Corridor Advisory Committee Meeting #30. September 20, :00-8:00 p.m. Progress Park Downey Blvd., Paramount MEETING SUMMARY

Transcription

1 Corridor Advisory Committee Meeting #30 September 20, :00-8:00 p.m. Progress Park Downey Blvd., Paramount INTRODUCTION On September 20, 2012 the Corridor Advisory Committee met at Progress Park. Representatives from the project team in attendance included: Frank Quon (Metro), Adrian Alvarez (Metro), Danielle Valentino (Metro), Ron Kosinski (Caltrans), Dave Levinsohn (URS), Elizabeth Mahoney (URS), Rob McCann (LSA), Esmeralda García (MIG), and Jeff Wilson (The Robert Group). CAC members in attendance were: Eileen Aparicio, City of Paramount LAC Louie Diaz, Teamsters Local 848 Chris Mielke, City of Long Beach, District 1 Susan Ahn, Long Beach Unified School District Robert Cabrales, Huntington Park LAC Carrie Scoville, Harbor Communities Harold Tseklenis, CAC Appointee Carol Berkeley, South Gate LAC Jeff Woods, Montebello Unified School District INTRODUCTIONS AND AGENDA OVERVIEW Meeting facilitator Esmeralda García of MIG opened the meeting with a round of selfintroductions and a review of the agenda.

2 PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. BRIEF PROJECT UPDATES Engineering Status Update Dave Levinsohn (URS) provided the group with an update on engineering activities. Environmental Status Update Rob McCann (LSA) provided the group with an update on environmental activities. CAC member Robert Cabrales commented that the Coalition for Environmental Health and Justice appreciates the additional time granted to review the Draft EIR/EIS and has been busy reviewing the document. He asked if there was a way for members of the public without computer access to submit comments. o Mr. McCann responded that the mailing address is included in the public notice and in the newsletter. This information was also provided at previous community meetings and study sessions. Mr. Cabrales asked if written comments have to be postmarked by September 28. o Mr. McCann responded affirmatively. Mr. Cabrales asked for an update on the Health Impact Assessment (HIA). o Adrian Alvarez (Metro) responded that the HIA was completed November 2011 and made available at public libraries along the corridor and in the offices of the Gateway Cities Council of Governments (COG). It is also available on the COG website for download. Community Participation Status Update Ms. García provided the group with an update on community participation and outreach activities. Mr. Cabrales asked for clarification on the date of the next Project Committee meeting. o Ms. García responded that it is scheduled for Thursday, November 29. CAC member Jeff Woods asked if discussion of the preferred alternative process was still part of the agenda. o Ms. García responded affirmatively. Page 2 of 5

3 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Update Adrian Alvarez (Metro) provided an overview of the TAC meeting held on September 19, Mr. Alvarez noted that the TAC received the same project updates in their presentation. In the last two months City representatives have made recommendations for Early Action Projects (EAPs) through the TAC. These projects were also presented at the Project Committee (PC) meeting on August 30, The most recent early action project nominations were as follows: The City of South Gate suggested the Firestone Boulevard / Atlantic Avenue interchange project; the City of Long Beach requested funding for the Shoemaker Bridge; the City of Vernon proposed to widen the bridge at Atlantic Boulevard; and the City of Downey recommended an intersection improvement project at Paramount Boulevard / Firestone Boulevard. In the coming months TAC members are encouraged to present projects for possible early action nomination and funding. CAC member Harold Tskelenis asked for clarification on the nature of the proposed EAP in Downey. o Mr. Alvarez responded that it is an intersection improvement project at Firestone Boulevard and Paramount Boulevard involving the addition of left-turn lanes. CAC member Susan Ahn commented that she was unfamiliar with the EAP process. She commented that this topic never came up in her Environmental Subject Working Group (ESWG) meetings. Her main concern is the exclusion of three additional bridges around the Cesar E. Chavez Park and Chavez School in the Shoemaker Bridge EAP. Ms. Ahn noted that the Shoemaker project would be in close proximity to two Long Beach schools, and Long Beach Unified School District has not received notification. o Mr. Alvarez responded that the I-710 EAPs are projects that demonstrate independent utility, which means that they can be built independently of the I-710 Corridor Project. Examples of such projects include improving an intersection or constructing sound walls. Mr. Alvarez said the City of Long Beach decided to move the Shoemaker Bridge project forward as an Early Action Project. o Mr. McCann added EAPs can be built for compatibility with a no-build scenario as well as with any of the build alternatives. Furthermore, the City of Long Beach received a federal earmark funding the planning and design on the Shoemaker Bridge project. With regard to the Shoemaker Bridge, the City of Long Beach is working on a separate environmental document for this EAP in the event that the I-710 Corridor Project is delayed. Ms. Ahn commented that the City of Long Beach indicated to her that the project would get their approvals in by the end of the year and get started next year, but she is unclear as to what kind of environmental document is planned. o Ms. García responded to the EAP process portion of her previous question. The list of EAPs was shared with the corridor cities and each city had their own process for gathering feedback or sharing with community members. Some cities Page 3 of 5

