Metro Harbor Subdivision Community Outreach November 20098 · Stakeholder Identification and Database Development A comprehensive stakeholder identification process was initiated

Metro Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor November 2009 Alternatives Analysis Report – Final 9. Community Outreach

Page 9-1

9. COMMUNITY OUTREACH The Harbor Subdivision Alternatives Analysis (AA) Study included an extensive outreach program to both stakeholder agencies and the general public to disseminate information and gather feedback about the Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor Study. The public involvement effort informed the development and refinement of the alternatives recommended for further environmental analysis. This chapter recaps the outreach process and provides documentation of meetings held and comments received. The Community Outreach and Public Participation Plan for the Harbor Subdivision AA called for Early Scoping Meetings and numerous other meetings and briefings, including Corridor Workshops, elected official briefings, and two additional sets of public meetings, which are described in detail in the following sections. In addition, the Community Outreach and Public Participation Plan included a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), composed of representatives from stakeholder agencies. The role of the TAC was to keep agency stakeholders informed of the study’s progress and solicit feedback and recommendations about the scope of work, technical evaluation methodology, and community outreach process. In order to elicit technical feedback, the Harbor Subdivision Project Team met with the TAC to review presentations prior to public meetings. This chapter highlights the public outreach process, including initial outreach activities, TAC meetings, Early Scoping Meetings and Public Meetings. The chapter concludes with a presentation of community acceptability ratings for each alternative and its operable segments. Outreach materials including notification mailers and press releases, presentations, and boards for each round of public meetings are included for reference in Appendix F.

9.1. INITIAL OUTREACH ACTIVITIES 9.1.1. Community Outreach and Public Participation Plan A detailed Community Outreach and Public Involvement Plan was developed early in the study to ensure the public was informed about the progress of the AA study and to provide opportunities for the public to comment at key project milestones. The Plan identified stakeholders, communications protocols, a method of tracking public input, a proposed schedule for interfacing with the public. Additional recommendations for key stakeholder interviews or briefings, interagency coordination, and topical meetings were also included in the Plan. The Plan was developed with the necessary flexibility to accommodate changing circumstances and enhanced approaches required for a project of this complexity. 9.1.2. Stakeholder Identification and Database Development A comprehensive stakeholder identification process was initiated to coincide with the Early Scoping process. A study database was developed for the purposes of a targeted email and direct mail, which included:


Page 9-2

• Elected officials on the local, state and federal level • Neighborhood Councils and other elected groups • Homeowners Associations and Neighborhood Organizations • Chambers of Commerce and business leaders • Community-based and civic organizations • Key employment centers and cultural / entertainment destinations • Transportation advocates and interest groups • Print, broadcast and electronic media, including community-based publications and blogs • Local Business Improvement Districts • Property management firms serving lofts and condominiums in the downtown Los Angeles area

This database was updated on an ongoing basis. Those that listed contact information on sign-in sheets after each public or stakeholder meetings were also added to the database. As of October 2009, the database included 954 entries.

9.2. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MEETINGS A TAC was organized as part of the AA process to keep agency stakeholders informed of the study’s progress and solicit feedback and recommendations about the scope of work, technical evaluation methodology, and community outreach process. TAC members included staff from the following agencies: Federal:

• Federal Railroad Administration • Federal Aviation Administration • Federal Transit Administration State:

• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 7 • California Public Utilities Commission • California High Speed Rail Authority Region / County:

• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) • Southern California Regional Rail Authority • South Bay Cities Council of Governments • Gateway Cities Council of Governments • Alameda Corridor Transportation Agency


Page 9-3

• Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway • Los Angeles County Department of Public Works • Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning • Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department • Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) City:

• Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) • Los Angeles Department of Public Works – Bureau of Engineering • Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA-LA) • Los Angeles City Planning Department • Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) • Port of Los Angeles • Los Angeles Fire Department • City of Vernon • City of Huntington Park • City of Inglewood • City of El Segundo • City of Hawthorne • City of Manhattan Beach • City of Redondo Beach • City of Lawndale • City of Torrance • City of Carson • City of Long Beach • Long Beach Transit 9.2.1. TAC Meetings Four TAC meetings were held through the AA study at Metro headquarters. Meetings were held on the following dates:

• August 20, 2008 • November 19, 2008 • March 16, 2009 • October 7, 2009


Page 9-4

In addition to these TAC meetings, individual TAC members also sponsored several topic-specific workshops that focused discussion on key technical issues. Two sets of workshops were scheduled to discuss off-corridor alignments and another to discuss urban design concepts. All TAC members were invited to participate, along with selected additional non-TAC stakeholders, who had special interest in the topic of discussion. 9.2.2. TAC Off -Corridor Alignment Workshops Four Off-Corridor Alignment Workshops were held in January 2009, each focused on a specific segment of the Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor. The purpose of these workshops was to narrow down off-corridor alignment and modal options. Each workshop focused discussion on the viability of alignments proposed to run off the Metro-owned ROW in those particular areas, and was used as a key input to screen the large number of preliminary routing options into a more focused number for the more detailed Stage II analysis. Meeting locations and dates included:

• Central Area Workshop January 22, 2009 Torrance Airport

• Northern Area Workshop January 27, 2009 LADOT

• Southern Area Workshop January 28, 2009 Port of Los Angeles LAX Area Workshop January 29, 2009 Flight Path Learning Center

