Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Existing (2020)
1: Foothills Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak-Hour
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 10 40 10 10 10 70 690 10 10 490 60 Future Volume (veh/h) 30 10 40 10 10 10 70 690 10 10 490 60 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33 11 43 11 11 11 76 750 11 11 533 65 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 444444444444
Cap, veh/h 253 623 278 87 452 202 453 1360 606 50 993 443 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.18 0.18 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.39 0.39 0.03 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 3401 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 1753 3497 1560 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 11 43 11 11 11 76 750 11 11 533 65 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1700 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 1753 1749 1560 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.9 7.9 0.2 0.3 6.1 1.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.9 7.9 0.2 0.3 6.1 1.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 253 623 278 87 452 202 453 1360 606 50 993 443 V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.02 0.15 0.13 0.02 0.05 0.17 0.55 0.02 0.22 0.54 0.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1433 1473 657 1433 1473 657 1433 3315 1479 738 3315 1479 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.5 16.1 16.5 22.6 18.1 18.1 18.2 11.3 8.9 22.5 14.4 12.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 2.2 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.6 16.1 16.6 22.9 18.1 18.2 18.3 11.8 8.9 23.4 15.0 12.9 LnGrp LOS C B B C BBBBACBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 87 33 837 609
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.1 19.7 12.3 14.9
Approach LOS BBBB
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.4 24.5 5.2 12.5 10.3 19.5 7.5 10.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 45.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 45.0 20.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.3 9.9 2.2 3.1 2.9 8.1 2.4 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 5.4 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Existing (2020)
2: Washington Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak-Hour
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 10 10 70 10 280 10 380 30 430 360 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 10 10 70 10 280 10 380 30 430 360 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 11 11 76 11 0 11 413 0 467 391 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 444444444444
Cap, veh/h 34 34 34 384 0 55 848 755 1505 42
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.24 0.00 0.22 0.43 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 570 570 570 3401 0 1560 1753 3497 1560 3401 3474 98 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 0 0 76 0 0 11 413 0 467 196 206 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1710 0 0 1700 0 1560 1753 1749 1560 1700 1749 1823 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 5.0 0.0 6.1 3.5 3.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 5.0 0.0 6.1 3.5 3.6 Prop In Lane 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 101 0 0 384 0 55 848 755 758 790 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.49 0.62 0.26 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 691 0 0 1375 0 673 3181 1306 1590 1658 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.3 0.0 0.0 19.9 0.0 0.0 23.4 16.1 0.0 17.4 9.0 9.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.7 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 16.9 0.0 17.7 9.3 9.3 LnGrp LOS C A A C A C B B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 33 76 A 424 A 869
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.0 20.0 17.1 13.8
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 18.0 6.9 5.5 27.4 9.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 45.0 20.0 19.0 45.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.1 7.0 2.9 2.3 5.6 3.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 5.0 0.1 0.0 4.4 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Existing (2020)
1: Foothills Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak-Hour
Queues Synchro 10 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 11 43 11 11 11 76 750 11 11 533 65 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.10 0.31 0.01 0.03 0.26 0.07 Control Delay 24.6 22.1 0.8 26.1 26.0 0.1 23.6 9.6 0.0 25.6 13.6 3.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 24.6 22.1 0.8 26.1 26.0 0.1 23.6 9.6 0.0 25.6 13.6 3.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 1 0 1 1 0 8 49 0 2 64 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 19 10 3 9 10 0 35 197 0 19 135 18 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1797 980 312 2459
Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 230 220 230 265 265 255 160
Base Capacity (vph) 1497 1575 758 1497 1543 745 1497 2927 1322 772 2927 1322 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.26 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.05 Intersection Summary
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Existing (2020)
2: Washington Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak-Hour
Queues Synchro 10 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 76 11 304 11 413 33 467 402
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.09 no cap 0.50 0.04 0.51 0.08 0.62 0.24 Control Delay 28.6 24.3 6.8 32.9 28.1 0.4 31.5 14.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 28.6 24.3 Error 6.8 32.9 28.1 0.4 31.5 14.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 14 0 0 5 97 0 111 59
Queue Length 95th (ft) 39 34 0 63 21 145 2 171 122
Internal Link Dist (ft) 602 342 3613 349
Turn Bay Length (ft) 235 200 220 245
Base Capacity (vph) 524 1013 1 679 496 2334 1070 962 2325 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.08 11.00 0.45 0.02 0.18 0.03 0.49 0.17 Intersection Summary
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Existing (2020)
1: Foothills Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak-Hour
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 10 110 10 10 10 50 630 10 10 830 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 50 10 110 10 10 10 50 630 10 10 830 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 54 11 120 11 11 11 54 685 11 11 902 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 444444444444
Cap, veh/h 329 720 321 85 469 252 329 1600 714 49 1359 606 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.46 0.46 0.03 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 3401 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 1753 3497 1560 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 54 11 120 11 11 11 54 685 11 11 902 22 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1700 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 1753 1749 1560 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 0.2 4.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.9 8.4 0.2 0.4 13.5 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 0.2 4.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.9 8.4 0.2 0.4 13.5 0.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 329 720 321 85 469 252 329 1600 714 49 1359 606 V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.02 0.37 0.13 0.02 0.04 0.16 0.43 0.02 0.23 0.66 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1073 1103 492 1073 1103 535 1073 2482 1107 553 2482 1107 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.3 20.1 21.7 30.2 23.9 22.4 26.3 11.6 9.4 30.2 16.0 12.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 2.6 0.1 0.2 4.5 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.4 20.1 21.9 30.5 23.9 22.5 26.4 11.9 9.4 31.0 16.7 12.1 LnGrp LOS CCCCCCCBACBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 185 33 750 935
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.1 25.6 12.9 16.8
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.8 35.0 5.6 17.1 10.1 30.6 10.1 12.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 45.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 45.0 20.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 10.4 2.2 6.2 2.9 15.5 2.9 2.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.2 0.1 9.2 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Existing (2020)
