my staff have some input
beforehand so anybody in Yorba Linda can come in and
speak to the issue at that time.
MS. DeBAY: And would the new communications person
that we are looking for take part in this public
outreach?
MR. ANDERSON: Absolutely. I might add that quite
often when we have a particularly difficult job that's
going to impact the community, we do spend time on the
front end informing the community and looking for help
from them in how to schedule the work to lessen the
impacts that will occur. Obviously, on the major
arteries we are speaking here, we are going to have to
be careful of how we are in the road and how we stage
the construction to minimize certainly rush hour
traffic, as bad as that street is at times in the
morning and afternoon.
MR. GULLIXSON: Thank you.
MS. DeBAY: That was my first contact with the
Sanitation District. They were doing a project down
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
,.; 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
• 21
22
23 -24
25
Pacific Coast Highway through the middle of our
Mariner's Mile and through the pump station. It worked
well because of the outreach that they put in.
MR. ANDERSON: We will stay very close.
MR. GULLIXSON: Okay.
MS. DeBAY: Further questions before --were there
any written comments received? Are we aware?
MR. WOODRUFF: There were none, I believe. Is that
correct, Penny?
MR. LINDSTROM: The written comments are still
coming in. We haven't received and filed them yet.
MS. DeBAY: At this point on my agenda it says to
receive and file written comments. So at that point so
ordered on that and continue to do so. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING
MS. DeBAY: All right. At this point we are going
to open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the
public? Would you come --can you speak loudly, or do
you want a microphone?
MR. HIRSCH: I would like to know the current
estimated cost of that entire project at this point
through 2003.
MS. DeBAY: Okay. Would you give your name,
please?
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HIRSCH: Dr. Stan Hirsch.
MS. DeBAY: All right. Do we have the cost --of
course, each alternative is a different cost.
THE WITNESS: I said estimated.
MR. LUDWIN: That was noted in my presentation.
MR. GULLIXSON: It was up on the board. The lowest
was 21 million and the highest 48.
MR. LUDWIN: Here is the total project costs for
the alternatives that are being cited. They range total
project costs 22 million up to 59 million dollars, and
construction cost is also shown up there.
MR. ANDERSON: You know, we might add that if you
take whatever conventional number you use in terms of
dollars per mile for a typical sewer line and you look
at these numbers, these are considerably higher than
that, and the reason for it is because of the tunneling
and shoring requirements because of the hillsides and
the railroad that this thing traverses. So this is
absolutely unconventional in terms of the dollars per
mile that this thing is going to cost.
MS. DeBAY: All right. Are there any other public
comments or questions?
MR. GULLIXSON: I have one other question. It
would seem with this project with the tunneling and the
depth of the digging that's got to be done, we are going
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to have to take some extreme safety .measures here
because if there's any project we have ever done where
it's fraught with danger, it's got to be this one. I
hope we address everything, and we can avoid that if
possible.
MR. LUDWIN: We are currently trying to identify
those consultants that have the expertise to do this
kind of design. That in and of itself is a challenge
because this is not typical work that we do here. so we
are looking to make sure so we can identify those that
can do the work for us. We do have a very aggressive
schedule we are trying to meet. So it is going to have
to take some very creative designing and very creative
scheduling of this project to be able to meet that
schedule we set for ourselves.
MS. DeBAY: Dave, what do we do as far as
liability? Is there special insurance you can get for
major projects or something with a threat like this?
MR. LUDWIN: Certainly. On this job we'd probably
require insurance requirements that are commensurate
with the type of project we are undertaking and the risk
we are talking about. That would be established during
the course of the work in conjunction with our risk
manager and our insurance company.
MS. DeBAY: Any other we stand with the public
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hearing open. I will call one more time for public
comments.
MS. SHEA: Move to close the public hearing.
MS. DeBAY: I will close the public hearing.
(End of Public Hearing.)
MS. DeBAY: Further discussion by the board. At
this point is there any other discussion?
All right. We will continue this to July the
19th, regular board meeting, for consideration of the
final EIR. Thank you.
(The proceeding was concluded at 8:33 P.M.)
30
-
1
2 ...,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 -11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
I, Pamela Cotten, a Certified Shorthand
Reporter and a Notary Public of the State of California
with principal office in the County of Orange do hereby
certify that the foregoing proceeding was written by me
in Stenotype and transcribed into typewriting and that
the foregoing is a true and correct copy of my shorthand
notes thereof.
Dated: MAY 312000 ---------
31
I ATTORNEY'S NOTES I
PAGE LINE# NOTES
HEARING RE: THE SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION -5/24/00
1 air c117:11 10, 11, 14 20:12 22:5,25 23:1, 11 concrete m 12:3 aligned m 9:8 24:1,3 25:18 28:6 30:6,9 conjunction m 29:23
12th c114:2 alignment m 19:10 both c21 7:25 8:2 conseguences l2J 8:21 10:15 15 [2] 5:19 7:15 allows m 4: 17 Boulevard 131 14:20 15: 1,3 considerable m 20: 17
17 m 3:4 alone m 9:4 brand c1117:17 considerably m 28:15
1975 m 5:14 alternate m 17:8 brid~e m 25:24 consideration csi 11 :20 22:5
19th l4J 13:10,1516:3 30:9 alternative l24J 8:7 9:9 10:24 brie c21 4:5 5:5 25:3, 16 30:9
1st m 13:9 11:20,22,23,2512:7,23 14:13, brine m 12:5 considerations l2J 4:11 24:13
2 14, 18 22:8,9, 19,20,21 24:2,4, bring 131 8:23 17:3,4 constructed c1015:13, 14, 17, 17, 14, 15,24 25:1 28:3 bringing m 9:5 19,2017:11 25:9,11,12
20 m5:19 alternatives 1191 6:20,24 7:2 8: brol<e m 10:20 construction 11817:14,16 10:5
2000 (2) 3:113:20 18,2010:7,1411:1 22:10,16,17 brought c21 13:24 21 :25 11 : 17 12: 1, 12, 17 13: 19,21,25
2001 (2) 13:20,21 23:24 24:6,6,10,12 25:6,8 28:9 Bryant 111 25:25 14:10 15:3,4,5,7,14 26:20 28:
2003 (2) 13:23 27:23 although l1J 4:23 budget m 20:24 11
2005 m 13:25 amount m 22:20 bud8eted 121 20:24 21 :3 consult c11 20:6
21 m 28:7 amounts l1J 10:5 buil 13115:12,17 20:25 consultant 111 4:9
22 m28:10 Ana cs13:5 5:11,12 6:16 9:16 buried m 10:6 consultants c213:14 29:7
24m3:1 11:13 C contact l2J 16: 19 26:24
25 (2) 5:20,22 Anaheim m 19: 15 continue 12127:14 30:8
anal~ed m 8:18 cable 13112:1415:20,22 continues m 16:25 3 ANDERSON 1s115:10 23:14,22 California 1s1 1: 17 3: 1 4:24 7:241 continuing m 19:2
30 [216:713:13 24:5 25:7 26:12 27:4 28:12 31:8 CONTRA T l4J 1 :8 3:6 13: 19 another 141 21 :22 23:8 24:25 call c21 17:20 30:1 24:2 31st c214:213:4 25:14 Camino m 25:25 contracts m 23:2
