SUMMARY OF MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 17, 2004 (Revised June 22, 2004)

A.

Sal stated that this is a process that began several months ago. David Hook, Project Manager for EEC then led the discussion for the Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report (EAMR) and the Environmentally Sensitive Roadway (ESR) Process.

1.

It was explained that one of the main reasons the EAMR is being revisited from two years ago is because Craycroft Rd. is categorized as an ESR. The new ESR guidelines are applied to Craycroft Rd. due to it being a scenic route. As a part of this process it is required that the County inventory the natural resources in the area. This inventory was completed in 2003 and will be explained further later during the presentation. The next step in the process is performing an assessment of the impacts the project will have on the inventory and is completed in conjunction with developing the Design Concept Report (DCR). The last step is developing the EAMR, which ultimately identifies the various mitigation measures recommended for the area.

2.

A first draft of the EAMR will be produced for the CAC member's review after the DCR is approved. This process is approximately a couple of months away. Several CAC meetings will be held as the DCR is developed as well as after the first draft of the EAMR is developed. A public open house will also be held in order to make this draft available for public review in an effort to obtain public comment on the contents of the EAMR. The final EAMR will then be produced and along with the required letter from the CAC to the Board. Both will be submitted to the Board for approval.

3.

The EAMR inventory and analysis is conducted in several aspects of the project. The three major categories that will be of most interest are the biological resources, visual resources, and the noise analysis.
  

B.

Lorraine Rhoads, Wildlife Biologist with EEC then explained the Biological Resources inventory and analysis process and progress to date.

1

Four different types of vegetation communities were identified during the biological assessment of the area: the Palo Verde Mixed Cactus Scrub, the Xeroriparian Mixed Scrub (found in washes adjacent to the project area such as Craycroft Wash), the Sonoran Interior Strand (this community of plants is found mostly in the Craycroft Wash), and the disturbed upland (primarily found alongside of the road which includes both native and non-native species and some endangered species).

2

Several of the many species that are part of the common wildlife habitat of the area are: the Cactus Wren, the White-throated Woodrat (known as a packrat), and the Western Whiptail Lizard.

3.

Some of the special status species found in the area are: the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owl (an endangered species listed with the US Fish and Wildlife Service), the Lesser Long-nosed Bat (potential foraging habitat is in the area), and the Sonoran Desert Tortoise (listed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department as Wildlife of Special Concern (WSCA)), along with the 55 priority vulnerable species (specifically identified by the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan as species whose habitats are potentially threatened). The priority vulnerable species are a separate category from the endangered species being that they are listed by two different entities. As a part of the analysis the habitats for these species are closely studied, along with the potential effects of this project on their foraging and their connectivity to other areas.

4.

The biological impacts of the project are also studied as a part of the EAMR. A couple of impacts have been identified so far. As the road is widened, there is an unavoidable adverse impact to native vegetative communities. Those that are adjacent to the west side of the existing road will be primarily impacted because of the road being widened to that side. The indirect adverse effects to common wildlife species inhabiting the project area include loss of habitat and displacement of individuals into surrounding areas. Certain types of vegetation will be accounted and replaced as a mitigation measure to these adverse effects to common wildlife and special status species, in order to comply with Pima County's ESR ordinance.

5.

Cactus ferruginous pygmy owl surveys are currently taking place. These surveys have to be current (at least two years) to the beginning of the project. These surveys fall within a certain survey season, which is from January 1st to June 30th. Three surveys have to be completed during one survey year. These have to generate negative results in order for the project to begin. There may also be the need for additional special status species surveys upon request from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

6.

Another possible mitigation measure that may be implemented in order to make the roadway "wildlife friendly" is to design a wildlife road crossing using the culverts, which are usually used for drainage purposes. This would allow the flow of habitat and population diversity in the area.
  

C.

Joy Lyndes, Landscape Architect with SAGE Landscape Architecture and Environmental, explained the visual resources.

1.

As a partner in the project, SAGE will address the mitigations recommended by the biological resource study with re-vegetation and restoration for habitat.

2.

This was a topic of high concern to many of the attendees at the public open house because of scenic quality of the road. The fact that Craycroft Rd. is classified as an ESR is because of it being a scenic roadway.

3.

The project area is studied for visual resources and the visual impacts are then represented on a map. A draft form of this visual inventory of Craycroft Rd. was presented. The visual inventory is a process where the magnitude of the views, the types of views, the continuity, the silhouette, and the duration of the views, along with many other components are taken into consideration. This information is then utilized for the visual assessment, where the team then recommends the best types of mitigation for the area in order to make sure the road is safe and visually friendly. Each intersection must be safe and cohesive instead of confusing. The project is divided in visual units. A visual unit is defined as an area where everything in it can be seen from the same area, and everything in it has similar form and context that defines it as a unit. Each visual unit has the foreground, middle ground, and background impacts indicated, as well as the level of impact (high and moderate, indicated by color).

