Natural Resources Defense CouncilEl Sereno Organizing Committee 1314 Second Street 5302 Borland Road Santa Monica, CA 90401Los Angeles, CA 90032 310-434-2300323-222-6625 Via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail (garrett.damrath@dot.ca.gov) August 4, 2015 Mr. Garrett Damrath Caltrans District 7 Division of Environmental Planning 100 S. Main St., MS-16 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) and Draft Section 4(f) De Minimis Finding for the State Route 710 North Study Dear Mr. Damrath: On behalf of the El Sereno Organizing Committee (ESOC), a grassroots community-based organization from El Sereno whose mission is to advocate on behalf of the interests of the community in relation to the proposed 710 Freeway/Tunnel project, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a national, non-profit environmental organization with tens of thousands of members and activists in southern California, we are writing to convey comments from residents who live, work, recreate, and conduct business in the community of El Sereno in the City of Los Angeles regarding the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) and draft environmental impact report (EIR) (collectively, EIR/EIS) for what Caltrans refers to as the SR-710 North Gap Closure Project (Project). The community of El Sereno is and has been directly in the path of this Project since its inception decades ago, and the construction and operation of any of several of the Project alternatives would profoundly impact the communitys residents and businesses. As we have explained in prior correspondence, our organizations have longstanding environmental justice concerns about building a freeway through the predominantly Latino neighborhood of El Sereno. ESOC was one of the named plaintiffs, and NRDC represented the plaintiffs as counsel, in the still-pending federal court lawsuit that alleged that the allocation of mitigation measures for the proposed 710 Freeway extension was racially discriminatory. El Sereno Neighborhood Action Committee et al. v. California Transportation Commission, No. CV-95-6106 (C.D. Cal. filed Sep. 13, 1995). Our position is and always has been that no matter what form the Project ends up taking, it must not impose disproportionate environmental and housing burdens on the minority community of El Sereno. Mr. Garrett Damrath August 4, 2015 Page 2 of 3 We have documented and repeatedly raised concerns about the continued failure of the transportation agencies to conduct effective outreach to the El Sereno community regarding this Project. Please refer to Attachment 1 below for our prior correspondence on this issue. In an effort to better inform the El Sereno community about the various transportation alternatives in the EIR/EIS and their potential impacts on El Sereno, and to solicit input regarding potential transportation solutions that would benefit the community, ESOC, NRDC, and the Office of Los Angeles City Council Member J os Huizar (CD14) co-hosted a public meeting on J une 18, 2015 at the El Sereno Senior Center, 4818 Klamath Place, Los Angeles, CA 90032. Attachment 2 below contains the meeting agenda, a compilation of the notes that were taken during the breakout sessions, with participants transportation concerns and proposed solutions broken out separately and broken down further by specific issue, and photos from the public meeting. At this meeting, eleven (11) community-based organizations from El Sereno, including some from neighboring East Los Angeles, provided public statements in opposition to the five (5) alternatives contained in the Draft EIR/EIS for the State Route 710 North Study. These organizations also spoke in support of our effort to craft community-based transportation alternatives. ESOC, NRDC, and CD14 then held a follow-up public meeting on J uly 29, 2015 at the same location to obtain feedback on those comments and narrow down and compile a community-backed list of transportation concerns and proposed solutions to be submitted officially to Caltrans for the record. That list is as follows: Concerns Traffic The proposed tunnel would not solve traffic problems while it might relieve traffic in some places, it would also create more traffic in other places, such as East Los Angeles. Increased traffic congestion and pollution in El Sereno from the proposed tunnel would create unsafe conditions for pedestrians, bikers, and drivers. There is a need to improve connectivity between parts of El Sereno. Health/Safety Any explosions or earthquakes could cause the tunnel to collapse, especially considering the route runs along a fault line. The air quality at the end of each tunnel would be significantly worse due to car exhaust venting from the tunnel into the community. A traffic accident in the proposed tunnel would be dangerous. Tunnel construction could cause damage to surrounding homes. Who would pay to compensate the homeowners? Construction of the proposed tunnel is dangerous due to the fact that it runs along a fault line. The Draft EIR/EIS fails to address existing impacts of overflow traffic and general unsafe conditions on El Serenos streets. There are no emergency exits in the proposed tunnel. Mr. Garrett Damrath August 4, 2015 Page 3 of 3 There have been many safety risks with tunnels similar to this one in other places. Community The proposed tunnel would destabilize the El Sereno community and threaten residents quality of life. The quality of life in El Sereno needs to be improved or at least preserved the proposed 710 tunnel would not do this. The project would result in community members being displaced from their homes, many of whom are seniors and may not have a place to go; this displacement of homes is not analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS. The project would result in a huge loss of affordable housing. The community does not support and would, in fact, oppose any transportation alternative that would eliminate or otherwise adversely impact existing park space in El Sereno. The money proposed for the tunnel would be better spent on areas that are more urgent and needed in the community, such as education, open space, public transit, and creating new permanent jobs. Solutions Instead of the proposed tunnel, funding should be used to fix potholes and improve current road conditions this would decrease accidents and help traffic move faster. More bus lines should be added, and service of bus lines should be more frequent and consistent. Specifically, LADOTs DASH service needs to update its routes and expand so that no one needs to walk further than three blocks to get to a DASH stop. Students and seniors should be allowed free or very affordable transit prices, and direct routes should be added to schools and senior centers. The community would rather expand green space than build more roads and construct the tunnel. Bike paths need to be improved, and more bike paths should be put in. The 710 Freeway should stop at the 10 and not go any further north. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Although the communitys concerns and proposed solutions were not overly detailed, it was very clear that the community of El Sereno stands opposed to any of the five proposed transportation alternatives contained in the EIR/EIS. Very truly yours, Hugo GarciaDamon Nagami PresidentSenior Attorney El Sereno Organizing CommitteeNatural Resources Defense Council Phone: (323) 718-1223Phone: (310) 434-2300 Email: hgarcia4432@gmail.comEmail: dnagami@nrdc.org Attachments ATTACHMENT1 March 3, 2011 Councilmember J os Huizar, CD14 200 N. Spring Street, Room 465 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Councilmember Huizar: On behalf of the El Sereno Organizing Committee and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), we are writing to call attention to the low turnout of El Sereno residents at last weeks 710 Conversations meeting held on February 24th at the Los Angeles Christian Presbyterian Church.According to the sign-in sheets at the meeting, approximately eight members of the El Sereno community attended the meeting.Of that number, most were individuals from the LA-32 Neighborhood Council or had previous interest in the project.They were not residents who were new to the project.On February 24th, in conversations with MBIs Mary McCormick, Metros principal outreach coordinator and meeting facilitator on this project, she assured us that Metro undertook extensive measures to reach out and notify the El Sereno community about this meeting. She further assured us that MBI, with the assistance of subconsultant DSO, had distributed meeting flyers to several key community locations throughout El Sereno and at businesses along Huntington Drive.Disturbingly, when Ms. McCormick was identifying the outreach locations in El Sereno, she mistakenly named several locations in South Pasadena.While we do not doubt that some type of outreach efforts were undertaken, they appear to have been minimal and ineffective, as they failed to turn out El Sereno residents on an issue in which this community has consistently shown tremendous interest over several decades. At first glance, these circumstances may appear both puzzling and alarming; however, when viewed in a historical context, this is business as usual for El Sereno residents.This is not the first time Metros or Caltranss outreach efforts have failed to adequately inform the El Sereno community of important meetings related to the 710 Freeway saga.At a community meeting in 2006 held at the El Sereno Senior Center to discuss a preliminary SR710 tunneling feasibility study, while the room was packed with Metro and Caltranss consultants, very few community members actually showed up.Like the current SR710 Conversations meetings, this meeting was part of a series of Community Meetings organized and facilitated by Metro.At that meeting, one of the undersigned, Mr. Garcia, voiced concerns to the project lead, Metros Lynda Bybee, about issues of short notice and minimal outreach, poor community attendance, and the fact that the community was not allowed to voice public comment.Our concerns were ignored.At that meeting, Metro staff selected which public comments to present and address. 2 Similarly, in February 2009, Caltrans had a series of Community Meetings that mirrored Metros efforts.Frustrated, the community, with support from the offices of then-Senator Gil Cedillo, then-Assemblymember Kevin de Leon and Councilmember Huizar, intervened and demanded that appropriate and effective outreach be implemented.To their credit, Caltrans and their consultants rectified the situation. Much to the chagrin of the El Sereno community, however, history appears to be repeating itself with respect to the current SR710 Conversations meetings.As with previous instances, last week's paltry turnout is unacceptable.These repeated failures point to a systemic failure on the part of Metro to address a problem that must be fixed.For instance, with regard to last week's meeting, it may be that Metro's messaging did not communicate the purpose of the meeting in a manner that the residents of this community could clearly understand.Indeed, even in English, the title "Transportation: Where Have We Been? Where Are We Going?" was vague and ambiguous, and provided little context for the important discussions the meeting had hoped to facilitate.Poor attendance at public events is oftentimes due to poorly planned or inadequate outreach.We need to get to the bottom of this.We would like to see Metros outreach plan for El Sereno, in its entirety, if one exists.We also would like to review the budget for the SR710 Conversations project.Specifically, we would like to know how much money is being paid for this particular project, what are the terms and scope of MBIs contract and any task orders carried out to date, and what are the terms and scope of any other related subcontracts between MBI and DSO or any other firm that is assisting MBI with its outreach efforts. Additionally, in the hopes of rectifying these recurring issues, we would like to respectfully request your assistance in arranging a meeting that would include the appropriate Metro representatives and consultants, including Doug Failing, Lynda Bybee, Susan Gilmore, Mary McCormick, and Victor Griego; a representative from your office; representatives from the offices of State Assemblymember Gil Cedillo, County Supervisor Gloria Molina, and State Senator Kevin de Leon; and the undersigned to discuss, among other things, the possibility of re-scheduling the February 24th public meeting and undertaking meaningful and