C
OLLISIONS
There have been two collisions on West Ranch View Drive from 2015 to 2017. There was two collisions in 2015, zero in 2016, and zero in 2017.
SURV
EY RESULTS/RECOMMENDATION
Th
e 85th percentile of speed on West Ranch View Drive is 41 MPH. It is recommended that the speed limit be increased from 25 MPH to 35 MPH in accordance with section 21400(b) of the California Vehicle Code.
220
643643
Road Name:
West Ranchview Dr.
Strip Map
NOT TO SCALE
Legend:
Collision History:
Comments:
Roadside Conditions:
Wildcat Blvd. to End
q
School
Residence
Business
Park
Open Space
Bikeway
Some Recovery Area
School Site Access
Moderate Traffic Volume
Heavy Traffic Volume
No Recovery Area
58'
2 Painted
25 Roadway Width
Number of Lanes
ADT
Divider Type
Critical Speed
Pace Speed
Existing Speed
Recommended Speed
Traffic Engineering and Speed Map
Speed Zone Survey
!"$Stop Sign
Residential
Industrial
Traffic Signal
Commercial
RES
IND
COM
Speed Limit Sign 1237
X
X
X
X
X
2247
X
41 Class II bikeway on both sides of road.
33-42
35 2015 2016 2017
2 0 0
!"$
1237
West Ranchview Dr
University Ave
Wilcat Blvd
RES
COM
221
644644
SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total
Volume
65 or higher 0
0 0
0 0
60 0
59 0
58 0
57 0
56 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 1 1 2
50 1 1
49 0
48 0
47 1 1
46 1 1 2
45 1 1
44 1 1
43 1 1 1 1 4
42 1 1 1 3
41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
40 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
39 1 1 2
38 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
37 1 1 1 1 4
36 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
34 1 1 1 1 4
33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
31 1 1 1 1 1 5
30 1 1 1 3
29 1 1 1 3
28 1 1 1 1 4
27 1 1 1 3
26 1 1 2
25 1 1
24 1 1
23 0
22 1 1
21 0
20 1 1 2
19 0
18 0
17 0
16 0
15 0
14 0
13 0
12 0
11 0
10 or lower 0
107
DATE
City Engineer
Resolution # Adopted:
ROADWAY CONDITIONS
2 lane road, bike path on both
sides, curb and gutter on both
sides, 46 feet wide
Total Number of Vehicles:
DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: MPH
FATAL 0 0 0
TOTAL 2 0 0
PDO 0 0 0
INJURY 0 0 0
ACCIDENT HISTORY
YEAR 2015 2016 2017
Average: 36 MPH
Pace: 33 - 42 MPH
85th %: 41 MPH
Posted: 25 MPH
Tuesday/Wednesda
y Time:
1:38pm - 2:30pm /
9:40am - 10:10am
Nick
SPEED DATA
streetlight #C11404
Segment: Wildcat - End
Weather: Sunny Observer:
Street: West Ranch View Location:
Length: 0.35 Miles Direction: both
Date:
8/14/2018 &
8/15/2018 Day:
9/26/18
1106 11/23/18
35 222
645645
WE
ST STANFORD RANCH ROAD
Sunset Boulevard to West Oaks Boulevard
D
ESCRIPTION/LOCATION
W
est Stanford Ranch Road is a six lane minor arterial that is 100 ft. wide with a raised landscaped median and has a class II bike lane on both sides road. Parking is restricted on both sides of the roadway. West Stanford Ranch Road serves res idential and commercial areas. West Stanford Ranch Road experiences high vehicle volumes during school hours due to its close proximity to Whitney High School . It also connects Rocklin to the City of Lincoln via Wildcat Boulevard.
T
here is no recovery ar ea on West Stanford Ranch Road. It is bound by curb, gutter, sidewalk and fixed objects, such as traffic control signs and street lights on both sides.
C
OLLISIONS
A
ccident records show that there were sixteen collisions on West Stanford Ranch Rd. from 2015 to 2017. There were ten collisions in 2015, three in 2016, and three in 2017.
SURV
EY RESULTS/RECOMMENDATION
T
he 85th percentile speed is 49 MPH. It is recommended that the speed limit remain at 45 MPH in accordance with section 21400(b) of the California Vehicle Code. 223
646646
Road Name:
West Stanford Ranch Rd.
Strip Map
NOT TO SCALE
Legend:
Collision History:
Comments:
Roadside Conditions:
Sunset Blvd. to West Oaks Blvd.
q
School
Residence
Business
Park
Open Space
Bikeway
Some Recovery Area
School Site Access
Moderate Traffic Volume
Heavy Traffic Volume
No Recovery Area
100'
6 Raised Landscape
45 Roadway Width
Number of Lanes
ADT
Divider Type
Critical Speed
Pace Speed
Existing Speed
Recommended Speed
Traffic Engineering and Speed Map
Speed Zone Survey
!"$Stop Sign
Residential
Industrial
Traffic Signal
Commercial
RES
IND
COM
Speed Limit Sign 123;
X
X
X
X
X
16,692
X
49 Class II bikeway on both sides of road.
41 - 50
45 2015 2016 2017
10 3 3
Sunset Blvd
West Stanford Ranch Rd
West Oaks Blvd
Treasure Dr
Wildcat Blvd
COM
OPEN
SPACE
OPEN
SPACE
FIRE
STATION
OPEN
SPACE
OPEN
SPACE
OPEN
SPACE
OPEN
SPACE
IND
IND
RES
RES
RES
123;
123;123;
123;
123; 123;
224
647647
SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total
Volume
65 or higher 0
0 0
0 0
60 0
59 0
58 1 1
57 0
56 0
55 1 1
54 1 1
53 1 1
52 1 1 2
51 1 1
50 1 1 1 1 1 5
49 1 1 1 1 1 5
48 1 1 2
47 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
46 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
45 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
44 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
43 1 1 1 1 4
42 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
40 1 1 2
39 1 1 1 1 1 5
38 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
37 1 1
36 1 1 2
35 1 1
34 1 1
33 1 1
32 1 1 2
31 0
30 0
29 0
28 0
27 0
26 0
25 0
24 0
23 0
22 0
21 0
20 0
19 0
18 0
17 0
16 0
15 0
14 0
13 0
12 0
11 0
10 or lower 0
100
DATE
City Engineer
Resolution # Adopted:
ROADWAY CONDITIONS
4 travel lanes, landscape
median, bike lanes on both
sides, no recovery area, 100
feet wide
Total Number of Vehicles:
DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: MPH
FATAL 0 0 0
TOTAL 10 3 3
PDO 1 0 0
INJURY 0 0 0
ACCIDENT HISTORY
YEAR 2015 2016 2017
Average: 44 MPH
Pace: 41 - 50 MPH
85th %: 49 MPH
Posted: 45 MPH
Thursday Time:
1:40pm - 2:20pm
Nick
SPEED DATA
Strikes
Segment: Sunset - West Oaks
Weather: Sunny Observer:
Street: West Stanford Ranch Location:
Length: .8 Miles Direction: Both
Date:
04/26/2018
Day:
9/26/18
1106 11/23/18
45 225
648648
W
HITNEY BOULEVARD
Crest Drive to Midas Avenue
D
ESCRIPTION/LOCATION
W
hitney Boulevard is a two lane divided residential collector with a raised landscaped median. There is a class II bikeway with no parking lane b etween Midas Ave nue and Crest Drive. Traffic and pedestrian (school and recreational) volumes are moderate and are usually constant throughout the day. Whitney Boulevard is completely residential with driveway access from homes. There is also a golf cours e in the area where golf carts use the shoulder at times.
T
here is no recovery area on Whitney Boulevard. It is bound by curb, gutter, sidewalk and fixed objects, such as traffic control signs and street lights on both sides.
C
OLLISIONS
Accident recor ds show that there were six collisions on Whitney Blvd. from 20 15 to 2017. There was one collision in 2015, three in 2016, and two in 2017.
SURV
EY RESULTS/RECOMMENDATION
The 85th percentile speed for both surveyed segments of Whitney Blvd. is 36 MPH. It is recommended that the speed limit remains 35 MPH in accordance with section 21400(b) of the California Vehicle Code.
226
649649
Road Name:
Whitney Blvd.
Strip Map
NOT TO SCALE
Legend:
Collision History:
Comments:
Roadside Conditions:
Crest Dr. to Midas Ave.
q
School
Residence
Business
Park
Open Space
Bikeway
Some Recovery Area
School Site Access
Moderate Traffic Volume
Heavy Traffic Volume
No Recovery Area
36'
2 Painted
35 Roadway Width
Number of Lanes
ADT
Divider Type
Critical Speed
Pace Speed
Existing Speed
Recommended Speed
Traffic Engineering and Speed Map
Speed Zone Survey
!"$Stop Sign
Residential
Industrial
Traffic Signal
Commercial
RES
IND
COM
Speed Limit Sign 1239
X
X
X
11,106
X
36 Class II bikeway on both sides of road.
29 - 38
35 2015 2016 2017
1 3 2
Cres Dr
Midas Ave
Sand St
Bonanza St
!"$
RES RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES RES!"$ 1239 Whitney Blvd
12391239
FIRE
STATION
227
650650
SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total
Volume
65 or higher 0
0 0
0 0
60 0
59 0
58 0
57 0
56 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 0
50 0
49 0
48 0
47 0
46 0
45 0
44 0
43 0
42 0
41 0
40 1 1
39 1 1
38 1 1 1 1 1 5
37 1 1 1 1 4
36 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
34 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17
33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
29 1 1 1 1 4
28 1 1
27 0
26 1 1
25 0
24 0
23 0
22 0
21 0
20 0
19 0
18 0
17 0
16 0
15 0
14 0
13 0
12 0
11 0
10 or lower 0
102
DATE
City Engineer
Resolution # Adopted:
ROADWAY CONDITIONS
2 travel lanes, painted median,
bike lanes on both sides, no
recovery area, 37 feet wide
Total Number of Vehicles:
DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: MPH
FATAL 0 0 0
TOTAL 1 3 2
PDO 1 0 0
INJURY 0 0 0
ACCIDENT HISTORY
YEAR 2015 2016 2017
Average: 33 MPH
Pace: MPH
85th %: 36 MPH
Posted: 35 MPH
Wednesday Time:
2:39pm - 2:55pm
Long
SPEED DATA
Sand st.
Segment: Crest - Midas
Weather: sunny Observer:
Street: Whitney Location:
Length: .47 Miles Direction: Both
Date:
05/02/2018
Day:
9/26/18
1106 11/23/18
35 29-38
228
651651
W
HITNEY BOULEVARD
Midas Avenue to Sunset Boulevard
D
ESCRIPTION/LOCATION
W
hitney Boulevard is a two lane divided residential colle ctor with a raised landscaped median. There is an 8 foot parking lane and class II bikew ay on both sides of the roadway between Sunset Boulevard and Midas Ave nue. Traffic and pedestrian (school and recreational) volumes are moderate and are usually consta nt throughout the day.
Whitney Boulevard is completely residential with driveway access from homes. There is also a golf course in the area where golf carts use the shoulder at times.
T
here is no recovery area on Whitney Boulevard. It is bound by curb, gutter, sidewalk and fixed objects, such as traffic control signs and street lights on both sides.
C
OLLISIONS
Accident records show that there were twenty -one collisions on Whitney Blvd. from 2015 to 2017. There was one collision in 2015, thirteen in 2016, and seven in 2017.
SURV
EY RESULTS/RECOMMENDATION
T
he 85th percentile speed for both surveyed segments of Whitney Blvd. is 41 MPH. It is recommended that the speed limit remains 35 MPH in accordance with section 21400(b) of the California Vehicle Code.
229
652652
Road Name:
Whitney Blvd.
Strip Map
NOT TO SCALE
Legend:
Collision History:
Comments:
Roadside Conditions:
Midas Ave. to Sunset Blvd.
q
School
Residence
Business
Park
Open Space
Bikeway
Some Recovery Area
School Site Access
Moderate Traffic Volume
Heavy Traffic Volume
No Recovery Area
90'
2 Raised Landscape
35 Roadway Width
Number of Lanes
ADT
Divider Type
Critical Speed
Pace Speed
Existing Speed
Recommended Speed
Traffic Engineering and Speed Map
Speed Zone Survey
!"$Stop Sign
Residential
Industrial
Traffic Signal
Commercial
RES
IND
COM
Speed Limit Sign 1239
X
X
X
X
9247
X
41 Class II bikeway on both sides of road.
32 - 41
35 2015 2016 2017
1 13 7
Midas Ave
!"$
Topaz Ave
Argonaut Ave
!"$ Paragon St
Farron St
Comstock St
Paragon St
Paragon St
COM
COM
RES
RES
GOLF
COURSE
GOLF
COURSE
RES
RES
RES
RES RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
1239
Whitney Blvd
Sunset Blvd
1239 1239 1239
1239
123912391239
230
653653
SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total
Volume
65 or higher 0
0 0
0 0
60 0
59 0
58 0
57 0
56 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 0
50 0
49 0
48 0
47 0
46 1 1
45 1 1 2
44 1 1 1 1 4
43 1 1 1 1 4
42 1 1 2
41 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
40 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
38 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
37 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
36 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
34 1 1 1 1 1 5
33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
32 1 1 1 3
31 1 1 2
30 1 1 1 3
29 1 1
28 0
27 0
26 0
25 0
24 0
23 0
22 0
21 0
20 0
19 0
18 0
17 0
16 0
15 0
14 0
13 0
12 0
11 0
10 or lower 0
104
DATE
City Engineer
Resolution # Adopted:
ROADWAY CONDITIONS
2 travel lanes, landscape
median, bike lane on both
sides, recovery area, 84 feet
wide
Total Number of Vehicles:
DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: MPH
FATAL 0 0 0
TOTAL 1 13 7
PDO 1 3 0
INJURY 0 0 0
ACCIDENT HISTORY
YEAR 2015 2016 2017
Average: 37 MPH
Pace: 32 - 41 MPH
85th %: 41 MPH
Posted: 35 MPH
Wednesday Time:
3:03pm - 3:42pm
Long
SPEED DATA
Paragon North - South
Segment: Midas - Sunset
Weather: Sunny Observer:
Street: Whitney Location:
Length: 1 Mile Direction: Both
Date:
05/02/2018
Day:
9/26/18
1106 11/23/18
35 231
654654
WHITNEY OAKS DRIVE
Whitney Ranch Parkway to Park Drive
DESCRIPTION/LOCATION
Whitney Oaks Drive is a two lane collector that provides access to low/medium density residential housing . There are class II bikeways on both sides of the roadway . This roadway serves residential areas as well as the Whitney Oaks Golf Club, which generates moderate traffic volumes. There are significant elevation changes and curves that present sight distance challenges along this roadway.
There is no recovery area on W hitney Oaks Drive. It is bound by curb, gutter, sidewalk and fixed objects, such as traffic control signs and street lights on both sides.
COLLISIONS
Accident records show that there were eight collisions on Whitney Oaks Dr. from 20 15 to 2017. There were four collisions in 2015, two in 2016, and two in 2017.
SURVEY RESULTS/RECOMMENDATION
The 85
th percentile speed for Whitney Oaks Dr. is 41 MPH. It is recommended that the speed limit be raised to 35 MPH from 30 MPH in accordance with section 21400(b) o f the California Vehicle Code.
232
655655
Road Name:
Whitney Oaks Dr.
Strip Map
NOT TO SCALE
Legend:
Collision History:
Comments:
Roadside Conditions:
Whitney Ranch Pkwy. to Park Dr.
q
School
Residence
Business
Park
Open Space
Bikeway
Some Recovery Area
School Site Access
Moderate Traffic Volume
Heavy Traffic Volume
No Recovery Area
32'
2 Painted
30 Roadway Width
Number of Lanes
ADT
Divider Type
Critical Speed
Pace Speed
Existing Speed
Recommended Speed
Traffic Engineering and Speed Map
Speed Zone Survey
!"$Stop Sign
Residential
Industrial
Traffic Signal
Commercial
RES
IND
COM
Speed Limit Sign 1239
X
X
X
X
348
41 Class II bikeway on both sides of road.
33 - 42
35 2015 2016 2017
4 2 2
Whitney Ranch Pkwy
Sterling Dr
!"$
Pleasant Creek Dr
Abby Rd
Pebble
Beach
Rd ShadyTrailLn
Pyramid
Ct
Clubhouse Dr. West
!"$
Legend Dr
Clubhouse Dr
!"$
Park Dr
1239
Whitney Oaks Dr
RES PARK
OPEN
SPACE
OPEN
SPACE
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
GOLF
COURSE
RESRES
OPEN
OPEN
RES
RES RES1239
12391239
1239
1239
1239
233
656656
SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total
Volume
65 or higher 0
0 0
0 0
60 0
59 0
58 0
57 0
56 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 0
50 0
49 1 1
48 0
47 0
46 0
45 1 1 2
44 0
43 1 1 1 1 4
42 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
40 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
38 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
37 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
36 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
34 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
33 1 1 1 1 4
32 1 1
31 1 1 1 3
30 0
29 0
28 0
27 1 1
26 0
25 0
24 0
23 0
22 0
21 0
20 0
19 0
18 0
17 0
16 0
15 0
14 0
13 0
12 0
11 0
10 or lower 0
109
DATE
City Engineer
Trail from Clubhouse - Clubhouse
Segment: Whitney Ranch - Park
Weather: Sunny Observer:
Street: Whitney Oaks Location:
Length: 1.4 Miles Direction: Both
Date:
04/30/2018
Day: Monday Time:
10:40am - 11:20pm
Long
SPEED DATA
85th %: 41 MPH
Posted: 35 MPH
Average: 38 MPH
Pace: 33 - 42 MPH
ACCIDENT HISTORY
YEAR 2015 2016 2017
PDO 2 0 1
INJURY 0 0 0
FATAL 0 0 0
TOTAL 4 2 2
Resolution # Adopted:
ROADWAY CONDITIONS
2 travel lanes, painted median,
bike lanes on both sides, no
recovery area, 33 feet wide
Total Number of Vehicles:
DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: MPH
9/26/18
1106 11/23/18
35 234
657657
WH
ITNEY RANCH PARKWAY
Highway 65 to Wildcat Boulevard
D
ESCRIPTION/LOCATION
W
hitney Ranch Parkway from Highway 65 to Wildcat Blvd. is a 6 lane road that runs east, west. There is a raised center median with bike lanes and limited parking on the westbound side . This road provides access to Highway 65, medium and high density residential areas, and Whitney Community Park.
T
here is no recovery area on both sides and the road is bound by curb and gutter.
C
OLLISIONS
Accident records show that there were nine collisions on Whitney Ranch Pkwy. F rom 2015 to 2017 there was one collision in 2015, three in 2016, and five in 2017.
SURV
EY RESULTS/RECOMMENDATION
T
he 85th percentile speed for Whitney Ranch Pkwy is 48 MPH. It is recommended that the speed limit be raised to 45 MPH from 40 MPH in accordance with section 21400(b) of the California Vehicle Code.
235
658658
Road Name:
Whitney Ranch Pkwy
Strip Map
NOT TO SCALE
Legend:
Collision History:
Comments:
Roadside Conditions:
Hwy 65 to Wildcat Blvd
q
School
Residence
Business
Park
Open Space
Bikeway
Some Recovery Area
School Site Access
Moderate Traffic Volume
Heavy Traffic Volume
No Recovery Area
110'
6 Raised Landscape
40 Roadway Width
Number of Lanes
ADT
Divider Type
Critical Speed
Pace Speed
Existing Speed
Recommended Speed
Traffic Engineering and Speed Map
Speed Zone Survey
!"$Stop Sign
Residential
Industrial
Traffic Signal
Commercial
RES
IND
COM
Speed Limit Sign 123;
X
X
X
X
X
3232
X
48 Class II bikeway on both sides of road.
38 - 47
45 2015 2016 2017
1 3 5
Whitney Ranch Pkwy
W
ildcat Blvd
University Ave
Caviata Way
!"$
RES
236
659659
SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total
Volume
65 or higher 0
0 0
0 0
60 0
59 0
58 1 1
57 0
56 1 1
55 0
54 0
53 1 1 2
52 1 1 1 1 4
51 1 1 2
50 1 1
49 1 1 1 3
48 1 1 1 1 1 5
47 1 1 2
46 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
45 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
44 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
43 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
42 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
40 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
38 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
37 1 1
36 1 1 2
35 1 1 2
34 1 1 2
33 1 1
32 1 1
31 0
30 1 1
29 1 1
28 0
27 0
26 0
25 0
24 0
23 0
22 0
21 0
20 0
19 0
18 0
17 0
16 0
15 0
14 0
13 0
12 0
11 0
10 or lower 0
103
DATE
City Engineer
Resolution # Adopted:
ROADWAY CONDITIONS
6 travel lanes, landscape
median, bike lane on both
sides, no recovery area, 107
feet wide
Total Number of Vehicles:
DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: MPH
FATAL 0 0 0
TOTAL 1 3 5
PDO 1 0 1
INJURY 0 0 0
ACCIDENT HISTORY
YEAR 2015 2016 2017
Average: 43 MPH
Pace: 38 - 47 MPH
85th %: 48 MPH
Posted: 40 MPH
Wednesday Time:
10:50am - 11:08am
Jordan
SPEED DATA
N. University Ave (1st no parking sign)
Segment: HWY 65 - Wildcat
Weather: Sunny Observer:
Street: Whitney Ranch Parkway Location:
Length: .41 Miles Direction: Both
Date:
05/02/2018
Day:
9/26/18
1106 11/23/18
45 237
660660
WH
ITNEY RANCH PARKWAY
Wildcat Boulevard to Painted Pony Lane
D
ESCRIPTION/LOCATION
W
hitney Ranch Parkway is a four lane major collector that provides access to a community park and several medium density neighborhoods. T here is no residential driveway access directly from the street. It has a raised landscaped center median and landscaped shoulders with meandering sidewalks. Currently the road has four signalized intersections.
T
here is no recovery are a on Whitney Ranch Parkway. It is bound by curb, gutter, sidewalk and fixed objects, such as traffic control signs and street lights on both sides.
C
OLLISIONS
Accident records show that there were twelve collisions on Whitney Ranch Pkwy. from 2015 to 2017. There were four collisions in 2015, two in 2016, and six in 2017.
SURV
EY RESULTS/RECOMMENDATION
Th
e 85th percentile speed for Whitney Ranch Pkwy. is 52 MPH. It is recommended that the speed limit be raised to 45 MPH from 40 MPH in accordance with s ection 21400(b) of the California Vehicle Code.
238
661661
Road Name:
Whitney Ranch Pkwy.
Strip Map
NOT TO SCALE
Legend:
Collision History:
Comments:
Roadside Conditions:
Wildcat Blvd. to Painted Pony Ln.
q
School
Residence
Business
Park
Open Space
Bikeway
Some Recovery Area
School Site Access
Moderate Traffic Volume
Heavy Traffic Volume
No Recovery Area
62'
4 Raised Landscape
40 Roadway Width
Number of Lanes
ADT
Divider Type
Critical Speed
Pace Speed
Existing Speed
Recommended Speed
Traffic Engineering and Speed Map
Speed Zone Survey
!"$Stop Sign
Residential
Industrial
Traffic Signal
Commercial
RES
IND
COM
Speed Limit Sign 123;
X
X
X
X
X
3232
X
52 Class II bikeway on both sides of road.
43 - 52
45 2015 2016 2017
4 2 6
Wildcat Blvd
Spring Creek Dr
Bridlewood Dr
Baronial Ln
Old Ranch
House RdPainted
Pony Ln
PARK
OPEN
SPACE
OPEN
SPACE
RES RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
Whitney Ranch Pkwy
123;
123;
123;
123;123;
123;
239
662662
SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total
Volume
65 or higher 0
0 0
0 0
60 0
59 1 1 1 1 4
58 0
57 1 1 1 3
56 0
55 0
54 1 1 2
53 1 1 1 1 1 5
52 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
51 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
50 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
49 1 1 1 3
48 1 1 1 1 4
47 1 1
46 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
45 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
44 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
43 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
42 1 1 1 1 1 5
41 1 1 1 3
40 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
38 1 1 2
37 1 1
36 1 1 2
35 1 1 2
34 1 1
33 0
32 0
31 0
30 0
29 0
28 0
27 0
26 0
25 0
24 0
23 0
22 0
21 0
20 0
19 0
18 0
17 0
16 0
15 0
14 0
13 0
12 0
11 0
10 or lower 0
104
DATE
City Engineer
Segment: Wildcat - Painted Pony
Weather: Sunny Observer:
Street: Whitney Ranch Location:
Length: .9 Miles Direction: Both
Date:
05/01/2018
Day: Tuesday Time:
3:20pm - 4:49pm
Jordan
SPEED DATA
85th %: 52 MPH
Posted: 40 MPH
Average: 46 MPH
Pace: 43 - 52 MPH
ACCIDENT HISTORY
YEAR 2015 2016 2017
PDO 2 0 1
INJURY 0 0 0
FATAL 0 0 0
TOTAL 4 2 6
Resolution # Adopted:
ROADWAY CONDITIONS
4 travel lanes, landscape
median, no bike lanes, no
recovery area, 62 feet wide
Total Number of Vehicles:
DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: MPH
9/26/18
1106 11/23/18
45 240
663663
WHITNEY RANCH PARKWAY
Painted Pony Lane to Ranch View Drive
DESCRIPTION/LOCATION
Whitney Ranch Parkway is a two-lane major collector that runs East-West from Painted Pony Lane to Ranch View Drive. There are class 2 bike lanes on both sides of the road and a raised center median. This road provides access to various neighborhoods throughout the Whitney Ranch Development.