9.2.3. TAC Urban Design Concept Workshops Three Urban Design Concept Workshops were held in July and August 2009. Similar in format to the Off-Corridor Alignment Workshops, the meetings were organized by corridor segment: Northern (Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)), Central (LAX to I-110), and Southern (I-110 to San Pedro / Long Beach). Each workshop focused discussion on station and alignment design concepts specific to its geographic location. The workshops conveyed to stakeholders the possibilities for development / redevelopment in station area vicinities, and provided valuable input to conceptual design activities. Feedback from stakeholders was also used as one of the factors in determining the Community Acceptability ratings for each alternative described in Section 9.7. Meeting dates and locations included:

• Southern Area July 28, 2009 Port of Los Angeles Administration Building


Page 9-5

• Northern Area July 30, 2009 SCAG

• Central Area August 4, 2009 Torrance Airport

9.3. EARLY SCOPING MEETINGS An Early Scoping Notice for the Harbor Subdivision was submitted through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2008, initiating the official scoping comment period. The comment period spanned until October 22, 2008. Both the general public and agency representatives were notified of the Early Scoping Meetings and given the opportunity to provide verbal and / or written comments through this Federal Register notice. The intent of the Early Scoping Meetings was to inform the public about the Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor and solicit feedback on what transit improvements should be studied and how the alternatives should be evaluated. Participants were given the opportunity to provide verbal or written comments at the meetings and further comments or questions were accepted via telephone, mail or email. The Early Scoping process was consistent with FTA guidance for an AA Study. 9.3.1. Elected Officials Briefing Two meetings were held with elected officials and their staff prior to and in preparation for the Early Scoping Meetings. The briefings provided elected officials early notification of upcoming meetings as well as preliminary information on the Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor AA study. The meeting times and locations were:

• September 15, 2008 Metro Attendees: ○ Los Angeles City Councilmember Bill Rosendahl’s Office ○ City of Redondo Beach ○ City of Torrance – Transit ○ Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard’s Office Comments: No comment sheets were submitted at this meeting.

• September 17, 2008 Inglewood City Hall Attendees: ○ Congresswoman Jane Harman’s Office ○ California State Senator Jenny Oropeza’s Office ○ California State Assemblymember Curren Price’s Office


Page 9-6

○ City of Inglewood ○ Inglewood City Councilmember Ralph Franklin ○ Inglewood City Councilmember Danny Tabor ○ Inglewood City Councilmember Judy Dunlap ○ City of Vernon ○ City of Lawndale Comments: No comment sheets were submitted at this meeting.

9.3.2. Meeting Noticing Outreach and noticing for the Early Scoping Meetings was done through several forms of media, as described in this section. Direct Mail A postal mailer was distributed in both English and Spanish on September 10, 2008 to 726 addresses. Mailing addresses were gathered by collecting information from the websites of elected officials, governmental agencies and community groups or existing databases previously compiled by the project team. The Early Scoping Meeting mailer is included in Appendix F. Email The electronic distribution of the meeting notice occurred on September 19, 2008. Notices were sent to 297 email addresses, which included addresses specified in the project team’s database. An additional distribution of the meeting notice to 61 email addresses took place on September 26, 2008. These notices targeted stakeholders in El Segundo in preparation for the scoping meeting located in this vicinity. In addition, targeted email notices were sent to key stakeholders / individuals that had previously attended the Government Relations briefings. Similar to other Metro corridor studies, Metro relied extensively on email distribution, requesting that email contacts forward meeting information to their members, friends and colleagues. The text used in the email notice was identical to that of the direct mailer. Media Metro distributed a media release on September 8, 2008 and then again on September 22, 2008. The Early Scoping Meeting media notice is included in Appendix F. “Take-Ones” “Take-One” fliers describing the Harbor Subdivision Transit Project were placed on Metro buses and routes running through the Study Area as well as the Metro Blue, Green, Gold, and Red Lines in the weeks preceding the Early Scoping Meetings. 44,450 fliers were distributed


Page 9-7

through Bus Divisions 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 18, 20, 21, and 22. The Take-One fliers were identical to the Direct Mail notices. Advertisements Display advertisements for the Early Scoping Meetings were placed in seven newspapers in the Study Area that were selected based on their geographic focus, language and audited circulation numbers. Paid newspaper advertisements for the Early Scoping Meetings were placed in the newspapers listed in Table 9.1.

Table 9.1. Early Scoping Meetings – Newspaper Advertisements Summary

Publication Dates Circulation Language

The Beach Reporter September 18-24, 2008 55,000 English

Daily Breeze September 10, 17 ,21 & 22, 2008 66,400 English

Eastside Sun September 18, 24, 2008 24,000 English

El Segundo Herald September 18-30, 2008 15,000 English

Hoy September 17-18 & 21-22, 2008 75,000 Spanish

Los Angeles Sentinel September 18-24, 2008 125,000 English

Random Lengths September 19-October 2, 2008 22,500 English

9.3.3. Meeting Dates and Locations Five Early Scoping Meetings (four public, one interagency) were scheduled for September 2008, ahead of the October 22, 2008 deadline for receipt of public comment. Locations were selected to reflect equitable geographic coverage, proximity to public transportation and to minimize overlap with other project meetings scheduled in the Study Area. The Early Scoping Meetings were held on the following dates and at the following locations: Public:

• September 23, 2008 Torrance Cultural Arts Center Attendees: 46 Comments: 10 verbal, 12 written (2 of which were received after meeting)