4 worked with their LACs. The list of EAPs was made available to the CAC before it went to the Metro Board. o Mr. Alvarez commented that the TAC has kept EAPs as a regular item on their agenda throughout the process. o CAC member Louie Diaz further commented that Jerry Wood (Gateway Cities Council of Governments) would regularly present updates on the progress of EAPs to this group. Mr. Cabrales asked if there was a deadline for EAP nomination. o Mr. Alvarez said a timeline has not been set. o Ms. García commented that the process for EAP nomination has always been conducted through the TAC. It would be wise to contact the TAC representative for a specific city along the corridor to review EAPs that cities might be proposing. o Mr. Cabrales expressed concern that the same person who was on the TAC a year ago might not still be there in Huntington Park. He asked about the possibility of intersection improvement at Florence Avenue and Pacific Boulevard in Huntington Park. The community has explored making that interchange similar to the cross streets in Old Town Pasadena ( scramble intersection) to improve traffic flows and improve conditions for pedestrians. o Frank Quon of Metro clarified that the EAP nominations have come through the TAC. He suggested contacting the City s Public Works Department to identify the current representative. The city representatives bring forth nominations to the TAC for consideration and then the body determines whether or not to make a recommendation for funding. There were no further comments or questions from CAC members. FOLLOW-UP ITEMS Ms. García reviewed follow-up items from the previous CAC meeting. At the last meeting the group requested the project team provide an update on the sound wall feasibility study. Ms. García introduced Mr. Quon to provide this update. The sound wall feasibility study focused on locations where sound walls could be built today to reap immediate benefits for the community. A comprehensive map compiled relevant data on right-of-way, property lines, and existing topography to determine potential sites. The project team was cognizant of areas of conflict, or sites where a potential future condition would force a teardown and rebuilding of the sound wall. This served as the process of elimination for potential sound wall locations. The project team looked at locations for building brand new walls, as well as opportunities to extend existing walls. Approximately 6 miles were identified where the team believes it can construct sound walls without having to tear them down in the future. Almost 4 miles of existing walls were identified for possible extension. The next step is to complete review and weigh in on the issue of constructability. Once any potential constraints are considered, the team will Page 4 of 5

5 prepare a project initiation document that includes the scope and costs. Throughout this process, outreach will be done with communities adjacent to selected sound wall locations. It is expected that a firm list of sound wall locations will be available at either the November or December CAC meeting to share the team s conclusions. Mr. Woods asked if the sound wall feasibility study presentation was available on Metro s website. o Mr. Quon responded that it was not, but would work with the project team to get him a copy. Ms. Ahn asked for a start date for sound wall construction. o Mr. Quon responded that depending on the complexity of the sound wall, design could take one to two years. Once the project team has a better idea of the scope, it will develop a schedule and report back to the CAC and the PC with a more definitive answer. Mr. Woods asked where funding for the sound walls will come from. o Mr. Quon said it s all in Measure R under a category for I-710 EAP. Metro Board has already identified a portion of the $590 million there to be assigned to EAP. There were no further comments or questions from CAC members. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE PROCESS Ms. García reviewed the process leading to the identification of a preferred alternative using a handout illustrating the bottom up process with a recommendation from the project team that would be reviewed with the LACs with recommendations presented first to the TAC and CAC, and then to the Project Committee, Executive Committee, and Metro Board, with the Metro Board s action then going to Caltrans. SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS Ms. García recapped key points from the meeting. The group agreed that it would like to continue receiving EAP updates. Ms. García confirmed that the project team would provide a monthly update on the EAP program and that she would let Bill Pagett (TAC Representative to the CAC) know so that he can report any review or action taken by the CAC. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Page 5 of 5