There is no recovery area on Old Ranch House Road. It is bound by curb, gutter, sidewalk and fixed objects, such as traffic control signs and street lights, on both sides.
COLLISIONS
Accident records show that there was one collision on Whitney Ranch Parkway from 2020 to 2022. The collision occurred in 2020.
SURVEY RESULTS/RECOMMENDATION
The 85th percentile speed on Whitney Ranch Parkway is 41 MPH. It is recommended that the speed limit remain at 35 MPH in accordance with section 21400(b) of the California Vehicle Code.
241
664664
Road Name:
Whitney Ranch Pkwy.
Strip Map
NOT TO SCALE
Legend:
Collision History:
Comments:
Roadside Conditions:
Painted Pony Ln. to Ranch View Dr.
q
School
Residence
Business
Park
Open Space
Bikeway
Some Recovery Area
School Site Access
Moderate Traffic Volume
Heavy Traffic Volume
No Recovery Area
54'
2 Raised Landscape
35 Roadway Width
Number of Lanes
ADT
Divider Type
Critical Speed
Pace Speed
Existing Speed
Recommended Speed
Traffic Engineering and Speed Map
Speed Zone Survey
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
RES
IND
COM X
X
X
X
2192
X
41 Class II bikeway on both sides of road.
31-40
35 2020 2021 2022
0 1 0
Painted Pony Ln. W
est Oaks Blvd.
Ranch View Dr.
OPEN
SPACE
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
Whitney Ranch Pkwy
1239
!"$
1239
1239
1239
1239
!"$
Songbird Wy.
1239
1239
242
665665
VEHICLE SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total
Volume
65 or higher 0
0 0
0 0
60 0
59 0
58 0
57 0
56 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 0
50 0
49 0
48 1 1 2
47 0
46 1 1
45 1 1 2
44 1 1 2
43 1 1
42 1 1 1 1 4
41 1 1 1 3
40 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
38 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
37 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
36 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
34 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
32 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
31 1 1 1 1 4
30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
29 1 1 2
28 1 1
27 0
26 0
25 0
24 0
23 0
22 0
21 0
20 0
19 0
18 0
17 0
16 0
15 0
14 0
13 0
12 0
11 0
10 or lower 0
102
DATE
City Engineer
Total Number of Vehicles:
DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: MPH
Resolution # Adopted:
TOTAL 0 1 0
ROADWAY CONDITIONS
2 travel lanes, raised
landscaped median, bike lane
on both sides, no parking, no
recovery area, 54 feet wide
INJURY 0 0 0
FATAL 0 0 0
ACCIDENT HISTORY
YEAR 2020 2021 2022
PDO 0 1 0
Average: 36 MPH
Pace: 31-40 MPH
SPEED DATA
Posted: 35 MPH
85th %: 41 MPH
Weather: Sunny Observer: Jose Rivas
Date: 10/28/2022 Day: Friday
Length: 0.78 Miles Direction: Both
Time: 9:30am - 10:45am
Street: Whitney Ranch Parkway Location: Jamboree Drive
Segment: Painted Pony Lane to Ranch View Drive
8/30/23
243
666666
WHITNEY RANCH PARKWAY
Ranch View Drive to Whitney Oaks Drive
DESCRIPTION/LOCATION
Whitney Ranch Parkway is a two-lane major collector that runs East-West from Ranch View Drive to Whitney Oaks Drive. There are class 2 bike lanes on both sides of the road and a raised center median. This road provides access to various neighborhoods throughout the Whitney Ranch Development.
There is no recovery area on Whitney Ranch Parkway. It is bound by landscaping, and fixed objects, such as traffic control signs and street lights, on both sides.
COLLISIONS
Accident records show that there were two collisions on Whitney Ranch Parkway from 2020 to 2022. One collision occurred in 2020 and the second collision occurred in 2022.
SURVEY RESULTS/RECOMMENDATION
The 85th percentile speed on Whitney Ranch Parkway is 41 MPH. It is recommended that the speed limit remain at 35 MPH in accordance with section 21400(b) of the California Vehicle Code.
244
667667
Road Name:
Whitney Ranch Pkwy.
Strip Map
NOT TO SCALE
Legend:
Collision History:
Comments:
Roadside Conditions:
Ranch View Dr. to Whitney Oaks Dr.
q
School
Residence
Business
Park
Open Space
Bikeway
Some Recovery Area
School Site Access
Moderate Traffic Volume
Heavy Traffic Volume
No Recovery Area
54'
2 Raised Landscape
35 Roadway Width
Number of Lanes
ADT
Divider Type
Critical Speed
Pace Speed
Existing Speed
Recommended Speed
Traffic Engineering and Speed Map
Speed Zone Survey
!"$Stop Sign
Residential
Industrial
Traffic Signal
Commercial
RES
IND
COM
Speed Limit Sign 123;
X
X
X
X
1453
X
41 Class II bikeway on both sides of road.
32-41
35 2020 2021 2022
1 0 1
Ranch View Dr.
Bear Creek Dr
Whitney Oaks Dr.
OPEN
SPACE
RES RES
RES
RES
RES RES
Whitney Ranch Pkwy
1239
OPEN
SPACE
!"$
!"$
1239
12391239
1239 1239
245
668668
VEHICLE SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total
Volume
65 or higher 0
0 0
0 0
60 0
59 0
58 0
57 0
56 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 1 1
51 0
50 1 1
49 1 1 2
48 1 1
47 1 1
46 0
45 1 1
44 1 1 1 3
43 1 1 2
42 1 1 2
41 1 1 1 1 1 5
40 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
38 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
37 1 1 1 1 1 5
36 1 1 1 1 1 5
35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
34 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
31 1 1 1 3
30 1 1 1 1 4
29 1 1
28 1 1 1 3
27 0
26 1 1
25 1 1
24 1 1
23 0
22 0
21 0
20 0
19 0
18 0
17 0
16 0
15 0
14 0
13 0
12 0
11 0
10 or lower 0
101
DATE
City Engineer
Street: Whitney Ranch Parkway Location: Street Light C12512 Segment: Ranch View Drive - Whitney Oaks Drive
Length: 0.72 Miles Direction: Both
Weather: Sunny Observer: Jose
Date: 10/28/2022 Day: Friday
SPEED DATA
Posted: 35 MPH
Time: 12:15pm - 1:25pm
85th %: 41 MPH
Average: 36 MPH
YEAR 2020 2021 2022
Pace: 32-41 MPH
ACCIDENT HISTORY
INJURY 1 0 1
PDO 0 0 0
TOTAL 1 0 1
FATAL 0 0 0
Resolution # Adopted:
ROADWAY CONDITIONS
2 travel lanes, raised
landscaped median, bike lane
on both sides, no parking, no
recovery area, 54 feet wide
Total Number of Vehicles:
DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: MPH
8/30/23
246 669669
WILDCAT BOULEVARD
West Stanford Ranch Road to City of Lincoln Limit
DESCRIPTION/LOCATION
Wildcat Boulevard is a four-lane arterial that runs north-south and serves as a major connection between Rocklin and the city of Lincoln. It has a raised landscaped median and landscaped shoulders with meandering sidewalks. There are seven traffic signal controlled intersections on Wildcat Boulevard. A class I bikeway exists on the east side of the roadway between the city of Lincoln and Bridlewood Drive. This class I bikeway is for both northbound and southbound bicycle and pedestrian traffic. There is a class II bikeway between Bridlewood Drive. and West Stanford Ranch Road on both sides of the roadway.
Whitney High School is located on the east side of Wildcat Boulevard to the north and a fire station is located on Wildcat Boulevard close to the West Stanford Ranch Road. intersection. Wildcat Boulevard also serves several residential and collector streets as well as two community parks.
There is no recovery area on Wildcat Boulevard. It is bound by curb, gutter, sidewalk and fixed objects, such as traffic control signs and street lights on both sides.
COLLISIONS
Accident records show that there were forty-seven collisions on Wildcat Blvd. from 2015 to 2017. There were nineteen collisions in 2015, sixteen in 2016, and twelve in 2017.
SURVEY RESULTS/RECOMMENDATION
The 85
th percentile speed for Wildcat Blvd. is 47 MPH. It is recommended that the speed limit remain 45 MPH in accordance with section 21400(b) of the California Vehicle Code.
247
670670
Road Name:
Wildcat Blvd.
Strip Map
NOT TO SCALE
Legend:
Collision History:
Comments:
Roadside Conditions:
West Stanford Ranch Rd. to Lincoln Border
q
School
Residence
Business
Park
Open Space
Bikeway
Some Recovery Area
School Site Access
Moderate Traffic Volume
Heavy Traffic Volume
No Recovery Area
62'
4 Raised Landscape
45 Roadway Width
Number of Lanes
ADT
Divider Type
Critical Speed
Pace Speed
Existing Speed
Recommended Speed
Traffic Engineering and Speed Map
Speed Zone Survey
!"$Stop Sign
Residential
Industrial
Traffic Signal
Commercial
RES
IND
COM
Speed Limit Sign 123;
X
X
X
X
X
10,206
X
47 Class II bikeway on both sides of road.
38 - 47
45 2015 2016 2017
19 16 12
W
est Stanford Ranch Rd
Iroquois Rd
Peninsula Dr
Bridlewood Dr
W
hitney Ranch Pkwy
Ranch View Dr
W
est Ranch
View Dr
HIGH
SCHOOL
PARK
OPEN
SPACE
RES RES
OPEN
SPACE
OPEN
SPACE
RES RES
RES OPEN
SPACE
OPEN
SPACE
FIRE
STATION
OPEN
SPACE
X
X
Wildcat Blvd
123;
123;1237
ËÌ
123;
123; 1237
ËÌ
123;OPEN
SPACE
PARK
Lincoln Border Rocklin Border
248
671671
SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total
Volume
65 or higher 0
0 0
0 0
60 0
59 1 1
58 0
57 1 1
56 0
55 0
54 1 1
53 1 1
52 1 1 2
51 0
50 1 1 2
49 1 1 2
48 1 1 1 1 4
47 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
46 1 1 1 1 4
45 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
44 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
43 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
42 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
40 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
38 1 1 1 1 1 5
37 1 1 1 3
36 1 1 1 1 4
35 1 1 1 3
34 1 1 1 3
33 0
32 0
31 1 1
30 0
29 1 1
28 0
27 0
26 0
25 0
24 0
23 0
22 0
21 0
20 0
19 0
18 0
17 0
16 0
15 0
14 0
13 0
12 0
11 0
10 or lower 0
102
DATE
City Engineer
Resolution # Adopted:
ROADWAY CONDITIONS
4 travel lanes, landscape
median, no bike lane, no
recovery area, 62 feet wide
Total Number of Vehicles:
DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: MPH
FATAL 0 0 0
TOTAL 19 16 12
PDO 9 1 0
INJURY 0 0 0
ACCIDENT HISTORY
YEAR 2015 2016 2017
Average: 42 MPH
Pace: 38 - 47 MPH
85th %: 47 MPH
Posted: 45 MPH
Thursday Time:
2:36pm - 3:20pm
Nick
SPEED DATA
Arroyo Sierra
Segment: West Stanford Ranch - City Limit
Weather: Sunny Observer:
Street: Wildcat Location:
Length: 1.55 Miles Direction: Both
Date:
04/26/2018
Day:
9/26/18
1106 11/23/18
45 249
672672
WOODSIDE DRIVE
Pacific Street to Lost Avenue
DESCRIPTION/LOCATION
Woodside Drive is a curvilinear residential collector that intersects both Pacific Street and Sunset Boulevard . It has a painted cente r line, class II bike lanes , and dedicated parking lanes on both sides for its entire length. Woodside Dr ive serves several low density residential street s as well as one moderately sized apartment complex on the east end.
There is no r ecovery area on Woodside Dr ive. It is bound by curb, gutter, sidewalk and fixed objects, such as traffic control signs and street lights on both sides.
COLLISIONS
Accident records show that there were seven collisions on Woodside Dr . from 2015 to 2017. There were three collisions in 2015, zero in 2016, and four in 2017.
SURVEY RESULTS/RECOMMENDATION
The 85
th percentile speed for Wildcat Blvd. is 35 MPH. It is recommended that the speed limit remain at 30 MPH in accordance with section 21400(b) of the California Vehicle Code.
250
673673
Road Name:
Woodside Dr.
Strip Map
NOT TO SCALE
Legend:
Collision History:
Comments:
Roadside Conditions:
Pacific St. to Lost Ave.
q
School
Residence
Business
Park
Open Space
Bikeway
Some Recovery Area
School Site Access
Moderate Traffic Volume
Heavy Traffic Volume
No Recovery Area
50'
2 Painted
30 Roadway Width
Number of Lanes
ADT
Divider Type
Critical Speed
Pace Speed
Existing Speed
Recommended Speed
Traffic Engineering and Speed Map
Speed Zone Survey
!"$Stop Sign
Residential
Industrial
Traffic Signal
Commercial
RES
IND
COM
Speed Limit Sign 1238
X
X
X
1669
35 Class II bikeway on both sides of road.
27 - 36
30 2015 2016 2017
3 0 4
Lost Ave
Woodside Dr
Sunset Blvd
Kingwood
Cir
Sequoia Ct
Merrywood Dr
Kingwood CirWoodglade Ct
WestwoodDr
!"$
!"$
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
1238
1238
251
674674
SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total
Volume
65 or higher 0
0 0
0 0
60 0
59 0
58 0
57 0
56 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 0
50 0
49 0
48 0
47 0
46 0
45 0
44 0
43 0
42 0
41 0
40 0
39 1 1 1 3
38 1 1
37 1 1
36 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
35 1 1 1 1 4
34 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
32 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
29 1 1 1 1 1 5
28 1 1 1 1 1 5
27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
25 1 1 1 1 1 5
24 1 1 1 3
23 1 1 1 1 1 5
22 1 1 2
21 1 1 1 3
20 0
19 1 1
18 0
17 0
16 0
15 0
14 0
13 0
12 0
11 0
10 or lower 0
103
DATE
City Engineer
Merrywood
Segment: Pacific - Lost
Weather: Sunny Observer:
Street: Woodside Location:
Length: 0.61 Miles Direction: both
Date:
05/17/2018 &
05/24/2018 Day: Thursday Time:
9am-11:50am / 8:50am
- 10:20am
Ali
SPEED DATA
85th %: 35 MPH
Posted: 30 MPH
Average: 30 MPH
Pace: 27 - 36 MPH
ACCIDENT HISTORY
YEAR 2015 2016 2017
PDO 0 0 1
INJURY 0 0 0
FATAL 0 0 0
TOTAL 3 0 4
Resolution # Adopted:
ROADWAY CONDITIONS
2 travel lanes, bike lanes on
both sides, painted center
median, on street parking, 50
deet wide
Total Number of Vehicles:
DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: MPH
9/26/18
1106 11/23/18
30 252
675675
W
YCKFORD BOULEVARD
Park Drive to Stratton Court
D
ESCRIPTION/LOCATION
W
yckford Boulevard is a four lane major collector that has a raised landscaped median as well as a parking lane on both sides. There is no residential frontage on this section of Wyckford Boulevard, but a junior high s chool is located on the northwest corner of Wyckford Boulevard and Park Drive . Traffic v olumes are moderate and pedestrian volumes are high due to the school.
T
here is no recovery area on Wyckford Boulevard. It is bound by curb, gutter, sidewalk and fixed objects, such as traffic control signs and street lights on both sides.
C
OLLISIONS
A
ccident records show that there were three collisions on Wyckford Blvd . from 2015 to 2017. There were zero collisions in 2016, one in 2016, and two in 2017.
SURV
EY RESULTS/RECOMMENDATION
Th
e 85 th percentile speed on Wyckford Blvd. is 40 MPH. It is recommended that the speed limit remain at 35 MPH in accordance with section 21400(b) of the California Vehicle Code.
253
676676
Road Name:
Wyckford Blvd.
Strip Map
NOT TO SCALE
Legend:
Collision History:
Comments:
Roadside Conditions:
Park Dr. to Stratton Ct.
q
School
Residence
Business
Park
Open Space
Bikeway
Some Recovery Area
School Site Access
Moderate Traffic Volume
Heavy Traffic Volume
No Recovery Area
82'
4 Raised Landscape
35 Roadway Width
Number of Lanes
ADT
Divider Type
Critical Speed
Pace Speed
Existing Speed
Recommended Speed
Traffic Engineering and Speed Map
Speed Zone Survey
!"$Stop Sign
Residential
Industrial
Traffic Signal
Commercial
RES
IND
COM
Speed Limit Sign 1239
X
X
X
X
X
5626
X
40 Class II bikeway on both sides of road.
29 - 38
35 2015 2016 2017
0 1 2
Park Dr
Wyckford Blvd
Concord Rd
Stuart St
Charter Rd
Charter Rd
Stratton Ct
SCHOOL
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES RES RESOPEN
SPACE
OPEN
SPACE
!"$!"$
X
1239
1237
ËÌ
1239
1239
254
677677
SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total
Volume
65 or higher 0
0 0
0 0
60 0
59 0
58 0
57 0
56 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 1 1
50 1 1 2
49 0
48 0
47 0
46 0
45 1 1
44 1 1
43 1 1
42 1 1 1 3
41 1 1 2
40 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
39 1 1 2
38 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
37 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
36 1 1 1 1 1 5
35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
34 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
31 1 1
30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
29 1 1 1 3
28 1 1 1 3
27 1 1 2
26 0
25 1 1
24 1 1
23 0
22 0
21 0
20 0
19 0
18 0
17 0
16 0
15 0
14 0
13 0
12 0
11 0
10 or lower 0
105
DATE
City Engineer
median @granite Oaks Bus Turnout
Segment: Park - Stratton
Weather: Sunny Observer:
Street: Wyckford Location:
Length: .44 Miles Direction: Both
Date:
04/30/2018
Day: Monday Time:
10:03am - 10:34am
Long
SPEED DATA
85th %: 40 MPH
Posted: 35 MPH
Average: 35 MPH
Pace: 29 - 38 MPH
ACCIDENT HISTORY
YEAR 2015 2016 2017
PDO 0 0 0
INJURY 0 0 0
FATAL 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 1 2
Resolution # Adopted:
ROADWAY CONDITIONS
4 travel lanes, landscape
median, bike lanes on both
sides, recovery area, 82 feet
wide
Total Number of Vehicles:
DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: MPH
9/26/18
1106 11/23/18
35 255
678678
City Council
Staff Report
Subject:
Point Vista - Advisory Review of Development Proposal (SC2023- 0005)
Date:
November 14, 2023
Submitted By:
David Mohlenbrok, Director of Community Development
Bret Finning, Planning Services Manager
Department:
Community Development
Recommendation:
Review, discuss, and provide input to the project applicant on a preliminary development proposal for a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Tentative Subdivision Map on an approximately 16-acre site located east of I-80 and south of Brace Road.
Background:
The staff report for this item is included as Attachment 1 in order to maintain the integrity of the formatting.
Item Number 5A.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report
2. Staff Report Attachment A - Proposed General Plan Amendment
3. Staff Report Attachment B - Proposed Rezone
4. Staff Report Attachment C -
Proposed Subdivision Layout
679679
City Council Report
_________________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Point Vista – Advisory Review of Development Proposal Advisory Determination, SC2023-0005
Date: November 14, 2023
Submitted by: David Mohlenbrok, Director of Community Development Bret Finning, Planning Services Manager
Department: Community Development
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council review, discuss, and provide input to the project applicant on a preliminary development proposal for a General Plan Amendment , Rezone, and Tentative Subdivision Map on an approximately 16-acre site located east of I-80 and south of Brace Road.
Location:
The subject property is generally located at 3975, 4064, and 4070 Dias Lane (APNs: 045 -043-034, 045- 043- 080, and 045-044-001). See Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Location Map
680680
Owner/Applicant:
The property owner is Arrowest Properties, Inc. and Rocklin Manor Holding Corporation. The applicant is Jared Brown with Guide Engineering.
Surrounding Land Uses:
WEST: The westerly side of the project site is bounded by the Interstate 80 freeway.
NORTH: To the north, in the City of Rocklin is a parcel that has a Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation and is zoned “Unclassified” (UN). This site is currently occupied by an existing non- conforming, commercial use that sells recreational vehicles. To the north, across Brace Road, in the Town of Loomis, is land zoned Commercial/Destination Commercial (CT) that is developed with rural residential homes.
EAST: To the east in the City of Rocklin is a parcel zoned Single Family Residential 12,500 square foot minimum lot size (R1-12) that is developed with a single home. East of the project site, in the Town of Loomis, is land zoned for Rural Residential (RR) and Rural Estate (RE) uses with a minimum lot size of 2.3 acres. This area has been developed with rural residential type homes.
SOUTH: South of the project site, in the City of Rocklin is land designated Retail Commercial (RC) and zoned Planned Development Commercial (PD-C) and developed as part of the Rocklin Crossing shopping Center. Immediately to the east of that is the Rocklin 60 subdivision that has a land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) and is zoned Planned Development 2 and 4 dwelling units per acre (PD-2 & PD-4) respectively. The two parcels in the subdivision which front on Dias Lane have the PD-2 zoning.
Figure 2 – General Plan Land Use Designations
681681
Background:
The applicant has submitted a conceptual proposal for a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Tentative Subdivision Map on the project site. As a way for an applicant to receive preliminary feedback from the City Council and the public on development proposals, particularly those that would require General Plan Amendments or Rezones, this item is being brought to the City Council for discussion and feedback prior to applicant filing a formal application. The preliminary proposal submitted by the applicant seeks to change the land use and zoning as further described below:
1. A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the bulk of the site, including approximately 3.7 acres on the easterly side of Dias Lane, from Low Density Residential (LDR), 1 - 3.4 dwelling units/acre (du/ac.), to Medium Density Residential (MDR), 3.5 – 8.4 du/ac. A strip, approximately 200 feet deep on the westerly side of Dias Lane would retain the existing LDR land use designation.
2. A Rezone to change the zoning on:
Those portions of the site west of Dias Lane and not proposed be accessed from Dias Lane from Single Family Residential 12,500 square foot minimum lot size (R1-12.5) to Single Family Residential 6,000 square foot minimum lot size (R1-6).
Those portions of the site west of Dias Lane and proposed to be accessed from Dias Lane from Single Family Residential 12,500 square foot minimum lot size (R1-12.5) and Unclassified (UN) to Rural Estate 20,000 square foot minimum lot size (RE-20). Those portions of the site located east of Dias Lane, also accessed via Dias Lane, from Unclassified (UN) to Single Family Residential 15,000 square foot minimum lot size (R1-15).
The existing and proposed General Plan land use designations are depicted in Attachment A, and the existing and proposed zoning designations are depicted in Attachment B.
It is unclear how a portion of the site came to have an Unclassified Zoning designation but that has been the case for at least 30 years. Per Section 17.06.120 of the Rocklin Municipal Code, “ All lands now or hereafter included within the boundaries of the city which are not designated on official zoning maps described in this chapter as being within any other zone specified in this title shall be deemed to be zoned RA-10 (Residential Agriculture-10 acre net minimum lot size) until such lands are classified into one or more of the other districts as provided in this chapter. The planning commission may grant conditional use permits for uses of such land; provided, that such uses conform to the general plan of the city.
Development requirements such as height regulation, lot area, lot width and yard area shall be prescribed by the planning commission.”
The applicant’s conceptual development plan for the site, Attachment C, proposes to subdivide the project site into 94 single family lots on three existing parcels, two on the west side of Dias Lane and one on the east side of Dias Lane. The development proposed west of Dias Lane would include 63 lots with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, accessed through the Rocklin 60 and Oak Vista Subdivisions via extensions of Silver Lupine Lane and Whitethorn Drive. There is an existing masonry wall on the south side of the site that was constructed with the Rocklin 60 project, primarily to mitigate for freeway noise.
The applicant proposes, as part of the project, to construct new masonry perimeter walls on the west 682682
side of the project site, adjacent to the freeway, and along the northern property line. The western portion of the development area also includes six lots with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, that would be accessed off of Dias Lane, which connects to Brace Road in the Town of Loomis.
The applicant is also proposing to develop a number of additional lots on the east side of Dias Lane.
These lots would also be accessed, directly or indirectly, from Dias Lane and the Town of Loomis. The applicant has proposed to rezone this area to Single Family Residential 15,000 square foot minimum lot size (R1-15). The conceptual development plan would appear to create 19 lots with a minimum lot size of 2,600 +/- square feet. Lots of that size would be inconsistent with the proposed General Plan land use and Zoning designations. Development consistent with the proposed R1-15 zoning for this area would more likely generate 8 to 10 15,000 square foot lots.
Staff Comments for City Council Consideration:
Staff has the following preliminary comments that the City Council may wish to consider:
1. Increased traffic through the adjacent Rocklin 60 and Oak Vista Subdivisions beyond that anticipated by the existing zoning. Under current zoning, the area proposed for 63 lots would be able to accommodate approximately 36 lots. Using an average of 9 daily automobile trips per single family residence, the current zoning would yield approximately 324 daily trips, as compared to the 63 lots which would generate approximately 667 daily trips, an increase of 243 daily trips.
2. Increased traffic on Dias Lane and into the Town of Loomis from the 19 lots proposed on the east side of that street. If this 3.7 +/- acre area was zoned for minimum lot sizes of 12,500 square feet, the area would be able to accommodate approximately 10 lots. Using an average of 9 daily automobile trips per single family residence, the zoning of the minimum lot size 12,500 square foot would yield approximately 90 daily trips, as compared to the 19 lots which would generate approximately 171 daily trips, an increase of 81 daily trips.
3. Compatibility with existing adjacent development, particularly that on and along Dias Lane. When the Rocklin 60 Subdivision was approved on the west side of Diaz Lane, all lots that accessed from Dias Lane were zoned to require a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet for better compatibility with the lots along the east side of Dias Lane that are located within the Town of Loomis and are zoned Residential Estate (maximum allowable density of 2.3 acres per dwelling unit).
