Cities Index.
Agenda packet

Roseville City Council
February 18, 2026

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
February 18, 2026
Body
Roseville City Council
Pages
1,219
Original file
82.1 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on rosevilleca.api.civicclerk.com. That file is the official record.

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 12 ends

Intersection: 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served L L LT T L L LT T L L T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 158 203 159 126 62 167 192 160 85 273 517 538 Average Queue (ft) 114 145 86 11 11 71 112 53 31 76 225 248 95th Queue (ft) 174 184 153 66 42 148 173 148 69 214 462 484 Link Distance (ft) 238 238 238 341 341 567 567
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 1 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 4 5
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 200 200 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 4 12 0 0 0 0 8
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 13 0 0 0 0 9
Intersection: 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr
Movement NB NB B3 B3 B3 B3 SB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T R T T T T L L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 519 96 293 377 367 197 132 171 277 280 284 73 Average Queue (ft) 258 8 20 38 49 10 69 96 175 170 164 34 95th Queue (ft) 480 99 151 218 257 109 119 150 255 253 254 61 Link Distance (ft) 567 567 362 362 362 362 663 663 663 663 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0 0 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 1 0 1 2 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2

Page 321 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 13 ends

Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB B12
Directions Served UL L T T T UL L L T T R T
Maximum Queue (ft) 166 179 225 213 186 274 325 442 392 392 106 446 Average Queue (ft) 65 88 142 127 108 244 305 375 242 239 7 187 95th Queue (ft) 126 146 204 189 175 295 365 493 379 358 85 490 Link Distance (ft) 843 843 843 352 352 352 352 451
Upstream Blk Time (%) 20 2 1 0 5
Queuing Penalty (veh) 130 16 9 0 31
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 16 33 41
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 56 119 294
Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement B12 B12 B12 NB NB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T T UL L T T T R UL L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 476 501 513 40 350 723 717 760 350 423 450 497 Average Queue (ft) 150 185 149 7 100 554 550 606 277 278 297 267 95th Queue (ft) 474 561 509 27 331 811 803 922 510 432 450 434 Link Distance (ft) 451 451 451 737 737 737 811
Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 7 6 3 2 28 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 29 43 37 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 400 400
Storage Blk Time (%) 65 59 0 3 5 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 22 418 1 14 19 4
Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement SB SB SB
Directions Served T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 479 366 24
Average Queue (ft) 259 229 1
95th Queue (ft) 403 323 24
Link Distance (ft) 811 811 811
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)

Page 322 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 14 ends

Intersection: 86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB B6 B6 B6 WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L T T T T T T L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 213 271 301 293 43 89 5 98 482 712 725 526 Average Queue (ft) 94 123 128 142 2 3 0 27 191 224 235 19 95th Queue (ft) 174 249 264 273 44 63 3 70 359 469 456 249 Link Distance (ft) 505 505 505 454 454 454 1077 1077 1077 1077 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 14 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 1
Intersection: 86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway
Movement NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 23 38 171 165 141
Average Queue (ft) 1 13 101 92 74
95th Queue (ft) 11 36 154 153 124
Link Distance (ft) 185 185 202 202 202
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)

Page 323 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 15 ends

Intersection: 89: Reserve & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB B66 B66 B66 WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T R T T T L L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 57 199 351 337 365 285 72 56 180 132 141 203 Average Queue (ft) 10 36 206 200 255 135 3 2 19 72 82 120 95th Queue (ft) 37 124 340 324 389 316 33 22 97 122 129 179 Link Distance (ft) 285 285 285 905 905 905 381
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 4 3 8 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 23 20 49 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 255 255 235 215 215
Storage Blk Time (%) 6 15 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 38 0
Intersection: 89: Reserve & RV Parkway
Movement WB WB WB B64 B64 B64 B64 NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served T T R T T T T L LT R L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 233 253 103 423 529 473 308 243 278 228 164 147 Average Queue (ft) 144 159 6 23 31 26 12 136 168 90 83 58 95th Queue (ft) 209 225 56 197 230 208 139 219 248 170 144 118 Link Distance (ft) 381 381 381 568 568 568 568 525 283 283 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 235 240
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 5 0

Page 324 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 16 ends

Intersection: 106: RV Parkway & Creekside
Movement EB EB EB EB EB B61 B61 WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served UL T T T R T T UL T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 133 93 106 113 16 34 35 186 1168 1181 1200 285 Average Queue (ft) 53 18 30 37 1 1 1 43 607 927 1003 236 95th Queue (ft) 109 66 79 86 8 35 36 109 1332 1583 1527 390 Link Distance (ft) 384 384 384 384 414 414 1152 1152 1152 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 16 44
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 230 220 235
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 6 43 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 3 146 0
Intersection: 106: RV Parkway & Creekside
Movement NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L LT R L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 21 80 43 79 111 110
Average Queue (ft) 2 22 12 12 62 44
95th Queue (ft) 13 56 34 49 103 91
Link Distance (ft) 169 360
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 60 60 100 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 0 0 1 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 0 1 2

Page 325 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 17 ends

Intersection: 109: West Mall & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB B66
Directions Served L L T T T R L T T T R T
Maximum Queue (ft) 114 130 246 253 293 56 121 354 403 396 43 30 Average Queue (ft) 51 70 74 70 93 4 33 138 158 172 13 1 95th Queue (ft) 100 114 178 181 220 37 87 274 309 312 36 31 Link Distance (ft) 1077 1077 1077 905 905 905 905 285
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 275 250 275
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Intersection: 109: West Mall & RV Parkway
Movement B66 B66 NB NB SB SB
Directions Served T T LT R L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 8 26 86 45 124 153
Average Queue (ft) 0 1 27 12 31 69
95th Queue (ft) 6 26 67 33 86 130
Link Distance (ft) 285 285 224 224 287
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1
Intersection: 151: Chase Dr & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B6 B6 B6 NB
Directions Served T T T R UL T T T T T T L
Maximum Queue (ft) 257 247 236 13 244 374 424 442 128 197 138 110 Average Queue (ft) 120 115 123 0 90 106 124 146 5 8 6 49 95th Queue (ft) 234 227 227 10 173 283 321 354 77 100 74 93 Link Distance (ft) 1633 1633 1633 454 454 454 505 505 505 201 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 2 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 3 14 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 2 2
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 2897

Page 326 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Start Time 7:50 7:50 7:50 7:50 7:50 7:50 7:50
End Time 9:00 9:00 9:00 9:00 9:00 9:00 9:00
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 9402 9233 9223 9082 9093 9227 9251
Vehs Exited 9364 9214 9149 9100 9128 9210 9239
Starting Vehs 340 347 349 381 411 362 356
Ending Vehs 378 366 423 363 376 379 368
Travel Distance (mi) 8408 8209 8162 8107 8155 8242 8296 Travel Time (hr) 400.8 381.8 388.6 385.6 391.7 395.1 397.4 Total Delay (hr) 188.0 174.1 182.8 180.8 185.5 186.9 187.6 Total Stops 13017 12529 12549 12371 12668 13065 12986
Fuel Used (gal) 359.7 350.8 351.3 349.1 353.4 357.1 357.0 Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Start Time 7:50 7:50 7:50 7:50
End Time 9:00 9:00 9:00 9:00
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 9180 9043 9107 9182
Vehs Exited 9137 9076 9146 9173
Starting Vehs 367 378 410 364
Ending Vehs 410 345 371 368
Travel Distance (mi) 8117 8081 8205 8198
Travel Time (hr) 390.3 386.9 391.5 391.0
Total Delay (hr) 184.6 182.0 184.6 183.7
Total Stops 12811 12503 12785 12727
Fuel Used (gal) 350.8 349.7 352.8 353.2
Interval #0 Information Seeding
Start Time 7:50
End Time 8:00
Total Time (min) 10
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

No data recorded this interval.

Page 327 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Interval #1 Information
Start Time 8:00
End Time 8:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 2316 2326 2383 2319 2206 2383 2299
Vehs Exited 2266 2286 2343 2338 2212 2350 2265
Starting Vehs 340 347 349 381 411 362 356
Ending Vehs 390 387 389 362 405 395 390
Travel Distance (mi) 2025 2060 2038 2096 2004 2111 2068 Travel Time (hr) 93.3 100.2 96.9 99.5 97.0 98.0 97.2
Total Delay (hr) 42.0 48.3 45.7 46.7 46.4 44.6 44.9
Total Stops 3083 3245 3131 3174 3003 3232 3174
Fuel Used (gal) 85.9 88.7 87.7 90.4 86.9 90.7 87.8
Interval #1 Information
Start Time 8:00
End Time 8:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 2283 2222 2313 2304
Vehs Exited 2267 2255 2298 2285
Starting Vehs 367 378 410 364
Ending Vehs 383 345 425 386
Travel Distance (mi) 1962 2040 2074 2048
Travel Time (hr) 91.0 92.1 106.1 97.1
Total Delay (hr) 40.9 40.8 54.0 45.4
Total Stops 3005 3018 3436 3150
Fuel Used (gal) 83.5 85.9 90.8 87.8

Page 328 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Interval #2 Information
Start Time 8:15
End Time 8:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 2324 2278 2260 2306 2313 2244 2262
Vehs Exited 2263 2307 2234 2238 2298 2306 2246
Starting Vehs 390 387 389 362 405 395 390
Ending Vehs 451 358 415 430 420 333 406
Travel Distance (mi) 1998 2046 2020 2065 2058 2071 2017 Travel Time (hr) 99.3 91.8 101.8 96.3 103.6 97.0 103.4
Total Delay (hr) 48.5 40.0 50.9 44.1 51.4 44.7 52.5
Total Stops 3280 2960 3361 3132 3435 3272 3390
Fuel Used (gal) 86.3 87.0 89.3 88.2 90.9 89.0 89.3
Interval #2 Information
Start Time 8:15
End Time 8:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 2356 2292 2218 2282
Vehs Exited 2348 2212 2288 2272
Starting Vehs 383 345 425 386
Ending Vehs 391 425 355 391
Travel Distance (mi) 2068 1991 2091 2042
Travel Time (hr) 98.1 101.2 99.2 99.2
Total Delay (hr) 45.9 50.5 46.4 47.5
Total Stops 3347 3228 3377 3273
Fuel Used (gal) 89.6 88.0 90.3 88.8

Page 329 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Interval #3 Information
Start Time 8:30
End Time 8:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 2402 2300 2256 2298 2385 2319 2362
Vehs Exited 2393 2262 2318 2330 2428 2311 2387
Starting Vehs 451 358 415 430 420 333 406
Ending Vehs 460 396 353 398 377 341 381
Travel Distance (mi) 2221 2057 2067 2003 2149 2017 2165 Travel Time (hr) 104.4 93.8 96.1 97.3 101.3 101.8 102.2 Total Delay (hr) 48.4 41.9 44.0 46.5 47.1 51.1 47.5
Total Stops 3326 3057 2946 3063 3260 3368 3250
Fuel Used (gal) 93.7 87.2 87.9 86.1 92.5 89.2 92.1
Interval #3 Information
Start Time 8:30
End Time 8:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 2271 2254 2235 2307
Vehs Exited 2262 2271 2219 2317
Starting Vehs 391 425 355 391
Ending Vehs 400 408 371 385
Travel Distance (mi) 2053 2043 1982 2076
Travel Time (hr) 98.1 98.9 90.0 98.4
Total Delay (hr) 46.1 47.1 40.0 46.0
Total Stops 3076 3132 2823 3129
Fuel Used (gal) 87.7 88.7 83.8 88.9

Page 330 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 5 ends

Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 8:45
End Time 9:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 2360 2329 2324 2159 2189 2281 2328
Vehs Exited 2442 2359 2254 2194 2190 2243 2341
Starting Vehs 460 396 353 398 377 341 381
Ending Vehs 378 366 423 363 376 379 368
Travel Distance (mi) 2164 2045 2036 1943 1944 2044 2047 Travel Time (hr) 103.8 95.9 93.8 92.4 89.9 98.3 94.6
Total Delay (hr) 49.1 44.0 42.2 43.3 40.6 46.5 42.8
Total Stops 3328 3267 3111 3002 2970 3193 3172
Fuel Used (gal) 93.8 87.9 86.4 84.4 83.1 88.2 87.8
Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 8:45
End Time 9:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 2270 2275 2341 2284
Vehs Exited 2260 2338 2341 2294
Starting Vehs 400 408 371 385
Ending Vehs 410 345 371 368
Travel Distance (mi) 2034 2008 2058 2032
Travel Time (hr) 103.1 94.8 96.1 96.3
Total Delay (hr) 51.7 43.6 44.1 44.8
Total Stops 3383 3125 3149 3169
Fuel Used (gal) 90.1 87.1 87.9 87.7

Page 331 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
SimTraffic Performance Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 6 ends

73: Galleria & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 1.6 8.1 0.8 1.2 5.7 0.7 2.7 3.9 0.1 8.1 3.9 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 42.6 22.0 5.0 48.2 22.3 4.6 48.2 43.5 4.5 48.3 34.3 8.9 Stop Delay (hr) 1.5 5.4 0.2 1.1 4.1 0.4 2.6 3.4 0.0 7.3 3.3 0.4 Stop Del/Veh (s) 40.2 14.8 1.3 46.3 15.9 2.7 46.0 37.9 3.5 43.5 28.9 7.6 73: Galleria & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 37.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 24.9
Stop Delay (hr) 29.7
Stop Del/Veh (s) 19.9
84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 4.1 2.0 0.1 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.2 0.1 Total Delay (hr) 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.2 2.5 0.0 1.5 2.5 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 51.2 60.6 1.3 49.8 53.1 1.5 62.9 9.8 1.7 52.8 8.0 1.2 Stop Delay (hr) 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.7 0.0 1.4 1.5 0.0 Stop Del/Veh (s) 49.0 57.1 0.0 47.5 49.5 0.0 61.4 6.5 0.0 49.8 5.0 1.1 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.3
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.4
Total Delay (hr) 8.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 12.0
Stop Delay (hr) 6.2
Stop Del/Veh (s) 9.0

Page 332 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
SimTraffic Performance Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 7 ends

85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.0 0.2 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.7 2.6 2.7 0.4 2.4 Total Delay (hr) 2.2 9.5 0.1 8.4 3.8 0.4 0.5 12.2 1.8 8.5 3.6 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 50.6 58.7 11.1 56.6 46.7 3.6 64.3 48.1 7.6 53.1 23.2 3.7 Stop Delay (hr) 2.0 8.0 0.0 7.6 3.3 0.0 0.5 9.7 0.0 7.5 2.8 0.1 Stop Del/Veh (s) 45.5 49.3 7.8 51.3 40.6 0.0 59.9 38.3 0.1 46.9 18.0 2.0 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 1.5
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.1
Total Delay (hr) 51.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 36.6
Stop Delay (hr) 41.5
Stop Del/Veh (s) 29.7
86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 0.9 3.3 0.3 4.7 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 2.9 0.0 0.1 13.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 50.8 6.5 54.0 18.4 10.0 57.4 66.4 22.5 48.4 40.1 5.6 13.8 Stop Delay (hr) 0.8 1.8 0.2 3.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 2.8 0.0 0.1 9.7 Stop Del/Veh (s) 48.8 3.5 50.2 12.6 5.4 56.1 64.3 22.4 46.1 36.3 5.3 10.0 89: Reserve & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 3.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 4.9 0.1 1.6 0.4 0.0 2.0 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 53.7 9.5 3.4 53.3 1.4 0.5 62.1 66.0 16.7 57.2 58.4 4.8 Stop Delay (hr) 0.3 3.0 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.0 1.9 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 Stop Del/Veh (s) 52.1 5.7 1.9 51.3 0.3 0.1 58.7 61.1 15.6 55.4 55.4 4.7 89: Reserve & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.2
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2
Total Delay (hr) 10.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 10.5
Stop Delay (hr) 7.9
Stop Del/Veh (s) 7.9

Page 333 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
SimTraffic Performance Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 8 ends

106: RV Parkway & Creekside Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 2.2 0.6 0.1 4.0 0.2 4.0 0.4 Total Delay (hr) 0.9 3.6 0.0 0.4 4.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 10.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 52.7 6.9 0.8 53.8 10.0 6.8 56.1 57.3 11.0 50.9 10.6 9.9 Stop Delay (hr) 0.8 2.0 0.0 0.4 2.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 6.5 Stop Del/Veh (s) 50.7 3.8 0.6 51.5 4.5 1.9 54.5 54.3 11.0 48.3 9.5 5.9 109: West Mall & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 4.1 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 0.8 5.2 0.0 0.2 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 12.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 47.4 9.3 7.1 55.8 13.9 1.3 55.6 53.7 17.2 52.5 9.1 12.4 Stop Delay (hr) 0.8 1.9 0.0 0.2 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 7.7 Stop Del/Veh (s) 44.1 3.4 1.5 53.6 10.6 1.1 54.3 52.0 17.0 50.5 8.9 7.8 151: Chase Dr & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 7.2 0.2 1.7 1.3 1.5 0.1 12.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 14.7 6.6 46.1 5.8 47.1 1.6 13.9
Stop Delay (hr) 3.5 0.0 1.5 0.6 1.5 0.0 7.2
Stop Del/Veh (s) 7.3 0.1 42.0 2.8 44.4 0.0 8.3
Total Zone Performance
Denied Delay (hr) 2.4
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.1
Total Delay (hr) 155.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 1770.8
Stop Delay (hr) 116.3
Stop Del/Veh (s) 1324.7

Page 334 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 9 ends

Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T T R L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 78 97 222 230 229 188 92 59 62 137 112 136 Average Queue (ft) 20 38 105 116 117 54 14 9 14 68 51 50 95th Queue (ft) 57 76 199 213 210 146 54 35 42 119 98 106 Link Distance (ft) 531 531 531 531 378 378 378
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400 225 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement WB WB NB NB NB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served T R L L L T T T R L L L
Maximum Queue (ft) 148 120 70 114 137 139 128 110 55 174 247 272 Average Queue (ft) 59 19 10 29 59 73 64 48 19 102 139 151 95th Queue (ft) 124 78 40 79 110 119 109 102 45 168 220 231 Link Distance (ft) 378 378 326 326 326 335
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 290 260 260
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1
Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 238 214 55 139
Average Queue (ft) 100 103 4 56
95th Queue (ft) 194 186 28 110
Link Distance (ft) 335 335 335
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)

Page 335 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 10 ends

Intersection: 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB
Directions Served L LT T L L LT T L T T T L
Maximum Queue (ft) 90 26 2 31 58 79 22 45 165 182 191 79 Average Queue (ft) 32 4 0 5 15 31 1 12 54 86 104 27
95th Queue (ft) 70 18 2 23 43 66 9 36 138 158 168 67
Link Distance (ft) 238 238 238 341 341 564 564 564
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 225 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr
Movement SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 108 207 208 177 41
Average Queue (ft) 56 93 83 56 8
95th Queue (ft) 92 185 175 136 29
Link Distance (ft) 663 663 663 663
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0

Page 336 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 11 ends

Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB B12
Directions Served L L T T T R L L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 117 223 317 279 269 63 214 271 287 214 223 42 Average Queue (ft) 48 77 162 147 134 14 125 159 173 97 111 0 95th Queue (ft) 92 153 252 235 226 49 207 245 255 172 184 0 Link Distance (ft) 834 834 834 346 346 346 451
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 175 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 5 0 1 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 3 1 0 2 12
Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement NB NB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L L T T T R L L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 17 109 372 373 399 264 241 278 291 189 183 174 Average Queue (ft) 1 16 192 182 162 20 119 155 169 84 83 71 95th Queue (ft) 9 68 305 305 298 136 217 233 245 151 145 137 Link Distance (ft) 722 722 722 802 802 802
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 400 400 400
Storage Blk Time (%) 4 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 22
Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement SB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft) 62
Average Queue (ft) 28
95th Queue (ft) 53
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)

Page 337 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 12 ends

Intersection: 86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB B6 B6 B6 WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L T T T T T T L T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 115 156 206 257 48 90 41 143 408 472 395 376 Average Queue (ft) 42 54 72 93 2 3 3 19 76 78 85 34
95th Queue (ft) 92 123 151 181 46 66 60 82 250 278 261 212 Link Distance (ft) 492 492 492 454 454 454 1064 1064 1064 1064 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 16 3 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 5
Intersection: 86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway
Movement WB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served R L TR L L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 254 31 73 125 124 120 63
Average Queue (ft) 65 3 24 69 55 53 25
95th Queue (ft) 163 17 55 108 106 99 49
Link Distance (ft) 185 185 179 179 179
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0

Page 338 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 13 ends

Intersection: 89: Reserve & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T T R L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 14 50 197 210 221 294 203 91 101 46 61 65 Average Queue (ft) 1 19 99 107 120 156 35 34 57 5 8 9
95th Queue (ft) 10 45 172 181 196 263 111 78 91 27 36 37 Link Distance (ft) 308 308 308 308 376 376 376
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 255 255 235 215 215
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2
Intersection: 89: Reserve & RV Parkway
Movement WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served T R L LT R L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 78 28 82 131 105 49 45 30
Average Queue (ft) 16 2 27 66 44 14 11 4
95th Queue (ft) 53 13 66 111 82 42 36 20
Link Distance (ft) 376 513 258 258 258
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 235 240
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)

Page 339 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 14 ends

Intersection: 106: RV Parkway & Creekside
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB NB
Directions Served L T T T R L T T T T R L
Maximum Queue (ft) 116 236 258 277 44 69 199 221 372 539 163 20 Average Queue (ft) 46 105 114 127 11 23 68 52 50 146 33 2 95th Queue (ft) 95 204 217 227 35 57 147 144 212 360 107 11 Link Distance (ft) 381 381 381 381 1150 1150 1150 1150
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 230 220 235 60
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 5
Intersection: 106: RV Parkway & Creekside
Movement NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 56 19 24 90 53
Average Queue (ft) 14 3 2 38 17
95th Queue (ft) 42 13 16 77 41
Link Distance (ft) 169 347
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 60 100 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0

Page 340 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 15 ends

Intersection: 109: West Mall & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T R L T T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 64 75 246 277 376 42 43 318 352 363 411 43 Average Queue (ft) 12 33 60 76 135 2 11 68 73 80 92 9
95th Queue (ft) 40 64 164 196 295 32 35 212 227 244 283 30 Link Distance (ft) 1064 1064 1064 879 879 879 879 879
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 275 250 275
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Intersection: 109: West Mall & RV Parkway
Movement NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 82 96 12 62 44
Average Queue (ft) 37 45 1 13 14
95th Queue (ft) 74 82 6 41 35
Link Distance (ft) 222 222 275
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 125
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 151: Chase Dr & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB
Directions Served T T T R UL T T T L
Maximum Queue (ft) 270 300 337 140 260 232 174 210 179
Average Queue (ft) 119 147 168 6 105 51 51 62 91
95th Queue (ft) 236 263 286 69 212 142 128 148 151
Link Distance (ft) 1633 1633 1633 454 454 454 201
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 6 0
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 67

Page 341 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Start Time 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50
End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 13954 14266 14103 14022 13831 13981 13962
Vehs Exited 13867 13902 14014 13897 13887 13866 13874
Starting Vehs 592 663 704 587 682 673 665
Ending Vehs 679 1027 793 712 626 788 753
Travel Distance (mi) 11090 11238 11173 11112 11033 11143 11147 Travel Time (hr) 682.9 804.3 766.3 680.0 689.1 742.4 721.3 Total Delay (hr) 396.2 513.6 477.7 392.4 403.7 454.2 432.9 Total Stops 24189 28488 27180 23724 24138 26614 25231
Fuel Used (gal) 533.6 565.3 559.3 535.5 532.1 550.7 545.0 Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Start Time 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50
End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 14015 13812 13923 13990
Vehs Exited 13915 13764 13909 13889
Starting Vehs 756 640 640 652
Ending Vehs 856 688 654 752
Travel Distance (mi) 11266 11076 11119 11140
Travel Time (hr) 729.0 672.7 682.4 717.0
Total Delay (hr) 437.3 386.2 395.2 428.9
Total Stops 26150 22802 23576 25214
Fuel Used (gal) 553.7 530.1 537.3 544.3
Interval #0 Information Seeding
Start Time 4:50
End Time 5:00
Total Time (min) 10
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

No data recorded this interval.

