City Council Meeting   10/1/2007

I think it's pretty cool.

You know, it looks to me like that thing.

I might get one of them.

Huh?

I do want to write a book.

Three years, but I'd love to try.

The original charge was to create a connection between pantops and 20s.

Now, there's alignments that could go by the road, you know, as a way of getting to 20s.

There's going to be a steering committee meeting this week, Thursday, Friday, later in the week, I forget who got the win.

There's about half a dozen proposals, possibly relocations as far as I'm concerned all the others are pretty much non-stars

We're trying to get this system to be out there.

We're with you now.

It's so bad.

We've been trying to keep it in there for maybe five years.

I'm sorry.

I'm transferred these years.

I bet if we did 15 years, we'd have to change it.

We think they're not going to get all the rest of them.

I know you're talking to us.

Are you ready?

Dr. Brown.

Here.

Ms. Hamilton.

Here.

Mr. Lynch.

Here.

Mr. Norris.

Mr. Taliaferro.

Here.

First item on the agenda is announcements where we can either announce items of community interest or items that we're considering to bring up under other business tonight so people will know what we're going to talk about at the end of the meeting.

I think we have a clip of the ads if they're going to hear that coming.

And we're always improving with innovative new ideas like October's fare-free month.

That's right!

To help celebrate the grand opening of our new downtown transit station, we're letting everybody ride fare-free for the month of October.

Plus UVA students, faculty and staff now ride free all the time to show your photo ID.

Get more information on CTS and fare-free October at the new downtown transit station or by calling 970-3649.

For more than 30 years, CTS has provided safe, clean and comfortable service.

And we're always improving.

This fall, CTS begins Sunday bus service on Route 7 and the free trolley.

And Monday through Saturday, Route 5 buses now arrive every 30 minutes.

Plus, UVA students, faculty and staff now ride free to show your photo ID.

Get more information on CTS at the new downtown transit station or by calling 970-3649.

I had a couple items I'd like to bring up under other business later on.

Okay.

A couple other things to bring up under other business.

On Wednesday, there's going to be a meeting here concerning the pools, and I believe a couple of counselors

are going to attend at least, if more than two, I think we'll want to publicly notice that.

So, we can just settle that right now, we better publicly notice that.

And the other one was that, to bring to your attention, Highland New Wind, which is a wind energy company.

operating in the Highlands has just completed a couple of legal hurdles and is moving forward and probably getting close to the time where if the city is interested in buying wind power, that could be a reality pretty soon.

Any other announcements?

Mr. Connell, we have a guest from Slovakia today.

Peter Ogg, who is the city manager in Novi Zamsky,

My name is Paul Grady and I live just outside of Crozet and you'll pardon me if I take a little longer than three minutes but it's less than one page and I'll read it as fast as I can.

I don't know how much influence this council is going to have on the outcome of the Places 29 study, but I believe the 29H250 study, which was performed before we received the money for the Meadow Creek Parkway interchange, was horribly flawed.

The 29H250 study was not conceived in a way to remove the stoplight at Hydraulic Road and the 250 bypass, which I believe was an enormous mistake.

For those of you who are less familiar with the 29H250 study than I, there were three options, A, B, and C. Basically, option A sent all through traffic down hydraulic road on grade.

Option B sent all through traffic down Emmett Street.

And option C created an elevated expressway down hydraulic road with a two-lane hydraulic

north of the expressway on grade for local traffic.

Even though the interchange in option C eliminated the stoplight at hydraulic and the 250 bypass, it was not given any extra credit for doing so.

Over the course of the study, options A and B were further developed with subbed options.

Option C never received any further development, so it failed because the land south of the expressways was completely cut off from the two-lane hydraulic road.

The consultants recommended option B, which destroys the two blocks of Emmett Street, requires the rebuilding of the Barracks Road interchange and still leaves a stoplight at hydraulic and 250 bypass.

Since these areas are in the city, I would think this council would be upset that their tax base would be reduced because all the businesses on the west side of those two blocks of Emmett Street, as well as the residents around the Barracks Road interchange, will suffer irreparable harm.

I believe that early on in the study, for whatever reason, a decision was made not to further develop option C. I believe that the 29H250 study was fixed to make option C lose.

There has never been a public hearing on the 29H250 study, either before the County Planning Commission, the City Planning Commission, the County Board of Supervisors is canceled, the Chart Committee, or the MPO.

Yet legislation has been passed in the Virginia General Assembly allowing proffered money from Albemarle Place to be used on the quick fix right turn lane from Emmett Street down to the 250 bypass.

This to me smacks of corruption and fraud when the public is denied any say in this very serious matter.

To remove any appearance of impropriety before any money is spent on this quick fix, I implore you to request that the 29H250 study be reopened and option C be further developed.

An option C2 that provides for a four lane hydraulic road two lanes north of the expressway and two lanes south be studied as well as an option C3 which would consist of an elevated expressway on piers directly above the existing hydraulic road.

No massive excavation, just put it up in the air.

I guarantee you that option C3 will turn out to be the least expensive solution because the city already owns most of the land needed for the interchange.

My greatest fear is that if action is not taken soon, that money will be spent on the quick fix and that those who fix the 29H250 study will start saying, well, we've already spent money on the quick fix, we can't change course now.

We have to go on with option B, which has to be the worst possible solution to this problem.

Ellingston, 810 Lucas Avenue, and real quickly before I start, Mr. Norris.

My car was in the shop last week.

I took the city buses.

I found it to be an entirely satisfactory experience and I'm going to try to use the buses more often in the future.

What I want to talk about real quickly is the agenda.

Item number two, granting construction easement to VDOT for McIntyre Road extended.

I personally feel this agenda item is extremely deceptive.

I saw the agenda in the paper and

I said, well gee whiz, you know, and so what?

Well, fortunately a friend called me today and said, hey, they're going to give VDOT an easement for the Meadow Creek Parkway, and that's the Meadow Creek Parkway up there, and when I went out to the city website, and yep, there it is.

And why don't you just call it the Meadow Creek Parkway?

A couple weeks ago I was here, and y'all were talking about leasing the YMCA,

You knew that there's only going to be one person bidding on the deal.

Theoretically, you hadn't made up your mind whether or not you were going to lease it.

Well, okay.

Well, maybe that didn't make sense to me, but I wasn't suspicious.

I give you all the benefit of the doubt.

You all are here to represent me.

I trust you.

Okay.

Marquette, 4th and Alcomar Street.

It has come to my attention that there are plans to relocate or renovate the downtown library.

It is my understanding that the library is jointly owned by the city and the county.

Further, the county has authorized funding for the renovation of the current building, but the city has not.

Where I have been told, the city favors moving the library to another location and possibly building a $40 million project.

My question is, what would be the plans for the current building if the library was to be moved?

Personally, I find that the downtown library is a very good location.

Okay, thank you.

With Columbus Day approaching next week to remind us of how the United States came to be, I appeal to City Council to redress an offensive and inaccurate symbol of manifest destiny that sits prominently in our own city, the Lewis and Clark and Sacagawea statue at the intersection of Ridge, West Main, McIntyre and Water Streets.

While Lewis and Clark stand boldly looking out holding their guns, their guide, who should be in front, Sacagawea, is crouched down behind them and opposed that

I heavily suggest cowering.

From most places in the intersection, you can't even see Sacagawea.

According to the accounts in Lewis and Clark's own journals, this depiction of her is wrong and many, many people in Charlottesville, including misrepresentation herself, find it offensive.

As if that weren't enough, the wording on the pedestal celebrates how the duo revealed an unknown empire to the uses of mankind.

Unknown to whom?

This statue was made in 1919 and reflects then common attitudes about the Corps of Discovery, Sacagawea, and women in general.

Knowing this, however, does not excuse its current inclusion in our city as a celebration and depiction of actual historical events.

We are a city that receives significant tax revenue from historical tourism and we cannot conscionably allow the statue to remain as is.

It must have context and space with which to consider the powerful and controversial imagery and text around the statue.

Right now, it sits in the midst of a dangerous thoroughfare and its landscape in such a way that it makes it unapproachable.

It's too tall to see much of the detail around the sides and there is too little perspective and time to read and reflect about it.

I'm here tonight to propose that the city move the statue when it undertakes reconstruction of the intersection and place it somewhere with space and context, perhaps a park, a plaza or a museum.

Leaving the statue in a busy intersection uncontextualized and unapproachable is a tacit agreement with its message and image.

I don't want my daughter to grow up thinking her city doesn't care how women or history are portrayed.

And I don't want our city to perpetuate the myth that the United States was an unknown empire before Lewis and Clark made their journey.

Thank you.

Hello, Stratton Salitas, 414 Main Street.

I'd appreciate it if we would all visualize the Charlottesville in five to ten years, let's say.

And let's have a dual set of pictures in our mind.

One, as if we've decided to spend most of our money on roads, which is where we are right now in terms of our planning.

And then another one maybe we'll talk about is if

We had decided to spend most of our money on walking, biking, and transit, and not just money, but also how we dedicate our space.

So in five to ten years, let's say we build a bunch of roads.

Let's say, for instance, we build the Meadow Creek Parkway.

Well, now we've got two strips of land for a central park with a road running through the middle of it instead of a nice central park without a road running through the middle of it, except 250 at this point, I suppose.

and you know is there traffic back on Rile Road now five or ten years after that we've made the Meadow Creek Parkway?

I'm happy to have you talk in general about roads versus bikes but if you want to talk about the parkway I know you've signed up for the Meadow Creek Parkway construction easement.

Okay, well, good enough, then I guess I will say, I'll just, alright.

Okay, well, so yeah, is the

Okay, we won't talk about whether we built the parkway or not, I guess, but is it congested now?

Have they started on phase two?

And are we still in Iraq?

So, I guess, you know, I'd like to ask y'all to visualize that.

And then imagine 30 years from now if we had decided to really invest in walking, biking, and transit.

You know, maybe now we do have

Instead of interchanges which prioritize automobiles, we allow the buses through easier.

We could spend that money at McIntyre to fix that intersection and perhaps prioritize buses.

Hillsdale Connector could be prioritized.

We could have

express routes from downtown utilizing 250 for instance.

We could have bike paths, sidewalks, a complete network.

It would be the obvious choice for people to use.

We would have healthier people, less sedentary, in better shape, drinking, taking in cleaner air and water.

Maybe we wouldn't still be in Iran.

with any luck because maybe we would have been an example to other communities across this country as to how to live in a way that uses our fair share of global resources.

Hello, 414 East Main Street.

Yeah, the statue is appalling to me as well.

It has been, since I've ever moved here, I noticed that one and also the one in the corner, but that's not the only reason why I was here.

The other reason why is because

Well, I every now and then come around and give you all speech because I'm allowed to do that.

It's nice to see who's making decisions for if I do decide to live here from me and my children and their children.

But to me a large issue that I always feel like is impinging on my freedom and on everyone's freedom is that we have an infrastructure based on individuals and not on persons and this is a muddled paradoxical thing that we

I think it's important when you look at the aspect of an infrastructure, a particular modality of transportation that we have.

privileges the individual and not the person.

This difference is quite critical in the long haul because we are not individuals, we are also persons.

We are both at the same time.

And I think that's very important because if we don't recognize that infrastructural and structural paradoxical dive turn to

walking, biking, being able to see your neighbors and say hello.

We live on a downtown mall for a reason.

We have people coming to the downtown mall for a reason.

It's because it doesn't have cars running you over.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Anthony Guy Lopez.

