Clovis City Council
March 21, 2022

March 21, 2022 - 1 - 2:34 PM A G E N D A • C I T Y C O U N C I L M E E T I N G

March 21, 2022 6:00 PM Council Chamber

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to access the City Council Chamber to participate at this meeting, please contact the City Clerk or General Services Director at (559) 324 -2060 (TTY – 711). Notificatio n 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the Council Chamber.

The Clovis City Council meetings are open to the public at the physical address listed above. There are numerous ways to participate in the City Council meetings: you are able to attend in person; you may submit written comments as described below; you may participate by calling in by phone (see “Verbal Comments” below); and you may view the meeting which is webcast and acces sed at www.cityofclovis.com/agendas.

Written Comments

 Members of the public are encouraged to submit written comments at:
www.cityofclovis.com/agendas at least two (2) hours before the meeting (4:00 p.m.). You will be prompted to provide:

 Council Meeting Date
 Item Number
 Name
 Email
 Comment

 Please submit a separate form for each item you are commenting on.

 A copy of your written comment will be provided to the City Council noting the item number.

If you wish to make a verbal comment, please see instructions below.

 Please be aware that any written comments received that do not specify a particular agenda item will be marked for the general public comment portion of the agenda.

 If a written comment is received after 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting, efforts will be made to provide the comment to the City Council during the meeting. However, staff cannot guarantee that written comments received after 4:00 p.m. will be provided to City Council during the meeting. All written comments received prior to the end of the meeting will be made part of the record of proceedings.

Council Chamber, 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612 (559) 324-2060 www.cityofclovis.com
1 March 21, 2022 - 2 - 2:34 PM Verbal Comments

 If you wish to speak to the Council on an item by telephone, you should contact the City Clerk at (559) 324-2060 no later than 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.

 You will be asked to provide your name, phone number, and your email. You will be emailed instructions to log into Webex to participate in the meeting. Staff recommends participants log into the Webex at 5:30 p.m. the day of the meeting to perform an audio check.

 All callers will be placed on mute, and at the appropriate time for your comment your microphone will be unmuted.

 In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less, or 10 minutes per topic

Webex Participation

 Reasonable efforts will be made to allow written and verbal comment from a participant communicating with the host of the virtual meeting. To do so, a participant will need to chat with the host and request to make a written or verbal comment. The host w ill make reasonable efforts to make written and verbal comments available to the City Council. Due to the new untested format of these meetings, the City cannot guarantee that these written and verbal comments initiated via chat will occur. Participants desiring to make a verbal comment via chat will need to ensure that they accessed the meeting with audio transmission capabilities.

CALL TO ORDER

FLAG SALUTE - Councilmember Ashbeck

ROLL CALL

PUBLIC COMMENTS - This is an opportunity for the members of the public to address the City Council on any matter within the City Council’s jurisdiction that is not listed on the Agenda. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less, or 10 minutes per topic. Anyone wishing to be placed on the Agenda for a specific topic should contact the City Manager’s office and submit correspondence at least 10 days before the desired date of appearance.

ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS - With respect to the approval of resolutions and ordinances, the reading of the title shall be deemed a motion to waive a reading of the complete resolution or ordinance and unless there is a request by a Councilmember that the resolution or ordinance be read in full, furth er reading of the resolution or ordinance shall be deemed waived by unanimous consent of the Council.

CONSENT CALENDAR - Items considered routine in nature are to be placed upon the Consent Calendar. They will all be considered and voted upon in one vote as one item unless a Councilmember requests individual consideration. A Councilmember’s vote in favor of the Consent Calendar is considered and recorded as a separate affirmative vote in favor of each action listed.

Motions in favor of adoption of the Co nsent Calendar are deemed to include a motion to waive the reading of any ordinance or resolution on the Consent Calendar. For adoption of ordinances, only those that have received a unanimous vote upon introduction are considered Consent items. 2 March 21, 2022 - 3 - 2:34 PM

1. Administration - Approval - Minutes from the March 14, 2022, Council Meeting.

2. Planning and Development Services - Approval – Res. 22-___, Final Map Tract 6023, located in the southeast area of Ashlan Avenue and Highland Avenue (Lennar Homes of California, LLC (Lennar Homes)).

3. Planning and Development Services - Approval – Res. 22 -___, Annexation of Proposed Tract 6023, located in the southeast area of Ashlan Avenue and Highland Avenue to the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 of the City of Clovis (Lennar Homes of California, LLC (Lennar Homes)).

4. Planning and Development Services – Approval – Final Acceptance for Final Map for Tract 6260, located at the northeast corner of Shaw Avenue and Locan Avenue (DYP 6260 LP, DeYoung Properties).

5. Public Utilities – Approval – Preliminary Engineer’s Report; and Approval – Res. 22- ___, A Resolution Declaring the City’s Intention to Levy and Collect the Annual Assessments for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1.

6. Public Utilities – Approval – Waive Formal Bidding Requirements and Award a Contract to Carbon Activated to Purchase and Replace Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) at Well 28.

PUBLIC HEARINGS - A public hearing is an open consideration within a regular or special meeting of the City Council, for which special notice has been given and may be required. When a public hearing is continued, noticing of the adjourned item is required as per Government Code 54955.1.

7. Consider Approval – Res. 22-___, A Resolution of the City of Clovis Adopting the City of Clovis Local Road Safety Plan.

Staff: Ryan Burnett, Engineering Program Supervisor
Recommendation: Approve

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS - Administrative Items are matters on the regular City Council Agenda other than Public Hearings.

8. Receive and File – Update on Landmark Square.

Staff: Renee Mathis, Director of Planning and Development Services Recommendation: Receive and File

9. Consider Approval - Res. 22-___, A Resolution of the City Council for the City of Clovis Confirming Assessment for Costs for Abatement of Nuisance, 30 West Shaw Avenue, Clovis, CA 93612, APN No.: 499-230-82.

Staff: Andrew Haussler, Assistant City Manager
Recommendation: Approve

10. Consider Approval – Res. 22 -___, A Resolution accepting and authorizing the submission of the 2021 General Plan Annual Progress Report, including the 2021 Housing Element Annual Progress Report to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Staff: Dave Merchen, City Planner / Lily Cha, Associate Planner Recommendation: Approve
3 March 21, 2022 - 4 - 2:34 PM

11. Consider Approval – Res. 22-__, A Resolution approving the annual review and update to the Regional Housing Needs (RHN) Overlay District map of parcels and associated list reflecting those parcels that qualify for development as a RHN Overlay project.

Staff: Dave Merchen, City Planner
Recommendation: Approve

CITY MANAGER COMMENTS

COUNCIL COMMENTS

CLOSED SESSION - A “closed door” (not public) City Council meeting, allowed by State law, for consideration of pending legal matters and certain matters relate d to personnel and real estate transactions.

12. Government Code Section 54957.6

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Designated Representatives: John Holt, Andrew Haussler, Jeffrey Blanks, Shonna Halterman, Lori Shively, Scott Cross
Employee Organiza tion: Clovis Police Officers Association, Clovis Firefighters Association, Clovis Employees Association, Clovis Public Works Employees Association, Clovis Public Safety Employees Association, Clovis Professional and Technical Employees Association, Clovis Transit Employees Bargaining Unit, Clovis Technical and Financial Professionals Association Unrepresented Employee:

Management Employees

13. Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant Exposure to Litigation
One potential case

14. Government Code Section 54956.8

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: 765 Third Street, Clovis, CA 93612
Agency Negotiators: John Holt, Renee Mathis, Mike Harrison, Scott Cross Negotiating Party: County of Fresno
Under Negotiation: Terms of sale/exchange

ADJOURNMENT

MEETINGS AND KEY ISSUES

Regular City Council Meetings are held at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber. The following are future meeting dates:

April 4, 2022 (Mon.) (Joint Meeting with Planning Commission) April 11, 2022 (Mon.)
April 18, 2022 (Mon.)
May 2, 2022 (Mon.)
May 9, 2022 (Mon.)
May 16, 2022 (Mon.)
4 PRELIMINARY - SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

CLOVIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING

March 14, 2022 6:00 P.M. Council Chamber

Meeting called to order by Mayor Flores at 6:02
Flag Salute led by Councilmember Whalen

Roll Call: Present: Councilmembers Bessinger, Mouanoutoua, Whalen Mayor Flores

Absent: Councilmember Ashbeck

PUBLIC COMMENTS – 6:04

None.

CONSENT CALENDAR – 6:05

Motion by Councilmember Whalen, seconded by Councilmember Bessinger, that the items on the Consent Calendar be approved , including the waiver of the reading of the ordinance. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Councilmember Ashbeck absent.

1. Administration - Approved - Minutes from the March 7, 2022, Council Meeting.

2. Administration - Adopted - Ord. 22-01, An Ordinance of the City of Clovis Adding Chapter

6.3.2 of the City Municipal Code Regarding Organic Waste Disposal Reduction. (Vote: 5-0).

3. General Services – Approved – Res. 22 -20, Amending the City’s FY 21 -22 Position Allocation Plan by adding one (1) Staff Analyst position and deleting one (1) Management Analyst position within the Planning and Development Services Department.

4. Planning and Development Services – Approved – Bid Award for CIP 17 -28, Sunnyside Avenue Bike Lane; and Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City.

5. Public Utilities – Approved – Award the Engineering Consulting Services Contract for a Feasibility Study Exploring Alternative Solutions for Compliance with Rule 4311 (Flares) at the Clovis Land fill, and for Completing and Submitting the Authority to Construct (ATC) Application to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD); and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Contract on Behalf of the City.

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS – 6:07

6:07 – ITEM 6 - APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS – RES. 22 -21, A RESOLUTION

TERMINATING THE DECLARED LOCAL EMERGENCY AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 20-20, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS PROCLAIMING

THE EXISTENCE OR THR EATENED EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY ( COVID- 19), THEREBY REPEALI NG ALL EMERGENCY ORD ERS IN THE CITIY OF CLOVIS, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION EMERGENCY ORDERS 2020-03, 2020-06, 2020-08, 2020-08A, 2020-13, 2020-16, 2021-01, AND 2021-02.

5 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1.

PRELIMINARY - SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Motion for approval by Councilmember Whalen, seconded by Councilmember Mouanoutoua. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Councilmember Ashbeck absent.

CITY MANAGER COMMENTS – 6:15

COUNCIL COMMENTS – 6:16

CLOSED SESSION – 6:24

Councilmember Ashbeck joined via Microsoft Teams at 6:24 p.m.

ITEM 7 - GOVERNMENT CODE SECT ION 54957.6 CONFEREN CE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS AGENCY D ESIGNATED REPRESENTA TIVES: JOHN HOLT, AN DREW

HAUSSLER, JEFFREY BL ANKS, SHONNA HALTERM AN, LORI SHIVELY, SC OTT CROSS EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIO N: CLOVIS POLICE OFF ICERS ASSOCIATION, C LOVIS

FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIA TION, CLOVIS EMPLOYE ES ASSOCIATION, CLOV IS PUBLIC

WORKS EMPLOYEES ASSO CIATION, CLOVIS PUBL IC SAFETY EMPLOYEES

ASSOCIATION, CLOVIS PROFESSIONAL AND TEC HNICAL EMPLOYEES ASS OCIATION,

CLOVIS TRANSIT EMPLO YEES BARGAINING UNIT , CLOVIS TECHNIC AL AND FINANCIAL PROFESSIONALS ASSOCI ATION UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEE: MANAGEMENT

EMPLOYEES

ITEM 8 - GOVERNMENT CODE SEC TION 54956.8 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PROPERTY: 765 THIRD STREET, CLOVIS, CA 9 3612 AGENCY NEGOTIATORS: JOHN HO LT, RENEE MATHIS, MIKE HARRISO N, SCOTT CROSS NEGOTIATING PARTY: C OUNTY OF FRESNO UNDE R NEGOTIATION: TERMS OF

SALE/EXCHANGE

Mayor Flores adjourned the meeting of the Council to March 21, 2022

Meeting adjourned: 8:04 p.m.

______________________________ ________________________________ Mayor City Clerk
6 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning and Development Services
DATE: March 21, 2022
SUBJECT: Planning and Development Services - Approval – Res. 2 2-___, Final Map Tract 6023, located in the southeast area of Ashlan Avenue and Highland Avenue (Lennar Homes of California, LLC (Lennar Homes)).

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Res. 22-___

2. Vicinity Map

3. Copy of Final Map

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to approve Res. 22-___, which will:

1. Accept the offer of dedication of parcels and public utility easements within Tract 6023, and

2. Authorize the recording of the final map.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owner, Lennar Homes of California, LLC (Lennar Homes) , acting as the subdivider, has submitted a final map. The improvement plans are being processed by C ity staff. The improvements to be installed include curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, fire hydrants, street paving, sanit ary sewer, water mains, and landscaping. The subject tract is located at the southeast area of Ashlan Avenue and Highland Avenue . It contains approximately 43.06 acres and consists of 270 residential units, zoned R-1-PRD.

FISCAL IMPACT
The subdivider will be installing curb, gutter, sidewalk, fire hydrants, street paving, sanitary sewer, water mains, and landscaping, which will be perpetually maintained by the City of Clovis.

Streetlights will be installed, in which the City will pay fo r the power and PG&E will provide the maintenance.

7 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The subdivision agreement has been executed by the subdivider and all development fees paid or deferred in accordance with the Municipal Code. The agreement provides for the dev eloper to complete a technically correct map and improvement plans, and to complete all the required improvements in compliance with the conditions of approval. The improvements are adequately secured.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The final map will be filed with the Fresno County Recorder’s office for recording.

Prepared by: Tiffany Ljuba-Silguero, Engineer I

Reviewed by: City Manager _AH__

8 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 22-___

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS
APPROVING FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TRACT NO. 6023

WHEREAS, a final map has been presented to the City Council of t he City of Clovis for Tract 6023, by The City of Clovis, a Municipal Corporation; and

WHEREAS, said final tract conforms to the requirements of Chapter 2, Part 2, of Division 4 of the Business and Professions Code and to local ordinances.

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

1. The final map of Tract 6023, consisting of five (5) sheets, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk, be and the same is hereby approved.

2. The subdivision improvement plans for said tract have been approved by City Staff.

3. The preliminary Engineer’s Cost Estimate of development cost of said tract, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk, be and the same is hereby approved and adopted as the estimated cost of improvements for said subdivision in the sum of $9,182,229.00.

4. The offer and dedication for public use of the parcels and easements specified on said map are accepted by the City of Clovis and the City Clerk is authorized and directed to execute said subdivision map.

5. This Council finds that the proposed subdi vision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, are consistent with applicable general and specific plans of the City of Clovis.

6. Improvement Security, as provided hereunder and in said Subdivision Agreement, is fixed at one hundr ed percent (100%) of the remaining improvements to be constructed or the sum of $9,182,000.00 for guaranteeing specific performance of said agreement and fifty percent (50%) of the remaining improvements or the sum of $4,591,000.00 for payment of labor and materials furnished by contractors, subcontractors, labormen and materialmen in connection with the improvements required to be made or constructed by said subdivider in conformity with said subdivision map or said agreement.

9 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.

7. Subdivider shall furnish a bond in the sum of $933,500.00 being the amount determined by the City Council of the City as necessary for the guarantee and warranty of the work for a period of one year following the completion and acceptance of the tract against any defective work or labor done, or defective materials furnished. Said bond is required to be furnished prior to acceptance of the tract by the City Council.

* * * * *

The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular mee ting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on March 21, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED:

______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk

10 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.

Attachment 2
11 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.

TRACT NO. 6023
· Clovis, California 93612 Fax (559) 325·- (559) 325-7676 Civil EngineersHarbour & Associates389 Clovis Avenue, Suite 300 7699 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )COUNTY OF )ON , 202 , BEFORE ME , NOTARYPUBLIC, PERSONALLY APPEARED , WHOPROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S)WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT ANDACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME INHIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIRSIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALFOF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFCALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT, WITNESSMY HAND.NAME SIGNATURE MY COMMISSION EXPIRES COUNTY OF COMMISSION NUMBER A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THISCERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THEINDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THISCERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS,ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )COUNTY OF )

NAME SIGNATURE MY COMMISSION EXPIRES COUNTY OF COMMISSION NUMBER A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THISCERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THEINDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THISCERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS,ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.

MICHAEL J. HARRISON LS 8088
ON , 202 , BEFORE ME , NOTARYPUBLIC, PERSONALLY APPEARED , WHOPROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S)WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT ANDACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME INHIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIRSIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALFOF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFCALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT, WITNESSMY HAND.

PARCEL A AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 2020-004 RECORDED ON AUGUST 25, 2020 IN BOOK 76 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 13 -14, RECORDS OF FRESNO COUNTY.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )COUNTY OF )

NAME SIGNATURE MY COMMISSION EXPIRES COUNTY OF COMMISSION NUMBER A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THISCERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THEINDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THISCERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS,ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.ON , 202 , BEFORE ME , NOTARYPUBLIC, PERSONALLY APPEARED , WHOPROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S)WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT ANDACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME INHIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIRSIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALFOF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFCALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT, WITNESSMY HAND.

1.THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY LIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROLDISTRICT AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT FOR DRAINAGE FEES AND/OR REQUIREMENTS TO CONSTRUCT PLANNEDLOCAL DRAINAGE FACILITIES DISCLOSED BY FMFCD RESOLUTION NO. 1816 RECORDED JULY 31, 1955 AS RECORDING NO.95092128, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.2.THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY LIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2004-1 FORPOLICE AND FIRE SERVICE DISCLOSED BY ANNEXATION MAP NO. 40 RECORDED JULY 10, 2015 IN BOOK 44 OF ASSESSMENTMAPS OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 38.AMENDED NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN, CITY OF CLOVIS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2004-1, ANNEXATION NO. 40,RECORDED JULY 10, 2015, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS UNDER RECORDERS SERIAL NUMBER 2015-0088577.3.THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO MATTERS AS CONTAINED OR REFERRED TO IN AN INSTRUMENTENTITLED RIGHT TO FARM NOTICE EXECUTED BY WILOLI, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP RECORDED JULY 18, 2013 INOFFICIAL RECORDS UNDER RECORDERS SERIAL NUMBER 2013-0100709.4.AN EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR DITCH AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF FRESNO IRRIGATION DISTRICT,RECORDED 1-13-41, IN BOOK 1894 ,PAGE 136, AS SERIAL NO. 1375, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF FRESNO COUNTY.5.AN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF FRESNO IRRIGATION DISTRICT FOR PERPETUAL AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT AND EASEMENT TOCONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OPERATE, MAINTAIN, REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCT A PIPELINE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED1-13-66 IN BOOK 5263, PAGE 494 AS SERIAL NO. 3411, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF FRESNO COUNTY.6.A PORTION OF THIS SITE LIES WITHIN FLOOD ZONE "A", AS SHOWN ON FEMA MAP 06019C1595H, EFFECTIVE 2/18/2009. 12 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.

Harbour & AssociatesCivil Engineers389 CLOVIS AVENUE # 300 Clovis, California 93612(559) 325 - 7676 Fax (559) 325 - 7699 e - mail [email protected] TRACT NO. 6023
13 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.

TRACT NO. 6023
Harbour & AssociatesCivil Engineers389 CLOVIS AVENUE # 300 Clovis, California 93612(559) 325 - 7676 Fax (559) 325 - 7699 e - mail [email protected] 14 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.
15 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.
16 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning and Development Services
DATE: March 21, 2022
SUBJECT: Planning and Development Services - Approval – Res. 22-___, Annexation of Proposed Tract 6023, located in the southeast area of Ashlan Avenue and Highland Avenue to the Lan dscape Maintenance District No. 1 of the City of Clovis (Lennar Homes of California, LLC (Lennar Homes)).

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Res. 22-___

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to approve Res. 22-___, which will annex proposed Tract 6023, located in the southeast area of Ashlan Avenue and Highland Avenue to the Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) No. 1 of the City of Clovis.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owner, Lennar Homes of California, LLC (Lennar Homes), acting as the subdivider, has requested to be annexed to the LMD No. 1 of the City of Clovis as set forth by the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract 6023.

BACKGROUND
Lennar Homes of California, LLC (Lennar Homes), the developer of Tract 6023, has executed a covenant that this development be annexed to the City of Clovis, LMD No. 1. An executed copy can be provided on request. Council formed the original District on July 15, 1985, for the purpose of funding the maintenance of landscaped areas and parks.

Under the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and in accordance with Article XIII C and Article XIII D of Proposition 218, all the owners of property pro posed for annexation have provided a written request and consent to annexation and have executed a covenant (petition) indicating acceptance of the annual assessment.

17 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

FISCAL IMPACT
This project will add landscaping to the LMD No. 1 of the City of Clovis shown as follows:

Tract 6023 Year to Date

LMD Landscaping added: 3.203 acres 7.328 acres

Resource needs added: 0.320 persons 0.732 persons

The resource needs estimate is based on 1 person per 10 acres of landscaped area.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The property owners for the subject tract have requested annexation into the City of Clovis LMD No. 1.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Tract 6023 shall become a part of City of Clovis LMD No. 1 and will be assessed next year for maintenance costs.

