Roseville City Council
June 18, 2025

28 Dragos Terms and Conditions for Offerings
Form DE-CR0000015VendorAgreement20240126

4.9. Vendor shall provide copies of receipts to Utility and APPA for approval in writing to get reimbursement.

4.10. Vendor shall include the following information in all invoices:

1. [Utility or APPA per Section 4.1 above] as addressee

2. Vendor name

3. Vendor address

4. Unique contract identifier

5. Vendor’s Active System for Award Management (“SAM”) registration number

6. DOE Cooperative Agreement number (“DE-CR0000015”)

7. DOE Cooperative Agreement Task Number: 5

8. Utility name

9. Vendor Agreement amount

10. Vendor Agreement duration (MM/YY – MM/YY)

11. Year-to-Date invoiced amount

12. Current invoice number

13. Invoice amount

14. Period services were rendered

15. Detailed list of charges

4.11. Upon APPA’s review and verification of undisputed Vendor(s) invoices, APPA shall pay Vendor on behalf of Customer within 60 days of Utility’s receipt of the invoice, and Customer shall not have any payment obligations to Vendor(s), unless APPA fails to make payment in which case Customer shall be responsible for the payment of Vendor fees. If APPA fails to make payment within the timeframe specified above and Vendor provides notice of same to the Utility, the Utility will have 30 days to pay Vendor.

4.12.If Vendor is required to issue a refund or credit under any provision of this Vendor Agreement for fees paid by APPA, Vendor shall issue such refund or credit directly to APPA.

5. APPA & DOE LIMITATION OF LIABIITY & INDEMNIFICATION

5.1. Neither APPA nor DOE assume any liability with respect to accidents, bodily injury, illness, breach of contract, cyber or physical security incident or any other damages or loss, or with respect to any claims arising out of any activities undertaken with the financial support of the APPA or the DOE, including DOE subsidies such as Cooperative Agreement funds, whether with respect to persons or property of Customer, Vendor or third parties.

5.2. Infringement Indemnity. Dragos shall at its cost and expense: (i) defend any claim brought against APPA and its governing body’s members, its officers, and its employees (“Cooperative Agreement Indemnified Parties”) by an unaffiliated third party alleging that an Offering infringes or misappropriates the third party’s U.S or European Union patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret and (ii) pay any settlement of such claim or any damages finally awarded to such third party by a court of competent jurisdiction as a result of such claim; provided, that the Cooperative Agreement Indemnified Parties: (a) give Dragos prompt written notice of such claim; (b) permit Dragos to solely control and direct the defense or settlement of such claim (however, Dragos will not settle any claim in a manner that requires Cooperative Agreement Indemnified Parties to admit fault or attributes liability to Cooperative Agreement Indemnified Parties without Cooperative Agreement Indemnified Parties’ prior written consent); and (c) provides Dragos all reasonable assistance in connection with the defense or settlement of such claim. In addition, Cooperative Agreement Indemnified Parties may, at their own expense, participate in defense of any claim.

5.3. Remedies. If a claim covered under this section occurs or in Dragos’s opinion is reasonably likely to occur, Dragos will at its expense and sole discretion: (i) procure the right to allow the continuance of using the applicable Offering; (ii) modify or replace the applicable Offering to become non-infringing and substantially equivalent in functionality; or (iii) if neither (i) nor (ii) is commercially practicable, terminate the license or access to the affected portion of the applicable Offering and refund a pro rata portion of the pre-paid, unused fees paid that corresponds to the unused period of the Subscription Term. THE REMEDIES SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION CONSTITUTE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT INDEMNIFIED PARTIES’ SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES, AND DRAGOS’S ENTIRE LIABILITY, WITH RESPECT TO ANY INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD-PARTY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.

29 Dragos Terms and Conditions for Offerings
Form DE-CR0000015VendorAgreement20240126

5.4. Exclusions. Dragos shall have no obligations under this Section to the extent the claim is based upon or arises out of: (i) any modification to the applicable Offering not made by Dragos; (ii) any combination or use of the applicable Offering with or in any third party software, hardware, process, firmware, or data, to the extent that such claim is based on such combination or use; (iii) the continued use of the allegedly infringing Offering after being notified of the infringement claim; (iv) the failure to use the Offering in accordance with the applicable Documentation; (v) the use of the Offering outside the scope of the rights granted under this Agreement; (vi) a failure to install or utilize the latest updated version of Software; and/or (vii) Customer’s Data.

6. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DATA.

6.1. Following the execution of a Neighborhood Keeper Trusted Advisor Collaboration Agreement between Vendor and APPA, Vendor shall grant APPA access to Neighborhood Keeper and the Neighborhood Keeper Data contained within, which may include Aggregated Data, Machine-Generated Data, and/or Threat Data.

6.2. Upon execution of a Neighborhood Keeper Trusted Advisor Collaboration Agreement, APPA may use and distribute specific insights gained from Neighborhood Keeper for the benefits of its members as permitted in the Neighborhood Keeper Trusted Advisor Collaboration Agreement.

7. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CONFIDENTIALITY

7.1. Vendor shall agree to comply with the APPA Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement by executing the same directly with APPA (APPA Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement).

Company: Dragos, Inc.

Company Address: 1745 Dorsey Rd. Suite R
Hanover, Maryland 21076
United States
Payment Terms: Net 30
Quote Number: Q-16351-1
Created Date: 11/19/2024
Expiration Date: 7/31/2025
Prepared By: Trevor Hollis
Email: [email protected]
Contact Name: Leonard Ladd
Phone: (916) 774-5699
Email: [email protected]
Bill To: The City of Roseville
Accounts Payable
311 Vernon St
Finance 1st Floor
Roseville, California 95678
United States
Ship To: The City of Roseville
316 Vernon St Suite 300
Information Technology
Roseville, California 95678
United States
Shipping Type: DAP (Delivered at Place)
Product Quantity Additional
Discount
(%)
Net Unit
Sales
Price
Term
(Months)
Total
Price
Dragos SiteStore model STS-500-E 1.00 12.500000 USD
35,000.00

N/A USD
35,000.00
Dragos SiteStore subscription license, STS-500 1.00 0.000000 USD 10,000.00
24 USD
20,000.00
Dragos Sensor subscription license, 1 Gbps 2.00 10.000000 USD 18,000.00
24 USD
72,000.00
Service - Remote Deployment & Installation Costs Up to 3 Sensors

1.00 0.000000 USD
6,000.00

N/A USD
6,000.00
Dragos Sensor model NS-1020-E 2.00 0.000000 USD
14,500.00

N/A USD
29,000.00
Description: 24 month term agreement total for 162,000
Y1: $116,000
Y2: $46,000
Total: USD 162,000.00
Shipping and Handling: USD 165.00
Tax: USD 12,090.00
Grand Total: USD 174,255.00

Terms and Conditions
The purchase of Dragos Offerings are governed by and subject to Dragos’s standard terms and conditions, available here: www.dragos.com/end-userterms-conditions (“Offering Agreement”), unless the parties have entered into a written, mutually-executed agreement intended to apply to this specific transaction. All prices are in US dollars and are exclusive of all sales, use, value-added, withholding, and other taxes, or duties which are the obligation of the Customer, unless set forth above. Customer shall issue a purchase order that incorporates the Dragos quote by reference (“Purchase Order”).

Any terms in a Purchase Order or other document provided by you are material alterations to the Offering Agreement and notice is hereby given of objection to and rejection of any such document or different terms therein.

Subscription Term. Commencement of the Subscription Term will vary depending on the type of Offering. Unless an alternative subscription schedule is agreed upon by the Parties in writing, the Subscription Term(s) shall commence as follows:
•
Software: The initial Subscription Term shall commence sixty (60) days from the date of the applicable Purchase Order and shall continue for the duration specified in the quote.
•
NP-View: The initial Subscription Term shall commence upon the date of the applicable Purchase Order and shall continue for the duration specified in the quote.
•
Services: The Subscription Term shall commence upon the date specified in the Statement of Work and shall continue for the duration specified in the Order or Statement of Work.
• Worldview and Worldview Concierge: The initial Subscription Term shall commence upon the date of the applicable Purchase Order and shall continue for the duration specified in the quote. •
Software and Worldview renewals: The renewal Subscription Term ("Renewal Term") shall commence upon the day after the initial Subscription Term expires and shall continue for the duration specified in the quote, contingent upon receipt of a Purchase Order.

Invoicing. Dragos shall issue the Customer a written invoice for the Offerings purchased or licensed under this quote. The invoicing process will vary depending on the type of Offering, as outlined below.
•
Software and Worldview: Dragos shall issue an invoice to the Customer upon the commencement of the Subscription Term. •
Services: Dragos shall issue an invoice to the Customer according to the invoicing procedures outlined in the Statement of Work. •
Appliances, Appliance shipping fees, and deployment Services: Dragos shall issue an invoice to the Customer upon shipment of the Appliance(s).
•
Training: Dragos shall issue an invoice to the Customer upon acceptance of the Purchase Order.

The Individual accepting this quote on behalf of Customer represents that they have full authority to bind the Customer to terms of this agreement. Your acknowledgement of this quote or acceptance of the Offerings shall constitute your acceptance of the terms of this agreement.

ORDINANCE NO. 6960

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2024-25, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Department of Energy Cybersecurity Grant award.

SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post a true copy of the foregoing ordinance in each of three (3) conspicuous locations in the City and she shall immediately after such posting enter in the ordinance book, under the record of the ordinance, a certificate under her hand stating the time and place of such publication by posting.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this day of , 2025, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Updated 8/29/2024
Please complete the cells highlighted in yellow.

REQUESTER NAME & TITLE:

PREPARER NAME & TITLE:

DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
FISCAL YEAR:

ORDINANCE:

ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment

DESCRIPTION
6001 6587 84701 700074 255,000 Establish budget for the new project Electric - Industrial Control System Cybersecurity Technologies
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERSOUTTOTAL 255,000

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment

DESCRIPTION
6001 4401 84701 700074 174,720 Establish DOE federal subaward DE-CR0000007 REVENUES/TRANSFERS INTOTAL 174,720
NET ADJUSTMENT 80,280

FUND BALANCE
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment

DESCRIPTION
6001 3601 00000 000000 (80,280) Decrease Electric Fund Balance 3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
FUND BALANCETOTAL (80,280)
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

Staff recommends that Council authorize the establishment of a new Capital Improvement Project – Electric -Industrial Control System Cybersecurity Technologies (the "Project"), and adopt an ordinance approving a budget adjustment to appropriate $255,000 in the Electric Fund to fund it.

Roseville Electric Utility (REU) owns and operates a power system Operational Technology (OT) network that manages, monitors, and controls critical infrastructure such as power generation, distribution, and the maintenance system. OT network security is paramount to maintaining REU’s operation. In September 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) entered into a cooperative agreement with the American Public Power Association (APPA) to facilitate the rapid adoption and deployment of cybersecurity technologies for municipal utilities. This program aims to help utilities address and overcome key cybersecurity challenges and maximize the long-term robustness and overall effectiveness of deployed solutions for the benefit of the electric industry.

As an APPA member, REU has entered into an agreement APPA to receive a subaward of DOE grant funding in the amount of $174,720. This funding will reimburse eligible Project expenses through 3/31/2027. The remainder of the project funding ($80,280) will come from the available resources in the Electric Fund.

Steve Hancock, Sr Electric Business Analyst 2024-25
Jennifer Kwok, Sr Electric Business Analyst
Electric

City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 6/18/2025
Item #: VII.9
File #: 0900-03
Item ID: 2025-331
Title: Roseville Power Plant #2 Repower Owner's Engineer - Sole Source Professional Services Agreement
Contact: Ozro Corulli 916-774-5586 [email protected]

SUMMARY
Staff recommends approval of a sole source Professional Services Agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) in the amount of $1,120,000 to provide engineering services related to the Roseville Power Plant #2 Repower project. Jacobs has been determined to be the only firm capable of providing these services under the critical schedule requirements for this project. Funding is included in the Electric Department's FY2024-25 budget in the Electric Fund. Staff also declares its intention to reimburse expenditures and activities related to the Owner's Engineer services from bond proceeds in the event that bonds are issued in the future to fund project costs.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a sole source Professional Services Agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. in the amount of $1,120,000 for engineering services related to the Roseville Power Plant #2 Repower project and declare the City's intention to reimburse expenditures related to the Owner's Engineer services from the proceeds of bonds that may be issued in the future.

BACKGROUND
In October 2024, Roseville and the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) undertook a duediligence study to assess the viability of siting two generating units at the Roseville Power Plant#2 (RPP2) site as part of the State of California’s overall efforts to improve electric system reliability. Staff released a Request for Proposals (RFP) in November 2024 for engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) services to decommission the existing generating units and replace them with new units and associated equipment. During the RFP process, the City received interest from six firms, two of which provided proposals. The EPC contract was awarded in April 2025 and staff is currently reviewing design submittals.

Due to the scope of work associated with the RPP2 project as well as the existing maintenance and capital project work load, staff recommends additional engineering support (an Owner's Engineer) to help design, review, and monitor the project.

The process of obtaining an Owner's Engineer firm to support this project could not begin until after this first contract was awarded in April 2025, as it is necessary that the Owner's Engineer firm be different and separate from the firm who was awarded the EPC contract for proper checks and balances. This, along with the critical schedule for the project, doesn't provide time for a Request for Proposals (RFP) process.

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs) has been determined to be the only qualified firm that can provide the required services under these critical schedule requirements for this project. They will also provide a dedicated team to this project, which is composed of multiple disciplines, with key members having at least a decade of experience. Jacobs is also able to provide personnel with experience

commissioning this specific type of generator, giving insight into potential challenges that will help assure a successful project and meet the critical project timeline of a June 1, 2026, commercial operation date.

Roseville Electric may issue tax-exempt debt in the future to fund the cost of the Owner's Engineer services. Under federal tax regulations, expenditures made prior to issuing tax-exempt debt are generally not eligible for reimbursement unless specific procedures are followed. One key requirement is a formal declaration of intent to reimburse such expenditures from bond proceeds. Roseville’s bond counsel has recommended that the City adopt a resolution declaring the intent to reimburse in the event debt is issued in the future for the Owner's Engineer services. On April 2, 2025, the City of Roseville adopted Resolution No. 25-085, declaring its intention to reimburse expenditures from proceeds of tax-exempt obligations. This action does not obligate Roseville to issue bonds, but preserves the right to recover previously spent funds through a future bond issuance.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost for engineering services is a not-to-exceed amount of $1,120,000. Funding is included in the Electric Department's FY2024-25 budget in the Electric Fund.

The intent to reimburse action declared in Resolution No. 25-085 only states the intention that any expenditure can be reimbursed from bond proceeds if the City chooses to move forward with issuing debt associated with the Owner's Engineer services. This action does not obligate the City to issue bonds, but preserves the right to recover previously spent funds through a future bond issuance.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The engineering services agreement meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS

4. Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

6. Deliver exceptional City services
Respectfully Submitted,
Ozro Corulli, Senior Power Engineer
Daniel Beans, Electric Utility Director
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 25-219

2. Professional Services Agreement
REVIEWERS:

Ozro Corulli, Electric Department - Engineering Created/Initiated - 6/4/2025 Chris Porter, Electric Department - Engineering Approved - 6/4/2025

Shawn Matchim, Electric Department - All Approved - 6/4/2025 Daniel Beans, Electric Department - All Approved - 6/4/2025 Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 6/5/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 6/5/2025
Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 6/5/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 6/5/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 6/6/2025 Dominick Casey, City Manager Department - City Manager Approved - 6/6/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 6/6/2025

RESOLUTION NO. 25-219

APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., AND AUTHORIZING

THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE WHEREAS, a professional services agreement for Roseville Power Plant #2 Repower – Owner’s Engineer Services, by and between the City of Roseville and Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., has been reviewed by the City Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said professional services agreement is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 2025, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk

[B:\City Attorney\corres\Kelly\Contracts 2025\Jacobs Engineering_OE Services PSA 6-2-25.docx]

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Project: Roseville Power Plant #2 Repower – Owner’s Engineer Services THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ___ day of ________________, 20__, by and between the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation (“CITY”), and Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., a Delaware corporation (“CONSULTANT”); and
W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, CITY desires professional services consisting of on-call electric generation owner’s engineer services; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has prepared a proposal dated April 22, 2025, which describes the scope of work to be performed by CONSULTANT, the budget for the work, and the schedule for performance of the work; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified and experienced to provide such professional services.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. Services. CONSULTANT shall perform, at the direction of CITY, the scope of services as described in EXHIBIT “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

2. Compensation. For its services provided hereunder, CONSULTANT shall be compensated on a time and expense basis in accordance with the hourly rates as described in EXHIBIT “B,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Total compensation

2 B:\City Attorney\corres\Kelly\Contracts 2025\Jacobs Engineering_OE Services PSA 6-2-25.docx] shall not exceed one million, one hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($1,120,000.00).

CONSULTANT shall submit one monthly invoice for its services. Such invoices shall be delineated by task, the person performing the services, and the hourly rate, which shall be stated in time increments of not greater than one tenth (1/10) hours. CITY shall pay invoices within thirty (30) days after receipt, if the services specified in the invoice have been satisfactorily completed.

3. Indemnification. To the fullest extent allowed by law, CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify, and save and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from any 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 limited to workers and the public), or damage to property, resulting from or arising out of CONSULTANT's willful misconduct or negligent act or omission while engaged in the performance of obligations or exercise of rights created by this Agreement. CONSULTANT’s indemnity obligation does not apply to liability for injuries to or death of any person (including but not limited to workers and the public), damage to property, or other loss arising from the negligence, willful misconduct or defects in design by the CITY or the agents, servants, or independent contractors who are directly responsible to the CITY. The parties intend that this provision shall be broadly construed.

CONSULTANT agrees to defend and indemnify CITY if, despite the parties intent and practice, any venue, agency, or court with competent jurisdiction determines that CONSULTANT and/or any of its agents, officers, employees, volunteers, independent contractors, or subcontractors, are characterized as employee(s) of CITY.

CONSULTANT’s responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations shall

3 B:\City Attorney\corres\Kelly\Contracts 2025\Jacobs Engineering_OE Services PSA 6-2-25.docx] survive the termination or completion of this Agreement for the full period of time allowed by law. The defense and indemnity obligations of this Agreement are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Agreement.

4. Insurance. CONSULTANT agrees to continuously maintain, in full force and effect, the following minimum policies of insurance during the term of this Agreement.

COVERAGE LIMITS OF LIABILITY
Workers’ Compensation Statutory
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 aggregate
Personal Injury:
$1,000,000 each occurrence
$2,000,000 aggregate
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit
Professional Liability (errors and $1,000,000 per claim omissions) $2,000,000 aggregate
a. Form. CONSULTANT shall submit a certificate evidencing such coverage for the period covered by this Agreement in a form satisfactory to Risk Management and the City Attorney, prior to undertaking any work hereunder. Any insurance written on a claims made basis is subject to the approval of Risk Management and the City Attorney. b. Additional Insureds. CONSULTANT shall also provide a separate endorsement form or section of the policy showing CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers as additional insureds for each type of coverage, except for Workers’ Compensation and Professional Liability. Such insurance, except the Professional Liability insurance, shall

4 B:\City Attorney\corres\Kelly\Contracts 2025\Jacobs Engineering_OE Services PSA 6-2-25.docx] specifically cover the contractual liability of CONSULTANT. The additional insured coverage under the CONSULTANT’s policy shall be primary and noncontributory, as evidenced by a separate endorsement or section of the policy, and shall not seek contribution from CITY’s insurance or self-insurance. In addition, the additional insured coverage shall be at least as broad as the Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) CG 20 01 Endorsement. The requirements for coverage and limits shall be the coverage and limits specified in this Agreement. c. Cancellation/Modification. CONSULTANT shall provide ten (10) days written notice to CITY prior to cancellation or modification of any insurance required by this Agreement.
d. Umbrella/Excess Insurance. The limits of insurance required in this Agreement 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 CITY (if agreed to in a written contract) before CITY’s own insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. e. Subcontractors. CONSULTANT agrees to include in its contracts with all subcontractors the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement, including the indemnity and insurance requirements, to the extent they apply to the scope of the subcontractor’s work.

Furthermore, CONSULTANT shall require its subcontractors to agree to be bound to CONSULTANT and CITY in the same manner and to the same extent as CONSULTANT is bound to CITY under this Agreement. Additionally, CONSULTANT shall obligate its subcontractors to comply with these same provisions with respect to any tertiary subcontractor, regardless of tier. A copy of CITY’s indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to the subcontractor or tertiary subcontractor upon request.

5 B:\City Attorney\corres\Kelly\Contracts 2025\Jacobs Engineering_OE Services PSA 6-2-25.docx] f. Self-Insured Retentions. All self-insured retentions (“SIR”) must be disclosed to Risk Management for approval and shall not reduce the limits of liability. 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 certificate of insurance of any insurance policy and endorsements. The failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of such right.
g. Waiver of Subrogation. CONSULTANT hereby agrees to waive subrogation which any insurer of CONSULTANT may acquire from CONSULTANT by virtue of the payment of any loss under a Workers Compensation, Commercial General Liability or Automobile Liability policy. All Workers Compensation, Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability policies shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for all worked performed by CONSULTANT, its employees, agents and subcontractors.
h. Liability/Remedies. Insurance coverage in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve CONSULTANT of liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it preclude CITY from taking such other actions as are available to it under any other provisions of this Agreement or law.

5. Records. CONSULTANT and its subcontractors shall maintain all files and records relating to the services performed hereunder during the term of this Agreement and for a period of not less than one (1) year after the date of termination or expiration. Provided, however, that in the event of litigation or settlement of claims arising from the performance of this Agreement, CONSULTANT and its subcontractors shall maintain all files and records until

6 B:\City Attorney\corres\Kelly\Contracts 2025\Jacobs Engineering_OE Services PSA 6-2-25.docx] such litigation, appeals or claims are resolved. Duly authorized representatives of CITY shall have right of access during normal business hours and after reasonable notice to CONSULTANT’s and subcontractors’ files and records relating to the services performed hereunder and may review and copy the files and records at appropriate stages during performance of the services and during the one (1) year period following termination or expiration of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall include this provision in its contracts with all subcontractors.

6. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.

7. Prevailing Wages. When applicable, for purposes of this Agreement, CONSULTANT and its subcontractors shall comply with all applicable prevailing wage laws, e.g., but not limited to, California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. In accordance with said Section 1775, CONSULTANT shall forfeit as a penalty to the City two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar day or portion thereof for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates for such work or craft in which such worker is employed for any work done on-site under the Agreement by CONSULTANT or by any subcontractor in violation of the provisions of the Labor Code and in particular, Labor Code Sections 1770 to 1780, inclusive. In addition to said penalty and pursuant to said Section 1775, the difference between such stipulated prevailing wage rates and the amount paid to each worker for each calendar day or portion thereof for which each worker was paid less than the stipulated prevailing wage shall be paid to each worker by CONSULTANT or the applicable subcontractor.

Pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1773, the contracting department has identified the source, stated below, of the general prevailing rate of wages

7 B:\City Attorney\corres\Kelly\Contracts 2025\Jacobs Engineering_OE Services PSA 6-2-25.docx] applicable to the site to be done, for straight time, overtime, 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 worker concerned. These 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.

Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, general prevailing wage rates set forth above, which forms a part of this Agreement, shall be posted by CONSULTANT at a prominent place at the work site. Prevailing wage rates to be posted at the work site will be furnished by the contracting department. The possibility of wage increases is one of the elements to be considered by CONSULTANT in determining its proposal and will not under any circumstances be considered as the basis of a claim against CITY or the Agreement.

8. Compliance with Laws. CONSULTANT shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and policies as may be applicable to the performance of services under this Agreement.

9. Ability to Perform. CONSULTANT agrees and represents that it has the time, ability and professional expertise to perform the services required under this Agreement.

10. Public Contracts: Conflicts of Interest. CONSULTANT’s duties and services under this Agreement shall not include preparing or assisting CITY with any portion of the CITY’s preparation of a request for proposals, request for qualifications, or any other solicitation regarding a subsequent or additional contract with CITY. CITY shall at all times retain responsibility for public contracting, including with respect to any subsequent phase of this project. CONSULTANT’s participation in the planning, discussions, or drawing of project plans

8 B:\City Attorney\corres\Kelly\Contracts 2025\Jacobs Engineering_OE Services PSA 6-2-25.docx] or specifications shall be limited to conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications.

CONSULTANT shall cooperate with CITY to ensure that all bidders for a subsequent contract on any subsequent phase of this project have access to the same information, including all conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement.

11. Governing Agreement. In the event of any conflict between this Agreement and its EXHIBITS, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern. In the event of any conflict between any of the EXHIBITS, the provisions of the first in order of attachment shall govern.

12. The Levine Act Disclosure. The Levine Act (Govt. Code, Section 84308) requires a Party (and its agent(s), if any) to a Proceeding before the City of Roseville that involves any action or consideration related to their contract, license, permit, or other entitlement for use, to disclose any campaign contributions made to CITY elected or appointed officers totaling more than $250 within the twelve (12) months prior to the CITY decision and while a proceeding is pending, and includes certain prohibitions on contribution activity thereafter. If applicable campaign contributions have been made by CONSULTANT and/or its agent(s), CONSULTANT is responsible for compliance, including for its disclosure obligations, if any, as further described at:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/city_clerk/transparency/levine_act.

13. Assignment. CONSULTANT is employed to perform unique personal services.

CONSULTANT shall not assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of CITY.

CONSULTANT shall not employ or otherwise incur any obligation to pay other specialists or experts for services in connection with this Agreement, without prior written consent of CITY.

14. Independent Contractor. CONSULTANT, inclusive of its agents, officers,

9 B:\City Attorney\corres\Kelly\Contracts 2025\Jacobs Engineering_OE Services PSA 6-2-25.docx] employees, volunteers, independent contractors, and subcontractors, 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.

