Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A G E N D A
PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY 299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 (tel/fax)
www.pctpa.net
AMENDED AGENDA – FEBRUARY 24, 2016
Wednesday, February 24, 2016 – 9:00 a.m.
A. Flag Salute
B. Roll Call
C.
Approval of Minutes Action
Pg. 1
D. Agenda Review
E. Public Comment
F. Consent Calendar
These items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will
be acted upon by the Board at one time without discussion. Any Board
member, staff member, or interested citizen may request an item be
removed from the consent calendar for discussion.
Pg. 5
1. FY 2016/17 Preliminary Findings of Apportionment for Local
Transportation Fund (LTF)
Pg. 6
2. Reprogram Rocklin Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality
(CMAQ) Funds from Granite Drive at Rocklin Roundabout to
Pacific Street at Rocklin Road Roundabout
G. Unmet Transit Needs Analysis and Recommendations for FY
2016/17
Action
Pg. 8
H. Adoption of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Placer
County 2036 Regional Transportation Plan
Action
Pg. 12
I. Adoption of the Final Placer County 2036 Regional Transportation
Plan
Action
Pg. 151
Community Development Resource Agency
Commission Hearing Room
3091 County Center Drive
Auburn, California
Board of Directors Meeting Agenda
PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY
February 24, 2016
Page 2
J. Preliminary Draft FY 2016/17 Overall Work Program (OWP) and
Budget
Action
Pg. 155
K. State Legislative Program for 2016 Action
Pg. 157
L. Transportation Funding Strategy Outreach and Polling Info
Pg. 161
M. Updated Draft Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan Action
Pg. 163
N. Executive Director’s Report
O. Board Direction to Staff
P. Informational Items Info
1. Revenues and Expenditures for December 2015
(Under separate cover)
2. PCTPA Quarterly Financial Statements for September 30, 2015
and WPCTSA Quarterly Financial Statements for December 31,
2015 (Under separate cover)
3. TAC Minutes Pg. 173
4. Status Reports
a. PCTPA Pg. 176
b. AIM Consulting: January Pg. 195
c. Federal Advocates, Inc.: January Pg. 197
d. Capitol Corridor Pg. 227
5. Newspaper Articles Pg. 236
Next Regularly Scheduled PCTPA Board Meeting
March 27, 2016 – Placer County Board of Supervisors’ Chambers
The Placer County Community Development Resource Agency is accessible to the disabled. If requested, this agenda, and
documents in the agenda packet can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as
required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Federal Rules and Regulations adopted in
implementation thereof. Persons seeking an alternative format should contact PCTPA for further information. In addition, a
person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to
participate in a public meeting should contact PCTPA by phone at 530-823-4030, email ([email protected]) or in person as soon
as possible and preferably at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.
Page 1
PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY
MINUTES
January 27, 2016
A regular meeting of the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency met on Wednesday,
January 27, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. at the Placer County Planning Commission Hearing Room, 3091
County Center Drive, Auburn, California.
ROLL CALL: Daniel Berlant Celia McAdam
Bonnie Gore Scott Aaron
Jim Holmes Aaron Hoyt
Diana Ruslin Shirley LeBlanc
Ron Treabess Luke McNeel-Caird
Kirk Uhler David Melko
Dave Wheeler Solvi Sabol
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Upon motion by Ruslin and second by Gore, the minutes of December 9, 2015 were
unanimously approved.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Upon motion by Ruslin and second by Gore, the Consent Calendar was unanimously approved.
ADJOURNED AS THE PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY
CONVENED AS THE WESTERN PLACER CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES AGENCY
CONSENT CALENDAR
Upon motion by Ruslin and second by Berlant, the Consent Calendar was unanimously
approved.
ADJOURNED AS THE WESTERN PLACER CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES AGENCY
CONVENED AS PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT PLACER COUNTY 2036 REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Aaron Hoyt gave an overview of the draft 2036 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), explaining
how the plan was developed, the public outreach activities to date, and the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) process. Hoyt reported that the draft RTP was conducted in parallel with the
Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ (SACOG) federally recognized Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (MTP) noting that PCTPA’s RTP is integrated into the MTP. He also
Page 2
provided a detailed description of the process to develop the RTP and the extensive outreach
involved.
Hoyt reported that the 2036 draft RTP reflects $5.9 billion in projects, 43% of which would go
toward roadway maintenance costs. Hoyt added that Placer County will have insufficient
funding to implement the projects in the RTP and that new funding mechanisms, such as a
transportation sales tax, will need to be implemented to keep pace with the transportation
demands of the County. Additionally, Hoyt said that future congestion will be managed through
the implementation of the projects in the RTP, and one of the performance measurements cited
was a decrease in vehicle miles traveled per capita, an important part of managing congestion.
Aaron Hoyt concluded explaining that written and oral comments will be addressed in the final
2036 RTP and EIR and that he expects to bring the plans back to the Board for adoption in
February. Supervisor Holmes opened the public hearing. With no comments from the public, the
public hearing was closed at approximately 9:15 a.m.
I-80 AUXILIARY LANES PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Luke McNeel-Caird briefed the Board on the I-80 Auxiliary Lanes Project draft environmental
document, noting that it includes two locations 1) I-80 Eastbound between SR 65 and Rocklin
Road, and 2) I-80 Westbound between Douglas Boulevard and Riverside Avenue. McNeel-
Caird briefly described the process to date and introduced the project consultant, Liz Diamond
from Dokken Engineering.
Liz Diamond explained the three alternatives being considered as part of the environmental
document for this project: Alternative 1 – Eastbound and Westbound Auxiliary Lanes,
Alternative 2 – Eastbound Auxiliary Lanes and Westbound 5th Lane, and Alternative 3 – No
Build. Diamond then presented how each of these alternatives would function and the potential
environmental impacts associated with each.
Liz Diamond stated and environmental document was prepared and released on January 11 and
the thirty day review process will close on February 11. Luke McNeel-Caird reported that after
comments of the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) are addressed,
adoption of the preferred alternative is anticipated in the spring 2016.
Page 3
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR 2016 Celia McAdam provided PCTPA’s draft Federal Legislative Program for 2016. McAdam
reported that Congress passed two transportation bills – Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
Act (FAST) Act and consolidated transportation appropriations act for FY 2016. The FAST
Act, McAdam reported, is a six year bill which goes through 2020. It increases by 3% annually,
and has passenger rail title in it, although, there is no funding associated with passenger rail at
this time. McAdam added that the five year FAST Act is fully funded however it uses six years
of revenue.
Celia McAdam said that with the passage of these bills are opportunities, particularly for
passenger rail, and funding for the I-80/SR 65 Interchange and Placer Parkway. She added that
the timing is right to pursue the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery
(TIGER) grant funds for I-80/SR 65. Additionally, I-80/SR 65 and the Roseville-Sacramento
Third Track Rail Project would be competitive in the Nationally Significant Freight and
Highway Program. McAdam explained Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation
Act (TIFIA) is a financing mechanism – a loan that must be paid back, yet could be an option for
funding the Placer Parkway. The transportation sales tax, if passed, could be a source repayment
if we pursued the TIFIA loan. McAdam also recognized that our legislative program includes a
long standing policy of supporting our local jurisdictions’ priorities.
Celia McAdam concluded by stating we are currently working with SACOG on a joint trip to
Washington. McAdam recommended that both she and Board Chair Susan Rohan represent
these positions in Washington, DC.
With a motion by Uhler and second by Ron Treabess, the PCTPA Board unanimously adopted
the Federal Legislative Program for 2016 as provided and directed staff and federal advocates
represent these positions, including travel to Washington, DC.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT Celia McAdam reported that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) defunded nearly
$800 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Because of the
advance of the Lincoln Bypass, McAdam stated, we are probably the least affected county in the
state because we advanced our shares of the STIP, interest free, to build the Lincoln Bypass.
Celia McAdam said that we are working with the United Auburn Indian Community in pursuing
a $150,000 grant which would assist us in outreach efforts to inform the public on some of the
tough transportation funding decisions that are facing us.
Celia McAdam reported that Clipper Creek, a local Auburn firm, generously agreed to donate an
electric vehicle charging station for our parking lot, noting that the electricity costs are being
pursued through the Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) program.
Celia McAdam concluded her report by stating that in working with the regulatory agencies on
the I-80/SR 65 Interchange project, we were able to come to agreement on wetland mitigation
ratios.
Page 4
Vice Chair Holmes announced that the next meeting of the PCTPA Board is February 24, 2016
and adjourned the meeting at 10:02 a.m.
_________________________________ ____________________________________
Celia McAdam Susan Rohan, Chair
Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 (tel/fax) www.pctpa.net
TO: PCTPA Board of Directors DATE: February 10, 2016
FROM: Celia McAdam, Executive Director
SUBJECT: CONSENT CALENDAR
Below are the Consent Calendar items for the February 24, 2016 agenda for your review and
action.
1. FY 2016/17 Preliminary Findings of Apportionment for Local Transportation Fund
(LTF)
As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Placer County, PCTPA is
responsible for the administration of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds.
TDA provides funds under two programs called the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and
the State Transit Assistance (STA) fund.
The LTF program was established through the TDA in 1972. Funds are allocated for
specific purposes in priority order and are intended for public transportation before other
claims, such as streets and roads are approved.
The preliminary apportionment for FY 2016/17 projects minimal carryover from FY
2015/16 and recommends a three percent growth in LTF revenue over the prior fiscal
year. Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached preliminary findings of LTF
apportionment for FY 2016/17. The PCTPA TAC concurred with this recommendation at
its February 9, 2016 meeting.
2. Reprogram Rocklin Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds from Granite
Drive at Rocklin Road Roundabout to Pacific Street at Rocklin Road Roundabout
On November 28, 2012 and January 28, 2015, the PCTPA Board approved CMAQ
project funding recommendations for FY 2014/15 through FY 2018/19. The City of
Rocklin is requesting PCTPA approval to reprogram $2,707,607 CMAQ funds approved
for construction of the Granite Drive at Rocklin Road Roundabout to construction of the
Pacific Street at Rocklin Road Roundabout. Staff recommends Board approval.
FY 2015/2016 FY 2016/2017 FY 2016/2017Estimated Fund Revenue Apportionment
Balance Subtotal (1) Subtotal Total$306,192 $21,104,624 $21,410,816
2.9928% $631,618 $631,618$9,164 $9,164
TRPA TOTAL $631,618 $640,782$269
$640,513
97.0072% $20,473,006 $20,473,006$297,028 $297,028
PCTPA TOTAL $20,473,006 $20,770,034$8,731 $8,731
$425,000 $425,000$5,941 $400,785 $406,726
$11,643 $785,540 $797,183$279,443.94 $18,852,950 $19,132,394
Population FY 2016/17 FY 2015/16 Carryover RevenueJanuary 1, 2015 Allocation Subtotal Apportionment(6) Apportionment
PLACER COUNTY 101,491 28.32% $5,333,806 $84,113 $5,417,919 AUBURN 13,818 3.86% $726,198 $11,452 $737,650 COLFAX 1,994 0.56% $104,794 $1,653 $106,446 LINCOLN 45,837 12.79% $2,408,939 $37,988 $2,446,928 LOOMIS 6,623 1.85% $348,068 $5,489 $353,557 ROCKLIN 60,252 16.81% $3,166,512 $49,935 $3,216,447 ROSEVILLE 128,382 35.82% $6,747,048 $106,399 $6,853,447 TOTAL 358,397 100.00% $18,835,366 $297,028 $19,132,394
Revenue Planning Available toApportionment Contribution(7) Claimant
PLACER COUNTY $5,417,919 ($216,717) $5,201,202 AUBURN $737,650 ($29,506) $708,144 COLFAX $106,446 ($4,258) $102,188 LINCOLN $2,446,928 ($97,877) $2,349,051 LOOMIS $353,557 ($14,142) $339,415 ROCKLIN $3,216,447 ($128,658) $3,087,789 ROSEVILLE $6,853,447 ($274,138) $6,579,309 TOTAL $19,132,394 ($765,296) $18,367,098
NOTES:1) FY 2015/2016 LTF balance based on January 29, 2016 preliminary fund estimate provided by Placer County Auditor.2) Tahoe Regional Planning Agency receives funds proportional to its population within Placer County (see box below).3) Apportioned per Section 7.1 PCTPA Rules & Bylaws for FY 2016/2017 Preliminary Overall Work Program and Budget, February 2016.4) Pedestrian and Bicycle Allocation is 2% of the remaining apportionment, per PCTPA Board direction.5) Community Transit Service Article 4.5 allocation is up to 5% of the remaining apportionment, per PCTPA Board direction. FY 2016/2017 Article 4.5 allocation is set at 4%. 6) FY 2015/16 carryover apportionment (see next page) uses May 2015 DOF population estimates.7) PCTPA receives 4% of apportionment for regional planning purposes and implementation of FAST-Act planning requirements.
TRPA Population2 11,057 2.9928%PCTPA Population 358,397 97.0072%
TOTAL 369,454 100.00%
1. Table E-1: City/County Population Estimates January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2015, DOF, May 1, 2015.
29-Jan-16
2. Western Slope and Tahoe Basin for Placer County as of January 1, 2015, DOF, June 2015.
County Auditor Administrative Costs
BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT BY PCTPA
Sources:
Jurisdiction
January 1, 2015 DOF Population Estimates1
Apportionment of FY 2016/2017 PCTPA LTF Revenue Estimate Available to Claimant
Percent (%)Jurisdiction
BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT BY TRPA
County Auditor Administrative Costs
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND (LTF)
Apportionment of FY 2016/2017 PCTPA LTF Revenue Estimate by Jurisdiction
Pedestrian and Bicycle Allocation (4)
TRPA Revenue Estimate (2)
PCTPA Administrative and Planning Costs (3)
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF APPORTIONMENT FOR FY 2016/2017
February 2016
Community Transit Service Article 4.5 Allocation (5)
PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY (PCTPA)
PCTPA Revenue Estimate
PLACER COUNTY LTF REVENUE ESTIMATE
PCTPA LTF Fund Balance
TRPA LTF Fund Balance
Printed:2/3/2016
Amount of FY 2015/2016 Carryover:
JURISDICTION 01-Jan-15 PERCENT ALLOCATION
PLACER COUNTY 101,491 28.32% $84,113 AUBURN 13,818 3.86% $11,452 COLFAX 1,994 0.56% $1,653 LINCOLN 45,837 12.79% $37,988 LOOMIS 6,623 1.85% $5,489 ROCKLIN 60,252 16.81% $49,935 ROSEVILLE 128,382 35.82% $106,399 TOTAL 358,397 100.00% $297,028
2. FY 2015/2016 LTF balance based on January 29, 2016 preliminary fund estimate provided by Placer County Auditor.
29-Jan-16
Calculation of FY 2015/16 PCTPA LTF Carryover Using 2015 Population - Western Slope
$297,028POPULATION
Sources:1. Table E-1: City/County Population Estimates January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2015, DOF, May 1, 2015.
Printed:2/3/2016 ^
MEMORANDUM
299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 (tel/fax) www.pctpa.net
TO: PCTPA Board of Directors DATE: February 10, 2016
FROM: Aaron Hoyt, Associate Transportation Planner
SUBJECT: UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FY 2016/17
ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt Resolution No. 16-05 making findings and recommendations regarding unmet transit
needs that are reasonable to meet as required by the Transportation Development Act (TDA).
BACKGROUND
As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Placer County, PCTPA is responsible for
the administration of TDA funds. This responsibility includes the annual unmet transit needs
process, which has four key components:
1. Soliciting testimony on unmet transit needs that may exist in Placer County;
2. Analyzing transit needs in accordance with adopted definitions of “unmet transit needs”
and “reasonable to meet;”
3. Consultation with the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC); and
4. Adoption of a finding regarding unmet transit needs that may exist for implementation in
the next fiscal year.
Unmet transit needs may include establishing, contracting for, or expanding public
transportation, in addition to services or measures required to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. If, based on the adopted definition and criteria, any unmet transit needs are
determined to be reasonable to meet by the PCTPA Board; they must be funded in the next fiscal
year prior to any TDA funds being allocated for non-transit purposes.
DISCUSSION
This year PCTPA reviewed a total of 102 comments submitted by the public as part of the unmet
transit needs process for FY 2016/17. Of these, 37 were regarding services outside of PCTPA’s
jurisdiction, with the vast majority focused on improving and expanding transit services in the
North Lake Tahoe Basin, and 17 comments are for other requests that do not pertain to the unmet
transit needs process.
Some of the prominent themes amongst the comments include:
Later service hours in Lincoln, Roseville, and on Placer County Transit.
Sunday fixed route service in Lincoln, Roseville, and on Placer County Transit.
Sunday dial-a-ride service in Lincoln, Rocklin, and on Placer County Transit.
Challenges with scheduling dial-a-ride trips.
New commuter bus destinations in the Sacramento Area.
PCTPA Board of Directors
UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FY 2016/17
February 2016
Page 2
Staff analyzed these remaining comments in accordance with the definitions of “unmet transit
needs” and “reasonable to meet” amended by the PCTPA Board of Directors in May 2014, and
the applicable short range transit plans and/or studies that identify recommended transit service
options. This information is documented in the FY 2015/16 Unmet Transit Needs Analysis and
Recommendations Final Report for FY 2016/17, which is provided under separate cover.
As a result of this analysis, staff finds there are no new unmet transit needs that are reasonable to
meet for implementation in FY 2016/17. However, two recommendations were made to further
investigate comments received during this cycle:
Later Evening Weekday Service – Comments pertaining to later evening weekday service
has been voiced annually, but fixed route ridership has declined on average 1% annually
since FY 2011/12, and services may not meet productivity standards with expanded service
hours system-wide. Instead, PCTPA will coordinate with the transit operators to review
ridership trends, service options, and costs to determine whether there are certain routes on
which later evening weekday services are feasible.
Dial-a-Ride Scheduling – Several comments identified challenges with scheduling dial-a-
ride trips in Lincoln, Rocklin, and other parts of the county. Passengers are allowed to
schedule trips up to 14 days in advanced and are encouraged to allow sufficient time to
accomplish their intended activities between drop off and pickup due to the shared ride
nature of the service. As a result, passengers may encounter challenges in getting their
preferred time slot; however, call center operators do offer alternative travel time options.
Dial-a-ride trips have increased five percent between FY 2014 and 2015 and trip denials
totaled approximately 1.6 percent in FY 2015. Beginning FY 2015/16, PCT began
providing contracted dial-a-ride service in Lincoln and the Health Express reservations
were limited to intercity trips only. Given these changes, PCTPA recommends monitoring
dial-a-ride trips, denials, or other potential issues.
In accordance with TDA requirements, the SSTAC met on January 24, 2016 to review the draft
report and staff recommendations. SSTAC recommended approval of the draft report. In
addition, the draft report was presented to PCTPA’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on
February 9, 2016. The SSTAC and TAC concurred with the recommended findings as shown in
Resolution No. 16-05.
Recommended Findings
1) There are no new unmet transit needs in that are reasonable to meet for implementation in
FY 2016/17.
2) That the Unmet Transit Needs Analysis and Recommendations Final Report for FY
2016/17 is accepted as complete.
CM:AH:ss
PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY
IN THE MATTER OF: A RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 16-05
MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING UNMET
TRANSIT NEEDS IN PLACER COUNTY
THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET
The following resolution was duly passed by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency at
a regular meeting held February 24, 2016 by the following vote on roll call:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Signed and approved by me after its passage
_______________________________________
Chair
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency
_________________________________
Executive Director
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code, Title 7.91, Section 67910, PCTPA was
created as a local area planning agency to provide regional transportation planning for the area of
Placer County, exclusive of the Lake Tahoe Basin; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 29532.1(c) identifies PCTPA as the designated
Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Placer County, exclusive of the Lake Tahoe Basin;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Utilities Code, Section 99401.5(d), the PCTPA must adopt by
resolution a finding on unmet transit needs prior to allocating Transportation Development Act
(TDA) funds for non-transit purposes in the next fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, PCTPA has solicited testimony regarding unmet transit needs from social service
agencies, transit users, and the general public through advertisements, flyers, press releases, the
PCTPA web-page, e-mail distribution, public workshops, Municipal Advisory Council
presentations, and a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, each item of testimony received was analyzed and compared with the definitions of
“unmet transit need” and “reasonable to meet” as adopted by the PCTPA in May 2014, and is
documented in the FY 2015/16 Unmet Transit Needs Analysis and Recommendations Final Report
for FY 2016/17; and
WHEREAS, PCTPA consulted with the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council
(SSTAC) on January 14, 2016 regarding unmet transit needs in accordance with Public Utilities
Code, Section 99238(c).
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency:
1) That there are no new unmet transit needs in FY 2015/16 that are reasonable to meet
for implementation in FY 2016/17.
2) That the FY 2015/16 Unmet Transit Needs Analysis and Recommendations Final Report
for FY 2016/17 is accepted as complete.
MEMORANDUM
299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 (tel/fax) www.pctpa.net
TO: PCTPA Board of Directors DATE: February 10, 2016
FROM: Celia McAdam, Executive Director
Aaron Hoyt, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE PLACER COUNTY 2036 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
ACTION REQUESTED
Approve Resolution No. 16-06 adopting the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopting a
Statement of Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program for the Placer County 2036 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
BACKGROUND
The Placer County 2036 RTP is a long-range transportation funding plan that identifies future
transportation improvements, associated costs, projected revenues, and the timing for
implementation of projects through 2036. The Placer County 2036 RTP also serves as the
mechanism by which local transportation projects demonstrate eligibility to receive funding from
various state and federal funding programs. The projects contained in the Placer County 2036
RTP are integrated into the larger six-county regional planning efforts led by the Sacramento
Area Council of Governments' (SACOG) through our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) meets the federal planning requirement and
the states requirements to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) pursuant to Senate
Bill 375.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an environmental
impact report (EIR) prior to approving any project, which may have a significant impact on the
environment. Although many of the projects contained in the Placer County 2036 RTP will be
implemented by various public agencies, at the regional plan level, which is the scope of this
program EIR, PCTPA is responsible for developing and approving the Placer County 2036 RTP.
Therefore, PCTPA is the lead agency for purposes of conducting the environmental review.
Accordingly, PCTPA contracted with the De Novo Planning Group to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) on the Placer County 2036 RTP.
Potential environmental impacts in the Final 2036 RTP EIR are discussed on a programmatic
level. Specific impacts of individual RTP projects are not the intended use of the Final 2036 RTP
EIR. Implementation of individual projects may require further environmental review, which
will be determined by the appropriate implementing agency on a case-by-case basis prior to each
project being considered for approval. Each of those individual projects will be required to
comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PCTPA Board of Directors
ADOPTION OF THE FINAL EIR FOR THE PLACER COUNTY 2036 RTP
February 2016
Page 2
DISCUSSION
The Draft 2036 RTP EIR was released on November 3, 2015 initiating a 45-day public review
period, concluding December 17, 2015. While no comment letters were received during the
public review period, staff did make some minor changes to the text of the Final 2036 RTP EIR.
As required by CEQA Guidelines, those textual changes are identified in the Final 2036 RTP
EIR in Chapter 3.0, Errata.
The Final 2036 RTP EIR identifies potentially significant and significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts. Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts
and are anticipated to be reduce or eliminate these impacts to a less than significant level.
However, significant and unavoidable impacts remain on agricultural resources and with regard
to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, both existing and cumulatively.
The potentially significant and significant and unavoidable environmental impacts are considered
acceptable in light of the economic, fiscal, social, environmental, and other considerations
because the benefits of the Placer County 2036 RTP outweigh such adverse environmental
impacts.
The following actions define the steps necessary to approve the Final 2036 RTP EIR:
Findings Regarding Significant Impacts and Project Alternatives (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091) – These findings are presented in Attachment A-1 to the resolution and
explain how PCTPA addressed each identified significant impact, including the
mitigation measures adopted or an explanation of why such measures are infeasible.
These findings also explain how PCTPA addressed the use of project alternatives to
reduce or avoid the significant impacts of the Placer County 2036 RTP.
Statement of Overriding Considerations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093) – These
findings are presented in Attachment A-1 to the resolution and document PCPTA’s
decision to adopt the Placer County 2036 RTP despite the fact that unavoidable
significant impacts will result based on the overriding benefits of the RTP.
Mitigation Monitoring Program – When a lead agency makes findings on significant
effects identified in an EIR, that agency must also adopt a program for reporting or
monitoring mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), 15097. The Mitigation Monitoring program is
included in Attachment A-2 and in Section 4 of the Final 2036 RTP EIR.
Staff, with the concurrence of the TAC, recommends that the Board approve Resolution No. 16-
06 certifying the Final 2036 RTP EIR, adopting a Statement of Findings, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Placer
County 2036 RTP.
Attachments
CM:AH:
PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY
IN THE MATTER OF: CERTIFYING THE FINAL RESOLUTION NO. 16-06
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING
A FINDINGS OF FACT, A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR THE 2036 PLACER COUNTY
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The following resolution was duly passed by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency
at a regular meeting held February 24, 2016 by the following vote on roll call:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Signed and approved by me after its passage
_______________________________________
Vice Chair
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency
_________________________________
Executive Director
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code, Title 7.91, Section 67910, PCTPA was
created as a local area planning agency to provide regional transportation planning for the area of
Placer County, exclusive of the Lake Tahoe Basin;
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 29532.1(c) identifies PCTPA as the
designated regional transportation planning agency for Placer County, exclusive of the Lake Tahoe
Basin;
WHEREAS, PCTPA is the lead agency for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
for the 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP);
WHEREAS, PCTPA issued and distributed an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation for the
2036 Placer County Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2010052013), including to the State
Office of Planning and Research, on June 5, 2015, which was circulated for a 30-day review
period;
WHEREAS, PCTPA publicly noticed and held a public scoping meeting on June 30th, to solicit
comments from the public and potential responsible and trustee agencies;
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was completed and filed with the State
Office of Planning and Research on November 3, 2015;
WHEREAS, PCTPA commenced a 45-day public review period to solicit comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report on November 3, 2015;
WHEREAS, the State Office of Planning and Research provided a letter indicating that PCTPA
has complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements;
WHEREAS, PCTPA did not receive any official comments from State or local agencies during
the 45-day public review period;
WHEREAS, PCTPA released the Final Environmental Impact Report, that included minor textual
changes on February 12, 2016;
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report identified certain significant and potentially
significant adverse effects on the environment caused by the Project (the RTP);
WHEREAS, PCTPA desires, in accordance with CEQA, to declare that, despite the occurrence
of significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided through the
adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives, there exist certain overriding
economic, social, and other considerations for approving the Project that the PCTPA believes
justify the occurrence of those impacts;
WHEREAS, PCTPA specifically finds that where one reason for approving the Project and
rejecting alternatives is given in its findings or in the record, where more than one reason for
rejecting or modifying mitigation measures is given in the record, and where more than one reason
is given for adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the PCTPA would have made
its decision on the basis of any one of those reasons.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the PCTPA Board of Directors that:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines, the PCTPA hereby certifies
that: a) the Final 2036 RTP EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the Final RTP
EIR was presented to the PCTPA, and the PCTPA reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final RTP EIR prior to taking action on the Final RTP EIR; and c) the Final RTP
EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of PCTPA.
Section 2. As set forth in Section 15043 of the CEQA Guidelines a public agency may approve
a project even though the project would cause a significant effect on the environment if the agency
makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that:
There is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect; and
Specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of
reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project. The
PCTPA hereby makes that decision as set forth more fully in Attachment A-1,
attached hereto.
Section 3. Attachment A-1 of this Resolution provides the findings required under Section
15043 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines relating to accepting adverse impacts of the project due
to overriding considerations. PCTPA has reviewed the findings and determines that the economic,
legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project have been balanced against the
unavoidable environmental risks that may result, and finds that the specific economic, legal, social,
technological, and other benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
PCTPA, therefore, after reviewing the record and hearing the comments provided, finds the
adverse environmental effects of the project to be outweighed by the benefits provided to the
County by the project. PCTPA hereby makes the findings as set forth in Attachment A-1 and
adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Attachment A-1 (Statement
of Overriding Considerations).
Section 4. Exhibit A-1 of this Resolution provides Findings of Fact required under Section
15043 and 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant effects of the project, feasibility of
mitigation measures, and feasibility of alternatives. PCTPA, after reviewing the record and hearing
the comments provided, hereby finds and adopts the various findings of fact attached hereto as
Attachment A-1.
Section 5. After considering the EIR and in conjunction with making these findings, the
PCTPA hereby finds that, pursuant to Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines, approval of the
adopted 2036 Placer County RTP will result in significant effects on the environment; however,
PCTPA has eliminated or substantially lessened these significant effects where feasible, and as set
forth in Attachment A-1 has determined that remaining significant effects are found to be
unavoidable under Section 15091 and acceptable under Section 15093.
Section 6. PCTPA has considered the 2036 Placer County RTP alternatives and concludes,
based on substantial evidence in the record that only the adopted RTP alternative (fiscally
constrained) can be feasibly implemented in light of economic, legal, social, technological, and
other reasons, as discussed herein, and therefore adopts the Fiscally Constrained alternative as the
Project.
Section 7. These findings made by PCTPA are made after independent consideration and are
supported by the documents provided and comments received which taken together demonstrate
substantial evidence in the record.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the PCTPA Board of Directors that:
Section 8. PCTPA hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Final EIR, Attachment A-2)
attached hereto to ensure implementation of feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR.
PCTPA finds that these mitigation measures are fully enforceable as policies and/or
Implementation measures of the Project, and shall be binding upon the affected local jurisdictions.
Section 9. PCTPA hereby directs staff to immediately commence to: a) file of a Notice of
Determination documenting these decisions; and b) retain a copy of the certified Final EIR as a
public record.
FINDINGS
CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 1
FINDINGSFORTHEPLACERCOUNTY
REGIONALTRANSPORTATIONPLANUPDATEREQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq)
I. INTRODUCTIONThe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) requires
the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA), as the CEQA lead agency, to: 1) make
written findings when it approves a project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) was
certified, and 2) identify overriding considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts identified
in the EIR.
This document explains the PCTPA’s findings regarding the significant and potentially significant
impacts identified in the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the 2036 Placer County
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP or Project). The statement of overriding considerations in section
VII identifies economic, social, technical, and other benefits of the Project that override any
significant environmental impacts that would result from the Project.
As required under CEQA, the Final EIR describes the Project, adverse environmental impacts of the
project, and Mitigation Measures and alternatives that would substantially reduce or avoid those
impacts. The information and conclusions contained in the EIR reflect the PCTPA’s independent
judgment.
The Final EIR (which includes the Draft EIR, comments, responses to comments, and revisions to the
Draft EIR) for the Project, examined the Proposed Project and several alternatives to the Project
including the: (1) No Project Alternative; (2) Road Emphasis Alternative; (3) Transit Enhanced
Alternative; and (4) Financially Unconstrained Alternative.
The Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are presented for adoption by the PCTPA
Board, as the PCTPA’s findings under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, §
15000 et seq.) relating to the Project. The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of
this Board regarding the Project’s environmental impacts, Mitigation Measures, alternatives to the
Project, and the overriding considerations, which in this Board’s view, justify approval of the Project,
despite its environmental effects.
CEQAFINDINGS[TYPETHEDOCUMENTTITLE]
2 CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP
II. GENERALFINDINGSANDOVERVIEW
BackgroundPCTPA is required to adopt and submit an updated RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) to the
California Transportation Commission (CTC) and the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) every
five years. The RTP is a long‐range, 20‐year minimum, comprehensive transportation plan for all
modes including: highways, local streets and roads, transit, bicycle, aviation, rail and goods
movement. The purpose of the RTP is to serve as a foundation for the development of the shorter
"action" plans called the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which satisfies
California transportation planning requirements, and the federal counterpart referred to as the
Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) for all transportation projects that require
federal approval. The 2036 RTP Program EIR covers a programmed and planned (Tier 1‐financially
constrained) list of projects and as well as a list of projects identified for development activities only
(Tier 2‐financially unconstrained). The programmed and planned list of projects represents the
financially constrained investments that are either budgeted (funded) in the FTIP or are anticipated
to be funded over the horizon of the RTP. The project development only list of projects consists of
projects that are not fully funded through construction and are identified for preconstruction efforts
through the environmental phase of the project.
The 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) introduces a planning framework that is
updated from the 2035 RTP, to reflect current priorities and practices at the regional, State, and
federal levels. This framework provides guidance to policy makers as they make decisions impacting
the region’s transportation system. Over the 20 year time horizon of this long‐range plan, the goals,
policies, and objectives will produce a more coordinated and comprehensive transportation system
that effectively and efficiently utilizes the region’s resources to the benefit of the citizens of Placer
County. The goals, policies, and objectives reflect the desired outcomes of the 2036 RTP.
ProjectOverviewThe proposed project is the adoption and implementation of the 2036 Placer County RTP. The RTP
has been prepared to fulfill the state requirements of AB 402 (Government Code Title 7, Chapter
2.5, Sections 65080‐65082) using specific guidance from the California Transportation Commission
Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines. More specifically, the RTP is a twenty year, comprehensive
transportation plan for all modes including: highways, local streets and roads, transit, bicycle,
aviation, rail, and goods movement. PCTPA is required to adopt and submit an updated RTP to the
California Transportation Commission (CTC) and the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) every
five years.
The secondary purpose of the RTP is to serve as a foundation for the development of the shorter
“action” plans called the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which satisfies
California transportation planning requirements, and the federal counterpart referred to as the
Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) for all transportation projects that contain
federal transportation dollars or require federal approval.
CEQAFINDINGS
CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 3
The RTP contains three primary elements: Policy Element, Action Element, and Financial Element.
The Policy Element presents guidance to decision‐makers of the implications, impacts,
opportunities, and foreclosed options that will result from implementation of the RTP. California law
(Government Code Section 65080 (b)) states that each RTP shall include a Policy Element that:
1. Describes the transportation issues in the region;
2. Identifies and quantifies regional needs expressed within both short and long range
planning horizons; and,
3. Maintains internal consistency with the Financial Element and fund estimates.
The Action Element identifies programs and actions to implement the RTP in accordance with the
goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the Policy Element. It includes regionally significant
multimodal projects that currently have funding in place or that are projected to have funding in the
future (Fiscally Constrained), while it also identifies other improvement projects that are needed but
do not have funding (Fiscally Unconstrained).
The Financial Element identifies the current and anticipated revenue sources and financing
techniques available to fund the fiscally constrained transportation investments described in the
Action Element. It also identifies potential funding shortfalls and sources for the unconstrained
project list.
POLICYELEMENT
The 2036 RTP builds upon the 2035 RTP goals, policies, objectives, and performance measures in
order to provide a simplified and more clearly articulated vision of the future that emphasizes the
fundamental values reflected in past RTPs.
The purpose of the RTP is to guide the long‐range planning and development of transportation
projects in Placer County.
The process of updating the RTP provides an opportunity to participate in both planning and priority
setting. The process allows the community to focus their attention on transportation in the context
of the Placer County as well as the entire Sacramento region, building both local and regional
coalitions. The longer time frame of twenty years gives the community a chance to step back from
day‐to‐day concerns and deliberate on how to achieve the desired transportation system.
The RTP defines the goals of the transportation system and sets priorities for project implementation
within the context of six regional planning principles:
Support well‐planned growth and land use patterns;
Improve environmental quality through better stewardship of the transportation system;
Fit within financially constrained budget by delivering cost‐effective projects that are
feasible to construct and maintain;
CEQAFINDINGS[TYPETHEDOCUMENTTITLE]
4 CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP
Improve economic vitality by efficiently connecting people to jobs and delivering goods and
services to markets;
Improve access and mobility opportunities for all people to jobs, services and housing; and
Provide real, viable travel choices for all people within a diverse county.
The RTP contains the following overall goals that provide the framework for the action and financial elements.
ACTIONANDFINANCIALELEMENTS
The Action Element identifies programs and actions to implement the 2036 RTP in accordance with
the goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the Policy Element. The Action Element consists of
short‐term and long‐term activities that address regional transportation issues and needs.
The Action Element represents the heart of the RTP. It describes, by mode of transportation, the
current conditions, recent planning activities, and priorities. Federal conformity regulations (Title 40
CFR 93.106, Content of Transportation Plans) identify the short‐term horizon as a period up to ten
years and the long‐term horizon as projects or activities 20 years and beyond.
The Action Element must be consistent with the financial constraints identified in the Financial
Element, and must conform to the State Implementation Plan. Regionally significant projects are
listed by transportation mode, and are grouped into Tier 1 and Tier 2 categories.
The Financial Element identifies the current and anticipated revenue sources and financing
techniques available to fund the transportation investments described in Tier 1 and Tier 2 list of
improvements provided in the Action Element. The purpose of the Financial Element is to:
Inventory existing and potential funding sources from federal, state and local perspectives.
Summarize costs to operate and maintain the current transportation system.
Summarize street and road candidate projects with both available funding (Tier 1 projects)
and potential funding shortfalls (Tier 2 projects) and the cost to build the projects.
Summarize deferred maintenance for the region and the resulting shortfall.
Tier 1 investments contain the highest priority and most urgent investment needs, and are
separated into short term and long term categories. Enough funding is anticipated to be available
over the life of the RTP to develop and construct or implement these improvements. Tier 1
improvements constitute the “financially constrained” element of the RTP.
Additional projects and improvements that are needed and important to the regional system but
which are not able to be funded through construction at this time are called Tier 2 projects. Tier 2
projects constitute the “financially unconstrained” element of the RTP. Sufficient budget capacity is
assumed to allow projects to proceed with project pre‐development activities (such as preliminary
engineering and environmental clearance), but these projects are not fully funded through
construction.
CEQAFINDINGS
CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 5
A listing of the Tier 1 projects is described in Table 2.3‐1, and a listing of the Tier 2 projects is
described in Table 2.3‐2 of the EIR.
PROCEDURALBACKGROUND
NOP Public Circulation and Initial Study: The PCTPA circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an
EIR for the proposed project on June 5, 2015 to trustee and responsible agencies, the State
Clearinghouse (SCH# 2015062014), and the public. Five comments on the NOP were provided from
five different organizations: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 3, the
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB), the City of Rocklin Public Services
Department, the Sierra Club, and the United Auburn Community. The NOP and comment letters are
presented in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.
Notice of Availability and Draft EIR: The PCTPA published a public Notice of Availability (NOA) for
the Draft EIR on November 3, 2015, inviting comment from the general public, agencies,
organizations, and other interested parties. The NOA was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH #
2015062014) and the County Clerk, and was published in a regional newspaper pursuant to the
public noticing requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR was available for public review from May 15
through December 18, 2015. The Draft EIR contains a description of the project, description of the
environmental setting, identification of project impacts, and Mitigation Measures for impacts found
to be significant, as well as an analysis of project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible
environmental changes, growth‐inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR identifies
issues determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact, and provides detailed analysis
of potentially significant and significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP were
considered in preparing the analysis in the Draft EIR.
Final EIR: The PCTPA received one (1) comment letters during the Draft EIR public review period.
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse (SCH) provided a letter
confirming the submittal of the Draft EIR to selected state agencies. In addition to the SCH letter,
internally the PCTPA has initiated revisions to the EIR to clarify and/or amplify the document. No
additional oral or written comments were received. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15088, this Final EIR responds to the written comments received. The Final EIR also contains minor
edits to the Draft EIR, which are included in Section 3.0, Errata, and the Draft EIR, as amended herein,
constitute the Final EIR.
Responses to comments received during the comment period do not involve any new significant
impacts or “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Each response is provided in the Final EIR.
RECORDOFPROCEEDINGSANDCUSTODIANOFRECORD
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the PCTPA’s
findings and determinations consists of the following documents and testimony, at a minimum:
CEQAFINDINGS[TYPETHEDOCUMENTTITLE]
6 CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP
The NOP, comments received on the NOP, and all other public notices issued by the PCTPA
in relation to the Project (e.g., Notice of Availability).
The Draft EIR and Final EIR, including comment letters, and technical materials cited in the
documents.
All non‐draft and/or non‐confidential reports and memoranda prepared by the PCTPA and
consultants in relation to the EIR.
Minutes and transcripts of the discussions regarding the Project and/or Project components
at public hearings held by the PCTPA.
Staff reports associated with PCTPA Board meetings on the Project.
Those categories of materials identified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6.
These documents are not specifically included in the Final EIR, but they are available by the
custodian of the administrative record. The PCTPA is the custodian of the administrative record. The
documents and materials that constitute the administrative record are available for review at the
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, 299 Nevada St., Auburn CA 95603.
FINDINGSREQUIREDUNDERCEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as
proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible Mitigation Measures available which would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Further, the
procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying
both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible Mitigation
Measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” (Id.) Section 21002 also
provides that “in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such
project alternatives or such Mitigation Measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of
one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles established by the Legislature in Public Resources Code section 21002
are implemented, in part, through the requirement in Public Resources Code section 21081 that
agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which an EIR is required.
CEQA Guidelines section 15091 provides the following direction regarding findings:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified
which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the
public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects,
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings
are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have
CEQAFINDINGS
CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 7
been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other
agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the Mitigation Measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(See also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a)(1)‐(3).)
As defined by CEQA, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within
a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and
technological factors. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(f)(1)
[determining the feasibility of alternatives].) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the
question of whether a particular alternative or Mitigation Measure promotes the underlying goals
and objectives of a project. (See Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107
Cal.App.4th 1383, 1400 [court upholds findings rejecting a “reduced herd” alternative to a proposed
dairy as infeasible because the alternative failed to meet the “fundamental objective” of the project
to produce milk]; Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506‐1508 [agency
decision‐makers, in rejecting alternatives as infeasible, appropriately relied on project objective
articulated by project applicant].) Moreover, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to
the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic,
environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982)
133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; see also California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177
Cal.App.4th 957, 1001‐1002.
With respect to a project for which significant impacts cannot be feasibly avoided or substantially
lessened, a public agency may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a
statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons that the project’s benefits
outweigh its significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects. (Pub. Resources Code, §§
21001, 21002.1(c), 21081(b).)
CEQA Guidelines section 15093 provides the following direction regarding a statement of overriding
considerations:
(a) CEQA requires the decision‐making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits, including region‐wide or statewide environmental
benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when
determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits, including region‐wide or statewide environmental benefits,
of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse
environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant
effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the
agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR
CEQAFINDINGS[TYPETHEDOCUMENTTITLE]
8 CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP
and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be
supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be
included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of
determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings
required pursuant to Section 15091.
MITIGATIONMONITORINGPROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared for the Project and has been adopted
concurrently with these Findings. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6, subd. (a)(1).) The PCTPA will
use the Mitigation Monitoring Program to track compliance with Project Mitigation Measures.
CONSIDERATIONOFTHEENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT
In adopting these Findings, this Board finds that the Final EIR was presented to this Board, the
decision‐making body of the lead agency, which reviewed and considered the information in the
Final EIR prior to approving the Project. By these findings, this Board ratifies, adopts, and
incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments, and conclusions of the
Final EIR. The PCPTA Board finds that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA. The
Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the PCTPA.
SEVERABILITY
If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular
situation is held by a court to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these
Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and
effect unless amended or modified by the PCTPA.
III. FINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONSREGARDINGSIGNIFICANTANDUNAVOIDABLEIMPACTS
A. AGRICULTURALRESOURCES1. IMPACT 3.2.1: CONVERSION OF FARMLANDS, INCLUDING PRIME FARMLAND, UNIQUE
FARMLAND,ANDFARMLANDOFSTATEWIDEIMPORTANCE,TONON‐AGRICULTURALUSES,ORCONFLICTWITHEXISTINGZONINGFORAGRICULTURALUSEORAWILLIAMSONACTCONTRACT.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause a conversion of farmlands or
conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract is discussed
on pages 3.2‐8 through 3.2‐9 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measures are hereby adopted and will
be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation
Measure 3.2‐1 would reduce farmland impacts to the greatest extent feasible. There is
CEQAFINDINGS
CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 9
no additional feasible mitigation available that would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board, this Board finds
that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Due to the importance of the region’s
agricultural resources, any impacts on Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program
(FMMP) designated farmland are considered significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2‐1 would reduce impacts to existing
farmlands to the greatest extent feasible, including compensation for unavoidable
conversion at a 1:1 ratio, if necessary. However, even after implementation of
Mitigation Measures included in the RTP and EIR, the proposed project will still
contribute to a net loss of agricultural land in Placer County. Therefore, this is
considered a significant and unavoidable impact. There is no additional feasible
mitigation available that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
(2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits
of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project
associated with impacts to farmland impacts in the region, as more fully stated in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII.
B. GREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONSANDCLIMATECHANGE1. IMPACT 3.6.1: GENERATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,
THATMAYHAVEASIGNIFICANTIMPACTONTHEENVIRONMENT
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to generate greenhouse gas emissions
that may have a significant impact on the environments is discussed on pages 3.6‐13
through 3.6‐16 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures
3.6‐1, 3.6‐2, 3.6‐3, 3.6‐4, and 3.6‐5.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board, this Board finds
that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. While Mitigation Measure 3.6‐1, 3.6‐
2, 3.6‐3, 3.6‐4, and 3.6‐5 would reduce per capita VMT levels throughout Placer
County, thereby reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions beyond what would be
expected without mitigation, the proposed project would still contribute to an
overall significant increase in GHG emissions generated by the County. There is no
additional feasible mitigation available that would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level.
CEQAFINDINGS[TYPETHEDOCUMENTTITLE]
10 CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP
(2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits
of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project
associated with an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, as more fully stated in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII.
C. CUMULATIVE1. IMPACT4.2:CUMULATIVEIMPACTONAGRICULTURALLANDANDUSES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a cumulative impact on
agricultural land and uses is discussed on pages 4.0‐3 through 4.0‐4 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.2‐1 (as previously described in Impact
3.2.1).
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board, this Board finds
that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Due to the importance of the region’s
agricultural resources, any impacts on FMMP designated farmland are considered
significant and unavoidable. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2‐1 would
reduce impacts to existing farmlands to the greatest extent feasible, including
compensation for unavoidable conversion at a 1:1 ratio, if necessary. However, even
after implementation of Mitigation Measures included in the RTP and EIR, the
proposed project will still contribute to a net loss of agricultural land in Placer
County. There is no additional feasible mitigation available that would reduce this
impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, this is a cumulatively considerable
and significant and unavoidable impact.
(2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits
of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project
associated with a conversion of agricultural land to non‐agricultural uses, as more
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII.
2. IMPACT4.6:INCREASEDTRANSPORTATIONGREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONSMAYCONTRIBUTETOCLIMATECHANGE
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to generate greenhouse gas emissions
that may have a cumulative impact on the environment is discussed on pages 4.0‐5
through 4.0‐6 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.6‐1, 3.6‐2, 3.6‐3, 3.6‐4, and 3.6‐5 (as
previously described in Section 3.6).
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board, this Board finds
that:
CEQAFINDINGS
CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 11
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. While Mitigation Measure 3.6‐1, 3.6‐
2, 3.6‐3, 3.6‐4, and 3.6‐5 would reduce per capita VMT levels throughout Placer
County, thereby reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions beyond what would be
expected without mitigation, the proposed project would still contribute to an
overall significant increase in GHG emissions generated by the County. There is no
additional feasible mitigation available that would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level. Therefore, this is a cumulatively considerable and significant and
unavoidable impact.
(2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits
of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project
associated with an increase in cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII.
IV. FINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONSREGARDINGSIGNIFICANTIMPACTSWHICHAREMITIGATEDTOALESSTHANSIGNIFICANTLEVEL
A. AESTHETICS1. IMPACT 3.1‐2: SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON SCENIC RESOURCES OR SUBSTANTIAL
DEGRADATIONOFVISUALCHARACTER
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to adversely affect scenic vistas and
resources or substantially degrade the visual character is discussed on pages 3.1‐7 of
the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measures are hereby adopted and will
be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation
Measure 3.1‐1 and 3.1‐2.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that the potential for adverse effects on scenic resources or
substantial degradation of visual character will be mitigated to a less than significant
level as Mitigation Measure 3.1‐1 and 3.1‐2 would require projects to include design
measures to avoid or reduce removal of scenic features and scenic views. Any remaining
impacts related to this environmental topic after implementation of Mitigation Measure
3.1‐1 and 3.1‐2 would not be significant.
2. IMPACT3.1‐3:CREATIONOFNEWSOURCESOFLIGHTANDGLARE
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to create new sources of light and glare
near sensitive receptors is discussed at pages 3.1‐12 of the Draft EIR.
CEQAFINDINGS[TYPETHEDOCUMENTTITLE]
12 CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.1‐3.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that the impacts to light and glare will be mitigated to a less
than significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.1‐3 would require lighting that is directed
downward and away from adjacent sensitive land uses, installation of shields to avoid
light spillage, and, where necessary, installation of dense landscaping to block light from
sensitive land uses, and would also require use of non‐reflective materials. Any
remaining impacts related to light and glare after implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.1‐3 would not be significant.
B. AGRICULTURALANDFORESTRESOURCES1. IMPACT3.2‐2:POTENTIALTOCONFLICTSWITHFORESTORTIMBERZONINGORRESULTINTHE
CONVERSIONOFFORESTLANDSORTIMBERLANDS
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to adversely affect scenic vistas and
resources or substantially degrade the visual character is discussed on pages 3.2‐10 of
the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.2‐2.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this Board of Directors finds that the impacts to forest or timber will be mitigated to a less
than significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.2‐2 would require that a qualified arborist,
forester, and/or biologist to assess the potential impacts of tree removal. Any remaining
impacts related to forestlands or timberlands after implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.2‐2 would not be significant.
C. AIRQUALITY1. IMPACT3.3‐2:SHORT‐TERM‐CONFLICTWITH,OROBSTRUCT,THEAPPLICABLEAIRQUALITY
PLAN,CAUSEAVIOLATIONOFAIRQUALITYSTANDARDS,CONTRIBUTESUBSTANTIALLYTOANEXISTING AIR QUALITY VIOLATION, OR RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NETINCREASEOFACRITERIAPOLLUTANTINANON‐ATTAINMENTAREA
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have short‐term air quality impacts is
discussed at pages 3.3‐17 through 3.3‐18 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.3‐1.
CEQAFINDINGS
CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 13
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that the short‐term air quality impacts will be mitigated to a
less than significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.3‐1 would ensure that a dust control
plan shall be prepared in accordance with APCD Rule 218 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). Any
remaining impacts related to short‐term air quality after implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.3‐1 would not be significant.
2. IMPACT 3.3‐3: OCCASIONAL LOCALIZED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS FROMTRAFFICCONDITIONSATSOMEINDIVIDUALLOCATIONS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to impact occasional localized carbon
monoxide concentrations from traffic conditions at individual locations is discussed on
page 3.3‐18 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.3‐2.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that the localized CO impacts will be mitigated to a less than
significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.3‐2 would ensure individual RTP projects will
be screened at the time of design in order to reduce the potential for the formation of
CO hot spots. Any remaining impacts related to CO concentration after implementation
of Mitigation Measure 3.3‐2 would not be significant.
3. IMPACT3.3‐5:POTENTIALTORELEASEASBESTOSFROMEARTHMOVEMENTORSTRUCTURALASBESTOSFROMDEMOLITION/RENOVATIONOFEXISTINGSTRUCTURES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in impacts from the release
asbestos from earth movement, or structural asbestos from demolition/renovation of
existing structures is discussed on pages 3.1‐18 through 3.1‐19 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.3‐3.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that the MSAT impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant
level as Mitigation Measure 3.3‐3 would ensure that the implementing agency will
assess the site for the presence of asbestos, and, in the event that asbestos is present,
the implementing agency will comply with state and local regulations, including ARB’s
ACTM and Placer County APCD Rule 228 – Fugitive Dust. Any remaining impacts related
to asbestos after implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3‐3 would be less than
significant.
