Sunday, December 27, 2009

City staff overstates viability of an at-grade intersection for McIntire Road Extended project - Again

Here is a letter I received from Ms. Kathy Perdue, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project manager for the McIntire Road Extended project. The letter is from Ms. Angela Tucker, the city of Charlottesville's project manager, to Brent Sprinkel, the Virginia Department of Transportation's project manager and attempts to clarify the relationship between the McIntire Road Extended and the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road projects.

I believe this letter further confuses the relationship. City council has never approved construction of an at-grade intersection at Route 250 Bypass for the McIntire Road Extended project, and now Ms. Tucker states that "City Council will grant the necessary permission to complete the at-grade intersection" at McIntire Road. I find this a bit of an overstatement by Ms. Tucker and the idea of seeking federal permits on a hypothetical statement of this kind is clearly not defensible. The issue of no designated funding for an at-grade intersection is totally ignored, and these funds and necessary right-of-way needs are not readily available for this intersection.

City Council needs to state specifically what its intentions are concerning a possible at-grade intersection. Past statements by council appear to prohibit construction of an at-grade intersection have seen in simulation models that such an intersection fails to meet traffic demand at an acceptable level of service.

Now is the time for the true relationship between the McIntire Road Extended and Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road projects to be stated - that these two projects are not independent of each other, but should be planned as a single facility that connects Route 250 Bypass to Melbourne Road.


Saturday, December 12, 2009

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation publishes Case Summary on McIntire Road Extended and Route 250 Bypass Interchange

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) published its Fall 2009 Case Digest describing several projects including the "New Interchange and Road Extention in Charlottesville." This publication describes ACHP involvement in both the McIntire Road Extended and Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road projects that have impacts on historic resources in and around the eastern portion of McIntire Park. Several historic resources on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places will be impacted by the proposed road and interchange projects and the ACHP is involved in developing a Memorandum of Agreement on treatment of these resources with both the Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Army Corps. The image above is taken from the Case Digest and is a view of the rock wall at Rock Hill Garden - one of the impacted historic resources.

It is my understanding that the ACHP is in the process of coordinating the development of an agreement among all the local, state and federal agencies involved in the projects stipulating how the historic resources are to be treated if the projects move forward. But, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has disregarded this ongoing activity required under Section 106 or the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended and advertised for construction of the McIntire Road Extended project. To me this illustrates clearly VDOT's lack of concern for historic resources in its project development process. The Section 106 process on both the road and interchange projects wasn't initiated until very late in the project development and VDOT and the City of Charlottesville are moving their projects forward without considering findings of this effort.

I am very interested to see how the ACHP, the State Historic Preservation Officer of Virginia and other stakeholders in this process will react to actions by both VDOT and the City of Charlottesville. Suprisingly, Charlottesville's City Council approved signing a Memorandum of Agreement on the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project that to my knowledge has not yet been completed, primarily on the statement of Owen Peery, the project manager for the City's engineering consultant - RK&K Engineers - that all signatories to the agreement are prepared to sign and encouraged city councilors to approve a document that they have not even seen. This is a shocking situation and appears not to be in compliance with many federal and state regulations relating to historic preservation.

I have sent letters to both ACHP and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers project leaders seeking reaction to VDOTs action and inquiring if this action is even legitimate at this state of the Section 106 process. I am awaiting their responses.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

VDOT advertises McIntire Road Extended project for construction - what is up with that?

Sean Tubbs of Charlottesville Tomorrow contacted me yesterday to get my reaction to the news that VDOT advertised the McIntire Road Extended project for construction. My first reaction was that this couldn't be true. My understanding is that VDOT cannot advertise for construction contractor bids until all required preliminary engineering and right-of-way activities were complete. The Section 106 review process - a federally required review of the project's impacts on resources listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (for which the eastern side of McIntire Park is eligible for listing) is currently underway, but not complete. This process is not completed until a Memorandum of Agreement among the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and others is signed. No Memorandum of Agreement on avoidance or mitigation of historic resources has yet been executed. Even more surprising to me is that the purpose of the Section 106 process is to influence the project design so as to respect the historic character of the impacted resources. By advertising this project prior to completion of this process, VDOT is indicating its total disregard for the historic resources to be impacted by this project.

VDOT requested the necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit related to a stream crossing for the project just advertised with a southern terminus located 0.147 miles (775 feet) north of U.S. Route 250 Bypass, but the Corps asked VDOT to provide a logical southern terminus to the project. The terminus being a point in the middle of the golf course was not adequate for the permit to be considered as a complete project submittal. VDOT then send the Corps an at-grade intersection design based on the 1999 project design as a southern terminus - an intersection that is no longer under consideration and eliminated from consideration by the Charlottesville City Council. I am curious to see how the Corps of Engineers react to this apparent "bait and switch" proposal now that the at-grade intersection is not part of the project advertisement.

I and other project stakeholders contend that the true southern terminus for this project is the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road, currently under development by the City of Charlottesville as a federal-aid highway project.

I suppose there are many possible "next steps" in this process including withdrawal of the advertisement, objection by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the permit request as submitted, and objection to the failure to consider adequately possible mitigation of impacts on historic resources by the State Historic Preservation Officer. I hope all of these happen to ensure that VDOT project do not move forward without allowing the public and other stakeholders the opportunities guaranteed to them to help develop the best possible project design to meet the needs of all project stakeholders.

I truly believe VDOT is out of line on this action and look forward the what happens next. The graphic (from C-ville Weekly) shows a recent citizen demonstration in opposition to this road going though historic McIntire Park. I expect that more citizen demonstrations will occur in reaction to VDOT's action. The estimated contract value is $6.9 million many believe would be better spent on a host of lest destructive and necessary transportation projects in Charlottesville.

