BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING
February 27, 2023
J.2 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL OF
COMMENTS ON METRO C LINE
EXTENSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
3 Emails from Niki Negrete-Mitchell, D3
2 Emails from Holly Osborne
From: RightOfSay/RBQoL
To: Lauren Sablan
Cc: Niki Mitchell; Kevin Mitchell; Candace Nafissi
Subject: Fwd: DEIR Community Response Series from Right of Say/Redondo Beach Quality of Life Installment #1 (clarification edit) Date: Monday, February 27, 2023 2:09:35 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Hi Lauren,
Per Commissioner Naffissi's request I am forwarding this DEIR group response email that was sent to Metro for Public works to discuss tonight. Two more are on their way as well. Please insert all three into the blue folder for J.1. Please ensure all photos are included.
Please email [email protected] or call 310.387.4875 with any questions. thank you!
Niki Negrete-Mitchell, D3
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: RightOfSay/RBQoL <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 1:45 AM
Subject: ( for item J.1) DEIR Community Response Series from Right of Say/Redondo Beach Quality of Life Installment #1 To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Dear Metro and Metro Board of Directors,
After having a chance to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report, please consider the following as our first group response for the record with very minor edit. Substance contained herein has not changed. We are taking this huge endeavor by section and as a group in hopes of ensuring attention to all of our concerns.
Firstly, this is in reference to the Geology and Soils chapter. Brief local history: In July 2020 Shell Pipeline Co. attempted to perform routine gas pipeline maintenance in the Redondo Beach ROW which opened a sinkhole that crossed property lines from inside the ROW into the private townhome complex there. Homeowners have been unable to access their outdoor space with a dangerous unstable retaining wall above the open sinkhole complete with barricades. 2 and 1/2 years later this has not been fixed. In addition, the 191 unit Breakwater Village senior retirement condominium complex has sustained **known cracked retainer walls which separates their large building from the ROW and concerns about future foundational damage due to the seismic vibrations caused by the one daily passing freight train round trip just a few feet away.(1)
DEIR Claim:
3.8-3.12 Subsidence and Settlement
According to the City of Redondo Beach Geological Hazards section of the General Plan (1993f), no areas were identified as being prone to subsidence.
The Draft EIR references expansive soils as risk.
DEIR Description of Significant Risk Potential:
3.8-2.4 Significance Thresholds
Based upon the thresholds of significance contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact if the Proposed Project would result in any of the following:
d. Be located on expansive soil as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (CBC, 2019) creating substantial risks to life or property.
Our Issue With this:
Expansive soils are those with excessive swelling clay minerals. The presence of expansive clay minerals in soils can cause excessive swelling when the soil comes into contact with water and also shrinkage when it undergoes drying. Cited here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/expansive-soil The DEIR says if when they arrive to build location and test the ground they find expansive soils that they would simply DIG OUT that soil and replace it which would bring the impacts to a “less than significant” designation. However, the existing housing developments are already sustaining damages from simple routine pipeline maintenance digging, so digging out more soil in that area will very likely cause more damage to the surrounding buildings.
Furthermore, the entire North Redondo community is built on the same soil which contains clay. Three units at Ruxton Place are already blockaded from their front outdoor space and one homeowner and their family can’t even enter through the front door and are forced to use the garage for the past 2.5 years since attempts at filling the sinkhole beyond and to 30' deep just kept uncovering more loose dirt leaving the residents with dangerous conditions. Two complexes up the street there is foundational damage and cracked retainer walls at the Breakwater Village senior housing.
If they attempt to build on this land south of Artesia in the ROW it is not hard to draw the conclusion that there will very likely be further building damages to the townhome, senior condominiums and single family homes that share property lines with the ROW. If this were to occur, this could result in HUNDREDS of displacements, including retired seniors if these housing developments ended up being condemned as damaged beyond repair.
You will find pictures below documenting the sinkhole.
Please take this all to heart per the County of Los Angeles General Plan – Chapter 12 Safety Element (County of Los Angeles 2015b; 2021) as referenced on page 3 of the Geology and Soils chapter.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Right of Say/Redondo Beach Quality of Life Coalition
**(1) This edit was made for clarification based on a March 2022 meeting and tour at the Breakwater Village complex to share wear and tear concerns. Seismic vibration is described by residents as substantial enough to knock wall hung artwork.
