Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting #5 March 12, 2015 Cattlemens

Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting #5
March 12, 2015
Cattlemens, 2000 Taylor Road, Roseville
PRESENT
PROJECT TEAM REPRESENTATIVES
Name
Organization
Celia McAdam
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency
Luke McNeel-Caird
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency
Leo Heuston
CH2M Hill
Wayne Lewis
Caltrans District 3
Gladys Cornell
AIM Consulting
Ciara Zanze
AIM Consulting
STAKEHOLDER FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS
Organizations Represented
Cattlemen’s Restaurant
City of Rocklin
Cooks Collision
Fitzgerald LLC
North State BIA
Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations
Roseville Yamaha
Seventh Day Adventist Church
Stonehouse Court property owner
Taylor Road Self Storage
Westfield Galleria at Roseville
William Jessup University
MEETING PURPOSE
Approximately 60 stakeholder representatives were invited to the fifth stakeholder focus group meeting
for the I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements project. This key stakeholder group consists of a crosssection of project-vicinity property and business owners/tenants, residents, and other interested
organizations that may be directly affected by the future I-80 / SR 65 Interchange Improvements project.
The purpose of the meeting was to provide an overview of project status, a review of project
alternatives, and planned next steps as the project team prepares to release a draft environmental
document this spring.
Page 1 of 6
Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting #5
March 12, 2015
Cattlemens, 2000 Taylor Road, Roseville
MEETING OBJECTIVES:
 Provide project update
 Review project alternatives and project
benefits
 Discuss project funding and next steps
PROJECT OVERVIEW:
The project proposes to improve the I-80/SR 65
interchange including widening I-80 between Douglas
Boulevard and Rocklin Road, and SR 65 between the I80/SR 65 interchange and Pleasant Grove Boulevard.
The project is currently in the Project Approval and
Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase.
Project Update:
The project team reviewed the purpose and benefits of the I-80 / SR 65 interchange project, and
provided an overview of the project goals and objectives:
 Reduce congestion
 Improve traffic operations and enhance safety
 Maintain community access
 Consider all travel modes and users
Alternatives Review:
The project team reviewed the 5 project
alternatives that are being evaluated during the
PA&ED phase of the project:
 Alternative 1 - Taylor Road Full Access
Interchange
 Alternative 2 - Collector-Distributor
System Ramps
 Alternative 3 - Taylor Road Interchange
Eliminated
 Alternative 4 - Transportation System
Management (TSM)
 Alternative 5 - No-Build (No Project)
Page 2 of 6
Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting #5
March 12, 2015
Cattlemens, 2000 Taylor Road, Roseville
Based on input from Caltrans and local agencies, the project team has identified Alternative 2 –
Collector – Distributor System Ramps as the preferred alternative subject to public review.
Alternative 2 - Collector - Distributor System Ramps
Alternative 2 meets the purpose and need of the project, and addresses the project goal of maintaining
local access for businesses. The project team showed a simulation video that demonstrates how
alternative 2 would function for drivers. A summary of questions and discussion is included below:
Questions and comments related to Alternative 2:
 Question: For guests coming to Cattlemen’s or other businesses along Taylor Road, where would
they go if they miss the Taylor Road exit?
o Project Team Response: Guests would take Rocklin Road and travel back to Taylor Road,
similar to current conditions.
 Question: What effect does Alternative 2 have on traffic on Taylor Road?
o Project Team Response: According to traffic projections, Taylor Road by 2040 will see
increased traffic and will need to be widened to 4 lanes in order to accommodate more
cars. The project will alleviate some of the traffic congestion that is currently on Taylor
Road.
 Question: The left turn onto Taylor Road is important to Cattlemens and nearby businesses. Will
there be signals planned with the widening?
o Project Team Response: No new signals are planned as part of this study, however, the
City of Roseville may decide to incorporate traffic signals at a future date. The existing
center left turn lane will be maintained for access from the businesses along Taylor
Road. Adding sidewalks and bike lanes will change the character of the roadway and
make it seem more like a downtown/neighborhood street and less like a fast
thoroughfare.
