Agenda packet, regular meeting — Roseville City Council, June 18, 2025 (part 5 of 12)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 72
Parks and
Recreation
Element
Goal PR1.2 Maximize the use of dedicated parklands and open space areas to provide residents with both active/formal/programmable and passive/informal/nonprogrammed recreation opportunities.

Policy PR1.5 The City shall prioritize discretionary and grant funding for areas of the community that are underserved in terms of access to passive and active recreation opportunities.

Policy PR1.6 Identify opportunities to develop additional parks or other public recreation facilities in underserved areas of the community where access to such facilities exceeds one-half mile walking distance for residents.

Safety Element
Flood Protection
Policy SAFE2.5 Minimize the potential for flood damage to public and emergency facilities, utilities, roadways, and other infrastructure.

Policy SAFE2.9 Where feasible, maintain natural stream courses and adjacent habitat and combine flood control, recreation, water quality, and open space functions.

Police Services
Policy SAFE3.7 Design parks that are conducive to surveillance by adjoining residents, security services, and police.

Policy SAFE3.9 Coordinate with patrol officers in patrolling parks, open space, and trails, and continue coordination with other law enforcement agencies.

Housing Element
Table X-22 includes a list of Affordable Housing Developments (Senior Apartments and Multi-family Apartments).

Appendix B
(Implementation
Measures)

Page 16 ends

Page 17 ends

including street treatment types for mid-block and intersection crossings:

Mid-block crossing treatments • High-visibility crosswalk markings • Overhead signs and flashing beacons • In-pavement flashers • Pedestrian-actuated signals • Grade-separated pedestrian crossings Intersection Crossing Treatments • Signal timing changes • Head-start pedestrian phases • Allpedestrian “scramble” phases • Pedestrian actuators • Countdown pedestrian signals • Animated eye pedestrian signals • Audible signals Page A-18 Implementation Measures • Reduced corner radii • Right-turn on red restrictions • “Watch Turning Vehicles” signage and legends • “Yield to Pedestrians” signage
Traffic Calming • Raised crosswalks (Speed Tables) • Raised intersections • Textured pavement • Neckdowns • Pedestrian refuge islands • Split Pedestrian Crossovers

Page 554 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 73
Pedestrian Enhancements • Comprehensive Sidewalk Networks • Pedestrian Only Walkways • Street Furniture • Covered Areas • Street Trees • Lighting • Building Setback • Parking Lot Walkways • Consolidation of Driveways • Use of On-Street Parking
Placer-Sacramento Gateway Plan (2020)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Placer-Sacramento Gateway Plan PCTPA/SACOG/Caltrans/CCJPA 2020 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Placer-Sacramento Gateway Plan (Gateway Plan) was developed as a comprehensive multimodal corridor plan to qualify for funding through the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program. The Gateway Corridor includes segments of I-80, Business 80, Highway 65, and Highway 50, as well as parallel local roadways, transit lines, and bikeways located within two miles of the corridor.

Corridor Level Improvements
● The Gateway Plan identifies bicycle/pedestrian, transit, road, and transportation management projects along the designated corridor. Roseville projects identified in the plan are identified in current planning documents such as the BMP and others.

Key Takeaways
● The Gateway Plan is updated periodically to include newer projects along the SR 65/I-80 corridor. Upon completion of the Active Transportation Plan Update, the City should work with Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) to incorporate appropriate projects into the Gateway Plan to facilitate additional grant funding opportunities.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall
The Gateway Plan identifies bicycle/pedestrian, transit, road, and transportation management projects along the designated corridor. Roseville projects identified in the plan are identified in current planning documents such as the Bicycle Master Plan and others.

SACOG Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
SACOG Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS)
SACOG 2020 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY

Page 555 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 74
Summary: The 2020 MTP/SCS lays out a transportation investment and land use strategy to support a prosperous region, with access to jobs and economic opportunity, transportation options, and affordable housing that works for all residents. https://www.sacog.org/planning/blueprint/2020-mtp-scs
Corridor Level Improvements
● Several projects are identified in the MTP/SCS.

Key Takeaways
● The MTP/SCS includes several goals and policies that support multimodal bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
GOAL 1 - Build Vibrant Places for Today’s and Tomorrow’s Residents Supporting Policy 1 - Provide incentives, information, tools, technical assistance, and encouragement to support implementation of the Sacramento region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy through:

Complete streets that provide safe, comfortable, and equitable facilities for people of all ages and abilities to walk, bike, and ride transit.

GOAL 2 - Foster the next generation of mobility solutions Supporting Policy 3 - Implement pilot projects aimed at making microtransit and micromobility (such as bike and scooter share) work for urban, suburban, rural, and low-income areas of the region.

GOAL 4 - Build and maintain a safe, resilient, and multimodal transportation system Supporting Policy 22 - Invest in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to encourage healthy, active transportation trips and provide recreational opportunities for residents and visitors.

Roseville Short Range Transit Plan 2018-2025 (2018)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Short Range Transit Plan 2018-2025 City of Roseville 2018 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The City of Roseville Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) was prepared to assess transit and related transportation issues in Roseville and the surrounding region and provide a “road map” for improvements to the public transit program over the upcoming seven years. The review of the SRTP focuses on first/last mile active transportation improvements that enhance access to transit.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Chapter 4
Existing
Services

Page 50 ends

lockers. Most major transit stations have electronic bike link lockers (Amtrak Station, Louis Orlando Transit Center, Mahany Regional Park, Saugstad Park, Taylor Road). Although not noted, we understand that bike link lockers were recently installed near the Civic Center Transfer Point. The Galleria is the one

Page 556 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 75
major transit center without bike link lockers, though an E-bike locker is planned for installation at this location.

Chapter 10
Capital
Alternatives
This chapter includes guidance on bus stop improvements, but it does not clearly identify pedestrian or bike improvements that are needed to facilitate enhanced access to transit. Gaps in the sidewalk system are identified in the Pedestrian Master Plan, but considerations should the relation between planned sidewalks and bus stops, and sidewalk accessibility at bus stops.

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.

Placer County Regional Bikeway Plan (2018)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Placer County Regional Bikeway Plan PCTPA 2018 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Plan identifies a vision and goals for bicycling, a network of bikeways to connect the county, and supportive programs and practices to encourage bicycling. The Plan develops a regional system of bikeways that connects the six incorporated cities and numerous unincorporated community areas.

Corridor Level Improvements
● The plan identifies a network of bikeways tin the unincorporated county, or bikeways requiring multijurisdictional coordination.

Page 557 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 76
For Roseville the plan shows primarily existing and some planned and existing shared use paths/multi-use trails (green), Class II bike lanes (blue) and Class III bikeways (red). The plan also identifies a Hwy. 65 Crossing Study area that includes Roseville. A couple of priority projects (purple) abut Roseville:

Key Takeaways
● The plan supports some of Roseville’s existing BMP projects that are multijurisdictional.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall /Standards The plan identifies a network of bikeways tin the unincorporated county, or bikeways requiring multijurisdictional coordination.

Policies
One of the strategies for integrated bikeway planning is “Ensure consistency between the regional bikeway planned network and General/Community/Specific Plan bikeways through revisions to the bikeway policies and facilities in these Plans when the same are updated.” Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (2016)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Creekview Specific Plan City of Roseville 2016 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP) establishes a comprehensive land use and regulatory framework to guide the development of approximately 694.4-acres located in the northwest edge of the City of Roseville, north of the CSP, with unincorporated Placer County and W. Sunset Boulevard (a County street) to the north.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall
The circulation system for the ARSP provides a hierarchy of streets, bikeways, walkways, and multi-use trails throughout the development area that provide both connectivity to and the expansion of existing and planned future city and regional facilities, and public transit options that will serve the community.

The placement of parks, landscape corridors and the alignment of the streets organize the community and promote traffic calming and pedestrian use

Page 558 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 77
Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:

Future Placer Parkway: The plan sets aside right-of-way for this future regional limited access highway project. The ROW includes area for an interchange with Westbrook Blvd. The Placer Parkway bisects the plan area developments, with one connecting road (Road G) proposed under Placer Parkway.

Major Arterial Street (Westbrook Blvd): 6’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street sidewalk within landscape corridors of varying width; except Westbrook has a 10’ path adjacent to open space as it connects to the CSP to the south.

Minor Arterial Street (Road B & Road D): 5’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ offstreet sidewalk within landscape corridors 35’-50’ wide.

Modified Collector Street (Road A): The Modified Collector standards provide: 5’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter) and 5’ to 10’ wide sidewalks within landscape paseos of varying widths.

Primary Residential Streets: The primary residential streets do not include Class II bike lanes but do have sidewalks varying in width from 5’ to 10’, with 10’ wide sidewalks provided in locations where continuous paseos are desired, and 8’ wide sidewalks on both sides of the street where Road G goes under Placer Parkway. Specific details regarding the design of paseos, their application throughout the Plan Area, and their interface with homes is provided in Section B.6 of Appendix B, Design Guidelines.

Local residential: 5’ sidewalks
Section 7.7 provides design guidance for bulb-outs, mid-block crossings and other traffic-calming measures.

Bikeway
System
In addition to the on-street bikeways, Figure 7.6 Bikeways identifies a short Class I trail at the southwest corner of the plan area that will provide future access to future trails in the Al Johnson Wildlife Area. This plan also identifies the Class II bike lanes, the paseos, and Class III bike routes on Roads D, E, F and G.

Pedestrian
Overlay
The ARSP 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.

Campus Oaks Master Plan (2015)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Campus Oaks Master Plan City of Roseville 2015 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks (HPCO) Master Plan area is formerly a part of the Hewlett-Packard Campus and the North Roseville Industrial Area Guidelines (NRIAG). The HPCO is not a specific plan, but it does provide land use and design guidance for a mixed-use community on 375.7-acres.

Page 559 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 78

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall
The HPCO Project Area mobility system is identified in HPCO Section 3.2 and designed to maximize connectivity, walkability, and convenience. Included is a modified grid street pattern that compliments and helps to complete the city’s larger roadway network; a safe and interconnected system of paths, sidewalks, and bike lanes; and multiple transit stops.

Street
Improvement
Standards
Figure 3-2 identifies the backbone roadway system and includes the following active transportation improvements:

Primary Arterial (Blue Oaks Blvd): 6’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street sidewalk within landscape corridors 35-55’ wide.

Minor Arterial (Woodcreek Oaks Blvd): 5’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street sidewalk within 20’ wide landscape corridors.

Modified Collector Street (Roseville Parkway): 5’ Class II bike lanes with 2’ buffer (exclusive of curb and gutter), Roseville’s first buffered bike lane; 6’ sidewalks within landscape corridors of 25’-30’.

Modified Collector Streets (Painted Desert Dr, New Meadow Dr., Crimson Ridge Dr): 5’ Class II bike lanes (excluding curb and gutter); 5’ sidewalks within 25’ wide landscape corridor Park Couplet and Residential Streets: 5’ sidewalk each side Bikeway
System
Figure 3-13 Pedestrian and Bicycle Network includes a network of Class I paths within open space areas, parks, and paseos, some of which will be built with the project and one at the south end that connects from the Pleasant Grove Creek Trail to Foothills Blvd that will be built separately, with some seed money provided by the HPCO Development Agreement. The plan also identifies the Class II bike lanes on arterial and collector roads.

Pedestrian
Overlay
The HPCO plan 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.

Creekview Specific Plan (2012)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Creekview Specific Plan City of Roseville 2012 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Creekview Specific Plan (CSP) includes 501 acres north of Blue Oaks Blvd and north and west of the West Roseville Specific Plan.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall
The circulation system for the CSP includes a hierarchy of roadways and other improvements designed to link with existing and planned city and regional facilities. These facilities address mobility within the CSP and include roadways, bikeways, pedestrian paths, and public transit.

Page 560 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 79
Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:

Major Arterial Street (Blue Oaks Blvd, Westbrook Blvd): 6’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street sidewalk within landscape corridors of varying width; except Westbrook has a 10’ path adjacent to open space as it approaches the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan to the north.

Modified Collector Streets (Holt Parkway, Benchmark Dr, Lower Bank Dr): The Modified Collector standards provide: 3’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter) and 8’ to 10’ wide sidewalks within landscape paseos of varying widths.

Residential Streets (Primary and Local): 4’-5’ sidewalks.

Bikeway
System
In addition to the on-street bikeways, Figure 6-18 Class I and II Bikeways identifies Class I paths within open space and parks including two bridge crossings of Pleasant Grove Creek and an undercrossing of Westbrook Blvd, Class II bike lanes on arterial and collector streets, and a paseo system for enhanced connectivity. Figure 6-19 includes guidance for street crossings of bike paths.

Pedestrian
Overlay
The CSP 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.

Roseville Pedestrian Master Plan (2011)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Pedestrian Master Plan City of Roseville 2011 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Pedestrian Master Plan is intended to establish policies, projects, and programs that improve the pedestrian system in Roseville and increase walking for transportation, recreation, and health. The PMP identifies a recommended pedestrian network and establishes a 20-year framework of improvements that will enhance the pedestrian environment.

Corridor Level Improvements
● Table 19 identifies the top priority missing sidewalk segments as those that received a rank of 4 or 5, or those segments where specific requests were received by the public. ● Appendix A-1 identifies all the missing sidewalk segments by rank.

Key Takeaways
● The 2011 PMP was adopted prior to adoption of the Sierra Vista, Creekview, Amoruso Ranch and Commercial Corridor (Atlantic Street, Douglas-Harding, and Douglas-Sunrise) Specific Plans. The base maps and proposed and other mapping do not include those Specific Plans.
● The PMP focuses on completeness of sidewalk segments, but does not review or evaluate street crossings for safety, comfort, and convenience.
● When preparing the 2011 PMP, a policy decision was made to not inventory sidewalks on residential streets.

Figure 6 does, however, identify mature neighborhoods that have no sidewalks or are missing sidewalks.

Page 561 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 80

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall
The PMP documents the federal, state, regional, and local context for pedestrian planning. The PMP notes that “Pedestrian Districts” have been designated in the West Roseville, Riverside Gateway, and Downtown Specific Plans. This designation means that pedestrian travel takes a higher priority than automobile travel in these districts.

The 2011 PMP was adopted prior to adoption of the Sierra Vista, Creekview, Amoruso Ranch, and Commercial Corridor (Atlantic Street, Douglas-Harding, and Douglas-Sunrise) Specific Plans. The base maps and proposed and other mapping do not include those Specific Plans. https://www.roseville.ca.us/SpecificPlans
The PMP included an inventory of 755 sidewalk segments along arterial and collector streets. Of these, 75% of segments included full sidewalk on both sides of the street. The remaining segments had some or all the sidewalk missing on one or both sides of the street. The inventory did not include residential streets, but Figure 6 identifies mature residential areas that have no sidewalks or are missing sidewalks.

Standards
The PMP includes Appendix B, Best Practices Manual for Pedestrian Design. The manual includes guidelines for pedestrian design that are intended to enhance accessibility for all pedestrians including individuals with disabilities, and improve safety, connectivity, and ease of use. The guidelines contain many but not all modern pedestrian design treatments.

Policies
Overall, the goals, policies & implementation measures are thorough and understandable but are length and consideration should be given to updating them to focus on the most salient policies and measures.

Policies and Implementation Measures of note are described below:

Implementation Measure 5 (Pedestrian Access and Circulation) states “When traffic impact studies are prepared, consider the effect on pedestrian safety as well as increased pedestrian crossing times and distances or pedestrian wait times due to longer cycle lengths.” Implementation Measure 6 (Pedestrian Access and Circulation) states “Consider adopting a “Pedestrian Safety Action Plan” tailored to Roseville pursuant to Federal Highway Administration publication FHWA SA-05-12.”
Implementation Measure 1 (Pedestrian Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement Programs) states “Consider formation of a Pedestrian Safety Task Force comprised of City staff and community members to coordinate education, encouragement and enforcement strategies.” Infrastructure
Figure 5 identifies the areas of the city, mostly located near Downtown Roseville, that participate in the City’s annual sidewalk repair program.

Figure 7 shows the street segments with missing sidewalks. The missing sidewalks are classified within three categories: Those to be installed with other CIP projects; those that are developer responsibility; and the remainder that are part of the PMP Implementation Plan.

Page 562 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 81
The PMP prioritizes sidewalk improvements based upon a missing sidewalk’s proximity to transit centers and bus stops, secondary and elementary schools, critical sites (government, health care, or elderly facilities), and Pedestrian Districts. Figure 8 shows the sidewalks by scoring. Table 19 identifies the top priority missing sidewalk segments as those that received a rank of 4 or 5, or those segments where specific requests were received by the public. Appendix A-1 identifies missing sidewalk segments by rank.

Aerial mapping shows the following sidewalk segments from Table 18 and Appendix A-1 have been completed: Country Club (Danielle to Pleasant Grove); Pleasant Grove (Hemingway to Country Club); Oak Ridge (Vinmar to Rampart); Fairway (Central Park to Home Depot); Industrial (Blue Oaks to Alantown); Industrial (Alantown to Finesteria).

The PMP did not review or evaluate street crossings for safety or other upgrades.

Table A-2 identifies a variety of potential funding sources but should be updated to reflect current grant funding program opportunities.

Roseville Communitywide Sustainability Action Plan (2010)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Communitywide Sustainability Action
Plan City of Roseville 2010 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The main objective of the City of Roseville Communitywide Sustainability Action Plan (SAP) is to set forth a comprehensive strategy to address emerging sustainability issues related to land use patterns, transportation, building design, energy use, water demand, and waste generation. The SAP outlines a road map to reduce GHGs and air pollutant emissions within the community (i.e., vehicle emissions, emissions related to energy production) and to promote economic growth based on clean technology and sustainable practices.

Key Takeaways
● The Communitywide Sustainability Action Plan includes several policies that support increased bicycling and walking as a climate adaptation, but approaches and Pedestrian upgrades, but at nearly 20 years old, this document may not be referenced as often as newer plans.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Existing and
Ongoing
Transportation
Policies
E. Regularly (i.e., every 4 years) update and implement the Bicycle Master Plan, including construction of capital improvements for bike facilities, especially facilities used for work commutes. Explore funding and staffing options to accelerate bikeway development. Seek community (e.g., Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations [RCONA]) and regional inputs when updating the plan.

F. Continue to provide community programs and other incentives for commuter biking.

Page 563 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 82
G. Adopt, regularly update (i.e., every 3 years) and implement a Pedestrian Master Plan that includes a Capital Improvement Program to close sidewalk gaps, identifies other design measures and best practices that improve the pedestrian environment. Seek community (e.g., RCONA) and regional input when updating the plan, and evaluate pedestrian needs using walk scores.

H. Adopt, regularly update (i.e., every 3 years) and implement an ADA Transition Plan for public rightsof-way.

I. Identify ongoing funding to continue the existing Safe Routes to School Pilot Program and expand the program into other Roseville schools.

J. Promote a program that encourages youth to ride bicycles to school at least 1 day a week. (e.g., “Walking School Bus Day" or "Move It" walk and bike clubs at Coyote Ridge Elementary School.) Longterm goal is moving the program to "Every Day is Bike Day." K. Expand efforts to have Roseville youth participate in a National Bike Month and/or a City-sponsored Bike to School Month.

L. Actively pursue funding for adaptive traffic signals (through 2016).

Objective T-5: Expand and enhance the bikeway network and support facilities and encourage their use to increase bike ridership (~1% biking and walking combined mode shift).

Objective T-6: Improve the pedestrian environment to increase walking in the community (~1% biking and walking combined mode shift).

Objective T-9: Enhance efficiency of the City's roadway network to reduce vehicle delays and emissions while maintaining or enhancing the bicycle and pedestrian environment.

Measure T-1.1 Collaborate with adjacent cities to identify inadequate links in regional connectivity for alternative transportation (e.g., biking and walking) and prioritize filling gaps to maintain continuity through the edge of the city.

Measure T-5.1 Maximize bicycle use through high-quality design, enhanced infrastructure, and enforcing bike travel rights.

Page 564 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 83
Measure T-5.2 Promote bicycle use through focused community outreach and education programs.

Measure T-6.1 Maximize pedestrian travel through high-quality design, enhanced infrastructure, and enforcing pedestrian travel rights.

Page 565 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 84
Measure T-7.1 Coordinate with SACOG’s Community Design and Caltrans' Safe Routes to School programs to identify grants to increase alternative transportation networks that serve the community center, libraries, schools, recreational areas, and other public gathering spaces.

Page 566 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 85
Sierra Vista Specific Plan (2010)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Sierra Vista Specific Plan City of Roseville 2010 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) establishes a comprehensive land use and regulatory framework to guide development of an approximately 2,075-acre Plan Area located to the west of Fiddyment Road and north of Baseline Road, along the western edge of the City of Roseville.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall
The circulation system for the SVSP includes a hierarchy of roadways and other improvements that are designed to link with existing and planned City and regional facilities, including roadways, bikeways, pedestrian paths, and public transit.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:

Major (6-lane plus bus lanes) Arterial Street (Santucci Blvd): Figure 6-2 shows 6’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street sidewalk within 40’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street, and right-of-way in median for future bus rapid transit lanes in each direction.

Major Arterial Street (Baseline Rd.): Figure 6-3 includes two plans for Baseline. One is an interim condition with two travel lanes in each direction and a 6’ Class II bike lane on one side of the street and a 3’ bike lane on the other side of the street (both exclusive of curb and gutter); the other includes full build-out by the County Riolo Vineyards Project, with 6’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter) and 8’ off-street sidewalk within 50’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street.

Major (6-lane) Arterial Streets (Fiddyment Road, Westbrook Blvd): 6’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street sidewalk within 35’-50’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street, except Baseline Rd. cross-section notes.

Minor (4-lane) Arterial Streets (Pleasant Grove Blvd, Vista Grande Blvd): 5’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ sidewalk within 35’-50’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street.

Modified Collector Streets: The Modified Collector standards provide: 3’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter) and, where on-street parking is allowed on one side of the street, a 6’ bike lane adjacent to the parallel parking; and 8’ to 10’ wide sidewalks within landscape paseos of varying widths.

Primary Residential Streets: The primary residential streets do not include Class II bike lanes but do have sidewalks varying in width from 4’ to 10’, with 10’ wide sidewalks provided in locations where continuous paseos were desired. Specific details regarding the design of paseos, their application throughout the Plan Area, and their interface with homes is provided in Section B.6 of Appendix B, Design Guidelines.

Local Residential Streets: 4’-5’ sidewalks

Page 567 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 86
Bikeway
System
Figure 6-21, Class I and Class II Bikeways, proposes approximately 29 miles of Class I and II bikeways. The Class II bikeways are built as arterial and collector roads are constructed. Class I paths are built as adjoining development are constructed, as parks are developed, or as city projects. The bikeway system is partially complete.

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

Downtown Specific Plan (2009)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Downtown Specific Plan City of Roseville 2009 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) encompasses 176 acres and includes the Historic Old Town, Vernon Street District, and Royer and Saugstad Parks. The Plan area is divided into 11 districts and emphasizes the addition of mixed-use and residential development. At build-out, the Plan area is expected to accommodate 900,000 square feet of new ground floor retail development, 1,020 new residential units, and a cumulative total of 4.4 million square feet.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall
The Specific Plan envisions future transportation and parking improvements with the following:
• Streetscape designs that improve the pedestrian environment, including wider sidewalks, pedestrian amenities and landscaping;
• Street sections that slow traffic and improve pedestrian safety by narrowing streets, providing curb extensions at intersections, installing mid-block crossings and traffic control devices for the pedestrian;
• Reconfiguration of street edges to provide angled parking and parallel parking; • New public parking garage(s) located based on the forecasted demand; and • The expansion of transit and bicycle facilities.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The Downtown area is supported by older streets with a variety of street sections that typically do not include bike lanes.