effective outreach to ensure that El Sereno residents have a real opportunity to participate in public dialogue.Given that additional 710 Conversations are scheduled in El Sereno in the very near future (e.g., the Series 2 CEQA/NEPA meeting on March 17th and the Series 3 Scoping meeting on March 29th), this meeting should take place as soon as possible. Councilmember Huizar, you are well aware that El Sereno is an impacted community -- in fact, the most impacted community -- in relation to conversations related to the SR710.For this reason, Metro and Caltrans need to pay particular attention to the El Sereno community, not the opposite.You have consistently championed environmental causes such as Elephant Hill, the Northeast Los Angeles Interim Control Ordinance and the Northeast Los Angeles Hillside Zoning Ordinance.As our elected representative, we are again counting on your leadership and support for our community to bring about fundamental change to the manner in which El Sereno is treated by transportation agencies.The community does not deserve to continue to be subjected to the social and environmental injustices that have been brought to bear throughout the history of the proposed SR710 extension discussion. 3 Thank you in advance for your assistance in this important matter.Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Respectfully, Hugo GarciaDamon Nagami PresidentStaff Attorney El Sereno Organizing CommitteeNatural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Phone: (323) 718-1223Phone: (310) 434-2300 Email: hugogarcia1@sbcglobal.netEmail: dnagami@nrdc.org cc: Assemblymember Gil Cedillo Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina Senator Kevin de Leon Natural Resources Defense CouncilEl Sereno Organizing Committee 1314 Second Street 5302 Borland Road Santa Monica, CA 90401Los Angeles, CA 90032 310-434-2300323-222-6625 Via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail (sr710conversations@metro.net) April 14, 2011 Mr. Ron Kosinski Deputy District Director Caltrans District 7 100 S. Main St. Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re:Scoping Comments Regarding the Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the SR-710 North Gap Closure Project in Los Angeles County, California Dear Deputy Director Kosinski: On behalf of the El Sereno Organizing Committee (ESOC), a grassroots community-based organization from El Sereno whose mission is to advocate on behalf of the interests of the community in relation to the proposed 710 Freeway/Tunnel project, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a national, non-profit environmental organization with tens of thousands of members and activists in southern California, we submit the following scoping comments on the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a draft environmental impact report (EIR) for what Caltrans refers to as the SR-710 North Gap Closure Project (Project). Our organizations have longstanding environmental justice concerns about building a freeway through the predominantly Latino neighborhood of El Sereno. ESOC was one of the named plaintiffs, and NRDC represented the plaintiffs as counsel, in the still-pending federal court lawsuit that alleged that the allocation of mitigation measures for the proposed 710 Freeway extension was racially discriminatory. El Sereno Neighborhood Action Committee et al. v. California Transportation Commission, No. CV-95-6106 (C.D. Cal. filed Sep. 13, 1995). If the Project moves forward now, no matter what form it ends up taking, it must not impose disproportionate environmental and housing burdens on the minority community of El Sereno. At a minimum, the EIR/EIS must consider and carefully analyze and mitigate any and all environmental justice impacts. We also wish to express our dismay at the woefully inadequate outreach efforts that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) has made thus far to the El Sereno community with respect to the Project. Located immediately north and west of the Mr. Ron Kosinski April 14, 2011 Page 2 of 9 intersection where SR-710 meets Valley Boulevard, El Sereno includes neighborhoods that will be directly and heavily impacted by the Project. Metros ineffective attempts to include El Sereno residents in discussions about the Project have failed to live up to the agencys promises to involve an education and public involvement program to seek both regional and community-based solutions that are suggested by you, your friends and family, your neighbors, and everyone else in your community.1 This is unacceptable and contravenes the basic principles behind the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which state unequivocally that public participation is an essential part of the environmental review process. We are bringing this issue to Caltranss attention now to ensure that these problems are fixed before the next round of community engagement on this Project. In addition, we continue to strongly oppose all surface or tunnel highway alternatives for the Project. We are extremely concerned about the environmental and public health impacts that would result from building a five-mile highway or tunnel in this location. We also believe that the immense financial outlay necessary to fund a tunnel or surface route would be much more effectively directed toward transit investments and improvements across Los Angeles County. We believe, therefore, that it is essential that Caltrans not only fully assess and mitigate the significant impacts from the proposed Project under NEPA, CEQA, and their regulations, but also seriously consider other alternatives to the Project, including no project at all. We are encouraged that Caltrans is now taking a fresh look at the regional congestion problem and considering heavy rail and bus/light rail systems, local street upgrades, [and] traffic management systems as potential Project components. We would support a multi-modal alternative that included these components, rather than a highway or tunnel that would exacerbate the regions intractable air pollution and resultant health problems while doing nothing to reduce traffic congestion. We would not, however, support any multi-modal alternative that includes a connector road feature that would extend the freeway from its existing terminus at Valley Boulevard to Alhambra Avenue. Finally, the EIR/EIS needs to address all of the adverse impacts the Project will have on the natural and human environment, including, but not limited to, impacts on air quality, cultural and historical resources, biological resources, water quality and supply, local and regional transportation patterns and traffic circulation, greenhouse gas emissions, and regional water infrastructure. The EIR/EIS also must propose adequate mitigation measures, include a comprehensive discussion of alternatives, and address the Projects compliance with other laws as required under NEPA and CEQA. With that in mind, our comments below focus in greater detail on a discrete few of the most critical issues that we want to make sure are fully considered by Caltrans. 