D. BIOLOGICALRESOURCES
CEQAFINDINGS[TYPETHEDOCUMENTTITLE]
14 CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP
1. IMPACT3.4‐1:DIRECTORINDIRECTEFFECTSONCANDIDATE,SENSITIVE,ORSPECIAL‐STATUSSPECIESINCLUDINGTHEIRHABITATORMOVEMENTCORRIDORS
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a direct or indirect impact on
special‐status, candidate, or sensitive species is discussed at pages 3.4‐11 through 3.4‐
13 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.4‐1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that the impacts to special‐status, candidate, and sensitive
species and their habitat will be mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation
Measure 3.4‐1 would first require projects to be designed to avoid impacts to special‐
status, candidate, and sensitive species, and if avoidance through design is not feasible,
to require implementation of project‐specific measures to reduce impacts to a less than
significant level. Any remaining impacts related to special‐status, candidate, and
sensitive species after implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4‐1 would not be
significant.
2. IMPACT3.4‐2:ADVERSEEFFECTS ONRIPARIANHABITAT OROTHER SENSITIVENATURALCOMMUNITYIDENTIFIEDINLOCALORREGIONALPLANS,POLICIES,REGULATIONSORBYTHECALIFORNIADEPARTMENTOFFISHANDGAMEORU.S.FISHANDWILDLIFESERVICE,ORONFEDERALLYPROTECTEDWETLANDSASDEFINEDBYSECTION404OFTHECLEANWATERACTTHROUGHDIRECTREMOVAL,FILLING,HYDROLOGICALINTERRUPTION,OROTHERMEANS
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a direct or indirect on riparian
habitat and sensitive natural communities is discussed at pages 3.4‐14 through 3.4‐16
of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measures are hereby adopted and will
be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation
Measure 3.4‐2, 3.4‐3, and 3.4‐4.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that the impacts to riparian habitat and sensitive natural
communities will be mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation Measures
3.4‐2, 3.4‐3, and 3.4‐4 would first require projects to be designed to avoid impacts to
riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities, and if avoidance through design is
not feasible, to require implementation of project‐specific measures to reduce impacts
to a less than significant level. Any remaining impacts related to riparian habitat and
other sensitive natural communities after implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4‐
2, 3.4‐3, and 3.4‐4 would be less than significant.
CEQAFINDINGS
CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 15
3. IMPACT3.4‐3:INTERFERENCEWITHTHEMOVEMENTOFNATIVERESIDENTORMIGRATORY
FISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES OR WITH ESTABLISHED NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY
WILDLIFECORRIDORS,ORIMPEDETHEUSEOFNATIVEWILDLIFENURSERYSITES
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to interfere with the movement of fish or
wildlife species, interfere with established wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites is discussed at pages 3.4‐16 through 3.4‐17 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.4‐5.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that the impacts to movement of fish or wildlife species,
established wildlife corridors, and native wildlife nursery sites will be mitigated to a less
than significant level, as Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5 would first require projects to be
designed to provide design measures to allow wildlife or fish to move through the RTP
projects. If it is not feasible to avoid the impact through design measures, individual
projects will be required to implement alternative project‐specific mitigation prior to
construction. Any remaining impacts related to movement of fish or wildlife species,
established wildlife corridors, and native wildlife nursery sites after implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5 would be less than significant.
4. IMPACT3.4‐4:POTENTIALINTRODUCTIONORSPREADOFNOXIOUSWEEDS
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to introduce noxious weeds is discussed
at pages 3.4‐17 through 3.4‐18 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.4‐6.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that the potential to introduce or spread noxious weeds will be
mitigated to a less than significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.4‐6 would require a
qualified biologist to perform a field survey to determine the presence of noxious weed
infestations in the project area for individual projects, and also requires plans and
specifications to include specific measures that reduce the likelihood of new noxious
weed infestations after construction is completed. Any remaining impacts related to
noxious weeds after implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4‐6 would not be
significant.
5. IMPACT 3.4‐5: CONFLICTS WITH AN ADOPTED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, NATURALCOMMUNITYCONSERVATIONPLAN,RECOVERYPLAN, OR LOCALPOLICIES ORORDINANCESPROTECTINGBIOLOGICALRESOURCES
CEQAFINDINGS[TYPETHEDOCUMENTTITLE]
16 CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with an adopted plan, policies,
or ordinances protecting biological resources is discussed at pages 3.4‐18 through 3.4‐
19 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.4‐7.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that the impacts to an adopted plan, policies, or ordinances
protecting biological resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level as
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐7 would require individual projects to be consistent the Placer
County Conservation Plan once it is completed. Any remaining impacts related to an
adopted plan, policies, or ordinances protecting biological resources after
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4‐7 would not be significant.
E. CULTURALRESOURCES1. IMPACT3.5‐1:DAMAGETOORTHEDESTRUCTIONOFHISTORICALRESOURCES
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have an impact on significant
archaeological resources is discussed at page 3.5‐10 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.5‐1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board, this Board finds
that impacts to significant archaeological resources will be mitigated to a less than
significant level, as Mitigation Measure 3.5‐1 would first require projects to perform a
site‐specific study to identify the potential for significant historical resources to be
present, and, if present, to avoid, preserve, or otherwise mitigate potentially significant
impacts to the resources. Any remaining impacts related to historical resources after
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5‐1 would not be significant.
2. IMPACT3.5‐2:DAMAGETOORTHEDESTRUCTIONOFARCHAEOLOGICALRESOURCES
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have an impact on human remains is
discussed at page 3.5‐10 through 3.5‐12 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.5‐2.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that impacts to human remains will be mitigated to a less than
significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.5‐2 would ensure consultations with Native
CEQAFINDINGS
CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 17
American organizations and a records search shall be conducted. In the event the
records indicate that no previous survey has been conducted, the Central California
Information Center will make a recommendation on whether a survey is warranted
based on the archaeological sensitivity of the project areas. Additionally, implementing
agencies and contractors performing improvements to the projects shall adhere to
project‐specific requirements. Any remaining impacts related human remains after
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5‐2 would not be significant.
3. IMPACT3.5‐3:DAMAGETOORTHEDESTRUCTIONOFPALEONTOLOGICALRESOURCES
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have an impact on significant
paleontological resources is discussed at page 3.5‐12 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.5‐3.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that impacts to significant paleontological resources will be
mitigated to a less than significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.5‐3 would ensure that
all individual projects either avoid known paleontological resources, or take steps to
implement amelioration methods to reduce impacts to known paleontological
resources. Any remaining impacts related to paleontological resources after
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5‐3 would not be significant.
4. IMPACT3.5‐4:DISTURBANCEOFHUMANREMAINS
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have an impact on significant
paleontological resources is discussed at page 3.5‐13 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.5‐4.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that impacts to significant human remains will be mitigated to
a less than significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.5‐4 would ensure that all individual
projects, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during
construction or excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent human remains, project‐specific measures will be taken.
Any remaining impacts related to disturbance of humans after implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.5‐4 would be less than significant.
CEQAFINDINGS[TYPETHEDOCUMENTTITLE]
18 CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP
F. CULTURALRESOURCES1. IMPACT 3.7‐1: ADVERSE EFFECTS INVOLVING RUPTURE OF A FAULT OR STRONG SEISMIC
GROUNDSHAKING
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have an impact on adverse effects
involving rupture of a fault or strong seismic ground shaking is discussed at page 3.7‐11
of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.7‐1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that impacts to rupture of a fault or seismic ground shaking will
be mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation Measure 3.7‐1 would require
project‐level seismic hazard evaluations and project design to conform with the
California Building Code. Any remaining impacts related to adverse effects involving
rupture of a fault or strong seismic ground shaking after implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.7‐1 would not be significant.
2. IMPACT3.7‐2:SUBSTANTIALSOILEROSIONORTHELOSSOFTOPSOIL
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil is discussed at page 3.5‐14 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures
3.9‐1 and 3.9‐2 (from Section 3.9 Hydrology).
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that impacts to substantial soil erosion and the loss of topsoil
would be mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation Measures 3.9‐1 and 3.9‐
2 would ensure that soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would be reduced. Any remaining
impacts related oil erosion and the loss of topsoil after implementation of Mitigation
Measures 3.9‐1 and 3.9‐2 would not be significant.
3. IMPACT 3.7‐3: LOCATED ON A GEOLOGICAL UNIT OR SOIL THAT IS/WOULD BE UNSTABLE,RESULTINGINON‐OROFF‐SITELANDSLIDE,LATERALSPREADING,SUBSIDENCE,LIQUEFACTIONORCOLLAPSE
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to be located on a geological unit or soil
that is/would be unstable, resulting in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse is discussed at page 3.7‐12 of the Draft EIR.
CEQAFINDINGS
CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 19
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.7‐2.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that impacts to on‐ or off‐ site landslide, lateral spreading,
liquefaction or collapse will be mitigated to a less than significant level as Mitigation
Measure 3.7‐2 would ensure that site‐specific geotechnical investigations for
liquefaction, slope stability, lateral spreading, settlement, and subsidence will be
conducted. The findings of the investigations will serve as the basis for the final design
of the proposed projects. Any remaining impacts related to soil that is/would be
unstable after implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7‐2 would not be significant.
4. IMPACT3.7‐4:RISKSFROMEXPANSIVESOILS
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have an impact on risks from expansive
soils is discussed at page 3.7‐12 through 3.7‐13 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.7‐3.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that impacts to risks from expansive soils will be mitigated to a
less than significant level, as Mitigation Measure 3.7‐3 would ensure that site‐specific
geotechnical investigations for expansive soils will be conducted. Additionally, the
findings of these site‐specific investigations would serve as the basis for the final design
of the proposed project and ensure that appropriate, proven geotechnical methods are
used. Any remaining impacts related to risks from expansive soils after implementation
of Mitigation Measure 3.7‐3 would not be significant.
G. HAZARDSANDHAZARDOUSMATERIALS1. IMPACT3.8‐4:INCLUDEDONALISTOFHAZARDOUSMATERIALSSITESCOMPILEDPURSUANTTO
GOVERNMENTCODESECTION65962.5
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to be included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 is discussed at
page 3.8‐11 through 3.8‐12 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.8‐1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that impacts from being included on a list of hazardous
CEQAFINDINGS[TYPETHEDOCUMENTTITLE]
20 CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 will be
mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation Measure 3.8‐1 would require a
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment that includes a review of all known databases
for contaminated sites, prior to approval of individual RTP improvement projects. If it is
determined that a project is located on or near a contaminated site, a Phase II
environmental Site Assessment should be performed to sample the soils/groundwater
and further investigate the extent of the contamination. In such a case, the
implementing agency will devise a remediation plan or avoid disturbance of
contaminated areas, in compliance with appropriate regulatory agency requirements.
Any remaining impacts related to hazardous materials sites after implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.8‐1 would not be significant.
H. HYDROLOGYANDWATERQUALITY1. IMPACT 3.9‐1: VIOLATE ANY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE
REQUIREMENTS
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to be included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 is discussed at
page 3.9‐13 through 3.9‐16 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures
3.9‐1, 3.9‐2, 3.9‐3, and 3.9‐4.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that impacts from violating water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements will be mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation
Measure 3.9‐1, 3.9‐2, 3.9‐3, and 3.9‐4 would require a Phase 1 Environmental Site
Assessment that includes a review of all known databases for contaminated sites, prior
to approval of individual RTP improvement projects. If it is determined that a project is
located on or near a contaminated site, a Phase II environmental Site Assessment should
be performed to sample the soils/groundwater and further investigate the extent of the
contamination. In such a case, the implementing agency will devise a remediation plan
or avoid disturbance of contaminated areas, in compliance with appropriate regulatory
agency requirements. Any remaining impacts related to the potential for violation of
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements after implementation of
Mitigation Measures 3.9‐1, 3.9‐2, 3.9‐3, and 3.9‐4 would not be significant.
2. IMPACT3.9‐3:ALTEREXISTINGDRAINAGEPATTERN
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to alter the existing drainage pattern in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, flooding, or polluted runoff
is discussed at page 3.9‐16 through 3.9‐18 of the Draft EIR.
CEQAFINDINGS
CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 21
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures
3.9‐5, 3.9‐6, and 3.9‐7.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that impacts from altering the existing drainage pattern in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, flooding, or polluted runoff
would be mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation Measures 3.9‐5, 3.9‐6,
and 3.9‐7 would require project‐level drainage studies, and the project would avoid
restriction of flood flows and project dewatering. Drainage systems will be required to
be designed in accordance with the County’s, Flood Control Agency’s, and other
applicable flood control design criteria. Any remaining impacts related to the potential
to alter the drainage pattern of sites would be reduced by implementation of Mitigation
Measures 3.9‐5, 3.9‐6, and 3.9‐7 to a less than significant level.
3. IMPACT3.9‐4:OTHERWISESUBSTANTIALLYDEGRADEWATERQUALITY
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to otherwise substantially degrade water
quality is discussed at page 3.9‐18 through 3.9‐19 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures
3.9‐1 through 3.9‐7.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that impacts that would otherwise substantially degrade water
quality would be mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation Measures 3.9‐1
through 3.9‐7 describe. Any remaining impacts related to the potential to otherwise
substantially degrade water quality would be reduced by implementation of Mitigation
Measures 3.9‐1 through 3.9‐7 to a less than significant level.
4. IMPACT3.9‐7:EXPOSUREOFPEOPLEORSTRUCTURESTOASIGNIFICANTRISKOFLOSSFROMFLOODING
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to otherwise substantially degrade water
quality is discussed at page 3.9‐18 through 3.9‐20 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures
3.9‐8.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that impacts that would expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss through flooding would be mitigated to a less than significant
level, as Mitigation Measure 3.9‐8 describes. Any remaining impacts related to the
potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss from flooding would
CEQAFINDINGS[TYPETHEDOCUMENTTITLE]
22 CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP
be reduced by implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.9‐8 to a less than significant
level.
I. LANDUSEANDPOPULATION1. IMPACT3.10‐1:PHYSICALDIVISIONOFANESTABLISHEDCOMMUNITY.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project result in the physical division of an
established community is discussed on pages 3.10‐8 through 3.10‐9 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.10‐1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that the potential for the Project to physically divide an
established community will be mitigated to a less than significant level as Mitigation
Measure 3.10‐1 would ensure that all individual projects are designed to maintain the
cohesiveness of the existing communities to the greatest extent feasible, and where full
design mitigation is not feasible, measures would be incorporated into the design to
minimize the impacts associated with project implementation. Any remaining impacts
after implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.10‐1 would not be significant.
2. IMPACT 3.10‐3: CONFLICTS WITH ANY APPLICABLE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ORNATURALCOMMUNITYCONSERVATIONPLAN.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with any Applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan is discussed on pages 3.10‐
10 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.10‐2.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that the potential for the Project to conflict with any applicable
Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan will be mitigated to
a less than significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.10‐2 would require the
implementation of previously described Mitigation Measure 3.4‐7 from the Section 3.4
Biological Resources. Any remaining impacts after implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.10‐2 would not be significant.
J. NOISE1. IMPACT 3.11‐1: EXPOSURE OF NOISE‐SENSITIVE LAND USES TO SHORT‐TERM
CONSTRUCTIONNOISE
CEQAFINDINGS
CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 23
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to expose sensitive land uses to short‐
term construction noise is discussed at pages 3.11‐14 through 3.11‐16 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.11‐1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that the potential for the Project to expose sensitive land uses
to short‐term construction noise will be mitigated to a less than significant level as
Mitigation Measure 3.11‐1 would limit construction to the daytime hours, to the extent
feasible, and would require use of equipment with reduced equipment noise/vibration
levels, to the extent practical. Any remaining impacts after implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.11‐1 would not be significant.
2. IMPACT3.11‐2:EXPOSUREOFNOISE‐SENSITIVELANDUSESTOINCREASESINTRAFFICNOISE
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to expose sensitive land uses to traffic
noise is discussed at pages 3.11‐16 through 3.11‐17 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.11‐2.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that the potential for the Project to expose sensitive land uses
to traffic noise will be mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation Measure
3.11‐2 would require that the implementing agency shall perform a project‐level noise
evaluation, prior to the approval of RTP projects. The noise evaluation would identify
areas that would have elevated noise levels as a result of the project and require
measures to attenuate the noise to an acceptable level. Such measures could include
constructing earth berms, sound walls, establishing buffers, establishing speed limits
and limits on hours of operation of nearby rail and transit systems. Any remaining
impacts after implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11‐2 would not be significant.
3. IMPACT3.11‐3:EXPOSUREOFNOISE‐SENSITIVELANDUSESTONOISEFROMIMPROVEDRAILFACILITIESANDSERVICEOPERATIONS
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to expose sensitive land uses to noise
from improved rail facilities and operations is discussed at pages 3.11‐17 of the Draft
EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.11‐2.
CEQAFINDINGS[TYPETHEDOCUMENTTITLE]
24 CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this
Board of Directors finds that the potential for the Project to expose sensitive land uses
to noise from improved rail facilities and service operations will be mitigated to a less
than significant level, as Mitigation Measure 3.11‐2 would require that the
implementing agency shall perform a project‐level noise evaluation, prior to the
approval of RTP projects. The noise evaluation would identify areas that would have
elevated noise levels as a result of the project and require measures to attenuate the
noise to an acceptable level. Such measures could include constructing earth berms,
sound walls, establishing buffers, establishing speed limits and limits on hours of
operation of nearby rail and transit systems. Any remaining impacts after
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11‐2 would be less than significant.
K UTILITIES,PUBLICSERVICESANDRECREATION1. IMPACT3.12‐1: EXCEEDWASTEWATERTREATMENTREQUIREMENTS OF THEAPPLICABLE
REGIONALWATERQUALITYCONTROLBOARD.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Water Quality Control Board is discussed on page 3.12‐
11 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.12‐1.
(c) Findings. Transportation projects included on the RTP are not anticipated to require
significant additional wastewater service, unless they involve the construction of
additional facilities. However, the improvement of and increased usage of non‐
motorized transportation methods, like bike routes, are not anticipated to require
additional levels of waste water service. If restrooms are incorporated into non‐
motorized transportation projects, these uses would also require minimal amounts of
wastewater services. Mitigation Measure 3.12‐1 requires that project implementation
agencies shall evaluate the impacts of wastewater treatment, as part of project‐specific
environmental review. For any identified impacts, project implementation agencies or
local jurisdiction shall identify appropriate Mitigation Measures and shall be responsible
for ensuring adherence to the Mitigation Measures. Any remaining impacts after
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.12‐1 would be less than significant.
2. IMPACT3.12‐2:INADEQUATECAPACITYTOSERVETHEPROJECT’SPROJECTEDWASTEWATERDEMAND.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected wastewater demand is discussed on page 3.12‐11 through 3.12‐12
of the Draft EIR.
CEQAFINDINGS
CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 25
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.12‐2.
(c) Findings. The proposed project may not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Mitigation
Measure 3.12‐2 requires that project implementation agencies shall secure adequate
wastewater treatment capacity and undertake project‐level review as necessary to
provide CEQA compliance. Any remaining impacts after implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.12‐2 would be less than significant.
3. IMPACT 3.12‐3: CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT OR COLLECTIONFACILITIESOREXPANSIONOFEXISTINGFACILITIES
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to require construction of new
wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities is
discussed on page 3.12‐11 through 3.12‐12 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.12‐3.
(c) Findings. Some RTP projects may require or result in the construction of new
wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.12.3, which would require the implementing agencies to provide
CEQA review for all projects that require wastewater infrastructure upgrade, would
reduce this impact to a less‐than‐significant level.
4. IMPACT 3.12‐4: REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES OREXPANSIONOFEXISTINGFACILITIES
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to require construction of new water
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities is discussed on page 3.12‐13 of the
Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.12‐4.
(c) Findings. The proposed RTP is not anticipated to require the construction of new water
treatment facilities or expansion of existing water treatment facilities for water service.
However because site specific design details are not currently available, the following
Mitigation Measure requires project specific review by the implementing agency prior
to project approval. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.12.4, which would require
the implementing agencies to provide CEQA review for all projects that require
CEQAFINDINGS[TYPETHEDOCUMENTTITLE]
26 CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP
wastewater infrastructure upgrade, would reduce this impact to a less‐than‐significant
level.
5. IMPACT 3.12‐5: INSUFFICIENTWATER SUPPLIES AVAILABLE TO SERVE THE PROJECT FROMEXISTINGENTITLEMENTSANDRESOURCES
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have insufficient water supplies is
discussed on page 3.12‐13 through 3.12‐14 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.12‐5.
(c) Findings. Project site specific design is not currently available for RTP improvement
projects, therefore, the amount of Potable water required to serve individual projects
is not determined. Therefore, the increased demand for water would need to be
evaluated on a project by project basis as part of the CEQA process prior to project
approval. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.12.5, which would require the
implementing agency to secure adequate water supplies to serve the proposed project
and undertake project‐level review as necessary to provide CEQA compliance, would
reduce this impact to a less‐than‐significant level.
6. IMPACT3.12‐6:CONSTRUCTIONOFNEWSTORMWATERDRAINAGEFACILITIESOREXPANSIONOFEXISTINGFACILITIES
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities is discussed on page 3.12‐14 through
3.12‐15 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.12‐6.
(c) Findings. Because the project site could increase runoff, project impacts to storm water
are considered potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.12.6,
which would require the implementing agency to secure adequate water supplies to
serve the proposed project and undertake project‐level review as necessary to provide
CEQA compliance, would reduce this impact to a less‐than‐significant level.
7. IMPACT3.12‐7:SOLIDWASTEDISPOSALNEEDS
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause solid waste impacts is discussed
on page 3.12‐15 through 3.12‐16 of the Draft EIR.
CEQAFINDINGS
CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 27
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.12‐7.
(c) Findings. Because the project site could increase runoff, project impacts to solid waste
are considered potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.12.7,
which would ensure reductions in solid waste and that landfills have enough solid waste
capacity, would reduce this impact to a less‐than‐significant level.
L TRANSPORTATIONANDCIRCULATION1. IMPACT 3.13‐2: ALTER PRESENT PATTERNS OF VEHICULAR, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN
CIRCULATION, INCREASED TRAFFIC DELAY, AND INCREASED TRAFFIC HAZARDS DURINGCONSTRUCTION
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Water Quality Control Board is discussed on page 3.13‐
20 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.13‐1.
(c) Findings. Although required permits would be obtained prior to construction of RTP
projects, construction of RTP projects could lead to traffic delays, temporary reductions
in roadway capacity and levels of service, damage to property, or injury. Mitigation
Measure 3.13‐1 would require the preparation of a traffic control plan for all
construction projects. Implementation of a traffic control plan would ensure continued
emergency vehicle access during construction activities. Any remaining impacts after
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13‐1 would be less than significant.
2. IMPACT 3.13‐5: ALTERATION OF EMERGENCY ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION OF FUTUREPROJECT
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Water Quality Control Board is discussed on page 3.13‐
21 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure
3.13‐1.
(c) Findings. The proposed project could result in the alteration of emergency access during
construction of future projects. Mitigation Measure 3.13‐1 would require the
preparation of a traffic control plan for all construction projects. Implementation of a
traffic control plan would ensure continued emergency vehicle access during
CEQAFINDINGS[TYPETHEDOCUMENTTITLE]
28 CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP
construction activities. Any remaining impacts after implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.13‐1 would be less than significant.
V. FINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONSREGARDINGTHOSEIMPACTSWHICHARELESSTHANSIGNIFICANTORLESSTHANCUMULATIVELYCONSIDERABLE
Specific impacts within the following categories of environmental effects were found to be less than
significant as set forth in more detail in the Draft EIR.
Aesthetics: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.1‐1.
Air Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.3‐1 and
3.3‐4.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The following specific impacts were found to be less than
significant: 3.6‐2.
Geological and Mineral Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less
than significant: 3.7‐5, and 3.7‐6.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following specific impacts were found to be less than
significant: 3.8‐1, 3.8‐2, 3.8‐3, 3.8‐5, 3.8‐6, and 3.8‐7.
Hydrology and Water Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than
significant: 3.9‐2, 3.9‐5, 3.9‐6.
Land Use and Population: The following specific impacts were found to be less than
significant: 3.10‐2, 3.10‐4, and 3.10‐5.
Utilities, Public Services and Recreation: The following specific impacts were found to be
less than significant: 3.12‐8, 3.12‐9.
Traffic and Circulation: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:
3.13‐1, 3.13‐3, 3.13‐4, 3.13‐6.
The project was found to have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to specific impacts
within the following categories of environmental effects as set forth in more detail in the Draft EIR.
Aesthetics: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively
considerable: Impact 4.1.
Air Quality: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively
considerable: Impact 4.3.
Biological Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively
considerable: Impact 4.4.
CEQAFINDINGS
CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 29
Cultural Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively
considerable: Impact 4.5.
Geology and Mineral Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than
cumulatively considerable: Impact 4.7.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following specific impact was found to be less than
cumulatively considerable: Impact 4.8.
Hydrology: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively
considerable: Impact 4.9.
Land Use and Planning and Population: The following specific impact was found to be less
than cumulatively considerable: 4.0.
Noise: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:
4.11.
Utilities, Public Services, and Recreation: The following specific impact was found to be less
than cumulatively considerable: 4.12.
Transportation and Circulation: The following specific impact was found to be less than
cumulatively considerable: 4.13.
The above impacts are less than significant or less than cumulatively considerable for one of the
following reasons:
The EIR determined that the impact is less than significant for the Project.
The EIR determined that the Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable
contribution to the cumulative impact.
The EIR determined that the impact is beneficial (would be reduced) for the Project.
VI. PROJECTALTERNATIVES
A. IDENTIFICATIONOFPROJECTOBJECTIVESAn EIR is required to identify a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. The “range of
potential alternatives to the project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the
basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one of more of the significant
effects.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).) “Among the factors that may be taken into account
when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of
infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional
boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and
whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative
site (or the site is already owned by the proponent).” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1).)
CEQAFINDINGS[TYPETHEDOCUMENTTITLE]
30 CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP
Chapter 2.0 (page 2.0‐1) of the Draft EIR identifies the Project’s goals and objectives. The purpose
of the 2036 Placer County RTP is to provide a clear vision of the regional transportation goals,
objectives, and policies in the PCTPA planning area. The 2036 Placer County RTP provides short‐term
and long‐term strategies for implementation, which includes realistic and fiscally constrained
alternatives. The following goals and objectives, by transportation mode and strategy, have been
identified for the 2036 Placer County RTP.
The RTP contains ten specific goals, each with supporting policies and objectives, for roadways,
public transit, passenger rail, aviation, goods movement, active and alternative transportation,
transportation systems management (TSM), recreation, integrated land use, air quality, and
transportation planning, and funding:
1. Maintain and upgrade a safe, efficient, and convenient countywide roadway system that meets the travel needs of people and goods through and within the region.
2. Provide effective, convenient, regionally and locally coordinated transit service that connects residential areas with employment centers, serves key activity centers and facilities, and offers a viable option to the drive‐alone commute.
3. Improve the availability and convenience of passenger rail service.
4. Promote general and commercial aviation facilities and services that complement the countywide transportation system.
5. Provide for the safe and efficient movement of goods through, within, and into Placer County.
6. Promote a safe, convenient, and efficient non‐motorized transportation system, for bicyclists, pedestrians, and users of low speed vehicles, which is part of a balanced overall transportation system.
7. Provide an economical solution to the negative impacts of single‐occupant vehicle travel through the use of alternative transportation methods.
8. Promote a transportation system that integrates and facilitates recreational travel and uses, both motorized and non‐motorized.
9. By integrating land, air, and transportation planning, build and maintain the most efficient and effective transportation system possible while achieving the highest possible environmental quality standards.
10. Secure maximum available funding; pursue new sources of funds for maintenance, expansion, and improvement of transportation facilities and services; and educate the public about the need for funding for transportation projects.
B. ALTERNATIVECONSIDERATION1. NOPROJECTALTERNATIVE
CEQAFINDINGS
CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 31
The No Project Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0‐3 and 5.0‐4 through 5.0‐7 of the Draft EIR. As
required by CEQA, this alternative assumes that the adopted 2035 RTP would remain in place and
would guide improvements to the transportation network.
Findings: The No Project Alternative is rejected as an alternative because it would not
achieve the Project’s objectives. Environmental benefits of this alternative over the
proposed project include the reduction of impacts to aesthetics, agricultural and forest
resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources & mineral
resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, and utilities, public services, and
recreation, while impacts to air quality, greenhouse gases and climate change impacts,
hazards and hazardous materials, land use planning & population, and transportation
are worse than the Project.
Explanation: This alternative would not realize the benefits of the Project nor achieve the
Project objectives. The improvements under the prior RTP would not be funded because
there would be a lapse in the requirement to update the RTP as required by the CTC.
2. ROADEMPHASISALTERNATIVE:
The Road Emphasis Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0‐3 and 5.0‐7 through 5.0‐10 of the Draft EIR.
Findings: The Road Emphasis Alternative is rejected because would require shifting funds
from the Financially Unconstrained Alternative to fund roadway improvements,
operation, and maintenance. However, funding under the Financially Unconstrained
Alternative is not anticipated to be available at this time and it is not known if any funds
identified under the Financially Unconstrained Alternative will become available under
this alternative. Environmental benefits of this alternative over the proposed project
include traffic/circulation impacts, and impacts related to aesthetics, agricultural
resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and mineral
resources, greenhouse gases, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water
quality, land use and population, noise, and utilities, public services, and recreation are
worse than the Project.
Explanation: This alternative focuses investment, and implements projects based on a road
emphasis that are included in the Financially Constrained (programmed and planned
projects), and would require shifting funds from the Financially Unconstrained
Alternative to fund roadway improvements, operation, and maintenance. It should be
noted that funding under the Financially Unconstrained Alternative is not anticipated to
be available at this time and it is not known if any funds identified under the Financially
Unconstrained Alternative will become available under this alternative.
3. TRANSITENHANCEDALTERNATIVE
The Transit Enhanced Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0‐3 and 5.0‐10 through 5.0‐14 of the Draft
EIR.
CEQAFINDINGS[TYPETHEDOCUMENTTITLE]
32 CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP
Findings: The Transit Enhanced Alternative is rejected because it is not considered fiscally
feasible and because it will not achieve the Project’s objectives. Environmental benefits
of this alternative over the proposed project include the reduction of greenhouse gases
and climate change and recreation impacts, while impacts related to aesthetics,
agricultural and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,
hydrology and water quality, and noise are equal, and impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials, land use and population, utilities and public services, and
transportation are worse than the Project.
Explanation: The Transit Enhanced Alternative focuses investment into transit modes, while
also funding the locally‐funded transportation improvements included in the Financially
Constrained Alternative. This alternative would require shifting funds from the
Financially Unconstrained Alternative to fund transit capital, operational, and
maintenance. It should be noted that funding under the Financially Unconstrained
Alternative is not anticipated to be available at this time and it is not known if any funds
identified under the Financially Unconstrained Alternative will become available. It
should also be noted that the increase in transit service under this alternative would not
result in a proportionate increase in ridership, particularly in the smaller communities
and more rural areas.
4. FINANCIALLYUNCONSTRAINEDALTERNATIVE
The Financially Unconstrained Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0‐3 and 5.0‐14 through 5.0‐16 of
the Draft EIR.
Findings: The Transit Enhanced Alternative is rejected because it is not considered fiscally
feasible. Environmental benefits of this alternative over the proposed project include
the reduction of greenhouse gases and climate change, hazards and hazardous
materials, land use and population, recreation, and transportation/circulation, and
impacts related to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources,
cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, utilities and public services, are
worse than the Project.
Explanation: The Financially Unconstrained Alternative includes all of the individual projects
identified under the Financially Constrained Alternative (discussed above and in Section
2.0 Project Description) plus numerous additional projects that are needed but not yet
funded over the planning horizon. Under this alternative, total spending would need to
increase by approximately $23.8 billion dollars. This alternative includes all projects
without regard to whether or not they can be funded. These elements are described in
detail in Section 2 Project Description along with the individual improvements. It should
be noted that funding under the Financially Unconstrained Alternative is not anticipated
to be available at this time and it is not known if any funds identified under the
Financially Unconstrained Alternative will become available.
5. ENVIRONMENTALLYSUPERIORALTERNATIVE:
CEQAFINDINGS
CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 33
CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified among the alternatives
that are analyzed in the EIR. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative,
an EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The environmentally superior alternative is that
alternative with the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project.
As discussed in Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR and summarized in Table 5.4‐1 of the Draft EIR, the
Financially Constrained Alternative (the proposed project) has the lowest overall impact (score of
28) and is deemed the environmentally superior alternative because it provides the greatest
reduction of potential impacts in comparison to the other alternatives. The Transit Enhanced
Alternative and Financially Unconstrained Alternative ranks second (tied) with a score of 30, the No
Project Alternative ranks fourth with a score of 32, and the Road Emphasis Alternative ranks fifth
with a score of 52.
VII. STATEMENTSOFOVERRIDINGCONSIDERATIONSRELATEDTOTHE2036PLACERCOUNTYRTPFINDINGS
As described in detail in Section III of these Findings, the following significant and unavoidable
impacts could occur with implementation of the Project:
Impact 3.2.1: Conversion of Farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and
Farmland of Statewide Importance, to non‐agricultural uses, or conflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract.
Impact 3.6.1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment.
Impact 4.2: Cumulative Impact on Agricultural Land and Uses.
Impact 4.6: Increased Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions May Contribute to Climate
Change.
The adverse effects listed above, and described in detail in Section III, are substantive issues of
concern to the PCTPA. However, the PCTPA has developed a Regional Transportation Plan that
emphasizes reductions in traffic congestion while improving human mobility, safety enhancements,
community connectivity, socioeconomic growth that supports a sustainable broad‐based economy,
preservation and enhancement of community character and the environment, and ensures the
implementation of a feasible funding plan, to preserve and enhance the existing countywide
transportation system.
Based on the entire record and the EIR, the economic and social benefits of the Project throughout
Placer County outweigh and override any significant unavoidable environmental effects that would
result from future Project implementation as more fully described in Section III Findings and
Recommendations Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. The PCTPA Board has determined
that any environmental detriment caused by the proposed project has been minimized to the extent
feasible through the Mitigation Measures identified herein, and, where mitigation is not feasible, has
been outweighed and counterbalanced by the significant transportation, environmental, and health
and safety benefits throughout the region.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2015062014)
FOR THE
2036 PLACER COUNTY
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
FEBRUARY 8, 2016 Prepared for:
Placer County Transportation Planning Commission 299 Nevada St. Auburn, CA 95603 (530) 823-4030
Prepared by:
De Novo Planning Group 1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106 El Dorado Hills CA 95762 (916) 580-9818
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2015062014)
FOR THE
2036 PLACER COUNTY
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
FEBRUARY 8, 2016
Prepared for:
Placer County Transportation Planning Commission
299 Nevada St. Auburn, CA 95603
(530) 823-4030
Prepared by:
De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106 El Dorado Hills CA 95762
(916) 580-9818
TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP TOC-1
Chapter Page Number
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1.0-1
1.1 Purpose and Intended Uses of the EIR ................................................................ 1.0-1
1.2 Environmental Review Process ........................................................................... 1.0-2
1.3 Organization of the Final EIR ............................................................................... 1.0-4
2.0 Comments on Draft EIR and Responses ........................................................................... 2.0-1
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2.0-1
2.2 List of Commentors ............................................................................................ 2.0-1
2.3 Comments and Responses .................................................................................. 2.0-1
3.0 Errata .......................................................................................................................... 3.0-1
3.1 Revisions to the Draft EIR ................................................................................... 3.0-1
4.0 Final MMRP .................................................................................................................... 4.0-1
4.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................... 4.0-1
5.0 Report Preparers............................................................................................................. 5.0-1
Table Page Number
Table 2.0-1: List of Commentors ........................................................................................... 2.0-1
Table 4.0-1: Mitigation Monitoring Program ......................................................................... 4.0-3
TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOC-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
This page left intentionally blank.
INTRODUCTION 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 1.0-1
The Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) is the Regional Transportation Planning
Agency (RTPA) for Placer County, which includes the cities of Roseville, Lincoln, Rocklin, Auburn,
Colfax, and the town of Loomis. The nine-member PCTPA Board of Directors consists of one
councilmember from each of Placer County’s six incorporated jurisdictions, two members of the
Placer County Board of Supervisors; and one citizen representative. PCTPA is the forum for making
decisions about the regional transportation system in Placer County.
Both, federal and state laws require each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and RTPA to
prepare a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in urban areas every four years. The RTP is a long-
range, 20-year minimum, comprehensive transportation plan for all modes including: highways,
local streets and roads, transit, pedestrian/bicycle, aviation, rail and goods movement. The
purpose of the RTP is to serve as a foundation for the development of the shorter "action" plans
called the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which satisfies California
transportation planning requirements, and the federal counterpart referred to as the Federal
Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) for all transportation projects that require federal
approval. The 2036 RTP Program EIR covers the Tier 1 list of projects. The Tier 1 list of projects
identifies the 20-year list of financially constrained transportation investments in the region.
The 2036 RTP fulfills the federal and state requirements using the specific guidance from the CTC
RTP Guidelines (April 2010). PCTPA is the lead agency for the environmental review of the
proposed project evaluated herein and has the principal responsibility for approving the project.
1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THE EIR
CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR A FINAL EIR
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the 2036 RTP has been prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines. State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15132 requires that an FEIR consist of the following:
the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) or a revision of the draft;
comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in
summary;
a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR;
the responses of the lead agency to significant environmental concerns raised in the
review and consultation process; and
any other information added by the lead agency.
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132(a), the Draft EIR is incorporated by
reference into this Final EIR.
An EIR must disclose the expected environmental impacts, including impacts that cannot be
avoided, growth-inducing effects, impacts found not to be significant, and significant cumulative
impacts, as well as identify mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that
could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts. CEQA requires government agencies to
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
consider and, where feasible, minimize environmental impacts of proposed development, and an
obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social
factors.
PURPOSE AND USE
The PCTPA, as the lead agency, has prepared the Draft EIR and this Final EIR to disclose the
expected environmental impacts, including impacts that cannot be avoided, growth-inducing
effects, impacts found not to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts, as well as identify
mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid its
adverse environmental impacts. CEQA requires government agencies to consider and, where
feasible, minimize environmental impacts of proposed projects, and confers an obligation to
balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors.
This document and the Draft EIR, as amended herein, constitute the Final EIR, which will be used
as programmatic-level environmental document to evaluate subsequent planning and permitting
actions associated with the 2036 RTP. Many subsequent actions will require subsequent and/or
supplement analysis as the details of the action become clear from the development of detailed
project planning, design, and engineering. Subsequent actions that may be associated with the
2036 RTP are identified in Chapter 2.0 of the Draft EIR.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The review and certification process for the EIR has involved, or will involve, the following general
procedural steps:
NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY
The PCTPA circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project and an
Initial Study on June 5, 2015 to the general public, trustee and responsible agencies, the State
Clearinghouse (SCH# 2015062014), the County Clerk, and was published in the adjudicated
newspaper pursuant to the public noticing requirements of CEQA. A scoping meeting was held on
June 30th, 2015 at 1:00 PM in the City of Auburn. The NOP and Initial Study are presented in
Appendix A of the Draft EIR.
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND DRAFT EIR
The PCTPA published a public Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR on November 3, 2015,
inviting comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties.
The NOA was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2015062014) and the County Clerk, and
was published in the adjudicated newspaper pursuant to the public noticing requirements of
CEQA. The Draft EIR was available for public review from November 3rd through December 17th
2015. The Draft EIR contains a description of the project, description of the environmental setting,
identification of project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as
well as an analysis of project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental
changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. This Draft EIR identifies issues
INTRODUCTION 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 1.0-3
determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact, and provides detailed analysis of
potentially significant and significant and unavoidable impacts.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR
The PCTPA received one (1) comment letter regarding the Draft EIR. In addition to the comment
letter received, PCTPA has provided several text changes. No additional oral or written comments
were received. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this Final EIR responds to the
written comments received. The Final EIR also contains minor edits to the Draft EIR, which are
included in Section 3.0, Errata. This document and the Draft EIR, as amended herein, constitute
the Final EIR.
CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION
The PCTPA will independently review and consider the Final EIR. If the PCTPA finds that the Final
EIR is "adequate and complete", the PCTPA Board may certify the Final EIR in accordance with
CEQA. The rule of adequacy generally holds that an EIR can be certified if:
1) The EIR shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and
2) The EIR provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the proposed
project in contemplation of environmental considerations.
Upon certification of the Final EIR, the PCTPA Board may take action to approve, revise, or reject
the project. A decision to approve the 2036 RTP, for which this EIR identifies significant
environmental effects, must be accompanied by written findings in accordance with State CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as
described below, would also be adopted in accordance with Public Resources Code Section
21081.6(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 for mitigation measures that have been
incorporated into or imposed upon the project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the
environment. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be designed to ensure that
these measures are carried out during project implementation, in a manner that is consistent with
the EIR.
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR
This Final EIR has been prepared consistent with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
which identifies the content requirements for Final EIRs. This Final EIR is organized in the following
manner:
CHAPTER 1.0 – INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1.0 briefly describes the purpose of the environmental evaluation, identifies the lead,
agency, summarizes the process associated with preparation and certification of an EIR, and
identifies the content requirements and organization of the Final EIR.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
CHAPTER 2.0 – COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
Chapter 2.0 provides a list of commentors, copies of written comments made on the Draft EIR
(coded for reference), and responses to those written comments.
CHAPTER 3.0 - ERRATA
Chapter 3.0 consists of minor revisions to the Draft EIR in response to comments on the Draft EIR,
as well as minor staff edits. The revisions to the Draft EIR do not change the intent or content of
the analysis or mitigation.
CHAPTER 4.0 – FINAL MMRP
Chapter 4.0 consists of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP is
presented in a tabular format that presents the impacts, mitigation measure, and responsibility,
timing, and verification of monitoring.
CHAPTER 5.0 – REPORT PREPARERS
Chapter 5.0 lists all authors and agencies that assisted in the preparation of the EIR, by name, title,
and company or agency affiliation.
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 2.0-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The PCTPA received one (1) comment letter during the Draft EIR 45-day public review period.
Acting as the lead agency, the PCTPA has prepared a response to the Draft EIR comments.
Responses to comments received during the comment period do not involve any new significant
impacts or “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. In addition to the comment letter received, PCTPA has
provided several text changes, all of which are incorporated into Section 3.0 Errata.
2.2 LIST OF COMMENTORS
Table 2-1 lists the comments on the Draft EIR that were submitted to the PCTPA. The assigned
comment letter number, letter date, letter author, and affiliation, if presented in the comment
letter or if representing a public agency, are also listed.
TABLE 2-1 LIST OF COMMENTORS
RESPONSE
LETTER/
NUMBER
INDIVIDUAL OR
SIGNATORY AFFILIATION DATE
A Scott Morgan State Clearinghouse 12-18-2015
2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONDING TO COMMENTS ON A DRAFT EIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires that lead agencies evaluate and respond to all comments
on the Draft EIR that consider an environmental issue. The written response must address the
significant environmental issue raised and provide a detailed response, especially when specific
comments or suggestions (e.g., additional mitigation measures) are not accepted. In addition, the
written response must be a good faith and reasoned analysis. However, lead agencies need to
only respond to significant environmental issues associated with the project and do not need to
provide all the information requested by the commentor, as long as a good faith effort at full
disclosure is made in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 recommends that commentors provide detailed comments that
focus on the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the possible environmental
impacts of the project and ways to avoid or mitigate the significant effects of the project, and that
commentors provide evidence supporting their comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 also recommends that revisions to the Draft EIR be noted as a
revision in the Draft EIR or as a separate section of the Final EIR. Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR
identifies all revisions to the Draft EIR.
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
Written comments on the Draft EIR are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses
to those comments. To assist in referencing comments and responses, the following coding system
is used:
Those comments received from government agencies are represented by a lettered
response while comments received by individual or private firms or individuals are
represented by a numbered response.
Each letter is lettered (i.e., Letter A) and each comment within each letter is numbered
(i.e., comment A-1, comment A-2).
Where changes to the Draft EIR text result from the response to comments, those changes are
included in the response and identified with revision marks (underline for new text, strike out for
deleted text).
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 2.0-3
A-1
A-1
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 2.0-5
Response to Letter A: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse
Response A-1: The commentor indicates that their agency submitted the Draft EIR to selected
state agencies for review and no state agencies submitted comments by the December 17,
2015 close of public review. The commentor indicates that PCTPA has complied with the
State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act.
This comment is noted. No response is necessary.
2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
2.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
ERRATA 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 3.0-1
Revisions made to the Draft EIR are identified below. None of the revisions identify new significant
environmental impacts, nor does any of the revisions result in substantive changes to the Draft
EIR. The new information to the EIR is intended merely correct, clarify, amplify, and makes
insignificant modifications.
3.1 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project Description was revised to reflect corrections and clarifications. The corrections and
clarifications affect several tables Page 2.0-7 through 2.0-30. Table 2.3-1 and 2.3-2 were replaced
with the following tables.
ERRATA 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 3.0-2
THE FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECT
A listing of the financially constrained (Tier 1) projects is described in Table 2.3-1 below.
TABLE 2.3-1: FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECTS SUMMARY (TIER 1)
Project ID LEAD AGENCY CATEGORY TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST (2015 Dollars)
YEAR OF EXPENDITURE COST
COMPLETION TIMING STATUS
CALTRANS
CAL20497 Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Alpine Meadows Road Traffic Signal
Placer County, about 9.3 miles south of Truckee at Alpine Meadows Road - Construct signalized intersection at SR 89 [FCO Only] (Pla-89-12.1/12.5) [SHOPP Minor A 201.310] (Toll Credits for CON)
$974,000 $974,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
CAL20518 Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
CCTV Cameras at Various Locations
In El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento and Yolo counties on Routes 5, 50, 51, 80, 89, 99 and 267 at Various Locations - Upgrade closed caption televisions (CCTV) [EFIS ID 0313000197; CTIPS ID 107-0000-0966] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)
$546,800 $546,800 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
CAL20571 Caltrans D3 A- Bike & Ped Complete Streets Improvements to the SHS
Complete Streets improvements in various locations on the State Highway System (SHS) in El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yuba and Yolo Counties.
$10,000,000 $13,100,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-3
CAL20538 Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Crispin Cider STAA Access
I-80 at Canyon Way IC, Illinoistown OC and driveway entrance to Crispin Cider warehouse - Widen ramp pavement at three locations, modify overcrossing and install signage to accommodate Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) (PM 31.1/31.9) [SHOPP Minor A program 201.310] (Toll credits for CON)
$2,020,000 $2,020,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
CAL20511 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Gold Run SRRA Water System Upgrades
On I-80 in Placer County, near Gold Run, at the Gold Run Safety Roadside Rest Area - Replace water distribution system (PM 41.4/42.2) [EFIS ID 0313000017; CTIPS ID 107-0000-0960] (Toll credits for PE, ROW, CON)
$3,061,000 $3,061,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
CAL20655 Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
HAR Update at 25 locations in 11 counties
In Sacramento, Butte, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer and Yolo Counties, on Routes 5, 50, 70, 80, 89, 99 and 267 at various locations. Upgrade Highway Advisory Radios
$626,000 $976,560 Project complete by 2036
Planned
CAL20548 Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
HAR Upgrades - Various Counties and Routes
In Sacramento, Butte, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer and Yolo Counties, on Routes 5, 50, 70, 80, 89, 99 and 267, at various locations - Upgrade Highway Advisory Radios (HAR) [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1001] (Toll credits for PE, ROW, CON)
$626,000 $626,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
CAL20424 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
I-80 3-Mile Truck Climbing Lane
Near Colfax on Route 80, from the Long Ravine UP to east of Magra Road OC - Construct eastbound truck climbing lane and related improvements (PM 35.1/38.0) (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON) [EFIS ID 0300020420]
$50,637,337 $50,637,337 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
CAL20521 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
I-80 Culvert Rehabilitation
In and near Colfax on Pla-80, from 0.3 mile south of Weimar overhead to 0.3 mile south of Illinoistown overcrossing - Rehabilitate culvert (PM 28.5/31.5) [EFIS ID 0300020597; CTIPS ID 107-0000-0959] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)
$1,918,000 $1,918,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
CAL18828 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
I-80 Vertical Clearance Improvements
Placer County, I-80, in and near Loomis at various locations from Brace Road to Magra Road - Improve vertical clearance (PM 8.1/37.8) [CTIPS ID 107-0000-0757; EFIS ID 0300000473] (Toll Credits)
$36,045,000 $36,045,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
CAL20609 Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Ramp Meters Installation of Ramp Meters: Various Locations in Placer, Sacramento, and Yolo Counties.
$1,584,000 $1,584,000 Project complete by 2020
Planned
CAL20533 Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Replace/Upgrade Sign Panels/Structures at Various Locations
In Sacramento, El Dorado and Yolo counties, on US 50, I-5, SR51, I-80 and SR 99 at various locations - Replace sign panels and upgrade sign structures [EFIS ID 0314000244; CTIPS ID 107-0000-0987] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW,
$417,300 $417,300 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-5
CON)
CAL20656 Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Roadway Weather Information Stations (RWIS)
In Sacramento, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer and Yolo Counties, on Routes 5, 28, 50, 51, 80, 89, 99 and 267 at various locations. Repair and upgrade roadway information systems
$546,000 $851,760 Project complete by 2036
Planned
CAL20547 Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
RWIS Upgrades - Various Counties
In Sacramento, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer and Yolo Counties, on Routes 5, 28, 50, 51, 80, 89, 99 and 267, at various locations: Repair and upgrade roadway information systems (RWIS) also known as ITS, Intelligent Transportation Systems. [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1000] (Toll credits for PE, ROW, CON)
$546,000 $546,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
CAL17380 Caltrans D3 D- Programs & Planning
SACOG Region Emergency Repair Program
Lump Sum - Emergency Repair (excluding Federal Emergency Relief Program funds)for non-capacity increasing projects only.
$400,000 $400,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
CAL20615 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
SHOPP - Bridge Preservation
Various bridge preservation projects throughout the six-county region.
$157,380,000 $206,167,800 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
CAL20616 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
SHOPP - Collision Reduction
SHOPP - Collision Reduction
$92,415,000 $121,063,650 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
CAL20617 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
SHOPP - Emergency Response
SHOPP - Emergency Response
$1,830,000 $2,397,300 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
CAL20584 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
SHOPP - Facilities SHOPP- Facilities $3,660,000 $4,794,600 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
CAL20618 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
SHOPP - Mandates SHOPP - Mandates $1,738,500 $2,277,435 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
CAL20622 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
SHOPP - Minor SHOPP - Minor $36,600,000 $47,946,000 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
CAL20619 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
SHOPP - Mobility SHOPP - Mobility $19,306,500 $25,291,515 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
CAL20620 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
SHOPP - Roadside Preservation
SHOPP - Roadside Preservation
$2,745,000 $3,595,950 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
CAL20621 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
SHOPP - Roadway Preservation
SHOPP - Roadway Preservation
$104,310,000 $136,646,100 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
CAL20486 Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips (Safety) at Various Locations
In Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties at various locations - Install shoulder and centerline rumble strips [CTIPS ID 102-0000-0174]
$520,500 $520,500 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
CAL20389 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
SR 193 Curve Improvement
Near Lincoln, SR 193, from 0.1 mile west to 0.9 mile east of Clark Tunnel Road - Curve improvements and widening (SHOPP Lump Sum - Collision Reduction) (PM 4.4/5.4) [CTIPS ID 107- 0000-0798; EFIS ID 0300000725] (Toll Credits)
$17,393,000 $17,393,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
CAL20635 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
SR 193 Pavement Rehabilitation
Rehabilitate SR 193 roadway from Sierra College to Newcastle.
