Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comment from Ken SeiffPi�elir�es Project Pro oral (October,025 PEOPLE AND SAFETY COME FIRST! Critical Assessment., THE CASEAGAINST UTILIZING COLLEGE PARK WEST/SEAL BEACH ROUTE ALIGNMENT AND COLLEGE PARK BRIDGE (contact: Ken Seiff, CPW/SEAL BEACH, CA) (kseiff@uci.edu) Resolved: This recycled/reclaimed waterproject(2 new pipelines, recycled water and sewer force line) is worthy and important BUT too risky to the safety of the CPW residential area in SB and does DDY should not come through CPW, Seal Beach nor use the CP Drive Bridge, especially since reasonable alternatives are available within City of Long Beach and LA CcuntV. These proposals present significant risk inconvenience, and no ative irn act to dail life and long-term safety of CPW residents withNQ DEMONSTRABLE TAN GIBLE BE TO THE a CP/SEAL BEACH AREA MENTIONED AIV YII�HERE 1111 ANY DOCUMENTS OR PLANS 2 The following discussion stresses documentable evidence -based information and facts and NOT just solely a "NIMBY" approach by a neighborhood under threat of major adverse impacts and negative effects. OF 2025-REFRENCES CAN BF P FOR ALL FACT -,BASED STATEMENTS). However, personal insights and opinions by the author are also included based upon experiences interfacing with Haynes Project Planners (LADWP, City of LB Utilities Dept. -Lead Agency, City of Seal Beach); these will be indicated as able. UESTIONS AND COMMENTS -- 1. Al nment and Route **Were/are Planners aware of the unique and EXISTENTIAL aspects of the CP Drive Bridge (the ONLY INGRESS and EGRESS College Park West neighborhood with no roadway detours available, even for emergency/evacuation? THE PLANNERS Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 3 APPARENTLY DID LITTLE IF ANY RESEARCH OR BACKGROUND ON THE VERY UNIQUE GEOGRAPHIC AND TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC GEOMETRY OF THE CPW RESIDENTIAL AREA IN SEAL BEACH (opinion) **Were/are Planners aware of the existence of an OFFICIAL CITY OF SB PRESERVE College Park West Euc l tus Grove Preserve (photo: CPW Preserve with OFFICIAL City of Seal Bech logo) Er that will be trenched and impacted according to the Plans? Are Planners aware that CPW volunteers, mostly older retired dedicated residents, have worked for YEARS improving the preserve/entryway to CPW neighborhood and along CP Drive which is the Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST M gateway to the area that is planned to be trenched and seriously impacted? THE PLANNERS APPARENTLY DID LITTLE IF ANY RESEARCH OR BACKGROUND ON THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CPW AREA?What would City of LB say if City of SB told them they planned to construct pipelines across an existential bridge and trench a City of LB Preserve in one of their neighborhoods? (opinion) **The documents indicate that concern by the Planners for the time and complexity of obtaining permits ultimately led to the decision to utilize CPW for route ("favored route/alignment"); the documents indicate that this route was NOT favored until quite [ate. -Why were at least attempts atainin Dermits not even REQUESTED OVER THE LAST MANY YEARS? BOTTOM LINE: THE CHALLANGES AND COSTS THA TDWPAND CITYOFLB HA VB WITH THESE PR OJEC TS ARE THEIRS ALONE AND SHOULD NOT BE PLACED UPON THE SHOULDERS OF AND Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST ACTUALLYIMPACT QUALITY OF LIFEAND EVEN POTENTIALLY ENDANGER THE RESIDENTS OF CPW AND CITIZENS OF SEAL BEACH IN ORANGE COUNTY, ESPECIALL Y WHEN AL TERNA TI VE (WHETHER MORE COSTLY DIFFICULT DELAYING AND PROBLEMATIC OR NOT FOR THE PLANNERS) ARE IN FA C T AVAILABLE!! **Where is official documentation that usage of the 22 FWY Bridge was at least re uested and DENIED by CalTRANS? **Where is official documentation that permits were at least requested and DENIED by Army Corps of Engineers as far as other bridge and alternative river crossings? (At Edison Park Meeting in January 2025 it was mentioned by Planners that ACE "denied" use of A , tunneling under or other crossing of the channel). Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST M **Why was a DEDICATED PIPELINE BRIDGE solution forcrossin not considered as an alternative and r)resented to ACE? Comparatively inexpensive and avoids utilizing major bridges or tunneling under the river. Possible use of CURRENT dedicated pipeline bridge (possibly with upgrades?) located just north of 2nd St. Bridge over the river. (photo of pipeline bridge CURRENTLir over Sig River servicing Haynes Plant -L.,., + 1/_ .-Y. I g% v%r%r+h r%f on C+roo+i C LJUUL 71 11 IIID I IVI LI I UI L VLI GG II (photo: below another example of "simple" dedicated pipeline bridge) Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST **If ACE requires Dermits or "will not allow" as stated by planners at Edison Park meeting) for new pipeLines crossing over or under the river, why is this not discussed in ANY of the documents regarding the CP Bride plan to attach these as well as other crossings of the river for the sewer line at the willow Street Bridge? **Why was the rationale for selecting the alignment/route through CPW and the CP Bride and consideration of ALTERNATIVES) essentially ignored in the CEQA EIR documents as is required?) Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST **Why was a specific comparison not performed regarding the relative safety and suitab.iLity of other bridges in Lona Beach such as Willow St., 22 FWY and 2nd St.) to carry BOTH pipelines over the river (utilizing OTHER alternative routes not evaluated in detaitori nored)? For example; Willow Street Bridge has "utility cells" underneath, 2nd Street has "median" where pipeline could lay across bridge piers, and 22 Fwy also has a median? (photo e::cmple� cf macre suitable potential alternative bridge pipeline attachments in Long Beach including utility "cells" beneath Willow Street Bridge and others) Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST M Segment S1-12 is located within the EI Dorado Park Nature Center, north of Willow Street. This portion of the alignment requires LADWP to obtain an easement from the City of Long Beach. It is proposed to construct the sewer force main in the dirt path within the EI Dorado Park Nature Center. ALIGNMENT EVALUATION Photograph 4-9 Open Cell under Willow Street Bridge at San Gabriel River Segment Sl -13 is located within the EI Dorado Park Nature Center, north of Willow Street. This portion of the alignment requires LADWP to obtain an easement from the City of Long Beach. It is proposed to construct the sewer force main in the dirt path within the EI Dorado Park Nature Center. The pipeline Is proposed to connect to the LACSD 42 -inch sewer at an existing 60 -Inch diameter manhole, located north of Willow Street and west of the 