Page 568 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 87
Proposed
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
DTSP Chapter 6 proposes the following bike/ped improvements:
• Atlantic Street Pedestrian Promenade (Exhibit 6.3 & Figure 6.2) – Revised parking, new enhanced crossings, and new walkway along rail yard with overlook (not complete). • Vernon Street – Minor changes to Vernon/Lincoln for fire response improvement… otherwise prior streetscape improvements remain).
• Douglas Blvd – When new development occurs, DTSP proposes to enhance sidewalk network by closing gaps, widening sidewalks, and enhancing crossings (not complete). • Oak Street and Grant Street – Proposed mid-block crossing improvements (complete). • The DTSP plan for the Washington/Oak intersection (Exhibit 6.5) was modified with the later installation of a roundabout at that intersection.
• Enhanced pedestrian crossings and curb ramps at the Oak/Lincoln, Oak/Grant, Grant/Vernon intersections (complete).
• Town Square pedestrian improvements for S. Grant, Oak St., Vernon St. (complete). • Taylor Street landscape planters and sidewalk re-construction (complete). • Washington/Pleasant Street – Exhibit 6.9 calls for bulb-outs, enhanced crosswalks and other features to enhance this primary pedestrian crossing of Washington (not complete). • Washington/Lincoln intersection calls for signal but has since been replaced by a roundabout (under construction).
• Washington Boulevard Pedestrian Underpass – Figure 6.14 identifies potential widening improvements to enhance the underpass. This project is challenged by ADA standards and underground utilities beneath the walkway. Additional study is needed. • Washington from UPRR to Main St. – No planned changes. • Washington, Main to Lincoln – Wider 10’ sidewalks and 5’ bike lanes adjacent to parallel parking proposed (not complete).
• Main, Lincoln, Church, and Pacific Streets – No improvements proposed as all had been upgraded in late 90s.
• Residential Streets (Pleasant, Grove, Placer, Elefa) – To remain as existing except potential corner bulb-outs referenced to slow traffic and enhance pedestrian environment. • The plan references a pedestrian crossing of the UPRR as a potential future improvement. • The plan references construction of a new pedestrian bridge from Royer Park to align with the Town Square improvements and rotation of the Icehouse Bridge to facilitate extension of the Miners Ravine Trail into Royer Park. (Completed with Downtown Bridges & Trail Project.)

Page 569 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 88
• The plan proposes a “Creek Walk” on the west side of Dry Creek (opposite Royer Park) from the Icehouse Bridge to Douglas Blvd.
• Per Section 6.3 and Exhibit 6.11- Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities, new bicycle lockers are proposed (complete) and wayfinding signs are proposed for the many proposed Class III routes (not complete).

DTSP Exhibit 8.2 identifies connectivity opportunities within and to Royer and Saugstad Parks.

Downtown Code Section 6 (Public Realm Improvements) includes the following:
• PR - 17 - Bike racks. Bike racks should be located near 1. Transit stops, 2. Throughout commercial areas, 3. In parking lots, 4. Near the Civic Uses in Vernon Street area, and 5. Along Dry Creek and in the two parks.
• Section 6.7 – Sidewalk & Pedestrian Improvement Design Guidance. • Section 6.11 – Streetscape Design guidance.
• 6.12 – Washington Boulevard Underpass Canopy – This section identifies concepts for a canopy over the vehicular and pedestrian underpass, with plantings and artwork.

Pedestrian
Overlay
The DTSP area is identified with a Pedestrian Overlay District with the intent to place a greater emphasis on the pedestrian rather than the automobile by implementing measures to improve walkability. Additionally, the General Plan specifies that intersections within Pedestrian Districts shall be excluded from the City’s LOS policy which requires that 70 percent of City intersections function at LOS C or better during the PM peak hour.

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.

Roseville ADA Transition Plan (2009)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
ADA Transition Plan City of Roseville 2009 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The ADA Transition Plan for Public Rights-of-Way documents the legal and functional goals and objectives of the City to make existing pedestrian facilities within the public right-of-way accessible and usable for persons with disabilities. The ADA Transition Plan has been prepared pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires that all public agencies develop a transition plan for the installation of curb ramps or other sloped areas at all locations where walkways cross curbs.

Corridor Level Improvements
● Appendix A of the ADA Transition Plan includes a prioritized list of potential ADA projects. The projects are focused on curb ramp construction or re-construction and prioritization is based upon land uses served and condition of the existing facility. City should review the list of projects to determine which have been completed and update the plan if determined necessary.

Key Takeaways
● The ADA Transition Plan standards were created in 2008/09. City may wish to verify that the standards are still current and that they have been incorporated into the City’s Design & Construction Standards.

Page 570 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 89
● The ADA Transition Plan recommends compliance documentation for all new curb ramps. The City may wish to confirm that the recommended documentation practices are being implemented and that data is readily available (see full document review for further information).

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall
/Standards
The ADA Design Standards were developed to combine and resolve any conflicts between the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), published by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board in July 1991, and the California State Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulation, 2007 edition. Draft Guidelines for Public Rights-of-Way, published by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board on November 5, 2005, which are expected to take effect soon, were also considered in the ADA Design Standards. In addition, all City-approved policies and standards affecting accessibility in the public right-of way were included in the standards. City should periodically review ADA standards to ensure that new curb ramps meet the latest standards. Update the ADA Transition Plan as needed.

Policies
Section 6 includes a compliance form for each new curb ramp constructed in the city, and a compliance form for each new sidewalk constructed in the city. City should verify that the forms are being used for new projects (city and development) and should also ensure that the forms are available for review if requested.

Infrastructure
Chapter 4 includes ADA standards for a variety of public right-of-way improvements. These include sidewalk access, curb ramps, detectable warnings, pedestrian crossings, accessible pedestrian signals, transportation and vehicle access, street & sidewalk furnishings, and temporary construction standards.

City should verify that the applicable standards of the ADA Transition Plan have been incorporated into the City’s Design & Construction Standards.

Table 6.1 provides a summary ADA Implementation Plan by Fiscal Year. The fiscal plan estimates the number of curb ramps to be constructed per year and identifies an anticipated annual cost for budgeting purposes. If not done already, City should document the actual work completed in any given year and the cost.

Appendix A of the ADA Transition Plan includes a prioritized list of potential ADA projects. The projects are focused on curb ramp construction or re-construction and prioritization is based upon land uses served and condition of the existing facility. City should review the list of projects to determine which have been completed and update the plan if determined necessary.

Roseville Bicycle Master Plan (2008)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Bicycle Master Plan City of Roseville 2008 Placer

Page 571 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 90

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The 2008 BMP has five chapters: Introduction; Existing Conditions; Goals, Policies & Implementation Measures (with measures for the topics of Bikeway Route Development, Bikeway Support Facilities, Maintenance, Enforcement, Education, Encouragement, Environmental and Funding); Recommended Bicycle Network; and Funding. The Roseville BMP includes standards and policies for development of a comprehensive bikeway system that includes Class I shared use paths (multi-use trails), Class II on-street bike lanes and Class III on-street bike routes.

Corridor Level Improvements
● Miners Ravine Trail (Downtown to Sierra College Boulevard) ● Dry Creek Greenway East Trail (Phase 1 under construction/Phased 2 funded/Phase 3 to be coordinated with adjoining agencies)
● Dry Creek Greenway West (Planning & Feasibility Study complete) ● Pleasant Grove Creek Trails
● Northwest Roseville Power Line Corridor Trails (Sierra Vista – Mahany Park – Foothills) ● Highway 65 Trail Corridor
● Washington Boulevard Trail Corridor (existing and future) Key Takeaways
● The 2008 BMP was adopted prior to adoption of the Sierra Vista, Creekview, Amoruso Ranch and Commercial Corridor (Atlantic Street, Douglas-Harding and Douglas-Sunrise) Specific Plans. The base maps and proposed bikeway maps and bikeway miles do not include the bikeways within those Specific Plans. ● The BMP does not include guidance for development of modern bike facilities such as buffered bike lanes, Class IV cycle tracks, bike boxes, bike signals/intersection treatments, or bicycle boulevards. These types of facilities are not identified in Chapter V, Recommended Bicycle Network. Also, the BMP does not include Bikeway Design Guidelines. Also, Roseville’s Design & Construction Standards do not include guidance for development of most modern bike facilities.
● Connections to transit are referenced in the BMP (including in the existing conditions, goals/policies, and route selection sections), but the plan does not reference the concept of first/last mile connections to transit. ● Since adoption of the 2008 BMP, Roseville has completed some pilot projects for modern bikeway facilities, including a buffered bike lane on Roseville Parkway within the Campus Oaks area, green bike lanes and enhanced intersections on Washington Boulevard, and bicycle signal heads on Junction Boulevard at Park Regency.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS

Page 572 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 91
Overall
The 2008 BMP identified 119 miles of existing bikeways and 88 miles of proposed bikeways per Table 6:

These types of facilities are not identified in Chapter V, Recommended Bicycle Network. Also, the BMP does not include Bikeway Design Guidelines. Also, Roseville’s Design & Construction Standards do not include guidance for development of most modern bike facilities. (Note: Since adoption of the 2008 BMP, Roseville has completed some pilot projects for modern bikeway facilities, including a buffered bike lane on Roseville Parkway within the Campus Oaks area, green bike lanes and enhanced intersections on Washington Boulevard, and bicycle signal heads on Junction Boulevard at Park Regency.)
The BMP does not reference the California Green Building Code bike parking standards.

Page 573 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 92
Goals, Policies &
Implementation
Measures
The goals, policies & implementation measures are thorough and understandable but are also very lengthy. Consideration should be given to updating these to focus on the most salient policies and measures and incorporate modern standards for bikeway design and current local practices. Policies and Implementation Measures of note are described below:

BMP Policies -
Bikeway Route
Development
The BMP does not reference the California Green Building Code bike parking standards.

Policy 5 (Bikeway Route Development) states “In newly developing areas, the interval between designated bikeways should be approximately every 1/3-mile. Where feasible and where funding allows, the City should make efforts to approach a 1/3-mile bikeway interval in infill areas.” Policy 7 & 8 (Bikeway Route Development) identify Class II bike lanes as standard facilities on arterial and collector roads, but identify instances where they may not be installed based upon engineering judgement.

The City of Roseville allows bicycle riding on all sidewalks except for selected sidewalks in Downtown Roseville as identified in Section 11.14 of the Municipal Code.

Policy 10 (Bikeway Route Development) states “Major roadway improvement projects proposed on existing arterial streets without bike lanes should include an investigation of the feasibility of installing Class II bike lanes.” However, the BMP does not propose Class 2 bike lanes on all existing arterials without bike lanes. This inconsistency may confuse project managers and policy makers.

Policy 11 (Bikeway Route Development) provides procedural guidance for changes to the designation of existing bikeways (I.e. removal of bike lanes).

BMP Policies –
Bikeway Support
Facilities
Implementation Measure 1 (Bikeway Support Facilities) recommends updating the Zoning Ordinance and TSM Ordinance to enhance bike parking for new development. The TSM Ordinance now references the Cal Green Building Code requirements. The Zoning Ordinance was changed to remove bike parking requirements. Prior to its change, the Zoning Ordinance bike parking requirements had been applied to high-density residential projects. Since TSM/GBC apply only to commercial development, this means that the City does not have bike parking requirements for apartments or other residential projects.

Implementation Measure 2 (Bikeway Support Facilities) recommends developing standards for bicycle parking in the public realm in pedestrian activity areas. This has not been done.

Implementation Measure 3 (Bikeway Support Facilities) recommends funding an annual bike parking project. The City has installed bike parking in some areas but has not funded an annual project.

Implementation Measure 10 (Bikeway Support Facilities) recommends destination signs, trail maps, mile markers, open space and bikeway regulation signs on bike paths where appropriate. This has

Page 574 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 93
been partially accomplished on a case-by-case basis. The City has had plans to adopt more comprehensive guidance for this, but has not done so yet.

BMP Policies -
Maintenance
Many of the Maintenance Policies and Implementation Measures are built into the regular practices of the City. City should consider:
● Formalizing the bikeway/trail inspections (Implementation Measure 1). ● Adopting an adopt-a-path program or integrating into the adopt-a-creek program (Implementation Measure 5).

BMP Policies -
Enforcement
The enforcement section cites a goal of reducing violations and bicycle injuries and fatalities by 10% over 10 years. The policies and implementation measures identify specific enforcement effort areas that should be addressed. Consider coordination with Police Department to update this guidance.

Policies -
Education
Implementation Measure 1 (Education) states “Create a coordinated and comprehensive bicycle safety education program that provides bicycle education annually to all school-age children...” Implementation Measure 2 (Education) states “Create a coordinated and comprehensive bicycle education program targeted to adult bike riders with information regarding bike rider rights and responsibilities and proper bike riding techniques.” Roseville's bicycle education efforts are primarily focused on school-age children.

Policies -
Encouragement
This section has the goal of increasing transportation and recreation bicycle riding to work, school, play and other destinations by 50 percent by 2020, and gain acceptance of bicycle commuting as a mainstream activity through incentive and encouragement efforts. This section does not identify methods for measuring progress.

Policies -
Environmental
The Environmental policies discuss potential environmental benefits of cycling infrastructure and efforts to coordinate project review to minimize environmental impacts of new infrastructure.

Roseville’s project review processes and teaming implement these policies.

Policies - Funding Referenced funding programs are older and need to be updated.

Policies -
Evaluation
This section states that the City should strive to achieve a 50% increase in bicycle use over 10 years and recommends establishing a plan for measuring progress. This section recommends an annual report summarizing the bicycle program and collision data. This has been done informally at the Transportation Commission, but consideration should be given to creating a consistent approach to the annual report.

Infrastructure
Appendix D project ID #s do not always match numbering on Figure 5.

Completed Projects: 1b, 3a, 3b, 4d, 5a, 5c, 35a, 35b, 9, 13a, 14, 17, 24.

Partial Completion: 35 (West Roseville trails) & 36 (West Roseville Class II bike lanes)

Page 575 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 94
Under/Nearing Construction: 6f, 6g, 6h, 6j; 23.

Note: #51 is being completed with Dry Creek Greenway Trail Phase II (6k & 6l) Remainder of project IDs not complete. Applicability of some projects needs to be revisited, and some may be considered for additional enhancement (I.e. Class IV) Roseville Community Design Guidelines (2008)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Community Design Guidelines City of Roseville 2008 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Community Design Guidelines are intended to provide design professionals, property owners, commissioners, staff, and residents with a clear and common understanding of the City’s expectations for the planning, design, and review of development proposals in Roseville. The guidelines are applied to private development projects, but do have guidance for the public realm when street frontages are privately constructed in association with Commercial (CC), Office & Industrial (OI), Multi-family (MF) and Compact Residential (CR) projects.

Key Takeaways
● The CDG guidance is qualitative and typically defers to specific guidance provided in Specific Plans.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Guidelines
Guidelines include:

CC-51, OI-44, MF-36, CR-31
• Use landscaping to provide physical separation from streets to encourage walking.

OI-44, MF-36, CR-31
• Wider sidewalks should be provided within the existing right-of-way to allow for two persons to walk comfortably side by side
CC-53, OI-46, MF-36, CR-32
• Traffic-calming elements such as enhanced paving and bulb-outs at intersections should be provided. Other traffic-calming measures should be explored.

CR-32
• Mid-block pedestrian crossings, bulb-outs and enhanced paving should be provided on higher volume roadways, subject to approval by the Public Works Department.

Page 576 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 95
Riverside Gateway Specific Plan (2006)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Riverside Gateway Specific Plan City of Roseville 2006 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Riverside Gateway Specific Plan (RGSP) envisions Riverside Avenue as an attractive and vital pedestrianfriendly corridor, providing a recognizable and visible gateway to central Roseville. A pedestrian-oriented and easily accessible mixed-use district is planned for Riverside Avenue, with a mixture of residential and live/work uses transitioning into the adjacent neighborhoods. The plan area extends one block to each side of Riverside Avenue from Douglas Boulevard to Darling Way and includes approximately 50 acres.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall
The circulation system for RGSP is intended to create a pedestrian-friendly corridor, with attractive streets and pedestrian accessible intersections and crosswalks.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The right-of-way for existing streets remains primarily as existing, which includes 7’ sidewalks on Riverside Avenue and 3.5’-4’ sidewalks on parallel residential streets, but with upgrades to curb ramps and sidewalk segments in poor condition. The Streetscape Plan (Chapter 6) includes pedestrian improvements such as bulb-outs at unsignalized intersections and mid-block locations along Riverside Avenue, enhanced paving of crosswalks, historical interpretive signs along Riverside Avenue sidewalks, gateway features at each end of the plan area, new streetscape landscaping, street furniture and pedestrian-scale decorative lighting.

Bikeway
System
The Circulation Plan (Chapter 4) identifies bicycle facilities serving the area include:
• Class I path along Dry Creek connecting Douglas Boulevard to just north of Darling Way; and • Class III bike routes on Sixth Street and Darling Way (identified through green bike route signs) Future bicycle improvements included extension of the Dry Creek Trail south of Darling Way (under construction) and installation of Class III signs and striping on Vernon Street and Douglas Boulevard (not complete).

Additionally, the General Plan specifies that intersections within Pedestrian Districts shall be excluded from the City’s LOS policy which requires that 70 percent of City intersections function at LOS C or better during the PM peak hour.

Page 577 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 96
Smart Choices for Roseville’s Future (2005)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Smart Choices for Roseville’s Future City of Roseville 2005 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The purpose of this document is to outline a menu of options to be considered by the City of Roseville to implement the Blueprint Growth Principles adopted by the Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) in December 2004. The document includes goals & policies for transportation.

Key Takeaways
● The Smart Choices Plan includes several policies that advise for Bicycle and Pedestrian upgrades, but at nearly 20 years old, this document may not be referenced as often as newer plans.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Goals
Transportation Goal: Provide a variety of transportation choices. Development should be designed to encourage people to walk, ride bicycles, ride the bus, ride transit and heavy rail, or carpool. Land use concepts are intended to encourage the use of these modes of travel and reduce congestion.

Implementation
Strategy
Bicycle Access
● Off-street Bike access (class I): 16.5 miles existing and 21 miles proposed Class I bike trails. (ongoing)
● The City Public Works Transportation Staff provide information about Roseville’s bikeway system (both on and off street). Class I bike trails provide a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with minimal crossflows by motorists. (ongoing)
● Bicycle Safety Checklist: When reviewing development consider Checklist (Appendix B) for Safe Growth for Pedestrians and Bicyclists for existing and planned neighborhoods. (0-5 years)
Implementation
Strategy
Bicycle Master Plan
● Bicycle Master Plan Amendments: Consider amending the Community Design Guidelines and/or Bicycle Master Plan to identify & remove barriers to bicycle commuting (0-5 years) ● Bicycle Circulation Plan: Continue to update Bicycle circulation plan as new development is approved (Ongoing); aggressively move forward with completing bicycle trail connections throughout the City
● Bike Parking: Promote convenient bicycle parking. (ongoing) ● Education: Continue community education programs such as Bikefest – Pedalsafe, Develop and grow Transit Awareness Programs-Transit Marketing Efforts (ongoing). The City Public Works Transportation Staff serves as advisors to “PedalSafe!”, the City’s bicycle safety committee, which coordinates bicycle safety promotions and events, including the annual Bikefest, Roseville in Motion Month (Oct.)
Implementation
Strategy
Pedestrian Access
● Develop a pedestrian master plan. (6-15 years).

Page 578 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 97
● Require pedestrian circulation plans for new growth areas (0-5 years). Like the Bicycle Master Plan, prepare a pedestrian master plan that identifies standards to encourage pedestrian mobility. Develop pedestrian circulation plans for new growth areas. Design developments so that kids can walk to school through Class I bicycle trails, paseos, or other means to avoid needing to use heavily traveled streets. Develop walking awareness and promotion programs. ● Amend Design Guidelines to specifically encourage that developments be designed so that kids can walk to school. (6-15 years).
● Develop pedestrian-oriented policy to provide guidance for safe routes to transit. (General Plan Amendment, 6-15 years).
● Vernon St./Historic Old Town pedestrian bridge (6-15 years). Washington Blvd Pedestrian undercrossing improvements.

Implementation
Strategy
Pedestrian Safety
● Use modern technology to increase pedestrian safety and visual cues and design elements to indicate pedestrian rights-of-way and minimize conflicts, beep/count down at various crosswalks. (ongoing for beep and count down at select crosswalks in the city, 6-15 years for consideration of more sophisticated elements)
● To facilitate frequent/safe pedestrian crossings of large streets consider a variety of mechanisms such as off-peak synchronization of pedestrian signals at key intersections and over crossings where appropriate at major arterials. (16-30 years) ● Develop walking awareness and promotion programs (combine with healthy living choices e.g. reduces obesity). (0-5 years)
● Continue to implement the CIP Sidewalk repair program. (ongoing) Implementation
Strategy
Design Guideline Amendments
● Amend the Design Guidelines to ensure appropriate pedestrian linkages are provided from parking facilities to primary destinations. (6-15 years) ● Consider amending the Design Guidelines to make places more walkable for aging populations. (6-15 years)
● Amend Community Design Guidelines to include design standards for sidewalks. (0-5 years) Implementation
Strategy
Streetscape Improvements
● Use trees and other green infrastructure to provide shelter, beauty, urban heat reduction, and separation from automobile traffic. (ongoing)
● Continue beautification and revitalization efforts to maintain and upgrade existing and future sidewalks to improve pedestrian circulation. (ongoing)
Implementation
Strategy
Multi-use Facilities
● Continue looking for opportunities to transform park-and-ride lots into multiuse and multimodal facilities. (ongoing)
Implementation
Strategy
Transportation System Management TSM
● Continue to implement Transportation System Management Program (promote showers in businesses etc.).
● Revise TSM ordinance to require amenities more aggressively, e.g. require minimum levels of amenities and or services to employees based upon size of development.

Implementation
Strategy
Disabled Access
● As part of the CIP process upgrade bus stops in infill areas to be ADA compliant. (ongoing)

Page 579 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 98
Implementation
Strategy
Traffic Calming
● Consider traffic-calming techniques in existing and new residential neighborhoods such as street bulb-outs, street tables at intersections and other features. (ongoing) West Roseville Specific Plan (2004)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
West Roseville Specific Plan City of Roseville 2004 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) establishes a development framework for approximately 3,162 acres of land located about 1 mile north of Fiddyment Road, extending to about ½-mile north of Blue Oaks Boulevard, primarily west of Fiddyment Road and extending to the western City limits. The WRSP land use, affordable housing, circulation, resource management, public services, utilities, and design.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall The circulation system for WRSP includes a hierarchy of roadways, a pedestrian and bikeway network and public transit.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:
• Arterial Streets (Blue Oaks Blvd, Pleasant Grove, Fiddyment Road, Westbrook Blvd): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street bike & pedestrian path (sidewalk) within 35’-50’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street. • Collector Streets (Holt Parkway, Hayden Parkway, Phillip Road): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 5’ off-street sidewalk within 25’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street. Except Hayden Parkway has a 10’ wide trail/sidewalk adjacent to open space. • Primary Residential Streets: Some primary residential streets include 4’ or 6’ wide Class II bike lanes (excluding curb and gutter) with adjacent on-street parking; 4’ to 10’ wide sidewalks, varying depending on adjacent land use, within up to 40’ wide paseos. Others do not include bike lanes and have 4’ walkways on one or both sides, sometimes with a 10’ wide walkway within a paseo. The variations are based upon adjoining land uses, and paseo and bikeway connectivity.
• Local Residential Streets: 4’-5’ sidewalks.