1.The EIR/EIS must consider, analyze, and mitigate any and all environmental justice impacts. We are troubled that neither the NOP nor the NOI contains any references to evaluating or mitigating environmental justice impacts, despite the fact that achieving environmental justice 1 Metro, SR-710 Conversations, at http://www.metro.net/projects/sr-710-conversations/.Mr. Ron Kosinski April 14, 2011 Page 3 of 9 has been made a priority for federal agencies by presidential decree. Exec. Order No. 12,898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7,629 (Feb. 16, 1994). What this means is that each federal agency is charged with incorporating environmental justice into its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Indeed, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued guidance in 1997 to assist federal agencies in carrying out this very mission. As mentioned above, any highway route would cut through, and any tunnel route would begin extremely near, El Sereno, a neighborhood that already experiences high levels of mobile and stationary source emissions known to be toxic. The California Air Resources Board has observed that Californians who live . . . along high traffic corridors are subsidizing the goods movement sector with their health.2 Of particular concern are the adverse health effects of diesel emissions, dramatically increased local levels of which would be implicated by the construction and operation of a new highway or tunnel. The EIR/EIS must consider and implement mitigation measures to eliminate all environmental justice impacts implicated by the proposed Project, taking into account impacts introduced by the Project itself as well as cumulative impacts that arise from existing and foreseeable future sources of air, light, and noise pollution, including the tremendous increase in car and truck traffic that any highway Project alternative would facilitate. We urge Caltrans to consult CEQs guidance documents, consider and analyze the Project through the lens of addressing environmental justice issues, and implement mitigation measures to eliminate any and all environmental justice impacts implicated by the Project. 2.Caltrans and Metro must rectify their recent and historical failures to include the El Sereno community in the public participation process. Both NEPA and CEQA require agencies to ensure and facilitate adequate public participation in the environmental review process. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. 1500.1(b) (requiring NEPA procedures to [e]nsure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken), 1500.2(d) (requiring federal agencies to [e]ncourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions which affect the quality of the human environment); see also Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa v. 32nd Dist. Agric. Assn, 42 Cal. 3d 929, 936 (1986) (stating that members of the public hold a privileged position in the CEQA process, reflecting a belief that citizens can make important contributions to environmental protection and . . . notions of democratic decision-making). Thus far, however, Caltrans and Metro have failed in carrying out this charge with respect to the El Sereno community. The undersigned organizations first documented Metros inadequate outreach efforts in a letter to Los Angeles City Councilmember J os Huizar, dated March 3, 2011 and attached hereto 2 See Cal. Air Res. Bd., DRAFT EMISSION REDUCTION PLAN FOR PORTS AND INTERNATIONAL GOODS MOVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA, Ch. 5, at 1, (Dec. 1, 2005). Mr. Ron Kosinski April 14, 2011 Page 4 of 9 for reference. In that letter, we pointed out the extremely low turnout of El Sereno residents at the Series 1 community meeting in El Sereno on February 24, 2011, and explained that this actually is a recurring problem for this community with respect to this Project. We also suggested that Metros repeated outreach failures to El Sereno are a systemic problem, illustrated by examples like the agencys insistence on directly translating into Spanish the ambiguous and uninspiring title of the Series 1 meetings (Transportation: Where Have We Been? Where Are We Going?). This title was hopelessly vague and provided little to no context for the important discussions the meetings had hoped to facilitate. Finally, we asked for a meeting with Metros principals, their outreach consultants, and elected officials including Councilmember Huizar to ensure that El Sereno residents have a real opportunity to participate in public dialogue regarding the Project. The meeting we requested did not happen. In the meantime, Metro convened the Series 2 (CEQA/NEPA on March 17, 2011) and Series 3 (Scoping on March 29, 2011) community meetings in El Sereno. At those meetings, in addition to running into similar issues as those raised in our March 3rd letter, members of the El Sereno community experienced additional concerns and frustrations related to this project, as described below. a.Lack of community engagement: Metro had the same low turnout at the Series 2 (CEQA/NEPA) meeting as it had at the Series 1 (Conversations) meeting, despite the outreach consultants promises that they were doing everything they could to get the word out. The El Sereno Organizing Committee, community residents and representatives from the LA-32 Neighborhood Council voiced their concerns about the low turnout during public comment. b.Poor overall project planning: The 20 total Series 1-3 meetings were hastily planned and scheduled