vicinity map - caltrans - california department of ... · vicinity map on route interstate 205...

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

VICINITY MAP

On Route Interstate 205

Between MacArthur Drive, City of Tracy

And Interstate 5, San Joaquin County

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1

2. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1

3. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT ........................................................................................... 2

4. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT .................................................. 3

5. DEFICIENCIES ................................................................................................................................. 6

6. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION ........................................................................... 7

7. ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................................. 9

8. RIGHT OF WAY, UTILITIES, AND RAILROADS ................................................................... 12

9. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................. 13

10. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION/DOCUMENT ........................................................... 13

11. FUNDING ......................................................................................................................................... 14

12. SCHEDULE ..................................................................................................................................... 15

13. RISKS ............................................................................................................................................... 15

14. FHWA COORDINATION .............................................................................................................. 15

15. DISTRICT CONTACTS ................................................................................................................. 16

16. PROJECT REVIEWS ..................................................................................................................... 16

17. ATTACHMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 16

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

1

1. INTRODUCTION

The City of Tracy proposes to construct a new interchange along I-205 between the

MacArthur Drive interchange and I-5 as identified by the City of Tracy General Plan (see

Attachment A). Increased traffic demand due to existing commercial growth and

planned future development in the City as well as neighboring communities is creating

the need for an additional access point to I-205. This Project Study Report (Project

Development Support) (PSR (PDS)) is initiated and sponsored by the City for the

proposal of a new interchange that will connect the existing Chrisman Road, a six-lane

expressway, to I-205 between MacArthur Drive and the Paradise Road Overcrossing.

The purpose of this PSR (PDS) is to identify and estimate project scope, schedule, and

support costs necessary to complete studies and work needed during the Project Approval

and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase.

Project Limits 10 – San Joaquin - 205

PM R9.0/R9.6

Number of Alternatives 2

Capital Outlay Support for

PA&ED

$1 Million

Capital Outlay Construction

Cost Range

$28 million to $33 million

Capital Outlay Right-of-Way

Cost Range

$1 million to $5 million

Funding Source FTIP, STIP, Local and Federal Demonstration

Program

Type of Facility 6 lane freeway

Number of Structures 1

Anticipated Environmental

Determination or Document

Environmental Assessment/Finding of No

Significant Impact; Initial Study/Mitigated

Negative Declaration

Legal Description Chrisman Road Interchange

Project Development Category 3

Other approvals required are: FHWA New Access Report; Mandatory Design Exception

Fact Sheet for interchange spacing, Traffic Forecasting, Traffic Operations and Analysis

Report (TOAR), Geometric Review, Cooperative Agreements, Draft and Final

Environmental Document, Right of Way Data Sheet, Freeway Maintenance Agreement

and Electrical Maintenance Agreement between the City and Caltrans.

2. BACKGROUND

Chrisman Road is a north-south road which begins at I-580 and terminates at Grant Line

Road in the commercial/industrial area of the City. Chrisman Road is currently a two-

lane facility for the majority of its route; however, the concept facility is a 4 to 6-lane

expressway. Between the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and Paradise Road (an

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

2

approximately 2,000-foot segment) through the industrial area in the northeast quadrant

of the City, Chrisman Road is constructed to the ultimate 6 lane concept facility as a

condition to current businesses under the City’s industrial zoning.

Interstate 205 is an east-west route that serves as a connection between I-5 in San Joaquin

County to I-580 in Alameda County. I-205 is classified as a Principal Arterial Interstate

Freeway which primarily serves as a route for interregional recreation and commuter

traffic between the Bay Area and the Central Valley. A secondary purpose of I-205 is to

serve as a local route for commuter trips in the City area. The majority of I-205 is a rural

freeway except where it passes through the urban City area. Within the project limits, I-

205 is a six lane freeway (recently widened in October 2009) with three mixed flow lanes

in each direction separated by an unpaved, depressed median.

The proposed project contains features that will make it consistent with the context of its

surroundings and that provide efficient mobility for all users in accordance with the

guidelines in Deputy Directive 64.

The project sponsor, the City of Tracy, has been actively involved in the development of

the purpose and need of the project through their participation in Project Development

Team meetings and their overall coordination of the project development process.

The City of Tracy and Caltrans are working on a Cooperative Agreement for Caltrans to

provide oversight during the PA&ED phase.

3. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT

3.1 Purpose

The purpose of the project is to:

Provide a new connection to I-205 that serves the existing and planned residential,

commercial and industrial development in the vicinity;

Relieve the forecasted increase in traffic demand at surrounding interchanges; and

Increase regional mobility.

3.2 Need

The northeast area of Tracy and its surrounding communities (particularly southwest

Lathrop) are currently growing and developing. This is expected to continue and increase

over the next few decades. This growth will continue to increase the demand on local

interchanges causing them to operate at a less than acceptable Level of Service (LOS).

The closest access to I-205 from the project site is MacArthur Drive where the future

traffic demands at the interchange will result in an unacceptable LOS F. To meet future

traffic demands, the City of Tracy’s circulation element and the City of Lathrop’s

General Plan identify the need for a new interchange to be located on I-205 between the

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

3

MacArthur Drive interchange and the I-5 interchange. The proposed location of the new

interchange is located at or near the Paradise Road Overcrossing, which is between the

MacArthur Drive interchange and the I-5 interchange.

4. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

During this phase of the project, a Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment (TEPA)

study was performed. This study is an assessment of existing traffic data and a macro-

level analysis. The intent is to identify potential benefits and deficiencies of the proposed

project and establish a potential scope of work needed for traffic analysis during the next

phase (PA&ED). Eventually detailed traffic studies and analysis will be completed

during the PA&ED phase to demonstrate how each alternative meets the project’s

purpose and need.

4.1 Summary of Preliminary Findings and Recommendations

Two readily available traffic studies were used as a basis for forecasting traffic for the

design year 2040 for both intersection and I-205 mainline operations: the Citywide

Roadway and Transportation Master Plan for the City of Tracy, August 2011 (Roadway

Master Plan) and the Interstate 205 and Interstate 5 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane

Feasibility Review, May 2011 (HOT Study).

The Roadway Master Plan provided intersection peak hour volumes for existing

conditions and the year 2035 conditions. Applying a yearly growth rate, intersection

volumes for the I-205/MacArthur Drive and the then completed I-205/Chrisman Road

interchanges for the year 2040. Based on the preliminary analysis, all intersections

studied will operate an unacceptable LOS F under No Project conditions and will operate

at an acceptable LOS C or better under year 2040 With Project conditions, as shown in

Table 1.

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

4

Table 1

Year 2040 Intersection Peak Hour Analysis Results

Intersection

Year 2040

No Project

Year 2040

With Project

AM PM AM PM

I-205 WB Ramps/MacArthur Drive 115/F 181/F 20/B 23/C

I-205 EB Ramps/MacArthur Drive 151/F 570/F 12/B 14/B

I-205 WB Ramps/Chrisman Road n/a n/a 14/B 4/A

I-205 EB Ramps/Chrisman Road n/a n/a 9/A 24/C

Notes:

n/a = not applicable

10/C = Intersection average delay/Level of Service

Source: Fehr & Peers

The HOT Study was used for determining mainline I-205 peak hour forecasts for the year

2040 with and without the project. The peak hour traffic forecasts just west of I-5 were

taken directly from the document. Other sections of mainline were estimated by

subtracting and adding ramp volumes as determined from the intersection forecasts.

Under the 2040 conditions it was assumed that I-205 has been widened from six lanes to

eight lanes to provide High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes; only the analysis for the

mixed flow lanes are presented. A summary of the mainline operations is shown in Table

2.

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

5

Table 2

Year 2040 Mainline I-205 Peak Hour Results

Mainline

Year 2040

No Project

Year 2040

With Project

AM PM AM PM

WB I-205 from I-5 to Chrisman

(basic freeway) E C E C

WB I-205 from Chrisman to

MacArthur (basic freeway) E C F D

WB I-205 from MacArthur to Tracy

(weaving section) E E D D

EB I-205 from Tracy to MacArthur

(weaving section) B F B D

EB I-205 from MacArthur to

Chrisman (basic freeway) C F B F

EB I-205 from Chrisman to I-5

(basic freeway) C F C F

Ramps

WB I-205 Chrisman Road Off-

Ramp (Diverge) n/a n/a E D

WB I-205 Chrisman Road On-ramp

(Merge) n/a n/a F D

WB I-205 MacArthur Drive Off-

Ramp (Diverge) E D F D

WB I-205 MacArthur Drive On-

Ramp (Weave) E E D D

EB I-205 MacArthur Drive Off-

Ramp (Weave) B F B D

EB I-205 MacArthur Drive On-

Ramp (Merge) C F B F

EB I-205 Chrisman Road Off-Ramp

(Diverge) n/a n/a C F

EB I-205 Chrisman Road On-Ramp

(Merge) n/a n/a C F

Notes:

n/a = not applicable

C = Level of Service

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

6

Source: Fehr & Peers

The primary mainline benefits of the project are derived from distributing the high on-

and off-ramp traffic volumes from a single interchange at MacArthur Drive to two

interchanges, MacArthur Drive and Chrisman Road.

The project would however worsen two locations: Westbound I-205 between Chrisman

Road and MacArthur Drive in both the AM and PM, and the westbound I-205 MacArthur

Drive off-ramp in the AM. Both of these impacts could potentially be mitigated with the

inclusion of auxiliary lanes between Chrisman Road and MacArthur Drive. The need and

benefit of the additional auxiliary lanes will be studied during the PA&ED phase and

determined whether they should be included as part of this project.

The results of the TEPA indicate that the purpose of the project will be met. A new

connection to I-205 will serve the development in the City of Tracy as well as provide an

access point for the traffic generated in the surrounding communities. The traffic demand

at the MacArthur Drive interchange will be reduced keeping the intersections from

experiencing an unacceptable LOS, and benefits experienced on mainline I-205 will help

increase the mobility throughout the region.

4.2 Future PA&ED Traffic Scope

Part of the TEPA process is to develop an initial traffic scope of work for the more

detailed traffic analysis to be completed during the PA&ED phase. Identified in the

scope is the development of new existing traffic counts, development of a focused study

area and model validation, future design year forecasting, ramp metering analysis,

intersection signal warrant analysis and an operations analysis for all intersections, ramps

and I-205 mainline segments within the study area. Additional intersections will be

added to the study area so as to determine the full effects of the project on the region. A

full capacity and operational analysis will be completed for existing conditions, design

year conditions for each alternative with and without the project, and any proposed

project phasing. Also, the detailed traffic analysis will analyze upgrades to the existing

MacArthur Drive interchange in lieu of the proposed Chrisman Road interchange. As

part of the FHWA approval process for a new access point, the project needs to provide

support that modifications to existing access points will not also satisfy the project

purpose and need. The final product of the PA&ED traffic analysis will be a Final

Traffic Operations Report which will be used to select the preferred alternative and

support the project purpose and need.

5. DEFICIENCIES

I-205 in the City currently has no access points in the northeastern quadrant of the City

between the MacArthur Drive and I-5/I-205 interchanges, a distance of approximately 4.5

miles. This portion of the City has been zoned industrial/commercial and as a result, this

area is experiencing significant growth and development, including many large scale

distribution centers. Existing industrial users accessing I-205 to/from this portion of the

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

7

City utilize the MacArthur Drive interchange since it is the nearest freeway access point.

Along with the growth to this commercial district, neighboring communities are also

planning large developments. The City of Lathrop is planning to build a community

north of I-205 which will have over 4,000 homes and 3 million square feet of commercial

property. This community has planned connectivity to the City via the proposed

Chrisman Road Interchange as identified in the General Plan for the City of Lathrop and

the 2003 West Lathrop Specific Plan.

Based on the TEPA (see Section 4), all of this existing and planned development will

cause local interchanges to operate at a less than acceptable LOS, particularly MacArthur

Drive which will degrade to a LOS F in the future without the project (see Table 1

above).

6. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION

6.1 Caltrans Planning

System planning for I-205 is described in the following State planning documents: I-

205/I-5 Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) (2010), Caltrans District 10, District

System Management Plan (DSMP) (2010), and the Caltrans District 10 Transportation

System Development Program (TSDP) (2010). Each of these documents identify I-205

as a critical facility within the highway system and develops a strategic plan for

implementing improvements needed to maintain regional and interregional mobility,

decrease traffic congestion, and improve system connectivity. This project is listed in the

TSDP as construction of a new interchange at the existing Paradise Road Bridge.