Page 342 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Interval #1 Information
Start Time 5:00
End Time 5:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 3521 3595 3539 3444 3426 3453 3544
Vehs Exited 3450 3520 3536 3395 3434 3461 3501
Starting Vehs 592 663 704 587 682 673 665
Ending Vehs 663 738 707 636 674 665 708
Travel Distance (mi) 2728 2877 2905 2772 2772 2782 2780 Travel Time (hr) 162.8 181.5 192.6 161.0 178.8 169.4 177.8 Total Delay (hr) 92.0 107.0 117.6 89.5 107.4 97.7 105.8 Total Stops 5610 6381 6754 5521 6203 5727 6401
Fuel Used (gal) 129.0 139.1 144.1 131.1 134.7 134.2 135.0 Interval #1 Information
Start Time 5:00
End Time 5:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 3408 3402 3529 3482
Vehs Exited 3455 3366 3494 3459
Starting Vehs 756 640 640 652
Ending Vehs 709 676 675 675
Travel Distance (mi) 2811 2717 2838 2798
Travel Time (hr) 180.5 162.7 167.2 173.4
Total Delay (hr) 107.9 92.4 94.0 101.1
Total Stops 6534 5410 5606 6014
Fuel Used (gal) 137.1 129.8 135.0 134.9

Page 343 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Interval #2 Information
Start Time 5:15
End Time 5:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 3538 3497 3547 3533 3448 3556 3420
Vehs Exited 3485 3505 3549 3484 3509 3494 3421
Starting Vehs 663 738 707 636 674 665 708
Ending Vehs 716 730 705 685 613 727 707
Travel Distance (mi) 2847 2767 2784 2759 2731 2752 2814 Travel Time (hr) 171.1 183.1 183.0 173.6 164.0 172.6 179.1 Total Delay (hr) 97.5 111.1 110.9 101.7 93.3 101.1 106.7 Total Stops 5958 6695 6671 6216 5633 6082 6064
Fuel Used (gal) 136.4 135.6 138.1 133.5 130.5 133.6 136.8 Interval #2 Information
Start Time 5:15
End Time 5:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 3533 3464 3430 3495
Vehs Exited 3550 3486 3468 3495
Starting Vehs 709 676 675 675
Ending Vehs 692 654 637 684
Travel Distance (mi) 2840 2786 2781 2786
Travel Time (hr) 179.7 169.3 167.2 174.3
Total Delay (hr) 106.0 97.1 95.5 102.1
Total Stops 6265 5739 5719 6106
Fuel Used (gal) 139.4 133.7 133.0 135.1

Page 344 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Interval #3 Information
Start Time 5:30
End Time 5:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 3440 3589 3508 3548 3465 3425 3459
Vehs Exited 3473 3432 3417 3523 3381 3437 3470
Starting Vehs 716 730 705 685 613 727 707
Ending Vehs 683 887 796 710 697 715 696
Travel Distance (mi) 2769 2817 2740 2805 2764 2798 2721 Travel Time (hr) 183.5 206.5 186.7 176.5 171.7 195.0 175.2 Total Delay (hr) 112.1 133.9 116.3 104.0 100.4 122.9 104.6 Total Stops 6787 7266 6611 6167 6004 7124 6191
Fuel Used (gal) 136.4 142.9 135.9 137.2 132.1 139.3 132.8 Interval #3 Information
Start Time 5:30
End Time 5:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 3498 3456 3552 3488
Vehs Exited 3412 3468 3417 3442
Starting Vehs 692 654 637 684
Ending Vehs 778 642 772 732
Travel Distance (mi) 2754 2796 2816 2778
Travel Time (hr) 171.2 168.4 174.4 180.9
Total Delay (hr) 100.0 96.5 101.7 109.2
Total Stops 5995 5729 5984 6388
Fuel Used (gal) 133.6 133.6 136.5 136.1

Page 345 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 5 ends

Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 5:45
End Time 6:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 3455 3585 3509 3497 3492 3547 3539
Vehs Exited 3459 3445 3512 3495 3563 3474 3482
Starting Vehs 683 887 796 710 697 715 696
Ending Vehs 679 1027 793 712 626 788 753
Travel Distance (mi) 2746 2777 2745 2776 2767 2811 2832 Travel Time (hr) 165.5 233.2 203.9 169.0 174.6 205.3 189.2 Total Delay (hr) 94.6 161.6 133.0 97.2 102.5 132.5 115.8 Total Stops 5834 8146 7144 5820 6298 7681 6575
Fuel Used (gal) 131.8 147.6 141.3 133.6 134.8 143.5 140.3 Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 5:45
End Time 6:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 3576 3490 3412 3508
Vehs Exited 3498 3444 3530 3486
Starting Vehs 778 642 772 732
Ending Vehs 856 688 654 752
Travel Distance (mi) 2862 2776 2685 2778
Travel Time (hr) 197.5 172.2 173.6 188.4
Total Delay (hr) 123.4 100.2 104.0 116.5
Total Stops 7356 5924 6267 6703
Fuel Used (gal) 143.7 132.9 132.8 138.2

Page 346 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
SimTraffic Performance Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 6 ends

73: Galleria & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 7.9 11.0 0.7 3.5 13.9 6.5 6.1 11.2 0.1 10.7 14.1 1.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 65.7 36.6 5.2 61.1 35.5 29.5 46.1 46.6 5.4 69.0 79.3 18.4 Stop Delay (hr) 7.3 9.0 0.3 3.3 10.7 5.4 5.6 9.3 0.1 9.9 12.5 1.5 Stop Del/Veh (s) 60.8 30.1 2.3 58.0 27.3 24.6 42.3 38.8 3.4 64.0 70.6 15.5 73: Galleria & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 87.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 42.8
Stop Delay (hr) 75.0
Stop Del/Veh (s) 36.7
84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 3.2 1.5 0.3 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.3 0.2 Total Delay (hr) 4.1 0.7 0.0 2.5 1.0 0.2 2.0 19.1 0.1 3.1 8.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 43.5 46.0 1.5 45.9 47.4 2.4 66.7 38.5 2.6 51.3 25.5 3.7 Stop Delay (hr) 3.8 0.6 0.0 2.3 0.9 0.0 1.8 13.2 0.0 2.9 5.9 0.1 Stop Del/Veh (s) 40.0 42.0 0.0 42.2 42.4 0.0 60.2 26.7 0.2 46.7 18.8 2.8 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.7
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.6
Total Delay (hr) 41.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 31.9
Stop Delay (hr) 31.6
Stop Del/Veh (s) 24.5

Page 347 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
SimTraffic Performance Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 7 ends

85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.8 0.2 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 3.6 5.7 2.0 0.5 1.7 Total Delay (hr) 3.0 7.7 0.1 23.9 9.1 1.5 0.8 31.8 3.8 10.0 12.8 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 59.2 59.2 20.2 79.9 51.4 6.6 84.8 105.4 19.4 57.7 35.4 6.7 Stop Delay (hr) 2.8 6.6 0.1 21.1 7.6 0.0 0.7 27.2 1.6 8.8 9.5 0.1 Stop Del/Veh (s) 53.9 50.3 17.4 70.5 43.1 0.1 76.6 90.0 8.1 50.7 26.4 2.7 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 3.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.5
Total Delay (hr) 105.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 52.8
Stop Delay (hr) 86.1
Stop Del/Veh (s) 43.3
86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 2.0 5.0 0.5 14.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.5 0.0 0.2 27.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 53.2 12.1 49.5 23.0 9.8 59.1 87.0 16.0 48.5 58.1 7.3 21.3 Stop Delay (hr) 1.8 2.3 0.4 7.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.2 0.0 0.1 16.7 Stop Del/Veh (s) 48.8 5.5 42.9 12.0 4.0 57.6 84.3 16.0 45.9 53.1 6.8 13.1 89: Reserve & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 3.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 Total Delay (hr) 0.6 11.4 0.5 3.4 6.0 0.1 5.2 0.6 1.3 2.1 0.3 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 46.6 26.2 7.4 62.8 11.3 3.3 50.0 58.3 18.4 47.4 49.1 6.4 Stop Delay (hr) 0.6 9.2 0.4 3.2 3.8 0.1 4.7 0.5 1.2 1.9 0.3 0.1 Stop Del/Veh (s) 44.0 21.2 5.1 59.6 7.2 1.3 45.0 51.9 16.3 44.4 45.2 6.0 89: Reserve & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.4
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3
Total Delay (hr) 31.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 22.6
Stop Delay (hr) 25.9
Stop Del/Veh (s) 18.5

Page 348 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
SimTraffic Performance Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 8 ends

106: RV Parkway & Creekside Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.1 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 2.5 3.8 0.9 0.2 4.1 0.4 3.9 1.7 Total Delay (hr) 0.9 1.8 0.0 0.8 14.8 2.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.3 0.3 23.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 36.9 4.2 0.4 59.9 23.6 26.5 53.5 57.7 11.7 47.1 14.6 18.4 Stop Delay (hr) 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.7 7.0 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.2 0.3 12.6 Stop Del/Veh (s) 35.0 2.2 0.2 55.3 11.1 9.7 51.8 54.5 11.4 43.9 13.1 10.0 109: West Mall & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.5 1.0 3.8 Total Delay (hr) 2.5 5.2 0.1 0.6 8.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.7 0.0 1.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 64.6 11.0 7.3 63.0 12.6 1.4 53.9 54.7 15.4 45.9 48.4 18.8 Stop Delay (hr) 2.3 1.4 0.0 0.5 3.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 1.0 Stop Del/Veh (s) 58.0 3.0 0.5 59.5 6.0 1.0 52.6 52.8 15.3 42.9 43.5 17.6 109: West Mall & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.3
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2
Total Delay (hr) 19.7
Total Del/Veh (s) 15.2
Stop Delay (hr) 11.2
Stop Del/Veh (s) 8.6
151: Chase Dr & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 4.9 0.1 2.0 5.9 0.8 0.0 13.7
Total Del/Veh (s) 11.5 5.2 59.8 10.2 48.2 1.3 12.5
Stop Delay (hr) 2.4 0.0 1.8 2.1 0.7 0.0 7.1
Stop Del/Veh (s) 5.6 0.0 54.8 3.7 46.0 0.0 6.4

Page 349 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
SimTraffic Performance Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 9 ends

Total Zone Performance
Denied Delay (hr) 6.5
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.1
Total Delay (hr) 348.9
Total Del/Veh (s) 2308.6
Stop Delay (hr) 266.1
Stop Del/Veh (s) 1760.8

Page 350 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 10 ends

Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T T R L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 239 248 241 234 210 167 125 117 147 218 213 284 Average Queue (ft) 121 139 122 121 119 70 16 42 50 88 86 103 95th Queue (ft) 211 230 210 196 187 154 66 96 109 166 170 219 Link Distance (ft) 529 529 529 529 384 384 384
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400 225 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement WB WB NB NB NB NB NB NB NB B23 SB SB
Directions Served T R L L L T T T R T L L
Maximum Queue (ft) 366 398 144 213 268 311 277 246 63 6 189 295 Average Queue (ft) 159 252 68 100 131 176 173 168 20 0 106 149 95th Queue (ft) 333 408 122 167 204 263 246 234 47 6 168 253 Link Distance (ft) 384 384 326 326 326 484
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 4 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 19 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 290 260 260
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 5 0 0 0
Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 345 344 355 318 293
Average Queue (ft) 171 215 224 58 147
95th Queue (ft) 294 339 344 228 250
Link Distance (ft) 336 336 336 336
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 3 4 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 10 15 3 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 11 3 1

Page 351 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 11 ends

Intersection: 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served L L LT T L L LT T L L T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 157 195 157 116 78 153 170 160 106 328 531 549 Average Queue (ft) 111 145 82 9 16 68 109 50 38 86 279 294 95th Queue (ft) 179 183 149 56 52 138 163 144 83 234 506 516 Link Distance (ft) 238 238 238 341 341 565 565
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 2 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 9 11
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 200 200 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 11 0 0 0 14
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 12 0 0 0 14
Intersection: 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr
Movement NB NB SB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T R L L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 557 132 159 172 282 269 291 72
Average Queue (ft) 306 14 68 94 173 169 161 33
95th Queue (ft) 526 145 124 145 250 250 251 60
Link Distance (ft) 565 565 663 663 663 663
Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2

Page 352 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 12 ends

Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T R L L L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 139 166 221 206 192 52 274 325 448 401 389 172 Average Queue (ft) 64 90 149 128 109 13 251 314 396 268 258 8 95th Queue (ft) 119 141 206 189 179 41 294 355 484 408 378 97 Link Distance (ft) 834 834 834 346 346 346 346
Upstream Blk Time (%) 28 4 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 183 27 11 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 175 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 19 41 49
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 69 147 354
Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement B12 B12 B12 B12 NB NB NB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served T T T T L L T T T R L L
Maximum Queue (ft) 489 484 504 516 33 320 627 621 653 350 241 293 Average Queue (ft) 268 212 206 170 4 59 396 394 407 165 140 172 95th Queue (ft) 567 553 585 550 19 242 641 645 734 450 220 248 Link Distance (ft) 451 451 451 451 722 722 722
Upstream Blk Time (%) 9 7 10 10 0 0 7
Queuing Penalty (veh) 57 45 63 67 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 400 400
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 41 32 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 14 225 0
Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 324 351 344 345 224
Average Queue (ft) 191 238 239 230 51
95th Queue (ft) 269 331 331 322 150
Link Distance (ft) 802 802 802
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 6
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 10

Page 353 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 13 ends

Intersection: 86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB B6 B6 WB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L T T T T T L T T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 200 254 262 292 42 46 118 479 501 431 378 219 Average Queue (ft) 84 118 118 148 1 2 29 185 212 220 102 59 95th Queue (ft) 165 234 241 287 43 47 80 363 404 375 295 149 Link Distance (ft) 492 492 492 454 454 1064 1064 1064 1064 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 14 3 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 0 1 7 0
Intersection: 86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway
Movement NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 47 169 165 169 117
Average Queue (ft) 1 14 98 89 79 28
95th Queue (ft) 10 37 149 150 139 68
Link Distance (ft) 185 185 179 179 179
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0

Page 354 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 14 ends

Intersection: 89: Reserve & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T T R L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 58 166 327 257 276 342 285 144 150 159 174 205 Average Queue (ft) 11 34 176 135 149 204 95 74 84 79 99 118 95th Queue (ft) 38 97 299 235 252 328 234 128 133 137 150 176 Link Distance (ft) 326 326 326 326 375 375 375
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 0 8
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 255 255 235 215 215
Storage Blk Time (%) 4 7 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 17 0 0
Intersection: 89: Reserve & RV Parkway
Movement WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served T R L LT R L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 221 60 243 322 230 164 154 57
Average Queue (ft) 135 27 131 164 88 83 61 28
95th Queue (ft) 198 57 217 251 171 144 125 52
Link Distance (ft) 375 513 258 258 258
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 235 240
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 5 1

Page 355 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 15 ends

Intersection: 106: RV Parkway & Creekside
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB NB
Directions Served L T T T R L T T T T R L
Maximum Queue (ft) 143 117 126 135 14 120 252 419 808 944 285 27 Average Queue (ft) 54 26 38 50 1 42 136 129 281 449 165 3 95th Queue (ft) 108 83 90 104 7 93 222 317 837 987 356 16 Link Distance (ft) 381 381 381 381 1150 1150 1150 1150
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 230 220 235 60
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 17 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 58 0 0
Intersection: 106: RV Parkway & Creekside
Movement NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 72 54 101 126 80
Average Queue (ft) 21 13 12 66 32
95th Queue (ft) 53 36 56 114 63
Link Distance (ft) 169 347
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 60 100 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 2 0 0 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 0 3 0

Page 356 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 16 ends

Intersection: 109: West Mall & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T R L T T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 100 114 238 253 300 45 78 258 287 288 282 44 Average Queue (ft) 45 63 70 63 101 3 30 102 112 117 103 12 95th Queue (ft) 89 103 167 163 229 33 68 196 212 219 205 34 Link Distance (ft) 1064 1064 1064 859 859 859 859 859
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 275 250 275
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Intersection: 109: West Mall & RV Parkway
Movement NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 86 46 134 190 165
Average Queue (ft) 28 17 30 79 74
95th Queue (ft) 64 44 94 161 141
Link Distance (ft) 222 222 275
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 6 4

Page 357 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 17 ends

Intersection: 151: Chase Dr & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B6 B6 B6 B6
Directions Served T T T R UL T T T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 257 276 284 107 252 385 442 463 132 244 333 53 Average Queue (ft) 114 117 135 4 96 97 118 136 4 11 19 2 95th Queue (ft) 226 233 244 59 188 271 311 340 67 120 177 54 Link Distance (ft) 1633 1633 1633 454 454 454 492 492 492 492 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 1 2 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 4 17 0 1 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 2 1 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 4 2
Intersection: 151: Chase Dr & RV Parkway
Movement NB
Directions Served L
Maximum Queue (ft) 117
Average Queue (ft) 48
95th Queue (ft) 98
Link Distance (ft) 201
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1571

Page 358 of 1219 ends

Roseville Parkway Widening
Traffic Evaluation

Appendix C
Analysis Worksheets for
Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions

Page 359 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Start Time 7:50 7:50 7:50 7:50 7:50 7:50 7:50
End Time 9:00 9:00 9:00 9:00 9:00 9:00 9:00
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 12162 12375 12659 12438 12457 12421 12402
Vehs Exited 11847 12243 12361 12270 12218 12197 12063
Starting Vehs 666 739 678 757 735 721 648
Ending Vehs 981 871 976 925 974 945 987
Travel Distance (mi) 10187 10472 10596 10463 10370 10447 10357 Travel Time (hr) 1706.2 1812.3 1666.0 1834.5 1678.3 1812.0 1715.4 Total Delay (hr) 1443.9 1542.5 1393.8 1565.4 1411.2 1543.1 1448.9 Total Stops 23628 25102 24331 24675 23978 24869 24299
Fuel Used (gal) 719.0 753.5 723.4 759.2 718.1 753.1 727.0 Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Start Time 7:50 7:50 7:50 7:50
End Time 9:00 9:00 9:00 9:00
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 12189 12343 12186 12364
Vehs Exited 11981 12055 12118 12135
Starting Vehs 775 726 708 707
Ending Vehs 983 1014 776 937
Travel Distance (mi) 10384 10332 10305 10391
Travel Time (hr) 1814.0 1741.0 1809.3 1758.9
Total Delay (hr) 1547.2 1474.7 1543.7 1491.4
Total Stops 23665 23997 25155 24370
Fuel Used (gal) 748.9 727.2 744.6 737.4
Interval #0 Information Seeding
Start Time 7:50
End Time 8:00
Total Time (min) 10
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

No data recorded this interval.

Page 360 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Interval #1 Information
Start Time 8:00
End Time 8:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 3027 3090 3195 3092 3085 3258 3176
Vehs Exited 2951 3017 3098 3074 3067 3119 3029
Starting Vehs 666 739 678 757 735 721 648
Ending Vehs 742 812 775 775 753 860 795
Travel Distance (mi) 2509 2565 2620 2530 2531 2669 2575 Travel Time (hr) 241.9 273.8 250.5 278.2 241.6 260.8 259.8 Total Delay (hr) 177.3 208.0 183.4 213.1 176.4 192.0 193.3 Total Stops 5252 5871 5428 5712 5153 5978 5824
Fuel Used (gal) 137.2 146.1 141.8 145.7 136.0 146.0 142.4 Interval #1 Information
Start Time 8:00
End Time 8:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 3101 3155 3225 3138
Vehs Exited 3087 3125 3068 3061
Starting Vehs 775 726 708 707
Ending Vehs 789 756 865 791
Travel Distance (mi) 2673 2671 2696 2604
Travel Time (hr) 279.3 261.8 274.9 262.3
Total Delay (hr) 210.3 192.9 205.6 195.2
Total Stops 5924 5887 6083 5705
Fuel Used (gal) 149.8 145.7 148.8 143.9

Page 361 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Interval #2 Information
Start Time 8:15
End Time 8:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 3053 3112 3101 3105 3116 2997 3042
Vehs Exited 2957 3008 3037 2935 3015 2996 2991
Starting Vehs 742 812 775 775 753 860 795
Ending Vehs 838 916 839 945 854 861 846
Travel Distance (mi) 2551 2678 2586 2630 2616 2581 2577 Travel Time (hr) 368.8 405.6 352.5 408.1 369.4 377.1 365.9 Total Delay (hr) 303.0 336.8 285.9 340.8 302.2 310.9 299.6 Total Stops 5720 6405 5676 6230 6100 6034 5801
Fuel Used (gal) 167.2 179.3 164.7 179.4 169.6 169.5 166.8 Interval #2 Information
Start Time 8:15
End Time 8:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 3011 2986 3055 3056
Vehs Exited 2916 2898 3031 2976
Starting Vehs 789 756 865 791
Ending Vehs 884 844 889 867
Travel Distance (mi) 2525 2535 2619 2590
Travel Time (hr) 390.9 367.5 411.7 381.7
Total Delay (hr) 326.3 302.4 344.4 315.2
Total Stops 5648 5692 6671 5999
Fuel Used (gal) 171.5 164.0 178.3 171.0

Page 362 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Interval #3 Information
Start Time 8:30
End Time 8:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 3035 3063 3165 3134 3092 3060 3113
Vehs Exited 2969 3038 3023 3127 3085 2976 3039
Starting Vehs 838 916 839 945 854 861 846
Ending Vehs 904 941 981 952 861 945 920
Travel Distance (mi) 2540 2580 2682 2608 2594 2538 2630 Travel Time (hr) 486.3 515.3 472.5 520.5 476.7 518.0 481.4 Total Delay (hr) 420.7 448.6 403.9 452.8 410.0 452.6 413.7 Total Stops 6221 6437 6544 6220 6206 6254 6469
Fuel Used (gal) 192.8 201.6 195.1 203.4 193.1 200.9 195.2 Interval #3 Information
Start Time 8:30
End Time 8:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 3016 3074 3006 3072
Vehs Exited 2991 2981 2964 3018
Starting Vehs 884 844 889 867
Ending Vehs 909 937 931 922
Travel Distance (mi) 2620 2551 2521 2586
Travel Time (hr) 515.1 494.1 514.3 499.4
Total Delay (hr) 448.0 428.0 449.4 432.8
Total Stops 6099 5982 6394 6284
Fuel Used (gal) 201.5 194.1 198.8 197.7

Page 363 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 5 ends

Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 8:45
End Time 9:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 3047 3110 3198 3107 3164 3106 3071
Vehs Exited 2970 3180 3203 3134 3051 3106 3004
Starting Vehs 904 941 981 952 861 945 920
Ending Vehs 981 871 976 925 974 945 987
Travel Distance (mi) 2588 2649 2708 2694 2629 2659 2576 Travel Time (hr) 609.2 617.6 590.4 627.7 590.5 656.3 608.4 Total Delay (hr) 542.9 549.2 520.6 558.6 522.7 587.7 542.2 Total Stops 6435 6389 6683 6513 6519 6603 6205
Fuel Used (gal) 221.8 226.5 221.9 230.8 219.4 236.7 222.6 Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 8:45
End Time 9:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 3061 3128 2900 3087
Vehs Exited 2987 3051 3055 3072
Starting Vehs 909 937 931 922
Ending Vehs 983 1014 776 937
Travel Distance (mi) 2566 2574 2469 2611
Travel Time (hr) 628.7 617.6 608.3 615.5
Total Delay (hr) 562.7 551.3 544.3 548.2
Total Stops 5994 6436 6007 6377
Fuel Used (gal) 226.1 223.4 218.6 224.8

Page 364 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
SimTraffic Performance Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 6 ends

73: Galleria & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 3.7 9.0 0.5 1.4 19.2 1.5 26.7 10.4 0.1 20.7 6.6 2.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 56.3 28.8 3.4 70.3 45.3 11.3 128.6 53.6 6.3 114.9 47.5 23.5 Stop Delay (hr) 3.4 7.6 0.1 1.4 14.9 1.3 25.2 8.8 0.1 19.6 5.6 1.9 Stop Del/Veh (s) 53.0 24.2 0.9 67.3 35.1 9.3 121.5 45.8 3.6 108.6 40.1 20.4 73: Galleria & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 102.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 53.1
Stop Delay (hr) 89.8
Stop Del/Veh (s) 46.8
84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 4.1 1.8 0.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.3 0.3 Total Delay (hr) 0.8 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 3.3 0.1 5.5 3.9 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 62.1 67.7 1.2 65.7 73.8 1.4 77.8 10.5 2.6 63.2 10.2 1.8 Stop Delay (hr) 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.3 2.1 0.0 5.0 2.4 0.0 Stop Del/Veh (s) 59.6 64.7 0.0 63.2 70.1 0.0 76.0 6.7 0.0 58.2 6.4 1.1 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.4
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.5
Total Delay (hr) 15.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 17.0
Stop Delay (hr) 12.0
Stop Del/Veh (s) 13.4

Page 365 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
SimTraffic Performance Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 7 ends

85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 9.3 58.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.5 387.9 315.7 80.7 Denied Del/Veh (s) 198.4 191.9 201.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 3.4 5.2 1363.6 1346.6 1358.4 Total Delay (hr) 9.0 73.1 1.0 7.9 28.8 0.6 0.5 24.0 6.2 71.9 2.2 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 209.9 262.1 164.3 52.8 110.7 5.1 80.1 67.0 20.7 707.7 32.8 2.9 Stop Delay (hr) 8.4 67.6 1.0 7.1 25.3 0.0 0.5 18.9 1.6 71.3 2.0 0.0 Stop Del/Veh (s) 195.4 242.5 152.9 47.5 97.4 0.0 73.3 52.9 5.3 701.4 29.7 1.9 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 856.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 404.0
Total Delay (hr) 225.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 131.3
Stop Delay (hr) 203.8
Stop Del/Veh (s) 118.7
86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 3.6 4.2 0.8 6.6 14.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 6.3 0.0 0.5 36.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 75.4 9.1 78.9 14.8 54.5 102.6 72.0 22.4 55.0 72.7 9.2 26.3 Stop Delay (hr) 3.4 2.4 0.7 4.0 8.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 6.0 0.0 0.4 25.5 Stop Del/Veh (s) 71.0 5.3 75.0 8.9 30.6 100.9 69.9 22.3 52.0 65.6 8.1 18.1 89: Reserve & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 13.7 16.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Delay (hr) 0.1 5.7 0.3 4.7 6.7 0.1 9.9 3.4 1.3 1.0 0.3 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 75.6 12.1 4.4 69.7 10.8 3.7 120.2 139.8 35.1 67.0 75.5 6.8 Stop Delay (hr) 0.1 4.0 0.2 4.5 3.8 0.0 9.2 3.2 1.1 1.0 0.3 0.0 Stop Del/Veh (s) 74.1 8.5 2.5 66.0 6.2 1.2 111.9 129.9 30.5 64.6 71.7 6.8 89: Reserve & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 2.2
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.6
Total Delay (hr) 33.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 23.7
Stop Delay (hr) 27.4
Stop Del/Veh (s) 19.4

Page 366 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
SimTraffic Performance Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 8 ends

106: RV Parkway & Creekside Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.8 2.1 0.5 0.1 3.9 0.3 4.0 0.7 Total Delay (hr) 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.4 5.0 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.1 10.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 46.3 1.3 0.1 77.3 10.1 11.1 66.8 74.6 14.1 64.8 10.3 8.6 Stop Delay (hr) 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.4 1.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.1 4.9 Stop Del/Veh (s) 44.4 0.3 0.1 74.8 3.6 2.0 65.4 71.7 14.2 61.7 9.1 4.1 109: West Mall & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 8.8 3.7 0.5 4.0 0.3 Total Delay (hr) 2.3 4.8 0.0 0.2 10.0 0.0 1.7 2.0 0.2 0.1 0.9 22.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 68.3 8.7 5.7 65.8 14.6 2.4 143.7 147.4 17.8 75.4 40.6 16.5 Stop Delay (hr) 2.1 1.7 0.0 0.2 5.8 0.0 1.7 1.9 0.2 0.1 0.9 14.6 Stop Del/Veh (s) 63.8 3.0 1.1 64.0 8.4 2.1 142.1 145.6 17.6 73.7 40.8 10.9 151: Chase Dr & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 4.5 0.1 1.0 2.2 0.7 0.1 8.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 9.7 5.6 55.1 4.8 62.7 1.5 8.6
Stop Delay (hr) 1.9 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.0 4.6
Stop Del/Veh (s) 4.1 0.0 52.3 2.3 60.5 0.0 4.6
Total Zone Performance
Denied Delay (hr) 859.8
Denied Del/Veh (s) 275.4
Total Delay (hr) 454.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 2403.3
Stop Delay (hr) 382.5
Stop Del/Veh (s) 2025.1