4. When the Oak Vista project was approved by the City Council, it included four lots that fronted on Dias Lane. These lots were zoned R1-12.5 to help serve as a transition from the project’s R1-6 lots to the east to the more rural setting of the lots within the Town of Loomis on the east side of Dias Lane.
Prepared by Bret Finning, Planning Services Manager
683683
684684
685685
686686
City Council
Staff Report
Subject:
Approval of the Environmental Document and Selection of the Preferred Design Alternative for Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Date:
November 14, 2023
Submitted By:
Justin Nartker, Director of Public Services
Matt McClure, Public Services Manager
Hunter Young, Deputy Director of Community Development/City Engineer Department:
Public Services
Recommendation:
A. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts and a Mitigation Monitoring Program - Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project.
B. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving Alternative 1 – A Diverging Diamond Interchange Configuration with Bicycle and Pedestrian Use Provided by a Dedicated Overcrossing of Interstate 80 – Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project.
Background:
As a result of traffic congestion on Rocklin Road at Interstate 80 (I-80), the City has long considered significant roadway improvements to mitigate congestion, including an option identified in 2012 for a roundabout configuration. The roundabout option was later determined to be infeasible due to the modeled gridlock within the corridor when Caltrans ramp metering was activated at a yet-to-be determined point in time.
After eliminating the roundabout option, in 2020 the project design team investigated a Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) configuration, and determined it to adequately accommodate future ramp metering needs. Furthermore, the design team modeled this roadway configuration and verified it can accommodate high volumes of traffic during peak periods while retaining the existing 5-lane Rocklin Road underpass. The proposed DDI configuration avoids significant reconstruction of the underpass resulting in an economically feasible upgrade to the interchange.
On July 27, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-127, awarding a design contract to complete the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase fulfilling California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act Item Number 5B.
687687
(NEPA) requirements.
As part of this environmental review process, the project design team considered several design options, all of which included benefits and impacts to pedestrian and bicycle accessible paths of travel through the project site. Following extensive community outreach and public engagement, these options were narrowed down to two alternatives to complement the DDI as follows:
Alternative 1: A pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing (e.g. bridge) above I-80 (Attachment 3); and
Alternative 2: A pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing passing below I-80 and contiguous with the existing roadway (Attachment 4).
After two years of public outreach, review of various design options, and extensive study by the project design team, including assistance from Caltrans, staff are prepared to complete the environmental process and recommend the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). On September 7, 2023, a Public Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project Initial Study with the proposed IS/MND was published in the Placer Herald. A copy of the IS/MND was made available to the public at the Rocklin Public Library, electronically on the City’s website, and also included in the City’s September 2023 newsletter.
While the public and community stakeholders were previously provided numerous opportunities to provide input into the project and the proposed solutions for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity throughout the project corridor, the formal 30-day public comment period associated with the IS/MND commenced on September 7, 2023, and ended on October 9, 2023. Notification emails were also provided directly to stakeholders on September 7, 2023. Stakeholders receiving email notification included members of the City’s email distribution list, all adjacent landowners, nearby residents, and nearby businesses within the project vicinity.
A Notice of Completion was published by the State Clearinghouse on September 7, 2023. The Project was assigned State Clearinghouse #2023090090. The State Clearinghouse distributed copies of the IS/MND to State agencies for comments.
During the 30-day comment period, the City received eight comment submittals (Attachment 3), two of which were considered applicable to the CEQA analysis. The majority of comments received were in support of the project and indicated preference for Alternative 1, a diverging diamond interchange configuration with bicycle and pedestrian use provided by a bridge overcrossing of I-80.
Of the two applicable comments to the CEQA analysis, one commenter expressed concern with the level of CEQA documentation. The other applicable CEQA comment was from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, which included information on regulatory setting and permit requirements for projects within their jurisdiction. Neither of the CEQA comments provided substantive information warranting any changes to the IS/MND.
Once the review period officially closed, the Caltrans Project Delivery Team (PDT) reviewed the comments received from the public along with input provided from the various Caltrans 688688
disciplines/divisions. The PDT ultimately recommended Alternative 1 by a vote of 9-6. It should be noted that the PDT acknowledged that both alternatives provided ADA compliant solutions compared to the existing non-ADA compliant undercrossing. The PDT discussed concerns related to the length of the path of travel associated with Alternative 1, which is approximately 1,700 feet longer than Alternative 2. The PDT also considered the estimated cost differences between the two solutions, recognizing that Alternative 1 is the most cost- effective solution. Lastly, the PDT acknowledged the additional risks associated with constructing Alternative 2 as this impacts the existing I-80 undercrossing.
Having thoroughly studied the environmental document, proposed design alternatives, and associated costs, staff recommend that the City Council take the following actions:
Approve the Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with the required mitigation measures.
Select Alternative 1 (pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing) as the City’s preferred design alternative and direct staff to negotiate a scope and fee with the design team to prepare Alternative 1 construction documents consistent with Caltrans and City standards. Staff will return before the City Council in the near future to amend the design team’s contract to incorporate design, right of way, and utility coordination services.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no direct fiscal impact to the staff recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution A - CEQA
DDI & IS/MND
2. Resolution B - Approving Alternative 1
3. Alternative 1
4. Alternative 2
5. Public Comments
689689
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROCKLIN APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project
WHEREAS, the City of Rocklin's Environmental Coordinator oversaw the consultant preparation of an Initial Study on the Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange project (the "Project") which identified potentially significant effects of the Project; and
WHEREAS, revisions to the Project, were made or agreed to by the applicant before the mitigated negative declaration was released for public review, were determined by the environmental coordinator to avoid or reduce the potentially significant effects t o a level that is clearly less than significant and that there was, therefore, no substantial evidence that the Project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study and mitigated negative declaration of environmental impacts were then prepared, properly noticed, and circulated for public review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rocklin as follows:
Section 1. Based on the Initial Study, the revisions incorporated into the Project, the required mitigation measures, and information received during the public review process, the City Council of the City of Rocklin finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 2. The mitigated negative declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
Section 3. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the City of Rocklin General Plan Environmental Impact Reports which are applicable to this Project have been adopted and undertaken by the City of Rocklin and all other public agencies with authority to mitigate the project impacts or will be undertaken as required by this project.
Section 4. The statements of overriding considerations adopted by the City Council when approving the City of Rocklin General Plan Update are hereby readopted for the purposes of this mitigated negative declaration and the significant identified impacts of this project related to aesthetics, air quality, traff ic circulation, noise, cultural and p aleontological resources, biological resources, and climate change and greenhouse gases.
Section 5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts and Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared in connection with the Project, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, are approved for the Project.
690690
Section 6. The Project Initial Study is attached as Attachment 1 and is incorporated by reference. All other documents , studies, and other mater ials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission has based its decision are located in the office of the Rocklin Community Development Director, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, California 95677.
The custodian of these documents and other materials is the City of Rocklin Community Development Director.
Section 7. Upon approval of the Project by the City Council , the City of Rocklin’s environmental coordinator shall file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of Placer County and, if the project requires a discretionary approval from any state agency, with the State Office of Planning and Research, pursuant to the provisions of section 21152(a) of the Public Resources Code and the State EIR Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14
th day of November, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
____________________________________
Ken Broadway, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Haley Reid, Acting City Clerk
691691
692692
Roc
klin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
August 2023
City of Rocklin
ATTACHMENT 1
693693
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC i
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... iii
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Purpose of an Initial Study .......................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Document Format ......................................................................................................................................1-1
1.3 CEQA Process ...............................................................................................................................................1-1
2. Initial Study Summary and Determination .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Summary Information ...............................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .....................................................................................2-2
2.3 Determination ..............................................................................................................................................2-2
3. Project Description ......................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Project Objectives .......................................................................................................................................3-1
3.3 Project Description and Design Options .............................................................................................3-1
3.3.1 Diverging Diamond Interchange ...........................................................................................3-4
3.3.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Options ...........................................................................3-4
3.4 Construction Methodology ......................................................................................................................3-5
3.5 Permits and Approvals Needed .............................................................................................................3-5
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................................... 4-6
4.1 Evaluation of Environmental Checklist ................................................................................................4-6
4.2 Environmental Checklist ...........................................................................................................................4-7
4.2.1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................................4-7
4.2.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources .........................................................................................4-9
4.2.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................... 4-10
4.2.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................... 4-14
4.2.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. 4-27
4.2.6 Energy .......................................................................................................................................... 4-29
4.2.7 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................... 4-30
4.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................... 4-32
4.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................... 4-34
4.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 4-38
4.2.11 Land Use and Planning .......................................................................................................... 4-42
4.2.12 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................... 4-44
4.2.13 Noise ............................................................................................................................................ 4-45
4.2.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................ 4-47
4.2.15 Public Services .......................................................................................................................... 4-48
4.2.16 Recreation .................................................................................................................................. 4-49
4.2.17 Transportation .......................................................................................................................... 4-50
4.2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 4-52
4.2.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................... 4-53
4.2.20 Wildfire ........................................................................................................................................ 4-54
4.2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. 4-55
5. References ........................................................................................................................................................ 5-1 694694
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC ii
Appendix
Appendix A Species Lists
Appendix B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Tables
1 Construction-related Emissions .......................................................................................................................... 4-11 2 Construction-related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................... 4-32 3 Annual CO2e Emissions and Vehicle Miles Traveled .................................................................................... 4-33 4 Section 303(d) Impairments for Downstream Receiving Water Bodies ................................................ 4-39 Figures
1 Project Location ...........................................................................................................................................................1-3 2 Option 1 – Diverging Diamond Interchange with Overcrossing ..................................................................3-2 3 Option 2 – Diverging Diamond Interchange with Undercrossing ...............................................................3-3 4 Biological Study Area.............................................................................................................................................. 4-15 5 Habitat Types within Project Area ...................................................................................................................... 4-17 6 Waters of the U.S. ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-23 7 Land Use ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4-43
695695
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
2020 MTP/SCS 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy AB Assembly Bill
APE area of potential effects
ASR Archaeological Survey
BMP best management practice
BSA biological study area
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resource Board
CCV California Central Valley
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CO carbon monoxide
DDI diverging diamond interchange
ESA environmentally sensitive area
GHG greenhouse gas
HPSR Historic Property Survey Report
Interstate 80 I-80
ISA Initial Site Assessment
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MSAT mobile source air toxics
MTCO2e/yr metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOx nitrogen oxides
PA First Amended Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
PCAPCD Placer County Air Pollution Control District
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PCTPA Placer County Transportation Planning Agency
696696
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC iv
PM post mile
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter RCEM Road Construction Emissions Model
ROG reactive organic gas
SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Governments
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SR State Route
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TMDL total maximum daily load
TMP Traffic Management Plan
UAIC United Auburn Indian Community
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
697697
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 1-1
1. Introduction
The City of Rocklin is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency and sponsor for the proposed Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 (I-80) Interchange Project in Placer County, California. The project is located at Rocklin Road and the I-80 Interchange from post mile (PM) 4.1 to PM 7.5 (Figure 1).
1.1 Purpose of an Initial Study
CEQA was enacted in 1970 for the purpose of providing decision makers and the public with information regarding environmental effects of proposed projects, identifying means of avoiding environmental damage, and disclosing to the public the reasons behind a project’s approval even if it leads to environmental damage. The City of Rocklin has determined the proposed project is subject to CEQA, and no exemptions apply. Therefore, preparation of an initial study is required.
An initial study is a preliminary analysis conducted by the lead agency, in consultation with other agencies (responsible or trustee agencies, as applicable), to determine whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study concludes that the project, with mitigation, may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report should be prepared; otherwise the lead agency may adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration.
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) and State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq.).
1.2 Document Format
This Initial Study is organized into five sections as follows:
Section 1, Introduction: provides an overview of the project and the CEQA environmental documentation process.
Section 2, Summary Information and Determination: provides project summary information, listing of environmental factors potentially affected, and lead agency determination.
Section 3, Project Description: provides the project objective, a description of the project and design options, construction methods, and permits and approvals needed.
Section 4, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: provides a detailed discussion of the environmental factors that would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the screening from the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist.
Section 5, References: provides a list of reference materials used during the preparation of this Initial Study.
1.3 CEQA Process
To begin the CEQA process, the lead agency identifies a proposed project. The lead agency then prepares an initial study to identify the preliminary environmental impacts of the proposed project. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA provisions to analyze the possible environmental impacts of the project so that the public and the City of Rocklin City Council can take these impacts into account when considering action on the proposed project.
698698
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 1-2
During the project approval process, persons and/or agencies may address either the Environmental Services staff or the City Council regarding the project. Public notification of agenda items for the City Council is posted 72 hours prior to the public meeting. The Council agenda can be obtained by contacting the Office of the City Clerk at City Hall, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA 95667 or via the internet at http://www.rocklin.ca.us.
Within 5 days of project approval, the City of Rocklin will file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. The Notice of Determination will be posted by the County Clerk within 24 hours of receipt. This begins a 30-day statute of limitations on legal challenges to the approval under CEQA. The ability to challenge the approval in court may be limited to those persons who objected to the approval of the project, and to issues that were presented to the lead agency by any person, either orally or in writing, during the public comment period.
699699
§¨¦80
Rocklin Rd
Granite Dr
Rocklin RdRocklin Rd
Aguilar Rd
\\DC1VS01\GISPROJ\R\ROCKLINCITYOF\ROCKLINRD_I80\MAPFILES\REPORT\2022\CEQA\FIG1_PROJECT_LOCATION.MXD- Date: 12/6/2022 0 400200
Feet
$
Project Location
Legend
Project Area
Figure 1
Project Location
Rocklin Road and
Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Rocklin, California
700700
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 2-1
2. Initial Study Summary and Determination
2.1 Summary Information
Project Title:
Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rocklin
4081 Alvis Court
Rocklin, CA 95677
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Matt McClure, Public Services Manager
(916) 625-5277
Project Location:
The project is in the City of Rocklin at the Rocklin Road/I-80 Interchange from PM 4.1 to PM 7.5, Placer County, California.
General Plan Designation:
Public right-of-way within project footprint. Project is adjacent to areas designated Recreation/Conservation and Retail Commercial.
Zoning:
Public right-of-way within project footprint. Project is adjacent to areas designated Recreation/Conservation and Retail Commercial.
Project Description:
The project would convert the existing Rocklin Road/I-80 conventional diamond interchange into a diverging diamond interchange. The project includes two design options: Option 1, bicycle and pedestrian use provided by a dedicated overcrossing; and Option 2, bicycle and pedestrian use provided by a dedicated undercrossing.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The regional setting west of I-80 is characterized by developed commercial and landscaped areas.
The area east of I-80 is characterized by developed commercial, oak woodland, and a small area of riparian habitat around Secret Ravine. The project footprint is located within City of Rocklin and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) public right-of-way, with adjacent private commercial property and public lands, including Sierra College.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required:
Caltrans
701701
702702
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 3-1
3. Project Description
3.1 Introduction
This section describes the project and the two options developed to meet the project objectives, while avoiding or minimizing environmental impacts. The project would convert the existing Rocklin Road/I-80 conventional diamond interchange into a diverging diamond interchange (DDI).
The project includes two design options: Option 1, bicycle and pedestrian use provided by a dedicated overcrossing; and Option 2, bicycle and pedestrian use provided by a dedicated undercrossing. The configurations for each of the options are shown on Figures 2 and 3.
The project is within the City of Rocklin at the Rocklin Road/I-80 Interchange, which is a standard diamond-type interchange. The total length of the project along I-80 is approximately 7,500 feet.
The project includes the addition of a turn lane on the eastbound off-ramp, installation of ramp meters to the eastbound and westbound on-ramps, addition of a 2,450-foot acceleration lane to the westbound on-ramp, and the addition of a 300-foot acceleration lane to the eastbound on-ramp. The total length of the project along Rocklin Road is approximately 7,900 feet, including painted bike lanes on Rocklin Road from 5th Street to El Don Drive, 1,300 feet on Meyer Street, and 1,200 feet on 5th Street, both from Rocklin Road to the north. Throughout this stretch, Rocklin Road is a four-lane arterial road.
On the south side of Rocklin Road, there exists a narrow (4.5-foot) sidewalk, and bicyclists must either share the vehicle lane or use the sidewalk. There are no existing pedestrian or bicycle features on the north side of Rocklin Road.
3.2 Project Objectives
The objectives of this project are to improve pedestrian and bicycle access through the interchange, increase movement of people and goods, and enhance safety. Currently, the existing roadway provides a narrow (4.5-foot-wide) sidewalk on the south side of Rocklin Road through the undercrossing. There is no pedestrian access on the north side of the road, and no separate or delineated bicycle lanes or other off-road provision for bicyclists exists through the undercrossing. Additionally, current traffic volumes, including traffic associated with Sierra College, and morning and afternoon peak commuting hours result in operational issues along Rocklin Road. Sierra College is a community college with several locations including a campus center in Rocklin that is approximately 600 feet east of the eastern end of the project site. The Rocklin Campus spans 311 acres and enrolls approximately 14,000 students (2020–2021).
Therefore, a pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing or undercrossing needs to be constructed to ensure the safety and improve crossing of I-80, and the interchange needs to be modified to provide operational improvements that would increase movement of people and goods and enhance safety for all modes of travel.
3.3 Project Description and Design Options
The project consists of the following two design options:
Option 1. A DDI configuration with bicycle and pedestrian use provided by a dedicated overcrossing. Option 2. A DDI (same as Option 1) with bicycle and pedestrian use provided by a dedicated undercrossing.
Both Options 1 and 2 would meet the project objectives, are technically feasible, and would not have significant environmental impacts. At this time, a preferred option has not been selected. 703703
Pedestrian/Bike
Overcrossing
Hidden Glen
Dr
Gra nite Dr
China Ga rde n Rd
W
a
rd
L
n
Aguilar
R
d
R o c k l i n R d
§¨¦
80 Pedestrian/Bike
Pathway
Stairs
\\DC1VS01\GISPROJ\R\ROCKLINCITYOF\ROCKLINRD_I80\MAPFILES\REPORT\2022\CEQA\FIG2_OPTION1_OVERCROSSING.MXD- Date: 12/6/2022 0 250125
Feet
$
Project Location
Figure 2
Option 1 - Diverging Diamond Interchange
with Overcrossing
Rocklin Road and
Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Rocklin, California
704704
Pedestrian/Bike
Undercrossing
Hidden Glen
Dr
Gra nite Dr
China Ga rde n Rd
W
a
rd
L
n
A
guilar
R
d
R o c k l i n R d
§¨¦
80 Pedestrian/Bike
Pathway
\\DC1VS01\GISPROJ\R\ROCKLINCITYOF\ROCKLINRD_I80\MAPFILES\REPORT\2022\CEQA\FIG3_OPTION2_UNDERCROSSING.MXD- Date: 12/5/2022 0 250125
Feet
$
Project Location
Figure 3
Option 2 - Diverging Diamond Interchange
with Undercrossing
Rocklin Road and
Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Rocklin, California
705705
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 3-4
3.3.1 Diverging Diamond Interchange
Both Options 1 and 2 would convert the existing conventional diamond interchange into a DDI.
This would be the first DDI in the 11 counties of Caltrans District 3; however, a DDI is currently open to traffic at the SR 120/Union Road interchange in Manteca, California, and in several states outside of California. The Federal Highway Administration has conducted studies on DDIs with the following results (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/crossover/fhwasa14039.pdf):
A potential conflict exists each time a vehicle, pedestrian, or bicycle crosses or turns across the path of another direction of traffic. Compared to a conventional diamond interchange, the DDI reduces vehicle-to-vehicle conflict points by nearly 50 percent and eliminates many of the most severe crash types. An evaluation of the Springfield, Missouri, DDI compared crashes from the first year after construction to the 5-year average before the DDI and found the following:
– Left-turn crashes were totally eliminated
– Right-angle crashes were reduced 72 percent
– Rear-end crashes were reduced 29 percent
– Total crashes were reduced 46 percent
Figures 2 and 3 show the interchange configuration for vehicle traffic, illustrating how the diverging diamond concept would function in terms of vehicle flow. This configuration would be the same under both Options 1 and 2.
In addition to the traffic flow/lane configuration features shown on Figures 2 and 3, Options 1 and 2 also share the following common features:
Acquisition of additional right-of-way. West of the interchange, Rocklin Road would be slightly widened to the south, requiring small “slivers” of new right-of-way from three commercial properties, totaling 0.22 acre. The right-of-way requirements east of the interchange vary by option. – The Option 1 overcrossing would require full acquisition of the 4.02-acre vacant commercial property at the northeast corner of the interchange.
– Under Option 2, a full acquisition of this property would not be needed – a sliver of land totaling 0.36 acre would be acquired along Rocklin Road. Minor utility relocations to accommodate the diverging diamond. Rocklin Road contains many underground utilities, but most utility impacts would be completely avoided. Minor reconfiguration of driveway access into and out of the ARCO/AM-PM located at the eastbound offramp.
Minor sidewalk repairs east of I-80, both on the north and south sides of Rocklin Road. Lengthening the I-80 westbound on-ramp by 450 feet and eastbound on-ramp by 900 feet. Installation of ramp meters at the two freeway on-ramps.
3.3.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Options
Under Option 1, a pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing with ramps would be provided over the existing interchange, just north of Rocklin Road (Figure 2). Under Option 2, a pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing would be provided in a new undercrossing just north of Rocklin Road, abutting the existing overcrossing structure (Figure 3).
Construction of both the Option 1 overcrossing and the Option 2 undercrossing would occur concurrent with the DDI construction.
706706
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 3-5
3.4 Construction Methodology
Construction sequencing and schedule depends on the selected option. For Option 1, construction of the DDI and pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing is expected to require 24 months of work. For Option 2, the DDI and pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing is expected to take 36 months. Although details would vary by option, the general sequence of construction activities is expected to be as follows:
The pedestrian and bicycle improvements would be constructed first to minimize disruption to vehicle traffic along Rocklin Road. Temporary connections of the new facility to the existing sidewalks would be constructed to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle movements during construction on Rocklin Road.
Traffic shifts on I-80 would be implemented dependent on the preferred option. – Option 1 Overcrossing. Short-term and long-term lane closures and nighttime freeway closures are anticipated to implement the traffic shifts. – Option 2 Undercrossing. Short-term and long-term lane closures are anticipated to implement the traffic shifts.
Rocklin Road would be partially closed within the I-80 undercrossing area for the duration of construction, with exact lane restrictions and detours to be determined based on the preferred option. – Option 1 Overcrossing. Under Option 1, no long-term closures are anticipated. – Option 2 Undercrossing. Under Option 2, long-term lane closures along Rocklin Road would be required for pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing construction. Widening of Rocklin Road and realigned ramp terminals would be constructed prior to the median and splitter islands.
Freeway ramps would remain open as much as possible, but access may be restricted, with detours in place during extended periods when the lanes are being reconfigured. Roadway improvements include demolition of the existing pavement down to the sub-grade level, demolition of adjacent features including sidewalks and landscape features not compatible with the design, minor regrading of the subsurface, laying new asphalt, and restriping to meet the configuration shown on Figures 2 and 3.
Staging of construction equipment and materials would occur in the interchange infield areas that are not being affected by the construction.
During construction, standard construction equipment would be used, such as graders, backhoes, and pavers. Construction of the pedestrian overcrossing or undercrossing may require additional, specialized equipment; but no disruptive methods such as blasting or pile driving are expected to be used.
3.5 Permits and Approvals Needed
The project would require encroachment permits from both Caltrans and the City of Rocklin. No other permits are anticipated.
707707
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-6
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
4.1 Evaluation of Environmental Checklist
1) A brief explanation is provided for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question.
A ”No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer is explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site elements, cumulative as well as project-level impacts, indirect as well as direct impacts, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) If a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. 4) Answers of “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” describe the mitigation measures agreed to by the applicant and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures and supporting explanation from earlier EIRs or Negative Declaration may be cross-referenced and incorporated by reference.
5) Earlier analyses may be used where an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration, and the City of Rocklin intends to use tiering. All prior EIRs and Negative Declarations and certifying resolutions are available for review at the Rocklin Economic and Community Development Department. In this case, a brief discussion will identify the following:
a) Which effects are within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and whether such effects are addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis; and
b) For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” the mitigation measures which are incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
708708
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-7
4.2 Environmental Checklist
4.2.1 Aesthetics
Would the project:
Question CEQA Determination
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant
Impact
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant
Impact
CEQA Significance Determinations for Aesthetics
A visual impact assessment memorandum was completed for the project (Jacobs 2022a). I-80, Rocklin Road, and the roads adjacent to the project area are not designated as scenic or historic byways, nor do they travel through any historic districts. The assessment indicated that the project, with either Option 1 or Option 2, would not adversely affect any “Designated Scenic Resource” as defined by the CEQA statutes or guidelines, or by Caltrans policy.
The project would convert the existing conventional diamond interchange at Rocklin Road and I-80 into a DDI. The project includes two design options: Option 1, bicycle and pedestrian use provided by a dedicated overcrossing; and Option 2, bicycle and pedestrian use provided by a dedicated undercrossing. The project would also include minor elements such as lighting, signage, on-ramp meters, and driveway reconfiguration at adjacent properties. Expansion of the interchange would require vegetation and tree removal in the landscaped interchange quadrants.
