Can VDOT really open the Meadow Creek Parkway?

The Virginia Department of Transportation is planning to open a portion of a road project in the very near future. I contacted the City Attorney to inquire about the legality of VDOT doing this. Below is my note to Attorney Craig Brown on the subject. I like to think that the city will follow its own ordinances. We shall see.


Date: September 14, 2010
To: Mr. Craig Brown, Charlottesville City Attorney
From: Peter Kleeman
RE: Opening of Meadow Creek Parkway on a temporary basis north of Melbourne Road

Dear Mr. Brown

I was recently informed by VDOT that VDOT intends to open the Meadow Creek Parkway facility on a temporary basis starting in the next few week to facilitate construction activities on Rio Road in Albemarle County. As I read the June 2, 2008 ordinance passed by City Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE GRANTING PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY EASEMENTS ACROSS CITY-OWNED PROPERTY IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY (MELBOURNE ROAD AREA) TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (VDOT) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY", no opening of a portion of the highway improvement project(s) connecting Rio Road to the Route 250 Bypass at McIntire Road is allowed until all of the projects are complete. VDOT’s proposed temporary opening of the Meadow Creek Parkway north of Melbourne Road even on a temporary basis appears to be a direct violation of the June 2, 2008 ordinance

The specific wording stating this condition in the resolution portion of the June 2, 2008 ordinance is as follows:

“BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Council’s consent to the conveyances of easements as described herein is contingent on the following conditions:

(1) that no part of the Meadow Creek Parkway project (i.e., the Albemarle County Meadow Creek Parkway section, the City McIntire Road Extended section, or the Interchange/Intersection project at the 250 Bypass and McIntire) will be open for public use until the entire project is complete and ready for opening;”

I explored the City Code to determine what would be necessary to amend this ordinance if council wished to allow opening of the Meadow Creek Parkway facility on a temporary basis. The process necessary for council to follow is stated in Article II, Division 1, Section 2-100 of the City Code (given below) where the issue of amending an ordinance is addressed.

"Sec. 2-100. Repealing and amending ordinances generally.

No ordinance shall be amended or repealed except by an ordinance regularly introduced and adopted.

(Code 1976, § 2-34)"

I believe it is unlawful for VDOT to open the Meadow Creek Parkway unless and until City Council formally amends or otherwise supersedes the explicit prohibition of such an opening as provided in the June 2, 2008 ordinance. It is my recollection that the Charlottesville School Board originally requested that this condition be included in any ordinance granting construction easements to VDOT for the Meadow Creek Parkway because of their concern for safety of students traveling to and from Charlottesville High School on Melbourne Road. I believe that an investigation into the safety concerns expressed by the Charlottesville School Board must be done that shows the opening not to result in significant risks to Charlottesville High School students, teachers, and staff prior to amending the June 2, 2008 ordinance to allow opening of the Meadow Creek Parkway.

I am copying this email to council and the Charlottesville School Board for their consideration of this matter.

If there is some legal agreement that is in place that supersedes this ordinance, and explicitly allows opening of the Meadow Creek Parkway as proposed by VDOT, I would appreciate your providing me a copy of that agreement.

Sincerely,
Peter Kleeman

Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park asks City Council to Consider McIntire Road Extended Resolution

The Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park (CPMP) distributed the text of a proposed resolution concerning future council actions associated with the proposed McIntire Road Extended project that would significantly impact McIntire Park. An article in today's Daily Progress entitled "Group offers new appeal on parkway" by Rachana Dixit discusses how CPMP worked with the City Attorney to get the language of the proposed resolution in a form suitable for council consideration, but it is not clear if council has yet discussed the proposed resolution in the closed session of council held on Monday April 19, 2010. The Daily Progress Headline is a bit misleading in that this is not a new appeal on the Meadowcreek Parkway project. CPMP submitted a similar proposal to council several weeks ago. The new text is the result of discussions on the wording of the resolution between CPMP and the City Attorney carried out at the request of council.

The Daily Progress article suggests that some council members are hoping what the resolution calls for will occur, but that council may not act to ensure that CPMP is afforded a fair opportunity for judicial review of the project segmentation claim.

I certainly encourage council to pass this resolution so that CPMP members and other area residents can be assured that their concerns are fairly addressed in Federal court if that turns out to be necessary. Approving this proposed resolution will be consistent with Charlottesville City Council's vision statement where they strive to be "A leader in innovation, environmental sustainability, and social and economic justice." In the vision statement council states the following:

"The delivery of quality services is at the heart of Charlottesville’s social compact with its citizens. Charlottesville’s approach to customer service ensures that we have safe neighborhoods, strong schools, and a clean environment. We continually work to employ the optimal means of delivering services, and our decisions are informed at every stage by effective communication and active citizen involvement."

CPMP believes that the proposed resolution is necessary to ensure that our opportunity to exercise active citizen involvement may be prempted by actions by the Virginia Department of Transportation or the City of Charlottesville. Passing the proposed resolution or some variant of the resolution agreed upon by CPMP and City Council would clearly demonstrate that council acts in concert with its own vision statement.

