Brisco Interchange PresentationItem 5.a
CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATION OF THE TEST CLOSURE TERMINATION DATE FOR THE BRISCO ROAD AT US 101 NORTHBOUND ON AND OFF-RAMPS
AND
UPDATE ON THE BRISCO INTERCHANGE PROJECT
Dianne –
Yesterday at the SLOCOG Board meeting, the Board unanimously approved the Brisco Project retain the full $6.6M in funding, with $3.3M in 2017-18 and $3.3M in 2018-19.
Kudos to our staff: CD Director Teresa McClish and City Engineer Matt Horn for their work with SLOCOG staff, and kudos also to our electeds: Council Member Jim Guthrie, who sits as the
City’s representative on the SLOCOG Board, and Mayor Jim Hill, who spoke at the SLOCOG Board Meeting in support of our project.
The topic of discussion this evening is consideration of an extension of the test ramp closure at Brisco.
Following Mayor Hill’s request for consideration of this item on November 30th, staff began researching the possibility of an extended closure with Caltrans staff.
In my discussion with Caltrans they have provided preliminary verbal approval.
Our staff have prepared the extension request, and with Council concurrence this evening we will submit the request tomorrow.
1
PROJECT UPDATE
Three Project Alternatives
No Build
Alternative 1
Closes the northbound ramps at Brisco Road
Completes intersection improvements Camino Mercado / 101
Complete intersection improvements at Grand Ave / 101
Complete Bridge Widening on Grand Ave
Alternative 4C RAB
Relocates the northbound ramps at Brisco to West Branch Street at Rodeo Drive
Completes intersection improvements at Grace Lane and Rodeo Drive.
Complete intersection improvements at Grand Ave / 101
2
PROJECT UPDATE
3
PROJECT UPDATE
Delivery Schedule:
Late December 2015 – Draft Project Report to Caltrans
Late January 2016 - Submit NEPA Environmental Assessment to Caltrans
Late Spring 2016 – Public review of NEPA / CEQA Documents
Summer 2016 – Select/recommend preferred alternative
Fall 2016 – Signed Project Report
Fall 2016 – Begin Design / PSE
Summer 2017 – Construction Funding Available
Sumer 2018 – Construction Funding Available
4
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Alternatives 1, 4C RAB, and No Build
Use existing IS/MND and Prepare NEPA EA.
Eliminate Alternative 4C RAB
Revise CEQA document eliminating 4C RAB – must provide rationale for elimination
Caltrans would consider signing NEPA CE when signing Project Report
Environmental Document:
California Environmental Quality Act – CEQA
National Environmental Policy Act - NEPA
CEQA document - Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
On October 12, 2015 Subcommittee meeting with Caltrans learned NEPA EA
5
TEST CLOSURE - TIMELINE
6
FEEDBACK
To date, the City has received 195 contacts:
73% of contacts have been positive towards the closure;
16% of contacts have been negative towards the closure; and
10% of contacts have requested operational changes or recommended other project alternatives.
7
TEST CLOSURE – RIDER
Rider Permit Application – Typical takes approximately four weeks to process.
Test Closure Termination date is three weeks away.
Caltrans leadership has provided positive reaction to keeping the ramps closed.
Dianne -
Last week I spoke with our Caltrans District Director who provided preliminary verbal approval of an extended closure.
The District Director also indicated that Caltrans would be open to discussing a further extended closure through construction, and that Caltrans would try to expedite their approval
process.
As previously mentioned, the formal extension request has been prepared and is ready to be submitted to Caltrans tomorrow, pending Council concurrence this evening.
With the support indicated from our project partners at Caltrans, I believe we will receive a prompt written response to the request.
8
CLOSURE PLAN
Initial plan for closure was to close the ramps, study traffic patterns, open the ramps and report results to Council.
11/30/15 Request from the Mayor to consider extension of the closure.
6-month extension request has been prepared and is ready to submit to Caltrans for approval pending Council direction.
Return to Council February 23, 2016 to review data with community. 6-month extended closure would provide the necessary time to analyze results, provide a well-noticed public forum,
and determine next steps.
9
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended the City Council:
Provide direction to staff on whether or not to request an extension from Caltrans of temporary closure duration until July 11, 2016.
Direct staff to return to City Council on February 23, 2016, with Test Closure data analysis.
10
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TEAM
As Identified in Caltrans’ Project Development Procedures Manual the Project Development Team (PDT) if comprised of:
Caltrans Project Manager
Caltrans design
Caltrans environmental
Caltrans traffic
Caltrans safety
Caltrans surveys
Caltrans construction
Caltrans maintenance
Caltrans right-of-way
SLOCOG
City project manager
City functional specialists
City consultants
11
Traffic Count Locations
12
Traffic Count Locations
13
CLOSURE ESTIMATED COSTS
14
Alternative Cost
15
Level of Service
16
ALTERNATIVE 1
17
ALTERNATIVE 1 - UNDERCROSSING
18
ALTERNATIVE 4C RAB
19
ALTERNATE SELECTION
Standard Process
Selecting the preferred alternative in summer 2016 after Environmental Review is complete and reviewed by public.
Test Closure Results Process
Remove an alternative in February 2016 after results of the closure have been analyzed and reviewed in a well-noticed public meeting.
20
ALTERNATE SELECTION
Standard Process
Baseline metric – path we are currently on.
Selecting the preferred alternative in summer 2016 after Environmental Review is complete and reviewed by public.
Allows for well-noticed public forum.
Alternate removal in February 2016
Remove an alternative in February 2016 after results of the closure have been analyzed and reviewed in a well-noticed public meeting.
NEPA Document is done and submitted to Caltrans.
Increased cost in order to revise CEQA document.
Likely increase the timeframe for PAED completion.
Risk that CE might not be signed off by Caltrans.
Allows for well-noticed public forum.
Alternate removal this evening
NEPA Document is not complete yet.
Similar cost will be incurred to revise CEQA.
Similar PAED completion timeframe.
Risk that CE might not be signed off by Caltrans.
21