Bikeway
System
The WRSP provides approximately 12 miles of Class I off-street bike paths in open space, park, and paseo areas. Most of the planned trails are complete except for:
• The trails west and north of Westpark High School (within Park Parcel F-56, Open Space F-86B and City-owned property south of Blue Oaks Boulevard);
• The trails within Regional Park Parcel F-54;
• The off-site trail within Veterans Park (a part of the NRSP); and • The short segment of trail at the west end of the WRSP, north of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and adjacent to Parcel W-16.

Page 580 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 99
street furnishings, pedestrian-scale lighting, signage, and front forward building designs, all of which are intended to promote a comfortable and inviting pedestrian environment. Gateways are provided at both ends of the Village Center along Pleasant Grove Boulevard. In addition, an enhanced pedestrian crossing is located at the signalized intersection of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Market Street with the following elements: Extra wide street crossing; Change of texture/color within crossing (stamped concrete); Elevated design elements (such as planters or other elements) at the corners of the crossing; and Use of bollards at corners and within median to announce crossing.

North Roseville Specific Plan (1998)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
North Roseville Specific Plan City of Roseville 1998 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The North Roseville Specific Plan (NRSP) comprises five neighborhood areas located in two separate geographic areas that were planned together. Neighborhoods A, B and C (referred to as Phase 1) are located west of the North Industrial Area (including the former Hewlett-Packard Campus), east of Fiddyment Road, and on both the north and south sides of Blue Oaks Boulevard, including to the city limits on the north. Neighborhood D (referred to as Phase 2 or Woodcreek West) is west of the NWRSP and south of the DWSP and Pleasant Grove Boulevard, north of Baseline Road and west of Fiddyment Road. Neighborhood E (identified as Phase 3 or the Doctor’s Ranch) is located at the northeast corner of the plan area.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall
The circulation system for SRSP provides a coordinated system of streets which allow for efficient vehicular travel, public transit, bikeways, and pedestrian paths. The street system is organized in a hierarchy of roadways with one major arterial (Roseville Parkway) and two minor arterials (Sierra College Boulevard and Stoneridge Drive) carrying traffic to and through the Plan Area.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:
● Arterial Streets (Blue Oaks Blvd, Pleasant Grove, Junction, Woodcreek Oaks, Fiddyment Road):
7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street bike & pedestrian path (sidewalk) within 25’-90’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street. ● Collector Streets (Diamond Creek Way, Parkside Way, Crocker Ranch Drive, Opal Way, Casa Sedona Drive, Northpark Drive, Prairie Woods Way, Painted Desert Drive, West Lake Drive and Park Regency Drive): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 5’ off-street sidewalk within 20’-35’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street. Except Diamond Creek Way, which is within a utility corridor, has 12’ sidewalks.
● Local Residential Streets: 4’ sidewalks.

Bikeway
System
In addition to the on-street bikeways, the NRSP Bikeway Plan (Exhibit 4-8) calls for the development of 14’ (10’ plus 2’ shoulders) Class I Trails in parks, promenades, utility corridors and open space corridors.

Figure 4-11 identifies the proposed Class I paths:

Page 581 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 100
• In neighborhoods A and C, along Pleasant Grove Creek from Veterans Park to Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard, including through Hughes Park. This project is mostly complete except for a short section that is unpaved between the North and South sides of Veterans Park. This unfinished segment has partial funding through the West Roseville Specific Plan. • In Neighborhood B, along the south branch of Pleasant Grove Creek. This segment is complete. • In Neighborhood D, through the north-south power line corridor to a connection with the Mahany Park open space. This segment is complete.

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

Stoneridge Specific Plan (1998)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Stoneridge Specific Plan City of Roseville 1998 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Stoneridge Specific Plan (SRS) re-establishes a development framework for approximately 1,088 acres of land located northeast of the center of the City of Roseville, and addresses land use, affordable housing, circulation, resource management, public facilities and services, infrastructure and land use sequencing, and design. The Plan Area is bounded on the north by the City of Rocklin, on the west by Interstate 80, Secret Ravine, and Roseville Parkway, on the south by Olympus Drive and on the east by Sierra College Boulevard.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:
● Arterial Streets (Roseville Parkway, Sierra College Boulevard, Secret Ravine Parkway): 4’ Class II bike lanes; 8’ sidewalks within a landscape corridor. (Note that the actual width of bike lanes along the SRSP arterials have been adjusted to meet the City’s latest striping standards, which calls for wider bike lanes on 4-lane and 6-lane arterials.) ● Collector Streets (Alexandria Drive, Olympus Drive, Scarborough Drive, Miners Ravine Drive): 4’ Class II bike lanes; 5’ sidewalks within a landscape corridor. ● Local Streets: 4’ sidewalks.

Bikeway
System
In addition to the on-street bikeways, the SRSP Bikeway Plan (Exhibit 4-8) calls for the development of Class I Trails within Miners Ravine, Secret Ravine, False Ravine and Park Parcels PR-2, PR-3 and PR-4.

Page 582 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 101
Secret Ravine Parcels 25 & 26 that are not reflected on the SRSP Bikeway Plan. Also, the trail within Secret Ravine is planned to connect to a planned trail in the City of Rocklin.

Although not discussed in the SRSP, it should be noted that the segment of trail within SRSP parcels 60 and 61 is owned by the Placer County Flood Control District, but are maintained by the City per a maintenance agreement.

The trail within PR-2, PR-3 and PR-4 (planned as a community park with a parking lot and restrooms) is mostly incomplete. There is a gravel area being used as a trailhead parking lot. This parking area was originally constructed as temporary parking for residential construction along Orvietto Drive and needs improvement.

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.

Highland Reserve North Specific Plan (1997)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Highland Reserve North Specific Plan City of Roseville 1997 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Highland Reserve North Specific Plan (HRNSP) establishes, as an amendment to the NCRSP, a development framework for 615 acres of land located on the northeast side of SR-65 from Blue Oaks Blvd to Galleria Blvd/Stanford Ranch Road, with adjacency to the City of Rocklin on the north and east sides. The HRNSP addresses land use, housing, circulation, resource management, public facilities and services, phasing, and design.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:
● Arterial Streets (Pleasant Grove Blvd, Stanford Ranch Road, Fairway Drive): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street bike & pedestrian path (sidewalk) within 30’-50’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street.
● Collector Streets (Highland Park Drive and Central Park Drive): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 5’ off-street sidewalk within 25’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street.

Bikeway
System
In addition to the on-street bikeways and walkways, the HRNSP Pedestrian/Bikeway System includes a key pedestrian pathway through Central Park from the Highland Park/Central Park intersection to the Nugget shopping center.

Page 583 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 102
The HRNSP does not plan for any off-street bike trails in its open space parcels, but the 2008 Bicycle Master Plan Update identified potential grade-separate crossings of SR-65 from NCRSP trail system to HRNSP at Commercial Parcel 47B and Open Space Parcel 72, with a connecting path through Open Space Parcel 71.

Pedestrian
Overlay
The HRNSP 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.

Del Webb Specific Plan (1993)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Del Webb Specific Plan City of Roseville 1993 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Del Webb Specific Plan (DWSP) establishes a 3,500-unit active adult community on 1,200 acres of land. The DWSP addresses land use, housing, circulation, resource management, community open space & recreation facilities, public facilities and services, and design. The Plan Area is bounded on the north by Blue Oaks Boulevard, on the south by Pleasant Grove Boulevard on the east by the NWRSP and North Roseville Specific Plan (NRSP) and on the west by Fiddyment Road.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall The circulation system for DWSP provides a coordinated system of streets, including bike lanes and sidewalks. Several streets are also designed to include golf cart lanes adjacent to bike lanes.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:
● Arterial Streets (Blue Oaks Blvd, Pleasant Grove Blvd and Fiddyment Road): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street bike & pedestrian path (sidewalk) within 25’-50’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street.
● Collector Streets (Sun City Blvd and Del Webb Blvd): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ golf cart on-street lanes between the bike lane and vehicular lane; and 8’ off-street sidewalk within 25’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street. (Note: These streets were originally envisioned as 4-lane minor arterial roads without golf cart lanes, but were later modified to be 2-lane collectors with golf cart lanes.) ● Local Streets: 4’ sidewalks on both sides.

Bikeway
System
In addition to the on-street bikeways, the DWSP Pedestrian and Bikeway Trail System (Figure 4-14) includes the following:
• At the northeast corner of the plan area, the plan accommodates the Pleasant Grove Creek (South Branch) Trail alignment across Open Space Parcel 47, including an undercrossing of Blue Oaks Boulevard. This trail is complete, and there is a private gated path from Stagecoach Circle to the public trail.
• At the southeast corner of the Plan Area, the plan accommodates a connection from Sun City to Mahany Regional Park via an undercrossing of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. The undercrossing may be paved with a connection to the sidewalks on the north side of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. Paved trails on the south side of Pleasant Grove Boulevard are not complete.

Page 584 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 103
• In the southwest corner of the DWSP, Figure 4-14 identifies a multi-use path (pedestrian, bike golf cart) access point from Mt. Rose Way to the adjoining church and commercial parcels.

This path is partially complete through the church parcel.

Pedestrian
Overlay
The DWSP 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 DWSP implementing Development Agreements identify funding mechanisms for trail construction through the Neighborhood Park fee program and trail maintenance through the SRSP Services District.

North Roseville Industrial Area (1992)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
North Roseville Industrial Area Guidelines City of Roseville 1992 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The North Roseville Industrial Area Guidelines (NRIAG)is not a specific plan, but it does provide design guidance for a 2,300-acre area of industrial lands at the north end of the city on both sides of Foothills Boulevard north of Pleasant Grove Blvd, to the northern city limits north of Blue Oaks Blvd. Some of this area was later encompassed by the NRSP and Campus Oaks Master Plan.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall The circulation system includes arterial and collector roads that provide access to the industrial and office developments within the area.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:
● Primary Arterials (Washington, Pleasant Grove, Roseville Parkway, Foothills, Blue Oaks): These typically include Class II bike lanes and 8’ sidewalks within 50’ landscape corridors. ● Secondary Arterials (Industrial, Woodcreek Oaks): These sometimes include Class II bike lanes and 5-8’ sidewalks within 35’ landscape corridors.
● Collector Streets (Alexandria Drive, Olympus Drive, Scarborough Drive, Miners Ravine Drive): 4’ Class II bike lanes; 5’ sidewalks within a landscape corridor. ● Local Streets: 4’ sidewalks.

Bikeway
System
The NRIAG does not include a bikeway plan. However, the Development Agreement for the HewlettPackard Master Plan Section 3.16, which is a part of and subject to the NRIAG, identifies a potential Class I bike path along its southern boundary intended to connect with Class I trails in the NWRSP and NRSP. The Development Agreement includes provisions for landowner dedication of right-of-way for the path.

Pedestrian
Overlay
The NRIAG 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.

Page 585 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 104
North Central Roseville Specific Plan (1990)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
North Central Roseville Specific Plan City of Roseville 1990 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The North Central Roseville Specific Plan (NCRSP) re-establishes a development framework for approximately 2,330 acres of land located north of the city center. Some of this area has been incorporated into the Highland Reserve North Specific Plan (HRNSP). The remaining area is bounded roughly by I-80 on the east, Washington Boulevard on the west, SR-65 and the HRNSP on the north (except the northwest corner of SR-65/Stanford Ranch Road which is within the NCRSP), and Diamond Oaks Golf Course on the south.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall Pedestrian and bikeway guidance is in both the Community Form and Design Element and the Circulation Element of the NCRSP.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The Circulation Element street section guidelines call for the following:
● Figure 5-3 and 5-4 - 4-Lane and 6-Lane Arterial Streets (Washington Blvd, Pleasant Grove Blvd, Stanford Ranch (Galleria) Blvd, Roseville Parkway): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street bike & pedestrian path (sidewalk) within a 30’-50’ wide landscape corridor on each side of the street.
● Collector Streets: 8’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 5’ sidewalks within a landscape corridor.
● Local Streets: 4’ sidewalks.

Bikeway
System
In addition to the on-street bikeways reference above, Figure 5-14 Bikeway Master Plan identifies proposed Class I and Class III bikeways as follows:
● Class I bikeway within power line corridor and along SR-65 from Washington Boulevard to the Galleria/Roseville Parkway intersection. This system is complete except for a ½-mile segment along SR-65.
● Class I trail within Antelope Creek open space from SR-65 to Galleria Boulevard near Berry Street. This trail is complete.
● Class III bikeways along a number of collector and primary residential roads. Striping and signs for Class III bikeways have not been installed, although a couple of these roads (Antelope Creek Drive and Creekside Ridge Drive have Class II bike lanes now).

Community Form and Design Element includes the following:
● Section 3.2.2 identified Pedestrian Circulation policies. ● Figure 3-5 delineates Neighborhoods A-D. The Neighborhood Plans identify pedestrian pathway/bikeway links on local roads within each neighborhood. The Neighborhood Plans identified three potential locations for grade-separated pedestrian overcrossings of major arterials, with two over Roseville Parkway and one over Pleasant Grove Boulevard. The overcrossings were eliminated from further consideration during build-out of the NCRSP infrastructure. Two of the overcrossings were originally shown on Figure 5-14, but were removed from the Bikeway Plan with a specific plan amendment in 2003.

Page 586 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 105
● Section 3.3.1 states that within the single-family village neighborhoods the pedestrian system will consist of 5-foot-wide sidewalks separated from the residential street by a 5-foot-wide planting strip. This section also calls for periodic breaks in soundwalls (between 600’-1,000’ apart) for pedestrian walkways from neighborhoods to arterial streets. ● Section 3.9, #10, notes that the pedestrian/bikeway path adjacent to SR-65 is to be constructed as individual projects are built.

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

Northwest Roseville Specific Plan (1989)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Northwest Roseville Specific Plan City of Roseville 1989 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Northwest Roseville Specific Plan (NWRSP) establishes a development framework for approximately 2,650 acres of land located west of the city center. The NWRSP addresses land use, housing, circulation, open space and resources management, public facilities and services, and urban design. The Plan Area is bounded on the east by Washington Boulevard, on the south by Baseline Road, and on the west by Fiddyment Road and Sun City, and extends about ½-mile north of Pleasant Grove Boulevard.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Overall The circulation system incorporates public streets. pedestrian paths, bikeways, parking areas, and public transit stops.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:
● Figure 24 - 6-Lane Arterial Streets (Washington Blvd, Foothills Boulevard, Pleasant Grove Blvd):
7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street bike & pedestrian path (sidewalk) within a 30’-50’ wide landscape corridor on each side of the street. ● Figure 25 - 4-Lane Arterial Streets (Junction Blvd, Pleasant Grove Blvd, Woodcreek Oaks Blvd, Baseline Road): 6’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street bike & pedestrian path (sidewalk) within a 25’-35’ wide landscape corridor on each side of the street. ● Figure 27 - Collector Streets (Alexandria Drive, Olympus Drive, Scarborough Drive, Miners Ravine Drive): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ sidewalks within a 25’-35’ wide landscape corridor on each side of the street.
● Local Streets: Section 4.1.3 and 4.3.3 note that all local streets may serve as Class III bikeways, although signs and striping so designating these streets was not planned and has not been installed. Figure 28 Typical Local Residential Street identifies 6’ bike lanes and 4’ sidewalks on each side of the street, without on-street parking. However, when residential streets were constructed within the NWRSP, on-street parking has been allowed and on-street bike lanes have not been striped.

Page 587 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 106
● Section 4.3.3 states and Figure 10 shows that periodic breaks in soundwalls will be provided to connect interior streets to arterials.

Bikeway
System
In addition to the on-street bikeways and sidewalks, the NWRSP Bikeway Master Plan (Figure 29) and NWRSP Landscape Design Guidelines (LDG) Bikeway Master Plan include off-street bikeways through power line corridors and along creeks as follows:
● East-West Power Line Corridor south of Pleasant Grove Blvd from Washington to Mahany Park open space. This trail is mostly complete, but with segments remaining between Washington and Foothills, and west of Mahany Park.
● Within a north-south overhead power line easement from McAnally to south of Junction (partially adjacent to Silverado Middle School). This trail is complete. Although not shown in the specific plan there is an additional east-west trail in this area from Woodcreek Oaks to Country Club, including a portion of trail on middle school property. ● Within Open Space Parcel 78 from Foothills east towards the power line corridor and Diamond K Mobile Home Park. This trail is complete.
● Within an overhead power line easement at the north boundary of the NWRSP from Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard east to the South Branch of Pleasant Grove Creek (now the corporation yard area for Woodcreek Golf Course) and then west back towards Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard. The portion of this path within the power line easement was constructed, but it is not signed or mapped as a public path and is used for maintenance purposes. ● The NWRSP originally called for open space trails moving north-south within Open Space Parcels 79A and 79B, including a connection to the former Hewlett-Packard Campus (what is now Campus Oaks area). However, the LDG Bikeway Master Plan notes that “Bike path through the Parcel 38 Golf Course is subject to further design of the golf course.” Ultimately, the bike path through the Woodcreek Golf Course was not constructed.

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

Northeast Roseville Specific Plan (1987)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Northeast Roseville Specific Plan City of Roseville 1987 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Northeast Roseville Specific Plan (NERSP) and subsequent amendments establishes a development framework for 1,628 acres of land located directly northeast of the city center, and addresses land use, affordable housing, circulation, open space and resource conservation, public facilities, and design. The Plan Area is bounded on the north by the Stoneridge Specific Plan, on the west by Interstate 80, on the east by Sierra College and on the south by Douglas Boulevard. (Note, some of the NERSP planning area was later incorporated into the SRSP).

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS

Page 588 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 107
Overall
The Circulation Element’s Circulation Plan identifies several Arterial Streets (E. Roseville Parkway, Eureka Road, Rocky Ridge Drive, Lead Hill Boulevard, Sierra College Boulevard, N. Sunrise Avenue, Taylor Road) carrying traffic to and through the Plan Area.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The Circulation Element states that on-street bikeways will be incorporated along all thoroughfares for commuter bike use, and that bike racks will be required for all non-residential developments. The Circulation Element also references a pedestrian system adjacent to street rights-of-way within a landscaped environment.

The street sections contained in the Design Guidelines show 6’ sidewalks on Major Streets but do not always identify bike lanes. However, per the above bike lanes were installed per then City standards.

Bikeway
System
In addition to on-street bikeways, the NERSP Circulation Element notes that the off-street circulation system focuses upon the use of the ravines for connection between uses.

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

Southeast Roseville Specific Plan (1985)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Southeast Roseville Specific Plan City of Roseville 1985 Placer

HIGH-LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Southeast Roseville Specific Plan (SRSP) and subsequent amendments establishes a development framework for 1,004 acres of land located south of Douglas Boulevard, north and east of Maidu Park, on both sides of Sierra College Boulevard, and south to the border with Sacramento County. The SRSP addresses land use, affordable housing, circulation, resource management, public facilities and services, infrastructure and land use sequencing, and design. The Plan Area is bounded on the north by the City of Rocklin, on the west by Interstate 80, Secret Ravine, and Roseville Parkway, on the south by Olympus Drive and on the east by Sierra College Boulevard.

Street
Improvement
Standards
Circulation Element Figure 13 identifies the following active transportation improvements:
● Arterial Streets (Douglas, E. Roseville Parkway, Sierra College, Eureka): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter) and, within either 50’ or 35’ wide landscape corridors, an 8’ Class 1 bikeway (sidewalk) on both sides of each street.
● Collector Streets (Johnson Ranch Road, McLaren Drive, Professional Drive, Parkhill Road, Old Auburn Road, N. Cirby Way): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter) and, within 25’ wide landscape corridors, a 5’ sidewalk on one side of the street and 8’ Class 1 bikeway (sidewalk) on the other side of the street.

Page 589 of 1881 ends

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 03-22-24
Roseville Active Transportation Plan | 108
Bikeway
System
The SRSP Landscape Design Guidelines (LDG) Project Map (p. 7) shows the pedestrian paths identified in the Circulation Element per above, as well as potential 10’ wide meandering paths within Open Space Parcels 71 & 73 (Strap Ravine) and Open Space Parcels 74 & 75 (south of Old Auburn Road and east of Sierra College Boulevard). The path within parcels 74 & 75 has been constructed and is part of the planned Dry Creek Greenway trail system. The paths planned for Parcels 71 and 73 were not constructed and were removed from the City’s 2008 Bicycle Master Plan due to lack of adequate area for a trail within the open space.

In addition to the above, SRSP Section 2.3 Business Professional and Office Land Use Figure 11 calls for a 7’ wide paved bike/ped path with 3’ gravel should for jogging within open space floodway parcels 70 and 72, which are located at the rear of office parcels 7E and 30. However, this path was not constructed with the adjoining offices and the paths were removed from the City’s 2008 Bicycle Master Plan due to lack of adequate area for a trail within the open space.

Although not shown on the LDG Project Plan or elsewhere in the SRSP, a short Class 1 path has been constructed adjacent to Roseville Fire Station #4, extending about 530’ from Maidu Park to Eureka Road within either Public/Quasi-Public parcel 10 or Open Space Parcel 13B.

Page 590 of 1881 ends

Appendix B:

Plan Review

Page 591 of 1881 ends

MEMORANDUM
City of Roseville | 1
To: Mauricio Hernandez, Alta
From: Michael Dour, Psomas
Date: March 26, 2025
Re: Roseville Active Transportation Plan – Review of Existing Plans Introduction
This memorandum 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 document provides a foundation for the development of the City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan (ATP).

The document is divided into three sections:

Section 1 – Introduction: provides an overview of the memo and included information (page 1) Section 2 – Key Takeaways: includes high-level summaries of common themes identified in plans reviewed (pages 2-5).

Section 3 – Full Document Review: this section (pages 6-30) contains a complete summary of the 12 documents reviewed.

Information is presented in individual tables for easy readability. The following documents were reviewed as part of this memo:

City of Roseville

1. General Plan - 2020

2. Bicycle Master Plan - 2008

3. ADA Transition Plan - 2009

4. Pedestrian Master Plan - 2011

5. Local Road Safety Plan - 2021

6. Community Design Guidelines -2008

7. Smart Choices for Roseville’s Future – 2005

8. Communitywide Sustainability Action Plan – 2010

9. Short Range Transit Plan – 2018

10. Southeast Roseville Specific Plan

11. Northeast Roseville Specific Plan

12. Northwest Roseville Specific Plan

13. North Central Roseville Specific Plan

14. North Industrial Planning Area

15. Del Webb Specific Plan

16. Highland Reserve North Specific Plan

17. North Roseville Specific Plan

18. Stoneridge Specific Plan

19. West Roseville Specific Plan

20. Riverside Gateway Specific Plan

21. Downtown Specific Plan

22. Sierra Vista Specific Plan

23. Creekview Specific Plan

24. Campus Oaks Master Plan

25. Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan

26. Atlantic Street Corridor Specific Plan & DouglasHarding Corridor Specific Plan

27. Douglas-Sunrise Corridor Specific Plan

28. Design/Construction Standards
PCTPA

29. Placer County Regional Bikeway Plan – 2018

30. Placer-Sacramento Gateway Plan - 2021
SACOG

31. Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy - 2020

32. Sacramento Region Trail Network Action Plan – 2022

Page 592 of 1881 ends

MEMORANDUM
City of Roseville | 2
Key Takeaways
This section includes key takeaways for each Plan and provides a summary of specific improvements at the corridor level.