6.2 Regional Planning

The new I-205/Chrisman Road interchange is listed in the San Joaquin Council of

Governments (SJCOG) 2011 Final Draft Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The

current description in the RTP is consistent with building Alternative 2 as a two phase

project, where the east and west diagonal ramps would be an initial phase and the loop

ramps a second phase.

6.3 Local Planning

Chrisman Road is identified in the City of Tracy General Plan (2011) and the City of

Tracy Transportation Master Plan (TMP) (2012) as a four or six lane

expressway/parkway in the project area. Both documents identify the need for an

additional access point to I-205 between MacArthur Drive and I-5. In the documents the

new interchange is located within the vicinity of the proposed project. The City of

Lathrop General Plan (1997) as well as the 2003 West Lathrop Specific Plan also

identifies the construction of the new interchange at Chrisman Road as being needed for

build out of their planned communities.

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

8

As a preliminary planning document, the City sponsored a Chrisman Road Precise Plan

Line Study Design Criteria Memorandum (2006). The scope of the document was to

establish an alignment for Chrisman Road between Grant Line Road and I-205, develop a

preliminary horizontal and vertical alignment for Chrisman Road, and to establish a

location for the new interchange. The conclusion of the study was a preferred L-9 partial

cloverleaf interchange configuration.

6.4 Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet

Following is a summary of the Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet. A

copy of this sheet is included in Attachment B.

Project Funding

Funding for the PA&ED phase of the project is from Local and Federal Demonstration

Program funds. State and Federal funds in the State Transportation Improvement

Program may also be available for use in subsequent phases of this project.

Regional Planning

See section 6.2 above.

Native American Consultation and Coordination

The project is not within or near an Indian Reservation or Rancheria therefore no

consultation or coordination has been conducted, or is anticipated to be conducted, with

Native American representatives.

System Planning

See Section 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 above.

Local Development – Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR)

There are currently no LD-IGR projects within the project area. Development within the

project area is expected to grow, and as projects are proposed the City will work with

Caltrans to coordinate impacts within the transportation system.

Community Planning

No community groups in the project area have been involved in the project. During

PA&ED, the environmental documents will be circulated for public comment and a

required public meeting will be held. Context sensitive solutions (aesthetic themes,

bike/pedestrian improvements) will be incorporated into the project.

Freight Planning

I-205 is an intermodal facility within the project area. This project will facilitate goods

movement in that it will improve traffic operations along I-205 in the vicinity of the

Chrisman Road interchange as well as provide a more direct access point to an industrial

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

9

area that serves as a destination for truck traffic. No special features are anticipated to be

needed for truck traffic as part of this project.

Transit

San Joaquin Regional Transit District (SJRTD) and Tracer Transit (City of Tracy)

provide transit services within the project area. No new transit facilities are anticipated

with the project and impacts to transit during construction will be addressed during Final

Design. The transit agencies will be contacted during PA&ED for coordination.

Bicycle

Bicycle facilities will be provided on Chrisman Road per the City of Tracy TMP and the

City of Tracy Bikeways Master Plan (2005). All freeway on- and off-ramps will be

squared up with Chrisman Road to provide safe bicycle crossing at intersections.

Pedestrian

Pedestrian facilities will be provided as identified by the City of Tracy TMP. All

pedestrian facilities including sidewalks, curb ramps and cross walks will be compliant

with American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

Equestrian

There is no equestrian demand or facilities in the area. As such, accommodations for

equestrian traffic are not needed for this project.

Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)

As part of construction of the ultimate interchange, ITS features including an eastbound

Changeable Message Sign (CMS), a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) system as the

western limit of the project, and traffic count systems on the ramps will be installed. The

CMS will notify motorists with real-time road and weather conditions on I-5 and SR120

as well as be used to inform drivers of important local events. Based on the results of a

ramp metering analysis performed as part of the detailed traffic analysis during PA&ED,

ramp meters at the on-ramps may also be installed.

7. ALTERNATIVES

7.1 Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative proposes no new access point to I-205 near the existing

Paradise Road Overcrossing. The existing Paradise Road Overcrossing will not be

widened to accommodate any future widening of I-205. The project layout and study

area boundary exhibit for Alternative 1 (No Build) is included in Attachment C.

Cost Estimates

Because no improvements are proposed with Alternative 1, there are no capital costs

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

10

associated with it.

Required Approvals

The No-Build alternative will not change existing conditions and will therefore not

require any approvals.

Stormwater

Because no improvements are proposed with Alternative 1, no stormwater Best

Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented.

Context Sensitive Solutions/Complete Streets

Because no improvements are proposed with Alternative 1, no context sensitive solutions

or improvements providing for safe multimodal mobility will be implemented.

Constructability

Because no improvements are proposed with Alternative 1, there are no constructability

issues associated with this alternative.

7.2 Alternative 2: L-9 Partial Cloverleaf

Alternative 2, shown in Attachment C, proposes to construct a new interchange between

MacArthur Dive and I-5 at the approximate location of the existing Paradise Road

Overcrossing. The proposed interchange configuration will be a partial cloverleaf (Type

L-9) which includes four diamond-type ramps and two loop on-ramps. The overcrossing

structure will accommodate six traveled lanes, shoulders and sidewalks, and will

accommodate the future widening of I-205 to a ten-lane ultimate facility. Each of the

ramp intersections will be signalized. The interchange will tie into the existing Paradise

Road on both the north and south sides of the interstate. The construction of the

interchange will require the existing Paradise Road Overcrossing to be removed. As part

of a future project, the City will extend Chrisman Road at Grant Line Road north to

connect to the project. New local intersections for Pescadero Road and Paradise Road

will be constructed on the Chrisman Road extension. Typical cross sections for

Alternative 2 are shown in Attachment D.

A benefit to the proposed Type L-9 interchange configuration is the ability to phase the

construction as the future traffic demand requires additional capacity and as funding

becomes available. The initial interchange can be built with only the four east-west

diamond-type on- and off-ramps in their ultimate location, and the interior loop on-ramps

can be constructed in a second phase. Ultimate right-of-way would be acquired with the

first phase for the construction of the diamond ramps. This phasing strategy is consistent

with the SJCOG 2011 RTP for the I-205 at Paradise Road/Chrisman Road interchange

with the initial Phase 1 construction being a Tier I project (highest priority) and Phase 2

being a Tier II project (additional regionally important project but which is not able to be

funded at the current time).

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

11

Cost Estimates

The estimated total project cost for Alternative 2, including right of way and

construction, is approximately $29 million to $38 million (in escalated dollars). The

estimated PA&ED support cost is approximately $1,000,000. A cost estimate breakdown

for Alternative 2 is included in Attachment E.

Non-Standard Design Features

The following mandatory design exceptions will be required to obtain project approval of

Alternative 2:

Non-Standard Interchange Spacing (Highway Design Manual (HDM) 201.3,

“Spacing”) – The minimum interchange spacing on Interstates outside of a

Transportation Management Area (TMA) shall be three miles. A TMA is defined

by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as an urban area with a

population greater than 200,000 people. The project location does not lie within a

defined FHWA TMA. The proposed interchange spacing for the project is 1.5

miles to MacArthur Drive and 3.0 miles to I-5. The required interchange spacing

is not attainable due to the distance between MacArthur Drive and I-5.

Non-Standard Lane Width (HDM 301, “Traveled Way Standards”) – The

minimum required lane width on multilane highways is 12 feet. The widening of

I-205 (EA 300161) was a metric project, making the existing travel lanes on

mainline 11.8 feet instead of the required 12 feet. The project does not propose

any work within the existing travel lanes of mainline I-205.

Non-Standard Shoulder Width (HDM 302, “Highway Shoulder Standards”) – The

minimum required left shoulder width for freeways of 6 or more lanes is 10 feet.

The widening of I-205 (EA 300161) was a metric project, making the existing left

shoulder width on mainline 9.8 feet instead of the required 10 feet. The project

does not propose any work within left shoulders of mainline I-205.

Required Approvals

Approval from FHWA will be required due to the new access proposed by this alternative

at I-205. This approval will be obtained through the submission of a New Access Report

during PA&ED.

Stormwater

Alternative 2 has the potential to increase the volume of runoff and the urban pollutant

load of this runoff due to the increase in impervious area. In addition, the project may

temporarily increase sediment load in the runoff due to the grading activities associated

with the project. To mitigate these impacts, temporary and permanent treatment Best

Management Practices (BMPs) will be incorporated into the project.

Temporary construction site BMPs anticipated to be used for this project include fiber

rolls for slope stability and sediment control, stabilized construction entrances to prevent

sediment tracking on paved surfaces, temporary drainage inlet protection, temporary

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

12

concrete washouts for concrete spoils, street sweeping, temporary silt fences, temporary

check dams, temporary hydraulic mulch, tire/wheel washes, and covers for stockpiles

against wind erosion.

Permanent treatment BMPs that may be used for this project include infiltration and

detention basins, biofiltration swales and media filters.

Stormwater impacts will be further minimized by disturbing existing slopes only when

necessary, minimizing cut and fill areas, avoiding soils that will be difficult to re-

stabilize, providing slopes flat enough to re-vegetate, rounding slopes to reduce

concentrated flows and collecting concentrated flows in stabilized channels. The design

will allow for ease of maintenance. The project will be scheduled to minimize soil-

disturbing work during the rainy season. If applicable, permanent water pollution

controls will be installed early to be used during construction.

Context Sensitive Solutions/Complete Streets

Alternative 2 contains numerous features that provide for the safe mobility of all users,

including sidewalks, bike facilities, and ADA compliant grades and ramps.

In addition, the proposed project fits within the context of its surroundings in that the

structure type and aesthetic features will be consistent with those of the adjacent

interchanges and the provided cross sectional features (bike lanes, sidewalks, etc.) will be

consistent with those along the existing corridor.

Constructability

Construction of the interchange and roadways associated with Alternative 2 can be

accomplished with little disruption to I-205 and the local roadway network. Erection of

the falsework for the new structure, and demolition of the existing Paradise Road

Overcrossing will require a short term detour of traffic on I-205. A short term median

crossover or widening of the inside shoulders along I-205 is one option for detouring

mainline traffic since there are no adjacent ramps. Another method would be to construct

the proposed on and off-ramps in an initial stage so that they may be used to detour

traffic on and off I-205 for the falsework erection and demolition. Short term detours for

local road will also be necessary. No long term closures or detours are anticipated.

8. RIGHT OF WAY, UTILITIES, AND RAILROADS

8.1 Right of Way

Right of way acquisition will not be needed for Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 will require the acquisition of private property to accommodate the

interchange configuration. Right of way acquisition is required for each of the ramps, the

overcrossing and along Paradise Road. A Right Of Way Conceptual Cost Estimate for

the alternative is included in Attachment F.

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

13

8.2 Utilities

The following utility companies have been determined to have facilities within the

project vicinity:

City of Tracy Public Works

AT&T

Comcast

PG&E

Pacific Bell

Pescadero Reclamation District

Further investigations will be performed during the PA&ED phase to determine the

types, location, and sizes all utilities.

No utilities will be impacted by Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 will require potholing to determine if underground utilities will require

relocation. For preliminary planning and estimating purposes, the presence of all the

above utility companies facilities are assumed to be impacted. Relocation of utilities, if

necessary, will be coordinated with the utility owners during the design process.

The agency responsible for the costs of any utility relocation will be determined based on

research of ownership, prior rights, and Master Agreements. Once this determination is

made, a “determination of liability” will be completed to appropriately allocate funds for

the design and relocation of the affected utilities.

8.3 Railroad

There are no railroad facilities in the project area. Therefore, none of the alternatives will

have impacts to railroad lines.

9. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Representatives of the City and Caltrans attended Project Development Team (PDT)

meetings during the Project Initiation Document (PID) phase to develop the need and

purpose and identify the alternatives studied for the I-205/Chrisman Road Interchange

Project. These meetings will continue during the PA&ED phase. Also during the

PA&ED phase, public meetings will be held as part of the environmental review process.

10. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION/DOCUMENT

Based on the results of the Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR), included

as Attachment G, Alternative 2 is not expected to result in impacts that could not be

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

14

mitigated to less than significant, as defined under the California Environmental Quality

Act (CEQA). Additionally, the proposed project is not likely to result in adverse impacts

pursuant to the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Because the proposed

project is not foreseen to have significant impacts, the NEPA environmental document

for the project is anticipated to be an Environmental Assessment (EA) leading to a

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The appropriate level of environmental

documentation for CEQA is anticipated to be an Initial Study (IS), leading to a Mitigated

Negative Declaration (MND). The appropriate and ultimate level of CEQA and NEPA

environmental documentation would be determined upon completion of the required

supporting environmental technical studies for this project. Caltrans would be the Lead

Agency for CEQA compliance and also the Lead Agency for administering the

environmental process under NEPA. Effective July 1, 2007, Caltrans has been assigned

the environmental review and consultation responsibilities under NEPA pursuant to 23

U.S.C. 327.