2: Washington Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak-Hour
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 10 10 70 10 510 10 440 60 430 600 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 10 10 70 10 510 10 440 60 430 600 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 11 11 76 11 0 11 478 0 467 652 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 444444444444
Cap, veh/h 33 33 33 376 0 55 939 725 1586 27
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.27 0.00 0.21 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow, veh/h 570 570 570 3401 0 1560 1753 3497 1560 3401 3519 59 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 0 0 76 0 0 11 478 0 467 324 339 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1710 0 0 1700 0 1560 1753 1749 1560 1700 1749 1830 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 6.0 0.0 6.5 6.4 6.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 6.0 0.0 6.5 6.4 6.4 Prop In Lane 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 100 0 0 376 0 55 939 725 788 825 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.51 0.64 0.41 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 664 0 0 1320 0 646 3054 1254 1527 1598 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.3 0.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.0 24.3 16.0 0.0 18.5 9.5 9.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.0 0.0 2.1 1.9 1.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 0.0 25.0 16.8 0.0 18.8 10.2 10.2 LnGrp LOS C A A C A C B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 33 76 A 489 A 1130
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.0 20.9 17.0 13.8
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 19.8 7.0 5.6 29.2 9.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 45.0 20.0 19.0 45.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.5 8.0 3.0 2.3 8.4 3.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 5.9 0.1 0.0 7.9 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Existing (2020)
1: Foothills Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak-Hour
Queues Synchro 10 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 54 11 120 11 11 11 54 685 11 11 902 22 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.02 0.30 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.33 0.01 0.03 0.47 0.02 Control Delay 25.8 27.0 9.3 27.9 27.9 0.1 25.8 10.2 0.0 27.4 13.1 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 25.8 27.0 9.3 27.9 27.9 0.1 25.8 10.2 0.0 27.4 13.1 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 1 0 1 1 0 8 43 0 3 124 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 30 10 47 10 10 0 30 174 0 20 242 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1797 980 312 2459
Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 230 220 230 265 265 255 160
Base Capacity (vph) 1337 1378 689 1337 1378 803 1337 2828 1280 689 2828 1280 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.01 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.24 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.02 Intersection Summary
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Existing (2020)
2: Washington Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak-Hour
Queues Synchro 10 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 76 11 554 11 478 65 467 663
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.10 no cap 0.70 0.04 0.54 0.14 0.64 0.38 Control Delay 30.0 26.0 8.4 34.8 27.8 5.3 33.2 14.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 30.0 26.0 Error 8.4 34.8 27.8 5.3 33.2 14.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 11 15 0 0 5 115 0 116 107
Queue Length 95th (ft) 40 36 0 95 22 167 23 180 204
Internal Link Dist (ft) 602 342 3613 349
Turn Bay Length (ft) 235 200 220 245
Base Capacity (vph) 507 980 1 844 480 2266 1042 931 2263 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.08 11.00 0.66 0.02 0.21 0.06 0.50 0.29 Intersection Summary
Roseville Parkway Extension
Traffic Evaluation
Appendix C
Analysis Worksheets for
Existing (2020) plus Proposed Project Conditions
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Existing (2020) plus Project 1: Roseville Pkwy Extension & Foothills Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak-Hour HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 180 110 30 100 50 90 660 100 250 410 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 180 110 30 100 50 90 660 100 250 410 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 196 120 33 109 54 98 717 109 272 446 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 444444444444
Cap, veh/h 25 474 211 125 553 425 252 1248 556 389 1388 619 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 196 120 33 109 54 98 717 109 272 446 11 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 2.6 3.6 0.5 1.4 1.3 1.4 8.4 2.4 3.9 4.4 0.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 2.6 3.6 0.5 1.4 1.3 1.4 8.4 2.4 3.9 4.4 0.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 25 474 211 125 553 425 252 1248 556 389 1388 619 V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.41 0.57 0.26 0.20 0.13 0.39 0.57 0.20 0.70 0.32 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 174 1248 556 337 1248 735 357 1248 556 404 1388 619 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.7 20.0 20.4 23.6 18.5 13.8 22.3 13.1 11.2 21.5 10.5 9.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.9 0.6 2.4 1.1 0.2 0.1 1.0 1.9 0.8 5.1 0.6 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 1.0 1.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.5 2.8 0.8 1.6 1.4 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.6 20.5 22.8 24.8 18.6 14.0 23.3 15.1 12.0 26.6 11.1 9.3 LnGrp LOS DCCCBBCBBCBA
Approach Vol, veh/h 327 196 924 729
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.9 18.4 15.6 16.9
Approach LOS C B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.3 22.5 6.4 11.3 8.2 24.5 5.2 12.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 18.0 5.0 18.0 5.3 18.7 5.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.9 10.4 2.5 5.6 3.4 6.4 2.3 3.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Existing (2020) plus Project 2: Washington Blvd & Roseville Pkwy Extension Timing Plan: AM Peak-Hour HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 320 180 50 140 250 20 360 30 220 170 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 30 320 180 50 140 250 20 360 30 220 170 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33 348 0 54 152 0 22 391 0 239 185 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 444444444444
Cap, veh/h 123 564 176 617 46 1211 348 1332 156
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.16 0.00 0.05 0.18 0.00 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.10 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 3401 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 1753 3497 1560 3401 3153 370 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 348 0 54 152 0 22 391 0 239 102 105 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1700 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 1753 1749 1560 1700 1749 1774 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 4.9 0.0 0.8 2.0 0.0 0.7 4.4 0.0 3.6 1.9 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 4.9 0.0 0.8 2.0 0.0 0.7 4.4 0.0 3.6 1.9 1.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 123 564 176 617 46 1211 348 739 749 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.62 0.31 0.25 0.48 0.32 0.69 0.14 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 320 1184 320 1184 165 1211 358 739 749 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.9 20.8 0.0 24.3 18.8 0.0 25.5 12.8 0.0 23.0 9.4 9.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 7.6 0.7 0.0 5.2 0.4 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 1.9 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.3 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.6 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.1 21.9 0.0 25.3 19.0 0.0 33.2 13.5 0.0 28.2 9.8 9.8 LnGrp LOS C C C B C B C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 381 A 206 A 413 A 446
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.2 20.7 14.5 19.7