Attachment available until Mar 21, 2023
From: RightOfSay/RBQoL
To: Lauren Sablan
Cc: Niki Mitchell; Kevin Mitchell; Candace Nafissi
Subject: Fwd: DEIR response 1
Date: Monday, February 27, 2023 2:11:27 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Hi Lauren,
Per Commissioner Naffissi's request I am forwarding this DEIR group response email that was sent to Metro for Public works to discuss tonight. This is the 2nd and one more is on its way as well. Please insert all three into the blue folder for J.1. Please ensure all photos are included.
Please email [email protected] or call 310.387.4875 with any questions. thank you!
Niki Negrete-Mitchell, D3
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kevin Mitchell <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 5:50 PM
Subject: DEIR response 1
To: Metro C Line (Green) Extension to Torrance <[email protected]> Cc: RightOfSay/RBQoL <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL --- NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT re: DEIR (Draft Environmental Impact Report),C Line Extension to Torrance Transportation Center: ROW moving BNSF line closer to residences
Dear Metro,
Regarding the “Proposed Project” outlined in the DEIR that identifies the BNSF Harbor Line Right-Of-Way(ROW)for expansion:
1) As a property owner living adjacent to this proposed project, myself, my family, and other residents sharing propery lines with this project will bear an unduly and unnecessary burden. Both during construction and post-construction, our safety, our property values, and our way-of-life, will all be compromised.
a) DEIR proposes to add 2 additional “light-rail” lines to the existing 80+ year freight line currently being used to
transport Liquid Petroleum from the harbor to El Segundo for refinement. This train passes two times per day, to and fro. (see attached video)
b) To accommodate space for the added rails, the project would move the existing freight 12-7 feet closer to the rear wall of my property. All properties adjacent to the ROW will suffer this encroachment.
As our property already is subject to Noise and Vibration, the DEIR has no real way to mitigate the effects of this expansion and have stated as much in the DEIR:
During Construction ((Page3.6-34): “While MM-NOI-1 would include measures that reduce construction noise levels, in some instances the FTA construction impact criteria may still be exceeded. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented to further reduce construction noise levels. Therefore,construction of the Proposed Project would result in noise levels that would exceed FTA’s criteria, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable.”
Operational Impacts (Page 3.6-46): Overall, the Proposed Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact for light rail and for combined freight and light rail noise…"
Moving the train closer to our properties to add two additional rail lines, violates our space to live, and also work, and presents foreseeable hardships and damage to infrastructure.
Please do not use the ROW for the C Line Expansion.
Sincerely,
Kevin Mitchell
1302 Firmona Ave.
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Click to Download
947A2128-1552-4D02-A405-09BD0C1773E7_2_0_a.mov
84.4 MB
From: RightOfSay/RBQoL
To: Lauren Sablan
Cc: Niki Mitchell; Kevin Mitchell; Candace Nafissi
Subject: Fwd: DEIR response 2
Date: Monday, February 27, 2023 2:14:16 PM
Attachments: DEIR_response_022223.pdf
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Hi Lauren,
Per Commissioner Naffissi's request I am forwarding this DEIR group response email that was sent to Metro for Public works to discuss tonight. This is the third and final and in the form of a pdf attachment this time. Please insert all three into the blue folder for J.1. Please ensure all photos are included.
Please email [email protected] or call 310.387.4875 with any questions. thank you!
Niki Negrete-Mitchell, D3
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kevin Mitchell <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 2:44 PM
Subject: DEIR response 2
To: GreenlineExtension <[email protected]>
Cc: RightOfSay/RBQoL <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
Please find attached.
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL --- NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT re: DEIR (Draft Environmental Impact Report),C Line Extension to Torrance Transportation Center: “Proposed” ROW moving BNSF freight line closer to residences already exposed to “High Pressure” Petroleum Pipelines.
Dear Metro,
Regarding the “Proposed Project” outlined in the DEIR that identifies the BNSF Harbor Line Right-Of-Way(ROW)for expansion:
1) As a property owner living adjacent to this proposed project, myself, my family, and other residents sharing property lines with this project will bear an unduly and unnecessary burden.