To determine potential environmental impacts of the alternatives, the following technical

studies are recommended: Visual Impact Assessment; Historical Property Survey Report

(HPSR), Archaeological Survey Report (ASR); Traffic Study Report; Hazardous Waste

(Initial Site Assessment), Preliminary Site Investigation; Air Quality Report; Air Quality

Conformity Analysis; Noise Study Report; Natural Environment Study (NES); habitat

assessments (for pertinent species).

Habitat mitigation, aesthetic treatment, and air quality permits for construction are

anticipated for Alternative 2. Sound walls may also be required for the Alternative 2

based on results of the noise technical studies.

A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for

Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity from the State Water

Resources Control Board (SWRCB) would be required for Alternative 2, and would

include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Alternative 2 would also

require certification of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) from the City of

Tracy.

11. FUNDING

Capital Outlay Project Estimate

Range of Estimate STIP Funds Other Funds

Construction Right-of-

Way Construction

Right-of-

Way Construction

Right-of-

Way

Alternative 2 $28 M to

$33 M

$1.0 M to

$5.0 M $15 M $0.5 M $15 M $1 M

The level of detail available to develop these capital outlay project estimates is only

accurate to within the above ranges and is useful for long-range planning purposes only.

The capital outlay project estimates should not be used to program or commit State-

programmed capital outlay funds.

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

15

Capital Outlay Support Estimate

Capital outlay support estimate for programming PA&ED in the 2012 FTIP for this

project: $1,000,000

12. SCHEDULE

Project Milestones Scheduled Delivery Date

(Month/Day/Year)

PROGRAM PROJECT M015 December 2012

BEGIN ENVIRONMENTAL M020 January 2013

CIRCULATE DPR & DED EXTERNALLY M120 January 2015

PA&ED M200 July 2015

PS&E, RW M460 January 2017

APPROVE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT M500 September 2017

ACCEPT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT M600 September 2019

13. RISKS

As part of the PID phase, a Risk Register has been completed. The Risk Register is an

assessment of potential risks and impacts to the overall project that may occur in

subsequent phases. The PDT identified 11 risks (threats and opportunities) associated

with the project; 7 threats identified as having a “Low” risk rating, 5 threats identified as

having a “Medium” risk rating, and 4 opportunities. The project Risk Register is

included in Attachment H.

The risk having the greatest impact on the project is the acceptance of the Design

Exception Fact Sheet by FHWA for the mandatory design exception for interchange

spacing (see section 7.2). If the Fact Sheet is not approved by FHWA, the risk owner

will have to mitigate the risk by modifying the project design to achieve a spacing that

will be approved by FHWA and Caltrans and still meet the purpose and need of the

project.

14. FHWA COORDINATION

This project is considered to be an Assigned Project in accordance with the current

FHWA and Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Joint Stewardship and Oversight

Agreement.

Submittal of unsigned Project Report to FHWA is required to request federal

"engineering and operational acceptability" determination of a new access to the

Interstate. Federal "engineering and operational acceptability" determination must be

obtained prior to circulation of the environmental document.

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

16

Sufficient funding is expected to be reasonably available at the time of approval of the

environmental document to allow for the inclusion of the fully funded preferred

alternative in the financially constrained Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

RTP/Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). In addition to the proposed

funding sources listed in Section 11, “FUNDING”, opportunities to receive Congestion

Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program funds will be pursued during

subsequent project phases.

15. DISTRICT CONTACTS

Caltrans, District 10

Christina Hibbard, MA, PMP, Project Manager, (209) 948-7889

Michael Hutchinson, PE, Senior Oversight Engineer (209) 948-3976

Scott Smith, Senior Environmental Planner, (559) 445-6472

Vu H Nguyen, Chief, Traffic Operations, (209) 603-5126

George Fernandez, Right of Way, (209) 948-3969

Andrew Pochwatka, Stormwater, (559) 948-3969

City of Tracy

Zabih Zaca, Project Manager, (209) 831-6452

Dokken Engineering

Juann Ramos, Project Manager, (916) 858-0642

16. PROJECT REVIEWS

Field Review PDT agreed to use photos in lieu of field visit Date 02/07/2012

District Maintenance Date 09/06/2012

District Safety Review Date 09/06/2012

HQ Design Coordinator Date 09/06/2012

Project Manager District Safety Review Date 09/06/2012

Constructability Review Date 09/06/2012

17. ATTACHMENTS

A. Vicinity Map

B. Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet

C. Plan View Exhibits For Alternatives 1 and 2

D. Typical Cross Sections For Alternative 2

E. Cost Estimates For Alternative 2

F. Conceptual Cost Estimate – Right of Way Component

G. Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR)

10-SJ-205-PM R9.0/R9.6

20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (DEMO)

Proj ID 10 1200 0273 (EA 10-0H880K)

November 2012

17

H. Risk Register

I. Storm Water Data Report (SWDR) Cover Page

ATTACHMENT A

Vicinity Map

Vicinity Map

On Interstate 205 from 0.9 miles east of MacArthur Drive

to 2.9 miles west of Interstate 5

ATTACHMENT B

Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet

1

Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet

PROJECT INFORMATION Project ID No/ District County Route Post Miles Expenditure Authorization No.

10 San Joaquin 205 PM R9.0/R9.6 EA 10-0H880K Project Name and Description : I-205/Chrisman Road Interchange

Prepared by: Dokken Engineering

Name: Jacqueline Lockhart

Functional Unit:

N/A

Project Development Team (PDT) InformationTitle Name Phone Number Project Manager Christina Hibbard (209) 948-7889 Project Manager/Consultant Juann Ramos/Dokken Engineering (916) 858-0642 Transportation Planning PDT Representative

Ken Baxter, Deputy District Director, Planning (209) 948-7906

Transportation Planning Stakeholder Information Title Name Phone Number Regional Planner Sinarath Pheng (209) 942-6092 System Planner Michael Robinson (209) 948-7575 Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) Planner

Sinarath Pheng (209) 942-6092

Community Planner Sinarath Pheng (209) 942-6092 Goods Movement Planner Michael Robinson (209) 948-7575 Transit Planner Josh Swearingen (209) 948-7142 Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator

Josh Swearingen (209) 948-7142

Park and Ride Coordinator Vu H Nguyen (209) 603-5128 Native American Liaison Maria Rodriquez (209) 948-7475 Other Coordinators:

Project Purpose and Need –

Purpose:

Provide a new connection to I-205 that serves the existing and planned residential, commercial, and industrial development in the vicinity;

Relieve the increase in forecasted traffic demand at surrounding interchanges; and


Need:

Development in the northeast area of the City of Tracy and surrounding communities (e.g. southwest Lathrop) is currently experiencing growth and is anticipated to continue to grow substantially over the next few decades. This growth will continue to increase the demand on local interchanges causing them to operate at a less than acceptable level of service. The closest access to I-205 from the project site is MacArthur Drive

2

where the future traffic demands at the interchange will result in an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) F. To meet future traffic demands, the City of Tracy’s circulation element and the City of Lathrop’s General Plan identifies the need for a new interchange to be located between the MacArthur Drive interchange and the I-5 interchange.

1. Project Funding:

a

List all known and potential funding sources and percent splits: (ie. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)/State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP)/Transportation Enhancement (TE)/Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM)/Safe Routes to School (SR2S)/etc.). PA&ED – 20% Local, 80% Federal Demonstration Program

b Is this a measure project? Yes_√_/No__. If yes, name and describe the measure. Measure K – The measure is a ½ cent sales tax dedicated to transportation projects in San Joaquin County.

2. Regional Planning:

a Name of and contact information for Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA). San Joaquin Council of Governments; (209) 235-0600

b Name of and contact information for local jurisdiction (City or County)

Zabih Zaca, City of Tracy

c

Provide the page number and project description as identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the date of adoption, or provide an explanation if not in RTP. 2011 RTP (Table 7-2): I-205 at Paradise Road/Chrisman Phase 1: Construct new interchange east-west ramps Phase 2: Construct new cloverleaf interchange

d

Provide nexus between the RTP objectives and the project to establish the basis for the project purpose and need. A new interchange on I-205 will meet the RTP Objectives to: Improve roadway access to key strategic economic centers; Improve regional roadway system performance

e Is the project located in an area susceptible to sea-level rise? No

f Name of Air Quality Management District (AQMD) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

g

If the project is located in a federal non-attainment or attainment-maintenance area is the project: Regionally Significant? (per 40 (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 93.101) Y_√_/N__ Exempt from conformity? (per 40 CFR 93.126 and 93.128) Y__/N_√_ Exempt from regional analysis? (per 40 CFR 93.127) Y__/N_√_ Not exempt from conformity (must meet all requirements)? Y /N_√_

3. Native American Consultation and Coordination:

a If project is within or near an Indian Reservation or Rancheria? If so, provide the name of Tribe. No

b Has/have the Tribal Government(s) been consulted? Y___/N_√_. If no, why not? Not applicable

c

If the project requires Caltrans to use right-of-way on trust or allotted lands, this information needs to be included as soon as possible as a key topic in the consultation with the Tribe(s). Has the Tribe been consulted on this topic? Y___/N_√_. If no, why not? Not applicable

d Has the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) been notified? Y__/N_√_ Not applicable

3

e Have all applicable Tribal laws, ordinances and regulations [Tribal Employment Rights Ordinances (TERO), etc.] been reviewed for required contract language and coordination? Not applicable

f If the Tribe has a TERO, is there a related Memorandum of Understanding between the District and the Tribe? Not applicable

g

Has the area surrounding the project been checked for prehistoric, archeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial sites, or areas of potentially high sensitivity? If such areas exist, has the Tribe, Native American Heritage Commission or other applicable persons or entities been consulted? To be investigated during PA/ED as part of the technical studies for the environmental document.

h If a Native American monitor is required for this project, will this cost be reflected in cost estimates? Yes

i In the event of project redesign, will the changes impact a Native American community as described above in d, e, or h? No

4. System Planning:

a Is the project consistent with the DSMP? Y_√_/N__. If yes document approval date. If no, explain. September 2010

b Is the project identified in the TSDP? Y_√_/N__? If yes, document approval date: September 2010. If no, explain.

c

Is the project identified in the TCR/RCR or CSMP? Y_√_/N__. If yes, document approval date CSMP, May 2010__. If no, explain. Is the project consistent with the future route concept? Y_√_/N__. If no, explain.

d Provide the Concept Level of Service (LOS) through project area.

I-205 LOS=C

e Provide the Concept Facility – include the number of lanes. Does the Concept Facility include High Occupancy Vehicle lanes? Y_√_/N__. 8-lane, mixed flow plus 2 HOV

f Provide the Ultimate Transportation Corridor (UTC) – include the number of lanes. Does the UTC include High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes? Y√__/N__. 10 lane, mixed flow plus 2 HOV

g Describe the physical characteristics of the corridor through the project area (i.e. flat, rolling or mountainous terrain...). Flat

h Is the highway in an urban or rural area? Urban__/Rural_√_. Provide Functional Classification. 1-205 is a Principle Arterial Interstate Freeway

i Is facility a freeway, expressway or conventional highway? I-205 is a freeway, Chrisman Road is classified as an expressway per the City of Tracy Transportation Master Plan

j

Provide Route Designations: (i.e. Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP) High Emphasis or Focus Route, Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Route, Scenic Route…). I-205 is part of the Freeway and Expressway System, the National Highway System, the Strategic Highway Corridor Network of National Defense (STRAHNET), the Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) National Truck Network for oversized trucks, and is classified as a “High Emphasis” and “Gateway” route in the Interregional Road System (IRRS).

k Describe the land uses adjacent to project limits (i.e. agricultural, industrial…).

Existing land uses are agricultural and industrial/commercial. The area is zoned industrial per the City of Tracy General Plan.

l Describe any park and ride facility needs identified in the TCR/CSMP, local plans, and RTP.

4

There is an existing park and ride facility at I-205/MacArthur Drive. No new facilities are identified for the project area.

m

Describe the Forecasted 10 and 20-year Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT), and Peak Hour truck data in the TCR. Include the source and year of Forecast, and names and types of traffic and travel demand analysis tools used. Per the I-205/I-5 CMSP (May 2010): The SJCOG countywide model was used and operational analysis of the roadway network was developed using CORSIM (Version 6) and Synchro 6 software. AADT: Year 2014=133,000, Year 2024=162,000

n Has analysis on Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (DVHD) from the Highway Congestion Monitoring Program (HICOMP) been completed and included? Y__/N_√_.