Do read the Sean Tubbs report at the Charlottesville Tomorrow website or in today's Daily Progress.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Summary of Interchange Public Hearing Comments provided to Charlottesville City Council

Below is the summary of comments as provided to Charlottesville City Council by the city staff. the full text of comments are available through the city clerk's or city attorney's office and contains several hundred pages. City Council wisely deferred considering any design approval to allow councilors to actually consider public commentary. Council also is reported as not feeling that pedestrian and bicycle access to East McIntire Park is adequate - especially given that providing pedestrian and bicycle access is a key element of the project purpose and need. A report on the public hearing results will be provided to council at their Nov. 16, 2009 meeting, but consideration of a resolution approving the essential features of the design has been deferred.

This project is perceived by many to provide benefits to Albemarle County residents with all of the impacts occurring in Charlottesville City. My brief scanning of the comments indicates that many of the comments in support of the project are from Albemarle County residents. I will be urging councilors to be sensitive to the balance of comments between city and county commentators given that this is a city project primarily funded by federal, city, and Charlottesville's portion of the State Urban Road System funds. Albemarle County provides no direct funding for the interchange project to my knowledge.

Here is the city staff summary of comments as provided to City Council on Nov. 13, 2009:



A Design Public Hearing for the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project was held on October 29, 2009 at City Space. Attendees viewed displays about the project and the Revised Environmental Assessment including the Preferred Alternative and the likely environmental impacts of the project.

The following summarizes input received from those who attended the public hearing as well as those who submitted comments during the designated comment period (September 29, 2009 through November 9, 2009).

SUMMARY

• 94 people attended the hearing
• A total of 168 comments were received
o 41 people provided oral testimony, either publicly or privately
o 12 written comments using the hearing comment form
o 109 comments were received through the project website
o 6 comments were received via letter or email letter
• A total of 146 people provided comments

MOST FREQUENT COMMENTS (No. of People Commenting)

• Oppose the project (38)
• In favor of the project (38)
• Pedestrians and Bicyclists not sufficiently accommodated / prioritized (72)
• Interchange is too large (8)
• Project should be combined with McIntire Road Extended Project (7)
• Historic properties impacts too great (31)
• Additional traffic in neighborhoods (29)
• Environmental impacts can be / are appropriately mitigated (17)
• Environmental / park impacts are substantial (31)


Friday, November 13, 2009

See a Sneak Preview of "Coal Country" on Saturday

Green Grounds at the University of Virginia is hosting a preview of the film "Coal Country" at room 158, Campbell Hall (the Architecture School) on Saturday (tomorrow) at 4:00 pm. It is a 45-minute documentary about mountaintop removal mining and how that method of mining is damaging our mountain environment.

I am planning to attend this screening and believe it is open to all interested folks.

The photo is from Appalachian Voices.

Here is the announcement:

The Green Grounds Group is pleased to announce a F R E E upcoming sneak preview of Coal Country, a film by Mari-Lynn Evans and Phylis Geller. This feature-length documentary confronts the devastating effects of mountaintop removal coal mining in Appalachia. It reveals the truth about the impact of this modern coal mining practice on the landscape and local communities through the stories of working miners, activists and community members - those most intimately involved in battling the coal companies. The film officially premieres on the Planet Grow network on November 14th at 8pm.

+ When? Saturday, November 14th at 4:00pm (reception to follow with light refreshments + guest speakers from Wise Energy for Virginia)
+ Where? UVa School of Architecture, Campbell Hall, Room 158 (free parking just down the hill at Culbreth Parking garage)

This event is co-sponsored by the Green Grounds Group at the University of Virginia and Wise Energy for Virginia

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation sends its comments on the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project.

Below is the letter sent from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regarding historic preservation issues related to the proposed Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road. Consultation among interested stakeholders will continue until a Memorandum of Agreement on historic preservation related mitigation is finalized. The relationship between this project and the McIntire Road Extended project that will also impact historic resources is still being explored. Click on the page images to enlarge.




Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Proposed Memorandum of Agreement on the Route 250 Bypass Ingerchange at McIntire Road to be discussed on Oct. 09, 2009

Below is the agenda and draft Memorandum of Agreement associated with the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project that is the subject of the meeting on October 9, 2009. Note that the pubic is invited to comment at the end of the meeting, so do not hesitate to attend and share your thoughts. The meeting is focusing on avoidance and mitigation of impacts on historic resources, so comments should be related to that topic.

This is the first time that all of the federal agency stakeholders in this project will be meeting together, and I anticipate a lively discussion of a broad range of issues relating to the interchange design. I look forward to participating in this meeting and working toward solving the many problems associated with the interchange project and its impact on several historic properties on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

Click on the images to enlarge.

Agenda
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Section 106 Consultation Meeting Regarding the Route 250 Bypass/McIntire Road Interchange Project. Friday, October 9, 2009 8:30 – 11:30 am

Community Design Center
City Space Meeting Room
100 Fifth Street NE
Charlottesville, VA


I. Welcome and Statement of Objectives

II. Ground Rules

III. Introduction of Consulting Parties

IV. Facilitated Discussion of FHWA’s mitigation proposal

A. McIntire Park
B. Rock Hill Landscape
C. Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District (501 and 502 Park Hill
D. Design Minimization Measures
E. Other Comments/Recommendations for Mitigation

V. Comments from the public
(3 minute limit for those who sign up)

VI. Summary and Next Steps















Monday, October 5, 2009

Why is VDOT providing outdated plans to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in support of a water quality permit application?