Below is the draft resolution submitted to city council for its consideration.

Dear Councilors, The Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park believes the proposed McIntire Road Extended and Rt. 250 Bypass Interchange are not in full compliance with federal project development, historic preservation, and environmental laws. It is our belief that no damage should occur in McIntire Park until the legal question has been resolved. We request that you act in the best interests of the citizens of Charlottesville by passing a resolution to protect McIntire Park from premature and unnecessary disturbance. The people have a right to know that if a large section of McIntire Park is threatened with loss, there would first be full compliance with our nation’s laws. If construction begins in McIntire Park before a judicial review of the Interchange has occurred, citizens will lose a significant resource that is protected by federal law. It could also lead to the significant expense of undoing the damage done. We respectfully ask that you pass a resolution to prevent any ground disturbing activity south of Melbourne Road before the Federal Highway Administration has made a final determination on the Interchange and there has been an opportunity for an expeditious review of the FHWA decision. Here is possible wording for such a resolution: “The Charlottesville City Council hereby states that it is the will of Council that no contract for the construction of a McIntire Road Extended is to be signed, that no ground disturbing activity is to take place south of Melbourne Road, and that no agreements will be signed with the Virginia Department of Transportation for project construction, operation,and maintenance before the Federal Highway Administration has made its final determination on the proposed Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road and there has been an opportunity for an expeditious judicial review of the merits of the legal claim on the FHWA decision on the Interchange.” Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this request. John A. Cruickshank Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park 973-0373

Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce expresses Grave Disappointment and Concern regarding Meadowcreek Parkway project

The Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce distributed the press release (below) expressing its "'GRAVE DISAPPOINTMENT AND CONCERN' TO CHARLOTTESVILLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OVER DIRECTION WITH “GREAT POTENTIAL TO DAMAGE” KEY ROADWAY PROJECTS." A copy of a letter sent to Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris is attached.

I am a bit surprised that the Chamber is "concerned that Council is placing the City Attorney in the extremely difficult position of meeting with project opponents known to be preparing a suit to stop the project altogether, with an apparent assignment to assist those citizens with procedural elements of their case." I am curious if the Chamber contacted the city attorney on this matter prior to issuing this release. I attended the city council meeting where council asked the city attorney to meet with members of the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park (CPMP) to ensure that all relevant issues of concern to the city and CPMP are included in a draft resolution for council consideration. It is well understood by CPMP members that the city attorney cannot provide legal advice to the coalition, and we have no intention to ask for legal advice. I have had conversations regarding legal issues regarding city actions in the past and know that our city attorney is well aware of his responsibilities as council to city council.

I am also disappointed that the Chamber appears to oppose consideration of all relevant federal, state, and local laws, regulations, ordinances, etc. prior to taking actions that may irreparably damage McIntire Park before legitimate concerns of parkland protection, historic resource preservation and federal transportation regulations are fully considered.

I requested during today's Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting that it - as the forum for consideration of regional transportation issues - host a community discussion of the true costs and benefits of the proposed project to ensure that the community decisions relating to this project are based on a comprehensive set of facts rather than isolated bits of information or opinion provided by a broad range of project stakeholders. The MPO members were not interested in serving as a forum for clarifying issues surrounding the project and moved on to other matters on their agenda.

To learn more about the project please come to C'ville Coffee on Harris Road (near the skate park) where CPMP will be holding a FUNdraiser and be providing information about their project concerns. The FUNdraiser is from 2-4 pm on Sunday March 28 at C'ville Coffee. There will be musical entertainment, comedy, and information provided. Tickets are $15 ($5 for under 12 year olds) . Come and enjoy the event and learn a bit more about how the Meadowcreek Parkway project will impact Charlottesville and McIntire Park. Check the bulletin boards around town for event details.

Chamber press release and letter to Mayor Norris follow:

“… dedicated to representing private enterprise, promoting business

and enhancing the quality of life in our Greater Charlottesville communities.”

cvillechamber.com

PO Box 1564 • Fifth & Market Streets • Charlottesville, Virginia 22902

RELEASE: IMMEDIATE

CONTACT: Timothy P. O’Brien 434.295.3141

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EXPRESSES “GRAVE DISAPPOINTMENT AND CONCERN” TO CHARLOTTESVILLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OVER DIRECTION WITH “GREAT POTENTIAL TO DAMAGE” KEY ROADWAY PROJECTS

(Charlottesville, Virginia – March 24) The Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce released a letter today sent to the Charlottesville City Council expressing the area’s leading business organization’s “grave disappointment and concern” over recent City direction about the McIntire Road Extended project – a key project needed to provide vehicular access into Downtown Charlottesville.

The March 22^nd letter to Mayor David Norris and Charlottesville City Counselors stated, “Our Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce expresses our grave disappointment and concern about recent actions on behalf of the City of Charlottesville which appear to greatly compromise the City’s and Commonwealth of Virginia’s legal standing regarding the McIntire Road Extended Project, and bringing into serious jeopardy that vital project and many other projects of benefit to the City.”