Option 1 would include an approximate 29-foot-high pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing of I-80, additional lighting, more pavement and grading, and vegetation loss (greater than under Option 2). Additionally, Option 1 would occupy larger areas of the viewshed and would be more visible to commercial or retail neighbors and travelers along I-80 and Rocklin Road compared to Option 2. However, Option 2 would also introduce noticeable changes such as a larger interchange and loss of vegetation. a, b) No Impact
The project would not have a substantial, adverse effect on scenic vistas or damage scenic resources because the project is not on, or adjacent to, an officially designated State Scenic Highway, according to the Caltrans California Scenic Highway Mapping System. State Route (SR) 49 is the nearest scenic highway, but it is 10.5 miles northeast of the project site (Caltrans 2018). The City of Rocklin has not identified or designated any scenic vistas within the city limits. Additionally, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. Therefore, there would be no impact. 709709
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-8
c) Less than Significant Impact
During construction, the appearance of construction equipment and staging areas on I-80 would be temporary and not out of character for a transportation corridor. During operation, the project would create a noticeable change in the physical characteristics of the existing environment through the proposed pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing as described in Option 1 only, the larger interchange, and the loss of vegetation. Short-distance views of the project would likely only be available to travelers (i.e., motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians) on I-80 and Rocklin Road, and to some commercial and retail neighbors, due to terrain and existing vegetative cover. Visual changes would be noticeable; however, the project elements would be visually consistent with the character of the corridor.
Under Option 1, the elevation and profile of the proposed pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing would not overwhelm the scale of I-80 and would not change the existing suburban setting. The project is located in an urbanized area and would not conflict with zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality in the area; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact
The project corridor currently contains roadway lighting and light from adjacent businesses.
In addition, mobile nighttime light is primarily from headlights of motor vehicles. The project would result in new roadway lighting and security lighting installed under Option 1 or Option 2 for new pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing or undercrossing facilities. Installation of new lighting would comply with Caltrans lighting design standards and City of Rocklin policies to reduce substantial light or glare with the potential to adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Construction lighting would be limited to the area of work, and light trespass would be avoided with the use of directional lighting, shielding, and other standard measures as needed. Because the project area is within a transportation corridor with no sensitive receptors, potential impacts from light and glare would be less than significant.
710710
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-9
4.2.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources
Would the project:
Question
CEQA
Determination
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
CEQA Significance Determinations for Agriculture and Forest Resources a, b, c, d, e) No Impact
The project area is designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as urban and built-up, and grazing land (California Department of Conservation 2018). The project would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance to non-agricultural use because no such farmlands are within the project limits. The California Timberland Productivity Act discourages premature or unnecessary conversion of timberland to urban and other uses and discourages expansion of urban services into timberland (California Department of Tax and Fee Administration 2022). The California Timberland Productivity Act does not apply because there are no forest resources or timberlands in the project vicinity or at the project site.
Furthermore, no portion of the project area is zoned agricultural, forest land or timberland, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, there would be no impact to or conflict with any agricultural, forest land or timberland, or Williamson Act land resources.
711711
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-10
4.2.3 Air Quality
Would the project:
Question CEQA Determination
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than Significant
Impact
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant
Impact
CEQA Significance Determinations for Air Quality
The project is located in Placer County in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin under jurisdiction of Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA). However, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is the designated metropolitan planning agency for the Sacramento region and is responsible for all regional transportation planning activities in Placer County. The study areas is currently designated as nonattainment for ozone (federal and State standards), PM
10 (State standard), and PM2.5 (federal standard).
a) Less than Significant Impact
Temporary construction emissions and construction-related activities would comply with federal, State, and local regulations and policies. The project is included in PCTPA’s Final 2040 Regional Transportation Plan and SACOG’s 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020 MTP/SCS). The project is also included in SACOG’s 2023-26 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (2023-26 MTIP), Amendment #2 to the 2020 MTP/SCS and the accompanying Air Quality Conformity Analysis. The project would not interfere with timely implementation of transportation control measures identified in the applicable State Implementation Plan and regional conformity analysis. Although construction-related activities would result in emissions, these activities would be temporary, and the project would not conflict with the region’s air quality plan. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact
Construction-generated air pollutants include emissions resulting from material processing by onsite construction equipment, workers commuting to and from the project, and traffic delays due to construction. The emissions would be produced at different rates throughout the project depending on the construction-related activities occurring in the phases of construction. Construction-generated air pollutants are expected to be temporary and short term. Emissions from construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines are also anticipated and would include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and directly emitted PM10 and PM2.5.
Construction emissions were evaluated using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s Road Construction Emissions Model (RCEM, Version 9.0.0). Construction emissions were estimated for each of the three activities of constructing the lane extensions, intersection/interchange, 712712
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-11
and bridge widening. Construction emissions from the three activities were then combined as follows to estimate the emissions from each of the design options:
Option 1 (Overcrossing) Emissions
Option 2 (Undercrossing) Emissions
The RCEM estimates emissions from four roadway construction phases: grubbing/land clearing, grading/excavation, drainage/utilities/subgrade, and paving. Project construction information was provided by the engineering design team.
Construction‐related emissions for the proposed project are presented in Table 1. Options 1 and 2 would have similar construction emissions. However, Option 2 would have higher overall emissions due the longer construction schedule compared to Option 1.
Table 1. Construction-related Emissions
Option
ROG
(lb/day)
CO
(lb/day)
NOx
(lb/day)
PM10
(lb/day)
PM2.5
(lb/day)
SO2
(lb/day)
Option 1 0.48 5.93 4.94 9.01 2.01 0.02
Option 2 0.98 10.95 9.63 9.20 2.18 0.03
PCAPCD CEQA Thresholds 82 None 82 82 None None
Source: PCAPCD 2017
Notes:
lb/day = pound(s) per day
ROG = reactive organic gas
SO2 = sulfur dioxide
Based on the modeling conducted, short-term construction emissions would not exceed PCAPCD’s applicable thresholds of significance for ROG, NOx, or PM10 emissions. PCAPCD does not have significance thresholds for CO, PM2.5, and SO2. As a result, construction impacts would be less than significant.
The project would comply with State and local air district’s regulations to avoid or minimize the construction emissions. Recommended Construction Mitigation Measures as listed in PCAPCD’s 2017 CEQA Handbook, Appendix C (PCAPCD 2017), which apply to all projects, would be implemented to minimize emissions during the construction phase as follows:
Project construction will comply with the applicable fugitive dust emission control requirements in PCAPCD’s Regulation 2, Rule 228, Fugitive Dust.
Water or a dust palliative will be applied to the site and equipment as often as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions.
Construction equipment and vehicles will be properly tuned and maintained. All construction equipment will use low-sulfur fuel as required by California Code of Regulations Title 17, Section 93114.
Equipment and materials storage sites will be located as far away from residential and park uses as practicable. Construction areas will be kept clean and orderly. Trackout reduction measures, such as gravel pads at project access points to minimize dust and mud deposits on roads affected by construction traffic, will be used. 713713
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-12
All transported loads of soils and wet materials will be covered before transport, or adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck) will be provided to minimize emission of dust during transportation.
Dust and mud that are deposited on paved, public roads due to construction activity and traffic will be promptly and regularly removed to reduce particulate matter emissions. To the extent feasible, construction traffic will be scheduled and routed to reduce congestion and related air quality impacts caused by idling vehicles along local roads during peak travel times. Soil stabilization measures, such as mulch, will be installed or vegetation planted as soon as practicable after grading to reduce windblown particulate matter in the area.
Potential air quality impacts from the operation of the project are primarily associated with the redistribution of vehicles on the new interchange along I-80 and local street improvements made to Rocklin Road. Impacts generated from the redistribution of traffic include incremental changes to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and average daily traffic. Changes in these traffic patterns along the roadway could potentially change the overall concentrations of pollutant levels from vehicle exhaust emissions throughout the project area. VMT in the study area would be higher in future years due to regional growth. Because the project would not increase highway capacity or induce additional traffic to the study area, VMT with the project would be similar to no-project conditions. The project is anticipated to have long-term benefits to air quality by relieving traffic congestion and reducing travel and idling time, thus benefitting air quality in the study area. Operational emissions generated by the proposed project would not violate or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, including the nonattainment status of Placer County for ozone and PM
2.5. Overall impacts to air quality from criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact
Some exposed population groups―including children, the elderly, and the ill―can be especially vulnerable to airborne chemicals and irritants. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, outdoor athletic fields, and elementary schools.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day. Generally, projects should use the criteria established in CARB’s handbook. Any project placing sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a major roadway or freeway may have the potential to expose those receptors to toxic air contaminants.
Although no parks, hospitals, or convalescent homes are located within 500 feet of the project, a community of mobile homes is situated approximately 30 feet from the I-80 westbound travel lanes, south of Rocklin Road and west of I-80. Just east of the I-80 eastbound travel lanes are single-family residences along Hidden Glen Drive, approximately 460 feet to the east of the I-80 eastbound off-ramp. Approximately 600 feet to the east of the I-80 eastbound ramps, along Rocklin Road, are a few single-family residences. Additionally, Sierra College is located to the east of I-80. However, the closest building at Sierra College to the interchange is located over 500 feet away.
As previously discussed, the proposed project would not exceed the PCAPCD thresholds of significance during construction and would likely not cause or contribute to the exposure of sensitive receptors to ground-level concentrations in excess of health-protective levels. 714714
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-13
The project would improve traffic operations in a populated area with nearby sensitive receptors.
Although the project has a high potential for mobile source air toxics (MSATs) because of the proximity to populated areas, implementation of the project would alleviate local traffic congestion.
Also, MSATs would be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from other sensitive receptors.
In the design year under the build alternatives, travel on portions of I-80 decrease, and travel increases on Rocklin Road. The proposed project would decrease congestion on Rocklin Road by improving pedestrian and bicycle access. These improvements would reduce congestion on Rocklin Road and allow drivers to take shorter, more direct routes to their destinations. On a regional basis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, would over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, would cause regionwide and corresponding localized MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.
d) Less than Significant Impact
Projects that are often associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include these elements that are typically associated with odor generation.
During construction, exhaust from equipment and activities associated with the application of pavement, finishes, or paints may produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites.
Such odors would be temporary sources of nuisance to adjacent uses and would not affect a substantial number of people. Odors associated with construction would be temporary and intermittent in nature. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
715715
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-14
4.2.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
Question CEQA Determination
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or NOAA Fisheries?
Less than Significant Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less than Significant Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact
CEQA Significance Determinations for Biological Resources A natural environment study was prepared to evaluate the effects of the project on biological resources, including sensitive plant and wildlife species (Jacobs 2022b). This section summarizes the findings of the study.
A biological study area (BSA) of approximately 21.5 acres was identified to encompass the project area. The BSA includes City of Rocklin and Caltrans right-of-way and is surrounded by developed commercial areas along with maintained landscaped areas. The northern portion of the BSA includes oak woodland, and a small portion of the eastern BSA includes riparian habitat and Secret Ravine (Figure 4).
716716
§¨¦80
Rocklin Rd
Granite Dr
Rocklin RdRocklin Rd
Aguilar Rd
\\DC1VS01\GISPROJ\R\ROCKLINCITYOF\ROCKLINRD_I80\MAPFILES\REPORT\2022\CEQA\FIG4_BSA.MXD- Date: 12/6/2022 0 400200
Feet
$
Project Location
Legend
Biological Study Area
Figure 4
Biological Study Area
Rocklin Road and
Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Rocklin, California
717717
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-16
An unofficial species list was obtained from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office through the Information for Planning and Consultation online system on December 27, 2021 (USFWS 2021). A list of federally endangered and threatened species under the jurisdiction of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries that may occur within the Secret Ravine U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle was obtained from NOAA Fisheries on December 29, 2021. These species lists are provided in Appendix A.
The project does not occur within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.
4.2.4.1 Vegetation and Wildlife Communities
A total of five terrestrial land cover types or vegetation community types were characterized in the BSA during the reconnaissance survey (Figure 5). These communities include disturbed/developed habitats, ornamental landscape, blue oak-foothill woodland, remnant blue oak-foothill woodland, and riparian, as discussed further below.
Disturbed/Developed Habitats
Approximately 20.16 acres of the BSA are characterized as disturbed or developed habitats. Areas mapped as developed include paved roads and highways (including existing on-ramps and off-ramps), parking lots, commercial and residential buildings, and other hardscapes such as walkways and bicycle paths. Areas mapped as disturbed include bare ground, road shoulders, and graded areas.
Introduced annual grasses are the dominant plant species in disturbed habitat. Common species dominant in disturbed habitat include species such as wild oats (Avena spp.) and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and common forbs including redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium). These areas provide very low value to wildlife; however, the wildlife species that are present in adjacent annual grassland and riparian habitats could move through these areas periodically.
Ornamental Landscape
Approximately 3.24 acres of the BSA are characterized as ornamental landscape. Areas mapped as ornamental landscape contain vegetation consisting primarily of mature pine trees (Pinus sp.), eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus sp.), and rosemary shrubs (Salvia sp.). This vegetation type was used to map groves of ornamentally planted trees and shrubs with non-native species components within Caltrans right-of-way along the on-ramps and off-ramps of I-80.
Blue Oak-foothill Woodland
Approximately 0.41 acre of the BSA is characterized as blue oak-foothill woodland. Areas mapped as blue oak-foothill woodland are dominated by blue oak (Quercus douglasii), valley oak (Q. lobata), interior live oak (Q. wislizeni), and foothill pine (Pinus sabiniana), with an understory of herbaceous annual species found in the annual grassland communities.
Remnant Blue Oak-foothill Woodland
Approximately 1.21 acre of the BSA is characterized as remnant blue oak-foothill woodland. Remnant blue oak-foothill woodland is characterized as blue oak-foothill woodland habitat integrated into the current landscape design. The habitat value of this area has been altered by the development of residential and commercial structures, roadways, and other urban facilities. 718718
\\DC1VS01\GISPROJ\R\ROCKLINCITYOF\ROCKLINRD_I80\MAPFILES\REPORT\2022\CEQA\FIG5_HABITAT_TYPES.MXD- Date: 12/6/2022 0 400200
Feet
$
Project Location
Legend
Project Area (25.75 acres)
Habitat Type
Disturbed/Developed (20.16 acres)
Blue Oak Foothill Woodland (0.41 acre)
Ornamental Landscape (3.24 acres)
Remnant Blue Oak Foothill Woodland (1.21 acre)
Riparian (<0.01 acre)
Figure 5
Habitat Types within Project Area
Rocklin Road and
Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Rocklin, California
719719
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-18
Riparian
Less than 0.01 acre of the BSA is characterized as riparian habitat. The riparian habitat within the BSA runs along Secret Ravine. Areas mapped as riparian contain vegetation consisting primarily of valley oak, willow (Salix sp.), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and box elder (Acer negundo). Along the creek banks, the understory is a mix of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). In floodplain areas, the understory is dominated by annual grassland and horticultural and native shrub and tree species. Riparian vegetation filters pollutants in runoff; supports bank stability; and provides shade, cover, and food sources for aquatic organisms, and habitat and food for non-aquatic species.
4.2.4.2 Aquatic Habitats
Aquatic resources within the BSA consist of Secret Ravine, which is a perennial drainage. Secret Ravine is a perennial tributary of Miners Ravine Creek, which flows into Dry Creek near Sunrise Boulevard and I-80 in Placer County, California. Dry Creek is formed by the confluence of Secret Ravine and Antelope Creek. Secret Ravine lies within the cities of Rocklin, Loomis, and Roseville, as well as unincorporated parts of Placer County; its entire length runs near the I-80 freeway. Secret Ravine passes through the campus of Sierra College and runs under Rocklin Road.
Secret Ravine provides spawning and rearing habitat for the federally threatened California Central Valley (CCV) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) distinct population segment and spawning habitat for fall- and late-fall-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) record, the last known occurrence of CCV steelhead distinct population segment within Secret Ravine was in 2005, with evidence of spawning in 2007.
Sucker Ravine is also a tributary to Miners Ravine Creek. Portions of Sucker Ravine can be found just west of the BSA along Rocklin Road and within the southern portion of the BSA where ramp improvements are proposed along westbound I-80.
Riverine habitat such as these intermittent drainages may provide potential habitat for amphibians and reptile species such as the Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla), western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus), and western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata). Mammals expected to occur in this habitat include raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and bat species such as Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) and big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), which may forage above riverine habitat during summer evenings. Riparian trees and shrubs provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for a multitude of bird species, including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), and black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans).
Invasive Plant Species
Several invasive plant species were identified during the reconnaissance survey. Based on the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC 2021), the rating of the invasive plant species observed ranges from limited to high. The single occurrence of the high ranking was Himalayan blackberry, which occurs within the BSA within the riparian habitat. a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Special-status Plant Species
The BSA provides only marginally suitable habitat for rare plants, and no special-status plants were observed during the field survey. Based on conditions observed in the field and the nature of the proposed work, it is unlikely that any special-status plant species would be affected by the project.
Therefore, implementation of the project would have no impact on special-status plant species. 720720
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-19
Special-status Animal Species
Based on a literature review, the NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species lists, CNDDB database records (Appendix A), and field survey results, the following special-status animal species have a moderate potential to occur within the BSA or vicinity: valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), Chinook salmon, CCV steelhead, California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), western pond turtle, Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), purple martin (Progne subis), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and pallid bat (Antrozus pallidus). Due to the lack of suitable habitat, only Swainson’s hawk, purple martin, white-tailed kite, and pallid bat have the potential to occur within the BSA. These species are discussed in the sections below. For all other special-status animal species, there would be no impact.
Special-status Bird Species, Migratory Birds, and Raptors Swainson’s hawk, purple martin, and white-tailed kite have the potential to occur within the BSA.
Habitat and potential for presence of these species are as follows:
Swainson’s hawk is a California State threatened species. Swainson’s hawk breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, and savannahs. This species requires adjacent suitable foraging habitat supporting rodent populations. There is moderate potential for Swainson’s hawk to be present within the BSA. Suitable nesting trees and foraging habitat are present within the vicinity of the BSA. No CNDDB occurrences are within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Purple martin is a California species of special concern. Purple martin is present in the greater Sacramento area, and it nests in weep holes in overpasses and bridges. Foraging occurs near riparian or woodland areas with an abundance of insects. There is moderate potential for purple martin to be present within the BSA. Marginally suitable foraging and nesting habitat is present within the vicinity of the BSA. There is one CNDDB occurrence within a 5-mile radius of the BSA, approximately 2 miles southwest of the BSA.
White-tailed kite is a fully protected species. White-tailed kite uses substantial groves of dense, broad-leafed deciduous trees used for nesting and roosting. It forages in open areas and inhabits rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous woodland. There is moderate potential for white-tailed kite to be present within the BSA; however, there is no suitable nesting habitat present within the BSA. There are two CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the BSA, with the closest occurrence approximately
4.25 miles north of the BSA.
Five terrestrial land cover types or vegetation community types that support migratory birds and raptors were characterized in the BSA. Ornamental landscape makes up 3.24 acres of the BSA and is present along Rocklin Road and the westbound I-80 on-ramp, westbound I-80 off-ramp, and eastbound I-80 off-ramp. Riparian habitat within the BSA covers less than 0.01 acre and is found in the eastern corner of the BSA. Blue oak foothill woodland and remnant blue oak foothill woodland habitat within the BSA covers 1.62 acres and is found along the eastbound I-80 on-ramp as well as the northern portion of the site. Numerous migratory bird species have the potential to occur in these land cover types. Special-status bird species (including bird species listed as Birds of Conservation Concern) with a likelihood of occurring within the BSA include oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), Lawrence’s goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), California yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), yellow-billed magpie (Pica nuttalli), Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), and California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum). 721721
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-20
Mature trees within the BSA provide potential nesting habitat for common raptor species, protected by Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), that use the project area for roosting, nesting, and foraging year-round. Raptors that could nest within oak woodland habitat within the BSA include Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus), red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and barn owl (Tyto alba). In the Sacramento Valley, most of these raptors have an approximate breeding and nesting season from February 15 to September 15. Tree-nesting raptors may nest in the large trees and in riparian and oak woodland habitats adjacent to the BSA.
Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and purple martin are three special-status species that have a medium potential to move in and out of the area during the breeding season and have the potential to nest in surrounding habitat. There are no recorded CNDDB occurrences for Swainson’s hawk, one recorded CNDDB occurrence for purple martin, and two recorded CNDDB occurrences for white-tailed kite within a 5-mile radius of the BSA.
Portions of the BSA are characterized by disturbed, bare ground areas. These include graded areas, bare soil, and paved areas. These areas provide very low value to migratory birds and raptors; however, the bird species that are present in adjacent annual grassland and riparian habitats could move through these areas periodically.
Project construction would involve grading of ground vegetation, along with shrub and tree trimming and removal. Potential effects to nesting raptors, special-status bird species, and other migratory bird species may occur during the breeding season (February 15 through September 1).
Project effects can be avoided by conducting a focused survey for nesting birds prior to disturbance of structures, construction, or removal of vegetation. Disturbances or removal of vegetation outside of the bird breeding season reduces the chances of having active bird nests within the BSA, and using exclusionary buffers around active nests can avoid impacts to any nesting birds found within the project area.
The BSA is highly disturbed and degraded in terms of habitat value. Although the BSA does provide some habitat characteristics as described in the species description (that is, oak woodlands and riparian habitat), the potential for Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, or purple martin to be present and/or use this habitat is low. By conducting focused surveys prior to construction, no direct impacts to individuals or nesting habitat are anticipated to occur.
Indirect effects would include construction-related disturbance during the breeding season; excessive noise near an active nest could result in the loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to abandonment of nests. Foraging birds and birds present in or adjacent to the BSA outside of the avian breeding season would not be adversely affected by construction activities due to their high mobility and available habitat outside of the BSA.
Impacts to special-status bird species and migratory birds would be reduced through implementation of the mitigation measures at the end of this section; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Bats
Several species of bats are designated as a species of special concern by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). In addition to bat species listed as sensitive by the resource agencies, State laws protect bats and their occupied roosts from harassment and destruction. Protection under California law is found in CFGC sections 2000, 2002, 2014, and 4150, and under California Code of Regulations Section 251.1. Based on a review of literature and species accounts, and on the results of habitat assessment, pallid bats may occur in the BSA.
722722
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-21
Pallid bat is a California species of special concern. Its habit includes deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. It is most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. In California, it is common in oak woodlands and grasslands. Roosts must protect bats from high temperatures, and bats are very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites. There are no known CNDDB occurrences of pallid bat within 5 miles of the BSA. Suitable habitat for pallid bats may exist in the vicinity of the project. No focused bat surveys have been conducted for the project. No evidence of night roosting bats (i.e., urine residue and guano accumulations) was observed under the underpass of I-80 from the eastbound lane of Rocklin Road. Surveys from the westbound lane were not conducted because there was no sidewalk or pedestrian access. During the habitat survey, no bats were observed within the BSA.
Bat species may roost individually or in small groups in tree cavities, in riparian vegetation, or under the bridge in weep holes. Due to the ability of individual bats to move away from disturbance, direct impacts on bats are not expected when the bats are not in a maternity colony. Indirect impacts may occur from construction disturbance if a maternity colony is present in or adjacent to the BSA. Substantial noise disturbance could result in adults temporarily or permanently leaving the maternity colony.
Vegetation removal and trimming is anticipated within the oak woodland habitat of the northern portion of the BSA. The existing I-80 overpass would not be removed, so there would be no removal of potential roosting habitat underneath the bridge. Construction activities could temporarily affect roosting bats through noise disturbance. Impacts to bats would be reduced through implementation of the mitigation measures at the end of this section and specifically include MM-BIO-12: Bat Protection. Therefore, the impact to bats would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Less than Significant Impact
No substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities would occur as a result of the project. The area east of I-80 is characterized by developed oak woodland and a small portion of riparian habitat.
Approximately 0.01 acre (630 square feet) of the BSA contains riparian habitat; however, the project would be confined to the existing roadway and would, therefore, have no impact on Secret Ravine, Sucker Ravine, or the surrounding riparian habitat.
Sensitive or Rare Natural Communities
The BSA does not overlap any special-status terrestrial natural communities. However, oak woodland is present within the BSA. Oak woodland is considered a sensitive habitat by CDFW.
Two different oak woodland habitats are present with the BSA: blue oak-foothill woodland and remnant blue oak-foothill woodland. The blue oak-foothill woodland is present along I-80 eastbound.
The remnant blue-oak foothill woodland is present along the I-80 westbound off-ramp, along the I-80 eastbound on-ramp, and at the corner of Rocklin Road and I-80 eastbound on-ramp (Figure 5).
Remnant Blue Oak-foothill Woodland
Approximately 1.21 acre of remnant blue oak-foothill woodland is present within the BSA. The remnant blue oak-foothill woodland identified within the BSA has a low ecological value. The remnant blue oak-foothill woodland consists of several oak trees that are presumed to have been preserved during the construction of both Rocklin Road and I-80. These oaks have no connectivity to the existing blue oak-foothill woodland located northeast and adjacent to the BSA. Permanent impacts to remnant blue oak-foothill woodland would be confined to the small area along the I-80 eastbound on-ramp and 723723
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-22
westbound off-ramp. It is expected that approximately 20 oak trees would be removed for the project under Option 1, consisting of both interior live oaks (Quercus wislizeni) and blue oaks (Quercus douglasii).
The remnant oak woodland was deemed of low value and is not considered a sensitive habitat; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Oak tree removal would be less under Option 2.
There would be no removal or trimming of oak trees along the eastbound I-80 shoulder. Due to the low ecological value of the remnant blue oak-foothill woodland and oaks present along the I-80 shoulder, it is anticipated that the implementation of the project (including the reduction of the remnant oak woodland habitat) would not have substantial adverse effects, either directly or indirectly, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. The project includes mitigation measures, included at the end of this section, that would minimize and offset these impacts.