4 answer cs115:1318:10 19:4,5 cannot m 25:5 control c2112:21 19:17 23:22 Canyon l3J 5:9 14:21 25:24 conventional c11 28: 13 40m7:15 anybody m 26:7 capaci_ty m 6:17 cooperative l1J 6: 15 4497m 1:25 appeal c21 13: 13, 14 careful l3J 12:12 15:22 26:19 coordination c218:11 20:10 48m28:7 apprised c21 20:4, 12 carefully m 17:25 Copies m 9:1
5 approached m 15: 11 case c2110:20 19:7 copym31:12
approval c2123:16,19 cement c11 9:3 Corps c21 6:6 8:3 53 [1111:1 approve c21 22:3 23: 19 CENTER l4J 1:8 3:617:18,20 correct l3J 17:16 27:9 31 :12
59 m 28:10 approximately m 5:9 CEQA c21 4:24 7:22 cost l9J 7:14,1815:4 22:13 27:
6 April c21 4:2 16:3 certain l1J 9:21 22 28:2,3, 11,20
area c1918:8,12 9:12,1510:3,23 certainly l4J 6:4 19:9 26:20 29: costs 1916:18 7:16,17,18 8:20,
60 m 15:2 11:11,1412:10,13,1814:1015: 19 23 12:8 28:8, 10
7 1 17: 15 18:5, 18,20 25:21,25 Certificate c21 1 :25 31 :5 Cotten c21 3: 16 31 :7
areas 121 5:7 14:24 certification 13113:10 22:3 25:5 Council m 16: 17
70 (1) 15:2 Aren't l1J 18:24 certified 121 22:3 31 :7 counsel m 21 :16
75% (3) 6: 16, 18 20:3 Army m 6:6 certify m 31 : 1 0 county l8J 5:8 14:19 15:17 16:6 around m 7:15 cetera l2J 7:12, 12 19:16 20:9, 11 31 :9 8 arteries l1J 26: 18 Chair c21 14:8 25: 16 course 121 28:3 29:23
8:00 (2) 1:13 3:2 aspects m 21 :20 Chairman m 3:9 court 1213:11, 15
assets m 8:8 challenge m 29:8 cover 1215:19,23 8:33 m 30:11 associated l3J 9:510:114:3 challenges c21 9:24 15:24 covered m 21 : 19 9 assumes m 14:13 challenging m 3:12 covers l2J 22: 1 0 24:23 assuming m 14:11 chapters c21 8: 17,25 creative c21 29: 13, 13 91 m 5:10 attend l1J 17:4 cheapest 111 14: 12 critical l3J 9:2310:1215:21
A Au~ust m 13:15 choice 13122:15 23:11 24:22 cross c1112:1
aut orizini m 24:21 choose c21 22:4 24:24 crosses m 18:11 ability c21 5:2,2 Avenue m 5:25 cited m28:9 crossings m 12: 12 able c21 24:9 29: 14 avoid c21 10:20 29:4 cities l4J 16:15, 19,20 19:15 current c21 20:21 27:21 above c216:1,2 award c21 13: 19 24:2 citrus m 10:2 currently c416:2214:23 20:7 Absolutely c2126:12 28:19 awards m 23: 1 city 1215:10 16:17 29:6 access l2J 9:13,20 aware m 27:7 clarify c11 23:23 cut l1J 15:5 accomplish c11 9:4 B close c31 27:4 30:3,4 cycle c2116:23,24 acre l1J 10:25 closed c11 19: 1 D acres l1J 11:1 back c915:13 9:1 10:913:918: closely c2119:15 20:22 across l1J 19: 1 8,8 21 :25 22:2 23:25 Coast m 27:1 Dam c316:7,10,12 Act c31 4:24 7:24 8:6 bad c11 26:21 Collins l1J 20:15 damage m 6:4 action l1J 3:25 band l1J 17:14 combined c21 8: 13 12:5 damaged m 1 0: 15 actions c11 3:4 BANKHEAD l4J 16:1,10,1917:1 come cm 4:9,18 5:3 8:1911:18 danger l1J 29:3 actual m 12:3 basically c2114:18,22 13:9 21:2323:2,25 26:7 27:19 Dated m 31:18 Actually c1013:13 5:18 6:1,213: basin m 12:6 comes c21 19:22 22:2 Dave cs17:2312:2518:10 21: 17 18:9, 16,24 20: 11 22:5 basins m 1 0: 1 0 coming C3J 10:21 21:927:11 17, 19 22:11, 18 29:16 add 1417:17 15:10 26:12 28:12 basis c21 20:6 21 :24 commensurate m 29:20 Dave's m 26:5 address c318:15 22:17 29:4 beforehand c11 26:7 comment l4l 19:22 20:14 21 :21 David C4l 3:9,21 15: 13 18:23 addressed C3J 8:17,25 21 :23 beffin m 13:16 22:11 day l2J 12:2413:13 addressing m 22: 16 be Ieve C4J 14:2 20:14,21 27:8 comments m14:18, 19,20 13:5 daysl1J 13:13 administration m 7:18 best l3l 8:7 22: 11,21 20:2 21 :22 27:7, 10, 13 28:22 de m 25:25 adopt m 24: 12 better c21 7:8,8 30:2 dealin' m 8: 12 adoption m 25:3 bike cs115:618:23,2519:2,7 committee l3l 17:4,5 24:1 DeBA 12413:4 14:7,9 15:25 16: adverse m 11 :9 bikeway c319:8,1012:19 communications 121 15:21 26:~ 14,22 17:318:8,22 19:20,25 advertise 121 16: 1,20 bill c2116:24 17:2 community 121 26: 14, 15 21:13 26:9,24 27:6,12,17,24 advise m 16:12 bills 111 16:21 company l1J 29:24 28:2,2129:16,2530:4,6 afternoon m 26:22 biological 1319:11 11 :11, 19 completed c31 13:22 14:2,5 decision 1418:1913:14 24:4,20 agencies m 19: 16 bird m 11 :14 completely l1J 11 :23 decision-making l1J 24:17 Agency 1316:16 8:915:15 birds m 9:15 compliance 111 8:5 decisions m 8: 1 0 agenda m 27: 12 bit c21 7:21 23:23 conceivable m 25:8 deep 1315:2410:715:2 agendized m 25:20 Blake m 23:21 concern m 25: 1 0 demands m 15:16 aggressive m 29:11 block m 17:24 concerns c215:418:23 demolition c1117:11 aRo c21 5:21 20:5 board 1191 3:23 4:3, 18 5:3 13:9, concluded m 30:11 density l1J 25:22 a ead 121 8:2 15:24
TORNELL & COTTEN PROFESSIONAL COURT REPORTERS (714) 543-1600 12th-density
HEARING RE: THE SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION -5/24/00
Depot 111 17:22 even m 9:19 greater m 12:9 Item m 3:4
depth m 28:25 everythinp 121 20:13 29:4 greatest m 11 :2 itself 1214:10 29:8
described m 15:14 excruciatmg m 15:16 groundwater m 10:5 J deserve m 11 : 14 existing 1515:13 9:13 14:21 17: grout 121 17: 13 18:3
design m 13:16,18 19:11 22:12 9,13 growth m 11 :4 job 12126:13 29:19 24:3,21 29:8 expensive 13114:12, 15, 15 guess m 17:17 John l3J 17:16,16 20:15 desiining m 29: 13 expertise m 29:7 !uidem8:19 July 151 13:8,9, 10, 1 0 30:8 deta1 m 6:22 exposed 121 6:1 9:14 ULLIXSON l16114:8,9, 10 17: jurisdiction m 8:4 detailed 12112:2119:11 extent l3J 23:5, 19 25:19 16,22 18:5 22: 1 23:4, 10, 18 24: K Determination m 13:12 extreme 11129:1 18 25:16 26:23 27:5 28:6,23
!uys m 15:12 developed m 4:12 F keep m4:14 diameter c21 18: 15, 17 ypsum 111 25:23 kept 121 20:4, 12 different 131 7: 13 16:24 28:3 face m 15:16 H key m 11 :20 difficult 121 15:3 26: 13 facilitate 121 5:2 8:2 kind l4J 6:4,5 26:2 29:8 difficulty 111 9:24 facilities m 9:22 habitat l5J 10:23 11: 1,2,4 12:4 known [11 7:25 digging m 28:25 fact m 26: 1 hand m 17:6 Kris l5J 4:8 7:20 15: 18 24:5 25:7 directly m 5:3 fair m 25:7 hands m3:12 L director l4J 3:7 19:21 20: 1 24: fall m 14:6 haflens 121 17:7,9 18 farm 29:16 ha m 14:1 La 15114:20 15:1,2,5 25:25 directors l6J 3:10,24 13:9, 12, 15 feasible 111 24:6 hear m 13:5 landlocked m 26:3 20:1 federal m 8: 1 heard m 9:22 lane m 15:6 disaster m 3:11 feet l4J 5:19,24 6:715:2 hearing [151 3: 17 4: 1,4, 13,25 lanes 11115:7 discharge m 6: 1 0 few 1217:12 25:23 13:5 21 :21 23:7,8 27: 16, 18 30: large l418:20,2510:518:15 discharges m 6:11 fewest m 12:24 1,3,4,5 last m 4: 1,3 5:22 6:23 13:24 disclose 121 8:6,9 fiber 11112:13 hearings 1313:15 16:2,20 16:16 20:15 disclosure 121 4: 16 24: 16 fiberoptic 11115:19 help l218:19 26:15 latercu 19:22 discussed 121 3:23 6:23 fieure (2) 14:17 20:23 hereby m 31 :9 lays 111 24: 15 discussion 13117:3 30:6,7 fie 12113:12 27:13 high 12115:4 21 :13 least cs1 8:22 10:23 12:23 18:6 display m 26:5 filed m 27:11 higher 121 12:8 28: 15 22:2026:6 disrupt 12110:2511 :1 fill [2) 17:12 18:2 highest m 28:7 leaving m 14:4 disrupting m 10:17 filled l2110:16 19:18 Hi~hw?: 11127:1 less m 7:9 disruption 1217:1115:8 filling 111 9:25 hil s m :15 lessen m 26: 16 Distract l3J 5: 1 24: 19 26:25 final c41 4:21 19: 1 0 21 :24 30: 1 0 hillsides m 28: 17 level m 22:4 District's m 22:23 finalize m 13:7 HIRSCH l4J 19:2427:21 28:1,1 liability m 29:17 disturb m 12:3 finally l11 22: 15 holding m 13:5 likely m 16:7 document c31 8:25 24: 16, 18 find c3111 :11 14:1 21 :6 Home 121 17:22 20: 16 limitation c11 23:20 doing l4J 19:2 20:11 25:4 26:25 finding m 14:4 hope m 29:4 Linda l5J 5:10 16:17 19:15 25: dollars l5J 7:15,16 28:10,14,19 findings [314:12 11 :1813:11 hourm26:20 17 26:7 Don m 15:25 first m 26:24 house l1J 18:1 Lindstrom l7l 4:8 7:21,23 21: 19 done C4J 8:2 11 :9 28:25 29:2 fish l4J 9:17 11 :15, 1612:4 however m 18: 12 