too closely together. This type of planning lends itself to problems associated with ineffective outreach as meetings were scheduled in many cases back to back, in different cities, on consecutive dates. c.Confusion over what is the project: The project that the meetings were supposed to be about has never been defined, which continues to confuse people. Several comments were made expressing confusion with understanding what is being communicated in relation to the project. Because of the vague and ambiguous explanations provided by the presenters, the community was very dissatisfied and unclear on what they should be commenting about at the Scoping meeting. Mr. Ron Kosinski April 14, 2011 Page 5 of 9 d.Questionable execution of community outreach: Towards the end of the CEQA/NEPA meeting in El Sereno, a representative from the outreach consultant, Diverse Strategies for Organizing (DSO), read off a lengthy laundry list of targeted outreach efforts in El Sereno. This list included several community organizations, elected officials, the El Sereno Chamber of Commerce, school principals, churches, Barrio Action, El Sereno Stallions, El Sereno Recreation Center, the Voice newspaper, and the Senior Center, and also stated that flyer distribution at schools was pending clearance by the school bureaucracies. However, while the consultant was touting its comprehensive outreach efforts in El Sereno, residents were complaining about the consultants failed efforts, as evidenced by the poor turnout. It was clear to the community that the consultant had embarked on a poorly conceived and ineffectual outreach strategy, which resulted in a failure to engage the community of El Sereno. The consultants descriptions of its outreach activities have been vague and incomplete, which, along with the poor turnout at two consecutive public meetings, led the community to the conclusion that the consultants efforts were inadequate in their scope, planning and execution. To provide just one example, on March 17, 2011, the consultant finally sent out a flyer for the Series 2 meeting. This flyer was transmitted via email at 1:24 PM, the same day of the Series 2 meeting, approximately 4 hours prior to the scheduled meeting time. e.Failure by the outreach consultants to develop a strategic outreach plan: The consultants meeting flyers were unimaginative and generic, and contained uninspiring institutional text, layout and graphics. The flyers lacked any sense of need, importance, or urgency characteristics essential to drawing the community to attend these meetings. The flyers did not even attempt to appeal to the specific concerns of the varying communities that were being targeted. There was no effort to consider messaging that would appeal to the diversity in demographics, especially as it relates to El Sereno. This revealed a serious lack of perception and understanding of the historical concerns that relate to a predominantly Latino community like El Sereno, versus non-Latino communities like South Pasadena and Pasadena. Addressing linguistic concerns is another part of a successful strategic outreach campaign. Up until the consultants untimely flyer on March 17th, there was no targeted outreach to monolingual, Spanish-speaking residents in El Sereno. This is of paramount concern. According to U.S. Census figures, in El Sereno, a predominantly Latino community with approximately 48,000 residents, there are approximately 79.4% Language other than English and 67.5% Spanish-speaking language households. This is particularly true of census tracts running along the proposed SR-710 Freeway surface and tunnel routes. Indeed, from a strategic standpoint, both Metro and the consultant utterly failed in determining that it was appropriate to wait to outreach to the Spanish-speaking residents of El Sereno until the 14th of 18 planned meetings. Mr. Ron Kosinski April 14, 2011 Page 6 of 9 f.Improvement in outreach for the Series 3 (Scoping) meeting was not enough: Although members of the El Sereno community attended the March 29, 2011 Scoping meeting in far greater numbers, this result was only minimally due to the consultants efforts. At the strong urging of ESOC, the consultant purported to canvass the 710 corridor. However, the consultants canvassing consisted of the same, ineffective flyers and was simply a walking-man effort. The consultant did not knock on doors or attempt to actually engage the community. Because of the consultants largely ineffective outreach efforts, ESOC decided to canvass the 710 corridor on a volunteer basis. ESOC went to every property in the corridor, knocked on every door that could be accessed, and spoke with residents in English and Spanish urging them to attend the meeting. ESOC also met with business owners and organizations on Huntington Drive, Eastern Avenue and Valley Boulevard to arrange to leave flyers for residents to pick up. ESOC left flyers at a total of 66 locations, and observed the consultants flyers only at about three locations. ESOC also inserted 4,000 flyers into the Voice newspaper so that El Sereno residents would receive it at the pending distribution and inserted flyers into the church bulletin at Guadalupe Church in Rose Hills for their five Sunday masses. This is what we believe constitutes strategic and effective outreach. It is apparent that the consultants principal and most sustained outreach strategy consisted of a barrage of emails during the week of the meeting. ESOC believes that while email is convenient for many people, it should not be the primary outreach technique for our community. It is difficult for us to believe that the Spanish-speaking community in El Sereno can be effectively engaged via emails, Facebook, Twitter and webcasts, when few residents receive news about the community through those outlets. We believe that the communitys increased numbers at the Series 3 scoping meeting was due to the effective and strategic outreach put forth by ESOC, and not the consultant. Several attendees confirmed this during the public comment period. g.Disorganized CEQA/NEPA presentations: The Metro staffers who presented information about the CEQA/NEPA process used PowerPoint flow charts that did not correspond to the CEQA/NEPA flow charts distributed to meeting attendees. When this was pointed out by the