I live in Schuyler.

I recently moved there.

I'm a graduate student at UVA.

I've been there for three years.

And I'm a Lakota Sioux.

I'm a member of the, or I'm a citizen of the Crow Creek Sioux Nation in South Dakota.

And I'm here to speak about the legacy of Charlottesville.

and how it affects American Indian people, indigenous peoples, the symbolism involved in the city as a misrepresentation.

I support what she says because as a graduate student at UVA, I'm one of maybe two or three American Indian graduate students in the College of Arts and Sciences.

and UVA to my knowledge has never had a tenured American Indian professor in its history and it doesn't have one now.

In fact, I think it has maybe one or two part-time non-tenured faculty right now.

It's never had any programs for American Indians.

It's never had any space allocated to American Indians or American Indian studies.

It's as though we don't exist.

Recently there was a news story about how the incoming class at UVA is the most diverse ever.

But the story did not report any statistics about American Indians.

and so what I'm faced with here living in and around Charlottesville and going to UVA is a feeling of isolation, alienation and yet this is my homeland, this is my country, my land, my home and I don't see that represented

in the University of Virginia and sad to say it's the same here in Charlottesville.

I would dare to say that you've never had any programs for American Indians within the city, although I haven't researched it.

I doubt that you've had any serious programs.

public efforts to represent the side of American Indians yet you profit so greatly from the legacy that you share with American Indians and there's a huge void there that has to be filled.

You're celebrating 400 years of Virginia this year and you've been celebrating the 200 years of Lewis and Clark but yet

Where is the Native American side of history represented here in Charlottesville or at the University of Virginia?

So what I'm asking you to do is to formally act, to take formal steps, create some kind of committee, some kind of commission.

We can work with the tribes of, there's nine American Indian tribes in Virginia.

One of them is very close to Charlottesville, the Monacan nation, and I think they would be very happy to work with the city of Charlottesville, as well as the other American Indians.

There's quite a few who live in this region of the country.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Finish would be great.

Okay.

So you hear what I'm saying.

There is a great need.

If you want to be conscionable, if you want to be equitable and true to the real history.

Thank you.

That's all the people who have signed up.

There's probably time for a couple more.

Rob Quaker, 710 Glen Avenue.

I'm here to talk about the change in hours in the parks.

I have no opinion as to whether they should or shouldn't be or any issues there, but if the decision is made to change the hours, if you could allow some provision for law-abiding citizens to be permitted to use them on a case-by-case or ongoing basis.

I'll be one such example.

I have a tour business.

tell me about tours.

I serve the needs of tourists and locals alike.

And I do go through Lee Park at 9 o'clock or after 9 o'clock.

And so if it's some way I could be permitted to do that, I take a group of people through three stops and I'm on my way.

I don't think that's the kind of people you're trying to keep out if that's what you're trying to do.

Hi, everybody.

My name is Raymond Mason.

I live at 717 6th Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia.

I'm back to find out the status of what I asked a couple of meetings ago.

I spoke to Julian the other week.

He said that you discussed it, but I wasn't here and I read the minutes and I didn't read anything in the minutes that said you had discussed it.

and I still have those same concerns.

Yesterday, I noticed in the paper last night that there was a missing person that had been missing for only 24 hours in the city police department, you know, all out search, National Guard, everything, you would think, but I filed a missing person report on 7-14 and Officer Quinlan, I believe that's his name, at 501, told me that he, it wasn't that the city couldn't do a missing person report, but he would not do it and that

you know if someone didn't want to be at home or come home they didn't have to come home and that wasn't a concern I didn't have any contact I don't know if they wanted to come or whatever but I don't think he should have made that call and as a result I've lost quite a bit of money and something needs to be done about this already this has been an ongoing thing I don't know if it's just me or is this how you treat all black people in the city as far as when you call the police department seeking help you know the incident when I was arrested

When I was unconscious, when I was taken to the jail, the meeting addressed to the hospital, I don't know what the policy is.

If a police officer pulls up on someone who's unconscious, I don't know what the policy is, but something needs to be done about it.

Because if the policy is just to take them straight to jail, you don't know.

I got a bill today for $2600 as a result of that.

I don't know who's responsible for that, but I know who's not interested in paying for it.

So if you get a chance to get back with me, I mean, it's been two months at least, and I haven't heard anything.

No mail, no correspondence, no anything.

So either you don't care or you just haven't been able to get in touch with me.

But I'm going to write my number down and you'll be able to get in touch with me after the night.

Okay.

Thank you.

And you would like to come make a comment?

You have to come up here, please.

Oh.

We didn't sign up on the public comment.

You didn't sign up for now.

You signed up on the right list.

Okay.

Okay.

One more.

Good evening.

I'm Chad Frexman, 104 Northwood Circle.

Today, October 1, starts a month of free

and the City of

are young citizens of our community and particularly Charlottesville High School.

Currently in the summertime, the city offers a free bus pass for students.

I'd like that to be considered for all year round.

Not only does it encourage kids to start riding the bus, but it creates future riders, which I think we hear a lot from the public that maybe we need to do other things than everybody driving around in single occupancy vehicles.

Taxpayer money is spent on CTS.

We pass regulations for using streets.

We put bike lanes in.

We take parking away.

Our rhetoric politically is to encourage alternative transportation and yet there's a complete educational disconnect at our schools where we have acres of asphalt and invite kids to drive to school.

If we offer them a free bus pass, we can then look at putting a bus route that went by the high school that would address a transportation need.

There's also a social component to this.

If you go by Charlottesville High School, you'll notice that juniors and seniors don't ride the yellow school bus.

if they can drive a car.

And unfortunately in our community there are this significant portion of our student body who by and large are African American are the ones who do not have the cars driving to school and are riding the yellow school buses.

If you had a public bus system that they all could access

that social divide might go away.

There's also an issue of a lot of kids if they miss the school bus in the morning because they live far away from school and don't have access to a car, don't get to school.

I volunteered at the school with ESL kids and I know what happens.

They don't come to school.

They might be able to take the bus and get to the downtown mall.

I can guarantee you there's hardly a kid out there who's going to hike the two and a half miles to the school.

With the month starting off with free bus fares, with the reorganization of the way CTS is operating, I would ask you to seriously consider looking at including students.

Obviously, if it's free bus fares for everyone, that's great, that does the trick, but then we have to start looking at bus routes.

We want to encourage citizens in this community to use our public transportation system.

We're putting our tax dollars into it.

I just, a couple things, Mr. Kavett, I don't believe there are any current plans to relocate the library from downtown.

I know there was some talk at one point about possibly using space at Jefferson School, and as far as I know that's no longer in the works, so the library's safe for now.

I think they're looking at possibly renovating the space, but keeping the library there, we all like to see it stay downtown, but thanks for bringing that up.

I had a couple of things.

I think that um...

Mr. Lopez, I'd like to thank you for coming.

And I think you should leave your contact information with the city clerk.

There are some things going on around town that you might be interested in hearing about.

And thank you for bringing your comments forward.

I've also heard some comment about the changing of the park hours from the public.

The people who seem to be most concerned are the people who walk their dogs.

of late at night.

And so they're concerned that they won't be able to make use of the park anymore for the purpose of

helping their little pets.

I guess my concern is I hope that they are scooping their poop when they use the park.

And so maybe that is something that we can talk about.

Maybe people with dogs should be allowed to walk through the parks.

I don't know.

But I'd be willing to have that conversation.

Mr. Mason, the question of the missing persons report involves

of your marital situation, and I really don't feel comfortable having that conversation for the entire citizens of Charlottesville.

But I'm happy to talk to you outside.

of Council hours or this meeting time on that.

And I'm sure that others on the dais are also.

But that's why you're not going to get a very specific response from me about that at this time.

And finally, I think that Mr. Freckman brings up a very good point about children driving to school.

I've always thought that there was something pretty incongruous about encouraging seniors, juniors and seniors as a privilege to take advantage of taking

their parents' cars or their own personal cars to schools.

I have also heard from police officers who work the schools that it does contribute to a real sort of class division.

The kids who drive call the buses loser cruisers.

I always respond to Mr. Mason.

I had talked with him and I'll try to get you that information.

It was a response.

I want to agree with my fellow counselors about appreciating the folks that have come and brought this issue of American Indian representation up to us.

I don't really have a good answer for what we've done to accentuate that part of our heritage, but I agree it's something that we should have an answer for.

I think we'll work on that.

I also wanted to follow up again on the question of the library.

I think beyond locating the library at Jefferson School, we also did talk about if they needed more space, putting a new building on that site where the playground is as part of that renovation.

I don't think that there was much interest in that, at least that's where I thought it was left.

So I think there is some possibility that it could be downtown.

We certainly haven't pushed them on that.

My understanding is that they are pretty tight for space on there and that they might be interested in taking some component of the library, perhaps the computer rooms or the meeting rooms and moving those over to Jefferson School, which would, I think, work pretty well with Jefferson School as a cultural center, as a resource center, having the meeting rooms there and opening up some space in the library.

I'll offer just a couple comments.

I also agree, I like people bringing up, thinking about our history and the way it's taught and the way it's represented and the way it's memorialized and it made me wonder what's going on currently in our schools and I wouldn't mind at our next school board city council lunch maybe just if we can ask the school division to give us some insight as to both A, what do the standards of learning in Virginia require regarding

American Indian history, and secondly, what do our schools do?

At what points in the curriculum?

Because I think that's obviously something we want to make sure we're not neglecting.

The McIntyre Road extended is the official name that the state has given the project.

I think every time we've had it on the agenda that's the way it's on there.

I think pretty consistently over time.

So that's why it's on the agenda the way it is.

That's when the Department of Transportation deals with the city on the project.

That's what it's called and there's a long number after it.

Okay, any other comments?

If not, we'll move on to the consent agenda.

The consent agenda tonight consists of item A, the approval of the minutes of September 17th and 21st.

Item B, an appropriation of $26,657 to four for light state grants, the second reading.

Item C, an appropriation of $166,819 to victim witness program grant is the first reading.

Item D, an appropriation of $30,515, a grant for school anti-bullying programs at the first reading.

Item E, an appropriation of $11,100, the Virginia Community Corps grant, it's the first reading.

Item F, a resolution amending the Commission on Children and Families Agreement regarding city membership.

Item G, a resolution which is a vacation of a subdivision plat on Meghan Court.

Item H, an ordinance changing the hours of certain parks.

It's a second reading.

Item I, an ordinance which is a quick plane gas easement to VDOT in Dunlora.

It's also a second reading.

I agree with that.

Item H will be considered at the end.

Anything else?

If not, is there a motion on the consent agenda?

Okay.

Any discussion?

Call for the vote.

Okay, thank you.

So, item H, which is the hours of the parks, in particular Lee Park, is something we'll talk about at the end of our regular agenda.

Next is a public hearing on the granting of construction easement to VDOT for McIntyre Road extended, also known as the Meadowgate Parkway.

Let me make a couple comments before Mr. Tolbert comes up.

I think as many people know and probably a number of the people in the audience, this has been a topic of discussion for many, many years.

The city's had positions through various councils in determining design issues, the exact construction.

There's been a series of letters that the council has adopted over time to set some of these conditions.

There have been a whole series of design changes through the years to try to address those concerns.

What's in front of the council tonight?

is a request to consider approving granting to the Virginia Department of Transportation, VIOT, a temporary construction easement across McIntyre Park to construct McIntyre Road extended or the Meadow Creek Parkway.