Below is a blog friendly version of the letter I received from VDOT Culpeper District Administrator James S. Utterback in response to my September 18, 2009 letter to Secretary of Transportation Pierce Homer concerning using different VDOT plans to support different actions by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Utterback's response clearly outlines that different plan sets were provided to both agencies, but does not state why this is an appropriate action. If in fact an interchange is the only currently approved southern terminus for the McIntire Road Extended project, why would VDOT provide the Corps of Engineers updated versions of the original at-grade intersection plans - plans that have been made obsolete by more recent actions by VDOT and Charlottesville City Council? Does this make any sense other than as a ploy by VDOT to obfuscate the true nature of the southern terminus of McIntire Road Extended and to avoid linking the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road and the McIntire Road Extended into one project?

If the southern terminus is currently planned to be an interchange, why provide plans to the Corps of Engineers for a project that will only be considered "if, and only if, the interchange project is abandoned. Is this an appropriate action by VDOT? I think the clear answer to this is no.

Do read the original letter and the response below and consider for yourself if this would meet a professional standard of practice in project planning.



COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 ORANGE ROAD
CULPEPER. VIRGINIA 22701
virginiaDOT.org

DAVID S. EKERN, P.E.
COMMISSIONER

September 28, 2009

Mr. Peter T. Kleeman
407 Hedge Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902

Dear Mr. Kleeman:

Secretary Homer has asked that I thank you for and respond to your letter regarding the McIntire Road Extended project in Charlottesville.

As you are aware, the City of Charlottesville had originally intended for McIntire Road Extended to connect with the Route 250 Bypass with an at-grade intersection, and plans for the project were developed that showed an at-grade connection. The City later determined that a grade-separated interchange is necessary, and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) subsequently revised its McIntire Road Extended plans to reflect a connection to the access ramps for the Route 250 Bypass Interchange project.

In conjunction with the Section 106 process for McIntire Road Extended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested additional information about the project. VDOT provided the requested information, including plans that showed the original at-grade intersection connection along with the background and explanation for the modification to the original plan. These plans were clearly marked "Original Design - Modified 08-01-09" and contain the latest modifications to the original plans that would be used to construct the at-grade intersection if, and only if the interchange project is abandoned.

The plans provided to the City of Charlottesville that supported the application for a permanent utility easement reflect changes to the easement area that were requested by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The Corps of Engineers has been advised of those modifications to the easement area, which do not affect the conditions the Corps is reviewing for the joint permit.

I regret that you were not able to contact the project manager to answer your questions. VDOT has consistently worked with you over the past several years to provide information and answer questions related to this and other transportation projects. To help us more efficiently respond to your questions, I suggest that you make such requests in writing to Mr. Lou Hatter, Culpeper District Public Affairs Manager, at 1601 Orange Road, Culpeper, Virginia 22701.

Sincerely,

[signature: J. S. Utterback]

James S. Utterback, PMP
Culpeper District Administrator

Copy - The Honorable Pierce R. Homer
Mr David S Ekern P.E.
Mr. Lou Hatter



September 18, 2009

Mr. Pierce R. Homer
Secretary of Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia
P.O. Box 1475
Richmond VA 23218

Dear Secretary Homer:

I have followed the development of a project called the Meadowcreek Parkway since about 1994 and have experienced the many transitions from it being a single federally funded project connecting Preston Avenue near downtown Charlottesville to Rio Road to it now being represented as three separate projects – Meadow Creek Parkway in Albemarle County, the McIntire Road Extended in Charlottesville, and the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road at the intersection of the proposed McIntire Road Extended and U.S. Route 250 Bypass in Charlottesville. I am troubled that in August of this year VDOT sent a revised U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit application along with plans indicating that the McIntire Road Extended project has an at-grade intersection at its southern terminus at U.S. Route 250 Bypass. But, also in August 2009 VDOT provided me plans indicating that McIntire Road Extended has its southern ‘terminus’ not at U.S. Route 250 Bypass, but 775 feet north of the bypass where it will presumably join the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project. It also appears that VDOT distributed inconsistent plans to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and to the City of Charlottesville in August 2009 related to a permit application, and a request for a permanent utility easement, respectively. I contacted the VDOT project manager in the Culpeper District several times by telephone in the last two weeks hoping to clarify which of these inconsistent plans is the actual current plan, and why different plans have been distributed to the Corps of Engineers and to the City of Charlottesville, but have not received any such clarification.

As a civil engineer myself, I question the practice as well as the ethics of distributing inconsistent plans to stakeholders in the very same project. Not only are there inconsistencies in the plans, but the descriptions of the McIntire Road Extended project termini are different in the current Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Improvement Program and the VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program.

Distribution of inconsistent plans makes it impossible for interested parties in the project development process to provide meaningful and substantive comments about the project. Please look into what appears to me to be significant shortcomings in the information being provided to the Corps of Engineers, the City of Charlottesville, and to other project stakeholders by VDOT. I look forward to getting a formal statement indicating what the current plan is upon which current permit and right-of-way decisions should be based.

Sincerely,


Peter T. Kleeman
407 Hedge Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
peter.kleeman@gmail.com
(434) 296-6208

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road Public Hearing Brochue now available online (and here)



Above is a graphic of the proposed design of the Route 250 Bypass at McIntire Road that will be the subject of the October 29, 2009 design public hearing (see previous blog entry). Material associated with the development of this project is available online at www.250interchange.org . The project brochure describing the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road that will be distributed at the October 29, 2009 public hearing is now available and is duplicated below (click on the images to enlarge).