• September 24, 2008 Banning’s Landing Community Center, Wilmington Attendees: 26 Comments: 10 verbal, 6 written

• September 25, 2008 Westside Park Community Center, Huntington Park Attendees: 5 Comments: 0 verbal, 0 written


Page 9-8

• September 30, 2008 El Segundo Public Library Attendees: 19 Comments: 5 verbal, 2 written

Interagency:

• September 30, 2008 Metro, Los Angeles Attendees: 26, representing the following agencies and jurisdictions ○ SCAG ○ City of El Segundo ○ City of Redondo Beach ○ Redondo Beach – Harbor Business & Transit Department ○ City of Torrance ○ City of Vernon ○ Los Angeles City Councilmember Jan Perry’s Office ○ City of Los Angeles – Planning Department – Community Planning West/Coastal Unit ○ City of Los Angeles – Bureau of Engineering ○ City of Los Angeles – Bureau of Street Lighting ○ LADOT ○ LA-CRA ○ City of Los Angeles Police Department ○ Port of Los Angeles ○ Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board ○ Caltrans ○ Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department ○ Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department – Transit Services Bureau ○ Inglewood (Transtech)

The meeting format was as follows:

• 30 minutes Open House

• 30 minutes Presentation

• 1 hour Public Comment Early Scoping Meeting participants were asked to provide comments in four main areas:

• Study Area Needs & Problems ○ What issues in the study area do you think a new transit line can address?

• Route / Stations / Destinations / Mode ○ Where do you want the Harbor Subdivision project to go? ○ Where are good locations for stations? ○ What type of transit vehicle do you want to see?


Page 9-9

• Evaluation Criteria ○ How do you want us to judge which alternatives to carry forward and which to eliminate?

• Environmental Issues ○ What environmental issues concern you the most?

The public comment period was moderated, and speakers were asked to limit their comment to two minutes. 9.3.4. Summary of Comments – Early Scoping Meetings In total, 91 comments were received during the Early Scoping period in four different ways:

• 25 verbal comments at Public Scoping Meetings • 18 written comments at Public Scoping Meetings • 43 comments via email and letters • 5 verbal comments on the Telephone Information Line The overwhelming majority of comments received from public participants expressed support for transit improvements in the South Bay and Harbor areas. The public thought that a potential South Bay alignment would assist in providing transit options to the residents of the area, and improve mobility for commuters along I-405 and I-110. Moreover, a recurring theme at the meetings was the utility of providing a connection to LAX either from Union Station or from the Harbor area. Of the modes presented, Light Rail received the largest amount of support, followed by a Metrolink type of service. The public also provided many suggestions about station locations and how the alignment could connect to areas such as San Pedro, Long Beach, downtown Los Angeles, and areas such as Santa Barbara, Anaheim and San Diego to name a few. Of the concerns received, the public indicated that environmental impacts and air quality issues were of utmost importance. Also significant were safety concerns. Comments received during the Early Scoping period are summarized in Table 9.2.


Page 9-10

Table 9.2. Summary of Early Scoping Meeting Comments

Purpose and Need

Station Location

Important Destinations

Potential Connections

Mode Evaluation Criteria

Environmental Issues

Improve Transit Options - General (26)

Hawthorne/190th (3)

LAX (7) Union Station to LAX (5)

Support:

Community Impacts (11)

Safety/Grade Crossings (32)

Congestion Relief - General (22)

Torrance Transit Center (1)

Long Beach Area (7)

Blue Line Extension to Harbor (5)

Light Rail Transit (LRT) (23)

Connectivity/ Compatibility (9)

Noise (13)

Improve Mobility - General (20)

(Crenshaw/Right-of-way (ROW) (3)

Harbor Area (6)

Union Station to Harbor (4)

Metrolink (11)

Ridership (9) Air Pollution (10)

Reduce Pollution (20)

South Bay Galleria / RB Transit Center (3)

Orange County (5)

Harbor to LAX (4)

Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) (3)

Safety/Grade Crossings (6)

Freight Rail Impacts (4)

Improved Connections - South Bay to Westside (7)

Torrance Area (13)

Torrance Area (5)

Crenshaw Corridor Connection (3)

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) (2)

Environmental Impacts (5)

Traffic Impacts

Improved Connections - LAX (5)

Inglewood/Slauson Corridor (12)

South Bay Galleria (4)

Redondo Beach Area (3)

Other (6) Construction Cost (5)

Improved Connections - Other (5)

El Segundo/LAX Area (7)

Westside (3)

Other (7)

Oppose:

Traffic Impacts (4)

Congestion Relief - I-405 (5)

Harbor Area (6)

Downtown LA (2)

BRT (6)

Development Potential (4)

Congestion Relief - Other (4)

Downtown Los Angeles (6)

Inglewood Area (2)

Other (6)

Corridor Use (3)

Other (10) Other (5) San Fernando Valley (2)

Speed (2)

Capacity (2)

Other (4)


Page 9-11

9.3.5. Agency / Organization Comments – Early Scoping Meetings A variety of cities and agencies with an interest in the Harbor Subdivision Project submitted comment sheets and letters. Comments were generally very supportive project, with many cities and agencies viewing a new investment along the Harbor Subdivision as a way to provide additional travel alternatives, improve mobility, ease congestion and reduce pollution and green house gas emissions. However, stakeholders indicated that at-grade crossings were a major concern, along with the sensitivity of communities adjoining the Harbor Subdivision ROW. Comments were received from the following stakeholder agencies:

• Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) • Community Redevelopment Agency – Los Angeles (CRA-LA) • City of Los Angeles, Planning Department • City of Los Angeles, Council District 9 • City of Vernon • City of Redondo Beach • Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce • Wilmington Neighborhood Council

9.4. PUBLIC MEETINGS – APRIL / MAY 2009 Building on the input received from the Early Scoping Meetings, Metro returned to the community in April and May 2009 to provide updates on the refined alternatives, including alignment configurations, screening criteria and next steps. In preparation for the meetings, Metro focused outreach to the neighboring communities, key stakeholder groups, and local media. 9.4.1. Elected Officials Briefing An elected officials briefing was hosted at Metro leading up to the second round of public meetings:

• April 16, 2009 Metro, Los Angeles Attendees: ○ U.S Senator Dianne Feinstein’s Office ○ Assemblymember Curren Price’s Office ○ Councilmember Jan Perry’s Office ○ Councilmember Bernard Parks’ Office ○ City of Torrance Comments: No comment sheets were submitted at this meeting.


Page 9-12

9.4.2. Meeting Noticing Similar to the Early Scoping process, Metro distributed direct mailers, an email blast, a media release and “Take-Ones” to publicize the public meetings scheduled for April and May 2009. Metro also placed an advertisement in various newspapers and notified the members of the Metro Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor Facebook page. The postal mailer was distributed in both English and Spanish on April 8, 2009 to approximately 700 addresses while the electronic distribution of the meeting notice occurred on April 14, 2009 to approximately 900 email addresses. Metro distributed a media release to local media outlets on April 6, 2009 and then again on April 21, 2009. Also, “Take-One” fliers were placed on the same Metro transit lines as was done preceding the Early Scoping Meetings. In addition, approximately 200 Take-Ones were dropped at the following locations:

• Augustus Hawkins Park (South LA) • Vernon Library (South LA) • Ascot Library (South LA) • Inglewood Main Library • Morningside Library (Inglewood) • Crenshaw-Imperial Library (Inglewood) • Redondo Beach Public Library • Redondo Beach City Hall • Wilmington Library • Wilmington Municipal Building (houses the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, Wilmington Neighborhood Council and Councilmember Janice Hahn’s office)

• San Pedro Library Display advertisements for the public meetings were also placed in eight newspapers in the Study Area. Paid newspaper advertisements for the public meetings were placed in the newspapers shown in Table 9.3.

Table 9.3. Public Meetings – Round 2 – Newspaper Advertisements Summary


The Beach Reporter April 16-22, 2009 55,000 English

Daily Breeze April 14-15, 2009 66,400 English

Downtown News April 20-26, 2009 150,000 English

El Clasificado April 15-21, 2009 Zone 4- 13,500, Zone 6- 11,500, Zone 14- 10,000

Spanish

Hoy April 17-19, 2009 75,000 Spanish

Inglewood Today April 23-29, 2009 25,000 English

Random Lengths April 17-30, 2009 22,500 English

The Wave (West Edition) April 23-29, 2009 102,500 English


Page 9-13

By April and May 2009, Metro had established the “Metro Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor” group on the social networking site, Facebook. Invitations to the public meetings were sent to members of the Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor Facebook Group on April 15, 2009. 9.4.3. Meeting Dates and Locations Metro hosted five public meetings in April and May 2009. Locations were also selected in a way that avoided duplicating those areas previously visited during the Early Scoping meetings. New locations in different neighborhoods and cities were selected to broaden the public outreach efforts. The meeting times and locations are summarized below:

• April 21, 2009 Boys and Girls Club of the Los Angeles Harbor, San Pedro Attendees: 22 Comments: 4 verbal, 6 written

• April 22, 2009 Redondo Beach Main Library Attendees: 32 Comments: 14 verbal, 2 written

• April 27, 2009 Inglewood City Hall Attendees: 10 Comments: 6 verbal

• April 30, 2009 Metropolitan Water District, Downtown Los Angeles Attendees: 25 Comments: 4 verbal

• May 1, 2009 Augustus Hawkins Nature Park, South Los Angeles Attendees: 8 Comments: 4 verbal

The meeting format was generally as follows:

• 30 minutes Open House

• 45 minutes Presentation

• 45 minutes Public Comment At the Open House, participants had the opportunity to view project boards and speak with members of the Project Team. Following the Open House, the Project Team delivered a PowerPoint presentation that provided a project update, which included a list of screened alternatives and information on initial urban design elements. Stakeholders were invited to


Page 9-14

comment on the project alternatives, potential station locations, and urban design elements in addition to potential impacts and other general issues about the study. Similar to the Early Scoping Meetings, the public comment period was moderated, speakers were asked to limit their comment to two minutes and participants were also provided a form to submit written comments. 9.4.4. Summary of Comments – Public Meetings April/May 2009 In total, 49 comments were received in three different ways:

• 38 verbal comments at the five scheduled public meetings • Eight written comments from meetings • Three comments via the internet and letters The overwhelming majority of comments received from the public expressed support for transit improvements in the South Bay and Harbor areas, as current transit options are perceived as inefficient and unreliable. Some of the key takeaways from the comments at the meetings are as follows:

• Rail service along the Harbor Subdivision corridor could facilitate a one-seat ride between downtown Los Angeles and San Pedro. Otherwise, this is a multiple-transfer trip.

• There is a need for both local and regional service and a connection to LAX from both Union Station and the Harbor area.

