Agenda packet — Roseville City Council, May 17, 2023 (part 7 of 8)

City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

BY: ___________________________ ___________________________

MICHAEL CHRISTENSEN JAMES STAUDINGER
Senior Deputy City Attorney Senior Right-of-Way Agent
Consultant to the City
CA Real Estate Broker License #00582011
APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:

BY: ___________________________

JASON SHYKOWSKI
Public Works Director
Exhibits
A-1: Legal Description of Fee Simple Interest
A-2: Legal Description of Drainage and Slope Easement
B-1: Plat of Fee Simple Interest
B-2: Plat of Drainage and Slope Easement
C-1: Escrow Instructions
D-1: Special Provisions
Exhibit “A-1”
Fee Simple Legal Description
1 of 2
All that real property situate in Sections 21, Township 11 North, Range 6 East, M.D.M., City of Roseville, County of Placer, State of California, being a portion of

Page 3 ends

PARCEL D of that certain Parcel Map titled ROSEVILLE PARKWAY INDUSTRIAL CENTER, recorded March 8, 2002 in Book 30 of Parcel Maps, at Page 124, Official Records of Placer County, more particularly described as:

Commencing at a found 1.5” standard city monument in a monument well, as shown on that certain PARCEL MAP, recorded in Book 19 of Parcel Maps, at Page 23, Official Records of Placer County, which bears South 00⁰26’50” West, 1000.04 feet from a found 1.5” standard city monument in a monument well, as shown on said PARCEL MAP recorded in Book 19 of Parcel Maps, at Page 23; thence North 83⁰15’23” East, 2173.33 feet to the southeast corner of said PARCEL D and the Point of Beginning; thence along the easterly line of said PARCEL D, North 01⁰16’43” West, 50.60 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave northeasterly having a radius of 1911.85 feet, and a chord bearing a distance of North 82⁰10’22’ West, 11.17 feet; thence leaving said easterly line, the following five (5) courses:

1. Westerly along said curve, through a central angle of 00⁰20’05”, 11.17 feet;

2. South 00⁰00’00” East, 29.83 feet to the beginning on a non-tangent curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 1954.00 feet, and a chord bearing and distance of North 79⁰29’03” West, 310.78 feet;

3. Northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 09⁰07’21”, 311.11 feet;

4. North 74⁰52’39” West, 81.11 feet;

5. North 74⁰55’23” West, 34.56 feet to a point on the westerly line of said PARCEL D; thence along said westerly line, South 00⁰34’41” East, 11.88 feet to the southwest corner of said PARCEL D; thence leaving said easterly line and along the southerly line of said PARCEL D, the following two (2) courses:

1. South 75⁰01’13” East, 182.10 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave northeasterly having a radius of 1961.85 feet, a chord bearing a distance of South 78⁰47’42” East, 258.31 feet;
Exhibit “A-1”
Fee Simple Legal Description
2 of 2

2. Southeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 07⁰32’58”, 258.50 feet to the to the Point of Beginning.

Containing 0.15 acres or 6,682 square feet, more or less.

Bearings and distances shown are based upon the California Coordinate System of 1983, Epoch 2017.50, Zone 2. Distances shown and described are grid and in US Survey Feet, divide the distances shown above by 0.99992 to obtain ground level distances.

This real property description has been prepared at Mark Thomas & Company, Inc., by me, or under my direction, in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 05/20/2021
Samuel R. McIntyre, PLS 9313 Date

Page 2 ends

Exhibit “B-1”
Fee Simple Plat Map
1 of 2

Page 3 ends

Exhibit “B-1”
Fee Simple Plat Map
2 of 2

Page 4 ends

Exhibit “A-2”
Drainage and Slope Easement Legal Description
1 of 2
All that real property situate in Sections 21, Township 11 North, Range 6 East, M.D.M., City of Roseville, County of Placer, State of California, being a portion of PARCEL D of that certain Parcel Map titled ROSEVILLE PARKWAY INDUSTRIAL CENTER, recorded March 8, 2002 in Book 30 of Parcel Maps, at Page 124, Official Records of Placer County, more particularly described as:

Commencing at a found 1.5” standard city monument in a monument well, as shown on that certain PARCEL MAP, recorded in Book 19 of Parcel Maps, at Page 23, Official Records of Placer County, which bears South 00⁰26’50” West, 1000.04 feet from a found 1.5” standard city monument in a monument well, as shown on said PARCEL MAP recorded in Book 19 of Parcel Maps, at Page 23; thence North 83⁰15’23” East, 2173.33 feet to the southeast corner of said PARCEL D; thence along the easterly line of said PARCEL D, North 01⁰16’43” West, 50.60 to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 1911.85 feet, and a chord bearing and distance of North 78⁰40’48” West, 244.08 feet, and the Point of Beginning; thence leaving said easterly line, the following two (2) courses:

1. Northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 07⁰19’11, 244.25 feet;

2. North 75⁰01’13” West, 196.02 feet to a point on the westerly line of said PARCEL D; thence along said westerly line, North 00⁰34’41” West, 21.20 feet; thence leaving said westerly line, South 77⁰31’20” East, 438.72 feet to said easterly line of PARCEL D; thence along said easterly line, South 01⁰16’43” East, 24.99 feet to the Point of Beginning.

Containing 0.28 acres or 12,021 square feet, more or less.

Exhibit “A-2”
Drainage and Slope Easement Legal Description
2 of 2
This real property description has been prepared at Mark Thomas & Company, Inc., by me, or under my direction, in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 05/20/2021
Samuel R. McIntyre, PLS 9313 Date
Exhibit “B-2”
Drainage and Slope Easement Plat Map
1 of 2
Exhibit “B-2”
Drainage and Slope Easement Plat Map
2 of 2
Exhibit “C-1”
Escrow Instructions

Page 1 of 3 ends

Insert Date: Project: City of Roseville – Roseville Parkway Extension Project
Fidelity National Title Company Parcel No.: 017-113-023 Escrow No.: 01004124-010-PA-KD Owner: JB Company Management LP This escrow will be closed in connection with the City of Roseville, Roseville Parkway Extension Project. The following items have been checked to indicate the method in which this escrow identified by the above parcel number and escrow number is to be closed.

The sale price of this transaction is $7,490.00.
___X__ Enclosed is a warrant in the sum of $7,490.00.
___X__ Enclosed is the Deed (granting a Fee Simple Interest) with attached certificate of acceptance, and a copy of the Agreement for Purchase.
___X__ Enclosed is the Drainage and Slope Easement Deed (granting various Easement Interests) with attached certificate of acceptance, and a copy of the Agreement for Purchase.
___X__ Taxes will be prorated and canceled as of close of escrow and any taxes due shall be paid to the County Tax collector from this escrow.
_____ No tax cancellation or proration will be necessary. ___X__ Policy of title insurance shall be issued in the amount of $7,490.00 (land value only).

Proceeds from this transaction are to be sent to Grantor as follows:

JB Company Management LP
Attn: Gary Benvenuti
1825 Bell Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95825
You are authorized to record any documents, disburse any funds, and close this escrow when you are able to issue a title policy naming the City of Roseville as Grantee, free and clear of all liens, and encumbrances except the following as shown in your preliminary title report number 01004124- 010-PA, dated June 29, 2020 Amended May 27, 2021.

Exhibit “C-1”

Page 2 of 3 ends

As to Fee Simple Interest and Drainage and Slope Easement:

Exceptions Taken Subject To:
5, 7, 8, 13
Exceptions To Be Cleared:
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16
Purchaser will pay for all costs of escrow and title insurance policy. The original policy together with two copies of the title insurance, all recorded documents, and your billing, should be sent to the following person at the close of escrow:

Daniel Lierly
Public Works – Engineering
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
INSTRUCTIONS FROM SELLERS: In addition to the foregoing, you are hereby authorized to record and/or deliver the attached document to the City of Roseville upon receipt of a warrant in the amount of $7,490.00, less any demands for liens, judgments, delinquent taxes and/or utilities, delinquent child support and/or alimony, or encumbrances. You are also authorized to obtain any required reconveyance (if fee being acquired) or subordination (if easement be in acquired) from the following Mortgagee:

Lender:

Loan No.:

Address:

Telephone:

Exhibit “C-1”

Page 3 of 3 ends

GRANTOR: JB COMPANY
MANAGEMENT LP CITY OF ROSEVILLE:

Exhibit “D-1”
Special Provisions
Construction Contract Work
CITY will not be performing any construction contract work.

AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF REAL PROPERTY
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ___________ day of _________________________, 20___, by and between the CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a municipal corporation, as grantee ("CITY") and JB COMPANY MANAGEMENT LP, a California limited partnership, as grantor ("GRANTOR"),
W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, GRANTOR is the owner of certain real property identified as Assessor Parcel Number 017-113-023 located in the City of Roseville, County of Placer (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the CITY desires to acquire a portion of such property in fee simple interest as described in the attached legal description marked Exhibit “A-1”, and depicted on the attached plat map marked Exhibit “B-1”, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference for the purpose of constructing the Roseville Parkway Extension Project (“the Project”); and WHEREAS, the CITY desires to acquire a permanent drainage and slope easement as described in the attached legal description marked Exhibit “A-2” and depicted on the attached plat map marked Exhibit “B-2”, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, GRANTOR agrees to sell and CITY agrees to buy the fee simple interest and a permanent drainage and slope easement (collectively “the Subject Property”), pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, GRANTOR agrees to sell and CITY agrees to buy the Subject Property pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. Purchase Price. GRANTOR agrees to sell, and CITY agrees to buy, the Subject Property for the sum of Seven Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Dollars ($7,490.00) (“Purchase Price”). In addition, CITY agrees to release GRANTOR’s obligations to construct certain improvements as described in those Deferred Improvement Agreements identified as Exception Items 6 and 7 of Fidelity National Title Company Preliminary Title Report number 01004124-010-PA, dated June 29, 2020 Amended May 27, 2021, Amendment No. 1. The parties agree that the Purchase Price and release of the Deferred Improvement Agreements includes compensation for any and all improvements located within the Subject Property and any severance damages, loss of goodwill damages, relocation assistance payments, costs, or attorney fees, except as provided herein.

2. Conveyance. GRANTOR has executed, or will execute prior to the Close of Escrow, as defined herein, the Grant Deed and Drainage and Slope Easement in the format satisfactory to the City Attorney of CITY (collectively “Deeds”), conveying the Subject Property to CITY.

3. Escrow. CITY has opened an escrow account for this transaction with Fidelity National Title Company, 8525 Madison Ave #110, Fair Oaks, CA 95628, and Attention: Paul Avila ("the Title Company") under Escrow #01004124-010-PA-KD as described in the Escrow Instructions attached hereto as Exhibit “C-1”. Prior to the Close of Escrow, GRANTOR shall deliver the Deeds to the Title Company. Prior to the Close of Escrow, CITY shall deposit with the Title Company the Purchase Price for the account of GRANTOR, conditioned upon the Subject Property vesting in CITY free and clear of all liens, leases, encumbrances, assessments, easements, bonds, judgments and debts secured by Deeds of Trust or mortgages except as indicated in the Escrow Instructions, as well as the Easement on the Crouch Property. If for any reason escrow fails to close as set forth herein, including termination of this Agreement, the Title Company shall return all funds and documents to the party that submitted such funds or documents.

4. Title Approval. CITY’s disapproval of any exception shown in the title reports are set forth in Exhibit “C-1”, the Escrow Instructions. GRANTOR shall notify City within fifteen (15) working days of the Effective Date of this Agreement if it elects not to remove or is unable to remove any disapproved exception. CITY shall have five (5) working days after notification of such action either (i) to terminate this Agreement or (ii) to waive its disapproval of such exception and agree to purchase the Subject Property subject to the disapproved exception. If CITY fails to notify GRANTOR, in writing, within five (5) working days of its election pursuant to this paragraph, CITY shall be deemed to have elected to terminate this Agreement. In the event of termination of this Agreement, the parties shall have no obligations hereunder. Any exception which CITY has approved hereunder, either by CITY’s approval, CITY’s failure to disapprove such exception, or by CITY’s waiver of disapproval, shall be deemed a “Permitted Exception”.

5. Discharge of Obligations. The Title Company may expend any and all money payable to GRANTOR under this Agreement to discharge any obligations (except those identified in the Escrow Instructions as being taken subject to) which are liens upon the Subject Property, including but not limited to, those arising from judgments, assessments, delinquent taxes (other than for the fiscal year referred to in the Escrow Instructions), or debts secured by deeds of trust or mortgages or to defray any other incidental costs other than those specified in the escrow instructions to be borne by CITY. Any money made payable pursuant to a deed of trust shall be made payable to the beneficiary entitled to the money pursuant to the deed of trust; provided, however, that the beneficiary shall first furnish GRANTOR and the Title Company with a good and sufficient receipt showing the money to be credited against the indebtedness secured by the deed of trust.

6. Allocation of Taxes and Assessments. Taxes for the fiscal year in which the escrow closes shall be cleared and paid for in the manner required by Section 5086 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. As a deduction from the amount shown in Section 1, above, the City shall be authorized to pay any delinquent taxes due in any fiscal year, except the fiscal year in which this escrow closes, together with penalties and interest thereon. If GRANTOR has prepaid any taxes which are cancelled pursuant to Section 5086 as to the Subject Property, GRANTOR may seek any refunds to which it is entitled from such taxing agencies. If the Subject Property is subject to any assessments which are not subject to cancellation under Revenue and Taxation Code section 5086, such assessments shall be prorated as of the date of apportionment. GRANTOR shall pay all taxes and assessments outstanding up to the date of apportionment, if any, as to the Subject Property.

7. Escrow Costs. CITY shall pay all escrow fees, recording fees and title insurance charges incurred in this transaction.

8. Date of Possession. The right of possession and use of the Subject Property by the CITY, including the right to remove and dispose of improvements, shall commence upon the Effective Date of this Agreement, and the amount shown in Paragraph 1 of this Agreement includes, but is not limited to, full payment for such possession and use, including damages, if any, from said date.

9. Title and Escrow Closing. Title to the Subject Property shall pass immediately upon Close of Escrow. Escrow shall close no later than sixty (60) days after the Effective Date of this Agreement (the “Close of Escrow”).

10. Escrow Instructions. A copy of this Agreement shall be delivered to the Title Company by CITY and shall have Escrow Instructions attached. The issuance of any additional escrow instructions shall be the sole responsibility of CITY, but must be signed by GRANTOR to be valid and enforceable and approved by the City Attorney.

11. Time. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.

12. No Existing Tenancy. GRANTOR warrants there are no oral or written leases on all or any portion of the Subject Property, with the exception of To Be Determined (“Lessee”).

GRANTOR agrees to defend, indemnify and hold CITY harmless for any damages, losses and/or expenses occasioned by reason of any lease of all or a portion of the Subject Property, with the exception of current Lessee. GRANTOR agrees not to assign, transfer or sell to any third party any right, title or interest GRANTOR has in the Subject Property. The parties acknowledge that, upon acquisition by CITY, any lease, tenancy or occupancy shall terminate as to that part of the lease, tenancy or occupancy being acquired by CITY pursuant to this Agreement. Further, if there exists either recorded or unrecorded leases, the parties agree that at CITY’s sole discretion, escrow shall not close and this Agreement shall become all or in part null and void if the Title Company fails to receive adequate documentation (such as a quitclaim deed and/or Tenant Consent) establishing that lessee has agreed to claim no interest in the Subject Property or in any compensation for the Subject Property, and further enables CITY to obtain sufficient title insurance.

13. Project. GRANTOR understands that the acquisition of the Subject Property is in connection with the construction, operation and maintenance by CITY of the Project, and that the payment of the money provided by this Agreement constitutes the entire consideration for the sale.

GRANTOR hereby waives and releases CITY from any obligation, claim or damage on account of the grant of the Subject Property to CITY or on account of the location or construction of the Project.

14. Hazardous Substances. Neither GRANTOR, nor to the best of GRANTOR's knowledge, any third party, has engaged in the generation, use, manufacture, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any "hazardous substance" on the Subject Property. In addition, neither GRANTOR, nor to the best of GRANTOR's knowledge, any third party has received any form of notice of violation of any "applicable environmental law" with respect to the Subject Property, including any groundwater.

For purposes of this Agreement, the term "hazardous substance" means either any petroleum product or any substance, chemical, or waste that is listed as hazardous, toxic or dangerous under any applicable environmental law.

For purposes of this Agreement, the term "applicable environmental law" means the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 USC §9601 et seq.; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 USC 6901 et seq.; the federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 USC §1251 et seq.; the Clean Air Act, 42 USC §7401 et seq.; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 USC §1471 et seq.; the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 USC §§2601-2629; and the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 USC §300f-300j; as each has been amended from time to time; or any similar state and local laws or ordinances or regulations implementing such statutes.

15. Flood Control Act. GRANTOR discloses that the Subject Property is located in a “flood zone,” as set forth on F.E.M.A. or H.U.D. “Special Flood Zone Area Maps.”

16. Special Studies Zone Act. GRANTOR discloses that the Subject Property is not situated in a Special Study Zone as designated under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, Sections 2621-2630, inclusive, of the California Public Resources Code, or otherwise in an area of the high geologic hazard (“Geologic Zone”).

17. Testing. If applicable, CITY may at all reasonable times enter upon the Subject Property and conduct tests, take soil or water samples or soil borings to determine if hazardous substances exist. If, such testing detects the existence of a hazardous substance, CITY may, at its sole option, rescind and terminate this Agreement and cancel the escrow. Provided, however, that CITY shall exercise said option not later than sixty (60) days after the Effective Date of this Agreement or the Close of Escrow whichever occurs first.

18. Construction Work by CITY. None.

19. Removal of Deferred Improvement Agreement by CITY. CITY shall remove Exception Items 7 and 8 of your Fidelity National Title Company Preliminary Title Report No.:
01004124-010-PA-KD dated June 29, 2020 Amended May 27, 2021, Amendment No. 1, so that they are no longer on title and the property will no longer be burdened by the Deferred Improvement Agreement.

20. GRANTOR’s Warranties.

GRANTOR hereby represents and warrants to CITY:

A. Contracts:

That there are no service contracts or other contractual obligations (except which GRANTOR has disclosed to CITY) upon which GRANTOR is obligated pertaining to the Subject Property, except those which can be terminated upon not more than thirty (30) days’ notice.

B. Documents Delivered:

That all documents delivered to GRANTOR by CITY pursuant to the terms of this Agreement are complete.

C. Special Assessments or Condemnation:

That there are not presently pending any special assessments or condemnation actions against the Subject Property, or any part thereof, nor has GRANTOR received any notice of any special assessments or condemnation actions being contemplated except as otherwise listed on the Escrow Instructions.

D. Leasing Commissions:

That there is no outstanding leasing commission’s payable for any lease as to the Subject Property and there are no obligations to pay any leasing commission for any renewal of the tenancy of any of the tenants or for any new lease negotiated prior to Close of Escrow.

E. Title:
1) Encumbrances:

Except for those specifically listed in the Preliminary Title Report No. 01004124-010-PA-KD dated June 29, 2020 Amended May 27, 2021 and stated as Permitted Exceptions in the Escrow Instructions, to GRANTOR’s best knowledge, the Subject Property is free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, claims, rights, demands, easements, leases, agreements, covenants, conditions, and restrictions of any kind.
2) Encroachments:

Except for those specifically detailed on the attached, Exhibits “B-1”, “B-2” and “B-3” plats, to GRANTOR’s best knowledge, there are no encroachments on the Subject Property from adjoining property, and the Subject Property does not encroach on any adjoining property, easements, or streets.

F. Litigation:

That GRANTOR is not involved in or aware of any pending or threatened litigation which does or will affect the Subject Property. There are no actions or proceedings pending or threatened against GRANTOR before any court or administrative agency in any way connected with or relating to the Subject Property, or affecting GRANTOR’s ability to fulfill all of its obligations under this Agreement.

G. Indemnification:

That GRANTOR shall indemnify and hold CITY harmless from any liability, loss or claim for damages, including reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, arising from any lease as to the Subject Property accruing prior to the Close of Escrow; arising out of any theft, damage, or injury to any tenants on the Subject Property or their personal property, and occurring prior to Close of Escrow; or arising out of the breach by GRANTOR of the covenants or any warranties or the falsity of any of the representations set forth in this Agreement.

H. Survival:

That GRANTOR’s representations, warranties and covenants contained in this paragraph shall survive Close of Escrow and the recordation of the Grant Deed.

I. Authority:

That GRANTOR has full power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

J. Lease Back Rights:

That GRANTOR waives any notice or right of first refusal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.245 and any lease-back rights under Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.615.

K. Brokers:

That no person or entity can properly claim a right to a commission, finder’s fee, or other compensation with respect to the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. If any broker or finder makes any claim for a commission or finder’s fee, GRANTOR shall indemnify, defend and hold CITY harmless from all liabilities, expenses, losses, damages or claims (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) arising out of such broker’s or finder’s claims.

L. Advice of Professionals:

GRANTOR has had the opportunity to be advised by their own legal counsel and professionals in connection with this Agreement, and has obtained, and relies upon, such advice as GRANTOR deems appropriate.

21. Integrated Agreement. This is an integrated Agreement, and it contains all of the terms, considerations, understandings and promises of the parties. It shall be read as a whole. This Agreement may be amended, modified, changed or rescinded only by an instrument in writing, executed by the parties, except as provided herein.

22. Severability. If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force without being impaired so long as the economic or legal substance of the transactions contemplated hereby is not affected in any manner adverse to either party. Upon such determination that any term or provision is illegal or incapable of being enforced, the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith to modify this Agreement so as to affect the original intent of the parties as closely as possible in an acceptable manner to the end that transactions contemplated hereby are fulfilled to the greatest extent possible.

23. Attorney’s Fees. In any action brought by either party to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees.

24. Venue/Governing Law. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Placer County, California regardless of where else venue may lie. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

25. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties.

26. Joint Effort. This Agreement is the result of the joint efforts and negotiations of parties hereto, and no single party is the author or drafter of it. The parties agree that this Agreement shall be interpreted as though each of the parties participated equally in the composition of this Agreement and each and every part of it.

27. Notice. Any notices to parties required by this Agreement shall be delivered or mailed, U.S. first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Jason Shykowski
Public Works Director
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678

GRANTOR
JB Company Management, LP
Attn: Gary Benvenuti
8125 Bell Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95825
Either party may amend its address for notice by notifying the other party in writing.

28. Special Provisions. The Special Provisions attached hereto as Exhibit “D-1,” if any, are hereby incorporated, and made a part of this Agreement by this reference. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between this Agreement and the Special Provisions, the terms of the Special Provisions shall prevail.

29. Further Assurances. Each party to this Agreement agrees to execute, acknowledge and deliver such further instruments as may be necessary or desirable to accomplish the intent and purpose of this Agreement.

30. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective upon full execution by all parties (the “Effective Date”).

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, has caused this Agreement to be executed in duplicate by its City Manager and attested to by its City Clerk under the authority of Resolution No._______, adopted by the Council of the City of Roseville on the _____ day of ________________, 20__, and GRANTOR has caused this Agreement to be duly executed.

GRANTEE: GRANTOR:

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a municipal JB COMPANY MANAGEMENT LP, Corporation a California limited partnership
BY: ___________________________ BY: __________________________________ DOMINICK CASEY its: ___________________________________ City Manager
BY: __________________________________
its: ___________________________________
ATTEST:

BY: ___________________________

SONIA OROZCO

Page 2 ends

City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

BY: ___________________________ ___________________________

MICHAEL CHRISTENSEN JAMES STAUDINGER
Senior Deputy City Attorney Senior Right-of-Way Agent
Consultant to the City
CA Real Estate Broker License #00582011
APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:

BY: ___________________________

Page 3 ends

1. Westerly along said curve, through a central angle of 00⁰20’05”, 11.17 feet;

3. Northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 09⁰07’21”, 311.11 feet;

4. North 74⁰52’39” West, 81.11 feet;

2. Southeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 07⁰32’58”, 258.50 feet to the to the Point of Beginning.

Containing 0.15 acres or 6,682 square feet, more or less.

Page 2 ends

Exhibit “B-1”
Fee Simple Plat Map
1 of 2

Page 3 ends

Exhibit “B-1”
Fee Simple Plat Map
2 of 2

Page 4 ends

Commencing at a found 1.5” standard city monument in a monument well, as shown on that certain PARCEL MAP, recorded in Book 19 of Parcel Maps, at Page 23, Official Records of Placer County, which bears South 00⁰26’50” West, 1000.04 feet from a found 1.5” standard city monument in a monument well, as shown on said PARCEL MAP recorded in Book 19 of Parcel Maps, at Page 23; thence North 83⁰15’23” East, 2173.33 feet to the southeast corner of said PARCEL D; thence along the easterly line of said PARCEL D, North 01⁰16’43” West, 50.60 to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 1911.85 feet, and a chord bearing and distance of North 78⁰40’48” West, 244.08 feet, and the Point of Beginning; thence leaving said easterly line, the following two (2) courses:

1. Northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 07⁰19’11, 244.25 feet;

Containing 0.28 acres or 12,021 square feet, more or less.

Page 1 of 3 ends

Proceeds from this transaction are to be sent to Grantor as follows:

Exhibit “C-1”

Page 2 of 3 ends

As to Fee Simple Interest and Drainage and Slope Easement:

Lender:

Loan No.:

Address:

Telephone:

Exhibit “C-1”

Page 3 of 3 ends

GRANTOR: JB COMPANY
MANAGEMENT LP CITY OF ROSEVILLE:

Exhibit “D-1”
Special Provisions
Construction Contract Work
CITY will not be performing any construction contract work.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

7. Escrow Costs. CITY shall pay all escrow fees, recording fees and title insurance charges incurred in this transaction.

11. Time. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.

12. No Existing Tenancy. GRANTOR warrants there are no oral or written leases on all or any portion of the Subject Property, with the exception of To Be Determined (“Lessee”).

GRANTOR hereby waives and releases CITY from any obligation, claim or damage on account of the grant of the Subject Property to CITY or on account of the location or construction of the Project.

15. Flood Control Act. GRANTOR discloses that the Subject Property is located in a “flood zone,” as set forth on F.E.M.A. or H.U.D. “Special Flood Zone Area Maps.”

18. Construction Work by CITY. None.

20. GRANTOR’s Warranties.

GRANTOR hereby represents and warrants to CITY:

A. Contracts:

B. Documents Delivered:

That all documents delivered to GRANTOR by CITY pursuant to the terms of this Agreement are complete.

C. Special Assessments or Condemnation:

D. Leasing Commissions:

E. Title:
1) Encumbrances:

F. Litigation:

G. Indemnification:

H. Survival:

That GRANTOR’s representations, warranties and covenants contained in this paragraph shall survive Close of Escrow and the recordation of the Grant Deed.

I. Authority:

That GRANTOR has full power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

J. Lease Back Rights:

That GRANTOR waives any notice or right of first refusal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.245 and any lease-back rights under Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.615.

K. Brokers:

L. Advice of Professionals:

23. Attorney’s Fees. In any action brought by either party to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees.

25. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties.

27. Notice. Any notices to parties required by this Agreement shall be delivered or mailed, U.S. first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Jason Shykowski
Public Works Director
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678

GRANTOR
JB Company Management, LP
Attn: Gary Benvenuti
8125 Bell Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95825
Either party may amend its address for notice by notifying the other party in writing.

30. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective upon full execution by all parties (the “Effective Date”).

GRANTEE: GRANTOR:

BY: ___________________________

SONIA OROZCO

Page 2 ends

City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

BY: ___________________________ ___________________________

MICHAEL CHRISTENSEN JAMES STAUDINGER
Senior Deputy City Attorney Senior Right-of-Way Agent
Consultant to the City
CA Real Estate Broker License #00582011
APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:

BY: ___________________________

Page 3 ends

1. Westerly along said curve, through a central angle of 00⁰20’05”, 11.17 feet;

3. Northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 09⁰07’21”, 311.11 feet;

4. North 74⁰52’39” West, 81.11 feet;

2. Southeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 07⁰32’58”, 258.50 feet to the to the Point of Beginning.

Containing 0.15 acres or 6,682 square feet, more or less.

Page 2 ends

Exhibit “B-1”
Fee Simple Plat Map
1 of 2

Page 3 ends

Exhibit “B-1”
Fee Simple Plat Map
2 of 2

Page 4 ends

Commencing at a found 1.5” standard city monument in a monument well, as shown on that certain PARCEL MAP, recorded in Book 19 of Parcel Maps, at Page 23, Official Records of Placer County, which bears South 00⁰26’50” West, 1000.04 feet from a found 1.5” standard city monument in a monument well, as shown on said PARCEL MAP recorded in Book 19 of Parcel Maps, at Page 23; thence North 83⁰15’23” East, 2173.33 feet to the southeast corner of said PARCEL D; thence along the easterly line of said PARCEL D, North 01⁰16’43” West, 50.60 to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 1911.85 feet, and a chord bearing and distance of North 78⁰40’48” West, 244.08 feet, and the Point of Beginning; thence leaving said easterly line, the following two (2) courses:

1. Northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 07⁰19’11, 244.25 feet;

Containing 0.28 acres or 12,021 square feet, more or less.

Page 1 of 3 ends

Proceeds from this transaction are to be sent to Grantor as follows:

Exhibit “C-1”

Page 2 of 3 ends

As to Fee Simple Interest and Drainage and Slope Easement:

Lender:

Loan No.:

Address:

Telephone:

Exhibit “C-1”

Page 3 of 3 ends

GRANTOR: JB COMPANY
MANAGEMENT LP CITY OF ROSEVILLE:

Exhibit “D-1”
Special Provisions
Construction Contract Work
CITY will not be performing any construction contract work. 1 Roseville Parkway Extension
Integra Realty Resources
Sacramento
Appraisal Summary Statement
Roseville Parkway Extension
E/S Industrial Ave., S/O Blue Oaks Blvd.

Roseville, Placer County, California 95678
IRR File Number: 193-2021-0099
Owner of Record
JB Company Management LP
This transmittal represents an Addendum to our Appraisal Report dated June 10, 2021 for the property referenced herein. This Addendum incorporates by reference all information and analysis included in the original appraisal. Further, this Addendum may only be used in conjunction with the appraisal report.

Noah Kauffman
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
California Certificate # 3004618
Telephone: 916-435-3981
Email: [email protected]
Kevin Ziegenmeyer, MAI
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
California Certificate # AG013567
Telephone: 916-435-3883, ext. 224
Email: [email protected]
Owner JB Company Management LP Date Acquired: N/Av.

Assessor’s Parcel No(s) 017-113-023
Property Address: E/S Industrial Ave., S/O Blue
Oaks Blvd.

Property to be acquired: Part X All
Locale: Roseville, Placer County, California 95678
Total Property Area: 301,000 square feet
(6.91 acres)
Including Access Rights: Yes No X
2 Roseville Parkway Extension
Statutory Basis of Valuation
The fair market value for the property to be acquired by the City is based upon an appraisal prepared in accordance with accepted appraisal principles and procedures and eminent domain law in the State of California.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.320 defines Fair Market Value as follows:
a) The fair market value of the property taken is the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed to by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for so doing, nor obliged to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing, and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the other with full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available. b) The fair market value of property taken for which there is no relevant, comparable market is its value on the date of valuation as determined by any method of valuation that is just and equitable.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.321 defines the Value for Nonprofit, Special Use Property as follows:

A just and equitable method of determining the value of non-profit, special use property for which there is no relevant, comparable market is as set forth in Section 824 of the Evidence Code, but subject to the exceptions set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 824 of the Evidence Code.

The Fair Market Value for the property to be acquired by the City is based upon Code of Civil Procedures Section 1263.320 as defined above.

Basic Property Data
Interest valued: Fee Simple & Easement
Date of value: March 19, 2021
Original X Updated
Applicable zoning: M-2,
General Industrial
Area to be acquired: 6,682 square feet (0.15 acres) in fee 12,021 square feet (0.28 acres) - Slope and Drainage Easement Highest and best use: Industrial use
Current use: Vacant land
3 Roseville Parkway Extension
The Following Information is Based on the Entire Parcel (Land Only)

1. The Sales Comparison approach is based on the consideration of comparable land sales.

Indicated value by Sales Comparison Approach $ $2,071,917 (unround) See attached sheet for principle transactions.

Summary of the Basis for Just Compensation
Primary reliance was placed upon the sales comparison approach, which is most relevant for valuing the subject property’s underlying land. The sales comparison approach is based on a comparison of the subject property to recent land sales with a similar highest and best use (industrial). The appraisers searched for comparable land sales within the area. Adjustments made to the comparables included transactional characteristics (financing terms, conditions of sale, contributory value of improvements, market conditions at the time of sale, etc.), location, and applicable physical characteristics (access & visibility, size of parcel, site utility, zoning, etc.). Following is a list of principal transactions used to value the subject land.
4 Roseville Parkway Extension
List of Principle Transactions - Land
Summary of Comparable Land Sales
No. Name/Address
Sale
Date;
Status Sale Price
SF;
Acres Zoning
$/SF
Land
1 2000 Eubanks Dr. Jul-20 $5,885,000 927,828 $6.34
Vacaville Closed 21.30
Solano County
2 Metro Air Park May-20 $15,819,000 3,722,202 $4.25
Powerline Rd. Closed 85.45
Sacramento
Sacramento County
3 LogistiCenter at Southport Feb-20 $6,177,000 988,594 $6.25 3520 Carlin Dr. Closed 22.695
West Sacramento
Yolo County
4 Union Park Wy. Dec-19 $4,568,500 761,429 $6.00
Elk Grove Closed 17.48
Sacramento County
5 3545 Cincinnati Ave. Jun-19 $1,517,000 278,784 $5.44
Rocklin Closed 6.40
Placer County
Subject 301,000
E/S Industrial Ave., S/O Blue Oaks Blvd. 6.91
Comments: This is the sale of 21.3 acres of industrial land located within the Interchange Business Park in Vacaville. Although we attempted to contact parties to the sale the transaction details were ultimately confirmed via public records.

Comments: This is the sale of 85.45 acres of land within the Metro Air Park. The buyer reportedly plans to construct largefootprint distribution/warehouse buildings of approximately 250,000 square feet.

Comments: The buyer is Dermody Properties, which plans to construct a 379,161 SF industrial building. Although transfer taxes on the deed implied a sale price of $6,179,000, a representative of the buyer confirmed the price was actually Comments: This is the sale of three parcels located along Union Park Way.

Comments: This property comprised two adjacent lots totaling 6.33 acres.

Industrial Park -
Design Corridor
General Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Industrial-Office
Park
Light
Manufacturing &
Distribution
Industrial Park
Subject Comparable 1 Comparable 2 Comparable 3 Comparable 4 Comparable 5 Address E/S Industrial Ave.,
S/O Blue Oaks
Blvd.
2000 Eubanks Dr. Powerline Rd. 3520 Carlin Dr. Union Park Wy. 3545 Cincinnati Ave.

City Roseville Vacaville Sacramento West Sacramento Elk Grove Rocklin County Placer Solano Sacramento Yolo Sacramento Placer
Sale Date Jul-20 May-20 Feb-20 Dec-19 Jun-19
Sale Status Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed
Sale Price $5,885,000 $15,819,000 $6,177,000 $4,568,500 $1,517,000 Square Feet 301,000 927,828 3,722,202 988,594 761,429 278,784 Acres 6.91 21.30 85.45 22.695 17.48 6.40
Price per Square Foot -- $6.34 $4.25 $6.25 $6.00 $5.44
PV of Bond Encumbrance Adj. $0.00 $0.00 $1.61 $0.86 $0.00 $0.00 Price per Square Foot $6.34 $5.86 $7.11 $6.00 $5.44
In general, a fair market value estimate for the subject’s larger parcel would reasonably be between the indicators provided by Comparables 1 and 3, and therefore greater than $6.34 per square foot and less than $7.11 per square foot. Considering the definition of fair market value, the characteristics of the subject property and indicators within the data set, a land value indicator of $7.00 per square foot 5 Roseville Parkway Extension
is concluded for the subject, which will be used in estimating the fair market value of the subject via the sales comparison approach. The City previously obtained a 50’ wide easement (slope, landscape, and utility) along the frontage of this property for purposes of the proposed project and now intends to acquire fee title to a 6,682 square foot portion of that area. Due to the subject being encumbered by an existing slope, landscaping, and utility easement within the acquisition area, we have applied an adjustment equal to 75% of the fee value within this area to account for this encumbrance (6,682 square feet x $7.00 per SF x 75%).

Based on the preceding analysis, we reach a land value conclusion as follows, which represents the value of the whole prior to acquisition:

Land Value Conclusion
Indicated Value per Square Foot $7.00
Subject Square Feet 301,000
Indicated Value $2,106,997
Less Existing Easements ($35,081)
Indicated Value $2,071,917
Value of the part acquired (Land Only)
The City previously obtained rights to use the fee acquisition area for slope, pedestrian use, and utilities for the Project and wishes to perfect rights to a fee interest. Based on the rights acquired, it appears the City has already acquired most of the potential uses within the fee acquisition area and the remaining rights are concluded to represent 25% of the fee simple rights. Similarly, the rights to be acquired within the proposed slope and drainage easement area are concluded to represent 75% of the fee simple value.

The value of the part acquired as part of the whole is estimated as follows:

Part Acquired (Land)
Land Area (SF) Value Indicator Rights Acquired Conclusion Acquisition Area (in fee) 6,682 x $7.00 x 25% = $11,694 Proposed Slope & Drainage Easement 12,021 x $7.00 x 75% = $63,110 Total $74,804
Damages Compensation
Damages are not anticipated from the Project, as shown in the following table.

Damages
Identification Conclusion
Value of Remainder as Part of the Whole $1,997,113
- After Value before Considering Benefits $1,997,113
Resultant Damages $0
6 Roseville Parkway Extension
Benefits are not measured and the appraisers reserve the right to re-analyze benefits at a later date if warranted.

Conclusion of Fair Market Value of Rights Taken
For the reader’s reference, the entire summation method is summarized in the following table.

Summation
Identification Conclusion
A Value of the whole prior to acquisition Land only $2,071,917 B Value of the part acquired as part of the whole Land only $74,804 Improvements $0
Total $74,804
C Value of the remainder as part of the whole (A-B) $1,997,113 D Value of the remainder after the acquisition, disregarding benefits $1,997,113 E Severance Damages $0
F Benefits $0
G Fair Market Value of Rights Taken (B+E) $74,804
Rd. $74,900
Construction Contract Work Items
According to information provided, the following items are anticipated to be impacted by the project and remedied during construction of the project.

1. None

INFORMATION STATEMENT
This approved offer is presented in settlement of the acquisition of your property. $11,694.00 Fee Simple Acquisition
$63,110.00 Drainage and Slope Easement
$ 00.00 Severance Damages
$74,900.00 Total (Rounded)
The value of your property that the City of Roseville seeks to purchase is based upon a market value appraisal prepared by an independent appraisal firm in accordance with accepted appraisal procedures.

Valuation of your property is based upon an analysis of recent sales of comparable sites and similar properties in or near this locality with consideration to the highest and best use for development of the property. Any diminution in value of the remainder parcel, or costs to mitigate same, has also been considered.

Before arriving at a conclusion of value, the appraiser conducted an investigation in order to obtain necessary information. The investigation generally includes an inspection of the property, a review of any improvements, a review of the immediate surrounding and regional influences, the property zoning and permitted uses, a study of the highest and the best use of the property, easements which may exist on the property, the availability of utilities, access, and street improvements. The appraiser conducted interviews with knowledgeable persons, and collected comparable data and information relating to the value of the property and any cost of reproducing any improvements on the property.

The offer is the full amount believed by the City of Roseville to be just compensation for your property.

It is not less than the City’s highest approved appraisal of the Fair Market Value of the property. Any decreases or increases in the Fair Market Value of the real property prior to the date of the valuation caused by the public improvements or project for which the property is to be acquired, or by the likelihood that the property would be required for such improvement or project, other than due to physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner, have been disregarded by the City and its appraiser in making their determination of the Fair Market Value of such property.

FAIR MARKET VALUE, as used in the appraisal, is “the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for doing so, nor being obligated to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the other with full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available.” (Section 1263.320 Code of Civil Procedure) The determination of just compensation does not reflect any consideration of or allowance for relocation assistance and payments to which you may be entitled to receive under applicable State or Federal Law or of the City’s agreement to pay certain settlement costs such as recording, title or escrow fees.

This summary of the basis of the amount offered as just compensation is presented in compliance with State, and where applicable, Federal Law. Attached is an Appraisal Summary Statement including information pertinent to our offer to acquire the property.

In the event you are the owner of a business conducted on the property being acquired by the City, you may be entitled to compensation for loss of goodwill, if any, if you are able to make a showing of such loss pursuant to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.510.

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1263.025, should you elect to obtain an independent appraisal, the City will pay for the actual reasonable costs of said appraisal up to Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) subject to the following conditions:
a. You, not the City, must order the appraisal. Should you enter into a contract with the selected appraiser; the City will not be a party to the contract; b. The selected appraiser must be licensed with the California Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers (BREA), and said license must be in good standing; c. Appraisal cost reimbursement requests must be made in writing, and submitted to the following address:

City of Roseville
Department of Public Works
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, California, 95678
within ninety (90) days of the earliest of the following dates:
(1) the date the selected appraiser requests payment from you for the appraisal; or (2) the date upon which you, or someone on your behalf, remitted full payment to the selected appraiser for the appraisal.
d. If the Property is owned jointly or in common by more than one person, City shall only be required to provide reimbursement to the first of such owners to make application for reimbursement.
e. Owner shall be solely liable for the payment of all costs associated with the appraisal in excess of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), and shall hold City harmless from any claim for such costs.
f. Copies of the contract between the Owner and his appraiser (if a contract was made), appraisal report, invoice for the completed work by the appraiser, and proof of payment if same was made, must be provided to the City concurrent with the submission of the appraisal cost reimbursement request. The costs must be reasonable and justifiable. .

Page 1 of 2 ends

GRANT DEED
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, JB COMPANY MANAGEMENT LP, a California limited partnership (“GRANTOR”), hereby grants to the CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a municipal corporation (“GRANTEE”), all that real property situated in the City of Roseville, County of Placer, State of California, described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Dated this ______ day of ________________, 20___.

Grantor: JB COMPANY MANAGEMENT LP, a California limited partnership By: ______________________________
Print name: ________________________
Title: _____________________________
By: ______________________________
Print name: ________________________
Title: _____________________________
No Fee Document – Per Government Code §6103 & §27383
No Documentary Transfer Tax – Per R&T Code §11922

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN
RECORDED RETURN TO:

City Clerk
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
Project Name: Roseville Parkway Extension
Address: Along Industrial Avenue, Roseville
APN: 017-113-023
Escrow Number: 01004124-010-PA-KD The Above Space For Recorder’s Use Only

Page 2 of 2 ends

Exhibit “A”
Legal Description
1 of 2
All that real property situate in Sections 21, Township 11 North, Range 6 East, M.D.M., City of Roseville, County of Placer, State of California, being a portion of PARCEL D of that certain Parcel Map titled ROSEVILLE PARKWAY INDUSTRIAL CENTER, recorded March 8, 2002 in Book 30 of Parcel Maps, at Page 124, Official Records of Placer County, more particularly described as:

1. Westerly along said curve, through a central angle of 00⁰20’05”, 11.17 feet;

3. Northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 09⁰07’21”, 311.11 feet;

4. North 74⁰52’39” West, 81.11 feet;

Page 3 of 2 ends

Exhibit “A”
Legal Description
2 of 2

2. Southeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 07⁰32’58”, 258.50 feet to the to the Point of Beginning.

Containing 0.15 acres or 6,682 square feet, more or less.

Page 4 of 2 ends

Exhibit “B”
Plat Map
1 of 2

Page 5 of 2 ends

Exhibit “B”
Plat Map
2 of 2

Page 1 of 2 ends

DRAINAGE AND SLOPE EASEMENT DEED
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, JB COMPANY MANAGEMENT LP, a California limited partnership (“GRANTOR”), hereby grants to the CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a municipal corporation (“GRANTEE”), a Drainage and Slope Easement for the purpose of constructing, replacing, repairing, removing, maintaining or modifying thereon a slope and drainage ditch, or pipeline for drainage purposes, together with appurtenant structures in, upon, over, and across the following described real property in the City of Roseville, County of Placer, State of California, described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference
Together with the perpetual right and privilege of flowing water in, through, and along said drainage ditch or pipeline in such amounts and at such times as Grantee shall deem necessary, and the right of ingress and egress from said property, for the purpose of exercising and performing all of the rights and privileges herein granted.