5. Local Development – Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR ):

List LD-IGR projects that may directly or indirectly impact the proposed Caltrans project or that the proposed Caltrans project may impact. (Attach additional project information if needed.)

LD-IGR Project Information Project

a County-Route-Postmile & Distance to Development.

N/A

b Development name, type, and size. N/A

c Local agency and/or private sponsor, and contact information.

N/A

d California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status and Implementation Date.

N/A

e If project includes federal funding, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) status.

N/A

f

All vehicular and non-vehicular unmitigated impacts and planned mitigation measures including Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation System Management (TSM) that would affect Caltrans facilities.

N/A

g Approved mitigation measures and implementing party.

N/A

h Value of constructed mitigation and/or amount of funds provided.

N/A

i

Encroachment Permit, Transportation Permit, Traffic Management Plan, or California Transportation Commission (CTC) Access approvals needed.

N/A

j Describe relationship to Regional Blueprint, General Plans, or County Congestion Management Plans.

N/A

k Inclusion in a Regional Transportation Plan Sustainable Community Strategy or Alternative Planning Strategy?

N/A

l Regional or local mitigation fee program in place?

N/A

6. Community Planning: INITIAL PID INFORMATION

a Has lead agency staff worked with any neighborhood/community groups in the area of the proposed

5

improvements? Y__/N__. If yes, summarize the process and its results including any commitments made to the community. If no, why not?

b

Are any active/completed/proposed Environmental Justice (EJ) or Community-Based Transportation (CBTP) Planning Grants in the project area? Y__/N_√_. If yes, summarize the project, its location, and whether/how it may interact with the proposed project.

c

Describe any community participation plans for this PID including how recommendations will be incorporated and/or addressed. Has a context sensitive solutions (CSS) approach been applied? Y_/N_√_ During PA/ED, the environmental document will be circulated for public comment. Context sensitive solutions (aesthetic themes, bike/ped improvements) will be incorporated into the project.

FINAL PID INFORMATION

d

How will the proposed transportation improvements impact the local community? Is the project likely to create or exacerbate existing environmental or other issues, including public health and safety, air quality, water quality, noise, environmental justice or social equity? Y__/N__. Describe issues, concerns, and recommendations (from sources including neighborhood/community groups) and what measures will be taken to reduce existing or potential negative effects. This will be determined during PA/ED as part of the environmental process

e Does this highway serve as a main street? Y__/N_√_. If yes, what main street functions and features need to be protected or preserved?

7. Freight Planning:

INITIAL PID INFORMATION

a Identify all modal and intermodal facilities that may affect or be affected by the project.

I-205, I-5


b

Describe how the design of this project could facilitate or impede Goods Movement and relieve choke points both locally and statewide through grade separations, lane separations, or other measures (e.g., special features to accommodate truck traffic and at-grade railroad crossings). Providing a new access point to Interstate 205 will aid in the distribution of truck traffic at nearby interchanges as well as provide a more direct access point to an industrial area that serves as a destination for truck traffic.

c

Describe how the project integrates and interconnects with other modes (rail, maritime, air, etc.). Do possibilities exist for an intermodal facility or other features to improve long-distance hauling, farm-to-market transportation and/or accessibility between warehouses, storage facilities, and terminals? No other modes of operation beyond truck related freight movement exist within the project area.

d

Is the project located in a high priority goods movement area, included in the Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP) or on a Global Gateways Development Program (GGDP) route? Y_√_/N__. If yes, describe. The Caltrans 2001 Global Gateways Development Program (GGDP) Report identified I-205 among the top priority global gateways in California due to its part in the vital network of goods movement.

e

Is the project on a current and/or projected high truck volume route [e.g., Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic (AADTT) of 5 axle trucks is greater than 3000]? Yes_√_/N__. If yes, describe how the project addresses this demand. Per the I-205/I-5 CSMP the Truck AADT is greater than 11,000. The project will improve freight access to an industrial area that serves as a designation for truck traffic.

f If the project is located near an airport, seaport, or railroad depot, describe how circulation (including truck parking) needs are addressed. N/A

g Describe any other freight issues.

6

N/A

8. Transit (bus, light rail, commuter rail, intercity rail, high speed rail): INITIAL PID INFORMATION a List all local transit providers that operate within the corridor.

Tracer Transit (City of Tracy), San Joaquin Regional Transit District (SJRTD)

b Have transit agencies been contacted for possible project coordination? Y__/N_√_. If no, why not? To be performed during PA&ED.

c Describe existing transit services and transit features (bus stops, train crossings, and transit lines) within the corridor. SJRTD currently utilizes Grant Line Road as a route for two of its bus routes. There is an existing bus stop for SJRTD and Tracer Transit at the park and ride facility at I-205/MacArthur Drive.

d Describe transit facility needs identified in short- and long-range transit plans and RTP. Describe how these future plans affect the corridor. To be performed during PA&ED.


e

Describe how the proposed project integrates transit and addresses impacts to transit services and transit facilities. No new transit facilities are anticipated. Impacts to transit during construction will be addressed as part of Final Design.

f Have transit alternatives and improvement features been considered in this project? Y__/N_√_ If yes, describe. If no, why not? No new transit facilities are anticipated.

9. Bicycle: INITIAL PID INFORMATION

a Does the facility provide for bicyclist safety and mobility needs? If no, please explain. Yes

b Are any improvements for bicyclist safety and mobility proposed for this facility by any local agencies or included in bicycle master plans? If yes, describe (including location, time frame, funding, etc.). City of Tracy Bikeways Master Plan

c Are there any external bicycle advocacy groups and bicycle advisory committees that should be included in the project stakeholder list? If so, provide contact information.


d Will bicycle travel deficiencies be corrected? How or why not? Yes, standard facilities will be incorporated.

e How will this project affect local agency plans for bicycle safety and mobility improvements? No impact

f

If the project is the construction of a new freeway or modification to an existing freeway, will it sever or destroy existing provisions for bicycle travel? If yes, describe how bicycle travel provisions will be included in this project. No

10. Pedestrian including Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): INITIAL PID INFORMATION

a

Does this facility provide for pedestrian safety and mobility needs? If so, describe pedestrian facilities. Do continuous and well-maintained sidewalks exist? Are pedestrians forced to walk in the roadway at any locations due to lack of adequate pedestrian facilities? Please explain. Yes. Sidewalks, curb ramps and crosswalks will be provided throughout the project.

b Are pedestrian crossings located at reasonable intervals? Yes. Crossings will be provided at intersections

7

c Are all pedestrian facilities within the corridor ADA accessible and in compliance with Federal and State ADA laws and regulations? Yes


d Will pedestrian travel deficiencies be corrected? How or why not? Yes, standard facilities will be incorporated.

e How will this project affect local agency plans for pedestrian safety and mobility improvements? No impact

f

If the project is the construction of a new freeway or modification to an existing freeway, will it sever or destroy existing provisions for pedestrian travel? If yes, describe how pedestrian travel provisions will be included in this project. No

g Are there any external pedestrian advocacy groups and advisory committees that should be included in the project stakeholder list? If so, provide contact information.

h

Have ADA barriers as noted in the District’s ADA Transition Plan been identified within the project limits? If not included in the project, provide justification and indicate whether District Design coordinator approval was obtained.

No ADA barriers have been identified per the District 10 ADA Transition Plan.

11. Equestrian: INITIAL PID INFORMATION

a If this corridor accommodates equestrian traffic, describe any project features that are being considered to improve safety for equestrian and vehicular traffic? Accommodations for equestrian traffic are not needed for this project.


b Have features that accommodate equestrian traffic been identified? If so, are they included a part of this project? Describe. If no, why not? Accommodations for equestrian traffic are not needed for this project.

12. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS): INITIAL PID INFORMATION

a

Have ITS features such as closed-circuit television cameras, signal timing, multi-jurisdictional or multimodal system coordination been considered in the project? Y__/N_√_. If yes, describe. If no, explain. ITS features will be considered during PA/ED and Final Design.


b Have ITS features been identified? If so, are they included a part of this project? Describe. If no, why not? ITS features will be considered during PA/ED and Final Design.

ATTACHMENT C

Plan View Exhibits For Alternatives 1 & 2

ATTACHMENT D

Typical Cross Sections For Alternative 2

ATTACHMENT E

Cost Estimates For Alternative 2

1

Project Study Report – Project Development Support

Capital Outlay Project Estimate

Dist – Co – Rte 10 –SJ – 205

PM R9.0 / R9.6

Program Code 20.XX.400.100 (Local)

20.XX.400.200 (Demo)

Project

Number EA 10-0H880K

Month/Year November 2012

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Limits: Between MacArthur Drive and Interstate 5, near Paradise Road

Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct a new interchange on Interstate 205 in the

vicinity of the existing Paradise Road Overcrossing

Alternate: Alternative 2

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $ 20,700,000

TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $ 7,900,000

TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS $ 1,850,000

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 30,450,000

TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $ 1,300,000

TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 31,750,000

2

I. ROADWAY ITEMS

Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost

Total Cost $4,140,000 X 5.0 miles = $20,700,000

Explanation:

Included in the average cost per lane mile are all costs associated with the

construction of Chrisman Road and interchange on/off-ramps including the

pavement structural section, concrete curb and gutters, sidewalks, medians,

earthwork, signing, striping, construction staging, all drainage facilities, auxiliary

lanes on I-205 from Chrisman Road to MacArthur Drive, ramp metering of

Chrisman Road on-ramps, and ITS features (Changeable Message Signs, a Closed

Circuit Television system, and traffic count systems). Not included in the price

above are costs associated with the overcrossing structure, utility relocations and

right of way acquisitions.

Contact:

Dokken Engineering, (916) 858-0642

TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $20,700,000

II. STRUCTURES ITEMS

Structure

(1)

Structure

(2)

Structure

(3)

Bridge Name Chrisman Rd _________ _________

Total Cost for Structure $7,900,000 _________ _________

Explanation:

Included in the cost of the Chrisman Road structure is the cost for all items

associated with the construction of the overcrossing at I-205. Not included in the

structure price are costs for retaining walls, sound walls, or concrete drainage

structures.

Contact:


TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $7,900,000

3

III. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION

Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost

Environmental Mitigation 1 lump sum X$1,850,000 =$1,850,000

Explanation:

Included in the Environmental Mitigation are costs associated with Scenic

Resources mitigation, farmland mitigation, and habitat mitigation for federally

threatened and endangered species. Not included are costs associated with the

conversion of Williamson Act property (which will be determined during

subsequent phases) or costs for required environmental permits.

Contact:


TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS $ 1,850,000

IV. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS

Escalated

Value

A. Acquisition, including excess lands,

damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill

$1,100,000

B. Utility Relocation (State share) $200,000

Anticipated Date of Right-of-Way Certification 2017

(Date to which values are escalated)

Explanation:

It is estimated that the project will impact 8 to 10 parcels with an estimated total

area of approximately 33 acres. The right of way cost also includes the impact

and relocation of 2 businesses.

Contact:


TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1,300,000

ATTACHMENT F

Conceptual Cost Estimate – Right Of Way Component

CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE – RIGHT OF WAY COMPONENT

To: October 2012 10 – San Joaquin – 205 PM R9.0/R9.6 From: EA 10-0H880K

I-205/Chrisman Road

A Field Review was conducted Yes √ No

Scope of the Right of Way

Provide a general description of the right of way including the location attributes. Right of Way Required √ Yes ____No Number of Parcels √ 1-10 ____11-25 ____26-50 ____51-100 ____>100 ____Urban √ Rural Land Area: Fee 33 Acres Easement 0 Displaced Persons/Businesses √ Yes ____No Demolition/Clearance √ Yes ____No Railroad Involvement ____Yes √ No Utility Involvements √ Yes ____No 6 Number of Utilities in area Cost Estimates Support Costs ____$0-$25,000 ____$500,001-$1,000,000 ____$25,001-$100,000 ____$1,000,001-$5,000,000 √ $100,001-$250,000 ____$5,000,001-$10,000,000 ____$250,001-$500,000 ____>$10,000,000 Capital Costs ____$0-$100,000 ____$5,000,001-$15,000,000 ____$100,001-$500,000 ____$15,000,001-$50,000,000 ____$500,001-$1,000,000 ____$50,000,001-$100,000,000 √ $1,000,001-$5,000,000 ____>$100,000,000 Schedule

Right of Way will require 18 months to deliver a Right of Way Certification #1 from Final R/W Maps. This estimate is based on a Right of Way Certification date of 2017 .