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.9 22.9 7.2 13.1 5.9 27.0 6.4 13.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.6 18.4 5.0 18.0 5.0 19.0 5.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 6.4 2.8 6.9 2.7 3.9 2.5 4.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Existing (2020) plus Project 1: Roseville Pkwy Extension & Foothills Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak-Hour Queues Synchro 10 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 196 120 33 109 54 98 717 109 272 446 11 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.34 0.30 0.10 0.16 0.08 0.27 0.56 0.16 0.66 0.27 0.01 Control Delay 24.4 20.8 3.7 23.8 17.2 1.3 24.7 16.0 1.5 33.0 11.7 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 24.4 20.8 3.7 23.8 17.2 1.3 24.7 16.0 1.5 33.0 11.7 0.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 24 0 4 13 0 12 70 0 35 38 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 56 18 17 35 7 36 167 11 #103 98 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1797 3594 312 2459
Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 230 220 230 265 265 255 160
Base Capacity (vph) 177 1276 682 344 1286 704 364 1276 682 412 1634 824 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.15 0.18 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.27 0.56 0.16 0.66 0.27 0.01 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Existing (2020) plus Project 2: Washington Blvd & Roseville Pkwy Extension Timing Plan: AM Peak-Hour Queues Synchro 10 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 348 196 54 152 272 22 391 33 239 207 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.50 0.13 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.13 0.33 0.02 0.68 0.12 Control Delay 26.4 22.5 0.2 26.8 18.0 0.2 28.1 15.7 0.0 37.7 9.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.4 22.5 0.2 26.8 18.0 0.2 28.1 15.7 0.0 37.7 9.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 57 0 9 18 0 7 54 0 42 16
Queue Length 95th (ft) 18 92 0 25 44 0 27 95 0 #99 49
Internal Link Dist (ft) 3594 342 340 349
Turn Bay Length (ft) 260 260 235 200 200 220 245
Base Capacity (vph) 316 1173 1553 316 1203 1553 163 1200 1553 354 1734 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.10 0.30 0.13 0.17 0.13 0.18 0.13 0.33 0.02 0.68 0.12 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Existing (2020) plus Project 1: Roseville Pkwy Extension & Foothills Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak-Hour HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 210 150 90 170 70 90 550 60 260 800 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 210 150 90 170 70 90 550 60 260 800 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 228 163 98 185 76 98 598 65 283 870 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 444444444444
Cap, veh/h 25 561 250 241 760 507 241 1159 517 367 1289 575 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.11 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 228 163 98 185 76 98 598 65 283 870 11 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 3.2 5.4 1.5 2.4 1.9 1.5 7.5 1.6 4.4 11.4 0.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 3.2 5.4 1.5 2.4 1.9 1.5 7.5 1.6 4.4 11.4 0.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 25 561 250 241 760 507 241 1159 517 367 1289 575 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.41 0.65 0.41 0.24 0.15 0.41 0.52 0.13 0.77 0.68 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 160 1152 514 311 1152 682 311 1159 517 367 1289 575 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.7 20.6 21.5 24.3 17.7 13.1 24.3 14.7 12.7 23.7 14.5 11.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.1 0.5 2.9 1.1 0.2 0.1 1.1 1.6 0.5 9.6 2.8 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 1.2 2.0 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.6 2.6 0.6 2.0 4.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.8 21.1 24.4 25.4 17.8 13.2 25.4 16.4 13.2 33.3 17.4 11.0 LnGrp LOS DCCCBBCBBCBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 402 359 761 1164
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.9 18.9 17.3 21.2
Approach LOS C B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.4 22.6 8.4 13.3 8.4 24.6 5.3 16.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.9 18.1 5.0 18.0 5.0 19.0 5.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 9.5 3.5 7.4 3.5 13.4 2.3 4.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.6 0.0 1.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Existing (2020) plus Project 2: Washington Blvd & Roseville Pkwy Extension Timing Plan: PM Peak-Hour HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 320 200 60 260 450 40 470 50 210 410 30 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 320 200 60 260 450 40 470 50 210 410 30 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 348 0 65 283 0 43 511 0 228 446 33 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 444444444444
Cap, veh/h 48 562 197 715 77 1210 336 1323 98
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.06 0.20 0.00 0.04 0.35 0.00 0.10 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 3401 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 1753 3497 1560 3401 3302 244 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 348 0 65 283 0 43 511 0 228 236 243 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1700 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 1753 1749 1560 1700 1749 1797 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 5.0 0.0 1.0 3.7 0.0 1.3 6.0 0.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 5.0 0.0 1.0 3.7 0.0 1.3 6.0 0.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 48 562 197 715 77 1210 336 701 720 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.62 0.33 0.40 0.56 0.42 0.68 0.34 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 318 1177 318 1177 164 1210 350 701 720 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.1 20.9 0.0 24.2 18.4 0.0 25.0 13.4 0.0 23.3 11.1 11.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.4 1.1 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 6.1 1.1 0.0 5.0 1.3 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.4 1.3 0.0 0.6 2.0 0.0 1.4 1.7 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.5 22.0 0.0 25.2 18.8 0.0 31.1 14.5 0.0 28.2 12.4 12.4 LnGrp LOS C C C B C B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 359 A 348 A 554 A 707
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.2 20.0 15.8 17.5
Approach LOS C B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 23.0 7.6 13.1 6.9 25.9 5.3 15.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.5 18.5 5.0 18.0 5.0 19.0 5.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 8.0 3.0 7.0 3.3 7.0 2.2 5.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Existing (2020) plus Project 1: Roseville Pkwy Extension & Foothills Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak-Hour Queues Synchro 10 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 228 163 98 185 76 98 598 65 283 870 11 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.39 0.40 0.31 0.20 0.10 0.31 0.51 0.10 0.76 0.63 0.02 Control Delay 25.6 22.8 6.9 27.6 16.4 2.3 27.6 17.4 0.3 41.6 18.5 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 25.6 22.8 6.9 27.6 16.4 2.3 27.6 17.4 0.3 41.6 18.5 0.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 36 0 15 22 0 15 84 0 48 131 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 63 36 37 53 15 37 138 0 #111 #212 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1797 3594 312 2459
Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 230 220 230 265 265 255 160
Base Capacity (vph) 161 1165 638 314 1187 772 314 1171 640 370 1380 723 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.20 0.26 0.31 0.16 0.10 0.31 0.51 0.10 0.76 0.63 0.02 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Existing (2020) plus Project 2: Washington Blvd & Roseville Pkwy Extension Timing Plan: PM Peak-Hour Queues Synchro 10 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 348 217 65 283 489 43 511 54 228 479 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.47 0.43 0.21 0.29 0.67 0.27 0.43 0.08 0.67 0.30 Control Delay 27.2 21.5 6.3 28.2 16.4 8.8 31.4 17.3 0.3 38.6 13.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 27.2 21.5 6.3 28.2 16.4 8.8 31.4 17.3 0.3 38.6 13.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 57 0 11 35 17 15 75 0 41 48
Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 91 44 29 75 105 44 132 0 #100 119 Internal Link Dist (ft) 3594 342 3613 349