$6,500,000 $10,166,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
CAL20494 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
SR 267 Pavement Rehab
In Placer County, on SR 267 near Truckee, from Nevada County line to Brockway Summit - Pavement overlay (PM 0.0/6.8) [Toll Credits]
$5,101,000 $5,101,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
CAL20638 Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
SR 267 SB Truck Climbing Lane
Extend the existing SR 267 SB truck-climbing lane; shoulder widening from Northstar Dr to Brockway Summit (PM 3.76/PM 6.67)
$15,000,000 $18,304,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-7
CAL20541 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
SR 49 Bridge Rehab In Auburn, SR 49, from 0.1 mile south of Routes 49/80 separation to 0.1 mile north of Dry Creek Road - Rehabilitate Pavement (PM 3.1/7.5) [CTIPS ID 107-0000-0992] [EFIS ID 0300020616] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, and CON)
$29,400,000 $29,400,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
CAL20628 Caltrans D3 A- Bike & Ped SR 49 Class II Bike Lane On SR 49, construct Class II bicycle lane from Bell Rd to Dry Creek Rd.
$480,000 $751,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
CAL20651 Caltrans D3 A- Bike & Ped SR 49 Class II Bike Lane On SR 49, construct Class II bicycle lane from Lincoln Way to Luther Rd.
$960,000 $1,501,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
CAL20573 Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
SR 49 Signal Coordination
Install signal at Shale Ridge Rd., coordinate to the north on Dry Creek Rd. and to the south on Bell Rd. (PM 6.38/7.427)
$2,000,000 $2,441,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
CAL20531 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
SR 65 Pavement Rehab On SR 65, in and near Roseville, from I-80 to Twelve Bridges Drive - Pavement rehabilitation (PM 4.8/12.5) [EFIS ID0314000010; CTIPS ID 107-0000-0991] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)
$10,445,000 $10,445,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
CAL20550 Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Upgrade CMS Panels - Various Counties
In Sacramento, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Solano and Yolo Counties, on Routes 5, 50, and 80, at various locations - Upgrade Changeable Message Sign (CMS) panels [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1003] (Toll credits for PE, ROW, CON)
$1,064,000 $1,064,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
CAL20654 Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Upgrade CMS panels to LED
In Sacramento, Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Nevada, Placer, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba Counties on Routes 5, 50 and 80 at various locations. Upgrade Changeable Message Sign (CMS)
$1,064,000 $1,098,048 Project complete by 2036
Planned
CAL20516 Caltrans D3 A- Bike & Ped Upgrade Pedestrian Facilities @ VariousLocations
In Yuba, Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado and Butte counties on Various Routes at Various Locations - Upgrade pedestrian facilities [EFIS ID 0312000071; CTIPS ID 107-0000-0974] [Total Project Cost $3,482,000 in 17/18 FY] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)
$696,400 $696,400 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
CAL20519 Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Upgrade Traffic Monitoring Stations
In Sacramento, Placer, Yolo and Yuba counties, on Routes 5, 50, 51, 65, 70, 80, 99 and 113, at Various Locations - Upgrade Traffic Monitoring Stations (TMS) [EFIS ID 0313000198; CTIPS ID 107-0000-0967] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)
$1,045,200 $1,045,200 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
SUBTOTAL $621,601,537 $763,810,255
CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
CAL18320 Capitol Corridor JPA E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)
Roseville Third Track On the UP mainline, from Elvas Tower in Sacramento County to Roseville Station in Placer County: Construct third track. Project involves: extension of freight lead track; construction of track and signal
$250,800,000 $250,800,000 Project complete by 2036
Programmed
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-9
improvements; construction of satellite maintenance facility and other associated improvements; and possible relocation of the Roseville rail station to address conflicting train movements that affect capacity. Project improvements will permit service capacity increases for Capitol Corridor in Placer County, with up to ten round trips to Roseville.
SUBTOTAL $250,800,000 $250,800,000
CITY OF AUBURN
PLA25353 City of Auburn E- Transit Capital (Minor)
Auburn Multi Modal Station - Rail Platform Extension
At the existing Auburn Multi Modal Station: Obtain right-of- way and install rail platform extension . (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.93 ROG, 1.18 NOx, 0.43 PM10)
$1,416,480 $1,416,480 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25569 City of Auburn E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)
Auburn Transit Bus Replacement
Replace one bus. $408,469 $408,469 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25547 City of Auburn F- Transit O&M (Bus)
City of Auburn Non-Urbanized Transit Operations
For the ongoing operation of transit within the non-urbanized area of Auburn and a portion of non-urbanized Placer County.
$1,584,934 $1,584,934 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25639 City of Auburn A- Bike & Ped Marguerite Mine Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Facilities
Marguerite Mine Road, from Marguerite Mine Road/State Route 49 intersection to the north and Marguerite Mine Road/Auburn Ravine Road intersection, approximately 2,200 feet:
$448,710 $448,710 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
install curb, gutter sidewalk on west side segments and install Class II Bike Lane for the entire length. (Toll Credits for CON). Toll Credits for CON
PLA25471 City of Auburn A- Bike & Ped Nevada Street Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities
Class 2 bike lane and adjacent sidewalks along Nevada St from Placer St to Fulweiler Ave to allow for continuous pedestrian and bicycle access from Old Town Auburn to the Auburn Station and EV Cain Middle School. (Emission reductions in kg/day: ROG 0.01, NOx 0.01.)
$1,700,645 $1,700,645 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
Regional Maintenance and Rehabilitation Lump Sum 1
City of Auburn C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Street & Road Maintenance
Estimated street and road maintenance costs including signals, safety devices, & street lights, storm drains, storm damage, patching, overlay and sealing, other street purpose maintenance. Excludes major rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. ($ 500,000 annually)
$11,000,000 $14,454,000 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
SUBTOTAL $16,559,238 $20,013,238
CITY OF COLFAX
PLA25439 City of Colfax C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Grass Valley Street Railroad Crossing Pedestrian and Bike Improvements
Construct of pedestrian improvements across UP railroad tracks to improve pedestrian safety, road rehabilitation, and bike lane/route along Grass Valley St west of South Auburn St.
$537,100 $537,100 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25591 City of Colfax G- System Management,
I-80/SR174 Interchange
Reconstruct I-80/SR 174 Interchange
$15,000,000 $23,459,000 Project complete by
Planned
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-11
Operations, and ITS
Improvements (Construction funds)
2036
PLA25577 City of Colfax A- Bike & Ped North Main Street Bike Route
Along N. Main Street, from the Depot Transit Center to Highway 174: Construct class III bike route and associated improvements. Improvements include tree trimming, road repairs, non-capacity road widening, re-striping, drain inlet upgrade, bike rack, and barrier curb. (Requesting state-only ATP.)
$299,333 $299,333 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
Regional Maintenance and Rehabilitation Lump Sum 2
City of Colfax C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Street & Road Maintenance
Estimated street and road maintenance costs including signals, safety devices, & street lights, storm drains, storm damage, patching, overlay and sealing, snow removal, other street purpose maintenance. Excludes major rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. ($ 135,000 annually)
$2,970,000 $3,902,580 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
SUBTOTAL $18,806,433 $28,198,013
CITY OF LINCOLN
PLA25161 City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
12th St. Widen: 4 lanes from East Ave. to Harrison Ave.
$48,700 $51,000 Project complete by 2020
Planned
PLA25022 City of Lincoln A- Bike & Ped Auburn Ravine Bike/Ped Bridge Phase 1
In Lincoln: Construction of multi-use bridge across Auburn Ravine: Preliminary Engineering, Environmental Documentation, Permitting, and Construction of bicycle and pedestrian bridge
$987,193 $1,035,000 Project complete by 2020
Planned
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
crossing Auburn Ravine.
PLA25515 City of Lincoln A- Bike & Ped East Ave. and East Joiner Pkwy. Sidewalks (SRTS)
East side East Ave. between SR 93 (McBean Park Dr.) and 12th St.; east side E. Joiner Pkwy. between 12 Bridges Dr. and Westview Dr.: Construct sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb ramps; install bike lanes. SRTS3-03-005
$519,600 $519,600 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA18790 City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
East Joiner Parkway Widen East Joiner Parkway from 2 to 4 lanes from Del Webb Blvd. to Twelve Bridges.
$1,104,290 $1,158,000 Project complete by 2020
Planned
PLA25531 City of Lincoln G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Lincoln Blvd. Signal Upgrade and Lighting
Lincoln Blvd. (Old 65) between Sterling Pkwy. and 7th St.: Upgrade traffic signals; install safety lighting and bike lanes. (HSIP5-03-006)
$1,080,000 $1,080,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25464 City of Lincoln A- Bike & Ped Lincoln Blvd. Streetscape - Phase 1
In Lincoln: Between 7th Street and McBean Park Drive; construct various pedestrian, bicycle, NEV, and ITS improvements along Lincoln Boulevard (old Highway 65 / G Street). Improvements will consist of gap sidewalk construction, pedestrian improvements to railroad crossings, pedestrian crossings along Lincoln Boulevard, bicycle and NEV lanes, connection to the existing trail along Auburn Ravine east of Highway 65, roadway narrowing through the
$3,278,812 $3,278,812 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-13
construction of landscape medians and frontage improvements where appropriate, and traffic signal interconnection and coordination along the corridor. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.58, NOx 0.41, PM10 0.08)
PLA25554 City of Lincoln A- Bike & Ped Lincoln Blvd. Streetscape - Phase 2
Lincoln Blvd, First Street to McBean Park Drive: Provide a more pedestrian, bicycle and Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) friendly environment along the main street through the city. Pedestrian improvements include wider sidewalks, bulb-outs at intersections and crosswalks. Bicycle and NEV improvements include Class 2 lanes on each side of the street. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.16, NOx 0.11, PM10 0.06) (Toll Credits for PE and CON)
$1,019,639 $1,019,639 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25540 City of Lincoln C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
McBean Park Bridge Rehabilitation
McBean Park Dr. over Auburn Ravine, east of East Ave.: Rehabilitate existing 2 lane bridge. No added lane capacity.
$8,083,000 $8,083,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
McBean Drive Widening - Phase 1
Widen McBean Drive to four lanes from Ferrari Ranch to Oak Tree Lane
$7,047,977 $8,600,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
McBean Drive Widening - Phase 2
Widen McBean Drive from Oak Tree Lane to N/S Connector Loop
$5,971,878 $7,287,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
PLA25595 City of Lincoln B- Road & Nelson Lane Extension Extend Nelson Lane south $25,000,000 $39,098,000 Project Planned
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
Highway Capacity
of SR-65 Bypass complete by 2036
PLA25509 City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
Nelson Ln/Markham Ravine Bridge Replacement
Nelson Ln, over Markham Ravine, 0.25 mi south of Nicolaus Rd. Replace existing functionally obsolete 2 lane bridge with a new 4 lane bridge.
$8,212,828 $8,212,828 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25553 City of Lincoln C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Twelve Bridges Drive & Joiner Parkway rehabilitation
In Lincoln, street rehabilitation of (1) Twelve Bridges Drive from Industrial Avenue east to Sierra College Boulevard and (2) Joiner Parkway from the southern city limits to First Street. (Toll Credits for CON)
$1,332,655 $1,332,655 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
Regional Maintenance and Rehabilitation Lump Sum 3
City of Lincoln C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Street & Road Maintenance
Estimated street and road maintenance costs including signals, safety devices, & street lights, storm drains, storm damage, patching, overlay and sealing, other street purpose maintenance. Excludes major rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. ($ 1,400,000 annually)
$30,800,000 $40,471,200 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
SUBTOTAL $94,486,572 $121,226,734
CITY OF ROCKLIN
PLA25566 City of Rocklin C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program
Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program, various locations in City of Rocklin. See Caltrans Local Assistance HBP web site for backup list of bridges.
$600,000 $600,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA19260 City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity
Dominguez Road In Rocklin, Dominguez Road: extend with 2 lanes from Granite Drive to Sierra College Boulevard,
$11,000,000 $17,203,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-15
including new bridge over I-80.
PLA25635 City of Rocklin G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Granite Drive at Rocklin Road Roundabout
At Rocklin Rd/Granite Dr., between east of Meyers St to the Caltrans WB on-ramp/right of way on Rocklin Road. : Replace the existing four lane signalized intersection with a two lane roundabout (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON).. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
$2,707,607 $2,707,607 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA17820 City of Rocklin G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Pacific Street On Pacific Street: Construct downtown improvements.
$8,000,000 $8,391,000 Project complete by 2020
Planned
PLA25552 City of Rocklin A- Bike & Ped Pacific Street-Bikeway/Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Expansion Project
Construct & add striped median ,striping, pavement markings and signage on both NB and SB lanes of Pacific Street. The project will also construct a Class II bike path on the northwest portion of Pacific Street from Town of Loomis border to Del Mar Ave.(Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.16; NOx 0.13; PM10 0.08)
$1,698,542 $1,698,542 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA19400 City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity
Rocklin Rd. Widening In Rocklin, Rocklin Road: widen to 6 lanes from Granite Drive to westbound I-80 ramps.
$1,320,000 $1,320,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25345 City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity
Rocklin Road/I-80 Interchange
In Rocklin: from Rocklin Rd. onto both WB and EB I-80; construct roundabouts at ramp EB/WB ramp terminus.
$26,150,000 $26,150,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA15400 City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway
Sierra College Blvd. Widening
In Rocklin, widen Sierra College Boulevard from 4
$3,800,000 $4,637,000 Project complete by
Planned
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
Capacity to 5 lanes from I-80 to Aguliar Tributary.
2036
PLA20460 City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity
Sierra College Blvd. Widening
In Rocklin, Sierra College Boulevard from Aguilar Tributary to Nightwatch: widen from 4 to 5 lanes.
$2,750,000 $3,356,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
PLA25551 City of Rocklin C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Sunset Blvd Reconstruction
Reconstruct Sunset Blvd from Fairway Drive to Stanford Ranch Road. (Toll credits for CON.)
$876,500 $876,500 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25156 City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity
Sunset Blvd. Widening Sunset Boulevard: Widen from 4 to 6 lanes from north bound SR 65 ramp to West Stanford Ranch Road.
$1,100,000 $1,342,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
PLA17910 City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity
Sunset Boulevard Widen Sunset Boulevard bridge at UPRR from 4 to 6 lanes from South Whitney Blvd. to Pacific St.
$2,600,000 $4,066,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
PLA19360 City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity
Sunset Boulevard Widen Sunset Boulevard from 4 to 6 lanes from Stanford Ranch Rd. to Topaz.
$2,600,000 $4,066,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
PLA25268 City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity
University Avenue Phase 1
University Avenue: Construct new four lane roadway from the intersection of Whitney Ranch Parkway north to the extension of West Ranch View Drive. One or more phases of this project may require federal permitting.
$2,500,000 $2,500,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25151 City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity
West Oaks Boulevard West Oaks Boulevard: Construct new 4-lane extension from terminus to 4-lane portion to Whitney Ranch Parkway.
$3,500,000 $4,271,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
PLA19290 City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity
Whitney Ranch Parkway
Whitney Ranch Parkway, construct new 4-lane facility from east of Wildcat Blvd. to Whitney Oaks Dr.
$12,428,000 $15,166,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-17
PLA25025 City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity
Whitney Ranch Parkway
In Rocklin, Whitney Ranch Parkway: construct four-lane facility from SR 65 to east of Wildcat Boulevard.
$1,730,000 $1,730,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25521 City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity
Whitney Ranch Parkway Interchange Phase 1A
At SR 65 and Whitney Ranch Parkway: Construct Phase 1A of the Whitney Ranch Interchange by constructing NB on- and off- ramps, overcrossing structure, and southbound loop on-ramp.
$3,800,000 $3,800,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
Regional Maintenance and Rehabilitation Lump Sum 4
City of Rocklin C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Street & Road Maintenance
Estimated street and road maintenance costs including signals, safety devices, & street lights, storm drains, storm damage, patching, overlay and sealing, other street purpose maintenance. Excludes major rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. ($ 5,400,000 annually)
$118,800,000 $156,103,200 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
SUBTOTAL $207,960,649 $259,983,849
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
PLA25578 City of Roseville C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
2015 RSTP Arterial Microsurfacing Project
In Roseville, resurface the following arterial roadways - Pleasant Grove Blvd from Hartley Wy to Fiddyment Rd & from Michner Dr to Foothills Blvd; Fiddyment Rd from Pleasant Grove Blvd to Blue Oaks Blvd; Foothills Blvd from Pleasant Grove Blvd to Junction Blvd & from Baseline Rd to Atkinson St; Galilee Rd from
$6,374,233 $6,374,233 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
Industrial Ave to Pleasant Grove Blvd; Vineyard Rd from Brady Ln to Atkinson St; Denio Loop from Foothills Blvd to Atkinson St; E Roseville Parkway from Douglas Blvd to Sierra College Blvd; Atlantic St from Wills Rd to I-80 WB On Ramp; Eureka Rd from Sunrise Ave to Douglas Blvd; Sunrise Ave from Smith Ln to Kensington Dr; N. Sunrise Ave from Frances Dr to Lead Hill Blvd; Sierra Gardens Dr from Santa Clara Dr to Douglas Blvd; Santa Clara Dr from Sierra gardens Dr to Douglas Blvd; and Douglas Blvd from N. Sunrise Ave to Sierra Gardens. (Toll credits for CON.)
PLA25581 City of Roseville A- Bike & Ped 2017 Pedestrian Facilities Improvement
In Roseville, upgrade ADA pedestrian ramps along various arterial and collector roadways for safety and to meet current ADA standards. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.10 ROG; 0.06 NOx; 0.02 PM2.5)
$815,925 $815,925 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA15660 City of Roseville B- Road & Highway Capacity
Baseline Rd. Widening In Roseville, Baseline Rd., from Brady Lane to Fiddyment Road: widen from 3 to 4 lanes.
$6,106,889 $6,106,889 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA15100 City of Roseville B- Road & Highway Capacity
Baseline Road In Roseville, Baseline Road from Fiddyment Road to Sierra Vista Western edge west of Watt Avenue: widen from 2 to 6 lanes.
$7,852,055 $7,852,055 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-19
PLA25528 City of Roseville B- Road & Highway Capacity
Blue Oaks Blvd Extension - Phase 1
In Roseville, Extend 2 lanes of Blue Oaks Blvd from Hayden Parkway to Westside Dr., Including south half of a 6-lane bridge over Kaseberg Creek.
$6,000,000 $6,000,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25539 City of Roseville B- Road & Highway Capacity
Blue Oaks Blvd. Extension Phase 2
In Roseville, Blue Oaks Blvd., from Westbrook Dr. to Santucci Blvd. (formerly Watt Ave.), extend 2 lanes.
$6,350,000 $6,350,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25465 City of Roseville A- Bike & Ped Downtown Pedestrian Bridge
In Roseville, improve access to Civic Center transit transfer facility by constructing transit/bicycle/pedestrian related improvements, including pedestrian bridge and Class I trail improvements. (Emission benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.55, NOx 0.34, PM2.5 0.11)
$3,217,000 $3,217,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA19910 City of Roseville A- Bike & Ped Dry Creek Greenway Trail
In Roseville, along Dry Creek, Cirby Creek and Linda Creek, construct class 1 bike trail. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.09 ROG, 0.07 NOx, 0.03 PM2.5)
$3,268,629 $3,268,629 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25386 City of Roseville A- Bike & Ped I-80 To Royer Park Bikeway Phase 2 - Segment 3
Roseville, Harding Blvd @ Dry Creek, I-80 to Royer Park: Construct class 1 bikeway in 2 phases. Phase 1 from I-80 to Harding Blvd completed in 2004 (PLA20870). Phase 2 construction is separated into 3 segments: Segment 3 is located from Folsom Road to Lincoln Street/Royer
$870,909 $870,909 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
Park. (Emission benefits in kg/day: 0.25 ROG, 0.2 NOx 0.09 PM10)
PLA25507 City of Roseville C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Industrial Ave/Pleasant Grove Creek Bridge Replacement
Industrial Ave, over Pleasant Grove Creek, 0.7 mi S Placer Blvd. Replace the existing 2 lane functionally obsolete bridge with a new 2 lane bridge.
$4,960,000 $4,960,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
REG17928 City of Roseville E- Transit Capital (Minor)
Louis/Orlando Transfer Point Improvements
In Roseville, on Louis Blvd at Orlando Ave.: Develop and construct an improved transfer point and intermodal facility with a 35-space park and ride facility. (Includes previously programmed PLA16080.)
$4,738,000 $4,738,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25377 City of Roseville B- Road & Highway Capacity
Market St. City of Roseville, Market St., from approx. 800 feet north of Baseline Road to Pleasant Grove: Extend 2 lanes.
$8,500,000 $8,500,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25571 City of Roseville B- Road & Highway Capacity
Market Street South In Roseville, Market Street South, from Baseline Road to approx. 800 feet north: construct 2-lane road.
$500,000 $500,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25508 City of Roseville C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Oak Ridge Dr/Linda Creek Bridge Replacement
Oak Ridge Dr, over Linda Creek, 0.2 mi N Cirby Way. Replace the existing functionally obsolete 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. 11/8/2010: (Toll Credits programmed for PE, ROW, and & CON.)
$3,250,000 $3,250,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-21
PLA25469 City of Roseville A- Bike & Ped Oak Street Extension of Miners Ravine Trail
In Roseville, Miners Ravine Trail, from Lincoln Street to Royer Park along the Dry Creek corridor: Extend class 1 trail, including relocation and safety upgrades to existing Ice House Bridge. From transit stop at Downtown Roseville Library to existing class 1 trail in Royer Park: provide bicycle and pedestrian improvements including replacement of Taylor Street Bridge. (Emission benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.13, NOx 0.09, PM10 0.04) (FTA 5307 to be used on Taylor Street bridge and bike/ped improvements leading to transit stop at library.)
$3,046,159 $3,046,159 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25500 City of Roseville A- Bike & Ped Pedestrian Facilities Improvement Project
In Roseville, reconstruct ADA pedestrian ramps along various arterial and collector roadways to current ADA standards. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.10 ROG, 0.06 NOx, 0.02 PM2.5) (Toll Credits for CON)
$562,525 $562,525 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25337 City of Roseville B- Road & Highway Capacity
Placer Parkway Phase 2 Construct New Road: 4 lane divided Hwy. between Foothills Boulevard and Fiddyment Road. Includes signalized intersections at Fiddyment Rd.
$14,500,000 $22,677,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
PLA25527 City of Roseville B- Road & Highway Capacity
Pleasant Grove Blvd. Extension
In Roseville, extend 4 lanes of Pleasant Grove from 1500 feet west of
$5,300,000 $5,300,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
Market St to Santucci Blvd (Watt Ave).
PLA15760 City of Roseville B- Road & Highway Capacity
Pleasant Grove Blvd. Widening
In Roseville, from Foothills Blvd to Wood Creek Oaks, widen Pleasant Grove Blvd from 4 to 6 lanes.
$4,200,000 $5,125,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
PLA25572 City of Roseville B- Road & HighwayCapacity
Roseville Bridge Preventive MaintenanceProgram
Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program (BPMP) for various bridges in the City of Roseville. See Caltrans Local Assistance HBP website for backup list of projects.
$817,000 $817,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25545 City of Roseville G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Roseville CMS Installation Project - Pleasant Grove Blvd.
In Roseville, install Changeable Message Sign (CMS) on SW/B Pleasant Grove Blvd. approaching Roseville Pkwy. to reduce traffic congestion by improving traffic information dissemination per the ITS Master Plan. (Qualitative emission benefits on file.)
$200,000 $200,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25534 City of Roseville B- Road & Highway Capacity
Roseville Rd. Realignment
Roseville Rd. from Cirby Way to the city limits: Realign roadway. (HSIP5-03-017)
$3,539,500 $3,539,500 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA15850 City of Roseville B- Road & Highway Capacity
Roseville Road Widening
Widen Roseville Rd. from 2 to 4 lanes Between Cirby Way and southern city limit.
$2,500,000 $2,500,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
CAL20563 Caltrans HQ F- Transit O&M (General)
FTA 5310 - City of Roseville Mobility Management Program
Transit Ambassador and Mobility Training programs. Assist new transit and paratransit/demand response transportation riders that are seniors and persons with disabilities in Placer County, as well as the
$234,000 $234,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-23
South Placer County "One Stop" Call Center that distributes transit and paratransit/demand response transportation information and handles reservations/transfers for paratransit/demand response transportation users in Placer County. Transportation Development Credits/Toll Credits are being used as match, and as allowable under FTA Section 5310 federal funds will fund 100% of this project. Toll Credits for CON
CAL20565 Caltrans HQ E- Transit Capital (Minor)
FTA 5310 - City of Roseville South Placer Call Center Equipment
Purchase training equipment (a laptop and LCD projector) for Call Center employees and Transit Ambassadors to use, as well as replacement digital recording system and TDD equipment for the South Placer Call Center. Transportation Development Credits/Toll Credits are being used as match, and as allowable under FTA Section 5310 federal funds will fund 100% of this project. Toll Credits for CON
$28,100 $28,100 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
CAL20564 Caltrans HQ E- Transit Capital (Minor)
FTA 5310 - City of Roseville Transit Vehicle Navigation Units
Purchase 25 global positioning system (GPS) navigation units to assist demand response drivers serving seniors and people with disabilities. Transportation Development Credits/Toll
$6,900 $6,900 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-24 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
Credits are being used as match, and as allowable under FTA Section 5310 federal funds will fund 100% of this project.
PLA25214 City of Roseville E- Transit Capital (Minor)
Roseville Transit ITS Project
To purchase and install electronic fareboxes, software, probes, software, automatic vehicle location devices, mobile data computers, video security cameras and software, and digital readerboard equipment for transfer points. [Project replaces PCT10430 and PCT10420]
$1,100,000 $1,100,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
VAR56109 SACOG F- Transit O&M (Bus)
Roseville Transit JARC Operating Assistance
Use FY 2011 & 2012 Urbanized Area JARC funds to operate two fixed route buses to extend routes A & B from 6:30 to 9:30 PM M-F, and 1 DAR bus to extend service from 7:00 to 9:30 PM.
$371,680 $371,680 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
VAR56096 SACOG D- Programs & Planning
Roseville Transit Mobility Management
The proposed mobility management services would enhance the ability of passengers to successfully ride transit in multiple areas (Placer County, Loomis, Rocklin, Lincoln, Auburn and Roseville). The goal of the program would include providing travel training from transit staff, trip planning training, and practice trips with staff.
$47,500 $47,500 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-25
PLA25498 City of Roseville F- Transit O&M (Demand Response)
Roseville Transit Preventive Maintenance and ADA Operations 2011-2016
Maintenance of transit fleet and operating ADA transit services.2013 Preventive Maintenance = $0; 2013 ADA Operations = $260,000; 2014 Operating Assistance = $1,322,938; 2014 ADA Operations = $20,6952015 Preventive Maintenance = $200,000; 2016 Preventive Maintenance = $200,000;
$5,036,745 $5,036,745 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25378 City of Roseville B- Road & Highway Capacity
Santucci Blvd. Extension
City of Roseville, Santucci Blvd. (North Watt Ave.): Extend four lanes from Vista Grande Blvd.to Blue Oaks Boulevard.
$6,500,000 $6,500,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25570 City of Roseville B- Road & Highway Capacity
Santucci Boulevard South
In Roseville, Santucci Boulevard South (Watt Ave.) from Baseline Road north to Vista Grande Boulevard: Construct 4- lane road.
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25323 City of Roseville E- Transit Capital (Minor)
Sierra Gardens Transfer Point
Improve Sierra Gardens Transfer Point. Improvements may include new bus turnouts, shelters, restrooms, landscaping, lighting, crosswalks, sidewalks, and other pedestrian improvements such as bulb-outs. (Emission benefits in kg/day: 63 ROG, 63 Nox, 25 PM10.)
$1,012,151 $1,012,151 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25416 City of Roseville F- Transit O&M (Demand Response)
South Placer Call Center
Operating cost contribution towards ADA complementary paratransit services provided for the South Placer Call Center.
$187,500 $187,500 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-26 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
PLA25516 City of Roseville D- Programs & Planning
SRTS Toolkit Expansion Multiple Schools in the Roseville City School District: Expand Safe Routes to School (SRTS) toolkit. SRTS3-03-006
$295,000 $295,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA15911 City of Roseville B- Road & Highway Capacity
Taylor Rd. In Roseville; from just N/O E. Roseville Parkway to City Limits, widen Taylor Rd. from 2 to 4 lanes.
$5,042,390 $6,153,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
PLA25538 City of Roseville B- Road & Highway Capacity
Vista Grande Arterial In Roseville, from Fiddyment Rd west to Westbrook Blvd, construct new 4-lane arterial.
$2,500,000 $2,500,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25501 City of Roseville B- Road & Highway Capacity
Washington Blvd/Andora Undercrossing Improvement Project
In Roseville, widen Washington Blvd from 2 to 4 lanes, including widening the Andora Underpass under the UPRR tracks, between Sawtell Rd and just south of Pleasant Grove Blvd. and construct bicycle and pedestrian improvements adjacent to roadway. (CMAQ funds are for bicycle and pedestrian improvements only. Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.9 ROG, 0.51 NOx, 0.16 PM10)
$16,091,643 $16,091,643 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25582 City of Roseville A- Bike & Ped Washington Boulevard Improvement
In Roseville, along Washington Boulevard from Kaseburg Drive to Pleasant Grove Boulevard, construct new concrete sidewalks, Class I & Class II bike facilities. Proposed facilities cross under the Union Pacific tracks (aka "Andora Underpass").
$1,242,517 $1,242,517 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-27
(Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.24 ROG; 0.16 NOx; 0.05 PM2.5).
PLA25481 City of Roseville B- Road & HighwayCapacity
Westbrook Blvd. Construct New Road: west of Fiddyment and north of BlueOaks in proposed new Creekview Specific Plan.
$6,000,000 $6,293,000 Project complete by 2020
Planned
Regional Maintenance and Rehabilitation Lump Sum 5
City of Roseville C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Street & Road Maintenance
Estimated street and road maintenance costs including signals, safety devices, & street lights, storm drains, storm damage, patching, overlay and sealing, other street purpose maintenance. Excludes major rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. ($ 14,400,000 annually)
$316,800,000 $416,275,200 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
SUBTOTAL $460,964,950 $570,945,760
PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY
PLA25626 PCTPA G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
At-Grade Railroad Crossings
At-Grade Railroad Crossings, including quite zones throughout County
$500,000,000 $516,000,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
PLA25588 PCTPA A- Bike & Ped Bicycle Facilities Construct various bicycle facilities according to implement the Regional Bicycle Master Plan and Local Bicycle Master Plans as amended.
$40,000,000 $52,565,000 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
PLA25632 PCTPA E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)
Bus Replacement Lump-sum for bus vehicles for fiscal years 2019-2036; does not account for expansion of service. Placer County operators only.
$63,153,000 $82,991,000 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
PLA25587 PCTPA A- Bike & Ped Complete Street & Safe Routes to School
Enhance pedestrian/bicycle and
$52,000,000 $68,335,000 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-28 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
Improvements landscaping along approximately 40 miles of roadway and construct Safe Routes to School improvements to implement local plans.
PLA25586 PCTPA G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Electric Vehicle Charging and Alternative Fuels Infrastructure
Develop and construct an electric vehicle charging and alternative fuels infrastructure.
$20,000,000 $26,283,000 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
PLA25519 PCTPA B- Road & Highway Capacity
I-80 Eastbound Auxiliary Lane: SR 65 to Rocklin Rd.
In Rocklin: Between SR 65 (PM 4.5) and Rocklin Rd. (PM 5.9); Construct eastbound I-80 auxiliary lane, including two-lane off- ramp, concrete barrier/retaining walls, and shoulder improvements. (Toll credits for PE, ROW, and CON)
$4,990,000 $4,990,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25576 PCTPA B- Road & Highway Capacity
I-80 Westbound 5th Lane
In Roseville: Between east of Douglas Blvd. off-ramp to west of Riverside Ave.; Extend I-80 westbound auxiliary lane (PLA25542) to the east and west to create continuous 5th lane on westbound I-80. The Douglas Boulevard off-ramp would be reduced from a 2-lane off-ramp to a 1-lane off-ramp.
$3,700,000 $3,700,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25542 PCTPA B- Road & Highway Capacity
I-80 Westbound Auxiliary Lane - Douglas Blvd. to Riverside Ave.
In Roseville: Between Douglas Blvd. (PM 2.0) and Riverside Ave. (PM 0.2); Construct westbound I-80 auxiliary lane and shoulder improvements. (Toll credits for PE, ROW, and CON)
$5,910,000 $5,910,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-29
PLA25440 PCTPA B- Road & Highway Capacity
I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements Phase 1A
In Placer County: Between I-80 and Galleria Blvd./Stanford Ranch Rd.; Reconfigure I-80/SR 65 interchange to widen northbound SR 65 from 2 to 3 lanes, including widening Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road northbound off-ramp and on-ramp, and southbound on- ramp (PA&ED, PS&E, ROW, and CON to be matched with Toll Credits) SHOPP funding (EA 03-0H260) for auxiliary lane on northbound SR 65 between I-80 and Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road.
$37,099,700 $37,099,700 Project complete by 2036
Programmed
PLA25648 PCTPA B- Road & HighwayCapacity
I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements Phase 1B
In Placer County: Between Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road and Pleasant Grove Boulevard; Reconfigure I-80/SR 65 interchange to widen northbound SR 65 from 2 to 3 lanes, and widen I-80 westbound to SR 65 northbound ramp from 1 to 2 lanes.
$17,500,000 $17,500,000 Project complete by 2036
Programmed
PLA25649 PCTPA B- Road & Highway Capacity
I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements Phase 1C
In Placer County: Between I-80 and Pleasant Grove Boulevard; Reconfigure I-80/SR 65 interchange to widen southbound SR 65 from 2 to 3 lanes.
$11,500,000 $11,500,000 Project complete by 2036
Programmed
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-30 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
PLA25601 PCTPA B- Road & Highway Capacity
I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements Phase 2
In Placer County: Between Douglas Blvd. and Rocklin Road; Reconfigure I-80/SR 65 interchange to widen southbound to eastbound ramp from 1 to 2 lanes, and replace existing eastbound to northbound loop ramp with a new 3 lane direct flyover ramp.
$110,000,000 $172,033,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
PLA25602 PCTPA B- Road & Highway Capacity
I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements Phase 3
In Placer County: Between Douglas Blvd. and Rocklin Road; Widen Taylor Road from 2 to 4 lanes between Roseville Parkway and Pacific Street, and Reconfigure I-80/SR 65 interchange to widen the southbound to westbound ramp from 2 to 3 lanes.
$179,000,000 $279,944,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
PLA25603 PCTPA B- Road & Highway Capacity
I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements Phase 4
In Placer County: Between Douglas Blvd. and Rocklin Road; Reconfigure I-80/SR 65 interchange to construct one lane HOV direct connectors from eastbound to northbound and southbound to westbound (HOV lanes would extend to between Galleria Blvd. and Pleasant Grove Blvd. on SR 65).
$95,000,000 $148,574,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-31
PLA25634 PCTPA E- Transit Capital (Major)
Placer County - Bus Rapid Transit Capital
Capital Costs for a three route Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system serving South Placer County; including planning, engineering, environmental studies, right-of-way acquisition, vehicles, related roadway improvements, signalization, park & ride facilities, signage, bus stop improvements, ITS elements, fare vending equipment. BRT Route 1-CSUS Placer to Galleria to Watt/I-80 LRT station via I-80 HOV lane. BRT Route 2 - CSUS Placer to Placer Vineyards to Watt/I-80 LRT station via Watt Avenue. BRT Route 3 - Galleria to Hazel & Sunrise LRT stations via Sierra College Boulevard/Hazel Avenue.
$82,526,000 $108,450,000 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
PLA25585 PCTPA F- Transit O&M (BRT & Express)
Placer County - Bus Rapid Transit O&M
Annual operating & maintenance (O&M) costs ($5,704,000) specifically for a three route BRT system for Fiscal years 2019-2036) for a TBD transit operator.
$142,600,001 $187,394,000 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
PLA25468 PCTPA D- Programs & Planning
Placer County Congestion Management Program
Provide educational and outreach efforts regarding alternative transportation modes to employers, residents, and the school community through the Placer County Congestion Management Program (CMP). CMP activities
$955,429 $955,429 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-32 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
will be coordinated with the City of Roseville and SACOG's Regional Rideshare / TDM Program. (KG/day ROG 54.00; NOx 60.00; PM10 39.00)
PLA25543 PCTPA G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Placer County Freeway Service Patrol
In Placer County: provide motorist assistance and towing of disabled vehicles during am and pm commute periods on I-80 (Riverside Ave to SR 49) and SR 65 (I-80 to Twelve Bridges Dr). (Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 7.35; NOx 1.10; PM10 1.16)
$550,000 $550,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25413 PCTPA D- Programs & Planning
Planning, Programming, Monitoring 2011-2015
PCTPA plan, program, monitor (PPM) for RTPA related activities.
$1,455,000 $1,455,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25529 PCTPA B- Road & Highway Capacity
SR 65 Capacity & Operational Improvements Phase 1
SR 65, from Galleria Blvd. to Lincoln Blvd., make capacity and operational improvements. Phase 1: From Galleria Blvd. to Pleasant Grove Blvd., construct auxiliary lanes on northbound and southbound SR 65, including widening Galleria Blvd. southbound off-ramp.
$16,520,000 $16,520,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25637 PCTPA B- Road & Highway Capacity
SR 65 Capacity & Operational Improvements Phase 2
SR 65, from Galleria Blvd. to Lincoln Blvd., make capacity and operational improvements. Phase 2: From Galleria Blvd. to Blue Oaks Blvd., widen from 4 to 7 lanes with 1 carpool lane and 1 general purpose lane southbound, and 1 general purpose lane
$32,500,000 $50,828,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-33
northbound, including widening Pleasant Grove Blvd. southbound on-ramp, and Blue Oaks Blvd. southbound on-ramps and northbound on-ramp.
PLA25638 PCTPA B- Road & Highway Capacity
SR 65 Capacity & Operational Improvements Phase 3
SR 65, from Galleria Blvd. to Lincoln Blvd., make capacity and operational improvements. Phase 3: From Blue Oaks Blvd. to Lincoln Blvd., construct auxiliary lanes both northbound and southbound, including widening Lincoln Blvd. southbound on-ramp.
$12,000,000 $18,767,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
PLA25631 PCTPA F- Transit O&M (Bus)
Transit Operating & Maintenance
Lump-sum annual Operating & Maintenance costs for fiscal years 2019-2036; does not account for expansion of service
$224,910,000 $295,560,000 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
Regional Service Expansion Lump Sum 1
PCTPA E- Transit Capital (vehicles)
Local and Commuter Transit Bus Expansion
Lump-Sum for increased local and commuter bus service operating and maintenance cost and bus vehicle purchase and replacement.
$475,000,000 $631,750,000 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
Regional Maintenance and Rehabilitation Lump Sum 6
PCTPA C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Street & Road Maintenance
Lump-sum estimated street and road maintenance costs including signals, safety devices, & street lights, storm drains, storm damage, patching, overlay and sealing, snow removal, other street purpose maintenance. Excludes major rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. ($52,000,000 annually)
$938,000,000 $1,232,532,000 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-34 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
SUBTOTAL $3,066,869,130 $3,972,186,129
PLACER COUNTY
PLA25477 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Alpine Meadows Rd Bridge Rehabilitation
Alpine Meadows Rd over Truckee River, 0.1 miles west of SH 89: Replace the existing structurally deficient 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits programmed for ROW & CON)
$22,625,063 $22,625,063 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25472 Placer County A- Bike & Ped Auburn Folsom Rd Class II Bike Lane
On Auburn-Folsom Rd between Douglas Blvd and Joe Rodgers Rd, construct a Class II Bike lane on both sides of the road, including signing and striping; construct sidewalk on both sides of Auburn-Folsom Rd from Wilcox Place north to Joe Rodgers. (Emission benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.06, NOx 0.04, PM10 0.03) [Toll Credits for CON]
$1,227,674 $1,227,674 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25533 Placer County A- Bike & Ped Auburn Folsom Rd. Safety Improvements
Auburn Folsom Rd. from approximately 60' N of Willow Ln. to Robin Hood Ln.: Construct sidewalks, curb ramps, curb and gutter; install mid-block crosswalk; improve pavement friction; provide dynamic speed sign.(HSIP5-03-013)
$746,300 $746,300 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA15070 Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
Auburn Ravine Road at I-80 Overcrossing
Auburn Ravine Road overcrossing over I-80 between Bowman Road to Lincoln Way: widen overcrossing from 2 to 4 lanes.
$29,000,000 $45,354,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
PLA15080 Placer County B- Road & Highway
Auburn-Folsom Rd Widening
From Placer / Sacramento County line
$28,300,000 $28,300,000 Project complete by
Programmed
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-35
Capacity to Douglas Blvd, : Widen to 4 lanes. Install signal at Auburn-Folsom Blvd and Fuller Dr.
2020
PLA20680 Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
Baseline Road Four to Six Lane Widening (East Portion)
Widen From 4 to 6 lanes from Watt Avenue to Fiddyment/Walerga Road.
$11,270,000 $17,626,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
PLA15105 Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
Baseline Road Widening Phase 1 (West Portion)
Baseline Rd. from Watt Avenue to future 16th street: Widen from 2 to 4 lanes.
$19,200,000 $19,200,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25463 Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
Baseline Road Widening Phase 2 (West Portion)
Baseline Road from Sutter County Line to Future 16th Street. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes.
$29,000,000 $35,380,000 Project complete by 2036
Programmed
PLA25447 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Bowman Rd Bridge Bowman Rd, over UP Railroad, BNSF RR and AMTRAK, 0.1 miles south of 19C-62: Rehabilitate the existing bridge without adding additional lanes.
$2,230,002 $2,230,002 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25448 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Bowman Rd Bridge Bowman Rd, over UP Railroad, BNSF Railyards & AMTRAK, 0.1 miles north of 19C-61: Rehabilitate the existing bridge without adding additional lanes.
$2,230,002 $2,230,002 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25518 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Brewer Rd. Bridge Replacement
Brewer Rd., over Pleasant Grove Creek, 4.2 miles north of Baseline Rd.: Replace 2-lane bridge with a new 2-lane bridge. (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, & CON.)
$5,518,500 $5,518,500 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25559 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Bridge Approach and Non-HBP Participating Costs
In Placer County, bridge approach and non-HBP participating costs at Alpine Meadows @ Truckee River and Dowd Road @ Yankee Slough. (Toll Credits for CON)
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-36 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
PLA25458 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Bridge Preventive Maintenance
In various location ins Placer County, perform preventive maintenance on bridges.1. Squaw Valley Rd., over Squaw Creek, 2 mi west of SH 89, Bridge Rail Replacement, Deck Rehab.2. Donner Pass Rd., over S. Yuba River, north of Yuba Dr., Bridge Rail Replacement, Deck Rehab.3. Cisco Rd., over S. Yuba River, near Hampshire Rocks Rd., Replace Joint Seals, Deck Rehab.4. Alpine Meadows Rd., over Bear Creek, 0.9 mi west of SH 89, Polyester Concrete Deck Overlay.5. Fowler Rd., over Auburn Ravine, 0.6 mi north of SH 193, Methacrylate Deck Overlay.6. Gold Hill Rd., over Doty Ravine, 0.3 mi south of Wise Rd., Methacrylate Deck Overlay.7. Develop Bridge Preventive Maintenance Plan.
$1,356,000 $1,356,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25583 Placer County E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)
CNG Bus Replace one CNG bus with one new cleaner CNG Bus for Placer County Transit. (Emissions Benefits in kg/day: NOx 0.75.)
$530,000 $530,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25565 Placer County A- Bike & Ped Cook Riolo Road Pathway
Pedestrian Pathway along Cook Riolo Rd from existing sidewalk at Creekview Ranch Middle School North (Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.04, NOx 0.02, PM10
$2,190,157 $2,190,157 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-37
0.01) [Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON]
PLA25536 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Crosby Harold Rd. Bridge
Crosby Harold Rd. Over Doty Creek, 0.9 mi N of Wise Rd.: Replace an existing 1 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)
$2,790,000 $2,790,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25453 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Dowd Rd at Yankee Slough Bridge Replacement
Dowd Rd. over Yankee Slough, just south of Dalby Rd.: Replace existing structurally deficient 1 lane bridge with new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits for CON)
$4,812,511 $4,812,511 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25449 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Dowd Rd Bridge Replacement at Coon Creek
Dowd Rd over Coon Creek, 0.4 miles north of Wise Rd.: Replace existing 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits programmed for ROW & CON)
$5,675,000 $5,675,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25474 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Dowd Rd Bridge Replacement at Markham Ravine
Dowd Rd, over Markham Ravine, 0.5 miles south Nicolaus Rd: Replace existing 2 lane structurally deficient bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll credits for CON.)
$5,050,000 $5,050,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25541 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Gold Hill Rd. Bridge Replacement
Gold Hill Rd. over Auburn Ravine, 0.65 mi north of SR 193: Replace existing 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll credits for PE, ROW, CON)
$5,018,250 $5,018,250 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25475 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Haines Rd Bridge Replacement
Haines Rd, over Wise Canal, 0.45 miles North of Bell Rd: Replace the existing functionally obsolete 2 lane bridge
$5,180,000 $5,180,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-38 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, & CON)
PLA25562 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
HMA Overlay, Various County Roads (Yr2)
In Placer County, hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlay on various County roads: (1) Douglas Boulevard from Barton to Auburn- Folsom, (2) Dry Creek Road from Joeger to HWY 49, (3) Richardson Drive from Atwood Rd to Bell Rd, (4) Nevada Street from 150' east of Nevada Way to Auburn City Limits, (5) Edgewood Road from SR49 to Edgewood Place (Toll Credits for CON). Toll Credits for CON
$2,809,435 $2,809,435 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25563 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
HMA Overlay, Various County Roads (Yr3)
In Placer County, hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlay on various County roads: (1) Sierra College Boulevard from Olympus Rd to Eureka Rd, (2) Old State Highway from Taylor Rd to HWY 193, (3) Fruitvale Road from Fowler Rd to Gold Hill Rd, (4) West Wise Road from HWY 65 to Lincoln-Sheridan Blvd (Toll Credits for CON)
$2,299,047 $2,299,047 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25512 Placer County D- Programs & Planning
King Rd. Safety Lane Widening
King Rd. between Auburn Folsom Rd. and Sudor Ln.: Widen travel lanes; construct drainage improvements. HSIP4-03-007 [Toll Credits for CON]
$1,200,000 $1,200,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-39
PLA20350 Placer County B- Road & HighwayCapacity
Local Roads in Auburn In and near Auburn - adjacent to Route 49 between I-80 and Dry Creek Road - three new local connector roads; 1)Quartz Drive Connector from Route 49 to Locksley Lane, 2) Willow Creek Drive Connector from Route 49 to 1st Street in Dewitt Center, and 3)Edgewood Road Connector from Route 49 to Alta Mesa Drive (City of Auburn) - state and local funding only. LIMITS: Auburn and north of Auburn, three connector roads intersecting with State Route 49. (1) Quartz Drive Connector, (2) Willow Creek Drive Connector (3) Edgewood Road Connector. STREET NAME: Local Roads in Auburn
$3,671,000 $3,851,000 Project complete by 2020
Planned
PLA25549 Placer County A- Bike & Ped Martis Valley Trail Complete a 10' wide paved Class I multipurpose trail connecting Northstar Village roundabout to the southerly border of Army Corps property. (Emission Benefits in kg/day; ROG 0.02;NOx 0.01;PM10 0.01)
$4,700,000 $4,700,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25532 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Pavement Markings Various locations throughout Placer County: Install pavement markings (HSIP5-03-011, HSIP5-03-012)
$1,251,500 $1,251,500 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-40 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
PLA25564 Placer County A- Bike & Ped Pedestrian Improvements along Hwy 49, Education Street, and Town Court
Along Hwy 49 on the westside from Bell Rd to Education St. South side of Education St. west to connect to existing sidewalk and improve ADA ramps & crosswalks along Town Court (Emissions Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.07, NOx 0.04, PM10 0.02) (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)
$925,000 $925,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA18490 Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
PFE Rd. Widening PFE Rd, from Watt Ave. to Walerga Rd: Widen from 2 to 4 lanes and realign.
$13,085,000 $13,085,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25299 Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
Placer Parkway Phase 1 In Placer County: Between SR 65 and Foothills Boulevard; Construct phase 1 of Placer Parkway, including upgrading the SR 65/Whitney Ranch Parkway interchange to include a southbound slip off-ramp, southbound loop on-ramp, northbound loop on-ramp, six-lane bridge over SR 65, and four- lane roadway extension from SR 65 (Whitney Ranch Parkway) to Foothills Boulevard.
$70,000,000 $70,000,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25567 Placer County G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Safety Surface Treatment
At 18 various locations throughout Placer County: install high friction surface treatment. (HSIP6-03-010)
$1,537,600 $1,537,600 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25568 Placer County G- System Management, Operations, and
Signage Upgrades Various corridors throughout Placer County: Conduct a
$1,658,522 $1,658,522 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-41
ITS Roadway Safety Signing Audit and upgrade signs. (HSIP6-03-011)
PLA25628 Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
SR 49 Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes from Luther Road to Nevada Street.
$1,000,000 $1,220,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
PLA25630 Placer County G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
SR49 Signalizations/ Improvements
Signalizations and Improvements along SR 49 in Auburn/North Auburn.
$13,000,000 $13,636,000 Project complete by 2020
Planned
PLA25170 Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
Sunset Blvd Phase 2 Sunset Blvd, from Foothills Boulevard to Fiddyment Rd: Construct a 2-lane road extension [PLA15410 is Phase 1.]
$6,365,000 $6,365,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25044 Placer County B- Road & HighwayCapacity
Sunset Blvd. Widening Widen Sunset Boulevard from State Route 65 to Cincinnati Avenue from 2 to 4 lanes. Project includes widening Industrial Blvd / UPRR overcrossing from 2 to 4 lanes.
$8,675,000 $8,675,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25584 Placer County A- Bike & Ped Truckee River Trail Along SR89, from Squaw Valley Road to the USFS Silver Creek Campground: construct 1.4 miles of multi-use trail . (Emission Benefits in kg/day; ROG 0.01; NOx 0.01)
$4,500,000 $4,500,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25506 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Walerga Rd/Dry Creek Bridge Replacement
Walerga Rd, over Dry Creek, 1.1 mi S Base Line Rd. Rehabilitate the existing 2 lane bridge without adding additional lanes. High Cost Project agreement required.
$21,870,000 $21,870,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA15420 Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
Walerga Road Walerga Rd: Widen and realign from 2 to 4 lanes from Baseline Rd. to Placer / Sacramento County line.
$13,781,700 $13,781,700 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-42 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
PLA25535 Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
Watt Ave. Bridge Replacement
Watt Ave./Center Joint Ave., over Dry Creek, 0.4 mi north of P.F.E. Rd.: Replace existing 2 lane bridge with a 4 lane bridge.
$19,892,750 $19,892,750 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA20700 Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
Watt Avenue Watt Avenue, from Baseline Rd. to Sacramento County Line: Widen from 2 to 4 lanes.
$13,270,800 $16,194,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
PLA25513 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Wise Rd Bridge Replacement
Wise Rd, over Doty Creek, 0.5 miles east of Garden Bar: Replace existing 1-lane functionally obsolete bridge with a new 2-lane bridge.
$4,759,200 $4,759,200 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25505 Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
Yankee Jim's Rd Bridge at North Fork American River
Bridge No. 19C0002, Yankee Jim's Rd over North Fork American River, 1.5MI W of Shirttail Cyn Rd, Replace structurally deficient 1 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll credits programmed for PE, ROW & CON.)