ATTACHMENT G

Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR)

September 2012

1 of 13

Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report

Project Information District 10 County SJ Route 205 Post Mile 9.0-9.6 EA 10-0H880 Project ID#: 10 1200 0273 Project Title: I-205/Chrisman Road Interchange Project Manager: Christina Hibbard Phone #: (209)831-6452 Design Manager: Juann Ramos Phone #: (916)858-0642 Oversight Design Eng.: Michael Hutchison Phone #: (209)948-3976 Environmental Manager: Scott Smith Phone #: (559)445-6172 Environmental Planner: Janet Bailey-Sutton Phone #: (559)445-6328 PSR Summary Statement

Based on results of this PEAR, the build alternative is not expected to result in impacts that could not be mitigated to less than significant, as defined under CEQA. Additionally, the proposed project is not likely to result in adverse impacts pursuant to NEPA. Because the proposed project is not forseen to have significant impacts, the document is anticipated to be an Environmental Assessment (EA) leading to a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The appropriate level of environmental documentation for CEQA is anticipated to be an Initial Study (IS), leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The appropriate and ultimate level of CEQA and NEPA environmental documentation would be determined upon completion of the required supporting environmental technical studies for this project. Caltrans would be the lead agency for CEQA compliance and also the lead agency for administering the environmental process under NEPA. Effective July 1, 2007, Caltrans has been assigned the environmental review and consultation responsibilities under NEPA pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. To determine potential environmental impacts of the alternatives, experts in the following specialties will conduct studies: visual impact; historical property, archaeological; hazardous waste; air quality; noise; biology; and natural habitats. Habitat mitigation, aesthetic treatment, and air quality permits for construction are anticipated for the build alternative. Sound walls may also be required for the build alternative based on results of the noise study report. A Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR) may be required depending on the results of the noise study report. If the noise study report concludes that a NADR is required it will be completed as part of the PA&ED phase of the project. A national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) would be required for the build alternative, and would include a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The build alternative would also require certification of a water quality management plan (WQMP) from the City of Tracy.

September 2012

2 of 13

Project Description

The City of Tracy (City) proposes to construct a new interchange along I-205 between MacArthur Drive and I-5 situated at or near the existing Paradise Road overcrossing. The proposed project would serve the forecasted increase in traffic demand caused by land development in surrounding areas. The new interchange location must meet FHWA and Caltrans interchange spacing criteria along I-205 between MacArthur Drive and I-5.

Purpose and Need

Purpose The purpose of the project is to:

Provide a new connection to I-205 that serves the existing and planned residential, commercial and industrial development in the vicinity;

Relieve the forecasted increase in traffic demand at surrounding interchanges; and


Need The northeast area of Tracy and its surrounding communities (particularly southwest Lathrop) are currently growing and developing. This is expected to continue and increase over the next few decades. This growth will continue to increase the demand on local interchanges causing them to operate at a less than acceptable level of service (LOS). The closest access to I-205 from the project site is MacArthur Drive where the future traffic demands at the interchange will result in an unacceptable LOS F. To meet future traffic demands, the City of Tracy’s circulation element and the City of Lathrop’s General Plan identify the need for a new interchange to be located on I-205 between the MacArthur Drive interchange and the I-5 interchange. The proposed location of the new interchange is located at or near the Paradise Road overcrossing, which is between the MacArthur Drive interchange and the I-5 interchange.

Description of Work

The City of Tracy proposes to construct a new interchange along I-205 between MacArthur Drive and I-5. The proposed project would serve the forecasted increase in traffic demand caused by land development in surrounding areas. The new interchange location must meet FHWA and Caltrans interchange spacing criteria along I-205 between MacArthur Drive and I-5. Alternatives

No Build Alternative: The No Build Alternative would not add a new access point to I-205 near the existing Paradise Road overcrossing. The existing Paradise Road overcrossing would not be widened to accommodate any future widening of I-205. Build Alternative: The build alternative proposes to construct a new interchange between MacArthur Dive and I-5 at the approximate location of the existing Paradise Road overcrossing. The proposed interchange configuration will be a partial cloverleaf (Type L-9) which includes four diamond-type ramps and two loop on-ramps. The overcrossing structure will accommodate six traveled lanes, shoulders and sidewalks, and will accommodate the future widening of I-205 to a ten-lane ultimate facility. Each of the ramp intersections

September 2012

3 of 13

will be signalized. The interchange will tie into the existing Paradise Road on both the north and south sides of the interstate. As part of a future project, the City of Tracy will extend Chrisman Road at Grant Line Road north to connect to the project. New local intersections for Pescadero Road and Paradise Road will be constructed on the Chrisman Road extension. A benefit to the proposed Type L-9 interchange configuration is the ability to phase the construction as the traffic demand requires additional capacity and as funding becomes available. The initial interchange can be built with only the four east-west diamond-type on- and off-ramps in their ultimate location, and the interior loop on-ramps can be constructed in a second phase. Ultimate right-of-way would be acquired with the first phase for the construction of the diamond ramps. This phasing strategy is consistent with the SJCOG 2011 RTP for the I-205 at Paradise Road/Chrisman Road interchange with the initial Phase 1 construction being a Tier I project (highest priority) and Phase 2 being a Tier II project (additional regionally important project but which is not able to be funded at the current time). Based on a preliminary traffic analysis performed for the Chrisman Road Precise Plan, the intersections for the I-205/Chrisman Road interchange will operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) for cumulative traffic volumes representing 2025 conditions for both a Phase 1 construction and the ultimate build out for Phase 2 of the interchange. Both intersections are projected to operate at an LOS B or better with little delay during the peak hour.

Funding

State Federal

The project is included in the SJCOG 2011 RTP for the I-205 at Paradise/Chrisman Road Interchange with the initial Phase 1 construction being a Tier I Project (highest priority) and Phase 2 being a Tier II project (additional regionally important projects but which are not able to be funded at the current time). The project is also consistent with the 2011 FTIP for SJCOG for the construction of I-205/Chrisman Road interchange project HR 3-182#1778. Anticipated Environmental Approval

CEQA NEPA

Categorical Exemption/Statutory Exemption Categorical Exclusion ( 6004/ 6005)

Negative Declaration/Mitigated ND( Appendix G) Finding of No Significant Impact

Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Statement

Anticipated Environmental Schedule

Total Time for Environmental Approval 25 months

Start Date 06/01/2012

Begin Environmental 01/01/2013

Draft Environmental Document 11/02/2013

Final Environmental Document 05/01/2014

PA&ED* 07/01/2015

September 2012

4 of 13

Assumptions and Risks

Risk Probability Ranking Ranking Probability of Risk Event 5 60-99% 4 40-59% 3 20-39% 2 10-19% 1 1-9%

Evaluating Impact of a Threat on Project Objectives Impact Very Low Low Moderate High Very High

Ob

je

ct

iv

es

Time Insignificant Schedule Slippage

Delivery Plan Milestone Delay within quarter

Delivery Plan milestone delay of one quarter

Delivery Plan milestone delay of more than 1 quarter

Delivery Plan milestone delay outside fiscal year

Cost Insignificant Cost Increase

<5% Cost Increase

5-10% Cost Increase

10-20% Cost Increase

>20% Cost Increase

Scope Scope decrease is barely noticeable

Changes in project limits or features with <5% Cost Increase

Changes in project limits or features with 5-10% Cost Increase

Sponsor does not agree that Scope meets the purpose and need

Scope does not meet purpose and need

If the New Access Report is not approved by FHWA there will be a corresponding impact to the

scope. Probability of occurrence is a 2 and impact on schedule is high.

A Draft of the Freeway Agreements with the County and City will be prepared during PA&ED; there will be a corresponding impact to the schedule. Probability of occurrence is a 3, the impact to the schedule would be moderate.

If FHWA does not give concurrence on conceptual acceptance to proceed with further studies there will be a corresponding impact to the schedule. Probability of occurrence 2, the impact to the schedule is low.

If the Design Exception Fact Sheet (for nonstandard interchange spacing) is not approved there will be a corresponding impact to the schedule. The probability of occurrence is 4 and the impact to the schedule is moderate.

If permits take longer to obtain than the schedule allows a corresponding delay may occur leading to an impact on the schedule. Probability of occurrence is a 4 and impact on schedule is Moderate.

If the logical termini do not satisfy NEPA regulations there will be a corresponding impact to the scope. Probability of occurrence 2, impact to scope is low.

September 2012

5 of 13

If independent utility is not provided there will be a corresponding impact to the scope. Probability of occurrence is 1, impact is very low.

If stage construction requires closure of I-205 for falsework erection and demolition of the existing bridge. A potential detour and staging of ramps may also be required. Probability of occurrence 2, impact to scope is low.

Mitigation

No environmental commitment measures are applicable to the no-build alternative. The following environmental commitment measures are pertinent to the build alternative, and are based on the environmental setting and typical requirements to minimize project-related impacts for similar transportation projects:

Right of Way Capital (050)

California Department of Fish and Game 1602 permit fee: $4,482.75 (2012 dollars). California Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 permit fee: $1,000 (2012 dollars). United States Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit Scenic resources – Aesthetic treatment above and beyond interchange landscaping treatments

to augment standard landscaping budget to negate any negative impact of the new element on the farmland scenery is estimated to cost $200,000 (2012 dollars).

Williamson Act – (TBD)

Costs are estimated and would likely change as project information becomes available.

Construction Capital (042)

Biological resources – Cost estimates should include potential habitat mitigation for the

federally threatened and endangered species listed in the biological discussion as well as any potential biological features determined to be jurisdictional. This is estimated to cost $150,000 (2012 dollars).

Costs values displayed are estimated and would likely change as project information becomes available.

Disclaimer

This report is not an environmental document. Preliminary analysis, determinations, and estimates of mitigation costs are based on the project description provided in this report. The estimates and conclusions provided are approximate and are based on cursory analysis of probable effects. This report is to provide a preliminary level of environmental analysis to supplement the project initiation document. Changes in project scope, alternatives, or environmental laws will require a reevaluation of this report. Review and Approval

I confirm that environmental cost, scope, and schedule have been satisfactorily completed and that the PEAR meets all Caltrans requirements. Also, if the project is scoped as a routine EA, complex EA, or EIS, I verify that the HQ DEA Coordinator has concurred in the Class of Action.

June 1, 2011

7 of 13

Environmental Technical Reports or Studies Required

Required Clearance

Memo Received

Not Required

Possible Critical Path

Biology

Endangered Species (Federal) Endangered Species (State) Species of Concern (CNPS, USFS, BLM, S, F) Wetland Delineation Natural Environment Study Biological Assessment (USFWS, NMFS, State) Cultural Resources ASR HRER HPSR/HRCR Screening Memo SHPO Concurrence Native American Coordination Finding of Effect Document Treatment Plan & MOA Hazardous Waste ISA PSI ADL Air Quality Analysis Hot Spot Analysis MSAT Noise Study Water Quality Community Impact Assessment Environmental Justice Growth Related Impacts Cumulative Impacts Farmland Visual Resources Scenic Resource Evaluation Visual Impact Assessment Floodplain Evaluation Paleontology Section 4(f) Evaluation Wild and Scenic River Consistency Geology Topography Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions

June 1, 2011

8 of 13

Permits Anticipated for Construction

Required Not Required

401 Permit Coordination (discharge into navigable waters)

404 Permit Coordination (discharge into waters of the US including wetlands)

- Nationwide

- Individual

1600 Permit (Streambed Alteration)

City/County Coastal Permit Coordination

State Coastal Permit Coordination

NPDES Coordination

US Coast Guard (Section 10)

State 2081 Permit (State only incidental take of threatened or endangered species)