24: 11 25: 11 27: 10 dots m 5:25 fisheries m 11 : 1 0 hydraulics m 18: 14 line c1315:8, 13, 16 6:1714:19,21 down l2J 1 0: 19 26:25 five ca1 5:24 6:11,20 7:5 23:11 I 15:12,1717:9,10,1319:1328: downstream 1317:210:1014: 24:5, 10 25:8 14 21 flatm26:2 identifies c2122:823:15 link c1115:21 dual m 12:5 flood c215:14 20:16 identify l4J 8:7 25:5 29:6, 10 list l3J 8:24 21 :12, 14 due m 12:17 flow c2112:6 18:15 immaculate m 14:11 listed m 9: 18 during [41 10:4 15:7 19: 11 29: follow-up c1119:6 immediately m 13: 16 little l3l 4:9 7:21 23:23 22 foregoing l2l 31 :10, 12 immense l1J 9: 12 live [3118:12, 18,20 E forward [Bl 6:9 22:25 23: 1,2,3 IMPACT l14l 1 :7 3:5 4: 10,21 7: lives m 17:24 24:2,4,21 6,7,9,25 8:14, 14 10:1313:7 24: local m 9:7 each l5J 8:17,18 22:16,17 28:3 foster l1J 8:11 15 26:14 locate m 7:3 earlier l2J 3:20 9:22 Fountain l2l 1: 17 3: 1 impacted m 25:22 located m 5:7 effects l2J 10:4 11 :9 four m 5:17 impacts l201 7:9, 1 0, 13 8:7,22, locating m 6:24 effort m 4:14 frame 11125:12 249:510:1,2211:1912:9,23 location m 5: 16 egregious m 24:9 Frankly m 21 :18 22:20 23: 17 24:8, 14, 17 25:2,5 long c41 1 0: 14 16:23,25 17: 1 e$1ress 111 25:24 fraught m 29:3 26:17 lonf!•term m 22:22 e1~ht m 12:24 Freeway 1315:10,1519:3 Imperial l1J 18:25 loo m 28:14 El 161 8:6 22:2 23:4, 10 24:22 front l31 5:3 23: 12 26: 15 important m 14:3 looked l2J 4: 11 9:2 30:10 fuels m 10:11 inception m 20:5 looking cm 6: 13, 19 1 0: 13 13:21 EIS 11113:7 full m 24: 16 include m 6:24 17:2518:6,14 20:7 26:10,15 either m 21 :23 fully m 4:20 increase m 6: 1 0 29:10 end l4J 13:15 18:16 26:15 30:5 funcjing 131 20:7 21 :9 24:21 indeed m 17:7 losses 121 10:23 11 :2 endangered 121 9: 15, 18 funds m 20:20 information 121 16:2 19:5 lot 11119:2, 15 11 :4, 11, 12, 14 12: engineering 1513:8 6:21 7:17 further c41 10:9 19:25 27:6 30:6 informed m 4: 15 2,2,15,2114:2 19:21 20:1 future 111 8:2 informing m 26:15 lots m 12:13 Engineers 1216:6 8:3 G ingress 111 25:24 loudly m 27:19 enou~h 121 19:5 20:24 input 111 26:6 lower 111 7:7 entermg 11110:17 Game c1111:16 install m 12:10 lowest 111 28:6 entire 1417:3 14:16,22 27:22 Gary m 21 : 1 insurance 13129:17,20,24 Ludwin 12113:8,2213:214:13, environment 1217:10,25 gate m 10:18 intend 11118:13 1815:1816:5,8,1617:10,19 ENVIRONMENTAL c261 1:73:5 , general 12121:1525:21 intending m 13:19 18:2, 19 19:4,9 20:4,21 21:6,10 14 4:8,10,21,24 7:6,7,8,9,24 8: generates m 18:16 intent m 23:25 22: 19 23:8,21,25 28:5,8 29:6, 6,7,8,9, 13, 14, 15, 16,21,22 13:7 geology m 5:15 inter-agency m 8: 11 19 23:17 24:7,15 gets 12111:2025:18 Interceptor 1213:6 5:12 M environmental~ 161 11 :22,24 getting l2J 9:20 10:24 interim 11110:21 22:21 24:14,24 5:1 give 131 4:5, 18 27:24 introduce m 7:20 Madam 131 3:9 14:8 25: 16 erosion 111 5:22 given m 25:9 involved m 16:15 made 1218:10 16:16 essentially c215:11 17:12 got C6J 15: 18,23 17:22 23: 12 28 : involves m 23:11 maintain 121 9:23 18:21 established 131 4: 1,3 29:22 2529:3 IOAN 13116:3,718:9 maintenance m 9:22 estimated c21 27:22 28:4 grade m 12: 1 Isn't c4120:19,20 21:824:10 major c513:1410:1317:20 26: et 1217:12, 12 gravel m 9:3 issue 121 25: 15 26:8 17 29:18 evaluate m 23:17 great m B:21 issues l2l 9:7 11 :12 manager m 29:24
Depot-manager TORNELL & COTTEN PROFESSIONAL COURT REPORTERS (714) 543-1600
HEARING RE: THE SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION -5/24/00
manholes c415:25 9:1317:12 O plant m 7:11 rating m 7:6 18:4 ___________ plantsm10:17 Rem1:7
maP. m 5:5 objective m 8:13 please c1127:25 re-site c1118:13
Maran~r's m 27:2 Obviously m 26:17 point c13118:219:20 22:4,23 23: reaching m 16:12 materials m 9:6 occasions m 3:24 18 24:7,18 25:19 27:12,13,17, Realm 13:2
maximize m 10:24 occur m 26:17 22 30:7 really e215:1615:16 McGUIGAN cs114:1716:2317: office c313:1416:6 31 :9 policy m 4:25 reason e213:19 28:16
7, 15,20,24 21 :8, 11 often m 26: 13 portion c61 13: 18 18: 10, 12 19:7, reasons m 24:25
mean c3120:16,17 22:16 Okay cs117:1 21:1123:1027:5, 11 21 :21 receive c314:19,21 27:13
measure C1110:21 24 portions m 14:24 received c2127:7,11 measures C31 11 :8 12: 11 29: 1 once m 22: 11 poses c11 6: 12 recent c11 1 O: 18
meet.c419:25 20:5 29:12,14 one u218:2214:15,15 15:14 17: possible m 29:5 recently m 9:16
meeting C614:3 17:4 20:8 21 :25 15 20:16 23:1124:2525:16 28: potential l316:1010:4, 11 recipient m 21:8
25:4 30:9 23 29:3 30: 1 potentially 131 1 O: 1,22 19:9 recommendation 121 22:7 24:-1
meets 111 10:8 one-by-one 111 21 :24 Prado m 6:7 recommended m 22:25
ment!on m 3:20 only 1415:16,2410:25 22:1 prefer c113:15 reconnect m 14:20
me11t1oned 131 11 : 13 13:3 15: 18 open 161 13:3,4 15:5 21 :22 27: pref~r,:ed 131 14: 14 22:8, 19 record c11 3: 19
merit c~120:17 18 30:1 prehmina~ m 22:12 recorder's m 16:6
M!!trohnk m 18:6 opens m 13:13 presentation 13116:16 26:5 28: red e215:13,25
m!crophone c1127:20 operational c21 22:22,23 5 redo_m 19:8 middle c416:24,25 7:1 27:1 options c1120:7 presumably 11117:8 redoing C1118:24
might 13117:3 26:12 28:12 Orange 12115:17 31 :9 prevent m 6:3 regarding 1113:4
M!re 13127:2 28:14,20 ordered 11127:14 principal m 31 :9 Register 13116:4,5,8
m!IE?s 131 5: 18 7:4,5 orendo c21 11 :4,6 probably Is1 17: 14 18:3, 13 23:2 regular 121 20:6 30:9
m11hon cs1 7: 15, 15 28:7, 1 O, 1 O oriented 111 5:6 29: 19 re rated m 23:9
mineral 111 9:2 Other c101 10:22 11: 1 14:24 19: problems c21 9:20 26: 1 reliability m 22:22
minimize c318:23 11:926:20 16 21:1525:13 28:21,23 29:25 procedural 11121 :20 relocate c216:14 14:16
mining m 9:5 30·7 procedurally 11122:2 relocated m 12:20
m!~talc:e m 18:19 ou'rselves 12115:11 29:15 proceeding 12130:11 31:10 relocates m 11 :23
mitigate C4J 8:2311:625:2,5 out c2116:14,25 7:3 10:2,6,24 process l4J 4:16 7:2213:1 23: relocating m 6:24
miti9.ation c3111:812:11 24:7 11 :11, 18,21,24 14:16, 17, 19,22 10 . RELOCATION cs11:83:6 7:4,5
mol:>lle m 20: 16 15:6 20: 16,23 21 :5 24: 16 25:24 proJect cs41 3:23 4:2,4,6, 15, 17 9:9 moment c219:1218:24 26:2 5:4,6 6:6,8,15,18 7:16,18 8:16 remain c3118:12,17,19
money 131 20:23,24 21 :7 outreach c31 16: 14 26: 11 27:3 9:3,25 10:2, 18, 19 11 : 1 O 13: 17, remember C11 23: 15
month 1614:1,3 6:2313:8,24 over cs15:19,22,23,24 7:15 8:4 18,21,22 14:2,3,5,1215:11 17: remove l4111 :5,617:1218:3
22:7 13:7 19: 19 20:9 11 20:5,8, 10,25 22:4,24 23:3,6, removed 111 11 :3
mont~s 12116:24 17:1 overriding c3124:13 25:3,9 16, 19,20 24:11,20,23 25:19 26: replace c2111:719:12
mormng c11 26:22 overview c21 4:5 5:5 25 27:22 28:8, 10,24 29:2, 14,21 reply c21 4: 19,20
most c6114:11,12,14,1516:7 own l2J 6:16 20:25 projects c318:115:15 29:18 REPORT crn 1:73:5,7 4:10,22
25:22 owns m 15:20 proposal m 12:7 7:7 8:1413:7 14:619:23 21 :24 mostly m 15:5 ------=-----proposals m 23:12 22:8,9, 17 23:15, 16 24:15
move rn 22:25 23:1,3 24:1,4,20 P proposed c415:611 :812:11 13: reporter l4J 3:11,13,15 31 :8
30:3. p .M 131 1: 13 3:2 30: 11 25 . REPORTER:s 111 31 :5 moving c216:9 9:8 Pacific m 27:1 protect c116.13 representat1ve m 25:17
MS 13413:4,1614:7,9,1715:25 Palma csi 14:2015:125 25:25 protected m 6:3 requ~st C1116:20
16:14,22,23 17:3,7, 15,20,24 Pamela c11 31 :7 ' ' PROTECTION cs11:83:6 6:16 require cs19:9 11:2512:2, 11
18:8,22 19:20,25 21 :8, 11, 13 parks m 20: 16 9: 19 11 :_15 29:2q
26:9,24 27:6,12,17,24 28:2,21 part c615:7 6:2111 :614:12 20:; prot~ct1ve c~18:8 required cs14:23 8:1 19:12,17 29: 16,25 30:3,4,6 26: 10 pubhc 1361 4.1,3, 7, 13, 15, 15, 17, 24:8 .