The herein described Drainage and Slope Easement shall be kept free of structures and obstructions that impair the intended use of or are inconsistent with the purposes of the easement.

Dated this ______ day of ________________, 20___.

Grantor: JB COMPANY MANAGEMENT LP, a California limited partnership By: _____________________________
Print name: _______________________
Title: ____________________________
By: _____________________________
Print name: _______________________
Title: ____________________________
No Fee Document – Per Government Code §6103 & §27383
No Documentary Transfer Tax – Per R&T Code §11922

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN
RECORDED RETURN TO:

Page 2 of 2 ends

Commencing at a found 1.5” standard city monument in a monument well, as shown on that certain PARCEL MAP, recorded in Book 19 of Parcel Maps, at Page 23, Official Records of Placer County, which bears South 00⁰26’50” West, 1000.04 feet from a found 1.5” standard city monument in a monument well, as shown on said PARCEL MAP recorded in Book 19 of Parcel Maps, at Page 23; thence North 83⁰15’23” East, 2173.33 feet to the southeast corner of said PARCEL D; thence along the easterly line of said PARCEL D, North 01⁰16’43” West, 50.60 to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 1911.85 feet, and a chord bearing and distance of North 78⁰40’48” West, 244.08 feet, and the Point of Beginning; thence leaving said easterly line, the following two (2) courses:

1. Northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 07⁰19’11, 244.25 feet;

Containing 0.28 acres or 12,021 square feet, more or less.

Page 3 of 2 ends

Exhibit “A”
Legal Description
1 of 2
This real property description has been prepared at Mark Thomas & Company, Inc., by me,or under my direction, in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 05/20/2021
Samuel R. McIntyre, PLS 9313 Date

Page 4 of 2 ends

Exhibit “B”
Plat Map
1 of 2

Page 5 of 2 ends

Exhibit “B”
Plat Map
2 of 2

Page 1 of 2 ends

EXHIBIT “C”

ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
Insert Date: Project: City of Roseville –
Roseville Parkway Extension Project
Fidelity National Title Company Parcel No.: 017-113-023 Owner: JB Company Management LP
Escrow No.: 01004124-010-PA-KD
This escrow will be closed in connection with the City of Roseville, Roseville Parkway Extension Project. The following items have been checked to indicate the method in which this escrow identified by the above parcel number and escrow number is to be closed.

The sale price of this transaction is $74,900.00.
__X___ Enclosed is a warrant in the sum of $74,900.00.
__X___ Enclosed is the Deed (granting a Fee Simple Interest) with attached certificate of acceptance, and a copy of the Agreement for Purchase.
__X___ Enclosed is a Drainage and Slope Easement with attached certificate of acceptance, and a copy of the Agreement for Purchase.
__X___ Taxes will be prorated and canceled as of close of escrow and any taxes due shall be paid to the County Tax collector from this escrow.
_____ No tax cancellation or proration will be necessary. __X___ Policy of title insurance shall be issued in the amount of $74,900.00 (land value only).

Proceeds from this transaction are to be sent to Grantor as follows:

As to Fee Simple Interest and Drainage and Slope Easement:

Exceptions Taken Subject To:
5, 7, 8, 11, 13
Exceptions To Be Cleared:
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16

Project: Roseville Parkway Extension Project
Parcel No.: 017-113-023
Owner: JB Company Management LP
Escrow No.: 01004124-010-PA

Page 2 of 2 ends

Purchaser will pay for all costs of escrow and title insurance policy. The original policy together with two copies of the title insurance, all recorded documents, and your billing, should be sent to the following person at the close of escrow:

Daniel Lierly
Public Works – Engineering
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
INSTRUCTIONS FROM SELLERS: In addition to the foregoing, you are hereby authorized to record and/or deliver the attached document to the City of Roseville upon receipt of a warrant in the amount of $74,900.00, less any demands for liens, judgments, delinquent taxes and/or utilities, delinquent child support and/or alimony, or encumbrances. You are also authorized to obtain any required reconveyance (if fee being acquired) or subordination (if easement be in acquired) from the following Mortgagee:

Lender:

Loan No.:

Address:

Telephone:

GRANTOR: JB COMPANY MANAGEMENT LP CITY OF ROSEVILLE:
___________________________________ __________________________________ By: By (Sign)
Date: _________________________ ____ _____________
Print Name ___________________________________
By:

Date: ______________________________
Date: _________________________
Your Rights under Title VI
This leaflet is designed to notify you of the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and your rights under those requirements.

WHAT IS TITLE VI?
Title VI is a statute provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. President John F. Kennedy referred to Title VI as “Simple Justice – requiring that [all] public funds to which taxpayers of all races contribute not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial discrimination.” Title VI (Sec. 601) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that:
“No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” (42 USC Sec. 2000d)
Additionally, Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 1994 provides that:
“Each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.”
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
This means utilization of and access to all departmental programs, services or benefits derived from any City of Roseville activity will be administered without regard to race, color, or national origin.

The City of Roseville will not tolerate discrimination by its employees or sub-recipients of Federal funds. City of Roseville prohibits all discriminatory practices, which may result in:
 Denial to an individual of any service, financial aid or benefit provided under the program to which he or she may otherwise be entitled
 Different standards or requirements for participation  Segregation or separate treatment in any part of a program  Distinctions in quality, quantity, or manner in which a benefit is provided  Discrimination in any activities conducted in a facility built in whole or part with Federal funds
To ensure compliance with Title VI and the Presidential Executive Order on Environmental Justice, the City of Roseville will:
 Avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations
 Prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations

BENEFITS AND SERVICES
All of the work the City of Roseville performs is intended to assist the water conveyance needs of all people regardless of race, color, national origin and /or socio-economic status.

WHO BEARS RESPONSIBILITY TO TITLE VI?
All City of Roseville employees, and its functional programs.

ARE YOUR RIGHTS BEING VIOLATED?
All recipients of City of Roseville services are entitled to fair and equal benefits and services. If you believe your rights have been violated, on the basis of discrimination, because of your race, color, or national origin, you may file a written complaint with the City of Roseville. The address and telephone number of the office is:

Daniel Lierly
Public Works – Engineering
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
(916) 746-1376
1 TITLE VI FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What is Title VI?
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that “No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefit of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance.” • The rights of women, the elderly and the disabled are protected under Related Statutes. • Presidential Executive Order 12898 addresses environmental justice in Minority and Low-Income populations.
• Presidential Executive Order 13166 addresses services to those individuals who are limited English proficient.
• The above Presidential Executive Orders and Related Statutes fall under the umbrella of Title VI.

What is a recipient of federal financial assistance?
• Federal financial assistance includes grants, training, use of equipment, donations of surplus property and other assistance.
• Subrecipients are also covered when federal funds are passed from one recipient to a sub recipient. • Recipients of federal funds range from state and local agencies, to nonprofits and other organizations.

Who are considered persons under Title VI?
All individuals are considered persons under Title VI. The Supreme Court has held that undocumented aliens are considered “persons” under the equal protection clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

What does Title VI do?
• Prohibits entities from discriminatorily denying a protected individual any service, financial aid, or other benefit under the covered program and activities.
• Prohibits entities from providing services or benefits to some individuals that are different from or inferior (in either quantity or quality) to those provided to others. • Prohibits segregation or separate treatment in any manner related to the receiving program services or benefits.
2 • Prohibits entities from imposing different standards or conditions as prerequisites for serving individuals.

Who must comply?
• State and local government agency distributing Federal assistance or entity distributing Federal assistance to the State or local government agency.
• Entire corporation, partnership, or other private organization, or a sole proprietorship. • Entire plant or private corporation or other organization that is a geographically separate facility to which Federal financial assistance is extended.

What does Title VI cover?
• All Advertisements
• Bid proposals
• Contracts/subcontracts
• Title VI reports, issues, and complaints
• Public meetings
• Title VI contract provisions and other legal documents What discrimination is prohibited by Title VI?
• There are many forms of illegal discrimination based on race, color, or national origin that can limit the opportunity of minorities to gain equal access to services, programs, and activities. Among other things, in operating a federally assisted program, a recipient cannot on the basis of race, color or nation origin, either directly or through contractual means:
• Deny program services, activities, or benefits
• Provide different services, activities, or benefits, or provide them in a manner different than they are provided to others; or
• Segregate or separately treat individuals in any matter related to the receipt of any services, activities, or benefits.

What is meant by the term “program or activity?”
The term encompasses the entire institution receiving Federal financial assistance. For example, all of the programs or activities of a state or local agency are subject to Title VI even though it is only part of the total budget. The law is applied institution-wide. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 amended Title VI and related statues by adding a broad definition or program or activity. 3 Who is a Limited English Proficient (LEP) individual? Individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English can be limited English proficient. These individuals are entitled to language assistance to ensure equal access to programs, services or activities.

What are the relevant laws concerning language access for LEP individuals? • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Title VI regulations, prohibiting discrimination based on national origin.
• Executive Order 13166 issued in 2000 reiterates the requirement to take responsible steps to ensure meaningful access to benefits, services, and information for LEP persons and recommends that the recipients develop a language implementation plan.
• Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act is California State law enacted in 1973 that requires all State Departments involved in furnishing information or rendering services to the public, whereby contact is made with a substantial number (five percent) of non/or limited English speaking persons, shall employ a sufficient number of qualified bilingual persons in public contact positions to ensure information and services are provided in the language of the non-English speaking person.

Who may file a Title VI complaint?
Complaints may be filed by any individual or group who believes:
• Their rights under Title VI have been violated in a discriminatory manner • The City’s programs or activities do not comply with Federal civil rights laws. They have been treated in a disparate manner.

Discrimination
An act (or action) whether intentional or unintentional through which a person solely because of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin has been otherwise subjected to unequal treatment under any program or activities receiving Federal financial assistance.

Disparate Treatment
Disparate treatment is inconsistent application of rules and policies to one group of people over another.

Discrimination may result when rules and policies are applied differently to member of protected classes.

How can an individual or group file a complaint?
An individual or group can complete the City’s complaint form. This form has been developed to assist the complainant. The complaint form is not required to be used. The City will accept a letter from the complainant. The complaint should be forwarded to the Title VI Coordinator. Every effort will be made to complete the investigation within 180 days
Fidelity National Title Company
1200 Concord Ave., #400, Concord, CA 94520
Phone: (925) 288-8000 Fax:

CLTA Preliminary Report Form (Modified 11/17/06) Printed: 6/27/2017 2:26 PM by <<User Initials>> lPrelm (DSI Rev. 04/10/20) Page 1 Order No.: 01004124-010-PA-KD Issuing Policies of Fidelity National Title Insurance Company Order No.: 01004124-010-PA-KD
TO:

City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street, Public Works
Roseville, CA 95678
ATTN: .

YOUR REFERENCE:

Title Officer: Kevin Davis
Escrow Officer: Paul Avila
8525 Madison Avenue, Suite 110
Fair Oaks, CA 95628
(916) 646-6018
(916) 224-2697
PROPERTY ADDRESS: APN 017-113-023-000, Roseville, CA

AMENDED PRELIMINARY REPORT B
In response to the application for a policy of title insurance referenced herein, Fidelity National Title Company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a policy or policies of title insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an exception herein or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations or Conditions of said policy forms.

The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said policy or policies are set forth in Attachment One. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner’s Policies of Title Insurance which establish a Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Attachment One.

Copies of the policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report.

This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested.

The policy(s) of title insurance to be issued hereunder will be policy(s) of Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, a Florida Corporation.

Please read the exceptions shown or referred to herein and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Attachment One of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered.

It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects and encumbrances affecting title to the land.

Countersigned by:

Authorized Signature
Fidelity National Title Company
1200 Concord Ave., #400, Concord, CA 94520
Phone: (925) 288-8000 Fax:

CLTA Preliminary Report Form (Modified 11/17/06) Printed: 6/27/2017 2:26 PM by <<User Initials>> lPrelm (DSI Rev. 04/10/20) Page 2 Order No.: 01004124-010-PA-KD

AMENDED PRELIMINARY REPORT B
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 29, 2020 at 7:30 a.m., Amended: May 27, 2021, Amendment No. 2 ORDER NO.: 01004124-010-PA-KD
The form of policy or policies of title insurance contemplated by this report is:

CLTA Standard Coverage Policy (04-08-14)

1. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS:

Fee and Easement Estate

2. TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN:

JB Company Management LP, a California limited partnership

3. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Your Reference: Fidelity National Title Company
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (Modified 11/17/06) Printed: 6/27/2017 2:26 PM by <<User Initials>> lPrelm (DSI Rev. 04/10/20) Page 3 Order No.: 01004124-010-PA-KD

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY ROSEVILLE, IN THE COUNTY OF PLACER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL ONE:

PARCEL D, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP ENTITLED “ROSEVILLE PARKWAY INDUSTRIAL CENTER, A PORTION OF PARCEL 1,21 PM 83, BEING A PORTION OF SECTIONS 21 AND 22, TOWNSHIP 11 NORTH, RANGE 6 E., MDM”, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ON MARCH 8, 2002 IN BOOK 30 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 124.

PARCEL TWO:

EASEMENTS FOR ACCESS AND PARKING AS SET FORTH IN DOCUMENT ENTITLED “RECIPROCAL ACCESS AND PARKING AGREEMENT” RECORDED MARCH 8, 2002 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2002-26427 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

APN: 017-113-023-000
Your Reference: Fidelity National Title Company
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (Modified 11/17/06) Printed: 6/27/2017 2:26 PM by <<User Initials>> lPrelm (DSI Rev. 04/10/20) Page 4 Order No.: 01004124-010-PA-KD

EXCEPTIONS

AT THE DATE HEREOF, ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED AND EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS IN SAID POLICY FORM WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Property taxes, which are a lien not yet due and payable, including any assessments collected with taxes to be levied for the fiscal year 2021-2022.

2. Intentionally Deleted

3. Prior to close of escrow, please contact the Tax Collector's Office to confirm all amounts owing, including current fiscal year taxes, supplemental taxes, escaped assessments and any delinquencies.

4. The lien of supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any, made pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 75) or Part 2, Chapter 3, Articles 3 and 4, respectively, of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California as a result of the transfer of title to the vestee named in Schedule A or as a result of changes in ownership or new construction occurring prior to Date of Policy.

5. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as delineated or as offered for dedication, on the map of said tract/plat;
Purpose: public utilities
Affects: as shown on filed map
Recording No: Book 17 of Parcel Maps, Page 90

6. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:

Granted to: Longmeadow Development Corporation, et al
Purpose: ingress and egress
Recording Date: July 18, 1995
Recording No: Instrument No. 95-36371 of Official Records Affects: as described therein

7. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Deferred Improvement Agreement (Roseville Parkway Bus Stop) Recording Date: December 11, 1998
Recording No: Instrument No. 98-104333 of Official Records Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.

An agreement to modify the terms and provisions of the said document, as therein provided Recording Date: June 11, 2014
Recording No: Instrument No. 2014-38978 of Official Records Your Reference: Fidelity National Title Company

EXCEPTIONS
(Continued)
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (Modified 11/17/06) Printed: 6/27/2017 2:26 PM by <<User Initials>> lPrelm (DSI Rev. 04/10/20) Page 5 Order No.: 01004124-010-PA-KD

8. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Deferred Improvement Agreement
Recording Date: December 11, 1998
Recording No: Instrument No. 2014-104334 of Official Records Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.

An agreement to modify the terms and provisions of the said document, as therein provided Recording Date: June 11, 2014
Recording No: Instrument No. 2014-38979 of Official Records

9. Recitals as shown on that certain map/plat
Recording Date: March 08, 2002
Recording No: Book 30 of Parcel Maps, Page 124
Which among other things recites
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.

10. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Reciprocal Access and Parking Agreement
Recording Date: March 08, 2002
Recording No: Instrument No. 2002-26427 of Official Records Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.

An agreement to modify the terms and provisions of the said document, as therein provided Recording Date: June 11, 2014
Recording No: Instrument No. 2014-38968 of Official Records

11. Covenants, conditions and restrictions but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, genetic information, medical condition, citizenship, primary language, and immigration status, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth in the document Recording Date: March 08, 2002
Recording No: Instrument No. 2002-26428 of Official Records Your Reference: Fidelity National Title Company

EXCEPTIONS
(Continued)
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (Modified 11/17/06) Printed: 6/27/2017 2:26 PM by <<User Initials>> lPrelm (DSI Rev. 04/10/20) Page 6 Order No.: 01004124-010-PA-KD

12. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Fire Pump Easement and Maintenance Agreement
Recording Date: March 08, 2002
Recording No: Instrument No. 2002-26429 of Official Records Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.

13. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:

Granted to: Sprint Communications Company, L.P., et al
Purpose: telecommunications
Recording Date: January 30, 2014
Recording No: Instrument No. 2014-6467 of Official Records Affects: as described therein

14. The Company will require the following documents for review prior to the issuance of any title insurance predicated upon a conveyance or encumbrance from the limited partnership named below:

Name: JB Company Management, LP, a limited partnership
a) A complete copy of the limited partnership agreement and all amendments thereto. b) Satisfactory evidence that the partnership was validly formed and is in good standing.

The Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after review of the requested documentation.

15. Any rights of the parties in possession of a portion of, or all of, said Land, which rights are not disclosed by the public records.

The Company will require, for review, a full and complete copy of any unrecorded agreement, contract, license and/or lease, together with all supplements, assignments and amendments thereto, before issuing any policy of title insurance without excepting this item from coverage.

The Company reserves the right to except additional items and/or make additional requirements after reviewing said documents.

16. The transaction contemplated in connection with this Report is subject to the review and approval of the Company’s Corporate Underwriting Department. The Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after such review.

PLEASE REFER TO THE “INFORMATIONAL NOTES” AND “REQUIREMENTS” SECTIONS WHICH FOLLOW FOR INFORMATION NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THIS TRANSACTION.

Your Reference: Fidelity National Title Company

EXCEPTIONS
(Continued)
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (Modified 11/17/06) Printed: 6/27/2017 2:26 PM by <<User Initials>> lPrelm (DSI Rev. 04/10/20) Page 7 Order No.: 01004124-010-PA-KD

END OF EXCEPTIONS
Your Reference: Fidelity National Title Company
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (Modified 11/17/06) Printed: 6/27/2017 2:26 PM by <<User Initials>> lPrelm (DSI Rev. 04/10/20) Page 8 Order No.: 01004124-010-PA-KD

REQUIREMENTS SECTION

END OF REQUIREMENTS
Your Reference: Fidelity National Title Company
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (Modified 11/17/06) Printed: 6/27/2017 2:26 PM by <<User Initials>> lPrelm (DSI Rev. 04/10/20) Page 1 Order No.: 01004124-010-PA-KD

INFORMATIONAL NOTES SECTION

1. None of the items shown in this report will cause the Company to decline to attach CLTA Endorsement Form 100 to an Extended Coverage Loan Policy, when issued.

2. The Company is not aware of any matters which would cause it to decline to attach CLTA Endorsement Form 116 indicating that there is located on said Land Undeveloped Land/Unimproved properties, known as APN 017-113- 023-000, located within the city of Roseville, California, 95678, to an Extended Coverage Loan Policy.

3. Note: The policy of title insurance will include an arbitration provision. The Company or the insured may demand arbitration. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the insured arising out of or relating to this policy, any service of the Company in connection with its issuance or the breach of a policy provision or other obligation. Please ask your escrow or title officer for a sample copy of the policy to be issued if you wish to review the arbitration provisions and any other provisions pertaining to your Title Insurance coverage.

4. Notice: Please be aware that due to the conflict between federal and state laws concerning the cultivation, distribution, manufacture or sale of marijuana, the Company is not able to close or insure any transaction involving Land that is associated with these activities.

5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 27388.1, as amended and effective as of 1-1-2018, a Documentary Transfer Tax (DTT) Affidavit may be required to be completed and submitted with each document when DTT is being paid or when an exemption is being claimed from paying the tax. If a governmental agency is a party to the document, the form will not be required. DTT Affidavits may be available at a Tax Assessor-County ClerkRecorder.

6. Note: There are NO conveyances affecting said Land recorded within 24 months of the date of this report.

7. Note: The charge for a policy of title insurance, when issued through this title order, will be based on the Basic Title Insurance Rate.

8. Pursuant to Government Code Section 27388.1, as amended and effective as of 1-1-2018, a Documentary Transfer Tax (DTT) Affidavit may be required to be completed and submitted with each document when DTT is being paid or when an exemption is being claimed from paying the tax. If a governmental agency is a party to the document, the form will not be required. DTT Affidavits may be available at a Tax Assessor-County ClerkRecorder.

9. Due to the special requirements of SB 50 (California Public Resources Code Section 8560 et seq.), any transaction that includes the conveyance of title by an agency of the United States must be approved in advance by the Company’s State Counsel, Regional Counsel, or one of their designees.

10. Note: Property taxes for the fiscal year shown below are PAID. For proration purposes the amounts were:

Tax Identification No.: 117-113-023-000
Fiscal Year: 2020-2021
1st Installment: $6,297.70
2nd Installment: $6,297.70
Exemption: $
Land: $1,180,301.00
Improvements: $0.00
Personal Property: $
Code Area: 005-001
Bill No.:

Your Reference: Fidelity National Title Company

INFORMATIONAL NOTES
(Continued)
CLTA Preliminary Report Form (Modified 11/17/06) Printed: 6/27/2017 2:26 PM by <<User Initials>> lPrelm (DSI Rev. 04/10/20) Page 2 Order No.: 01004124-010-PA-KD

END OF INFORMATIONAL NOTES
Kevin Davis/gm
Wire Fraud Alert Page 1
Original Effective Date: 5/11/2017
Current Version Date: 5/11/2017 WIRE0016 (DSI Rev. 12/07/17) TM and © Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and/or an affiliate. All rights reserved Wire Fraud Alert
This Notice is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. If you have any questions, please consult with a lawyer.

All parties to a real estate transaction are targets for wire fraud and many have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars because they simply relied on the wire instructions received via email, without further verification. If funds are to be wired in conjunction with this real estate transaction, we strongly recommend verbal verification of wire instructions through a known, trusted phone number prior to sending funds.

In addition, the following non‐exclusive self‐protection strategies are recommended to minimize exposure to possible wire fraud.
 NEVER RELY on emails purporting to change wire instructions. Parties to a transaction rarely change wire instructions in the course of a transaction.
 ALWAYS VERIFY wire instructions, specifically the ABA routing number and account number, by calling the party who sent the instructions to you. DO NOT use the phone number provided in the email containing the instructions, use phone numbers you have called before or can otherwise verify. Obtain the phone number of relevant parties to the transaction as soon as an escrow account is opened. DO NOT send an email to verify as the email address may be incorrect or the email may be intercepted by the fraudster.  USE COMPLEX EMAIL PASSWORDS that employ a combination of mixed case, numbers, and symbols. Make your passwords greater than eight (8) characters. Also, change your password often and do NOT reuse the same password for other online accounts.
 USE MULTI-FACTOR AUTHENTICATION for email accounts. Your email provider or IT staff may have specific instructions on how to implement this feature.

For more information on wire‐fraud scams or to report an incident, please refer to the following links:

Federal Bureau of Investigation: Internet Crime Complaint Center:
http://www.fbi.gov http://www.ic3.gov

FNF Privacy Statement (Eff. April 9, 2020) Copyright © 2020. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. All Rights Reserved MISC0219 (DSI Rev. 04/10/20) Page 1 Order No. 01004124-010-PA-KD FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC.

PRIVACY NOTICE
Effective April 9, 2020
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and its majority-owned subsidiary companies (collectively, “FNF,” “our,” or “we”) respect and are committed to protecting your privacy. This Privacy Notice explains how we collect, use, and protect personal information, when and to whom we disclose such information, and the choices you have about the use and disclosure of that information.

A limited number of FNF subsidiaries have their own privacy notices. If a subsidiary has its own privacy notice, the privacy notice will be available on the subsidiary’s website and this Privacy Notice does not apply.

Collection of Personal Information
FNF may collect the following categories of Personal Information:
 contact information (e.g., name, address, phone number, email address);  demographic information (e.g., date of birth, gender, marital status);  identity information (e.g. Social Security Number, driver’s license, passport, or other government ID number);  financial account information (e.g. loan or bank account information); and  other personal information necessary to provide products or services to you.

We may collect Personal Information about you from:
 information we receive from you or your agent;
 information about your transactions with FNF, our affiliates, or others; and  information we receive from consumer reporting agencies and/or governmental entities, either directly from these entities or through others.

Collection of Browsing Information
FNF automatically collects the following types of Browsing Information when you access an FNF website, online service, or application (each an “FNF Website”) from your Internet browser, computer, and/or device:
 Internet Protocol (IP) address and operating system;
 browser version, language, and type;
 domain name system requests; and
 browsing history on the FNF Website, such as date and time of your visit to the FNF Website and visits to the pages within the FNF Website.

Like most websites, our servers automatically log each visitor to the FNF Website and may collect the Browsing Information described above. We use Browsing Information for system administration, troubleshooting, fraud investigation, and to improve our websites.

Browsing Information generally does not reveal anything personal about you, though if you have created a user account for an FNF Website and are logged into that account, the FNF Website may be able to link certain browsing activity to your user account.

Other Online Specifics
Cookies. When you visit an FNF Website, a “cookie” may be sent to your computer. A cookie is a small piece of data that is sent to your Internet browser from a web server and stored on your computer’s hard drive. Information gathered using cookies helps us improve your user experience. For example, a cookie can help the website load properly or can customize the display page based on your browser type and user preferences. You can choose whether or not to accept cookies by changing your Internet browser settings. Be aware that doing so may impair or limit some functionality of the FNF Website.

Web Beacons. We use web beacons to determine when and how many times a page has been viewed. This information is used to improve our websites.

Do Not Track. Currently our FNF Websites do not respond to “Do Not Track” features enabled through your browser.

Links to Other Sites. FNF Websites may contain links to unaffiliated third-party websites. FNF is not responsible for the privacy practices or content of those websites. We recommend that you read the privacy policy of every website you visit.

Use of Personal Information
FNF uses Personal Information for three main purposes:
 To provide products and services to you or in connection with a transaction involving you.  To improve our products and services.
 To communicate with you about our, our affiliates’, and others’ products and services, jointly or independently.

When Information Is Disclosed
We may disclose your Personal Information and Browsing Information in the following circumstances:
 to enable us to detect or prevent criminal activity, fraud, material misrepresentation, or nondisclosure;  to nonaffiliated service providers who provide or perform services or functions on our behalf and who agree to use the information only to provide such services or functions;

FNF Privacy Statement (Eff. April 9, 2020) Copyright © 2020. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. All Rights Reserved MISC0219 (DSI Rev. 04/10/20) Page 2 Order No. 01004124-010-PA-KD  to nonaffiliated third party service providers with whom we perform joint marketing, pursuant to an agreement with them to jointly market financial products or services to you;
 to law enforcement or authorities in connection with an investigation, or in response to a subpoena or court order; or  in the good-faith belief that such disclosure is necessary to comply with legal process or applicable laws, or to protect the rights, property, or safety of FNF, its customers, or the public.

The law does not require your prior authorization and does not allow you to restrict the disclosures described above. Additionally, we may disclose your information to third parties for whom you have given us authorization or consent to make such disclosure. We do not otherwise share your Personal Information or Browsing Information with nonaffiliated third parties, except as required or permitted by law. We may share your Personal Information with affiliates (other companies owned by FNF) to directly market to you. Please see “Choices with Your Information” to learn how to restrict that sharing.

We reserve the right to transfer your Personal Information, Browsing Information, and any other information, in connection with the sale or other disposition of all or part of the FNF business and/or assets, or in the event of bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency, receivership, or an assignment for the benefit of creditors. By submitting Personal Information and/or Browsing Information to FNF, you expressly agree and consent to the use and/or transfer of the foregoing information in connection with any of the above described proceedings.

Security of Your Information
We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards to protect your Personal Information.

Choices With Your Information
If you do not want FNF to share your information among our affiliates to directly market to you, you may send an “opt out” request by email, phone, or physical mail as directed at the end of this Privacy Notice. We do not share your Personal Information with nonaffiliates for their use to direct market to you without your consent.

Whether you submit Personal Information or Browsing Information to FNF is entirely up to you. If you decide not to submit Personal Information or Browsing Information, FNF may not be able to provide certain services or products to you.

For California Residents: We will not share your Personal Information or Browsing Information with nonaffiliated third parties, except as permitted by California law. For additional information about your California privacy rights, please visit the “California Privacy” link on our website (https://fnf.com/pages/californiaprivacy.aspx) or call (888) 413-1748.

For Nevada Residents: You may be placed on our internal Do Not Call List by calling (888) 934-3354 or by contacting us via the information set forth at the end of this Privacy Notice. Nevada law requires that we also provide you with the following contact information: Bureau of Consumer Protection, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, 555 E. Washington St., Suite 3900, Las Vegas, NV 89101; Phone number: (702) 486-3132; email: [email protected].

For Oregon Residents: We will not share your Personal Information or Browsing Information with nonaffiliated third parties for marketing purposes, except after you have been informed by us of such sharing and had an opportunity to indicate that you do not want a disclosure made for marketing purposes.

For Vermont Residents: We will not disclose information about your creditworthiness to our affiliates and will not disclose your personal information, financial information, credit report, or health information to nonaffiliated third parties to market to you, other than as permitted by Vermont law, unless you authorize us to make those disclosures.

Information From Children
The FNF Websites are not intended or designed to attract persons under the age of eighteen (18).We do not collect Personal Information from any person that we know to be under the age of thirteen (13) without permission from a parent or guardian.

International Users
FNF’s headquarters is located within the United States. If you reside outside the United States and choose to provide Personal Information or Browsing Information to us, please note that we may transfer that information outside of your country of residence. By providing FNF with your Personal Information and/or Browsing Information, you consent to our collection, transfer, and use of such information in accordance with this Privacy Notice.

FNF Website Services for Mortgage Loans
Certain FNF companies provide services to mortgage loan servicers, including hosting websites that collect customer information on behalf of mortgage loan servicers (the “Service Websites”). The Service Websites may contain links to both this Privacy Notice and the mortgage loan servicer or lender’s privacy notice. The sections of this Privacy Notice titled When Information is Disclosed, Choices with Your Information, and Accessing and Correcting Information do not apply to the Service Websites. The mortgage loan servicer or lender’s privacy notice governs use, disclosure, and access to your Personal Information. FNF does not share Personal Information collected through the Service Websites, except as required or authorized by contract with the mortgage loan servicer or lender, or as required by law or in the good-faith belief that such disclosure is necessary: to comply with a legal process or applicable law, to enforce this Privacy Notice, or to protect the rights, property, or safety of FNF or the public.

FNF Privacy Statement (Eff. April 9, 2020) Copyright © 2020. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. All Rights Reserved MISC0219 (DSI Rev. 04/10/20) Page 3 Order No. 01004124-010-PA-KD Your Consent To This Privacy Notice; Notice Changes; Use of Comments or Feedback By submitting Personal Information and/or Browsing Information to FNF, you consent to the collection and use of the information in accordance with this Privacy Notice. We may change this Privacy Notice at any time. The Privacy Notice’s effective date will show the last date changes were made. If you provide information to us following any change of the Privacy Notice, that signifies your assent to and acceptance of the changes to the Privacy Notice. We may use comments or feedback that you submit to us in any manner without notice or compensation to you.

Accessing and Correcting Information; Contact Us
If you have questions, would like to correct your Personal Information, or want to opt-out of information sharing for affiliate marketing, send your requests to [email protected], by phone to (888) 934-3354, or by mail to:

Fidelity National Financial, Inc.
601 Riverside Avenue
Jacksonville, Florida 32204
Attn: Chief Privacy Officer
Fidelity National Title Company
1200 Concord Ave., #400, Concord, CA 94520
Phone: (925) 288-8000 Fax:

Notice of Available Discounts (Rev. 01-15-20) Last Saved: June 7, 2021 by TP MISC0164 (DSI Rev. 03/12/20) Escrow No.: 01004124-010-PA-KD Notice of Available Discounts
Pursuant to Section 2355.3 in Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("FNF") must deliver a notice of each discount available under our current rate filing along with the delivery of escrow instructions, a preliminary report or commitment. Please be aware that the provision of this notice does not constitute a waiver of the consumer's right to be charged the filed rate. As such, your transaction may not qualify for the below discounts.

You are encouraged to discuss the applicability of one or more of the below discounts with a Company representative. These discounts are generally described below; consult the rate manual for a full description of the terms, conditions and requirements for such discount. These discounts only apply to transactions involving services rendered by the FNF Family of Companies. This notice only applies to transactions involving property improved with a one-to-four family residential dwelling.

Not all discounts are offered by every FNF Company. The discount will only be applicable to the FNF Company as indicated by the named discount.

FNF Underwritten Title Company Underwritten by FNF Underwriters CTC – Chicago Title company CTIC – Chicago Title Insurance Company CLTC – Commonwealth Land Title Company CLTIC - Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company FNTC – Fidelity National Title Company of California FNTIC – Fidelity National Title Insurance Company FNTCCA - Fidelity National Title Company of California FNTIC - Fidelity National Title Insurance Company TICOR – Ticor Title Company of California CTIC – Chicago Title Insurance Company LTC – Lawyer’s Title Company CLTIC – Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company SLTC – ServiceLink Title Company CTIC – Chicago Title Insurance Company Available Discounts

DISASTER LOANS (CTIC, CLTIC, FNTIC)
The charge for a Lender's Policy (Standard or Extended coverage) covering the financing or refinancing by an owner of record, within twenty-four (24) months of the date of a declaration of a disaster area by the government of the United States or the State of California on any land located in said area, which was partially or totally destroyedin the disaster, will be fifty percent (50%) of the appropriatetitle insurance rate.

CHURCHES OR CHARITABLE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS (CTIC, FNTIC) On properties used as a church or for charitable purposes within the scope of the normal activities of such entities, provided said charge is normally the church's obligation the charge for an owner's policy shall be fifty percent (50%) to seventy percent (70%) of the appropriate title insurance rate, depending on the type of coverage selected. The charge for a lender's policy shall be forty (40%) to fifty percent (50%) of the appropriate title insurance rate, depending on the type of coverage selected.

Attachment One – CA (Rev. 05-06-16) Page 1
© California Land Title Association. All rights reserved.

ATTACHMENT ONE (Revised 05-06-16)

CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY – 1990

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building or zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien, or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.

2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge.

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the estate or interest insured by this policy.

4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated.

5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law.

6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate of interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws.

EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE - SCHEDULE B, PART I
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of:

1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records.

Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records.

2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof.

3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the public records.

4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records.

5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records.

6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the public records.

CLTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (12-02-13)

ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE

EXCLUSIONS
In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from:

1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of those portions of any law or government regulation concerning:
a. building;
b. zoning;
c. land use;
d. improvements on the Land;
e. land division; and
f. environmental protection.

This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 8.a., 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 or 27.

2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14 or 15.

3. The right to take the Land by condemning it. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 17.

4. Risks:
a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they are recorded in the Public Records; b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they are recorded in the Public Records at the Policy Date;

Attachment One – CA (Rev. 05-06-16) Page 2
© California Land Title Association. All rights reserved.

The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. c. that result in no loss to You; or
d. that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.e., 25, 26, 27 or 28.

5. Failure to pay value for Your Title.

6. Lack of a right:
a. to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land.

This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 21.

7. The transfer of the Title to You is invalid as a preferential transfer or as a fraudulent transfer or conveyance under federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws.

8. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence.

9. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances.

LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS
Your insurance for the following Covered Risks is limited on the Owner’s Coverage Statement as follows:
 For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19, and 21 Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A.

The deductible amounts and maximum dollar limits shown on Schedule A are as follows:

Your Deductible Amount
Our Maximum Dollar
Limit of Liability
Covered Risk 16: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500.00 (whichever is less)
$ 10,000.00
Covered Risk 18: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000.00 (whichever is less)
$ 25,000.00
Covered Risk 19: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000.00 (whichever is less)
$ 25,000.00
Covered Risk 21: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500.00 (whichever is less)
$ 5,000.00
2006 ALTA LOAN POLICY (06-17-06)

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.

2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 13 or 14); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage.

4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing-business laws of the state where the Land is situated.

5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law.

6. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b) of this policy.

7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Records. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11(b).

The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:

EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
{Except as provided in Schedule B - Part II,{ t{or T}his policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys’ fees or expenses, that arise by reason of:

Attachment One – CA (Rev. 05-06-16) Page 3
© California Land Title Association. All rights reserved.

The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. {PART I
{The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:

1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.

2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.

3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.

4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records.

6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the Public Records.}

PART II
In addition to the matters set forth in Part I of this Schedule, the Title is subject to the following matters, and the Company insures against loss or damage sustained in the event that they are not subordinate to the lien of the Insured Mortgage:} 2006 ALTA OWNER’S POLICY (06-17-06)

2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Title.

4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy.

5. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A.

EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys’ fees or expenses, that arise by reason of:
{The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:

2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown in the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.

3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.

6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the Public Records. }

7. {Variable exceptions such as taxes, easements, CC&R’s, etc. shown here.}

Attachment One – CA (Rev. 05-06-16) Page 4
© California Land Title Association. All rights reserved.

ALTA EXPANDED COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOAN POLICY – ASSESSMENTS PRIORITY (04-02-15)

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys’ fees or expenses which arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5, 6, 13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5, 6, 13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16.

2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 or 28); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage.

4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing-business laws of the state where the Land is situated.

5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury, or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 26.

6. Any claim of invalidity, unenforceability or lack of priority of the lien of the Insured Mortgage as to Advances or modifications made after the Insured has Knowledge that the vestee shown in Schedule A is no longer the owner of the estate or interest covered by this policy. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11.

7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching subsequent to Date of Policy. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11(b) or 25.

8. The failure of the residential structure, or any portion of it, to have been constructed before, on or after Date of Policy in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 5 or 6.

9. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 27(b) of this policy.

10. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence.

11. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances.

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104334 Page: 1 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104334 Page: 2 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104334 Page: 3 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104334 Page: 4 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104334 Page: 5 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104334 Page: 6 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104334 Page: 7 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104334 Page: 8 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104334 Page: 9 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104334 Page: 10 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104334 Page: 11 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104334 Page: 12 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104333 Page: 1 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104333 Page: 2 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104333 Page: 3 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104333 Page: 4 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104333 Page: 5 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104333 Page: 6 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104333 Page: 7 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104333 Page: 8 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104333 Page: 9 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104333 Page: 10 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104333 Page: 11 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 1998.104333 Page: 12 of 12 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38979 Page: 1 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38979 Page: 2 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38979 Page: 3 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38979 Page: 4 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38979 Page: 5 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38979 Page: 6 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38979 Page: 7 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38979 Page: 8 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38979 Page: 9 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38978 Page: 1 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38978 Page: 2 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38978 Page: 3 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38978 Page: 4 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38978 Page: 5 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38978 Page: 6 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38978 Page: 7 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38978 Page: 8 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Description: Placer,CA Document-Year.DocID 2014.38978 Page: 9 of 9 Order: 01004124 Comment:

Bid Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total
Traffic Control System LS 1 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00
Erosion Control LS 1 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00
Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00
Roadway Excavation CY 260 $ 65.00 $ 16,900.00
Imported Borrow CY 1560 $ 20.00 $ 31,200.00
Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 955 $ 80.00 $ 76,400.00
Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 527 $ 135.00 $ 71,145.00
12" Storm Drain LF 124 $ 200.00 $ 24,800.00
Raise Manhole To Grade EA 2 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00
Drain Inlet Type C EA 4 $ 4,000.00 $ 16,000.00
Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) SF 6240 $ 15.00 $ 93,600.00
Minor Concrete (Type 2 Curb and Gutter) LF 780 $ 70.00 $ 54,600.00 Mobilization LS 1 $ 41,464.50 $ 41,464.50
Total $ 456,109.50
Bid Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total
Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 43 $ 80.00 $ 3,440.00
Minor Concrete (Bus Pad) SF 129 $ 15.00 $ 1,935.00
Minor Concrete (Bus Turnout) SF 2880 $ 31.00 $ 89,280.00 Bus Shelter (Based on Current DIA for Bus Shelters) EA 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Mobilization LS 1 $ 10,465.50 $ 10,465.50
Total $ 115,120.50
Roseville Parkway Frontage DIA
Roseville Parkway Bus Stop DIA

Roseville Parkway Extension Project
Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, California 95678
roseville.ca.us

Development Services Department
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, California 95678-2649
(916) 774-5285

NOTICE OF INTENT

TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: City of Roseville
DATE: July 20, 2020
REGARDING: Roseville Parkway Extension Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Notice is hereby given that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (environmental report) for the Roseville Parkway Extension Project is available for public review.

Project Location and Description: The City of Roseville is proposing to construct the Roseville Parkway Extension Project, which would extend Roseville Parkway by approximately 0.75 mile, from its current terminus at Washington Boulevard westerly to Foothills Boulevard.

The project consists of the following main components.
 Approximately 0.75 mile of new arterial road between Washington Boulevard on the east and Foothills Boulevard on the west.
 A new overpass of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks and Industrial Avenue.  Intersection improvements at the Roseville Parkway/Washington Boulevard and Roseville Parkway/Foothills Boulevard intersections.
 Minor improvements to the east side of the existing roundabout located west of the Roseville Parkway/Foothills Boulevard intersection.
 Bicycle and pedestrian improvements, including an 8-foot wide sidewalk on the north side of Roseville Parkway and a 10-foot wide multi use path on the south.

Document Review and Availability: The public comment period will extend 20 days from July 24 to August 13, 2020. The document can also be reviewed and/or downloaded from the City of Roseville website at the following link: http://www.roseville.ca.us/ParkwayExtension.

Copies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for public review, by appointment, at the City of Roseville Permit Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678. To schedule an appointment online:
roseville.ca.us/DS-appointment or call (916) 774-5285.