Page 367 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 9 ends

Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T T R L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 133 164 189 179 174 131 43 69 229 296 309 345 Average Queue (ft) 60 82 94 97 98 38 5 11 43 187 185 214 95th Queue (ft) 117 140 166 161 160 109 24 41 145 271 276 318 Link Distance (ft) 531 531 531 531 378 378 378
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400 225 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1
Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement WB WB NB NB NB NB NB NB NB B23 B23 SB
Directions Served T R L L L T T T R T T L
Maximum Queue (ft) 382 369 280 316 326 413 345 331 88 524 492 279 Average Queue (ft) 253 83 199 291 310 367 228 206 23 328 256 191 95th Queue (ft) 360 264 297 361 363 481 344 309 64 684 603 291 Link Distance (ft) 378 378 326 326 326 484 484
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 18 40 1 1 0 27 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 290 260
Storage Blk Time (%) 2 16 59 31 2 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 38 138 229 1 3
Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement SB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 309 367 353 336 275 286
Average Queue (ft) 240 262 239 208 35 149
95th Queue (ft) 350 395 387 337 170 247
Link Distance (ft) 335 335 335 335
Upstream Blk Time (%) 12 8 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 43 28 1 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 260 275
Storage Blk Time (%) 14 21 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 29 89 1 1

Page 368 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 10 ends

Intersection: 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served L L LT L L LT T L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 35 102 41 33 81 92 37 14 54 233 272 274 Average Queue (ft) 2 41 9 6 20 33 2 1 15 59 95 112
95th Queue (ft) 28 89 30 25 56 76 20 9 43 171 198 208
Link Distance (ft) 238 238 341 341 564 564 564
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 200 200 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Intersection: 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr
Movement NB SB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served R L L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 5 238 262 274 263 267 56
Average Queue (ft) 0 121 145 119 115 105 19
95th Queue (ft) 5 199 223 233 225 221 49
Link Distance (ft) 564 663 663 663 663
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 1

Page 369 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 11 ends

Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB B12
Directions Served L L T T T R L L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 99 350 874 862 850 275 210 270 283 448 447 474 Average Queue (ft) 42 302 826 798 698 113 123 156 167 413 413 202 95th Queue (ft) 87 482 960 962 921 333 202 239 249 455 452 556 Link Distance (ft) 834 834 834 346 346 346 432
Upstream Blk Time (%) 75 21 6 0 64 68 7
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 340 359 37
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 175 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 83 91 0 1 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 143 23 0 2 11
Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement B12 B12 B12 NB NB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T T L L T T T R L L L
Maximum Queue (ft) 470 467 458 17 318 525 579 654 350 450 500 550 Average Queue (ft) 324 324 118 2 35 342 350 377 206 447 498 549 95th Queue (ft) 592 583 433 10 176 508 553 662 446 458 509 551 Link Distance (ft) 432 432 432 722 722 722
Upstream Blk Time (%) 12 10 3 0 0 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 63 54 16 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 400 400 400
Storage Blk Time (%) 26 18 5 90 77 91
Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 194 21 245 210 246
Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 843 781 109 62
Average Queue (ft) 820 193 40 20
95th Queue (ft) 834 674 97 53
Link Distance (ft) 802 802 802
Upstream Blk Time (%) 91 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)

Page 370 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 12 ends

Intersection: 86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served L T T T L T T T T R L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 250 249 252 288 99 266 273 356 939 300 21 68 Average Queue (ft) 142 71 81 106 36 111 122 140 483 272 1 23 95th Queue (ft) 229 170 179 221 81 215 228 280 1094 365 10 54 Link Distance (ft) 492 492 492 1064 1064 1064 1064 185 185 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 19 0 0 36
Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 0 0 0 1 138
Intersection: 86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway
Movement SB SB SB SB B20 B20
Directions Served L L LT R T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 220 176 231 179 37 39
Average Queue (ft) 127 117 123 71 2 2
95th Queue (ft) 194 172 201 158 20 24
Link Distance (ft) 179 179 179 164 164
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0 2 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 0

Page 371 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 13 ends

Intersection: 89: Reserve & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T T R L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 3 39 239 220 228 315 233 183 191 202 238 279 Average Queue (ft) 0 7 118 112 118 151 56 107 121 112 139 166 95th Queue (ft) 4 27 223 213 221 281 160 168 181 188 215 258 Link Distance (ft) 308 308 308 308 376 376 376
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 255 255 235 215 215
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 6 0 0
Intersection: 89: Reserve & RV Parkway
Movement WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served T R L LT R L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 311 250 285 523 290 91 86 30
Average Queue (ft) 212 40 190 347 131 38 32 6
95th Queue (ft) 303 156 330 602 325 82 73 25
Link Distance (ft) 376 513 258 258 258
Upstream Blk Time (%) 18
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 235 240
Storage Blk Time (%) 5 0 2 38 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 0 7 105 0

Page 372 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 14 ends

Intersection: 106: RV Parkway & Creekside
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB NB
Directions Served L T T T R L T T T T R L
Maximum Queue (ft) 143 120 47 66 2 82 154 148 226 328 265 9 Average Queue (ft) 56 10 7 14 0 20 76 60 63 137 79 1
95th Queue (ft) 113 56 29 45 2 55 137 118 157 258 175 7 Link Distance (ft) 381 381 381 381 1150 1150 1150 1150
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 230 220 235 60
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 0
Intersection: 106: RV Parkway & Creekside
Movement NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 37 16 47 106 70
Average Queue (ft) 7 2 4 49 20
95th Queue (ft) 25 11 25 96 49
Link Distance (ft) 169 347
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 60 100 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1

Page 373 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 15 ends

Intersection: 109: West Mall & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T R L T T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 116 125 251 297 353 6 47 190 370 440 616 95 Average Queue (ft) 40 63 56 65 122 0 9 63 97 132 327 10 95th Queue (ft) 92 105 170 190 284 3 33 150 269 370 638 66 Link Distance (ft) 1064 1064 1064 879 879 879 879 879
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 4
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 275 250 275
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 109: West Mall & RV Parkway
Movement NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 211 91 8 60 118
Average Queue (ft) 123 31 0 8 49
95th Queue (ft) 230 70 6 48 104
Link Distance (ft) 222 222 275
Upstream Blk Time (%) 10
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 151: Chase Dr & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B6 B6 B6 NB
Directions Served T T T R UL T T T T T T L
Maximum Queue (ft) 257 270 283 64 154 211 220 230 102 105 157 99 Average Queue (ft) 89 100 120 3 64 61 69 80 4 4 6 43
95th Queue (ft) 211 225 245 57 123 159 172 188 74 77 95 87 Link Distance (ft) 1627 1627 1627 454 454 454 492 492 492 201 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 2876

Page 374 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Start Time 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50
End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 17133 17021 16906 16989 16970 17153 17051
Vehs Exited 16786 16663 16355 16605 16538 16889 16742
Starting Vehs 1041 1044 1023 1063 1022 1077 1079
Ending Vehs 1388 1402 1574 1447 1454 1341 1388
Travel Distance (mi) 12897 12863 12603 12927 12940 13047 12879 Travel Time (hr) 3115.3 3088.1 3270.9 3215.1 3061.7 3068.6 3023.3 Total Delay (hr) 2775.4 2749.5 2938.2 2874.7 2721.5 2725.7 2684.4 Total Stops 44573 46205 44542 42627 44093 44007 43442
Fuel Used (gal) 1154.7 1144.6 1180.4 1179.0 1143.3 1149.1 1131.6 Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Start Time 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50
End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 16736 16803 17085 16984
Vehs Exited 16486 16261 16683 16602
Starting Vehs 985 1045 1048 1039
Ending Vehs 1235 1587 1450 1423
Travel Distance (mi) 12694 12476 12921 12825
Travel Time (hr) 3085.7 3288.2 3082.6 3129.9
Total Delay (hr) 2752.2 2959.7 2742.6 2792.4
Total Stops 42032 43446 43428 43838
Fuel Used (gal) 1142.3 1180.0 1147.3 1155.2
Interval #0 Information Seeding
Start Time 4:50
End Time 5:00
Total Time (min) 10
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

No data recorded this interval.

Page 375 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Interval #1 Information
Start Time 5:00
End Time 5:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 4315 4296 4287 4331 4354 4384 4277
Vehs Exited 4089 4076 4098 4127 4177 4199 4186
Starting Vehs 1041 1044 1023 1063 1022 1077 1079
Ending Vehs 1267 1264 1212 1267 1199 1262 1170
Travel Distance (mi) 3216 3253 3197 3220 3271 3301 3269 Travel Time (hr) 441.4 425.2 434.5 436.4 425.1 435.2 430.6 Total Delay (hr) 356.7 339.7 349.9 351.7 339.1 348.3 344.7 Total Stops 9568 9880 9599 9149 9512 9990 9553
Fuel Used (gal) 211.7 207.9 209.1 211.4 209.5 212.9 209.8 Interval #1 Information
Start Time 5:00
End Time 5:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 4362 4362 4249 4316
Vehs Exited 4066 4096 4052 4117
Starting Vehs 985 1045 1048 1039
Ending Vehs 1281 1311 1245 1244
Travel Distance (mi) 3226 3201 3277 3243
Travel Time (hr) 425.6 438.0 451.6 434.4
Total Delay (hr) 341.1 354.1 365.2 349.1
Total Stops 9500 9578 9874 9621
Fuel Used (gal) 207.2 209.8 214.8 210.4

Page 376 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Interval #2 Information
Start Time 5:15
End Time 5:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 4288 4350 4210 4214 4269 4231 4368
Vehs Exited 4251 4134 4015 4147 4141 4205 4142
Starting Vehs 1267 1264 1212 1267 1199 1262 1170
Ending Vehs 1304 1480 1407 1334 1327 1288 1396
Travel Distance (mi) 3271 3218 3083 3240 3245 3271 3256 Travel Time (hr) 678.2 650.3 697.8 684.4 661.3 659.1 646.4 Total Delay (hr) 592.1 565.6 616.4 599.1 575.8 573.1 560.7 Total Stops 11479 11542 11411 10119 10825 10948 10902
Fuel Used (gal) 266.9 259.1 264.4 267.0 262.0 263.0 257.9 Interval #2 Information
Start Time 5:15
End Time 5:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 4199 4018 4332 4247
Vehs Exited 4115 4097 4231 4150
Starting Vehs 1281 1311 1245 1244
Ending Vehs 1365 1232 1346 1343
Travel Distance (mi) 3176 3084 3273 3212
Travel Time (hr) 663.8 697.4 671.7 671.0
Total Delay (hr) 580.3 616.1 585.8 586.5
Total Stops 10740 10531 10867 10939
Fuel Used (gal) 261.6 265.9 265.8 263.4

Page 377 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Interval #3 Information
Start Time 5:30
End Time 5:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 4305 4207 3983 4184 4210 4310 4304
Vehs Exited 4185 4155 4117 4089 4195 4196 4304
Starting Vehs 1304 1480 1407 1334 1327 1288 1396
Ending Vehs 1424 1532 1273 1429 1342 1402 1396
Travel Distance (mi) 3211 3195 3093 3237 3240 3234 3213 Travel Time (hr) 887.3 896.6 942.9 929.2 880.7 875.7 852.3 Total Delay (hr) 802.6 812.4 861.4 844.1 796.0 790.8 767.7 Total Stops 12136 12808 11175 11033 12055 11222 11393
Fuel Used (gal) 313.2 313.1 322.4 323.2 312.9 311.0 306.1 Interval #3 Information
Start Time 5:30
End Time 5:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 4205 4221 4321 4223
Vehs Exited 4193 4069 4280 4175
Starting Vehs 1365 1232 1346 1343
Ending Vehs 1377 1384 1387 1388
Travel Distance (mi) 3169 3105 3192 3189
Travel Time (hr) 890.6 931.4 862.9 894.9
Total Delay (hr) 807.1 849.3 779.0 811.0
Total Stops 10981 11037 11349 11515
Fuel Used (gal) 313.1 319.9 307.0 314.2

Page 378 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 5 ends

Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 5:45
End Time 6:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 4225 4168 4426 4260 4137 4228 4102
Vehs Exited 4261 4298 4125 4242 4025 4289 4110
Starting Vehs 1424 1532 1273 1429 1342 1402 1396
Ending Vehs 1388 1402 1574 1447 1454 1341 1388
Travel Distance (mi) 3198 3198 3230 3229 3185 3241 3141 Travel Time (hr) 1108.4 1116.0 1195.7 1165.0 1094.7 1098.5 1094.1 Total Delay (hr) 1023.9 1031.7 1110.5 1079.9 1010.7 1013.5 1011.3 Total Stops 11390 11975 12357 12326 11701 11847 11594
Fuel Used (gal) 363.0 364.6 384.5 377.4 358.9 362.2 357.8 Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 5:45
End Time 6:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 3970 4202 4183 4183
Vehs Exited 4112 3999 4120 4157
Starting Vehs 1377 1384 1387 1388
Ending Vehs 1235 1587 1450 1423
Travel Distance (mi) 3123 3086 3178 3181
Travel Time (hr) 1105.8 1221.4 1096.4 1129.6
Total Delay (hr) 1023.8 1140.2 1012.6 1045.8
Total Stops 10811 12300 11338 11758
Fuel Used (gal) 360.4 384.4 359.8 367.3

Page 379 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
SimTraffic Performance Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 6 ends

73: Galleria & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 27.2 18.3 2.1 8.3 43.1 10.2 10.6 13.6 0.1 26.1 22.0 5.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 185.2 47.7 9.6 119.0 93.9 52.1 63.3 48.9 6.7 143.8 104.6 37.7 Stop Delay (hr) 25.5 14.2 0.5 7.7 36.1 8.7 9.8 11.4 0.1 24.6 19.5 4.8 Stop Del/Veh (s) 173.8 37.1 2.3 111.5 78.7 44.1 58.6 40.9 4.2 135.7 93.1 31.2 73: Galleria & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 187.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 75.3
Stop Delay (hr) 162.9
Stop Del/Veh (s) 65.5
84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 0.2 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.2 3.0 1.9 0.7 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 3.2 3.3 Total Delay (hr) 7.6 1.1 0.1 7.5 1.3 0.4 2.5 15.4 0.1 10.0 17.8 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 53.7 49.1 1.7 61.1 53.4 3.1 84.6 32.1 3.1 108.5 47.2 6.6 Stop Delay (hr) 7.1 1.0 0.0 6.9 1.2 0.0 2.4 10.9 0.0 9.2 13.9 0.3 Stop Del/Veh (s) 49.8 44.8 0.1 56.0 47.9 0.0 79.4 22.8 0.0 100.3 36.9 4.4 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 2.6
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.7
Total Delay (hr) 64.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 41.1
Stop Delay (hr) 52.8
Stop Del/Veh (s) 33.8

Page 380 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
SimTraffic Performance Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 7 ends

85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 2.5 5.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.1 30.0 19.9 279.7 522.8 94.9 Denied Del/Veh (s) 21.7 19.4 19.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 81.2 77.8 79.8 1183.0 1185.1 1206.6 Total Delay (hr) 11.7 40.7 0.4 12.9 20.2 1.8 1.5 49.5 11.6 74.9 9.7 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 102.3 146.6 64.4 59.1 82.6 7.4 111.3 131.8 48.7 711.8 58.9 7.3 Stop Delay (hr) 10.0 35.7 0.3 11.4 17.5 0.0 1.3 42.0 6.9 74.3 8.4 0.1 Stop Del/Veh (s) 87.3 128.5 55.1 52.1 71.2 0.1 99.4 111.9 29.0 705.5 50.8 3.9 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 956.5
Denied Del/Veh (s) 383.2
Total Delay (hr) 235.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 116.2
Stop Delay (hr) 207.8
Stop Del/Veh (s) 102.8
86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 4.3 5.5 1.2 53.8 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 17.3 0.1 2.3 92.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 93.9 12.3 109.7 84.7 44.1 82.8 55.2 52.5 67.9 86.8 27.5 55.9 Stop Delay (hr) 4.1 3.0 1.0 36.8 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 16.3 0.1 2.1 68.3 Stop Del/Veh (s) 88.4 6.8 90.8 57.9 25.2 81.4 53.1 52.4 63.9 80.7 25.1 41.3 89: Reserve & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.7 11.7 47.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 409.5 414.4 412.8 1.2 1.2 0.9 Total Delay (hr) 0.6 24.3 0.8 7.0 13.2 0.4 16.3 4.4 9.3 4.0 3.0 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 86.4 40.9 12.1 83.6 21.4 6.5 164.8 188.3 102.2 52.8 58.0 11.5 Stop Delay (hr) 0.6 19.7 0.5 6.6 9.8 0.2 15.2 4.1 8.7 3.7 2.7 0.2 Stop Del/Veh (s) 82.3 33.2 7.5 78.5 15.9 3.4 153.6 175.7 95.6 49.1 52.5 10.8 89: Reserve & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 109.2
Denied Del/Veh (s) 59.7
Total Delay (hr) 83.7
Total Del/Veh (s) 46.6
Stop Delay (hr) 72.1
Stop Del/Veh (s) 40.2

Page 381 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
SimTraffic Performance Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 8 ends

106: RV Parkway & Creekside Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 36.6 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.8 58.0 57.1 1.6 0.2 4.0 3.6 6.7 5.5 Total Delay (hr) 1.0 6.5 0.0 1.0 37.3 7.9 0.6 0.3 0.1 7.1 0.1 1.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 58.5 12.3 0.5 91.9 59.9 87.1 89.8 89.2 18.2 52.7 65.3 28.5 Stop Delay (hr) 1.0 4.2 0.0 0.9 23.2 5.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 6.4 0.0 1.0 Stop Del/Veh (s) 55.6 7.8 0.2 82.0 37.2 56.1 87.9 85.8 17.8 47.1 57.3 24.7 106: RV Parkway & Creekside Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 43.4
Denied Del/Veh (s) 29.3
Total Delay (hr) 63.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 42.9
Stop Delay (hr) 42.9
Stop Del/Veh (s) 29.0
109: West Mall & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 8.9 16.1 10.3 Total Delay (hr) 4.9 33.7 0.4 0.8 15.4 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 2.3 0.0 4.7 Total Del/Veh (s) 78.3 51.8 63.2 73.4 22.0 2.1 77.2 81.9 33.9 63.4 39.7 48.7 Stop Delay (hr) 4.3 22.9 0.3 0.7 10.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 2.2 0.0 4.5 Stop Del/Veh (s) 67.8 35.2 46.7 68.9 14.3 1.6 75.6 79.8 33.8 59.7 35.3 47.0 109: West Mall & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 2.3
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.4
Total Delay (hr) 63.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 39.4
Stop Delay (hr) 46.2
Stop Del/Veh (s) 28.7

Page 382 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
SimTraffic Performance Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 9 ends

151: Chase Dr & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 14.1 0.2 4.9 6.8 0.9 0.0 26.8
Total Del/Veh (s) 29.6 10.4 42.7 11.7 61.8 1.4 22.0
Stop Delay (hr) 8.6 0.0 3.9 2.4 0.8 0.0 15.7
Stop Del/Veh (s) 18.1 1.2 33.9 4.1 59.5 0.0 12.8
Total Zone Performance
Denied Delay (hr) 1114.1
Denied Del/Veh (s) 255.5
Total Delay (hr) 816.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 2884.9
Stop Delay (hr) 668.8
Stop Del/Veh (s) 2362.7

Page 383 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 10 ends

Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T T R L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 414 449 531 475 448 402 205 193 300 421 407 421 Average Queue (ft) 320 354 374 206 183 128 31 101 171 282 275 318 95th Queue (ft) 481 522 653 401 347 310 126 174 331 454 438 458 Link Distance (ft) 529 529 529 529 382 382 382
Upstream Blk Time (%) 15 1 1 1 11 6 7
Queuing Penalty (veh) 125 5 4 6 57 30 38
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400 225 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 7 20 28 2 0 0 0 31
Queuing Penalty (veh) 29 81 182 17 0 0 0 80
Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement WB WB NB NB NB NB NB NB NB B23 B23 SB
Directions Served T R L L L T T T R T T L
Maximum Queue (ft) 433 445 215 297 321 390 330 327 151 51 20 280 Average Queue (ft) 367 377 115 153 193 233 224 228 31 2 1 213 95th Queue (ft) 461 459 185 252 295 338 307 307 108 28 21 300 Link Distance (ft) 382 382 326 326 326 484 484
Upstream Blk Time (%) 22 25 0 0 1 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 117 134 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 290 260
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 3 5 1 0 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 8 31 1 0 7
Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement SB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 310 399 385 389 394 325
Average Queue (ft) 282 335 332 330 260 270
95th Queue (ft) 370 427 413 414 506 388
Link Distance (ft) 335 335 335 335
Upstream Blk Time (%) 31 35 35 18 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 156 174 171 91 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 260 275
Storage Blk Time (%) 18 42 14 17
Queuing Penalty (veh) 40 185 77 43

Page 384 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 11 ends

Intersection: 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB
Directions Served L L LT T R L L LT T L L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 215 254 246 202 18 185 269 326 249 108 205 376 Average Queue (ft) 153 188 153 61 1 97 175 206 123 50 67 223 95th Queue (ft) 201 245 221 176 18 186 260 298 252 95 137 343 Link Distance (ft) 238 238 238 341 341 565
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 2 1 0 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 125 200 200 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 11 32 1 0 1 12 0 7
Queuing Penalty (veh) 19 53 1 0 2 34 2 9
Intersection: 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr
Movement NB NB NB SB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T R L L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 381 378 39 278 336 526 522 506 282
Average Queue (ft) 244 255 1 173 213 301 303 316 96
95th Queue (ft) 358 360 14 281 348 525 529 531 353
Link Distance (ft) 565 565 565 663 663 663 663
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 1 4 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 5 9 14
Queuing Penalty (veh) 22 39 42

Page 385 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 12 ends

Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T R L L L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 268 350 807 773 717 275 267 324 427 436 436 256 Average Queue (ft) 141 290 574 524 451 65 178 244 284 366 373 24 95th Queue (ft) 242 441 986 925 786 246 254 344 423 471 470 171 Link Distance (ft) 834 834 834 346 346 346 346
Upstream Blk Time (%) 24 2 0 7 26 30 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 58 228 267 4
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 175 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 2 55 69 1 7 13
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 7 222 14 4 24 99
Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement B12 B12 B12 B12 NB NB NB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served T T T T L L T T T R L L
Maximum Queue (ft) 368 326 276 184 39 350 744 749 769 350 450 500 Average Queue (ft) 83 77 73 34 7 126 619 621 699 342 442 495 95th Queue (ft) 312 279 258 203 26 378 790 785 871 419 471 518 Link Distance (ft) 432 432 432 432 722 722 722
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0 0 0 5 4 41
Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 4 1 3 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 400 400
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 64 62 5 83 94
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 29 543 22 431 489
Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 550 849 811 428 133
Average Queue (ft) 548 821 525 152 38
95th Queue (ft) 562 835 1040 315 106
Link Distance (ft) 802 802 802
Upstream Blk Time (%) 88 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 98 19 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 505 157 8

Page 386 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 13 ends

Intersection: 86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB B6 B6 B6 B6 WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L T T T T T T L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 281 308 317 377 166 174 187 86 350 949 991 989 Average Queue (ft) 153 55 61 89 9 13 17 5 75 572 589 600 95th Queue (ft) 263 228 240 294 105 130 156 79 246 1009 1038 1055 Link Distance (ft) 492 492 492 454 454 454 454 1064 1064 1064 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 4 16 0 0 3 0 3 4 5
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 2 1 19 40
Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 2 0 17
Intersection: 86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway
Movement WB WB NB NB SB SB SB SB B20 B20
Directions Served T R L TR L L LT R T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 984 300 24 127 269 236 265 179 191 210 Average Queue (ft) 570 211 2 40 229 175 250 165 132 181 95th Queue (ft) 1090 371 14 94 316 232 269 232 235 196
Link Distance (ft) 1064 185 185 179 179 179 164 164
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 45 19 58 3 19 60
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 19 7 58 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 111 43 212 12

Page 387 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 14 ends

Intersection: 89: Reserve & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T T R L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 45 228 337 336 349 347 285 232 264 328 333 342 Average Queue (ft) 9 36 258 230 240 323 197 147 164 194 207 226 95th Queue (ft) 33 138 366 340 355 347 385 223 254 298 296 319 Link Distance (ft) 309 309 309 309 378 378 378
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 20 3 4 41 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 148 20 27 308 2 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 255 255 235 215 215
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 27 50 0 1 4 6
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 9 170 0 8 21 18
Intersection: 89: Reserve & RV Parkway
Movement WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served T R L LT R L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 387 250 285 562 290 278 284 278
Average Queue (ft) 258 126 254 530 280 163 219 70
95th Queue (ft) 370 295 332 559 339 274 306 207
Link Distance (ft) 378 513 258 258 258
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 62 3 10 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 235 240
Storage Blk Time (%) 14 0 15 62 23
Queuing Penalty (veh) 32 1 112 391 120

Page 388 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 15 ends

Intersection: 106: RV Parkway & Creekside
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB NB
Directions Served L T T T R L T T T T R L
Maximum Queue (ft) 145 226 223 229 16 269 850 1083 1178 1197 285 54 Average Queue (ft) 56 98 112 119 1 63 287 523 1012 1079 224 6 95th Queue (ft) 113 186 191 198 8 179 540 1169 1464 1402 387 31 Link Distance (ft) 384 384 384 384 1150 1150 1150 1150
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 1 15 44
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 230 220 235 60
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 13 41 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 6 137 0 0
Intersection: 106: RV Parkway & Creekside
Movement NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 104 73 149 387 150
Average Queue (ft) 32 13 137 277 96
95th Queue (ft) 84 45 168 418 187
Link Distance (ft) 169 347
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 9
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 60 100 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 9 29 46 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 115 182 16

Page 389 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 16 ends

Intersection: 109: West Mall & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T R L T T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 178 374 1039 1036 1044 270 170 336 337 346 364 59 Average Queue (ft) 94 150 447 550 740 48 42 183 185 190 201 18 95th Queue (ft) 157 314 987 1150 1273 225 109 297 296 307 335 47 Link Distance (ft) 1064 1064 1064 871 871 871 871 871
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 1 7
Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 16 76
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 275 250 275
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 8 46 0 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 23 14 0 1
Intersection: 109: West Mall & RV Parkway
Movement NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 125 68 168 309 175
Average Queue (ft) 49 22 41 212 159
95th Queue (ft) 105 54 125 360 205
Link Distance (ft) 222 222 275
Upstream Blk Time (%) 17
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 4 41
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 17 55

Page 390 of 1219 ends

Roseville Pkwy Widening Cumulative plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report

Page 17 ends

Intersection: 151: Chase Dr & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B6 B6 B6 B6
Directions Served T T T R UL T T T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 437 456 483 325 300 524 500 500 453 482 476 50 Average Queue (ft) 246 251 271 40 253 272 244 214 34 51 45 2 95th Queue (ft) 420 435 453 209 354 581 532 468 215 281 275 51 Link Distance (ft) 1627 1627 1627 454 454 454 492 492 492 492 Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 1 1 0 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 26 7 9 0 0 2 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 17 20 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 13 151 12
Intersection: 151: Chase Dr & RV Parkway
Movement NB
Directions Served L
Maximum Queue (ft) 112
Average Queue (ft) 46
95th Queue (ft) 96
Link Distance (ft) 201
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 7973

Page 391 of 1219 ends

Appendix D
Comments Received

Page 392 of 1219 ends

This page intentionally left blank

Page 393 of 1219 ends

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
8 April 2024

Jessica Lynch
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street

Roseville, CA 95678
[email protected]

COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ROSEVILLE PARKWAY WIDENING PROJECT, SCH#2024030290,

PLACER COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse’s 8 March 2024 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Roseville Parkway Widening Project, located in Placer County.

Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state; therefore our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.

I. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. In California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State’s water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.38.

The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by

Page 394 of 1219 ends

Roseville Parkway Widening Project - 2 - 8 April 2024
Placer County

the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, please visit our website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/

Antidegradation Considerations
All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Implementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_2018

05.pdf
In part it states:

Any discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occurring, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State.

This information must be presented as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water quality objectives.

The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and land discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permitting processes. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality.

II. Permitting Requirements
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:

Page 395 of 1219 ends

Roseville Parkway Widening Project - 3 - 8 April 2024
Placer County

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.sht ml
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557-5250.

Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit – Water Quality Certification If an USACE permit (e.g., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/water_quality_certificatio n/
Waste Discharge Requirements – Discharges to Waters of the State If USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., “non- federal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/waste_to_surface_wat er/
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non-jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:

Page 396 of 1219 ends

Roseville Parkway Widening Project - 4 - 8 April 2024
Placer County

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/200 4/wqo/wqo2004-0004.pdf
Dewatering Permit
If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board’s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.

For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2003/ wqo/wqo2003-0003.pdf
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/waiv ers/r5-2018-0085.pdf
Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/gene ral_orders/r5-2016-0076-01.pdf
NPDES Permit
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/permit/

Page 397 of 1219 ends

Roseville Parkway Widening Project - 5 - 8 April 2024
Placer County

If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or [email protected].

Peter G. Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento

Page 398 of 1219 ends

From: Ti Nguyen <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2024 2:49 AM
To: Lynch, Jessica <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Roseville Parkway Widening Project Mitigated Negative Declaration

EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Jessica Lynch, Environment Coordinator,
I am writing to you regarding inadequacies in the environmental study performed for the Roseville Parkway Widening Project, released 8 March 2024. I do understand that the study only examines the environmental impacts beyond those which were already discussed by the 2035 GPU FEIR, so my comments here pertain only to those new impacts identified (or inadequately identified) in this most recent environmental study. That is, my comments specifically concern the impacts from the triple left- turn lanes from Pleasant Grove Blvd to Roseville Parkway.

On page 2-17 (re: air quality) and page 2-46 (re: GHG emissions), the entire discussion of the triple left- turn lanes for both topics is verbatim and duplicative as follows:

However, these project components would not increase VMT or otherwise deteriorate traffic operations. Rather, the proposed improvements are likely to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion, contributing to a [GHG benefit] [regional and local air quality benefit]

This terse, stock verbiage is wholly insufficient to qualify the GHG and air quality impacts from the additional, third left-turn lane. The claims of 1) improved traffic flow, and 2) reduced congestion, are unsupported by any preceding or subsequent explanation. These claims also fly in the face of conclusions reached by CalTrans regarding induced demand, writing that: "When highways are expanded, a series of changes occur, often resulting in more trips and longer travel times, as people are forced to drive farther to get to work and other destinations. Induced demand creates more traffic at greater cost to people and the environment, while worsening congestion" [https://dot.ca.gov/programs/esta/sb-743
]. This very environmental study concluded (on page 2-81) that VMT impacts of the full General Plan buildout -- which includes this project -- exceed the significance threshold and is "considered significant". At a minimum, I would expect the study to reconcile the difficult-to-swallow notion that higher VMT, improved traffic flow, and reduced congestion can somehow all be valid conclusions.

Furthermore, entirely absent from the discussion is any quantification (in numbers) of the GHG and air quality detriments from the third left-turn lane. Necessarily and logically, a 50% increase in queueing capacity on a heavily-traveled roadway can be presumed to increase GHG emissions and harmful air pollutants locally. But the environmental study presents not one iota of numbers or figures in response to the CEQA checklist's question of any "cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant[s]". The response presented in the study is thus non-responsive to the question. It seems impossible to me that a conclusion of "a regional and local air quality benefit" could be validly drawn from zero data.

On page 2-56 (re: hydrology and water quality), the environmental study concludes that "the project would not create or contribute runoff water that would ... provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff". This conclusion is unsupported by the discussion, nor by the prior response X.c.1.

Page 399 of 1219 ends

While it may be true that the 2035 GPU FEIR planned drainage system is appropriately sized for this project, it does not necessarily hold that there are no additional sources of polluted runoff. This project seeks to retain the existing travel lanes but add an additional paved road surface for the third left-turn lane. Therefore, the total road surface area has increased, and will be occupied by vehicles in the third left-turn lane awaiting a green arrow signal. Whether these vehicles are decelerating upon approaching a red arrow, or turning upon a green arrow, both brake pad and tire wear pollutants will result, respectively, which inevitably lands on the roadway and drains into the drainage system. No effort has been made to quantify (in numbers) these pollutants, so it cannot be possible to properly assess if this source of polluted runoff is "substantial" or not. I view this response as also being non-responsive to the CEQA checklist question.

Beginning with page 2-65 (re: noise), the environmental study draws the conclusion of no substantial change in traffic noise because the third left-turn lane "would not attract additional traffic volumes along the proposed alignment". Setting aside the induced demand incongruities raised earlier, this response misses the point, as the CEQA checklist question demands an answer regarding "ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project", not just the adjacent land-uses outside of the right-of-way. No consideration has been given for users upon the roadway itself, including motorists in the through- and turn-lanes (0 ft from noise), bicyclists in the bike lane (20-30 ft from noise), pedestrians on the adjacent sidewalks (40-50 ft from noise), and transit users awaiting a bus at the nearby transit stop (330 ft south).

These areas and users are well within the "vicinity" of the project -- per that term's definition in any dictionary -- yet are ignored in the discussion.

Necessarily and logically, a 50% increase in queueing capacity intended for idling motor vehicles will add to ambient noise affecting all the aforementioned users, with disproportionate impact on non- motorists. Accordingly, while Table 2-8 (page 2-66) purports to present a worst-case analysis, it is anything but, as it fails to consider the noise impacts at 0 ft (to motorists), at 20 ft to bicyclists, and at 40 ft to pedestrians, which would be the more appropriate worst-case distances. I would expect these shorter distances to raise the estimated dBA impacts for this project component, although without the recomputed figure, it is impossible to assess whether this would be a "substantial" increase in noise, as posed by CEQA checklist question. That the GPU FEIR measured noise only encountered by existing land uses and not to roadways users is insufficient justification for why this present environmental study should do the same. It is incumbent upon the lead agency of a CEQA-implicated project to prepare an environmental analysis into project impacts, and I believe this response fails to do that.

My next comments relate to the portion of the environmental study prepared by the contractor, in the traffic evaluation memorandum found in Appendix C and restated starting on page 2-77 (re:
transportation impacts). Accordingly, I will refer to page numbers from the memorandum to avoid duplication.

On page 4 of the memorandum, the summary of observations includes statements of "a significantly safer environment for bicycles and pedestrians", as a result of the replacement of "free right turns" with signal-controlled through lanes. This statement appears to apply to all the turning islands removed by the project, including those at the Roseville Parkway and Pleasant Grove Blvd intersection, which is part- and-parcel to the third left-turn lane project component. However, this statement is not further elaborated or justified in the memorandum, as if signal-controlled lanes magically always imbue net safety benefits to pedestrians and bicyclists. The only additional detail provided is a footnote regarding right-turn overlap signal phases, and the removal of U-turn movements.

Page 400 of 1219 ends

To start, I am keenly familiar with this intersection's free right turn layout, as my grocery run by bicycle takes me home on Pleasant Grove connecting to northbound Roseville Parkway, using the free right turn-lane every time. In the present configuration, the free right is accomplished conflict-free by changing lanes from the bike lane into the dedicated right turn lane. In the project's configuration, the right-most through-lane would also permit right-turns, in conflict with the through-going bike lane, which the project will place at the right-edge of the roadway. Famously, this conflict point is known as "the right hook", when a motorist cuts off a through-going bicyclist by turning sharply across the bike lane to make a right turn at an intersection.

The US FHWA has published documents dating back to 2012 describing the dangers of "right hook" collisions, suggesting that bike lanes be placed to the left of turning lanes [https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa12018/ ]. Of course, this is not possible for a
through-lane that also permits turns, so this project component inevitably introduces a conflict point for bicyclists where one did not previously exist. This can hardly be described as a "significantly safer environment". The alternative of truncating the bike lane in advance of the intersection -- thus requiring bicyclists to merge with the through lane -- would invalidate the "no impact" conclusion to CEQA checklist question A, on page 5, describing "Class II Bike Lanes along the entire stretch from Pleasant Grove Boulevard through the project area".

Likewise, I am unable to identify the safety benefits to pedestrians that the memorandum speaks of, but rather only the inevitable safety problems created where they did not previously exist. At present, the turning islands at Roseville Parkway and Pleasant Grove Blvd provide for uncontrolled pedestrian crossing of the free right turn lane to the island. While this would expose a pedestrian to the risk of collision by a right-turning motorist, the risk is mitigated by the angle of the motorist's approach, the natural expectation to look both ways at an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing, and the short distance of the crossing, abutted by curbs which instruct motorists to slow to negotiate the turn. Furthermore, the beneficial trade off is that once on the island, the pedestrian will then only need to cross traffic lanes perpendicularly, with crossing traffic presented with a red light; there is no chance of a right-hook collision for a pedestrian crossing in this manner.

However, this project's removal of the turning islands, and the use of right-turn overlap signals -- which I understand means a combination green light and green right arrow -- means pedestrians will make their crossing as instructed by a pedestrian signal, but with none of the mitigations from earlier to prevent a right-hook collision by a right-turning motorist. Accordingly, I believe the memorandum's conclusions regarding significant safety benefits to bicyclists and pedestrians are unsubstantiated or at the very least, grossly overstated. These conclusions should be stricken, and a fuller analysis undertaken to assess how pedestrians and bicyclists would benefit -- if at all -- with this project component's implementation.

As an aside, I wish to remark on Appendix A of the memorandum, showing the raw traffic count data obtained from the traffic survey. To my eyes, a substantial omission from this data is any mention of the bicycle and pedestrian traffic volumes. It is implausible to me that the contractor can genuinely conclude (on page 6) that bicycle/pedestrian safety will improve when no data has been collected on the existing volume of bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The only mention of hard data is an uncited reference to the list of dangerous intersections in the city, but no time period is given, and so this reference cannot be verified. I am not a traffic surveyor, but it cannot be so difficult to collect this pedestrian/bicyclist data to answer an obvious question, yet the automated equipment is readily available to collect 150 pages of multi-day, hourly vehicle counts.

Page 401 of 1219 ends

On page 5 of the memorandum, in response to the CEQA checklist question regarding Guideline section 15064.3, the contractor writes:

As a result, the City’s VMT Impact Study Guidelines conclude that a quantitative VMT study is not required. Furthermore, because the effect of the Project was comprehensively evaluated within the City’s 2035 General Plan, no additional VMT analysis (qualitative or quantitative) is required

This is factually wrong, as the 2035 General Plan did not evaluate the third left-turn lane at all, which the earlier sections of this environmental study repeatedly stated was outside the scope of the GPU FEIR.

While it is true that CEQA Guideline section 15064.3(b) does provide that a lead agency has discretion over whether a transportation project requires a VMT or LOS analysis, the City of Roseville's Traffic Impact Studies guidelines (Section 4, Roseville Design Standards 2023) demand a VMT analysis unless one or more "screening" exceptions apply:

A study using screening shall include a justification statement supporting the use of the screening criteria and evidence supporting its conclusions.

VMT Analysis: VMT analysis is required if the project does not meet any of the conditions for screening.

I do not believe the contractor's memorandum correctly restates the scope of the project, and the memorandum is missing the justification statement and evidence required by the city design standards.

Although the City of Roseville is the lead agency, and has discretion under the CEQA Guidelines, the city's own environmental studies must comply with its own requirements for VMT studies if no exception applies.

In closing, I am not requesting the total cancellation of the project, but I must insist on an intellectually honest and frank document that captures reasonably foreseeable impacts to people, traffic, and the environment. I am not so cynical as to believe that this document is merely a "rubber-stamp" formality to green-light unrestricted roadbuilding. But rather I think these omissions are inadvertent, and that city staff and the traffic evaluation contractor will sincerely work to rectify the overlooked sections. I look forward to seeing a revised version of this environmental study.

Regards,
Ti Nguyen
548 Cascade Dr
Roseville, CA 95678
[email protected]

Page 402 of 1219 ends

This page intentionally left blank

Page 403 of 1219 ends

Appendix E
Response to Comments

Page 404 of 1219 ends

This page intentionally left blank

Page 405 of 1219 ends

From: Ti Nguyen <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2024 2:49 AM
To: Lynch, Jessica <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Roseville Parkway Widening Project Mitigated Negative Declaration

EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Jessica Lynch, Environment Coordinator,
I am writing to you regarding inadequacies in the environmental study performed for the Roseville Parkway Widening Project, released 8 March 2024. I do understand that the study only examines the environmental impacts beyond those which were already discussed by the 2035 GPU FEIR, so my comments here pertain only to those new impacts identified (or inadequately identified) in this most recent environmental study. That is, my comments specifically concern the impacts from the triple left- turn lanes from Pleasant Grove Blvd to Roseville Parkway.

Response: This is an introductory comment; therefore, no response warranted.

On page 2-17 (re: air quality) and page 2-46 (re: GHG emissions), the entire discussion of the triple left- turn lanes for both topics is verbatim and duplicative as follows:

However, these project components would not increase VMT or otherwise deteriorate traffic operations. Rather, the proposed improvements are likely to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion, contributing to a [GHG benefit] [regional and local air quality benefit]

This terse, stock verbiage is wholly insufficient to qualify the GHG and air quality impacts from the additional, third left-turn lane. The claims of 1) improved traffic flow, and 2) reduced congestion, are unsupported by any preceding or subsequent explanation. These claims also fly in the face of conclusions reached by CalTrans regarding induced demand, writing that: "When highways are expanded, a series of changes occur, often resulting in more trips and longer travel times, as people are forced to drive farther to get to work and other destinations. Induced demand creates more traffic at greater cost to people and the environment, while worsening congestion" [https://dot.ca.gov/programs/esta/sb-743
]. This very environmental study concluded (on page 2-81) that VMT impacts of the full General Plan buildout -- which includes this project -- exceed the significance threshold and is "considered significant". At a minimum, I would expect the study to reconcile the difficult-to-swallow notion that higher VMT, improved traffic flow, and reduced congestion can somehow all be valid conclusions.

Response: Comment noted, however, the text in the document in both the AQ and GHG sections are accurate and there would be no new impact with respect to generation of operational criteria pollutant emissions. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.

Furthermore, entirely absent from the discussion is any quantification (in numbers) of the GHG and air quality detriments from the third left-turn lane. Necessarily and logically, a 50% increase in queueing capacity on a heavily-traveled roadway can be presumed to increase GHG emissions and harmful air pollutants locally. But the environmental study presents not one iota of numbers or figures in response to the CEQA checklist's question of any "cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria

Page 406 of 1219 ends

pollutant[s]". The response presented in the study is thus non-responsive to the question. It seems impossible to me that a conclusion of "a regional and local air quality benefit" could be validly drawn from zero data.

Response: The GPU FEIR comprehensively evaluated the widening of Roseville Parkway, including associated changes in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and criteria pollutant emissions. The proposed triple left-turn lanes and intersection improvements were not previously evaluated in the GPU FEIR. However, these project components are not expected to increase VMT or otherwise deteriorate traffic operations. Instead, they are likely to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion, contributing to a regional and local air quality benefit.

Further, as stated under Traffic impact d. on page 2-81 and 2-82, “the project would provide additional capacity through one of the most congested corridors in the City. In addition to recurring commute peak-hour patterns, the project area accommodates off-peak and seasonal traffic congestion associated with the adjacent regional retail and related establishments.” The project’s design aims to alleviate congestion issues, thereby reducing idle time and associated emissions. This is particularly relevant during peak shopping seasons when traffic volume significantly increases.

Moreover, the project aligns with the city’s broader sustainability goals. By improving traffic flow and reducing congestion, it indirectly contributes to lowering greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing air quality. It’s important to note that while the project’s immediate impact on reducing emissions may not be quantifiable, its long-term benefits towards creating a more sustainable and efficient transportation infrastructure are significant. In conclusion, addressing traffic congestion and improving flow will have a net positive impact on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions in the long run.

On page 2-56 (re: hydrology and water quality), the environmental study concludes that "the project would not create or contribute runoff water that would ... provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff". This conclusion is unsupported by the discussion, nor by the prior response X.c.1.

While it may be true that the 2035 GPU FEIR planned drainage system is appropriately sized for this project, it does not necessarily hold that there are no additional sources of polluted runoff. This project seeks to retain the existing travel lanes but add an additional paved road surface for the third left-turn lane. Therefore, the total road surface area has increased, and will be occupied by vehicles in the third left-turn lane awaiting a green arrow signal. Whether these vehicles are decelerating upon approaching a red arrow, or turning upon a green arrow, both brake pad and tire wear pollutants will result, respectively, which inevitably lands on the roadway and drains into the drainage system. No effort has been made to quantify (in numbers) these pollutants, so it cannot be possible to properly assess if this source of polluted runoff is "substantial" or not. I view this response as also being non-responsive to the CEQA checklist question.

Response: Comment noted, this is a Subsequent MND not an EIR and a qualitative analysis is appropriate, however, the first paragraph under Impact 3 on page 2-56 lists all of the requirements that would reduce the impact (i.e., General Plan policies, LID, BMPs, and hydromodification management techniques to protect receiving water quality, mitigate excessive runoff, and mimic the runoff of a natural environment.) There would be no change from the 2035 GP FEIR conclusion, the project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

Page 407 of 1219 ends

Beginning with page 2-65 (re: noise), the environmental study draws the conclusion of no substantial change in traffic noise because the third left-turn lane "would not attract additional traffic volumes along the proposed alignment". Setting aside the induced demand incongruities raised earlier, this response misses the point, as the CEQA checklist question demands an answer regarding "ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project", not just the adjacent land-uses outside of the right-of-way. No consideration has been given for users upon the roadway itself, including motorists in the through- and turn-lanes (0 ft from noise), bicyclists in the bike lane (20-30 ft from noise), pedestrians on the adjacent sidewalks (40-50 ft from noise), and transit users awaiting a bus at the nearby transit stop (330 ft south).

These areas and users are well within the "vicinity" of the project -- per that term's definition in any dictionary -- yet are ignored in the discussion.

Necessarily and logically, a 50% increase in queueing capacity intended for idling motor vehicles will add to ambient noise affecting all the aforementioned users, with disproportionate impact on non- motorists. Accordingly, while Table 2-8 (page 2-66) purports to present a worst-case analysis, it is anything but, as it fails to consider the noise impacts at 0 ft (to motorists), at 20 ft to bicyclists, and at 40 ft to pedestrians, which would be the more appropriate worst-case distances. I would expect these shorter distances to raise the estimated dBA impacts for this project component, although without the recomputed figure, it is impossible to assess whether this would be a "substantial" increase in noise, as posed by CEQA checklist question. That the GPU FEIR measured noise only encountered by existing land uses and not to roadways users is insufficient justification for why this present environmental study should do the same. It is incumbent upon the lead agency of a CEQA-implicated project to prepare an environmental analysis into project impacts, and I believe this response fails to do that.

Response: The IS/MND states on page 2-62, “The GPU FEIR provides a discussion on various topics including the fundamentals of environmental noise, existing noise sources and measured ambient noise levels within the General Plan study area, and relevant federal, state, and local noise regulations.“ As such the GPU FEIR which includes the General Plan standards and any other relevant standards is incorporated by reference.

The General Plan standards reference “Noise sensitive land uses“ as the locations at which consideration of noise impacts. These are generally defined as ”locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land.“ General Plan EIR page 4.6-5. The locations referenced (motorist located on the roadway network, bicyclists located in the bike lane along the roadway network, etc.) by the commenter are not considered noise sensitive and are not reasonable locations for consideration of impacts.

Similarly, the discussion on page 2-66 of the IS/MND identifies that the project would relocate a portion of the traffic volume slightly closer to nearby non-noise sensitive land uses (commercial land uses) which would result in an increase of no more than 1 dB over the noise levels identified in the General Plan EIR. It is widely accepted and noted (in the IS/MND on page 2-65) that an increase of 3 dB is the threshold of perception. Furthermore, based on measurements conducted as part of the General Plan EIR, the noise levels in the project vicinity of the widening (ST-3) are 51 dBA Leq which falls into the normally acceptable category (page 2-66 of the IS/MND).

Therefore a 3 dB increase to the surrounding land uses is not considered significant (not substantial) and would not be readily noticeable.

My next comments relate to the portion of the environmental study prepared by the contractor, in the traffic evaluation memorandum found in Appendix C and restated starting on page 2-77 (re:

Page 408 of 1219 ends

transportation impacts). Accordingly, I will refer to page numbers from the memorandum to avoid duplication.

On page 4 of the memorandum, the summary of observations includes statements of "a significantly safer environment for bicycles and pedestrians", as a result of the replacement of "free right turns" with signal-controlled through lanes. This statement appears to apply to all the turning islands removed by the project, including those at the Roseville Parkway and Pleasant Grove Blvd intersection, which is part- and-parcel to the third left-turn lane project component. However, this statement is not further elaborated or justified in the memorandum, as if signal-controlled lanes magically always imbue net safety benefits to pedestrians and bicyclists. The only additional detail provided is a footnote regarding right-turn overlap signal phases, and the removal of U-turn movements.

To start, I am keenly familiar with this intersection's free right turn layout, as my grocery run by bicycle takes me home on Pleasant Grove connecting to northbound Roseville Parkway, using the free right turn-lane every time. In the present configuration, the free right is accomplished conflict-free by changing lanes from the bike lane into the dedicated right turn lane. In the project's configuration, the right-most through-lane would also permit right-turns, in conflict with the through-going bike lane, which the project will place at the right-edge of the roadway. Famously, this conflict point is known as "the right hook", when a motorist cuts off a through-going bicyclist by turning sharply across the bike lane to make a right turn at an intersection.

The US FHWA has published documents dating back to 2012 describing the dangers of "right hook" collisions, suggesting that bike lanes be placed to the left of turning lanes [https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa12018/ ]. Of course, this is not possible for a
through-lane that also permits turns, so this project component inevitably introduces a conflict point for bicyclists where one did not previously exist. This can hardly be described as a "significantly safer environment". The alternative of truncating the bike lane in advance of the intersection -- thus requiring bicyclists to merge with the through lane -- would invalidate the "no impact" conclusion to CEQA checklist question A, on page 5, describing "Class II Bike Lanes along the entire stretch from Pleasant Grove Boulevard through the project area".

Response: The commenter's assertion that "In the project's configuration, the right-most through-lane would also permit right-turns…" is incorrect. In all cases, where the project removes the free right-turns and the associated "turning islands", the exclusive right-turn lanes are preserved and the existing Class II bike lanes are left in their current locations (between the right and through lane). As a result of the project's removal of the free right-tuns, those right-turns are then controlled by the traffic signal indication for the adjacent through lane as is typical at most other signalized intersections throughout the City where free right-turn facilities are not present (with right-turn lanes).

Likewise, I am unable to identify the safety benefits to pedestrians that the memorandum speaks of, but rather only the inevitable safety problems created where they did not previously exist. At present, the turning islands at Roseville Parkway and Pleasant Grove Blvd provide for uncontrolled pedestrian crossing of the free right turn lane to the island. While this would expose a pedestrian to the risk of collision by a right-turning motorist, the risk is mitigated by the angle of the motorist's approach, the natural expectation to look both ways at an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing, and the short distance of the crossing, abutted by curbs which instruct motorists to slow to negotiate the turn. Furthermore, the beneficial trade off is that once on the island, the pedestrian will then only need to cross traffic lanes

Page 409 of 1219 ends

perpendicularly, with crossing traffic presented with a red light; there is no chance of a right-hook collision for a pedestrian crossing in this manner.

However, this project's removal of the turning islands, and the use of right-turn overlap signals -- which I understand means a combination green light and green right arrow -- means pedestrians will make their crossing as instructed by a pedestrian signal, but with none of the mitigations from earlier to prevent a right-hook collision by a right-turning motorist. Accordingly, I believe the memorandum's conclusions regarding significant safety benefits to bicyclists and pedestrians are unsubstantiated or at the very least, grossly overstated. These conclusions should be stricken, and a fuller analysis undertaken to assess how pedestrians and bicyclists would benefit -- if at all -- with this project component's implementation.

Response: Engineering judgement, supplemented with an abundance of anecdotal evidence, suggests that the noted existing, un-controlled pedestrian crossings (from the roadside to the turning islands) are inconsistent with both vehicle and pedestrian expectations and are much less safe than the proposed configuration. Vehicles maneuvering these free right-turns are often focused on the downstream merge/weave and are likely not looking for pedestrian conflicts. In fact, in the proposed configuration, the pedestrians are only required to make one decision, one that is communicated by traditional traffic signal indications, a condition that is typical throughout the City. Please see prior response pertaining to the "right hook" condition that will not exist.

