PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY …impacts, socio-economic impacts, and projected growth in the region. Goals Six project goals were derived from recommendations in the

PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY

AUGUST 2004 PUBLIC MEETINGS SUMMARY REPORT

Roseville Corporation Yard, Roseville, CA – August 23, 2004 Pleasant Grove School, Pleasant Grove, CA – August 26, 2004

Prepared by Moore Iacofano Goltsman (MIG), Inc. In association with URS Corporation (URS)

For Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA)

August 2004 Public Meetings Summary Report Page i Placer Parkway Corridor Preservation Project

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................1

2.0 Background And Purpose .........................................................................1

3.0 Publicity And Noticing...............................................................................1 Newsletter..................................................................................................................................................1 Newspaper Display Advertisements .....................................................................................................2

4.0 Meeting Format ..........................................................................................2

5.0 Presentations .............................................................................................3

6.0 Public Meeting Summary...........................................................................5 Roseville Meeting .....................................................................................................................................6 Pleasant Grove Meeting ..........................................................................................................................7

Appendices

A. Publicity Materials

B. Meeting Materials

C. Meeting Comments

August 2004 Public Meetings Summary Report Page 1 Placer Parkway Corridor Preservation Project

INTRODUCTION

The Placer Parkway Corridor Preservation Project will identify a corridor and allow for the acquisition or preservation of right-of-way for a future Parkway connecting State Route 65 in Placer County, and State Route 70/99 in Sutter County, California. This Parkway is a high priority regional transportation project identified in the Sacramento Area Council of Government’s (SACOG) 2025 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and the 2022 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan. Three corridor concepts connecting these State Routes were identified in a Project Study Report prepared in 2001. These corridor concepts consist of a north, a central, and a south route. These concepts and other feasible corridors identified during the scoping and corridor alignment alternative analysis processes will be evaluated to determine the alternatives for analysis in the Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In August 2004, the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) held two public meetings (one in Placer County and one in Sutter County) as part of its comprehensive community outreach program. The purpose of the meetings was to provide an opportunity for community members, local groups, and agencies to provide input on the overall scope and content of the Tier 1 EIS/EIR. These meetings were the second in a series of three rounds of public meetings planned throughout the project. The third round will include public hearings to review the Draft Tier 1 EIS/EIR document.

PUBLICITY AND NOTICING

Newsletter

A newsletter (July 2004) was mailed in early August 2004 to property owners (within and just outside the study area), interested organizations, agencies and individuals to inform them about the public meeting. The newsletter included a meeting notice. More than 1,700 newsletters were mailed. Additional copies were left at public locations, as indicated below. Newsletters were mailed to the following local governments and agencies: • City Councils of Lincoln , Loomis, Rocklin, Roseville, and Sacramento • Boards of Supervisors for Placer, Sacramento, and Sutter counties • SACOG Board of Directors • City of Lincoln Community Development Department • City of Rocklin Community Development Department • City of Roseville Planning and Redevelopment • County of Placer Planning Department • County of Sacramento Planning and Community Development Department • County of Sutter Community Services Department


Newsletters were delivered to the following organizations/businesses: • Pleasant Grove School (300 copies) • Riego Market (300 copies) • Sun City Community Center, Roseville (500 copies)

Newspaper Display Advertisements

Print ads were placed in the following newspapers to provide additional publicity for the meetings: • Wednesday, August 11, 2004

o Lincoln News Messenger o Placer Herald o Roseville Tribune

• Sunday, August 15, 2004 o Appeal-Democrat o Auburn Journal o Sacramento Bee

See Appendix A for copies of newsletter and print ad.

MEETING FORMAT

Public meetings were held on Monday, August 23, 2004, at the Roseville Corporation Yard, and Thursday, August 26, 2004, at the Pleasant Grove School, from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Approximately 35 people attended the Roseville meeting. More than 120 people attended the Pleasant Grove meeting. Meeting materials included an agenda, list of Advisory Committee members, speaker card, comment sheet, and a map with corridor alignment alternatives for the Placer Parkway. Both meetings began with an open house period where participants were able to review information displayed on boards and ask questions in an informal setting. The project team then made a presentation about the project, including the work program, project schedule, technical analysis, outreach, the corridor alignment alternatives, and project status. The presentation was followed by a discussion of issues and concerns. A concluding open house followed the close of the meeting, providing an additional opportunity for participants to interact with project team members and voice any additional concerns or perspectives. See Appendix B for copies of meeting materials.