much c21 6:22 12:8 particular m 4: 17 25 5:2 8:9 9:7 ~ 3:3,5,~, 14 1 ~:2, requ1~ements C4J 10:8 11 : 16 28
N particularly m 26'13 11,12,18,2019.2121.2023.7,8 17 2~.20
-------'------partnersm20:2 • 26:4,1_027:16,18,1928:2129: req~uresm9:19
name m 27:24 past c21 3:24 6: 11 25 3~.1,3,4,5 31 :8 resIde11ts c21 25:21,23
native m 11 :7 Pat m 17:6 pubhsh m 13:8 resolution c2113:11 25:3
near m 14: 19 path m 12· 1 o published 131 16:3,5,8 resources cs1 7: 12 8:9 9:2, 11
necessarym8:11 PATTERS.0Nm20:19 pumpm27:2. 11:19
needed m 20:25 pay c31 20:15 21 :3,7 pumped m 1~.6 . . respon~ 11126:4
Needless m 21 : 13 paying c21 6: 18 20:3 purpose c31 4. ~ 3 8.5 23.16 rest l)J 12.25
needs m 9:25 PDC l2J 23: 1 25 purposes m 4.14 restr1~t~d m 19: 13
negotiations C1125:14 Penny m 27-'9 put l6J 12:1516:217:219:13, 14 Restr1ct1ons m 12:17
nesting m 9:14 people m 3:.18 27:3_ res!Jlt m 3:25
network m 12:14 peri21 28:14, 19 putting c2110:7,8 ~view c214:1 13:3
new ca1 17: 10, 17 26:9 period c41 13:3, 13 15:7 21 :21 Q r!pkrap c5
1~5
6=1
3
2 14.3 29.21 23 newspaper m 16:9 permanent m 11 :2 ------=~----rIs cs1 • , . • , next rn 13:4,8,1319:19 21:25 perm!t5 m 19:17 Quality cs14:24 7:11,24 8:610: Riv~r c2~13::5 5:11,12,25 6:1_4,
22:725:4 permittingc3i8:3,1025:13 4 . 257.48.~9.12,13,18,2~ 10.9, noise c21 7: 11 9:7 person m 26:9 question cm 14:8 15: 11 18:8,9 16,25 11.3, 19,21,24 12.1,2,3,
none m 27:8 pick m 22:7 19:4,22 20:18 22:1 23:23,24 1_9 14:16,23 15:13 20:12 25:14
normally 1214:25 15:16 pipe 1141 5:20,23,24 9:810:20, 28:23. riverbed l4J 5:18 6:1,219:1
north c2118:2519:2 2411:2112:4 5 51518:1217 questions cs119:20,25 21:15 Road 1415:914:22 26:1,19 northern m 5:7 21 ' ' ' 1
' 27:6 28:22 roadway m 12:22
Notary 111 31 :8 pipeline u21 5: 18 6: 13, 14 7:3 quickly m 13:2 rock m 12:2
noted m 28:5 10:1511 :2314:4, 16,19,2218: quite 1417:12, 14 25:23 26:12 rod m 6:3
notes m 31:13 11,17 R rout~ m 15:8 Notice m 13:12 pipelines c11 12:8 ____ __,;;_;;;;..,__ ____ routine m 9:22
notices m 25:20 pipes 12110:612:10 railroad 14114:20,2515:19 28:ru __ s_h_11_12_6_:2_0___,,..,,---___ _ noticing m 17:15 place c315:23 17:14 19:17 18 S
November e21 13:20,20 places c11 5:23 raising m 6:7
number 131 9:4 12:24 28: 13 plan 111 12:21 Rancti cs1 1 O: 19 17: 17 18: 11, safety m 29: 1
numbers 12122:13 28:15 plane 1115:14 16,20 Saltarelli c3118:22,2319:6
planning 1216:8 12:12 range m 28:9 sand l4J 9:310:1617:1318:3
plans m 19:17 rattier c3110:612:5,20 Sanitation m 26:25
' i
TORNELL & COTTEN PROFESSIONAL COURT REPORTERS (714) 543-1600 manholes-Sanitation
HEARING RE: THE SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION -5/24/00
Santa c613:5 5:11, 12 6:15 9:16 sticking m 6:2
11 :13 still (5) 13:318:12 19:18 21 :22
SARI c3114:21 17:9,10 27:10
Savi cs110:19 17:17 18:11, 15, STREED m 21 :3
20 street c21 17:24 26:21
SAWPA l3J 20:4,9 21 :8 streets m 12:20
saying m 23:4 stretch c219:17 20:11 says c21 13:20 27: 12 studies m 6:21
schedule c3126:16 29:12, 15 subject m 6:4
scheduling m 29:14 substantial m 5:22
scope m 13:18 substantially m 7:19
score m 7:8 sucker c21 9: 16 11 : 13 second m 14:15 summer m 23:3
section l4J 6:25,25 7:1,2 superior l5J 11:22,2524:14,24
see l5J 5:8 7:6 17:25 21:422:12 25:1
undertakes l11 15: 15
undertaking m 29:21
underway 1216:813:17
unique m 9:17
until m 13:4
up c191 4:9 6:2 7:4, 15, 18 8: 19
10: 16 11 : 1 13:2 17:3,6,20,24
18:1619:1,2228:6,10,11
upper m 12:6 upstream c21 7: 1 20:3
upwards m 6: 11
utilities m 12: 13
utility m 12: 12
V
seem c1128:24 supported c1124:22 Valley c211:173:1 select c21 24:9 25: 1 supposed m 21 :4 valve m 1 O: 19
selected m 17:8 surprised m 16:10 varies c117:14
selecting m 25: 19 surveys m 11 : 11 variety m 8: 16
selection c1124:20 SWAN c2120:2,14 various m 11 :14
sensitive c31 8: 12 11: 12 12: 14 T vary c21 7:4 22: 13
sensitivity c219:14 12:18 -----=------vegetation c2111 :3,7
sent C213:13 25:20 table m 9:1 verbal l2J 3:7 21 :23
separate c31 8: 17 12:8 23:7 televised c11 16: 17 verbatim m 3: 17
separately c11 8:18 temporarily m 12:19 viability m 9:23 serve c21 18: 18,20 term m 1 o: 14 view c21 22:24 24:7
service m 5:7 terms c31 25:22 28:13, 19 viewed m 6:21
set m 29: 15 testi!Y. m 3: 18 voting c11 23:5 several l41 3:24 4:6, 14 20:5 theres c1917:2, 12 9: 16,24 11 :4, ----=;...__ __ w ____ _
sewage m 12:6 10,12,1312:7,13,1314:315:19 -------=-~----i
sewer c3110:7 15:17 28:14 16:24 22:6 24:7,8 26:1 29:2 water c4110:416:21,2317:2 share m 21 :4 therefore m 6:17 Watershed m 6:16
SHEAm30:3 thereofm31:13 wayc4114:118:1521:622:11 shopping m 17:18 thoroughness m 21 :18 ways c216:1314:5
shoring m 28: 17 threat m 29: 18 WEDNESDAY c21 3: 1 13:4
Shorthand c21 31 :7, 12 threaten m 20: 15 week c21 16: 16 21 :22
shortly c1120:9 three c4114:516:24,2417:1 Weir c215:914:21
shown c41 5: 12,25 14:24 28: 11 to-dos m 21 : 14 whatever C4J 22: 13 23:5,6 28: 1 ~
shows c115:5 today's m 4:3 whether c2121:1222:13
shut m 10:20 Tom c31 18:22 21: 17 22: 1 whole e21 11: 1 O 25:22 significant cs16:129:24 10:1, tonight ca13:16,25 4:14, 19,20, widely c117:14
22 11 :9 24: 13 21 13:4 21 :21 wider m 12: 1 O
silt m 10:16 took m 3:25 wildlife C3J 11 :10, 15 12:18
simply m 23: 17 top c11 5:20 will c401 3: 18 4:9,20 6:9, 10, 17
since c1113:25 topic c1116:11 11:1612:20,21,25 13:1,4,6,8,9,
single m 12:4 topics C3J 8:15,16,24 12,15,1614:15 15:1417:4,11,
site m 10:12 total c2128:8,9 1218:12,17,1819:12,14 21:21,
six m 5:24 totally m 11 :21 23,24 22:14,25 24:19 25:4 26: slip-lining m 18:16 tougflest m 15:14 17 27:4 30:1,4,8
smaller m 18: 17 town c21 25:22 26:2 willow m 11 :3
sole c21 3:19 25:24 track m 14:20 winter m 13:23
somebody m 3:12 tracks m 15:19 wish m 13:6
sometime c11 23:3 traffic rn 7:11 12:21,23 15:6,8 WITNESS m 28:4
sometimes m 3:10 19:17 26:21 wonder m 17:7
Somewhere c2122:10,14 trail C4J 18:24,2519:2,7 wondering m 3:10
son m 17:24 transcribed m 31: 11 WOODRUFF C6J 3:9 21: 18 22:6 sooner m 14:2 transcript m 3:17 23:13, 15 27:8
sorry m 3:19 transportation c119:7 word m 18:13
sort c21 17: 13 18:3 traverses m 28: 18 work cm 12:2,3 13: 18 19: 14, 18
speaking m 26: 18 treating m 10:8 20: 1 O 25: 14 26: 16 29:9, 11,23 special £3111:15,16 29:17 treatment m 10:17 worked m 27:2
species 131 9: 16, 18 11 : 14 trees m 10:2 working 121 14: 1 20:22
specific m 8:15 trips m 12:24 works m 21 :4 specifically 1214:23 22:7 truck m 12:24 world m 15:12
spend m 26: 14 trucks m 9:4 wrap m 13:2
spills m 1 O: 11 true c21 24: 1 O 31 : 12 writing m 13: 17
spreading m 10:10 try m 20:23 written c5121:2327:7,10,13 31:
stabilizers m 12: 1 trying c51 11 :5 13:22 14: 17 29:6, 1 o staffc213:1326:6 12 -------,v~----
stage 12122:14 26:19 tunneling c5112:16,2214:25
stages m 6:9 28: 16,24
staging m 12:22 Turning m 24:5
Stan m 28: 1 two c51 7:2,4 12:8, 1 O 13:22 stand m 29:25 type m 29:21