• Connectivity between transit lines is very important. Transferring between trains and buses should be quick and easy. The transit system should be an integrative one.

• Trains and station areas should be bike-accessible, with racks on trains and wide walkways at stations for bikes.

Of the modes presented, light rail received the highest amount of support due to its ease of integration with the current rail system in addition to its environmental benefits (electric powered, quieter, etc). An extension of the Metro Green Line south towards the Harbor area was perceived favorably. The public also provided many ideas about station locations and how the alignment could connect to areas such as downtown Los Angeles, LAX, San Pedro and Long Beach. Of the concerns expressed, the public indicated that environmental impacts and air quality issues were of utmost importance. Many participants indicated they wanted a “green” transit mode with as little environmental impact to the surrounding neighborhoods as possible. Also significant were safety concerns. Some of the participants brought up grade crossings and the speeds at which trains would travel through their neighborhoods. The public comments received during the second round of meetings are summarized in Table 9.4.


Page 9-15

Table 9.4. Summary of Comments – Public Meetings – Round 2

Market Routes Impacts Stations Mode

Local Service (2) Green Line Extension (2)

Air Quality (1) San Pedro (6) Light Rail (9)

Express (2) Connectivity (3) Noise and Vibration (4)

Union Station (6) Heavy Rail (2)

Regional (1) ROW constraints (1) Safety (3) LAX (3) Bicycle Racks (2)

More bus service (1) Long Beach (3) DMU (1)

Wilson Park (2) Commuter Rail (1)

Sepulveda/Western (2)

Noise (1)

Redondo Beach (2) Safety (1)

Wilmington (1)

190th/Hawthorne Blvd. (1)

Galleria (1)

Del Amo (1)

El Segundo (1)

Port (1)

9.5. PUBLIC MEETINGS – OCTOBER 2009 [A final round of community update meetings was held in October 2009 to present to the public Metro’s recommendations for the Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor AA study. In preparation for the meetings, focused outreach to the neighboring communities, key stakeholder groups, and local media was conducted. 9.5.1. Elected Officials Briefing Two elected officials briefings were hosted at Metro leading up to the public meetings:

• October 13, 2009 Torrance Cultural Arts Center Attendees: ○ California State Senator Jenny Oropeza’s office ○ California State Assemblymember Ted Lieu’s office ○ City of Torrance, City Manager’s Office ○ Torrance Transit Comments: No comment sheets were submitted at this meeting.

• October 15, 2009 Metro, Windsor Room Comments: No comment sheets were submitted at this meeting.


Page 9-16

9.5.2. Meeting Noticing With the distribution of the direct mail notice, email blast, media notice, “Take-Ones” and newspaper and Facebook advertisements, a multimedia approach was implemented to notify the public and stakeholders of the meetings. A postal mailer was distributed in both English and Spanish on October 12, 2009 to approximately 734 addresses whereas the electronic distribution of the meeting notice occurred on October 9, 2009 to 531 email addresses. Metro distributed a media release to local media outlets on October 6, 2009 and as many as 36,000 Take-One were distributed in Bus Divisions 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 18, 20, 21, and 22. In addition, 1,170 Take-One fliers were distributed to four locations along the route via The Walking Man, a door hangar distribution service. These locations included:

• Harbor City • Hyde Park • Redondo Beach • Lawndale Display advertisements for the public meetings were placed in nine newspapers in the Study Area. Newspaper advertisement data is summarized in Table 9.5.

Table 9.5. Public Meetings – Round 3 – Newspaper Advertisements Summary


The Beach Reporter October 8-14 2009 55,000 English

Daily Breeze October 12, 14, & 15, 2009 66,400 English

Downtown News October 12-18, 2009 150,000 English

Hoy October 10, 2009 75,000 Spanish

Lawndale News October 9-15, 2009 15,000 English

Long Beach Business Journal October 13-19, 2009 33,000 English

Random Lengths October 8-21, 2009 22,500 English

Signal Tribune October 9-22, 2009 24,250 English

The Wave (West Edition) October 8-14, 2009 102,500 English

Additionally, each of the five public meetings was added as an event on the project’s Facebook page and group members were sent a message inviting them to attend any of the community meetings convenient to them. In addition, a Facebook advertisement was created and purchased to further publicize the meetings on Facebook. The Facebook advertisement ran from October 15-22, 2009. Lastly, the project team used the Metro Twitter account to publicize the third round of public meetings. Tweets were sent out announcing the meeting dates.


Page 9-17

9.5.3. Meeting Dates and Locations Five Round II Public Meetings were held throughout October 2009:

• October 19, 2009 • Metropolitan Water District, Downtown Los Angeles Attendees: 25 Comments: 6 verbal, 1 written

• October 19, 2009 Lawndale Community Center Annex Attendees: 26 Comments: 8 verbal, 3 written

• October 20, 2009 Carson Community Center Attendees: 16 Comments: 3 verbal, 2 written

• October 21, 2009 Jackie Robinson Academy, Long Beach Attendees: 9 Comments: 5 verbal, 5 written

• October 22, 2009 Miriam Matthews Library, Hyde Park Attendees: 13 Comments: 6 verbal, 1 written

9.5.4. Summary of Comments – Public Meetings October 2009 In total, 41 comments were received in three different ways:

• 28 verbal comments at the five scheduled public meetings • 12 written comments from meetings • 1 comment via the internet The overwhelming majority of comments received from the public expressed support for transit improvements along the corridor, as current transit options are perceived as disjointed and ineffective, especially in the South Bay, Long Beach, LAX, and Downtown Los Angeles. Some of the key takeaways from the comments are as follows:

• Creating an extension of the Metro Green Line south guarantees riders that they will not have to make a forced transfer to continue to Torrance or Long Beach. This is especially beneficial because Metro Rail prices are based on the number of trains ridden and not the distance traveled.