Written comments on the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received no later than 5:00 pm on August 13, 2020. During the public review period written comments may be provided to:

Terri Shirhall, Environmental Coordinator ([email protected]) Development Services Department
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
(916) 774-5536

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project i July 2020ICF 00041.20 Contents
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... iv List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... v Chapter 1 Introduction and Summary ............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 CEQA Lead Agency ........................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1-2 Chapter 2 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Background .......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Project Location and Existing Conditions ......................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Project Purpose, Need, and Objectives ........................................................................... 2-2

2.4 Proposed Project Components ........................................................................................ 2-2

2.4.1 Roseville Parkway Road Improvements and Right-of-Way Acquisitions ......................... 2-2

2.4.2 Union Pacific Railroad and Industrial Avenue Overpass .................................................. 2-3

2.4.3 Traffic Signal and Intersection Improvements ................................................................. 2-4

2.4.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements ............................................................................ 2-5

2.4.5 Utility Relocations ............................................................................................................ 2-6

2.5 Construction Approach .................................................................................................... 2-6

2.5.1 Equipment and Material Staging Areas ........................................................................... 2-7

2.5.2 Earthwork and Grading .................................................................................................... 2-7

2.5.3 Construction Traffic Control ............................................................................................ 2-8

2.5.4 Project Schedule .............................................................................................................. 2-8

2.6 Best Management Practices ............................................................................................ 2-8

2.6.1 Construction Best Management Practices ...................................................................... 2-9

2.6.2 City of Roseville Mitigating Ordinances, Guidelines, and Standards ............................. 2-12

2.7 Required Approvals ........................................................................................................ 2-12 Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist.................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................... 3-2

3.2 Determination .................................................................................................................. 3-3

3.2.1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.2.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ................................................................................ 3-7

3.2.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.2.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 3-23 City of Roseville Contents
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project ii July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-50

3.2.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................ 3-60

3.2.7 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 3-62

3.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 3-70

3.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................. 3-74

3.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................ 3-80

3.2.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................... 3-85

3.2.12 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-88

3.2.13 Noise .............................................................................................................................. 3-90

3.2.14 Population and Housing ............................................................................................... 3-100

3.2.15 Public Services .............................................................................................................. 3-102

3.2.16 Recreation .................................................................................................................... 3-105

3.2.17 Transportation ............................................................................................................. 3-107

3.2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 3-115

3.2.19 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................................... 3-121

3.2.20 Wildfire ........................................................................................................................ 3-125

3.2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................. 3-127 Appendix A Air Quality
Appendix B Noise
Appendix C Traffic
City of Roseville Contents
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project iii July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Tables
Page
2-1 Construction Phasing .............................................................................................................. 2-7 2-2 Permits and Approvals Needed for the Proposed Project ................................................... 2-12 3-1 Placer County Air Pollution Control District Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Thresholds (pounds per day) ................................................................................................ 3-12 3-2 Estimated Unmitigated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Project Construction (pounds per day) .................................................................................................................. 3-13 3-3 Estimated Mitigated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Project Construction (pounds per day) .................................................................................................................. 3-14 3-4 Estimated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Project Operation (pounds per day) ............. 3-15 3-5 Conservative Estimate of Increased Regional Health Effect Incidence Resulting from Construction of the Project (cases per year) ............................................................... 3-18 3-6 Sensitive Plant Species Known or with Potential to Occur in the Project Region ................ 3-31 3-7 Sensitive Wildlife Species Known or with Potential to Occur in the Project Region ............ 3-37 3-8 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Project Construction (metric tons per year) ............................................................................................................................... 3-72 3-9 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Project Operation (metric tons per year) ...................................................................................................................................... 3-72 3-10 Vibration Source Levels for Demolition and Construction Equipment ................................ 3-91 3-11 Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria ................................................... 3-92 3-12 Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria ............................................................... 3-92 3-13 Maximum Allowable Noise Levels from Transportation Sources ........................................ 3-93 3-14 Hourly Noise Level Performance Criteria for Nontransportation Noise Sources ................. 3-94 3-15 Commonly Used Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels ....................................... 3-95 3-16 Construction Noise Levels by Activity and Distance to Allowable Sound Levels ................. 3-96 3-17 Intersection Level of Service Criteria .................................................................................. 3-110 3-18 Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................................. 3-111 City of Roseville Contents
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project iv July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Figures
Follows Page
1-1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................... 1-2 1-2 Project Location ...................................................................................................................... 1-2 2-1 Road Alignment ...................................................................................................................... 2-2 2-2 Right-of-Way and Slope Easement Requirements ................................................................. 2-4 3-1 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 3-26 3-2 Project Vicinity .................................................................................................................... 3-110 3-3 Study Intersections, Traffic Control, and Lane Geometries ............................................... 3-110 3-4 Existing (2020) Conditions Peak-Hour Volumes ................................................................. 3-110 3-5 Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project Conditions Peak-Hour Volumes ....................... 3-110 City of Roseville Contents
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project v July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADMP asbestos dust mitigation plan
AB Assembly Bill
ADT average daily traffic
BP before present
BMP best management practice
CAAQS California ambient air quality standards
Cal-OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 methane
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CNEL community noise equivalent level
cy cubic yards
dB decibel
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
ESA Endangered Species Act
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
Farmland Farmland of Statewide Importance
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
HAER Historic American Engineering Record
City of Roseville Contents
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project vi July 2020
ICF 00041.20
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HFC hydrofluorocarbons
in/sec inches per second
IS/MND initial study/mitigated negative declaration
Ldn day-night sound level
Leq equivalent sound level
Lmin minimum sound level
Lmax maximum sound level
LOS level of service
Madrone Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MRF Materials Recovery Facility
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MSAT mobile source air toxic
MTP/SCS Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS national ambient air quality standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NOA naturally occurring asbestos
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NSR new source review
Pb lead
PCAPCD Placer County Air Pollution Control District
PCTPA Placer County Transportation Planning Agency
PFC perfluorocarbon
PPV peak particle velocity
ROG reactive organic gases
Roseville Electric Roseville Electric Utility
proposed project Roseville Parkway Extension Project
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SACOG Sacramento Council of Governments
City of Roseville Contents
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project vii July 2020
ICF 00041.20
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SFNA Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s Ozone Plan Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan
SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
SB Senate Bill
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SSBMI Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians
SVAB Sacramento Valley Air Basin
SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminants
UAIC United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VMT vehicle miles traveled

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 1-1 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Chapter 1
Introduction and Summary

1.1 Introduction
This document is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) that addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Roseville Parkway Extension Project (proposed project) proposed by the City of Roseville (City). The proposed project involves building an extension of the Roseville Parkway to provide a connection to Foothills Boulevard (Figure 1-1). This would involve construction of an overpass at the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks and Industrial Avenue.

The project site is located between Foothills Boulevard on the west and Washington Boulevard on the east in north Roseville (Figure 1-2). The site is within the North Industrial area and is designated Industrial and Light Industrial in the City of Roseville General Plan 2035. The site is bordered to the east by the North Central Roseville Specific Plan area. The North Industrial area is bordered to the south by the Northwest Roseville Specific Plan area, and to the west by the North Roseville Specific Plan area. The northern border of the North Industrial area is also the border of the Roseville city limits.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15004 of the State CEQA Guidelines encourage early completion of environmental documentation to enable environmental considerations to influence project design. This IS/MND is a public information document that discloses the proposed project’s environmental effects and informs decision makers of the project’s compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

This document describes the proposed project’s goals and background, project components, the existing environmental setting (i.e., conditions before implementation of the project), and the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Chapter 2, Project Description, describes the proposed project and the best management practice (BMP) measures that the City has incorporated into the proposed project to avoid and minimize potential effects. Chapter 3, Environmental Checklist, identifies the anticipated environmental impacts by topic and provides mitigation measures that would be implemented to avoid significant impacts.

1.2 CEQA Lead Agency
The City of Roseville—the lead agency for the proposed project under CEQA— determined that preparation of an IS/MND was necessary to evaluate the City of Roseville Introduction and Summary
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 1-2 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
environmental issues associated with the proposed project and satisfy the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The IS/MND is available for public review at the following location:

City of Roseville Permit Center
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
Due to COVID-19 concerns, the Permit Center is currently only open Tuesdays and Thursdays and the hours for in-person document review may be limited. Therefore, the public is encouraged to check the City’s website first to ensure in-office accommodations are available: https://www.roseville.ca.us.

Alternatively, the IS/MND can also be viewed or downloaded from the City’s website via the following link:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=8774505 During the review period, written comments may be submitted to:

Ms. Terri Shirhall, Environmental Coordinator
City of Roseville, Development Services Department
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
Or via email to: [email protected]

1.3 Summary
This IS/MND concludes that the proposed project would have potentially significant but mitigable impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and paleontological resources, as described in Chapter 3. This IS/MND identifies a variety of mitigation measures that the City would implement to avoid or minimize potentially significant impacts on sensitive environmental resources. Implementation of these measures, in addition to project BMPs, would further reduce the potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

SACRAMENTO
COUNTY

EL DORADO
COUNTY
PLACER
COUNTY
SUTTER
COUNTY
Sacramento
Elk Grove
El Dorado
Folsom Hills
Carmichael
Roseville
Rocklin
Loomis
Granite Bay
Newcastle
North
Highlands
Citrus
Heights
Rancho
Cordova
Lincoln
Auburn
Folsom
Lake
Washington Blvd UPRR
UPRR
UPRR
UPRR
UPRR
UPRR
Foothills Blvd
Roseville Pkwy
16 49
65 65
49 99
193
80 80
80 5
50 Project Location

CALIFORNIA
San
Francisco
Sacramento Roseville
Auburn
South Lake Tahoe
Stockton
Modesto
Truckee
Lake Tahoe
Project Location
Figure 1-1
Regional Location
Graphics … 00041.20 (6/23/20) AB
Miles
0 1 2 3 4 5

―│
―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―
―│
―│
―│
―│
│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│ ―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│
―│ ―│ ―│ ―│
―│ ―│
―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│
―│ ―│



―│
―│
│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│ ―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
..
.
. .
.
.
. ...
..
.. .
. .
.
.
.
.
. . .
. . .
. .
.
. . . .
. .
.
.
.
. . .
. .
.
.
.
.
. . . .
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. . . .
.
.
. . . . .
.
. .
.
. .
. . .. .
.
..
. .
.
.
.. .
. . . . .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
..
. .
.
. . .
.
.
. . .
. . . .
.
. . .
. .
. .
.
. . . ...
. .
.
...
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. . . .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. . . . .
. . .
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
. . .. . . . . .
.
.
. .
.
..
.
.
. . .
.
. .
.
. . .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. ..
.. . . .
.
. . .
. ..
.
. . . .
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
. . .
.
. . .
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.. . ..
. . . .
. .
.
.
. .
.
. . . . . .
. . .
..
.
. .
.
. . .
.
. .
. .
. ..
.
. .
.. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
. . .
. . . .
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. . . .
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
. . . .
. .
.
. ..
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
. . . . .
.
.
.
. .
. . .
.
.
..
. .
.
.
.
.
. ..
. .
. .
.
.
○
○
○
○
^
▄n
▄n
▄n
▄n
▄n
▄n
▄n
▄n
▄n
▄n
▄n
▄n
▄n
▄n
▄n
▄n
▄n
▄n
▄n
F
F
F
150
200
150
150
150
150
150
1 150
150
150
150
100
150
150
200
100
150
150
150
150
R

PLEASANT GROVE BL

TURNSTONE WAY

DLOW DR

BLACK BEAR ST
M
ER CIR

DEREK PL

SHASTA ST

GREY BUNNY DR

LINCOLN ST

PARKSIDE WAY

FIRESTONE
DR

WINDING CREEK RD

NORTHPARK DR

MISTY WOOD DR
ATL

MANZA CI

CORONADO AVE

HORNCASTLE AVE

MAIN ST
«¬65
OLD HWY 65
OA

OAK GROVE DR

FUHRMAN WAY

CHILTON DR LORIMER WAY

CORTINA CIR

TAHOE AVE

HERITAGE DR

JUNCTION BLVD

SIERRA BLVD

NIBLICK DR

EVERGREEN DR
PA

GRIDER DR

PLEASANT ST

ARTISAN CI

FOOTHILLS BLVD

SAMMY WA

ACTON WAY

CANEVARI DR

DANIELLE DR

CRESCENT DR

TREASURE LN

AINSDALE DR
CASAS

BLUE LN

W O ODHAV E RI C N

LONGF E LLOW CIR

MANZANITA AVE

REDWOOD DR

INDUSTRIAL AVE

KASEBERG DR

SAWTELL RD

LOON LAKE ST

NICKLAUS
CIR

KRPAN DR
OLD HWY 65

BLUE OAKS BL

BLUE OAKS BLVD

ALBATROSS WAY

ROSEVILLE PKWY

LAWTON AVE

CRESTFIELD CIR

DULUTH AVE
N DR

HALLISSEY DR

BASE LINE RD

MERIDIAN WAY

REVERE DR

CARAGH ST

FOX HOLLOW WAY
HANIS

DIAMOND WOODS CIR

POOL LN

ON LOOP

LAPORTE
DR

PORTER DR

MILLPORT DR

HOVEY WAY

CAPISTRANO

WOODCREEK OAKS BLVD
GIBS

FIFTEEN MILE DR

OAKBOROUGH AVE

HANCOCK DR

LAFAYETTE DR

DIAMOND OAKS RD

ARNOLD DR

GO FOR BROKE RD

DEERFIELD CIR
R

TALMONT
CIR

CALDARELLA CIR

S BLUFF DR

PRESTON C RI

BLUE OAKS BLVD

KINGSWOOD DR

BIG BEAR DR

SUNNINGDALE DR

MCRAE WAY
ADO

ELEFA ST
LO

MCNALLY DR

WAKE FIELD DR

TREHOWELL DR

BETTENCOURT DR

COUNTRY CLUB DR

GALILEE RD

HIGHLAND

WASHINGTO
«¬65

CASSIA WAY

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD

ANTRIM DR

PROVIDENCE WAY

BRENNEN C RI

SNAPDRAGON LN

LONETREE BL
RPE DR

PILGRIMS DR

BADOVINAC DR

CARGILL WAY

MARCIA WAY

SIENNALOOP

AMERICANA DR

LONG CREEK WAY

NICHOLS DR

GROVE ST

QUAILS NEST ST

W OAKS BLVD

FOOTHILLS BLVD

LONGTREE BLVD
Pleasant Grove Cr
S Br Pleasant Grove Cr
Pleasant Grove Cr
Sierra
Vista
Bridge

ROSEVILLE
UPRR
UPRR

FOOTHILLS BLVD

WASHINGTON BLVD
Project Location

WOODCREEK OAKS BLVD

ROSEVILLE PKWY
0 1,000 3,000 Feet
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 Mile
2,000 4,000 5,000

1.0 6,000
Scale = 1:24,000
Base Map: US Topo 7.5' series Roseville, California quadrangle (2018) Figure 1-2
Project Location
Graphics … 00041.20 (6/23/20) AB

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 2-1 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Chapter 2
Project Description

2.1 Project Background
The City of Roseville (City) proposes to construct the Roseville Parkway Extension Project (proposed project) in the North Industrial Planning area of the city of Roseville, California (Figure 1-1). The proposed project would extend Roseville Parkway by approximately 0.75 mile from its current terminus at Washington Boulevard west to Foothills Boulevard. The project includes construction of an overpass of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks and Industrial Avenue, which run parallel to one another at the crossing location. The proposed project is identified in the City of Roseville Transportation System Capital Improvement Program and General Plan Transportation Element and associated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents.

2.2 Project Location and Existing Conditions
The proposed project would be constructed on approximately 12 acres of primarily City-owned property in north Roseville, in western Placer County, California. The project site is located between Foothills Boulevard on the west, and Washington Boulevard on the east. Blue Oaks Boulevard lies approximately 0.5 mile north, and Pleasant Grove Boulevard lies approximately 1 mile south of the project alignment (Figure 1-2). The project area is zoned for general industrial and light industrial uses.

The project site falls within the Roseville 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangle map in Section 21 of Township 11 North, Range 6, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.

The project site is currently dominated by annual grasslands. Industrial development borders the site along most of the south boundary, and along the eastern third of the north boundary. Industrial Avenue and the UPRR tracks transect the project site in a north/south direction.

The Highland Reserve residential development is located near the project’s eastern end, along the east side of Washington Boulevard and along both sides of existing Roseville Parkway. Vencil Brown Park and Elementary School are located approximately 0.6 mile east of the project at the southwest corner of Roseville Parkway and Trestle Road. Buljan Middle School is approximately 0.5 mile south of the project, at the southeast corner of the Washington Boulevard/Hallissy Drive intersection.

City of Roseville Project Description
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 2-2 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

2.3 Project Purpose, Need, and Objectives
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve existing and future traffic conditions consistent with the City’s adopted plans; enhance access and safety for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists; and meet railroad clearance requirements.

2.4 Proposed Project Components
The proposed project consists of the following main components.  Approximately 0.75 mile of new arterial road between Washington Boulevard on the east and Foothills Boulevard on the west.
 A new overpass of the UPRR tracks and Industrial Avenue.  Intersection improvements at the Roseville Parkway/Washington Boulevard and Roseville Parkway/Foothills Boulevard intersections.
 Minor improvements to the east side of the existing roundabout located west of the Roseville Parkway/Foothills Boulevard intersection. Improvements include modifications to the existing center median, curb and gutter on the east side of the roundabout and associated restriping to conform with these improvements.  Bicycle and pedestrian improvements, including an 8-foot-wide sidewalk on the north side of Roseville Parkway and a 10-foot-wide multi-use path on the south.

Each project component is described in greater detail below. Figure 2-1 provides an overview of these components.

2.4.1 Roseville Parkway Road Improvements and Rightof-Way Acquisitions The project includes construction of approximately 0.75 mile of new arterial road, with four travel lanes, raised median with related utility relocations and storm drain improvements, between Washington Boulevard on the east and Foothills Boulevard on the west. Concrete curbs would define the new edge of roadway and separate vehicular traffic from pedestrians. The new road cross section would include two travel lanes in each direction (12 and 11 feet wide), followed by 5-foot-wide on-street Class II bike lanes. The travel lanes would be followed by a 3-foot curb and gutter backed by a 10-foot-wide sidewalk/Class I multi-use path on the south side of the new Roseville Parkway.

On the project’s west end, the existing south side driveway providing access to the Roseville RV Storage business would remain. Opposite this driveway on the north side, a new driveway would be constructed as part of roadway improvements to connect with the future extension of Niblick Drive. A third driveway would be Graphics … 00041.20 (7/16/20) AB
Figure 2-1
Road Alignment
Source: Mark Thomas, 2020. Not to Scale

City of Roseville Project Description
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 2-3 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
constructed near the project’s east end on the roadway’s south side to retain continued access to the existing Roseville RV Storage business.

Most of the right-of-way and slope easement required for project construction is City owned. However, as shown in Figure 2-2, expansion of existing right-of-way and slope easement would be required to implement the project.

On the west end between Niblick Drive and UPRR, small areas of right-of-way acquisitions (between 10 and 30 feet wide) are required on both the north and south sides of the proposed road alignment. On the north and south sides of the western approach ramp, between 25 and 35 feet of additional fill slope easement is required.

These acquisitions would not affect existing development.

On the east, between Industrial Avenue and Washington Boulevard, right-of-way acquisition (between 10 and 30 feet) would be required along the entire north side of the proposed alignment. On the north side of the eastern approach ramp, between 25 and 35 feet of additional fill slope easement would also be required. East side right-of-way acquisitions would affect existing parking lot landscape areas, but would not require removal of existing parking spaces.

2.4.2 Union Pacific Railroad and Industrial Avenue
Overpass
The UPRR and Industrial Avenue overpass would be comprised of engineered fill approach ramps on the east and west sides and a concrete bridge structure. All improvements would be located outside the existing railroad 100-foot right-of-way and the proposed design accommodates the potential future widening of Industrial Avenue from two to four lanes without need for future overpass modification. The bridge structure would be 300 feet long, supported by concrete abutments and wingwalls, and would provide a minimum of 23.5 feet of clearance between the existing UPRR rails and bridge soffit. The bridge concrete surface could include some type of relief or other aesthetic treatments consistent with a design theme to be developed (for example, to mimic the appearance of an old-style Works Progress Administration bridge or other theme). There is also opportunity for incorporating architectural enhancements, color, and features into the concrete facade to provide additional visual interest and character for the structure. The bridge would include a concrete barrier on the south side between the multi-use path and travel lanes and would maintain the same road cross section striping, lane widths, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities as the adjoining roadway.

City of Roseville Project Description
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 2-4 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

2.4.3 Traffic Signal and Intersection Improvements
Proposed intersection improvements are shown on Figure 2-1 and described below.

2.4.3.1 Roseville Parkway/Foothills Boulevard
Improvements at this intersection would include the following.

West Leg. Elimination of the eastbound number 1 left turn lane to accommodate construction of a new raised center median. The resulting improvements would provide one eastbound left turn lane, two eastbound through lanes, one dedicated right turn lane, and an on-street striped Class II bike lane.

East Leg. Existing lane striping would remain unchanged; however, a new signal mast arm would be installed on the westbound approach. Existing striping includes two westbound left turn lanes, two through lanes, one dedicated right turn lane, and an on-street striped Class II bike lane.

North Leg. A southbound number 1 left turn lane currently exists but is closed and would be opened as part of the project. Therefore, the improvements would result in two southbound left turn lanes, two through lanes, one dedicated right turn lane, and an on-street striped Class II bike lane.

South Leg. Existing lane striping would remain unchanged. Existing striping includes two northbound left turn lanes, two through lanes, one dedicated right turn lane, and an on-street striped Class II bike lane.

2.4.3.2 Roundabout
West of the above intersection improvements, where Roseville Parkway transitions to the adjacent roundabout, the following improvements would be implemented. The center median would be realigned and reconstructed; the westbound north curb and gutter would be realigned and reconstructed to improve operations; the lanes entering and leaving the roundabout on the east side would be restriped to conform with the above changes.

2.4.3.3 Roseville Parkway/Washington Boulevard
Improvements at this intersection would include the following.

West Leg. Reconstruction of the north and south curb, gutter, and sidewalk west of Washington Boulevard to accommodate the widened roadway; construction of a new raised center median on the eastbound approach; construction of a new free right turn lane; and installation of new traffic signal/mast arms on the Roseville Parkway eastbound approach. These improvements would result in two eastbound left turn lanes, two through lanes, one free right turn lane, and a striped on-street Class II bike lane.

Graphics … 00041.20 (6/23/20) AB
Figure 2-2
Right-of-Way and Slope Easement Requirements
Source: Mark Thomas, 2020. Not to Scale

City of Roseville Project Description
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 2-5 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
East Leg. Two westbound turn lanes and a free right turn lane are existing and would be retained as part of the project. In addition, two westbound through lanes exist but are currently closed and would be opened as part of the project. Two eastbound lanes and a receiving lane for the existing Washington Boulevard free right turn currently exist and would also be retained. Therefore, planned improvements would result in two southbound left turn lanes, two through lanes, one free right turn lane, and an on-street striped Class II bike lane.

North Leg. One southbound left turn lane, one through lane, and one dedicated right turn lane are existing (although the dedicated right turn lane is currently closed). The project would reconstruct the west curb, gutter, and sidewalk, extend and open the dedicated southbound right turn lane, and add a new through lane and left turn lane. Therefore, planned improvements would result in two southbound left turn lanes, two through lanes, one free right turn lane, and an on-street striped Class II bike lane.

South Leg. One left turn lane, two through lanes, one free right turn lane, and one on-street Class II bike lane currently exist on the northbound approach. One through lane, one receiving lane for the Roseville Parkway eastbound dedicated right turn, and one multi-use trail on the east side of Washington Boulevard currently exist in the southbound direction. The project would reconstruct the west curb, gutter, and sidewalk to accommodate a new Roseville Parkway eastbound free right turn lane and associated Washington Boulevard southbound merge lane. Therefore, planned improvements on the south leg would result in one northbound left turn lane, two northbound through lanes, one southbound free right turn lane, and on-street striped Class II bike lanes. In the south direction there would be two through lanes and one receiving merge lane to accommodate the Roseville Parkway westbound free right movement.

2.4.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
Roseville Parkway road and bridge construction would include on-street 5-foot Class II Bike Lanes in each direction, a 10-foot multi-use path on the south side of the roadway, and an 8-foot sidewalk on the north side.

At the Roseville Parkway/Foothills Boulevard intersection the existing crosswalks would remain in their current location.

At the Roseville Parkway/Washington Boulevard intersection, new pedestrian crosswalks would be striped across the intersection’s west, north, and south legs and the existing crosswalk on the intersection’s east leg would remain. Therefore, planned improvements would result in pedestrian crosswalks on all legs of the intersection.

City of Roseville Project Description
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 2-6 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Finally, as shown on Figure 2-1, a new approximately 450-foot-long 10-foot-wide multi-use path could potentially be constructed to link Industrial Avenue with Roseville Parkway near the east end of the eastern approach ramp.

2.4.5 Utility Relocations
Existing overhead electric transmission and telecommunication lines located between Industrial Avenue and the UPRR would require relocation to avoid conflict with the proposed bridge. The high-voltage lines would be elevated using taller steel poles to span the new bridge, while the low-voltage lines would be routed underground along the same alignment in order to reduce the required height of the new steel poles. Existing underground lines within the proposed footprint of the eastern bridge embankment would require relocation. In addition, several telecommunication lines owned by Consolidated Communications, Verizon, and Level 3 also currently exist within the proposed road alignment and may require relocation. Any relocations would remain along the roadway alignment and reinstalled at a depth of approximately 6 feet.

There are existing gas lines within the proposed road alignment that may require relocation based on current depth and allowable placement of fill. Any relocations would be buried to a depth of approximately 3 feet and would remain along the proposed roadway alignment within identified disturbance areas.

Storm drain, domestic water, reclaimed water, and sanitary sewer pipes also exist within the proposed road alignment. It is anticipated these pipes would remain in place and the manholes or valves adjusted to grade. Storm drain facilities constructed as part of the proposed road extension would tie into and discharge to existing storm drain facilities.

2.5 Construction Approach
Construction activities would take place between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, in compliance with the City noise ordinance. The general construction phases, duration, and associated activities are identified in Table 2-1. It is anticipated that portions of Phases 2 and 3 would overlap and include concurrent construction activity.

City of Roseville Project Description
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 2-7 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Table 2-1. Construction Phasing
Phase Activity
Phase 1 – Pre-construction
activities, mobilization and
site layout
Establish control points, survey and field stake construction limits Install environmental sensitive fencing and employ pre-construction best management practices.

Clear and establish staging areas and temporary construction access roads.

Mobilize heavy equipment, receive and stockpile construction equipment and supplies. Should material become available, this may involve early placement and stockpiling of soil for approach ramp construction (i.e., prior to initiation of Phase 1 construction).

Phase 2 – Grading and fill
import
Clear, grub, and remove vegetation from work area.

Conduct initial road grading activities, construct below-ground drainage facilities.

Construct overpass approach ramps.

Establish final road grades and fill slope limits.

Phase 3 – Construct road
and bridge improvements
Construct curb, gutter, sidewalk, and erosion control drainage facilities; lay aggregate base and pave.

Form bridge abutment headwalls and bridge deck and pour concrete.

Phase 4 – Construction
closure activities
Clean up, demobilize, open roadway.

2.5.1 Equipment and Material Staging Areas
Equipment and material staging would occur within designated locations within the project site. In addition, the contractor may choose to establish additional staging areas through agreement with private property owners on land adjacent to, or near the project site. Staging areas would accommodate fueling and maintenance areas for equipment, along with designated areas for material storage. Section 2.6, Best Management Practices, outlines the best management practices (BMP) that would be implemented to minimize potential construction-related water quality impacts and ensure compliance with requirements of the project’s stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Prior to initiation of the construction contract, soil from nearby construction projects may become available to the proposed project for use as approach ramp fill. Should this occur, the City may allow placement and stockpiling of acceptable material within the approach ramp footprints.

2.5.2 Earthwork and Grading
The project site topography is relatively flat and only minor grading would be required to prepare the site for construction. All grading would be conducted using conventional grading equipment. Initial earthwork would include clearing and grubbing to remove vegetation and prepare the ground for construction. Consistent with the City’s grading ordinance, all grading would be limited to designated work areas. Finish grading would be achieved by motor graders (blades) and skip loaders.

City of Roseville Project Description
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 2-8 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
The majority of earthwork would involve soil import and compaction to ready the road base and build up the overpass approach ramps. The project requires approximately 165,000 cubic yards of fill import, primarily for the overpass approach ramps. It’s expected that excess soil from local development projects would provide a portion of this material. The balance would be obtained from available commercial supplies.

Construction BMPs specified in the SWPPP would be implemented during earthwork to control dust and protect nearby aquatic resources from siltation associated with stormwater runoff.

2.5.3 Construction Traffic Control
The majority of project construction would not affect existing pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities or existing Foothill or Washington Boulevard vehicle travel lanes.

However, during construction of intersection improvements, temporary lane shifting or temporary lane closures would be implemented as necessary with the assistance of construction signage and/or flaggers consistent with standard traffic handling practices. This could also include temporary detours for pedestrian and bicyclists routing through intersections during paving and restriping activities; however, controlled vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle access through affected intersections would be maintained at all times.

2.5.4 Project Schedule
Project construction is scheduled to begin in August 2021 and proceed according to the phases described in Table 2-1. The only exception is the possibility for early placement of construction approach ramp fill material, which could become available and be placed in 2020. Construction is expected to take approximately 10 to 12 months with a scheduled roadway opening date of Spring 2022 pending funding availability.

2.6 Best Management Practices
Water quality measures (stormwater management measures and BMPs) would be implemented as part of the project to minimize potential water quality impacts during construction, operation, and maintenance. Key management measures consist of the following:
 Protect areas that provide important water quality benefits or are particularly susceptible to erosion or sediment loss.
 Minimize the potential for erosion by limiting land disturbances such as clearing, grading, and cut and fill.

City of Roseville Project Description
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 2-9 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
 Limit disturbance of natural drainage features and vegetation.  Prepare and implement an approved SWPPP.
 Ensure proper storage and disposal of toxic material.  Incorporate pollution prevention into operation and maintenance procedures to reduce pollutant loadings to surface runoff.

2.6.1 Construction Best Management Practices
The City and its contractor will implement construction BMPs to avoid and minimize impacts on sensitive environmental resources. Implementation of the Erosion Control Plan, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and associated SWPPP, and the BMPs as discussed below will minimize the potential for construction-related surface water pollution and ensure that water quality in off-site waterways and wetlands would not be compromised by erosion and sedimentation during construction.

Temporary Fencing. Where appropriate, the City’s contractor will install construction barrier fencing (including sediment fencing and straw wattles) to prevent contaminants and debris from entering off-site surface waters. Before construction begins, the City or its contractor will identify the locations for the barrier fencing and mark those locations with stakes or flagging.

SWPPP. A SWPPP will be implemented as part of the NPDES Permit and a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit to minimize the potential for sediments or contaminants to enter off-site waterways.

Equipment. The City will comply with applicable stormwater ordinances, stormwater management plans, and BMPs to prevent or minimize the potential release of equipment-related petroleum contaminants into adjacent surface waters and groundwater. Implementation of standard construction procedures and precautions for working with petroleum and construction chemicals will further ensure that the impacts related to chemical handling during project construction will be minor.

Hazardous Materials. The City will implement appropriate hazardous material management practices and other good housekeeping measures to reduce the potential for chemical spills or releases of contaminants, including any nonstormwater discharge to adjacent surface waters. Implementation of these measures will minimize the potential for surface and groundwater contamination.

Erosion Control. The project design will incorporate permanent erosion control elements to ensure that stormwater runoff does not cause soil erosion. Erosion and sediment control plans will comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance, which requires reducing erosion and retaining sediment on-site.

City of Roseville Project Description
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 2-10 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Toxic Materials Control and Spill Response Plan. The following measures will be incorporated into the plan and implemented to avoid or minimize the risk of spills or discharges of toxic materials into adjacent surface waters.  Prepare a hazardous material spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan before construction and implement during construction.
 Prevent raw cement, concrete or concrete washings, asphalt, paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances that could be hazardous to aquatic life from contaminating the soil or entering off-site surface waters.
 Prevent discharge of drilling mud and fluids into off-site surface waters by using appropriate containment, disposal, and storage methods.  Prevent discharge of turbid water or sediment-laden runoff to off-site surface waters by using sediment filters, diverting the water to a settling tank, and/or implementing other erosion and water quality control BMPs.  Clean up all spills immediately according to the spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan.
 Provide areas located outside of sensitive environmental areas for staging and storing equipment, materials, fuels, lubricants, solvents, and other possible contaminants.
 Prevent hazardous materials from entering waters. The construction contractor will notify the City Fire Department if evidence of soil or groundwater contamination is encountered during construction activities. Construction in that area will be halted until the Fire Department has evaluated the find and remediation is completed, if necessary.

2.6.1.1 Traffic Management Plan
The City will require the construction contractor to implement a traffic management plan, including a construction schedule and plan to meet the City’s notice procedures, before construction activities are initiated. This plan will identify general methods by which construction activities will be managed to minimize substantial delays to traffic as discussed below.

Communication. Develop and implement a public information campaign that describes the nature and duration of construction activities and when construction related temporary “controlled conditions” and/or travel delays are expected.

Particular attention will be placed on special events (e.g., school graduations or Placer County Fairgrounds events) that may attract unfamiliar users to the City’s roadway system. The City is currently doing public outreach and will continue the outreach program throughout project design and construction.

City of Roseville Project Description
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 2-11 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Construction. Describe and analyze the number of employees and their site parking areas, and the number of trucks, their routing and staging, and operating hours.

Wayfinding. Position and operate changeable message sign trailers at strategic locations and employ other temporary signage as necessary to advise motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists of pending construction activities and alternate routes.

Emergency Vehicle Response. The contractor will coordinate with City Police and Fire Departments to ensure that all potential effects of construction traffic controls are clearly communicated understood by public safety providers.

2.6.1.2 Noise Control Measures
The following measures will be incorporated into the construction specifications for the proposed project to reduce and control noise generated by construction-related activities, consistent with City ordinances and standards:
 Noise-generating construction activities from the City’s construction contractor will be restricted consistent with the City’s Noise ordinance (Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.).
 All construction equipment will have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. No equipment will have an unmuffled exhaust.
 Appropriate additional noise-reducing measures will be implemented, including the following: stationary construction equipment will be located as far as possible from sensitive uses; sensitive uses will be identified on construction drawings; and excessive equipment idling will be prohibited when the equipment is not in use.

2.6.1.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Measures
The construction documents will identify materials that are considered hazardous.

The project contractor will be required to develop a health and safety plan (prepared by a registered industrial hygienist) that addresses release prevention measures; employee training, notification, and evacuation procedures; and adequate emergency response protocols and cleanup procedures.

The contractor will comply with the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards for the storage and handling of fuels, flammable materials, and common construction-related hazardous materials and for fire prevention (California Labor Code, Division 5, Chapter 2.5).

City of Roseville Project Description
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 2-12 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

2.6.2 City of Roseville Mitigating Ordinances,
Guidelines, and Standards
As part of the proposed project, the City will implement the following regulations and ordinances to reduce potential environmental impacts associated with the project.  Noise Regulation (Roseville Municipal Code Ch.9.24).
 Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Roseville Municipal Code Ch.14.20).
 Stormwater Quality Design Manual (Resolution 07-432).  City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards (Resolution 07-137).  Community Design Guidelines (Resolution 95-347).

2.7 Required Approvals
Required permits and approvals are shown in Table 2-2. Local approvals required to construct and operate the proposed project include adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan by the City Council and approval of the project plans and specifications and construction contract. In addition, the proposed construction activities would trigger Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which requires coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. This coverage would require development and implementation of a SWPPP.

No other state or federal approvals are required for the proposed project.

Table 2-2. Permits and Approvals Needed for the Proposed Project Agency Permit/Approval
City of Roseville Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Roseville Approval of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan City of Roseville Approval of Plans and Specifications and Construction Contract City of Roseville Approval of pre-construction approach ramp stockpiling and any related City required permits (such as grading permit).

State Water Resources
Control Board
Clean Water Act Section 402 coverage under the NPDES Permit (Order No. 00-06-DWQ)
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-1 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist

1. Project Title: Roseville Parkway Extension Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Terri Shirhall
Environmental Coordinator
Development Services Department
(916) 774-5362

4. Project Location: The project would be constructed on approximately 12 acres of primarily City-owned property in north
Roseville, in western Placer County, California. The
project site is located between Foothills Boulevard on
the west, and Washington Boulevard on the east. The
project site falls within the Roseville 7.5-minute U.S.

Geological Survey topographic quadrangle map in
Section 21 of Township 11 North, Range 6 East, Mount
Diablo Base and Meridian.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and
Address:

City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678

6. General Plan Designation: Industrial and Light Industrial

7. Zoning: General Industrial and Light Industrial

8. Description of Project:

The project would extend Roseville Parkway by approximately 0.75 mile, from its current terminus at Washington Boulevard westerly to Foothills Boulevard. The project includes construction of an overpass of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and Industrial Avenue which run parallel to one another at the crossing location. The new road would include two travel lanes in each direction, raised median with related utility relocations and storm drain improvements, followed by 5-footwide on-street Class II bike lanes. Three-foot-wide curbs and gutter would be backed by a 10-footwide multi-use path on the south side and 8-foot-wide sidewalk on the north side of the new roadway. The total project area would encompass approximately 12 acres.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site is currently dominated by disturbed annual grasslands. Industrial development borders the site along most of the south boundary and along the eastern third of the north boundary. The Highland Reserve residential development is located near the project’s eastern end, along the east side of Washington Boulevard and along both sides of existing Roseville Parkway.

Industrial development is located near the project’s western boundary, on the west side of Foothills Boulevard

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-2 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
State Water Resources Control Board—Clean Water Act Section 402, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for disturbance of more than 1 acre of land.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?
On September 23, 2019, the City of Roseville sent certified letters to the Tribes listed below requesting consultation and/or information regarding tribal resources in the project area. • United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria (UAIC) • Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (SSBMI)
The letters requested a response within 30 days. Both tribes responded requesting consultation and consultation was initiated. As discussed in Initial Study Section 3.2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources, after exchanging additional information, both consultations were closed with agreement.

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would potentially be affected by this project (i.e., the project would involve at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”), as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agricultural and
Forestry
Air Quality Biological Resources
Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water
Quality
Land
Use/Planning
Mineral
Resources
Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities/Service
Systems
Mandatory
Findings of
Significance

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-4 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.1 Aesthetics
I. Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings along a
scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views in the area?

3.2.1.1 Setting
The project site lies within an urbanizing area of North Roseville. Roseville and its environs are generally characterized as a transitional zone between the Central Valley’s flat terrain and the Sierra Nevada foothills. On clear days, long-range views in the project vicinity include the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Sutter Buttes to the north, and the Coast Ranges to the west. The project site and nearby undeveloped areas consist of flat disturbed annual grasslands.

RV Storage, lumber yard, self-storage and FedEx dominate the views south from the project site. To the west are views of landscaping and surface parking of Cokevo Inc. and First Tech Federal Credit Union. To the north are views of annual grasslands and the Roseville Parkway Industrial Center. To the east are views of the Highland Reserve residential development. Industrial Avenue and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks run through the center of the project site in a north/south direction.

The primary viewer groups that would have views of the proposed project are employees at the Roseville Parkway Industrial Center and other similar uses, nearby residents and travelers on adjacent roads. Mature trees and shrubs planted along City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-5 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
property lines and along Washington Boulevard to the east and Foothills Boulevard to the west partially obscure views of the project site from all directions.

3.2.1.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? There are no designated scenic vistas in the project vicinity. The proposed project would consist of an 0.75-mile extension of Roseville Parkway between Washington Boulevard and Foothills Boulevard with an overpass of the UPRR tracks and Industrial Avenue, which run parallel to one another at the crossing location. The low-lying structures would not be evident beyond the project vicinity and the overpass would be similar to overpasses to the north and south. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
The project site is not located near or within view of any state or locally designated scenic highway. Further, no scenic resources have been identified in the vicinity of the project site; therefore, there would be no impact.
c) Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Removal of existing vegetation, site grading, and roadway and overpass construction would introduce heavy equipment, including backhoes, bulldozers, and excavators, into the viewshed of all viewer groups, creating temporary effects on views of and from the project site during the construction period. These activities would be visible from ground-level and elevated vantages. However, the visual effects of construction activities would be less than significant because of their temporary character and the transience of some viewers passing by the project site.

The proposed project would consist of an 0.75-mile extension of Roseville Parkway between Washington Boulevard and Foothills Boulevard with an overpass of the UPRR tracks and Industrial Avenue. The extension of Roseville Parkway would alter the site’s visual character and would be visible to residents to the east, Roseville Parkway Industrial Center and other similar uses employees, and nearby travelers.

However, the conversion of the project site from undeveloped grassland to a planned roadway extension would be consistent with existing zoning and visually compatible with adjacent roadways and overpasses and would not permanently City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-6 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
degrade either the visual character of the project site or its surroundings, nor would it be inconsistent with existing City regulations governing scenic quality. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? The proposed project would include streetlights similar to existing streetlights in the project vicinity and larger Roseville area. The conversion of the project site from undeveloped grassland to a roadway would be visually compatible with existing roadways and would not create substantial unnecessary light. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

No aspect of the project would create a new source of substantial glare. No impact would occur.

3.2.1.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts on aesthetic resources. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-7 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or conflict with a Williamson Act
contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment that, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

3.2.2.1 Setting
The proposed project site is currently fallow and consists of undeveloped and disturbed annual grassland. The project site was historically used for livestock grazing.

According to the California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder for Placer County, the project site’s eastern half is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” while the western half is designated as “Grazing Land” (California Department of Conservation 2016). Lands to the west and east of the project site are designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land.” Land along the northern and southern project boundaries include both “Urban and Built-Up Land” and “Grazing Land.”
City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-8 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
The project site is not restricted to agricultural uses under the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). East of Industrial Avenue the project site is designated as “Easement or Right of Way” and zoned General Industrial. West of Industrial Avenue the project site is designated Light Industrial and zoned Light Industrial.

3.2.2.2 Impact Analysis
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
The project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land and Grazing Land and contains no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (California Department of Conservation 2016). No impact would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract?
The project site is fallow and designated and zoned for industrial or light industrial use. The project site is not under Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? There is no forest land, timberland, or timberland production on the project site or in the City of Roseville. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, these resources. No impact would occur. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The project site consists of disturbed annual grassland. Thus, the proposed project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land. No impact would occur. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The project site is not designated or zoned for agricultural or forest use and contains no active agricultural uses or forest land. The adjacent parcels are also not designated or zoned for agricultural or forest use and they contain no active City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-9 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
agricultural uses or forest land. The undeveloped parcels in the project area consist of disturbed annual grasslands. No impact would occur.

3.2.2.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts on agricultural and forestry resources. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.

3.2.2.4 References
California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder.

Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed: April 8, 2020.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-10 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.3 Air Quality
III. Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
When available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is a
nonattainment area for an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
c. Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d. Other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number
of people?

3.2.3.1 Setting
The project site is located in the city of Roseville in western Placer County, which is within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB). Concentrations of ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are commonly used as indicators of ambient air quality conditions. These pollutants are known as criteria pollutants and are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) through national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS), respectively. The NAAQS and CAAQS define clean air and represent the maximum amount of pollution that can be present in outdoor air without any harmful effects on people and the environment. Other pollutants of concern in the project area are nitrogen oxides (NOX) and reactive organic gases (ROG), which are precursors to ozone, and toxic air contaminants (TAC), which can cause cancer and other human health ailments.

Criteria pollutant concentrations in Placer County and the SVAB are measured at several monitoring stations. The nearest station to the proposed project is the Roseville North Sunrise Avenue station, which is approximately 3.7 miles southeast of the project site. Monitoring data show that the station experienced several violations of the ozone CAAQS and NAAQS each year between 2016 and 2018, and violations of the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS in 2018 (California Air Resources Board City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-11 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
2020a). Data collected from monitoring stations throughout the region, including the Roseville North Sunrise Avenue station, are used to designate Placer County as nonattainment, maintenance, or attainment for the NAAQS and CAAQS. Based on the most recent local monitoring data, the SVAB portion of Placer County is currently classified nonattainment for the federal and state ozone standards, nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 standard, and nonattainment for the state PM10 standard (California Air Resources Board 2020b; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2020).

The Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) is responsible for ensuring that the NAAQS and CAAQS are met within Placer County. PCAPCD manages air quality through a comprehensive program that includes long-term planning, regulations, incentives for technical innovation, education, and community outreach. For example, the 2017 Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (2017 Ozone Plan) outlines strategies to achieve the federal ozone standard throughout the entire nonattainment area of the SVAB.

PCAPCD has also adopted rules and regulations applicable to individual projects and emissions generating sources within Placer County.

PCAPCD’s CEQA Handbook (2017) provides guidance for evaluating project-level air quality impacts, including thresholds to assist lead agencies in evaluating the significance of project generated criteria pollutant and precursor emissions.

PCAPCD’s thresholds are based on the new source review (NSR) rule, which requires stationary sources to offset emissions in excess of the identified thresholds.

PCAPCD (2017) concludes that there is no difference between emissions from stationary sources and those generated by land use uses, and as such, the NSR rule and associated thresholds are equally applicable to all sources. Based on analysis of current regional goals to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS, PCAPCD (2017) has demonstrated that the NSR emission offset requirements are appropriate in addressing the potential air quality impacts from new land use projects in Placer County.

Table 3-1 outlines PCAPCD’s recommended thresholds. The thresholds consider whether a project’s emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable adverse contribution to existing air quality conditions. If a project’s emissions would be less than these levels, the project would not be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant project-level and cumulative impact.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-12 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Table 3-1. Placer County Air Pollution Control District Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Thresholds (pounds per day)
Source
Ozone Precursor Emissions
ROG NOX PM10
Construction (short-term) 82 82 82
Operational (long-term) 55 55 82
Source: Placer County Air Pollution Control District 2017 NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter ROG = reactive organic gases
PCAPCD also considers localized CO emissions to result in significant impacts if concentrations exceed the CAAQS. The air district has adopted the following screening criteria that provide a conservative indication of whether project-generated traffic would cause a potential CO hot spot. If both criteria are met, PCAPCD recommends traffic-generated CO concentrations be modeled and compared with the CAAQS to determine impact significance.
 Vehicle emissions generated by the project exceed 550 pound per day, and  Either of the following scenarios would occur:
 Peak-hour level of service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections (both signalized and non-signalized) in the project vicinity would be degraded from an acceptable LOS (e.g., A, B, C, or D) to an unacceptable LOS (e.g., E or F), or
 Project would substantially worsen an already existing unacceptable peakhour LOS on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity. Substantially worsen includes situations where delay would increase by 10 seconds or more when project-generated traffic is included.