Blue Oak-foothill Woodland
Approximately 0.41 acre of blue oak-foothill woodland is present within the BSA. This blue oak-foothill woodland is primarily located in the northern portion of the site along the eastbound I-80 freeway shoulder. This blue oak-foothill woodland habitat is primarily undisturbed and would be classified as high ecological value.
To the extent feasible, the project would preserve and protect oak trees that can be incorporated into the project design. The project would aim to incorporate oak tree species and other native species as new plantings within the landscaped areas. Mitigation measures, specifically MM-BIO-6 and MM-BIO-7, would minimize the potential for adverse effects. With implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, the probability and magnitude of direct and indirect effects to sensitive habitat is very low.
The project would include a landscaping plan that includes new trees that would be planted in the project area. These new trees would help offset the loss of trees, removed as a result of the project, and their associated canopy and potential habitat values, including oak species. Therefore, the impact to sensitive natural communities would be less than significant. c) No Impact
No impact on wetlands would occur as a result of the project. Biological surveys completed in January and February 2022 determined three drainage features were present within the BSA. One of these features was classified as non-jurisdictional Waters of the U.S., consisting of a constructed culvert excavated in upland area along the I-80 eastbound on-ramp (Figure 6). The second feature is Secret Ravine, located in the easternmost portion of the BSA. Secret Ravine encompasses 0.01 acre (630 square feet) of the BSA. In addition, the southern portion of the BSA crosses Sucker Ravine. Both Secret Ravine and Sucker Ravine are jurisdictional features subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CDFW, and Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands.
The project would not involve work within Secret Ravine or Sucker Ravine; therefore, no impacts to the waterways would occur. The project would be confined to the existing roadway and; therefore, would have no impact on Secret Ravine, Sucker Ravine, or the surrounding riparian habitat.
724724
\\DC1VS01\GISPROJ\R\ROCKLINCITYOF\ROCKLINRD_I80\MAPFILES\REPORT\2022\CEQA\FIG6_WATERS.MXD- Date: 12/6/2022 0 4020
Feet
$
Project Location
Legend
Project Area (25.75 acres)
Constructed Drainage (200 linear feet)
Figure 6
Waters of the U.S.
Rocklin Road and
Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Rocklin, California
725725
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-24
d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory species or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The federal MBTA (16 United States Code 703 et seq.), Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 10, and CFGC sections 3503, 3513, and 3800 protect the occupied nests and eggs of migratory and non-game bird species. Birds nest in a variety of places, including trees, shrubs, human-made structures, and the ground. Work buffers around migratory birds and their nests are typically needed to minimize impacts on these species.
Any project must avoid the take of any migratory and nongame birds, nests, or eggs.
Potential impacts to migratory birds are discussed in detail under question a) above. To avoid potential effects to fully protected raptors, special-status bird species, and other nesting birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC, the following mitigation measures would be implemented: MM-BIO-2, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-4, MM-BIO-9, and MM-BIO-10. Therefore, impacts to migratory birds would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
e) Less than Significant Impact
The City of Rocklin recognizes the value of native trees through the adoption of the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 17.77, of the City of Rocklin Municipal Code. The ordinance contains policy language that is explicitly written to protect native oaks. These policies regulate both the removal of protected trees and the encroachment of construction activities into the protected zones of these trees. Sections 17.77.030 and 17.77.050 prohibit the removal of oak trees without the issuance of a permit and require that preservation and removal of healthy oak trees from undeveloped property be addressed in the development application review process. Section 17.77.040 requires an oak tree removal permit and mitigation for areas within the city zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use. The BSA is not zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use; therefore, it does not require an oak tree removal permit.
The project would include a landscaping plan that includes new native trees that would be planted in the project area. These new trees would help offset the loss of trees and their associated canopy and potential habitat values, including oak species that have to be removed as a result of the project; therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
f) No Impact
This project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Community Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM-BIO-1: Documentation at Project Site. A Compliance Binder will be maintained at the construction site and presented to resource agency personnel upon request. The Compliance Binder will include a copy of the project’s permits, certifications, and agreements, and any extensions and amendments to the permits, certifications, and agreements.
MM-BIO-2: Worker Environmental Awareness Training. Prior to construction, a biologist will provide a training session for the workers to identify sensitive species or habitats that may be in the area, their basic habits, how they may be encountered in their work area, and procedures to follow when they are encountered. Any personnel joining the work crew later will receive the same training before beginning work. Upon completion of the education program, workers will sign a form stating they 726726
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-25
attended the program and understand all protection measures. A pamphlet that contains images of sensitive species or habitats that may occur on the site and notes key avoidance measures, as well as employee guidance, will be given to each person who completes the training program. These forms will be made available to the resource agencies upon request.
MM-BIO-3: Mark Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). Before construction begins, ESAs will be clearly delineated using high-visibility orange fencing, flagging, or other appropriate designation methods to delineate sensitive habitats. The ESA marking will remain in place throughout construction. The final project plans will depict all locations where ESA markings will be installed and how they will be installed. ESA markings will be maintained in good repair throughout construction.
MM-BIO-4: Biological Monitoring of ESA Marking and Vegetation Clearing. A qualified biologist will survey the area prior to marking and delineation of the ESA, and will monitor the installation of these materials. A qualified monitor will be present during all vegetation clearing and any other construction activities for the duration of the project in areas adjacent to ESAs to identify wildlife species present and ensure compliance with proper implementation of vegetation removal, best management practices (BMPs), and to ensure that all biological resource-related measures are properly adhered to.
MM-BIO-5: Project Area. The project will not impede or affect the riparian habitat present within the BSA. The marked ESA will be located along and outside of the Secret Ravine and Sucker Ravine riparian habitat.
MM-BIO-6: Oak Tree Removal. When and where possible, the City of Rocklin will avoid the unnecessary removal and trimming of oak trees.
MM-BIO-7: Vegetation Removal. Vegetation will be cleared only where necessary and will be cut above soil level, except in areas that will be permanently affected or excavated. This removal allows plants that reproduce vegetatively to resprout after construction.
MM-BIO-8: Invasive Weed Control. Noxious weeds will be controlled within the site in accordance with Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) by methods approved by a vegetation control specialist.
If work occurs in sensitive habitat, vehicles and equipment will be thoroughly cleaned before arriving on the site to prevent the spread of noxious weeds from other locations.
MM-BIO-9: Nesting Bird Surveys. If vegetation removal or construction occurs between February 1 and September 30, a preconstruction survey(s) will be conducted for nesting birds no more than 3 days before construction. The survey will include a 300-foot buffer of the BSA to capture any potential nesting located within the surrounding oak woodland and riparian habitat. If active nests are found, an appropriate buffer will be established, and the nest will be monitored for compliance with MBTA and CFGC section 3503.
MM-BIO-10: Nesting Bird Surveys. If construction activities are halted for more than 5 days during the nesting season (between February 1 and September 30), a nesting bird survey will be performed prior to the recommencement of construction-related activities.
MM-BIO-11: Restore Disturbed Areas. Temporarily disturbed areas will be restored to the maximum extent practicable. Exposed slopes and bare ground will be reseeded with native grasses to stabilize and prevent erosion. The City of Rocklin will provide a post-construction restoration and revegetation plan for the project to be reviewed and approved by the agencies no later than 60 calendar days prior to the initial groundbreaking at the project site.
727727
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-26
MM-BIO-12: Bat Protection. A habitat assessment/nighttime emergence survey will be conducted for potentially suitable bat-roosting habitat prior to construction activities. If the survey reveals any structures are suitable roosting habitat for bats, then the appropriate measures will be implemented prior to construction. Potential avoidance may include exclusionary blocking or filling potential cavities with foam, visual monitoring, and scheduling project work to avoid bats. If bats are known to use the structures, then exclusion netting will not be used.
MM-BIO-13: Prevent Inadvertent Entrapment. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of animals during construction, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 1 foot deep will be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials, or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen fill or wooden planks at an angle no greater than 30 degrees. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they will be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals.
MM-BIO-14: Night Lighting. Nighttime work will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
For unavoidable nighttime work, all lighting will be shielded and directed downwards toward the active construction area to avoid exposing nocturnal wildlife to excessive glare.
MM-BIO-15: Fence and Signpost Restriction. Any fencing posts, sign posts, t-posts, or vertical poles installed temporarily or permanently will have the post or pole capped, or the top three post holes covered or filled with screws or bolts to prevent the entrapment of wildlife, specifically birds of prey.
MM-BIO-16: No Monofilament Netting. Plastic monofilament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material will not be used because wildlife may become entangled or trapped in it. Acceptable substitutes include coconut coir matting or tackifier hydroseeding compounds.
MM-BIO-17: Construction Site Management Practices. The following site restrictions will be implemented:
Locate construction access, staging, storage, and parking areas outside ESAs to the maximum extent possible. Access routes, staging and storage areas, and contractor parking will be limited to the minimum necessary to construct the project.
Certify, to the maximum extent practicable, borrow material is non-toxic and weed free. Enclose food and food-related trash items in sealed trash containers. Prohibit pets from entering the project limits during construction. Prohibit firearms within the project limits, except for those carried by authorized security personnel or local, State, or federal law enforcement officials
728728
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-27
4.2.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Question CEQA Determination
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
CEQA Significance Determinations for Cultural Resources Cultural resource evaluations prepared for this project include an Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) (Jacobs 2022c) and a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) (Jacobs 2022d). This section summarizes the findings of these reports.
The ASR and HPSR for this project were carried out in a manner consistent with Caltrans’ regulatory responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800) and pursuant to the January 2014 First Amended Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (PA) and the December 2016 Memorandum of Understanding executed by the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans (Jacobs 2022c and 2022d).
As described in the HPSR and ASR, the area of potential effects (APE) for this project was established by a Professionally Qualified Staff architectural historian and archaeologist. The APE includes the resource study areas for cultural resources. The HPSR and ASR contain confidential information that cannot be publicly shared. Based on these reports, Caltrans determined that pursuant to Section 106 PA Stipulation VIII.A, there are no cultural resources within the APE that may be affected. Additionally, pursuant to Section 106 PA Stipulation IX.A, Caltrans determined a finding of no historic properties to be affected.
a, b, c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The cultural resources inventory included records searches, archival and literature research, Native American outreach and informal consultation, and pedestrian and windshield surveys. Based on the findings of the HPSR and ASR, there are no known archaeological or historical resources known to be present within the APE. Implementation of MM-CULT-1 and MM-CULT-2 at the end of this section would reduce potential impacts to undiscovered cultural resources and human remains to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
729729
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-28
Mitigation Measures
MM-CULT-1: Discovery of Cultural Resources. If an inadvertent discovery of cultural materials or tribal cultural resources is made during project-related construction activities, ground disturbances in the area of the find will be halted; and a qualified professional archaeologist, the Environmental Services Manager, and the Native American Heritage Commission will be notified. The archaeologist will determine whether the resource is potentially significant according to CEQA (that is, whether it is a historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, a unique paleontological resource, or a tribal cultural resource) and will develop specific measures to ensure preservation of the resource or to mitigate impacts to the resource if it cannot feasibly be preserved in light of costs, logistics, technological considerations, the location of the find, and the extent to which avoidance and/or preservation of the find is consistent or inconsistent with the design and objectives of the project.
Specific measures for significant or potentially significant resources may include preservation in place, in-field documentation, archival research, subsurface testing, and excavation. The specific type of measure necessary would be consistent with CEQA Guidelines for preserving or otherwise mitigating impacts to archaeological and cultural artifacts and tribal cultural resources.
MM-CULT-2: Discovery of Human Remains. If any human remains are discovered, work will stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovery; the County Coroner will be notified, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code; and the City’s Environmental Services Manager will be notified. There will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until compliance with the provisions of Sections 15064.5 (e) (1) and (2) of the CEQA Guidelines, as well as Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, has occurred. If the remains are Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will then inform a most likely descendant. The descendant will then recommend to the landowner appropriate disposition of the remains and any grave goods, and the landowner will comply with the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 2641.
730730
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-29
4.2.6 Energy
Would the project:
Question CEQA Determination
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less than Significant
Impact
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact
CEQA Significance Determinations for Energy
a) Less than Significant Impact
The project would not increase highway capacity or otherwise alter long-term circulation, traffic volumes, vehicle mix, or any other factor that could affect local or regional energy consumption.
During project operation, energy consumption would be limited to routine maintenance.
Energy, in the form of diesel fuel, gasoline, electricity, and natural gas, would be consumed during construction by sources to include, but not be limited to construction vehicles, generators, and power tools. Energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary because construction activities would be short-term and temporary. During construction, implementation of standard PCAPCD measures would require the efficient use of construction equipment. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
b) No Impact
The project proposes to improve the pedestrian safety and traffic operations at the interchange.
As such, this project would not result in changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, or any other factor that would cause an increase in energy consumption during operation. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the regional/statewide goals on climate change, air quality, and petroleum reduction. There would be no impact.
731731
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-30
4.2.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
Question
CEQA
Determination
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
No Impact
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact iv. Landslides? No Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No Impact
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact e) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact
CEQA Significance Determinations for Geology and Soils
The project is located in the Loomis Basin, within the Central Valley. The topography within the project area is relatively flat with raised on- and off-ramps providing connection from Rocklin Road to I-80.
The project area is located in the Northern Sierra Nevada Foothill Subregion of the California Floristic Province (Jacobs 2022b) and in the Lower Foothills Metamorphic Belt subsection of the Sierra Nevada Foothills Ecoregion Section (Jacobs 2022b). This area is within the lower elevation western edge of the Sierra Nevada Mountains range where moderately steep to steep mountains and hills create rapid runoff into the many rivers and their tributaries. According to the Geological Map of California, the project area is in the Mesozoic Plutonic Rocks unit, which contains Mesozoic granite, quartz monzonite, granodiorite, and quartz diorite (California Department of Conservation 2015a). 732732
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-31
The project area is primarily composed of weathered to fresh granite rock, and the topography is relatively flat. Soils contain Andregg Coarse Sandy Loam 2 to 9 Percent Slopes; Xerorthents Cut and Fill Areas, which are composed of mechanically removed and mixed soil material; and Xerorthents Placer Areas, which are composed primarily of cobble and gravel (Jacobs 2022b). Andregg soils form from weathering igneous rocks and are well-drained with moderately rapid permeability and slow to rapid runoff. Xerorthents, cut and fill soils are primarily used for highways and urban development and are generally well-drained. Xerorthents, placer areas soils consist of mixed soil material, which makes these soils characteristics widely variable; but generally they are well-drained soils with rapid runoff. a(i) – (iv) No Impact
The project is located west of the Foothills Fault System, with the nearest faults including the Deadman Fault, Maidu Fault, Bear Mountains Fault, and the Spencerville Fault (Jacobs 2022b and California Department of Conservation 2015b). The Foothill Fault System is located near Folsom Lake and is not within the project area. Additionally, there are no Alquist-Priolo zones established within Placer County (Jacobs 2022b and California Department of Conservation 2016). Inactive faults are located within the City of Rocklin and may be subject to seismic hazards; however, the proposed project would be subject to compliance with the Uniform Building Code, the California Uniform Building Code, and local development codes and land use policies, as applicable, for Placer County and the City of Rocklin. Therefore, there would be no impact.
The potential for liquefaction due to seismic activity in the project area is considered minimal due to the rock units at the site (weathered to fresh granite), and the clayey and silty sand layer above groundwater elevation is generally dense. Additionally, no landslides have been known to occur in the project area, and no steep or tall or natural slopes are present within the project limits; therefore, potential for liquefaction and landslides due to seismic events would be considered negligible (Jacobs 2022h and 2022i). No impact would occur.
b) Less than Significant Impact
Excavation and soil disturbance would be required during construction of the DDI and pedestrian/bicycle facilities under either Option 1 or 2. Earth-moving activities have the potential to cause soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The project would be required to comply with the City of Rocklin’s Grading and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance (Rocklin Municipal Code, Chapter 15.28) and the Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance (Rocklin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.30), which includes the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). During construction, the project would implement erosion control measures and BMPs (such as silt fence, fiber roll, drainage inlet protection, concrete wash-out, street sweeping, and construction entrance) outlined in the SWPPP to minimize soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, which would result in a less than significant impact. c, d, e) No Impact
As described in item a) above, the project is not located within a liquefaction zone or within a known fault; therefore, the project area would not be subject to becoming unstable or result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. There would be no impact.
The project area does not contain expansive soil and would not create any direct or indirect risks to life or property. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater delivery systems would be constructed or affected by the project. The project area is not located within a known area containing a unique paleontological resource or unique geological feature; therefore, no impact would occur. 733733
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-32
4.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
Question CEQA Determination
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant
Impact
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No Impact CEQA Significance Determinations for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions from construction and operation of the project were estimated for project construction and operation in future years for both Options 1 and 2 in the Air Quality Report (Jacobs 2022e). This section summarizes the findings of this review. a) Less than Significant Impact
Construction-generated GHG includes emissions resulting from onsite construction equipment, workers commuting to and from the project site, haul truck trips, traffic delays from construction, and production of construction materials (to include concrete and asphalt). The project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces; however, this increase would be limited to the extent practicable.
The emissions would be produced at different levels throughout the project depending on the activities involved at various phases of construction.
Carbon dioxide is the single most important GHG pollutant due to its abundance when compared with other vehicle-emitted GHGs, including methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbon, and black carbon.
Their frequency and occurrence can be reduced through innovations in plans and specifications, and by implementing better traffic management during construction phases.
The project’s construction-related GHG emissions were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration RCEM, version 9.0.0, provided by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Average daily emissions were estimated by dividing the total construction emissions by the number of days in the construction duration for each option. The average daily emissions of each option are presented in Table 2.
The PCAPCD has adopted thresholds for construction activities, and GHG emissions from a project that exceed 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e/yr) would be deemed to have a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. The project would not generate short-term GHG emissions that exceed the threshold. Therefore, the project’s GHG emissions are considered less than cumulatively considerable.
Table 2. Construction-related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Option GHG (MTCO2e/yr)
Option 1 465
Option 2 742
PCAPCD CEQA Thresholds 10,000
734734
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-33
The frequency and occurrence of GHG emissions would be reduced through implementation of the PCAPCD standard measures for emissions and dust control during construction (Section 4.2.3 Air Quality).
Additionally, with innovations such as longer pavement lives, improvement in traffic management, and changes in materials, construction-related GHG emissions produced during construction can be offset to some degree by longer intervals between maintenance and rehabilitation activities. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.
The latest version of CT-EMFAC, CT-EMFAC2017, was used to estimate emissions of GHG. GHG emissions were estimated based on GHG emission factors from CT-EMFAC and annual VMT information.
In addition, GHG emissions modeled by CT-EMFAC2017 were adjusted using CARB’s EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One and the Final SAFE Rule (CARB 2020). Table 3 summarizes the annual VMT and GHG emissions of existing conditions, future no-project conditions, and the project in future analysis years.
Table 3. Annual CO2e Emissions and Vehicle Miles Traveled Scenario/Analysis Year GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr) Annual VMTa Existing Conditions 32,801 84,280,200
No Project 2028 35,053 113,658,060
Project 2028 35,053 113,658,060
No Project 2040 36,191 131,204,030
Project 2040 36,203 131,458,273
No Project 2048 39,499 144,635,356
Project 2048 39,408 144,437,121
a Annual VMT values derived from daily VMT values multiplied by 347, in accordance with CARB methodology (CARB 2008).
Note:
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
In 2018, GHG emissions from the study area were 32,801 MTCO2e/yr. Annual VMT would increase by 35% in opening year (2028) and 71% in the design year in comparison to existing conditions due to regional growth, as shown in Table 3. However, VMT in the future no-project condition and with the project are similar in a given analysis year. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. b) No Impact
Plans and policies adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions in California include multiple Senate and Assembly bills and Executive Orders. These policies establish GHG emissions reduction goals, set low-carbon fuel standards, support rapid commercialization of zero-emission vehicles, fund clean vehicle programs, and require climate adaptation planning.
Additionally, the project is included in PCTPA’s Final 2040 Regional Transportation Plan and SACOG’s 2020 MTP/SCS. The 2020 MTP/SCS demonstrates how the region will achieve regional GHG emissions reduction targets set by CARB to meet AB 32 goals. The inclusion of the project in SACOG’s 2020 MTP/SCS demonstrates the project’s consistency with the region’s reduction goals.
For these reasons, the project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing long-term GHG emissions. There would be no impact. 735735
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-34
4.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
Question CEQA Determination
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact CEQA Significance Determinations for Hazards and Hazardous Materials A Phase I Initial Site Assessment (ISA) (Blackburn Consulting 2021) for the project was conducted to identify recognized environmental conditions, historical recognized environmental conditions, and potential recognized environmental conditions that may be present within and adjacent to the project limits. This section summarizes the ISA’s findings. The ISA identified the following four sites that would require partial acquisition:
4450 Rocklin Road; 76 Gas Station and Food Mart
4500 Rocklin Road; ARCO Gas Station and AM-PM Mini Market 4410 Rocklin Road; Jack in the Box, Former Rocklin City Landfill 4400 Rocklin Road; Arby’s, Former Rocklin Dump
The 76 Gas Station and Food Mart located at 4450 Rocklin Road tested concentrations for total petroleum hydrocarbons and VOCs and did not exceed the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s 2019 environmental screening levels. However, soil gas analytical results exceeded the environmental screening levels for benzene and ethylbenzene as of June 2021. New testing conducted in October 2021 tested soil gas, and the results were below the environmental screening levels for all VOCs tested. This site was identified in the ISA to be a high-risk site.
Other sites within or adjacent to the project limits are identified to be low-risk sites and are not recommended for further investigation.
736736
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-35
a, b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Project construction is expected to temporarily involve the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, paints, cleaners, solvents, and lubricants) that could pose a significant threat to human health and the environment if they are not properly managed. The transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials are subject to local, State, and federal hazardous waste regulations designed to reduce risks associated with hazardous materials, including potential risks associated with accidental release of hazardous materials. Compliance with the existing regulations is mandatory; therefore, project construction is not expected to create a significant hazard to construction workers, the public, or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
The ISA identified five sites within the project limits that would require partial acquisition, fourteen parcels adjacent to the project, and six sites within 0.5 mile of the project limits with or with potential to contain hazardous materials. The ISA concluded that a Phase II environmental site assessment of the subsurface soil and groundwater within the acquisition area should be conducted and should investigate the area and maximum depth where construction is anticipated to disturb the subsurface soil and encounter groundwater.
During construction, lead-based paints, yellow traffic striping, and asbestos-containing materials would be handled according to the project specifications and local, State, and federal requirements.
A soil investigation for metals, primarily lead, and other contaminants of concern (e.g., petroleum hydrocarbons and VOCs) would be completed to characterize and profile the soil to be encountered by the construction of the proposed build options. Depending on the findings of the soil investigation, lead-contaminated soils would be handled and disposed of in accordance with appropriate project specifications. With the implementation of MM-HAZ-1 through MM-HAZ-6 at the end of this section, the impact would be reduced to less than significant.
c, e) No Impact
One college and one elementary school are within approximately 0.25 mile of the project area. Sierra College, at the Campus Drive entrance, is approximately 0.25 mile east of the easternmost edge of the project footprint. Rocklin Elementary School is located on Meyers Street, approximately 0.23 mile northwest of the westernmost edge of the project footprint. The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. There are no airports or airstrips in the project vicinity. The closest airport is the Lincoln Regional Airport approximately 10 miles from the project. There would be no impact. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
The project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. However, a screening of the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker and Department of Toxic Substance Control EnviroStor database identified five closed sites (GeoTracker) and one site under evaluation (EnviroStor), within a 0.50-mile radius of the project site, that have affected or have the potential to affect soils, groundwater, and surface water quality (SWRCB 2022 and DTSC 2022). Due to the proximity of these sites to the project, potential residual contamination at these sites could affect soils or groundwater.
With the implementation of MM-HAZ-2 at the end of this section, the impact would be reduced to less than significant.
737737
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-36
f) Less than Significant Impact
Potential delays to traffic along Rocklin Road would result from lane closures and overnight traffic control in effect during construction. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) (MM-TRANS-1) would be developed during the design phase and would identify traffic delays and alternative routes, and would prevent cut-through traffic that could affect adjacent businesses and neighborhoods. Emergency response times are not anticipated to change during construction because the TMP would provide priority to emergency vehicles during traffic control. The TMP would provide instructions for response or evacuation in the event of an emergency. In addition, this project would not conflict with any emergency response or evacuation plan and would adhere to the General Plan and Emergency Organization as outlined in Municipal Code 2.32 (City of Rocklin 2021a and 2022a). The impact would be less than significant.
g) No Impact
The Rocklin Fire Department, which serves the project area, is responsible for the management of fire operations during emergency response efforts. The nearest fire station to the project area is located at the Rocklin Fire Department, 4060 Rocklin Road in Rocklin, approximately 0.4 mile west of the project area (City of Rocklin 2022b).
The project does not have permanent features that would expose people or structures to risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. In addition, fire prevention measures would be in place during construction to reduce wildfire-related impacts. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM-HAZ-1: Caltrans Standard Specifications and Hazardous Waste Regulations. Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 13-4, Job Site Management, will be implemented to prevent and control spills or leaks from construction equipment and from storage of fuels, paints, cleaners, solvents, and lubricants.
All aspects of the project associated with transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be done in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code and the appropriate local, State, and federal hazardous waste regulations. Handling and management of hazardous materials would comply with the current Caltrans Standard Specification Section 14-11, Hazardous Waste and Contamination, which outlines handling, storing, and disposing of hazardous waste.