$14,999,400 $14,999,400 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PCT10503 Placer County E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)
PCT Bus Replacements - 2015
Replace two CNG powered buses currently in use by Placer County Transit. The new CNG buses will be used on regional transit routes connecting Rocklin, Lincoln, Loomis, Auburn and Placer County to Roseville and the Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 1.49 NOx)
$1,082,000 $1,082,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PCT10494 Placer County Transit E- Transit Capital (Minor)
CNG Station Upgrade Phase 2
Dewitt Center in Auburn: Increase of CNG compressor capacity at Placer County CNG
$576,809 $576,809 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-43
fueling station in Auburn. (Emissions Benefits in kg/day: 3.46 NOx, 0.12 PM10.) *Local Funds are Air District Funds*
PLA25550 Placer County Transit F- Transit O&M (Bus)
Lincoln Transit (Subrecipient) Operating Assistance
Lincoln Transit (Subrecipient)- Operating assistance and preventive maintenance for transit services within the City of Lincoln. Sacramento Urbanized Area. FFY 2014 operating assistance: $149,108; FFY 2014 preventive maintenance: $12,281
$1,616,076 $1,616,076 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PCT10501 Placer County Transit E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)
Placer County CNG Replacement Buses
Replace four CNG powered buses currently in use by Placer County Transit. The new CNG buses will be used on regional transit routes connecting Rocklin, Lincoln, Loomis, Auburn and Placer County to Roseville and the Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 3.16 NOx)
$2,059,528 $2,059,528 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PCT10491 Placer County Transit F- Transit O&M (Bus)
Placer County Non-Urbanized Transit Operations
Operating assistance for rural transit services within Placer County. Outside the Sacramento Urbanized Area. FFY 2015: $291,197; FFY 2016: $291,197
$7,357,017 $7,357,017 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-44 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
PCT10493 Placer County Transit F- Transit O&M (Demand Response)
Preventive Maintenance, ADA Operations, and Operating Assistance 2009-2016
Operating assistance, preventive maintenance, and ADA operations for transit services for urban transit services within El Dorado County as well as commuter service to / from Sacramento. Sacramento Urbanized Area. FFY 2009 preventive maintenance: $324,890; FFY 2009 ADA operations: $281,700; FFY 2010 preventive maintenance: $300,000; FFY 2010 ADA operations: $200,000; FFY 2011 preventive maintenance: $324,890; FFY 2011 ADA operations: $206,700; FFY 2012 preventive maintenance: $32,890; FFY 2012 ADA operations: $217,000; FFY 2012 Fuel: $84,429; FFY 2013 Operating assistance: $539,341; FFY 2014 Operating assistance: $563,744; FFY 2014 preventive maintenance: $56,696; FFY 2015 preventive maintenance: $341,000; FFY 2015 ADA operations: $217,000; FFY 2016 preventive maintenance: $341,000; FFY 2016 ADA operations: $217,000
$8,821,325 $8,821,325 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PCT10488 Placer County Transit E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)
Purchase 2 Replacement Buses
Purchase of two (2) 35' CNG replacement buses for Placer County Transit. (Emission Benefits: 0.5 kg/day NOx)
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PCT10504 Placer County Transit E- Transit Capital T.A.R.T Bus Purchase Replace one 35-foot bus $525,000 $525,000 Project Programmed
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-45
(Vehicles) for Tahoe Area Reginal Transit.
complete by 2020
PCT10505 Placer County Transit F- Transit O&M (Bus)
TART Operations TART operations (lump sum) on SR89 and SR267 corridors within Placer County/SACOG region.
$22,000,000 $28,911,000 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
Regional Maintenance and Rehabilitation Lump Sum 7
Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Street & Road Maintenance
Estimated street and road maintenance costs including signals, safety devices, & street lights, storm drains, storm damage, patching, overlay and sealing, snow removal, other street purpose maintenance. Excludes major rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. ($ 19,000,000 annually)
$418,000,000 $549,252,000 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
SUBTOTAL $873,238,168 $1,044,450,368
PRIDE INDUSTRIES
CAL20562 Caltrans HQ E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)
FTA 5310 - Pride Industries Replacement Buses
Replace three existing buses that provide transportation to persons with developmental and other disabilities in Placer and Sacramento counties. Transportation Development Credits/Toll Credits are being used as match, and as allowable under FTA Section 5310 federal funds will fund 100% of this project. Toll Credits for CON
$229,500 $229,500 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
VAR56123 Pride Industries E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)
Pride Industries One, Inc. 5310 Replacement Bus and Cameras
FTA 5310 funds will be used to purchase one (1) Medium Bus that accommodates up to 14 passengers (incl. 2 wheelchair positions) & a driver and thirty-eight
$105,989 $105,989 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-46 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
(38) cameras for Pride Industries. (Uses Toll Credits for local match).
SUBTOTAL $335,489 $335,489
SOUTH PLACER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
PLA25592 South Placer Regional Transportation Authority
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Placer Parkway Phase 3 Construct New Road: 4 lane divided Hwy. between Fiddyment Rd and Watt Avenue. Includes signalized intersections at Watt Avenue.
$85,000,000 $132,934,000 Project complete by 2036
Planned
SUBTOTAL $85,000,000 $132,934,000
TOWN OF LOOMIS
PLA25530 Town of Loomis C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Taylor Road Overlay Maintenance Project
Taylor Road: Asphalt overlay.
$460,000 $460,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
PLA25548 Town of Loomis D- Programs & Planning
Town Center Implementation Plan Improvements Phase 2
Taylor Road, Horseshoe Bar Road to Walnut Street: streetscape improvements. (Emissions in kg/day: 0.06 ROG, 0.04 NOx, 0.02 PM10)
$791,000 $791,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
Regional Maintenance and Rehabilitation Lump Sum 8
Town of Loomis C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Street & Road Maintenance
Estimated street and road maintenance costs including signals, safety devices, & street lights, storm drains, storm damage, patching, overlay and sealing, other street purpose maintenance. Excludes major rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. ($ 634,000 annually)
$13,948,000 $18,327,672 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
SUBTOTAL $15,199,000 $19,578,672
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-47
USFS TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST
PLA25556 USFS Tahoe National Forest G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Sugar Pine OHV Staging Area
Outside of Foresthill, Sugar Pine Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Staging Area: Renovation of an existing staging area, including parking, accessible restrooms, and picnic facilities. (RM-13-016)
$325,950 $325,950 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
SUBTOTAL $325,950 $325,950
WESTERN PLACER CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AGENCY
PLA25594 Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Service Agency
E- Transit Capital (Major)
Placer County - CTSA Capital
Capital costs for CTSA Article 4.5 & complementary ADA dial-a- ride services for designated CTSA operating in Placer County, including vehicles, miscellaneous capital items & facilities expansion.
$55,490,317 $72,921,000 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
PLA25593 Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Service Agency
F- Transit O&M (Demand Response)
Placer County - CTSA O&M
Annual operation & maintenance (O&M) costs for Article 4.5 Community Transit Services & complimentary Transit Services & complimentary ADA dial-a-ride services for designated CTSA of Placer County servicing Placer County & Cities
$28,233,907 $37,103,000 Lump Sum or Ongoing
Planned
PLA25511 Western Placer ConsolidatedTransportation Service Agency
F- Transit O&M (Bus)
New Freedom (Rural) Operating Assistance
Operating Assistance for the rural portion of the "Health Express." This service is being provided as a new transportation alternative to traditional public transit fixed route and dial-a-ride services.
$416,176 $416,176 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-48 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
The service is a low-to-no-cost scheduled door-to-door transportation service to non-emergency medical appointments for rural Placer County residents. Service operates Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Thursdays, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in Sacramento.
PLA25510 Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Service Agency
F- Transit O&M (Demand Response)
Western Placer CTSA Operations
The Western Placer CTSA operates non-emergency medical transportation demand-response paratransit service; volunteer door-to-door transportation; & voucher program within western Placer County.
$4,900,000 $4,900,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
VAR56116 Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Service Agency
F- Transit O&M (Bus)
WPCTSA - New Freedom Operating Assistance
Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Service Agency: Operating assistance for Health Express", a low-to-no cost, scheduled, door-to-door, shared ride service for Placer County residents needing transportation to non-emergency medical appointments.
$600,000 $600,000 Project complete by 2020
Programmed
SUBTOTAL $89,640,400 $115,940,176
Short-Term $1,069,419,063 $1,075,799,063
Long-Term $4,732,368,453 $6,224,929,570
Project Development Cost (10% of project
total) $105,146,710 $164,028,868
Total $5,906,934,226 $7,464,757,501
SOURCE: PCTPA, 2016.
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-49
THE FINANCIALLY UNCONSTRAINED PROJECT
A listing of the financially unconstrained (Tier 2) projects is described in Table 2.3-2 below.
TABLE 2.3-2: FINANCIALLY UNCONSTRAINED PROJECTS SUMMARY (TIER 2)
Project ID COUNTY LEAD AGENCY CATEGORY TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST (2015 Dollars)
YEAR OF EXPENDITURE COST
COMPLETION TIMING STATUS
CALTRANS
CAL20583 Placer Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
SR89 UPRR Undercrossing
Widening of SR89 (mousehole) under UPRR tracks
$42,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
CAL20612 Multiple Counties
Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
System Management/Traffic Operations System on SR 65 between I-80 and SR 70
Operational Improvements: traffic monitoring stations, closed circuit television, highway advisory radio, changeable message signs, and other system management infrastructure in Placer and Yuba Counties.
$1,795,600 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
CAL20630 Placer Caltrans D3 B- Road & Highway Capacity
I-80 Bus/carpool Lanes East of SR65 in both directions
New bus/carpool lanes - one each direction - on I-80 from SR65 east to SR49 in Auburn.
$200,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
CAL20633 Placer Caltrans D3 B- Road & Highway Capacity
Route 65 Lincoln Bypass Phase 2B
In Placer County, SR65: Right-of-way acquisition & construct a 4-lane expressway from North Ingram Slough to Sheridan.
$55,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
CAL20637 Placer Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
System Management/Traffic Operations System on SR49
Operational Improvements: traffic monitoring stations, closed circuit television, highway advisory radio, changeable message signs, and other system management infrastructure in Placer County.
$4,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25136 Placer Caltrans D3 B- Road & Highway Capacity
SR 267 Widening In eastern Placer County, widen SR 267 from 2 lanes to 4 lanes from Nevada County line (PM 0.001) to Northstar
$10,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-50 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
Drive (PM 3.785).
CAL20639 Placer Caltrans Division of Rail
E- Transit Capital (Major)
Auburn to Donner Summit Track Improvements Phases 1 & 2
Upgrade Donner Pass Summit (UP Line) double track: including addition of crossovers, notching of tunnels, reactivation & replacement of second mainline track between Auburn &Reno, Nevada
$86,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
CAL20640 Placer Caltrans Division of Rail
E- Transit Capital (Major)
UP Over/Under Crossing Build over/undercrossing at Union Pacific crossing of Sierra College Boulevard
$30,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
SUBTOTAL $428,795,600
CAPITOL COORIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
VAR56134 Placer Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
F- Transit O&M (Rail)
Capitol Corridor Operations & Maintenance
Capitol Corridor operations & equipment maintenance, funded by the State of California/ Caltrans Division of Rail. (Total Cost: $728,000,000)
$58,181,760 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
VAR56135 Placer Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
E- Transit Capital (Minor)
Capitol Corridor Rail Replacement & Expansion
Lump-sum of capital improvements between Colfax & Davis (Total Cost: $120,720,000)
$9,647,942 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
SUBTOTAL $67,829,702
CITY OF AUBURN
PLA25234 Placer City of Auburn B- Road & Highway Capacity
Baltimore Ravine Development
Construct New Road: various roadways in the Baltimore Ravine area of Auburn. Includes: widening and construction of new local roadways as a result of new development.
$200,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
SUBTOTAL $200,000
CITY OF COLFAX
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-51
PLA25146 Placer City of Colfax G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Grass Valley St./UPRR Overcrossing
Rail Crossing Project; above-grade crossing of UP Tracks from east side (S Auburn) to west side (Main)
$300,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA20420 Placer City of Colfax G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
I-80/Canyon Wy. Intersection Improvements
Intersection Improvements at Canyon Wy. / I-80 Overpass, to include signalization, intersection realignment and striping.
$50,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25490 Placer City of Colfax G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
I-80/SR174 Road Widening and Signal Improvements
Roadway Operational Improvements at Hwy. 174 & I-80, to include 2 new signals and intersection widening with sidewalks and curb ramps
$100,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25466 Placer City of Colfax G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Main and Grass Valley Signal Improvements
Design and construction of a new traffic signal and turn-lane at the intersection of Main Street and Grass Valley Street. (Emission reductions: ROG .02 kg/day; NOx .01 kg/day)
$200,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25237 Placer City of Colfax A- Bike & Ped S Auburn Street Bicycle Improvements
Add bike routes lanes on both sides of South Auburn Street from Mink Creek to Grass Valley UP Tracks.
$36,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25235 Placer City of Colfax G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
S. Auburn/Central/Hwy.174 Intersection Improvements
Intersection improvements on S. Auburn St. at Central Ave./Hwy. 174 intersection, to include widening, signalization, and pedestrian improvements.
$60,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
SUBTOTAL $746,000
CITY OF LINCOLN
PLA20740 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
Airport Rd. Construct New Road: 2 lanes from Weco Access Rd. to Wise Rd.
$550,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA18650 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
Aviation Blvd. Widen Aviation Blvd. from 2 to 4 lanes from Venture Dr. to terminus 0.5 miles north of Venture Dr.
$850,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-52 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
PLA25304 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
Aviation Blvd. Road Extension: 4 lanes from Venture Dr. to Wise Rd.
$1,500,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA18760 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
E. Joiner Pkwy. Widen: 6 lanes from Ferrari Ranch Rd. to Sterling Pkwy. Includes: Hwy. 65 / UPRR overcrossing.
$700,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA18810 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
East Joiner Parkway Widen East Joiner Parkway from 2 to 4 lanes from Twelve Bridges Dr. to Rocklin city limits.
$290,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25169 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
Ferrari Ranch Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes from SR 65 to SR 193 to Ferrari Ranch Road
$275,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25467 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
Ferrari Ranch Road Extension
Extend Ferrari Ranch Road from existing City Limit near Caledon Circle to Moore Road (Village 7 boundary).
$1,920,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA20780 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
Gladding Parkway In Lincoln: from Nicolaus Rd.(near K Street)to East Avenue; including overpass over UPRR and SR 65 and connection to 12th Street, construct a new 2 lane roadway.
$2,300,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA18710 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & HighwayCapacity
Industrial Blvd. Industrial Blvd., from Route 65 to 12 Bridges Dr.: Widen from 2 to 4 lanes.
$948,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA18720 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
Industrial Blvd. Industrial Blvd., from 12 Bridges Dr. to Athens Blvd.: Widen from 2 to 4 lanes.
$1,876,246 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25164 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
Joiner Pkwy. Widen: 6 lanes from Nicolaus Rd. to Ferrari Ranch Rd.
$344,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25162 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
McCourtney Rd. Widen: 4 lanes from 12th St. to north Lincoln city limits.
$48,800 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA15970 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
Nicolaus Rd. Widen Nicolaus Rd. from 2 to 4 lanes from Airport Rd. to Aviation Blvd.
$2,250,600 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25305 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
Oak Tree Extension Construct New Road: 2 lanes between Sierra College Blvd. and Wise Rd. / Hwy. 65
$1,500,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-53
PLA19020 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
Twelve Bridges Dr. Twelve Bridges Dr. from Industrial Blvd. to SR 65 Interchange: widen from 2 to 4 lanes, including interchange improvements.
$2,817,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25166 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
Twelve Bridges Dr. Widen: 6 lanes from Hwy. 65 Interchange to Lincoln Pkwy. Includes: interchange improvements.
$225,200 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA20760 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
Venture Drive In Lincoln: from Aviation Blvd. to Lakeside Dr., widen Venture Dr. from 2 to 4 lanes.
$90,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25315 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
Village 1-7, SUD A-C local streets
Construct New Road: Local roads for various villages and SUD. Includes: street enhancements.
$11,800,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25163 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
Virginiatown Rd. Widen: 4 lanes from McCourtney Rd. to east Lincoln city limits.
$50,200 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25310 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity
Wise Rd. Road Realignment: between Hwy. 65 Lincoln Bypass and existing Hwy. 65. Includes: overcrossing.
$6,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
SUBTOTAL $36,335,046
CITY OF ROCKLIN
PLA25373 Placer City of Rocklin E- Transit Capital (Minor)
Midas Ave. Grade Separation
Midas Ave., from Pacific St. to Third St., construct 2 lane grade separation of UP tracks including right of way.
$5,650,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25272 Placer City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity
Pacific St. Widen: 6 lanes from SW of Sunset Blvd. to NE of Sunset Blvd.
$240,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA19401 Placer City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity
Rocklin Road In Rocklin, Rocklin Road from Aguilar Road / Eastbound I-80 on- ramps to Sierra College Blvd: widen from 4 to 6 lanes.
$1,534,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25273 Placer City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity
Rocklin Road Widening Widen Rocklin Road from 2 to 4 lanes from Loomis town limits to east of Sierra College Boulevard.
$372,266 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-54 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
PLA19330 Placer City of Rocklin B- Road & HighwayCapacity
Sierra College Boulevard In Rocklin, Sierra College Boulevard: widen to 4 lanes from intersection with Valley View Parkway to Loomis Town limits (SPRTA Segment #2a).
$8,650,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA15620 Placer City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity
Sunset Boulevard Widen Sunset Boulevard from 4 to 6 lanes, from Stanford Ranch Road to Pacific Street
$4,177,406 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA19250 Placer City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity
Valley View Parkway Valley View Parkway: Construct 2 lanes from Park Drive to Sierra College Blvd.
$9,575,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
SUBTOTAL $30,198,672
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
PLA19810 Placer City of Roseville
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Atkinson St./PFE Rd. Widening
In Roseville, Atkinson St./PFE Rd.: widen from two to four lanes from Foothills Blvd to just south of Dry Creek, including connector road from Foothills to Atkinson (mirror image of existing Denio Loop connector on N/E side of Foothills) and signal removal.
$7,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25318 Placer City of Roseville
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Dry Creek Bikeway Facilities: from Darling Wy. to western Roseville City limits along Dry Creek.
$550,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25496 Placer City of Roseville
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Foothills Boulevard Widen: 6 lanes from Cirby to Vineyard and from Switchman to Pilgrims.
$2,390,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA15740 Placer City of Roseville
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Galleria Blvd. Widen: 6 lanes from Berry to Roseville Pkwy.
$150,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25211 Placer City of Roseville
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Galleria Blvd. Interchange Modification: Hwy. 65 / Galleria Blvd. Interchange. Includes: re-stripe Galleria/ Stanford Ranch to 6 lanes; modify 3 NB & SB off ramps and SB
$400,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-55
Stanford Ranch Rd. to NB 65 on ramp; add 2nd N/B Galleria to NB Hwy. 65 left-turn lane (Phase II).
PLA25209 Placer City of Roseville
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Galleria Blvd./SR 65 Interchange Phase II Improvements
In Roseville, at existing interchange on State Route 65/Galleria Blvd/Stanford Ranch Rd.: modify all on and off ramps to provide improved operations.
$5,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25489 Placer City of Roseville
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Pleasant Grove Blvd. Extend 4-lanes from 1500 feet west of market to Santucci (Watt)
$1,045,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA15600 Placer City of Roseville
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Sierra College Blvd Widening
Sierra College Blvd from Sacramento County line to Olympus Dr.: widen to 6 lanes.
$1,661,100 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25483 Placer City of Roseville
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Westbrook Blvd. Construct New Road: west of Fiddyment Road between Baseline and Pleasant Grove in proposed new Sierra Vista Specific Plan.
$7,500,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA19470 Placer City of Roseville
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Woodcreek Oaks Widen from 2 - 4 lanes from Canavari Dr to North Branch of Pleasant Grove Creek.
$3,500,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
SUBTOTAL $29,196,100
PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY
Placer PCTPA B- Road & Highway Capacity
SR 65 Capacity & Operational Improvements Phase 4
SR 65, from Galleria Blvd. to Lincoln Blvd., make capacity and operational improvements. Phase 4: From Lincoln Blvd. to Blue Oaks Blvd., widen southbound in median to add lane; and from north of Galleria Blvd. (end of the I-80/SR 65 Interchange project) to Lincoln Blvd., widen northbound in median to add lane. Future
$57,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-56 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
environmental document will be completed to determine if widening in median will be carpool or general purpose lanes.
SUBTOTAL $57,000,000
PLACER COUNTY
PLA25479 Placer Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
16th St. Construct New Road: 4 lanes from Sacramento/Placer County Line to Baseline Rd.
$12,955,800 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25127 Placer Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
Baseline Road Four to Six Lane Widening (West Portion)
Placer County, Baseline Road from Watt Avenue to Sutter County Line, widen from 4 to 6 lanes.
$2,400,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA18390 Placer Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
Dyer Lane Extension Extend Dyer Lane west/north to Baseline Road at Brewer Road and east/north to Baseline Road west of Fiddyment Road and widen to four lanes in accordance with the Placer Vineyards Specific Plan.
$18,247,600 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25130 Placer Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
Fiddyment Road Widening
Widen Fiddyment Road from 2 lanes to 4 lanes from Roseville City Limits to Athens Road.
$11,550,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA15220 Placer Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
Foothills Boulevard Foothills Blvd.: Construct as a 2 lane road from the City of Roseville to Sunset Blvd.
$4,062,300 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA15270 Placer Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
North Antelope Rd. North Antelope Rd: Widen from 2 to 4 lanes from Sacramento County line to PFE Rd.
$1,551,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA15300 Placer Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
Parallel Rd. In Placer County, east of Route 49, from Dry Creek Rd to Quartz Rd, construct a 2 lane road. Name of road shall be determined in the future.
$6,025,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-57
PLA20690 Placer Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
PFE Rd. Widen: 4 lanes from North Antelope Rd. to Roseville City Limits.
$2,215,100 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA15390 Placer Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
Sierra College Blvd. Widen Sierra College Blvd. from 2 to 4 lanes from Route 193 to Loomis Town Limits.
$13,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25598 Placer Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity
SR 49 Widen from Bell Road to Dry Creek Road (total construction cost is $10,000,000)
$1,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
SUBTOTAL $73,006,800
SOUTH PLACER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
PLA20721 Placer South Placer Regional Transportation Authority
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Placer Parkway New 4 lane connector (ultimate 6 lanes freeway) in 500'- to 1,000'-wide corridor connecting SR 70/99 (between Riego Road & Sankey Road) to Watt Avenue. (Note: as the project proceeds, Parkway segments will be administered by different lead agencies depending upon location of the segment. In Placer County, it will be SPRTA or Roseville and/or Placer County; in Sutter County it will be Sutter County.)
$295,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
SUBTOTAL $295,000,000
TOWN OF LOOMIS
PLA25264 Placer Town of Loomis
A- Bike & Ped Antelope Creek Bikeway Facilities: In Loomis along Antelope Creek, construct Class I bike and pedestrian facility. Federal permitting may be required as part of this project.
$50,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-58 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
PLA25278 Placer Town of Loomis
G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Antelope Creek Roadway Operational Improvements: Expand/ replace culvert along Antelope Creek at King Rd. from Sierra College Blvd. to Vet Clinic. Includes: ancillary road work.
$60,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25260 Placer Town of Loomis
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Barton Rd. Widening Widen: from Brace Rd. to S. Town limits to standard lane widths. Includes: bike lanes.
$210,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25259 Placer Town of Loomis
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Brace Rd. Widen from Sierra College Blvd. to Horseshoe Bar Rd. to standard lane widths. Includes: bike lanes.
$100,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25258 Placer Town of Loomis
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Brace Rd. / Horseshoe Bar Rd.
Road Realignment: two existing intersections into one intersection. Includes: related signalization improvements.
$60,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25277 Placer Town of Loomis
C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Brace Rd. Bridge Improvements
Replace Bridge: at Secret Ravine creek. Includes: ancillary road work.
$50,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA15290 Placer Town of Loomis
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Doc Barnes Dr. Road Extension: 2 lanes, landscaped median and bike lanes from Horseshoe Bar Rd. to King Rd.
$200,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA16350 Placer Town of Loomis
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Horseshoe Bar Road at I-80 Overcrossing Widening
Widen Horseshoe Bar Rd. @ I-80 overcrossing 2 to 4 lanes and improve ramps.
$15,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25597 Placer Town of Loomis
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Horseshoe Bar Road Widening
Widen from Taylor Rd. to Highway 80 Interchange 2000 feet of two-way left turn lanes/landscaped median, bike lanes, sidewalk, curb, gutter & underground Drainage system
$800,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25261 Placer Town of Loomis
C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation
I-80 at Brace Road Modify Bridge: Brace Rd. Bridge to Caltrans standards.
$1,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25262 Placer Town of Loomis
G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
King Rd. Interchange Modification: existing King Rd. overcrossing to accommodate freeway access for traffic from King
$500,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
ERRATA 3.0
Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-59
Rd. onto WB I-80. Includes: a transition auxiliary lane on I-80 from King Rd. to Horseshoe Bar interchange.
PLA25279 Placer Town of Loomis
G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
King Rd. Roadway Operational Improvements: at Sucker Ravine and King Rd. expand culvert. Includes: ancillary road work. Federal permitting may also be required as part of this project.
$10,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA15350 Placer Town of Loomis
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Rocklin Rd. Widening In Loomis, Rocklin Rd. from Barton Rd. to west town limits: widen from 2 to 4 lanes.
$1,200,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25274 Placer Town of Loomis
G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
S. Holly Area Roadway Operational Improvements: Storm drain extension in the South Holly area. Includes: ancillary road work. Federal permitting may also be required as part of this project.
$40,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25263 Placer Town of Loomis
A- Bike & Ped Secret Ravine Bikeway Facilities: Along Secret Ravine creek system from north Loomis town limits to south Loomis town limits, construct Class I bike and pedestrian facility.
$60,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25280 Placer Town of Loomis
G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Sierra College Blvd. Roadway Operational Improvements: Culvert expansion at Loomis Tributary and Sierra College Blvd. Includes: ancillary road work.
$40,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA20510 Placer Town of Loomis
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Sierra College Blvd. Railroad Crossing Improvements
Construct 4 lane overcrossing/undercrossing at UPRR Tracks.
$3,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA20890 Placer Town of Loomis
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Sierra College Blvd. Widening
In Loomis, Sierra College Blvd. from railroad tracks (Taylor Rd.) to the north town limits: widen from 2 to 4 lanes and construct turn lanes, bike lanes, and
$5,899,180 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-60 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
landscaped median.
PLA20960 Placer Town of Loomis
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Sierra College Boulevard Widening
In Loomis, Sierra College Blvd. from Granite Drive to Taylor Road: widen from 4 to 6 lanes.
$3,600,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25276 Placer Town of Loomis
G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Sunrise-Loomis Subdivision
Roadway Operational Improvements: Upgrade storm drain facilities in the Sunrise-Loomis subdivision. Includes: ancillary road work.
$50,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25269 Placer Town of Loomis
G- System Management, Operations, and ITS
Taylor Rd. Roadway Operational Improvements: Construct storm drain facility from King Rd. to Sierra College Blvd. Includes: ancillary road work. Federal permitting may also be required as part of this project. Phase 1 is King Rd. to Walnut Street, $800,000.
$230,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
PLA25600 Placer Town of Loomis
B- Road & Highway Capacity
Webb St. Extension Extend from Laird St. to future Doc Barnes Dr. 1800 feet of two- way left turn lanes/landscaped median, bike lanes, sidewalk, curb, gutter & underground Drainage system
$1,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036
Project Development Only
SUBTOTAL $33,159,180
Short-Term Unconstrained $0 $0
Long-Term Unconstrained $1,051,467,100 $1,640,288,676
Project Development Cost
(10% of project total) $105,146,710 $164,028,868
Total Unconstrained (excluding project
development cost)
$1,051,467,100 $1,640,288,676
SOURCE: PCTPA, 2016.
ERRATA 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 3.0-61
SECTION 3.10 LAND USE AND POPULATION
The Land Use and Population section was revised to reflect a correction. The change to the EIR
occurs on Page 3.10-1. The changes are identified with revision marks (underline for new text,
strike out for deleted text).
Text changes on Page 3.10-1 are as follows:
City of Auburn. Auburn is a historic City, located in the foothills (‘Gold Country’) portion of the County. The City
of Lincoln is accessible from SR-193 from the east and SR-65 from the south. Auburn is known for its California
Gold Rush history, and is registered as a California Historical Landmark. As of January 1, 2015 the DOF
estimated the City's population to be 13,813.
SECTION 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The Transportation and Circulation section was revised to reflect a correction. The change to the
EIR occurs on Page 3.13-3 and 3.13-17. The changes are identified with revision marks (underline
for new text, strike out for deleted text).
Text changes on Page 3.13-3 are as follows:
State Route 65 (SR-65) runs north/south connecting I-80 to Lincoln and Marysville. The route currently
includes 4-lane freeway segments between I-80 and just north of West Wise RoadNelson Lane, and between
Beale Air Force Base north of Wheatland to SR-70 south of Marysville. The remainder of SR-65 is a 2-lane
highway.
Text changes on Page 3.13-17 are as follows:
TABLE 3.13-6 PLACER COUNTY LANE MILES
LANE MILES BASE YEAR (2012) YEAR 2036 PLUS PROJECT1
VALUE VALUE%
CHANGE
% CHANGE
General Purpose Freeway 310 317 +8
+2
HOV Lanes 10 11 +1
+10
Freeway Auxiliary/Ramp 22 201 +17 +817
Arterial/Major Surface Streets 556 788 +232
+42
Collectors/Other 1,225 1,193 -31
-3
“Major Roadways” 897 1,156 +259
+29
All Classes 2,122 2,349 +227 +11
NOTES: 1 THIS SCENARIO INCLUDES ALL 2036 RTP TIER I PROJECTS ANTICIPATED TO OCCUR BY 2036.
SOURCE: SACOG 2015 (DATA PROVIDED BY ELIZABETH THEOCHARIDES OF SACOG).
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-62 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
This page left intentionally blank.
FINAL MMRP 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 4.0-1
This document is the Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (FMMRP) for the 2036
RTP. This FMMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public
Resources Code, which requires public agencies to “adopt a reporting and monitoring program for
the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or
avoid significant effects on the environment.” A FMMRP is required for the proposed project
because the EIR has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to
mitigate those impacts.
The numbering of the individual mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence as found in
the Draft EIR. All revisions to mitigation measures that were necessary as a result of responding to
public comments and incorporating staff-initiated revisions have been incorporated into this
FMMRP.
4.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The FMMRP, as outlined in the following table, describes mitigation timing, monitoring
responsibilities, and compliance verification responsibility for all mitigation measures identified in
this Final EIR. Agencies considering approval of subsequent activities under the 2036 RTP project
would utilize this EIR as the basis in determining potential environmental effects and the
appropriate level of environmental review of a subsequent activity.
The agencies responsible for implementing the mitigation measures (implementing agency) will be
the lead agency for the individual RTP project. The implementing agency for individual projects will
vary by individual project, but will involve one of the following: Placer County Transportation
Planning Agency, Placer County, the Cities of Auburn, Colfax Lincoln, Loomis, Roseville, Rocklin,
and Caltrans District 3. The implementing agency will be responsible to monitor mitigation
measures that are required to be implemented during the operation of the project.
The FMMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the FMMRP
are described briefly below:
Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures are taken from the Draft EIR and Initial
Study, in the same order that they appear in the Draft EIR and Initial Study.
Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project mitigation must be completed.
Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the agency that is responsible for mitigation
monitoring.
Compliance Verification: This is a space that is available for the monitor to date and initial
when the monitoring took place.
4.0 FINAL MMRP
4.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
This page left intentionally blank.
FINAL MMRP 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 4.0-3
TABLE 4.0-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
AESTHETICS
Impact 3.1-2: Substantial Adverse Effects on Scenic Resources or Substantial Degradation of Visual Character
Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: The implementing agency shall implement the following measures in the design of RTP projects:
Design transportation systems in a manner where the surrounding landscape dominates.
Design transportation systems to be compatible with the surrounding environment (e.g., colors and materials of construction material).
Design transportation systems such that landscape vegetation blends in and complements the natural landscape.
Design transportation systems such that trees are maintained intact, or if removal is necessary, incorporate new trees into the design.
Design grades to blend with the adjacent landforms and topography.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: Prior to the design approval of RTP projects, the implementing agency shall assess whether the project would remove any significant visual resources in the project area, which may include trees, rock outcroppings, and historical buildings, and shall also assess whether the project would significantly obstruct views of scenic resources including historic buildings, trees, rocks, or scenic water features.
If it is determined that the RTP project would remove significant visual resources, the implementing agency shall consider alternative designs that seek to avoid and/or minimize impacts from removal of significant visual resources to the extent feasible. Project-specific design measures may include revisions to the plans to retain trees, rocks, and historic buildings, or replanting of trees, and/or the relocation of scenic features.
If it is determined that the RTP project would significantly obstruct scenic views, the implementing agency shall consider alternative designs that seek to avoid and/or minimize obstruction of scenic views to the extent feasible. Project-specific design measures may include reduction in height of improvements or width of improvements to reduce obstruction of views, or relocation of improvements to reduce obstruction of views.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
Impact 3.1-3: Creation of New Sources Mitigation Measure 3.1-3: The RTP projects shall be designed to meet Implementing Prior to Design
4.0 FINAL MMRP
4.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
of Light and Glare minimum safety and security standards and to avoid spillover lighting to sensitive uses. Design measures shall include the following:
Luminaries will be cutoff-type fixtures that cast low-angle illumination to minimize incidental spillover of light onto adjacent private properties and undeveloped open space. Fixtures that project light upward or horizontally will not be used.
Luminaries will be directed away from habitat and open space areas adjacent to the project site.
Luminaries will provide good color rendering and natural light qualities. Low-pressure sodium and high-pressure sodium fixtures that are not color corrected will not be used. Light intensity at roadway intersections and crosswalks will be at approximately low average maintained illumination, as classified by the Recommended Practices for Roadway Lighting of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North American (IESNA). Low average maintained illumination is 1.8 foot-candle for major/major roadways, 1.5 foot-candle at major/collector roadways, 1.3 foot-candle at major/local roadways, 1.2 foot-candle at collector/collector roadways, 1.0 foot-candle at collector/local roadways, and 0.8 foot-candle at local/local roadways.
Luminary mountings will be downcast and the height of the poles minimized to reduce potential for back scatter into the nighttime sky and incidental spillover of light onto adjacent private properties and undeveloped open space. Luminary mountings will have non-glare finishes.
Exterior lighting features shall be directed downward and shielded in order to confine light to the boundaries of the subject project. Where more intense lighting is necessary for safety purposes, the design shall include landscaping to block light from sensitive land uses, such as residences.
Agency Approval
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.2-1: Conversion of Farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, to Non-Agricultural Uses
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Prior to the design approval of RTP projects, the implementing agency shall assess the project area for agricultural constraints. For federally funded projects, the implementing agency shall complete a form AD-1006 to determine the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating in compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act. The AD-1006 shall be submitted to the NRCS for approval. For non-federally funded projects, the implementing agency
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
FINAL MMRP 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 4.0-5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
shall assess the project for the presence of important farmlands (prime farmland, unique farmland, farmland of statewide importance), and if present, perform a Land Assessment and Site Evaluation (LESA).
If significant agricultural are identified within the limits of the project, the implementing agency shall consider alternative designs that seek to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the agricultural resources. Design measures may include, but are not limited to, reducing the proposed roadway width or relocating/realigning the improvement to avoid important and significant farmlands. If the improvement cannot be designed without complete avoidance of important or significant farmlands, the implementing agency shall compensate for unavoidable conversion impacts in accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act and local and regional standards, which may include enrolling offsite agricultural lands under a Williamson Act contract or other conservation easement, or paying mitigation fees.
Impact 3.2-2: Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use or a Williamson Act Contract
Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Prior to the design approval of individual RTP improvement projects that could impact forest or timber resources, the implementing agency shall retain a qualified arborist, forester, and, or biologist to Assess the potential impacts of tree removal and encroachment activities, and provide recommendations to the implementing agency.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
AIR QUALITY
Impact 3.3-2: Short-term - Conflict with, or Obstruct, the Applicable Air Quality Plan, Cause a Violation of Air Quality Standards, Contribute Substantially to an Existing Air Quality Violation, or Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of a Criteria Pollutant in a Non-Attainment Area
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: The implementing agency for any construction activities, including dismantling/demolition of structures, processing/moving materials (sand, gravel, rock, dirt, etc.), or operation of machines/equipment, shall prepare a dust control plan in accordance with APCD Rule 218 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). The dust control plan shall use reasonable precautions to prevent dust emissions, which may include: cessation of operations at times, cleanup, sweeping, sprinkling, compacting, enclosure, chemical or asphalt sealing, or other recommended actions by the APCD.
Implementing Agency
Prepare DCP prior to Design Approval, implement DCP during construction.
Impact 3.3-3: Occasional Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations from Traffic Conditions at Some Individual Locations
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: The implementing agency shall screen individual RTP projects at the time of design for localized CO hotspot concentrations and, if necessary, incorporate project-specific measures into the project design to reduce or alleviate CO hotspot concentrations.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
Impact 3.3-5: Potential to release asbestos from earth movement or
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Prior to construction of RTP projects, the implementing agency should assess the site for the presence of asbestos
Implementing Prior commencement
4.0 FINAL MMRP
4.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
structural asbestos from demolition/renovation of existing structures
including asbestos from structures such as road base, bridges, and other structures. In the event that asbestos is present, the implementing agency should comply with applicable state and local regulations regarding asbestos, including ARB’s asbestos airborne toxic control measure (ATCM) (Title 17, CCR § 93105 and 93106), to ensure that exposure to construction workers and the public is reduced to an acceptable level. This may include the preparation of an Asbestos Hazard Dust Mitigation Plan to be implemented during construction activities.
Agency of construction activities
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.4-1: Direct or Indirect Effects on Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species including their Habitat or Movement Corridors
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Prior to final design approval of individual projects, the implementing agency shall have a qualified biologist conduct a field reconnaissance of the environmental limits of the project in an effort to identify any biological constraints for the project, including special status plants, animals, and their habitats, as well as protected natural communities including wetland and terrestrial communities. If the biologist identifies protected biological resources within the limits of the project, the implementing agency shall first, prepare alternative designs that seek to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the biological resources. If the project cannot be designed without complete avoidance, the implementing agency shall coordinate with the appropriate regulatory agency (i.e. USFWS, NMFS, CDFW, ACOE) to obtain regulatory permits and implement project-specific mitigation prior to any construction activities.
For projects that are located within the Placer County Conservation Plan (PCCP) plan area, and are constructed after adoption of the PCCP, the implementing agency shall coordinate with the PCCP administrator to verify whether construction within the study area would require a permit. The permit process will require a field reconnaissance of the project study area by an approved biologist in an effort to identify any biological constraints, including covered species or habitat. If the biologist identifies covered species or habitat within the limits of the study limits the implementing agency shall implement all minimization measures and pay the appropriate mitigation fees or provide land in lieu of fees as established by the PCCP.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
Impact 3.4-2: Adverse Effects on Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community Identified in Local or Regional Plans, Policies,
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2. Prior to approval of RTP projects, the implementing agency shall retain a qualified biologist to perform an assessment of the project area to identify wetlands, riparian, and other sensitive aquatic environments. If wetlands are present the qualified biologist shall
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
FINAL MMRP 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 4.0-7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or on Federally Protected Wetlands as Defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through Direct Removal, Filling, Hydrological Interruption, or Other Means
perform a wetland delineation following the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. The wetland delineation shall be submitted to the ACOE for verification.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-3. If wetlands, riparian, or other sensitive aquatic environments are found within the project area, the implementing agency shall design or modify the project to avoid direct and indirect impacts on these habitats, if feasible. Additionally, the implementing agency shall minimize the loss of riparian vegetation by trimming rather than removal where feasible.
Prior to construction, the implementing agency shall install orange construction barrier fencing to identify environmentally sensitive areas around the wetland (20' from edge), riparian area (100' from edge), and other aquatic habitats (250' from edge of vernal pool). The location of the fencing shall be marked in the field with stakes and flagging and shown on the construction drawings. The fencing will be installed before construction activities are initiated and will be maintained throughout the construction period. The following paragraph will be included in the construction specifications:
The Contractor’s attention is directed to the areas designated as “environmentally sensitive areas.” These areas are protected, and no entry by the Contractor for any purpose will be allowed unless specifically authorized in writing by the implementing agency. The Contractor will take measures to ensure that Contractor’s forces do not enter or disturb these areas, including giving written notice to employees and subcontractors.
Temporary fences around the environmentally sensitive areas will be installed as the first order of work. Temporary fences will be furnished, constructed, maintained, and removed as shown on the plans, as specified in the special provisions, and as directed by the project engineer. The fencing will be commercial-quality woven polypropylene, orange in color, and at least 4 feet high (Tensor Polygrid or equivalent). The fencing will be tightly strung on posts with a maximum 10-foot spacing.
Immediately upon completion of construction activities the contractor shall stabilize exposed soil/slopes. On highly erodible soils/slopes, use a
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval, and prior to commencement of construction activities
4.0 FINAL MMRP
4.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
nonvegetative material that binds the soil initially and breaks down within a few years. If more aggressive erosion control treatments are needed, geotextile mats, excelsior blankets, or other soil stabilization products will be used. All stabilization efforts should include habitat restoration efforts.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: If wetlands or riparian habitat are disturbed as part of the individual RTP project, the implementing agency shall compensate for the disturbance to ensure no net loss of habitat functions and values. Compensation ratios shall be based on site-specific information and determined through coordination with state, federal, and local agencies as part of the permitting process for the project. Compensation may comprise onsite restoration/creation, off-site restoration, preservation, or mitigation credits (or a combination of these elements). The implementing agency shall develop and implement a restoration and monitoring plan that describes how the habitat shall be created and monitored over a minimum period of time.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
Impact 3.4-3: Interference with the Movement of 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
Mitigation Measure 3.4-5: Prior to design approval of RTP projects that contain movement habitat, the implementing agency shall incorporate economically viable design measures, as applicable and necessary, to allow wildlife or fish to move through the transportation corridor, both during construction activities and post construction. Such measures may include appropriately spaced breaks in a center barrier, or other measures that are designed to allow wildlife to move through the transportation corridor. If the project cannot be designed with these design measures (i.e. due to traffic safety, etc.) the implementing agency shall coordinate with the appropriate regulatory agency (i.e. USFWS, NMFS, CDFW) to obtain regulatory permits and implement alternative project-specific mitigation prior to any construction activities.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
Impact 3.4-4: Potential Introduction or Spread of Noxious Weeds Associated with the RTP Projects
Mitigation Measure 3.4-6: Prior to approval of RTP projects, the implementing agency shall retain a qualified botanist determine whether noxious weeds are an issue for the project. If the botanist determines that noxious weeds are an issue, the implementing agency shall review the noxious weed list from the County Agricultural Commission, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and the California Exotic Pest Plant Council to identify target weed species for a field survey. Noxious weed infestations shall be mapped and documented. The implementing agency shall incorporate the following measures into project plans and specifications:
Certified, weed-free, imported erosion-control materials (or rice straw in upland areas) will be used.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
FINAL MMRP 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 4.0-9
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
The project sponsor will coordinate with the county agricultural commissioner and land management agencies to ensure that the appropriate BMPs are implemented.
Construction supervisors and managers will be educated about noxious weed identification and the importance of controlling and preventing their spread.
Equipment will be cleaned at designated wash stations after leaving noxious weed infestation areas.
Impact 3.4-5: Conflicts with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, Recovery Plan, or Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources (less than significant with mitigation)
Mitigation Measure 3.4-7: If the PCCP has been adopted, prior to design approval of individual projects, the implementing agency shall coordinate with Placer County (or the designated agency responsible for implementing the PCCP) to determine the appropriate coverage, permits, compensatory mitigation or fees, and project specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.5-1: Damage to or the Destruction of Archaeological Resources from Construction of RTP Projects
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: During environmental review of individual RTP improvement projects, the implementing agencies shall retain a qualified architectural historian to inventory and evaluate architectural resources located in project area using criteria for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. In addition, the resources would be recorded by the architectural historian on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms, photographed, and mapped. The DPR forms shall be produced and forwarded to the Central California Information Center. If federal funding or approval is required, then the implementing agency shall comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
If architectural resources are deemed as potentially eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources or the National Register of Historic Places, the implementing shall consider avoidance through project redesign as feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, the implementing agencies shall ensure that the historic resource is formally documented through the use of large-format photography, measured drawings, written architectural descriptions, and historical narratives. The documentation shall be entered into the Library of Congress, and archived in the California Historical Resources Information System. In the event of building relocation, the implementing agency shall ensure that any alterations to significant buildings or structures conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
4.0 FINAL MMRP
4.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
Impact 3.5-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains during Construction of RTP Projects
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2: During environmental review of individual RTP improvement projects, the implementing agencies shall:
Consult with the United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) to determine whether a project could affect cultural resources that may be of importance to the UAIC. Provide the UAIC with copies of any archaeological reports, environmental documents, and mitigation measures that are prepared for a project. Consult with the UAIC to determine if tribal monitors are needed for field surveys on individual projects.
Consult with the Native American Heritage Commission to determine whether known sacred sites are in the project area, and identify the Native American(s) to contact to obtain information about the project area.
Conduct a records search at the Central California Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System to determine whether the project area has been previously surveyed and whether resources were identified.
In the event the records indicate that no previous survey has been conducted, the Central California Information Center will make a recommendation on whether a survey is warranted based on the archaeological sensitivity of the project area. If recommended, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct archaeological surveys. The significance of any resources that are determined to be in the project area shall be assessed according to the applicable local, state, and federal significance criteria. Implementing agencies shall devise treatment measures to ameliorate “substantial adverse changes” to significant archaeological resources, in consultation with qualified archaeologists and other concerned parties. Such treatment measures may include avoidance through project redesign, data recovery excavation, and public interpretation of the resource. Implementing agencies and the contractors performing the improvements shall adhere to the following requirements:
If an improvement project is located in an area rich with cultural materials, the implementing agency shall retain a qualified
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval, and during construction activities
FINAL MMRP 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 4.0-11
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
archaeologist to monitor any subsurface operations, including but not limited to grading, excavation, trenching, or removal of existing features of the subject property.
If, during the course of construction cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features) are discovered work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the implementing agency shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery.
The implementing agency shall consider mitigation recommendations presented by a professional archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology for any unanticipated discoveries and shall carry out the measures deemed feasible and appropriate. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. The project proponent shall be required to implement any mitigation necessary for the protection of cultural resources.
Impact 3.5-3: Damage to or the Destruction of Paleontological Resources from Construction of RTP Projects
Mitigation Measure 3.5-3: During environmental review of RTP projects, the implementing agencies shall retain a qualified paleontologist to identify, survey, and evaluate paleontological resources where potential impacts are considered high. All construction activities shall avoid known paleontological resources, if feasible, especially if the resources in a particular lithologic unit formation have been determined to be unique or likely to contain paleontological resources. If avoidance is not feasible, paleontological resources should be excavated by a qualified paleontologist and given to a local agency, State University, or other applicable institution, where they could be curated and displayed for public education purposes.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
Impact 3.5-4: Damage to or the Destruction of Historical Resources from Construction of RTP Projects
Mitigation Measure 3.5-4: Implement Stop-Work and Consultation Procedures Mandated by Public Resources Code 5097. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during construction or excavation activities associated with an RTP project, the implementing agency shall cease further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the following steps are taken:
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval, and during construction
4.0 FINAL MMRP
4.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
The Placer County Coroner has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the remains are of Native American origin, either of the following steps will be taken: (1) The coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission in order to ascertain the proper descendants from the deceased individual. The coroner will make a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods, which may include obtaining a qualified archaeologist or team of archaeologists to properly excavate the human remains. (2) The implementing agency or its authorized representative will retain a Native American monitor, and an archaeologist, if recommended by the Native American monitor, and rebury the Native American human remains and any associated grave goods, with appropriate dignity, on the property and in a location that is not subject to further subsurface disturbance when any of the following conditions occurs: (a) The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a descendent. (b) The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. (c) The implementing agency or its authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact 3.6.1: Effects on Climate Change and Global Warming
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: The PCTPA should continue to explore the feasibility of a transportation pricing policy for the transit system and selected portions of the road network to encourage people to drive less and increase use of transit, walking and bicycling modes. The PCTPA should continue to participate and host programs that are deemed feasible by the PCTPA for the region to incentivize alternative transportation modes (e.g. Spare the Air program, Commuter Club, Bucks for Bikes program, $10 Youth Summer Pass program, Walk to School Program, and Emergency Ride Home Services).
Implementing Agency
On-going
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: The PCTPA should consider incorporating a complete streets policy with a strong focus on identifying opportunities to create more active transportation within the region (i.e. bike and pedestrian facilities).
Implementing Agency
On-going
Mitigation Measure 3.6-3: Consistent with Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the agencies implementing RTP projects should: Implementing On-going
FINAL MMRP 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 4.0-13
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Promote measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. As the individual RTP projects are designed there should be an explanation as to why certain measures were incorporated in the RTP project and why other measures were dismissed.
Site, orient, and design projects to minimize energy consumption, increase water conservation and reduce solid-waste.
Promote efforts to reduce peak energy demand in the design and operation of RTP projects.
Promote the use of alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems for RTP projects.
Promote efforts to recycle materials used in the construction (including demolition phase) of RTP projects.
Agency
Mitigation Measure 3.6-4: The PCTPA should coordinate with local and regional agencies to assist in efforts to develop local and regional CAPs (Climate Action Plans) and/or General Plan policy that address climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Some local agencies in Placer County have adopted a local CAP (Roseville 2009 and Rocklin 2012), or are in the process of preparing a local CAP (Lincoln, in process) to address climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Local and regional CAPs should include the following components:
Baseline inventory of GHG emissions from community and municipal sources.
A target reduction goal consistent with AB 32.
Policies and measures to reduce GHG emissions.
Quantification of the effectiveness of the proposed policies and measures.
A monitoring program to track the effectiveness and implementation of the CAP(s).
PCTPA’s role in the development of local and regional CAPs should include:
Assistance in seeking and securing funding for the development of local and regional CAPs.
Collaboration with local and regional agencies throughout their respective planning processes.
Implementing Agency
On-going
4.0 FINAL MMRP
4.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Mitigation Measure 3.6-5: PCTPA has included alternative vehicle
fueling/charging stations in the RTP. PCTPA should consider the development of
an Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) and Infrastructure Policy in the future and assist
local agencies with the development of an Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) and
Infrastructure Policy. In developing an AFV policy, PCTPA should consider the
studies prepared by SACOG (i.e. TakeCharge II: Infrastructure Roadmap). The
policy could include provisions that address best practices, and standards related
to saving energy and reducing GHG emissions through AFV use, including:
A procurement policy for using AFV by franchisees of these cities, such
as trash haulers, green waste haulers, street sweepers, and curbside
recyclable haulers. Such AFVs should have GHG emissions that are
lower than comparable gasoline- or diesel- powered vehicles.
To the extent that is deemed economically feasible for the local agency,
a fleet purchase policy to increase the number of AFVs (i.e., vehicles not
powered strictly by gasoline or diesel fuel) for municipally owned fleets.
A public education policy to encourage the use of alternative fuel
vehicles and development of supporting infrastructure.
Implementing Agency
On-going
GEOLOGICAL AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.7‐1: Potential to expose people or structures to potential adverse effects involving rupture of a fault or strong seismic ground shaking (less than significant with mitigation)
Mitigation Measure 3.7‐1: Conduct project‐level seismic hazard evaluations and design those project facilities according to the California Building Code. Implementing agencies will ensure evaluations of seismic ground shaking hazards for all individual improvement projects at the project level. Based on these evaluations, the implementing agencies will ensure that design and construction of all new facilities are constructed in accordance with the most appropriate building standards to minimize the potential impacts to new facilities.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
Impact 3.7‐3: Potential to 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
Mitigation Measure 3.7‐2: Conduct site‐specific geotechnical investigations for liquefaction, slope stability, lateral spreading, settlement, and subsidence. Implementing agencies will ensure that site specific geotechnical investigations are conducted before or during the preliminary and/or final design stages of the individual RTP improvement projects to identify and characterize areas that may be susceptible to these geological conditions. These site‐specific investigations may range from limited screening investigations to identify obvious hazards, to very detailed subsurface investigations. The findings of these site‐specific investigations will serve as the basis for the final design of the
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
FINAL MMRP 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 4.0-15
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
(less than significant with mitigation) proposed projects and ensure that appropriate geotechnical methods are used to avoid or minimize the potential for damage to project‐related facilities.