1-605 Freeway off -ramp. Segment St -14 is a crossing of San Gabriel River from the southeast corner of EI Dorado Park to north of San Gabriel River and Coyote Creek confluence, which is within a SCE right-of-way. This portion of the alignment requires LADWP to obtain an easement from LACFCD and SCE. As detailed on Figure 4-1, the crossing is shown near the south west portion of EI Dorado Park. The exact location of the force main crossing, between Willow Street and the southern boundary of EI Dorado Park, should be determined during the design stages to account for existing overhead electrical lines, towers, trees, and other utilities. It is proposed that the sewer force main be constructed using the jack -and -bore method to cross San Gabriel River at this location. The location of the potential jacking and receiving pits are shown in Photographs 4-10 and 4-11. Long leach Wafer Orparerrrnr 4-8 T—h Nand Afemora n&M No.6 **This is not just a NIMBY issue! There are reasonable alternatives for these HIGH FLOW (up to 6MGD and 48 million pounds per day) pipelines to stay within the City of LB and LA County. The CP Bridge and CPW Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 10 community that it serves EXISTENTIALLY have already done their part for carrying pipelines over many decades, bearing 2 pipelines (one a more dangerous OIL PIPELINE) all that time up to present. WHY is a narrow EXIS ENTIAL basically RESIDENTIAL BRIDGE .(the onl y wainlout of CPW ex ected to burden ALL 4 PIPELINES incLu(jin _ the_2 new ones1p anned)? There are already 2 pre-existing OLDER PIPELINES (at or approaching typical service Life) attached to the that bridge as noted; one is a long standing DWP Water Line (never mentioned in detail in the CEQA documents even though pre-existing Infrastructure is required to be discussed in the EIR) that has a recent LEAK in April at the NE abutment of the CP Brid e and has had other leaks along its length in the past (details available) and the other is an aged OIL PIPELINE --see more below regarding the WATER LEAK and the OIL PIPELINE. **Since so much time has passed apparently without formal requests at least for permits by the Planners from other agencies and public entities as discussed in depth in multiple Planning Documents going back Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical asses -s - Ment -case AGAINST 11 to 2020 (obtained by FOIA request in mid -2025 after lack of response by Planners and any City of SB assistance to obtain this information and lack of assistance by City of SB) and even earlier, why could the Planners at least at the current time even request a WAIVER from State of CA Water Q u a titv Board to extend the deadline for cOm letion of this projectfor THE SAFETY OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA AT RISK OF BEING COMPLETELY CUT OFF IF ANY ACUTE AND/OR LATER CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THIS PROJECT D EVE LO PS? WHY TAKE EVEN THE SMALLEST RISK WHEN OTHER ALTERNATIVES AREAVAILABLE? People and safety come first! **A very reasonable alternative route/alignment for both pipelines completely within City of LB and LA County would seem to be from the main entrance of the Haynes Generating Station on 2nd Street to the west and over the 2nd Street Brid a in LB to then turn north -up Studebaker Road trenching),over the 7t" Street Bridgeor micro tunnel under and continue north to/from the Reclamation Facility north of El Dorado Park as.planned.This approach appears even Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 12 more feasible/reasonable because the long-awaited STUDEBAKER ROAD ENHANCEMENT PROJECT in LB is due to begin as of this writing. It would seem to make sense to incorporate the construction of these pipelines with the needed trenching involved CONCURRENTLY with the Studebaker Road improvement project for all the obvious reasons and as well could avoid CPWand the CP Bridge entirely; C� ri►"v' residents have been attempting to Engage LB/DWP in this regard for many months without success. Has this even been proposed and/or considered between LBUD and LB Public Works? (Per the FOIA information, this route was originally ruled against by the Planners due to "complexity and time delay related to obtaining permits and permissions" as well "concerns about wetlands". Yet no requests for permits, encroachment agreements, or other permissions were apparently even attempted, and review of wetlands considerations for that approach would seem minimal (opinion). **Another alternative route/alignment also maybe ossible apparently an "upgrade/retrofit" of the 22 Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 13 F Brid a has been Dianned bv CaITRANS for the last fewyears: WHY CANNOT THESE PIPELINE PROJECTS BE DELAYED AND ARRANGEMENTS MADE TO "ATTACH" THESE 2 NEVA PIPELINES TO THE BRIDGE AT THAT TIME AS PART OF THAT PROJECT? NOTE: The 22 Fwy Bridge already has a pipeline "attached" in the median as does the 2nd Street Bridge. And the Willow Street Bridge (as above noted) already has a utility line of some kind underneath within "utility cells" and apparently IS planned via this project also to carry the SEWER LINE back across the river to the reclamation facility but not the reclaimed water line). All of these are much more robust and suitable than the narrow EXISTENTIAL residential CP Bridge that already has 2 pipelines attached to it on the sides! Again also, these other bridges have DETOURS available if anything untoward should happen now or in future; CP BRIDGE HAS NO FEASIBLE DETOUR AVAILABLE FOR EMERGENCY!! The CP Bridge is ENTIRELY in City of Long Beach and LA County; what is the emergency plan for relief of CPW nei hborhood in an emergency Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 14 situation where the bridge becomes unusable or severety Limited especiallyespeciatty for a Long period of time?? WHY WERE THESE VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS AND POTENTIALITIES NOT CONSIDERED EARLIER AND STILL NOT BEING ADDRESSED CURRENTLY AS FAR AS RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE? Should pubtic safe es g!Qia ft for a residentiaL area with many senior citizens and msn ■chi!dre not by the Pararrto rtt consideration in any such proiect with a realistic approach to any possibLe risk? It appears that aspects_of plannin in this situation were Wer short Sighted o inion ESPECIALLY AGAIN WHEN REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES WEREIARE AVAILABLE! **Multiple other routes and alignments are also potentially available as alternatives to CPW and the bridge. Many of these were discussed in depth in previous documents obtained via the FOIA request mentioned; again, the Planners never agreed to discuss alternatives in detail so far nor respond to email questions. The other possible Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST fiN7 routes/alignments were ruled out by them as not feasible with inadequate reasoning and support. (Documentation and further discussion are available upon request.) 