4.

The visual inventory indicates some units have a contained visual view in the area. It is important to keep the area blending with the natural scenery as much as possible. That would mean keeping the color in each area consistent, re-vegetation, and mitigation of slope sizes. In some areas dense vegetation will remain the same in order to improve screening to the residents in the area. Panoramic views will be preserved where possible, by using lower size trees in the median. Drainage ways will be re-vegetated and buffered as much as possible. Trees, shrubs and seeds will be the main components of re-vegetation.

5.

This visual assessment will be fine tuned by the team and the ideas will be then presented to the CAC for feedback.
  

D.

The CAC had questions on some issues, resulting in a discussion that included:

1.

The new information gathered compared to the old EAMR document. It was explained that the reason the assessment had to be re-done is because it is based on a new process. The old document is used for reference along the way. The new process is improved as far as being more detailed when studying the visual and landscaping aspects of the project. The old process only took into consideration the views from the vehicle driving through the project. The new process also looks at the views towards the project or property views.

2.

The CAC expressed their concerns with the visual and noise aspects of the project. They also expressed their preference of walls instead of public art.

3.

It was explained that the project artist has been selected by the Tucson-Pima Arts Council (TPAC), using their standard selection process. A contract has been issued, but the process of public art design has not yet begun.
  

E.

David Hook, Project Manager for EEC then led the discussion for the Noise Analysis.

1.

The existing traffic noise measurements where mostly taken in 2003. More locations have been added and will be measured during 2004. The topography and existing noise measurement values are then input into a computer program to develop a model that will project future noise values based on for future traffic volumes and roadway design. The present and future noise values are then compared. Mitigation opportunities are then identified based on the new PCDOT policy on noise abatement. The threshold for noise is 66 dBA (after a 3 dBA credit for the use of 'rubberized asphalt'). Any results at 66 dBA above would warrant noise mitigation. There are other criteria to be met, including the mitigation has to provide at least a 5 dBA noise reduction, it has to meet height restrictions, costs parameters and property owner approval.
  

F.

The CAC had additional questions on some issues, resulting in a discussion that included:

1.

It was explained to the Committee that this project has not been able to move ahead for various reasons, which have been discussed with them. The design team has done all that they can at this time. They are anxious to move forward, but cannot do so without confirmed direction from Pima County.

2.

The Committee expressed concerns that the "meter is running" and project costs will continue to increase with time. Sal explained to the Committee that the meter is on, but fortunately there aren't that many charges being incurred. He added that this is not an open-ended contract.

3.

Sal also responded to the committee's concerns about getting more specific information. More detailed information is likely to become available in the next month or so. Pima County is reviewing four northeast corridors (Craycroft, Sunrise, Kolb, & River) as a whole and trying to come up with a plan where all the projects can be built with the $30 million of bond money. In order to finalize the process, the alternative needs to be accepted and then the arrangements for funding will be made.

4.

Charles Geoffrion added that based on the original design it would cost over $60 million to build the project resulting in approximately a cost of $10 million per mile. Sal added that the Sunrise project from Swan Rd. to Craycroft Rd. (1 mile), cost approximately $11 million.

5.

Sal also responded to a public concern in regards to raising the elevation of Craycroft Rd. The future roadway is expected to remain close to the existing elevation, except where improvements need to be made for safety reasons.

6.

Sal also discussed with the committee the fact that once the artistic design process begins, the artist will come up with suggestions and present them to the community and the CAC for input. On the Skyline project approximately 90% of the project art consisted of wall aesthetics. These walls cost approximately $150 per linear foot; therefore, the funds don't go a long way.

7.

It was explained to the committee that sidewalks or pedestrian paths would be a part of the Craycroft project. These paths will meet ADA requirements for pedestrian accessibility. The county is currently studying cost effective ways to build them using various materials and still allow people to get around under all typical conditions.

8.

David explained that with the new overlay concept, the cut and fill will be minimized on the east side of the road, but elevations in some areas may be changed for safety reasons. Most of the widening of the road will be to the west.
  

A.

Sal reviewed several frequently asked questions that were brought up at the open house.

1.

What are the project goals? To meet the projected traffic volumes for 2025 in order to create a safe roadway; to achieve this while being financially responsible and remain within the budget limits; to construct the roadway with minimal environmental impact to the area.

2.

How will the road be widened? Almost all the widening will be to the west of Craycroft Rd. There will be some minor amounts of widening to the east for shoulders and right turn lanes. Pima County owns 150 feet of ROW, which is mostly what is needed.

3.