a) For the ROW, DEIR proposes to add 2 additional “light-rail” lines to the existing 80+ year freight line currently being used to transport Liquid Petroleum from the harbor to El Segundo for refinement. This train passes two times per day, to and fro. (see attached video link) b) To accommodate space for the added rails, the project would move the existing freight 12-7 feet closer to the rear wall of my property. All properties adjacent to the ROW will suffer this encroachment. c) Our property on the ROW is 30’ from the track. Between the track and our back wall is a “High Pressure” Petroleum Pipeline marked at 7’ from our wall. Our property has a 3’ easement at the back wall. d) There are numerous pipelines identified in the DEIR: “Several oil and gas pipelines run within the Metro ROW including a 10-inch Shell crude oil, 8-inch ExxonMobil jet fuel, and 20-inch Chevron gas lines. Due to various reasons, the subsurface utility lines could potentially leak and contaminate the subsurface.” (DEIR, 3.9-3.1.6 Petroleum Hydrocarbons)
3.9-4.2 Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
3.9-4.2.1 Construction Impacts
Less than Significant Impact. The RSA contains multiple sources of potentially hazardous materials that could be encountered during construction of the Proposed Project. Overall, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact during construction involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Oil and Gas Pipelines
Less than Significant Impact. Oil and gas pipelines are located adjacent to the Proposed Project corridor,and oil refineries are located near the southern end. Oil and gas pipelines including a 10-inch Shell crude oil, 8-inch ExxonMobil jet fuel, and 20-inch Chevron gas lines run within the Metro ROW. Oil and gas pipelines may pose a hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if oil or gas are released.
Release could occur through spills during construction or rupture of a pipeline during construction. At this phase of design, Metro has obtained as-built drawings from these utility owners and developed preliminary plans for relocation or protect-in-place. Per the Metro Rail Design Criteria, Metro would continue to coordinate with the utility owners in future phases of design, and present preliminary relocation concepts to each utility owner with affected facilities. Metro would conduct additional surveys and potholing as needed to verify the relocation plans, which would avoid any conflicts with pipelines during construction. As noted in PF-US-1 in Section 3.11, Utilities and Service Systems, prior to ground-disturbing activities, all oil and gas pipelines within the ROW would be identified and marked on-site in coordination with the well owners to avoid damaging the pipelines. Utility agreements would be finalized to ensure the designs are prepared by third party utility owners. Therefore, the impact related to oil and gas pipelines would be less than significant.
Metro’s blatant disregard for residents safety and well being is on full display here. Metro engineers have communicated that the BNSF train line will be operational during construction. As their plans indicate, massive amounts of dirt will be hauled in and out to accommodate the relocated freight line. The ROW already has a history of sink holes, exemplified by the one open now at Artesia and Ruxton Place condos. Squeezing a new rail line closer to high-pressure pipelines and residences cannot be a “less than significant” risk. Please reassess this conclusion.
I pray that the ROW is not chosen for this project. A more suitable alternative exists in the Hawthorne option. Do not put homes and neighborhoods in harm’s way to save a buck.
Sincerely,
Kevin Mitchell
1302 Firmona Ave.
Redondo Beach, CA [near 90278]
182nd
170th & 160th
Marked at 7’ offset
Inglewood Ave.
Artesia
From: Holly Osborne
To: Lauren Sablan
Subject: Fw: DEIR Comments on Figures 3.2-5 and 3.2-10 (OSB Q. No. 1) Date: Monday, February 27, 2023 2:58:46 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Holly Osborne <[email protected]>
To: GreenlineExtension <[email protected]>
Cc: Brandy Forbes <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Ted Semaan <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 03:23:12 AM PST
Subject: DEIR Comments on Figures 3.2-5 and 3.2-10 (OSB Q. No. 1) Dear Metro:
Problem: Figures 3.2-5 and 3.2-10 in the DEIR appear to be in error. (See below) Action: Fix the figures, and provide total acreage information on each city. (Correct discussions on figures as necessary)
Impact: Inaccurate figures can lead to inaccurate conclusions. These figures should be corrected before you make decisions; and corrected figures might lead to follow-up questions. (Time should be provided to the originator of the question for that.)
Discussion:
I have the following questions on Figures 3.2-5 and 3.2-10.. 1) What are the exact total acreages for each city of Hawthorne, Lawndale, Redondo and Torrance? It seems peculiar to me that the figure for the city of Torrance (4th figure on right) is exactly the same as the figure which professes to be the percentages for the combined region (larger figure on top).
(This occurs in Both Figures 3.2-5 and 3.2-10.)
2) So, is the figure for Torrance really the one on the extreme right, or the one on top, or neither? Respectfully submitted,
Holly Osborne, PE.