This is a temporary construction easement that would be only during construction on city property that would remain city property.

It's in the city section of the roadway that's from the bypass to

knew where Melbourne Road is.

There's also a portion of the project that's actually in Albemarle County that's a separate project that's under some different conditions.

Council last considered this issue at the July 16th meeting.

They asked us to return tonight with some updated information, primarily around two issues.

One was VDOT's acquisition of replacement parkland, which is one of the council's conditions for the project, and the other was an update

on the status of the Eastern Connector and the study work that's been done.

This was legally advertised as a resolution for council to adopt tonight.

It was also advertised as a public hearing to authorize this easement.

You'll note in the agenda itself that's in front of council that we mistakenly listed this as an ordinance.

but legally it is a resolution that Council could take up tonight if that would be your pleasure.

Jim Tolbert is our Director of Neighborhood Services.

He and his staff have been working on this project for a long time.

Thank you, Mr. O'Connell.

As Gary said, there's really two issues that we left the last meeting with.

If you recall, we came in June or July.

There was the issue of the pond and the issue of the easement.

The pond is still going through design.

You would authorize us to proceed with that.

We have a committee that's working, making sure we have a best practices design on the stormwater

eliminating the large pond.

That's the last design issue essentially with the parkway at this point.

The plans were at 90% back in May of 2006 and the follow up has been on utility relocation and resolution of pond issues but of course if you remember we're not allowed to do the large pond, we'll have to do several small drainage

Pines to replace that.

The other issue that you raised was the status of the parkland acquisition.

In January of 2006, when we had the public hearing on the final design of the project, you approved the property acquisition for BDOT to move forward with acquiring replacement parkland.

and at that point there were 48.7 acres that were to be acquired.

The map on the wall here depicts those properties that we agreed at that time would be part of the acquisition.

The numbers don't quite all add up after they were surveyed, but so far VDOT has acquired and has titled to 36.8 acres.

That's what you see in yellow.

The large green parcel to the right hand side towards Ryle Road into the project is the remaining 12.3 acres which will give us 48.9 acres total or a little bit more than we thought again when all the surveying was done.

That property VDOT has had the appraisal, it is complete and they are in the process of making the offer.

There is still some discussion going on about what form that acquisition will take, whether or not it is in fee or an easement.

If it's in fee, it would be fee simple to the Department of Transportation.

If it's an easement, it would be a permanent easement for a park that would go to VDOT.

All of the properties, upon completion of the Med Creek Parkway,

would be transferred to the city so the deed would be in the name of the city of Charlottesville for all of it or if the remaining parcel is an easement it would be an easement

for the city of Charlottesville, a permanent easement.

That's still up in the air and VDOT is working and may actually acquire that in fee but that decision hadn't been made and won't be made for about 30 days.

That property will be, the offer will be made within 30 days according to VDOT officials.

The property owner has 90 days to then respond to that and if they don't respond, VDOT will then file condemnation.

So 120 days at the outside from now

that property will be, belong to VDOT.

It can, it is eligible for quick take even though it's for parkland, it's part of an authorized transportation project so it won't have to go through a lengthy court battle to make it a park property.

There may be litigation to decide the value but the actual acquisition would occur as soon as they file the

They're also, at your last meeting, there was a piece of property that was owned by the railroad that was a small half acre site that you asked why it was not included and there just had never been any thought to include it but VDOT has initiated the acquisition steps for that parcel based on your comments that were made at the last

medium.

That's just a half acre that would be added to this property.

The map is deceptive when you look at the parkland because a large area between Melbourne Road, which is the line on the left, and the yellow is already city parkland.

It's a school property, so it looks like it just starts in the middle of nowhere, but to the far left, of course, is McIntyre Park, then the school, and then the yellow picks up the linear park.

that shows that the trail that's being built will run entirely through right-of-way and parkland also.

So that's the status.

Again, one other point that had been a question is that VDOT is the one that's actually making acquisition of these properties for the parkland, not the county, although it's the county's

allocations that are being used but all the acquisitions are fully funded.

That question was asked today and was resolved that VDOT is fully funded to complete the acquisition so there are no issues with the dollars.

Also in your follow-up packet Friday was another update on the Eastern Connector.

following up on one from Jeanne Alexander a week earlier.

That project is still moving forward.

There are meetings going on with the steering committee.

They're getting ready for a public meeting.

are a couple of public meetings to discuss the project.

It's still in the location stage trying to determine a route that might work and a number of alternatives being evaluated.

We indicated in the first memo that there had been some issue raised about some of the locations being

We felt non-starters.

We further emphasized that in this and also have asked them to take into account another alternative that the staff has put forth that had not been considered before.

So this project is moving.

I think we've gotten better communication in the last 30 days with a consultant than we had before.

Our staff has gotten much more engaged in the location process.

What happens next?

VDOT would continue with the finalizing of the plans.

which are essentially done.

The pond design has got to be finalized and they would next start utility relocation.

Yes, from what I understand, the steering committee on the interchange has been working very hard and is considered to be a pretty successful effort.

I'm wondering if we are going to have plans to also have the steering committee for the parkway when we get under construction or is that something that is only done in the

We had a steering committee that worked just like the one on the interchange when this project was in design, when Will Riley was leading the design work, when Mr. Riley worked with VDOT in developing the design.

Once they finished their design work,

and it became a matter then of just putting the engineering details into it.

They pretty much abandoned, they were finished, they were complete with their task.

They made sure that the road met all the criteria that council had put forth, that it be two lanes, that it be a parkway with a design speed not to exceed 35 miles an hour, certain criteria of that nature.

And then they essentially were finished with their work.

The planned development became more of a

You know, put the engineering details on it.

Mr. Riley stayed engaged up until last spring, summer, when they got to essentially that 90 percent point, which was in this finalizing some details, but I'm not sure what a

you know in construction phase what a committee could do.

It might, I would suggest that we might want to make sure that if there were any changes encountered if we got into construction that necessitated a change in design from where we had started that that committee might be or what was left or be reconvened to review that and make recommendations to council but right now it seems to be

I think some of the people who are associated with the committee or the community in general might be interested to have one last look at the design and have that opportunity but I just don't know if there is a

process built in for that to happen to make sure that the recommendations that came forward from the steering committee and from this lengthy process are indeed being followed by VDOT.

I think that what we could do is get our, if they wanted to, we could get our engineering staff to walk through the drawings.

The drawings that are used to bid the project are, it's not like a construction site plan, it's a series of lines on the map and profiles that, but I mean we'd be happy to, I could have my staff or we could get the VDOT staff to walk any of the committee that's left who wanted to or anybody else for that matter through and compare.

We've got the last drawing on the

that was the concept of drawing and compare the two.

Sometime back at the design hearing, yes, that was many years ago, but it's been a long time.

Can you give us a little bit more information about the drainage system?

There was the pond that, as you mentioned, the Army Corps of Engineers struck down.

My recollection is we approved going forward with what we call a context-sensitive design of doing drainage.

That has not been finalized yet.

VDOT is working with our steering committee that we put together to finalize that design, but they are still working on that.

Can you give me a time frame?

I do not know the answer to that.

They're having another meeting Wednesday.

Okay, well you mentioned 120 days would be a reasonable amount of time for them to acquire the parkland that they said they would acquire.

It will be when the pond design is finalized.

They were working on all the engineering details of elevation and area and everything else and were going back to the

They're certainly still working on it.

I don't know if it's complete.

Mr. Talbot, there have been some questions about the parkland replacement from a lot of people.

Yes, sir.

And at this point, you gave a figure of how much had been acquired.

Okay.

Just one other question.

Last time you were here, a couple of us raised the issue of the intersection at Melbourne and asked to see if there was some further review that needed to happen, analysis about the intersection, the traffic impacts on that neighborhood.

We actually, I thought y'all had gotten the report, we actually did the, had RK and K.

All right.

Oh Melbourne, it's not that much beyond the normal growth, I mean there is some, but that the real danger is building the county portion without the city portion of course, but there is an increase in traffic, it is designed as an at-grade intersection.

Here it is, if you want to look at it.

I need a second to refresh myself.

Okay, started off with the county bills, their portion Park Street increases 25% in the 2025 model.

With the McIntire Road extended and the Parkway, there's 21,000 vehicles per day.

Without the McIntire Road extended and with the Parkway north of Melbourne, there's 24,000.

Without McIntire Road extended but with the Parkway north of Melbourne, there's 26.

Melbourne would get a 33% increase with McIntyre Road extended and the parkway would be 9,000 without McIntyre Road extended and without Medical Creek Parkway 8,400 without McIntyre Road extended but with the parkway north of Melbourne 12,000 so it's not a lot of increase on Melbourne with the parkway there is increase but without a significant increase.

Can you pass that along for me?

Thank you.

That's okay, I just hadn't seen those in a while.

Jim, let me ask you one more question.

You mentioned that 30-some acres have been acquired.

I know that one parcel's been acquired, and I think that's the bulk of that.

So it's just the property that was acquired from Hurd, which might be considerable.

Okay.

And you all remember what that was like.

I'm not sure what date they acquired that but they have been going through the appraisal process.

I'll remind everyone that you have up to three minutes to speak.

There's a lot of people already signed up, and anyone who isn't signed up, you'll also get to speak.

So if you can speak less than three minutes, it's always appreciated.

And if someone else has made a point that you were going to make, you can just reference that point and say you agree or disagree.

Thank you.

I'm Rod Gentry with Union Bank and Trust, and I'm a lifelong resident of Charlottesville and Albemarle.

And I'm excited to see us get to this point, so I'm going to be very brief and just say that I urge you to vote to approve this this evening and move this forward.

Please approve it.

All right, Robert Stroh is next.

Thanks for listening.

As the co-chair of the Downtown Business Association, I'd like to

to remind you all that the association stands very strongly behind this effort and we'd like to urge you to pass and move forward on the Meadow Creek Parkway.

I think it's very important and we'd like to see you move forward.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

My name is Tim Halbert.

I live at 2246 Brandywine Drive in the city of Charlottesville.

and I work at the corner of East Market and 5th in the city of Charlottesville for the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce.

I'm Irish American and in our heritage it takes three minutes to clear our throat so I apologize for that in front end.

First, another matter, I want to applaud the city for its innovation on

on transit.

I think transit is very much a part of a multimodal system.

You are to be applauded for the innovation.

At some point you're going to get faxed and then you'll have to find the funds, but transit and Metal Creek, they all go together.

The reason it's called Metal Creek Extended is some 35 years ago somebody in VDOT named it that and being a recovering bureaucrat, having worked in the Department of Transportation in a galaxy far, far away, I can tell you that once projects get names, that's their names.

As you know, I'm not going to go through all this stuff again.

I've been here for six and a half years arguing and controlling and hopefully persuading you.

Like Rod, I'm very excited that you're at this point tonight.

This is going to provide a parkway.

It won't be a straight strip, Kendra.

It'll be a parkway through a park.

It'll make the park accessible to those of us who live in the city.

Visually, we'll be able to get there in a lot of different ways.

It'll also be a gateway into a vibrant and increasingly competitive downtown area, which has to do the things that need to be done to keep it as an employment center, as an entertainment center, as a shopping area, as a great place to live.

You need to have a gateway.

Access is central.

Our chamber, as you know, supports this project.

It is our highest priority.

There are other priorities.

I'm Peter Klayman.

I live 407 Head Street in the city.

I stand in opposition to having this item even on the agenda today.

I do believe that if you look through VDOT's processes, there are three clear phases in project development.