Page 9-18

• The public is supportive of a (Light Rail Transit) LRT connection between the planned Redondo Beach Regional Transportation Center and the proposed Torrance Regional Transit Center.

• There is a need to ensure that transit improvements along the corridor are flanked with streetscape improvements. Bike paths and walking trails are just a few examples of how changes to the streetscape can improve the corridor and quality of life for nearby residents.

In terms of the markets that could be served by the Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor, a regional service received the most support due to its ability to link workers with job centers in Downtown Los Angeles, San Pedro, and LAX. A Metrolink-type service was the most desirable mode, because many perceived it as the fastest way to expand rail transit to the area. A southern extension of the Metro Green Line towards Torrance and then onto Long Beach was also perceived very favorably. The public provided many ideas about station integration, bike stations, and how the alignment could connect to areas such as Downtown Los Angeles, LAX, San Pedro and Long Beach. Of the concerns received, the public indicated that grade crossing safety and noise/vibration issues were of utmost importance. Many participants indicated they wanted above grade street crossings, which would reduce safety concerns and traffic impacts. Additionally, reducing train speeds in neighborhoods would limit noise/vibration impacts and improve safety. Concerns were also raised about the current timeline for funding and construction of the project. The public would like to see the project moved ahead of its current funding availability of 2028. Table 9.6 provides a tally of subjects included in comments received at each public meeting.

Table 9.6. Categorized Comments

Comment Total Down-town

Lawn-dale

Carson Long Beach

Hyde Park

Email

Market

Local 7 2 1 1 3

Express 9 3 1 1 1 3

Regional 11 4 1 1 2 1 2

Routes

Route to Downtown/Union Station 6 4 1 1

Union Station to LAX 4 2 1 1

LAX to Cruise Terminal 1 1

Alameda Alignment 2 1 1

Alignment along Hawthorne Blvd 1 1

Stay on Existing ROW and Rail 1 1

Metro Green Line Extension to Torrance/SB

8 1 2 2 2 1


Page 9-19


Lawn-dale

Carson Long Beach

Hyde Park

Email

Metro Green Line to LAX 1 1

Normandie / Gaffey / Long Beach 11 1 1 3 2 4

Use Entire Corridor 3 1 1 1

Impacts

Grade Crossing Safety 5 1 2 1 1

Below Grade in Little Tokyo 1 1

Environmental Justice 1 1

Environmental Impacts 2 2

Noise/Vibration 3 1 1 1

General Safety 2 2

Frequency 1 1

Air Quality 2 1 1

Stations

Union Station 5 3 1 1

I-110 1 1

Vermont 1 1

Crenshaw 1 1

LAX 3 1 1 1

Redondo Beach Transit Center 2 1 1

Hawthorne 1 1

Torrance Regional Transit Center 3 1 1 1

Cruise Terminal 1 1

Queen Mary 1 1

Connectivity to Existing Routes 4 1 2 1

Bus Connections 1 1

Connection to High-Speed Rail 1 1

Express Platforms 1 1

Mode

SPR/EMU/Metrolink/CRT 10 1 1 1 4 3

DMU 2 1 1

LRT 6 1 1 3 1

Funding

Use Existing Funds 1 1

Timeframe Too Long 5 1 1 3

Other

Alameda Corridor 1 1

Route to Burbank 1 1

Remote Baggage Check-in 1 1

Huntington Park/Whittier Extension 1 1

Community Org & Outreach 3 2 1


Page 9-20


Lawn-dale

Carson Long Beach

Hyde Park

Email

Route Along Inglewood/Hawthorne 1 1

Link Transportation & Housing 1 1

Integrate Local Bike Plans / Bike Stations

2 1 1

Improve Redondo Junction 1 1

Cancel LAX & Crenshaw Projects 1 1

Don't Limit the use of Freight 1 1

Improve Waterfront Red Car 1 1

Express Ridership Forecasts are Low 1 1

Streetscape Improvements on Slauson 1 1

Route Along Old ROW Near PCH 1 1

9.6. ADDITIONAL OUTREACH 9.6.1. Collateral Materials In order to help inform and update stakeholders about the project’s progress, the outreach team developed numerous pieces of collateral materials for distribution through various channels and mediums of communication. All collateral materials were posted to the project website and updated on an as-needed basis. The following collateral materials have been developed to date:

• Fact Sheet #1: Summary of project background, purpose and need for the Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor and project overview.