1. General Plan (2020) – The General Plan establishes long-range development policies for private development proposals and public projects. https://RosevilleGeneralPlan Corridor Level Improvements
• See General Plan Exhibit III_5 Bikeway Plan
Key Takeaways
• The General Plan includes a number of goals and policies that support multimodal bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

2. Bicycle Master Plan (2008) – The 2008 BMP includes standards and policies for development of a comprehensive bikeway system that includes Class I shared use paths, Class II on-street bike lanes and Class III on-street bike routes.

Surveys at the time indicate a clear preference for separated bike facilities, with many respondents concerned about traffic speeds and volumes on roads with Class II bike lanes.

Corridor Level Improvements
• Miners Ravine Trail (Downtown to Sierra College Blvd.) • Dry Creek Greenway East Trail (Phase 1 under construction/Phased 2 funded/Phase 3 to be coordinated with adjoining agencies). This information is supplemental to the • Dry Creek Greenway West (Planning & Feasibility Study complete) • Pleasant Grove Creek Trails
• Northwest Roseville Power Line Corridor Trails (Sierra Vista – Mahany Park – Foothills) • Highway 65 Trail Corridor
• Washington Blvd. Trail Corridor (existing & future)
Key Takeaways
• The 2008 BMP was adopted prior to adoption of the Sierra Vista, Creekview, Amoruso Ranch and Commercial Corridor (Atlantic Street, Douglas-Harding and Douglas-Sunrise) Specific Plans. The base maps and proposed bikeway maps and bikeway miles do not include the bikeways within those Specific Plans. https://www.roseville.ca.us/SpecificPlans
• The BMP does not include guidance for development of modern bike facilities such as buffered bike lanes, Class IV cycle tracks, bike boxes, bike signals/intersection treatments, or bicycle boulevards. These types of facilities are not identified in Chapter V, Recommended Bicycle Network. Also, the BMP does not include Bikeway Design Guidelines. Also, Roseville’s Design & Construction Standards do not include guidance for development of most modern bike facilities.
• Connections to transit are referenced in the BMP (including in the existing conditions, goals/policies and route selection sections), but the plan doesn’t reference the concept of first/last mile connections to transit. • Since adoption of the 2008 BMP, Roseville has completed some pilot projects for modern bikeway facilities, including a buffered bike lane on Roseville Parkway within the Campus Oaks area, green bike lanes and enhanced intersections on Washington Boulevard, and bicycle signal heads on Junction Boulevard at Park Regency.

Page 593 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 3 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

3. ADA Transition Plan (2009) – The ADA Transition Plan for Public Rights-of-Way documents the legal and functional goals and objectives of the City in order to make existing pedestrian facilities within the public right-of-way accessible and usable for persons with disabilities.

Corridor Level Improvements
• Appendix A includes a prioritized list of potential ADA projects.

Key Takeaways
• The ADA Transition Plan standards were created in 2008/09. City may wish to verify that the standards are still current and that they have been incorporated into the City’s Design & Construction Standards. • The ADA Transition Plan recommends compliance documentation for all new curb ramps. The City may wish to confirm that the recommended documentation practices are being implemented and that data is readily available (see full document review for further information).

4. Pedestrian Master Plan (2011) – The PMP identifies a recommended pedestrian network and establishes a 20- year framework of improvements that will enhance the pedestrian environment.

Corridor Level Improvements
• Table 19 identifies the top priority missing sidewalk segments as those that received a rank of 4 or 5, or those segments where specific requests were received by the public. • Appendix A-1 identifies all of the missing sidewalk segments by rank.

Key Takeaways
• The 2011 PMP was adopted prior to adoption of the Sierra Vista, Creekview, Amoruso Ranch and Commercial Corridor (Atlantic Street, Douglas-Harding and Douglas-Sunrise) Specific Plans. The base maps and proposed and other mapping do not include those Specific Plans. https://www.roseville.ca.us/SpecificPlans • The PMP focuses on completeness of sidewalk segments, but does not review or evaluate street crossings for safety, comfort and convenience.
• When preparing the 2011 PMP, a policy decision was made to not inventory sidewalks on residential streets.

Figure 6 does, however, identify mature neighborhoods that have no sidewalks or are missing sidewalks.

5. Local Road Safety Plan (2021) - The LRSP analyzes crash data to identify citywide trends, high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and locations with unusual crash patterns or high crash severities. – The General Plan establishes longrange development policies for private development proposals and public projects. https://RosevilleGeneralPlan Corridor Level Improvements
The LRSP identifies potential countermeasures for 5 priority intersections and 1 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 crashes (five-year period from 2015-2019) are occurring at intersections as opposed to roadway segments. Pedestrian crashes are more prevalent at unsignalized intersections and bicycle crashes are more prevalent at signalized intersections.

Page 594 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 4 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans
• 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 2015-2019, 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 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 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.

6. Community Design Guidelines (2008) – The Community Design Guidelines are intended to guide the planning, design, and review of development proposals in Roseville. The CDG provide guidance for the public right-of-way when constructed with private projects.

Corridor Level Improvements
• N/A
Key Takeaways
• The CDG guidance is qualitative and typically defers to specific guidance provided in Specific Plans.

7. Smart Choices for Roseville’s Future (2005) – The purpose of this document is to outline a menu of options to be considered by the City of Roseville to implement the Blueprint Growth Principles adopted by the Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG).

Corridor Level Improvements
• N/A
Key Takeaways
• The Smart Choices Plan includes a number of policies that advise for Bicycle and Pedestrian upgrades, but at nearly 20 years old this document may not be referenced as often as newer plans.

8. Communitywide Sustainability Action Plan (2010) – The City of Roseville Communitywide Sustainability Action Plan (SAP) sets forth a comprehensive strategy to address emerging sustainability issues related to land use patterns, transportation, building design, energy use, water demand, and waste generation.

Corridor Level Improvements
• N/A
Key Takeaways
• The CSAP includes a number of policies that support increased bicycling and walking as a climate adaptation, approaches and Pedestrian upgrades, but at nearly 20 years old this document may not be referenced as often as newer plans.

Page 595 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 5 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

9. Short Range Transit Plan (2018-2025) – The SRTP focuses on transit service and capital alternatives.

Corridor Level Improvements
• N/A
Key Takeaways
• The SRTP does not address first/last mile active transportation improvements and their value to enhancing transit ridership to the degree that it might.
10-27. Roseville Specific Plans and Master Plans – Each specific plan and master plan identifies land uses and improvements, including circulation and active transportation improvements, for a defined geographical area of the City.

The specific plans and some master plans are effectuated through Development Agreements between the City and property owners, and these agreements often require property developers to construct public improvements identified in the specific plan.

Corridor Level Improvements
• Each specific plan has detailed guidance on corridor improvements for streets, sidewalks and bikeways within the given plan area.

Key Takeaways
• Property developers may only be required to construct the circulation improvements defined in the given specific plan and development agreement. If a specific plan is still under construction, proposed changes to pedestrian and bikeway standards within specific plan areas may require developer consent.

28. Design/Construction Standards – 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 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 re-visited to consider modern bikeway facility types (bike boulevards, cycle tracks, etc). • The sidewalk improvement standards should be considered for minor updates.

29. Placer County Regional Bikeway Plan (2018) – The Plan develops a regional system of bikeways that connects the six incorporated cities and numerous unincorporated community areas.

Corridor Level Improvements
• The plan identifies a network of bikeways tin the unincorporated county, or bikeways requiring multijurisdictional coordination.

Key Takeaways
• The plan supports some of Roseville’s existing BMP projects that are multijurisdictional.

Page 596 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 6 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

30. Placer-Sacramento Gateway Plan (2021) – The Placer-Sacramento Gateway Plan (Gateway Plan) was developed as a comprehensive multimodal corridor plan to qualify for funding through the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program.

Corridor Level Improvements
• The Gateway Plan identifies bicycle/pedestrian, transit, road and transportation management projects along the designated corridor. Roseville projects identified in the plan are identified in current planning documents such as the Bicycle Master Plan and others.

Key Takeaways
• The PSGP is updated periodically to include newer projects along the SR-65/I-80 corridor. Upon completion of the ATP Update, the City should work with PCTPA to incorporate appropriate projects into the PSGP to facilitate additional grant funding opportunities.

31. SACOG Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020) – The 2020 MTP/SCS lays out a transportation investment and land use strategy to support a prosperous region supported by transportation options.

Corridor Level Improvements
• A number of projects are identified in the MTIP.

Key Takeaways
• The MTP/SCS includes a number of goals and policies that support multimodal bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

32. SACOG Regional Trail Network Action Plan (2022) – 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

Page 597 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 7 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans
Full Document Review
The following section includes a summary of plans reviewed. Information for each plan has organized in individual tables for easy readability.

1. Roseville General Plan

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
• Housing Element

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED 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.

Page 598 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 8 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans
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 in order 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.

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.

Page 599 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 9 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans
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.

Parks and
Recreation
Element
Goal PR1.2 Maximize the use of dedicated parklands and open space areas to provide residents with both active/formal/programmable and passive/informal/nonprogrammed recreation opportunities.

Policy PR1.5 The City shall prioritize discretionary and grant funding for areas of the community that are underserved in terms of access to passive and active recreation opportunities.

Safety Element
Flood Protection
Policy SAFE2.5 Minimize the potential for flood damage to public and emergency facilities, utilities, roadways, and other infrastructure.

Policy SAFE2.9 Where feasible, maintain natural stream courses and adjacent habitat and combine flood control, recreation, water quality, and open space functions.

Police Services
Policy SAFE3.7 Design parks that are conducive to surveillance by adjoining residents, security services, and police.

Policy SAFE3.9 Coordinate with patrol officers in patrolling parks, open space and trails, and continue coordination with other law enforcement agencies.

Housing Element Table X-22 includes a list of Affordable Housing Developments (Senior Apartments and Multi-family Apartments).

Appendix B
(Implementation
Measures)

Page 16 ends

Page 17 ends

Districts, including street treatment types for mid-block and intersection crossings:

Mid-block crossing treatments • High-visibility crosswalk markings • Overhead signs and flashing beacons • In-pavement flashers • Pedestrian-actuated signals • Grade-separated pedestrian crossings
Intersection Crossing Treatments • Signal timing changes • Head-start pedestrian phases • Allpedestrian “scramble” phases • Pedestrian actuators • Countdown pedestrian signals • Animated eye pedestrian signals • Audible signals Page A-18 Implementation Measures • Reduced corner radii • Right-turn on red restrictions • “Watch Turning Vehicles” signage and legends • “Yield to Pedestrians” signage
Traffic Calming • Raised crosswalks (Speed Tables) • Raised intersections • Textured pavement • Neckdowns • Pedestrian refuge islands • Split Pedestrian Crossovers Pedestrian Enhancements • Comprehensive Sidewalk Networks • Pedestrian Only Walkways • Street Furniture • Covered Areas • Street Trees • Lighting • Building Setback • Parking Lot Walkways • Consolidation of Driveways • Use of On-Street Parking

Page 600 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 10 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

2. 2008 Bicycle Master Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Bicycle Master Plan City of Roseville 2008
Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The 2008 BMP has five chapters: Introduction; Existing Conditions; Goals, Policies & Implementation Measures (with measures for the topics of Bikeway Route Development, Bikeway Support Facilities, Maintenance, Enforcement, Education, Encouragement, Environmental and Funding); Recommended Bicycle Network; and Funding.

The Roseville BMP includes standards and policies for development of a comprehensive bikeway system that includes Class I shared use paths, Class II on-street bike lanes and Class III on-street bike routes.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall
The 2008 BMP identified 119 miles of existing bikeways and 88 miles of proposed bikeways per Table 6:

Surveys at the time indicate a clear preference for separated bike facilities, with many respondents concerned about traffic speeds and volumes on roads with Class II bike lanes. Class I paths that provide regional or key access across the City include:
• Miners Ravine Trail (Downtown to Sierra College Blvd.) • Dry Creek Greenway East Trail (Phase 1 under construction/Phased 2 funded/Phase 3 to be coordinated with adjoining agencies)
• Dry Creek Greenway West (Planning & Feasibility Study complete) • Pleasant Grove Creek Trails
• Northwest Roseville Power Line Corridor Trails (Sierra Vista – Mahany Park – Foothills) • Highway 65 Trail Corridor
• Washington Blvd. Trail Corridor (existing & future)
The 2008 BMP was adopted prior to adoption of the Sierra Vista, Creekview, Amoruso Ranch and Commercial Corridor (Atlantic Street, Douglas-Harding and Douglas-Sunrise) Specific Plans. The base maps and proposed bikeway maps and bikeway miles do not include the bikeways within those Specific Plans. https://www.roseville.ca.us/SpecificPlans Standards
The BMP does not include guidance for development of modern bike facilities such as buffered bike lanes, Class IV cycle tracks, bike boxes, bike signals/intersection treatments, or bicycle boulevards. These types of facilities are not identified in Chapter V, Recommended Bicycle Network. Also, the BMP does not include Bikeway Design Guidelines. Also, Roseville’s Design & Construction Standards do not include guidance for development of most modern bike facilities. (Note: Since adoption of the 2008 BMP, Roseville has completed some pilot projects for modern bikeway facilities, including a buffered bike lane on Roseville Parkway within the Campus Oaks area, green bike lanes and enhanced intersections on Washington Boulevard, and bicycle signal heads on Junction Boulevard at Park Regency.)

Page 601 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 11 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans
The BMP does not reference the California Green Building Code bike parking standards.

Goals, Policies &
Implementation
Measures
The goals, policies & implementation measures are thorough and understandable but are also very lengthy. Consideration should be given to updating these to focus on the most salient policies and measures and incorporate modern standards for bikeway design and current local practices. Policies and Implementation Measures of note are described below:

BMP Policies -
Bikeway Route
Development
The BMP does not reference the California Green Building Code bike parking standards.

Policy 5 (Bikeway Route Development) states “In newly developing areas, the interval between designated bikeways should be approximately every 1/3-mile. Where feasible and where funding allows, the City should make eff orts to approach a 1/3-mile bikeway interval in infill areas.” Policy 7 & 8 (Bikeway Route Development) identify Class II bike lanes as standard facilities on arterial and collector roads, but identify instances where they may not be installed based upon engineering judgement.

Th e City of Roseville allows bicycle riding on all sidewalks except for selected sidewalks in Downtown Roseville as identified in Section 11.14 of the Municipal Code.

Policy 11 (Bikeway Route Development) provides procedural guidance for changes to the designation of existing bikeways (I.e. removal of bike lanes).

BMP Policies –
Bikeway Support
Facilities
Implementation Measure 1 (Bikeway Support Facilities) recommends updating the Zoning Ordinance and TSM Ordinance to enhance bike parking for new development. The TSM Ordinance now references the Cal Green Building Code requirements. The Zoning Ordinance was changed to remove bike parking requirements. Prior to its change, the Zoning Ordinance bike parking requirements had been applied to high density residential projects. Since TSM/GBC apply only to commercial development, this means that the City does not have bike parking requirements for apartments or other residential projects.

Implementation Measure 2 (Bikeway Support Facilities) recommends developing standards for bicycle parking in the public realm in pedestrian activity areas. This has not been done.

Implementation Measure 3 (Bikeway Support Facilities) recommends funding an annual bike parking project. The City has installed bike parking in some areas but has not funded an annual project.

Implementation Measure 10 (Bikeway Support Facilities) recommends destination signs, trail maps, mile markers, open space and bikeway regulation signs on bike paths where appropriate. This has been partially accomplished on a case-by-case basis. The City has had plans to adopt more comprehensive guidance for this, but has not done so yet.

BMP Policies -
Maintenance
Many of the Maintenance Policies and Implementation Measures are built into the regular practices of the City. City should consider:

Page 602 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 12 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans
• Formalizing the bikeway/trail inspections (Implementation Measure 1). • Adopting an adopt-a-path program or integrating into the adopt-a-creek program (Implementation Measure 5).

Policies -
Environmental
The Environmental policies discuss potential environmental benefits of cycling infrastructure and also efforts to coordinate project review to minimize environmental impacts of new infrastructure.

Roseville’s project review processes and teaming implement these policies.

Policies - Funding Referenced funding programs are older and need to be updated.

Infrastructure
Appendix D project ID #s do not always match numbering on Figure 5.

Completed Projects: 1b, 3a, 3b, 4d, 5a, 5c, 35a, 35b, 9, 13a, 14, 17, 24.

Partial Completion: 35 (West Roseville trails) & 36 (West Roseville Class II bike lanes) Under/Nearing Construction: 6f, 6g, 6h, 6j; 23.

Page 603 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 13 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

3. ADA Transition Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
ADA Transition Plan City of Roseville 2009
Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The ADA Transition Plan for Public Rights-of-Way documents the legal and functional goals and objectives of the City in order to make existing pedestrian facilities within the public right-of-way accessible and usable for persons with disabilities. The ADA Transition Plan has been prepared pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires that all public agencies develop a transition plan for the installation of curb ramps or other sloped areas at all locations where walkways cross curbs.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall
/Standards
The ADA Design Standards were developed to combine and resolve any conflicts between the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), published by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board in July, 1991, and the California State Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulation, 2007 edition. Draft Guidelines for Public Rights-ofWay, published by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board on November 5, 2005, which are expected to take effect in the near future, were also considered in the ADA Design Standards. In addition, all City-approved policies and standards affecting accessibility in the public right-of way were included in the standards. City should periodically review ADA Standards to ensure that new curb ramps meet the latest standards. Update the ADA Transition Plan as needed.

Policies
Section 6 includes a compliance form for each new curb ramp constructed in the City, and a compliance form for each new sidewalk constructed in the City. City should verify that the forms are being used for new projects (city and development) and should also ensure that the forms are available for review if requested.

Infrastructure
Chapter 4 includes ADA Standards for a variety of public right-of-way improvements. These include sidewalk access, curb ramps, detectable warnings, pedestrian crossings, accessible pedestrian signals, transportation and vehicle access, street & sidewalk furnishings and temporary construction standards.

City should verify that the applicable standards of the ADA Transition Plan have been incorporated into the City’s Design & Construction Standards.

Appendix A includes a prioritized list of potential ADA projects. The projects are focused on curb ramp construction or re-construction and prioritization is based upon land uses served and condition of the existing facility. City should review the list of projects to determine which have been completed and update the plan if determined necessary.

Page 604 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 14 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

4. Pedestrian Master Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Pedestrian Master Plan City of Roseville 2011
Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Pedestrian Master Plan is intended to establish policies, projects, and programs that improve the pedestrian system in Roseville and increase walking for transportation, recreation, and health. The PMP identifies a recommended pedestrian network and establishes a 20-year framework of improvements that will enhance the pedestrian environment.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall
The PMP documents the federal, state, regional and local context for pedestrian planning. The PMP notes that “Pedestrian Districts” have been designated in the West Roseville, Riverside Gateway and Downtown Specific Plans. This designation means that pedestrian travel takes a higher priority than automobile travel in these districts.

The 2011 PMP was adopted prior to adoption of the Sierra Vista, Creekview, Amoruso Ranch and Commercial Corridor (Atlantic Street, Douglas-Harding and Douglas-Sunrise) Specific Plans. The base maps and proposed and other mapping do not include those Specific Plans. https://www.roseville.ca.us/SpecificPlans
The PMP included an inventory of 755 sidewalk segments along arterial and collector streets. Of these, 75% of segments included full sidewalk on both sides of the street. The remaining segments had some or all of the sidewalk missing on one or both sides of the street. The inventory did not include residential streets, but Figure 6 identifies mature residential areas that have no sidewalks or are missing sidewalks.

Policies
Overall the goals, policies & implementation measures are thorough and understandable but are length and consideration should be given to updating them to focus on the most salient policies and measures. Policies and Implementation Measures of note are described below:

Implementation Measure 5 (Pedestrian Access and Circulation) states “When traffic impact studies are prepared, consider the effect on pedestrian safety as well as increased pedestrian crossing times and distances or pedestrian wait times due to longer cycle lengths.” Implementation Measure 6 (Pedestrian Access and Circulation) states “Consider adopting a “Pedestrian Safety Action Plan” tailored to Roseville pursuant to Federal Highway Administration publication FHWA SA-05-12.”
Implementation Measure 1 (Pedestrian Education, Encouragement and Enforcement Programs) states “Consider formation of a Pedestrian Safety Task Force comprised of City staff and community members to coordinate education, encouragement and enforcement strategies.” Infrastructure
Figure 5 identifies the areas of the City, mostly located near Downtown Roseville, that participate in the City’s annual sidewalk repair program.

Figure 7 shows the street segments with missing sidewalks. The missing sidewalks are classified within 3 categories: Those to be installed with other CIP projects; those that are developer responsibility; and the remainder that are part of the PMP Implementation Plan.

The PMP prioritizes sidewalk improvements based upon a missing sidewalk’s proximity to transit centers and bus stops, secondary and elementary schools, critical sites (government, health care or elderly facilities) and pedestrian districts. Figure 8 shows the sidewalks by scoring. Table 19 identifies the top priority missing sidewalk segments as those that received a rank of 4 or 5, or those segments where specific requests were received by the public. Appendix A-1 identifies missing sidewalk segments by rank.

Page 605 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 15 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans
Aerial mapping shows the following sidewalk segments from Table 18 and Appendix A-1 have been completed: Country Club (Danielle to Pleasant Grove); Pleasant Grove (Hemingway to Country Club); Oak Ridge (Vinmar to Rampart); Fairway (Central Park to Home Depot); Industrial (Blue Oaks to Alantown); Industrial (Alantown to Finesteria).

The PMP did not review or evaluate street crossings for safety or other upgrades.

Table A-2 identifies a variety of potential funding sources but should be updated to reflect current grant funding program opportunities.

Page 606 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 16 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

5. Local Road Safety Plan

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

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The LRSP analyzes crash data to identify citywide trends, high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and locations with unusual crash patterns or high crash 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 opportunities, without relying solely on a reaction and response to crashes 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”

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall
Crash data for the five-year period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019 was used for the crash analysis. Pertinent crash data summaries are provided below:

Page 607 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 17 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

Page 608 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 18 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

Page 609 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 19 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans
Policies Table 3 of the LRSP includes a list of the Roseville Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox.

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.

Page 610 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 20 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

Page 611 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 21 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

6. Community Design Guidelines

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Community Design Guidelines City of Roseville 2008
Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Community Design Guidelines are intended to provide design professionals, property owners, commissioners, staff, and residents with a clear and common understanding of the City’s expectations for the planning, design, and review of development proposals in Roseville. The guidelines are applied to private development projects, but do have guidance for the public realm when street frontages are privately constructed in association with Commercial (CC), Office & Industrial (OI), Multi-family (MF) and Compact Residential (CR) projects.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMEMT TOPICS
Guidelines
Guidelines include:

CC-51, OI-44, MF-36, CR-31
• Use landscaping to provide physical separation from streets to encourage walking.

OI-44, MF-36, CR-31
• Wider sidewalks should be provided within the existing right of way to allow for two persons to walk comfortably side by side
CC-53, OI-46, MF-36, CR-32
• Traffic calming elements such as enhanced paving and bulb-outs at intersections should be provided. Other traffic calming measures should be explored.

CR-32
• Mid-block pedestrian crossings, bulb-outs and enhanced paving should be provided on higher volume roadways, subject to approval by the Public Works Department.