One is called preliminary engineering.

The second is right-of-way.

And the third is construction.

And if you look at their own documentation, there are clear delineations between

the ending of preliminary engineering and the beginning of right-of-way acquisition and right-of-way decision-making.

To this point, as has been discussed in the preamble, there are still many pieces of preliminary engineering that have not been resolved.

We do not have a working stormwater management system.

We do not have a clear indication of the level of service that this project would provide other than level of service F at the at-grade intersection that is McIntire Road extended design.

There is no grade separated interchange in this project.

It is a road that runs to an at-grade intersection at McIntyre Road.

And if you look at the document of the easement that's being proposed, which incidentally is a very odd way of doing this road, I have not identified any other roadway that has been constructed using the mechanism proposed.

to do this construction easement provided by the city.

VDOT tends to acquire the land, build the roads and then return the land to the jurisdictions and VDOT has not been able to identify one that they could show me that has been done successfully this way or even considered this way.

So this is breaking a bunch of new ground.

I think that it is ahead of itself.

The vision of a wonderfully connected city is great, but we do not have all of the pieces necessary that are required in the preliminary engineering to move forward.

I also contacted VDOT and the city staff to say, is there a document that makes a statement that says we have completed all of the essential stages of preliminary engineering

and we believe this project in its current design meets the purpose and need specified for this project.

In fact, no such document has, to my knowledge, ever been written.

I'm not exactly sure who is moving this project forward to you today, but I would hope that you could go back to them before you make a decision and say, does this clearly meet

The purpose and need that these millions of dollars are going to be expended that we expect to get some benefit out of those dollars.

So my feeling is that having this project on this also indicating that the budget impact is 2%.

I'm not sure what that really means, but it is going to, this easement project is going to

acquire or to let 22.5 acres and McIntyre land has been just recently evaluated at $550,000 an acre in the YMCA project.

So this is an approximate $12 million transfer from recreation and conservation land to highway alignment.

And so whether it's the city's property or not, we are transferring $12 million worth of resource to some other

Thank you.

Steven Bach.

Good evening, Councillors.

I live at 1208 Murry Withers Street.

In the mayor's January 18th, 2006 letter to VDOT in the county in which he reviewed the conditions which you had stipulated be met before you would approve construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway, in item number 10, he said, quote, City Council is now desirous that the county and VDOT demonstrate a firm commitment to the Eastern Connector.

and a few lines later, the city also expects to see a funding commitment for the southern parkway by VDOT and or the county by 2008 before construction begins on the parkway.

So now here are city staff asking for a go ahead to grant an easement for construction for the road.

But I'm saying, where are these conditions?

and I think they have not been met.

The Eastern Connector is a fantasy.

A study is being done about where it's going to be located now, but no one has a clue as to where the money will come from to build that road.

The same goes for the Southern Parkway and I'm not sure there's even been a study about where it would exactly be placed.

Again, no one has a clue as to where the money is going to come from for that road.

And so to me, for the city to be in this stage of work on the parkway seems inconsistent with the conditions which you yourself stipulated had to be there before it would occur.

So what's going on?

it's as if somehow you've dropped the conditions and which I'm not aware of or there's this big disjunction between what you're saying are the conditions for construction and what you're doing in terms of moving ahead with all of these steps that we've heard about and so it just you know it from the citizens standpoint

It looks as if there are discussions, processes, negotiations that are going on that somehow are not transparent.

And I hate to see this.

I don't know if it's true, but that's what it looks like.

You see, that's what it looks like.

And it doesn't make me feel good.

So I'm against granting the season right now.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Jay Jessup.

I live in Albemarle County.

I've got two businesses that operate in the city.

One is Jason LLC.

It's a small real estate business.

We have some office and commercial properties in town, downtown, and in Seminole Square.

The other is a business my grandfather moved here 99 years ago to start, which is the Pepsi Cola Balding Company in Central Virginia.

He started off with a mule and a helper.

Nowadays we've got about 380 employees, about 130 of which work out of our main manufacturing plant here in Charlottesville.

50 some years after my grandfather moved here, some of your forebears on the council and their cohorts in the county looked ahead and saw the need for what is to be known now as the 250 bypass and that's a road I think we'll all agree has served the city quite well and the county quite well for all these years

Not too long after that, some other folks that were also your forebears looked at and decided that another road would serve as well, and as what's been known as the McIntyre Road extended, or the Meadow Creek Parkway.

I think at this time, all these years have gone by, the reasons for not building it through the past I've lost through history.

I think the time has come that we could move forward with this road.

If it had been built in the 70s, it would have cost a slight fraction of what it would cost these days.

If we built it 10 years from now, it would cost two or three times what it would cost a day.

You can always find reasons to not do things if that's what your true intent is, but I think the majority of the people in the area would be well served by this road that's been on the books for many years.

Thank you, I'm Bob Hodes of 1309 Lester Drive and

I'm one of the people that I guess will end up being 8,400 or 9,000 people who go down Melbourne to park just about every day.

Hopefully someday I'll be traveling down Melbourne to the Meadow Creek Parkway or McIntyre Extended because I think there'd be a much better entryway into the city.

With the city having essentially two spikes of commercial development, the downtown mall and then the area up towards the university, it seems to me that having this road is a great way to get people downtown.

with the least disruption and it's time for you to move ahead with it.

There are two problems that I see with constantly finding reasons.

for waiting for another thing to happen.

And one of them, and I mean no disrespect with this, but is loss of some historical perspective.

Some very good questions were asked about the design and the steering committee that had looked at the Meadow Creek Parkway itself.

If this had been going forward three years ago when that steering committee was in effect, then some of those questions might not have to have been asked.

The answer would have already been known by counsel.

Questions are good questions.

I think you should go back and make sure that you're happy with them.

But if you continue to look for reasons to put things off, then there will be a greater loss of historical perspective.

And as you move forward, there will be more and more reasons to go back and relook at things.

and so I think that you have a real loss by looking for reasons not to do it.

I think the second thing that's a real loss when you continue to put things off is something that's already been mentioned by Mr. Jessup and that is the constant increase in property, excuse me, in cost.

I think you're at a point now where you're ready to go forward, everything seems to be coming together, maybe all the pieces are not 100% in place but they have been coming together and people are working diligently in that direction.

I think it would be a mistake to continue to find reasons to put it off and quite honestly, as one of the people who will use this at least twice a day, I welcome the opportunity for you to go forward and I strongly encourage you to do so.

Daniel Smith.

Daniel Smith, 810 Lokes Avenue.

A couple of things.

I believe that Eastman is irrevocable.

So, okay, yeah, and quite frankly, I think that's sort of disingenuous, the land after construction of the roadway will still belong to the city of Charlottesville.

Well, it's got a road down the middle of it, so what?

You're giving up your leverage if you go ahead and grant this easement now.

Second point, an article, September 16th by Mr. Sheth Rosen in Daily Progress, it talks about the cost of the interchange and that a team of consultants said that it cost between $33 and $37 million.

and they've got state and federal funds of 29.6 million.

That's 3 million to 7 million overrun and I think it's premature to go ahead and grant an easement when we need to figure out where we're going to come up with 3 to 7 million dollars.

I have a question before I start for Jim Taliaferro.

I agree with a lot of things that Peter Kleiman said and also another statement that was said to Koch before the horse.

And I basically feel that we're losing some of our bargaining power.

I know a lot of the residents of North Downtown area are concerned about access to the park and the interchange itself, which is still being worked out on.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Morgan Perkins, 420 East Main Street.

I own Sageman Gallery.

And as a concerned citizen and a business owner, I would like to encourage you tonight to move forward on this, to vote yes.

I think we've studied and studied how long can we study something before we make a decision to do something about it.

We're not going to stop growing.

And unfortunately, if we don't do something about it now, it will just cost us a lot more later on.

Okay, thank you.

Ernie Reed, 610 Ferish in the city.

As you know, the students of the Living Education Center for a College in the Arts have been advocating on behalf of Shanks Branch and its health and its water quality for 10 years.

and we've followed closely the planning and the process for the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway or McIntyre Road extended.

So the matter of the granting of a temporary easement to VDOT is very important to us.

Conditional easement, I'm sorry.

We have four concerns, any one of which we consider extremely important to be clarified and rectified before any easement is granted.

First, the stormwater plan for the area covered by and including the proposed easement area has yet to be drafted, much less finalized.

The figure that was with the information for the meeting tonight still had the large pond on it and so of course whatever smaller ponds we're going to come up with in terms of that plan have yet to be clear.

Surely the stormwater plan is critical to having a full understanding of the effects of this road on the water quality of Shanks Branch Meadow Creek and the Rivanna River.

The cart before the horse is a nap metaphor.

Second, the easement leaves no buffer protection around much of Shanks Branch.

In most of the corridor, the easement goes right up to the edge of Shanks Branch and in many parts actually crosses it all the way over to the east side of it.

while clearly some of the easement area would have to include the creek but since we don't have a stormwater plan we don't yet know where, how many, how much, any of those specifics you would need to be able to answer those questions or locate it.

Third, the 250 interchange plan has completely deleted its bicycle pedestrian bridge which was to have provided direct access to the heart of McIntire Park and which was as stipulated as part of the

The January 17, 2006 design approval resolution was critical.

Does this mean no bridge, no interchange, no parkway?

Or does it mean that there has to be additional financial resources committed before we can do what y'all have said you were going to do?

And fourth, as was said, we still don't have sufficient and appropriate parkland, which Councilman Lynch and others have reminded us are so critical for the approval of the project.

And one might also question the quality of that parkland since the parkland we're giving up is unfragmented and contiguous as opposed to one with an easement over most of it and is bisected by the parkway.

So given that it seems like perhaps one of the reasons that it's taken 40 years to get to this point is that what was wrong 40 years ago may still be wrong and the only way we'll know is if we do our homework.

My name is Jim Cannon.

I live in Albemarle County in Whitehall, where my family lived for 75 or more years.

During those years, the family and myself have transversed long distances coming in here to Charlottesville, sometimes as many as three or four times a day, particularly from the direction of the Meadow Creek Parkway.

I'm seeing it increasingly congested, increasingly dangerous.

I appreciate the situation in which you folks are in

your leadership roles.

I do recall as believing the past is prologue having a former mayor of this city tell me about the 250 bypass which we have sort of forgotten in terms of the anguish that went through.

That was a 35 year effort and from what I hear you all may be even creating another record.

and all that time, the costs are going up, the traffic is increasing.

So I would urge you, and I'm retired, I have absolutely no ax to grind other than I want to come and go in Charlottesville and I really believe in my heart, this is the way to go.

There is, you've heard, there are many, many things one can say to slow any process down.

It's a jump of leadership and faith to move forward.

So I therefore urge you to vote yes for the easement.

Thank you.

Stradstow's, 414 Main Street.

So we've heard people talking about reasons to slow this thing down.

What these used to be called were conditions for approval.

And these have not been met yet.

And that's what's been slowing it down.

So the first thing I'd like to say is, you know, instead of

voting for this easement, what I think would be a better thing to be discussing is voting a conservation easement along the path of the parkway which would stop the road for at least 40 years and then we'd never have to talk about it again.

Whereas if we do try to go through with it amidst all the legal problems and such, I think it's going to be drawn out for a long, long time to come.

and let me say also we heard Mr. O'Connell say that there was a request for this consideration.

He didn't say who requested and that's something I'm curious about.

I'm curious about how come we're talking about this before council has even approved the road.

before the conditions have been met.