PCAPCD has also adopted a threshold to evaluate receptor exposure to TAC. The “substantial” TAC threshold defined by the PCAPCD is the probability of contracting cancer for the maximum exposed individual exceeding 10 in a million. This risk threshold is used by PCAPCD to evaluate potential risks for both existing and new sources in Placer County (Placer County Air Pollution Control District 2017).

3.2.3.2 Impact Analysis
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The federal Clean Air Act requires that an air quality attainment plan be prepared for areas with air quality violating the NAAQS. The air quality attainment plan sets forth the strategies and pollution control measures that states will use to attain the NAAQS by the earliest practical date. PCAPCD’s air quality attainment plans are based, in part, on regional population and employment (and thus vehicle miles City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-13 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
traveled [VMT]) growth projections from Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). Thus, a project’s conformance with SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) that was considered in the preparation of the air quality attainment plans would demonstrate that the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of plans.

The proposed project was included in the regional emissions analysis conducted by SACOG for the conforming 2020 MTP/SCS (Sacramento Area Council of Governments 2019). Accordingly, the project’s operational emissions (which include the ozone precursors ROG and NOX) would not exacerbate nonattainment conditions or conflict with air quality plans adopted to attain and maintain the CAAQS and NAAQS (i.e., the 2017 Ozone Plan). This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
b) Cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Construction
The predominant pollutants associated with construction of the proposed project are fugitive dust (PM10) from earthmoving activities and combustion pollutants, particularly ROG and NOX, from heavy equipment and trucks. ROG would also be generated from paving activities.

Construction emissions were estimated using the latest Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s (SMAQMD) Road Construction Model. While the model was developed for Sacramento conditions in terms of fleet emission factors, silt loading, and other model assumptions, it is considered adequate for estimating linear road construction emissions by the PCAPCD (in its air quality analysis guidance) and is used for that purpose in this project analysis.

Construction is anticipated to occur over five phases, (1) Grubbing/Land Clearing; (2) Grading/Excavation; (3) Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade; (4) Paving; and (5) Overpass Construction. Activities would occur over 9.5 months, commencing in fall 2021. Project-specific model inputs were provided by the project engineers, Mark Thomas & Company (Cervantes pers. comm.).

Estimated unmitigated construction emissions are summarized in Table 3-2.

Appendix A provides the full list of modeling assumptions.

Table 3-2 Estimated Unmitigated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Project Construction (pounds per day)
Construction Phase ROG NOX PM10a
Grubbing/Land Clearing 7 82 24
City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-14 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Construction Phase ROG NOX PM10a
Grading/Excavation 7 88 24
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 4 46 22
Paving 2 26 1
Overpass Construction 3 33 1
Maximum dailyb 15 167 48
PCAPCD threshold 82 82 82
Exceed threshold? No Yes No
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PCAPCD = Placer County Air Pollution Control District
PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter.

ROG = reactive organic gases
a Accounts for fugitive dust control, as modeled by the Road Construction Emissions Model, achieved by use of onsite water trucks. b Represents the highest emissions during concurrent construction activity.

As shown in Table 3-2, construction of the proposed project would not generate ROG or PM10 emissions in excess of PCAPCD’s thresholds. The proposed project would comply with the City’s Design and Construction Standards, further reducing fugitive dust emissions during site grading through implementation of best management practices (BMP) such as application of chemical soil stabilizers, vehicle speed controls, and limits on grading during strong wind events.

While ROG and PM10 emissions would be below PCAPCD’s thresholds, estimated maximum daily NOX emissions would exceed 82 pounds per day. Based on the construction schedule, peak construction activity and associated emissions would occur in late 2021/early 2022 when the following phases could occur concurrently:

Grading/Excavation, Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade, and Overpass Construction. This is a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is required to reduce maximum daily NOX emissions to below PCAPCD’s threshold. The measure requires all off-road equipment to meet USEPA-approved Tier 4 final emissions standards. The mitigation also requires construction equipment be maintained in proper working condition and minimize idling time, consistent with PCAPCD best practices. As shown in Table 3-3, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, NOX emissions would be reduced below PCAPCD’s significance threshold, reducing this potential impact to less than significant.

Table 3-3. Estimated Mitigated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Project Construction (pounds per day)
Construction Phase ROG NOX PM10a
Grubbing/Land Clearing 3 19 21
Grading/Excavation 3 19 21
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 2 8 20
City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-15 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Construction Phase ROG NOX PM10a
Paving 1 8 <1
Overpass Construction 2 6 <1
Maximum dailyb 7 35 41
PCAPCD threshold 82 82 82
Exceed threshold? No No No
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PCAPCD = Placer County Air Pollution Control District
PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter.

Operation
Operation of the proposed project would result in changes in travel patterns and VMT in the local and regional transportation network. Vehicle emissions were estimated using the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) CT-EMFAC model and vehicle activity data provided by the project traffic engineer, Kimley-Horn (Weir pers. comm.). Consistent with the traffic analysis performed for the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan, emissions were modeled for existing (2011) and cumulative (2035) with and without project conditions. The VMT data includes vehicle activity for the entire SACOG region. The CT-EMFAC program assumed project operating conditions during average annual conditions for the SVAB portion of Placer County.

CARB’s (2019) adjustment factors to account for the effects of the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule were applied to the CT-EMFAC Output.1 Table 3-4 presents the estimated operational emissions under existing conditions and cumulative conditions. The net change in emissions is compared to PCAPCD’s ROG, NOX, and PM10 thresholds. Appendix A provides the VMT and CT-EMFAC emission factors.

Table 3-4. Estimated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Project Operation (pounds per day)
Period ROG NOX PM10
Existing (2011) no project 15,036 109,971 126,065
Existing (2011) plus project 15,029 109,954 126,054
Cumulative (2035) no project 2,493 24,521 181,153
Cumulative (2035) plus project 2,490 24,494 181,101
Existing plus project vs. existing no project -7 -17 -11 Cumulative plus project vs. cumulative no project -2 -28 -52 1 The SAFE Vehicles Rule proposes to withdraw California’s waiver to establish State-specific vehicle fuel economy standards and establish uniform, national carbon dioxide and fuel economy standards.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-16 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Period ROG NOX PM10
PCAPCD threshold 55 55 82
Exceed threshold? No No No
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PCAPCD = Placer County Air Pollution Control District
PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter.

ROG = reactive organic gases
As shown in Table 3-4, operation of the proposed project would not generate ROG, NOX, or PM10 emissions in excess of PCAPCD’s thresholds. Rather, emissions would be reduced relative to the no project condition under both modeling scenarios (existing and cumulative). Accordingly, this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
c) Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Sensitive receptors are facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, and people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Hospitals, schools, convalescent facilities, and residential areas are examples of sensitive receptors.

Industrial development borders the project site along most of the north and south boundaries and along the eastern third of the north boundary. Industrial development is also located near the project’s west boundary, on the west side of Foothills Boulevard. The Highland Reserve residential development is located near the project’s east end. The closest residential receptors are adjacent to the current intersection of Washington Boulevard and Roseville Parkway. There are no hospitals, schools, or convalescent facilities within 1,000 feet of the project area.

The primary pollutants of concern with respect to health risks to sensitive receptors are criteria pollutants (regional and local) and TAC. Ozone precursors (ROG and NOX) and PM are considered regional pollutants because they affect air quality on a regional scale. Localized pollutants are deposited and potentially affect population near the emissions source. Because these pollutants dissipate with distance, emissions from individual projects can result in direct and material health impacts on adjacent sensitive receptors. The localized criteria pollutants of concern that would be generated by the project are PM (fugitive dust) and CO.

Criteria Pollutants
Regional Emissions (ROG, NOX, and PM)
PCAPCD develops region-specific California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds of significance in consideration of existing air quality concentrations and attainment or nonattainment designations under the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Recognizing that air quality is a cumulative problem, PCAPCD typically considers projects that generate criteria pollutants and ozone precursor emissions that are City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-17 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
below the thresholds to be minor in nature. Such projects would not adversely affect air quality or exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS. As described under response “b” above, construction of the project would not generate ROG, NOX, or PM10 emissions in excess of PCAPCD’s thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Operation of the project would reduce ROG, NOX, or PM10, and as such, the project would not be expected to contribute a significant level of air pollution that would degrade long-term, regional air quality within the SVAB.

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (6 Cal. 5th 502) (hereafter referred to as the Friant Ranch Decision) reviewed the long-term, regional air quality analysis contained in the environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed Community Plan Update and Friant Ranch Specific Plan (Friant Ranch Project). The Friant Ranch Project is a 942-acre master-plan development in unincorporated Fresno County within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, an air basin currently in nonattainment under the NAAQS and CAAQS for ozone and PM2.5. The Court found that the EIR’s air quality analysis was inadequate because it failed to provide enough detail “for the public to translate the bare [criteria pollutant emissions] numbers provided into adverse health impacts or to understand why such a translation is not possible at this time.” The Court’s decision clarifies that environmental documents must attempt to connect a project’s regional air quality impacts to specific health effects or explain why it is not technically feasible to perform such an analysis.

While regional criteria pollutant emissions generated by construction of the project would not result in a significant impact, consistent with the Friant Ranch Decision, Table 3-5 provides a conservative estimate of potential health effects associated with these emissions. The estimates were developed using SMAQMD’s draft Project Health Effects Tool (version 1). The draft Minor Project Health Screening Tool was developed by SMAQMD, on behalf of regional air districts in the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area (SFNA), including western Placer County (Ramboll 2019).

SMAQMD conducted photochemical and health effects modeling of hypothetical projects throughout the SFNA with NOX, ROG and PM2.5 emissions at 82 pounds per day, which corresponds to the highest daily emissions threshold of all SFNA air districts. The tool outputs the estimated health effects at the 82 pound per day emissions rate by spatial interpolating the health effects from the hypothetical projects based on user inputs for the latitude and longitude coordinates of a project.

The results presented in Table 3-5 are conservative for two reasons. First, they are based on a source generating 82 pounds per day of ROG, NOX, and PM2.5. As shown in Table 3-3, maximum mitigated daily emissions during construction are well below 82 pounds. Second, the results assume the source would generate emissions 365 days per year. Construction of the project would require 240 working days over

9.5 months. For these reasons, any increase in regional health risks associated with project-generated construction emissions would be less than those presented in City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-18 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Table 3-5, which are already very small increases over the background incident health effect. As such, related impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Table 3-5. Conservative Estimate of Increased Regional Health Effect Incidence Resulting from Construction of the Project (cases per year) Health Endpoint
Age
Rangea
Mean Incidences
(per year)b
Percent of Background
Health Incidencec
Emergency Room Visits, Asthma 0–99 1 <1%
Mortality, All Cause 30–99 2 <1%
Hospital Admissions, Asthma 0–64 <1 <1%
Hospital Admissions, All Cardiovasculard 65–99 <1 <1%
Hospital Admissions, All Respiratory 65–99 <1 <1%
Acute Myocardial Infarction, Nonfatal 18–24 <1 <1%
Acute Myocardial Infarction, Nonfatal 25–44 <1 <1%
Acute Myocardial Infarction, Nonfatal 45–54 <1 <1%
Acute Myocardial Infarction, Nonfatal 55–64 <1 <1%
Acute Myocardial Infarction, Nonfatal 65–99 <1 <1%
Hospital Admissions, All Respiratory 65–99 <1 <1%
Mortality, Non-Accidental 0–99 <1 <1%
Emergency Room Visits, Asthma 0–17 <1 <1%
Emergency Room Visits, Asthma 18–99 1 <1%
Source: SMAQMD Minor Project Health Screening Tool, version 1, published January 2020.

Note: The analysis point is in the center of the project alignment at 38.787412, -121.307778. a Affected age ranges are shown. Other age ranges are available, but the endpoints and age ranges shown here are the ones used by the USEPA in their health assessments. The age ranges are consistent with the epidemiological study that is the basis of the health function.
b Health effects are shown in terms of incidences of each health endpoint and how it compares to the base (2035 base year health effect incidences, or “background health incidence”) values. Health effects and background health incidences are across the Northern California model domain.
c The percent of background health incidence uses the mean incidence. The background health incidence is an estimate of the average number of people that are affected by the health endpoint in a given population over a given period of time. In this case, these background incidence rates cover the modeled domain. Health incidence rates and other health data are typically collected by the government as well as the World Health Organization. The background incidence rates used here are obtained from BenMAP, as reported in SMAQMD's Minor Project Health Screening Tool, version 1. d Less Myocardial Infarctions.

Localized Fugitive Dust
During earthmoving activities required for construction, localized fugitive dust would be generated. The amount of dust generated by a project is highly variable and dependent on the size of the disturbed area at any given time, the amount of activity, soil conditions, and meteorological conditions. Dust emissions would be controlled through adherence to the City’s Design and Construction Standards, which require chemical stabilizers and other on-site BMPs. Accordingly, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial fugitive dust concentrations. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-19 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Localized Carbon Monoxide
Continuous engine exhaust during project operations may elevate localized CO concentrations, resulting in hot spots. Receptors exposed to these CO hot spots may have a greater likelihood of developing adverse health effects, such as fatigue, headaches, confusion, dizziness, and chest pain. CO hot spots are typically observed at heavily congested intersections where a substantial number of gasoline-powered vehicles idle for prolonged durations throughout the day. As discussed above, PCAPCD has developed screening criteria to assist lead agencies in evaluating potential impacts from localized CO. Based on the analysis conducted using daily VMT and CT-EMFAC, operation of the proposed project would reduce CO emissions relative to the no project condition under both modeling scenarios (existing and cumulative). The traffic analysis report prepared by Kimley-Horn (2020) also indicates that operation of the project would neither degrade peak-hour LOS to an unacceptable level nor substantially worsen delay at affected intersections.

Accordingly, the project meets PCAPCD’s CO screening criteria and therefore would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is a TAC and is the name given to naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals. NOA can be released from serpentine and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed during construction earthmoving activities. The inhalation of asbestos fibers into the lungs can result in a variety of adverse health effects, including inflammation of the lungs, respiratory ailments, and cancer (e.g., mesothelioma) (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2018).

Projects located in an area “most likely” to contain NOA are required by PCAPCD to prepare and submit a naturally occurring asbestos dust mitigation plan (ADMP).

Accordingly to the California Department of Conservation’s A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California, there are no geologic features normally associated with NOA (i.e., serpentine rock or ultramafic rock near fault zones) in or near the project area (California Department of Conservation 2000). As such, there is no potential for impacts related to NOA emissions during construction activities and the project is not required to submit an ADMP. Accordingly, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial NOA concentrations.

This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is a TAC generated by diesel-fueled equipment and vehicles. Short-term exposure to DPM can cause acute irritation (e.g., eye, throat, and bronchial), neurophysiological symptoms (e.g., lightheadedness and nausea), City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-20 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
and respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough and phlegm). Heavy-duty equipment used during construction would generate DPM, which could expose adjacent receptors to associated health risks. However, DPM emissions would be minor (less than 1 pound per day) and only occur over a period of 9.5 months. The short-term construction period is well below the 30-year exposure period typically associated with increased cancer risks. Moreover, DPM from construction equipment would be transitory and spread throughout the entire 0.75-mile segment, as opposed to being concentrated at a single location. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure AQ-1, all off-road equipment would also meet USEPA-approved Tier 4 final emissions standards.

Accordingly, construction of the proposed project would not expose sensitive populations to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mobile Source Air Toxics
USEPA has identified nine compounds as priority mobile source air toxics (MSAT)— 1,3-Butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, DPM, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. These air toxics are generated by motor vehicles and may result in an increase in risk of cancer and other serious health effects. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2016) has issued guidance that outlines a tiered for evaluating MSATs for transportation projects. Based on the three project categories outlined in FHWA’s guidance, the proposed project is considered a project with low potential MSAT impacts because average daily traffic (ADT) in the project area would not exceed 20,000 vehicles under cumulative (2035) plus project conditions (Kimley-Horn 2020). Consequently, ADT would be below FHWA’s MSAT ADT threshold of 140,000 vehicles for projects with higher potential for MSAT impacts.

VMT estimated for the proposed project is slightly lower than under no project conditions because the roadway connection provides a more direct and efficient travel route (Weir pers. comm.). This reduction in VMT would lead to lower overall MSAT emissions. The extension of Roseville Parkway at Washington Boulevard would move some traffic closer to nearby homes; therefore, there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could be higher than the cumulative no project condition. However, Roseville Parkway is not considered a high-traffic road or roadway with significant diesel volumes (California Air Resources Board 20052). Accordingly, operation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial MSAT concentrations. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
2 CARB’s (2005) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook defines high-traffic urban roads as those with greater than 100,000 vehicles per day and high-traffic rural roads as those with greater than 500,000 vehicles per day. ADT in the project area for the project under cumulative year (2035) conditions would not exceed 20,000 vehicles (Kimley-Horn 2020). Heavy-duty trucks on local roadways throughout the city typically comprise no more than approximately 2 percent of ADT.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-21 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
d) Other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Although offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be unpleasant, leading to citizen complaints to local governments and air districts. Diesel-powered equipment operating during construction may generate odors that are evident in the immediately surrounding area. These activities would be intermittent and temporary in duration and, therefore, would not result in nuisance odors. The project does not meet any of the facility types identified by CARB (2005) or PCAPCD (2017) as odorgenerating; thus, the project would not generate substantial operational odors.

Accordingly, the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

3.2.3.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Reduce construction-generated emissions from equipment exhaust
The City shall require its prime construction contractor to implement the following measures to reduce construction-generated emissions from equipment and vehicle exhaust. The list of required measures was informed by PCAPCD’s recommended construction mitigation measures.
 Use construction equipment with engines meeting USEPA Tier 4 Final or better emission standards. Equipment requirements may be waived by the City, but only under any of the following unusual circumstances: if a particular piece of off-road equipment with Tier 4 Final standards is technically not feasible; not commercially available; or there is a compelling emergency need to use off-road equipment that does not meet the equipment requirements above. If the City grants the waiver, the contractor shall use the next cleanest piece of off-road equipment available, in the following order: Tier 4 Interim, Tier 3, and then Tier 2 engines.
 Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes (California Code of Regulations, Title 13, sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site.
 Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer’s specifications.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-22 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.3.4 References Cited
California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April.

California Air Resources Board. 2019. EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Part One. Last Revised: November 20, 2019.

Available:
<https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_adjustment_factors_final_draft.p df>. Accessed: June 1, 2020.

California Air Resources Board. 2020a. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics (Top 4 Summary). Available: <https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php>.

Accessed: May 1, 2020.

California Air Resources Board. 2020b. Area Designations Maps. Available:
<http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm>. Accessed: April 24, 2020.

California Department of Conservation. 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California—Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos. August. Division of Mines and Geology. Sacramento, CA.

Cervantes, Raul. Sr. Project Manager. Mark Thomas. Sacramento, CA. May 6, 2020—email message to ICF regarding Roseville Parkway Extension Project – AQ and Noise Responses.

Kimley-Horn. 2020. Roseville Parkway Extension Draft Traffic Evaluation. June.

Federal Highway Administration. 2016. Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. October.

Placer County Air Pollution Control District. 2017. 2107 CEQA Handbook.

November.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2019. 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). November.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Learn About Asbestos. Last updated September 17. Available: https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/learn-aboutasbestos#effects. Accessed: May 1, 2020.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2020. Greenbook. Last Revised: March 31.

Available: https://www.epa.gov/green-book. Accessed: May 1, 2020.

Weir, Matt. Vice President. Kimley-Horn. Sacramento, CA. May 28, 2020—email message to ICF regarding Roseville Parkway Extension | VMT by Speed Bin.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-23 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.4 Biological Resources
IV. Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance
(including essential fish habitat)?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
habitat conservation plan, natural
community conservation plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?

3.2.4.1 Methods
This biological resources section is based on information provided by Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC. (Madrone) that included a review of standard sources, and biological surveys conducted on September 5 and 25, 2019 (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019a, 2019b). ICF biologists conducted additional City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-24 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
surveys on March 19 and April 10, 2020 to document existing conditions and to conduct focused special-status plant surveys. The 2020 surveys also assessed natural areas outside the project footprint to account for potential indirect effects on aquatic resources and special-status species. This buffer area includes undeveloped habitat consisting mostly of grassland within approximately 250 feet of the project footprint. The project footprint and buffer area comprise the study area.

The following sources of information were reviewed and used to support this analysis.
 A list of sensitive species from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records search of the Roseville, Sheridan, Lincoln, Gold Hill, Rocklin, Folsom, Citrus Heights, Rio Linda, and Pleasant Grove U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020).
 California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California for the same USGS quadrangles listed above under CNDDB (California Native Plant Society 2020).
 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report for Roseville Parkway Extension prepared for the City of Roseville and approved jurisdictional determination issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019a).
 Roseville Parkway Stockpile Study Area—Habitat Suitability Analysis for SpecialStatus Species memorandum prepared for the City of Roseville for the project site (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019b).
 Approved Jurisdictional Determination and Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form from the Department of the Army, USACE, Sacramento District (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2019).
 Addendum to the North Industrial Planning Area (NIPA) Parcel 50-Foothills Corporate Center Grading Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2012092020, Adopted October 11, 2012) (City of Roseville 2012).  Clean Water Act Section 401 Technically Conditioned Water Quality Certification; Coastal Partners, LLC, Foothill Distribution Center Project (WDID#5A31CR00331), Placer County (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2012).
 Personal communication between Ms. Sarah VonderOhe (Madrone Ecological Consulting) and Ms. Stefanie Tadlock (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) on December 5, 2019 regarding the state jurisdictional status of the artificially created features on the project site. During this telephone conversation, Ms. Tadlock concurred that the features would not be considered waters of the State.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-25 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
This information was used to develop lists of special-status species and vegetation communities of special concern that could be present in the project vicinity, and to determine the extent of previous mitigation requirements (including habitat compensation for federally listed branchiopods) implemented for other nearby projects that overlap with the study area.

3.2.4.2 Setting
The study area is located in the transition zone between the Sacramento Valley and northern Sierra Nevada Foothill subregions of the California Floristic Province (Baldwin et al. 2012:42, 43). The topography in the study area is relatively level with some small hills, and elevations range from approximately 100 to 150 feet above mean sea level.

The natural communities in the study area are interspersed with roadways, UPRR tracks, commercial and industrial areas, and residential development. Natural communities identified during botanical field surveys are described in the following subsections. The descriptions of the aquatic resources are based primarily on information from the aquatic resources delineation report (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019a).

The study area supports both common natural communities and natural communities of special concern. Common natural communities are habitats with low species diversity that are widespread, reestablish naturally after disturbance, or support primarily nonnative species. These communities are not generally protected by agencies unless the specific site is habitat for or supports special-status species (e.g., raptor foraging or nesting habitat, upland habitat in a wetland watershed). The common natural community in the study area is annual grassland.

Natural communities of special concern are habitats considered sensitive because of their high species diversity, high productivity, unusual nature, limited distribution, or declining status. Local, state, and federal agencies consider these habitats important. The CNDDB contains a current list of rare natural communities throughout the state. There are no natural communities of special concern in the study area.

Natural communities and developed areas within the study area are described below.

Annual Grassland
The study area predominantly consists of a disturbed annual grassland, which is dominated by the following nonnative annual grasses and forbs: soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), wild and slender oats (Avena fatua and A. barbata), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), medusahead grass (Elymus caput-medusae), yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), winter vetch (Vicia villosa), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), wild City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-26 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
geranium (Geranium dissectum), and big heron bill (Erodium botrys) (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019a). Native species observed at lower densities include: slender tarweed (Holocarpha virgata), turkey mullein (Croton setiger), spikeweed (Centromadia fitchii), miniature lupine (Lupinus bicolor), small-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), Spanish lotus (Acmispan americanus), and butter n’ eggs (Triphysaria eriantha ssp. eriantha).

Developed Areas
Developed land in an around the study area consists of commercial and industrial areas (e.g., Roseville RV storage, Celebrations Party Rentals and Tents, Erickson Framing, and FedEx), roadways, and UPRR tracks.

Irrigated Wetlands
Six irrigated wetlands, totaling 0.259 acre, were mapped in the eastern half of the study area by Madrone (2019a) (Figure 3-1). These features are small, shallow depressions that contain plant species indicative of summer moisture, which is thought to originate from periodic irrigation runoff from adjacent landscaping (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019a). Although 1.24 inches of rain had fallen between March 14 and 18, 2020, these features did not contain water during the March 19, 2020 site visit conducted by ICF (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2020). This lack of water suggests that these irrigated wetlands do not hold surface water for very long, which would discourage aquatic invertebrates from inhabiting these wetland features. The irrigated wetlands include the following dominant species: Italian rye grass, spike rush (Eleocharis macrostachya), Mediterranean barley, hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum hyssopifolia), tall flat sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), soft rush (Juncus effusus), sandbar willow (Salix exigua), black willow (S. gooddingii), and Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii). The irrigated wetlands are artificially created features and were determined to be nonjurisdictional by the USACE and RWQCB (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019a; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2019; VonderOhe pers.comm.).

Artificially Created Seasonal Wetland
Three artificially created seasonal wetlands (totaling 0.035 acre) were mapped in the western portion of the study area in 2019 (Figure 3-1) (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019a). Dominant plant observed species in the seasonal wetlands include: Italian rye grass, hyssop loosestrife, toad rush (Juncus bufonius var. bufonius), needle-leaf navarretia (Navarretia intertexta), and purslane speedwell (Veronica peregrina).

Historical aerial photography of the study area was reviewed and prior to 2016 no wetlands were present; therefore, it was determined that these features were the result of grading activities that occurred in 2016 (Madrone Ecological Consulting, !C
!C
!C
!C
!.!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.

DB-1 (0.184 acre)
IW-5 (0.093 acre) IW-4 (0.067 acre)
SWS-1 (0.051 acre, 247 linear feet)
IW-2 (0.045 acre)
IW-1 (0.022 acre) SW-2 (0.017 acre)
SW-1 (0.013 acre)
DD-2 (0.010 acre, 149 linear feet)
DD-1 (0.006 acre, 125 linear feet)
SW-3 (0.005 acre)
IW-3 (0.032 acre)
-121.306456, 38.788000
-121.300714, 38.787135
-121.313711, 38.788468
-121.310898, 38.787192
DP-4
DP-3
DP-2
DP-1
DP-6
DP-5
DP-7
Figure 3
Aquatic Resources Delineation
Roseville Parkway Extension
Placer County, California
0 250
Feet
E:\AAGIS\19057_CityRosevilleOncall\RosevillePkwyStockpile\MXDs\MXDs_ARD\RosevillePkwy_ARD.mxd 10/3/2019, Study Area (20 acres)
!C Reference Point (Longitude, Latitude)
!. Data Points
Aquatic Resources Delineation* (0.546 acre, 521 linear feet) Wetlands (0.346 acre, 247 linear feet)
Irrigated Wetland (0.259 acre)
Seasonal Wetland (0.035 acre)
Seasonal Wetland Swale (0.051 acre)
Other Waters (0.200 acre, 274 linear feet)
Drainage Ditch (0.016 acre, 274 linear feet)
Detention Basin (0.184 acre)
±
* Rounding may result in small summation errors.

Map Scale: 1 inch = 250 feet
Datum: NAD83, Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Coordinate System: California State Plane Zone II (FIPS 0402) Aerial Source: City of Roseville Orthophotography, 1 March 2017 and City of Rocklin Orthophotography, 19 April 2018 Industrial Avenue
Washington Boulevard
Foothills Boulevard
Union Pacific Railroad
Delineation Performed by: D. Snider
Map Prepared by: D. Wagnon
Date Prepared: 3 October 2019
Roseville Parkway Extension
Source: Madrone Ecological Consulting, 2019.

Graphics … 00041.20 (6/23/20) AB
Figure 3-1 Biological
Resources

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-27 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
LLC 2019a). During the March 2020 ICF site visit, these features contained moist soil, but lacked standing water, despite the 1.24 inches of rain that fell between March 14 and 18, 2020 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2020).

The 2016 grading was part of a grading plan that covered two parcels, totaling 60 acres between Foothills Boulevard and Industrial Boulevard. The 60 acres graded in 2016 overlap with the eastern half of the proposed project. The grading plan was analyzed under the NIPA PCL 50-Foothills Corporate Center Grading Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration (City of Roseville 2012). Mitigation for the Foothills Corporate Center grading project included a payment to the National Fish and Wildlife Fund for the purchase of 0.272 acre of vernal pool creation credits to mitigate for 0.258 acre of impacts on waters of the United States (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2012).

The seasonal wetlands are artificially created features and were determined to be non-jurisdictional by the USACE and RWQCB (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019a; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2019; VonderOhe pers.comm.).

In the grassland north of and adjacent to the study area, 15 topographic depressions were observed during the April 10, 2020 site visit (a protocol delineation was not conducted); these features were either inundated or saturated, and were dominated by the same suite of plant species observed in the study area, with the addition of bracted popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys bracteatus). In the western half of the grassland containing the study area, there are two long linear features (approximately 475 and 725 feet long) draining north; the remaining features are relatively small and scattered in the grassland containing the study area. East of Industrial Avenue in the grassland containing the study area, a long wetland ditch extends to a larger wetland ringed with black willow, sandbar willow, and Fremont’s cottonwood.

Seasonal Wetland Swale
A 0.051-acre seasonal wetland swale was mapped in the western portion of the study area in 2019 (Figure 3-1) (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019a).

Dominant plant species in the swale included Italian rye grass, small quaking grass (Briza minor), medusahead, medusahead grass, Mediterranean barley, and hyssop loosestrife.

This feature is fed by runoff from an industrial building on the south side of the study area, ultimately draining to the storm drain system (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019a). Although the seasonal wetland swale existed prior to construction of the industrial building, historic aerial imagery and the aquatic mapping for the grading in 2016 indicate that this feature did not receive sufficient water to function as a wetland (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019a). During the March 19, 2020 site visit, ICF biologists observed the swale’s continuation north through a City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-28 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
large topographical depression that had been recently tilled. Continuing north, beyond the topographical depression, the swale passes through the southeast corner of the Albertsons grocery store distribution center property and into a ditch.

The ditch is bounded on the east by the railroad, and on the west by the Albertsons development. On March 19, 2020, surface water was present in the swale and the soil was saturated. No invertebrates were observed.

The seasonal wetland swale within the project boundary was determined to be nonjurisdictional by the USACE and RWQCB (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019a; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2019; VonderOhe pers.comm.).

Drainage Ditch
Two drainage ditches are located in the western half of the study area. Dominant plant species observed within the two western ditches include sedges (Carex sp.), cattails (Typha sp.), and Italian rye grass.

The features in the western half of the study area appear to have been excavated for drainage purposes in support of industrial development (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019a) (Figure 3-1). These ditches are connected to other humanmade features (culverts and detention basins). The two western ditches were determined to be non-jurisdictional by the USACE and RWQCB (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019a; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2019; VonderOhe pers.comm.).

Detention Basin
A 0.184-acre detention basin is located in the southwestern portion of the study area and abuts the FedEx Ground and Roseville Self Storage facilities (Figure 3-1).

Dominant plant species observed in the detention basin included spike rush, cattails (Typha spp.), and rabbits foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis).

This feature was constructed to capture runoff from the commercial facilities. The detention basin was determined to be non-jurisdictional by the USACE and RWQCB (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019a; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2019; VonderOhe pers.comm.). On March 19, 2020, the basin was inundated (estimated to be less than 1 foot deep), which was likely the result of 1.24 inches of rain that had fallen between March 14 and 18, 2020 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2020). Invertebrates and tadpoles (Pacific tree frog [Pseudacris regilla]) were observed in the detention basin during the March 19, 2020 site visit by ICF biologists.

3.2.4.3 Special-Status Species
For the purpose of this initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND), specialstatus species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the federal City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-29 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Endangered Species Act (ESA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA), or other regulations, and species that are considered sufficiently rare by the scientific community to qualify for such listing. Special-status plants and animals are those species in any of the categories listed below.
 Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA (50 Code of Federal Regulations Section 17.11 [listed animals], 50 Code of Federal Regulations Section 17.12 [listed plants], and various notices in the Federal Register [proposed species]).
 Species that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA (80 Federal Register 80584, December 24, 2015).
 Species listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under CESA (14 California Code of Regulations Section 670.5).  Species that meet the definitions of rare or endangered under CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380).
 Plants listed as rare under California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.).
 Plants with a California Rare Plant Rank of 1 or 2.
 Animal species of special concern to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
 Animals fully protected in California (California Fish and Game Code Section 3511 [birds], Section 4700 [mammals], Section 5050 [amphibians and reptiles], and Section 5515 [fish]).

Based on a review of this information and surveys conducted by Madrone (2019a, 2019b) and ICF biologists, the project site and adjacent areas that contain annual grasslands and seasonal wetlands and swales support potential habitat for the following special-status plant and wildlife species.

Special-Status Plant Species
Based on queries of the CNDDB, CNPS’s rare plant inventory, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website, a review of Madrone 2019a and 2019b, and ICF’s vegetation survey, 15 special-status plant species were identified as occurring in the project region (Table 3-6). The natural communities in the study area contain potential habitat for eight of the 15 species. The remaining seven species have habitat or microhabitat requirements that are not present in the study area or that occur at elevations substantially higher than the study area. Additionally, the relatively high level of historical and ongoing disturbance drastically reduces the quality of potential habitat for special-status plant species in the study area.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-30 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
The April 10, 2020 botanical survey of the study area coincided with the identifiable period of eight special-status plants with potential to occur in the study area. No special-status plant species were observed in the study area and as a result, are not further analyzed in this document.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-31 July 2020 ICF 00041.20 Table 3-6. Sensitive Plant Species Known or with Potential to Occur in the Project Region Common Name Scientific Name
Statusa
Geographic Distribution
General Habitat Description
Blooming Period
Likelihood for Occurrence in the Study Area
Federal/ State/CRPR
Big-scale balsamroot Balsamorhiza macrolepis
—/—/1B.2 Scattered occurrences in
the Coast Ranges and Sierra Nevada Foothills
Sometimes on serpentine soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland; 295–5,101 feet.

March–June None: The disturbed grassland in
the study area supports low-quality habitat. Species was not observed during appropriately timed April 10, 2020 botanical survey.

Valley brodiaea Brodiaea rosea ssp. vallicola
—/—/4.2 Northern Sierra Nevada
Foothills, eastern Sacramento Valley, northeastern San Joaquin Valley Valley and foothill grassland (swales), vernal pools, on old alluvial terraces composed of silty, sandy, gravelly loam; 30– 1,100 feet.

April–May (June)
None: The disturbed grassland in the study area supports low-quality habitat. Species was not observed during appropriately timed April 10, 2020 botanical survey.

Hispid bird’s-beak Chloropyron mollessp. hispidum
—/—/1B.1 Central Valley in Alameda,
Fresno, Kern, Merced, Placer, and Solano Counties
Meadows and seeps, playas, valley and foothill grassland, on alkaline soils; 3–508 feet June–September
None: The disturbed grassland does not contain suitable alkaline soil habitat. Species was not observed during appropriately timed September 5 and 25, 2019 wetland survey.

Brandegee’s clarkia Clarkia biloba ssp. brandegeeae
–/–/4.2 Northern Sierra Nevada
foothills from Butte County to El Dorado County
Chaparral, oak woodland; 970–2,900 feet
May–July None: Study area does not contain
suitable habitat (chaparral or oak woodland).

Dwarf downingia Downingia pusilla
—/—/2B.2 Central Valley Valley and foothill
grassland (mesic), vernal pools; below 1,459 feet
March–May None: The seasonal wetland swale
supports marginally suitable hydrology and could provide suitable habitat. Species was not observed during appropriately timed April 10, 2020 botanical survey.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-32 July 2020 ICF 00041.20 Common Name Scientific Name
Statusa
Geographic Distribution
General Habitat Description
Blooming Period
Likelihood for Occurrence in the Study Area
Federal/ State/CRPR
Stinkbells Fritillaria agrestis
—/—/4.2 Outer North Coast Ranges,
Sierra Nevada Foothills, Central Valley, central western California Grasslands, foothill woodlands, and open grassy areas in chaparral, between 30–5,100 ft March–June None: The disturbed grassland in
the study area supports low-quality habitat. Species was not observed during appropriately timed April 10, 2020 botanical survey.

Boggs Lake hedgehyssop Gratiola heterosepala
—/E /1B.2 Inner North Coast Ranges,
Central Sierra Nevada Foothills, Sacramento Valley and Modoc Plateau: Fresno, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Merced, Modoc, Placer, Sacramento, Shasta, Siskiyou, San Joaquin, Solano, and Tehama Counties; also Oregon Clay soils in areas of shallow water, marshes and swamps (lake margins), vernal pools; 33–7,791 feet April–August None: Species requires vernal
pools or seasonal wetlands with extended hydroperiod, which do not occur in the study area. Species was not observed during appropriately timed April 10, 2020 botanical survey.

Ahart’s dwarf rush Juncus leiospermusvar. ahartii
—/—/1B.2 Eastern Sacramento Valley,
northeastern San Joaquin Valley with occurrences in Butte, Calaveras, Placer, Sacramento, Tehama, and Yuba Counties Wet areas in valley and foothill grassland (mesic); 98–751 feet March–May None: Species requires vernal
pools or seasonal wetlands with extended hydroperiod, which do not occur in the study area. Species was not observed during appropriately timed April 10, 2020 botanical survey.

Red Bluff dwarf rush Juncus leiospermusvar. leiospermus —/—/1B.1 Northern Sacramento
Valley and Cascade Range foothills with occurrences in Butte, Placer, Shasta, and Tehama Counties Seasonally wet areas in chaparral, cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools; 115–4,101 feet March–June None: Species requires vernal
pools or seasonal wetlands with extended hydroperiod, which do not occur in the study area. Species was not observed during appropriately timed April 10, 2020 botanical survey.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-33 July 2020 ICF 00041.20 Common Name Scientific Name
Statusa
Geographic Distribution
General Habitat Description
Blooming Period
Likelihood for Occurrence in the Study Area
Federal/ State/CRPR
Legenere Legenere limosa
—/—/1B.1 Primarily in the lower
Sacramento Valley, also from north Coast Ranges, northern San Joaquin Valley and the Santa Cruz Mountains Deep, seasonally wet habitats such as vernal pools, ditches, marsh edges, and river banks; below 2,887 feet April-June None: The recently constructed
detention basin contains potential low-quality habitat, but the feature is hydrologically isolated and species occurrence is extremely unlikely. Species was not observed during appropriately timed April 10, 2020 botanical survey.

Pincushion navarretia Navarretia myersiissp. myersii
—/—/1B.1 Central Valley in Amador,
Calaveras, Merced, Placer, and Sacramento Counties
Edge of vernal pools; 66–1,083 feet
April–May None: The seasonal wetland swale
has low-quality potentially suitable habitat. Species was not observed during appropriately timed April 10, 2020 botanical survey.

Adobe navarretia Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. nigelliformis —/—/4.2 Great Valley and adjacent
foothills
Vernal pools and clay flats; below 3,280 feet
April–June None: The seasonal wetland swale
has low-quality potentially suitable habitat. Species was not observed during appropriately timed April 10, 2020 botanical survey.

Sacramento Orcutt grass Orcuttia viscida
E/E/1B.1 Endemic to Sacramento
County
Vernal pools; 98–328 feet April–July None: The seasonal wetland swale has low-quality potentially suitable habitat. Species was not observed during appropriately timed April 10, 2020 botanical survey.

Sanford’s arrowhead Sagittaria sanfordii
—/—/1B.2 Scattered locations in
Central Valley and Coast Ranges
Marshes and swamps (assorted shallow, slowmoving freshwater); below 2,132 feet May–Oct None: The recently constructed
detention basin contains potential low-quality habitat, but the feature is hydrologically isolated and species occurrences is extremely unlikely. Species was not observed during appropriately timed April 10, 2020 botanical survey. a Status explanations:

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-34 July 2020 ICF 00041.20 Common Name Scientific Name
Statusa
Geographic Distribution
General Habitat Description
Blooming Period
Likelihood for Occurrence in the Study Area
Federal/ State/CRPR
Federal E = Listed as endangered under the federal ESA. — = No listing status. State E = Listed as endangered under CESA. — = No listing status. CRPR 1B = rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2 = rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. 4 = limited distribution; species on a watch list .1 = seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened–high degree and immediacy of threat). .2 = fairly endangered in California (20–80% occurrences threatened).

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-35 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Based on a review of existing information, including a special-status species habitat evaluation conducted by Madrone (2019b), CNDDB species occurrences within 5 miles of the study area [2020], and USFWS species list [2020] for the study area, 23 special-status wildlife species were determined to have the potential to occur in the project region (Table 3-7). After completion of the 2020 field surveys and review of species distribution and habitat requirements data, the biologists determined that 18 of the 23 species would not occur in the study area because the area lacks suitable habitat or is outside the species’ known range. An explanation for the absence of each of these species from the study area is provided in Table 3-7.

Two special-status bat species (Townsend’s big-eared bat [Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii] and western red bat [Lasiurus blossevillii]) could forage over the study area but are not expected to roost in the study area based on the lack of suitable roost trees or structures.

The CNDDB contains records of vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), a federally threatened species, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), a federally endangered species, in the vicinity of the study area. Based on a specialstatus species habitat assessment conducted by Madrone in 2019 for the project (2019b), vernal pool tadpole shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp are not expected to occur in the study area. Madrone (2019b) provides the following rational for the species absence. No aquatic resources within the study area were observed to have the appropriate hydroperiod for vernal pool tadpole shrimp (i.e., inundation of at least 54 days to complete life cycle, but with complete dry-down). Three seasonal wetlands and a seasonal wetland swale that occur within the study area may inundate sufficiently to support vernal pool fairy shrimp (i.e., 18-day life cycle); however, these wetlands were formed as a result of construction in the fall of 2016.

The area where these wetlands formed was disturbed during the 2012/2013 construction and then again in 2016. It appears that the wetlands are located on fill material, and the relatively minimal vegetation that has established since their creation indicates that the fill soil was likely sterile. There are no aquatic resources upstream of the study area wetlands that could provide a source for the species to become established, and there is no apparent hydrological connection to any other wetland features. This effectively eliminates the transport of vernal pool shrimp or their eggs through watershed processes.

Suitable habitat is present in the study area for the remaining five species listed and discussed below.
 Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii)
 Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-36 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
 Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)
 White-tailed kite (Elanus lucurus)
 Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
Western Spadefoot
The western spadefoot is designated as a state species of special concern. Western spadefoot toads typically inhabit lowland habitats such as washes, floodplains of rivers, alluvial fans, playas, and alkali flats. This species may also be found in the foothills and mountain regions. Western spadefoot toads prefer areas of open vegetation and short grasses where the soil is sandy or gravelly (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). They are found in the valley and foothill grasslands, open chaparral, and pine-oak woodlands. Spadefoot toads are primarily terrestrial and require upland habitats for feeding and for constructing burrows for their long dryseason dormancy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). They require wetlands for reproduction and have been observed in a variety of permanent and temporary wetlands including rivers, creeks, pools in intermittent streams, vernal pools, and temporary rain pools (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). Larval development can be completed in 3 to 11 weeks but has been known to take up to 79 days from hatching to metamorphosis (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). Vernal pools and other temporary wetlands may be optimal for breeding because of the absence or reduced abundance of predators (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005).

The detention basin provides potential breeding habitat for western spadefoot because it retains water for a sufficient period of time to support larval development (minimum of 30 days). The closest CNDDB occurrences for spadefoot in the vicinity of the study area consists of a 1990 record in the vicinity of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard, approximately 1.1 miles southwest of the study area (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020).

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-37 July 2020 ICF 00041.20 Table 3-7. Sensitive Wildlife Species Known or with Potential to Occur in the Project Region Common Name Scientific Name
Legal Status (Federal/State)a General Habitat Description Likelihood of Occurrence in the Study Area
Invertebrates Conservancy fairy shrimp Branchinecta conservatio E/– Largest California fairy shrimp species most often
found in large (3,900 to 7,500 meter square) clay bottom vernal pools to very large (356,253 meter square) vernal lakes.

None: Wetland habitat in the study area does not provide the characteristics of occupied habitat known to support Conservancy fairy shrimp.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
T/– Found in Central Valley, central and south Coast
Ranges from Tehama County to Santa Barbara County; isolated populations also in Riverside County; common in vernal pools; also found in sandstone rock outcrop pools.