5.0 PRESENTATIONS

Overview and Welcome

Celia McAdam, Executive Director of PCTPA, welcomed participants and provided a brief overview of the meeting purpose. Meeting facilitator, Daniel Iacofano from MIG, Inc., provided an overview of the agenda and described the multi-year planning process and its three key phases: public outreach; identification and evaluation of corridor alternatives; and preparation of the Tier 1 EIS/EIR.

Project Study Area

Ms. McAdam explained that the Parkway is intended as a regional transportation facility connecting State Route 65 to State Route 70/99 in the area between Sunset Boulevard West/Howsley Road and Baseline Road/Riego Road, and is divided into the following three segments: • Western Segment – SR 70/99 to the Sutter/Placer County line • Central Segment – Sutter/Placer County line to Fiddyment Road • Eastern Segment – Fiddyment Road to SR 65

Ms. McAdam noted that the potential alternatives were developed based on extensive evaluation of factors such as traffic impacts, existing and planned development, environmental impacts, socio-economic impacts, and projected growth in the region.

Goals

Six project goals were derived from recommendations in the 2000 Conceptual Plan and the 2001 Project Study Report (PSR): • Controlling access • Maximizing mobility and accommodating planned growth • Avoiding growth inducement and protecting rural character • Minimizing environmental impacts • Improving safety and minimizing hazards • Ensuring feasible and equitable funding

Design and Construction

Funding elements for the Parkway include: • Estimated construction costs of $200 to $300 million in year 2000 dollars • Additional federal funding needed • Construction funding available by 2015

Purpose and Need

Ms. McAdam explained that based on projected growth in both Placer and Sutter Counties over the next 20 to 25 years, a transportation facility is needed to ensure free-flowing traffic between SR 65 and SR 70/99, to reduce congestion on local roads and highways, , improve access to employment, and provide for the general movement of goods and people in the region.


Corridor Preservation

It was explained that the project team was currently focused on identifying corridor alternatives for potential preservation. Ms. McAdam discussed the significance of the Tier 1 EIS/EIR process, explaining that it is a new approach for large projects. She noted that this process would address state and federal requirements and public concerns by providing sufficient detail to support informed decisions. It was explained that the Tier 1 EIS/EIR will focus on broad issues and general information (e.g., location of alignments, air quality, land use issues), and will identify potential mitigation strategies that would apply to a future Tier 2 analysis. The Tier 2 EIS/EIR will address impacts from locating a specific roadway alignment within the selected corridor. The following tentative timeline was presented for the environmental review process: • Fall 2005 – Tier 1 Draft EIS/EIR • Late 2006 – Tier 1 Final EIS/EIR • 2015 – Tier 2 EIS/EIR

Issues

Several potential issues related to the following aspects of the project were reviewed: • Community and environmental impacts • Tier 1 EIS/EIR process • Coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) • Pending and anticipated urban development in the study area

Screening Process

Stan Tidman, PCTPA Project Manager, explained that the project team evaluated the PSR alignment alternatives through a detailed screening process designed to detect fatal flaws (defined as any significant issue that could render the project infeasible and/or be inconsistent with adopted project goals and policies). This process included the following analysis: 1. Transportation Screening – using a transportation model to determine future traffic

impacts 2. Environmental Screening – using 15 environmental conditions, including biological

resources and existing development, to determine potential environment impacts

Mr. Tidman outlined the screening process for the four potential corridor alignment alternatives. He informed the meeting participants that the results of the transportation and environmental screening evaluation process are documented in a comprehensive project Technical Memorandum (2004), which is available on PCTPA’s website (www.pctpa.org). This document lists a number of recommended adjustments to each PSR concept alignment to avoid or reduce impacts.