Let me also say that it still takes four of you to make this transfer.

This slippery thing about easing the property instead of actually selling it in order to avoid the state constitution

is not going to work and that will be just one more potential thing for the city to get pseudo over if only three of you approve this as opposed to four of you.

So that means all of you are responsible for your vote this evening.

Mr. Lynch, you were swept to power as an activist, in a large part known because of your fighting of the Meadow Creek Parkway.

I hope that you will return to those roots.

Let me say that I have appreciated over the years your freeness with information and your help in that regard.

Ms. Hamilton, you said that we ought to rethink the Meadow Creek Parkway.

Have we?

I don't think we have.

You said that during the

Democratic Convention as you were getting nominated for council.

You also said that environmental regulation or protection would be an important part of your job as a counselor and I think that at the very least we should make sure that this road gets the federal review that it is entitled to.

Mr. Taliaferro, we spoke about the parkway the first time.

You said that, I remember you saying that you weren't so sure where that traffic from the parkway was going to go once it got to McIntire Road.

I wonder if anybody has shown you that it's going to do anything other than increase traffic there and other places in Charlottesville.

And Mr. Brown, do we see an Eastern Connector anywhere?

I don't see one.

Do we see a route that works?

Do we see any money for it any time in the near future?

And if the interchange turns out to be a legal, financial, and engineering nightmare, do we still have to take one for the team?

Mr. Norris, thank you very much for your steadfast opposition to this project.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening.

Thank you all for your time tonight.

I want to just express my support for many points already made, particularly the health of the stream and the fact that this project is far from finalized.

I want to speak tonight to the concerns of cyclists.

I use a bike as my primary mode of transportation, and so it concerns me greatly that that bridge is taken out.

It says to me that

I should get a car or get off the road or something and I don't think that that's the message we want to be sending to cyclists because clearly we want people to be using alternate modes of transportation in Charlottesville.

I've had two friends who were hit by cars in the past two weeks.

We're suggesting this road funneling traffic and cars into town further up towards the 5th and Main intersection where one friend was hit and increasing traffic and frustration.

My other friend was hit by a frustrated driver who was from, you know, too much traffic and we're talking about increasing traffic in town.

So, please consider

Good evening.

My name is Richard Collins.

I live at 108 Wilson Court.

I'd like to make three points, I think, that are important for you to consider before you take any action this evening.

I can't imagine that you would even put this on the agenda, except that you, as mayor and as council members, feel that the need to cooperate with the county

and to maintain collegiality is very important.

Somehow it's not pressure that's forcing you or urging you to move so quickly but rather some idea of cooperation that is necessary as reflected in this morning's editorial by the Daily Progress.

I'm going to urge you to say that this is not a city versus county issue.

It's an issue of growth and who will pay for the costs of growth.

If you went to the county board of supervisors meeting, they're talking about protecting our rural areas.

We happen to be the designated growth area.

which is in fact in the city is different than in the county because we don't vote in their election.

It's easier for the designated growth to occur in the city and to take city property and those who live in the city rather than to put a road in the county even in Eastern Connector.

My point is this, that the issue here is not one of trying to get along with the county.

We are part of one region.

We will get along, but what I feel is a loss of leadership here.

The leadership from the city is necessary to put into perspective the county's level of growth and whether they can manage it or not.

In a sense, Biscuit Run and Meadow Creek Parkway are the same idea.

They're exactly the same roots and the same origins.

And you see it here this evening because almost everyone, not only everyone, but nearly everyone who's spoken for this road speaks from some business representation, commercial sector, or their affiliation.

Almost everyone who speaks against it is from a neighborhood.

And there would be neighbors from the county here tonight, except for the fact that they're more interested in opposing the second road, the eastern connector, and I note that they wouldn't even consider putting a location through their park, or through our park that's in their part of the county.

because it was Section 4F would preclude any consideration of that.

My final point is this.

You should not just forestall this particular vote for a few minutes or a few days.

You should put together the three legal fictions of separateness between the Meadow Creek Parkway, McIntyre extended, and the 250 Interchange.

It's a complete fiction to see these as separate projects and they're only separate for legal fictional reasons or for confusing and separating the public from what is clearly one major effort.

to take a central city park and convert it into a major avenue that will accommodate further growth largely in the county.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Francis Fife and I live at 501 9th Street, Southwest And in comment of what Jay said about his grandfather, I knew his grandfather very well And I've lived here all my life and I'm not going to tell you how long that is And I have seven points

I think that the building of this road will be a violation of the spirit of Mr. McIntyre's magnificent gift to the city.

Number two is it will cause the destruction of a beautiful park and here I'm talking about the area between Royal Road and Melbourne Road.

Third is the destruction of the Rivanna Trail Foundation's natural trail through the woods and besides Meadow Creek.

Now the city has sort of advertised that this trail system is possibly the best trail system in the south, which is very nice.

Those of us who started it appreciate your comment.

but this will constitute the destruction of that part of the trail.

I mean there may be concrete paths or something like that but it will not be a natural path.

It will bring more traffic north and south through the heart of the city especially McIntyre Road and the historic Ridge Street section of the city.

It will undermine our efforts toward the development of mass transit.

It is going to be very expensive.

In the end, it is going to cost the people of Charlottesville

a lot of money and something that we don't seem to be talking about, beautiful environment will be destroyed.

I can't speak as nearly as well as most of the people here, but we all know that.

But I wanted to say a few things.

As far as this whole idea of connecting the city and whatnot that we hear from some particular people, there are a wide variety of ways to do that, creating connections.

We don't need to destroy this beautiful park that we have to connect the city to the county.

We could ride our bikes or we could walk or we could take a bus on the existing roads that have priority.

I think 30 times the priority because there are 30 people on that bus versus the one car that has the one person.

So yeah, obviously I'm totally against the road because there are those bumper stickers out there that say all roads lead to hell which is kind of funny because it's on a bumper

Some other things, I'm amazed and a little sickened, you know, it's hard for me to come to these meetings because I just can't believe what people say and the slickness of some people, I'm just amazed of how slick people are.

They say things like, as if this road has to happen, as if we have to build this road or else there's some kind of impending doom.

It's all baloney, folks.

It doesn't need to be built at all.

We can put our money and our resources and our time and our energy towards something that helps the people instead of a few individuals who want to take their trips down to the mall or whatever reasons they think that

the road is good for them or their family.

No, I'm talking about the world.

I'm talking about the planet.

I'm talking about our own being as individuals and as persons.

And it's important for us to think about that.

It increases traffic to build roads.

You build a road, it fills up with cars.

And it becomes more filled with cars.

And then you have to have parking.

And then you have to have all these things, right?

It's not disputed that

You build roads and it makes more roads.

It makes more energy to go towards that sort of infrastructure, which is so obviously and clearly not the way to go as far as the sustainable efforts.

I'm just disgusted by some folks, really.

I mean, I really feel sick.

I mean I laugh and google sometimes but actually there are people I know that can't come to these meetings because there are people that come to these meetings that they feel so sickened by that they can't be around in that kind of environment and that's terrible.

So I would strongly urge you not to build the road, not to let this hand it VDOT who apparently has an intent now to build a road that so many people don't actually want.

and Chad Frackman, 104 Northwood Circle.

I got a while back and talked about alternative transportation and about the seeming disconnect between the political rhetoric that city council and we as taxpayers put forward to funding public transportation and talking about that and disconnected schools with the acres of asphalt inviting kids to park and I'm kind of struck by a similar thought right now that

You know, we're still talking about alternative transportation, yet we're also talking about spending millions of dollars for building roads, encouraging people to drive.

I live downtown, Northwood Circle.

I overlook McIntyre Road.

I'm very concerned about the increase in traffic.

Right now, there's a lot of traffic, particularly in the afternoons.

Traffic backs up all the way to the county building on some days.

Without the interchange plan fully funded and

without the designs that have been talked about for a long time granting better accessibility to the park.

I have to agree with Mr. Collins when he says it's all one project, it's not three separate projects.

As a citizen, I'm a little bit stunned tonight to hear that we might be going forward and starting this project down the road without having all the pieces in place.

If we don't have all the pieces in place by VDOT's own study, this road will fail.

from the day it's opened.

And I don't think that that is a judicious way for our taxpayer money and for city council to conduct the people's business by passing a resolution that allows a project to go forward that will fail on the first day.

So please, I'd like you to consider that and also consider it in the bigger picture of what we're talking about, making Charlottesville a more sustainable place to live.

Daniel Bluestone, 501 Park Hill

Comments you've heard about not slowing the process down and finding yet more excuses for not moving ahead.

You were very clear.

I don't happen to agree with the 2006 letter, but you were very, very clear about what it would take

for the city to go along with this road and we're not there yet.

The replacement parkland isn't maybe in 120 days.

It's not done yet.

The interchange is a drop dead.

You can't proceed unless you get that interchange.

You have 27 or 28 million dollars and you have a bunch of estimates that just balloon out forever.

That's a matter of public discourse.

You ought to be talking with the residents of this city about what they do when you come up 6, 8, 10, 12 million dollars short on an interchange.

and the federal government's not kicking in more money or the state.

That's coming out of the citizens of Charlottesville's hides.

That's their tax base that you're proceeding with and we need to have a public discussion of that.

What's happening?

The road cannot be built.

The easement should not be approved unless you know how you're going to get people over to the 250 bypass.

Another condition, very clear, pedestrian and bicycle access.

It's unbelievable to me that we've spent all the time and energy, and Kevin's been sitting there meeting after meeting on that interchange commission.

All of that energy going in and yet one of the first things that begin to get snipped out of the plan are the things that you said must be in place, pedestrian and bicycle access to the park.

I don't know how binding this is in the resolution.

First of all, I don't know what this little dog leg is and I'd suggest that you take a look.

What is that piece of right of way that's not connected to the road?

You have no idea.

Pedestrian, bicycle access to the park was not to the part of the park that's right next to the parkway, it was to the park.

And yet, the bicycle path that's shown in this view shows no way of actually getting to the main body of the park.

You might want to think about that.

It was a condition that you laid out in your letter.

Finally, all this discussion about gateways

Jim, do you know how tall an average telephone pole is in the city?

No, I think it's probably 35 or 40 feet.

There's a telephone pole close to the light at 250 in McIntire Park.

Go down there and conjure up in your mind's eye what it's going to be to have the 250 bypass going by at 50 feet above that intersection.

The people in this city have not even begun to imagine

what that intersection gateway to the city is going to be like when you put the 250 bypass 50 feet above that intersection.

Thank you.

Thank you, I'm David Toscano.

I live at 628 Evergreen Avenue downtown.

I've been dealing with the parkway now for I think 16 years and I was first elected to council an ardent opponent of the parkway, just to give you some context.

You know, I live in a neighborhood, I do own a little small business, I do have a son, and I think I live in one of the most pedestrian friendly neighborhoods in the city.

And I think you should move forward with the decision to grant the temporary easement.

I wanted to try to give you, I think, we've been talking about the road as, you know, do we vote for it or do we vote against it, but I think you have to see it in context.

This road potentially is part of a network.

and God knows we need a network, a transportation network in this community.

one that includes some roads, a lot of transit, bike lanes, pedestrian walkways and there's a lot at stake in whether we move forward because we're not the only players in this game we've got the county that we have to deal with and if we want a good transit authority which has a good funding mechanism that serves buses and transit in this community we're going to have to figure out a way to work with the county to get it if we want Hillsdale

We're going to have to convince Richmond that we're serious about how we're going to create our transportation network.

