METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
Commissioner Wesley S. Davis Craig Fletcher -City of Vero Beach Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher Pilar Turner -City of Vero Beach, Alternate CommissionerTim Zorc Dick Haverland-Town of Indian River Shores Commissioner Peter D. 0 1 Bryan Jerry Weick-Town of IRS, Alternate Commissioner Bob Solari Bob McPartlan -City of Sebastian Andrea Coy- City of Sebastian Richard Gillmor-City of Sebastian, Alternate Jim Hill- City of Sebastian/ Alternate Jay Kramer -City of Vero Beach Non-voting Ex-Officio Member Karen Disney-Brombach- IRC School Board Harold Ofstie-Town of Orchid Claudia Jimenez -/RC School Board, Alternate FOOT District 4 Representative
Susan Adams - MPO Chairman
AGENDA
THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) WILL MEET AT 10:00 AM ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2014 IN CONFERENCE ROOM Bl-501, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING B, 1800 27TH STREET, VERO BEACH.
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
.3. Approval of Minutes June 11, 2014 Action Required
4. Status Report of MPO Advisory Committees No Action Required
5. Presentation of State Changes to Medicaid Non-Emergency Transportation No Action Required
6. Discussion of All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Initiative No Action Required
7. Review of MPO Certification Statement No Action Required
1 8. Other Business
9. Comments from the Public
10. Adjournment
Next Meeting MPO: September 10, 2014; 10:00 AM; Conference Room Bl-501.
To view the MPO Agenda packet on-line please go to the following link:
htt p://wwv.J.ircgov.::.om/Boards/MP0/2014/c:~gendas/M!'0070914/-'.pdf
If you have any questions concerning the items on this agenda, please contact MPO staff at (772) 226-1455. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting w ill need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which includes the testimony and evidence on which the appeal is based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the County's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 772 226-1223 at least 48 hours In advance of the meeting.
For complaints, questions or concerns about civil rights or nondiscrimination; or for special requests under the American with Disabilities Act, please contact: Phil Matson, Title VI Coordinator at (772) 226-1455 or [email protected].
Except for those matters specifically exempted under State Statute and Local Ordinance, the Committee shall provide an opportunity for public comment prior to the undertaking by the Committee of any action on the agenda. Public comment shall also be heard on any proposition which the Committee is to take action which was either not on the agenda or distributed to the public prior to the commencement of the meeting. Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability orfamily status. Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact Phil Matson at (772) 226-1455 or [email protected] at least seven days prior to the meeting.
2 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
A meeting of the MPO was held at 10:00 AM on Wednesday, June 11, 2014, in the County Administration Building "B", Room Bl-501, 1800 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
Note: Audio and video recordings of the meeting can be found at http://www.ircqov.com/Boards/MP0/2014.htm
MPO members present were: Chairman Susan Adams, Mayor, City of Fellsmere; Vice Chairman Bob McPartlan, Mayor, City of Sebastian; IRC Commissioners: Wesley Davis, District 1; Joseph Flescher, District 2; Tim Zorc, District 3; Peter O'Bryan, District 4; Bob Solari, District 5; Andrea Coy, Council Member, City of Sebastian; Jay Kramer, Vice-Mayor, City of Vero Beach; Jerry Weick, Council Member, Town of Indian River Shores (alternate).
Absent were: Craig Fletcher, Council Member, City of Vero Beach; Karen Disney Brombach, IRC School Board; Dick Haverland, Council Member, Town of Indian River Shores.
IRC staff present were: Stan Boling, IRC Community Development Director; Phil Matson, IRC MPO Director; Brian Freeman, MPO Senior Planner; Andy Sobczak, MPO Senior Planner; and Sharon Schalm, MPO Staff Assistant/Recording Secretary.
Also present were: Robyn Chiarelli, FOOT Advisor; Dan Lamson, Honey Minuse, Indian River Neighborhood Association; George Blythe, Interested Citizen.
Call to Order
Chairman Adams called the meeting to order at 10:00 AM at which time it was determined a quorum was present.
Approval of Minutes of the MPO Meeting of May 14, 2014
Chairman Adams asked if there were any additions or corrections to the MPO minutes of May 14, 2014. There were none.
ON MOTION BY Commissioner Davis, SECONDED BY Commissioner Flescher, the members voted unanimously (8- 0} to approve the minutes of the Metropolitan Planning Organization of May 14, 2014, as presented.
Status Report of Other MPO Advisory Committees No Action Required
Unapproved 6/11/14 F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\MEETING RECORDS\MINUTES\MPO Minutes\2014\MPO 6-11- 14 Unapproved.doc Mr. Matson reviewed his memorandum dated June 4, 2014 included in the agenda packet and on file in the M PO Office.
Review of Progress Report and Reimbursement Invoice #3 for the 2013/14 Transportation Disadvantaged {TO) Planning Grant -Action Required
Mr. Matson referred to his memorandum dated June 2, 2014, a copy of which is included in the agenda packet and on file in the MPO Office.
ON MOTION BY Commissioner Solari, SECONDED BY Council Member Weick, the members voted unanimously (8-0) to approve the Progress Report and Reimbursement Invoice #3 for the 2013/14 Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Planning Grant as presented.
Approval of Resolution Authorizing the Execution of the FY 2014/2015 Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund Planning Grant Agreement (Action Required)
Mr. Matson, MPO Staff Director, summarized his memorandum dated June 2, 2014, included in the agenda packet and on file in the MPO Office. He explained that the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged {CTD) had allocated $21,785 for transportation disadvantaged planning-related services, and to receive the funds the MPO must approve a resolution authorizing the execution of the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund Planning Grant Agreement.
ON MOTION BY Commissioner Solari, SECONDED BY Commissioner Flescher, the members voted unanimously (8-0) to approve the Resolution authorizing the execution of the Fiscal Year 2014/15 Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund Planning Grant agreement.
Commissioner Zorc arrived at 10:05 AM.
Consideration of the Fiscal Year 2014/15 - 2018/19 Transportation Improvement Program {TIP) Action Required
Mr. Matson provided a brief description of the Fiscal Year 2014/15 - 2018/19 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), a copy of which is on file in the MPO office. He indicated that the TIP listed all the state and federally funded transportation improvement projects programmed for the County over a five-year period. He related that all of the projects included in the TIP were consistent with local and regional comprehensive plans applicable to the MPO.
Unapproved 2 6/11/14 F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\MEETING RECORDS\MINUTES\MPO Minutes\2014\MPO 6-11- 14 Unapproved.doc Mr. Matson gave a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the MPO office. He noted that the TIP is a staged, multi-year, intermodal program of transportation improvements that is required by federal regulations and is done every year.
Mr. Matson explained the progression of the TIP project phases. He explained that the phases include planning, project development and environmental, design, right of way acquisition, construction, and maintenance.
Vice-Mayor Kramer arrived at 10:23 AM.
Commissioner Zorc asked about the non-compatible land use around the Oslo Road Interchange. Discussion ensued. Mr. Boling noted that a change of circumstance is one criteria for submitting a Comprehensive Plan change a possible expansion of the urban service boundary. Mr. Matson noted that the Oslo Road Interchange may take a long time for completion.
Commissioner Davis asked for clarification of 82nd Ave. He made a suggestion concerning a future connection of 69th Ave to CR 510. Commissioner Flescher inquired about the intersection of 66th and 510 and also 43rd Avenue and SR 60. Discussion ensued concerning the 43rd Avenue and SR 60 intersection. Chairman Adams asked about the resurfacing job on CR 512 and if the shoulders of the road could be extended. Commissioner Davis suggested using the millings from the project to improve the streets in Vera Lake Estates. Discussion ensued about the millings. Commissioner O'Bryan noted that the county may have a legal claim to the millings.
Mr. Matson noted that he will get an update from Public Works for the next meeting.
ON MOTION BY Council Member Weick, SECONDED BY Commissioner Davis, the members voted unanimously (10·0) to approve the Fiscal Year 2014/15 - 2018/19 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as presented.
Review of General Planning Consultant (GPC) Proposed Scope of Services Action Required
Mr. Matson explained the MPO had been using General Planning Consultants (GPC) since 2004. The GPC enabled the MPO to go through the consultant competitive negotiations process required by the federal government just once. He further explained that after the procurement of consultants staff could issue work orders to be approved by the MPO, as long as they were within the scope of services.
Mr. Matson pointed out MPO was under no obligation to use the GPC services for tasks they thought the consultants were not capable of doing. In addition, they had the capability of changing the GPC.
Mr. Matson explained the GPC were divided into a Highway Systems GPC and an
Unapproved 3 6/11/14 F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\MEETING RECORDS\MINUTES\MPO Minutes\2014\MPO 6-11- 14 Unapproved.doc lntermodal Inspection and Special Studies GPC. He briefly discussed the Scope of Services and asked for any additions or suggestions. Commissioner Zorc suggested adding Aviation Studies. Mr. Matson noted that it would be added.
ON MOTION BY Commissioner Davis, SECONDED BY Commissioner Flescher, the members voted unanimously (10-0) to approve the General Planning Consultant (GPC) Proposed Scope of Services as presented.
Discussion of All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Initiative No Action Required
Mr. Matson gave background information concerning All Aboard Florida. He noted that at the May 14, 2014 MPO meeting, Ms. Kim Delaney, of Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, presented a report on activities taken by the TCRPC regarding the All Aboard Florida proposal.
Mr. Matson noted that, because of the potential for environmental, social, and transportation impacts that this proposal presents, the MPO asked staff to take a number of actions. Mr. Matson gave a summary follow-up report, noting the actions that staff had taken to complete those actions.
Commissioner Solari noted that in a letter to the Governor, All Aboard Florida stated that they will respond to all inquiries and desired to reach out to the community. Commissioner Solari was hopeful that they will be open, honest and transparent. Commissioner Solari noted that the public comment period should be as easy as possible for the public and would like clarity on the process. Mr. Matson requested that FOOT send the MPO the process for comments.
Ms. Coy noted that the City of Sebastian had received no response concerning surveyors or cooperating agencies request.
Commissioner Solari, Council Member Coy, and Vice-Mayor Kramer agreed to coordinate together and would exchange email responses and all other correspondences from All Aboard Florida.
Other Business
Mr. Matson distributed flyers to the MPO Board announcing that FOOT was holding a meeting on Wednesday, June 18, 2014, at 5:30 PM in Vera Beach City Hall, concerning US 1/State Road 5 Lateral Ditch Restoration.
Comments from the Public
Mr. Blythe inquired about the large size of the 1-95 overpass support columns at 1-95 and 4th Avenue.
Unapproved 4 6/11/14 F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\MEETING RECORDS\MINUTES\MPO Minutes\2014\MPO 6-11- 14 Unapproved.doc Ms. Minuse noted that All Aboard Florida does not know how to address the cooperating agencies request and is not responding to that request.
Mayor McPartlan thanked Mr. Freeman and Mr. Matson for adding food pantry locations to the bus route schedules/maps at his request, and doing it so quickly after he requested it.
Council Member Coy noted that the Bahia grass in the median on CR 512 from Fleming St. to Barber St. is dead. Mr. Matson noted that it may be warrantied and stated that he will check with FDOT.
Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 PM.
Unapproved 5 6/11/14 F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\MEETING RECORDS\MINUTES\MPO Minutes\2014\MPO 6-11- 14 Unapproved.doc INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members ofthe Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) ~ THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Community Development Director
FROM: Phillip J. Matson, Alc(1./1 MPO Staff Director v£.,- 1
DATE: July 1, 2014
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT OF MPO ADVISORY COMMITTEES
It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration at the MPO meeting of July 9, 2014.
TAC and CAC Meetings
There have been no meetings of the TAC or CAC since the June 11, 2014 MPO meeting.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
The MPO and its advisory committees will next meet as follows:
TAC Meeting: August 22, 2014 -10:00 am BAC Meeting: July 22, 2014-10:00 am CAC Meeting: September 2, 2014- 2:00 pm MPO Meeting: September 10, 2014- 10:00 am
Please be advised that there is no MPO Meeting scheduled for August. The MPO's normal meeting date is the second Wednesday ofthe month (Wednesday, August 13, 2014).
Staff will closely monitor the developing situation regarding All Aboard Florida and will schedule a meeting on this or another date if requested. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members ofthe Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) .~ THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Community Development Director
FROM: Phillip J. Matson, AICJA. _ MPO Staff Directort..._yt v'
DATE: July 2, 2014
SUBJECT: Presentation of State Changes to Medicaid Non-Emergency Transportation
It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Indian River County MPO at the meeting of July 9, 2014.