The Federal Highway Administration continues to consider this project totally independent of the proposed McIntire Road Extended, but this is a point of controversy that will likely be discussed at an upcoming meeting where representatives of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration, the City of Charlottesville and Virginia Department of Transportation will be addressing this and other issues relating to this project.



Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road Design Public Hearing scheduled October 29, 2009

This announcement (click on image to enlarge) was placed in the September 29, 2009 issue of the Daily Progress. I am surprised that this hearing is being scheduled prior to termination of the Section 106 (historical preservation) review is completed. In fact, a meeting is scheduled to discuss Section 106 issues on this project on October 9, 2009 - the same day the environmental document containing Section 106 effects determination is to be made available to the public. Curious, eh?

I would think it more appropriate to discuss the inter-relationships among design and historic preservation alternatives prior to having the formal design public hearing. As a consulting party of the Section 106 review on this project I have been disappointed at the lack of consideration of historic properties and the lack of interest demonstrated by Federal Highway Administration in considering historic preservation issues as part of the design process.

Do review the material and provide comments at the meeting or using other methods outlined in the announcement.

Monday, September 28, 2009

Daniel Bluestone leads tour of historic Rock Hill Garden after Hands Across McIntire Park event

Daniel Bluestone of the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park (CPMP) led a tour of the historic Rock Hill Garden landscape - a landscape threatened by the proposed McIntire Road Extended and Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road projects. The garden is behind the Park Street building where the Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) is located. This garden is one of several historic properties that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Histsoric Places and will be negatively impacted by the roadway projects.

About 20 of the 200-300 people who participated in the Hands Across McIntire Park event on September 27 enjoyed the garden and learned much of the history and historic importance of this garden on the tour.

One of the mitigation ideas to limit impacts on this garden from the road projects is to ensure that a dense stand of trees shield the highway from the garden. But, a sewer easement is currently being considered for transfer to Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority that would be forty feet wide and eliminate the possibility of planting large trees in the easement. This easement directly restricts the opportunity to provide screening between the road and the garden. A city council decision on the proposed easement may be on the next City Council agenda on the first Monday in October.

Friday, September 18, 2009

My letter to Pierce Homer - Secretary of Transportation

Here is a letter I mailed (and sent an electronic copy through the Secretary's website) to Mr. Pierce R. Homer, Secretary of Transportation of Virginia. I tried several times to get some answers from the VDOT Culpeper District project contacts, but didn't get any response to my telephone messages - until after I sent this letter. And, the response I got was to contact someone else. I look forward to finding out what is really going on. I will let you know when I know. Is this any way to run a Department of Transportation? - Peter Kleeman

September 18, 2009

Mr. Pierce R. Homer
Secretary of Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia
P.O. Box 1475
Richmond VA 23218

Dear Secretary Homer:

I have followed the development of a project called the Meadowcreek Parkway since about 1994 and have experienced the many transitions from it being a single federally funded project connecting Preston Avenue near downtown Charlottesville to Rio Road to it now being represented as three separate projects – Meadow Creek Parkway in Albemarle County, the McIntire Road Extended in Charlottesville, and the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road at the intersection of the proposed McIntire Road Extended and U.S. Route 250 Bypass in Charlottesville. I am troubled that in August of this year VDOT sent a revised U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit application along with plans indicating that the McIntire Road Extended project has an at-grade intersection at its southern terminus at U.S. Route 250 Bypass. But, also in August 2009 VDOT provided me plans indicating that McIntire Road Extended has its southern ‘terminus’ not at U.S. Route 250 Bypass, but 775 feet north of the bypass where it will presumably join the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project. It also appears that VDOT distributed inconsistent plans to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and to the City of Charlottesville in August 2009 related to a permit application, and a request for a permanent utility easement, respectively. I contacted the VDOT project manager in the Culpeper District several times by telephone in the last two weeks hoping to clarify which of these inconsistent plans is the actual current plan, and why different plans have been distributed to the Corps of Engineers and to the City of Charlottesville, but have not received any such clarification.

As a civil engineer myself, I question the practice as well as the ethics of distributing inconsistent plans to stakeholders in the very same project. Not only are there inconsistencies in the plans, but the descriptions of the McIntire Road Extended project termini are different in the current Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Improvement Program and the VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program.

Distribution of inconsistent plans makes it impossible for interested parties in the project development process to provide meaningful and substantive comments about the project. Please look into what appears to me to be significant shortcomings in the information being provided to the Corps of Engineers, the City of Charlottesville, and to other project stakeholders by VDOT. I look forward to getting a formal statement indicating what the current plan is upon which current permit and right-of-way decisions should be based.

Sincerely,


Peter T. Kleeman
407 Hedge Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
peter.kleeman@gmail.com
(434) 296-6208

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

VDOT is silent on the McIntire Road Extended project


I visited the VDOT website describing project in the Culpeper District (in which all of Albemarle County and Charlottesville project fall) to see how the McIntire Road Extended project was characterized. To my surprise, there was no listing of this project in the VDOT online listing of current Culpeper Distsrict projects. The Meadow Creek Parkway project that runs north from Melbourne Road to Rio Road is listed as under construction. The VDOT description of this project states that the project "will connect with McIntire Road Extended at the Charlottesville city line, which will extend the new roadway alignment south to the Route 250 Bypass." This is consistent with the plans for McIntire Road Extended provided to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in VDOT's Corps Permit application dated August 7, 2009. But, there is no listing of the McIntire Road Extended as a current project. The Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project is listed as a proposed project that "currently includes preliminary engineering (design) only."

