My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/14/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
9/14/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:19 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 1:42:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/14/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
P. 0. Boh 1.8313 <br />VE; -1'O BEA.C. i *LGRiCA 32960 <br />:Mr. Chairman, County Cournissioners, <br />Mr. Mayor and City Councilmen: <br />September 14, 1981 <br />Pelican Island Audubon Society has studied the Indian River Boulevard <br />Extension proposal and offers the following comments. <br />We have not objected to this project in the past because of the <br />claim that its primary purpose was to provide emergency access to Indian <br />River Memorial Hospital. We felt that the public benefits to be gained <br />.justified the loss of approximately 8 acres of wetlands. Sufficient <br />mitigatory measures were proposed to offset these losses, and we were <br />under the impression that access :from adjacent properties east of the <br />aligiment would not be provided. We are deeply disturbed to now find <br />that the stated justification for this project is not paramount, and <br />that the project has been modified so as to facilitate drainage and <br />development of native wetlands rather than conserve these resources. <br />With regard to the justification for this project, we note that the <br />Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) permit application <br />appraisal states that "The primary plirp.-,se for the road is to provide <br />quicker access to a nearby hospital". The appraisal also stater that <br />" Re`ulatory agencies havt,_ been giving, special consideration to this <br />project because of the express -ed need to provide quick emergency service <br />to the hospital and. the lack of :,iterra�« routes." <br />In fact, there has been no publish d study of the ambulance response <br />tire savings to be accruf!d by this pro j _,c_t . Furthermore, there is <br />presently an alternative route utilizing 30th Street, which would cut <br />approximately 2 minutes from the travel tine. Ambulance squad records <br />indicate that there have been only 20 code -blue ambulance runs from the <br />beach area to the hospital in the last. 2 years. This level of emergency <br />traffic could easily be absorbed by the above-mentioned route. We find <br />it incongruous that the County would be willing to spend 2 million <br />dollars for an emergency roadway, when 90 thousand dollars could not bp <br />allocated for Advanced Cardiac Life Support capabilities. <br />Statements in the project environmental impact assessment, and in <br />the May and July County Commission minutes, indicate that the pre- <br />eminent purpose for this roadway is to provide an alternative thoroughfare <br />to US 1 between northern portions of the county and the beach area. <br />"Thio is 10% recycled paper" <br />7 <br />mar 47?AtE*428 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.