MM-HAZ-2: Soil and Groundwater Investigation. The 76 Gas Station is a high-risk site. A Phase II environmental site assessment of the subsurface soil and groundwater within the acquisition area will be conducted. At a minimum, the Phase II study should investigate the area and maximum depth where construction is anticipated to disturb the subsurface soil and encounter groundwater. If results of the Phase II environmental site assessment determine acceptable levels, then no further action is needed. If results are determined to be above acceptable levels, the site where contamination occurs would need to be contained, excavated, and hauled off to a proper disposal site.
MM-HAZ-3: Yellow Traffic Stripes. Yellow traffic striping will be removed and disposed of in accordance with Caltrans Standard Special Provisions for hazardous waste. Caltrans Guideline for Selecting Materials and Standard Special Provisions for Traffic Striping and Pavement Marking (October 2019) contains guidelines for disposal of yellow traffic striping.
MM-HAZ-4: Asbestos-containing Materials and Lead in Buildings. Any structure planned for modification or demolition, including the existing bridge, must be evaluated for the presence of lead and asbestos-containing materials by a California-certified asbestos and lead inspector prior to demolition or modification. If asbestos is present, a certified asbestos abatement specialist will monitor the disposal of the asbestos-containing materials as they are uncovered. A Lead Compliance Plan will be prepared to address workers’ health and safety. 738738
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-37
MM-HAZ-5: Transformers. If the relocation of power facilities or high-voltage power lines is required, existing transformers should be tested for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or other hazardous materials. Identification, testing, and remediation of the old transformers is the responsibility of the utility owner.
MM-HAZ-6: Groundwater Monitoring Wells. The contractor will be informed of the potential to encounter monitoring wells. If a well is encountered during construction, Placer County Environmental Health Department will be contacted to determine if the well is still active. If the well is determined to be active, coordination will occur between the City and Placer County Environmental Health Department to determine if the well needs to be replaced. If the well is determined abandoned, Placer County Environmental Health Department will be contacted for well abandonment procedures and permitting requirements.
739739
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-38
4.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
Question CEQA Determination
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant
Impact
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No Impact
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less than Significant
Impact
ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
Less than Significant
Impact
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
Less than Significant
Impact
iv. impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? No Impact
CEQA Significance Determinations for Hydrology and Water Quality A Water Quality Assessment Memo (Jacobs 2022f) was completed for the project. This section summarizes the findings of that review.
The climate in western Placer County is characterized by hot, dry summers and winters with moderate to heavy precipitation. Precipitation falls as rain resulting from extensive storms that originate in the Pacific Ocean. Normal annual precipitation varies with elevation and is approximately 19 to 21 inches near the project site (Jacobs 2022f). Runoff occurs primarily from rainfall.
The project contains flat areas and sloped areas. I-80 in the project area has elevations ranging from 283 to 286 feet, and Rocklin Road crossing under I-80 has elevations ranging from 265 to 270 feet.
Most of the soils within the project area are human-modified material (e.g., cut and fill) that have high runoff potential and may be subject to erosion by water. The remaining soils have a moderate rate of runoff and moderate infiltration rates.
The project site lies within the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region and Secret Ravine Watershed, which is the largest subwatershed of the Dry Creek Watershed. The project site drainage pattern is as follows:
On the north side of Rocklin Road between I-80 and Aguilar Road, drainage is from the southwest to the northeast.
On the south side of Rocklin Road between I-80 and Aguilar Road, drainage is from the west to the east.
740740
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-39
West of I-80, all drainage is to the southwest.
According to Federal Emergency Management Agency mapping, the project is primarily outside of floodplain areas. A small portion of the project area at the Rocklin Road bridge over Secret Ravine is designated as Zone AE, which represents an area with a 1% chance of flooding with a base flood elevation derived from hydraulic analyses.
No total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) or other numeric water quality criteria apply to the receiving water bodies within the project limits. Downstream receiving waters are listed as impaired under Clean Water Action Section 303(d). Table 4 identifies these water quality impairments and TMDL status for the downstream receiving waters.
Table 4. Section 303(d) Impairments for Downstream Receiving Water Bodies Reach
Section 303(d) –
Listed Impairments
Expected TMDL
Completion Date
Dry Creek (Placer and Sacramento Counties) Indicator Bacteria 2027 Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (also known as
Steelhead Creek) downstream of Arcade Creek
PCBs
Mercury
2020
2027
Sacramento River (Knights Landing to Delta) Mercury
DDT
Chlordane
Dieldrin
PCBs
Toxicity
2012
2027
2021
2022
2021
2027
Note:
DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
The Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report indicates that groundwater was not encountered during field investigations with borings to depths of 36 to 56 feet (Jacobs 2022i). Groundwater levels may fluctuate locally due to rainfall, withdrawal, and recharge, and may perch seasonally above hard and intact granitic rock. However, based on the borings, groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered during project construction.
a) Less than Significant Impact
The project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Changes in surface runoff would be accommodated by the existing municipal stormwater facilities, including the drainage improvements and water quality control features included in the project.
The project’s drainage design focused on preserving existing drainage patterns as much as possible.
Drainage systems that conflict with realigned ramps would be relocated to the proposed shoulder.
Existing cross culverts that are affected by pavement widening grading limits would be extended as needed. Where necessary, drainage inlet grates would be adjusted to match the proposed grade.
Note that no roadway improvements are planned to the bridge at Secret Ravine or within the Secret Ravine floodplain.
741741
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-40
As part of the design work to date, stormwater quality BMPs were considered and recommended for inclusion in the drainage plan. Based on Caltrans design criteria, the project would include the following BMPs:
A biofiltration swale would be installed along the east side of the I-80 eastbound on-ramp. A biofiltration swale would be installed along the west side of the I-80 westbound on-ramp. The existing infiltration area at the I-80 eastbound off-ramp would be reconfigured and upgraded to accommodate the new off-ramp.
The proposed treatment BMPs have been developed to treat the entire post-construction treatment area, calculated as 2.1 acres. The proposed BMPs can treat approximately 3.7 acres of impervious area, which exceeds the required treatment area of 2.1 acres.
During construction, excavation and earth-moving activities could result in temporary water quality impacts such as increased sediment discharge and increased turbidity to receiving waters. In addition, impacts to water quality could result from staging and active construction including the release of fluids, concrete material, construction debris, sediment, and litter. To prevent or reduce these impacts, temporary construction site BMPs would be deployed for sediment control, stormwater management, spill control, and materials management.
The project would disturb more than 1 acre during construction; therefore, preparation of a SWPPP is required. As part of the project design, a preliminary list of construction site BMPs has been selected.
The following proposed BMPs would be reviewed and confirmed with Caltrans during final design:
Temporary fiber roll
Temporary construction entrance
Move-in/move-out
Temporary drainage inlet protection
Temporary hydraulic mulch
Temporary check dam
Storm water sampling and analysis
Rain Event Action Plan
Stormwater Annual Report
Job site management
Street sweeping
Temporary concrete washout
The project would not substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. In addition, the project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) No Impact
The project would have no effect on groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge areas. There would be no impact.
c) Less than Significant Impact
As described above, the project would not create runoff that would exceed existing storm drain systems or create substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project would not impede or redirect flood flows and would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. 742742
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-41
The project would result in a net increase of 2.1 acres of impervious surface. This increase results in a net increase to runoff from the site of 4.43 cubic feet per second during a 25-year storm; however, the project includes appropriate post-construction stormwater treatment measures . The impact would be less than significant.
d) No Impact
The majority of the project corridor is not located within the 100-year floodplain as defined by Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rates Maps. A small portion of the project is within a flood zone with 1 percent chance of flooding at Secret Ravine. The proposed project is not in flood hazard, seiche, or tsunami zone.
Project improvements and grading would be minimized and located to limit encroachments of fill slopes into the existing floodplain. Proposed widening would start beyond the limits of the main Secret Ravine floodplain. The existing bridge and sidewalk are preserved. Therefore, there would be no impacts to the floodplain.
The project would not encroach into the floodplain or cause a rise in the base flood elevation, which could affect adjacent properties. Therefore, there would be no increased risk of flooding on the bridge and within the project area.
e) No Impact
As described above, the project would be consistent with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. The project is not within a groundwater basin; therefore, there is no sustainable groundwater management plan applicable to the project area. For these reasons, there would be no impact.
743743
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-42
4.2.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
Question CEQA Determination
a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact
CEQA Significance Determinations for Land Use and Planning The City of Rocklin’s General Plan identifies goals, policies, and action plans that generally focus on promoting orderly and well-planned development that enhances the community.
The Rocklin General Plan Land Use Map (City of Rocklin 2021b) identifies the following land uses within the project vicinity (Figure 7):
Retail/Commercial
Public/Quasi-Public
Recreation/Conservation
Professional Office
Medium Density Residential
Medium – High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Use
The project is primarily within public right-of-way administered by the City of Rocklin and Caltrans, with minor areas designated retail/commercial along the perimeter of the project footprint (City of Rocklin 2021b). Secret Ravine, a perennial creek, crosses under Rocklin Road and is designated as Recreation/Conservation and zoned as Open Area. Additionally, Sierra College in the eastern portion of the project is zoned as Planned Development Community College. a, b) No Impact
The project involves improvements relating to safety and operation of Rocklin Road and the Rocklin Road/I-80 Interchange by relieving existing congestion and improving vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle safety. The project would support the City of Rocklin’s General Plan goal to decrease reliance on automobile use and increase the use of alternative modes of transportation as wells as maximize efficiency of services (City of Rocklin 2012a). The project would not cause a significant environmental impact as a result of conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project would not divide an established community. Therefore, there would be no impact.
744744
§¨¦80
Rocklin Rd
Granite Dr
Rocklin RdRocklin Rd
Aguilar Rd
Sierra CollegeSecret Ravine
Sierra Meadows
Park
Monte Verde
Park
Secret Ravine
\\DC1VS01\GISPROJ\R\ROCKLINCITYOF\ROCKLINRD_I80\MAPFILES\REPORT\2022\CEQA\FIG7_LANDUSE.MXD- Date: 12/6/2022 0 400200
Feet
$
Project Location
Legend
Project Area
Rocklin General Plan Land Use
BP - Professional Office
RC - Retail Commercial
SC - Service Commercial
MU - MIXED USE; MU - Mixed Use
PQP - Public-Quasi Public
HDR - High Density Residential
MHDR - Medium High Density Residential
MDR - Medium Density Residential
LDR - Low Density Residential
Recreation-Conservation
Figure 7
Land Use
Rocklin Road and
Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Rocklin, California
745745
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-44
4.2.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
Question CEQA Determination
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact CEQA Significance Determinations for Mineral Resources
Granite extraction began in the 1860s and was a mineral resource popular within Rocklin because the granite was even-textured, very hard, available in large blocks, and has the ability to take in a high polish (City of Rocklin 2012b). Established in 1861, Bradays Quarry was the first granite quarry in Rocklin, and Big Gun Quarry was one of the last active granite quarries in Rocklin. Additionally, gravel was seldom commercially excavated in Rocklin due to concerns of the presence of mica, which can be detrimental to the aesthetic of gravel and its durability. No quarries remain active.
The project is within the California Department of Conservation Mineral Resource Zones described in the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act Mineral Land Classification Reports. According to Special Report 245, the project is located within Mineral Land Classification: Concrete Aggregate in the Greater Sacramento Area Production-Consumption Region (California Department of Conservation 2022).
a, b) No Impact
The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value or result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
746746
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-45
4.2.13 Noise
Would the project result in:
Question CEQA Determination
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact
CEQA Significance Determinations for Noise
A noise screening memo (Jacobs 2022g) was prepared for the project. The project is a Type III project and does not qualify as either a Type I or Type II project under 23 CFR 772. A project is considered a Type I project if the horizontal alteration halves the distance between the noise receptor and the noise source. This road alteration would not halve the distance and, therefore, is not a substantial horizontal alteration. A Type II project is a federal highway project for noise abatement on an existing highway.
Therefore, noise abatement does not need to be considered, and a noise study report is not required. a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated During construction, sensitive receptors in the area may be affected by noise generated from construction activities. The nearest noise-sensitive receptor is the outdoor use area at the SureStay Plus Hotel and Sierra Lakes Mobile Home Park. The Sierra Lakes Mobile Home Park is approximately 70 feet from the existing roadway, and the outdoor use area at the SureStay Plus Hotel is approximately 130 feet from the existing roadway. The proposed on-ramp and travel lanes southbound of I-80 would decrease the distance between the SureStay Plus Hotel to approximately 90 feet and the Sierra Lakes Mobile Home Park to 50 feet. However, this proposed road alteration would not be substantial compared to existing conditions.
The Caltrans 2018 Standard Specifications 14-8.02 states noise should not exceed 86 A-weighted decibels at 50 feet from the job site between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. A temporary increase in ambient noise levels during construction would occur; however, implementation of MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2 included at the end of this section would reduce the impact from noise to less than significant.
The project would also be subject to the City of Rocklin Construction Noise Guidelines (City of Rocklin 2022d), including restricting construction-related noise-generating activities within or near residential areas to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekends to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or Building Official. Therefore, impacts associated with substantial temporary increases in the ambient noise environment or generation of excessive groundborne noise levels during construction would be less than significant. 747747
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-46
The project would not increase capacity; therefore, a permanent increase in ambient noise levels above existing conditions would not occur; thus, there would be no impact during operation. b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The project would not create excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Increases in noise levels from construction activities would be temporary. Implementation of MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2 included at the end of this section would reduce noise and vibration impacts during construction; therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
The project would not result in an increase in capacity; therefore, the project would not increase groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels compared to existing conditions; thus, there would be no impact.
c) No Impact
The project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or within 2 miles of a public airport.
Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise. There would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM-NOI-1: Specifications for Controlling Noise and Vibration. Construction noise exceeding 86 A-weighted decibels at 50 feet from the job site will not be allowed to occur at night between the hours of 9 p.m. to 6 a.m.
MM-NOI-2: Noise Levels during Construction. The following measures will be implemented during construction to reduce noise:
Schedule noisy operations within the same timeframe. The total noise level will not be substantially greater than the level produced if operations are performed separately. Construct temporary noise barriers between noisy activities and noise-sensitive receptors or around activities with high noise levels or groups of noisy equipment. Avoid unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines, regardless of proximity to sensitive receptors.
Locate all stationary noise-generating construction equipment as far as practicable from noise-sensitive receptors, or provide baffled housing or sound aprons to equipment when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with manufacturer-recommended intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. Use quiet air compressors and other quiet equipment where such technology exists. No construction equipment will be delivered and dropped off before 6 a.m. Maintain all internal combustion engines properly to minimize noise generation.
748748
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-47
4.2.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:
Question CEQA Determination
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact CEQA Significance Determinations for Population and Housing a, b) No Impact
The project proposes to improve safety and operation of Rocklin Road and the Rocklin Road/I-80 Interchange through improvements of pedestrian and bicycle access and reduction in vehicle congestion. The project would not induce substantial, unplanned population growth either directly or indirectly because it does not increase the capacity of the roadway, remove barriers to future growth, or increase population or housing growth (or demand for new housing, utilities, or public services).
The project would not displace existing people or housing or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. There would be no impact to population and housing.
749749
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-48
4.2.15 Public Services
Question
CEQA
Determination
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? No Impact
Police protection? No Impact
Schools? No Impact
Parks? No Impact
Other public facilities? No Impact
CEQA Significance Determinations for Public Services
The project falls under the jurisdiction of Rocklin Police Department, located at 4080 Rocklin Road in Rocklin (City of Rocklin 2022c). The Rocklin Fire Department provides fire protection services in the project area. The fire station nearest to the project area is located at 4060 Rocklin Road in Rocklin, approximately 0.4 mile west of the project area (City of Rocklin 2022b).
One college and one elementary school are within approximately 0.25 mile of the project area. Sierra College, at the Campus Drive entrance, is approximately 0.25 mile east of the easternmost edge of the project from Rocklin Road. Rocklin Elementary School is located on Meyers Street, approximately 0.23 mile northwest of the westernmost edge of the project on Rocklin Road. Rocklin Elementary School is within the Rocklin Unified School District. No recreational facilities are within the project limits. a) No Impact
The project would not result in any alteration of government facilities, such as fire and police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities. Additionally, the proposed project would not trigger the need for new government facilities or alter the demand for public services. There would be no impact.
750750
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-49
4.2.16 Recreation
Question
CEQA
Determination
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact
CEQA Significance Determinations for Recreation
There are no recreational facilities within the project limits. The nearest public park is the Monte Verde Park, approximately 0.27 mile southeast of the project area. Sierra Meadows Park is approximately
0.3 mile north of the project area (Figure 7), and Memorial Park is approximately 0.4 mile west of the project area. These public parks are owned and administered by the City of Rocklin. Quarry Park is approximately 0.4 mile west of the project area and is home to an adventure park, amphitheater, trails, open space, and wildlife. The City of Rocklin has partnered with Quarry Park Adventures for recreational activities at this facility.
Secret Ravine, a perennial creek that crosses under Rocklin Road, is a designated Recreation/ Conservation area by the City of Rocklin (City of Rocklin 2021b). There is no designated public access to Secret Ravine within the project footprint.
a) No Impact
The project would not increase the use of any existing recreational facilities. There would be no impact. b) No Impact
The project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. There would be no impact.
751751
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-50
4.2.17 Transportation
Would the project:
Question CEQA Determination
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
No Impact
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No Impact
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
CEQA Significance Determinations for Transportation
A Transportation Analysis Report (Fehr & Peers 2022) was completed for the project. This section summarizes the findings of that review.
Under 2018 conditions, Rocklin Road operated at level of service C or better during the AM peak hour; the highest delays occurred on the eastbound I-80 off-ramp associated with traffic demand for Sierra College. A greater amount of congestion occurred during the PM peak-hour conditions as a result of high demand for the westbound left turn from Rocklin Road to the westbound I-80 on-ramp.
The resulting traffic would often extend past Aguilar Road, resulting in level of service D conditions.
I-80 generally operated acceptably with two eastbound locations near capacity: Sierra College Boulevard off-ramp during the AM peak hour and SR 65 off-ramp during the PM peak hour. a) No Impact
The project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The project would maintain and improve existing Rocklin Road but not increase the capacity of the roadway. Therefore, there would be no impact.
b) No Impact
The project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The Transportation Analysis Report evaluated the project’s effect on general travel conditions by measuring the expected total VMT in Placer County. Based on the analysis, the project would be expected to reduce travel by 1,000 vehicle-miles per day as a result of reduced congestion and shorter, more direct routes to driver destinations. The project is unlikely to generate an increase in vehicle travel because it would improve roadway operations on local streets and substantially improve conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists. Therefore, there would be no impact. 752752
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-51
c) No Impact
The project does not include any design features or construction elements that would substantially increase hazards (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections). The project’s DDI configuration is expected to improve traffic safety; and under both Options 1 and 2, safety for pedestrians and bicyclists would be improved. There would be no impact. d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Project construction could cause short-term, localized, traffic congestion and delays, resulting from temporary closures throughout the project corridor. One-way traffic control would be required during construction, with some nighttime detours.
Under the TMP (see MM TRANS-1 at the end of this section), medical and emergency vehicles would be able to continue to use routes along the project corridor to serve fire, medical, and law enforcement purposes. Flaggers would give priority to emergency vehicles. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure
MM-TRANS-1: Traffic Management Plan. To minimize potential effects from construction activities to motorists, bicyclists, or pedestrians using local streets, a TMP would be developed and implemented throughout construction. The TMP would include public information, motorist information, incident management, construction, and alternate routes or detours. The TMP would also include elements, such as detour and haul routes, one-way traffic controls to minimize speeds and congestion, flag workers, and phasing, to reduce impacts to local residents and I-80 travelers as much as feasible and maintain access to businesses in the local area. The TMP would also provide access for police, fire, and medical services in the local area. Detour routes would be planned in coordination with the City of Rocklin and Caltrans, and would include notices to emergency service providers, transit operators, and the public in advance.
753753
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-52
4.2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
Question CEQA Determination
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
No Impact
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
No Impact
CEQA Significance Determinations for Tribal Cultural Resources The City of Rocklin contacted the Native American Heritage Commission on November 1, 2021, and the Commission responded on December 29, 2021, with a contact list and a negative Sacred Land File search result. Native American consultation letters for Section 106 and AB 52 were sent by mail to the following contacts for tribes traditionally associated with the project area on February 8, 2022:
Serrell Smokey (Chairperson) and Darrel Cruz (Tribal Historic Preservation Officer), Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California
Gene Whitehouse (Chairperson) and Matthew Moore (Tribal Historic Preservation Officer), United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC)
Michael Mirelez (Cultural Resource Coordinator), Torres Martinez, Desert Cahuilla Indians Regina Cuellar (Chairperson) and James Sarmento (Director of Cultural Resources), Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians
Sara D. Setshwaelo (Chairperson), Ione Band of Miwok Indians Clyde Prout (Chairperson), Colfax-Todds Valley Consolidated Tribe Jesus G. Tarango, Jr. (Chairperson) and Steven Hutchason (Tribal Historic Preservation Officer), Wilton Rancheria
The City received responses from two tribes: UAIC and Wilton Rancheria. UAIC responded to the request for AB 52 consultation with a request, initiated March 14, 2022, to visit the site. The site visit took place June 29, 2022. Attendees included David Mohlenbrok and Matt McClure of the City of Rocklin, Joshua Stewart of UAIC, and Heather Price of Jacobs. The group discussed the details of the project work and walked the portion of the site that concerned the UAIC. At the end of the visit, the UAIC representative concluded that he had no concerns.
The City’s request to tribal representatives for interest in consultation and for project area information is ongoing (Jacobs 2022c).
a, b) No Impact
The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. No tribal cultural resources were reported in record searches, and AB 52 consultation to date has indicated no tribal concerns. Based on this information, there would be no impact. 754754
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-53
4.2.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
Question
CEQA
Determination
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than
Significant Impact
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? No Impact c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
No Impact
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact
CEQA Significance Determinations for Utilities and Service Systems Rocklin Road contains underground utilities; however, most utilities would be completely avoided during construction of the project. Minor utility relocations to accommodate the DDI would be required during construction.
a) Less than Significant Impact
The project would not result in the construction of new or expanded utilities. Major utility conflicts are not anticipated, and utility verification would be conducted prior to construction to confirm any minor utility realignments that need to occur. The City of Rocklin would coordinate with the appropriate utility provider; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. b, c, d, e) No Impact
The project would not generate a demand for potable water supplies or the services of a wastewater treatment provider; therefore, there would be no impact.
The proposed project would not result in any substantial demands for solid waste disposal and would comply with federal, State, and local statutes regarding the disposal of solid waste. There would be no impact.
755755
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-54
4.2.20 Wildfire
Would the project:
Question CEQA Determination
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact
CEQA Significance Determinations for Wildfire
The project is located within a State Responsibility Area for wildfire prevention and suppression and is not within a very high fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE 2008). Therefore, there is low potential for wildfire to occur in the project area.
a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Emergency access would be maintained throughout the construction period.
As stated in Section 4.2.17, Transportation, a TMP would be developed during the design phase and would provide priority for emergency responders traveling along Rocklin Road and I-80 during construction activities. The TMP would also provide instructions for response and evacuation in case of an emergency. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b, c, d) No Impact
The construction and operation of the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate wildfire risk, or expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. The project proposes to modify the Rocklin Road/I-80 Interchange from the existing standard diamond-type to a DDI and create a dedicated crossing for pedestrians and bicyclist. The project does not involve the occupation of habitable structures and does not include the installation of associated infrastructure that would exacerbate wildfire risk. There would be no impact.
756756
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-55
4.2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Question CEQA Determination
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
CEQA Significance Determinations for Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.
The project would result in temporary, minor, and construction-related impacts; however, with the implementation of mitigation measures, these potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated In analyzing the project’s potential cumulative environmental effects, the analysis determines which resources would be significantly affected by the project and whether there could be a detrimental condition or deterioration in health of a resource within the context of impacts from past, present, and other reasonably foreseeable future actions. The analysis determines whether, collectively, the project and the foreseeable condition combine to result in a cumulative impact.
The project involves the reconfiguration of existing infrastructure along a transportation corridor.
The project would occur primarily within Caltrans and City of Rocklin right-of-way with the additional use of temporary easements during construction and acquisition of slivers of properties directly adjacent to the project area. The project would not substantially convert lands to new or different uses, increase roadway capacity, induce growth, or otherwise change land use patterns. The project would not result in long-term, adverse environmental effects, and so would not contribute to cumulative environmental impacts. Impacts from the project are anticipated to be incremental in nature and not cumulatively considerable when considering the entire project location and region.
There are no past or present projects in the immediate project area that would contribute to cumulative impacts. There are no future projects in the vicinity that are anticipated to occur in proximity to the project that would contribute to cumulative impacts. 757757
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 4-56
The project would not contribute to substantial cumulative environmental impacts; and project-related impacts to resources would be reduced with the proper implementation of mitigation measures.
Therefore, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated This project would not adversely affect human beings either directly or indirectly. Project impacts are anticipated to result mostly from construction-related delays and traffic management. Intermittent night work could occur. Daytime work would occur with the potential to affect businesses in proximity to the project area; however, implementation of mitigation measures would address dust-, noise-, and traffic-related impacts. Temporary construction-related activities would result in less than significant environmental impacts, with mitigation incorporated, to human beings. 758758
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 5-1
5. References
Blackburn Consulting. 2021. Phase I Initial Site Assessment – I-80/Rocklin Road Interchange Improvements Project, Rocklin, CA. October.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan Measure Documentation Supplement.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One and the Final SAFE Rule.
California Department of Conservation. 2015a. Geologic Map of California. Accessed May 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/.
California Department of Conservation. 2015b. Fault Activity Map of California. Accessed May 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/.
California Department of Conservation. 2016. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Accessed May 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/.