Impact 3.7‐4: Potential to result in risks from expansive soil (less than significant with mitigation)
Mitigation Measure 3.7‐3: Conduct site‐specific geotechnical investigations for expansive soils and implement appropriate, proven geotechnical methods. Implementing agencies will conduct site specific geotechnical investigations before or during the preliminary and/or final design stages of the individual RTP improvement projects to identify areas with expansive soils. The findings of these site specific investigations would serve as the basis for the final design of the proposed projects and ensure that appropriate, proven geotechnical methods are used to avoid or minimize the potential for expansive soils and sediments to damage project‐related structures. The exact methods that would be used to address potential expansive soil issues may include the selective placement of expansive fill materials; the use of imported, non‐expansive fill materials; or other methods of ground improvement.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 3.8-4: Impact from being included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prior to approval of individual RTP improvement projects, the implementing agency should perform a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment that includes a review of all known databases for contaminated sites. If it is determined that a project is located on or near a contaminated site a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment should be performed to sample the soils/groundwater and further investigate the extent of the contamination. Based on the results of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, the implementing agency should devise a remediation plan or avoid disturbance of contaminated areas, in compliance with appropriate regulatory agency requirements. All work should be conducted under a work plan approved by the regulatory oversight agency and should be conducted by a registered environmental assessor (pursuant to 22 CCR 69200).
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 3.9-1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
Mitigation Measure 3.9-1: Comply with NPDES General Construction Permit requirements. To reduce or eliminate construction-related water quality effects, the implementing agency will ensure that transportation improvement projects comply with the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit. Project implementation agencies are required to obtain coverage under the General Construction Permit before the onset of any construction
Implementing Agency
Prior to the commencement of construction
4.0 FINAL MMRP
4.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
activities, where the disturbed area is 1 acre or greater in size.
A SWPPP will be developed by a qualified engineer or erosion control specialist in accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements. The SWPPP will be implemented prior to the issuance of any grading permit before construction. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB.
Compliance and coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit will require controls of pollutant discharges that utilize BMPs and technology to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards. BMPs may consist of a wide variety of measures taken to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from the construction site. Measures may include, temporary erosion control measures (such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover) will be employed to control erosion from disturbed areas.
Final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by the implementing agency. The implementing agency will verify that an NOI has been filed with the SWRCB, and a SWPPP has been developed before allowing construction to begin.
Mitigation Measure 3.9-2: Implement a Spill Prevention and Control Program. As part of requiring compliance with the NPDES General Construction Permit, the implementing agency and its agents will develop and implement a spill prevention and control program to minimize the potential for, and effects from, spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during all construction activities. The program will be completed before any construction activities begin.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval, and during construction
Mitigation Measure 3.9-3: Implement measures to maintain water quality after construction. The project implementing agencies will implement source and treatment control measures according to the Stormwater Quality Control Criteria Plan (San Joaquin County 2005). For new development and redevelopment projects, general site design control measures are required to minimize the volume and rate of stormwater runoff discharge from the project site. General site design control measures incorporated into the project design can include:
conserving natural areas; protecting slopes and channels; minimizing impervious areas;
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval, during/after construction
FINAL MMRP 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 4.0-17
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
storm drain identification, and appropriate messaging and signing; and
minimizing effective imperviousness through the use of turf buffers and/or grass-lined channels, if feasible.
In addition, new development and redevelopment projects must include treatment control measures, if possible and when feasible, to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff prior to discharge to the storm drain system or receiving water. Treatment control measures may include, but not be limited to, the following:
Vegetated buffer strip Vegetated swale Extended detention basin Wet pond Constructed wetland Detention basin/sand filter Porous pavement detention Porous landscape detention Infiltration basin Infiltration trench Media filter Retention/irrigation Proprietary control device
Selection and implementation of these measures would be based on a project-by-project basis depending on project size and stormwater treatment needs.
Mitigation Measure 3.9-4: Comply with provisions for dewatering. Before discharging any dewatered effluent to surface water, the project implementation agency will obtain an NPDES permit and Waste Discharge Requirement from the Central Valley RWQCB. Depending on the volume and characteristics of the discharge, coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit may be permissible. If coverage under the General Construction Permit is not allowed, the project will conform to requirements of the General Dewatering Permit, issued by the Central Valley RWQCB. The project implementation agencies will design and implement measures as necessary so that the discharge limits identified in the relevant permit are met.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval, during/after construction
Impact 3.9-3: Alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner which
Mitigation Measure 3.9-5: Conduct project-level drainage studies. As part of the infrastructure plan, the project implementation agencies and/or their
Implementing Prior to Design
4.0 FINAL MMRP
4.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
would result in substantial erosion, siltation, flooding, or polluted runoff.
contractors will conduct a drainage study. This study will address the following topics:
A calculation of pre-development runoff conditions and post-development runoff scenarios using appropriate engineering methods. This analysis will evaluate potential changes to runoff through specific design criteria, and account for increased surface runoff.
An assessment of existing drainage facilities within the project area, and an inventory of necessary upgrades, replacements, redesigns, and/or rehabilitation, including the sizing of on-site stormwater detention features and pump stations.
A description of the proposed maintenance program for the onsite drainage system.
Standards for drainage systems to be installed on a project/parcel-specific basis.
Proposed design measures to ensure structures are not located within 100-year floodplain areas.
Drainage systems will be designed in accordance with the County’s, Flood Control Agency’s, and other applicable flood control design criteria. As a performance standard, measures to be implemented from those studies will provide for no net increase in peak stormwater discharge relative to current conditions, ensure that 100-year flooding and its potential impacts are maintained at or below current levels, and that people and structures are not exposed to additional flood risk.
Agency Approval
Mitigation Measure 3.9-6: Avoid restriction of flood flows. Proposed projects requiring federal approval or funding will comply with Executive Order 11988 for floodplain management. Projects will avoid incompatible floodplain development designs, they will restore and preserve the natural and beneficial floodplain values, and they will maintain consistency with the standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program. In addition, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be prepared and submitted to FEMA where unavoidable construction would occur within 100-year floodplains. The LOMR will include revised local base flood elevations for projects constructed within flood prone areas. Potential impacts due to flooding as a result of RTP projects are assumed to be alleviated through the FEMA LOMR approval process.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
Mitigation Measure 3.9-7: Avoid project dewatering. Project designs that require continual de-watering activities for the life of the projects will be avoided if possible. Due to the potential for flooding and destabilizing
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
FINAL MMRP 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 4.0-19
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
conditions, project implementation agencies will choose project designs that do not require continual dewatering, if suitable project alternatives exist. Project alternatives may include construction of overpasses, as opposed to below-grade underpasses, which would avoid interception with groundwater.
Impact 3.9.7 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Mitigation Measure 3.9-8: Design projects to pass flows in the event of levee or dam failure. If the proposed project would have the potential to impede or redirect flows from a levee or dam failure, such that there would be less than a one percent chance that flooding would extend to areas not previously mapped as inundation areas, the project applicant will redesign the project, to the maximum extent practicable, such that the site would exhibit pre-project inundation conditions. This may be achieved through incorporation of culverts or bridges into the project design. The project applicant would consult with the California and San Joaquin Offices of Emergency Services to ensure that the flooding risks of pre-project conditions would not increase.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
LAND USE PLANNING AND POPULATION
Impact 3.10-1: Physical Division of an Established Community
Mitigation Measure 3.10-1: Prior to approval of RTP projects, the implementing agency shall consult with local planning staff to ensure that the project will not physically divide the community. The consultation should include a more detailed project-level analysis of land uses adjacent to proposed improvements to identify specific impacts. The analysis should consider new road widths and specific project locations in relation to existing roads. If it is determined that a project could physically divide a community, the implementing agency shall redesign the project to avoid the impact, if feasible. The measures could include realignment of the improvements to avoid the affected community. Where avoidance is not feasible, the implementing agency shall incorporate minimization measures to reduce the impact. The measures could include: alignment modifications, right-of-way reductions, provisions for bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle facilities, and enhanced landscaping and architecture.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
NOISE
Impact 3.11-1: Exposure of Noise-Sensitive Land Uses to Short-Term Construction Noise
Mitigation Measure 3.11-1: Subsequent projects under the RTP shall be designed and implemented to reduce adverse construction noise and vibration impacts to sensitive receptors, as feasible. Measures to reduce noise and vibration effects may include, but are not limited to:
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
4.0 FINAL MMRP
4.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Limit noise-generating construction activities, excluding those that would result in a safety concern to workers or the public, to the least noise-sensitive daytime hours, which is generally 6am to 9pm.
Construction of temporary sound barriers to shield noise-sensitive land uses.
Location of noise-generating stationary equipment (e.g., power generators, compressors, etc.) at the furthest practical distance from nearby noise-sensitive land uses.
Phase demolition, earth-moving and ground-impacting operations so as not to occur in the same time period.
Use of equipment noise-reduction devices (e.g., mufflers, intake silencers, and engine shrouds) in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations.
Substituting noise/vibration-generating equipment with equipment or procedures that would generate lower levels of noise/vibration. For instance, in comparison to impact piles, drilled piles or the use of a sonic or vibratory pile driver are preferred alternatives where geological conditions would permit their use.
Other specific measures as they are deemed appropriate by the implementing agency to maintain consistency with adopted policies and regulations regarding noise.
Comply with all local noise control and noise rules, regulations, and ordinances.
Impact 3.11-2: Exposure of Noise-Sensitive Land Uses to Increases in Traffic Noise (less than significant with mitigation)
Mitigation Measures 3.11-2: Prior to approval of RTP projects, the implementing agency shall perform a project-level noise evaluation. For projects adjacent to noise-sensitive uses, implementing agencies shall consider the following measures:
Construct vegetative earth berms with mature trees and landscaping to attenuate roadway noise on adjacent residences or other sensitive use, and /or sound walls or other similar sound-attenuating buffers, as appropriate.
Properly zone, buffer, and restrict development to ensure that future development is compatible with transportation facilities.
Design projects to maximize the distance between noise-sensitive land uses and new roadway lanes, roadways, rail lines, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and other new noise generating facilities.
Improve the acoustical insulation of residential units where setbacks and sound barriers do not sufficiently reduce noise.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
FINAL MMRP 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 4.0-21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Establish speed limits and limits on hours of operation of rail and transit systems.
UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES AND
RECREATION
Impact 3.12-1: The proposed project has the potential to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Mitigation Measure 3.12-1: Project implementation agencies shall evaluate the impacts to wastewater treatment, as part of project-specific environmental review. For any identified impacts, appropriate mitigation measures shall be identified. The project implementation agencies or local jurisdiction shall be responsible for ensuring adherence to the mitigation measures.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
Impact 3.12-2: The proposed project has the potential to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment and/or collection provider which serves or may serve the project that is does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments
Mitigation Measure 3.12-2: Prior to construction of facilities that would require wastewater treatment services; the implementing agency shall secure adequate wastewater treatment capacity and undertake project-level review as necessary to provide CEQA compliance.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
Impact 3.12-3: The proposed project has the potential to require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects
Mitigation Measure 3.12-3: The implementing agencies shall be required to provide CEQA review for all projects that require additional wastewater infrastructure upgrades. Projects shall be analyzed on a case by case basis to determine if construction or expansion of wastewater treatment and collection facilities, and or infrastructure upgrades of existing and new facilities would cause significant environmental effects. Implementing agencies shall determine appropriate mitigation measures that are project specific.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
Impact 3.12-4: The proposed project has the potential to require construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects
Mitigation Measure 3.12-4: The implementing agencies shall be required to provide CEQA review for all projects that may require additional water treatment upgrades. Projects shall be analyzed on a case by case basis to determine if construction or expansion of water treatment facilities, and or infrastructure upgrades of existing and new facilities would cause significant environmental effects.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
4.0 FINAL MMRP
4.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Impact 3.12-5: The proposed project has the potential to have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources
Mitigation Measure 3.12-5: Prior to construction of facilities that would require water service for potable consumption and landscaping purposes; the implementing agency shall secure adequate water supplies to serve the proposed project and undertake project-level review as necessary to provide CEQA compliance. Wherever feasible, facilities should implement water conservation practices including but not limited to: the use of reclaimed water instead of potable water for landscaping purposes, low flow fixtures, and water efficient landscape design.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
Impact 3.12-6: The proposed project has the potential to require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects
Mitigation Measure 3.12-6: The implementing agency shall require projects to direct stormwater run-off and other surface drainage into an adequate on-site system or into a municipal system with capacity to accept the project drainage. This should be demonstrated by requiring consistency with local stormwater drainage master plans, and include a project-specific drainage analysis satisfactory to the jurisdiction’s engineer.
Implementing Agency
Prior to Design Approval
Impact 3.12-7: The proposed project has the potential to be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs and comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste
Mitigation Measure 3.12-7: Prior to construction of transportation improvements and facilities that generate solid waste or require solid waste services; the implementing agency shall ensure receiving landfills have adequate solid waste capacity to serve additional project waste volumes. Additionally the implementing agency shall:
Require the construction contractor to work with the County Recycling Coordinator to ensure that source reduction techniques and recycling measures are incorporated into project construction.
Require the amount of solid waste generated during construction to be estimated prior to construction, and appropriate disposal sites will be identified and utilized.
For individual projects that include facilities that produce ongoing waste streams (including trash receptacles) the implementing agency shall where feasible:
Require waste reduction strategies including but not limited to: convenient recycling stations (onsite recycling receptacles) at all solid waste collection (trash receptacle) locations. Waste reduction strategies shall be coordinated with the County Recycling Coordinator.
Implementing Agency
Prior to the commencement of construction
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
FINAL MMRP 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 4.0-23
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Impact 3.13-2: The Proposed Project could result in the alteration of present patterns of vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation, increased traffic delay, and increased traffic hazards during construction of future projects. (less than significant with mitigation)
Mitigation Measure 3.13-1: The implementing agencies shall to develop a traffic control plan for construction projects to reduce the effects of construction on the roadway system throughout the construction period. As part of the traffic control plan, project proponents shall coordinate with emergency service providers to ensure that emergency routes are identified and remain available during construction activities.
Implementing Agency
Prior to the commencement of construction
FINAL MMRP 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 4.0-24
This page left intentionally blank.
REPORT PREPARERS 5.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 5.0-1
PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY
Celia McAdam .................................................................................................. Executive Director
Aaron Hoyt ........................................................................................................ Associate Planner
DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP
Steve McMurtry....................................................................... Principal Planner/Project Manager
Ben Ritchie ......................................................................................................... Principal Planner
Beth Thompson .................................................................................................. Principal Planner
Josh Smith ......................................................................................................... Associate Planner
William Crenshaw .............................................................................................. Associate Planner
5.0 REPORT PREPARERS
5.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP
This page left intentionally blank.
MEMORANDUM
299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 (tel/fax) www.pctpa.net
TO: PCTPA Board of Directors DATE: February 10, 2016
FROM: Celia McAdam, Executive Director
Aaron Hoyt, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE FINAL PLACER COUNTY 2036 REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
ACTION REQUESTED
Approve Resolution No. 16-07 adopting the Placer County 2036 Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP).
BACKGROUND
The Placer County 2036 RTP is a long-range transportation funding plan that identifies future
transportation improvements, associated costs, projected revenues, and the timing for
implementation of projects through 2036. Developed to fulfill State requirements of AB 402
(Government Code Title 7, Chapter 25, Sections 65080-65082), the Placer County 2036 RTP
also serves as the mechanism by which local transportation projects demonstrate eligibility to
receive funding from various state and federal funding programs.
The projects contained in the Placer County 2036 RTP are integrated into the larger six-county
regional planning efforts led by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments' (SACOG)
through our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation
Plan (MTP) meets the federal planning requirement and the state’s requirements to develop a
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) pursuant to Senate Bill 375.
The PCTPA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has reviewed the goals, policies and
objectives, project lists, and financial forecasts during the preparation of the document. In
February 2014, the Board reviewed and approved the draft Policy Element. In September 2014,
the Board reviewed and approved the draft project list and financial forecasts.
DISCUSSION
The development of the draft Placer County 2036 RTP was initiated in parallel with the SACOG
MTP/SCS update in 2013. Close coordination during the development of each plan was critical
to ensure consistency in the identification of transportation projects, forecasted population
growth and revenue projections, and public outreach given the similar and overlapping nature of
the plans. The close coordination offered efficiencies in local jurisdiction staff meetings, early
consultation with the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria, and a joint
public outreach meeting at the Rocklin Johnson-Springview Park during a Rocklin Food Truck
event in October 2014.
PCTPA conducted a continuous and comprehensive public outreach during the preparation of the
document by engaging citizens through focus groups, statistically valid polling, and more than
PCTPA Board of Directors
ADOPTION OF THE FINAL 2036 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
February 2016
Page 2
30 presentations to business, civic, and community groups such as the Municipal Advisory
Committees, Rotatory Clubs, and Chambers of Commerce.
A public hearing on the Draft Placer County 2036 RTP was held on January 27, 2016 during the
68 day public review period. All comments have been considered for incorporation into the Final
Placer County 2036 RTP which was publically released on February 12, 2016 and was made
available on the www.pctpa.net website. The Final Placer County 2036 RTP is provided under
separate cover to this memo.
One comment letter was received from the Department of Transportation – Caltrans District 3,
but there were no comments suggesting changes to goals, policies, project lists, or financial
forecasts. The following list summarizes new or enhanced information incorporated into the
Final Placer County 2036 RTP:
Updates to reflect references to the passage of the recently adopted federal transportation
bill, Fixing Americas Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, and adoption of the California
Strategic Highway Safety Plan and the California State Wildlife Action Plan;
Enhanced discussion of State’s Road User Charge Pilot Plan;
Enhancements to socioeconomic indicators;
Enhancements to the Air Quality element to highlight the similar, but distinct topics of
Air Quality Conformity and Global Warming/Climate Change/ and Greenhouse Gases;
Enhance clarity to distinguish between the financially constrained and unconstrained
projects contained in the RTP;
Add reference to mitigation activities that are anticipated to result from the
implementation of the 2036 RTP; and
Enhanced discussion and documentation regarding consultation and coordination with
appropriate federal, state, regional and local agencies, tribal governments, various
stakeholder groups, and the public.
With TAC concurrence, staff recommends that the Board adopt the Placer County 2036 Regional
Transportation Plan by resolution following certification of the associated Final Environmental
Impact Report.
CM:AH:
PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY
IN THE MATTER OF: ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 16-07
2036 PLACER COUNTY REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The following resolution was duly passed by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency
at a regular meeting held February 24, 2016 by the following vote on roll call:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Signed and approved by me after its passage
_______________________________________
Chair
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency
_________________________________
Executive Director
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code, Title 7.91, Section 67910, PCTPA was
created as a local area planning agency to provide regional transportation planning for the area
of Placer County, exclusive of the Lake Tahoe Basin;
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 29532.1(c) identifies PCTPA as the
designated regional transportation planning agency for Placer County, exclusive of the Lake
Tahoe Basin;
WHEREAS, the 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan was developed to fulfill the
requirements of AB 402 (Government Code Title 7, Chapter 2.5, Sections 65080-65082), using
specific guidance from the California Transportation Commission Regional Transportation plan
Guidelines (revised April 2010), as well as federal planning requirements under the FAST-Act,
and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
WHEREAS, the 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan provides a clear vision of
Placer County’s transportation goals, objectives and policies, which result in the development of
a balanced, comprehensive, multi-modal transportation system over the next twenty years;
WHEREAS, the 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan documents the actions and
funding recommendations intended to meet both short- and long-range needs of Placer
County’s transportation systems within the plan’s horizon;
WHEREAS, the draft 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan was distributed for
public comments during a 68-day review period, beginning November 20, 2015 and concluding
January 27, 2016;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was noticed and held on January 27, 2016, to receive comments
on the draft 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan;
WHEREAS, the PCTPA Board of Directors, by Resolution No. 16-06 has certified the
Environmental Impact Report on the 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan (SCH
#2015062014), has adopted findings of fact, a statement of overriding considerations, and a
mitigation monitoring and reporting program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) supporting adoption of the 2036 Placer
County Regional Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, all of the comments provided have been considered and addressed in the final 2036
Placer County Regional Transportation Plan.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency
hereby adopts the 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director is authorized to submit the 2036
Placer County Regional Transportation Plan to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments
(SACOG) as the Placer County portion of the SACOG 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan.
MEMORANDUM
299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 ∙ FAX 823-4036 www.pctpa.org
TO: PCTPA Board of Directors DATE: February 2, 2016
FROM: Celia McAdam, Executive Director
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY DRAFT FY 2016/17 OVERALL WORK PROGRAM
(OWP) AND BUDGET
ACTION REQUESTED
Authorize the Executive Director to submit the attached preliminary draft FY 2016/17 Overall
Work Program (OWP) and Budget to Caltrans.
BACKGROUND
Each Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) must submit a draft OWP to Caltrans no
later than March 1 of each year.
The OWP should provide a description of the activities to be undertaken by the agency in the
coming year, along with detailed budget information. The attached draft OWP and Budget has
been developed in compliance with these requirements and has been reviewed by the Technical
Advisory Committee and Caltrans staff. The draft will undergo continued refinement, as staff
receives comments from the Board, Caltrans, and jurisdictions, and as information on grant
awards and state budget allocations becomes available. A final FY 2016/17 OWP will be
presented for Board approval at your May meeting.
DISCUSSION
Work Program
The Agency took on several major planning and implementation efforts over the past several
years that have hit major milestones impacting the FY 2016/17 work program. The Regional
Transportation Plan Update, the I-80 Auxiliary Lanes, the I-80 and SR 65 Improvement
Sequencing, and Rural Transit Study are expected to be completed in FY 2015/16, and the
Regional Transportation Funding Strategy is expected to conclude by August 2016, as shown in
the attached document.
The conclusion of these multi-year activities creates the opportunity to consolidate and
modernize several work elements to be more descriptive of the current planning and funding
landscape. The work program changes Work Element 20 from Regional Transportation Plan,
which incorporated work with SACOG on the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Strategies, to encompass overall work with SACOG on Federal and State long
range planning activities. This also allows us to consolidate Work Element 55 into Work
Element 50 to encompass all Project Planning and Reporting.
As always, the Work Program maintains our strong focus on core Agency activities, such as
Transportation Development Act (TDA) administration, State and Federal transportation
programming compliance, Freeway Service Patrol and Congestion Management Program
implementation, and management of various Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) including the
PCTPA Board of Directors
PRELIMINARY DRAFT FY 2016/17 OWP and BUDGET
February 2016
Page 2
South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) and the Western Placer Consolidated
Transit Services Agency (CTSA).
Proposed for FY 2016/17 are two major plan updates. First, the work plan proposes a
comprehensive update to the Placer County Regional Bikeway Plan, which was last updated in
2001. In addition, the Placer County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is proposed to be
updated in response to the City of Auburn’s ongoing work to update their Airport Master Plan.
Staffing
Staffing levels remain the same as in FY 2015/16 with 6.95 full time equivalent staff.
Budget
Staff is pleased to again provide the Board with a balanced budget of $3,697,276. As would be
expected with the conclusion of several grant funded projects, this budget is approximately 25%
less than the budget for FY 2015/16.
CM:ss
Attachment
MEMORANDUM
299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 (tel/fax) www.pctpa.net
TO: PCTPA Board of Directors DATE: February 3, 2016
FROM: Celia McAdam, Executive Director
SUBJECT: STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR 2016
ACTION REQUESTED
1) Adopt the State Legislative Program for 2016 as shown in Attachment 1.
2) Take a position of support for AB 1591 (Frazier).
BACKGROUND
The big issue for transportation at the State level continues to be the deep shortfalls in funding.
In his 2015 State of the State address, Governor Brown urged the Legislature to take on the
longstanding problem of road maintenance, citing the $59 billion in unfunded needs on the State
highway system. The League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties
quickly added that the State’s needs are on top of the $78 billion shortfall on the local road
system. This situation results from there being no inflationary index on a gas tax coupled with
ever increasing vehicle fuel efficiency and greater use of alternative fuel vehicles. This means
that the buying power of the gas tax is about 1/3 of what it was when it was last raised in 1994.
A Special Extraordinary Session of the Legislature was convened in the Fall of 2015 to deal with
the ever worsening condition of the State’s road system. A number of proposals were put
forward, as summarized in Attachment 2, to generate and/or redirect funds to road maintenance
but no action has been taken to date.
DISCUSSION
State Funding Issues
If anything, the State’s transportation funding problem has recently become more acute. In late
January, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) announced they would have to
remove nearly $800 million in projects programmed in the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) due to a serious decline in projected revenues. The projection is a result of the
decline in gas prices, and thereby the revenues from the price based excise tax on gasoline,
which serves as an equivalent for the sales tax on gasoline.
This does not have as serious an impact on PCTPA as other regional agencies, since we
advanced our shares of the STIP to build the SR 65 Lincoln Bypass and still owe approximately
$40 million. On the other hand, it will likely take at least another decade before we will repay
this interest-free advance.
Meanwhile, the Special Extraordinary Session on transportation is still in effect, and discussions
are ongoing.
An updated proposal has recently come from Assembly Transportation Committee Chair Jim
Frazier in AB 1591. This would generate approximately $3.4 billion annually for a new Road
PCTPA Board of Directors
STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR 2016
February 2016
Page 2
Maintenance & Rehabilitation Fund through a 22.5 cent increase to the gas tax and a $38
registration fee. The distribution would be for half the money to go to the State Highway
Operations Protection Program and the other half to cities and counties via the longstanding gas
tax formula. What is most intriguing is that 5% of the funds, or about $170 million annually,
would come off the top for counties that pass a new transportation sales tax after July 2016. This
could be a very significant source of match money for PCTPA.
Other provisions of AB 1591 could also benefit Placer priorities, including a program that would
direct 20% of Cap and Trade revenues along with a 30 cent tax on diesel fuel to the Trade
Corridors Improvement Fund for goods movement, stabilizing the STIP by restoring vehicle
weight fees and setting the price based excise tax to 18 cents, and increasing to 20% the amount
of Cap and Trade revenues directed to intercity rail.
Project Streamlining and Regulatory Reform
PCTPA prides itself on getting the job done for transportation – that is, getting those needed
improvements on the ground to benefit citizens, businesses, and visitors to Placer County. It is
important to work with the State to preserve and enhance that effectiveness by streamlining
processes and improving local control.
One way for that to occur is through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
modernization, and streamlining of the process for projects that comply with certain standards
was one of the benefits provided with SB 375. There have been various concepts of how this
modernization might occur floating around the Legislature, and these efforts should be
encouraged and refined as a way to provide certainty to development and reduce lawsuits.
Another way of streamlining project development is maximizing the local control over project
selection, approvals, and implementation.
Staff recommends the Board continue its longstanding support for expanded use of locally
controlled funding approaches, maximizing discretionary funding opportunities, and streamlining
project delivery, while opposing proposals that would inequitably increase burdens on local and
regional agencies as outlined in the State Legislative Program for 2016.
CM:ss
Attachments
Draft State Legislative Program for 2016 Policy
Support proposals in the Governor’s Budget for 2016-17 focused on Caltrans efficiencies, including:
o Streamlining project delivery, including targeted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions, federal delegations of environmental review authority, early identification of project environmental mitigations, and expanding innovative procurement methods, such as combining design and construction management in a single contract;
o Permitting Caltrans to expand use of contract staff to expedite project delivery over the next five years;
o Establishing measureable targets for improvements including regular reporting to the California Transportation Commission, Legislature, and the public; and
o Extending the sunset date for the use of public-private partnerships to 2027.
Support expanded use of creative funding mechanisms to expedite projects and minimize public costs;
Promote the use of Cap and Trade funding for pavement maintenance that improves vehicle efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases;
Support incentives and matching funds for counties to pass new transportation funding programs, such as local option transportation sales taxes;
Support the establishment of a 55% majority threshold for the passage of a local option transportation sales tax; and
As a general principle, support efforts to increase amount, flexibility, and local control for use of transportation funds while reducing the redundancies, conflicting directives, and expansion of environmental reviews by regulatory agencies.
California Association of Councils of Governments September 21, 2015
1100 K Street, Suite 101 Sacramento, CA 95814 � (916) 557-‐1170 � www.calcog.org
FIRST EXTRAORDINARY SESSION TRANSPORTATION FUNDING & REFORM PROPOSALS
FUND I N G S O U R C E S E X P E N D I T U R E S PO L I C I E S & R E F O RM S
Governor’s Proposal
Raises $3.6 Billion in New Revenue • $500 Million from CPI adjustments• $300 Million from 11 cent diesel tax increase• $ 2 Billion from $65 per year vehicle fee• $100 Million in Caltrans efficiencies• $500 Million in Cap & Trade Funding (1 time?)Plus $879 Million in One Time Loan Repayments
− $265 Million for transit and intercity rail − $334 Million for trade corridors, − $148 Million to local traffic congestion relief − $132 Million in state highway repairs.
New Road Maintenance & Rehab Account (RMRA) -‐ $1.8 Billion for State Programs • $1.6 Billion to SHOPP• $200 Million for Goods Movement (TCIF)
-‐ $1.8 Billion for Local Programs • $1.050 Billion to local streets and roads• $250 Million to State-‐Local Partnership for anycounty with a dedicated transportation fee
• $400 Million commuter rail & low carbon transit• $100 Million – Local complete street program
• Ballot initiative to protect revenues• Indexes gas and diesel tax rates to CPI• Eliminates fuel tax swap; restores pre-‐swap 18cent excise rate
• CEQA exemption for repairs in ROW• P3 extension for 10 years• CM/GC extended to 12 projects• Unspecified Caltrans efficiencies ($100 M)• Advanced mitigation ($30 M)
Legislative Proposals from
Democrats
$3.9 Billion in New Road Funding: Beall (SBX1-‐1) • $1.8 Billion -‐ 12 cents/gal increase on motor fuels• $572 Million -‐ 22 cents/gal on diesel fuels• $1.5 Billion – New $35 vehicle registration fee and another$35 fee for road access ($100 for Zero Emission Vehicles)
$1 Billion in Restored Weight Fees (ABX1-‐1); • $1 Billion in weight fees remain in State Highway Account
$700 Million Transit Funding: (SBX1-‐7 & 8) (ABX1-‐7 & 8) • $400 Million by doubling allocations from Cap & Trade forIntercity Rail and Low Carbon Transit programs
• $300 Million (estimated) from 3.5% increase on diesel fuelsales tax for State Transit Account
Active Transportation Program (SBX1-‐23) • $125 Million redirected to ATP from State Hwy. Account
Road Maintenance & Rehab. Account (SBX1-‐1) • $300 Million to Goods Movement via TCIF program(from extra 10 cents/gal on diesel fuel)
• 5% (est. $180 Million) incents new local sales taxes• Remaining $3.4 Billion split equally for SHOPP andto cities and counties for local streets and roads
• CTC oversight of fund expenditures
Weight Fee & Transit Funding: Per existing State Highway Account and Cap and Trade programs
Active Transportation Program (SBX1-‐23) • Funds redirected to current ATP;• Also includes policy reform proposal in SBX1-‐1related to STIP and SHOPP performance criteria.
SBX1-‐1 (and SB 16 from regular session) • Indexes gas and diesel tax rates to CPI• Eliminates fuel tax swap; restores base rate• Increase Caltrans efficiencies by 30% withsavings dedicated to SHOPP maintenance
Late Active Transportation Amends (SBX1-‐1) • STIP & SHOPP capital projects must address bikeand pedestrian access unless excluded
• CTC develops criteria for STIP & SHOPP toaddress GHG, social equity, public health, and effects on disadvantaged communities.
• CTC develops LSR criteria to measure PCI,bridge health, maintenance LOS, GHG, ATP benefits, and public health co-‐benefits.
Legislative Proposals from
Republicans
Senate Bills Redirect $1.3 Billion in Existing Revenues • $1.3 Billion (est.)* in Cap and Trade (proposals overlap)− Redirect all cap and trade funds derived from motor
vehicle fuels to transportation (SBX1-‐2) − Redirect 65% of cap and trade proceeds (approximate
motor fuel contribution) to CTC (SBX1-‐6) Assembly Bills Redirect $4.4 Billion in Existing Revenues • $500 Million -‐ 25% of Cap & Trade to SHOPP (ABX1-‐17)*• $1 Billion from rededicating Weight Fees (ABX1-‐18)• $200 Million from AHSC (ABX1-‐13)• $1 Billion annually from General Fund (ABX1-‐14)• $685 Million by eliminating vacant positions (ABX1-‐20)• $500 Million by redirecting capital outlay (ABX1-‐15)
Senate Bill Methodologies • $1.3 Billion* in cap in trade (proposals overlap)− Appropriated for transportation infrastructure
annually, including streets and highways, but excludes high speed rail (SBX1-‐ 2)
− For priority projects; 40%state highways, 40% local streets and roads, & 20% transit (SBX1-‐6)
Assembly Bill Methodologies • $1 Billion weight fees stay in State Hwy Account• $500 Million* -‐ 25% Cap & Trade funds to SHOPP• Remaining bills would evenly split funds:− $1.2 Billion for the SHOPP− $1.2 Billion for Local Streets and Roads
• Ballot initiative to protect revenues (SCAX1-‐1)• Eliminate sunset on P3 authority (SB1X-‐14)• CEQA: exempt ROW repairs (SBX1-‐11) andprohibit enjoining construction (ABX1-‐21)
• Increases Caltrans contracting and limit use oftemp funding for permanent positions (SB X1-‐9)
• Create Inspector General (SBX1-‐13)• Convert STIP to regional grants (ABX1-‐10)• Allow Design-‐Build (AB 1X-‐22)• Remove CTC from CalSTA (SBX1-‐12; ABX1-‐19)• Two county pilot for county operation of statehighways (AB1X-‐16)
* Cap and Trade: All calculations based on $2 billion in annual revenues ** General Disclaimer: This chart is only a summary. Some funding totals and outcomes are inferred. See referenced legislation for specific details.
Attachment
MEMORANDUM
299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 (tel/fax) www.pctpa.net
TO: PCTPA Board of Directors DATE: February 4, 2016
FROM: Celia McAdam, Executive Director
SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY OUTREACH AND
POLLING
ACTION REQUESTED None. For information and discussion only.
BACKGROUND
Staff continues to put laser focus on developing the financial resources necessary to provide the
transportation infrastructure that is fundamental to the economic vitality of Placer County.
Along with our consultants, including FSB Core Strategies and Fairbanks Maslin, we are now
nearing completion of the Strategic Funding and Outreach Work Plan. This Plan focuses on
communicating complex issues about our abilities to meet Placer’s transportation needs in a way
that the public can understand, and getting the feedback needed to move forward.
The communications efforts over the last several years have gone into overdrive in the past six
months with the discussion of developing a transportation sales tax for consideration by the
voting public in 2016 and release of the draft Expenditure Plan. The efforts were further
intensified with the recent award of a $150,000 grant for public outreach on transportation
infrastructure needs by the United Auburn Indian Communities (UAIC) (Attachment 1).
DISCUSSION
Staff and consultants will provide an update the Board on the most recent feedback on our
outreach and information efforts.
Staff, assisted by Jeff Flint of FSB Core Strategies, will provide the Board with a
summary of the most recent outreach efforts funded through the UAIC grant; and
Kurt Below of Fairbank Maslin will present the preliminary results of the polling effort
scheduled for the third week of February 2016;
Handouts will be provided at the Board meeting.
CM:ss
MIWOK United Auburn Indian CommunityMAIDU of the Auburn Rancheria
Gene WhitehouseChairman
John L. WilliamsVice Chairman
Brenda AdamsTreasurer
Calvin MomanCouncil Member
Danny ReySecretary
Februarv 3.2016
Ms. Celia McAdam,Executive DirectorPlacer County Transportation Planning Agency299 Nevada StreetAuburn, CA 95603
Dear Ms. McAdam:
On February 2,2016, the United Auburn Indian Community Tribal Council approved a grarrtl'othe Placer County Transportation Agency of $150,000 to fund community outreach projects insupport of the financing of infrastructure projects in Placer County.
This outreach is focused on improvements to the Placer County transportation infrastructure,including design, right of way, construction, maintenance and repair of transportation structuresand facilities.
The United Auburn Indian Community will
We appreciate the work of the PCTPA, and
make this grant on July I,2016.
we look forward to working with your agency.
TribalOffice 10720lndian Hill Road Auburn,CA95603 (530)883-2350 FAX(530)883-2360
MEMORANDUM
299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 (tel/fax) www.pctpa.net
TO: PCTPA Board of Directors DATE: February 4, 2016
FROM: Celia McAdam, Executive Director
SUBJECT: UPDATED DRAFT TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE
PLAN
ACTION REQUESTED Authorize staff to release the updated Draft Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan shown in
Attachment 1 for public outreach and comment.
BACKGROUND
PCTPA’s transportation planning efforts have long identified the need for significant
infrastructure investment to accommodate the growing needs of our population and economy. In
spite of our creative and aggressive efforts to generate funds and minimize costs, the gap
between our needs and our available funding is growing.
Starting with the work of the Transportation Funding Strategy Steering Committees dating as far
back as 1999 and further honed by the most recent public outreach and polling directed by the
Board, it’s become clear that a transportation sales tax is the most viable approach to bridging
the gap between our most critical transportation needs and foreseeably available funding.
A fundamental component of this effort is a detailed listing of those top transportation needs that
would be funded by a proposed transportation sales tax, known as an Expenditure Plan. Based
on those years of Board direction, technical study, jurisdiction coordination, and public input,
staff developed a preliminary draft Expenditure Plan that was released for public discussion in
August 2015.
DISCUSSION
Staff has been persistently pursuing the public’s input on the draft Expenditure Plan through a
multi-media approach, including mailers, Town Hall meetings, social media, teleforums, and
more. The response has been both significant and positive. What we have heard from the public
is that the Expenditure Plan captures their top priorities for transportation improvements, but
could use some tweaking.
At the same time, staff has consulted with economist Dr. Manuel Salazar, III of William Jessup
University to review the underlying revenue projections for the Expenditure Plan. The analysis,
as shown in Attachment 2, was that staff’s preliminary projection of $1.25 billion over 30 years,
which was simply based on existing revenues, is very low and that $1.6 billion is a more
appropriate yet conservative estimate.
The good news is that, with the higher revenue estimates, more of the high priority
improvements that came out of the public outreach can be addressed.
PCTPA Board of Directors
UPDATED DRAFT TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN
February 2016
Page 2
Key changes in the Updated Draft Expenditure Plan shown in Attachment 1 include:
Baseline Road Widening, Commuter Bus Service Expansion, and I-80 Auxiliary Lane
projects are added to the project list;
The 30% of the funds being allocated to local jurisdictions to fund local road
rehabilitation and maintenance backlogs, as well as address congestion hot spots, and
leverage funds for local transportation priorities is increased from $375 million to $480
million;
Pots of funds for bicycle and pedestrian improvements, competitive transportation
projects, and Tahoe projects are increased; and
Funding amounts for the I-80/SR 65 Interchange, SR 65 Widening, and Placer Parkway,
as well as bond financing costs, are adjusted to allow faster implementation of critical
projects.
CM:ss
Attachment
Category ProjectTotal Project
Cost
Estimated
Funding from
Other Sources
(in millions)
Shortage
Sales Tax
Contribution
(in millions)
Percentage
of Sales Tax
Revenue
Sources of Other Revenues/
Matching Funds
Annual Amount
Sales Tax
Revenues
(in millions)
TOTAL MAJOR HIGHWAY PROJECTS 1,548.0$ 832.0$ 716.0$ 716.0$ Various
I-80/SR 65 Interchange Phases 1-3 380.0$ 80.0$ 300.0$ 300.0$ State funds, developer fees
SR 65 Widening
Galleria Blvd to Lincoln Blvd
Placer Parkway 595.0$ 560.0$ 35.0$ 35.0$ Developer fees, Sutter Co fees
SR 49 Signal Synchronization 58.0$ 29.0$ 29.0$ 29.0$ State funds, developer fees
Baseline Road Widening 70.0$ 60.0$ 10.0$ 10.0$ Developer fees
I-80 Auxiliary Lanes 20.0$ 8.0$ 12.0$ 12.0$ State funds
Interchange Program
I-80/SR 174
I-80/Rocklin Road
I-80/Horseshoe Bar
SR 65/Nelson Lane
Financing for Early Construction 200.0$ -$ -$ 200.0$ None
TOTAL RAIL/TRANSIT PROJECTS 365.0$ 220.0$ 190.0$ Various
Commuter Bus Enhancements 75.0$ 30.0$ 45.0$ Cap & Trade, transit funds
Senior/Disabled Transit Enhancements 90.0$ 35.0$ 55.0$ Transit funds
Capital Corridor Rail/Bus Rapid Transit 275.0$ 185.0$ 90.0$ Cap & Trade, transit funds
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS
Environmental, design, right of way,
and construction
Various Countywide 151.2$ 76.2$ n/a 75.0$ 5% State and Federal funds n/a
TAHOE PROJECTS
Potholes, transit, trails in TahoeVarious in North Lake Tahoe 149.5$ 101.5$ n/a 48.0$ 3%
State and Federal funds, transient
occupancy taxes1.60$
TOTAL JURISDICTIONS 1,247.6$ 767.7$ 480.0$ 16.00$
City of Auburn 38.4$ 21.0$ 17.4$ 0.58$
City of Colfax 11.4$ 3.9$ 7.5$ 0.25$
City of Lincoln 128.1$ 72.4$ 55.7$ 1.86$
Town of Loomis 22.3$ 13.1$ 9.2$ 0.31$
City of Rocklin 170.6$ 109.2$ 61.4$ 2.05$
City of Roseville 286.6$ 145.5$ 141.1$ 4.70$
Placer County 590.3$ 402.7$ 187.6$ 6.25$
COMPETITIVE PROJECTS PROGRAM
Transportation improvementsVarious Countywide 100.0$ 25.0$ n/a 75.0$ 5%
State and Federal funds,
developer fees2.50$
ADMINISTRATION Administration of Sales Tax 16.0$ -$ n/a 16.0$ 1% None 0.53$
3,561$ 2,022$ 1,600$ 100%
Version 8.sept.15
State funds, developer fees
State and Federal funds
PCTPA DRAFT TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN
n/a
n/a 30%
105.0$ 70.0$ 35.0$ 35.0$
n/a
n/a
95.0$ Developer fees
45%
12%
TOTAL PROGRAM
MAJOR HIGHWAY PROJECTS
Environmental, design, right of way,
and construction
120.0$ 25.0$ 95.0$
LOCAL PROJECTS
Potholes, road maintenance, local
congestion hot spots, matching funds
for local transportation priorities
RAIL/TRANSIT
Environmental, design, right of way,
construction, and operation
LONG-RUN SALES TAX REVENUE FORECAST FOR PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Dr. Manuel Salazar III, William Jessup University, Rocklin, California
December 2015
Economic Objective
To provide an economic forecast of increased revenues resulting from a proposed ½ percent increase in the
sales tax rate for Placer County (California) to assist in the funding of future county-wide capital projects over
a thirty year period.
Economics Professor
Dr. Manuel Salazar III is an associate professor of business at William Jessup University (Rocklin, CA). His
research and teaching focuses on economics, taxation, accounting and finance. Manuel has also taught
graduate level course work in government finance and budgeting. He is a former financial executive and
planning commissioner. During the Reagan Administration he served in the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne.
Economic Assumptions (Summary)
National Economic Forecasts (Source: UCLA Anderson Forecast)
“The forecast for GDP growth is in the 2 percent to 3 percent range, and better in 2016 than the year after.
The forecast anticipates an improving labor market, a declining unemployment rate and a rising employment-
to-population ratio”.
California Economic Forecasts (Source: UCLA Anderson Forecast)
“In the California forecast report, senior economist Jerry Nickelsburg estimates total employment growth at
2.7 percent in 2015, 2.2 percent in 2016 and 1.4 percent in 2017. Real personal income growth is estimated to
be 4.6 percent in 2015 and forecast to be 4.5 percent and 4.2 percent in 2016 and 2017, respectively. At the
same time, the unemployment rate should drop below 6.0 percent through the balance of 2015.
Unemployment will fall throughout the next year and will average 5.2 percent — unchanged from the June
forecast. Nickelsburg expects the unemployment rate in 2017 to be approximately 4.8 percent, the same as
for the U.S.”
Placer County Forecasts (Source: Caltrans Economic Forecast 2014-2019)
“Annual population growth in the 2014-2019 period will average 1.4 percent per year. The vast majority of this
growth will be the result of rapid in-migration. Net migration will average 4,600 people per year, accounting
for 87 percent of total population growth”
“Job growth will accelerate in 2014, as total employment increases by 4.0 percent. Between 2014 and 2019,
growth will average 3.0 percent per year – one of the highest rates in the state”
“Real per capita income is expected to increase by 3.6 percent in 2014. During the 2014-2019 period, real per
capita income growth will average 2.5 percent per year”
Other Considerations:
Surrounding county sales tax rates are assumed to remain at the same level or just below Placer
County levels. An increase of 1% or more above the surrounding counties could have a significant
negative impact on revenues and projections. Consumers are price sensitive and will often seek choices
outside of the county when possible should sales taxes make items more expensive.
US Inflation (Consumer Price Index): According to the EIU Economic and Commodity Forecast, July
2015, CPI will average 2.23% annually over the next four years. Inflation means less buying power for
the consumer for each dollar they earn because of higher overall prices which often translates into
reduced overall sales and growth. Thus, if inflation reaches 2.5% or higher, it could have a negative
impact of revenues from sales tax.
Time Value of Money: This forecast is in “current” dollars and is not adjusted for inflation and does not
take into account the time value of money. For example, funds received in 2017 could be invested for
three years and then used for a capital project (these additional earnings have not been included in the
forecast and would increase amounts available for projects).
Methodology and Data
Forecasts were based on the following:
County Population and Growth: Used actual county population data from 2008-2013 to determine a
five year average growth rate of 1.56%. To more accurately forecast in the long-run, accounting for
potential increase/decreases in this population growth rate it is prudent to use 1.56% as the
benchmark, increase/decrease this rate by .50% and then weight based upon an estimated probability
of occurrence. Thus, 1.56% was weighted at 50% (most probable), 1.06% (least probable) and 2.06%
(probable) to determine a more accurate weighted forecast estimate.
Taxable County Sales and Growth: Used actual data for years 2008-2013 to determine a growth rate of
1.92% over a five year period in total county taxable sales.
Average Taxable Sales Per County Resident. This forecast determined the average amount of sales per
resident (total taxable sales per year/total actual county population) and used this factor in forecasting
total taxable sales per year based on annual county resident each year. The standard used was $22,877
in taxable sales per resident of Placer County, this will be constant to estimate annual taxable amounts.
Forecast
Based upon the assumptions above and using the methodology noted, a ½ percent increase (ceteris paribus) in
the Placer County sales tax rate is forecasted to generate, in current dollars over a thirty year period, an
additional $1,627,769,591 in revenue for capital projects or approximately 51.2% of the $3.179 billion
estimated total for capital projects.
Estim
ated P
robab
ility
Thirty Y
ear T
otals
Weigh
ted E
stim
ate
50% 1,612,353,800$ 806,176,900.00$
20% 1,493,816,152$ 298,763,230.40$
30% 1,742,764,869$ 522,829,460.72$
FORECAST TOTAL 1,627,769,591$
LOW 20%
MID 50%
HIGH 30%
$1,493,816,152
$1,612,353,800
$1,742,764,869
Total Additional Revenue Probabilities
Additional Revenue Per Year (.5% Sales Tax Increase)
Fore
caste
d Year
Populatio
n (2.0
6% Gro
wth)
Total T
axable
Sales
Taxable Sa
les P
er Resid
ent (000)
Sale
Tax Incr
ease %
Additional
Revenue
2017 372 8,511 22.88 0.50% 42,556,800$
2018 380 8,687 22.88 0.50% 43,433,470$
2019 387 8,866 22.88 0.50% 44,328,200$
2020 395 9,048 22.88 0.50% 45,241,360$
2021 404 9,235 22.88 0.50% 46,173,333$
2022 412 9,425 22.88 0.50% 47,124,503$
2023 420 9,619 22.88 0.50% 48,095,268$
2024 429 9,817 22.88 0.50% 49,086,030$
2025 438 10,019 22.88 0.50% 50,097,203$
2026 447 10,226 22.88 0.50% 51,129,205$
2027 456 10,436 22.88 0.50% 52,182,467$
2028 466 10,651 22.88 0.50% 53,257,425$
2029 475 10,871 22.88 0.50% 54,354,528$
2030 485 11,095 22.88 0.50% 55,474,232$
2031 495 11,323 22.88 0.50% 56,617,001$
2032 505 11,557 22.88 0.50% 57,783,311$
2033 516 11,795 22.88 0.50% 58,973,647$
2034 526 12,038 22.88 0.50% 60,188,504$
2035 537 12,286 22.88 0.50% 61,428,388$
2036 548 12,539 22.88 0.50% 62,693,812$
2037 559 12,797 22.88 0.50% 63,985,305$
2038 571 13,061 22.88 0.50% 65,303,402$
2039 583 13,330 22.88 0.50% 66,648,652$
2040 595 13,604 22.88 0.50% 68,021,615$
2041 607 13,885 22.88 0.50% 69,422,860$
2042 619 14,171 22.88 0.50% 70,852,971$
2043 632 14,463 22.88 0.50% 72,312,542$
2044 645 14,760 22.88 0.50% 73,802,180$
2045 658 15,065 22.88 0.50% 75,322,505$
2046 672 15,375 22.88 0.50% 76,874,149$
1,742,764,869$
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Do
llars
Year 1 - 30
Additional Revenues Generated Annually From a 1/2% Placer County Sales Tax Increase
Additional Revenue Per Year (.5% Sales Tax Increase)
Fore
caste
d Year
Populatio
n (1.5
6% Gro
wth)
Total T
axable
Sales
Taxable Sa
les P
er Resid
ent (000)
Sale
Tax Incr
ease %
Additional
Revenue
2017 372 8,511 22.88 0.50% 42,556,800$
2018 378 8,644 22.88 0.50% 43,220,686$
2019 384 8,779 22.88 0.50% 43,894,929$
2020 390 8,916 22.88 0.50% 44,579,690$
2021 396 9,055 22.88 0.50% 45,275,133$
2022 402 9,196 22.88 0.50% 45,981,425$
2023 408 9,340 22.88 0.50% 46,698,735$
2024 415 9,485 22.88 0.50% 47,427,235$
2025 421 9,633 22.88 0.50% 48,167,100$
2026 428 9,784 22.88 0.50% 48,918,507$
2027 434 9,936 22.88 0.50% 49,681,636$
2028 441 10,091 22.88 0.50% 50,456,669$
2029 448 10,249 22.88 0.50% 51,243,793$
2030 455 10,409 22.88 0.50% 52,043,196$
2031 462 10,571 22.88 0.50% 52,855,070$
2032 469 10,736 22.88 0.50% 53,679,609$
2033 477 10,903 22.88 0.50% 54,517,011$
2034 484 11,073 22.88 0.50% 55,367,477$
2035 492 11,246 22.88 0.50% 56,231,209$
2036 499 11,422 22.88 0.50% 57,108,416$
2037 507 11,600 22.88 0.50% 57,999,308$
2038 515 11,781 22.88 0.50% 58,904,097$
2039 523 11,965 22.88 0.50% 59,823,001$
2040 531 12,151 22.88 0.50% 60,756,239$
2041 539 12,341 22.88 0.50% 61,704,037$
2042 548 12,533 22.88 0.50% 62,666,620$
2043 556 12,729 22.88 0.50% 63,644,219$
2044 565 12,927 22.88 0.50% 64,637,069$
2045 574 13,129 22.88 0.50% 65,645,407$
2046 583 13,334 22.88 0.50% 66,669,475$
1,612,353,800$
Additional Revenue Per Year (.5% Sales Tax Increase)
Fore
caste
d Year
Populatio
n (1.0
6% Gro
wth)
Total T
axable
Sales
Taxable Sa
les P
er Resid
ent (000)
Sale
Tax Incr
ease %
Additional
Revenue
2017 372 8,511 22.88 0.50% 42,556,800$
2018 376 8,602 22.88 0.50% 43,007,902$
2019 380 8,693 22.88 0.50% 43,463,786$
2020 384 8,785 22.88 0.50% 43,924,502$
2021 388 8,878 22.88 0.50% 44,390,102$
2022 392 8,972 22.88 0.50% 44,860,637$
2023 396 9,067 22.88 0.50% 45,336,160$
2024 400 9,163 22.88 0.50% 45,816,723$
2025 405 9,260 22.88 0.50% 46,302,380$
2026 409 9,359 22.88 0.50% 46,793,185$
2027 413 9,458 22.88 0.50% 47,289,193$
2028 418 9,558 22.88 0.50% 47,790,459$
2029 422 9,659 22.88 0.50% 48,297,037$
2030 427 9,762 22.88 0.50% 48,808,986$
2031 431 9,865 22.88 0.50% 49,326,361$
2032 436 9,970 22.88 0.50% 49,849,221$
2033 440 10,076 22.88 0.50% 50,377,622$
2034 445 10,182 22.88 0.50% 50,911,625$
2035 450 10,290 22.88 0.50% 51,451,288$
2036 455 10,399 22.88 0.50% 51,996,672$
2037 459 10,510 22.88 0.50% 52,547,837$
2038 464 10,621 22.88 0.50% 53,104,844$
2039 469 10,734 22.88 0.50% 53,667,755$
2040 474 10,847 22.88 0.50% 54,236,633$
2041 479 10,962 22.88 0.50% 54,811,542$
2042 484 11,079 22.88 0.50% 55,392,544$
2043 489 11,196 22.88 0.50% 55,979,705$
2044 495 11,315 22.88 0.50% 56,573,090$
2045 500 11,435 22.88 0.50% 57,172,765$
2046 505 11,556 22.88 0.50% 57,778,796$
1,493,816,152$
Page 1
PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
AGENCY
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
February 9, 2016
ATTENDANCE: Mengil Deane, City of Auburn
Wes Heathcock, City of Colfax
Mark Johnson, City of Roseville
Ray Leftwich, City of Lincoln
Jason Shykowski, City of Roseville
Brit Snipes, Town of Loomis
Mike Wixon, City of Roseville
Kevin Yount, Caltrans
Celia McAdam, PCTPA
Aaron Hoyt, PCTPA
Luke McNeel-Caird, PCTPA
David Melko, PCTPA
Solvi Sabol, PCTPA
Preliminary Draft FY 2016/17 Overall Work Program Celia McAdam provided a copy of the preliminary draft FY 2016/17 Overall Work Program (OWP).