2. College Park Dr. RESIDENTIAL Bridge (24ANE) (Also closely related to Route and Alignment Issues; obviously, no consideration of CP Bridge necessary if alternative route could be utilized) **Were/are Planners aware of the EXISTENTIAL NATURE OF THIS BRIDGE as the ONLyway in and out of CPW area, including for emergency evacuation (unless bridge is unusable in a manner which would negate even the emergency escape route). There are also NO DETOURS available as noted above: WHY IS THIS NOT MENTIONED IN THE CEQA DOCUMENTS as discussion of risks and all infrastructure is REQUIRED. **It almost appears as the route and alignment through CPW/Seal Beach and use of the Bridge seemed "assumed" with only "afterthought" as to the Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST iT potential severe impact, risk, and even possible DANGER to the community (opinion) **That Bridge is NOT JUST A CONDUIT FOR PIPELINES but is THE EXISTENTIAL LIFELINE for the CPW neighborhood. It already bears 2 older pipelines; again, why does this one older bridge in suboptimal condition (see below) need to bear all 4 of these pipelines including the 2 new ones planned. The CPW Community and that residential bridge have done their part; other bridges in Long Beach are larger, have detours available, and medians or utility cells more suitable for adding new pipelines. **Consideration as to safe feasibilityofadding 2 new Pipelines in context of the age, condition, and status of the brid a is NEVER considered in the CEOA documents NOR in multiple other Planner documents (FOIA documents) obtained and reviewed going back years Including as possibly related to earthquakes. tsunami, or other major risk; this ESSENTIAL CONCERN appears to have been totally missed or i nored. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY IN OR OUT OF CPW for the routine daily activity and transportation Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 17 required for the normal function of an active neighborhood (far beyond basic single file emergency evacuation routes). Minimal or no (in the CEQA documents) mention of the EXISTENTIAL NATURE OF THIS BRIDGE in many years of INSPECTIONS of this bridge (that are available) with concerning findings over time (as per FOIA documents obtained). **"Informal" consultation with engineers (civil, traffic, structural, mechanical) contacted personally -- (personal communications) all agreed with the following: all added load, static and nnamic, to an existing bridge structure, especially over 60 years old with minimal rehab and retrofit over the years and significant current deficiencies, MUST be extensively reassessed with this consideration, given that the original design and build would not anticipate added new stress which may potentially result in and/or accelerate existing structural issues. " This has NOT been accomplished to our knowledge. Note: bridge engineering theory and practice classically "recommends" up to 40% Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST IN added structure[ strep thenen for DYNAMIC STRESS element . **The PLanners at the Edison Park Meeting with CPN residents last January indicated that"the Long Beach engineers have signed off on the projects" but no evidence of this has been rovided nor found in the extensive documents available for review. "The latest Inspection of the Bridge 1/25125- LACDPW-LA vont De t. of Public Works Ins ection Re art ?/25125 --available to provide upon reques-t,_ includes subsurface inspection_b_y CalTRANS emphasizes VERY SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES and ageincIudln Severe wear down to rusting rebar on some of the iers some of which has been present and unattended to foryears (this can be seen when viewing the bridge). Significant remediation was recommended, and Bridge was given only "status level" 4. No specific/defined approach or plan has been seen from Planners in these regards even though there is plan to add the 2 new pipelines per this Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 19 project although repair of the bridge has been brought up in some discussions at meeting of DWP with SB Councilmember Wong, Mayor Landau and Public Works Director Lee in September 2025 (see more below) but ONLY AFTER PIPELINES HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND APPARENTLY ONLY MINIMAL VAGUE ASSURANCE THAT BRIDGE "COULD" BE REMEDIATED TO "6". (Documentation available upon request) **Also, even though this has been brought up extensively to the Planners as able in the past (prior to their apparent decision to cease engaging with the community (opinion)) , there has been no response to CPW community reference to latest NBI National Bridge Inventor/US Highway_ Administration) and never referenced in the CE A/EIR documents: Poor NBI Bridge Structurally Deficient Condition Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 20 On 9 Point Scale: Structural Evaluation 4 Attachment link: httpsL.1/data.usatodacorn/bridg.e/california/los- an eteslcolle e- ark-dr-san- abriel-riv/05-53co139/ **Latest CaITRAMNS 1N S PE CT I M OF BRIDGE (including CaITRANS underwater evaluation 1/25 available upon -request and mentioned above) noted SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES in the bridge superstructure, including actual concrete loss and damage down to rusting/corroded re -bar on certain piers; wear and damage had been noted over many years. Repair and remediation "are recommended" and bridge rating again onlygiven as "4". The situation was deemed severe enough that POSSIBLE CLOSURE OF THE BRIDGE V1lAS MENTIONED BUT RULED OUT as necessary at the Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 21 time! Even a "thought" of transient CLOSURE for this bridge should be a f Lashing emergency light!! -- closure of that bridge for even a day would be basicaRv intolerable for the CPW area—a ain there is no other automobile nor "reasonable" walking) access in and out of CPW!! other than for significant emergency. (It is again not even clear from the document if CaLTRANS itself is aware of the EXISTENTIAL NATURE of the CP Bridge to CPW neighborhood and concern that Planners of this project, LADWP, and City of LB do not ,grasp the seriousness of this situation! _Even with aLL the concern and deficiencies in this Latest LACDPW inspection of the bridge, this latest (1125) inspection did NOT assess the potentiaL. impact and risks and especiallyespeciaLty Long term DotentiaLcumuLativedynamic effects of attachin 2 ADDITIONAL high flow pipelines to this bridge with one of the older