Page 612 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 22 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

7. Smart Choices for Roseville’s Future

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Smart Choices for Roseville’s Future City of Roseville 2010 Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The purpose of this document is to outline a menu of options to be considered by the City of Roseville to implement the Blueprint Growth Principles adopted by the Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) in December 2004. The document includes goals & policies for transportation.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMEMT TOPICS
Goals
Transportation Goal: Provide a variety of transportation choices. Development should be designed to encourage people to walk, ride bicycles, ride the bus, ride transit and heavy rail, or carpool. Land use concepts are intended to encourage the use of these modes of travel and reduce congestion.

Implementation
Strategy
Bicycle Access
Offstreet Bike access (class I): 16.5 miles existing and 21 miles proposed Class I bike trails (ongoing).

The City Public Works Transportation Staff provide information about Roseville’s bikeway system (both on and off street). Class I bike trails provide a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with minimal crossflows by motorists. (on-going) Bicycle Safety Checklist: When reviewing development consider Checklist (Appendix B) for Safe Growth for Pedestrians and Bicyclists for existing and planned neighborhoods (0-5 years) Implementation
Strategy
Bicycle Master Plan
Bicycle Master Plan Amendments: Consider amending the Community Design Guidelines and/or Bicycle Master Plan to identify & remove barriers to bicycle commuting (0-5 years) · Bicycle Circulation Plan: Continue to update Bicycle circulation plan as new development is approved (Ongoing); aggressively move forward with completing bicycle trail connections throughout the City.

Bike Parking: Promote convenient bicycle parking (ongoing) · Education: Continue community education programs such as Bikefest – Pedalsafe, Develop and grow Transit Awareness Programs-Transit Marketing Efforts (ongoing). The City Public Works Transportation Staff serves as advisors to “PedalSafe!”, the City’s bicycle safety committee, which coordinates bicycle safety promotions and events, including the annual Bikefest, Roseville in Motion Month (Oct.)
Implementation
Strategy
Pedestrian Access
Develop a pedestrian master plan. (6-15 years) ·
Require pedestrian circulation plans for new growth areas (0-5 years). Similar to the bicycle master plan, prepare a pedestrian master plan that identifies standards to encourage pedestrian mobility.

Develop pedestrian circulation plans for new growth areas. Design developments so that kids can walk to school through Class I bicycle trails, paseos, or other means to avoid needing to use heavily traveled streets. Develop walking awareness and promotion programs. · Amend Design Guidelines to specifically encourage that developments be designed so that kids can walk to school. (6-15 years) ·

Page 613 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 23 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans
Develop pedestrian oriented policy to provide guidance for safe routes to transit. (General Plan Amendment 6-15 years) ·
Vernon St./Historic Old Town pedestrian bridge (6-15 years). Washington Blvd. Pedestrian undercrossing improvements Implementation
Strategy
Pedestrian Safety
Pedestrian Safety - · Use modern technology to increase pedestrian safety and visual cues and design elements to indicate pedestrian rights of way and minimize conflicts, beep/count down at various crosswalks. (ongoing for beep and count down at select crosswalks in the City, 6-15 years for consideration of more sophisticated elements) ·
To facilitate frequent/safe pedestrian crossings of large streets consider a variety of mechanisms such as off-peak synchronization of pedestrian signals at key intersections and over crossings where appropriate at major arterials (16-30 years) ·
Education: Develop walking awareness and promotion programs (combine with healthy living choices e.g. reduces obesity). (0-5 years) ·Continue to implement the CIP Sidewalk repair program (ongoing) Implementation
Strategy
Design Guideline Amendments
Amend the Design Guidelines to ensure appropriate pedestrian linkages are provided from parking facilities to primary destinations (6-15 years). ·
Consider amending the Design Guidelines to make places more walkable for aging populations. (6-15 years) ·
Amend Community Design Guidelines to include design standards for sidewalks. (0-5 years) Implementation
Strategy
Streetscape Improvements
Use trees and other green infrastructure to provide shelter, beauty, urban heat reduction, and separation from automobile traffic. (ongoing) ·
Continue beautification and revitalization efforts to maintain and upgrade existing and future sidewalks to improve pedestrian circulation. (ongoing)
Implementation
Strategy
Multi-use Facilities
Continue looking for opportunities to transform park-and- ride lots into multi-use & multi-modal facilities. (ongoing)
Implementation
Strategy
Transportation System Management TSM
Continue to implement Transportation System Management Program (promote showers in businesses etc.) · Revise TSM ordinance to more aggressively require amenities, require minimum levels of amenities and or services to employees based upon size of development.

Implementation
Strategy
Disabled Access
As part of the CIP process upgrade bus stops in infill areas to be ADA compliant. (ongoing) Implementation
Strategy
Traffic Calming
Consider traffic-calming techniques in existing and new residential neighborhoods such as street bulb-outs, street tables at intersections and other features. (ongoing)

Page 614 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 24 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

8. Communitywide Sustainability Action Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Communitywide Sustainability
Action Plan City of Roseville 2010
Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The main objective of the City of Roseville Communitywide Sustainability Action Plan (SAP) is to set forth a comprehensive strategy to address emerging sustainability issues related to land use patterns, transportation, building design, energy use, water demand, and waste generation. The SAP outlines a road-map to reduce GHGs and air pollutant emissions within the community (i.e., vehicle emissions, emissions related to energy production) and to promote economic growth based on clean technology and sustainable practices.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Existing and
Ongoing
Transportation
Policies
E. Regularly (i.e., every 4 years) update and implement the Bicycle Master Plan, including construction of capital improvements for bike facilities, especially facilities used for work commutes. Explore funding and staffing options to accelerate bikeway development. Seek community (e.g., Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations [RCONA]) and regional inputs when updating the plan.

F. Continue to provide community programs and other incentives for commuter biking.

G. Adopt, regularly update (i.e., every 3 years) and implement a Pedestrian Master Plan that includes a Capital Improvement Program to close sidewalk gaps, identifies other design measures and best practices that improve the pedestrian environment. Seek community (e.g., RCONA) and regional input when updating the plan, and evaluate pedestrian needs using walk scores.

H. Adopt, regularly update (i.e., every 3 years) and implement an ADA Transition Plan for public rightsof-way I. Identify ongoing funding to continue the existing Safe Routes to School Pilot Program and expand the program into other Roseville schools.

L. Actively pursue funding for adaptive traffic signals (through 2016).

Objective T-5: Expand and enhance the bikeway network and support facilities and encourage their use to increase bike ridership (~1% biking and walking combined mode shift).

Objective T-6: Improve the pedestrian environment to increase walking in the community (~1% biking and walking combined mode shift).

Objective T-9: Enhance efficiency of the City's roadway network to reduce vehicle delays and emissions while maintaining or enhancing the bicycle and pedestrian environment.

Measure T-5.1 Maximize bicycle use through high-quality design, enhanced infrastructure, and enforcing bike travel rights.

Page 615 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 25 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans
Measure T-5.2 Promote bicycle use through focused community outreach and education programs.

Measure T-6.1 Maximize pedestrian travel through high-quality design, enhanced infrastructure, and enforcing pedestrian travel rights.

Page 616 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 26 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans
Measure T-7.1 Coordinate with SACOG's Community Design and Caltrans' Safe Routes to School programs to identify grants to increase alternative transportation networks that serve the community center, libraries, schools, recreational areas and other public gathering spaces.

Page 617 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 27 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans
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:

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.

Page 618 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 28 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

9. Short Range Transit Plan 2018-2025

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Short Range Transit Plan 2018-2025 City of Roseville 2018 Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The City of Roseville Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) was prepared to assess transit and related transportation issues in Roseville and the surrounding region and provide a “road map” for improvements to the public transit program over the upcoming seven years. The review of the SRTP focuses on first/last mile active transportation improvements that enhance access to transit.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Chapter 4
Existing
Services

Page 50 ends

have bike lockers. Most major transit stations have electronic bike link lockers (Amtrak Station, Louis Orlando Transit Center, Maidu Regional Park, Saugstad Park, Taylor Road). Although not noted, we understand that bike link lockers were recently installed near the Civic Center Transfer Point. The Galleria is the one major transit center without bike link lockers.

Bikeway
System
N/A
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.

Page 619 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 29 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

10. Southeast Roseville Specific Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Southeast Roseville Specific Plan City of Roseville 1985 Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Southeast Specific Plan (SERSP) and subsequent amendments establishes a development framework for 1,004 acres of land located south of Douglas Boulevard, north and east of Maidu Park, on both sides of Sierra College Boulevard, and south to the border with Sacramento County. The SERSP addresses land use, affordable housing, circulation, resource management, public facilities and services, infrastructure and land use sequencing, and design. The Plan Area is bounded on the north by the City of Rocklin, on the west by Interstate 80, Secret Ravine and Roseville Parkway, on the south by Olympus Drive and on the east by Sierra College Boulevard.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall
The circulation system for SRSP provides a coordinated system of streets which allow for efficient vehicular travel, public transit, bikeways and pedestrian paths. The street system is organized in a hierarchy of roadways with one major arterial (Roseville Parkway) and two minor arterials (Sierra College Boulevard and Stoneridge Drive) carrying traffic to and through the Plan Area.

Street
Improvement
Standards
Circulation Element Figure 13 identifies the following active transportation improvements:

Arterial Streets (Douglas, E. Roseville Parkway, Sierra College, Eureka): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter) and, within either 50’ or 35’ wide landscape corridors, an 8’ Class 1 bikeway (sidewalk) on both sides of each street.

Collector Streets (Johnson Ranch Road, McLaren Drive, Professional Drive, Parkhill Road, Old Auburn Road, N. Cirby Way): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter) and, within 25’ wide landscape corridors, a 5’ sidewalk on one side of the street and 8’ Class 1 bikeway (sidewalk) on the other side of the street.

Bikeway
System
The SRSP Landscape Design Guidelines (LDG) Project Map (p. 7) shows the pedestrian paths identified in the Circulation Element per above, as well as potential 10’ wide meandering paths within Open Space Parcels 71 & 73 (Strap Ravine) and Open Space Parcels 74 & 75 (south of Old Auburn Road and east of Sierra College Boulevard). The path within parcels 74 & 75 has been constructed and is part of the planned Dry Creek Greenway trail system. The paths planned for Parcels 71 and 73 were not constructed and were removed from the City’s 2008 Bicycle Master Plan due to lack of adequate area for a trail within the open space.

In addition to the above, SERSP Section 2.3 Business Professional and Office Land Use Figure 11 calls for a 7’ wide paved bike/ped path with 3’ gravel should for jogging within open space floodway parcels 70 and 72, which are located at the rear of office parcels 7E and 30. However, this path was not constructed with the adjoining offices and the paths were removed from the City’s 2008 Bicycle Master Plan due to lack of adequate area for a trail within the open space.

Although not shown on the LDG Project Plan or elsewhere in the SERSP, a short Class 1 path has been constructed adjacent to Roseville Fire Station #4, extending about 530’ from Maidu Park to Eureka Road within either Public/Quasi-Public parcel 10 or Open Space Parcel 13B.

Pedestrian
Overlay
The SERSP 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.

Page 620 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 30 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

11. Northeast Roseville Specific Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Northeast Roseville Specific Plan City of Roseville 1987 Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Northeast Roseville Specific Plan (NERSP) and subsequent amendments establishes a development framework for 1,628 acres of land located directly northeast of the City center, and addresses land use, affordable housing, circulation, open space and resource conservation, public facilities, and design. The Plan Area is bounded on the north by the Stoneridge Specific Plan, on the west by Interstate 80, on the east by Sierra College and on the south by Douglas Boulevard. (Note, some of the NERSP planning area was later incorporated into the SRSP).

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall
The Circulation Element’s Circulation Plan identifies a number of Arterial Streets (E. Roseville Parkway, Eureka Road, Rocky Ridge Drive, Lead Hill Boulevard, Sierra College Boulevard, N. Sunrise Avenue, Taylor Road) carrying traffic to and through the Plan Area.

Bikeway
System
In addition to on-street bikeways, the NERSP Circulation Element notes that the off-street circulation system focuses upon the use of the ravines for connection between uses.

Page 621 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 31 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

12. Northwest Roseville Specific Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Northwest Roseville Specific Plan City of Roseville 1989 Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Northwest Roseville Specific Plan (NWRSP) establishes a development framework for approximately 2,650 acres of land located west of the City center. The NWRSP addresses land use, housing, circulation, open space and resources management, public facilities and services, and urban design. The Plan Area is bounded on the east by Washington Boulevard, on the south by Baseline Road, and on the west by Fiddyment Road and Sun City, and extends about ½-mile north of Pleasant Grove Boulevard.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall The circulation system incorporates public streets. pedestrian paths, bikeways, parking areas, and public transit stops.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:

Figure 24 - 6-Lane Arterial Streets (Washington Blvd, Foothills Boulevard, Pleasant Grove Blvd): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street bike & pedestrian path (sidewalk) within a 30’- 50’ wide landscape corridor on each side of the street.

Figure 25 - 4-Lane Arterial Streets (Junction Blvd, Pleasant Grove Blvd, Woodcreek Oaks Blvd, Baseline Road): 6’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street bike & pedestrian path (sidewalk) within a 25’-35’ wide landscape corridor on each side of the street.

Figure 27 - Collector Streets (Alexandria Drive, Olympus Drive, Scarborough Drive, Miners Ravine Drive): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ sidewalks within a 25’-35’ wide landscape corridor on each side of the street.

Local Streets: Section 4.1.3 and 4.3.3 note that all local streets may serve as Class III bikeways, although signs and striping so designating these streets was not planned and has not been installed. Figure 28 Typical Local Residential Street identifies 6’ bike lanes and 4’ sidewalks on each side of the street, without on-street parking. However, when residential streets were constructed within the NWRSP, onstreet parking has been allowed and on-street bike lanes have not been striped.

Section 4.3.3 states and Figure 10 shows that periodic breaks in soundwalls will be provided to connect interior streets to arterials.

Page 622 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 32 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans
• Within an overhead power line easement at the north boundary of the NWRSP from Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard east to the South Branch of Pleasant Grove Creek (now the corporation yard area for Woodcreek Golf Course) and then west back towards Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard. The portion of this path within the power line easement was constructed, but it is not signed or mapped as a public path and is used for maintenance purposes. • The NWRSP originally called for open space trails moving north-south within Open Space Parcels 79A and 79B, including a connection to the former Hewlett-Packard campus (what is not Campus Oaks area). However, the LDG Bikeway Master Plan notes that “Bike path through the Parcel 38 Golf Course is subject to further design of the golf course.” Ultimately, the bike path through the Woodcreek Golf Course was not constructed.

Page 623 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 33 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

13. North Central Roseville Specific Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
North Central Roseville Specific Plan City of Roseville 1990 Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The North Central Roseville Specific Plan (NCRSP) rea establishes a development framework for approximately 2,330 acres of land located north of the city center. Some of this area has been incorporated into the Highland Reserve North Specific Plan (HRNSP). The remaining area is bounded roughly by I-80 on the east, Washington Boulevard on the west, SR-65 and the HRNSP on the north (excepting the northwest corner of SR-65/Stanford Ranch Road which is within the NCRSP), and Diamond Oaks Golf Course on the south.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall Pedestrian and bikeway guidance is located in both the Community Form and Design Element and the Circulation Element of the NCRSP.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The Circulation Element street section guidelines call for the following:

Figure 5-3 and 5-4 - 4-Lane and 6-Lane Arterial Streets (Washington Blvd, Pleasant Grove Blvd, Stanford Ranch (Galleria) Blvd, Roseville Parkway): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ offstreet bike & pedestrian path (sidewalk) within a 30’-50’ wide landscape corridor on each side of the street.

Collector Streets: 8’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 5’ sidewalks within a landscape corridor
Local Streets: 4’ sidewalks
Bikeway
System
In addition to the on-street bikeways reference above, Figure 5-14 Bikeway Master Plan identifies proposed Class I and Class III bikeways as follows:
• Class I bikeway within power line corridor and along SR-65 from Washington Boulevard to the Galleria/Roseville Parkway intersection. This system is complete except for a ½-mile segment along SR-65.
• Class I trail within Antelope Creek open space from SR-65 to Galleria Boulevard near Berry Street. This trail is complete.
• Class III bikeways along a number of collector and primary residential roads. Striping and signs for Class III bikeways have not been installed, although a couple of these roads (Antelope Creek Drive and Creekside Ridge Drive have Class II bike lanes now.

Community Form and Design Element includes the following:
• Section 3.2.2 identified Pedestrian Circulation policies. • Figure 3-5 delineates Neighborhoods A-D. The Neighborhood Plans identify pedestrian pathway/bikeway links on local roads within each neighborhood. The Neighborhood Plans identified three potential locations for grade-separated pedestrian overcrossings of major arterials, with two over Roseville Parkway and one over Pleasant Grove Boulevard. The overcrossings were eliminated from further consideration during buildout of the NCRSP infrastructure. Two of the overcrossings were originally shown on Figure 5-14, but were removed from the Bikeway Plan with a specific plan amendment in 2003. • Section 3.3.1 states that within the single family village neighborhoods the pedestrian system will consist of five foot (5') wide sidewalks separated from the residential street by a five foot (5') wide planting strip. This section also calls for periodic breaks in soundwalls (between 600’- 1,000’ apart) for pedestrian walkways from neighborhoods to arterial streets.

Page 624 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 34 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans
• Section 3.9, #10, notes that the pedestrian/bikeway path adjacent to SR-65 is to be constructed as individual projects are built.

KEY TAKEWAYS

Page 625 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 35 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

14. North Roseville Industrial Area

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
North Roseville Industrial Area Guidelines City of Roseville 1992 Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The North Roseville Industrial Area Guidelines (NRIAG)is not a specific plan, but it does provide design guidance for a 2,300 acre area of industrial lands at the north end of the City on both sides of Foothills Boulevard north of Pleasant Grove Blvd, to the northern city limits north of Blue Oaks Blvd. Some of this area was later encompassed by the NRSP and Campus Oaks Master Plan.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall The circulation system includes arterial and collector roads that provide access to the industrial and office developments within the area.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:

Primary Arterials (Washington, Pleasant Grove, Roseville Parkway, Foothills, Blue Oaks): These typically include Class II bike lanes and 8’ sidewalks within 50’ landscape corridors.

Secondary Arterials (Industrial, Woodcreek Oaks): These sometimes include Class II bike lanes and 5-8’ sidewalks within 35’ landscape corridors.

Collector Streets (Alexandria Drive, Olympus Drive, Scarborough Drive, Miners Ravine Drive): 4’ Class II bike lanes; 5’ sidewalks within a landscape corridor
Local Streets: 4’ sidewalks
Bikeway
System
The NRIAG does not include a bikeway plan. However, the Development Agreement for the Hewlett Packard Master Plan Section 3.16, which is a part of and subject to the NRIAG, identifies a potential Class I bike path along its southern boundary intended to connect with Class I trails in the NWRSP and NRSP. The Development Agreement includes provisions for landowner dedication of right-of-way for the path.

Pedestrian
Overlay
The NRIAG do 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.

Page 626 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 36 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

15. Del Webb Specific Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Del Webb Specific Plan City of Roseville 1993
Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Del Webb Specific Plan (DWSP) establishes a 3,500 unit active adult community on 1,200 acres of land.

The DWSP addresses land use, housing, circulation, resource management, community open space & recreation facilities, public facilities and services, and design. The Plan Area is bounded on the north by Blue Oaks Boulevard, on the south by Pleasant Grove Boulevard on the east by the NWRSP and North Roseville Specific Plan (NRSP) and on the west by Fiddyment Road.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall The circulation system for DWSP provides a coordinated system of streets, including bike lanes and sidewalks. Several streets are also design to include golf cart lanes adjacent to bike lanes.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:

Arterial Streets (Blue Oaks Blvd, Pleasant Grove Blvd and Fiddyment Road): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street bike & pedestrian path (sidewalk) within 25’-50’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street.

Collector Streets (Sun City Blvd and Del Webb Blvd): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ golf cart on-street lanes between the bike lane and vehicular lane; and 8’ off-street sidewalk within 25’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street . (Note: These streets were originally envisioned as 4-lane minor arterial roads without golf cart lanes, but were later modified to be 2-lane collectors with golf cart lanes.)
Local Streets: 4’ sidewalks on both sides
Bikeway
System
In addition to the on-street bikeways, the DWSP Pedestrian and Bikeway Trail System (Figure 4-14) includes the following:
• At the northeast corner of the plan area, the plan accommodates the Pleasant Grove Creek (South Branch) Trail alignment across Open Space Parcel 47, including an undercrossing of Blue Oaks Boulevard. This trail is complete, and there is a private gated path from Stagecoach Circle to the public trail.
• At the southeast corner of the Plan Area, the plan accommodates a connection from Sun City to Mahany Regional Park via an undercrossing of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. The undercrossing may be paved with a connection to the sidewalks on the north side of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. Paved trails on the south side of Pleasant Grove Boulevard are not complete.
• In the southwest corner of the DWSP, Figure 4-14 identifies a multi-use path (pedestrian, bike golf cart) access point from Mt. Rose Way to the adjoining church and commercial parcels.

This path is partially complete through the church parcel.

Page 627 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 37 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

16. Highland Reserve North Specific Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Highland Reserve North Specific Plan City of Roseville 1997 Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Highland Reserve North Specific Plan (HRNSP) establishes, as an amendment to the NCRSP, a development framework for 615 acres of land located on the northeast side of SR-65 from Blue Oaks Blvd to Galleria Blvd/Stanford Ranch Road, with adjacency to the City of Rocklin on the north and east sides. The HRNSP addresses land use, housing, circulation, resource management, public facilities and services, phasing and design.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:

Arterial Streets (Pleasant Grove Blvd, Stanford Ranch Road, Fairway Drive): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street bike & pedestrian path (sidewalk) within 30’-50’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street.

Collector Streets (Highland Park Drive and Central Park Drive): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 5’ off-street sidewalk within 25’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street.

The HRNSP does not plan for any off-street bike trails in its open space parcels, but the 2008 Bicycle Master Plan Update identified potential grade-separate crossings of SR-65 from NCRSP trail system to HRNSP at Commercial Parcel 47B and Open Space Parcel 72, with a connecting path through Open Space Parcel 71.

Page 628 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 38 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

17. North Roseville Specific Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
North Roseville Specific Plan City of Roseville 1998
Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The North Roseville Specific Plan (NRSP) comprises five neighborhood areas located in two separate geographic areas that were planned together. Neighborhoods A, B and C (referred to as Phase 1) are located west of the North Industrial Area (including the former Hewlett-Packard Campus), east of Fiddyment Road, and on both the north and south sides of Blue Oaks Boulevard, including to the City limits on the north. Neighborhood D (referred to as Phase 2 or Woodcreek West) is west of the NWRSP and south of the DWSP and Pleasant Grove Boulevard, north of Baseline Road and west of Fiddyment Road. Neighborhood E (identified as Phase 3 or the Doctor’s Ranch) is located at the northeast corner of the plan area.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:

Arterial Streets (Blue Oaks Blvd, Pleasant Grove, Junction, Woodcreek Oaks, Fiddyment Road): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street bike & pedestrian path (sidewalk) within 25’-90’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street.

Collector Streets (Diamond Creek Way, Parkside Way, Crocker Ranch Drive, Opal Way, Casa Sedona Drive, Northpark Drive, Prairie Woods Way, Painted Desert Drive, West Lake Drive and Park Regency Drive): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 5’ off-street sidewalk within 20’-35’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street. Except Diamond Creek Way, which is within a utility corridor, has 12’ sidewalks.