Alternatives Refinement Process

It was explained that project team refined the PSR alternatives based on public input from Fall 2003 scoping meetings, NOI/NOP comments, feedback from advisory committee members and various agencies, and the NEPA/404 process undertaken with the USACOE and USEPA. The project team used the following criteria to refine alternative alignments: • Project purpose and need • Impact analysis using the screening criteria • A wide range of alternative alignments

Potential Corridor Alignments for EIS/EIR Analysis

Mr. Tidman explained that the project team refined the potential corridor alignments in consultation with both the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Study Advisory Committee (SAC), and identified four potential alternatives for public review. He described each potential corridor alignment alternative to meeting participants. He explained that in comparison to the PSR alternatives, the four potential corridor alignment alternatives avoided or reduced impacts on environmental resources and existing development. The presentation concluded with a review of the next steps for the project: • Continue the NEPA/404 process for federal agency input • Continue public outreach activities • Refine alternatives for analysis in the Tier 1 EIS/EIR • Prepare the Tier 1 EIS/EIR • Begin the corridor preservation process

6.0 PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY

Comments from the Roseville and Pleasant Grove meetings are summarized in this section according to the following categories: • Planning Process • Corridor Alignment • Community Impacts • Environmental Impacts • Agricultural Impacts • Funding • Traffic and Access • Property Acquisition In many instances, the project staff responded to public comments during the meeting.


A. Roseville Meeting

Responding to the public at the meeting, the project team provided the following information:

Planning Process

• The project schedule includes the following key milestones: o Final set of corridor alternatives identified o Tier 1 EIS/EIR will evaluate each one o Select a “preferred alternative” o Complete a Record of Decision (Federal Highway Administration) o Certify the document and approve the project (SPRTA and Sutter County), late 2006

or early 2007 • State Route 102 project was a Caltrans project started in the late 1980s to connect I-5 to

I-80. The proposed Parkway will be a much shorter connector, between SR 65 and SR 70/99.

Corridor Alignment

• The Placer Parkway will initially be designed as a four-lane facility, and possibly widened in the future to six lanes.

• The no-development buffer concept was developed by the Policy Advisory Committee to address growth inducement and retain the agricultural character of the area.

Community Impacts

• The project team will note that homes and businesses along Brewer Road are very close to one of the potential alignments.

• Terminating the Parkway at SR 65 may impact the location of a new high school in Rocklin.

Environmental Impacts

• Sound walls may be required to mitigate noise and will be evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS/EIR. Other specific environmental impacts and mitigation measures will be identified in the Tier 2 EIS/EIR.

• The Tier 1 EIS/EIR analysis will include Amoruso Acres even though it is outside the project area.

• Potential environmental impacts outside the project study area will be assessed depending on which alternative is being studied.

Traffic and Access

• The traffic model used for the alternatives screening process included the Thunder Valley Casino traffic.

• Blue Oaks is an arterial roadway in the City of Roseville’s General Plan and will be analyzed as such for the Tier 1 EIS/EIR.

• The project team is working with Caltrans, Placer County, and the City of Rocklin on Parkway/Whitney interchange concepts for connections to SR 65. The project team is aware of concerns about a potential connection to Sierra College Blvd.


Property Acquisition

• The land acquisition process for the Placer Parkway will start after the Tier 1 EIS/EIR process is completed. The formal right-of-way acquisition process will be developed in accordance with FHWA guidelines.

• The project team will work with the property owners through a formal property acquisition process. Eminent domain is one of several tools, but not preferred by the project team.

• There is no definite approach yet for evaluating and acquiring greenbelts adjacent to the future Parkway. The project team is exploring various options such as agricultural and conservation easements.

B. Pleasant Grove Meeting

Planning Process

The project team provided the following comments in response to inquiries from participants: • The project team has developed data on Working Farm Units in response to requests

from participants at the October 2003 scoping meetings. Working farms are defined as a agricultural properties farmed as a unit by an individual, family, or company.

• The project team is in communication with Placer County on a number of proposals such as Placer Vineyards, Placer Ranch Specific Plan, De La Salle Specific Plan, and the Curry Creek Community Plan, and with the City of Roseville on the recently adopted West Roseville Specific Plan.

The following are comments from meeting participants: • Property owners must be recognized as major “stakeholders” in the planning process. • Many property owners expressed frustration with the duration of the project process. • Sutter County seems to be burdened with Placer County’s traffic and growth problems. • Coordination between Sutter and Placer Counties is needed on issues of projected growth

and future development. • Show Jackson Road (north of Baseline and east of Brewer) on the project study area map. • Placer County appears to favor pro-development projects. • The project may share the same fate as the Hwy 102 project, which was never approved.

Corridor Alignment

The project team provided the following comments in response to inquiries from participants: • The north (yellow on the map) alignment alternative, based on a PSR concept alignment,

was shifted north to avoid a large conservation area in the Curry Creek area. This area includes vernal pools, wetlands, and riparian land. West of the Sutter/Placer County line, this alignment also avoids rural residences and the existing Sysco facility before connecting to SR 70/99. In the central segment, this alignment aligns with the Placer County Conservation Plan boundary.