• Frequently Asked Questions: Project description and basic project facts. 9.6.2. Special Events To reach out to those not active in civic issues or who do not typically attend community meetings, the project team participated in local events such as festivals, fairs and other grassroots outreach opportunities to increase the project’s visibility. This was a key opportunity to distribute project literature and answer questions from the community on the status of the project. Project staff attended the following events:

• Taste of Soul, October 18, 2009 9.6.3. Project Website The project website www.metro.net/harborsubdivision serves as a central clearing house where the public can go to obtain all project-related information. The website was updated frequently and features maps of the alignments being studied and graphics of how the potential routes and stations could appear. All collateral materials can be found at the website


Page 9-21

as well as the Scoping Report, PowerPoint presentations featured at public meetings and copies of the display boards used at public meetings. The website also contains a “Contact Us” section where people can give their input, ask questions, and have themselves added to the Study database to be notified of future meetings and Study progress. 9.6.4. Project Information Line In addition to the typical forms of communication made available to stakeholders, such as e-mail, regular mail and the internet, a project telephone information line was set up for the public. This telephone line is available to English and Spanish speaking callers and checked on a daily basis. Calls and requests are returned promptly upon receiving a message. A log of all incoming calls including the subject of the calls and responses to the callers has been maintained. The project line is 213.922.4004. 9.6.5. Media Relations Metro distributed press releases to regional media outlets. The outreach consultant redistributed the press release to the list of media outlets as well as online media outlets such as blogs to help draw additional coverage. 9.6.6. New Media New media is an ever-changing but widely used medium for communicating vital information quickly and effectively. Utilizing new media can broadens public awareness and participation, and can allow the efficient engagement of its stakeholders on familiar territory. In addition to blogs, tech savvy stakeholders are employing online tools such as Facebook to disseminate information. Recognizing that the use of new media tools is relatively new to many government agencies, Metro explored and pursued appropriate online media to proactively engage a full range of stakeholders. Blogs To ensure that the AA process addressed the growing prevalence and use of new media, outreach was conducted to “blogs” which can best be described as an continual open conversation online. The Southern California region is host to thousands of blogs, and after some research, 34 key websites that discussed transit, traffic, community development, and neighborhood issues were identified. All of the 34 blogs were sent copies of Metro’s press releases and the Public Notices. Many of these blogs posted notices about the project, the AA process, and public meetings, providing summaries of the meeting proceedings and comments heard. In many cases, lively on-line “conversations” were initiated. Although it is difficult to ascertain how many “hits” each blog received about the project, the online conversations did contribute to a heightened awareness about the project and an increased turnout at the public meetings. In addition,


Page 9-22

articles and comments posted on the blogs provided the study team with additional insight into public sentiment about the project. Facebook Facebook is a social network that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them. Facebook is used to contact and communicate with friends, upload an unlimited number of photos, share links and videos, and learn more about the people they meet. Metro established the Metro Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor Facebook page designed to reach out to a relatively untapped audience of young adults. Facebook is a prime example of a communications need meeting a technological opportunity. Facebook has served as an online complement to the project website. Launched in 2008, the Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor Facebook site has registered 114 unique users. Assigned administrators updated the site with meeting notifications, photos and presentations. The Facebook group was monitored daily by the project team, and all comments left on discussion board and group’s wall were captured in a tracking matrix as well as page PDFs. Members of the Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor Facebook page were also able to RSVP to community meetings and converse with each other about the project. Twitter To complement Facebook, the project team also utilized Twitter. Twitter is a free social networking and micro-blogging service that allows users to send text-based updates (otherwise known as tweets) up to 140 characters long. Updates are displayed on the user's profile page and instantly delivered to other users who have signed up to receive them. Metro used Twitter to publicize the meeting dates, times and locations for the final round of public meetings. 9.6.7. Neighborhood Council Meetings Metro has also met with several neighborhood councils located in the Study Area. Because the Wilmington Neighborhood Council had a conflict the night of the Early Scoping Meeting held in Wilmington, a meeting was held in October 2008 where the Project Team provided a recap of the information presented at the Early Scoping Meetings. Metro staff also met with two Neighborhood Councils in Long Beach in early July 2009. At this meeting, Metro gave a briefing on the project, focusing on alternatives being carried forward for full analysis.


Page 9-23

A meeting was also held in the San Pedro in November 2009 with several community groups to provide them with a summary of the materials presented at the third round of meetings in October 2009.

9.7. COMMUNITY ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS The public and stakeholder outreach process described in the previous sections has established what issues are important to Study Area stakeholders. The comments received at the TAC meetings and workshops, public meetings and through the rest of the community outreach process, have been used to determine which alternatives best serve the community. The results of the community outreach process are distilled into the community acceptability ratings shown for each alternative and its operable segments in Table 9.7, with key criteria including service attractiveness, community integration, and support expressed at meetings. In addition, the community acceptability of each modal option is summarized in Table 9.8. Ratings are based on several factors, including attractiveness of service, integration into the community and public input.

Table 9.7. Stage II Analysis Ratings – Community Acceptability

Alternative / Segment Community Acceptability

Description

Local North �

Significant stakeholder and public support for project through Slauson Corridor and for connection to LAUS, but significant community issues in Little Tokyo area.

Little Tokyo/Arts District – Slauson Ave

○

Community opposition to new construction projects in Little Tokyo area. Forced transfer at Little Tokyo because of infeasibility of operations into LAUS via existing tracks removes desired possibility of one-seat ride to LAUS

Blue Line – Crenshaw Blvd �

Significant stakeholder support for new development / transit connections along Slauson Corridor. Low turnout / public support in area at public meetings.

Local South �

Significant ongoing support from stakeholders and public for Green Line extension into South Bay. Concerns expressed by residents directly adjacent to corridor.

Green Line – Redondo Beach RTC

�

Significant support from stakeholders and public for Green Line extension to South Bay Galleria area. Community concerns along alignment in Lawndale, where single-family residential is located on both sides of ROW.