But, there is no independent listing for McIntire Road Extended where VDOT describes the project. Perhaps VDOT doesn't want to state clearly if the project includes an at-grade intersection (as the plans provided to the Corps of Engineers indicate) or if the project starts 775 feet north of Route 250 Bypass as the most recent plans provide me by VDOT indicate. VDOT is apparently silent on this issue.

Also, I have telephoned the project contact at VDOT several times in the last two weeks by telephone leaving a voice message asking what the current plans are for McIntire Road Extended but I have not gotten a response of any kind from VDOT in response to my inquiries.

The VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program lists the project description as going "FROM: ROUTE 250 BYPASS AT MCINTIRE ROAD TO: MELBOURNE ROAD INTERSECTION (0.5200 KM)." This would be consistent with what has been provided to the Corps of Engineers, but the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Improvement Program describes the project as "FROM: 0.147 MILES [775 feet] N. OF RT. 250 BYPASS TO 0.004 MILES S OF MELBOURNE RD INTERSECTION (0.8600 KM)," consistent with the most recent VDOT plans I received.

When will VDOT clarify this for us all? If I don't get any response from the project managers in the next day or two, I will be consacting the Secretary of Transportation to see if I can get some feedback. I will post the true limits and description of this project when VDOT provides me one. Meanwhile, the Charlottesville City Council is contemplating granting an easement to Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority based on the project not including an at-grade intersection. An additional sewer easement would be required if the project includes the at-grade intersection. I urged the city council not to grant any easements until the true description of the project is revealed and all necessary planning decisions are made about how the road will actually connect to Route 250 Bypass (at-grade or at an interchange) - or if there will be a road at all.

When will these storm drains be cleared?

The two storm drains on Fourth Street N.E. between High Street and Hedge Street had silt barriers installed many months ago to keep soil eroded from the Juvenile and Domestic Court renovation from adding to the silt burden in the storm water system. There is so much silt collected in one that a good crop of vegetation is growing in it. The other is heavily burdened with sand, gravel, soil, and other material that only a small area is open to receive storm water.

Now that the Juvenile and Domestic Court project is essentially complete (and an opening ceremony held several weeks ago) I am thinking that these drains have been abandoned by whomever was obligated to maintain the drains and the silt barriers. I contacted the city's environmental coordinator who promised to find out who should handle this material last week (and offered to do the job myself if that was necessary). The court project is a city project, and I believe they could easily identify who is responsible for this work. If the city claims to be eco-friendly, they also need to attend to eco-impacts from their projects.

I saw a city street cleaning truck work this block and watched the driver avoid the drains rather than address the situation. I did report the situation via charlottesville.org several days ago and not heard or seen any sort of response. Perhaps I will take action and bundle up the silt baffles, the trapped material and deliver it to someone at the city. Any suggestions as to whom I should bring the collected material?

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Political Mondays segment for Sept. 14, 2009 now online.

Although the six o'clock news on WCAV TV-19 was preempted by the CBS broadcast of the US Open Men's Tennis Final, Political Mondays was shown on the local ABC station WVAW TV-16. This is one of the benefits of both network affiliates being part of the Charlottesville Newsplex. Last weeks Political Mondays was an abbreviated segment due to US Open Tennis and not posted online. The topic was the President Obama address on education. Joe Thomas thought the speech was fine, but that it shouldn't have been mandatory. I pointed out it never was mandatory, and that I thought having the president speak directly to school students was a terrific opportunity. I wish all students had the opportunity to see the speech live - or at least on tape delay - followed by classroom discussion.

Political Mondays videos online:

September 14, 2009 - Topics: Tea Party event in Wash. D.C. (Joe Thomas); Conflicting Plans associated with McIntire Road Extended in McIntire Park (Peter Kleeman); First Anniversary of Lehman Brothers failure (Jim Hanchett-moderator)

September 7, 2009 - Show abbreviated due to US Open Tennis coverage. Topic: Obama address on education to school students.

August 31, 2009 Topics: Why is the dredging contract cost twice expectations? (Joe Thomas); the Future of McIntire Park - is the proposed Botanical Garden at McIntire Park a good idea? (Peter Kleeman).

August 24, 2009 Topics: Desirability of the Commonwealth of Virginia contracting out major government responsibilities (Peter Kleeman); Never count on government - private enterprise is always the answer. (Joe Thomas)

August 17, 2009: Topics: Places 29 Report (Joe Thomas); Need for Civil Discourse among elected officials and the public (Peter Kleeman); Will a health care bill be passed this year? (Dan Schutte).

August 10, 2009: Topics: "Photo Red" Approval by Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (Peter Kleeman); Tom In Your Town meetings (Joe Thomas).

August 3, 2009: Topics: Fraudulent letters sent to Rep. Tom Perriello (Joe Thomas); Federal Cash for Clunkers program (Dan Schutte).

July 27, 2009: Topics: Fifty-year water supply plan (Peter Kleeman); Virgil Goode, Jr. not seeking US Congressional seat in 2010 (Joe Thomas).

July 20, 2009: Topics: Charlottesville rally against healthcare proposals (Joe Thomas); US Army Corps of Engineers letter denying permit to construct McIntire Road Extended (Peter Kleeman).