McAdam explained that the majority of projects within this OWP reflect the ongoing efforts in FY
2015/16. McAdam added that there are couple of new projects in FY 2016/17 including updating the
Countywide Bike Plan. The plan will reflect the added bikeways within the county and will support
efforts to compete for bikeway funding.
McAdam reported that we will also be updating the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, in large part
because the City of Auburn is updating their Master Plan and these plans need to be compatible.
McAdam added that the budget balances and the final FY 2016/17 OWP will go the Board in May.
She asked that the TAC provide any comments/changes over the next couple of months.
The TAC concurred with taking the preliminary draft FY 2016/17 to the Board for approval.
FY 2015/16 Unmet Transit Needs Analysis and Recommendations Final Report for 2016/17 Aaron Hoyt explained that the Unmet Transit is process conducted to find out if there are any
inadequacies within the existing transit system. He went over the outreach efforts and said that there
were 102 comments received, about half of which were outside of our jurisdiction and/or did not
pertain to the process. Hoyt said that we addressed 48 comments and met with the Social Service
Transportation Action Committee (SSTAC) to go over the report and recommendations. Hoyt
explained that while it was determined that there are no new unmet transit needs that are reasonable to
meet at this time, the report reflects two recommendations. These recommendations include 1)
working with the Transit Operators Working Group (TOWG) to investigate later night transit service
and 2) monitoring dial-a-ride reservations as there were comments pertaining to ride denials.
Page 2
The TAC concurred with bringing this to the PCTPA Board to adopt the Unmet Transit Needs finding
and recommendations.
FY 2016/17 Preliminary Findings of Apportionment for Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and
Preliminary State Transit Assistance (STA) Fund Allocation Aaron Hoyt handed out the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) allocation, explaining the State Transit
Assistance (STA) Allocation is still not available. He added the State Controller’s Office has said it
will be out ‘soon’.
The TAC agreed to bring the FY 2016/17 preliminary finding of apportionment for LTF to the PCTPA
Board for adoption.
2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) & Programmatic Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) – TAC Recommendation to PCTPA Board to Adopt the 2036 Placer
County RTP & to Certify the 2036 RTP EIR Aaron Hoyt said the final Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is going to the Board for adoption with
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) going to them for certification. Hoyt said that this RTP
reflects the project lists that each of the jurisdictions provided. He explained that the RTP is made part
of SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation and that these projects are eligible for state and federal
funding, and met greenhouse gas and air quality criteria. Hoyt said that we received one comment
letter from Caltrans during the public comment period on the RTP and that no comments were received
on the EIR.
The TAC agreed to bring the RTP to the Board for adoption and the EIR for certification.
State Legislative Program for 2016 Celia McAdam provided a draft copy of the State Legislative Program for 2016. She explained many
of the policies pertain to efficiencies in Caltrans and project delivery, along with greater flexibility in
funding and contracting.. McAdam added that the policies include supporting counties that pass a
transportation sales tax and supporting the 55% majority threshold for passing a transportation sales
tax.
The TAC concurred with bringing the 2016 State Legislative Program to the PCTPA Board for
approval.
Transportation Funding Strategy Update: Outreach Program, Polling, and Next Steps Celia McAdam reported that we received confirmation for a $150,000 grant from United Auburn
Indian Community Tribal Council, which is going toward intensive outreach efforts. McAdam said
that this week we are conducting a series of teleforums in different areas throughout the county.
People are able to participate in these teleforums by phone and are able to ask questions and provide
feedback.
a) Updated Expenditure Plan: Celia McAdam provided the updated version of the draft
transportation Expenditure Plan. McAdam explained that this version reflects the public input
we’ve received since the plan was released and has been adjusted based on economic
forecasting which was recently conducted. This forecast shows our revenues as $1.6 billion.
McAdam went over the adjustments for projects based on this increased revenue prediction and
noted that Baseline Road, commuter bus, and the I-80 Auxiliary lanes have been added to the
Page 3
plan. McAdam reported that the jurisdiction share increased $105 million to $480 million, and
also emphasized that we would try and front load major projects like the I-80/SR 65
Interchange, taking advantage of the financing opportunities to get these improvements on the
ground.
Celia McAdam noted that we will also be going over this draft expenditure plan at a City/Town
Managers/County Exec/Public Works Directors breakfast on March 21. Lastly, McAdam explained
that depending on polling, we will be asking the Board in April for authorization to start the process to
put the transportation sales tax on the ballot in November 2016.
The TAC agreed to bring this to Board for approval to release the updated draft Expenditure Plan to
the public.
Other Issues/Upcoming Deadlines a) Active Transportation Program (ATP) Call for Projects: Aaron Hoyt said the draft
guidelines for the 3rd round of ATP projects are circulating through the state. There is talk of
reducing the number of points for disadvantaged communities, which may help with scoring in
Placer County applications. The CTC will adopt these guidelines in March with applications
tentatively due in June. Hoyt asked that the jurisdictions start thinking about bike and
pedestrian projects that would be competitive noting that in past years, projects that were
utilitarian, with a focus on greenhouse gas reduction and public health, seemed to score better
over recreational projects.
b) PTMISEA Semiannual Reports Due – February 18: David Melko said the PTMISEA
reports are due February 15.
c) Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment: Luke McNeel-Caird said the Needs Assessment
is done every two years, and last time there was $80 billion in need for road maintenance
statewide. McNeel-Caird added this report was helpful in the transportation funding strategy
and the importance of ensuring our needs here in Placer County are identified and kept current.
The needs assessment is by March 18, and McNeel-Caird will follow up with an email to the
jurisdictions.
Adjourn Meeting adjourned at 3:47 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 (tel/fax)
www.pctpa.net
TO: PCTPA Board of Directors DATE: February 9, 2016
FROM: Luke McNeel-Caird, Senior Planner/Engineer
Scott Aaron, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT
1. Quarterly Status Report on State and Federal Funded Projects
The attached Quarterly Status Report summarizes currently programmed projects in
Placer County that are regionally significant and/or funded with state and federal funds.
The report provides project descriptions, project costs, and key schedule information.
2. TDM Report
PCTPA’s annual Bucks for Bikes incentive program kicked off on February 3, 2016.
This program, administered by PCTPA in partnership with the City of Roseville, is
intended to promote bicycling as a viable alternative to driving alone thereby reducing
traffic congestion and improving air quality in the region. The program offers subsidies
of up to 50 percent or $200 (whichever is less) toward the purchase of a bicycle for those
who are willing and committed to commute to work or school by bike. Eligible
applicants must be 18 years of age or older and be employed and/or attend school in
Placer County. Successful applicants are required to attend a free cycling clinic.
Additionally, all bicycles must be purchased within Placer County. This program also
serves to increase awareness of May is Bike Month as successful applicants are required
to register and log their cycling miles throughout the month. More information and an
online application are available at pctpa.net.
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
Caltrans D3 CAL18828 I‐80 Vertical Clearance Improvements
Placer County, I‐80, in and near Loomis at various locations
from Brace Road to Magra Road ‐ Improve vertical
clearance (PM 8.1/37.8) [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐0757; EFIS ID
0300000473] (Toll Credits)
SHOPP Bridge AC $36,045,000 2016 2013 2013 2014
Caltrans D3 CAL20389 SR 193 Curve Improvement
Near Lincoln, SR 193, from 0.1 mile west to 0.9 mile east of
Clark Tunnel Road ‐ Curve improvements and widening
(PM 4.4/5.4) [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐0798] (Toll Credits)
SHOPP Collision AC $18,562,000 2018 2015 2015 2015
Caltrans D3 CAL20424 I‐80 3‐Mile Truck Climbing Lane
Near Colfax on I‐80, from the Long Ravine UP to east of
Magra Road OC ‐ Construct eastbound truck climbing lane
and related improvements (PM 35.1/38.0) (Toll Credits for
PE, ROW, CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
IM, SHOPP Mobility
AC$52,657,337 2019 2010 2015 2016
Caltrans D3 CAL20486Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips
(Safety) at Various Locations
In Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento,
Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties at various locations ‐ Install
shoulder and centerline rumble strips [CTIPS ID 102‐0000‐
0174]
SHOPP Collision AC $3,470,000 2015 2014 2014 2014
Caltrans D3 CAL20494 SR 267 Pavement Rehab
In Placer County, on SR 267 near Truckee, from Nevada
County line to Brockway Summit ‐ Pavement overlay (PM
0.0/6.8) [Toll Credits]
SHOPP Roadway
Pres AC$5,101,000 2015 2014 2014 2014
Caltrans D3 CAL20497 Alpine Meadows Road Traffic Signal
Placer County, about 9.3 miles south of Truckee at Alpine
Meadows Road ‐ Construct signalized intersection at SR 89
[FCO Only] (Pla‐89‐12.1/12.5) [SHOPP Minor A 201.310]
(Toll Credits for CON)
CT Minor SHOPP AC $974,000 2016 2014
Caltrans D3 CAL20511 Gold Run SRRA Water System Upgrades
On I‐80 in Placer County, near Gold Run, at the Gold Run
Safety Roadside Rest Area ‐ Replace water distribution
system (PM 41.4/42.2) [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐0960] [Total
Project Cost $2,700,000 in 16/17 FY] (Toll credits for PE,
ROW, CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
SHOPP Collision AC $3,296,000 2019 2016 2017 2017
Caltrans D3 CAL20516Upgrade Pedestrian Facilities @ Various
Locations
In Yuba, Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado and Butte counties
on Various Routes at Various Locations ‐ Upgrade
pedestrian facilities [EFIS ID 0312000071; CTIPS ID 107‐
0000‐0974] [Total Project Cost $3,482,000 in 17/18 FY]
(Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)
SHOPP ‐ Mandates
AC$3,482,000 2019 2016 2018 2018
Caltrans D3 CAL20518 CCTV Cameras at Various Locations
In various counties, on various routes at various locations
in the SACOG region: Upgrade closed caption televisions
(CCTV) [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐0966] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW,
CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
SHOPP Mobility AC $4,784,000 2017 2016 2016 2016
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 1 of 18
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
Caltrans D3 CAL20519 Upgrade Traffic Monitoring Stations
In various counties, on various routes at various locations
in the SACOG region: Upgrade Traffic Monitoring Stations
(TMS) [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐0967] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW,
CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
SHOPP Mobility AC $7,162,000 2017 2016 2016 2016
Caltrans D3 CAL20521 I‐80 Culvert Rehabilitation
In and near Colfax on I‐80, from 0.3 mile south of Weimar
overhead to 0.3 mile south of Illinoistown overcrossing ‐
Rehabilitate culvert (PM 28.5/31.5) [EFIS ID 0300020597;
CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐0959] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON).
Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
SHOPP Roadway
Pres AC$2,115,000 2019 2016 2018 2018
Caltrans D3 CAL20531 SR 65 Pavement Rehab
On SR 65, in and near Roseville, from I‐80 to Twelve Bridges
Drive ‐ Pavement rehabilitation (PM 4.8/12.5) [CTIPS ID 107‐
0000‐0991] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON). Toll Credits
for ENG, ROW, CON
SHOPP Roadway
Pres AC$10,668,000 2016 2015 2015 2016
Caltrans D3 CAL20538 Crispin Cider STAA Access
I‐80 at Canyon Way IC, Illinoistown OC and driveway
entrance to Crispin Cider warehouse ‐ Widen ramp
pavement at three locations, modify overcrossing and
install signage to accommodate Surface Transportation
Assistance Act (STAA) (PM 31.1/31.9) [SHOPP Minor A
program 201.310] (Toll credits for CON)
CT Minor SHOPP AC $2,020,000 2016 2015
Caltrans D3 CAL20541 SR 49 HMA Overlay
In Auburn, SR 49, from 0.1 mile south of Routes 49/80
separation to 0.1 mile north of Dry Creek Road ‐
Rehabilitate Pavement (PM 3.1/7.5) [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐
0992] [EFIS ID 0300020616] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, and
CON)
SHOPP Roadway
Pres AC$29,400,000 2020 2018 2018 2018
Caltrans D3 CAL20547 RWIS Upgrades ‐ Various Counties
In Sacramento, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer and Yolo
Counties, on Routes 5, 28, 50, 51, 80, 89, 99 and 267, at
various locations: Repair and upgrade roadway information
systems (RWIS) also known as ITS, Intelligent
Transportation Systems. [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐1000] (Toll
credits for PE, ROW, CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
SHOPP Mobility AC $2,810,000 2017 2016 2016 2016
Caltrans D3 CAL20548HAR Upgrades ‐ Various Counties and
Routes
In Sacramento, Butte, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer and Yolo
Counties, on Routes 5, 50, 70, 80, 89, 99 and 267, at
various locations ‐ Upgrade Highway Advisory Radios (HAR)
[CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐1001] (Toll credits for PE, ROW, CON)
SHOPP Mobility AC $3,130,000 2017 2016 2016 2016
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 2 of 18
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
Caltrans D3 CAL20550 Upgrade CMS Panels ‐ Various Counties
In Sacramento, Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Nevada,
Placer, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba Counties, on Routes 5,
50, and 80, at various locations ‐ Upgrade Changeable
Message Sign (CMS) panels [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐1003] (Toll
credits for PE, ROW, CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
SHOPP Mobility AC $8,420,000 2017 2016 2016 2016
Caltrans D3 CAL20674I‐80 Gold Run Safety Roadside Rest Area
Rehab
Near Colfax, I‐80, at the eastbound off‐ramp to the Gold
Run Safety Roadside Rest Area (PM 41.8) ‐ Replace/repair
and line culvert, and repair ramp [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐1009]
(Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW,
CON
SHOPP ‐ Emergency
Response (SHOPP
AC)
$430,000 2015 2015 2015 2015
Caltrans D3 CAL20680 SR 89 Maintenance Asphalt Overlay
In Placer County, on SR 89, from Jct with SR 28 north to
0.14 mile south of Squaw Valley Road ‐ Maintenance
asphalt overlay (PM 8.5/13.6) [HM1 ‐ Pavement
Preservation Fed‐Funded)] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON).
Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
HM STP $2,410,000 2017 2016 2016 2016
Caltrans HQ CAL20562FTA 5310 ‐ Pride Industries Replacement
Buses
Replace three existing buses that provide transportation to
persons with developmental and other disabilities in Placer
and Sacramento counties. Transportation Development
Credits/Toll Credits are being used as match, and as
allowable under FTA Section 5310 federal funds will fund
100% of this project.. Toll Credits for CON
FTA 5310 $229,500 2018 2015
Caltrans HQ CAL20563FTA 5310 ‐ City of Roseville Mobility
Management Program
Transit Ambassador and Mobility Training programs. Assist
new transit and paratransit/demand response
transportation riders that are seniors and persons with
disabilities in Placer County, as well as the South Placer
County "One Stop" Call Center that distributes transit and
paratransit/demand response transportation information
and handles reservations/transfers for paratransit/demand
response transportation users in Placer County.
Transportation Development Credits/Toll Credits are being
used as match, and as allowable under FTA Section 5310
federal funds will fund 100% of this project.. Toll Credits
for CON
FTA 5310 $234,000 2018 2015
Caltrans HQ CAL20564FTA 5310 ‐ City of Roseville Transit
Vehicle Navigation Units
Purchase 25 global positioning system (GPS) navigation
units to assist demand response drivers serving seniors and
people with disabilities. Transportation Development
Credits/Toll Credits are being used as match, and as
allowable under FTA Section 5310 federal funds will fund
100% of this project.
FTA 5310 $6,900 2018 2015
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 3 of 18
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
Caltrans HQ CAL20565FTA 5310 ‐ City of Roseville South Placer
Call Center Equipment
Purchase training equipment (a laptop and LCD projector)
for Call Center employees and Transit Ambassadors to use,
as well as replacement digital recording system and TDD
equipment for the South Placer Call Center. Transportation
Development Credits/Toll Credits are being used as match,
and as allowable under FTA Section 5310 federal funds will
fund 100% of this project.. Toll Credits for CON
FTA 5310 $28,100 2018 2015
Capitol Corridor JPA CAL18320 Roseville Third Track
On the UP mainline, from Elvas Tower in Sacramento
County to Roseville Station in Placer County: Construct
third track. Project involves: extension of freight lead track;
construction of track and signal improvements;
construction of satellite maintenance facility and other
associated improvements; and possible relocation of the
Roseville rail station to address conflicting train
movements that affect capacity. Project improvements will
permit service capacity increases for Capitol Corridor in
Placer County, with up to ten round trips to Roseville.
IIP ‐ Public
Transportation
Account, Local, Prop
1A High Speed Rail,
RIP PTA, STIP RIP AC
$250,800,000 2021 2001 2016
City of Auburn PLA25353Auburn Multi Modal Station ‐ Rail
Platform Extension
At the existing Auburn Multi Modal Station: Obtain right‐of‐
way and install rail platform extension . (Emission Benefits
in kg/day: 0.93 ROG, 1.18 NOx, 0.43 PM10)
CMAQ, Local $1,416,480 2017 2011 2017 2017
City of Auburn PLA25471Nevada Street Pedestrian & Bicycle
Facilities
Class 2 bike lane and adjacent sidewalks along Nevada St
from Placer St to Fulweiler Ave to allow for continuous
pedestrian and bicycle access from Old Town Auburn to the
Auburn Station and EV Cain Middle School. (Emission
reductions in kg/day: ROG 0.01, NOx 0.01.)
ATP (Fed), CMAQ,
Local, Prop 1B
PTMISEA
$2,265,355 2016 2013 2016
City of Auburn PLA25547City of Auburn Non‐Urbanized Transit
Operations
For the ongoing operation of transit within the non‐
urbanized area of Auburn and a portion of non‐urbanized
Placer County.
FTA 5311, Local $2,418,854 2018 2013
City of Auburn PLA25569 Auburn Transit Bus Replacement Replace one bus. FTA 5311, Local $408,469 2016 2015
City of Colfax PLA25439Grass Valley Street Railroad Crossing
Pedestrian and Bike Improvements
Construct of pedestrian improvements across UP railroad
tracks to improve pedestrian safety, road rehabilitation,
and bike lane/route along Grass Valley St west of South
Auburn St.
Local, Prop 1B
PTMISEA, RSTP, RSTP
Exchange
$537,100 2015 2014 2015
City of Colfax PLA25577 North Main Street Bike Route
Along N. Main Street, from the Depot Transit Center to
Highway 174: Construct class III bike route and associated
improvements. Improvements include tree trimming, road
repairs, non‐capacity road widening, re‐striping, drain inlet
upgrade, bike rack, and barrier curb. (Requesting state‐only
ATP.)
ATP (Fed), Local $299,333 2016 2015 2016
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 4 of 18
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
City of Lincoln PLA25464 Lincoln Blvd. Streetscape ‐ Phase 1
In Lincoln: Between 7th Street and McBean Park Drive;
construct various pedestrian, bicycle, NEV, and ITS
improvements along Lincoln Boulevard (old Highway 65 / G
Street). Improvements will consist of gap sidewalk
construction, pedestrian improvements to railroad
crossings, pedestrian crossings along Lincoln Boulevard,
bicycle and NEV lanes, connection to the existing trail along
Auburn Ravine east of Highway 65, roadway narrowing
through the construction of landscape medians and
frontage improvements where appropriate, and traffic
signal interconnection and coordination along the corridor.
(Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.58, NOx 0.41, PM10
0.08)
CMAQ, Local $3,278,812 2015 2010 2014 2014
City of Lincoln PLA25509Nelson Ln/Markham Ravine Bridge
Replacement
Nelson Ln, over Markham Ravine, 0.25 mi south of Nicolaus
Rd. Replace existing functionally obsolete 2 lane bridge
with a new 4 lane bridge.
HBP, Local $8,212,828 2015 2011 2014
City of Lincoln PLA25515 East Ave. Sidewalks (SRTS)
East side East Ave. between SR 93 (McBean Park Dr.) and
12th St.; Construct sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb ramps.
SRTS3‐03‐005
SRTS $519,600 2016 2012
City of Lincoln PLA25531 Lincoln Blvd. Signal Upgrade and Lighting
Lincoln Blvd. (SR 65) between Sterling Pkwy. and 7th St.:
Upgrade traffic signals; install safety lighting and bike lanes.
(HSIP5‐03‐006)
HSIP, Local $1,080,000 2017 2013
City of Lincoln PLA25540 McBean Park Bridge RehabilitationMcBean Park Dr. over Auburn Ravine, east of East Ave.:
Rehabilitate existing 2 lane bridge. No added lane capacity. HBP, Local $8,083,000 2020 2013 2017 2020
City of Lincoln PLA25553Twelve Bridges Drive & Joiner Parkway
rehabilitation
In Lincoln, street rehabilitation of (1) Twelve Bridges Drive
from Industrial Avenue east to Sierra College Boulevard
and (2) Joiner Parkway from the southern city limits to First
Street. (Toll Credits for CON)
RSTP, RSTP Exchange $1,332,655 2016 2014 2016
City of Lincoln PLA25554 Lincoln Blvd. Streetscape ‐ Phase 2
Lincoln Blvd, First Street to McBean Park Drive: Provide a
more pedestrian, bicycle and Neighborhood Electric
Vehicle (NEV) friendly environment along the main street
through the city. Pedestrian improvements include wider
sidewalks, bulb‐outs at intersections and crosswalks.
Bicycle and NEV improvements include Class 2 lanes on
each side of the street. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG
0.16, NOx 0.11, PM10 0.06) (Toll Credits for PE and CON).
Toll Credits for ENG, CON
CMAQ $1,019,639 2017 2013 2016
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 5 of 18
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
City of Lincoln PLA25645Lincoln Boulevard Streetscape
Improvements Project Phase 3
Lincoln Boulevard for a half mile and sections of First
Street, Third Street, Fifth Street, Sixth Street and Seventh
Street: construct streetscape improvements, including
improved sidewalks and 0.3 miles of NEV/Bike Lanes.
(Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.08 ROG, 0.05 NOx, 0.02
PM2.5, 0.02 PM10) (Toll credits for PE & CON). Toll Credits
for ENG, CON
CMAQ $1,469,458 2018 2017 2018
City of Lincoln PLA25646 Street Resurfacing
On 1st Street between Lincoln Boulevard and R Street:
Rehabilitate and resurface roadway. Various drainage,
ADA, and striping improvements will also be constructed as
part of the project. (Toll credits for CON). Toll Credits for
CON
RSTP $1,671,954 2017 2017 2018
City of Rocklin PLA19400Rocklin Rd. Rehabilitation (Aguilar St. to
Meyers St.)
In Rocklin, Rocklin Road, from Meyers st to Aguilar St.:
rehab. pavement. Local, RSTP $1,075,000 2018 2016 2016
City of Rocklin PLA25025 Whitney Ranch ParkwayIn Rocklin, Whitney Ranch Parkway: construct four‐lane
facility from SR 65 to east of Wildcat Boulevard. Local $1,730,000 2016 2012 2014
City of Rocklin PLA25268 University Avenue Phase 1
University Avenue: Construct new four lane roadway from
the intersection of Whitney Ranch Parkway north to the
extension of West Ranch View Drive. One or more phases
of this project may require federal permitting.
Local $2,500,000 2017 2013 2017
City of Rocklin PLA25345 Rocklin Road/I‐80 InterchangeIn Rocklin: from Rocklin Rd. onto both WB and EB I‐80;
construct roundabouts at ramp EB/WB ramp terminus. Local $26,150,000 2018 2011 2015 2018
City of Rocklin PLA25521Whitney Ranch Parkway Interchange
Phase 1A
At SR 65 and Whitney Ranch Parkway: Construct Phase 1A
of the Whitney Ranch Interchange by constructing NB on‐
and off‐ramps, overcrossing structure, and southbound
loop on‐ramp.
Local $3,800,000 2016 2012 2014
City of Rocklin PLA25551 Sunset Blvd ReconstructionSunset Blvd from Fairway Drive to Stanford Ranch Road:
Reconstuct. (Toll credits for CON.) Local, RSTP $863,676 2016 2015
City of Rocklin PLA25552Pacific Street‐Bikeway/Neighborhood
Electric Vehicle Expansion Project
In Rocklin: Pacific Street between Delmar Ave/Dominguez
Road and Rocklin/Loomis City limits; Construct Class 1 and
2 bicycle facilities, dual left turn median lane, right turn
lane, curb ramps, portland cement concrete pavement
rehabilitation, hot mixed asphalt and base, installation of
metal beam guard railing, traffic signal modifications, new
striping and signage, landscaping, fencing, and related
improvements.
CMAQ, Local, RSTP $1,996,098 2016 2014 2016
City of Rocklin PLA25566 Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program
Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program, various locations
in City of Rocklin. See Caltrans Local Assistance HBP web
site for backup list of bridges.
HBP, Local $623,520 2015 2014 2015
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 6 of 18
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
City of Rocklin PLA25635 Pacific St at Rocklin Road Roundabout
At Rocklin Rd/Pacific St., replace existing traffic signal
intersection with a two lane roundabout : (Toll Credits for
PE, ROW, CON).(Emission Benefits kg/day: ROG 0.26; NOx
0.21; PM2.5 0.01).
CMAQ $2,707,607 2018 2016 2017 2017
City of Roseville PLA15100 Baseline Road
In Roseville, Baseline Road from Fiddyment Road to Sierra
Vista Western edge west of Watt Avenue: widen from 2 to
6 lanes.
Local $7,852,055 2018 2013 2015 2016
City of Roseville PLA15660 Baseline Rd. WideningIn Roseville, Baseline Rd., from Brady Lane to Fiddyment
Road: widen from 3 to 4 lanes. Local $6,106,889 2020 2017 2018 2019
City of Roseville PLA15850 Roseville Road WideningWiden Roseville Rd. from 2 to 4 lanes Between Cirby Way
and southern city limit. Local $2,500,000 2020 2018 2018 2019
City of Roseville PLA19910 Dry Creek Greenway Trail
In Roseville, along Dry Creek, Cirby Creek and Linda Creek,
construct class 1 bike trail. (Emission Benefits in kg/day:
0.09 ROG, 0.07 NOx, 0.03 PM2.5)
CMAQ, Local $3,268,629 2019 2011 2016 2019
City of Roseville PLA25214 Roseville Transit ITS Project
To purchase and install electronic fareboxes, software,
probes, software, automatic vehicle location devices,
mobile data computers, video security cameras and
software, and digital readerboard equipment for transfer
points. [Project replaces PCT10430 and PCT10420]
FTA 5307 *, Local $1,100,000 2016 2008
City of Roseville PLA25323 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point
Improve Sierra Gardens Transfer Point. Improvements may
include new bus turnouts, shelters, restrooms, landscaping,
lighting, crosswalks, sidewalks, and other pedestrian
improvements such as bulb‐outs. (Emission benefits in
kg/day: 63 ROG, 63 Nox, 25 PM10.)
FTA 5307 *, Local $1,012,151 2016 2007 2016
City of Roseville PLA25377 Market St.City of Roseville, Market St., from approx. 800 feet north of
Baseline Road to Pleasant Grove: Extend 2 lanes. Local $8,500,000 2017 2013 2015 2016
City of Roseville PLA25378 Santucci Blvd. ExtensionCity of Roseville, Santucci Blvd. (North Watt Ave.): Extend
four lanes from Vista Grande Blvd.to Blue Oaks Boulevard. Local $6,500,000 2020 2017 2018 2019
City of Roseville PLA25386I‐80 To Royer Park Bikeway Phase 2 ‐
Segment 3
Roseville, Harding Blvd @ Dry Creek, I‐80 to Royer Park:
Construct class 1 bikeway in 2 phases. Phase 1 from I‐80 to
Harding Blvd completed in 2004 (PLA20870). Phase 2
construction is separated into 3 segments: Segment 3 is
located from Folsom Road to Lincoln Street/Royer Park.
(Emission benefits in kg/day: 0.25 ROG, 0.2 NOx 0.09
PM10)
Local $870,909 2016 2018 2011 2018
City of Roseville PLA25416 South Placer Call Center
Operating cost contribution towards ADA complementary
paratransit services provided for the South Placer Call
Center.
FTA 5307 *, Local $187,500 2015 2010
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 7 of 18
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
City of Roseville PLA25465 Downtown Pedestrian Bridge
In Roseville, improve access to Civic Center transit transfer
facility by constructing transit/bicycle/pedestrian related
improvements, including pedestrian bridge and Class I trail
improvements. (Emission benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.55,
NOx 0.34, PM2.5 0.11)
CMAQ, Local $3,217,000 2018 2011 2018
City of Roseville PLA25469Oak Street Extension of Miners Ravine
Trail
In Roseville, Miners Ravine Trail, from Lincoln Street to
Royer Park along the Dry Creek corridor: Extend class 1
trail, including relocation and safety upgrades to existing
Ice House Bridge. From transit stop at Downtown Roseville
Library to existing class 1 trail in Royer Park: provide bicycle
and pedestrian improvements including replacement of
Taylor Street Bridge. (Emission benefits in kg/day: ROG
0.13, NOx 0.09, PM10 0.04) (FTA 5307 to be used on Taylor
Street bridge and bike/ped improvements leading to transit
stop at library.)
ATP (Fed), Bicycle
Transportation
Account, CMAQ, FTA
5307 *, Local, State
Cash
$4,370,732 2016 2011 2016
City of Roseville PLA25498
Roseville Transit Preventive
Maintenance and ADA Operations 2011‐
2016
Maintenance of transit fleet and operating ADA transit
services.2013 Preventive Maintenance = $0; 2013 ADA
Operations = $260,000;2014 Operating Assistance =
$1,322,938; 2014 ADA Operations = $20,6952015
Preventive Maintenance = $333,780;2015 Operating
Assistance = $459,9162016 Preventive Maintenance =
$333,7780;2016 Operating Assistance = $459,916
FTA 5307 *, FTA
5307 ‐ E.S., Local$7,210,859 2016 2011
City of Roseville PLA25500Pedestrian Facilities Improvement
Project
In Roseville, reconstruct ADA pedestrian ramps along
various arterial and collector roadways to current ADA
standards. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.10 ROG, 0.06
NOx, 0.02 PM2.5) (Toll Credits for CON)
CMAQ $904,676 2016 2015
City of Roseville PLA25501Washington Blvd/Andora Undercrossing
Improvement Project
In Roseville, widen Washington Blvd from 2 to 4 lanes,
including widening the Andora Underpass under the UPRR
tracks, between Sawtell Rd and just south of Pleasant
Grove Blvd. and construct bicycle and pedestrian
improvements adjacent to roadway. (CMAQ funds are for
bicycle and pedestrian improvements only. Emission
Benefits in kg/day: 0.9 ROG, 0.51 NOx, 0.16 PM10)
Local $16,091,643 2018 2016
City of Roseville PLA25507Industrial Ave/Pleasant Grove Creek
Bridge Replacement
Industrial Ave, over Pleasant Grove Creek, 0.7 mi S Placer
Blvd. Replace the existing 2 lane functionally obsolete
bridge with a new 2 lane bridge.
HBP, Local $4,960,000 2015 2011 2015
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 8 of 18
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
City of Roseville PLA25508Oak Ridge Dr/Linda Creek Bridge
Replacement
Oak Ridge Dr, over Linda Creek, 0.2 mi N of Cirby Way.
Replace the existing functionally obsolete 2 lane bridge
with a new 2 lane bridge. 11/8/2010: (Toll Credits
programmed for PE, ROW, and & CON.). Toll Credits for
ENG, ROW, CON
HBP $3,250,000 2019 2011 2018 2019
City of Roseville PLA25516 SRTS Toolkit ExpansionMultiple Schools in the Roseville City School District:
Expand Safe Routes to School (SRTS) toolkit. SRTS3‐03‐006 SRTS $295,000 2017 2014
City of Roseville PLA25527 Pleasant Grove Blvd. ExtensionIn Roseville, extend 4 lanes of Pleasant Grove from 1500
feet west of Market St to Santucci Blvd (Watt Ave). Local $5,300,000 2016 2014
City of Roseville PLA25528 Blue Oaks Blvd Extension ‐ Phase 1
In Roseville, Extend 2 lanes of Blue Oaks Blvd from Hayden
Parkway to Westside Dr., Including south half of a 6‐lane
bridge over Kaseberg Creek.
Local $6,000,000 2018 2016 2016 2017
City of Roseville PLA25534 Roseville Rd. RealignmentRoseville Rd. from Cirby Way to the city limits: Realign
roadway. (HSIP5‐03‐017) HSIP, Local $3,539,500 2017 2015
City of Roseville PLA25538 Vista Grande ArterialIn Roseville, from Fiddyment Rd west to Westbrook Blvd,
construct new 4‐lane arterial. Local $2,500,000 2015 2015
City of Roseville PLA25539 Blue Oaks Blvd. Extension Phase 2In Roseville, Blue Oaks Blvd., from Westbrook Dr. to
Santucci Blvd. (formerly Watt Ave.), extend 2 lanes. Local $6,350,000 2019 2016 2017 2018
City of Roseville PLA25545Roseville CMS Installation Project ‐
Pleasant Grove Blvd.
In Roseville, install Changeable Message Sign (CMS) on
SW/B Pleasant Grove Blvd. approaching Roseville Pkwy. to
reduce traffic congestion by improving traffic information
dissemination per the ITS Master Plan. (Qualitative
emission benefits on file.)
CMAQ, Local $200,000 2015 2016
City of Roseville PLA25570 Santucci Boulevard South
In Roseville, Santucci Boulevard South (Watt Ave.) from
Baseline Road north to Vista Grande Boulevard: Construct
4‐lane road.
Local $1,000,000 2017 2017
City of Roseville PLA25571 Market Street SouthIn Roseville, Market Street South, from Baseline Road to
approx. 800 feet north: construct 2‐lane road. Local $500,000 2015 2015
City of Roseville PLA25572Roseville Bridge Preventive Maintenance
Program
Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program (BPMP) for
various bridges in the City of Roseville. See Caltrans Local
Assistance HBP website for backup list of projects.
HBP, Local $817,000 2018 2014 2018
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 9 of 18
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
City of Roseville PLA255782015 RSTP Arterial Microsurfacing
Project
In Roseville, resurface the following arterial roadways ‐
Pleasant Grove Blvd from Hartley Wy to Fiddyment Rd &
from Michner Dr to Foothills Blvd; Fiddyment Rd from
Pleasant Grove Blvd to Blue Oaks Blvd; Foothills Blvd from
Pleasant Grove Blvd to Junction Blvd & from Baseline Rd to
Atkinson St; Galilee Rd from Industrial Ave to Pleasant
Grove Blvd; Vineyard Rd from Brady Ln to Atkinson St;
Denio Loop from Foothills Blvd to Atkinson St; E Roseville
Parkway from Douglas Blvd to Sierra College Blvd; Atlantic
St from Wills Rd to I‐80 WB On Ramp; Eureka Rd from
Sunrise Ave to Douglas Blvd; Sunrise Ave from Smith Ln to
Kensington Dr; N. Sunrise Ave from Frances Dr to Lead Hill
Blvd; Sierra Gardens Dr from Santa Clara Dr to Douglas
Blvd; Santa Clara Dr from Sierra gardens Dr to Douglas
Blvd; and Douglas Blvd from N. Sunrise Ave to Sierra
Gardens, Junction Blvd from Woodcreek oaks Blvd to
Baseline Rd, Vernon St from Cirby Wy to City Limits and
Melody Ln from Cirby Wy to Cresthaven Dr. (Toll credits
for CON.)
RSTP $6,374,233 2018 2018
City of Roseville PLA25581 2017 Pedestrian Facilities Improvement
In Roseville, upgrade ADA pedestrian ramps along various
arterial and collector roadways for safety and to meet
current ADA standards. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.10
ROG; 0.06 NOx; 0.02 PM2.5)
CMAQ, Local $815,925 2018 2016
City of Roseville PLA25582 Washington Boulevard Improvement
In Roseville, along Washington Boulevard from Kaseburg
Drive to Pleasant Grove Boulevard, construct new concrete
sidewalks, Class I & Class II bike facilities. Proposed
facilities cross under the Union Pacific tracks (aka "Andora
Underpass"). (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.24 ROG; 0.16
NOx; 0.05 PM2.5).
CMAQ, Local $1,242,517 2019 2017
City of Roseville PLA25647Atlantic Eureka I‐80 W/B On‐ramp
Widening (PE only)
In Roseville, widen the Atlantic Street/Eureka Road/I‐80
W/B On‐ramp, including bridge widening over Miners
Ravine, from 1‐lane to 2‐lanes plus an HOV bypass lane. (PE
Only)
Local $600,000 2018 2016
City of Roseville REG17928Louis/Orlando Transfer Point
Improvements
In Roseville, on Louis Blvd at Orlando Ave.: Develop and
construct an improved transfer point and intermodal
facility with a 35‐space park and ride facility. (Includes
previously programmed PLA16080.)
FTA 5307 *, FTA
5307 ‐ Discr., FTA
5339 ‐ Discr., Local,
RIP PTA
$4,738,000 2016 2011 2011 2014
PCTPA PLA25413Planning, Programming, Monitoring
2011‐2015
PCTPA plan, program, monitor (PPM) for RTPA related
activities. RIP State Cash $1,455,000 2019 2011
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 10 of 18
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
PCTPA PLA25440I‐80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements
Phase 1A
In Placer County: Between I‐80 and Galleria Blvd./Stanford
Ranch Rd.; Reconfigure I‐80/SR 65 interchange to widen
northbound SR 65 from 2 to 3 lanes, including widening
Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road northbound off‐
ramp and on‐ramp, and southbound on‐ramp (PA&ED,
PS&E, ROW, and CON to be matched with Toll Credits)
SHOPP funding (EA 03‐0H260) for auxiliary lane on
northbound SR 65 between I‐80 and Galleria
Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road.
DEMO HPP, Local,
NCI, SHOPP Collision
AC
$37,109,873 2022 2010 2016 2017
PCTPA PLA25468Placer County Congestion Management
Program
Provide educational and outreach efforts regarding
alternative transportation modes to employers, residents,
and the school community through the Placer County
Congestion Management Program (CMP). CMP activities
will be coordinated with the City of Roseville and SACOG's
Regional Rideshare / TDM Program. (Emission Benefits
kg/day: ROG 11.44; NOx 11.59; PM2.5 5.54)
CMAQ, Local $1,548,812 2020 2011
PCTPA PLA25519I‐80 Eastbound Auxiliary Lane: SR 65 to
Rocklin Rd.
In Rocklin: Between SR 65 (PM 4.5) and Rocklin Rd. (PM
5.9); Construct eastbound I‐80 auxiliary lane, including two‐
lane off‐ramp, concrete barrier/retaining walls, and
shoulder improvements. (Toll credits for PE, ROW, and
CON)
DEMO HPP, Local $4,990,000 2019 2014 2016 2019
PCTPA PLA25529SR 65 Capacity & Operational
Improvements Phase 1
SR 65, from Galleria Blvd. to Lincoln Blvd., make capacity
and operational improvements. Phase 1: From Galleria
Blvd. to Pleasant Grove Blvd., construct auxiliary lanes on
northbound and southbound SR 65, including widening
Galleria Blvd. southbound off‐ramp. (Toll credits for
PA&ED)(Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 15.80; NOx
15.88; PM10 11.66)
CMAQ, Local $16,520,000 2020 2013 2018 2018
PCTPA PLA25542I‐80 Westbound Auxiliary Lane ‐ Douglas
Blvd. to Riverside Ave.
In Roseville: Between Douglas Blvd.(PM 2.0) and Riverside
Ave. (PM 0.2); Construct westbound I‐80 auxiliary lane and
shoulder improvements. (Toll credits for PE, ROW, and
CON)
Local, NCI $5,910,000 2019 2014 2016 2019
PCTPA PLA25543 Placer County Freeway Service Patrol
In Placer County: provide motorist assistance and towing of
disabled vehicles during am and pm commute periods on I‐
80 (Riverside Ave to SR 49) and SR 65 (I‐80 to Twelve
Bridges Dr). (Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 1.13; NOx
0.45; PM 2.5 0.07)
CMAQ, State Cash $1,556,177 2020 2014
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 11 of 18
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
PCTPA PLA25576 I‐80 Westbound 5th Lane
In Roseville: Between east of Douglas Blvd. off‐ramp to
west of Riverside Ave.; Extend I‐80 westbound auxiliary
lane (PLA25542) to the east and west to create continuous
5th lane on westbound I‐80. The Douglas Boulevard
off‐ramp would be reduced from a 2‐lane
off‐ramp to a 1‐lane off‐ramp.
Local, NCI $3,700,000 2020 2018 2019
PCTPA PLA25643 2019 PCTPA TCMFunding for PCTPA share of Transportation Control
Measures in 2019. Toll Credits for CON CMAQ $235,358 2020 2019
PCTPA PLA25648I‐80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements
Phase 1B
In Placer County: Between Galleria Boulevard/Stanford
Ranch Road and Pleasant Grove Boulevard; Reconfigure I‐
80/SR 65 interchange to widen northbound SR 65 from 2 to
3 lanes, and widen I‐80 westbound to SR 65 northbound
ramp from 1 to 2 lanes.
Local $17,500,000 2022 2021
PCTPA PLA25649I‐80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements
Phase 1C
In Placer County: Between I‐80 and Pleasant Grove
Boulevard; Reconfigure I‐80/SR 65 interchange to widen
southbound SR 65 from 2 to 3 lanes.
Local $11,500,000 2022 2021
Placer County PLA15080 Auburn‐Folsom Rd Widening
From Placer / Sacramento County line to Douglas Blvd, :
Widen to 4 lanes. Install signal at Auburn‐Folsom Blvd and
Fuller Dr.
Local, Other Fed ‐
ARRA‐RSTP, Prop 1B
SLPP
$28,300,000 2015 2001 2006 2007
Placer County PLA15105Baseline Road Widening Phase 1 (West
Portion)
Baseline Rd. from Watt Avenue to future 16th street:
Widen from 2 to 4 lanes. Local $19,200,000 2018 2012 2013 2014
Placer County PLA15420 Walerga RoadWalerga Rd: Widen and realign from 2 to 4 lanes from
Baseline Rd. to Placer / Sacramento County line. Local $13,781,700 2019 1998 1999 2014
Placer County PLA18490 PFE Rd. WideningPFE Rd, from Watt Ave. to Walerga Rd: Widen from 2 to 4
lanes and realign. Local $13,085,000 2018 2012 2013 2017
Placer County PLA25044 Sunset Blvd. Widening
Widen Sunset Boulevard from State Route 65 to Cincinnati
Avenue from 2 to 4 lanes. Project includes widening
Industrial Blvd / UPRR overcrossing from 2 to 4 lanes.
Local $8,675,000 2020 2014 2014 2014
Placer County PLA25170 Sunset Blvd Phase 2Sunset Blvd, from Foothills Boulevard to Fiddyment Rd:
Construct a 2‐lane road extension [PLA15410 is Phase 1.] Local $6,365,000 2018 2006 2006 2016
Placer County PLA25299 Placer Parkway Phase 1
In Placer County: Between SR 65 and Foothills Boulevard;
Construct phase 1 of Placer Parkway, including upgrading
the SR 65/Whitney Ranch Parkway interchange to include a
southbound slip off‐ramp, southbound loop on‐ramp,
northbound loop on‐ramp, six‐lane bridge over SR 65, and
four‐lane roadway extension from SR 65 (Whitney Ranch
Parkway) to Foothills Boulevard.
Local, RSTP $70,000,000 2020 2013 2016 2018
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 12 of 18
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
Placer County PLA25447 Bowman Rd Bridge
Bowman Rd, over UP Railroad, BNSF RR and AMTRAK, 0.1
miles south of 19C‐62: Rehabilitate the existing bridge
without adding additional lanes.
HBP, Local $2,650,002 2017 2010 2019
Placer County PLA25449Dowd Rd Bridge Replacement at Coon
Creek
Dowd Rd over Coon Creek, 0.4 miles north of Wise Rd.:
Replace existing 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge.
(Toll Credits programmed for ROW & CON). Toll Credits for
ROW, CON
HBP, Local $6,275,000 2020 2008 2018 2021
Placer County PLA25453Dowd Rd at Yankee Slough Bridge
Replacement
Dowd Rd. over Yankee Slough, just south of Dalby Rd.:
Replace existing structurally deficient 1 lane bridge with
new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits for CON). Toll Credits for
CON
HBP, Local $4,812,511 2015 2012 2012 2014
Placer County PLA25458 Bridge Preventive Maintenance
In various location ins Placer County, perform preventive
maintenance on bridges. See Caltrans Local Assistance HBP
website for locations.
HBP, Local $1,356,000 2020 2015 2021
Placer County PLA25463Baseline Road Widening Phase 2 (West
Portion)
Baseline Road from Sutter County Line to Future 16th
Street. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes. Local $29,000,000 2025 2014 2016 2019
Placer County PLA25472 Auburn Folsom Rd Class II Bike Lane
On Auburn‐Folsom Rd between Douglas Blvd and Joe
Rodgers Rd, construct a Class II Bike lane on both sides of
the road, including signing and striping; construct sidewalk
on both sides of Auburn‐Folsom Rd from Wilcox Place
north to Joe Rodgers. (Emission benefits in kg/day: ROG
0.06, NOx 0.04, PM10 0.03) [Toll Credits for CON]. Toll
Credits for CON
CMAQ, Local, RSTP $1,227,674 2016 2012 2013 2015
Placer County PLA25474Dowd Rd Bridge Replacement at
Markham Ravine
Dowd Rd, over Markham Ravine, 0.5 miles south Nicolaus
Rd: Replace existing 2 lane structurally deficient bridge
with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll credits for CON.). Toll
Credits for CON
HBP, Local $5,200,000 2019 2008 2011 2018
Placer County PLA25475 Haines Rd Bridge Replacement
Haines Rd, over Wise Canal, 0.45 miles North of Bell Rd:
Replace the existing functionally obsolete 2 lane bridge
with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, & CON)
HBP $5,180,000 2020 2011 2021 2021
Placer County PLA25477Alpine Meadows Rd Bridge
Rehabilitation
Alpine Meadows Rd over Truckee River, 0.1 miles west of
SH 89: Replace the existing structurally deficient 2 lane
bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits programmed
for ROW & CON)
HBP, Local $22,625,063 2015 2015 2014 2008
Placer County PLA25505Yankee Jim's Rd Bridge at North Fork
American River
Bridge No. 19C0002, Yankee Jim's Rd over North Fork
American River, 1.5MI W of Shirttail Cyn Rd, Replace
structurally deficient 1 lane bridge with a new 2 lane
bridge. (Toll credits programmed for PE, ROW & CON.).
Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
HBP $14,999,400 2020 2011 2018 2021
Placer County PLA25506Walerga Rd/Dry Creek Bridge
Replacement
Walerga Rd, over Dry Creek, 1.1 mi S Base Line Rd. Replace
the existing 2 lane bridge with a 4 lane bridge. HBP, Local $23,025,007 2020 2011 2016 2021
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 13 of 18
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
Placer County PLA25512 King Rd. Safety Lane Widening
King Rd. between Auburn Folsom Rd. and Sudor Ln.: Widen
travel lanes; construct drainage improvements. HSIP4‐03‐
007 [Toll Credits for CON]. Toll Credits for CON
HSIP, RSTP $1,200,000 2016 2011
Placer County PLA25513 Wise Rd Bridge Replacement
Wise Rd, over Doty Creek, 0.5 miles east of Garden Bar:
Replace existing 1‐lane functionally obsolete bridge with a
new 2‐lane bridge.
HBP, Local $4,759,200 2020 2012 2015 2021
Placer County PLA25518 Brewer Rd. Bridge Replacement
Brewer Rd., over Pleasant Grove Creek, 4.2 miles north of
Baseline Rd.: Replace 2‐lane bridge with a new 2‐lane
bridge. (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, & CON.). Toll Credits for
ENG, ROW, CON
HBP $4,807,500 2020 2012 2015 2019
Placer County PLA25532 Pavement MarkingsVarious locations throughout Placer County: Install
pavement markings (HSIP5‐03‐011, HSIP5‐03‐012) HSIP, Local $1,251,500 2015 2013
Placer County PLA25533 Auburn Folsom Rd. Safety Improvements
Auburn Folsom Rd. from approximately 60' N of Willow Ln.
to Robin Hood Ln. and Joe Rodgers Rd from 450' W of
Auburn Folsom Rd to Auburn Folsom Road: Construct
sidewalks, curb ramps, curb and gutter; install mid‐block
crosswalks; traffic feedback sign; pedestrian warning
beacon; guardrail replacements; improve pavement
friction. (Toll credits for CON) (HSIP5‐03‐013). Toll Credits
for CON
HSIP, Local, RSTP $1,278,227 2016 2016
Placer County PLA25535 Watt Ave. Bridge Replacement
Watt Ave./Center Joint Ave., over Dry Creek, 0.4 mi north
of P.F.E. Rd.: Replace existing 2 lane bridge with a 4 lane
bridge.
HBP, Local $19,892,750 2019 2013 2018 2021
Placer County PLA25536 Crosby Harold Rd. Bridge
Crosby Harold Rd. Over Doty Creek, 0.9 mi N of Wise Rd.:
Replace an existing 1 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge.
(Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW,
CON
HBP $3,550,000 2020 2013 2018 2021
Placer County PLA25541 Gold Hill Rd. Bridge Replacement
Gold Hill Rd. over Auburn Ravine, 0.65 mi north of SR 193:
Replace existing 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge.
