On September 11th the third of three public scoping meetings for the I-710 project was held at Cabrillo High School in Long Beach. I’m proud to say there was a good turnout of Long Beachers (plus a few residents of other 710 corridor cities such as Commerce and Huntington Park). (I am a member of the consultant team preparing the environmental impact study that is the current phase of this project.)
The meeting began with about half an hour of presentations about the need and purpose for the project and the process being used to develop the environmental study. I think it’s significant that the public involvement process for 710 is very different from that of a typical environmental study.
The presenters said that in a typical EIR process, the public wouldn’t hear from the consultants again for a couple of years while we collect data, analyze it, and write our report. Instead, the current 710 process is designed with several channels for continuing public involvement. This approach – shown on a complex diagram called the “Community Participation Framework” – is the direct result of experience with an earlier phase of the project that culminated in 2005.
That phase involved gathering input from all the cities along the I-710 corridor by means of local “Tier 1” committees in the affected communities. For Long Beach, our Tier 1 committee consisted of the councilmembers for the four districts directly adjacent to the freeway: Districts 1, 7, 8, and 9. A corridor-wide “Tier 2” committee included representatives from the Tier 1 committees and a number of other groups with a more regional focus.
This structure has been essentially retained and even expanded to serve the EIR process. The Local Advisory Committees have been brought back together (some had dispersed during the process of selecting and retaining the consultant team). A Corridor Advisory Committee including local representatives and others will begin meeting soon. A new element will be three subject working groups, one each on Environment, Transportation, and Community Design/Economics, which will interact with the Local Advisory Committees and the Corridor Advisory Committee.
This all sounds complex, and it is, but it represents an important difference between this project and others that have gone before. It may not be perfect – I’m coming to learn that it may never be possible to have “enough” public participation – but it is a recognition that public information and two-way communication are essential if we want to find a project approach that can be supported up and down the corridor because it will reach everyone’s common goals.
Following the presentations, a total of twelve people made public comments for as much as three minutes each. The polite audience applauded them all, but the biggest applause was reserved for speakers who suggested that the freeway project was being undertaken for the sole purpose of accommodating port-related goods movement (and that in response, we should “buy American”). Several commenters expressed worry that growth in the number of trucks served by the freeway would result in greater emissions even as the truck fleet gets cleaner over time.
Many spoke in support of greater use of trains rather than trucks to transport containers, and a representative from Union Pacific Railroad spoke about proposed projects to make this possible. The Executive Director of FuturePorts (of which I am a member) stressed the importance of jobs generated by our ports and the organization’s support of “green growth.” Other commenters spoke about freeway noise, the undesirability of double-decking any portion of the freeway, and the need to continue true grassroots outreach to ensure that as many corridor residents as possible can stay informed.