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Proposed Deed of Easement to RWSA in McIntire Park inconsistent with stormwater design for McIntire Road Extended

On May 5, 2008, City Council approved a concept plan for the stormwater management design for the McIntire Road Extended project in McIntire Park. The images below show how the plan is to look to a pedestrian walking along the trail next to the McIntire Road Extended. But, as discussed at City Council last night, a forty foot wide (varies a bit, actually) easement to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority would make many of these trees unplantable. The proposed deed of easement states "that trees, shrubs, fences, buildings, overhangs or other improvements or obstructions shall not be located within the Sewer Easement." As pleasant as this artist rendering of the pedestrian experience appears to be, it is a total fiction. Much of the northern portion of the roadside area will be a 2:1 slope that won't support trees, and a forty foot wide swath of land will not allow trees or even shrubs. The ability to plant a vegetative screen of shrubs and trees to protect historic properties impacted by the road is limited especially in the area by the Rock Hill Garden - a property eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Tree and shrub screening is one of the suggested mitigation alternatives under consideration as part of the historic preservation (Section 106) consultation currently in progress.

I was disappointed that council moved and seconded an ordinance that would grant this easement to RWSA to bring up a second reading on this ordinance at the next council meeting. It appeared to me that three councilors would prefer to defer consideration of the ordinance until some of the issues presented to council could be investigated and modifications to the easement ordinance and deed could be worked out with RWSA and possibly others. But, it only takes two of five council members to move this item to a second reading.

I am curious to know what forces are pushing this project forward in spite of potentially serious defects in the planning process, the plans distributed to various agencies and jurisdictions by VDOT, and images being presented to the public. I will encourage city council members not to approve this requested action, but rather take a comprehensive look at the interrelationships among the Route 250 Bypass at McIntire Road and McIntire Road Extended projects. There are currently at least two different sets of plans being circulated to key stakeholder groups. Shouldn't decisions be made using a common description of the project under consideration.

Very detailed images for both drawings below are available as part of the May 5, 2008 city council agenda - with background posted on the city website. But, I think you can imagine that these concept drawings do not relate to the reality of what a pedestrian will experience if city council approves what has been presented to them by the city staff and RWSA.





Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Progress on Mall Fountain slow at best

While on the Charlottesville downtown mall late last week (Thursday I believe) I snapped these photos of the four mall fountains. A crew was working on the fountain by Angelo's Jewelery Store, but I haven't seen any activity at the other three fountains in a while. A brick base was installed at the Central Place fountain about 7-10 days ago, but I haven't seen any work on that fountain since. I will be on the mall later today and will be sure to check out any progress being made.

Will these fountains be working in time to enjoy them for the several week between now and when they would be turned off for the winter? Or will 2009 be the year the fountains were dry?





Saturday, September 5, 2009

McIntire Road Extended project plans submitted to City Council are different from plans submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Below are the graphics of the McIntire Road Extended project that as best I can determine are the most current plans for this road project. Interestingly the road still officially starts 775 feet north of Route 250 Bypass (includes neither an at-grade intersection or an interchange). Although sheets 4 and 5 were the only ones submitted to City Council by VDOT as part of the request to grant a permanent easement to Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority - an item on city council's Sept. 8, 2009 agenda, sheet 3 below (showing the Route 250 Bypass end of the project) is what VDOT provided me as the current plan for this project. Plans submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on August 7, 2009, however, show a totally different project design for the Route 250 Bypass end of the project - an actual at-grade intersection of McIntire Road Extended at Route 250 Bypass. So, which of these plans is the correct plan? Or is VDOT actually providing different plans to different agencies - plans most consistent with what VDOT is seeking from that agency. Or, are there (as I beleive) still two alternative projects under consideration and no final design yet selected?

On August 7, 2009, VDOT submitted a request to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with an at-grade intersection. See these plans at my August 15, 2009 posting of the VDOT submittal. You will clearly see that these plans differ in many aspects from the plans submitted to city council. In fact, the design of the box culvert that allows a tributary of the Schenk's Branch to flow under the proposed McIntire Road Extended is a different design and at a different location on the different plans.

I have visited the Charlottesville City Attorney's office and spoken with the director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority in search of answers to why these plans are different, and if they are concerned. It appears to me that all parties concerned are simply reacting to documents provided them, and looking only at issues immediately before them - and only interested citizens are trying to look at the comprehensive issue of the design, review, and environmental implications of actions being considered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the City of Charlottesville, and others.

One would believe that all agencies would desire to be working from the same plans - especially on a controversial project as is the McIntire Road Extended project, but this doesn't appear to be the case.

Do consider providing your thoughts to city council on September 8, 2009 at council chambers shortly after 7:00 p.m. or send your thoughts by email to council@charlottesville.org to reach all of the city councilors.


Sheet 3 of McIntire Road Extended Project - current plan dated Oct. 30, 2008.


Sheet 4 of McIntire Road Extended Project - as submitted to Charlottesville City Council


Sheet 5 of McIntire Road Extended Project - as submitted to Charlottesville City Council

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Public Hearing on permanent easement to RWSA item #2 on City Council Sept. 8, 2009 agenda

The following public notice appeared in the Sunday, Aug. 30, 2009 issue of the Daily Progress announcing a public hearing to be held at the Sept. 8, 2009 City Council meeting. The item is listed on council agenda as item #2 so it will occur immediately following consideration of the consent agenda. The council meeting begins at 7:00 pm, and the public hearing will occur soon after that (depending on number of matters from the public, announcements, etc.). You can sign up for the hearing starting at about 6:30 pm at city council chambers.

This most recent notice is worded somewhat different from the original notice posted three weeks earlier.

The staff report that is provided to the city council has had some information on the substantial costs to the city associated with the project made possible in part through this easement is identified. The city will pay two-percent of the total cost of relocating the sewer line plus over $800,000. to pay for the additional cost of upgrading the size of the sewer line. No estimate of the relocation cost is provided, but two-percent could be another substantial sum of money to be paid by the city.