standpoint c2122:22,23 typewriting m 31 :11
Staples m 17:23 typical l2J 28:14 29:9
starts m 3:9 U state c31 21 :9 24:25 31 :8
statement c41 8: 1, 14 24: 12 25:2 unconventional m 28: 19
station l2J 18:6 27:2 under C4J 8: 1 14:20 15: 18 25:5
stay m 27:4 underneath c1114:19,2515:1,2, steering c11 17:5 23 17: 17 1 8: 1 Stenotype m 31: 11
year ca1 9:21 19: 19 21 :9
lears c515:21,2213:22 14:5 20:
Yorba c515:10 16:17 19:15 25:
17 26:7
Santa-Yorba TORNELL & COTTEN PROFESSIONAL COURT REPORTERS (714) 543-1600
HEARING RE: THE SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION -5/24/00
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
REGULAR MEETING -AGENDA ITEM 17 Re ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION CENTER AND PROTECTION CONTRACT
Wednesdat00May 24, 2000 8. P.M.
10844 Ell;s Aveo¥e . Founta1n Val ey, Cal1 orn1a
24 Reporter:
25 Pamela.Cottent CSRA7RDR Cert1t1cate No. 44.,.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
Speaker: Page
DAVID LUDWIN --------------------------------3, 13
KRIS LINDSTROM (Env;ronmental Consultant)-------7
TOM WOODRUFF-----------------------------------21
PUBLIC HEARING---------------------------------27
2
1 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA-WEDNESDAY, MAY 24,200
2 8:00P.M.
3
4 MS. DeBA Y: Item 17. our actions regarding the
5 Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Ana River
6 Interceptor Relocation Center and Protection contract,
7 and we would have a verbal report from our director of
8 engineering, Mr. Ludwin.
9 MR. WOODRUFF: Madam Chairman, before David starts,
10 for the directors who are wondering, sometimes we have a
11 court reporter here we think, "Oh, we have some disaster
12 on our hands or somebody is challenging something and
13 sent in a reporter." Actually, the staff and
14 consultants at my office for these major environmental
15 hearings, we prefer to have a court reporter, and so
16 Ms. Cotten is here with us tonight just to take the
17 verbatim transcript of the hearing. We don't know if
18 any people will be here to testify. If so, we'll have a
19 good record for it. That's the sole reason. I'm sorry
20 I didn't mention it earlier.
21 David.
22 MR. LUDWIN: Thank you.
23 This project has been discussed with this board
24 of directors on several occasions in the past, and
25 tonight we are here as a result of the action you took
3
1 last month which established a public review hearing for
2 this project from April 12th to May 31st. You also
3 established last month today's board meeting as a public
4 hearing for this project.
5 I'm going to give you a very brief overview of
6 the project. We've been through this several times, but
7 I want to go through this for the public who weren't
8 here. Then Kris Lindstrom, our environmental
9 consultant, will come up to speak and talk a little
10 about the Environmental Impact Report itself, talk to
11 you about some of the considerations we looked at and
12 also some of the findings we developed.
13 Again, the purpose of the public hearing
14 tonight has several purposes. In an effort to keep the
15 public informed of the project, it is a public
16 disclosure process that we are going through here with
17 this particular project. It also allows the public to
18 come before this board to give comments. We are here
19 tonight to receive those comments and not to reply to
20 those tonight. We will reply fully to any comments we
21 receive tonight in the final Environmental Impact
22 Report.
23 Also, although it is not specifically required
24 by the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA as
25 we normally talk about it, a public hearing is a policy
4
TORNELL & COTTEN COURT REPORTERS (714) 543-1600 Pages 1-4
HEARING RE: THE SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION -5/24/00
1 we've had here at the District where we have, again, the
2 ability to facilitate the ability to have the public
3 come in front of this board to speak directly to you
4 about their concerns about the project.
5 Again, a brief overview. This map here shows
6 the proposed project. And to get you oriented, it is
7 located in our northern part of our service areas, for
8 those who can see this. The county line is
9 approximately right here, and this is Weir Canyon Road.
10 This is the city of Yorba Linda, the 91 Freeway, and
11 this is the Santa Ana River essentially.
12 The Santa Ana River interceptor, which is shown
13 in red here, the existing line was constructed back in
14 1975. It was constructed in the flood plane here.
15 Because of the geology of the hills and the freeway,
16 that's really the only location where the line could be
17 constructed. At the time it was constructed, about four
18 miles of pipeline was actually in the riverbed, and it
19 was constructed with about 15 or 20 feet of cover over
20 the top of the pipe at the time it was constructed 25
21 years ago.
22 Over the last 25 years, substantial erosion has
23 taken place where the cover over the pipe in some places
24 is only five or six feet deep over the pipe, and the
25 manholes in the river, which are shown by the red dots
5
1 here, are actually exposed above the riverbed and they
2 are actually sticking up above the riverbed. They have
3 been protected with some rod and riprap to prevent any
4 kind of damage, but they are certainly subject to some
5 kind of risk.
6 The Army Corps of Engineers has a project where
7 they are going to be raising Prado Dam 30 feet. That
8 project is not underway yet, but it is in the planning
9 stages and will be moving forward. When they do that,
10 the potential discharge from the dam will increase by
11 upwards of five times what the past discharges have been
12 from the dam. So that poses a significant risk to our
13 pipeline. We are looking at ways to protect and
14 relocate the pipeline out of the river.
15 This is a cooperative project with the Santa
16 Ana Watershed Protection Agency. They own about 75% of
17 the capacity in this line, so therefore they will be
18 paying about 75 % of the project costs that we are
19 looking at here.
20 These are the five alternatives that were
21 viewed as part of engineering studies that have been
22 going on currently, and I won't go into too much detail
23 here. I think I discussed with you last month that they
24 include alternatives locating -relocating the middle
25 section out of the river, the middle section as well as
6
1 the upstream section, the middle as well as the
2 downstream section, and then there's two alternatives, C
3 and D, which locate the entire pipeline out of the
4 river. They vary from two miles of relocation up to
5 about five miles of relocation.