pipelines also aLready a potentiaLty additional) dangerous OIL PIPELINE and the other one ALREADY LEAKING see next sect—ion)! These issues were never mentioned in that inspection report or Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 22 even that such a proiectwas planned_; did the inspectors back in 1/25 evaluate the bridge with all these considerations in mind? --it appears NOT. **LEAK AT NE ABUTMENT OF CP BRIDGE, 4/25: This was noted to arise from the OLD DWP water pipe attached to the north side of the bridge where it exited the ground to attach to the side of the bridge near the driveway down to the bike path on the levee (designated Emergency Evacuation Route). Unclear if there was further leakage underground or an additional leakep chaps ONGOING; this pipeline is very old and at or beyond its usual predicted working life. It has sustained other leaks in the past (details available upon request). Other than barely mention, there is little or no discussion of this pre-existing pipeline on the bridge related to the planned additional pipelines to be attached in the CEQA documents or FOIA material. The work took around 2 weeks (photos: activity of DWP repair of the pipeline leak) Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 23 F J r�Y Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 24 ,�...., ��—� .ter -4 • �. x, 41117 - Rf A I - `Y I Lw: •. I Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST M =ME1 No discussion or details have ever been provided by any agency or City to CPW residents regarding details of this situation nor any potential implications. Consultation (personal communication) with engineers and personal research has revealed that such a situation should be taken VERY SERIOUSLY AND FURTHER EXTENSIVELY INVESTIGATED, NOT JUST "REPAIRED". A visible leak could also signify an underground water seepage, soil h er-saturation ossible hydraulic subsidence and/or other serious hydrologic issues that could potentially at an abutment actually possibtythreaten a brill e! Was this done? It appears not (see photos), but residents have been unable to obtain information regarding this situation. This pipeline, already long pre-existing on the bride needs attention.; what is the Longer term plan? i't would seem DWP should address this OLD, LEAKING PIPELINE before planning to add even further pipelines. The below photos demonstrate expectant best practices engineering approach for testing regarding such issues by another agency in a different flood control channel in CPW recently Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST (details available upon request). (Photos FOR COMPARISION demonstrating recommended "best practice" testing for soil saturation and possible subsidence via soil sampling with out -outs in concrete apron of flood control channel slope, as recommended by engineering best practices. This more rigorous approach was apparently NOT PERFORMED for the abutment pipeline leak at CP 0-:.J tr% .�..�.rt of +ke% r rnir h,i MIA/D +n ni it Vr r%%A/Ic rf of iugc as }. CJI L vi LI IG eNaii L.ry vvv LW "ui N1I%.YVI.� se as no response by City of SB or Haynes Project Planners to multiple requests for information in this rega rd.) Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 27 **Kleinfelder Engineering Evaluation of the Bridge, 5125: (available upon request A more detailed engineering evaluation of the Bride even beyond, routine scheduled inspections) should have been performed much earlier as part of the CEQA EIR for this project specifically for many important reasons noted above regarding the condition and circumstances of the bridge and be and the standard routine Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST W scheduled inspection protocol (Such would be appear to be required by CEOA EIR regulations and at least given that this is an EXISTENTIAL BRIDGE for the routine functioning as well as emergency escape for the CPW neighborhood) Again. CPW residents were told at the meeting with Planners in Edison Park last January told "Long Beach engineers have signed off on it" but no documentation of that .has ever been provided and is not seen in in any documentation obtained via the FOIA mentioned. This was finally performed just this past May. The reasons why finally undertaken are unclear; possibly due to the LEAK? Possibly due to the 1/25 LA County and CaITRANS Inspection? Possibly due to continued concerns raised by CPW residents and others regarding the condition of the bridge, especially related to the construction and addition of new pipelines?) NOTE: Many CPW residents started speaking in Public Comment at SB City Council meetings regarding concerns with these pipeline proposals and the threats to the CP Bridge especially. Also, a petition was submitted to council requesting Haynes Pipelines Proposats: critical assessment -case AGAINST 29 an independent specialty engineering evaluation of the bridge sponsored by City of SB instead of the Planners. This Kleinfelder analysis, requested and paid for by the Planners, has many deficiencies, omissions, and shortcomings (details and detailed discussion available upon request). Note that there are photos of the rusting rebar on piers of the bridge in the Kleinfelder and LA County/CaITRANS inspection/analysis reports. The admitted goal of the evaluation stated in the document was to determine if the Bridge would be suitable for the attachment of 2 additional pi.pelines (APPARENTLY ONLY THE PIPELINES THEMSELVES!; NO MENTION OF THE ADDED CONTENTS OF THE NEW PIPELINES. STATIC OR DYNAMIC!�. The conclusion was "acceptable" and could be done BEFORE the repairs that were deemed necessary were carried out (which does not seem supported by the most recent CaITRANS inspection from January mentioned above) --the Planners seemed to obtain the result of the study that was to their optimal benefit. There is no reference to the NBI Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 30 Evaluation mentioned above nor the most specific serious concerns in the most recent Bridge Inspections also discussed above; did Kleinfelder completely review this available information going back years in depth? (see above). This stud ADMITTED there was NO evaluation of DYNAMIC stress forces related to a eration of the pipelines which would be carrying up to about 6_MGD (up to about 4.8 Million pounds Wer da..) and add to that of the other pre-existing, ipelines alreadyfunctionin on this over 60 vear old bridge with serious structural Lssues. This study also documented no accounting for other serious threats to the "pipeline -bridge s stem" such as earth uakes high rapid water floods or tsunamis. The implication and impact for construction and acute risks as well as cumulative, especially dynamic multiplied forces, was NOT evaluated regarding the