How will local access be improved by this project? There will be gaps created by traffic signals so that cars aren't continuously coming down Craycroft Rd. There will also be dedicated left and right turn lanes to make safe turns and allow safe in and out access from side streets and driveways. Site distances will be improved and landscaping will be kept out of the way to not interfere with the horizontal views.

4.

Will it be a 4-lane or 3-lane section? For this project the 4-lane is preferred; however, the original 4-lane concept is about twice as expensive as the Bond funds available. Some cost savings alternatives have been identified, such as the deletion of storm drains and curbs, to maximize the re-use of the existing road, or to utilize a 3-lane concept with full intersections. Pima County is still evaluating the alternatives to identify something that may save more money. The team is waiting for the final direction and to see if more money can be made available.

5.

Has Craycroft's funding been affected by other project overruns? No, currently there is $13.3 million available; $300,000 consists of developer's fees, $1 million from the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) and $12 million from the 1997 Bond funds. For the previous design concept, the project costs total $17 million. (This does not include the additional costs for administration, planning, design, right-of-way and public art.) It is estimated that the elimination of storm drains and curbs saves about $1 million and utilizing the existing roadway base would save an additional $1 million.

6.

Will all side streets and driveways have direct access? No, the median may prohibit cars from turning into some streets. This is necessary in order to have a roadway that operates safely; therefore, there will not be openings to some streets. In those cases it will be necessary to make a U-turn to gain access to them.

7.

How will the existing frontage roads be handled? This has not yet been determined. Pima County will ensure that ingress and egress throughout the project is safe. Keeping that in mind, it may or may not be necessary to change the frontage roads. The team has not reached a point to make a decision yet.

8.

What about noise mitigation? Rubberized asphalt will be used throughout the project. The noise reducing qualities are estimated between 3 to 6 dBA but the county is only considering a 3 dBA reduction. An audible change perceptible to the human ear would be of at least 5 dBA. The longevity and maintenance qualities of rubberized asphalt are good. This is something that would benefit the area as a whole, including the areas that are difficult to mitigate. A 6' to 8' wall reduces noise by 2-3 dBA directly behind the wall, which is barely perceptible to people. The federal government is starting to recognize this reduction quality and policy changes are expected to follow.

9.

Will there be sound walls? There may be additional noise mitigation requirements, but this is an unknown at this time. These will be determined through the noise study, once the future conditions model is built according to the design of the roadway. The walls will also be constructed according to the County's procedures, which meet or exceed other state's policies. The County procedure does not allow walls higher than 10 feet and on scenic roadways there is 6 feet height limit.

10.

Where will signalization be? The locations that exist today will remain unchanged. The intersections of Craycroft and River Rd., Craycroft and Territory Dr., and Craycroft and Sunrise Dr. will all be signalized. No other signalized intersections will be added.

11.

Will there be left turn lanes at River Rd. and Territory Dr.? Yes. There will be dual lefts on three legs of the Craycroft/River intersection. Only eastbound River to northbound Craycroft will remain as a single left turn lane. At Craycroft Rd./Territory Dr., there will be single lefts north and southbound as well as right turn lanes onto Territory Dr. There will also be right turns for some of the minor side streets as the road will allow.

12.

Will Calle Bosque be realigned? Yes, Pima County owns the required property to make the adjustments.

13.

How will the storm drainage be affected? There will be minimal affects and improvements will be made where possible. The drainage study will determine where mitigation is required and if retention or detention basins are needed. Pima County does not want to pass water downstream that will damage or worsen the existing conditions. The County requires that the downstream flow rates (velocity) of the water don't increase, but remain essentially unchanged. It was explained to the Committee that even though existing drainage problems at Territory Dr. are of concern to the public, County transportation funds cannot be used to improve existing drainage/flood control problems unless the costs are incidental to the project. One option the property owners have is to form an improvement district to pay for improvements that would remedy current problems. This work could possibly be added to this project, depending on the timing.

14.

Are there any construction plans for the Sunrise intersection and Sunrise Dr./Craycroft to Kolb Rd.? The Sunrise intersection will be part of the Craycroft Project. Sunrise Dr. is part of a 5-year construction plan. The 1997 Bond fund has $12 million programmed, but similarly to Craycroft this is not enough funding for the project as currently planned. Alternatives are being studied to see if it can be built at a lower cost.

15. 

Will Camino del Mar have a median opening? An access opening is under consideration by the County. No decision has been made at this time. The new pavement in the area (from the Sunrise Drive project completed in 2003) is temporary.

16. 

Will there be sidewalks? Yes, there will be a continuous pedestrian walkway of some sort throughout the project. This will be ADA compliant walkway.

17. 

Will there be curbs and a storm drain system? There is no final decision at this time. The area is of rural nature and storm sewers may not be necessary since there are other roads that work without a storm drain system.