• The Parkway corridor varies between 500 feet in width on the east and west segments and 1,000 feet in width between Fiddyment Road and Pleasant Grove Road.


• The middle, diagonal (orange) corridor alternative was developed based on advisory committee input to provide a more “direct” alignment between SR 65 and SR 70/99. This alignment would cross over a portion of the proposed De La Salle project.

The following are comments from meeting participants: • Reconsider corridor alignments along existing roads in Roseville. • Note that the south (red) alignment alternative near Brewer Road is located in a flood

zone, and new housing is being built in this area. Moving the corridor 1,000 feet north will prevent impact on these houses.

• Move alignments another mile north of Baseline Road to an area where there are no farms and undeveloped lands.

• Link SR 65 to SR 70/99 in Yuba County and widen SR 70/99 to I-5 instead of building a new route in Placer County.

• The alignment alternative along Baseline Road will impact future parks and pedestrian, bike, and horse trails in this area.

• The south (red) alignment alternative along Baseline Road will impact private property. • Move north (yellow) alignment alternative that connects with SR 70/99 at Sankey Road

half mile north to avoid impacts to industrial businesses and allow better access for farms.

Community Impacts

The following are comments from meeting participants: • The alignment along Sunset Blvd. West and Howsley Road infringes on existing property. • Ensure that the project does not negatively impact community quality of life. • Value community impacts on houses and farms higher than environmental impacts on

vernal pools and wetlands in the analysis. • The alternatives may impact the community along Brewer Road. • Address potential community impacts related to interchanges. • Address potential for creating suburban sprawl. • North (yellow) alignment alternative (with the SR 70/99 connection at Sankey Road) will

isolate the fire station from the Pleasant Grove community.

Environmental Impacts

The following are comments from meeting participants: • Shift the south (red) alignment alternative 1,000 feet north to prevent impacts on vernal

pools, fish habitat, and working farms in the vicinity. • Note the impacts of the north (yellow) alignment alternative on Amoroso Acres, which

has some of the most valuable vernal pools. • Evaluate the impact on the three creeks located near Brewer Road.

Agricultural Impacts

The following are comments from meeting participants: • Maintain integrity of farmlands and farming operations. • Address potential property maintenance impacts.


Funding

The project team provided the following comments in response to inquiries from participants: • Approximately $4.5 million was secured from federal and State funding sources to

complete the Tier 1 EIS/EIR process. • Approximately $50 million dollars will be collected through a regional transportation

mitigation fee program of the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) to fund the project.

Traffic and Access

The project team provided the following comments in response to inquiries from participants: • The project will mitigate additional traffic in Sutter County in concert with the

transportation improvement plans of local jurisdictions. • Even with planned improvements of many arterial roads, there is a need for a new 4- to

6-lane, east-west regional facility to accommodate planned growth over the next 20 years. • The project will analyze impacts on SR 70/99 due to an increase in traffic volumes. • A construction management plan will be developed to address local access issues during

project construction. The following are comments from meeting participants: • Find ways to mitigate Placer County’s traffic impacts without impacting Sutter County. • Note that the project could potentially impact local traffic in Sutter County. • Note that the majority of traffic on SR 70/99 is from West Roseville. • The alignment alternative that connects with SR 70/99 at Sankey Road will impact access

for the volunteer fire department. • Note that the SACOG Metropolitan Transportation Plan includes widening of Riego

Road to 4 lanes and Baseline Road (adjacent to Placer Vineyards) to 6 lanes before 2015.

Property Acquisition

The project team provided the following comments in response to inquiries from participants: • The land acquisition process for the Placer Parkway will start after the Tier 1 EIS/EIR is

completed. The formal right-of-way acquisition process will be developed in accordance with FHWA guidelines.

• Based on experience with the SR 65–Lincoln Bypass project, land appraisals will be completed nearer the time when land acquisition takes place.

The following are comments from meeting participants: • Clarify the status of parcels impacted by the alignment alternatives and the process for

determining fair market values for properties that will be acquired.

APPENDIX A: Publicity Materials

Self-Mailer

Print Ad

Self-Mailer

65

7099

Sunset Blvd. West

Riego Rd. Base Line Rd.

Phillip Rd.

Sankey Rd.

Blue Oaks Rd.