CONSULTANT and CITY agree that: (a) CONSULTANT is free from the control and direction of CITY in connection with the performance of the work; (b) CONSULTANT is providing services directly to CITY; (c) CONSULTANT has and will maintain at all relevant times a business license; (d) CONSULTANT maintains a business location that is separate from CITY; (e) CONSULTANT is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed hereunder; (f) CONSULTANT actually contracts with other businesses to provide the same or similar services and maintains a clientele without restrictions from CITY; (g) CONSULTANT advertises and holds itself out to the public as available to provide the same or similar services; (h) CONSULTANT provides its own tools, vehicles, and equipment to perform the services; (i) CONSULTANT has negotiated its own rates; (j) CONSULTANT set its own hours and location of work in accomplishing CITY’s on call needs; and (k) CONSULTANT has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired and exercises its own expert independent judgement.

15. Representations and Warranties. CONSULTANT warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, CITY shall have the right to

10 B:\City Attorney\corres\Kelly\Contracts 2025\Jacobs Engineering_OE Services PSA 6-2-25.docx] terminate as void this Agreement, without liability, or, in its discretion, to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee.

16. Successors in Interest. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the respective parties hereto.

17. Copyright, Ownership and Use of Materials. All tangible material (“Material”) created or delivered pursuant to this Agreement is considered a work made for hire under the Copyright Act. To the extent such Material does not qualify as a work made for hire, CONSULTANT hereby assigns to CITY all right, title, and interest, including but not limited to all copyrights, in all Material created by CONSULTANT in its performance under this Agreement. Material constitutes the scope of work outlined in Exhibit A and attached hereto, and all written and other tangible expressions, including but not limited to, drawings (including computer aided drawings), papers, documents, reports, surveys, renderings, exhibits, sketches, maps, models, prints, paintings or photographs, in any and all media or formats in which such materials have been created or are maintained. All Material furnished by CONSULTANT is, and shall remain, the property of CITY.

CONSULTANT shall execute any documents necessary to effectuate such assignment. In the event that CONSULTANT uses, employs, designates, or retains any person or entity who is not an employee of CONSULTANT, to perform any work required of it pursuant to this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall require said person or entity to execute an agreement containing the preceding paragraph.

18. Termination of Agreement. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving CONSULTANT ten (10) days advance written notice from the City Manager.

11 B:\City Attorney\corres\Kelly\Contracts 2025\Jacobs Engineering_OE Services PSA 6-2-25.docx] CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving CITY thirty (30) days advance written notice. In the event of termination through no fault of CONSULTANT, CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for services performed as of the date of termination, upon the release to CITY of all Material hereunder, in any and all media or formats in which such materials have been created or are maintained. CITY retains the right to receive and use any Material, notwithstanding any termination or any dispute regarding the amount to be paid.

19. Attorney’s Fees; Venue; Governing Law. If either party commences any legal action against the other party arising out of this Agreement or the performance hereof, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover its reasonable litigation expenses, including but not limited to, court costs, expert witness fees, discovery expenses, and attorney’s fees. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Placer County, California, regardless of where else venue may lie. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

20. Modification. This Agreement and each provision contained herein may be waived, amended, supplemented or eliminated only by mutual written agreement of the parties.

21. 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.

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

12 B:\City Attorney\corres\Kelly\Contracts 2025\Jacobs Engineering_OE Services PSA 6-2-25.docx]

CITY OF ROSEVILLE CONSULTANT
City of Roseville Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.

Attn: Orzo Corulli Attn: Tre Sayles
2090 Hilltop Circle 2485 Natomas Park Dr. #600
Roseville, CA 95747 Sacramento, CA 94833
Either party may amend its address for notice by giving notice to the other party in writing.

23. 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, has authorized the execution of this Agreement in duplicate by its City Manager and attested to by its City Clerk under the authority of Resolution No. ______, adopted by the Council of the City of Roseville on the ___ day of ____________, 20__, and CONSULTANT has caused this Agreement to be executed.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a
municipal corporation
BY: _______________________________

DOMINICK CASEY
City Manager
ATTEST:

JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC., a
Delaware corporation
BY: _______________________________
its: _______________________________
and
BY: _______________________________
its: __Secretary___________________
BY: _______________________________

CARMEN AVALOS
City Clerk
Sr. Vice President & GM

13 B:\City Attorney\corres\Kelly\Contracts 2025\Jacobs Engineering_OE Services PSA 6-2-25.docx] APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY: _______________________________

MICHELLE SHEIDENBERGER
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:

BY: _______________________________

DAN BEANS
Electric Utility Director

B:\City Attorney\corres\Kelly\Contracts 2025\Jacobs Engineering_OE Services PSA 6-2-25.docx EXHIBIT “A”

2 ELK 4 OWNER’S ENGINEERING SERVICES, RFP#: GSEC-E4OES-011924 Project Understanding
The Roseville Power Plant #2 was constructed in 1985 by Northern California Power Agency and later acquired by Roseville Electric in 2010. The site includes a 60kV switchyard, 13.8kV switchgear, an electrical room serving the balance of the Plant, two GE Frame 5 24.8MW generators, a warehouse, a decommissioned oil storage tank, and a variety of other support infrastructure.

Roseville Electric issued an RFP for a design-build contractor in January 2025 to repower PP2 with two GE TM2500’s, SCR and other related components the city has already procured and is committed to achieving commercial operation date of June 01, 2026.

Roseville is requesting Owner’s Engineer (OE) services to support and act on their behalf for this project.

Our proposed Owner’s Engineer services include a project manager, project controls and document controls professionals, and mechanical, electrical, civil, structural, and instrumentation and control engineers and commissioning engineers.

Soon after NTP, Jacobs will mobilize our technical team to begin collecting and reviewing relevant project information and documentation including records and drawings of the existing TM2500 units at the Roseville Energy Park as well as the existing infrastructure at Roseville Power Plant #2 where the gas turbines are to be permanently installed. We will also perform a site visit to confirm the accuracy of records received, collect additional information by field observation where necessary and generally observe the equipment and site for existing conditions that should be considered in design or construction. This information will be utilized to gain a detailed understanding of the work required to successfully complete the project objectives.

Jacobs will also utilize this time to gain a deeper understanding of the Roseville Electric organization and the services you require from your owner’s engineer partner. The following tasks describe some of the services that we think could be of considerable value to you as owner and operator.

Jacobs proposes the following allowances for labor and expenses to support Owner’s Engineer Services.

Specific tasks to be performed will be refined during the Project Mobilization and OE Scope Development phase. If necessary, Jacobs will propose an amendment to achieve alignment on scope and budget after the completion of Project Mobilization and OE Scope Development.

Project Management:
• Bi-Weekly Coordination Meetings with RE – 108 hours
• Internal Management and Project Oversight – 416 hours • Leadership Engagement and Administration – 124 hours
• Travel Expenses - $3,500
Document Controls:

Gathering and compiling documentation on the existing combustion turbine generators (CTGs) will be key to planning for reinstallation at Power Plant #2 and for assembling record documents for future use by operations and maintenance staff. Our mechanical leads and document control managers have experience working with GE documentation and are ready to dive into this effort from Notice to Proceed (NTP). They are available to serve as the key organizers of this information throughout the project. • 2 hrs/wk for 52 weeks – 102 hours
• No travel allowance
Schedule Management:

3 ELK 4 OWNER’S ENGINEERING SERVICES, RFP#: GSEC-E4OES-011924 Our lead schedulers can develop and maintain the overall project schedule. On a monthly basis, our team can be available to review the EPC Contractor, subcontractor and equipment supplier progress schedules, resolve discrepancies, and then integrate each into an overall project schedule. • Assumed to be managed by EPC partner – no allowance
EPC Oversight and Technical Design Review:

Jacobs anticipates that your EPC partner will provide design progress packages for review and approval.

One of the most valuable benefits of an Owner’s Engineer is having a “second set of eyes” to review and confirm that the technical drawings and specifications produced by your EPC contractor will result in a final installation that will meet or exceed your expectations. This includes permanent foundations, electrical protection and controls, balance of plant equipment and auxiliary systems which are designed to last, efficient to operate and easy to maintain.
• Coordination Meetings – 305 hours
• 90% EPC Design Package Review – 280 hours
• Final EPC Design Package Review – 280 hours
Equipment Vendor and Contractor Construction Submittal Reviews:

Our technical team can manage, review, and evaluate construction submittals from subcontractors, equipment suppliers and other vendors to ensure conformance with contract requirements, applicable codes and standards and industry best practices. Our Document Control Systems enable continuous visibility into the submittal review process, ensuring that the Jacobs PM and Roseville Electric Operations staff can quickly and easily understand the status and the current step owner for every project submittal. • Submittal Reviews – 628 hours
• RFI’s – 240 hours
Construction Field Engineering and QA/QC:

Jacobs can provide an experienced field engineer or construction manager to monitor or manage construction activities. We have a small team of engineers with varying levels of experience performing similar services for another client – an assignment which will be complete prior to start of construction of the PP2P. Our field engineers engage early in project planning to confirm that constructability considerations are incorporated and to lead all stakeholders in the development of a comprehensive Construction Completions and Commissioning Plan. Once mobilized to the site, they are your primary point of interface during the construction/commissioning period and will coordinate all site activities with Roseville Electric Operations staff, General Electric, equipment vendors, and the EPC Contractor. • Construction Field Support for Demolition – 160 hours • Construction Field Support for Installation – 800 hours • Construction Field Support for Commissioning –132 hours • Allowance for Design Team Visits – 192 hours
• Construction Change Order Reviews – 80 hours
• Travel and Field Assignment Expenses - $72,000
Project Closeout:

Project closeout should begin on Day One of the project with consideration and planning as the Document Management System is established. Our Document Control Manager can verify that strong controls are in place to gather and track record drawings.
• As-Built Drawings Review – 128 hours
• Miscellaneous Close-Out Support – 172 hours

4 ELK 4 OWNER’S ENGINEERING SERVICES, RFP#: GSEC-E4OES-011924 Labor Contingency:

At Roseville Electric’s request, no contingency has been added to the labor hours or expenses proposed herein. Jacobs will track hours expended on a weekly basis and regularly communicate remaining budget as well as forecasted effort for assigned tasks.

Key Technical Highlights
Project Execution Plan
We develop a Project Execution Plan (PEP) as part of our Owner’s Engineer services. A PEP is the formalization of the project goals, objectives, and plan; and a description of how Technical Services, Engineering, Procurement, Construction, etc. as appropriate, are managed to achieve these. The PEP is a guideline that helps align team expectations. This practice is beneficial and unique to each project and is specifically tailored to the PP2P project’s scope, schedule, and execution objectives.

Our team will work collaboratively with Roseville Electric and other key personnel to identify, record, and maintain strategic execution elements for this project. Examples of execution elements include:
 Project Objectives
 Project Execution Strategy
 Project Constraints
 Integration with Other Projects
 Project Agreements
 Project Milestone Schedule
 Project Primary Risks and Issues
 Project Communication
We develop the initial PEP with key Roseville Electric personnel. Project execution planning is a collaborative effort by the project team, which could eventually include your EPC contractor, subcontractors, equipment suppliers and other project participants to provide input and prepare the PEP.

Throughout the project, maintaining the PEP is as valuable as the original plan itself for continual alignment on primary project objectives. The PEP should be updated at the end of each project phase or when major and unprecedented changes in the execution strategy occur. The resulting PEP becomes a guide and communication tool for the entire project team.

Document Control
Jacobs’ document management experience is critical to providing effective delivery and mitigation of risk.

Our team provides practical insight drawn from lessons learned from previous work that greatly benefits the configuration of a document management system.

Our document control team is responsible for developing and establishing document management processes for the project. We can work with your existing document control framework or create a new one if necessary.

Document control duties include:
 Developing and implementing the Document Management Plan

5 ELK 4 OWNER’S ENGINEERING SERVICES, RFP#: GSEC-E4OES-011924  Developing training material
 Providing training, support, and guidance to the project team  Implementing Roseville Electric’s file naming convention/nomenclature, where applicable  Providing support to all internal and external project team members, when required  Performing periodic audits to verify established processes and procedures are being followed and content is accurately stored
 Assigning and maintaining the status of users in the selected document controls platform, including their permissions
 Making certain that all project records are managed and distributed in a timely fashion and according to the established processes and procedures
Jacobs can maintain all files related to design and construction including submittals, RFIs, daily reports and Contractor Change Management, using this system for virtually all information and workflows on the project.

Dedicated Construction Support
Our team is available to act as your field representative to provide daily oversight of the EPC Contractor during the anticipated 8-month construction/commissioning duration beginning October 01, 2025 and continuing until the units are fully commissioned and commercially available on June, 01 2026.

Our proposed staff can also be involved in early project planning to confirm constructability considerations are incorporated. Once mobilized to the site, our staff can assume responsibility for:
 Coordination between EPC Contractor / Roseville Electric Operations & Engineering staff / Equipment Vendors / OE Engineering team.
 Observing construction activity and inspecting for compliance to contract documents.  Documenting daily construction activities and compiling daily report.  Representing Roseville Electric in daily/weekly contractor meetings.  Oversight of EPC Contractor
− Reviewing EPC Schedule – drives coordination with other stakeholders. − Coordinating information flow to/from OE Engineering Staff primarily through submittals and RFIs.
− Reviewing and approving Contractor Pay Applications.
− Coordinating work between Contractors and Roseville Electric Operations staff. − Managing Contractor Changes/Cost Management.
− Coordinating Startup/Commissioning.
 Coordination with Equipment Vendors to schedule equipment delivery, construction support, resolve issues.
 Coordination with Commissioning Agent, Contractor, equipment vendors and Roseville Electric Operations staff to support a Startup/Commissioning Plan. − Overseeing Startup/Commissioning acting as Owner’s representative.

6 ELK 4 OWNER’S ENGINEERING SERVICES, RFP#: GSEC-E4OES-011924 − Coordinating O&M Manual and SOP submission from OEMs. − Coordinating OEM Training to be provided by OEMs.
 Compiling closeout/record drawing documentation from Contractor and OEMs  Providing monthly budget and schedule status updates to Roseville Electric management.

Deputy CM – Field engineers will be available day-to-day remotely, on-site for critical tasks, or to serve as CM during CM absence. Field engineers are responsible for:
 Resolving technical issues and serving as the primary interface between the EPC Contractor and OEMs and the OE Engineering team.

B:\City Attorney\corres\Kelly\Contracts 2025\Jacobs Engineering_OE Services PSA 6-2-25.docx EXHIBIT “B”

ELK 4 OWNER’S ENGINEERING SERVICES, RFP#: GSEC-E4OES-011924 Appendix B: Rate Schedule
Classification 2025 2026
Project Principal 319 329
Program Director 245 252
Project Manager 217 224
Senior Process Engineer 250 258
Process Engineer 191 197
Jr Process Engineer 122 126
Senior Mechanical Engineer 194 200
Mechanical Engineer 140 144
Junior Mechanical Engineer 112 115
Senior Electrical Engineer 275 283
Electrical Engineer 196 202
Junior Electrical Engineer 138 142
Senior Controls Engineer 275 283
Controls Engineer 217 224
Junior Controls Engineer 153 158
Senior Structural Engineer 199 205
Structural Engineer 148 152
Junior Structural Engineer 115 118
Senior Civil Engineer 199 205
Civil Engineer 148 152
Junior Civil Engineer 115 118
Senior Environmental Engineer 199 205
Environmental Engineer 148 152
Junior Environmental Engineer 115 118
Senior Fire Protection/Life Safety Engineer 199 205
Fire Protection/Life Safety Engineer 148 152
Junior Fire Protection/Life Safety Engineer 115 118
Senior Cost Estimator 268 276
Cost Estimator 189 195
Senior Scheduler 242 249
Scheduler 189 195
Document Controls 153 158
Site Construction Manager 228 235
Senior Designer 158 163
Designer 127 131
Drafter / CADD Operator 92 95
Senior Commissioning Agent 242 249
Commissioning Technician 157 162
Project Controls Administrator 153 158
Project Coordinator 102 105

City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 6/18/2025
Item #: VII.10
File #: 0800-03 & 0201-01
Item ID: 2025-281
Title: Electric Year-End Capital Improvement Projects - Budget Adjustment Contact: Matt Nelson 916-774-5618 [email protected]

SUMMARY
Staff recommends approval of a budget adjustment reducing funding in several capital improvement projects totaling $14,509,630. The Roseville Power Plant 2 (RPP2) Repower project, approved at the April 2, 2025, Council Meeting, will replace the current combustion units with cleaner and more efficient units at the RPP2 site. Due to the scope and resource demand of the RPP2 Repower project, certain Roseville Electric Utility capital improvement efforts are either no longer needed or the work will be postponed to utilize near-term resources for the RPP2 Repower project. The recommended budget adjustment will increase the fund balance in the Electric Fund.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $14,509,630 to reduce the funding of several capital improvement projects.

BACKGROUND
Due to the recent establishment of a new Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for the Roseville Power Plant 2 (RPP2) Repower, several updates to existing projects are requested. The RPP2 Repower project, approved at the April 2, 2025, Council Meeting, will replace the current combustion units with cleaner and more efficient units at the RPP2 site. Due to the scope and resource demand of the RPP2 Repower project, certain CIP efforts are either no longer needed or the work will be moved to a later date to utilize near-term resources for the RPP2 Repower project.

With the addition of the RPP2 Repower project, these CIPs are no longer prioritized at their current budget or anticipated timing. The available funds resulting from this action will return to the Electric Fund balance to offset RPP2 Repower costs, for one of the following reasons:
• Cancellation of the CIP as the scope was for the original RPP2, and the asset is being replaced by the RPP2 Repower project.
• Cancellation of the effort on the current timeline and the project will budgeted at a later date when resources are available.
• Partial defunding the CIP because the project will be completed in the near term and there is a significant remaining balance after project finalization.

FISCAL IMPACT
The budget adjustment to reduce funding of several capital improvement projects in the amount of $14,509,630 will increase the fund balance of the Electric Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378.

Approval of a budget adjustment meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS

2. Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world

4. Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

6. Deliver exceptional City services
Respectfully Submitted,
Matt Nelson, Senior Electric Business Analyst
Daniel Beans, Electric Utility Director
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance 6956
REVIEWERS:

Matt Nelson, Electric Department - All Created/Initiated - 5/29/2025 Joanna Cucchi, Electric Department - Financial & Administrative Approved - 5/29/2025 Shawn Matchim, Electric Department - All Approved - 5/29/2025 Daniel Beans, Electric Department - All Approved - 5/29/2025 Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 5/29/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 6/3/2025
Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 6/3/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 6/4/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 6/5/2025 Dominick Casey, City Manager Department - City Manager Approved - 6/6/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 6/6/2025

ORDINANCE NO. 6956

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2024-25, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for Electric year-end capital improvement projects.

SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post a true copy of the foregoing ordinance in each of three (3) conspicuous locations in the City and she shall immediately after such posting enter in the ordinance book, under the record of the ordinance, a certificate under her hand stating the time and place of such publication by posting.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this day of , 2025, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment DESCRIPTION
6001 6587 84701 400085 (733,655) Cancel Roseville Power Plant 2 Rehab CIP 6001 6587 84701 500044 (400,000) Reduce Grid Modernization CIP, complete soon 6001 6587 84701 500046 (628,529) Reduce RPP2 Switchyard CIP, rebudget in FY28 6001 6587 84701 500097 (750,000) Reduce Substation Security CIP, rebudget when advantageous
6001 6587 84701 500232 (1,498,500) Cancel Customer Connect CIP 6001 6587 84701 500336 (600,000) Reduce RTU CIP, complete soon 6001 6587 84701 500337 (3,226,696) Reduce REP Catalyst CIP, rebudget in FY27 6001 6587 84701 500338 (400,000) Reduce CIS Redundancy CIP, complete soon 6001 6587 84701 500436 (195,000) Reduce Ovation CIP, complete soon 6001 6587 84701 500437 (316,000) Cancel REP Switchgear CIP 6001 6587 84701 500441 (786,000) Cancel Foothills Sub Switch CIP 6001 6587 84701 500443 (601,000) Cancel RPP2 Security CIP 6001 6587 84701 500446 (1,690,000) Cancel Vernon Sub Rebuild CIP 6001 6587 84701 500520 (2,684,250) Cancel RPP2 Engine Rehab CIP EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT TOTAL (14,509,630)

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment DESCRIPTION

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN TOTAL -
NET ADJUSTMENT (14,509,630)

FUND BALANCE
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment DESCRIPTION
6001 3601 00000 000000 14,509,630 Increase Electric Fund Balance FUND BALANCE TOTAL 14,509,630
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

Due to the recent establishment of the new Roseville Power Plant 2 (RPP2) Repower project, several updates to existing Electric projects are requested. RPP2 Repower, approved at the 4/2/25 Council Meeting, will replace current combustion units with more efficient and cleaner units that will aid in the integration of solar generation, battery storage, or any new possible technologies to Roseville's electric distribution system and power supply portfolio.

Due to the scope and resource demand of the RPP2 Repower project, several existing CIPs are either no longer needed or the work will be offset to complete the RPP2 Repower project. The remaining balance on these projects will return to fund balance to offset the RPP2 Repower costs for the following reasons:
>Reduce funding as the project is completing soon and will have a significant balance due to finishing under budget (500044, 500336, 500338, 500436) >Reduce funding and rebudget at a later date since the workload to complete RPP2 Repower has higher priority (500046, 500097, 500337) >Cancel the effort due to the scope no longer being needed, or is no longer feasible (400085, 500232, 500437, 500441, 500443, 500446, 500520) REQUESTER NAME & TITLE:

PREPARER NAME & TITLE:

DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:

REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Updated 11/22/2024
Please complete the cells highlighted in yellow.

Chris Porter, Assistant Electric Utility Director FISCAL YEAR: 2024-25 Matt Nelson, Sr Electric Business Analyst ORDINANCE:

Electric / Engineering

City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 6/18/2025
Item #: VII.11
File #: 0900-04-01
Item ID: 2025-322
Title: FY2025-26 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Project Identifications Contact: Joseph Arino 916-774-5460 [email protected]

SUMMARY
Staff recommends Council adopt a resolution, as required by Senate Bill 1, identifying the Quail Glen, Los Cerritos, and Roseville Heights neighborhood resurfacing projects for use of the City's 2025-26 funding allotment from the State Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation Account Fund.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution, as required by Senate Bill 1 (SB-1), identifying the Quail Glen, Los Cerritos, and Roseville Heights neighborhood resurfacing projects for use of the City's 2025-26 funding allotment from the State Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Fund.

BACKGROUND
Senate Bill 1 (SB-1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, was signed into law in April 2017 to address the budget shortfall for maintenance of existing infrastructure throughout the state. As part of the legislation, local agencies are required to list all proposed projects scheduled to receive SB-1 funding by resolution prior to receiving an apportionment of Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) funds in a fiscal year. The funding is restricted for use on street maintenance, rehabilitation, safety, and transit projects. The California Transportation Commission issued the requirement that project lists for the 2025-2026 fiscal year are due by July 1, 2025. The attached resolution fulfills that requirement.

The scope of the Resurfacing Projects will include the Quail Glen, Los Cerritos, and Roseville Heights neighborhoods, and are planned within the FY2025-26 reporting period. Resurfacing within the neighborhoods include the application of a preventative maintenance surface treatment. Public Works Streets Maintenance crews are currently performing various pavement repairs in preparation for the treatment. The streets scheduled to receive the maintenance and resurfacing application are shown on the attached Exhibit A to the resolution.

The estimated useful life of these improvements is 7 to 10 years. Construction of the Quail Glen neighborhood is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2025 and will continue through the end of the year.

Los Cerritos and Roseville Heights are planned for construction in the late spring and summer of 2026.

These projects are part of the City's proactive street pavement maintenance program designed to seal, protect, and preserve the underlying pavement by applying relatively affordable asphalt resurfacing products. Preventative maintenance surface treatments protect the existing asphalt surfaces and extend the life of the underlying pavement. This keeps our streets in good condition, avoiding pavement failures that would require more costly rehabilitation and reconstruction. In addition, the City maintains a pavement management software database to help guide staff as to which streets should be resurfaced in any given year based on field inspections and pavement condition data collected at three-year intervals. The software allows staff to resurface streets in a systematic way that ensures we get the most out of the City's

limited funding over the long term.

Public Works staff will be working closely with the Public Affairs and Communications Department to keep the community informed of the project's benefits, construction progress, and traffic impacts through a variety of methods including, but not limited to: direct mail, signage, social media, web, and email notifications.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City is estimated to receive $4.18 million from the Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation Account (RMRA - also known as SB-1) Fund in Fiscal Year 2025-26. The engineer's estimate for the Quail Glen project is $1.5 million and is currently fully funded by $1.4 million in 2024-25 RMRA funds and $100k Highway Users Tax funds, leaving $1.1 million remaining of 2024-25 RMRA funds. The engineer's estimate for the Los Cerritos and Roseville Heights Project is $3.8 million and will be funded by $1.1 million in 2024-25 RMRA Funds and $2.7 million in 2025-26 RMRA funds. The remaining RMRA funding from the 2025-26 allotment will be carried forward to next fiscal year and will be put towards projects identified in the 5-year resurfacing plan. No General Fund resources will be used on the project.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project involves the minor alteration of existing public facilities. This activity is categorically exempt from CEQA as a Class 1 Exemption (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301). The Exemption has been prepared and no further CEQA action is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS

2. Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world

4. Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth
Respectfully Submitted,
Joseph Arino, Assistant Engineer
Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 25-208

2. Notice of Exemption
REVIEWERS:

Joseph Arino, Public Works Department - Engineering - City Project's Created/Initiated - 5/27/2025 Jesse Khatkar, Public Works Department - Engineering - Traffic Engineering Approved - 5/27/2025 Noah Siviglia, Public Works Department - Engineering - Traffic Engineering Approved - 5/29/2025 Stefanie Kemen, Public Works Department - Engineering - Traffic Engineering Approved - 5/29/2025 Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 6/2/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 6/4/2025
Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 6/5/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 6/9/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 6/9/2025

Dominick Casey, City Manager Department - City Manager Approved - 6/9/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 6/9/2025

RESOLUTION NO. 25-208

ADOPTING THE QUAIL GLEN, LOS CERRITOS, AND ROSEVILLE HEIGHTS RESURFACING PROJECT FUNDED BY SENATE BILL 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB-1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB-1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of our City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City must adopt a list of projects proposed to receive funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) created by SB-1 by resolution, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project's completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and WHEREAS, the City will receive an estimated $4,180,000 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2025-26 from SB-1; and
WHEREAS, this is the ninth year in which the City is receiving SB-1 funding and will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB-1; and WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System to help develop the SB-1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost effective projects that also meet the communities priorities for transportation investment; and WHEREAS, the funding from SB-1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate roads throughout the City this year and many similar projects into the future; and WHEREAS, the 2023 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City's streets and roads are in an "at-risk" condition and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system; and
WHEREAS, the SB-1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Roseville, as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The fiscal year 2025-26 list of projects planned to be funded with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues include:

The Quail Glen, Los Cerritos, and Roseville Heights Resurfacing Projects. This project includes removal and replacement of failed asphalt roadway sections and the application of a preventative maintenance surface treatment. Preventative maintenance surface treatments provide a waterproof membrane to protect the existing asphalt surfaces and extend the life of the underlying pavement. The streets scheduled to receive the maintenance and resurfacing application are shown on the attached Exhibit A. The estimated useful life of these improvements is seven (7) to ten (10) years. Construction of the Quail Glen neighborhood is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2025 and will continue through the end of the year. Los Cerritos and Roseville Heights are planned for construction in the late Spring and Summer of 2026.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 20__, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk

EXHIBIT A

AREA MAP

FOOTHILLS BL

WASHINGTON
BL

FIDDYMENT RD

JUNCTION BL

PLEASANT GROVE BL W
O
O
D
C
REEK
O
A
K
S
BL

DEL WEBB BL

BASELINE RD

DOUGLAS BL

ROSEVILLE PW
B:\EGIS\gis\Arcdata\publicworks\GIS\CIP\Project Area Maps\Sun City Phase 3 - RMRA Area Map\Sun City Phase 3 - RMRA Area Map\Sun City Phase 3 - RMRA Area Map.aprx 5/28/2025 Quail Glen
Los Cerritos
Roseville Heights
Public Works - Engineering
FY25-26 RMRA Area Map
°
0 0.5 1
Miles
!"c$
A¤

Notice of Exemption
To: Placer County Clerk From: City of Roseville
Recorder’s Office Development Services Dept.
2954 Richardson Drive 311 Vernon Street
Auburn, CA 95603 Roseville, CA 95678
Project Title: FY25-26 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Project Identifications Project Location(s): On various City streets within the Quail Glen, Los Cerritos, and Roseville Heights neighborhoods.

Project Description: The scope of the Resurfacing Project will include the Quail Glen, Los Cerritos, and Roseville Heights neighborhoods, and is planned within the FY25-26 reporting period. Resurfacing within the three neighborhoods will include the application of preventative maintenance surface treatments to portions of the neighborhoods, as appropriate. The estimated useful life of these improvements is 7 to 10 years. The project would not result in an increase in capacity or use of the roadways, and no sensitive resources would be affected.

Public Agency Approving Project: Roseville City Council Agency/Individual Carrying Out Project: City of Roseville Public Works Department Reason why this Project is Exempt: This project qualifies for a Class 1 Exemption as described in Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines which states:
“Class 1 consists of …. .minor alteration of existing public facilities, ….involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing…. examples include highways, streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails….”
The project is confined to existing streets within City right-of-way and would not result in expansion of use. No environmentally sensitive resources are located within the project site; therefore the Class 1 exemption is applicable to the proposed project.

Lead Agency Contact Person: Joe Arino, Public Works Department, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5460.

Signature: Date: 5/27/2025
Jessica Lynch, Environmental Coordinator, City of
Roseville

City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 6/18/2025
Item #: VII.12
File #: 0721
Item ID: 2025-330
Title: Active Transportation Plan
Contact: Suzanne Engelke 916-746-1289 [email protected]

SUMMARY
Staff recommends approval of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP). The ATP reviewed existing bike and pedestrian facilities, looked at gaps and public requests, and provided a ranked list of improvement options to address both. There is no cost associated with approval of the plan.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to adopt the City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan.

BACKGROUND
In September 2023, the City of Roseville contracted with Alta Design + Planning Inc. (Alta) to create an Active Transportation Plan (ATP) that looks at the future state of biking, walking, and rolling in Roseville.

This plan was part of the Transportation 360 project that also examined the services of Roseville Transit.

The new ATP will replace the 2008 Bicycle Master Plan and 2011 Pedestrian Master Plan and merge them into one plan.

The ATP was created through a collaborative approach with residents, community groups, and City departments, building upon previous planning efforts to develop implementable solutions that best meet the needs of Roseville residents and visitors. The goals for the ATP were developed during the project kick-off meeting in October 2023. Those goals are as follows.

1. Access, Connectivity, and Multimodal Consistency: Provide a well-connected multimodal transportation network that offers safe, comfortable, and convenient mobility options for all Roseville residents and visitors.

2. Safety and Comfort: Provide a safer and more comfortable environment for people walking, biking, and rolling on Roseville roads through projects, policies, and programs.

3. Health, Well-being, and Sustainability: Advance public health, environmental quality, and economic prosperity by providing appealing sidewalks, bikeways, and trails that encourage frequent usage and improve access to other non-vehicular modes of travel.

4. Funding, Implementation, and Maintenance: Pursue federal, state, and regional grant funding for new projects and establish regular facility maintenance strategies.

5. Education and Encouragement: Increase awareness and promote safe travel behaviors for all road users, which will encourage more walking, biking, and rolling for commuting and recreation.

To develop the ATP, Alta considered previously identified needs and issues and evaluated the present state of the transportation system to improve safety and comfort for people of all ages and abilities. The plan identified the areas and populations in the city that may benefit the most from improvements in the

active transportation network. It considered active transportation connectivity to local transit provider stops that offer connections to local and regional destinations. A collision analysis was also completed to understand where the highest incidences of bicycle and pedestrian collisions were in Roseville.

Public engagement was an important part of the planning process to understand the needs, challenges, and priorities of community members and stakeholders in Roseville. Robust public engagement between 2023 and 2024 drove high participation and provided valuable feedback from a cross-section of the community as part of the City’s Transportation 360 initiative. Thousands of public comments helped shape the plans for future active transportation improvements.

The recommendations presented in the ATP align with the plan’s vision of creating an active transportation network that is robust, accessible, and connected to the entire community. The recommendations for people walking and rolling include new and upgraded multi-use trails, sidewalks, and crossing improvements. The recommendations for people biking include new and upgraded multi-use trails, bike lanes and routes, and bike crossing improvements. Making Roseville more walkable and bikeable requires not only new infrastructure investments but also developing new initiatives and expanding existing programs that educate, support, and encourage people to use active transportation. The ATP contains a prioritization list to serve as a guideline for the implementation of the improvements. Alta considered what is realistic given historical and anticipated funding, while also providing Roseville with flexibility to respond to changing conditions and opportunities that may arise. The prioritization reflects an order of projects that will provide the greatest community benefit by improving safety and connectivity. The projects were sorted into high-priority, medium-priority, and opportunity projects. The ATP also includes general cost estimates, an implementation and funding strategy, and facility maintenance advice for its recommendations. The public can view the ATP on the City’s website at www.roseville.ca.us\transportation360.

At their May 20th meeting, the Transportation Commission took up this item for review, discussion and public comment. The Commission voted unanimously to accept the ATP and recommended its adoption by the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact with the approval of the ATP. ATP projects will require sufficient funding and Council approval before advancing.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The Active Transportation Plan meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS

1. Ensure a safe and healthy community

4. Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

6. Deliver exceptional City services

5. Support community engagement and advocacy

Respectfully Submitted,
Suzanne Engelke, Associate Transportation Planner
Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 25-210

2. Roseville ATP - Final

3. Appendix A - Existing Conditions Memo

4. Appendix B - ATP Plan Review

5. Appendix C - ATP Public Engagement Summary

6. Appendix D - ATP Development of Recommendations

7. Appendix E - ATP Design Guidelines

8. Appendix F - ATP Non-Infrastructure Recommendations

9. Appendix G - ATP Prioritization Methodology

10. Appendix H - ATP Funding Programs

11. Appendix I - ATP Recommended Projects Lists
REVIEWERS:

Ed Scofield, Public Works Department - Transportation Created/Initiated - 5/27/2025 Ed Scofield, Public Works Department - Transportation Approved - 5/27/2025 Jason Shykowski, Public Works Department - All Approved - 5/29/2025 Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 5/30/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 6/4/2025
Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 6/6/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 6/6/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 6/6/2025 Dominick Casey, City Clerk Department Approved - 6/8/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 6/8/2025

RESOLUTION NO. 25-210

ADOPTING THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Plan was created through a collaborative approach with residents, community groups, and City departments, building upon previous planning efforts to develop implementable solutions that best meet the needs of Roseville residents and visitors; and WHEREAS, in 2023, the City of Roseville contracted with Alta Design + Planning Inc. to create an Active Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, at their May 20th meeting, the Transportation Commission took up this item for review, discussion and public comment, voting unanimously to accept the ATP and recommend its adoption; and
WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Plan has been reviewed by the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville hereby adopts the City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of __________________________, 20__, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk

City of Roseville
Active Transportation Plan
MAY 2025 | FINAL PLAN

Table of Contents
About the Plan 1
What’s in the Plan? � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �3 Vision, Goals, and Objectives � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �4 Roseville Today 15
Local Context � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 17 Equity � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 18 Transit � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 23 Walking and Rolling � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 25 Biking � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 29 Safety � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 31 Public Engagement 35
Recommendations 39
Walking and Rolling Network Recommendations � � � � � � � � 41 Bicycle Network Recommendations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 50 Non-Infrastructure Recommendations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 59 Implementation and Funding 65
Project Prioritization � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 66 Implementation Strategy � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 86 Facility Maintenance � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 88 Funding � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 94 Appendices 95
iii
Click on the rose to return
to the Table of Contents

List of Figures
Figure 1 Roseville Bicycle Master Plan (2008) 17
Figure 2 City of Roseville CalEnviroScreen Score � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 19 Figure 3 City of Roseville Healthy Places Index � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 20 Figure 4 City of Roseville Heat Health Action Index � � � � � � � � � � � � � 21 Figure 5 Map of Transit Ridership at Bus Stops � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 24 Figure 6 Pedestrian Facilities in Roseville � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 25 Figure 7 Map of Pedestrian Facilities � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 26 Figure 8 Map of Marked Crosswalks � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 28 Figure 9 Existing Bike Facilities in Roseville � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 29 Figure 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 30 Figure 11 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions (2018-2022) � � � � � � � � � � � 32 Figure 12 Map of Highest-Injury Locations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 34 Figure 13 Pedestrian Recommendations (Citywide) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 45 Figure 14 Pedestrian Recommendations (West) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 46 Figure 15 Pedestrian Recommendations (Central West) � � � � � � � � � � � 47 Figure 16 Pedestrian Recommendations (Central) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 48 Figure 17 Pedestrian Recommendations (East) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 49 Figure 18 Recommended Bike Improvements in Roseville � � � � � � � � � 50 Figure 19 Bicycle Recommendations (Citywide) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 54 Figure 20 Bicycle Recommendations (West) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 55 Figure 21 Bicycle Recommendations (Central West) � � � � � � � � � � � � � 56 Figure 22 Bicycle Recommendations (Central) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 57 Figure 23 Bicycle Recommendations (East) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 58 Figure 24 Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (Citywide) � 69 Figure 25 Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (West) � � � 70 Figure 26 Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (Central West) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 71 Figure 27 Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (Central) � � 72 Figure 28 Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (East) � � � � 73 Figure 29 Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (Citywide) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 74 Figure 30 Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (West) � 75 Figure 31 Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (Central West) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 76 Figure 32 Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (Central) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 77 Figure 33 Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (East) � 78 iv
City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

List of Tables
Table 1 Recommended Education Programs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 60 Table 2 Recommended Enforcement Programs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 61 Table 3 Recommended Encouragement Programs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 62 Table 4 Recommended Evaluation Programs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 64 Table 5 Bicycle Facility Improvements Prioritization Metrics � � � � � � � � 67 Table 6 Pedestrian Facility Improvements Prioritization Metrics � � � � � � 68 Table 7 High Priority Linear Bicycle Improvements � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 79 Table 8 High Priority Sidewalk Improvements � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 80 Table 9 High Priority Intersection Improvements � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 81 Table 10 Generalized Costs for Bicycle Facilities � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 83 Table 11 Generalized Costs for Pedestrian Improvements � � � � � � � � � � 84 v

Chapter 1
About the Plan

About the Plan
The City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan equips the City with a practical vision for a safe, connected, and comfortable active transportation network to serve our neighbors and offers strategies and recommendations to achieve this vision. The Plan is part of Transportation 360, a City initiative to help:

Active Transportation is the movement
of people or goods using non-motorized
methods powered by human activity.

Forms of active transportation include
walking, biking, skateboarding, riding a
scooter, or using a mobility device
(e.g., wheelchair).

Increase humanpowered mobility
(walking, biking, and
rolling) for transportation
to work, school, errands,
and recreation purposes
Improve connectivity
between existing active
transportation facilities
Better serve transit
users and boost ridership
Help the City of
Roseville secure future
grant funding for
improvements
This Plan was created through a collaborative approach with residents, community groups, and City departments, building upon previous planning efforts to develop implementable solutions that best meet the needs of every Roseville resident and visitor. 2 About the Plan

What’s in the Plan?
We’ve designed this Plan to provide a roadmap to improving conditions for people walking, biking, and rolling. The plan contains the following elements:

Chapter 1
About the Plan
Defines the scope of the City of Roseville Active
Transportation Plan. This chapter captures the
goals for the future of our transportation system
and lays out specific actions for the City to get
started on advancing its transportation vision.

Chapter 2
Roseville Today
Provides an overview of the present-day context
of the city, including the state of walking, biking,
and rolling; community health; economic
conditions; and environmental burdens.

Chapter 3
Public Engagement
Chronicles our extensive community
engagement efforts and strategies used and
summarizes what we heard from community
members during outreach events.

Chapter 4
Recommendations
Offers the proposed infrastructure
recommendations and complementary
programmatic recommendations to improve
walking, biking, and rolling in the city.

Chapter 5
Implementation and
Funding
Outlines how we can get started on
implementing this vision. It identifies planning
level costs for recommended improvements,
as well as strategies on how they could be
implemented. This chapter also considers
ongoing maintenance and monitoring
approaches as the network expands.
3 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Vision, Goals, and Objectives
The vision, goals, and objectives were developed to reflect input from the community to help improve walking, biking, and rolling for Roseville residents, employees, students, and visitors.

Vision Statement
The City of Roseville strives to provide safe
and convenient active transportation
travel for people of all ages and abilities
by creating a well-connected network of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities designed
for a wide variety of users and trip purposes.

Vision is a broad aspirational statement
for the desired future state of biking and
walking in Roseville.

Goals are general statements of what
the City hopes to achieve for active
transportation over time.

Objectives further define how/what
actions are part of meeting these goals.

About the Plan
4

Goals
The following goals have been set forth as part of this planning process:

Access, Connectivity, and
Multimodal Consistency
Provide a well-connected multimodal
transportation network that offers safe,
comfortable, and convenient mobility options for
all Roseville residents and visitors.

Funding, Implementation,
and Maintenance
Pursue federal, state, and regional grant funding
for new projects, and establish regular facility
maintenance strategies.

Safety and Comfort
Provide a safer and more comfortable
environment for people walking, biking, and
rolling on Roseville roads through projects,
policies, and programs.

Education and
Encouragement
Increase awareness and promote safe travel
behaviors for all road users, which will encourage
more walking, biking, and rolling for commuting
and recreation.

Health, Well-Being, and
Sustainability
Advance public health, environmental quality,
and economic prosperity by providing appealing
sidewalks, bikeways, and trails that encourage
frequent use and improve access to other nonvehicle modes of travel. 5 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Objectives
The following objectives have been developed to help City staff help keep track of the progress of achieving the goals.

Access, Connectivity, and
Multimodal Consistency
Provide a well-connected multimodal
transportation network that offers safe,
comfortable, and convenient mobility options
for all Roseville residents and visitors.

OBJECTIVES ACTIONS
Support access to jobs, shopping
centers, parks, recreation centers,
transit, grocery stores, and other local
and regional destinations.
• Work with adjacent cities and regional agencies to eliminate barriers and find new ways to bypass those barriers, which may include gaps in bike lanes, sidewalks, and multi-use trails. • Prioritize projects that connect people walking and biking to schools, parks, healthcare, community services, employment centers, grocery stores, and other key destinations.

Establish a safe, comfortable,
and connected network of public
sidewalks and street crossings that
meets the needs of users of all ages
and abilities.
• Ensure sidewalks and street crossings provide access for all people, regardless of physical abilities, consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the city’s ADA Transition Plan.
• Update Design/Construction Standards to include safe, accessible provisions for people walking and bicycling in construction zones, such as safe alternate walking and biking routes and signage that does not obscure biking/walking paths.

Conduct before and after studies
of new bicycle facilities to measure
effectiveness.
• Track rates of people biking/walking, motorist speeds, and number of collisions involving people walking and biking.

Provide adequate end-of-trip facilities
for active transportation users.
• Conduct a baseline inventory of existing end-of-trip facilities in Roseville.
• Increase the availability of short-term bicycle parking throughout the community and upgrade deficient existing bike parking facilities.
• Install secure, long-term bicycle parking at key transit hubs.

About the Plan
6

OBJECTIVES ACTIONS
Plan for Safe Routes to Schools that
allow for increased mode choice and
safety for students traveling to and
from school.
• Work with school districts, Roseville Transit, other City departments, and the broader school community (teachers, administrators, students, parents/caregivers, and neighbors) to identify infrastructure improvements that make walking and bicycling to school a safer option for students.
• Identify infrastructure improvements in the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety to adjacent schools.
• Assist school districts, as needed, with providing bicycle racks to public schools or add additional racks at schools in need of more bicycle parking.
• Install measures to bring awareness to reduced speed limit in school zones, as needed.

Allow for new modes of active
transportation, such as electricpowered micromobility, to expand options for residents and visitors.
• Incorporate design flexibility into public spaces, including bus stops and transit hubs, to allow for new mobility devices in the future.

Access, Connectivity, and Multimodal Consistency (continued) 7 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Safety and Comfort
Provide a safer and more comfortable
environment for people walking, biking, and
rolling on Roseville roads through projects,
policies, and programs.

OBJECTIVES ACTIONS
Reduce frequency and severity of
collisions involving people walking
and biking.
• Monitor bicycle and pedestrian crash data (including causes) to implement ongoing infrastructure improvements throughout the active transportation system.
• Install safety enhancements to improve conditions for the most vulnerable road users, such as people using mobility devices, youth, and older people.
• Continue to update the Local Road Safety Plan.

Reduce conflicts between
transportation modes by using a
layered Complete Streets approach.
• Encourage the expansion of the existing streetlight network and prioritize new lighting installations at locations where higher numbers of walking and biking trips are expected, or where known safety concerns exist.
• Design context-sensitive safe crossing locations to increase visibility of people biking and walking at high-volume
intersections.
• Use innovative designs to create safety enhancements using guidance from organizations such as National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), as well as applicable state and federal design guidelines.

Apply best practices for the
development of facilities for people
walking, biking, and rolling.
• Designate and classify a network for active transportation facilities and amend existing City design standards accordingly to allow for multimodal use of the road network.
• Apply Complete Streets and trail design standards that meet best practices and community needs, monitor effectiveness, and update the recommendations as needed.

About the Plan
8

OBJECTIVES ACTIONS
Reduce traffic stress for people
walking, biking, and rolling (i.e., Level
of Traffic Stress or LTS).
• Provide more comfortable and physically separated active transportation facilities, such as Class I multi-use trails, Class IV separated bikeways, and wider sidewalks in locations where higher pedestrian demand is expected, such as near schools or parks. Provide better connections between on- and off-street facilities for people walking, biking, and rolling.
• Provide alternative facilities on lower-stress neighborhood streets, such as well-connected Class III bicycle boulevards. • Include sidewalks in the planning and design of new or reconstructed streets, on both sides of the street, when feasible.

Facilitate multimodal transportation
through first- and last-mile mobility
options and smooth transitions
between modes.
• Design facilities for people biking and walking that safely facilitate first- and last-mile connections to transit and provide amenities at transit locations.
• Ensure regular maintenance of sidewalks, bikeways, and trails to enhance user experience, safety, and comfort.
• Coordinate with Roseville Transit to improve amenities at bus stops such as benches and shelters.
• Ensure and install appropriate sidewalk and ramp widths to accommodate and improve access for people experiencing
mobility challenges.

Safety and Comfort (continued)
9 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Health, Well-Being, and Sustainability
Advance public health, environmental quality,
and economic prosperity by providing appealing
sidewalks, bikeways, and trails that encourage
frequent use and improve access to other nonvehicle modes of travel.

OBJECTIVES ACTIONS
Improve opportunities for residents
and visitors to engage in healthy
activities.
• Enhance access to parks, open spaces, recreational facilities, local businesses, and other key destinations throughout the city.
• Support active, walkable streets, and safe travel conditions for all users.
• Promote existing active transportation facilities through community events and programs, signage, and education
campaigns.
• Consider additional opportunities for people to use
micromobility, such as electric scooters and other small, wheeled devices. Include consideration of micromobility devices in active transportation design standards.

Apply best practices in environmental
stewardship.
• Follow best practices in environmental stewardship during planning, design, and construction of active transportation facilities in or near environmentally sensitive areas and habitats. • Pursue policies and incentives that encourage alternative transportation modes, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and reduce vehicle travel speeds.
• Consider innovation and demonstrative technologies that contribute to sustainable maintenance practices.

About the Plan
10

Funding, Implementation, and
Maintenance
Pursue federal, state, and regional grant funding
for new projects, and establish regular facility
maintenance strategies.

OBJECTIVES ACTIONS
Identify the most relevant and
applicable funding opportunities for
implementing the recommendations
in the City of Roseville Active
Transportation Plan.
• Work across City departments, neighboring jurisdictions, and other agencies to submit grant applications for the most competitive projects to federal, state, and regional funding sources to implement active transportation infrastructure projects and programs.
• Identify local funds through the City’s capital budget process to leverage external funding.
• Obtain consultant assistance services, as needed, to pursue grant opportunities for planned active transportation projects, plans, and programs.
• Participate in training and workshops to learn about available grant programs.

Establish ongoing sources of funding
for active transportation projects and
programs.
• Update planning documents, City building code, and
ordinances to require development projects to construct or contribute to the construction of an increased level of active transportation projects as conditions of approval through the development review process.

Develop a strategy for maintaining
active transportation facilities.
• Regularly update City design standards for planning, design, and maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to reflect best practices from Federal Highway Administration, NACTO, and other agencies.
• Support efforts of local advocacy groups, neighborhood associations, businesses, and the City’s Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department to establish an “Adopt a Path” program that addresses cleanup and maintenance of multi-use trails. • Regularly inspect sidewalks, trails, and other active transportation facilities in the city to identify any damage or barriers. Maintain on an ongoing basis, such as repairing uplifted or broken sidewalk segments and working with
property owners to clear overgrown vegetation.
11 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

OBJECTIVES ACTIONS
Test out new types of improvements. • Conduct temporary demonstrations, pilots, and quick-build projects, etc., to test designs and materials before permanent projects are installed.
• Survey participants, local businesses, and community members about the temporary installations to collect feedback on the treatment and desired modifications to the design.
• Use feedback and outcomes from demonstrations and pilots to apply for additional grant funding for permanent construction.

Miner’s Ravine Trail.

Funding, Implementation, and Maintenance (continued)
About the Plan
12

Education and Encouragement
Increase awareness and promote safe travel
behaviors for all road users, which will encourage
more walking, biking, and rolling for commuting
and recreation.

OBJECTIVES ACTIONS
Identify the most relevant and
applicable funding opportunities for
implementing the recommendations
in the City of Roseville Active
Transportation Plan.
• Work across City departments, neighboring jurisdictions, and other agencies to submit grant applications for the most competitive projects to federal, state, and regional funding sources to implement active transportation infrastructure projects and programs.
• Identify local funds through the City’s capital budget process to leverage external funding.
• Obtain consultant assistance services, as needed, to pursue grant opportunities for planned active transportation projects, plans, and programs.
• Participate in training and workshops to learn about available grant programs.

Educate the public on active
transportation safety and encourage
increased walking and biking.
• Coordinate education and encouragement activities with other City departments, such as providing helmet fittings and giveaways and other information at City events.
• Continue existing public education campaign to educate users on the rights and responsibilities of people walking, biking, and rolling; road safety; and road and trail etiquette.
• Routinely update a public-facing Roseville Parks, Trails & Bikeways Map so it reflects the most up-to-date bicycle network and end-of-trip facilities.
• Work across City departments and with local advocates and community-based organizations to host regular open streets events that close particular streets to vehicle traffic for part of a day, allowing people to walk, bike, and roll in the street safely. 13 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

OBJECTIVES ACTIONS
Establish lasting partner and
stakeholder relationships to
support ongoing education and
encouragement efforts.
• Host a League of American Bicyclists Cycling Instructor (LCI) seminar to increase the number of local LCIs in Roseville, enabling the City to expand cycling education for youth and adults, recruit more knowledgeable cycling ambassadors, and have experts available to assist in encouragement programs. • Establish an official Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to create a systematic method for ongoing resident input into the development of active transportation policies, plans, and projects.
• Provide training to Development Services and Public Works Department staff on best practices for active transportation facility planning, design, and maintenance.
• Provide active transportation safety training to Roseville Police Department, such as common causes of collisions involving people walking, biking, and rolling, and which traffic laws promote bicyclist and pedestrian safety.