Let me tell you, in the two years I've been on in Richmond, I've learned a lot.

One of the things I learned is how special this community is, even more special than I ever thought.

But beyond that, I learned that people in Richmond have a jaundiced view of Charlottesville Albemarle.

They think we're a little too precious, and if they had their druthers, they might want to grab a lot of our transportation monies,

whether it's for roads or for transit and redirected.

You talk to the people, my colleagues in Northern Virginia, they would be chafing at the bit to try to get some of these Meadow Creek Parkway dollars.

And with all the stress we have in the budget in Richmond,

We need to be careful.

So I would urge you to think of it as trying to start to build out a grid.

We wouldn't put all the buses on the roads on all the routes right away because we couldn't afford it if we were going to build a transit authority that really worked in this community.

We can't afford to build all the roads right now, but we can afford to build some.

And this is one that will help set the stage for other transportation needs down the road.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Barbara Smith.

I live on 501 Park Hill.

I just wanted to respond.

Well, two things quickly.

One is, as a historian, I'm a professional historian, don't let yourself ever be railroaded by people telling you that people have historically wanted some.

They've wanted every damn thing.

You've got to use your own mind to decide whether it's a good idea.

Forget what they thought.

Sorry, that's an anti-Virginia kind of sentiment, but sometimes the past wasn't such a good idea.

The second thing is if they want the money for more roads in Northern Virginia, give it to them.

I don't live in Northern Virginia because I don't want to live in a place with all that many highways and roads and I urge you to follow the actual history.

You had requirements, they haven't been met.

If they're in such a big hurry, let them meet the requirements that you've laid out for them.

Let them get themselves together and come to you with a done deal.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Hi, my name is Galen Stangle.

I live at 129 Goodman Street.

and I'm a relative newcomer to this debate.

I've just been following it for the last 13 years since I've lived here in the city.

So please forgive me.

I see this as a question about two different models of neighborhood and which one do we want to support.

One is a native model where

perhaps have lived 20, 30 minutes outside of town.

We drive into work and we drive in for entertainment.

We don't necessarily walk around the neighborhood where we live.

We don't necessarily know the people that live nearby us.

Another one is where we're able to walk to work and we're able to walk to our entertainment and we're able to get to know all the folks that live closely around us.

I think that both of those are viable options for lifestyles and ways to live but I think us as citizens of the city and you as city councilors should think carefully about which one of those models we want to support here in the city of Charlottesville and I think that's what this Parkway represents for me so I oppose it and I urge you to

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else like to speak?

Okay, you sure?

No takers?

Okay, in that case I'm closing the public hearing.

And it seems to me that there's sort of two threads in the comments.

There was one thread which was kind of, have the conditions been met, and should we move forward now with granting an easement?

and then there's a second thread which was you shouldn't move forward at all or you shouldn't move forward at all but and so it seems to me that maybe a place to start

before we go into talking about the details of the conditions and the details of the letter is just to do sort of a straw poll and make sure that there's a majority of council agreeing that we should move forward if certain conditions, and I'm not, and we're gonna, we would talk about what those conditions are, but if certain conditions and expectations are agreed to by council, should we move forward with granting an easement, you know, whether tonight or whether at some point in the future, and I thought I would

I would accept any discussion on that or we could just do it as sort of a straw poll and ask people to raise hands and take a vote to make sure we don't spend a lot of time on something for which there's not support.

So that seems okay to people.

Let me respond to your question.

You could have spoken 30 seconds ago, Kevin, but go right ahead.

Let me say, I would, if all the conditions are met, and this is something that we've discussed.

Can I take that as a yes from you?

But I want to say there's a third theme that ran through this discussion from the group, which is why now?

Why is this in front of us now?

Because, in fact, I think there is progress being made towards those conditions.

They haven't been met, but there has been some progress, and yet somehow we're trying to jump in front of it before they get met.

Why is this on the agenda?

I ask for it not to be on the agenda.

Is there anybody besides you who wants this on the agenda?

Anyone want to comment?

We could take it off now if no one else would like this to be here, but go ahead.

I mean, I'll bring that up for discussion.

I mean, I feel probably we'd bring this back at some point in time to see if we're ready to move forward or not.

OK.

Unless someone has a problem with it, let's just have a straw poll.

Kevin would support this at some point in time if certain conditions are met.

Julian?

You would.

I would.

Kendra?

Dave Norris?

I do not.

So we have a majority at some point in time, certain conditions are met, we'll support this.

And so now I think we can talk about the conditions, where we are, the timing, and things like that.

And I guess I'd like to make sure that even though Dave Norris

isn't in favor of this period.

Thank you.

And I wonder if we could maybe spend a couple minutes getting some questions answered.

A lot of things came up in the public hearing that I'd like to get staff to respond to before we continue with our – would that be appropriate?

Yeah.

And I don't know who would be the one to – but I've got a list myself.

Mr. Tolbert, why don't you come stand up here and try.

First of all, Mr. Kleeman brought up the issue of, I guess, from his perspective, there's typically a clear distinction between the end of the preliminary engineering phase and the beginning of the purchase of right-of-way phase.

I can't completely.

I mean, I'm not going to be that process.

I'm not sure what to accept.

I would refer you to your

and I believe it was attached in what Ms. Kochis passed out.

The resolution, there was a resolution that you passed last, or in January of 06, which was the design and public hearing resolution, which essentially said that you accepted the design, which is the preliminary, essentially preliminary engineering except for some things to be worked out.

and authorized VDOT to proceed at that time.

So I think you gave an indication in January of 06 that there was a completion point and moving forward with others except there was not a finite completion point.

Okay, thank you.

And can you address the comments that Mr. Reed made regarding the buffer around Skanks Branch and the status of the stormwater plan?

We put together a committee to work with VDOT that includes Ms. Rittervold and some citizens to make sure we got an appropriate context-sensitive stormwater plan.

They have met.

VDOT's been off doing design work, taking some of those issues into account.

As was said earlier, the committee is meeting again Wednesday to see the work that's been done and see how to proceed.

I think we'll have a better answer to where they are after they meet on Wednesday and see what we've done.

Okay.

Question from Mr. Brown.

There was a statement made that in order to move forward we need four votes versus three.

I have a different opinion.

And then just to clarify, there was a statement made, I think perhaps in error, that the bridge connecting the eastern part of the park over the pedestrian bike bridge connecting the east-west connection had been removed.

And as far as I know, that's not true.

Well, that's part of the interchange project, but there's been a lot of rumor going out that all the pedestrian access was cut out, and that is not the case.

The committee understands their marching orders from council, and no design will be approved on the interchange without council approval, but it will have.

Thank you.

I have had a couple of comments.

It's okay.

You know, I've thought about this a long time and I heard some people tonight say, I think, words to the effect that some of the people are speaking for this as a financial benefit for them and I suspect that's probably true.

But I think they're financial benefits also for the community and the city.

I think anytime we have any improvements that help the downtown, it helps everyone.

Obviously, people are going to make money.

The reward for risk is profit.

I think we all know that.

I think also the downtown, it's fragile.

You can say what you want to say.

Some people say, we don't have to do anything.

It's going to do all right.

I lived here.

I came here in 1962 and the downtown was thriving.

Then I saw the downtown decline.

Then along came the mall proposal.

Boy, that was the worst thing that ever happened to Charlottesville.

People were all upset and now everybody takes credit for it.

Well, they do.

Then along came the Omni Hotel and that was terrible.

We shouldn't put public money in it.

that became the real link I think for the downtown and all these things that have happened that you know have benefited the community at whole and you know a lot of these things all you got to do is visit some other cities in the commonwealth and look at their downtown and look at Charlottesville downtown and I tell you what there's a big difference and it would serve people well I think to visit some other communities in the commonwealth

and we talk about the transportation issues in the community and that's certainly a most important issue and I guess one of the things that concerns me is somebody's going to grab this money I don't think there's any doubt about that people are in the wings in Hampton Roads or Northern Virginia that would like to have this money and I kind of linked this to the efforts we want to make in terms of improved transportation

You know, if we don't move forward, we're gonna have a reputation.

It's gonna really just sour us with folks in Richmond, I think.

And I think we'll have a hard time for the next decade really being able to get any funding for anything.

and then there's also the issue of cooperation with the county and I think that's important.

I think the county's willing to make some commitments.

Thank you.

Okay.

I do want to comment.

We're talking now about the terms under which the easement would move forward.

I'm in sort of an awkward position because the conditions that have been attached to this issue for a number of years now were passed by previous councils.

I've never once voted on any of those conditions.

I feel like to a certain extent there should be some respect given to those kinds of decisions in the past.

However, I think to a certain extent what I'd like to do tonight is maybe help change the terms

of the debate when it comes to what a commitment to a regional transportation network looks like.

And I actually want to thank Delegate Toscano because I'm largely going to agree with him in terms of his point that a regional transportation network and a commitment by the county

to build a regional transportation network cannot just be about cars.

It cannot just be about more roads.

And I would like to see, in fact, a much stronger emphasis be put on getting a commitment by the county and setting an expectation for the county to really step up on the issue of transit.

and bike and pedestrian connections.

I happen to agree, I don't know if Mr. Bach is still here, I think he made a very telling and accurate point when he said the Eastern Connector is a fantasy.

I think maybe in 20 or 30 years we might see an Eastern Connector.

I am not interested in putting off this road for another 20 or 30 years.

My preference would be not to build the road altogether.

But if we're going to be moving forward with an easement, going to move forward with this project, I'd rather put

I don't think we can pave our way out of the problems that we have.

I'd rather put more emphasis on transit, bike, pedestrian, and make that the leverage points.

Continue putting pressure on the county.

We've got to work on some of these connector roads that are more realistic, like the Fontaine connector.

That's one that they've committed to.

Hillsdale.

I think there are other connectors that are realistic and that we should push for progress on.

I'd like to follow up on a couple of things.

I agree that we need to spend more effort with transit, but I want to get to the specifics of this particular resolution that we have in front of us, which I think, quite frankly, is simply premature.

Meadow Creek Parkway's taken up a lot of time, energy, and negotiation since way before I got on city council.

There's been, even before I got on council, there were conditions that the council had put on what it would take for the city to

agreed that building the parkway was an equitable deal.

When I ran for city council, as Stratton noted, I said that I would have more conditions and my fellow councilors, Mr. Brown and Kendra Hamilton, ran on, specifically in 2004, we need to see a functioning interchange that works.

replacement parkland, and a commitment by the county to build a regional network, a regional transportation network.

Those were, and to me, those still are not the only things.

I think there's a few others that need to be addressed that haven't been, but they're the most important ones.

And I think we have made a lot of progress in those areas.

And I think the fact that we were elected brought VDOT and other parties to the table where

Before 2004, everybody said, no, you'll never get an interchange.

That could never happen.

Just too difficult.

Well, we got the interchange.

We're close to getting the parkland.

They've acquired, VDOT's acquired one parcel.

There's still several more to do.

And I'll remind people in the county to keep saying, well, the county could build its own piece if you don't do your piece.

Well, they haven't acquired the land yet.

If they had acquired the land, then we could be setting this resolution up in a way that I had hoped we could set it up, which is simply a land swap.

We could say, you said you'd give us 49 acres, give us the 49 acres, we'll give you the easement.

That would be a very simple way to do this.

But they aren't there yet.

And in fact, this council will recall, when they went to acquire the first parcel,

the developer who owned it said, oh, wait a minute, I want to develop that parcel.