None: Wetland habitat in the study area does not provide the characteristics of occupied habitat known to support vernal pool fairy shrimp.

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi
E/– Found from Shasta County south to Merced
County; occur in vernal pools and ephemeral stock ponds.

None: Wetland habitat in the study area does not provide the characteristics of occupied habitat known to support vernal pool tadpole shrimp.

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus T/– Stream side habitats below 3,000 feet throughout
the Central Valley; occur in riparian and oak savanna habitats with elderberry shrubs; elderberries are the host plant.

None: No elderberry shrubs are present in the study area.

Amphibians California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii T/SSC Found along the coast and coastal mountain
ranges of California from Marin County to San Diego County and in the Sierra Nevada from Tehema County to Fresno County; occur in permanent and semipermanent aquatic habitats, such as creeks and cold-water ponds, with emergent and submergent vegetation; may estivate in rodent burrows or cracks during dry periods.

None: No suitable perennial aquatic habitat is present within the study area and the species has not been previously documented within valley grassland habitat in western Placer County. The closest CNDDB occurrences are more than 30 miles north and northeast of the study area.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-38 July 2020 ICF 00041.20 Common Name Scientific Name
Legal Status (Federal/State)a General Habitat Description Likelihood of Occurrence in the Study Area
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii
–/SSC Breeding and egg laying in seasonal wetlands such as vernal pools and stock ponds, spends most of the year underground in burrows in annual grasslands and oak woodlands within the Sierra Nevada foothills, Central Valley and Coast Ranges.

Low: Potential habitat is present at the detention basin in the study area. However, this basin is bound by development to the south and west and annual grassland to the north and east and is routinely disturbed, which reduces the likelihood of occurrence in the study area. Closest CNDDB occurrence is 1.1 miles southwest of the study area (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020).

Reptiles Giant garter snake Thamnophis couchi gigas
T/T/– Sloughs, canals, low gradient streams and
freshwater marsh habitats where there is a prey base of small fish and amphibians; also found in irrigation ditches and rice fields; requires grassy banks and emergent vegetation for basking and areas of high ground protected from flooding during winter.

None: No suitable perennial marsh or drainage habitat is present within the study area.

Pacific pond turtle Actinemys marmorata
–/SSC Occurs throughout California west of the SierraCascade crest; found from sea level to 6,000 feet; does not occur in desert regions except for along the Mojave River and its tributaries; occupies ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation canals with muddy or rocky bottoms and with watercress, cattails, water lilies, or other aquatic vegetation in woodlands, grasslands, and open forests.

None: No suitable perennial aquatic habitat is present within the study area. The closest potential habitat is approximately 0.6 mile to the southwest at Woodcreek Golf Club (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020).

Birds Bank swallow Riparia riparia
–/T Occurs along the Sacramento River from Tehama
County to Sacramento County, along the Feather and lower American Rivers, in the Owens Valley; and in the plains east of the Cascade Range in Modoc, Lassen, and northern Siskiyou Counties.

None: No suitable river or stream bank habitat is present in study area. No known CNDDB occurrence within 2 miles of the study area.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-39 July 2020 ICF 00041.20 Common Name Scientific Name
Legal Status (Federal/State)a General Habitat Description Likelihood of Occurrence in the Study Area
Small populations near the coast from San Francisco County to Monterey County. Nests in bluffs or banks, usually adjacent to water, where the soil consists of sand or sandy loam, along streams, coastal bluffs, and sand/gravel pits.

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea
–/SSC Lowlands throughout California, including the
Central Valley, northeastern plateau, southeastern deserts, and coastal areas; rare along south coast; level, open, dry, heavily grazed or low stature grassland or desert vegetation with available burrows.

Low: Grassland in the study area represents potential breeding and wintering habitat for the species. No known occurrences within the study area and species was not detected during September 2019 surveys conducted by Madrone (2019b) and March 2020 surveys conducted by ICF.

California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus –/T, FP Permanent resident in the San Francisco Bay and eastward through the Delta into Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; small populations in Marin, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, Orange, Riverside, and Imperial Counties; tidal salt marshes associated with heavy growth of pickleweed; also occurs in brackish marshes or freshwater marshes at low elevations. Recently discovered northern Sierra Nevada foothill population occupies shallow, densely vegetated freshwater wetlands.

None: No suitable freshwater marsh habitat is present within the study area. No known CNDDB occurrence within 2 miles of the study area.

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum
–/SSC Dry, dense grasslands with a variety of grasses
and tall forbs and scattered shrubs in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges from Mendocino and Trinity Counties south to San Diego County.

Moderate: Suitable foraging and nesting habitat is present within annual grassland in the study area.

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus
–/SSC Occurs in grasslands, meadows, marshes, and
seasonal and agricultural wetlands throughout lowland California.

High: Suitable nesting and foraging habitat is present within annual grassland in study area. Species was observed foraging in the vicinity of the study area during the March 2020 survey conducted by ICF.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-40 July 2020 ICF 00041.20 Common Name Scientific Name
Legal Status (Federal/State)a General Habitat Description Likelihood of Occurrence in the Study Area
Purple martin Progne subis
–/SSC Nests in abandoned woodpecker holes in oaks,
cottonwoods, and other deciduous trees in a variety of wooded and riparian habitats. Also nests in vertical drainage holes under elevated freeways and highway.

None: No suitable nesting habitat is present in the study area.

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni
–/T Lower Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, the
Klamath Basin, and Butte Valley; highest nesting densities occur near Davis and Woodland, Yolo County; nests in oaks or cottonwoods in or near riparian habitats; forages in grasslands, irrigated pastures, and grain fields.

High: Annual grassland in the study area represents suitable foraging habitat. Trees adjacent to the study area could support nesting. The closest CNNDB nest sites are located 1.4 and 1.8 miles northwest from the study area (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020).

Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor
–/T, SSC Permanent resident in the Central Valley from Butte County to Kern County; breeds at scattered coastal locations from Marin County south to San Diego County; and at scattered locations in Lake, Sonoma, and Solano Counties; rare nester in Siskiyou, Modoc, and Lassen Counties; nests in dense colonies in emergent marsh vegetation, such as tules and cattails, or upland sites with blackberries, nettles, thistles, and grainfields; habitat must be large enough to support 50 pairs; probably requires water at or near the nesting colony.

None: No suitable nesting habitat is present within the study area. No known CNDDB occurrence within 2 miles of the study area.

White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus
–/FP Lowland areas west of Sierra Nevada from the
head of the Sacramento Valley south, including coastal valleys and foothills to western San Diego County at the Mexico border; low foothills or valley areas with valley or live oaks, riparian areas, and marshes near open grasslands for foraging.

High: Annual grassland in the study area represents suitable foraging habitat. Trees adjacent to the study area could support nesting. The nearest CNDDB occurrence is 0.8 mile southwest of the study area Mammals
City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-41 July 2020 ICF 00041.20 Common Name Scientific Name
Legal Status (Federal/State)a General Habitat Description Likelihood of Occurrence in the Study Area
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii –/SSC Roosts in caves, tunnels, mines, and dark attics of abandoned buildings; very sensitive to disturbances and may abandon a roost after one on-site visit.

None: No suitable roosting habitat is present in the study area. May forage or drink in the study area.

Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii
–/SSC Found throughout much of California at lower
elevations. Found primarily in riparian and wooded habitats. Occurs at least seasonally in urban areas. Day roosts in trees within the foliage. Found in fruit orchards and sycamore riparian habitats in the Central Valley.

None: Typically requires larger expanses of wooded habitat for roosting. No suitable roost trees are present in the study area. May forage or drink in the study area.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-42 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Swainson’s Hawk
Swainson’s hawk is a state-listed threatened species. Swainson’s hawks forage in grasslands, grazed pastures, alfalfa and other hay crops, and certain grain and row croplands. Vineyards, orchards, rice, and cotton crops are generally unsuitable for foraging because of the density of the vegetation (California Department of Fish and Game 1994). They usually nest in large, mature trees. Most nest sites (87 percent) in the Central Valley are found in riparian habitats (Estep 1989), primarily because trees are more available there. Swainson’s hawks also nest in mature roadside trees and in isolated trees in agricultural fields or pastures. The breeding season is from March through August (Estep 1989).

Within the study area, potential nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk is restricted to a few large ash trees along Industrial Avenue, and various other trees within nearby greenbelts that border adjacent industrial and residential developments. The closest documented Swainson’s hawk nest sites are 1.4 miles to the northwest in William Huges Park and 1.9 miles to the west-northwest in Veteran’s Memorial Park, both adjacent to Pleasant Grove Creek (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020).

Annual grassland in the study area supports small rodents (e.g., mice, voles, pocket gopher), as evidenced by the numerous burrows and grass tunnels and paths throughout this habitat, and, therefore, represents suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk.

Northern Harrier
Northern harrier is designated as California species of special concern. This species is a year-round resident throughout the Central Valley and is often associated with open grassland habitats and agricultural fields. Nests are found on the ground in tall, dense herbaceous vegetation (MacWhirter and Bildstein 1996). Northern harrier nests from April to September, with peak activity in June and July. The breeding population has been reduced, particularly along the southern coast, because of the destruction of wetland habitat, native grassland, and moist meadows and from the burning and plowing of nesting areas during early stages of breeding.

Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for northern harrier is present within annual grassland habitat throughout the study area.

White-Tailed Kite
White-tailed kite is designated as California species of special concern and a fully protected species under the California Fish and Game Code. White-tailed kite occurs in coastal and valley lowlands in California. White-tailed kites generally inhabit low-elevation grassland, savannah, oak woodland, wetlands, agricultural, and riparian habitats. Some large shrubs or trees are required for nesting and for communal roosting sites. Nest trees range from small, isolated shrubs and trees to City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-43 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
trees in relatively large stands (Dunk 1995). White-tailed kites make nests of loosely piled sticks and twigs, lined with grass and straw, near the top of dense oaks, willows, and other trees. The breeding season lasts from February through October and peaks from May to August. They forage in undisturbed, open grassland, meadows, farmland, and emergent wetlands.

White-tailed kite could forage within annual grassland habitat throughout the study area. Potential nesting habitat for white-tailed kites in the study area is restricted to a few large ash trees along Industrial Avenue, and in various other trees along nearby greenbelts that border adjacent industrial and residential developments as described above for Swainson’s hawk. Nesting white-tailed kites have been documented 0.8 mile southwest of the study area along the border of Woodcreek Golf Course and Hewlett-Packard.

Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl is a state species of special concern and is protected during its nesting season under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Burrowing owl is a ground-nesting raptor that typically uses burrows of other species, such as ground squirrels, for nesting, protection, and shelter. Burrowing owls are a year-long resident in a variety of grasslands, as well as in scrublands with a low density of trees and shrubs and low-growing vegetation.

Burrowing owls that nest in the Central Valley may winter elsewhere. The primary habitat requirement of the burrowing owl is burrows appropriate for nesting.

Burrowing owls usually nest in abandoned burrows, although they have been known to construct their own burrows in softer soils. In urban and agricultural areas, burrowing owls often use artificial burrows, such as cement culverts, cement, asphalt, or wood debris piles, or openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement, particularly pipes. This owl breeds from March through August and is most active while hunting during dawn and dusk (California Department of Fish and Game 1995).

Annual grassland in the study area represents potential wintering and breeding habitat for burrowing owls. Although no burrowing owl occurrences are known within the study area, small mammal burrows and piles of concrete rubble are present and provide potentially suitable burrow habitat. Burrowing owls or evidence of burrowing owl use (e.g., whitewash, pellets, feathers) were not observed in the study area during the September 2019 surveys conducted by Madrone (2019b) and during March 2020 surveys conducted by ICF.

Non-Special-Status Migratory Birds
In addition to special-status species, non-special-status migratory birds and raptors could nest on or adjacent to the project site, and their occupied nests and eggs are City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-44 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
protected by California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5 and the federal MBTA.

3.2.4.4 Impact Analysis
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Work on the project site could directly or indirectly (through habitat modification) affect wildlife species identified as special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. There is no suitable habitat for special-status fish and botanical surveys did not identify any special-status plants on the project site. Therefore, special-status fish and plants are not analyzed in this section. A description of the potential effects on western spadefoot toad and groundnesting migratory birds and raptors is provided below.

Western Spadefoot Toad
Although suitable breeding habitat in the detention basin would be avoided during construction, upland habitat would be removed or otherwise altered by construction activities such as grading, excavation, and stockpiling of soil. These activities could also result in injury or mortality to western spadefoot toads. Western spadefoot toads could also become entrapped in open trenches or other project facilities. Because the population of western spadefoots in western Placer County is expected to be small and a large amount of potential upland habitat would be disturbed as a result of the proposed project, the loss of individuals would be considered significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level and ensure that the proposed project would avoid potential impacts on western spadefoot.

Special-Status and Non-Special-Status Migratory Birds and Raptors. Groundnesting migratory birds and raptors could nest in and adjacent to the project site, including the burrowing owl and northern harrier (both California species of special concern). Riparian and oak woodland habitats in the vicinity of the project site contain numerous trees that provide suitable nesting habitat for raptor species, including Swainson’s hawk (state-listed as threatened) and white-tailed kite (fully protected). Implementation of the proposed project could result in removal or disturbance of occupied bird or raptor nests during the breeding season (generally March 1–August 30). Construction activities during the breeding season that result in death of young or loss of reproductive potential would violate California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 (active bird nests) and Section 3503.5 (active raptor City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-45 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
nests) and the MBTA. This impact would be significant. The City will implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-4 to reduce this impact to a less-thansignificant level. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community because none occurs on the project site.

There would be no impact.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act because no jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetland waters occur on the project site.

The aquatic resources delineation and corresponding approved jurisdictional determination by the USACE determined that no waters of the U.S. are present on the project site (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019a; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2019). As discussed previously, the RWQCB concurred with this determination and provided confirmation that the disturbed and artificially created features on the project site would not be considered waters of the State. There would be no impact.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The study area is predominantly undeveloped but is bordered and divided by major roadways including Industrial Avenue, Foothill Boulevard, and Washington Boulevard. The study area is also bordered by industrial development to the north and south and residential development to the east. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. There would be no impact.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-46 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (including essential fish habitat)?
The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinance protecting biological resources, including Chapter 19.66 (Tree Preservation) in the Roseville Municipal Code. The project site does not support native oaks that would meet the City’s definition of protected trees. There would be no impact. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
There are no approved habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other adopted plans that would apply to the proposed project. Accordingly, there would be no impact.

3.2.4.5 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Install Fencing and/or Flagging to Protect Sensitive Biological Resources
Prior to construction, the City’s contractor will install high-visibility orange construction fencing and/or flagging around the detention basin to ensure direct and indirect effects on suitable habitat for western spadefoot is avoided. The City will ensure that the final construction plans show the locations where fencing and/or flagging will be installed. The plans will also define the fencing installation procedure. The City or contractor (at the discretion of the City) will ensure that the fencing is maintained throughout the duration of the construction period. If the fencing is removed, damaged, or otherwise compromised during the construction period, construction activities will cease until the fencing is repaired or replaced.

The project’s special provisions package will provide clear language regarding acceptable fencing material and prohibited construction-related activities, vehicle operation, material and equipment storage, and other surface-disturbing activities within environmentally sensitive areas. A note specifying this information will be included on the project Improvement Plans.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Conduct Mandatory Environmental Awareness Training for Construction Personnel
Before any work occurs in the project area, including grading, the City will retain a qualified biologist (familiar with the resources to be protected) to conduct a mandatory contractor/worker environmental awareness training for construction personnel. The awareness training will be provided to all construction personnel City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-47 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
(contractors and subcontractors) to brief them on the need to avoid effects on sensitive biological resources adjacent to construction areas.

The environmental training also will cover general restrictions and guidelines that must be followed by all construction personnel to reduce or avoid effects on sensitive biological resources during project construction. The crew foreman will be responsible for ensuring that crew members adhere to these guidelines and restrictions, and that new personnel review the environmental training prior to starting work on-site.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Provide Escape Ramps for Wildlife and Inspect Pits and Trenches Daily
To prevent inadvertent entrapment of western spadefoot toads during construction in grassland habitat, all excavated, steep-walled holes, and trenches more than 6 inches deep, will be provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks and will be inspected prior to being filled to ensure that no wildlife are present. In the event that holes or pits cannot be ramped, they will be properly covered at night to prevent access by wildlife.

Coverings may consist of wooden boards, metal plates, or tarps held down by soil or rocks, with no openings between the cover and the ground. The biological monitor or a designated construction crew member will inspect covered and open trenches and pits each morning and evening during construction to look for spadefoot toads or other wildlife that may have become trapped. It should be noted that spadefoot toads can fall into a trench or pit through the excavated wall of the trench or pit; therefore, these areas must be inspected daily, even if covered.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Construct the Project during the Nonbreeding Season or Conduct Pre-Construction Surveys for Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors
Where vegetation removal is required to construct project features, the City will conduct this activity during the nonbreeding season for migratory birds and raptors (generally between September 1 and February 28), to the extent feasible.

If construction activities (including vegetation removal) cannot be confined to the nonbreeding season, the City will retain a qualified wildlife biologist with knowledge of the relevant species to conduct nesting surveys before the start of construction. The migratory bird and raptor nesting surveys will include a minimum of two separate surveys to look for active migratory bird and raptor nests. Surveys will include a search of all vegetation that provides suitable nesting habitat in the construction area. In addition, a 500-foot area around the construction area will be surveyed for raptors (including burrowing owl) and a 100-foot area around the construction area will be surveyed for song birds. In City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-48 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
addition, solitary trees and woodland habitats within 0.25 mile of the project site will be surveyed for nesting Swainson’s hawks. For survey areas outside the project site, the surveyors will walk areas where property access is authorized.

For portions of the survey area without property access, the biologist will scan vegetation using binoculars from the project site or from public roads. One survey should be conducted no more than 14 days prior to construction and the second survey should be conducted within 48 hours of the start of construction or vegetation removal. If no active nests are detected during these surveys, no protective measures are required.

If an active nest is found in the survey area, a no-disturbance buffer will be established around the nest site to avoid disturbance or destruction of the nest until the end of the breeding season (August 31) or after a qualified wildlife biologist determines that the young have fledged and moved out of the nesting substrate (this date varies by species). The extent of these buffers will be determined by the biologist and will depend on the level of construction disturbance, line of sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise and other disturbances, and other topographical or artificial barriers.

Suitable buffer distances may vary between species but will be established a minimum of 50 feet from active construction for passerine species and up to 500 feet for non-listed raptor species. A minimum buffer of 1,000 feet will be established for an active Swainson’s hawk nest. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, or minimal construction activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be used, the City will coordinate with CDFW to determine the appropriate buffer size.

3.2.4.6 References
Baldwin et al. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. Second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo Swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. November 1. Section 3.4. Sacramento, CA.
———. 1995. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. September 25. Section 3.4.

Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. RareFind 5 [Internet]. California Natural Diversity Database, California Department of Fish and Wildlife [April 3, 2020 version]. Accessed at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-andData. Accessed on: April 1, 2019.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-49 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Accessed at:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org Accessed on: May 20, 2020.

Dunk, J. R. 1995. White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus). The Birds of North America, No. 178 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornit’ologists' Union, Washington, D.C.

Estep, J. A. 1989. Biology, movements, and habitat relationships of the Swainson's Hawk in the Central Valley of California, 1986-87. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California.

MacWhirter, R. B., and K. L. Bildstein. 1996. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus). In The Birds of North America, No. 210 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The birds of North America Online, Ithaca, New York.

Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC (Madrone). 2019a. Draft Aquatic Resources Delineation Report for Roseville Parkway Extension. Prepared for the City of Roseville. Published on 14 October 2019.

Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC (Madrone). 2019b. Memo- Roseville Parkway Stockpile Study Area - Habitat Suitability Analysis for Special-Status Species.

Prepared for the City of Roseville. Published on 16 December 2019.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2019. Approved Jurisdictional Determination letter for the Roseville Parkway Extension Site from Ms. Leah Fisher (USACE Senior Project Manager) to Ms. Terri Shirhall (City of Roseville Environmental Coordinator).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.

Sacramento, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. IPaC Resource List. Accessed at:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-50 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.5 Cultural Resources
V. Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?

3.2.5.1 Setting Precontact Context
Although the Sacramento Valley may have been inhabited by humans as early as 10,000 years ago, the evidence for early human use likely is buried under deep alluvial sediments that accumulated rapidly during the late Holocene epoch.

Archaeological remains of this early period, although rare, have been identified in and around the Central Valley (Johnson 1967; Treganza and Heizer 1953). Johnson (1967) presents evidence for some use of the Mokelumne River area, under what is now Camanche Reservoir, during the late Pleistocene. Archaeologists working at the reservoir found a number of lithic cores and a flake associated with Pleistocene gravels. These archaeological remains have been grouped into what is called the Farmington Complex, characterized by core tools and large, reworked percussion flakes (Treganza and Heizer 1953). The economy of this early period is generally thought to be based on exploitation of large game. Later periods are better understood due to more abundant representation in the archaeological record.

The taxonomic framework of the Sacramento Valley has been described in terms of archaeological patterns (Moratto 1984). A pattern is a general mode of life characterized archaeologically by technology, particular artifacts, economic systems, trade, burial practices, and other aspects of culture. Fredrickson (1973) identified three general patterns of resource use for the period between 4,500 and 3,500 years before present (BP): the Windmiller, Berkeley, and Augustine Patterns.

The Windmiller Pattern (4,500–3,000 BP) shows evidence of a mixed economy of game procurement and use of wild plant foods. Windmiller archaeological assemblages include numerous projectile points and a wide range of faunal remains.

Hunting was not limited to terrestrial animals; fishing hooks and spears have been City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-51 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
found in association with the remains of sturgeon, salmon, and other fish (Moratto 1984). Plants also were used, as indicated by ground stone artifacts and clay balls used for boiling acorn mush. Settlement strategies reflect seasonal adaptations:
habitation sites in the valley were occupied during winter with populations moving into the foothills during summer (Moratto 1984).

The Windmiller Pattern ultimately changed to a more specialized adaptation entitled the Berkeley Pattern (3,500–2,500 BP). At Berkeley Pattern sites, the use of manos and metates declines in favor of mortars and pestles, indicating greater dependence on acorns. Although gathered resources gained importance during this period, the continued presence of projectile points and atlatls (spear-throwers) in the archaeological record indicates that hunting was still an important activity (Fredrickson 1973).

The Berkeley Pattern was superseded by the Augustine Pattern around AD 500. The Augustine Pattern reflects a change in subsistence and land use patterns to those of the ethnographically known people, the Nisenan, of the historic era. This pattern exhibits high elaboration of ceremonial and social organization, including the development of social stratification. Augustine Pattern assemblages show that welldeveloped exchange networks were present, along with an increased emphasis on acorn use, evidenced by abundant shaped mortars and pestles, along with hopper mortars. Other notable elements of Augustine Pattern assemblages include flanged tubular smoking pipes, harpoons, clamshell disc beads, and an elaborate baked clay industry that included figurines and pottery vessels (Cosumnes Brownware). The use of the bow and arrow is suggested by the presence of small projectile point types (Gunther Barbed). Mortuary ritual of Augustine Pattern sites includes the introduction of pre-interment burning of offerings in grave pits. Also indicated by Augustine Pattern assemblages are increased village sedentism, population growth, and an incipient monetary economy in which beads were used as a standard of exchange (Moratto 1984).

3.2.5.2 Ethnographic Context
The Nisenan occupied the project area at the time of Euroamerican contact and spoke a Maiduan language (Wilson and Towne 1978:387). The Maiduan family of languages is part of the Penutian stock (Shipley 1978:82, 83). Penutian speakers occupied the Central Valley, Central Sierra Nevada, and the San Francisco Bay area at the time of Euroamerican contact.

The Nisenan occupied the lower Feather River drainage and the drainages of the Yuba, Bear, and American Rivers. The boundary with the Miwok to the south was near the Cosumnes River. The western boundary was the Sacramento River, and the eastern boundary was the crest of the Sierra Nevada (Wilson and Towne 1978:387; Kroeber 1925 [1976]: Plate 37).

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-52 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
The principal Nisenan villages and associated smaller settlements controlled resources within a territory containing between 20 and 500 residents (Wilson and Towne 1978:388). Families in each territory controlled specific oak groves and fishing sites. A headman who lived in the principal village arbitrated disputes, directed festivities, provided advice, and consulted with family leaders. His authority was limited, however, absent the support of the family leaders and the shamans (Wilson and Towne 1978:393).

In the Sacramento Valley, principal villages were located on low natural rises along rivers and streams. In the project vicinity, villages were located along the American River, approximately 5 miles southeast of the project area at the nearest approach.

Valley villages consisted of 5 to 50 houses that were dome-shaped and covered with earth, mats, and grass. Brush shelters were used in the summer and when people were away from the village. Major villages had semi-subterranean dance houses with post-and-beam construction (Wilson and Towne 1978:388).

Villages in the foothills were located on ridges and on flats along streams. Houses were conical and covered with brush bark and skins. Most villages had bedrock milling stations. Other site types included seasonal camps, quarries, ceremonial grounds, fishing stations, trading sites, and cemeteries (Wilson and Towne 1978:389). Some people lived away from the main village.

Early Nisenan contact with Europeans appears to have been limited to the southern reaches of Nisenan territory. Spanish expeditions began to cross Nisenan territory in the early 1800s. Unlike the Valley Nisenan, Hill Nisenan groups remained relatively unaffected by the European presence until the discovery of gold at Coloma in 1848.

In the 2 or 3 years following the gold discovery, Nisenan territory was overrun by settlers from throughout the world. Gold seekers and the settlements established to support them, as well as the disease and violence accompanying them, almost caused extinction of the area’s native inhabitants. Nisenan survivors worked as wage laborers and domestic help, living on the edges of foothill towns. Despite severe depredations, descendants of the Nisenan still live in Placer County and maintain their cultural identity.

3.2.5.3 Historic Context
Early History
Placer County was established on April 25, 1851, from portions of Sutter and Yuba Counties. Placer refers to the “alluvial or glacial deposits containing gold particles” obtained by washing. The place name was appropriate for the county because placer mining was the principal employment in the area (Hoover et al. 2002:271).

James Marshall’s discovery of gold on January 24, 1848, along the South Fork of the American River brought thousands of miners and emigrants into the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. In Placer County, one of the more lucrative mining districts was City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-53 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
the Secret Ravine area from present-day Roseville to Newcastle (Barry-Schweyer and Alvarez 2005:7). Despite their initial high hopes, the vast majority of prospectors were unsuccessful and left the area disillusioned, with little to show for their efforts; however, many remained to stake out homesteads and to establish farms. The population of the county at its time of organization was about 10,000, of which 8,000 were Euroamerican and mostly men (Thompson & West 1882:101).

By the early 1850s, surface mining was already in decline, as permanent settlements, homesteads, and farms began to replace the temporary camps and transient mining communities. In southwestern Placer County, one of the first areas settled was the rich farmland around present-day Roseville. Farmers in the area engaged in commercial cultivation of wheat, fruit trees, and grapes. In addition to farming, many landowners were involved in raising cattle. By the mid-1870s, a number of large ranches were in the Rocklin area, including those of R.M. Nixon, D.C. Allen, and Joel Parker Whitney (Davis 1981:33).

The Coming of the Railroad
The community of Roseville has its origins at the junction of two railroads, the California Central Railroad and the Central Pacific Railroad. The earlier of the two, the California Central Railroad, completed its line through southwestern Placer County in 1861. On January 29, 1864, the Central Pacific Railroad crossed the tracks of the California Central Railroad as it continued eastward over the Sierra Nevada to complete the nation’s first transcontinental line (Davis 1975:25).

The junction between the two railroads was favorably located within a rich agricultural region and rapidly developed into a major shipping center. O.D. Lombard platted the town site of “Roseville Junction” in 1864 with blocks laid out and numbered from one to 55. Only five streets were named: Atlantic, Pacific, Vernon, Washington, and Lincoln Streets. The Central Pacific Railroad freight depot was the first building constructed in the new town. Other businesses such as a bank, blacksmith shop, shoe repair shop, butcher shop, dry goods stores, hotels, and saloons soon followed. Housed in wood-frame buildings, these businesses sprang up along Atlantic, Pacific, and Lincoln Streets. Overall development of the town from 1870 to 1906 was slow but steady (Davis 1975:29, 33).

In 1885, the Central Pacific Railroad was acquired by the Southern Pacific Railroad and consolidated into a vast national transportation system. By the early 1900s, the railroad’s facility in the town of Rocklin had become inadequate to meet the demands of the Southern Pacific Railroad system. Consequently, in 1906 Southern Pacific Railroad officials made the decision to transfer the rail yard, roundhouse, and other maintenance facilities to Roseville. The removal of the terminal facilities also resulted in a substantial exodus of residents, homes, and businesses to Roseville.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-54 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
One contemporary estimated that in 1908 at least 100 businesses and residential buildings were transported to Roseville on trucks (Davis 1981:59–61).

Development of the City of Roseville
During the first quarter of the twentieth century, Roseville continued to have slow and steady growth as a fully established railroad community. The City proceeded to establish increased municipal services to support its growing population. By 1913 a new state highway was routed through the city, starting at Riverside Avenue and continuing to Vernon and Lincoln Streets. Only a limited portion of city streets was paved at this time, as local landowners were responsible for paving sections of streets in front of their businesses.

Roseville did not escape the economic wrath of the Great Depression, ushered in by the stock market crash of 1929. By the end of 1930, the Southern Pacific Railroad, the city’s leading employer, had reduced its workforce from 1,360 to 1,128. Southern Pacific Railroad cut employee wages by 10 percent the following year.

As Placer County was transitioning out of the Great Depression, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, led to the official U.S. entry into World War II. However, like many cities and towns across the nation, Roseville had already begun preparing for the possibility of war in 1940. In June of that year, City leaders announced that men who were drafted would retain their jobs upon returning from the war. At the same time, Southern Pacific Railroad began to make preparations for the ever-increasing movement of troops and munitions trains through the Roseville rail yard.

A Period of Transition
Roseville experienced a slow but steady expansion of the downtown commercial and industrial center following World War II. By the 1960s, the wave of growth would move to the northern part of the state. Roseville’s location only 18 miles northeast of Sacramento, coupled with newly completed highways and the existing junction between Southern Pacific’s north- and eastbound railroad lines, made Roseville a hot spot for business and residential development in Placer County.

3.2.5.4 Records Search
A records search for the project site and a 0.25-mile radius around it was conducted by staff at the North Central Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System on May 27, 2020. The records search indicated that five previous cultural resources studies have been conducted encompassing the project site. The records search also identified two previously recorded cultural resources within the project site and none within the 0.25-mile radius. One precontact site (P-31-003) was recorded in the western end of the project site and City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-55 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
was reported as a precontact activity area associated with vernal pool exploitation consisting of a thin scatter of pestles, manos, and fire cracked rocks.

The other resource (P-31-816H) consists of a segment of the UPRR. This segment of the UPRR that bisects the project is a modernized segment of grade running from Lincoln to Roseville as part of the Shasta Route. The Shasta Route is included in a multi-part 1998 Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) report, conducted by John Snyder of P.S. Preservation Services (Snyder John W. 1998). The HAER was prepared on behalf of the U.S. Department of Transportation and UPRR to mitigate for changes to contributing bridges on the Shasta Route. The contributing bridges subject to these earlier changes are not in the project site; however, the HAER concentrated on the entire Shasta Route and concluded the property is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places at the state level for Criterion A and B and is therefore eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under Criterion 1 and 2.

3.2.5.5 Native American Consultation
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on June 3, 2020, to request a search of its sacred lands file and a list of interested Native American tribes and individuals. On June 4, 2020, the NAHC responded, stating that the sacred lands file has no record of any recorded sacred lands in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 tribal consultation efforts under CEQA were carried out by the city of Roseville and are provided in Section 3.2.18, Tribal Cultural Resources.

3.2.5.6 Field Survey
Overall, two surveys encompassed the entirety of the project site. The western half of the site was surveyed in 2012 by ECORP Consulting, Inc. as part of the Foothills Corporate Center project and in 2019, the eastern half of the project site was surveyed by Natural Investigations as part of the Roseville Parkway Extension project. Both surveys were conducted using transects spaced no more than 15 meters apart, providing adequate coverage for identifying any cultural resources that may be revealed on the surface. An updated survey was performed by ICF in 2020 to revisit the western half of the project site as several years had passed since the last survey. As a result of the surveys, the only resource identified in the project site was the UPRR line. During the 2020 survey, it was found that the area of the previously recorded site P-31-003 had already been completely paved with the new road alignment.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-56 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.5.7 Impact Analysis
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The proposed project would construct an overpass above the UPRR tracks and Industrial Avenue. The overpass of the UPRR tracks and Industrial Avenue would be comprised of engineered fill approach ramps on the east and west sides and a concrete bridge structure. All improvements would be located outside the existing railroad 100-foot right-of-way and the proposed design accommodates the planned future widening of Industrial Avenue from two to four lanes without need for future overpass modification.

Although the introduction of an overpass above the UPPR grade is proposed as part of the project, the railroad grade would retain its historic character-defining features that would enable it to continue to convey its historical integrity. The UPRR would continue to demonstrate the evolution of railroad construction, would continue to function as a railroad, and the minor modifications to the setting would not involve a change in the character of the use or design features that support the structure’s ability to covey historic significance. The structure’s character-defining features include its current location, materials, workmanship, historic setting, and alignment.

None of these features would be altered as a result of project implementation to an extent that the historical integrity of the UPRR grade would be compromised. As a result, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. There would be no impact and therefore no mitigation is required.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
There are no known cultural resources located on the proposed project site. One resource, P-31-003, was previously documented as being in the project; however, no indications of the site were present in the 2012 or 2020 survey. The resource was most likely misplotted or destroyed due to intense grading and plowing since its recordation in 1978. It is possible that buried archaeological materials could be present in other areas of the project site. If any buried resources were encountered and damaged during construction, the destruction of buried archaeological resources would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
There are no known formal cemeteries within the project site, and neither the results of the records search nor the pedestrian survey indicates that human remains are present within the project site. However, there is always the possibility that ground- City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-57 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown buried human remains; such disturbance would be a potentially significant impact.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce this impact to a lessthan-significant level.

3.2.5.8 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Implement Measures to Protect Previously Unidentified Cultural Resources
The City shall ensure that construction specifications include the following information in the grading notes.
 Construction shall stop if potential cultural resources are encountered. It is possible that previous activities have obscured surface evidence of cultural resources. If signs of an archeological site, such as any unusual amounts of stone, bone, or shell, are uncovered during grading or other construction activities, work will be halted within 100 feet of the find and the City of Roseville will be notified. A qualified archeologist will be consulted for an onsite evaluation. If the site appears to be eligible for listing in state or federal registers, additional mitigation, such as further testing for evaluation or data recovery, may be necessary.
 In the event resources are discovered, the City will retain a qualified archaeologist to assess the find and to determine whether the resource requires further study. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction will be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms and evaluated for significance under all applicable regulatory criteria.
 All work will stop in the immediate vicinity of the find, and, if the find is determined to be an important cultural resource, the City will make available contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient to allow recovery of an archaeological sample or to implement an avoidance measure. Construction work may continue on other parts of the project while archaeological mitigation takes place.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Implement Measures if Construction Activities Inadvertently Discover or Disturb Human Remains
The City shall ensure that construction specifications include the following in the grading notes.
 If human remains are discovered during any phase of construction, including disarticulated or cremated remains, the construction contractor will City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-58 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of the remains and notify the City of Roseville.
 In accordance with California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance will occur until the following steps have been completed:
 The County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.  If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, NAHC will be notified within 24 hours, and the treatment and disposition of the remains will comply with NAHC guidelines.  It is further recommended that a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), if any, identified by NAHC. As necessary and appropriate, a professional archaeologist may provide technical assistance to the MLD, including excavation and removal of the human remains.

3.2.5.9 References
Barry-Schweyer, Carmel, and Alycia S. Alvarez
2005 Images of America: Rocklin. Arcadia Publishing, San Francisco.

Davis, Leonard M.
1975 Roseville Yesterday and Today. Roseville Community Projects, Inc., Roseville.
1981 Rocklin Past, Present, Future. Roseville Printing Company, Roseville.

Fredrickson, D. A.
1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast of the North Coast Ranges, California.

Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Grace Rensch 1966 [1970] Historic Spots in California. 3rd Edition, Revised by William N.

Abeloe. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Johnson, Jerald Jay
1967 The Archeology of the Camanche Reservoir Locality, California.

Sacramento Anthropological Society Paper No. 6, Pt. 1.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-59 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Kroeber, A. L.
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Publications, New York. Originally published in 1925, Bulletin No. 78, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.

Shipley, William F.
1978 Native Languages of California. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 80–90. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C.

Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Snyder, John W.
1998 Historic American Engineering Record, Southern Pacific Railroad Shasta Route (California and Oregon Railroad) From Roseville to Black Butte, California: Written Historical and Descriptive Data. San Francisco: National Parks Service Department of the Interior, 1998. Available:
https://www.loc.gov/item/ca2463. Accessed: February 21, 2017.

Thompson & West
1882 History of Placer County California. Thompson & West, Oakland.

Treganza, A. E., and R. F. Heizer
1953 Additional Data on the Farmington Complex: A Stone Implement Assemblage of Probably Early Post-Glacial Date from Central California.

University of California Archaeological Survey Report 22:28–38.

Wilson, N. L., and A. H. Towne
1978 Nisenan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 387–397.

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-60 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.6 Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?

3.2.6.1 Setting
The proposed extension of Roseville Parkway is locally important in order to improve existing and future traffic conditions consistent with city adopted plans; enhance access and safety for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists; meet railroad clearance requirements and future Industrial Boulevard widening requirements.

3.2.6.2 Impact Analysis
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
During construction there would be a temporary consumption of energy resources for the movement of equipment and materials. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations, which limit engine idling times and require recycling construction debris, would reduce short-term energy demand during the project’s construction to the extent feasible and project construction would not result in a wasteful or inefficient use of energy. There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities or use of equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards and related fuel efficiencies. No impact would occur.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
State and local authorities regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs. Regulations at the state level are intended to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The proposed project would comply with City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-61 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
these regulations that include, among others, AB 1493–Light-duty Vehicle Standards, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6–Energy Efficiency Standards, and California Code of Regulations Title 24.

The Roseville City Council adopted a Municipal Climate Action Plan in November 2009. The plan applied to GHG emissions from city facilities and operations (e.g., buildings, vehicle fleets, treatment plants, and other infrastructure). The City Council approved a GHG reduction goal of 22.8 percent by 2035 using various measures.

The proposed project’s construction methods are consistent with the goals and measures in the city’s Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-62 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.7 Geology and Soils
VI. Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.

Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable or that would become unstable as
a result of the project and potentially result
in an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems in
areas where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?

3.2.7.1 Setting
The project site is level to slightly undulating. The elevation is approximately 140 feet above mean sea level. The project site is in the Great Valley geomorphic province (California Geological Survey 2002). Thick sequences of alluvial (water-deposited) City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-63 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
sediments derived from erosion of the Sierra Nevada typify the geological formations on the east side of the Sacramento Valley, where the site is located.

The project site is underlain by the Turlock Lake Formation (map symbol Qtl) (California Geological Survey 2011), which consists of alluvial sand, silt and gravel of arkosic composition, with minor clay interbeds. Gravel composition is heterogeneous, featuring granitic, metamorphic, volcanic and vein-quartz clasts.

The project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and there are no known active faults at the project site (California Geological Survey 2019a).

Therefore, the potential for surface rupture to occur at the project site is low.

The project site lies between the seismically active Coast Ranges and the historically seismically active Foothills fault zone in the Sierra Nevada. The primary seismic hazard to the project site is associated with ground shaking from more distant faults, such as the San Andreas fault and the closer Hayward fault, which have the potential for generating strong seismic shaking. USGS has estimated that there is a 72 percent probability of at least one 6.7 or greater magnitude earthquake occurring that could cause widespread damage in the greater San Francisco Bay area before 2043 (U.S. Geological Survey 2016).

Other potential earthquake sources are the faults associated with the western edge of the Central Valley, recently defined as the Coast Range Central Valley Boundary Thrust Fault System. Various documents define portions of this little known system as the Midland Fault Zone or the Dunnigan Hills fault, where the 1892 VacavilleWinters earthquake occurred (City of Roseville 2016a).

The Foothill Fault Zone, a complex series of northwest-trending faults that are related to the Sierra Nevada uplift, and whose activity also is little understood, extends from about Oroville in the north to east of Fresno in the south. Earthquakes on nearby faults in the zone can be the source of ground shaking in the greater Sacramento area. The closest potentially active faults to the project site are the Bear Mountain and Melones faults (City of Roseville 2016a). The closest recently active fault in the western Sierra Nevada foothills is the Cleveland Hills fault, about 36 miles northwest of Auburn.

No active faults are known to exist in Placer County. The following inactive faults have been identified within the city limits:
 The Volcano Hill fault extends northwest from Volcano Hill for a distance of 1 mile, terminating near Eureka Road. No activity has been recorded along this fault; therefore, it is considered inactive.
 Identified in 1973, the Linda Creek fault is located along Linda Creek in Roseville and Sacramento County. No activity has been recorded along this fault.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-64 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
 The Willows fault and Stockton fault are in the Roseville vicinity and are considered inactive as displacement occurred more than 1.8 million years ago.  An unnamed fault extends east to west between Folsom Lake and the City of Rocklin. Segments of the fault are concealed and therefore unmapped. However, the east/west alignment suggests that the fault could connect to the Bear Mountain fault, branches of which are located beneath Folsom Lake. The Bear Mountain fault is a fault that could be undergoing reactivation as a result of continental tectonic activity. However, no evidence has been identified along the unnamed fault alignment of such reactivation (City of Roseville 2016a).

The project site is classified as being in a low-severity earthquake shaking zone (California Geological Survey 2016). The maximum peak ground acceleration that can be expected to occur at the site based on a return period of 2 percent in 50 years is 0.317g, where 1 g is equal to the force of gravity (California Geological Survey 2019b).

Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength as a result of seismic forces acting on watersaturated, granular soils having low cohesion. During seismic shaking, the soil behaves like a liquid, causing a reduction in its bearing strength. The potential for liquefaction is based on soil particle size and density, depth to the groundwater table, and duration and intensity of ground shaking. Liquefaction most commonly occurs in low-lying areas of poorly consolidated to unconsolidated water-saturated sediments or similar deposits (California Geological Survey 2008). The City of Roseville is not specifically addressed in currently available State Division of Mines and Geology liquefaction risk data. No determination has been made as to whether liquefaction potential exists in Roseville. Based on project-specific analysis that has been done for many of Roseville’s development projects, liquefaction has not been identified as a significant problem in Roseville (City of Roseville 2016a).

Based on the shallow slopes, landslides and other forms of slope instability are not expected to exist at the site.

Near-surface (i.e., approximately 60 inches) soils at the project site consist of Cometa-Fiddyment complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes (Rogers 1980). This soil map unit poses no significant constraints to site development that cannot be overcome using conventional construction approaches and engineering design. The CometaFiddyment complex characteristics include the following: well drained, very high runoff, depth to water is 80 inches, no frequency of flooding or ponding, wind erosion hazard of 3 (soils assigned to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the least susceptible), and low-high shrink-swell potential.

Expansive soils are those that greatly increase in volume, or swell, when they absorb water and shrink when they dry out. Expansion may damage building City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-65 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
foundations, concrete slabs, hardscaping, pavement, and other improvements on or near the surface. The project site has a very low plasticity index rating of 15.5 percent, which means that project site soils are not considered expansive (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2019).

The eastern margin of the Central Valley is a nearly continuous series of coalescing alluvial fans, which form a continuous belt between the uplands of the Sierra Nevada and the relatively flat surface of the Central Valley floor. These deposits formed primarily during the Plio-Pleistocene by the streams that drained the adjacent uplands of the Sierra Nevada. The alluvial deposits accumulated on Central Valley alluvial fans consist of medium- to fine-grained sediment eroded from Tertiary and older volcanic, plutonic, and metamorphic rocks in the mountains to the east. The gravel, sand, and silt that compose these alluvial fans have in the past produced significant fossils, primarily large land mammals, such as mammoths, mastodons, camels, bison, and horses. (City of Roseville 2016b)

3.2.7.2 Impact Analysis
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Because the project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the hazard of fault rupture at the project site is low. No impact would occur.

