SUMMARY OF MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 2003

A meeting of the Community Advisory Committee for the Craycroft Road Project was held from 6:00 PM to 7:55 PM at the First Evangelical Free Church, 4700 N. Swan Road.

I.

Welcome, Introductions

Sal Caccavale, meeting moderator, called the meeting to order. The CAC, and other interested parties introduced themselves. CAC members present were Charles A. Geoffrion, Susan L. Wicks, Charles "Chuck" Freitas, Cecily Surace, Wanda Shattuck, Donald Baker, Sherman Madere, Jerry Lippman, Kenneth Keating, and Mary Grossman. CAC members not present include David Wolfe. Craycroft team members present included Sal Caccavale, Craig Allison, Michael Ereti, Jonathon Robertson, Annabelle Quihuis, Damon Ballesteros, Kevin Hall, Lillian Alvarez, and Lisa Spahr. Craycroft team members not present include Bill Schlesinger, Nanette Jenkins, Valerie Samoy, David Hook and Nanette Pageau. 

Sal explained there would be no formal agenda; the meeting notice would be used as the agenda. Sal thanked everyone for the time they have already invested in this process and for agreeing to continue to serve on the CAC. Sal welcomed a new member of the CAC, Wanda Shattuck. CAC Member Dale Faulkner has resigned.

II.

CAC Mission & Process

Sal explained it is the choice of the committee on whether or not to have a chairperson. Sal explained the role of the chairperson. Charles Geoffrion offered to facilitate issues. The CAC selected Charles Geoffrion as the Chairperson and Chuck Freitas as vice-chairperson.

Sal stated there would be meetings once a month with the goal to prepare a CAC recommendation letter for the Board of Supervisors. The ultimate goal would be to have the letter completed by late September in order to meet public notice deadlines so that the Board can hold their public hearing in November. 

Wanda asked if the CAC has a copy of the previous CAC letter addressing issues and concerns. Charles Geoffrion responded he sent it to Pima County. Charles has all the previous deliberations, which he compiled into a report generated from e-mails and letters. Sal will provide a copy of this report to the CAC when it is available.

Sal asked the CAC to develop some meeting rules and the list would be posted at all future CAC meetings. 

Chuck Freitas suggested following Robert's Rules casually. Chuck asked that the initial dialogue be between the team and the CAC, then open the floor to others. Sal requested a personal rule that all cell phones be turned to silent or vibrate during the duration of the meeting. Any other rules may be added later as issues come up. All agreed that we can function on a first name basis. 

Charles stated anyone in the public could send issues to the CAC. The public may include their e-mail address on the sign in sheet to be added to the distribution list and those that do not have access to e-mail can receive information via regular mail. Sal stated it is the CAC members' choice to exchange phone numbers with other CAC members and with the public. Charles Geoffrion stated he is listed and therefore does not mind if his phone number is distributed. Wanda added that the CAC represents the community so she does not mind being contacted as well.

Sal stated the meetings are open meetings and everyone is welcome to attend. Anyone could raise his or her hand to be recognized. Sal reminded everyone that the CAC members do not make decisions. Many suggestions are made at the CAC meetings and the design team incorporates the changes that are within the control of the design team. Suggestions beyond the authority of the design team should be included in the CAC recommendation letter. The Board will ultimately decide the outcome of issues that go beyond the policies and procedures that govern the design team. Sal distributed a copy of the Community Participation and Mitigation Ordinance the Board created.

Sal stated if anyone has a question pertaining to how the CAC operates they could refer to the Ordinance. Sal referred to page 6, and suggested people read and familiarize themselves with the points. Sal stated that the CAC could not change county policy; however, these policies can be discussed.

Sal indicated that the CAC will also provide input and opinions on the art aspects of the project. The art will vary, e.g. metal agave structures, tile designs on sound walls, etc. Sal used an example of how the Skyline Road design will be using ideas from the nearby schools. The artist will be attending future meetings and will bring ideas to present. 

Cecily Surace asked what amount of this project was allotted to art. Sal responded that 1% is roughly $180,000. The 1% would be of the construction cost.

III.

General Project Discussion

Craig with EEC briefly reviewed the new policies recently developed by the county, one of them being the Environmentally Sensitive Roadway Guidelines (ESRG). The previous guidelines did not include any views of the roadway; the only concern was with what the traveling public viewed. Sal will provide a copy of the new policies at the next meeting per Wanda Shattuck's request. 

Craig discussed the roadway standard policies in regards to rubberized asphalt. Jerry asked if the rubberized asphalt would be more expensive. Sal responded the rubberized asphalt would be more expensive, however there are different savings in choosing rubberized asphalt. For example, the asphalt is used in thinner layers and needs less maintenance; therefore the cost is basically a break-even when considering life cycle maintenance costs. Another key benefit is the extremely quiet nature of the asphalt. Sal encouraged everyone to drive the rubberized asphalt on Oracle from Ina, south to Roger. 

Sal referred to the 1997 Pima County list of bond projects. In order to complete all of these projects more funds are needed. As a result some of these projects are being stretched out. The goal is to have Craycroft funded in the five-year plan. The plan is to start the construction shortly after the first of the year in 2005 and be completed by late 2006. Sal reminded everyone that reductions in the state's Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) to Pima County also impact the project schedule. 

Craig distributed the Environmentally Sensitive Roadway Design Guidelines, (ESRG) and stated that the handout is a summary flowchart of the new process. Some of the old processes are still there and will continue to be addressed. Craig called attention to the exhibit references to the inventory phase and public involvement phases. Craig explained the new guidelines as they apply to roadway widths and design speeds.