Page 3 of 6
Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting #5
March 12, 2015
Cattlemens, 2000 Taylor Road, Roseville







Question: Will the left turn be easier to make with the addition of a center turn lane? Currently
the turn is very hard to make across one lane of traffic because there is a continuous line of cars,
crossing 2 lanes will be even more difficult.
o Project Team Response: The addition of another traffic lane will make the left turn
access easier because the traffic will be broken up across the two lanes, instead of
backed up in one lane. The project team understands the need to provide more local
capacity on Taylor road for businesses. Currently, I-80 eastbound is backing up past
Eureka Road, many drivers are exiting at Eureka Road and using Taylor Road to get to
Rocklin. Construction of the I-80/SR 65 interchange will reroute existing traffic from
Taylor Road back onto I-80 and SR 65, reducing existing traffic on local streets.
Question: Will the improved Taylor Road include a U-turn option if making a left turn is not
possible?
o Project Team Response: The current U-turn opportunities along Taylor Road will be
maintained.
Question: There are 5 driveways on Taylor Road between I-80 and SR 65 and making a left turn
out of any of the driveways is very difficult. The problem is the volume of cars and the high
speeds. Is there a way to create one signal that would facilitate an easier left turn? I think a
light at Stone House Court and Taylor Road would help and would allow people to make a Uturn and not have to go east to the next signal.
o Project Team Response: Currently the project team is not proposing an additional signal,
however these details will be discussed with property owners and the community
during the design phase. Currently the project team has only reached a 10% design
phase. The project team understands that traffic control is an issue for property owners
and will keep that in mind as the project moves into detailed design.
Question: Is there a collector - distributor concept currently on I-80 near Truxel? That area has
terrible traffic and is confusing.
o Project Team Response: The configuration on I-80 currently is a construction zone,
which is different than the proposed collector-distributor (CD) alternative (Alternative
2).
Question: What is the speed limit on CD ramps?
o Project Team Response: CD ramps are typically designed for a 55 MPH speed limit; the
ramps will also be metered.
Question: Where will ramp meters be included with the CD alternative?
o Project Team Response: The Eureka on-ramps will be metered, as well as the westbound
Taylor Road on-ramp.
Question: Is the Taylor on-ramp required to be metered? The metering appears to make traffic
back up.
o Project Team Response: Ramp meters help to make the whole freeway system work
together by creating a staggered merge pattern. Currently Caltrans, PCTPA, and the City
Page 4 of 6
Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting #5
March 12, 2015
Cattlemens, 2000 Taylor Road, Roseville





of Roseville are working on a separate project to fix the back up at Eureka Road by
widening the on-ramp to 3 lanes, to include 2 metered lanes and 1 HOV/carpool lane.
Comment: There are flooding issues on Taylor Road, this should be considered during design;
drainage is important.
Comment: Alternative 2 is very acceptable, alternative 3 would destroy our businesses.
Comment: I have seen many CD concepts in Canada and they seem to work to prevent
congestion.
Comment: Alternative 2 is the best option for us.
Question: Does FHWA support Alternative 2?
o Project Team Response: Yes, support of Alternative 2 is unanimous from an agency
perspective. Alternative 2 supports the purpose and need of the project.
Property and Right-of-Way Impacts:
Following the overview of the alternatives, the project team reviewed potential property and right-ofway impacts, including the number of affected parking spaces on impacted properties.
Questions and comments related to property impacts and right-of-way:
 Question: How will the widening of Taylor Road affect right-of-way and businesses? Will it limit
space available in front of businesses?
o Project Team Response: The project team expects to be able to widen a portion of
Taylor Road within the existing right-of-way with no property takes. Some business
signage that is outside of the property line may need to be relocated.
 Question: What is the plan for signage that is currently located outside of a property line?
o Project Team Response: This will be looked at as part of the detailed design phase. The
project team is available to meet one-on-one with property owners to answer any
questions about the process moving forward.