Local Residential Streets: 4’ sidewalks
Bikeway
System
In addition to the on-street bikeways, the NRSP Bikeway Plan (Exhibit 4-8) calls for the development of 14’ (10’ plus 2’ shoulders) Class I Trails in parks, promenades, utility corridors and open space corridors. Figure 4-11 identifies the proposed Class I paths:
• In neighborhoods A and C, along Pleasant Grove Creek from Veterans Park to Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard, including through Hughes Park. This project is mostly complete except for a short section that is unpaved between the North and South sides of Veterans Park. This unfinished segment has partial funding through the West Roseville Specific Plan. • In Neighborhood B, along the south branch of Pleasant Grove Creek. This segment is complete.
• In Neighborhood D, through the north-south power line corridor to a connection with the Mahany Park open space. This segment is complete.

Page 629 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 39 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

18. Stoneridge Specific Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Stoneridge Specific Plan City of Roseville 1998
Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Stoneridge Specific Plan (SRS) rea establishes a development framework for approximately 1,088 acres of land located northeast of the center of the City of Roseville, and addresses land use, affordable housing, circulation, resource management, public facilities and services, infrastructure and land use sequencing, and design. The Plan Area is bounded on the north by the City of Rocklin, on the west by Interstate 80, Secret Ravine and Roseville Parkway, on the south by Olympus Drive and on the east by Sierra College Boulevard.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:

Arterial Streets (Roseville Parkway, Sierra College Boulevard, Secret Ravine Parkway): 4’ Class II bike lanes; 8’ sidewalks within a landscape corridor. (Note that the actual width of bike lanes along the SRSP arterials have been adjusted to meet the City’s latest striping standards, which calls for wider bike lanes on 4-lane and 6-lane arterials.)
Collector Streets (Alexandria Drive, Olympus Drive, Scarborough Drive, Miners Ravine Drive): 4’ Class II bike lanes; 5’ sidewalks within a landscape corridor
Local Streets: 4’ sidewalks
Bikeway
System
In addition to the on-street bikeways, the SRSP Bikeway Plan (Exhibit 4-8) calls for the development of Class I Trails within Miners Ravine, Secret Ravine, False Ravine and Park Parcels PR-2, PR-3 and PR-4.

The trails planned by the SRSP within Miners Ravine, Secret Ravine and False Ravine are complete. It should be noted that the City’s 2008 Bicycle Master Plan proposed additional trail improvements within Secret Ravine Parcels 25 & 26 that are not reflected on the SRSP Bikeway Plan. Also, the trail within Secret Ravine is planned to connect to a planned trail in the City of Rocklin.

Page 630 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 40 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

19. West Roseville Specific Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
West Roseville Specific Plan City of Roseville 2004
Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) establishes a development framework for approximately 3,162 acres of land located about 1 mile north of Fiddyment Road, extending to about ½-mile north of Blue Oaks Boulevard, primarily west of Fiddyment Road and extending to the western City limits. The WRSP land use, affordable housing, circulation, resource management, public services, utilities and design.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall The circulation system for WRSP includes a hierarchy of roadways, a pedestrian and bikeway network and public transit.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:

Arterial Streets (Blue Oaks Blvd, Pleasant Grove, Fiddyment Road, Westbrook Blvd.): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street bike & pedestrian path (sidewalk) within 35’-50’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street.

Collector Streets (Holt Parkway, Hayden Parkway, Phillip Road): 7’ Class II bike lanes (inclusive of curb and gutter); 5’ off-street sidewalk within 25’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street.

Except Hayden Parkway has a 10’ wide trail/sidewalk adjacent to open space.

Primary Residential Streets: Some primary residential streets include 4’ or 6’ wide Class II bike lanes (excluding curb and gutter) with adjacent on-street parking; 4’ to 10’ wide sidewalks, varying depending on adjacent land use, within up to 40’ wide paseos. Others do not include bike lanes and have 4’ walkways on one or both sides, sometimes with a 10’ wide walkway within a paseo. The variations are based upon adjoining land uses, and paseo and bikeway connectivity.

Local Residential Streets: 4’-5’ sidewalks
Bikeway
System
The WRSP provides approximately 12 miles of Class I off-street bike paths in open space, park and paseo areas. Most of the planned trails are complete with the exception of:
• The trails west and north of Westpark High School (within Park Parcel F-56, Open Space F-86B and City-owned property south of Blue Oaks Boulevard);
• the trails within Regional Park Parcel F-54;
• the off-site trail within Veterans Park (a part of the NRSP); and • the short segment of trail at the west end of the WRSP, north of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and adjacent to Parcel W-16.

Pedestrian
Overlay
The WRSP Village Center has been adopted as a pedestrian overlay area. The Village Center Plan (Chapter 10) notes that pedestrian-friendly design elements within the Village Center include short block lengths in a grid pattern, wide sidewalks, enhanced pedestrian crossings, dense tree canopies, street furnishings, pedestrian scale lighting, signage and front forward building designs, all of which are intended to promote a comfortable and inviting pedestrian environment. Gateways are provided at both ends of the Village Center along Pleasant Grove Boulevard. In addition, an enhanced pedestrian crossing is located at the signalized intersection of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Market Street with the following elements: Extra wide street crossing; Change of texture/color within crossing (stamped concrete); Elevated design elements (such as planters or other elements) at the corners of the crossing; and Use of bollards at corners and within median to announce crossing.

Page 631 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 41 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

20. Riverside Gateway Specific Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Riverside Gateway Specific Plan City of Roseville 2006
Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Riverside Gateway Specific Plan (RGSP) envisions Riverside Avenue as an attractive and vital pedestrian friendly corridor, providing a recognizable and visible gateway to central Roseville. A pedestrian-oriented and easily accessible mixed-use district is planned for Riverside Avenue, with a mixture of residential and live/work uses transitioning into the adjacent neighborhoods. The plan area extends one block to each side of Riverside Avenue from Douglas Boulevard to Darling Way and includes approximately 50 acres.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall
The circulation system for RGSP is intended to create a pedestrian-friendly corridor, with attractive streets and pedestrian accessible intersections and crosswalks.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The right-of-way for existing streets remains primarily as existing, which includes 7’ sidewalks on Riverside Avenue and 3.5’-4’ sidewalks on parallel residential streets, but with upgrades to curb ramps and sidewalk segments in poor condition. The Streetscape Plan (Chapter 6) includes pedestrian improvements such as bulbouts at unsignalized intersections and midblock locations along Riverside Avenue, enhanced paving of crosswalks, historical interpretive signs along Riverside Avenue sidewalks, gateway features at each end of the plan area, new streetscape landscaping, street furniture and pedestrian-scale decorative lighting.

Bikeway
System
The Circulation Plan (Chapter 4) identifies bicycle facilities serving the area include:
• Class I path along Dry Creek connecting Douglas Boulevard to just north of Darling Way; and • Class III bike routes on Sixth Street and Darling Way (identified through green bike route signs Future bicycle improvements included extension of the Dry Creek Trail south of Darling Way (under construction) and installation of Class III signs and striping on Vernon Street and Douglas Boulevard (not complete).

Pedestrian
Overlay
The RGSP area is identified with a Pedestrian Overlay District with the intent to place a greater emphasis on the pedestrian rather than the automobile by implementing measures to improve walkability. Additionally, the General Plan specifies that intersections within Pedestrian Districts shall be excluded from the City’s LOS policy which requires that 70 percent of City intersections function at LOS C or better during the PM peak hour.

Page 632 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 42 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

21. Downtown Specific Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Downtown Specific Plan City of Roseville 2009
Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) encompasses 176 acres and includes the Historic Old Town, Vernon Street District, and Royer and Saugstad Parks. The Plan area is divided into 11 districts and emphasizes the addition of mixeduse and residential development. At build-out, the Plan area is expected to accommodate 900,000 square feet of new ground floor retail development, 1,020 new residential units, and a cumulative total of 4.4 million square feet.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall
The Specific Plan envisions future transportation and parking improvements with the following:
• Streetscape designs that improve the pedestrian environment, including wider sidewalks, pedestrian amenities and landscaping;
• Street sections that slow traffic and improve pedestrian safety by narrowing streets, providing curb extensions at intersections, installing mid-block crossings and traffic control devices for the pedestrian;
• Reconfiguration of street edges to provide angled parking and parallel parking; • New public parking garage(s) located based on the forecasted demand; and • The expansion of transit and bicycle facilities.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The Downtown area is supported by older streets with a variety of street sections that typically do not include bike lanes.

Proposed
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Facilities
DTSP Chapter 6 proposes the following bike/ped improvements:
• Atlantic Street Pedestrian Promenade (Exhibit 6.3 & Figure 6.2) – Revised parking, new enhanced crossings and new walkway along rail yard with overlook (not complete) • Vernon Street – Minor changes to Vernon/Lincoln for fire response improvement… otherwise prior streetscape improvements remain)
• Douglas Blvd – When new development occurs, DTSP proposes to enhance sidewalk network by closing gaps, widening sidewalks, and enhancing crossings (not complete). • Oak Street and Grant Street – Proposed mid-block crossing improvements (complete). • The DTSP plan for the Washington/Oak intersection (Exhibit 6.5) was modified with the later installation of a roundabout at that intersection.

Page 633 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 43 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans
• Enhanced pedestrian crossings and curb ramps at the Oak/Lincoln, Oak/Grant, Grant/Vernon intersections (complete).
• Town Square pedestrian improvements for S. Grant, Oak St., Vernon St. (complete) • Taylor Street landscape planters and sidewalk re-construction (complete) • Washington/Pleasant Street – Exhibit 6.9 calls for bulbouts, enhanced crosswalks and other features to enhance this primary pedestrian crossing of Washington (not complete) • Washington/Lincoln intersection calls for signal but has since been replaced by a roundabout (under construction)
• Washington Boulevard Pedestrian Underpass – Figure 6.14 identifies potential widening improvements to enhance the underpass. This project is challenged by ADA standards and underground utilities beneath the walkway. Additional study is needed. • Washington from UPRR to Main St. – No planned changes. • Washington, Main to Lincoln – Wider 10’ sidewalks and 5’ bike lanes adjacent to parallel parking proposed (not complete)
• Main, Lincoln, Church and Pacific Streets – No improvements proposed as all had been upgraded in late 90s.
• Residential Streets (Pleasant, Grove, Placer, Elefa) – To remain as existing except potential corner bulb-outs referenced to slow traffic and enhance pedestrian environment. • The plan references a pedestrian crossing of the UPRR as a potential future improvement. • The plan references construction of a new pedestrian bridge from Royer Park to align with the Town Square improvements and rotation of the Icehouse Bridge to facilitate extension of the Miners Ravine Trail into Royer Park. (Completed with Downtown Bridges & Trail Project.) • The plan proposes a “Creek Walk” on the west side of Dry Creek (opposite Royer Park) from the Icehouse Bridge to Douglas Blvd.
• Per Section 6.3 and Exhibit 6.11- Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities, new bicycle lockers are proposed (complete) and wayfinding signs are proposed for the many proposed Class III routes (not complete).

DTSP Exhibit 8.2 identifies connectivity opportunities within and to Royer and Saugstad Parks.

Downtown Code Section 6 (Public Realm Improvements) includes the following:
• PR - 17 - Bike racks. Bike racks should be located near: 1. Transit stops, 2. Throughout commercial areas, 3. In parking lots, 4. Near the Civic Uses in Vernon Street area, and 5. Along Dry Creek and in the two parks.
• Section 6.7 – Sidewalk & Pedestrian Improvement Design Guidance • Section 6.11 – Streetscape Design guidance
• 6.12 – Washington Boulevard Underpass Canopy – This section identifies concepts for a canopy over the vehicular and pedestrian underpass, with plantings and artwork.

Page 634 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 44 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

22. Sierra Vista Specific Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Sierra Vista Specific Plan City of Roseville 2010
Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) establishes a comprehensive land use and regulatory framework to guide development of an approximately 2,075-acre Plan Area located to the west of Fiddyment Road and north of Baseline Road, along the western edge of the City of Roseville.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall
The circulation system for the SVSP includes a hierarchy of roadways and other improvements that are designed to link with existing and planned City and regional facilities, including roadways, bikeways, pedestrian paths, and public transit.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:

Major Arterial Street (Baseline Rd.): Figure 6-3 includes two plans for Baseline. One is an interim condition with 2 travel lanes in each direction and a 6’ Class II bike lane on one side of the street and a 3’ bike lane on the other side of the street (both exclusive of curb and gutter).; the other includes full build-out by the County Riolo Vineyards Project, with 6’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter) and 8’ off-street sidewalk within 50’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street.

Major (6-lane) Arterial Streets (Fiddyment Road, Westbrook Blvd.): 6’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street sidewalk within 35’-50’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street. Except Baseline Rd. cross-section notes
Minor (4-lane) Arterial Streets (Pleasant Grove Blvd, Vista Grande Blvd): 5’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ sidewalk within 35’-50’ wide landscape corridors on each side of the street.

Modified Collector Streets: The Modified Collector standards provide: 3’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter) and, where on-street parking is allowed on one side of the street, a 6’ bike lane adjacent to the parallel parking; and 8’ tp 10’ wide sidewalks within landscape paseos of varying widths.

Local Residential Streets: 4’-5’ sidewalks
Bikeway
System
Figure 6-21, Class I and Class II Bikeways, proposes approximately 29 miles of Class I and II bikeways. The Class II bikeways are built as arterial and collector roads are constructed. Class I paths are built as adjoining development are constructed, as parks are developed, or as city projects. The bikeway system is partially complete.

Page 635 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 45 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

23. Creekview Specific Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Creekview Specific Plan City of Roseville 2012
Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Creekview Specific Plan (CSP) includes 501 acres north of Blue Oaks Blvd and north and west of the West Roseville Specific Plan.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall
The circulation system for the CSP includes a hierarchy of roadways and other improvements designed to link with existing and planned City and regional facilities. These facilities address mobility within the CSP and include roadways, bikeways, pedestrian paths, and public transit.

Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:

Residential Streets (Primary and Local): 4’-5’ sidewalks.

Page 636 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 46 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

24. Campus Oaks Master Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Campus Oaks Master Plan City of Roseville 2015
Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks (HPCO) Master Plan area is formerly a part of the Hewlett-Packard Campus and the North Roseville Industrial Area Guidelines (NRIAG). The HPCO is not a specific plan, but it does provide land use and design guidance for a mixed use community on 375.7-acres.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall
The HPCO Project Area mobility system is identified in HPCO Section 3.2 and designed to maximize connectivity, walkability and convenience. Included is a modified grid street pattern that compliments and helps to complete the City’s larger roadway network; a safe and interconnected system of paths, sidewalks and bike lanes; and multiple transit stops
Street
Improvement
Standards
Figure 3-2 identifies the backbone roadway system and includes the following active transportation improvements:

Primary Arterial (Blue Oaks Blvd): 6’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street sidewalk within landscape corridors 35-55’ wide.

Minor Arterial (Woodcreek Oaks Blvd): 5’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ off-street sidewalk within 20’ wide landscape corridors.

Modified Collector Streets (Painted Desert Dr, New Meadow Dr., Crimson Ridge Dr): 5’ Class II bike lanes (excluding curb and gutter); 5’ sidewalks within 25’ wide landscape corridor Park Couplet and Residential Streets: 5’ sidewalk each side Bikeway
System
Figure 3-13 Pedestrian and Bicycle Network includes a network of Class I paths within open space areas, parks and paseos, some of which will be built with the project and one at the south end that connects from the Pleasant Grove Creek Trail to Foothills Blvd that will be built separately, with some seed money provided by the HPCO Development Agreement. The plan also identifies the Class II bike lanes on arterial and collector roads.

Page 637 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 47 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

25. Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Creekview Specific Plan City of Roseville 2016
Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP) establishes a comprehensive land use and regulatory framework to guide the development of approximately 694.4-acres located in the northwest edge of the City of Roseville, north of the CSP, with unincorporated Placer County and W. Sunset Boulevard (a County street) to the north.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall
The circulation system for the ARSP provides a hierarchy of streets, bikeways, walkways and multi-use trails throughout the development area that provide both connectivity to and the expansion of existing and planned future City and regional facilities, and public transit options that will serve the community.

The placement of parks, landscape corridors and the alignment of the streets organize the community and promote traffic calming and pedestrian use
Street
Improvement
Standards
The street section design guidelines call for the following active transportation improvements:

Minor Arterial Street (Road B & Road D): 5’ Class II bike lanes (exclusive of curb and gutter); 8’ offstreet sidewalk within landscape corridors 35’-50’ wide;.

Local residential: 5’ sidewalks
Section 7.7 provides design guidance for bulb-outs, midblock crossings and other traffic calming measures.

Page 638 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 48 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

26. Atlantic Street Corridor Specific Plan

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.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED 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 spaced between the two plan area, 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:
• 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.

Page 639 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 49 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

27. Douglas-Sunrise Specific Plan

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.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED 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.

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.

Page 640 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 50 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

28. Roseville Design & Construction Standards

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.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED 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. 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.

Page 641 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 51 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

29. Placer County Regional Bikeway Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Placer County Regional Bikeway Plan PCTPA 2018
Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Plan identifies a vision and goals for bicycling, a network of bikeways to connect the county, and supportive programs and practices to encourage bicycling. The Plan develops a regional system of bikeways that connects the six incorporated cities and numerous unincorporated community areas.

For Roseville the plan shows primarily existing and some planned and existing shared use paths (green), Class II bike lanes (blue) and Class III bikeways (red). The plan also identifies a Hwy. 65 Crossing Study area that includes Roseville. A couple of priority projects (purple) abut Roseville:

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall /Standards The plan identifies a network of bikeways tin the unincorporated county, or bikeways requiring multijurisdictional coordination.

Page 642 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 52 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

30. Placer-Sacramento Gateway Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Placer-Sacramento Gateway Plan PCTPA/SACOG/Caltrans/CCJPA 2020 Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The Placer-Sacramento Gateway Plan (Gateway Plan) was developed as a comprehensive multimodal corridor plan to qualify for funding through the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program. The Gateway Corridor includes segments of I-80, Business 80, Highway 65, and Highway 50, as well as parallel local roadways, transit lines, and bikeways located within two miles of the corridor.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
Overall
The Gateway Plan identifies bicycle/pedestrian, transit, road and transportation management projects along the designated corridor. Roseville projects identified in the plan are identified in current planning documents such as the Bicycle Master Plan and others.

31. SACOG metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
SACOG Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) SACOG 2020
Placer

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Summary: The 2020 MTP/SCS lays out a transportation investment and land use strategy to support a prosperous region, with access to jobs and economic opportunity, transportation options, and affordable housing that works for all residents. https://www.sacog.org/planning/blueprint/2020-mtp-scs

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED TOPICS
GOAL 1 - Build Vibrant Places for Today’s and Tomorrow’s Residents Supporting Policy 1 - Provide incentives, information, tools, technical assistance, and encouragement to support implementation of the Sacramento region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy through:

Complete streets that provide safe, comfortable, and equitable facilities for people of all ages and abilities to walk, bike, and ride transit.

Page 643 of 1881 ends

01-18-2024
Psomas. 53 Roseville ATP – Review of Existing Plans

32. Sacramento Region Trail Network Action Plan

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Sacramento Region Trail
Network Action Plan SACOG 2021
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.

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

The following map shows the regional trail network in proximity to Roseville:

Page 644 of 1881 ends

Appendix C:

Summaries of
Public Engagement

Page 645 of 1881 ends

1 | Page
City of Roseville – Transportation 360 – ATP Outreach Summary Transportation 360
Active Transportation Plan

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
December 19, 2024
What is Transportation 360?
In the fall of 2023, the City of Roseville Public Works embarked on two important projects: (1) a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) for Roseville Transit, and (2) an Active Transportation Plan (ATP). Together, these projects culminated in the City’s Transportation 360 effort.

The COA encompassed an assessment of the COVID-19 impacts on Roseville Transit’s ridership and recommendations for how transit can better serve residents going forward. The City’s COA also coincides with the comprehensive operational analysis being developed by Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA), with Placer County Transit and Auburn Transit, along with a subsequent shortrange transit plan that will be produced by PCTPA for all three transit systems.

Concurrently, the City updated its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans and combined them into one consolidated ATP, which provides a vision and action plan for improving safe and convenient active transportation travel in the City for all ages and abilities. The ATP examined and documented the current walking and biking experience in Roseville, reasons and needs for improvements, and strategies for making Roseville a top-tier walking and bicycling-friendly community.

Goals and Objectives of Community Engagement
• Gain community perspectives on transportation issues in the City of Roseville, particularly related to transit needs and active transportation use. • Educate residents and stakeholders about the development of the COA and ATP, and how these projects benefit the city and its residents and visitors. • Inform residents about the anticipated schedule for the project development process. • Provide mechanisms for two-way dialogue between the City and community members, to share information about the project, obtain input, and address questions and concerns. • Centralize communication regarding the projects via the City’s website.

Audiences
Transportation 360 is relevant to everyone that lives, works, or spends time in the City of Roseville. This includes, but is not limited to:
• City of Roseville residents
• Under-represented groups and Disadvantaged Communities (e.g., people with disabilities, zerovehicle households, low income, etc.) • Local business owners, including large employers

Page 646 of 1881 ends

2 | Page
City of Roseville – Transportation 360 – ATP Outreach Summary • Local schools/school districts, including higher education • Resident services organizations/agencies
• Community advocacy organizations
• Medical offices/facilities
• Local elected officials
• Key neighborhoods identified through the California Healthy Places Index • Other government partners (e.g., PCTPA, SACOG, Health Education Council, Placer County Public Health, etc.)
Opportunities for Community Participation
The City coordinated various activities and events to inform, consult, involve, and collaborate with the public, to offer opportunities to participate and provide input on Transportation 360:

INFORM CONSULT INVOLVE COLLABORATE
Provide information to
understand the issue(s)
at hand.

Obtain feedback to
help guide plan
development.

Consider and use input
gathered to develop
plans.

Include partners in
developing solutions.

Website
The City is hosting a page on its website that is dedicated to the Transportation 360 project:
roseville.ca.us/transportation360. This page serves as the central hub for project information and has been promoted through all project materials, presentations, e-newsletters, and social media posts. Page content includes background information on the project, an estimated schedule, information on public meetings and community events, links to online surveys (while available), outreach summaries, and a “contact us” button for the submission of questions, concerns, or other input regarding the project.

Project Webpage

Page 647 of 1881 ends

3 | Page
City of Roseville – Transportation 360 – ATP Outreach Summary Informational Materials
Informational materials developed for Transportation 360 have included a project overview sheet that provides an overview of how the public’s feedback will assist the City in its development of these plans, as well as a QR code that links to the Transportation 360 web page for more
information and opportunities to participate/provide
feedback (e.g., upcoming public meetings, any active
surveys, etc.). The fact sheet has been distributed at
community events, public open houses, and City facilities.

Video
A short video overview of Transportation 360 was
developed and shared to illustrate the goals of the project and opportunities to shape the future of transportation.

Content was designed to be accessible to a wide audience with visuals, voiceover, and closed captions. The video was another way to promote public participation, including on the website, social media, email newsletters, and YouTube.

It can be viewed by visiting roseville.ca.us/transportation360.

Social Media
The City posted Transportation 360 information and updates on social media throughout the project development process, promoting opportunities for the community to provide input at upcoming public open houses or via the online survey tools. Information was posted multiple times on the City’s various social media channels, including the @CityofRoseville and @RosevilleTransit pages on Facebook, @CityofRoseville, @RSVLPublicWorks, and @RSVL_Transit pages on X (Twitter), Nextdoor, Instagram, and LinkedIn.

