Title
Department of Transportation recommending the Board consider the following:
1) Receive information on the status of Silva Valley Parkway Interchange; and
2) Provide Department with guidance on the Silva Valley Parkway Interchange.
(Est. Time: 2 Hrs.)
FUNDING: N/A
Body
Fiscal Impact/Change to Net County Cost:
There is no Fiscal Impact associated with this agenda item. The Silva Valley Parkway Interchange (SVIC) is funded through the Traffic Impact Mitigation (TIM) Fee Program.
Background:
At the October 5, 2009, Board of Supervisors meeting in El Dorado Hills, the Department of Transportation (DOT) provided the Board with a brief update on the SVIC and promised to return with more information. DOT explained at that time that there was not enough money in the Silva Valley Set Aside account to design and build the 1st phase of SVIC, as the cost estimate was $67.1M for the various components including Country Club Drive, Silva Valley Parkway widening/realignment, and the Interchange (including the over-crossing but without loop ramps). Approximately $27 million has been accumulated in that account.
The Board directed DOT to:
• Refresh the environmental document;
• Continue to explore alternatives;
• Complete designs for the Interchange, Country Club Drive and Silva Valley Parkway;
• Review phasing of improvements to coincide with available funding;
• Work with private partners to minimize costs and accelerate delivery;
• Seek other funding to backfill the shortfall; and,
• Return to the Board with an update as part of the 2010 Capital Improvement Plan Workshop (or earlier).
History:
The need for the SVIC is driven by growth in El Dorado Hills and has been identified in several documents including the October, 1987 draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the El Dorado Hills Specific Plan (certified by the Board 7/88, Res 226-88). The Plan identified several roadway improvements including the SVIC, White Rock Road, Silva Valley Parkway, etc. Other key dates/events include:
- March, 1989: The "Development Agreement by and between The County of El Dorado and El Dorado Hills Investors" is recorded. "Exhibit B", the "El Dorado Hills Specific Plan Public Improvements Financing Plan" specifies that the "County shall set aside, at time of collection in an interest-bearing account thirty percent (30%) of all fees collected with the El Dorado Hills/Salmon Falls area for the financing of the Silva Valley interchange." (pg 8)
- February, 1990: A final EIR for the SVIC was published and approved by Caltrans.
- January, 1991: A Project Report for the SVIC was approved by Caltrans.
- October, 1998: The Valley View Specific Plan's Draft and Final EIRs assume the SVIC is built by 2015. Mitigation measure "T-16" requires ongoing traffic monitoring to try to address the timing as to when the SVIC will be needed. However, there is no requirement for developers to do anything if Level of Service thresholds (as specified in the General Plan), are reached.
- January, 2004: Planning Commission approves TM99-1359R West Valley Village, which is part of the El Dorado Hills Valley View Specific Plan. Condition 26 of TM99-1359R specifies design improvements and funding for SVIC. Condition 26 requires West Valley to:
• Fund portions of the SVIC,
• Achieve all necessary approvals for the bidding contract, as conceptually depicted in the Valley View traffic study, or as subsequently modified through the project approval process with the County, Caltrans, or other regulatory agencies.
Condition 26 also requires West Valley to construct:
• Bridge abutments for the over-crossing,
• 4 on/off ramps at SVIC,
• Eastbound auxiliary lane from El Dorado Hills Blvd. Interchange,
• Westbound auxiliary lane to El Dorado Hills Blvd. Interchange, and
• Eastbound auxiliary lane to Bass Lake truck climbing lanes.
Current Status:
• The Highway 50 over-crossing and eastbound loop on-ramp are now included in the Phase 1 of the Interchange and the eastbound diagonal on-ramp will be added later in Phase 2. (In the Valley View original conditions, there was no requirement that an over-crossing be included in the interchange construction.) This change results in construction of a useable interchange sooner, at approximately the same cost as the original Phase 1 plan. (Caltrans is currently in the process of reviewing and agreeing to this proposal.)
• Access to existing Tong Road properties (3) will be maintained by constructing a low speed minor roadway costing approximately $6M instead of $12M for the originally proposed full-width Country Club Drive extension. This results in a $6M reduction from the Interchange project. The majority of this roadway segment will be compatible with a future Country Club Drive project.
• The Supplemental EIR process is being advanced.
• Geometric Approval Drawings are approximately at the 90% level.
• DOT and the developer have investigated and ruled out the possibility of making this a Design-Build project in a State pilot program (instead of a Design-Bid-Build project) because the time and cost savings are uncertain and are likely not to be significant enough to outweigh the possible downside risks.
• Additional analysis and coordination are in process to ensure consistency with all current approvals and agreements.
DOT's immediate next steps include:
1. Pursue new Phase 1 design and construction of SVIC:
- Reconcile phasing restructuring,
- Amend the Developer's funding agreement and conditions of approval as necessary to clarify the preferred design/phasing,
- Continue the environmental and design processes, recognizing the urgency for completion;
2. Environmental Process: Investigate a NEPA level document to qualify for Federal funding; and,
3. Continue to seek additional funding sources.
Reason for Recommendation:
DOT's goal is to move the SVIC to construction as quickly as possible in light of the positive bidding environment and available funding in the bank. The Silva Valley Parkway Interchange is costly, complex, and involves many parties (e.g., developers, Caltrans). DOT is working diligently with all parties involved to move the Project forward as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Action to be taken by the Board following Board approval:
None.
Action to be taken by DOT following Board approval:
1. Continue Project delivery based on Board feedback; and,
2. Return to the Board with periodic updates.
Contact:
Robert S. Slater, P. E.
Acting Director of Transportation
Concurrences: None.