High Desert Corridor - Metromedia.metro.net/projects_studies/hdc/images/hdc... · Ustream.tv....

I. High Desert Corridor

Public Meetings Summary Report

Presented by Arellano Associates and The Robert Group to the

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority,

April 2011

Arellano Associates May 2011 of 31

Public Meeting Summary Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority High Desert Corridor

Overview

Metro and Caltrans recently hosted elected officials briefings and a series of community meetings for

the High Desert Corridor (HDC) Project . This project aims to improve mobility in the High Desert by

constructing a 63‐mile freeway/expressway facility that would connect the Antelope Valley in Los

Angeles County with the Victor Valley in San Bernardino County.

The purpose of the briefings and meetings was to provide an update on the project, introduce partner

agencies, review the environmental process, and provide a summary of findings from the scoping

meetings held in September 2010. This summary documents the notification strategy, meeting

attendance, presentation, and comments received.

Metro and Caltrans hosted six briefings/meetings, including two elected official briefings and four

community meetings. The community meetings were spread out geographically to make it convenient

for stakeholders throughout the project study area to attend. Over 300 people participated and

provided valuable imput on the project.

Stakeholders attending the community meetings were generally supportive of the HDC project and

encouraged Metro and Caltrans to move forward with the project schedule and initiate construction.

Stakeholders discussed the need for employment opportunities and safer transportation routes to

facilitate mobility for residents, businesses and visitors. Meeting attendees expressed their concerns

with the right‐of‐way requirements and future construction impacts. Other issues raised included

hydology, traffic, earthquate faults in the area, project schedule and plans for tolling on the peoject.

At the Town of Apple Valley meeting, stakeholders expressed opposition to Variation C, which would

result in significant impacts to privately owned property. Stakeholders suggested Caltrans and Metro

analyze transportation needs to ensure the HDC project meets future demands and includes various

transportation modes including High Speed Train and bike lanes. Specific areas of concerns included the

following:

Available funding sources; total project costs

Clarification of process to identify on‐ and off‐ramps

Clarification of project approval process, LPA identification

Consideration for Southern California Logistics Airport

Earthquake faults in the project area

Impacts to water resources and the 100‐year flood plain

Population projections in the study area are underestimated

Project area is in need of additional transportation alternatives

Less right‐of‐way needed; 300 feet versus 500 feet

Right‐of‐way impacts and real estate aquisition process

Utility impacts



The table below provides meeting location and attendance details for the six meetings/briefings held:

Meeting County Date, Time Location # of Attendees

Elected Officials Briefing

Los Angeles

4/5/11, 3pm Palmdale City Hall, Admin. Bldg, 38300 Sierra Highway, Suite A Palmdale

11

Elected Officials Briefing

San Bernardino

4/7/11, 3pm Victorville City Hall, Conf. Rm. D 14343 Civic Dr. Victorville

9

Community Meeting

Los Angeles 4/11/11, 6pm City of Lancaster, EOC44933 Fern Ave. Lancaster

32

Community Meeting

Los Angeles 4/12/11, 6pm Twin lakes Community Church17213 Lake Los Angeles Ave. Palmdale (Lake Los Angeles)

118

Community Meeting

San Bernardino 4/13/11, 6pm Town of Apple ValleyCouncil Chambers 14955 Dale Evans Parkway Apple Valley

121 (28 UStream viewers)

Community Meeting

San Bernardino 4/14/11, 6pm Adelanto Community Center11555 Cortez Ave. Adelanto

43

Total # of attendees and UStream viewers 334



II. Elected Official Briefings Overview

Elected Officials Briefing Date Location # of Attendees

Los Angeles County

4/5/11 Palmdale City Hall Admin. Bldg.,38300 Sierra Highway, Suite A Palmdale

11

San Bernardino County

4/7/11 Victorville City Hall Conf. Rm. D14343 Civic Dr. Victorville

9

Total 20

At the elected officials briefings, Ann Kerman (Metro Outreach Project Manager) opened the briefings

with a welcome and recognition of elected officials in attendance. She also introduced the following key

staff in attendance: Laurie Hunter (HDC Joint Powers Authority), Robert Machuca (Metro Project

Manager), and Caltrans staff Ron Kosinski (Caltrans Deputy District Director for Environmental Planning)

and Karl Price (Environmental Project Manager).

Laurie Hunter provided a brief overview of the JPA’s role and the background of the project. At the San

Bernardino County briefing, Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt thanked the attendees for their interest in the

project and spoke about the significance of the HDC project to the region.

Robert Machuca (Metro) presented the HDC project overview, current area conditions, and explained

the roles of the HDC project partners.