Prepared by: Tiffany Ljuba-Silguero, Engineer I

Reviewed by: City Manager _AH__

18 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 22-___

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS, APPROVING ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 OF THE CITY

OF CLOVIS

WHEREAS, City of Clovis Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 ("District") was formed by Resolution No. 85-78, adopted July 15, 1985, pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972), herein the "Act"; and
WHEREAS, all of the owners of property proposed to be annexed to the District consisting of proposed Tract No. 6023, as described in Attachment "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, have consented to said annexation and such annexation may be ordered without notice and hearing or filing of engineer's report, or both.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED, as follows:

1. That the public interest and convenience require that certain property described in Attachment "A" attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein be annexed into Landscape Maintenance Distric t No. 1 of the City of Clovis for the maintenance and servicing of landscaping facilities.

2. The City Clerk shall receive and file the maps showing the boundaries of the areas annexed as set forth in Attachment "A" which boundaries shall be used for assessment proceedings until and unless a change of organization is approved pursuant to the Act.
* * * * *
The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on March 21, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED:

Mayor City Clerk
19 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

ATTACHMENT “A”

Legal Description

Lots 1 through 270, inclusive, of Tract Map 6023 recorded in Volume ______ of Plats at Pages ______ through ______, Fresno County Records.
20 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning and Development Services
DATE: March 21, 2022
SUBJECT: Planning and Development Services – Approval – Final Acceptance for Final Map for Tract 6260, located at the northeast corner of Shaw Avenue and Locan Avenue (DYP 6260 LP, DeYoung Properties).

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to:

1. Accept the public improvements for Tract 6 260, and authorize recording the Notice of Completion; and

2. Authorize the release of the Performance Surety immediately and then release of the Labor and Materials Surety ninety (90) days after the recordation of the Notice of Completion, (provided no liens have been filed) and release of Public Improvements Maintenance Surety upon the expiration of the one -year warranty period and provided any defective work has been repaired to the City’s satisfaction.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owner, DYP 6260 LP (DeYoung Properties), has requested final acceptance of the public improvements constructed or installed in conjunction with this tract. The public improvements include all those shown on the subdivision improvement plans approved by the City Engineer.

The constructio n or installation of the public improvements is complete. The owner has requested final acceptance. Staff is recommending approval of their request.

All landscaping, including sidewalks along the side yards of lots have been constructed. The construction or installation of the public improvements is complete. The owner has requested final acceptance. Staff is recommending approval of their request.

21 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for periodic routine maintenance, as well as repairs needed as the improvements deteriorate with age and usage, will be incorporated to the annual maintenance budget of the Public Utilities Department as these costs are identified.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Subdivision Map Act requires that once construction of the required improvements has been completed in compliance with all codes, plans and specifications, and all other required documents have been completed and submitted, final acceptance is required, and the appropriate sureties are released.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Record t he Notice of Completion and release the Performance, Labor and Materials, and Maintenance Sureties as appropriate.

Prepared by: Gene G. Abella, Civil Engineer

Reviewed by: City Manager __AH___

22 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.
23 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Public Utilities Department
DATE: March 21, 2022
SUBJECT: Public Utilities – Approval – Preliminary Engineer’s Report; and Approval – Res. 22-___, A Resolution Declaring the City’s Intention to Levy and Collect the Annual Assessments for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Intention

2. Assessment Diagrams

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve the Preliminary Engineer’s Report on file with the City Clerk; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 22 -____ that declares the City’s intention to levy and collect the annual assessments for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and gives Notice of Public Hearing.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City collects funds through annual assessments on properties within Landsc ape Maintenance District (LMD) No. 1. These funds provide landscape maintenance services for those properties within the LMD, including special enhancements unique to the various tracts within the District. Currently, 49 different assessment zones have been established. Zones 1- 3 provide for street median and street -side landscape maintenance throughout most of the City. Zones 4-6 provide for neighborhood park maintenance throughout most of the City. Zones 7-47 provide for maintenance of special neighborhood enhancements. Zone SE provides for maintenance for all of Loma Vista; and Zone NW provides for maintenance for all of Heritage Grove. Properties within the LMD (except the majority of those in Zone SE and Zone NW) are all in Zones 1-3, and they may also be in Zones 4-6 and Zones 7-47. Zone SE and Zone NW are unique in that they cover all three categories of landscape: street median and street -side landscaping, parks, and neighborhood enhancements. There are five special enhancement zones in Zone SE.

24 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.

The rates for Zones 1, 3 and 6 were established by election in 2004. The rate for Zone 2 was increased by election in 2018. The rate for Zone 4 was increased by election in 2016. The rate for Zone 5 was increase by election in 2013, but an assessment increase election in Zone 5 failed in 2016.

Zones 7-47, Zone SE and Zone NW include escalation clauses in the annexation covenants that allow the City to increase t he assessments by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) plus 2%.

Because this provision is included in the annexation documents and agreed to by the property owners, it is not considered a rate increase and is not subject to the election process outlined in Proposition 218.

Consistent with Section 22623 of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, this Resolution proposes the following actions for the various zones:

LMD REQUIREMENTS
The Preliminary Engineer’s Report is being filed with the City Clerk for submission to Council in accordance with Section 22623 of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (ACT). After approval of the Report, Section 22624 of the Act requires the Council to adopt a Resolution of Intention that:

Zone Rate
Change
Reason For Change

Zones 2, 3, 4, 6

Zones 1, 5

No change

Pending Election

Rates will continue to be
maintained at the rate
established by elections.

Assessment increase election
needed to maintain adequate
landscape service.

Zones 7, 12, 14, 15,17-
21, 23,24,27-29,32, 34,
36, 39, 41, 42, SE (new
zones 46,47)

No change

No change. Current rates are
sufficient to cover costs. (New
Zones assessed at initial
rates).

Zones 13, 16, 25, 26,
31, 33, 35, 37 -38, 40,
43-45, NW
Increase assessment

Rates are being increased to
cover the cost of maintaining
service while continuing to
maintain capital reserves.

Zones 8, 9, 10, 22, 30

Decrease assessment Rates are being decreased
since the revenues exceed the
expenditures and there are
sufficient reserves.

25 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.

1. Declares the intention to levy and collect assessments;

2. Generally describes the existing and proposed improvements and any substantial changes proposed to be made in existing improvements;

3. Refers to the assessment district by its distinctive designation and indicates the general location of the district;

4. Refers to the Preliminary Engineer’s Report for a full description of the improvements, boundaries, and any zones in the district , and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the district;

5. Gives notice of the time and place for hearing by the Council on the levy of the proposed assessments; and

6. States whether the assessments are proposed to increase from the previous year.

BACKGROUND
On July 15, 1985, Council adopted Resolution No. 85-78, forming the City of Clovis Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (LMD) in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 approved by the California State Legislature. The purpose of the District is to fund the operation and maintenance of landscaped areas and interior parks benefiting development throughout the City.

The yearly assessments established for all properties within the District provide funding for the City's cost for operation, maintenance, related services, and incidental expenses. The required operation and maintenance include mowing, edging, fertilizing, weed control, irrigation system, pruning, plant replacement, lighting, and a depreciation fund to periodically replace playground and other landscape related equipment . The assessments are collected by the County as a special assessment on the property tax bills.

The yearly rates for Zones 1-6 are as follows:

General Landscaping Neighborhood Park
Zone 1 $78.50 ($99.50 Election rate) Zone 4 $49.86 Zone 2 $99.94 Zone 5 $50.10 ($72.30 Election Rate) Zone 3 $12.28 Zone 6 $80.08

In addition to the general landscaping and neighborhood park zones, additional zones have been established to cover enhanced landscaping, entry features, and decorative street lighting in various residential subdivisions. The properties in each of these benefit zones are assessed an additional amo unt to fund the maintenance costs for the added features at each of their subdivisions. The proposed annual rates for the enhanced landscaping zones are as follows:

26 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.

Zone 7 $200.00 Tracts 4762A, 4873, 4874, 4875, 4876, &
5015
Zone 8 $56.34 Tract 4949
Zone 9 $49.62 Tract 4954
Zone 10 $76.70 Tracts 4958, 4986, & 5026
Zone 11 Not used at this time
Zone 12 $105.00 Tracts 5025, 5046, & 5047
Zone 13 $52.46 Tract 5045
Zone 14 $32.20 Tract 5020
Zone 15 $150.14 Tracts 5038, 5057, 5058, & 5059
Zone 16 $11.54 Tract 5106
Zone 17 $26.70 Tract 4973
Zone 18 $57.62 Tract 5115
Zone 19 $66.48 Tract 5125
Zone 20 $44.44 Tract 4938
Zone 21 $0.00 Tract 5122 (Zone 21 not developed)
Zone 22 $65.00 Tract 5131
Zone 23 $96.78 Tract 5213
Zone 24 $74.56 Tract 5200
Zone 25 $111.14 Tract 5194
Zone 26 $101.80 Tract 5347
Zone 27 $39.28 Tract 5146
Zone 28 $50.48 Tract 5378
Zone 29 $111.38 Tract 5470
Zone 30 $51.22 Tracts 5264 & 5741
Zone 31 $125.80 Tract 5711
Zone 32 $21.02 Tract 5545
Zone 33 $18.20 Tract 5207
Zone 34 $72.90 Tract 5874
Zone 35 $119.36 Tract 5550
Zone 36 $192.84 Tract 6072
Zone 37 $64.52 Tract 6147
Zone 38 $71.18 Tract 6170
Zone 39 $85.54 Tract 6109
Zone 40 $89.54 Tract 6228
Zone 41 $128.40 Tract 6186A
Zone 42 $63.56 Tract 6230
Zone 43 $44.76 Tract 6239
Zone 44 $90.58 Tract 6263
Zone 45 $37.94 Tract 6181
Zone 46 $294.00 Tract 6301
Zone 47 $62.00 Tract 6284
Zone NW $449.40 Tracts 6200, 6050, 6328, 6329
Zone SE $351.00 Tracts 5950, 6020, 5871, 6011, 6007, 6008, 6012, 5605, 5657A, 6009, 6055, 6058, 6025,
SPR2012-006, 5701A, 6089, 5998, 6083,
27 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.
6086, 6034, 5681, 6064, 6098/6142, 6114,
6082, 6040, 6107. 6143, PM2015 -02,
PM2015-04, 6144, 6127 , 6080, 6181, 6164,
6260, SPR 2017 -014, PM 18 -14, 6137A2,
PM2016-01, and 1 MISC.

Zone SE $218.48 Tracts 6101, 6068, 6102, 6197, 6120 , 6255, 6123, and 6304.

Zone SE includes all tracts being developed in the Southeast Urban Village, generally located east of Locan Avenue and south of Bullard Avenue . Zone NW includes all tr acts being developed in Heritage Grove , generally located north of Shepherd Avenue and west of Sunnyside Avenue. Unlike other properties in the City, properties in th ese zones are not annexed into one or more zones like Zones 1 through 6. The rate s for th ese zones are designed to cover all the general landscaping, neighborhood parks, enhanced landscaping, and public lighting in their area. All the tracts to be annexed into Zone SE and Zone NW are expected to have enhanced landscaping, entry features, and decorative street lighting.

Two rates have been established in Zone SE, because a tract may have only partial landscape amenities until adjacent tracts are completed. This has not yet occurred in Zone NW.

The Resolution of Levy containing the Notice of Public Hearing will be published in The Business Journal not less than 10 days prior to the Public Hearing date of June 6, 2022. The Public Hearing will afford all interest ed persons the opportunity to address their concerns.

Written protests may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the conclusion of the Public Hearing.

FISCAL IMPACT
Annual LMD assessments collected provide the necessary funding to continue th e maintenance of landscaped areas within the various benefit zones for the next fiscal year and provide reserves necessary for depreciation and replacement.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
This resolution is required annually by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 prior to levying and collecting assessments.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL

1. The Resolution of Intention to Levy and Collect the Annual Assessments will be published in The Business Journal; and

2. The Engineer’s Report that shows the final assessment costs will be considered by the City Council at the Public Hearing proposed for June 6, 2022, and if approved, recorded by the Fresno County Recorder’s Office.

Prepared by: Eric Aller, Parks Manager

Reviewed by: City Manager _AH__
28 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 22-

A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR THE CITY OF CLOVIS AND

SET THE PUBLIC HEARING

WHEREAS, the Clovis City Council has approved six (6) annexations with new improvements to the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 of the City of Clovis (herein LMD No. 1) since the Engineer’s Report dated June 7, 2021; and

WHEREAS, proceedings for the annual assessments for LMD No. 1 for the fiscal year 2022-23 need to be initiated.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED as follows:

1. It is the intention of said Council to order the levy and collecti on of an assessment for the 2022-23 fiscal year under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Par t 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code beginning with Section 22500 of said Code , for Landscape Maintenance District #1 of the City of Clovis (herein “LMD No. 1”).

2. Said LMD No. 1 is generally described as all properties in subdivisions, S ite Plan Review developments, Parcel Map developments , and other miscellaneous property entitlement developments approved since July 1985, within the current boundaries of the City of Clovis.

3. The Engineer has prepared and filed with the Clerk of the City of Clovis a preliminary report labeled Preliminary Engineer’s Report of the City of Clovis LMD No. 1, dated March 21, 2022, to which reference is hereby made for a detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district and any zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within LMD No. 1.

4. The Business Journal, a newspaper circulated in said City of Clovis, is hereby designated as the newspaper in which this Resolution of Intention shall be published, and the Clerk of the City of Clovis is hereby directed to cause this Resolution of Intention to be published once no less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing date set forth below.

5. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the 6th day of June 2022, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., in the regular meeting place of the Council of the City of Clovis, Council Chambers, 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, California 93612, is hereby fixed as the time and place for a PUBLIC HEARING, when and where all interested persons shall be heard on the quest ion of the levy and collecti on of the proposed assessment. Written protests may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the conclusion of the PUBLIC HEARING. A written protest shall state all grounds of objection and shall contain a description s ufficient to identify the property owned by the protesting person or persons.

29 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.

6. In accordance with the terms of the covenants, the rate for Zones 13, 16, 25, 26, 31, 33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 45, NW will be increased to the amounts authorized under the covenants.

* * * * *
The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on March 21, 2022, by the following vote, to wit.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED: March 21, 2022

______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk

30 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.

HIGHLAND AVE

HERNDON AVE

FOWLER AVESHEPHERD AVE

BULLARD AVE

SIERRA AVE

SUNNYSIDE AVE LEONARD AVEDEWOLF AVE

BARSTOW AVE

LOCAN AVETEMPERANCE AVEPEACH AVEMINNEWAWA AVE ARMSTRONG AVE

NEES AVE

TEAGUE AVE

CLOVIS AVE

ALLUVIAL AVE

SHAW AVE

GETTYSBURG AVE

ASHLAN AVE
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
LMD ZONES 1-3

GENERAL LANDSCAPING
2022/2023 ASSESSMENT CHANGES
ASSESSMENT INCREASE FOR ZONE 1
NO ASSESSMENT CHANGES ZONES 2 & 3 µ
1 inch = 5,167 feet
ZONE 1
ZONE 2ZONE 3
ATTACHMENT 2 31
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.

HIGHLAND AVE

HERNDON AVE

FOWLER AVESHEPHERD AVE

BULLARD AVE

SIERRA AVE

SUNNYSIDE AVE LEONARD AVEDEWOLF AVE

BARSTOW AVE

LOCAN AVETEMPERANCE AVEPEACH AVEMINNEWAWA AVE ARMSTRONG AVE

NEES AVE

TEAGUE AVE

CLOVIS AVE

ALLUVIAL AVE

SHAW AVE

GETTYSBURG AVE

ASHLAN AVE
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
µ
1 inch = 5,167 feet
ZONE 4
ZONE 5ZONE 6
LMD ZONES 4-6
PARKS
2022/2023 ASSESSMENT CHANGES
ASSESSMENT INCREASE FOR ZONE 5
NO ASSESSMENT CHANGES ZONES 4 & 6
32 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.

HIGHLAND AVE

HERNDON AVE
FOW

LER AVE

SHEPHERD AVE

BULLARD AVE

SIERRA AVE

SUNNYSIDE AVE

LEONARD AVE
DEW

OLF AVE

BARSTOW AVE

LOCAN AVE
TEM

PERANCE AVE

PEACH AVE
M
INNEW
AW
A AVE
ARM

STRONG AVE

NEES AVE

TEAGUE AVE

CLOVIS AVE

ALLUVIAL AVE

SHAW AVE

GETTYSBURG AVE

ASHLAN AVE
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
LMD ZONES 7 - 47

NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENTS
2022/2023 ASSESSMENT CHANGES
µ
1 inch = 4,833 feet
13 5%30
-10%
32 0%
10 -5%
9 -15%
8 -15%
15 0%
22 -15%
27 0%
29 0%
28 0%
18 0%
12 0%
19 0%
33 5%
25 5%
26 5%
7 0%
21 0%
39 0%
24 0%
23 0%
36 0%
17 0%
14 0%
35 5%
16 5%
20 0%
37 8%
31 10%
34 0%
38 12%
Assessment Changes No Change IncreaseDecrease
41 0%
40 9%
44 4%
43 4%
42 0%
45 0%
47 0%
46 0%
33 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.

HIGHLAND AVE

HERNDON AVE

FOWLER AVESHEPHERD AVE

BULLARD AVE

SIERRA AVE

SUNNYSIDE AVE LEONARD AVEDEWOLF AVE

BARSTOW AVE

LOCAN AVETEMPERANCE AVEPEACH AVEMINNEWAWA AVE ARMSTRONG AVE

NEES AVE

TEAGUE AVE

CLOVIS AVE

ALLUVIAL AVE

SHAW AVE

GETTYSBURG AVE

ASHLAN AVE
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

LMD ZONES SOUTHEAST AND NORTHWEST
2022/2023 ASSESSMENT CHANGES
5% ASSESSMENT INCREASE FOR ZONE NW
NO ASSESSMENT CHANGE FOR ZONE SE µ
1 inch = 5,208 feet

ZONE SE

ZONE NW
34 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Public Utilities
DATE: March 21, 2022
SUBJECT: Public Utilities – Approval – Waive Formal Bidding Requirements and Award a Contract to Carbon Activated to Purchase and Replace Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) at Well 28.

ATTACHMENTS: None

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to waive formal bidding requirements and authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Carbon Activated in the amount of $65,475 to remove and replace granular activated carbon (GAC) at City Well 28 located at 399 Shaw Avenue.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Included in the 2021-22 Water Enterprise Budget are funds to remove and install GAC at various well sites in the City. Three contractors were contacted through an informal bid process and three quotes were received. Carbon Activated provided the lowest responsible quote in the amount of $65,475, including tax . The work includes removing the carbon vessel contents, transporting the contents to a reactivation/destruction facility, reactivating or destroying the carbon, and then installing virgin carbon in the vessels.

BACKGROUND
Granular activated carbon is utilized at certain well sites to adsorb contaminants in the drinking water. Over time, the carbon loses its adsorptive capacity, and it must be removed and either replaced or regenerated. Well 28 has GAC treatment to remove 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP) from drinking water in order to stay below the maximum contaminant level set by the State.

FISCAL IMPACT
Sufficient funds were included in the Water Enterprise budget for the 2021-22 Fiscal Year.

35 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
Carbon Activated provided the lowest responsible quote, has extensive experience , and has performed this type of work for the City in the past . There are suff icient funds available for the cost of this project.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
A contract will be prepared and executed by the City Manager, subject to the Contractor providing performance security that is satisfactory to the City.

Prepared by: Paul Armendariz, Assistant Public Utilities Director

Reviewed by: City Manager _AH__

36 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning and Development Services
DATE: March 21, 2022
SUBJECT: Consider Approval – Res. 22 -___, A Resolution of the City of Clovis Adopting the City of Clovis Local Road Safety Plan.

Staff: Ryan Burnett, Engineering Program Supervisor
Recommendation: Approve
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution

2. Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council consider the Clovis Local Road Safety Plan and approve Resolution 22-__.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) and consultant Kittleson and Associates kicked off the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (Plan) in March of 2022, in which Clovis participated.

The Plan was tiered off the efforts of the Regional Safety Plan a lso being prepared by FCOG and Kittleson that was being prepared concurrently. The Plan analyzed historical crash patterns and trends, identified engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency response countermeasures, and prioritized safety improveme nts based on crash data and stakeholder engagement.

Approval of the Plan is now a requirement to pursue federal funding under the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).

BACKGROUND
Federal regulations require each State has a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). An SHSP is a statewide data -driven traffic safety plan that coordinates the efforts of a wide range of organizations to reduce traffic accident fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. In coordination with federal, state, local a nd private sector safety stakeholders, the SHSP 37 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
establishes goals, objectives, and emphasis areas. The SHSP addresses the 4Es of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services.

While the SHSP is used as a statewide approach fo r improving roadway safety, A Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is a means for providing local jurisdictions with an opportunity to address unique highway safety needs in their jurisdictions. The process of preparing an LRSP creates a framework to identify and analyze safety problems and recommend safety improvements.

One source of federal funding to construct identified street safety improvements is the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Starting with the 2022 HSIP funding cycle, local jurisdictions seeking funding are required to have an adopted LRSP. Since this is a new requirement, FCOG received interest from some member agencies to assist in preparing a LRSP. FCOG ended up with 10 agencies interested in participating, including Clovis. Some member agencies had previously prepared an LRSP and did not have a need to participate.

