While the Public Review Draft Environmental Assessment is available for review on our website and has been made available to the City of Cibolo for public review, apparently there is still some confusion regarding the initial draft environmental assessment that was provided at the request of the City of Cibolo and the city council in late 2017.

The report contained placeholders for yet to be determined sections as no onsite inspections had occurred at that time. The City and council were made aware at the time of its submittal that it was a draft and contained these placeholders.

In January 2018, the Cibolo Turnpike, LP provided further clarification regarding this draft in response to questions from Councilmember Ted Gibbs.

Here are the observations and questions by Gibbs after his review:

  • The study is based on the roundabout at 1103 and Parkway interchange.  This has recently changed to a flyover and will likely impact the study from both a noise and drainage perspective.
  • There is a lot of jargon and acronyms in the study.  I think it would be helpful to have a workshop from an Engineer (not associated with Cibolo Parkway) to walk us through the study.
  • On page 19, line 11 part 2.  What constitutes a resource?
  • Several answers refer to alternate routes will require studies.  Later in a separate document it became clear what the alternate routes were and why they were not included in the answers. This is a little confusing until you get the whole document read.
  • This is a desktop study so is a more in-depth study under way?  (There is no way this study cost $1M that Mr. Crew stated.)
  • I would like to have a copy of the Needs and Purpose Memorandum if possible.  This is a great background into why and ahistorical perspective and should not change although this is a draft document.
  • In the Needs and Purpose Memorandum on page 3 section 1.3 it refers to the bridge on 1103 crossing Lake Ray Hubbard.  These types of typos will kill us in when this is made public.
  • The Needs and Purpose Memorandum does not cover existing planned development on 78 and estimated growth below 78.  This is critical to explain as future growth is one of the major impacts we are trying to resolve for the future.
  • On Page 10 of the Needs and Purpose Memorandum it discusses the current railroad crossings but does not mention the length of time it takes a train to cross nor does it mention the planned additional track which will likely indicate more rail traffic.

Click here to read the response from CTLP and aci Environmental Consulting.

Menu