 Question: Does Union Pacific have right-of-way along Taylor Road? I have had some issues
around who owns/maintains the right-of-way in front of my property on Stonehouse Court.
o Project Team Response: Union Pacific has up to 400 feet of right-of-way from the
property lines to the north along Taylor Road. The maintenance of this portion of the
right-of-way has been shifted between agencies over the years and the project team is
currently looking for historical documentation. Currently the County has the easement
rights even though the easement is owned by Union Pacific.
 Question: Can the design minimize impacts to Cattlemen’s?
o Project Team Response: The project team will be looking at this during the detailed
design phase. The environmental document will need to identify the maximum amount
of right-of-way take, however the project team will work on updating the design
footprint to minimize right-of-way impacts as much as possible. The CD alternative is
Page 5 of 6
Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting #5
March 12, 2015
Cattlemens, 2000 Taylor Road, Roseville

designed to minimize right-of-way impacts, currently the only impacts are to parking
lots and landscaped areas. There are no impacts to buildings.
Question: Will the sound walls on Rocklin Road be higher?
o Project Team Response: The sound walls may be moved slightly and could be made
higher.
Next Steps:
 Presentation to Rocklin and Roseville City Councils – April 2015
 Presentation to Placer County Board of Supervisors – May 2015
 Circulation of Draft Environmental Document – Spring 2015
 Public Hearing at PCTPA Board Meeting – Spring 2015
 Final environmental document – Anticipated Summer 2016
 Presentation at PCTPA Board Meeting – Anticipated Summer 2016
Stakeholders and the public will be sent project email updates for the upcoming meetings and release of
the environmental documents.
Page 6 of 6
STAKEHOLDER MEETING
I-80 / SR 65 Interchange Improvements Project
Thursday, March 12th
8:30 a.m.
Cattlemens Restaurant
2000 Taylor Road, Roseville, CA
PCTPA along with the I-80/SR 65 interchange improvements project team would like
to invite you to participate in a stakeholder meeting for the Project Approval and
Environmental Documentation phase of the project. We look forward to discussing:
- the project’s progress
- the latest on project alternatives
- the project schedule
- results of the environmental studies
- potential impacts to properties
Next steps for project funding and construction will also be discussed. We anticipate
the meeting should last no longer than 2 hours.
We look forward to receiving your input.
Please RSVP by February 26, 2015
by emailing [email protected] or calling 916-442-1168
Additional project information is available at www.8065interchange.org
I-80 / SR 65 Interchange Improvements Project
Project Feedback Form
Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting
March 9, 2015
Cattlemens - Roseville
Please provide any additional thoughts, comments, or questions on the project.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Can we follow up with you?
Name: _______________________________________________
Phone: _____________ Email: ____________________________
In addition, you may submit your
comments directly to Ciara Zanze
[email protected]
fax (916) 442-1186 or via mail:
2523 J Street Suite 202
Sacramento, CA 95816
STAKEHOLDER MEETING #5
I‐80 / SR 65 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT APPROVAL & ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
(PA&ED) PHASE
March 12, 2015
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Welcome and Introductions
Meeting Goals
Project Benefits
Project Funding
Alternatives Update
Next Steps
Questions?
Your Role
• Attendance
• Your Perspective
• Provide Your Input and Ask questions
• Tell Your Friends!