Clovis staff determined there were efficiencies in participating, including cost savings.

Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) and consultant Kittleson and Associates kicked off the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (P lan) in March of 2021. The ten agencies that participated include Clovis, Fresno County, Coalinga, Huron, Firebaugh, San Joaquin, Orange Cove, Kerman, Mendota, and Selma. The Plan was tiered off the efforts of the Regional Safety Plan that was being developed concurrently, since some of the efforts and data overlapped.

The Plan is set up with a general introduction that discusses the scope and process. Subsequent sections are dedicated to each of the participating jurisdictions. The Plan analyzed hist orical crash patterns and trends, identified engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency response countermeasures, and prioritized safety improvements based on crash data and stakeholder engagement. Each agency participated in the development of its own safety goals, policies, and project priorities. The appendices include the stakeholder engagement materials and example countermeasures that can be used for projects.

Section 2.0 of the Plan is dedicated to the City of Clovis. The section discuss es the specific crash patterns and trends for the City. In general, the Plan shows that pedestrians and bicyclists are overrepresented in fatal and severe injury crashes. The top three fatal and severe injury collision types in Clovis are broadside, veh icle-pedestrian, and hit-object crashes, and the top three fatal and severe injury primary collision factors are pedestrian violation, driving under the influence, and unsafe speed. Strategies that can be implemented to address these safety issues are identified in the Plan.

There was extensive stakeholder outreach performed with the preparation of the Plan from April 2021 through December 2021. Outreach activities included local working groups, a web-based survey and interactive map, and focus group mee tings. The Plan was approved by the FCOG Transportation Technical Committee and the Policy Advisory Committee on January 14, 2022, and it was approved by the Policy Board on January 27, 2022. Currently, each of the ten participating jurisdictions are in the process of approving the Plan.

38 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

FISCAL IMPACT
Projects that address safety issues identified in the Plan will be budgeted into the Community Investment Program as funding allows.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Plan identifies road safety issues and recommends safety improvements. Staff will use the Plan as a guiding document to implement identified strategies and pursue federal funding under HSIP.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Strategies to address the identified safety issues will be budgeted and imple mented as funding allows. Approval of the Plan allows the City to continue to pursue HSIP funding for these projects.

Prepared by: Ryan Burnett, Engineering Program Supervisor

Reviewed by: City Manager JH
39 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

RESOLUTION 22-__

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS APPROVING THE CITY

OF CLOVIS LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

WHEREAS, the City of Clovis (City) has the authority to construct and maintain its streets and roads to provide a roadway network to serve the needs of the community through quality infrastructure and environment; and

WHEREAS, the City has worked with the Fresno Council of Governments to develop a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) to analyze historical crash patterns and trends to identify countermeasures to reduce the number and severity of future crashes; and

WHEREAS, the LRSP will increase the City’s eligibility for various transportation grants and will provide additional guidance for the development of safer streets and roads.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESO LVED, that the City of Clovis Local Road Safety Plan is approved and will be included in the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan.

* * * * *

The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on March 21, 2022, by the following vote, to wit.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED: March 21, 2022

____________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk

Attachment 1
40 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

January 2022
ATTACHMENT 2
41 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

STATEMENT OF PROTECTION OF DATA FROM DISCOVERY AND ADMISSIONS:

Per Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code [23 U.S.C. §148(h) (4)] REPORTS

DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS, SURVEYS, AND INFORMATION—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.

Prepared For:

Fresno Council of Governments
2035 Tulare St # 201
Fresno, CA 93721
559.233.4148

Prepared By:

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
2510 J Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95816
916.266.2190
Project Manager: Mychal Loomis, PE, TE, PTOE, RSP
Deputy Project Manager: Matt Braughton, RSP

Toole Design
1322 Webster Street, Suite 208
Oakland, CA 94612
510.298.0740

Project No. 26012

January 2022
42 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Process .............................................................................................................................................................. 2 Regional Efforts ............................................................................................................................................... 12

2.0 City of Clovis ................................................................................................................................................... 13 Vision and Goals ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Safety Partners ................................................................................................................................................ 14 Performance Measures ................................................................................................................................. 14 Data Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 15 Existing Roadway Safety Performance ....................................................................................................... 18 Emphasis Areas ............................................................................................................................................... 39 Strategies......................................................................................................................................................... 41 Evaluation and Implementation .................................................................................................................. 54

3.0 City of Coalinga ............................................................................................................................................. 55 Vision and Goals ............................................................................................................................................ 55 Safety Partners ................................................................................................................................................ 56 Performance Measures ................................................................................................................................. 56 Data Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 57 Existing Roadway Safety Performance ....................................................................................................... 59 Emphasis Areas ............................................................................................................................................... 78 Strategies......................................................................................................................................................... 79 Evaluation and Implementation .................................................................................................................. 92

4.0 City of Firebaugh ............................................................................................................................................ 93 Vision and Goals ............................................................................................................................................ 93 Safety Partners ................................................................................................................................................ 94 Performance Measures ................................................................................................................................. 94 Data Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 95 Existing Roadway Safety Performance ....................................................................................................... 98 Emphasis Areas ............................................................................................................................................. 114 Strategies....................................................................................................................................................... 116 Evaluation and Implementation ................................................................................................................ 128

5.0 Fresno County ............................................................................................................................................... 129 Vision and Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 129 Safety Partners .............................................................................................................................................. 130 Performance Measures ............................................................................................................................... 130 Data Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 131 Existing Roadway Safety Performance ..................................................................................................... 134 Emphasis Areas ............................................................................................................................................. 167 Strategies....................................................................................................................................................... 168 Evaluation and Implementation ................................................................................................................ 190

43 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

6.0 City of Huron ................................................................................................................................................. 191 Vision and Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 191 Safety Partners .............................................................................................................................................. 192 Performance Measures ............................................................................................................................... 192 Data Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 193 Existing Roadway Safety Performance ..................................................................................................... 195 Emphasis Areas ............................................................................................................................................. 208 Strategies....................................................................................................................................................... 209 Evaluation and Implementation ................................................................................................................ 219

7.0 City of Kerman .............................................................................................................................................. 220 Vision and Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 220 Safety Partners .............................................................................................................................................. 221 Performance Measures ............................................................................................................................... 221 Data Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 222 Existing Roadway Safety Performance ..................................................................................................... 225 Emphasis Areas ............................................................................................................................................. 242 Strategies....................................................................................................................................................... 243 Evaluation and Implementation ................................................................................................................ 256

8.0 City of Mendota ........................................................................................................................................... 257 Vision and Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 257 Safety Partners .............................................................................................................................................. 258 Performance Measures ............................................................................................................................... 258 Data Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 259 Existing Roadway Safety Performance ..................................................................................................... 261 Emphasis Areas ............................................................................................................................................. 279 Strategies....................................................................................................................................................... 280 Evaluation and Implementation ................................................................................................................ 293

9.0 City of Orange Cove ................................................................................................................................... 294 Vision and Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 294 Safety Partners .............................................................................................................................................. 295 Performance Measures ............................................................................................................................... 295 Data Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 296 Existing Roadway Safety Performance ..................................................................................................... 298 Emphasis Areas ............................................................................................................................................. 305 Strategies....................................................................................................................................................... 306 Evaluation and Implementation ................................................................................................................ 315

10.0 City of San Joaquin ...................................................................................................................................... 316 Vision and Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 316 Safety Partners .............................................................................................................................................. 317 Performance Measures ............................................................................................................................... 317 Data Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 318 Existing Roadway Safety Performance ..................................................................................................... 319 Emphasis Areas ............................................................................................................................................. 326 Strategies....................................................................................................................................................... 327 Evaluation and Implementation ................................................................................................................ 337

44 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

11.0 City of Selma ................................................................................................................................................ 338 Vision and Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 338 Safety Partners .............................................................................................................................................. 339 Performance Measures ............................................................................................................................... 339 Data Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 340 Existing Roadway Safety Performance ..................................................................................................... 343 Emphasis Areas ............................................................................................................................................. 364 Strategies....................................................................................................................................................... 365 Evaluation and Implementation ................................................................................................................ 378

12.0 Appendices
Appendix A. Stakeholder Engagement Materials
Appendix B. Regional Countermeasures Toolbox

45 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) was initiated by the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) and completed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) and Toole Design Group (TDG) to enable ten of the COG’s local jurisdiction partners to prepare their first local road safety plans. The ten participating local jurisdictions are:
▪ City of Clovis
▪ City of Coalinga
▪ City of Firebaugh
▪ Fresno County (Unincorporated)
▪ City of Huron
▪ City of Kerman
▪ City of Mendota
▪ City of Orange Cove
▪ City of San Joaquin
▪ City of Selma
The focus of the MLRSP’s development is to identify the following for each of the local jurisdictions:
▪ Crash patterns and trends
▪ Systemic engineering treatments to help reduce crash risk ▪ Education, enforcement, and/or emergency services strategies to help improve roadway safety ▪ High priority locations for projects with supporting design concepts ▪ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant applications to facilitate securing funding for high priority safety projects
This document presents the local road safety plans for each of the above local agencies. The local road safety plans were informed by technical analysis as well as input from key stakeholders and input from the general public. The following subsections describe the process used to develop the plans, the types of strategies identified for each local agency, and the COG’s regional efforts to improve roadway safety.

The subsequent sections of this report present each local jurisdiction’s local road safety plan.

46 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2 PROCESS
The local road safety plans included in this MLRSP were informed by a crash data analysis, key agency stakeholder input, and broader community input from the general public regarding roadway safety concerns. The stakeholder input combined with the crash analysis were used to establish an understanding of existing roadway safety performance and priority locations for each local agency.

Based on existing roadway safety performance, multidisciplinary strategies were identified to help improve roadway safety. The following subsections discuss the stakeholder engagement activities, summarize the data and analysis approach used, and identify types of strategies to improve roadway safety.

Stakeholder Engagement Activities
The local road safety plans for the local jurisdictions were developed during the COVID-19 pandemic from approximately April 2021 through December 2021. Given the timing of their development, stakeholders were engaged through virtual meetings and web-based input. Engagement was organized into three sets of activities to engage a range of stakeholders over the course of the local road safety plans’ development. These activities include:

Local Working Groups – Three local working groups were formed and comprised of one to three representatives from each of the ten participating local agencies. The local working groups each met three times during the local road safety plans’ development to discuss existing conditions findings, vision and goals, recommendations, and the local road safety plans themselves.

Appendix A includes the local working group rosters, meeting notes, and materials from those meetings.

Web-Based Survey and Interactive Map – A web-based survey and interactive map was used to reach the general public. The COG worked with local agencies to advertise the survey and interactive map through social media and other established communication channels. The web-based survey was used to gather input regarding people’s general roadway safety concerns and understand the types of issues most frequently encountered. The interactive map was used to gather input on specific locations where community members had roadway safety concerns. Appendix A includes the summary of the input received.

Focus Group Meetings – One focus group meeting was conducted for each local agency. The participants were invited based on their role in the community and included representatives from local school districts, local decision-makers, city managers, representatives from local chamber of commerce, local law enforcement, transit service providers, state partners (e.g., Caltrans, California Highway Patrol), and other active local community members. Each of the ten focus group meetings discussed draft findings, shared input received from the general public, discussed draft vision and goals, and presented draft priorities as well as potential safety strategies. Appendix A includes the focus group participant lists, meeting notes, and meeting materials from each focus group meeting. 47 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

3 Data Summary and Analysis Approach
Kittelson worked with Fresno COG to assemble crash data for each of the local jurisdictions. The crash data was obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database and supplemented with location information from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database maintained by SafeTREC at the University of California, Berkeley. Throughout this report, crashes are associated with a jurisdiction based on the reporting officer’s assessment of location.

The crash database represents the time period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019 and includes reported crashes that occurred on public streets within each local jurisdiction. Crash severity is coded according to the highest degree of injury exhibited, and the data used for this analysis includes the following coded severity levels (listed in descending order):
▪ Fatal: death from injuries sustained in the crash.
▪ Severe Injury: Injuries include, for example, broken bones, severe lacerations, or other injuries that go beyond the reporting officer’s assessment of “other visible injuries.” ▪ Other visible injury: An injury, other than those described above, that is evident to observers at the scene of the crash. For example, bruises or minor lacerations. ▪ Complaint of pain: Internal or other non-visible injuries. For example, a person limps or seems incoherent.
▪ Property damage only (PDO): No injuries sustained.

For simplicity in presentation, in some cases Kittelson combined crashes coded as “other visible injury” or “complaint of pain” into a single “other injury” category.

The crash data was used for two types of analysis: (i) Descriptive analysis to identify crash patterns and trends; and (ii) Spatial analysis to identify high-injury networks and priority locations for safety improvements.

The data used for the descriptive analysis were sorted into jurisdictions based on the information available in the SWITRS and TIMS databases. This information is derived from a reporting officer’s judgment and may be inconsistent with true boundaries, especially near city/county borders.

48 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

4 In the process of locating data into a geographic information system (GIS) for spatial analysis, Kittelson reviewed the available information and relocated some crashes to a more precise coordinate location. In so doing, Kittelson relocated some crashes to different jurisdictions than originally listed in the database.

Thus, some disparities in total crash count by jurisdiction exist between the descriptive analysis and spatial analysis even though each is internally consistent. This subtle change in crash total per jurisdiction has a negligible effect on overall descriptive patterns.

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
The descriptive analysis evaluates the crash data based on attributes recorded by police officers in crash reports. The attributes include items such as collision type, severity, cited primary collision factor, weather, and lighting. This analysis results in different charts, tables, and graphs summarizing statistics about recurring crash patterns and trends in the data. In some instances, a few of the local jurisdictions had too few reported crashes to do a descriptive analysis. In those instances, Kittelson summarized key attributes for each reported crash. The overall intent of the descriptive analysis is to identify jurisdiction-wide trends that may be addressed by systemic strategies or treatments.

For each agency LRSP a section is provided for descriptive data related to all road users, pedestrians, and bicyclists. These sections provide relevant information to statewide performance measure targets which specifically look for pedestrian- and bicycle-involved crashes.

SPATIAL ANALYSIS
The spatial analysis takes into consideration the specific locations the reported crashes occurred. To aid in this analysis, Kittelson developed a linear referencing system of all public roadways using the Fresno County roadway centerline file. This dataset was updated to develop a measurement system based on the total road length (as determined by roadway name) to locate crashes to a specific mile point along the network. This allowed calculating Highway Safety Manual network screening performance measures using spatial statistics. Upon developing the roadway network, nodes were created for all intersections across the region and identified as signalized or unsignalized. Kittelson conducted quality control checks to ensure grade-separated crossings were appropriately modeled and address other inconsistencies in the roadway and intersection network.

Crashes were next identified as intersection or segment crashes. Based on Caltrans guidance, an intersection crash was defined as a crash that occurs within 250 feet of the intersection. These crashes were spatially joined and summarized in ArcGIS to calculate the total number of crashes by severity at each intersection. Where intersections were less than 500 feet from each other, crashes were assigned to the nearest of the two intersections. Crashes occurring more than 250 feet from any intersection were separated to be used in the segment analysis discussed below.

49 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

5 ANALYSIS APPROACH
The following steps outline the basic analysis approach to assess countywide safety performance:

1. Establish the high-injury network database using the crash and roadway network data.

2. Evaluate the frequency and severity of reported crashes using Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) and Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments performance metrics and sliding window methodology from the Highway Safety Manual. Kittelson used weighting consistent with Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual crash costs guidance.

3. Map resulting performance metrics to display roadway safety performance for each local jurisdiction.

As a note, roadway segments and intersections in the resulting high-injury network maps are not weighted based on travel volumes or demand. Field-collected traffic volumes and travel demand model volumes can be useful tools in weighing and classifying roads differently based on their volume and demand.

However, there are limits and challenges to this data which rendered it infeasible to apply to the high- injury network in a consistent manner that would allow for comparisons within a given jurisdiction. For example, consistent traffic volumes are not available for all roads that are being analyzed. Additionally, Fresno COG’s travel demand model network does not cover all roads analyzed and is not able to be directly linked to the roadway network. Therefore, all analyzed roadway segments were evaluated without adjusting for travel volumes.

High-Injury Network
In the existing conditions report, Kittelson identified high-injury networks for each local jurisdiction. A high- injury network includes the intersections and segments that have exhibited the most frequent and/or most severe crashes within a given jurisdiction. Kittelson mapped the results of the analysis and also presented the highest priority locations in a table format.

To identify the high-injury network and corresponding high priority locations, Kittelson used the same approach recently completed for Fresno COG’s Regional Safety Plan (RSP). The following describes this approach which includes calculating crash severity scores, excess predicted average crash frequency, and the sliding window methodology.

Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) to Generate Crash Severity Scores Kittelson used EPDO score performance measure from the Highway Safety Manual, which assigns weighting factors to crashes by severity relative to property damage only (PDO) crashes. The EPDO calculation was performed for all public intersections and roadway segments including state highway facilities. The EPDO performance measure is described below. Moving forward throughout this document, the EPDO performance measure is referred to as a “crash severity score.” 50 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

6 The crash severity score assigns weight to individual crashes based on the crash severity and location of the crash (see table below). Weights, provided by the 2020 Caltrans’ Manual Local Roadway Safety, are based on the cost of property-damage-only (PDO) crashes. Each crash is assigned a score relative to a PDO crash, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Crash Severity Scores
Location Type
Crash Weighting by Severity
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible
Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage
Only
Signalized Intersection 119.55 119.55 10.70 6.08 1.00
Unsignalized Intersection 190.23 190.23 10.70 6.08 1.00 Roadway 164.66 164.66 10.70 6.08 1.00
Source: Caltrans, Local Roadway Safety: A manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.5), 2020.

The weights prioritize fatal and severe injury crashes equally to recognize that a death versus a severe injury is often a function of the individual involved or of emergency response time. Therefore, both outcomes represent locations where the region may want to prioritize improvements. Crash weights vary by location types because of the relative costs associated with the crash severity at the location type.

Specifically, unsignalized intersections have a higher cost for fatal and severe crashes because fatal and severe crashes at these locations tend to result in more severely injured persons on average.

The EPDO score is calculated by multiplying each crash severity total by its associated weight and summing the results, using the following formula:

EPDO Score = (Fatal weight * # of fatal crashes) + (severe injury weight * # of severe injury crashes) + (other visible injury weight * # of other visible injury crashes) + (complaint of pain injury weight * # of complaint of pain injury weight crashes) + (property damage only weight * # of property damage only crashes)
The EPDO score is annualized by dividing the score by the number of years of crash data used in the analysis, which in this case is five years.

51 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

7 Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Kittelson also used the Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments performance metrics to calculate the predicted excess crash frequency for each analysis segment and intersection. This method identifies the extent to which a location is exhibiting either more crashes or fewer crashes than one would expect based on how other similar locations are performing.

Mathematically, this method adjusts the observed crash frequency for a site based on the variance in the crash data and average crash frequencies for a site’s reference population. Reference populations were established based on urban/rural designation, functional classification, and traffic control (for intersections only). The adjusted observed crash frequency is then compared to the average crash frequency for the reference population to calculate the excess predicted crashes for each location.

Sliding Window Methodology
Kittelson used a Python-based script to segment the street network into one-half (1/2) mile segments, incrementing the segments by one-quarter (1/4) of a mile. The EPDO score was calculated per increment of each segment as the script “slides” along each roadway in the network. Crashes associated with intersections (i.e., crashes within 250 feet of the intersection) are ignored for the segment analysis and analyzed separately. This methodology helps to identify portions of roadways with the greatest potential for safety improvements. The scores were aggregated based on relative regional percentiles of the resulting crash severity and excess predicted crashes scores to map out regional safety performance and identify high injury locations.

Results
The results of the above spatial analysis are presented for each local jurisdiction under the subsection titled “Existing Roadway Safety Performance.” Grade-separated facilities were removed from the evaluation as they would not be a focus for the local agency. The results are a strong indication of which locations are most likely to be competitive for HSIP grant funding. The results were used to inform the selection of locations for HSIP grant applications.

52 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

8 Strategy Types
Strategies to improve roadway safety were identified for each local agency based on that agency’s existing roadway safety performance and the concerns identified by stakeholders as well as the general public. The safety strategies identify engineering strategies (i.e., countermeasures), education, emergency services, and enforcement strategies that can be used to reduce the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries on public roadways. The following briefly describes each type of strategy. Each agency’s local road safety plan describes specific strategies aligned with the local agency’s emphasis areas for road safety improvement.

ENGINEERING STRATEGIES
Engineering strategies to improve roadway safety are often referred to as countermeasures.

Countermeasures are generally geometric or operational changes to a roadway, intersection, or roadside (area immediately adjacent to the roadway) that reduce the likelihood of a crash occurring and/or reduce the likelihood of someone being killed or hurt if a crash does occur.

The Fresno COG 2021 Regional Safety Plan (RSP) includes a Countermeasures Toolbox, which is provided in Appendix B of this MLRSP. The toolbox is a resource for local agencies within the region. It is organized to help identify countermeasures that have been found to be effective at reducing crash risk. The engineering strategies included are likely to be eligible for grant funding through Caltrans’ HSIP.