El Sereno Organizing Committee at the South Pasadena CEQA/NEPA meeting, the staffers promised that it would not occur at the upcoming El Sereno meeting. They failed to keep their promise. As a result, many in the community remain confused about the environmental process. Mr. Ron Kosinski April 14, 2011 Page 7 of 9 h.Lack of clarity regarding submission of public comments gathered by Caltrans during the community meetings on the Geotechnical Study, and their possible submission during the Scoping process: A significant issue was raised by a community member in terms of public comments and the Series 3 (Scoping) process. At issue was what was to become of all the public comments made and recorded at the substantial public meetings following Caltranss Geotechnical Study in early 2009. The community was led to believe that those comments were recorded for a purpose. What happened to those comments, and will they become part of the Scoping record? Metro officials fumbled with a response and the El Sereno community was left unclear on this issue. At the Series 2 meeting in El Sereno, Metros CEQA/NEPA presenter stated that the most important aspect of CEQA is the public involvement process. However, that process means absolutely nothing when the community is not informed about the process and is not engaged in it. The El Sereno community deserves better than this. As such, we are submitting these comments into the administrative record to call attention to this problem and to demand an immediate and lasting solution. We also would like to reiterate our request for a meeting as soon as possible with appropriate representatives from Caltrans, Metro, Metros outreach consultants, and the elected officials copied on this scoping letter to discuss the inadequacies of outreach efforts in the El Sereno community to date; arrange for an effective process to gather the El Sereno communitys input on issues relating to the 710 Project; and collaborate to improve outreach for all future phases of this Project. 3.The EIR/EIS must contain an accurate and complete project description. Courts have long held that [a]n accurate, stable, and finite project description is an essential part of an informative and legally sufficient EIR. See, e.g., County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 193 (1977). An accurate project description is needed to provide agencies and the public with an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity. McQueen v. Board of Directors of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, 202 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1143 (1988). As related in Section 2(c) above, community members are thoroughly confused about what exactly constitutes the Project. For example, while the NOP states that the Project may include one or more highway or non-highway components, the NOI refers in the Summary section to a proposed highway project. Which is it? As shown in the reports above, Metro staffers failed to provide the El Sereno community with any clarity in the pre-scoping and scoping meetings, which disadvantaged community members who took the time to try to participate in those meetings. We urge Caltrans to clarify the project description before the next round of public participation and community engagement. Mr. Ron Kosinski April 14, 2011 Page 8 of 9 4.The EIR/EIS must analyze greenhouse gas emissions. Caltrans must consider and analyze the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the Project. The EIR/EIS must contain an analysis of the extent to which the Project significantly affects the quality of the human environment, which includes air quality.42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); see 40 C.F.R. 1508.8 (defining effects as including ecological . . . , economic, social, or health [effects], whether direct, indirect, or cumulative), 1508.14 (defining human environment comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment); Cal. Pub. Res. Code 21082.2(a), 21100(b)(1) (requiring that an EIR discuss all significant impacts of a project, and that the lead agency make a determination as to whether the project may have any such significant impacts); Cal. Pub. Res. Code 21002, 21081(a) (requiring that an EIR adopt feasible mitigation measures to reduce or avoid all significant environmental impacts). Cumulative effects clearly include impacts from climate change. 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(b)(7) (defining significance as including [w]hether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts). The National Academy of Sciences recently confirmed in the first of a suite of studies called Americas Climate Choices that climate change is occurring, is caused primarily by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems. This reflects the overwhelming consensus view by the scientific community, which earlier had prompted the CEQ to issue draft guidance in February 2010 on the ways in which Federal agencies can improve their consideration of the effects of [GHG] emissions and climate change in their evaluation of proposals for Federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition, NEPA requires a discussion of possible conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives of Federal, State, and local land use plans, policies and controls for the area concerned. 40 C.F.R. 1502.16(c); see also 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(b)(10) (defining significant as including [w]hether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment). The EIR/EIS, therefore, must evaluate the relationship between the Projects proposed GHG emissions and any relevant California GHG emission reduction laws or policies, including the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), through which California has committed to reducing GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020, and the 2008 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375), which mandates that regions examine GHG emissions associated with infrastructure projects. Clearly, GHG and climate change impacts must be considered under both NEPA and CEQA. Thus, we encourage Caltrans to follow closely CEQs draft guidance and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5, and conduct a rigorous GHG analysis to evaluate and