In conclusion, the project's removal of several free right-turns in favor of signal-controlled right- turn movements, is anticipated to reduce bicycle and pedestrian exposure to high-speed vehicle movements at locations where driver expectation may not suggest the presence of a pedestrian crossing. By fully controlling the pedestrian movements using traditional traffic signal indications, the safety for these users is anticipated to be improved.

As an aside, I wish to remark on Appendix A of the memorandum, showing the raw traffic count data obtained from the traffic survey. To my eyes, a substantial omission from this data is any mention of the bicycle and pedestrian traffic volumes. It is implausible to me that the contractor can genuinely conclude (on page 6) that bicycle/pedestrian safety will improve when no data has been collected on the existing volume of bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The only mention of hard data is an uncited reference to the list of dangerous intersections in the city, but no time period is given, and so this reference cannot be verified. I am not a traffic surveyor, but it cannot be so difficult to collect this pedestrian/bicyclist data to answer an obvious question, yet the automated equipment is readily available to collect 150 pages of multi-day, hourly vehicle counts.

Response: Please note that the micro-simulation traffic analyses completed to inform the ultimate selection of the project improvements does include an assumption of pedestrian "calls" to mimic the setting in which pedestrians are pushing the buttons and gaining the prescribed walk and clearance times. A firm count of existing pedestrians would not affect this analysis methodology and, if anything, would likely result in a lower number of assumed pedestrians than what was conservatively assumed in the underlying analyses. While bicycle presence is a noted element of project safety enhancements, having an actual count of existing bicycles is not material to the underlying traffic analyses. This finding is due to the fact that, while bicycles using the in-lane detectors do "call" for additional clearance time to the signal controllers and presumably affect the signals' operations, in congested conditions as we see at the study

Page 410 of 1219 ends

intersections, the vehicular traffic is observed to dictate the respective phase intervals and are not anticipated to be influenced by the adjacent bicycle calls. As a result, neither pedestrian nor bicycle counts are necessary to complete the analyses and design of these facilities.

On page 5 of the memorandum, in response to the CEQA checklist question regarding Guideline section 15064.3, the contractor writes:

As a result, the City’s VMT Impact Study Guidelines conclude that a quantitative VMT study is not required. Furthermore, because the effect of the Project was comprehensively evaluated within the City’s 2035 General Plan, no additional VMT analysis (qualitative or quantitative) is required

This is factually wrong, as the 2035 General Plan did not evaluate the third left-turn lane at all, which the earlier sections of this environmental study repeatedly stated was outside the scope of the GPU FEIR.

While it is true that CEQA Guideline section 15064.3(b) does provide that a lead agency has discretion over whether a transportation project requires a VMT or LOS analysis, the City of Roseville's Traffic Impact Studies guidelines (Section 4, Roseville Design Standards 2023) demand a VMT analysis unless one or more "screening" exceptions apply:

A study using screening shall include a justification statement supporting the use of the screening criteria and evidence supporting its conclusions.

VMT Analysis: VMT analysis is required if the project does not meet any of the conditions for screening.

I do not believe the contractor's memorandum correctly restates the scope of the project, and the memorandum is missing the justification statement and evidence required by the city design standards.

Although the City of Roseville is the lead agency, and has discretion under the CEQA Guidelines, the city's own environmental studies must comply with its own requirements for VMT studies if no exception applies.

Response: The addition of the third left-turn lane is not defined as additional roadway capacity and is therefore not a trigger for inconsistency with the General Plan's assumptions. The VMT assessment as provided is considered to be appropriate based on the project's elements and the General Plan's inclusion of the project as proposed.

In closing, I am not requesting the total cancellation of the project, but I must insist on an intellectually honest and frank document that captures reasonably foreseeable impacts to people, traffic, and the environment. I am not so cynical as to believe that this document is merely a "rubber-stamp" formality to green-light unrestricted roadbuilding. But rather I think these omissions are inadvertent, and that city staff and the traffic evaluation contractor will sincerely work to rectify the overlooked sections. I look forward to seeing a revised version of this environmental study.

Regards,
Ti Nguyen
548 Cascade Dr
Roseville, CA 95678
[email protected]

Page 411 of 1219 ends

CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
for the
City of Roseville
Roseville Parkway Widening Project

August 2024

Page 412 of 1219 ends

Roseville Parkway Widening Project 1 August 2024
ICF 103175

Roseville Parkway Widening Project

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Introduction
Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require public agencies to adopt a monitoring or reporting program for projects approved under CEQA that require implementation of mitigation measures as part of project approval.

The following is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Roseville Parkway Widening Project (proposed project). The intent of the MMRP is to aid the City of Roseville with implementation and monitoring of mitigation measures adopted as part of the Roseville Parkway Widening Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).

The following mitigation measures are from the Roseville Parkway Widening Project Final IS/MND and are the responsibility of the City to implement. The MMRP describes the actions that must take place to implement each mitigation measure, the timing of those actions, and the entities responsible for implementing and monitoring the actions.

MMRP Components
The components of the attached table, which contains applicable mitigation measures, are addressed briefly, below.

Impact: This column summarizes the impact identified in the Final IS/MND.

Mitigation Measure: All mitigation measures identified in the Roseville Parkway Widening Project Draft IS/MND are presented.

Action(s): For every mitigation measure, one or more actions are described. The actions delineate the means by which the mitigation measures will be implemented, and, in some instances, the criteria for determining whether a measure has been successfully implemented.

Where mitigation measures are particularly detailed, the action may refer back to the measure for specifics.

Implementing Party: This item identifies the entity that will undertake the required action.

Timing: Implementation of the action must occur prior to or during some part of project approval, project design or construction or on an ongoing basis. The timing for each measure is identified.

Page 413 of 1219 ends

City of Roseville

CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Roseville Parkway Widening
Project 2 August 2024
ICF 103175

Monitoring Party: The City of Roseville Development Services Department, in coordination with the Public Works Department, is primarily responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures are successfully implemented. Within the City of Roseville, a number of departments and divisions could have responsibility for monitoring some aspects of the overall project. Other agencies may also be responsible for monitoring the implementation of mitigation measures. As a result, more than one monitoring party may be identified.

Page 414 of 1219 ends

City of Roseville

CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Roseville Parkway Widening
Project 3 August 2024
ICF 103175

Roseville Parkway Extension Project, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measures Action(s) Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party Biological Resources
Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Construct the Project During the Nonbreeding Season or Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors
To the extent feasible, the City will remove trees and large shrubs during the nonbreeding season for migratory birds and raptors (generally between September 1 and February 28). If construction activities (including vegetation removal) cannot be confined to the nonbreeding season, the City will retain a qualified wildlife biologist with knowledge of the relevant species to conduct nesting surveys before the start of construction. The migratory bird and raptor nesting surveys will include a minimum of two separate surveys to look for active migratory bird and raptor nests. Surveys will include a search of all vegetation that provides suitable nesting habitat in the construction area. In addition, a 500-foot area in open space areas within the construction zone will be surveyed for raptors (including burrowing owl). For survey areas outside the project site, the biologist will walk areas where property access is authorized. For portions of the survey area without property access, the biologist will scan vegetation using binoculars from the project site or from the public road. One survey should be conducted no more than 14 days prior to construction and the second survey should be conducted within 48 hours of the start of construction or vegetation removal. If no active nests are detected during these surveys, no protective measures are required.

If an active nest is found in the survey area, a no-disturbance buffer will be established around the nest site to avoid disturbance or destruction of the nest until the end of the breeding season (August 31) or after a qualified wildlife biologist determines that the young have fledged and moved out of the nesting substrate (this date varies by species). The extent of these buffers will be determined by the biologist and will depend on the level of construction disturbance, line of sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise and other disturbances, and other topographical or artificial barriers. Suitable buffer distances may vary between species but will be established a minimum of 50 feet from active construction for passerine species and up to 500 feet for non-listed raptor species. A minimum buffer of 1,000 feet will be established for an active Swainson’s hawk nest. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, or minimal construction activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be used, the City will coordinate with CDFW to determine the appropriate buffer size.

Conduct vegetation removal
during the non-breeding season
and/or conduct preconstruction
surveys for nesting migratory
birds and raptors and protect
active nests in consultation with
CDFW.

Contractor and City
of Roseville
Development
Services
Department
Conduct vegetation
removal during the
non-breading season
(between September
1 and February 28) or
conduct nesting
surveys to determine
allowable
construction work
windows.

City of Roseville
Development
Services
Department
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Roosting Bats and Implement Protection Measures To obtain the highest likelihood of detection, the following preconstruction bat surveys will be conducted within and adjacent to the construction area for each construction season. If the surveys determine that bats are roosting in the construction area, the City will implement the protective measures described below.

Conduct Preconstruction Tree Surveys
Prior to tree removal or pruning, qualified biologists will examine trees to be removed or pruned for suitable bat roosting habitat. High-value habitat features (e.g., large tree cavities, basal hollows, loose or peeling bark, and larger snags,) will be identified, and the area around these features will be searched for bats and bat sign (e.g., guano, culled insect parts, and staining). All mature broadleaf trees should be considered potential habitat for solitary foliage-roosting bat species.

If bat sign is detected, biologists will conduct evening visual emergence survey of the source habitat feature, from a half hour before sunset to 1–2 hours after sunset for a minimum of 2 nights during the season that construction would be taking place. Night-vision goggles and/or full- spectrum acoustic detectors will be used during emergence surveys to assist in species identification. All emergence surveys will be conducted during favorable weather conditions (calm nights with temperatures conducive to bat activity and no precipitation predicted).

Survey methodology may be supplemented as new research identifies advanced survey techniques and equipment that would aid in bat detections.

Identify Protective Measures for Bats Using Trees
If it is determined that bats are using trees within or adjacent to the construction area as roost sites, the City (or its designated contractor) will coordinate with CDFW to identify protective measures to avoid and minimize impacts on roosting bats based on the type of roost and timing of activities. These measures could include the following. • If feasible, tree removal and pruning of trees containing an active roost will be avoided between April 1 and September 15 (the maternity period) to avoid impacts on reproductively active females and dependent young. • If a maternity roost is located, whether solitary or colonial, that roost will remain undisturbed until September 15 or until a qualified biologist has determined that the roost is no longer active.

Conduct preconstruction tree
surveys, identify protective
measures to avoid and
minimize impacts on roosting
bats, conduct preconstruction
surveys of culverts and
implement protective measures.

Contractor and City
of Roseville
Development
Services
Department
Prior to construction City of Roseville
Development
Services
Department

Page 415 of 1219 ends

City of Roseville

CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Roseville Parkway Widening
Project 4 August 2024
ICF 103175

Roseville Parkway Extension Project, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measures Action(s) Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party • If avoidance of nonmaternity roost trees is not possible, tree removal or pruning will be monitored by a qualified biologist. Prior to removal or pruning, the tree will be gently shaken, and several minutes should pass before felling trees or pruning limbs to allow bats time to arouse and leave the tree. The tree then will be removed in pieces, rather than felling the entire tree. The biologists will search downed vegetation for dead and injured bats. The presence of dead or injured bats that are species of special concern will be reported to CDFW.

Conduct Preconstruction Surveys of Culverts
Prior to any work to replace, extend, or remove culverts, a qualified biologist will inspect box and pipe culverts for the presence of roosting bats. The biologist will conduct a daytime inspection/survey of box culverts for bat sign or occupancy to determine whether the structure is being used as a roost. The biologist conducting daytime surveys will listen for audible bat calls and will use the naked eye, binoculars, telescoping inspection mirror, and a high-powered spotlight to inspect culverts, and mud nests if present, for bats.

Surfaces and the ground around the culvert will be surveyed for bat sign, such as guano, staining, and prey remains. Pipe culverts will be inspected from the exterior using the methods listed. If no suitable features are found, and no bats or bat sign are present, then a preconstruction survey within 24 hours prior to construction will be conducted. If suitable features are found, and bats or bat sign are present, additional surveys may be conducted to determine how the culvert is used by bats (i.e., whether it is used as a night roost, maternity roost, migration stopover, or for hibernation).

Implement Protective Measures for Bats Using Culverts
To avoid disturbance, injury, or mortality of bats utilizing culverts for roosting, the City (or its contractor) will conduct all work on these structures during the day (to the extent possible and where appropriate). If this is not possible, portable lights will be used to illuminate the roosting areas prior to and after sunset to deter bats from roosting during nights when work will occur.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource that is
determined by the lead agency to
be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the criteria,
the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

Mitigation Measure TRC-1: Implement Measures to Protect Previously Unidentified Tribal Cultural Resources If any suspected tribal cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing construction activities, all work shall cease within 100 feet of the find, or an agreed upon distance based on the project area and nature of the find. A Tribal Representative from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area shall be immediately notified and shall determine if the find is a tribal cultural resource (Public Resources Code Section 21074). The Tribal Representative will make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment as necessary.

When avoidance is infeasible, preservation in place is the preferred option, and every effort will be made to preserve the resource(s) in place, including through project redesign, if feasible. Culturally appropriate treatment may be, but is not limited to, processing materials for reburial, minimizing handling of cultural objects, leaving objects in place within the landscape, or returning objects to a location within the project area where they will not be subject to future impacts. Permanent curation of tribal cultural resources will not take place unless approved in writing by the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area.

The contractor shall implement any measures deemed by the City to be necessary and feasible to preserve in place, avoid, or minimize impacts on the resource, including, but not limited to, facilitating the appropriate tribal treatment of the find, as necessary. Treatment that preserves or restores the cultural character and integrity of a tribal cultural resource may include tribal monitoring, culturally appropriate recovery of cultural objects, and reburial of cultural objects or cultural soil.

Work at the discovery location will not resume until all necessary investigation and evaluation of the discovery under the requirements of the CEQA, including AB 52, have been satisfied.

Stop work if potential tribal
cultural resources are
encountered during ground-
disturbing activities and have a
qualified archaeologist, in
consultation with culturally
affiliated tribes, evaluate the
find and develop a response
plan.

Contractor, Qualified
Archaeologist, and
City of Roseville
Development
Services
Department
During construction Contractor, City of
Roseville
Development
Services
Department

Page 416 of 1219 ends
Page 417 of 1219 ends

”
”

Page 418 of 1219 ends
Page 419 of 1219 ends
Page 420 of 1219 ends
Page 421 of 1219 ends
Page 422 of 1219 ends

½

Page 423 of 1219 ends
Page 424 of 1219 ends
Page 425 of 1219 ends
Page 426 of 1219 ends
Page 427 of 1219 ends
Page 428 of 1219 ends
Page 429 of 1219 ends
Page 430 of 1219 ends
Page 431 of 1219 ends

NO PARKING
NO

PARKING

Page 432 of 1219 ends
Page 433 of 1219 ends
Page 434 of 1219 ends
Page 435 of 1219 ends
Page 436 of 1219 ends
Page 437 of 1219 ends
Page 438 of 1219 ends
Page 439 of 1219 ends
Page 440 of 1219 ends
Page 441 of 1219 ends
Page 442 of 1219 ends
Page 443 of 1219 ends
Page 444 of 1219 ends
Page 445 of 1219 ends
Page 446 of 1219 ends
Page 447 of 1219 ends
Page 448 of 1219 ends

O NL Y ONL YO N L YO N L Y

Page 449 of 1219 ends
Page 450 of 1219 ends
Page 451 of 1219 ends
Page 452 of 1219 ends
Page 453 of 1219 ends
Page 454 of 1219 ends
Page 455 of 1219 ends
Page 456 of 1219 ends
Page 457 of 1219 ends
Page 458 of 1219 ends

M
C

GALLERIA BOULEVARD MEDIAN IRRIGATION
60'30'15'0'
N

1. MULCH: A UNIFORM 3" COVERING OF MULCH IN AREAS INDICATED ON DRAWINGS. MULCH SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE PER CITY STANDARDS, IF APPLICABLE. MULCH SHOULD NOT TOUCH TRUNK OF TREES. CONTRACTOR SHALL

INSPECT SITE DIMENSIONS AND DETERMINE LOCATIONS TO INSTALL MULCH COVERAGE WHERE IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT MANIFOLD AND VALVES ARE PROPOSED, INSTEAD OF WILLFULLY FOLLOWING THE SCHEMATIC PLANTING SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING.

2. EXISTING IRRIGATION INFORMATION: EXISTING IRRIGATION INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORD DRAWINGS PROVIDED TO MARK THOMAS BY THE CITY. MARK THOMAS ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THESE RECORD DRAWINGS. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING COMPONENTS (TO BE REMOVED AND TO REMAIN) AND NOTIFY CITY REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OR INACCURACIES.

3. EXISTING PLANTS: CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT IN PLACE ALL PLANTINGS TO REMAIN AND SHALL GUARANTEE SURVIVAL AND MAINTAIN THEIR IRRIGATION FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND FOR ONE YEAR AFTER COMPLETION. ANY PLANTINGS THAT ARE DAMAGED OR DIE WITHIN THAT TIME, SHALL BE REPLACED IN KIND PER CITY STANDARDS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY. ANY COMPONENTS OF THE EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO REMAIN THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED PER CITY STANDARDS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY.

4. EXISTING IRRIGATION COMPONENTS: ALL EXISTING IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS TO REMAIN SHALL BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTING EQUIPMENT TO REMAIN IS IN PROPER WORKING CONDITION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES AND SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY IN WRITING IF NOT.

GALLERIA BLVD

PLANTING AND IRRIGATION NOTES

GALLERIA BOULEVARD MEDIAN PLANTING
60'30'15'0'
N

GALLERIA BLVD

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY

GALLERIA

KEY MAP (THIS PAGE)
N.T.S.

BLVD

GALLERIA BOULEVARD MEDIAN
N

PLANTING LEGEND

SYMBOL ABBREV BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WATER USE SPACING QUANTITY TREES

EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN

GROUNDCOVER
CON MAU CONVOVULVUS MAURITANICUS BLUE ROCK BINDWEED 1 GAL L 3'-0" O.C. 245 JUN PRO JUNIPERUS PROCUMBENS 'NANA' DWARF JAPANESE JUNIPER 1 GAL L 6'-0" O.C. 78 F
A

IRRIGATION LEGEND
SYMBOL MANUF. MODEL NO. DESCRIPTION
IRRITROL MC-12E IRRIGATION CONTROLLER ASSEMBLY, MC-12E WITH 12 STATIONS. INSTALL IN EXISTING CONTROLLER PEDESTAL ON-SITE, VERIFY LOCATION OF EXISTING CONTROLLER IN FIELD. CONNECT EXISTING CONTROL WIRES AND NEW CONTROL WIRES TO NEW CONTROLLER.

N/A N/A EXISTING WATER METER TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EQUIPMENT LOCATION AND WORKING CONDITION IN FIELD.

N/A N/A EXISTING BACKFLOW PREVENTER TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EQUIPMENT LOCATION AND WORKING CONDITION IN FIELD.

RAINBIRD XCZ100PRBLC DRIP CONTROL ZONE KIT , RAINBIRD XCZ-100-PRBLC, 1" SIZE WITH OPERATING RANGE OF 0.3 TO 20 GPM. BALL VALVE, FORD BRASS BALL VALVE, B-11 SERIES, SIZE PER PLAN. INSTALL PER DETAIL AND CITY SPECIFICATIONS.

HARDIE 703 SERIES EXISTING REMOTE CONTROL VALVE TO REMAIN RAINBIRD 44-LRC EXISTING QUICK COUPLING VALVE TO REMAIN

N/A N/A EXISTING TREE BUBBLER TO REMAIN
PVC N/A EXISTING IRRIGATION MAINLINE TO REMAIN. SIZED 3" PER AS-BUILTS.

PVC SCH 40 EXISTING IRRIGATION LATERAL TO REMAIN
PVC SCH 40 LATERAL LINE, SCH. 40 PVC, SIZE PER PLANS. INSTALL PER CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS.

NETAFIM TLHCVXR-18 SUBSURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION FOR PLANTING AREA, NETAFIM TECHLINE HCVXR-18 DRIPLINE, 0.33GPH. DRIPLINE LAYOUT TO BE 18" ON CENTER, WITH AUTOMATIC FLUSH VALVE, NETAFIM TLFV-1 IN 6" ROUND BOX AND AIR-RELIEF VALVE, NETAFIM TLAVRV IN 6" ROUND BOX. INSTALL PER DETAILS.

NETAFIM TLAVRV AIR-RELIEF VALVE, NETAFIM TLAVRV. LOCATE AT HIGHEST POINT IN SYSTEM AND INSTALL PER DETAIL.

NETAFIM TLFV-1 AUTOMATIC FLUSH VALVE, NETAFIM TLFV-1. LOCATE AT LOWEST POINT AND INSTALL PER DETAIL.

M
3"
1"
1"
C
ID-1
1 ID-1
2 ID-1
4 ID-1
3 ID-2
1 NEW CONTROLLER 'E'
NEW 12 STATION CONTROLLER, 7 STATIONS USED. NEW

IRRIGATION CONTROLLER SHALL CONNECT TO EXISTING
SERVICE FOR POWER. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY 120
VOLTS IS AVAILABLE FOR SERVICE.

EXISTING WATER METER AND ASSOCIATED BACKFLOW PREVENTER ARE NOT SHOWN ON PROVIDED AS-BUILT RECORD PLANS. LOCATION IS BASED ON GOOGLE STREET VIEW OBSERVATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SIZE AND LOCATION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES. THE

IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS DESIGNED BASED ON AN ASSUMED STATIC WATER PRESSURE OF 45 PSI AND AN ASSUMED MAXIMUM DEMAND OF 15 GPM.

CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY STATIC PRESSURE AT P.O.C. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IN THE EVENT PRESSURE DIFFERENCES ARE NOT

REPORTED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY NECESSARY REVISIONS.

JUN PRO34
JUN PRO44
CON MAU59
CON MAU85
CON MAU101

VALVE SIZEAPPROXIMATE GPM THROUGH VALVE

ALL NEW AND EXISTING PLANTING AREAS

WITHIN THE GALLERIA BOULEVARD MEDIAN
SHALL RECEIVE A UNIFORM 3" LAYER OF
MULCH.
3/4"

0.24 1.78
1"
E-7

1.0 2.0
1"
E-1

PRECIPITATION RATECONTROLLER VALVE NUMBER

BUBBLERS AND ASSOCIATED LATERAL LINES

FOR THESE TREES ARE NOT SHOWN IN
AS-BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS. LOCATIONS

SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE BASED ON SITE
OBSERVATION ONLY.

ID-2
2 ID-1
5

Page 459 of 1219 ends

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY

GALLERIA

KEY MAP (THIS PAGE)
N.T.S.

BLVD

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY MEDIAN
60'30'15'0'
N

TWO EXISTING REMOTE CONTROL VALVES AND ASSOCIATED BOXES TO BE RELOCATED OUTSIDE LIMITS OF REMOVAL AND DEMOLITION AS SHOWN. LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE DIAGRAMATIC. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL RELOCATE AND RECONNECT TO EXISTING SYSTEM TO REMAIN. INSTALLATION SHALL BE DONE PER CITY STANDARD DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS.

CUT AND CAP EXISTING IRRIGATION

MAINLINE AT LIMIT OF REMOVAL
(THIS APPROXIMATE LOCATION).

EXISTING QUICK COUPLING VALVE

AND BOX TO BE REMOVED AND
RETURNED TO THE CITY.

HATCH INDICATES LIMITS OF IMPACT TO EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM. CONTRACTOR

SHALL MAKE ALL NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING SUBSURFACE DRIP LINES,

LATERAL LINES, BUBBLERS, AND ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS, INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF

NEW COMPONENTS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY, TO CONTINUE PROPER IRRIGATION OF EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY.

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY MEDIAN

EXISTING QUICK

COUPLING VALVE

AND BOX TO REMAIN

EXISTING MAINLINE
N

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY PLANTER STRIP
60'30'15'0'
N

HATCH INDICATES REMOVAL EXISTING TURF AND
IRRIGATION AND PLACEMENT 3" MULCH.

CONTRACTOR SHALL CAP EXISTING IRRIGATION

LINES AND ENSURE THE ONGOING IRRIGATION OF
EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN.

HATCH INDICATES LIMITS OF TURF FROM SOD (APPROX 290 SF) AND ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM. TURF FROM SOD SHALL BE 90/10 TALL FESCUE AVAILABLE FROM DELTA BLUEGRASS, (800) 637-8873. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ALL NECESSARY

ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING IRRIGATION COMPONENTS, INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION

OF NEW COMPONENTS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY, TO CONTINUE PROPER

IRRIGATION OF EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN AND NEW TURF FROM SOD TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY.

HATCH INDICATES AREAS OF IMPACTED EXISTING PLANTING AND IRRIGATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE

ALL NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SPRAY

HEADS, LATERAL LINES, MAIN LINES, BUBBLERS, SUB SURFACE DRIP, AND ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS,

INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF NEW COMPONENTS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY, TO CONTINUE PROPER IRRIGATION OF EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE ALL NON TREE PLANTINGS IN KIND TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER (ASSUME 1 GALLON CONTAINERS TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARDS). CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE EXISTING MULCH (ASSUME 3" DEPTH) AND REPLACE WITH NEW MULCH (SEE NOTES, THIS SHEET).

HATCH INDICATES AREAS OF IMPACTED EXISTING PLANTING AND IRRIGATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL

MAKE ALL NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO

SPRAY HEADS, LATERAL LINES, MAIN LINES, BUBBLERS, SUB SURFACE DRIP, AND ASSOCIATED

COMPONENTS, INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF NEW COMPONENTS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY,

TO CONTINUE PROPER IRRIGATION OF EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE ALL NON TREE PLANTINGS IN KIND TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER (ASSUME 1 GALLON CONTAINERS TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARDS). CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE EXISTING MULCH (ASSUME 3" DEPTH) AND REPLACE WITH NEW MULCH (SEE NOTES, THIS SHEET).

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY PLANTER STRIP

Page 460 of 1219 ends

60'30'15'0'

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY

PLEASANT

KEY MAP (THIS PAGE)
N.T.S.

SOUTHBOUND PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
N

SOUTHBOUND PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
N

GROVE BLVD

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY

WEST DRIVE
60'30'15'0'
N

WESTBOUND ROSEVILLE PARKWAY & WEST DRIVE BUS STOP
HATCH INDICATES AREAS OF IMPACTED EXISTING PLANTING AND IRRIGATION.

CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ALL NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING IRRIGATION

SYSTEM INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SPRAY HEADS, LATERAL LINES, MAIN LINES,

BUBBLERS, SUB SURFACE DRIP, AND ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS, INCLUDING THE

INSTALLATION OF NEW COMPONENTS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY, TO CONTINUE

PROPER IRRIGATION OF EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE ALL NON TREE PLANTINGS IN KIND TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER (ASSUME 1 GALLON CONTAINERS TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARDS). CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE EXISTING MULCH (ASSUME 3" DEPTH) AND REPLACE WITH NEW MULCH (SEE NOTES, SHEET IR-1).

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY

WESTBOUND ROSEVILLE PARKWAY
& WEST DRIVE BUS STOP

ONE EXISTING REMOTE CONTROL VALVE AND ASSOCIATED BOX TO BE RELOCATED OUTSIDE LIMITS OF REMOVAL AND DEMOLITION AS SHOWN. LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE DIAGRAMATIC. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL RELOCATE AND RECONNECT TO EXISTING SYSTEM TO REMAIN. INSTALLATION SHALL BE DONE PER CITY STANDARD DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS.

CUT AND CAP EXISTING IRRIGATION MAINLINE

AT LIMIT OF REMOVAL
(THIS APPROXIMATE LOCATION).

EXISTING QUICK COUPLING VALVE, ONE

REMOTE CONTROL VALVE, AND

ASSOCIATED BOXES TO BE REMOVED
AND RETURNED TO THE CITY.

HATCH INDICATES LIMITS OF IMPACT TO EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM. CONTRACTOR

SHALL MAKE ALL NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING SUBSURFACE DRIP LINES,

LATERAL LINES, BUBBLERS, AND ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS, INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF

NEW COMPONENTS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY, TO CONTINUE PROPER IRRIGATION OF EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY.

EXISTING QUICK COUPLING

VALVE, REMOTE CONTROL

VALVES, AND ASSOCIATED

BOXES TO REMAIN

EXISTING MAINLINE

Page 461 of 1219 ends

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
60'30'15'0'
N

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD

KEY MAP (THIS PAGE)
N.T.S.

NORTHBOUND PLEASANT GROVE BLVD & PIONEER ROAD CORNER

PIONEER ROAD
HATCH INDICATES LIMITS OF IMPACT TO EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM. CONTRACTOR

SHALL MAKE ALL NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING HEADS, MAINLINE, GATE VALVES,

REMOTE CONTROL VALVES, CONTROL WIRE, QUICK COUPLER VALVES, LATERAL LINES,

BUBBLERS, AND ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS, INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF NEW

COMPONENTS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY, TO CONTINUE PROPER IRRIGATION OF EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY.

HATCH INDICATES PLACEMENT OF

NEW PAVEMENT AND CURB AND
GUTTER PER CIVIL PLANS.

N

NORTHBOUND PLEASANT GROVE BLVD &

PIONEER ROAD CORNER

ONE EXISTING REMOTE CONTROL VALVE AND ASSOCIATED IRRIGATION

EQUIPMENT TO BE RELOCATED OUTSIDE LIMITS OF REMOVAL AND DEMOLITION AS SHOWN. LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE
DIAGRAMATIC. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL RELOCATE AND RECONNECT TO EXISTING SYSTEM TO REMAIN. INSTALLATION SHALL BE DONE PER CITY STANDARD DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS.

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD & ROSEVILLE PKWY CORNER
60'30'15'0'
N

NEW SIDEWALK

PER CIVIL PLANS

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
HATCH INDICATES LIMITS OF TURF FROM SOD (APPROX 175 SF) AND ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM. TURF FROM SOD SHALL BE 90/10 TALL FESCUE AVAILABLE FROM DELTA BLUEGRASS, (800) 637-8873.

CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ALL NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING

IRRIGATION COMPONENTS, INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF NEW

COMPONENTS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY, TO CONTINUE PROPER

IRRIGATION OF EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN AND NEW TURF FROM SOD TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY.

EXISTING IRRIGATION VALVE BOXES AND

ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT TO BE RELOCATED

IN PLANTING AREA TO REMAIN AT BACK OF
CURB. BOXES AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE

REINSTALLED AND CONNECTED TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE CITY.

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD & ROSEVILLE

PKWY CORNER
HATCH INDICATES LIMITS OF TURF FROM SOD (APPROX 75 SF) AND ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM. TURF FROM SOD SHALL BE 90/10 TALL FESCUE AVAILABLE FROM DELTA BLUEGRASS, (800) 637-8873.

CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ALL NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING

IRRIGATION COMPONENTS, INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF NEW

COMPONENTS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY, TO CONTINUE PROPER

IRRIGATION OF EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN AND NEW TURF FROM SOD TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY.

Page 462 of 1219 ends

N.T.S.CITY OF ROSEVILLE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DRIP CONTROL VALVE1
ID-1
N.T.S.CITY OF ROSEVILLE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DRIP FLUSH VALVE3
ID-1
N.T.S.CITY OF ROSEVILLE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PIPE TRENCHING5
ID-1N.T.S.

AIR-RELIEF VALVE4
ID-2
NOTES:

1. REFER TO IRRIGATION DETAIL FOR MORE INFO.

2. PLACE 3/4" DRAIN ROCK PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF VALVE BOX.

3. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS AND PLAN SHEETS FOR MORE INFORMATION.

4. DO NOT INSTALL IN PAVED AREAS.

5. IF IRRIGATION USES RECYCLED WATER, DETAIL SHALL CONFORM WITH RECYCLED WATER USE GUIDELINES.

KEY:

DRIP LINE OR PVC LATERAL.

ADAPTER FITTING AS REQUIRED.

PLASTIC VALVE BOX W/ COVER
& EXTENSION IF REQUIRED.

AUTOMATIC AIR RELIEF VALVE.
1/2" THREADED PVC TEE.
3/4" DIAMETER DRAIN ROCK.
1 2
3 4
5 6
2 1/2" IN PLANTING BED
N.T.S.CITY OF ROSEVILLE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SUBSURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION2
ID-1

Page 463 of 1219 ends

N.T.S.

GROUNDCOVER SPACING1
PD-2
N.T.S.CITY OF ROSEVILLE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SHRUB PLANTING2
PD-2
EQUAL
EQUAL
EQUAL
D
D OR
36" MIN.CL CL
KEY:

MOW CURB, PAVEMENT EDGE, OR WOOD
HEADER.

TYPICAL SPACING (D). SEE PLANTING PLAN.

GROUNDCOVER PLANT, SIZE AS DENOTED ON
PLANTING PLAN.

SHRUB MASS, TYP.

D OR
36" MIN.

Page 464 of 1219 ends

DETAIL 'A'
SCALE: NO SCALE

EVP ASSIGNMENTS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL REMOVAL

EXISTING PHASING DIAGRAM

ROSEVILLEPARKWAYPLEASANT GROVE

BOULEVARD

PLEASANT GROVE

BOULEVARD

ROSEVILLEPARKWAY
NORTH
NORTH
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

TS-01

TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION PLAN

PROPOSED PHASING DIAGRAM

Page 465 of 1219 ends

TS-02
E

EE E E E E

EE E E E E

DETAIL 'B'
MODIFIED R73-5(CA)
SCALE: NO SCALE

TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION PLAN

Page 466 of 1219 ends

TS-03

EVP ASSIGNMENTS
EXISTING PHASING DIAGRAM CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

GALLERIA BOULEVARD

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY
NORTH

TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION PLAN

DETAIL 'A'
MODIFIED R73-6(CA)
SCALE: NO SCALE

GALLERIA

BOULEVARD

ROSEVILLEPARKWAY

TRAFFIC SIGNAL REMOVAL
SCALE: 1"=40'
NORTH

Page 467 of 1219 ends

∅

Page 468 of 1219 ends

∅

Page 469 of 1219 ends

Streets & Bridges
Project Manual

Name of project:

Roseville Parkway Widening Project—Phase 1
City Project # 500116

Department:

Public Works—Engineering

Page 470 of 1219 ends

Project NO. 500116

The special provisions contained herein have
been prepared by or under the direction of the
following Registered Persons.

ROADWAY

Eduard Muzychuk, Registered Civil Engineer

STRUCTURES

Michael Bianucci, Registered Civil Engineer

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

Erik Smith, Registered Landscape Architect

ELECTRICAL

Robert Paderna, Registered Civil Engineer
Eduard
Muzychuk
90738
12/31/ 25
CIVIL
Michael
Wayne Bianucci
C52085
12 /3 1/26
Erik R.

Smith
No. 4585
Exp 0 8/31 /26
Robert V.

Paderna
73262
12 /3 1/26

Page 471 of 1219 ends
Page 472 of 1219 ends

[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pagination Notation
Notice to Contractors NTC
Instructions to Bidders INT
Proposal PROP
Insurance Broker Information Packet INS
Standard Construction Specifications SCS
Assembly Bill No. 626 AB 626
Special Provisions (if applicable) SP
Construction Details CD

Page 473 of 1219 ends

NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS

Page 474 of 1219 ends

NTC - 1
[B:\Public Works\CIP\1_Current Projects\NCR CFD Improvement Project\Bid Documents\Final 100% PS&E\Project Manual\RPW Phase 1_NTC.docx; 1/27/2026]

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Name of Project: ROSEVILLE PARKWAY WIDENING (PHASE 1) PROJECT City of Roseville Contract: 500116

NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT sealed Proposal will be received at the Office of the City Clerk, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, California, until ___________________________ at 3:00 p.m. Late proposals will be rejected. No exceptions.

The Proposals will be publicly opened and read by the City Clerk or designee of the City of Roseville at 3:05 p.m. on _____________________, 20__ at the Office of the City Clerk located at 311 Vernon Street, Roseville California for the following project: ROSEVILLE PARKWAY WIDENING (PHASE 1) PROJECT.

A pre-bid meeting will be held at ____________________________________________ ______________________________________________.

A Project Manual, including all Contract Documents and the Proposal forms for bidding this project, may be obtained on-line from the City of Roseville’s website at https://www.roseville.ca.us/business/procurement_services/bids_rfps. All communications relative to this project shall be conducted through Public Purchase.

Bids shall be submitted on the City’s Proposal Forms included in the Project Manual, plainly endorsed with the Bidder’s name together with signed acknowledgement of any and all addenda. Proposal Forms shall be securely sealed in a suitable envelope marked with the name

Page 475 of 1219 ends

NTC - 2
[B:\Public Works\CIP\1_Current Projects\NCR CFD Improvement Project\Bid Documents\Final 100% PS&E\Project Manual\RPW Phase 1_NTC.docx; 1/27/2026]
and address of the Bidder, and marked in capital letters on the front and back of the envelope as follows:

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY WIDENING (PHASE 1) PROJECT
(Name of Bidder)
(Address of Bidder)

Whether mailed or personally delivered, all bids shall be addressed to the City of Roseville, Office of the City Clerk, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, California, 95678.

Each bid must be accompanied by a Bid Guaranty in the form of a Certificate of Deposit, Certified or Cashier’s Check, Bidder’s Bond or Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit in an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the Bidder’s Grand Total Price. The Bid Guaranty will be retained by the City and applied to any and all damages sustained by the City in the event that the successful Bidder fails or refuses to enter into the Contract awarded to it and to furnish all required bonds and Certificates of Insurance. The City intends to award the Contract to the lowest responsible Bidder based on the Grand Total Bid Price for all components of the Project.

To the extent allowed by law, the City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and/or to waive any irregularities or informalities in any bid or in the bidding procedure. The City specifically reserves the right to not award the Contract after the opening of bids.

Any bid may be withdrawn at any time prior to the time fixed in the public notice for the deadline submission of bids only by written request for the withdrawal of the bid filed with the City Clerk. The request shall be executed by the Bidder or his or her duly authorized representative. The withdrawal of a bid does not prejudice the right of the Bidder to file a new bid by the submission deadline. Whether or not bids are opened exactly at the time fixed in the

Page 476 of 1219 ends

NTC - 3
[B:\Public Works\CIP\1_Current Projects\NCR CFD Improvement Project\Bid Documents\Final 100% PS&E\Project Manual\RPW Phase 1_NTC.docx; 1/27/2026]
public notice for opening bids, a bid will not be received after the deadline submission of bids nor may any bid be withdrawn after the time fixed in the public notice for deadline for submission of bids. Immediately following the deadline for submission of bids all bids shall become the property of the City of Roseville and the City is under no obligation to return bids.

Bids will be examined and reported to the City Council within sixty (60) business days after the bid opening. Except as permitted by applicable law, no Bidder may withdraw its bid for a period of sixty (60) business days after the date of bid opening. Each Bidder will be notified of any award of the Contract by the City.

The City will affirmatively ensure non-discrimination on the basis of one or more of the following: race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status in the award and administration of contracts that it awards.

Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22300, the successful Bidder may submit certain securities in lieu of the City withholding retention of payments during the Project.

The City has determined that the Contractor shall possess a valid CLASS A, GENERAL ENGINEERING Contractor's license at the time that the bid is submitted, as well as any other license classification as may be required by the laws of the California for the performance of the work specified in the Contract Documents. Said license shall be maintained during the Contract period. Failure to possess the specified license shall render the bid nonresponsive and will act as a bar to the award of the Contract to any Bidder not possessing such a license at the time of bid submittal. The Contractor shall provide certification of the license, its number and the expiration date on the proposal form.

Page 477 of 1219 ends

NTC - 4
[B:\Public Works\CIP\1_Current Projects\NCR CFD Improvement Project\Bid Documents\Final 100% PS&E\Project Manual\RPW Phase 1_NTC.docx; 1/27/2026]
The work is to be done in Placer County. Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1773, the City has ascertained the General Prevailing Rate of Wages in the County in which the work is to be done to be as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California. The Contractor is hereby made aware that information regarding prevailing wage rates may be obtained from the State Department of Industrial Relations and/or the following website address: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/DPreWageDetermination.htm. The Contractor is required to post a copy of the applicable wage rates at the job site. Attention is directed to Section 7 “Legal Relations and Responsibility” of the Standard Construction Specifications.

Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.1(b), notice is hereby given that a contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in Labor Code Sections 1720, et seq., unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5 or exempt from registration requirements pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5(f). It is not a violation of Labor Code Section 1771.1 for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform work pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded or is exempt from registration requirements pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5(f). The Contractor is hereby notified that this project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.

All questions prior to the deadline for bid submissions shall be directed to the attention of KAREN VENCES via PUBLIC PURCHASE. The deadline for submissions of questions and

Page 478 of 1219 ends

NTC - 5
[B:\Public Works\CIP\1_Current Projects\NCR CFD Improvement Project\Bid Documents\Final 100% PS&E\Project Manual\RPW Phase 1_NTC.docx; 1/27/2026]
clarifications regarding the Contract Documents is _______ calendar days before the deadline for bid submissions. Only Addenda issued by the City are binding.

___________________________________
City Clerk, City of Roseville

Dated: _____________________________
Published: ________________________

Page 479 of 1219 ends

INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

Page 480 of 1219 ends

INT - 1
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
SECTION 1. GENERAL
1-1.01 GENERAL. These Instructions to Bidders form a part of the Contract Documents. Capitalized terms are defined in Standard Construction Specifications Section 1. 1-1.02 EXAMINATION OF PLANS, CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND
SITE OF THE WORK. The Bidder shall examine carefully the site of the Work and all the Contract Documents, including these Instructions to Bidders, and shall inform itself of the conditions relating to the execution of the Work. Failure to do so will not relieve the successful Bidder of its obligation to enter into an Agreement and complete the Work in strict accordance with the Contract Documents. Conditions relating to the execution of the Work include the requirements of federal, state, and local laws, statutes and ordinances relative to the execution of Work, including, but not limited to, applicable regulations concerning prevailing wage rates, non-discrimination in the employment of labor, protection of the public, employee health and safety, and environmental protection.

The submission of a bid shall be conclusive evidence that the Bidder has investigated and is satisfied as to the conditions to be encountered, as to the character, quality, and scope of Work to be performed, the quantities of materials to be furnished, and as to the requirements of all the Contract Documents.
1-1.03 EXISTING INFORMATION. Where the Department has made investigations of site conditions, including subsurface conditions in areas where Work is to be performed under the Contract, such investigations are made only for the purpose of study and design. City does not represent that such conditions as found in these investigations or inferences or conclusions drawn as a result of these investigations will represent actual site

Page 481 of 1219 ends

INT - 2
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] conditions and hereby disclaims any liability as a result of Contractor’s or Bidder’s reliance on such investigations. City will presume that all Bidders have conducted their own site investigations, including investigations of subsurface conditions. Where such investigations have been made, Bidders or Contractors may, upon written request, inspect the records of the Department as to such investigations subject to the conditions set forth in these Instructions to Bidders. Such inspection of records may be made only at the location noted above. The records of such investigations are not a part of the Contract Documents and are shown solely for the convenience of the Bidder or Contractor. The City assumes no responsibility whatsoever with respect to the sufficiency or accuracy of the investigations made, the records thereof, or of the interpretations set forth therein or made by the City in its use thereof. The City makes no warranty or guarantee, either express or implied, that the conditions indicated by such investigations or records are representative of those existing throughout such areas, or any part thereof, or that unforeseen developments may not occur, or that materials other than, or in proportions different from those indicated, may not be encountered.

No information derived from such inspection of records of investigations or compilation thereof made by the City, the Department or from the Engineer, or his or her assistants, will in any way relieve the Bidder or Contractor from properly examining the site and making such additional investigations as it may elect, or from properly fulfilling the terms of the Contract.

Page 482 of 1219 ends

INT - 3
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] SECTION 2: BID REQUIREMENTS
2-1.01 PROPOSAL FORMS. The Department will furnish to each Bidder standard Proposal Forms, which, when filled out and executed may be submitted as the bid.

Proposals shall include all pages in the Project Manual with page numbers marked “PROP” plus the Addendum acknowledgment form (front sheet) from all Addenda received by the Bidder.

Proposals shall be removed from the Project Manual. The full Project Manual shall not be submitted with the proposal. Bids not presented on forms so furnished will be disregarded.

The Proposal and one (1) copy thereof shall be submitted as directed in the “Notice to Contractors” under sealed cover plainly marked as a Proposal, and identifying the project to which the Proposal relates and the date of the bid opening therefor. Proposals which are not properly marked may be disregarded.

All blank spaces in the Proposal must be completed, as required, in ink. All price information shall be shown, clearly legible, in figures where required.

The Bidder shall sign the Proposal in the blank space provided therefor. If the Bidder is the sole owner, the Proposal shall be signed by the owner. If the Bidder is a corporation, the legal name of the corporation and its State of incorporation shall be set forth and the Proposal shall be signed by at least two officers authorized to sign contracts on behalf of the corporation.

If the Bidder is a partnership, the true name of the firm shall be set forth, the names and addresses of all partners shall be given and the Proposal shall be signed by a partner in the firm authorized to sign contracts on behalf of the partnership. If the Bidder is a joint venture, the Proposal shall be signed on behalf of each participating company by officers or other individuals who have the full and proper authorization to do so. If the Proposal is signed by an agent of the Bidder other than an officer of a corporation or a member of a partnership, a notarized Power of

Page 483 of 1219 ends

INT - 4
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] Attorney must be on file with the City prior to opening of bids or must be submitted with the Proposal. If requested by the City, the Bidder shall promptly submit evidence satisfactory to the City of the authority of the person signing the Proposal. 2-1.02 SUBMISSION OF BIDS. Bids must be submitted at the prescribed time and location specified in the Notice to Contractors. Any submission received after the prescribed time shall be rejected, regardless of whether or not bids are opened exactly at the prescribed time.

Any unauthorized conditions or qualifications entered on, or changes made to, the Proposal may render it invalid and may cause its rejection.

No telegraphic, telephonic, or facsimile or other electronically transmitted bids will be considered.
2-1.03 REQUIRED LISTING OF PROPOSED SUBCONTRACTORS. Each Proposal shall list the name, address and Contractor license number of each Subcontractor to whom the Bidder proposes to subcontract portions of the Work in an amount in excess of one- half of one percent (0.5%) of its total bid, in accordance with Section 4100 to 4114, inclusive, of the Public Contract Code for the State of California. The Bidder shall list the Subcontractor’s license number and the portion of the Work that will be done by each Subcontractor. If the Bidder fails to specify a Subcontractor for any portion of the Work, the Bidder agrees to perform that portion of the Work itself, and represents that it is qualified to perform that portion of the Work itself. The Bidder's attention is invited to other provisions of the Public Contract Code related to the imposition of penalties for a failure to observe its provisions by using unauthorized Subcontractors or by making unauthorized substitutions.

Page 484 of 1219 ends

INT - 5
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] 2-1.04 CONTRACTOR’S LICENSING LAWS. Attention is directed to the provisions of Business and Professions Code Chapter 9 of Division 3 concerning the licensing of Contractors.

All Bidders at the time of bid submittal shall be licensed as Contractors in accordance with the laws of this State. Any Bidder or Contractor not so licensed is subject to the penalties imposed by such laws. The form of Contractor's license required is stated in the Notice to Contractors, provided that the City makes no representation as to whether the State may require other or additional licenses. It is the Bidder's and Contractor's responsibility to obtain the correct Contractor's licenses. Bidders shall be skilled and regularly engaged in the general class or type of Work called for under this Contract.

All Bidders and Contractors, including Subcontractors, shall have a current City business license before undertaking any Work.
2-1.05 NONCOLLUSION DECLARATION. By submitting a bid, the Bidder represents and warrants that such bid is genuine and not a sham or collusive or made in the interest or on the behalf of any person therein named, and that the Bidder has not, directly or indirectly, included or solicited any other Bidder to put in a sham bid, or any other person, firm, or corporation to refrain from bidding, and that the Bidder has not in any manner sought collusion to secure the Bidder an advantage over any other Bidder.

Bidders shall submit a properly completed and executed “Noncollusion Declaration” in the form required by Public Contract Code Section 7106 and provided with the Proposal (PROP- 11).
2-1.06 DISQUALIFICATION, REMOVAL OR OTHER PREVENTION OF BIDDING. A bid may be rejected on the basis of a Bidder, any officer of such Bidder, or any

Page 485 of 1219 ends

INT - 6
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] employee of such Bidder who has a proprietary interest in such Bidder, having been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local project because of a violation of law or a safety regulation.
2-1.07 PROPOSAL GUARANTY. All bids shall be accompanied by one of the following forms of Bidder's security: Cash, a cashier's check, a certified check, or a Bidder's bond executed by an admitted California surety insurer, made payable to the City of Roseville, or any other form of security deemed acceptable by the City Attorney. The security shall be in an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the amount bid. A bid will not be considered unless one of the form of Bidder's security is enclosed with it.

A Bidder's bond shall conform to the City's bond form in the Proposal and shall be properly filled out and executed.
2-1.08 SCHEDULE OF BID PRICES. Bidders are directed to submit firm unit and lump sum prices for all Work set forth in the Contract Documents on the Proposal Form entitled “Schedule of Bid Prices.”
Unit prices and lump sum prices, as indicated, must be entered in the appropriate spaces provided in the Schedule of Bid Prices. If applicable, unit prices shall be multiplied by the quantities shown, and the total shall be inserted in the Amount column. In the event of any error or discrepancy between the unit price and the calculated amount, the unit prices shall govern.

The City may correct any mathematical errors apparent on the face of the bid.

The amounts shown in the Amount column must be added together in arriving at the Grand Total Bid Price.

Amounts for Allowance bid items must be entered in the exact amount in the Amount column.

Page 486 of 1219 ends

INT - 7
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] The prices included within the Schedule of Bid Prices shall include all costs for labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, Subcontractors, suppliers, taxes, insurance, shipment, delivery, overhead, profit, and all other costs necessary to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents.

The Grand Total Bid Price shall be indicated in the Summary table form included with the Schedule of Bid Prices. The Grand Total Bid Price shall be the sum of the amounts bid for each of the designated portions of the Work, as more specifically described on the Schedule of Bid Prices form itself.

Full compensation for complying with the Contract Documents, including requirements of the Standard Specifications, the Standard Construction Specifications, Supplemental Conditions, and all warranties, shall be considered included in the bid items and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefor.

Full compensation for completion of all work as shown on the plans, as specified in the Specifications, and as directed by the City, shall be considered included in the bid items and no additional compensation shall be allowed.

Bidders are strongly discouraged from submitting unbalanced bids. As used herein, the term “unbalanced bid” is defined as any bid that does not include a reasonable proportionate allocation of indirect costs and profit of each bid item indicated in the Schedule of Bid Prices.

The City reserves the right to reject any unbalanced bid if the City determines that there is a reasonable doubt that an acceptance of the bid will not result in the lowest ultimate cost to the City with regard to the work or a disproportionate distribution of contract funds.

The City reserves the right to delete any bid item in its entirety and/or significantly reduce the quantity of Work under a bid item. The City makes no representation that any Work

Page 487 of 1219 ends

INT - 8
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] under a bid item will be performed during the course of the Project or that the Work will be performed at the quantities included in the Schedule of Bid Prices. As provided in the Standard Construction Specifications, for any deleted Work, Contractor shall not be entitled to payment of the indirect costs and profit included for said bid item. All bid items shall be considered distinct and severable from the remaining bid items, and each Bidder acts at its peril if its bid is unbalanced.

The City shall compare bids on the basis of the Grand Total Bid Price, which includes the base bid and any alternates designated on the Schedule of Bid Prices. Alternates may or may not be awarded, or may be awarded in any combination, at the City’s discretion. 2-1.09 WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS. Any bid may be withdrawn at any time prior to the time fixed in the Notice to Contractors for the opening of bids, provided that a request in writing, executed by the Bidder or its duly authorized representative, for the withdrawal of such bid is filed with the City Clerk. Facsimile and electronic mail requests are not acceptable. The withdrawal of a bid shall not prejudice the right of a Bidder to file a new bid. The withdrawal of any bid after the time fixed in the Notice to Contractors for the opening of bids will not be permitted.
2-1.10 ADDENDUM. Proposals shall include all costs and account for all Addenda issued prior to opening of bids. The Bidder is responsible for verifying that all issued Addenda have been received. An Addendum acknowledgment form for each Addendum shall be included as part of the Proposal submittal.
2-1.11 PUBLIC OPENING OF PROPOSALS. Proposals will be publicly opened and read at the time and place indicated in the Notice to Contractors. Bidders or their authorized agents are invited to be present.

