FM 1488 Relief Route Public Meeting Summary Report .FM 1488 from existing FM 1488 West of Magnolia

The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 16, 2014, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT.

FM 1488 Relief Route Public Meeting Summary Report CSJ: 0523-09-018, 0523-08-013

FM 1488 from existing FM 1488 West of Magnolia

to Proposed SH 249

Public Meeting September 22, 2015Prepared by: Alexis Potaman, RPS Klotz Associates, Inc.

Date: December 2015

FM 1488 Relief Route Public Meeting Summary, CSJs: 0523-09-018, 0523-08-013

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY1-2 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES...3-10

APPENDICES

Appendix A NOTICES OF PUBLIC MEETING

Appendix B AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION

Appendix C ELECTED OFFICIALS LETTER, MAP AND LIST

Appendix D ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS MAILING LIST

Appendix E ADDITIONAL PUBLIC OUTREACH

Appendix F PUBLIC MEETING PROGRAM

Appendix G SIGN-IN SHEETS

Appendix H PHOTOGRAPHS

Appendix I EXHIBIT BOARDS

Appendix J WRITTEN COMMENTS

1

FM 1488 Relief Route Public Meeting Summary, CSJs: 0523-09-018, 0523-08-013

Public Meeting Summary

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Houston District, conducted a public

meeting concerning the proposed FM 1488 Relief Route on new location around the north

side of Magnolia from existing FM 1488 west of the City of Magnolia to proposed SH 249 east

of Magnolia on September 22, 2015, at Magnolia West High School located at 42202 FM

1774 in Magnolia, Texas. The purpose of the meeting was to gather public input on the FM

1488 Relief Route Project.

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Houston District proposes to construct a

Relief Route for FM 1488 around the north side of Magnolia from existing FM 1488 west of

Magnolia to proposed SH 249 in Montgomery County, Texas. The proposed roadway project

would consist of four lanes, two in each direction on new location and have grade separated

overpasses at FM 1774 and Union Pacific Railroad and at the proposed SH 249 extension.

Approximately 172 acres of additional right-of-way (ROW) would be required. The proposed

project would potentially result in residential displacements. The proposed project length is

approximately 5 miles. The purpose of the proposed project is to decrease traffic congestion,

increase mobility, and improve operational efficiency and safety along FM 1488 within the

City of Magnolia. Construction timeline to be determined as funding becomes available.

The Notice of Public Meeting was published on August 22, 2015, and September 12, 2015,

in the Houston Chronicle, and August 23, 2015, and September 13, 2015 in the La Voz

Spanish newspaper. The notices and the affidavits of publication are attached (see

Appendices A and B). Notices were mailed to elected officials in the project area (see

Appendix C) and adjacent property owners (see Appendix D). Additional public outreach was

conducted and consisted of mailing public meeting invitation flyers to city and county offices,

local fire departments and law enforcement offices, schools and libraries (see Appendix E).

Previous public meetings had been held in January 2004, May 2004, and March 2005.

These public meetings presented different alternatives and resulted in the selection of a

preferred alternative. This public meeting was held to determine if the selected preferred

alternative was still viable.

The public meeting was held, from approximately 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. in an open house

format. A registration desk was located at the entrance of Magnolia West High School where

attendees were invited to sign-in. Each person was provided with a pre-addressed comment

form to share their thoughts regarding the proposed project and a program, which contained

a brief description and purpose of the proposed project. The program is included in Appendix

F. Handouts provided at the public meeting were available in English and Spanish. Three

elected officials (or their representatives), 107 members of the public, and one member of

the media signed in at the meeting. The program is included in Appendix F and sign-in sheets

are included in Appendix G.

2

FM 1488 Relief Route Public Meeting Summary, CSJs: 0523-09-018, 0523-08-013

Citizens were given an opportunity to view the various exhibits that were on display (see

photographs in Appendix H and Exhibit Boards in Appendix I). Exhibits included a welcome

board, project description, the need and purpose, project location map, proposed typical

sections, project history, project timeline, a build alternatives evaluation matrix, how to

provide comments, and the schematic layout for the project. A table was also provided which

contained a laptop computer and a 22 inch computer screen which displayed a digital project

aerial allowing attendees to see the proposed ROW relative to their specific property. A project

staff member was stationed at this digital project aerial viewing table for the entire duration of

the public meeting. Additionally, project management staff was available to provide

information and answer questions from citizens regarding the proposed project.

Public Comments and Responses The public was encouraged to ask questions and make comments. All verbal questions and

comments were immediately responded to at the meeting. 36 public meeting comment forms

were submitted at the public meeting. Three e-mails were submitted before the public

meeting and an additional four comments were submitted, by mail or e-mail, after the public

meeting.

The comment form asked the question, Do you support the proposed project? Meeting

attendees had the opportunity to answer yes, no or undecided. Of the 43 forms, letters

and emails that were received, 46.5% of the respondents marked that they were not in

support of the project. Detailed question results can be seen below:

The comment forms received have been numbered and are attached along with the letters

and e-mails that were received (see Appendix J). Due to the overlap and repetition in many

comments, similar comments responses were consolidated to reduce duplication. The

comments that appear below are often not the precise words found in the written comment

form. This has been done to reduce duplication of similar comments that elicited a common

response and in no way is intended to obscure the substance of a comment. Comments are

below:

Are you in Support of this Project?

Yes 8 18.6%

No 20 46.5%

Undecided 10 23.3%

No Response 5 11.6%

Total 43 100%

3

FM 1488 Relief Route Public Meeting Summary, CSJs: 0523-09-018, 0523-08-013

1. I think this is a good concept. The west end should connect to Nichols Sawmill

Road, the logical pathway to US 290 corridor (see Comment Form 1).

Response: The current proposed project extends to existing FM 1488 west of Magnolia. It is not within the proposed project scope or purpose to extend further south beyond existing FM 1488

2. Regarding the alignment on the western end from FM 1486 to existing FM 1488,

shifting the alignment further west to the west side of Mink Branch will prevent

damage to a Horse Boarding and Riding Lesson property to the south and

continuing south of Mink Branch to FM 1488 (see Comment Form 37).

Response: Additional alternatives were considered along with the preferred alternative. The current proposed Relief Route alignment was chosen as the

preferred alternative because it resulted in the fewest overall displacements and

impacts to 100 year floodplains, creeks and wetlands. Moving the preferred

alternative to the west side of Mink Branch would substantially increase the number

of residential displacements. All reasonable efforts were made to minimize

residential, commercial, and environmental impacts.

3. My property fronts on Old Hempstead Rd. The alignment needs to be moved to the

west past Gilliam Lake against the far western fence line, so it would not cut the

property in half (see Comment Forms 5 and 43).

Response: As proposed, the current alignment was chosen because it resulted in the fewest impacts to 100 year floodplains, creeks and wetlands. We evaluated the

request and developed an alternative route, however, due to the location of a

floodplain west and south of the property, the alternative route could not follow the

western edge of the property. The alternate route proceeded from the preferred

alternative in a south-westerly direction toward the western edge of the property,

passing just west of Gilliam Lake, and then it proceeded in a south-easterly

direction to tie back to the original route.

While the alternate route would provide more contiguous property with the owners

land to the east, it would leave two triangular remnants in the northwest and

southwest corners. After reviewing the impacts of the alternate route, while it may

be preferable to this property owner, the shift toward the west would result in

greater ROW needed from the properties to the north and south. The alternate route

would take more land from the property to the south and clip the corner of an

existing corral. The parcel