June 1, 2011

9 of 13

Discussion of Technical Review

Preliminary analyses of resources are below. Biology A natural environment study (NES) will be prepared to evaluate the projects potential to adversely affect protected species. Minimization measures will be identified to avoid adversely affecting migratory birds. The adjacent farmlands use flooding irrigation methods, so it will be necessary to determine if these are “waters of the U.S.,” which will require a jurisdictional delineation to be included in the NES. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNNDB) indicates that the Union Island United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle may contain habitat suitable for the federally threatened California red legged frog (Rana draytonii), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), and the federally endangered vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), riparian brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius), large-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora), and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). On August 27, 2012, Dokken Engineering biologist Sarah Holm observed that the project site primarily consists of hardscape and actively used farmland. The actively used farmland could be providing foraging habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox and hawks such as Swainson’s hawk. The northern most limit of the project is adjacent to (approximately 400 feet) the Tom Paine Slough. No direct impacts to this water body are anticipated; however, species could be using this water body and surrounding uplands as habitat. The slough is sparsely vegetated and no emergent vegetation was observed. As a result, the slough does not appear suitable for California red-legged frog or giant garter snake. In addition, no water or adjacent wetlands or vernal pools were observed that could provide adequate breeding habitat for California tiger salamander. No elderberry shrubs were observed and it is not anticipated that sensitive plant species will be identified during focused surveys. A clump of large Eucalyptus trees is present at the southeast limits of the project. These could provide nesting habitat for hawks and other migratory birds. Cultural Resources For the build alternative a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER), and Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) are recommended for the proposed project. Identification of an area of potential effect, an archaeological survey, background research, and a new records search from California State University, Stanislaus, and Central California Information Center would be part of these technical studies. An HRER may be necessary due to residential structures as well as structures associated with agriculture within the project area. These structures may require evaluation for historic context. Dokken Engineering Archaeologist Namat Hosseinion conducted a pedestrian survey of the archaeological project area on January 9, 2012. Mr. Hosseinion holds an M.A. in Archaeology from California State University Sacramento and holds a B.A. degree in Anthropology from the University of California, San Diego. He has 12 years of archaeological experience in Cultural Resource Management throughout California and the Great Basin and meets the Caltrans Professionally Qualified Staff requirements for Co-Principal Investigator. The project area consisted of intensive farmland, some modern light commercial, modern industrial warehouses, and dairy farms. There are two homes in the project footprint that date to 1924 and 1936 that well potentially require evaluation. Based on initial site visits and distance the water resources there is a low likelihood of prehistoric or historic cultural resources to be present within the project area. The active

June 1, 2011

10 of 13

farming in the project area are anticipated to bring any potential materials to the surface that can be identified during phase I pedestrian surveys. A formal records search through Central California Information Center will be conducted as part of the PA&ED phase of the project. Also, for Section 106 compliance Native American consultation would be conducted, beginning with a request for sacred lands from the Native American Heritage Commission. Hazardous Waste An initial site assessment (ISA) would be prepared for the proposed project to evaluate whether any recorded or visible hazardous waste or hazards materials occur in the project area. If any hazards are found additional remediation efforts or testing may be necessary. The ISA will include a governmental records search, select agency interviews (if deemed necessary), aerial photography and topographic review, and visual site surveys. An ISA checklist was prepared for the proposed project and it was found that there are agricultural properties within the project vicinity that have the potential for pesticide/herbicide contaminants. There are also dairy operations within the project vicinity that have the potential to contain hazardous materials onsite. The ISA checklist showed that there is the potential for hazardous waste within the project area, therefore an ISA would need to be prepared as part of PA&ED (see attached ISA checklist). Air Quality Analysis The proposed project is located within the City of Tracy, which is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is designated as a non-attainment area for ozone and PM10. An Air Quality Report would be prepared for the proposed project and to comply with all Federal, State and local air quality laws and regulations. The Air Quality Report will include a qualitative analysis of potential impacts on carbon monoxide (CO) or particulate matter (PM10/PM2.5), following the 1997 CO Protocol by U.C. Davis and the FHWA’s PM2.5/PM10 qualitative analysis guidance (March 2006). A qualitative analysis of mobile source air toxics (MSAT) would also be included, following FHWA’s Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA (2009). The air quality report would also include: discussion of mitigation of fugitive dust (including PM10) according to the SJVAPCD. Rule 403 for fugitive dust; naturally occurring asbestos; and a quantitative analysis for greenhouse gases (GHG) using the EMFAC model for the no-build alternative and the build alternative. Construction-related emissions would be quantified using the urban emissions (URBEMIS) model. An air quality conformity analysis would also be necessary for this project. This phasing strategy is consistent with the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) 2011 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the I-205 at Paradise Road/Chrisman Road interchange with the initial Phase 1 construction being a Tier I project (highest priority) and Phase 2 being a Tier II project (additional regionally important projects but which are not able to be funded at the current time). The project is also consistent with the 2011 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) for SJCOG for the construction of I-205/Chrisman Road interchange project HR 3-182 #1778. Interagency consultation (City of Tracy and SJCOG) will need to be carried out for the proposed project. Also, Caltrans will need to submit a conformity determination to FHWA for FHWA’s conformity determination. Noise Study The build alternative would be a Type I project, as defined in Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement, since a new interchange would be constructed. A Noise Study Report is required and would follow Caltrans’ Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (CatNAP) and the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement (TNS). Potentially sensitive receptors include farming properties adjacent to I-205 all approximately 1,000 to 2, 000 feet from areas of major change in the noise environment. Substantial noise impacts from the project are not anticipated.

June 1, 2011

11 of 13

Water Quality There are two water features north of the project area, north of Arbor Road and east of Paradise Avenue. The Natural Environment Study (NES) will include a jurisdictional wetland delineation. The project is within the San Joaquin Delta watershed, Hydroloic Unit Code #18040003 watershed. The build alternative would add impervious surface area, which would increase stormwater run-off from the interchange. Drainage improvements would be incorporated into the proposed design as necessary to control additional runoff, and as mentioned above, further investigation would be necessary to determine if the existing flood control channel is adequate for diverting the extra runoff. With the appropriate mitigation, any additional runoff created by the improvements is not expected to exceed the capacity of storm water drainage systems. Additional traffic lanes from the project would be a source of potential pollutants, especially suspended solids and petroleum hydrocarbons from increased stormwater runoff from the proposed roadway surface. Permanent design pollution prevention best management practices (BMPs), in compliance with Caltrans’ Statewide Stormwater Management Plan, would be required to treat additional runoff. The construction of the proposed project would operate under an NPDES General Permit with BMPs as required by the City of Tracy and the regional water quality control board to minimize water erosion of exposed soils and resultant sediment and surface contaminant loading into the storm drain system and downstream water bodies. As part of the NPDES General Permit, a SWPPP would be prepared. Consequently, the proposed project is not expected to violate any water quality or waste discharge standard, in this regard. Community Impact Assessment Since the project would require right-of-way acquisition for the build alternative, including dairy farm land, a community impact assessment would be necessary. Also, if there are relocations due to the proposed project, a relocation impact statement would also be necessary to evaluate the impacts of the relocations. Cumulative Impacts Based on review of the environmental resources above, it is anticipated that cumulative impacts would not be substantial for the build alternative. The project is included in pertinent planning documents, it would accommodate for planned growth. There is a moderate potential for other unidentified impacts; however these issues will be included in the cumulative impact section of the environmental document. Farmland Portions of the proposed build alternative are on soils mapped as “Prime Farmland, if irrigated” by the NRCS, a portion of these lands are not considered “farmland” as defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act because they are zoned for future development by the County of San Joaquin and the City of Tracy. Coordination with the NRCS will be required in order to obtain farmland conversion rating. Also, a portion of the land is under the Williamson Act. Therefore, the land will have to go through the process of taking it out of the Williamson Act (see Figure 3). Visual Resources The proposed project area does not have officially designated State or County Scenic Highways, nor does it have National Scenic Byways. Due to the proposed project being a new interchange a visual impact assessment would be prepared.

June 1, 2011

12 of 13

Floodplain Evaluation The build alternative occurs with Zone X, outside of the 100-year floodplain, as shown in the FEMA FIRM 06077C0590F. Zone AE is also within the project area to the north. Zone AE is a Special Flood Hazard Area subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood. A location hydraulic study would be needed for the proposed project, however, substantial impacts or changes to the floodplain are not expected. A summary floodplain encroachment report would be appropriate for minor impacts to the floodplain. Paleontology Due to previous soil disturbance required to construct the existing facility, and due to the disturbed nature of adjacent agricultural and developed land, there is little potential for discovery of paleontological resources for the build alternative. However, because the proposed project is a new interchange a Paleontological Memorandum is suggested to rule out the possibility of discovering paleontological resources. Section 4(f) Evaluation There are no Section 4(f) properties within the project area; therefore no Section 4(f) evaluation needs to take place as a result of this project. Wild and Scenic River Consistency There are no wild and scenic rivers within the project area, therefore no wild and scenic river discussion needs to take place as a result of this project. Geology It is not anticipated that there will be adverse effects on geology, soils, seismic and topography due to the project. Further, the project would be in compliance with Caltrans and federal guidelines for safety and design standards. Topology It is not anticipated that there will be adverse effects on geology, soils, seismic and topography due to the project. Further, the project would be in compliance with Caltrans and federal guidelines for safety and design standards. Soils It is not anticipated that there will be adverse effects on geology, soils, seismic and topography due to the project. Further, the project would be in compliance with Caltrans and federal guidelines for safety and design standards. Greenhouse Emissions The build alternative is not anticipated to substantially impact energy as this is a transportation project. Climate change impacts, including greenhouse gas analysis of operational and construction impacts, would be discussed and analyzed through the air quality report and within the environmental document. Permits.

1600 Permit

401 Permit

404 Permit NWP

NPDES

June 1, 2011

13 of 13

List of Preparers

Cultural and Paleontological Resources by Namat Hosseinion May 7, 2012 Biological and Water Quality Resources by Sarah Jenkins May 7, 2012 Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous Waste by Timothy Chamberlain May 7, 2012 Visual/Community Impact by Carlene Grecco May 7, 2012 Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report by Carlene Grecco May 7, 2012

I0 5 10

Miles

Source: ESRI 2008; Dokken Engineering4/4/2012; Created By: carleneg

CA

S A N J O A Q U I N

S T A N I S L A U S

A L A M E D A

S A C R A M E N T O

S O L A N O

C O N T R A C O S T A

A M A D O R

CA

LA

VE

RA

S

Modesto

Stockton

Lodi

Livermore

Antioch

Tracy

Manteca

Oakley

Ceres

Galt

Brentwood

SalidaRiverbank

Turlock

Lathrop

Linden

Ripon

Wallace

Byron

Lockeford

Rio Vista

Discovery Bay

Knightsen

Keyes

Bethel IslandMorada

Grayson

Del Rio

Walnut Grove

French Camp

Escalon

Empire

Farmington

Westley

Garden Acres

AugustCountry Club

North Woodbridge

Bystrom

Kennedy

West ModestoRiverdale Park

Shackelford

Lincoln Village

Taft Mosswood

Patterson

§̈¦5

§̈¦580

§̈¦205

§̈¦205

UV99

UV26

UV4

UV132

UV33

UV160

UV12

UV88

UV84

UV120

UV104

UV108

UV120

UV108

UV132

UV12

UV99

UV84

UV99

UV120

UV4

UV12

UV132

UV4

UV88

Lake del Valle State Rec AreaLake del Valle State Rec Area

Carnegie St Vehicular Rec AreaCarnegie St Vehicular Rec Area

Bethany RSVR State Rec AreaBethany RSVR State Rec Area

Brannan Island State Rec AreaBrannan Island State Rec Area

Caswell Memorial State ParkCaswell Memorial State Park

V:\

19

65

_I-2

05_

Ch

rism

an

_R

d\F

1_

Vic

inity

.mxd

FIGURE 1Project Vicinity

EA 10-0H880I-205/Chrisman Road New Interchange ProjectCity of Tracy, San Joaquin County, California

_̂

PACIFIC OCEAN

San JoaquinCounty

Project Location

I0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Miles

Source: BING Maps Online; Dokken Engineering 4/24/2012; Created By: carleneg

V:\

19

65

_I-2

05_

Ch

rism

an

_R

d\F

2_

Lo

catio

n.m

xd

FIGURE 2Project Location

EA 10-0H880I-205/Chrisman Road New Interchange ProjectCIty of Tracy, San Joaquin County, California

_̂

Project Location

Project Area

FIGURE 3

V:\

19

65

_I-2

05_

Ch

rism

an

_R

d\F

arm

\F3

_F

arm

_4

-4-1

2.m

xd

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Miles

IFARMLANDS AND PROJECT FEATURES

10-SJ-205-9.6/EA 10-0H880

Project ID: 1000020534I-205/Chrisman Road New Interchange ProjectCity of Tracy, San Joaquin County, California

Source: ESRI 2010; NRCS 2006; Dokken Engineering Short; Created By: carleneg

Farmland ClassificationPrime FarmlandUrban and Built-Up LandWilliamson Act Land

Project Area

_̂

Project Location

Tom Paine Slough

E Grant Line RdW Grant Line Rd

N M

acA

rthu

r D

r

N M

acA

rthu

r D

r

118

197167

252

153

274

197166

166

166

197

284

274

197

274

166

166

166

197

284

197

639000

639000

639600

639600

640200

640200

640800

640800

641400

641400

642000

642000

642600

642600

643200

643200

643800

643800

41

79

00

0

41

79

00

0

41

79

60

0

41

79

60

0

41

80

20

0

41

80

20

0

41

80

80

0

41

80

80

0

41

81

40

0

41

81

40

0

41

82

00

0

41

82

00

0

41

82

60

0

41

82

60

0

0 3,000 6,000 9,0001,500Feet

0 700 1,400 2,100350Meters

37° 46' 51''

12

1°

21

' 41

''

37° 44' 46''

12

1°

21

' 44

''

37° 44' 50''

37° 46' 54''1

21

° 2

5' 3

9''

12

1°

25

' 37

''

Map Scale: 1:27,500 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Farmland Classification—San Joaquin County, California(I-205/Chrisman)

Natural ResourcesNatural ResourcesNatural ResourcesNatural ResourcesConservation ServiceConservation ServiceConservation ServiceConservation Service

Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey

4/24/2012Page 1 of 3

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI)Area of Interest (AOI)

SoilsSoil Map Units

Soil RatingsNot prime farmland

All areas are primefarmlandPrime farmland if drained

Prime farmland ifprotected from flooding ornot frequently floodedduring the growing seasonPrime farmland if irrigated

Prime farmland if drainedand either protected fromflooding or not frequentlyflooded during the growingseasonPrime farmland if irrigatedand drainedPrime farmland if irrigatedand either protected fromflooding or not frequentlyflooded during the growingseason

Prime farmland ifsubsoiled, completelyremoving the rootinhibiting soil layerPrime farmland if irrigatedand the product of I (soilerodibility) x C (climatefactor) does not exceed 60Prime farmland if irrigatedand reclaimed of excesssalts and sodiumFarmland of statewideimportanceFarmland of localimportanceFarmland of uniqueimportanceNot rated or not available

Political FeaturesCities

Water FeaturesStreams and Canals

TransportationRails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Map Scale: 1:27,500 if printed on A size (8.5" × 11") sheet.