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 235 200 200 220 245
Base Capacity (vph) 311 1153 661 311 1260 828 160 1185 646 341 1607 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.30 0.33 0.21 0.22 0.59 0.27 0.43 0.08 0.67 0.30 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Roseville Parkway Extension
Traffic Evaluation
Appendix D
Analysis Worksheets for
Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project Conditions
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Cumulative (2035) plus Project 1: Roseville Pkwy Extension & Foothills Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak-Hour HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 21 271 164 356 460 374 244 941 358 572 580 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 21 271 164 356 460 374 244 941 358 572 580 19 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 23 295 178 387 500 407 265 1023 389 622 630 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 444444444444
Cap, veh/h 43 522 233 434 882 703 351 1091 487 675 1425 635 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 23 295 178 387 500 407 265 1023 389 622 630 21 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 6.6 9.3 9.5 10.6 16.4 6.4 24.1 19.3 15.2 11.0 0.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 6.6 9.3 9.5 10.6 16.4 6.4 24.1 19.3 15.2 11.0 0.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 43 522 233 434 882 703 351 1091 487 675 1425 635 V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.57 0.76 0.89 0.57 0.58 0.76 0.94 0.80 0.92 0.44 0.03 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 114 744 332 434 963 739 502 1091 487 675 1425 635 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.8 33.4 34.6 36.3 27.6 17.3 36.9 28.3 26.7 33.3 18.1 15.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.8 1.0 6.5 20.1 0.7 1.0 4.0 15.9 12.9 18.1 1.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 2.8 3.9 5.1 4.4 5.7 2.7 11.5 8.6 7.5 4.2 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.5 34.4 41.0 56.4 28.3 18.3 40.9 44.2 39.6 51.4 19.1 15.2 LnGrp LOS D C D E C B DDDDBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 496 1294 1677 1273
Approach Delay, s/veh 37.5 33.6 42.6 34.8
Approach LOS DCDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.3 30.9 15.3 17.1 13.2 39.0 6.6 25.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.8 26.4 10.8 18.0 12.5 30.7 5.5 23.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.2 26.1 11.5 11.3 8.4 13.0 3.1 18.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.4 0.3 3.7 0.0 2.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Cumulative (2035) plus Project 2: Washington Blvd & Roseville Pkwy Extension Timing Plan: AM Peak-Hour HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 43 635 7 24 766 543 29 535 25 307 642 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 43 635 7 24 766 543 29 535 25 307 642 19 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 47 690 0 26 833 0 32 582 0 334 698 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 444444444444
Cap, veh/h 146 1047 97 996 58 1007 427 1318 40
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.30 0.00 0.03 0.28 0.00 0.03 0.29 0.00 0.13 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 3401 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 1753 3497 1560 3401 3466 104 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 47 690 0 26 833 0 32 582 0 334 352 367 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1700 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 1753 1749 1560 1700 1749 1822 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 12.0 0.0 0.5 15.5 0.0 1.2 9.9 0.0 6.6 10.9 10.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 12.0 0.0 0.5 15.5 0.0 1.2 9.9 0.0 6.6 10.9 10.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 146 1047 97 996 58 1007 427 665 693 V/C Ratio(X) 0.32 0.66 0.27 0.84 0.55 0.58 0.78 0.53 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 245 1132 245 1132 129 1007 465 665 693 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.3 21.3 0.0 33.1 23.3 0.0 33.1 21.1 0.0 29.5 16.7 16.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 1.3 0.0 1.5 5.1 0.0 7.9 2.4 0.0 7.8 3.0 2.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 4.8 0.0 0.2 6.3 0.0 0.6 3.9 0.0 2.9 4.3 4.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.5 22.5 0.0 34.5 28.4 0.0 41.0 23.6 0.0 37.3 19.7 19.6 LnGrp LOS C C C C D C D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 737 A 859 A 614 A 1053
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.2 28.6 24.5 25.3
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.2 24.5 6.5 25.3 6.8 30.9 7.5 24.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 20.0 5.0 22.5 5.1 24.4 5.0 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 11.9 2.5 14.0 3.2 12.9 2.9 17.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.2 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 2.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Cumulative (2035) plus Project 1: Roseville Pkwy Extension & Foothills Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak-Hour Queues Synchro 10 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 295 178 387 500 407 265 1023 389 622 630 21 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.56 0.46 0.90 0.50 0.46 0.60 0.95 0.58 0.93 0.48 0.03 Control Delay 43.7 37.5 8.9 64.1 28.2 10.8 41.4 47.9 12.3 57.6 22.5 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 43.7 37.5 8.9 64.1 28.2 10.8 41.4 47.9 12.3 57.6 22.5 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 77 0 105 108 71 68 275 48 168 132 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 37 117 51 #204 181 176 113 #447 147 #294 203 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1797 3594 312 2459
Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 230 220 230 265 265 255 160
Base Capacity (vph) 112 735 472 428 1021 892 495 1079 666 666 1312 700 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.40 0.38 0.90 0.49 0.46 0.54 0.95 0.58 0.93 0.48 0.03 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Cumulative (2035) plus Project 2: Washington Blvd & Roseville Pkwy Extension Timing Plan: AM Peak-Hour Queues Synchro 10 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 47 690 8 26 833 590 32 582 27 334 719 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.60 0.01 0.11 0.78 0.86 0.25 0.58 0.05 0.74 0.48 Control Delay 34.8 22.7 0.0 33.9 29.0 27.1 38.2 25.3 0.2 41.9 17.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 34.8 22.7 0.0 33.9 29.0 27.1 38.2 25.3 0.2 41.9 17.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 116 0 6 186 133 14 125 0 78 115 Queue Length 95th (ft) 26 203 0 18 #256 #332 40 177 0 #139 204 Internal Link Dist (ft) 3594 342 395 349
Turn Bay Length (ft) 260 260 235 200 200 220 245
Base Capacity (vph) 242 1210 641 242 1122 703 127 997 555 459 1508 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.57 0.01 0.11 0.74 0.84 0.25 0.58 0.05 0.73 0.48 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Cumulative (2035) plus Project 1: Roseville Pkwy Extension & Foothills Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak-Hour HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 482 260 357 570 588 211 808 341 420 1233 6 Future Volume (veh/h) 25 482 260 357 570 588 211 808 341 420 1233 6 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 27 524 283 388 620 639 229 878 371 457 1340 7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 444444444444
Cap, veh/h 48 699 312 420 1035 704 265 1123 501 530 1395 622 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.32 0.32 0.16 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27 524 283 388 620 639 229 878 371 457 1340 7 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 12.7 16.0 10.2 13.7 26.6 6.0 20.5 19.1 11.8 33.6 0.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 12.7 16.0 10.2 13.7 26.6 6.0 20.5 19.1 11.8 33.6 0.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 48 699 312 420 1035 704 265 1123 501 530 1395 622 V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.75 0.91 0.92 0.60 0.91 0.87 0.78 0.74 0.86 0.96 0.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 105 700 312 420 1035 704 265 1123 501 563 1395 622 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.2 33.9 35.2 39.0 27.1 22.9 41.0 27.7 27.2 37.0 26.3 16.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.0 4.5 28.7 26.2 1.0 15.5 24.6 5.4 9.5 12.5 16.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 5.6 8.4 5.7 5.7 14.7 3.3 8.7 8.2 5.6 15.6 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.3 38.4 63.9 65.2 28.1 38.5 65.6 33.1 36.7 49.6 42.7 16.4 LnGrp LOS D D E E C D E CDDDB