Pleasant Grove Rd.

CITY OFROSEVILLE

Fid

dym

ent R

d.

Bre

wer

Rd.

Ple

asan

t Gro

ve B

lvd.

P L A C E R C O U N T Y

S A C R A M E N T O C O U N T Y

S U T T E R C O U N T Y

Potential Corridor Alignment Alternatives Place Parkway Corridor Preservation Tier 1 EIS/EIR

For more information visit:

www.pctpa.org

The public meetingwill begin with an open house at 6:00 p.m., where the public can provide comments and ask questions regarding the presentation of the preliminary corridoralternatives for Tier 1 EIS/EIR analysis related to the Placer Parkway Corridor Preservation project with staff and consultants. A presentation about theproject will begin at 6:30 p.m.

Please join us!

please join us for our public meeting

Thursday August 26, 20046:00 - 8:30 pmPleasant Grove School3075 Howsley Rd.Pleasant Grove

Monday August 23, 20046:00 - 8:30 pmRoseville Corpration Yard2005 Hilltop CircleRoseville

Placer County Meeting Sutter CountyMeeting

Print-Ad

public meetings

Public meetings will be held by the Placer County TransportationPlanning Agency (PCTPA) to review the potential corridor align-ment alternatives being considered for evaluation in the PlacerParkway Corridor Preservation Tier 1 EIS/EIR, and to obtain community feedback.

The public is invited to review project maps and information starting at 6:00 pm. The project team will give a project overviewat 6:30 pm. A question and answer session will follow.

Written comments and questions can be directed to Placer CountyTransportation Planning Agency, 249 Nevada Street, Auburn, CA95603. Phone: 530-823-4030 Fax: 530-823-4036

PLACER PARKWAY CORRIDOR PRESERVATION PROJECT STUDY AREA AND POTENTIAL CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR TIER 1 E IS/EIR ANALYSIS

public meetings scheduled for august

Sutter County MeetingThursday, August 26, 20046:00 - 8:30 p.m.Pleasant Grove School3075 Howsley Rd.Pleasant Grove

For more information visit: www.pctpa.org

Placer County MeetingMonday, August 23, 20046:00 - 8:30 p.m.Roseville Corporation Yard2005 Hilltop CircleRoseville

APPENDIX B: Meeting Materials

Meeting Handouts Agenda

Speaker Card

Comment Sheet

Advisory Committee List

Project Display Boards

Agenda

Public Meeting POTENTIAL CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR TIER 1 EIS/EIR ANALYSIS

Roseville Corporation Yard August 23, 2004 6:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

AGENDA

6:00 p.m. I. Open House

6:35 II. Project Presentation

7:00 III. Public Comments and Discussion

8:00 IV. Open House

Speaker Card

Placer Parkway Corridor Preservation Project Speaker Card Public Meeting

Thursday, August 26, 2004. 6-8:30 p.m. Pleasant Grove School, Pleasant Grove, CA. (If you would like to speak during the comment period this evening, please fill out

this card and hand it to the meeting moderator or any project staff member.)

Name: _________________________________________________________

Address: _________________________________________________________

(Optional) _________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

Subject of Question or Comment:

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

Placer Parkway Corridor Preservation Project Speaker Card Public Meeting

Thursday, August 26, 2004. 6-8:30 p.m. Pleasant Grove School, Pleasant Grove, CA. (If you would like to speak during the comment period this evening, please fill out

this card and hand it to the meeting moderator or any project staff member.)

Name: _________________________________________________________

Address: _________________________________________________________

(Optional) _________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

Subject of Question or Comment:

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

Comment Sheet

Advisory Committee List

Technical Advisory Committee Placer County Tom Brinkman, Dept. of Public Works – Transportation Division Fred Yeager, Planning Dept. Sacramento County Jeff Clarke, Public Works Agency – Dept. of Transportation Robert Sherry, Planning & Community Development Dept. Sutter County George Musallam, Public Works Dept. Lisa Wilson, Planning Services City of Lincoln John Pedri, Public Works Dept. George Dellwo, Community Development Dept. Town of LoomisPerry Beck, Town Manager

City of Rocklin Larry Wing, Community Development Dept. -- City Engineer Terry Richardson, Community Development Dept. -- Planning City of Roseville Rob Jensen, Public Works Dept. Kathy Pease, Planning Dept. SACOG Gordon Garry, Research & Analysis Robert McCrary, Planning Ken Hough, Planning Caltrans Steve Propst, Local Assistance Pat McAchren, Environmental Scott Sauer, Planning FHWA Lee Dong, California Division

Staff PCTPA Celia McAdam and Stan Tidman URS Denise Heick and Garry Horton DKS John Long

TAC members are also a part of the project Study Advisory Committee. FHWA and Caltrans resource specialists participate as required.