Page 488 of 1219 ends

INT - 9
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] 2-1.12 TRENCHING AND EXCAVATION WORK. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 6707, if the Work involves construction of a pipeline, sewer, sewage disposal system, boring or jacking pits, or similar trenches or open excavations, which are five feet (5') or deeper, each bid submitted shall contain, as a bid item, adequate sheeting, shoring, and bracing, or equivalent method, for the protection of life or limb, which shall conform to all applicable safety orders.

Page 489 of 1219 ends

INT - 10
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] SECTION 3: EVALUATION OF BIDS
3-1.01 BID EVALUATION PROCESS. Bids will be evaluated to determine the apparent low Bidder. The apparent low Bidder will be determined on the basis of the Grand Total Bid Price, as shown in the Schedule of Bid Prices. If additive or deductive alternates are used in the Schedule of Bid Prices, the apparent low Bidder will be the Bidder with the lowest total of the bid prices for base contract items plus the alternates designated by the City as those that will be used for determining the lowest bid price. However, the City reserves the right to (1) not award any alternates or (2) award any combination of alternates.

In case of discrepancy between the total of the base contract items and any specified alternates and the stated Grand Total Bid Price, the total of the base contract items plus specified alternates shall prevail. Any mathematical errors that appear on the face of the bid will be corrected by the City and the City will use the mathematically corrected addition. For example, if the mathematical total of Bidder’s base contract items plus specified alternates equals $1,000,000, but the Bidder has written $1,250,000 as the Grand Total Bid Price, the City will consider $1,000,000 to be the Bidder’s Grand Total Bid Price for purposes of comparison to other Bidders and actual bid award. The City reserves its rights to reject or accept bids based on discrepancies between the stated Grand Total Bid Price and the actual mathematical total of the base contract bid items, plus specified alternates.
3-1.02 REJECTION OF IRREGULAR PROPOSALS. Proposals may be rejected in the City's sole discretion if they show any alterations of form, additions not called for, conditional bids, incomplete bids, erasures, or irregularities of any kind. However, the City reserves the right to waive any minor irregularities and informalities in any bid or in the bid procedure for any reason.

Page 490 of 1219 ends

INT - 11
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] 3-1.03 COMPETITIVE BIDDING. If more than one proposal is offered by any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or any combination thereof, under the same or different names, all such proposals may be rejected. A party who has quoted prices on materials or Work to a Bidder is not thereby disqualified from quoting prices to other Bidders, or from submitting a bid directly for the materials or Work.

All Bidders are put on notice that any collusive agreement to control or affect the awarding of this Contract is in violation of the competitive bidding requirements of the City Charter, State Contract Act and the Business and Professions Code and may render void any Contract let under such circumstances.
3-1.04 RELIEF OF BIDDERS. If the Bidder claims a mistake was made in its bid, the Bidder shall give the Department written notice within five (5) Days after the opening of the bids of the alleged mistake, specifying in the notice in detail how the mistake occurred. No relief from a claimed mistaken bid shall be granted unless such mistake clearly appears on the face of the bid submitted to the City. Claimed mistakes on backup worksheets, spreadsheets, computerized bidding programs, or any other similar calculative bidding mistake which is not apparent on the face of the bid shall not under any circumstance be considered as a basis for relief. The burden of proving the occurrence of a mistake entitling a Bidder to relief from its bid rests entirely on the Bidder. Relief from bids shall be in the City's sole discretion.

Page 491 of 1219 ends

INT - 12
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] SECTION 4: AWARD AND EXECUTION OF CONTRACT
4-1.01 AWARD OF CONTRACT. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to award (or not award) any combination of bid items at its option. Any such award will be to the lowest responsible Bidder whose proposal complies with the requirements prescribed for the bid items awarded. Such award, if made, will be made within sixty (60) business days after the opening of the proposals. If the lowest responsible Bidder refuses or fails to execute the Contract, or provide an acceptable Performance Bond, Payment Bond, and insurance certificate(s), the City may award the Contract to the second lowest responsible Bidder. Such award, if made, will be made within eighty-two (82) business days after the opening of proposals. If the second lowest responsible Bidder refuses or fails to execute the Contract, or provide an acceptable Performance Bond, Payment Bond, and insurance certificate(s), the City may award the Contract to the third lowest responsible Bidder. Such award, if made, will be made within one hundred four (104) business days after the opening of the proposals. The above time periods within which the award of Contract may be made are subject to extension for such further period as may be agreed upon in writing between the City and the Bidder concerned.
4-1.02 RETURN OF BIDDER’S SECURITIES. Within ten (10) Days after the award of the Contract, the City Clerk will return all Bidders' securities, other than Bidders' bonds, accompanying the proposals that are not to be further considered in making the award.

Retained Bidders' securities will be held until the Contract has been fully executed, after which all Bidders' securities, except Bidders' bonds and any Bidders' securities that have been forfeited, will be returned.

Page 492 of 1219 ends

INT - 13
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] 4-1.03 CONTRACT BONDS. The successful Bidder shall furnish two (2) bonds in the form contained in the section entitled Insurance Broker Information Packet and Bonds. One (1) bond shall secure the payment of the claims of laborers, mechanics or materialmen employed on the Work under the Contract, and the other bond shall guarantee the faithful performance of the Contract.

Each of the two (2) bonds shall be in a sum equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the Contract Price. If the Contract Price increases by the issuance of Change Orders, the penal amounts of the bonds required shall increase accordingly. Sureties on each of said bonds shall be satisfactory to the City.

All alterations, extensions of time, extra and additional Work, and other changes authorized by the Standard Specifications, the Standard Construction Specifications, the Supplemental Conditions or any part of the Contract may be made without securing the consent of the surety or sureties on the Contract bonds.

Furthermore, the successful Bidder shall furnish a certificate from the County Clerk as required by California Civil Code of Procedure Section 995.660(a)(3). 4-1.04 INSURANCE. At the time of the execution of the Contract, the Contractor shall, at its own expense, procure, and at all times during the prosecution of the Work maintain in full force and effect Worker's Compensation Insurance, and Liability Insurance as specified in the Standard Construction Specifications. The Contractor shall provide a Certificate of Insurance in the form contained in the section entitled Insurance Broker Information Packet. 4-1.05 EXECUTION OF CONTRACT. The Contract shall be signed by the successful Bidder and returned, together with all the required Contract bonds and insurance

Page 493 of 1219 ends

INT - 14
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] certificates, within fifteen (15) Days after the Contract has been awarded, or as otherwise directed, in writing, by the City.

If the Bidder is an individual, the Contract shall be executed personally by the Bidder. If the Bidder is a partnership, it is desirable that the Contract be executed by all of the partners, but it may be executed by one of them. If the Bidder is a corporation, it must be executed by two officers of the corporation consisting of (1) the chairman of the board, president or vice president; and (2) the secretary, assistant secretary, chief financial officer, treasurer or assistant treasurer, or by a person authorized by the corporation to execute written contracts on its behalf, and the corporate seal affixed thereto. In the alternative, a person other than an officer may sign the Contract, provided evidence satisfactory to the City is provided indicating the individual’s authority to bind the corporation. If the corporate seal is not affixed to the Contract, or if it is executed by a person other than officers, or only by one officer, there must be attached to the Contract a certified copy of a resolution of the corporation authorizing such officer or person to execute written contracts for and on behalf of the corporation. If the Bidder is a joint venture, the Contract must be executed on behalf of each participating firm by officers or other individuals who have the full and proper authorization to do so. 4-1.06 FAILURE TO EXECUTE CONTRACT. Failure of the lowest responsible Bidder, the second lowest responsible Bidder, or the third lowest responsible Bidder to execute the Contract and file acceptable bonds and insurance as provided within fifteen (15) Days after the Contract has been awarded, or as otherwise directed, in writing, by the City, shall be just cause for annulment of the award and forfeiture of the Bidder's security. The successful Bidder may file with the City Clerk a written notice, signed by the Bidder or Bidder's authorized representative, specifying that the Bidder will refuse to execute the Contract if presented to

Page 494 of 1219 ends

INT - 15
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] Bidder. The filing of such notice shall have the same force and effect as the failure of the Bidder to execute the Contract and furnish acceptable bonds within the time prescribed.

Page 495 of 1219 ends

INT - 16
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] SECTION 5: BID PROTEST PROCEDURES
5-1.01 POLICY/PROCEDURES. It is the policy of the City to consider fully and adjudicate promptly protests filed by prospective Bidders relating to the City’s bidding procedure or award of the Contract. Protests shall be filed and processed in accordance with Section 4.12.150 of the Roseville Municipal Code. A Bidder’s failure to follow the bid protest procedures may result in rejection of the protest by the City.

Page 496 of 1219 ends

PROPOSAL

Page 497 of 1219 ends

PROP - 1
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] PROPOSAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ________________________
Project:_______________________________________

Name of Bidder _________________________________ Business Phone ________________ Business Address _______________________________________________________________ Place of Business _______________________________________________________________ Contractor’s License No. ______________________________________ License Expiration Date_______________________________________ License Classification Type __________________________________________ DIR Registration No. _________________________________________ Type of business organization:
*If a Corporation, incorporated under the laws of the State of:

The undersigned Bidder herewith submits this Proposal and binds itself on award by the City of Roseville under this bid to execute a Contract in accordance with its bid and the Contract Documents.

The Notice to Contractors, Instructions to Bidders, Form of Agreement, Standard Specifications, Standard Construction Specifications, Supplemental Conditions, Contract Drawings, and Addenda, if any, are made part of this bid and all provisions thereof are hereby accepted, and all representations and warranties are required thereby are hereby affirmed.

The work to be done is described in the Bidding Documents entitled _______________ ____________________________________________________, City of Roseville, California.

This offer shall be irrevocable for a period of sixty (60) Days after the date on which bids are opened.

Page 498 of 1219 ends

PROP - 2
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] The undersigned Bidder understands that any clarification made to the above or any new and different conditions or information submitted on or with its Proposal, other than that requested, may render the bid non-responsive.

The undersigned, as Bidder, declares that the only persons or parties interested in this Proposal as principals are those named herein; that this Proposal is made without collusion with any other person, firm, or corporation; that the Bidder has carefully examined the location of the proposed Work, the attached Form of Agreement, and the plans, Specifications, and other Contract Documents; and agrees if this Proposal is accepted, that it will contract with the City of Roseville, in the form of a copy of the Agreement contained in the Project Manual, to provide all necessary machinery, tools, apparatus and other means of construction, and to do all the work and furnish all the materials specified in the Contract Documents, in the manner and time therein prescribed, and according to the requirements of the Director, as therein set forth, and that the Bidder will take in full payment therefore prices indicated in the Schedule of Bid Items, including all work modified by addendum numbers ________________. (IF NONE, STATE NONE).

Bids are required for all Bid Items. The amount of the Bid for comparison purposes will be the total of all items awarded.

The Bidder shall set forth for each item of work, in clearly legible figures, an item (“unit”) price and a total for the item in the respective spaces provided for this purpose in the Schedule of Bid Items.

The prices included within the Schedule of Bid Items include all costs for labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, Subcontractors, suppliers, taxes, insurance, shipment,

Page 499 of 1219 ends

PROP - 3
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] delivery, overhead, profit, and for all other costs necessary to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents.

Accompanying this Proposal is _______________________________________________. (Notice: Insert the words “Cash $_________,” “Cashier's Check,” “Certified Check,” or “Bidder's Bond,” as the case may be, in an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the total of the Bid.)
The names of all persons interested in the foregoing Proposal as Principals, are as follows: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

If SOLE OWNER, execute here:

I sign as sole owner of the business named above:
_____________________________________________________________________________

If PARTNERSHIP, one or more partners sign here:

The undersigned certify that we are partners in the business named above and that we sign this bid with the full authority to do so:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

Page 500 of 1219 ends

PROP - 4
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] If CORPORATION, execute here:

Corporate Name: _______________________________________ Incorporated under the laws of the State of ____________________________________ The undersigned certify that they sign this bid with the full and proper authorization so to do:

By
Signature of Authorized Official*

Title

Typewritten or Printed Name

By
Signature of Authorized Official*

Title

Typewritten or Printed Name

If JOINT VENTURE, execute here:

Joint Venture name composed of:

The undersigned certify that they sign this bid with the full and proper authorization so to do:

Signature of Authorized Official*

Title

Typewritten or Printed Name

Signature of Authorized Official*

Title

Typewritten or Printed Name

*If Bidder is a partnership or Joint Venture, give the full names of all partners and/or Joint Ventures in the space provided (use additional sheet if required). If Bidder is a corporation, two signatures are required as follows: (1) the Chairman, President, or Vice-President and (2) the Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, or Assistant Treasurer. In the alternative, this Agreement may be executed by a single officer or a person other than an officer provided that evidence satisfactory to City is provided demonstrating that such individual is

Page 501 of 1219 ends

PROP - 5
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] authorized to bind the corporation (example, a copy of a certified resolution from the corporation’s board or a copy of the corporation’s bylaws).

[LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS FOLLOWS ON NEXT PAGE.]

Page 502 of 1219 ends

PROP - 6
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS

Contractor’s Name: _________________________________
The Bidder is required to furnish the following information in accordance with the provisions of Section 4100 and 4114, inclusive, of the Public Contract Code of the State of California. This list and information shall include all Subcontractors that perform work, provide labor or render services to the Bidder in connection with the Project in an amount in excess of one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total amount of the Bidder Grand Total Price.

PORTION/

TYPE OF
WORK
% OF

CONTRACT
SUB-
CONTRACTOR’S
NAME

CONTRACTOR
LICENSE NO. DIR REG NO. BUSINESS ADDRESS
(CITY, STATE)

Page 503 of 1219 ends

PROP - 7
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

SECURITY FOR COMPENSATION CERTIFICATE
(Required by California Labor Code Section 1861)

TO: City Council
City of Roseville

I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Contract.

_________________________________
_________________________________
(Signature of Bidder)

_________________________________
_________________________________
Business Address

_________________________________
Telephone

Page 504 of 1219 ends

PROP - 8
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] BIDDER’S BOND
City Council of the City of Roseville

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That we ________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________, as PRINCIPAL, and ______________________________________________________________________________ a, __________________________________________ and duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Roseville in the penal sum of _______________________________________________ dollars ($________________), being at least TEN PERCENT (10%) OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE BID of the Principal above named, submitted by said Principal to the City of Roseville, acting by and through the Public Works Director, for the work described below, for the payment of which sum in lawful money of the United States, well and truly to be made, to the Director of the Department to which said Bid was submitted, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators and successors, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH,
That whereas the Principal has submitted the above-mentioned Bid to the City Council of the City of Roseville, as aforesaid, for certain construction specifically described as follows, for which Bids are to be opened at the Office of the City Clerk located at 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, California, on ____________________________, 20__ FOR

(Copy here the exact title of work as it appears on the Proposal.)

Page 505 of 1219 ends

PROP - 9
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] NOW, THEREFORE, IF THE AFORESAID PRINCIPAL is awarded the Contract and, within the time and manner required under the Contract Documents, after the prescribed forms are presented for signature, enters into a written Contract, in the prescribed form, in accordance with the Bid, and files all insurance and two (2) Bonds with the Department, one (1) to guarantee Faithful Performance and the other to guarantee Payment for Labor and Materials, as required by law, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals on this _____ day of _____________________, 20___.
______________________________(Seal)
______________________________(Seal)
______________________________(Seal)
Principal
______________________________(Seal)
______________________________(Seal)
______________________________(Seal)
Surety
__________________________________
__________________________________
Business Address
NOTE: To be considered complete, both the Principal and the Surety must sign this Bidder’s Bond. In addition, signatures of those executing for the Surety must be properly acknowledged.

Page 506 of 1219 ends

ITEM
NO.

FINAL
PAY

ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE SUBTOTAL
1 Traffic Control System 1 LS
2 Job Site Management 1 LS
3 Prepare Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 1 LS
4 Rain Event Action Plan 20 EA
5 Storm Water Sampling and Analysis Day 7 EA
6 Storm Water Annual Report 1 EA
7 Water Pollution Control 1 LS
8 Erosion Control 1 LS
9 Remove Concrete 2690 SQYD
10 Clearing & Grubbing 1 LS
11 F Roadway Excavation 3150 CY
12 Roadway Excavation (Unsuitable Material) 700 CY
13 Class 2 Aggregate Base 1540 CY
14 Micro-Surfacing (Type II) 13500 SQYD
15 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) 1350 TON
16 Cold Planing AC Pavement 2050 SQYD
17 Drain Inlet (Type C) 2 EA
18 12" Reinforced Concrete Pipe 23 LF
19 Install Roseville Electric Box 1 EA
20 Relocate Fire Hydrant 4 EA
21 Relocate Water Valve Assembly 1 EA
22 Relocate Street Light 2 EA
23 Relocate Air Release Valve 1 EA
24 Relocate Roseville Electric Box 3 EA
25 Relocate Traffic Signal Box 3 EA
26 Relocate CP Test Station 1 EA
27 Remove Inlet 2 EA
28 Remove Roseville Electric Box 1 EA
ROSEVILLE PARKWAY WIDENING PROJECT (PHASE 1)

SCHEDULE OF BID ITEMS
CONTRACTOR:___________________________
PROP-10
(1 OF 3)

Page 507 of 1219 ends

ITEM
NO.

FINAL
PAY

ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE SUBTOTAL
ROSEVILLE PARKWAY WIDENING PROJECT (PHASE 1)

SCHEDULE OF BID ITEMS
CONTRACTOR:___________________________
29 Adjust Roseville Electric Box to Grade 1 EA
30 Adjust Sanitary Sewer Manhole to Grade 1 EA
31 Adjust Water Manhole to Grade 1 EA
32 Adjust Water Valve Cover to Grade 5 EA
33 Adjust Drainage Inlet 2 EA
34 Minor Concrete (Type 1 Barrier Curb) 775 LF
35 Minor Concrete (Type 2 Barrier Curb) 630 LF
36 Minor Concrete (Driveway) 2090 SF
37 Minor Concrete (Bus Turnout) 2660 SF
38 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) 11965 SF
39 Minor Concrete (Type 2 Curb and Gutter) 1850 LF
40 Minor Concrete (Stamped Concrete) 990 SF
41 Minor Concrete (Curb Ramp) 8 EA
42 Remove Roadside Sign 5 EA
43 Relocate Roadside Sign 9 EA
44 Relocate sign (Strap and Saddle Bracket Method) 2 EA 45 Roadside Sign - One Post 9 EA
46 Roadside Sign - Two Post 1 EA
47 Object Marker (Type Q) 3 EA
48 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe 17750 LF
49 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking 4650 SF
50 Remove Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe and Pavement
Markings 1 LS
51 Signal Modification (Roseville Parkway/Pleasant
Grove Blvd) 1 LS
52 Signal Modification (Roseville Parkway/Galleria
Blvd) 1 LS
53 City Maintained Median Irrigation Adjustment 6400 SF 54 Controller 1 EA
55 Remote Control Valve 1 EA
56 Subsurface Drip Irrigation 7080 SF
PROP-10
(2 OF 3)

Page 508 of 1219 ends

ITEM
NO.

FINAL
PAY

ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE SUBTOTAL
ROSEVILLE PARKWAY WIDENING PROJECT (PHASE 1)

SCHEDULE OF BID ITEMS
CONTRACTOR:___________________________
57 Imported Topsoil 165 CY
58 Soil Amendment, Fertilizer, and Fine Grading 7080 SF 59 Remove Existing & Apply New Mulch 17031 SF
60 Turf From Sod 1 LS
61 Shrubs, 1 Gallon 323 EA
62 Maintenance 3 MO
63 Privately Maintained Irrigation Adjustment and
Planting 9500 SF
64 Mobilization 1 LS
CONTRACTOR'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF BLACK ROCK QUARRY MICRO-SURFACING:

NAME & LOCATION OF BLACK ROCK AGGREGATE QUARRY MICRO-SURFACING:

TOTAL OF BID ITEMS
PROP-10
(3 OF 3)

Page 509 of 1219 ends

PROP - 11
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

NONCOLLUSION DECLARATION TO BE EXECUTED BY

BIDDER AND SUBMITTED WITH BID

The undersigned declares:

I am the _________________ of ______________________, the party making the foregoing bid.

The bid is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation. The bid is genuine and not collusive or sham. The Bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other Bidder to put in a false or sham bid. The Bidder has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any Bidder or anyone else to put in a sham bid, or to refrain from bidding. The Bidder has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the bid price of the Bidder or any other Bidder, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the bid price, or of that of any other Bidder. All statements contained in the bid are true. The Bidder has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, to any corporation, partnership, company, association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof, to effectuate a collusive or sham bid, and has not paid, and will not pay, any person or entity for such purpose.

Any person executing this declaration on behalf of a Bidder that is a corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or any other entity, hereby represents that he or she has full power to execute, and does execute, this declaration on behalf of the Bidder.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration is executed on _____________________ [date], at _____________________________ [city], ________________ [state].

____________________________________
(Signature of Declarant)

Page 510 of 1219 ends

PROP - 12
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

DISQUALIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE

The Bidder shall complete, under the penalty of perjury, the following questionnaire:

Has the Bidder, any officer of the Bidder, or any employee of the Bidder who has proprietary interest in the Bidder, ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of a violation of law or a safety regulation?
Yes______ No______
If the answer is yes, explain the circumstances in the following space.

NAME OF BIDDER: _________________________________________ SIGNATURE OF BIDDER: ____________________________________ TITLE OF BIDDER: _________________________________________ DATE: _____________________________________________________

Page 511 of 1219 ends

PROP - 13
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INSURANCE AND BOND REQUIREMENTS

Included in the Bid Price is full compensation for the requirements set forth in the INSURANCE BROKER INFORMATION PACKET of the Project Manual.

NAME OF BIDDER: _________________________________________ SIGNATURE OF BIDDER: ____________________________________ TITLE OF BIDDER: _________________________________________ DATE: _____________________________________________________

Page 512 of 1219 ends

PROP - 14
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND ACCURACY OF DATA

Although soil and site investigation reports have been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding accuracy, adequacy, completeness, legality, reliability or usefulness of any information contained therein. These reports are subject to change at any time, may be incomplete, and/or may contain errors. This information is provided for informational purposes only. The City of Roseville provides this information on an “as is” basis. Warranties of any kind, express or implied, or statutory, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability, and fitness for a particular purpose ARE DISCLAIMED to any party viewing these documents or to any third party.

The City of Roseville does not accept and expressly disclaims liability to any party viewing such information, or to any third party whatsoever, for any loss, damage, or injury (including incidental or consequential damages) whether such loss, damage, or injury is the result of negligence, willful or intentional misconduct, or any other cause.

I have read and acknowledged the above disclaimer and agree to hold harmless the City of Roseville on any theory of liability for any loss, damage or injury whether in contract, strict liability or tort arising in any way out of the use or contents of the released information or documents described above or the performance of the work called for herein.

Print Name Signature

Name of Business/Company/Corporation Date

Address Phone

Page 513 of 1219 ends

PROP - 15
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

END OF PROPOSAL

Page 514 of 1219 ends

AGREEMENT

Page 515 of 1219 ends

1 [B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

A G R E E M E N T

THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this _____day of __________________, 20_____, by and between the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, (“CITY”), and ______________________________________________, a ____________________________, (“CONTRACTOR”); and

W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, the City Council of the CITY, at a meeting held on the _____day of __________________, 20_____, approved plans and specifications for the ________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ and directed the City Clerk to advertise for sealed proposals for doing said work and providing that bids be submitted on the _____ day of ________________, 20_____; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk, thereafter duly and regularly caused a notice to be published in the manner and for the time prescribed by law; and
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR, pursuant to the provisions of said notice duly filed a bid with the City Clerk, a true copy of which bid is now on file in the office of the City Clerk, and is hereby referred to and by this reference made a part hereof as fully as if set forth at length herein; and
WHEREAS, all bids received pursuant to said notice were opened and examined and publicly declared at the time specified in said advertisement for bids and at a meeting of the City Council held on the _____ day of ___________________, 20_____, the Council found and

Page 516 of 1219 ends

2 [B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] declared the bid of CONTRACTOR to be the lowest responsible bid and thereupon awarded a contract to CONTRACTOR to do the work referred to in the aforementioned specifications.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. THE WORK. CONTRACTOR agrees:
a. To do the work and furnish all the labor, materials, tools, supplies, equipment, superintendence, insurance, and bonds required for the _______________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ in accordance with the Contract Documents (the Work).
b. To do and perform the Work contemplated hereby in a good and workmanlike manner under the direction of and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Roseville.

2. PAYMENT. CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR __________________________ _________________________________________ dollars ($________________) for the Work to be done under this Agreement in accordance with the Contract Documents.

3. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Agreement between the parties hereto consists of the following documents:
a. The advertisement for bids (including the notice to bidders, instructions to bidders and proposals);
b. The accepted bid;
c. Plans and specifications (including standard construction specifications, special provisions and construction details);
d. Bonds and insurance required by the specifications; and

Page 517 of 1219 ends

3 [B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] e. This contract.

All documents specified above are intended to operate so that any work called for in any one and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents.

4. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. In the event CONTRACTOR does not complete the Work within the time specified, CONTRACTOR agrees that CITY will suffer damages.

Inasmuch as the actual damages which would result from such breach by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement are uncertain, and would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix, CONTRACTOR agrees that it shall pay, or CITY shall deduct from CONTRACTOR’s fee, the amount of $________ per day as liquidated damages, in the event of such delay.

5. TIME OF COMPLETION. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.

CONTRACTOR shall complete all Work under the Contract Documents within _____ Days of the date of this Contract. CONTRACTOR shall begin work by the date specified in the “Notice to Proceed” letter and shall diligently prosecute all of the Work under this Contract in all parts and requirements as defined in the Contract Documents.

6. SERVICE OF NOTICE. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed given when (a) personally delivered to the recipient identified below; (b) mailed by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage pre-paid, to the address specified below; or (c) sent by facsimile, with confirmation of receipt, to the facsimile number identified below.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE CONTRACTOR
______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________

Page 518 of 1219 ends

4 [B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] CITY may also act through either its architect or construction manager if CITY expressly gives notice to CONTRACTOR, in writing, that CITY’s designee has authority to act for CITY in a specific capacity.

7. DISPUTES. Disputes arising from this Agreement will be determined in accordance with the Contract Documents and Public Contract Code Sections 10240-10240.13.

8. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

9. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall act as an independent contractor, and covenants and agrees that it will conduct itself consistent with such status, that it will neither hold itself out as, nor claim to be, an officer or employee of CITY by reason of this Agreement.

10. SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the respective parties hereto.

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

12. SEVERABILITY. If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are for any reason held invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect the remaining provisions or the validity and enforceability of the Agreement as a whole.

13. INTEGRATED AGREEMENT. This is an integrated agreement and contains all of the terms, considerations, understanding and promises of the parties. It shall be read as a whole.

14. CONTRACTORS LICENSE LAW. CONTRACTORS ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE LICENSED AND REGULATED BY THE CONTRACTORS’ STATE LICENSE

Page 519 of 1219 ends

5 [B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

BOARD WHICH HAS JURISDICTION TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS AGAINST

CONTRACTORS IF A COMPLAINT REGARDING A PATENT ACT OR OMISSION IS FILED WITHIN FOUR (4) YEARS OF THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION. A

COMPLAINT REGARDING A LATENT ACT OR OMISISON PERTAINING TO STRUCUTRAL DEFECTS MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) YEARS OF THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING A CONTRACTOR MAY BE REFERRED TO THE REGISTRAR, CONTRACTORS’ STATE LICENSE BOARD, P.O.

BOX 26000, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95826.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, has authorized the execution of this Agreement in duplicate by its City Manager and attestation by its City Clerk under authority of Resolution No. _____, adopted by the Council of the City of Roseville on the _____day of _________________, 20_____, and CONTRACTOR has caused this Agreement to be duly executed.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a _______________________________ municipal corporation _______________________________

BY: _______________________________ BY: ______________________________ DOMINICK CASEY its: _______________________________
City Manager
and
ATTEST:

BY: ______________________________
its: _______________________________

BY: _______________________________

CARMEN AVALOS
City Clerk

Page 520 of 1219 ends

6 [B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY: _______________________________

MICHELLE SHEIDENBERGER
City Attorney

APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:

BY: _______________________________

JASON SHYKOWSKI
Public Works Director

Page 521 of 1219 ends

INSURANCE BROKER INFORMATION
PACKET

Page 522 of 1219 ends

[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

INSURANCE BROKER INFORMATION PACKET
Project:_______________________________________

NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR:

For your convenience, this package contains the Requirements for Insurance and Bonds for this project, including the necessary City forms. You are required to return these forms in addition to the executed Contract within fifteen (15) calendar days after the award of the Bid, unless otherwise directed by City in writing. (See the Instructions to Bidders.)

Please insert the dollar amount of your accepted Bid into the blank on page INS-1 and present this entire package to your insurance broker if you are awarded the Bid.

Page 523 of 1219 ends

[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Notice to Insurance Broker INS 1
Insurance Requirements INS 2
Public Works Faithful Performance Bond INS 7
Public Works Payment Bond INS 9

Page 524 of 1219 ends

INS - 1
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

NOTICE TO INSURANCE BROKER

Your client has been awarded a bid by the City Council of the City of Roseville to perform a public works project known as ___________________________________________.

The Contract Conditions for that project require your client (“the Contractor”) to return certain evidence of insurance and bonds to the City Attorney of the City within fifteen (15) days after the Bid award, unless otherwise directed by the City in writing, or else the Bid award may be terminated and awarded to another company.

This package contains the information you will need as an insurance broker to provide the appropriate insurance and bonds to the City. The insurance coverages the Contractor needs are specified in the section entitled “Insurance Requirements.” Please note that, in addition to the insurance certificate itself, copies of several endorsements must be actually furnished.

Please refer to Special Provisions for modifications of the Standard Construction Specifications, if any, and the requirements of this insurance packet.

Please use the standard City of Roseville Bond Forms provided in this package.

The Bonds required must each be in the penal amount of: $______________________.

Bonds must be sent to the following staff person:
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________

Insurance documents must be provided using one of the following methods:
a. By email to [email protected] and [email protected]

b. By fax to (770) 335-5727 and (916) 774-5461
After using one of these methods, please DO NOT send the insurance certificate(s) by mail.

When forwarding the documents, please refer to the project name so that the documents can be matched with the Contract for which they are submitted.

Thank you.

Page 525 of 1219 ends

INS - 2
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

The following sections are quoted from the Standard Construction Specifications:
7-1.06 INSURANCE COVERAGE.

A. Evidence of Maintenance Required. The Contractor shall, at its expense, procure and at all times maintain in full force and effect at a minimum the insurance required by this section on all of its operations; and the Contractor shall not allow any Subcontractor to commence work until similar insurance required of the Subcontractor has been obtained and filed. An original Certificate of Insurance, and copies of all required endorsements, all in a form approved by the Risk Manager, evidencing all required coverage or policies shall be filed after the award of the bid and prior to approval of the Contract by the City Council. Contractor shall provide ten (10) days prior written notice to the City of any reduction of coverage limits or cancellation of the coverage or policies shall be given to the City of Roseville as Certificate holder.

B. Qualifying Insurers. With the exception of the State Compensation Insurance Fund, all required insurance policies shall be issued by companies acceptable to the City and licensed to do business in the State of California and who hold a current policy holders alphabetic and financial size category rating of not less than AVII according to the most recent issue of Best's Insurance Reports.

C. Insurance Required.

1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations with limits of no less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage for projects under One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) and

Page 526 of 1219 ends

INS - 3
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] limits of no less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage for projects over One Million Dollars ($1,000,000). If a general aggregate limit applies, either the aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

The Commercial General Liability insurance shall include the following, copies of which shall be provided:
a. Inclusion of the City of Roseville, and its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers, as additional insureds (except for workers’ compensation) as respects services or operations under the Contract. The additional insured endorsement for the general liability policy shall be at least as broad as the ISO CG 2010 10 01 combined with ISO CGL Endorsement CG 2037 10 01. Any other endorsement must be approved in writing by the City.

Endorsements must include coverage for on-going and completed operations, which coverage shall be maintained for four (4) years following completion of the Project. Endorsements shall cover the City of Roseville, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers. b. The insurance shall provide coverage for claims by one insured against another insured and the policies shall not contain any cross-suits exclusions, cross- liability exclusions, or insured versus insured exclusions. The policies shall not contain any classification exclusions purporting to deny coverage for any work to be performed by Contractor or any of its Subcontractors.
c. Stipulation that the insurance is primary and noncontributory, as evidenced by a separate endorsement (CG 20 01 04 13 or an equivalent) or section of the policy, and that neither the City nor its insurers will be called upon to contribute to a loss.

Page 527 of 1219 ends

INS - 4
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] d. Such insurance shall specifically cover the contractual liability of the Contractor.
e. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and limits shall be available to the additional insureds. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be: (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the full coverage and maximum limits of any insurance proceeds available to the named insureds, whichever is greater. f. Waiver of subrogation endorsement.
g. The Contractor shall furnish a certificate for the period covered.

2. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering Code 1 (any auto), or if Contractor has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and Code 9 (non-owned), with limits of no less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers' Compensation: In accordance with the provisions of the California Labor Code, Contractor is required to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance. Statutory Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) shall cover all Contractors staff while performing any work incidental to the performance or this Agreement.

4. Professional Liability: Professional Liability (Errors and Omission) Insurance appropriate to Contractor’s profession, with a limit of liability not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence or claim and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate to cover all design and engineering services rendered by Contractor pursuant to the

Page 528 of 1219 ends

INS - 5
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] Agreement. Coverage must commence from the first day that Contractor or any of its Subcontractors provided any design or engineering services in connection with the Project.

5. Builder’s Risk/Course of Construction Insurance Is ____ OR Is Not ____ Required by Risk Management: The Contractor shall be responsible for all loss, damage or destruction whatsoever to the work called for by this Contract until the approval of a Notice of Completion or acceptance of the Work if no Notice of Completion is to be recorded.

The Contractor shall secure “All Risk” type of builder's Risk Insurance of the type covering one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the work performed under this Contract (the value is presumed to be the Contract amount unless otherwise stated in Supplemental Conditions) and all materials, equipment, or other items to be incorporated therein while the same are located at the construction site, a bonded warehouse, or its place of manufacture. At any time, the policy shall cover the value of the work completed. The policy shall cover hazards including the losses due to fire, explosion, hail, rain, lightning, flood (separate insurance as needed), vandalism, malicious mischief, wind, collapse, aircraft, and smoke.

The policies providing such insurance shall name the City as a loss payee as its respective interests may appear, and certified copies of such policies shall be filed with the City. The maximum deductible allowable under the Builder's All Risk policy shall be five percent (5%) of the Contract amount.

Builder's Risk Insurance is not required for coverage of losses in excess of five percent (5%) of the Contract amount for damages resulting from earthquake in excess of a magnitude of

3.5 on the Richter scale, or tidal waves. Coverage in the amount of five percent (5%) of the Contract amount for such losses is required.

Page 529 of 1219 ends

INS - 6
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

6. Pollution Coverage: Contractor shall procure pollution liability coverage or other insurance covering claims for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the abatement, removal, storage, transportation, or other exposure to hazardous materials or pollutants, in limits not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000). Contractor shall add the City and all parties required to be indemnified by Contractor as additional insured on all pollution liability policies.

7. Higher Coverage Limits: If Contractor maintains higher coverage limits than the amounts shown above, then the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher coverage limits maintained by Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.

8. Claims Made Coverage: Liability insurance coverage may not be written on a “claims made” or modified occurrence basis. The Certificate of Insurance must clearly provide that the coverage is on an “occurrence” basis.
7-1.06A OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS.

A. The requirements of the Standard Specifications as to types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by the Contractor, and any approval of insurance by the City, are not intended to, and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Contractor pursuant to the Contract, including, but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification, nor preclude the City from taking any other action available to it under any other provision of the Contract or law.

B. The City acknowledges that some insurance requirements contained in these Standard Specifications may be fulfilled by self-insurance on the part of the Contractor.

However, this shall not in any way limit liabilities assumed by Contractor under the Contract.

Page 530 of 1219 ends

INS - 7
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] Any self-insurance must be approved in writing by the City, in its sole discretion and shall not reduce the limits of liability. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions (“SIR”) must be declared on the certificate of insurance and approved by City in writing. Policies containing any SIR provision shall provide or be endorsed to provide that the SIR may be satisfied by either the named insured or City. City reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any insurance policy and endorsements. The failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of such right.

C. The Contractor agrees to include in its contracts with all subcontractors the same requirements and provisions of this Contract, including the indemnity and insurance requirements, to the extent they apply to the scope of the subcontractor’s work. Furthermore, the Contractor shall require its subcontractors to agree to be bound to the Contractor and the City in the same manner and to the same extent as the Contractor is bound to the City under this Contract. Additionally, the Contractor shall obligate its subcontractors to comply with these same provisions with respect to any tertiary subcontractor, regardless of tier. A copy of the City’s indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to the subcontractor or tertiary subcontractor upon request. Alternatively, the Contractor may insure subcontractor(s) under its own policy.

D. The City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as insureds with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the Contractor; and with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage

Page 531 of 1219 ends

INS - 8
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] for the active negligence of the additional insured in any case where an agreement to indemnify the additional insured would be invalid under California Insurance Code Section 11580.04.

E. The limits of insurance required in this Contract may be satisfied by a combination of primary and excess insurance. Any excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of the City (if agreed to in a written contract) before the City’s own insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.

F. The insurance procured by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of the City, but any acceptance of insurance certificates by the City shall in no way limit or relieve Contractor of its duties and responsibilities under the Agreement.

G. Contractor shall be responsible for all premiums, deductibles, and self- insured retention applicable to the insurance it is required to procure under the Contract. All deductibles or self-insured retentions over five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) must be approved by the City, in writing. Contractor shall be responsible for all deductibles, self-insured retention payments, and/or increased premiums incurred if the City’s policies of insurance are forced to cover damages or respond to claims for which Contractor or its Subcontractors were obligated to provide insurance under the Contract.

H. Failure of the City to enforce in a timely manner any of the requirements of these insurance provisions shall not act as a waiver to enforcement of any of these provisions at a later date.

I. Contractor’s indemnity obligations shall not be limited by these insurance provisions and shall survive the expiration of the Contract and the insurance provisions of the Contract shall likewise not be limited by the indemnity provisions of the Contract.

Page 532 of 1219 ends

INS - 9
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] J. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO WITHHOLD ANY

PROGRESS PAYMENTS TO THE CONTRACTOR IN THE EVENT OF
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ANY INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.

Page 533 of 1219 ends

[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

PUBLIC WORKS

FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND
(Project: ______________________________________________)

WHEREAS, the City of Roseville (“CITY”) has awarded a bid and contract to ___________________________________________________________________ as contractor (“PRINCIPAL”) for the public work described as __________________ _________________________________________________ (the “WORK”). The contract (“AGREEMENT”), for the public work described above, and all of its terms and conditions are incorporated by reference and made a part hereof; and

WHEREAS, the PRINCIPAL is required to furnish a bond in connection with the AGREEMENT guaranteeing its faithful performance; and

NOW, THEREFORE, we the undersigned PRINCIPAL and _________________ ____________________________, a _______________________________, admitted and duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as SURETY (“SURETY”), are held and firmly bound unto the CITY or its successors and assigns in the sum of ____________________________________________________ dollars ($___________________) (which amount is not less than 100% of the AGREEMENT price) to be paid to the CITY or its successors and assigns; and for which payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, successors or assigns jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

The condition of this obligation is such that if the PRINCIPAL, or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall abide by, and in all respects promptly and faithfully perform the covenants, conditions and provisions in said AGREEMENT and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, notice of which alterations to Surety being hereby waived, on its part to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees, volunteers as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise, this obligation shall be and remain in full force and effect.

As condition precedent to the satisfactory completion of the contract, the obligation of the PRINCIPAL and SURETY under this Bond shall remain in effect for a period of one (1) year after the completion and acceptance of the WORK. During that time, if the PRINCIPAL, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns fails to make full, complete and satisfactory repair and replacement or totally protect the CITY from any loss or damage made evident during that year which results from or is caused by either defective materials or faulty workmanship in the prosecution of the WORK, then the obligation shall remain in full force and effect. However, anything in Bond No. __________
Premium $_________

Page 534 of 1219 ends

[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] this paragraph to the contrary notwithstanding, the obligation of the SURETY shall continue so long as any obligation of the PRINCIPAL remains.

No prepayment or delay in payments, and no change, extension, addition or alteration of any provision of the AGREEMENT or in the specifications agreed to between the PRINCIPAL and the CITY, or any forbearance on the part of the CITY shall operate to relieve the SURETY. The SURETY hereby waives the provisions of Section 2819 of the California Civil Code. The SURETY waives all rights of subrogation against the CITY or any person employed by the CITY. If the contract price increases by the issuance of change orders, the amount specified in this bond shall increase by the same amount.

Whenever PRINCIPAL shall be and declared by CITY to be in default under the AGREEMENT, SURETY shall promptly remedy the default, or shall promptly do one of the follow at CITY’s election:

1. Undertake through its agents or independent contractors, reasonably acceptable to CITY, to complete the AGREEMENT in accordance with its terms and conditions and to pay and perform all obligations of PRINCIPAL under the AGREEMENT, including without limitation, all obligations with respect to warranties, guarantees, and the payment of liquidated damages.

2. Reimburse CITY for all costs CITY incurs in completing the AGREEMENT, and in correcting, repairing or replacing defects in materials or workmanship and/or materials and workmanship which do not conform to the specifications in the AGREEMENT.

SURETY’s obligations hereunder are independent of the obligations of any other surety for the performance of the AGREEMENT, and suit may be brought against SURETY and such other sureties, jointly and severally, or against any one or more of them, or against less than all of them without impairing CITY’s rights against the others.

No right of action shall accrue on this bond to or for the use of any person or corporation other than CITY or its successors or assigns.

As part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefore, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by CITY in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered.

[SIGNATURES NEXT PAGE]

Page 535 of 1219 ends

[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the PRINCIPAL and SURETY above-named, on the ____ day of __________________, 20___.

PRINCIPAL: SURETY:

BY:____________________________ BY:__________________________ PRINT NAME: ________________________ PRINT NAME: ______________________ PRINT TITLE: ________________________ PRINT TITLE:_______________________

AND MAILING ADDRESS:

BY: ___________________________ _____________________________ PRINT NAME: ________________________ ___________________________________ PRINT TITLE:_________________________ ___________________________________

(Notarization by Surety and copy of
Power of Attorney required.)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY: ________
City Attorney

Page 536 of 1219 ends

[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

PUBLIC WORKS

LABOR AND MATERIALS PAYMENT BOND
(Project: ______________________________________________)

WHEREAS, the City of Roseville (“CITY”), has awarded a bid and contract to ______________________________________________________________________ as contractor (“PRINCIPAL”), for the public work described as ____________________ ________________________________________________ (the “WORK”). The contract (“AGREEMENT”), for the public work described above, and all of its terms and conditions are incorporated by reference and made a part hereof; and

WHEREAS, the PRINCIPAL is required to furnish a bond in connection with the AGREEMENT guaranteeing payment of persons who provide labor and material; and

NOW, THEREFORE, we the undersigned PRINCIPAL and _________________ ____________________________, a _______________________________, admitted and duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as SURETY (“SURETY”), are held and firmly bound unto the CITY or its successors and assigns in the sum of ____________________________________________________ dollars ($___________________) (which amount is not less than 100% of the AGREEMENT price) to be paid to the CITY or its successors and assigns; and for which payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, successors or assigns jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

The condition of the obligation is such that if the PRINCIPAL, its subcontractors, heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns fails to pay any of the persons named in Section 8004 or 9100 of the Civil Code of the State of California, or the amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code of the State of California, or any amounts required to be deducted, withheld and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of the PRINCIPAL and its subcontractors pursuant to Section 13020 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, with respect to work or labor performed by any such claimant, that the SURETY will pay for the same, in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, and also, in case suit is brought upon the bond, shall pay reasonable attorneys’ fees, to be fixed by the Court.

This bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies, and corporations entitled to file a Stop Payment Notice pursuant to the provisions of Section 9350 et seq. of the Civil Code of the State of California, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond.

Bond No. __________
Premium $_________

Page 537 of 1219 ends

[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] No prepayment or delay in payments, and no change, extension, addition or alteration of any provision of the AGREEMENT or in the specifications agreed to between the PRINCIPAL and the CITY, or any forbearance on the part of the CITY shall operate to relieve the SURETY. The SURETY hereby waives the provisions of Section 2819 of the California Civil Code. The SURETY waives all rights of subrogation against the CITY or any person employed by the CITY. If the contract price increases by the issuance of change orders, the amount specified in this bond shall increase by the same amount.

As part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefore, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by CITY in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the PRINCIPAL and SURETY above-named, on the _____ day of __________________, 20__.

PRINCIPAL: SURETY:

BY:____________________________ BY:__________________________ PRINT NAME: ________________________ PRINT NAME: ______________________ PRINT TITLE: ________________________ PRINT TITLE:_______________________

AND MAILING ADDRESS:

BY: ___________________________ _____________________________ PRINT NAME: ________________________ ___________________________________ PRINT TITLE:_________________________ ___________________________________

(Notarization by Surety and copy of
Power of Attorney required.)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY: ________
City Attorney

Page 538 of 1219 ends

STANDARD CONSTRUCTION

SPECIFICATIONS

Page 539 of 1219 ends

SCS – 1
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

STANDARD CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS

Page 540 of 1219 ends

SCS – 2
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Adoption of State Specifications SCS 3

Section 1. General SCS 3

Section 2. Bidding SCS 5

Section 3. Contract Award and Execution SCS 9

Section 4. Scope of Work SCS 11

Section 5. Control of Work SCS 11

Section 6. Control of Materials SCS 18

Section 7. Legal Relations and Responsibility SCS 18

Section 8. Prosecution and Progress SCS 32

Section 9. Payment SCS 33

Section 14. Environmental Stewardship SCS 35

Page 541 of 1219 ends

SCS – 3
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024]

ADOPTION OF STATE SPECIFICATIONS

1. The State of California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) Standard Specifications dated 2015, are hereby adopted as the Standard Specifications of the City of Roseville except insofar as they may be modified by these Standard Construction Specifications.

2. Except for Division 1, Section 2, numbering in these Standard Construction Specifications conforms to that in the Caltrans Standard Specifications. The existence of a section in these Standard Construction Specifications means that the corresponding section of the Standard Specifications is modified in some respect. Unless otherwise specified, the modified Standard Specification provisions are deleted entirely, and the provisions of these Standard Construction Specifications are substituted.

DIVISION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. GENERAL

ACCEPTANCE. Shall mean the formal Acceptance by resolution of the Roseville City Council of an entire Contract which has been completed in all respects in accordance with the Plans and specifications and any modifications thereof previously approved, causing a notice of completion to be filed with the County Recorder.

ATTORNEY GENERAL. The City Attorney of the City of Roseville.

CITY ATTORNEY. The City Attorney of the City of Roseville.

CITY CLERK. Shall mean the City Clerk of the City of Roseville.

Page 542 of 1219 ends

SCS – 4
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] DEPARTMENT. Shall mean the Department of Public Works of the City of Roseville, also referred to as the Department of Contract Administration. References made to the Department of Transportation otherwise shall mean the State of California Department of Transportation.

DIRECTOR. Shall mean the Public Works Director of the City of Roseville or his or her duly authorized representative.

ENGINEER. Shall mean the Public Works Director of the City of Roseville or his or her duly authorized representative.

ESTIMATED COST. The estimate prepared by the Public Works Director of quantities of work to be performed.

LIQUIDATED DAMAGE. The amount to be deducted from payments due or to become due to the Contractor for delay, as set forth in the Special Provisions.

PLANS. The official Project Plans, Standard Plans, Improvement Plans, Construction Standards, profiles, typical cross sections, general cross sections, working drawings, and supplemental drawings, or reproductions thereof, approved by the Director which show the location, character, dimensions and details of the work to be performed. All such documents are to be considered as a part of the Plans whether or not reproduced in the Special Provisions.

In the above definition, the following terms are defined as follows:
a. Standard Plans - The Standard Plans of the Department of Transportation of the State of California.
b. Project Plans - The Project Plans are specific details and dimension peculiar to the Work and supplemented by the Standard Plans, insofar as the same may apply.

Page 543 of 1219 ends

SCS – 5
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] c. Construction Standards - The City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards.

STATE. Reference to the State or State of California shall mean City or City of Roseville unless the reference is to a law or regulation of the State, and reference to Sacramento shall mean Roseville unless otherwise noted.

SECTION 2. BIDDING
SECTION 2 SHALL BE DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND REPLACED WITH THE FOLLOWING:

2-1.01 PROPOSAL FORMS. The Department will furnish to each Bidder a standard proposal form, which, when filled out and executed shall be submitted as its bid. Bids not presented on forms so furnished will be disregarded.

The proposal form is bound in a book together with the Notice to Contractors, special provisions, and Contract. The proposal shall set forth for each item of work, in clearly legible figures and words, an item price and a total for the item in the respective spaces provided, and shall be signed by the Bidder, who shall fill out all blanks in the proposal form as required therein.

All items shown on the schedule of bid items shall be properly filled in and shall include all costs of labor, materials, equipment, and State, Federal, or other taxes applicable to the transaction. The completed forms shall be without inter-lineations, erasures or alterations of any nature. If the proposal is made by an individual, his or her name and post office address must be shown; if made by a firm or partnership, the name and post office address of each member of the

Page 544 of 1219 ends

SCS – 6
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] firm or partnership must be shown; or if made by a corporation, the proposal shall show the name of the State under the laws of which the corporation was chartered and the names, titles, and business addresses of the president, secretary, and treasurer of said corporation. If the proposal is signed by an agent, a “Power of Attorney” must be filed with the proposal.

The proposal shall be submitted as directed in the “Notice to Contractors” under sealed cover plainly marked as a proposal, and identifying the project to which the proposal relates and the time and date of the bid opening therefor. Proposals which are not properly marked may be disregarded. Proposal forms shall be obtained from the Director of Public Works, City of Roseville, California. Proposal forms are not transferable. 2-1.02 REJECTION OF PROPOSALS AND DISQUALIFICATION OF
BIDDERS. Proposals may be rejected if they show any alterations of the forms, additions not called for, conditional bids, incomplete bids, erasures or irregularities of any kind. More than one proposal from an individual, firm, partnership, corporation or association under the same or different names, will not be considered. Reasonable grounds for believing that any Bidder is interested in more than one (1) proposal for the work contemplated, will cause the rejection of all proposals in which the Bidder is interested. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals.
2-1.03 PROPOSAL GUARANTY. All bids shall be presented under sealed cover and accompanied by one (1) of the following forms of Bidder's security. a. Cash, a cashier's check, a certified check, or a Bidder's bond executed by an admitted California surety insurer, made payable to the City.

Page 545 of 1219 ends

SCS – 7
[B:\City Attorney\agreement\form agreements\Project Manuals\streets & bridges project manual.docx; 1/18/2024] b. The security shall be in an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the bid amount. A bid will not be considered unless one (1) of the forms of Bidder's security is enclosed with it.
c. A Bidder's bond will not be accepted unless it conforms to a bond form approved by the City Attorney. Upon request “Bidder's Bond” forms may be obtained from the Department.
2-1.04 WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS. Any bid may be withdrawn at any time prior to the time fixed in the public notice for the deadline submission of bids only by written request for the withdrawal of the bid filed with the Director. The request shall be executed by the Bidder or his or her duly authorized representative. The withdrawal of a bid does not prejudice the right of the Bidder to file a new bid. Whether or not bids are opened exactly at the time fixed in the public notice for opening bids, a bid will not be received after the deadline for submission of bids nor may any bid be withdrawn after the time fixed in the public notice for deadline for submission of bids. Immediately following the deadline for submission of bids all bids shall become the property of the City of Roseville and City is under no obligation to return the bids.
2-1.05 RELIEF OF BIDDERS. If the Bidder claims a mistake was made in his or her bid, the Bidder shall give the Department written notice within five (5) calendar days after the opening of the bids of the alleged mistake, specifying in the notice in detail how the mistake occurred. No relief from a claimed mistaken bid shall be granted unless such mistake clearly appears on the face of the bid submitted to the City. Claimed mistakes on backup worksheets, spreadsheets, computerized bidding programs, or any other similar calculative bidding mistake which is not apparent on the face of the bid shall not under any circumstance be considered as a

Page 546 of 1219 ends
← All documents from this meeting