DESCRIPTION, CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS
Recently, the Indian River County MPO obtained some information from its Community Transportation Coordinator {CTC), the Senior Resource Association, regarding State changes to Medicaid Non-Emergency Transportation.
A summary of that information will be presented at the MPO Meeting on July 9, 2014.
RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational item. No action is required.
F:\Community DeYelopment\Users\1fPO\Meetings\MP0\2014\7-9-14\Presentation on State Changes to Medicare Non-Emergency Transportation. doc INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members ofthe Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) ~ THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Community Development Director
FROM: Phillip J. Matson, AIC_IY),/} MPO Staff Director {-'.... l v '
DATE: July 2, 2014
SUBJECT: Discussion of All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Initiative
It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Indian River County MPO at the meeting of July 9, 2014.
DESCRIPTION, CONDITIONS & ANALYSIS
All Aboard Florida, a subsidiary of Florida East Coast Industries (FECI), is planning to introduce high-speed passenger rail service between Miami and Orlando. Much of the planned new service, including the service that will traverse Indian River County, will utilize the existing FEC rail corridor that parallels US L Because of the potential for environmental, social, and transportation impacts that this proposal presents, the MPO has asked staff to take a number of actions. One of those actions was to add the All Aboard Florida proposal to future MPO Agendas as a discussion item.
At this time, the MPO has expressed a particular interest in a number of issues pertaining to the proposal. Those issues include Diagnostic Walk-Through Inspections ofthe Rail Corridor; the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); and the designation of Quiet Zones. Each of those topics is presented in brief below.
Diagnostic Walk-Throughs
All Aboard Florida will be conducting diagnostic Walk-Throughs in Indian River County on July 15th and July 16th. A Schedule of the locations is attached to this staff report (Attachment 1). The purpose of the Walk-Through is to review conditions at individual rail crossings and determine what safety measures need to be implemented in order for the train to operate at its intended speed.
All Aboard Florida has indicated that the Walk-Throughs are not public events but are technical reviews to determine existing conditions and required future safety improvements. AAF has
F:",Community De . elopment\UserhMPO\~leetingiMP0\2014\7·9-14\Statu• Report of All Aboar¥lorida Passenger Roil lnitiative,doc indicated that, since the review will take place at least partially on AAF right-of-way, attendance will be by invitation only, and attendees will be required to comply with corridor safety requirements. AAF has also indicated that it intends to invite only technical professionals from local jurisdictions, with the intent being that these professionals can report back to their respective boards.
Environmental Impact Statement
As of yet, staff has received no confirmed date for the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS}. The latest information from the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) indicates that the EIS could be released in Mid-July or August. With respect to the EIS process, MPO members have raised a number of questions regarding the format of the required public meetings and how public concerns would be addressed during the process. Staff sent those concerns to the FRA and received an email response (Attachment 2). In that response, Mr. John Winkle of the Federal Rail Administration indicated that there was not yet any specific information on the format of the public meetings. He only indicated that there will be opportunities for public involvement and that public feedback would be incorporated into all decision making.
At the June 11 meeting, staff was asked to identify public involvement efforts conducted in conjunction with other RRIF loan funded projects. A complete list of all RRIF loan funded projects since 2009 appears in Attachment 3. The majority of projects on this list were freight projects, and most of the funds requested were for acquisition of replacement trains or for track maintenance. Since those projects do not typically add new capacity or add to the frequency of train service, those projects were subject to a less rigorous environmental review (also known as a Categorical Exclusion).
One project on the list, the Denver Union Station Project, was a major passenger rail station construction project. As such, that project received a substantial amount of public feedback. The Public Involvement Chapter of the EIS for the Union Station Project is attached to this staff ~eport (Attachment 4}. As depicted on page 8-3 of the Attachment, 5 town meetings were conducted during the project. The meeting format afforded the public the opportunity to ask questions and make comments to the project managers and the audience as well as provide written comments. The Table on page 8-6 summarizes comments received by categorizing and tabulating those comments (eg Design, Noise/Vibration, Drainage, etc). More detailed concerns and solutions to those concerns appear in the chapter beginning on Page 8-17.
The MPO also identified a project similar to AAF which involved high-speed passenger trains serving metropolitan areas which potentially impact smaller jurisdictions in between those areas. That project is the proposed New Haven-Hartford-Springfield High Speed Rail Line. Though not receiving a RRIF loan, the project is receiving substantial federal funding and therefore was subject to a thorough environmental review. As shown in Attachment 5, official questions from "stakeholders" (typically cities) were responded to individually in the EIS. Many of the questions were similar to our own, expressing concerns about the speed of the trains, noise, and safety at crossings. Responses are made in the EIS point-for-point by the applicant. Generally, however,
F: .Communlt~· Dcvclopmcnt\User. MPO\Mectings\MP0\201417-9-14-Status Report of All .\boa"':;!!lorida Passenger Rail Initiative.doc those responses indicate that the data presented in the EJS was sufficient and there would be few significant changes to the proposed rail plan.
Quiet Zones Rail Safety
At the June 11 MPO meeting, there were questions raised about safety measures at crossings and FOOTs role in approving safety measures. One related topic throughout the development of the project has been the establishment of Quiet Zones, or rail crossings with sufficient Supplemental Safety Measures {SSMs) in place to warrant trains to pass without sounding horns. At the July 9 MPO meeting, Mr. Frank Watanabe, Community Development Director of the City of Sebastian, and Hector Hartmann, FOOT Rail Coordinator, will provide an update on Quiet Zones and Rail Crossing Safety Measures.
Other Issues
Staff is monitoring other AAF-related issues and will provide updates at the July 9 meeting, as appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational item only. No action is required.
ATTACHMENT
1. All Aboard Florida Diagnostic Walk-Through Schedule, Indian River County 2. May 23, 2014 E-Mail from John Winkle, Federal Rail Administration 3. Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program List of Funded Projects 4. Denver Union Station EIS Public Involvement Report 5. Springfield-Hartford-New Haven High Speed Rail Project Selected Public Comments and FRA Responses
f :\Community Development\Usen; MPO\I.leetingsiMP0\201417-9-14\Status Report of All A boar ~orid• P ...enger Roil Inithti·.e.doc Roadway Name Vehicle Lanes _
1 .., ,. ·-... 11 ·Tr·- ---11 ~- - --.__. ••·.;am-:n::s;• _,iJ2oth ~~S\V II . ~ 7Jr-{llij=1....,_.;;..,_...,__ .,.,....,.. ,.• ..,.,.,,.,... ~~,....f"®NrtJ..,.,·"=··'""" ~=,,'lra..,..a!""':,,...,..,_~-
0~ 1 0 R.d I.SR 606). qlll L.tl SW 5 ~-- - - • • • t .. • • }sr.si ' '---:..' 11 :l ' . r-:.cc ·h.h S1 Jndil.l.n R.wer Blvd. .S LN DIAN Rl VER COUNTY 1Cfi91f][ · olondah~ltd ' =:JL 2 JIINDlANRJVERCOl®j)' --· -- · ·' , -- 12th St 'i INDTAN RlVER COLl}..'TY ....,16tfi~St.~- 171h St _]L : .j :::J[~A:N RlV~ :~btltoiTX 1%1Pl 3 FDOT -~-- -· ---:roo
Vero Be ~h .2:27.48 2Ist St. SR 60 East 3 'itro&ath:::JL 2tr.·;:1 It -r. =-- .2.3rds. ----,.....,,1'1--- ... s--.ll. cr ..,- Veta Beach 227 14 l4th A'v~ 2 I....., md -..,...iao-Ri~_.~-er...,l' l_... v_e-'0,-Btach- . -u· 221.06 II ·16th s. Vero Bt:.Hcll Giffiirtf .,2 2
:123 .18 ~:! lndtan River Wmtt:r Be.~h ~21 80 6(1tb St- North Wtnter Stach 2 INDIAN Pl'\iER COUNTY 7-'15'20H 17 05 Personal Protective Equipment is required. Please contact Michael Lefevre, Operations Planner, at 305 781 6569, for coordination in the field. Due to the safety-sensitive nature of the work, participation is limited to invitees only.
~ :iii i ~ --a Vehicle Lanes
85th St, Waba
From: john.win kle@dotgov Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:24 AM To: [email protected]; Phil Matson Cc: Chris Mora; Stan Boling Subject: RE: Questions about EIS and Public Involvement
Mr. Matson -
Please see my responses below.
Thank you, John Winkle Transportation Industry Analyst
From: Drake, Thomas (FRA) Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 4:01 PM To: Phil Matson Cc: Chris Mora; Stan Boling; Winkle, John {FRA) Subject: RE: Questions about EIS and Public Involvement
Mr. Matson:
I am not knowing about EIS. Mr. John Winkle is the FRA person who deals with such things. I have copied him on this e-mail. He will be very helpful to you.
Tom Drake
From: Phil Matson [[email protected]] Sent: 22 May 2014 15:44 To: Drake, Thomas (FRA) Cc: Chris Mora; Stan Boling Subject: Questions about EIS and Public Involvement
Dear Mr. Drake,
Your name was mentioned as a useful source regarding the Environmental Impact Study (EIS} process, particularly with respect to the All Aboard Florida (AAF) draft EIS. The Indian River County MPO has asked me to research the specific process for receipt, distribution, solicitation, and disposition of comments and concerns with respect to the All Aboard Florida High Speed Rail proposal. In so doing, we have developed a list of the following questions. Your assistance in this matter would be most appreciated. If you are unable to answer any of the questions, we would appreciate any direction regarding where the answers could be found.
1. To whom will the Draft EIS (DEIS) be distributed locally? Locations will be noted on our website and in the Federal Register when the DE IS is published. It will also be available electronically on our website, 2. In what form will the DEIS be distributed (paper copies, PDF files, etc)? Both. If Indian River County, the Indian River County MPO, and the Cities of Vero Beach and Sebastian are not on the list, please add them (contact information attached). 1 XiTACHMENT 2· I don't see any contact information. If you send that along with a request for the desired format, FRA will send copies. 3. When (relative to the release of the DE IS) will the public EIS workshops be conducted? a. What is the format of these workshops? b. Will the public be afforded the opportunity to speak and be entered into a public record or will any and all public comments need to be entered onto a comment card? c. Will there be an opportunity for local governments and citizens to transmit comments directly by email? If so, to whom and who should be copied? Public workshop format and methods for submitting comments will be detailed when the DEIS is published. 4. How specifically is public comment considered and addressed by FRA? Are some or all comments individually responded to by the applicant or by FRA? Are the comments simply added to the final document? As is standard for NEPA documents, comments will be addressed in the Final EIS. 5. Will large volumes of public concerns during the EIS process about a single topic (ie, noise at a specific location; bridge closures; etc) trigger a supplemental study or mitigation measure? A large volume of comments on a topic will not necessarily trigger a re-evaluation. If FRA believes that comments on a particular topic, whether one comment or 100, requires a re-evaluation, that will be in the FEIS. 6. If there are discrepancies between the data and analysis contained in the DE IS and the data and analysis developed by local governments, how and by whom will the discrepancies be resolved? Through the comment/FEIS process. 7. What is the timeline, in rough terms, of major milestones of the project? Draft EIS issuance; public comment period; public workshops; final EIS; final determination; any other steps not included in this process, meetings with local governments, etc. I can't give you dates because I don't know them. The first step is publishing the DE IS and that date has not yet been determined. 8. What is the process and timeframe for commenting on the final EIS? Can comments on the Final EIS trigger supplemental studies or mitigation measures or is it simply an "up or down" determination at that point? As is standard for NEPA studies, comments on the FEIS will be addressed in the Record of Decision.
Thank you for your consideration.
Phillip J. Matson, AICP MPO Staff Director 180127th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960
(772)226-1455
2 ATTACHMENT 3
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program provides direct federal loans and loan guarantees to finance the development of railroad infrastructure. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will give priority to projects that provide public benefits, including benefits to public safety, the environment and economic development. In providing financial assistance through RRIF. FRA must fulfill its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act and related laws, regulations, and orders. Please see the FAA Grants and Loans Web page for more information at www.fra.dot.gov.
