Text Size:   A+ A- A   •   Text Only
Site Image

Fern Valley Interchange
Meeting Minutes Sep 1st, 04
Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 1, 2004
Purpose: Fern Valley Interchange Project Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting
Distribution: CAC Members, Solution Team Members
From: John Morrison, RVCOG
Prepared by: Pat Foley, RVCOG
Date Prepared: September 7, 2004
CAC Attendees: Dack Doggett, Pauly Hinesly, Wendie Nichols, Harry Page, Mark Gibson, Joan Haukom, Dan Sauro, Doug Lowry (for David Lowry), David Lewin and Bob Korfhage
CAC Absent: Bill Rombach and George Cota
Project Team Attendees:
Jerry Marmon, ODOT Environmental Project Manager
Debbie Timms, ODOT Project Manager
Brian Sheadel, ODOT Senior Designer
Peter Schuytema, ODOT Engineer
Nancy Reynolds, URS Corp. Project Manager
Emily Moshofsky, URS Corp. Deputy Project Manager
John Morrison, RVCOG
Pat Foley, RVCOG
Other Attendees: Jim Wear, Dick Croly, Terry Helfrich, Moe and Nancy Miller, Jeff Welsh, Blair and Elizabeth Garrett, Doug Cowly, Lee Carrau, Robert Mumby and Kathy, Gary Hall, Bob Robertson, Bob Nelson, David Lohman, Gregg Anderson
1. Review of agenda and process
Approval of 08/04/04 CAC Minutes
John Morrison, RVCOG Facilitator
John reviewed the agenda for the meeting.
A request for approval of the August 4, 2004 CAC Minutes was made. There were no corrections or additions. The minutes were approved as written.
John summarized the "General Evaluation Process".

First, the CAC and PDT develop alternatives and options. After the alternatives are developed the CAC and PDT will:
  • Evaluate all alternatives and options against the Purpose and Need mandatory criteria.
  • Evaluate selected alternatives and options against the Goals and Objectives evaluation criteria.
Nancy Reynolds explained these two evaluation steps are a part of a filtering process. Before an alternative is eliminated the team determines if there are changes that can be made so that it will meet the criteria.