6 The environmental impact rating you see here is
7 in the Environmental Impact Report, and the lower the
8 score, the better the environmental --the better the
9 environmental impacts, the less impact that it has. The
10 environment impacts we're talking about here is such
11 things as traffic disruption, noise, air quality, plant
12 resources, et cetera, et cetera. So there's quite a few
13 different impacts we're talking about here.
14 The construction cost varies quite widely from
15 around 15 million dollars to up to over 40 million
16 dollars for the project for the construction costs.
17 Then when you add on the engineering costs and
18 administration costs, the cost of the project goes up
19 substantially.
20 With that, I'm going to introduce Kris
21 Lindstrom. He is going to talk to you a little bit
22 about the CEQA process.
23 MR. LINDSTROM: Thank you, Dave.
24 The California Environmental Quality Act and
25 both the -this is also known as the environment impact
7
1 statement which is required under federal projects. We
2 have gone ahead and done both to facilitate future
3 permitting with the Corps of Engineers who has
4 jurisdiction over the river.
5 The purpose of compliance with the
6 Environmental Quality Act and EIR is to disclose the
7 environmental impacts, identify the best alternative
8 that is protective of environmental assets of the area,
9 environmental resources, and disclose the public agency
10 decisions that have to be made in permitting, and to
11 foster the inter-agency coordination that's necessary
12 when you are dealing with such a sensitive area.
13 The objective of this combined Environmental
14 Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement is to
15 address the environmental topics specific to this
16 project. A variety of environmental topics were
17 addressed in each of the separate chapters. We went
18 through and analyzed each of the alternatives separately
19 to come up and help guide the decision making on which
20 of these alternatives, because the costs were so large
21 and the environmental consequences were so great, which
22 one had the least environmental impacts and what were
23 the costs to mitigate and bring -minimize those
24 impacts. So these are the list of topics that were
25 addressed in the chapters in this large document.
8
Pages 5-8 TORNELL & COTTEN COURT REPORTERS (714) 543-1600
.• r
HEARING RE: THE SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION -5/24/00
1 Copies are on the back table.
2 So we looked at mineral resources. A lot of
3 sand and gravel and cement was used in this project. So
4 just the trucks alone to accomplish this are --a number
5 of impacts are associated with the mining and bringing
6 in materials.
7 Noise and local public transportation issues;
8 moving the bikeway where the pipe is aligned on
9 Alternative D. That is going to require relocation of
10 the bikeway.
11 The biological resources, as I'll get into in a
12 moment, are immense along this area of the river. The
13 existing river -you can't get access to these manholes
14 that are exposed because of the sensitivity for nesting
15 birds in the area. There are a lot of endangered
16 species. Now recently there's the Santa Ana sucker,
17 which is a fish which is unique to this stretch of the
18 river, that is being listed as an endangered species.
19 So that requires even more protection.
20 So we have had problems getting access to the
21 river at certain times of the year, and that makes, as
22 you heard earlier, the routine maintenance of facilities
23 so critical to maintain the viability. So that's a
24 difficulty. So there's significant challenges in
25 filling a project to meet these needs.
9
The potentially significant impacts associated
2 with the project are taking out some citrus trees in
3 this area here.
4 Potential water quality effects during
5 construction. Large amounts of groundwater have to be
6 pumped out. The pipes are going to be buried rather
7 deep. So the alternatives of putting in the sewer are
8 treating so it to meets all the requirements of putting
9 it back in the river so it can be used further
10 downstream in spreading basins.
11 The potential for spills of fuels being used on
12 the site is critical.
13 Then the major impact is looking at the
14 alternatives, but the long term is what's the
15 consequences of the pipeline being damaged and being
16 filled up with sand and silt from the river and then
17 entering the treatment plants here and disrupting them,
18 and then the recent project that went on with the gate
19 valve down by the Savi Ranch project here so that it
20 could be shut off in case the pipe broke to avoid that
21 coming in as an interim measure.
22 Other potentially significant impacts are the
23 habitat losses in the area. The least is for
24 Alternative C and D which maximize getting the pipe out
25 of the river. They only disrupt about an acre of
10
1 habitat. The other alternatives disrupt up to 53 acres
2 of habitat. So the permanent losses are greatest when
3 the vegetation has to be removed from the river, willow
4 habitat, and there's a lot of orendo which is a growth
5 that's in there now that they are trying to remove. So
6 part of this would be to mitigate to remove orendo and
7 replace it with native vegetation.
8 The mitigation measures that are proposed have
9 been done to minimize the significant adverse effects on
10 wildlife and fisheries. So the whole project there's a
11 lot of biological surveys of the area to find out where
12 the sensitive issues are, and there's a lot of them.
13 As I mentioned, the Santa Ana sucker. There's
14 a lot of various bird species in the area that deserve
15 special protection. So you have the Fish and Wildlife
16 and Fish and Game will have special requirements on when
17 you can do construction and how you can do it.
18 So the findings that come out of this are that
19 the impacts to the biological resources of the river are
20 a key consideration and that Alternative D, which gets
21 the pipe totally out of the river, is the
22 environmentally superior alternative.
23 Alternative D completely relocates the pipeline
24 out of the river. It's, as I said, the environmentally
25 superior alternative and it doesn't require the
11
1 construction of grade stabilizers which cross the river,
2 which require a lot of work in the river, a lot of rock,
3 concrete and actual work in the river that can disturb
4 fish and habitat. And also the pipe would be a single
5 pipe rather than a dual pipe. So by the combined brine
6 from the upper basin and with the sewage flow that's
7 going on, there's a proposal, Alternative C, which would
8 have two separate pipelines. The costs are much higher
9 and the impacts are greater because you are taking a
10 wider path of area to install two pipes.
11 Proposed mitigation measures require the
12 careful planning and construction of utility crossings.
13 There's lots of utilities in this area. There's a fiber
14 cable network that's very sensitive. It has to be --
15 the pipe has to be put --there would be a lot of
16 tunneling.
17 Restrictions on the construction times due to
18 the sensitivity of the wildlife in the area, and the
19 bikeway along the river would have to be temporarily
20 relocated to streets. So there will be a rather
21 detailed traffic control plan. So you will have a lot
22 of tunneling with staging off the roadway, and then
23 Alternative D has the least traffic impacts with the
24 fewest number of truck trips a day, about eight.
25 So Dave will tell you what the rest of the
12
TORNELL & COTTEN COURT REPORTERS (714) 543-1600 Pages 9-12
HEARING RE: THE SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION -5/24/00
process will be.
2 MR. LUDWIN: Real quickly, to wrap it up, as I
3 mentioned, the public review period is still open. It
4 will be open until next Wednesday on May 31st. Tonight
5 we are holding the public hearing to hear comments from
6 the public if they wish to speak to you. Then we will
7 finalize the Environmental Impact Report, the EIS, over
8 the next month or so. We will publish that in July,
9 July 1st. It will come back to this board of directors
10 in July, July 19th, for certification by this board and
11 resolution of findings, also by this board of
12 directors. We will then file a Notice of Determination
13 the next day. That opens an appeal period of 30 days
14 for the public to appeal the decision of this board of
15 directors. That will end August 19th.
16 We will begin design immediately on this
17 project. We are actually underway right now writing
18 scope of work for the design portion of this project.
19 We are intending to award the construction contract in
20 November 2001. It says November 2000. It should be
21 2001. We are looking at a construction project of about
22 two years. We are trying to get the project completed
23 by the winter of 2003.
24 I think last month when I brought this to you,
25 we had proposed a construction of 2005. We have since
13
1 been working very, very hard to find a way to get this
2 project completed a lot sooner. We believe it is a very
3 important project, and there's some risk associated with
4 leaving the pipeline where it is. So we are finding
5 ways to get the project completed in three years from
6 this fall. With that, that's the report.
7 MS. DeBAY: Thank you.
8 MR. GULLIXSON: I have a question, Madam Chair.
9 MS. DeBAY: Mr. Gullixson.
10 MR. GULLIXSON: The construction area you are
11 talking about, is that assuming the most immaculate,
12 most expensive part of the project, or the cheapest?
13 MR. LUDWIN: That assumes Alternative D, which is
14 the preferred alternative. It is also the most
15 expensive one or the second most expensive one. It will
16 relocate the entire pipeline out of the river.
17 MS. McGUIGAN: I'm trying to figure out --
18 MR. LUDWIN: Alternative Dis basically take the
19 pipeline out near the county line, underneath the
20 railroad track, under La Palma Boulevard, and reconnect
21 to the existing SARI line downstream at Weir Canyon
22 Road. So it basically takes the entire pipeline out of
23 the river currently.
24 The other portions shown here are areas where
25 we would have to do tunneling underneath the railroad
14
and underneath La Palma Boulevard. This area here we
2 would be about 60 or 70 feet deep underneath La Palma
3 Boulevard. Very difficult construction. That's why the
4 cost of the construction is very high. And then this
5 would be open cut construction along La Palma, mostly
6 the bike lane, and we would be taking out some traffic
7 lanes during the construction period. So there would be
8 disruption to the traffic along this route for some
9 time.
10 MR. ANDERSON: You know, I just add as we
11 approached this project, we asked ourselves the question
12 why in the world did those guys build the line in the
13 river. Well, the answer is what David has just
14 described. It will be one of the toughest construction
15 projects this agency ever undertakes. It has some
16 really excruciating demands that we normally do not face
17 when we build a sewer line in Orange County.