(Toll credits for PE, ROW, CON)
HBP $5,018,250 2020 2013 2018 2021
Placer County PLA25549 Martis Valley Trail
Complete a 10' wide paved Class I multipurpose trail
connecting Northstar Village roundabout to the southerly
border of Army Corps property. (Emission Benefits in
kg/day: ROG 0.01; NOx 0.01)
CMAQ, Local $4,700,000 2019 2016 2017 2018
Placer County PLA25559Bridge Approach and Non‐HBP
Partipating Costs
In Placer County, bridge approach and non‐HBP
participating costs at Alpine Meadows @ Truckee River and
Dowd Road @ Yankee Slough. (Toll Credits for CON). Toll
Credits for CON
RSTP $410,773 2017 2017
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 14 of 18
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
Placer County PLA25562HMA Overlay, Various County Roads
(Yr2)
In Placer County, hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlay on various
County roads: (1) Douglas Boulevard from Barton to
Auburn‐Folsom, (2) Dry Creek Road from Joeger to HWY 49,
(3) Richardson Drive from Atwood Rd to Bell Rd, (4) Nevada
Street from 150' east of Nevada Way to Auburn City Limits,
(5) Edgewood Road from SR49 to Edgewood Place (Toll
Credits for CON). Toll Credits for CON
RSTP $2,809,435 2016 2016
Placer County PLA25563HMA Overlay, Various County Roads
(Yr3)
In Placer County, hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlay on various
County roads: (1) Sierra College Boulevard from Olympus
Rd to Eureka Rd, (2) Old State Highway from Taylor Rd to
HWY 193, (3) Fruitvale Road from Fowler Rd to Gold Hill Rd,
(4) West Wise Road from HWY 65 to Lincoln‐Sheridan Blvd
(Toll Credits for CON)
RSTP $2,299,047 2017 2017
Placer County PLA25564Pedestrian Improvements along Hwy 49,
Education Street, and Town Court
Along Hwy 49 on the westside from Bell Rd to Education St.
South side of Education St. west to connect to existing
sidewalk and improve ADA ramps & crosswalks along Town
Court (Emissions Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.07, NOx 0.04,
PM10 0.02) (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)
CMAQ $925,000 2017 2014 2015 2015
Placer County PLA25565 Cook Riolo Road Pathway
Pedestrian Pathway along Cook Riolo Rd from existing
sidewalk at Creekview Ranch Middle School North
(Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.02, NOx 0.01) [Toll
Credits for PE, ROW, CON]. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW,
CON
CMAQ, Local, RSTP $2,190,157 2017 2014 2016 2018
Placer County PLA25567 Safety Surface TreatmentAt 18 various locations throughout Placer County: install
high friction surface treatment. (HSIP6‐03‐010) HSIP, Local $1,537,600 2014 2014
Placer County PLA25568 Signage Upgrades
Various corridors throughout Placer County: Conduct a
Roadway Safety Signing Audit and upgrade signs. (HSIP6‐03‐
011) (Toll Credits for CON). Toll Credits for CON
HSIP, Local $2,228,914 2017 2014
Placer County PLA25583 CNG Bus
Replace one CNG bus with one new cleaner CNG Bus for
Placer County Transit. (Emissions Benefits in kg/day: NOx
0.75.)
CMAQ, Prop 1B
PTMISEA$530,000 2017 2017
Placer County PLA25584 Truckee River Trail
Along SR89, from Squaw Valley Road to the USFS Silver
Creek Campground: construct 1.4 miles of multi‐use trail .
(Emission Benefits in kg/day; ROG 0.01; NOx 0.01)
CMAQ, Local $4,500,000 2020 2019
Placer County PLA25650 Safety Improvements
At 19 intersections throughout southwest Placer County:
Installation of lighting, upgraded pavement markings, and
flashing beacon improvements. HSIP7‐03‐009 (Toll Credits
for CON)
HSIP $777,400 2017 2017
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 15 of 18
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
Placer County Transit PCT10488 Purchase 2 Replacement BusesPurchase of two (2) 35' CNG replacement buses for Placer
County Transit. (Emission Benefits: 0.5 kg/day NOx)
CMAQ, CMAQ XFER,
Prop 1B PTMISEA$1,000,000 2016 2012
Placer County Transit PCT10491Placer County Non‐Urbanized Transit
Operations
Operating assistance for rural transit services within Placer
County. Outside the Sacramento Urbanized Area.FFY 2015:
$303,000FFY 2016: $291,197
FTA 5311, Local $7,204,917 2016 2010
Placer County Transit PCT10493
Preventive Maintenance, ADA
Operations, and Operating Assistance
2009‐2016
Operating assistance, preventive maintenance, and ADA
operations for transit services for urban transit services
within El Dorado County as well as commuter service to /
from Sacramento. Sacramento Urbanized Area.FFY 2009
preventive maintenance: $324,890FFY 2009 ADA
operations: $281,700FFY 2010 preventive maintenance:
$300,000FFY 2010 ADA operations: $200,000FFY 2011
preventive maintenance: $324,890FFY 2011 ADA
operations: $206,700FFY 2012 preventive maintenance:
$32,890FFY 2012 ADA operations: $217,000FFY 2012 Fuel:
$84,429FFY 2013 Operating assistance: $539,341FFY 2014
Operating assistance: $563,744FFY 2014 preventive
maintenance: $56,696FFY 2015 preventive maintenance:
$207,695FFY 2015 Operating assistance: $485,000FFY 2016
preventive maintenance: $341,000FFY 2016 ADA
operations: $217,000
FTA 5307 *, FTA
5307 ‐ E.S., Local$10,316,520 2016 2009
Placer County Transit PCT10494 CNG Station Upgrade Phase 2
Dewitt Center in Auburn: Increase of CNG compressor
capacity at Placer County CNG fueling station in Auburn.
(Emissions Benefits in kg/day: 3.46 NOx, 0.12 PM10.)
*Local Funds are Air District Funds*
CMAQ, Local $576,809 2016 2012 2012
Placer County Transit PCT10501 Placer County CNG Replacement Buses
Replace four CNG powered buses currently in use by Placer
County Transit. The new CNG buses will be used on
regional transit routes connecting Rocklin, Lincoln, Loomis,
Auburn and Placer County to Roseville and the Watt/I‐80
Light Rail Station. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 3.16 NOx)
CMAQ, Prop 1B
PTMISEA$2,059,528 2016 2012
Placer County Transit PCT10503 PCT Bus Replacements ‐ 2015
Replace two CNG powered buses currently in use by Placer
County Transit. The new CNG buses will be used on
regional transit routes connecting Rocklin, Lincoln, Loomis,
Auburn and Placer County to Roseville and the Watt/I‐80
Light Rail Station. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 1.49 NOx)
CMAQ, Prop 1B
PTMISEA$1,082,000 2016 2014
Placer County Transit PCT10504 T.A.R.T Bus Purchase Replace one 35‐foot bus for Tahoe Area Reginal Transit. FTA 5311, Prop 1B
PTMISEA$525,000 2016 2014
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 16 of 18
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
Placer County Transit PCT10507 T.A.R.T. Bus Purchase Replace one 35‐foot bus for Tahoe Area Regional Transit. FTA 5311, Prop 1B
PTMISEA$525,000 2017 2015
Placer County Transit PLA25550Lincoln Transit (Subrecipient) Operating
Assistance
Lincoln Transit (Subrecipient)‐ Operating assistance and
preventive maintenance for transit services within the City
of Lincoln. Sacramento Urbanized Area.FFY 2015 operating
assistance: $120,000FFY 2015 preventive maintenance:
$50,894
FTA 5307 *, FTA
5307 ‐ E.S., Local$1,691,970 2016 2013
Pride Industries/CTSA VAR56123Pride Industries One, Inc. 5310
Replacement Bus and Cameras
FTA 5310 funds will be used to purchase one (1) Medium
Bus that accommodates up to 14 passengers (incl. 2
wheelchair positions) & a driver and thirty‐eight (38)
cameras for Pride Industries. (Uses Toll Credits for local
match).
FTA 5310 $105,989 2015 2014
SACOG VAR56096 Roseville Transit Mobility Management
The proposed mobility management services would
enhance the ability of passengers to successfully ride
transit in multiple areas (Placer County, Loomis,
Rocklin,Lincoln, Auburn and Roseville). The goal of the
program would include providing travel training from
transit staff, trip planning training, and practice trips with
staff.
FTA 5317, Local $47,500 2016 2011
SACOG VAR56109Roseville Transit JARC Operating
Assistance
Use FY 2011 & 2012 Urbanized Area JARC funds to operate
two fixed route buses to extend routes A & B from 6:30 to
9:30 PM M‐F, and 1 DAR bus to extend service from 7:00 to
9:30 PM.
FTA 5316, Local $371,680 2015 2013
SACOG VAR56116WPCTSA ‐ New Freedom Operating
Assistance
Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services
Agency: Operating assistance for "Health Express," a low‐to‐
no cost, scheduled, door‐to‐door, shared ride service for
Placer County residents needing transportation to non‐
emergency medical appointments.
FTA 5317, Local, STA $600,000 2015 2013
Town of Loomis PLA25530Taylor Road Overlay Maintenance
ProjectTaylor Road: Asphalt overlay. Local $460,000 2016 2015 2016
Town of Loomis PLA25548Town Center Implementation Plan
Improvements Phase 2
Taylor Road, Horseshoe Bar Road to just south of Oak St.:
Construct new ADA‐compliant sidewalk, replace
non‐compliant sidewalk, new curb and gutter, 5'
bike lanes, irrigation and new trees, new St. lighting, four
in‐Rd. warning lights at the crosswalks, and
pedestrian‐friendly features at intersections. (Emissions in
kg/day: 0.06 ROG, 0.04 NOx, 0.02 PM10)
ATP (Fed), CMAQ,
Local$1,910,444 2016 2015 2016
Town of Loomis PLA25579 2017 CIP Road Maintenance Project
Asphalt overlay and reconstruction repair of various streets
in the Loomis Downtown Core Area covered under the
Capital Improvement Program Schedule for 2017.
Local, RSTP $500,000 2017 2017
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 17 of 18
Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County
February 2016
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
Town of Loomis PLA25644Town Center Implementation Plan
Improvements Phase 3
In Loomis: Taylor Road from Circle Drive to Oak Street:
construct streetscape improvements. (Emission Benefits in
kg/day: 0.03 ROG, 0.02 NOx, 0.01 PM2.5, 0.01 PM10)
CMAQ, Local $860,000 2017 2018
USFS Tahoe National Forest PLA25556 Sugar Pine OHV Staging Area
Outside of Foresthill, Sugar Pine Off Highway Vehicle (OHV)
Staging Area: Renovation of an existing staging area,
including parking, accessible restrooms, and picnic
facilities. (RM‐13‐016)
Local, RTP $325,950 2016 2013
Western Placer CTSA PLA25510 Western Placer CTSA Operations
The Western Placer CTSA operates non‐emergency medical
transportation demand‐response paratransit service;
volunteer door‐to‐door transportation; & voucher program
within western Placer County.
Local $4,900,000 2019 2011
Western Placer CTSA PLA25511New Freedom (Rural) Operating
Assistance
Operating Assistance for the rural portion of the "Health
Express." This service is being provided as a new
transportation alternative to traditional public transit fixed
route and dial‐a‐ride services. The service is a low‐to‐no‐
cost scheduled door‐to‐door transportation service to non‐
emergency medical appointments for rural Placer County
residents. Service operates Monday through Friday, 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Thursdays, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in
Sacramento.
FTA 5310, FTA 5317,
Local$416,176 2016 2011
Total All Projects: $1,491,963,102
P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 18 of 18
MEMORANDUM TO: Celia McAdam FROM: AIM Consulting DATE: February 8, 2016 RE: January 2016 Monthly Report
The following is a summary of communications and public information work performed by AIM Consulting (AIM) on behalf of Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) in the month of January. AIM assisted with media relations and public information. AIM maintained and drafted content for PCTPA social media and the blog page to share current information about PCTPA projects and activities. AIM also began working on an informational graphic to summarize and highlight PCTPA’s key achievements in 2015. Following is a capsule summary of activities:
Funding Strategy AIM continued to work with PCTPA and the consultant team on the Regional Transportation Funding Initiative. AIM has continued to support PCTPA’s efforts in discussing a future sales tax measure with community leaders and organizations,
PCTPA.net AIM continued to update the blog with current news articles about PCTPA and additional information including the Executive Director’s speaking engagements, public transportation workshops, PCTPA programs, and news releases. The blog page will continue to be updated with current information about projects, programs, and events. AIM continued posting Social Media updates on the PCTPA’s Facebook and Twitter pages as well as the Executive Director’s Facebook page to highlight the work the Executive Director does for PCTPA, including photos from speaking engagements and events. Key promotions included:
South Placer Bus Pass Subsidy
PCTPA January 2016 Monthly Report Page 2 of 2
Bucks for Bikes Subsidy Program
Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road/SR 65 Northbound Ramps Stakeholder Meeting
I-80 Auxiliary Lanes Project
I-80 Auxiliary Lanes Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study Document Availability and Comment Period
Celia’s Speaking Engagements
Caltrans Traffic Alert for Raise 80 Overnight Alternating Lane Closures
Media Relations AIM continued to monitor industry and local news in an effort to identify outreach opportunities as well as support the Agency’s efforts to address local transportation and transit issues.
Special Events AIM coordinated with PCTPA and other transportation agencies to plan a meeting in February regarding the CCJPA Third Track project.
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 351-6855
Fax: (202) 351-6855
www.federaladvocates.com
January 29, 2016
To: Celia McAdam
From: Sante and Michael Esposito
Subject: January Monthly Report
Federal Legislative Program for 2016
Policy
Advocate for the appropriation of funding for intercity passenger rail as authorized in the
FAST Act;
Seek relief from Federal regulations on projects to improve the highway system that do
not have Federal funding support;
Balance road maintenance and accessibility needs by supporting greater flexibility in the
definition of structural and non-structural improvements in triggering Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements.
Projects/Appropriations
Actively and strategically pursue Federal funding opportunities in the Nationally
Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program, Transportation Investment
Generating Recovery (TIGER), and other grant programs for the following priority
projects:
o I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements
o Placer Parkway
o Roseville – Sacramento Third Track Rail Project
Investigate the potential use of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act (TIFIA) loan program to jump-start construction of priority projects, including the
Placer Parkway;
Explore opportunities for Federal grants to fund various transportation priorities,
including transit and bikeways;
Support member jurisdiction efforts to obtain Federal funding and/or approvals for local
transportation priorities.
FAST Act and FY16 Consolidated Appropriations Act: Funding Opportunities
In December the President signed into law both the FAST Act, “Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation Act.,” the five-year Federal highway, transit, motor carrier and rail program, and
the FY16 Consolidated Appropriations Act that funds all twelve appropriations bills for FY16.
These laws provide various funding opportunities for infrastructure, as follows:
Federal Opportunities
Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program. This program will provide an
average of $900 million per year in grants of at least $25 million for highway, bridge, rail-grade
crossing, intermodal and freight rail projects costing more than $100 million that improve
movement of both freight and people, increase competitiveness, reduce bottlenecks, and improve
intermodal connectivity. The Secretary will award projects competitively based on criteria listed
in the bill. At least 25 percent of the funds must be spent in rural areas and the federal share of
project costs will be 60 percent. While the program allows HTF resources to be diverted to
freight rail projects, it will impose a $500 million limitation on the total amount that can be
awarded over the next five years to freight and intermodal projects. It also reserves 10 percent of
the annual grant awards for projects that do not meet the program’s cost threshold. The Secretary
of Transportation must report all grant awards to Congress, which will have 60 days to reject a
project by joint resolution.
TIFIA. The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program provides
federal credit assistance in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit
to finance surface transportation projects of national and regional significance. TIFIA credit
assistance provides access to capital markets, flexible repayment terms, and potentially more
favorable interest rates than can be found in private capital markets for similar instruments.
TIFIA can help advance qualified, large-scale projects that otherwise might be delayed or
deferred because of size, complexity, or uncertainty over the timing of revenues. Many surface
transportation projects - highway, transit, railroad, intermodal freight, and port access - are
eligible for assistance. Each dollar of federal funds can provide up to $10 in TIFIA credit
assistance - and leverage $30 in transportation infrastructure investment. MAP-21 provided $1.7
billion in new TIFIA loan authority. The FAST ACT provides additional funding of $275 million
in FY16; $275 million in FY17; $285 million in FY18; $300 million in FY19; and, $300 million
in FY20.
TIGER Discretionary Grants. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has awarded
grants under seven annual TIGER programs for surface transportation projects that will have a
significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area or a region. This program was first created
in the 2009 Recovery Act, since which time USDOT has referred to these grants as
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery or "TIGER Discretionary Grants."
Beginning with the Recovery Act and continuing through the FY15 appropriations processes,
Congress has provided DOT with seven rounds of competitive grants totaling just over $4.7
billion for capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure. Since 2009, the TIGER
program has awarded 342 projects in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico,
including 117 projects to support rural and tribal communities. For FY16, $500 million is
provided in the FY16 Omnibus Appropriations Act for an eighth round of grants in 2016.
On-going Federal Grant Announcements: Given the enactment of the FY16 Omnibus
Appropriations Act and with this year being an election year, the expectation is that there will be
a significant number of grant announcements. These are being monitored on a weekly basis with
notice to PCTPA if a grant of interest is announced.
State Opportunities
National Highway Performance Program (NHPP). The NHPP is the most significant highway
program, focusing on maintaining and improving the Interstate Highway System and other major
highways designated as part of the National Highway System. The program receives 63.7
percent of formula funds remaining after funding is provided for the Congestion Mitigation &
Air Quality (CMAQ) Program, metropolitan planning and national freight programs. The new
law will add two permissible uses for NHPP funds: to pay subsidy and administrative costs for
TIFIA projects and for improvements to bridges that are not on the National Highway System.
Surface Transportation Block Grant. The FAST Act expands the existing Surface
Transportation Program (STP) into a “Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP)”
based on the thought that most of the benefits of STP funds accrue locally and that decisions
about how such funds are obligated should be determined by state and local governments, which
can best respond to unique local circumstances and implement the most efficient solutions. The
bill rewrites and simplifies the list of uses eligible for program funds and increases the ways that
STP funds can be used for local roads and rural minor collectors. The new program still requires
that a fraction of program funds be distributed within each state on the basis of population, and
the fraction subject to this requirement grows from 50 percent in 2015 under the existing STP
program to 55 percent in FY 2020 and thereafter. Furthermore, $835 million to $850 million of
the annual funding for this program is set aside for the transportation alternatives program, which
supports a variety of pedestrian, bicycling, and environmental activities. This maintains the same
funding for enhancements as in MAP-21. It also requires states to invest the same amount each
year in recreational trails as in 2009, although states are able to opt out of the Recreational Trails
Program. The STBGP block grant program receives the same 29.3 percent of formula funds as
did the STP program under MAP-21.
Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) Program. This long-standing program focuses
on reducing highway traffic congestion and improving air quality with a particular focus on
states and areas that do not meet current air quality standards. The FAST Act makes only a few
changes to the CMAQ program: CMAQ funds can be used not only for attainment of ambient air
quality standards, but also to maintain standards in an attainment area; the diesel retrofit program
is expanded to include port-related off-road equipment and vehicles; and low-population-density
states are exempt from PM 2.5 attainment requirements if the non-attainment area has no
projects that are part of a transportation plan and vehicles are an insignificant contributor to PM
2.5 non-attainment. The CMAQ program receives the same share of formula funds as applied
under MAP-21.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The Act ends the ability of states to shift
funds designated for infrastructure safety projects to behavioral or educational activities,
ensuring resources remain in construction-related programs. It also designates several new safety
improvements eligible for funding including vehicle-to-infrastructure communication and
roadway improvements that provide separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles. With
regards to unpaved roads, it allows states to “opt out” of collecting safety inventory data for
unpaved/gravel roads if certain conditions are met, as long as the states continue to collect data
related to serious crashes and fatalities. It also requires the U.S. DOT to review data and report to
Congress on best practices for roadway infrastructure improvements that enhance commercial
motor vehicle safety.
Transportation Alternatives. MAP-21 combined the Transportation Enhancement Program,
Safe Routes to School and the Recreational Trails Program into a comprehensive Transportation
Alternatives Program. The most significant FAST Act modification to this program changes its
funding from 2 percent of annual apportionments (about $820 million per year) to a flat $835
million in FY16 and FY17 and then to $850 million per year thereafter. The FAST Act also
expands eligible recipients for funds to include nonprofits responsible for administration of local
transportation safety programs and requires annual reports from state and local planning
organizations on the number of project applications and awards.
National Freight Program. The FAST Act transforms the National Freight Policy provisions of
MAP-21 into a new program that funds freight-related highway improvements. It authorizes a
five-year total of $6.2 billion program. Funds are apportioned among the states by formula, but
states must establish a freight advisory committee and develop a state freight investment plan
before obligating any funds. Under the proposal, the Secretary of Transportation and the states
will designate a “National Freight Network” comprised of the Interstate highways and other
roads that are critical to the safe and efficient shipment of freight. The national and state
networks will be update every five years. Program funds will be directed under national and state
strategic plans to projects that improve highway freight transportation. States will be able to
obligate up to 10 percent of their freight program funds for improvements to freight rail or ports,
statutorily breaking a long-standing practice against opening up HTF resources to modes of
transportation other than highways and public transportation.
Earmark Repurposing
Included within the FY16 Omnibus Appropriations Bill is a provision that allows state DOT’s to
repurpose earmarks for specific projects that are at least 10 years old and for which less than 10
percent of the total was obligated. States may apply the money to different projects within 50
miles of where the original earmark would have been spent and must use the funds within three
years. In addition, states will be allowed to repurpose leftover earmark funds from projects that
were completed at less cost than the congressional earmark provided. These funds can be applied
to projects anywhere in the state. FHWA estimates roughly $2 billion in unspent earmark funds.
Currently, FHWA is in the process of identifying the exact amount of congressionally earmarked
funds (through FY15) that would qualify for repurposing. Some states will receive a large chunk
of money while others won’t receive anything. We will continue to monitor the situation with
FHWA.
President’s FY17 Budget
Scheduled for transmittal to Congress on February 9. On May 1, 2105 (revised July 9) OMB sent
a memorandum for the heads of departments and agencies on the FY17 Budget Guidance. That
memo provides, in part, that the FY 2017 Budget should continue to build on the investments
and reforms proposed in the FY 2016 Budget. In addition, agency budget requests should reflect
management strategies that will help us deliver a Government that is more effective, efficient,
and supportive of economic growth. To provide the President with the options needed to sustain
or augment critical investments and support effective programs, your FY 2017 budget
submission to OMB should reflect a 5 percent reduction below the net discretionary total
provided for your agency for FY 20 17 in the FY 20 16 Budget (unless otherwise directed by
OMB). This reduction applies equally to defense (budget function 050) and non-defense
programs; agencies that are split between the two may not reduce defense by more than 5 percent
to offset non-defense or vice versa. In working toward this funding target, all agencies should
include sufficient funding for ongoing Presidential priorities and continue efforts to increase
effectiveness and reduce fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. Your submission should
include a separate section that identifies recommendations to this effect, both within your agency
and across programs administered jointly with other agencies. As appropriate, your list of
recommendations should include proposals that address the Government Accountability Office's
recommendations in this area. In addition, agencies are asked to identify additional investments
in programs that support their missions, especially programs with strong evidence of
effectiveness. Overall, these investments and your FY 2017 Budget submission should together
achieve a level that is no more than the net discretionary total provided for your agency for FY
2017 in the FY 2016 Budget, for both defense and non-defense programs. These additional
investments should be separately identified in your budget submission and ranked in priority
order. As in previous years, when developing your FY 2017 submission, please exclude: 1) shifts
of costs to other parts of the Federal budget; 2) reclassifications of existing discretionary
spending to mandatory; 3) reductions to mandatory spending to be enacted in appropriations
bills; 4) across-the-board reductions; and 5) the enactment of new user fees to offset existing
spending. You may, however, include these items as separate proposals for consideration on their
merits or as alternative ways to achieve the guidance. Your request for mandatory spending
should reflect the same rigorous review as you unde1take for discretionary spending. OMB will
work with you over the next several months to identify areas of mandatory spending that merit
special scrutiny, including reviewing the mandatory proposals included in the FY 2016 Budget.
Agencies are pa1ticularly encouraged to identify new mandatory savings proposals as part of
their FY 2017 budget submissions. In addition, if your budget request includes any new
mandatory proposals that are not at least budget neutral, they should be accompanied by new
mandatory savings proposals to offset those costs. The President is committed to creating a
Government that will make a significant, tangible, and positive difference in the lives of the
American people and the economy, and to driving lasting change in how Government works. To
that end, agency budget choices discussed above should be driven by the agency's strategic plan
and prioritization across their goals and objectives as informed by their strategic review. To help
deliver on the President's vision for a Government of the Future, the FY 2016 Budget included a
set of reform priorities to advance the four key pillars of the President's Management Agenda:
effectiveness-delivering world-class customer service to citizens and businesses; efficiency-
enhancing productivity and achieving cost savings across the Government; economic Growth-
opening Government-funded data and research to the public to spur innovation,
entrepreneurship, economic growth, and job opportunities; and people and Culture-unlocking the
full potential of today's Federal workforce and building the workforce needed for tomorrow.
Agencies should continue to invest in these priorities in their FY 2017 submissions.
FY16 Omnibus Appropriations Act: Funding Generally
To review one last time, the Consolidate Appropriations Act includes appropriations legislation
and funding for the 12 annual Appropriations bills through the end of the fiscal year, September
30, 2016, as well as a tax measure that permanently extends more than 20 tax cuts for businesses
and individuals (see the following section). The House passed the omnibus spending portion
316-113 and the tax-extenders 318-109. The Senate voted 65-33 to send the entire package to the
President who signed the legislation into law on December 18. The overall level -$1.15 trillion -
reflects the increased domestic discretionary funding provided by the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2015, which was enacted on November 2. The bill includes: $1,067 billion in base funding; $7.1
billion of disaster aid; $1.5 billion for program integrity; and $700 million in emergency
funding. The package also contains emergency Global War on Terror (GWOT) Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) funding of $73.7 billion to combat the emerging real-world
threat brought by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and other U.S. enemies, to
conduct successful military operations, and to maintain a well-equipped and prepared military
force. In addition to the 12 Appropriations bills, the package also includes other legislative
language, including reforms to the Visa Waiver program, and a lifting of the ban on U.S. oil
exports. Transportation highlights are as follows:
The bill reflects the surface transportation funding levels provided in the recently passed Fixing
America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The bill includes $18.7 billion in discretionary
appropriations for the Department of Transportation (DOT) – $847 million above the 2015
enacted level and $5.4 billion below the President’s request. The bill also provides DOT with
$56.4 billion in “obligation limitation” funding for surface transportation and safety programs.
Within this total, the legislation provides $500 million for the TIGER program.
Highways – The bill provides the full amount authorized by the recently enacted FAST
legislation – $42.4 billion. This is an increase of $2.1 billion over the 2015 enacted level.
Air – Included in the legislation is $16.3 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), $564 million above the 2015 enacted level. The bill rejects the Administration’s
proposal for new passenger facility fees. The bill funds FAA’s Next Generation air
transportation systems (NextGen) at $2.9 billion – an increase of $255 million above the
2015 enacted level.
Rail – The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is funded at $1.7 billion, an increase
of $52 million above the 2015 enacted level. Within this amount, Amtrak grant funding is
maintained at $1.4 billion, and $50 million is provided for positive train control
technologies and other rail safety grants. No funding is provided for high-speed rail.
Transit – The bill contains $11.8 billion for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) –
an increase of $870 million over the 2015 enacted level – meeting the level authorized by
the recently enacted FAST legislation. The legislation allows $9.3 billion in state and
local transit grant funding from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund, to
help local communities build, maintain, and ensure the safety of their mass transit
systems. The legislation also provides a total of $2.2 billion for Capital Investment
Grants (“New Starts”), full funding for state and local “Small Starts” grants, and funding
for all current “Full Funding Grant Agreement” projects within FTA.
Safety – The legislation contains funding for the various transportation safety programs
and agencies within DOT. This includes $869 million in both mandatory and
discretionary funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
$580 million for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and $252 million for
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
Maritime – The legislation contains $210 million for the Maritime Security Program, an
increase of $24 million over the 2015 enacted level.
Bill Tracking
Note: some of the following bills lack a subject summary. That is because the internal Hill bill
information system has still not “caught up” with the number of bills introduced. It will. Also,
some of the following bills may drop off the tracking list depending upon what is learned about
their subject matter.
H.R.935, To establish a National Freight Network Trust Fund to improve the performance
of the national freight network, and for other purposes.
Introduced on Feb. 12 by Congresswoman Janice Hahn (D-CA-44) with 11 (now 18) cosponsors.
The bill was referred to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Ways and
Means. Last Congress: On July 14, Congresswoman Janice Hahn (D-CA), Co-Chair of the
Congressional Ports Caucus, introduced H.R. 5101, the “National Freight Network Trust Fund
Act of 2014”. The legislation (with 39 cosponsors) calls for transferring five percent of all import
duties collected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (calculated to be about $1.9B annually)
into a new freight trust fund. Her goal is to use this bill to continue the freight funding discussion
as the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee starts to draft its MAP-21
reauthorization bill. Hahn's bill: operates as a competitive grant program in which the U.S.
Secretary of Transportation makes the selections; requires a federal project cost share of 90
percent; names ports, states, and local and regional transportation bodies as eligible entities;
names state freight plan projects and state transportation plan projects as eligible; specifies that
funds can be used for connectors, regional freight projects, cross-border projects, on dock rail,
and intermodal freight facility projects; and, requires state freight plans be updated every five
years.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.198, the “MOVE Freight Act of 2015”
Introduced on January 7 by Congressman Albio Sires (D-NJ-8) with no (now 4) cosponsors. The
bill was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The Multimodal
Opportunities Via Enhanced Freight Act of 2015 or “MOVE Freight Act of 2015”defines the
"national freight network" as a network composed of highways, railways, navigable waterways,
seaports, airports, freight intermodal connectors, and aerotropolis transportation systems most
critical to the multimodal movement of freight; revises requirements for establishment and
designation of a national freight network; directs the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) to
establish a national freight network for efficient movement of freight on highways (as currently),
railways, and navigable waterways, as well as into and out of inland ports, seaports, and airports;
re-characterizes the primary freight network as multimodal, including critical rail corridors,
critical intermodal connections, and critical inland port, seaport, and airport infrastructure;
directs the Secretary to require (currently, encourage) states to develop state freight plans for
immediate and long-range planning activities and investments with respect to freight. Requires
states to coordinate with neighboring states to ensure multistate network continuity and
connectivity; directs the Secretary to establish a competitive grant program for capital investment
projects that improve the efficiency of the national transportation system to move freight; limits
the federal share of project net capital costs to 80%; and, requires a grant recipient to submit to
the Secretary: (1) a project management plan and an annual financial plan for a project with a
total cost of $500 million or more, or (2) an annual financial plan for a project with a total cost of
$100 million or more.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.2716, Transportation Empowerment Act
Introduced on June 10 by Congressman Ron DeSantis (R-FL-6) with 9 (now 43) cosponsors. The
bill was referred to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Ways and Means,
Budget and Rules. This bill prescribes a limitation on funding of transportation programs and
projects for FY2016-FY2020. Appropriations out of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) (other than
the Mass Transit Account) are authorized for FY2016-FY2020, subject to a certain limitation, for
specified core programs under the federal-aid highway program, including emergency relief for
highways and roads, the federal lands transportation program, and Federal Highway
Administration administrative expenses. A state may transfer and use excess federal-aid highway
funds for any surface transportation project (including mass transit and rail). Certain limits are
placed on federal assistance to states for highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation to
bridges on the federal-aid highway system. Beginning with FY2015, a highway construction or
improvement project shall not be considered a federal project: unless and until a state expends
federal funds for the construction portion of the project, solely by reason of the state expenditure
of federal funds before the construction phase of the project (including for any environmental
document or design work), or upon state reimbursement to the federal government of the federal
costs of such projects. The Internal Revenue Code is amended to make amounts in the HTF
available for expenditure for core highway programs through FY2022. The Department of the
Treasury shall pay from the HTF into the Treasury general fund amounts equivalent to the floor
stocks refunds made before July 1, 2022, as well as into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
amounts equivalent to certain aviation fuel taxes received before October 1, 2022. A motor fuel
tax rate schedule is prescribed for the financing of core highway programs. Treasury authority to
make certain transfers to the Mass Transit Account shall be terminated at the end of FY2016, at
which time Treasury shall transfer all amounts from the Mass Transit Account to the Highway
Account. The national highway performance program is revised to repeal program requirements
for specified National Highway System transportation improvement projects, including
environmental mitigation projects. The surface transportation program is revised to eliminate
from eligibility for program assistance: carpool projects, fringe and corridor parking facilities
and programs, including electric vehicle and natural gas vehicle infrastructure, and bicycle
transportation and pedestrian walkways projects transportation alternatives; and environmental
mitigation projects, including environmental restoration and pollution abatement projects Also
repealed are: the obligation of a state to use a portion of program funds for replacement or
rehabilitation of off-system bridges, metropolitan transportation planning requirements for
federal-aid highways, and the authorization of federal assistance to states for historic bridges.
Certain requirements of the highway safety improvement program are revised or repealed,
eliminating eligibility for projects for pedestrian or bicyclist safety or safety of persons with
disabilities. The congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program and the
transportation alternatives program are repealed. Appropriations out of the HTF (other than the
Mass Transit Account) are authorized for FY2016-FY2020 for the highway research and
development program. Treasury shall allocate to the states for surface transportation projects
(including mass transit and rail) any excess highway tax receipts appropriated to the HTF in
FY2016-FY2019. Excise taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel or kerosene, and diesel-water fuel
emulsion are reduced. Credits or refunds are required for certain floor stocks taxes on liquids
imposed before October 1, 2020.This Act shall become effective only if the Office of
Management and Budget certifies that it is deficit neutral.
Status Update: three cosponsors added since the last report.
S.1544, A bill to rescind unused earmarks provided for the Department of Transportation,
and for other purposes.
Introduced on June 10 by Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) with no (now 2) cosponsors. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Appropriations. This bill rescinds unused earmarks previously
appropriated to the Department of Transportation (DOT) and transfers the balances to the
Highway Trust Fund. Under the House and Senate rules, an earmark is a provision or report
language included primarily at the request of a Member of Congress providing, authorizing, or
recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other
spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure
with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific state, locality or congressional district, other than
through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process. Under this
bill, earmarks provided to DOT are unused and rescinded if more than 90% of the funding
remains available for obligation at the end of the 9th fiscal year following the year the earmark
was made available. DOT may delay the rescission if it determines that an additional obligation
is likely to occur during the 10th year after funds were made available. The bill requires each
federal agency to submit an annual report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
identifying: (1) each earmark for a project that is ineligible for funding, (2) projects for which
funding has been made available under an earmark, and (3) projects with unobligated balances.
OMB must submit to Congress and post on its website an annual report including an accounting
of unobligated earmarks, rescissions resulting from this bill, and DOT earmarks scheduled to be
rescinded
Status Update: no change since the last report.
S.1732, Comprehensive Transportation and Consumer Protection Act of 2015
Introduced on July 9 by Senator John Thune (R-SD) with two cosponsors. The bill was referred
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and was ordered reported.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.2353, Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2015
Introduced on May 15 by Congressman Bill Shuster (R-PA-9) with one cosponsor. Directs the
Secretary of Transportation to reduce the amount apportioned for a surface transportation
program, project, or activity for FY2015 by amounts apportioned or allocated under the Highway
and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 for the period from October 1, 2014, through May 31,
2015. Amends the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 to continue from October
1, 2014, through July 31, 2015, and authorizes appropriations through that period for, specified
federal-aid highway programs under: the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
(MAP-21), the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-LU) Technical Corrections Act of 2008, SAFETEA-LU, the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the National Highway System Designation Act of
1995, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and other
specified law. Subjects funding for such programs generally to the same manner of distribution,
administration, limitation, and availability for obligation, but at a specified pro rata of the total
amount, as funds authorized for appropriation out of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) for such
programs and activities for FY2014. Amends the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act (MAP-21) to authorize appropriations out of the general fund of the Treasury for the Tribal
High Priority Projects program for the same period. Prescribes an obligation ceiling of
$33,528,284,932 for federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs for the same
period. Authorizes appropriations from the HTF (other than the Mass Transit Account) for
administrative expenses of the federal-aid highway program for the same period. Extends for the
same period the authorization of appropriations for National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) safety programs, including: highway safety research and development,
national priority safety programs, the National Driver Register, the High Visibility Enforcement
Program, and NHTSA administrative expenses. Amends SAFETEA-LU to extend for the same
period high-visibility traffic safety law enforcement campaigns under the High Visibility
Enforcement Program. Sets aside a specified amount of the total apportionment to states for
highway safety programs for a cooperative program to research and evaluate priority highway
safety countermeasures for the same period. Extends for the same period the authorization of
appropriations for Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) programs, including:
motor carrier safety grants, FMCSA administrative expenses, commercial driver's license
program improvement grants, border enforcement grants, performance and registration
information system management grants, commercial vehicle information systems and networks
deployment grants, safety data improvement grants, a set-aside for high priority activities that
improve commercial motor vehicle safety and compliance with commercial motor vehicle safety
regulations, a set-aside for new entrant motor carrier audit grants, FMCSA outreach and
education, and the commercial motor vehicle operators grant program. Amends the Dingell-
Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act to continue, for the same period, the authorized distribution
of funds for coastal wetlands, recreational boating safety, projects under the Clean Vessel Act of
19921, boating infrastructure projects, and the National Outreach and Communications Program.
Extends for the same period the apportionment of non-urbanized (rural) area formula grants for
competitive grants and formula grants for public transportation on Indian reservations. Extends
the apportionment of urbanized area formula grants for passenger ferry projects for the same
period. Extends for the same period the authorization of appropriations from the HTF Mass
Transit Account for: formula grants for public transportation, including allocations for specified
projects; research, development demonstration, and deployment projects; the transit cooperative
research program; technical assistance and standards development grants; human resources and
training grants; capital investment grants; and administrative expenses. Allocates, for the same
period, certain amounts to states and territories for formula bus and bus facilities grants.
Authorizes appropriations for the same period for hazardous materials (hazmat) transportation
safety projects. Authorizes the Secretary to make certain expenditures, including an amount for
hazmat training grants, from the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Fund for the
same period. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to extend through July 31, 2015, the authority
for expenditures from: (1) the HTF Highway and Mass Transit Accounts, (2) the Sport Fish
Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, and (3) the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
Bill became law (PL 114-21).
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.2410, To authorize highway infrastructure and safety, transit, motor carrier, rail, and
other surface transportation programs, and for other purposes.
Introduced on May 19 by Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR-4) with 23 (now 62) cosponsors.
The bill was referred to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Energy and
Commerce, Ways and Means, Science, Space, and Technology, Natural Resources, Oversight
and Government Reform, the Budget, and Rules. Prescribes requirements for environmental
reviews with respect to state and federal agency engagement, obstruction of navigation, historic
sites, categorical exclusion of multimodal projects from environmental review, and creation in
the Department of Transportation (DOT) of an Interagency Infrastructure Permitting
Improvement Center. Directs DOT to establish a multimodal freight incentive grant program and
a National Freight Infrastructure Program. Re-designates the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of
Interstate and Defense Highways as the National Highway System and the National Freight
Network. Requires the federal long-range transportation plan to include a transportation system
resilience assessment. Prescribes criteria for high performing metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) representing urbanized areas with populations of over 200,000. Removes
the congestion management process from the transportation planning process for MPOs. Directs
DOT to establish a pilot program for up to 10 MPOs to improve multimodal connectivity and
increase connections for disadvantaged Americans and neighborhoods with limited
transportation options. Revises requirements with respect to congestion mitigation and air quality
improvement, including electric vehicle charging stations and commercial motor vehicle anti-
idling facilities in rest areas along the Interstate System. Establishes in DOT: a discretionary
TIGER Infrastructure Grant Program for various transportation projects; and a discretionary
FAST Grant Program to reform the way surface transportation investments and decisions are
made, implemented, and funded to achieve national transportation outcomes. Revises
requirements for the funding of railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing, the state
infrastructure bank program, toll roads, bridges, tunnels, and ferries. Establishes within DOT the
position of Assistant Secretary for Innovative Finance. Reauthorizes the federal-aid highway and
related programs through FY2021, including revised obligation limitation and apportionment
requirements. Directs DOT to: establish a nationally significant federal lands and tribal projects
program to fund construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of nationally significant federal
lands and tribal transportation projects; carry out a broadband infrastructure deployment
initiative; create a program to make critical and immediate improvements to infrastructure and
highway safety; set-aside specified funds for states for highway safety data improvement
activities on public roads; and create and maintain data sets and data analysis tools to assist
MPOs, states, and the DOT in carrying out performance management analyses. Federal Public
Transportation Act of 2015 Revises fixed guideway capital investment grants requirements.
Authorizes grants to state and local governments for very small starts projects. Revises
requirements for formula grants for enhanced mobility and for rural areas, workforce
development programs, and the public transportation safety program. Requires recipients of
transportation assistance to meet certain standards for hiring locally. Reauthorizes specified
public transportation assistance programs through FY2021. Authorizes DOT to make
competitive grants to state and local governmental entities for bus rapid transit projects.
Authorizes appropriations for specified highway safety programs through FY2021, and revises
related requirements. Revises criteria for state graduated driver licensing incentive grants. Adds a
24-7 sobriety program to criteria for state repeat offender and open container laws. Authorizes
specified amounts of grant funds to states for distracted driving enforcement. Authorizes
appropriations for specified motor vehicle safety programs through FY2021, and increases
penalties for safety violations. Revises certain reporting requirements for tire manufacturers.
Requires DOT to conduct a pilot grant program to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness for a
state process for informing consumers of open motor vehicle recalls at the time of motor vehicle
registration. Revises specified requirements for commercial motor vehicle and commercial driver
safety. Requires disqualification to operate a commercial motor vehicle for anyone who fails to
pay an assessed civil penalty for a motor vehicle safety violation. Revises certain medical and
registration requirements for commercial motor vehicle operators. Revises requirements for the
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. Directs DOT to administer a High Priority Program,
an innovative technology deployment grant program, and a Commercial Motor Vehicle
Operators Grant Program. Authorizes DOT to establish: a motor carrier safety facility working
capital fund, and a financial assistance program for commercial driver's license program
implementation. Directs DOT to maintain for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration a
motor carrier safety advisory committee. Revises requirements for the Unified Carrier
Registration System plan. Repeals the authorization for self-insurance by motor carriers.
Prescribes notice requirements relating to decisions that electronic logging devices fail to comply
with standards. Authorizes DOT to issue regulations: governing contractors that exercise control
over motor carrier operations; and requiring motor vehicle employers to track and compensate
employees for on-duty, not-driving time. Authorizes DOT, with respect to unsafe conditions or
practices in the transportation of hazardous materials (hazmat transportation), to order necessary:
operational controls, restrictions, and prohibitions without prior notice or an opportunity for a
hearing; and removal, remediation, or disposal of hazardous materials causing unreasonable risk
of death, personal injury, or significant harm to the property or the environment. Authorizes
DOT to collect reasonable fees for the administration of the special permits and approvals for
deposit into a Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Fund. Revises requirements for
planning and training grants under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act
of 1986. Reauthorizes the program for regulating hazmat transportation through FY2021.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to extend through FY2023 specified highway-related taxes
as well as requirements for expenditures from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust
Fund. Replaces the Highway Trust Fund with a Transportation Trust Fund, and authorizes
appropriations to it through FY2021. Directs DOT to establish and support a National
Cooperative Freight Transportation Research Program and a Priority Multimodal Research
Program. Revises the competitive selection process for the university transportation centers
consortia program. Requires the Director of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) to
create data sets and data analysis tools for intermodal transportation data. Establishes in the BTS
a National Transportation Library. Authorizes the BTS Director to establish a Port Performance
Statistics Program to provide nationally consistent measures of performance of the nation's
maritime ports. Revises requirements for the intelligent transportation system (ITS) program.
Includes as an ITS program goal the development and deployment of automated vehicles in all
modes of surface transportation. Prescribes requirements for the use of funds to develop ITS
infrastructure, equipment, and systems. Rail for America Act Directs DOT to facilitate by
financial assistance the establishment of a National High-Performance Rail System of integrated
passenger and freight rail services, including a Current Passenger Rail Service Program and a
Rail Service Improvement Program. Authorizes appropriations through FY2021 for the System
and for the planning, development, construction, and implementation of rail corridors and related
infrastructure improvements. Requires Amtrak to submit to the Secretary draft 5-year business
line plans and draft 5-year capital asset plans. Authorizes DOT to establish Regional Rail
Development Authorities, including a Regional Committee, to facilitate the development of
multi-state high-performance rail services, and to coordinate these investments with other rail,
transit, highway, and aviation system services. Prescribes requirements for the standardization of
passenger equipment and level-entry boarding platforms. Directs DOT to: evaluate the shared-
use of right-of-way by passenger and freight rail systems and the operational, institutional, and
legal structures that would best support improvements to both of these systems; and conduct a
nationwide disparity and availability study to establish the availability and utilization of small
business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals
in publicly funded railroad projects. Requires DOT to complete a National Rail Development
Plan meeting certain criteria, and facilitate development of Regional Rail Development Plans.
Authorizes DOT to prescribe regulations or issue orders to require host railroads for joint
operations that occur within a small geographic area to develop unified rules governing all
operations within that area. Revises or prescribes requirements relating to positive train control,
hours of service, maximum employee duty hours, safety appliances, locomotive inspections,
noise emission standards, and damaged track inspection equipment. Authorizes federal agency
heads to construct, install, operate, and maintain electric charging infrastructure for official
agency vehicles.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
S.206, Local Transportation Infrastructure Act
Introduced on January 21 by Senator Kelly Ayotte (D-NH) with no cosponsors. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The bill revises and
reauthorizes the state infrastructure bank program for FY2015 and FY2016.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.652, State Transportation and Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act (STIFIA)
Introduced on February 3 by Congressman Richard Hanna (R-NY-22) with 3 cosponsors. The
bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. The bill revises and reauthorizes the state infrastructure bank program
for FY2016-FY2020.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.413, Partnership to Build America Act of 2015
Introduced on January 21 by Congressman John Delaney (D-MD-6) with 34 (now 41)
cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committees on Ways and Means and Transportation and
Infrastructure. The bill establishes the American Infrastructure Fund (AIF) as a wholly-owned
government corporation to provide bond guarantees and make loans to state and local
governments, non-profit infrastructure providers, private parties, and public-private partnerships
for state or local government sponsored transportation, energy, water, communications, or
educational facility infrastructure projects (Qualified Infrastructure Projects [QIPs]). Authorizes
AIF also to make equity investments in QIPs. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury, acting
through the AIF, to issue American Infrastructure Bonds with an aggregate face value of $50
billion. Requires proceeds from the sale of the bonds to be deposited into the AIF. Amends the
Internal Revenue Code to allow U.S. corporations to exclude from gross income qualified cash
dividend amounts received during a taxable year from a foreign-controlled corporation equal to
the face value of qualified infrastructure bonds the corporation has purchased. Prohibits
allowance of a foreign tax credit to the excluded portion of any dividend received by a U.S.
corporation. Prohibits also the allowance of a deduction for expenses related to that excludable
portion.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.625, Infrastructure 2.0 Act
Introduced on January 30 by Congressman John Delaney (D-MD-6) with 4 (now 24) cosponsors.
The bill was referred to the Committees on Rules, Ways and Means and Transportation and
Infrastructure. Amends the Internal Revenue Code, with respect to the taxation of earnings and
profits of a deferred foreign income corporation, to: (1) make such earnings and profit subject to
taxation in the last taxable year that ends before the enactment of this Act; (2) reduce the rate of
tax on such earnings and profits by allowing an exemption of 75% (equal to a tax of 8.75% of
repatriated earnings and profits); and (3) allow such corporations to elect to pay such tax in eight
installments. Establishes the American Infrastructure Fund to provide assistance to states, local
governments, and other public and private entities for investment in public infrastructure
projects. Appropriates tax revenues from this Act to the Highway Trust Fund. Establishes the
Highway Trust Fund Solvency Commission to submit recommendations and proposed legislation
for achieving long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. Sets forth congressional
procedures for the expedited consideration of a bill containing such legislation. Directs the
Secretary of Transportation to establish a regional infrastructure accelerator pilot program to
assist public entities in developing infrastructure projects. Establishes a deadline of 18 months
after the enactment of this Act for the enactment of legislation that reforms the international tax
system by eliminating the incentive to hold earnings in low-tax jurisdictions. Imposes a tax on
repatriated offshore corporate earnings upon the expiration of the deadline. Sets forth provisions
for the reform of the international tax system (to be effective if reform legislation is not enacted
by the 18-month deadline established by this Act), including provisions relating to subpart F
income and insurance income, gains and losses from the sale or exchange of stock in controlled
foreign corporations, limitations on the foreign tax credit, and the tax treatment of previously
deferred foreign income.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.211, REBUILD Act
Introduced on January 8 by Congressman Ken Calvert (R-CA-42) with no cosponsors. The bill
was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. This bill amends the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to authorize: (1) the assignment to states of federal
environmental review responsibilities under NEPA and other relevant federal environmental
laws for covered federal projects, and (2) states to assume all or part of those responsibilities.
Each responsible federal official who is authorized to assign such responsibility must promulgate
regulations that establish requirements relating to information required to be contained in state
applications to assume those responsibilities. An official may approve an application only if: (1)
public notice requirements have been met, (2) the state has the capability to assume the
responsibilities, and (3) the head of the state agency having primary jurisdiction over covered
projects enters into a written agreement with an official to assume the responsibilities and to
maintain the financial resources necessary to carry them out. The officials must audit state
compliance with federal laws for which responsibilities are assumed. The officials may terminate
the responsibilities assigned to states after providing notice to states of any noncompliance and
an opportunity to take corrective action.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
S.268, Rebuild America Act of 2015
Introduced on January 27 by Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) with one cosponsor. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Reduces the non-federal
share of the cost of any activity funded by this Act by 50% of what is was before enactment of
this Act. Appropriates funds for FY2015-FY2022 to the Highway Trust Fund to improve roads,
bridges, and other U.S. transportation infrastructure. Appropriates funds for FY2015-FY2019:
(1) for intercity high-speed rail service, (2) to provide credit assistance for surface transportation
projects of national and regional significance, (3) to implement airport improvement and noise
compatibility projects at public-use airports, (4) to the Federal Aviation Administration to
accelerate deployment of satellite technology to improve airport safety and capacity, and (5) for
the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program. Appropriates funds for FY2015-FY2019 for water
infrastructure, including to: (1) the Environmental Protection Agency for capitalization grants to
states to establish water pollution control revolving funds and drinking water treatment revolving
loan funds and for loans for large water infrastructure projects that are ineligible for funding
from a state revolving loan fund; (2) the Federal Emergency Management Agency to carry out
the predisaster hazard mitigation program for minor localized flood reduction projects and major
flood risk reduction projects; and (3) the Army Corps of Engineers for inland waterways
projects, coastal harbors and channels, inland harbors, and dams and levees. Appropriates funds
for FY2015-FY2019 for the National Park Service. Appropriates funds for FY2015-FY2019 for
the Broadband Initiatives Program, the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, and the
Department of Energy to modernize the electric grid. Establishes the National Infrastructure
Development Bank as a wholly owned government corporation. Makes the Bank's Board of
Directors responsible for monitoring and overseeing energy, environmental, telecommunications,
data, or transportation infrastructure projects. Authorizes the Board to: make senior and
subordinated loans and purchase senior and subordinated debt securities; issue and sell debt
securities of the Bank; issue public benefit bonds and provide direct subsidies to infrastructure
projects from the proceeds; make loan guarantees; borrow on the global capital market and lend
to regional, state, and local entities, and commercial banks, to fund infrastructure projects; and
purchase, pool, and sell infrastructure-related loans and securities on the global capital market.