Approach Vol, veh/h 834 1647 1478 1804
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.5 40.9 39.1 44.3
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.5 33.4 15.6 22.5 11.5 40.4 7.0 31.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.9 28.0 11.1 18.0 7.0 35.9 5.4 23.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.8 22.5 12.2 18.0 8.0 35.6 3.4 28.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.4
HCM 6th LOS D
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Cumulative (2035) plus Project 2: Washington Blvd & Roseville Pkwy Extension Timing Plan: PM Peak-Hour HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 753 16 45 943 590 1 635 36 589 1017 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 55 753 16 45 943 590 1 635 36 589 1017 55 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 60 818 0 49 1025 0 1 690 0 640 1105 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 444444444444
Cap, veh/h 149 1123 135 1109 2 795 706 1462 79
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.32 0.00 0.04 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.21 0.43 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 3401 3497 1560 3401 3497 1560 1753 3497 1560 3401 3373 183 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 60 818 0 49 1025 0 1 690 0 640 573 592 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1700 1749 1560 1700 1749 1560 1753 1749 1560 1700 1749 1808 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 18.2 0.0 1.2 24.9 0.0 0.1 16.7 0.0 16.2 24.3 24.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 18.2 0.0 1.2 24.9 0.0 0.1 16.7 0.0 16.2 24.3 24.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 149 1123 135 1109 2 795 706 758 784 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.73 0.36 0.92 0.42 0.87 0.91 0.76 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 193 1132 193 1132 100 795 715 758 784 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.0 26.5 0.0 41.2 29.0 0.0 43.9 32.7 0.0 34.0 21.0 21.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 2.4 0.0 1.6 12.4 0.0 86.6 12.4 0.0 15.2 6.9 6.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 7.7 0.0 0.5 11.4 0.0 0.1 7.9 0.0 7.7 10.2 10.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.7 28.9 0.0 42.8 41.4 0.0 130.5 45.1 0.0 49.2 27.9 27.7 LnGrp LOS D C D D F D D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 878 A 1074 A 691 A 1805
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.8 41.5 45.2 35.4
Approach LOS CDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.8 24.5 8.0 32.8 4.6 42.7 8.3 32.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 20.0 5.0 28.5 5.0 33.5 5.0 28.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.2 18.7 3.2 20.2 2.1 26.3 3.5 26.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.6 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.9 0.0 1.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Cumulative (2035) plus Project 1: Roseville Pkwy Extension & Foothills Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak-Hour Queues Synchro 10 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 524 283 388 620 639 229 878 371 457 1340 7 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.79 0.58 0.92 0.55 0.72 0.87 0.80 0.57 0.82 0.96 0.01 Control Delay 46.8 44.0 12.6 69.0 28.2 19.2 72.2 34.7 13.2 50.0 43.0 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 46.8 44.0 12.6 69.0 28.2 19.2 72.2 34.7 13.2 50.0 43.0 0.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 148 22 114 138 182 67 240 58 130 384 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 42 206 96 #201 225 #411 #132 315 147 #204 #538 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1797 3594 312 2459
Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 230 220 230 265 265 255 160
Base Capacity (vph) 105 702 502 420 1119 893 264 1100 653 563 1399 734 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.75 0.56 0.92 0.55 0.72 0.87 0.80 0.57 0.81 0.96 0.01 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Roseville Parkway Extension and Bridge Cumulative (2035) plus Project 2: Washington Blvd & Roseville Pkwy Extension Timing Plan: PM Peak-Hour Queues Synchro 10 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 60 818 17 49 1025 641 1 690 39 640 1165 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.69 0.01 0.25 0.92 0.41 0.01 0.86 0.03 0.91 0.72 Control Delay 45.3 29.2 0.0 44.2 43.9 0.8 40.0 45.8 0.0 53.1 23.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 45.3 29.2 0.0 44.2 43.9 0.8 40.0 45.8 0.0 53.1 23.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 217 0 13 295 0 1 201 0 185 262 Queue Length 95th (ft) 37 286 0 31 #423 0 6 #302 0 #287 #455 Internal Link Dist (ft) 3594 342 284 349
Turn Bay Length (ft) 260 260 235 200 200 220 245
Base Capacity (vph) 194 1213 1553 194 1140 1553 100 800 1553 718 1623 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.67 0.01 0.25 0.90 0.41 0.01 0.86 0.03 0.89 0.72 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2721
File #: 0110 & 0201-01
Title: Costco Project - Economic Development Incentive Agreement & Budget Adjustment Contact: Ryan DeVore 916-774-5362 [email protected] Meeting Date: 5/17/2023
Item #: 10.3.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Hold a public hearing to review the economic incentive agreement with Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco); and
2. Adopt a resolution to approve the City of Roseville Economic Development Incentive Agreement with Costco to facilitate the development of a new store as a catalyst to the Baseline Marketplace, and authorize the City Manager to execute it; and
3. Adopt an ordinance to approve a $7.8 million budget adjustment from the Strategic Improvement Fund to fund a $6 million economic incentive for Costco upon store opening, and a $1.8 million backstop payment if Costco does not receive reimbursement from the City/County Fee and/or the Traffic Mitigation Fee Set-Aside Fund within seven years of store opening.
BACKGROUND
The Baseline Marketplace is an 81-acre, regional retail development located in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP), fronting on Baseline Road between Fiddyment Road and Market Street. At buildout the project will total approximately 750,000 square feet of building area, including three (3) large floor plate commercial buildings, four (4) fast food restaurant pads with drive-thru facilities, three (3) gas stations and twenty-three (23) outlying restaurant and retail pads. The project entitlements were approved in 2014 and extended in 2017, 2020 and in February of 2022. Finally, the entitlements were updated for the proposal in its current form and approved on April 17, 2023.
The project requires approximately $16.5 million in public infrastructure to get started, a sum that has proven prohibitive to commencing development in the nine years since initial project approval. Additionally, the fee structure in the SVSP heavily impacts commercial development, further exacerbating the challenge.
The City has a strong interest in the overall Baseline Marketplace project’s success, as the first phase stands to generate $3 million in annual sales tax revenue to the City in the first year and $7 million at build-out. It also provides much-needed access to retail on the west side of Roseville.
In late 2021, Costco approached the City as they considered purchasing approximately 29 acres of the project, known as Parcel DF-41, described in Exhibit A of the Agreement, in order to build a Costco store. They expressed the challenges mentioned above and sought an agreement to offset the significant up-front infrastructure costs, of which approximately $6 million is related to their project, although they would need to spend the full $16.5 million to move their project forward. Many of the up-front public infrastructure costs will eventually be reimbursed, but in some cases, it may take several years. After a lengthy negotiation, the parties agreed to an up to $6 million lump sum payment tied to the actual required public improvement infrastructure work being performed by Costco. Such sum is only due upon the Costco store opening and based on the actual required public improvement infrastructure.