18 MR. LUDWIN: As Kris mentioned, we got to go under
19 the railroad tracks here, and there's a fiberoptic
20 cable. I'm not sure who owns it, but it is a very
21 critical link of communications through there, and we
22 are going to have to be very careful with that cable.
23 We have to get underneath it. We have got some
24 challenges ahead of us.
25 MS. DeBAY: Don.
15
MR. BANKHEAD: What do we do to advertise our
2 public hearings? Where do we put the information?
3 MR. IOAN: April 19th it was published in The
4 Register.
5 MR. LUDWIN: It was published in The Register, and
6 it was also at the county recorder's office; was it?
7 MR. IOAN: Most likely not.
8 MR. LUDWIN: So it was published in The Register
9 newspaper.
10 MR. BANKHEAD: I'm just surprised we don't have
11 more public here to speak on this topic, and I'm not
12 sure that we are reaching the public to advise them of
13 this.
14 MS. DeBAY: Has there been any outreach to the
15 cities that would be involved?
16 MR. LUDWIN: Last week I made a presentation to the
17 Yorba Linda City Council. That was televised, I think,
18 to the public.
19 MR. BANKHEAD: Why don't we contact our cities and
20 request the cities to advertise our public hearings in
21 their water bills?
22 MS. DeBAY: It is a thought.
23 MS. McGUIGAN: It is such a long cycle in our water
24 bill cycle. There's three different --three months
25 long because it continues.
16
Pages 13-16 TORNELL & COTTEN COURT REPORTERS (714) 543-1600
HEARING RE: THE SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION -5/24/00
MR. BANKHEAD: Okay. So it is three months long.
2 Put it in the water bill.
3 MS. DeBA Y: You might bring it up for discussion at
4 the committee meeting that you attend, and we will bring
5 it to steering committee as well.
6 Pat, you had your hand up.
7 MS. McGUIGAN: I wonder what happens, if indeed
8 the alternate is selected, presumably it would be, what
9 happens to the existing SARI line.
10 MR. LUDWIN: After we get the new SARI line
11 constructed, we will do a demolition project
12 essentially, remove the manholes, and we will fill the
13 existing line with sand or grout of some sort and
14 probably band it in place.
15 MS. McGUIGAN: I'm noticing in one area, and
16 correct me if I'm wrong, John, John Gullixson, it goes
17 through -I guess underneath Savi Ranch, the brand new
18 shopping center.
19 MR. LUDWIN: Right.
20 MS. McGUIGAN: What I call a major center up
21 there.
22 MR. GULLIXSON: That's got our Home Depot and our
23 Staples.
24 MS. McGUIGAN: My son lives a block up the street.
25 That's why I'm looking at it very carefully, to see if
17
l it is going to go underneath his house.
2 MR. LUDWIN: At that point we would fill it
3 probably with grout or with sand of some sort and remove
4 the manholes.
5 MR. GULLIXSON: It also goes through the area where
6 we are looking for the Metrolink station, but at least
7 it is not in yet.
8 MS. DeBA Y: Question back in the back.
9 MR. IOAN: Actually, I don't have a question. I
10 would like to answer you what Dave said about a portion
11 of the pipeline which crosses the Savi Ranch. That
12 portion of the pipe will still remain live; however, we
13 intend to --re-site is probably not the right word, but
14 we are looking at the hydraulics. Right now the
15 diameter is way too large for the flow that the Savi
16 Ranch generates. We end up actually slip-lining the
17 pipeline to a smaller diameter pipe, but it will remain
18 live and will serve the area.
19 MR. LUDWIN: My mistake. This would have to remain
20 live to serve the Savi Ranch area, so we would have to
21 maintain that pipe.
22 MS. DeBAY: Tom Saltarelli.
23 MR. SALTARELLI: David, this concerns the bike
24 trail. Aren't we actually at the moment redoing the
25 bike trail? It used to go north of Imperial, used to go
18
1 across the riverbed and up, and now that is all closed.
2 Are we doing that bike trail continuing north now along
3 the freeway?
4 MR. LUDWIN: I can't answer that question now. I
5 don't have enough information to answer that.
6 MR. SALTARELLI: Then the follow-up was, if that's
7 the case, is that a portion of the bike trail we are
8 going to have to redo again?
9 MR. LUDWIN: Potentially. If it is certainly -we
10 haven't taken the final alignment yet. We have to do
11 that during the detailed design portion, but if it is
12 required to replace it again, we will do that. We are
13 very restricted on where we can put the line. So we are
14 going to have to put it where we can. We will work very
15 closely with the cities of Yorba Linda and Anaheim as
16 well as the County and other agencies to get the
17 required permits and the traffic control plans in place
18 to get this thing filled. We still have some work to do
19 over the next year or so.
20 MS. DeBAY: At this point we are taking questions
21 for our director of engineering. If it is a public
22 comment, that comes up later. Is this a question on his
23 report?
24 MR. HIRSCH: No.
25 MS. DeBAY: Are there any further questions from
19
1 the directors to the director of engineering?
2 MR. SWAN: What is the comments of our partners
3 upstream who are going to be paying 75 % of this?
4 MR. LUDWIN: SAWPA has been kept apprised of the
5 project from its inception several years ago. We meet
6 with them on a regular basis, consult with them. They
7 are currently looking for funding options for their part
8 of the project. We are going to be meeting, I think,
9 very shortly here with SA WPA and the County to go over
10 the coordination of the project with some work the
11 County is actually doing with this stretch of the
12 river. So they are kept apprised, and they are on board
13 with everything.
14 MR. SW AN: The comment being that I believe to get
15 them to pay the last time, John Collins had to threaten
16 to flood out one of the mobile home parks. So I mean it
17 is not --I mean it is with some considerable merit I
18 ask that question.
19 MR. PATTERSON: Isn't it --they don't have the
20 funds. Isn't that right?
21 MR. LUDWIN: At the current time, I don't believe
22 so. I think we are going to be working very closely
23 with them to try to figure out how to get the money. I
24 think we have budgeted in our budget enough money to
25 build the project on our own if we needed to.
20
TORNELL & COTTEN COURT REPORTERS (714) 543-1600 . Pages 17-20
HEARING RE: THE SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEYfOR RELOCATION -5/24/00
1 Is that right, Gary? Did we do that? I think
2 we did.
3 MR. STREED: We are budgeted for them to pay their
4 share like they are supposed to. We'll see how it works
5 out.
6 MR. LUDWIN: We do have to find a way for them to
7 pay us the money.
8 MS. McGUIGAN: Isn't SAWPA a recipient of some of
9 the state funding for this coming year?
10 MR. LUDWIN: Yes, it is --
11 MS. McGUIGAN: So I'm not sure -okay. I wasn't
12 sure whether this was on the list.
13 MS. DeBAY: Needless to say, that's high on our
14 list of to-dos.
15 Any other questions before we go to the general
16 counsel?
17 Thank you, Dave. Tom.
18 MR. WOODRUFF: Frankly, the thoroughness of
19 Mr. Lindstrom and Dave, they have covered all the
20 procedural aspects. As you know, this is the public
21 hearing portion of it tonight. The comment period will
22 still be open for another week. Then all the comments,
23 either verbal or written, that come in will be addressed
24 on a one-by-one basis, and the final report will be
25 brought back to you next meeting.
21
MR. GULLIXSON: The only question I have, Tom, is
2 procedurally is when this comes back to have the EIR
3 certified, we approve certification, are we going to
4 choose which level of project at that point or when
5 would the board actually take that into consideration?
6 MR. WOODRUFF: I don't think there's going to be a
7 recommendation specifically next month to pick the
8 alternative. The report identifies the preferred
9 alternative, but I think you are always -the report
10 covers all of the alternatives. Somewhere along the
11 way, and I'm not sure, maybe Dave can comment best, once
12 we get some preliminary design, you are going to see
13 whether the cost numbers vary and whatever, and I think
14 it is somewhere in that stage you will be asked to
15 finally make a choice. But you are going to have to be
16 addressing each of the alternatives. I mean you do
17 address it in the report, each of the alternatives.
18 Dave.
19 MR. LUDWIN: Again, the preferred alternative is
20 Alternative D, which has the least amount of impacts
21 environmentally. It also is the best alternative from
22 an operational standpoint, long-term reliability and
23 operational standpoint from the District's point of
24 view. That would be the project that would be
25 recommended to the board to move forward with. We will
22
1 move forward to the PDC and to the board with any awards
2 of any contracts that we come forward with probably
3 sometime this summer as we move this project forward.
4 MR. GULLIXSON: You are saying that on the EIR, we
5 are going to be voting for whatever --the extent of
6 whatever project at that time, or we are going to have
7 that in a separate public hearing?
8 MR. LUDWIN: There won't be another public hearing
9 related to that.
10 MR. GULLIXSON: Okay. So this EIR process also
11 involves this board making a choice of one of the five
12 proposals you have got in front of us?
13 MR. WOODRUFF: No.
14 MR. ANDERSON: No.
15 MR. WOODRUFF: The report identifies -remember,
16 the purpose of the report is not to be project approval
17 but to simply evaluate all of the environmental impacts.