California Department of Conservation. 2018. Placer County Important Farmland 2018. Accessed October 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Map published May 2021.
California Department of Conservation. 2022. Mineral Lands Classification. Accessed May 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc.
California Department of Forestry and Fire (CAL FIRE). 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA.
Placer County. Accessed May 2022. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6744/fhszl_map31.pdf.
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. 2022. Laws, Regulations and Annotations.
Timberland. Accessed May 2022. https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol4/ttl/ttl-ch6-7-all.html#51101.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map.
Accessed May 2022. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id= 465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.
California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2021. The Cal-IPC Inventory. Accessed February 2021. https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/.
City of Rocklin. 2012a. General Plan. Land Use Element. https://www.rocklin.ca.us/sites/main/files/file- attachments/chapter_iv_a-land_use_errata_edits_accepted_11-2-12_0.pdf?1484085258.
City of Rocklin. 2012b. General Plan. Open Space, Conservation & Recreation Element. https://www.rocklin.ca.us/sites/main/files/file-attachments/chapter_iv_b-_open_space_- _revised_2015_ulop-ts.pdf?1525298871https://www.rocklin.ca.us/sites/main/files/file- attachments/chapter_iv_b-_open_space_-_revised_2015_ulop-ts.pdf?1525298871.
City of Rocklin. 2021a. General Plan. Community Safety Element. August. https://www.rocklin.ca.us/ sites/main/files/file-attachments/1_rocklin_2021_safety_element_update__adopted.pdf?1647992544. 759759
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
PPS0721220932SAC 5-2
City of Rocklin. 2021b. General Plan Land Use Map. August 3. https://www.rocklin.ca.us/sites/main/files/file-attachments/existinggeneralplanmap_0.pdf?1628802986 City of Rocklin. 2022a . Emergency Organization. Municipal Code 2.32. https://library.municode.com/ca/rocklin/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT2ADPE_CH2.32EMOR.
City of Rocklin. 2022b. Fire Stations and Apparatus. Accessed May 2022. https://www.rocklin.ca.us/node/2049.
City of Rocklin. 2022c. Police Department. Accessed May 2022. https://www.rocklin.ca.us/police.
City of Rocklin. 2022d. Construction Noise Guidelines. Accessed November 2022. https://www.rocklin.ca.us/overview/construction-noise-guidelines.
Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). 2022. EnviroStor. Accessed June 2022. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=4500+Rocklin+Rd%2C+Rocklin%2C+CA+9 5677.
Fehr & Peers. 2022. Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project Transportation Analysis Report.
Prepared for the City of Rocklin and Caltrans. April.
Jacobs. 2022a. I-80/Rocklin Road Interchange Improvements Project – Scenic Resources Evaluation and Visual Impact Assessment – DRAFT. January 28.
Jacobs. 2022b. Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project, Placer County, California, Natural Environment Study. Prepared for the City of Rocklin. May.
Jacobs. 2022c. Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project, Placer County, California Archaeological Survey Report. July.
Jacobs. 2022d. Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project, Placer County, California Historical Property Survey Report. July.
Jacobs 2022e. Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project, Placer County Air Quality Report. June.
Jacobs. 2022f. Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project PA&ED at Secret Ravine Bridge Water Quality Assessment Memo. May.
Jacobs. 2022g. I-80/Rocklin Road Interchange Improvements Project, Noise Screening Memo. January 28.
Jacobs. 2022h. Preliminary Foundation Report. February 4.
Jacobs. 2022i. Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report. February 4.
Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD). 2017. 2017 CEQA Handbook. https://www.placer.ca.gov/1801/CEQA-Handbook.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. GeoTracker. Accessed June 2022. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?global_id=SL33616#.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) online database. Species list query for the project location. Accessed November 24, 2021, December 2021, and May 2022. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.
760760
Appendix A
Species Lists
761761
Species
Element Code
Federal Status
State Status
Global Rank
State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper's hawk
ABNKC12040
None
None
G5
S4
WL
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020
None
Threatened
G1G2
S2
SSC
Alkali Meadow
Alkali Meadow
CTT45310CA
None
None
G3
S2.1
Alkali Seep
Alkali Seep
CTT45320CA
None
None
G3
S2.1
Allium jepsonii
Jepson's onion
PMLIL022V0
None
None
G2
S2
1B.2
Ammodramus savannarum
grasshopper sparrow
ABPBXA0020
None
None
G5
S3
SSC
Ammonitella yatesii
tight coin (=Yates' snail)
IMGASB0010
None
None
G1
S1
Andrena blennospermatis
Blennosperma vernal pool andrenid bee
IIHYM35030
None
None
G2
S1
Andrena subapasta
An andrenid bee
IIHYM35210
None
None
G1G2
S1S2
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
AMACC10010
None
None
G4
S3
SSC
Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
ABNKC22010
None
None
G5
S3
FP
Ardea alba
great egret
ABNGA04040
None
None
G5
S4
Ardea herodias
great blue heron
ABNGA04010
None
None
G5
S4
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
ABNSB10010
None
None
G4
S2
SSC
Balsamorhiza macrolepis
big-scale balsamroot
PDAST11061
None
None
G2
S2
1B.2
Banksula californica
Alabaster Cave harvestman
ILARA14020
None
None
GH
SH
Banksula galilei
Galile's cave harvestman
ILARA14040
None
None
G1
S1
Bombus morrisoni
Morrison bumble bee
IIHYM24460
None
None
G3
S1S2
Bombus occidentalis
western bumble bee
IIHYM24252
None
Candidate
Endangered
G3
S1
Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Rocklin (3812172)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Lincoln (3812183)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Gold Hill (3812182)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Auburn (3812181)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Roseville (3812173)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Pilot Hill (3812171)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Citrus Heights (3812163)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Folsom (3812162)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Clarksville (3812161)) Query Criteria:
Report Printed on Friday, July 21, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated July, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 1/1/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
762762
Species
Element Code
Federal Status
State Status
Global Rank
State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Bombus pensylvanicus
American bumble bee
IIHYM24260
None
None
G3G4
S2
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
Threatened
None
G3
S3
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
ABNKC19070
None
Threatened
G5
S4
Calystegia stebbinsii
Stebbins' morning-glory
PDCON040H0
Endangered
Endangered
G1
S1
1B.1
Carex xerophila
chaparral sedge
PMCYP03M60
None
None
G2
S2
1B.2
Ceanothus roderickii
Pine Hill ceanothus
PDRHA04190
Endangered
Rare
G1
S1
1B.1
Chlorogalum grandiflorum
Red Hills soaproot
PMLIL0G020
None
None
G3
S3
1B.2
Chloropyron molle ssp. hispidum
hispid salty bird's-beak
PDSCR0J0D1
None
None
G2T1
S1
1B.1
Clarkia biloba ssp. brandegeeae
Brandegee's clarkia
PDONA05053
None
None
G4G5T4
S4
4.2 Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend's big-eared bat
AMACC08010
None
None
G4
S2
SSC
Cosumnoperla hypocrena
Cosumnes stripetail
IIPLE23020
None
None
G2
S2
Crocanthemum suffrutescens
Bisbee Peak rush-rose
PDCIS020F0
None
None
G2?Q
S2?
3.2 Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
IICOL48011
Threatened
None
G3T3
S3
Downingia pusilla
dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
ABNKC06010
None
None
G5
S3S4
FP
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
ARAAD02030
None
None
G3G4
S3
SSC
Erethizon dorsatum
North American porcupine
AMAFJ01010
None
None
G5
S3
Falco columbarius
merlin
ABNKD06030
None
None
G5
S3S4
WL
Falco peregrinus anatum
American peregrine falcon
ABNKD06071
Delisted
Delisted
G4T4
S3S4
FP
Fremontodendron decumbens
Pine Hill flannelbush
PDSTE03030
Endangered
Rare
G1
S1
1B.2
Fritillaria agrestis
stinkbells
PMLIL0V010
None
None
G3
S3
4.2 Report Printed on Friday, July 21, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated July, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 1/1/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
763763
Species
Element Code
Federal Status
State Status
Global Rank
State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Fritillaria eastwoodiae
Butte County fritillary
PMLIL0V060
None
None
G3Q
S3
3.2 Galium californicum ssp. sierrae
El Dorado bedstraw
PDRUB0N0E7
Endangered
Rare
G5T1
S1
1B.2
Gratiola heterosepala
Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop
PDSCR0R060
None
Endangered
G2
S2
1B.2
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
bald eagle
ABNKC10010
Delisted
Endangered
G5
S3
FP
Hydrochara rickseckeri
Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle
IICOL5V010
None
None
G2?
S2?
Juncus leiospermus var. ahartii
Ahart's dwarf rush
PMJUN011L1
None
None
G2T1
S1
1B.2
Juncus leiospermus var. leiospermus
Red Bluff dwarf rush
PMJUN011L2
None
None
G2T2
S2
1B.1
Lasionycteris noctivagans
silver-haired bat
AMACC02010
None
None
G3G4
S3S4
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus
California black rail
ABNME03041
None
Threatened
G3T1
S2
FP
Lathyrus sulphureus var. argillaceus
dubious pea
PDFAB25101
None
None
G5T1T2Q
S1S2
3 Legenere limosa
legenere
PDCAM0C010
None
None
G2
S2
1B.1
Lepidurus packardi
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
ICBRA10010
Endangered
None
G3
S3
Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
ICBRA06010
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
Melospiza melodia pop. 1
song sparrow ("Modesto" population)
ABPBXA3013
None
None
G5T3?Q
S3?
SSC
Nannopterum auritum
double-crested cormorant
ABNFD01020
None
None
G5
S4
WL
Navarretia myersii ssp. myersii
pincushion navarretia
PDPLM0C0X1
None
None
G2T2
S2
1B.1
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
CTT44110CA
None
None
G3
S3.1
Northern Volcanic Mud Flow Vernal Pool
Northern Volcanic Mud Flow Vernal Pool
CTT44132CA
None
None
G1
S1.1
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 11
steelhead - Central Valley DPS
AFCHA0209K
Threatened
None
G5T2Q
S2
Orcuttia viscida
Sacramento Orcutt grass
PMPOA4G070
Endangered
Endangered
G1
S1
1B.1
Packera layneae
Layne's ragwort
PDAST8H1V0
Threatened
Rare
G2
S2
1B.2
Report Printed on Friday, July 21, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated July, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 1/1/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
764764
Species
Element Code
Federal Status
State Status
Global Rank
State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Pandion haliaetus
osprey
ABNKC01010
None
None
G5
S4
WL
Progne subis
purple martin
ABPAU01010
None
None
G5
S3
SSC
Rana boylii pop. 3
foothill yellow-legged frog - north Sierra DPS
AAABH01053
None
Threatened
G3T2
S2
Rana boylii pop. 5
foothill yellow-legged frog - south Sierra DPS
AAABH01055
Proposed
Endangered
Endangered
G3T2
S2
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
AAABH01022
Threatened
None
G2G3
S2S3
SSC
Riparia riparia
bank swallow
ABPAU08010
None
Threatened
G5
S3
Sagittaria sanfordii
Sanford's arrowhead
PMALI040Q0
None
None
G3
S3
1B.2
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
AAABF02020
None
None
G2G3
S3S4
SSC
Taxidea taxus
American badger
AMAJF04010
None
None
G5
S3
SSC
Valley Needlegrass Grassland
Valley Needlegrass Grassland
CTT42110CA
None
None
G3
S3.1
Viburnum ellipticum
oval-leaved viburnum
PDCPR07080
None
None
G4G5
S3?
2B.3
Wyethia reticulata
El Dorado County mule ears
PDAST9X0D0
None
None
G2
S2
1B.2
Record Count: 73
Report Printed on Friday, July 21, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated July, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 1/1/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
765765
Search Results
CNPS Rare Plant Inventory
21 matches found. Click on scientific name for details
Search Criteria: CRPR is one of [1A:1B:2A:2B] Fed List is one of [FE:FT:FC:None] and State List is one of [CE:CT:CR:CC:None] , Quad is one of [3812173:3812172:3812162:3812163:3812161:3812171:3812183:3812182:3812181] ▲ SCIENTIFIC
NAME
COMMON
NAME FAMILY LIFEFORM
BLOOMING
PERIOD
FED
LIST
STATE
LIST
GLOBAL
RANK
STATE
RANK
CA
RARE
PLANT
RANK
CA
ENDEMIC
DATE
ADDED PHOTO
Allium jepsonii Jepson's
onion
Alliaceae perennial
bulbiferous
herb
Apr-Aug None None G2 S2 1B.2 Yes 1994-
01-01
© 2019 Steven
Perry
Balsamorhiza
macrolepis
big-scale
balsamroot
Asteraceae perennial herb Mar-Jun None None G2 S2 1B.2 Yes 1974- 01-01
©1998 Dean
Wm. Taylor
Calystegia
stebbinsii
Stebbins'
morning-
glory
Convolvulaceae perennial
rhizomatous
herb
Apr-Jul FE CE G1 S1 1B.1 Yes 1980-
01-01 No Photo
Available
Carex xerophila chaparral
sedge
Cyperaceae perennial herb Mar-Jun None None G2 S2 1B.2 Yes 2016- 06-06
© 2023 Steven
Perry
Ceanothus
roderickii
Pine Hill
ceanothus
Rhamnaceae perennial
evergreen
shrub
Apr-Jun FE CR G1 S1 1B.1 Yes 1974-
01-01 No Photo
Available
Chlorogalum
grandiflorum
Red Hills
soaproot
Agavaceae perennial
bulbiferous
herb
(Apr)May-
Jun
None None G3 S3 1B.2 Yes 1974-
01-01 No Photo
Available
Chloropyron
molle ssp.
hispidum
hispid salty
bird's-beak
Orobanchaceae annual herb
(hemiparasitic)
Jun-Sep None None G2T1 S1 1B.1 Yes 1974-
01-01 No Photo
Available
Downingia
pusilla
dwarf
downingia
Campanulaceae annual herb Mar-May None None GU S2 2B.2 1980- 01-01
© 2013 Aaron
Arthur
Fremontodendron
decumbens
Pine Hill
flannelbush
Malvaceae perennial
evergreen
shrub
Apr-Jul FE CR G1 S1 1B.2 Yes 1974-
01-01 No Photo
Available
766766
Galium
californicum ssp.
sierrae
El Dorado
bedstraw
Rubiaceae perennial herb May-Jun FE CR G5T1 S1 1B.2 Yes 1974- 01-01
© 2019 John
Doyen
Gratiola
heterosepala
Boggs Lake
hedge-
hyssop
Plantaginaceae annual herb Apr-Aug None CE G2 S2 1B.2 1974- 01-01
©2004 Carol
W. Witham
Hibiscus
lasiocarpos var.
occidentalis
woolly rose-
mallow
Malvaceae perennial
rhizomatous
herb
(emergent)
Jun-Sep None None G5T3 S3 1B.2 Yes 1974-
01-01
© 2020 Steven
Perry
Juncus
leiospermus var.
ahartii
Ahart's
dwarf rush
Juncaceae annual herb Mar-May None None G2T1 S1 1B.2 Yes 1984- 01-01
© 2004 Carol
W. Witham
Juncus
leiospermus var.
leiospermus
Red Bluff
dwarf rush
Juncaceae annual herb Mar-Jun None None G2T2 S2 1B.1 Yes 1974- 01-01
©2016 Dylan
Neubauer
Legenere limosa legenere Campanulaceae annual herb Apr-Jun None None G2 S2 1B.1 Yes 1974- 01-01
©2000 John
Game
Navarretia
myersii ssp.
myersii
pincushion
navarretia
Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-May None None G2T2 S2 1B.1 Yes 1994- 01-01
© 2020 Leigh
Johnson
Orcuttia viscida Sacramento
Orcutt grass
Poaceae annual herb Apr-
Jul(Sep)
FE CE G1 S1 1B.1 Yes 1974-
01-01
© Rick York
and CNPS
Packera layneae Layne's
ragwort
Asteraceae perennial herb Apr-Aug FT CR G2 S2 1B.2 Yes 1974- 01-01 No Photo
Available
767767
Sagittaria
sanfordii
Sanford's
arrowhead
Alismataceae perennial
rhizomatous
herb
(emergent)
May-
Oct(Nov)
None None G3 S3 1B.2 Yes 1984-
01-01
©2013 Debra
L. Cook
Viburnum
ellipticum
oval-leaved
viburnum
Viburnaceae perennial
deciduous
shrub
May-Jun None None G4G5 S3? 2B.3 1974-
01-01
© 2006 Tom
Engstrom
Wyethia
reticulata
El Dorado
County
mule ears
Asteraceae perennial herb Apr-Aug None None G2 S2 1B.2 Yes 1974- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Showing 1 to 21 of 21 entries
Suggested Citation:
California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2023. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5). Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 21 July 2023].
768768
July 21, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2022-0045513
Project Name: Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) 769769
07/21/2023 2
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to- birds.php.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/ executive-orders/e0-13186.php.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
770770
07/21/2023 3
▪
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
771771
07/21/2023 1
OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".
This species list is provided by:
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
772772
07/21/2023 2
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2022-0045513
Project Name: Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project Project Type: Bridge - Maintenance
Project Description: The City of Rocklin, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), is proposing improvements to the Rocklin Road/I-80 standard diamond interchange and Rocklin Road.
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@38.7873641,-121.22388506060705,14z Counties: Placer County, California
773773
07/21/2023 3
1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 4 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
INSECTS
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7850
Threatened
CRUSTACEANS
NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
Endangered
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.
YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HA VE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.
1 774774
07/21/2023 4
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: California Department of Transportation District 3 Name: Jack Gordon
Address: 155 Grand Ave.
Address Line 2: Ste. 800
City: Oakland
State: CA
Zip: 94612
Email [email protected]
Phone: 5625331107
775775
1 Gordon, Jack
From: Gordon, Jack
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2023 1:28 PM
To: NMFS SpeciesList - NOAA Service Account
Subject: Rocklin Road - I-80 Interchange Species List
Hello,
I’m requesƟng concurrence with the official species list pasted below for the Caltrans 2F9600, Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project which is proposing improvements to the Rocklin Road/I-80 standard diamond interchange. The Project is located within the Rockling USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangle.
Point of Contact:
Jack Gordon, M.S.| Jacobs
Biologist/Environmental Planner
+1.562.533.1107
[email protected]
Quad Name Rocklin
Quad Number 38121-G2
ESA Anadromous Fish
SONCC Coho ESU (T) -
CCC Coho ESU (E) -
CC Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
CVSR Chinook Salmon ESU (T) - X
SRWR Chinook Salmon ESU (E) -
NC Steelhead DPS (T) -
CCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SCCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SC Steelhead DPS (E) -
CCV Steelhead DPS (T) - X
Eulachon (T) -
sDPS Green Sturgeon (T) -
ESA Anadromous Fish Critical Habitat
SONCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CC Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
CVSR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
SRWR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
NC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
776776
2 CCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SCCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCV Steelhead Critical Habitat - X
Eulachon Critical Habitat -
sDPS Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat -
ESA Marine Invertebrates
Range Black Abalone (E) -
Range White Abalone (E) -
ESA Marine Invertebrates Critical Habitat
Black Abalone Critical Habitat -
ESA Sea Turtles
East Pacific Green Sea Turtle (T) -
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (T/E) -
Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) -
North Pacific Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E) -
ESA Whales
Blue Whale (E) -
Fin Whale (E) -
Humpback Whale (E) -
Southern Resident Killer Whale (E) -
North Pacific Right Whale (E) -
Sei Whale (E) -
Sperm Whale (E) -
ESA Pinnipeds
Guadalupe Fur Seal (T) -
Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat -
Essential Fish Habitat
Coho EFH -
Chinook Salmon EFH - X
Groundfish EFH -
Coastal Pelagics EFH -
Highly Migratory Species EFH -
777777
3 MMPA Species (See list at left)
ESA and MMPA Cetaceans/Pinnipeds
See list at left and consult the NMFS Long Beach office 562-980-4000
MMPA Cetaceans -
MMPA Pinnipeds -
778778
Appendix B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
779779
Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
October 2023
City of Rocklin
780780
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
230310070822_d5bcb80a i
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... iii
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring ................................................................................................ 1 Table
1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ................................................................................................................ 3
781781
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
230310070822_d5bcb80a iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Project Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Road Project
782782
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
230310070822_d5bcb80a 1
1. Introduction
The City of Rocklin published an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. The IS/MND evaluates the environmental impacts that may result from implementing the project and concludes that implementation of the project has the potential to result in less than significant environmental impacts to biological, cultural, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, wildfire, and mandatory findings of significance with mitigation incorporated. These impacts potentially resulting from construction and operation of the project would be mitigated to a less than significant level through feasible mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND.
Public Resources Code Section 21081.1 requires a lead agency to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) when it approves a project for which measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are required. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The City of Rocklin has developed a series of mitigation measures to minimize potential environmental impacts during project construction, which are incorporated into this MMRP and are summarized in Table 1.
This MMRP will be used by the City of Rocklin to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as a condition for project approval are implemented. This MMRP meets the requirements of Section 15074(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, which mandates the preparation of monitoring prov isions for the implementation of mitigation assigned as part of project approval or adoption.
2. Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring
The City of Rocklin is responsible for implementing and monitoring mitigation measures to mitigate impacts associated with the project. However, others have been assigned the responsibility of actually implementing certain measures. The City of Rocklin will designate certain personnel who will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures. The d esignated personnel will submit required documentation and reports to the City of Rocklin in a timely manner to demonstrate compliance with mitigation requirements. The City of Rocklin will ensure that the designated personnel have authority to require implementation of mitigation measures and to terminate activities, such as project construction, that are inconsistent with mitigation objectives or project approval conditions.
The City of Rocklin will be responsible for ensuring that construction personnel understand their responsibilities regarding the performance requirements of the mitigation plan, as well as other contractual requirements related to implementation of the mitigation measures during project construction. The City of Rocklin will also be r esponsible for demonstrating compliance with other agency permit conditions to the appropriate regulatory agency.
In the following pages, Table 1 provides this information:
Mitigation Measure Number: Mitigation measures are listed by number as designated in the IS/MND, by resource category.
Mitigation Measure: The text of each mitigation measure is provided as adopted by the City of Rocklin and incorporated into the project.
Implemented By: The City of Rocklin is responsible for making sure that all mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND are fully enforceable by adopting and incorporating them into the project. 783783
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2 230310070822_d5bcb80a
During project implementation, the City of Rocklin may assign others the responsibility of actually implementing the measure.
When Implemented : All mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND have been adopted and incorporated into the project. The City of Rocklin will ensure that the timing and duration of implementation of the mitigation measures occur in accordance with the appropriate activ ity or permit requirement, as necessary.
Monitoring or Reporting Action: If a mitigation measure requires monitoring or reporting actions, often as the result of a permit condition, the City of Rocklin will ensure those actions are performed in accordance with the mitigation or permit.
784784
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
230310070822_d5bcb80a 3
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Mitigation
Measure
Number Mitigation Measure
Implemented
By When Implemented
Monitoring or Reporting
Action
(if applicable)
Section 4.2.4. Biological Resources
BIO-1 Documentation at Project Site. A Compliance Binder will be maintained at the construction site and presented to resource agency personnel upon request. The Compliance Binder will include a copy of the project’s permits, certifications, and agreements, and any extensions and amendments to the permits, certifications, and agreements.
Construction
Manager
Project
Biologist
Pre-construction
During construction
None
BIO-2 Worker Environmental Awareness Training. Prior to construction, a biologist will provide a training session for the workers to identify sensitive species or habitats that may be in the area, their basic habits, how they may be encountered in their work area, and procedures to follow when they are encountered. Any personnel joining the work crew later will receive the same training before beginning work.
Upon completion of the education program, workers will sign a form stating they attended the program and understand all protection measures. A pamphlet that contains images of sensitive species or habitats that may occur on the site and notes key avoidance measures, as well as employee guidance, will be given to each person who completes the training program. These forms will be made available to the resource agencies upon request.
Construction
Manager
Project
Biologist
Pre-construction None
BIO-3 Mark Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). Before construction begins, ESAs will be clearly delineated using high-visibility orange fencing, flagging, or other appropriate designation methods to delineate sensitive habitats. The ESA marking will remain in place throughout construction. The final project plans will depict all locations where ESA markings will be installed and how they will be installed. ESA markings will be maintained in good repair throughout construction.
Contractor Pre-construction
During construction
None
BIO-4 Biological Monitoring of ESA Marking and Vegetation Clearing. A qualified biologist will survey the area prior to marking and delineation of the ESA, and will monitor the installation of these materials. A qualified monitor will be present during all vegetation clearing and any other construction activities for the duration of the project in areas adjacent to ESAs to identify wildlife species present and ensure compliance with proper implementation of vegetation removal, best Construction
Manager
Project
Biologist
Pre-construction
During construction
Report to regulatory
agencies, as needed
785785
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4 230310070822_d5bcb80a
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Mitigation
Measure
Number Mitigation Measure
Implemented
By When Implemented
Monitoring or Reporting
Action
(if applicable)
management practices (BMPs), and to ensure that all biological resource-related measures are properly adhered to.
BIO-5 Project Area. The project will not impede or affect the riparian habitat present within the BSA. The marked ESA will be located along and outside of the Secret Ravine riparian habitat.
Construction
Manager
Project
Biologist
Pre-construction
During construction
None
BIO-6 Oak Tree Removal. When and where possible, the City of Rocklin will avoid the unnecessary removal and trimming of oak trees.
Construction
Manager
Project
Biologist
Pre-construction
During construction
Report to regulatory
agencies, as needed
BIO-7 Vegetation Removal. Vegetation will be cleared only where necessary and will be cut above soil level, except in areas that will be permanently affected or excavated.
This removal allows plants that reproduce vegetatively to resprout after construction.