Because of this potential delay in reimbursement of over $10 million, staff also recommends that the City help mitigate the risk by providing a backstop to the reimbursement of two fees, as follows: If Costco has not received eligible cash fee reimbursement under the City/County Fee and/or the TMF Set-Aside Fund for the Costco project seven years after the date of store opening, the City will pay Costco in the amount of any such cash fee reimbursement that it is deemed eligible for under the City/County Fee and/or the TMF Set-Aside Fund for the Costco project, at that time. Staff estimates that the total for any such cash reimbursements is approximately $900,000 in City/County Fees and $800,000 in the TMF Set-Aside Fund, but in no event shall the City have to reimburse Costco for more than $1.8 million. Given fund projections, it is unlikely that this backstop would be exercised, but it provides certainty to Costco necessary to move forward with the project. If the City makes the backstop payment, Costco must assign the City its right to reimbursement under the City/County Fee and/or the TMF Set-Aside Fund, thereby making City eligible for full reimbursement of the backstop amount.
In summary, staff recommends that Council approve the Economic Incentive Agreement with Costco Wholesale Corporation, to include the following:
1. An up-to $6 million economic incentive paid to Costco upon store opening to offset significant infrastructure costs;
2. Up to $1.8 million as a backstop to fee reimbursements if not paid to Costco within seven years of the store opening, as described above and in the attached agreement.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve this Agreement because it supports Council’s specific goal to facilitate this project; it promotes the general welfare of the City and its residents by creating new jobs; it expands the range and diversity of its commercial retail sector, especially in West Roseville; it reduces traffic and vehicle miles traveled from residents in West Roseville to the existing Costco facility in northeast Roseville; it broadens the City's property tax and sales tax base; and it generates uniquely significant ongoing City revenues.
Without support, it’s likely that this development could sit idle for several more years, if not more. Should another regional retail development materialize in the vicinity, it could become even more difficult for this site to absorb, as recent studies show that, on paper, the demand for regional retail is already overburdened.
Additionally, there are local and regional examples where economic incentives were provided to catalyze high-tax-generating and/or job-creating developments. Below are some examples:
1. Roseville Galleria
2. Roseville Automall
3. Elk Grove Costco
4. Centene in Sacramento
The Roseville Galleria and Roseville Automall were provided future City subsidies to support infrastructure development. In 2017 Elk Grove provided Costco $8 million of future projected sales tax revenue ($10 million in today's dollars) to offset infrastructure costs. Lastly, in 2017 Sacramento provided Centene up to $13.5 million ($17 million in today's dollars) as an employment incentive.
Finally, approval of the recommended Agreement with Costco offers a win-win-win for the rest of the Baseline Marketplace, Costco and the City. It is clear that this is a uniquely significant opportunity to catalyze a major sales-tax-generating project that provides retail in an underserved portion of the City and that would likely remain dormant absent City support. Once the project is active the City anticipates a return on its incentive payment investment, in full, through sales taxes of about 24 months.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of this recommended economic incentive necessitates a budget adjustment to appropriate $6 million in available resources in the Strategic Improvement Funds (SIF) that will be provided to Costco upon store opening. An additional $1.8 million in SIF will be appropriated as a reimbursement backstop if Costco has not received reimbursement from the City/County Fee and/or the Traffic Mitigation Fee Set-Aside Fund within seven years of the store opening. Should the $1.8 million be paid to Costco, Costco shall assign its right to reimbursement to the City, resulting in the City being entitled to the $1.8 million reimbursement. There are adequate available resources in SIF to fund the $ 7.8 million appropriation.
The obligations arising from the economic incentive agreement are not a debt of the City under section 18 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, as they are being budgeted this fiscal year.
The new sales and property tax generated due to the agreement are expected to exceed the initial City investment within two years, after which the General Fund would experience an ongoing positive fiscal impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The item before City Council is a public hearing and approval of the Economic Incentive Agreement. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The approval of this agreement meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
It should be noted that development of the actual Costco store and surrounding property is subject to CEQA and will have to follow the normal process as development occurs. The Costco store is a part of the Baseline Marketplace project, which has obtained a Major Project Permit and was deemed consistent with the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2008032115). In accordance with CEQA Section 15183, an Initial Study was prepared for the project and the study found no project specific significant effects. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared and adopted by the Planning Commission in March of 2014.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal D – Enhance Economic Vitality
Respectfully Submitted,
Ryan DeVore, Assistant City Manager
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution 23-190
Economic IncentiveAgreement
Economic Incentive Report
Vicinity Map_Baseline Marketplace
Ordinance 6557
Budget Adjustment
RESOLUTION NO. 23-190
APPROVING A CITY OF ROSEVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE
AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, the Baseline Marketplace is an 81-acre, regional retail development located in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP), fronting on Baseline Road between Fiddyment Road and Market Street; and
WHEREAS, the project requires approximately $16.5M in public infrastructure to get started, a sum that has proven prohibitive to commencing development in the nine years since initial project approval; and
WHEREAS, the fee structure in the SVSP heavily impacts commercial development, further exacerbating the challenge; and
WHEREAS, the City has a strong interest in the overall Baseline Marketplace project’s success, as the first phase stands to generate $3M in annual sales tax revenue to the City in the first year and $7M at build-out, and also provides much-needed access to retail on the west side of Roseville; and
WHEREAS, in late 2021, Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) approached the City as they considered purchasing approximately 29 acres of the project, known as Parcel DF-41, described in Exhibit A of the City of Roseville Economic Development Incentive Agreement, in order to build a Costco store; and
WHEREAS, Costco expressed the challenges mentioned above and sought an agreement to offset the significant up-front infrastructure costs, of which approximately $6M is related to their project, although they would need to spend the full $16.5M to move their project forward; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2023, the City Council for the City of Roseville held a public hearing, pursuant to California Government Code Section 53083, on an economic development incentive with Costco; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council approve a City of Roseville Economic Development Incentive Agreement for this economic development incentive to provide the following public benefits:
1. It supports Council’s specific goal to facilitate this project; and
2. It promotes the general welfare of the City and its residents by creating new jobs; and
3. It expands the range and diversity of its commercial retail sector, especially in West Roseville; and
4. It reduces traffic and vehicle miles traveled from residents in West Roseville to the existing Costco facility in northeast Roseville; and
5. It broadens the City's property tax and sales tax base; and
6. It generates uniquely significant ongoing City revenues.
WHEREAS, the City of Roseville Economic Development Incentive Agreement, by and between the City of Roseville and Costco Wholesale Corporation, has been reviewed by the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said City of Roseville Economic Development Incentive Agreement is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville, as well as any documents necessary to effectuate its purpose.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 2023, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk
SUMMARY REPORT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53083 ON A
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
The following Summary Report has been prepared pursuant to California Government Code Section 53083. The report sets forth certain details of the proposed Economic Development Incentive Agreement (“Agreement”) between the following parties:
1. The City of Roseville, a municipal corporation (“City”);
2. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation (“Developer”).
