Appendix G Response to Draft EIS Comments Guide to the Draft EIS Response to Comments 1. Response to Comments – Agencies 2. Response to Comments – Businesses 3. Response to Comments – Civic and Community Organizations 4. Index of Comments and Response to Comments – General Public Written Comments 5. Index of Comments and Response to Comments – General Public Verbal Testimony 6. Comments Received on Draft EIS – Agencies 7. Comments Received on Draft EIS – Businesses 8. Comments Received on Draft EIS – Civic and Community Organizations 9. Comments Received on Draft EIS – General Public 10. Transcript – Brooklyn Park Hearing 11. Transcript – Crystal Hearing 12. Transcript – Golden Valley Hearing 13. Transcript – Minneapolis Hearing July 2016 This page intentionally left blank July 2016 G Guide to the Draft EIS Response to Comments Appendix G contains the comments received on the proposed METRO Blue Line Light Rail Transit (BLRT) Extension project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS). A total of 191 communications were received during this time. Many of the communications contained multiple comments. For example, a resident in Golden Valley may have written a letter expressing concern about noise from LRT operations, impacts to parks and wildlife, and the need for a park-and-ride serving the proposed BLRT Extension project to be built in the city. G.1 Draft EIS Comment Period The Draft EIS comment period began on April 11, 2014, when notice of the availability of the document was published and ended on May 29, 2014. Comments were transmitted in several ways including written communications (letters, e-mail communications, comment cards filled out at public hearings) and by people testifying at public hearings. All communications received or postmarked by the end of the comment period are included in this appendix. The communication was assigned a unique identifying number (generally corresponding to when it was received) – the communication number is printed in the upper left-hand corner of each communication. Since many of the communications received included multiple comments, the first task was to identify comments within the communication and, after this was done for all communications, to group comments into categories by topic (e.g., purpose and need, alternatives, noise and vibration). G.2 Comments by Topic Examples of comments and associated topics include “why is the project needed?” (purpose and need topic); “do the transportation benefits match the cost of the project?” (fiscal effects topic); or “how loud is LRT?” (noise and vibration topic). Using this approach, all similar comments could be grouped together for a response. The topics identified were: 1 – Purpose and Need 2 – Fiscal Effects and Schedule 3 – National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process and Public Involvement 4 – Social and Economic Effects 5 – Environmental Effects 6 – Noise & Vibration Effects 7 – Alternatives, Engineering & Design ■ 8 – Transportation System Effects July 2016 G-1 G.3 How to Find a Response to a Comment A particular comment and the corresponding response can be found in the tables following this introduction to Appendix G. The tables of comments and corresponding responses are organized as follows: Comment ID Number: A unique comment identification number assigned to each comment Commenter’s Last Name Commenter’s First Name Organization Communication Number: A unique number for each comment in chronological order in which it was received Comment Type: e-mail, letter by e-mail, mail, verbal testimony, etc. Topic: as described above Comment ■ Response All comments received on the Draft EIS have been documented and responded to in the Final EIS. Comments from agencies and municipalities and their corresponding responses are grouped alphabetically by organization, as follows: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission City of Crystal City of Golden Valley City of Maple Grove City of Minneapolis Federal Aviation Administration Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Minnesota Department of Transportation Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Three Rivers Park District US Department of the Interior ■ US Environmental Protection Agency G-2 July 2016 Comments from businesses and their corresponding responses are grouped alphabetically by organization, as follows: Allina Health Crystal Wine and Spirits Marr-Don Apartments Sawhorse, Inc. ■ Target Corporation Comments from civic and community organizations and their corresponding responses are grouped alphabetically by organization, as follows: Alliance for Metropolitan Stability Asian Media Access CAPI City of Lakes Community Land Trust Downtown Minneapolis Transportation Management Organization Harrison Neighborhood Association Heritage Park Neighborhood Association Loppet Foundation Masjid An-Nur North Hennepin Community College Saint Margaret Mary Church Summit Academy OIC ■ Transit for Livable Communities Comments from the general public and their corresponding responses are listed numerically by the Comment ID. These comments are presented in two summary tables; one table for comments received in writing, and one table for comments received as verbal testimony during public hearings. An index is provided with each of the tables of responses to comments from the general public (see the following sections of this appendix). Each index is grouped alphabetically by the last name of the commenter and their corresponding Comment IDs to make finding a specific individuals comment(s) easier. Locate the name of the individual in each index then look for the Comment ID in the general public comments and responses tables. G.4 Master Responses to Similar Comments The Council received a total of 1,252 comments were submitted in the form of letters, emails, public testimony at the public hearings, and comment cards received at the public open houses and public hearings. Comments were received from individuals, businesses, public interest groups, and public agencies, including local communities and regulatory agencies. Many comments were very similar July 2016 G-3 in nature and the Council has prepared master responses to these comments. Where comments included more specific and detailed questions, detailed responses may be found in Attachments 1 through 3. G.4.1 General Opposition to or Support for the Proposed BLRT Extension Project General Comment 1: Opposed to the locally preferred alternative (LPA) identified in the Draft EIS, opposed to the proposed BLRT Extension project, or in favor of another alignment. Master Response 1: The Metropolitan Council (Council) acknowledges opposition to the LPA identified in the Draft EIS or opposition to the proposed BLRT Extension project. The Council also acknowledges support for another alignment other than the LPA or the proposed BLRT Extension project. The proposed BLRT Extension project was developed to meet specific transportation needs in the City of Minneapolis and several northern and western suburbs. As outlined in the purpose and need, the proposed BLRT Extension project is needed to effectively address long-term regional transit mobility and local accessibility needs while providing efficient, travel-time competitive transit service that supports economic development goals and objectives of local, regional, and statewide plans. Five factors contribute to the need for the proposed BLRT Extension project: Growing travel demand resulting from continuing growth in population and employment Increasing traffic congestion and limited federal, state, and local fiscal resources for transportation improvements An increase in the number of people who depend on transit to meet their transportation needs Limited transit service to suburban destinations (reverse commute opportunities) and time- efficient transit options ■ Regional objectives for growth stated in the Thrive MSP 2040 The development of the proposed BLRT Extension project started with an Alternatives Analysis that culminated in the selection of the LPA. The following summarizes the selection process for the LPA identified in the Draft EIS. The LPA is the alternative that the cities in the proposed BLRT Extension project corridor (Minneapolis, Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, Crystal, and Brooklyn Park), Hennepin County, and the Council recommended for detailed study through engineering and environmental review. The LPA specifies both the type of transit that would be used (mode – light rail transit) and the location (alignment – B-C-D1). The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) recommended Alignment D1 over Alignment D2 because Alignment D1 would result in significantly less property and neighborhood impacts, improved travel time, greater cost-effectiveness, and less disruption of roadway traffic operations. Discussion focused on the adverse impacts of Alignment D2 and that Alignment D1 better meets the proposed G-4 July 2016 BLRT Extension project goals. The costs (impacts) of Alignment D2 for the people on Penn Avenue would outweigh the potential benefits. The PAC recommended Alignment B over Alignment A because Alignment B would provide better service to people who depend on transit and to key civic and educational destinations, and access to greater numbers of new jobs and development. The LPA meets the purpose of and need for the proposed BLRT Extension project and is the environmentally preferable alternative because it would best protect, preserve, and enhance social, historic, and cultural resources. However,