From: Holly Osborne
To: Lauren Sablan
Subject: Fw: DEIR Comments on Noise (Section 3.6-4.1 (OSB Q. No 3) Date: Monday, February 27, 2023 3:01:51 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
THIS IS A DRAFT IT HAS NOT BEEN SENT TO METRO
I WILL PROVIDE A BETTER COPY TOMORROW
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Holly Osborne <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 08:24:07 PM PST
Subject: DEIR Comments on Noise (Section 3.6-4.1 (OSB Q. No 3) Dear Metro:.
On Saturday morning, Feb 25, during the second round of comments, I made comments about problems with your discussion of noise effects. The remarks concerned setting a baseline during ambient conditions. I maintained that your baseline for the ROW was biased upward, which would thus minimize the effects of adding the LRT noise. I intended to amplify these remarks, as it was impossible to explain my rationale in a one minute period; and I am certain the transcriber could not follow it.
Unfortunately, that analysis will have to wait, There are massive "data entry" errors in your noise tables, and that will be the subject of this DEIR question, instead.
Problem References: Section 3.6.-4.1 on Noise Effects, and errors in the Noise Table 3.6-16 for the "Proposed Project" starting from page 494-501 of the DIER. ( Also the relevant figures 3.6-21 through
3.6.6-24, which go with the tables.)
In your Table 3.6-16, almost every cluster point, in the "impact after Mitigation" has noise that is "less than significant with mitigation."
Your table is incomprehensible;
I understood you to say in the text that if the "Unmitigated column" is greater than the threshold column, and the "mitigated column" is less than the threshold , you say it is "Less than significant with mitigation " in the impact column. That logic works with D28, D30, D31, D34 and D35. .
But D32 and D35 have EXACTLY the same measurements that match in EVERY COLUMN; and D32 is "significant and unavoidable", and D 35 is "less than significant with mitigation." Further, D32 which is "significant and unavoidable" DOES meet the criteria that the mitigated column (55) is less than the threshold (59).
Further, D29, which you have as "significant and unavoidable", also has the mitigated column (55) less than the threshold 59. So why isn't it "less than significant with mitigation" 1) What is going on here? This makes me disbelieve everything in the table. 2) ALSO, HOW DO YOU COMPUTE THE IMPACT THRESHOLD
From: Table 3.6-16. Proposed Project – Combined Light Rail and Freight Relocation Mitigated Noise Impacts
1.The impact threshold is compared to (unmitigated freight and LRT combined) and (mitigated freight and LRT combined) noise level to determine impact after mitigation.
To try and get an answer , I went to the Appendix 3.06-B, and looked at an expanded version of the same table, and looked at the same clusters,
Here is part of the table from the Appendix 3.06-B from page 36 out of 107, under the same set of conditions. (The "proposed project.". ) .
At least here, the conclusions make sense, with the impact being consistent with the mitigated noise being compared to the threshold, and being greater than the threshold to be "significant" a) The impact thresholds match EXACTLY with the previous table (3.6-16). (But I have no idea how you computed them.)
b) The mitigated numbers do not match up AT ALL with the previous table. (Example. below you have 48 in the mitigated column for D 28; in the previous table you have 47. For D29, you have 60 for the mitigated in table below (exceeding threshold) and you have 55 in the previous table above. c) The unmitigated columns DO match up between the table below, and that in Table 3.6-16, d) The existing measurements DO NOT MATCH AT ALL. (Perhaps they were rounded in the earlier section.) However, it is not good engineering practice to round to an integer, and then keep the decimal point, and add a 0. That implies an accuracy that you do not have.
Table 5 from Appendix 3.06-Bseems to match the conditions table (3.6-16) from Section 3.6 of DEIR.
Table 5. Proposed Project Mitigated Combined Freight Track Relocation and Light Rail Noise with Quiet Zone, Bell Shroud, and Gate-DownBell-Stop
Action. I do not have the time to go through all your tables, but I suspect all the noise Tables in section 3.6 of the main report need to be reviewed. I have given you the courtesy of this review, noting massive probable data entry "copy/paste" (and rounding) errors. I would like the courtesy of a response, telling me whether the data in the Appendix is correct. And, I want to know how you compute the threshold. I
Impact: If you do not correct your report, you will have tables and tables of meaningless numbers and comments on noise.
Discussion: I am going to assume for now that your Appendix is correct. But I want to discuss with the engineers in my city whether all these mitigations would really provide the reduction in noise that you claim. And, I still maintain that your method of setting the threshold slants the data in your favor. As I said, that discussion will have to wait.
Respectfully submitted,
Holly Osborne, PE.