The Agreement calls for the City to provide a development incentive, directly related to the required public infrastructure costs, to the Developer, for the purpose of developing, opening, and operating a wholesale and retail general merchandise facility, with a potential gas station, owned and operated by Developer (“Costco Store”). The project will consist of building the Costco Store, as well as required infrastructure improvements and additional retail properties that will be offered for rent or sale to other tenants or retailers (collectively “Project”). The Project is located on an approximately 29-acre parcel, located north of Baseline Road in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, known as a portion of Phase II of the Baseline Marketplace project (“Site”).
This summary report considers the proposed Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is to promote the general welfare of the City and its residents by creating new jobs; expanding the range and diversity of its commercial retail sector, especially in west Roseville; to reduce traffic and vehicle miles traveled from residents in west Roseville to the existing Costco facility in northeast Roseville; to broaden the City's property tax and sales tax base; and to generate ongoing City revenues.
This report and the Agreement are to be made available for public inspection prior to the approval of the Agreement.
I. IDENTITY OF DEVELOPER
Information on the Developer is provided below:
Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington Corporation; Principal Executive Office: 999 Lake Drive, Issaquah, WA 98027.
II. SALIENT POINTS OF THE AGREEMENT
A. Project Description
The Site is currently undeveloped land that is zoned General Commercial with a land use designation of Community Commercial. The Project will consist of building a wholesale and retail general merchandise facility, with a potential gas station, as well as required infrastructure improvements and additional retail properties that will be offered for rent or sale to other tenants or retailers.
B. The Start and End Dates and Schedule for the Economic Development Subsidy No economic development subsidy is due under the Agreement until the certificate of occupancy is issued by City for the Costco Store opening (“Store Opening”), which must occur no later than December 31, 2026.
Construction of the Project is anticipated to begin in 2023. City will reimburse Developer for up to no more than six (6) million dollars in required public infrastructure costs at the time of Store Opening. Per the Agreement, if the Store Opening does not occur by December 31, 2026, then no payment is due by the City.
Additionally, if the Store Opening occurs and Costco is not otherwise reimbursed for other eligible public infrastructure costs from the City County Traffic Mitigation Fee (“City/County Fee”) and/or the City Traffic Mitigation Fee-Sierra Vista Specific Plan Set-Aside (“TMF Set-Aside”) within seven (7) years from the date of Store Opening, then City shall also reimburse Developer for the value of the eligible reimbursable City/County Fee or TMF Set-Aside infrastructure costs. If City makes such payment, then Developer shall assign to City its right to reimbursement from the City/County Fee or TMF Set-Aside funds for these amounts. City shall not be obligated to make such payment until at least seven (7) years from the Store Opening.
C. Developer Responsibilities
The Agreement requires the Developer to accept the following responsibilities:
1. Develop, open, and operate a wholesale and retail general merchandise facility, with a potential gas station, as well as required public infrastructure improvements, at the Site;
2. Follow all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and agreements that apply to the Site and the Project, including but not limited to the Agreement, compliance with all prevailing wage laws, and applicable Development Agreement for the Site;
3. If City reimburses Developer for the value of the eligible reimbursable City/County Fee or TMF SetAside public infrastructure costs, then Developer shall assign its right to such payment to City.
D. City Responsibilities
The Agreement imposes the following responsibilities on the City:
1. The City shall make the lump sum incentive payment to the Developer, in an amount not to exceed six (6) million dollars, but based on actual required public infrastructure costs. Such payment is due at Store Opening, but in no event later than December 31, 2026, in accordance with the Agreement. The payment is only due if the Costco Store is actually constructed and issued a certificate of occupancy by City.
2. Reimburse Developer up to approximately $1.8 million dollars in eligible City/County Fee and/or TMF Set-Aside reimbursement amounts if Developer has not already received such reimbursement directly from the City/County Fee or TMF Set-Aside funds within seven (7) years of Store Opening. In such case, City will be assigned Developer’s right to reimbursement under the City/County Fee and/or TMF Set-Aside funds;
3. The City shall have timely performed all of the obligations required by the terms of the Agreement.
III. ECONOMIC INCENTIVES PROVIDED AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT The City is making a single lump sum payment, in an amount not to exceed six (6) million dollars, but based on the actual required construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work for the public work of improvement required by City for development of the Project. This single lump sum payment is only payable after issuance of a certificate of occupancy by City for the Costco Store. The payment is capped at six (6) million dollars. Additionally, City shall reimburse Costco up to approximately $1.8 million dollars as the sum of any unpaid City/County Fee and/or TMF Set-Aside fees after seven (7) years from Store Opening. The funding is budgeted to come from the Strategic Improvement Fund.
IV. THE NET TAX REVENUE ACCRUING TO ROSEVILLE AS A RESULT OF THE SUBSIDY The City expects to receive a significant increase in sales tax and property tax from the development of the Project. The revenues are summarized below:
1. Sales Tax – The City receives 1.5% of taxable sales generated by the Project. The Costco Store is anticipated to be similar size to the existing store in Roseville (which is remaining open), including gas station. The anticipated annual sales tax revenue is initially estimated to be $2.5 million, which is based on projections from Developer, existing sales tax revenue generated at the existing Roseville location, and the City’s tax-sharing agreement with Placer County.
2. Property Tax – For the Site, the City receives approximately 19.6% of the general 1% ad valorem property tax and shares a portion of this property tax revenue with Placer County through a taxsharing agreement. The assessed value of the Project is estimated at $57.3 million. At this level of value, the Project will generate $91,726 in net annual property tax to the City, after tax-sharing.
V. CREATION OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND PUBLIC PURPOSE
The City finds the unique public purpose of this economic development incentive is to promote the general welfare of the City and its residents by creating new jobs; expanding the range and diversity of its commercial retail sector, especially in west Roseville; to reduce traffic and vehicle miles traveled from residents in west Roseville to the existing Costco facility in northeast Roseville; to broaden the City's property tax and sales tax base; and to generate ongoing City revenues. The Project is a uniquely significant sales tax generating retail opportunity for the City that would be a catalyst for future economic development in west Roseville, where there is currently undeveloped commercial properties and lack of requisite infrastructure, with no anticipated immediate development. But for the economic development incentive, the Project might not be developed at all in west Roseville. This economic development incentive is consistent with and in furtherance of the City's Economic Development Strategy.
Other important goals and objectives that are satisfied by the Project are:
1. Construction of the Project is expected to generate a substantial number of construction jobs;
2. Potential increase in private investment as a result of the public investment in this Project;
3. Increased number of visitors to the City, which will spend money on dining, retail and entertainment activities in the City.
VI. JOB CREATION
It is estimated that 200 temporary construction jobs will be created during the construction period. After opening, the Developer indicates the Project will create 420 total jobs. These jobs will include 210 full-time and 210 part-time positions.
