Capital Southeast Connector JPA business
versus El Dorado Hills
Connector logo, modified

The table below summarizes JPA business items in 2010 that relate to analysis for El Dorado Hills and consideration of alternatives. This is a partial listing, except that it shows the only document found to date in 2010 business related to route analysis for El Dorado Hills. Documents for prior years' business probably include one or two reporting on possible alternative alignments suggested by the El Dorado Hills Citizens Alliance.
Otherwise, Connector documents show an overwhelming absence of attention to El Dorado Hills' route alignment issues.

Revised Scope of Work is a document that illustrates this well. It includes evaluation of four major alignment alternatives and three subalternatives in Sacramento County, none in the El Dorado Hills area. This document's filename on the JPA web site suggests a date of March 3, 2010.

A synopsis of that document highlights in red tasks that can be expected to need repetition or augmentation for EIR evaluation of alternative alignments for El Dorado Hills. The JPA failed to consider such alignments before initiating environmental review.

The one document on El Dorado Hills traffic demand analysis dramatically understates both existing traffic and future traffic as reported by the El Dorado County Department of Transportation, with descrepancies up to a factor of 5.

The key point is that ALL business involving selection of alternative alignments is for Sacramento County only. NO attention is given to alternatives for El Dorado Hills.

Classification columns:
  1. El Dorado Hills/El Dorado County area(s)
  2. Sacramento County area(s)
Marking of "X" indicates a document demonstrating analytical attention to the area in question
Marking of "XA" indicates that such a document includes explicit content relating to choice of Connector alternate alignments
Lack of a marking indicates a document not relevant to analytical considerations

Classification Date Document
A B
X 1/4/2010 DKS memorandum on EDH traffic demand in 2035
[memo understates existing and future traffic on White Rock Road between Latrobe Road and Silva Valley Parkway, generally by about a factor of 3. Maximum discrepancy is for existing condition, near a factor of 5.

Example:  Where this study predicted 14,600 to 18,300 Average Daily Trips in 2035 on a segment of White Rock Road, the El Dorado County Department of Transportation currently is predicting 44,600 in 2025.
Sources: 2035_EDH_Traffic_Domand_Forecasts.pdf     EDCTC_2010_CIP_Workshop
References are omitted between the 1/4/2010 letter and the 4/23/2010 board packet.

My initial intent had been to fill in one table row for each citation from all web-accessible documents for 2010. There is no point in doing so: This would illustrate only the pattern which is adequately seen below. The Connector JPA is continuing to give full business attention to alternative alignments in Sacramento County and no attention at all to alternative alignments in El Dorado Hills/El Dorado County.
XA 4/23/2010 Status update in Executive Director's report notes $15,000 contribution from the City of Elk Grove to the Sheldon LAR project.
Another bullet item notes "Discussions regarding the potential for alternative financing for segments of the project continue."
A third item noted JPA participation in an El Dorado County Transportation Commission workshop in El Dorado Hills, April 1. [I believe this was the only EDCTC meeting ever held in EDH.] This was "to inform citizens of the collaborative work between the JPA and the various transportation providers in El Dorado County." ["the various providers" would be almost entirely the El Dorado County Department of Transportation.]
Link:  Contained in board packet for the 4/23/2010 meeting
XA 4/23/2010 Agenda Item #3 was for Ratification of the Sheldon/Wilton Limited Access Roadway Alternative Contract with Design, Community & Environment (DC&E). Cost of this subproject  study is $158,814. This includes a charette process ["a final, intensive effort to finish a project, esp. an architectural design project, before a deadline"].Link: Contained in board packet for the 4/23/2010 meeting
XA 4/23/2010 Agenda Item #6 was Progress Report on Alternatives Screening Process for Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). All discussion involved only Sacramento County alternatives.
XA 5/14/2010 A report from Maggie Townsley (ICF International) discussed Alternatives Screening for the EIR. The textual portion of the report is 14 pages in length, the Alternatives Screening Matrix is 15 pages. All alternatives examined are in Sacramento County:  Major alternatives 1 through 4, deriving from SACOG's studies, and 3 subalternatives for the Sheldon-Wilton area.
No alternatives for El Dorado Hills/El Dorado County are identified.
The possibility of having such alternatives is not suggested in any way.
Link: Contained in board packet for the 5/21/2010 meeting.
XA 5/21/2010 Executive Director's Report for 5/21 board packet notes start of work on Sheldon Limited Access Roadway study, states that details of a meeting with Federal regulatory agencies will be noted in agenda item #5 on Alternatives Screening.
This Executive Director's Report also noted his presentation to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors on May 11, with this report of results:
"The Board was receptive to the integration of the Connector project into the El Dorado County Transportation plan. However, it requested the JPA perform an analysis of future trip distribution using additional existing and future local roadways at the eastern end of the project in the Program Environmental Impact Report with the intent of reducing impacts on the currently planned alignment in El Dorado County."

As one who was present at this meeting, what I observed was the El Dorado County Board Of Supervisors being highly critical of the planned White Rock Road alignment. The BOS demeanor was not "receptive". Supervisors Sweeney, Nutting, and Santiago made very substantive comments which would be most reasonably interpreted as highly critical and dismissive of the White Rock alignment, not clearly asking only to "reduce impacts" of the planned alignment.

Link: Contained in board packet for the 5/21/2010 meeting.
XA 5/21/2010 Minutes of the 4/23 board meeting reported on presentation and consideration of an updated alternatives screening matrix, with new technical information being incorporated into the matrix as it is received.
Link: Contained in board packet for the 5/21/2010 meeting.
XA 5/21/2010 A report for agenda item #5 in the 5/21 board meeting discussed Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) Alternatives Screening and Recommendations for Further Analysis. The Recommendation was to identify Albternative 2/3 [Sacramento County] as preferred. LAR information for the Sheldon area is not yet available. It was stated that Sheldon Bypass options will be retained in the EIR until LAR information becomes available. It was noted that EPA comments preferred Sacramento County alternatives 1 or 4, which are not recommended for retention.
Link: Contained in board packet for the 5/21/2010 meeting.
XA 6/25/2010 Board packet: The first bullet item under "Project" in the report for Agenda Item #1 notes "Work on the Sheldon Limited Access Roadway (LAR) continues with both JPA and City of Elk Grove staff working with the consultant team from DC&E on outreach and information distribution to the community. The outreach studio has been open for several weeks and is preparing for the four day design Charrette on July 9-12. Detailed information is noted in agenda item #4 of today’s agenda."
X 6/25/2010 Board packet: The second bullet item under "Project" for Agenda Item #1 notes "A work plan to analyze potential distribution of trips on the eastern portion of the Connector corridor is underway with El Dorado County and Folsom staff and will be presented to the Community once further consultation with the member jurisdictions has occurred."

This may or may not be the first step in requirements analysis. Requirements analysis is a functional prerequisite to analysis leading to choice of possible alignments, and results of that analysis are functionally prerequisite to drafting an NOP to begin a CEQA process.
XA 6/25/2010 Board packet: Agenda Item #4 reports 11 bullet items for efforts to date for the Sheldon LAR study, which has been rebranded as the Sheldon Grant Line Road (GLR) Vision Plan.
XA 6/25/2010 Board packet:  Agenda Item #7 lists major contract expenditures for FY 2010-11. The list includes "The remaining portion of the services contract with Design, Community & Environment (DC&E) to conduct the Limited Access Roadway outreach and concept process design in the Sheldon area" The budget is not noted to contain an allocation for study of alternative alignments in the El Dorado Hills area.


Detail pages for the Connector JPA discussion are:

Return to Connector JPA root page      Return to SierraFoot home page