Karl Price (Caltrans) presented and narrated the project alignment video outlining the potential northern

route of the HDC, highlighting some of the area landmarks. Ron Kosinski (Caltrans) provided a brief

overview of the recent scoping meetings and a summary of comments received. He also reminded the

meeting attendees of the various outlets where project information can be accessed. Mr. Kosinski

closed the presentation with a review of the project’s next steps.

At the conclusion of the presentation, Robert Machuca led the question and answer session.

Elected Briefing Notification

The elected offices were invited to their respective briefings via e‐mail. Metro and Caltrans issued

electronic invitations the week of March 26 and 29, 2011. In addition, reminder phone calls were placed

and the reminder e‐mail was sent on Monday, April 4, 2011.

Los Angeles County Elected Officials Briefing Input

Questions by elected officials focused on the overall project timeline. Specifically, the City of Palmdale

was interested in the anticipated length of construction (four years) and projected opening date (2020).



Laurie Hunter discussed the opportunities and challenges for a public/private partnership. Meeting

participants were also interested in the reduction and refinement of the alternatives. Ron Kosinski

(Caltrans) described the refinement process and that we anticipate further screenings and refinements

of the alternatives to occur as the project partners review the technical reports.

San Bernardino County Elected Officials Briefing Input

Discussion from the elected officials included similar topics as Los Angeles. Also discussed was the

concept of the HDC project serving as a major truck corridor and the interest of a Public‐Private‐

Partnership (P3) supporting the northerly alignment/route.



III. Community Open Houses

Community Open Houses Date, Time Location # of Attendees

City of Lancaster 4/11/11, 6pm City of Lancaster, EOC44933 Fern Ave. Lancaster

32

City of Palmdale 4/12/11, 6pm Twin lakes Community Church17213 Lake Los Angeles Ave. Palmdale (Lake Los Angeles)

118

Town of Apple Valley 4/13/11, 6pm Town of Apple ValleyCouncil Chambers 14955 Dale Evans Parkway Apple Valley

121 (including 28 UStream viewers)

City of Adelanto 4/14/11, 6pm Adelanto Community Center11555 Cortez Ave. Adelanto

43

Total Attendees 314

Presentation

The HDC Community Meetings generally followed the same agenda and format as the Elected Briefings.

The meeting format included an open house, followed by a presentation by Metro and Caltrans, and a

question and answer period. The presentation team included Metro staff (Ann Kerman and Robert

Machuca) and Caltrans staff (Karl Price and Ron Kosinski), and focused on project background, project

partners, scoping results, and a Caltrans project video. The video highlighted area landmarks and the

different project alignments. Mr. Machuca led the question and answer session.

The community meeting held in the Town of Apple Valley was streamed live via the internet using

Ustream.tv. Stakeholders had the opportunity to join the meeting in the convenience of their home or

business using UStream on their personal computer. Concurrently, the project team used Twitter to

communicate with the social media audience and encourage participation.

Notification

Metro produced a multicolor, bilingual (English and Spanish) postcard to notify communities in the

project study area of the HDC community meetings. A total of 2,500 postcards were distributed by

direct mail and placed on 16 city and elected public counters for distribution. In addition, an electronic

version of the meeting notice was e‐mailed to the project database and local organizations. The e‐mail

invited stakeholders to attend the upcoming meetings, encouraged organizations to forward the



invitation to their membership and place a project link on their website. The following bulleted list

provides the number of organizations the electronic notification was mailed to:

6 Cities

55 Schools

8 Chambers of Commerce

7 School Districts

Metro also informed the media of the HDC meetings with a press release. Media coverage was well

received and contributed to the high participation at the community meetings. News reporters from

CBS 2/KCAL 9 attended the first meeting in Lancaster. Metro’s Project Manager, Robert Machuca was

interviewed for the news report which aired on the primetime news at 9:00 and 10:00 pm on Monday,

April 11, 2011. In addition, the project generated about 14 articles in mainstream and local print and

electronic media, including:

ABC7.com Antelope Valley E‐Publication

Beverly Hills Courier California‐Nevada MAGLEV News

High Desert Business Journal High Desert Cycling

High Desert Daily LA Daily News

Mercury News.com My Connection from Cox

Our Weekly San Gabriel Valley Tribune (online)

San Jose Mercury News Total Traffic Los Angeles A significant amount of meeting attendees attributed their awareness of the meetings to the project’s media coverage. Metro created and placed electronic meeting advertisements in two local publications: Antelope Valley

Press, Victorville Daily Press, and Facebook. These publications were chosen based on their circulation

boundaries, cultural representation and popularity. Each of the ads listed the dates, times and locations

of the four Community Meetings.

