On Monday, August 22nd, 2022 from 10:00 – 11:00 a.m., the City of Rocklin held their third Stakeholder Meeting for the Rocklin Road Sierra College Corridor Multimodal Enhancements at the Rocklin Corporation Yard Conference Room in Rocklin, CA. Below is a list of project team members that were in attendance:

Participants from the following businesses also attended the meeting:

• Rodger McDonald with Quick Quack Car Wash/Vacant Property Behind Arco Gas Station
• Ranvir Saini with 76 Gas Station
• Mr. Johl with AM/PM / Arco Gas Station
• Dana Hofeinz and Larry Matz with Sierra Foothills Cycling Club (SFCC)

The objectives of the third stakeholder meeting were to provide updated project information on the two project alternatives as well as the status of the right of way and driveway access as well as discuss any other questions/concerns about the project.

About the Project

The City of Rocklin is making long-term operational and circulation improvements within the area of Rocklin Road/Interstate 80 Interchange. The improvements will address existing traffic congestion and improve walking and biking connections between downtown Rocklin and Sierra College.

Meeting Format, Objectives and Purpose

The meeting was conducted in person at the Rocklin Corporation Yard Conference Room and started at 10:00 am. First, Gladys Cornell with AIM Consulting welcomed attendees, presented the meeting agenda, then introduced the project team and allowed some time for the stakeholders to introduce themselves. Next, she reviewed the public outreach on the project so far which included this series of stakeholder meetings, two community workshops, and a community survey. Finally, she explained the important role the stakeholders have as the project unfolds including bringing community perspectives to the project as well as providing input on project improvements.

Gladys next turned the presentation over to Luke McNeel-Caird, Senior Project Manager with Jacobs, for a review of the project alternatives, an update on the draft project report, stakeholder driveway access and right-of-way discussions, and a review of the project schedule. Participants were encouraged to ask questions at any point during the meeting. Below is a summary of the presentation as well as the stakeholder feedback.

Presentation

The first slides that Luke presented for discussion were around the refined alternatives presented at the last community meeting in April of 2022. Luke went into detail about each alternative, the details of the bike crossing, grades, and feedback gathered so far within the community.

Alternative 1: Divergent Diamond Interchange (DDI) with Infield Ped/Bike Overcrossing

Alternative 1 was presented to the attendees along with a design for the Pedestrian/Bike Overcrossing. This design includes the separated Ped/Bike Overcrossing and avoids I-80 bridge impact, however it has a less direct pedestrian/bike route. Luke mentioned that the alternative has been updated based on community feedback to extend the overcrossing to avoid pedestrian and bicycle conflicts with vehicles at the eastbound on-ramp and add staircases to provide more direct travel for pedestrians.

Alternative 2: DDI with Adjacent Ped/Bike Undercrossing

The presentation moved on to Alternative 2 which includes the adjacent Pedestrian/Bike Undercrossing. This design includes a more direct pedestrian/bike route, however would require I- 80 Bridge extension and have potential pedestrian and bicycle conflicts with vehicles at the uncontrolled eastbound on-ramp.

After reviewing the alternatives and discussing many safety options for bicyclists along the corridor, Luke explained that the draft project report had been submitted for City and Caltrans review on July 14th.

Driveway Access and Right of Way Access

Luke next presented a series of slides talking about driveway access and right-of-way areas for the local project stakeholders. He explained that the project team has been actively meeting with property owners on site throughout the project to discuss issues and concerns. The next series of slides showed the proposed improvements for the following:

• Alternatives 1 & 2 Driveway Access – West of Interstate 80
• Alternative 1 Driveway Access – Rocklin Road East of Interstate 80
• Alternative 2 Driveway Access – Rocklin Road East of Interstate 80
• Alternative 1 Right of Way
  • Includes 9 acquisitions (1 full, 3 partial, 5 temporary construction easement)
• Alternative 2 Right of Way
  • Includes 9 acquisitions (4 partial, 5 temporary construction easements)

The stakeholders in attendance all agreed that these were the driveway access and right-of-way discussions that had taken place on or at their properties earlier in the project and had no concerns at this time. Luke mentioned that the 76-gas station will take the most coordination, and that design will take 1-2 years with meetings and discussions to continue.

Cost Estimates and Project Funding

Next, Luke explained the project funding for each alternative as well as the partnership and grant program options available. Total project cost for the alternatives are:

• Alternative 1: $34,050,000
• Alternative 2 $37,750,000

The project team submitted an Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant application by June 15, 2022 deadline requesting $12 million in funding. A Local Partnership Program (LPP) grant application will also be submitted by the November 17, 2022 deadline to request $6 million in funding.

Schedule

After the general presentation, Luke presented the project schedule and went over key dates.

Questions & Answers

Throughout the presentation, the stakeholders were welcome to bring up questions and concerns.

Stakeholder: What type of traffic is coming down Granite Drive? Are you planning on traffic coming from the new Costco in Loomis?
Project Team Answer: We did traffic studies through the next 20 years and determined that the need for
a third eastbound lane on Rocklin Road between Granite Drive and I-80 will be needed to accommodate future traffic demands.

Stakeholder: When looking across from Arco/AMPM if you are traveling across then you have to cross the entrance of the eastbound traffic with no protection? Why can’t there be signals for the crossings?
Project Team Answer: Due to design constraints for the free-flowing turns, Alternative 2 would not be able to have signalized crossing over the eastbound lanes. There would be an crosswalk there and vehicles would yield to pedestrians and bicyclist. A discussion ensued about Alternative 2 and the use for bicyclists with the members of the SFCC who are concerned that the bicyclists will just take the more direct route. They understood the project team’s answer about designing the road for all modes of safe travel as well as the road design for free- flowing traffic but wanted to discuss both alternatives further with their club before giving a firm recommendation of their club’s preference. The biggest concerns from the cycling club remained speed and safety at crosswalks as well as out-of-direction travel for Alternative 1.

Next Steps

The meeting concluded with the project team explaining to reach out to them with any questions or concerns. They closed with the project’s next steps:

• Approval of Engineering and Environmental Technical Studies – In Progress
• Approval of Draft Project Report – September 2022
• Community Meeting #3 – Tentatively set for late September via zoom
• Rocklin City Council Public Hearing – Draft Environmental Document – October 2022

Download the Meeting Summary:
Rocklin Road/Sierra College Corridor Multimodal Enhancements Community Meeting 3 Summary