Loading...
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