As part of the outreach notification strategy, Metro established Facebook and Twitter accounts.

Meeting invitations, updates and reminders were posted prior and during the meetings for followers to

view. The Facebook page was established in early April and in less than 4 weeks has grown to 65 fans.

The following pages document each of the community meetings held from Monday April 11 thru

Thursday, April 14, 2011.



IV. Meeting #1, Los Angeles County

Open Houses Date Location # of Attendees # of Comment Cards

City of Lancaster 4/11/11 City of LancasterEmergency Operations Center 44933 Fern Avenue Lancaster

32 1

Comments/Questions

The project team took questions from the floor. The following notes were taken to document public

input:

Would this be a design/build project?

How do public/private partnerships work? What kind of funding approaches are under consideration?

When would construction begin on the project? When would the project open?

What mechanisms will be in place to ensure that materials made in the United States are utilized for the construction of the project?

Will foreign investors be encouraged to help pay for the project? Will local investors be encouraged to purchase bonds?

Will Caltrans and Metro use existing technical reports from other agencies? This should save the project money because so much of the information is already available.

What happens to the small businesses impacted during construction? Will Caltrans pay for their loss of business?

If additional property is needed for the project, what is the purchase and acquisition process?

One comment card was submitted and is included in Appendix A.



V. Meeting #2, Los Angeles County


City of Palmdale 4/12/11 Twin Lakes Community Church17213 Lake Los Angeles Avenue Palmdale (Lake Los Angeles)

118 7

Comments/Questions The project team took questions from the floor. The following notes were taken to document public input:

Concerned that a new roadway will increase flooding.

Concerned that current market value of homes has owners “upside down” on their mortgages.

Please be mindful of earthquake faults and 100‐year flood plains

Concerned that trucks will avoid the tollroad and use local roads.

Do any of the project team members live in the project area?

During this phase of the project, what is funded? How will future phases of this project be funded?

Are future projects included in the environmental review?

How many feet on each side of the alignment are needed for the freeway? Does it include space for the High Speed Rail alignment?

How much will the project cost?

How will the project be constructed? Will construction start on each end and meet in the middle?

If additional property is needed for the project, what is the purchase process?

If there is no project funding for construction, why is it being studied?

Please build close to SR 138 or south of Palmdale Boulevard.

There was little support from the group for a tollroad.

What if I don’t want to sell my property?

What is Measure R money? How is it collected?

When will the decision regarding the tollroad be made? Who will make the decision?

When would construction begin on the project? When would the project open?

Will the roadway be as wide as the project graphic suggests?

Will this be a toll road? How will tolls be accessed? A total of seven comment cards were submitted and are included in Appendix A.



VI. Meeting #3, San Bernardino County

Open Houses Date Location # of Attendees

# of Comment Cards

UStream followes

Town of Apple Valley

4/13/11 Town of Apple Valley Council Chambers 14955 Dale Evans Parkway Apple Valley

93 1 28


How many alternatives are you studying?

Can you go forward without private funding?

How does the financial status of the City of Victorville affect the project?

How does the Apple Valley enter the project, are these separate projects?

Does the timeline refer to the all the projects or just the Apple Valley project?

People are buying land to put large solar farms – they don’t work well with a freeway going right through them. People who are interested in placing the solar farms should be invited to these meetings.

Will these comments be transcribed?

What type of goods will you be moving through this corridor?

You are talking 30‐50 years from now…this project will do nothing for Bear Valley, Yukaloma, and Ranchero in Victorville; SANBAG money should not be going to this project. How much was taken for the earmark?

Highly in favor of east/west corridor, I have the following concerns: o The population growth is underestimated; o The corridor is greatly needed to reduce congestion in other corridors and

increase safety. o Also concerned that residential owners should be paid fair market value and

recoup the investments they’ve made to their property

In favor of the HDC project as long as it reduces traffic on the I‐18. Have you considered including bike paths/lanes?

Will this project include traffic improvements to the 18, is there an option to do traffic mitigation on Highway 18 in Apple Valley?

If you go with option C , have there been any thoughts of mitigating the reaction ‐ break the cohesiveness through the city – how do you mitigate that type of an impact?

What is the size of the easement on the east side of the 18 freeway?

Do we have access to the fly over video of the corridor?



Support the project; consider the Logistics airport in the study, which is a true international airport – major hub!

Will you need 300 feet or 150 feet on each side?

What private companies contributed to run the toll booths?

Would not like to see other infrastructure projects reduced to fund the HDC

Don’t go down the road of antiquated technology. Diversified grade is best for the future. People need to get to work “down the hill” not Lancaster

Alignment has changed from the last meeting. Use Central Avenue and tie in with the airport and avoid schools. The people at Joshua Tree will have the HDC about 75 feet closer to their homes.