Education and Encouragement (continued)
About the Plan
14

Chapter 2
Roseville Today

Roseville Today
To develop the Plan, we considered previously identified needs and issues and evaluated the present state of the transportation system to improve safety and comfort for people walking, biking, and rolling.

We looked at the transportation system from different perspectives including demographics, community health, economic conditions, environmental burdens, and street systems. This helped us better understand what motivates or deters people in how they choose to travel. This chapter provides a summary of findings. Additional details can be found in Appendix A: Existing Conditions Memo.

Roseville residents move around the city in various ways.

Roseville Today
16

Local Context
To understand previous efforts, our team
reviewed local and regional plans for a 17-
year period. During this period, the City
implemented enhancements to the walking
and biking networks, as well as supportive
policies and programs. In recent years, the City
has worked to evaluate and analyze existing
safety and connectivity issues, most notably
with the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). Adopted
in 2021, the LRSP analyzed collision data to
identify citywide trends, high-collision locations,
high-risk locations, and locations with unusual
collision patterns or high collision severities. The
City’s decision to update both its 2008 Bicycle
Master Plan and 2011 Pedestrian Master Plan in
this Plan demonstrates the City’s commitment
to improving active transportation throughout
its roadway corridors. This also shows the
impetus of equitably addressing transportation
safety, sustainability, public health, and air
quality. This Plan will further support these
communitywide goals by acting as the guide
to implementing active transportation facilities.

Additional details can be found in the Appendix
B: Plan Review. Figure 1 Roseville Bicycle Master Plan (2008) 17 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Equity
This section identifies the areas and populations
in the city that may benefit the most from
improvements in the active transportation
network due to disproportionate societal,
environmental, health, and economic burdens.

Improving infrastructure and access for people
walking and biking can help improve safety,
connectivity, air quality, and public health for
communities that often rely on active modes of
transportation to get around.

Our team used data from CalEnviroScreen 4.0
(CES), Healthy Places Index (HPI), and the Heat
Health Action Index to identify the areas and
populations in the city that may benefit the most
from improvements to the active transportation
network.

CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (CES) examines census tracts
based on the combined indicators for pollution
burden (i.e., exposures and environmental
effects) and population characteristics (i.e.,
sensitive populations and socioeconomic factors).

Census tracts that score in the top 25th percentile
are considered the most disadvantaged statewide
and have been targeted for greenhouse gas
reduction funding through Senate Bill 535.
1 While
none of Roseville’s census tracts fell within the
top 25th percentile, several were categorized
within the top 40th percentile of CES, as shown
in Figure 2. These areas (above 40%), depicted in
orange, tend to face higher levels of pollution and
population characteristic burdens, particularly
near the Historic Old Town and Vernon Street area
to the west of I-80 and along the railroads.

The Healthy Places Index (HPI) is a composite of
25 metrics, which cover economics, education,
social, transportation, healthcare access,
neighborhood composition, housing, and
environmental factors. Census tracts scoring
in the bottom 25th percentile are typically
considered the most vulnerable. In Roseville,
these areas, depicted by orange in Figure 3, are
located north and east of Sierra Gardens Park,
and to the south and east of Del Webb Boulevard
in Sun City Roseville community.

The Heat Health Action Index measures heat
vulnerability, combining social, health, and
environmental factors. People with limited
vehicle access who rely on walking, biking,
or transit tend to be more vulnerable to high
temperatures, making shade availability crucial.

The Heat Health Action Index ranges from 0 to
100, with higher scores indicating higher heat
vulnerability. In Roseville, these areas, depicted
by orange on Figure 4 include:
• Neighborhoods between Pacific Union Rail
Yard and I-80 (Folsom Road, Cherry Glen,
Theiles Manor)
• Neighborhoods east of I-80 between Douglas
Boulevard and Cirby Way (Sierra Gardens
and portions of Meadow Oaks, Maidu, and
Johnson Ranch)
• Neighborhoods along the west Roseville
power line corridor between Foothills
Boulevard and Washington Boulevard
A detailed analysis of each reviewed
measurement can be found in Appendix A:

Existing Conditions Memo.
1 Senate Bill 535 establishes minimum funding requirements and definitions for disadvantaged communities.

Cyclists of different abilities biking around Roseville.

Roseville Today
18

19 Figure 2 City of Roseville CalEnviroScreen Score

Figure 3 City of Roseville Healthy Places Index 20

21 Figure 4 City of Roseville Heat Health Action Index

Transit
Active transportation is a key link to public transit,
and thus supports its congestion relief benefits.

Additionally, active transportation investments
can increase the resilience of our transportation
systems by providing safe, convenient travel
options alongside other modes. Roseville is
served by several transit providers and routes
that offer connections to local and regional
destinations including Sacramento and the
greater Bay Area. The local network includes
10 bus routes, 13 park-and-ride lots, and 28
electronic bike lockers at seven locations.
2 The
local bus lines, including neighborhood lines and
cross-city routes, connect riders to four major
transit hubs from the edges of the city: Galleria
Transfer Point, Civic Center Transfer Point, Sierra
Gardens Transfer Point, and Louis Orlando Transit
Center. The highest ridership transit stops are
depicted in Figure 5.
2 At the time of the development of this Plan, the
City completed a Comprehensive Operations Analysis of
existing transit service in tandem with this Plan as part of the Transportation 360 initiative. This Plan evaluated existing transit service and provided recommendations
to help enhance services throughout many of the city’s
main corridors serving local and regional destinations. 23 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Figure 5 Map of Transit Ridership at Bus Stops 24

Walking and Rolling
The sidewalk inventory completed during the
existing conditions phase of this Plan helped
identify gaps in the existing sidewalk network
that hinder local connectivity. Sidewalk data was
obtained from Ecopia.
3 The city's existing walking
and rolling facilities include nearly 400 miles of
complete sidewalks (both sides of the street) and

51.3 miles of existing multi-use trails
(see Figure 6), creating many opportunities
for residents to make local trips on foot. As an
expanding city, there are also nearly 300 miles
of roadways with incomplete walking networks,
where sidewalks are largely absent from one or
both sides of the street, though many of these
are under construction. There are opportunities
for the City to fill network gaps in key areas to
provide greater access to local and regional
destinations for people walking.

It is important to note that the western portions
of the city have been developing rapidly,
including the installation of many new sidewalks,
crossings, and multi-use trails. Figure 7 shows the
city’s sidewalk completeness and multi-use trail
network. The area north of the Amtrak station
and around downtown in particular features a
high number of older, narrow alleys and streets
without space for sidewalks. However, many of
these streets see lower traffic volumes and speeds
than nearby major arterials with sidewalks, and
therefore may still serve as preferred walking
routes. Additionally, the west side of Roseville is
developing rapidly; therefore, the data shown
in Figure 6 and Figure 7 may not adequately
reflect pedestrian infrastructure built after the
development of this Plan. 3 Ecopia AI. https://www.ecopiatech.com/.

A family safely crossing the street.

Figure 6 Pedestrian Facilities in Roseville
Multi-Use Trail
Incomplete/under construction Complete (both sides)
Existing Walking
and Rolling
Facilities

51.3 miles
293.8 miles 397.4 miles
742.5 miles
25 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Figure 7 Map of Pedestrian Facilities

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
26

Examples of marked crosswalks
Standard
Ladder
Continental
Triple Four
Most collector and arterial streets in the city are
wide and have long crossing distances. Similarly,
many intersections feature channelized traffic
islands that could be difficult for people walking
or using mobility devices to maneuver (see
photo below). Curb ramps generally exist at
major intersections across the city, but some
intersections along collector and local streets do
not have existing curb ramps. Similarly, standard
marked crosswalks exist at most intersections
between two major or minor arterials, as well as
at some intersections near schools, parks, and
other destinations. Several locations also feature
high-visibility marked crosswalks, pedestrian
refuge islands, and pedestrian crossing signage.

Figure 8 shows the locations and types of
marked crossings at intersections. The City’s new
standard when updating or installing crosswalks
is a “triple four” pattern, which has a center
channel that is less slippery for people walking
or using mobility devices and has bars spaced to
help reduce maintenance costs.

Curb ramps, standard crosswalks, and channelized traffic island on Pleasant Grove. 27 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Figure 8 Map of Marked Crosswalks 28

Biking
Roseville has 173.6 miles of existing
bikeways (Figure 9). These existing facilities
consist of 51.3 miles of Class I multi-use
trails, over 110.8 miles of Class II bike
lanes, and an additional 11.5 miles of Class
III bike routes. Many of the bike routes are
concentrated in older portions of the city.

Roseville does not have existing Class IV
separated bikeways. The bicycle facility types
are defined in the Bicycle Facility Toolbox.
0 50 100 150 200
Existing Facilities (Miles)
Class I
Multi-Use Trail
Class II
Bike Lane
Class III
Bike Route
Total

51.3 110.8
173.6

11.5 Figure 9 Existing Bike Facilities in Roseville
29 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Figure 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities 30

Safety
Our team completed a collision analysis to understand where the highest incidences of bicycle and pedestrian collisions were in Roseville. We used data for the five-year period between 2018 and 2022 from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). Figure 11 depicts locations for collisions involving people walking and biking. The results from our analysis revealed the following trends:
0%
5%
10%
15%
The most common collision type for people 20%
walking and biking (all severities, including
KSI) included pedestrian violations (e.g.,
people walking crossed against a red light)
(19%), pedestrian right-of-way (people
walking failed to yield to the vehicle
right-of-way) (18%), automobile right-of-way
(people driving failed to yield to the pedestrian
or bicyclist right-of-way) (14%), and bicycling
on the wrong side of the road (13%).

Collisions involving people walking
and biking represent 4% and 5%,
respectively, of all collisions that
occurred in Roseville between 2018
and 2022.

The number of collisions for people
walking and biking has increased
by 38% and 36%, respectively,
compared to a decrease of 18% for
motor vehicle collisions.
1%
3%
5%
5%
-5%
15%
-15%
25%
-25%
35%
5 15
25 Pedestrian
violations
Pedestrian
right-of-way
Automobile
right-of-way
Bicycling on
the wrong side
of the road
19% 18%
14% 13%
4%
5% +38%

23.8 +36% 28.0
-18%
0%
5%
10%
15%
ype for people 20%
rities, including
lations (e.g.,
nst a red light)
way (people
vehicle
bile right-of-way
to the pedestrian
%), and bicycling
ad (13%).
alking
d 5%,
that
n 2018
The number of collisions for people
walking and biking has increased
by 38% and 36%, respectively,
compared to a decrease of 18% for
motor vehicle collisions.
5%
-5%
15%
-15%
25%
-25%
35%
5 15
25 Pedestrian
violations
Pedestrian
right-of-way
Automobile
right-of-way
Bicycling on
the wrong side
of the road
19% 18%
14% 13%
+38%

23.8 +36% 28.0
-18%
Most collisions involving people
walking (46%) and biking (55%)
occurred at arterial roadways with
posted speed limits of 40 mph
or higher.
10 30
50 46%
55%
These were the most common collision types for people walking and biking (all severities, including KSI [killed or seriously injured]):
• Pedestrian violations: 19%
(e.g., people walking crossed against a red light)
• Pedestrian right-of-way: 18%
(people walking failed to yield to the vehicle right-of-way) • Automobile right-of-way: 14%
(people driving failed to yield to the pedestrian or bicyclist right-of-way) • Bicycling on the wrong side of the road: 13%
The number of collisions for people
walking and biking has increased
by 38% and 36%, respectively,
compared to a decrease of 18% for
motor vehicle collisions.

On average, 24 people walking
and 28 people biking killed or
seriously injured in city streets
per year.

Most collisions involving people
walking (46%) and biking (55%)
occurred at arterial roadways with
posted speed limits of 40 mph
or higher.
2018-2022, 1 in 5 of all KSI
collisions involve people
walking or biking
31 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Figure 11 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions (2018-2022)

COLLISIONS FOR

PEOPLE WALKING AND BIKING
32

Between 2018 and 2022, people walking and
biking in Roseville were more likely to be involved
in a collision at the collision hot spots shown in
Figure 12. Intersections along Woodcreek Oaks
Boulevard have the most collision hot spots for
both people walking and people biking. Several
top collision corridors are also identified as part of
a Highest-Injury Network—roads in Roseville with
historically higher densities of collisions involving
people walking or biking than other locations
in the city, weighted to emphasize KSI. These
roadway sections are where investments in safety
infrastructure could have the greatest benefit
for people in Roseville. Additional details on the
safety analysis completed for this Plan can be
found in Appendix A: Existing Conditions Memo.
33 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Figure 12 Map of Highest-Injury Locations 34

Chapter 3
Public Engagement

Public Engagement
Public engagement is an important part
of the planning process to understand
the needs, challenges, and priorities of
community members and stakeholders
in Roseville.

Robust public engagement between 2023 and
2024 drove high participation and valuable
feedback from a cross section of the community
as part of the City’s Transportation 360 initiative.

A comprehensive and transparent effort to
inform, involve, consult, and collaborate with
the public resulted in thousands of comments.

This meaningful level of input has helped
shape the plans for future active transportation
improvements.

Public Open House hosted on October 8, 2024 at the Roseville Civic Center.

Public Engagement
36

Key Community Participation Included
Current and prospective transit riders
Local schools, including higher education
Local elected officials
Under-represented groups (including people
with disabilities, zero-vehicle and low-income
households, etc.)
Community advocacy organizations
Key neighborhoods identified through the
California Healthy Places Index
Businesses, including large employers
Healthcare
Other public sector and nonprofit partners (e.g.,
Placer County Transportation Authority (PCTPA),
Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG), Health
Education Council, Placer County Public Health, etc.)
37 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Outreach by the Numbers
interactive map surveys:
856 comments
2,242
interactive map surveys:
856 comments
2,242
Please see Appendix C: Summaries of Public
Engagement for the full public engagement report.

Open House. Roseville Civic Center. October 8, 2024.

Public engagement pop-up during Phase I of
public engagement.

Public Engagement
38

Chapter 4
Recommendations

Recommendations
This chapter presents the infrastructure recommendations for people walking, biking, and rolling, as well as
supporting non-infrastructure recommendations.

The recommendations included align with the Plan’s vision of creating an active transportation network that is robust, accessible, and connected to the entire community, regardless of age and ability. These recommended improvements were informed by residents’ feedback and best practices for the development of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

Recommendations are considered planning level, meaning they should be used as a guide when implementing projects and are subject to change. In some cases, traffic impact analysis and more detailed design analysis will be required to evaluate specific site conditions and develop designs that reflect conditions and constraints.

Recommendations
40

Walking and Rolling Network Recommendations
The recommendations for people walking and rolling include new and upgraded multi-use trails, sidewalks, and crossing improvements. Together these recommendations (Figure 13 though Figure 17) aim to create a safer, more comfortable, and better-connected network for those who walk or use mobility devices in Roseville.

Sidewalk and Multi-Use Trail
Recommendations
Sidewalks form the foundation of the pedestrian
linear network, connecting residents to destinations
such as schools, transit, parks, and shopping.

This Plan recommends a total of 64 miles of new
sidewalks. Many of the sidewalk recommendations
are located near the Historic Old Town area, the
Hillcrest neighborhood, and the Los Cerritos
neighborhood.

As multi-use trails are used by people walking,
rolling, and biking, they have been included as part
of the bicycle network recommendations. Roseville
ATP recommends over 49.8 miles of new multi-use
trails. Many of the recommended multi-use trails
were identified in previous planning efforts, such as
the Sierra Vista Trail on the west side of the city, and the Mahany Park Trail connecting Fiddyment Road to
Mahany Park.
32 miles Sidewalk 32 miles
Recommendation
Total:

One Side
of the Street
Both Sides
of the Street
64 Miles
41 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Crossing Improvements
This Plan recommends a total of 403 pedestrian
crossing improvements. The crossing
improvements aim to enhance safety and comfort
for people walking or rolling as they cross the
street at intersections, multi-use trail crossings,
or midblock. We identified these improvements
based on the following factors:
• Location along a major roadway (arterial or
collector)
• Location at a shared-use path crossing
• Location of an unmarked crosswalk
• Proximity to schools, the Amtrak station
and major bus stops, and major job and
commercial destinations
• Highway on- and off-ramps (SR 65 and
Highway 80)
• Location of KSI collisions involving people
walking, biking, and rolling that resulted in a
severe injury or fatality
• Identified through community input
• Identified in a previous or current plan or
design process
Appendix D: Development of Recommendations
Memo provides a detailed account methodology
for developing recommendations.

The Pedestrian Facility Toolbox in the
following pages show the citywide pedestrian
recommendations in Roseville and zoomed in
recommendations maps.

Certain recommendations, such as curb ramps
and daylighting, should be made throughout the
city. Specific infrastructure recommendations
for each of the identified pedestrian crossing
improvements will require additional design
and engineering judgment based on the
context of the location. The Pedestrian Facility
Toolbox provides a list of potential infrastructure
recommendations for each pedestrian crossing
improvement based upon best practices and
design guidance.

High-visibility crossing in Roseville.

Recommendations
42

Pedestrian Facility Toolbox
Sidewalks
Provide an area for people walking to
travel separated from motor vehicle
traffic. Typically constructed out of
concrete and separated from the
roadway by a curb or gutter and
sometimes a landscaped buffer.

Curb Ramps
Curb ramps provide access between
the sidewalk and roadway for people
using wheelchairs, strollers, walkers,
hand carts, bicycles, and for people
who have trouble stepping up and
down high curbs.

High-Visibility Crosswalks
High-visibility crosswalks draw
additional attention and awareness
to the crossing through a variety
of designs. The City’s new standard
for high-visibility crosswalks is a
“triple four” pattern, which has a
center channel that is less slippery
for people walking or using mobility
devices and has bars spaced to help
reduce maintenance costs. In school
zones, these crossings are yellow
instead of the standard white color.

Raised Crosswalks
Raised crosswalks are physical traffic-calming elements that allow pedestrians to cross at grade with the sidewalk.

Raised crosswalks are typically placed midblock on local roads to improve the visibility of crossing pedestrians and to slow drivers. Implementation of raised crosswalks is subject to Roseville Fire Department approval and to a drainage study.

Sidewalk on Riverside Avenue in Roseville.

Curb Ramp in Roseville.

High-Visibility Crosswalk in San Diego, CA.

Triple-four Crosswalk in Roseville.
43 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Curb Extensions
Curb extensions minimize exposure
for people crossing the street by
shortening crossing distance and
giving them a better chance to see
and be seen before committing
to crossing. The City may also use
non-hardscape curb extensions, for
example, painted extensions for this
purpose.

Median Refuge Island
Median refuge islands improve
access for people walking by
increasing visibility and allowing
pedestrians to cross one direction of
traffic at a time.

Curb Extension in Moraga, CA.

Median Refuge Island in Roseville.

Pedestrian Facility Toolbox (continued)
Rectangular
Rapid-Flashing Beacon
Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
are a type of active warning beacon used at
unsignalized crossings. They are designed to
increase motor vehicle yielding compliance
on multi-lane or high-volume roadways.

Leading Pedestrian Interval
A leading pedestrian interval is
a traffic signal phase that gives
people crossing an intersection the
opportunity to enter the crosswalk
a few seconds before vehicles are
given a green light. This allows
people to establish their presence
in the crosswalk before drivers have
priority to turn right.

Daylighting
Daylighting a crosswalk involves
the removal of street parking at the
approach to a crosswalk, including
painting the curb red. Daylighting
eliminates blind spots caused by
the parked vehicles and increases
visibility of people crossing at an
intersection.
4 Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon in
Danville, CA.

Leading Pedestrian Interval in San José, CA.

Intersection Daylighting in Richmond, CA.
4 Daylighting does not remove legal
parking spaces but reinforces existing
regulations under State Assembly Bill
(AB) 413, which prohibits parking within
20 feet of either side of any marked or
unmarked crosswalk, or within 15 feet of
any crosswalk where a curb extension is
present. Parking is also prohibited in areas
where stopped vehicles impair visibility or
endanger public safety.

Recommendations
44

45 Figure 5 Figure 13 Figure title Pedestrian Recommendations (Citywide)

Figure 14 Pedestrian Recommendations (West)

RECOMMENDED

IMPROVEMENTS FOR PEOPLE

WALKING WEST ROSEVILLE
46

Figure 5 Figure 15 Figure title Pedestrian Recommendations (Central West)

RECOMMENDED

IMPROVEMENTS FOR

PEOPLE WALKING

CENTRAL WEST

ROSEVILLE
47

Figure 16 Pedestrian Recommendations (Central) Figure 6 Figure Title

RECOMMENDED

IMPROVEMENTS FOR

PEOPLE WALKING

CENTRAL ROSEVILLE
48

Figure 5 Figure 17 Figure title Pedestrian Recommendations (East)

RECOMMENDED

IMPROVEMENTS FOR

PEOPLE WALKING

EAST ROSEVILLE
49

Bicycle Network Recommendations
The recommendations for people biking include
new and upgraded multi-use trails, bike lanes
and routes, and bike crossing improvements.

Together, these recommendations (Figure 19
though Figure 23) aim to create a safer, more
comfortable, and better-connected network for
those who bike in Roseville.

Please refer to Appendix E: Bicycle Facility Design
Standards for detailed information about the
design of various types of bicycle facilities.

Please note that in some instances, Specific
Plans dictate bikeway dimensions. For a list of
Specific Plans, see: https://www.roseville.ca.us/
government/departments/development_
services/planning/specific_plans_planning_areas
Based on community input and existing conditions analyses, the recommended bicycle network focuses on providing a connected network of low-stress facilities that offer convenient access both within neighborhoods and across the city such as to parks, schools, downtown, the Amtrak station and bus stops, and shopping centers. Low-stress bicycle facilities are aimed at being comfortable for a wide range of potential bicycle riders and include multi-use trails, separated bike lanes, and bicycle boulevards. The recommended low-stress bicycle network emphasizes the following:

Improving the safety and comfort of local, neighborhoods routes for biking (e.g., bicycle boulevard recommendations for the Historic Old Town area and low-density residential communities, such as the Sierra Gardens neighborhood) Building upon and improving access to the extensive multi-use trail network in Roseville (e.g., Pleasant Grove Creek Trail, Mahany Park Trail) Providing additional separation, where feasible, between motor vehicles and people biking along major roadways (e.g., separated bike lane recommendations along Fiddyment Road, Foothills Boulevard, Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard, and Baseline Road).

The following pages show the citywide bicycle recommendations. 0 50
100
150
200
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Existing
(as of Sep 2024)
Existing
(to be preserved as is)
Planned Proposed Combined
MilesMiles
173.6
106.9

15.2 173.8
Figure 18 Recommended Bike Improvements in Roseville
of Bicycle Network
Improvements
296 miles
Recommendations
50

Buffered bike lane along Sierra Boulevard in Roseville.

Class I
Shared-Use Paths
Shared-use paths (Class I), or multi-use trails as
the City of Roseville generally refers to these
facilities, provide a completely separated right-ofway designated for the exclusive use of bicycles, including Class 1 and 2 e-bikes, and pedestrians
with crossflows by motorists minimized. Class
I paths often follow natural amenities such as
creeks, drainage, or utility line easements, and are
used by both commuter and recreational riders.

The city has also an additional classification for
Class IA paths which have been developed as
parallel widened sidewalk routes along major
roadways and are separated from the roadway by
a landscape strip.

Class II
Bike Lane
Class II bike lanes provide a restricted rightof-way designated for the exclusive or semiexclusive use of bicycles, prohibiting through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians but
permitting crossflows by pedestrians and
motorists. These are generally developed within
the right-of-way of collector streets and arterials.

Class IIB
Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIB buffered bike lanes are striped lanes for
people biking with a striped “buffer” area of paint
either between the bike lane and the travel lane,
between the bike lane and parked cars, or both.

A multi-use trail in Roseville. Bike lane along Stone Point Drive.

Bicycle Facility Toolbox
51 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Bike route in Long Beach, CA.

Bicycle Facility Toolbox (continued)
Class III
Bike Route5
Class III bike routes provide a right-of-way
designated by signs or permanent markings
and are shared with motorists. Class III routes
are generally located on local streets within
residential neighborhoods.

Class IIIB
Bicycle Boulevard
Class IIIB bicycle boulevards include signed
routes for people biking on local neighborhood
roadways, where lanes are shared with motorists.

What separates bicycle boulevards from a Class
III bike route is the inclusion of traffic-calming
features or other treatments to prioritize comfort
for people biking and deliberately slow vehicles
down or reduce vehicle volumes.

Class IV
Separated Bike Lane
provide a physical vertical barrier between the
bicycle space and motor vehicle lanes. The barrier
could include bollards, flex posts, curbs, planted
medians, or parked cars.

Please refer to Appendix E: Bicycle Facility Design
Standards for detailed information about the
design of various types of bicycle facilities.

Bicycle boulevard in Palo Alto, CA. Separated bike lane in Sacramento, CA. 5 Senate Bill 1216, signed into law in 2024, governs the maximum allowable speed limit when installing sharrows as part of a Class III facility. As of January 1, 2025, cities and agencies are prohibited from installing sharrows on any roadway with a speed limit above 30 mph. Exceptions are allowed when sharrows are used at, or near, an intersection for the purpose of connecting Class I, Class II, or Class IV bikeways through an intersection. Furthermore, the bill stipulates that any project funded through the California Active Transportation Program may not install a Class III facility or sharrows on a roadway with a speed limit above 25 mph. This requirement goes into effect as of January 1, 2026. Roadways with speeds over 25 mph are still eligible for Class III facilities or sharrows if they can demonstrate the project will reduce the speed limit to 25 or lower or if they can demonstrate the Class III marking is appropriate for the local community context and advances a lower-stress environment or low-stress network.

Recommendations
52

Bicycle Crossing Recommendations
This Plan includes a total of 53 recommended
bicycle crossing improvements, including
protected intersections, bicycle and trail
crossings, and locations for potential gradeseparated bike crossing studies. Most bicycle crossing improvements will be considered on a
case-by-case basis and in conjunction with the
pedestrian crossing improvements identified
in this Plan. Many of the pedestrian crossing
improvements also overlap with and benefit
people biking. Potential improvements will vary
depending on the context such as whether the
intersection is unsignalized, signalized, and/
or requires crossing a major or minor roadway.

Bicycle crossing improvements generally aim to
reduce motor vehicle turning speeds, increase
the visibility of people biking, and give priority to
people biking.

Some example bicycle crossing improvements
include a dedicated bike signal or intersection
bike conflict markings. Additionally, protected
intersections are one of the most advanced
bicycle crossing improvements because they
tend to combine a large variety of strategies to
keep people biking physically protected from
motor vehicles right up until the intersection
(right). Protected intersections can be applied
at a variety of intersection types but can be
particularly useful at intersections with major
roadways.

This Plan also identifies study locations for
potential grade-separated crossings to better
connect neighborhoods divided by railroads,
creeks, and highways (top right). These crossings
would also enable seamless trail connections,
allowing people biking to continue uninterrupted
without stopping for traffic signals or taking
detours. However, grade-separated crossings
can be costly and require further studies to
assess engineering feasibility and right-of-way
considerations.

Protected Intersection in Fremont, CA.

Grade-separated crossing in Roseville.
53 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Figure 19 Bicycle Recommendations (Citywide) Figure 6 Figure Title 54

Figure 5 Figure 20 Figure title Bicycle Recommendations (West)

RECOMMENDED

IMPROVEMENTS FOR PEOPLE

BIKING WEST ROSEVILLE
55

Figure 21 Bicycle Recommendations (Central West) Figure 6 Figure Title

RECOMMENDED

IMPROVEMENTS

FOR PEOPLE BIKING

CENTRAL WEST

ROSEVILLE
56

Figure 5 Figure 22 Figure title Bicycle Recommendations (Central)

RECOMMENDED

IMPROVEMENTS

FOR PEOPLE BIKING

CENTRAL ROSEVILLE
57

Figure 23 Bicycle Recommendations (East) Figure 6 Figure Title

RECOMMENDED

IMPROVEMENTS

FOR PEOPLE BIKING

CENTRAL EAST

ROSEVILLE
58

Non-Infrastructure
Recommendations
Making Roseville more walkable and bikeable
requires not only new infrastructure investments
but also ongoing programs that educate,
support, and encourage people to use active
transportation. Developing new initiatives
and expanding existing programs is crucial for
Roseville to effectively invest in the communities
that will benefit from this Plan. This section
outlines complementary programs and policies
to help make biking and walking more accessible
to residents and visitors in Roseville. A detailed
documentation of existing programs and policies
as well as proposed new or expanded programs
can be found in Appendix F: Non-Infrastructure
Recommendations Memo.

Roseville youth getting their helmet fitted during BIKEFEST event. 59 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Education
Bicycle and pedestrian education programs help
those interested in active transportation feel
more comfortable, safe, and confident navigating
streets and multi-use trails. Table 1 outlines
recommended education programs and program
expansions for Roseville.

SUPPORT

PROGRAM/FACILITY

DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Safety
Education
Continue supporting existing community education
programs, such as BikeFest, and collaborate with
schools and neighborhoods to offer more consistent
bike and walk safety education.

Mini Main Street
Education Events
(SRTS)
Host mini main street safety education events and
install permanent traffic gardens at select schools.

Mini main streets and traffic gardens provide safe
environments for children to practice roadway
safety.

Bicycle Repair and
Bicycle Kitchen
Create a network of local bicycle repair shops that
offer low-cost or free maintenance opportunities
and lessons for residents to learn and conduct
bicycle repairs. Seek partnerships and opportunities
to start a bicycle kitchen in Roseville.

Table 1 Recommended Education Programs
Education and
Encouragement
Access, Connectivity, and
Multimodal Consistency
Health, Well-Being, and
Sustainability Safety and Comfort Funding, Implementation, and Maintenance
Recommendations
60

Enforcement
Enforcement programs help to institutionalize
safe biking and walking transportation systems.

By prioritizing relationships between law
enforcement and people who walk, bike, and roll,
these programs help create safe environments for
all users. Table 2 lists the proposed enforcement
programs for the city.

SUPPORT

PROGRAM/FACILITY

DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
Bike Patrol
Program
Partner with the Roseville Police Department to
develop a program that provides routine bicycle
patrolling. The program would allow for increased
community contact and promotion of bicycle safety.

Table 2 Recommended Enforcement Programs
Education and
Encouragement
Access, Connectivity, and
Multimodal Consistency
Health, Well-Being, and
Sustainability Safety and Comfort Funding, Implementation, and Maintenance
61 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Encouragement
Encouragement programs help to create a lasting
active transportation culture and can encourage
overall mode share shifts. Table 3 provides
an overview of recommended bicycle and
pedestrian encouragement programs.

SUPPORT

PROGRAM/FACILITY

DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
Bicycle/PedestrianFriendly
Community
Continue efforts to pursue a Bicycle Friendly
Community award from the League of American
Bicyclists’ Friendly America program and a Walk
Friendly Community designation from Walk Friendly
Communities.

First awarded in 2008, Roseville currently has
a bronze award level in the Bicycle Friendly
Communities program from the League of American
Bicyclists. The city will strive to earn a Silver
designation by 2030.

Open Streets Start a regular Open Streets program to encourage biking, walking, and rolling and strengthen local bike
culture.

Transportation
Systems
Management Plan
Periodically update the Transportation Systems
Management Plan to identify additional
opportunities to increase support for commuters
bicycling or walking to work.

Updates to the plan may include identifying
additional metrics for businesses to count active
transportation-supportive policies towards their TSM
plans and goals.

Social Walks/Rides Continue supporting the Parks & Recreation Department and local organizations in hosting social
rides or walks.

E-Bike Rebates and
Incentives
Continue to seek and provide funding for e-bike
purchases.

Table 3 Recommended Encouragement Programs
Education and
Encouragement
Access, Connectivity, and
Multimodal Consistency
Health, Well-Being, and
Sustainability Safety and Comfort Funding, Implementation, and Maintenance
Recommendations
62

Roseville residents at BIKEFEST event.

SUPPORT

PROGRAM/FACILITY

DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
Safe Routes to
School
The City will continue the existing Safe Routes to
School Program and expand the program into other
Roseville schools.

Walking and
Biking Clubs
Expand the reach of Weekly Walking and Biking
Clubs to include more schools throughout Roseville.

Every Day Is Bike
Day
Build on existing programs that encourage youth
to walk or bike to school at least one day a week
(e.g., “Weekly Walking and Biking Clubs” or “MOVE it!
Walk/Bike Clubs”). A long-term goal is moving the
program to “Every Day is Bike Day.”
Education and
Encouragement
Access, Connectivity, and
Multimodal Consistency
Health, Well-Being, and
Sustainability Safety and Comfort Funding, Implementation, and Maintenance
Table 3 Recommended Encouragement Programs (continued)
63 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Evaluation
Programs to help evaluate and track progress
toward reaching the Plan’s goals are important
for measuring long-term success of project
implementation. Table 4 lists proposed programs
supporting evaluation efforts.

SUPPORT

PROGRAM/FACILITY

DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
Annual Bicycle
and Pedestrian
Program Activities
Reports
Catalog bicycle and pedestrian education and
encouragement program activities from the previous
fiscal year, and share best practices and lessons
learned to improve future activities.

Annual Bicycle
and Pedestrian
Collision Reports
Conduct annual reviews of bicycle and pedestrian
collisions to assess traffic safety issues and track
progress toward a safer community for bicyclists and
pedestrians.

Bicycle and
Pedestrian Count
Program
Obtain counting equipment through the SACOG
free loan program to measure bikeway activity and
analyze the impact of infrastructure improvements.

Consider incorporating signal equipment that
enables active transportation counting into signal
maintenance activities for a more permanent
installation.

End of Year
Workplan
Reporting
Catalog all finished projects from the previous
fiscal year and calculate number of miles of new
and/or upgraded bicycle and pedestrian facilities
installed. This will help keep city staff and the public informed on progress towards implementing the
City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan, as well as identify potential new projects.

Table 4 Recommended Evaluation Programs
Education and
Encouragement
Access, Connectivity, and
Multimodal Consistency
Health, Well-Being, and
Sustainability Safety and Comfort Funding, Implementation, and Maintenance
Recommendations
64

Chapter 5
Implementation
and Funding

Implementation
and Funding
Project Prioritization
The process of prioritizing the implementation of the improvements included in the Plan considered what is realistic given historical and anticipated funding, while also providing Roseville with flexibility to respond to changing conditions and opportunities that may arise. The prioritization of proposed projects helps formulate a strategic list to guide project implementation. Prioritization results are flexible concepts that serve as guidelines.

Over time as development occurs or changes to existing land uses and the city’s transportation network take place, this framework can be used to re-evaluate remaining projects and continue pursuing implementation of the recommended improvements. This Plan recommends that the City re-evaluate the proposed projects and rankings every five years.

FINAL INDEX
Roadway
Highway
Project
Network Score
=

SAFETY AND COMFORT

HEALTH, WELL-BEING, AND SUSTAINABILITY

FUNDING, IMPLEMENTATION, AND MAINTENANCE

ACCESS, CONNECTIVITY, AND CONSISTENCY
Implementation and Funding
66

Methodology
Focusing investments into areas with
the greatest needs helps to leverage the
greatest public benefits from scarce grant
dollars for improving transportation access,
connectivity, and project sustainability. This
Plan used a weighted prioritization process for
pedestrian and bicycle improvements based
on the project goals. This Plan used a set of
criteria (see Table 5 and Table 6) to identify
metrics that facilitated the ranking of each
project. For detailed prioritization scoring
and methodology, please see Appendix G:

Prioritization Methodology.

The overall prioritization reflects an order
of which projects may provide the greatest
community benefit by improving safety
and connectivity. The projects were sorted
into high-priority, medium-priority, and
opportunity projects. Ideally, the City would
like to implement high-priority projects
first, followed by medium-priority projects.

Opportunity projects may be completed when
funding and other opportunities like repaving
or development projects occur. The rankings
are not intended to reflect an order in which to
complete projects but rather a guide for staff
to select projects based on a variety of factors
that present opportunities to move projects
forward. Figure 24 through Figure 33 show
maps of all prioritized projects. Table 7 through
Table 9 show the high priority projects.

GOAL CRITERIA METRIC (SOURCE)
Safety and Comfort
Collision History
Bicyclist killed or seriously injured (KSI) along segment Segment is considered a higher-collision segment
(top 10 collision corridors with at least six collisions involving pedestrians and bicyclists)
At least one intersection along segment is considered
a higher-collision intersection (top 10 collision
intersections with at least one pedestrian-involved
collision and two or more bicyclist-involved collisions) Access, Connectivity,
and Multimodal
Consistency
Transit Proximity of transit stops near the segment
Demand
Proposed improvement provides direct connection
to local destinations (i.e., schools, parks, college/
university, Amtrak, community centers)
Existing City and
Regional Networks
Segment connects to an existing or already planned/
approved low-stress bike facility (Class IV, Class I)
Health, Well-Being,
and Sustainability
Health and Equity
Analyses
Segment borders or travels within region with high
(40th percentile) CalEnviroScreen score
Segment borders or travels within region with high
health needs
Funding,
Implementation,
and Maintenance
Cost Planning level cost estimates
Public Support Improvement receiving high level of public support through interactive map
Table 5 Bicycle Facility Improvements Prioritization Metrics 67 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

GOAL CRITERIA METRIC (SOURCE)
Safety and Comfort
Collision History
Pedestrians killed or seriously injured (KSI) along
roadway
Roadway is considered a higher-collision segment
(top 10 collision corridors with at least six collisions involving pedestrians and bicyclists)
At least one intersection along segment is considered
a higher-collision intersection (top 10 collision
intersections with at least one pedestrian-involved
collision and two or more bicyclist-involved collisions) Access, Connectivity,
and Multimodal
Consistency
Transit Proximity of transit stops near the segment
Demand
Proposed improvement provides direct connection
to local destinations (i.e., schools, parks, college/
university, Amtrak, community centers)
Existing City and
Regional Networks Fills facility gap within a segment
Health, Well-Being,
and Sustainability
Health and Equity
Analyses
Segment borders or travels within region with high
(40th percentile) CalEnviroScreen score
Segment borders or travels within region with high
health needs
Funding,
Implementation,
and Maintenance
Cost Planning level cost estimates
Public Support Improvement receiving high level of public support through interactive map
Table 6 Pedestrian Facility Improvements Prioritization Metrics Implementation and Funding
68

69 Figure 24 Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (Citywide)

Figure 25 Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (West)

IMPROVEMENTS FOR PEOPLE

BIKING HIGH-PRIORITY PROJECTS

WEST ROSEVILLE
70

Figure 26 Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (Central West)

IMPROVEMENTS

FOR PEOPLE BIKING

HIGH-PRIORITY

PROJECTS CENTRAL

WEST ROSEVILLE
71

Figure 27 Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (Central)

IMPROVEMENTS

FOR PEOPLE BIKING

HIGH-PRIORITY

PROJECTS CENTRAL

ROSEVILLE
72

Figure 28 Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (East)

IMPROVEMENTS

FOR PEOPLE BIKING

HIGH-PRIORITY

PROJECTS EAST

ROSEVILLE
73

Figure 29 Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (Citywide) 74

Figure 30 Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (West)

IMPROVEMENTS FOR PEOPLE

WALKING HIGH-PRIORITY PROJECTS

WEST ROSEVILLE
75

Figure 31 Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (Central West)

IMPROVEMENTS FOR

PEOPLE WALKING

HIGH-PRIORITY

PROJECTS CENTRAL

WEST ROSEVILLE
76

IMPROVEMENTS FOR PEOPLE

WALKING HIGH-PRIORITY PROJECTS

CENTRAL ROSEVILLE
77 Figure 32 Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (Central)

IMPROVEMENTS FOR

PEOPLE WALKING

HIGH-PRIORITY

PROJECTS CENTRAL

EAST ROSEVILLE
Figure 33 Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements Prioritization (East) 78

Prioritized Projects

STREET FROM TO RECOMMENDED

BICYCLE FACILITY

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
Rocky Ridge Dr Cirby Way Douglas Blvd Class IIB - Buffered Bike Lane High-Priority Roseville Pkwy/E Roseville Pkwy Washington Blvd City east boundary Class IV - Separated Bike Lane High-Priority Pleasant Grove Blvd Fiddyment Rd Woodcreek Oaks Blvd Class IV - Separated Bike Lane High-Priority Main St Atkinson St Foothills Blvd Class IIIB - Bicycle Boulevard High-Priority Woodcreek Oaks Blvd Baseline Rd City north boundary Class IIIB - Bicycle Boulevard High-Priority Douglas Blvd Judah St Harding Blvd Class IV - Separated Bike Lane High-Priority Vernon St Almond St Pratt St Class IV - Separated Bike Lane High-Priority Main St Lincoln St Atkinson St Class IV - Separated Bike Lane High-Priority Coloma Way Oak Ridge Dr Linda Creek Trail Class IIB - Buffered Bike Lane High-Priority Foothills Blvd Pleasant Grove Creek Trail Cirby Way Class IV - Separated Bike Lane High-Priority Washington Blvd All America City Blvd Oak St Class IV - Separated Bike Lane High-Priority Mahany Park connection Mahany Park connection Bear Dog Park / Mahany Park Class I - Multi-Use Trail High-Priority Mahany Park connection Mahany Park Trail Pleasant Grove Blvd Class I - Multi-Use Trail High-Priority Mahany Park Trail Mahany Park Fiddyment Rd Class I - Multi-Use Trail High-Priority Dry Creek West Trail Riverside Ave Creekview Ranch School Class I - Multi-Use Trail High-Priority Dry Creek Greenway East Trail Rocky Ridge Dr Sierra College Blvd Class I - Multi-Use Trail High-Priority Table 7 High Priority Linear Bicycle Improvements
79 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

STREET FROM TO RECOMMENDED

SIDEWALK SIDE

PRIORITIZATION

CATEGORY
Reserve Dr Roseville Pw Galleria Ci Both sides High-Priority Roseville Pw West Dr Reserve Dr One side High-Priority
Taylor St Royer St Gopher Gulch Al One side High-Priority Douglas Bl Irene Av Irene Av Willow Ave Al One side High-Priority Center Ct East At End Of Center Ct Both sides High-Priority Jefferson St Vernon St Republican Al One side High-Priority Church St Pacific St Washington Bl One side High-Priority Pacific St Church St N Grant St One side High-Priority
Doyle St Adelante High School Driveway
(175 Ft South Of Atlantic St)
End Of Doyle St One side High-Priority
Short St Atlantic St End Of Short St Both sides High-Priority Brittain St Branstetter St Almond St Both sides High-Priority High St Washington Bl N Grant St Both sides High-Priority Pacific St N Grant St Lincoln St One side High-Priority Park Dr Sutter Av Claiborne Av One side High-Priority
Atlantic St Jefferson St Lincoln St One side High-Priority Atlantic St Washington Bl S Grant St One side High-Priority Atlantic St S Grant St Tylor St One side High-Priority
Atlantic St Lincoln St Washington Bl One side High-Priority Galleria Bl Fountains At Roseville Driveway
(745 Ft South Of E Roseville Pkwy)
901 Galleria Bl One side High-Priority
Old Washington Bl Atlantic St Vernon St One side High-Priority Washington Bl Pleasant Grove Bl Adora Trail One side High-Priority Table 8 High Priority Sidewalk Improvements
Implementation and Funding
80

CROSS STREET 1 CROSS STREET 2 RECOMMENDATION PRIORITIZATION CATEGORY

BICYCLE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Washington Blvd Pleasant Grove Blvd Protected Intersection High-Priority Riverside Ave Orlando Ave Protected Intersection High-Priority UPRR rail road Atlantic St / Vernon St area Bike Bridge High-Priority

PEDESTRIAN INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Pacific St Church St Crosswalks; Curb Extensions High-Priority Vernon St Jefferson St Planned High-Priority
Main St Grant St Crosswalks; Curb Ramps; Curb Extensions High-Priority Vernon St S Grant St Crosswalks; Curb Extensions; Raised Crossings High-Priority Douglas Blvd Irene Ave / Royer St / Bulen St RRFBs High-Priority Taylor St Royer St Crosswalks; Curb Extensions; Daylighting High-Priority Cirby Wy Cirby Hills Dr Crosswalks; Signal Timing Change High-Priority Washington Blvd Main St Curb Extensions; Signal Timing Change High-Priority Douglas Blvd Park Dr Crosswalks; Curb Extensions; Signal Timing Change; Median Refuge Islands; Slip Lane Reconfiguration
High-Priority
Judah St Barjo Aly Crosswalks; Curb Extensions; Signal Timing Change; Slip Lane Reconfiguration
High-Priority
Harding Blvd Roseville Sq Crosswalks; Signal Timing Change High-Priority Table 9 High Priority Intersection Improvements
81 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

CROSS STREET 1 CROSS STREET 2 RECOMMENDATION PRIORITIZATION CATEGORY Auburn Blvd Whyte Ave Crosswalks; Planned High-Priority Riverside Ave Darling Wy Signal Timing Change High-Priority Diamond Oaks Rd Shasta St Crosswalks; Curb Ramps; Curb Extensions High-Priority Rocky Ridge Dr McLaren Dr Crosswalks; Signal Timing Change High-Priority Rocky Ridge Dr Meadowlark Wy/Maidu Dr Crosswalks; Signal Timing Change High-Priority Main St Atkinson St Crosswalks; Curb Extensions High-Priority Altantic St Branstetter St Crosswalks High-Priority
Folsom Rd Linda Dr / Miners Ravine Trl Crosswalks; Curb Ramps; RRFBs High-Priority Pleasant Grove Blvd Washington Blvd Crosswalks; Curb Extensions; Signal Timing Change; Median Refuge Islands; Slip Lane Reconfiguration
High-Priority
Table 9 High Priority Intersection Improvements (continued) Implementation and Funding
82

Cost Estimates
The Roseville Active Transportation Plan recommends over $616,349,494 in projects for people walking, biking, and rolling throughout the city. This includes construction of NEW or UPGRADED facilities. Table 10 and Table 11 provide generalized planning level cost estimates for each bicycle and pedestrian facility type as well as assumptions to develop said costs.

Table 10 Generalized Costs for Bicycle Facilities6

CLASSIFICATION GENERALIZED
COST

ASSUMPTIONS
Multi-Use Trail (Class I) $$$$ Cost includes hot mix asphalt path surface, minor at-grade crossing improvements, and signal modification. Cost does not include right- of-way acquisition. Assumes 10 ft paved width (3 in hot mix asphalt over 6 in aggregate base) with 2 ft wide 4 in aggregate base shoulders.

Bike Lane (Class II) $$ Cost assumes signage and striping. Cost range depends on green conflict marking and traffic signal modification, including bike signal detection. Does not include pavement remediation (microsurfacing) or cross slope correction.

Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)
$$ Cost assumes signage, striping, and a painted buffer with bollards/delineators. Cost range depends on green conflict marking, traffic signal modification (including bike signal detection), and wayfinding signage. Does not include pavement remediation (microsurfacing) or cross slope correction.

Bike Route (Class III) $ Cost includes signage and striping. Does not include pavement remediation or striping removal.

Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)
$$$ Cost assumes signage, striping, and minor traffic calming (up to three elements such as medians or a raised crosswalk). Cost range depends on low-cost items plus curb extensions, traffic signal modification (including bike signal detection), and wayfinding signage.

Separated Bikeway
(Class IV)
$$$$ Cost assumes signage, striping, and a painted buffer with flexible delineators. Cost range depends on green conflict marking, traffic signal modification (including bike signal detection), and a raised concrete buffer. 6 Costs are based on values obtained from bid documents of local agencies and recent projects (i.e., Placer, Sacramento, and San Joaquin counties, and the Cities of Roseville, Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, Galt) projects from 2019 to present, or historical planning level costs generated for local agency planning efforts from 2018 to present. Values derived from bid documents were multiplied by a planning level contingency factor (25%) to account for additional project needs not explicitly stated in the descriptions. Costs include the cost of materials, labor, and administration of the identified facilities and items, and do not include environmental approvals, permitting, design fees, public outreach efforts, construction management, or inter-agency coordination. The range shown attempts to cover the large number of variabilities when providing planning level estimates including the extent of the projects, secondary impacts associated with projects, variety of size and scale of specific improvements, impacts to utilities/traffic/access, fluctuating materials, and labor prices. 83 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Table 11 Generalized Costs for Pedestrian Improvements7

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT GENERALIZED COST ASSUMPTIONS

LINEAR RECOMMENDATIONS
Multi-Use Trail (Class I) per mile $$$$ Cost includes hot mix asphalt path surface, minor at-grade crossing improvements, and signal modification. Cost does not include right- of-way acquisition. Assumes 10’ paved width (3” HMA over 6" AB) with 2ft wide 4" AB shoulders.

Sidewalk per Linear Foot $ Assumes 5ft to 10 ft wide sidewalk gap closure with no roadway widening, drainage modifications, or right-of-way acquisition. Roadway cross slopes are assumed to accommodate standard 2' sawcut and AC conform. Assumed will need to add curb and gutter.

CROSSING AND ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS8
High-Visibility Crosswalk $ Ranges from triple four crosswalk striping to additional signage lighting and pavement markings.

Pedestrian Refuge Island $$ Assumed small in nature to provide pedestrian refuge. No landscaping.

Curb Ramps $ Cost per curb ramp. Assumes no drainage changes, no right-of-way acquisition, and that existing roadway cross slopes are ADA compliant.

Curb Extensions $$ Would typically involve new curb ramps and drainage modifications.

Raised Crosswalk $ Not applicable
Enhanced Lighting $$ Assumed at key locations. Would involve new street lighting (two light standards) and electric service.

Slip Lane Removal $$ Varies by size.

Red Curb per Linear Foot $ Not applicable
Protected Intersection $$$ Assume all four corners of intersection, traffic signal modifications, striping, and civil costs. If adding drainage or accounting for utility relocations, the cost can reach over $1 million. 7 Costs are based on values obtained from bid documents of local agencies and recent projects (i.e., Placer, Sacramento, and San Joaquin counties, and the Cities of Roseville, Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, Galt) projects from 2019 to present, or historical planning level costs generated for local agency planning efforts from 2018 to present. Values derived from bid documents were multiplied by a planning level contingency factor (25%) to account for additional project needs not explicitly stated in the descriptions. Costs include the cost of materials, labor, and administration of the identified facilities and items, and do not include environmental approvals, permitting, design fees, public outreach efforts, construction management, or inter-agency coordination. The range shown attempts to cover the large number of variabilities when providing planning level estimates including the extent of the projects, secondary impacts associated with projects, variety of size and scale of specific improvements, impacts to utilities/ traffic/access, fluctuating materials, and labor prices. Per unit based on assumptions. 8 Per unit based on assumptions.

Implementation and Funding
84

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT GENERALIZED COST ASSUMPTIONS
TRAFFIC CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS9
All-Way Stops $$ Assumes some minor improvements to curb ramps, signage, striping, crosswalks.

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing
Beacons (RRFBs)
$$$ Assumes RRFB system at existing pedestrian crossing with a new electrical service connection. Existing curb ramps are assumed to be ADA compliant without needing major reconstruction. Roadway cross slopes are assumed to be ADA compliant, and no right-of-way acquisition is anticipated.

Signal Timing Changes $ Could be a negligible cost item versus having to upgrade signal components like the controller.

LED Backed Crossing Signs $ Assumed to be for a pair.

Table 11 Generalized Costs for Pedestrian Improvements (continued) 9 Per unit based on assumptions.
85 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Implementation Strategy
Project implementation requires a deliberate strategy and exploration of innovative approaches.