Eligible Applicants Loan agreements executed since 2009 • Railroads • State and local governments FY 0rgaNZation Amount • Government-sponsored authorities and corporations • Joint ventures that include at least one railroad '12 Alameda Corndor Transportation Authonty $83,710,000 • Limited option freight shippers who Intend to construct a new rail connection '12 Kansas City Southern Railway Company ~ 54,648,000 Eligible Projects • Acquire, improve or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, including '11 Northwestern Pacific Raihoad Company $3.180,000 and North roast Railroad Authonty track, track components, bridges, yards, buildings and shops • Refinance outstanding debt incurred for the purposes listed above '11 Amtrak $ 562,900.000 • Develop or establish new intermodal or railroad facilities '11 C&J Radroad $56,204
Loan Terms '10 Denve1 Umon !)tatJor1P101ect Authontv $ 155,000,000 • Direct loans for up to 100% of the project cost '10 Great Lakes Central Railroad • Repayment periods up to 35 years $17.000,000 • Interest rates equal to U.S. Treasury rate for comparable-term securities '09 Georgia &Florida Railways $8,100,000 • A Credit Risk Premium is assessed as a percentage of the total loan amount and varies by the overall risk of each unique transaction. '09 Penn1ar1 Bas1n Railways, Inc $64,400.~ • Credit Risk Premium can be reduced with collateral, though collateral is not required '09 lc.owa Interstate Railroad $ 31,000,000 • Borrower pays an investigative fee for a financial advisor and outside counsel, if necessary (shall not exceed one half of one percent of the loan amount) TOTAl. $ 979,994,204
- Program Highlights States with RRIF Loan Activity
• Loan actMty 1n 26 states and all US reg1ons • 33 loans executed for ovff $1 7 b1lhon ;-...... ""-'.· ...,., ___ ..., ,·. -- • 72% of loans haVF'I been ' executed With Class II and I Ill railroads !_ . • Amtral< will receiVe 70 new ..,_ I --- Amencan-made electriC \f' . locomotiVes and upgrade ITlalntenance fac1lit1es for Northeast Comdor ser.11ces
f ·-- \. ------"JJ ·Ia leam mora about tr.e f-AA, our leaders:,ip, programs, g~ts and loans please visit our website at www.fra.dot.gov and follow us on faoebook and twitter. ATTAr.HMFNT 4
Denver Union Station Final Environmental Impact Statement
CHAPTER 8-PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Denver Union Station Final Environmental Impact Statement ~..... -··-
8.2 Community Involvement Activities Community involvement activities and outreach were important elements in the DUS Master Plan and NEPA processes. As part of the public involvement program, the project team conducted periodic town meetings and convened a Union Station Advisory Committee (USAC) to provide regular input and advice to the project team. Workshops and special presentations to community groups and local businesses were also held during the course of the project. A telephone hotline with information available in Spanish and English and a project website (www.denverunionstation.org) were established as a means of obtaining public Public review of initial alternatives and development participation and communicating project concepts information. The following sections describe the outreach activities and mechanisms used to achieve broad based participation in the project from community groups and individuals.
8.2.1 Town Meetings Five town meetings were held to inform the public of the project's progress at key milestones. The purpose of each meeting was to generally inform the public about the project status, obtain public input and comment on project alternatives, identify issues of concern, and continue to develop and sustain interest in the project. Three of the town meetings were held prior to distribution of the Draft EIS. The fourth town meeting was combined with the Public Hearing to receive public comment on the Draft EIS. The fifth town meeting was also combined with the Public Hearing to receive public comments on the Final EIS. Meeting announcements were published in local newspapers, including La Voz, a Hispanic newspaper. A Spanish translator was present at each of the town meetings.
Town Meeting Number 1 ~June 20, 2002, Colorado Convention Center The first town meeting was combined with the public seeping meeting. In addition to the scoping activities, this meeting introduced members of the project team to the public and described the DUS Master Plan and NEPA processes that would be followed during Members of the public providing comments during the question and answer session at a Town Meeting
Chapter 8-Public Involvement 8-3 Denver Union Station Final Environmental Impact Statement --'
the study. During the meeting, attendees selected representatives to the USAC. This committee is discussed further in Section 8.2.2. Display boards depicting historic images of the DUS building and photos of existing interior and exterior features were displayed. Handout packets were provided to all meeting attendees, which included: • The meeting agenda; • Description of the study area; • Description of the Master Plan scope and process; • Description of the NEPA and public seeping processes; and • Information on how members of the public could become involved in the project.
The handout packet also included a comment sheet for members of the public to submit comments. No written comments were submitted. Approximately 200 people attended the first town meeting.
Town Meeting Number 2 ~September 12, 2002, ...... _...,... Colorado Convention Center Town Meeting Number 2 provided the general public the opportunity to review and provide comments on: 1) Handouts at Town Meetings No. 1 and No. 2 the project's purpose and need statement; 2) The Draft DUS Master Plan's goals and objectives; and 3) the 14 initial alternatives developed by the project team to address the goals and objectives. Graphic boards were displayed depicting the range of alternatives that were under consideration, including design program features. Graphic boards also described the NEPA process, areas of environmental investigation, and possible issues of concern. Historic photos of DUS and maps showing the then proposed boundaries of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for evaluation of cultural resource impacts were also displayed. A handout packet was provided to all meeting attendees, which included:
• The meeting agenda; • The project's purpose and need and vision statement; • The Draft DUS Master Plan's goals and objectives; • A description of the range of alternatives; and • A comment sheet.
Approximately 154 people attended the second town meeting. Based on comments received at this meeting, nine additional alternatives were developed and included in the alternatives analysis process.
8-4 Chapter 8-Public Involvement Denver Union Station Final Environmental Impact Statement
Town Meeting Number 3 - January 27, 2004 at the Colorado Convention Center. Meeting Number 3 provided the general public the opportunity to review and provide comments on: 1) the draft DUS Master Plan, 2) the then proposed new zoning (T-MU-30) for the DUS property, and 3) the screening process and evaluation criteria used to select the Vision Plan. Graphic exhibits were on display depicting the project alternatives and their attributes, describing the screening process, and describing the new zoning classification for the DUS property. Approximately 130 people attended the third town meeting.
Town Meeting Number 4/ Draft EIS Public Hearing April19, 2006 The fourth town meeting was convened as a public hearing held on April 19, 2006, to receive public comment on the Draft EIS. Fifty-two individuals attended the hearing and were provided with a meeting agenda and comment form. Copies of the Draft EIS in CD (compact disk) and hard copy were available at the hearing. The Executive Summary of the Draft EIS was translated to Spanish and provided at the hearing.
The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS was advertised in the Federal Register on March 24, 2006. Advertisement of the public hearing was made on the Draft EIS Public Hearing project website and in local newspapers including the Rocky Mountain News, Denver Post and La Voz Newspaper. During the hearing, a 30-minute presentation was delivered by the project team which summarized the project process, alternatives analysis and results of the environmental analysis. Following the presentation, the hearing was opened up to oral comments. Graphic boards were on display showing the results of the environmental investigations conducted as part of the project and technical staff were on hand to answer questions from the public. A transcriber was present to formally record public comments on the draft document and two Spanish translators were available for real-time interpretation. A full transcript of the hearing is included in Appendix I of this document.
Summary of Draft EIS Public Hearing Comments Between March 24th and May 8th, 30 respondents submitted comments on the Draft EIS. In addition to oral and written comments submitted at the public hearing, individuals were encouraged to submit comments via mail, the project website and the project hotline number. Three respondents submitted oral comments at the hearing, four submitted comments through the project website and 22 submitted comments to RTD or FTA at the public hearing or during the 45-day public comment period.
Each response was assigned a number (1 through 30) and then divided into sub-comments with individual responses (e.g., 3-1 through 3-6). In total, the 30 comments included 222 sub-comments. The sub-comments were grouped by subject area (Design, Public Involvement, Cumulative,
Chapter 8-Public Involvement 8-5 Denver Union Station
·· ~--- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Vibration, Historic, etc) and assigned to a category. Table 8-1 lists the categories and number of comments per category. Appendix H contains all sub-comments and their corresponding responses. Table 8-1 Draft EIS Comments by Category
Category Number of Comments Design 67 General 23 Air Quality 17 Wynkoop Street Plaza 16 Cumulative 12 Visual 10 Construction 9 Parking/Traffic 9 Noise/Vibration 7 Historic/Section 4(f) 7 Alternatives 6 Pedestrian Circulation 5 Public Involvement/Purpose and Need 5 Downtown Circulator 4 Master Developer 4 Drainage/Water Quality 4 Economics/Funding 4 Other (Study Area/TOC) 3 Safety and Security 3 Hazardous Materials 2 Biologicai/Wetlands 2 Archaeology 1 Mall Shuttle 1 Railroads 1 TOTAL 222 Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2006.
Town Meeting Number 5/ Final EIS Public Hearing- September 10, 2008 The fifth town meeting will be convened as a public hearing on September 10, 2008, to receive public comment on the Final EIS. The public has 45 calendar days to comment on the Final EIS. The Final EIS will be distributed and available for public review at various libraries in the Denver
8-6 Chapter 8-Public Involvement Denver Union Station Final Environmental Impact Statement
region and at the offices of the partner agencies. The Final EIS will be available at the hearing in both hard copy and on CD-ROM.
The NOA for the Final EIS was advertised in the Federal Register on August 15, 2008. Advertisement of the public hearing will be made on the project website and in local newspapers. The hearing will follow the same format as the Draft EIS Public Hearing.
8.2.2 Union Station Advisory Committee The USAC was formed to represent a wide range of stakeholders, citizens and local businesses that have a distinct interest in the outcome of the DUS Master Plan and the EIS. The USAC worked with the project team to develop project alternatives and evaluate and screen alternatives. The USAC also concurrently participated in the T-MU-30 zoning application process to rezone the 19.5-acre site. Table 8-2 provides a list of the current community interests represented on the USAC; Appendix C provides a list of current USAC members. The USAC members list was updated between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS. Those members that had not been active between the Draft EIS and Final EIS were contacted and additionally, new members were added, replacing some of the inactive members. Of the 60 USAC representatives and alternates, approximately half of the members regularly attended the USAC meetings. The USAC members met approximately every three weeks at the Downtown RTD office at 1600 Blake Street during the Draft EIS and met approximately every month during the Final EIS at the Wellington Webb Municipal Office Building (201 West Colfax Avenue). As of December 2007, a total of 34 USAC meetings had been held.
USAC Breakout Groups During the course of the project, several breakout groups were formed to discuss project related technical issues in more detail and provide advice on the development of alternatives and rezoning efforts. Individual members of the breakout groups served as liaisons to the USAC and were responsible for communicating back to the USAC membership regarding project issues and decisions made at these meetings. The issues below were considered in the design process. The breakout groups formed during the project included the following: • Traffic Breakout Group-This group included representatives from the project team, RTD, COOT, DRCOG, CCD Department of Public Works Transportation Planning, Denver International Airport, and the Downtown Denver Partnership (DDP). Meetings used a collaborative approach to distributing information, ideas, and recommendations concerning interests and perspectives on traffic circulation and impacts surrounding the DUS study area. Nine meetings have been held. Main concerns from the meetings included: Incorporate all modes of travel in the traffic analysis: shuttles, buses, personal vehicles, pedestrian movements, bicycles. Identify all pick-up/drop off points, including taxi and kiss-n-Rides. - Identify how the future parking structure at 18th Street will be accessed. Address mitigation for congested intersections in the study area.
Chapter 8-Public Involvement 8-7 Denver Union Station Final Environmental Impact Statement ...... ~ - --
Table 8-2 USAC Stakeholder Groups
Commercial Property Owners Adjacent to DUS (South and East) Commercial Property Owners Adjacent to DUS (North and West) Curtis Park Neighborhood Downtown Denver Business Improvement District Downtown Denver, Inc. Downtown Denver Partnership East Corridor Environmental Community, Pedestrian, Bicycle and Alternative Transportation Gold Line Corridor Historic Preservation Community LoDo District Minority Business Interests Regional Transit Advocates Residents and Registered Neighborhood Organizations-Other Residents and Registered Neighborhood Organizations-Quadrant 1 Residents and Registered Neighborhood Organizations-Quadrant 2 Residents and Registered Neighborhood Organizations-Quadrant 3 Residents and Registered Neighborhood Organizations-Quadrant 4 Southeast Corridor Southwest Corridor Sports, Entertainment, Cultural and Tourism West Corridor Source: CRL Associates, Inc., 2008.
Ensure continued reliable operation of the 16th Street Mall Shuttle. Concern over the function of the Downtown Circulator, its frequency to the station, and its influence for retail or other uses along 18th and 19th Streets. The number of and access to public parking areas.