Study Advisory Committee Agriculture William Morebeck, Placer County Agricultural Commission Mark Quisenberry, Sutter County Agriculture Dept. Business Wendy Gerig, Roseville Chamber of Commerce Tim Johnson, Yuba-Sutter Economic Development Corp. Joe Cruz, Sacramento Metro Chamber Community Groups Al Clark, Friends of Placer County Jack Wallace, Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations Joan Powell, Sun City – Roseville Homeowners Association Community/Government George Brown, West Placer MAC George Alves, Rural Lincoln MAC Development John Costa, BIA - Superior California John Tallman, West Roseville Specific Plan Eric Bryant, Placer Ranch Specific Plan

Development (cont’d) Jack A. Ritchie, Lennar Properties Julie Hanson, KT Development Environmental Alan Green, Sierra Club of Placer County Ed Pandolfino, Audubon Society & Environmental Council of Sacramento Environmental/Government Loren Clark, Placer Legacy Tom Christofk, Placer County Air Pollution Control District Mark Littlefield, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Nancy Levin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Erin Foresman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency John Baker, U.S. NOAA – National Marine Fisheries Svc Patrick Gillum, Regional Water Quality Control Board Jeff Finn, California Dept. of Fish and Game Mike Jewell/Tom Cavanaugh, USACOE Hans Kreutzberg, SHPO


Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members are part of the SAC.

Policy Advisory Committee Placer County Bill Santucci, Board of Supervisors District 1 Jan Christofferson, Executive Officer (ex-offico member) Robert Weygandt, Board of Supervisors District 2 Sacramento County Roger Niello, Board of Supervisors District 4 Sutter County Dan Silva, Board of Supervisors District 5 Dennis Nelson, Board of Supervisors District 2 Larry Combs, County Administrative Officer (ex-offico member)

City of Lincoln Tom Cosgrove, City Council City of Rocklin Peter Hill, City Council City of Roseville Gina Garbolino, City Council Caltrans Jody Lonergan, District 3 (ex-offico member)


Project Display Boards

Welcome!Placer Parkway Corridor Preservation Project

Public MeetingPotential Corridor Alignment Alternatives for Tier 1 EIS/EIR Analysis

Work Program & Schedule

Revised 2/04

Project BackgroundPlacer Parkway is a high-

priority regional transportation

project proposed to connect

rapidly growing areas of

western Placer County to

planned development in

Sacramento/ Sutter Counties.

It is included in SACOG’s

2025 Metropolitan

Transportation Plan (MTP)

and the 2022 Placer County

Regional Transportation Plan.

PRELIMINARY PLANNING

2000 CONCEPTUAL PLAN

n Preliminary input on the study area, project scope, goals/policies, concept alignments, and funding programn Based on extensive public participation including advisory committees, stakeholders, and public meetingsn Adopted by PCTPA and SACOG boards

2001 PROJECT STUDY REPORT CLARIFIED POLICY DIRECTION

n Controlled access facility – designed to Caltrans standardsn Average maximum buffer zone of 1,000 feet for planning purposesn “No development” buffer zone between Fiddyment Road and Pleasant Grove Roadn Access between Fiddyment Road and Pleasant Grove Road limited to one potential connection to a

future Watt Avenue extensionn Identified conceptual alignment alternatives – but did not preclude others

These plans are available at www.pctpa.org.

NEED FOR THE PROJECT

The project study area is near some of the fastest growing communities in California

Projected Growth 2000 2025 IncreasePopulation 269,100 465,300 196,200Employment (jobs) 115,600 230,150 114,550

The State estimates that Placer County’s population will increase from 249,000 in 2000 to 657,000 in 2050. SACOGestimates that 90 percent of this growth will occur in South/West Placer County. The Parkway will ensure free-flowingtraffic with reliable travel times for access to employment and movement of goods, and will benefit the interstate andlocal roadway systems.

DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION

Estimates to build Placer Parkway range from $200 to $300 million (2000 dollars). Federal funding will be required.