Requires the Board to establish: (1) an Executive Committee, a Risk Management Committee,
and an Audit Committee; and (2) criteria for determining eligibility for financial assistance from
the Bank and disclosure and application procedures for entities to nominate projects for such
assistance. Requires the Bank to conduct an analysis that considers the economic, environmental,
and social benefits and costs of each project under consideration, prioritizing projects that
contribute to economic growth, lead to job creation, and are of regional or national significance.
Sets forth criteria to be considered by the Board in determining the eligibility of transportation,
environmental, energy, and telecommunications infrastructure projects for assistance. Exempts
all bonds issued by the Bank from state or local government taxation. Deems all debt securities
and other obligations issued by the Bank to be exempt securities within the meaning of laws
administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Sets forth requirements regarding
compliance of financed infrastructure projects with prevailing wage rate, domestic content, and
buy American statutes. Authorizes appropriations for the capitalization of the Bank.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.1308, Economy in Motion: The National Multimodal and Sustainable Freight
Infrastructure Act
Introduced on March 4 by Congressman Alan Lowenthal (D-CA-47) with 3 (now 15)
cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and
Ways and Means. The bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to: (1) establish a Multimodal
Freight Funding Formula Program to distribute funds to states, and a National Freight
Infrastructure Competitive Grant Program to make grants to entities for projects, to improve the
efficiency and reliability of freight movement in the United States; (2) establish a multimodal
national freight network to accomplish the goals of the national freight policy, including
increasing the productivity and efficiency of the national freight system and improving its safety,
security, and resilience; (3) develop, maintain, and post on the public website of the Department
of Transportation a national freight strategic plan that includes an assessment of the condition
and performance of the national freight system; and (4) develop and improve tools to support an
outcome-oriented, performance-based approach to evaluate proposed freight-related and other
transportation projects. Amends the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (or
MAP-21) to: (1) expand the membership and duties of state freight advisory committees; and (2)
require state freight plans to include strategies and goals to decrease greenhouse gas emissions,
local air pollution, water runoff, and wildlife habitat loss. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to:
(1) impose a 1% excise tax upon taxable ground transportation of property (i.e., transportation by
freight rail or truck trailer and semitrailer chassis and bodies, suitable for use with a trailer or
semitrailer with a gross vehicle weight of 26,000 pounds or more), and (2) deposit such tax
revenues into a Freight Trust Fund (established by this Act) to finance the Multimodal Freight
Program.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.1330, American-Made Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act
Introduced on March 4 by Congressman Steve Stivers (R-OH-15) with one cosponsor. The bill
was referred to the Committees on Natural Resources, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce
and Transportation and Infrastructure. Directs the Secretary to collect non-refundable fees from
the operators of facilities subject to inspection under this Act. Establishes in the Treasury the
Ocean Energy Enforcement Fund as depository for oil and gas leasing fees. Redefines the OCS
to include all submerged lands lying within the U.S. exclusive economic zone and the
Continental Shelf adjacent to any U.S. territory. Authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, with
the President's approval, to: (1) borrow for highway and transportation project expenditures and
for water infrastructure expenditures, and (2) issue interest-bearing infrastructure revenue bonds
for the amounts borrowed. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to appropriate to the Highway
Trust Fund 95% of any proceeds from the issuance of such infrastructure revenue bonds. Makes
available to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for making capitalization
grants to eligible states: (1) 2.5% of infrastructure revenue bond proceeds for grants under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and (2) 2.5% of such proceeds for grants under Safe
Drinking Water Act.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.278, Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery for Cities
Underfunded Because of Size Act of 2015 or TIGER CUBS Act
Introduced on January 12 by Congressman Rick Larsen (D-WA-2) with one cosponsor. The bill
was referred to the Committees on Appropriations and Budget. The bill provides $500 million in
supplemental FY2015 appropriations to the Department of Transportation for national
infrastructure investments under a competitive grant program commonly known as the
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program. At least $100
million of the funds must be used for projects located in cities with populations between 10,000
and 50,000. The funding provided by this bill is designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. This funding is
only available if the President designates the amounts as an emergency and submits the
designation to Congress.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.680, Update, Promote, and Develop America's Transportation Essentials Act of 2015
Introduced on February 3 by Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3) with 25 (now 38)
cosponsors. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. The bill
expresses the sense of Congress that by 2024 the gas tax should be repealed and replaced with a
more sustainable, stable funding source. Amends the Internal Revenue Code, with respect to the
excise tax on motor fuels, to increase the rate of tax on: (1) gasoline other than aviation gasoline
to 26.3 cents per gallon in 2016, 30.3 cents per gallon in 2017, and 33.3 cents per gallon after
2017 and before 2028; (2) diesel fuel or kerosene to 32.3 cents per gallon in 2016, 36.3 cents per
gallon in 2017, and 39.3 cents per gallon after 2017 and before 2027; and (3) diesel-water fuel
emulsion. Delays the termination of such increased rates from the end of FY2016 to December
31, 2026. Requires an adjustment for inflation to such increased rates beginning after 2017.
Increases allocations in the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund in 2016 and 2017
and after 2017. Imposes a floor stocks tax on rate increases for gasoline, diesel fuel, and
kerosene (other than aviation-grade kerosene), subject to specified exemptions for exempt uses
and low-volume producers.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
S.762, Innovation in Surface Transportation Act of 2015
Introduced on March 17 by Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) with 3 cosponsors. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill directs the Secretary of
Transportation, in coordination with state transportation departments, to establish an innovation
in surface transportation program. Requires states to make competitive grants for innovative
surface transportation projects to eligible entities, including local governments, metropolitan
planning organizations, regional transportation authorities, transit agencies, tribal governments,
private providers of public transportation, nonprofit transportation organizations, port authorities,
joint power authorities, freight rail providers, and local rail authorities. Requires each state
(including the governor and state department of transportation) to establish an innovation in
surface transportation selection panel to formulate criteria for selecting projects. Requires a state
to reserve certain percentages of federal funds apportioned for the national highway
performance, the highway safety improvement, the congestion mitigation and air quality
improvement, surface transportation, and transportation alternatives programs in order to fund
related projects under state innovative surface transportation grants. Authorizes states to reserve
a certain percentage of such funds for a fiscal year to meet specific requests for project
application support from eligible rural local governments.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.1620, 414 Plan Act of 2015
Introduced on March 25 by Congressman Randy Forbes (R-VA-4) with no cosponsors. The bill
was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Declares that federal
laws and regulations (including prevailing rate of wage requirements under the Davis-Bacon
Act) shall not apply to any federal-aid highway or highway safety construction project, except
those relating to: (1) the safety or durability of a highway facility, or (2) public or workplace
safety. Repeals the prohibition against approval of federal-aid highway projects or regulatory
actions that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse
impact on the safety for non-motorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless the
project or action provides for a reasonable alternative route or such a route exists. Defines
"transportation alternatives" as any of the following activities when carried out as part of an
authorized or funded federal-aid highway program or project, or as an independent program or
project related to surface transportation for the construction, planning, and design of: (1)
transportation projects to achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
or (2) infrastructure-related projects and systems that will provide safe routes for nondrivers,
including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs. Repeals
the authorization for states to use certain funds for construction of pedestrian walkways and
bicycle transportation facilities. Eliminates the requirement that statewide transportation plans
and statewide transportation improvement programs provide for the development of accessible
pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities. Expresses the sense of Congress that
states, federal agencies, localities, and private stakeholders should take steps toward increased
cooperation to further expedite surface transportation projects.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
S.176, W21, Water in the 21st Century Act
Introduced on January 13 by Senator Barbara Boxer-D-CA) with two cosponsors. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. The House companion bill is
H.R.291.Water in the 21st Century Act or W21 establishes within the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) a WaterSense program to identify, label, and promote water efficient products,
buildings, landscapes, facilities, processes, and services. This bill establishes a program to
provide financial incentives for consumers to purchase and install products, buildings,
landscapes, facilities, processes, and services labeled under the WaterSense program. The EPA is
required to make grants to owners or operators of water systems to address any ongoing or
forecasted impact of climate change on a region's water quality or quantity. The Department of
the Interior may: (1) provide financial assistance to water projects in specified states, including
projects for water recycling, water infrastructure, enhanced energy efficiency, desalination, and
water storage and conveyance; and (2) transfer to nonfederal entities title to any reclamation
projects or facility in need of rehabilitation that are authorized before enactment of this Act. The
U.S. Geological Survey must establish an open water data system to advance the availability,
timely distribution, and widespread use of water data and information for water management,
education, research, assessment, and monitoring purposes. This bill reauthorizes through FY2020
the Water Desalination Act of 1996 and water resources research and technology institutes under
the Water Resources Research Act of 1984. After receiving a request from a nonfederal
sponsor, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must review the operation of a reservoir and, if
appropriate, update the water control manual to incorporate improved weather and runoff
forecasting methods. The EPA is required to develop voluntary national drought resilience
guidelines relating to preparedness planning and investments for water users and providers. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must prepare a salmon drought plan for California.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.291, W21, Water in the 21st Century Act
Introduced on January 14 by Congresswoman Grace Napolitano (D-CA-32) with 28 (now 31)
cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committees on Natural Resources, Energy and
Commerce, Science and Transportation and Infrastructure. The Senate companion bill is S.176.
Water in the 21st Century Act or W21 establishes within the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) a WaterSense program to identify, label, and promote water efficient products, buildings,
landscapes, facilities, processes, and services. This bill establishes a program to provide financial
incentives for consumers to purchase and install products, buildings, landscapes, facilities,
processes, and services labeled under the WaterSense program. The EPA is required to make
grants to owners or operators of water systems to address any ongoing or forecasted impact of
climate change on a region's water quality or quantity. The Department of the Interior may: (1)
provide financial assistance to water projects in specified states, including projects for water
recycling, water infrastructure, enhanced energy efficiency, desalination, and water storage and
conveyance; and (2) transfer to nonfederal entities title to any reclamation projects or facility in
need of rehabilitation that are authorized before enactment of this Act. The U.S. Geological
Survey must establish an open water data system to advance the availability, timely distribution,
and widespread use of water data and information for water management, education, research,
assessment, and monitoring purposes. This bill reauthorizes through FY2020 the Water
Desalination Act of 1996 and water resources research and technology institutes under the Water
Resources Research Act of 1984. After receiving a request from a nonfederal sponsor, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers must review the operation of a reservoir and, if appropriate, update the
water control manual to incorporate improved weather and runoff forecasting methods. The EPA
is required to develop voluntary national drought resilience guidelines relating to preparedness
planning and investments for water users and providers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must
prepare a salmon drought plan for California.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.499, Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investment Act of 2015
Introduced on January 22 by Congressman John Duncan (R-TN-2) with one (now 10) cosponsor.
The bill was referred to the Ways and Means Committee. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to
exempt from state volume caps tax-exempt facility bonds for sewage and water supply facilities
Status Update: one cosponsor added since the last report.
H.R.3038, Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2015, Part II
Introduced on July 13 by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI-1) with one cosponsor. The bill passed
the House and was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar. Directs the Secretary of
Transportation to reduce the amount apportioned for a surface transportation program, project, or
activity for FY2015 by amounts apportioned or allocated under the Highway and Transportation
Funding Act of 2014 and the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2015 for the period
from October 1, 2014, through July 31, 2015. TITLE I--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM EXTENSION Subtitle A--Federal-Aid Highways (Sec.1001) Amends the Highway
and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 to continue from October 1, 2014, through December
18, 2015, and authorizes appropriations through that period for, specified federal-aid highway
programs under: the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
Technical Corrections Act of 2008, SAFETEA-LU, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21), the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and other specified law. Subjects
funding for FY2015, and for the period October 1, 2015, through December 18, 2015, for such
programs to certain funding level restrictions. Amends MAP-21 to authorize appropriations out
of the general fund of the Treasury for the Tribal High Priority Projects program for the same
period. Prescribes an obligation ceiling of $40.256 billion for FY2015, including $8,689,136,612
for the period October 1, 2015, through December 18, 2015, for federal-aid highway and
highway safety construction programs. (Sec. 1002) Authorizes appropriations from the HTF
(other than the Mass Transit Account) for administrative expenses of the federal-aid highway
program for the same period. Subtitle B--Extension of Highway Safety Programs (Sec. 1101)
Extends for the same period the authorization of appropriations for National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) safety programs, including: highway safety research and
development, national priority safety programs, the National Driver Register, the High Visibility
Enforcement Program, and NHTSA administrative expenses. Amends SAFETEA-LU to extend
for the same period high-visibility traffic safety law enforcement campaigns under the High
Visibility Enforcement Program. Sets aside a specified amount of the total apportionment to
states for highway safety programs for a cooperative program to research and evaluate priority
highway safety countermeasures for the same period. (Sec. 1102) Extends for the same period
the authorization of appropriations for Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
programs, including: motor carrier safety grants, FMCSA administrative expenses, commercial
driver's license program improvement grants, border enforcement grants, performance and
registration information system management grants, commercial vehicle information systems
and networks deployment grants, safety data improvement grants, a set-aside for high priority
activities that improve commercial motor vehicle safety and compliance with commercial motor
vehicle safety regulations, a set-aside for new entrant motor carrier audit grants, FMCSA
outreach and education, and the commercial motor vehicle operators grant program. (Sec. 1103)
Amends the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act to continue, for the same period, the
authorized distribution of funds for coastal wetlands, recreational boating safety, projects under
the Clean Vessel Act of 19921, boating infrastructure projects, and the National Outreach and
Communications Program. Subtitle C--Public Transportation Programs (Sec. 1201) Extends for
the same period the apportionment of non-urbanized (rural) area formula grants for competitive
grants and formula grants for public transportation on Indian reservations. (Sec. 1202) Extends
the apportionment of urbanized area formula grants for passenger ferry projects for the same
period. (Sec. 1203) Extends for the same period the authorization of appropriations from the
HTF Mass Transit Account for: formula grants for public transportation, including allocations
for specified projects; research, development demonstration, and deployment projects; the transit
cooperative research program; technical assistance and standards development grants; human
resources and training grants; capital investment grants; and administrative expenses. (Sec. 1204)
Allocates, for the same period, certain amounts to states and territories for formula bus and bus
facilities grants. Subtitle D--Hazardous Materials (Sec. 1301) Authorizes appropriations for the
same period for hazardous materials (hazmat) transportation safety projects. Authorizes the
Secretary to make certain expenditures, including an amount for hazmat training grants, from the
Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Fund for the same period. TITLE II--REVENUE
PROVISIONS (Sec. 2001) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to extend through December 19,
2015, the authority for expenditures from: (1) the Highway and Mass Transit Accounts of the
Highway Trust Fund, (2) the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, and (3) the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. (Sec. 2002) Appropriates additional funds to the
Highway and Mass Transit Accounts of the Highway Trust Fund. (Sec. 2003) Requires tax
information returns reporting mortgage interest received in a trade or business to include: (1) the
outstanding principal on the mortgage, (2) the date of the origination of the mortgage, and (3) the
address of the property which secures the mortgage. (Sec. 2004) Requires that: (1) the value of
the basis in any property acquired from a decedent be consistent with the basis as determined for
estate tax purposes; and (2) executors of estates disclose to the Internal Revenue Service and to
persons acquiring any interest in the decedent's estate information identifying the value of each
interest received. (Sec. 2005) Makes the six-year limitation on assessments of additional tax
applicable to understatements of gross income due to an overstatement of unrecovered costs or
other basis. (Sec. 2006) Changes tax return due dates for partnerships, S corporations, and C
corporations. Extends the automatic extension for corporate income tax returns from three to six
months. (Sec. 2007) Extends through 2025 the authority for transfers of excess pension assets of
a defined benefit plan to a retiree health benefits account. (Sec. 2008) Equalizes excise tax rates
for liquefied petroleum gas, liquefied natural gas, and compressed natural gas. TITLE III--
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS (Sec. 3001) Revises aviation security service passenger fee
requirements. Requires the deposit into the Treasury as offsetting receipts the following sums
collected to pay the costs of providing civil aviation security services to airline passengers:
$1.560 billion for FY2024, and $1.6 billion for FY2025.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.3064, To authorize highway infrastructure and safety, transit, motor carrier, rail, and
other surface transportation programs, and for other purposes.
Introduced on July 6 by Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD-8) with eight (now 12)
cosponsors and referred to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Energy and
Commerce, Ways and Means, Science, Space, and Technology, Natural Resources, Oversight
and Government Reform, Budget, and Rules. Prescribes requirements for environmental reviews
with respect to state and federal agency engagement, obstruction of navigation, historic sites,
categorical exclusion of multimodal projects from environmental review, and creation in the
Department of Transportation (DOT) of an Interagency Infrastructure Permitting Improvement
Center. Directs DOT to establish a multimodal freight incentive grant program and a National
Freight Infrastructure Program. Re-designates the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate
and Defense Highways as the National Highway System and the National Freight Network.
Requires the federal long-range transportation plan to include a transportation system resilience
assessment. Prescribes criteria for high performing metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)
representing urbanized areas with populations of over 200,000. Removes the congestion
management process from the transportation planning process for MPOs. Directs DOT to
establish a pilot program for up to 10 MPOs to improve multimodal connectivity and increase
connections for disadvantaged Americans and neighborhoods with limited transportation options.
Revises requirements with respect to congestion mitigation and air quality improvement,
including electric vehicle charging stations and commercial motor vehicle anti-idling facilities in
rest areas along the Interstate System. Establishes in DOT: a discretionary TIGER Infrastructure
Grant Program for various transportation projects; and a discretionary FAST Grant Program to
reform the way surface transportation investments and decisions are made, implemented, and
funded to achieve national transportation outcomes. Revises requirements for the funding of
railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing, the state infrastructure bank program, toll
roads, bridges, tunnels, and ferries. Establishes within DOT the position of Assistant Secretary
for Innovative Finance. Reauthorizes the federal-aid highway and related programs through
FY2021, including revised obligation limitation and apportionment requirements. Directs DOT
to: establish a nationally significant federal lands and tribal projects program to fund
construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of nationally significant federal lands and tribal
transportation projects; carry out a broadband infrastructure deployment initiative; create a
program to make critical and immediate improvements to infrastructure and highway safety; set-
aside specified funds for states for highway safety data improvement activities on public roads;
and create and maintain data sets and data analysis tools to assist MPOs, states, and the DOT in
carrying out performance management analyses. Federal Public Transportation Act of 2015
Revises fixed guideway capital investment grants requirements. Authorizes grants to state and
local governments for very small starts projects. Revises requirements for formula grants for
enhanced mobility and for rural areas, workforce development programs, and the public
transportation safety program. Requires recipients of transportation assistance to meet certain
standards for hiring locally. Reauthorizes specified public transportation assistance programs
through FY2021. Authorizes DOT to make competitive grants to state and local governmental
entities for bus rapid transit projects. Authorizes appropriations for specified highway safety
programs through FY2021, and revises related requirements. Revises criteria for state graduated
driver licensing incentive grants. Adds a 24-7 sobriety program to criteria for state repeat
offender and open container laws. Authorizes specified amounts of grant funds to states for
distracted driving enforcement. Authorizes appropriations for specified motor vehicle safety
programs through FY2021, and increases penalties for safety violations. Revises certain
reporting requirements for tire manufacturers. Requires DOT to conduct a pilot grant program to
evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness for a state process for informing consumers of open
motor vehicle recalls at the time of motor vehicle registration. Revises specified requirements for
commercial motor vehicle and commercial driver safety. Requires disqualification to operate a
commercial motor vehicle for anyone who fails to pay an assessed civil penalty for a motor
vehicle safety violation. Revises certain medical and registration requirements for commercial
motor vehicle operators. Revises requirements for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program.
Directs DOT to administer a High Priority Program, an innovative technology deployment grant
program, and a Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators Grant Program. Authorizes DOT to
establish: a motor carrier safety facility working capital fund, and a financial assistance program
for commercial driver's license program implementation. Directs DOT to maintain for the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration a motor carrier safety advisory committee. Revises
requirements for the Unified Carrier Registration System plan. Repeals the authorization for self-
insurance by motor carriers. Prescribes notice requirements relating to decisions that electronic
logging devices fail to comply with standards. Authorizes DOT to issue regulations: governing
contractors that exercise control over motor carrier operations; and requiring motor vehicle
employers to track and compensate employees for on-duty, not-driving time. Authorizes DOT,
with respect to unsafe conditions or practices in the transportation of hazardous materials
(hazmat transportation), to order necessary: operational controls, restrictions, and prohibitions
without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing; and removal, remediation, or disposal of
hazardous materials causing unreasonable risk of death, personal injury, or significant harm to
the property or the environment. Authorizes DOT to collect reasonable fees for the
administration of the special permits and approvals for deposit into a Hazardous Materials
Approvals and Permits Fund. Revises requirements for planning and training grants under the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986. Reauthorizes the program
for regulating hazmat transportation through FY2021. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to
extend through FY2023 specified highway-related taxes as well as requirements for expenditures
from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund. Replaces the Highway Trust Fund with
a Transportation Trust Fund, and authorizes appropriations to it through FY2021. Directs DOT
to establish and support a National Cooperative Freight Transportation Research Program and a
Priority Multimodal Research Program. Revises the competitive selection process for the
university transportation centers consortia program. Requires the Director of the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS) to create data sets and data analysis tools for intermodal
transportation data. Establishes in the BTS a National Transportation Library. Authorizes the
BTS Director to establish a Port Performance Statistics Program to provide nationally consistent
measures of performance of the nation's maritime ports. Revises requirements for the intelligent
transportation system (ITS) program. Includes as an ITS program goal the development and
deployment of automated vehicles in all modes of surface transportation. Prescribes requirements
for the use of funds to develop ITS infrastructure, equipment, and systems. Rail for America Act
Directs DOT to facilitate by financial assistance the establishment of a National High-
Performance Rail System of integrated passenger and freight rail services, including a Current
Passenger Rail Service Program and a Rail Service Improvement Program. Authorizes
appropriations through FY2021 for the System and for the planning, development, construction,
and implementation of rail corridors and related infrastructure improvements. Requires Amtrak
to submit to the Secretary draft 5-year business line plans and draft 5-year capital asset plans.
Authorizes DOT to establish Regional Rail Development Authorities, including a Regional
Committee, to facilitate the development of multi-state high-performance rail services, and to
coordinate these investments with other rail, transit, highway, and aviation system services.
Prescribes requirements for the standardization of passenger equipment and level-entry boarding
platforms. Directs DOT to: evaluate the shared-use of right-of-way by passenger and freight rail
systems and the operational, institutional, and legal structures that would best support
improvements to both of these systems; and conduct a nationwide disparity and availability study
to establish the availability and utilization of small business concerns owned and controlled by
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in publicly funded railroad projects.
Requires DOT to complete a National Rail Development Plan meeting certain criteria, and
facilitate development of Regional Rail Development Plans. Authorizes DOT to prescribe
regulations or issue orders to require host railroads for joint operations that occur within a small
geographic area to develop unified rules governing all operations within that area. Revises or
prescribes requirements relating to positive train control, hours of service, maximum employee
duty hours, safety appliances, locomotive inspections, noise emission standards, and damaged
track inspection equipment. Authorizes federal agency heads to construct, install, operate, and
maintain electric charging infrastructure for official agency vehicles. Stop Corporate
Expatriation and Invest in America's Infrastructure Act of 2015 Amends the Internal Revenue
Code to revise rules for the taxation of inverted corporations (i.e., U.S. corporations that acquire
foreign companies to reincorporate in a foreign jurisdiction with income tax rates lower than the
United States) to provide that a foreign corporation that acquires the properties of a U.S.
corporation or partnership after May 8, 2014, shall be treated as an inverted corporation and thus
subject to U.S. taxation if, after such acquisition: it holds more than 50% of the stock of the new
entity (expanded affiliated group), or the management or control of the new entity occurs
primarily within the United States and the new entity has significant domestic business activities.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.3104, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce carbon pollution in the
United States, invest in the Nation's infrastructure, and cut taxes for working Americans.
Introduced on July 16 by Congressman John B. Larson (D-CT-1) with no cosponsors and
referred to the Committee son Ways and Means and Foreign Affairs. Amends the Internal
Revenue Code to impose an excise tax, beginning in calendar year 2016, on any taxable carbon
substance sold by its manufacturer, producer, or importer. Defines "taxable carbon substance" as:
(1) coal (including lignite and peat); (2) petroleum and any petroleum products; and (3) natural
gas that is extracted, manufactured, or produced in the United States, or entered into the United
States for consumption, use, or warehousing. Establishes in the Treasury the America's Energy
Security Trust Fund to assist industries negatively affected by this Act, make transfers to the
Highway Trust Fund to cover shortfalls, and provide payroll tax relief. Allows individual
taxpayers a tax credit equal to carbon tax rebate amounts calculated by the Department of the
Treasury. Directs Treasury to study and report to Congress on the best methods to assess and
collect taxes on non-carbon greenhouse gases. Expresses the sense of Congress that the United
States should establish binding agreements with major greenhouse gas emitting nations to reduce
global greenhouse gas emissions
Status Update: no change since the last report.
S.1589, Building and Renewing Infrastructure for Development and Growth in
Employment Act or the BRIDGE Act
Introduced on June 16 by Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) with ten (now 11) cosponsors and
referred to the Committee on Finance. Establishes the Infrastructure Financing Authority (IFA)
as a wholly-owned government corporation, headed by a Chief Executive Officer and managed
by a Board of Directors, which shall provide direct loans and loan guarantees to facilitate the
construction, consolidation, alteration, or repair of transportation, water, and energy
infrastructure projects. Requires infrastructure projects assisted under this Act to have costs
reasonably anticipated to equal or exceed $50 million ($10 million for rural infrastructure
projects). Sets forth special requirements for infrastructure projects in rural areas. Establishes an
Office of Technical and Rural Assistance to: provide technical assistance to state and local
governments and parties in public-private partnerships in the development and financing of
eligible, including rural, infrastructure projects; and establish a regional infrastructure accelerator
demonstration program. Establishes an Office of Special Inspector General to conduct, supervise,
and coordinate audits and investigations of the business activities of IFA. Prohibits IFA
financing of a project if: it is private or does not create a public benefit, or the loan applicant is
unable to demonstrate a sufficient revenue stream. Sets forth terms for loans or loan guarantees
for eligible infrastructure projects and for the repayment of such loans. Requires an annual
independent audit of IFA finances. Requires the President, immediately after IFA approves
financing for a proposed project, to convene a meeting of representatives of all permitting
agencies to: establish a permitting timetable for the environmental review of a project, and
coordinate with relevant state agencies and regional infrastructure development agencies in the
review of such projects. Requires the Chief Executive Officer of IFA to: establish fees with
respect to loans and loan guarantees that are sufficient to cover IFA's administrative costs; and
take actions to make IFA a self-sustaining entity, with administrative and federal credit subsidy
costs fully funded by fees and risk premiums on loans and loan guarantees. Amends the Internal
Revenue Code to increase from $15 billion to $16 billion the aggregate amount of proceeds from
tax-exempt facility bonds the Department of Transportation shall allocate among qualified
highway or surface freight transfer facilities.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
S.1701, Infrastructure Rehabilitation Act of 2015
Introduced on June 25 by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) with no cosponsors. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
S.1748, A bill to provide for improved investment in national transportation
infrastructure.
Introduced on July 9 by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) with four cosponsors and referred to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
S.1680, National Multimodal Freight Policy and Investment Act
Introduced on June 25 by Senator Maria Cantwell with three cosponsors (now 4). The bill was
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.3337, National Infrastructure Development Bank Act of 2015
Introduced on July 29 by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-3) with seventy cosponsors
(now 84). The bill was to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Transportation and
Infrastructure, Financial Services, and Ways and Means. Establishes the National Infrastructure
Development Bank as a wholly owned government corporation. Makes the Bank's Board of
Directors responsible for monitoring and overseeing energy, environmental, telecommunications,
and transportation infrastructure projects. Authorizes the Board to: (1) make senior and
subordinated direct loans and loan guarantees to assist in the financing or refinancing of an
infrastructure project, (2) issue public benefit bonds and provide financing to infrastructure
projects, and (3) pay an interest subsidy to the issuer of American Infrastructure Bonds. Requires
the Board to establish an Executive Committee to establish requirements and make
recommendations for project proposals to be considered for financial assistance. Requires the
Bank to establish a Risk Management Committee, which shall: (1) create financial, credit, and
operational risk management guidelines for the Bank; (2) set guidelines to ensure diversification
of lending activities by geographic region and infrastructure project type; (3) create conforming
standards for all financial assistance provided by the Bank; (4) monitor financial, credit, and
operational exposure of the Bank; (5) provide financial recommendations to the Board; and (6)
ensure that the aggregate amount of interest subsidies provided for American Infrastructure
Bonds in a given calendar year does not exceed 28% of interest payable under all such Bonds.
Requires the Bank to establish an audit committee. Requires the Board to approve criteria
established by the Executive Committee for determining project eligibility for financial
assistance. Sets forth criteria to be considered by the Board for each type of infrastructure
project. Requires the Executive Committee to conduct an analysis that considers the economic,
environmental, and social benefits and costs of each project under consideration, prioritizing
projects that contribute to economic growth, lead to job creation, and are of regional or national
significance. Requires any financial assistance for an infrastructure project to be repayable from
dedicated revenue sources that also secure the infrastructure project obligations. Limits the
amount of assistance under this Act to 50% of reasonably anticipated project costs. Exempts all
bonds issued by the Bank from state or local government taxation. Sets forth requirements
regarding compliance of assisted projects with wage rate, domestic content, and buy American
statutes. Requires the Board to establish an American Infrastructure Bond program. Establishes
in the Treasury the National Infrastructure Development Bank Trust Fund into which an amount
estimated to equal the tax receipts attributable to interest payable under such Bonds is to be
appropriated.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.3376, To authorize States to carry out bridge construction, maintenance, repair, and
replacement projects using previously allocated surface transportation funds that are
identified as being excess or inactive, and for other purposes.
Introduced on July 29 by Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-NY-17) with no cosponsors. The bill
was referred to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.3398, To improve the condition and performance of the national multimodal freight
network, and for other purposes.
Introduced on July 29 by Congressman David Reichert (R-WA-8) with two cosponsors. The bill
was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
S.1994, Tax Relief And Fix-The-Trust Fund For Infrastructure Certainty Act of 2015
Introduced on August 5 by Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) with one cosponsor. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Finance. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to phase in:
(1) an increase of the excise tax rate on gasoline beginning in 2016 until such rate is 34.3 cents
per gallon in calendar years beginning after 2018, and (2) a similar increase to 40.3 cents per
gallon for diesel fuel and kerosene. The rates are to be adjusted for inflation for calendar years
after 2019. The bill phases in increases in allocations of fuel excise tax amounts to the Mass
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund for calendar years beginning in 2015. Such
increased allocations are to be adjusted for inflation for calendar years beginning after 2019. The
bill makes permanent the increase in the refundable portion of the child tax credit and the
increase in the earned income tax credit for families with three or more qualifying children. The
earned income tax credit is also modified to: (1) allow an increase in such credit for individuals
with no qualifying children, (2) revise tax credit eligibility rules for married individuals living
apart and qualifying children claimed by another family member, and (3) repeal the denial of
such credit for taxpayers with excess investment income.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
S.2008, Transportation, Access, and Opportunity Act of 2015
Introduced on August 6 by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) with no cosponsors. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.3465, Public-Private Partnership Infrastructure Investment Act
Introduced on September 9 by Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY-18) with no
cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.3585, Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2015
Introduced on September 22 by Congresswoman Barbara Comstock (R-VA-10) with six (now 7)
cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Status Update: on cosponsor added since the last report.
H.R.3756, WIFIA Improvement Act
Introduced on October 16 by Congressman Carlos Curbello (R-FL-26) with 17 (now 24)
cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy. The
bill amends the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 to repeal provisions
prohibiting any project receiving federal credit assistance under such Act from being financed
from the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
S.2247, SAFE Bridges Act of 2015
Introduced on November 5 by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) with no cosponsors. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This bill directs the Department of
Transportation to establish a program to assist states to rehabilitate or replace bridges found to be
structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, or fracture critical. States shall use apportioned
program funds for projects to rehabilitate and replace such bridges. The federal share of project
costs is 100%
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.4081,TIFIA 2.0 Act
Introduced on November 19 by Congressman Daniel Webster (R-FL-10) with no cosponsors and
referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. The bill amends the Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) to revise the Department of Transportation
(DOT) TIFIA program of direct loans, loan guarantees, and credit for surface transportation
projects. A TIFIA Revolving Fund is established in the Treasury. A set-aside of up to 10% of
Fund amounts is required for rural infrastructure projects (as similarly required in current
funding law).The DOT is directed to transfer from the Fund to the general fund of the Treasury
amounts equal to moneys deposited in the Fund as a result of the repayment of principal and
interest on direct loans for transportation infrastructure projects before enactment of this Act.
Project eligibility requirements are revised.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
H.R.4228, Transporation Megaprojects Accountability and Oversight Act of 2015
Introduced on December 10 by Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA-11) with one cosponsor
and referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Status Update: no change since the last report.
Capitol Corridor Monthly Performance Report - December 2015
1
The Capitol Corridor continued its positive trend in December 2015. The service experienced gains in
the "Three R's” (Ridership, Revenue, and Reliability), with a total of 120,600 passengers in December
2015, an increase of 3.6% over December 2014; revenues were up 2.1% over December 2014 (a record
for the month); and reliability, as measured by On-Time Performance (OTP), was an exemplary 96%,
6% above the standard of 90%.
Year-To-Date (YTD) ridership and revenues are up 3% and 4%, respectively, with the System
Operating Ratio remaining at 54%, which is above the 50% standard. YTD OTP is 94%, maintaining
Capitol Corridor’s distinction as the most reliable train service in the national Amtrak intercity
passenger rail network.
While detailed station and train ridership reports are not yet available for November 2015, the
following are ridership highlights for December 2015 based on reports received from Amtrak:
Average weekend ridership for December 2015 was down 4%, primarily due to there being
fewer weekend days compared to December 2014, plus one fewer 49ers football game, which
occurred in the following month (January 2016).
Average weekday ridership was up by 3% compared to December 2014, due to sustained
growth in ridership on the trains traveling to and from San Jose/Silicon Valley, as well as
continuing ridership growth on the two trains serving the Placer County stations.
Draft California FY 2016-17 State Budget on January 7, 2016
Governor Brown released his draft budget for FY 2016-17. The Governor’s budget proposal addresses
the state’s transportation infrastructure crisis by proposing to invest $36 billion in transportation over
the next 10 years. This plan is consistent with last year's request by the Governor to the Legislature to
convene a conference committee as part of the transportation special session, with directions to invest
new revenues on: “fix it first” initiatives/projects to repair local roads and state highways and bridges;
trade corridors that will increase economic growth; matching funds for high priority transportation
projects; passenger rail; and public transit modernization and improvement.
Specifically, the draft budget support for the Capitol Corridor and other state transit/intercity rail
Capitol Corridor Monthly Performance Report - December 2015
2
services includes:
Cap and Trade Transit Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP): The proposed budget for
TIRCP initially maintains the continuously-appropriated funds from the Cap and Trade auction
proceeds whereby TIRCP is expected to receive $200 million. However, the Governor’s Cap
and Trade plan for FY 16-17 acknowledges that if his proposed transportation funding package
is enacted then TIRCP would receive a supplemental $400 million, increasing the amount
available to $600 million. The CCJPA plans to submit an application(s) for a portion of the
$200 million (or $600 million) FY 16-17 TIRCP funds.
CA Intercity Passenger Rail Operating Budget: The Governor’s Draft FY 16-17 Budget
provides the same amount of funding ($127 million) as the enacted FY 15-16 budget for the
operating support of the operation on the three intercity passenger rail routes (San Joaquin,
Pacific Surfliner and Capitol Corridor), which includes the addition of the new 7th San Joaquin
round trip train. The Governor’s draft budget may be updated as part of the May Revise based
upon Amtrak’s submittal of final FY 2016-17 operating (and ridership and revenue) estimates,
which are due in late March 2016.
Surface Transportation Authorization – FAST Act of 2015 Through the collaborative efforts of the House Transportation and Infrastructure and Senate Commerce
committees, Congress approved the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 on
Thursday, December 3, 2015. President Obama signed the bill into law on Friday, December 4, 2015.
The FAST Act, the first multi-year surface transportation authorization in over 10 years, provides up
to $305B over five years for the nation's highway network, transit and commuter rail services, Amtrak,
and – for the first time ever – state-supported intercity passenger rail (IPR) services.
Of the $305B, the Rail Title (Section XI) authorizes approximately $10.4B for Amtrak, state-supported
IPR services, and freight and other rail-related programs. Key passenger rail-related accounts in the
FAST Act are:
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRI & SI): The US DOT will seek
projects from eligible applicants for competitive grants to finance improvements to passenger
and freight rail services in terms of safety, efficiency, or reliability. PTC and other technology
items and rail line relocation are also eligible for funding. $1.103B over five years, with a 50%
match required.
State of Good Repair (SOGR): The US DOT shall develop a program that will allow for grants
to eligible applicants, on a competitive basis, to finance capital projects that reduce the state of
good repair backlog with respect to qualified railroad assets. $0.997B over five years, with
20% match required.
State Supported Route Commission (SSRC): The SSRC is authorized at $10M ($2M per year
for five years) and established by the US DOT Secretary of Transportation coordinate planning
of trains operated by Amtrak on state-supported routes so as to further implement Section 209
of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). Members include US
DOT (likely FRA), Amtrak, and state intercity passenger rail agencies. (Note: The current State
Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee (SAIPRC) closely resembles the SSRC as
described in the FAST Act.)
FY 2016 Omnibus Federal Appropriations
For all the success of including intercity passenger rail in the Rail Title of the FAST Act of 2015 (FY
2016 – FY 2020), the FY 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill (signed into law on December 18, 2015)
Capitol Corridor Monthly Performance Report - December 2015
3
did not include the $200 million authorized for FY 2016 under the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure
and Safety Improvements (CRI & SI) and State Of Good Repair (SOGR) sections of the FAST Act.
The FY 2016 Omnibus budget did include (1) the continuation of the popular TIGER grant program
($500 million), which averages an award of $10-$20 million per project (Note: The CCJPA’s projects
for the Capitol Corridor are eligible for TIGER funds), and (2) an appropriation of $500,000 to support
the newly created State Supported Route Commission (SSRC), which is currently organized under the
State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee (SAIPRC). This committee is comprised of the 22
state IPR agencies, the FRA, and Amtrak. It achieved consensus in revising the cost allocation
methodologies and subsequent budgets for the FY 2017 Amtrak costs relating to stations, marketing,
and support services (such as Information Technology).
Upcoming efforts include ensuring the full FY 2017 authorization amounts (approximately $350
million) identified in the FAST Act are within the FY 2017 appropriations bill(s).
Customer Service Program Upgrades
Bicycle Access Program: CCJPA staff continues to work with Amtrak and individual station owners
to install eLockers using several grants that are financing this project. On the trains, conversions to
allow for more bicycle parking in select cars have proven to be effective in accommodating demand.
That said, bicycle access demand continues to grow, so staff is beginning to examine new options for
on-train storage that could hopefully increase capacity even more. CCJPA will work with Caltrans to
explore such on-train retrofits.
Improvements to CCJPA Train Status Feature on Website: The CCJPA recently launched the real-time
train status map/app and station arrivals estimates on its website. Initial usage and feedback from
customers has been positive, and staff will continue to review and make enhancements to this feature
going forward.
Marketing: Staff continues to promote the Friends & Family small group deal, which has been renewed
for 2016. To assist with this promotion, as well as the marketing of possible winter/spring fare
discounts, staff in the process of hiring an ad agency. Other major initiatives for the Marketing
Department include the 2015 Annual Performance Report, Super Bowl 50 communications, new and
ongoing strategic partnerships, website improvements, and the development of the new onboard
wireless landing page (AmtrakConnect).
Safety Initiatives
Security Cameras at Capitol Corridor Stations: Funding has been secured to install cameras and
surveillance equipment at the Rocklin, Roseville, Suisun, and Fremont stations. This project is under
development and will be constructed over the next 6-8 months. Funding has been identified in a future
funding year for security cameras at the Martinez, Emeryville, and Oakland Jack London Square
stations. When complete, all Capitol Corridor stations will be equipped with security cameras and
surveillance equipment.
Positive Train Control: On October 28, 2015, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3819, which
would provide a three-year extension of the current PTC implementation deadline of December 31,
President Obama signed the bill before midnight October 29.
With the enactment of the three-year extension of PTC, railroads responsible for installing PTC on
their rail networks are now required to provide the US DOT Secretary a revised implementation and
Capitol Corridor Monthly Performance Report - December 2015
4
testing schedule for PTC within 90 days of the enactment of H.R. 3819. In addition to being in close
communication with the UPRR and Caltrain on their PTC installation plans,
CCJPA staff will continue working with Caltrans and Amtrak on completing the installation and the
PTC on-board equipment in the locomotives and cab cars, plus installation by Amtrak of the back-
office server that will relay the location of the Capitol Corridor trains to the UPRR and Caltrain PTC
servers.
Project Updates
Travel Time Reduction Project: The CCJPA is working with the UPRR to finalize the phasing plan for
the project, schedule, and budget that will achieve the projected 10-minute travel time reduction for
Capitol Corridor trains between Sacramento and San Jose. This project was awarded $4.62 million in
Cap and Trade Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) funds. ACE trains would receive a
five-minute travel time reduction between Fremont and San Jose on the shared section of the Capitol
Corridor route.
CCJPA Oakland-San Jose Phase 2 Project: The engineering and environmental consultants continue
working for CCJPA on the Newark-Albrae and Great America double track segments. Initial survey
data has been gathered and conceptual design is advancing. Concurrently, Caltrain is completing the
design and environmental plans for the track upgrades into and out of the San Jose/Diridon station
terminal facility as a means to accommodate additional Capitol Corridor trains.
Sacramento to Roseville 3rd Track Environmental Review/Preliminary
Engineering: On November 18, 2015, the CCJPA Board adopted the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project, which will allow up to 10 round trips
to/from Roseville. In parallel, the CCJPA is preparing a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental document for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which the FRA will complete
with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) once CCJPA requests federal funding for the project.
Outlook – Closing
With the first quarter complete for FY16 (October - December 2015), the Capitol Corridor remains in
growth mode, with actual results exceeding standards thanks to steady ridership and revenue growth
and reductions in operational/mechanical and host railroad/dispatching delay minutes. While current
global economic indicators are pointing downward, the Capitol Corridor continues to have moderate
growth in passenger demand and operating expenses that are below budget. Progress continues on the
numerous projects and initiatives planned for FY16: installation of on-board Positive Train Control
equipment and supporting technology, the delivery of new Tier IV diesel-electric locomotives (the
cleanest in the nation), the construction planning for the Sacramento-Roseville 3rd Track and Travel
Time Savings Projects, and incremental updates to the CCJPA website.
94.6% 88.4% 92.7% 93.2% 93.9% 93.5% 94.0% 94.0% 94.4% 92.4% 95.9% 95.4%
6.1% 5.3% 0.3% -0.8% 6.7% 5.9% 2.9% 5.1% 1.9% 4.4% 3.7% 6.1%
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
140,000
Rid
ersh
ip
Prior 12 Months Current 12 Months
How's Business?Ridership
% difference current month to prior year's month
On-time Performance
3.87% Overall 12-Month Growth
Ridership Last 12 Months=1,494,079
Ridership Prior 12 Months=1,438,438
$2,000,000
$2,100,000
$2,200,000
$2,300,000
$2,400,000
$2,500,000
$2,600,000
$2,700,000
$2,800,000
$2,900,000
Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16
Rev
en
ue
Month
Capitol Corridor PerformanceFFY 2015-16
Monthly RevenuesActual vs Business Plan
Actual FY 16 Revenue YTD (through Jan-16)
FFY 16 Business Plan
Actual FY 15 Revenue
Actual FY 14 Revenues
How's Business?:Revenue
3.9% vs.FFY 16 Business Plan YTD
4.4% vs. Prior FFY 15 YTD
11.2% vs. Prior FFY 14 YTD
How's Business?:Revenue
3.9% vs.FFY 16 Business Plan YTD
4.4% vs. Prior FFY 15 YTD
Total Annual FFY 16 Business Plan = $30,406,000
11.2% vs. Prior FFY 14 YTD
Ridership On-time Performance System Operating Ratio (b)Customer
Satisfaction
Month Actual Business Plan Actual Actual Actual Business Plan Actual
October-15 134,233 127,310 94.4% 51.8% $2,686,162 $2,522,142 88
November-15 130,045 127,120 92.4% 59.7% $2,845,496 $2,800,028 87
December-15 120,600 116,620 95.9% 57.3% $2,640,617 $2,605,670 88
January-16 119,250 111,830 95.4% 48.9% $2,487,049 $2,332,299
February-16 112,030 $2,308,541
March-16 128,460 $2,619,967
April-16 126,870 $2,521,391
May-16 131,030 $2,621,365
June-16 121,650 $2,472,371
July-16 117,260 $2,582,879
August-16 124,340 $2,528,269
September-16 116,930 $2,491,078
Total YTD 504,128 482,880 94.5% 54% $10,659,324 $10,260,139 88Previous YTD 484,922 - - 93.2% 52% $10,206,919 - - 87YTD Change 4.0% 4.4% 1.3% 4.2% 4.4% 3.9% 0.7%
Annual Standard/Measure 1,461,450 90% 50% $30,406,000 88
b) This standard measures total revenues (farebox and other operating credits) divided by total expenses (Amtrak operations + CCJPA Call Center)
State Perfomance Standards (a)
a) Standard developed by CCJPA in annual business plan update and approved by the California State Transportation Agency
Other Performance Measures
FY 2016 Performance Measures
Revenues
Cummulative FFY Year-to-Date: December 2015
Monthly Station Ridership Activity
Capitol Corridor Train Service
FFY 2015 - 2015
Station Boardings Alightings Total
Boardings/
day
Alightings/
day Boardings Alightings
% Change from last FFY
FFY 2015 - 2015
Total/ day
Weighted
Boardings
Weighted
Alightings
Weighted
Total
ARN 2205 1837 4042 23.97 19.97 9.3% 6.6%43.93 23.97 19.97 43.93
RLN 2059 1843 3902 22.38 20.03 0.2% 2.4%42.41 22.38 20.03 42.41
RSV 3561 3673 7234 38.71 39.92 10.0% 6.6%78.63 38.71 39.92 78.63
SAC 99837 99268 199105 1085.18 1079.00 0.5% 1.7%2164.18 97.76 97.21 194.97
DAV 46725 43551 90276 507.88 473.38 -0.5% -1.8%981.26 45.75 42.65 88.40
SUI 21133 21604 42737 229.71 234.83 6.5% 2.7%464.53 20.69 21.16 41.85
MTZ 25889 27698 53587 281.40 301.07 0.3% 0.0%582.47 25.35 27.12 52.47
RIC 24456 26116 50572 265.83 283.87 2.7% 4.1%549.70 23.95 25.57 49.52
BKY 18040 17708 35748 196.09 192.48 4.2% 3.0%388.57 17.67 17.34 35.01
EMY 45875 46650 92525 498.64 507.07 1.5% 1.5%1005.71 44.92 45.68 90.60
OKJ 27671 28291 55962 300.77 307.51 9.3% 12.0%608.28 27.10 27.70 54.80
OAC 8156 10087 18243 88.65 109.64 18.3% 19.7%198.29 13.64 16.87 30.51
HAY 5592 5729 11321 60.78 62.27 12.6% 13.7%123.05 13.20 13.52 26.72
FMT 4818 4586 9404 52.37 49.85 16.5% 6.9%102.22 11.37 10.82 22.20
GAC 18728 18942 37670 203.57 205.89 6.7% 4.5%409.46 44.21 44.71 88.92
SCC 4966 4630 9596 53.98 50.33 37.1% 30.8%104.30 #Div/0! #Div/0! #Div/0!
SJC 21771 19269 41040 236.64 209.45 2.4% 2.7%446.09 51.39 45.48 96.87
FFY Total
or Average381482 381482 762964 4146.54 4146.54 8293.09
December 2015
ARNOrig BKYDAV EMY FMT GACHAYMTZ OKJRICRLN RSV SAC SJCSUI Grand Total:
Origin-Destination Table
OAC
ARN 2244 116 2149 5678314 14 69641
RLN 1290 92 4 5146 2034307 16 62728
1RSV 59134 283 4 13270 77981 228 45 101554
214SAC 15731822 7840 576 9465304872 35594658262 204 21722054 312821518
35DAV 1242 2848 231 3171411304 1247258281 123 1951 568445 13115327
18SUI 411429 1411 51 10352605 57548016 83 1878 133 6245204
42MTZ 3151153 500 14 1261723420232 99 4729 173578 821460
64RIC 52314 28 2 109204 3539 76 4374 104509 786311
30BKY 1234 47 21 57034389 127414 60 1603 418397 494818
137EMY 162680 242 61379414 1713578 297 7734 6581437 1459129
77OKJ 341141 79 19 122952215 4528 98 3773 906578 827446
10OAC 12216 10 3 474128 60177 35 1095 307176 2451
3HAY 34106 70 55326 14112 2 534 16659 16974
FMT 35184 272 141210 4172 3 618 6362 14403
1GAC 541274 620 130537111 12001006 8 947 2998 4602510
1SCC 11284 234 15 163131 280132 5 291 9315 1223140
7SJC 448513 735 88 15302220 10741043 9 2686 200 6404431
Grand Total: 640 487112418 15185 1402 523017828594 88978458573 1102 33062 57906683 1146873424
Date: February 4, 2016
Reader Input: New taxes not the answer
It looks like the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) will place a tax
increase measure on the ballot this year.
PCTPA is made up of Placer County Supervisors and City Council members of cities in Placer,
including Supervisors Jim Holmes and Kirk Uhler and City Council members Keith Nesbitt,
Tony Hesch, Stan Nader, Brian Baker, Diana Ruslin and Susan Rohan.
We are told the problem is we do not pay enough in taxes. Just another tax increase, just a
little more spending and all our problems will be solved; how many times have we heard that
baloney?
The real problem is misplaced spending priorities. For example, PCTPA has the money to hire
an expensive consultant, send out expensive mailers and campaign to get you to raise your
taxes, but no money for roads.
Lincoln can pay their city manager almost $500,000, but no money to repair roads.
The supervisors can find money for their 139 percent pay increase, but no money to fill
potholes.
Roseville can build the Roseville Fitness Center, but no money to build roads. As nice as that
facility is, isn’t that better left to the private sector - maybe California Family Fitness or 24
Hour Fitness?
There would be outrage if we were told taxes need to go up for politician pay raises, to
overpay bureaucrats, to build a government health club to compete with the private sector, or
to run an expensive tax-hike campaign. So, money is moved around and we are told the tax
increase is for roads.
This is an election year. We need to vote out every politician that believes increasing taxes
and increasing spending is the solution to every problem confronting us.
We must vote for people who can properly prioritize, spend wisely and live within their
means.
Ken Campbell, Lincoln
Date: January 15, 2016
Comment
The issue of a transportation tax was brought up at the Meddlers’ meeting January 12. Many people
present did not know the Board of Supervisors and the Placer County Transportation Agency are two
separately governed boards.
The Placer County Transportation Agency (PCTPA) is a “joint powers authority” agency whose nine
member Board is served by six incorporated city representatives, two county supervisors, and an at-
large citizen representative.
It is an independent Agency which covers many transportation issues from public transportation to
building new roadways or improving traffic movement such as the HOV lanes on I-80, or the Highway
65 bypass of the town of Lincoln.
The PCTPA board, as your representatives of transportation issues, wrestled with the road needs of
our county. Because of the vast need for roadways and the lack of funds coming to PCTPA in a
reasonable time period (say 5-10 years) your board looked at ways to improve this financial dilemma.
No one likes taxes, and we citizens usually have a say in taxing ourselves. What PCTPA is proposing is
a very small increase of our sales tax to help with funding the needed roads in Placer County.
Please learn more about this proposed increase in sales tax so you will better understand the need for
it and where the money will go in Placer County.
This is a local issue. You, as voters, should stand against the scare tactics of naysayers and make an
informed decision.
Harriet White, North Auburn