mitigate all of the Projects GHG impacts. Mr. Ron Kosinski April 14, 2011 Page 9 of 9 5.Conclusion NEPA requires federal agencies to analyze the environmental impact of actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and CEQA requires agencies to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. We urge Caltrans to uphold these laws.In doing so, we believe Caltrans will conclude that there are many better ways to address southern Californias traffic congestion problems than by spending several billion dollars on a five-mile freeway or tunnel that would devastate public health and environmental and historic resources in El Sereno and throughout the study area. In addition, we strongly urge Caltrans and Metro to take immediate measures to improve outreach efforts in El Sereno, including, but not limited to, convening the meeting our respective organizations requested above, so that members of the El Sereno community can fully participate in this process as envisioned and required under both NEPA and CEQA. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Very truly yours, Hugo GarciaDamon Nagami PresidentStaff Attorney El Sereno Organizing CommitteeNatural Resources Defense Council Phone: (323) 718-1223Phone: (310) 434-2300 Email: hugogarcia1@sbcglobal.netEmail: dnagami@nrdc.org Attachment (March 3, 2011 Letter to Councilmember Huizar) cc:Los Angeles City Councilmember J os Huizar Congressmember J udy Chu Congressmember Xavier Becerra Assemblymember Gil Cedillo Senator Ed Hernandez Senator Kevin de Leon Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina Michael Miles, Caltrans District 7 Director Doug Failing, Metro Director of Highway Programs Lynda Bybee, Metro Deputy Executive Officer for Regional CommunicationsSusan Gilmore, Metro Public AffairsMary McCormick, MBI Outreach Consultant J ames Rojas, President, Latino Urban Forum Via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail March 13, 2015 Mr. Arthur T. Leahy Chief Executive Officer Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012 sr710conversations@metro.net Re: Concerns Regarding the Public Hearings Process for State Route I-710 North Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIR/EIS) for the SR-710 North Gap Closure Project in Los Angeles County, California Dear Chief Executive Officer Leahy, On behalf of the El Sereno Organizing Committee (ESOC), a grassroots community-based organization from El Sereno whose mission is to advocate on behalf of the interests of the community in relation to the proposed 710 Freeway/Tunnel project, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a national, non-profit environmental organization with tens of thousands of members and activists in southern California, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the public hearings process associated with the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) and draft environmental impact report (EIR) (collectively, EIR/EIS) for what Caltrans refers to as the SR-710 North Gap Closure Project (Project). As we have explained in prior correspondence, our organizations have longstanding environmental justice concerns about building a freeway through the predominantly Latino neighborhood of El Sereno. ESOC was ESOC NRDC Letter re EIR/EIS Public Hearings Page 2 of 4 one of the named plaintiffs, and NRDC represented the plaintiffs as counsel, in the still-pending federal court lawsuit that alleged that the allocation of mitigation measures for the proposed 710 Freeway extension was racially discriminatory. El Sereno Neighborhood Action Committee et al. v. California Transportation Commission, No. CV-95-6106 (C.D. Cal. filed Sep. 13, 1995). Our position is and always has been that no matter what form the Project ends up taking, it must not impose disproportionate environmental and housing burdens on the minority community of El Sereno. With the release of the draft EIR/EIS last week and the announcement of dates and locations for two of three public hearings, we are concerned that the closest public hearing where El Sereno residents can provide public comment has been scheduled at East Los Angeles College (ELAC), located at 1301 Avenida Cesar Chavez in Monterey Park, a 13 mile round-trip from El Sereno. This meeting location is highly inconvenient for El Sereno residents, many of whom are transit dependent, and is likely to greatly reduce the communitys access to, and participation in, the public comment process. We strongly feel that the third public hearing should be held in the El Sereno community at the Los Angeles Christian Presbyterian Church located at 2241 Eastern Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90032.This church is centrally located in El Sereno no farther than 2 miles from all points in the community, and in fact was used previously by Metro for the 2011 Metro Scoping meetings. Holding an additional meeting in El Sereno would help to offset some of the long history of differential relations and treatment of the El Sereno community by Metro. Examples of Metros troubling actions with respect to the El Sereno community arose during the Scoping process in 2011: Linguistically Inappropriate Outreach Metro distributed English-only documents and outreach materials in the predominantly Latino community of El Sereno, in spite of the fact that El Sereno contains over 50% monolingual Spanish-speakers. Walking Man delivery services Metros community outreach consultants, MBI Media and DSO, used Walking Man delivery services to distribute meeting flyers. Walking Man notices are ESOC NRDC Letter re EIR/EIS Public Hearings Page 3 of 4 typically attached to gates or wherever on the property by rubber bands at 5:00 or 6:00 am.No door-knocking, actual community contact or engagement took place.As a result of the poor outreach, attendance at the first two Scoping meetings in El Sereno was in the single digits. Use of Social Media: Metro continued relying on social media outreach for information, meetings and community input, even though El Sereno residents have less access and usage of social media technology due to language and economic barriers. El Sereno Organizing Committee outreach: ESOC took on the task of community outreach, including door-to-door outreach along the proposed I-710 Freeway Corridor, at businesses and at public facilities