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at1:24,000.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate mapmeasurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWeb Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.govCoordinate System: UTM Zone 10N NAD83

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data asof the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: San Joaquin County, CaliforniaSurvey Area Data: Version 6, Jul 25, 2008

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 6/30/2005

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines werecompiled and digitized probably differs from the backgroundimagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shiftingof map unit boundaries may be evident.

Farmland Classification–San Joaquin County, California(I-205/Chrisman)

Natural ResourcesConservation Service


4/24/2012Page 2 of 3

Farmland Classification

Farmland Classification— Summary by Map Unit — San Joaquin County, California (CA077)

Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

118 Capay clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 1,056.1 62.5%

153 Egbert silty clay loam, partiallydrained, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Prime farmland if irrigated 63.0 3.7%

166 Grangeville fine sandy loam,partially drained, 0 to 2 percentslopes


167 Grangeville clay loam, partiallydrained, 0 to 2 percent slopes


197 Merritt silty clay loam, partiallydrained, 0 to 2 percent slopes


252 Stomar clay loam, 0 to 2 percentslopes


274 Willows clay, partially drained, 0 to2 percent slopes

Not prime farmland 58.0 3.4%

284 Water Not prime farmland 36.1 2.1%

Totals for Area of Interest 1,690.2 100.0%

Description

Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland ofstatewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifiesthe location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage,and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlandsare published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978.

Rating Options

Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary

Tie-break Rule: Lower

Farmland Classification–San Joaquin County, California I-205/Chrisman

Natural ResourcesConservation Service


4/24/2012Page 3 of 3

I-205/chrisman

Aug 10, 2012

This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is notresponsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. Allwetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found onthe Wetlands Mapper web site.

User Remarks:

carleneg

Polygon

carleneg

Callout

Project Area

carleneg

Text Box

See FIRMETTE 2

carleneg

Text Box

FIRMETTE 1

carleneg

Polygon

carleneg

Callout

Project Area

carleneg

Text Box

See FIRMETTE 1

carleneg

Text Box

See FIRMETTE 3

carleneg

Text Box

FIRMETTE 2

carleneg

Polygon

carleneg

Callout

Project Area

carleneg

Text Box

See FIRMETTE 1 & 2

carleneg

Text Box

FIRMETTE 3

Table 7-2: 2011 Regional Transportation Plan Project List - Interchange Projects Category

Iden

tifie

rs20

11RTP

MPO ID

CTIPS ID

#

PPNO20

11RTP

Tier

Proje

ctIn

form

atio

n

Juris

dictio

n

Facili

ty N

ame/

Route

Project Description Project Limits Costto

Del

iver

Total

Tier I Tier II Mile

stone

Years

FTIP P

rogra

mm

ing

NEPA Appro

val

Opento

Traffi

cM

K Ren

ewal

Pro

ject

RTIFPro

ject

SJ07-2003 Tier I Caltrans SR-99 at Charter Way Interchange improvements SR-99 at Charter Way See SJ07-1018 See SJ07-1018 $0 XSJ07-2027 Tier I Caltrans SR-99 at Golden Gate Construct new interchange SR-99 at Golden Gate See SJ07-1018 See SJ07-1018 $0 XSJ07-2029 Tier I Caltrans SR-99 at Mariposa Road Reconstruct interchange SR-99 at Mariposa Road See SJ07-1018 See SJ07-1018 $0 X X

SJ07-2026 Tier I CaltransSR-99 at French Camp Road Reconstruct interchange SR-99 at French Camp Road See SJ07-1017 See SJ07-1017 $0 X X

SJ07-2014 Tier I Caltrans SR-99 at Lathrop Road Reconstruct interchange SR-99 at Lathrop Road See SJ07-1017 See SJ07-1017 $0 X X

SJ07-2004 212-0000-0525 Tier I Lathrop I-5 at Lathrop RoadReconstruct interchange (P.M.17.3/17.8) I-5 at Lathrop Road $33,000,000 $33,000,000 $0 2013 2018 X X

SJ11-IMD1 212-0000-0548 Tier I LathropI-5 Louise Ave InterchangeImprovements

Improve Louise Ave under I-5 towiden ramps and Widen Louise Ave under I-5 to add one new turn lane and one new through lane I-5 Louise Ave $3,645,975 $3,645,975 $0 2015

SJ07-2005 Tier I Lathrop I-5 at Louise AvenueReconstruct interchange (PM 16.416.8) I-5 at Louise Avenue $33,000,000 $33,000,000 $0 2011 2015 X

SJ07-2006 212-0000-0397 Tier I Lodi SR-99 at Harney Lane

Reconstruct interchange to provide 6through lanes on SR 99, 4 lanes on Harney and modify on-ramps and offramps SR-99 at Harney Lane $39,183,247 $39,183,247 $0 2008 2012 2016 X X

SJ07-2009 212-0000-0231 Tier I MantecaSR-120 at McKinley Avenue

Reconstruct/improve interchangeincluding necessary auxillary lanes (P.M. 2.2/2.2) SR-120 at McKinley Avenue $30,200,000 $30,200,000 $0 2009 2012 2020 X X

SJ07-2012 Tier I Manteca SR-120 at Union RoadReconstruct interchange (P.M.4.1/4.1) SR-120 at Union Road $32,970,000 $32,970,000 $0 2011 2015 X

SJ07-2015 Tier I Ripon

SR-99 at Main Street/UPRR Interchange (Ripon)

Reconstruct interchange of SR-99 and Main Street including reconstruction of Main Street overcrossing of UPRR and intersection improvements

SR-99 at Main Street/UPRR Interchange (Ripon) $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 2015 2018 X

SJ11-2003 Tier I RiponSR-99 at Jacktone/UPRR Interchange On-ramp improvements.

SR-99 at Jacktone Overcrossing/UPRR Interchange $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $0 2017 2020

SJ07-2016 Tier I Ripon

SR-99 at Wilma Avenue Overcrossing/UPRRInterchange

Reconstruct interchange includingreconstruction of existing overcrossing structure

SR-99 at Wilma Avenue Overcrossing/UPRR Interchange $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 2019 2022 X

SJ07-2017 Tier ISan Joaquin

County SR-132 at Bird Road

Upgrade interchange, lengthenramps, widen approaches, install signal controls with necessary auxiliary lanes(P.M. 2.2/2.2 SR-132 at Bird Road $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 2007

CEQA2006 2011 X

SJ07-2020 212-0000-0309 Tier I Stockton I-5 at Eight Mile Road Modification of interchange (P.M. 34.7/35.9) I-5 at Eight Mile Road $47,000,000 $47,000,000 $0 2007 2009 2017 X X

SJ07-2021 212-0000-0230 7239 Tier I Stockton

I-5 at French Camp/Arch-Sperry Road (HR 3-193 #2067)

Reconstruct existing French Camp Road interchange, construct auxiliarylanes on I-5, and realign Manthey Road (P.M. 20.8-21.2)

I-5 from PM 22.1/23.6 on French Camp Road from approx 2000 feet west of the IC and approx. 1700 feet east of the IC on Sperry Road.Improvements on nearby streets $60,400,000 $60,400,000 $0 2010 2007 2014 X X

SJ11-2004 212-0000-0309 Tier I Stockton I-5 at Hammer LaneInterchange Modification andauxiliary lanes (PM 32.6 I-5 at Hammer Lane $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 2007 2009 2016 X

SJ11-2005 212-0000-0309 Tier I Stockton I-5 at Gateway BoulevardConstruction of a new interchange and auxiliary lanes (PM 36.0/36.9 I-5 at Gateway Boulevard $80,300,000 $80,300,000 $0 2007 2009 2018

SJ11-2006 212-0000-0309 Tier I Stockton I-5 at Otto DriveConstruction of a new interchangeand auxiliary lanes (PM 33.3/34.2) I-5 at Otto Drive $80,500,000 $80,500,000 $0 2007 2009 2015 X

SJ11-2002 212-0000-0562 Tier I Stockton SR-99 at Eight Mile RoadReconstruct Interchange (PM 35.135.5) SR-99 at Eight Mile Road $122,100,000 $122,100,000 $0 2013 2017 X X

SJ11-2007 Tier I StocktonSR-99 at March Lane and Wilson Way

Construction of the March Lane/SR99 interchanges with connections to Wilson Way SR-99 at March Lane and Wilson Way $198,100,000 $198,100,000 $0 2015 2019

SJ11-2001 212-0000-0561 Tier I Stockton SR-99 at MoradaReconstruct interchange (PM 23.524.5) SR-99 at Morada $110,800,000 $110,800,000 $0 2013 2017 X

SJ11-2008 Tier I StocktonSR-99 at Gateway Boulevard Construction of new interchange SR-99 at Gateway Boulevard $105,800,000 $105,800,000 $0 2014 2018 X

SJ11-2009 Tier I Tracy I-205 at MacArthur Modification of existing interchange I-205 at MacArthur $9,670,000 $9,670,000 $0 2010 2011 2014 XSJ11-2010 212-0000-0227 Tier I Tracy I-205 at Lammers Rd Construct new interchange I-205 at Lammers Rd $89,000,000 $89,000,000 $0 2006 2011 2015 X XSJ11-2011 Tier I Tracy I-205 at Grant Line Road Modification of existing interchange I-205 at Grant Line Road $30,966,820 $30,966,820 $0 2014 2017 X

SJ11-CM01 212-0000-0531 Tier I CaltransI-5 and SR 12 Park & Ride Lot

Construct 43 space P&R lot on Hwy 12 and I-5 I-5 and SR 12 $345,000 $345,000 $0 2012

SJ11-2012 212-0000-0228 Tier ITracy & Lathrop

I-205 at Paradise Road/Chrisman

Phase 1: Construct new interchangeeast-west ramps I-205 at Paradise Road/Chrisman $30,000,000 $30,000,000 $0 2009 2011 2015 X

SJ11-2013 Tier II CaltransI-5 at SR-4 (Crosstown Freeway)

Reconstruct Freeway to Freeway Interchange I-5 at SR-4 (Crosstown Freeway) $59,000,000 $59,000,000 X X

SJ11-2014 Tier II CaltransSR-99 at SR-4 (Crosstown Freeway)

Reconstruct Freeway to Freeway Interchange SR-99 at SR-4 (Crosstown Freeway) $30,000,000 $30,000,000 X X

SJ11-2015 212-0000-0398 Tier II CaltransSR-99 at SR-12 West (Kettleman Lane)

Reconstruct interchange and widento free flowing interchange

SR-99 at SR-12 West (Kettleman Lane) See SJ07-1039 See SJ07-1039 X X

SJ11-2016 Tier II CaltransSR-99 at SR-12 East (Victor Road)

Complete reconstruction of SR 99/SR-12 interchange to provide 6 through lanes on SR 99 and modify on-ramps and off-ramps SR-99 at SR-12 East (Victor Road) See SJ07-1039 See SJ07-1039

SJ11-2017 Tier II Caltrans SR-12 at I-5 Loop Ramps SR-12 at I-5 $11,250,000 $0 $11,250,000 XSJ11-2018 Tier II Caltrans SR-99 at SR-26 Reconstruct interchange SR-99 at SR-26 $19,500,000 $0 $19,500,000 X

carleneg

Highlight

carleneg

Highlight

carleneg

Highlight

carleneg

Highlight

carleneg

Highlight

carleneg

Highlight

carleneg

Highlight

1

etric

Caltrans

Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Checklist

Project Information District _10_ County _SJ _ Route __205_ Post Mile __9.0/9.6______ EA _10-0H880______

Description The project proposes to construct a new interchange on Interstate 205 between MacArthur

Drive and Interstate 5 in the City of Tracy.