Construction
Manager
Project
Biologist
Pre-construction
During construction
None
BIO-8 Invasive Weed Control. Noxious weeds will be controlled within the site in accordance with Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) by methods approved by a vegetation control specialist. If work occurs in sensitive habitat, vehicles and equipment will be thoroughly cleaned before arriving on the site to prevent the spread of noxious weeds from other locations.
Construction
Manager
Project
Biologist
During construction None
BIO-9 Nesting Bird Surveys. If vegetation removal or construction occurs between February 1 and September 30, a preconstruction survey(s) will be conducted for nesting birds no more than 3 days before construction. The survey will include a 300-foot buffer of the BSA to capture any potential nesting located within the surrounding oak woodland and riparian habitat. If active nests are found, an appropriate buffer will be established, and the nest will be monitored for compliance with MBTA and CFGC section 3503.
Construction
Manager
Project
Biologist
Pre-construction
During construction
Report to regulatory
agencies, as needed
786786
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
230310070822_d5bcb80a 5
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Mitigation
Measure
Number Mitigation Measure
Implemented
By When Implemented
Monitoring or Reporting
Action
(if applicable)
BIO-10 Nesting Bird Surveys. If construction activities are halted for more than 5 days during the nesting season (between February 1 and September 30), a nesting bird survey will be performed prior to the recommencement of construction-related activities.
Construction
Manager
Project
Biologist
Pre-construction
During construction
Report to regulatory
agencies, as needed
BIO-11 Restore Disturbed Areas. Temporarily disturbed areas will be restored to the maximum extent practicable. Exposed slopes and bare ground will be reseeded with native grasses to stabilize and prevent erosion. The City of Rocklin will provide a post-construction restoration and revegetation plan for the project to be reviewed and approved by the agencies no later than 60 calendar days prior to the initial groundbreaking at the project site.
Contractor Pre-construction
During construction
Operation phase
Coordination with
Caltrans and the City of
Rocklin
BIO-12 Bat Protection. A habitat assessment/nighttime emergence survey will be conducted for potentially suitable bat-roosting habitat prior to construction activities. If the survey reveals any structures are suitable roosting habitat for bats, then the appropriate measures will be implemented prior to construction.
Potential avoidance may include exclusionary blocking or filling potential cavities with foam, visual monitoring, and scheduling project work to avoid bats. If bats are known to use the structures, then exclusion netting will not be used.
Construction
Manager
Project
Biologist
Pre-construction
During construction
None
BIO-13 Prevent Inadvertent Entrapment. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of animals during construction, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 1 foot deep will be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials, or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen fill or wooden planks at an angle no greater than 30 degrees. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they will be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals.
Construction
Manager
Project
Biologist
During construction None
BIO-14 Night Lighting. Nighttime work will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. For unavoidable nighttime work, all lighting will be shielded and directed downwards toward the active construction area to avoid exposing nocturnal wildlife to excessive glare.
Construction
Manager
Project
Biologist
During construction None
787787
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
6 230310070822_d5bcb80a
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Mitigation
Measure
Number Mitigation Measure
Implemented
By When Implemented
Monitoring or Reporting
Action
(if applicable)
BIO-15 Fence and Signpost Restriction. Any fencing posts, sign posts, t-posts, or vertical poles installed temporarily or permanently will have the post or pole capped, or the top three post holes covered or filled with screws or bolts to prevent the entrapment of wildlife, specifically birds of prey.
Construction
Manager
Project
Biologist
During construction None
BIO-16 No Monofilament Netting. Plastic monofilament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material will not be used because wildlife may become entangled or trapped in it. Acceptable substitutes include coconut coir matting or tackifier hydroseeding compounds.
Construction
Manager
Project
Biologist
Pre-construction
During construction
None
BIO-17 Construction Site Management Practices. The following site restrictions will be implemented:
Locate construction access, staging, storage, and parking areas outside ESAs to the maximum extent possible. Access routes, staging and storage areas, and contractor parking will be limited to the minimum necessary to construct the project.
Certify, to the maximum extent practicable, borrow material is non-toxic and weed free.
Enclose food and food-related trash items in sealed trash containers. Prohibit pets from entering the project limits during construction. Prohibit firearms within the project limits, except for those carried by authorized security personnel or local, State, or federal law enforcement officials Contractor Pre-construction
During construction
None
Section 4.2.5. Cultural Resources
CULT-1 Discovery of Cultural Resources. If an inadvertent discovery of cultural materials or tribal cultural resources is made during project-related construction activities, ground disturbances in the area of the find will be halted; and a qualified professional archaeologist, the Environmental Services Manager, and the Native American Heritage Commission will be notified. The archaeologist will determine whether the resource is potentially significant according to CEQA (that is, whether Contractor
Project
Archaeologist
During construction Coordination with
applicable
jurisdictions/agencies 788788
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
230310070822_d5bcb80a 7
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Mitigation
Measure
Number Mitigation Measure
Implemented
By When Implemented
Monitoring or Reporting
Action
(if applicable)
it is a historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, a unique paleontological resource, or a tribal cultural resource) and will develop specific measures to ensure preservation of the resource or to mitigate impacts to the resource if it cannot feasibly be preserved in light of costs, logistics, technological considerations, the location of the find, and the extent to which avoidance and/or preservation of the find is consistent or inconsistent with the design and objectives of the project. Specific measures for significant or potentially significant resources may include preservation in place, in-field documentation, archival research, subsurface testing, and excavation. The specific type of measure necessary would be consistent with CEQA Guidelines for preserving or otherwise mitigating impacts to archaeological and cultural artifacts and tribal cultural resources.
CULT-2 Discovery of Human Remains. If any human remains are discovered, work will stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovery; the County Coroner will be notified, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code; and the City’s Environmental Services Manager will be notified. There will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until compliance with the provisions of Sections 15064.5 (e) (1) and (2) of the CEQA Guidelines, as well as Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, has occurred. If the remains are Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will then inform a most likely descendant. The descendant will then recommend to the landowner appropriate disposition of the remains and any grave goods, and the landowner will comply with the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 2641.
Contractor
Project
Archaeologist
During construction Coordination with
applicable
jurisdictions/agencies
Section 4.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 Caltrans Standard Specifications and Hazardous Waste Regulations. Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 13-4, Job Site Management, will be implemented to prevent and control spills or leaks from construction equipment and from storage of fuels, paints, cleaners, solvents, and lubricants. All aspects of the project associated with transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be done in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code and the appropriate local, Contractor Pre-construction None
789789
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
8 230310070822_d5bcb80a
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Mitigation
Measure
Number Mitigation Measure
Implemented
By When Implemented
Monitoring or Reporting
Action
(if applicable)
State, and federal hazardous waste regulations. Handling and management of hazardous materials would comply with the current Caltrans Standard Specification Section 14-11, Hazardous Waste and Contamination, which outlines handling, storing, and disposing of hazardous waste.
HAZ-2 Soil and Groundwater Investigation. The 76 Gas Station is a high-risk site. A Phase II environmental site assessment of the subsurface soil and groundwater within the acquisition area will be conducted. At a minimum, the Phase II study should investigate the area and maximum depth where construction is anticipated to disturb the subsurface soil and encounter groundwater. If results of the Phase II environmental site assessment determine acceptable levels, then no further action is needed. If results are determined to be above acceptable levels, the site where contamination occurs would need to be contained, excavated, and hauled off to a proper disposal site.
City of Rocklin Pre-construction Coordination with Placer County Public Health,
Department of Toxic
Substances and/or
Regional Water Quality
Control Board would be
required if Phase II test
results are determined
to be above acceptable
levels.
HAZ-3 Yellow Traffic Stripes. Yellow traffic striping will be removed and disposed of in accordance with Caltrans Standard Special Provisions for hazardous waste.
Caltrans Guideline for Selecting Materials and Standard Special Provisions for Traffic Striping and Pavement Marking (October 2019) contains guidelines for disposal of yellow traffic striping.
Contractor During construction None
HAZ-4 Asbestos-containing Materials and Lead in Buildings. Any structure planned for modification or demolition, including the existing bridge, must be evaluated for the presence of lead and asbestos-containing materials by a California-certified asbestos and lead inspector prior to demolition or modification. If asbestos is present, a certified asbestos abatement specialist will monitor the disposal of the asbestos-containing materials as they are uncovered. A Lead Compliance Plan will be prepared to address workers’ health and safety.
Contractor Pre-construction None HAZ-5 Transformers. If the relocation of power facilities or high-voltage power lines is required, existing transformers should be tested for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or other hazardous materials. Identification, Contractor Pre-construction None
790790
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
230310070822_d5bcb80a 9
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Mitigation
Measure
Number Mitigation Measure
Implemented
By When Implemented
Monitoring or Reporting
Action
(if applicable)
testing, and remediation of the old transformers is the responsibility of the utility owner.
HAZ-6 Groundwater Monitoring Wells. The contractor will be informed of the potential to encounter monitoring wells. If a well is encountered during construction, Placer County Environmental Health Department will be contacted to determine if the well is still active. If the well is determined to be active, coordination will occur between the City and Placer County Environmental Health Department to determine if the well needs to be replaced. If the well is determined abandoned, Placer County Environmental Health Department will be contacted for well abandonment procedures and permitting requirements.
City of Rocklin Pre-construction Coordination with
applicable
jurisdictions/agencies
Section 4.2.13 Noise
NOI-1 Specifications for Controlling Noise and Vibration. Construction noise exceeding 86 A-weighted decibels at 50 feet from the job site will not be allowed to occur at night between the hours of 9 p.m. to 6 a.m.
Contractor During construction None
791791
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
10 230310070822_d5bcb80a
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Mitigation
Measure
Number Mitigation Measure
Implemented
By When Implemented
Monitoring or Reporting
Action
(if applicable)
NOI-2 Noise Levels during Construction. The following measures will be implemented during construction to reduce noise:
Schedule noisy operations within the same timeframe. The total noise level will not be substantially greater than the level produced if operations are performed separately.
Construct temporary noise barriers between noisy activities and noise-sensitive receptors or around activities with high noise levels or groups of noisy equipment.
Avoid unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines, regardless of proximity to sensitive receptors.
Locate all stationary noise-generating construction equipment as far as practicable from noise-sensitive receptors, or provide baffled housing or sound aprons to equipment when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area.
Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with manufacturer- recommended intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
Use quiet air compressors and other quiet equipment where such technology exists.
No construction equipment will be delivered and dropped off before 6 a.m. Maintain all internal combustion engines properly to minimize noise generation.
Contractor During construction None
Section 3.2.18 Transportation
TRANS-1 Traffic Management Plan. To minimize potential effects from construction activities to motorists, bicyclists, or pedestrians using local streets, a TMP would be developed and implemented throughout construction. The TMP would include public information, motorist information, incident management, construction, and alternate routes or detours. The TMP would also include elements, such as detour and haul Contractor Pre-construction
During construction
Coordination with
applicable
jurisdictions/agencies
792792
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
230310070822_d5bcb80a 11
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project
Mitigation
Measure
Number Mitigation Measure
Implemented
By When Implemented
Monitoring or Reporting
Action
(if applicable)
routes, one-way traffic controls to minimize speeds and congestion, flag workers, and phasing, to reduce impacts to local residents and I-80 travelers as much as feasible and maintain access to businesses in the local area. The TMP would also provide access for police, fire, and medical services in the local area. Detour routes would be planned in coordination with the City of Rocklin and Caltrans, and would include notices to emergency service providers, transit operators, and the public in advance.
793793
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROCKLIN APPROVING ALTERNATIVE 1 – A DIVERGING DIAMOND INTERCHANGE
CONFIGURATION WITH BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN USE PROVIDED BY A DEDICATED OVERCROSSING OF INTERSTATE 80
Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 Interchange Project
WHEREAS, in 2012 the City decided on a roundabout configuration to mitigate for traffic growth at Rocklin Road and Interstate 80 (I-80) however, it was not feasible due to the modeled gridlock within the corridor when anticipated ramp metering was activated; and WHEREAS, in 2020 Diverging Diamond Interchange was modeled and found to accommodate anticipated ramp metering and large turning movements identified from peak hour traffic, and was determined to be economically feasible, resulting in the City Council awarding the contract for the Project Approval and Environmental Document and moving forward with the environmental review; and
WHEREAS, as part of the environmental review process, several design options to review and consider were put forth regarding pedestrian/ADA/bicycle paths of travel through the project site; and
WHEREAS, through the community/public engagement process these options were narrowed down to two, Alternative 1 a pedestrian/ADA/bike over-crossing that would go above I-80, and Alternative 2 a pedestrian/ADA/bike under-crossing that would go below I-80 adjacent to the roadway; and
WHEREAS, the Caltrans Project Delivery Team (PDT) reviewed the comments received from the public along with input provided from the various Caltrans disciplines/divisions and recommended Alternative 1 by a vote of 9-6; and
WHEREAS, Alternative 1 provides the ability to use the overcrossing structure as a gateway monument, is the most cost effective option, and is in the best interest of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rocklin as follows:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Rocklin hereby approves Alternative 1 – A Diverging Diamond Interchange Configuration with Bicycle and Pedestrian Use Provided by a Dedicated Overcrossing of Interstate 80.
794794
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of November, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
____________________________________
Ken Broadway, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Haley Reid, Acting City Clerk
795795
ATTACHMENT 1
796796
ATTACHMENT 2
797797
Rocklin Road Interchange Project – Public Comments Received– October 2023 ATTACHMENT 3 Number Date
Received
Commenter Comment CEQA
Comment
Response
1 9/8/2023 Ravnir Saini Please update me what is your thoughts about 76 Gas Station Property.
How this will happen to my property?
What is the solution for my pumps/canopy, and land
configuration
We need to have architects involved.
No Thank you for your continued interest in
this project. It is anticipated that the project
will be presented to the Rocklin City
Council on Tuesday, November 14, 2023.
If the environmental documents are
approved at the end of 2023, the design
phase would start in January 2024 and the
City can begin discussions with property
owners. Let me know if you have any other
questions and we appreciate your
continued input on this important project.
2 9/12/2023 Andre Baranov I am super excited about the DDI intersection. We live near the college and regularly face the traffic. Thank you – and the City of Rocklin - for undertaking this project.
Just a few notes:
Perhaps instead of doing the separated pedestrian
overpass/tunnel we can do and over/under pass at the two “intersections” to eliminate the signals and stopping at the crossover traffic. If you elevate one direction and lower the other – then you can have continuous traffic flow at the “intersection”. Then you can use the available middle lane width for a wider pedestrian path on the same side its on now. If you keep the pedestrians on the elevated overpass side, it would have an open feel.
This way you will be left with 2 lanes +2 lanes + wider pedestrian open walkway and not need to tunnel or build an overpass. Perhaps you can use some of the money from the “tunnel” or “pedestrian bridge” for over/under bridgework too.
It would be a bit of a “basket-weave” but the over/under pass would only need to be half the height + thickness to the bridge if you drop the under pass lower than grade, which the creek drainage seems to allow for.
In any case – no lights at the intersections could be a major plus for the college flow.
[DIAGRAM INCLUDED IN EMAIL SUBMITTAL]
No Thank you for your comment and for your
support for the project. This information
will be provided to City Council for
consideration.
798798
3 9/13/2023 Gary Grewal I’ve been a Rocklin resident who’s participated in the public outreach process, and I fully support this project to safely allow pedestrians and cyclists to navigate this area. Hope it gets underway soon!
The only request or feedback we would have is to vote for the overcrowding rather than an under crossing. Enclosed public passageways seem to be a haven for transient
activity, crime, vandalism, etc.
No Thank you for your comment and for your
support for the project. Your preference for
Alternative 1 is noted. This information will
be provided to City Council for
consideration.
4 10/2/2023 Art Emus Please consider option one with overpass for cycling traffic.
We live on the east side of Rocklin and would like the option to ride our bikes to quarry park.
No Thank you for your comment and for your
support for the project. Your preference for
Alternative 1 is noted. This information will
be provided to City Council for
consideration.
5 10/3/2023 Cathy Haggen-
Smit
As a pedestrian and a cyclist I urge the accommodations for safe crossing preferably by bridge, but by tunnel if that is required to meet the safe crossing needs.
One needs only to look at the nearby Sierra College over crossing to see how incredibly dangerous it is for cyclists. I live in Newcastle and use the Taylor Road Class 2 bike lane for most of my shopping, exercise and errands. Getting to class or shops has become more dangerous as Motorists
were provided improvements at Sierra College, at the
expense of cyclists' and pedestrian safety! Motorists will not be looking for cyclists or pedestrians as they navigate on and off ramps in conjunction with ingress and egress to busy shopping centers. The simple act of riding my bike to the store, to grab take-out meals or get a haircut is a harrowing experience.
Please make it safe for folks to get to the store and school at Rocklin Road. With the increasing popularity of eBikes, and impacts of climate change, more and more people will be riding instead of driving. Thank you for considering our safety.
No Thank you for your comment and for your
support for the project. Your preference for
Alternative 1 is noted. This information will
be provided to City Council for
consideration.
6 10/3/2023 Steve Tichy
Judi Takayama
We would support option of bridge to cross walkers and
bikes safely across DD Interchange rather than via tunnel which can pose a security issue for females.
No Thank you for your comment and for your
support for the project. Your preference for
Alternative 1 is noted. This information will
be provided to City Council for
consideration.
7 10/5/2023 Roger Smith A project of this massive scope and timeframe should have a full Environmental Impact Study / EIR, not a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
Yes Thank you for commenting on the IS/MND.
The City has determined that an IS/MND is
the appropriate level of documentation
799799
This intersection serves the very high traffic flow from Sierra College and from the dense surrounding Rocklin community - as well as residents of south Loomis off Barton Road. With construction estimated to take as long as 5 years, the
impacts will be huge (e.g., traffic congestion, air & water pollution, dust, noise, public safety)
Therefore, a full Environmental Impact Study and EIR
should be prepared. MNDs are intended to only be used for lesser projects with minimal anticipated impacts.
(Of course, this project and its impacts on the public are the result of the City of Rocklin's earlier ill-advised approval of the massive developments surrounding Sierra College.)
based on the results of the CEQA analysis
performed. The analysis concluded that
impacts to the environment as a result of
the project would be less than significant
with mitigation; therefore, the need for an
EIR is not warranted.
8 10/9/2023 Peter Minkel
CVRWQCB
See Form Letter from RWQCB Yes Thank you for commenting on the IS/MND.
The City appreciates information regarding
the applicable regulations and permitting
requirement for projects within Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board jurisdiction. The project will comply
with water quality standards and waste
discharge requirements.
800800
City Council
Staff Report
Subject:
Letter of Intent for the Proposed Sale of Successor Agency-Owned Property at 5255 Pacific Street (APN 010-170-026).
Date:
November 14, 2023
Submitted By:
Sherri Conway, Assistant City Manager
Department:
City Manager's Office
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution of the Successor Agency of the City of Rocklin Approving a Letter of Intent for the Sale of the Former Redevelopment Agency Property.
Background:
The City of Rocklin Redevelopment Agency owned a parcel at 5255 Pacific Street, totaling approximately 3.0 acres (130,680 square feet), specifically identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 010-170-026. The property is also referred to as the Big Gun site. Following the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency, the subject parcel is now owned by the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency to the City of Rocklin (Successor Agency).
The sale or disposition of property is regulated by a Long Range Property Management Plan (LRPMP), which is approved by the Placer County Oversight Board. Approval from the Oversight Board of property sales ensures the transaction is consistent with the LRPMP and to ensure the fair compensation is being received for the property.
The Surplus Land Act requires that local agencies make formal action in a regular public meeting to declare land surplus and not necessary for the agency’s use which was undertaken as follows:
February 22, 2022: the Successor Agency adopted Resolution No. 2022-43SA declaring the property at 5255 Pacific Street to be surplus and
distributed a Notice of Availability of
Surplus Land to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and all listed interested parties.
The Successor Agency received a total of four Notices of Interest during the following 60- day period.
Telephone interviews were conducted with each of the proposers.
June 7, 2022: the Successor Agency issued a follow up Notice of Availability of the property to four respondents that had submitted a statement of interest, which included information Successor Agency Negotiation prerequisites.
The four proposers were
requested to submit supplemental information to the Successor Agency by a date certain.
Item Number 6A.
801801
During this period, no proposals were forthcoming, and all four withdrew their interest.
July 28, 2022: the City provided documentation to the California Department of Housing and Community Development demonstrating compliance with the provisions with the Surplus Land Act.
August 23, 2023: the City received written comments from HCD thus determining that the City had met all requirements under the SLA for the purposes of disposing of the surplus land located at APN 010-170-026 and the Successor Agency is now permitted to proceed with the sale or lease of the property.
The City had an appraisal report completed on this property in May of 2023 and the appraised value was found to be $950,000.
Recognizing the importance of a professional entity to assist the Successor Agency in marketing and managing the sale of the property, the Agency sought proposals from qualified commercial real estate brokers. Three proposals from commercial brokers interested in an Exclusive Listing Agreement were submitted. After interviewing two of the three, Capital Rivers Commercial was selected based on their experience in the region with Successor Agency owned properties. In August of 2023, the City, as Agent to the Successor Agency, executed an Exclusive Sale Listing Agreement with Capitol Rivers Commercial, Inc. Marketing materials depicting the City’s vision for the property were then developed and the listing went live in late August of 2023.
In September 2023, the City received a draft Letter of Intent (LOI) from G3 Concepts expressing an interest in purchasing the property. G3 Concepts develops both Commercial and Multifamily projects, including the San Luis Obispo Public Market, which they currently own and operate with over 20 diverse business types. Their concept for the Big Gun site is the “Rocklin Public Market”, an innovative project designed to create a hub where people can eat, drink, play, and gather. As proposed, the centerpiece of the project is a two-story, 6,000- 8,000 square foot public market building, featuring food and beverage vendors on the first floor, with an open area on the second floor for events and overflow seating. A second, stand- alone building would house a potential Brewery, Distillery and Pub, complete with a private outdoor covered patio. Additional buildings will include more traditional retail space, office space, and a few limited residential units. The project will also include central courtyard, a gathering place designed to foster community engagement.
Following receipt of the draft LOI, several meetings were held with the developer team and staff to discuss the proposed project and refine the terms of the LOI. The proposed terms of the LOI have been negotiated and include the following:
1 .
The purchase price for the Property will be $995,000, payable in cash at close of escrow. 2 .
Buyer will initially deposit $10,000.
3 .
Buyer’s obligation to purchase the Property will be subject to completion of Buyer’s due diligence and Buyer’s approval of the Property, including soils conditions, environmental matters, zoning, use restrictions and other matters, on or before the later of 60 days after the Effective Date of a Purchase Agreement or 30 days after receipt of a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment.
4 .
Buyer’s obligation to purchase the Property will be subject to the following contingencies. a
.
Approval by the City of entitlements for Buyer to develop a primarily retail project on the Real Property,
b
.
The parties contemplate that the Entitlements will include Design Review, Environmental Review and any required Conditional Use permits or other land use 802802
approvals.
c
.
Approval by the City of a shared public parking arrangement and potential pedestrian easements and boundary adjustments consistent with the Entitlements. 5 .
The Successor Agency is required by law to dispose of this property and must first obtain approval of the Oversight Board for the former Rocklin Redevelopment Agency.
The sale will be expressly contingent on approval by Successor Agency and the Oversight Board.
6 .
The closing of the purchase transaction will occur 6 months after approval of the Entitlements and Shared Parking Arrangement, subject to an outside date to be agreed on.
Staff recommends approval of the Letter of Intent, with the intention of continuing negotiations and ultimately proceeding with a Purchase and Sale Agreement to sell the property and initiate the entitlement process.
Environmental Analysis:
Execution of the Letter of Intent is not subject to CEQA.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no immediate fiscal impact to the staff recommendation. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34191.5, proceeds from the sale of property owned by the Successor Agency to the former Redevelopment Agency to the City of Rocklin, must be distributed as property tax to the taxing entries. It is the intent of the Successor Agency to sell the property and use the proceeds to fulfill enforceable obligations. Should proceeds exceed the amount of enforceable obligation, the remaining portion will be distributed as property to tax the taxing entities. In May of 2023, updated appraisal of $950,000 was obtained which serves as the basis for the sales price for the property.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution with Exhibits A and B
2. Letter of Intent.
803803
RESOLUTION NO. 2023 SA
RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY
TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN
APPROVING A LETTER OF INTENT
FOR THE SALE OF FORMER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rocklin is responsible for the winding up of the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency and the disposition of real property pursuant to the Rocklin Long Range Management Plan (LRMP) approved by the Department of Finance on March 13, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the LRMP provides that former Redevelopment Agency properties are to be marketed and sold for future development; and WHEREAS, the LRMP provides for the sale of the property commonly known as the Big Gun Site, located at 5255 Pacific Street, in the City of Rocklin, (APN 010-170- 026), which is approximately 3 acres of unimproved land ("Property"); and WHEREAS, G3 Concepts (California), Inc. desires to purchase the Property for a mixed use (commercial retail/multi-family residential) development project; and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency is willing to sell the Property, subject to the terms and conditions of the Letter of Intent and a subsequent Purchase and Sale Agreement with G3 Concepts.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rocklin does resolve as follows:
Section 1. The Successor Agency hereby approves the Letter of Intent with G3 Concepts, for the property commonly known as the Big Gun Site, located at 5255 Pacific Street in the City of Rocklin (APN 010-170-026), in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, subject to approval of the Rocklin Oversight Board.
Section 2. The City Manager, acting as the Executive Director of the Successor Agency, is hereby authorized to execute the Letter of Intent with G3 Concepts, and to take all necessary action to carry out the terms of a subsequent Purchase and Sale Agreement, including requesting approval by the Rocklin Oversight Board.
804804