2. Strong seismic ground shaking?
The project site is not located in an area that is subject to strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? According to the City’s General Plan, “based on project-specific analysis and past experience, liquefaction has not been a significant problem within the City.” However, a site-specific geotechnical study would be needed to characterize liquefaction potential. The geotechnical study would be required as part of the building permit process and would be prepared prior to site development to ensure that the proposed project is appropriately designed (City of Roseville 2016b).

Therefore, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

4. Landslides?
City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-66 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Because there are no known landslides in the project area and considering the site’s relatively flat ground and limited ground-shaking potential, the hazard of a seismically induced landslide occurring at the site is very low. Additionally, the overpass would be built to current California Building Code (CBC) seismic standards (Chapter 18 in particular); therefore, there would be no impact and no mitigation is required.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The soils underlying the project site have a moderate water erosion hazard. Project construction activities would entail soil disturbance over approximately 12 acres.

This is not expected to cause substantial accelerated soil erosion, especially because of the erosion and sediment control BMPs that must be implemented to comply with the state stormwater General Permit for Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (see Section 3.2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a more detailed discussion of BMPs and General Permit compliance). Additionally, per Section 111-3 of the City’s Design and Construction Standards, all grading improvements shall be installed in accordance with provisions in the CBC, recommendations of site-specific geotechnical reports and geotechnical engineers.

Relatively small areas of topsoil would be lost as a result of overcovering by the proposed project. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Because the Turlock Lake Formation generally consists of semi-consolidated sediments and given the relatively flat land of the project site, there appear to be no unstable ground conditions present. Further, while overcrossing approach ramps would be comprised of imported soil, they would be constructed consistent with the City’s Design and Construction Standards, provisions in the CBC, and recommendations of site-specific geotechnical reports. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
As described above, the project site is not located on soils with expansive qualities, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, the project would not create substantial risks to life or property related to expansive subsoils.

Standard engineering practices and compliance with the CBC and the City’s Design and Construction Standards III-3 (Soil Testing and recommendations from City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-67 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
geotechnical report) would ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less-thansignificant level, and no mitigation is required. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed for the project. No impact would occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The Turlock Lake Formation, which underlies the project site, is known to be sensitive for paleontological resources. Excavation work to construct the project could directly or indirectly destroy such resources or alter their stratigraphic context.

The impact could be significant. The City would implement Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 to reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

3.2.7.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: If Paleontological Resources Found Cease Work until Review Conducted by Qualified Paleontologist and Recommendations Implemented
Should evidence of sensitive paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) be encountered during grading or excavation, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the City of Roseville shall be immediately notified. At that time, the City shall coordinate all necessary investigation of the site with a qualified paleontologist to assess the resource and provide proper management recommendations. Possible management recommendations for sensitive resources could include resource avoidance or data recovery excavations. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed necessary by the paleontologist for the protection of sensitive paleontological resources.

Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Prepare and Implement a Worker Education Program for Those Involved with Earthwork
A worker education program, prepared by a qualified professional paleontologist, shall review applicable local, state, and federal ordinances, laws, and regulations pertaining to paleontological resources; describe the types of fossils that can be encountered and their general appearance; discuss site avoidance requirements and notification procedures to be followed in the event that a sensitive paleontological resource is found during construction; and describe disciplinary and other actions that can be taken against persons violating such laws.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-68 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.7.4 References
California Geological Survey. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/CGS-Note-36.pdf. Accessed:

April 17, 2020.

California Geological Survey. 2008. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A. Available:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/webdocs/Documents/sp117.pdf.

Accessed: April 17, 2020.

California Geological Survey. 2011. Preliminary Geologic map of the Sacramento 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California. Scale 1:100,000. Available:
file:///C:/Users/40895/Downloads/Sacramento100k_preliminary_map.pdf.

Accessed: April 17, 2020.

California Geological Survey. 2016. Earthquake Shaking Potential for California.

Map Sheet 48. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/MS_048.pdf. Accessed: April 17, 2020.

California Geological Survey. 2019a. EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/.

Accessed: April 17, 2020.

California Geological Survey. 2019b. Ground Motion Interpolator. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ground-motion-interpolator. Accessed: April 17, 2020.

City of Roseville. 2016a. 2016 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Prepared by Tetra Tech.

Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/ Departments/Fire%20Dept/Emergency%20Preparedness/Multi%20Hazard%20M itigation%20Plan/Roseville_FinalRevisedforSubmission_MHMP.pdf. Accessed:

April 17, 2020.

City of Roseville. 2016b. Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR. Section 4.9 Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Prepared by AES. May.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019. Web Soil Survey. Web application.

Available: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

Accessed: April 17, 2020.

Rogers, J. H. 1980. Soil Survey of Placer County, California, Western Part. USDA Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-69 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
U.S. Geological Survey. 2016. Earthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Region 2014–2043. Available:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf. Accessed: April 17, 2020.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-70 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?

3.2.8.1 Setting
The process known as the greenhouse effect keeps the atmosphere near Earth’s surface warm enough for the successful habitation of humans and other life forms.

The greenhouse effect is created by sunlight that passes through the atmosphere.

Some of the sunlight striking Earth is absorbed and converted to heat, which warms the surface. The surface emits a portion of this heat as infrared radiation, some of which is re-emitted toward the surface by GHGs. Human activities that generate GHGs increase the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect and amplifying the warming of Earth.

Increases in fossil fuel combustion and deforestation have exponentially increased concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018). Rising atmospheric concentrations of GHGs in excess of natural levels result in increasing global surface temperatures—a process commonly referred to as global warming. Higher global surface temperatures, in turn, result in changes to Earth’s climate system, including increased ocean temperature and acidity, reduced sea ice, variable precipitation, and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018). Large-scale changes to Earth’s system are collectively referred to as climate change.

The principle anthropogenic (human-made) GHGs contributing to global warming are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds, including sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), and perfluorocarbons (PFC). Unlike criteria air pollutants, which occur locally or regionally, the long atmospheric lifetimes of these GHGs allow them to be well mixed in the atmosphere and transported over distances. Within California, transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions (41 percent of emissions in 2017), followed by industrial sources (24 percent) (California Air Resources Board 2020).

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-71 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
There is currently no federal law specifically related to climate change or the reduction of GHGs. California has adopted statewide legislation addressing various aspects of climate change and GHG emissions mitigation. Much of this establishes a broad framework for the state’s long-term GHG reduction and climate change adaptation program. Of particular importance is Senate Bill (SB) 32, which establishes statewide target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Although not legislatively adopted, the governor has also issued Executive Order (EO) B-55-18, which establishes a goal for state agencies to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. SB 375 and SB 743 support attainment of the states GHG targets through policies and requirements that will achieve statewide reductions in VMT-associated mobile source emissions.

As discussed in Section 3.2.3, Air Quality, PCAPCD has the primary responsibility for air quality management in Placer County. PCAPCD (2017) has adopted a de minimis threshold of 1,100 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) for operation of land use development projects, such as new residential and commercial projects. The air district also has a bright line threshold of 10,000 metric tons CO2e, where land use development projects in excess of the de minimis threshold (1,100 metric tons CO2e) can be found less than cumulatively considerable if the emission intensity (emissions per capita) meets certain criteria.

3.2.8.2 Impact Analysis
a) Generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Construction of the proposed project would generate emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from mobile and stationary construction equipment exhaust and employee and haul truck vehicle exhaust. Emissions were estimated using the methods described in Section 3.2.3; the results are summarized in Table 3-8. Please refer to Appendix A for complete construction assumptions and calculation spreadsheets.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-72 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Table 3-8. Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Project Construction (metric tons per year)
Construction Year CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ea
2021 485 <1 <1 492
2022 378 <1 <1 383
PCAPCD threshold - - - 10,000
Exceed threshold? - - - No
a Refers to carbon dioxide equivalent, which includes the relative warming capacity (i.e., global warming potential) of each GHG.

CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
N2O = nitrous oxide
Once operational, the project would result in GHG emissions from changes in VMT.

Emissions were estimated for existing (2011) and cumulative (2035) with and without project conditions using the methods described in Section 3.2.3. Table 3-9 presents the estimated operational emissions.

Table 3-9. Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Project Operation (metric tons per year)
Period CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ea
Existing (2011) no project 8,259,150 381 554 1,579,885,903 Existing (2011) plus project 8,257,469 380 554 1,578,895,569 Cumulative (2035) no project 6,949,044 8 368 28,962,059 Cumulative (2035) plus project 6,945,702 8 368 28,939,431 Existing plus project vs. existing no project -1,681 <0 <0 -990,334 Cumulative plus project vs. existing no project -3,342 <0 <0 -22,628 a Refers to carbon dioxide equivalent, which includes the relative warming capacity (i.e., global warming potential) of each GHG.

CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
N2O = nitrous oxide
As shown in Table 3-8, construction of the project would generate minor amounts of GHGs. These emissions would be short-term and well below PCAPCD’s construction threshold. Operation of the project would achieve long-term reductions in GHG emissions relative to the no project condition under both modeling scenarios (existing and cumulative) (see Table 3-9). As discussed further in Section 3.2.17, Transportation, implementation of the project would reduce regional VMT. The GHG emissions benefit is a direct result of these VMT reductions. Because the project would reduce GHG emissions, this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-73 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
b) Conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The most applicable legislation for the purpose of reducing transportation related GHG emissions are SB 375 and SB 743. These policies support attainment of the state’s GHG reduction targets, as expressed under SB 32 and EO B-55-18.

SB 375 was enacted to reduce GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks through integrated transportation, land use, housing and environmental planning.

Under this law, SACOG is tasked with developing an SCS that provides a plan for meeting per capita CO2 emissions levels allocated to SACOG by CARB. The Final EIR for the 2020 MTP/SCS demonstrates that projects identified in the MTP/SCS meet CARB’s issued SB 375 GHG targets for the SACOG region in 2020 and 2035. As discussed in Section 3.2.3, the proposed project was included in SACOG’s 2020 MTP/SCS, and therefore would not conflict with SACOG’s regional strategies implemented pursuant to SB 375.

The purpose of SB 743 is to integrate and better balance the needs of congestion management, infill development, active transportation, and GHG emissions reduction through, among other things, future reductions in VMT growth. As discussed further in Section 3.2.17, implementation of the project would reduce regional VMT, which in turn achieves long-term GHG reductions. This is consistent with SB 743 and the state’s climate change goals, including SB 32 and EO B-55-18.

Because the proposed project is identified in SACOG’s 2020 MTP/SCS and will reduce long-term GHG emissions, it would not conflict with applicable plans and legislation adopted to reduce GHG emissions. Accordingly, this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

3.2.8.3 References Cited
California Air Resources Board. 2020. GHG Current California Emission Inventory Data. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data. Accessed: May 1, 2020
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C.

Chapter 1, Framing and Context. Summary for Policymakers. Allen, M.R., O.P.

Dube, W. Solecki, F. Aragón-Durand, W. Cramer, S. Humphreys, M. Kainuma, J.

Kala, N. Mahowald, Y. Mulugetta, R. Perez, M. Wairiu, and K. Zickfeld.

Placer County Air Pollution Control District. 2017. 2107 CEQA Handbook.

November.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-74 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land
use plan area or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, be within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, and
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in the project
area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires?

3.2.9.1 Setting
The project site and nearby undeveloped areas consist primarily of disturbed annual grassland near urban land uses. Industrial development borders the site along most of the south boundary, and along the eastern third of the north boundary. Industrial Avenue and the UPRR tracks transect the project site in a north/south direction. The City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-75 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Roseville Fire Department operates eight fire stations that provide hazardous material management and other services. The project site is within Fire Protection Districts 7 and 2, served by Fire Station No. 7 and No. 2. Fire Station No. 7 is approximately 1 mile east of the project site at 911 Highland Point Drive. Fire Station No. 2 is approximately 2 miles south of the project site at 1398 Junction Boulevard (City of Roseville 2017).

The closest school to the project site is George A. Buljan Middle School approximately 0.75 mile south of the project site. The next closest school is Arbor View Montessori approximately 1.1 miles south of the project site.

There are no airports within 2 miles of the project site. The closest airport to the project site is the Lincoln Regional Airport approximately 8 miles to the north.

The project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area where the Roseville Fire Department is responsible for fire protection services.

3.2.9.2 Impact Analysis
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Construction and operation of the project could involve small quantities of commonly used hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants, and oils, to operate construction equipment and motor vehicles. Standard construction BMPs, including preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), erosion control, temporary fencing, and hazardous material management practices, would be implemented to reduce exposure to, or potential for, accidental spills involving these materials. A toxic materials control and spill response plan, which includes the preparation of a hazardous material spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan before construction and implemented during construction, would be prepared to avoid or minimize the risk of spills or discharges of toxic materials into waterways.

Additionally, a health and safety plan (prepared by a registered industrial hygienist) would be prepared that addresses release prevention measures, employee training, notification, and evacuation procedures, and adequate emergency response protocols and cleanup procedures.

No hazardous materials would be disposed of on the project site. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Site workers, the public, and the environment in general could be inadvertently exposed to existing contaminants on-site during project construction. Small quantities of potentially toxic substances (such as petroleum and other chemicals City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-76 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
used to operate and maintain construction equipment) would be used at the project site and transported to and from the area during construction. However, the handling and disposal of these materials would be governed according to regulations enforced by the Certified Unified Program Agency, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA), California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the city.

In addition, the following plans and special provisions would be followed.  Compliance with the City’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency), which requires contractors to transport and store materials in approved containers along designated truck routes, maintain required clearances, and handle materials using fire department–approved protocols, as illustrated in Roseville Fire Code Ordinance 4594.  Implementation of a hazardous material spill prevention and countermeasure plan to minimize the exposure of people and the environment to potentially hazardous materials. The plan is intended to ensure that transport, storage, and handling of hazardous materials required for construction is conducted in a manner consistent with relevant regulations and guidelines.  A SWPPP would be implemented as part of the NPDES Permit and a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit to minimize the potential for sediments or contaminants to enter waterways.
 Compliance with the City’s Design and Construction Standards and the City’s Stormwater Quality BMP Guidance Manual for Construction.

In addition, the City Fire Department would review construction plans and would respond to hazardous materials complaints or emergencies, if any, during construction. Because hazardous materials discovered or accidentally released during construction would be handled in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations, the impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
There are no public or private K–12 schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. The closest school to the project site is George A. Buljan Middle School approximately

0.75 mile south of the project site. It is highly unlikely that project-related hazardous materials would be emitted or released within 0.25 mile of any school. Also, implementation of the standard BMPs identified in Section 2.6, Best Management Practices, by contractors would reduce the potential for a hazardous materials spill.

No impact would occur.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-77 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The project site is not included on any of the hazardous materials sites of the Cortese list as identified below:
 DTSC EnviroStor database (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2020a)
 SWRCB GeoTracker database (State Water Resources Control Board 2020a)  SWRCB Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit (State Water Resources Control Board 2020b)
 SWRCB List of active Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup or Abatement Orders (State Water Resources Control Board 2020b)
 DTSC hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2020b)
Any hazardous materials encountered on the site would be handled and disposed of in compliance with state and local regulations that protect the public and the environment from exposure to such materials. No impact would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, be within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public airport. The closest airport to the project site is the Lincoln Regional Airport approximately 8 miles to the north. There would be no impact. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Construction of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The City would require the construction contractor to implement a traffic management plan, including a construction schedule and plan to meet the City’s notice procedures, before construction activities are initiated. This plan would identify general methods by which construction activities would be managed to minimize substantial delays to traffic as discussed below in section 3.2.17 Transportation. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-78 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? The project site consists of undeveloped disturbed annual grassland. Residential development is located immediately east of Washington Boulevard and industrial uses surround the project site to the north, south, and west. There is also limited undeveloped disturbed annual grassland north of the project site. The project area is not within a State Responsibility Area; therefore, it is not designated a very high fire hazard severity zone.

Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment, welding, and other activities that have the potential to ignite fires. Malfunction of equipment that could cause a fire is extremely unlikely during project construction.

The Roseville Fire Department would provide fire protection, with the closest station approximately 1 mile east of the project site (Fire Station No. 7). In addition, the Roseville Fire Department has mutual and automatic aid agreements with the following fire departments: the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection/Placer County Fire Department, the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, the South Placer Fire Protection District, and the Rocklin Fire Department.

The contractor would comply with Cal-OSHA standards for the storage and handling of fuels, flammable materials, and common construction-related hazardous materials and for fire prevention. In addition, the project would meet the minimum standards set forth by Public Resources Code Section 4290, Title 14, for fire protection and emergency water standards. As a result, impacts associated with wildland fires would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

3.2.9.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would result in either no or less-than-significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous waste. No mitigation is required.

3.2.9.4 References
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2020a. EnviroStor Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List (Cortese). Available:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=31400006. Accessed:

April 10, 2020.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2020b. Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a). Available: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section65962-5a/. Accessed: April 10, 2020.

City of Roseville. 2017. Location of Roseville Fire Stations. March. Roseville, California. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/ City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-79 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Departments/Fire%20Dept/Fire%20Station%20Locations/Location%20of%20Ros eville%20Fire%20Stations%20-%202017.pdf. Accessed: April 10, 2020.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2020a. Geotracker. Available:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?global_id=T0606191422. Accessed:

April 10, 2020.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2020b. Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit. Available: https://calepa.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList-CurrentList.pdf.

Accessed: April 10, 2020.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-80 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces in a manner which would:

i. result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?

3.2.10.1 Setting
The climate in the project vicinity is characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. National Weather Service cooperative weather station number 047516 (Rocklin) is the closest weather station to the project site, approximately 4 miles east-northeast at an elevation of approximately 240 feet above mean sea level. Average annual precipitation at this weather station is 22.8 inches, with most City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-81 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
precipitation falling as rain from November through March (Western Regional Climate Center 2020).

The project site is located in the Upper Coon–Upper Auburn hydrologic unit (hydrologic unit code 18020127) (U.S. Geological Survey 2019). Surface water in the project area is driven by rainfall, outfalls from adjacent industrial buildings, and irrigation runoff. The water from the detention basin and drainage ditch appears to infiltrate or evaporate unless there are extreme storm events that fill the basin, at which point overflow goes into a drop inlet, which goes to the municipal storm drain system. No natural drainages are present in the eastern portion of the project site. It is surrounded entirely by industrial development or roadways and excess runoff from any extreme storm event drains to the municipal storm drain system (Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC 2019).

Surface runoff rates of the soils at the project site range from slow to very high, depending on the soil map unit. The erosion hazard for sheet and rill erosion is slight. After intense rainstorms, the soil is saturated for a short time (Rogers 1980).

The Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2018) shows that the site is in Zone X, indicating that the project site is outside the 500-year floodplain of Pleasant Grove Creek.

Pleasant Grove Creek and Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch appear on the SWRCB’s 2010 California 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments for oxygen, dissolved; pyrethroids; and sediment toxicity (the latter only upstream of Fiddyment Road) (State Water Resources Control Board 2010).

Because of the project site’s elevation above sea level and because no large waterbody exists at the site, there is no chance for a tsunami or seiche to occur at the site. The hazard for a mudflow (i.e., a debris flow) at the project site is likely low, based on the site’s shallow slopes and lack of significant concave areas.

3.2.10.2 Impact Analysis
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? The SWPPP that would be prepared for the project would specify erosion control, sediment control, non-stormwater management, and housekeeping BMPs that, if properly selected and implemented, would prevent substantial sediment and other pollutant movement from the site, such that the project would not violate any water quality standards. The BMPs, provided that they are properly implemented and maintained, are expected to be effective in preventing violations of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements because of the low erosion hazard at the site. Refer to Section 2.6 for a complete description of all construction BMPs the project would implement. Potential impacts related to water quality standards and City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-82 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
waste discharge requirements would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The project would not use groundwater. The project would create additional impervious surfaces in the project area but would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. The impact related to depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The project would involve clearing and grubbing, excavation and filling, soil stockpiling, and soil compaction, and undulating slopes would be flattened.

However, these activities would not alter the overall drainage pattern of the area and runoff which currently drains into the detention basin and drainage ditches, and the municipal storm drain system, would not change as a result of the project.

Site grading would expose soils to accelerated erosion by runoff if soils are not properly protected. However, as part of the project, erosion and sediment control BMPs and post-construction BMPs to avoid hydromodification effects would be implemented. The SWPPP would include such practices as seeding, mulching, installation of erosion control blankets, and installing sediment barriers such as fiber rolls and silt fences, as well as the stormwater management measures that are included in the project design. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on-site or off-site. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
And
iii) Impede or redirect flood flows?
The project would cause an increase in runoff rates and amounts during and shortly after construction, but runoff management measures required by the state Stormwater General Permit for Construction and Land Disturbance Activities and contained in the SWPPP would limit such increases to an acceptable level.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-83 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
The project would not substantially alter the existing natural drainage pattern of the site or area. Because of the small area that the project would disturb relative to the watershed in which it is located, any increases in the rate or amount of surface runoff would not be sufficient to result in flooding on-site or off-site. The roadway extension and overpass would be constructed to current city design and construction standards. Additionally, no aspect of the project would impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, the impact related to flooding on-site or off-site would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
iv) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
The project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. See responses to checklist questions c) i and ii above. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The project site is in Zone X, indicating that the project site is outside the 500-year floodplain of Pleasant Grove Creek. No large bodies of water are located in the project vicinity; therefore, there is no risk of inundation by seiche. The project area is located over 100 miles from the Pacific Ocean; therefore, there is no inundation risk related to tsunami. No impact would occur.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The project site is within the Sacramento Valley basin, North American subbasin.

The water quality control plan (i.e., Basin Plan) that covers the project area is the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region’s Sacramento River Basin Plan revised in May 2018. The Basin Plan covers the entire Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. Basin Plans consist of a designation or establishment for the waters within a specified area of beneficial uses to be protected, water quality objectives to protect those uses, and a program of implementation needed for achieving the objectives.

The project would incorporate erosion and sediment control BMPs and postconstruction BMPs into the project to avoid substantial degradation of water quality.

The SWPPP would include such practices as seeding, mulching, installation of erosion control blankets, and installing sediment barriers such as fiber rolls and silt fences, as well as the stormwater management measures that are included in the project design. Refer to Section 2.6 for a complete description of all construction BMPs the project would implement. No aspect of the project would conflict with or City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-84 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan. Therefore, the impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

3.2.10.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

3.2.10.4 References
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2018. FEMA Flood Map Service Center:

Search by Address. Map Number 06061C0941 H. Available:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=roseville%2C%20ca#searchr esultsanchor. Accessed: April 20, 2020.

Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC. 2019. Draft Aquatic Resources Delineation Report for Roseville Parkway Extension. Prepared for the City of Roseville.

Published on October 14, 2019.

Rogers, J.H. 1980. Soil Survey of Placer County, California, Western Part. USDA Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2010. 2010 California 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. Available:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2010state_ir_reports /category5_report.shtml. Accessed: April 20, 2020.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2019. Science in Your Watershed. USGS Water Resources Links for: 18020127 – Upper Coon-Upper Auburn. Available:
http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getwatershed?18020127/www/cgibin/lookup/getwatershed. Accessed: April 20, 2020.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2020. Rocklin, California (047516)—Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. Available: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7516. Accessed April 20, 2020.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-85 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.11 Land Use and Planning
X. Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

3.2.11.1 Setting
The project site is located in north Roseville between Foothills Boulevard on the west, and Washington Boulevard on the east (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The project site is currently dominated by disturbed annual grasslands. Industrial development borders the site along most of the south boundary and along the eastern third of the north boundary. The Highland Reserve residential development is located near the project’s eastern end, along the east side of Washington Boulevard and along both sides of the existing Roseville Parkway. Industrial development is located near the project’s western boundary, on the west side of Foothills Boulevard.

The General Plan land use designations for the project site include Industrial and Light Industrial, and zoning is General Industrial and Light Industrial. The project site is within the North Industrial Area, which is not subject to a specific plan but is a recognized planning subarea of the city.

City of Roseville General Plan 2035
The City of Roseville General Plan 2035 guides the general distribution and intensity of land uses within the city. The General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements include the following relevant goals and policies.

Land Use Goal 7. Potential population growth in Roseville must be based on the long-term carrying capacities and limits of the roadway system, sewer and water treatment facilities, and electrical utility service, as defined in the Circulation Element and the Public Facilities Element.

Circulation Goal 1. Maintain an adequate level of transportation service for all of Roseville's residents and employees through a balanced transportation system, which considers automobiles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Circulation Level of Service Policy 2. Strive to meet the level of service standards through a balanced transportation system that reduces the auto emissions that contribute to climate City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-86 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
change by providing alternatives to the automobile and avoiding excessive vehicle congestion through roadway improvements, Intelligent Transportation Systems, and transit improvements.

The project site is designated easement/right-of-way and Industrial and Light Industrial. The Industrial land use designation is intended to provide areas for industrial uses that tend to generate noise, vibration, odor, dust, smoke, light, and an aesthetic appearance not compatible with residential and other sensitive receptors (City of Roseville 2016). The Light Industrial land use designation is applied to lands reserved for office, industrial, and research and development uses that generate very limited noise, vibration, odor, dust, smoke, light, or other pollutants, and are either integrated or compatible with surrounding uses (City of Roseville 2016).

Lands immediately surrounding the project site to the north, south and west also carry designations of Industrial and Light Industrial.

City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance
The City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance codifies the land uses allowed within the incorporated city limits. The zoning ordinance defines and maps a series of zoning districts, establishes regulatory standards for development and resource protection, and identifies the specific uses permitted within each of those districts (City of Roseville 1996a). The project site is zoned General Industrial (M2) and Light Industrial (M1) by the zoning ordinance (City of Roseville 1996b). Section 19.14 of the zoning ordinance defines the purpose of the M1 and M2 zoning districts as follows.

Light Industrial (M1) District. The Light Industrial district is intended to designate areas appropriate for light industrial uses such as manufacturing, processing, assembly, high technology, research and development and storage uses. The use types permitted within the M-1 district do not include outdoor manufacturing but may include limited outdoor storage and the emission of limited amount of visible gasses, particulates, steam, heat, odor, vibration, glare, dust, and noise. These uses may be compatible operating in relatively close proximity to commercial and residential uses.

General Industrial (M2) District. The General Industrial district is intended to designate areas suitable for a broad range of industrial uses including manufacturing, assembly, wholesale distribution, and warehousing.

3.2.11.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? The project site is located on undeveloped disturbed annual grassland, adjacent to industrial, residential, and undeveloped disturbed annual grassland. The project constitutes use planned in the City of Roseville General Plan 2035 and would not physically divide the community; rather, it would simply extend Roseville Parkway between Foothills Boulevard and Washington Boulevard. There would be no impact.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-87 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The project is a use planned in the City of Roseville General Plan 2035 and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan. The project would comply with the development standards and requirements specified by the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance and the improvement standards of the General Plan. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There would be no impact.

3.2.11.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to land use.

Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

3.2.11.4 References
City of Roseville. 1996a. City of Roseville Zoning Map. Adopted July 26, 1996. Last updated: March 2017. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=10990649.

Accessed: April 14, 2020.

City of Roseville. 1996b. City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance. Last Amended April 6, 2016. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=10990649.

Accessed: April 14, 2020.

City of Roseville. 2016. City of General Plan 2035. Adopted June 15, 2016.

Amended August 17, 2016. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=8774544.

Accessed: April 14, 2020.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-88 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.12 Mineral Resources
XI. Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?

3.2.12.1 Setting
The California Geological Survey identifies areas that contain or that could contain significant mineral resources so as to provide context for local agency land use decisions and to protect availability of known mineral resources. Classifications ranging from MRZ-1 to MRZ-4 are based on knowledge of a resource’s presence and the quality of the resource.

The project site is classified as MRZ-4, which is defined as “areas of no known mineral occurrences where geologic information does not rule out either the presence or absence of significant mineral resources” (California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology 1995). No mineral extraction operations exist in or adjacent to the project site. The City of Roseville General Plan 2035 does not designate territory within the city limits for resource extraction.

3.2.12.2 Impact Analysis
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Because no known mineral occurrences are present within the project site, the proposed project would not result in the loss of any known mineral resources that are of value to the region and residents of the state. No impact would occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
The city’s general plan does not designate lands for mineral resource recovery, and no known mineral occurrences are present within or adjacent to the project site. No impact would occur.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-89 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.12.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to mineral resources. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

3.2.12.4 References
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1995.

Mineral Lands Classification Map of Placer County. By Ralph C. Loyd. Available:
file:///C:/Users/40895/Downloads/OFR%2095-10_Plate_2.pdf. Accessed: April 14, 2020.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-90 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.13 Noise
XII. Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in a local general plan
or noise ordinance or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

3.2.13.1 Noise Background
Noise is commonly defined as unwanted sound that annoys or disturbs people and potentially causes an adverse psychological or physiological effect on human health.

The sound pressure level, expressed along the decibel (dB) scale, is the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of ambient (existing) noise.

However, because the dB scale does not accurately describe how sound intensity is perceived by human hearing, noise measurements are weighted more heavily for frequencies to which humans are sensitive. This process is called A-weighting, written as dBA, and referred to as A-weighted decibels. In general, human sound perception is such that a change in sound level of 1 dB cannot typically be perceived by the human ear, a change of 3 dB is barely noticeable, a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as doubling or halving the sound level.

Sound attenuates based on geometry, or at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance for a point source (e.g., stationary compressor or construction equipment) and 3 dB per doubling of distance for a line source (e.g., traffic on a freeway). Atmospheric conditions, including wind, temperature gradients, and humidity, can change how sound propagates over distance and can affect the level of sound received at a given location. The degree to which the ground surface absorbs acoustical energy also affects sound propagation. Sound that travels over an acoustically absorptive City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-91 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
surface, such as grass, attenuates at a greater rate than sound that travels over a hard surface, such as pavement. The increased attenuation is typically in the range of 1 to 2 dB per doubling of distance. Barriers such as buildings and topography that block the line of sight between a source and receiver also increase the attenuation of sound over distance.

Different types of measurements are used to characterize the time-varying nature of sound. These measurements include the equivalent sound level (Leq), the minimum and maximum sound levels (Lmin and Lmax), the day-night sound level (Ldn), and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL).

3.2.13.2 Vibration Background
Operation of heavy construction equipment creates seismic waves that radiate along the surface of the earth and downward into the earth. These surface waves can be felt as ground vibration. Vibration from operation of this equipment can result in effects ranging from annoyance of people to damage to structures. Varying geology and distance result in different vibration levels with different frequencies and displacements. In all cases, vibration amplitudes decrease with increasing distance.

As seismic waves travel outward from a vibration source, they excite the particles of rock and soil through which they pass and cause the particles to oscillate. The actual distance that these particles move is usually only a few ten-thousandths to a few thousandths of an inch. The rate or velocity (in inches per second [in/sec]) at which these particles move is the commonly accepted descriptor of the vibration amplitude, referred to as the peak particle velocity (PPV). Table 3-10 summarizes typical vibration levels generated by construction equipment at various distances.

Table 3-10. Vibration Source Levels for Demolition and Construction Equipment
Equipment
PPV at
25 feet
PPV at
50 feet
PPV at
75 feet
PPV at
100 feet
Hoe ram 0.089 0.032 0.017 0.011
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.032 0.017 0.011
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.027 0.015 0.010
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.007 0.004
Vibratory roller 0.003 0.001 0.001 <0.001
Sources: California Department of Transportation 2013 and Federal Transit Administration 2018.

PPV = peak particle velocity
Vibration amplitude attenuates over distance and is a complex function of how energy is imparted into the ground and the soil conditions through which the vibration is traveling. Caltrans has developed vibration guidelines for damage and annoyance potential from transient and continuous vibration usually associated with City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-92 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
construction activity. Vibration from construction equipment usually falls under the category of continuous/frequent intermittent sources. Tables 3-11 and 3-12 summarize these Caltrans guidelines for vibration damage and annoyance.

Table 3-11. Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Structure and Condition Maximum PPV (inches/second)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins,
ancient monuments

0.12 0.08
Fragile buildings 0.20 0.10
Historic and some old buildings 0.50 0.25
Older residential structures 0.50 0.30
New residential structures 1.00 0.50
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.00 0.50
Source: California Department of Transportation 2013.

Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory-compaction equipment.

PPV = peak particle velocity
Table 3-12. Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Structure and Condition Maximum PPV (inches/second)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent
Sources
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10
Severe 2.0 0.4
Source: California Department of Transportation 2013.

PPV = peak particle velocity

3.2.13.3 Existing Setting
The project site is located within the North Industrial Area of Roseville, about 0.5 mile south of Blue Oaks Boulevard, and would provide a new east-west facility between Foothills Boulevard and Washington Boulevard.

The Highland Reserve development consisting of single-family residences is located along Washington Boulevard at the eastern terminus of the project. The residences on both sides of the existing alignment of Roseville Parkway have continuous solid privacy walls that extend along the frontage of Roseville Parkway and Washington Boulevard. Apart from this development, land use in the project area consists primarily of commercial and industrial uses, with no apparent areas of frequent City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-93 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
outdoor use. The area adjacent to the proposed East Roseville Parkway westbound lanes is undeveloped and zoned for industrial use.

Sources of ambient noise include local traffic on Foothills Boulevard and Washington Boulevard. UPRR tracks extend parallel to the north-south route of Industrial Avenue, and both would cross under the new bridge that would be added with the proposed extension project. Wayside noise from freight rail locomotives and cars are an intermittent source of noise in the project area, in addition to horn noise at the nearest grade crossings at Blue Oaks Boulevard, Pleasant Grove Boulevard, and Industrial Avenue during train passbys. Aircraft from local airports are a source of noise during overflights. The closest airport to the project site is the Lincoln Regional Airport approximately 8 miles to the north. The nearest major airports are McLellan Airport, approximately 8 miles south of the project site, and Sacramento International Airport, approximately 15 miles southwest of the project site. Industrial and HVAC equipment from activities at land uses adjacent to the project also contribute to ambient sound levels in the area.

According to the noise analysis conducted for the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan EIR (City of Roseville 2016a), the 60-dB Ldn noise contour extends 98 feet from the roadway centerline of Foothills Boulevard and 110 feet from the centerline of Washington Boulevard under existing conditions (under year 2014 as analyzed in the EIR).

3.2.13.4 Applicable Noise Standards
The project is located entirely within the city of Roseville, and as such city standards are used to determine significance under CEQA.

The City of Roseville General Plan 2035 (City of Roseville 2016b) establishes maximum allowable noise exposure levels for transportation noise sources in terms of Ldn, shown in Table 3-13. The General Plan also includes criteria for nontransportation or stationary noise sources, which may be considered applicable to the temporary use of construction equipment. The standards for nontransportation sources are also used in Section 9.24.100 of the Roseville Municipal Code. These criteria are shown in Table 3-14.

Table 3-13. Maximum Allowable Noise Levels from Transportation Sources Land Use
Outdoor Activity
Areasa
Ldn/CNEL, dB
Interior Spaces
Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq, dBb
Residential 60 c 45 --
Transient Lodging 60 c 45 --
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 60 c 45 --
City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-94 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Land Use
Outdoor Activity
Areasa
Ldn/CNEL, dB
Interior Spaces
Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq, dBb
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls -- -- 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 60 c -- 40
Office Buildings 65 -- 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums -- -- 45
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 70 -- --
Source: City of Roseville 2016b.

Notes:

Where a proposed use is not specifically listed on this table, the use shall comply with the noise exposure standards for the nearest similar use as determined by the Planning Division. Commercial and industrial uses have not been listed because such uses are not considered to be particularly sensitive to noise exposure. a Outdoor activity areas for residential developments are considered to be the backyard patios or decks of single-family dwellings, and the patios or common areas where people generally congregate for multi-family developments.

Outdoor activity areas for non-residential developments are considered to be those common areas where people generally congregate, including pedestrian plazas, seating areas and outside lunch facilities.

Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use.
b As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use. c Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB Ldn/CNEL or less using a practical application of the best-available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 75 dB Ldn/CNEL may be allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with this table.

CNEL = community noise equivalent level
dB = decibel
Ldn = day-night sound level
Table 3-14. Hourly Noise Level Performance Criteria for Nontransportation Noise Sources
Noise Level Descriptor Daytime (7 a.m.–10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m.–7 a.m.) Hourly average (Leq) 50 dB 45 dB
Maximum level (Lmax) 70 dB 65 dB
Source: City of Roseville, 2016.

Notes:

For municipal power plants consisting primarily of broadband, steady state noise sources, the hourly (Leq) noise standard may be increased up to 10 dBA, but may not exceed 55 dBA hourly Leq dB. Each of the specified noise levels should be lowered by 5 dB for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. Such noises are generally considered by residents to be particularly annoying and are a primary source of noise complaints. These noise level standards do not apply to residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses (e.g., caretaker dwellings).

No standards have been included for interior noise levels. Standard construction practices should, with exterior noise levels identified, result in acceptable interior noise levels. dB = decibel
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Leq = equivalent sound level
Lmax = maximum sound level
The municipal code provides an exemption for construction noise. Section 9.24.030, Exemptions, of the City Municipal Code indicates the following activities are exempt from city noise regulations:

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-95 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Private construction (e.g., construction, alteration or repair activities) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

Saturday and Sunday; provided, however, that all construction equipment shall be fitted with factory installed muffling devices and that all construction equipment shall be maintained in good working order.

3.2.13.5 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
Construction
The assessment of potential construction noise levels was based on methodology developed by the Federal Transit Administration (2018) and construction noise criteria from applicable local guidance (such as local general plan documents or noise ordinances). Noise levels produced by commonly used construction equipment are shown in Table 3-15. Individual types of heavy construction equipment are expected to generate maximum noise levels ranging from 80 to 89 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet. The construction noise level at a given receiver location depends on the type of construction activity and the distance and shielding between the activity and noise-sensitive receivers.

Table 3-15. Commonly Used Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels Equipment
Typical Noise Level (dBA)
50 Feet from Source
Rock Drill 95
Hoe Ram 90
Heavy Truck 84
Excavator 85
Bulldozer 85
Generator 81
Mixer 80
Grader 85
Compactor 82
Scraper 85
Backhoe 85
Roller 85
Loader 84
Source: Federal Transit Administration 2018.
dBA = A-weighted decibel.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-96 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Construction equipment used would vary by construction phase of the proposed project and would involve the use of excavators, bulldozers, heavy trucks, pumps, generators, graders, compactors, and other heavy equipment.

To characterize the overall noise level of the worst-case noise condition during a given phase of construction, the two loudest pieces of equipment were assumed to operate simultaneously along a construction site perimeter location relative to the nearest receptors. All types of heavy equipment were assumed to operate up to 50 percent of a given hour. Sound levels by project phase are shown in Table 3-16.

Table 3-16. Construction Noise Levels by Activity and Distance to Allowable Sound Levels
Construction Activity Equipment Useda
Combined
Source
Level at 50
feet (Leq,
dBA)b
Distance to
Exceedance of
Daytime Sound
Level Limit of
50 dBA Leq
(feet)c
Distance to
Exceedance of
Nighttime
Sound Level
Limit of 45 dBA
Leq (feet)d
Grubbing/Land Clearing Scraper, Grader 85 1,100 1,750
Grading/Excavation Scraper, Grader 85 1,100 1,750
Draining/Utilities/Subgrade Hoe ram, Dozer 86 1,150 1,850 Paving Paver, Roller 85 1,100 1,750
Overpass Construction Rock drill, Excavator 92 2,450 3,900 Note: Distance calculation do not include the effects, if any, of local shielding from walls, topography or other barriers which may further reduce sound levels.

Leq = equivalent sound level; dBA = A-weighted decibel. a The two loudest pieces of equipment that may operate in one location simultaneously. b Based on a usage factor of up to 50 percent. c The maximum distance where the combined equipment level may potentially exceed the City daytime threshold of 50 dBA Leq for nontransportation sources. Daytime is defined as the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. d The maximum distance where the combined equipment level may potentially exceed the City nighttime threshold of 45 dBA Leq for nontransportation sources. Nighttime is defined as the hours between 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences in the Highland Reserve development along Washington Boulevard. Commercial, industrial and undeveloped land uses along the proposed corridor do not include any apparent areas of frequent outdoor use and are generally not considered to be noise sensitive according to City General Plan noise compatibility standards.

As shown in Table 3-16, noise levels during the phases of road construction would potentially exceed city standards for nontransportation sources on construction sites at distances of up to 1,150 feet during daytime hours and 1,850 feet during nighttime hours. Use of a drill rig during construction of the overpass would potentially exceed city standards at distances of up to 2,450 feet during daytime hours and 3,900 feet during nighttime hours.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-97 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
All construction work is planned to be done during daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, when noise from construction is exempt from the provisions of the City Municipal Code. No nighttime work is anticipated during construction. The use of heavy equipment would be temporary and short-term relative to a given work area, as construction progresses along the alignments of levee and channel areas throughout the construction window. As such, noise from heavy equipment would affect different areas at different times over the course of project construction, and the duration of excessive noise exposure that an individual receptor would experience would be somewhat limited. In addition, construction would only occur for a total of approximately 6 months, and only a portion of the work may potentially exceed city standards at the nearest single-family residences at the eastern terminus of the project.

Construction of the project would require up to 20 worker trips per day during peak traffic hours to commute to the work site. Relative to existing volumes on Foothills Boulevard and Washington Boulevard, this would result in a noise level increase of less than 1 dB relative to existing conditions, which would not be a perceptible increase.

Although use of heavy equipment during construction would potentially generate noise in excess of the city nontransportation standards, noise would be generated during exempt hours as defined in the municipal code. Noise from construction would be temporary, intermittent and would cease once work is complete. Therefore, the temporary impact of increased noise during construction is considered to be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operations
Traffic noise levels were predicted using FHWA Traffic Noise Model, version 2.5.

Geometric inputs to the traffic noise model include the locations of roadways, shielding features (e.g., topography and buildings), noise barriers, and receptors, as well as ground type. Appendix B-2 contains ADT and peak hour traffic volumes used for the existing and future model conditions.

Traffic noise modeling was conducted for existing (year 2020) no project conditions, existing plus proposed project conditions, and cumulative (year 2035) plus proposed project conditions. The comparison of plus project to no project conditions indicates the direct effect of the project excluding the effects of future growth in traffic. Traffic modeling results are shown in Appendix B-3 (see initial study Appendix B). Modeling results are rounded to the nearest dB.

As shown in Table B-3A contained in Appendix B, traffic noise levels at modeled receiver locations for existing plus project conditions are predicted to be in the range of 55 to 62 dBA Ldn, accounting for all types of land use in the study area. Under City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-98 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
cumulative plus project conditions, traffic noise levels are predicted to range from 59 to 67 dBA Ldn.

Predicted traffic noise levels were compared to exterior and interior maximum allowable levels from the General Plan to determine noise compatibility of the project with existing land uses. The modeled locations are shown in Figure B-1 of Appendix B. At single-family residences, exterior noise levels would have a maximum value of 57 dBA Ldn in the existing year (2020) under the plus project condition, and a maximum value of 60 dBA Ldn under the cumulative (2035) plus project condition, as shown in Table B-3B of Appendix B. The modeled level of 60 dBA Ldn is equal to the City maximum allowable exterior noise standard for residential use. As such, traffic noise levels from the project under both existing year and cumulative conditions would be considered compatible with single-family residences. Commercial and industrial uses along the Roseville Parkway Extension are not considered to be noise sensitive, as indicated in the City General Plan.

Building interior noise levels under the future build condition were predicted based on outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction values for typical building components used in Department of Housing and Urban Development guidance (2009). Interior noise levels at single-family residences are shown in Table B-3C of Appendix B. The analysis assumes a building noise reduction factor of 30 dB, which is associated with standard framing double-hung windows, with up to 30 percent coverage of windows on the building structure. Based on this assumption, interior noise levels at all receiver locations are predicted have values of less than 45 dBA Ldn under both existing year and cumulative conditions.