Project Benefits
I‐80 Eastbound
Southbound SR 65
Need for Project ‐ Safety
‐ LOCATION OF FATALITIES
(2009 to 2012)
Need for Project – Congestion
Project Alternatives
• Alternative 1 ‐ Taylor Road Full Access Interchange
• Alternative 2 ‐ Collector‐Distributor System Ramps
• Alternative 3 ‐ Taylor Road Interchange Eliminated
• Alternative 4 ‐ Transportation System Management (TSM)
• Alternative 5 ‐ No‐Build (No Project)
Alternative 1 – Taylor Road Full Access Interchange
Benefits/Concerns:
• Increase in ramp separation for EB 80
• Improved local access
• Lessen impact to Secret Ravine
Refined Alternative 1 –
Taylor Road Full Access IC I‐80
Alternative 2 – Collector‐Distributor System Ramps
I‐80, Eureka Rd to SR 65
Preferred Alternative
Alternative 2 – Collector‐Distributor System Ramps
Benefits/Concerns:
•
•
•
•
•
Eliminates EB 80 weaving
Improves spacing between interchanges Maintains local access connections
Does not address WB 80 weaving
Impacts to Miners and Secret Ravine
Alternative 2 – Collector‐Distributor System Ramps
I‐80, Eureka Rd to Taylor Rd
Alternative 2 – Collector‐Distributor System Ramps
I‐80, Taylor Rd to SR 65
Alternative 3 – Taylor Road Interchange Eliminated
Benefits/Concerns:
•
•
•
•
•
Eliminates Eureka/Taylor/EB 80 weaving
Improves spacing between interchanges Loss of the Taylor Rd access
Shifts Taylor IC access to adjacent IC’s
Increases impact to Secret Ravine
Draft Environmental Document
• Circulation of Draft Environmental Document –
Spring 2015
• Presentation to Rocklin and Roseville City Councils (April)
• Public Hearing at PCTPA Board Meeting (May)
• Attend to Provide Comments
• Process from Draft to Final Environmental Document
Parking and Property Impacts
Parking and Property Impacts
Northern I‐80 ROW
Decreased footprint compared to Alternative 1
Secret Ravine ROW
Increased footprint compared to Alternative 1
Cattlemens Restaurant Parking
Alternative 1 – 79 spaces affected
Alternative 2 – 39 spaces affected
Alternative 3 ‐ 42 spaces affected
Parking and Property Impacts
Northern ROW
Decreased footprint compared to Alternative 1
Seventh‐day Adventist Church Parking
Alternative 1 – 18 spaces affected
Alternative 2 – 0 spaces affected
Alternative 3 ‐ 0 spaces affected
Secret Ravine ROW
Increased footprint compared to Alternative 1
Parking and Property Impacts
South Interchange ROW
Decreased footprint compared to Alternative 1
Secret Ravine ROW
Similar footprints between all alternatives
Parking and Property Impacts
South ROW
Increased footprint compared to Alternative 1
Golfland Sunsplash Parking
Alternative 1 – 0 spaces affected Alternative 2 – 18 spaces affected
Alternative 3 ‐ 18 spaces affected
Ongoing Environmental Coordination
Issues (Involved Agencies)
E ‐ Elderberry Shrubs (UFWS) F – Fish (NMFS)
T ‐ Trail (City of Roseville)
Atlantic St/Eureka Rd Interchange
T
F
E
I‐80, Eureka Road to Taylor Road
Ongoing Environmental Coordination
Issues (Involved Agencies)
F – Fish (NMFS)
N ‐ Noise/Soundwalls (CT, FHWA)
T ‐ Trail (City of Roseville)
V – Vernal Pools/Fairy Shrimp (USFW, USACE, CDFW)
V
I‐80/SR 65 Interchange
N
To Rocklin
Taylor Rd Interchange
N
F
T
I‐80, Taylor Road to SR 65
Ongoing Environmental Coordination
Issues (Involved Agencies)
CS – Cultural Site (SHPO, CT, Auburn Rancheria Native American)
E ‐ Elderberry Shrubs (UFWS) T ‐ Trail (City of Roseville)
F – Fish (NMFS)
W ‐ Wetlands (USACE, CDFW)
N ‐ Noise/Soundwalls (CT, FHWA)
V – Vernal Pools/Fairy Shrimp (USFW, USACE)
Galleria Blvd/ Stanford Ranch Rd Interchange
To I‐80
Pleasant Grove Blvd
Interchange
To Lincoln
N
W
CS
E
T
V
F
N
SR 65, I‐80 to Pleasant Grove Boulevard
What’s Ahead
• Final environmental document –
Summer 2016
• Presentation at PCTPA Board Meeting – attend to provide comments
• Project email updates will continue
Project Funding
• Funding for first phase
– Partnership
– More local funding is needed
• Additional project phases
Project Phasing
• Components of Phase 1
• Additional Phases
• Next Steps Before Construction
Questions?