Newsletter Content
Updates about the Transportation 360 project were included in numerous issues of the City’s email newsletters throughout the development of the ATP, reaching tens of thousands of people. Article content featured details about upcoming public open houses, as well as opportunities to provide feedback by participating in each of the interactive map tools when available.

Transportation Commission Meetings
Updates about Transportation 360 and the ATP were shared with the public at Transportation Commission meetings (dates are listed below). Videos of the presentations are available on the Transportation 360 project webpage and the City’s YouTube channel. • May 16, 2023
Project Overview Sheet

Page 648 of 1881 ends

4 | Page
City of Roseville – Transportation 360 – ATP Outreach Summary • September 19, 2023
• February 20, 2024
• May 21, 2024
• July 16, 2024
• September 17, 2024
• November 19, 2024
Public Open Houses
During the development of the ATP, the City hosted two public open houses to share information about the project and collect input from community members.

Public Open House #1
The first public open house was held on Thursday, April 11, 2024, from 5-7 p.m. The purpose of the meeting was to provide preliminary information to the public regarding the discovery phase for both Transportation 360 projects (COA and ATP), gather input from the community, and highlight next steps.

The in-person meeting was hosted at the Martha Riley Community Library, located in Mahany Park, and more than 40 community members attended.

Following is a summary of feedback provided by attendees regarding the ATP:
• Attendees mentioned the need for more separated facilities that connect with each other, e.g., separated bike lanes/trails.
• Attendees indicated they really enjoy using trails throughout the city, but are concerned trails are not well connected, and expressed the need to provide easy connections between them. • Attendees mentioned that it’s difficult to maneuver through large intersections, especially those that include “free right turn movements” for motorists. This was highlighted as a big obstacle for people walking and biking.
• The general sentiment was that the central portions of the city are better connected than the newer (west) and older (Downtown) areas, and that it’s hard to connect between these areas. • Attendees indicated that more comfortable connections over I-80 and Highway 65 are needed.

The current connections have very fast traffic, making it uncomfortable to use, particularly for inexperienced riders.
• Attendees would like to have better connections to the Roseville Amtrak station, and from the western side of the city to the portions east of I-80.
• Attendees would like to see better end-of-trip accommodations for e-bike users, e.g., lockers and charging stations.
• Attendees would like to have better/more comfortable connections to neighboring jurisdictions, including Rocklin, Citrus Heights, and even Sacramento. There is particular interest in having a trail that connects Roseville to Sacramento.

Page 649 of 1881 ends

5 | Page
City of Roseville – Transportation 360 – ATP Outreach Summary Public Open House #3
The third public open house was held on Tuesday, August 6, 2024, from 5-7 p.m. (Note: Open house #2 was dedicated to the COA/Roseville Transit component). The purpose of this meeting was to provide additional information to the public about the ATP component of Transportation 360. The meeting focused on sharing conceptual improvements to the city’s bicycle and pedestrian network, providing an opportunity for community members to share feedback and ask questions, and highlighting next steps.

The in-person meeting was hosted at the Civic Center, and more than 50 community members were in attendance.

Following is a summary of the comments and feedback shared by attendees:
• Attendees were glad to see plans to add sidewalks in neighborhoods where they are currently missing, including Roseville Heights, Historic Sierra Vista, downtown, and Folsom Road. • Attendees inquired about various design elements of the current and proposed trail network, including the size and scale of the bridges being used. • Attendees inquired about the timeline for completing the plan and beginning to implement recommended projects.
• Attendees indicated a need for more separated bikeways, including Class IV Separated Bikeways and trails throughout the city, as these provide a safer and more comfortable riding experience. • Several attendees mentioned they appreciate the opportunity to provide input through the online interactive map; a few indicated they had already visited/provided comments. • Various attendees inquired about accessibility considerations for sidewalks, as well as an inventory of existing sidewalks. Attendees wanted to know if the plan would provide a catalogue of existing sidewalk conditions.
• Some attendees inquired about the longer project delivery time for some capital projects and expressed an interest in “quick build” projects.

Both public open houses were promoted through the following communication channels:
• City newsletters/email blasts
• City’s social media platforms
• City of Roseville website and Transportation 360 project page • Outreach calls to more than 40 local stakeholders/community-based organizations • Pop-up events in the community
• Transportation Commission meetings

Page 650 of 1881 ends

6 | Page
City of Roseville – Transportation 360 – ATP Outreach Summary Meeting Promotion Samples

Instagram Post
Walk, Bike & Roll E-Newsletter
Facebook Post
X (Twitter) Post

Page 651 of 1881 ends

7 | Page
City of Roseville – Transportation 360 – ATP Outreach Summary Meeting Photos

Page 652 of 1881 ends

8 | Page
City of Roseville – Transportation 360 – ATP Outreach Summary ATP Online Surveys
The City hosted two online surveys during the development of the ATP, to gather information from community members and local stakeholders about the City’s current bike and pedestrian network, and draft concepts for network improvements.

Interactive Feedback Map #1
The first Active Transportation (bike and pedestrian) interactive feedback map was open from March 15 through May 31, 2024. Community members were invited to share their feedback related to the following:
• Destinations
• Routes that work well, or that they frequent
• Proposed routes that they would frequent
• Barriers to walking, biking, or rolling
• Requested sidewalks
• Damaged sidewalks
• Requested trails
• Damaged trails
The map received a total of 1,631 interactions (652 comments and 979 likes/dislikes). Below is a summary of the key findings based on input provided:

Theme 1: Barriers to Biking, Walking and Rolling
• Trail through Veterans Park is too narrow for both bikes and pedestrians

Page 653 of 1881 ends

9 | Page
City of Roseville – Transportation 360 – ATP Outreach Summary • Missing connection between the trail and Mahany Park over Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard • Barriers to Downtown
o Washington Boulevard tunnel between Pacific Street and Atlantic Street is uncomfortable to use (dark, loud, damp, dirty)
• Dangerous Corridors/Intersections
o Douglas Boulevard (especially at I-80)
o Biking on Blue Oaks Boulevard is a challenge especially near SR-65 and over railroad tracks
 Wide road and narrow bike lane
o No safe way to cross I-80 on Cirby Way
 No bike facilities
 Missing sidewalk on the south side of Cirby Way crossing I-80 and northern sidewalk is narrow
 Cirby Way at Sunrise Avenue is also unsafe and near senior housing o Challenge to bike on Pleasant Grove Boulevard due to speeding drivers o Foothills Boulevard over railroad tracks is dangerous for bikes due to speeding traffic  The eastern sidewalk is too narrow, and there is no sidewalk on the west side o Taylor Street/Vernon Street
o Folsom Road/Estates Drive
o Main Street bike lane is unsafe – not enough separation • Facility Improvements
o Oak Street bike lanes need more protection
o Bike lane on Sutter Avenue/Folsom Road feels unsafe
 Missing sidewalks on Folsom Road
Theme 2: Trail Barriers
• New Trails
o Eastern city limit
 From Miner’s Ravine down to Douglas Boulevard and to Folsom Lake  Along the south side of I-80 from East Roseville Parkway to Sierra College Boulevard
- Already a dirt path here
 Along Strap Ravine, connect with the added trail along Sierra College from Miner’s Ravine
- Would connect Maidu Regional Park with east Roseville with a crossing over Roseville Parkway
 Bridge over the railroad tracks to Atlantic Street/Lincon Street intersection  Access over SR-65 just west of Pleasant Grove Boulevard - There’s already a trail that runs behind the fire station

Page 654 of 1881 ends

10 | Page
City of Roseville – Transportation 360 – ATP Outreach Summary o Downtown
 Continue the Washington Boulevard trail around to Old Town area and add a bike/ped
 Connect Miner’s Ravine Trail to Antelope Creek Trail
- Riding on Harding Boulevard is scary
o Cross-City
 From downtown along Washington Boulevard to the Dream Theatre then west along the green patch through Mahany Park to Fiddyment Road - Connects West Park neighborhood to downtown
 Connections to the Fountains or the Galleria Mall
o Northwestern City Limit
 New trail across Phillips Road on the western side of the new developments o Southwestern City Limits
 New north-south trail west of Solaire Park connecting to Westbrook Boulevard on the east
o South City
 Extend Miner’s Ravine Trail to Kaiser
o Existing trails
 Mahany Park Trail under power lines
Interactive Feedback Map #2
The second Active Transportation (bike and pedestrian) interactive feedback map was open from September 30 through November 3, 2024. Community members were invited to share feedback related to the following:
• Proposed facilities for walking
• Proposed facilities for biking
• Additional improvements they would like to see
The map received a total of 611 interactions (204 comments and 407 likes/dislikes). Below is a summary of the key findings based on input provided:

Theme 1: Bike and Trail Infrastructure Suggestions
• Need safer bike crossing over railroads and industrial areas o Consideration of bike overcrossings or undercrossings to connect the west side of Roseville to the downtown area
o People prefer bike and pedestrian bridges to cross these areas, rather than riding with traffic
• The presence of numerous stop signs along Main Street makes it uncomfortable to ride • Improve separation between cyclists and motor vehicles, particularly on busy streets like Pleasant Grove Boulevard, SR-65, Taylor Road, Atkinson Street, and Baseline Road.

Page 655 of 1881 ends

11 | Page
City of Roseville – Transportation 360 – ATP Outreach Summary • Direct bike and trail connections to destinations in nearby jurisdictions, such as Folsom Lake • Crossing highway on-ramps and off-ramps terrifies people who are biking • People requested the option of mid-block bike crossings at multiple locations to avoid detouring to intersections
• People liked the option of neighborhood greenways as alternative low-stress routes parallel to busy streets
• On bike routes and bike boulevards, people suggested replacing the “Share the Road” signs with “Bikes May Use Full Lane” signs in both directions
• Enhance trail connectivity by closing gaps and adding trail crossings • Connect existing trails to sidewalks and bike boulevards to create biking loops • Add connection under Pleasant Grove Boulevard bridge
• The public expressed a desire for additional trails in the following areas:
o Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant area
o Wetland preserve area south of Pinnacle at Galleria Apartments o North of the baseball field in Veterans Memorial Park o Sierra View Country Club area
o Blue Oaks Boulevard
• Some suggestions concur with the City’s current projects • Bike lanes run cyclists into gutter with no sidewalk slope curb to get away from traffic • People support innovative treatments, such as modal filters, to encourage walking and biking • People suggested protected intersections at multiple busy and wide intersections • More consistent and improved maintenance of bikeways and trails is needed Theme 2: Pedestrian Infrastructure Suggestions
• Request to formalize several busy and wide intersections by installing traffic signals • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) signals were requested at multiple crossing locations • Commenters identified several sidewalk gaps and suggested closing them • Commenters identified several crossing locations that need enhancements, such as crosswalks, high-visibility crosswalks, raised crosswalks, refuge islands, and roundabouts • Several “informal” neighborhood access points were identified, with requests to formalize them by adding trails or neighborhood paths
• Curb ramps and curb extensions were requested at multiple intersections • People feel unsafe walking and biking near slip lanes, especially near highway on-ramps and offramps • “No Right Turn On Red” was suggested at an intersection near schools • Commenters requested to convert parking spots into outdoor restaurant dining areas with plants in downtown area, specifically on Vernon Street
• More consistent and improved maintenance of sidewalks is needed

Page 656 of 1881 ends

12 | Page
City of Roseville – Transportation 360 – ATP Outreach Summary The input provided through the interactive maps was used to help guide the team during the process of developing and refining the bike and pedestrian network concepts, as well as completing the draft Active Transportation Plan.

Interactive Feedback Map #2
Both interactive maps were promoted through multiple City communication channels:
• City website and Transportation 360 project page
• Email newsletters
• Social media platforms
• Open houses and pop-up events in the community, as applicable to map release timing • Materials at City facilities and public counters
• Signage along trails
• Transportation Commission meetings

Page 657 of 1881 ends

13 | Page
City of Roseville – Transportation 360 – ATP Outreach Summary Survey Promotion Samples

Facebook Post
X (Twitter) Post
Transportation 360 E-Newsletter

Page 658 of 1881 ends

14 | Page
City of Roseville – Transportation 360 – ATP Outreach Summary Technical Advisory Committee
During the development of the ATP, the City held two meetings with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the project. The TAC included representatives from multiple City departments, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA), and the technical consultant team. At the first meeting, the TAC received updates regarding existing conditions, developed the vision, goal, and objectives of the ATP project, participated in a guided discussion to gather input on the City’s new ATP, and reviewed next steps in the plan development process. At the second meeting, the TAC received updates regarding work completed to date and upcoming activities, the methodology to develop recommendations, participated in a guided discussion to gather input on the work to date and draft recommendations, and reviewed next steps for the development of the ATP.

Community & Pop-Up Events
The City hosted a booth/table at several local community events during the ATP development. These events provided an
opportunity to distribute information and gather input about the ATP, and the overall Transportation 360 project, as well as promote the opportunity to provide feedback via the online/interactive maps (if available at the time). The City participated in the following events:
• Wine Down Wednesday, Vernon Street Town Square –
April 17, 2024
• BikeFest, Downtown Roseville – Saturday, April 27, 2024 • Maidu Community Center – Tuesday, April 30, 2024
• Mike Shellito Indoor Pool – Wednesday, May 1, 2024
• Louis Orlando Transit Center – Friday, May 3, 2024
• Good Festival, Galleria Mall – Saturday, May 4, 2024
• Bike and Roll to School Day – Wednesday, May 8, 2024
• Bike and Roll to School Day – Thursday, May 9, 2024
• Food Truck Mania, Downtown Roseville – Thursday, May 9, 2024
• Energizer Station for May is Bike Month, Miner’s Ravine Trail – Monday, May 13, 2024
• Spin your wheels at storytime, Riley Library – Wednesday, May 22, 2024
• Energizer Station for May is Bike Month, Pleasant Grove Creek Trail – Tuesday, May 28, 2024
• Family Fest, Downtown Roseville – Saturday, September 28, 2024
• Walk & Roll to School Day – Wednesday, October 9, 2024

Page 659 of 1881 ends

15 | Page
City of Roseville – Transportation 360 – ATP Outreach Summary • Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA) Movie Night in the Solaire Neighborhood – Saturday, October 12, 2024
• Falling Leaf Food and Craft Festival, Vernon Street Town Square – Sunday, October 19, 2024 • Downtown Trick or Treating, 316 Vernon Street – Thursday, October 24, 2024 • Trick or Treat Trek with Seniors, Eskaton Village Roseville – Monday, October 28, 2024 • Farmers’ Market at The Fountains – Tuesday, October 29, 2024 Earned Media
The City of Roseville worked with news media to share
information on Transportation 360 to magnify the message and share opportunities to weigh in on the development of transportation plans. The Transportation 360 project was featured in a story on KCRA/Channel 3 News that aired on Monday, September 9, 2024, and included an interview with the Public Information Officer.

The story is available for viewing at www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtgRYDoxlZg&t=135s.

Page 660 of 1881 ends

Appendix D:

Development of
Recommendations
Memo

Page 661 of 1881 ends

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Roseville
To: Suzanne Engelke, City of Roseville
From: Mauricio Hernández, Alta Planning + Design
CC: Kaitlin Scott, Alta Planning + Design
Date: May 15, 2024
Re: Roseville Active Transportation Plan - Recommendation Development Approach and Data Introduction
This memo outlines the approach and methodology for developing recommendations for the City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan. This methodology relies on using consistent data and a clear process to apply federal, state, and city design guidance in an objective and context-sensitive manner. The outcome of this methodology will be a set of maps depicting existing, funded, and newly proposed projects, along with a project list with the project name, proposed facility type, segment endpoints, and segment length for each recommended improvement. The proposed improvements will prioritize developing a complete active transportation network to improve equity access to the network, the safety of all users, and connectivity.

Guidelines and Standards
Local, state, and federal guidelines and standards to follow for developing recommendations include:
• City of Roseville Design & Construction Standards (2023) o Informs design of public infrastructure, including standards for pedestrian facilities and bikeways • City of Roseville Community Design Guidelines (2008)
o Informs design of sidewalks, traffic calming, and midblock pedestrian crossings when street frontages are privately constructed in association with Commercial (CC), Office & Industrial (OI), Multi-family (MF) and Compact Residential (CR) projects
• Caltrans 7th Edition Highway Design Manual (HDM) – Chapter 1000 Bicycle Transportation Design (2015) o Informs the design and implementation of bicycle facilities. References FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide • Caltrans Design Information Bulletin Number 94 – Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance (2024) o Informs decision to maximize the use of the public right of way to achieve sustainable and equitable mobility
• Caltrans Design Information Bulletin Number 89-02 – Class IV Bikeway Guidance (2022) o Informs the design and implementation of Class IV bicycle facilities • Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide (2023)
o Informs design and implementation of different traffic calming treatments • FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (2019)
o Informs facility type recommendation based on roadway speed, volume, and urban/rural context • FHWA Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks (2016)

Page 662 of 1881 ends

Recommendation Development Approach and Data FINAL 05-15-24 Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2 City of Roseville
o Informs rural bicycle and pedestrian recommendations
• FHWA Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP)
o Informs pedestrian improvements
• FHWA STEP: Improving Visibility at Trail Crossings (2021) o Informs pedestrian and bicycle improvements at trail crossings • FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
o Supplements pedestrian and bicycle recommendations as needed based on location • FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide
o Informs road diet feasibility determination
Recommendations Development Rounds
Infrastructure recommendations will be developed in two main rounds. The first round will build directly on the Existing Conditions memo, using key data to build an initial “backbone” network of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. This will include a desktop review of existing sidewalks, marked crosswalks, and bikeways data to identify clear network gaps. Additionally, the first round will focus on streets and intersections with the highest collision rates, streets with transit routes and high-ridership bus stops, areas within ¼-mile of the city’s schools, commercial corridors, and Pedestrian Districts as identified in the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan.

The second round will be focused on identifying additional improvements across the rest of the city, based on the bicycle and pedestrian considerations and criteria below. This round will also incorporate feedback received during public engagement activities, as appropriate, such as specific locations or infrastructure types requested using the online mapping tool. Community input will be evaluated by the project team to identify feasible, cost-effective solutions to community concerns and ideas.

Recommendations Development Approach
Bicycle Recommendations Considerations
Alta will identify context-sensitive bikeway recommendations using a multi-step approach that allows us to evaluate feasibility while meeting the needs of people bicycling in Roseville. Following the guidelines and standards described above, such as the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide, Alta will use the following high-level process for determining proposed bicycle projects:

1. Identify locations for improvements (i.e., corridors and intersections)

2. Identify the desired bikeway class.

3. Evaluate the desired bikeway class for feasibility using various criteria (described below)

4. Recommend a preferred bikeway.

5. If necessary, explore feasible alternatives or the “next best” facility if the preferred bikeway is not feasible.

Page 663 of 1881 ends

Recommendation Development Approach and Data FINAL 05-15-24 Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 City of Roseville
The three main criteria that Alta will use to evaluate bicycle network recommendations include:

Criterion 1. Roadway Context
First, Alta will consider what facility is most appropriate for different roadways based on their motor vehicle speeds, using the City’s radar-enforceable posted speed limits and traffic volumes (AADT), using ESRI Living Atlas or Replica average daily traffic data. Federal and state guidance indicates that, in general, the higher the speed and volume of a roadway, the more protective the recommended bikeway should be. Class III bicycle routes and boulevards are most appropriate for lower speeds and volumes, such as along local residential streets; Class II bike lanes or buffered bike lines are best for streets with low speeds and low to moderate volumes; and Class IV separated bike lanes, or Class I multi-use trails are best for moderate to high speeds and high volumes. The graphic below shows general guidance for how vehicle volumes and speeds may be considered to determine a preferred bikeway type.

It is important to note that the suggested parameters in this graphic assume that actual speeds are close to posted speed limits. If, however, the City has specific data indicating that actual speeds are higher than posted speed limits (e.g., from consistent community input or police data), then Alta can consider the actual speed rather than the posted speed.

Figure 1: Caltrans DIB-94 Bikeway Selection Chart

Page 664 of 1881 ends

Recommendation Development Approach and Data FINAL 05-15-24 Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4 City of Roseville
Criterion 2. Planned/Funded Projects
This criterion builds on planned/funded and already under-design projects the City has in the pipeline over the next five years. This information will help us:
• Avoid redundant or conflicting projects between the Active Transportation Plan recommendations and previous or concurrent efforts and
• Identify potential connections to planned/funded projects to avoid bicycle network gaps.

Criterion 3. Roadway Reconfiguration Feasibility Index & Usable Space Based on ADT data from Criterion 1 and identified the need for greater accommodations for active transportation modes, Alta will also identify roadways that are candidates for roadway narrowing via lane width reduction (“lane diet”). Per the Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide, ADT provides a good first determination of whether to consider lane width reductions. According to FHWA, roadways with an ADT of 20,000 or less are good candidates for lane diets, wherein lane widths can be reduced to 10.5 or 11 feet, and excess asphalt can be striped with a bicycle lane. However, this can vary for different jurisdictions and can be further evaluated for feasibility using other considerations in the next section. We will work with City staff to determine the most appropriate thresholds for Roseville.

Other Considerations
In addition to the three primary criteria described above, Alta will consider other factors when determining bicycle recommendations, including but not limited to:
• Equity, community input, and neighborhood identity
• Collision hotspots
• Unique environment conditions like topography and landscape • Physical constraints, including available right of way • Barriers such as railroads and waterways
• Traffic vehicle mix (e.g., whether roadways have a lot of bus or freight/truck traffic) • Frequency of driveways and intersections

Page 665 of 1881 ends

Recommendation Development Approach and Data FINAL 05-15-24 Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5 City of Roseville
Pedestrian Recommendation Considerations
Pedestrian facility uses and needs vary across contexts, and the application of pedestrian facilities should be sensitive to those variations. As such, recommendations for sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities will be developed using various criteria. When appropriate, the following high-level guidelines will be followed:

1. Sidewalks should be installed on at least one side of the roadway and both sides whenever feasible for all local public roads.
a. There is at least one bus route, and high-ridership bus stops on the roadway within 1,000 feet of the missing sidewalk.

2. Roadways within ¼ -mile radius of elementary, middle, and high schools should have sidewalks on both sides of the street.

In addition to these high-level best practices, there are several other considerations for determining appropriate pedestrian treatments at different locations. The decision trees in Tables 1 and 2 outline potential treatments for different conditions on local (Table 1) and collector and arterial (Table 2) streets. These conditions include posted speed limits, roadway width, stop and signal control, the presence of transit stops, and more.