How about you let me build 50, 60 houses on it, and then I'll build the road.

And he out in the county said, yes, that's a great idea.

What do you guys think of the city?

And we said, no, we don't like that.

What's to prevent them from saying that when they go buy parcel number two, number three, and number four?

I don't have a lot of confidence that having given up all our leverage, which in fact we will do if we say, here's the easement.

There's going to be other developers who are going to want to develop their parcels that were promised to us, and I think that to give that up would be premature.

On the issue of the interchange, I think that we can get there, but as members of the audience have noted, there's a funding gap there.

We're looking at options ranging from 30 to 35 million dollars,

and it still needs work in terms of getting pedestrian access through there and we may be able to get the cost figures down, we may be able to find more money but these are all maybes, could-bes and probablys and I think there's high chances of them happening but the chances of those things being resolved successfully greatly diminish when we give up the only bit of leverage that we have right now which is to say

We have the land in the parkland.

We have a list of conditions.

When those conditions are met, we will allow a parkway to come through here.

And likewise with the commitment by the county to the regional network.

They have been supportive, at least in words,

Not so much in deeds, but they're going to meetings at least and talking about it, which is a positive thing.

But I do agree with Steve Bock.

I am afraid, despite being a proponent of the Eastern Connector, that it probably is a fiction.

And in fact, most of the suggestions that have come back from the consultant are more about, let's see if we can run another route through the city.

Maybe we don't need the Eastern Connector.

Maybe we could just connect East Market Street to Pantaz.

That would work.

Or how about the power line cut that goes through north downtown?

That would make a great eastern connector.

So I think we still have to get on the same page as to what we mean by a regional network of roads.

Again, I think the chances of us accomplishing that are not necessarily bad.

I think that can happen.

But once we play the card that we have, I just don't think that it happens at all.

And so I've tried to use the analogy with my fellow counselors, I don't know that it's worked, but if one of you in the audience wanted to sell me a car and we agreed at some meeting that I would pay you $5,000 for that car, which is something similar to what happened in January of 2006.

And then I come back 18 months later and say,

I don't have the money, but you're holding the process up.

Just give me the title.

That's essentially what VDOT's saying.

And that's essentially what everybody in the chamber is saying.

What's the holdup?

You're holding up the process.

We all want to go for a ride.

Well, we've laid out what the conditions are, and we've laid out what our asking price is.

And I don't think that our asking price is particularly onerous.

I think there are easy things that can be checked off.

So my answer is, come back when you've got this done, and we'll talk about it.

And all of this

worry about do we support it, do we not support it?

The asking price hasn't been met.

I do want to make a couple of quick remarks.

I think that what we're having here is just a serious lack of trust all the way around.

The city has reason not to trust the county, the county has reason not to trust the city, everybody has reasons not to trust VDOT.

You know, many, I agree with much that has been said.

I think everyone who has spoken has said something that I agree with and I do appreciate Dalia Toscano for coming and giving us the reality check, the big picture that we all fit into.

I would say that

We did run on a campaign promise, David, Kevin and I, that we supported these three conditions and that we supported the 2004 letter.

We have received verbal assurances from VDOT and from the county that they plan to move forward along with these conditions.

But we have not seen from them anything concrete in the terms of resolutions, letters of intent, or anything like that.

I think that if we had these concrete things in our hands,

then when we have public meetings and the public shows up and asks us these questions, it would be much easier for us to say, look, we're not just taking their word for it.

This is what they've offered in the form of a resolution.

We have not been given, shall we put it, a political cover.

It was difficult for me to agree to support the Meadow Creek Parkway in the first place.

I don't necessarily agree with paving over parkland, but I do agree that it is a road that is part of a network that we're probably going to need as the community continues to grow.

It's going to be harder and harder to get around.

and harder and harder to get to the city.

And there are always going to be people who want to live here.

There are always going to be people who love Charlottesville.

But Charlottesville is not just the people who live here.

It is also the viability of the businesses.

And that is something that is not guaranteed.

So I'm just going to stop there.

I'll make a few comments.

When I ran for council the first time, the

That's sort of my head agreed.

I mean, I agreed to support the previous council's idea on the parkway.

But I had real mixed feelings.

And, you know, part of me still has mixed feelings.

Yesterday I went running in the morning and I ran along the Rivanna Trail that comes out behind the high school, behind the football fields.

You know, and it's gorgeous.

You know, and the idea of cutting down a lot of those trees to put a road in, well, there has to be a really important reason to do that.

But the fact of the matter is I've become, as I've been here, more convinced of the need for the road.

And even though there's a part of me that wants to say, no, let's don't do that.

And the reasons I've become convinced, one is I don't think the road is going to facilitate growth.

Growth is going to occur anyway.

You know, I mean, the county is going to grow.

They don't seem to have much ability to say no to growth.

What bothers me is what's going to happen as 29 becomes more and more congestive, because it will.

There's no doubt about that.

When Albemarle Place is built, that's going to become a very difficult place to go.

Now, what happens downtown is what worries me, and I think the fact of the matter is if our merchants downtown had to plan solely

on the spending of city residents to support all their businesses, we would have a downtown mall that looks very different.

I think we need to have it be feasible and fairly easy for people that live north of Charlottesville to get downtown.

There's other factors.

There's congestion on Park Street.

There's a cut through traffic in the Greenbrier neighborhood, but I believe we need to do this.

I also disagree with some of the comments

I think the Easter connector is somewhat feasible.

I think that one of the routes being proposed is to go along Polar Grounds Road right in the middle of the heart of 29 North over to 20, following, improving and following existing roads.

I think it's a plausible plan.

We have to figure out how to pay for it.

That's not going to be easy.

I think the city and the county have to learn to work together even more to make those things happen.

I think if we actually want to build some connecting roads,

We probably have to consider creating transportation districts so we can raise money locally and not just depend on Richmond, not just for roads, but for transit.

I do think, however, I think the point of tonight in large part was to say, okay, where are we in terms of conditions?

I kind of agree with Dave.

There's a hodgepodge of conditions which have kind of evolved over time.

you know some of them were there when I started, some of them there were crafted in a group letter writing process in public, five of us sitting up here together deciding what language we can agree on, I mean that's an efficient process if I've ever heard of it.

But I think that there's a couple things I think that I thought were clear tonight.

One is I think we should condition the easement

on the final acquisition of replacement parkland.

And I did anticipate that.

I have asked the city attorney if we could do that.

I mean, if we wanted to pass a resolution for an easement, could we have in there that the easement would take effect at such time as we receive all of the replacement parkland from VDOT?

I think that likewise we might want to put in there something about that the final stormwater plan has been submitted and approved because I think that is something that's hanging out there that hasn't occurred.

I think we have a good committee that's looking forward to a sustainable, as best as these things can be, the stormwater runoff from our road can be sustainably designed to try to accomplish that.

But I think we can, with those two done, I agree with the types of

Expectations from the Board of Supervisors that David Norris outlined that what we're really talking about here together is working together on a variety of things.

On the connecting road between Fontaine and Sunset, on a transit authority, on seeing a real commitment to transit from them.

With those two specific conditions, if they can be added into a resolution, I'd be prepared to go forward tonight.

Well, I think we should bring this resolution back, as we said in July, when these things have happened.

When VDOT has acquired all 49 of the acres that we agreed to a year and a half ago, the stormwater plan should be done.

I think

It will be interesting to attend the November 15th meeting, which is when the county has its hearing on the Eastern Connector, because, as you note, there are viable options that don't go through the city.

Polo Grounds is one, rerouting Prophet Road is another.

Whether those options receive any real backing is a whole other question.

And, in fact,

All of the discussions that we've had concerning the Sunset Fontaine Connector, the Southern Parkway, at this point are just that.

They are discussions and I think there's certainly room for those things to be tied down.

in further detail.

I would certainly be more inclined to approve giving up the city's easement if it were tied to us getting, if it was done on the completion of at least one of the three major points that we ran on in 2004, which is to have the parkland done.

I think we should also address in some way the regional transportation network and

I'd like to just follow up one thing.

Our delegates said that if we don't do something now Richmond could take this road money away from us.

They've been doing that to us for 20 years.

That wouldn't be anything new.

We Charlottesville city residents pay 13 million dollars a year in transportation taxes.

at the pump and in the half, shake your head, that's at the gas pump, federal and state taxes and the half percent that goes from sales tax.

We get back 7 million.

That's if you roll everything together.

That's our maintenance money, that's our new money that we get from VDOT, that's our transit money, federal and state operating subsidies.

We get about 7 million back on 13.

Other comments?

It certainly can be done as long as the conditions are not ambiguous and are specific.

An example, you certainly could condition the grant of the temporary construction easement over the Commonwealth or the Department of Transportation's acquisition of the entire, and I believe, listening to Mr. Tolbert, I believe it was 49.6 acres of replacement parkland.

It certainly could be conditioned on that.

The second condition you mentioned, final approval of the stormwater drainage plan, I think could also be done.

Could I ask a question just for a point of information?

I understand that there is a resolution of intent that has been floated at the MPO to establish a regional transportation transit authority in the Charlottesville Albemarle area.

Has that been approved?

Yes.

So this is to coordinate transit.

This is not the regional transportation.

Correct.

Network, got it.

I guess I understand we could do the temporary easement requirement on acquisition of the, I guess what did you say, 49.6 acres.

But now the other question is the storm water issue.

Well, I think when Mayor Brown mentioned that he posed a possible condition that the easement be conditioned on and you'll excuse me, I don't mean to be putting words in your mouth but I believe you said final approval of the storm water drainage system.

I can, and as I'm walking up, clarify that it is 49.1, I was, the railroad is within that one, Ms. Kilby just indicated, so.

I think two options, I mean, the staff could, you could leave that to the committee to approve that as being a satisfactory design, or bring it back to you with a

a recommendation from the committee that you would agree that that was a satisfactory design.

VDOT has indicated that they will not go forward with the construction until we say that we're okay with the stormwater design because the pond was part of the original 12 point letter that went.

That's why we brought it to you before, is they said we don't feel comfortable in proceeding until you're okay with what the solution, alternative solution is.

Okay.

Well, I just want to make sure that if we are going to move forward with the easement that we make it very clear what our expectations are of the county because I think it's very important that they know

We are looking for some clear commitments from them.

I agree with Mr. Brown, we don't need to be ambiguous about this.

I would say, for one, a continued and substantial increase in funding for public transit.

Two is a commitment to extensive pedestrian and bicycle improvements within the urban arena.

Three is a commitment to building a transportation connector between Sunset Avenue and Fontaine slash 29-250 bypass that would take traffic off of Old Lynchburg Road.

And four is a commitment to continued development of alignment and funding scenarios for the Eastern Connector on top of the conditions

that you've already laid out regarding the final acquisition of the replacement parkland and development of the stormwater treatment plant.

But our agreement is with VDOT.

So, you know, what's going to be the mechanism for communicating this to the county?

Well, I think you're demonstrating the difficulty of trying to push something together before it's time simply to say that we can check this off our list and while it might be, I think it's very easy to nail down what we expect out of EI.

We expect them, at least in terms of parkland replacement, one of the three conditions.

You either have the parkland or you don't.

Right now they don't, but they could get it, and so it's easy for us to write that into the condition.

The interchange is a little tougher to nail down, and I think we can take a shot at that, but we're going to ultimately want to see, I think, a functioning and complete and funded interchange design there.

How we actually go about leveraging that is something that we still haven't figured out yet.