18. 

What are the affects of the Environmentally Sensitive Roadway Guidelines? Craycroft Rd. qualifies because of the important riparian areas, the biological core and multi-use/recovery area and because it is a scenic route. These guidelines require new more detailed data collection and analysis procedures. The development of a report, with the analysis results and the mitigation requirements, is required.

19. 

What happens to protected plants removed from ROW? According to Pima County regulations and the Native Protected Plant Plan (NPPP), a plant inventory takes place prior to the work beginning. The protected plants are then removed and salvaged for replanting on a Pima County project, but not necessarily the same one. These plants, however, must be viable for transplanting or they will not be moved if they cannot make the transition.

20. 

Are the pygmy owl surveys required? Yes they are. The surveys for the project are current and should not be cause any delays. There is suitable vegetation in the area for the owl to exist. They have existed in the area previously and there is the potential for the young to disperse here from other active areas.

21. 

What about equestrian access? Pima County will coordinate accommodations with the Pima Trails Association. The access type is not known yet. The crossing will either be below grade or above grade at the signalized intersections. The planning process has not reached a point to design these crossings.

22. 

Project art concepts and location? The potential art elements include: Aesthetic wall treatments, neighborhood entry monuments, freestanding sculptural elements and glass and metal mosaics. The artwork will be based upon abstractions of southwest gems, minerals, ores and other geologic materials. This information will be discussed with the artist once he comes aboard.

23. 

When will construction be? Construction will start in late 2005 to early 2006 and will last approximately 18 months.

24.

How will construction be phased? Currently it is not known. The general contractor determines the phasing as a part of the bid process, depending on the plan considered in the bid. The county can define to the contractor some things to built first, but not how the whole project is built. The more restricted the County becomes, the less competitive the contractor's prices can be.
  

A.

Sal then explained to the committee that design/build is a faster way to build a project but it is more costly. The Skyline project was under a legal settlement agreement to be contracted, designed and built in about 26 months.
  

B.

Sal responded to the concerns of the committee regarding the prompt completion of this project. The team is waiting for a decision from Pima County as to how they are to proceed regarding the design alternatives identified and any possible funding changes. Until then, that time, EAMR cannot be completed.
  

C.

It was explained that the four alternatives studied by the design team have not changed and that the results of this study have been passed on. Any change from the 4-lane alternative, which is part of the Bond package, would require the Board of Supervisor's approval.
  

D.

Sal explained to the committee that this meeting was necessary to get closure from the recent project open house. The county is also required to distribute questionnaires to the community and obtain their feedback. It is unlikely that team will have any new information to present to the committee for at least four weeks.
  

E.

Sherman Madere was concerned about differences between cost figures discussed tonight and cost figures discussed in December. The team explained that the December numbers were in a preliminary report (in progress at that time) and they have changed since then. The contingency amount cannot be taken out at this time because there are things that cannot be quantified in the estimate at this limited level of preliminary detail. Sal offered to discuss these numbers in more detail at later time when he had the specific information available.
  

F.

The committee expressed that they prefer the 4-lane to be build because of safety, the projected 2025 traffic volumes and because of aesthetics. It was explained to the committee that even though the 4-lane is very comfortable the 3-lane configuration is a viable option. Pima County had two independent consultants study this configuration to be sure of this.
  

A.

Don Boyd, partnering facilitator explained the partnering concept to the committee.

1.

It was explained that through partnering a positive relationship and trust is built, resulting in the committee and the project having more productive meetings by working together.

2.

Unless everyone thinks they are working together then the relationship is not productive.
  

B. 

The CAC had additional questions on some issues, resulting in a discussion that included:

1.

The committee expressed their concerns with decisions happening behind the scenes and wanting to be involved with the process. They agreed that previous CAC meetings have been time well spent.

2.

It was explained that there is no set timeframe on the outcome of the alternatives report and network study currently in review at Pima County. The team expects some type of direction in the following four to six weeks and then it will present that information to the CAC and the community. The noise study cannot be completed until the project is better defined and even though the noise data has been gathered, the future conditions model cannot be yet generated.

3.

The Committee took the position that the next meeting should not be scheduled until more information becomes available for discussion. The date of the next was left unscheduled until further notice from Pima County.

4.

It was explained to the committee that the average dollar amount for building a 4-lane roadway is $6 million. Because of the different variables of each project this amount fluctuates, depending on the topography, the proximity of the homes to the roadway, and many other factors. In other surrounding communities the cost for this type of project may differ from the County's and that would be because of the same factors.

5.

It was explained that the goal is to build a project that improves safety and mobility, provides all the necessary amenities and satisfies all the citizens in the area as best possible, and to build the project with the funds available. The County is now taking the steps to find out what the best alternative is.