• Rail Breakout Group-This group included representatives from the project team, RTD, COOT, DRCOG, CCD Department of Public Works Transportation Planning, Public Utilities Commission, adjacent railroad companies, interested citizens, and business owners. Meetings used a collaborative approach to distributing information, ideas, and recommendations concerning rail issues (e.g., number of required tracks, program requirements, etc.), rail configurations at DUS, and potential impacts to adjacent property and railroad owners. Four meetings were held. Main concerns from the meetings included:
8-8 Chapter 8-Public Involvement Denver Union Station Final Environmental Impact Statement
Need for a direct southern connection for passenger rail. Feasibility of a stub station for passenger rail. Limitations in rail capacity with a below-grade station (not applicable with the Build Alternative since passenger rail is at-grade). Extend the planning horizon for the project to 2050. Cost of construction of passenger rail.
• Zoning Breakout Group-This group included representatives from the project team, interested citizens, local neighborhood organizations, local businesses, and public agencies. Meetings focused on distributing information, ideas, and recommendations on zoning allowances, waivers, and conditions (e.g., height limits, permitted uses, etc.) in the proposed rezoning of the study area. Thirteen zoning meetings were held. Main concerns from the meetings included: Transit-Mixed Use-30 (T-MU-30) parking requirements - Placement of the wing buildings in the forecourt of DUS - Plan for consistent signage on the site Protect views to the mountains
• Historic Preservation Breakout Group-Two half-day meetings on historic preservation concerns were held on January 30, 2003 and February 11 , 2003. These meetings included members of the project team and USAC, representatives from CCD, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation {ACHP), and various historic preservation organizations. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the historic preservation elements of the DUS Master Plan, the Denver Landmark designation process, the status of the Section 4(f) and Section 106 agency consultation processes, and to develop screening criteria that support historic preservation. A third meeting was held on December 8, 2005 to discuss the results of the Section 106 analysis. Main concerns from the meetings included: Whether any impacts to the Flour Mill lofts would occur as a result of Phase 1. - If the passenger rail tracks are eligible for the National Register, whether they can be modified. Opportunities to comment within the Section 106 process.
• Land Use and Urban Design Break Out Group-This group included representatives from the USAC, the design project team, and interested citizens. One meeting was held on June 20, 2005. The meeting focused on the details of the Vision Plan Alternative and Phase I Alternative including light rail station elements, passenger rail components and planned site improvements. Five additional meetings have been held to discuss revisions to the DUS Master Plan. Main concerns from the meetings included:
Chapter 8-Public Involvement B-9 Denver Union Station Final Environmental Impact Statement
Confirmation of the DUS Master Plan vision, goals, principles and design criteria. Principles of urban form. Parking and traffic. Project phasing. Design and quality of public space.
• Environmental Break Out Group-This group included representatives from the USAC and TAC, the design team and interested citizens. Six breakout group meetings were held over the course of the project. The first was held June 19, 2003 to discuss environmental issues and answer any questions related to the Draft EIS. Three others were held to review the Draft EIS analysis completed for specific environmental resources: air and noise on October 20, 2005; traffic on November 10, 2005 and cultural resources on December 8, 2005. For the Final EIS, a meeting was held on January 31st, 2008 to discuss the methodology used to analyze each environmental resource for the Build Alternative. Another meeting was held on April 24th, 2008 to discuss the Final EIS analysis results. Main concerns from the meetings included: Venting for underground bus facility-air quality analysis of emissions from the facility. Light rail future expansion capacity. Need to analyze ozone in the EIS. Visual impacts to DUS from private development (cumulative section).
• Transportation Break Out Group-This group included representatives from the USAC, design team and interested citizens. Three meetings were held during evaluation of the Build Alternative. Main concerns from the meetings included: If Gold Line were to change to streetcar, how this would impact the DUS design. The distance and separation between Light Rail and Commuter Rail. Accommodation of regional bus at the DUS site. Route of the Circulator and turnaround at the DUS site. Transit ridership numbers.
• Finance Break Out Group-This group included representatives from the USAC, the design team and interested citizens. Three breakout group meetings were held over the course of the project. Main concerns from the meetings included: Review of the Letter of Intent. Purchase and sale agreements (private development). Future ownership of the DUS Building. Overall finance structure of the project.
8-10 Chapter 8-Public Involvement Denver Union Station Final Environmental Impact Statement -·---
8.2.3 Other Public Processes Public processes separate from the Draft and Final EIS have occurred parallel to the project. The processes provide feedback to the design of public space. Any improvements proposed in these processes, described below, would occur separate from the transportation elements described in this document
• Wynkoop Task Force-This task force included representatives from the USAC, interested citizens, businesses and professional architects. Its purpose was to ensure the protection and enhancement of the LoDo Historic District's character and livability and to promote exceptional architecture for the DUS Master Plan. This task force submitted several memoranda to the DUS project team. The Task Force held 16 meetings between February 2002 and February 2004_ Main concerns from the meetings included building massing, building heights and the design of public spaces_ • Wynkoop Street Plaza Design-Plans for a public plaza space east of the station in the area bounded by the DUS building, 16th Street, 18th Street and Wynkoop Street have been initiated by the CCD and local organizations. A workshop was held in April 2005 to discuss the Wynkoop Street Plaza. This workshop was hosted by Friends of Union Station (FUS). The workshop was attended by approximately 200 people, including local residents, business owners, elected officials, city planners and design professionals. The purpose of the workshop was to generate a vision for a plaza along the Wynkoop Street side of Denver Union Station, both for the short-term and for the long-term_ The April 2005 workshop involved an evaluation of the pedestrian experiences around the station -the streets, sidewalks, parks and buildings - and how they could invite greater interaction between users of the station and the adjacent neighborhoods. The report titled The Rebirth of Union Station: A Vision for the Plaza (August 2005) summarizes the Wynkoop Plaza Workshop. • University of Colorado Denver (UCD) Plaza Study-The Open Space Initiative Group (OS I G) initiated and is sponsoring a semester-long study of the Wynkoop Plaza. The study was completed by a graduate class of the UCD College of Architecture and Planning during the Spring 2008 semester (ending May 2008). • DUS Building Renovation-It is anticipated that the DUS historic building will be renovated in the future. The specific design and architectural elements of this renovation have not been defined, but would be subject to Denver Landmark designation review. Local Regulatory Protections The details of the site's zoning, design review procedures and historic protections were worked out through public processes in 2003 and 2004.The appropriate zoning classification, T-MU-30, was identified and modified with waivers and conditions and was approved by the Denver City Council in September of 2004. The re-zoning application, which details the waivers and conditions of the T -MU-30 zoning, can be found in Appendix F. T-M U-30 zoning is intended for station areas with enough land to create a successful transit-oriented development and permits a wide range of residential, commercial and civic uses.
Chapter 8-Public Involvement 8-11 Denver Union Station Final Environmental Impact Statement
To codify key elements of the public planning into City zoning regulations, the USAC and other interested parties worked diligently to make sure that any new wing buildings proposed along 16th and 18th Streets would respect the historic Union Station building, the adjacent LoDo neighborhood and complement the future uses of the Wynkoop Plaza. The zoning required any new building to be set back 45 feet from the Wynkoop right-of-way to preserve a view of the main train room and most of the historic wings all along Wynkoop Streets from 16th to 18th Streets. The 65-foot maximum height of any new building in this area guarantees that the historic building remains the tallest structure in the Landmark area. The zero foot height-limit in the plaza area ensures that this space will not be occupied by any structure obscuring the views of the station from the numerous historic buildings lining the other side of Wynkoop Street. The zoning envelope on the west side of the station also protected a 17th Street view corridor to the west and limited maximum building heights to ensure that a pedestrian on Wynkoop Street would not be able to see a new structure immediately behind the station crowding the historic building. Other requirements of the zoning are that a General Development Plan (GOP) and Design Standards and Guidelines must be approved through the Denver Planning Board before development can occur. The GOP will include overviews of land use, open spaces, pedestrian circulation, transportation, and infrastructure. The GOP process requires extensive public notification, a public hearing before the, Denver Planning Board, and Board approval. A portion of the 19.5 acres, including the historic Denver Union Station building and the defined area encompassing the proposed new wing buildings and Wynkoop Plaza have also been designated as a Denver Landmark. As such, all exterior alterations within the designated area will be subject to design and demolition review by the Landmark Preservation Commission. This includes all exterior restoration or alteration of the Historic Station itself and any new construction within the Landmark Area. The Design Standards and Guidelines, which will apply to both the Landmark and urban design review areas, will be adopted by the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission and Planning Board. The adoption process includes a public hearing. These guidelines will be influenced by the Lower Downtown Historic District Design Guidelines and Commons Neighborhood Design Standards and Guidelines, which establish the design context for the DUS site. Design guidelines such as this are devised in a public process that includes the current property owner (RTD), the developer, Denver Department of Community Planning and Development's urban design and landmark staff, and interested parties from the neighborhood. All design review within the DUS site will be based on adopted design guidelines. The Landmark Preservation Commission bases its review decisions on Design Guidelines for Landmark Structures and Districts (Landmark Preservation Commission, 1995) and any guidelines specific to the DUS property. Development on the remainder of the site will use these same design guidelines with Urban Design staff recommendations ratified by the Planning Board. All design review is conducted in a public meeting at which the public may testify.
8.2.4 Telephone Hotline A project hotline was opened in June 2002 to provide an easy means for citizens to receive information about the DUS Master Plan and EIS project. The hotline message was recorded in
8-12 Chapter 8-Public Involvement Denver Union Station Final Environmental Impact Statement
English and Spanish, due to the large number of Hispanic citizens in the Denver region. Comments were summarized on comment sheets, tracked using an electronic database, and distributed to appropriate project team members for follow-up action, as appropriate. Approximately 60 requests or comments have been received via the project hotline. Most of the calls received through the hotline were requests for directions to public meetings, questions on Amtrak/Ski Train services, or requests for copies of the DUS Master Plan.
8.2.5 Project Website A project website was established in March 2003 to provide the community access to project information through the Internet at www.denverunionstation.org. The DUS website provides information and facts about the project, updates of project progress and activities, and notices of public meetings. The website also provides a means for direct e-mail communications and a medium for the public to submit comments concerning the project, and an avenue to sign up for project email distribution list. Since inception of the website, it has received over 150,000 visits. As of January 2008, the project email distribution list contained over 350 email addresses.
8.2.6 Special Presentations Various neighborhoods, civic and business groups requested special presentations on the DUS project throughout the study process. The general purpose of these presentations was to provide an overview of the DUS Master Plan and EIS project, discuss project issues, rezoning and engage these groups in a question and answer dialogue with the project team. Group members also used these presentations to express their concerns about the project. Over 50 special presentations on the DUS project have been given since the project began.
8.2.7 Media Outreach The media relations element of the public involvement program was developed to establish and maintain contacts with a variety of local and regional media. This element helped ensure that the public was kept informed of the project's status and communicated opportunities to participate in the project. The goals for the media relations element were to:
• Build broad public awareness of and support for the DUS Master Plan and EIS project; • Communicate key milestones in project planning and development; • Educate the print, television, and radio media to assure accurate information was conveyed; • Educate the public about the importance of the project to the community; and • Ensure consistency and accuracy in the message being delivered to the public about the project. The media relations element included special efforts to reach the elderly, youth, minority, and special needs populations. Press releases and public service announcements were sent to print, television and radio media prior to public town meetings and at key project milestones. Table 8-3 lists the newspapers, television stations, and radio stations included in the process.
Chapter 8-Public Involvement 8-13 Denver Union Station Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 8-3 Media Relations Sources
Newspapers 5280 Magazine Columbine Courier Greater Park Hill News Advocate Commerce City Beacon Highlands Ranch Herald Arvada Sentinel Commerce City Express Jefferson County Transcript Aurora Sentinel Daily Camera (Boulder) Korean Denver News Boulder Weekl y Denver Business Journal LaVoz Brighton Standard Blade Denver Catholic Register Lafayette News Broomfield Enterprise Denver Daily News Lakewood Sentinel Canyon Courier Denver Herald Dispatch Life on Capitol Hill Castle Rock News-Press Denver Post North Denver Tribune Centennial Citizen Denver Weekly News Rocky Mountain News Cherry Creek Times Douglas County News/Press Urban Spectrum Colorado Chinese News El Semanario The Voice Westword Colorado Leader Englewood Herald Wheat Ridge Transcript Colorado Statesman Golden Transcript Colorado Women's News Greater Northeast Reporter Radio Stations KADX- AM KEZW-AM KKHK-FM KPOF-AM KWAB-AM KALC-FM KFMD-FM KLDC-AM KQKS-FM KXKL-FM KBCO-FM KGNU-FM KLTT-AM KRFX-FM KXPK-FM KBNO-AM KHOW-AM KLVZ-AM KRKS-AM/FM KXUU-FM KBPI-FM KIMN-FM KLZ-AM KTCL-FM KYGO-FM KCFR-FM/KCFC-AM KJCD-FM KMXA-AM KTLK-FM Metro Network KCKK-AM/PM KJME-AM KNUS-FM KUVO-FM KDJM-AM KJMN-FM KOA-AM KVCU-AM KDKO-AM KKFN-AM KOSI-FM KVOD-FM Television Stations KWGN Channel 2 (WB) KBDI Channel 12 (Colorado Public Television) KCNC Channel 4 (CBS) KTVD Channel 20 (UPN) KRMA Channel6 (PBS) KDVR Channel31 (FOX) KMGH Channel 7 (ABC) KCEC Channel 50 (Univision) KDTV Channel 8 (City and County of Denver) KMAS Channel 63/67 (Telemundo) KUSA Channel 9 (NBC)
Source: CRL Associates, Inc.