We'd have to approve it separately.

So that's leverage.

Well, except that if we don't approve it separately, what we've just approved now is in that great intersection, and I think we're all pretty clear that we don't want that.

So we can give them, we could say here's the easement but it's not acceptable for us to have an 8th grade intersection that might address, that will give you the easement, however it will only extend to within 500 feet of the, we don't agree with the 8th grade intersection

doesn't really solve how we deal with the interchange, but I guess it at least makes our intentions clear.

In your list of conditions, I think we had also asked for movement on the Southern Parkway.

Southern Parkway is a road that has been around for almost as long as the Meadow Creek Parkway.

The thing for me, I think most of the things that Dave Norris named are not exactly conditions because none of them will be fulfilled in the near future.

Funding for the transit authority when the transit authority is a year or two away, but what we can do is we can say we're moving forward and this is what we expect

will work on cooperatively, and I think there's an environment that would be positive for that.

I think that environment doesn't exist if we don't move forward at some point on the parkway.

It seems to me the things that we clearly can condition on are, you know, we have funding, I mean, you know, for the interchange, so I think we've all agreed that's been to some degree met.

I mean, there's

The replacement parkland is the thing I think we can, as has been said by our attorney, if we wanted to move forward, we can move forward, I would suggest we move forward with the condition that it be enacted only after the replacement parkland.

What about the NOAC grade intersection?

Yeah.

I think we should say no, this will not be used to create an at-grade intersection.

You can certainly condition a temporary construction easement on that.

But an easement, if you look at the very start of the easement, it does say this agreement.

An agreement requires the concurrence of two parties.

So the more interesting question I think is what would VDOT respond to, respond to the no at grade intersection.

Mr. Lynch made a good suggestion.

You could define the easement area as stopping somewhat short of the 250 bypass.

Is there a motion that incorporates those things?

I also move that we condition the temporary easement on the acquisition of the 49.1 acres of replacement park land, final approval of the stormwater management system, and also NOAC grade intersections.

I wonder if we could have a friendly amendment that might incorporate some of the conditions that Councillor Norris laid out with respect to the regional transportation component of this because while I think it's tough to say exactly what our expectations are in a letter to VDOT, I do think that that is and should be part of any resolution that we

Can I just add a thought?

I mentioned statement of expectations.

I'm not so hung up on the wording.

We're not just... You know, maybe the way to word this is that

we in our original letter have expressed conditions to see this regional transportation network built that the county has indicated that they are in substantial agreement and now we look to VDOT to start providing funds to build that transportation and maybe we don't need to be specific about

Except for it seems to lead the county off the hook in terms of kicking in its own funds.

I mean I think we want to see the county really step up not just pay lip service and I think they are, they're starting to.

They're already pulling coffers out of here and there for regional transit, for old-ish for road improvements, they're making some good steps

We want to see more of that.

I don't think we can make a contingent on it.

I think we have to say we do this in the expectation that VDOT will make good on the regional network and that the county will make good on the regional network, specifically go through the Eastern Connector

Mr. Brown?

I'm just wondering how can we really... Well I was wondering if Mr. Brown, does it work if in, you know, in what I've passed out here, as I mentioned earlier, in anticipation of the issue of

acquisition of Parkland being a condition.

There's some suggested language that the city attorney has brought up ahead of time people might want to look at.

But I wonder, Mr. Bryan, could we add a paragraph at the end of this resolution that says further this resolution is enacted with the expectation that, and then we could add the type of language that Dave Norris recommended and the type of language that Mr. Lynch recommended involving

Well, it's just after it.

After we've done the resolving part, we have a paragraph that says further, this resolution is enacted with the anticipation, expectation, crossed fingers, and I was wondering, would that

You can put that in the resolution.

You can't claim someone breached your expectations or your anticipations, but I don't have any problem with it going into the resolution.

Yeah, that's fine.

Mr. Mayor, if it's okay with you, I will- I think this first therefore be it resolved language needs to be modified.

If I understand the majority of council, the resolution would authorize the city manager to sign the following document in form approved by the city attorney.

One, upon certification from the Virginia Department of Transportation that the Commonwealth has acquired Title II, and I would insert the words or permanent easement over in light of what Mr. Tolbert said this evening, has acquired Title II or permanent easement over 49.1

Acres of real property that will be dedicated for use by the city as replacement park land.

Two, upon review and approval of the final design of the storm water drainage plan by city council and three, upon written confirmation from the Virginia Department of Transportation

that the temporary construction easement will not be used to construct an at-grade intersection at the intersection of U.S. Route 250 bypass and McIntyre Road extended.

The further additions that I made notes of were that

It's moved and seconded.

Is there further discussion?

It's actually a resolution we can vote on tonight.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Okay.

I want to make it clear that for the record, I'm voting on the terms.

I still disagree with the road, but

Okay, thank you.

Thanks everyone for coming.

Wait a second for the crowd.

Coldplay Development LLC, the property owner at the site, submitted a petition to rezone property on Rialto Street right of way from R1S residential to plan unit development.

The property has

Approximately 600 feet of road frontage on Rialto Street.

Applicant is planning to construct 19 units on the property in the form of two single family attached units and 13 single family detached units.

This is an item that's come before the Planning Commission a number of times and a couple of public hearings have been held.

This is coming to you all for a public hearing this evening as a joint public hearing was not held at the previous Planning Commission meeting.

You will note that there are six proffers that are accompanying this application and they are very similar to what they were in the last public hearing, joint public hearing that was held but I can briefly go through those.

One, the first one denotes donation of lots for equivalent value to the Charlottesville Police Foundation.

The second outlines plans to construct the sewer main in

Palatine Avenue right of way.

The third stream restoration project, a financial contribution to that.

The fourth denotes time restrictions on this development which will be a phase development which would allow for the first phase to be developed initially and the second phase to be developed

when the sewer line within the area has been upgraded or at four years whichever comes sooner.

And the fifth outlines additional sidewalk network that the applicant is proposing to do as well as finally a contribution to tree planting within the Belmont neighborhood which is the sixth proper on this application.

As noted before, Planning Commission

made a recommendation on this application to move it forward for approval and that is why we're here this evening.

I'll note that while we didn't have a quorum for this particular public hearing, we did sit through two previous incarnations of this.

I think we're fairly familiar with this as a group.

I do have a question.

I was contacted by a homeowner on an adjacent property who was concerned about water runoff into her yard and into her basement.

And what kind of provisions have been made in terms of, for the sidewalk that's going to be built up to Avon Street, is there going to be any kind of retaining wall?

Well, none of those items have been specifically engineered at this point in time, but they will be required to take those things into consideration and additional runoff should not run into that lady's property.

Great.

Thank you.

I will do that.

Other questions?

Okay.

If there's no questions, then I'll open the public hearing.

Guy Lopez signed up, but I think he then signed up for the other, is he still in here?

No?

Is there anyone who would like to speak at this public hearing?

So we'll close the public hearing and move it on to council discussion.

To me it's generally hard to argue with the unanimous planning commission.

I think they certainly consider this

More Than One meetings, they pushed to get it done in a good fashion and I certainly support them on this.

I'm moved to approve the ordinance.

Second.

Okay.

Okay, it'll come back for the second reading.

The next item is a public hearing on an ordinance closing a portion of the right-of-way designated as 3rd Street off Douglas Avenue.

Okay, this is an application that has come forward originally by Peter and Melissa Wiley and the adjacent owner, Ms. Scott, added on to this petition as well and this is a petition to close a right-of-way on Unaccepted Street that was created in 1906 and

has been of some concern to some of the other property owners because they access the rear of their property through this right of way.

The street closing policy was followed by Mr. Wiley and as that policy continues, if there are no objections to such a closure because this is not an accepted street, then it will move forward

through an administrative process because there were some objections to this that's coming forward to council for review.

Outlined in the memo are the three criteria that council needs to look at in considering this application.

that will vacating the alley impede a person's access to his property or otherwise cause irreparable damage to the owner of any lot shown on the original subdivision plat.

The petitioner notes that there are access from other places to the rear properties on Goodman Street.

what will hopefully be a little bit helpful for those of you who were unable to go out to the site today or prior to the meeting.

This is a view from the east side of the property, the property in question.

I'll show you what the actual alley looks like at this point.

The alley looks like this.

It's 215 and 217 and it flows through here.

The properties that access on Goodman Street are here, so you'd be coming in the alley here and turning the corner.

This ends here where these chairs are and this is a wooded area back here but from the other direction it does go all the way through to Monticello Road though it hasn't been improved it's completely clear and you could have some accessibility through there so if you guys need to see these let me know.

The second is are there any public utilities located in the subject alley, which there are, and if this is closed, the condition of that closure will be that easements are maintained over that in order to allow for access over that.

and then will vacation in the alley result in adverse impact on traffic to near public streets and due to the fact that this is not accepted into the city system we have no analysis of the direct impact on traffic for that.

At this point, staff doesn't have a recommendation per se because of the status of this being non-accepted city property.

The reason it's coming forward to you has to do with the city street closure policy, which was included in your packet.

The petitioner, I hope, is here.

Thank you.

and can hopefully address further questions on this application as we work through this.

So, yeah.

Yes, Miss Chrissy, how many properties are affected?

One thing, the deed specifically notes that the alleyway, which if you're on, this is your, the backside of page two of your packet, and there are two little x's in the properties that are under consideration, and the deed notes that the alley is there for the specific use of the adjacent property owners on Douglas, so it does specifically state that there is

right of way behind here that would lead all the way through Goodman.

Affected would generally be up to lot 5 where it has the circle 5 there because it's not improved further back there.

That's where the wooded area starts?

Correct.

Other questions?

There were two persons who objected originally.

So we could hear from the applicant.

Good evening.

Thank you.

I'm Peter Wiley, 217 Douglas Avenue.

Both parties that objected have withdrawn their objection.

They pulled me aside earlier and had to leave.

We've basically worked it out.

The one question that Mr. Saunders and Mr. Shifflett, who both have properties on Goodman,

The one question Mr. Saunders had is would he have continued access or guaranteed access to the back of his property on Goodman, and this is sort of upside down, I'm asking his question and he's the one that's objected, but would he have continued access through that unnamed parallel street, the alleyway parallel to Goodman?

That was his only concern.

Thank you.

Well, you know, they laughed.

This is an ordinance, so it requires two readings and I think maybe what we would want to do, if we were to decide to move forward, we'd move in second, that we would then want to hear in writing or by phone call from

I'm just happy you worked it out.

Okay.

My only question would be more of a legal one because it seemed to me that the plat and the deed were actually fairly specific, well, except that saying that the

streets.

Even Douglas Avenue was not to be a public street.

That might have been incorporated later, I guess, but Third Street, it's pretty clear, is for the benefit of the adjacent properties and only to be closed by their mutual consent.

So that seems like that would take us out of it.

I guess my only question is, does Third Street really go

And it looks like Third Street goes not just between the two properties, but between four properties.

And so there really needs to be four properties that mutually consent, and if all four properties mutually consent, I don't see that.

What are the other two properties?

It's on either side of Douglas Street, because basically this is the language

This plot right here.

So you mean on the east side of Douglas is what you're referring to?

East and west is where it seems to say all these streets It's already been closed on the east side of Douglas.

So it's already been closed.

Okay, well let me, if there's no other questions, let me open the public hearing and then we can discuss this.

So I'll open the public hearing.

Mark Saunders is listed first.

He's gone.

I'm Pam Scott, 215 Douglas.