VICINITY MAP
FINAL MAP OF
LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION
SUBDIVISION NO. PL21-0386
BASELINE MARKETPLACE
DF PROPERTIES, INC.
ORDINANCE NO. 6557
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY
EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2022-23, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Economic Development Incentive Agreement for the Costco project.
SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post a true copy of the foregoing ordinance in each of three (3) conspicuous locations in the City and she shall immediately after such posting enter in the ordinance book, under the record of the ordinance, a certificate under her hand stating the time and place of such publication by posting.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this ______________ day of _________________, 2023, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
_______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk
REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Ryan DeVore, Assistant City Manager FISCAL YEAR: FY2022-23 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Scott Pettingell, Assistant Finance Director COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 5/17/2023 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: City Manager ORDINANCE:
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
1030 5585 84001 500414 7,800,000
7,800,000
REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
7,800,000
FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
1030 (7,800,000)
(7,800,000)
Justification for Budget Adjustment:
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE
POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
Decrease Strategic Improvement Fund balance
ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
NET ADJUSTMENT
ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Economic Incentive for Costco
TOTAL
TOTAL
REQUIRED APPROVALS:
BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:
This budget adjustment will establish the appropriation for the City Council-approved Economic Incentive Agreement with Costco Wholesale Corporation to build a new store on Baseline Road, between Fiddyment Road and Market Street. The City has a vested interest in this project. It is expected to generate significant sales tax revenue for the City and provides much-needed access to retail on the west side of Roseville. The project includes a $6 million economic incentive paid to Costco upon opening the store to offset infrastructure costs. An additional $1.8 million is also available as a backstop to fee reimbursements if not paid to Costco within seven years of the store opening.
TOTAL
5/1/20236:39 PM
1 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2710
File #: 0600-01
Title:
Salary Schedule for City Council Appointed Positions and City Manager and City Attorney Employment and Personal Services Agreements
Contact: Stacey Peterson 916-774-5374 [email protected] Meeting Date: 5/17/2023
Item #: 11.1.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt:
1. An ordinance to approve the attached City Council Appointed Positions (CCAP) salary schedule (Appendix Q) reflecting a seven (7%) percent salary increase for the City Attorney and City Manager, effective May 20, 2023; and
2. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the First Amendment to the Employment and Personal Services Agreement between the City of Roseville and Michelle Sheidenberger; and
3. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the Employment and Personal Services Agreement between the City of Roseville and Dominick Casey.
BACKGROUND
The City has existing employment contracts with City Attorney Michelle Sheidenberger and City Manager Dominick Casey, the latter of which is set to expire on August 15, 2023.
In accordance with the employment contracts, the Council has completed the annual performance reviews and salary evaluations of these city council appointed positions. After the evaluations, staff was directed to prepare a new five-year contract with the City Manager and an amendment to the City Attorney's contract. The new contract with the City Manager will terminate his existing contract and replace it with a new five-year contract, commencing May 17, 2023 and expiring May 17, 2028.
Both of the agreements with the City Attorney and City Manager increase the City contribution to a deferred compensation benefit from three percent (3%) to five percent (5%) of earnings. In addition, for the City Manager the car allowance benefit was increased from $500 to $700 per month and there is a provision which authorizes the Council to review the City Manager's compensation each year, which may be considered based on performance and either a labor market adjustment or general wage increase. Future salary increases for the City Manager shall be at least five percent (5%) above the highest paid subordinate's salary. Other non-substantive edits were made to the City Manager's agreement to provide consistency with the City Attorney's current agreement.
Finally, the Council looked at labor market data, internal compaction, and the performances of the City Attorney and the City Manager to determine whether salary increases were warranted. As a result, the City Attorney’s and City Manager’s salaries are proposed to be increased by seven percent (7%) as reflected in the City Council Appointed Positions salary schedule (Appendix Q).
The effective date of the salary increases will be May 20, 2023.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City Attorney’s FY2022-23 departmental operating budget has sufficient monies to fund the estimated $4,000 increase for this fiscal year and the ongoing annual impact of $34,666 will be incorporated in the proposed FY2023-24 budget in the General Fund. The City Manager’s departmental operating budget has available funds for the increase of $4,912 in the FY2022-23 budget and the annual increase of $42,569 will be included in the proposed FY2023-24 budget in the General Fund. For both positions, the annual cost increase includes the estimated total annual pension cost of $4,373.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The proposed salary and benefit changes meet the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacey Peterson, Human Resources Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Ordinance 6654
2023-05-20 CCAP Salary Schedule
Resolution 23-173
City Attorney agreement
Resolution 23-174
City Manager agreement
ORDINANCE NO. 6654
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6481 THE SALARY ORDINANCE FOR CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED POSITIONS, AS AMENDED BY APPENDIX “Q” TO BE EFFECTIVE
MAY 20, 2023 AS AN URGENCY MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Title and Purpose.
Ordinance No. 6481 the Salary Ordinance for City Council Appointed Positions, is hereby amended as shown on Appendix “Q” attached hereto.
SECTION 2. Salary Plan Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall be effective May 20, 2023 as an urgency measure.
SECTION 3. Urgency Ordinance.
This ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure, immediately necessary for the public peace, health and safety and shall take effect May 20, 2023. A statement of urgency is as follows:
It is necessary to amend the Salary Ordinance to comply with recently approved changes for the orderly and necessary continuance of operations of the City.
SECTION 4. Posting.
The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post a true copy of the foregoing ordinance in each of three (3) conspicuous locations in the City and she shall immediately after such posting enter in the Ordinance Book under the record of the ordinance a certificate under her hand stating the time and place of said publication by posting.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ____ day of _________________, 20___, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
_____________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
City Clerk
CCAP City Council Appointed
Position
City of Roseville
Appendix:Q
Effective Date:05/20/2023
Salary Schedule: All
Grade Code Grade Name Step Name Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annual 1235 Acting City Manager Step A 122.5472 9803.78 21241.51 254898.18 1200 City Attorney Step A 137.2327 10978.62 23787.00 285444.02 1240 City Manager Step A 159.0206 12721.65 27563.57 330762.85 RESOLUTION NO. 23-173
APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AND PERSONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND MICHELLE
SHEIDENBERGER, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, a First Amendment to Employment and Personal Services Agreement regarding the position of City Attorney, between the City of Roseville and Michelle Sheidenberger, has been reviewed by the City Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said agreement is hereby approved and that the Mayor is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 20__, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 23-174
APPROVING AN EMPLOYMENT AND PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND DOMINICK CASEY, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, an Employment and Personal Services Agreement regarding the position of City Manager, between the City of Roseville and Dominick Casey, has been reviewed by the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said agreement is hereby approved and that the Mayor is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 20__, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk