Table 4.3-2. Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions for AM & PM Peak Periods (Maximum Pounds per Day)
Location Trip Volume
Delay per
Vehicle
(Seconds)
ROG NOX PM10
Existing Conditions (2022)
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Woodcreek
Oaks Boulevard Intersection 8,306 AM Peak: 43PM Peak: 35 0.012 0.192 0.000 Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Birkdale
Drive-Retreat Way Intersection 5,516 AM Peak: 2PM Peak: 2 0.000 0.006 0.000 Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Country
Club Drive Intersection 6,036 AM Peak: 10PM Peak: 20 0.001 0.018 0.000 Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Laporte
Drive-Hemingway Drive Intersection 6,025 AM Peak: 2PM Peak: 10 0.001 0.022 0.000 Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Misty Wood
Drive Intersection 6,166 AM Peak: 1PM Peak: 4 0.000 0.009 0.000 Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Foothills
Boulevard Intersection 11,075 AM Peak: 44PM Peak: 58 0.022 0.341 0.000 Existing Conditions Total: 0.038 0.591 0.000
Proposed Project Conditions
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Woodcreek
Oaks Boulevard Intersection 8,346 AM Peak: 37PM Peak: 32 0.011 0.171 0.000 Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Birkdale
Drive-Retreat Way Intersection 5,556 AM Peak: 0PM Peak: 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Country
Club Drive Intersection 6,100 AM Peak: 8PM Peak: 9 0.002 0.031 0.000 Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Laporte
Drive-Hemingway Drive Intersection 6,117 AM Peak: 1PM Peak: 1 0.000 0.003 0.000 Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-14 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Table 4.3-2. Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions for AM & PM Peak Periods (Maximum Pounds per Day)
Location Trip Volume
Delay per
Vehicle
(Seconds)
ROG NOX PM10
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Misty Wood
Drive Intersection 6,212 AM Peak: 1PM Peak: 1 0.000 0.003 0.000 Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Foothills
Boulevard Intersection 11,265 AM Peak: 43PM Peak: 48 0.020 0.308 0.000 Proposed Project Conditions Total: 0.033 0.517 0.000
Source: EMFAC2021. Refer to Appendix B-2 for Model Data Outputs.
As shown in Table 4.3-2, under the proposed Project, the segment of Pleasant Grove Boulevard beginning 1,500 feet east of Foothills Boulevard to 700 feet west of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard and associated Project intersections would generate 0.033 pounds of Reactive Organic Gas (ROG), 0.517 pounds of NOx, and 0.000 pounds of PM10 from idling automobiles during the combined AM and PM peak hours. This is a reduction of 0.005 pounds of ROG and 0.074 pounds of NOx daily compared with existing conditions.
Thus, the Project would result in a decrease of daily emissions compared with existing conditions. Project emissions would not exceed any PCAPCD thresholds for any criteria air pollutants during operation.
In order to present a more concise comparison of idling emissions during existing conditions and proposed Project post-construction operations, Table 4.3-3 omits emissions generated at each individual Project intersection.
Table 4.3-3. Operational-Related Emissions Summary
Activity
Pollutant
(maximum pounds per day)
ROG NOX PM10
Existing Conditions (2022)
Idling Emissions under Existing Conditions 0.038 0.591 0.000 Proposed Project Conditions
Idling Emissions Under Proposed Project 0.033 0.517 0.000 PCAPCD Potentially Significant Impact Threshold 55 55 82 Exceed PCAPCD Threshold? No No No
Source: EMFAC2021. Refer to Appendix B-2 for Model Data Outputs.
As shown in Table 4.3-3, the proposed Project would result in less emissions than existing conditions.
For the reasons listed above, the Project would result in no new impact.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-15 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
No New Impact
The GPU EIR concludes that during construction and operation project’s consistent with the General Plan, localized air pollutant emissions would be generated that could affect existing and proposed sensitive receptors. Construction activities would generate diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions that could affect existing and proposed sensitive receptors. The GPU EIR finds that existing regulations and policies would reduce potential exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction, however operational impacts were found to be potentially significant and unavoidable.
Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses.
Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over age 65, children under age 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. The nearest existing sensitive receptors to the Project are residences positioned adjacent to the northern and southern boundaries of the Project Limits.
These residences are generally separated from Pleasant Grove Boulevard by a six-foot masonry wall and 30-foot-wide vegetated buffer with sidewalks.
Construction-related activities associated with the Project would result in temporary, short-term emissions of DPM, ROG, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., clearing); soil and asphalt hauling truck traffic; paving; and other miscellaneous activities. The portion of the SVAB which encompasses the Project area is designated as a nonattainment area for federal O3 and standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O3 and PM10 standards (CARB 2019). Thus, existing O3 and PM10 levels in the SVAB are at unhealthy levels during certain periods. However, as shown in Table 4.3-1, Project construction activities would not exceed the PCAPCD significance thresholds for emissions.
The health effects associated with O3 are generally associated with reduced lung function. Because the Project would not involve construction activities that would result in O3 precursor emissions (ROG or NOx) in excess of the PCAPCD thresholds, the Project is not anticipated to substantially contribute to regional O3 concentrations and the associated health impacts during construction.
CO tends to be a localized impact associated with congested intersections. In terms of adverse health effects, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, reducing the blood’s ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can include dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions. The Project would not involve construction activities that would result Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-16 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
in CO emissions in excess of the PCAPCD thresholds. Thus, the Project’s CO emissions would not contribute to the health effects associated with this pollutant.
Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can get deep into the lungs and cause serious health problems. Particulate matter exposure has been linked to a variety of problems, including premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing. For construction activity, DPM is the primary Toxic Air Contaminant of concern. PM10 exhaust is considered a surrogate for DPM as all diesel exhaust is considered to be DPM. As with O3 and NOx, the Project would not generate emissions of PM10 that would exceed the PCAPCD’s thresholds. Accordingly, the Project’s DPM emissions are not expected to cause any increase in related regional health effects for these pollutants.
It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at intersections. Concentrations of CO are a direct function of the number of vehicles, length of delay, and traffic flow conditions. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations close to congested intersections that experience high levels of traffic and elevated background concentrations may reach unhealthy levels, affecting nearby sensitive receptors. Given the high traffic volume potential, areas of high CO concentrations, or hot spots, are typically associated with intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the peak commute hours. It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections.
However, transport of this criteria pollutant is extremely limited, and CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. Furthermore, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly more stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the Placer County portion of the SVAB is designated as in attainment. Detailed modeling of Project-specific CO hot spots is not necessary and thus this potential impact is addressed qualitatively.
A CO hot spot would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 Parts Per Million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide in Los Angeles County and a Modeling and Attainment Demonstration prepared by the SCAQMD as part of the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan can be used to demonstrate the potential for CO exceedances of these standards. The SCAQMD conducted a CO hot spot analysis as part of the 1992 CO Federal Attainment Plan at four busy intersections in Los Angeles County during the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway (Lynwood), Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue (Westwood), Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue (Hollywood), and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard (Inglewood). The busiest intersection evaluated was at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. Despite this level of traffic, the CO analysis concluded that there was no violation of CO standards (SCAQMD 1992). In order to establish a more accurate record of baseline CO Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-17 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
concentrations affecting the South Coast Air Basin, a CO hot spot analysis was conducted in 2003 at the same four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. This hot spot analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards. The highest one-hour concentration was measured at 4.6 ppm at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue and the highest eight-hour concentration was measured at 8.4 ppm at Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway.
According to the Traffic Study prepared for the Project (Fear & Peers 2022), the Project Limits would not accommodate more than 100,000 vehicles daily. Furthermore, the Project would result in a decrease of daily emissions and reduction of automobile idling compared with existing conditions. Thus, there is no likelihood of the Project traffic exceeding CO values.
As discussed above, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in the development of any substantial sources of air toxics. There are no stationary sources associated with the operations of the Project and as previously described, the Project would result in a decrease of daily emissions compared with existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would result in beneficial changes in terms of the generation of air pollutant concentrations and there would be no new impact in terms of exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial construction or operational pollutant concentrations.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number
of people?
No New Impact
The GPU EIR finds that Plan Area buildout is subject to policies that would avoid exposure of a substantial number of people to objectionable odors and that related impacts are less than significant.
Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory, and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).
With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals can smell minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; in fact, an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast-food restaurant) may be perfectly acceptable to another. It is also important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-18 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word strong to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air. When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.
During construction, the proposed Project presents the potential for generation of objectionable odors in the form of diesel exhaust in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, these emissions are short-term in nature and will rapidly dissipate and be diluted by the atmosphere downwind of the emission sources.
Additionally, odors would be localized and generally confined to the construction area. Therefore, construction odors would not adversely affect a substantial number of people to odor emissions.
According to the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB 2005), the sources of the most common operational odor complaints received by local air districts include facilities such as sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, and livestock operations. The Project does not contain any of the land uses identified as typically associated with emissions of objectionable odors. Thus, no new impact would occur.
4.3.3 Mitigation Measures
No new impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.
4.4 Biological Resources
This section is based on the analysis and recommendations presented in the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) prepared for the proposed Project (ECORP 2022b, Appendix C).
4.4.1 Methods
The BRA assess the potential for occurrence of special-status plant and animal species or their habitat, and sensitive habitats such as wetlands within the Study Area. The assessment does not include determinate field surveys conducted according to agency-promulgated protocols. Rather, conclusions and recommendations are based on review of the existing literature and results of the current site reconnaissance survey and do not include determinate field surveys for special-status plant and wildlife species.
For the purposes of this assessment, special-status species are defined as plants or animals that:
are listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for future listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA);
are listed or candidates for future listing as threatened or endangered under the California ESA; Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-19 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
meet the definitions of endangered or rare under Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines; are identified as a species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
are birds identified as Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2021);
are plants considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be "rare, threatened, or endangered in California" (California Rare Plant Ranks [CRPR] 1 and 2); plants listed by CNPS as species about which more information is needed to determine their status (CRPR 3), and plants of limited distribution (CRPR 4); are plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900 et seq.); or
are fully protected in California in accordance with the California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (amphibians and reptiles), and 5515 (fishes).
Only species that fall into one of the above groups were considered. Other species sometimes found in database searches or within the literature were not included in this analysis.
4.4.1.1 Literature Review
The following resources were queried to determine whether any special-status species/habitat have potential to occur within the Study Area (See Appendix C, Attachment A):
CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) record search for the “Roseville, California”
7.5-minute quadrangles and the eight surrounding U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles (CDFW 2022);
USFWS Information, Planning, and Consultation System Resource Report List for the Study Area (USFWS 2022); and
CNPS’ electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California for the “Roseville, California” 7.5-minute quadrangles and the eight surrounding USGS quadrangles (CNPS 2022).
4.4.1.2 Site Reconnaissance
A field assessment was conducted by ECORP biologists Rachel Bennett and Courtney Owens on June 1, 2022. During this assessment, accessible portions of the Study Area were visually assessed by walking or driving. The following biological resource information was collected:
Direct observations of special-status species;
Animal and plant species directly observed;
Habitat and vegetation communities; and
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-20 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Representative photographs of the Study Area (See Appendix C, Attachment B).
4.4.1.3 Special-Status Species Considered for the Project Based on species occurrence information from the literature review and observations in the field, a list of special-status plant and animal species that have the potential to occur within the Study Area was generated and is located in the results section. Each of these species with potential to occur onsite was assessed based on the following criteria:
Present - Species was observed during the site visit or is known to occur within the Study Area based on documented occurrences within the CNDDB or other literature Potential to Occur - Habitat (including soils and elevation requirements) for the species occurs within the Study Area
Low Potential to Occur - Marginal or limited amounts of habitat occurs or the species is not known to occur within the vicinity of the Study Area based on CNDDB records and other available documentation
Absent - No suitable habitat (including soils and elevation requirements) or the species is not known to occur within the vicinity of the Study Area based on CNDDB records and other documentation
4.4.2 Environmental Setting
The biological resource Study Area includes the Pleasant Grove Boulevard right-of-way shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-3 and the staging area shown in Figure 2-4. The Study Area is located on relatively flat terrain with elevations ranging from 120 to 170 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) and is surrounded by residential and commercial development. The staging area is located on the eastern edge of the Study Area and is made up of annual grassland. Road widening would primarily occur into the existing center median which includes native oaks and ornamental landscape plantings.
The Woodcreek Oaks Preserve and City Preserve are within the vicinity of the Study Area and occur north and south of Pleasant Grove Boulevard near the intersection of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Country Club Drive. These areas consist of vernal pool grassland, primarily on the north side of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. The Woodcreek Oak Golf Course sits adjacent to the Preserve and has mature oaks throughout.
4.4.2.1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover
The Study Area is comprised of one vegetation community, ruderal annual grassland, and one land cover, developed.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-21 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Ruderal Annual Grassland
The staging area is comprised of nonnative annual grassland and is surrounded by commercial development. This area is disturbed and includes weedy roadside vegetation such as yellow-star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and wild oat (Avena sp.).
Developed
Developed portions of the Study Area are characterized by existing paved roads and sidewalks. The median of Pleasant Grove Boulevard is landscaped and composed of mostly Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) and Interior Live Oak (Quercus wislizeni).The understory is a mix of bare ground, shrubs, and some landscaped flowers, varying depending on location.
4.4.2.2 Soils
According to the Web Soil Survey (National Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2022), three soil units, or types, have been mapped within the Study Area (Figure 4.4-1):
141 – Cometa-Fiddyment complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes
142 – Cometa-Ramos sandy loams, 1 to 5 percent slopes
194 – Xerofluvents, frequently flooded
4.4.2.3 Aquatic Resources
There are no aquatic features within the Study Area.
4.4.3 Evaluation of Species Identified in the Literature Search BRA Table 1 (Appendix C) lists all the special-status plant and animal species identified in the literature review as having potential to occur within the Study Area. Included in this table is a determination on the potential to occur within the Study Area. Following the table is a brief description and discussion of each special-status species with potential to occur in the Study Area. Results are summarized below.
4.4.3.1 Plants
Fourteen special-status plant species were identified as having the potential to occur within the Study Area based on the literature review. Upon further analysis and site reconnaissance, 11 species were determined to be absent from the Study Area due to the lack of suitable habitat. No further discussion of those species is provided in this assessment. Brief descriptions of the three special-status plants with the potential to occur within the Study Area is presented below. --Scale in Feet
- -450
Map Date: 6/17/2022
Service Layer Credits: City of Roseville, Maxar
Data Source: NRCS gSSURGO (2021)
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
'-ii�� ... ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Map Contents
c:::::J Project Area - 21.22 Acres
Custom
141 - Cometa-Fiddyment complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes
1111 142 - Cometa-Ramona sandy loams, 1 to 5 percent slopes 194 - Xerofluvents, frequently flooded
Figure 4.4-1. Natural Resources
Conservation Service Soil Units
2021-260 City of Roseville Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-23 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Valley Brodiaea
Valley brodiaea (Brodiaea rosea ssp. vallicola) is not listed pursuant to either the federal or California ESAs, but is designated as a CRPR 4.2 species. This species is a bulbiferous perennial herb that occurs in old alluvial terraces and silty, sandy, or gravelly soils in vernal pools, swales, and valley and foothill grassland.
Valley brodiaea blooms from April through May (sometimes June) and is known to occur at elevations ranging from 35 to 1,100 feet above MSL. Valley brodiaea is endemic to California; the current range of this species includes Butte, Calaveras, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Sutter, and Yuba counties (CNPS 2022).
There are no documented CNDDB occurrence of valley brodiaea within 5 miles of the Study Area (CDFW 2022). The grassland within the staging area provides marginally suitable habitat for this species. Valley brodiaea has low potential to occur within the Study Area.
Stinkbells
Stinkbells (Fritillaria agrestis) is not listed pursuant to either the federal or California ESAs, but is designated as a CRPR 4.2 species. This species is a perennial bulbiferous herb that occurs in clay, sometimes serpentinite areas in chaparral, cismontane woodland, pinyon and juniper woodland, and valley and foothill grassland. Stinkbells bloom from March through June and is known to occur at elevations ranging from 35 to 5,100 feet above MSL. This species is endemic to California; its current range includes Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Mendocino, Merced, Monterey, Mariposa, Placer, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, San Benito, Santa Clara, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Ventura, and Yuba counties, and is considered to be extirpated from San Mateo County (CNPS 2022).
There is one documented CNDDB occurrences of stinkbells within 5 miles of the Study Area (CDFW 2022).
The grassland within the staging area provides marginal habitat for this species. Stinkbells has low potential to occur within the Study Area.
Bristly Leptosiphon
Bristly leptosiphon (Leptosiphon acicularis) is not listed pursuant to either the federal or California ESAs but is designated as a CRPR 4.2 species. This species is an annual herb that occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, and valley and foothill grassland. Bristly leptosiphon blooms from April through July and is known to occur at elevations ranging from 180 to 4,920 feet above MSL. Bristly leptosiphon is endemic to California; the current range of this species includes Alameda, Butte, Colusa, Humboldt, Kern, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, Placer, San Benito, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, and Yuba counties (CNPS 2022).
There is no documented CNDDB occurrence of bristly leptosiphon within 5 miles of the Study Area (CDFW 2022). The grassland within the staging area provides marginal habitat for this species. Bristly leptosiphon has low potential to occur within the Project Area.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-24 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.4.3.2 Invertebrates
Five special-status invertebrate species were identified as having potential to occur within the Study Area based on the literature review. Upon further analysis and site reconnaissance, all of the species, conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), vernal pool fairy shrimp (B. lynchi), monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), and valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) were determined to be absent due to an absence of suitable habitat.
No further discussion of these species is provided in this assessment.
4.4.3.3 Fish
Four special-status fish species were identified as having potential to occur within the Study Area based on the literature review. Upon further analysis and site reconnaissance, all four of these species, Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus), delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), Western River lamprey (Lampetra ayresii), and Steelhead (California Central Valley Evolutionarily Significant Unit, Oncorhynchus mykiss) were determined to be absent from the Project Area due to the lack of suitable habitat. No further discussion of these species is provided in this assessment.
4.4.3.4 Amphibians
One special-status amphibian species, western spadefoot (Spea hammondii)), was identified as having the potential to occur within the Study Area based on the literature review. Upon further analysis and site reconnaissance, western spadefoot was determined to be absent from the Study Area due to the lack of suitable habitat. No further discussion of these species is provided in this assessment.
4.4.3.5 Reptiles
Three special-status reptile species were identified as having potential to occur within the Study Area based on the literature review. Upon further analysis and site reconnaissance, all three species, northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), Blainville’s coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), and giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) were determined to be absent due to an absence of suitable habitat. No further discussion of these species is provided in this assessment.
4.4.3.6 Birds
Thirty-six special-status bird species were identified as having potential to occur within the Study Area based on the literature review. Upon further analysis and after the reconnaissance visit, 30 of these species were considered to be absent from the Study Area due to the lack of suitable wintering, foraging, and/or breeding habitat, or because the Study Area is outside of the current known range of the species. Brief descriptions of the remaining six species with the potential to occur within the Study Area are presented below.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-25 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
White-tailed kite
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) is not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESAs; however, the species is fully protected pursuant to Section 3511 of the California Fish and Game Code. This species is a common resident in the Central Valley and the entire length of the California coast, and all areas up to the Sierra Nevada foothills and southeastern deserts (Dunk 2020). In northern California, white-tailed kite nesting occurs from March through early August, with nesting activity peaking from March through June.
Nesting occurs in trees within riparian, oak woodland, savannah, and agricultural communities that are near foraging areas such as low elevation grasslands, agricultural, meadows, farmlands, savannahs, and emergent wetlands (Dunk 2020).
There is one documented CNDDB occurrence of white-tailed kite within 5 miles of the Study Area (CDFW 2022). Mature trees in and immediately adjacent to the Study Area represent potential nesting habitat.
White-tailed kite has potential to nest within the Study Area.
Cooper’s hawk
The Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) is not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESA’s, however, it is a CDFW watch list species and is currently tracked in the CNDDB. Typical nesting and foraging habitats include riparian woodland, dense oak woodland, and other woodlands near water.
Cooper’s hawk nest throughout California from Siskiyou County to San Diego County and includes the Central Valley (Rosenfield et al. 2020). Breeding occurs during March through July, with a peak from May through July.
There are no documented CNDDB occurrences of Cooper’s hawk within 5 miles of the Study Area (CDFW 2022). Mature trees in and immediately adjacent to the Study Area represent potential nesting habitat.
Cooper’s hawk has potential to nest within the Study Area.
Swainson’s Hawk
The Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is listed as a threatened species and is protected pursuant to the California ESA. This species nests in North America (Canada, western U.S., and Mexico) and typically winters from South America north to Mexico. However, a small population has been observed wintering in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Bechard et al. 2020). In California, the nesting season for Swainson’s hawk ranges from mid-March to late August. Swainson’s hawks nest within tall trees in a variety of wooded communities including riparian, oak woodland, roadside landscape corridors, urban areas, and agricultural areas, among others. Foraging habitat includes open grassland, savannah, lowcover row crop fields, and livestock pastures. In the Central Valley, Swainson’s hawks typically feed on a combination of California vole (Microtus californicus), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), many passerine birds, and grasshoppers (Melanopulus species). Swainson’s hawks are opportunistic foragers and will readily forage in association with agricultural mowing, harvesting, disking, and irrigating (Estep 1989). The removal of vegetative cover by such farming activities results in more readily available prey items for this species.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-26 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
There are five documented CNDDB occurrence of Swainson’s hawk within 5 miles of the Study Area (CDFW 2022). There is no suitable nesting or foraging habitat in the Study Area, but marginal nesting habitat is present in adjacent trees on the golf course and in the adjacent open space preserves.
Swainson’s hawk has potential to nest within the vicinity of the Study Area.
Nuttall’s Woodpecker
The Nuttall’s woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii) is not listed and protected under either state or federal ESAs but is considered a USFWS BCC. They are resident from Siskiyou County south to Baja California.
Nuttall’s woodpeckers nest in tree cavities primarily within oak woodlands, but also can be found in riparian woodlands (Lowther et al. 2020). Breeding occurs during April through July.
There are no documented CNDDB occurrence of Nuttall’s Woodpecker within 5 miles of the Study Area (CDFW 2022). Mature oak trees in the Pleasant Grove Boulevard median represent potential nesting habitat. Nuttall’s woodpecker has potential to nest within the Study Area.
Yellow-billed Magpie
The yellow-billed magpie (Pica nuttallii) is not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESAs but is considered a USFWS BCC. This endemic species is a yearlong resident of the Central Valley and Coast Ranges from San Francisco Bay to Santa Barbara County. Yellow-billed magpies build large, bulky nests in trees in a variety of open woodland habitats, typically near grassland, pastures or cropland. Nest building begins in late-January to mid-February, which may take up to 6 to 8 weeks to complete, with eggs laid during April-May, and fledging during May-June (Koenig and Reynolds 2020). The young leave the nest at about 30 days after hatching (Koenig and Reynolds 2020). Yellow-billed magpies are highly susceptible to West Nile Virus, which may have been the cause of death to thousands of magpies during 2004-2006 (Koenig and Reynolds 2020).
There are no documented CNDDB occurrences of yellow-billed magpie within 5 miles of the Study Area (CDFW 2022). Mature trees within the Pleasant Grove Boulevard median represent potential nesting habitat. Yellow-billed magpie has potential to nest within the Study Area.
Oak Titmouse
Oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus) are not listed and protected under either state or federal ESAs but are considered a USFWS BCC. Oak titmouse breeding range includes southwestern Oregon south through California’s Coast, Transverse and Peninsular ranges, western foothills of the Sierra Nevada, into Baja California; they are absent from the humid northwestern coastal region and the San Joaquin Valley (Cicero et al. 2020). They are found in dry oak or oak-pine woodlands but may also use scrub oaks or other brush near woodlands (Cicero et al. 2020). Nesting occurs during March through July.
There are no documented CNDDB occurrences of oak titmouse within 5 miles of the Study Area (CDFW 2022). Mature trees in median represent potential nesting habitat. Oak titmouse has potential to nest within the Study Area.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-27 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.4.3.7 Mammals
Four special-status mammal species were identified as having potential to occur within the Study Area based on the literature review. Upon further analysis and after the reconnaissance visit, two of those species, American badger (Taxidea taxus) and western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), were considered to be absent due to the lack of suitable habitat. A brief description of the remaining species with the potential to occur within the Study Area is presented below.
Townsend’s Big Ear Bat
Townsend’s big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii) are not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESAs; however, it is designated as a Species of Special Concern (SSC) by the CDFW and a sensitive species by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. This species is found in all alpine and subalpine habitats throughout California, and may be found any season throughout its range (Zeiner et al. 1990). Roosting habitat includes caves, tunnels, mines, buildings, bridges and other manufactured structures (Zeiner et al. 1990). Maternity roosts are found in caves, tunnels, mines, and buildings in small groups (usually fewer than 100 individuals) of females and young (Zeiner et al. 1990). Maternity colonies are in warmer parts of caves with males apparently solitary during the maternity period (Harvey et al. 2011). Townsend’s big-eared bat will return each year to roosting sites (Harvey et al. 2011). Mating occurs during autumn and continues into winter with one offspring born in June (Harvey et al. 2011).
There are no documented CNDDB occurrences Townsend’s big ear bat within 5 miles of the Study Area (CDFW 2022). Crevices in existing bridge overpass adjacent to the Study Area provide marginal suitable roosting habitat. Townsend’s big ear bat has low potential to occur within the Study Area.
Pallid Bat
Pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) are not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESAs; however, it is designated as an SSC by the CDFW and a sensitive species by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Their range extends from British Columbia to central Mexico (Harvey et al. 2011). Pallid bat has a strong association with arid regions with rocky outcrops near water (Harvey et al. 2011). Roosting usually occurs in rock crevices and buildings, but is also found in tree cavities, caves, mines, and piles of rocks (Harvey et al. 2011). Pallid bat roosts in small colonies of 20 or more individuals (Harvey et al. 2011). This species will give birth to one to two offspring in May or June (Harvey et al. 2011).
There are no documented CNDDB occurrences of pallid bat within 5 miles of the Study Area (CDFW 2022).
Crevices in existing bridge overpass adjacent to the Study Area provide marginal suitable roosting habitat.
Pallid bat has low potential to occur within the Study Area.
4.4.4 Sensitive Natural Communities
Six sensitive natural communities were identified as having the potential to occur within the Study Area based on the literature review: Alkali Meadow, Alkali Seep, Northern Claypan Vernal Pool, Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool, Northern Volcanic Mud Flow Vernal Pool, and Valley Needlegrass Grassland (CDFW Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-28 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
2022) (See Appendix C, Attachment A). None of these communities were found to occur during the site assessment.
4.4.5 Wildlife Movement/Corridors and Nursery Sites
The Study Area is located among developed residential and commercial landscapes. The majority of the Study Area is within an existing road that is heavily trafficked on a daily basis. These areas are not expected to support significant wildlife movement corridors.
For the purpose of this analysis, nursery sites include but are not limited to concentrations of nest or den sites such as heron rookeries or bat maternity roosts. This data is available through CDFW’s Biogeographic Information and Observation System database or as occurrence records in the CNDDB and is supplemented with the results of the field reconnaissance. No nursery sites have been documented within the Study Area (CDFW 2022) and none were observed during the site reconnaissance.
4.4.6 Critical Habitat
The Study Area is not designated Critical Habitat for any federally listed species (USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation 2022).
4.4.7 Protected Trees
There are several oak trees within the median portion of the Study Area that are protected by the City of Roseville Tree Preservation Ordinance. An Arborist survey (Level 2 – Basic Visual Assessment) has been completed for the Project (see IS/MND Appendix A). In total, 64 trees were inventoried during the survey and a total of 46 trees were found to be protected trees as defined by the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. The City of Roseville defines a Protected Tree as any native oak tree equal to or greater than 6 inches in diameter DBH, measured as a total of a single trunk or multiple trunks. Based on the Arborist assessment, a total of 45 trees are located within the existing center median (and one tree is located north of Pleasant Grove Boulevard approximately 880 feet east of the Foothills Boulevard) and are recommended for removal. Of these, 37 are protected native oak trees with a combined DBH of 446 inches.
4.4.8 Biological Resources (IV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus 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?
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-29 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Less than Significant Impact with Additional Mitigation According to the GPU EIR, full buildout of the General Plan would involve conversion of habitat that may be suitable for special-status plant and wildlife species to developed use. In addition to direct removal of special-status plant and wildlife habitat, development would result in habitat modification that could degrade habitat quality to a degree that it is no longer suitable for special-status plants to regenerate or for special status wildlife to reproduce, and these plant and wildlife populations could eventually die out.
Also, development would include construction activities that could result in direct take of individual special-status wildlife species. The GPU EIR finds the impact to special status plant and wildlife species is addressed by adopted General Plan Goals and Policies, combined with current laws and regulations, and GPU EIR mitigation measures 4.8-1 (Implement Measures for Special-Status Plants and Habitat) and 4.8-2 (Implementation Measure for Special-Status Wildlife). These measures would be implemented when a potentially significant impact to special status plant and/or wildlife species is identified. With implementation of the above, impacts to special status plant and wildlife species were found to be less than significant.
The Project would result in temporary and permanent disturbance to upland areas and trees within the Pleasant Grove Boulevard median, within the additional right-of-way area required at the northeast corner of the Foothills Boulevard intersection, and within the temporary staging area. These impacts are addressed below.
4.4.8.1 Special Status Plants
With regard to special status plants, while there is marginal habitat for three CRPR 4 species (i.e., valley brodiaea, stinkbells, and bristly leptosiphon) within the designated staging area; these species have low potential to occur. Minor temporary impacts associated with equipment staging and vehicle assess are anticipated in the staging area. The Project is not anticipated to have significant adverse effects to specialstatus plants given the small amount of marginal habitat present, the low likelihood for these species to occur, and the minor temporary impacts of construction staging. Thus, impacts to special status plants are less than significant and no new impact would occur.
4.4.8.2 Special Status Wildlife – Birds and Bats
With regard to special status wildlife, construction activities, including tree trimming and removal, have the potential to impact nesting birds (including raptors) if present within or adjacent to construction activities. This is considered a potentially significant impact. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which is a “project level” refinement of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure 4.8-2, the Project would result in a less than significant impact with additional mitigation.
With regard to special status wildlife, construction activities adjacent to the Pleasant Grove Boulevard bridge/culvert undercrossing located west of Misty Wood Drive could also result in impacts to roosting bats if present. This is also considered a potentially significant impact. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, which also represents a “project level” refinement of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure 4.8-2, the Project would result in a less than significant impact with additional mitigation.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-30 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, General Plan buildout would involve conversion of riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities to developed use. In addition to direct removal of habitat, General Plan buildout would result in habitat modification that could degrade habitat quality to a degree that it is no longer suitable for riparian plants or other sensitive natural communities to regenerate, and these habitats and communities could eventually die out. This was considered a potentially significant impact. The GPU EIR finds that, with Implementation of adopted General Plan Goals and Policies, combined with current laws, regulations, and policies, the impact on riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities would be reduced to less than significant.
The Project Study Area does not support any riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities. Thus, the Project would not have an adverse effect on riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities and there would be no new impact.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
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?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, buildout of the General Plan would involve conversion of wetlands and other waters to developed use. In addition to direct removal of wetlands and other waters, buildout of the General Plan would result in wetlands modification that could degrade habitat quality. These impacts were found to be potentially significant. Because much of the sensitive habitat in the Planning Area is already designated for preservation as open space, implementation of all General Plan adopted goals and policies, combined with current laws, regulations, and GPU EIR Mitigation Measures 4.8-1, 4.8-2, 4.8-3, and 4.8-4, impacts to wetlands and other waters would be reduced to less-than-significant.
The Project Study Area does not support any aquatic resources. Thus, the Project would not have an adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands and there would be no new impact.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-31 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
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?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, General Plan buildout Plan would involve conversion of habitat to developed use that could provide wildlife movement corridors and nursery sites. In addition to direct removal of habitat, buildout of the General Plan would result in habitat modification that could degrade habitat quality to a degree that it is no longer suitable for use as wildlife movement corridors and/or nursery sites.
This impact was found to be potentially significant. With implementation of all adopted goals and policies in the existing General Plan, combined with current laws, regulations, and Mitigation Measures 4.8-1, 4.8- 2, 4.8-3, and 4.8-4, impacts to wildlife corridors and nursery sites would be reduced to a less-thansignificant because these provisions would require projects to identify, avoid, and preserve habitats that function as wildlife migration corridors, including riparian areas and wetlands, or provide compensation for loss of habitat in coordination with state and federal agencies. In addition, proposed GPU policies that require protection of special-status species and their habitats also protect riparian areas, wetlands, and drainages that can be used as wildlife corridors. Finally, implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure
4.8-2 will ensure protection of nesting colonies of purple martin, a CDFW special-status species.
The Project Study Area is located among developed residential and commercial landscapes and an existing road. These uses do not support significant wildlife movement corridors and therefore, the Project would not interfere with wildlife movement. Furthermore, no nursery sites have been documented within the Study Area (CDFW 2022) and none were observed during the site reconnaissance. Thus, Project impacts to migratory wildlife corridors, and/or the use of native wildlife nursery sites is less than significant and there would be no new impact.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, General Plan buildout would involve conversion of habitat to developed use that will require oak tree removal, which would be subject to the City’s ordinances and policies regarding oak tree preservation and mitigation. The City of Roseville Tree Preservation Ordinance requires a permit Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-32 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
and mitigation for removal of oak trees greater than 6 inches in diameter DBH. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant by the GPU EIR.
As discussed above, the City’s Native Oak Tree Ordinance (Roseville Municipal Code Chapter 19.66 Tree Preservation) regulates removal of native oaks and construction activities that occur within a native oak’s protected zone (defined as the drip line plus 1 foot). The Project is required to comply with Ordinance requirements, and an Arborist Report has been prepared for the Project. According to the Arborist Report, a total of 45 trees are recommended for removal due to proposed road widening improvements, 37 of which are protected trees with a total DBH removal of 446”. For the location of trees currently identified for removal, refer to Arborist Report Appendix B: Tree Disposition Map (See IS/MND Appendix A).
According to City Ordinance, trees must be replaced at a ratio of one inch DBH of tree replaced for each one inch DBH of tree removed (1:1 ratio). This may be achieved with on-site or off-site replacement, or payment of in lieu fees. The replacement trees shall have a combined diameter equivalent not less than the total diameter of the tree(s) removed. As indicated in the Project Description, the Project will comply with all applicable Ordinance requirements. Thus, Project impacts would be reduced to less than significant and there would be no new impact.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
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?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, there is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State HCP that applies to the Planning Area. This impact was found to be less than significant.
As stated above, the City and Project Study Area are not currently covered by any local, regional, or state conservation plan. While the Study Area is within the vicinity of the Placer County Conservation Program (PCCP), the City of Roseville is not a participating entity in the PCCP and the Study Area is excluded from the PCCP development area (PCCP 2020). Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a local, regional, or state conservation plan and there would be no new impact.
4.4.9 Mitigation Measures
BIO-1: Construct the Project during the Nonbreeding Season or Conduct Pre-Construction Surveys for Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors
To the extent feasible, the City will remove trees and large shrubs during the nonbreeding season for migratory birds and raptors (generally between September 1 and February 28).
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-33 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
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 in open space area areas the construction zone will be surveyed for raptors. For survey areas outside the project site, the biologist 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 the public road. 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 sitespecific 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.
BIO-2: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Roosting Bats and Implement Protection Measures
To obtain the highest likelihood of detection, the following preconstruction bat surveys will be conducted within and adjacent to the construction area for each construction season. If the surveys determine that bats are roosting in the construction area, the City will implement the protective measures described below.
Conduct Preconstruction Tree Surveys
Prior to tree removal or pruning, qualified biologists will examine trees to be removed or pruned for suitable bat roosting habitat. High-value habitat features (e.g., large tree cavities, basal hollows, loose or peeling bark, and larger snags,) will be identified, and the area around these features will be searched for bats and bat sign (e.g., guano, culled insect parts, and staining). All mature broadleaf trees should be considered potential habitat for solitary foliage-roosting bat species.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-34 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
If bat sign is detected, biologists will conduct evening visual emergence survey of the source habitat feature, from a half hour before sunset to 1–2 hours after sunset for a minimum of 2 nights during the season that construction would be taking place. Night-vision goggles and/or full-spectrum acoustic detectors will be used during emergence surveys to assist in species identification. All emergence surveys will be conducted during favorable weather conditions (calm nights with temperatures conducive to bat activity and no precipitation predicted). Survey methodology may be supplemented as new research identifies advanced survey techniques and equipment that would aid in bat detections.
Identify Protective Measures for Bats Using Trees
If it is determined that bats are using trees within or adjacent to the construction area as roost sites, the City (or its designated contractor) will coordinate with CDFW to identify protective measures to avoid and minimize impacts on roosting bats based on the type of roost and timing of activities. These measures could include the following measures. If feasible, tree removal and pruning of trees containing an active roost will be avoided between April 1 and September 15 (the maternity period) to avoid impacts on reproductively active females and dependent young.
If a maternity roost is located, whether solitary or colonial, that roost will remain undisturbed until September 15 or until a qualified biologist has determined that the roost is no longer active.
If avoidance of nonmaternity roost trees is not possible, tree removal or pruning will be monitored by a qualified biologist. Prior to removal or pruning, the tree will be gently shaken, and several minutes should pass before felling trees or pruning limbs to allow bats time to arouse and leave the tree. The tree then will be removed in pieces, rather than felling the entire tree. The biologists will search downed vegetation for dead and injured bats. The presence of dead or injured bats that are species of special concern will be reported to CDFW.
Conduct Preconstruction Surveys of Culverts
Prior to any work to replace, extend, or remove culverts, a qualified biologist will inspect box and pipe culverts for the presence of roosting bats. The biologist will conduct a daytime inspection/survey of box culverts for bat sign or occupancy to determine whether the structure is being used as a roost. The biologist conducting daytime surveys will listen for audible bat calls and will use the naked eye, binoculars, telescoping inspection mirror, and a high-powered spotlight to inspect culverts, and mud nests if present, for bats.
Surfaces and the ground around the culvert will be surveyed for bat sign, such as guano, staining, and prey remains. Pipe culverts will be inspected from the exterior using the methods listed. If no suitable features are found, and no bats or bat sign are present, then a preconstruction survey within 24 hours prior to construction will be conducted. If suitable features are found, and bats or bat sign are present, additional surveys may be conducted to Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-35 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
determine how the culvert is used by bats (i.e., whether it is used as a night roost, maternity roost, migration stopover, or for hibernation).
Implement Protective Measures for Bats Using Culverts
To avoid disturbance, injury, or mortality of bats utilizing culverts for roosting, the City (or its contractor) will conduct all work on these structures during the day (to the extent possible and where appropriate). If this is not possible, portable lights will be used to illuminate the roosting areas prior to and after sunset to deter bats from roosting during nights when work will occur.
4.5 Cultural Resources
ECORP Consulting, Inc. prepared the Confidential Cultural Resources Inventory and Report (ECORP 2022c, Appendix D) for the proposed Project to determine if cultural resources were present in or adjacent to the Project Area and assess the sensitivity of the Project Area for undiscovered or buried cultural resources.
The information provided below is an abridged version of the Cultural Resources Inventory Report and is included here to provide a brief context of the potential cultural resources in the Project Area. Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources and their records, which are restricted from public distribution by state and federal law, the IS/MND appendices do not include the cultural resources report; however, all pertinent information necessary for impact determinations is included in this section. A redacted version of the cultural resources report that does not include site records or locations may be requested by contacting the City of Roseville.
4.5.1 Methods
4.5.1.1 Personnel Qualifications
Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) Brian S. Marks, Ph.D. who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historical archaeology, was responsible for the cultural resource investigation. Staff Archaeologist Laurel Zickler-Martin, RPA conducted the fieldwork.
Staff Archaeologists Megan Webb and Laurel Zickler-Martin prepared the technical report. Lisa Westwood, RPA provided technical report review and quality assurance.
Dr. Marks was the Principal Investigator and has been an archaeologist since 1997. He has been working in cultural resources management in California since 2010 following eight years of archaeological work in the southeast U.S. Dr. Marks holds a Ph.D. and an M.S. in Anthropology.
Laurel Zickler-Martin, RPA is a Staff Archaeologist at ECORP with more than 10 years of experience in cultural resources management in California and the Great Basin, as well as project experience in Washington and Oregon.
Megan Webb is a Staff Archaeologist for ECORP with 8 years of experience in cultural resources management, primarily in California. She holds a B.A. in Anthropology and has participated in all aspects Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-36 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
of archaeological fieldwork, including survey, test excavation, and data recovery, in addition to months of archaeological lab experience.
Lisa Westwood, RPA has 26 years of experience and meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historical archaeology. She holds a B.A. in Anthropology and an M.A. in Anthropology (Archaeology). She is the Director of Cultural Resources for ECORP.
4.5.1.2 Records Search Methods
ECORP requested a records search for the Project area at the North Central Information Center (NCIC) of the California Historic Resources Information System Center (CHRIS) at California State UniversitySacramento on June 1, 2022 (NCIC search #PLA-22-59; Appendix 1). The purpose of the records search was to determine the extent of previous surveys within 100 feet of the Project Area surrounding Pleasant Grove Boulevard and a 0.25-mile buffer around proposed staging area, and whether previously documented pre-contact or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, or traditional cultural properties exist within this area. This narrow records search radius approach was chosen due the Project limits being confined to the right-of-way of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and the fact that the surrounding development around the roadway is modern in age, and those developments would have been subject to environmental review and permitting supported by cultural resources technical studies. Therefore, the expectation is that real data on the presence or absence of cultural resources adjacent to the Project area is available, and that a larger radius to capture data from more distant studies in order to predict sensitivity of the current project area is not necessary. NCIC staff completed and returned the records search to ECORP on June 1, 2022.
In addition to the official records and maps for archaeological sites and surveys in Placer County, the following historic references were also reviewed: Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD; Office of Historic Preservation [OHP] 2020); Historic Property Data File for Placer County (OHP 2012); The National Register Information System (National Park Service [NPS] 2022); Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Landmarks (CHL; OHP 2022); CHL (OHP 1996 and updates); California Points of Historical Interest (OHP 1992 and updates); Directory of Properties in the Historical Resources Inventory (1999); California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Local Bridge Survey (Caltrans 2019); Caltrans State Bridge Survey (Caltrans 2018); and Historic Spots in California (Kyle 2002).
Other references examined include a RealQuest Property Search and historic General Land Office (GLO) land patent records (Bureau of Land Management [BLM] 2022). Historic maps reviewed include:
1855 BLM GLO Plat map for Township 11 North Range 6 East; 1891 USGS Sacramento, California topographic quadrangle map (1:125,000 scale); 1910 USGS Roseville, California topographic quadrangle map (1:31,680 scale); 1953 USGS Roseville, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale); 1967 USGS Roseville, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale); Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-37 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
1967 photo revised 1981 USGS Roseville, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale); and
1992 USGS Roseville, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale).
Historic aerial photos taken in 1947, 1957, 1964, 1966, and more recent aerial photos from 1993 to present were also reviewed for any indications of property usage and built environment.
4.5.1.3 Sacred Lands File Coordination Methods
In addition to the records search, ECORP contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on June 1, 2022 to request a search of the Sacred Lands File for the Project Area. This search determines whether or not the California Native American tribes within the Project Area have recorded Sacred Lands, because the Sacred Lands File is populated by members of the Native American community with knowledge about the locations of tribal resources. In requesting a search of the Sacred Lands File, ECORP solicited information from the Native American community regarding Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), but the responsibility to formally consult with the Native American community lies exclusively with the federal and local agencies under applicable state and federal laws. The lead agencies have not delegated authority to ECORP to conduct tribal consultation.
4.5.1.4 Other Interested Party Consultation Methods
ECORP mailed letters to the Placer County Historical Society and the Roseville Historical Society on June 1, 2022 to solicit comments or obtain historical information that the repository might have regarding events, people, or resources of historical significance in the area .
4.5.1.5 Field Methods
ECORP subjected the Project Area to an intensive pedestrian survey on June 9, 2022 under the guidance of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Identification of Historic Properties (NPS 1983) using approximately 15-meter transects, when feasible. The shoulders of the right-of-way of Pleasant Grove Boulevard were surveyed and exposed ground within the medians was inspected during the pedestrian survey. The staging area at the eastern end of the Project Area was surveyed using 15-meter transects.
ECORP expended 0.5 person-day in the field. At the time, the ground surface was examined for indications of surface or subsurface cultural resources. The general morphological characteristics of the ground surface were inspected for indications of subsurface deposits that may be manifested on the surface, such as circular depressions or ditches. Whenever possible, ECORP examined the locations of subsurface exposures caused by such factors as rodent activity, water or soil erosion, or vegetation disturbances for artifacts or for indications of buried deposits. No subsurface investigations or artifact collections were undertaken during the pedestrian survey.
4.5.2 Environmental Setting
The Project Area is located in the transition zone between the Central Valley and the Sierra Nevada foothills. It is located along a modern existing roadway and is surrounded by suburban residential and Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-38 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
commercial development. The terrain is relatively flat, and elevations range from 120 to 170 feet above mean sea level. Approximately 1,000 feet west of Foothills Boulevard, the south branch of Pleasant Grove Creek passes beneath the Pleasant Grove Boulevard roadway located within the Project Area. The Project Area is located within a mixed-use area of Roseville, amid commercial and high-density residential land uses.
For a discussion of the Project area’s prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic setting, refer to GPU EIR Chapter 4.9 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Section 4.9.2 Environmental Setting.
4.5.3 Research Results
4.5.3.1 Previous Research
Twelve previous cultural resource investigations have been conducted in or within the records search radius of the property, covering approximately 80 percent of the total area surrounding the property within the records search radius (Table 4.5-1). Of the 12 studies, four were conducted within the Project Area and the other eight were within the 0.5-mile radius.
Table 4.5-1. Previous Cultural Studies in the Project Area or within the Records Search Radius Report
Number Author(s) Report Title Year
Includes
Portion of
the Project
Area?
21 Daniel G. Foster
An Archeological Assessment of the Electronic
Arrays Project, 73 Acres in Placer County,
California
1981 No
274 Maniery, James Gary
and Mary L. Maniery
Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of
Rich, Shenker, and Carlsberg Parcels, Roseville,
Placer County, California
1986 Yes
367 Foster, John W. and
Daniel G. Foster
An Archeological Reconnaissance of the
Diamond Oaks North Property, Placer County,
California
1982 No
368 Foster, Daniel G. and
John W. Foster
An Archeological Reconnaissance of the Roseville
- Placer County - Rocklin West Sewer Assessment
District
1981 Yes
2807 Hatoff, B. and A.
Wesson
Roseville Energy Facility Cultural Resources
Appendix J of Application for Certification 2001 Yes
3858 Ric Windmiller
Cultural Resources Inventory Of The Pleasant
Grove Boulevard Overcrossing Roseville, Placer
County, California
1994 No
6052 Peak & Associates, Inc. Cultural Resource Assessment of The Diamond Plaza Development 2004 No
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-39 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Table 4.5-1. Previous Cultural Studies in the Project Area or within the Records Search Radius Report
Number Author(s) Report Title Year
Includes
Portion of
the Project
Area?
6959 ECORP Consulting, Inc. Cultural Resource Inventory Diamond Plaza Placer County, California Project 2005-039 2006 No
8619 Cindy Arrington et al
Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring
and Findings for the Qwest Network Construction
Project, State of California
2006 Yes
10053 Angel Tomes Roseville Downtown Land Use Plan, Cultural Resource Assessment, Placer County, California 2007 No
10829 David R. Cohen
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit
for T-Mobile West Corporation a Delaware
Corporation Candidate SC54512-A (Woodcreek
Plaza), 7456 Foothills Boulevard, Roseville, Placer
County, California
2011 No
12765 Ric Windmiller
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Foothill Boulevard
Property Cultural Resources Inventory/Evaluation
Report Roseville, Placer County, California
2018 No
The results of the records search indicate that the majority of the property has been previously surveyed for cultural resources; however, these four previous studies were conducted between 16 and 41 years ago under obsolete standards. Two of the previous surveys occurred in 1981 and 1986, which was prior to the construction of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. The two most recent surveys from 2001 and 2006 did not cover the entire Project Area. The most recent surveys to cover most but not the entire current Project Area were conducted in 1986 and 2001. Therefore, ECORP conducted a pedestrian survey of the Project Area under current protocols. No cultural resources were previously recorded within the Project Area as a result of the previous studies.
The records search also determined that six previously recorded pre-contact and historic-era cultural resources are located within 0.5 mile of the Project Area (Table 4.5-2). Of these, four are believed to be associated with Native American occupation of the vicinity, and two are historic-era sites associated with the railroad and a trash scatter. There are no previously recorded cultural resources within the Project Area. There are two pre-contact isolates recorded in 1986 along the South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek.
This waterway passes under an existing bridge within the Project Area.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-40 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Table 4.5-2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Records Search Radius Site
Number
CA-PLAPrimary
Number
P-31-
Recorder and Year Age/
Period Site Description Within Project Area?
- 26
J. Maniery, T. Ekness-Hoyle,
Public Anthropological
Research, 1986
Precontact
Isolate – Mano fragment No
- 27
J. Maniery, T. Ekness-Hoyle,
Public Anthropological
Research, 1986
Precontact
Isolate – Mano fragment No
- 41
J. Maniery, T. Ekness-Hoyle,
Public Anthropological
Research, 1986
Precontact
Isolate – Pestle fragment No; adjacent to
Project Area
- 42
J. Maniery, T. Ekness-Hoyle,
Public Anthropological
Research, 1986
Precontact Isolate – Metate fragment No; adjacent to
Project Area
690H 816 Patti Johnson, 1990 and
updates Historic Union Pacific Railroad No
1128H 1462 Ric Windmiller Consulting
Archaeologist, 1994 Historic Artifact deposit along railroad No
4.5.3.2 Records
The OHP’s BERD for Placer County (dated March 3, 2020) did not include any resources within the Project Area (OHP 2020). There are numerous properties included on the list in the City of Roseville; however, the Project has no potential to impact these properties.
The National Register Information System (NPS 2022) failed to reveal any eligible or listed properties within the Project Area. The nearest National Register property, the Carnegie Library, is 1.7 miles southeast of the Project Area in downtown Roseville.
ECORP reviewed resources listed as CHL (OHP 1996) by the OHP (2022) on June 16, 2022. The nearest listed landmark is #780-1: First transcontinental railroad, Roseville (plaque located 2 miles southeast of the Project Area).
A review of Historic Spots in California (Kyle 2002) mentions CHL #780-1 as well, which commemorates the day that the first transcontinental railroad reached the town of Junction, now called Roseville.
The Caltrans Bridge Local and State Inventories (Caltrans 2018, 2019) did not list any historic-period bridges in or within 0.5 mile of the Project Area. However, one modern bridge, Bridge No. 19C0214, is present within the Project Area. Local bridge 19C0214 carries Pleasant Grove Boulevard over the South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek, 0.8 mile east of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard Road. The bridge has a Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-41 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
continuous concrete span with a culvert span design. It was constructed in 1991 and was evaluated by Caltrans as a Category 5 bridge, not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C.
Historic GLO land patent records from the BLM’s patent information database (BLM 2022) revealed that because the Project Area is linear and crosses two sections, the land has been patented several times (Table 4.5-3). A 160-acre plot was granted in 1861 to Benjamin Franklin Leet and Rudolph Wurttenberger and another 160 acres to Lucius Anson Booth and William Fulton, which both encompassed portions of the Project Area. No additional information was found on these individuals. The federal government granted public land to the railroads, which the railroad could then sell to finance railroad construction.
The Project Area land was part of almost 45,000 acres and 18,800 acres in California granted to the Central Pacific Railroad, which later became part of the Southern Pacific Railroad, and the State of California.
Portions of the Project Area were patented in 1861 and 1866.
Table 4.5-3. GLO Land Patent Records
Patentee Patent Date Serial Number Patent Type/Authority Location Benjamin Franklin Leet
and Rudolph
Wurttenberger
10/1/1861 CACAAA 043056 March 3, 1855: Scrip Warrant
Act of 1855 (10 Stat. 701)
160 acres; SE ¼ of
Sec 29 of T11N
R6E
Central Pacific Railroad 1/4/1866 CACAAA 039763 July 1, 1862: Grant-RR Union and Central (12 Stat. 489)
45,430 acres
including the W ½
of Sec 29 of T11N
R6E
State of California 4/17/1866 CACAAA 000562
September 4, 1841: GrantCertain Land to State (5 Stat. 453)
18,748.35 acres
including the SE ¼
and N ½ of SW ¼
of Sec 28 of T11N
R6E
Lucius Anson Booth and
William Fulton 10/25/1861 CACAAA 043061 March 17, 1842: Scrip or Nature of Scrip (5 Stat. 607) 160 acres; S ½ SW
¼ of Sec 29 and N
½ NW ¼ of Sec
33 of T11N R6E
The Handbook of North American Indians (Wilson and Towne 1978) lists the nearest Native American villages as Pichiku, located approximately 3 miles southeast of Roseville.
4.5.3.3 Map Review and Aerial Photographs
The review of historical aerial photographs and maps of the Project Area provide information on the past land uses of the property and potential for buried archaeological sites. This information shows the property was initially used for open land prior to modern development of land located northeast of historic downtown Roseville. Following is a summary of the review of historical maps and photographs.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-42 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
The 1855 BLM GLO Plat map for Township 11 North Range 6 East shows the South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek meandering through Sections 28 and 29. No development is depicted within the Project Area.
The 1891 USGS Sacramento, California (1:125,000 scale) map depicts the town of Roseville and the Southern Pacific Railroad southeast of the Project Area. The Project Area is undeveloped with a branch of Pleasant Grove Creek meandering through a small portion of the Project Area. The 1910 USGS Roseville, California (1:31,680 scale) map depicts the Project Area land as undeveloped and located northwest of the town of Roseville. A branch of Pleasant Grove Creek and an unimproved road, which does not correspond with any modern road alignment, are depicted as passing through the linear Project Area. No other development is depicted within the Project Area. Kaseberg Creek is depicted south of the western end of the Project Area. Aerial photographs taken in 1947 show the Project Area, and land north of Roseville, as undeveloped oak woodland and grasslands. The Southern Pacific Railroad is at the eastern end of the Project Area. The unimproved road depicted on the 1910 topographic map is visible on the 1947 aerial and appears to be a two-track dirt road. A branch of Pleasant Grove Creek passes through the Project Area. Kaseberg Creek is located south of the western end of the Project Area with no riparian vegetation visible.
The 1953 USGS Roseville, California (7.5-minute) map depicts the Project Area as undeveloped land with a branch of Pleasant Grove Creek intersecting the Project Area. The unimproved road continues to be depicted.
No changes or development within the Project Area are visible on aerial photographs from 1947, 1957, and 1966.
Aerial photographs taken in 1984 reveal a north/south road, today’s Foothills Boulevard, present in the eastern end of the Project Area. Pleasant Grove Boulevard had yet to be constructed in 1984.
The 1992 USGS Roseville, California (7.5-minute) map depicts Pleasant Grove Boulevard. Aerial photographs from 1993 show Pleasant Grove Boulevard within the Project Area and modern development beginning to surround the road. Bridge No 19C0214 is visible on the 1993 aerials over Pleasant Grove Creek. The 1998 aerial reveals that modern development has impacted the two-track dirt road depicted on earlier maps and aerials and is no longer present. By the 2005 aerials, the Project Area exists as it is today, a developed roadway surrounded by residential commercial development.
In sum, the property was undeveloped and vacant since at least 1855, and by 1993 Pleasant Grove Boulevard was constructed within the Project Area. Modern development surrounds the roadway today.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-43 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.5.3.4 Sacred Lands File Results
The results of the NAHC search of the Sacred Lands File are still pending.
4.5.3.5 Other Interested Party Consultation Results
ECORP has not received any responses to the letters sent to the Placer County Historical Society and the Roseville Historical Society as of the date of the preparation of this document.
4.5.3.6 Field Survey Results
An ECORP archaeologist surveyed the Project Area for cultural resources on June 9, 2022. The entire Project Area is either paved over, built out, or contains landscaping (Figures 4.5-1 and 4.5-2). Alongside and within the road alignment for Pleasant Grove Boulevard, any safely accessible exposed ground was examined for evidence of pre-contact or historic-period cultural material, or cultural soils. Visibility was generally very poor (10 to 50 percent) as the alignment and right-of-way were paved or heavily landscaped. The same was true of the median, which also contained compact gravel fill in addition to landscaping and trees (Figures 4.5-3 and 4.5-4). No cultural resources were identified as a result of the pedestrian survey of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. Pleasant Grove Boulevard makes up the entire Project Area and was constructed in the 1990s; therefore, it is considered modern because it is less than 50 years old.
Figure 4.5-1. Overview from western end of Project Area, 700 feet west of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard (view east-southeast; June 9, 2022).
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-44 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Figure 4.5-2. Paved, mulched, and landscaped median in Pleasant Grove Boulevard (view southwest; June 9, 2022).
Figure 4.5-3. Overview: area of increased visibility in Pleasant Grove Boulevard median, south of Woodcreek Oaks Preserve (view east-northeast; June 9, 2022).
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-45 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Figure 4.5-4. Overview: northern Project Area boundary at Foothills Boulevard (view southeast, June 9, 2022).
Staging Area at Assessor’s Parcel Number 017-410-043-000 The staging area at the eastern end of the Project Area had been disturbed in the early 1990s for the construction of the Pleasant Grove Boulevard overpass over the Southern Pacific Railroad (outside of the Project Area) and was overgrown with invasive vegetation see (Figures 5.5-5 and 4.5-6). Visibility was less than 10 percent. Two modern, user-created dirt roads are present crossing the staging parcel; these areas of exposed soil were closely examined for any evidence of pre-contact or historic-period cultural material, or cultural soils. No cultural resources were identified as a result of the pedestrian survey of the proposed staging area.
Figure 4.5-5. Overview: staging area at eastern end of Project Area; Pleasant Grove Boulevard overpass, background left (view west-southwest, June 9, 2022).
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-46 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Figure 4.5-6. Overview: dense invasive vegetation in staging area (view northeast, June 9, 2022).
4.5.4 Cultural Resources (V) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, it is possible that development planned as a part of General Plan buildout could adversely affect historical resources through modification of existing buildings and structures through demolition, deconstruction, relocation, or alteration, or adversely impact the setting through new land uses. However, the existing and proposed General Plan, the 2009 Downtown Specific Plan, and Chapter 19.61 of the City of Roseville’s Zoning Ordinance contain goals and policies which would ensure that potential historical resources are assessed for their significance in advance of future development.
Implementation of these goals and policies would reduce impacts, but if historical resources are substantially adversely affected by future development, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
The cultural resources inventory investigation, which included a records search and field survey, did not identify any cultural resources within the Project Area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not affect any Historic Properties under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act or Historical Resources under CEQA, and thus there would be no new impact.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-47 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, individual development and infrastructure projects within the Planning Area would involve grading, excavation or other ground-disturbing activities which could disturb or damage unique archaeological resources. Even with implementation of City adopted Post-Review Discovery Procedures contained within Volume II Part C of the City’s Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation (or those determined to be equally as effective by the City), this impact was found to be potentially significant and unavoidable.
As discussed above under question a), the cultural resources inventory investigation did not identify any archaeological resources within the Project Area. Therefore, it is expected the Project would not affect any known archaeological resources.
While impacts to known archaeological resources would not occur, the potential exists for buried precontact archaeological sites within alluvium along perennial waterways, including the South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek located beneath Pleasant Grove Boulevard and within the Project Area. A modern bridge carries the roadway over South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek today. The bridge was constructed in the 1990s, which may have impacted any buried deposits at this location. Prior to modern development, two pre-contact isolates were previously recorded in 1981 along South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek and south of the Project Area. Thus, there is a moderate potential for encountering intact buried deposits within 200-feet of where the Project Area intersects with the South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek and a low potential for the remaining Project Area. Project-related work within 200 feet of the bridge involves the removal of an existing median. This work and related ground disturbance is not expected to exceed the existing depth of disturbance from the construction of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. Nevertheless, there remains the potential for Project related ground-disturbing activities to expose previously unrecorded cultural resources which is considered a potentially significant impact.
According to the GPU EIR, with implementation of City adopted Post-Review Discovery Procedures contained within Volume II Part C of the City’s Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation, this impact would be reduced to less than significant. Thus, there would be no new impact.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-48 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, the general project vicinity is known to have been heavily used by Native American groups prehistorically; in addition, Roseville was settled by European immigrants by the mid19th century. While some burial ground locations (generally from the historic-era) are known, there is the possibility that ground disturbing activities in the Planning Area could encounter prehistoric, historic-era, or other human remains. This impact was found to be significant and unavoidable.
Based on the records search conducted for the Project, no known burial sites are located within the Project area; however, there remains the potential that ground-disturbing activities could expose previously unknow human remains. Should that occur, as discussed under response b) above, City adopted Post-Review Discovery Procedures contained within Volume II Part C of the City’s Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation would be implemented. With implementation of City adopted Post-Review Discovery Procedures, this impact would be reduced to less than significant and no new impact would occur.
4.5.5 Mitigation Measures
No new impact was identified and thus no additional mitigation is required.
4.6 Energy
4.6.1 Environmental Setting
Energy relates directly to environmental quality. Energy use can adversely affect air quality and other natural resources. The vast majority of California’s air pollution is caused by burning fossil fuels.
Consumption of fossil fuels is linked to changes in global climate and depletion of stratospheric ozone.
Transportation energy use is related to the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks, and public transportation; choice of different travel modes (auto, carpool, and public transit); vehicle speeds; and miles traveled by these modes. Construction and routine operation and maintenance of transportation infrastructure also consume energy. In addition, residential, commercial, and industrial land uses consume energy, typically through the usage of natural gas and electricity. For the purposes of this analysis, the amount of fuel necessary for Project construction and operations is compared to that consumed in Placer County.
4.6.1.1 Energy Types and Sources
California relies on a regional power system comprised of a diverse mix of natural gas, renewable, hydroelectric, and nuclear generation resources. Natural gas provides California with a majority of its electricity followed by renewables, large hydroelectric and nuclear (California Energy Commission [CEC] Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-49 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
2021a). Roseville Electric has been providing electrical power to the City of Roseville’s residents, businesses, and the City’s street lighting system since 1912. In 1956, the City signed a contract for 69 megawatts of electric power from the Central Valley Project, which consists of a system of dams, reservoirs and power plants within central and northern California and marketed by the Western Area Power Administration (Western). Steady population growth created a need to obtain resources beyond this allocation of Federal power. Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) provides natural gas to Roseville.
PG&E provides natural gas and electricity to most of the northern two-thirds of California, from Bakersfield and Barstow to near the Oregon, Nevada and Arizona State Line.
Placer County, which encompasses the Project Site, contains 22 power plants generating electricity, of which 13 are hydro-powered, four are solar-powered, three are biomass-fire, and two are geothermal (CEC 2021b).
4.6.1.2 Energy Consumption
Electricity use is measured in Kilowatt-Hours (kWh), and natural gas use is measured in therms. Vehicle fuel use is typically measured in gallons (e.g., gallons of gasoline or diesel fuel), although energy use for electric vehicles is measured in kWh. As previously stated, this impact analysis focuses on the two sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed Project: the equipment-fuel necessary for Project construction and the automotive fuel necessary for Project operations Automotive fuel consumption in Placer County from 2017 to 2021 is shown in Table 4.6-1. As shown, fuel consumption has decreased slightly between 2017 and 2021.
Table 4.6-1. Automotive Fuel Consumption in Placer County 2016-2021 Year Total Fuel Consumption
2021 191,500,244
2020 171,205,990
2019 196,735,287
2018 196,319,909
2017 195,374,227
Source: CARB 2021
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-50 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.6.2 Energy (VI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
No New Impact
The GPU EIR concludes that buildout of the General Plan would require energy in the forms of fossil fuels, natural gas, and electricity. A large body of existing regulations would have the effect of reducing energy demand and would reduce potential adverse environmental effects associated with energy demand. The General Plan also includes many policies that promote additional energy conservation and savings and that would reduce peak demand and associated environmental effects. Thus, impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during either project construction or operation were found to be less than significant.
In the analysis below, the amount of total construction-related fuel and post-construction operations fuel used was estimated using ratios provided in the Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol for the Voluntary Reporting Program, Version 2.1.
The proposed Project improvements are intended to address existing and future traffic deficiencies and improve circulation consistent with the City’s Transportation System 2035 CIP. The consumption of electricity and natural gas is not a factor in this analysis. The two sources of energy associated with the Project includes the equipment fuel necessary for construction and the automotive fuel use during Project operations.
Project increases in construction fuel consumption are compared with the countywide fuel consumption in 2021, the most recent full year of data. As identified in Table 4.6-1, 191,500,244 gallons of fuel was consumed in Placer County in 2021 (CARB 2021).
Table 4.6-2. Proposed Project Construction Fuel Consumption Energy Type Annual Energy Consumption Percentage Increase Countywide
Construction Equipment & Automotive Fuel Consumption
Project Construction 85,419 gallons 0.044 percent
Source: Climate Registry 2016
Notes: The Project increases in off-road (construction) fuel consumption are compared with the countywide fuel consumption in 2021, the most recent full year of data.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-51 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Fuel necessary for Project construction would be required for the operation and maintenance of construction equipment and the transportation of materials to the Project Site. The fuel expenditure necessary to construct the improvements to Pleasant Grove Boulevard would be temporary, lasting only as long as Project construction. As indicated in Table 4.6-2, the Project’s gasoline fuel consumption during the one-time construction period is estimated to be 85,419 gallons. This would increase the annual countywide gasoline fuel use in the County by 0.044 percent. As such, Project construction would have a nominal effect on local and regional energy supplies. No unusual Project characteristics would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or the state. Construction contractors would purchase their own gasoline and diesel fuel from local suppliers and would judiciously use fuel supplies to minimize costs due to waste and subsequently maximize profits. Additionally, construction equipment fleet turnover and increasingly stringent state and federal regulations on engine efficiency combined with state regulations limiting engine idling times and requiring recycling of construction debris, would further reduce the amount of transportation fuel demand during Project construction. For these reasons, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature.
According to the Traffic Study prepared for the Project (Fehr & Peers 2022), the proposed Project itself would not generate automobile trips; but would instead increase the capacity in order to improve traffic operations. This would affect traffic patterns in the City. Therefore, potential impacts of the Project associated with fuel consumption during the post-construction operations is evaluated based upon AM and PM peak hour vehicle idling times as provided by Fehr & Peers (2022). The difference between fuel consumption generated under existing conditions and those generated under the Project are identified in Table 4.6-3.
Table 4.6-3. Proposed Project Post-Construction Operations Fuel Consumption Energy Type Annual Energy Consumption - Idling
Post-Construction Operations Automotive Fuel Consumption Existing Conditions 2,497 gallons
Project Conditions 2,191 gallons
Difference -306 gallons
Source: Climate Registry 2016
Notes: The Project increases in off-road (construction) fuel consumption are compared with the countywide fuel consumption in 2021, the most recent full year of data.
As shown, implementation of the proposed Project would result in the reduction of 306 gallons of gasoline annually. This reduction in gasoline consumption is attributable to the reduction in automobile idling that is projected to occur with Project implementation. Therefore, the Project would result in a beneficial impact and fuel consumption associated with post-construction operations would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. As such, no new impact would occur.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-52 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No New Impact
The GPU EIR concludes that buildout of the proposed GPU would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for increasing renewable energy or energy efficiency. Policies and implementation measures in the proposed GPU include actions to increase the use and implementation of renewable energy resources and related impacts are less than significant.
As demonstrated, implementation of the proposed Project would result in the reduction of 306 gallons of gasoline annually. Therefore, the Project would directly support statewide goals of reducing the use of nonrenewable sources of energy. Therefore, the Project would directly support state and local plans for renewable energy development. No new impact would occur.
4.6.3 Mitigation Measures
No new impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.
4.7 Geology and Soils
4.7.1 Environmental Setting
4.7.1.1 Geomorphic Setting
The City’s Planning Area is located along the eastern margin of the Sacramento Valley and the western margin of the Sierra Nevada foothills. The Sacramento Valley, along with the San Joaquin Valley, comprise the Great Valley geomorphic province. The Great Valley is composed of thousands of feet of sedimentary deposits that have undergone periods of subsidence and uplift over millions of years. During the Jurassic (approximately 206 million years Before Present [BP]) and Cretaceous (approximately 144 million years BP) periods of the Mesozoic era, the Great Valley existed in the form of an ancient ocean. By the end of the Mesozoic era, the northern portion of the Great Valley began to fill with sediment as tectonic forces caused uplift of the basin. Geologic evidence suggests that the Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley gradually separated into two separate water bodies as uplift and sedimentation continued. By the time of the Miocene epoch (approximately 24 million years BP), sediments deposited in the Sacramento Valley were mostly of terrestrial origin. In contrast, the San Joaquin Valley continued to be inundated with water for another 20 million years, as indicated by marine sediments dated to the late Pliocene epoch (approximately 5 million years BP). Most of the surface of the Great Valley is covered with Holocene (i.e., 11,700 years BP to present day) and Pleistocene (i.e., 2.6 million–11,700 years BP) alluvium. This alluvium is composed of sediments from the Sierra Nevada to the east and the Coast Range to the west that were carried by water and deposited on the valley floor.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-53 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
The Sierra Nevada geomorphic province trends north-northwest from Bakersfield to Lassen Peak and includes the Sierra Nevada mountain range and a broad belt of western foothills. The Sierra Nevada block is composed of northwest-trending belts of metamorphic, volcanic, and igneous rocks that have undergone intense deformation, faulting, and intrusion. Active faults that mark the eastern edge of the Sierra Nevada have resulted in upthrusting and tilting of the entire Sierra Nevada block in the last 5 million years—steeply on the eastern edge (adjacent to the Mono Basin), and gently along the western edge (adjacent to the Great Valley). The gently rolling Sierra Nevada foothills are comprised of metamorphosed sedimentary rocks that have been intruded by igneous rocks. The rock formations that make up the western edge of the Sierra Nevada block likely originally formed as a volcanic arc that was later accreted (added) to the western margin of the continent during the Jurassic period.
Regional Seismicity and Fault Zones
Earthquakes can be measured in several ways. Earthquakes create certain types of waves with different velocities, which can be recorded on instruments called seismometers. The Richter Scale measures earthquake magnitude by plotting the amplitude (length and width) of the seismic waves, taking into consideration the distance from the seismometer. The scale is logarithmic so that a recording of magnitude 7, for example, indicates a disturbance with ground motion 10 times as large as a recording of magnitude 6. The Moment Magnitude scale is used by geologists to measure the magnitude of an earthquake based on the physical size of the fault rupture and slip displacement, as well as the amount of energy released. The Modified Mercalli scale is used by the public as a subjective measure of earthquake intensity; it does not have a mathematical basis. It was developed as a way of relating the intensity of ground shaking at any particular location to the physical effects that people experience. This scale is composed of 12 increasing levels of intensity that range from imperceptible shaking (Scale I) to catastrophic destruction (Scale XII).
Classifying and Identifying Faults
Geologists have determined that the greatest potential for surface fault rupture and strong seismic ground shaking is from active faults, that is, faults with evidence of activity during the Holocene epoch (the last 11,700 years). Faults classified as “potentially active” (where there is evidence that movement has occurred during the last 1.6 million years), have a lower potential for surface fault rupture and strong seismic ground shaking. Pre-Quaternary faults have exhibited evidence of movement more than 1.6 million years BP, and therefore are not considered active. Pre-Quaternary faults are generally not considered to represent a surface fault rupture or strong seismic ground shaking hazard (unless those faults are influenced by human-caused activity such as construction of a large water-storage reservoir directly over a fault zone).
Roseville is located within an area with relatively low seismic activity. As discussed in the General Plan Final EIR, there are no known fault traces within or adjacent to the City’s Planning Area. The nearest active fault is a portion of the Dunnigan Hills Fault, approximately 30 miles to the west. Other active faults are located south of Lake Oroville, at Lake Tahoe, and in the Coast Ranges, approximately 45–60 miles away.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-54 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
The Foothills Fault System is approximately 12 miles east of the City. This fault system includes a number of different faults, including the Bear Mountains Fault Zone. The northern portion of the Bear Mountains Fault Zone and the Maidu Fault (east of Folsom Lake), along with the northern portion of the Deadman Fault (north of Folsom Lake), have exhibited evidence of movement in the last 700,000 to 1.6 million years BP (Jennings and Bryant 2010). Therefore, these faults are considered potentially active. There are several pre-Quaternary faults within 10 miles of the Planning Area (City of Roseville 2010; Jennings and Bryant 2010), which are not considered to be active:
Willows Fault Zone, which diagonally transects the Sacramento Valley from northwest to southeast, from Red Bluff to south Sacramento.
Volcano Hill Fault, located in Granite Bay and extending northwesterly from Volcano Hill for approximately 1 mile, terminating near Eureka Road.
Linda Creek Fault, along a segment of Linda Creek from Roseville to Sacramento County, east of the City Planning Area.
An unnamed fault extending east–west between Folsom Lake and the City of Rocklin. Segments of this fault are concealed and are therefore unmapped. However, this unnamed fault could connect to the Bear Mountains Fault Zone, branches of which are located beneath the eastern edge of Folsom Lake.
Potential seismic hazards resulting from an earthquake consist of surface fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides. The potential for each of these hazards to occur within the City Planning Area is evaluated in the GPU EIR and summarized below.
Surface Fault Rupture
Surface rupture is the actual cracking or breaking of the ground surface along a fault during an earthquake. Structures built over an active fault can be torn apart if the ground ruptures. However, surface ground rupture along a fault generally is limited to a linear zone that is only a few yards wide. The AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act) was created to help reduce the loss of life and property from an earthquake by prohibiting the construction of structures designed for human occupancy across the traces of active faults. The City Planning Area is not located within or adjacent to an AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zone (California Geological Survey [CGS] 2017). The nearest fault zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Act is a portion of the Dunnigan Hills Fault, approximately 30 miles to the west.
Seismic Ground Shaking
Ground shaking - motion that occurs as a result of energy released during faulting - could potentially result in the damage or collapse of buildings and other structures, depending on the magnitude of the earthquake, the location of the epicenter, and the character and duration of the ground motion. Other important factors to be considered are the characteristics of the underlying soil and rock and, where structures exist, the building materials used and the workmanship of the structures.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-55 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Ground motions from seismic activity can be estimated using a computer model. The CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment Model (CGS 2008.) indicates that a minimum peak horizontal acceleration ranging from 0.14 to 0.16 g (where g is the percentage of gravity) could be expected. This means there is a 1-in-10 probability that an earthquake will occur within 50 years that would result in a peak horizontal ground acceleration exceeding 0.14 to 0.16 g in the City’s Planning Area. This calculation indicates that a low level of seismic ground shaking could occur at the Project site.
Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction occurs when ground shaking from an earthquake causes a sediment layer saturated with groundwater to lose strength and become fluid, similar to quicksand. The liquefaction potential depends on the type of soil, the level and duration of seismic ground motions, and the depth to groundwater. The locations that are most susceptible to liquefaction-induced damage have loose, water-saturated, granular sediment that is within 40 feet of the ground surface. Liquefaction poses a hazard to engineered structures, such as buildings, bridges, and underground utility pipelines, because the loss of soil strength can result in bearing capacity insufficient to support foundation loads and increased lateral pressure on retaining walls. Groundwater elevations vary from 90 to 140 feet BGS throughout most of the City’s Planning Area (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] 2019). Groundwater in the downtown area and inner neighborhoods (southwest of SR 65 and northwest of I-80) ranges from 50 to 90 feet BGS (DWR. 2019.). Furthermore, the Planning Area is composed of well consolidated to very hard, older Pleistocene- to Eocene-age deposits, and active seismic sources are at least 30 miles away. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Planning Area would be subject to liquefaction in the event of a large magnitude earthquake.
Landslides
Landslide susceptibility is based on various combinations of factors such as rainfall, rock and soil types, slope, vegetation, seismic conditions, and human construction activities. Generally, landslides are expected to occur most often on slopes steeper than 15 percent, in areas with a history of landslides, and in areas underlain by geologic units that are weakly cemented.
The City Planning Area slopes upwards to the east, as part of the transition from the Sacramento Valley floor to the Sierra Nevada foothills. The northwestern edge of the Planning Area is at an elevation of approximately 70 feet Above Mean Sea Level (amsl), while the eastern portion of the Planning Area is approximately 230 feet amsl. The southeastern portion of the Planning Area, near Secret Ravine, is on a ridgeline that is approximately 400 feet amsl. Most of the new development in the Planning Area is planned for the nearly flat portion of the Sacramento Valley floor in the western and northwestern portions of the Planning Area, north of Baseline Road. The eastern and northeastern portions of the Planning Area, which are within the Sierra Nevada foothills, contain some areas where slopes exceed 15 percent. However, the Planning Area does not have a history of landslides, is composed of stable geologic units that are moderately to very strongly cemented, and active seismic sources are at least 30 miles away.
Therefore, it is unlikely that landslides would pose a hazard in the Planning Area.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-56 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Seismic Seiches
Earthquakes may affect open bodies of water by creating seismic sea waves and seiches. Seismic sea waves (often called tidal waves) are caused by abrupt ground movements (usually vertical) on the ocean floor in connection with a major earthquake. Because of the Planning Area’s long distance from the Pacific Ocean, seismic sea waves do not represent a hazard. A seiche is a sloshing of water in an enclosed or restricted water body, such as a basin, river, or lake, which is caused by earthquake motion; the sloshing can occur for a few minutes or several hours. There are no large water bodies in the City’s Planning Area where seiches would represent a hazard. Folsom lake is approximately 3.25 miles east of the Planning Area, and as described above, the seismic hazards in the Sacramento Valley are very low, and therefore the risk of a seismic seiche that would overtop Folsom Lake and result in downstream flooding in the Planning Area is also considered very low.
4.7.1.2 Soils
Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the engineering design, construction techniques, and site maintenance. The NRCS soil database provides an indication of the limitations of soils for dwellings without basements, small commercial buildings, and local roads and streets. The rating system indicates the extent to which the soils are limited by the soil features that affect building site development. NRCS soil limitations are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement, and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs.
The properties that affect the load-supporting capacity consist of depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and compressibility. The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation consist of flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments.
All of the soils in the City Planning Area have some limitations with respect to dwellings, small commercial buildings, and local roads and streets. In general, these limitations are related to a shallow depth to bedrock, low soil bearing strength, and a moderate to high shrink-swell potential. Construction in the Mehrten Formation presents particularly difficult challenges during the excavation process due to its extreme hardness. Excavator-mounted rock hammers are required to break up larger areas for construction, while specialized trenching equipment equipped with saw blades can be used to cut foundation and utility trenches for smaller projects.
Most soils can be categorized into hydrologic soil groups (which apply only to surface soil layers) based on runoff-producing characteristics. Hydrologic soil groups are factored into calculations of erosion and stormwater runoff potential when drainage plans are prepared for new development. Soils are assigned to groups A, B, C, or D. Group D soils have a very slow water infiltration rate and therefore have a very high stormwater runoff potential. Most of the Planning Area soils are assigned to Hydrologic Group D (NRCS 2019.). Water erosion hazards are particularly high in areas of steeper slopes along streambeds.
Expansive soils are composed largely of clays, which greatly increase in volume when saturated with water and shrink when dried. Because of this shrink-swell effect, structural foundations may rise during the rainy Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-57 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
season and fall during the dry season. If this expansive movement varies beneath different parts of a structure, the foundation may crack and portions of the structure may become distorted. Retaining walls and underground utilities may be damaged for the same reasons. Some of the soils in the City Planning Area are rated as moderately to highly expansive (NRCS 2019); these soils are located primarily along streambeds. According to the GPU EIR, proper foundation design and soil treatment can generally eliminate the problems caused by expansive soils.
4.7.1.3 Paleontological Resources
According to the GPU EIR, the Modesto, Riverbank, Turlock Lake, Mehrten, and Ione Formations all outcrop at the surface in various locations within the City Planning Area. Pleistocene-age sediments of the Modesto, Riverbank, and Turlock Lake Formations have yielded thousands of vertebrate fossils at localities throughout the Central Valley. The Project site is considered potentially sensitive for paleontological resources because it is located within the Riverbank and Turlock Lake Formations.
Because of site sensitivity, consistent with GPU EIR mitigation Measure 4.7-4, ECORP prepared a paleontological assessment memorandum for the Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project (ECORP 2022d, Appendix E) to further evaluate Project area sensitivity for undiscovered paleontological resources.
See Appendix E for the memorandum which provides records search database results, and more information on the probability of finding fossil specimens.
4.7.2 Geology and Soils (VII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) 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.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-58 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
No New Impact
i) Surface Fault Rupture— According to the GPU EIR, there are no fault traces either within or immediately adjacent to the Planning Area. Thus, surface fault rupture would not pose a hazard for the Planning Area, and related impacts were found to be less than significant in the General Plan FEIR. Thus, the proposed Project would result in no new impact and no mitigation is required.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking – According to the GPU EIR, development occurring through buildout of the General Plan and utilities and public facilities required to serve such development could subject people and structures to hazards associated with seismic ground shaking. However, implementation of General Plan policies and compliance with relevant laws and ordinances would reduce the potential for loss or damage from seismic hazards within the Planning Area to a less than significant level. Consistent with City policy, road widening improvement plans would be reviewed by City engineers to ensure that structures are consistent with standard engineering practices and requirements which are specifically designed to prevent the significant structural damage during seismic ground shaking. Thus, the proposed Project would result in no new impact and no mitigation is required.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction – According to the GPU EIR, the depth to groundwater in the Planning Area ranges from 50 to 140 feet BGS; the Planning Area is underlain by stable, moderately cemented to very well cemented, older Pleistocene–Eocene age rock formations; and active seismic sources are at least 30 miles away. Therefore, liquefaction would not pose a hazard for the Planning Area and related impacts were found to be less than significant in the GPU EIR. Thus, the proposed Project would result in no new impact and no mitigation is required.
iv) Landslides – According to the GPU EIR, most land use change during General Plan buildout would occur in the nearly flat portions of the Sacramento Valley floor in the western and northwestern portions of the Planning Area. The eastern and northeastern portions of the Planning Area, which are within the Sierra Nevada foothills, have areas where slopes exceed 15 percent. However, the Planning Area does not have a history of landslides, is composed of stable geologic units that are moderately to very strongly cemented, and active seismic sources are at least 30 miles away.
Therefore, landslides would not pose a hazard in the Planning Area, and this impact is was found to be less than significant in the GPU EIR. Thus, the proposed Project would result in no new impact and no mitigation is required.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-59 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, General Plan buildout, and utilities and public facilities required to serve such development, would result in substantial grading, excavation, and movement of earth associated with site preparation activities. These activities would increase the potential for soil erosion from wind and water, and the potential for siltation of local drainages. However, the GPU EIR finds, with implementation of General Plan policies, combined with relevant laws and ordinances, the potential for soil erosion would be reduced to less than significant. In addition to adhering to all applicable General Plan policies, the Project also includes the following BMPs, which further serve to address potential soil erosion (for the full text of proposed BMPs, refer to Project Description Section 2.6.2 Construction Best Management Practices): BMP 2: SWPPP; BMP 3: Equipment Contaminants; BMP 4: Debris/Demolition; BMP 5: Erosion Control; and BMP 6: Toxic Materials Control and Spill Response Plan. Thus, the proposed Project would result in no new impact and no mitigation is required.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
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
onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, General Plan buildout and utilities and public facilities required to serve such development would result in substantial grading, excavation, and movement of earth associated with site preparation activities. These activities would increase the potential for soil erosion from wind and water, and the potential for siltation of local drainages. However as discussed in the GPU EIR, implementation of General Plan policies, combined with relevant laws and ordinances, would reduce the potential for soil erosion to less than significant. Thus, the proposed Project would result in no new impact and no mitigation is required.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-60 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
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?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, development occurring as a part of General Plan buildout would result in the construction of buildings and infrastructure in areas of unstable soils and soils with a moderate to high shrink-swell potential. However, implementation of General Plan policies, combined with relevant laws and ordinances, would reduce the potential for hazards from unstable and expansive soils to less than significant. Thus, the proposed Project would result in no new impact and no mitigation is required.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
No New Impact
The GPU EIR concludes that all new and infill development in the Planning Area is required to install utility connections for wastewater treatment at the Pleasant Grove or Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plants (depending on the location of the development). Therefore, alternative wastewater treatment systems (i.e., septic systems) would not be used within the City limits, and this impact is not addressed in the GPU EIR.
As a road widening project, the proposed Project does not include septic or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Thus, there would be no new impact.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Additional Mitigation The GPU EIR concludes that the Planning Area contains paleontologically sensitive rock formations, and therefore construction activities associated with new and/or infill development under buildout of the Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-61 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
General Plan and public infrastructure required to serve such development could result in accidental damage to, or destruction of, unknown subsurface paleontological resources. With implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-4, this impact was found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
GPU EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 requires that when there is potential for a significant impact to paleontological resources, the following shall be implemented:
1. Consult the Paleontological Sensitivity Map.
2. For projects located in geologic units that are not identified as paleontologically sensitive and which do not involve ground disturbance to a depth greater than 5 feet below the ground surface, no further actions related to paleontological resources shall be required.
3. For projects that would be located in paleontologically sensitive geologic units, or those that would be located in non-paleontologically sensitive surficial units but would involve ground disturbance to a depth greater than 5 feet, provide a site-specific analysis of the project’s potential to damage or destroy unique paleontological resources, and measures designed to protect unique paleontological resources, as needed and appropriate. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, construction worker personnel training, periodic monitoring during construction activities, stopping work within 50 feet of any fossil that is discovered, evaluation of the fossil by a qualified paleontologist, and proper recordation and curation of the specimen.
Because the Project is located within a sensitive paleontological geologic unit, ECORP Consulting, Inc. completed a thorough investigation of the potential to directly impact paleontological resources during Project construction (See Paleontological Assessment, Appendix E). This investigation included a paleontological record search through the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) database, the Paleobiology Database, and a desktop study of the geology and paleontology of the Project Area.
According to the Paleontological Assessment, the Project site is located along the eastern margin of the Sacramento Valley and western margin of the Sierra Nevada foothills. Along with the San Joaquin Valley to the south (collectively referred to as the Great Valley geomorphic province), thousands of feet of sedimentary deposits have collected in the Valley over geologic history. Today, much of the surface of the Great Valley is covered with Holocene (11,700 years ago to present) and Pleistocene (2.6 million years ago to 11,700 years ago) alluvium composed of sediments transported by water from the Sierra Nevada to the east and Coast Range to the west (AECOM 2020).
The surficial geology of the Project site is composed of Pleistocene nonmarine sediments belonging to the Turlock Lake Formation (Qtl) (Wagner et al. 1981; Figure 4.7-1). Although there are overlying geologic units that are also of high sensitivity, these units (i.e., Riverbank and Modesto formations) may not be present in the Project Area. Furthermore, because the Project Area is highly disturbed from previous construction of the road alignment, future construction may only reach depths within disturbed soils. In Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-62 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
case of depths exceeding disturbed soils at the surface, the four commonly found geologic units in the area are briefly discussed below from youngest to oldest (AECOM 2011).
4.7.2.1 Holocene Alluvium (Qha) (11,700 Years BP to Present) Holocene alluvium consists of sand, gravel, and silt, generally containing only the remains of extant or modern taxa; low paleontological sensitivity.
4.7.2.2 Modesto Formation (Qm2, Qm1) (12,000 to 26,000 Years BP and 29,000 to 42,000 Years BP, Respectively)
The Modesto Formation consists of late Pleistocene tan to light gray gravely sand, silt, and clay forming alluvial terraces and fans; high paleontological sensitivity.
4.7.2.3 Riverbank Formation (Qr3, Qr2, Qr1) (130,000 to 450,000 Years BP) The Riverbank Formation consists of Pleistocene reddish gravel, sand, and silt derived from ancient rivers, contains more mafic rock fragments than found in the San Joaquin Valley, and therefore can be easily distinguished from the Modesto Formation; high paleontological sensitivity.
4.7.2.4 Turlock Lake Formation (Qtl) (450,000 to 600,000 Years BP) The Turlock Lake Formation consists of Pleistocene fine sand, silt, gravel, and clays eroded from alluvial fans derived from the plutonic rocks of the Sierra Nevada; high paleontological sensitivity.
Figure 4.7-1. Geologic map showing Project alignment (yellow) and geologic unit (Qtl = Turlock Lake Formation) found at the Project site (USGS 1992).
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-63 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
A paleontological record search was conducted by AECOM (2019) through the UCMP. Although no fossils have been documented from the Project site, there have been fossils discovered from the same geologic units as those found at the Project site. In addition to the record search results, ECORP conducted an online record search on the UCMP database and published and unpublished literature. The UCMP database has a record of a single molar fragment from Mammut americanum (UCMP 1574) found nearby in the City of Rocklin. There are also numerous sites throughout the Great Valley where Ice Age fauna have been recovered from the Modesto, Riverbank, and Turlock Lake formations. Table 4.7-1 lists a few of these localities.
Table 4.7-1. Closest Known Fossil Localities
Location Formation Taxa Reference
Tranquility site, Fresno
County
Modesto Fish, turtles, snakes, birds, moles, gophers,
mice, wood rats, voles, jack rabbits, coyotes, red
fox, grey fox, badgers, horse, camel, pronghorn
antelope, elk, deer, bison
AECOM, 2020
Sacramento area Riverbank Mammoth, bison, camel, coyote, horse, Harlan’s ground sloth, antelope, deer, rabbit, woodrat,
fish, mole, mice, squirrel, snake, gopher, dire
wolf, frog, Pacific pond turtle, duck, geese, swan
AECOM, 2020
Fairmead Landfill,
Madera County
Turlock Lake >15,000 fossils from over 35 species including mammoth, ground sloth, giant short-faced
bear, saber tooth cat, wolf, deer, camel, horse,
antelope, rodents, birds, reptiles, fish, and
prehistoric vegetation
AECOM, 2020
Kottachchi et al.
2008, 2009, 2011
SR 180 West Freeway,
Fresno County
Turlock Lake Camel, horse, mammoth AECOM, 2020
Roseville Turlock Lake Fish, plant fragments, petrified wood, ichnofossils
AECOM, 2011
Given the paleontological sensitivity of the Turlock Lake formation which occurs on the Project site, the potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource during Project grading and/or excavation is considered potentially significant. The majority of road construction excavations would not exceed 4 to 5 feet below ground surface; therefore, no monitoring would be required at these locations. Also, given that the Project site is in a well-developed area, a pedestrian survey is not recommended. However, given the paleontological sensitivity of the Turlock Lake formation, spot-checking is recommended for certain construction activities exceeding 9 feet below ground surface as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (which was developed consistent with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-4). With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, this impact would be reduced to less than significant with additional mitigation incorporated.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-64 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.7.3 Mitigation Measures
GEO-1: Conduct Paleontological Monitoring
“Spot-check” monitoring by a qualified paleontologist shall be conducted where the depth of Project excavation exceeds 9 feet. This may occur during relocation of signal poles (up to 11 feet deep) and/or storm drain facilities (up to 9 feet deep). If Pleistocene alluvial deposits are visible at these depths, full-time monitoring shall be required for the remainder of excavations at these locations. If no Pleistocene alluvial deposits are visible at these depths, spot-checking may halt.
Should paleontological resources be found during excavation, the paleontologist shall have the authority to divert heavy machinery away from the find(s) until the scientific value of the fossil(s) can be assessed. If of scientific significance, all pertinent field data shall be collected, and the fossil(s) salvaged. The fossil(s) shall be transported to a laboratory facility for cleaning and preparation prior to being transported and deposited in an accredited repository, such as the UCMP Berkeley, where they can be curated and made available for scientific study.
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.8.1 Environmental Setting
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are released as byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, waste disposal, energy use, land use changes, and other human activities. This release of gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons, creates a blanket around the earth that allows light to pass through but traps heat at the surface, preventing its escape into space. While this is a naturally occurring process known as the greenhouse effect, human activities have accelerated the generation of GHGs beyond natural levels. The overabundance of GHGs in the atmosphere has led to an unexpected warming of the earth and has the potential to severely impact the earth’s climate system.
Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. CH4 traps more than 25 times more heat per molecule than CO2, and N2O absorbs 298 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.
The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds for GHG emissions do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an assessment, do not establish specific thresholds of significance, and do not mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather, the CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA. With respect to GHG emissions, the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) states that lead agencies “shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions resulting from a project.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-65 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
The CEQA Guidelines note that an agency has the discretion to either quantify a project’s GHG emissions or rely on a “qualitative analysis or other performance-based standards.” (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.4(b)). A lead agency may use a “model or methodology” to estimate GHG emissions and has the discretion to select the model or methodology it considers “most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently consider the project’s incremental contribution to climate change.” (14 CCR 15064.4(c)). Section 15064.4(b) provides that the lead agency should consider the following when determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment:
1. The extent a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.
2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4(b)).
In addition, Section 15064.7(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that “[w]hen adopting or using thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence” (14 CCR 15064.7(c)). The CEQA Guidelines also clarify that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analysis (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15130). As a note, the CEQA Guidelines were amended in response to Senate Bill 97. In particular, the CEQA Guidelines were amended to specify that compliance with a GHG emissions reduction plan renders a cumulative impact insignificant.
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project. To qualify, such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. Examples of such programs include a “water quality control plan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plans [and] plans or regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” Put another way, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) allows a lead agency to make a finding of less than significant for GHG emissions if a project complies with adopted programs, plans, policies and/or other regulatory strategies to reduce GHG emissions.
In Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 2014, 213, 221, 227, following its review of various potential GHG thresholds proposed in an academic study [Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011), 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 203], the California Supreme Court identified the Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-66 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
use of numeric bright-line thresholds as a potential pathway for compliance with CEQA GHG requirements. The study found numeric bright line thresholds designed to determine when small projects were so small as to not cause a cumulatively considerable impact on global climate change was consistent with CEQA. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21003(f) provides it is a policy of the state that "[a]ll persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment." The Supreme Court-reviewed study noted, "[s]ubjecting the smallest projects to the full panoply of CEQA requirements, even though the public benefit would be minimal, would not be consistent with implementing the statute in the most efficient, expeditious manner. Nor would it be consistent with applying lead agencies' scarce resources toward mitigating actual significant climate change impacts." (Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011), 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 203, 221, 227.) The significance of the Project’s GHG emissions is evaluated consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b)(2) by considering whether the Project complies with applicable plans, policies, regulations, and requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. On October 13, 2016, the PCAPCD adopted the bright‐line numeric threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year for operations of land use projects and 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for construction. For the purpose of this evaluation, the Project is compared to the PCAPCD constructionrelated and operational thresholds.
4.8.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (VIII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
No New Impact
The GPU EIR concludes that buildout of the General Plan would involve land use change and construction and operation of public facilities and infrastructure that would result in construction and operational GHG emissions. Even with implementation of various General Plan goals and policies, Plan Area buildout could still result in the generation of GHG emissions at a level that may have a significant impact on the environment and conflict with State GHG emission targets adopted for the purpose of reducing the GHG emissions. Therefore, General Plan buildout GHG emissions were found to be cumulatively considerable and potentially significant and unavoidable.
The Project’s GHG impacts were assessed in accordance with methodologies recommended by the PCAPCD. Project construction GHG emissions were modeled using RCEM, version 9.0.0. The proposed Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-67 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Project improvements are intended to address existing and future traffic deficiencies and improve circulation consistent with the City’s Transportation System 2035 CIP. According to the Traffic Study prepared for the Project (Fehr & Peers 2022), the proposed Project itself would not generate automobile trips; but would instead increase the capacity in order to improve traffic operations. This would affect traffic patterns in the City. Therefore, potential impacts of the Project from mobile-source GHG emissions during the post-construction operations is evaluated based upon AM and PM peak hour vehicle idling times as provided by Fehr & Peers (2022). GHG emissions generated from automobile idling in the Project Limits are estimated with the use of EMFAC 2021.
Projected operational emissions associated with proposed post-construction operations are compared to the existing baseline, which includes the current operations accommodated by the segment of Pleasant Grove Boulevard beginning 1,500 feet east of Foothills Boulevard to 700 feet west of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard. This segment encompasses the following facilities:
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard intersection (currently 43 – 35 seconds of delay per vehicle)
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Birkdale Drive-Retreat Way intersection (currently 79 – 268 seconds of delay per vehicle)
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Country Club Drive intersection (currently 10 – 20 seconds of delay per vehicle)
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Laporte Drive-Hemingway Drive intersection (currently 204 – >300 seconds of delay per vehicle)
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Misty Wood Drive intersection (currently 37 - 278 seconds of delay per vehicle)
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Foothills Boulevard intersection (currently 44 – 58 seconds of delay per vehicle)
In addition to identifying GHG emissions associated with the overall post-construction operations, emissions generated by the expected seconds of delay (automobile idling) at each intersection are identified individually.
4.8.2.1 Project Construction Generated GHG Emissions
Construction-related activities that would generate GHG emissions include on- and off-road equipment traffic. Table 4.8-1 illustrates the specific construction generated GHG emissions that would result from construction of the Project. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-68 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Table 4.8-1. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Description CO2e Emissions
(Metric Tons/Year)
Grubbing/Land Clearing 102
Grading/Excavation 230
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade & Paving 535
Total Combined Emissions 867
PCAPCD Potentially Significant Impact Threshold 10,000 metric tons annually Exceed PCAPCD Threshold? No
Source: RCEM version 9.0.0. Refer to Appendix B-2 for Model Data Outputs.
Notes: Emission calculations account for the import/export of 1,000 cubic yards of soil and asphalt material daily during the grading/excavation phase and the import/export of 2,000 cubic yards of soil and asphalt material daily during the drainage/utilities/subgrade and paving phase.
As shown in Table 4.8-1, Project construction would result in the generation of approximately 867 metric tons of CO2e over the course of construction, which is below the PCAPCD significance threshold. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.
4.8.2.2 Operational Generated GHG Emissions
The proposed Project improvements are intended to address existing and future traffic deficiencies and improve circulation consistent with the City’s Transportation System 2035 CIP. According to the Traffic Study prepared for the Project (Fehr & Peers 2022), the proposed Project itself would not generate automobile trips; but would instead increase the capacity in order to improve traffic operations. This would affect traffic patterns in the City. Therefore, potential impacts of the Project from mobile-source GHG emissions during the post-construction operations is evaluated based upon AM and PM peak hour vehicle idling times as provided by Fehr & Peers (2022). GHG emissions generated from automobile idling in the Project Limits are estimated with the use of EMFAC 2021.
Projected operational emissions associated with proposed post-construction operations are compared to current operations accommodated by the segment of Pleasant Grove Boulevard beginning 1,500 feet east of Foothills Boulevard to 700 feet west of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard. Long-term operational GHG emissions are identified in Table 4.8-2. In addition to identifying GHG emissions associated with the overall post-construction operations, GHG emissions generated by the expected seconds of delay (automobile idling) at each of the following intersection are identified individually:
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard,
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Birkdale Drive-Retreat Way,
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Country Club Drive,
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Laporte Drive-Hemingway Drive, Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-69 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Misty Wood Drive, and
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Foothills Boulevard).
To isolate the effects of the Project without any induced travel demand, the proposed Project turning traffic volumes used in this analysis are representative of the existing volumes applied to the proposed Project geometry. The difference between GHG emissions generated under existing conditions and those generated under the Project are identified in Table 4.8-3 and compared to the operational significance thresholds promulgated by the PCAPCD.
Table 4.8-2. Operational GHG Emissions for AM & PM Peak Periods (Metric Tons Annually) Time Trip Volume
Delay per
Vehicle
(sec)
CO2e
Emissions
Existing Conditions (2022)
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard
Intersection 8,306 AM Peak: 43PM Peak: 35 7.1
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Birkdale Drive-Retreat Way
Intersection 5,516 AM Peak: 2PM Peak: 2 0.2
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Country Club Drive Intersection 6,036 AM Peak: 10 PM Peak: 20 0.7
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Laporte Drive-Hemingway Drive
Intersection 6,025 AM Peak: 2PM Peak: 10 0.9
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Misty Wood Drive Intersection 6,166 AM Peak: 1 PM Peak: 4 0.4
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Foothills Boulevard Intersection 11,075 AM Peak: 44 PM Peak: 58 12.7
Existing Conditions Total 22.0
Proposed Project Conditions
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard
Intersection 8,346 AM Peak: 37PM Peak: 32 6.4
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Birkdale Drive-Retreat Way
Intersection 5,556 AM Peak: 0PM Peak: 0 0.0
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Country Club Drive Intersection 6,100 AM Peak: 8 PM Peak: 9 1.2
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Laporte Drive-Hemingway Drive
Intersection 6,117 AM Peak: 1PM Peak: 1 0.1
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Misty Wood Drive Intersection 6,212 AM Peak: 1 PM Peak: 1 0.1
Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Foothills Boulevard Intersection 11,265 AM Peak: 43 PM Peak: 48 11.5
Proposed Project Conditions Total: 19.3
Source: EMFAC2021. Refer to Attachment B for Model Data Outputs.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-70 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
As shown in Table 4.8-2, under the proposed Project, the segment of Pleasant Grove Boulevard beginning 1,500 feet east of Foothills Boulevard to 700 feet west of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard and associated Project intersections would generate 19 metric tons of CO2e annually, as a result of idling automobiles during the combined AM and PM peak hours. This is a reduction of 2.7 metric tons annually compared with existing conditions. Thus, the Project would result in a decrease of annual GHG emissions compared with existing conditions. Project emissions would not exceed the PCAPCD numeric GHG threshold.
In order to present a more concise comparison of idling GHG emissions during existing conditions and proposed Project post-construction operations, Table 4.8-3 omits emissions generated at each individual Project intersection.
Table 4.8-3. Operational-Related GHG Emissions Summary
Activity CO2e
(maximum pounds per day)
Existing Conditions (2022)
Idling Emissions under Existing Conditions 22.0
Proposed Project Conditions
Idling Emissions Under Proposed Project 19.3
PCAPCD Potentially Significant Impact Threshold 1,100 metric tons annually Exceed PCAPCD Threshold? No
Source: EMFAC2021. Refer to Appendix B-2 for Model Data Outputs.
As shown in Table 4.8-3, the Proposed Project would result in less emissions than existing conditions.
Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact.
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No New Impact
The GPU EIR concludes that buildout of the General Plan would involve land use change and construction and operation of public facilities and infrastructure that would result in construction and operational GHG emissions. Even with implementation of various General Plan goals and policies, Plan Area buildout could still result in the generation of GHG emissions at a level that may have a significant impact on the environment and conflict with State GHG emission targets adopted for the purpose of reducing the GHG emissions. Therefore, General Plan buildout GHG emissions were found to be cumulatively considerable and potentially significant and unavoidable.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-71 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
The City does not currently have an adopted comprehensive plan for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. However, as previously described, the State of California promulgates several mandates and goals to reduce statewide GHG emissions, including the goal to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030 (Senate Bill [SB] 32). As previously shown, the proposed Project would result in less emissions than existing conditions. Thus, the Project is consistent with statewide GHG-reducing goals and no new impact would occur.
4.8.3 Mitigation Measures
No new impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.9.1 Environmental Setting
A material is considered hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, state, or local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. A hazardous material is defined by the California Health and Safety Code, Section 25501 as follows:
“Hazardous material” means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. "Hazardous materials" include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.
A hazardous material is defined in 22 CCR Section 662601.10 as follows:
A substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed.
Transporters of hazardous waste in California are subject to several federal and state regulations. They must register with the California Department of Health Services (DHS) and ensure that vehicle and waste container operators have been trained in the proper handling of hazardous waste. Vehicles used for the transportation of hazardous waste must pass an annual inspection by the California Highway Patrol (CHP).
Transporters must allow the CHP or DHS to inspect its vehicles and must make certain required inspection records available to both agencies. The transport of hazardous materials that are not wastes is regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation through national safety standards.
Other risks resulting from hazardous materials include the use of these materials in local industry, businesses, and agricultural production. The owner or operator of any business or entity that handles a hazardous material above threshold quantities is required by state and federal laws to submit a business plan to the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The Placer County Division of Environmental Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-72 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Health is designated by the State Secretary for Environmental Protection as the CUPA for Placer County in order to focus the management of specific environmental programs at the local government level. The CUPA program is designed to consolidate, coordinate, and uniformly and consistently administer permits and conduct inspection and enforcement activities throughout Placer County. This approach strives to reduce overlapping and sometimes conflicting requirements of different governmental agencies independently managing these programs. It is not uncommon for other agencies, such as federal and state Occupational Safety and Health Administrations, to become involved when issues of hazardous materials arise.
Under Government Code Section 65962.5, both the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) are required to maintain lists of sites known to have hazardous substances present in the environment. Both agencies maintain up-to-date lists on their websites. The Project site is not listed by the DTSC as a hazardous substances site on the list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 (Cortese List).
4.9.2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (IX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, future buildout population growth would result in an increase in the routine transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials, which could result in greater exposure of the public to such materials and exposure of increasing numbers of people through either routine use or accidental release. However, implementation of General Plan policies, in combination with existing federal and state regulations, would reduce the potential impacts related to the routine transportation of hazardous materials to less than significant.
Project construction and operation could involve small quantities of commonly used hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants, and oils, to operate construction equipment and motor vehicles. However, no hazardous materials would be disposed of on the project site. As discussed in the project description, the Project would implement the following BMPs during construction: BMP 2: SWPPP; BMP 3: Equipment Contaminants; and BMP 6: Toxic Materials Control and Spill Response Plan (see Project Description Section 2.6.2 Construction Best Management Practices for the full text of proposed BMPs).
Implementation of proposed BMPs and compliance with adopted General Plan policies, in combination with existing federal and state regulations, would ensure preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would ensure hazardous material management practices would be implemented to reduce exposure to, or potential for, accidental spills involving hazardous materials. A toxic materials control and spill response plan, which includes the preparation of a hazardous Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-73 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
material spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan, would also be prepared prior to construction and implemented during construction, and would serve 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. Finally, during operation, all hazardous material transporters that may use the Project segment of Pleasant Grove Boulevard to transport hazardous waste would be subject to applicable state and federal regulations that ensure the safe tracking and transport of hazardous materials. Therefore, there would be no new impact and no mitigation is required.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
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?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, future population growth with buildout of the General Plan would result in an increase in the routine transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials, which could result in greater exposure of the public to such materials and exposure of increasing numbers of people through either routine use or accidental release. Implementation of adopted General Plan policies, in combination with existing federal and state regulations, would reduce the potential impacts related to the routine transportation of hazardous materials to less than significant.
The Project is a road widening project. Potential hazardous material impacts during construction are addressed by proposed BMPs, adopted general plan policy, and state and federal regulations as discussed in response a) above. Implementation of current state and federal regulations, as well as adopted General Plan policy would serve to minimize both the frequency and the magnitude of potential impacts of the routine transportation of hazardous materials in the City. Thus, there would be no new impact and no additional mitigation is required.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-74 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, buildout of the General Plan could result in development of uses that would emit or handle hazardous waste in proximity to new or existing schools. However, implementation of proposed GPU policies and compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the impact is less than significant.
Hazardous materials are routinely transported by truck over state and federal highways as well as local roads, including Pleasant Grove Boulevard. California Vehicle Code Section 31303 requires that hazardous materials be transported via routes with the least overall travel time. Although the choice of routes is left primarily to the discretion of the transporter, the California Vehicle Code prohibits the transport of hazardous materials through residential neighborhoods. There are no designated routes for the transport of hazardous materials by truck within the City of Roseville. However, the City has designated truck routes that are intended to divert traffic away from residential areas.
Existing General Plan Hazardous Materials Goals and Policies augment existing state hazardous materials regulations related to schools and would apply to hazardous materials transport through the Project area.
Furthermore, these policies require the transport of hazardous materials in compliance with local, state, and federal safety requirements, which help to protect schools. As discussed in the GPU EIR, enforcement of California Department of Education school siting regulations, permitting requirements for individual hazardous material handlers and emitters, would prevent future conflicts between hazardous materials transport and schools and thus related impacts are less than significant and there would be no new impact.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
d) Be located on a site which 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?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, several sites within the City are listed on the Cortese List as known hazardous materials sites. New and infill development proposed consistent with the General Plan could expose construction workers to hazards and hazardous materials from these sites during construction activities, and hazardous materials on-site could create an environmental or health hazard if left in place. However, existing adopted City General Plan goals and policies combined with required federal and state regulations pertaining to hazardous site cleanup, ongoing remedial activities at known contamination sites, requirements for site-specific environmental site assessments, and identification of the location of underground pipelines prior to site-specific earthmoving activities, reduce the potential for future hazardous materials impacts to less than significant.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-75 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
The proposed Project is considered an infill development project consistent with the General Plan and City adopted Transportation System Capital Improvement Program. Except for one location, all proposed road widening would occur within existing City owned right-of-way which, consistent with City policy, was previously evaluated for hazardous materials prior to land dedication. Thus, all proposed road construction within existing right-of-way has been previously evaluated for, and found not to contain, hazardous materials. The exception is approximately 500-linear feet of private property located at the northeast corner of the Foothills Boulevard intersection. At this location, approximately 10 feet of additional right-of-way (or approximately 5,000 square feet) would be acquired by the City to accommodate the Project. Consistent with City policy, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for this property (Blackburn Consulting 2022, Appendix F). According to the Site Assessment, no Recognized Environmental Conditions were identified at or adjacent the proposed acquisition area.
Furthermore, the Site Assessment found that construction of Pleasant Grove Boulevard was completed between 1993 and 1998, and therefore, aerially deposited lead is not anticipated along the Project alignment. As documented in the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, the Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and proposed road widening would have a less than significant impact with regard to creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Thus, there would be no new impact.
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
e) For a Project located within 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 result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the Project
Area?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, the closest airport to the City is the Rio Linda Airport in Sacramento County, approximately 6.3 miles southwest of the Planning Area. The Planning Area is not located within the overflight, noise, or other airport hazard zones of any airport. Therefore, buildout consistent with the General Plan would have no impact related to safety hazards for aircraft or for people residing or working in the vicinity of an airport, and related impacts are less than significant.
The Project is limited to road widening and does not propose housing. As discussed above, the City Planning Area is not located within any overflight, noise, or other airport hazard zone. Thus, it would not result in an airport related safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area and there would be no new impact.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-76 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, General Plan buildout would add additional traffic and residences requiring evacuation in case of an emergency. Implementation of proposed GPU policies would ensure conformance with local emergency-response programs and continued cooperation with emergencyresponse service providers and related impacts were found to be less than significant.
As a road widening project, the completed Project would reduce traffic congestion and improve level of service. Consistent with City policy and as required by BMP-7: Emergency Vehicle Response, during construction the Public Works Department would coordinate with City Police and Fire Departments to ensure potential effects of temporary lane closures on emergency response are addressed, including any required changes to emergency vehicle routing or temporary changes in fire station servicing areas.
Therefore, consistent with City policy and BMP-7, the Project would not Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and related impacts are less than significant and there would be no new impact.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, General Plan buildout could potentially increase risk to fire for both people and property. However, implementation of adopted General Plan policies and actions, along with existing regulations would ensure that people and structures would not be exposed to a significant risk of loss or injury involving fires and this impact was found to be less than significant.
Proposed road widening would primarily occur to the interior of existing Pleasant Grove Boulevard which would not significantly increase exposure of people or structures to risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Furthermore, the Project would be constructed and operated consistent with applicable General Plan goals and policy, including design and construction standards related to roadways and ingress and egress points for emergency vehicles. The Project would also adhere to the City’s MultiHazard Mitigation Plan and Emergency Operations Plan. These actions ensure potential wildland fire impacts are reduced to less than significant. Thus, there would be no new impact.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-77 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.9.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.10.1 Environmental Setting
4.10.1.1 Regional Hydrology
At a regional level, the City of Roseville is with the Sacramento River Basin watershed, which covers approximately 26,500 square miles and is bounded by the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, the Cascade Range and Trinity Mountains to the north, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the south. The Sacramento River is the principal river in the watershed. The principal tributaries to the Sacramento River are the Pit and McCloud Rivers, which join the Sacramento River from the north, and the Feather and American Rivers, which join the Sacramento River from the east.
There are 14 smaller watersheds in Placer County and the City Planning Area is located within portions of four of these watersheds: Pleasant Grove Creek, Curry Creek, Dry Creek, and Steelhead Creek. The Planning Area is traversed by a number of westward-flowing creeks within each watershed. All streams in the Planning Area ultimately discharge to the Sacramento River.
4.10.1.2 Site Hydrology and Drainage
The Project is located in the Pleasant Grove Creek Watershed which totals approximately 30,000 acres, approximately 15,500 acres of which is within the City Planning Area. Pleasant Grove Creek is the main surface water feature. Several tributaries flow into Pleasant Grove Creek including South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek, Kaseburg Creek, Coyote Creek, and University Creek. Within the Project limits, the South Branch of Pleasant Grove Creek passes under Pleasant Grove Boulevard via culvert just west of Misty Wood Drive. Pleasant Grove Creek discharges into the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal west of the City Planning Area in Sutter County, which flows into the Natomas Cross Canal and thence into the Sacramento River near Verona.
Pleasant Grove Creek and its tributaries were historically dry or very nearly dry in the summer months but are now mostly perennial due to urban development and rice farming. Elevations in this subwatershed within the City Planning Area range from approximately 265 feet near Fairway Drive, decreasing to approximately 65 feet in at the northwestern border of the Planning Area next to Pleasant Grove Creek.
Downstream of the Project site and in the western portion of the City, Pleasant Grove Creek receives the treated effluent from the City of Roseville’s Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-78 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.10.2 Regulatory Setting
4.10.2.1 Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District The Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District was created by SB 1312, effective August 23, 1984. The PCFCWCD coordinates with the County and with incorporated cities to implement regional flood control projects; develop and implement master plans for selected watersheds in the county; provide technical support and information on flood control for the cities, the county, and the development community; operate and maintain an Alert flood warning system; review proposed developments projects to ensure they meet PCFCWCD standards; develop hydrologic and hydraulic models for county watersheds; provide technical support for Office of Emergency Services activities; and manage the annual stream channel maintenance program with the Dry Creek Watershed outside of the City limits.
4.10.2.2 City of Roseville MS4 Permit
All Phase II communities are subject to the permit requirements of the State-issued Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit which supersedes the previous state order. This order took effect on July 1, 2013 and prescribes the requirements of all Phase II communities in meeting water quality objectives. The City has continued to modify its practices to conform to the priorities, activities, and strategies of the MS4 permit and to enact the minimum control measures and BMPs intended to address Phase II discharges, as required by the permit. The goal is to reduce pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. The MS4 Permit identifies activities to implement minimum control measures required under the General Permit: public outreach, public involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site runoff, new development and redevelopment, municipal operations, water quality monitoring, and program effectiveness.
The MS4 Permit includes minimum required control measures for new development, such as structural and non-structural control strategies, and long-term operation and maintenance of controls. It includes specific guidance for volume and flow control design parameters for structural controls such as detention ponds, vegetative areas, runoff pretreatment in the form of source control and Low-Impact Development (LID) strategies, and hydromodification.
The City’s Stormwater Quality BMP Guidance Manual for Construction (City of Roseville 2011a) was developed to fulfill part of the requirements of the MS4 permit. The City of Roseville has adopted storm water quality design standards to reduce water pollution generated by urban runoff. These design standards are detailed in the West Placer Stormwater Quality Design Manual (cbec eco engineering, inc. and CDM Smith 2018), which also fulfills part of the MS4 permit requirements.
4.10.2.3 City of Roseville Stormwater Quality BMP Guidance Manual for Construction The Stormwater Quality BMP Guidance Manual for Construction (City of Roseville 2011a) was developed as part of the City’s program to implement the goals contained in the City of Roseville Stormwater Management Program (City of Roseville 2004), as required by the NPDES municipal stormwater permit Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-79 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
from the SWRCB. The BMP Guidance Manual provides the requirements for preparation and submittal of SWPPPs for construction activities, including the City’s and the State’s procedural requirements for SWPPP submittals and site inspections related to stormwater quality. The BMP Guidance Manual also identifies the various construction-related BMPs that can be used within the City to control construction site runoff.
The manual addresses issues such as erosion control, sediment control, and good housekeeping practices.
4.10.2.4 Roseville Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance
The City adopted its Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Stormwater Ordinance) (Municipal Code, Title 14, Chapter 14.20) to establish a regulatory framework to implement construction and post-construction stormwater controls. The ordinance is intended to enhance the water quality of watercourses and water bodies in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act and the city’s NPDES permit by reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable and by effectively prohibiting non-stormwater discharges to the City’s stormwater conveyance system.
Site development construction plans must be accompanied by a stormwater management plan as required by the Stormwater Quality Design Manual. Prior to the issuance of a permit to construct and prior to installation and implementation of the specified BMPs, the construction plan and stormwater management plan must have been reviewed and accepted by the city engineer. The stormwater management plan must detail how stormwater generated from a site would be controlled, managed, and treated, including, but not limited to, incorporation of LID and hydromodification management concepts.
The stormwater management plan must also evaluate the environmental characteristics of the project site and the potential impacts of all proposed development plans for the site on the water resources, and must demonstrate the effectiveness of the type of stormwater control measures proposed for managing stormwater generated from the site. In addition, a stormwater BMP maintenance plan must be developed for all post-construction stormwater control measures and include a schedule for when and how often maintenance of the stormwater control measures would occur, a list of any special equipment or skills required for proper maintenance, the estimated cost of maintenance, and a schedule for periodic inspections to ensure proper performance between maintenance events.
4.10.3 Hydrology and Water Quality (X) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-80 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, General Plan buildout would convert large areas of undeveloped land to residential, commercial, industrial, and mix-uses, as well as intensify land uses through infill development in existing downtown and major corridor areas, resulting in additional discharges of pollutants to receiving water bodies. Such pollutants would result in adverse changes to the water quality of local water bodies and could conflict with the Basin Plan. However, development projects would be subject to all adopted General Plan policies, along with current land use, stormwater, grading, and erosion control laws, regulations, and permit conditions. The goal of these as they relate to stormwater runoff, and surface and groundwater quality, is to ensure that adequate water quality protection is provided during site-specific project construction and operation. The goal of General Plan policies as they relate to stormwater management is to provide flood protection, enhance water quality, prevent infrastructure deterioration, and facilitate compliance with State and federal laws. Successful implementation of General Plan policies would avoid, minimize, or compensate for potential water quality impacts by requiring projects to reduce pollution and runoff through implementation of LID technologies, BMPs, pretreatment, and upgrades to stormwater and wastewater treatment capacity, as needed. In addition, all new and infill development envisioned under the General Plan would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code requiring proper drainage and erosion control, as well as the Stormwater Quality Design Manual, Stormwater Quality BMP Guidance Manual for Construction, and the City of Roseville Stormwater Management Program (2004) to reduce post-construction runoff in through the incorporation of BMPs, LID, and hydromodification management techniques. These measures would protect water quality as required by the Basin Plan and therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
The proposed Project will be designed, constructed, and operated consistent with the City’s Municipal Code requiring proper drainage and erosion control, as well as the Stormwater Quality Design Manual, Stormwater Quality BMP Guidance Manual for Construction, and the City of Roseville Stormwater Management Program. In compliance with the above requirements, the final Project design will include appropriate LID and stormwater pre-treatment measures to ensure stormwater runoff generated by additional pavement is properly treated prior to discharge to surface waters. As such, potential impacts to surface or groundwater quality would be mitigated to less than significant and there would be no new impact.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the Project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, General Plan buildout would result in additional impervious surfaces, which could reduce the amount of groundwater recharge and in turn, affect the yield of hydrologically Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-81 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
connected wells. However, a substantial reduction in groundwater recharge is not anticipated because most of the Planning Area soils provide only a low level of groundwater recharge. Future development would also result in a need for increased potable water. However, the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and the Western Placer County Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) provide for sustainable management of groundwater supplies, and a Groundwater Sustainability Plan is in process.
With compliance with existing regulations and implementation of adopted General Plan policies, this impact was found to be less than significant.
The Project includes approximately 1.3 miles of road widening resulting in the generation of approximately 1.7 acres of new impervious surface. The City Planning Area includes over 3,000 acres of open space designated land. Thus, the amount of Project generated impervious surface represents less than 1 percent of City designated open space that will remain undeveloped and continue to support the majority of groundwater infiltration within the City Planning Area. Therefore, with implementation of all adopted General Plan goals and policies, continued implementation of the City’s UWMP, the Western Placer County GMP, and the Groundwater Sustainability Plan, potential Project impacts to groundwater recharge and sustainable groundwater basin management are less than significant and there would be no new impact.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
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 that would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite
or offsite;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding onsite 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?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, construction and grading activities associated with buildout of the General Plan could result in excess runoff, soil erosion, and stormwater discharges of suspended solids and increased Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-82 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
turbidity. These activities could mobilize other pollutants from project construction sites as contaminated runoff to onsite and ultimately offsite drainage channels. Many construction-related wastes have the potential to degrade existing water quality. Construction activities that are implemented without mitigation could violate water quality standards or cause direct harm to aquatic organisms. However, with implementation of existing regulations and water quality policies contained in the adopted General Plan, this impact was found to be less than significant by the GPU EIR.
Pleasant Grove Boulevard was originally designed and constructed to accommodate future widening to the interior median. As such, existing storm drain facilities serving the roadway are sized for full buildout of Pleasant Grove Boulevard consistent with the City’s Transportation System CIP. Therefore, post construction, drainage from newly paved areas would be directed to the existing storm drain system which is appropriately sized and designed to collect and dissipate stormwater energy and prevent erosion.
Furthermore, because roadway drainage facilities are designed to accommodate peak discharge from the widened roadway, the Project would not result in on or offsite flooding, prevent, impede or redirect flood flows, exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage system, or (as discussed under responses a) and b) above) provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, related Project impacts are less than significant and there would be no new impact.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to Project inundation?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, General Plan buildout could result in short-term, temporary, storage of materials in flood hazard zones only if a flood encroachment permit is issued. The Roseville Municipal Code contains requirements that are specifically intended to prevent downstream transport of pollutants in a flood zone. With implementation of policies contained in the proposed GPU and adherence to the Municipal Code, this impact was found to be is less than significant.
Because of the City Planning Area’s distance from the Pacific Ocean, tsunamis would not represent a potential Project hazard and there are no waterbodies in the Planning Area that are large enough to result in seiche hazards. Furthermore, active seismic sources are more than 30 miles away. Thus, the Project site is not located within a designated flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone and there are no related potential pollutant impacts. However, while not anticipated, Project development could require temporary placement of stockpiled materials within the City’s Regulatory Floodplain. Should this occur, it would be subject to City of Roseville Municipal Code regulations that are specifically designed to protect water quality by preventing downstream pollutant transport. Therefore, with implementation of adopted General Plan Flood Protection, Water Quality, and Groundwater Recharge Goals and Policies designed to protect water quality in floodplains, was well as adherence to Municipal Code requirements, potential impacts would be less than significant and there would be no new impact.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-83 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
No New Impact
The GPU EIR evaluated the potential for conflict with or obstruction of a water quality control plan as part of Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Checklist Question a) above. As discussed under question a) above, successful implementation of General Plan policies would avoid, minimize, or compensate for potential water quality impacts by requiring projects to reduce pollution and runoff through implementation of LID technologies, BMPs, pretreatment, and upgrades to stormwater and wastewater treatment capacity, as needed. In addition, all new and infill development envisioned under the General Plan would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code requiring proper drainage and erosion control, as well as the Stormwater Quality Design Manual, Stormwater Quality BMP Guidance Manual for Construction, and the City of Roseville Stormwater Management Program (2004) to reduce post-construction runoff in through the incorporation of BMPs, LID, and hydromodification management techniques. These measures would protect water quality as required by the Basin Plan and therefore, this impact was found to be less than significant in the GPU EIR.
The proposed Project would be designed, constructed, and operated consistent with the City’s Municipal Code requiring proper drainage and erosion control, as well as the Stormwater Quality Design Manual, Stormwater Quality BMP Guidance Manual for Construction, and the City of Roseville Stormwater Management Program. In compliance with related requirements, the final Project design will include appropriate LID and stormwater pre-treatment measures to ensure stormwater runoff generated by additional pavement is properly treated prior to discharge to surface waters. As such, potential impacts related to conflict with, or obstruction of, a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, would be mitigated to less than significant and there would be no new impact.
4.10.4 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.
4.11 Land Use and Planning
4.11.1 Environmental Setting
Within the Project limits, Pleasant Grove Boulevard is primarily a four-lane roadway with Class II bike lanes, meandering sidewalks and associated landscaping, a variable width landscaped median, and a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Immediately east of the Project limits, Pleasant Grove Boulevard widens to a six-lane roadway east of Foothills Boulevard and serves as a four-lane roadway west of the Project limits.
No on-street parking exists within the Project limits. As a roadway, the Project site is not zoned, however it Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-84 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
is designated Major Arterial by the General Plan Circulation Element. Existing adjacent land uses include residential, commercial, park and recreation and open space.
4.11.2 Land Use and Planning (XI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, General Plan buildout would not physically divide an established community.
The City’s land use designations and roadway locations were planned comprehensively through the Specific Plan process to provide connected communities. Adopted General Plan policies continue to require new development areas and associated community-wide facilities to be linked and oriented to existing developed areas of the community through road networks, public transit systems, open space systems, bikeway and pedestrian systems, and other physical connections and encourage a development pattern that is contiguous with existing developed areas of the City. Existing General Plan policy ensure that transportation options within the City are multi-modal and connect residential areas to supporting land uses such as schools and parks. Thus, Planning Area buildout would not physically divide an established community, and this impact was found to be less than significant in the GPU EIR.
The Project is proposed consistent with the General Plan and would continue to maintain all existing public transit facilities, bikeway and pedestrian systems, and other physical connections that encourage a development pattern that is contiguous with existing adjacent areas. Thus, the Project would not physically divide an established community, there would be no new impact and no additional mitigation is required.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
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?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, the City of Roseville General Plan is consistent with other relevant plans, programs, and regulations that were developed to reduce or avoid environmental impacts. There are no inconsistencies between the adopted General Plan and other plans that would result in a significant environmental impact not already addressed by policy revisions adopted as part of the GPU. Therefore, this impact was found to be less than significant in the GPU EIR.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-85 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
The Project is proposed consistent with adopted General Plan policy. Thus, Project implementation would not 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. There would be no new impact and no additional mitigation is required.
4.11.3 Mitigation Measures
No new significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.
4.12 Mineral Resources
4.12.1 Environmental Setting
Minerals are defined as any naturally occurring chemical elements or compounds formed by inorganic processes and organic substances. Minable minerals are defined as a deposit of ore or minerals having a value materially in excess of the cost of developing, mining, and processing the mineral and reclaiming the project area. The conservation, extraction, and processing of mineral resources is essential to meeting the needs of society.
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) states that cities and counties shall adopt ordinances “...that establish procedures for the review and approval of reclamation plans and financial assurances and the issuance of a permit to conduct surface mining operations...” (Public Resources Code ([PRC] Section 2774). The intent of this legislation is to ensure the prevention or mitigation of the adverse environmental impacts of mining, the reclamation of mined lands, and the production and conservation of mineral resources are consistent with recreation, watershed, wildlife, and public safety objectives (PRC Section 2712).
SMARA requires the State Geologist to classify land into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) according to the known or inferred mineral potential of that land. The process is based solely on geology, without regard to existing land use or land ownership. The primary goal of mineral land classification is to ensure that the mineral potential of land is recognized by local government decision makers and considered before land use decisions, which could preclude mining, are made. Areas subject to California mineral land classification studies are divided into the following Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) categories that reflect varying degrees of mineral potential:
MRZ-1: Areas of no mineral resource significance
MRZ-2: Areas of identified mineral resource significance MRZ-3: Areas of undetermined mineral resource significance MRZ-4: Areas of unknown mineral resource significance There are no MRZ zones designated within Project site or City of Roseville.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-86 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.12.2 Mineral Resources (XII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
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?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, the City of Roseville does not overlie any known deposits of economically valuable mineral resources. Therefore, mineral resources are not evaluated in detail in the GPU EIR and related impacts were found to be less than significant.
Proposed road widening would primarily occur into the existing interior median of Pleasant Grove Boulevard which does not include any known valuable mineral resources but rather accommodates landscaping. Further, as discussed above, no deposits of economically valuable mineral resources are known to underlie the City. Thus, the Project would not 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 and related impacts are less than significant. Thus, there would be no new impact and no mitigation is required.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
No New Impact
As discussed above, according to the GPU EIR, the City of Roseville does not overlie any known deposits of economically valuable mineral resources (Loyd 1995). Furthermore, no SMARA permits have been issued within the City Planning Area, and the City doesn’t overlie any designated mineral resource recovery sites. No mining activities are currently underway within the City nor does the City anticipate that any mining activities will take place in the future. Therefore, the potential for loss of locally important mineral resources was considered less than significant in the GPU EIR.
Because there are no designated resource recovery sites in the City, proposed road widening would not 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. thus, there would be no new impact and no mitigation is required.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-87 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.12.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.
4.13 Noise
This section is based on results of the Noise Impact Assessment for the Pleasant Grove Boulevard Project prepared by ECORP (2022e) (IS/MND Appendix G).
4.13.1 Environmental Setting
4.13.1.1 Noise Fundamentals
Noise is generally defined as sound that is loud, disagreeable, or unexpected. The selection of a proper noise descriptor for a specific source is dependent on the spatial and temporal distribution, duration, and fluctuation of the noise. The noise descriptors most often encountered when dealing with traffic, community, and environmental noise include the average hourly noise level (in Leq) and the average daily noise levels/community noise equivalent level (in Ldn/CNEL). The Leq is a measure of ambient noise, while the Ldn and CNEL are measures of community noise. Each is applicable to this analysis and defined as follows:
Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night. Day-Night Average (Ldn) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10-dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am to account for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 A-weighted-decibel (dBA) 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA Ldn.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5-dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and a 10-dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively.
Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources, such as automobiles, trucks and airplanes, and stationary sources, such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations.
Sound spreads (propagates) uniformly outward in a spherical pattern, and the sound level decreases (attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a stationary or point source. Sound from a line source, such as a highway, propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source, such as a roadway, depending on ground surface characteristics (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011). Soft surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound, Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-88 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
so an excess ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed (FHWA 2011).
The manner in which older structures in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows (Caltrans 2002). The exteriorto-interior reduction of newer structures is generally 30 dBA or more (Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006).
4.13.1.2 Human Response to Noise
The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual to individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of actual physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well-being and contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health effects of noise in the community arise from interference with human activities, including sleep, speech, recreation, and tasks that demand concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise intensity levels.
Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day or night or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60- to 70-dBA range, and high, above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise environments are urban residential or semicommercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). Regarding increases in dBA, the following relationships should be noted in understanding this analysis:
Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1.0 dBA cannot be perceived by humans.
Outside of the laboratory, a 3.0-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference. A change in level of at least 5.0 dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. An increase of 5.0 dBA is typically considered substantial. A 10.0-dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response.
4.13.1.3 Noise Sensitive Land Uses
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Additional land uses such as Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-89 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
hospitals, historic sites, cemeteries, and certain recreation areas are considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. Schools, churches, hotels, libraries, and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise-sensitive land uses.
The nearest existing noise-sensitive land uses to the Project are residences positioned adjacent to the northern and southern boundaries of the Project Limits. These residences are generally separated from Pleasant Grove Boulevard by a six-foot-high masonry wall and 30-foot-wide vegetated buffer with sidewalks.
4.13.1.4 Vibration Fundamentals
Ground vibration can be measured several ways to quantify the amplitude of vibration produced, including through Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) or root mean square velocity. These velocity measurements measure maximum particle at one point or the average of the squared amplitude of the signal, respectively.
Vibration impacts on people can be described as the level of annoyance and can vary depending on an individual’s sensitivity. Generally, low-level vibrations may cause window rattling but do not pose any threats to the integrity of buildings or structures.
4.13.1.5 Existing Ambient Noise Environment
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard 12.9-2013/Part 3 “Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound – Part 3: Short-Term Measurements with an Observer Present” provides a table of approximate background sound levels in Ldn, daytime Leq, and nighttime Leq, based on land use and population density. The ANSI standard estimation divides land uses into six distinct categories. Descriptions of these land use categories, along with the typical daytime and nighttime levels, are provided in Table 4.13-1. At times, one could reasonably expect the occurrence of periods that are both louder and quieter than the levels listed in the table. ANSI notes, “95% prediction interval [confidence interval] is on the order of +/- 10 dB.” The majority of the Project Limits would be considered ambient noise Category 1, due to the heavy traffic conditions currently experienced.
Table 4.13-1. ANSI Standard 12.9-2013/Part 3 A-weighted Sound Levels Corresponding to Land Use and Population Density
Category Land Use Description
People
per
Square
Mile
Typical
Ldn
Daytime
Leq
Nighttim
e Leq
(dBA)
1 Noisy
Commercial &
Industrial Areas
and Very Noisy
Residential
Areas
Very heavy traffic conditions, such
as in busy, downtown commercial
areas; at intersections for mass
transportation or other vehicles,
including elevated trains, heavy
motor trucks, and other heavy
traffic; and at street corners where
63,840 67 66 58
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-90 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Table 4.13-1. ANSI Standard 12.9-2013/Part 3 A-weighted Sound Levels Corresponding to Land Use and Population Density
Category Land Use Description
People
per
Square
Mile
Typical
Ldn
Daytime
Leq
Nighttim
e Leq
(dBA)
many motor buses and heavy
trucks accelerate.
2 Moderate
Commercial &
Industrial Areas
and Noisy
Residential
Areas
Heavy traffic areas with conditions
similar to Category 1, but with
somewhat less traffic; routes of
relatively heavy or fast automobile
traffic, but where heavy truck
traffic is not extremely dense.
20,000 62 61 54
3 Quiet
Commercial,
Industrial Areas
and Normal
Urban & Noisy
Suburban
Residential
Areas
Light traffic conditions where no
mass-transportation vehicles and
relatively few automobiles and
trucks pass, and where these
vehicles generally travel at
moderate speeds; residential areas
and commercial streets, and
intersections, with little traffic,
compose this category.
6,384 57 55 49
4 Quiet Urban &
Normal
Suburban
Residential
Areas
These areas are similar to
Category 3, but for this group, the
background is either distant traffic
or is unidentifiable; typically, the
population density is one-third
the density of Category 3.
2,000 52 50 44
5 Quiet
Residential
Areas
These areas are isolated, far from
significant sources of sound, and
may be situated in shielded areas,
such as a small wooded valley.
638 47 45 39
6 Very Quiet
Sparse
Suburban or
rural
Residential
Areas
These areas are similar to
Category 4 but are usually in
sparse suburban or rural areas;
and, for this group, there are few
if any nearby sources of sound.
200 42 40 34
Source: The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 2013
4.13.1.6 Existing Pleasant Grove Boulevard Noise Levels Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments in the Project vicinity. This task was accomplished using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) (see Appendix G-2 for model outputs) and traffic volumes from the Project’s Traffic Study (Fehr & Peers. June 2022.). The model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-91 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans. The Caltrans data shows that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The average daily noise levels along these roadway segments are presented in Table 4.13-2.
Table 4.13-2. Existing (Baseline) Traffic Noise Levels for Residential Surrounding Uses Roadway Segment Ldn at 75 feet from Centerline of
Roadway (dBA)
Pleasant Grove Boulevard
West of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard 70.4
Between Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard & Birkdale Drive/Retreat Way 68.1 Between Birkdale Drive/Retreat Way & Country Club Drive 68.1 Between Country Club Drive & Laporte Drive/Hemingway Drive 68.4 Between Misty Wood Drive & Foothills Boulevard 68.8
East of Foothills Boulevard 69.8
Source: Fehr & Peers 2022.
As shown, the existing traffic-generated noise level on Project-vicinity roadways currently ranges from
68.1 to 70.4 dBA Ldn. Ldn is 24-hour average noise level with a 10 dBA “weighting” during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. Environmental noise levels are generally considered moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA range and high above 70 dBA.
4.13.2 Noise (XIII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a) 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 the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, existing and planned noise-sensitive land uses in the Planning Area could occur in areas that either are currently adversely affected by transportation and non-transportation noise sources or will be in the future. This could expose noise-sensitive uses to noise levels in excess of the Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-92 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
existing General Plan noise policies. Buildout of the General Plan would also permanently and substantially increase existing ambient noise levels in certain locations. The General Plan establishes the City’s standards for land use and noise compatibility and strategies for addressing conflicts. While the policy approach would reduce adverse noise exposure impacts, the City cannot demonstrate that potentially significant impacts would be avoided in every case. Thus, the impact was found to be significant and unavoidable.
4.13.2.1 Project Onsite Construction Noise
Construction noise associated with the proposed Project would be temporary and would vary depending on the specific nature of the activities being performed. Noise generated would primarily be associated with the operation of off-road equipment for onsite construction activities as well as construction vehicle traffic on area roadways. Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., site preparation, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, pile drivers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (i.e., dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). During construction, exterior noise levels could negatively affect sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the construction site.
The nearest existing noise-sensitive land uses to the Project are residences positioned adjacent to the northern and southern boundaries of the Project Limits. These residences are generally separated from Pleasant Grove Boulevard by a six-foot-high masonry wall and 30-foot-wide vegetated buffer with sidewalks. The City of Roseville General Plan Noise Element Policy N1.9 states construction-related noise that is consistent with the City’s Municipal Code is exempt from City noise standards. Chapter 9.24 of the City of Roseville Municipal Codes states that 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, is exempt from City noise standards. The Project is proposing that construction activities 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 City Municipal Code Chapter 9.24. As allowed by Municipal Code Chapter 9.24.020, the Project may also include extended construction hours, or in special situations, periods of nighttime work, so long as all reasonable measures are taken to minimize noise impacts.
To estimate the worst-case onsite construction noise levels that may occur at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors and in order to evaluate the potential health-related effects (physical damage to the ear) from construction noise, the construction equipment noise levels were calculated using the Roadway Noise Construction Model and compared against the construction‐related noise level threshold established in the Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure prepared in 1998 by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). A division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH identifies a noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source.
The NIOSH construction-related noise level threshold starts at 85 dBA for more than 8 hours per day; for Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-93 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
every 3-dBA increase, the exposure time is cut in half. This reduction results in noise level thresholds of 88 dBA for more than 4 hours per day, 92 dBA for more than 1 hour per day, 96 dBA for more than 30 minutes per day, and up to 100 dBA for more than 15 minutes per day. For the purposes of this analysis, the lowest, more conservative threshold of 85 dBA Leq is used as an acceptable threshold for construction noise at the nearby sensitive receptors.
It is acknowledged that the majority of construction equipment is not situated at any one location during construction activities, but rather spread throughout the linear Project Limits and at various distances from sensitive receptors. Therefore, this analysis employs the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance for calculating construction noise, which recommends measuring construction noise produced by all construction equipment from the center of the Project Site (FTA 2018), which in this case is represented by the median of Pleasant Grove Boulevard, which is approximately 85 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor. The anticipated short-term construction noise levels generated for the necessary equipment is presented in Table 4.13-3.
Table 4.13-3. Construction Average (dBA) Noise Levels at Nearest Residential Receptors Equipment
Estimated Exterior
Construction Noise Level
at Existing Residences
(dBA)
Construction
Noise Standards
(dBA Leq)
Exceeds
Standards?
Phase 1 79.9 85 No
Phase 2 82.4 85 No
Phase 3 83.7 85 No
Phase 4 79.9 85 No
Source: Construction noise levels were calculated by ECORP Consulting, Inc. using the FHWA Roadway Noise Construction Model (FHWA 2006). Refer to Appendix G-3 for Model Data Outputs.
Notes: Construction equipment used during construction derived from the Project proponent and the Roadway Construction Emissions Model (RCEM). RCEM contains default construction equipment and usage parameters for typical roadway construction projects. The nearest residence is located approximately 85 feet from median of Pleasant Grove Boulevard.
Leq = The equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time.
Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.
As shown in Table 4.13-3, Project onsite construction activities would not exceed the NIOSH threshold of 85 dBA Leq at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. As such, a less than significant impact would occur and there would be no new impact.
4.13.2.2 Offsite Construction Worker Traffic Noise
Construction associated with the Project would result in additional traffic on adjacent roadways over the period that construction occurs. According to the RCEM, which is used to predict the number of on-road Project construction-related trips, construction would not instigate more than 96 trips in a single day (up to 46 construction worker commute trips and up to 50 haul truck trips). According to the Caltrans Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-94 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (2013), doubling of traffic on a roadway is required to result in an increase of 3 dB (outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a justperceivable difference). The Project Limits are predominantly contained within Pleasant Grove Boulevard, which is regionally accessible from SR 65. According to the Traffic Study prepared for the Project, the segment of Pleasant Grove Boulevard contained within the Project Limits currently accommodates between 31,500 and 52,000 average daily traffic trips (Fehr & Peers 2022). Per Caltrans traffic counts, the segment of SR 65 traversing the Pleasant Grove Boulevard onramps currently accommodates an average daily traffic count of 100,000 vehicles (Caltrans 2021). Thus, Project construction would not result in a doubling of traffic, and therefore its contribution to existing traffic noise would not be perceptible.
Additionally, it is noted that construction is temporary, and construction-related trips would cease upon completion of construction. For these reasons a less than significant impact would occur, and thus there would be no new impact.
4.13.2.3 Operational Traffic Noise
Future traffic noise levels on Pleasant Grove Boulevard were modeled based on traffic volumes identified by Fehr & Peers (2022). Table 4.13-4 shows the calculated Pleasant Grove Boulevard noise levels under existing traffic levels compared to future traffic levels resulting from implementation of the Project. The calculated noise levels as a result of the Project at affected sensitive land uses are compared to the maximum allowable noise exposure standard promulgated in the Roseville General Plan Noise Element. As shown in Table 4.13-2 above, existing exterior noise levels at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors already exceeds the conditionally acceptable ambient noise standard of 65 dBA Ldn without implementation of the Project. Thus, the increase in transportation-related noise associated with implementation of the proposed Project is evaluated against Roseville General Plan Noise Element Policy N1.5, which states that if existing noise levels already exceed noise compatibility standards without implementation of a proposed project, a project’s contribution to ambient noise is considered significant in the case of the following:
Where existing exterior noise is less than 60 dB, a ≥5 dBA increase in noise is significant. Where existing exterior noise is between 60 and 65 dBA, a ≥3 dB increase in noise is significant. Where existing exterior noise is greater than 65 dB a ≥1.5 dBA increase in noise is significant.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-95 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Table 4.13-4. Existing Plus Project Conditions Predicted Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment
Ldn at 75 feet from
Centerline of Roadway Exceed
Standard?
Existing Existing +
Project
Pleasant Grove Boulevard
West of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard 70.4 dBA 70.4 dBA No
Between Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard & Birkdale
Drive/Retreat Way 68.1 dBA 68.3 dBA No
Between Birkdale Drive/Retreat Way & Country Club
Drive 68.1 dBA 68.4 dBA No
Between Country Club Drive & Laporte
Drive/Hemingway Drive 68.4 dBA 68.6 dBA No
Between Misty Wood Drive & Foothills Boulevard 68.8 dBA 68.8 dBA No East of Foothills Boulevard 69.8 dBA 69.8 dBA No
Source: Traffic noise levels were calculated by ECORP Consulting, Inc. using the FHWA traffic noise prediction model in conjunction with the trip generation rate identified by Fehr & Peers (2022). Refer to Appendix H for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.
Note: Standard ≥ 1.5 dBA
Surrounding Uses: Residential
As show in Table 4.13-4, predicted increases in traffic noise levels associated with the Project would be less than the City of Roseville significance threshold. A less than significant impact would occur, and thus there would be no new impact.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
b) Result in generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, General Plan buildout construction of projects could cause a temporary, shortterm disruptive vibration if it were to occur near sensitive receptors, and future development of new vibration-sensitive land uses could occur within vibration-generating areas (e.g., railroad). However, this vibration would be temporary, and the City does not anticipate very large-scale projects with extensive excavation and pile driving that would occur directly adjacent vibration-sensitive uses that would result in substantial disturbance or damage to adjacent structures.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-96 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
The General Plan also anticipates the potential for vibration-sensitive land uses to be developed in areas with some amount of existing vibration today, such as the Union Pacific Railroad. Policy N1.10 requires all feasible measures necessary, as a part of proposed development and public infrastructure projects, to avoid structural damage to adjacent structures and avoid substantial annoyance for adjacent vibrationsensitive uses, consistent with California Department of Transportation and Federal Transit Agency guidance—guidance that is specifically designed to avoid annoyance to vibration-sensitive uses and structure damage. Thus, with implementation of all applicable General Plan Policy, impacts related to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels were found to be less than significant by the GPU EIR.
Construction Vibration
Excessive groundborne vibration impacts result from continuously occurring vibration levels. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the Project would be primarily associated with short-term construction-related activities. Construction on the Project Site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance.
Construction-related ground vibration is normally associated with impact equipment such as pile drivers, jackhammers, and the operation of some heavy-duty construction equipment, such as dozers and trucks.
It is noted that pile drivers would not be necessary during Project construction. Vibration decreases rapidly with distance and it is acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project Site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to sensitive receptors. Groundborne vibration levels associated with construction equipment at 25 feet distant are summarized in Table 4.13-4.
Table 4.13-4. Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Type Peak Particle Velocity at 25 Feet
(inches/second)
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Hoe Ram 0.089
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer/Tractor 0.003
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Source: Caltrans 2020; FTA 2018
The City of Roseville does not promulgate a numeric threshold regulating vibrations associated with construction. General Plan Policy N1.10 requires the inclusion of all feasible measures necessary, as a part Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-97 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
of proposed development and public infrastructure projects, to avoid substantial annoyance for adjacent vibration-sensitive uses consistent with California Department of Transportation and Federal Transit Agency guidance. Thus, the Caltrans (2020) recommended standard of 0.2 inch per second PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage for older residential buildings is used as a threshold. This is also the level at which vibrations may begin to annoy people in buildings. Consistent with FTA recommendations for calculating construction vibration, construction vibration was measured from the center of the Project Site (FTA 2018). The nearest structure of concern to the construction site, with regard to groundborne vibrations, are residences approximately 85 feet from the Project Site.
Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types in Table
4.13-4 and the construction vibration assessment methodology published by the FTA (2018), it is possible to estimate the potential Project construction vibration levels. The FTA provides the following equation:
[PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5].
Table 4.13-5 presents the expected Project related vibration levels at a distance of 85 feet.
Table 4.13-5. Onsite Construction Vibration Levels at 85 Feet Receiver PPV Levels (inches/second)1
Peak
Vibration Threshold Exceed Threshold
Large
Bulldozer,
Caisson
Drilling, &
Hoe Ram
Loaded
Trucks Jackhammer Small Bulldozer
Vibratory
Roller
0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.2 No
Notes: 1Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 4.13-4 (FTA 2018).
Distance to the nearest structure of concern is approximately 85 feet measured from Project Site boundary.
As shown in Table 4.13-5, vibration as a result of onsite construction activities on the Project Site would not exceed 0.2 PPV at the nearest structure. Thus, onsite Project construction would not exceed the recommended threshold and related Project impacts would be less than significant and there would be no new impact.
Operational Vibration
Project operations would not include the use of any stationary equipment that would result in excessive vibration levels. Therefore, the Project would not result in groundborne vibration impacts during operations and there would be no new impact.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-98 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, the Planning Area does not intersect with any military bases, special use airspaces, or low-level flight paths, and is not located in safety zones or noise contours associated with airfields or airports that are a concern for land use compatibility planning. The Planning Area is not located within 2 miles of a public or private airstrip. McClellan Airfield is located more than 5 miles south of the Planning Area, Lincoln Airport is located more than 7 miles north of the Planning Area, and Sacramento International Airport is located more than 15 miles west of the Planning Area. No noise standards are exceeded by the aircraft overflight because the City is located outside of the 60 dB CNEL contour for McClellan Airfield, Sacramento International Airport, and the Lincoln Airport; therefore, exposure to excessive noise levels from aircraft noise was considered less than significant by the GPU EIR.
As discussed above, the Project site is located approximately nine miles northeast of the Sacramento McClellan Airport and is located outside of the boundaries of the McClellan Airport land use plan. Since the site is outside the land use plan boundaries it is beyond the noise contours generated by airport operations. Thus, the proposed Project would not expose people working to implement the Project to excess airport noise levels. No new impact would occur.
4.13.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified; no mitigation measures are required.
4.14 Population and Housing
4.14.1 Environmental Setting
4.14.1.1 Population
The California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates that the City of Roseville’s total population increased from 79,921 in 2000 to 118,788 in 2010, which is a 49-percent increase over this 10-year period (City of Roseville 2015, DOF 2012, 2019). As of January 1, 2019, DOF estimates that the population of Roseville was 139,643, which is a 15-percent increase from the 2010 population (DOF 2019). The City estimates that Roseville’s population will increase to 198,000 persons with full buildout of the General Plan (City of Roseville 2017).
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-99 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.14.1.2 Housing
According to the DOF, the total number of housing units in the City of Roseville was 54,621 in 2019, with an average household size of 2.71 persons per household, compared to 2.57 in unincorporated Placer County (DOF 2019). Approximately 76 percent of these housing units were attached and detached singlefamily homes, compared to 78 percent countywide (DOF 2019). The City estimates that Roseville’s 16 subareas will have a total of 75,200 housing units with full buildout of the General Plan (which includes 14 specific plan areas, the Infill area, and the North Industrial area).
Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) estimates that Roseville will have a total of 68,950 housing units in 2035, which is the planning horizon for the City’s current General Plan (SACOG 2019). This includes the estimated number of housing units that could be constructed as part of the Creekview, Sierra Visa, and Amoruso Ranch, and Downtown Specific Plan Areas (SACOG 2019). SACOG’s estimate of housing units in 2035 is approximately 8 percent less than the City’s projections for buildout of the General Plan (75,200 housing units) (SACOG 2019).
4.14.2 Population and Housing (XIV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, General Plan buildout would not directly induce unplanned growth.
Furthermore, the majority of the vacant land adjacent to the City’s boundaries are within existing adopted Specific Plans within Placer County, and are already planned for urbanization and development. Therefore, buildout consistent with the General Plan does not have the potential to indirectly induce substantial unplanned growth outside of the Planning Area. This impact was found to be less than significant.
The Project is a road widening transportation system CIP project that is proposed consistent with the General Plan and is intended to support General Plan buildout. Thus, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) and there would be no new impact an no mitigation is required.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-100 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of people or
existing housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, the General Plan does not propose converting established residential areas to a nonresidential land use or redeveloping existing residential areas with new residences by removing existing dwelling units. Although General Plan buildout is not expected to result in substantial displacement of people or housing necessitating construction of housing elsewhere, if there is unanticipated displacement, the existing General Plan land use plan includes capacity for the construction of 22,300 residential dwelling units, which would provide housing for any displaced residents. Therefore, this impact was found to be less than significant.
The proposed Project is limited to road widening to support General Plan buildout and would not displace any existing housing or people. Thus, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere and there would be no new impact.
4.14.3 Mitigation Measures
No new significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.
4.15 Public Services
4.15.1 Environmental Setting
The City of Roseville provides fire protection, law enforcement, and parks and recreation public services within the City limits. School services in Roseville are provided by the Roseville City School District, Eureka Union School District, Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District, Center Joint Unified School District, and Roseville Joint Union High School District. Refer to GPU EIR section 4.11.2 for a complete description of existing public services. The City of Roseville also provides public facilities, including buildings for general government services and other facilities (i.e., corporation yards) that support other public service functions.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-101 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.15.2 Public Services (XV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a) result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, 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
public services:
Fire Protection?
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other Public Facilities?
4.15.2.1 Fire and Police Protection
According to the GPU EIR, General Plan buildout would result in additional population and structures within the Planning Area that would create additional demands for fire and police protection services over current demand levels. However, the addition of new staff would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire or police protection facilities to maintain acceptable response times or other performance objectives, the construction of which could potentially have adverse impacts on the physical environment. This impact was found to be less than significant.
Proposed improvements would require elimination of the existing allowed left turn movement onto Pleasant Grove Boulevard from the following three side street stop-sign-controlled intersections:
Pleasant Grove Boulevard & Birkdale Drive/Retreat Way Pleasant Grove Boulevard & Laporte Drive/Hemingway Drive Pleasant Grove Boulevard & Misty Wood Drive
As shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-3, existing left-turn and through movements from these side streets would be restricted post Project by a center median. The center median improvements conform with City Standards prohibiting left turns or through movements from side streets across six-lane roadways. The proposed improvements are in conformance with City Standards, which account for emergency vehicle accessibility, and therefore would not result in new impacts to police or fire protection services.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-102 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
The Project is primarily limited to road widening and as discussed above would be implemented consistent with all adopted General Plan policy and implementation measures. Thus, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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 fire and police protection services. There would be no new impact.
4.15.2.2 Schools
According to the GPU EIR, City buildout would accommodate construction of between 20,000 to 25,000 housing units that generate approximately 10,000 additional K-12 students. The impacts of construction and operation of school facilities was analyzed throughout the GPU EIR and were found to be mitigated by adopted policies implementation measures which, where necessary, would reduce or avoid impacts.
Thus, the impact was found to be less than significant.
The proposed Project is limited to road widening and would be implemented consistent with all adopted General Plan policy and implementation measures. The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable school service levels. There would be no new impact.
4.15.2.3 Parks
According to the GPU EIR, General Plan buildout would result in the development of new residences in Roseville, which would add new population and increase demand for new and existing parks, as well as recreation facilities. This additional population would be likely to use existing park facilities potentially resulting in the accelerated physical deterioration of existing facilities. Buildout of the General Plan could accommodate approximately 1,100 additional acres of developed parkland, the construction of which could result in adverse impacts on the physical environment. However, the impacts of construction and operation of these facilities has been analyzed in the GPU EIR, and within EIRs for each of the City’s Specific Plans. The General Plan includes mitigating policies and measures, where necessary, that would reduce or avoid impacts. In addition, dedication of parkland or payment of in-lieu fees could also be used by the City to improve, expand, and maintain existing City parks to ensure that accelerated deterioration does not occur. Thus, this impact was found to be less than significant in the GPU EIR.
The proposed Project is limited to road widening and would be implemented consistent with all adopted General Plan policy and implementation measures. Thus, the Project would not generate new population or result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable park service levels. There would be no new impact.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-103 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.15.2.4 Other Public Facilities
According to the GPU EIR, as the City’s population increases and demographics shift, continual assessment will be required to determine whether other public facilities require expansion. Existing adopted General Plan policy and implementation measures would ensure adequate provision of other public facilities as the City grows. There are no additional significant impacts related to construction of other public facilities beyond the construction impacts that are analyzed throughout the GPU EIR. As appropriate, future construction plans would be subject to project-level CEQA analysis and mitigation, further ensuring compliance with regulations and allowing additional opportunities for mitigation, if necessary. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR found this impact to be less than significant.
The proposed Project is limited to road widening and would be implemented consistent with all adopted General Plan policy and implementation measures. Thus, the Project would not generate new population or result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision or construction of other public facilities needed to serve the City’s growing population, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable government service levels. There would be no new impact.
4.15.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.
4.16 Recreation
4.16.1 Environmental Setting
The City has defined park lands to include public developed parks, recreational open space, and joint-use park school facilities. The City has an adopted standard of 9 acres of park land per 1,000 residents, which has historically been met through the dedication of parkland as a part of development. As of 2018, the City had approximately six acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. This is because, although all new development in the City is required to dedicate sufficient land to meet the City’s parkland standard, portions of the City were developed prior to the adoption of this standard.
4.16.2 Recreation (XVI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
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?
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-104 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, General Plan buildout would result in the development of new residences in Roseville, which would add new population and increase demand for new and existing parks, as well as recreation facilities. This additional population would be likely to use existing park facilities potentially resulting in the accelerated physical deterioration of existing facilities. Buildout of the General Plan could accommodate approximately 1,100 additional acres of developed parkland, the construction of which could result in adverse impacts on the physical environment. However, the impacts of construction and operation of these facilities has been analyzed in the GPU EIR, and within EIRs for each of the City’s Specific Plans. The General Plan includes mitigating policies and measures, where necessary, that would reduce or avoid impacts. In addition, dedication of parkland or payment of in-lieu fees could also be used by the City to improve, expand, and maintain existing City parks to ensure that accelerated deterioration does not occur. Thus, this impact was found to be less than significant in the GPU EIR.
The proposed Project is limited to road widening, would not increase City population, and would be implemented consistent with all adopted General Plan policy and implementation measures. Thus, the Project would not 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. There would be no new impact.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, General Plan buildout would result in the development of new residences in Roseville, which would add new population and increase demand for new and existing park and recreation facilities. Buildout of the General Plan could accommodate approximately 1,100 additional acres of developed parkland, the construction of which could result in adverse impacts on the physical environment. However, the impacts of construction and operation of these facilities has been analyzed in the GPU EIR, and within EIRs for each of the City’s Specific Plans. The adopted General Plan includes mitigating policies and measures, where necessary, that would reduce or avoid impacts resulting from recreational facility development. This includes the payment of in-lieu fees which can be used for new park construction. Thus, this impact was found to be less than significant in the GPU EIR.
The proposed Project is limited to road widening and would be implemented consistent with all adopted General Plan policy and implementation measures. Thus, the Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
There would be no new impact.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-105 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.16.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.
4.17 Transportation
This section is based on information and analysis contained in the Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Traffic Study (Traffic Study) prepared by Fehr & Peers (March 2022.) (IS/MND Appendix H) and the City of Roseville GPU EIR (City of Roseville. August 2020).
The Traffic Study documents existing conditions, provides design recommendations for proposed widening improvements based on Project level queuing analysis, and confirms traffic impacts of the Project with respect to adopted General Plan policy addressing intersection LOS. With implementation of Senate Bill 743 in 2018, Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) replaced LOS as the significance criterion to be applied when analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA. Accordingly, while the LOS results reported herein may be compared to the City’s LOS policy to evaluate performance, LOS results not meeting the City’s LOS policy would not represent a significant transportation impact under CEQA.
4.17.1 Environmental Setting
As discussed above in Section 2.0 Project Description, the Project would widen Pleasant Grove Boulevard from four to six travel lanes, configured as three eastbound and three westbound lanes, from the existing six-lane section east of Foothills Boulevard westerly through Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard. The Project includes conforming adjustments to intersections, turn lanes, and signal operations to optimize traffic flow within the Project limits.
4.17.1.1 Study Area
Potential project impacts are analyzed at six study intersections along the Project segment of Pleasant Grove Boulevard between Foothills Boulevard and Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard (Figure 4.17-1). The study area includes three signalized intersections and three unsignalized intersections along Pleasant Grove Boulevard.
4.17.1.2 Analysis Scenarios
The Traffic Study analyzed the following scenarios:
Existing Conditions - represents the existing setting upon which project-specific impacts are judged.
Existing Plus Project (EPP) Conditions - represents existing conditions and volumes plus the widening of Pleasant Grove Boulevard.
Figure 4-17.1. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and
Lane Configurations - Existing Conditions
2021-260 Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
Source: Fehr Peers
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-107 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Cumulative No Project (CNP) (2035) Conditions – assumes planned City of Roseville capital improvements and development of numerous reasonable and foreseeable land uses in the study area and additional land uses and roadway network improvements, but no widening of Pleasant Grove Boulevard.
Cumulative Plus Project (CPP) (2035) Conditions – assumes planned City of Roseville capital improvements and development of numerous reasonable and foreseeable land uses in the study area and additional land uses and roadway network improvements, which already includes the proposed widening of Pleasant Grove Boulevard.
4.17.1.3 Analysis Methods
Level of Service
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions whereby a letter grade, from A (the best) to F (the worst), is assigned. These grades represent the perspective of drivers and are an indication of the comfort and convenience associated with driving. In general, LOS A represents free-flow conditions with no congestion, and LOS F represents severe congestion and delay under stop-and-go conditions. Table 4.17-1 provides the City’s adopted intersection LOS criteria. LOS results reported are determined using the procedures and methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition.
To provide consistency with other studies, the Traffic Study used the deterministic Synchro software program to analyze all study intersections except Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Foothills Boulevard for PM peak hour conditions. This intersection was analyzed using the SimTraffic 11 micro-simulation model due to its level of congestion and coordinated traffic signal progression.
Table 4.17-1. Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service
Description
(for signalized intersections)
Average Delay
(Seconds/Vehicle)
Signalized Unsignalized
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable traffic signal progression and/or short cycle lengths.
< 10.0 < 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.
> 10.0 to 20.0 > 10.0 to 15.0
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20.0 to 35.0 > 15.0 to 25.0
D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
> 35.0 to 55.0 > 25.0 to 35.0
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-108 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Table 4.17-1. Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service
Description
(for signalized intersections)
Average Delay
(Seconds/Vehicle)
Signalized Unsignalized
E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, and long cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. > 55.0 to 80.0 > 35.0 to 50.0
F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0 > 50.0
Note: LOS = level of service; V/C ratio = volume-to-capacity ratio Source: Transportation Research Board, 2016.
Queuing
Queuing was evaluated for plus-project conditions (EPP and CPP) using the SimTraffic 11 microsimulation model to provide input for design decisions. All reported queuing results represent the average maximum queues for 10 simulation runs.
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Average daily traffic (ADT) is the sum of all vehicles over a 24-hour period. Comparison of No Project and Plus Project ADT can provide understanding of the overall impacts of a project on the transportation system. ADT is typically reported for a mid-week condition (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday).
Note that while the City of Roseville reports ADT on its roadways, the City does not use ADT-based LOS as a metric. The City evaluates LOS on signalized intersections because intersections dictate overall operations of the City's roadway system.
4.17.1.4 Performance Targets
The City of Roseville’s level of service policy per the City of Roseville 2035 General Plan (August 2020) is:
Maintain a 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 where improvements required to achieve the standard would adversely affect pedestrian, bicycle, or transit access, and where feasible LOS improvements and travel-demand-reducing strategies have been exhausted.
As discussed above, while the LOS results reported herein may be compared to the City’s LOS policy to evaluate performance, LOS results not meeting the City’s LOS policy would not represent a significant Transportation impact under CEQA.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-109 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.17.1.5 Existing Conditions
This section presents Existing conditions within the study area. Existing conditions are generally reflective of travel prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Within the study area, Pleasant Grove Boulevard is primarily a four-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour. At the eastern end of the study area, Pleasant Grove Boulevard widens to a six-lane roadway east of Foothills Boulevard.
There are existing Class II bike lanes (on-street with appropriate signage and pavement markings) along both sides of Pleasant Grove Boulevard, which will be maintained by the project.
There are existing City Local “Route M” bus stops along both sides of Pleasant Grove Boulevard, which will be unchanged by the project. These are located:
West of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard (both eastbound and westbound), East of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard (eastbound only),
East of Country Club Drive (eastbound only),
West of Foothills Boulevard (both eastbound and westbound), and East of Foothills Boulevard (eastbound only)
Traffic Volumes
For the three signalized study intersections, the Traffic Study utilized traffic count data (collected in February 2020) from the Transportation Impact Study for the Roseville Housing Element Update (2021).
For the three unsignalized study intersections, it was necessary to collect counts in October 2021 to provide side-street volume data. Through traffic volumes were then balanced through the unsignalized locations using the higher pre-COVID volumes from the signalized intersections, such that the analysis should reflect pre-COVID conditions.
Figure 4.17-1 shows Existing AM and PM peak hour turning volumes and lane configurations at the study intersections.
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Table 4.17-2 shows the existing ADT at multiple locations along Pleasant Grove Boulevard collected by the City’s traffic signal loop detectors over the same days as the turning movement counts (February 2020).
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-110 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Table 4.17-2: ADT – Existing Conditions
Location on Pleasant Grove Boulevard Existing (2020)
Daily Volume
West of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard 31,500
Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard to Birkdale Drive/Retreat Way 36,600 Birkdale Drive/Retreat Way to Country Club Drive 37,100 Country Club Drive to Laporte Drive/Hemingway Drive 39,400 Misty Wood Drive to Foothills Boulevard 41,200
East of Foothills Boulevard 52,000
ADT values are rounded to the nearest 100 vehicles.
Source: Fehr & Peers 2021.
Level of Service (LOS)
Table 4.17-3 displays Existing AM and PM peak hour operations at the study intersections along Pleasant Grove Boulevard. Details are included in the Traffic Study Technical Appendix (see IS/MND Appendix H).
The two primary intersections at each end of the corridor operate at LOS D or E during peak hours. Delays are also high for through and left-turns from the side-street stop-controlled intersections.
At Foothills Boulevard, the overall average intersection delay is mostly influenced by eastbound and westbound through and left-turn delays.
Table 4.17-3. Level of Service – Existing Conditions
Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour Delay [1][2] LOS
1 Pleasant Grove Boulevard & Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard Signal AM 43 D PM 35 D
2 Pleasant Grove Boulevard & Birkdale Drive /Retreat Way SSSC AM 2 (79) A (F)
PM 2 (268) A (F)
3 Pleasant Grove Boulevard & Country Club Drive Signal AM 10 B PM 20 B
4 Pleasant Grove Boulevard & Laporte Drive /Hemingway Drive SSSC AM 2 (204) A (F)
PM 10 (>300) B (F)
5 Pleasant Grove Boulevard & Misty Wood Drive
SSSC AM 1 (37) A (E)
PM 4 (278) A (F)
6 Pleasant Grove Boulevard & Foothills Boulevard Signal AM 44 D PM [3,4] 58 E
SSSC = side street stop-sign-controlled intersection; LOS = level of service Excessive delays greater than 300 seconds are reported as “>300” seconds due to model’s inability to produce reasonable delay estimates under high volume, near-capacity conditions Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-111 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Table 4.17-3. Level of Service – Existing Conditions
Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour Delay [1][2] LOS
Notes:
1. For signalized intersections, average intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for all approaches. For side street stop-sign-controlled intersections, intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for the overall intersection and (worst-case) movement.
2. Unless otherwise noted, intersection delay is calculated based on the procedures and methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2016).
3. LOS analysis was completed using the SimTraffic 11 micro-simulation model
4. Existing PM LOS result was sourced from the Transportation Impact Study for the Roseville Housing Element Update (2021)
Source: Fehr & Peers 2021
4.17.1.6 Existing Plus Project Conditions
This section analyzes the impacts of the proposed Project under EPP Conditions, which represents Existing conditions with the addition of the Project as described in Section 2.0 Project Description.
Traffic Volumes
To isolate the effects of the Project without any induced travel demand, the EPP turning traffic volumes used in this analysis are representative of the Existing volumes applied to the proposed project geometry.
Figure 4.17-2 shows the EPP AM and PM peak hour turning volumes and lane configurations at the study intersections. As shown, under the proposed Project, movements at the three existing side street stopsign-controlled intersections would be restricted to right-turns only. Vehicles previously traveling straight or turning left were instead assumed to turn right and perform a U-turn at a nearby downstream intersection.
Level of Service
Table 4.17-4 displays EPP AM and PM peak hour operations at the study intersections along Pleasant Grove Boulevard compared to Existing Conditions. Details are included in the Traffic Study Technical Appendix (see IS/MND Appendix H). The analysis utilized existing traffic signal timing (cycle lengths, splits, and coordination offsets).
Figure 4-17.2. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and
Lane Configurations - Existing Plus
Project Conditions
2021-260 Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
Source: Fehr Peers
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-113 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Table4.17-4: Level of Service – Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Existing Existing Plus
Project
Delay[1,2] LOS Delay[1,2] LOS
1 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard Signal
AM 43 D 37 D
PM 35 D 32 C
2 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Birkdale Drive/Retreat Way SSSC
AM 2 (79) A (F) 0 (26) A (D)
PM 2 (268) A (F) 0 (26) A (D)
3 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Country Club Drive Signal
AM 10 B 8 A
PM 20 B 9 A
4 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Laporte Dr/Hemingway Drive SSSC
AM 2 (204) A (F) 1 (36) A (E)
PM 10 (>300) B (F) 1 (30) A (D)
5 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Misty Wood Drive SSSC
AM 1 (37) A (E) 1 (32) A (D)
PM 4 (278) A (F) 1 (36) A (E)
6 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Foothills Boulevard Signal
AM 44 D 43 D
PM [3,4] 58 E 48 D
SSSC = side street stop-sign-controlled intersection; LOS = level of service Excessive delays greater than 300 seconds are reported as “>300” seconds due to model’s inability to produce reasonable delay estimates under high volume, near-capacity conditions Values shown in bold indicate a degradation from above, to below LOS C Notes:
1. For signalized intersections, average intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for all approaches. For side street stop-sign-controlled intersection, intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for the overall intersection and (worst-case) movement.
2. Unless otherwise noted, intersection delay is calculated based on the procedures and methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2016).
3. LOS analysis was completed using the SimTraffic 11 micro-simulation model
4. Existing PM LOS result was sourced from the Transportation Impact Study for the Roseville Housing Element Update (2021)
Source: Fehr & Peers 2022
Results show reductions in overall delay at the three signalized intersections. As these results do not incorporate any induced travel demand on the study segment due to the widening, delay would be expected to increase over time as motorists begin to utilize the additional capacity.
The reductions in delay for the worst-case movements at the side-street stop-controlled intersections shown under the EPP Conditions can primarily be attributed to the removal of outbound through and leftturn movements.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-114 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.17.1.7 Cumulative (2035) No Project Conditions
This section analyzes the impacts of the proposed Project under CNP Conditions, which assumes planned City of Roseville capital improvements and development of numerous reasonable and foreseeable land uses in the study area. This scenario assumes no widening of Pleasant Grove Boulevard.
Traffic Volumes
The City of Roseville Cumulative (2035) travel demand model already includes this Project’s widening of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. Therefore, to derive CNP forecasts, the widening of Pleasant Grove Boulevard was removed from the model and forecasts were regenerated.
Figure 4.17-3 shows the CNP AM and PM peak hour turning volumes and lane configurations at the study intersections. A third northbound through lane and a fourth southbound through lane are assumed at the Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Foothills Boulevard intersection consistent with the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Average Daily Traffic
Table 4.17-5 shows the ADT calculated for CNP Conditions and compared to Existing ADT measurements.
Table 4.17-5. ADT – Cumulative No Project Conditions
Location on Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Existing
(2020)
Daily Volume
Cumulative
No Project
Daily Volume
Growth
West of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard 31,500 41,900 +10,400
Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard to Birkdale Drive/Retreat Way 36,600 39,900 +3,300 Birkdale Dr/Retreat Way to Country Club Drive 37,100 39,600 +2,500 Country Club Drive to Laporte Drive/Hemingway Drive 39,400 44,800 +5,400 Misty Wood Drive to Foothills Boulevard 41,200 43,500 +2,300 East of Foothills Boulevard 52,000 54,000 +2,000
ADT values are rounded to the nearest 100 vehicles.
Source: Fehr & Peers 2021
Figure 4-17.3. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and
Lane Configurations - Cumulative
No Project Conditions
2021-260 Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
Source: Fehr Peers
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-116 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
In review of the model output, increases between Existing to CNP conditions on the order of 10,000 ADT or more were observed on parallel arterials. In contrast, modest traffic growth in the range of 1,000 to 3,000 ADT is forecast on Pleasant Grove Boulevard between Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard and Foothills Boulevard. This indicates that without the project, the roadway would lack the capacity for a proportional increase in traffic (similar to the parallel roadways) under Cumulative conditions.
Level of Service
Table4.17-6 displays CNP AM and PM peak hour operations at the study intersections along Pleasant Grove Boulevard compared to Existing Conditions. Details are included in the Traffic Report Technical Appendix (see IS/MND Appendix H). The three traffic signals were coordinated with a cycle length of 150 seconds (AM) and 160 seconds (PM).
Table 4.17-6: Level of Service – Cumulative No Project Conditions Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Existing Cumulative No
Project
Delay [1,2] LOS Delay [1,2] LOS
1 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard Signal
AM 43 D 50 D
PM 35 D 57 E
2 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Birkdale Drive /Retreat Way SSSC
AM 2 (79) A (F) 21 (>300) C (F)
PM 2 (268) A (F) 41 (>300) E (F)
3 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Country Club Drive Signal
AM 10 B 17 B
PM 20 B 14 B
4 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Laporte Drive /Hemingway Drive SSSC
AM 2 (204) A (F) 32 (>300) D (F)
PM 10 (>300) B (F) 117 (>300) F (F)
5 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Misty Wood Drive SSSC
AM 1 (37) A (E) 90 (>300) F (F)
PM 4 (278) A (F) 145 (>300) F (F)
6 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Foothills Boulevard Signal
AM 44 D 57 E
PM [3,4] 58 E 135 F
SSSC = side street stop-sign-controlled intersection; LOS = level of service Excessive delays of greater than 300 seconds are reported as “>300” seconds due to model’s inability to produce reasonable delay estimates under high volume, near-capacity conditions Values shown in bold indicate a degradation from above, to below LOS C Notes:
1. For signalized intersections, average intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for all approaches. For side street stop-sign-controlled intersections, intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for the overall intersection and (worst-case) movement.
2. Unless otherwise noted, intersection delay is calculated based on the procedures and methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2016).
3. LOS analysis was completed using the SimTraffic 11 micro-simulation model.
4. Existing PM LOS result was sourced from the Transportation Impact Study for the Roseville Housing Element Update (2021).
Source: Fehr & Peers 2022.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-117 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
As shown, the increased demand under the Cumulative scenario would push most study intersections into LOS E or worse without the project creating conditions inconsistent with General Plan policy.
4.17.1.8 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project Conditions
This section presents the analysis of Project impacts under Cumulative Plus Projects (2035) (CPP) conditions.
Traffic Volumes
Forecasts for CPP conditions were derived from the Transportation Impact Study for the Roseville Housing Element Update (2021), as the cumulative scenario from that analysis is consistent with the CPP scenario for the proposed Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project.
Figure 4.17-4 shows the CPP AM and PM peak hour turning volumes and lane configurations at the study intersections. While not included in the Project, a third northbound through lane and a fourth southbound through lane are assumed at the Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Foothills Boulevard intersection consistent with the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
A comparison of Figures 4.17-3 to 4.17-4 indicates the following:
The widening of Pleasant Grove Boulevard would increase eastbound AM peak hour trips by 430 vehicles and increase westbound PM peak hour trips by about 450 vehicles on the segment between Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard and Country Club Drive. Under Existing Plus Project Conditions, much of the increase on this segment was due to added traffic from Country Club Drive. However, under cumulative conditions, the increase is not associated with added traffic from Country Club Drive, but rather overall increases in through travel throughout the corridor. Note that the large increases in eastbound right-turns and northbound left-turns at Country Club Drive do not occur under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, likely because Pleasant Grove Boulevard is near capacity (from a model volume-tocapacity perspective) under cumulative conditions; hence, the model does not route traffic from Country Club Drive onto it.
Average Daily Traffic
Table 4.17-7 shows the ADT calculated for CPP Conditions as compared to CNP conditions.
Figure 4-17.4. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and
Lane Configurations - Cumulative
Plus Project Conditions
2021-260 Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
Source: Fehr Peers
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-119 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Table 4.17-7. ADT – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Location on Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Cumulative
No Project
Daily
Volume
Cumulative
Plus Project
Daily Volume
Project
Delta
West of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard 41,900 42,900 +1,000
Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard to Birkdale Drive/Retreat Way 39,900 50,800 +10,900 Birkdale Drive /Retreat Way to Country Club Drive 39,600 50,600 +11,000 Country Club Drive to Laporte Drive /Hemingway Drive 44,800 53,100 +8,300 Misty Wood Drive to Foothills Boulevard 43,500 52,500 +9,000 East of Foothills Boulevard 54,000 55,600 +1,600
ADT values are rounded to the nearest 100 vehicles.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
Level of Service
Table4.17-8 displays Cumulative (2035) AM and PM peak hour operations at the study intersections along Pleasant Grove Boulevard under “Plus Project” conditions compared to “No Project” Conditions. Details are included in the Traffic Study Technical Appendix (see IS/MND Appendix H). For this analysis, the three traffic signals were coordinated with a cycle length of 150 seconds (AM) and 160 seconds (PM).
Table 4.17-8. Level of Service – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Cumulative No
Project
Cumulative Plus
Project
Delay [1,2] LOS Delay [1,2] LOS
1 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard Signal
AM 50 D 49 D
PM 57 E 49 D
2 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Birkdale Drive/Retreat Way SSSC
AM 21 (>300) C (F) 1 (53) A (F)
PM 41 (>300) E (F) 1 (65) A (F)
3 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Country Club Drive Signal
AM 17 B 12 B
PM 14 B 12 B
4 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Laporte Drive /Hemingway Drive SSSC
AM 32 (>300) D (F) 1 (84) A (F)
PM 117 (>300) F (F) 1 (76) A (F)
5 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Misty Wood Drive SSSC
AM 90 (>300) F (F) 1 (65) A (F)
PM 145 (>300) F (F) 2 (123) A (F)
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-120 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Table 4.17-8. Level of Service – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Cumulative No
Project
Cumulative Plus
Project
Delay [1,2] LOS Delay [1,2] LOS
6 Pleasant Grove Boulevard &
Foothills Blvd Signal
AM 57 E 55 D
PM [3,4] 135 F 85 F
SSSC = side street stop-sign-controlled intersection; LOS = Level of Service Excessive delays of greater than 300 seconds are reported as “>300” seconds due to model’s inability to produce reasonable delay estimates under high volume, near-capacity conditions Values shown in bold indicate a degradation from above, to below LOS C Notes:
1. For signalized intersections, average intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for all approaches. For side street stop-sign-controlled intersections, intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for the overall intersection and (worst-case) movement.
2. Unless otherwise noted, intersection delay is calculated based on the procedures and methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2016).
3. LOS analysis was completed using the SimTraffic 11 micro-simulation model.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.
The project would reduce Cumulative delay at all study intersections. However, despite the improvement, the Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard traffic signal would operate at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours and the Foothills Boulevard traffic signal would operate at LOS D and LOS F for the AM and PM peak hours.
While the project would increase capacity at the Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Foothills Boulevard intersection by the addition of a westbound through lane, the travel on Pleasant Grove Boulevard induced by the widening would also increase demand by approximately 400 vehicles in the AM Peak Hour. Over 300 of these vehicles would be added to the eastbound approach, which already widens to three through lanes at the intersection. Under PM peak conditions, overall intersection delay remains high (85 seconds), although it would be an improvement compared to the CNP predicted delay. Note that the fourth southbound through lane assumed under the cumulative scenario enabled a large reduction in overall delay.
The reduction in delay from CNP to CPP for the SSSC intersections is primarily due to the prohibition of outbound through and left-turn movements.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-121 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.17.2 Transportation (XVII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
No New Impact
The GPU EIR concluded that transportation network changes called for by the General Plan Circulation Element, and land use and infrastructure changes resulting from buildout of the General Plan, would not conflict with the City’s circulation system policy of at least 70 percent of signalized intersections achieving LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
As previously discussed, with the implementation of Senate Bill 743 in 2018, VMT replaced LOS as the significance criterion to be applied when analyzing the transportation impacts of a proposed land use or infrastructure project under CEQA. Accordingly, while LOS results reported in the GPU EIR may be compared to the City’s LOS policy to evaluate performance for informational purposes, LOS results not meeting the City’s LOS policy would not represent a significant impact under CEQA. Thus, according to the GPU EIR, planned City buildout consistent with the General Plan, would not conflict with adopted circulation system LOS policy.
As shown in Tables 4.17-4 and 4.17-8, and as discussed above and confirmed in the Traffic Study, under both EPP and CPP conditions, none of the study area intersections currently operating at or above LOS C would degrade below LOS C and thereby cause less than 70 percent of signalized intersections within the City from achieving LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. As such, the Project is consistent with adopted City-wide LOS policy.
While consistent with City LOS policy for signalized intersections, only modest LOS improvements are expected within the Project limits following Project implementation under EPP conditions. This is primarily due to existing and projected high traffic volumes. For example, as shown in Table 4.17-4, of the three study area signalized intersections, only the Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Country Club Drive intersection would experience improved LOS under EPP conditions (improving from existing LOS B to LOS A in both the AM and PM Peak Hours). The Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard intersection would similarly experience improved LOS during the PM Peak Hour (improving from existing LOS D to LOS C), however the AM Peak Hour would remain at LOS D (with a three second delay improvement). The Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Foothills Boulevard intersection would similarly maintain EPP LOS D during the AM Peak Hour, however it would degrade from LOS E to D during the PM Peak Hour.
Under CPP conditions, as shown in Table 4.17-8, the Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Country Club Drive intersection would maintain LOS B during both the AM and PM Peak Hours. The Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard intersection would experience improved CPP LOS during the PM Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-122 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Peak Hour (improving from CNP LOS E to CPP LOS D). However, the AM Peak Hour LOS would remain at D under both cumulative and CPP conditions. The Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Foothills Boulevard intersection would improve under CPP conditions from CNP LOS E to CPP LOS D during the AM Peak Hour. However, the Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Foothills Boulevard intersection would degrade from CNP LOS E to LOS D under CPP conditions. It should be noted that under future cumulative conditions without the Project, the Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard and the Pleasant Grove Boulevard/Foothills Boulevard intersections would degrade to LOS E and F respectively during the PM Peak Hour.The GPU EIR further concludes that General Plan buildout would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs for transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities nor would it adversely affect performance or safety of such facilities. According to the GPU EIR, the General Plan contains provisions that will enhance these modes to encourage greater use of transit and more walking and bicycling in the future. All new facilities and facility improvements contained in the circulation element diagram would be constructed to applicable design standards, including the City’s Design and Construction Standards (City of Roseville 2020), which have been created to minimize the potential for conflicts or collisions. Thus, the GPU EIR concludes that City buildout would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or create or exacerbate disruptions to the performance or safety of these systems and related impacts were found to be less than significant. As presented in the setting section above, the Project Traffic Study is consistent with and further verifies these GPU EIR conclusions.
Because the proposed Project is also required to adhere to these same adopted policies, plans or programs, it would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Thus, there would be no new impact and no mitigation is required.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No New Impact
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) addresses the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts and establishes the VMT metric as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts in a CEQA document.
The GPU EIR concludes that VMT generated under General Plan buildout is 15.5 VMT per capita under financially constrained network conditions and 14.9 VMT per capita under financially unconstrained network conditions. As discussed in the GPU EIR, these VMT exceed the final EIR significance threshold of
12.8 VMT per capita, even with application of all feasible mitigation. Thus, the GPU EIR finds VMT impacts of General Plan buildout to be a significant and unavoidable impact.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-123 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Within the Project limits, the Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project is proposed consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element Capital Improvement Program and would be subject to the same General Plan goals, policies and implementation measures evaluated in the GPU EIR. As a road widening project, there are no new policies, programs or mitigation measures that can be feasibly applied to the Project to further reduce GPU EIR VMT impacts. Thus, the Project is found to be within the scope of the significant unavoidable VMT impact identified in the GPU EIR. There would be no new impact and no additional mitigation is required.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
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 New Impact
The GPU EIR finds that General Plan buildout would not increase hazards due to a design feature, incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access. All new facilities and facility improvements identified in the circulation element would be constructed according to the City’s Design and Construction Standards, which have been created to ensure a safe and reliable multi-modal network. As such, this impact was found to be less than significant in the GPU EIR.
The proposed Project is required to comply with the City’s Design and Construction Standards which would ensure that roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities are appropriately designed and constructed, that all roadway/pedestrian/bicycle uses are compatible, and that emergency access is appropriately provided during both construction and operation. As such, all Project improvements would be designed to minimize the potential for conflicts or collisions and therefore the Project would not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. There would be no new impact due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections), incompatible use, or emergency access and no additional mitigation is required.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No New Impact
As discussed in response c) above, with implementation of applicable adopted policy, the GPU EIR concludes that General Plan buildout would not result in inadequate emergency access and related impacts were identified as less than significant.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-124 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Because the proposed Project is primarily limited to road widening and would be subject to the same adopted General Plan Policy, it would similarly not result in inadequate emergency access resulting in no new impact.
4.17.3 Mitigation Measures
No new significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
This section summarizes results of AB52 Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) consultation conducted for the proposed Project by the City of Roseville.
4.18.1 Environmental Setting
4.18.1.1 Regulatory Setting
Assembly Bill 52
Effective July 1, 2015, AB 52 amended CEQA to require that: 1) a lead agency provide notice to those California Native American tribes that requested notice of projects proposed by the lead agency; and 2) for any tribe that responded to the notice within 30 days of receipt with a request for consultation, the lead agency must consult with the tribe. Topics that may be addressed during consultation include TCRs, the potential significance of project impacts, type of environmental document that should be prepared, and possible mitigation measures and project alternatives.
Pursuant to AB 52, Section 21073 of the PRC defines California Native American tribes as “a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes.
Section 21074(a) of the PRC defines TCRs for the purpose of CEQA as:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or
b. included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or
c. 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 Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-125 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Because above criteria a and b also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA, a TCR may also require additional consideration as an Historical Resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators.
Recognizing that California tribes are experts in their tribal cultural resources and heritage, AB 52 requires that CEQA lead agencies provide tribes that requested notification an opportunity to consult at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify TCRs. Furthermore, because a significant effect on a TCR is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is used to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures.
United Auburn Indian Community
The UAIC is a federally recognized Tribe comprised of both Miwok and Maidu (Nisenan) Tribal members who are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. The Tribe has a deep spiritual, cultural, and physical ties to their ancestral land and are contemporary stewards of their culture and landscapes.
The Tribal community represents a continuity and endurance of their ancestors by maintaining their connection to their history and culture. It is the Tribe’s goal to ensure the preservation and continuance of their cultural heritage for current and future generations.
4.18.1.2 Summary of Tribal Consultation
AB52 consultation requirements went into effect on July 1, 2015 for all projects that have not already published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or MND or published a Notice of Preparation of an EIR (Section 11 [c]). At the time the City of Roseville was ready to initiate CEQA review, it had received written requests to receive project notices from four California Native American Tribes, who identified themselves as being traditionally and culturally affiliated with the lands subject to City of Roseville jurisdiction: United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC), Tsi Akim Maidu, Ione Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.
On July 9, 2021, the City of Roseville determined that it had a complete project description and was ready to begin review under CEQA. The City subsequently mailed notification letters to each of the four tribes on July 13, 2021. In accordance with PRC Section 21080.3.1(d) of the PRC, responses to the offer to consult were requested by August 12, 2021. No response was received from Tsi Akim Maidu, Ione Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians; therefore, no consultation occurred with these tribes.
UAIC conducted a records search for the identification of Tribal Cultural Resources for this project which included a review of pertinent literature and historic maps, and a records search using UAIC’s Tribal Historic Information System (THRIS). UAIC’s THRIS database is composed of UAIC’s areas of oral history, ethnographic history, and places of cultural and religious significance, including UAIC Sacred Lands that are submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The THRIS resources shown in this region also include previously recorded indigenous resources identified through the CHRIS as well as historic resources and survey data.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-126 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
The UAIC responded to the City’s request for consultation via email on August 4, 2021. In their response, UAIC indicated there would be no need for continued consultation as long as previously agreed to mitigation for unanticipated discoveries of potential tribal cultural resources is included in the Project’s CEQA document. In an email reply dated August 4, 2021 from Terri Shirhall, City of Roseville Environmental Coordinator, the City agreed to include UAIC’s preferred unanticipated discoveries mitigation measure along with other standard language UAIC recommends be included in CEQA document TCR sections, and consultation was concluded.
4.18.2 Tribal Cultural Resources (XVIII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a) 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:
i) 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
ii) 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 Resources Code Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American
Tribe.
Less Than Significant Impact with Additional Mitigation The GPU EIR concluded that General Plan buildout would result in development and infrastructure projects throughout the Planning Area that would involve earthmoving activities. The Planning Area and vicinity are known to have been heavily used by Native American groups prehistorically and UAIC has indicated that TCRs are located within the Planning Area. Existing General Plan policy and implementation measures would help to protect tribal cultural resources, however significant impacts to tribal cultural resources may still occur. Thus, the impact to Tribal Cultural Resources was found to be significant and unavoidable in the GPU EIR.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-127 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
As discussed above, no tribal cultural resources were identified during AB52 Consultation. However, Project grading could result in the unanticipated disturbance to unknow tribal cultural resources, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Should this occur, as discussed in the GPU EIR, various General Plan policies and implementation measures addressing the unanticipated discovery would be implemented. As discussed above, during consultation the UAIC expressed a preference for a previously agreed to unanticipated discovery TCR mitigation measure, and the City found it to be equally as effective as applicable General Plan policy and related implementation measures. Thus, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1, the inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources would be a less than significant impact with additional mitigation incorporated.
4.18.3 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to addresses the evaluation and treatment of inadvertent/unanticipated discoveries of potential TCRs during Project ground disturbing activities.
TCR-1: Stop Work in the Event of Unanticipated Discovery of Potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs)
If any suspected TCRs are discovered during ground disturbing construction activities, all work shall cease within 100 feet of the find, or an agreed upon distance based on the project area and nature of the find. A Tribal Representative from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area shall be immediately notified and shall determine if the find is a TCR (PRC Section 21074). The Tribal Representative will make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment as necessary.
Preservation in place is the preferred alternative under CEQA and UAIC protocols, and every effort must be made to preserve the resources in place, including through project redesign.
Culturally appropriate treatment may be, but is not limited to, processing materials for reburial, minimizing handling of cultural objects, leaving objects in place within the landscape, returning objects to a location within the project area where they will not be subject to future impacts. The Tribe does not consider curation of TCRs to be appropriate or respectful and request that materials not be permanently curated, unless approved by the Tribe.
The contractor shall implement any measures deemed by the CEQA lead agency to be necessary and feasible to preserve in place, avoid, or minimize impacts to the resource, including, but not limited to, facilitating the appropriate tribal treatment of the find, as necessary. Treatment that preserves or restores the cultural character and integrity of a Tribal Cultural Resource may include Tribal Monitoring, culturally appropriate recovery of cultural objects, and reburial of cultural objects or cultural soil.
Work at the discovery location cannot resume until all necessary investigation and evaluation of the discovery under the requirements of the CEQA, including AB 52, has been satisfied.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-128 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
4.19.1 Environmental Setting
The following discussion is derived from the GPU EIR and provides an overview of the utility and service systems that operate within the City of Roseville.
4.19.1.1 Water Service
The City of Roseville Environmental Utilities Department provides water service to the majority of customers within the City limits. Some areas within the City limits are supplied by either Citrus Heights Water District, San Juan Water District, or Placer County Water Agency where it is feasible and beneficial to do so. The City’s water supply includes primarily surface water from Folsom Lake, supplemented by groundwater. The City’s water distribution system includes raw water facilities to deliver surface water supplies to the City’s water treatment plant and the potable water facilities, which deliver potable water to City water customers. In addition to the potable water system, the City also operates a recycled water distribution system which is used primarily for irrigation purposes.
4.19.1.2 Wastewater
The City of Roseville Environmental Utilities Department provides wastewater collection and treatment services within the City limits. The City’s sanitary sewer collection system includes gravity sewer lines, force mains, and lift station. The wastewater collection and conveyance system consist of 782 miles sewer pipe ranging in size of 4 to 72 inches in diameter and 16 neighborhood lift stations. Wastewater from the City is currently treated at the Dry Creek and the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plants. Both regional facilities 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 unincorporated Placer County (primarily Morgan Creek, Granite Bay and Sunset Industrial Area). A small portion of the City service area flows to the Sacramento Area Sanitation District and is treated at the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. This area consists of approximately 350 residential dwelling units.
4.19.1.3 Solid Waste
Roseville, along with the City of Lincoln, City of Rocklin, and Placer County formed the Western Placer Waste Management Authority that provides for solid waste management. Under this agreement, the Western Placer Waste Management Authority is assigned the lead role in cooperative policy making with respect to solid waste issues. The Western Placer Waste Management Authority owns and operates the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill, located at 3195 Athens Road in unincorporated Placer County, which serves the western portion of the County, including Roseville. Collection of solid waste within the City is conducted by Roseville’s Environmental Utilities Department.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-129 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.19.1.4 Electricity
The City of Roseville Electric Department provides electrical service to customers within the City limits.
Roseville Electric infrastructure consists of transmission and generation facilities, sub-transmission and substation facilities, and distribution facilities that serve existing development.
4.19.1.5 Natural Gas
PG&E is the natural gas service provider for the City of Roseville. PG&E’s underground transmission pipelines are located throughout City rights-of-way and other easements to serve existing development.
4.19.2 Utilities and Service Systems (XIX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
No New Impact
The GPU EIR concluded that General Plan buildout would require the relocation of or the construction of new or expanded water and wastewater infrastructure, stormwater drainage facilities, and electrical and natural gas infrastructure, however adopted mitigating policies and measures, where necessary, would serve to reduce or avoid most impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Utility extensions and minor relocations when in conflict with Project improvements are included as part of the Project as discussed in Project Description Section 1.4.1.6, Utility Relocations. Planned utility relocations would consist primarily of adjusting lids to grade as necessary to conform with grading and extending water, storm drain, electric and fiber utilities currently stubbed on the south side of Pleasant Grove Boulevard to the north side to serve a planned City groundwater well located west of Misty Wood Park (Figure 2-3). In addition, electric distribution facilities and a recycled water line may require minor relocation were road widening occurs outside of the existing roadway prism near the northeast corner of the Foothills Boulevard/Pleasant Grove Boulevard intersection. Because the project is limited to road widening, it would not create significant new demands for new or expanded utility services. The only exception includes minor expansion of the existing onsite Pleasant Grove Boulevard stormwater drainage system as necessary to accommodate additional runoff generated from newly paved areas.
Although the Project would require the extension or relocation of certain utilities, all work would be conducted consistent with applicable General Plan policy and implementation measures. Therefore, the Project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-130 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Thus, the Project is adequately addressed by the GPU EIR and there would be no new impact and no mitigation is required.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the Project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple
dry years?
No New Impact
The GPU EIR concluded that General Plan buildout would increase water demand. However, by adhering to the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the General Plan, as well as local and State laws and regulations, the City would ensure adequate water supply is available to meet future demand. The City’s UWMP determined that water supply is projected to be sufficient in normal water years over the UWMP’s 20-year planning period (i.e., 2015 to 2035). Although water supply in single-dry years and some multiple-dry years is insufficient to meet demand within the City service area over the 20- year planning period, water conservation and/or groundwater use will ensure sufficient water supplies are available to meet demands. Therefore, this impact was found to be less than significant by the GPU EIR.
While the Project would require temporary water use during construction and grading operations, it would adhere to all applicable water supply General Plan policy and implementation measures.
Furthermore, as a road widening project, it would not create in an increase in long-term water demand.
Thus, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve project construction needs and foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, as outlined in the GPU EIR. Thus, there would be no new impact and no mitigation is required.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which 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?
No New Impact
The GPU EIR concluded that General Plan buildout would result in new residential, commercial, office, and industrial development that would generate additional wastewater that increases demand for wastewater treatment. However, by adhering to adopted General Plan goals, policies, and implementation measures, Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-131 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
the City would ensure adequate wastewater treatment capacity is available to meet future demand.
Therefore, the GPU EIR found this impact to be less than significant.
As a road widening Project, it would not generate wastewater or create additional demand for wastewater treatment. Thus, there would be no new impact and no mitigation is required.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
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?
No New Impact
The GPU EIR concluded that General Plan buildout would accommodate an increase in population and employees. Future development would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, or local solid waste regulations or statues. In addition, General Plan buildout would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of capacity of local infrastructure. The Western Regional Sanitary Landfill has sufficient landfill capacity available to accommodate solid-waste disposal needs for development under the General Plan. Therefore, impacts related to sufficient landfill capacity and compliance with applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste were found to be less than significant in the GPU EIR.
As a road widening Project, it would not generate significant amounts of solid waste nor would it create significant additional demand for solid waste disposal. All aspects of project construction would comply with related adopted General Plan policy and implementation measures. Thus, there would be no new impact and no mitigation is required.
Would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
No New Impact
The GPU EIR concluded that General Plan buildout would accommodate an increase in population and employees. Future development would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, or local solid waste regulations or statues. In addition, General Plan buildout was found to not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of capacity of local infrastructure. The Western Regional Sanitary Landfill has sufficient landfill capacity available to accommodate solid-waste disposal needs for General Plan buildout. Therefore, impacts related to sufficient landfill capacity and compliance with Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-132 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste were found to be less than significant in the GPU EIR.
As a road widening Project, it would not generate significant amounts of solid waste nor would it create significant additional demand for solid waste disposal. Furthermore, as a City CIP project, all aspects of construction are required to comply with related adopted General Plan policy and implementation measures. Thus, there would be no new impact and no mitigation is required.
4.19.3 Mitigation Measures
No new significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.
4.20 Wildfire
4.20.1 Environmental Setting
According to the Fire Hazard Severity Zone online viewer maintained by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE, 2022.), the Project site is located in within a Local Responsibility Area with fire protection services are provided by the City of Roseville Fire Department. The nearest high fire hazard severity zone is located approximately 16 miles northeast near the City of Auburn.
4.20.2 Wildfire (XX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, City buildout would add additional traffic and residences requiring evacuation in case of an emergency. However, implementation of adopted General Plan policies would ensure conformance with local emergency-response programs and continued cooperation with emergencyresponse service providers. Thus, this impact was found to be less than significant in the GPU EIR.
As discussed above, the nearest high fire hazard severity zone is located approximately 16 miles northeast of the Project site near the City of Auburn. Thus, the Project site is not located within or near a state responsibility area, on lands classified as very high fire hazard, nor would the Project impair any related emergency response or evacuation plan. There would be no new impact.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-133 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from, a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, City buildout could potentially increase risk to fire for both people and property. However, implementation of proposed GPU policies and actions, along with existing regulations would ensure that people and structures would not be exposed to a significant risk of loss of injury involving fires. This impact was found to be less than significant by the GPU EIR.
As discussed above, the nearest high fire hazard severity zone is located approximately 16 miles northeast of the Project site near the City of Auburn. Thus, the Project site is not located within or near a state responsibility area nor would it, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose the traveling public to, pollutant concentrations from, a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. There would be no new impact.
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
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
to the environment?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, City buildout could potentially increase risk to fire for both people and property. However, implementation of proposed GPU policies and actions, along with existing regulations would ensure that people and structures would not be exposed to a significant risk of loss of injury involving fires. This impact was found to be less than significant by the GPU EIR.
As discussed above, the nearest high fire hazard severity zone is located approximately 16 miles northeast of the Project site near the City of Auburn. Thus, the Project site is not located within or near a state responsibility area, nor would it require the installation or maintenance of associated fire control infrastructure (i.e., roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-134 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. There would be no new impact and no mitigation is required.
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
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?
No New Impact
According to the GPU EIR, City buildout could potentially increase risk to fire for both people and property. However, implementation of proposed GPU policies and actions, along with existing regulations would ensure that people and structures would not be exposed to a significant risk of loss of injury involving fires. This impact was found to be less than significant by the GPU EIR.
As discussed above, the nearest high fire hazard severity zone is located approximately 16 miles northeast of the Project site near the City of Auburn. Thus, the Project site is not located within or near a state responsibility area, nor would it 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.
Implementation of the City’s Design and Construction Standards (City of Roseville 2020) ensures there would be no new impact.
4.20.3 Mitigation Measures
No new significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-135 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
4.21.1 Mandatory Findings of Significance (XXI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion
Does the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a) 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?
Less than Significant Impact with Additional Mitigation As a road widening project with widening occurring primarily to the interior landscaped median, the Project has very minimal impact to sensitive species and/or their habitat. However, as discussed in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, the following special-status bird and bat wildlife species could be affected by tree removal and road construction activities: White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), Nuttall’s woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii), yellow-billed magpie (Pica nuttallii), Oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), Townsend’s big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii), and Pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus). The GPU EIR finds that impacts to these species are primarily addressed by adopted General Plan Goals and Policies, combined with current laws and regulations, and GPU EIR mitigation measures 4.8-1 (Implement Measures for Special-Status Plants and Habitat) and 4.8-2 (Implementation Measure for Special-Status Wildlife). These mitigation measures are refined in this initial study as “project level” Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 and would ensure a less than significant with additional mitigation.
As indicated in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, and Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, the Project is expected to avoid direct impacts to known cultural and tribal resources. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would ensure potential impacts to unknown onsite tribal resources are protected to the degree feasible. Consistent with adopted City policy, should any cultural or tribal resources or human remains be encountered during construction, construction activities would be halted, and a professional archaeologist consulted. Similarly, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure potential paleontological resource impacts are mitigated to less than significant. Thus, the Project would not cause a significant change to the quality of the environment and related impacts would be less than significant with addition mitigation incorporated.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-136 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Does the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
b) 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)?
No New Impact
All Project impacts were found to be less than significant, including air quality and greenhouse gas, and mitigation measures are only required for impacts to those special status wildlife species identified in response a) above (and for the protection of unknown tribal cultural resources and paleontological resources). The Project’s cumulative impacts are less than significant and there would be no new impact.
Does the Project:
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
c) Have environmental effects that will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
No New Impact
Potential impacts to human beings include increase in ambient noise during construction and increases in air emissions including PM (dust) during construction. These impacts were found to be temporary and less than significant. Implementation of the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring Program will ensure compliance with related measures.
Based on analysis contained in this initial study, and the fact that the Project is limited road widening that would primarily occur into the existing Pleasant Grove Boulevard center median, no significant direct or indirect impacts to human beings are identified and related impacts were found to be less than significant. Therefore, Project construction and operation would not result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings and there would be no new impact.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 5-1 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
5.1 ECORP Consulting, Inc.
CEQA Documentation/Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Cultural Resources /Noise/Biological Resources Chris Stabenfeldt, AICP, Principal Environmental Planner/Rocklin CEQA Group Manager
Mark Morse, Senior Environmental Planner/Project Manager Brian Marks, Ph.D., Archaeologist
Lisa Westwood, Vice President, Archaeologist
Seth Myers, Air Quality/Noise Task Manager
Rosey Worden, Associate Environmental Planner
Emily Mecke, Associate Biologist
Rachel Bennett, Staff Biologist
Laura Hesse, Technical Editor
Karla Green, Technical Editor
5.2 City of Roseville
CEQA Document review and coordination
Terri Shirhall, Environmental Coordinator
Jesse Khatkar, PE., Associate Engineer
Noah Siviglia, Senior Engineer
Stefanie Kemen, Engineering Manager
5.3 Psomas, Engineering
Project Engineering and CEQA document review and coordination Tim Hayes, Project Manager
Gary Warkentin, Transportation Planner
Paul Gervacio, Senior Engineer
Chris Brazil, Project Engineer
5.4 Fehr & Peers Associates, Transportation Analysis
Traffic study and CEQA document review and coordination Danny Murphy, Senior Engineer
John Gard, Principal
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 5-2 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
5.5 Callander Associates, Arborist Report
Amanda Hoffman, Job Captain
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 6-1 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
6.0 REFERENCES
AECOM. 2020. City of Roseville 2035 General Plan Update, Final Environmental Impact Report, 930p. _____. 2011. City of Citrus Heights General Plan Update and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report.
Bechard, M. J., C. S. Houston, J. H. Saransola, and A. S. England. 2020. Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.swahaw.01.
Blackburn Consulting. 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project, 7465 Foothills Boulevard, Assessor’s Parcel Number 017-232-022-000, Roseville, CA.
August.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2022. Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office Records, Records Automation website. http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/, accessed June 17, 2022.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory 2021 Edition. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data.
_____. 2019. State and Federal Area Designation Maps. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. _____. 2005. CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/california-air-resources-board-airquality-and-land-use-handbook-a-community-health-perspective.pdf California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2019. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011-2019, with 2010 Benchmark. May. Available online at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/. Accessed December 3, 2019 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. Rarefind 5. Online Version, commercial version dated: January 3, 2020. California Natural Diversity Database. The Resources Agency, Sacramento.
Accessed June 2022.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zone online map viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
_____. 2012. E-8 Historical Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2000-2010. (November) (May) Available online at: http://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E8/2000-10/. Accessed February 3, 2020.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021. Traffic Census Program. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census
_____. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 6-2 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
_____. 2019. Structure and Maintenance & Investigations, Historical Significance–Local Agency Bridges Database March 2019. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/hs_local.pdf, Accessed June 17, 2022.
_____. 2018. Structure and Maintenance & Investigations, Historical Significance–State Agency Bridges Database September 2018. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/hs_state.pdf, Accessed June 17, 2022.
_____. 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. _____. 2002. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2019. Groundwater Information Center, Depth to Groundwater Fall 2018. Available: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/gicima/. Accessed October 18, 2019.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021a. 2020 Total System Electric Generations in Gigawatt Hours. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-totalsystem-electric-generation _____. 2021b. Website: Annual Generation – County.
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/web_qfer/Annual_GenerationCounty_cms.php California Geological Survey (CGS). California Geological Survey. 2017. CGS Seismic Hazards Program:
Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zones. Available:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=ee92a5f9f4ee4ec5aa731d3245ed9f53. Accessed October 21, 2019.
_____. 2008. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Ground Motion Interpolator. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ground-motion-interpolator-for-embedding.htm. Accessed October 21, 2019.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.45). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed June 2022] Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. 2022. Arborist Report, Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project, Roseville, CA. September 16, 2022.
cbec eco engineering, inc. and CDM Smith. 2018. West Placer Stormwater Quality Design Manual.
Available: https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1610/West-Placer-Storm-WaterQuality-Design-Manual-PDF. Accessed December 31, 2019. City of Roseville.
Cicero, C., P. Pyle, and M. A. Patten. 2020. Oak Titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.oaktit.01.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 6-3 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
City of Roseville. 2020. City of Roseville 2035 General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report, Certified August 5.
City of Roseville. 2017 (May). Office of Economic Development 2017-2022 Economic Development Strategy. May. Accessed December 3, 2019. Available online at:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=8717416.
City of Roseville. 2016. West Placer Storm Water Quality Design Manual, April 2016, Revised May 2018.
City of Roseville. 2015. Roseville General Plan 2013-2021 Housing Element. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Dev elopm ent%20Services/Planning/General%20Plan/10_Housing_Element.pdf. Accessed October 22, 2019.
_____. 2011a. Stormwater Quality BMP Guidance Manual for Construction. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/Image/Government/Departments/D evelopment%20Services/Engineering%20Land%20Development/Stormwater%20Design%20Inspe ction/BMPGuidance.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2019.
_____. 2010. Sierra Vista Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report—Section 4.7, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/specific_pla ns_planning_areas/sierra_vista_specific_plan. May. Accessed October 21, 2019. _____. 2004. Stormwater Management Program. Prepared by: Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. (February) Accessed October 21, 2019 Available online at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/swmp/roseville_swmp.pdf..
Crockett, Alexander G. 2011. Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA:
California’s Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World.
Dunk, J. R. 2020. White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole and F. B.
Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.whtkit.01.
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2022a. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project. July.
_____. 2022b. Biological Resources Assessment for the Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project, Placer County, California. September 21.
_____. 2022c. Confidential Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the City of Roseville Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project. July.
_____. 2022d. Paleontological Assessment Memorandum for the City of Roseville Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project, Placer County, California. August 5.
_____. 2022e. Noise Impact Assessment for the Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project, City of Roseville, California. July.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 6-4 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Estep, J.A. 1989. Biology, movements, and habitat relationships of the Swainson's hawk in the Central Valley of California, 1986-1987. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Effective Noise Control During Nighttime Construction.
Available online at: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/workshops/accessible/schexnayder_paper.htm. _____. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
Fehr & Peers. 2022. Pleasant Grove Widening Project Traffic Study. March.
Harris, Miller, Miller & Hanson, Inc. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report.
Harvey, M.J., J. Scott Altenbach, and Troy Best. 2011. Bats of the United States and Canada. The Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore, Maryland
Jennings, C.W. and W.A. Bryant. 2010. 2010 Fault Activity Map of California. Available:
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/. Accessed October 18, 2019.
Koenig, W. D. and M. D. Reynolds. 2020. Yellow-billed Magpie (Pica nuttallii), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.yebmag.01.
Kyle, Douglas. 2002. Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California.
Lowther, P. E., P. Pyle, and M. A. Patten. 2020. Nuttall's Woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.nutwoo.01.
Loyd, R. 1995. Mineral Land Classification of Placer County, California. Open-File Report 95-10. California Division of Mines and Geology. Sacramento, CA.
National Park Service (NPS). 2022. National Register of Historic Places, Digital Archive on NPGallery https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/BasicSearch/. Accessed June 17, 2022. _____. 1983. Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. 48 FR (Federal Register) 44716-68.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019 (September). Web Soil Survey. Available:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed October 21, 2019.
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2022. Office of Historic Preservation California Historical Landmarks Website. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21387, accessed June 16, 2022. _____. 2020. Office of Historic Preservation’s Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), dated March 3, 2020 for Placer County. On file at NCIC, California State University, Sacramento, California.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 6-5 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
_____. 2012. Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Placer County. On file at NCIC, California State University, Sacramento, California. (OHP 2012) _____. 1999. Directory of Properties in the Historical Resources Inventory _____. 1996. California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.
_____. 1992. California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.
Placer County. 2020. Land Information Search. Available:
http://maps.placer.ca.gov/Html5viewer/Index.html?configBase=http://arcgis/Geocortex/Essentials /REST/ sites/LIS_Public/viewers/LIS_Base-Public/virtualdirectory/Resources/Config/Default.
Placer County Conservation Program. 2020. Western Placer County Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/44657/Placer-CountyConservation-Program---Volume-I-PDF. Accessed 8 July 2022.
Rosenfield, R. N., K. K. Madden, J. Bielefeldt, and O. E. Curtis. 2020. Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.coohaw.01.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2019. Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Available online at: https://www.sacog.org/2020-metropolitantransportationplansustainable-communities-strategy-update.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 2013. PM2.5 Implementation/ Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for Sacramento PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. _____. 2010. PM10 Implementation/Maintenance Plan and Re-Designation Request for Sacramento County.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2003. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. _____. 1992. 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide.
Transportation Research Board. 2016. Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. USFWS Resource Report List. Information for Planning and Conservation. Internet website: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Date accessed: June 2022. _____. 2021. Birds of Conservation Concern 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. (online version available at http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf ).
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1992. “Roseville, California” 7.5-minute Quadrangle. Geological Survey.
Denver, Colorado.
Draft Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 6-6 November 2022
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project 2021-260
Wagner, D.L., Jennings, C.W., Bedrossian, T.L., and Bortugno, E.J. 1981. Geologic map of the Sacramento Quadrangle, California 1:250,000.
Wilson, N. L., and A. H. Towne. 1978. Nisenan. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 387-397. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White (eds). 1990. California’s Wildlife, Volume III, Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Arborist Report, Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project, Roseville, CA Appendix B: Air Quality
B-1: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
B-2: Air Quality Construction Emissions Model Outputs
B-3: Greenhouse Gas Construction Emissions Model Outputs Appendix C: Biological Resources Assessment for the Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
Appendix D: Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the City of Roseville Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
Appendix E: Paleontological Assessment Memorandum for the City of Roseville Pleasant Grove Boulevard Project, Placer County, California
Appendix F: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project, 7465 Foothills Boulevard
Appendix G: Noise
G-1: Noise Impact Assessment for the Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
G-2: Traffic Noise Model Output
G-3: Construction Noise Model Output
Appendix H: Pleasant Grove Widening Project Traffic Study
APPENDIX B
Notice of Intent
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NOTICE OF INTENT
TO ADOPT A SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: City of Roseville
DATE: November 7, 2022
REGARDING: Pleasant Grove Boulevard Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Notice is hereby given that a Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (environmental report) for the Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project is available for public review.
Project Location and Description: The City of Roseville proposes to widen an approximate 1.3-mile section of Pleasant Grove Boulevard to address existing and expected future traffic congestion and improve circulation consistent with the City’s Transportation System Capital Improvement Program.
The project consists of widening Pleasant Grove Boulevard from two to three lanes in each direction beginning approximately 1,500 feet east of Foothills Boulevard extending to approximately 700 feet west of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard. Widening would primarily occur to the interior roadway median, which is sized to accommodate the additional travel lane, while preserving existing exterior curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements.
Document Review and Availability: The public comment period will extend 32 days from November 7th to December 9, 2022. The document can be reviewed and/or downloaded from the City of Roseville website at the following link: http://www.roseville.ca.us/PleasantGrove Copies of the Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are also available for public review at the City of Roseville Permit Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678. To confirm business hours visit:
roseville.ca.us or call (916) 774-5285.
Written comments on the adequacy of the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received no later than 5:00 pm on December 9, 2022. During the public review period written comments may be provided to:
Terri Shirhall, Environmental Coordinator ([email protected]) City of Roseville Development Services Department
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
(916) 774-5536
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5285
City of Roseville
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-3 January 2023 Table 4-1. Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight
of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination Comments
Biological Resources
BIO-1: Construct the Project during the
Nonbreeding Season or Conduct PreConstruction Surveys for Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors
To the extent feasible, the City will remove trees
and large shrubs during the nonbreeding season
for migratory birds and raptors (generally
between September 1 and February 28).
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 in open space areas adjacent to the
construction zone will be surveyed for raptors.
For survey areas outside the project site, the
biologist will walk areas where property access is
authorized. For portions of the survey area
Action:
Construct the Project
during the
Nonbreeding Season
or Conduct PreConstruction Surveys
for Nesting
Migratory Birds and
Raptors
Timing:
Prior to and during
construction.
City/Consultant
Initials
Date
City
Initials
Date
CDFW
City of Roseville
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-4 January 2023 Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight
of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination Comments
without property access, the biologist will scan
vegetation using binoculars from the project site
or from the public road. 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 nodisturbance 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
City of Roseville
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-5 January 2023 Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight
of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination Comments
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.
BIO-2: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for
Roosting Bats and Implement Protection
Measures
To obtain the highest likelihood of detection, the
following preconstruction bat surveys will be
conducted within and adjacent to the
construction area for each construction season. If
the surveys determine that bats are roosting in
the construction area, the City will implement the
protective measures described below.
Conduct Preconstruction Tree Surveys
Prior to tree removal or pruning, qualified
biologists will examine trees to be removed or
pruned for suitable bat roosting habitat. Highvalue habitat features (e.g., large tree cavities, basal hollows, loose or peeling bark, and larger
snags,) will be identified, and the area around
these features will be searched for bats and bat
sign (e.g., guano, culled insect parts, and
Action:
Preconstruction
Surveys for Roosting
Bats and Implement
Protection Measures
Timing:
Prior to and during
construction.
Project Biologist
Initials
Date
City
Initials
Date
CDFW
City of Roseville
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-6 January 2023 Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight
of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination Comments
staining). All mature broadleaf trees should be
considered potential habitat for solitary foliageroosting bat species.
If bat sign is detected, biologists will conduct
evening visual emergence survey of the source
habitat feature, from a half hour before sunset to
1–2 hours after sunset for a minimum of 2 nights
during the season that construction would be
taking place. Night-vision goggles and/or fullspectrum acoustic detectors will be used during emergence surveys to assist in species
identification. All emergence surveys will be
conducted during favorable weather conditions
(calm nights with temperatures conducive to bat
activity and no precipitation predicted). Survey
methodology may be supplemented as new
research identifies advanced survey techniques
and equipment that would aid in bat detections.
Identify Protective Measures for Bats Using Trees
If it is determined that bats are using trees within
or adjacent to the construction area as roost sites,
the City (or its designated contractor) will
coordinate with CDFW to identify protective
measures to avoid and minimize impacts on
roosting bats based on the type of roost and
timing of activities. These measures could include
the following measures.
City of Roseville
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-7 January 2023 Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight
of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination Comments
• If feasible, tree removal and pruning of trees
containing an active roost will be avoided
between April 1 and September 15 (the
maternity period) to avoid impacts on
reproductively active females and dependent
young.
• If a maternity roost is located, whether
solitary or colonial, that roost will remain
undisturbed until September 15 or until a
qualified biologist has determined that the
roost is no longer active.
• If avoidance of nonmaternity roost trees is
not possible, tree removal or pruning will be
monitored by a qualified biologist. Prior to
removal or pruning, the tree will be gently
shaken, and several minutes should pass
before felling trees or pruning limbs to allow
bats time to arouse and leave the tree. The
tree then will be removed in pieces, rather
than felling the entire tree. The biologists will
search downed vegetation for dead and
injured bats. The presence of dead or injured
bats that are species of special concern will
be reported to CDFW.
Conduct Preconstruction Surveys of Culverts
Prior to any work to replace, extend, or remove
culverts, a qualified biologist will inspect box and
pipe culverts for the presence of roosting bats.
City of Roseville
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-8 January 2023 Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight
of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination Comments
The biologist will conduct a daytime
inspection/survey of box culverts for bat sign or
occupancy to determine whether the structure is
being used as a roost. The biologist conducting
daytime surveys will listen for audible bat calls
and will use the naked eye, binoculars,
telescoping inspection mirror, and a highpowered spotlight to inspect culverts, and mud nests if present, for bats.
Surfaces and the ground around the culvert will
be surveyed for bat sign, such as guano, staining,
and prey remains. Pipe culverts will be inspected
from the exterior using the methods listed. If no
suitable features are found, and no bats or bat
sign are present, then a preconstruction survey
within 24 hours prior to construction will be
conducted. If suitable features are found, and
bats or bat sign are present, additional surveys
may be conducted to determine how the culvert
is used by bats (i.e., whether it is used as a night
roost, maternity roost, migration stopover, or for
hibernation).
Implement Protective Measures for Bats Using
Culverts
To avoid disturbance, injury, or mortality of bats
utilizing culverts for roosting, the City (or its
contractor) will conduct all work on these
structures during the day (to the extent possible
City of Roseville
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-9 January 2023 Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight
of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination Comments
and where appropriate). If this is not possible,
portable lights will be used to illuminate the
roosting areas prior to and after sunset to deter
bats from roosting during nights when work will
occur.
Geology and Soils
GEO-1: Conduct Paleontological Monitoring
“Spot-check” monitoring by a qualified
paleontologist shall be conducted where the
depth of Project excavation exceeds 9 feet. This
may occur during relocation of signal poles (up to
11 feet deep) and/or storm drain facilities (up to
9 feet deep). If Pleistocene alluvial deposits are
visible at these depths, full-time monitoring shall
be required for the remainder of excavations at
these locations. If no Pleistocene alluvial deposits
are visible at these depths, spot-checking may
halt.
Should paleontological resources be found
during excavation, the paleontologist shall have
the authority to divert heavy machinery away
from the find(s) until the scientific value of the
fossil(s) can be assessed. If of scientific
significance, all pertinent field data shall be
collected, and the fossil(s) salvaged. The fossil(s)
shall be transported to a laboratory facility for
Action:
Conduct
Paleontological
Monitoring
Timing:
During construction
Project
Paleontologist/
Contractor
Initials
___________________
Date
City
Initials
_________________
Date
City of Roseville
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-10 January 2023 Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight
of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination Comments
cleaning and preparation prior to being
transported and deposited in an accredited
repository, such as the UCMP Berkeley, where
they can be curated and made available for
scientific study.
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1: Stop Work in the Event of
Unanticipated Discovery of Potential Tribal
Cultural Resources (TCRs)
If any suspected TCRs are discovered during
ground disturbing construction activities, all work
shall cease within 100 feet of the find, or an
agreed upon distance based on the project area
and nature of the find. A Tribal Representative
from a California Native American tribe that is
traditionally and culturally affiliated with a
geographic area shall be immediately notified
and shall determine if the find is a TCR (PRC
Section 21074). The Tribal Representative will
make recommendations for further evaluation
and treatment as necessary.
Preservation in place is the preferred alternative
under CEQA and United Auburn Indian
Community (UAIC) protocols, and every effort
must be made to preserve the resources in place,
including through project redesign. Culturally
Action:
Stop Work in the
Event of
Unanticipated
Discovery of
Potential Tribal
Cultural Resources
Timing:
During construction
Project
Archaeologist/
Contractor
Initials
Date
City
Initials
Date
UAIC
City of Roseville
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-11 January 2023 Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight
of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination Comments
appropriate treatment may be, but is not limited
to, processing materials for reburial, minimizing
handling of cultural objects, leaving objects in
place within the landscape, returning objects to a
location within the project area where they will
not be subject to future impacts. The Tribe does
not consider curation of TCRs to be appropriate
or respectful and request that materials not be
permanently curated, unless approved by the
Tribe.
The contractor shall implement any measures
deemed by the CEQA lead agency to be
necessary and feasible to preserve in place, avoid,
or minimize impacts to the resource, including,
but not limited to, facilitating the appropriate
tribal treatment of the find, as necessary.
Treatment that preserves or restores the cultural
character and integrity of a Tribal Cultural
Resource may include Tribal Monitoring,
culturally appropriate recovery of cultural objects,
and reburial of cultural objects or cultural soil.
Work at the discovery location cannot resume
until all necessary investigation and evaluation of
the discovery under the requirements of the
CEQA, including AB 52, has been satisfied.
City of Roseville
Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-12 January 2023
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TITLE SHEET
1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
SUBMITTED BY:
LOCATION MAP
T-1
UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES
APPROVED BY:
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED BY:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD WIDENING PROJECT
FROM WOODCREEK OAKS BLVD
TO FOOTHILLS BLVD
CITY OF ROSEVILLE PROJECT # 500115
APPROVED BY:
GENERAL NOTES
2 G-1
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
SURVEY CONTROL DIAGRAM 99
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
3 SCD-1
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD WOODCREEK OAKS BLVD
RETREAT WAY
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
COUNTRY CLUB DR
HEMINGWAY DR
LAPORTE DR
SURVEY CONTROL DIAGRAM
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
4 SCD-2
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
FOOTHILLS BLVD MISTYWOOD DR
TYPICAL SECTIONS
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
5 TS-1
TYPICAL SECTIONS
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
6 TS-2
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
7 L-1
LAYOUT
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
8 L-2
LAYOUT
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
9 L-3
LAYOUT
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
10 L-4
LAYOUT
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
11 L-5
LAYOUT
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
12 L-6
LAYOUT
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
13 L-7
LAYOUT
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
14 L-8
LAYOUT
15 99
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL U-1
NO IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS SHEET
UTILITY PLAN
16 U-2
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
UTILITY PLAN
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL U-3
17 UTILITY PLAN
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL U-4
18 UTILITY PLAN
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL U-5
19 UTILITY PLAN
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL U-6
20 UTILITY PLAN
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL U-7
21 UTILITY PLAN
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL U-8
22 UTILITY PLAN
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
DRAINAGE PROFILES
23 DP-1
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
DRAINAGE PROFILES
24 DP-2
25 CD-1
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
4 3
26 CD-2
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
7 SECTION G-G
G
G
27 CD-3
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
28 CD-4
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
29 CD-5
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
8 D
D
F
F
B B
30 CD-6
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
CUT-IN TEE CONNECTION 1
3 3
3 2
2 31
CD-7
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS - WATER ALIGNMENT
1 PROFILE
PLAN
TYPICAL CONNECTIONS 1
CONNECTION TO EX. BAR-WRAPPED
CONCRETE CYLINDER PIPE
DIMENSIONS
NOMINAL PIPE DIA.
32 CD-8
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS - WATER ALIGNMENT
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
BUTT-STRAP CLOSURE FOR CML&C STEEL PIPE 2
BUTT STRAP HAND HOLE 3
33 SS-1
SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
34 SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL SS-2
35 SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL SS-3
SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS
36 99
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL SS-4
37 SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL SS-5
38 SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL SS-6
39 SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL SS-7
40 SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL SS-8
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
41 TH-01
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 1
STAGE 1 - LEGEND: STAGE 1 - TRAFFIC HANDLING: STAGE 1 - CONSTRUCTION:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
42 TH-02
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 1
STAGE 1 - LEGEND:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
43 TH-03
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 1
STAGE 1 - LEGEND:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
44 TH-04
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 1
STAGE 1 - LEGEND:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
45 TH-05
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 1
STAGE 1 - LEGEND:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
46 TH-06
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 1
STAGE 1 - LEGEND:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
47 TH-07
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 1
STAGE 1 - LEGEND:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
48 TH-08
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 2
STAGE 2 - LEGEND: STAGE 2 - CONSTRUCTION: STAGE 2 - TRAFFIC HANDLING:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
49 TH-09
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 2
STAGE 2 - LEGEND:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
50 TH-10
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 3
STAGE 3 - LEGEND: STAGE 3 - CONSTRUCTION: STAGE 3 - TRAFFIC HANDLING:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
51 TH-11
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 3
STAGE 3 - LEGEND:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
52 TH-12
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 4
STAGE 4 - LEGEND:
STAGE 4 - TRAFFIC HANDLING: STAGE 4 - CONSTRUCTION:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
53 TH-13
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 4
STAGE 4 - LEGEND:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
54 TH-14
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 5
STAGE 5 - LEGEND: STAGE 5 - TRAFFIC HANDLING STAGE 5 - CONSTRUCTION 99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
55 TH-15
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 5
STAGE 5 - LEGEND:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
56 TH-16
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 5
STAGE 5 - LEGEND:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
57 TH-17
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 5
STAGE 5 - LEGEND:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
58 TH-18
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 5
STAGE 5 - LEGEND:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
59 TH-19
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 5
STAGE 5 - LEGEND:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
60 TH-20
TRAFFIC HANDLING - STAGE 5
STAGE 5 - LEGEND:
99 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
100% SUBMITTAL
61 PD-01
PEDESTRIAN DETOUR PLAN - STAGE 2
61 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 27
L1.0 - TREE PROTECTION LEGEND & NOTES 99
62 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 28
L1.1 - TREE PROTECTION PLAN 99
63 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 29
L1.2 - TREE PROTECTION PLAN 99
64 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 30
L1.3 - TREE PROTECTION PLAN 99
65 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 31
L1.4 - TREE PROTECTION PLAN 99
66 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 32
L1.5 - TREE PROTECTION PLAN 99
67 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 33
L1.6 - TREE PROTECTION PLAN 99
68 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 34
L1.7 - TREE PROTECTION PLAN 99
69 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com
IRRIGATION NOTES
35 L2.0 - IRRIGATION LEGEND & NOTES
IRRIGATION LEGEND
99 70
IRRIGATION_SCHEDULE
IRRIGATION_SCHEDULE
C
C
IRRIGATION SCHEDULE
61 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 36
L2.1 - POINT OF CONNECTION DIAGRAM 99
71 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 37
L2.2 - IRRIGATION PLAN 99
72 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 38
L2.3 - IRRIGATION PLAN 99
73 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 39
L2.4 - IRRIGATION PLAN 99
74 C
61 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 40
L2.5 - IRRIGATION PLAN 99
75 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 41
L2.6 - IRRIGATION PLAN 99
76 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 42
L2.7 - IRRIGATION PLAN 99
77 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 43
L2.8 - IRRIGATION PLAN 99
78 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 44
L2.9 - IRRIGATION PLAN 99
79 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 45
L2.10 - IRRIGATION PLAN 99
80 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 46
L2.11 - IRRIGATION PLAN 99
81 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 47
L2.12 - IRRIGATION PLAN 99
82 PLANT SCHEDULE
61 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 48
L3.0 - PLANTING PLAN 99
83 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 49
L3.1 - PLANTING PLAN 99
84 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 50
L3.2 - PLANTING PLAN 99
85 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 51
L3.3 - PLANTING PLAN 99
86 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 52
L3.4 - PLANTING PLAN 99
87 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
KEY MAP
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 53
L3.5 - PLANTING PLAN 99
88 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 54
L4.0 - DETAILS 99
89 61
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT
LAYOUT
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140, Gold River, CA 95670 T 916.985.4366 www.callanderassociates.com 55
L4.1 - DETAILS 99
90 72
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
Exp. WIDENING PROJECT R EGIST ERED PROFESSIONA L EN GINE R C I V I L No. 90527
S T A T E O F C A L IFO R NIA DANIEL LEE MURPHY
12-31-2312-31-2112-31-2112-31-21 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILS
GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST EDITIONS OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS (INCLUDING THE LATEST AMENDMENTS), STANDARD CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS, 2022 CALTRANS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS (AND, REVISED STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS), 2022 STANDARD PLANS (AND REVISED STANDARD PLANS), AND THE LATEST EDITION OF THE CA MUTCD. 2. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY. THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL BE MADE TO APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. THE CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES TO DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD OWNER AND ENGINEER HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXEMPTING LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF ENGINEER. 3. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN PERMITS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE WORK SHOWN ON THESE PLANS FROM THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES. REFER TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR PERMITS NEEDED. 4. THESE PLANS ARE HEREBY MADE PART OF THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT. VERIFICATION-LOCATION: 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT U.S.A. AND HAVE UTILITIES MARKED AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE BEGINNING WORK. WHERE MARKINGS ARE NEAR PROPOSED FOUNDATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES BY POT HOLING PRIOR TO EXCAVATING. 6. THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR AND EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO LOCATE EXISTING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES BEYOND THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY U.S.A. MARKING INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, METAL DETECTORS, WIRE LOCATIONS (OR WIRE LOCATING EQUIPMENT), AND POTHOLING. 7. LOCATIONS OF SIGNAL STANDARDS, CONTROLLERS, SERVICE PEDESTALS, PULL BOXES AND LOOP DETECTORS AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE THESE ITEMS AND THE ENGINEER SHALL APPROVE SAID LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. 8. IN CASE OF BORING, CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS: 9. TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL BE PER THE LATEST EDITION OF THE CA MUTCD. AT LEAST ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION SHALL REMAIN OPEN TO TRAFFIC UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. TRAFFIC CONTROL HOURS ARE SUBJECT TO LIMITATION BY THE CITY. TRAFFIC CONTROL WITH LANE CLOSURES THAT AFFECT TRAFFIC FLOW MAY REQUIRE NIGHT WORK. IF, AS A PART OF TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES, A ROADWAY CLOSURE HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEERING DIVISION 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF SETTING UP THIS CLOSURE. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN REQUESTING TO DISCONNECT OR DISABLE ANY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL COMPONENT OR SIGNAL INTERCONNECT WIRE WHERE AN IMMEDIATE SWITCH-OVER TO NEW EQUIPMENT IS NOT FEASABLE. THIS WRITTEN NOTIFICATION SHALL INCLUDE DATE AND TIME OF DISCONNECT, DESCRIPTION OF WORK, INCLUDING LOOP INPUTS IF APPLICABLE, CONTACT PERSON, AND ESTIMATED DATE OF RECONNECTION. THIS REQUEST SHALL BE ON COMPANY LETTERHEAD, FAX OR VIA COMPANY E-MAIL. UPON APPROVAL OF REQUEST, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE INSPECTOR 48 HOURS PRIOR TO WORK TO VERIFY SCHEDULE. A COPY OF THE APPROVED REQUEST SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE SIGNAL TECHNICIAN DISCONNECTING THE REQUESTED SYSTEM. THIS COPY IS TO BE PLACED IN THE NEAREST CONTROLLER CABINET DURING THE COURSE OF WORK. REQUEST TO DISCONNECT OR DISABLE ANY TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR A PERIOD LONGER THAN ONE (1) DAY OR A COMPONENT OF ANY TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM FOR A PERIOD LONGER THAN FIVE (5) WORKING DAYS WILL NOT BE APPROVED.
11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN IF ANY (PARTIAL OR FULL) LANE CLOSURE IS NECESSARY. THIS WRITTEN NOTIFICATION SHALL INCLUDE DATE AND TIME, DESCRIPTION OF WORK, CONTACT PERSON AND ESTIMATED DATE OF COMPLETION. THIS REQUEST SHALL BE ON COMPANY LETTERHEAD, FAX, OR VIA COMPANY E-MAIL. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEERING DIVISION 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF SETTING UP THE CLOSURE. UPON APPROVAL OF REQUEST, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE INSPECTOR 48 HOURS PRIOR TO WORK TO VERIFY SCHEDULE. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LIGHTS, SIGNS, BARRICADES, FLAGGERS OR OTHER DEVICES NECESSARY OR REQUIRED BY THE CITY TO PROVIDE SAFETY. 13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL POST EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS FOR POLICE, FIRE, AMBULANCE, AND THOSE AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES IN THE VICINITY OF JOB SITE. 14. THE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITHIN THE PROJECT SHALL BE OPERATIONAL WEEKDAYS FROM 6:00 AM TO 10:00 AM AND FROM 3:00 PM TO 7:00 PM. WORK REQUIRING LONGER SIGNAL DOWN-TIME SHALL OCCUR AT NIGHT OR ON WEEKENDS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. A.C./CONCRETE-PAVEMENT WORK: 15. A.C. SURFACE SHALL BE CUT TO A NEAT, STRAIGHT LINE PARALLEL WITH THE STREET CENTERLINE AND THE EXPOSED EDGE SHALL BE TACKED WITH EMULSION PRIOR TO PAVING. THE EXPOSED BASE MATERIAL SHALL BE GRADED, RECOMPACTED, AND RESEALED PRIOR TO PAVING. 16. ANY EXISTING CONCRETE SURFACE TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE SAW CUT TO A NEAT, STRAIGHT LINE. 17. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL EXISTING MONUMENTS AND OTHER SURVEY MARKERS ON THE JOB SITE. SUBGRADE: 18. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MARK IN WHITE PAINT ALL AREAS TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO CONTACTING U.S.A. ANY AREAS NOT MARKED WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO U.S.A. AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE RESULTING FROM EXCAVATION. 19. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITHIN EXISTING OR PROPOSED CITY OF ROSEVILLE EASEMENTS SHALL REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF 90% COMPACTION ON THE TRENCH BACKFILL. COMPACTION OF BACKFILL BY JETTING IS NOT PERMITTED IN CITY OF ROSEVILLE RIGHT OF WAY AREAS OR WITHIN DEDICATED RECLAIMED WATER, STORM, SEWER OR WATER EASEMENTS AND MAINS. 20. THE UPPER SIX (6) INCHES OF THE SUB GRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% MINIMUM RELATIVE COMPACTION. 21. PRIOR TO EXCAVATION OF TRENCHES 5 FEET OR DEEPER, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITIES DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR A COPY OF THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL CALOSHA TRENCHING PERMIT AND A COPY OF THE COMPANY'S LETTER INFORMING CALOSHA OF THE TIME THE TRENCHING IS COMMENCING AND THE LOCATION OF THE WORK. 22. NO TRENCHING SHALL OCCUR BENEATH THE DRIP LINE OF ANY OAK TREE TO BE SAVED UNLESS STATED ON THESE PLANS "TRENCHING UNDER THIS TREE IS APPROVED".
SIGNAL: 23. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND INSTALL ALL EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR THE SIGNAL TO OPERATE AS SHOWN IN THE PHASE DIAGRAM. 24. ALL SIGNAL SECTIONS SHALL HAVE FULL CIRCLE VISORS. 25. MOUNT VIDEO PAN, TILT, ZOOM CAMERA BELOW LUMINAIRE MAST ARM AS DIRECTED BY CITY ENGINEER. 26. SIGNAL HEADS TO REMAIN DARK FOR MORE THAN ONE WEEK SHALL BE COVERED WITH A COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIGNAL HEAD COVER. BURLAP SACKS AND/OR PLYWOOD WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 27. ALL LOOP DETECTOR HANDHOLES (DHH'S) SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE LANE LINES. EACH DHH SHALL BE CONNECTED TO ITS OWN UNIQUE CONDUIT THAT RUNS DIRECTLY FROM THE DHH TO A NUMBER 6 PULL BOX LOCATED IN THE SIDEWALK, ADJACENT TO THE DHH IN THE SAME DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. NO MULTIPLE DHH'S SHALL BE ALLOWED THAT ARE CONNECTED TO THE SAME CONDUIT RUN. 28. ALL DHH’S SHALL BE INSTALLED PER LATEST INSTALLMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARD PLANS. 29. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, ALL PULL BOXES SHALL BE FIBRELYTE FL36, OR CITY-APPROVED EQUIVALENT. RESTORATION: 30. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING SUBSTRUCTURES, THAT ARE DAMAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR, WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED BY THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS TO BE DISTURBED, SHALL BE RESTORED OR REPAIRED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 31. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE ANY DAMAGED SIDEWALK, CURB, OR GUTTER BETWEEN JOINTS AND/OR SCORE LINES. MISC: 32. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING ONE-WEEK PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ENGINEERING DIVISION, ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, AND ALL OTHER UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE NOTIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS TO THE DATE AND LOCATION OF THE MEETING. 33. SHOULD IT APPEAR THAT THE WORK TO BE DONE OR ANY MATTER RELATIVE THERETO IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY DETAILED OR EXPLAINED ON THESE PLANS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST IN WRITING FROM THE ENGINEER SUCH FURTHER EXPLANATION AS MAY BE NECESSARY. 34. PARKING OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT OR STORAGE OF MATERIALS UNDER THE DRIPLINE OF TREES SHALL NOT OCCUR AT ANY TIME. 35. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL CONTROLLING FIELD DIMENSIONS BEFORE ORDERING OR FABRICATING ANY MATERIAL.
DH
A DIRECTION OF TRAVEL DIRECTION OF TRAVEL TYPICAL LOOP DETECTOR
NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL BICYCLE DETECTOR
LOOP PLACEMENT
NOT TO SCALE
CA
A CA
A A CA
8' 9'
1' 10' 6" 6" 6" TYPE D BICYCLE DETECTOR LOOP. SIZE IS 1' SMALLER THAN BICYCLE LANE WIDTH. INSTALL 5 TURNS OF 14 AWG LOOP WIRE WITH XLLP INSULATION. DH
LIMIT LINE
LIMIT LINE CENTER LOOP IN
EFFECTIVE LANE (TYP) A TYPE "A" LOOP D TYPE "D" LOOP CA TYPE "A" COUNT LOOP LEGEND NOTES: - ALL LOOPS ARE WOUND CLOCKWISE. - CENTER LOOPS IN EFFECTIVE AREA. - HANDHOLES SHALL BE PLACED BETWEEN PRESENCE & COUNT LOOPS IN THE THROUGH LANES.
A D
D
D
E-1
66 N.A. 99
91 L1 L2 L3 L1
L1 L2 L3
L1
L1 L2 L1 L1
L1 L3 L2 L1
L1 L3 L2 L1
L2 L1
L1
L1
L1 L2 L1 L3 L1 L3 L2 L1 L2 L1 L3 L1 L2 L1 L3 L1
L3 L4 L1
L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L1 L4 L3 L1
L4 L3
L1 L1 L1
L1 L1
L2
L1
L1
L1 L2 L1 L1 L4 L3 L1 WOODCREEK OAKS BOULEVARD
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
40+00 L1
d
b
c
a
48 6
6 6 ∅2P ∅1 ∅4 ∅4
∅7
∅2P ∅2 ∅7 ∅8 ∅5 ∅2∅8P ∅8P ∅5∅8 ∅6P ∅8 ∅3
∅2
∅4
5 6
5 5
5 5
R73-6 (CA) EVUDd EVUDc
3/52
EVUDb EVUDa R73-6 (CA)
R73-6 (CA) R73-6 (CA)
∅4P ∅6P ∅3 ∅6 ∅6 ∅1 ∅4P
3/51
3/49 3/50
7/33
7/35
7/34
7/36
4/45
4/42
4/43
4/46
4/48
1/17
1/18
6/27 6/26 6/32
8/61
8/58
8/59
8/62
5/2
5/1
5/3
5/4
2/10 2/11 2/16
1/20
1/19
4/41 6/25
8/57 2/9 SNS
SNS
SNS
SNS
2/5
8/8
6/7
4/6 ∅4
5 8/64 ∅6 R/W
R/W R/WR/W R/W R/W
48 1
2 3
3 R10-22
R10-22 R10-22
5 4
4 9
VERIFY BIKE LOOPS
IN FIELD
2 4"
3 3" 4
2-3"
5 3"
5 10
6 7
5 8
5 5
∅2 ppb ∅4 ppb ∅4 ppb ∅6 ppb
∅6 ppb ∅8 ppb ∅2 ppb ∅8 ppb
1 4"
R10-22
11 TO FIDDYMENT RD. 11
12 12
14 5
15 13
9 peu 11.5' 12.3' ∅8
L2
L3
L1
300' TO
LIMIT LINE
R/W
4/44 R/W
5 L2
L3
300' TO L1
LIMIT LINE 8/60
R/W
5 L2L1 300' TO LIMIT LINE
R/W6/28
5 L1L2 300' TO LIMIT LINE 2/12
R/W R/W
5 TO JUNCTION BLVD. 10 72
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
Exp. WIDENING PROJECT R EGIST ERED PROFESSIONA L EN GINE R C I V I L No. 90527
S T A T E O F C A L IFO R NIA DANIEL LEE MURPHY
12-31-2312-31-2112-31-2112-31-21 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD / WOODCREEK OAKS BLVD
PROJECT NOTES (THIS SHEET ONLY): EX. 2070 CONTROLLER AND TYPE P CABINET TO REMAIN. LAND NEW DLC IN CABINET. EX. ELECTRICAL SERVICE PEDESTAL TO REMAIN. INSTALL SIGNAL HEAD ON EX. TENON. EX. 3"C, 12 DLC. EX. 2"C, 1 DLC. EX. 3"C, 9 DLC. INSTALL 1 DLC (BIKE). EX. 2.5"C, 2 DLC. INSTALL 1 DLC (BIKE).
EX. 3"C, 9 DLC, 72FOC. INSTALL 1 DLC (BIKE). EX. 2.5"C, 1 DLC, 72FOC. EX. 2"C, 72FOC TO JUNCTION BLVD. EX. 3"C, 144FOC, 24FOC, 12FOC. EX. 3"C, 72FOC. INSTALL NEW LOOP INTO EX. DH. SPLICE NEW DLC TO EX. BIKE LOOP WIRES. EX. 4"C, 144FOC, 72FOC, 24FOC, 12FOC. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 EX. PHASE DIAGRAM (NO CHANGE)
STEADY DEMAND SEQUENCE
EVUDa = ∅2 + ∅5
EVUDb = ∅4 + ∅7
EVUDc = ∅1 + ∅6
EVUDd = ∅3 + ∅8 EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION
POSTED SPEED
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD. 45 MPH WOODCREEK OAKS BLVD. 40 MPH N GRAPHIC SCALE 20 01"=20' 20 40
SEE RIGHT
SEE LEFT
∅ ∅
∅ P
5 2
2 ∅
∅
∅
∅ P
P
2 2
6 6 ∅∅
∅ P
16 6 ∅
∅
∅ P
7 4
4 ∅
∅
∅ P
3 8
8 ∅
∅
∅
∅
P
P
4 4
8 8
E-2
67 1:20
99 92
72 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
Exp. WIDENING PROJECT R EGIST ERED PROFESSIONA L EN GINE R C I V I L No. 90527
S T A T E O F C A L IFO R NIA DANIEL LEE MURPHY
12-31-2312-31-2112-31-2112-31-21
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
LOCATION
STANDARD
LED LUMINAIRE VEHICLE SIGNAL MOUNTING PEDESTRIAN
SIGNAL MOUNTING
PED PUSH BUTTON
HPS LUMINAIRE WATTAGE REMARKS TYPE SIGNAL MAST ARM
LUMINAIRE MAST ARM MAST ARM POLE Ø ARROW
26-4-70 40' 15' 400W EQUIV. MAT MAS SV-3-TA SP-1-CS
SP-1-CS 4
6 RIGHT
LEFT 400W INSTALL R10-22 SIGN ON POLE. 29-5-70 55' 15' 400W EQUIV. MAT MAS MAS SV-3-TA SP-1-CS
SP-1-CS 6
8 RIGHTLEFT 400W INSTALL NEW SIGNAL ON EX. TENON. INSTALL R10-22 SIGN ON POLE. 26-4-70 40' 15' 400W EQUIV. MAT MAS SV-3-TA SP-1-CS SP-1-CS 28
LEFT RIGHT 400W INSTALL R10-22 SIGN ON POLE. 29-5-70 55' 15' 400W EQUIV. MAT MAS MAS SV-3-TA SP-1-CS
SP-1-CS 24 RIGHT
LEFT 400W INSTALL NEW SIGNAL ON EX. TENON. INSTALL R10-22 SIGN ON POLE. ALL NEW EQUIPMENT INDICATED WITH BOLD TEXT. ab
cd
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SCHEDULES
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD / WOODCREEK OAKS BLVD
CONDUCTOR SCHEDULE
AWG OR
CABLE POLE/CIRCUIT CONDUIT RUN
NO. 14
∅1 (3) (3) (3) ∅2 (3) (3) (3) (3) ∅3 (3) (3) (3) ∅4 (3) (3) (3) ∅5 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) ∅6 (3) (3) (3) ∅7 (3) (3) (3) (3) ∅8 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) ∅2P (2) (2) (2) (2) ∅4P (2) (2) (2) ∅6P (2) (2) (2) ∅8P (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) PPB (∅2P) (1) (1) (1) (1)
PPB (∅4P) (1) (1) (1)
PPB (∅6P) (1) (1) (1)
PPB (∅8P) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) SPARES (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) PEU (3) TOTAL (39) (42) (21) (30) (21) NO. 12 PPB COMMON (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) PULLWIRE (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) TOTAL (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) NO. 10 LUMINAIRE (2) (2) (2) (2) NO. 8 SIGNAL COMMON (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) DLC ∅1 (4) (4) (4) ∅2 1(5) 1(5) 1(5) ∅3 (4) (4) (4) (4) ∅4 (8) (8) ∅5 (4) (4) (4) ∅6 1(5) 1(5) 1(5) ∅7 (4) (4) ∅8 (8) (8) (8) (8) TOTAL 2(42) 2(42) 1(9) 1(21) (12) EVUC EVUDa (1) (1) EVUDb (1) (1) (1) EVUDc (1) (1) EVUDd (1) (1) (1) TOTAL (4) (4) (2) SIC 72 SMFO (1) (1) CAT-5 (CAMERA) (1) (1) CONDUIT SIZE (4") (4") (3") (2-3") (3") PERCENT FILL 38 38 19 19 21 NOTES: XX INDICATES NEW CONDUCTORS. (XX) INDICATES EX. CONDUCTORS TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ANY EX. CONDUCTORS NOT SHOWN TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EX. CONDUCTORS SHOWN ABOVE. 1 2 3 4 5
E-3
68 N.A. 99
93 L1
L3 L4 L1
L1 L2 L1
L4 L1
L2 L1 L2 L1 L3 L1 L1 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
60+00
L2 L1 L1
L1 L2 L3 L1
L1 L2 L1
L3
L1
E f g
c d A
SC
SC
∅3 ∅4 ∅2∅2P ∅4P ∅4 ∅4
∅2 ∅8 ∅2
6 5
5 6
5 5 6
6∅2 ∅8 ∅8 ∅8
R3-18
R73-2 (CA)
EVUDb
EVUDd
∅4 ∅3
IISNS
IISNS
4I6U/8
4I6L/9
8J6U/22
8J6L/23
2I2U/2
2I2L/3
3I5U/7 3I9L/14
2I4U/6
2I3U/4
EXISTING ROSEVILLE
ELECTRIC SERVICE POINT 120/240 VOLT SEE DETAIL 'A'
4I7U/10
4I8U/12
8J8U/26
8J7U/24
5 4I8L
/12
8J8L
/26
R/W
R/W
R/W R/W R/W
∅2P
∅2 ppb ∅4 ppb ∅4P
R/W
L1
L1 17' 28' 11'
EVUDa R73-3 (CA)
14 CB
CB R10-22
3 2.5" 5
2"
6 2" 7
2"
9 3"
3 5
3 7
3 ∅4 ppb
∅2 ppb
4 R2-1 (45 MPH) 8
13 13 R10-22
4 3" PEU
b
11 8
2"
15 15
4I9U/13
8J9U/27
SC
L2
L3
L1
300' TO LIMIT LINE
CB R/W
8J7L/25
R/W
SC
3 L2
L3
300' TO
L1 LIMIT LINE
CBR/W
4I7L/11
SC
3 L1 200' TO LIMIT LINE R/W2I3L/5R/W
3 AB LOOPS AB FRONT LOOPS
29-5-113 RS
RC
RS 19-4-113
4 RC #5
RC #5 AB
EQUIPMENT REMOVAL DETAIL
SCALE: 1"=30' EQUIPMENT SHOWN IN BOLD IS TO BE REMOVED. 72
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
Exp. WIDENING PROJECT R EGIST ERED PROFESSIONA L EN GINE R C I V I L No. 90527
S T A T E O F C A L IFO R NIA DANIEL LEE MURPHY
12-31-2312-31-2112-31-2112-31-21 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD / COUNTRY CLUB DR
PROJECT NOTES (THIS SHEET ONLY): EX. 2070 CONTROLLER AND 332 CABINET TO REMAIN. EX. ELECTRICAL SERVICE PEDESTAL TO REMAIN. EX. 2"C, 1 DLC. RELOCATE EX. CCTV CAMERA TO NEW POLE. EX. 2"C, 5 DLC. EX. 2"C, 144FOC (TO FOOTHILLS BLVD). EX. 2"C, 4 DLC. INSTALL 3 DLC. INSTALL NEW PULL BOX IN PLACE OF EX. EX. 2"C, 144FOC (TO FIDDYMENT BLVD), 24FOC (TO WOODCREEK OAKS BLVD).
EX. 2"C, 3#14 (PEU), 2#8 (Ltg), 2#4 (SIGNAL POWER), 1#10 G.
EX. 2"C, 3#4 (SERVICE). EX. 2"C, 24FOC. INSTALL NEW LOOPS INTO EX. DH. INSTALL NEW DH INTO EX. CONDUIT. CONNECT IISNS TO Ltg CONDUCTORS. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 PHASE DIAGRAM (NO CHANGE)
STEADY DEMAND SEQUENCE
EVUDa = ∅2
EVUDb = ∅4
EVUDd = ∅3 + ∅8 EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION
POSTED SPEED
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD. 45 MPH
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 35 MPH
N
GRAPHIC SCALE 20 01"=20' 20 40
2 1
2 2" 6 TO FOOTHILLS BLVD
1 2-3.5" 10
11 TO WOODCREEK OAKS BLVD. 9
∅
∅
3 8 ∅
∅ P ∅
∅ P
2 2
6 6
4 4 ∅8
12 9
3"
A
6 SC DETAIL 'A' NO SCALE E-4
69 3
2.5" 8
1:20
TO POLE b
99 94
72 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
Exp. WIDENING PROJECT R EGIST ERED PROFESSIONA L EN GINE R C I V I L No. 90527
S T A T E O F C A L IFO R NIA DANIEL LEE MURPHY
12-31-2312-31-2112-31-2112-31-21
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
LOCATION
STANDARD
LED LUMINAIRE VEHICLE SIGNAL MOUNTING PEDESTRIAN
SIGNAL MOUNTING
PED PUSH BUTTON
IISNS REMARKS TYPE SIGNAL MAST ARM
LUMINAIRE MAST ARM MAST ARM POLE Ø ARROW
26-4-100 40' 15' 250W EQUIV. MAT MAS MASSV-1-T SP-1-CS — —
COUNTRY CLUB
BLVD INSTALL R3-18 ON SMA. PPB POST — — — — — —
24 LEFT RIGHT —
1-B — — — — TV-1-T SP-1-CS — — —
1-B — — — — TV-2-T SP-1-CS 4 LEFT — INSTALL R10-22 SIGN ON POLE. 29-5-100 55' 15' 250W EQUIV. MAT MAS MAS SV-2-TB — — —
COUNTRY CLUB
BLVD INSTALL R2-1 SIGN (45 MPH) ON POLE. INSTALL R73-2(CA) ON SMA. 1-B (13') — — — — SV-1-T — — — —
1-B — — — — TV-2-T SP-1-CS 2 RIGHT — INSTALL R10-22 SIGN ON POLE. ALL NEW EQUIPMENT INDICATED WITH BOLD TEXT.
A
b
cd
E
fg
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SCHEDULES
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD / COUNTRY CLUB DR
CONDUCTOR SCHEDULE
AWG OR
CABLE POLE/CIRCUIT CONDUIT RUN
12 COND
CABLE ∅4, ∅4P 1 1 ∅2, ∅3, ∅8 2 2 2 2 2
TOTAL 3 1 2 2 2 2 NO. 14
∅2 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) ∅3 (3) (3) (3) (3) ∅4 (3) (3) (3) (3) ∅8 (3) (3) (3) ∅2P (2) (2) (2) (2) ∅4P (2) (2) (2) (2) PPB (∅2P) (1) (1) (1) (1)
PPB (∅4P) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) PPB COMMON (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) SPARES (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) PEU (3) TOTAL (22) (6) (18) (13) (13) (6) (13) (13) NO. 10 SIGNAL COMMON (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) GROUND (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) TOTAL (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (1) (2) (2) (2) NO. 8 LUMINAIRE/IISNS (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) NO. 4 SIGNAL POWER (2) DLC ∅2 (5) (5) ∅3 (2) (2) ∅4 3(4) 3(4) 3(4) 3(4) ∅8 3(4) 3(4) TOTAL 6(15) 3(9) 3(4) 3(4) 3(6) EVUC EVUDa (1) (1) (1) (1) EVUDb 1 1 EVUDd 1 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 2(1) 1 1 1(1) 1(1) 1(1) CCTV CABLE 1 1 CONDUIT SIZE (2-3.5") (2") (2.5") (3") (2") (2") (2") (2") (3") PERCENT FILL 19 26 28 12 26 29 37 41 28 NOTES: XX INDICATES NEW CONDUCTORS. (XX) INDICATES EX. CONDUCTORS TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ANY EX. CONDUCTORS NOT SHOWN TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EX. CONDUCTORS SHOWN ABOVE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A
E
E-5
70 N.A. 99
95 L2 L1 L3 L1 L2 L1 L3 L1 L2 L1 L1 L4 L3 L1L1
95+00 25+00 L2 L1 L3 L1 L2 L1 L3 L1 L1
L1 L2 L1
L1
L2 L1
L4 L3
L2 L1 L1
L3 L2 L1 L1
L3 L2 L1 L1 L2 L1 L1 L4 L3 L1 L1 L1
L1 L2 L1
L3 L4 L1
L1 L2 L3 L1
L1 L2 L3 L1
L1 L2 L3 L1
L1 L2
L1
L1 L1
L1
L1 a i
F B D
CB
SC H
C
6 5
6 6
∅6 ∅6 ∅1 ∅4P ∅6P∅6 ∅3 ∅4P ∅2 ∅4 ∅1 ∅2P ∅4∅4
∅2 ∅7 ∅8 ∅5 ∅2 ∅2∅8P ∅8∅8∅8∅3 ∅3
∅5
∅6 ∅6P ∅8P
4/48
IISNS
Typ
of 3
EVUDb EVUDd
8/61 8/62
8/59
8/58
3/49 3/50
3/51 3/52
3/53 3/54
8/64
7/34 7/33
7/36 7/35
4/45
4/42
1/17
1/19
1/18
1/20
6/27 6/26
6/29
6/30 5/1 5/2 5/3 5/4 2/10
R/W
6/32
SEE DETAIL 'A'
4/43
4/46 SNS
8/57 2/9
2/16
4/41 6/25
SNS
∅7
6/7 2/5
4/6 ∅4 R/W R/WR/W
R/W R/W
R/W EVUDc EVUDa R73-5 (CA) R73-5 (CA)
∅8 APS
R73-5 (MOD)
R73-5 (CA)
CB CB
4 21
21 R14-1 (MOD)
G66-56 (CA) (MOD) SC
R10-22
R10-22 R10-22
21 7
3"
6 9 TO WASHINGTON BLVD.
8 TO EX. SERVICE POINT.
10 7
11 4
3"
5 3"
3 2"
∅2 APS ∅4 APS
18 ∅4 APS ∅6 APS
∅6 APS ∅8 APS
8 2-3" 8
7 R10-22
6 21
R14-1 (MOD)
G66-56 (CA) (MOD)
21 peu
E G
21 5∅2 APS 5
6 19
IISNS 19
8/8
6 6
2-3"
∅2P L1
5 3 2/11
RL RL
RL
24' 12' 11' 21' 11'
PLEASANT GROVE
BOULEVARD FOOTHILLS BOULEVARD
AB
AB LOOPS
LOOPS AB
RC
RC
#5 RC
29-5-70 RS 12 AB
AB
29-5-70 RS AB
LOOPS, CONDUIT, AND DH'S AB
RC ppbs RC ppbs
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RL RL RL
L3
L2
L1
90+00
300' TO
LIMIT LINE
R/W
4/44
R/W
6 L2L1 300' TO LIMIT LINE R/W2/12 R/W
6 285' TO
LIMIT LINE
L3
L1
L2
R/W
8/60
5 4
3 11
L3 L2 L1 300' TO LIMIT LINE
R/W R/W
18 20 TO ROSEVILLE PKWY. 6/28
SEE DETAIL 'A'
72 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
Exp. WIDENING PROJECT R EGIST ERED PROFESSIONA L EN GINE R C I V I L No. 90527
S T A T E O F C A L IFO R NIA DANIEL LEE MURPHY
12-31-2312-31-2112-31-2112-31-21 FOOTHILLS BOULEVARD
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD / FOOTHILLS BLVD
PROJECT NOTES (THIS SHEET ONLY): EX. 2070 CONTROLLER AND TYPE P CABINET TO REMAIN. LAND NEW DLC IN CABINET. INSTALL POLARA iN2 CENTRAL CONTROL UNIT IN CABINET. EX. ELECTRICAL SERVICE PEDESTAL TO REMAIN. INSTALL NEW LOOP WIRES INTO EX. DH. REMOVE EX. PULL BOX AND EXTEND CONDUIT TO NEW PULL BOX. 3"C, 14 DLC, 2#10 (Ltg), 1#10 G. EX. 2"C, 1 DLC. EX. 2"C, 2#8, 24FOC. EX. 2"C, 3#4 TO SERVICE POINT. EX. 2"C, 24FOC, TO WASHINGTON BLVD. 3"C, 1 DLC, 2#10 (Ltg), 1#10 G. 2"C, 1 DLC. ABANDON WESTBOUND INTERMEDIATE LOOPS AND ADVANCE LOOPS. ABANDON ASSOCIATED CONDUIT, EXCEPT AS NOTED, AND REMOVE ASSOCIATED PULL BOXES. EX. 2"C, 1 DLC (LOCATOR), 144FOC. EX. 3"C, 2#8, 2 12FOC tact., 1 DLC. EX. 3", 144FOC, 1 DLC (LOCATOR) EX. 2"C, 1 DLC, 24FOC. EX. 3"C, 1 DLC, 144FOC, 24FOC. EX. 2"C, 1 DLC, 24FOC. CONNECT IISNS TO Ltg CONDUCTORS. EX. 2"C, 24FOC TO ROSEVILLE PKWY. INSTALL NEW DH INTO EX. CONDUIT. EX. 2"C, 2#6 (SIGNAL PWR), 2#10 (Ltg), 3#14 (PEU), 1#10 G. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
EQUIPMENT REMOVAL DETAIL
SCALE: 1"=30' EQUIPMENT SHOWN IN BOLD IS TO BE REMOVED. 6 48
SV
6 6
8 1
2 8
2-3" 7
15 14
13 16
4 3" 3
2"
DETAIL 'A' NO SCALE
∅
∅
5 1 ∅ ∅
∅ P
5 2
2 ∅∅
∅ P
16 6 ∅
∅
∅
∅ P
P
8 2
6 6 ∅
∅
∅ P
3 8
8 ∅
∅
∅
∅
P
P
4 4
8 8 ∅
∅
∅ P
7 4
4 EX. PHASE DIAGRAM (NO CHANGE)
STEADY DEMAND SEQUENCE
2 2-3"
SEE RIGHT
SEE LEFT
8 N
GRAPHIC SCALE 20 01"=20' 20 40
EVUDa = ∅2 + ∅5
EVUDb = ∅4 + ∅7
EVUDc = ∅1 + ∅6
EVUDd = ∅3 + ∅8 EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION
POSTED SPEED
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD. 45 MPH
FOOTHILLS BLVD. 45 MPH
1 2-3"
TO DH
TO COUNTRY CLUB DR.
1:20 E-6
71 17
PLEASANT GROVE
BOULEVARD
22 99
96 72
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
Exp. WIDENING PROJECT R EGIST ERED PROFESSIONA L EN GINE R C I V I L No. 90527
S T A T E O F C A L IFO R NIA DANIEL LEE MURPHY
12-31-2312-31-2112-31-2112-31-21
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
LOCATION
STANDARD
LED LUMINAIRE VEHICLE SIGNAL MOUNTING PEDESTRIAN
SIGNAL MOUNTING
APS
IISNS REMARKS TYPE SIGNAL MAST ARM
LUMINAIRE MAST ARM MAST ARM POLE Ø ARROW
29-5-70 55' 15' 400W EQUIV. MAT MAS MASSV-3-TB SP-2-CS 4 6 RIGHT RIGHT EX. R73-5(CA) SIGN, TRUCK ROUTE SIGNS, AND SNS TO REMAIN. INSTALL R10-22 SIGN ON POLE. 61-5-100 65' 15' 400W EQUIV. MAT MAS MAS MAS SV-1-T FOOTHILLS BLVD RELOCATE EX. R73-5(MOD) SIGN TO SMA. RELOCATE EX. TRUCK ROUTE SIGNS TO POLE. 1-B (7') TP-2-CS 6
8 LEFT RIGHT
1-B TV-2-T INSTALL R10-22 SIGN ON POLE. PBA POST 8 LEFT 29-5-100 55' 15' 400W EQUIV. MAT MAS MAS SV-3-TB SP-2-CS PLEASANT GROVE BLVD INSTALL R10-22 SIGN ON POLE. RELOCATE EX. R73-5(CA) SIGN TO SMA. PBA POST 2 RIGHT 15 [20' TALL] 15' 250W EQUIV. 29-5-70 55' 15' 400W EQUIV. MAT MAS MAS SV-3-TB SP-2-CS 24 RIGHT
LEFT EX. R73-5(CA) SIGN AND SNS TO REMAIN. INSTALL R10-22 SIGN ON POLE. ALL NEW EQUIPMENT INDICATED WITH BOLD TEXT. NEW PED PUSH BUTTONS SHALL BE POLARA iN2 APS OR CITY-APPROVED EQUIVALENT. aBCD
E
FGH
i
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SCHEDULES
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD / FOOTHILLS BLVD
CONDUCTOR SCHEDULE
AWG OR
CABLE POLE/CIRCUIT CONDUIT RUN
12 COND
CABLE ∅3, ∅8 1 1 1 ∅6P, ∅8P 1 1 1 1 ∅5, ∅6 1 1 1 1 ∅2, ∅5, ∅7, ∅8, ∅2P, ∅8P 2 2 2 2 TOTAL 5 3 3 2 2 2 2
5 COND
CABLE APS (∅4P), APS (∅6P) 1 1 1 APS (∅6P), APS (∅8P) 1 1 1 1 APS (∅2P), APS (∅4P) 1 1 1 TOTAL 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 COND CABLE APS (∅8P) 1 1 1 1 APS (∅2P) 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 2 2 2 2 NO. 14 ∅1 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) ∅2 (3) (3) (3) ∅3 (3) (3) (3) ∅4 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) ∅6 (3) (3) (3) ∅7 (3) (3) (3) ∅2P (2) (2) (2) ∅4P (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) ∅6P (2) (2) (2) SPARES (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) PEU (3) TOTAL (27) (19) (22) (19) (19) NO. 10 SIGNAL COMMON (1) (1) (1) 1 1 1 (1) (1) GROUND (1) (1) (1) 1 1 1 (1) (1) LUMINAIRE/IISNS (2) (2) 2 2 (2) (2) TOTAL (2) (4) (4) 4 2 4 (4) (4) NO. 6 SIGNAL PWR (2) (2) DLC ∅1 (4) (4) (4) (4) ∅2 1(5) 1(5) ∅3 6 6 6 6 ∅4 1(7) 1(7) (3) ∅5 (4) (4) ∅6 1(7) 1(7) 1(7) 1(7) ∅7 (4) (4) (4) ∅8 8 8 8 8 TOTAL 17(31) 2(22) (7) 1(11) 1(11) 14 14 15(9) EVUC
EVUDa (1) (1) (1) EVUDb * (1) (1) (1) EVUDc (1) (1) (1) EVUDd * (1) (1) (1) TOTAL (4) (4) (2) (2) SIC 24 SMFO (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) PULLWIRE 2 CONDUIT SIZE (2-3") (2-3") (2") (3") (3") 2-3" (3") (2-3") PERCENT FILL 52 30 44 36 28 16 38 25 NOTES: XX INDICATES NEW CONDUCTORS. (XX) INDICATES EX. CONDUCTORS TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ANY EX. CONDUCTORS NOT SHOWN TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EX. CONDUCTORS SHOWN ABOVE. CONTRACTOR IS NOT REQUIRED TO REMOVE EX. CONDUCTORS BEFORE INSTALLING CONDUCTORS INTO EX. CONDUITS. * REROUTE EX. CONDUCTORS TO NEW POLE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCD
FaC
iEG
E-7
72 N.A. 99
97 FOOTHILLS BLVD
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
IR IR IR IR IR W
IR
IR
IR D
WM
ROSEVILLE ELECTRIC
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
WIDENING PROJECT
PLAN FOR ELECTRIC UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
PLEASANT GROVE BL
A
A FOOTHILLS BL
N.T.S.
SLSL E
E
A
A C
C
B
B D
D
B
B
IR
IR
ROSEVILLE ELECTRIC
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
WIDENING PROJECT
PLAN FOR ELECTRIC UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
PLEASANT GROVE BL
A
A LAPORTE DR
A
A
F
F
Streets & Bridges
Project Manual
Name ofproject:
Pleasant Grove Blvd Widening Project
Department:
Public Works
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pagination Notation
Notice to Contractors NTC
Instructions to Bidders INT
Proposal PROP
Insurance Broker Information Packet INS
Standard Construction Specifications SCS
Assembly Bill No. 626 AB 626
Special Provisions (if applicable) SP
Construction Details CD
NTC - 1
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
DEPARTMENT OF _________________
Name of Project:______________________________________________
NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT sealed Proposal will be received at the Office of the City Clerk, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, California, until ___________________________ at 3:00 p.m. Late proposals will be rejected. No exceptions.
The Proposals will be publicly opened and read by the City Clerk or designee of the City of Roseville at 3:05 p.m. on _____________________, 20__ at the Office of the City Clerk located at 311 Vernon Street, Roseville California for the following project:
_____________________________________________________________________________.
A pre-bid meeting will be held at ____________________________________________ ______________________________________________.
A Project Manual, including all Contract Documents and the Proposal forms for bidding this project, may be obtained on-line from the City of Roseville’s website at https://www.roseville.ca.us/business/procurement_services/bids_rfps. All communications relative to this project shall be conducted through Public Purchase.
Bids shall be submitted on the City’s Proposal Forms included in the Project Manual, plainly endorsed with the Bidder’s name together with signed acknowledgement of any and all addenda. Proposal Forms shall be securely sealed in a suitable envelope marked with the name NTC - 2
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] and address of the Bidder, and marked in capital letters on the front and back of the envelope as follows:
[NAME OF PROJECT]
(Name of Bidder)
(Address of Bidder)
Whether mailed or personally delivered, all bids shall be addressed to the City of Roseville, Office of the City Clerk, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, California, 95678.
Each bid must be accompanied by a Bid Guaranty in the form of a Certificate of Deposit, Certified or Cashier’s Check, Bidder’s Bond or Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit in an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the Bidder’s Grand Total Price. The Bid Guaranty will be retained by the City and applied to any and all damages sustained by the City in the event that the successful Bidder fails or refuses to enter into the Contract awarded to it and to furnish all required bonds and Certificates of Insurance. The City intends to award the Contract to the lowest responsible Bidder based on the Grand Total Bid Price for all components of the Project.
To the extent allowed by law, the City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and/or to waive any irregularities or informalities in any bid or in the bidding procedure. The City specifically reserves the right to not award the Contract after the opening of bids.
Any bid may be withdrawn at any time prior to the time fixed in the public notice for the deadline submission of bids only by written request for the withdrawal of the bid filed with the City Clerk. The request shall be executed by the Bidder or his or her duly authorized representative. The withdrawal of a bid does not prejudice the right of the Bidder to file a new bid by the submission deadline. Whether or not bids are opened exactly at the time fixed in the NTC - 3
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] public notice for opening bids, a bid will not be received after the deadline submission of bids nor may any bid be withdrawn after the time fixed in the public notice for deadline for submission of bids. Immediately following the deadline for submission of bids all bids shall become the property of the City of Roseville and the City is under no obligation to return bids.
Bids will be examined and reported to the City Council within sixty (60) business days after the bid opening. Except as permitted by applicable law, no Bidder may withdraw its bid for a period of sixty (60) business days after the date of bid opening. Each Bidder will be notified of any award of the Contract by the City.
The City will affirmatively ensure non-discrimination on the basis of one or more of the following: race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status in the award and administration of contracts that it awards.
Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22300, the successful Bidder may submit certain securities in lieu of the City withholding retention of payments during the Project.
The City has determined that the Contractor shall possess a valid Class ___, _______________________ Contractor's license at the time that the bid is submitted, as well as any other license classification as may be required by the laws of the California for the performance of the work specified in the Contract Documents. Said license shall be maintained during the Contract period. Failure to possess the specified license shall render the bid nonresponsive and will act as a bar to the award of the Contract to any Bidder not possessing such a license at the time of bid submittal. The Contractor shall provide certification of the license, its number and the expiration date on the proposal form.
NTC - 4
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] The work is to be done in Placer County. Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1773, the City has ascertained the General Prevailing Rate of Wages in the County in which the work is to be done to be as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California. The Contractor is hereby made aware that information regarding prevailing wage rates may be obtained from the State Department of Industrial Relations and/or the following website address: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/DPreWageDetermination.htm. The Contractor is required to post a copy of the applicable wage rates at the job site. Attention is directed to Section 7 “Legal Relations and Responsibility” of the Standard Construction Specifications.
Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.1(b), notice is hereby given that a contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in Labor Code Sections 1720, et seq., unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5 or exempt from registration requirements pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5(f). It is not a violation of Labor Code Section 1771.1 for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform work pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded or is exempt from registration requirements pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5(f). The Contractor is hereby notified that this project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.
All questions prior to the deadline for bid submissions shall be directed to the attention of ______________________________ via ________________________________ at NTC - 5
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] _______________________________. The deadline for submissions of questions and clarifications regarding the Contract Documents is _______ calendar days before the deadline for bid submissions. Only Addenda issued by the City are binding. ___________________________________
City Clerk, City of Roseville
Dated: _____________________________
Published: __________________________
INT - 1
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
SECTION 1. GENERAL
1-1.01 GENERAL. These Instructions to Bidders form a part of the Contract Documents. Capitalized terms are defined in Standard Construction Specifications Section 1. 1-1.02 EXAMINATION OF PLANS, CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND
SITE OF THE WORK. The Bidder shall examine carefully the site of the Work and all the Contract Documents, including these Instructions to Bidders, and shall inform itself of the conditions relating to the execution of the Work. Failure to do so will not relieve the successful Bidder of its obligation to enter into an Agreement and complete the Work in strict accordance with the Contract Documents. Conditions relating to the execution of the Work include the requirements of federal, state, and local laws, statutes and ordinances relative to the execution of Work, including, but not limited to, applicable regulations concerning prevailing wage rates, non-discrimination in the employment of labor, protection of the public, employee health and safety, and environmental protection.
The submission of a bid shall be conclusive evidence that the Bidder has investigated and is satisfied as to the conditions to be encountered, as to the character, quality, and scope of Work to be performed, the quantities of materials to be furnished, and as to the requirements of all the Contract Documents.
1-1.03 EXISTING INFORMATION. Where the Department has made investigations of site conditions, including subsurface conditions in areas where Work is to be performed under the Contract, such investigations are made only for the purpose of study and design. City does not represent that such conditions as found in these investigations or inferences or conclusions drawn as a result of these investigations will represent actual site INT - 2
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] conditions and hereby disclaims any liability as a result of Contractor’s or Bidder’s reliance on such investigations. City will presume that all Bidders have conducted their own site investigations, including investigations of subsurface conditions. Where such investigations have been made, Bidders or Contractors may, upon written request, inspect the records of the Department as to such investigations subject to the conditions set forth in these Instructions to Bidders. Such inspection of records may be made only at the location noted above. The records of such investigations are not a part of the Contract Documents and are shown solely for the convenience of the Bidder or Contractor. The City assumes no responsibility whatsoever with respect to the sufficiency or accuracy of the investigations made, the records thereof, or of the interpretations set forth therein or made by the City in its use thereof. The City makes no warranty or guarantee, either express or implied, that the conditions indicated by such investigations or records are representative of those existing throughout such areas, or any part thereof, or that unforeseen developments may not occur, or that materials other than, or in proportions different from those indicated, may not be encountered.
No information derived from such inspection of records of investigations or compilation thereof made by the City, the Department or from the Engineer, or his or her assistants, will in any way relieve the Bidder or Contractor from properly examining the site and making such additional investigations as it may elect, or from properly fulfilling the terms of the Contract.
INT - 3
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] SECTION 2: BID REQUIREMENTS
2-1.01 PROPOSAL FORMS. The Department will furnish to each Bidder standard Proposal Forms, which, when filled out and executed may be submitted as the bid.
Proposals shall include all pages in the Project Manual with page numbers marked “PROP” plus the Addendum acknowledgment form (front sheet) from all Addenda received by the Bidder.
Proposals shall be removed from the Project Manual. The full Project Manual shall not be submitted with the proposal. Bids not presented on forms so furnished will be disregarded.
The Proposal and one (1) copy thereof shall be submitted as directed in the “Notice to Contractors” under sealed cover plainly marked as a Proposal, and identifying the project to which the Proposal relates and the date of the bid opening therefor. Proposals which are not properly marked may be disregarded.
All blank spaces in the Proposal must be completed, as required, in ink. All price information shall be shown, clearly legible, in figures where required.
The Bidder shall sign the Proposal in the blank space provided therefor. If the Bidder is the sole owner, the Proposal shall be signed by the owner. If the Bidder is a corporation, the legal name of the corporation and its State of incorporation shall be set forth and the Proposal shall be signed by at least two officers authorized to sign contracts on behalf of the corporation.
If the Bidder is a partnership, the true name of the firm shall be set forth, the names and addresses of all partners shall be given and the Proposal shall be signed by a partner in the firm authorized to sign contracts on behalf of the partnership. If the Bidder is a joint venture, the Proposal shall be signed on behalf of each participating company by officers or other individuals who have the full and proper authorization to do so. If the Proposal is signed by an agent of the Bidder other than an officer of a corporation or a member of a partnership, a notarized Power of INT - 4
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] Attorney must be on file with the City prior to opening of bids or must be submitted with the Proposal. If requested by the City, the Bidder shall promptly submit evidence satisfactory to the City of the authority of the person signing the Proposal. 2-1.02 SUBMISSION OF BIDS. Bids must be submitted at the prescribed time and location specified in the Notice to Contractors. Any submission received after the prescribed time shall be rejected, regardless of whether or not bids are opened exactly at the prescribed time.
Any unauthorized conditions or qualifications entered on, or changes made to, the Proposal may render it invalid and may cause its rejection.
No telegraphic, telephonic, or facsimile or other electronically transmitted bids will be considered.
2-1.03 REQUIRED LISTING OF PROPOSED SUBCONTRACTORS. Each Proposal shall list the name, address and Contractor license number of each Subcontractor to whom the Bidder proposes to subcontract portions of the Work in an amount in excess of onehalf of one percent (0.5%) of its total bid, in accordance with Section 4100 to 4114, inclusive, of the Public Contract Code for the State of California. The Bidder shall list the Subcontractor’s license number and the portion of the Work that will be done by each Subcontractor. If the Bidder fails to specify a Subcontractor for any portion of the Work, the Bidder agrees to perform that portion of the Work itself, and represents that it is qualified to perform that portion of the Work itself. The Bidder's attention is invited to other provisions of the Public Contract Code related to the imposition of penalties for a failure to observe its provisions by using unauthorized Subcontractors or by making unauthorized substitutions.
INT - 5
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] 2-1.04 CONTRACTOR’S LICENSING LAWS. Attention is directed to the provisions of Business and Professions Code Chapter 9 of Division 3 concerning the licensing of Contractors.
All Bidders at the time of bid submittal shall be licensed as Contractors in accordance with the laws of this State. Any Bidder or Contractor not so licensed is subject to the penalties imposed by such laws. The form of Contractor's license required is stated in the Notice to Contractors, provided that the City makes no representation as to whether the State may require other or additional licenses. It is the Bidder's and Contractor's responsibility to obtain the correct Contractor's licenses. Bidders shall be skilled and regularly engaged in the general class or type of Work called for under this Contract.
All Bidders and Contractors, including Subcontractors, shall have a current City business license before undertaking any Work.
2-1.05 NONCOLLUSION DECLARATION. By submitting a bid, the Bidder represents and warrants that such bid is genuine and not a sham or collusive or made in the interest or on the behalf of any person therein named, and that the Bidder has not, directly or indirectly, included or solicited any other Bidder to put in a sham bid, or any other person, firm, or corporation to refrain from bidding, and that the Bidder has not in any manner sought collusion to secure the Bidder an advantage over any other Bidder.
Bidders shall submit a properly completed and executed “Noncollusion Declaration” in the form required by Public Contract Code Section 7106 and provided with the Proposal (PROP11). 2-1.06 DISQUALIFICATION, REMOVAL OR OTHER PREVENTION OF BIDDING. A bid may be rejected on the basis of a Bidder, any officer of such Bidder, or any INT - 6
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] employee of such Bidder who has a proprietary interest in such Bidder, having been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local project because of a violation of law or a safety regulation.
2-1.07 PROPOSAL GUARANTY. All bids shall be accompanied by one of the following forms of Bidder's security: Cash, a cashier's check, a certified check, or a Bidder's bond executed by an admitted California surety insurer, made payable to the City of Roseville, or any other form of security deemed acceptable by the City Attorney. The security shall be in an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the amount bid. A bid will not be considered unless one of the form of Bidder's security is enclosed with it.
A Bidder's bond shall conform to the City's bond form in the Proposal and shall be properly filled out and executed.
2-1.08 SCHEDULE OF BID PRICES. Bidders are directed to submit firm unit and lump sum prices for all Work set forth in the Contract Documents on the Proposal Form entitled “Schedule of Bid Prices.”
Unit prices and lump sum prices, as indicated, must be entered in the appropriate spaces provided in the Schedule of Bid Prices. If applicable, unit prices shall be multiplied by the quantities shown, and the total shall be inserted in the Amount column. In the event of any error or discrepancy between the unit price and the calculated amount, the unit prices shall govern.
The City may correct any mathematical errors apparent on the face of the bid.
The amounts shown in the Amount column must be added together in arriving at the Grand Total Bid Price.
Amounts for Allowance bid items must be entered in the exact amount in the Amount column.
INT - 7
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] The prices included within the Schedule of Bid Prices shall include all costs for labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, Subcontractors, suppliers, taxes, insurance, shipment, delivery, overhead, profit, and all other costs necessary to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents.
The Grand Total Bid Price shall be indicated in the Summary table form included with the Schedule of Bid Prices. The Grand Total Bid Price shall be the sum of the amounts bid for each of the designated portions of the Work, as more specifically described on the Schedule of Bid Prices form itself.
Full compensation for complying with the Contract Documents, including requirements of the Standard Specifications, the Standard Construction Specifications, Supplemental Conditions, and all warranties, shall be considered included in the bid items and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefor.
Full compensation for completion of all work as shown on the plans, as specified in the Specifications, and as directed by the City, shall be considered included in the bid items and no additional compensation shall be allowed.
Bidders are strongly discouraged from submitting unbalanced bids. As used herein, the term “unbalanced bid” is defined as any bid that does not include a reasonable proportionate allocation of indirect costs and profit of each bid item indicated in the Schedule of Bid Prices.
The City reserves the right to reject any unbalanced bid if the City determines that there is a reasonable doubt that an acceptance of the bid will not result in the lowest ultimate cost to the City with regard to the work or a disproportionate distribution of contract funds.
The City reserves the right to delete any bid item in its entirety and/or significantly reduce the quantity of Work under a bid item. The City makes no representation that any Work INT - 8
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] under a bid item will be performed during the course of the Project or that the Work will be performed at the quantities included in the Schedule of Bid Prices. As provided in the Standard Construction Specifications, for any deleted Work, Contractor shall not be entitled to payment of the indirect costs and profit included for said bid item. All bid items shall be considered distinct and severable from the remaining bid items, and each Bidder acts at its peril if its bid is unbalanced.
The City shall compare bids on the basis of the Grand Total Bid Price, which includes the base bid and any alternates designated on the Schedule of Bid Prices. Alternates may or may not be awarded, or may be awarded in any combination, at the City’s discretion. 2-1.09 WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS. Any bid may be withdrawn at any time prior to the time fixed in the Notice to Contractors for the opening of bids, provided that a request in writing, executed by the Bidder or its duly authorized representative, for the withdrawal of such bid is filed with the City Clerk. Facsimile and electronic mail requests are not acceptable. The withdrawal of a bid shall not prejudice the right of a Bidder to file a new bid. The withdrawal of any bid after the time fixed in the Notice to Contractors for the opening of bids will not be permitted.
2-1.10 ADDENDUM. Proposals shall include all costs and account for all Addenda issued prior to opening of bids. The Bidder is responsible for verifying that all issued Addenda have been received. An Addendum acknowledgment form for each Addendum shall be included as part of the Proposal submittal.
2-1.11 PUBLIC OPENING OF PROPOSALS. Proposals will be publicly opened and read at the time and place indicated in the Notice to Contractors. Bidders or their authorized agents are invited to be present.
INT - 9
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] 2-1.12 TRENCHING AND EXCAVATION WORK. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 6707, if the Work involves construction of a pipeline, sewer, sewage disposal system, boring or jacking pits, or similar trenches or open excavations, which are five feet (5') or deeper, each bid submitted shall contain, as a bid item, adequate sheeting, shoring, and bracing, or equivalent method, for the protection of life or limb, which shall conform to all applicable safety orders.
INT - 10
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] SECTION 3: EVALUATION OF BIDS
3-1.01 BID EVALUATION PROCESS. Bids will be evaluated to determine the apparent low Bidder. The apparent low Bidder will be determined on the basis of the Grand Total Bid Price, as shown in the Schedule of Bid Prices. If additive or deductive alternates are used in the Schedule of Bid Prices, the apparent low Bidder will be the Bidder with the lowest total of the bid prices for base contract items plus the alternates designated by the City as those that will be used for determining the lowest bid price. However, the City reserves the right to (1) not award any alternates or (2) award any combination of alternates.
In case of discrepancy between the total of the base contract items and any specified alternates and the stated Grand Total Bid Price, the total of the base contract items plus specified alternates shall prevail. Any mathematical errors that appear on the face of the bid will be corrected by the City and the City will use the mathematically corrected addition. For example, if the mathematical total of Bidder’s base contract items plus specified alternates equals $1,000,000, but the Bidder has written $1,250,000 as the Grand Total Bid Price, the City will consider $1,000,000 to be the Bidder’s Grand Total Bid Price for purposes of comparison to other Bidders and actual bid award. The City reserves its rights to reject or accept bids based on discrepancies between the stated Grand Total Bid Price and the actual mathematical total of the base contract bid items, plus specified alternates.
3-1.02 REJECTION OF IRREGULAR PROPOSALS. Proposals may be rejected in the City's sole discretion if they show any alterations of form, additions not called for, conditional bids, incomplete bids, erasures, or irregularities of any kind. However, the City reserves the right to waive any minor irregularities and informalities in any bid or in the bid procedure for any reason.
INT - 11
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] 3-1.03 COMPETITIVE BIDDING. If more than one proposal is offered by any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or any combination thereof, under the same or different names, all such proposals may be rejected. A party who has quoted prices on materials or Work to a Bidder is not thereby disqualified from quoting prices to other Bidders, or from submitting a bid directly for the materials or Work.
All Bidders are put on notice that any collusive agreement to control or affect the awarding of this Contract is in violation of the competitive bidding requirements of the City Charter, State Contract Act and the Business and Professions Code and may render void any Contract let under such circumstances.
3-1.04 RELIEF OF BIDDERS. If the Bidder claims a mistake was made in its bid, the Bidder shall give the Department written notice within five (5) Days after the opening of the bids of the alleged mistake, specifying in the notice in detail how the mistake occurred. No relief from a claimed mistaken bid shall be granted unless such mistake clearly appears on the face of the bid submitted to the City. Claimed mistakes on backup worksheets, spreadsheets, computerized bidding programs, or any other similar calculative bidding mistake which is not apparent on the face of the bid shall not under any circumstance be considered as a basis for relief. The burden of proving the occurrence of a mistake entitling a Bidder to relief from its bid rests entirely on the Bidder. Relief from bids shall be in the City's sole discretion.
INT - 12
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] SECTION 4: AWARD AND EXECUTION OF CONTRACT
4-1.01 AWARD OF CONTRACT. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to award (or not award) any combination of bid items at its option. Any such award will be to the lowest responsible Bidder whose proposal complies with the requirements prescribed for the bid items awarded. Such award, if made, will be made within sixty (60) business days after the opening of the proposals. If the lowest responsible Bidder refuses or fails to execute the Contract, or provide an acceptable Performance Bond, Payment Bond, and insurance certificate(s), the City may award the Contract to the second lowest responsible Bidder. Such award, if made, will be made within eighty-two (82) business days after the opening of proposals. If the second lowest responsible Bidder refuses or fails to execute the Contract, or provide an acceptable Performance Bond, Payment Bond, and insurance certificate(s), the City may award the Contract to the third lowest responsible Bidder. Such award, if made, will be made within one hundred four (104) business days after the opening of the proposals. The above time periods within which the award of Contract may be made are subject to extension for such further period as may be agreed upon in writing between the City and the Bidder concerned.
4-1.02 RETURN OF BIDDER’S SECURITIES. Within ten (10) Days after the award of the Contract, the City Clerk will return all Bidders' securities, other than Bidders' bonds, accompanying the proposals that are not to be further considered in making the award.
Retained Bidders' securities will be held until the Contract has been fully executed, after which all Bidders' securities, except Bidders' bonds and any Bidders' securities that have been forfeited, will be returned.
INT - 13
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] 4-1.03 CONTRACT BONDS. The successful Bidder shall furnish two (2) bonds in the form contained in the section entitled Insurance Broker Information Packet and Bonds. One (1) bond shall secure the payment of the claims of laborers, mechanics or materialmen employed on the Work under the Contract, and the other bond shall guarantee the faithful performance of the Contract.
Each of the two (2) bonds shall be in a sum equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the Contract Price. If the Contract Price increases by the issuance of Change Orders, the penal amounts of the bonds required shall increase accordingly. Sureties on each of said bonds shall be satisfactory to the City.
All alterations, extensions of time, extra and additional Work, and other changes authorized by the Standard Specifications, the Standard Construction Specifications, the Supplemental Conditions or any part of the Contract may be made without securing the consent of the surety or sureties on the Contract bonds.
Furthermore, the successful Bidder shall furnish a certificate from the County Clerk as required by California Civil Code of Procedure Section 995.660(a)(3). 4-1.04 INSURANCE. At the time of the execution of the Contract, the Contractor shall, at its own expense, procure, and at all times during the prosecution of the Work maintain in full force and effect Worker's Compensation Insurance, and Liability Insurance as specified in the Standard Construction Specifications. The Contractor shall provide a Certificate of Insurance in the form contained in the section entitled Insurance Broker Information Packet. 4-1.05 EXECUTION OF CONTRACT. The Contract shall be signed by the successful Bidder and returned, together with all the required Contract bonds and insurance INT - 14
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] certificates, within fifteen (15) Days after the Contract has been awarded, or as otherwise directed, in writing, by the City.
If the Bidder is an individual, the Contract shall be executed personally by the Bidder. If the Bidder is a partnership, it is desirable that the Contract be executed by all of the partners, but it may be executed by one of them. If the Bidder is a corporation, it must be executed by two officers of the corporation consisting of (1) the chairman of the board, president or vice president; and (2) the secretary, assistant secretary, chief financial officer, treasurer or assistant treasurer, or by a person authorized by the corporation to execute written contracts on its behalf, and the corporate seal affixed thereto. In the alternative, a person other than an officer may sign the Contract, provided evidence satisfactory to the City is provided indicating the individual’s authority to bind the corporation. If the corporate seal is not affixed to the Contract, or if it is executed by a person other than officers, or only by one officer, there must be attached to the Contract a certified copy of a resolution of the corporation authorizing such officer or person to execute written contracts for and on behalf of the corporation. If the Bidder is a joint venture, the Contract must be executed on behalf of each participating firm by officers or other individuals who have the full and proper authorization to do so. 4-1.06 FAILURE TO EXECUTE CONTRACT. Failure of the lowest responsible Bidder, the second lowest responsible Bidder, or the third lowest responsible Bidder to execute the Contract and file acceptable bonds and insurance as provided within fifteen (15) Days after the Contract has been awarded, or as otherwise directed, in writing, by the City, shall be just cause for annulment of the award and forfeiture of the Bidder's security. The successful Bidder may file with the City Clerk a written notice, signed by the Bidder or Bidder's authorized representative, specifying that the Bidder will refuse to execute the Contract if presented to INT - 15
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] Bidder. The filing of such notice shall have the same force and effect as the failure of the Bidder to execute the Contract and furnish acceptable bonds within the time prescribed.
INT - 16
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] SECTION 5: BID PROTEST PROCEDURES
5-1.01 POLICY/PROCEDURES. It is the policy of the City to consider fully and adjudicate promptly protests filed by prospective Bidders relating to the City’s bidding procedure or award of the Contract. Protests shall be filed and processed in accordance with Section 4.12.150 of the Roseville Municipal Code. A Bidder’s failure to follow the bid protest procedures may result in rejection of the protest by the City.
PROP - 1
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] PROPOSAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ________________________
Project:_______________________________________
Name of Bidder _________________________________ Business Phone ________________ Business Address _______________________________________________________________ Place of Business _______________________________________________________________ Contractor’s License No. ______________________________________ License Expiration Date_______________________________________ License Classification Type __________________________________________ DIR Registration No. _________________________________________ Type of business organization:
*If a Corporation, incorporated under the laws of the State of:
The undersigned Bidder herewith submits this Proposal and binds itself on award by the City of Roseville under this bid to execute a Contract in accordance with its bid and the Contract Documents.
The Notice to Contractors, Instructions to Bidders, Form of Agreement, Standard Specifications, Standard Construction Specifications, Supplemental Conditions, Contract Drawings, and Addenda, if any, are made part of this bid and all provisions thereof are hereby accepted, and all representations and warranties are required thereby are hereby affirmed.
The work to be done is described in the Bidding Documents entitled _______________ ____________________________________________________, City of Roseville, California.
This offer shall be irrevocable for a period of sixty (60) Days after the date on which bids are opened.
PROP - 2
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] The undersigned Bidder understands that any clarification made to the above or any new and different conditions or information submitted on or with its Proposal, other than that requested, may render the bid non-responsive.
The undersigned, as Bidder, declares that the only persons or parties interested in this Proposal as principals are those named herein; that this Proposal is made without collusion with any other person, firm, or corporation; that the Bidder has carefully examined the location of the proposed Work, the attached Form of Agreement, and the plans, Specifications, and other Contract Documents; and agrees if this Proposal is accepted, that it will contract with the City of Roseville, in the form of a copy of the Agreement contained in the Project Manual, to provide all necessary machinery, tools, apparatus and other means of construction, and to do all the work and furnish all the materials specified in the Contract Documents, in the manner and time therein prescribed, and according to the requirements of the Director, as therein set forth, and that the Bidder will take in full payment therefore prices indicated in the Schedule of Bid Items, including all work modified by addendum numbers ________________. (IF NONE, STATE NONE).
Bids are required for all Bid Items. The amount of the Bid for comparison purposes will be the total of all items awarded.
The Bidder shall set forth for each item of work, in clearly legible figures, an item (“unit”) price and a total for the item in the respective spaces provided for this purpose in the Schedule of Bid Items.
The prices included within the Schedule of Bid Items include all costs for labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, Subcontractors, suppliers, taxes, insurance, shipment, PROP - 3
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] delivery, overhead, profit, and for all other costs necessary to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents.
Accompanying this Proposal is _______________________________________________. (Notice: Insert the words “Cash $_________,” “Cashier's Check,” “Certified Check,” or “Bidder's Bond,” as the case may be, in an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the total of the Bid.)
The names of all persons interested in the foregoing Proposal as Principals, are as follows: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ If SOLE OWNER, execute here:
I sign as sole owner of the business named above:
_____________________________________________________________________________ If PARTNERSHIP, one or more partners sign here:
The undersigned certify that we are partners in the business named above and that we sign this bid with the full authority to do so:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ PROP - 4
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] If CORPORATION, execute here:
Corporate Name: _______________________________________ Incorporated under the laws of the State of ____________________________________ The undersigned certify that they sign this bid with the full and proper authorization so to do:
By
Signature of Authorized Official*
Title
Typewritten or Printed Name
By
Signature of Authorized Official*
Title
Typewritten or Printed Name
If JOINT VENTURE, execute here:
Joint Venture name composed of:
The undersigned certify that they sign this bid with the full and proper authorization so to do:
Signature of Authorized Official*
Title
Typewritten or Printed Name
Signature of Authorized Official*
Title
Typewritten or Printed Name
*If Bidder is a partnership or Joint Venture, give the full names of all partners and/or Joint Ventures in the space provided (use additional sheet if required). If Bidder is a corporation, two signatures are required as follows: (1) the Chairman, President, or Vice-President and (2) the Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, or Assistant Treasurer. In the alternative, this Agreement may be executed by a single officer or a person other than an officer provided that evidence satisfactory to City is provided demonstrating that such individual is PROP - 5
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] authorized to bind the corporation (example, a copy of a certified resolution from the corporation’s board or a copy of the corporation’s bylaws). [LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS FOLLOWS ON NEXT PAGE.]
PROP - 6
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS
Contractor’s Name: _________________________________
The Bidder is required to furnish the following information in accordance with the provisions of Section 4100 and 4114, inclusive, of the Public Contract Code of the State of California. This list and information shall include all Subcontractors that perform work, provide labor or render services to the Bidder in connection with the Project in an amount in excess of one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total amount of the Bidder Grand Total Price.
PORTION/
TYPE OF
WORK
% OF
CONTRACT
SUBCONTRACTOR’S
NAME
CONTRACTOR
LICENSE NO. DIR REG NO. BUSINESS ADDRESS (CITY, STATE)
PROP - 7
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
SECURITY FOR COMPENSATION CERTIFICATE
(Required by California Labor Code Section 1861)
TO: City Council
City of Roseville
I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Contract. _________________________________
_________________________________
(Signature of Bidder)
_________________________________
_________________________________
Business Address
_________________________________
Telephone
PROP - 8
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] BIDDER’S BOND
City Council of the City of Roseville
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That we ________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________, as PRINCIPAL, and ______________________________________________________________________________ a, __________________________________________ and duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Roseville in the penal sum of _______________________________________________ dollars ($________________), being at least TEN PERCENT (10%) OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE BID of the Principal above named, submitted by said Principal to the City of Roseville, acting by and through the Public Works Director, for the work described below, for the payment of which sum in lawful money of the United States, well and truly to be made, to the Director of the Department to which said Bid was submitted, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators and successors, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH,
That whereas the Principal has submitted the above-mentioned Bid to the City Council of the City of Roseville, as aforesaid, for certain construction specifically described as follows, for which Bids are to be opened at the Office of the City Clerk located at 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, California, on ____________________________, 20__ FOR (Copy here the exact title of work as it appears on the Proposal.) PROP - 9
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] NOW, THEREFORE, IF THE AFORESAID PRINCIPAL is awarded the Contract and, within the time and manner required under the Contract Documents, after the prescribed forms are presented for signature, enters into a written Contract, in the prescribed form, in accordance with the Bid, and files all insurance and two (2) Bonds with the Department, one (1) to guarantee Faithful Performance and the other to guarantee Payment for Labor and Materials, as required by law, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals on this _____ day of _____________________, 20___.
______________________________(Seal)
______________________________(Seal)
______________________________(Seal)
Principal
______________________________(Seal)
______________________________(Seal)
______________________________(Seal)
Surety
__________________________________
__________________________________
Business Address
NOTE: To be considered complete, both the Principal and the Surety must sign this Bidder’s Bond. In addition, signatures of those executing for the Surety must be properly acknowledged.
PROP - 10
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] Project ____________________________
Contractor _________________________
SCHEDULE OF BID ITEMS
PROP - 11
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
NONCOLLUSION DECLARATION TO BE EXECUTED BY
BIDDER AND SUBMITTED WITH BID
The undersigned declares:
I am the _________________ of ______________________, the party making the foregoing bid.
The bid is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation. The bid is genuine and not collusive or sham. The Bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other Bidder to put in a false or sham bid. The Bidder has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any Bidder or anyone else to put in a sham bid, or to refrain from bidding. The Bidder has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the bid price of the Bidder or any other Bidder, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the bid price, or of that of any other Bidder. All statements contained in the bid are true. The Bidder has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, to any corporation, partnership, company, association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof, to effectuate a collusive or sham bid, and has not paid, and will not pay, any person or entity for such purpose.
Any person executing this declaration on behalf of a Bidder that is a corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or any other entity, hereby represents that he or she has full power to execute, and does execute, this declaration on behalf of the Bidder.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration is executed on _____________________ [date], at _____________________________ [city], ________________ [state]. ____________________________________
(Signature of Declarant)
PROP - 12
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
DISQUALIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE
The Bidder shall complete, under the penalty of perjury, the following questionnaire:
Has the Bidder, any officer of the Bidder, or any employee of the Bidder who has proprietary interest in the Bidder, ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of a violation of law or a safety regulation?
Yes______ No______
If the answer is yes, explain the circumstances in the following space.
NAME OF BIDDER: _________________________________________ SIGNATURE OF BIDDER: ____________________________________ TITLE OF BIDDER: _________________________________________ DATE: _____________________________________________________ PROP - 13
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INSURANCE AND BOND REQUIREMENTS
Included in the Bid Price is full compensation for the requirements set forth in the INSURANCE BROKER INFORMATION PACKET of the Project Manual.
NAME OF BIDDER: _________________________________________ SIGNATURE OF BIDDER: ____________________________________ TITLE OF BIDDER: _________________________________________ DATE: _____________________________________________________ PROP - 14
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND ACCURACY OF DATA
Although soil and site investigation reports have been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding accuracy, adequacy, completeness, legality, reliability or usefulness of any information contained therein. These reports are subject to change at any time, may be incomplete, and/or may contain errors. This information is provided for informational purposes only. The City of Roseville provides this information on an “as is” basis. Warranties of any kind, express or implied, or statutory, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability, and fitness for a particular purpose ARE DISCLAIMED to any party viewing these documents or to any third party.
The City of Roseville does not accept and expressly disclaims liability to any party viewing such information, or to any third party whatsoever, for any loss, damage, or injury (including incidental or consequential damages) whether such loss, damage, or injury is the result of negligence, willful or intentional misconduct, or any other cause.
I have read and acknowledged the above disclaimer and agree to hold harmless the City of Roseville on any theory of liability for any loss, damage or injury whether in contract, strict liability or tort arising in any way out of the use or contents of the released information or documents described above or the performance of the work called for herein.
Print Name Signature
Name of Business/Company/Corporation Date
Address Phone
PROP - 15
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
END OF PROPOSAL
1 [L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
A G R E E M E N T
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this _____day of __________________, 20_____, by and between the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, (“CITY”), and ______________________________________________, a ____________________________, (“CONTRACTOR”); and
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the CITY, at a meeting held on the _____day of __________________, 20_____, approved plans and specifications for the ________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ and directed the City Clerk to advertise for sealed proposals for doing said work and providing that bids be submitted on the _____ day of ________________, 20_____; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk, thereafter duly and regularly caused a notice to be published in the manner and for the time prescribed by law; and
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR, pursuant to the provisions of said notice duly filed a bid with the City Clerk, a true copy of which bid is now on file in the office of the City Clerk, and is hereby referred to and by this reference made a part hereof as fully as if set forth at length herein; and
WHEREAS, all bids received pursuant to said notice were opened and examined and publicly declared at the time specified in said advertisement for bids and at a meeting of the City Council held on the _____ day of ___________________, 20_____, the Council found and 2 [L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] declared the bid of CONTRACTOR to be the lowest responsible bid and thereupon awarded a contract to CONTRACTOR to do the work referred to in the aforementioned specifications.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. THE WORK. CONTRACTOR agrees:
a. To do the work and furnish all the labor, materials, tools, supplies, equipment, superintendence, insurance, and bonds required for the _______________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ in accordance with the Contract Documents (the Work).
b. To do and perform the Work contemplated hereby in a good and workmanlike manner under the direction of and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Roseville.
2. PAYMENT. CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR __________________________ _________________________________________ dollars ($________________) for the Work to be done under this Agreement in accordance with the Contract Documents.
3. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Agreement between the parties hereto consists of the following documents:
a. The advertisement for bids (including the notice to bidders, instructions to bidders and proposals);
b. The accepted bid;
c. Plans and specifications (including standard construction specifications, special provisions and construction details);
d. Bonds and insurance required by the specifications; and 3 [L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] e. This contract.
All documents specified above are intended to operate so that any work called for in any one and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents.
4. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. In the event CONTRACTOR does not complete the Work within the time specified, CONTRACTOR agrees that CITY will suffer damages.
Inasmuch as the actual damages which would result from such breach by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement are uncertain, and would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix, CONTRACTOR agrees that it shall pay, or CITY shall deduct from CONTRACTOR’s fee, the amount of $________ per day as liquidated damages, in the event of such delay.
5. TIME OF COMPLETION. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
CONTRACTOR shall complete all Work under the Contract Documents within _____ Days of the date of this Contract. CONTRACTOR shall begin work by the date specified in the “Notice to Proceed” letter and shall diligently prosecute all of the Work under this Contract in all parts and requirements as defined in the Contract Documents.
6. SERVICE OF NOTICE. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed given when (a) personally delivered to the recipient identified below; (b) mailed by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage pre-paid, to the address specified below; or (c) sent by facsimile, with confirmation of receipt, to the facsimile number identified below.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE CONTRACTOR
______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ 4 [L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] CITY may also act through either its architect or construction manager if CITY expressly gives notice to CONTRACTOR, in writing, that CITY’s designee has authority to act for CITY in a specific capacity.
7. DISPUTES. Disputes arising from this Agreement will be determined in accordance with the Contract Documents and Public Contract Code Sections 10240-10240.13.
8. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
9. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall act as an independent contractor, and covenants and agrees that it will conduct itself consistent with such status, that it will neither hold itself out as, nor claim to be, an officer or employee of CITY by reason of this Agreement.
10. SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the respective parties hereto.
11. MODIFICATION. This Agreement and each provision contained herein may be waived, amended, supplemented or eliminated only by mutual written agreement of the parties.
12. SEVERABILITY. If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are for any reason held invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect the remaining provisions or the validity and enforceability of the Agreement as a whole.
13. INTEGRATED AGREEMENT. This is an integrated agreement and contains all of the terms, considerations, understanding and promises of the parties. It shall be read as a whole.
14. CONTRACTORS LICENSE LAW. CONTRACTORS ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE LICENSED AND REGULATED BY THE CONTRACTORS’ STATE LICENSE 5 [L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
BOARD WHICH HAS JURISDICTION TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS AGAINST
CONTRACTORS IF A COMPLAINT REGARDING A PATENT ACT OR OMISSION IS FILED WITHIN FOUR (4) YEARS OF THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION. A
COMPLAINT REGARDING A LATENT ACT OR OMISISON PERTAINING TO STRUCUTRAL DEFECTS MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) YEARS OF THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING A CONTRACTOR MAY BE REFERRED TO THE REGISTRAR, CONTRACTORS’ STATE LICENSE BOARD, P.O.
BOX 26000, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95826.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, has authorized the execution of this Agreement in duplicate by its City Manager and attestation by its City Clerk under authority of Resolution No. _____, adopted by the Council of the City of Roseville on the _____day of _________________, 20_____, and CONTRACTOR has caused this Agreement to be duly executed.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a _______________________________
municipal corporation _______________________________
BY: _______________________________ BY: ______________________________ DOMINICK CASEY its: _______________________________
City Manager
and
ATTEST:
BY: ______________________________
its: _______________________________
BY: _______________________________
CARMEN AVALOS
City Clerk
6 [L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BY: _______________________________
MICHELLE SHEIDENBERGER
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:
BY: _______________________________
JASON SHYKOWSKI
Public Works Director
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
INSURANCE BROKER INFORMATION PACKET
Project:_______________________________________
NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR:
For your convenience, this package contains the Requirements for Insurance and Bonds for this project, including the necessary City forms. You are required to return these forms in addition to the executed Contract within fifteen (15) calendar days after the award of the Bid, unless otherwise directed by City in writing. (See the Instructions to Bidders.) Please insert the dollar amount of your accepted Bid into the blank on page INS-1 and present this entire package to your insurance broker if you are awarded the Bid. [L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Notice to Insurance Broker INS 1
Insurance Requirements INS 2
Public Works Faithful Performance Bond INS 7
Public Works Payment Bond INS 9
INS - 1
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
NOTICE TO INSURANCE BROKER
Your client has been awarded a bid by the City Council of the City of Roseville to perform a public works project known as ___________________________________________.
The Contract Conditions for that project require your client (“the Contractor”) to return certain evidence of insurance and bonds to the City Attorney of the City within fifteen (15) days after the Bid award, unless otherwise directed by the City in writing, or else the Bid award may be terminated and awarded to another company.
This package contains the information you will need as an insurance broker to provide the appropriate insurance and bonds to the City. The insurance coverages the Contractor needs are specified in the section entitled “Insurance Requirements.” Please note that, in addition to the insurance certificate itself, copies of several endorsements must be actually furnished.
Please refer to Special Provisions for modifications of the Standard Construction Specifications, if any, and the requirements of this insurance packet.
Please use the standard City of Roseville Bond Forms provided in this package.
The Bonds required must each be in the penal amount of: $______________________.
Bonds must be sent to the following staff person:
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
Insurance documents must be provided using one of the following methods:
a. By email to [email protected] and [email protected] b. By fax to (770) 335-5727 and (916) 774-5461
After using one of these methods, please DO NOT send the insurance certificate(s) by mail.
When forwarding the documents, please refer to the project name so that the documents can be matched with the Contract for which they are submitted.
Thank you.
INS - 2
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
The following sections are quoted from the Standard Construction Specifications:
7-1.06 INSURANCE COVERAGE.
A. Evidence of Maintenance Required. The Contractor shall, at its expense, procure and at all times maintain in full force and effect at a minimum the insurance required by this section on all of its operations; and the Contractor shall not allow any Subcontractor to commence work until similar insurance required of the Subcontractor has been obtained and filed. An original Certificate of Insurance, and copies of all required endorsements, all in a form approved by the Risk Manager, evidencing all required coverage or policies shall be filed after the award of the bid and prior to approval of the Contract by the City Council. Contractor shall provide ten (10) days prior written notice to the City of any reduction of coverage limits or cancellation of the coverage or policies shall be given to the City of Roseville as Certificate holder.
B. Qualifying Insurers. With the exception of the State Compensation Insurance Fund, all required insurance policies shall be issued by companies acceptable to the City and licensed to do business in the State of California and who hold a current policy holders alphabetic and financial size category rating of not less than AVII according to the most recent issue of Best's Insurance Reports.
C. Insurance Required.
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations with limits of no less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage for projects under One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) and INS - 3
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] limits of no less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage for projects over One Million Dollars ($1,000,000). If a general aggregate limit applies, either the aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
The Commercial General Liability insurance shall include the following, copies of which shall be provided:
a. Inclusion of the City of Roseville, and its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers, as additional insureds (except for workers’ compensation) as respects services or operations under the Contract. The additional insured endorsement for the general liability policy shall be at least as broad as the ISO CG 2010 10 01 combined with ISO CGL Endorsement CG 2037 10 01. Any other endorsement must be approved in writing by the City.
Endorsements must include coverage for on-going and completed operations, which coverage shall be maintained for four (4) years following completion of the Project. Endorsements shall cover the City of Roseville, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers. b. The insurance shall provide coverage for claims by one insured against another insured and the policies shall not contain any cross-suits exclusions, crossliability exclusions, or insured versus insured exclusions. The policies shall not contain any classification exclusions purporting to deny coverage for any work to be performed by Contractor or any of its Subcontractors.
c. Stipulation that the insurance is primary and noncontributory, as evidenced by a separate endorsement (CG 20 01 04 13 or an equivalent) or section of the policy, and that neither the City nor its insurers will be called upon to contribute to a loss.
INS - 4
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] d. Such insurance shall specifically cover the contractual liability of the Contractor.
e. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and limits shall be available to the additional insureds. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be: (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the full coverage and maximum limits of any insurance proceeds available to the named insureds, whichever is greater. f. Waiver of subrogation endorsement.
g. The Contractor shall furnish a certificate for the period covered.
2. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering Code 1 (any auto), or if Contractor has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and Code 9 (non-owned), with limits of no less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers' Compensation: In accordance with the provisions of the California Labor Code, Contractor is required to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance. Statutory Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) shall cover all Contractors staff while performing any work incidental to the performance or this Agreement.
4. Professional Liability: Professional Liability (Errors and Omission) Insurance appropriate to Contractor’s profession, with a limit of liability not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence or claim and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate to cover all design and engineering services rendered by Contractor pursuant to the INS - 5
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] Agreement. Coverage must commence from the first day that Contractor or any of its Subcontractors provided any design or engineering services in connection with the Project.
5. Builder’s Risk/Course of Construction Insurance Is ____ OR Is Not ____ Required by Risk Management: The Contractor shall be responsible for all loss, damage or destruction whatsoever to the work called for by this Contract until the approval of a Notice of Completion or acceptance of the Work if no Notice of Completion is to be recorded.
The Contractor shall secure “All Risk” type of builder's Risk Insurance of the type covering one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the work performed under this Contract (the value is presumed to be the Contract amount unless otherwise stated in Supplemental Conditions) and all materials, equipment, or other items to be incorporated therein while the same are located at the construction site, a bonded warehouse, or its place of manufacture. At any time, the policy shall cover the value of the work completed. The policy shall cover hazards including the losses due to fire, explosion, hail, rain, lightning, flood (separate insurance as needed), vandalism, malicious mischief, wind, collapse, aircraft, and smoke.
The policies providing such insurance shall name the City as a loss payee as its respective interests may appear, and certified copies of such policies shall be filed with the City. The maximum deductible allowable under the Builder's All Risk policy shall be five percent (5%) of the Contract amount.
Builder's Risk Insurance is not required for coverage of losses in excess of five percent (5%) of the Contract amount for damages resulting from earthquake in excess of a magnitude of
3.5 on the Richter scale, or tidal waves. Coverage in the amount of five percent (5%) of the Contract amount for such losses is required.
INS - 6
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
6. Pollution Coverage: Contractor shall procure pollution liability coverage or other insurance covering claims for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the abatement, removal, storage, transportation, or other exposure to hazardous materials or pollutants, in limits not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000). Contractor shall add the City and all parties required to be indemnified by Contractor as additional insured on all pollution liability policies.
7. Higher Coverage Limits: If Contractor maintains higher coverage limits than the amounts shown above, then the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher coverage limits maintained by Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
8. Claims Made Coverage: Liability insurance coverage may not be written on a “claims made” or modified occurrence basis. The Certificate of Insurance must clearly provide that the coverage is on an “occurrence” basis.
7-1.06A OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS.
A. The requirements of the Standard Specifications as to types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by the Contractor, and any approval of insurance by the City, are not intended to, and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Contractor pursuant to the Contract, including, but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification, nor preclude the City from taking any other action available to it under any other provision of the Contract or law.
B. The City acknowledges that some insurance requirements contained in these Standard Specifications may be fulfilled by self-insurance on the part of the Contractor.
However, this shall not in any way limit liabilities assumed by Contractor under the Contract.
INS - 7
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] Any self-insurance must be approved in writing by the City, in its sole discretion and shall not reduce the limits of liability. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions (“SIR”) must be declared on the certificate of insurance and approved by City in writing. Policies containing any SIR provision shall provide or be endorsed to provide that the SIR may be satisfied by either the named insured or City. City reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any insurance policy and endorsements. The failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of such right.
C. The Contractor agrees to include in its contracts with all subcontractors the same requirements and provisions of this Contract, including the indemnity and insurance requirements, to the extent they apply to the scope of the subcontractor’s work. Furthermore, the Contractor shall require its subcontractors to agree to be bound to the Contractor and the City in the same manner and to the same extent as the Contractor is bound to the City under this Contract. Additionally, the Contractor shall obligate its subcontractors to comply with these same provisions with respect to any tertiary subcontractor, regardless of tier. A copy of the City’s indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to the subcontractor or tertiary subcontractor upon request. Alternatively, the Contractor may insure subcontractor(s) under its own policy.
D. The City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as insureds with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the Contractor; and with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage INS - 8
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] for the active negligence of the additional insured in any case where an agreement to indemnify the additional insured would be invalid under California Insurance Code Section 11580.04.
E. The limits of insurance required in this Contract may be satisfied by a combination of primary and excess insurance. Any excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of the City (if agreed to in a written contract) before the City’s own insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
F. The insurance procured by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of the City, but any acceptance of insurance certificates by the City shall in no way limit or relieve Contractor of its duties and responsibilities under the Agreement.
G. Contractor shall be responsible for all premiums, deductibles, and selfinsured retention applicable to the insurance it is required to procure under the Contract. All deductibles or self-insured retentions over five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) must be approved by the City, in writing. Contractor shall be responsible for all deductibles, self-insured retention payments, and/or increased premiums incurred if the City’s policies of insurance are forced to cover damages or respond to claims for which Contractor or its Subcontractors were obligated to provide insurance under the Contract.
H. Failure of the City to enforce in a timely manner any of the requirements of these insurance provisions shall not act as a waiver to enforcement of any of these provisions at a later date.
I. Contractor’s indemnity obligations shall not be limited by these insurance provisions and shall survive the expiration of the Contract and the insurance provisions of the Contract shall likewise not be limited by the indemnity provisions of the Contract.
INS - 9
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] J. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO WITHHOLD ANY
PROGRESS PAYMENTS TO THE CONTRACTOR IN THE EVENT OF
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ANY INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
PUBLIC WORKS
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND
(Project: ______________________________________________) WHEREAS, the City of Roseville (“CITY”) has awarded a bid and contract to ___________________________________________________________________ as contractor (“PRINCIPAL”) for the public work described as __________________ _________________________________________________ (the “WORK”). The contract (“AGREEMENT”), for the public work described above, and all of its terms and conditions are incorporated by reference and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the PRINCIPAL is required to furnish a bond in connection with the AGREEMENT guaranteeing its faithful performance; and
NOW, THEREFORE, we the undersigned PRINCIPAL and _________________ ____________________________, a _______________________________, admitted and duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as SURETY (“SURETY”), are held and firmly bound unto the CITY or its successors and assigns in the sum of ____________________________________________________ dollars ($___________________) (which amount is not less than 100% of the AGREEMENT price) to be paid to the CITY or its successors and assigns; and for which payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, successors or assigns jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
The condition of this obligation is such that if the PRINCIPAL, or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall abide by, and in all respects promptly and faithfully perform the covenants, conditions and provisions in said AGREEMENT and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, notice of which alterations to Surety being hereby waived, on its part to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees, volunteers as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise, this obligation shall be and remain in full force and effect.
As condition precedent to the satisfactory completion of the contract, the obligation of the PRINCIPAL and SURETY under this Bond shall remain in effect for a period of one (1) year after the completion and acceptance of the WORK. During that time, if the PRINCIPAL, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns fails to make full, complete and satisfactory repair and replacement or totally protect the CITY from any loss or damage made evident during that year which results from or is caused by either defective materials or faulty workmanship in the prosecution of the WORK, then the obligation shall remain in full force and effect. However, anything in Bond No. __________
Premium $_________
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] this paragraph to the contrary notwithstanding, the obligation of the SURETY shall continue so long as any obligation of the PRINCIPAL remains.
No prepayment or delay in payments, and no change, extension, addition or alteration of any provision of the AGREEMENT or in the specifications agreed to between the PRINCIPAL and the CITY, or any forbearance on the part of the CITY shall operate to relieve the SURETY. The SURETY hereby waives the provisions of Section 2819 of the California Civil Code. The SURETY waives all rights of subrogation against the CITY or any person employed by the CITY. If the contract price increases by the issuance of change orders, the amount specified in this bond shall increase by the same amount.
Whenever PRINCIPAL shall be and declared by CITY to be in default under the AGREEMENT, SURETY shall promptly remedy the default, or shall promptly do one of the follow at CITY’s election:
1. Undertake through its agents or independent contractors, reasonably acceptable to CITY, to complete the AGREEMENT in accordance with its terms and conditions and to pay and perform all obligations of PRINCIPAL under the AGREEMENT, including without limitation, all obligations with respect to warranties, guarantees, and the payment of liquidated damages.
2. Reimburse CITY for all costs CITY incurs in completing the AGREEMENT, and in correcting, repairing or replacing defects in materials or workmanship and/or materials and workmanship which do not conform to the specifications in the AGREEMENT.
SURETY’s obligations hereunder are independent of the obligations of any other surety for the performance of the AGREEMENT, and suit may be brought against SURETY and such other sureties, jointly and severally, or against any one or more of them, or against less than all of them without impairing CITY’s rights against the others.
No right of action shall accrue on this bond to or for the use of any person or corporation other than CITY or its successors or assigns.
As part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefore, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by CITY in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. [SIGNATURES NEXT PAGE]
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the PRINCIPAL and SURETY above-named, on the ____ day of __________________, 20___.
PRINCIPAL: SURETY:
BY:____________________________ BY:__________________________ PRINT NAME: ________________________ PRINT NAME: ______________________ PRINT TITLE: ________________________ PRINT TITLE:_______________________ AND MAILING ADDRESS:
BY: ___________________________ _____________________________ PRINT NAME: ________________________ ___________________________________ PRINT TITLE:_________________________ ___________________________________ (Notarization by Surety and copy of
Power of Attorney required.)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BY: ________
City Attorney
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
PUBLIC WORKS
LABOR AND MATERIALS PAYMENT BOND
(Project: ______________________________________________) WHEREAS, the City of Roseville (“CITY”), has awarded a bid and contract to ______________________________________________________________________ as contractor (“PRINCIPAL”), for the public work described as ____________________ ________________________________________________ (the “WORK”). The contract (“AGREEMENT”), for the public work described above, and all of its terms and conditions are incorporated by reference and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the PRINCIPAL is required to furnish a bond in connection with the AGREEMENT guaranteeing payment of persons who provide labor and material; and NOW, THEREFORE, we the undersigned PRINCIPAL and _________________ ____________________________, a _______________________________, admitted and duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as SURETY (“SURETY”), are held and firmly bound unto the CITY or its successors and assigns in the sum of ____________________________________________________ dollars ($___________________) (which amount is not less than 100% of the AGREEMENT price) to be paid to the CITY or its successors and assigns; and for which payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, successors or assigns jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
The condition of the obligation is such that if the PRINCIPAL, its subcontractors, heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns fails to pay any of the persons named in Section 8004 or 9100 of the Civil Code of the State of California, or the amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code of the State of California, or any amounts required to be deducted, withheld and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of the PRINCIPAL and its subcontractors pursuant to Section 13020 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, with respect to work or labor performed by any such claimant, that the SURETY will pay for the same, in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, and also, in case suit is brought upon the bond, shall pay reasonable attorneys’ fees, to be fixed by the Court.
This bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies, and corporations entitled to file a Stop Payment Notice pursuant to the provisions of Section 9350 et seq. of the Civil Code of the State of California, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond.
Bond No. __________
Premium $_________
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] No prepayment or delay in payments, and no change, extension, addition or alteration of any provision of the AGREEMENT or in the specifications agreed to between the PRINCIPAL and the CITY, or any forbearance on the part of the CITY shall operate to relieve the SURETY. The SURETY hereby waives the provisions of Section 2819 of the California Civil Code. The SURETY waives all rights of subrogation against the CITY or any person employed by the CITY. If the contract price increases by the issuance of change orders, the amount specified in this bond shall increase by the same amount.
As part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefore, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by CITY in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the PRINCIPAL and SURETY above-named, on the _____ day of __________________, 20__.
PRINCIPAL: SURETY:
BY:____________________________ BY:__________________________ PRINT NAME: ________________________ PRINT NAME: ______________________ PRINT TITLE: ________________________ PRINT TITLE:_______________________ AND MAILING ADDRESS:
BY: ___________________________ _____________________________ PRINT NAME: ________________________ ___________________________________ PRINT TITLE:_________________________ ___________________________________ (Notarization by Surety and copy of
Power of Attorney required.)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BY: ________
City Attorney
SCS – 1
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
STANDARD CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
SCS – 2
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Adoption of State Specifications SCS 3
Section 1. General SCS 3
Section 2. Bidding SCS 5
Section 3. Contract Award and Execution SCS 9
Section 4. Scope of Work SCS 11
Section 5. Control of Work SCS 11
Section 6. Control of Materials SCS 18
Section 7. Legal Relations and Responsibility SCS 18
Section 8. Prosecution and Progress SCS 32
Section 9. Payment SCS 33
Section 14. Environmental Stewardship SCS 35
SCS – 3
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022]
ADOPTION OF STATE SPECIFICATIONS
1. The State of California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) Standard Specifications dated 2015, are hereby adopted as the Standard Specifications of the City of Roseville except insofar as they may be modified by these Standard Construction Specifications.
2. Except for Division 1, Section 2, numbering in these Standard Construction Specifications conforms to that in the Caltrans Standard Specifications. The existence of a section in these Standard Construction Specifications means that the corresponding section of the Standard Specifications is modified in some respect. Unless otherwise specified, the modified Standard Specification provisions are deleted entirely, and the provisions of these Standard Construction Specifications are substituted.
DIVISION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. GENERAL
ACCEPTANCE. Shall mean the formal Acceptance by resolution of the Roseville City Council of an entire Contract which has been completed in all respects in accordance with the Plans and specifications and any modifications thereof previously approved, causing a notice of completion to be filed with the County Recorder.
ATTORNEY GENERAL. The City Attorney of the City of Roseville.
CITY ATTORNEY. The City Attorney of the City of Roseville.
CITY CLERK. Shall mean the City Clerk of the City of Roseville.
SCS – 4
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] DEPARTMENT. Shall mean the Department of Public Works of the City of Roseville, also referred to as the Department of Contract Administration. References made to the Department of Transportation otherwise shall mean the State of California Department of Transportation.
DIRECTOR. Shall mean the Public Works Director of the City of Roseville or his or her duly authorized representative.
ENGINEER. Shall mean the Public Works Director of the City of Roseville or his or her duly authorized representative.
ESTIMATED COST. The estimate prepared by the Public Works Director of quantities of work to be performed.
LIQUIDATED DAMAGE. The amount to be deducted from payments due or to become due to the Contractor for delay, as set forth in the Special Provisions.
PLANS. The official Project Plans, Standard Plans, Improvement Plans, Construction Standards, profiles, typical cross sections, general cross sections, working drawings, and supplemental drawings, or reproductions thereof, approved by the Director which show the location, character, dimensions and details of the work to be performed. All such documents are to be considered as a part of the Plans whether or not reproduced in the Special Provisions.
In the above definition, the following terms are defined as follows:
a. Standard Plans - The Standard Plans of the Department of Transportation of the State of California.
b. Project Plans - The Project Plans are specific details and dimension peculiar to the Work and supplemented by the Standard Plans, insofar as the same may apply.
SCS – 5
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] c. Construction Standards - The City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards.
STATE. Reference to the State or State of California shall mean City or City of Roseville unless the reference is to a law or regulation of the State, and reference to Sacramento shall mean Roseville unless otherwise noted.
SECTION 2. BIDDING
SECTION 2 SHALL BE DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND REPLACED WITH THE FOLLOWING:
2-1.01 PROPOSAL FORMS. The Department will furnish to each Bidder a standard proposal form, which, when filled out and executed shall be submitted as its bid. Bids not presented on forms so furnished will be disregarded.
The proposal form is bound in a book together with the Notice to Contractors, special provisions, and Contract. The proposal shall set forth for each item of work, in clearly legible figures and words, an item price and a total for the item in the respective spaces provided, and shall be signed by the Bidder, who shall fill out all blanks in the proposal form as required therein.
All items shown on the schedule of bid items shall be properly filled in and shall include all costs of labor, materials, equipment, and State, Federal, or other taxes applicable to the transaction. The completed forms shall be without inter-lineations, erasures or alterations of any nature. If the proposal is made by an individual, his or her name and post office address must be shown; if made by a firm or partnership, the name and post office address of each member of the SCS – 6
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] firm or partnership must be shown; or if made by a corporation, the proposal shall show the name of the State under the laws of which the corporation was chartered and the names, titles, and business addresses of the president, secretary, and treasurer of said corporation. If the proposal is signed by an agent, a “Power of Attorney” must be filed with the proposal.
The proposal shall be submitted as directed in the “Notice to Contractors” under sealed cover plainly marked as a proposal, and identifying the project to which the proposal relates and the time and date of the bid opening therefor. Proposals which are not properly marked may be disregarded. Proposal forms shall be obtained from the Director of Public Works, City of Roseville, California. Proposal forms are not transferable. 2-1.02 REJECTION OF PROPOSALS AND DISQUALIFICATION OF
BIDDERS. Proposals may be rejected if they show any alterations of the forms, additions not called for, conditional bids, incomplete bids, erasures or irregularities of any kind. More than one proposal from an individual, firm, partnership, corporation or association under the same or different names, will not be considered. Reasonable grounds for believing that any Bidder is interested in more than one (1) proposal for the work contemplated, will cause the rejection of all proposals in which the Bidder is interested. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals.
2-1.03 PROPOSAL GUARANTY. All bids shall be presented under sealed cover and accompanied by one (1) of the following forms of Bidder's security. a. Cash, a cashier's check, a certified check, or a Bidder's bond executed by an admitted California surety insurer, made payable to the City.
SCS – 7
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] b. The security shall be in an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the bid amount. A bid will not be considered unless one (1) of the forms of Bidder's security is enclosed with it.
c. A Bidder's bond will not be accepted unless it conforms to a bond form approved by the City Attorney. Upon request “Bidder's Bond” forms may be obtained from the Department.
2-1.04 WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS. Any bid may be withdrawn at any time prior to the time fixed in the public notice for the deadline submission of bids only by written request for the withdrawal of the bid filed with the Director. The request shall be executed by the Bidder or his or her duly authorized representative. The withdrawal of a bid does not prejudice the right of the Bidder to file a new bid. Whether or not bids are opened exactly at the time fixed in the public notice for opening bids, a bid will not be received after the deadline for submission of bids nor may any bid be withdrawn after the time fixed in the public notice for deadline for submission of bids. Immediately following the deadline for submission of bids all bids shall become the property of the City of Roseville and City is under no obligation to return the bids.
2-1.05 RELIEF OF BIDDERS. If the Bidder claims a mistake was made in his or her bid, the Bidder shall give the Department written notice within five (5) calendar days after the opening of the bids of the alleged mistake, specifying in the notice in detail how the mistake occurred. No relief from a claimed mistaken bid shall be granted unless such mistake clearly appears on the face of the bid submitted to the City. Claimed mistakes on backup worksheets, spreadsheets, computerized bidding programs, or any other similar calculative bidding mistake which is not apparent on the face of the bid shall not under any circumstance be considered as a SCS – 8
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] basis for relief. The burden of proving the occurrence of a mistake entitling a Bidder to relief from its bid rests entirely on the Bidder. Relief from bids shall be in the City’s sole discretion. 2-1.06 PREVIOUS DISQUALIFICATION, REMOVAL OR OTHER
PREVENTION OF BIDDING. A bid may be rejected on the basis of a Bidder, any officer of such Bidder, or any employee of such Bidder who has a proprietary interest in such Bidder, having been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a Federal, State, or local project because of a violation of law or a safety regulation. 2-1.07 COMPETENCY OF BIDDERS. If two (2) or more prospective Bidders desire to bid jointly as a joint venture on a single project, they must file an affidavit of joint venture with the Bid on a form approved by the City Attorney, and such affidavit of joint venture will be valid only for the specific project for which it is filed. If such affidavit of joint venture is not filed as aforesaid and approved by the City Attorney prior to the time for awarding bids on the specific project for which it is submitted, a joint bid submitted by said Bidders will be disregarded. No bid will be accepted from or a Contract awarded to any Bidder to whom a proposal form has not been issued pursuant to Section 2-1.06. 2-1.08 GUARANTY AND WARRANTY. The Contractor shall guarantee and warrant all materials supplied as being fit for the purpose intended. The Contractor shall guarantee and warrant all work performed as having been accomplished in a proper and workman-like manner. The guarantee and warranty required by this section shall continue for a period of one (1) year after Acceptance of the Work.
Should any failure of the work occur within a period of one (1) year, after Acceptance of the project by the City Council due to faulty materials, poor workmanship, or defective equipment, the Contractor shall promptly make the needed repairs at his or her expense.
SCS – 9
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] The City is hereby authorized to make such repairs if the Contractor fails to make or undertake with due diligence the aforesaid repairs within ten (10) calendar days after being given written notice of such failure; provided, however, that in case of emergency where in the opinion of the Engineer, providing a reasonable attempt has been made to notify the Contractor, delay would cause serious loss or damages, or a serious hazard to the public, the repairs may be made or lights, signs, and barricades erected without prior notice to the Contractor, and the Contractor shall pay the entire cost thereof. At the completion of the work the faithful performance bond may be reduced at the discretion of the City Council to not less than ten percent (10%) of the Contract price to cover said guarantee.
Additional guarantees or warranties may be required by the Special Provisions.
SECTION 3. CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
3-1.04 CONTRACT AWARD. The right is reserved to reject any and all proposals. The award of the Contract, if it be awarded, will be to the lowest responsible Bidder whose proposal complies with all the requirements prescribed. Such award, if made, will be made within sixty (60) calendar days after the public opening of the proposals. If the lowest responsible Bidder refuses or fails to execute the Contract, the Roseville City Council may award the Contract to the second lowest responsible Bidder. Such award, if made, will be made within eighty-two (82) calendar days after the public opening of proposals. If the second lowest responsible Bidder refuses or fails to execute the Contract, the City may award the Contract to the third lowest responsible Bidder. Such award, if made, will be made within one hundred and four (104) calendar days after public opening of the proposals. The above time periods within SCS – 10
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] which the award of Contract may be made are subject to extension for such further period as may be agreed upon in writing between the City and the Bidder concerned.
All bids will be compared on the basis of the Director's estimate of the quantities of work to be done.
3-1.05 CONTRACT BONDS. The successful Bidder, simultaneously with the execution of the Contract, will be required to furnish a payment bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the Contract price, and a faithful performance bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the Contract price; said bonds shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney and shall be secured by a surety company satisfactory to the City Attorney. If the Contract price increases by the issuance of Change Orders, the penal amounts of the bonds required shall increase accordingly.
Furthermore, the successful Bidder shall furnish a certificate from the County Clerk as required by California Civil Code of Procedure Section 995.660(a)(3). 3-1.18 CONTRACT EXECUTION. The Contract, in form and contents satisfactory to the City, shall be executed by the successful Bidder and returned, together with the Contract bonds and certificates of insurance within fifteen (15) calendar days after written notice that the Contract has been awarded, or as otherwise directed, in writing, by the City.
No proposal shall be considered binding upon the City until the execution of the Contract by the City.
3-1.20 FAILURE TO EXECUTE CONTRACT. Section 3-1.20, “Failure to Execute Contract” is added as follows:
“Failure of the lowest responsible Bidder, the second lowest responsible Bidder, or the third lowest responsible Bidder to execute the Contract and file acceptable bonds SCS – 11
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] and insurance as provided herein within fifteen (15) calendar days, or within a different timeframe specified by City in writing, after such Bidder has received notice that the Contract has been awarded to him or her, shall be just cause for the annulment of the award and the forfeiture of the Bidder’s security to the City as Liquidated Damages. The successful Bidder may file with the Roseville City Council a written notice, signed by the Bidder or his or her authorized representative, specifying that the Bidder will refuse to execute the Contract if presented to him or her. The filing of such notice shall have the same force and effect as the failure of the Bidder to execute the Contract and furnish acceptable bonds and insurance within the time prescribed by Section 3-1.18.” SECTION 4. SCOPE OF WORK
There are no amendments to the Standard Specifications.
SECTION 5. CONTROL OF WORK
5-1.02 CONTRACT COMPONENTS. These Standard Construction Specifications, the Standard Specifications, the Standard Plans, the Improvement Plans, Construction Standards, Project Plans, project Special Provisions (and any addenda), the Agreement, Contract Change Orders, and all supplementary documents are all essential parts of the Contract between Contractor and the City. A requirement occurring in one (1) is as binding SCS – 12
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary, and to describe and provide for a complete work.
In resolving inconsistencies among two (2) or more sections of the Contract Documents, precedence shall be given in the following order:
A. Special Provisions
B. City of Roseville Standard Construction Specifications C. City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards
D. State Standard Specifications and Amendments to the State Standard Specifications, Standard Special Provisions, and Plans
E. Drawings
Should it appear that the work to be done or any of the matters relative thereto are not sufficiently detailed or explained in these specifications, the special provisions, or the Plans, the Contractor shall apply in writing to the Director for such further explanations as may be necessary and shall conform to them as part of the Contract. In the event of any doubt or question arising respecting the true meaning of these specifications, the special provisions or the Plans, reference shall be made to the Director, whose decision thereon shall be final.
In the event of any discrepancy, between any drawing and the figures written thereon, the figures shall be taken as correct. Detail drawings shall prevail over general drawings. 5-1.20B(5) CITY OF ROSEVILLE ENCROACHMENT PERMITS. Section 5-
1.20B(5), “City of Roseville Encroachment Permits” is added as follows:
“The Contractor need not obtain a separate encroachment permit from the City prior to construction within street rights-of-way or other City rights-of-way. Execution of the Contract by the City shall be deemed an encroachment permit for work required by SCS – 13
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] the Contract within rights-of-way. All work shall conform to the rules and regulations of encroachment permits and shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the Director.”
5-1.20B(6) CITY OF ROSEVILLE BUSINESS LICENSE. Section 5-1.20B(6), “City of Roseville Business License” is added as follows:
“The Contractor shall obtain a business license from the City prior to commencing work.”
5-1.20B(7) OTHER PERMITS. Section 5-1.20B(7), “Other Permits” is added as follows:
“The Contractor in coordination with the Director shall procure any necessary permits which the City has not specifically mentioned as obtaining.” 5-1.31 JOB SITE APPEARANCE. The Contractor shall maintain a neat appearance to the work. In any area visible to the public, the following shall apply:
When practicable, broken concrete and debris developed during clearing and grubbing shall be disposed of concurrently with its removal. If stockpiling is necessary, the material shall be removed or disposed of weekly.
The Contractor shall furnish trash bins for all debris from structure construction. All debris shall be placed in trash bins daily. Forms or falsework that are to be reused shall be stacked neatly concurrently with their removal. Forms and falsework that are not to be reused shall be disposed of concurrently with their removal.
Full compensation for conforming to the provisions in this section, not otherwise provided for, shall be considered as included in price paid for the various Contract items of work involved, and no additional compensation will be allowed therefore.
SCS – 14
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] 5-1.38 MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION RELIEF. Section 5-1.38 is deleted.
5-1.43 POTENTIAL CLAIMS AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Section 5-
1.43 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
5-1.43A NOTICE OF POTENTIAL CLAIM. The Contractor shall not be entitled to payment for any additional compensation for any act or failure to act by the City, including failure or refusal to issue a Change Order, or for the happening of any event, thing, occurrence or other cause unless he or she shall have given the City due written Notice of Potential Claim as hereinafter specified.
The written Notice of Potential Claim shall set forth the reasons for which the Contractor believes additional compensation will or may be due, the nature of the costs involved, and, insofar as possible, the amount of the potential claim. The said Notice as above required must have been given to the Director prior to the time that the Contractor shall have performed the Work giving rise to the potential claim for additional compensation, if based on an act or failure to act by the Director, or in all other cases within three (3) Days after the happening of the event, thing, occurrence or other cause giving rise to the potential claim.
If the Notice of Potential Claim does not include complete information about the claim or the parties do not execute a Contract Change Order in connection with the Notice of Potential Claim, Contractor shall submit a complete information about its claim for additional compensation and/or extension of time for performance within fifteen (15) calendar days after such work is performed. Failure to provide written notice of claim prior to undertaking such work or failure to timely submit a complete and specific information about the claim for SCS – 15
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] additional compensation and/or extension of the time for performance shall be deemed a waiver and abandonment of such claim.
If there is a dispute over any claim, the Contractor shall continue to work during the dispute resolution process in a diligent and timely manner as directed by the City, and shall be governed by all applicable provision of the Agreement.
The Contractor shall maintain cost records of all work that is the basis of any dispute. On a daily basis, Contractor shall submit to City completed daily forms, the format of which will be acceptable to the City, with respect to the Contractor’s costs of performing the disputed work.
These daily forms shall itemize all of Contractor’s costs in performing the disputed work, including, but not limited to, all costs relating to materials, labor and equipment with respect to the disputed work. These daily forms shall provide names or identification and classification of affected workers, the hourly rate of pay and hours worked, and also the size, type, and identification number of equipment and hours operated. Said daily work forms shall be duly signed and verified by the Contractor or its authorized representative. The City’s receipt of the Contractors’ daily forms shall not constitute an approval of the Contractor’s claim. Contractor’s failure to submit the daily forms on a daily basis shall constitute a waiver of the Contractor’s right to claim any additional compensation for the disputed work.
Each Contractor claim shall include full and complete information concerning the Claim.
Contractor shall provide a clear, concise recital of the basis, upon which the claim is asserted, including a designation of the provisions of the Contract Documents upon which the claim is based. Contractor shall also include a statement as to the amount of time and/or compensation sought pursuant to the claim; if Contractor’s claim arises from an ongoing occurrence, Contractor shall so state in its claim, including a description of the specific Work activities SCS – 16
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] affected by the claim. All costs, expenses or damages and extensions of time claimed shall be described in reasonable detail under the circumstances together with complete supporting documentation.
The City will review any timely Notice of Potential Claim and supporting information submitted by Contractor. In conducting this review, the City shall have the right to require the Contractor to submit such additional or supporting documents, data and other information as the City may require.
If an agreement can be reached which resolves the Contractor’s claim, the parties will execute a Contract Change Order to document the resolution of the claim. If the parties cannot reach agreement with respect to the Contractor’s claim, the Contractor shall still be obligated to comply with the claim identification provisions identified in these Standard Construction Specifications, including but not limited to Section 5-1.43B.
It is the intention of this Section 5-1.43A that differences between the parties arising under and by virtue of the Contract be brought to the attention of the Director at the earliest possible time in order that such matters may be settled, if possible, or other appropriate action promptly taken. The Contractor hereby agrees that he or she shall have no right to additional compensation for any Claim that may be based on any such act, failure to act, event, thing or occurrence for which no timely written Notice of Potential Claim as herein required was filed. 5-1.43B CLAIMS. Contractor must submit all Claims, for which it has previously submitted a Notice of Potential Claim, prior to Acceptance of the Work. Each such Claim must be sent to the City by registered mail or certified mail with return receipt requested and must contain reasonable documentation to support the Claim.
SCS – 17
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] Upon receipt of a Claim, the City shall conduct a reasonable review of the Claim and, within a period not to exceed forty-five (45) calendar days, or such further time as mutually agreed upon or necessary pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9204, the City shall provide the Contractor a written statement identifying what portion of the Claim is disputed and what portion is undisputed. If the City does not respond to a Claim from the Contractor within the time specified herein, such Claim shall be deemed rejected in its entirety.
Any payment due on an undisputed portion of the Claim shall be processed and made within sixty (60) calendar days after the City issues its written statement.
If the Contractor disputes the City’s written response, or if the City does not respond within the time specified herein, the Contractor may demand in writing an informal conference to meet and confer for settlement of the issues in dispute. Upon receipt of a demand in writing sent by registered mail or certified mail, return receipt requested, the City shall schedule a meet and confer conference within thirty (30) calendar days for settlement of the dispute.
Within ten (10) business days following the conclusion of the meet and confer conference, if the claim or any portion of the claim remains in dispute, the City shall provide the Contractor a written statement identifying the portion of the Claims that remains in dispute and the portion that is undisputed. Any payment due on an undisputed portion of the Claims shall be processed and made within sixty (60) calendar days after the public entity issues its written statement. Any disputed portion of the Claim, as identified by the Contractor in writing, shall be submitted to nonbinding mediation, with the City and the Contractor sharing the associated costs equally. The City and the Contractor shall mutually agree to a mediator within ten (10) business days after the disputed portion of the Claim has been identified in writing. If the parties cannot agree upon a mediator, each party shall select a mediator and those mediators shall select a SCS – 18
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] qualified neutral third party to mediate with regard to the disputed portion of the Claim. Each party shall be responsible for the fees and costs charged by its respective mediator in connection with the selection of the neutral mediator. If mediation is unsuccessful, the parts of the Claim remaining in dispute shall be resolved in accordance with Section 9-1.22. 5-1.46 FINAL INSPECTION AND CONTRACT ACCEPTANCE. When the Director has made the final inspection and determines that the Contract work has been completed in all respects in accordance with the Plans and specifications, the Director will recommend that the Roseville City Council formally accept the work, and immediately upon and after such Acceptance by the City, the Contractor will be responsible for the work done for a period of one (1) year.
SECTION 6. CONTROL OF MATERIALS
6-1.03 LOCAL MATERIALS. Local material sites used by the Contractor shall be graded so that, at the time of final inspection of the Contract, they will drain and will blend in with the surrounding terrain.
SECTION 7. LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC 7-1.02K(2) WAGES. The provisions of paragraphs 1and 2 of Section 7-1.02K(2) of the Standard Specifications are amended to read as follows:
“Pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1773, the City has identified the source, stated below, of the general prevailing rate of wages applicable to the SCS – 19
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] work to be done, for straight time, overtime, Saturday, Sunday and holiday work. The holiday wage rate listed shall be applicable to all holidays recognized in the collective bargaining agreement of the particular craft, classification or type of workmen concerned.
The wage rates may be obtained from the State Department of Industrial Relations and/or the following website address: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/DPreWageDetermination.htm, and are incorporated herein as part of the Contract.
Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1773.2, general prevailing wage rates shall be posted by the Contractor at a prominent place at the site of the work.” 7-1.02K(6)(b) EXCAVATION SAFETY. For trenches or excavation five feet (5') or deeper, the Contractor shall obtain from the Division of Industrial Safety, a permit authorizing such construction.
7-1.02O VEHICLE CODE. Pursuant to the authority contained in Vehicle Code Section 591, the Department has determined that, within such areas as are within the limits of the project and are open to public traffic, the Contractor shall comply with all the requirements set forth in Vehicle Code Divisions 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Attention is directed to the statement in Section 591 that this section shall not relieve the Contractor nor any person from the duty of exercising due care. The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions for safe operation of equipment and the protection of the public from injury and damage from such equipment. 7-1.03 PUBLIC CONVENIENCE. Section 7-1.03 of the Standard Specifications is amended in part as follows:
1. Delete paragraph 10 (“Install signs, lights, flares . . .”) and substitute the following:
SCS – 20
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] “In order to expedite the passage of public traffic through or around the work, the Contractor shall install signs, lights, flares, temporary railing (type K), barricades, and other facilities for the sole convenience and direction of public traffic as may be required.
Also, as may be required, the Contractor shall furnish competent flaggers whose sole duties shall consist of directing the movement of public traffic through or around the work. The cost of furnishing and installing such signs, lights, flares, temporary railing (type K), barricades, flaggers, and other facilities shall be included in the lump sum paid for traffic control and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.
In addition to the requirements previously specified for furnishing facilities and flaggers to expedite the safe passage of the public through or around the work, the Contractor shall at his or her expense furnish and erect within or adjacent to the work such warning, regulatory, or guide signs, markers, or devices as are necessary.”
2. Add a paragraph at the end of the section to read as follows:
“In addition to the requirements hereinbefore specified for furnishing facilities and flaggers for expediting the passage of public traffic through or around the work, the Contractor shall furnish and erect, within or adjacent to the limits of the Contract, such warning, regulatory, and guide signs as may be required. The Contractor shall furnish, install and remove all such signs. Payment for furnishing, installing and removing all such signs shall be included in the lump sum price paid for traffic control and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.”
7-1.04 PUBLIC SAFETY. It is the intent of the parties that the City is not an exposing, creating, controlling, or correcting employer under California Labor Code Section 6400. In accordance with generally accepted construction practices and State law, the Contractor SCS – 21
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] shall have the authority and be solely and completely responsible for conditions on the job site, including safety of all persons and property during performance of the Work. Moreover, the Contractor shall be the controlling employer and has the authority and responsibility to enforce worksite safety. The Contractor shall be responsible for conducting daily safety inspections and assuring all hazards and violations are abated. The Contractor is responsible for assuring that all subcontractors adhere to the minimum CAL/OSHA safety requirements and that each subcontractor has an effective CAL/OSHA IIP (Illness and Injury Protection Program) in place that specifically addresses all potential exposures, such as, but not limited to, fall protection, confined space, and trenching/shoring. These requirements shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours. The Contractor shall be responsible for any delay costs or damages in the event the progress of Work is slowed or stopped due to a safety violation.
The services of the Director in conducting construction review of the Contractor's performance is not intended to include review of the adequacy of the Contractor's Work methods, equipment, bracing or scaffolding, or safety measures, in, on, or near the construction site. If a City employee observes a safety violation, the City employee will report the violation to the Contractor who is then responsible for assuring the violation is abated.
The Contractor is hereby informed that Work on this project could be hazardous. The Contractor shall carefully instruct all personnel working in potentially hazardous Work areas as to potential dangers and shall provide such necessary safety equipment and instructions as are necessary to prevent injury to personnel and damage to property. Special care shall be exercised relative to Work underground.
All Work and materials shall be in strict accordance with all applicable State, City, County, and Federal Rules, Regulations, and Codes, and attention is drawn to the requirements SCS – 22
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] of CAL/OSHA. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for compliance with all City, County and State blasting requirements and for any damages caused by his or her operations.
In accordance with California Labor Code Section 6705, the Contractor shall submit to the City specific plans to show details of provisions for worker protection from caving ground.
This in no way relieves the Contractor from the requirement of maintaining safety in all operations performed by the Contractor or the Contractor's subcontractors. The detailed plan showing design of shoring, bracing, sloping or other provisions shall be prepared by a registered civil or structural engineer in the State of California as required. Acceptance by the City or its designated agent only constitutes acknowledgment of the submission and does not constitute review or approval of the designs, design assumptions or criteria, completeness of submissions, applicability to areas of intended use, nor implementation of the plans, which are solely the responsibility of the Contractor and his or her registered engineer.
Notwithstanding any classifications relative to the Tunnel Safety Orders, Work within confined spaces on this project is subject to the definitions and applicable provisions of California Code of Regulations Section 8400 et seq., Title 8.
The Contractor shall so perform its Work as not to expose personnel to, or to discharge into the atmosphere from any source whatever, smoke, dust, asbestos, toxic chemicals or other air contaminants in violation of the laws, rules, and regulations of the governmental entities having jurisdiction. Contractors or subcontractors removing one hundred or more square feet (100') of asbestos must be “Certified” in accordance with State law. All Work involving exposure to asbestos and all other hazardous materials shall be performed with protection of personnel in compliance with all applicable regulations and safety requirements.
SCS – 23
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] Nothing in these Standard Construction Specifications is to be construed to permit Work not conforming to governing codes. When Contract Documents differ from governing codes, the Contractor shall furnish and install the higher standards called for without extra charge. All equipment furnished shall be grounded and provided with guards and protection as required by safety codes. Where vapor tight or explosion proof electrical installation is required by code, this shall be provided. In accordance with the provisions of Labor Code Section 6707, the Contractor shall provide adequate sheeting, shoring and bracing for employee protection, as provided in the proposal as separate Bid Items.
7-1.05 INDEMNIFICATION. The City of Roseville and its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers, including but not limited to the Director, shall not be answerable or accountable in any manner: for any loss or damage that may happen to the work or any part thereof; for any loss or damage to any of the materials or any things used or employed in performing the work; for injury to or death of any person, either workers or the public; or for damage to property from any cause which might have been prevented by the Contractor, his or her workers, or anyone employed by the Contractor or his or her subcontractors.
The Contractor shall be responsible for any liability imposed by law and for injuries to, or death of, any person including, but not limited to, workers and the public, or damage to property resulting from defects or obstructions, or from any cause whatsoever during the progress of the work or at any time before its completion and final Acceptance.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, the Contractor shall defend (through counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and save harmless the City of Roseville and its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description, brought forth, or on account of, injuries to or death of any person including, but not SCS – 24
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] limited to, workers and the public, or damage to property resulting from the performance of the Contract, except as otherwise provided by statute.
The duty of the Contractor to defend, indemnify, and save harmless includes, but is not limited to, the duties to defend as set forth in Civil Code Section 2778. The Contractor waives any and all rights to any type of express or implied indemnity against the City, its officers, agents, employees, or volunteers.
It is the intent of the parties that the Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Roseville, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from any and all claims, suits, or actions as set forth above regardless of existence or degree of fault or negligence, on the part of the City, the Contractor, the subcontractor or employee of any of these; except the duty does not apply where the injury or damage is due to the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the City.
The Contractor’s responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations shall survive the termination or completion of this Contract for the full period of time allowed by law. The defense and indemnity obligations of this Contract are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Contract. The parties intend that the defense and indemnity obligations in this Contract shall be broadly construed.
In addition to any remedy authorized by law, so much of the money due the Contractor under and by virtue of the Contract as shall be considered necessary by the City may be retained by the City until disposition has been made of such suits or claims for damages.
The retention of money due the Contractor shall be subject to the following:
A. The City will give the Contractor thirty (30) calendar days’ notice of its intention to retain funds from any partial payment which may become due to the Contractor prior SCS – 25
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] to Acceptance of the Contract. Retention of funds from any payment made after Acceptance of the Contract may be made without such prior notice to the Contractor.
B. No retention of additional amounts out of partial payments will be made if the amount to be retained does not exceed the amount being withheld from partial payments pursuant to Section 9-1.16F, “Retentions,” of the Standard Construction Specifications.
C. If the City had retained funds and it is subsequently determined that the City is not entitled to be indemnified and saved harmless by the Contractor in connection with the matter for which such retention was made, the City shall be liable for interest on the amount retained at the legal rate of interest for the period of such retention. 7-1.06 INSURANCE COVERAGE. Section 7-1.06 Insurance in the Standard Specifications shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
A. Evidence of Maintenance Required. The Contractor shall, at its expense, procure and at all times maintain in full force and effect at a minimum the insurance required by this section on all of its operations; and the Contractor shall not allow any Subcontractor to commence work until similar insurance required of the Subcontractor has been obtained and filed. An original Certificate of Insurance, and copies of all required endorsements, all in a form approved by the Risk Manager, evidencing all required coverage or policies shall be filed after the award of the bid and prior to approval of the Contract by the City Council. Contractor shall provide ten (10) days prior written notice to the City of any reduction of coverage limits or cancellation of the coverage or policies shall be given to the City of Roseville as Certificate holder.
B. Qualifying Insurers. With the exception of the State Compensation Insurance Fund, all required insurance policies shall be issued by companies acceptable to the SCS – 26
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] City and licensed to do business in the State of California and who hold a current policy holders alphabetic and financial size category rating of not less than AVII according to the most recent issue of Best's Insurance Reports.
C. Insurance Required.
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations with limits of no less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage for projects under One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) and limits of no less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage for projects over One Million Dollars ($1,000,000). If a general aggregate limit applies, either the aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
The Commercial General Liability insurance shall include the following, copies of which shall be provided:
a. Inclusion of the City of Roseville, and its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers, as additional insureds (except for workers’ compensation) as respects services or operations under the Contract. The additional insured endorsement for the general liability policy shall be at least as broad as the ISO CG 2010 10 01 combined with ISO CGL Endorsement CG 2037 10 01. Any other endorsement must be approved in writing by the City.
Endorsements must include coverage for on-going and completed operations, which coverage shall be maintained for four (4) years following completion of the Project. Endorsements shall cover the City of Roseville, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers.
SCS – 27
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] b. The insurance shall provide coverage for claims by one insured against another insured and the policies shall not contain any cross-suits exclusions, crossliability exclusions, or insured versus insured exclusions. The policies shall not contain any classification exclusions purporting to deny coverage for any work to be performed by Contractor or any of its Subcontractors.
c. Stipulation that the insurance is primary and noncontributory, as evidenced by a separate endorsement (CG 20 01 04 13 or an equivalent) or section of the policy, and that neither the City nor its insurers will be called upon to contribute to a loss. d. Such insurance shall specifically cover the contractual liability of the Contractor.
e. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and limits shall be available to the additional insureds. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be: (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the full coverage and maximum limits of any insurance proceeds available to the named insureds, whichever is greater. f. Waiver of subrogation endorsement.
g. The Contractor shall furnish a certificate for the period covered.
2. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering Code 1 (any auto), or if contractor has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and Code 9 (non-owned), with limits of no less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers' Compensation: In accordance with the provisions of the California Labor Code, Contractor is required to be insured against liability for Workers' SCS – 28
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] Compensation or to undertake self-insurance. Statutory Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) shall cover all Contractors staff while performing any work incidental to the performance or this Agreement.
4. Professional Liability: Professional Liability (Errors and Omission) Insurance appropriate to Contractor’s profession, with a limit of liability not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence or claim and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate to cover all design and engineering services rendered by Contractor pursuant to the Agreement. Coverage must commence from the first day that Contractor or any of its Subcontractors provided any design or engineering services in connection with the Project.
5. Builder’s Risk/Course of Construction Insurance (If Required by Risk Management): The Contractor shall be responsible for all loss, damage or destruction whatsoever to the work called for by this Contract until the approval of a Notice of Completion or acceptance of the Work if no Notice of Completion is to be recorded.
The Contractor shall secure “All Risk” type of builder's Risk Insurance of the type covering one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the work performed under this Contract (the value is presumed to be the Contract amount unless otherwise stated in Supplemental Conditions) and all materials, equipment, or other items to be incorporated therein while the same are located at the construction site, a bonded warehouse, or its place of manufacture. At any time, the policy shall cover the value of the work completed. The policy shall cover hazards including the losses due to fire, explosion, hail, rain, lightning, flood (separate insurance as needed), vandalism, malicious mischief, wind, collapse, aircraft, and smoke.
The policies providing such insurance shall name the City as a loss payee as its respective interests may appear, and certified copies of such policies shall be filed with the City. The SCS – 29
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] maximum deductible allowable under the Builder's All Risk policy shall be five percent (5%) of the Contract amount.
Builder's Risk Insurance is not required for coverage of losses in excess of five percent (5%) of the Contract amount for damages resulting from earthquake in excess of a magnitude of
3.5 on the Richter scale, or tidal waves. Coverage in the amount of five percent (5%) of the Contract amount for such losses is required.
6. Pollution Coverage: Contractor shall procure pollution liability coverage or other insurance covering claims for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the abatement, removal, storage, transportation, or other exposure to hazardous materials or pollutants, in limits not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000). Contractor shall add the City and all parties required to be indemnified by Contractor as additional insured on all pollution liability policies.
7. Higher Coverage Limits: If Contractor maintains higher coverage limits than the amounts shown above, then the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher coverage limits maintained by Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
8. Claims Made Coverage: Liability insurance coverage may not be written on a “claims made” or modified occurrence basis. The Certificate of Insurance must clearly provide that the coverage is on an “occurrence” basis.
7-1.06A OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS.
A. The requirements of the Standard Specifications as to types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by the Contractor, and any approval of insurance by the City, are not intended to, and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and SCS – 30
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] obligations otherwise assumed by the Contractor pursuant to the Contract, including, but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification, nor preclude the City from taking any other action available to it under any other provision of the Contract or law.
B. The City acknowledges that some insurance requirements contained in these Standard Specifications may be fulfilled by self-insurance on the part of the Contractor.
However, this shall not in any way limit liabilities assumed by Contractor under the Contract.
Any self-insurance must be approved in writing by the City, in its sole discretion and shall not reduce the limits of liability. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions (“SIR”) must be declared on the certificate of insurance and approved by City in writing. Policies containing any SIR provision shall provide or be endorsed to provide that the SIR may be satisfied by either the named insured or City. City reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any insurance policy and endorsements. The failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of such right.
C. The Contractor agrees to include in its contracts with all subcontractors the same requirements and provisions of this Contract, including the indemnity and insurance requirements, to the extent they apply to the scope of the subcontractor’s work. Furthermore, the Contractor shall require its subcontractors to agree to be bound to the Contractor and the City in the same manner and to the same extent as the Contractor is bound to the City under this Contract. Additionally, the Contractor shall obligate its subcontractors to comply with these same provisions with respect to any tertiary subcontractor, regardless of tier. A copy of the City’s indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to the subcontractor or tertiary subcontractor upon request. Alternatively, the Contractor may insure subcontractor(s) under its own policy.
SCS – 31
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] D. The City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as insureds with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the Contractor; and with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage for the active negligence of the additional insured in any case where an agreement to indemnify the additional insured would be invalid under California Insurance Code Section 11580.04.
E. The limits of insurance required in this Contract may be satisfied by a combination of primary and excess insurance. Any excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of the City (if agreed to in a written contract) before the City’s own insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
F. The insurance procured by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of the City, but any acceptance of insurance certificates by the City shall in no way limit or relieve Contractor of its duties and responsibilities under the Agreement.
G. Contractor shall be responsible for all premiums, deductibles, and selfinsured retention applicable to the insurance it is required to procure under the Contract. All deductibles or self-insured retentions over five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) must be approved by the City, in writing. Contractor shall be responsible for all deductibles, self-insured retention payments, and/or increased premiums incurred if the City’s policies of insurance are forced to cover damages or respond to claims for which Contractor or its Subcontractors were obligated to provide insurance under the Contract.
SCS – 32
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] H. Failure of the City to enforce in a timely manner any of the requirements of these insurance provisions shall not act as a waiver to enforcement of any of these provisions at a later date.
I. Contractor’s indemnity obligations shall not be limited by these insurance provisions and shall survive the expiration of the Contract and the insurance provisions of the Contract shall likewise not be limited by the indemnity provisions of the Contract.
J. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO WITHHOLD ANY
PROGRESS PAYMENTS TO THE CONTRACTOR IN THE EVENT OF
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ANY INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.
SECTION 8. PROSECUTION AND PROGRESS
8-1.04 START OF JOB SITE ACTIVITIES. The Contractor shall begin work by the date specified in the “Notice to Proceed” letter, and the Contractor shall thereafter diligently prosecute the work to completion.
The Contractor shall notify the Director, in writing, of his or her intent to commence work at least seventy-two (72) hours before work is begun. The notice shall specify the date on which the Contractor intends to begin work. If a project has more than one (1) location of work, a separate notice shall be given for each location.
Should the Contractor begin work in advance of issuance of a “Notice to Proceed,” any work performed in advance of such issuance shall be considered to have been done at Contractor's own risk and as a volunteer.
SCS – 33
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] SECTION 9. PAYMENT
9-1.11C PAYMENT INCLUSIONS. The following is added to Section 9-1.11C Payment Inclusions:
“No additional compensation will be made to the Contractor for claims of increased overhead costs occurring within the originally specified construction Contract period plus any time extensions granted by Change Order. No compensation for extended performance will be granted unless the delay exceeds more than half of the float time available at the time of the delay.”
9-1.16E(4) STOP NOTICE WITHHOLDS. The City may, at its option and at any time, retain out of amounts due the Contractor, sums sufficient to cover claims (including costs and attorneys’ fees), filed pursuant to California Civil Code Section 9350 et seq. 9-1.16F RETENTIONS. The Department shall retain five percent (5%) of the Contract price as part security for the fulfillment of the Contract by the Contractor. 9-1.16G PAYMENT OF WITHHELD FUNDS. Section 9-1.16G, “Payment of Withheld Funds” is added as follows:
“Except as otherwise prohibited by law, the Contractor may elect to receive all payments due under the Contract pursuant to without any retention. If the Contractor so elects, a deposit with the City of securities with a value equivalent to the retention that would otherwise be withheld by the City shall be made. Said security shall be as provided in California Public Contract Code Section 22300, and shall be approved by the City both as to sufficiency and form. In the alternative, the Contractor may elect to deposit such securities in an escrow account and enter into a standard form Escrow SCS – 34
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] Agreement for Security Deposits in Lieu of Retention. Blank Agreements are available from the Public Works Director and the City Attorney's Office.” 9-1.17 PAYMENT AFTER CONTRACT ACCEPTANCE. “Final Payment” shall be made in accordance with this section. The Contractor shall, after the completion of the Contract, submit a final estimate of the amount of work done thereunder and the value of such work. Upon approval of the estimate by the Director, the City of Roseville shall pay the entire sum so found to be due after deducting therefrom all previous payments and all amounts to be kept and all amounts to be retained under the provisions of the Contract. All prior partial estimates and payments shall be subject to correction in the final estimate and payment. The final payment shall not be due and payable until the expiration of thirty five (35) calendar days from the date of Acceptance of the work by the City Council, and thirty-five (35) calendar days after filing of the Notice of Completion with the County of Placer.
No certificate given or payments made under the Contract, except the final certificate or final payment, shall be conclusive evidence of the performance of the Contract, either wholly or in part, and no payment (including the final payment) or certificate shall be construed to be an Acceptance of any defective work or improper materials. Final payment shall not release the Contractor from one (1) year guarantee of the work as provided in Section 7-1.17, “Acceptance of Contract” and Section 2-1.12 “Guarantee and Warranty” of these Specifications.
SCS – 35
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] SECTION 14. ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHITP
14-8.02 NOISE CONTROL. The provisions of Section 14-8.02 of the Standard Specifications are amended by adding the following:
“The Contractor shall additionally conform to the provisions of Roseville Municipal Code Chapter 9.24 where such provisions are more restrictive than these specifications.”
14-9.01 AIR QUALITY GENERAL. The provisions of Section 14-9.01, “Air Quality General” of the Standard Specifications are amended by adding the following:
“Material to be disposed of shall not be burned unless the Contractor has obtained a permit to burn combustible material resulting from clearing and grubbing operations from the Placer County Air Pollution Control District and City of Roseville Fire Marshall. A copy of the permits shall be filed with the Director
before beginning any burning. All such burning shall be conducted in strict conformance with the provision stipulated in said permits and at such times and in such manner as to prevent fire from spreading to areas adjoining the right-of-way.” 14-11.02A ASBESTOS REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL. Section 14-11.02A, “Asbestos Removal and Disposal” is added as follows:
“The Contractor shall comply with all rules, regulations, statutes and ordinances regarding asbestos removal and disposal, including but not limited to, 42 U.S.C. Sections 7401, 7412 and 7601 and 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart M.
SCS – 36
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] If the Contractor discovers that a building to be demolished or renovated contains asbestos containing material, the Contractor shall immediately cease work and notify the City.”
END OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
AB 626 - 1
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] TEXT OF AB 626
Assembly Bill No. 626
CHAPTER 810
An act to add and repeal Section 9204 of the Public Contract Code, relating to public contracts.
[Approved by Governor September 29, 2016. Filed with Secretary of State September 29, 2016.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
AB 626, Chiu. Public contracts: claim resolution.
Existing law prescribes various requirements regarding the formation, content, and enforcement of state and local public contracts. Existing law applicable to state public contracts generally requires that the resolution of claims related to those contracts be subject to arbitration.
Existing law applicable to local agency contracts prescribes a process for the resolution of claims related to those contracts of $375,000 or less.
This bill would establish, for contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2017, a claim resolution process applicable to any claim by a contractor in connection with a public works project. The bill would define a claim as a separate demand by the contractor for one or more of the following: a time extension for relief from damages or penalties for delay, payment of money or damages arising from work done pursuant to the contract for a public work, or payment of an amount disputed by the public entity, as specified.
This bill would require a public entity, defined to exclude certain state entities, upon receipt of a claim sent by registered or certified mail, to review it and, within 45 days, provide a written statement identifying the disputed and undisputed portions of the claim. The bill would authorize the 45-day period to be extended by mutual agreement. The bill would require any payment due on an undisputed portion of the claim to be processed within 60 days, as specified. The bill would require that the claim be deemed rejected in its entirety if the public entity fails to issue the written statement.
This bill would authorize, if the claimant disputes the public entity’s written response or if the public entity fails to respond to a claim within the time prescribed, the claimant to demand to meet and confer for settlement of the issues in dispute. The bill would require any disputed portion of the claim that remains in dispute after the meet and confer conference to be subject to nonbinding mediation, as specified. The bill would provide that unpaid claim amounts accrue interest at 7% per annum. The bill would prescribe a procedure by which a subcontractor or lower tier contractor may make a claim through the contractor.
This bill would require the text of these provisions, or a summary, to be set forth in the plans or specifications for any public work which may give rise to a claim. The bill would specify that a waiver of these rights is void and contrary to public policy, except as specified. The bill would also specify that it does not impose liability on a public entity that makes loans or grants available through a competitive application process, for the failure of an awardee to meet its contractual obligations.
AB 626 - 2
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] By increasing the duties of local agencies and officials, this bill would impose a statemandated local program.
This bill would, on January 1, 2020, repeal the provision establishing the claim resolution process.
This bill would specify that these provisions constitute a matter of statewide concern.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 9204 is added to the Public Contract Code, to read:
9204. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the best interests of the state and its citizens to ensure that all construction business performed on a public works project in the state that is complete and not in dispute is paid in full and in a timely manner. (b) Notwithstanding any other law, including, but not limited to, Article 7.1 (commencing with Section 10240) of Chapter 1 of Part 2, Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 19100) of Part 2, and Article 1.5 (commencing with Section 20104) of Chapter 1 of Part 3, this section shall apply to any claim by a contractor in connection with a public works project. (c) For purposes of this section:
(1) ”Claim” means a separate demand by a contractor sent by registered mail or certified mail with return receipt requested, for one or more of the following:
(A) A time extension, including, without limitation, for relief from damages or penalties for delay assessed by a public entity under a contract for a public works project. (B) Payment by the public entity of money or damages arising from work done by, or on behalf of, the contractor pursuant to the contract for a public works project and payment for which is not otherwise expressly provided or to which the claimant is not otherwise entitled. (C) Payment of an amount that is disputed by the public entity. (2) ”Contractor” means any type of contractor within the meaning of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code who has entered into a direct contract with a public entity for a public works project. (3) (A) ”Public entity” means, without limitation, except as provided in subparagraph (B), a state agency, department, office, division, bureau, board, or commission, the California State University, the University of California, a city, including a charter city, county, including a charter county, city and county, including a charter city and county, district, special district, public authority, political subdivision, public corporation, or nonprofit transit corporation wholly owned by a public agency and formed to carry out the purposes of the public agency. (B) ”Public entity” shall not include the following:
(i) The Department of Water Resources as to any project under the jurisdiction of that department.
(ii) The Department of Transportation as to any project under the jurisdiction of that department.
AB 626 - 3
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] (iii) The Department of Parks and Recreation as to any project under the jurisdiction of that department.
(iv) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation with respect to any project under its jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 7000) of Title 7 of Part 3 of the Penal Code.
(v) The Military Department as to any project under the jurisdiction of that department. (vi) The Department of General Services as to all other projects. (vii) The High-Speed Rail Authority.
(4) ”Public works project” means the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement of any kind. (5) ”Subcontractor” means any type of contractor within the meaning of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code who either is in direct contract with a contractor or is a lower tier subcontractor. (d) (1) (A) Upon receipt of a claim pursuant to this section, the public entity to which the claim applies shall conduct a reasonable review of the claim and, within a period not to exceed 45 days, shall provide the claimant a written statement identifying what portion of the claim is disputed and what portion is undisputed. Upon receipt of a claim, a public entity and a contractor may, by mutual agreement, extend the time period provided in this subdivision. (B) The claimant shall furnish reasonable documentation to support the claim. (C) If the public entity needs approval from its governing body to provide the claimant a written statement identifying the disputed portion and the undisputed portion of the claim, and the governing body does not meet within the 45 days or within the mutually agreed to extension of time following receipt of a claim sent by registered mail or certified mail, return receipt requested, the public entity shall have up to three days following the next duly publicly noticed meeting of the governing body after the 45-day period, or extension, expires to provide the claimant a written statement identifying the disputed portion and the undisputed portion. (D) Any payment due on an undisputed portion of the claim shall be processed and made within 60 days after the public entity issues its written statement. If the public entity fails to issue a written statement, paragraph (3) shall apply.
(2) (A) If the claimant disputes the public entity’s written response, or if the public entity fails to respond to a claim issued pursuant to this section within the time prescribed, the claimant may demand in writing an informal conference to meet and confer for settlement of the issues in dispute. Upon receipt of a demand in writing sent by registered mail or certified mail, return receipt requested, the public entity shall schedule a meet and confer conference within 30 days for settlement of the dispute.
(B) Within 10 business days following the conclusion of the meet and confer conference, if the claim or any portion of the claim remains in dispute, the public entity shall provide the claimant a written statement identifying the portion of the claim that remains in dispute and the portion that is undisputed. Any payment due on an undisputed portion of the claim shall be processed and made within 60 days after the public entity issues its written statement. Any disputed portion of the claim, as identified by the contractor in writing, shall be submitted to nonbinding mediation, with the public entity and the claimant sharing the associated costs equally. The public entity and claimant shall mutually agree to a mediator within 10 business days after the disputed portion of the claim has been identified in writing. If the parties cannot agree upon a mediator, each party shall select a mediator and those mediators shall select a qualified neutral third party to mediate with regard to the disputed portion of the claim. Each AB 626 - 4
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] party shall bear the fees and costs charged by its respective mediator in connection with the selection of the neutral mediator. If mediation is unsuccessful, the parts of the claim remaining in dispute shall be subject to applicable procedures outside this section. (C) For purposes of this section, mediation includes any nonbinding process, including, but not limited to, neutral evaluation or a dispute review board, in which an independent third party or board assists the parties in dispute resolution through negotiation or by issuance of an evaluation. Any mediation utilized shall conform to the timeframes in this section. (D) Unless otherwise agreed to by the public entity and the contractor in writing, the mediation conducted pursuant to this section shall excuse any further obligation under Section 20104.4 to mediate after litigation has been commenced. (E) This section does not preclude a public entity from requiring arbitration of disputes under private arbitration or the Public Works Contract Arbitration Program, if mediation under this section does not resolve the parties’ dispute.
(3) Failure by the public entity to respond to a claim from a contractor within the time periods described in this subdivision or to otherwise meet the time requirements of this section shall result in the claim being deemed rejected in its entirety. A claim that is denied by reason of the public entity’s failure to have responded to a claim, or its failure to otherwise meet the time requirements of this section, shall not constitute an adverse finding with regard to the merits of the claim or the responsibility or qualifications of the claimant. (4) Amounts not paid in a timely manner as required by this section shall bear interest at 7 percent per annum.
(5) If a subcontractor or a lower tier subcontractor lacks legal standing to assert a claim against a public entity because privity of contract does not exist, the contractor may present to the public entity a claim on behalf of a subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor. A subcontractor may request in writing, either on his or her own behalf or on behalf of a lower tier subcontractor, that the contractor present a claim for work which was performed by the subcontractor or by a lower tier subcontractor on behalf of the subcontractor. The subcontractor requesting that the claim be presented to the public entity shall furnish reasonable documentation to support the claim. Within 45 days of receipt of this written request, the contractor shall notify the subcontractor in writing as to whether the contractor presented the claim to the public entity and, if the original contractor did not present the claim, provide the subcontractor with a statement of the reasons for not having done so.
(e) The text of this section or a summary of it shall be set forth in the plans or specifications for any public works project that may give rise to a claim under this section. (f) A waiver of the rights granted by this section is void and contrary to public policy, provided, however, that (1) upon receipt of a claim, the parties may mutually agree to waive, in writing, mediation and proceed directly to the commencement of a civil action or binding arbitration, as applicable; and (2) a public entity may prescribe reasonable change order, claim, and dispute resolution procedures and requirements in addition to the provisions of this section, so long as the contractual provisions do not conflict with or otherwise impair the timeframes and procedures set forth in this section.
(g) This section applies to contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2017. (h) Nothing in this section shall impose liability upon a public entity that makes loans or grants available through a competitive application process, for the failure of an awardee to meet its contractual obligations.
AB 626 - 5
[L:\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 3/10/2022] (i) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2020, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2020, deletes or extends that date.
SECTION 2.
The Legislature finds and declares that it is of statewide concern to require a charter city, charter county, or charter city and county to follow a prescribed claims resolution process to ensure there are uniform and equitable procurement practices.
SECTION 3.
If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
FOR THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD WIDENING
SCOPE OF SPECIAL PROVISIONS
The work described in these Special Provisions shall be performed in conformance with the latest editions of the City of Roseville Standard Construction Specifications, City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards, 2015 State of California Standard Specifications, Amendments to the 2015 Standard Specifications, 2015 Standard Special Provisions, and 2015 Standard Plans, except insofar as these Special Provisions may modify them.
With the exception of section 2, “Bidding,” numbering in these Special Provisions conforms to that in the State Standard Specifications. The existence of a section in these Special Provisions means that the corresponding section in the Standard Construction Specifications, State Standard Specifications, and/or State Revised Standard Specifications is modified in some respect.
The construction materials, payments, etc., for items of work shown in the proposal and on the plans, but not specifically mentioned in these Special Provisions are referred to the Standard Construction Specifications, State Standard Specifications, and/or State Revised Standard Specifications for conformance.
ORGANIZATION
Special provisions are under headings that correspond with the main-section headings of the Standard Specifications. A main-section heading is a heading shown in the table of contents of the Standard Specifications.
Each special provision begins with a revision clause that describes or introduces a revision to the Standard Specifications as revised by any revised standard specification.
Any paragraph added or deleted by a revision clause does not change the paragraph numbering of the Standard Specifications for any other reference to a paragraph of the Standard Specifications. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DIVISION I GENERAL PROVISIONS
1 GENERAL
Add to section 1-1.07B:
Definitions and Abbreviations – Whenever in the State Standard Specifications, Special Provisions, Notice to Contractors, Proposal, Contract, or other contract documents the following abbreviations and terms are used, the intent and meaning shall be interpreted as follows:
Abbreviation or Term Intent and Meaning
AGENCY The Department of Public Works, City of
Roseville
CITY The City of Roseville and its applicable
Departments
CALTRANS State of California, Department of
Transportation
DEPARTMENT The Department of Public Works, City of
Roseville
STATE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS The State Standard Specifications issued by the State of California, Department of
Transportation, dated 2015, and
subsequent Revised Standard
Specifications
ADMINISTRATOR The Director of Public Works/City
Engineer, as created by law; also the City
Engineer
ENGINEER City Engineer, and agents or assistants
duly authorized by the Director of the
Public Works to act on his behalf
Replace the following definitions in section 1-1.07B:
Director: Public Works Director, City of Roseville
Engineer: City Engineer, and agents or assistants duly authorized by the Director of the Public Works to act on his behalf
Add to section 1-1.07B:
Replace the definition for holiday in section 1-1.07B with:
Holiday: Holiday shown in the following table:
Holidays
Holiday Date observed
New Year’s Day January 1st
Martin Luther King Day Third Monday in January
President’s Day Third Monday in February
Memorial Day Last Monday in May
Independence Day July 4th
Labor Day First Monday in September
Veteran’s Day November 11th
Thanksgiving Day Fourth Thursday in November
Day after Thanksgiving Fourth Friday in November
Christmas Day December 25th
When a designated holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the preceding Friday or following Monday (respectfully) shall be a designated holiday.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2 BIDDING
Add section 2-1.00, “SCOPE” as follows:
The bidder's attention is directed to the provisions in section 2, “Proposal Requirements and Conditions”, of the Standard Construction Specifications for the requirements and conditions which he/she must observe in the preparation of the proposal form and the submission of the bid.
Add between the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of section 2-1.06B:
The City of Roseville makes the following supplemental project information available Supplemental Project Information
Means Description
Available for inspection at:
City of Roseville Pleasant Grove Boulevard Widening Project, Geotechnical Report, dated March 13, 2023
Add section 2-1.09, “OBTAINING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS” as follows:
A Project Manual, including all Contract Documents and the Proposal forms for bidding this project, may be purchased or downloaded on-line from Public Purchase service at http://www.publicpurchase.com/.
The service requires that the Contractor establish a username and password in order to download and/or order plans and specifications.
Add section 2-1.10, “SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSALS” as follows:
In addition to the requirements of the Notice to Contractor’s and the Standard Construction Specifications, proposals must be submitted to the City Clerk, under sealed cover and plainly marked on the outside, PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT no later than the date and time of public submittal of proposals as specified in the Notice to Contractor’s. Any addenda to these Special Provisions or other contract documents shall be acknowledged where indicated. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
3 CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
Replace paragraph of Section 3-1.06 with:
The Contractor must be properly licensed as a contractor from contract award through Contract acceptance (Public Contract Code § 10164).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
4 SCOPE OF WORK
Replace section 4-1.03 with:
The construction of the Pleasant Grove Blvd Widening Project consists of the following improvements:
Widening of Pleasant Grove Blvd between Woodcreek Oaks Blvd and Foothills Blvd Modifications to existing traffic signals along Pleasant Grove Blvd at the intersections of Country Club Drive and Foothills Blvd
Installation of landscaping and new trees within the median of Pleasant Grove Blvd Installation of water line improvements to the ASR site near Misty Wood Drive The work includes improvements including but not limited to clearing and grubbing, excavation, construction and paving including full depth reclamation pavement (FDR), street lighting, modifications of traffic signal, landscaping and irrigation, grading, drainage, utilities, striping, water, and all other improvements as shown on contract plans.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
5 CONTROL OF WORK
Add to section 5-1.01:
All work is subject to inspection and approval by the Engineer. The Contractor shall notify the Engineer, along with all affected utility companies, 2 working days in advance of the start of work to coordinate and schedule inspection staff.