Based on the above analysis, operation of the project would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the 2035 General Plan. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Operation of construction equipment may potentially result in perceptible levels of groundborne vibration in the immediate vicinity of heavy equipment during construction of the road. In general, noticeable levels of groundborne vibration are highly localized around the source of vibration. Vibration-generating equipment that would be operated along the project alignment include a hoe ram, rollers, bulldozers, and heavy trucks. These types of equipment typically produce PPV vibration levels of less than 0.10 in/sec at a reference distance of 25 feet. Vibration at this level may intermittently be noticeable inside of buildings during times when equipment is operating 25 feet from a building façade, but this is not anticipated to occur at any point during project construction.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-99 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Use of heavy equipment during construction of the project would be temporary and would cease once construction is complete. The types of equipment scheduled for use in work areas would produce a level of vibration that is not expected to result in exceedance of the Caltrans guidelines for damage and annoyance. Rubber-tired vehicles are not a significant source of groundborne vibration and operation of the project is not expected to generate noticeable levels of vibration. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The closest airport to the project site is the Lincoln Regional Airport approximately 8 miles to the north. The nearest major public airports to the project site are McClellan Airport and Sacramento International Airport. The project lies outside of these airport influence areas and is more than 5 miles away from the 60 Ldn contour of both of the major airports. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site.

Therefore, there would be no impact related to excessive noise from public use airports.

3.2.13.6 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in temporary or permanent significant impacts from noise or vibration. Therefore, no mitigation is required.

3.2.13.7 References Cited
California Department of Transportation. 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September. Available:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_Sep13 _FINAL.pdf.

City of Roseville. 2016a. Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR. Prepared by AES.

May.

City of Roseville. 2016b. City of Roseville General Plan 2035. Development Services Department – Planning Division. Adopted June 15, 2016.

Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September. U.S. Department of Transportation. Available:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-ftareport-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed: December 12, 2019.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development. 2009. The Noise Guidebook. Washington, D.C. April.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-100 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.14 Population and Housing
XIII. Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace a substantial number of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

3.2.14.1 Setting
The project site is undeveloped disturbed annual grassland. The City of Roseville General Plan 2035 land use map designates the project site for general and light industrial uses. No new homes are proposed for the project site.

3.2.14.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The proposed project is identified in the City of Roseville Transportation System Capital Improvement Program and General Plan Circulation Element. Employmentgenerating activities, such as construction of the roadway and overpass, would bring some workers into the area, but these activities are not anticipated to directly result in substantial population growth.

The project would not indirectly induce population growth by extension of Roseville Parkway, rather it would provide for more efficient east-west travel in the project area. This impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b) Would the project displace a substantial number of existing people or housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
There are no residences on the project site; therefore, the proposed project would not displace housing. No impact would occur.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-101 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.14.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not have a significant impact on population and housing. Therefore, no mitigation is required.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-102 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.15 Public Services
XIV. Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities
or a need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the
following public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?

3.2.15.1 Setting
Fire Protection
The Roseville Fire Department operates nine fire stations that provide fire protection, suppression, emergency medical services, and hazardous material management within the city of Roseville, including the project site. The project site is within Fire Protection Districts 7 and 2, served by Fire Station No. 7 and No. 2. Fire Station No. 7 is approximately 1 mile east of the project site at 911 Highland Point Drive. Fire Station No. 2 is approximately 2 miles south of the project site at 1398 Junction Boulevard (City of Roseville 2017).

Police Protection
The Roseville Police Department, headquartered approximately 1.7 miles south of the project site at 1051 Junction Boulevard, provides police protection services to Roseville.

Schools
The closest school to the project site is George A. Buljan Middle School approximately 0.75 mile south of the project site. The next closest school is Arbor View Montessori approximately 1.1 miles south of the project site.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-103 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Parks
The nearest existing park to the project site is Summerhill Park, approximately 0.25 mile northeast of the project site’s eastern boundary. Additional parks in the project vicinity include Duran, Gilbert A. & Helen K. Park, Buljian Park, and Brown Vencil Park. Woodcreek Golf Club is to the southwest.

3.2.15.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:

Fire protection?
The Roseville Parkway extension and overpass would be constructed in compliance with applicable city codes and regulations. The proposed project would improve east-west accessibility in the project area by providing additional east-west circulation options for service calls in North Roseville. No impact would occur.

Police protection?
Because the proposed project would not introduce new residents to the area, it would not result in a need for new or physically altered police facilities in order to maintain adequate service levels. The proposed project would improve east-west accessibility in the project area by providing additional east-west circulation options for service calls in North Roseville. No impact would occur.

Schools?
The proposed project would not introduce additional residents to the area. The proposed project would improve east-west accessibility in the project area by providing additional east-west circulation options. Because the proposed project would not increase the demand for school facilities, there would be no impact.

Parks and Other Public Facilities?
Because the proposed project would not introduce new residents to the area, it would not result in the need for new or expanded parks or other public facilities. No impact would occur.

3.2.15.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would have no impact on public services and therefore, no mitigation is required.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-104 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.15.4 References
City of Roseville. 2017. Location of Roseville Fire Stations. March. Roseville, California. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/ Departments/Fire%20Dept/Fire%20Station%20Locations/Location%20of%20Ros eville%20Fire%20Stations%20-%202017.pdf. Accessed: April 10, 2020.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-105 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.16 Recreation
XV. Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?

3.2.16.1 Setting
The project site is on land designated for right-of-way or general and light industrial uses, as described in the City of Roseville General Plan 2035 and the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Reference Section 3.2.15, Public Services, for information on parks in the project area.

3.2.16.2 Impact Analysis
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The proposed project would not introduce new residents to the area and would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. No impact would occur.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The proposed project does not include construction of recreational facilities and would not require the construction of new recreational facilities or the expansion of existing recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed project would have no potential adverse physical effects on the environment associated with the construction of recreational facilities. No impact would occur.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-106 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.16.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would have no impact on recreational facilities. Therefore, no mitigation is required.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-107 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.17 Transportation
XVI. Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

The transportation analysis is based on the Roseville Parkway Extension Traffic Evaluation Memorandum prepared by Kimley-Horn (Kimley-Horn 2020). The KimleyHorn traffic memorandum was prepared to support CEQA and to document project consistency with prior, more comprehensive environmental studies, and to inform the intersections’ lane geometries to achieve acceptable operations.

3.2.17.1 Setting
Regulatory Setting
State
Caltrans is responsible for operating and maintaining all state-owned roadways and interstate highways in California. Caltrans sets maximum load limits for trucks and safety requirements for oversized vehicles that operate on highways. Highways in Placer County are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans District 3.

The California Vehicle Code, Division 15, Chapters 1 through 5 (Size, Weight, and Load) gives Caltrans discretionary authority to issue special permits for the movement of vehicles and loads exceeding statutory limitations on the size, weight, and loading of vehicles operated on highways. A special permit issued by Caltrans is required to authorize the operation of oversize or overweight trucks. In addition, Sections 660–711 of the California Streets and Highways Code require permits from Caltrans for any roadway encroachment during truck transportation and delivery.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-108 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
The regulations for the care and protection of state and county highways require permits for any load that exceeds Caltrans weight, length, or width standards for public roadways.

Finally, state law requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive, longrange general plan, including a circulation element, to guide its physical development. The applicable local documents are described below.

Local
Placer County 2036 Regional Transportation Plan
The Placer County Transportation Planning Agency’s (PCTPA) Placer County Regional Transportation Plan 2040, approved November 21, 2019, outlines the existing modes of transportation and identifies needed improvements to guide the systematic development of a balanced, comprehensive, multimodal transportation system integrated with land use and air quality planning to meet Placer County’s transportation needs (Placer County Transportation Planning Agency 2019). PCTPA serves as the County’s designated Congestion Management Agency and implements an alternative transportation outreach effort as part of the Placer County Regional Transportation Plan 2040 to meet its congestion management program requirements (Placer County Transportation Planning Agency 2019). The Placer County Regional Transportation Plan 2040 also functions as the local transportation plan incorporated into the larger SACOG MTP/SCS. As one of the cities within Placer County, Roseville is a member of PCTPA. The Placer County Regional Transportation Plan 2040 includes the following relevant goals and policies.

Goal 1: Highways/Streets/Roadways. Maintain and upgrade a safe, efficient, and convenient countywide roadway system that meets the travel needs of people and goods through and within the region.

Goal 5: Goods Movement. Provide for the safe and efficient movement of goods through, within, and into Placer County.

Goal 9: Integrated Land Use, Air Quality and Transportation Planning. By integrating land, air, and transportation planning, build and maintain the most efficient and effective transportation system possible while achieving the highest possible environmental quality standards.

Objective A, Policy 3. Provide technical support to jurisdictions’ local roadway improvement efforts through circulation system analysis, and other transportation studies, as requested.

Objective B, Policy 4. Encourage local jurisdictions to develop and implement complete street practices in the design and maintenance of local roads.

City of Roseville General Plan 2035
The Circulation Element of the City of Roseville General Plan 2035 includes the following relevant goals and policies.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-109 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Functional Classification Goal 1. Provide guidance to the long-range planning of the City's roadway system including design standards, right-of-way requirements and coordination with surrounding jurisdictions.

Functional Classification Policy 4. Maintain a system of truck routes to provide for the safe and efficient movement of goods and to avoid impacting residential neighborhoods.

Level of Service Goal 1. Maintain an adequate level of transportation service for all of Roseville's residents and employees through a balanced transportation system, which considers automobiles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Level of Service Policy 1. Maintain a level of service (LOS) "C" standard at a minimum of 70 percent of all signalized intersections and roadway segments in the City during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Exceptions to the LOS “C” standard may be considered for intersections where the City finds that the required improvements are unacceptable based on established criteria identified in the implementation measures. In addition, Pedestrian Districts may be exempted from the LOS standard.

Bikeways/Trails Goal 2. Establish and maintain a safe, comprehensive and integrated bikeway and trail system that encourages the use of bikes and walking for commuting, recreational and other trips.

Environmental Setting
Project Roadways
The proposed project is located in the North Industrial Planning Area of Roseville.

The project includes extension of Roseville Parkway by approximately 0.75 mile from its current terminus at Washington Boulevard westerly to Foothills Boulevard. The project includes construction of an overpass of the UPRR tracks and Industrial Avenue.

The transportation analysis evaluated the following study intersections (see Figure 3-2):

1. Roseville Parkway at Foothills Boulevard

2. Roseville Parkway at Washington Boulevard
The primary focus of study was to document project consistency with prior environmental studies related to the above intersections and proposed road extension. Accordingly, this traffic evaluation considered the following analysis scenarios:

A. Existing (2020) Conditions. Conditions representative of on‐the‐ground conditions established using traffic count data provided by the City’s Intelligent Transportation System from February 2020.

B. Existing (2020) plus Proposed Project Conditions. Conditions representative of year 2020 conditions resulting from the addition of and network connectivity achieved City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-110 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
from the Roseville Parkway Extension. Traffic volumes were approximated using the City’s Travel Demand Model to establish these “plus project” conditions.

C. Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project Conditions. Conditions obtained directly from the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan in which the Roseville Parkway Extension is included.

Methodology
The traffic evaluation was performed in accordance with the City’s preferred methodologies (City of Roseville 2020) and general guidelines for the preparation of traffic studies.

Analysis of transportation facility operations is based on the concept of LOS. The LOS of a facility is a qualitative measure used to describe operational conditions.

LOS ranges from A (best), which represents minimal delay, to F (worst), which represents heavy delay and a facility that is operating at or near its functional capacity. LOS for this study were determined using methods defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition. The HCM includes procedures for analyzing a variety of intersection traffic control, including traffic signals. The signalized intersection procedures define LOS as a function of average control delay for the intersection as a whole. Table 3-17 presents intersection LOS definitions as defined in the HCM. LOS was determined using the Synchro® traffic analysis software.

Table 3-17. Intersection Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service (LOS)
Signalized
Average Control Delay (sec/veh)
A ≤ 10
B > 10 – 20
C > 20 – 35
D > 35 – 55
E > 55 – 80
F > 80
Results
This section summarizes the technical analyses completed for the study intersections. These facilities were analyzed under existing (2020) conditions with and without the proposed project, and cumulative (2035) conditions with the proposed project. Figure 3-3 depicts the study intersections’ lane geometries, while Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 present the analysis scenarios’ peak-hour intersection turning movement volumes. The traffic count data sheets are provided the Traffic Evaluation Memorandum Appendix A (see Initial Study Appendix C). Traffic Evaluation Memorandum Appendices B-E include the scenarios’ analysis Exhibit 1
Project Vicinity Map
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge, Roseville, CA
Blue Oaks Blvd
Foothills Blvd
Industrial Ave
Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
UPRR Tracks
1 2

NOT TO SCALE
Proposed Project
# Study Intersection
LEGEND
Source: Kimley Horn, 2020.

Graphics … 00041.20 (6/9/20) AB
Figure 3-2
Project Vicinity

Blue Oaks Blvd
Industrial Ave
Foothills Blvd
Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
UPRR Tracks
1 2
Exhibit 2
Study Intersections, Traffic Control, and Lane Geometries Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge, Roseville, CA
Roseville Pkwy Foothills Blvd
1 Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
2 Roseville Pkwy Foothills Blvd
1 Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
2 No Project
Plus Project
F
F
F
F
F

NOT TO SCALE
Proposed Project
# Study Intersection
LEGEND
Signalized
Intersection
F Free Movement
Figure 3-3
Study Intersections, Traffic Control, and Lane Geometries Graphics … 00041.20 (6/9/20) AB
Source: Kimley Horn, 2020.

Blue Oaks Blvd
Industrial Ave
Foothills Blvd
Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
UPRR Tracks
1 2
Exhibit 3
Existing (2020) Conditions Peak-Hour Volumes
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge, Roseville, CA
Roseville Pkwy Foothills Blvd
1 Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
2 Roseville Pkwy Foothills Blvd
1 Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
2 Existing (2020)
Existing (2020) Plus
Proposed Project
60(20)490(830)10(10)
10(10)
10(10)
10(10)
30(50)
40(110)
10(10)
360(600)430(430)
70(70)
280(510)
10(10)
10(10)
10(10)
70(50)10(10)
690(630)
10(10)30(60)
380(440)
10(10)
10(10)
10(10)410(800)250(260)
30(90)
100(170)
50(70)
10(10)
110(150)
180(210)
170(410)220(210)
50(60)
110(160)
30(10)
180(200)
320(320)
90(90)
100(60)
660(550)
10(30)30(50)
360(470)
250(450)
10(20)

NOT TO SCALE
Proposed Project
# Study Intersection
LEGEND
AM (PM) Peak-hour
Turning Movement
Volume

XX (XX)
Figure 3-4
Existing (2020) Conditions Peak‐Hour Volumes
Graphics … 00041.20 (6/9/20) AB
Source: Kimley Horn, 2020.

Blue Oaks Blvd
Industrial Ave
Foothills Blvd
Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
UPRR Tracks
1 2
Exhibit 4
Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project Conditions Peak-Hour Volumes Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge, Roseville, CA
Roseville Pkwy Foothills Blvd
1*
Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
2*
19(6)580(1,233)572(420)
356(357)
460(570)
374(588)
21(25)
164(260)
271(482)
642(1,017)307(589)
24(54)
766(943)
43(55)
7(16)
635(753)
244(211)
941(808)358(341)
29(1)
25(36)
535(635)
543(590)
19(55)
*Peak-Hour Volumes were obtained directly from the Amoruso Ranch Traffic Study’s 2035 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions

NOT TO SCALE
Proposed Project
# Study Intersection
LEGEND
AM (PM) Peak-hour
Turning Movement
Volume

XX (XX)
Figure 3-5
Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project Conditions Peak‐Hour Volumes Graphics … 00041.20 (6/9/20) AB
Source: Kimley Horn, 2020.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-111 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
worksheets (see Initial Study Appendix C). The results of the intersection LOS analyses are presented in Table 3-18.

As shown in Table 3-18, the study intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better during both peak hours, for all analysis scenarios.

Table 3-18. Intersection Levels of Service

3.2.17.2 Impact Analysis
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
The proposed project, through its extension of Roseville Parkway between Foothills Boulevard and Washington Boulevard, does not conflict with the City of Roseville’s applicable planning documents including the General Plan 2035, Bicycle Master Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, and Short-Range Transit Plan. The following is an overview of the project’s consistency with these guiding documents:
 Circulation System
 Consistent with the proposed project, the facility is indicated to have four future lanes (City of Roseville 2016: Figure III-3)
 Additionally, consistent with the proposed project, the facility is designated as a four-lane facility in the Year 2035 mitigated network (City of Roseville 2016:Table III-4)
 Transit Facilities
 Although not a designated transit route, the proposed project connects to Roseville Transit Route R that operates weekdays in both directions along Foothills Boulevard. There is currently a southbound bus stop located south of the proposed project intersection with Foothills Boulevard.  Bicycle Facilities
ID Intersection Peak Hour
Existing (2020)
Existing (2020)
plus Project
Cumulative (2035)
plus Project
Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
1 Roseville Parkway
@ Foothills
Boulevard
AM 13.8 B 17.2 B 37.5 D
PM 16.0 B 18.3 B 42.2 D
2 Roseville Parkway
@ Washington
Boulevard
AM 15.4 B 19.0 B 25.5 C
PM 15.2 B 20.0 C 37.3 D
City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-112 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
 Consistent with the proposed project, the facility is indicated to have Class II Bike Lanes along the entire stretch of Roseville Parkway, as well as along both Foothills Boulevard and Washington Boulevard (City of Roseville 2016:

Figure III-6; City of Roseville 2008: Figure 5).
 Additionally, the proposed project includes a separated 10-foot multi-use path that further supports the City’s General Plan and Bicycle Master Plan goals.  Pedestrian Facilities
 The proposed project includes both an attached 8-foot sidewalk and a separated 10-foot multi-use path. Through its inclusion of these facilities, the proposed Project supports the City’s General Plan and
Pedestrian Master Plan goals.

As discussed above, the project is found consistent with applicable plans, ordinances and policies. There would be no impact.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
SB 743 was enacted by the California legislature in 2013 and required the Office of Planning and Research to adopt new guidelines for assessing CEQA-related transportation impacts. The City has determined that the proposed project does not require VMT analyses in response to SB 743 for the following reasons:
 The proposed project is included in the MTP/SCS recently adopted by SACOG.  The proposed project is included in the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan EIR, which is also incorporated into the current General Plan and the pending General Plan Update.
 The General Plan Update, scheduled to be adopted in Fall 2020, includes “grandfathering” of all previously adopted specific plans and will also include a VMT Policy that will only apply to new project proposals.  As outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(2) for roadway capacity projects, agencies have the discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements.

To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in CEQA Section 15152.

The proposed project is found to be consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3 subdivision (b) and there would be no impact.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-113 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The project has been designed in a manner consistent with all applicable, published design standards at the onset of the project including the City of Roseville’s Design and Construction Standards, Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Consistent with the City’s expansive transportation system, the project would support all compatible uses and the surrounding land uses that are reasonably anticipated to contribute traffic to and rely on this facility are compatible with the design considerations. Accordingly, through its consistency with these standards, as well as resulting from its improved network connectivity, the proposed project would not increase hazards and would support all compatible uses.

There would be no impact.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The City previously analyzed the proposed project’s effect on the emergency response times and access during the project development phase as part of the City of Roseville Roadway System Capital Improvements Project Sensitivity Analysis Update (City of Roseville 2019). Through a comprehensive sensitivity analysis, the City documented the proposed project’s, as well as other significant projects’ effects on peak-hour travel times and general vehicular access to emergency and medical service facilities, with a focus on travel times between the northwest portion of the city and two emergency hospital providers (Sutter Roseville and Kaiser Roseville).

These previous efforts concluded the following as relates to the proposed projects’ improvements to emergency access:

The Roseville Parkway extension project provides congestion reductions on the Blue Oaks Boulevard/Industrial Avenue overcrossing by reducing the 10-year peak-hour traffic volumes on the Blue Oaks Boulevard bridge. Furthermore, Roseville Parkway serves as another means to get from the west side of the City to the east side without having to access State Route 65.

This parallel capacity would be helpful in emergency situations and as an alternate route during construction of the Blue Oaks Boulevard bridge widening. (City of Roseville 2019) The project plans would be reviewed by the appropriate City departments to ensure conformance with all applicable fire-safety code and ordinance requirements for emergency access. There would be no impact.

3.2.17.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would have no impact on transportation. Therefore, no mitigation is required.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-114 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.17.4 References
City of Roseville. 2008. Bicycle Master Plan. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/ Departments/Public%20Works/Biking%20&%20Walking/Planning/2008%20Bicyc le%20Master%20Plan2.pdf.

City of Roseville. 2016. Roseville General Plan 2035. Available:
http://www.roseville.ca.us/gov/development_services/planning/general_plan_n_d evelopment_guidelines.asp?grpxver=mob. Accessed: September 29, 2017.

City of Roseville. 2019. Roadway System Capital Improvements Project Sensitivity Analysis Update. Presented at the April 17, 2019 Roseville City Council Meeting.

City of Roseville. 2020. Section 4 Traffic Impact Studies, City of Roseville Design Standards. January.

Kimley-Horn. 2020. Roseville Parkway Extension Traffic Evaluation Memorandum.

June 5.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency. 2019. Final Placer County 2036 Regional Transportation Plan. Available:
http://www.pctpa.net/library/rtp/2036/RTP/Final_2036_RTP_Full.pdf. Accessed:

September 29, 2017.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-115 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
XVII. Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe, and
that is:

a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
b. A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance
of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

3.2.18.1 Setting
Tribal cultural resources are defined in CEQA as:

1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe that are either of the following:
a. Included in or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR. b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-116 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
AB 52 defines a California Native American Tribe as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC (Public Resources Code Section 21073). A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. Sacred places can include Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, and sacred shrines. Both unique and non-unique archaeological resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, can be tribal cultural resources if they meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR (Public Resources Code Section 524.1(c)).

The lead agency relies upon substantial evidence to make the determination that a resource qualifies as a tribal cultural resource when it is not already listed in the CRHR or a local register.

On September 23, 2019, the City of Roseville sent certified letters to the following tribes requesting consultation or information regarding tribal resources in the project area. The letters requested a response within 30 days.
 UAIC (Gene Whitehouse, Chairman)
 SSBMI (Nicholas Fonseca, Chairperson)
 Tsi Akim Maidu (Don Ryberg, Chairperson)
 Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Sara D. Setshwaelo, Cultural Committee Chair) To date, two responses regarding consultation have been received from the UAIC and SSBMI. On October 17, 2019, the City of Roseville received a letter dated October 8, 2019 from Gene Whitehouse, Chairman of the UAIC. The letter requested to consult under AB 52, identified the area of the project as sensitive for tribal cultural resources, requested copies of drafted or completed technical reports, requested one meeting to discuss the project and potential impacts, and identified the UAIC’s point of contact as Anna Starkey. Terri Shirhall with the City of Roseville followed up with an email to Anna Starkey of the UAIC on October 23, 2019. The email acknowledged the request for continued consultation and provided survey reports and permits associated with the project. Additional outreach between the City and Starkey resumed in January and April of 2020 with Starkey requesting to review the Draft IS/MND before it goes public to review for incorporation of UAIC’s preferred mitigation measures. In July 2020 Terri Shirhall emailed the admin draft IS/MND to Ms. Starkey. Ms. Starkey replied in a July 20 email to Terri Shirhall that she had no further comment and consultation could be closed with City agreement.

The City concurred and consultation was closed with agreement on July 20, 2020.

On October 21, 2019, the City of Roseville received a letter dated October 14, 2019 from Daniel Fonseca, Cultural Resources Director for the SSBMI. The letter stated that the SSBMI was not aware of any known cultural resources in the project; however, they would like to have continued consultation as the project progresses.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-117 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
The letter also requested copies of drafted or completed technical reports and would like to be notified of human remains are found. Terri Shirhall with the City of Roseville followed up with an email to Kara Perry of the SSBMI on October 23, 2019. The email acknowledged the request for continued consultation and provided survey reports and permits associated with the project. On January 13, 2020 Kara Perry responded with an email to Terri Shirhall stating that the City can close consultation with the SSBMI but would like to be informed if any changes are made to the project.

As of release of this document, no tribal cultural resources have been identified by any of the consulting tribes and AB 52 tribal consultations were closed with agreement.

3.2.18.2 Impact Analysis
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or other local register as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
No tribal resources were identified through consultation efforts. Therefore, it is expected that the project would not result in impacts on tribal cultural resources.

There would be no impact.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

No tribal resources were identified through consultation efforts. Therefore, it is expected that the project would not result in impacts on tribal cultural resources.

However, it is possible that unknown buried tribal cultural resources could be present on the project site. Should buried or otherwise unknown tribal cultural resources be encountered and damaged during construction, a potentially significant impact would result. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would reduce this impact to less than significant.

3.2.18.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure TRC-1: Implement Measures to Protect Previously Unidentified Tribal Cultural Resources
If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin, or tribal cultural resources, are discovered during construction, all work shall halt within a 100- foot radius of the discovery, and the Construction Manager shall immediately City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-118 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
notify the City of Roseville Development Services Director by phone. The Construction Manager shall also immediately coordinate with the monitoring archaeologist or project archaeologist, or, in the absence of either, contact a qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology and subject to approval by the City, to evaluate the significance of the find and develop appropriate management recommendations. All management recommendations shall be provided to the City in writing for the City’s review and approval. If recommended by the qualified professional and approved by the City, this may include modification of the no-work radius.

The professional archaeologist must make a determination, based on professional judgement and supported by substantial evidence, within one business day of being notified, as to whether or not the find represents a cultural resource or has the potential to be a tribal cultural resource. The subsequent actions will be determined by the type of discovery, as described below. These include: (1) a work pause that, upon further investigation, is not actually a discovery and the work pause was simply needed in order to allow for closer examination of soil (a “false alarm”); (2) a work pause and subsequent action for discoveries that are clearly not related to tribal resources, such as can and bottle dumps, artifacts of European origin, and remnants of built environment features; and (3) a work pause and subsequent action for discoveries that are likely related to tribal resources, such as midden soil, bedrock mortars, groundstone, or other similar expressions.

Whenever there is question as to whether or not the discovery represents a tribal resource, culturally affiliated tribes shall be consulted in making the determination. The following processes shall apply, depending on the nature of the find, subject to the review and approval of the City:
 Response to False Alarms: If the professional archaeologist determines that the find is negative for any cultural indicators, then work may resume immediately upon notice to proceed from the City’s representative. No further notifications or tribal consultation is necessary, because the discovery is not a cultural resource of any kind. The professional archaeologist shall provide written documentation of this finding to the City.
 Response to Non-Tribal Discoveries: If at the time of discovery a professional archaeologist determines that the find represents a non-tribal cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, the City shall be notified immediately, to consult on a finding of eligibility and implementation of appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a historical resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The professional archaeologist shall provide a photograph of the City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-119 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
find and a written description to the City of Roseville. The City of Roseville will notify any tribe(s) who, in writing, requested notice of unanticipated discovery of non-tribal resources. Notice shall include the photograph and description of the find, and a tribal representative shall have the opportunity to determine whether or not the find represents a tribal cultural resource. If a response is not received within 24 hours of notification (none of which time period may fall on weekends or City holidays), the City will deem this portion of the measure completed in good faith as long as the notification was made and documented. If requested by a tribe(s), the City may extend this timeframe, which shall be documented in writing (electronic communication may be used to satisfy this measure). If a notified tribe responds within 24 hours to indicate that the find represents a tribal cultural resource, then the Response to Tribal Discoveries portion of this measure applies. If the tribe does not respond or concurs that the discovery is non-tribal, work shall not resume within the nowork radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: (1) is not a historical resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or (2) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.
 Response to Tribal Discoveries: If the find represents a tribal or potentially tribal cultural resource that does not include human remains, the tribe(s) and City shall be notified. The City will consult with the tribe(s) on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be either a historical resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, or a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code. Preservation in place is the preferred treatment, if feasible. Work shall not resume within the nowork radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: (1) is not a historical resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or (2) not a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code; or (3) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.  Response to Human Remains: If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, the construction supervisor or on-site archaeologist shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (AB 2641) and shall notify the City and Placer County Coroner (per Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code).

The provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and AB 2641 shall be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which then will designate a Native American MLD for the project (Public Resources Code City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-120 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
Section 5097.98). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 provides structure for mediation through the NAHC if necessary. If no agreement is reached, the City shall rebury the remains in a respectful manner where they will not be further disturbed (Public Resources Code Section 5097.98). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-121 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.19 Utilities and Service Systems
XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

3.2.19.1 Setting
Wastewater
Wastewater services in Roseville are provided by the City. Two wastewater treatment facilities, the Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant, serve the city. The Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is located on the southern edge of the city on an 80-acre parcel at 1800 Booth Road. The Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant is located on the city’s west side on a 110-acre parcel at 5051 Westpark Drive. These plants are owned and operated by the City of Roseville on behalf of the Regional Partners consisting of the City, the South Placer Municipal Utility District, and portions of City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-122 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
unincorporated Placer County (primarily Granite Bay and Sunset Industrial Area) (City of Roseville 2016).

Water
The City of Roseville provides water service to areas within the city, including the project site. Roseville uses multiple water sources, including surface water, recycled water for landscaping, and, in dry years or emergency situations, groundwater.

Stormwater Drainage
Stormwater drainage facilities in urbanized areas of Roseville, including developed portions of the project area, consist of surface gutters, subsurface drainage pipes, canals, and retention basins. The project site is undeveloped disturbed annual grassland bordered on the east by residential development and industrial development and vacant parcels to the north, south, and west. The project site is located in a partially developed area; stormwater runoff drains primarily through natural drainage swales, and in the developed areas through surface gutters and subsurface drainage pipes. No developed stormwater drainage facilities are present on the project site. See Section 3.2.10 for further discussion of project site drainage characteristics.

Solid Waste Disposal
The city collects solid waste generated in Roseville and hauls it to the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) at the Western Placer Waste Management Authority’s Western Regional Sanitary Landfill. The Western Placer Waste Management Authority is a joint powers authority made up of Placer County and the Cities of Roseville, Rocklin, and Lincoln. The landfill is a Class II/III non-hazardous municipal solid waste facility located southeast of the Athens Avenue and Fiddyment Road intersection between Roseville and Lincoln in unincorporated Placer County. The MRF has a municipal solid waste processing capacity of approximately 1,900 tons per day and a green waste processing capacity of approximately 205 tons per day (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 2019a). As of July 1, 2013, the landfill had a remaining capacity of 25,677,600 cubic yards (City of Roseville 2016). The landfill has an estimated closure date of 2058 (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 2019b).

3.2.19.2 Impact Analysis
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-123 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The project includes the extension of Roseville Parkway between Foothills Boulevard and Washington Boulevard. Required utility relocations are described in Section 2.4.5, Utility Relocations. The project would not include extension of any new water, wastewater, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, although some existing facilities may be slightly relocated within the disturbance footprint. The only exception is that electricity would be extended within underground conduits along the new roadway and overpass to allow for connection with existing electric facilities on both sides. Electricity for streetlights would also be extended along the roadway.

Roadway construction would include low-impact development measures and underground storm drain improvements to convey stormwater runoff from the new roadway. The new storm drain system would tie into existing storm drains at the east and west ends of the project. The new storm drain system would be built to city and SWRCB standards and would include construction BMPs as identified in Section

2.6, thereby reducing any potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
The proposed project would not require the provision of water from public sources and no water supply system would be built as part of the project. The only water used by the project would be water trucked on-site during construction activities for soil compaction and dust suppression. No impact would occur. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? The project would not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements because the proposed project would not generate wastewater. Because the project would not require wastewater treatment service, no construction or expansion of wastewater systems would be required, and the project would not affect wastewater treatment capacity. During construction, one or more portable toilets would be placed on the project site; wastewater would be contained within the portable toilet and ultimately disposed of at an approved site. No impact would occur. d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
And
City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-124 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The project would not generate solid waste during operation. Solid waste generated during construction would include debris such as concrete, scrap metal, and similar materials. Waste materials generated during construction would be disposed of appropriately at the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill or its associated MRF.

The majority of earthwork would involve soil import and compaction to ready the road base and build-up the overpass approach ramps. The project requires approximately 165,000 cubic yards of fill import, primarily for the overpass approach ramps. It is expected that excess soil from local development projects would provide a portion of this material. The balance would be obtained from available commercial supplies.

With an estimate closure date of 2058 and a remaining capacity of slightly more than 25 million cubic yards, the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill would be capable of accommodating the project’s construction solid waste disposal needs.

Given the nominal demand that the project would place on remaining landfill capacity, the project would have a limited impact on landfill capacity and would comply with relevant statutes and regulations related to solid waste. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

3.2.19.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts on utilities and service systems. Therefore, no mitigation is required.

3.2.19.4 References
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2019a. SWIS Facility Detail, Western Placer Waste Mgmt Authority MFR (31-AA-0001). Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/31-AA-0001. Accessed:

April 15, 2020.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2019b. SWIS Facility Detail Western Regional Landfill (31-AA-0210). Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/31-AA-0210/. Accessed:

April 15, 2020.

City of Roseville. 2016. City of General Plan 2035. Adopted June 15, 2016.

Amended August 17, 2016. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=8774544.

Accessed: April 14, 2020.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-125 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.20 Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas
or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:

a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks of, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines, or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts on the
environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?

3.2.20.1 Setting
The project area is not within a State Responsibility Area; therefore, not designated a very high fire hazard severity zone. The project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area where the Roseville Fire Department is responsible for fire protection services.
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
And
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks of, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
And
City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-126 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts on the environment?
And
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Extension of Roseville Parkway would improve emergency response in the project area by providing an additional east-west emergency response route. The project site is on relatively flat ground in an urbanized area of North Roseville, so not susceptible to downstream flooding or landslide. The project area is not within a State Responsibility Area; therefore, not designated a very high fire hazard severity zone. No impact would occur.

3.2.20.2 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts on wildfire.

Therefore, no mitigation is required.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-127 July 2020
ICF 00041.20

3.2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
XIX. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c. Does the project have environmental effects
that will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
As stated in Section 3.2.4, Biological Resources, project construction could directly or indirectly (through habitat modification) affect wildlife species identified as specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. For example, project construction could include potential effects on western spadefoot toad and ground-nesting migratory birds and raptors. However implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.

City of Roseville Environmental Checklist
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Roseville Parkway Extension Project 3-128 July 2020
ICF 00041.20
As discussed in Section 3.2.6, Cultural Resources, the project would avoid impacts on the UPRR grade and would not significantly affect examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

With implementation of mitigation measures, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of any wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. These impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable?
The analysis in this chapter concludes that the project would have either no impact or less-than-significant localized impacts (with mitigation) on a number of resources (aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire). Because the project would not induce population growth or result in the development of new housing or employment-generating uses, it would not combine with cumulative development to increase the demand for public services, recreation facilities, or utilities, the expansion of which could result in significant environmental effects. Further, the analysis indicates that operation of the project would reduce GHG emissions, resulting in a beneficial effect on GHG.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, CUL-1, CUL-2, GEO-1, and GEO-2 would minimize potential localized construction impacts on air quality, western spadefoot toad and ground-nesting migratory birds and raptors, cultural resources and paleontological resources.

The project would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts because its impacts would not combine with those of cumulative development. The project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project would have no significant adverse effects on human beings. There would be no significant increase in construction-related or operational air emissions or noise levels, and there would be no significant exposure to geologic or seismic hazards or to hazardous materials as a result of the project. For all other topics, there would be either no impact or a less-than-significant impact. Therefore, the project’s impacts on human beings would be less than significant.

Appendix A
Air Quality

Construction Schedule
Start End Calendar Days Work Days
Grubbing/Land Clearing 9/1/2021 9/13/2021 88
Grading/Excavation 9/14/2021 4/13/2022 151 30Draining/Utilities/Subgrade 9/1/2021 5/13/2022 182 81 Paving 3/23/2022 5/9/2022 33 11Overpass construction 9/16/2021 2/17/2022 110 110 General RCEM Construction Inputs
Input Roadway Overpass
Construction Year 2021 2021Project Length 0.75 0.75Total Project Area 12 12Maximum Area Disturbed/Day 22Soil Imported/Exported by Phase Grubbing/Land Clearing 3,000 0 Grading/Excavation 2,800 0 Draining/Utilities/Subgrade 00 Paving 00Asphalt Imported/ Exported by Phase Grubbing/Land Clearing 00 Grading/Excavation 00 Draining/Utilities/Subgrade 00 Paving 840 0Average Truck Capacity 40 0 Construction Vehicles
Trips per Day Miles per Trip Number per Day Trips per Day Number per Day Trips per Day Miles per Trip Grubbing/Land Clearing 72 20 15 30 2 5 8Grading/Excavation 70 20 15 30 2 5 8 Draining/Utilities/Subgrade 15 30 1 5 8Paving 21 20 15 30 Overpass construction 15 30Phase ProjectPhase Haul Trucks Employees Water Trucks Construction Equipment
Grub/Clearing Grading/Ex D/U/S Paving Overpass
Bore/Drill Rig 0 0 1 0 1
Cement/Mortar Mixer 0 0 0 0 5Crane 0 0 0 0 2Excavator 0 0 0 0 2Generator 0 0 1 0 1Graders 2 2 2 0 0 Off‐Highway Truck 0 0 0 0 1Other Construction Equip 0 0 1 2 0Paver 0 0 0 1 0Rollers 5 5 2 5 0RT Dozer 2 2 1 0 0RT Loader 1 0 0 0 1 Scraper 2 2 0 0 0Skid Loader 2 2 3 2 0
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 0 0 1 0 0
Trencher 0 0 1 0 0
General Category Number per Day (all at 8 hours per day) SACOG Daily Regional VMT
Speed Bin
(mph) Existing Existing Plus Project Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project 0 ‐ 5 60,346 58,720 137,246 139,041
6‐10 210,302 211,922 496,988 485,540
11‐15 553,753 554,700 876,659 855,837
16‐20 6,343,883 6,329,167 9,235,620 9,311,394
21‐25 2,624,297 2,684,968 5,095,415 4,959,937
26 ‐ 30 3,217,681 3,080,908 4,663,045 4,626,88131 ‐ 35 4,745,766 4,774,379 7,889,099 7,989,64236 ‐ 40 5,039,756 5,077,098 11,789,195 11,811,54641 ‐ 45 4,987,786 5,017,969 6,877,824 6,771,27946 ‐ 50 5,356,132 5,368,057 7,591,704 7,584,21751 ‐ 55 10,259,529 10,245,607 8,888,074 8,997,50856 ‐ 60 5,299,843 5,290,663 5,836,391 5,741,59361 ‐ 65 1,518,200 1,517,869 3,860,390 3,942,264 66+ 1,872,276 1,873,096 209,706 209,717
Total 52,089,549 52,085,122 73,447,356 73,426,397
Source: Weir, Matt (Kimley‐Horn)
VMT
CT‐EMFAC2017 Output
ROG NOx CO2 CH4 PM10 Ex PM10 D N2O
2011
5 0.84 1.84 1,057 0.11 0.08 1.07 0.06
10 0.59 1.58 872 0.08 0.06 1.07 0.05
15 0.37 1.25 707 0.05 0.05 1.07 0.04
20 0.23 1.07 589 0.04 0.03 1.07 0.04
25 0.18 1.00 507 0.03 0.03 1.07 0.03
30 0.14 0.96 454 0.02 0.02 1.07 0.03
35 0.12 0.93 423 0.02 0.02 1.07 0.03
40 0.11 0.91 408 0.02 0.02 1.07 0.03
45 0.10 0.91 407 0.02 0.02 1.07 0.03
50 0.09 0.91 416 0.02 0.02 1.07 0.03
55 0.10 0.93 430 0.02 0.02 1.07 0.03
60 0.10 0.95 444 0.02 0.02 1.07 0.03
65 0.11 0.97 456 0.02 0.02 1.07 0.03
70 0.12 0.98 459 0.02 0.02 1.07 0.03
75 0.12 0.98 459 0.02 0.02 1.07 0.03
2035
5 0.09 0.66 648 0.00 0.01 1.12 0.03
10 0.06 0.51 530 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.03
15 0.04 0.37 427 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.02
20 0.03 0.29 357 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.02
25 0.02 0.24 307 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.02
30 0.02 0.19 272 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.02
35 0.01 0.14 251 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.01
40 0.01 0.11 240 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.01
45 0.01 0.09 237 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.01
50 0.01 0.08 242 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.01
55 0.01 0.09 251 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.01
60 0.01 0.10 263 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.01
65 0.01 0.12 275 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.01
70 0.01 0.12 277 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.01
75 0.01 0.12 277 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.01
2035 with SAFE Rule*
5 0.10 0.67 0.01
10 0.06 0.51 0.00
15 0.04 0.37 0.00
20 0.03 0.30 0.00
25 0.02 0.24 0.00
30 0.02 0.19 0.00
35 0.01 0.15 0.00
40 0.01 0.12 0.00
45 0.01 0.09 0.00
50 0.01 0.09 0.00
55 0.01 0.09 0.00
60 0.01 0.10 0.00
65 0.01 0.12 0.00
70 0.01 0.12 0.00
75 0.01 0.12 0.00
* Conservatively applied to all vehicle emissions (not just light‐duty gasoline).

Year/Speed
Running (RUNEX, PMTW, PMBW, RD) grams per mile
No Project Emissions Calculations*
ROG NOx CO2 CH4 PM10 Ex PM10 D N2O
2011
5 112 245 22,140 2 11 143 1
10 274 734 63,611 6 30 498 4
15 449 1,532 135,931 10 55 1,311 8
20 3,267 14,944 1,296,068 82 454 15,025 83
25 1,021 5,784 462,087 26 154 6,215 31
30 1,015 6,803 506,844 26 165 7,621 35
35 1,262 9,738 696,625 33 220 11,240 50
40 1,178 10,153 714,264 31 220 11,936 51
45 1,073 9,979 704,020 28 214 11,813 49
50 1,117 10,763 772,529 29 238 12,685 52
55 2,184 20,936 1,529,436 55 491 24,298 101
60 1,204 11,054 816,854 30 269 12,552 53
65 380 3,247 240,254 9 78 3,596 16
70 500 4,060 298,488 12 98 4,434 20
Total 15,036 109,971 8,259,150 381 2,698 123,367 554
2035
5 29 203 30,863 0 2 338 2
10 69 563 91,322 0 4 1,224 5
15 78 714 129,881 0 5 2,159 7
20 553 6,051 1,145,291 1 41 22,746 62
25 228 2,680 543,408 1 18 12,549 30
30 166 1,920 440,544 0 14 11,485 25
35 234 2,534 686,488 1 22 19,430 38
40 307 2,991 980,865 1 32 29,036 53
45 166 1,440 566,524 1 20 16,939 30
50 178 1,427 638,012 1 24 18,698 32
55 214 1,684 775,524 1 33 21,890 39
60 152 1,249 532,258 1 25 14,374 27
65 114 1,009 367,931 1 20 9,508 19
70 7 55 20,133 0 1 516 1
Total 2,493 24,521 6,949,044 8 259 180,893 368
*ROG, NOx, and PM10 are pound per day; CO2, CH4, and N2O are metric tons per year (annualized over 347 days per year).

Year
No Project
With Project Emissions Calculations*
ROG NOx CO2 CH4 PM10 Ex PM10 D N2O
2011
5 109 238 21,544 2 10 139 1
10 276 739 64,101 6 30 502 4
15 450 1,534 136,164 10 56 1,314 8
20 3,259 14,909 1,293,061 82 453 14,990 83
25 1,044 5,918 472,770 27 158 6,359 32
30 972 6,514 485,299 25 158 7,297 34
35 1,270 9,796 700,826 33 221 11,307 50
40 1,187 10,228 719,556 31 221 12,024 51
45 1,080 10,040 708,280 28 216 11,884 49
50 1,119 10,787 774,249 29 238 12,714 52
55 2,181 20,908 1,527,360 55 491 24,265 101
60 1,202 11,035 815,439 30 268 12,530 53
65 380 3,246 240,202 9 78 3,595 16
70 500 4,062 298,618 12 98 4,436 20
Total 15,029 109,954 8,257,469 380 2,697 123,357 554
2035
5 29 205 31,266 0 2 342 2
10 67 550 89,218 0 4 1,196 5
15 76 697 126,796 0 5 2,108 7
20 558 6,101 1,154,687 1 41 22,933 62
25 222 2,609 528,960 1 17 12,216 29
30 164 1,906 437,128 0 14 11,396 24
35 237 2,566 695,237 1 22 19,678 39
40 308 2,997 982,725 1 32 29,091 53
45 163 1,418 557,748 1 20 16,677 29
50 178 1,425 637,383 1 24 18,679 32
55 216 1,705 785,072 1 33 22,160 39
60 149 1,229 523,613 1 25 14,141 26
65 116 1,031 375,735 1 20 9,709 20
70 7 55 20,134 0 1 517 1
Total 2,490 24,494 6,945,702 8 259 180,842 368
*ROG, NOx, and PM10 are pound per day; CO2, CH4, and N2O are metric tons per year (annualized over 347 days per year).