With limited resources and high demand for improvements, the City should coordinate with relevant departments and regional partners to identify opportunities for project delivery. The strategies explored below are opportunities for the City to support the implementation of this Plan’s programs, recommended project improvements, and goals and objectives over time.

Capital Projects
Include the projects of this Plan in the annual
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Identify
additional opportunities for coordination among
projects in the CIP that advance both the Plan
and the City’s Public Works and Parks, Recreation,
and Libraries Departments’ CIP goals.

Identify Quick-Build Projects
Quick build refers to projects that are
implemented using relatively low-cost materials
compared to long-term capital projects. Quickbuild projects are not only faster and less costly to implement, they also create an opportunity
to pilot a project design or treatment for
community feedback and observation. Quickbuild projects can also more quickly respond to safety concerns, compared to long-term
capital improvements. Where feasible, the City
should identify specific network improvements
or packaged improvements that can advance
on an accelerated timeline through quick-build
implementation. Quick-build curb extensions and high-visibility crosswalks in Redwood City, CA.

Implementation and Funding
86

Flexible Project Delivery
The City will need to work internally and across
City departments to find flexibility within
any existing processes and how projects are
implemented. Remaining flexible will help reduce
hurdles typically faced in project delivery and
streamline decision-making. Recommended
projects will require ongoing evaluation and
pivoting within an annual work plan and project
development.

As conditions change, the City should review
projects periodically, considering new needs, the
impact of implemented projects, and available
funding. The City should evaluate this Plan’s
project list every five years and update as needed.

Cross-Department
Opportunities
Interdepartmental City staff coordination is key
to successful implementation of projects in this
Plan. Aligning with existing or future projects
across City departments will promote a shared
understanding that Plan project delivery is a
priority across the city. Aligning across City
departments is also an opportunity to share the
need for the proposed improvements and how all
the city’s networks interact.

Funding Strategy
It is crucial for the City to identify and secure
funding for programs and infrastructure projects
to advance the goals established in this Plan.

A variety of sources exist to fund bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure programs, projects, and
studies. These sources include local, regional,
state, and federal funding opportunities. See
page 99 for a list of potential funding sources.

Roseville staff conducting updates at intersection.
87 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Facility Maintenance
Regular maintenance to existing pedestrian
and bicycle facilities is important to preserve
a safe and comfortable walking and cycling
environment for users of all ages and abilities in
Roseville. Regular maintenance of these active
transportation facilities will keep them in a state
of good repair and maximize the useful life of the
City’s infrastructure investment. Without regular
maintenance, these facilities may need costly
rehabilitation or reconstruction prior to the end
of their anticipated useful life.

Typical maintenance activities for pedestrian and
bicycle facilities include sweeping, vegetation
control, tree trimming, drainage system repair,
sign repair, lighting repair, re-striping, adding
shoulder backing, crack sealing, and asphalt
repair. The need, timing, scope, and funding of
the maintenance activities in Roseville varies
depending on the type of pedestrian and bicycle
facility as discussed in the following pages.

Street Maintenance crew reconstructing a section of Oak Street in Roseville.

Implementation and Funding
88

Debris and Litter Control
Along On-Street Facilities
Accumulated debris and litter at the roadway
edge or along on-street facilities like bike lanes
is a common obstacle to safe use of said facilities
for people of all ages and abilities. While Roseville
conducts regular sweeping of all roads, the City
should consider street sweeping operations more
frequently on arterial and collector roads, which
represent the more direct routes with existing
bike lanes. Regular street sweeping is usually
sufficient to keep these facilities clear of debris.

If debris accumulates in the intervening period,
spot sweeping should be considered as needed
based upon visual surveys and service requests.

Along New Facilities
The Plan proposes a new bike routes/bicycle
boulevards (Class III) as well as separated
bikeways (Class IV). Proposed bike routes and
bicycle boulevards will be located primarily on
residential streets that already receive regular
sweeping. As additional bicycle boulevard routes
are implemented, the City should consider
increasing the frequency of regular street
sweeping along these routes if needed based
upon visual inspections.

Separated bikeways (Class IV) can be
implemented as one-way or two-way facilities
that are separated from the adjacent road by
a barrier consisting of delineators, bollards,
planters, raised curbs, or other features. One-way
separated bikeways may be as narrow as five
feet wide, but are typically about eight feet wide.

Two-way separated bikeway widths vary from
10 to 14 feet. Standard street sweepers are too
wide to fit into one-way and two-way separated
bikeways. A light-duty pick-up truck with a
sweeper attachment is typically an efficient
option for maintenance when a separated
bikeway is wide enough (seven feet or wider
between the curb and vertical buffer element).

A front-facing maintenance attachment may be
angled to fit within a bikeway of this width. Seven
feet represents the absolute minimum width for
a pick-up mounted sweeper to maintain a single
separated bikeway lane and this may require
angling of the sweeper attachment. Ten feet is
the preferred minimum width for bikeways to
accommodate pick-up trucks with mounted
sweepers. The City should consider purchasing
a new narrow sweeper and updating the street
sweeping schedule to accommodate protected
bike lanes. Sweeper design and scheduling needs
to be considered when designing protected bike
lanes.

Along Multi-Use Trails
The City’s existing and planned multi-use trails
are typically located within open space and
park areas. The paths can accumulate leaf fall,
dirt, gravel, and other debris. Spot sweeping is
conducted by the City’s open space maintenance
crews as needed based upon visual surveys and
service requests. The City Streets Maintenance
Division should consider using the existing
smaller sweeper for debris and litter control along
trails. The City should consider placing additional
trash cans and “doggie pots” at regular intervals
along open space trails to help control litter
issues along trails. Doggie pots should be refilled
as needed.

Along Sidewalks
Sidewalks may still accumulate leaves and
other debris, but they do not typically require
regular sweeping. Raised curbs and landscaped
setbacks typically reduce the amount of roadway
debris that accumulates on sidewalks. Adjoining
property owners typically conduct spot sweeping
when needed. The City’s maintenance crews
should also conduct spot sweeping as needed
based upon service requests.

Specialized sweeper example (source: multihog).
89 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Vegetation Control
Along On-Street Facilities
Vegetation control is not typically needed for
on-street bikeways, but there may be times when
spot treatments are needed when weeds grow
through cracks.

Along Multi-Use Trails
Multi-use trails and their shoulders often
experience encroachment from grasses, weeds,
and shrubs at the trail shoulder due to their
location in open space areas. Vegetation may
prevent proper drainage and result in damage to
the asphalt surface. Vegetation can also become
an obstacle to safe use of said facilities by people
walking or biking. The City schedules regular
weed control efforts each year for multi-use trails
that includes use of pre-emergent weed control
and hand trimming of weeds and shrubs as
needed.

Along Sidewalks
Sidewalks are often located within landscape
corridors that are maintained by the adjacent
property owner. However, they are sometimes
located adjacent to open space areas, and in
those cases, weed control may become necessary.

To streamline the vegetation control process,
the City should consider combining the sidewalk
and multi-use trails weed control efforts into one
singular program.

Overgrown vegetation along Church Street.

Implementation and Funding
90

Lighting and Video Repair
Along On-Street Facilities
Lighting is provided for sidewalks, pedestrian
crossings, and on-street bikeways at regular
intervals and at crosswalk locations throughout
Roseville. Street light maintenance is provided by
Roseville Electric. Traffic signals and streetlights
at intersections are maintained by the City’s
Traffic Signal Maintenance team. Maintenance for
streetlights is typically provided as needed based
upon service requests.

Along New Facilities
The Plan proposes several new pedestrian and
bikeway crossing improvements. Some of these
may include traffic signals or similar lighted
improvements such as RRFBs. It will be critical to
integrate these into the traffic signal maintenance
program as the crossing improvements are
installed.

Along Multi-Use Trails
Multi-use trails (Class I bike paths) in Roseville
do not typically include lights except at longer
roadway undercrossings. In those locations as
well as trail crossings along major roadways,
installation of lighting should be considered to
enhance nighttime visibility and user sense of
safety. Installation of video surveillance cameras
should also be considered at key locations.

Multi-use trail lighting and video equipment
should be incorporated into the existing traffic
signal maintenance program. The City should
also consider annual inspections of multi-use trail
lighting.

Sign Repair
On-street regulatory and wayfinding signs are
part of the roadway sign maintenance program.

The City periodically inspects them for vandalism,
graffiti, and regular wear and tear. Replacement/
repair occurs as needed to meet state and federal
standards. Multi-use trails also include regulatory
and wayfinding signs but are not currently
included in the roadway sign maintenance
program. Instead, these are replaced/repaired as
needed based upon service requests. The City
should consider a regular inspection program for
signs along multi-use trails, which would include
completing an inventory of all signs along these
facilities.

High-visibility crosswalk and lighting on Iron Horse Trail crossing in Danville, CA. 91 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Trailhead Parking Lots,
Restrooms, and Benches
As the City’s regional trail system grows, the
need for trailhead parking lots and associated
amenities such as landscaping, restrooms,
and drinking fountains will also grow. These
amenities will typically require stand-alone
electrical, water, and sewer services. Since
trailheads include amenities commonly found
in parks, consideration should be given to their
placement within parks if feasible. If trailheads
are stand-alone, then the City should consider
coordinating operations and maintenance with
the Parks Department. Trailhead parking areas
should be put on a regular maintenance schedule
as appropriate per the asphalt and concrete
repair and re-striping section. Benches are
located periodically along multi-use trails and at
trailheads. Benches should be inspected regularly
and repaired as needed.

Asphalt and Concrete Repair and Re-Striping
Uneven surfaces can be a trip hazard for
people walking and rolling and a fall hazard
for people bicycling. Uneven surfaces can also
be an impediment to persons with disabilities,
including those using accessibility devices. It is
desirable to minimize bumps, cracks, edges or
drop-offs, ridges, and potholes.

Along On-Street Facilities
On-street bikeways and multi-use trail surfaces
are typically made of asphalt; however, some
may be concrete, such as in floodplains. Onstreet bikeways are included in the City’s regular street resurfacing program. Asphalt requires
regular maintenance including crack sealing
and resurfacing every 7 to 10 years to minimize
cracking and reduce wear over time and to
extend the useful life of the surface. Resurfacing
also provides an opportunity to refresh pavement
markings.

Pavement markings and striping require regular
maintenance and re-application, especially
where vehicular traffic may cause deterioration
of pavement markings. Pavement markings
on streets are regularly inspected by the City’s
Streets Maintenance Division. As green pavement
markings are used more, consideration should be
given to their placement, to the extent feasible,
out of the vehicle path of travel to minimize wear.

Pavement markings on trails may benefit from
annual inspections.

Along Multi-Use Trails
Many multi-use trail surfaces are asphalt. In
the city, multi-use trails have their own regular
resurfacing program since they may use
different resurfacing techniques and striping. For
example, multi-use trails in Roseville do not use
thermoplastic stripes and instead use reflective
paint for striping. The City should ensure that new
multi-use trails are integrated into the resurfacing
program.

Along Sidewalks
Sidewalks in Roseville are typically concrete.

Concrete surfaces do not need regular
maintenance except where lifting or cracking
occurs. When cracking and uplifting are identified
through regular inspections and requests for
service, the City Streets Maintenance Division
assesses the appropriate maintenance activity,
which may include grinding the uneven surface
or removal and replacement of sidewalk sections.

For areas with sidewalk replacement, these may
be incorporated into a larger sidewalk repair
project and bid annually.

Implementation and Funding
92

Bridge and Drainage Repair
The City’s multi-use trails include drainage
features (culverts and swales) and pedestrian/
bicycle bridges that need periodic repair such
as re-contouring swales and re-painting or redecking bridges. The City recently developed a bridge maintenance and inspection program.

The City should consider incorporating new
pedestrian/bicycle bridges into this program.

Repairs to drainage facilities should be made on
an as-needed basis, but the City should consider
mapping and regularly inspecting drainage
facilities.

Dry Creek Greenway drainage and construction.
93 City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan

Funding
While the City does not currently have a dedicated funding allocation for the implementation of the improvements included in the Plan, a variety of funding opportunities are available to support project design and construction. The following represent a few of the potential funding sources the City may pursue for project implementation. Additional information can be found in Appendix H.

Federal
• Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
• Active Transportation Infrastructure
Investment Program
• Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals
with Disabilities
• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
• U.S. House of Representatives - Community
Project Funding
• Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented
Development Planning
• Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage
Development (BUILD) Grant Program
• U.S. Senate - Congressionally Directed
Spending
• Thriving Communities Program (TCP)
• National Endowment for the Arts – Grants for
Art Projects
State
• Statewide Active Transportation Program
• Caltrans Sustainable Transportation
Planning Grants
• Recreation Trails Program
• Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities Program (AHSC)
• California Infrastructure and Economic
Development Bank
• California Office of Traffic Safety Grants
• Solutions for Congested Corridors Program
• Local Partnership Program (LPP)
• Clean Mobility Options
• Land and Water Conservation Fund Program
• State Highway Operation and Protection
Program (SHOPP)
• State of California Infill Infrastructure Grant
(IIG) Program
• Transformative Climate Communities (TCC)
• Urban Greening Grant Program
Regional/Local
• Regional Active Transportation Program
• SACOG Regional Federal Funding Program
• PCTPA State Transportation Improvement
Program
• Transportation Development Act
• Clean Air Grant Program
• Senate Bill 125 (SB 125) Funding Program
• Carbon Reduction Program
• Developer Fees
Implementation and Funding
94

Appendices

Appendices
A. Existing Conditions Memo
B. Plan Review
C. Summaries of Public Engagement
D. Development of Recommendations Memo
E. Bicycle Facility Design Standards
F. Non-Infrastructure Recommendations Memo
G. Prioritization Methodology
H. Funding Programs
I. Recommended Projects

Appendix A:

Existing Conditions
Memo

MEMORANDUM
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 1
To: Suzanne Engelke, City of Roseville
From: Mauricio Hernández, Alta Planning + Design
Date: March 22, 2024
Re: Roseville Active Transportation Plan - Existing Conditions Memo (Final) Table of Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Project Background and Description....................................................................................................................................... 3 Memo Overview...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Findings............................................................................................................................................................... 3 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Community Overview.......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Demographics ......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Age and Sex ........................................................................................................................................................7 Race and Ethnicity ..............................................................................................................................................9 Income................................................................................................................................................................9 Housing............................................................................................................................................................ 10 Land Use .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Commute Profile.............................................................................................................................................. 15 Employment .................................................................................................................................................... 15 Equity Profile.....................................................................................................................................................................17 Environmental Health – CalEnviroScreen 4.0........................................................................................................................17 Overall CES Score............................................................................................................................................. 17 Pollution Burden.............................................................................................................................................. 17 Population Characteristics............................................................................................................................... 20 Public Health – Healthy Places Index ....................................................................................................................................22 Overall HPI Score ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Access to Parks................................................................................................................................................ 22 Grocery Store Access....................................................................................................................................... 22

MEMORANDUM
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 2
Heat Vulnerability Analysis....................................................................................................................................................26 Heat Health Action Index................................................................................................................................. 26 Environmental and Public Health Index ................................................................................................................................26 Transportation Profile .......................................................................................................................................................29 Walking Facilities...................................................................................................................................................................31 Biking Facilities......................................................................................................................................................................35 Transit Network.....................................................................................................................................................................38 Collision Analysis...............................................................................................................................................................41 Collision Trends.....................................................................................................................................................................41 Collision Hot Spots ................................................................................................................................................................44 Collisions Involving People Walking ................................................................................................................ 47 Collisions Involving People Biking.................................................................................................................... 51 Plan Review.......................................................................................................................................................................55 Key Takeaways......................................................................................................................................................................56 Appendix: Plan Review......................................................................................................................................................57

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 3
Introduction
Project Background and Description
The Roseville Active Transportation Plan’s purpose is to improve conditions for people walking, biking, and rolling (i.e., wheeled mobility devices used by people with disabilities, strollers, scooters, skateboards, etc.) in the City of Roseville. This plan will address active transportation needs throughout the city (Figure 1). Through this effort, the project team will focus on addressing citywide barriers for people walking, biking, and rolling. Data analysis will inform and support public engagement and identify community needs. Recommendations from the Roseville Active Transportation Plan will focus on improving safety, connectivity, and accessibility for people walking, biking, or rolling through specific engineering enhancements, policy improvements or adjustments, and new or adapted programs across the city. The comprehensive recommendations will be part of the final plan, which will provide project and policy guidance for active transportation for years to come.

Memo Overview
This memo summarizes the existing conditions for people walking, biking, and rolling in Roseville based on data from various sources including past planning documents and geospatial data. This section provides an overview of the memo as well as general findings concerning active transportation in the city. These findings will be combined with outcomes from the public engagement process to develop community-driven and data-informed recommendations and improvements in the final Roseville Active Transportation Plan.

The memo is organized into the following sections:
● Community Overview: Summary of demographic, income, and land use data ● Equity Profile: Summary of equity analysis metrics (CalEnviroScreen 4.0) and health analysis metrics (Healthy Places Index, access to schools, heat vulnerability) ● Transportation Profile: Overview of existing sidewalk, bicycle, transit, and roadway networks, and typical housing and transportation costs as a percentage of income ● Collision Analysis: Collision data overview highlighting trends from the 5 most recent years of available collision data
● Plan Review: High-level summary of plans and policies reviewed to inform the development of this plan ● Appendix: Full summary details from the plans reviewed as part of this existing conditions memo Summary of Findings
Conditions for people walking, biking, and rolling vary significantly across the city based on equity, health, housing costs, and transportation safety metrics. The greatest concentration of equity and health deficiencies, as detailed by the analyses completed, are located in the central/eastern portions of the city around Interstate 80 (I-80) and the existing rail lines. From access to parks and grocery stores to the number of predicted extreme heat events, this portion of Roseville consistently ranked as the highest need for mobility investments (Figure 2). See the Equity Profile for more information about environmental and health burdens across the city.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 4
Figure 1. Project Study Area

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 5
Figure 2. Environmental and Health Index

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 6
Roseville is a regional transportation hub and as such, major roadways and rail lines including I-80, State Route 65 (SR-65), and Amtrak’s Capital Corridor, act as barriers for people walking and biking to employment centers concentrated in the city’s eastern portions. Most of the city’s roadways include sidewalks on at least one side of the street. While streets in the western portions of the city show incomplete sidewalk networks, full development and implementation of facilities is still occurring. The city’s bicycle infrastructure is made up of multi-use trails and on-road facilities including bike lanes and signed bike routes. The city has over 40 miles of existing multi-use trails which provide comfortable facilities for people of all ages to connect to various destinations. However, the network is not fully connected for residents from western parts of the city to areas in the core, where most employment is concentrated. There are on-street facilities throughout most of the city’s major and minor arterials however, these facilities do not provide much separation from motor vehicles, making it less comfortable for more inexperienced bicyclists to utilize the network.

High posted speed limits and limited separation between users serve as contributing factors to higher collision rates for people biking and walking. Several patterns emerged from the collision analysis conducted for the latest 5-year period (2018–2022) utilizing Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) data:
● The number of collisions for people walking and biking has increased by 38% and 36% respectively (compared to a decrease of 18% for motor vehicle collisions). ● Bicycle and pedestrian-related collisions occurred at a higher rate at intersections on arterials. ● Areas with commercial and mixed-use land use designations also experienced higher rates of collisions compared to other land use categories.
● Two intersection locations emerged as key locations where multiple bicycle and pedestrian-related collisions occurred:
o Washington Blvd and Church St
o Sunrise Ave and Douglas Blvd
● The following corridors emerged as key roadways segments where multiple bicycle and pedestrianrelated collisions occurred:
o Douglas Blvd (Vernon St to Eureka Rd)
o Foothills Blvd (Misty Wood Dr to Atkinson St)
o Woodcreek Oaks Blvd (Deschutes Dr to Junction Blvd)
o Pleasant Grove Blvd (Michener Dr to Highland Park Dr) o Cirby Way (Regency Ave to Old Auburn Dr)
o Riverside Ave (Fourth St to City Boundary)
Additional information about the highest-injury locations in Roseville is presented in the Collision Analysis later in this document.

Next Steps
Findings from the analyses conducted as part of this memo will be used in conjunction with public feedback to inform the development of recommendations in further phases of the Active Transportation Plan.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 7
Community Overview
Roseville is the largest and most populous city in Placer County, covering approximately 43 square miles. The city is 16 miles north and east of Sacramento. Roseville’s topography is characterized by its valleys and foothills. The city has a Mediterranean climate: summers are warm, dry, and predictable with high temperatures averaging in the low 90s. Winters are short with cooler and wetter weather, with daytime highs averaging in the 50s. These mostly moderate temperatures year-round provide comfortable environments for walking and biking.

Established at the junction of several railroads, Roseville was officially incorporated as a city in 1909. Roseville was primarily a railroad town for many decades, but the city’s recent growth and expansion have been driven by the emergence of other employment sectors. Today, Roseville is a diverse city with a wide range of businesses and employers. In 2022, the city had roughly 10,000 businesses operating, sustaining around 80-90,000 jobs. The largest industry sector is healthcare and social assistance, accounting for approximately 18.0% of all businesses.

Retail businesses are the second largest sector, accounting for approximately 16.4% of all businesses. The remaining top business sectors are food service, government, and construction. As of 2022, the three largest employers in Roseville are the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group & Foundation Group, PRIDE Industries, and Sutter Health Roseville Medical Group.1 Roseville is also the region’s retail center and is home to one of the largest malls in northern California, Westfield Galleria at Roseville, which provides additional employment opportunities.

Demographics
Age and Sex
In 2022, Roseville had an estimated population of 148,879, 2 almost evenly split by sex, with 51% women and 49%
men. Roseville (median age of 40) has a slightly younger population than Placer County (median age of 42) and a slightly older population than the state (median age of 37).3 Figure 3 through Figure 5 on the next page provide a breakdown of Roseville, Placer County, and California populations by age and sex. 1 City of Roseville, CA – Annual Comprehensive Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022. For current (as of 2023) City economic development data: https://www.roseville.ca.us/demographics 2 American Community Survey, 5-year estimates (2018–2022). 3 Ibid.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 8
Figure 3. Age and Sex – Roseville
Figure 4. Age and Sex – Placer County
Figure 5. Age and Sex — California
Under 5
5-19
20-34
35-54
55-64
65-84
Over 85
Percent of Population
Age Group
Women Men
Under 5
5-19
20-34
35-54
55-64
65-84
Over 85
Percent of Population
Age Group
Women Men
Under 5
5-19
20-34
35-54
55-64
65-84
Over 85
Percent of Population
Age Group
Women Men

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 9
Race and Ethnicity
Roseville has a comparable racial composition to Placer County, where nearly two-thirds of residents identify as White. This contrasts with the state of California, where about only one-third (35%) of people identify as White.

Residents who identify as Asian make up 13% of Roseville’s population, Black/African American residents account for 2%, and residents of Hispanic descent account for 16%. The complete racial profile of the city is presented in Figure 6. Table 1 compares the racial/ethnic breakdown of city residents to the county and state.

Figure 6. City of Roseville Race/Ethnicity
Table 1. City of Roseville, Placer County, and California Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity City of Roseville Placer County California African American or Black 2% 2% 5%
American Indian 0.1% 0.2% 0.3%
Asian 13% 9% 15%
Hispanic 16% 15% 40%
Native Hawaiian 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%
Two or More Races 5% 5% 4%
Some Other Race 0.2% 0.4% 0.4%
White 64% 69% 35%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-year estimates (2018–2022) Income
The median household income (MHI) for city residents is approximately $112,265, which is higher than the MHI for both Placer County ($109,375) and California ($91,905).4 Additionally, 6.3% of Roseville residents live below 4 American Community Survey, 5-year estimates (2018–2022).

Black

1.9%
American Indian

0.1%
Asian

12.6%
Hispanic

15.9%
Native Hawaiian

0.2%
Two or More Races

5.4%
Some Other Race

0.2%
White

63.7%
Black
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Native Hawaiian
Two or More Races
Some Other Race
White

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 10
the poverty line, compared to 6.8% of the county and 12.1% of the state.5 Figure 7 shows the MHI across the city, broken down by census tract. The geography of Roseville that exhibits the highest concentration of households making less than $75,000 is in the core of the city along I-80 and Vernon Street, as well as in the neighborhood located to the west of Washington Boulevard (Kaseberg-Kingswood, Roseville Heights, Folsom Road, Cirby Side neighborhoods).

Housing
Data from the Housing and Urban Development Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy was used to determine the Housing Burden Indicator within the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 dataset. The indicator shows the percentage of households in a census tract that are both low-income (making less than 80% of their county’s MHI) and severely burdened by housing costs (paying greater than 50% of their income for housing costs). For this data set, a higher percentile means that a higher proportion of households in a census tract are both lowincome and pay greater than 50% of their income for housing costs, compared to other census tracts in the state.

Figure 8 shows the housing burden percentile across census tracts in Roseville. Areas near Historic Downtown and Vernon Street next to the Union Pacific Rail Yard, as well as the stretch of Washington Boulevard south of Pleasant Grove Boulevard (Folsom Road, Cherry Glen, Theiles Manor, Cresthaven, Diamond Oaks, and portions of Johnson Ranch), are more housing burdened than other neighborhoods in the city.

Land Use
Planning for land uses and transportation together helps create safer, more walkable environments. Designating local land uses with mobility in mind can create more access to destinations and resources, as well as support the local economy. Diverse land uses with higher density encourage walking or bicycling trips as destinations are closer together and easier to access. Conversely, segregated land uses that are low-density and further apart can promote driving trips.

Roseville features a range of land uses, though most areas are designated for low-to-medium-density residential uses, as shown in Figure 9. Downtown, Historic Old Town, and several Downtown-adjacent neighborhoods feature grid-based street networks and exhibit higher-density commercial uses. Connected across the Union Pacific railroad corridor by the Washington Boulevard underpass, Downtown Vernon Street and Historic Old Town are both core areas of the Downtown Specific Plan. The central business district is located around Roseville’s main transit hub (i.e., Civic Center Transfer Point), while mixed-use commercial centers and office parks are located along I-80, State Route 65 (SR-65), and Douglas Boulevard (Lead Hill, Harding neighborhoods). These locations include several essential destinations such as Sierra College, Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center, Sutter Roseville Medical Center, and Westfield Galleria.

Most major arterials in outer neighborhoods (ex. Fiddyment Farm, Westpark, Solaire) consist of low-density commercial land uses. There are pockets of medium- to high-density residential projects scattered throughout 5 Ibid. Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau measures poverty by using a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition. If a family’s total income is less than the family’s threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U).

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 11
these outer neighborhoods. The City of Roseville aims to promote mixed-use development by using two or more designations for certain areas that include complementary land uses.

In addition to commercial and residential uses, Roseville’s open spaces and parks are scattered across the residential neighborhoods, along local creeks, and the West Roseville power line corridor. Industrial uses are primarily concentrated along railroads. Figure 9 provides a general summary of the existing land use throughout the city.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 12 Figure 7. Median Household Income

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 13 Figure 8. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Housing Burden Percentile

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 14 Figure 9. City of Roseville Existing Land Use Map

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 15
Commute Profile
The National Household Travel Survey dataset was used to provide insight into personal and household travel behavior across the city.
6 This data focuses primarily on detailed commute data; however, the data showed that approximately 13% of all trips completed in Roseville were completed through active transportation modes.

On the commute to work, the data indicated that around 26% of transportation trips in Roseville were commuterelated trips.7 Of these trips, 70.9% were completed driving alone and 6.5% were via carpool.8 Across the city, transit use accounts for approximately 0.8% of all commute trips; however, American Indian residents use public transit at a significantly higher rate (18.2%) than other races/ethnicities. Overall, people walking (1.1%) and people biking (0.2%) to work account for around 1.3% of total commuting trips. However, African American or Black and Hispanic residents walk and bike to work at higher rates than others in Roseville. Table 2 provides a complete breakdown of commute modes by race/ethnicity.

Table 2. City of Roseville Commute to Work by Race/Ethnicity Race Drive Alone Carpool Transit Walk Bike/Taxi/
Motorcycle9
Work from
Home
African American or Black 60.0% 5.0% 4.0% 2.3% 2.6% 26.2% American Indian 78.3% 0.0% 18.2% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5%
Asian 71.2% 7.9% 1.0% 1.1% 0.7% 18.1%
Hispanic 70.0% 10.1% 1.3% 2.6% 1.5% 14.6%
Native Hawaiian 69.4% 30.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Two or More Races 66.1% 11.8% 0.4% 1.0% 3.3% 17.3%
Some Other Race 68.8% 10.7% 0.8% 5.1% 2.4% 12.2%
White 71.9% 5.3% 0.7% 0.9% 1.4% 19.8%
Total Average 70.9% 6.5% 0.8% 1.1% 1.5% 19.1%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-year Estimate (2018–2022).

Employment
Roseville offers a multitude of employment opportunities, with several employment hubs concentrated on the east side of the city, as shown in Figure 10. The highest concentration of employment is centered around Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center, while several other high employment areas are located around the business centers near the interchanges of I-80 and SR-65. Westfield Galleria, anchored by Macy’s, JCPenney, Nordstrom, Pottery Barn, and Crate & Barrel, offers some of the many retail, food services, and accommodation employment opportunities that make up 23% of jobs in Roseville, according to 2022 U.S. Census data. 6 Federal Highway Administration. 2020. 2020 NextGen NHTS National Passenger OD Data, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.

Available online: https://nhts.ornl.gov/od/.
7 National Household Travel Survey, 2022. 8 American Community Survey, 5-year estimates (2018–2022). 9 NOTE: The numbers presented in this table have been aggregated for bike, taxi, and motorcycle as the American Community Survey combines these commute-to-work categories when presented by race/ethnicity.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 16 Figure 10. City of Roseville Employment Hubs (Jobs/Square Mile)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 17
Equity Profile
This section identifies the areas and populations in the city that may benefit the most from improvements in the active transportation network due to disproportionate societal, environmental, health, and economic burdens.

When distributed equitably, active transportation improvements can help address these burdens and begin to address decades of historical disinvestment. Improving infrastructure and access for people walking and biking can help improve safety, connectivity, air quality, and public health for communities that often rely on active modes of transportation to get around.

Environmental Health – CalEnviroScreen 4.0
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (CES)10 examines census tracts based on the combined indicators for 1) pollution burden (i.e., exposures and environmental effects), and 2) population characteristics (i.e., sensitive populations and socioeconomic factors). Pollution burden and population characteristics consist of 21 statewide indicators ranging from low educational attainment to existing ozone levels (more information on each indicator is available from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). Census tracts that score in the top 25th percentile are considered the most disadvantaged statewide and have been targeted for greenhouse gas reduction funding through Senate Bill 535.11
Overall CES Score
According to overall CES scores, none of Roseville’s census tracts fall within the top 25th percentile as shown in Figure 11; however, various vulnerable census tracts in the city fall within the top 40th percentile of CES. These higher scores (above 40%) are depicted in orange on the map and signify higher levels of pollution and population characteristic burdens. These areas of the city have the greatest need, and most of these census tracts are located near the Historic Downtown and Vernon Street area to the west of I-80 and along the railroads. Figure 12 and Figure 13 show the separate pollution burden and population characteristics scores, respectively.

Pollution Burden
As shown in Figure 12, areas of the city with the highest pollution burden vary slightly from the overall CES scores.

Census tracts exhibiting a higher pollution burden are located in the core of the city (along the railroad and I-80 corridors). This is likely due to the higher concentration of industrial land uses in these census tracts, resulting in increased air pollutants from greater truck traffic, manufacturing emissions, and proximity to highways where a significant amount of air pollution is generated. Additionally, the neighborhoods located west of Fiddyment Road also experience a significant pollution burden based on the CES data. 10 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 available online: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. 11 Senate Bill 535 establishes minimum funding requirements and definitions for disadvantaged communities.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Figure 11. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 – Overall Score

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Figure 12. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 – Pollution Burden Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 19

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 20
Population Characteristics
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 also uses a combined index for summarizing population characteristics that result in increased vulnerability to pollution. These population characteristics include the following indicators:
● High incidence of asthma
● High incidence of cardiovascular disease
● Low birth weight of infants
● Low educational attainment
● Housing burden12
● Linguistic isolation13
● Poverty14
● High unemployment rates
The eastern areas of Roseville that are near the Union Pacific Rail Yard, as well as the neighborhoods between Washington Boulevard and SR-65, scored above the 40th percentile for CES population characteristics (Figure 13).

On the west side of Roseville, the neighborhoods located to the south and east of Del Webb Boulevard, in the Sun City community, also scored above the 40th percentile for population characteristics that result in increased vulnerability to pollution.
12 Based on data from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. This indicator identifies the percentage of households in a census tract that are both low income (making less than 80% of their county’s median family income) and severely burdened by housing costs (paying greater than 50% of their income for housing costs). 13 Based on data from the American Community Survey. Identifies percentage of limited English-speaking households, which are households where no one over age 14 speaks English well.
14 Based on data from the American Community Survey. Identifies the percentage of the population with incomes less than two times the federal poverty level.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 21
Figure 13. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 – Population Vulnerability

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 22
Public Health – Healthy Places Index
The Healthy Places Index (HPI), developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California, provides valuable insights into specific public policy and health considerations. The overall index is a composite of 25 individual metrics, which cover economics, education, social, transportation, healthcare access, neighborhood composition, housing, and environmental factors.15 Census tracts that score in the bottom 25th percentile are typically considered the unhealthiest at the statewide level.

Overall HPI Score
Overall HPI scores for the city area are shown in Figure 14. Lower HPI scores (depicted by orange on the map) signify higher levels of health vulnerability. Two significant metrics related to public health and transportation include access to parks (Figure 15) and grocery store access (Figure 16). Parks are important community assets and provide outdoor open space and places for recreation and exercise. Having access to a grocery store can improve residents’ health by encouraging a better diet, reducing chronic disease, and lowering the risk of food insecurity. These metrics are explained in greater detail in the following sections.

The most health-vulnerable census tracts, or those that score within the bottom 25th percentile of HPI overall, are located north and east of Sierra Gardens Park, and to the south and east of Del Webb Boulevard in Sun City Roseville community. According to the HPI, these census tracts experience worse health conditions, including poorer transportation options and greater housing burdens, than 88% and 79% of other tracts in California.

Access to Parks
There are parks distributed throughout the city including small neighborhood parks, larger City-owned parks, regional parks, and open space areas. Figure 15 displays access to parks for Roseville residents.16 The areas with limited park access (below the 30th percentile) are concentrated on the west side of the city, beyond Fiddyment Road. It is important to note, however, that these areas of the city have not been fully built out and planned amenities like parks, schools, and community centers continue to be developed.

Grocery Store Access
Grocery store access is evaluated by the percentage of people in an urban area who live within a one-half-mile radius from a grocery store. Using this threshold, census tracts located along the city’s southern and eastern boundaries have the least access to grocery stores, as shown in Figure 16. Conversely, census tracts along SR-65 and near the I-80 interchange at Douglas Boulevard have the highest access to grocery stores, based on HPI data. 15 Healthy Places Index 3.0, Public Health Alliance of Southern California. 16 Healthy Places Index 3.0, Public Health Alliance of Southern California.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 23 Figure 14. Healthy Places Index – Overall Score

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 24 Figure 15. Healthy Places Index – Access to Parks

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 25
Figure 16. Healthy Places Index – Grocery Store Access

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 26
Heat Vulnerability Analysis
Heat Health Action Index
The Heat Health Action Index is composed of several variables that represent heat vulnerability, a metric that indicates the relative effects of social vulnerability factors (e.g., race, education, age, income, and transportation), health factors (e.g., physical disability, asthma, and heart health), and environmental factors (e.g., land development, ozone, particulate matter, tree canopy, and urban heat islands) to gauge how vulnerable communities may be to relative changes in temperature and increases in the number of heat events. People with limited vehicle access who must walk, bike, or take transit tend to be more vulnerable to high temperatures; therefore, the availability or lack of shade can be a major factor in opting to walk, bike, or access transit.

The Heat Health Action Index is based on a score of 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating less heat vulnerability.

The average summer temperature in California is projected to increase by 4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100.17 As the average temperature increases, the frequency and severity of extreme heat events—periods of relatively hotter and more humid conditions that impact the social, health, and environmental factors listed in the preceding paragraph—will also increase in frequency and severity. Figure 17 shows the Heat Health Action Index for Roseville. Areas with higher heat vulnerability (depicted by orange on the map) include:
● Neighborhoods located between Pacific Union Rail Yard and I-80 (Folsom Road, Cherry Glen, Theiles Manor)
● Neighborhoods to the east of I-80 between Douglas Boulevard and Cirby Way (Sierra Gardens and portions of Meadow Oaks, Maidu, and Johnson Ranch)
● Neighborhoods situated along the West Roseville power line corridor between Foothills Boulevard and Washington Boulevard
Environmental and Public Health Index
Figure 18 is a bivariate map illustrating the relationship between the level of environmental burdens and the level of public health burdens in the same location. Areas of the city showcased in a darker blue color indicate higher environmental burdens, while those with a darker green color indicate a higher public health burden. The neighborhoods to the west of I-80, along the Pacific Union Rail Yard (depicted by a deep bright green color on the map), show a high environmental burden but a low public health burden. The southeast and northeast corners of the city are shown in bright blue, indicating higher public health burdens but lower environmental burdens. The areas to the west of Fiddyment Road are shown in a green-blue color, indicating high environmental burdens but median public health burdens in this area.
17 California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment - Summary Report (2018).

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Figure 17. Heat Health Action Index Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 27

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Figure 18. Environmental and Health Index Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 28

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 29
Transportation Profile
Roseville is a major transportation hub in the region, set between Sacramento and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains along the I-80 corridor, with its own northern bypass—State Route 65 (SR-65), the Roseville Bypass. The city is also built around the rail lines passing through, providing service for both freight and Amtrak’s Capital Corridor and California Zephyr routes. It is important to note that the western portions of the city have been developing rapidly, including the installation of many new sidewalks and bike lanes. This memo aims to identify ways to connect these growing and changing parts of Roseville to the greater transportation network.

Major arterials that run through the city include:
● Roseville Parkway
● Foothills Boulevard
● Douglas Boulevard
● Baseline Road
● Santucci Boulevard
● Westbrook Boulevard
● Blue Oaks Boulevard
● Fiddyment Road
● Sierra College Boulevard
● Pleasant Grove Boulevard
● Galleria Boulevard
● Eureka Road
● Sunrise Avenue
Minor arterials include but are not limited to Cirby Way, Rocky Ridge Drive, Harding Boulevard, Junction Boulevard, Washington Boulevard, Vista Grande Boulevard, and Secret Ravine Parkway. As noted in Figure 19, the existing street network is more compact and grid-like in the core of the city (Downtown) and becomes less connected with more winding streets the further away from the city’s central business district. 18 18 City of Roseville 2035 General Plan.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 30
Figure 19. Map of Existing Streets and Highway Network

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 31
Walking Facilities
Roseville has nearly 400 miles of complete sidewalks
(see Table 3) and 51 miles of existing trails, creating many opportunities for residents to make local trips
on foot. There are also nearly 300 miles of roadways
with incomplete or under-construction walking
networks, where sidewalks are largely absent from
one or both sides of the street. There are
opportunitiesfor the City to fill network gaps in key
areas to provide greater access to local and regional
destinationsfor people walking. It is important to
note that the western portions of the city have been
developing rapidly, including the installation of many
new sidewalks, crossings, and multi-use trails. Figure
20 showsthe city’s existing pedestrian sidewalk and
multi-use trail network. The area north of Amtrak
and around Downtown in particular features a high
number of older, narrow alleys and streets without
space for sidewalks. However, many of these streets
see lower traffic volumes and speeds than nearby
major arterials with sidewalks, and therefore may
still serve as preferred walking routes. Additionally,
the west side of Roseville is developing rapidly,
therefore the existing data shown in Table 3 and
Figure 20 may not adequately reflect pedestrian infrastructure built after the development of this memo.

Table 3. Existing Pedestrian Network
Facility Miles*
Multi-Use Trails 63.2
Existing 51.3
Previously Planned 11.9
Sidewalks 691.2
Incomplete/Under Construction 293.8
Complete (both sides) 397.4
Total 754.4
*Excludes freeways and on/off-ramps
Sidewalks along Washington Boulevard.

Multi-use trail in Roseville.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 32 Figure 20. Map of Sidewalk Network and Gap

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 33
Most collector and arterial streets in the city are wide and have long crossing distances. Further, many intersections feature channelized traffic islands that could be difficult for people walking or using mobility devices to maneuver (see image above). Curb ramps generally exist at major intersections across the city, but there are some intersections along collector and local streets do not have existing curb ramps. Similarly, standard marked crosswalks exist at most intersections between two major or minor arterials, as well as at some intersections near schools, parks, and other destinations. Several locations also feature high-visibility marked crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, and pedestrian crossing signage. Table 4 and Figure 21 show the breakdown of what percent of all intersections in the city feature marked crosswalks, based on existing data from the City of Roseville.

Table 4. Existing Crosswalks*
Intersections Percent with 1 or More
Marked Crosswalks
Percent with Marked
Crosswalks on All Legs
All Intersections (4,417 total intersections) 8% 1%
Intersection with Collector/Arterial (936 total intersections) 28% 4% * Note: at the time of completion of this memo, crosswalk data for western parts of the city was not available.

Curb ramps, standard crosswalks, and channelized traffic island on Pleasant Grove.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 34 Figure 21. Map of Marked Crosswalks

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 35
Biking Facilities
As listed in Table 5 and shown in Figure 22, Roseville has 174 miles of existing bikeways, with plans to build nearly

15.2 miles more in the coming years. These existing facilities consist of Class II bike lanes (nearly 111 miles), with an additional 51 miles of Class I paths and 12 miles of Class III bike routes. Many of the bike routes are concentrated in older portions of the City of Roseville, and others serve as connections between new developments in the western part of Roseville. The city does not have any existing Class IV separated bikeways.

Table 5. Existing Bikeways by Class
Bike Facility Class Existing Facilities (Mi.) Planned Facilities (Mi.) Previously Proposed Facilities (Mi.) Class I – Multi-Use Trail 51.3 11.9 22.2
Class II – Bike Lane 110.8 2.7 21.6
Class IIB – Buffered Bike Lane 0.0 0.6 0.0
Class III – Bike Route 11.5 0.0 39.4
Total 173.6 15.2 83.2
The Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM)
defines four types of bicycle facilities:

Class I – Shared Use Path (Multi-Use Trail)
Class I facilities are dedicated paths for walking and
bicycling that might parallel streets, but are
completely separated from the roadway by at least
5 feet.

Class II – Bike Lane
Class II bike lanes are striped lanes for bicyclists
located against the curb or next to a parking lane.

This includes buffered bike lanes which include a
striped “buffer” area of paint either between the
bicycle lane and the travel lane, between the
bicycle lane and parked cars, or both.

Class I path in Roseville. Source: City of Roseville
Class II bike lane on Douglas Blvd.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 36
Class III – Bike Route or Bike Boulevard
Signed routes for bicyclists, where lanes are shared with motorists. These low-speed and volume streets can also include traffic-calming features or other treatments to prioritize bicyclist comfort and deliberately slow vehicles down. An example of a bicycle boulevard with traffic calming is shown in the image above.

Class IV – Separated Bikeway
Separated bikeways provide a physical vertical barrier
between the bicycle space and motor vehicle lanes,
including bollards, flex posts, curbs, or parking. An
example of a separated bikeway is shown in the
image to the right. Please note that at the time of
completion of this memo, the city does NOT have any
existing Class IVs facilities.

Class IV separated bikeway in Davis, CA.

Class III bike boulevard with traffic circle in Palo Alto, CA.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Figure 22. Bicycle Facilities – includes Existing, Planned (Budgeted or in Design), and Previously Proposed Bikeways Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 37

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 38
Transit Network
The city is linked to Sacramento and the greater Bay Area through Amtrak and Capitol Corridor rail, which both stop at Roseville Station. Roseville Transit provides commuter bus service between Roseville and downtown Sacramento, and operates fixed routes throughout the city with connections to Placer County Transit and Sacramento Regional Transit (Figure 23). Additional services include Arrow on-demand service, accessible Paratransit service, and Game Day Express service to Kings games at the Golden 1 Center. The local network includes 10 bus routes, 13 park-and-ride lots, and 24 electronic bike lockers at six locations. Additionally, all Roseville Transit buses are equipped with two front-mounted bike racks. The local bus lines, including neighborhood lines and cross-city routes, connect riders to four major transit hubs from the edges of the city:

Galleria Transfer Point, Civic Center Transfer Point, Sierra Gardens Transfer Point, and Louis Orlando Transit Center. In particular, the Louis Orlando Transit Center is designed to connect riders from local bus routes to Placer County Transit (Route 10) and Sacramento Regional Transit (Routes 21, 25, 93, and 193). Placer County Transit also stops at Galleria Transfer Point (Routes 10 and 20) and Sierra College (Routes 10, 20, and 50) within Roseville city limits. A map of all existing bus routes can be seen in Figure 23 while a list of the busiest bus stops serving the city are in Table 6 and shown in Figure 24.

Table 6. Top 10 Busiest Bus Stops Citywide
Stop Location Estimated Annual
Boardings19
N Sunrise Avenue and Lead Hill Boulevard (Northbound) 6,003 Vernon Street and Grant Street (Northbound) 3,155
Cirby Way and Cirby Hills Drive (Westbound) 2,511
Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Foothills Boulevard (Eastbound) 2,161 N Sunrise Avenue and Eureka Road (Southbound) 1,927
Justice Center Drive and Industrial Avenue (Westbound) 1,876 Sunrise Avenue and Cirby Way (Northbound) 1,793
Vernon Street and Taylor Street (Northbound) 1,699
Roseville Parkway and Reserve Drive (Eastbound) 1,611
Fairway Drive and Five Star Boulevard (Eastbound) 1,593 19 GFI Data. January – December 2022 ridership data.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 39 Figure 23. Map of Transit Routes

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Figure 24. Map of Transit Ridership at Bus Stops Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 40

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 41
Collision Analysis
To understand where the highest incidences of bicycle and pedestrian collisions are occurring in Roseville, a collision analysis was undertaken utilizing data from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) for the most recent 5 years available, 2018 to 2022. The following collision patterns emerged:
● Bicycle and pedestrian-related collisions occurred at a higher rate at intersections on major and minor arterials.
● Areas with commercial and mixed-use land use designations also experienced higher rates of collisions compared to other land use categories.
● Two intersection locations emerged as key locations where multiple bicycle and pedestrian-related collisions occurred:
o Washington Blvd and Church St
o Sunrise Ave and Douglas Blvd
● The following corridors emerged as key roadways segments where multiple bicycle and pedestrianrelated collisions occurred:
o Douglas Blvd (Vernon St to Eureka Rd)
o Foothills Blvd (Misty Wood Dr to Atkinson St)
o Woodcreek Oaks Blvd (Deschutes Dr to Junction Blvd)
o Pleasant Grove Blvd (Michener Dr to Highland Park Dr) o Cirby Way (Regency Ave to Old Auburn Dr)
o Riverside Ave (Fourth St to City Boundary)
The following section provides additional details on overall trends and breaks down the data for collisions involving people walking and biking.

Collision Trends
Collisions involving people walking and biking collisions represent 4% and 5%, respectively, of all collisions that occurred in Roseville between 2018 and 2022.20 However, the number of collisions for people walking and biking has increased (shown in Figure 25) by 38% and 36%, respectively, compared to a decrease of 18% for motor vehicle collisions.
21 Similarly, the proportion of pedestrian and bicycle-related collisions resulting in a fatality or serious injury (killed or seriously injured – KSI) continued their upward trend for the 5-year period as noted in Figure 26. To put these numbers in perspective, Roseville has, on average, 23.8 people walking and 28.0 people biking killed or injured per year. For comparison, the City of Elk Grove has 23.8 people walking and 33.4 people biking killed or injured annually, and the City of Folsom has around 6.8 people walking and 13.8 people biking killed or injured annually.
20 Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). Collisions from 2018–2022 21 Please note that these numbers reflect the total number of bicycle and pedestrian related collisions. They do not reflect changes in total population (i.e., decrease/increase).

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 42
Figure 25. Collisions By Mode – All Collisions (2018–2022) Figure 26. Collisions by Mode – Killed or Seriously Injury (KSI) (2018–2022) Figure 27 shows a map of collisions involving people biking and walking for the years between 2018 and 2022. As noted, a higher proportion of collisions occurred in the eastern one-third of the city (east of the Union Pacific railroad corridor). Additionally, most collisions occurred at intersections and on arterial roadways (i.e., major and minor arterials). Of the collisions that occurred at intersections, speed did not play a major factor in the number of collisions, though the highest number of collisions in Roseville occurred when posted speed limits were 40+ miles per hour (MPH). Furthermore, most collisions involving people walking and biking (all severities) occurred between 7AM and 6PM (180 collisions or 76%), with the highest number occurring during peak commute hours (24 or 10% at 7AM and 22 or 9% at 5PM). The majority of KSI collisions involving people biking and walking occurred between 5 and 8PM (16 collisions or 55%). The most common violation categories reported for collisions involving people walking and biking (all severities, including KSI) were:
● Pedestrian violations (e.g., people walking crossed against a red light) (19%) ● Pedestrian right-of-way (people walking failed to yield to the vehicle right-of-way) (18%) ● Automobile right-of-way (people driving failed to yield to the pedestrian or bicyclist right-of-way) (14%) ● Bicycling on the wrong side of the road (13%)
Additional details are provided in the sections below for collisions involving people walking and people biking. 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
0 10
20 30
40 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Collisions (motor
vehicles)
Collsions (Bike/Ped)
Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Trendline
0 10
20 30
40 0
2 4
6 8
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Collisions (motor
vehicles)
Collsions (Bike/Ped)
Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Trendline

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 43
Figure 27. Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions (2018–2022)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 44
Collision Hot Spots
Between 2018 and 2022, people walking and biking in Roseville were more likely to be involved in a collision at the top intersections and corridors shown in Table 7 and Table 8. Intersections along Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard were the top collision locations for both people walking and people biking. Two specific intersections also appeared in both lists: Washington Boulevard and Church Street, and Douglas Boulevard and Sunrise Avenue.

Table 7. Top Collision Intersections for People Walking (All Severities) Intersection Name Collisions Involving People Walking
Woodcreek Oaks Blvd and Parkside Way 3
Roseville Pkwy and Taylor Rd 3
Atkinson St and Church St 2
Washington Blvd and Main St 2
Washington Blvd and Church St 2
Highland Pointe Dr and Pleasant Grove Blvd 2
Sunrise Ave and Douglas Blvd 1
Table 8. Top Collision Intersections for People Biking (All Severities) Intersection Name Collisions Involving People Biking
Woodcreek Oaks Blvd and Trailee Ct 3
Auburn Blvd and Orlando Ave 3
Sunrise Ave and Douglas Blvd 2
Americana Dr and Junction Blvd 2
Sunrise Ave and Sierra Gardens Dr 2
Harding Blvd and Lead Hill Blvd 2
Woodcreek Oaks Blvd and Horncastle Ave 2
Galilee Rd and Pleasant Grove Blvd 2
Rocky Ridge Dr and Maidu Dr 2
Washington Blvd and Church St 2
Rocky Ridge Dr and Douglas Blvd 2
Woodcreek Oaks Blvd and Pleasant Grove Blvd 2
Several top collision corridors are also identified as part of a Highest-Injury Network—roads in Roseville with historically higher densities of collisions involving people walking or biking than other locations in the city, weighted to emphasize severe and fatal collisions. These roadway sections, shown in Table 9 and Figure 28, are where investments in safety infrastructure could have the greatest benefit for people in Roseville. The city’s highest-injury locations includes segments of Douglas Boulevard, Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard, Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Cirby Way, Washington Boulevard, and Foothills Boulevard.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 45
Table 9. Top Collision Corridors for People Walking and Biking (2018 and 2022, All Severities) Corridor Sections Section Length
(Miles)
Collisions Involving People
Walking & Biking
Douglas Blvd (Vernon St to Eureka Rd) 2.4 18
Foothills Blvd (Misty Wood Dr to Atkinson St) 2.9 16
Woodcreek Oaks Blvd (Deschutes Dr to Junction Blvd) 3.2 16 Pleasant Grove Blvd (Michener Dr to Highland Park Dr) 4.0 13 Cirby Way (Regency Ave to Old Auburn Dr) 1.8 12
Riverside Ave (Fourth St to City Boundary) 1.3 11
Harding Blvd (Wills Rd to Douglas Blvd) 1.0 7
Washington Blvd (Corporation Yard Rd to Pacific St) 0.7 7 Sunrise Ave (Conroy Ln to Cirby Way) 0.6 7
Rocky Ridge Dr (Lead Hill Blvd to Cirby Way) 1.3 6

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Figure 28. Map of Highest-Injury Locations Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 46

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 47
Collisions Involving People Walking
From 2018 to 2022, there were 110 people injured in collisions while walking, with 16 of those resulting in a serious injury or fatality (Figure 28). Most collisions occurred at intersections (as opposed to mid-block locations, or the singular roadways beyond the approach and centers of intersections) and on arterial roadways (i.e., major and minor arterials). Of the collisions that occurred at intersections, speed did not play a major factor in the number of collisions, though the highest number of collisions occurred on posted speed limits of 40+ MPH (44%).

