On June 4, 2009, the City of Port St. Lucie hosted an Alternatives Public Workshop for the Crosstown Parkway Extension PD&E Study/EIS. There were 157 recorded attendees at this workshop, which were broken down as follows:

123	members of the public
32	work group members (including agencies, consultants and non-elected City staff)
2	elected officials (from the City of Port St. Lucie)
157	total attendees

Notification methods for the Workshop included the following:

• The City mailed an invitation letter to 8,146 property owners within the project limits;
• Newspaper advertisements were placed in the Port St. Lucie News and the Palm Beach Post on Sunday, May 24, 2009;
• “Save the Date” emails were sent to all Interested Parties (members of the public who had provided their email addresses at prior meetings), Elected Officials (from the City and surrounding areas, such as Stuart, as well as State and regional elected officials), and Agencies;
• A press release was developed and sent to all local and regional media on May 19, 2009;
• Michael Davis, Principal in Charge (Keith and Schnars, P.A.), and Ed Cunningham, Communications Director (City of Port St. Lucie) announced the Workshop on the “Positively Port St. Lucie” radio show that aired on Saturday, May 24th and Sunday, May 25, 2009;
• A “Save the Date” announcement was run on the governmental channel, TV 20, for two weeks leading up to the Workshop;
• An announcement was placed on the “What’s New” section of the Project website:
  www.pslcrosstownparkway.com; and
• An announcement was placed on the homepage of the City’s website, as well as on the City calendar: www.cityofportstlucie.com.

The primary purposes of the meeting were to:

• Provide information on the project’s purpose and need, status and comparative analysis;
• Provide the public an update and overview of the project;
• Solicit input from the public on the alternatives being considered, including the No Build Alternative;
• Facilitate an open line of communication with the public throughout the Project Development process; and
• Explain to the public the various ways to provide their input.

The Alternatives Workshop was scheduled to begin at 4:30 p.m., however numerous attendees arrived early and were engaged by the Project Team starting at 4:00 p.m. The Workshop ended on schedule at 7:00 p.m. The event was conducted in an “open house” format to allow the attendees the opportunity to ask project specialists questions in a one-on-one informal format. While no formal presentation was conducted, an informational multi-media presentation (including voiceover) was on-going throughout the workshop in a separate room.

Forty (40) display boards were provided at the meeting to convey information about the project. The boards were placed at nine project stations, each addressing focus areas of the PD&E Study, including subjects ranging from environmental impacts to community impacts.

Public Comment forms were provided to the attendees, along with a two-page project handout that explained the workshop process and encouraged public input. A court reporter was also present to transcribe verbal comments if requested.

Comments Summary

Written Comments Received during the Workshop	=	48	written comments (one attendee wrote two)
Oral Comments Received during the Workshop	=	9	oral comments
Comments Received via Email after the Workshop	=	2	emailed comments
Comments Received via Mail after the Workshop	=	1	mailed comment
Total Public Comments	=	60	comments (as of June 6, 2009)

Of the comments made, here are some of the initial findings:

1. Alternative Preference

29 – Prefer the 1C route
01 – Prefers the 2A route
07 – Prefer the “No Build” Alternative
10 – Did not have a preference

Several attendees did not have a specific preference, but would be inclined to accept two or more alternatives, additional comments included:

1 – Prefer either the 1C, 2A or 2D routes
2 – Prefer either 1C or 2A routes

Of the additional comments received, where a specific alternative was not identified, comments directed that certain alternatives were not favorable:

3 – Prefer anything other than 2A or 2D routes
1 – Prefers anything but 1F or 6B
1 – Prefers anything but 6A, 6B, or 1F
2 – Prefers anything but 1C

2. Additional Comments and Concerns

Many attendees did not identify a preference for an alternative, but had other issues that they wanted to bring to the City’s attention for consideration. The majority of these concerns were related to property issues, compensation for their homes if an alternative was selected and speeding up the process so that they were not kept in limbo.

Several attendees addressed environmental concerns. The attendees that were mostly concerned with environmental issues (five comments) identified concerns about eagles, osprey, pipe fish and the horsetail plant. Additional comments made with relation to the environment asked that the City find a good balance between environmental and social impacts. One attendee commented that he had confidence that the City would mitigate properly to compensate for the environmental impacts of the bridge if built. One suggested that the River has just “come back” and to “please not damage one of Port St. Lucie’s greatest resources.”

Other attendees (less than five) listed traffic congestion and noise as concerns.

Finally, several members of the La Buona Vita Village attended the meeting and questioned how the City would buy out their properties in the event that Alternatives 6B or 1F were chosen.

Many comments were made with regard to the Workshop being very informative. Several comments praised the City for the representation of materials, as well as the Project Team’s attention in addressing their concerns and questions.