8-14 Chapter 8-Public Involvement Denver Union Station Final Environmental Impact Statement -.
8.2.8 Letters and Comments Written correspondence from individual citizens and interest groups was received throughout the project in the form of letters or comment sheets. A protocol was established early in the project to collect and respond to public comments. All letters and comments received were tracked using an electronic database. Comments submitted in writing, through direct e-mail to the project team or on comment sheets provided at public meetings or the hearing, were responded to in writing. Comment providers were advised that their comments would be forwarded to the appropriate project team members and to the USAC committee chairs. As of January 2008, over 800 comments were received from the public via email, written or through the project Web site.
8.3 Agency Coordination and Contacts
8.3.1 Standing Committees Five standing committees comprised of local, state, federal agencies and the project's consultant were formed to ensure the participation and collaboration of public agencies who have a general or regulatory interest in the DUS Master Plan and EIS project. These included the Executive Oversight Committee (EOC), the Project Management Team, the Project Team, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Project Design Team.
Executive Oversight Committee Members of the EOC were comprised of the chief executive officer or designee from the four partner agencies: RTD, CCD, DRCOG, and COOT. The EOC met the second Monday of each month to execute policy direction for the project. Members of the EOC are listed in Appendix D.
Project Management Team The Project Management Team (PMT) included representatives from the partner agencies: RTD, CCD, DRCOG, and CDOT, and select members from the project team. The PMT worked collaboratively on project matters and was responsible for overall project administration and management. The PMT's responsibilities included directing the project team in developing the Master Plan, EIS, re-zoning and entitlements, and public involvement processes. The PMT met approximately weekly to biweekly for the duration of the project.
Project Team The project team was comprised of representatives from Jones Lang LaSalle, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Civitas, Inc., CRL Associates, Inc., and several subconsultants.
Technical Advisory Committee The TAC was comprised of representatives from the partner agencies (RTD, CCD Public Works and Planning Departments, DRCOG, and COOT); from federal, state, and local government sector agencies; and from private-sector companies. A list of TAC members is included in
Chapter 8-Public Involvement 8-15 Denver Union Station ...... - ..- ·- · Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix E. The purpose of the TAC was to provide technical advice and direction to the study process and to gain consensus on technical decisions to be recommended to the EOC. The TAC generally met monthly, in addition to attending technical breakout sessions and workshops held periodically during the study process. Nineteen TAC meetings were held throughout the OUS Master Plan process and in the initial stages of the NEPA process. Since September 2004, the TAC has not convened. Future meetings will be held on an ad hoc basis.
Project Design Team The project design team was composed of PB staff and subconsultants and representatives from RTD and CCD. The team was formed in March 2005 and met bi-weekly to review technical and design-related issues for the Vision Plan Alternative and Phase I Alternative. The project design team was reconvened during production of the Final EIS to discuss the Build Alternative design.
8.3.2 Local, State and Federal Agency Consultation Early and continuous contact, consultation, and coordination with local, state and federal environmental resource agencies occurred to: obtain initial inquiries on existing environmental concerns; obtain consultation concerning resources potentially affected by the proposed project; discuss the extent or severity of potential impacts; and review of mitigation measures proposed to offset project related impacts. These agencies included: • Denver City Council • State Historic Preservation Officer- Colorado Historical Society (SHPO) • Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) • Co lorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) • COOT • Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • FTA-Iead agency • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-cooperating agency • Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) -cooperating agency
• Amtrak FTA, FRA, Amtrak and the Union Pacific Railroad were involved in the early phases of the Master Plan and EIS process through participation in the project Technical Advisory Committee. This Committee reviewed and discussed the design in detail as the project evolved. Specific issues included the southern rail connection, accommodation of additional rail carriers, traffic analysis and project phasing.
8-16 Chapter 8-Public Involvement Denver Union Station Final Environmental Impact Statement
Additionally, special project overviews and tours of DUS were coordinated for various elected officials and agencies, as follows: • A tour of DUS and the surrounding study area was conducted on August 8, 2002 to identify and discuss the proposed APE pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and NEPA. This tour was attended by the SHPO and other historic preservation organizations that expressed an interest in participating in the project. • A work session and tour of DUS was conducted on January 29, 2003 for members of the Denver City Council, to review the specific challenges and opportunities facing the project with respect to the proposed zoning application, the historic designation of DUS, and the overall DUS Master Plan process. An additional tour was conducted with the Denver City Council on November 6, 2003 to provide an overview of the Vision Plan Alternative. • Members of the project team gave ongoing briefings and presentations on the project's progress to City Council members, mayoral candidates (2004 election), and City Council candidates. • A tour of the center passenger tunnel (in DUS) was held on January 13, 2006 to discuss impacts to the tunnel under Phase I Alternative. The SHPO and members of the Consulting Parties attended. • A second visit of DUS was held with the SHPO and interested agencies (including the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation) on February 11, 2008 to familiarize the group with the elements of the Build Alternative.
8.4 Issues of Concern Members of the public involved in the many public involvement activities have articulated a number of issues or concerns by submitting oral and written comments. Because public involvement activities associated with preparing the DUS Master Plan and EIS were combined at several of the early public involvement activities, these comments have addressed the development of project alternatives, screening criteria, identification and selection of the preferred alternative, site rezoning, and potential environmental impacts that might occur during construction or operation of the proposed project. The key issues of concern regarding potential environmental impacts generally fall into six groupings. These groupings address the following topics: transportation, public safety and security, visual and aesthetics, economics, social and environmental justice, and air quality. Overall, the potential visual and aesthetic impacts were of greatest concern based on the number of comments received. The following sections summarize the public concerns expressed during the EIS seeping meeting and subsequent meetings.
8.4.1 Transportation • Development of the DUS project must comprehensively address needed transportation linkage between different modes of transportation, including Denver International Airport.
Chapter 8-Public Involvement 8-17 Denver Union Station Final Environmental Impact Statement
This comprehensive linkage should encourage people to use public transportation for entire travel trips rather than driving to DUS to begin trips. • The project site is quite small considering all of the transportation services proposed for DUS, but it will be important that the site's development remains flexible to consider projected long-term modes and the demand for public transportation. • The use of and interconnections between different modes of transportation at DUS need to be convenient for regional long-range passengers and commuters. • A through-station should be seriously considered. • Sufficient parking needs to be provided at DUS to fully accommodate users of the transportation services, at a cost that will encourage people to use parking facilities. Neighborhood residents do not want people parking their cars on city streets surrounding DUS.
8.4.2 Public Safety and Security
• Future operation of DUS should address current apparent conflicts in jurisdiction between DUS security staff and the City of Denver Police Department. This will be especially important, considering the tremendous increase in people projected to use the DUS transportation hub in the future. • Continued use of the at-grade curving LRT tracks will likely increase the risk for pedestrian accidents; this issue should be addressed in future design of the DUS project.
8.4.3 Visual and Aesthetics • The Denver area is known for its views, from downtown to the mountains and from surrounding communities at higher elevations (e.g. the Highlands community), and for views of DUS within downtown Denver. Development of the DUS site should not obstruct these regional view corridors. • Expansion of transportation facilities at DUS should respect and complement the historic character and scale of adjacent neighborhoods. Concerns about the potential height and density of future development on the DUS site were frequently expressed. • Development of the DUS site should preserve existing local view corridors between DUS and the downtown financial district to the east, and to the Central Platte Valley neighborhood to the west. Particular concern was expressed that views to and from the DUS "wing buildings" not be obstructed.
8.4.4 Economics • Development of retail and commercial space associated with the transportation elements of the DUS project should not compete or cause adverse effects on the viability of local area businesses.
8-18 Chapter 8-Public Involvement Denver Union Station Final Environmental Impact Statement
• Differing opinions were expressed concerning the development of parking facilities associated with the DUS project. Some felt parking should accommodate the needs of area retail customers and people using DUS transportation services, and others felt parking should be reserved exclusively for transportation users.
8.4.5 Social and Environmental Justice • Denver is known for its parks, and future site development should include some public open space, especially considering its downtown location and the dense urban development anticipated to be developed in the area. • A large plaza in front of DUS should be considered to preserve the historic building's existing setting, facilitate pedestrian travel to and from DUS, and encourage public gatherings. • The neighborhood surrounding DUS lacks many community facilities such as schools, day cares, meeting places, and community centers. Development of the DUS facility should include such facilities to meet local resident needs. • If possible and desirable, the existing Latino bus service that stops several blocks away from DUS and provides express bus service between the Denver area and cities in Mexico should be incorporated into the DUS facility expansion to ensure development of a comprehensive transportation hub. 8.4.6 Air Quality • Concern that the concentration of transportation services at the DUS site would increase air pollution in the area, especially during winter months when weather patterns can cause inversions. • Concern that proposed development of underground transportation facilities could result in public health risks, especially if underground tunnels and passageways are not adequately ventilated. • Concern for increased air toxics due to the planned increase in diesel buses and locomotives at DUS.
Chapter 8-Public Involvement 8-19 ATTACHMENT 5
1. Letters from Stakeholders and Responses a. United States Department of Interior June 20, 2012 b. State of Connecticut i. Department of Economic and Community Development June 22, 2012 ii. Department of Public Health June 22, 2012 iii. Department of Energy & Environmental Protection June 22, 2012 c. Capital Region Council of Governments June 22, 2012 d. City of Meriden June 18, 2012 e. City of New Haven June 21, 2012 f. Town of Newington June 11, 2012 g. Town of Windsor June 22, 2012 h. Town of Wallingford June 13, 2012 i. Regional Plan Association June 14, 2012 j. Greater Meriden Chamber of Commerce June 18, 2012 k. Greater Hartford Transit District June 21, 2012 I. Peter Pan Lines, Inc. June 22, 2012 m. SK Realty June 22, 2012 n. Tri-State Transportation Campaign June 22, 2012 o. Connecticut League of Conservation Voters (not dated} p. Connecticut Fund for the Environment June 22, 2012 q. Robert Fromer June 21, 2012
A-1 CITY OF MF.RIDEN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROBERTJ. BASS, P.E..·DIREC1'0R HZ EAST MJ\IN STREET, ROOM 19 MERIDEN, CT. OMS0-5667 {203) 630-4018 PAX (203) 630-4025
June 18,2012
Mr. John Bernick Connecticut Department of Transportation 2800 Berlin Turnpike P.O. Box 317546 Newington. CT. 06131-7546
RE: Xew Haven- Hurtford · Springfield High Speed Rail Meriden and Acrlin Gmde Crossing Improvements
Dear Mr. Bernick:
Thank you fi)r the opportunity to re\iew the Environmental Assessmcnt!Jmpo.ct Evaluation and Concept Drawings. The tbllowing are our comments:
Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Evaluation
Page ES-1 What are the max:imwn allowable speeds throughout the corridor'? Where arc the speed restrictions located? The appendices show the maximum attainable speeds on each segment, but not the posted or allowable speed.
Pa&e ES-6 The Meriden Station preferred alternate differs with respect to the placement of the pedestrian bridge structure from the plan submitted as part of the Grading and Drainage plans dated March 23, 2012.
Page ES-18 Traffic impacts should list the Meriden grade crossings at East Main Street and at Britannia Street.
Pa~e 15 The annual and daily inter<..ity hoardings in Meriden are third highest in the line. Is there supporting documenlaiion tor this data'!
Page 22 The Inventory of Undergrade Bridge Improvements in Project indicates planned work for the Gyplly Lane, South Colony Street, and Harbor Brook crossings in Meriden. Could additional information on thi~t work be provided (scope, timefrnme)?