Additionally, the highest number of collision victims were walking in marked crosswalks at the intersections.

While mid-block collisions were less frequent, they tended to occur when posted vehicle speed limits were 40+ MPH. These collision factors are depicted in Figure 30, where collisions are sorted by posted roadway speed limit.

Collisions involving people walking are shown by location type in Figure 31 and severity in Figure 32.

Figure 29. Collisions Involving People Walking - Type of Injury (2018–2022) Further, collisions involving people walking (all severities) were dispersed across most hours of the day, with the majority occurring at 5PM (13 collisions or 12%), followed by 7AM, 4PM, and 10PM, which each had 9 collisions or 8%. The majority of KSI collisions occurred between 5 and 10PM (11 or 69%). Additionally, the most common violation categories reported for collisions involving people walking (all severities, including KSI) were pedestrian violations (38%) and pedestrian right-of-way (30%). Moreover, 56% of KSI collisions involving people walking were attributed to pedestrian violations, such as crossing against a red light.

Visible Injury
56%
Complaint of Pain/other
38%
Severe Injury
12%
Fatal
4%
Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain/other
Severe Injury
Fatal

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 48
Figure 30. Collision Tree for People Walking

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 49
Figure 31. Collisions Involving People Walking by Location Type

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 50 Figure 32. Collisions Involving People Walking by Severity

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 51
Collisions Involving People Biking
From 2018 to 2022, there were 133 people injured in collisions while riding bikes, with 13 of those resulting in serious injuries or fatalities (Figure 33). As with collisions involving people walking, most people riding bikes were in an intersection when struck. However, speed was much more of an indicator for people riding bikes, with most of the collisions occurring where posted speed limits were 40+ MPH. These intersection collisions were most often attributed to people riding bikes on the wrong side of the road or automobiles failing to yield to the bicyclists’ right-of-way. These causes are depicted in Figure 34.

Unlike collisions involving people walking in Roseville, mid-block collisions are a substantial issue for people riding bikes, making up nearly a quarter of collisions. Moreover, all mid-block KSI collisions involving people riding bikes occurred where posted vehicle speed limits were 40+ MPH. These collisions are shown by location type in Figure 35 and by severity in Figure 36.

Figure 33. Collisions Involving People Biking - Type of Injury (2018–2022) Further, most collisions involving people biking (all severities) occurred between 7AM and 8PM, with the highest number occurring at 7AM (15 collisions or 12%), followed by 2 and 3PM (14 collisions or 11% each), and 12PM (13 collisions or 10%). The majority of KSI collisions involving people biking occurred between 4 and 9PM (11 or 85%). Additionally, the most common violation categories reported for collisions involving people biking (all severities, including KSI) were biking on the wrong side of the road (24%), people driving failing to yield to the bicycle right-of-way (23%), and improper vehicle turning (14%). Moreover, 31% of KSI collisions involving people biking were attributed to biking on the wrong side of road.

Visible Injury
45%
Complaint of
Pain/other
45%
Severe Injury
9%
Fatal
1%
Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain/other
Severe Injury
Fatal

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 52
Figure 34. Collision Tree for People Biking

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 53 Figure 35. Collisions Involving People Biking by Location Type

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 54 Figure 36. Collisions Involving People Biking by Severity

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 55
Plan Review
This section summarizes local and regional plans, policies, and standards that impact active transportation in the City of Roseville. These planning studies and reports were reviewed to gain a better understanding of existing conditions in Roseville as it pertains to active transportation. The plans and studies reviewed are listed in Table 10.

Key takeaways from each of these plans are described in the following sections, and a full document review is included in the appendix.

Table 10. Plans Reviewed by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Year Plan
Local Plans
City of Roseville 2023 Roseville Design & Construction Standards City of Roseville 2022 Atlantic Street Corridor Specific Corridor City of Roseville 2022 Douglas-Sunrise Specific Plan
City of Roseville 2021 Local Road Safety Plan
City of Roseville 2020 Roseville General Plan
City of Roseville 2018 Short Range Transit Plan
City of Roseville 2016 Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
City of Roseville 2015 Campus Oaks Specific Plan
City of Roseville 2012 Creekview Specific Plan
City of Roseville 2011 Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Roseville 2010 Communitywide Sustainability Action Plan City of Roseville 2010 Sierra Vista Specific Plan
City of Roseville 2009 Downtown Specific Plan
City of Roseville 2009 ADA Transition Plan
City of Roseville 2008 Bicycle Master Plan
City of Roseville 2008 Community Design Guidelines
City of Roseville 2006 Roseville Gateway Specific Plan
City of Roseville 2005 Smart Choices for Roseville’s Future City of Roseville 2004 West Roseville Specific Plan
City of Roseville 1998 Stoneridge Specific Plan
City of Roseville 1998 North Roseville Specific Plan
City of Roseville 1997 Highland Reserve North Specific Plan City of Roseville 1993 Del Webb Specific Plan
City of Roseville 1992 North Roseville Industrial Area Guidelines City of Roseville 1990 North Central Roseville Specific Plan City of Roseville 1989 Northwest Roseville Specific Plan City of Roseville 1987 Northeast Roseville Specific Plan City of Roseville 1985 Southeast Roseville Specific Plan

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 56
Jurisdiction Year Plan
Regional Plans
Sacramento Area Council of Governments 2022 Sacramento Region Trail Network Action Plan Placer County Transportation Planning Agency 2021 Placer-Sacramento Gateway Plan Sacramento Area Council of Governments 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency 2018 Placer County Regional Bikeway Plan Key Takeaways
The local and regional plans reviewed span a 17-year period during which the City implemented enhancements to the walking and biking networks, as well as supportive policies and programs. In recent years, the City has worked to evaluate and analyze existing safety and connectivity issues, most notably with the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). Adopted in 2021, the LRSP analyzed collision data to identify citywide trends, high-collision locations, highrisk locations, and locations with unusual collision patterns or high collision severities. The City’s decision to update both its 2008 Bicycle Master Plan and 2011 Pedestrian Master Plan in this Roseville Active Transportation Plan shows that the City’s focus on improving active transportation has increased. Implementation of active transportation projects is a strategy in both plans to equitably address transportation safety, sustainability, public health, and air quality. The Roseville Active Transportation Plan will further support these communitywide goals by acting as the guide to the implementation of active transportation facilities. Additional details can be found in the appendix.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 57
Appendix: Plan Review
This appendix includes a detailed summary of the plans reviewed.

Roseville Design & Construction Standards (2023)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
2023 Design & Construction Standards City of Roseville 2023 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The City of Roseville Design & Construction Standards guide the design and construction of public infrastructure associated with both City projects and development projects. The D/C standards are maintained by the Development Services Department’s Engineering Division.

Corridor Level Improvements
• The D/C standards provide detailed guidance for the preparation of construction drawings for sidewalks and bikeways.

Key Takeaways
• The last comprehensive update for bikeway standards was in 2006 or 2007. The standards should be revisited to consider modern bikeway facility types (bike boulevards, cycle tracks, etc.). • The sidewalk improvement standards should be considered for minor updates.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Section 7 - Streets
7-6 Sidewalk
Requirements
In Table 7-3, in the last row, correct the spelling of “Multi-modal” Path. 7-7 Pedestrian
Walks and Bike
Paths
This section contains sidewalk standards for Roseville, including standards for some modern pedestrian facilities such as bulb-outs, but may not have guidance for all pedestrian crossing treatments.

This section states “Combined pedestrian/bike paths (see Class 1A Bikeways within Section 13) shall be a minimum of 12 feet wide.” The terminology for the Class 1A path type differs in Section 13-7 where it is referred to as a Class 1A sidewalk bikeway. Consider modifying the terminology in Section 7-7 and as needed 13-7 to refer to these as Class 1A sidewalk bikeway to avoid confusion.

Section 13-7 and section 7-7 should reference that Class 1A sidewalk bikeways shall be designed per Section 7-6 sidewalk standards, except that the minimum width should be 12’ or as otherwise determined in a specific plan or master plan. This change is recommended since the Class 1A facilities are typically specified at 8’ or 10’ wide.

Strike the word “other” from the last sentence referencing Section 13.

Section 13 Bikeways Design Standards & Bikeway Details
13-2 Design
Criteria
This section references and requires design conformity to AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities, Caltrans HDM Chapter 1000 Bikeway Planning and Design, and the Cal MUTCD. This section was written prior to the HDM’s rewrite that moved Class II bikeway guidance into other chapters related to highway design and consideration should be given to updating this reference.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 58
13-4 Class I
This is a comprehensive list of guidance for Class I trail design, primarily written in 2006 with minor tweaks since then. Items for consideration:
• Review against latest AASHTO and HDM standards and update as needed. • Review in consideration of the US Access Board’s ADA standards for bike paths. • Consider adding guidance for design of Class I street crossings, including width of curb ramps in consideration of newer standards and other measures for trail user safety. • Consider adding guidance for wayfinding signs.
13-5 Bike Paths
in Floodplains
Consider adding guidance for saw cutting joints (instead of tool joints) in PCC bike paths. 13-7 Class IA
Sidewalk
Bikeways
This section states that Class 1A sidewalk bikeways shall be designed per Section 7-7. 13-8 Class II Consider adding design guidance for buffered bike lanes. 13-9 Class III Consider adding further guidance for Class III bikeways.

Other Consider adding design standards and/or details for buffered bike lanes, bike boulevards, Class IV Cycle Tracks, bike boxes and bicycle signal heads.

Atlantic Street Corridor Specific Plan (2022)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Atlantic Street Corridor Specific Plan & Douglas-Harding Corridor Specific Plan City of Roseville 2022 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Atlantic Street Corridor Specific Plan (ASCSP), located northeast of Downtown Roseville, envisions the Atlantic Street area as a vibrant, mixed-use corridor that connects to the city’s Downtown. The Douglas-Harding Corridor Specific Plan (DHCSP), located southeast of Downtown Roseville, envisions the area as a vibrant, mixed-use corridor that serves as a gateway to the city.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall
The circulation systems for ASCSP and DHCSP are mapped together within each specific plan due to the plan area’s close proximity. The plans document existing circulation conditions on Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-3 and 4-4 (map numbering varies between plans) including:
• The Miners Ravine Trail, located in the open space between the two plan areas, and trail access points;
• Existing bike lanes on Atlantic Street, Harding Blvd and Lead Hill Blvd; • Existing striped crosswalks;
• Sidewalk gaps.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The specific plans do not propose changes to the pavement width of roads, but Section 4.4 Streetscape Plan does identify a menu of active transportation improvement opportunities that may be effectuated when properties develop including:
• Crossing treatments such as enhanced paving and striping, separated sidewalks, wayfinding, street furniture, lighting, and landscaping.

Bikeway
System
The specific plans do not include a bikeway plan, but does offer the following:

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 59
• Policy 2.2: Consider transportation system improvements that support choice in travel modes.

This policy notes “the City will consider the feasibility of multi-modal system improvements as part of any future roadway project or circulation design project in the Plan Area.” • Policy 2.6: Consider improvements to enhance the function and use of bicycle facilities. This policy notes “As funding is available, the City will determine the most appropriate location for improvements and the most appropriate type of improvement. The determination of suitability, location, and design of improvements will depend on a more detailed site- or project-specific evaluation of needs and constraints.”
• Policy 2.7: Consider trailhead improvements to enhance community identity and expand trail access opportunities.

Pedestrian
Overlay
The SRSP does not include a Pedestrian Overlay District or other pedestrian system guidance beyond the street improvement standards and multi-use trails included in the Bikeway Plan.

Development
Agreement
The SRSP’s implementing Development Agreements identify funding mechanisms for trail construction through the Neighborhood Park fee program and trail maintenance through the SRSP Services District.

Douglas-Sunrise Specific Plan (2022)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Douglas-Sunrise Specific Plan City of Roseville 2022 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Douglas-Sunrise Corridor Specific Plan (DSCSP) is envisioned as an attractive and vibrant corridor providing a mix of commercial and residential uses, serving as a gateway to East Roseville from Interstate 80 (I-80) and the western areas of the city.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall
Chapter 4 Circulation describes the Plan Area’s circulation system, including existing transit and facilities for alternative transportation. It includes an overview of the Plan Area’s existing circulation system, to provide a baseline upon which to build the goals, objectives, and policies that support improvements and enhancements to the streetscape and streetscape environment. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the existing constraints and opportunities within the Plan Area, establish policies, and define improvement options.

Figure 4-1 and 4-2 identify existing circulation conditions in the area that include:
• Bike lanes not present on the portions of Sunrise Blvd within the plan area; • Existing bike lanes on Douglas Blvd, Lead Hill Blvd and Sierra Gardens Dr; • Existing striped crosswalks at signalized intersections; and • Sidewalk gaps on the west side of Sunrise Avenue.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The specific plans do not propose changes to the pavement width of roads, but Section 4.4 Streetscape Plan does identify a menu of active transportation improvement opportunities that may be effectuated when properties develop including:
• Crossing treatments such as enhanced paving and striping, separated sidewalks, wayfinding, street furniture, lighting, and landscaping.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 60
Bikeway
System
The specific plan does not include a bikeway plan, but does offer the following:
• Policy 2.2: Consider transportation system improvements that support choice in travel modes.

This policy notes “the City will consider the feasibility of multi-modal system improvements as part of any future roadway project or circulation design project in the Plan Area.” • Policy 2.6 Consider improvements to enhance the function and use of bicycle facilities. This policy notes “As funding is available, the City will determine the most appropriate location for improvements and the most appropriate type of improvement. The determination of suitability, location, and design of improvements will depend on a more detailed site- or project-specific evaluation of needs and constraints.”

Pedestrian
Overlay
The DSCSP does not include a Pedestrian Overlay District or other pedestrian system guidance beyond the street improvement standards and multi-use trails included in the Bikeway Plan.

Sacramento Region Trail Network Action Plan (2022)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Sacramento Region Trail Network Action Plan SACOG 2022 Regional

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Sacramento Regional Trail Network will spark a new wave of walking, biking, and rolling to daily destinations throughout the region. The trail network is primarily off-street paths, but may include Class IV cycle tracks.

Corridor Level Improvements
● Attachment B of Appendix A includes a table for each top tier regional trail project, including Roseville’s Dry Creek Greenway Trail project.
● Attachment C of Appendix A includes a table for lower tier regional trail projects, including Roseville’s Pleasant Grove Creek, Washington/Andora, Mahany, Ridgewood, Secret Ravine (Sutter Hospital), Old Roseville Crossing, Woodcreek Oaks, Foothills (HP) Trail projects.
● The plan also identifies a trail corridor along Industrial Avenue connecting Lincoln to Roseville.

Key Takeaways
The plan also identifies several trail study corridors, including:
● Pleasant Grove Creek Trails to Power Line Corridor Trails near Woodcreek Golf Course ● Industrial Avenue Trail to Washington Boulevard Trail ● Washington/Andora Phase 1 Trail to Amtrak Train Station across/under tracks to Miners Ravine Trail

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Policies Below is a heat map of responses to the question Where would you like to go?” from the plan’s public survey:

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 61
The following map shows the regional trail network in proximity to Roseville:

Infrastructure
The plan identifies a map and list of “Tier 1” Trail Projects, some of which are considered “regional” and others “network” trails. The plan also identifies trail study corridors, several of which are in Roseville, as shown in the following graphic.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 62

Attachment B of Appendix A includes a table for each top tier regional trail project, including Roseville’s Dry Creek Greenway Trail project. Attachment C of Appendix A includes a table for lower tier regional trail projects, including Roseville’s Pleasant Grove Creek, Washington/Andora, Mahany, Ridgewood, Secret Ravine (Sutter Hospital), Old Roseville Crossing, Woodcreek Oaks, Foothills (HP) Trail projects.

Roseville Local Road Safety Plan (2021)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Local Road Safety Plan City of Roseville 2021 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY
Summary: The LRSP analyzes collision data to identify citywide trends, high-collision locations, high-risk locations, and locations with unusual collision patterns or high collision severities. This information is used to develop a toolbox of countermeasures applicable to conditions in the city that can be used for proactive identification and implementation of

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 63
opportunities, without relying solely on a reaction and response to collisions as they occur. The overall vision of the LRSP is to: “Support the California vision of moving towards significantly reducing fatalities and serious injuries for all road users.” Corridor Level Improvements
The LRSP identifies potential countermeasures for five priority intersections and one priority road segment:
● Sunrise Avenue and Cirby Way
● Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Highland Pointe Drive
● Cirby Way and Riverside Avenue
● Cirby Way and Melody Lane
● Blue Oaks Boulevard and Washington Boulevard
● Atlantic Street/Vernon Street, between Jefferson Street and Branstetter Street (road segment) Key Takeaways
● The LRSP was undertaken prior to Safe Streets for All (SS4A) program guidance. It is not clear if the LRSP qualifies as a SS4A Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (i.e., Vision Zero Plan) for SS4A funding. If the LRSP does qualify, it should be noted that the list of projects in the LRSP that would then be eligible for SS4A funding is limited. ● Per Section 7.7, the majority of bicycle and pedestrian collisions (five-year period from 2015 to 2019) occur at intersections as opposed to roadway segments. Pedestrian collisions are more prevalent at unsignalized intersections and bicycle collisions are more prevalent at signalized intersections. ● There were 162 bicycle-involved collisions (2015–2019), making up 2.7% of all collisions in the city. Of the 162 bicycle-involved collisions, none were fatal, nine were reported with serious injury, 81 with visible injuries, and 46 with complaints of pain.
● Over the span of 2015 to 2019, a total of 113 pedestrian-involved collisions occurred, making up just over 1% of all collisions within the city. Of the 102 pedestrian-involved injury collisions, three were fatal (compared to 14 fatal collisions overall), 10 were reported with serious injury, 50 with visible injuries, and 39 with complaints of pain.
● There were 2,211 aggressive driving collisions between 2015-2019, accounting for 36% of collisions within the city of Roseville. The California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) data definition for aggressive driving is a collision where primary collision factor violation category is unsafe speed, following too closely, or traffic signals and signs or the other associated factor violation category is failure to heed stop signal, failure to heed stop sign, unsafe speed, reckless driving, or following too closely. ● Approximately 11% of collisions within the City of Roseville were associated with alcohol or drugs. Ten of the collisions resulted in fatalities and 30 resulted in serious injuries. Furthermore, 10 of the 14 fatal collisions within Roseville during the study period involved impaired drivers. In the City of Roseville, collisions related to impaired driving represent approximately 30% of all fatal and serious injury collisions, which is more than the state average of 25%.
● There were 420 collisions reported as distracted driving collisions between 2015-2019 accounting for 7% of collisions within the City of Roseville.

TRANSIT RELATED/ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 64
Overall
Collision data for the 5-year period from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2019, was used for the collision analysis. Pertinent collision data summaries are provided below:

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 65

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 66
Policies Table 3 of the LRSP includes a list of the Roseville Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 67
Infrastructure
From the citywide analysis, six project case study locations and one systemic signalized intersections project were selected for further analysis and development of safety improvement recommendations. Table 4 summarizes the recommendations.

Table 5 contains countermeasures that have demonstrated effectiveness and could be applied at the City level.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 68
Roseville General Plan (2020)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
General Plan City of Roseville 2009 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The City of Roseville General Plan (Plan) establishes long-range development policies for private development proposals and public projects. https://RosevilleGeneralPlan The plan includes the following elements:
● Land Use Element
● Circulation Element
● Air Quality and Climate Change Element
● Open Space and Conservation Element
● Parks and Recreation Element
● Public Facilities Element
● Safety Element
● Noise Element

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 69
● Housing Element
Corridor Level Improvements
● See General Plan Exhibit III_5 Bikeway Plan
Key Takeaways
● The General Plan includes several goals and policies that support multimodal bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall –
Circulation
Element
The Circulation Element includes Goals and Policies in the following sections:
● Functional Classification
● Level of Service
● Transit
● Travel Demand Management
● Bikeways/Trails
● Pedestrian Access
Key policies from these sections are:

Level of Service
Policy CIRC2.1 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.

Policy CIRC2.5 Pedestrian, bicycle travel, and transit access have a higher priority than automobile travel in the City’s Pedestrian Districts, and development projects in these areas are exempt from the City’s LOS standard.

Policy CIRC2.6 Prioritize investments in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access in Pedestrian Districts.

Bikeways/Trails (see also Figure III-5 Bikeways)
Goal CIRC5.1 Increase the percentage of all trips made by bicycles in Roseville.

Goal CIRC5.2 Establish and maintain a safe, comprehensive, and integrated bikeway and trail system that encourages the use of bikes and walking for commuting, recreational, and other trips.

Goal CIRC5.3 Maintain the Bicycle Friendly Community Designation from the League of American Bicyclists.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 70
Policy CIRC3.1 Develop a comprehensive and safe system of recreational and commuter bicycle routes and trails that provides connections between the City's major destinations (including employment) and housing areas and between its existing and planned bikeways.

Policy CIRC3.2 Coordinate Roseville's bikeway and trail system with those of neighboring jurisdictions to provide both local and regional connections.

Policy CIRC3.3 Pursue available sources of funding for bikeways and trails.

Policy CIRC3.4 Enhance bicycle education, encouragement, and enforcement programs targeted at adult and child bicyclists and motorists.

Policy CIRC3.5 Specific Plans shall incorporate an off-street, Class I bicycle system as part of the comprehensive on-street and off-street bikeway plan.

Policy CIRC3.6 Educate, encourage, and enforce programs that increase bicyclist and motorist awareness of the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists to foster a climate of acceptance for bicycle riding.

Policy CIRC3.7 Include on-street and off-street bicycle improvements with new roadway and roadway expansion projects.

Pedestrian Access
Goal CIRC6.1 Increase the percentage of pedestrian trips in Roseville.

Policy CIRC6.1 Establish and maintain a safe and continuous pedestrian network that provides connections between residential areas and commercial retail and services, employment, public services, parks, and public transit.

Policy CIRC6.2 Promote development patterns that encourage people to walk to destinations.

Policy CIRC6.3 Enhance pedestrian-friendly street environments and design public spaces and destinations in a way that encourages walking.

Policy CIRC6.4 Sidewalks shall be required in all new Specific Plan Areas, with new roadway construction, and with roadway expansion.

Policy CIRC6.5 In reviewing proposed development projects and implementing public projects, the City will incorporate standards designed to protect the security of pedestrians and minimize the potential for collisions involving pedestrians.

Policy CIRC6.6 In the Infill Area, the City will actively seek funding sources to complete and maintain sidewalk networks.

Air Quality &
Climate Change
Element
Goal AQ1.2 Integrate air quality planning with the land use and transportation planning process.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 71
Goal AQ.4 Increase the capacity of the pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation systems and promote vehicular transportation that uses less-polluting fuels, such as electricity.

Goal AQ1.5 Provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities for present and future transportation needs.

Goal AQ1.7 Improve transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access to lessen dependence on automobile travel and reduce household transportation costs.

Policy AQ1.12 Develop transportation systems that reduce vehicle emissions by improving the desirability of walking, bicycling, and public transportation relative to vehicular travel.

Policy AQ1.13 Identify feasible strategies to reduce transportation emissions from new projects and existing development within the Planning Area.

Policy AQ1.14 Encourage alternative modes of transportation, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use.

Open Space &
Conservation
Element
Goal OS1.2 Utilize the open space system to connect neighborhoods within the City.

Goal OS1.3 Provide access to public open space areas through a network of pedestrian and bicycle trails that will be adequately managed and protected.

Policy OS1.1 Provide an interconnecting system of open space corridors that, where feasible, incorporate bikeways and pedestrian paths.

Policy OS1.2 Provide interconnected open space corridors between open space and habitat resources, recreation areas, schools, employment, commercial service, and residential areas.

Policy OS1.3 Work with adjacent jurisdictions to connect the City with regional open space and trail systems, providing a network of open space and habitat resources, pathways, and, where feasible, equestrian trails through the City to link nearby communities.

Policy OS1.4 Require all new development to provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages to existing and planned open space systems. Where such access cannot be provided through the creation of open space connections, identify alternative linkages.

Policy OS2.5 Limit recreation activities within the City’s Regulatory Floodplain, as defined in the Safety Element, and require appropriate setback areas for trails and other public recreation uses so that natural resource areas are not adversely impacted.

Policy OS2.9 Limit the access of pedestrians and cyclists to vernal pool and wetland areas so that access is compatible with long-term protection of these natural resource areas, consistent with the City’s Open Space Preserve Overarching Management Plan.