pre-existing older 2 pipelines already attached to the bridge including the older, leaking DWP water pipeline and the (also at or past typical safe working life period) active also very old OIL PIPELINE (not given attention at all in this document Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 31 or in the CEQA or FOIA documents; see more below). Further, it again does not appear that this study was performed with the added concern that the CP Bridge is EXISTENTIAL to CPW and there is "no other way out if something serious would happen"; these very concerning oversights seems persistent throughout all the documents and planning for these pipeline proposals with a lack of detailed knowledge about the CPW area and the bridge. optimally, a "disinterested", independent, nce-- ctura l 10 the brig " ]est Dry h engin st 9nd feasibilit, ritiona l h th :arriedout; Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST :.Oft .0a,0%ii 'iti o n Faddino2 HOW DiDelin is ideally woul itv of Sea[ uld 32 of Orange but should be aai the Planners of this Dmi **OIL (PETROLEUM) PIPELINE (Zenith Energy Line #508) mentioned above is very old and has been attached to the south side of CP Bridge for over 60 years. (photo below: OIL PIPELINE attached to the south (downriver ocean side) of the CP Bridge.) Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 33 Figure 2-8. College Park Drive Crossing the San Gabriel River Obviously, this oil pipeline presents significant higher risk to the bridge for any acute construction that could add another pipeline encroachment in the direct vicinity as well as cumulative possible impacts to bridge and oil pipeline overtime (including Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 34 dynamic effects from the high flow planned as noted). Further, there is again minimal mention of this oil pipeline in the documents and no discussion regarding the potential risk for this project during build and cumulative to the bridge -pipeline system infrastructure over time. This is a major engineering oversight; any serious incident related to the oil pipeline could impact this EXISTENTIAL BRIDGE (and advei 5e �iici t ti 1 L p0`',''hly imNL�te the hridgw r-ni ilri UL C'C;k II I i U 4v th hr v vvinid potentially impact the OIL PIPELINE and other pipelines). OBVIOUSLY, ANY PIPELINE INCIDENT WOULD BE MULTIPLIED BY POTENTIAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION POSSIBILITIES WITH AN OIL PIPELINE AND DANGEROUS THREATS TO SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES (including very nearby in Long Beach itself) AND/OR LEAKAGE INTO THE RIVER OF TOXIC PETROLEUM SUBSTANCES THAT COULD HAVE VERY SERIOUS DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS INCLUDING UPON WETLANDS AND ENDANGERED SPECIES (SUCH AS PACIFIC GREEEN TURTLES THAT LIVE IN THE RIVER NEAR THE OCEAN) AND EVEN SEEN FARTHER INLAND INCLUDING NEAR CPW) AND INTO THE Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 35 OCEAN ITSELF. WHY TAKE THIS RISK, ESPECIALLY WHEN COULD BE AVOIDED? Such considerations are NOT DISCUSSED ANYWHERE IN THE DOCUMENTS SO FAR FOUND. In fact. this actually should be a CA Coastal Commission concern. The role of Zenith Energy in this regard as far as oversight of their pipeline and safety considerations related to this construction and plan including cumulative effects is also never mentioned. SHOULDN'T SOME DECISIONS FIRST BE MADE (ESPECIALLY AFTER ALL THESE YEARS) REGARDING THE FUTURE OF THAT OIL PIPELINE ATTACHED TO THE BRIDGE GIVEN ITS AGE AND BEING AT/BEYOND ITS TYPICAL SAFE FUNCTIONAL "LIFE SPAN" BEFORE ATTACHING 2 NEW ADDITIONAL PIPELINES?? (SIMILAR AS RELATED TO CONSIDERATIONS MENTIONED ABOVE FOR THE AGED AND LEAKING DWP WATER PIPELINE ALREADY ATTACHED TO THE BRIDGE BUT WITH EVEN MORE SERIOUS FLAMMABLE, EXPLOSIVE, TOXIC PETROLEUM CONTENTS). The new pipeline adjacent to the old OIL PIPELINE is planned to be Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 36 placed ABOVE it, very close to the pavement deck which adds to the unsightly appearance and as well is very near the pavement deck for access to graffiti or attempts to climb out upon it. And again, the cPW/Seal Beach community and the existential bridge have been "good neighbors" and endured 2 pre-existing pipelines on that bridge for decades (includinga more dangerous oil pipeline); it would J4..c +. ..,�.shh�rhr,nrl hno llr r%nn itnnrt" nnri City of CCI I I 1116 I [Viral IUUI I luwtol I ICA" aAv1'v Iw V%.+. � ..-.-J Long Beach can and should route these new planned pipelines through another alignment and river crossing in their own city. Also, multiple contact ►ryas attempted with Zenith Enera re ardin their pipeline andany. accountabiLit- recommendations, guidance, and oversight regarding this �ro..�ect, vet they deferred and their lack of resonse and engagement are very_ disap ointin and concernin details available . Zenith Energy -should ideally be carefully involved and active in this project with respect to their OIL PIPELINE for optimal safety, coordinate with the Planners and not be permitted to avoid their responsibility here, and Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST M this should be forthcoming and open to the public and community. It is very disappointing that CPW has been a "good neighbor" for decades to that pipeline almost in our "backyards" yet Zenith now does not appear to be a "good neighbor" to the community; the Planners (City of LB and DWP) should "insist" on this in support of the community and residents regarding involvement by Zenith Energy and for their interface with the community and Planners (for the planning and much more actively if in fact the project proceeds). **TSUNAMI RISK: The San Gabriel River Channel is within the Tsunami Hazard Risk Area at this location. (photo: CA State Department of Conservation, Tsunami Hazard Risk Area, SG River Channel.) Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST W:? .,�,...,,... .qqr., .^.... 01 i OR a✓ 0, _ ..r t ., ,..........•. a ,es.,,Rere,... fo t •sMn •, er IG .