18 MR. GULLIXSON: When do we get to the point of
19 project approval where we approve the extent or
20 limitation of the project we want?
21 MR. LUDWIN: Did you want to say something, Blake?
22 MR. ANDERSON: Well, why don't you answer that
23 question, and then I'll clarify a little bit more about
24 your question of the alternatives.
25 MR. LUDWIN: The intent is to come back to the PDC
23
1 committee and the Board with the recommendation to move
2 forward with Alternative D and an award of contract to
3 do design. So at that time the board would make a
4 decision to move forward with Alternative D.
5 MR. ANDERSON: Turning to Kris, of the five
6 alternatives, all of the alternatives are feasible from
7 an environmental point of view. There's mitigation
8 that's required, but there's not any impacts that are so
9 egregious that we wouldn't be able to select any of the
10 five alternatives. Isn't that true?
11 MR. LINDSTROM: No. Any of the project
12 alternatives you would have to adopt a statement of
13 overriding considerations because there are significant
14 impacts. Alternative Dis the environmentally superior
15 alternative, and the Environmental Impact Report lays
16 out --it's a full disclosure document of what the
17 impacts are to be used -it is not the decision-making
18 document. That's the point that the Director Gullixson
19 is making. This will be used, then, when the District
20 makes a decision on the selection of the project to move
21 forward with funding and authorizing the design that is
22 supported by the -and it is the choice -the EIR
23 covers any project, but you can say this is the
24 environmentally superior alternative or, if you choose
25 another one, you have to state the reasons why you
24
Pages 21-24 TORNELL & COTTEN COURT REPORTERS (714) 543-1600
HEARING RE: THE SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION -5/24/00
didn't select the environmentally superior alternative
2 and then mitigate those impacts and make a Statement of
3 Overriding Consideration to your adoption resolution.
4 That will be --and you are doing that your next meeting
5 to identify the impacts that you cannot mitigate under
6 these alternatives.
7 MR. ANDERSON: But, Kris, it is fair to say that it
8 is conceivable that any five of the alternatives could
9 be constructed given that certification of overriding
10 concern?
11 MR. LINDSTROM: Yes. They could be constructed,
12 but if they could be constructed in a time frame that
13 you would like to with the permitting and other
14 negotiations for work in the river, that's another
15 issue.
16 MR. GULLIXSON: Madam Chair, one consideration
17 that is, as a representative of Yorba Linda, that we
18 would like to ask for is that when this board gets to
19 the point of selecting the extent of this project, that
20 when that's agendized that we have notices sent to
21 residents in that general area because -that's not the
22 most impacted in terms of density of the whole town, but
23 there are quite a few residents that use that Gypsum
24 Canyon bridge, and their sole ingress and egress out of
25 that area is the Camino de Bryant and La Palma Avenue.
25
1 In fact, if there's any problems with that road, they
2 just flat can't get out of town. They are kind of
3 landlocked.
4 We did get some response after our public
5 display of Dave's presentation, and so that's what we
6 would like to at least have my staff have some input
7 beforehand so anybody in Yorba Linda can come in and
8 speak to the issue at that time.
9 MS. DeBAY: And would the new communications person
10 that we are looking for take part in this public
11 outreach?
12 MR. ANDERSON: Absolutely. I might add that quite
13 often when we have a particularly difficult job that's
14 going to impact the community, we do spend time on the
15 front end informing the community and looking for help
16 from them in how to schedule the work to lessen the
17 impacts that will occur. Obviously, on the major
18 arteries we are speaking here, we are going to have to
19 be careful of how we are in the road and how we stage
20 the construction to minimize certainly rush hour
21 traffic, as bad as that street is at times in the
22 morning and afternoon.
23 MR. GULLIXSON: Thank you.
24 MS. DeBA Y: That was my first contact with the
25 Sanitation District. They were doing a project down
26
1 Pacific Coast Highway through the middle of our
2 Mariner's Mile and through the pump station. It worked
3 well because of the outreach that they put in.
4 MR. ANDERSON: We will stay very close.
5 MR. GULLIXSON: Okay.
6 MS. DeBAY: Further questions before -were there
7 any written comments received? Are we aware?
8 MR. WOODRUFF: There were none, I believe. Is that
9 correct, Penny?
10 MR. LINDSTROM: The written comments are still
11 coming in. We haven't received and filed them yet.
12 MS. DeBA Y: At this point on my agenda it says to
13 receive and file written comments. So at that point so
14 ordered on that and continue to do so. Thank you.
15
16 PUBLIC HEARING
17 MS. DeBA Y: All right. At this point we are going
18 to open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the
19 public? Would you come -can you speak loudly, or do
20 you want a microphone?
21 MR. HIRSCH: I would like to know the current
22 estimated cost of that entire project at this point
23 through 2003.
24 MS. DeBAY: Okay. Would you give your name,
25 please?
27
MR. HIRSCH: Dr. Stan Hirsch.
2 MS. DeBA Y: All right. Do we have the cost -of
3 course, each alternative is a different cost.
4 THE WITNESS: I said estimated.
5 MR. LUDWIN: That was noted in my presentation.
6 MR. GULLIXSON: It was up on the board. The lowest
7 was 21 million and the highest 48.
8 MR. LUDWIN: Here is the total project costs for
9 the alternatives that are being cited. They range total
10 project costs 22 million up to 59 million dollars, and
11 construction cost is also shown up there.
12 MR. ANDERSON: You know, we might add that if you
13 take whatever conventional number you use in terms of
14 dollars per mile for a typical sewer line and you look
15 at these numbers, these are considerably higher than
16 that, and the reason for it is because of the tunneling
17 and shoring requirements because of the hillsides and
18 the railroad that this thing traverses. So this is
19 absolutely unconventional in terms of the dollars per
20 mile that this thing is going to cost.
21 MS. DeBAY: All right. Are there any other public
22 comments or questions?
23 MR. GULLIXSON: I have one other question. It
24 would seem with this project with the tunneling and the
25 depth of the digging that's got to be done, we are going
28
TORNELL & COTTEN COURT REPORTERS (714) 543-1600 Pages 25-28
HEARING RE: THE SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION -S/24/00
to have to take some extreme safety measures here
2 because if there's any project we have ever done where
3 it's fraught with danger, it's got to be this one. I
4 hope we address everything, and we can avoid that if
5 possible.
6 MR. LUDWIN: We are currently trying to identify
7 those consultants that have the expertise to do this
8 kind of design. That in and of itself is a challenge
9 because this is not typical work that we do here. So we
' 10 are looking to make sure so we can identify those that
11 can do the work for us. We do have a very aggressive
12 schedule we are trying to meet. So it is going to have
13 to take some very creative designing and very creative
14 scheduling of this project to be able to meet that
15 schedule we set for ourselves.
16 MS. DeBAY: Dave, what do we do as far as
17 liability? Is there special insurance you can get for
18 major projects or something with a threat like this?
19 MR. LUDWIN: Certainly. On this job we'd probably
20 require insurance requirements that are commensurate
21 with the type of project we are undertaking and the risk
22 we are talking about. That would be established during
23 the course of the work in conjunction with our risk
24 manager and our insurance company.
25 MS. DeBAY: Any other --we stand with the public
29
1 hearing open. I will call one more time for public
2 comments.
3 MS. SHEA: Move to close the public hearing.
4 MS. DeBA Y: I will close the public hearing.
5 (End of Public Hearing.)
6 MS. DeBA Y: Further discussion by the board. At
7 this point is there any other discussion?
8 All right. We will continue this to July the
9 19th, regular board meeting, for consideration of the
10 final EIR. Thank you.
11 (The proceeding was concluded at 8:33 P.M.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
2
3
4
5
6
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
7 I, Pamela Cotten, a Certified Shorthand
8 Reporter and a Notary Public of the State of California
9 with principal office in the County of Orange do hereby
10 certify that the foregoing proceeding was written by me
11 in Stenotype and transcribed into typewriting and that
12 the foregoing is a true and correct copy of my shorthand
13 notes thereof.
14
15
16
17
18 Dated: _____ _
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
Pages 29-32 TORNELL & COTTEN COURT REPORTERS (714) 543-1600
FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION
NO. 33-0080753
INVOICE
TORNELL & COTTEN
Professional Court Reporters
721 South Parker Street
Suite 190
Orange, California 92868
05/31/00
WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
701 SOUTH PARKER STREET , SUITE 7000
ORANGE, CA 92868
ATTN: TOM WOODRUFF , ESQ.
IN THE CASE OF: RE ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(714) 543-1600
Please refer to File No.
00-0323
TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT,
PLEASE RETURN ONE COPY
OF THIS INVOICE.
No.: AGENDA ITEM 17
ST: 8:00 PM; END 8:33 PM
DEPOSITION(S) OF:
Taken 05/24/00
PUBLIC HEARING
ORIGINAL & ONE COPY ..... .
PUBLIC HEARING APPEARANCE FEE
SHIPPING AND HANDLING
Please pay this amount.
29510 PAMELA COTTEN , CSR# 4497 tbank you
155.00
250.00
25.00
$430.00 ------------------
TERMS NET-Upon Receipt of Invoice