LEGAL NOTICE

On Tuesday, September 8, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. the Charlottesville City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 605 East Main Street, Charlottesville, VA regarding the conveyance by the City of a permanent utility easement to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) for sanitary sewer line facilities. The easement is shown on plan sheets 4 and 5 of Virginia Department of Transportation Project No. U000-104-102, RW-201, C501, dated 10-30-08, and revised 8-11-09. The proposed easement is located on property identified on City Real Property Tax Map 45 as Parcel 1 (McIntire Park), on City Tax Map 46 as Parcel 1.2 and on Albemarle County Tax Map 61 as Parcel 193A. Any person may appear at the public hearing to express their views on the proposed conveyance. A copy of the full text of the Ordinance authorizing the conveyance and the above-referenced VDOT plan sheets indicating the boundaries of the easements are available for inspection in the Charlottesville City Attorney's Office.

Staff Report included in Council Agenda Packet:



CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

Agenda Date: September 8, 2009
Actions Required: Yes (Approval of Ordinance First Reading)
Staff Presenter: Craig Brown, City Attorney
Staff Contacts: Craig Brown, City Attorney; Lauren Hildebrand, Public Utilities Director; Angela Tucker, Development Services Manager
Re: RWSA Easement for Schenk's Branch Interceptor

Background: The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority ("RWSA") owns a sanitary sewer collection line known as the Schenk's Branch Interceptor. The line begins on the east side of McIntire Road across from the parking lot for the Albemarle County Office Building, and continues along McIntire Road, under the Rt. 250 Bypass, through McIntire Park and ultimately connects to RWSA's Meadow Creek Interceptor in Albemarle County. The Schenk's Branch Interceptor was originally owned by the City, but was a part of the wastewater infrastructure sold to RWSA pursuant to the 1973 Four Party Agreement between the City, Albemarle County, the Albemarle County Service Authority and RWSA.

The entire Schenk's Branch Interceptor is approximately 7,000 linear feet, with all flows through the line originating within the City. As part of RWSA's replacement and upgrade of the Meadow Creek Interceptor (which collects flows from both the City and County) RWSA will be replacing and upgrading approximately 640 linear feet of the Schenk's Branch line. An additional 1,075 linear feet of the line will be relocated and replaced by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") to accommodate the construction of McIntire Road Extended. The proposed relocation by VDOT provides an opportunity for the City to have this portion of the line enlarged, with VDOT paying the majority of the relocation costs and the City paying the additional costs for the larger line.

Discussion: Since the portion of the line that is being relocated by VDOT will continue to cross City-owned property (beginning in McIntire Park and ending near Melbourne Road) RWSA will require a permanent easement from the City for the new location of the line. The area of the permanent easement is outlined in red on the plats with the proposed deed, a copy of which is attached. The granting of the permanent easement to RWSA has been advertised for a public hearing, and will require the adoption of the attached ordinance following two readings.

Alternatives: City Council may decline to adopt the ordinance for a permanent easement for the relocated sewer line.

Budget Impact: Since the McIntire Road Extended project, including the utility relocation, has not yet been bid for construction all costs are estimates at this time. The estimated costs to the City will be substantial, primarily due to the fact that the new 30-inch line will need to be placed deeper in the ground than the existing line. The “betterment” costs for increasing the size of the line are estimated to be $815,730, which will ultimately be charged to the City since the line only serves City customers. The majority of these costs ($455,000) are attributable to rock excavation that will be necessary to place the new larger line deeper in the ground. The installation of the new Schenk’s Branch Interceptor will also entail improvements to an existing City sanitary sewer main that ties into the Interceptor near Melbourne Road, at an estimated cost to the City of $48,600. As with all project costs related to right-of-way acquisition and construction for McIntire Road Extended the City will also be responsible for 2% of the costs of the relocation of the Schenk’s Branch Interceptor.

Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance granting RWSA a permanent easement for the relocated Schenk's Branch Interceptor.

Attachments:
Proposed ordinance granting a permanent easement to RWSA
Proposed deed of easement with plats attached


Attachment: Proposed ordinance granting a permanent easement to RWSA as updated for the Sept. 08, 2009 council meeting

AN ORDINANCE
GRANTING A PERMANENT EASEMENT TO THE
RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY FOR THE
RELOCATION AND ENLARGEMENT OF THE
SCHENK'S BRANCH SEWER INTERCEPTOR.

WHEREAS, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority ("RWSA") has requested the City of Charlottesville to grant a permanent easement across a portion of McIntire Park and on City-owned property between the Park and Melbourne Road, as shown on the highway plan sheets 4 and 5 of the Virginia Department of Transportation, for VDOT Project No. UOOO-104-102, RW-201, C501, dated October 30, 2008 and last revised August 11, 2009; and,

WHEREAS, the proposed easement will allow for the relocation and enlargement of a portion of the Schenk's Branch Interceptor, a sewer collection line owned by RWSA and serving City residents; and,

WHEREAS, in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2-1800(B), a public hearing was held to give the public an opportunity to comment on the conveyance of this easement; and

WHEREAS, City staff have reviewed the request and have no objection to the conveyance of said easement to RWSA.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute one or more Deeds of Easement and such other documents as may be requested by RWSA, in form approved by the City Attorney, to convey the above-described easement to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.

Note: § 15.2-1800. Purchase, sale, use, etc., of real property.