  • Evaluate all alternatives and options against anticipated impacts.
Two examples of impacts are: 1) How many accesses to businesses and residences are impacted? 2) Does the alternative/option divide a neighborhood? All impact information is not available at the same time. As impact information comes in it will be used to evaluate alternatives.
  • Determine which alternatives and options can best meet the Purpose and Need, Goals and Objectives, and minimize impacts.
CAC members have prioritized the goals. The ranked goals can be used, when evaluating alternatives, in several ways:
  • Use the rankings as background information.
  • Use the rankings to give added consideration to certain goals.
  • Use the rankings to compare the goals against one another when considering alternatives/options.
There are different ways to use the criteria for evaluating the alternatives:
  • Use the criteria to focus on the positive and negative elements of each alternative and option.
  • Use the criteria to help evaluate the most important elements of the project from the CAC perspective.
  • The CAC has indicated they do not want to quantify the criteria.
Things the CAC should consider when evaluating the alternatives.
  • Use all of the information at hand to determine the pros and cons of each alternative.
  • Numerical rankings may not arrive at the results you intuitively know are best for the community. Some subjectivity normally occurs in this evaluation process.
  • Some information will be available earlier in the process to help evaluate alternatives/options, i.e. traffic counts and general engineering information such as anticipated distance between access points, ramp lengths, etc.
  • Some information will be available later in the process to help evaluate alternatives/options, i.e. number of properties impacted, amount of wetlands impacted, etc.
After the CAC has gone through the process of evaluating the alternatives the following occurs.
  • CAC recommends alternatives and options to PDT to advance into the EA.
  • The CAC does not have to agree on recommended alternatives and options. A minority report can be submitted.
  • PDT considers the alternatives/options forwarded by the CAC before selecting alternatives to be advanced into the EA.
2. Review of Goals Prioritization
John Morrison, RVCOG
Each CAC member mailed in their goal priorities. The RVCOG received eleven responses out of a possible twelve.
The ranking of the goals by the CAC are as follows:
  1. Ensure the project is compatible with the long-term land use plans.
  2. Provide for easy and/or safe access to existing and planned businesses and residences in the study area.
  3. Ensure project facilities provide for safe and efficient movement of emergency vehicles, school buses and freight.
  4. Ensure the design of the project will not be such as to make its implementation cost-prohibitive.
  5. Enhance community livability and quality of life.
  6. Provide safe facilities that encourage alternative modes of transportation.
  7. Protect and enhance the natural environment.
  8. Protect the integrity of the Bear Creek Greenway Trail.
3. Review of Evaluation Criteria
Jerry Marmon, ODOT
Nancy Reynolds, URS
Peter Schuytema, ODOT
A Goals and Objectives Evaluation Criteria Worksheet was mailed to members of the CAC on August 10th. Each member was asked to review the criteria and indicate any additions or deletions they would like to incorporate into the criteria and the reason for the change(s). These worksheets were returned to the RVCOG. The comments made by CAC members were indicated on a revised evaluation worksheet.
Nancy Reynolds reviewed the primary changes with the CAC. The group evaluated the additions and deletions and recommended changes to the criteria. The changes decided upon by the CAC will be included in a new evaluation worksheet and presented at the next CAC meeting for approval. This worksheet will have an additional column, which will supply quantitative data as it becomes available.
4. Review of CAC and PDT Alternative Concept Maps
Brian Sheadel, ODOT
Brian gave an overhead presentation on how to interpret the alternative concept maps. He explained the red lines on the maps indicate the primary alternative design (a style of interchange in a certain location). The other colors represent various options (off interchange connections). The options carried over from map to map to illustrate how an option can be applied to any of the various alternatives.
Seventeen alternative maps were reviewed. The maps are geometrically correct and minimum distances for signalized intersections are included. Brian explained the components of each alternative.
  • The cost of a particular design cannot be determined at this time.
  • Federal guidelines require that existing parklands be avoided unless there is no other option. If this happens mitigation measures would have to take place.
  • Some options (namely those affecting Ray’s Food Place) are shown in red, which indicates they are a part of the primary alternative. Can that be changed? Most of the alternatives show an option going through Ray’s Food Place.
  • Other options can be developed.
  • The CAC can indicate which options they prefer for consideration.
  • The number of businesses affected has not been determined at this time.
  • The minimum distance required between urban interchanges is three miles.
  • The CAC will evaluate all alternatives.
5. Public Comment
  • Moe Miller, Manager of Bear Lake Mobile Homes Estates
A letter went out to the residents of Bear Lake Estates stating "The Fern Valley Interchange Committee meets monthly for the purpose of planning our future design for the interchange improvements. Some of the plans include new roads displacing Bear Lake Estates." Mr. Miller said there are residents who are worried that they are going to loose their homes. He asked if Bear Lake Estates would be destroyed?
It was explained that this is a long process, at least two years. During the process any number of options will be examined. When evaluating impacts, one criterion to be considered is minimizing impacts to residential areas. When evaluating alternatives, if there is a choice between an alternative that has an impact on a residential area, the preference would be not to impact the area.
  • Elizabeth Garrett
Elizabeth stated that Breckenridge Road has many problems at this time and will have to be widened to correct the problems. She asked, "What happens to the homeowners who own property along Breckenridge? If an impact like this is coming should we make other plans? Basically, what is going to happen?"
John Morrison replied that part of this process is to make sure the public knows what is happening. When an announcement is made that a project is starting that has major impacts, people immediately wonder what is going to happen. I hope you heard tonight that we would try to reduce impacts on residences as much as possible.
  • Robert Mumby
Several of the alternatives show a southern connection between the Phoenix subdivision and the City. He feels the majority of the residents in that subdivision do not want another access to the south.
Brian replied by saying the southern connection is an option. This option is not necessarily a part of the alternatives.
6. Next Steps
Jerry Marmon said the team is waiting for the regional traffic model to be completed.
Information contained in the model (traffic counts, etc.) is needed in order to fully process the mandatory Purpose and Need criteria.
The CAC is to review the alternative maps. They are to determine from their perspective what are the positive and negative aspects to the alternatives and options. Their ideas will be discussed at the next meeting.
The next meeting is on 0ctober 6th.