Redondo Beach RTC – Torrance RTC

�

Significant support from stakeholders and public for Green Line extension to planned Torrance Regional Transit Center (RTC). Sensitive residential neighborhoods lining ROW in area between Redondo Beach RTC and Hawthorne Blvd.

Torrance RTC – Normandie Ave

�

Less support from stakeholders and public for extension south of Torrance. Constrained ROW with extensive residential development on both sides for nearly entire segment. Schools & parks in Central Torrance introduce additional safety concerns. Need for grade separations (likely aerial structures) in several areas.


Page 9-24

Alternative / Segment Community Acceptability

Description

Normandie Ave – San Pedro via Normandie / Gaffey

�

Significant support from stakeholders and public for connections to San Pedro. Proposed aerial structure along Normandie Avenue will affect adjacent residential neighborhoods.

Normandie Ave – San Pedro via I-110

�

Significant support from stakeholders and public for connections to San Pedro and Harbor College area. Proposed aerial structure along I-110 / Figueroa Street will affect adjacent residential neighborhoods, but likely less so than Normandie / Gaffey alignment.

Normandie Ave – Blue Line via Sepulveda / Willow

�

Significant support from stakeholders and public for connections to Metro Blue Line Willow station. Street-running operations along Willow Street will likely have impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods.

Normandie Ave – Blue Line via PCH

�

Support from stakeholders and public for connections to Metro Blue Line, but less than Sepulveda/ Willow alignment. Fewer adjacent sensitive receptors than Sepulveda / Willow alignment.

Regional �

Significant stakeholder and public support for regional connections to LAUS, LAX. Concerns about heavier trains, emissions from surrounding communities.

LAUS – Century/Aviation �

Significant stakeholder and public support for regional connection between LAUS and LAX. Concerns about heavier trains, emissions from surrounding communities. Wider spacing between stations less acceptable to surrounding communities which will experience project impacts, but few benefits.

Century/Aviation – Vermont Ave

�

Significant stakeholder and public support for regional connection between South Bay and LAX. Concerns about heavier trains, emissions from surrounding communities. Wider spacing between stations less acceptable to surrounding communities which will experience project impacts but few impacts

Vermont Ave – San Pedro via I-110

�

Significant stakeholder and public support for regional connection between San Pedro / Cruise Terminal and LAX. Emissions concerns in Port area. Fewer sensitive receptors in Port area.

Express: LAUS – LAX �

Significant stakeholder and public support for regional connection between LAUS and LAX. Concerns about heavier trains, emissions from surrounding communities. Non-stop service through South Los Angeles likely not acceptable to surrounding communities which will experience project impacts but little benefit.

Ratings: 1 (Worst) – ○ 2 – � 3 – � 4 – � 5 (Best)– �


Page 9-25

Table 9.8. Stage II Analysis Ratings – Community Acceptability – By Modal Option

Modal Option Community Acceptability

Description

Light Rail Transit (LRT) �

Widespread stakeholder and public knowledge and support for LRT service in all areas of corridor. LRT is part of existing Metro transit “brand” in corridor, and is widely desired for future service.

LRT-Compatible Self-Propelled Railcar (SPR)

�

Freight-Compatible SPR �

Little community knowledge or support for SPR vehicles. Emissions and noise concerns, especially in southern area of corridor.

Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) � Little community knowledge of EMU vehicle type. Electric power preferred over fuel-powered vehicles (SPR, CRT).

Commuter Rail Transit (CRT) �

Widespread stakeholder and public knowledge of Metrolink-type service, but only moderate support for mode. Concerns about emissions, noise and vibration connected with heavy, diesel-powered locomotives.

Ratings: 1 (Worst) – ○ 2 – � 3 – � 4 – � 5 (Best)– �

The Local South Alternative and Slauson Corridor section of the Local North Alternative from the Metro Blue Line to Crenshaw Boulevard have drawn the largest community and stakeholder support. In these areas, communities such as San Pedro are aware of the benefits of existing Metro LRT lines, and would like to see new lines brought into their areas to improve mobility and development opportunities. Several residential areas of the corridor, such as Little Tokyo, Lawndale, Torrance and the Harbor area, may require more intensive mitigation measures. Metrolink service is also fairly well-known in the Study Area, and many community members would like to see its more regionally-focused service implemented along the Harbor Subdivision. But, the larger, heavier, fuel-powered trains (such as CRT) that would likely be used for the Regional or Express Alternatives raise many concerns in the community in terms of noise, vibration and emissions. The more widely-spaced stations of these alternatives will likely also be an issue, since they tend to concentrate project benefits in smaller areas while still introducing impacts into all areas of the alignment. The SPR and EMU modes are not well-known to community members, and would likely be more difficult to introduce than the more-established LRT and CRT modes. Overall, the feedback received through the Community Outreach and Public Participation program is consistent with the performance of the Build Alternatives against the Stage II evaluation criteria. Support for the Local South Alternative, for example, reflected a strong desire to improve transit connectivity from the South Bay to other parts of the Los Angeles area. The relative performance of the Build Alternatives and their operable segments in terms of community acceptability versus other Stage II Evaluation criteria is provided in the next


Page 9-26

chapter. In many cases, the alternatives and segments that rate well in terms of community acceptability also rate well in other evaluation categories, as community acceptability encompasses transportation system performance, cost effectiveness and environmental benefits and impacts.

Metro Harbor Subdivision Community Outreach November 20098 · Stakeholder Identification and Database Development A comprehensive stakeholder identification process was initiated

Documents