Specific to each local agency’s road safety plan, countermeasures were prioritized based on the top three collision types and top three primary collision factors. The Fresno COG RSP Countermeasure Toolbox and Caltrans’ Manual Local Roadway Safety were used to identify which collision types and primary collision factors a countermeasure is most effective at addressing. Using this information, countermeasures were prioritized as follows:
▪ If the collision type or primary collision factor was listed in the Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury list for a jurisdiction, then the countermeasure was given high priority. ▪ If the collision type or primary collision factor was listed in the Top 3 Overall list for a jurisdiction (but not the Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury list), then the countermeasure was given a medium priority. ▪ If the co llision type or primary collision factor was not listed as Top 3 for a jurisdiction, then the countermeasure was given a low priority.

53 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

9 For countermeasures that address night crashes, the following prioritization process was used:
▪ If the proportion of fatal/severe injury crashes that occurred at night in a jurisdiction were greater than the countywide proportion of fatal/severe crashes that occurred at night (44 percent), then the countermeasure was given high priority.
▪ If the proportion of fatal/severe injury crashes that occurred at night in a jurisdiction were less than the countywide proportion of fatal/severe crashes that occurred at night, but greater than the countywide proportion of total crashes that occurred at night (32 percent), then the countermeasure was given medium priority.
▪ If the proportion of fatal/severe injury crashes that occurred at night in a jurisdiction were less than the countywide proportion of total crashes that occurred at night, then the countermeasure was given a low priority.

For countermeasures that address crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists, the collision types, primary collision factors, and pedestrian actions that were associated with pedestrian and bicycle involved crashes informed countermeasure priorities. The following were also considered:
▪ If pedestrian and bicycle involved crashes in a jurisdiction exceeds statewide average shown in the SHSP, then the countermeasure was given high priority. ▪ If pedestrian and bicycle involved crashes in a jurisdiction do not exceed statewide average shown in the SHSP, then the countermeasure was given medium or low priority.

Additional factors, such as land use context (urban vs. rural land uses), estimated amount of crash reduction, and funding eligibility were also used to prioritize potential countermeasures for a given jurisdiction.
54 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

10 EDUCATION STRATEGIES
Education strategies tend to refer to programs aimed at distributing educational messages and materials to the general public or specific groups within the broader population to bring awareness to the need for changes in road user behavior. These strategies focus on educating or sharing information that encourages safe choices on the behalf of all road users. Implementing these strategies often requires inter- and intra-agency coordination to achieve the desired outcomes of the program. Partners most frequently involved in developing and employing education strategies include public works department or division, transportation department or division, schools and school districts, community groups or community centers, public information offices of local agencies, and local law enforcement agencies. A transportation safety education program was created as part of the Fresno COG’s 2021 Regional Safety Plan development. The COG’s intent is to coordinate with local agencies across the County in deploying and using education materials. Each local agency’s local road safety plan discusses opportunities to make the most of that education program as well as other related education strategies.

EMERGENCY SERVICES STRATEGIES
Emergency services strategies are programs and/or policies that facilitate coordination with emergency/first responders to improve roadway safety. These types of strategies can include:
▪ Agreements for enhanced information sharing to better understand severity outcomes from crashes.
▪ Enhanced communication and coordination to help optimize response times to/from incidents and medical care.
▪ Increased trauma training for first responders particularly in rural areas where travel to a hospital will take longer so stabilization and treatment at the site of the crash is more critical. ▪ Increased training opportunities for the general public to assist victims at the scene of a crash.

These types of strategies are often coordinated at a regional level given the overlap in services and coverage across multiple local boundaries. Each local agency’s local road safety plan highlights strategies that could be beneficial to coordinate with the COG and others regarding emergency services. 55 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

11 ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES
Enforcement strategies include programs or campaigns specifically focused on changing road user behavior through more visible and active enforcement of existing traffic laws.

Typically, the effectiveness of enforcement strategies is temporal, meaning they are effective at changing behavior for a discrete period of time, typically during and shortly after the increased enforcement activities.

If enforcement strategies are to improve overall safety in a community, traffic laws must be applied equitably and with sensitivity toward communities where there may be limited rapport with law enforcement. Enforcement strategies should be undertaken with due caution to avoid inequitable enforcement activities and evaluated to determine the strategy’s impact. The following considerations can help lead to more successful outcomes for roadway safety enforcement strategies:
▪ Appropriately train police officers and periodically refresh police officers’ training related to enforcement activities.
▪ Incorporate social equity considerations in camera placement for automated enforcement, such as red-light-running cameras.
▪ Dedicate a portion of enforcement revenue to outreach and engagement with community groups about roadway safety.
▪ Tailor enforcement campaigns to suit the needs of different neighborhoods and demographics and incorporate education as part of those campaigns.
▪ Conduct enforcement with staff support and awareness of the courts. ▪ Use warnings and flyers before moving on to issuing citations.

Crash data can help identify priority intersections and/or road segments and the times of day when certain behaviors may be more prevalent. This information can inform and help officers choose the most appropriate type of enforcement strategy for a given location and time period. The COG or local agency staff can also help monitor the impact of the enforcement strategy by coordinating with the respective agency’s police department to obtain and analyze enforcement records and evaluate effectiveness and equity considerations.

56 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

12 REGIONAL EFFORTS
The Fresno COG is committed to integrating safety into its transportation planning and funding processes.

As part of that commitment, the COG has developed a Regional Safety Plan over the course of 2021. The Regional Safety Plan sets forth a roadway safety vision for the entire county and provides information and strategies to help the COG and its member agencies make decisions that will improve roadway safety through projects, policies, programs, and funding decisions. It was developed in partnership with COG member agencies through engagement with a Regional Safety Steering Committee.

In addition to providing a regional assessment of roadway safety, the Regional Safety Plan pinpoints areas where regionwide coordination on education, enforcement, data collection, data maintenance, and other strategies can benefit each local agency’s progress towards achieving their local roadway safety vision and goals. The Regional Safety Plan is also a resource for local agencies to:
▪ Gauge how their roadway safety performance compares to regional trends ▪ Identify systemic engineering countermeasures from the Regional Safety Plan’s Countermeasure Toolbox that can be applied to locations within their jurisdiction ▪ Obtain educational materials that are ready for use and can be distributed in various forums to promote safer behavior on the region’s roadways
▪ Gather information on ways to coordinate further with local and state law enforcement ▪ Identify potential funding sources for improvements the local agencies have identified ▪ Gather information that can be used in support of grant funding pursuits The content of the Regional Safety Plan was used to help inform the ten local road safety plans included in this document. Future updates to these or other local road safety plans within the region can also draw from the information in the Regional Safety Plan.
57 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

13 2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS
The City of Clovis has a population of 116,609.1 The average daily vehicle miles traveled is 1,336,661 and the city has 669 total road miles. The main roadways in the city include State Route 180, State Route 168 (Sierra Freeway), Herndon Avenue, and Shaw Avenue, which all run east to west. Based on the review of crash data conducted as part of the LRSP, pedestrians and bicyclists are overrepresented in fatal and severe injury crashes. The top three fatal and severe injury collision types in Clovis are broadside, vehicle- pedestrian, and hit object crashes; the top three fatal and severe injury primary collision factors are pedestrian violation, driving under the influence, and unsafe speed. The LRSP provides potential engineering, education, emergency services, and enforcement strategies tailored to Clovis’s crash history and local priorities, as well as performance measures to evaluate progress.

VISION AND GOALS
The City’s vision for roadway safety is:

The supporting goals to enable the visions are:

1. Regularly review data-informed analysis and community needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce crash risk.

2. Reduce the number of annual fatal and severe injury crashes across all public City roadways.

3. Reduce the number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes on public City roadways.

4. Implement proven roadway safety countermeasures systemically to target common collision types.

5. Partner with other local agencies to promote roadway safety as a priority investment.

6. Provide opportunities for citizen engagement in identifying issues and developing solutions for roadway safety across the community.

7. Establish regular communication between first responders and City staff to discuss ideas, trends, and feedback related to emergency service operations on the roadway network.

8. Increase implementation of traffic safety education and equitable enforcement strategies.

1 2018 population. Source: California Department of Finance Provide a quality transportation network by committing resources to activities that reduce the risk of fatal and injury crashes for people traveling on public roads.
58 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

14 SAFETY PARTNERS
A variety of agency staff and community partners were involved throughout the development of this LRSP and played an integral role in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing the existing conditions analysis. Many of the strategies identified in this plan will require coordination with these partners and their support of the City’s effort to create a culture of roadway safety. Clovis’s goals reflect the importance of partnering with local agencies and engaging with citizens to identify issues and implement solutions. While additional partners may be identified in the future, those involved in development of the LRSP include:
▪ Caltrans
▪ City of Fresno
▪ Clovis Community College
▪ Clovis Department of Planning and
Development Services
▪ Clovis Department of Public Utilities
▪ Clovis Fire Department
▪ Clovis Police Department
▪ Clovis Public Affairs and Information
▪ Clovis Transit
▪ Clovis Unified School District
▪ County of Fresno
▪ Fresno Area Express
▪ Fresno Council of Governments
▪ Fresno Cycling Club

PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance measures are used to track progress and a key element of making data-informed decisions.

Performance measures that support the City’s vision, goals, and emphasis areas include:
▪ Annual number of crashes (city-wide and at each of the top twenty priority locations) ▪ Annual number of fatal and severe injury crashes (city-wide and at each of the top twenty priority locations)
▪ Annual number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes (city-wide and at each of the top twenty priority locations)
▪ Annual number of broadside crashes (city-wide)
▪ Annual number of hit object crashes (city-wide)
▪ Annual number of crashes with a primary collision factor of unsafe speed (city-wide) ▪ Annual number of crashes with a primary collision factor of driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (city-wide)
▪ Investments made in roadway safety countermeasures ( e.g. dollars spent, grants pursued, partnerships developed)
▪ Investments made in education and enforcement strategies (e.g. dollars spent, grants pursued, partnerships developed)
59 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

15 ▪ Coordination with other local agencies and/or safety p artners ( e.g. meetings held, projects pursued)
▪ Opportunities provided for citizen engagement ( e.g. meetings held, public campaigns launched)
▪ Coordination between first responders and City staff ( e.g. meetings held, programs implemented, strategies deployed)
As part of plan implementation, the City will identify a process for annually tracking these performance measures to support future updates to this roadway safety plan.

DATA SUMMARY
The primary data used to inform the technical analyses for the City’s local road safety plan were crash data sets and roadway network information. As noted below, future updates could incorporate traffic volume data if widely available for locations across the City. In addition, feedback from a publicly available survey was documented for consideration in identifying issues and improvement strategies.

Public Survey Feedback
Toole Design Group worked with Fresno COG to develop an online survey and interactive webmap to provide the opportunity for public engagement on the LRSP. The goal was to collect both general and geographically specific feedback on safety problems, desired safety improvements in jurisdictions that are part of the MLRSP, as well as voluntary demographic information for Title IV reporting. Both activities were open from August 16, 2021 to September 20, 2021 and sought public feedback on spatial patterns of traffic safety concerns and desired improvements.

As the primary open public engagement opportunity during MLRSP development, the survey and interactive webmap served a crucial role in illuminating the community’s traffic safety concerns and desired traffic safety improvements. Below is a summary of key findings from the online survey and interactive webmap specific to Clovis. More information on the methodology and overall findings of the survey are provided in Appendix A.
60 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

16 ▪ The survey asked respondents to provide input on the top road safety improvements needed in their communities. While the survey prompted participants to pick three improvements, some selected more than three responses. A total of 234 responses were received for Clovis from 92 participants, with the most common desired improvement types including:
o Maintenance of existing roads and streets (68 responses) o Rural road improvements to prevent run-off-road crashes (33 responses) o Speed enforcement (27 responses)
▪ Participants dropped points in the webmap in specific locations across Fresno County where they experienced road safety concerns. When leaving a point, participants could select from a list of traffic safety concerns and the kinds of travel impacted, with the ability to select as many responses as applicable. A text box gave participants the option to note what they think would make the location safer. A total of 16 locations were identified in Clovis. The most common traffic safety concerns noted for Clovis include:
o Lack of safe places to walk, bike, or wait for the bus (10 responses) o Lack of safe opportunities to cross the street (10 responses) ▪ The survey asked participants where they live and work or study, with the option to select either outside of Fresno County or from a list of jurisdictions within the County. Clovis was the most commonly chosen location both for where participants live and where they work or study. The participants who selected Clovis included:
o 34 who live and work/study in Clovis
o 44 who live in Clovis and work/study outside of Clovis o 14 who work/study in Clovis and live outside of Clovis

92 PEOPLE

RESPONDED
16 LOCATIONS

IDENTIFIED
Live and
work/study
in Clovis
37%
Live in Clovis and work/study
outside of Clovis
48%
Work/study in
Clovis and
live outside of
Clovis
15%

WHERE PARTICIPANTS

WORK AND LIVE

MOST COMMON

SAFETY CONCERNS
• Lack of safe places to walk,
bike, or wait for the bus
• Lack of safe opportunities to
cross the street

61 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

17 Crash Data
Kittelson worked with Fresno COG to assemble crash data for the City of Clovis using the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database, supplemented with location information from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database maintained by SafeTREC at the University of California, Berkeley. Throughout this report, crashes are associated with a jurisdiction based on the reporting officer’s assessment of location.

The crash database represents the time period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019 and includes reported crashes that occurred on public streets. Within the assembled regional crash database, a total of 3,507 reported crashes are located in Clovis.

Crash severity is coded according to the highest degree of injury exhibited, and the data used for this analysis includes the following coded severity levels (listed in descending order):
▪ Fatal: death from injuries sustained in the crash.
▪ Severe Injury: Injuries include, for example, broken bones, severe lacerations, or other injuries that go beyond the reporting officer’s assessment of “other visible injuries.” ▪ Other visible injury: An injury, other than those described above, that is evident to observers at the scene of the crash. For example, bruises or minor lacerations. ▪ Complaint of pain: Internal or other non -visible injuries. For example, a person limps o r seems incoherent.
▪ Property damage only (PDO): No injuries sustained.

Roadway Network Data
Kittelson developed a linear referencing system of all public roadways using the Fresno County roadway centerline file. This dataset was updated to develop a measurement system based on the total road length (as determined by roadway name) to locate crashes to a specific mile point along the network.

The master roadway network for the County was used to spatially analyze and prioritize specific locations within each local jurisdiction.

Traffic Volume Data
Traffic volume data was not consistently available at a sufficient level to be able to incorporate into the safety analysis. Future updates to the City’s local road safety plan could incorporate traffic volume data, if available, to understand how crash frequency, severity, and type vary at different levels of traffic. 62 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

18 EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY PERFORMANCE
The findings in this section are based on the crash database, which includes reported crashes from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019. It is organized as follows:
▪ All Road Users
o Severity by Road User
o Year, Month, and Weather
o Collision Type
o Location, Collision Type, and Severity
o Primary Collision Factor
o Lighting
o Time of Day
▪ Pedestrian-involved Crash
o Year and Month
o Pedestrian Action and Location
o Lighting
▪ Bicyclist-involved Crashes
o Collision Type
o Primary Collision Factor
o Lighting

63 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

19 All Road Users
This section includes analysis and findings for all reported crashes. Subsequent sections focus exclusively on crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists.

SEVERITY BY ROAD USER
Table 2 presents reported crashes, organized by severity level and road user. Notable trends include:
▪ Pedestrians are overrepresented in fatal and severe injury crashes. Pedestrians are involved in 3 percent of reported crashes but are involved in 27 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. ▪ Bicyclists are also overrepresented in fatal and severe injury crashes. Bicyclists are involved in 3 percent of reported crashes but 9 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes.

Table 2: Crash Severity by Road User Involved
Road User Involved Fatal (% of
column)
Severe Injury
(% of column)
Visible Injury
(% of column)
Complaint of
Pain (% of
column)
Property
Damage Only
(% of column)
Total (% of
column)
Pedestrian Involved 4 (40%) 11 (24%) 25 (9%) 41 (4%) 9 (1%) 90 (3%) Bicycle Involved 1 (10%) 4 (9%) 31 (11%) 59 (6%) 23 (1%) 118 (3%) Vehicle Only or Vehicle-
Fixed Object 5 (50%) 31 (67%) 221 (80%) 941 (90%) 2,101 (98%) 3,299 (94%) Reported Crashes 10 (100%) 46 (100%) 277 (100%) 1,041 (100%) 2,133 (100%) 3,507 (100%) Severity Share of
Reported Crashes 1% 1% 8% 30% 60% 100%
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

The California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) includes 16 challenge areas to focus statewide resources and efforts. Three of those challenge areas are crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. The SHSP analyzed the share of fatal and severe injury crashes involving each of these road users. Figure 1 compares fatal and severe injury crash trends in Clovis to the statewide trends reported in the SHSP.
64 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

20 Figure 1: Fatal and Severe Injury Crash Shares by Road User Compared to Statewide Trends

Source: SHSP, SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

As shown in the figure:
▪ Clovis has a higher share of fatal/severe injury crashes involving pedestrians than the statewide average.
▪ Clovis has a slightly higher share of fatal/severe injury crashes involving bicyclists than the statewide average.
▪ Clovis is the only jurisdiction among those included in this MLRSP that has a higher sha re of motorcyclists involved in fatal/severe injury crashes than the statewide average: 21 percent compared to 18 percent statewide.

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle
Crash Share
Clovis Statewide Average
65 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

21 YEAR, MONTH, AND WEATHER
Figure 2 shows year-over-year trends in the data by severity. The totals reflect a relatively small but steady increase, with an average of 701 annual crashes and 11 fatal/severe injury crashes annually. Fluctuations from a single year to the next tend to represent the degree of randomness in crash occurrence and are not necessarily indicative of an overall trend.

Figure 2: Year-over-Year Trends in Crash Data by Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes.

Total: 647
Total: 704 Total: 724
Total: 687
Total: 745
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Other Injury Property Damage Only
66 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

22 Figure 3 presents the total crashes by month and severity for the crash database. On average, 292 crashes occurred per month. The lowest number of crashes occurred in January and in February, with a total of 224 crashes in January and 243 crashes in February. The highest number of crashes occurred in October, when 348 crashes occurred.

Figure 3: Crashes by Month and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

Total:
224
Total:
243
Total:
317
Total:
290
Total:
287
Total:
311
Total:
266 Total:
251
Total:
316
Total:
348
Total:
314
Total:
340
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
67 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

23 Figure 4 illustrates crashes by month and by weather condition for the full database. As shown in the figure:
▪ Crashes cited to have occurred during fog and/or rainy conditions are a larger portion of total crashes between the months of October and March.
▪ Crashes cited to have occurred during cloudy weather are a larger portion of total crashes between the months of November and May.

Figure 4: Crashes by Month and Weather Condition

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: Only select conditions shown to improve legibility. A small portion of crashes occurred in snowy or windy conditions.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Share of Crashes by Weather
Clear Cloudy Fog Raining
68 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

24 COLLISION TYPE
Reported collision type gives an indication of the movements most frequently involved in crashes and in severe outcomes. Figure 5 reports the most frequent reported collision types by severity. As shown in the figure:
▪ Among total reported crashes, t he top three most frequent collision types are rear end (31 percent), broadside (27 percent), and hit object (17 percent). These three collision types account for 75 percent of reported crashes in the City.
▪ Among fatal/severe injury crashes, the top three most frequent collision types are broadside (23 percent), hit object (18 percent), and vehicle/pedestrian (23 percent). These three collision types account for 64 percent of reported fatal/severe injury crashes in the City.

Figure 5: Crashes by Collision Type and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021
Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Not Stated
Overturned
Other
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Head-On
Sideswipe
Hit Object
Broadside
Rear End
Crash Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
69 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

25 PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
Reporting officers identify a primary collision factor (PCF) for each crash. It is up to the officer’s judgement and information available at the scene for them to select the factor that is most relevant. Officers select one from among a list of PCFs based on California Vehicle Code (CVC) and road user behavior. Figure 6 presents the most frequently cited PCFs in crashes in the City. ▪ The three most frequently reported PCFs among total reported crashes include unsafe speed2 (26 percent), improper turning3 (17 percent), and automobile right of way 4 (13 percent). These three PCFs account for 56 percent of reported crashes.
▪ The three PCFs most frequent among fatal/severe injury crashes are pedestrian violation 5 (20 percent), driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol and drugs6 (16 percent), and unsafe speed2 (13 percent) – a total of 49 percent among all three.

Figure 6: Crashes by Reported PCF and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Notes: PCFs constituting <1% excluded from chart to enhance legibility. Those PCFs include other equipment, hazardous parking, impeding traffic, lights, and brakes.
“Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

2 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating unsafe speeding on a highway. 3 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a failure while turning from a direct course without reasonable safety or not signaling appropriately.
4 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a driver turning failed to yield right-of-way to oncoming traffic. 5 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a pedestrian failure to yield the right of way to other vehicles. 6 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating driver was under the influence of alcohol. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Automobile Right of Way
Traffic Signals and Signs
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Unknown
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Unsafe Lane Change
Not Stated
Wrong Side of Road
Following Too Closely
Other Improper Driving
Pedestrian Violation
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
Improper Passing
Other Hazardous Violation
Pedestrian Right of Way
Crash Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
70 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

26 LIGHTING
Figure 7 shows citywide crashes by reported lighting condition and severity. ▪ Crashes that occurred in dark conditions (i.e., the three coded categories that indicate “dark” conditions) make up 29 percent of total reported crashes but account for 45 percent of fatal and severe injury crashes.
▪ 26 fatal crashes occurred in dark conditions, of which six occurred where there were either no streetlights or streetlights were reported as not functioning.