µ •4 F L, can t F aoP � Pr This indicates potential threat to river, adjacent riverbanks and levees, and infrastructure along the channel and crossing the river..TH1S POTENTIAL HAZARD RISK IS NOT MENTIONED OR DISCUSSED IN THE DOCUMENTS. There is also "high rapid water flood" risk to bridges and other infrastructure along the river channel (even IF actual inundation over banks does not take place per the maps of the locations) due to unusually severe coastal and seasonal storms as well as potential upstream dam and/or flood control breach (reference: 2025 Update (Draft): City of Seal Beach Hazard Risk Mitigation Plan—available, online, from City of Seal Beach). For Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 39 the CP Bridge, the potential risk is multiplied even further by the presence of an OIL PIPELINE on the south (coastal) side of the bridge with added possibility of leak and/or fire/explosion possibly knocking out that EXISTENTIAL BRIDGE and potentially totally "cutting off" a whole neighborhood in an emergency (discussed above also). WERE THE NUANCES OF EMERGENCY ESCAPE ROUTES IN CPW EVER EVEN CONSIDERED BY THE HAYN ES PLAN N ERS? Note that the DNL Y 0 THER curr ntEmer enc v Em cuation Ro utes for CPW in the vent the P Bridke i in fact " ut"/unavairabie is " in le file" along the bike ath ato th east Levee to the river northUD to Willow Street and a new "single file" route behind CP Drive north of the Preserve out to a freeway offramp just obtained in the last CQUIDle months. !fa serious threat to the river channel develops. them in emer en es a e route Ldiacent to the bridge down to the Wk_eDath may also become unavailable and the community again could b "trapped". Further, the entry down to -the bike path for escape is direct[ Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST MIR adjacent to the northeast abutment of the bridge- - ander again, any s vere damage to the iaridge rrrar again endanger thability to evacuate via thebike path as d cribe and (photos: driveway at NE abutment of the bridge down to bike path on east levee.) Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 41 possibly..isolating an entire neighborhood community in an emergency?? Th e u n i q u e a n d limiting characteristics of the landscape, jurisdictions. geography, and set-up of the area it appears were not studied/realized in de th by the Planners and it seems essential that this should be accomplished in detail before approval of any Plan utilizing the CPwarea alignment andtheCP Bridge. Any acute construction and/or additive cumulative adverse effects with the addition of 2 new high flow pipelines that could "weaken" the resilience of the bridge -pipeline system to impact of tsunami, high rapid water flood event, earthquake, or other potential threat should be studied from an static and dynamic bridge engineering specialty perspective with the safety of an entire neighborhood in play (the Kleinfelder study from May 2025 does NOT meet this standard). **EARTHOUAKE RISK: The presence of earthquake fault hazards in the project area is mentioned in the CEQA EIR documents but no mention of the fitness of Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 42 the bridge (including after adding 2 new additional pipelines) to the CP Bridge is mentioned nor studied. In other documents it is noted that bridge had limited earthquake retrofit apparently around 2007 (early 2000's); no studies of its ability to withstand earthquake has been performed since and no other rehab/retrofit has been undertaken of the structure, superstructure, piers, or abutments (including below * ... ...Pr-. k . �' rti r � r n r+t r1 !'+ v"ti t n 1 + h n ►'^� { ■ h I"� I"1 a n d a"I-eI 7U1 ICAUe) UL 16,1 i *1-0e Ule0[JIiG I L 0 CAU VC�I ILGd CA LA iu compromised condition as noted in most recent CalTRANS inspection of 1/25 (mentioned above). These most serious considerations (REGARDING THE BRIDGE SPECCIFICALLY) are apparently not even given note in the Planner documents available although some assessment of earthquake risk to the PIPELINES is mentioned (which again could seriously impact the bridge as well, especially the OIL PIPELINE) although essentially "dismissed". Again, the Kleinfelder Bridge study DID NOT assess for earthquake status of the bridge at all, let alone under conditions of 2 new added attached pipelines carrying, again, up to 6 MGD total (3 million gallons Haynes Pipelines Proposats: critical assessment -case AGAINST 5M] per day each, up to 48 million pounds of per day total) in addition to the "normal" burden of the bridge and other dynamic factors over time such as vibration from normal usage, wind, weather, and water impact to the piers (especially given its advanced age and already KNOWN compromised structural condition as described in depth above). Omitting this and/or giving these known and potentially very serious risk concerns "short shrift" especially when the ONLY INGRESS AND EGRESS to an entire neighborhood is on the line, even in an emergency evacuation situation possibly due to the unique characteristics of the physical "lay out" of the area as described in depth, might seem to some to border upon the "irresponsible" considering the importance of carefully taking potential EARTHQUAKE risk and impact into very careful account for such construction projects and developments. A comprehensive independent specialty bridge structural engineering study including detailed "best practice" assessment of the bridge -pipelines system and the added planned project should be commissioned and carried out as Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST M11 part of the review to assess the "hardness" ability of the system to withstand earthquake and other namic stress and in fact is required, especially when an entire neighborhood may be under increased risk/threat. The most up-to-date modeling, simulation (computerized stress testing), solid and structural sampling, ultrasound, LIDAR, UV/X-RAY, and underwater assessment techniques should be RCL�U I f'1L V, 1 1L� iG�J. 3. TRAFFIC AND ACCESS SERIOUS ISSUES FOR RESIDENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION IN CPW, ON THE BRIDGE, AND DOWN CP DRIVE IN LB OUT To THE INTERCHANGE AT CP DRIVE, STU DEBAKER, 7T" STREET, AND 22 FWY—THIS IS A COMPLICATED AND COMPLEX ISSUE BUT WITH VERY LITTLE INFORMATION ABLE To BE OBTAINED SO FAR DESPITE EXTENSIVE ATTEMPTS To GAIN THIS FROM HAYNES PLANNERS, CITY OF SB, AND CALTRANS. CITY OF SB REPORTEDLY WOULD BE ABLE To REVIEW THE TRAFFIC PLANS (mention of time limit of 30 Mays) BUT THERE WOULD BE LIMITATION OF ABILITY TO IMPACT THIS AT CITY OF LB AND Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 45 CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY AND ENCROACHMENT AREAS THAT STILL WOULD GREATLY IMPACT ACCESS TO CPW DUE TO THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF CP Drive and the BRIDGE AS THE ONLY ENTRY/EXIT. NOTE: Trenching would occur across CP Drive in CPW and along CPD in LB. Also, traffic flow Likely will be controlled with 1 lane for an extended period along sections of CP Drive, including the bridge, with likely DELAYS. Also, possible concerns for school buses, emergency vehicles, etc. FOR A MORE DETAILED AND COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION OF THE TRAFFIC ASPECTS AND VERY SERIOUS DRA WBA CIES AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO CPW RESIDENTS PLEASE CONTACT VIA EMAIL ABOVE. 4. NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO CPW GROVE PRESERVE AND ENTRYWAY—Again, a complex issue with multiple aspects still unknown. For certain, there will be an "exit/entry pit" in the grove for the pipes to go under the 22 Fwy which is described as 10X40x50 feet and 3-5 feet deep! For those familiar with the grove, it is obvious that this will have a Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST M significant footprint on that small grove. Further, mature trees, perhaps 80 years old or more, will likely bo removed. The entryway to CPW will undoubtedly be greatly changed for years. Also, the years of hard work and dedication by the volunteer CPW Landscape Crew will likely be certainly undone/ruined. Example: the beautiful bougainvillea hedge (also a buffer to the glare of freeway lights at night) along the fence line bordering the freeway along CP Drive will a_i.most assuredly have to be removed with no "guarantee" this would be replaced. The residents of CPW and the City of SB deserve much more detailed discussion from the Planners about the construction impacts in the grove/preserve, at the neighborhood entryway, and along our streets and access. AGAIN FORA MORE DETAILED AND COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION OF THE PRESERVE GROVE, ENTRYWAY AND ACCESS ASPECTS AND VERY SERIOUS DRAWBACKS AND IVE ATlV IMPACTS TO CPWRESIDENTSo PLEASE CONTACT VIA EMAIL ABOVE. Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 47 . Potential serious drawbacks and adverse implications to City of Seal Beach regarding the Proposed ADJuSTMENTICHANGE IN Sols here of influence change and annexation for the sanitation services of a parcel of Seat Beach property_. This parcel is on the LADWP Haynes Generating Station site just south of the 22 Fwyto be transferred FROM Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) as current TO LA County Sanitation District (LACSD) (reference -Sewer Force Main Line CEQA EIR documents) The sewer force line proposal includes a provision for the annexation change in SOI of Sanitation District Services for the small area of property on the Haynes Plant -(OC Parcel #APN 095-681-1% 6,8 acres.)_ that is actually within the City of Seal Beach. The documents appear to emphasize the role of City of Long Beach, LA County, LACSD, and LACLAFC (LA County Local Area Formation Commission) for this endeavor with only vague mention of City of Seal Beach, Orange County, OCSD, and OCLAFC (Orange County Local Area Formation Commission). There appears to be no Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST M: proactive inclusion of Seal Beach, Orange County, and residents in the process but described as more of a "foregone conclusion" that this would be approved. There seems to be a lack of active inclusion of Orange County influence and residents in the process, but rather Planner mentions "keep City of SB aware of the process". This annexation and change of SOI does not appear to offer any benefit to City of Seal Beach or Orange County. in fact, there are multiple potential future negative implications and pitfalls. Typically, urban civic entities are reluctant to approve any kind of change in SOI unless for a particular beneficial necessity; such potential benefit is not seen here. But possible multiple future complications for the City of Seal Beach and Orange County if this annexation change in SOI for sanitation district service is approved include the following: --potential complications to City of SB and OC if the LADWP ever wishes to sell off, lease, or rent the land which remains within City of Seal Beach city limits and Orange County, but sewers would be serviced by Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST EM LACSD in LA County. This could also conceivably create complications for OCSD in future situations --the type of development on such property in the future could be limited by the fact that another county sanitation district would be handling sewer utility service; this could limit the preference of the City of SB as to what it might deem optimal for the property (still in SB City Limits) and perhaps even complicate zoning as well as potential (sales) tax revenue at the time. Rates (especially water and sewer rates compared to the rest of City of Seal Beach that is serviced by OCSD and other OC based service utilities) and related financial aspects of a utility (such as possible bond issues) could also be complicated by such a situation with lack of usual "oversight" over such by City of SB and County of Orange (as well as OCSD if they might be involved) --this change also may have implications upon future use of the land as far as the preferences of and impact upon local Seal Beach residents and commercial entities adjacent to the parcel involved. NOTE: This area (Orange County, City of Seal Beach parcel) is Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 50 adjacent to College Park West area of the City (CPW just to the north of the 22 Fwy) and DIRECTLY ADJACENTto areas of Leisure World, Seal Beach to the east. Thus, the Leisure World area of SB could also face significant negative effects and circumstances in the future. (below: maps of proposed SOI/Annexation from CEQA Elft documents) Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 51 •i W+ �•�. •...�t..101 Nn�n W 1.0! Arra � w.i Y4__ Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 52 6. Response of Haynes Planners and —Cit of SR to CPW Resident Concerns Note: Nothing in this writing is intended to be critical of or reflect negatively upon any individual including the Haynes Planner team or at City of Seal Beach. It is assumed everyone has good intentions and is trying to do their job. Any viewpoints expressed relate to the experience in seeking institutional and bureaucratic responses over the past more than one year while trying to obtain information, offer opinions, express concerns, and ask questions. The responses of the Planners have been disappointing, inadequate, and disingenuous as they have avoided interfacing/engaging with CPW residents and seem fearful of even supporting their own project in a public forum. The City of Seal Beach response and reaction have also been disappointing so far, with a lack of urgency and support it seems from City Staff and City Council (except for City CouncilmembersTom Moore and then Ben Wong) Planners: THE PLANNERS OF THIS PROJECT AS WELL AS ZENITH ENER G Y) HAVE NEVER ACTIVELY Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 53 REACHED CUT OR RESPONDED TO THE RESIDENTS F CPWI EAL BEACH REGARDING THESE PROPOSALS... AN INFORMATIONAL MEETING IN EDISCN PARD CPW THIS PAST JANUARY THAT FINA L L Y HA P P ENED AFTER EXTENSIVE LOBBYING BY CPW RE IDENTS AND INPUT BY CUR LOCAL B COUNCILMEMBERS. (Moore and Wong) WAS UNSATISFACTORY TO A GREAT NUMBER OF CPW RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS AND RAISED MANY MORE QUUTIONS THAN ANSWERS. A PETITION