“As you know,” the letter continued, “expeditious construction of the Meadowcreek Parkway & McIntire Road Extended projects – from Rio Road in Albemarle County to a new federal intersection project at US 250 & McIntire Road in the City of Charlottesville – providing a safe, attractive, accessible gateway to a vibrant, sustained downtown residential, shopping, entertainment and employment center, remain our Chamber's highest transportation priority projects.”

A copy of the Chamber letter to the City is attached.

The Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce is dedicated to representing private enterprise, promoting business and enhancing the quality of life in the Greater Charlottesville communities. Founded in 1913, today the Chamber has 1,000 member enterprises. Chamber member enterprises employ more than 45,000 men and women in the Greater Charlottesville region, representing an estimated total payroll of more than $1.3 billion a year.

###

3.24.10 – 10

Attachment: March 22, 2010 Chamber letter to Charlottesville Mayor & City Council

“… dedicated to representing private enterprise, promoting business

and enhancing the quality of life in our Greater Charlottesville communities.”

cvillechamber.com

PO Box 1564 • Fifth & Market Streets • Charlottesville, Virginia 22902

March 22, 2010

RE: McIntire Road Extended Project

Dear Mayor Norris and Honorable City Councilors:

Our Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce expresses our grave disappointment and concern about recent actions on behalf of the City of Charlottesville which appear to greatly compromise the City’s and Commonwealth of Virginia’s legal standing regarding the McIntire Road Extended Project, and bringing into serious jeopardy that vital project and many other projects of benefit to the City.

As you know, expeditious construction of the Meadowcreek Parkway & McIntire Road Extended projects – from Rio Road in Albemarle County to a new federal intersection project at US 250 & McIntire Road in the City of Charlottesville – providing a safe, attractive, accessible gateway to a vibrant, sustained downtown residential, shopping, entertainment and employment center, remain our Chamber's highest transportation priority projects.

Recent informal direction by City Council, apparently reversing more than forty years of City policy approved by numerous City Councils, politically linking two independent projects with separate and distinct functional utility, hold great potential to damage both of these projects’ prospects. This direction effectively halts progress on the McIntire Road Extended project just as the project is gaining its last needed permit, and at the 11-th hour of the awarding of a construction bid with very favorable pricing to the City’s and Virginia’s taxpayers. We are concerned that the impact of losing the $2 million benefit of these favorable construction bids was not treated more seriously. Clearly, if half or a full construction season is lost, it would be reasonable to assume project costs – taxpayer costs – will increase significantly.

Our Chamber is even more concerned that Council is placing the City Attorney in the extremely difficult position of meeting with project opponents known to be preparing a suit to stop the project altogether, with an apparent assignment to assist those citizens with procedural elements of their case. The City Attorney, by oath and public trust, represents the interests of the City – including advancing the McIntire Road Extended project, by repeated direction of City Council. Our Chamber respects Mayor Norris’ and others long-standing, firmly-held opposition to these projects. However, City Council has collectively voted to approve and forward this project on a number of occasions, and the public deserves to know that all Councilors, regardless of their personal opinion on a particular issue or project, will forward the official decisions of the Council, or, at a minimum, at least not interfere with such decisions. This is the basis of the public's trust in our democratic system.

– 2 –

As you know, the Commonwealth of Virginia has invested millions of dollars in the McIntire Road Extended project in reliance on the City Council's official actions to approve it. Should the City choose to maintain this highly inadvisable path and cause the project to not be constructed, it is very likely that the Commonwealth, in its fiduciary role as steward of extremely limited transportation funds, would pursue recovery from the City of those funds. Furthermore, it would make it extremely difficult for the City to ever obtain state transportation dollars in the future, given that funds will continue to be at record low levels for the foreseeable future, and the Commonwealth will likely be more inclined to invest those scarce transportation dollars in localities with a more reliable track-record of partnership. Other communities within the Commonwealth gladly would make use of funding Charlottesville cannot advance.

We are further concerned that these recent reversals may only further exacerbate already-frayed tensions between the City and Albemarle County. Our citizens and business enterprises want our two localities to work together for the common good of our larger community at all times, but especially when cost-savings can be achieved as a result of such cooperation. Albemarle County has invested millions of dollars in their project, and the City should see its project through as well since it has voted to officially approve the project.

Again, our Chamber urges the Charlottesville City Council to proceed with construction of the McIntire Extended project and final planning stages of the federal US250 – McIntire Road Intersection project – separately and independently, as these two projects clearly are.

We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet and discuss this very important matter with you.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

X / W. Rod Gentry

W. Rod Gentry

Chairman of the Board of Directors

X / Timothy Hulbert

Timothy Hulbert

President

X / Robert P Hodous

Robert P. Hodous, Esq.

First Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors

The Honorable David Norris and Honorable City Councilors

City of Charlottesville

Charlottesville City Hall

Charlottesville, Virginia 22902

cc: The Chamber Board of Directors

The Honorable Sean Connaughton, Virginia Secretary of Transportation

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)

---

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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