Figure 7: Crash by Lighting and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning
Dark - No Street Lights
Dusk - Dawn
Not Stated
Dark - Street Lights
Daylight
Crash Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
71 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

27 TIME OF DAY
Figure 8 shows crashes by time of day. The morning hour from 7 AM to 8 AM and afternoon hours from 2 PM to 6 PM show the greatest frequency of crashes.

Figure 8: Crash Share by Time of Day

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: 2% of crashes did not have a time of day reported.

2% 2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
6%
5%
4%
4%
5%
6% 5%
7%
7%
7%
8%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
Crash Share
Hour
72 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

28 Pedestrians
This section focuses exclusively on reported crashes involving pedestrians. Table 3 shows the distribution of pedestrian crashes by severity. Of the 90 reported pedestrian crashes in Clovis, 16 percent resulted in death or severe injury. This share is more than eight times higher than the same share of total reported crashes (3 percent).

Table 3: Pedestrian Involved Crash by Severity
Fatal (%) Severe Injury
(%)
Visible Injury
(%)
Complaint of
Pain (%)
Property
Damage Only
(%)
Total (%)
Pedestrian Involved 4 (4%) 11 (12%) 25 (28%) 41 (46%) 9 (10%) 90 (100%) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

SEVERITY AND MONTH
Figure 9 presents pedestrian crashes organized by month and severity. The highest number of monthly pedestrian crashes occurred in November, December, and June.

Figure 9: Pedestrian Crashes by Month and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only. 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
73 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

29 PEDESTRIAN ACTION AND LOCATION
For pedestrian crashes, data are recorded that indicate the reporting officer’s best judgment about the person’s action and location preceding the crash. Figure 10 reports these trends in the City. ▪ The three most common pedestrian actions preceding a crash included crossing outside of a crosswalk (41 percent), crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection (28 percent), and walking in the road along the roadway, including shoulder (14 percent). ▪ 33 percent of the 15 fatal/severe injury pedestrian crashes occurred while a pedestrian was crossing a roadway outside a crosswalk.

Figure 10: Pedestrian Crashes by Reported Action/Location and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection
Not Stated
Not in Road
In Road, Including Shoulder
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection
Crossing Not in Crosswalk
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
74 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

30 LIGHTING
Figure 11 shows citywide pedestrian crashes by reported lighting condition and severity. Crashes that occurred during dark or dusk/dawn conditions had a higher proportion of fatal/severe injury crashes compared to crashes during daylight conditions.

Figure 11: Pedestrian Crashes by Lighting and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

Bicyclists
This section focuses exclusively on reported crashes involving bicyclists. Table 4 presents bicyclist-involved crashes citywide organized by severity level. Of the reported 118 bicyclist crashes in the City, 4 percent resulted in death or severe injury. The majority resulted in some degree of injury.

Table 4: Bicycle User Involved Crashes by Severity
Fatal (%) Severe Injury
(%) Visible Injury (%) Complaint of
Pain (%)
Property
Damage Only
(%)
Total (%)
Bicycle Involved 1 (1%) 4 (3%) 31 (26%) 59 (50%) 23 (19%) 118 (100%) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning
Dark - No Street Lights
Dusk - Dawn
Not Stated
Dark - Street Lights
Daylight
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
75 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

31 COLLISION TYPE
Figure 12 presents reported bicycle crashes, organized by collision type. ▪ The top three collision types among bicyclist crashes include broadside (59 percent), other (16 percent), and vehicle/pedestrian crashes (14 percent).
▪ While some bicycle -involved crashes likely do include pedestrians, the relatively high share of crashes coded as “other” or “vehicle/pedestrian” could indicate a lack of precision in crash reporting for bicycle crashes.

Figure 12: Bicycle Crashes by Collision Type and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Notes: Low-frequency collision types excluded from chart to enhance legibility. Those types include: hit object, not stated, or overturned. “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Rear End
Head-On
Sideswipe
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Other
Broadside
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
76 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

32 PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR (PCF)
Figure 13 presents the reported PCF among bicycle crashes. ▪ The most frequently cited PCF was wrong side of road driving/riding7 (36 percent). Information on whether these crashes indicate drivers or bicyclists were traveling on the wrong side of the road is not available. However, from anecdotal information, it is somewhat common for bicyclists to ride in the opposite direction from traffic along a shoulder or sidewalk depending on their options for crossing a street to access adjacent land uses.
▪ The other two most frequent PCFs among bicycle crashes include automobile right of way8 (21 percent) and traffic signals and signs9 (18 percent)
Figure 13: Bicycle Crashes by Primary Collision Factor and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Notes: Low-frequency PCFs excluded from chart to enhance legibility. Those PCFs include: hazardous parking, brakes, pedestrian violation, pedestrian or “other” under the influence of alcohol or drugs, following too closely, other equipment, and fell asleep. “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes.

7 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating the driver/rider was on the wrong side of the road. 8 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a driver turning failed to yield right-of-way to oncoming traffic. 9 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating running a red light or failure to stop at a stop sign.

Wrong Side of Road
Automobile Right of Way
Traffic Signals and Signs
Improper Turning
Other Hazardous Violation
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Unsafe Speed
Unknown
Pedestrian Right of Way
Improper Passing
Lights
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
Unsafe Lane Change
Not Stated
Other Improper Driving
Impeding Traffic
0 10 20 30 40 50
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
77 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

33 LIGHTING
Figure 14 presents bicycle crashes organized by lighting and severity. As shown:
▪ Most bicycle crashes (73 percent) occurred in daylight conditions. ▪ Bicycle crashes occurring in dusk/dawn conditions account for 8 percent of reported bicyclist crashes but account for two of the five fatal/severe injury crashes.

Figure 14: Bicycle Crashes by Lighting and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Not Stated
Dusk - Dawn
Dark - Street Lights
Daylight
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
78 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

34 Priority Locations
Kittelson identified priority intersections and segments in Clovis using the annualized crash severity scores and excess predicted crashes described in the Data Summary and Analysis Approach sections (see the Introduction).

For intersection locations, the crash severity scores ranged from zero (no reported crashes during the five years) to 90.35. Figure 15 shows the results of the intersection crash severity scoring. Figure 16 shows excess predicted crash scores by percentiles for intersection locations. For the half-mile roadway segments, the crash severity scores ranged from zero to 33.13. Crash severity score results for roadway segments are shown in Figure 17. Excess predicted crash score results are shown in Figure 18. Intersections or segments shown as not falling within one of the percentile breaks indicates there were no reported crashes at that location.

Table 5 presents the top twenty locations based on the highest crash severity scores.

Table 5. Top 20 Locations based on Crash Severity Score # Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number
of
Crashes
Severity
Fatal Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain PDO
1 CLOVIS AVE & SANTA ANA AVE Signalized 90.35 28 0 2 1 7 18 2 WILLOW AVE & SHAW AVE Signal 85.66 94 0 1 6 31 56
3 FOWLER AVE & SHAW AVE Signal 74.88 38 0 2 5 10 21
4 HERNDON AVE & FOWLER AVE Signal 73.39 49 0 2 1 14 32
5 ASHLAN AVE & FOWLER AVE Signal 68.03 37 0 2 0 13 22
6 CLOVIS AVE & BARSTOW AVE Signal 64.63 26 0 2 2 8 14
7 BARSTOW AVE & SUNNYSIDE AVE Signal 59.06 18 0 2 1 6 9 8 VILLA AVE & SHAW AVE Signal 57.93 51 0 1 4 16 30
9 PEACH AVE & SHAW AVE Signal 51.27 38 0 1 4 12 21
10 WILLOW AVE & BULLARD AVE Signal 48.39 43 0 1 2 12 28 11 BULLARD AVE & VILLA AVE Signal 48.11 37 1 0 3 11 22
12 MINNEWAWA AVE & SHEPHERD AVE Signal 47.99 35 1 0 0 17 17 13 SAN JOSE AVE & MINNEWAWA AVE Unsignalized 44.03 6 0 1 1 3 1 14 LOCAN AVE & HERNDON AVE Unsignalized 44.02 11 0 1 1 2 7 15 HOLLAND AVE & WILLOW AVE Unsignalized 43.62 9 0 1 1 2 5 16 CLOVIS AVE & PALO ALTO AVE Unsignalized 42.82 5 0 1 1 2 1 17 SUNNYSIDE AVE & FOURTH ST &
GIBSON AVE Unsignalized 41.68 9 1 0 0 2 6
18 SIERRA VISTA PKWY & SUNNYSIDE
AVE & SHAW AVE Signal 41.68 43 0 0 5 23 15
19 ASHLAN AVE & HIGHLAND AVE Unsignalized 41.60 4 1 0 1 1 1 20 ASHLAN AVE & PEACH AVE Signal 41.00 31 0 1 1 9 20
Note: PDO = Property Damage Only
79 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
Clovis
Fresno

BARSTOW AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

SUNNYSIDE AVE

N FOWLER AVE

NEES AVE

SHAW AVE

N TEMPERANCE AVE

W TEAGUE AVE

BULLARD AVEW BULLARD AVE

CLOVIS AVE

N BLACKSTONE AVE

W SIERRA AVE

ASHLAN AVE

TEMPERANCE AVE

ARMSTRONG AVE

E NEES AVE

TOLLHOUSE RD

E BULLARD AVE

N FIRST ST
N
M

ILLBROOK

AVEN INGRAM AVE

ALLUVIAL AVE

FOWLER AVE

N LOCAN AVE

N CEDAR AVE

E GETTYSBURG AVE
N
M
APLE
A
VE

HARLAN RANCHBLVD

E SHIELDS AVE

HERNDON AVE

E SHAW AVE
N

SUNNYSIDE
AVE

VILLA AVE

SIERRA AVE

N CLOVIS AVE

LOCAN AVE

E ASHLAN AVE

MINNEWAWA AVE

N MAROA AVE

PEACH AVE

E TEAGUE AVE

W NEES AVE

E SHEPHERD AVE

E BARSTOW AVE

ECOLEAVE
N
FRIANT
RD

N MINNEWAWA AVE

E HERNDON AVE

WILLOW AVE

W BARSTOW AVE

SHEPHERD AVE
W

AUDUBONDR

W ALLUVIAL AVE

E PERRIN AVE

FIFTH ST

NSOMMERVILLE
DR

E CHAMPLAIN DR

W SHAW AVE

N CHESTNUT AVE
N
FRESNO
ST

GETTYSBURG AVE

E DAKOTA AVE

N WILLOW AVE

DE WOLF AVE

W HERNDON AVE N DE WOLF AVE
E

AIRWAYS BLVD

N MCCALL AVE

LEONARD AVE
"þ41
"þ168
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Intx_CrashSeverityScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Crash Severity Score
! 95-100th Percentile
! 90-95th Percentile
! 75-90th Percentile
! 50-75th Percentile
! 0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 15
Intersection Crash Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Clovis
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.9Miles
80 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
! !
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
! !
!!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
Clovis
Fresno

BARSTOW AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

SUNNYSIDE AVE

N FOWLER AVE

NEES AVE

SHAW AVE

N TEMPERANCE AVE

CLOVIS AVE

BULLARD AVE

W BULLARD AVE

N BLACKSTONE AVE

W SIERRA AVE

ASHLAN AVE

TEMPERANCE AVE

ARMSTRONG AVE

E NEES AVE

TOLLHOUSE RD

E BULLARD AVE

N FIRST ST
N
M

ILLBROOK

AVEN INGRAM AVE

ALLUVIAL AVE

N PEACH AVE

FOWLER AVE

N LOCAN AVE

N CEDAR AVE

E GETTYSBURG AVE
N
M
APLE
AVE

HARLAN RANCHBLVD

E SHIELDS AVE

HERNDON AVE

E SHAW AVE
N

SUNNYSIDE
AVE

VILLA AVE

SIERRA AVE

N CLOVIS AVE

LOCAN AVE

E ASHLAN AVE

MINNEWAWA AVE

N MAROA AVE

PEACH AVE

E TEAGUE AVE

W NEES AVE

E SHEPHERD AVE

E BARSTOW AVE

ECOLEAVE
N
FRIANT
RD

N MINNEWAWA AVE

E HERNDON AVE

WILLOW AVE

W BARSTOW AVE

SHEPHERD AVE
W

AUDUBONDR

W ALLUVIAL AVE

E PERRIN AVE

FIFTH ST

NSOMMERVILLE
DR

ECHAMPLAIN DR

W SHAW AVE

N CHESTNUT AVE
N
FRESNO
ST

GETTYSBURG AVE

E DAKOTA AVE

N WILLOW AVE

DE WOLF AVE

W HERNDON AVE N DE WOLF AVE
E

AIRWAYS BLVD

N MCCALL AVE

LEONARD AVE
"þ41
"þ168
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Intx_ExFreqScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Excess Expected Frequency
! 95-100th Percentile
! 90-95th Percentile
! 75-90th Percentile
! 50-75th Percentile
! 0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 16
Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Clovis
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.9Miles
81 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Clovis
Fresno

BARSTOW AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

SUNNYSIDE AVE

N FOWLER AVE

NEES AVE

SHAW AVE

N TEMPERANCE AVE

BULLARD AVE

E SHAW AVE
CLOVIS
AVE

W SIERRA AVE

ASHLAN AVE

ARMSTRONG AVE

E NEES AVE

TOLLHOUSE RD

E BULLARD AVE

N FIRST ST
N
M

ILLBROO
K
AVE

N PALM AVE

N INGRAM AVE

ALLUVIAL AVE

N PEACH AVE

FOWLER AVE

N LOCAN AVE

N VAN NESS BLVD

N CEDAR AVE

W BULLARD AVE

E GETTYSBURG AVE
N
M
APLE
AVE

N ACADEMY AVE

E SHIELDS AVE

HERNDON AVE
N

SUNNYSIDE
AVE

VILLA AVE

SIERRA AVE

N CLOVIS AVE

LOCAN AVE

N BLACKSTONE AVE

E ASHLAN AVE MINNEWAWA AVE

N MAROA AVE

PEACH AVE

E TEAGUE AVE

W SHAW AVE

W NEES AVE

E SHEPHERD AVE

E BARSTOW AVE

E COLEAVE

N FRIANT RD

N MINNEWAWA AVE

WILLOW AVE

W BARSTOW AVE

SHEPHERD AVE
W

AUDUBONDR

W ALLUVIAL AVE

E PERRIN AVE

FIFTH ST
N

SOMMERVILLE
DR

E CHAMPLAIN DR

N FRUIT AVE

E CLINTON AVE

N CHESTNUT AVE

NFRESNO
ST

GETTYSBURG AVE

E DAKOTA AVE

DE WOLF AVE

N DE WOLF AVE

N WILLOW AVE

EAIRWAYS BLVD

W HERNDON AVE

N MCCALL AVE

TEMPERANCE AVE LEONARD AVE

E HERNDON AVE
"þ41
"þ168
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Rdwy_CrashSeverityScore.mxd Date: 1/6/2022 Crash Severity Scores
95-100th Percentile
90-95th Percentile
75-90th Percentile
50-75th Percentile
0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 17
Roadway Crash Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Clovis
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.9Miles
Roadway segments shown along SR-168 are an at-grade Caltrans facility 82 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Clovis
Fresno

BARSTOW AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

SUNNYSIDE AVE

N FOWLER AVE

NEES AVE

SHAW AVE

N TEMPERANCE AVE

BULLARD AVE

E SHAW AVE
CLOVIS
AVE

W SIERRA AVE

ASHLAN AVE

TEMPERANCE AVE

ARMSTRONG AVE

E NEES AVE

TOLLHOUSE RD

E BULLARD AVE

N FIRST ST
N
M

ILLBROO
K
AVE

N PALM AVE

N INGRAM AVE

ALLUVIAL AVE

N PEACH AVE

FOWLER AVE

N LOCAN AVE

N VAN NESS BLVD

N CEDAR AVE

W BULLARD AVE

E GETTYSBURG AVE
N
M
A
PLEAVE

N ACADEMY AVE

E SHIELDS AVE

HERNDON AVE
N

SUNNYSIDE
AVE

VILLA AVE

SIERRA AVE

N CLOVIS AVE

LOCAN AVE

N BLACKSTONE AVE

E ASHLAN AVE MINNEWAWA AVE

N MAROA AVE

PEACH AVE

E TEAGUE AVE

W SHAW AVE

W NEES AVE

E SHEPHERD AVE

E BARSTOW AVE

E COLEAVE

N FRIANT RD

N MINNEWAWA AVE

WILLOW AVE

W BARSTOW AVE

SHEPHERD AVE
W

AUDUBONDR

W ALLUVIAL AVE

E PERRIN AVE

FIFTH ST
N
SOM

MERVILLE
DR

E CHAMPL
AIN DR

N FRUIT AVE

E CLINTON AVE

N CHESTNUT AVE

NFRESNO
ST

GETTYSBURG AVE

E DAKOTA AVE

DE WOLF AVE

N DE WOLF AVE

N WILLOW AVE

EAIRWAYS BLVD

W HERNDON AVE

N MCCALL AVE

LEONARD AVE

E HERNDON AVE
"þ41
"þ168
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Rdwy_ExFreqScore.mxd Date: 1/6/2022 Excess Expected Frequency
95-100th Percentile
90-95th Percentile
75-90th Percentile
50-75th Percentile
0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 18
Roadway Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Clovis
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.9Miles
Roadway segments shown along SR-168 are an at-grade Caltrans facility 83 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

39 EMPHASIS AREAS
Based on key trends in the crash data, emphasis areas for the City of Clovis include pedestrian and bicycle crashes, broadside crashes, and hit object crashes. Due to the prevalence of collision factors citing unsafe speed and driving under the influence, the City may also choose to focus on education and enforcement strategies aimed at encouraging safe driver behaviors. Each of these areas is further discussed below.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes
Pedestrian and bicycle crashes were identified as a focus area given the overrepresentation of pedestrians and bicyclists in fatal and severe crashes. Half of the ten fatal crashes involved a pedestrian or bicyclist and a third of the severe crashes involved a pedestrian or bicyclist. The most common pedestrian action preceding a crash was crossing the roadway outside a crosswalk, followed by crossing the roadway at an intersection crosswalk. The most frequently cited primary collision factor in bicycle crashes was wrong side of road driving/riding, which could indicate bicyclists riding in the opposite direction from traffic along a shoulder or sidewalk depending on their options for crossing a street to access adjacent land uses. These pedestrian actions and bicyclist behaviors suggest opportunities for improvements to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, as well as education for drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists on rules of the road.

Pedestrians and bicyclists are identified as two of the six high priority challenge areas in the California SHSP. These challenge areas “were identified through historical data evaluations and feedback from traffic safety stakeholders across the state” (Caltrans SHSP). The high priorities represent “the greatest opportunity to reduce fatalities and serious injuries across the state” (Caltrans SHSP).

Broadside Crashes
A broadside crash occurs when the front of one vehicle hits the side of another vehicle. Broadside crashes were selected as an emphasis area due to the frequency and severity of these collision types. Broadside crashes were the second most frequent collision type and represent 23 percent of fatal and severe injury crashes. As discussed below under Engineering Strategies, countermeasures are available targeted at broadside crashes.

84 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

40 Hit Object Crashes
Hit object crashes were selected as an emphasis area due to their frequency in fatal crashes. They are the third most common collision type and comprise four of the ten fatal crashes and six of the 46 severe injury crashes. A variety of roadway countermeasures are available targeted at slowing traffic speeds, improving roadside conditions, and reducing hit object crashes.

The California SHSP includes lane departures as one of the six high priorities in California. As indicated in the Caltrans SHSP, “the Lane Departures Challenge Area includes head-on, hit object, and overturned crashes. This includes instances where a vehicle runs off the road or crosses into the opposing lane prior to the collision.” These crashes are a high priority due to their severity level.

Unsafe Speed and Driving Under the Influence
Unsafe speed is the most frequently reported PCF among all reported crashes and the third most frequent in fatal/severe injury crashes. Driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol and drugs is the third most common PCF cited in fatal/severe injury crashes. This suggests there are opportunities to address driver behavior through countermeasures that encourage lower speeds and education and enforcement.

The California SHSP identified impaired driving and speed management/aggressive driving as two of the six high priorities in California, reflecting the potential to reduce fatalities and serious injuries by addressing these challenge areas.

85 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

41 STRATEGIES
The following subsections present engineering, education, emergency services, and enforcement strategies to help improve roadway safety within the City of Clovis.