Plenty of people drive to Lancaster. Support the project – but not in favor of the Toll Road.

Concerned with noise pollution, on Joshua Road going “up the hill” the truck noise is very loud and needs to be considered.

HDC Intermodal – who is going to own the rail/switchgear or corporation.

I’m a pilot and work for LAX, why don’t we have Metrolink service that goes down to Cucamonga. Why isn’t that a priority?

You don’t mention utilities and widths of easements? I would like to know who you are working with at DWP or Edison. Are utilities going to be underground or above?

Is there a way to tie into the rail that goes to Phelan, so we can go to the Antelope Valley or San Diego, because the only way to get a Metrolink train is to go “down the hill”.

Why was the Apple Valley considered and proposed?

Live on the eastern end of the HDC and it looks like it will be 500 feet from my front door. I moved from San Juan Capistrano – I would rather see the HDC come close to me rather than bifurcating the Town of Apple Valley.

The process is deceptive. The information is not readily available.

In favor of east /west corridor. I’m concerned that population growth is underestimated. Plenty of people do go to Lancaster/Palmdale in response to other comment. I’m opposed to the toll road option. Are they considering bike lanes and/or bike paths? What is the size of the easement? How many feet?

I support of the project.

What companies would run the toll booths?

Technology is antiquated; the problems we face today may not be the same in the future. You need to diversify our infrastructure. There is no need to travel from Apple Valley to Palmdale or Lancaster; the real need is to travel to Los Angeles.

Laurence Valley is the only true high traffic area and people can use Central Ave to get to the airport. The 300 foot right of way will impact property owners’ direct frontage. I don’t like the fact that this project will increase noise pollution.

I’m a pilot at LAX; I propose that the Metro expand and connect to LA.

I have a question about the water quality control; I prefer the alternative on Highway 18.

One comment card was submitted and is included in Appendix A.



VII. Meeting #4, San Bernardino County


City of Adelanto 4/14/11 City of AdelantoAdelanto Community Center 11555 Cortez Ave Adelanto

43 3


Who approves the final document?

When will final alignment be chosen?

When will on/off ramps be defined?

What is the total project cost?

How do you acquire ROW?

Will people of El Mirage have a say of where on/off ramps will be placed?

To what level have San Bernardino county reps been involved in the study thus far?

Will there be an off ramp on 395 and will 395 stay in current location?

Drive 138 several times a week; assumed construction started years ago. Appears to be able to accommodate four lanes on each side. If Option B is selected, and it is decided to go the southern route, will that incorporate construction already done?

Do you know how much property will be taken?

On southern route, impacts southern end new housing?

What is the regional connection? How will the corridor benefit the local community? How will this help/impact the logistics airport?

Belmont Rd, north of Apple Valley Airport, north of Adelanto – was proposed over 10 years ago.

If all funding is secured, when would construction start and how long would it take?

Alignment previously proposed ‐ very close – will this freeway create jobs? Four projects from Victorville that will benefit from HDC corridor. Must consider most southerly alignment to benefit all communities. Should only consider project if Hesperia and those areas also benefit. Turn 395 to I‐15 to a minimum of four lane highway up to Adelanto – otherwise there is no benefit to Adelanto community.

Previously heard this would be done in phases, tied into 395 – but this would only make sense if it would be a four lane highway.



Coming out of SR‐14, property is off Palmdale Rd – does the corridor follow Palmdale Rd?

Does it cross Park View Dairy (El Mirage)?

Will it be at‐grade?

At final EIS/R, will alignment be selected?

Staging and building – busy at 15 at northern alignment – will it be done in phases? How is this prioritized?

Will community be paying through a bond? Then will have to pay again if Toll Roads option is selected.

How much money has been spent on this project so far?

Property appraisals – what is the protocol for acquiring property? A total of three comment cards were submitted and are included in Appendix A.



APPENDIX A: COMMENT CARDS



COMMUNITY MEETING CITY OF LANCASTER

04/11/11



COMMUNITY MEETING LAKE OF LOS ANGELES

04/12/11



The following pages represent photos/images submitted by Ray & Gina Harrell regarding the

Rockpile Folgate Native American drawings noted in their comment card above.

Arellano Associates May 2011 Page 26 of 31


COMMUNITY MEETING TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY

04/13/11



COMMUNITY MEETING CITY OF ADELANTO

04/14/11

High Desert Corridor - Metromedia.metro.net/projects_studies/hdc/images/hdc... · Ustream.tv....

Documents

Transcript of High Desert Corridor - Metromedia.metro.net/projects_studies/hdc/images/hdc... · Ustream.tv....