Page 51 The Wayside Train Noise Impacts indicates two, Category 2, moderate impact receptors of noise. Is the recommended course of action for Lhis noise insulation?
A-18 Pasu: 178 The grade crossing of Britannia Street inhibits higher train speeds due to excessive delays at the intersection. Has any evaluation been done to the train time savings and resultant cost sa\ings associated with separating the crossing?
Concept Drawings and _!~rtvironmcntal Resource Omphs Page 9 -Is retail incorporated into Parking Garage (similar to Lot E in New Haven).
Concept Design ~eview What is l.he capacity of the Kiss and Ride at the Meriden Station? Striping and/or hardscape needed to delineate public transportation from Kiss aml Ride. Up and Over pedestrian bridge is attached to parking garage. Other design concepts show this south ofthe Jntennodal Center.
Community Fttcilities Map ~ Meriden Hub should be shown as a Recreation site.
Ifyou have any questions or comments regarding this matter. please do not hesitalc to contuct me directly. m~ Howard J. Weissberg, P.E .• PT Associate City Engineer U
HJW/mb cc: Robert J. Bass. P.E., Director of Public Works _ Paul A. Kopek, Assistant Clly Engineer Brian Ennis, P.E., Associate City Engineer Proj~t File- New Haven- Hartford- Springfield High Speed Rail - Correspondence 2012 File
A-19 Response to the City of Meriden's Comments, June 18, 2012
Response to Comment Regarding Page ES-1 Train speeds are a function of many factors including distance between stops, frequency of at-grade crossings and track alignment. Therefore, they vary along the length of the corridor. The proposed train speeds along the corridor are shown in Appendix D of the reference document "Service Development Plan". Section 8.0 of the EA provides instructions for reviewing reference documents.
Response to Comment Regarding Page ES-6 The station concepts included in the EA are intended to show an overall concept to determine feasibility, general proportions, and land use. Throughout the preparation of the EA, CTDOT has engaged all of the communities to develop the proposed project in ·a manner that is consistent with their development plans. CTDOT recognizes the importance of Transit Oriented Development as a way to maximize the economic development of the region and supports TOD efforts that are compatible with the project. As the project enters final design for the phases that are funded, CTDOT will continue to engage the communities so that the NHHS Rail improvements are consistent with community plans.
Response to Comment Regarding Page ES-18 Section 4.4.10 of the EA details the anticipated impacts that increased train service would have on traffic operations at existing at-grade crossings and improvements that will be implemented to mitigate these impacts. Page 164 contains statement "Intersections adjacent to the Meriden Station will not deteriorate in LOS (level of service of traffic operations) due to grade crossings compared to the no-build conditions and there are no adverse impacts. The intersections studied in Meriden are included in Table 4-29 (Page 160). Technical Report "7. Traffic Operations Analysis" referenced in Section 8.0 of the EA studied grade crossings near the station and included East Main Street and Britannia Street. It was determined that the increased train frequency would not cause a reduction in LOS. A copy of that technical report can be obtained through CTDOT.
Response to Comment Regarding Page 15 Section 4.4.10 of the EA (Pages 165 and 166) discusses that the travel demand models completed by CTDOT and Amtrak were used to determine the modal split (riders getting out of their autos and boarding the train). Specific parking capacity requirements, based on those models, are included in Table 4-30. The basis of the modal splits and parking capacity requirements is a reference document (Data Collection/Ridership Analysis) which can be made available as described in Section 8.0 of the EA. The final layout of the station, pedestrian access, bus stalls, auto access, and parking layout will be determined during final design.
Response to Comment Regarding Page 22 CTDOT will work with the City of Meriden as the final design of the structure improvements develops. The following structures in Meriden are included in Phase 2 of the project which is intended to be complete by 2016: • MP 16.78 28' deck girder over Gypsy Lane Rehab/Repair • MP 16.84 18" corrugated metal pipe with brick arch Rehab/Repair • MP 17.00 3' x 4' brick arch Rehab/Repair • MP 21.12 Overhead bridge abutment Remove
Response to Comment Regarding Page 51 Section 4.2.2 of the EA (Pages 52 and 53) indicates that noise mitigation must be considered for severe noise impacts. Impacts in the moderate range may require consideration if it is determined to be feasible and appropriate. CTDOT is committed to evaluating each receptor on a case-by-case basis during final design to ascertain the need for mitigation. Noise insulation is a potential mitigation if mitigation is necessary.
A-20 Response to Comment Regarding Page 178 Delays at grade crossings have been identified when the intersection is near a station and the train stopping at the station causes the gate to close the roadway. Britannia Street grade crossing was studied and is not affected by the train stopping at the Meriden station. The increased train speed does not cause intersection delays; converting the grade crossing to quad gates as indicated in Table 4-34 meets safety requirements due to the higher speed of the train. CTDOT has not prepared a cost study for grade separating Britannia Street; studies at other locations in the corridor have demonstrated that they are not feasible.
Response to Comment Regarding Concept Drawing Page 9 and Concept Design Review The station concepts included in the EA are intended to show an overall concept to determine feasibility, general proportions, and land use. Table 4-30 of the EA (Page 166) indicates that 11 spaces are intended for Kiss and Ride . These are generally identified by pavement marking or signage. Throughout the preparation of the EA, CTDOT has engaged all of the communities to develop the proposed project in a manner that is consistent with their development plans. CTDOT recognizes the importance of Transit Oriented Development as a way to maximize the economic development of the region and supports TOD efforts that are compatible with the project. As the project enters final design for the phases that are funded, CTDOT will continue to engage the communities so that the NHHS Rail improvements are consistent with community plans.
Response to Comment Regarding Community Facilities Map CTDOT is aware of the City's intention to develop the Hub into a TOD and recreational area. As such the concept plans for the station do not use any of that property. The City's current zoning maps identify the Hub area as zoned C-1 "Central Commercial".
A-21 Hrst in Connecticut. First tor irs eiri1.cns.
June 22, 2012
Mr. Mark W. Alexander Transportatin Assistant Planning Director, CT DOT P.O. Hox 06131-7546 2800 Berlin 'l umpike Newington, CT 06131-7546
Dear Mr. Alexander:
1 am pleased to have the opportunity to pro\'ide comments on the New Havt..-n- Hartford.·: : Springfield Line Intercity Passenger Rail Project Enviro1m1ental Assessment and · ' · Environmental fmpact Evaluacion. (EAIEIE) Ov<.Tall I am excit~d about the prospective benefits ofthis significant invesm1ent to borh the region and Windsor Center. ;~·: :_: : · ·
Based on my reading ofthc EA/ETE m1c of Lhc polt.-ntial impacts Lo the Windsor ... conummity relates to noise created by the incr~sed number of trains when comhined ... • .... with seven grade crossings along the line. \V~ support the conceptual !?. . :.. · ..::·:. ~ : ·. :: ~ .. See response Th~ report reconuuends the Wilson Ave .P.l' .cr9ssing (¥P·. ~9 .8,5) ·be closed. I . . . ., ... to Comment re.~pcctively ask the departtnent to review this_ilioin~np~~~ tU.1ioU:.· This crossing i~ :.: <: :·. >: ·.... .' :· 4.4.13-1 already outfitted with safety gates and proVides.~C,GC$S:to · State of CT ovmed passive·pp~o, . ; :·:: ·':: :· · · space and a recently completed segment of the regional multi-use trail system. I ~Qt~ld.. · .: :::::.: ~~=· :· L.-----....1 like to have further conversations with your office con.~g tb.is recommendation.. ..:..: . · ·: -.: :: : ' • • •, • • • • • ~ • ,• • ' .: : • • ' • • I I also would like to note our sL~pport for continu~4 ~am.tetuuicc and rehabilit~tion -~ftll~ :: ·., · rail bridge over Route 159. The report also states there are not plans to rep lac~. 1~1~ : ·· See existing overpass at Batchleder Road. I would like the dep~rtment to be cognizant. (!f. the:· .. response to tact that Aalchcldcr Road, which is a prime connector road to the upgraded· phi~rill. .iW.<{ '-:: ·: · Comment parking area, is rather narrow under the raH brldge.·: .ihi~ ·condition provi~s :ror ·no -s~fe" :: :~ · 3.3-1 rcfugu f pathway for pede~trinus or bik~~~· With:the pot13i1tial for i11creased .. t:i'~nc·m 3n4.::: ·: out of the upgraded platform area· -1. ·ask ·Lhat the department considci ·.~a.ys j.O : help.. · · improve safety along Ba1chelder Road. : : :· ....· · .· ' : · ·.... · ·· .· . . ... . ····· ··· .·.': ·.· G:\dalu,Town Mgr ().Ji,~• \frun~v.rrtutivn\6·2~, 12 PPS .:an:me11f11 I<' nOT"" Ruil HA-RJS.tluc ?.75 Broad Str::ct • \Vi~dsor, C onnccri<:ur OOO'JS • "I;VVI~~ ro,.,.-nofwindsorcc.com A-27 Response to the Town of Windsor's Comments, June 22, 2012 Response to Comment 3.3-1 Section 3.3 of the EATable 3-2 (Page 24) indicates that the bridge over Batchelder Rd is in satisfactory condition. As such it will not be upgraded under this project. It will be maintained in an ongoing state of good repair by Amtrak. Response to Comment 4.4.6-1 Visual Resources and Quality is an environmental resource included in Section 4.4.6 that the project intends to maintain. There will be public meetings during design phase at which time decisions regarding the architectural appearance and final site layout will be made. As indicated in Section 1.3 ofthe EA (Page 9) the Windsor Station is included in Phase 3B and funding has not been awarded. The schedule for this work will depend on funding being awarded. Response to Comment 4.4.7-1 Section 4.4.7 of the EATable 4-20 (Page 130) indicates that the Farmington River Bridge in Windsor contributes to the historic New Haven-Springfield Rail Line. Therefore, modifications to the structure must follow the process included in the Programmatic Agreement (PA) as described on Page 147, Response to Comment 4.4.13-1 Section 4.4.13 of the EATable 4-34 (Page 178) indicates that the Wilson Avenue grade crossing is to be closed. The Town is encouraged to work with CTDOT as the project continues to identify and implement alternative access to the open space and trail. A-29 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Members ofthe Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) .415 THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Community Development Director FROM: Phillip J. Matson, AI ~ MPO Staff Director l 1 DATE: July 1, 2014 SUBJECT: Review of MPO Certification Statement It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) at its meeting of July 9, 2014. SUMMARY As required by federal regulations, FDOT and the Indian River County MPO annually conduct a joint certification review of the MPO's transportation planning process to ensure that the MPO is adhering to all applicable laws and regulations. Recently, MPO and FDOT staff met to conduct the 2014 certification review. During the course of that review, it was determined by FDOT that all of the MPOs plans and processes were in compliance with state and federal regulations. To finalize the certification process, MPO Staff approved the certification statement administratively. Approval of minor MPO plans and documents is allowed pursuant to MPO resolution No. 99- 02, adopted on July 14, 1999. That resolution allows such administrative approvals with the requirement that the MPO Staff Director provide a status report of any such action to the MPO at the next regularly scheduled meeting. This is that status report. Because this is an informational item, no action is required. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS One requirement of the federal transportation planning process is that MPOs be certified on an annual basis. The purpose of certification is to ensure that each MPO is adhering to all applicable laws and regulations as well as undertaking all required planning activities. Accordingly, the certification process involves a review of MPO requirements and procedures to ensure that they are still current. It also entails a review of planning activities, public f'1' :-.