Engineering Strategies
The top three fatal and severe injury collision types in Clovis were broadside, vehicle- pedestrian, and hit object crashes; the top three fatal and severe injury primary collision factors were pedestrian violation, driving under the influence, and unsafe speed. High priority countermeasures to address these collision types and primary collision factors are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. High Priority Countermeasures
Countermeasure Name ID Crashes Addressed
Roadway
Countermeasures
Street Lighting R01 Crashes at night
Road Diet R14 Hit object, unsafe speed
Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction Surface
Treatment) R21 Hit object, unsafe speed
Install/Upgrade Signs with New Fluorescent Sheeting R22 Hit object, unsafe speed Install Dynamic/Variable Speed Warning Sings R26 Hit object, unsafe speed Intersection
Countermeasures
Add Intersection Lighting at Intersections S1/NS1 Crashes at night Improve Signal Hardware: Lenses, Backplates with
Retroreflective Border, Mounting Size, Number S2 Broadside Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning S10/NS9 Unsafe speed Convert Intersection to Roundabout NS4/NS5 Broadside, unsafe speed Install/Upgrade Stop Signs or Intersection Warning/
Regulatory Signs NS6 Broadside
Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings NS7 Broadside
Install Splitter Islands for Minor Street Approaches NS13 Broadside Pedestrian/Bicycle
Countermeasures
Install Bike Lanes R32PB Overrepresented bicycle crashes Install Sidewalk/Pathway R34PB Pedestrian violation
Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing with Enhanced
Features R35PB Vehicle-pedestrian, pedestrian
violation
Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads S17PB Pedestrian violation Install Pedestrian Crossing S18PB/NS20PB Vehicle-pedestrian Install Raised Medians (or Refuge Islands) NS19PB Vehicle-pedestrian, pedestrian violation
Bike Lane Extension Through Intersections n/a Overrepresented bicycle crashes Bike Boxes n/a Overrepresented bicycle crashes
Note: The ID number references the Caltrans Manual Local Road Safety 86 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

42 Appendix B contains the regional Countermeasures Toolbox which includes more detailed information regarding the countermeasures listed above.

The following figures and tables provide data on collision types and factors for the intersections and roadways with the highest crash scores. The locations with the highest crash scores may be top priorities for implementing countermeasures and pursuing grants. Clovis can use the information about collision type and factors to identify potential countermeasures to apply, using the information in Table 6.

Figure 19 and Figure 20 present the top priority intersections and breakdown of the top collision types and primary collision factors, respectively. Figure 21 and Figure 22 present the top priority roadways and breakdown of the top collision types and primary collision factors, respectively.

87 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Clovis
Fresno

BARSTOW AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

SUNNYSIDE AVE

N FOWLER AVE

NEES AVE N TEMPERANCE AVE

W TEAGUE AVE

SHAW AVE

BULLARD AVE

W BULLARD AVE

CLOVIS AVE

W SIERRA AVE

ASHLAN AVE

TEMPERANCE AVE

ARMSTRONG AVE

N BLACKSTONE AVE

E NEES AVE

TOLLHOUSE RD

E BULLARD AVE

N FIRST ST
N
M

ILLBROOK

AVEN INGRAM AVE

ALLUVIAL AVE

FOWLER AVE

N LOCAN AVE

N CEDAR AVE

E GETTYSBURG AVE
N
M
APLE
A
VE

HARLAN RANCHBLVD

E SHIELDS AVE

HERNDON AVE

E SHAW AVE
N

SUNNYSIDE
AVE

VILLA AVE

SIERRA AVE

N CLOVIS AVE

LOCAN AVE

E ASHLAN AVE

MINNEWAWA AVE

N MAROA AVE

PEACH AVE

E TEAGUE AVE

W NEES AVE

E SHEPHERD AVE

E BARSTOW AVE

ECOLEAVE
N
FRIANT
RD

N MINNEWAWA AVE

E HERNDON AVE
W
ILLOW
AVE

W BARSTOW AVE

SHEPHERD AVE
W

AUDUBONDR

W ALLUVIAL AVE

E PERRIN AVE

NSOMMERVILLE
DR

E CHAMPLAIN DR

W SHAW AVE

N CHESTNUT AVE
N
FRESNO
ST

GETTYSBURG AVE

E DAKOTA AVE

N WILLOW AVE

DE WOLF AVE

W HERNDON AVE

N DE WOLF AVE
E

AIRWAYS BLVD

N MCCALL AVE

LEONARD AVE
"þ41
"þ168
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Clovis\Intx_CrashType_Clovis.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Collision Type
! Broadside
! Vehicle/Pedestrian
! Hit Object
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 19
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Collision Types
Jurisdiction Results: Clovis
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.9Miles
88 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Clovis
Fresno

E SHAW AVE

BARSTOW AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

SUNNYSIDE AVE

N FOWLER AVE

NEES AVE

N FIRST ST

SHAW AVE

N TEMPERANCE AVE

W TEAGUE AVE

BULLARD AVEW BULLARD AVE

CLOVIS AVE

W SIERRA AVE

ASHLAN AVE

TEMPERANCE AVE

ARMSTRONG AVE

E NEES AVE

TOLLHOUSE RD

N BLACKSTONE AVE

E BULLARD AVE
N
M

ILLBROOK

AVEN INGRAM AVE

ALLUVIAL AVE

FOWLER AVE

N LOCAN AVE

N CEDAR AVE

E GETTYSBURG AVE
N
M
APLE
A
VE

HARLAN RANCHBLVD

E SHIELDS AVE

HERNDON AVE
N

SUNNYSIDE
AVE

VILLA AVE

SIERRA AVE

N CLOVIS AVE

LOCAN AVE

E ASHLAN AVE

MINNEWAWA AVE

N MAROA AVE

PEACH AVE

E TEAGUE AVE

W NEES AVE

E SHEPHERD AVE

E BARSTOW AVE

ECOLEAVE
N
FRIANT
RD

N MINNEWAWA AVE

E HERNDON AVE

WILLOW AVE

W BARSTOW AVE

SHEPHERD AVE
W

AUDUBONDR

W ALLUVIAL AVE

E PERRIN AVE

FIFTH ST

NSOMMERVILLE
DR

E CHAMPLAIN DR

W SHAW AVE

N CHESTNUT AVE
N
FRESNO
ST

GETTYSBURG AVE

E DAKOTA AVE

N WILLOW AVE

DE WOLF AVE

W HERNDON AVE N DE WOLF AVE
E

AIRWAYS BLVD

N MCCALL AVE

LEONARD AVE
"þ41 "þ168
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Clovis\Intx_PCF_Clovis.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Primary Collision Factors
! Unsafe Speed
! Driving Under the Influence
! Pedestrian Violation
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 20
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Primary Collision Factors Jurisdiction Results: Clovis
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.9Miles
89 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Clovis
Fresno

BARSTOW AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

SUNNYSIDE AVE

N FOWLER AVE

NEES AVE N TEMPERANCE AVE

W TEAGUE AVE

SHAW AVE

BULLARD AVE

CLOVIS AVE

W SIERRA AVE

ASHLAN AVE

TEMPERANCE AVE

ARMSTRONG AVE

N BLACKSTONE AVE

E NEES AVE

TOLLHOUSE RD

E BULLARD AVE

N FIRST ST
N
M

ILLBROOK

AVEN INGRAM AVE

ALLUVIAL AVE

FOWLER AVE

N LOCAN AVE

N SUNNYSIDE AVE

N CEDAR AVE

W BULLARD AVE

E GETTYSBURG AVE
N
M
APLE
A
VE

HARLAN RANCHBLVD

E SHIELDS AVE

HERNDON AVE

E SHAW AVE

VILLA AVE

N CLOVIS AVE

LOCAN AVE

E ASHLAN AVE

MINNEWAWA AVE

N MAROA AVE

SIERRA AVE

PEACH AVE

E TEAGUE AVE

W NEES AVE

E SHEPHERD AVE

E BARSTOW AVE

ECOLEAVE
N
FRIANT
RD

E HERNDON AVE

WILLOW AVE

W BARSTOW AVE

SHEPHERD AVE
W

AUDUBONDR

W ALLUVIAL AVE

E PERRIN AVE

FIFTH ST

NSOMMERVILLE
DR

E CHAMPLAIN DR

W SHAW AVE

N CHESTNUT AVE
N
FRESNO
ST

GETTYSBURG AVE

E DAKOTA AVE

N WILLOW AVE

DE WOLF AVE

W HERNDON AVE N DE WOLF AVE
E

AIRWAYS BLVD

N MCCALL AVE

LEONARD AVE
"þ41
"þ168
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Clovis\Rdwy_CrashType_Clovis.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Collision Type
! Broadside
! Vehicle/Pedestrian
! Hit Object
Priority Roadways
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 21
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Roadway Collision Types
Jurisdiction Results: Clovis
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.9Miles
Note: Priority locations on state facilities have been excluded. 90 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Clovis
Fresno

BARSTOW AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

SUNNYSIDE AVE

N FOWLER AVE

NEES AVE

SHAW AVE

N TEMPERANCE AVE

BULLARD AVE

N BLACKSTONE AVE

CLOVIS AVE

W SIERRA AVE

ASHLAN AVE

ARMSTRONG AVE

E NEES AVE

TOLLHOUSE RD

E BULLARD AVE

N FIRST ST
N
M

ILLBROOK

AVEN INGRAM AVE

ALLUVIAL AVE

N PEACH AVE

FOWLER AVE

N LOCAN AVE

N SUNNYSIDE AVE

N CEDAR AVE

W BULLARD AVE

E GETTYSBURG AVE
N
M
APLE
AVE

HARLAN RANCHBLVD

E SHIELDS AVE

E SHAW AVE

HERNDON AVE

VILLA AVE

N CLOVIS AVE

LOCAN AVE

E ASHLAN AVE

MINNEWAWA AVE

N MAROA AVE

SIERRA AVE

PEACH AVE

E TEAGUE AVE

W NEES AVE

E SHEPHERD AVE

E BARSTOW AVE

ECOLEAVE
N
FRIANT
RD

E HERNDON AVE

WILLOW AVE

W BARSTOW AVE

SHEPHERD AVE

WAUDUBONDR

W ALLUVIAL AVE

E PERRIN AVE

FIFTH ST

NSOMMERVILLE
DR

E CHAMPLAIN DR

W SHAW AVE

N CHESTNUT AVE
N
FRESNO
ST

GETTYSBURG AVE

N WILLOW AVE

E DAKOTA AVE

DE WOLF AVE

W HERNDON AVE N DE WOLF AVE
E

AIRWAYS BLVD

N MCCALL AVE

TEMPERANCE AVE

LEONARD AVE
"þ41
"þ168
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Clovis\Rdwy_PCF_Clovis.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Primary Collision Factors
! Unsafe Speed
! Driving Under the Influence
! Pedestrian Violation
Priority Roadways
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 22
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Roadway Primary Collision Factors Jurisdiction Results: Clovis
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.9Miles
Note: Priority locations on state facilities have been excluded. 91 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

47 Table 7 and Table 8 provide information for the top fifty intersection locations (based on crash severity score), including control type (signalized or unsignalized), crash severity score, and total number of crashes by collision type or primary collision factor.

Table 7. Priority Intersections with Collision Type based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Types # Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Collision Type
Broadside Vehicle
/ Ped
Hit
Object Other
1 CLOVIS AVE & SANTA ANA AVE Signal 90.35 28 11 0 1 16
2 WILLOW AVE & SHAW AVE Signal 85.66 94 14 11 4 65
3 FOWLER AVE & SHAW AVE Signal 74.88 38 9 8 2 19
4 HERNDON AVE & FOWLER AVE Signal 73.39 49 15 4 1 29
5 ASHLAN AVE & FOWLER AVE Signal 68.03 37 18 2 1 16
6 CLOVIS AVE & BARSTOW AVE Signal 64.63 26 8 3 2 13
7 BARSTOW AVE & SUNNYSIDE AVE Signal 59.06 18 7 2 1 8
8 VILLA AVE & SHAW AVE Signal 57.93 51 14 4 1 32
9 PEACH AVE & SHAW AVE Signal 51.27 38 12 2 2 22
10 WILLOW AVE & BULLARD AVE Signal 48.39 43 10 7 1 25
11 BULLARD AVE & VILLA AVE Signal 48.11 37 8 2 2 25
12 MINNEWAWA AVE & SHEPHERD AVE Signal 47.99 35 24 2 0 9 13 SAN JOSE AVE & MINNEWAWA AVE Unsignalized 44.03 6 3 0 0 3 14 LOCAN AVE & HERNDON AVE Unsignalized 44.02 11 8 1 0 2 15 HOLLAND AVE & WILLOW AVE Unsignalized 43.62 9 7 0 1 1 16 CLOVIS AVE & PALO ALTO AVE Unsignalized 42.82 5 3 0 0 2 17 SUNNYSIDE AVE & FOURTH ST & GIBSON
AVE Unsignalized 41.68 9 3 2 0 4
18 SIERRA VISTA PKWY & SUNNYSIDE AVE &
SHAW AVE Signal 41.68 43 19 3 1 20
19 ASHLAN AVE & HIGHLAND AVE Unsignalized 41.60 4 0 1 1 2 20 ASHLAN AVE & PEACH AVE Signal 41.00 31 11 1 2 17
21 VILLA AVE & HERNDON AVE Signal 40.80 30 4 3 0 23
22 SHAW AVE & DARTMOUTH AVE Unsignalized 40.68 4 0 0 1 3 23 ARMSTRONG AVE & KEATS AVE Unsignalized 40.48 3 2 0 0 1 24 CLOVIS AVE & JEFFERSON AVE Unsignalized 39.86 5 1 3 0 1 25 BARSTOW AVE & SYLMAR AVE Unsignalized 39.66 4 1 1 0 2 26 SHAW AVE & CLOVIS AVE Signal 39.51 52 17 6 1 28
27 ASHLAN AVE & RENN AVE Unsignalized 39.46 3 0 2 0 1
28 ARMSTRONG AVE & NEES AVE Unsignalized 39.26 2 0 1 1 0 29 SHEPHERD AVE & DE WOLF AVE Signal 39.26 2 0 2 0 0
30 ASH AVE & HERNDON AVE Unsignalized 39.26 2 1 0 0 1
31 GETTYSBURG AVE & WILLOW AVE Signal 38.78 25 6 2 1 16 32 PISTACHIO AVE & ASHLAN AVE Unsignalized 38.25 2 0 1 0 1 92 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

48 # Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Collision Type
Broadside Vehicle
/ Ped
Hit
Object Other
33 FEDORA AVE & DUKE AVE Unsignalized 38.25 2 0 1 0 1
34 FOWLER AVE (FRONTAGE) & DONNER
AVE Unsignalized 38.25 2 0 0 0 2
35 EIGHTH ST & DE WITT AVE Unsignalized 38.05 1 1 0 0 0 36 SHAW AVE & SOLEDAD AVE Unsignalized 38.05 1 0 0 0 1
37 MINNEWAWA AVE & FOURTH ST Unsignalized 38.05 1 1 0 0 0 38 CHERRY LN & ALY (B/W MINNEWAWA
AVE & 10TH ST) Unsignalized 38.05 1 0 0 0 1
39 FOWLER AVE & BARSTOW AVE Signal 35.86 21 2 2 2 15
40 FOWLER AVE & BULLARD AVE Signal 35.26 18 6 3 1 8
41 CLOVIS AVE & ALLUVIAL AVE Signal 35.17 12 5 1 0 6
42 HERNDON AVE & CLOVIS AVE Signal 34.30 56 12 5 0 39
43 ALLUVIAL AVE & SUNNYSIDE AVE Signal 32.44 9 5 1 0 3
44 BARSTOW AVE & VILLA AVE Signal 30.61 38 12 1 2 23
45 ASHLAN AVE & ARMSTRONG AVE Signal 30.38 13 3 2 0 8
46 SHAW AVE & DE WOLF AVE Signal 29.78 10 1 2 1 6
47 MINNEWAWA AVE & SHAW AVE Signal 29.68 38 13 6 0 19
48 SIERRA AVE & WILLOW AVE Signal 29.18 7 2 1 0 4
49 WILLOW AVE & HERNDON AVE Signal 29.17 41 13 8 0 20
50 MEDICAL CENTER DR & HERNDON AVE
& COVENTRY AVE Signal 27.14 7 0 2 1 4
Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three collision types Table 8. Priority Intersections with Primary Collision Factor based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Primary Collision Factors # Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Pedestrian
Violation DUI Unsafe
Speed Other
1 CLOVIS AVE & SANTA ANA AVE Signal 90.35 28 1 2 5 20
2 WILLOW AVE & SHAW AVE Signal 85.66 94 3 11 38 42
3 FOWLER AVE & SHAW AVE Signal 74.88 38 2 4 5 27
4 HERNDON AVE & FOWLER AVE Signal 73.39 49 0 4 10 35
5 ASHLAN AVE & FOWLER AVE Signal 68.03 37 2 3 8 24
6 CLOVIS AVE & BARSTOW AVE Signal 64.63 26 0 3 3 20
7 BARSTOW AVE & SUNNYSIDE AVE Signal 59.06 18 0 0 3 15
8 VILLA AVE & SHAW AVE Signal 57.93 51 0 3 16 32
9 PEACH AVE & SHAW AVE Signal 51.27 38 2 2 9 25
10 WILLOW AVE & BULLARD AVE Signal 48.39 43 1 6 8 28
11 BULLARD AVE & VILLA AVE Signal 48.11 37 1 1 13 22
12 MINNEWAWA AVE & SHEPHERD AVE Signal 47.99 35 0 1 7 27 13 SAN JOSE AVE & MINNEWAWA AVE Unsignalized 44.03 6 0 0 2 4 93 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

49 # Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Pedestrian
Violation DUI Unsafe
Speed Other
14 LOCAN AVE & HERNDON AVE Unsignalized 44.02 11 0 1 0 10 15 HOLLAND AVE & WILLOW AVE Unsignalized 43.62 9 1 0 0 8 16 CLOVIS AVE & PALO ALTO AVE Unsignalized 42.82 5 0 0 0 5 17 SUNNYSIDE AVE & FOURTH ST & GIBSON
AVE Unsignalized 41.68 9 0 3 1 5
18 SIERRA VISTA PKWY & SUNNYSIDE AVE
& SHAW AVE Signal 41.68 43 1 1 10 31
19 ASHLAN AVE & HIGHLAND AVE Unsignalized 41.60 4 0 0 0 4 20 ASHLAN AVE & PEACH AVE Signal 41.00 31 1 5 6 19
21 VILLA AVE & HERNDON AVE Signal 40.80 30 0 5 10 15
22 SHAW AVE & DARTMOUTH AVE Unsignalized 40.68 4 0 1 0 3 23 ARMSTRONG AVE & KEATS AVE Unsignalized 40.48 3 0 0 1 2 24 CLOVIS AVE & JEFFERSON AVE Unsignalized 39.86 5 0 1 2 2 25 BARSTOW AVE & SYLMAR AVE Unsignalized 39.66 4 1 0 0 3 26 SHAW AVE & CLOVIS AVE Signal 39.51 52 0 5 18 29
27 ASHLAN AVE & RENN AVE Unsignalized 39.46 3 0 0 0 3
28 ARMSTRONG AVE & NEES AVE Unsignalized 39.26 2 0 1 0 1 29 SHEPHERD AVE & DE WOLF AVE Signal 39.26 2 0 1 1 0
30 ASH AVE & HERNDON AVE Unsignalized 39.26 2 0 0 1 1
31 GETTYSBURG AVE & WILLOW AVE Signal 38.78 25 1 4 8 12 32 PISTACHIO AVE & ASHLAN AVE Unsignalized 38.25 2 0 1 1 0 33 FEDORA AVE & DUKE AVE Unsignalized 38.25 2 0 1 0 1
34 FOWLER AVE (FRONTAGE) & DONNER
AVE Unsignalized 38.25 2 0 0 0 2
35 EIGHTH ST & DE WITT AVE Unsignalized 38.05 1 0 0 0 1 36 SHAW AVE & SOLEDAD AVE Unsignalized 38.05 1 0 0 0 1
37 MINNEWAWA AVE & FOURTH ST Unsignalized 38.05 1 0 0 0 1 38 CHERRY LN & ALY (B/W MINNEWAWA
AVE & 10TH ST) Unsignalized 38.05 1 0 0 1 0
39 FOWLER AVE & BARSTOW AVE Signal 35.86 21 2 0 7 12
40 FOWLER AVE & BULLARD AVE Signal 35.26 18 0 5 6 7
41 CLOVIS AVE & ALLUVIAL AVE Signal 35.17 12 0 2 2 8
42 HERNDON AVE & CLOVIS AVE Signal 34.30 56 0 4 13 39
43 ALLUVIAL AVE & SUNNYSIDE AVE Signal 32.44 9 0 0 2 7
44 BARSTOW AVE & VILLA AVE Signal 30.61 38 2 2 14 20
45 ASHLAN AVE & ARMSTRONG AVE Signal 30.38 13 0 3 2 8
46 SHAW AVE & DE WOLF AVE Signal 29.78 10 1 1 2 6
47 MINNEWAWA AVE & SHAW AVE Signal 29.68 38 0 1 9 28
48 SIERRA AVE & WILLOW AVE Signal 29.18 7 0 0 2 5
49 WILLOW AVE & HERNDON AVE Signal 29.17 41 0 7 11 23
94 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

50 # Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Pedestrian
Violation DUI Unsafe
Speed Other
50 MEDICAL CENTER DR & HERNDON AVE
& COVENTRY AVE Signal 27.14 7 0 2 1 4
Notes: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top primary collision factors DUI = Driving Under the Influence
Table 9 and Table 10 provide information for the top ten roadway segments (based on crash severity score), including roadway classification, crash severity score, and total number of crashes by collision type or primary collision factor.