Year
With Project
Appendix B
Noise

Figure B-1. Noise Prediction Locations
Source Data
Reference
Maximum Sound
Level at 50 ft.
(Lmax, dBA)
Utilization
Factor
(% of hour)
Equivalent
Sound Level
(Leq, dBA)
Construction Phase Land Clearing/Grubbing
Equipment Type #1 Scraper 85 0.50 82
Equipment Type #2 Grader 85 0.50 82
Equipment Type #3 0 0.50 -3
Average Height of Sources, ft. 10
Average Height of Receiver, ft. 5
Ground Type soft
Allowable Sound Level, daytime Leq 50
Allowable Sound Level, nighttime Leq 45
Calculated Data
Combined Equipment Sound Level, Leq dBA at 50 ft. 85
Effective Source Height, ft. 7.50
Ground factor, G 0.62
Distance to Allowable Daytime Sound Level, ft. 1100
Distance to Allowable Nighttime Sound Level, ft. 1750
Distance Between
Source and Receiver
(ft.)
Geometric
Attenuation
(dB)
Ground Effect
Attenuation
(dB)
Equivalent
Sound Level
(Leq, dBA)
50 0 0 85
100 -6 -2 77
200 -12 -4 69
300 -16 -5 65
400 -18 -6 61
500 -20 -6 59
600 -22 -7 57
700 -23 -7 55
800 -24 -7 53
900 -25 -8 52
1000 -26 -8 51
1500 -30 -9 46
2000 -32 -10 43
2500 -34 -10 41
3000 -36 -11 38
4000 -38 -12 35
Calculations based on FTA 2018.

Note: This calculation does not include the effects, if any, of local shielding from walls, topography or other barriers which may reduce sound levels further.

Source Data
Reference
Maximum Sound
Level at 50 ft.
(Lmax, dBA)
Utilization
Factor
(% of hour)
Equivalent
Sound Level
(Leq, dBA)
Construction Phase Grading/Excavation
Equipment Type #1 Scraper 85 0.50 82
Equipment Type #2 Grader 85 0.50 82
Equipment Type #3 0 1.00 0
Average Height of Sources, ft. 10
Average Height of Receiver, ft. 5
Ground Type soft
Allowable Sound Level, daytime Leq 50
Allowable Sound Level, nighttime Leq 45
Calculated Data
Combined Equipment Sound Level, Leq dBA at 50 ft. 85
Effective Source Height, ft. 7.50
Ground factor, G 0.62
Distance to Allowable Daytime Sound Level, ft. 1100
Distance to Allowable Nighttime Sound Level, ft. 1750
Distance Between
Source and Receiver
(ft.)
Geometric
Attenuation
(dB)
Ground Effect
Attenuation
(dB)
Equivalent
Sound Level
(Leq, dBA)
50 0 0 85
100 -6 -2 77
200 -12 -4 69
300 -16 -5 65
400 -18 -6 61
500 -20 -6 59
600 -22 -7 57
700 -23 -7 55
800 -24 -7 53
900 -25 -8 52
1000 -26 -8 51
1500 -30 -9 46
2000 -32 -10 43
2500 -34 -10 41
3000 -36 -11 38
4000 -38 -12 35
Calculations based on FTA 2018.

Note: This calculation does not include the effects, if any, of local shielding from walls, topography or other barriers which may reduce sound levels further.

Source Data
Reference
Maximum Sound
Level at 50 ft.
(Lmax, dBA)
Utilization
Factor
(% of hour)
Equivalent
Sound Level
(Leq, dBA)
Construction Phase Draining/Utilities/Subgrade
Equipment Type #1 Hoe Ram 90 0.20 83
Equipment Type #2 Dozer 85 0.50 82
Equipment Type #3 0 0.50 -3
Average Height of Sources, ft. 10
Average Height of Receiver, ft. 5
Ground Type soft
Allowable Sound Level, daytime Leq 50
Allowable Sound Level, nighttime Leq 45
Calculated Data
Combined Equipment Sound Level, Leq dBA at 50 ft. 86
Effective Source Height, ft. 7.50
Ground factor, G 0.62
Distance to Allowable Daytime Sound Level, ft. 1150
Distance to Allowable Nighttime Sound Level, ft. 1850
Distance Between
Source and Receiver
(ft.)
Geometric
Attenuation
(dB)
Ground Effect
Attenuation
(dB)
Equivalent
Sound Level
(Leq, dBA)
50 0 0 86
100 -6 -2 78
200 -12 -4 70
300 -16 -5 65
400 -18 -6 62
500 -20 -6 59
600 -22 -7 57
700 -23 -7 56
800 -24 -7 54
900 -25 -8 53
1000 -26 -8 52
1500 -30 -9 47
2000 -32 -10 44
2500 -34 -10 41
3000 -36 -11 39
4000 -38 -12 36
Calculations based on FTA 2018.

Note: This calculation does not include the effects, if any, of local shielding from walls, topography or other barriers which may reduce sound levels further.

Source Data
Reference
Maximum Sound
Level at 50 ft.
(Lmax, dBA)
Utilization
Factor
(% of hour)
Equivalent
Sound Level
(Leq, dBA)
Construction Phase Paving
Equipment Type #1 Paver 85 0.50 82
Equipment Type #2 Roller 85 0.50 82
Equipment Type #3 0 0.50 -3
Average Height of Sources, ft. 10
Average Height of Receiver, ft. 5
Ground Type soft
Allowable Sound Level, daytime Leq 50
Allowable Sound Level, nighttime Leq 45
Calculated Data
Combined Equipment Sound Level, Leq dBA at 50 ft. 85
Effective Source Height, ft. 7.50
Ground factor, G 0.62
Distance to Allowable Daytime Sound Level, ft. 1100
Distance to Allowable Nighttime Sound Level, ft. 1700
Distance Between
Source and Receiver
(ft.)
Geometric
Attenuation
(dB)
Ground Effect
Attenuation
(dB)
Equivalent
Sound Level
(Leq, dBA)
50 0 0 85
100 -6 -2 77
200 -12 -4 69
300 -16 -5 65
400 -18 -6 61
500 -20 -6 59
600 -22 -7 57
700 -23 -7 55
800 -24 -7 53
900 -25 -8 52
1000 -26 -8 51
1500 -30 -9 46
2000 -32 -10 43
2500 -34 -10 41
3000 -36 -11 38
4000 -38 -12 35
Calculations based on FTA 2018.

Note: This calculation does not include the effects, if any, of local shielding from walls, topography or other barriers which may reduce sound levels further.

Source Data
Reference
Maximum Sound
Level at 50 ft.
(Lmax, dBA)
Utilization
Factor
(% of hour)
Equivalent
Sound Level
(Leq, dBA)
Construction Phase Overpass Construction
Equipment Type #1 Rock Drill 95 0.50 92
Equipment Type #2 Excavator 85 0.50 82
Equipment Type #3 0 0.50 -3
Average Height of Sources, ft. 20
Average Height of Receiver, ft. 5
Ground Type soft
Allowable Sound Level, daytime Leq 50
Allowable Sound Level, nighttime Leq 45
Calculated Data
Combined Equipment Sound Level, Leq dBA at 50 ft. 92
Effective Source Height, ft. 12.50
Ground factor, G 0.53
Distance to Allowable Daytime Sound Level, ft. 2450
Distance to Allowable Nighttime Sound Level, ft. 3900
Distance Between
Source and Receiver
(ft.)
Geometric
Attenuation
(dB)
Ground Effect
Attenuation
(dB)
Equivalent
Sound Level
(Leq, dBA)
50 0 0 92
100 -6 -2 85
200 -12 -3 77
300 -16 -4 73
400 -18 -5 70
500 -20 -5 67
600 -22 -6 65
700 -23 -6 63
800 -24 -6 62
900 -25 -7 61
1000 -26 -7 60
1500 -30 -8 55
2000 -32 -8 52
2500 -34 -9 49
3000 -36 -9 47
4000 -38 -10 44
Calculations based on FTA 2018.

Note: This calculation does not include the effects, if any, of local shielding from walls, topography or other barriers which may reduce sound levels further.

INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes Mark Thomas
ICF 23 June 2020 ICF TNM 2.5 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h VolumesPROJECT/CONTRACT: Mark Thomas RUN: Roseville Parkway Extension, ExistingRoadway PointsName Name No. Segment Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles V SV SV SV SV Sveh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph Foothills Boulevard SB point1 1 912 45 19 45 19 45 0 0 0 0 point2 2 912 45 19 45 19 45 0 0 0 0 point3 3 912 45 19 45 19 45 0 0 0 0 point4 4 Driveway (future extension) EB point16 16 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point15 15 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point14 14 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point13 13 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point12 12 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point11 11 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point10 10 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point9 9 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point8 8 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point7 7 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point6 6 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point5 5 Driveway (future extension) WB point30 30 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point29 29 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point28 28 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point27 27 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point26 26 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point25 25 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point24 24 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 C:\Users\19467\Documents\My Noise\Roseville Parkway\TNMB 1 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes Mark Thomas
point23 23 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point22 22 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point21 21 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point20 20 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point19 19 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point18 18 29 45 1 45 1 45 0 0 0 0 point17 17 Washington Boulevard SB point34 34 998 45 21 45 21 45 0 0 0 0 point33 33 998 45 21 45 21 45 0 0 0 0 point32 32 998 45 21 45 21 45 0 0 0 0 point31 31 Washington Boulevard NB point35 35 989 45 21 45 21 45 0 0 0 0 point36 36 989 45 21 45 21 45 0 0 0 0 point37 37 989 45 21 45 21 45 0 0 0 0 point38 38 989 45 21 45 21 45 0 0 0 0 point39 39 Roseville Parkway WB point46 46 480 45 10 45 10 45 0 0 0 0 point45 45 480 45 10 45 10 45 0 0 0 0 point44 44 480 45 10 45 10 45 0 0 0 0 point43 43 480 45 10 45 10 45 0 0 0 0 point42 42 480 45 10 45 10 45 0 0 0 0 point41 41 480 45 10 45 10 45 0 0 0 0 point40 40 Turn lane point47 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
point48 48
Roseville Parkway EB point53 53 624 45 13 45 13 45 0 0 0 0 point52 52 624 45 13 45 13 45 0 0 0 0 point51 51 624 45 13 45 13 45 0 0 0 0 point50 50 624 45 13 45 13 45 0 0 0 0 point49 49 Foothills Boulevard NB point55 55 662 45 14 45 14 45 0 0 0 0 point56 56 662 45 14 45 14 45 0 0 0 0 point57 57 662 45 14 45 14 45 0 0 0 0 point58 58 C:\Users\19467\Documents\My Noise\Roseville Parkway\TNMB 2 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes Mark Thomas
ICF 23 June 2020 ICF TNM 2.5 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h VolumesPROJECT/CONTRACT: Mark Thomas RUN: Roseville Parkway Extension, Existing PP Roadway PointsName Name No. Segment Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles V SV SV SV SV Sveh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph Foothills Boulevard SB point1 1 998 45 21 45 21 45 0 0 0 0 point2 2 998 45 21 45 21 45 0 0 0 0 point3 3 998 45 21 45 21 45 0 0 0 0 point4 4 Roseville Parkway Extension EB point16 16 509 45 11 45 11 45 0 0 0 0 point15 15 509 45 11 45 11 45 0 0 0 0 point14 14 509 45 11 45 11 45 0 0 0 0 point13 13 509 45 11 45 11 45 0 0 0 0 point12 12 509 45 11 45 11 45 0 0 0 0 point11 11 509 45 11 45 11 45 0 0 0 0 point10 10 509 45 11 45 11 45 0 0 0 0 point9 9 509 45 11 45 11 45 0 0 0 0 point8 8 509 45 11 45 11 45 0 0 0 0 point7 7 509 45 11 45 11 45 0 0 0 0 point6 6 509 45 11 45 11 45 0 0 0 0 point5 5 Roseville Parkway Extension WB point30 30 317 45 7 45 7 45 0 0 0 0 point29 29 317 45 7 45 7 45 0 0 0 0 point28 28 317 45 7 45 7 45 0 0 0 0 point27 27 317 45 7 45 7 45 0 0 0 0 point26 26 317 45 7 45 7 45 0 0 0 0 point25 25 317 45 7 45 7 45 0 0 0 0 point24 24 317 45 7 45 7 45 0 0 0 0 C:\Users\19467\Documents\My Noise\Roseville Parkway\TNMC 1 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes Mark Thomas
point23 23 317 45 7 45 7 45 0 0 0 0 point22 22 317 45 7 45 7 45 0 0 0 0 point21 21 317 45 7 45 7 45 0 0 0 0 point20 20 317 45 7 45 7 45 0 0 0 0 point19 19 317 45 7 45 7 45 0 0 0 0 point18 18 317 45 7 45 7 45 0 0 0 0 point17 17 Washington Boulevard SB point34 34 614 45 13 45 13 45 0 0 0 0 point33 33 614 45 13 45 13 45 0 0 0 0 point32 32 614 45 13 45 13 45 0 0 0 0 point31 31 Washington Boulevard NB point35 35 893 45 19 45 19 45 0 0 0 0 point36 36 893 45 19 45 19 45 0 0 0 0 point37 37 893 45 19 45 19 45 0 0 0 0 point38 38 893 45 19 45 19 45 0 0 0 0 point39 39 Roseville Parkway WB point46 46 662 45 14 45 14 45 0 0 0 0 point45 45 662 45 14 45 14 45 0 0 0 0 point44 44 662 45 14 45 14 45 0 0 0 0 point43 43 662 45 14 45 14 45 0 0 0 0 point42 42 662 45 14 45 14 45 0 0 0 0 point41 41 662 45 14 45 14 45 0 0 0 0 point40 40 Turn lane point47 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
point48 48
Roseville Parkway EB point53 53 557 45 12 45 12 45 0 0 0 0 point52 52 557 45 12 45 12 45 0 0 0 0 point51 51 557 45 12 45 12 45 0 0 0 0 point50 50 557 45 12 45 12 45 0 0 0 0 point49 49 Foothills Boulevard NB point54 54 672 45 14 45 14 45 0 0 0 0 point55 55 672 45 14 45 14 45 0 0 0 0 point56 56 672 45 14 45 14 45 0 0 0 0 point57 57 C:\Users\19467\Documents\My Noise\Roseville Parkway\TNMC 2 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes Mark Thomas
ICF 23 June 2020 ICF TNM 2.5 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h VolumesPROJECT/CONTRACT: Mark Thomas RUN: Roseville Parkway Extension, Cumulative Roadway PointsName Name No. Segment Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles V SV SV SV SV Sveh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph Foothills Boulevard SB point1 1 1776 45 37 45 37 45 0 0 0 0 point2 2 1776 45 37 45 37 45 0 0 0 0 point3 3 1776 45 37 45 37 45 0 0 0 0 point4 4 Roseville Parkway Extension EB point16 16 1193 45 25 45 25 45 0 0 0 0 point15 15 1193 45 25 45 25 45 0 0 0 0 point14 14 1193 45 25 45 25 45 0 0 0 0 point13 13 1193 45 25 45 25 45 0 0 0 0 point12 12 1193 45 25 45 25 45 0 0 0 0 point11 11 1193 45 25 45 25 45 0 0 0 0 point10 10 1193 45 25 45 25 45 0 0 0 0 point9 9 1193 45 25 45 25 45 0 0 0 0 point8 8 1193 45 25 45 25 45 0 0 0 0 point7 7 1193 45 25 45 25 45 0 0 0 0 point6 6 1193 45 25 45 25 45 0 0 0 0 point5 5 Roseville Parkway Extension WB point30 30 1454 45 30 45 30 45 0 0 0 0 point29 29 1454 45 30 45 30 45 0 0 0 0 point28 28 1454 45 30 45 30 45 0 0 0 0 point27 27 1454 45 30 45 30 45 0 0 0 0 point26 26 1454 45 30 45 30 45 0 0 0 0 point25 25 1454 45 30 45 30 45 0 0 0 0 point24 24 1454 45 30 45 30 45 0 0 0 0 C:\Users\19467\Documents\My Noise\Roseville Parkway\TNME 1 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes Mark Thomas
point23 23 1454 45 30 45 30 45 0 0 0 0 point22 22 1454 45 30 45 30 45 0 0 0 0 point21 21 1454 45 30 45 30 45 0 0 0 0 point20 20 1454 45 30 45 30 45 0 0 0 0 point19 19 1454 45 30 45 30 45 0 0 0 0 point18 18 1454 45 30 45 30 45 0 0 0 0 point17 17 Washington Boulevard SB point34 34 1229 45 26 45 26 45 0 0 0 0 point33 33 1229 45 26 45 26 45 0 0 0 0 point32 32 1229 45 26 45 26 45 0 0 0 0 point31 31 Washington Boulevard NB point35 35 1595 45 33 45 33 45 0 0 0 0 point36 36 1595 45 33 45 33 45 0 0 0 0 point37 37 1595 45 33 45 33 45 0 0 0 0 point38 38 1595 45 33 45 33 45 0 0 0 0 point39 39 Roseville Parkway WB point46 46 1524 45 32 45 32 45 0 0 0 0 point45 45 1524 45 32 45 32 45 0 0 0 0 point44 44 1524 45 32 45 32 45 0 0 0 0 point43 43 1524 45 32 45 32 45 0 0 0 0 point42 42 1524 45 32 45 32 45 0 0 0 0 point41 41 1524 45 32 45 32 45 0 0 0 0 point40 40 Turn lane point47 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
point48 48
Roseville Parkway EB point53 53 1323 45 28 45 28 45 0 0 0 0 point52 52 1323 45 28 45 28 45 0 0 0 0 point51 51 1323 45 28 45 28 45 0 0 0 0 point50 50 1323 45 28 45 28 45 0 0 0 0 point49 49 Foothills Boulevard NB point54 54 1306 45 27 45 27 45 0 0 0 0 point55 55 1306 45 27 45 27 45 0 0 0 0 point56 56 1306 45 27 45 27 45 0 0 0 0 point57 57 C:\Users\19467\Documents\My Noise\Roseville Parkway\TNME 2 Table B‐3A. Predicted Exterior Noise Levels, Existing Year (2020) R-01 Single family residence Highland Reserve 57 56 - 1 60 None R-02 Single family residence Highland Reserve 57 57 0 60 None R-03 Single family residence Highland Reserve 56 57 + 1 60 None R-04 Single family residence Highland Reserve 57 56 - 1 60 None R-05 Single family residence Highland Reserve 58 57 - 1 60 None R-06 Single family residence Highland Reserve 57 57 0 60 None R-07 Commercial/Industrial Roseville Parkway Extension 51 55 + 4 N/A None R-08 Commercial/Industrial Roseville Parkway Extension 50 58 + 8 N/A None R-09 Commercial/Industrial Roseville Parkway Extension 47 57 + 10 N/A None R-10 Commercial/Industrial Roseville Parkway Extension 52 62 + 10 N/A None R-11 Undeveloped Roseville Parkway Extension 51 60 + 9 N/A None Receiver I.D. Land Use Address Existing Noise Level, Ldn Existing-year plus project Noise Level, Ldn Existing-year with-project minus Existing no-project, dB Exterior Threshold, Ldn Impact Type Table B‐3B. Impact Assessment and Predicted Exterior Noise Levels, Existing Year (2020) and Cumulative (2035) R-01 Single family residence Highland Reserve 56 59 + 3 + 2 60 None R-02 Single family residence Highland Reserve 57 60 + 3 + 3 60 None R-03 Single family residence Highland Reserve 57 60 + 3 + 4 60 None R-04 Single family residence Highland Reserve 56 60 + 4 + 3 60 None R-05 Single family residence Highland Reserve 57 60 + 3 + 2 60 None R-06 Single family residence Highland Reserve 57 59 + 2 + 2 60 None R-07 Commercial/Industrial Roseville Parkway Extension 55 60 + 5 + 9 N/A None R-08 Commercial/Industrial Roseville Parkway Extension 58 63 + 5 + 13 N/A None R-09 Commercial/Industrial Roseville Parkway Extension 57 62 + 5 + 15 N/A None R-10 Commercial/Industrial Roseville Parkway Extension 62 67 + 5 + 15 N/A None R-11 Undeveloped Roseville Parkway Extension 60 66 + 6 + 15 N/A None Receiver I.D. Land Use Address Existing year plus project noise level, Ldn Cumulative plus project noise level, Ldn Cumulative with-project minus Existing plus project, dB Cumulative with-project minus Existing Year no-project, dB Exterior Threshold, Ldn Impact Type Table B‐3C. Estimated Interior Noise Levels, Existing Year (2020) and Cumulative (2035) R-01 Single family residence Highland Reserve 56 59 26 29 45 14 30 No R-02 Single family residence Highland Reserve 57 60 27 30 45 15 30 No R-03 Single family residence Highland Reserve 57 60 27 30 45 15 30 No R-04 Single family residence Highland Reserve 56 60 26 30 45 15 30 No R-05 Single family residence Highland Reserve 57 60 27 30 45 15 30 No R-06 Single family residence Highland Reserve 57 59 27 29 45 14 30 No R-07 Commercial/Industrial Roseville Parkway Extension 55 60 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No R-08 Commercial/Industrial Roseville Parkway Extension 58 63 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No R-09 Commercial/Industrial Roseville Parkway Extension 57 62 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No R-10 Commercial/Industrial Roseville Parkway Extension 62 67 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No R-11 Undeveloped Roseville Parkway Extension 60 66 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No Notes:
(1) As indicated in the General Plan Noise Element, when it is not practical to mitigate exterior noise levels at the patios or balconies of multi‐family dwellings, a common area or onsite park may be designated as the outdoor activity area. For noise‐sensitive land uses that do not include outdoor activity areas, only the interior noise standard shall apply. (2) Calculated value: Exterior Ldn at location minus Maximum Allowable Interior Ldn (3) Assumes a building noise reduction factor of 30 dB, based on HUD values for standard framing and double hung windows (HUD 2009) Receiver I.D. Land Use Address Existing year plus project noise level, Exterior Ldn Cumulative plus project noise level, Exterior Ldn Existing year plus project noise level, Interior LdnDesign-year plus project noise level, Interior LdnInterior Threshold, LdnRequired Outdoor-to-Indoor Noise Reduction, dB (1) (2)Estimated Outdoor-to-Indoor Noise Reduction, dB (3)Potential Exceedence of Maximum Allowable Interior Level?

Appendix C
Traffic

kimley‐horn.com 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95814 916 858 5800 Memorandum
To: Raul Cervantes, Mark Thomas
Mark Morse, ICF
From: Matt Weir, P.E., T.E., PTOE
Curtis Yee, E.I.T.

Re: Roseville Parkway Extension
DRAFT Traffic Evaluation
Date: June 5, 2020

We have prepared this memorandum to document our evaluation of focused traffic operations associated with the proposed Roseville Parkway Extension project in the City of Roseville. This traffic evaluation was limited to the two primary project intersections, one at each end of the extension facility, for the purposes of documenting project consistency with prior, more comprehensive environmental studies, and to inform the intersections’ lane geometries to achieve acceptable operations. This evaluation was performed in a manner consistent with the Project Development Team’s (PDT) direction1 and is understood to be provided in support of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) being prepared by others.

Project Description & Study Overview
The City of Roseville proposes to construct the Roseville Parkway Extension Project (Proposed Project) in the North Industrial Planning Area of the City. The Project would extend Roseville Parkway by approximately 0.75‐mile from its current terminus at Washington Boulevard westerly to Foothills Boulevard. The project includes construction of an overpass of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks and Industrial Avenue.

The study facilities for this focused evaluation included the following intersections (see Exhibit 1):

1. Roseville Parkway @ Foothills Boulevard

2. Roseville Parkway @ Washington Boulevard
The primary focus of this study was to document project consistency with a prior environmental study related to the two primary project intersections, and to inform these intersections’ lane geometries to achieve acceptable operations. Accordingly, this traffic evaluation considered the following analysis scenarios:

A. Existing (2020) Conditions
Conditions representative of on‐the‐ground conditions established using traffic count data provided by the City’s Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) from February 2020.

B. Existing (2020) plus Proposed Project Conditions
Conditions representative of year 2020 conditions resulting from the addition of and network connectivity achieve from the Roseville Parkway Extension. Traffic volumes were approximated using the City’s Travel Demand Model (TDM) to establish these “plus project” conditions.

C. Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project Conditions
Conditions obtained directly from the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan2 in which the Roseville Parkway Extension is included.
1 Project Development Team Meetings, February 3, March 16, and April 20, 2020. 2 Final Traffic Study for the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan, Fehr & Peers, February 16, 2016.

Roseville Parkway Extension Page 2 of 6
DRAFT Traffic Evaluation June 5, 2020
Analysis Methodology
This traffic evaluation was performed in accordance with the City’s preferred methodologies and general guidelines for the preparation of traffic studies3
.

Analysis of transportation facility operations is based on the concept of Level of Service (LOS). The LOS of a facility is a qualitative measure used to describe operational conditions. LOS ranges from A (best), which represents minimal delay, to F (worst), which represents heavy delay and a facility that is operating at or near its functional capacity. Levels of Service for this study were determined using methods defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition. The HCM includes procedures for analyzing a variety of intersection traffic control, including traffic signals. The signalized intersection procedures define LOS as a function of average control delay for the intersection as a whole. Table 1 presents intersection LOS definitions as defined in the HCM. LOS was determined using the Synchro® traffic analysis software.

Table 1 – Intersection Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service
(LOS)
Signalized
Average Control Delay
(sec/veh)
A ≤ 10
B > 10 – 20
C > 20 – 35
D > 35 – 55
E > 55 – 80
F > 80
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition
Technical Results
The following is a summary of the technical analyses completed for the study intersections. As outlined above, these facilities were analyzed under Existing (2020) Conditions with and without the Proposed Project, and Cumulative (2035) Conditions with the Proposed Project. Exhibit 2 depicts the study intersections’ lane geometries, while Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 present the analysis scenarios’ peak‐hour intersection turning movement volumes. The traffic count data sheets are provided in Appendix A.

Appendices B‐E include the scenarios’ analysis worksheets. The results of the intersection LOS analyses are presented in Table 2. Vehicle queuing results are provided in Table 3.

As shown in Table 2, the study intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better during both peak‐ hours, for all analysis scenarios. In addition, the queuing results summarized in Table 3 confirms the required storage needed at the intersections’ various exclusive turning pockets.

Table 2 – Intersection Levels of Service
Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
AM 13.8 B 17.2 B 37.5 D
PM 16.0 B 18.3 B 42.2 D
AM 15.4 B 19.0 B 25.5 C
PM 15.2 B 20.0 C 37.3 D
ID Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing (2020) Cumulative (2035)
plus Project
Existing (2020)
plus Project
1 Roseville Parkway @
Foothills Boulevard
2 Roseville Parkway @
Washington Boulevard
3 Section 4 Traffic Impact Studies, City of Roseville Design Standards, January 2020.

Roseville Parkway Extension Page 3 of 6
DRAFT Traffic Evaluation June 5, 2020
Table 3 – Intersection Queuing
Available
Storage (ft)
95th %
Queue (ft)
Available
Storage (ft)
95th %
Queue (ft)
#1, Roseville Parkway @
Foothills Boulevard EBL
19 30
17 17
37 42
EBT
10 10
56 63
117 206
EBR
3 47
18 36
51 96
WBL
9 10
17 37
204 201
WBR
00 7 15
176 411
NBL
35 30
36 37
113 132
NBR
00 11 0
147 147
SBL
19 20
103 111
294 204
SBR
18 0
00 00
#2, Roseville Parkway @
Washington Boulevard EBL
‐‐
18 9
26 37
WBL
34 36
25 29
18 31
NBL
21 22
27 44
40 6
SBL
171 180
99 100
139 287
Existing (2020) plus Project
Cumulative (2035) plus Project
Existing (2020)
Existing (2020) plus Project 160 160
Cumulative (2035) plus Project
Existing (2020)
Existing (2020) plus Project 265 265
Cumulative (2035) plus Project
Existing (2020)
255 255
Cumulative (2035) plus Project
Existing (2020) plus Project
Existing (2020)
Existing (2020) plus Project 245 245
Cumulative (2035) plus Project
Existing (2020)
Existing (2020) plus Project 260 260
Cumulative (2035) plus Project
Existing (2020)
Existing (2020) plus Project 235 235
Cumulative (2035) plus Project
Existing (2020)
Existing (2020) plus Project 200 200
Cumulative (2035) plus Project
345
Existing (2020)
265 265
Cumulative (2035) plus Project
Existing (2020) plus Project
Cumulative (2035) plus Project
220 220
Existing (2020)
Existing (2020)
Existing (2020) plus Project 230 230
Cumulative (2035) plus Project
Existing (2020) plus Project 345
Cumulative (2035) plus Project
Existing (2020)
230
Intersection / Analysis Scenario Movement
AM Peak‐Hour PM Peak‐Hour
220 220
Existing (2020)
Cumulative (2035) plus Project
Existing (2020) plus Project
Existing (2020) plus Project
Existing (2020)
230
Roseville Parkway Extension Page 4 of 6
DRAFT Traffic Evaluation June 5, 2020
As shown in Table 3, the Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions exhibit three movements with 95th percentile queues that exceed their respective storage lengths. At Intersection #1 (Roseville Parkway @ Foothills Boulevard), both the westbound right‐turn and southbound left‐turn exceed the assumed storage by 8 and 2 vehicles, respectively. Should these conditions persist in 2035, consideration should be given to extending both turn pockets to contain the documented queuing within their respective lanes. At Intersection #2 (Roseville Parkway @ Washington Boulevard), the southbound left‐turn exceeds the assumed storage by 2 vehicles. Similarly, the City should monitor these conditions and, if they persist in 2035, extend the subject turn pocket.

CEQA Compliance
The following is an assessment of the Proposed Project using the current CEQA Guidelines’ “checklist” as pertains to Transportation (XVII. TRANSPORTATION).
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No Impact
The Proposed Project, through its extension of Roseville Parkway between Foothills Boulevard and Washington Boulevard, does not conflict with the City of Roseville’s applicable planning documents including the General Plan 2035, Bicycle Master Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, and Short Range Transit Plan. The following is an overview of the project’s consistency with these guiding documents:
 Circulation System
o Consistent with the Proposed Project, the facility is indicated to have 4 future lanes (Figure III‐3, General Plan 2035 Circulation Element, Page III‐17) o Additionally, consistent with the Proposed Project, the facility is designated as a 4‐lane facility in the Year 2035 mitigated network (Table III‐4, General Plan 2035 Circulation Element, Page III‐31)
 Transit Facilities
o Although not a designated transit route, the Proposed Project connects to Roseville Transit Route R that operates weekdays in both directions along Foothills Boulevard. There is currently a southbound bus stop located south of the Proposed Project intersection with Foothills Boulevard.
 Bicycle Facilities
o Consistent with the Proposed Project, the facility is indicated to have Class II Bike Lanes along the entire stretch of Roseville Parkway, as well as along both Foothills Boulevard and Washington Boulevard (Figure III‐6, General Plan 2035 Circulation Element, Page III‐53, and Figure 5, City of Roseville Bicycle Master Plan, Page 45). o Additionally, the Proposed Project includes a separated 10‐foot multi‐use path that further supports the City’s General Plan and Bicycle Master Plan goals.  Pedestrian Facilities
o The Proposed Project includes both an attached 8‐foot sidewalk and a separated 10‐foot multi‐use path. Through its inclusion of these facilities, the Proposed Project supports the City’s General Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan goals.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No Impact
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was enacted by the California legislature in 2013 and required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to adopt new guidelines for assessing CEQA‐related transportation impacts.

The City has determined4 that the Proposed Project does not require additional VMT analyses in response to SB 743 for the following reasons:
4 Email from Mark Johnson, City of Roseville, April 22, 2020.

Roseville Parkway Extension Page 5 of 6
DRAFT Traffic Evaluation June 5, 2020
 The Proposed Project is included in the MTP/SCS recently adopted by SACOG.  The Proposed Project is included in the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan EIR which is also incorporated into the current General Plan and the pending General Plan Update.  The General Plan Update, scheduled to be adopted in Fall 2020, includes “grandfathering” of all previously adopted specific plans and will also include a VMT Policy that will only apply to new project proposals.

As a result, the Proposed Project is considered to be consistent with CEQA Guidelines. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact The Proposed Project has been designed in a manner consistent with all applicable, published design standards at the onset of this project including the City of Roseville’s Design and Construction Standards, Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Consistent with the City’s expansive transportation system, the Proposed Project will support all compatible uses and the surrounding land uses that are reasonably anticipated to contribute traffic to and rely on this facility are compatible with the design considerations. Accordingly, through its consistency with these standards, as well as resulting from its improved network connectivity, the Proposed Project does not increase hazards and supports all compatible uses.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact
The City previously analyzed the Proposed Project’s effect on the emergency response times and access during the project development phase5
. Through a comprehensive sensitivity analysis, the City documented the Proposed Project’s, as well as other significance projects’, effects on peak‐hour travel times and general vehicular access to emergency and medical service facilities, with a focus on travel times between the northwest portion of the City and two emergency hospital providers (Sutter Roseville and Kaiser Roseville). These previous efforts concluded the following as relates to the Proposed Projects’ improvements to emergency access:
“The Roseville Parkway extension project provides congestion reductions on the Blue Oaks Boulevard/Industrial Avenue overcrossing by reducing the 10‐year peak‐hour traffic volumes on the Blue Oaks Boulevard bridge. Furthermore, Roseville Parkway serves as another means to get from the west side of the City to the east side without having to access State Route 65. This parallel capacity would be helpful in emergency situations and as an alternate route during construction of the Blue Oaks Boulevard bridge widening.” Conclusions
The Proposed Project provides a vital network connection by linking Washington Boulevard and Foothills Boulevard in the North Industrial Planning Area. This connectivity is currently only provided by Blue Oaks Boulevard to the north. This traffic evaluation considered the effects of the addition of the Proposed Project on both Existing (2020) and Cumulative (2035) Conditions. The City’s travel demand model was used to approximate the effect of the project on existing conditions, while the effect of the project under Cumulative (2035) Conditions was previously documented in the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan2 . As
documented herein, the study intersections operate at LOS D or better with three movements exceeding their assumed storages under Cumulative (2035) Conditions. The intersections’ lane configurations, including the required storage lengths, are depicted in Exhibit 5.

5 Roadway System Capital Improvements Project Sensitivity Analysis Update, City of Roseville City Council Meeting, April 17, 2019.

Roseville Parkway Extension Page 6 of 6
DRAFT Traffic Evaluation June 5, 2020
Attachments:

Exhibit 1 – Project Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2 – Study Intersections, Traffic Control, and Lane Geometries Exhibit 3 – Existing (2020) Conditions Peak‐Hour Volumes Exhibit 4 – Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project Conditions Peak‐Hour Volumes Exhibit 5 – Recommended Intersection Lane Configurations Appendix A – Traffic Count Data Sheets
Appendix B – Analysis Worksheets for Existing (2020) Conditions Appendix C – Analysis Worksheets for Existing (2020) plus Proposed Project Conditions Appendix D – Analysis Worksheets for Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project Conditions Exhibit 1
Project Vicinity Map
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge, Roseville, CA
Blue Oaks Blvd
Foothills Blvd
Industrial Ave
Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
UPRR Tracks
1 2

NOT TO SCALE
Proposed Project
# Study Intersection
LEGEND
Blue Oaks Blvd
Industrial Ave
Foothills Blvd
Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
UPRR Tracks
1 2
Exhibit 2
Study Intersections, Traffic Control, and Lane Geometries Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge, Roseville, CA
Roseville Pkwy Foothills Blvd
1 Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
2 Roseville Pkwy Foothills Blvd
1 Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
2 No Project
Plus Project
F
F
F
F
F

NOT TO SCALE
Proposed Project
# Study Intersection
LEGEND
Signalized
Intersection
F Free Movement
Blue Oaks Blvd
Industrial Ave
Foothills Blvd
Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
UPRR Tracks
1 2
Exhibit 3
Existing (2020) Conditions Peak-Hour Volumes
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge, Roseville, CA
Roseville Pkwy Foothills Blvd
1 Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
2 Roseville Pkwy Foothills Blvd
1 Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
2 Existing (2020)
Existing (2020) Plus
Proposed Project
60(20)490(830)10(10)
10(10)
10(10)
10(10)
30(50)
40(110)
10(10)
360(600)430(430)
70(70)
280(510)
10(10)
10(10)
10(10)
70(50)10(10)
690(630)
10(10)30(60)
380(440)
10(10)
10(10)
10(10)410(800)250(260)
30(90)
100(170)
50(70)
10(10)
110(150)
180(210)
170(410)220(210)
50(60)
110(160)
30(10)
180(200)
320(320)
90(90)
100(60)
660(550)
10(30)30(50)
360(470)
250(450)
10(20)

NOT TO SCALE
Proposed Project
# Study Intersection
LEGEND
AM (PM) Peak-hour
Turning Movement
Volume

XX (XX)
Blue Oaks Blvd
Industrial Ave
Foothills Blvd
Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
UPRR Tracks
1 2
Exhibit 4
Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project Conditions Peak-Hour Volumes Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge, Roseville, CA
Roseville Pkwy Foothills Blvd
1*
Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
2*
19(6)580(1,233)572(420)
356(357)
460(570)
374(588)
21(25)
164(260)
271(482)
642(1,017)307(589)
24(54)
766(943)
43(55)
7(16)
635(753)
244(211)
941(808)358(341)
29(1)
25(36)
535(635)
543(590)
19(55)
*Peak-Hour Volumes were obtained directly from the Amoruso Ranch Traffic Study’s 2035 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions

NOT TO SCALE
Proposed Project
# Study Intersection
LEGEND
AM (PM) Peak-hour
Turning Movement
Volume

XX (XX)
Exhibit 5
Recommended Intersection Lane Configurations
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge, Roseville, CA Foothills Blvd Roseville Pkwy
Washington Blvd
Roseville Pkwy
Intersection #1
Roseville Parkway @ Foothills Boulevard
Intersection #2
Roseville Parkway @ Washington Blvd
Max 95th Percentile Queue Contained
LEGEND
Max 95th Percentile Queue Exceeds Storage
Note: All reported queues are representative of Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project Conditions. See Table 3.

NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE
2 vehicles
or
50 feet
8 vehicles
or
200 feet
2 vehicles
or
50 feet
Roseville Parkway Extension
Traffic Evaluation
Appendix A
Traffic Count Data Sheets

Right Total Thru Right Total Left Total
1 34 29 0 31 1 1
1 22 22 0 22 1 0
0 19 39 2 44 0 1
0 17 21 2 24 1 0
0 37 34 2 37 3 0
0 132 111 17 130 5 0
1 335 229 25 259 5 1
0 542 524 36 568 12 1
1 766 487 55 547 26 3
2 453 355 49 408 21 2
1 319 280 21 307 8 2
2 368 347 20 373 31 3
0 469 390 28 430 42 4
3 441 402 29 439 22 7
0 362 461 17 487 38 6
1 534 635 12 661 23 1
4 585 809 14 851 41 5
0 675 830 21 862 54 0
2 552 494 15 521 30 3
2 335 264 3 272 25 4
0 258 178 3 186 7 4
0 169 165 7 175 5 0
0 93 76 2 79 3 0
1 61 49 0 51 1 0
22 7578 153 380 7764 405 48
371
178
117
16684
1312
1589
1700
1164
671
471
940
663
816
988
947
983
45 82
271
615
1177
1395
0 0
0 24
1/1
2/19/2020
Int Total
78 46
65 4
1 4
0 2
2 0
0 2
2 3
2 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 4
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 5/26/2020 12:49:09 PM
Thru
0 0
1 0
to
Right
1 0
0 0
0 0
16 Page:
0 0
8 0
2 0
1 0
1 2
2 2
0 0
1 5
0 0
0 0
0 0
23 27
6 5
1294
2/19/2020
W
Left
0 0
128
116
148
163
88 60
79 77
35 72
85 60
1 4
8 9
20 66
16 22
3 4
858
Report Date:

From
Total
12 2
86 92
107
109
57 35
43 55
26 39
42 35
31 Right
10 1
1 3
5 4
15 48
1 0
0 0
0 0
1 3
4 1
0 0
0 6
10 1
1 2
2 7231
E
Thru
1 0
0 0
0 0
11 12
5 5
3 1
6 12
8 9
14 28
2 5
8 5
4 6
55 6849
Turning Movement Volume Report
S
Left
2 0
3 1
1 627
489
289
227
151
90 340
426
394
341
485
537
100
275
497
694
411
302
31 18
3 5
Thru
29 19
19 16
36 21
48 44
48 61
44 71
40 16
26 43
44 0
1 1
32 59
45 19/02/20 22:00-23:00
19/02/20 23:00-00:00
Summary
Intersection: 10
N
707
Left
4 2
19/02/20 16:00-17:00
19/02/20 17:00-18:00
19/02/20 18:00-19:00
19/02/20 19:00-20:00
19/02/20 20:00-21:00
19/02/20 21:00-22:00
19/02/20 10:00-11:00
19/02/20 11:00-12:00
19/02/20 12:00-13:00
19/02/20 13:00-14:00
19/02/20 14:00-15:00
19/02/20 15:00-16:00
19/02/20 04:00-05:00
19/02/20 05:00-06:00
19/02/20 06:00-07:00
19/02/20 07:00-08:00
19/02/20 08:00-09:00
19/02/20 09:00-10:00
Time
19/02/20 00:00-01:00
19/02/20 01:00-02:00
19/02/20 02:00-03:00
19/02/20 03:00-04:00
Right Total Thru Right Total Left Total
1 20 30 33 0 15
1 7 21 26 0 7
0 10 7 9 0 5
06 3 70 4
1 37 20 31 0 11
0 83 106 140 0 51
7 187 226 311 0 124
19 298 391 931 0 233
29 410 361 794 0 340
40 311 323 662 0 215
24 227 257 522 0 236
43 328 327 647 0 311
54 293 304 618 0 380
42 322 332 599 0 370
34 301 404 711 0 329
64 456 478 896 0 428
49 460 526 992 0 488
55 495 602 1034 0 575
44 383 434 697 0 429
21 264 232 384 0 322
18 210 182 274 0 212
24 186 125 188 0 149
9 82 82 118 0 71
5 41 64 84 0 27
584 5417 4871 0 10708 0 5332
523
271
152
21457
1780
1940
2104
1509
970
696
1188
985
1286
1291
1291
1341
17 79
274
622
1462
1544
136
66 24
4616
1/1
2/19/2020
Int Total
68 40
24 283
373
437
507
402
287
275
167
198
258
326
321
5 3
9 37
95 191
5/26/2020 12:50:07 PM
Thru
to
Right
14 6
16 13
5 3
716
Page:
0 196
46 55
51 68
27 35
65 48
38 53
54 49
0 1
2 14
29 42
0 0
0 0
0 2/19/2020
W
Left
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Report Date:

From
Total
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Right
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
20 5837
E
Thru
0 0
0 0
0 0
432
263
152
92 63
36 320
314
267
307
418
466
34 85
540
433
339
265
36 4723
Turning Movement Volume Report
S
Left
3 5
2 4
11 438
337
240
191
162
72 272
230
277
261
386
409
73 165
267
375
258
198
1 0
1 0
Thru
19 6
10 6
35 6
6 2
2 2
3 6
13 5
13 9
3 0
0 1
10 15
12 19/02/20 22:00-23:00
19/02/20 23:00-00:00
Summary
Intersection: 83
N
110
Left
0 0
19/02/20 16:00-17:00
19/02/20 17:00-18:00
19/02/20 18:00-19:00
19/02/20 19:00-20:00
19/02/20 20:00-21:00
19/02/20 21:00-22:00
19/02/20 10:00-11:00
19/02/20 11:00-12:00
19/02/20 12:00-13:00
19/02/20 13:00-14:00
19/02/20 14:00-15:00
19/02/20 15:00-16:00
19/02/20 04:00-05:00
19/02/20 05:00-06:00
19/02/20 06:00-07:00
19/02/20 07:00-08:00
19/02/20 08:00-09:00
19/02/20 09:00-10:00
Time
19/02/20 00:00-01:00
19/02/20 01:00-02:00
19/02/20 02:00-03:00
19/02/20 03:00-04:00
Roseville Parkway Extension
Traffic Evaluation
Appendix B
Analysis Worksheets for
Existing (2020) Conditions

Roseville City CouncilMay 17, 2023

Roseville City Council
May 17, 2023