Page 666 of 1881 ends

Recommendation Development Approach and Data FINAL 05-15-24 Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Roseville
Table 1: Decision Tree for Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations – LOCAL STREETS only Posted Speed Limit Crossing Distance Transit/Bus
Stops
Stop-Control On-Street Parking Left Turn from
Cross Street
Mid-Block Crossing (Existing
mid-block crossing OR long
distance [>500 feet] between
existing crossings)
Condition 25 MPH or lower 2 lanes OR total distance
less than 24 feet, no bike
lanes
Yes 2-way stop Yes Yes Yes, 2 lanes crossed
Treatmen
ts
-High‐visibility crosswalk -High‐visibility crosswalk - -Evaluate warrants to convert to 4‐way
stop
-Add crosswalk &
RRFB or other LED
flashing sign to non‐
controlled leg
-Curb extensions
-Restrict parking 20 ft on
intersection approaches
to preserve sight
triangles (per AB 413)
-Daylight crosswalks in
locations around schools,
parks, or where the
corner sight distance is
severely restricted
-Consider leading
pedestrian
interval
-Phase-separated
left turn
-High-visibility crosswalk
-Advanced yield
markings/signage
-Rectangular rapid flashing
beacon (RRFB) or other LED
flashing signs
-Curb extensions
-Enhanced lighting
Condition Higher than 25 MPH More than 2 lanes, or
total distance greater
than 30 feet
No 4-way stop No No Yes, greater than 2 lanes
crossed
Treatmen
ts
-High‐visibility crosswalk -High‐visibility crosswalk
-Curb extensions
-LED flashing signs
-Curb
extensions
-Evaluate warrants
for signal control
N/A N/A -High‐visibility crosswalk
-RRFB or other LED flashing sign
with advance yield markings
-Signalized pedestrian crossing
with stop bar
-Curb extensions
-Median refuge island

Page 667 of 1881 ends

Recommendation Development Approach and Data FINAL 05-15-24 Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 7 City of Roseville
Table 2: Decision Tree for Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations – COLLECTOR and ARTERIAL STREETS ONLY Number of Lanes to
Cross at Intersection
Transit/Bus
Stops
Stop-Control On-Street
Parking
Mid-Block Crossing (Existing
mid-block crossing OR long
distance [>500 - 1000 feet]
between existing crossings)
Signalization Right Turn
Slip Lanes
Condition 2 or 3 Yes 2-way stop Yes Yes, 2 lanes crossed Yes Yes Treatments -Lane narrowing (see
Caltrans DIB 94 for guidance)
-High-visibility crosswalk
-Evaluate
warrants to
convert to 4‐
way stop
-Curb extensions
-Restrict parking 50
ft on intersection
approaches to
preserve sight
triangles
-Daylight
crosswalks in
locations around
schools, parks, or
where the corner
sight distance is
severely restricted
-High-visibility crosswalk (Only at
controlled crossings for arterials;
collectors would need additional
safety measures)
-Advanced yield markings/signage
- Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFBs) or other LED
flashing sign
-Curb extensions if they do not
interfere with bike lanes
-Median refuge island
Enhanced lighting
-Consider leading
pedestrian interval
when a signal is
not coordinated
-Conduct warrant
analysis for phaseseparated left turn
-Raised
crosswalk
-Evaluate for
elimination
of slip lane
Condition 4 or more No 4-way stop No Yes, greater than 2 lanes crossed No No Treatments -High‐visibility crosswalk
-Curb extensions (no bus
stops) if no conflict with bike
lanes or right-turn lanes
-Median refuge islands
-Lane narrowing
- Curb extensions
if the posted
speed limit is 30
MPH or less if
there is no
conflict with bike
lanes or right turn
lanes
-Evaluate
warrants for
signal control
N/A -High‐visibility crosswalk
-Pedestrian signal with stop bar
-Advanced yield markings
-Curb extensions
-Median refuge island
See Stop-Control N/A

Page 668 of 1881 ends

Recommendation Development Approach and Data FINAL 05-15-24 Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Roseville
Class I Multi-Use Trail Considerations
In addition to bicycle and pedestrian recommendations, Alta will focus on Class I multi-use trail crossings and connections. Roseville has several Class I multi-use trails and Alta will identify connectivity issues in the trail network and then recommend improvements to fill in those gaps. We will use the criteria identified in the Bikeway Recommendations Considerations section to determine preferred improvements and whether on- or off-street facilities are feasible.

At intersection and midblock multi-use trail crossings, we will determine recommendations primarily based on the roadway characteristics. Figure 2 below is a summary of countermeasures considered for most types of trail crossings, from FHWA’s STEP: Improving Visibility at Trail Crossings. There is a lot of crossover with pedestrian recommendations, described in the previous section, though some additional considerations are included, such as specific trail crossing signage.

Alta will also consider the context of the roadway and potential improvements based on existing roadway characteristics. Alta will refer to the FHWA STEP (see Figure 3 below) guide to determine the most appropriate countermeasure.

Figure 2: FHWA STEP Trail Crossing Countermeasures

Page 669 of 1881 ends

Recommendation Development Approach and Data FINAL 05-15-24 Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 9 City of Roseville
Figure 3: Example trail crossing improvement (FHWA STEP) Data Needs
Alta proposes using the following data files to support development of recommendations under this task:

Data Recommended Source
Posted Speed Limit Open Street Map (OSM)
Average Daily Traffic Volumes City data (if available), ESRI living Atlas, Replica Existing/Available Right-of-Way City data on ROW widths (if available) Parcel Based Analysis (Alta)
Existing Sidewalks, Marked Crosswalks, and Bikeways City data, Alta Task 2 analysis Collisions TIMS (2018-2022), Alta Task 2 analysis
Public Input Online Interactive Map (Alta), notes/surveys from outreach events (Prosio)

Page 670 of 1881 ends

Appendix E:

Bicycle Facility
Design Standards

Page 671 of 1881 ends

MEMORANDUM
City of Roseville | 1
To: Suzanne Engelke, City of Roseville
From: Mauricio Hernandez, Alta Planning + Design
Date: March 4, 2025
Re: Roseville Active Transportation Plan – Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines Overview
This Bicycle Design Guide has been developed to complement the City of Roseville Active Transportation Plan. The document has been informed by various state and federal design guidance focusing on improving comfort and safety for people biking. This memo presents a toolbox of current engineering standards and design approaches to implement bicycle and trail crossing enhancements. The guidance provides context-sensitive options from current best practices and established state and national guidance. The following local, state, federal, and industry guidelines and standards were referenced in the development of these guidelines:
• City of Roseville Design & Construction Standards (2023) • City of Roseville Community Design Guidelines (2008)
• Caltrans Design Information Bulletin (DIB) Number 94 – Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance (2024) • Caltrans Design Information Bulletin (DIB) Number 89-02 – Class IV Bikeway Guidance (2022) • Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide (2023)
• Caltrans Traffic Safety Bulletin 21-01 - Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Implementation Guidelines (2021) • Caltrans 7th Edition Highway Design Manual (HDM) – Chapter 1000 Bicycle Transportation Design (2023) • Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Revision 8 (2024) • FHWA STEP: Improving Visibility at Trail Crossings (2021) • FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (2019)
• FHWA Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks (2016)
• FHWA Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP)
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• NACTO Don't Give Up at the Intersection (2019)
• NACTO Designing for All Ages & Abilities (2017)

Page 672 of 1881 ends

Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2 City of Roseville
Contextualizing Facility Design
Future roadway planning, engineering, design, and construction should continue to strive for a balanced transportation system that includes a seamless, accessible, active transportation network and encourages active transportation wherever possible.

Supporting active modes allows users to make decisions between transportation modes, whether to make trips entirely by walking or bicycling or to access public transit. Convenient non-motorized travel provides many benefits, including reduced traffic congestion, economic savings, increased economic development, and a healthier environment. Safe and well-connected active transportation facilities do more than help those who already ride a bicycle or walk; they encourage greater use of non-motorized transportation and make the street safer for everyone.

The design guidelines and recommendations in this document are for use in Roseville. Projects must not only be planned for their physical aspects as facilities serving specific transportation objectives; they must also consider effects on the aesthetic, social, economic, and environmental values, needs, constraints, and opportunities in a larger community setting. This is known as Context Sensitive Design and should be employed when determining which standard applies in each scenario.

When applicable, all bicycle design guidelines in this document meet or exceed the minimums set by the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessible Design, such as along Class I multi-use trails and at crossing locations. All traffic control devices, signs, and pavement markings used and identified in this document must conform to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) as supplemented and adopted by Caltrans and the Caltrans Design Manual. Whenever possible and appropriate, Roseville's Design & Construction Standards and the guidance included in this document should be considered for the construction of bicycle facilities. There are situations where standards cannot be achieved due to geometric or environmental constraints or may not be appropriate due to a unique situation. Engineering judgment may determine that the dimensions may be reduced for specific conditions.

Page 673 of 1881 ends

Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 City of Roseville
Bicycle Design Principles
Shared-use Paths (Class I)
Shared-use Paths (Class I), or multi-use trails as the City of Roseville generally refers to these facilities, are off-street facilities that can provide a desirable transportation and recreation connection for users of all skill levels who prefer separation from traffic. They often provide low-stress connections to local and regional attractions that may be difficult or not be possible on the street network.

Typical Application
• Can be developed in various linear corridors, open spaces, or adjacent to roadways where sufficient separation exists.

Design Features
• 10 to 12 feet is the minimum width allowed for two-way travel (with 2-foot shoulders) and is only recommended for constrained situations (Caltrans DIB-94 and HDM). o 12 to 15 feet is recommended (but not required) for heavy-use situations OR situations with high concentrations of multiple user types (people walking, bicycling, rolling, etc.) (Caltrans DIB-94). Wider facilities can more comfortably accommodate side-by-side riding and encourage more social use of trails while reducing conflicts. One-way bike paths in these settings should have a minimum width of 7 feet.
o If there is a desire to separate people walking and bicycling, wider facilities should be provided. A separate track (5-foot minimum) can be provided for pedestrian use but is not required.

Class I Multi-Use Trail in Roseville

Page 674 of 1881 ends

Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4 City of Roseville
Table 1. Standard Bicycle Traveled Way Widths (Class I) Bicycle Facility Placement Minimum (feet) Preferred (feet) Practical Maximum (feet)
One Way 6 to 7 7 8
Two Way 10 to 12 10 to 12 12 to 15
On structures between railings and in tunnels
(one way or two way) 10 to 14 10 to 14 15
At sidewalk level* 12 to 16 12 to 16 20
Source: Caltrans DIB-94, 2024
*Refers to on-street multi-use trails versus off-street trails Further Considerations
Lateral Clearance
• Caltrans HDM requires that a minimum 2-foot-wide shoulder, composed of the same pavement material as the bike path or all-weather surface material (ex. decomposed granite) free of vegetation, be provided adjacent to the traveled way of the path when not on a structure. The CA MUTCD requires an additional foot of lateral clearance (total of 3 feet) to install signage or other furnishings. A 5-foot minimum clearance is required if the pathway is adjacent to a roadway.
• If bollards are used at intersections and access points, they should be colored brightly and/or supplemented with reflective materials to be visible at night. Other design alternatives are preferred over bollards.

Overhead Clearance
• The vertical clearance to obstructions across the clear width of the bike path shall be a minimum of 12 feet when Fire Department access is required; otherwise, it shall be nine (9) feet, including bike paths placed beneath bridge structures (City of Roseville Design Standards Section 13-4.B).

Striping
• When striping is desired, it is recommended that a 4-inch dashed yellow centerline stripe be used. • Solid centerlines can be provided (but are not required) on tight corners or where sight distance is limited and on the approaches to roadway crossings.
• 4-inch solid white edge lines are optional but will narrow the effective width of the facility.

Source: Caltrans DIB-94 Figure 5-B

Page 675 of 1881 ends

Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5 City of Roseville
Materials and Maintenance
• Must be regularly maintained to be free of potholes, cracks, root damage, and debris. Signage and lighting should also be regularly maintained to ensure multi-use trail users feel comfortable, especially where visibility is limited.
• Adjacent landscaping should be regularly pruned to allow adequate sightlines, daylight, and pedestrian-scale lighting and not obstruct trail users' travel paths.

NOTE: Roseville also has an additional classification for Class I bikeways. Class IA Bike Paths are paths that have been developed as parallel widened (8’–12’) sidewalk routes along major roadways and are separated from the roadway by a landscape strip. These paths are for the use of pedestrians and beginning bicyclists. Caltrans does not consider sidewalk facilities to be Class I facilities and does not recommend that they be signed as bike routes. However, the Class IA facilities are desirable, particularly for bicyclists of lower skill levels, such as children, as well as others who are hesitant to use on-street routes. Class IA bike paths are intended to supplement, not replace on-street bike lanes, but there may be occasions where they are used in lieu of on-street bike lanes.

Page 676 of 1881 ends

Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 6 City of Roseville
Bicycle Lanes (Class II)
On-street bicycle lanes (Class II) are a portion of the roadway that has been designated by striping, signage, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. The bike lane is located directly adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and is used in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge, or parking lane. Bike lanes enable bicyclists to ride at their preferred speed without interference from prevailing traffic conditions and facilitate predictable behavior and movements between bicyclists and motorists.

Typical Application
• Bike lanes may be used on streets with adequate space but are most appropriate and effective on streets with moderate traffic volumes of 3,000 to 6,000 and low to moderate speeds of 25 mph to 35 mph. • Appropriate for skilled adult riders on most streets. • They may be considered low-stress when on a street with one lane in each direction, a speed limit of 25 mph or less, and traffic volumes of fewer than 3,000 vehicles a day.

Design Features
• Mark the edge of the bike lane with a 6-inch white stripe. o When next to vehicle parking, mark a 4 to 6-inch parking lane line or "Ts" (CA MUCTD 9C-102). • Bicycle lane markings must be included at the beginning of blocks (MUTCD 9C-3) and at regular intervals along the route based on engineering judgment (MUTCD 9C.04). Bicycle lanes require standard signing and pavement markings as shown in CA MUTCD Figure 9C-102.
• 6 to 7 feet width is the preferred bike lane width adjacent to on-street parking, with 5 to 7-feet as the minimum requirement (center of stripe to center of stripe).
• 6 to 7 feet is the preferred bike lane width adjacent to curb and gutter (5 to 7 feet is the minimum requirement) or 3 to 4 feet minimum/ 4 to 5 feet preferred wider than the gutter pan width (center of stripe to center of stripe).

Example of Class II Bicycle Lane in Roseville

Page 677 of 1881 ends

Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 7 City of Roseville
Table 2. One Way Standard Bicycle Lane Widths* (Class II, Class II buffered [next section]) Bicycle Facility Placement Minimum (feet) Preferred (feet) Practical Maximum (feet)
Adjacent to edge of pavement 5 to 7 6 to 7 8
Adjacent to curb 5 to 7 6 to 7 8
Between through lanes and turn lanes 5 to 7 6 to 7 8
Adjacent to buffers 4 to 7 5 to 7 8
Adjacent to parking 5 to 7 6 to 7 8
Source: Caltrans DIB-94, 2024
Further Considerations
• On high-speed streets (greater than 35 mph), it
is recommended but not required that the
minimum width for a bike lane should be 6 feet.
• It may be desirable (but not required) to reduce
the width of vehicle travel lanes to add or widen
bicycle lanes or calm traffic next to the bike
lane.
• Green color may be used (but is not required)
within the lane to discourage motorists from
entering the lane.
o Green paint may also be used in more
limited instances, like at the entry and
exit points of bike lanes on each block.
o Dashed green bike lane markings are recommended at conflict points like intersections, major driveways, or the beginning of turn pockets.
• On multi-lane and/or streets with speeds greater than 35 mph, the most appropriate bicycle facility for user comfort may be Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes, or Class IV separated bicycle bikeways.

Manhole Covers and Grates
• Maintenance hole surfaces should be manufactured with a shallow surface texture in the form of a tight, nonlinear pattern.
• If maintenance holes or other utility access boxes cannot be avoided in bike lanes within 50 feet of intersections or within 20 feet of driveways or other bicycle access points, specially manufactured permanent nonstick surfaces are required to ensure a controlled travel surface for bicyclists breaking or turning. • Maintenance holes, drainage grates, or other obstacles should be set flush with the paved roadway. Roadway surface inconsistencies pose a threat to safe riding conditions for bicyclists. Maintenance holes, access panels, or other drainage elements will be constructed with no variation in the surface. The maximum allowable tolerance in vertical roadway surface will be 1/4 of an inch. Drainage grates must include elements that are perpendicular to the bicyclist's travel direction.

Page 678 of 1881 ends

Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 8 City of Roseville
Materials and Maintenance
• Bike lane striping and markings will require higher maintenance where vehicles frequently traverse over them at intersections, driveways, parking lanes, and along curved or constrained segments of roadway. • Bike lanes should also be maintained so that there are no potholes, cracks, uneven surfaces, or debris.

Bike Lanes (Class II) Adjacent to Right-Turn Lanes
Where right turn lanes are introduced at intersections, it is recommended that bike lanes be placed between the right turn lane and the right-most through lane or, where right-of-way is insufficient, to use a shared bike lane/turn lane. The design to the right also features striping and signage to indicate that motorists should yield to bicyclists through the conflict area.

Typical Application
• Locations where vehicular traffic must cross over dedicated bike facilities to enter a right-turn lane.
• At auxiliary right turn-only lanes or where a through lane becomes a right-turn-only lane.

Design Features
• Continue existing bike lane width; standard width of 5 to 6 feet or 4 feet in constrained locations.
• Signage should be used to indicate that motorists should yield to bicyclists through the conflict area.
• Consider (but not require) the use of colored conflict areas to promote the visibility of the mixing zone.
• In some instances, especially where bike lane alignment shifts, shared lane markings may be appropriate at conflict zones.

Further Considerations
• The bicycle lane maintains a straight path, and drivers must weave across, providing clear right-of-way priority to bicyclists.
• Maintaining a straight bicycle path reinforces the priority of bicyclists over turning motorists. Drivers must yield to bicyclists before crossing the bike lane to enter the turn lane. • Through lanes that become turn-only lanes can be difficult for bicyclists to navigate and should be avoided unless at signalized intersections that have appropriate phasing for bicycles. • The use of dual right-turn-only lanes should be avoided on streets with bike lanes (AASHTO, 2013). Where there are dual right-turn-only lanes, the bike lane should be placed to the left of both right-turn lanes. Keeping the bike lane to the right of the turn lanes is possible if a bicycle signal phase is implemented to separate bicyclists from right-turning vehicles.

Figure 9C-04, MUTCD

Page 679 of 1881 ends

Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 9 City of Roseville
Materials and Maintenance
• Because the effectiveness of markings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining the visibility of markings should be a high priority. Special consideration should be given to pavement markings on concrete that can have different application methods and different durability.

Combined Bike Lanes (Class II)/Turn Lanes
Where there is not room for a conventional bicycle lane and turn lane, a combined bike lane/turn lane creates a shared lane where bicyclists can ride and turning motor vehicles yield to through traveling bicyclists. The combined bicycle lane/turn lane places shared lane markings within a right turn-only lane.

Typical Application
• Most appropriate in areas with lower posted speeds (25 MPH or less) and lower traffic volumes (10,000 ADT or less).
• Not be appropriate for high-speed arterials, intersections with long right-turn lanes, or intersections with large percentages of right-turning vehicles.
• This treatment is recommended (but not required) at intersections lacking sufficient space to accommodate a standard through bike lane and a right turn lane.

Design Features
• The maximum shared turn lane width is 13 feet; narrower is preferable (NACTO, 2012). • Shared Lane Markings should indicate the preferred positioning of bicyclists within the combined lane. • A "Right Lane Must Turn Right" (CA MUTCD R3-7R) sign with an "EXCEPT BIKES" plaque may be needed to permit through bicyclists to use a right turn lane.

Example Combined Bicycle Lane/Turn Lane in Eugene, OR

Page 680 of 1881 ends

Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 10 City of Roseville
• "Begin Right Turn Lane Yield to Bikes" signage (CA MUTCD R4-4) is recommended to indicate that motorists should yield to bicyclists through the conflict area.
o There should be a receiving bicycle lane or shoulder on the far side of the intersection.

Further Considerations
• Combined bike lane/turn lane creates safety and comfort benefits by negotiating conflicts upstream of the intersection area.

Materials and Maintenance
• Because the effectiveness of markings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining the visibility of markings should be a high priority.

Buffered Bicycle Lanes (Class IIB)
Buffered bike lanes (often referred to as Class II buffered) are conventional bicycle lanes paired with a designated striped buffer space, separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane.

Typical Application
• Anywhere a conventional bike lane is being considered. • On streets with extra lane width.
• Appropriate for skilled adult riders on most streets.

Design Features
• The desired minimum bicycle travel area (not including buffer) is 5 feet wide, while the absolute minimum width is 4 feet (CA MUCTD).

Example Class II Buffered Bicycle Lane in Roseville

Page 681 of 1881 ends

Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 11 City of Roseville
• Buffered area width must be at least 18 inches wide but should be at least two feet wide. If the buffered area is 4 feet or wider, white chevron or diagonal markings should be used (CA MUTCD 9C-104). o For clarity at driveways or minor street crossings, a dotted line should be considered to identify the bicycle travel path, but it is not required.
o Whether the buffer is provided on the parking side, the travel side, or a combination of both is dependent upon how much right-of-way is available and where the highest risk for bicyclists is, higherspeed moving traffic or high-turnover parking. o The use of pavement markings delineates space for bicyclists to ride and buffer area to create a more comfortable facility.
o Green paint at the entry and exit points near intersections can also increase driver awareness of the presence of bicycles.

Further Considerations
• Color may be used but is not required within the lane to discourage motorists from entering the buffered lane. • On multi-lane streets with high vehicle speeds, the most appropriate bicycle facility for user comfort may be separated bikeways.
• A study of buffered bicycle lanes found that to make the facilities successful, there needs to also be driver education, improved signage, and proper pavement markings. 1 Materials and Maintenance
• Bike lane striping and markings will require higher maintenance where vehicles frequently traverse over them at intersections, driveways, parking lanes, and along curved or constrained segments of roadway. • Bike lanes should be maintained so that there are no potholes, cracks, uneven surfaces, or debris. 1 Monsere, C.; McNeil, N.; and Dill, J., “Evaluation of Innovative Bicycle Facilities: SW Broadway Cycle Track and SW Stark/Oak Street Buffered Bike Lanes. Final Report” (2011). Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Publications and Presentations.

Page 682 of 1881 ends

Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 12 City of Roseville
Bicycle Routes (Class III)
Bike routes are shared facilities designated for bicycle travel. Bike routes can be either in-road facilities (where bicyclists share the travel lane with vehicles) or visually separated facilities (where bicyclists ride on paved shoulders adjacent to vehicular traffic). Signs and appropriate markings should accompany bike routes to notify all road users.

According to the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide, "in shared lanes, bicyclists ride in mixed traffic, therefore, their comfort and safety varies widely based on traffic operating speeds and volumes. Shared lanes can be a positive and affordable solution when designed correctly and used in the correct context; however, most bike/car crashes in the U.S. occur in shared lanes that are applied to inappropriate contexts and environments." As most bicyclists (current or potential) may not feel comfortable on multi-lane or higher-speed roadways with shared lane markings, the CA MUTCD and Caltrans DIB-94 suggest these markings be restricted to roadways with operating speeds of 35 miles per hour or less. Please note that SB 1216 would “prohibit, on and after January 1, 2025, an agency responsible for the development or operation of bikeways or highways where bicycle travel is permitted from installing a new sharrow on a highway that has a posted speed limit greater than 30 miles per hour.”2 The bill would also “prohibit, on and after January 1, 2026, the [California Transportation] commission from adding a project that creates a Class III bikeway or a sharrow to the program of projects, except as specified.” Bicycle Boulevards with additional traffic calming measures are the preferred treatment.

Typical Application
• Low-volume roadways with limited roadway width and few intersections Design Features
Shared Lane
• Shared lane markings serve several purposes, including making motorists aware of the shared route and showing bicyclists the direction of travel and their preferred positioning within the lane.
• Markings should be placed to indicate bicyclist positioning in the roadway.

When placed next to parking, markings should be placed outside of the door zone. In constrained areas, center the marking in the lane. Minimum placement is 13-feet from the face of the curb (CA MUTCD 9C-07). • Markings should be placed immediately after intersections and spaced at intervals not greater than 250 feet thereafter (CA MUTCD 9C-07). 2 Senate Bill 1216 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1216

Page 683 of 1881 ends

Roseville City CouncilJune 18, 2025

Roseville City Council
June 18, 2025