Table 9. Priority Roadways Segments with Collision Type based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Types # Location Classification
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number
of
Crashes
Collision Type
Broad
-side
Vehicle
/Ped
Hit
Object Other
1 SR 168 (Owens Mountain Pkwy to N Dutch
Ave)* Freeway 34.35 3 0 1 0 2
2 N Sunnyside Ave (SR 168 to Locust Ave) Arterial/Collector 33.13 2 1 0 1 0 3 N Pollasky Ave (N De Witt Ave to Third St) Local 32.93 1 0 1 0 0 4 Scott Ave (Pollasky Ave to Clovis Ave) Local 32.93 1 0 1 0 0 5 W Bullard Ave (SR 168 SB on-ramp to SR 168 NB
on-ramp) Arterial/Collector 10.85 15 1 3 0 11
6 Shaw Ave (Railroad Ave to Sunnyside Ave) Arterial/Collector 7.41 7 0 0 1 6 7 W Teague Ave (N Willow Ave to N Timmy Ave) Arterial/Collector 7.41 7 1 1 0 5 8 Peach Ave (W Ashlan Ave to E Dakota Ave) Arterial/Collector 6.59 8 3 2 0 3 9 N Fowler Ave (Herndon Ave to N of Los Altos
Ave) Arterial/Collector 6.10 6 2 1 0 3
10 N Minnewawa Ave (W Teague Ave to W Nees
Ave) Arterial/Collector 5.57 8 4 1 1 2
* Roadway segment is an at-grade Caltrans facility.

Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three collision types Table 10. Priority Roadways Segments with Primary Collision Factors based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Primary Collision Factors
# Location Classification
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number
of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Unsafe
Speed DUI Ped
Violation Other
1 SR 168 (Owens Mountain Pkwy to N Dutch Ave)* Freeway 34.35 3 1 0 0 2 2 N Sunnyside Ave (SR 168 to Locust Ave) Arterial/Collector 33.13 2 0 0 1 1 3 N Pollasky Ave (N De Witt Ave to Third St) Local 32.93 1 1 0 0 0 4 Scott Ave (Pollasky Ave to Clovis Ave) Local 32.93 1 1 0 0 0 5 W Bullard Ave (SR 168 SB on-ramp to SR 168 NB
on-ramp) Arterial/Collector 10.85 15 11 1 0 3
6 Shaw Ave (Railroad Ave to Sunnyside Ave) Arterial/Collector 7.41 7 4 0 1 2 7 W Teague Ave (N Willow Ave to N Timmy Ave) Arterial/Collector 7.41 7 4 0 0 3 95 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

51 # Location Classification
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number
of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Unsafe
Speed DUI Ped
Violation Other
8 Peach Ave (W Ashlan Ave to E Dakota Ave) Arterial/Collector 6.59 8 1 0 0 7 9 N Fowler Ave (Herndon Ave to N of Los Altos
Ave) Arterial/Collector 6.10 6 1 0 0 5
10 N Minnewawa Ave (W Teague Ave to W Nees
Ave) Arterial/Collector 5.57 8 1 0 0 7
* Roadway segment is an at-grade Caltrans facility.

Notes: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three primary collision factors DUI = Driving Under the Influence

Education Strategies
Education strategies for Clovis are targeted at unsafe speed and driving or bicycling under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Unsafe speed is the most frequently reported PCF among all reported crashes and the third most frequent in fatal/severe injury crashes. Driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol and drugs is the third most common PCF cited in fatal/severe injury crashes. In addition, pedestrian and bicycle crashes are an emphasis area that can be addressed with education strategies. Lastly, education strategies can speak to the need to be extra cautious during dark, cloudy, or foggy conditions, given the City’s crash history in these conditions.

The Safe Roads Save Lives campaign is a marketing effort led by the Fresno COG, with the goals of:
▪ Educate all road users on safe transportation behaviors ▪ Increase safety for people walking and biking
▪ Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in
Fresno County—speeding and distracted driving
The campaign Includes branding, social media strategies, print materials, radio and video resources, school resources, and a campaign website. Clovis may find these materials helpful, especially those related to the dangers of speeding, looking out for pedestrians, not using the roadway while under the influence, and being extra cautious in lower visibility conditions.

The following activities are recommended for Clovis as they move forward on implementing the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign:
▪ Identify a team of staff appropriate to attend a presentation by a Fresno COG staff about the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign. Appropriate staff members include staff associated with transportation engineering and planning, communications, traffic enforcement, school transportation, and other jurisdictional staff who work with the roadway system. 96 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

52 ▪ Identify a specific staff member to be the City’s lead for the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign deployment. This lead should focus on the following tasks:
o Identify local transportation and public health advocacy groups that would be interested in helping to promote the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign. Meet with group leaders to better understand how they can participate in the campaign.
o Work with school districts to distribute print materials and offer school-related transportation resources. Ensure that school communications are in both English and Spanish. o Work with public information staff to spread Safe Roads Save Lives materials throughout Clovis through the following channels:
▪ Independently implement social media calendar and graphics through jurisdictional accounts. At minimum, repost Fresno COG posts.
▪ Have print materials (flyers, bumper stickers, pins, and postcards) available at events and community festivals.
▪ Print posters for posting at governmental buildings such as City Hall, libraries, DMVs, and other facilities that the public regularly uses.
▪ Identify key outdoor locations in the community that would be effective for larger print advertisement, such as bus shelters, community parks, or billboard locations. ▪ Create one or more radio public service announcements (PSAs) and record at least one of the PSAs in Spanish and air it on Spanish-language radio. ▪ Have a direct link to Safe Roads Save Lives campaign website from the city’s website.

Emergency Services
Emergency service organizations depend on safe roadways and efficient communication processes to reach and effectively respond to emergencies. Each type of emergency services organization that serves Clovis – law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services (EMS), California Highway Patrol – work independently and collaboratively to develop procedures that allow them to respond to incidents in their own jurisdictions as well as support others as needed. The following recommendations may help improve emergency services response as the various organizations update procedures and policies and continue to partner on roadway safety efforts:
▪ All roadway safety projects should be vetted by emergency service organizations to ensure that their design does not hamper access.
▪ As new emergency service and response procedures are developed, roadway safety improvement opportunities should be identified and implications of changes to response times should be considered.
▪ Clovis staff should participate in periodic coordination calls between emergency response agencies to gather and share recent observations about crashes and hot spots, to 97 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

53 understand emergent safety issues that may not have led to policy reports or yet be available through statewide crash reporting systems.

Enforcement
Enforcement strategies can include programs or campaigns specifically focused on changing road user behavior through more visible and active enforcement of existing traffic laws, as well as focusing enforcement in areas that have historically been shown to have higher-than- average crash rates. Typically, the effectiveness of enforcement strategies is temporal, meaning they are effective at changing behavior for a discrete period of time – during and shortly after the increased enforcement activities.

The following enforcement strategies should be considered for Clovis. ▪ Schedule heightened speed (or other behavior) enforcement checks during strategic times of the year, such as when students return to school or the beginning of fog season. ▪ Focus speed enforcement efforts in locations with high crash rates. ▪ Use automatic enforcement, such as red-light cameras or speed feedback signs, especially in school zones.
▪ Deploy speed feedback signs in areas with high crash rates or speeding citations.

The effectiveness of each strategy should be measured and evaluated, considering the number of staff hours and amount of resources needed. The results should be reviewed and used to refine future enforcement activities.

Enforcement strategies should be undertaken with due caution to avoid inequitable enforcement activities and evaluated to determine the strategy’s impact. More details about equitable enforcement can be found on page 8 (Introduction).

98 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS

54 EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
A key part of achieving the City’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the City’s goals. The City will develop a process to regularly collect data and information around the performance measures that can be used to assess changes city-wide and at the top priority locations.

As feasible, it is recommended that the City of Clovis update this LRSP every three to five years using updated crash data and the performance measures. Comparing the performance measures related to investments made with the crash data should provide a clear indication of the impact of the City’s and safety partner’s efforts. Future LRSPs may provide new emphasis areas and top priority locations that reflect progress made and new priorities based on trends in the data.

Activities for implementing the plan include:
▪ Identifying countermeasures and strategies for priority locations based on the crash data. ▪ Utilizing the Fresno COG Regional Safety Plan to implement regional strategies and share best practices.
▪ Exploring funding opportunities to implement priority strategies. ▪ Identifying key staff and activities to support the regional Safe Roads Save Lives campaign. ▪ Identifying enforcement strategies to implement and evaluate. ▪ Regularly coordinating with safety partner agencies to assess progress, identify opportunities to implement countermeasures and strategies, and identify opportunities for citizen involvement. ▪ Regularly collecting and organizing data to support evaluation of the LRSP.

99 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

55 3.0 CITY OF COALINGA
The City of Coalinga has an approximate population of 16,944.10 The average daily vehicle miles traveled is 83,135, and the City maintains approximately 58 total roadway centerline miles. The main roadways in the City include California State Route 33, which runs north to south, and E Polk Street, which runs east to west. Based on the review of crash data conducted as part of the LRSP, pedestrians are overrepresented in fatal and severe injury crashes. The top fatal and severe injury collision types in Coalinga were rear end and vehicle-pedestrian crashes; the top fatal and severe injury primary collision factors were improper turning and automobile right of way. High priority countermeasures to address these collision types and primary collision factors are shown in Table 15. The LRSP provides potential engineering, education, emergency services, and enforcement strategies tailored to Coalinga’s crash history and local priorities, as well as performance measures to evaluate progress.

VISION AND GOALS
The City’s vision for roadway safety is:

The City’s goal in support of the vision are:

1. Have zero fatal and severe injury crashes on the City roadways by 2026.

2. Coordinate with Caltrans on implementing roadway network changes on the state routes that are within the City boundary

3. Regularly review data-informed analysis and community needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce crash risk.

4. Implement low-cost engineering solutions to address common collision types

5. Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety

6. Maintain a roadway system that provides a quality environment for all users

10 2018 population. Source: California Department of Finance Enhance the existing roadway network in a cost-effective manner that promotes traffic safety, meets the needs of the community and enriches the lives of residents.
100
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

56 7. Coordinate with traffic safety stakeholders such as fire, police, schools, and parks to exchange information and ideas specific to enhancing roadway safety performance through engineering, enforcement and educational strategies.

SAFETY PARTNERS
A variety of agency staff and community partners were involved throughout the development of this LRSP and played an integral role in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing the existing conditions analysis. Many of the strategies identified in this plan will require coordination with these partners and their support of the City’s effort to create a culture of roadway safety. Coalinga’s goals reflect the importance of partnering with traffic safety stakeholders and participating in regional activities to enhance roadway safety performance. While additional partners may be identified in the future, those involved in development of the LRSP include:
▪ Coalinga Fire Department
▪ Coalinga Police Department
▪ Coalinga-Huron Unified School District
▪ Fresno Council of Governments
▪ Public Works and Utilities

PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance measures are used to track progress and a key element of making data-informed decisions.

Performance measures that support the City’s vision, goals, and emphasis areas include:
▪ Annual number of crashes (city-wide and at each of the top twenty priority locations) ▪ Annual number of fatal and severe injury crashes (city-wide and at each of the top twenty priority locations)
▪ Annual number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes (city-wide and at each of the top twenty priority locations)
▪ Annual number of rear end crashes (city-wide)
▪ Annual number of crashes at intersections (city-wide) ▪ Investments made in roadway safety countermeasures (e.g. dollars spent, grants pursued, partnerships developed)
▪ Investments made in education and enforcement strategies (e.g. dollars spent, grants pursued, partnerships developed)
▪ Coordination with other local agencies and/or safety partners (e.g. meetings held, projects pursued)
As part of plan implementation, the City will identify a process for annually tracking these performance measures to support future updates to this roadway safety plan. 101
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

57 DATA SUMMARY
The primary data sets used to inform the technical analyses for the City’s local road safety plan were crash data and roadway network information. As noted below, future updates could incorporate traffic volume data if widely available for locations across the City. In addition, feedback from a publicly available survey was documented for consideration in identifying issues and improvement strategies.

Public Survey Feedback
Toole Design Group worked with Fresno COG to develop an online survey and interactive webmap to provide the opportunity for public engagement on the LRSP. The goal was to collect both general and geographically specific feedback on safety problems, desired safety improvements in jurisdictions that are part of the MLRSP, as well as voluntary demographic information for Title IV reporting. Both activities were from August 16, 2021 to September 20, 2021 and sought public feedback on spatial patterns of traffic safety concerns and desired improvements.

As the primary open public engagement opportunity during MLRSP development, the survey and interactive webmap served a crucial role in illuminating the community’s traffic safety concerns and desired traffic safety improvements. Below is a summary of key findings from the online survey and interactive webmap specific to Coalinga. More information on the methodology and overall findings of the survey are provided in Appendix A.

6 PEOPLE

RESPONDED
0 LOCATIONS

IDENTIFIED
Live and
work/study
in Coalinga
33%
Work/study in
Coalinga and
live outside of
Coalinga
67%

WHERE PARTICIPANTS

WORK AND LIVE

MOST NEEDED SAFETY

IMPROVEMENTS
• Pedestrian crossing
improvements
• Speed enforcement
• Maintenance of existing
roads and streets
• Rural road improvements
to prevent run-off-road
crashes
• Sidewalks
102
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

58 ▪ The survey asked respondents to provide input on the top road safety improvements needed in their communities. While the survey prompted participants to pick three improvements, some selected more than three responses. A total of 23 responses were received for Coalinga from 6 participants, with the most common desired improvement types including:
o Pedestrian crossing improvements (4 responses)
o Speed enforcement (4 responses)
o Maintenance of existing roads and streets (3 responses) o Rural road improvements to prevent run-off-road crashes (3 responses) o Sidewalks (3 responses)
▪ Participants dropped points in the webmap in specific locations across Fresno County where they experienced road safety concerns. No locations were identified in Coalinga. ▪ The survey asked participants where they live and work or study, with the option to select either outside of Fresno County or from a list of jurisdictions within the County. The participants who selected Coalinga included:
o 2 who live and work/study in Coalinga
o None who live in Coalinga and work/study outside of Coalinga o 4 who work/study in Coalinga and live outside of Coalinga Crash Data
Kittelson worked with Fresno COG to assemble crash data for the City of Clovis using the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database, supplemented with location information from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database maintained by SafeTREC at the University of California, Berkeley. Throughout this report, crashes are associated with a jurisdiction based on the reporting officer’s assessment of location.

The crash database represents the time period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019 and includes reported crashes that occurred on public streets. Within the assembled regional crash database, a total of 378 reported crashes are located in Coalinga. Crash severity is coded according to the highest degree of injury exhibited, and the data used for this analysis includes the following coded severity levels (listed in descending order):
▪ Fatal: death from injuries sustained in the crash.
▪ Severe Injury: Injuries include, for example, broken bones, severe lacerations, or other injuries that go beyond the reporting officer’s assessment of “other visible injuries.” ▪ Other visible injury: An injury, other than those described above, that is evident to observers at the scene of the crash. For example, bruises or minor lacerations. ▪ Complaint of pain: Internal or other non-visible injuries. For example, a person limps or seems incoherent. ▪ Property damage only (PDO): No injuries sustained.
103
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

59 Roadway Network Data
Kittelson developed a linear referencing system of all public roadways using the Fresno County roadway centerline file. This dataset was updated to develop a measurement system based on the total road length (as determined by roadway name) to locate crashes to a specific mile point along the network.

The master roadway network for the County was used to spatially analyze and prioritize specific locations within each local jurisdiction.

Traffic Volume Data
Traffic volume data was not consistently available at a sufficient level to be able to incorporate into the safety analysis. Future updates to the City’s local road safety plan could incorporate traffic volume data, if available, to understand how crash frequency, severity, and type vary at different levels of traffic.

EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY PERFORMANCE
The findings in this section are based on the crash database, which includes reported crashes from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019. It is organized as follows:
▪ All Road Users
o Severity by Road User
o Year, Month, and Weather
o Collision Type
o Location, Collision Type, and Severity
o Primary Collision Factor
o Lighting
o Time of Day
▪ Pedestrian-involved Crashes
o Year and Month
o Pedestrian Action and Location
o Lighting
▪ Bicyclist-involved Crashes
o Collision Type
o Primary Collision Factor
o Lighting

104
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

60 All Road Users
This section includes analysis and findings for all reported crashes. Subsequent sections focus exclusively on crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists.

SEVERITY BY ROAD USER
Table 11 summarizes number of reported crashes by road user and severity of those crashes. Notable trends include:
▪ Pedestrians are overrepresented in fatal and severe injury crashes. Pedestrians are involved in 4 percent of reported crashes but are involved in 22 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. ▪ Of the nine reported severe injury crashes, pedestrians were involved in two and a motorcyclist in one.

Table 11: Crash Severity by Road User Involved
Road User Involved Fatal
(% of column)
Severe Injury
(% of column)
Visible Injury
(% of column)
Complaint of
Pain
(% of column)
Property
Damage Only
(% of column)
Total
(% of column)
Pedestrian Involved 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 7 (23%) 5 (13%) 1 (0%) 15 (4%) Bicycle Involved 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (13%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 5 (1%) Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed Object 0 (0%) 7 (78%) 19 (63%) 34 (85%) 298 (100%) 358 (95%) Reported Crashes 0 (0%) 9 (100%) 30 (100%) 40 (100%) 299 (100%) 378 (100%) Severity Share of
Reported Crashes 0% 2% 8% 11% 79% 100%
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

105
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

61 The California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) includes 16 challenge areas to focus statewide resources and efforts. Three of those challenge areas are crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. The SHSP analyzed the share of fatal and severe injury crashes involving each of these road users. Figure 23 compares crash trends in the City of Coalinga to the statewide trends reported in California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan. City of Coalinga has a higher share of pedestrian crashes among fatal/severe crashes compared to the statewide average.

Figure 23: Fatal and Severe Injury Crash Shares by Road User Compared to Statewide Trends

Source: SHSP, SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle
Crash Share
Coalinga Statewide Average
106
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

62 YEAR, MONTH, AND WEATHER
Figure 24 shows year-over-year trends in the data, by severity. The data does not show a consistent trend over time. On average, 76 total crashes and two fatal/severe injury crashes occurred each year. The highest number of crashes were reported in 2016.

Figure 24: Year-over-Year Trends in Crash Data by Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes.

0 20
40 60
80 100
120
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
107
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

63 Figure 25 presents the total crashes by month and severity for the crash database. On average, 32 crashes occurred per month. November and December are notably lower than the monthly average and March and May notably higher than the monthly average.

Figure 25: Crashes by Month and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
108
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

64 Figure 26 illustrates crashes by month and by weather conditions. The most common weather condition, clear weather, is not shown in the chart below to highlight weather’s factor on crash trends. As shown in the figure:
▪ Crashes recorded to have occurred under or during fog, cloudy, and/or raining are shown to be at their lowest in the months of June to September and increase through October to May. ▪ Crashes reported as occurring in cloudy conditions peak through the months of December through February. Crashes occurring in foggy conditions show a spike in January, constituting 8 percent of reported crashes; they are a negligible share in other months.

Figure 26: Crashes by Month and Weather Condition

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: Only select conditions shown to improve legibility for less frequent weather conditions.

0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Share of Crashes by Weather
Cloudy Fog Raining
109
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

65 COLLISION TYPE
Figure 27 reports the most frequent reported collision types by severity. ▪ Among total reported crashes, the top three most frequent collision types are rear end (38 percent), sideswipe (26 percent), and broadside crashes (11 percent). These three collision types account for 75 percent of reported crashes citywide.
▪ Among fatal/severe injury crashes, the top two collision types are rear end (44 percent), and vehicle/pedestrian (22 percent). Broadside, head-on, and overturned crashes each accounted for one severe injury crash.

Figure 27: Crashes by Collision Type and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

Rear End
Sideswipe
Broadside
Hit Object
Head-On
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Other
Overturned
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Crash Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
110
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

66 PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
Reporting officers identify a primary collision factor (PCF) for each crash. It is up to the officer’s judgement and information available at the scene for them to select the factor that is most relevant. Officers select one from among a list of PCFs based on California Vehicle Code (CVC) and road user behavior. Figure 28 presents the most frequently cited PCFs.
▪ Among total reported crashes, the three most frequently reported PCFs are improper turning11 (27 percent), automobile right of way12 (18 percent), and unsafe starting or backing13 (16 percent).

These three account for 61 percent of reported crashes. ▪ Among fatal/severe injury crashes, the two most frequently reported PCFs are improper turning11 (33 percent) and automobile right of way12 (22 percent). Unsafe speed14, following too closely, pedestrian right of way, and pedestrian violation15 were each reported in one fatal/severe injury crash.

Figure 28: Crashes by Reported PCF and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Notes: PCFs constituting <1% excluded from chart to enhance legibility. Those PCFs include other equipment, impeding traffic, lights, and brakes.
“Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

11 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a failure while turning from a direct course without reasonable safety or not signaling appropriately.
12 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a driver turning failed to yield right-of-way to oncoming traffic. 13 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating unsafe starting or backing of the vehicle. 14 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating unsafe speeding on a highway. 15 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a pedestrian failure to yield the right of way to other vehicles.