Is the project on the HW Study Minimal-Risk Projects List (HW1)? No

Project Manager Juann Ramos phone # (916) 858-0642

Project Engineer Jacqueline Lockhart phone # (916) 858-0642

Project Screening Attach the project location map to this checklist to show location of all known and/or potential HW sites identified. 1. Project Features: New R/W? _Yes__ Excavation? _Yes__ Railroad Involvement? _No___

Structure demolition/modification? _Yes__ Subsurface utility relocation? _Yes__ 2. Project Setting

Rural or Urban Rural

Current land uses Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial

Adjacent land uses Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial (industrial, light industry, commercial, agricultural, residential, etc.)

3. Check federal, State, and local environmental and health regulatory agency records as necessary, to

see if any known hazardous waste site is in or near the project area. If a known site is identified, show its location on the attached map and attach additional sheets, as needed, to provide pertinent information for the proposed project. See attached EnvrioStor and Geotracker printouts.

4. Conduct Field Inspection. Date ___01/09/2012___ Use the attached map to locate potential or

known HW sites.

STORAGE STRUCTURES / PIPELINES:

Underground tanks Yes (YRC Trucking, See Surface tanks Yes

Figure 4)

Sumps No Ponds No

Drums No Basins Yes (See Figure 4)

Transformers No Landfill No

Other

2

Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Checklist (continued)

CONTAMINATION: (spills, leaks, illegal dumping, etc.)

Surface staining Possible (Travlin Toys, Oil sheen No See Figure 4)

Odors No Vegetation damage No

Other

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: (asbestos, lead, etc.)

Buildings Yes (Travlin Toys and Haley Spray-on fireproofing Unknown Flying Service, See Figure 4)

Pipe wrap Unknown Friable tile Unknown

Acoustical plaster Unknown Serpentine Unknown

Paint Unknown Other

5. Additional record search, as necessary, of subsequent land uses that could have resulted in a hazardous

waste site. Use the attached map to show the location of potential hazardous waste sites. See attached Figure 4.

6. Other comments and/or observations: There are agricultural properties within the project vicinity

which have the potential for pesticide/herbicide contaminants. There are also dairy operations within

the project vicinity which have the potential to contain hazardous materials onsite. (See attached

Figure 4)

ISA Determination Does the project have potential hazardous waste involvement? _Yes__ If there is known or potential hazardous waste involvement, is additional ISA work needed before task orders can be prepared for the Investigation? __No__ If "YES," explain; then give an estimate of additional time required:

ISA Conducted by _Jacqueline Lockhart, PE________ Date _8/14/12__

Bir d

Rd

Byron Rd

Chr

isman

Rd

Canal Bl

Han

sen

Rd

B an t

a Rd

Mac

Ar t

hur

Dr

Cor

ral H

oll o

w R

d

Tra

c y B

lvd

Bethany Rd

Grant Line Rd

Valpico Rd

Mou

nta i

n H

ouse

Pk w

y

Ho l

ly D

r

L am

me r

s Rd

Lowell Ave

Delta Ave

Von Sosten Rd

Middle Rd

Tennis Ln

East

St

Grant Line Rd

Mac

Ar t

hur

Dr

Byron Rd

Arbor Ave

Nag

lee

Rd

Lin

coln

Blv

d

Pescadero Ave

Lehman Rd

Ald

er A

ve

Berry

Ave

Valpico Rd

California A

ve

Brichetto Rd

Larch Rd

Sixth St

Cedar

Ave

Eleventh St

N H

icko

ry A

ve

Chr

is man

Rd

Bates Rd

Third St

Clover Rd

Egre

t D

r

Cabe Rd

Lind

y W

y

Eleve

nth St

Linne Rd

Eleventh St

Cor

ral H

ollo

w R

d

T rac

y Bl

v dTr

acy

Blvd

L am

me r

s Rd

Schulte Rd

FIGURE 2-2

G E N E R A L P L A NL A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N S

C I T Y O F T R A C Y

G E N E R A L P L A NL A N D U S E E L E M E N T

0 0.25 0.5 Miles

Sphere of Influence

City Limits

Residential Very Low

Residential Low

Residential Medium

Residential High

Traditional Residential - Ellis

Commercial

Office

Industrial

Downtown

Village Center

Public Facilities

Park

Open Space

Agriculture

Aggregate

Urban Reserve

1 acre50 acres

200 acres

100 acres

640 acres(1 sq. mile)

Major Arterial/Expressway/BoulevardEleventh St

Sixth St

Third St

Cen

tral A

ve

Downtown Area Detail 0 1,250 2,500625 Feet

Tracy Municipal Airport

UR 1

UR 2

UR 3

UR 4

UR 5

UR 6

UR 7

UR 8

UR 9

UR 10

UR

ATTACHMENT H

Risk Register

Project Risk Register

Project Name: Project Manager: Risks sorted by Date Created: Last Updated:

Co - Rte - PM: Telephone: 02/07/12 10/10/2012

ITE

M

ID # StatusThreat / Opport-

unityCategory

Date Risk Identified

Risk Description Root Causes Primary Objective Overall Risk Rating Risk Owner Risk Trigger StrategyResponse Actions w/

Pros & ConsWBS Item

Status Date and Review Comments

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o)

Probablility

2=Low (10-19%)

Impact

2 =Low

Probablility

4=High (40-59%)

Impact

3 =Med

Probablility

4=High (40-59%)

Impact

3 =Med

Probablility

2=Low (10-19%)

Impact

4 =High

Probablility

2=Low (10-19%)

Impact

2 =Low

Probablility

2=Low (10-19%)

Impact

3 =Med

Zabih Zaca, PE

(209) 831-6452DIST- EA 10-0H880K

Jursidiction waters are within the project area and require

additional time for permit completion

MITIGATETIMEENV 02/07/12

Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB) Permit may be required if jurisdication waters are determined to be within the

project area during PA&Ed studies.

Permit may take longer than schedule allows

New Access Report to be prepared for approval of the

construction of a new interchange on I-205.

Approval by CTC is required

DESIGN 03/15/12

EXT 02/07/12

Freeway Agreement between Caltrans and the City, and Caltrans and the County.

DESIGN

TIME

Threat

02/07/12

10-0H880K-04 Active

5

1 10-0H880K-01 Active

3 10-0H880K-03 Active

Logical Termini and Independent Utility must

comply with requirements for NEPA. Traffic forecasting and

operations will be used to provide support for logical

termini and independent utility requirements.

2 10-0H880K-02 Active Threat

Design Exception Fact Sheet. Approval for non-standard

interchange spacing. Project is not within an FHWA

Transportation Management Area.

Active Threat10-0H880K-05

4

TIMER/WThreat

Threat

FHWA is approving authority for work on the Interstate.

04/07/12

FHWA Request for Engineering and Operational Acceptability to proceed with further studies that will justify the requirements for a new

interchange.

R/W 04/07/12Approval to be deferred to

PA&ED

DESIGN

Existing freeway agreement must be researched

MITIGATEPrepare and/or update Freeway Agreement

DESIGN

Early coordination where possible.

N/A

DESIGN

MITIGATE

Med

DESIGN

No FHWA Request for Engineering and Operation

Acceptability is provided

Design Exception Fact Sheet not approved

Low

MedModify design to reach approvable exception

MITIGATE

Modify design

N/AA New Access Report is

required.

DESIGN

New Access report not approved

ACCEPT

6 10-0H880K-06 Active Threat

Project must meet NEPA requirements

DESIGN

Logical termini and independent utility support is

not provided.

Low

Med

ACCEPT

I-205/Chrisman Road New Interchange

SJ-205-R9.0/R9.6

SCOPE

A Freeway Agreement will be prepared and/or updated

TIME

LowSCOPE

Approved by:________________________________________ date

10/10/2012I-205_Chrisman Road New Interchange Risk Register

1/2

Project Risk Register Project Name: Project Manager: Risks sorted by Date Created: Last Updated:

Co - Rte - PM: Telephone: 02/07/12 10/10/2012

ITE

M

ID # StatusThreat / Opport-

unityCategory

Date Risk Identified

Risk Description Root Causes Primary Objective Overall Risk Rating Risk Owner Risk Trigger StrategyResponse Actions w/

Pros & ConsWBS Item

Status Date and Review Comments

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o)

Zabih Zaca, PE

(209) 831-6452DIST- EA 10-0H880K

I-205/Chrisman Road New Interchange

SJ-205-R9.0/R9.6

Probablility

2=Low (10-19%)

Impact

2 =Low

Probablility

Impact

Probablility

Impact

Probablility

Impact

Probablility

3=Med (20-39%)

Impact

3 =Med

N/AEvaluation of existing and

future land useMITIGATE

R/W

R/W 02/07/12

Land Use within the project vicinity is currently agricultural

land but is zoned industrial/commercial per the City of Tracy General Plan.

11 10-0H880K-11 Retired Threat

IS/EA will be the required environmental document as

scoped by the PEAR.

IS/EA will prepared during PA&ED

10 10-0H880K-10 Retired Opportunity ENV 02/07/12

DESIGN9 10-0H880K-09 Retired Opportunity 02/07/12Transporation Engineering Performance Assessment

(TEPA)

Stage construction may require closure of I-205 for falsework

erection and demolition of existing bridge. A potential detour and staging of ramps

may also be required.

Opportunity DESIGN 02/07/12Project Study Report - Project Development Support (PSR-

PDS)

DESIGN 02/07/12

First PSR-PDS to be completed using the

streamlined 2011 PSD-PDS guidelines

7 10-0H880K-07 Active MITIGATEEvaluate alternative

access or modify designEvaluate once preliminary

design is complete

Detailed traffic studies to be deferred to PA&ED

Threat

8 10-0H880K-08 Retired

Avoid distruption to I-205 and local traffic circulation

QUALITY

MedQUALITY

Land use changing from agricultural to

commercial/industrial increases vehicle and truck

traffic

Low

DESIGN

Approved by:________________________________________ date

10/10/2012I-205_Chrisman Road New Interchange Risk Register

2/2

ATTACHMENT I

Storm Water Data Report Cover Page

Long Form - Stonn Water Data Report

Dist-County-Route: 10 ,- San Joaquin - 205

Post Mile Limits: ......9....,.0"'1......9....,.6......______________

Project Type: New Interchange

Project 10 (or EA):--'E....A....1...0....-Q....H.....,8...8....0<--___________

Program Identification: ___ _ ___ _________

Phase: 181 PID PSR(PDS)

o PAlED

o PS&E

Regional' Water Quality Control Board(s): Region 5. Central Valley. Sacramento Office

Is the Project required to consider Treatment BMPs? Yes 181 No 0 If yes, can Treatment BMPs be incorporated into the project? Yes [81 No 0

If No, a Technical Data Report must be submitted to the RWQCB at least 30 days prior to the projects RTL date. List RTL Date:,_______

Total Disturbed Soil Area:-"5<.>0'-'A...,c.....re..,s><--____ _ ~~ ___Risk Level:-=l _______________

Estimated: Construction Start Date: September i. 2017 Construction Completion Date: September 1. 2019

Notification of Construction (NOC) Date to be submitted: Minimum of 30 days prior to start of construction

Erosivity Waiver Yes 0 Date:_______ No 181 Notification of ADL reuse (if Yes, provide date) Yes 0 Date: No 181 Separate Dewatering Permit (if yes, permit number) Yes 0 Permit # No 181

This Report has been prepared under the direct/on of the following Ucensed Petson. The Licensed Person attests to the technlcsl'nformat'on contained herein and the date upon which recommendatIons, conclusions, and decisions are based. Professional Et)gine r e Architect stamp required at PS&£

Juann Ramo ,

I have reviewed the storm water quality design ues and find this report to be complete, current and accurate:

{

N/A for PSR(PDS) [Name), Designated Maintenance Representative Date

NJA for PSR(PDS) [Name), Des/gn~ted Landscape Architect Representative Date

[Stamp Required for PS&E only) B-\\..Q- 20\2

Date

Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide July 2010

vicinity map - caltrans - california department of ... · vicinity map on route interstate 205...

Documents