--·unit:y De.. .!lr-p~t'0!1'or•\Mpr· "Wetinga\MPC. '!Ol4\1·t · U\CortL~ic:"l:ion. For MPOs with a population of under 200,000, such as the Indian River County MPO, joint certification reviews with FOOT are conducted annually. Larger M POs are reviewed directly by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) every three years, and conduct joint certification reviews with FOOT in other years. In March, FOOT representatives met with MPO staff to conduct the 2014 certification review. During the course of that review, it was determined by FOOT that all of the MPOs plans and processes were satisfactory and in compliance with state and federal regulations. To finalize the MPO certification process, MPO staff administratively approved the certification statement. Approval of minor MPO plans and documents is allowed pursuant to MPO resolution No. 99-02, adopted on July 14, 1999 (Attachment 2). That resolution allows such administrative approvals with the requirement that the MPO Staff Director provide a status report of any such approval to the MPO at the next regularly scheduled meeting. ANALYSIS As indicated in the attached certification statement, FOOT and the MPO recommend that the MPO Area Transportation Process for the Indian River County MPO be certified. By accepting the certification statement and signing the statement, the MPO formally concurs with the certification review results. Attached to the certification statement is a copy of the certification checklist for 2013. That checklist identifies the planning activities and requirements which must be undertaken by the MPO. The completed checklist also generally describes how the MPO complies with each requirement and/or corrective action that needs to be taken. As it has in the past, FOOT also identified a number of noteworthy practices undertaken by the MPO. Those are shown on Page 5 of Attachment 1. RECOMMENDATION This is an informational report. No action is necessary. ATTACHMENT 1. 2014 Indian River County MPO Certification Statement and Checklist 2. MPO Resolution No. 99-02 2 Florida Department of Transportation RICK.SC01T 3400 West Commercial Boulevard ANANTH PRASAD, P.E. GOVERNOR For ~ Lauderdale, FL 33309 SECRETARY June 19,2014 Honorable Susan Adams, Chairperson Indian River Metropolitan Planning Organization 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960-3388 SUBJECT: Indian River Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process 2014 Modified Joint State/MPO Certification Review Package Dear Mayor Adams: Enclosed is the 2014 State Certification Review Package for the Indian River MPO including the joint certification statement to be executed by the MPO and the District Four Secretary. In addition, the package includes your signed 2014 Assurances and Agreements. Thank you for your MPO's continued participation in the district-wide MPO-FDOT partnership. The Indian River County MPO should be recognized for facilitating the reenergized Treasure Coast Transportation Council (TCTC). The MPO staff should be commended on the new transit hub planned to be constructed adjacent to Vera Beach Airport. The site for this hub was based on the stafrs keen understanding of its community characteristics. Finally, the staff director consistently engages the committees and board when presenting agenda items, which enriches intergovernmental partnerships. We look forward to working with the MPO on implementation of the recommendations in this report to further enhance the transportation planning process in the coming year. Please contact Robyn Chiarelli at [email protected] or by phone at 954-777-4483 if you have any questions. · iller-Novello, P.E. Interim District Modal Development Administrator District Four SLM/rc cc: Jeff Weidner, FOOT District Four Phil Matson, Indian River MPO JOINT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT ON mE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNll~G PROCESS Pursuant to the requirements of23 U.S.C. l 34 (k)(5), 23 CFR 450.334(a), the Department and the MPO have perfonned a review ofthe certification status ofthe metropolitan transportation planning process for the Indian River MPO with respect to the requirements of: 1. 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303; 2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1) and 49 C.F.R. Part 21 3. 49 U.S.C . 5332 prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or age in employment or business opportunity; 4. Section llOl(b) ofSAFETEA-LU (Public.Law 109-59) and 49 C.F.R. Part 26 regarding the involvement of disadvantaged business enterprises-in USDOT funded projects; 5. 23 C.F.R. Part 230 regarding the implementation of an equal employment opportunity program on Federal and Federal-aid highway construction contracts; 6. The provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and the regulations found in 49 C.F.R. Parts 27, 37, and 38; 7. The Older Americans Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101) prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance; 8. Section 324 of23 U.S.C. regarding the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender; and 9. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and 49 C.P.R. Part 27 regarding discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Included in this certification package is a summary of noteworthy achievements by the MPO, attachments associated with these achievements, and (if applicable) a list of any recommendations and/or corrective actions. The contents of this Joint Certification Package have been reviewed by the MPO and accurately reflect the results of the joint certification review meeting held on December 13, 2013. Based on a joint review and evaluation, the Florida Department of Transportation and the Indian River MPO recommend that the Metropolitan Planning Process for the Indian River MPO be certified. ,· ;: .·, ,., / .r .:..; . ' ..1 . .... l" ~~ .!. ·.' ,... Date 2014 Joint State/1\tiPO Modified Certification Review Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Findings, Recommendations and Noteworthy Practices Report June 19, 2014 The Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) District Four has conducted a Modified State Certification Review of the Indian River IVIPO. The MPO implemented recommendations from the 2013 State Modified Certification Review. This report assesses the written and verbal answers to the questions presented to the MPO staff by FOOT in January 20 14 using the automated certification system. Our questions were asked based on information from the 2013 Modified Joint State Certification process, coordination with MPO staff and attendance at MPO Board meetings. Areas that are not commented on in this report have met, or exceeded, requirements. Summary of Key Activities to Support MPO Planning Process The MPO has successfully completed the required annual coordination and reporting efforts on schedule as follows: ./ Signed 2013 Certification Package ./ Signed 2013 DBE Verification ../ Adopted 13114 Transportation Improvement Program ./ Held infonnal unfunded priorities meeting in 2013 with FDOT and stakeholders ./ Transmitted official unfunded priorities ../ Adopted 2014/2015 to 2018/2019 FDOT Tentative Work Program ../ Held Modified Certification Review meeting with FDOT on December 13,2013 ../ Responded to Certification Review Questions/Issues Pro2ress on Implementation of 2013 State Recommendations 1. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendments: For the purposes of public involvement and ensuring full disclosure of public documents, the MPO should publish Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) amendments documents on their website. l\IIPO Comment: The MPO publishes TIP amendments to its website in a number of ways. First, the proposed amendment along with justification and a project description is published in the MPO, Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) agenda package which is the first link on the MPO website. Next, the amendment itself appears sequentially on the website. Finally, the amendments are incorporated into the final TIP by means of the Interactive TIP Tool. SATISFIED 2. Interactive TIP: The MPO has successfully partnered to implement and maintain the Interactive TIP tool. The MPO should continue to further develop the tool by investigating features and additives to enhance public use. MPO Comment: Throughout 2013, the MPO coodinated with Data Transfer Solutions to fix errors in the program and make improvements to the report fonnats. Examples of Indian River MPO-enhancements included adding an additional project per page by utiJizjng blank spaces on each page and allowing an additional line of project description per project to enable more complete descriptions. The MPO also participates in the MPO Advisory Council (MPOAC) TIP users group. SATISFIED 3. MPO Website: Websites and other internet based media have become prevalent public involvement tools. The MPO should consider updating and redesigning its website to enhance public use. MPO Comment: The MPO has met with the County Webmaster and will develop improvements to the web page in 2014. SATiSFIED AND ONGOING 4. Public Outreach: South Florida Commuter Services (SFCS) is an FOOT program that helps promote ride sharing options for commuters in Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Martin and St. Lucie Counties. This program also helps identify commuter issues and provide support to relieve these issues. The MPO should expand the use of the SFCS program to further use of alternative modes. IV!PO Comment: The MPO has met infonnally with the FDOT Project Manager for its South Florida Commuter Services contract to discuss its applicability to Indian River County. In 2014, the MPO will meet again and consider utilizing the services of SFCS to design campaigns to promote TDM alternatives such as ridesharing, carpooling, and better utilization of the transit system. SATISFIED Al'ID ONGOING 5. Regional Coordination: Working with FOOT, continue efforts to identify and implement enhancements to the regional planning and coordination process for the contiguous Port St. Lucie and Sebastian-Vera Beach South-Florida Ridge urbanized areas served by the Martin, St. Lucie, and Indian River County MJTPOs. a) As part of those efforts, ensure timely and coordinated seeping for and initiation of the 2040 long range transportation planning cycle. b) Complete other remaining steps in the post-2010 U.S. Census consultative process by July 12013, or as extended by FOOT. MPO Comment: a) The TCTC MJTPO StaffOirectors have met on multiple occasions. In so doing, the Indian River County MPO prepared a plan for discussing and selecting an alternative at an upcoming TCTC meeting. That plan, which consists of developing a separate Regional LRTP which includes all three .MPOs, has been incorporated into a TCTC agenda item and distributed to the Martin and St. Lucie T/MPOS and will be considered at the next TCTC meeting. b) The MPO submitted its proposed Re-designation Plan to FOOT in May of2013. As of yet, it has not received the post-census redesignation letter. Nonetheless, the MPO has undertaken a number of activities in anticipation of completing the redesignation process, including developing a new MPO Interlocal Agreement. SATISFIED AND ONGOING 2014 FDOT Recommendations 1. 2040 LRTP: Ensure that the upcoming 2040 LRTP meets the requirements outlined in the 2012 FHWA Expectations Letter, as was included in the Indian River MPO 2040 LRTP Scope of Services. 2. 2040 Reg~onal LRTP: Continue to work with the TCTC MJTPOs to develop a robust 2040 Regional Long Range Plan and reevaluate the criteria to update the list of regionally-significant projects. 3. TIP/STIP Amendments: Continue to take an active role in partnering with FOOT and FHWA in all aspects to improve the TIP/State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) amendment process. 4. SFCS: Continue partnering with SFCS to assist commuters in finding non-motorized options to access jobs and educational opportunities. 2013 Noteworthy Practices 1. The excellent coordination between the MPO and County staff on the GoLine system has resulted in a well-orchestrated operation with high ridership levels. The buses line up in an orderly fashion at the hub full of passengers that are able to quickly transfer to multiple destinations. This highly successful partnership can be considered as a best practice for the state. 2. Indian River MPO staff has displayed flexibility by accommodating schedules of FDOT staff to ensure FDOT has sufficient representation at the table during Technical Advisory Committee meetings. 