with high levels of foot traffic.It was only then that there was an acceptable level of community attendance and participation at the third and final Scoping meeting. In summation, the ESOC and NRDC are asking that an additional public hearing on the State Route I-710 North Draft EIR/EIS be scheduled in El Sereno at the Los Angeles Christian Presbyterian Church facility for reasons articulated in this communication. Respectfully, Hugo GarciaDamon Nagami PresidentSenior Attorney El Sereno Organizing CommitteeNatural Resources Defense Council Phone: (323) 718-1223 Phone: (310) 434-2300 Email: hgarcia4432@gmail.comEmail: dnagami@nrdc.org cc: Assemblymember Jimmy Gomez Senator Kevin de Len Senator Ed Hernandez Los Angeles CD14 Jos Huizar Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis ATTACHMENT2El Sereno 710 Community Meeting El Sereno Senior Center Thursday, June 18, 2015 Agenda: 1. Welcome and Introduction to the meeting: Hugo Garcia 5 mins. 2. Elected Officials comments/acknowledgements: 7 mins. 3. Community Based Organization comments: 10 mins. 4. EIR Presentation: Paul Moore 20 mins. 5. El Sereno Transportation Opportunities: Paul Moore 10 mins. 6. Breakout into groups for community exploration of transportation alternatives in El Sereno: 30 mins. 7. Breakout groups present suggested alternatives: 10 mins. 8. Whats next?: CD14 5 mins. 9. Public Comment Letter Writing Exercise: 20 mins 1SUMMARYOFCOMMUNITYINPUTFROM710MEETINGINELSERENOONJUNE18,2015OnJune18,2015,theElSerenoOrganizingCommittee(ESOC),theNaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil(NRDC),andLosAngelesCityCouncilDistrict14(CD14)cohostedapublicmeetingattheElSerenoSeniorCentertoinformtheElSerenocommunityaboutthevarioustransportationalternativesinthe710environmentalstudy1andtheirpotentialimpactsonElSereno,andtosolicitinputregardingpotentialtransportationsolutionsthatwouldbenefitthecommunity.Belowisacompilationofthenotesthatweretakenduringthebreakoutsessions,withparticipantstransportationconcernsandproposedsolutionsbrokenoutseparatelyandbrokendownfurtherbyspecificissue.ESOC,NRDC,andCD14plantoholdafollowuppublicmeetingonJuly29,2015inElSerenotoobtainfeedbackonthesecommentsandcompileacommunitybackedlistoftransportationsolutionstobesubmittedofficiallytoMetroandCaltransbeforethecommentdeadlineexpiresonAugust5,2015.CONCERNSTraffic Althoughthetunnelwouldrelievetrafficinsomeplaces,itwillalsocreatemoreinothers(3groupsmentioned)ParkingcongestionWouldGreenSpacecreatemoretraffic?IncreasedtrafficcongestionandpollutioninElSereno,creatingunsafeconditionsforpedestrians,bikers,anddriversStreetRelated AttheriverbedlotsoflandcouldbeusedCleanupthelandfillsalongthe710:SybillBrand(womensprisonlocation);cautionwhenmovingdirt:fugitivedustemissions,healthconcernsPublicTransit NobusonMissionConcernaboutlightrail:abovegroundtrainnotideal,businesses/buildingswouldbetorndown,concernaboutvibrationsHealth/Safety Explosions/collapseinthetunnel(causedbyearthquakes)(3groupsmentioned)Airqualityduetocarexhaust(2groupsmentioned)ExhaustventingfromthetunnelintothecommunityConcernfortrafficaccidentsTunnelconstruction(iftheresdamagetohomes,whopaysforit?Insurance?)Concernabouttunnelsafetywherethetunnelrunsalongactivefaultline1ToviewanelectronicversionoftheSR710DraftEnvironmentalImpactReport/DraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIR/EIS),pleasevisithttp://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/710study/draft_eireis/.2TheD.E.I.RfailstoaddressexistingimpactsofoverflowtrafficandgeneralunsafeconditionsonElSerenostreetsLackofemergencyaccessintheproposedtunnel,aswellasthepossibilityofgroundshiftingabovethetunnelProposedGoldenEagleBlvd.anditseffectonresidentialareatraffic,pollution,dangerofthecurveontheroundaboutPersonal(Homes/Businesses)DestabilizationofElSerenocommunity(thetunnelthreatenstheneighborhoodsqualityoflife)ExpensivetollsmaynotbeaffordableforthesurroundingcommunitiesEnvironmental GreenSpace:wouldittakeawaythingsalreadythere?Howexactlywoulditwork?(However,peoplewhohavefamilyliketheideaofgreenspace)(2groupsmentioned)LackofinformationabouttheenvironmentalimpactsoftheBeyondthe710alternativei.e.thecreationofthegreenspace,river,roundaboutsAestheticvalueoftunnel:makingsuretheareaisbeautifulandwellkeptforfuturegenerationsOther Shiftmoneytootherareasthataremoreurgent/needed(i.e.education,publictransit,creatingnewjobs)(3groupsmentioned)CommunitiesnotbeingpittedagainsteachotherBetterOutreach(notthatmanypeopleknew/knowabout710propositionandthedetailssurroundit)Whatistheplanforexistingutilitiesandwaterlinesalongtheplannedroute?SOLUTIONSSpecificSolutionstoStreetRelatedConcernsCalStateLAneedsanofframpWhatifonMissionorValley,justhavetrafficgoingonewayUsingAlhambraAvenuerightofwayUseaportionofthebudgettopreservetheArroyoParkthroughimprovingparkaccesswithsafersidewalksandroadsSupportforexpansionofparkspaceandadditionofgreenwaysalongCalStateLAcorridor(ideaspresentedbyBeyond710organization)3RemovingtherecyclinglotonValleyattheendofthe710tomakespaceforrenovationandcommunitybeautificationCreatewestoverpassfromthe710N,ontoValleyBlvd.toalleviatetrafficCreatearoundaboutatValleyBlvd.andthe710Stopthe710at110andlettheStatemitigatetraffic.Updatethe110freewaysothattrucktrafficcanbedivertedtothatrouteGeneralSolutionstoStreetRelatedConcernsFixthepotholesthatcauseaccidentsdecreasetrafficImplementbetterbikelanes(maybeevenhavetheirownstoplights?)Grandboulevardswouldprovidebenefitstothecommunity,suchas:oGoodforlocalbusinessesoSaferforpedestriansoSlowingtrafficdownoReducesthetrafficpollutionwhichleadstobetterhealth/airqualityPublicTransit 256:CommercetoAltadenaMetrolineistooinfrequent!IfImissthetrain,Imlatebyanhour!Increasedfrequencyofthisline(andothers)wouldbehelpfulthesebusesbreakdownalotandarenotontime!(concerns/solutionstofixinconsistentbusservicewasaddressedby4groups)InterestincaralternativestogetaroundtheneighborhoodaddmoreDASHstops(3groupsmentioned)Freeorveryaffordabletransitpricesforstudents(evendirectroutestocolleges)(2groupsmentioned)Moretransitoptionsinsteadofthetunnel(Bus?Lightrail?)LocaltransitjustinAlhambra?Busroutes!ImplementelectricRedCarsMetrothatconnectstoGoldLineAlightrail/metrolinedownthecenterofthefreewaythatconnectsLongBeachtoValleyBlvdwouldreducetraffic(thislineshouldmeetupwiththegreenline)LightRailshouldbesimilartogreenlineAparkandrideprogramtotakecommutersintoPasadena