Construction funding is not anticipated until approximately 2015.

The South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) adopted a regional transportation fee program that is expected to collect approximately $50 million to acquire key pieces of the Parkway corridor.

Corridor PreservationThe rapid growth and

developer interest in the study

area requires action to

preserve a location for Placer

Parkway as soon as possible.

The Parkway project will

identify a corridor,

approximately 15 miles long,

within which the future Placer

Parkway will eventually be

designed and constructed.

Placer Parkway would connect SR 65 and SR 70/99, located between Sunset Blvd. West/Howsley Road and Baseline Road/Riego Road.

THE CORRIDOR WILL BE APPROXIMATELY

n 500 feet wide from SR 70/99 to Pleasant Grove Roadn 1,000 feet wide from Pleasant Grove Road to Fiddyment Roadn 500 feet wide from Fiddyment Road to SR 65

A specific transportation facility will not be designed or constructed as part of the current process. In the future, a specific alignment will be identified and constructed within the selected corridor.

TIER 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Federal and State environmental requirements will be met by completing a Tier 1 EIS/EIR for the corridor preservation project. The project team is working with federal agencies to complete a NEPA/404 process that has beenmodified for this Tier 1 process. The intended outcome is identification of a corridor that meets the goal of the LeastEnvironmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative—the “LEDPA.”

‘TIERING’ IS A STREAMLINING CONCEPT INVOLVING PROJECTS WITH SEVERAL STAGES OR PHASES.

n A Tier 1 environmental review focuses on broad issues such as general location, mode choice, and area-wide air quality and land use implications in order to assess relative differences among corridor alternatives, and select a preferred corridor.

n A Tier 1 environmental review will also identify mitigation strategies to be employed in subsequent Tier 2 environmental reviews.

n Tier 2 reviews, completed during preliminary facility design, will focus on alternatives within the corridor selected during the Tier 1 process. They will address site-specific project impacts, costs, and mitigation measures.

The Corridor Preservation Tier 1 EIS/EIR will examine several corridor alternatives, including but not limited to those identified in the Project Study Report. Once the preferred alternative is determined, key pieces of land can be preserved.Later, as construction funding becomes more certain, Tier 2 document(s) will be completed to evaluate the site-specificfootprint of the facility within the corridor.

How to Stay Involved

n Sign up to receive upcoming newsletters and other project related information

n Attend the public hearings on the Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) in 2006

n Visit the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency at www.pctpa.org

n Ask questions, or provide comments to:Placer County Transportation Planning Agency249 Nevada StreetAuburn, CA 95603Phone: 530-823-3040Fax: 530-823-4036E-mail: [email protected]

Project Development Team (PDT)

Related Planning Processes• Curry Creek Community Plan• De La Salle University and Community Specific Plan• Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan• Placer County Natural Communities

• SACOG "Blueprint"

6/24/04...vsa\28066591 Placer Parkway\Alts ID Process_062404.cdr

PLACER PARKWAY CORRIDOR PRESERVATION TIER 1 EIS/EIR

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION PROCESS

Identify Other AlternativesScreen PSR Alternatives

CORRIDORALTERNATIVESfor Tier 1 EIS/EIR Analysis

TAC

TAC

SAC

SAC

PAC

Jurisdictions

Public Input

SCREENING PROCESS:• Transportation

EngineeringEnvironmental

• •

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING

Draft PSR AlternativesScreeningEvaluationTech Memo

PAC

PublicMeetings SPRTA/

Sutter County

January 2004

Advisory Committees

P U R P O S E & N E E DP U R P O S E & N E E D

• Placer County• Sacramento County• Sutter County• City of Lincoln• Town of Loomis• City of Rocklin• City of Roseville• City of Sacramento

May 2004

Summer/Fall 2004

OtherFeasible

Alternatives

• Stakeholder Interviews• Public Meetings

—October 2003—August 2004

• Newsletters• Web Site• Public Hearings 2005

• PCTPA• Sutter County• Caltrans

• FHWA• DKS Associates• URS Corp

PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES

NEPA/404Process

• Placer Ranch Specific Plan

• Sutter County Industrial Development

Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan

• Mara Feeney Associates

TIER 1 EIS/EIR CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION PROCESS

APPENDIX C: Meeting Comments

Comment Cards Received

Documents

PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY …impacts, socio-economic impacts, and projected growth in the region. Goals Six project goals were derived from recommendations in the