3. The Transit Development Plan (TDP) adopted in October 2013 contained a funding plan for expanding transit service and projecting anticipated ridership improvements. In the process of adopting theTDP, the MPO Board directed the Board of County Co mmissioners to increase the local operating match by 20% to implement the first phases of the TDP. The new service, which largely consists of expanded night and weekend operating hours, took effect in November of 2013. 4. The MPO has initiated the Public Involvement Phase of the Bicycle-Pedestrian Plan Update with a separate Public Involvement Plan specifically for this project . The MPO has also continued to use in-community workshops with impressive results. Over 60 members oftraditionally underserved communities participated in the most recent workshops, with dozens of other participants in attendance. Finally, the MPO made materials available in alternative language formats and provided translators at all north county Bike/Ped Plan community workshops. 5. The MPO requested that FDOT use flexible highway funding to pay for non-highway intermodal improvements, in this case the Trans-Florida Rail Trail Greenway in northern Indian River County. 6. The MPO has been a supportive partner in the development of a regional interactive TIP to promote improved public participation, and continues to participate in and refine the TIP tool. 7. The MPO will continue work to improve the interactive TIP based on community input, will participate in the MPOAC Interactive TIP users group, and will use the tool to prepare the TIP through the forseeable future. 8. The MPO participated in the ongoing Best Practices and Regional Coordination Workshops (sponsored by the FDOT). 9. MPO staff volunteered as the Transportation and Infrastructure Working Group facilitator at a Gifford Community Plan update workshop, attended by over 120 people. I 0. The MPO updated its Community Profile/Socio Cultural Effects Report with 2010 Census and American Community Survey (ACS) data. That report will assist the MPO in tailoring transportation solutions to meet the needs of specific communities and will help the MPO analyze potential Environmental Justice impacts oftransportation project. 11. The MPO has engaged in proactive bicycle-pedestrian safety initiatives, and has, in conjunction with the Indian River County Health Department and School District, conducted Safety Roadeos at all 13 public elementary schools for three consecutive years, training over 10,000 students in basic bicycle and pedestrian safety. For the first time, the MPO is extending its training to the Charter schools. 12. Recognizing the need for funding from non-traditional sources for MPO priorities, the MPO requested ru1d obtained grant funding from the Department ofEnvironmental Protection's Recreational Trails Program to implement Greenways in Indian River County. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS EN,TERPRIBE UTILIZA.TIDN It ~iiJ iha polbJ ot tho lndlun Rivor County MPO that dlsadvantngod buainassea, n dotlned by 49 Code oi F*ral RegulaHona, Pmt 28. !hal l hava Em opportunity to pg.rii~p~ta In tha performance of MPO conbacts in e noodlscrirninatory environment. Tho objt!ctives of iha Disadvantaged Boa! !leSS Enterprise Progrnm rul~ to ansure non-dlsaknlneUon In thE! award and admlnf.SU;.Jtion of contracts. r;nture tltms fuRy moot aliglblltty .stsndards, halp remove bwriars to pilrticlpatfon, crearo n levcl playing field, ~t in devslopmant of a film co Hcan cornpOOJ su~stuny outsfds of the program, provldct.flexfbllity, and ensure norrow tcllcring of the program. Th6 lndlilln Rfver County MPO, and f+.s ooooultllnt:! shaii teke aU necoosary end roa&lnabfe smps to en~ra that dlsachrcl.nmged busln~ have an opportuntty to com pals for end perrorm thG controct work of the Indian River County MPO In a non-dlscrimlnamr,t environment Tile Indian Rivar Couniy MPO shaii roqulr!J tl9 conaultants tJ not dlscr1mfnat9 on the, ~.~st~ of race, color. nailon~JI orloln, st~X, age, disability. reUgion. orfamfllslsmtus in the award and perfollm!nco ot tts contracts. Thla pnllcy CXJVDrs In (>art the apptlcai.Jia f(3d()r.iil regulations and tha appUcable statutory refsranooo contaln&-d ihsroln ror ti1a Olaadvantased Bwineas Enterplfi!e Program Plan, Chliptera 331' and 339, Florida Statutes, and Rula ChapCar 14~78, FIOOda Adminls'tratlve Cod3 Indian River County Metropolitan P!annlng O rg~ntmUon ------Ngme of MPO CERTIFICATION OF RESTR1Cl'10NS ON LOBBYING J..5£iJ.Q_i~~D~WQ Chain@Se hereby cwtify OD bdlalf' ofthe lru'pn R."a.lr emu:u (l!Elll ad dd-'!' at ~ of!!CtU MctropoYtip.PlmdngOralltAtlol tllat <~ of t,TIIdl:e) • (I) No F:&.-m ~~~ fur.W Tuvo be:n ptU.1! r,t· will be Plid~ by or en b~helf of the ~ttl e1JY~ftK ~or attempting to intlu~ nn oMccror mqioyeo offNY agaey. a W~::.r ofCui! StU, ID oifWur or wnployr.c ofCoogws..;, or an employee of a Mmnbe:· of C~ i.a ~ whh tho crMU: ~) Illm.Y funda otlw' tkla ll•wJ Jppmprilt.od fbnds hive b=a pr.id or will bo paid to wy pmon for mtmcmcmg or ~g w mtlucn;;o an otfi100r ur ~·cu of my zscney. !! Manber ofCcm~ tm oftic~· or~ of Congr~. or i1D. fGI'loy= of c MI!'I.Dlb:r af Cor.,gr-g:j8 in coiiJKdioo vnth lbi:l Fo&ul COidlt«:t. ea.~ lotm, or ccopamtive ~t. ttw uww..~ GhWl c:cn7pl~ Wld mbmit Stwd!:rci Form-ILL, "Discloc-we Form w hport Lobbying. .. in~ witll iS! imti:~. (3) 'fh.J ~ 9dl ~ tiud ~ ~ ofthi=ccrofiaxtiou bc~m the aw-.rnt ~ 10r "u Gb1Wm'lis ot an ticrn (mciu~ wh~ ~Ubgrmut, a contmeta un&r gmnts, k:srm, aud ~Jive ~) m¥1 that all whrecipieuta all ooui.fy and dis:;lcY.:;:: QXO[dfug)y. This ur.iiicttiw i8 l! me~terill lcpJCKCDrnfUm of filet npc.n V~rnich ~J~ is pl!,:cd '~h~ this tnmaacti(A!l \'O.ra!f m00e or atercd mto. Subr.afslioJl of fhiB ~on i! a pt~t: for JIUOOD.g en· ar~intu fhie ~U~l ~by ~wtion13S2, tidQ 31, U.S. Co®. ~ pw:m who £lila to file the t~"'ll.iNd cr.J1illr.nicm ehlll be suhjcct m a: ciri1 pendly of not l--M tb:m $10,000 1UUi not :more tb-1111 SlOO.OOO for~ w~ fti U~~ DEBAHM}AW ..1'\l'iD SUSPENSION CE.RTlFl CATION r\t. rcqufn:d by U. s.D.O. T. regulaliOD.!I on Govmmmmt wido Dalw-.nr;-nt md SUip4USion at 49 CFR 29.$10 (1) 11w ~.dUm R.iyg CmU!tx.MlQ hereby certifica to ·tllc 1Jcst ofitllmow~"JU IDd belief: that it ud !t!l p~nls: {n) Ar~ :ool ~ d~b-...m."d, ~ pl'Op.)Kd for ddwr.lQJt, dec:Mld inmig&'ble, or vo1mlt.e;£ily ~~Mod 1imD cover~ trBIW'.ctions by auy fcdaw ciepurtment or ll$cooy; (h) lk\"0 not, withlu e t~Jrce,.ye!t pericd ~ding thia propoo!l, 1.~ convi~ of or bed a chil judpnt zm&a-tld agz!inat them for ccmmd:wicu of tiaDd or a crimiDal o~c in COJmeOti'l1g \?itb obtliniD& a~ting 1o obt!in, or ~ a public (fEWJal, srutt: or local) ~on or cmrtn:ct under u publie trr.usactioa; ·liol!tion ofFedonl o: l'u.'UI m t:ib:mt eta~; or commi£Sion of~ tiloft,lb'gay, bnbJZY, fhlsifioe_tion or ~truelion ofrecords, !Dil:ing fa15(j si.'ltcmmll, or n:ceivfug stolt.n proporty; (e) Are not p;Wt!tly indicted for or otbotvlise aimiimJly w eivi1ly cluqed by a gov~ eutity (~c!l, state or~) whb. c.arnmi•!ion ofmy ofthe ofl":mcs Hstcl in ·pe!i8Rph (b) oftbil ctdfi~ arid (d) Have not, \vithin a tUrG&o~ ~od ~this c;areificatioJI. h!d one or tm~ public tr"~m (fedoxd, state or~ tmain!lfcd for t;W5Q or defuult MAy 11. 201~ Dato '"f itle VI I Non-Discrimination Poiicy Statement The Indian River County MPO assures the Florida Department of Transportation that no person shall on the basis ofrace, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, family or religious status, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Ci vii Rights Restoration Act of 1987 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 be excluded from pa.'iicipation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination or retaliation under any program or activity. The Indian River County MPO further agrees to the following responsibilities with respect to its programs and activities: 1. Designate a Title VI Liaison that has a responsible position within the organization and access to the subrecipient's Chief Executive Officer. 2. Issue a policy statement .~igned by the Chief Executive Officer, which expresses its commitment to the nondiscrimination provisions of Title VI. The policy statement shall be circulated throughout the subrecipient' s organization and to the general public. Such information shall be published where appropriate in languages other than English. 3. Insert the clauses of Appendix A of this agreement in every contract subject to the Acts and Regulations. 4. Develop a complaint process and attempt to resolve complaints of discrimination against subrecipients. Complaints against the Florida Department ofTransportation (FDOT) shall immediately be forward to the FDOT District Title VI Coordinator. 5. Participate in training offered on Title VI and other nondiscrimination requirements. 6. If reviewed by FDOT or the United States Department of Transportation, take affirmative action to correct any deficiencies found within a reasonable time period, not to exceed ninety (90) calendar days. 7. Have a process to collect racial and ethnic data on persons impacted by the subrecipient's programs. This assurance is given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all federal funds, grants, loans, contracts, properties, discounts or other federal financial assistance under all programs and activities and is binding. The person whose signature appears below is authorized to sign this assurance on behalf of the subrecipient. Date of Signature ~{PO JU:SOLl.'TION ~0 . .tt:.0L A FltSOLt..'TlON d.F TRE P,..1>LA.\' R.['\'~P. CO\,;'~TY ~TROPOllT .4..~ PLA.~~O ORCA."'IZATlON Al'THOR.l.tt."4G THE MPO STAFF t>LUCTOR TO PtRFOR..\f t.miOR ~\'\SlOSS A."''l) A..\(E~l>MINT$ TO PLANS, JUPORTS, A.~ [)oa.:,.a..'TI .4.1' PRO\ 'ttl BY TKE MPQ, \\'HEN H.'CH AcTtO~·ts NEtOED TO OBTAI~ ro.U. STATt "-"1> FIO£JU.t. APPROVAl. OF SUCH ITE~!S A.."t'"O lS ~tCtSS.~Y 01..'1.. TO n'ft OR .OTHE~ CO~STRA.L"'TS. WHl:.UAS, !be i.D ·~ .. . \lo lliREAS, IU MPO is re$P.QMible. for P!'e?~l &lid a.ppro~'\ng se\·mJ. itcp¢r..L.-: ~!".arion plw, ~~· mddO(wi:!~lS; Uld WliERE.U( th.e Florida Departzneot or T~l"'~rio~ (FOOn, the- U$ lXpantrJeot e: Tnruporu.tion (USDO'D, or other rute or feden..l agcocie:s· may re.qu.in minor. ~''\rioD.S 1.o sue! tnnsporution p\&JU, reporu, and docl.llllenli u a C4:lnditioc oC final ap~rovtl; and WRERt.o\5, mioor ~virio!U ue g~l\y defined u srnall-s.ca.Je lUl\la.l clari.fie.ttions IC· MPQ teporu.. pla.ru., vzzn &(lplieations, consulwlt sccpes oi service-s, md olhc:r simiiJ.f documern£ minor •hangc:s 10 pr6jtcu witliiD lht MPO's ~ ... ~ . Tn.-.sporution bpro'v'rnleot hop-atn IT(? ::JCivCl.r.g ?!'O)et:l aG\'U)(.Cll)COt''ai:ld rLl t e:fed~ ;~?: ect f.:..~.:-".g ~h2-~je$; md tninor c ~. ~ges :o :.'-.~ adopted L'r.if\e>:l P11M.ine Wort 1':-og:nm ('\.."?'.\'?) ;.wt- >'-~~ :,':Jds:t !t:.c ::~::-: re\':sions. md Y.liEREAs, such m..!nor revisions Q" l!Ilendme:o.:.s ol\en need to lx «>mpleted in shon timcthrnei beeaUS¢ o{ ~ issoGiilid v.itb Sl)Ch ~rution plU~S, rcporu, md documcn~ . :-;·ow. THEREFOR£, BE IT R.r.SOL\·1:0 B\' THE l.~Dl.~"i RJVt:R COL-:-.-n· :'>ltTROPOLIT A..'i PLA.'o-;'\1:"\G ORGA..,ll.;A TI0:-1: 1. Th~l lhe l.nd.ia.o R.j,·er CoUDty Metropoi.Ju.o Plat..."'oL":g Orstn.iution \~0'0) w!.honz.e.s \he M?O SUi! D\reo;wr lo perform minor :-:'isio;:.s li!lc:'l.!.rneou 10 pla.nt, i'C'?OI'U.. 1.0O, ...,~ such 1e ~"n i~ r.c-eded to obll.in fuu..l S'Utc l!ld . ~· .· -- fe:de n.J 1pprova.l of such i\eou, .a.od is oe:~· C:·.: :o l !mc or olher· constninu.. ~ - That the MP0 SWfDinaor shall obu.iD cooc~;.c :,.Om the MPO cr.~an in \h( cow-..e ofpcrionninc such minor r~isions. · ar.:J~dmcnu. 3. That lbc MP0 SlJE D\rtc10r s~..l.ll p.rovid¢ • su..-..:.s •C?On to the MPO, T AC. Uld C.-'.C in\·olvitl& the oaru.rc o! sucb mitiOr ~nnoc.s. ur.e-:"".,!.":lcnu at the ne:.:1 rerula.rly schedvled ~. T AC, and C.4.C me-etint u\er the completion e( Nch minor misions:un(T}Qmcnl$ bv the MPO Su.Jr Director. - . . THJS R.l.SOLl110!'\ v.·u C'IO\'cd tor U-J~uon b~ Caroline &lao 1t1d th( motioa. •·as seeooded 'by· rraa Aaaas ~.~ upou Nin& put to a vote, the vot.e v.·u as foUofr's: · C'!lairm~t~ JoN! w. Tippm Co!Mliuioner Fran B: .l.~s . CoWICiJV.'OII'I&n s~ 9ov.dn Commissioner Caroli.De 0\.Qn __.::-· Commiaiogcr Kamcc.h Macbt Co'imCniUillotu~ M~u ~m C'b.uia NcW>ertcr Couocilm.m CMI Peue Coutctllian CUrlee W..:..-:s~cdt ATTACHMENT Z ., 'i'fle C'ha.irmll\ \h~ :~larcd !.h~ molurioo d_uly pused llld ldopted thb 1.!.t.L ~ ~ Y o ( Jub · r.lm, l~l> tAo~ IUYt R CO t:"XTY ~ttrROPOUT A.'I PL.A..";o-,~GOR.CA..'\1Z.'.. no:"! ....-_ /, ' . ..%- I - 4 ,. , vf.!.Y . r ~ ./J. d tr__, 1 / r Joba W. Tlppl~W&:ifmu A.PPROV!D ."-.5 TO FOR.'ri ASD ucA.L s_(:mcrr.-.;cv ~L CB..'..RLES P. \lnJ~AC ~fPO A TTOR.,"EY