OF OVER 200 SIGNATURES WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITY OF SB CITY COUNCIL EXPRESSING SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THESE PLANS. MULTIPLE OUTREACH ATTEMPTS TO PLANNERS BY CPW RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS. INCLUDING THIS A UTHIOR, REGARDING RE UEST FOR MORE INFORMA TION AND ADDRESS OF SERIOUS UE MONS/ ONCERNS HA VE BEEN BASICALL Y FR ITLE S TO THE DA TE OF THIS WRITING. The la c k of respect for the community reflected in the lack of willingness to engage in interchange and communication has been very discouraging, Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 54 especially if the Planners would hope to try to explain their side of the issues and try to gain support for their projects. This past March this writer was in communication with Planners, contractors and consultants from a meeting at Edison Park last January; they were quite pleasant and cordial. They "promised" a complete response to all questions by "the end of the month" or "in a few weeks". Despite multiple follow up inquiries, these Planner individuals never responded again and basically ignored follow attempts. (documentation is available). For this reason,a CPW resident submitted official FOIA requests to gain information and persisted in this regard until EXTENSIVE material was finall provided available for review upon re uest . It is not clear if the Planners ever were aware of the neighborhood petition. In August 2025 it became known that the Planners had initiated the BID PROCESS for management and construction of the Haynes Pipelines Project, apparently unusual (especially for a civil/government entity) in that appropriate and required permits and agreements (including Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 55 encroachment permits, Franchise Agreement, and Local Agency Formation Commission approvals (LA and OC) not obtained yet. (it at least appears that the Planners are trying to advance their plans and establish an "inertia" that would make denying or delaying the proposed plans seem less feasible given "all the work put in so far". In early September 2025, thanks to the efforts of Councilmember Ben Wong via contacts with the Haynes DWP Generating Station management, a meeting to include a group of CPW residents was arranged. At the last minute DWP indicated that CPW residents were NOT WELCOME at the meeting! Councilmember Wong, City of SB Mayor Lisa Landau, and City of SB Public Works Director Iris Lee were present, and DWP presented a Power Point presentation addressing previously submitted written questions (available for review upon request). CPW residents felt these responses were inadequate. For example, in answer to questions regarding concerns about the OIL PIPELINE on the bridge, the answer was, "that is not under our jurisdiction" rather than proactively addressing the serious worry about the Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 56 issue and at least offering to further engage as able on this topic in a more forthright and supportive fashion. The Planners via Councilmember Wong did submit additional documentation and material, but almost all of that had already been obtained by CPW residents via the FOIA efforts mentioned earlier. At the time of this writing, apparently after much effort, Councilmember Wong has obtained agreement by the Haynes Planners to have another meeting including direct interface with CPW residents; details to be determined. Apparently, DWP/LB Planners are again initially requesting pre -submitted written questions, and so far it is not clear if there will also be included spontaneous and proactive discussion requiring them to defend their project to residents, something that so far has not happened despite residents continuously advocating for such and exchange. City of SB: Other than Councilmember Tom Moore and followed by current Councilmember Ben Wong, it is the feeling of many CPW residents that the response by our City of SB to the major concerns and serious negative impacts of these proposals to the Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 57 CPW area has been less than supportive. There has been no sense of urgency generated and no real "reaching out" by the City so far despite the complexity and complicated nature of these plans and the EXISTENTIAL circumstance of the CP bridge for the wellbeing and very existence of the CPW neighborhood. The response to the petition presented to City Council, email inquiries and other attempted contacts, and multiple resident Public Comments to Council has been basically nil. No proactive approach to study, investigation, or attempt to gain further information in a meaningful way has really occurred, except as mentioned in the efforts of Councilmember Wong and before him (former) Councilmember Moore. Responses from City Staff and City Attorney have been basically that "no Franchise Agreement" application has been submitted yet with feeling apparently this matter would be investigated then. However, the concern is that multiple other major issues ongoing will continue to also pre -occupy and distract the City process. Tight decision deadlines (30 days) are typically required for City response per Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST CEQA regulations once such an agreement application has been submitted. CPW residents believe there should have been and remains so currently that nothing would prevent our City from proactively and early seeking information, doing research, encouraging interface and accountability from the Planners to residents and the City, and communicating actively to support CPW residents i- .i. .. n ongoing -� .^� i+ i c-� r^C ■ n i i^7 h+ t, n+ e n l I y c�i±]UL1L LFICIi el�l�Jl.lj i�VitiaCI rim ui 1 uri i5 VVW 1vu� U%_,L U 1. taking official action on a formal Franchise Agreement decision. Unfortunately, this has not occurred to date. The experience of several CPW residents in making inquiries to various City of SB staff and officials regarding these projects is as described above as well as being told basically, "The Bridge is `owned' by City of LB and there is not much we can do about it". A great many CPW residents disagree and are very disappointed and discouraged by this response and lack of substantive support from our City in the opinion of many. The residents of CPW will plan to continue to insist that the City of SB REJECT or possibly modify in collectively agreed upon Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST 59 approaches and also encourage/insist that DWPand City of LB construct these otherwise worthy environmental projects within their own City and County boundaries via available alternative routes and alignments. Haynes Pipelines Proposals: critical assessment -case AGAINST