B. Subject to any applicable requirements of Article VII, Section 9 of the Constitution, any locality may sell, at public or private sale, exchange, lease as lessor, mortgage, pledge, subordinate interest in or otherwise dispose of its real property, which includes the superjacent airspace (except airspace provided for in § 15.2-2030) which may be subdivided and conveyed separate from the subjacent land surface, provided that no such real property, whether improved or unimproved, shall be disposed of until the governing body has held a public hearing concerning such disposal. However, the holding of a public hearing shall not apply to (i) the leasing of real property to another public body, political subdivision or authority of the Commonwealth or (ii) conveyance of site development easements across public property, including, but not limited to, easements for ingress, egress, utilities, cable, telecommunications, storm water management, and other similar conveyances, that are consistent with the local capital improvement program, involving improvement of property owned by the locality. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the vacation of public interests in real property under the provisions of Articles 6 (§ 15.2-2240 et seq.) and 7 (§ 15.2-2280 et seq.) of Chapter 22 of this title.


Proposed Deed of Easement:

This document was prepared by:
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902

City of Charlottesville Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 450001000, 460001200, 460003000 Albemarle County Tax Map and Parcel Number 06100-00-00-193A0

This DEED OF EASEMENT, made this 3rd day of November, 2008, by and between the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor ("Property Owner"), and RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, a body politic and corporate created pursuant to the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act, whose address is 695 Moores Creek Lane, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, Grantee (the "Authority").

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to grant the Authority the easement shown and described on the plans for State Highway Project U000-104-102, RW-201, Parcels 001 and 004, Sheets 4 and 5, attached hereto and recorded herewith (the "Plat"); and

WHEREAS, as shown on the Plat, the proposed easement crosses a portion of the property conveyed to Property Owner by deeds recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Charlottesville in Deed Book 162, page 296, and Deed Book 338, page 530, and by deeds recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 192, pages 15 and 18, and Deed Book 526, page 238, and Property Owner is the fee simple owner of the said property as of the date hereof.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($l.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Property Owner does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY of TITLE unto the Authority a perpetual right of way and easement to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair, replace, relocate and extend a sewer line consisting of pipes, equipment, and appurtenances to such pipes and equipment, over, under and across the real property of Property Owner located in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, and the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and to access any other adjacent easement held by the Authority, the location and width of the easement hereby granted and the boundaries of the property being more particularly described and shown on the Plat as Sanitary Sewer Easement (the "Sewer Easement"). Reference is made to the Plat for the exact location and dimension of the Sewer Easement hereby granted and the property over which the same crosses.

Easement Obstructions

Property Owner, its successors or assigns, agree that trees, shrubs, fences, buildings, overhangs or other improvements or obstructions shall not be located within the Sewer Easement. The Sewer Easement shall include the right of the Authority to cut any trees, brush and shrubbery, remove obstructions and take other similar action reasonably necessary to provide economical and safe sewer line installation, operation and maintenance. The Authority shall have no responsibility to Property Owner, its successors or assigns, to replace or reimburse the cost of trees, brush, shrubbery, or other obstructions located in the Sewer Easement if cut or removed or otherwise damaged.

Easement Access and Maintenance

As part of the Sewer Easement the Authority shall have the right to enter upon the above-described property within the Sewer Easement for the purpose of installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, relocating and extending the above-described sewer line and appurtenances thereto, within the Sewer Easement; and in addition, the Authority shall have the right of ingress and egress thereto as reasonably necessary to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair, replace, relocate and extend such sewer lines. If the Authority is unable to reasonably exercise the right of ingress and egress over the right-of-way, the Authority shall have the right of ingress and egress over the property of Property Owner adjacent to the right-of-way, and shall restore surface conditions of such property adjacent to the right-of-way as nearly as practical to the same condition as prior to the Authority's exercise of such right.

Excavation

Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within the Sewer Easement, the Authority agrees to backfill such excavation in a proper and workmanlike manner so as to restore surface conditions as nearly as practical to the same condition as prior to excavation, including restoration of such paved surfaces as may be damaged or disturbed as part of such excavation.

Ownership of Facilities

The facilities constructed within the Sewer Easement shall be the property of the Authority, its successors and assigns, which shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve and make such changes, alterations and connections to or extensions of its facilities within the boundaries of the Sewer Easement as are consistent with the purposes expressed herein.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Dredging Contract and the Future of McIntire Park topics for Political Monday on TV-19

The August 31 edition of Political Mondays video with Peter Kleeman and Joe Thomas on WCAV TV-19 is now available online on the Charlottesville Newsplex web channel. Below are links to all of the Political Mondays videos you can view online. A typical show is about 5 minutes so check some out.

Previous Political Mondays videos:

August 31, 2009 Topics: Why is the dredging contract cost twice expectations? (Joe Thomas); the Future of McIntire Park - is the proposed Botanical Garden at McIntire Park a good idea? (Peter Kleeman).

August 24, 2009 Topics: Desirability of the Commonwealth of Virginia contracting out major government responsibilities (Peter Kleeman); Never count on government - private enterprise is always the answer. (Joe Thomas)

August 17, 2009: Topics: Places 29 Report (Joe Thomas); Need for Civil Discourse among elected officials and the public (Peter Kleeman); Will a health care bill be passed this year? (Dan Schutte).

August 10, 2009: Topics: "Photo Red" Approval by Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (Peter Kleeman); Tom In Your Town meetings (Joe Thomas).

August 3, 2009: Topics: Fraudulent letters sent to Rep. Tom Perriello (Joe Thomas); Federal Cash for Clunkers program (Dan Schutte).

July 27, 2009: Topics: Fifty-year water supply plan (Peter Kleeman); Virgil Goode, Jr. not seeking US Congressional seat in 2010 (Joe Thomas).

July 20, 2009: Topics: Charlottesville rally against healthcare proposals (Joe Thomas); US Army Corps of Engineers letter denying permit to construct McIntire Road Extended (Peter Kleeman).