Craig noted that the purpose of the public meetings is to allow opportunities for people to provide input. At the next meeting the noise study progress will be discussed. 

Sal reminded everyone that the Craycroft team is the first group to go through the ESRG process. He encouraged everyone to work together and ask questions. 

Craig used the River Road intersection coming from the west to illustrate the potential impact of the new guidelines. Current roadway design specifications have a certain minimum radius on turns. To meet that requirement the roadway would have to be moved west to allow a wider turn. The ESRG would allow the turn to be constructed with the tight turning radius but with greater banking. This enables the turn to be kept safe, but avoid removing desert areas to accommodate the road. Sal reiterated that the guidelines are designed to minimize unnecessary disruption of important landscape or desert areas.

Craig stated that current roadway plans, including the EAMR, have not been changed since the project was last active. Some of the studies in the EAMR will not need to be redone. Some will be redone to meet the ESRG and some will be redone to incorporate the intersection of Craycroft and Sunrise, which is now part of this project. All major planning deliverables will be revised and resubmitted.

Lisa from EEC reported she will update the Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report (EAMR). She explained this report and the impacts on the project. Lisa passed out a draft schedule for the EAMR. Everything in yellow refers to CAC actions. 

Lisa stated how the old study on noise is no longer current and needs to be updated based on the new intersection design and additional traffic. Sal explained how the noise report is generated and how samples at different times of the day are used. Lisa stated that the initial portions of the EAMR would be distributed at the May CAC meeting. (Editor's Note: This distribution of EAMR materials may need to be postponed to the June CAC meeting.) 

Sal reviewed the schedule with everyone and explained the different topics to be discussed at the following CAC meetings. Sal explained what is expected from CAC members at each meeting and the end result is to generate the CAC letter to the Board of Supervisors. Sal explained the CAC letter procedure and dates. 

Charles Geoffrion asked if by the 50% design stage is everything mostly final? Lisa asked where is 20% to 30% being locked in? Craig referred back to the bubble exhibit from the ESRG and explained the process showing where 15% plans and then 30% plans will result. Sal explained that the 30% stage requires CAC action, that the committee can continue to be involved after the 30% stage, and how they can provide input. Charles Geoffrion noted that the CAC would continue to meet after the letter has been generated.

Sal used Skyline as an example of how CAC comments are processed and submitted to the Board. Also, the Board has a public meeting that anyone can attend. 

Sal stated that the Comment Forms will be incorporated into a running list of questions and answers that address the important topics. That list of Q & A will be posted on the website, which is currently under construction.

Charles asked if the previous work would be disregarded? Sal responded that they would not disregard all the work, however they will be reviewing and comparing the work to current guidelines. Once design begins, Sal will be providing a design report at every meeting and reviewing the status of the current months work.

It was discussed that the Committee will be given loose-leaf notebooks to keep materials in so that the design and EAMR materials can be presented in sections rather than all at once.

IV.

Call to the Audience

The status of the utilities and power poles was asked about? Sal responded that coordination will occur with all utility companies and that they have been made aware of the project. They can do needed work now, or they will have to wait until the project has been completed. With regard to power poles, Sal responded that Pima County does not have any control over TEP. Craig stated there would be changes in the high voltage transmission pole height, and spacing along the west side, and that the poles will be steel instead of wood. Sal indicated that the design team will contact TEP and request that a representative from TEP attend a future meeting and provide the CAC with more information. Also, if the committee wants the electrical placed underground, that would probably require funding through an improvement district process with costs assessed to the property owners. 

The phone, water, and cable utilities were asked about. Sal explained that these utility companies would likely take advantage of the opportunity to make changes at the time of construction. 

Charles Geoffrion commented the high voltage lines have had special installation and overheating is a major problem. Sal commented they would not underground the high voltage line due to the high expense. 

With regard to CAC meetings, Sal stated that it was decided at the last meeting that the third Tuesday of the month would be the meeting time, and therefore the meeting schedule has been developed according to these dates. Also, if anyone cannot make it to the meeting they can feel free to send a representative. 

It was asked if the design were to conflict with HOA's setback rules, how would that be handled. Sal responded that he would have to meet with HOAs individually and discuss the issues. 

It was asked why it takes five years to complete a project. How does the cost factor in? Sal explained the speed of completion, utilities and contractors. The design process should be a little over a one-year process. Once the project reaches the 50-75% stage they begin working out the details. The ROW acquisition process takes about a year. Also, they cannot start projects in the month of January or February because of the Pygmy-owl surveys; therefore projects must begin before or after this time. 

Charles asked if the penalty clauses are in place. Annabelle responded that in regards to the incentives and penalties in the contract, we would need to speak with County contracting representatives. 

Sal reminded everyone that the public does not notice all the work contractors are doing. Often, multiple contractors are doing different work at the same time. The underground portion of each project takes a great deal of time and often is not always noticed. 

Charles Geoffrion asked if they shift the alignment further east, what would happen to the private properties. Sal responded they have not discussed this issue. Sal commented that if this occurs, it might be necessary to buy the home. Sal explained how they buy and sell right-of-way. 

Mary Rodin will present the noise study at the next meeting. She will identify each point on a map and where it was measured. Some members of the public have requested noise study measurements at certain points. Sal said we can get clarification at from Mary at the next meeting. 

The meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM.

  
CORRECTIONS MADE TO THIS SUMMARY WILL APPEAR IN THE SUMMARY OF THE NEXT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

< CAC overview page