Improper Turning
Automobile Right of Way
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Other Improper Driving
Unsafe Speed
Following Too Closely
Traffic Signals and Signs
Pedestrian Violation
Pedestrian Right of Way
Other Hazardous Violation
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
Wrong Side of Road
Improper Passing
Hazardous Parking
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Crash Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
111
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

67 LIGHTING
Figure 29 shows citywide crashes by reported lighting and severity. ▪ Crashes that occurred in daylight conditions make up 72 percent of total reported crashes, and account for four of the nine reported fatal/severe injury crashes. ▪ Approximately 18 percent of crashes occurred at night under streetlights reported to be working.

Of those crashes, four resulted in death or severe injury.

Figure 29: Crashes by Lighting and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021
Notes: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. 10 crashes were reported as not stated.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Daylight
Dark - Street Lights
Dusk - Dawn
Dark - No Street Lights
Crash Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
112
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

68 TIME OF DAY
Figure 30 shows crashes by time of day. In the morning, crashes peak from 7 AM to 9 AM. Afternoon crashes are highest from 2 PM to 6 PM with a peak from 3 PM to 4 PM.

Figure 30: Crash Share by Time of Day

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

3%
1% 1% 1% 1%
1% 2%
6%
6%
4%
6%
4%
8%
4%
7%
10%
7%
9%
7%
5%
3%
4%
1% 1%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%Crash Share
Hour
113
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

69 Pedestrians
Table 12 shows reported pedestrian crashes by severity. Of the 15 reported pedestrian crashes, two crashes resulted in a severe injury. There were no reported fatalities.

Table 12: Pedestrian Involved Crashes by Severity
Fatal
(% of Total)
Severe Injury
(% of Total)
Visible Injury
(% of Total)
Complaint of
Pain
(% of Total)
Property
Damage Only
(% of Total)
Total
Pedestrian Involved 0 (0%) 2 (13%) 7 (47%) 5 (33%) 1 (7%) 15 (100%) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

SEVERITY AND MONTH
Figure 31 presents pedestrian crashes organized by month and severity with an average rate of one crash per month. The months between September and December show an increase in frequency with the most reported crashes in October. These trends should be interpreted with caution given the limited number of total reported crashes.

Figure 31: Pedestrian Crashes by Month and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021
Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

0 1
2 3
4 Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
114
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

70 PEDESTRIAN ACTION AND LOCATION
For pedestrian crashes, data are coded according to the reporting officer’s judgment about the pedestrian’s action and location preceding the crash. Figure 32 reports these trends for the City. ▪ The most commonly cited pedestrian action and location was when a pedestrian was crossing not in crosswalk (53 percent).
▪ The second and third most common pedestrian actions preceding a crash included crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection (20 percent) and walking in the road, including along the shoulder (20 percent).

Figure 32: Pedestrian Crashes by Reported Action/Location and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Crossing Not in Crosswalk
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection
In Road, Including Shoulder
Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
115
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

71 LIGHTING
Figure 33 shows citywide pedestrian crashes by reported lighting condition and severity. ▪ Approximately half of crashes occurred during daylight and half under dark or low light conditions.
▪ Four of the 15 reported pedestrian crashes (and one of the two fatal/severe injury crashes) occurred in dark conditions under streetlights.

Figure 33: Pedestrian Crashes by Lighting and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Daylight
Dark - Street Lights
Dusk - Dawn
Dark - No Street Lights
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
116
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

72 Bicyclists
This section focuses exclusively on reported crashes involving bicyclists. Table 13 presents reported bicyclist-involved crashes citywide organized by severity level. Of the five bicyclist crashes in the City, there were no reported fatal or severe injuries. The five crashes resulted in either visible injury or complaint of pain.

Table 13: Bicycle User Involved Crashes by Severity

Fatal
(% of total)
Severe Injury
(% of total)
Visible Injury
(% of total)
Complaint of
Pain
(% of total)
Property
Damage Only
(% of total)
Total
(% of total)
Bicycle Involved 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 5 (100%) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

COLLISION TYPE
There were five reported bicycle crashes and among those three were recorded as rear end crashes with visible injuries. One crash was a vehicle/pedestrian crash with the bicyclist at fault and one crash was reported as other; these likely indicate a lack of precision in crash reporting for bicycle-involved crashes.

PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR (PCF)
The PCF for these bicycle crashes were evenly distributed, with one crash each reported improper turning16, automobile right of way17 (with the motorist at fault), other improper driving18, traffic signals and signs19, wrong side of the road20.

LIGHTING
Three of the bicycle crashes occurred during the day and the remaining two crashes occurred in the dark with working streetlights.

16 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a failure while turning from a direct course without reasonable safety or not signaling appropriately.
17 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a driver turning failed to yield right-of-way to oncoming traffic. 18 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating driving from a direct course without reasonable safety or not signaling appropriately.
19 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating running a red light or failure to stop at a stop sign. 20 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating the driver/rider was on the wrong side of the road. 117
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

73 Priority Locations
Kittelson identified priority intersections and segments in Coalinga using the annualized crash severity scores and excess predicted crashes described in the Data Summary and Analysis Approach sections (see the Introduction).

For intersection locations, the crash severity scores ranged from zero (no reported crashes during the five years) to 44.02. Figure 34 shows the results of the crash severity scoring. Figure 35 shows excess predicted crash scores by percentiles for intersection locations. For the half-mile roadway segments, the crash severity scores ranged from zero to 35.27. Crash severity score results for roadway segments are shown in Figure 36. Excess predicted crash score results are shown in Figure 37. Intersections or segments shown as not falling within one of the percentile breaks indicates there were no reported crashes at that location.

Table 14 presents the top twenty locations with the highest crash severity scores.

Table 14. Top 20 Locations based on Crash Severity Score # Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number
of
Crashes
Severity
Fatal Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain PDO
1 ELM AVE & SEVENTH ST Unsignalized 44.02 11 0 1 1 2 7
2 ELM AVE & FIFTH ST Unsignalized 41.78 10 0 1 1 0 8
3 ELM AVE & CAMBRIDGE AVE Unsignalized 40.58 4 0 1 1 0 2 4 ELM AVE & FIRST ST & VAN NESS ST Unsignalized 39.65 9 0 1 0 0 8 5 LONGHOLLOW WAY & POPPY
MEADOW CT Unsignalized 38.25 2 0 1 0 0 1
6 POLK STREET FROM HAYES ST TO
HACHMAN ST Segment 35.27 3 0 1 1 0 1
7 DURIAN AVE & THIRD ST Unsignalized 38.25 2 0 1 0 0 1
8 SR 198 FROM LUCILLE AVE TO 7TH ST Segment 33.33 3 0 1 0 0 2 9 ELM AVE & PHELPS AVE & OIL CITY RD Signalized 27.45 9 0 1 1 0 7 10 FOREST AVE & FIFTH ST Unsignalized 7.79 14 0 0 1 3 10 11 JAYNE AVE FROM QUAIL CREEK RD
TO ALPINE AVE Segment 6.47 16 0 0 1 5 10
12 JAYNE AVE FROM PLEASANT VALLEY

STATE PRISON TO COALINGA DEPT OF

STATE HOSPITAL
Segment 5.77 9 0 0 1 2 6
13 ELM AVE & FOURTH ST Unsignalized 5.36 12 0 0 1 1 10
14 POLK ST & GARFIELD ST Unsignalized 5.25 11 0 0 0 3 8 15 GLENN AVE & THIRD ST Unsignalized 3.56 3 0 0 1 1 1
16 DURIAN AVE & FIFTH ST Unsignalized 3.54 8 0 0 1 0 7
17 ELM AVE & THIRD ST Unsignalized 3.43 7 0 0 0 2 5
18 ELM AVE & PACIFIC ST Unsignalized 2.94 5 0 0 1 0 4
19 ALPINE AVE & JAYNE AVE Unsignalized 2.94 5 0 0 1 0 4 20 FOREST AVE & SACRAMENTO ST Unsignalized 2.83 4 0 0 0 2 2 Note: PDO = Property Damage Only
118
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
!!
!!!
! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! !
! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !
! !! !
!! !!! !
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!! !! !
!
!
!
!
!!!
! !! ! !!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Coalinga

N SUNSET STE POLK STW POLK ST

N MONTEREY AVE

W GALE AVE

E ELM AVE

MONROE ST

W ELM AVE

S DERRICK AVE

S CALAVERAS AVE

CAMBRIDGE AVE

W JAYNE AVE

S ALPINE AVE

PHELPS AVE

N OIL CITY RD

WARTHAMCANYON RD
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Intx_CrashSeverityScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Crash Severity Score
! 95-100th Percentile
! 90-95th Percentile
! 75-90th Percentile
! 50-75th Percentile
! 0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 34
Intersection Crash Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Coalinga
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.6Miles
119
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
!!
!
! !! !! !
!
!!
! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!
!!!! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!
!!! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!! !
!
!! !! ! !!
!
!
! !! !!!
!
! !!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! !!!! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! !!
! !! ! !!
! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !
! !! !
!
!!!
! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !
! ! !
!! !! ! !
!
!!!!
!!
! !! !
!
! !
! !!
! !! !! !! ! ! ! !
!! !! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
Coalinga

N SUNSET STE POLK STW POLK ST

N MONTEREY AVE

W GALE AVE

E ELM AVE

MONROE ST

W ELM AVE

S DERRICK AVE

S CALAVERAS AVE

CAMBRIDGE AVE

W JAYNE AVE

S ALPINE AVE

PHELPS AVE

N OIL CITY RD

WARTHAMCANYON RD
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Intx_ExFreqScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Excess Expected Frequency
! 95-100th Percentile
! 90-95th Percentile
! 75-90th Percentile
! 50-75th Percentile
! 0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 35
Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Coalinga
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.6Miles
120
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Coalinga

E POLK STW POLK ST

N MONTEREY AVE

W GALE AVE

E ELM AVE

S ALPINE AVE
W
ELM
AVE

W JAYNE AVE

CAMBRIDGE AVE

S EL DORADO AVE

S DERRICK AVE
S

CALAVERAS
AVE

N OIL CITY RD

PHELPS AVE

WARTHAM CANYONRD
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Rdwy_CrashSeverityScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Crash Severity Scores
95-100th Percentile
90-95th Percentile
75-90th Percentile
50-75th Percentile
0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 36
Roadway Crash Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Coalinga
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.6Miles
121
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Coalinga

E POLK STW POLK ST

N MONTEREY AVE

W GALE AVE

E ELM AVE

S ALPINE AVE
W
ELM
AVE

W JAYNE AVE

CAMBRIDGE AVE

S EL DORADO AVE

S DERRICK AVE
S

CALAVERAS
AVE

N OIL CITY RD

PHELPS AVE

WARTHAM CANYONRD
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Rdwy_ExFreqScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Excess Expected Frequency
95-100th Percentile
90-95th Percentile
75-90th Percentile
50-75th Percentile
0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 37
Roadway Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Coalinga
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.6Miles
122
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

78 EMPHASIS AREAS
Based on key trends in the crash data, emphasis areas for the City of Coalinga include rear end crashes, pedestrian crashes, and intersection control and approach.

Rear End Crashes
Rear end crashes were identified as a focus area given their prevalence in reported crashes. Rear end crashes are the most common collision type, cited in 38 percent of all crashes. Four of the nine severe injury crashes are rear end crashes as are 26 of the 70 other injury crashes, making rear end crashes the most common collision type in injury crashes. As discussed below under Engineering Strategies, countermeasures are available targeted at rear end crashes.

Pedestrian Crashes
Pedestrian crashes were identified as a focus area given the overrepresentation of pedestrians in fatal and severe crashes. Two of the nine severe crashes involved a pedestrian. The most common pedestrian action preceding a crash was crossing the roadway outside a crosswalk, followed by crossing the roadway at a crosswalk. This suggests opportunities for improvements to pedestrian infrastructure.

Pedestrians are identified as one of the six high priority challenge areas in the California SHSP. These challenge areas “were identified through historical data evaluations and feedback from traffic safety stakeholders across the state” (Caltrans SHSP). The high priorities represent “the greatest opportunity to reduce fatalities and serious injuries across the state” (Caltrans SHSP).

Intersection Control and Approach
The top three fatal and severe injury primary collision factors of improper turning, automobile right of way, and unsafe starting and backing were primarily cited in rear end (83 crashes), sideswipe (64 crashes), broadside (37 crashes), and hit object crashes (11 crashes). These collectively indicate that drivers are not properly following indications provided on roadways and at intersections in the City.

The California SHSP includes intersections as one of the six high priorities in California. These crashes are a high priority due to their severity level often as a result of rear-end, broadside, and hit object collision types. “Intersections significantly increase driver workload because they are a natural point of conflict. If present, traffic control devices help to mitigate that workload by providing clear rules of right-of-way” (Caltrans SHSP). As discussed below under Engineering Strategies, several roadway and intersection countermeasures are available targeted at improving driver awareness and expectation as well as improving the roadway to minimize risk of crashes.
123
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

79 STRATEGIES
The following subsections present engineering, education, emergency services, and enforcement strategies to help improve roadway safety within the City of Coalinga.

Engineering Strategies
The top two fatal and severe injury collision types in Coalinga were rear end and vehicle- pedestrian crashes, and sideswipe was a frequently reported collision type. The top three fatal and severe injury primary collision factors were improper turning and automobile right of way, and unsafe starting and backing was a frequently reported primary collision factor High priority countermeasures to address these collision types and primary collision factors are shown in Table 15.

Table 15. High Priority Countermeasures
Countermeasure Name ID Crashes Addressed
Roadway
Countermeasures
Street Lighting R1 Crashes at night
Install Raised Median R8 Improper turning
Widen Shoulder R15 Sideswipe
Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction Surface Treatment) R21 Rear end Install/Upgrade Signs with New Fluorescent Sheeting R22 Sideswipe Install Centerline Rumble Strips/Stripes R30 Sideswipe
Intersection
Countermeasures
Add Intersection Lighting at Intersections S1/NS1 Crashes at night Improve Signal Hardware: Lenses, Backplates with
Retroreflective Border, Mounting Size, Number S2 Rear end Provide Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection S4 Rear end
Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning S10/NS9 Rear end No Right-Turn on Red n/a Vehicle-pedestrian, improper
turning
Convert Intersection to Roundabout NS4/NS5 All
Install/Upgrade Stop Signs or Intersection Warning/
Regulatory Signs NS6 All
Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings NS7 All
Install Splitter Islands for Minor Street Approaches NS13 Rear end Pedestrian/Bicycle
Countermeasures
Install Sidewalk/Pathway R34PB Vehicle-pedestrian
Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing with Enhanced Features R35PB Vehicle-pedestrian Install Raised Medians (or Refuge Islands) NS19PB Vehicle-pedestrian Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled
Locations (with Enhanced Safety Features) NS21PB Vehicle-pedestrian Note: The ID number references the Caltrans Manual Local Road Safety Appendix B contains the regional Countermeasures Toolbox which includes more detailed information regarding the countermeasures listed above.
124
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

80 The following figures and tables provide data on collision types and factors for the intersections and roadways with the highest crash scores. The locations with the highest crash scores may be top priorities for implementing countermeasures and pursuing grants. Coalinga can use the information about collision type and factors to identify potential countermeasures to apply, using the information in Table 15.

Figure 38 and Figure 39 present the top fifty priority intersections and breakdown of the top collision types and primary collision factors, respectively. Figure 40 and Figure 41 present the top priority roadways and breakdown of the top collision types and primary collision factors, respectively.

125
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Coalinga

N SUNSET STE POLK STW POLK ST

N MONTEREY AVE

W GALE AVE

E ELM AVE

MONROE ST

W ELM AVE

S DERRICK AVE

S CALAVERAS AVE

CAMBRIDGE AVE

W JAYNE AVE

S ALPINE AVE

PHELPS AVE

N OIL CITY RD

WARTHAMCANYON RD
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Coalinga\Intx_CrashType_Coalinga.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 38
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Collision Types
Jurisdiction Results: Coalinga
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.6MilesCollision Type
! Rear End
! Vehicle-Pedestrian
! Sideswipe
126
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Coalinga

N SUNSET STE POLK STW POLK ST

N MONTEREY AVE

W GALE AVE

E ELM AVE

MONROE ST

W ELM AVE

S DERRICK AVE

S CALAVERAS AVE

CAMBRIDGE AVE

W JAYNE AVE

S ALPINE AVE

PHELPS AVE

N OIL CITY RD

WARTHAMCANYON RD
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Coalinga\Intx_PCF_Coalinga.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Primary Collision Factors
! Improper Turning
! Automobile Right of Way
! Unsafe Starting or Backing
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 39
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Primary Collision Factors Jurisdiction Results: Coalinga
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.6Miles
127
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Coalinga

N SUNSET ST E POLK STW POLK ST

N MONTEREY AVE

W GALE AVE

E ELM AVE

MONROE ST

W ELM AVE

S DERRICK AVE

S CALAVERAS AVE

CAMBRIDGE AVE

W JAYNE AVE

S ALPINE AVE

PHELPS AVE

N OIL CITY RD

WARTHAMCANYON RD
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Coalinga\Rdwy_CrashType_Coalinga.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 40
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Roadway Collision Types
Jurisdiction Results: Coalinga
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.6MilesCollision Type
! Rear End
! Sideswipe
Priority Roadways
128
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Coalinga

N SUNSET ST E POLK STW POLK ST

N MONTEREY AVE

W GALE AVE

E ELM AVE

MONROE ST

S DERRICK AVE

S CALAVERAS AVE

CAMBRIDGE AVE

W JAYNE AVE

S ALPINE AVE

PHELPS AVE

N OIL CITY RD

WARTHAMCANYON RD
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Coalinga\Rdwy_PCF_Coalinga.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Primary Collision Factors
! Improper Turning
! Unsafe Starting or Backing
Priority Roadways
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 41
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Roadway Primary Collision Factors Jurisdiction Results: Coalinga
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.6Miles
129
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

85 Table 16 and Table 17 provide information for the top fifty intersection locations (based on crash severity score), including control type (signalized or unsignalized), crash severity score, and total number of crashes by collision type or primary collision factor.

Table 16. Priority Intersections with Collision Type based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Types # Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Collision Type
Rear
End
Vehicle/
Pedestrian Sideswipe Other
1 ELM AVE & SEVENTH ST Unsignalized 44.02 11 4 1 2 4
2 ELM AVE & FIFTH ST Unsignalized 41.78 10 5 1 1 3
3 ELM AVE & CAMBRIDGE AVE Unsignalized 40.58 4 2 0 1 1
4 ELM AVE & FIRST ST & VAN NESS ST Unsignalized 39.65 9 5 0 2 2 5 LONGHOLLOW WAY & POPPY
MEADOW CT Unsignalized 38.25 2 1 0 0 1
6 DURIAN AVE & THIRD ST Unsignalized 38.25 2 0 1 1 0
7 ELM AVE & PHELPS AVE & OIL CITY
RD Signal 27.45 9 4 0 1 4
8 FOREST AVE & FIFTH ST Unsignalized 7.79 14 3 0 4 7
9 ELM AVE & FOURTH ST Unsignalized 5.36 12 2 0 5 5
10 POLK ST & GARFIELD ST Unsignalized 5.25 11 7 0 4 0
11 GLENN AVE & THIRD ST Unsignalized 3.56 3 1 1 1 0
12 DURIAN AVE & FIFTH ST Unsignalized 3.54 8 2 0 3 3
13 ELM AVE & THIRD ST Unsignalized 3.43 7 4 0 2 1
14 ELM AVE & PACIFIC ST Unsignalized 2.94 5 1 0 2 2
15 ALPINE AVE & JAYNE AVE Unsignalized 2.94 5 0 0 1 4
16 FOREST AVE & SACRAMENTO ST Unsignalized 2.83 4 2 0 0 2 17 POLK ST & HACHMAN ST Unsignalized 2.83 4 2 0 1 1
18 POLK ST & SIXTH ST & HAWTHORNE
AVE Unsignalized 2.74 4 2 0 1 1
19 ELM AVE & LUCILLE AVE Unsignalized 2.34 2 0 0 0 2
20 LOUISIANA ST & HOUSTON ST Unsignalized 2.34 2 0 0 2 0 21 THOMPSON ST & VALLEY ST Unsignalized 2.34 2 0 0 0 2
22 WARTHAN ST & VALLEY ST Unsignalized 2.34 2 0 0 1 1
23 GLENN AVE & PINE ST Unsignalized 2.34 2 1 0 0 1
24 ELM AVE & SECOND ST Unsignalized 2.34 2 0 1 1 0
25 ELM AVE & WALNUT AVE Unsignalized 2.22 6 2 1 1 2
26 ELM AVE & POLK ST Signal 2.20 11 7 0 3 1
27 CHARDONNAY LN & BURGANDY
WAY Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 0 0 1
28 HALIBURTON WAY &
BOARDAGARY LN Unsignalized 2.14 1 1 0 0 0
29 COYOTE SPRINGS ST & WILLOW
SPRINGS AVE Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 1 0 0
30 LOUISIANA ST & PLEASANT ST Unsignalized 2.14 1 1 0 0 0 130
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

86 # Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Collision Type
Rear
End
Vehicle/
Pedestrian Sideswipe Other
31 ALFRED ST & POLK ST & IVY AVE Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 1 0 0 32 MONROE ST & SUNSET ST & CEDAR
AVE Unsignalized 2.14 1 1 0 0 0
33 CEDAR AVE & THIRD ST Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 0 1 0
34 FILLMORE ST & BAKER ST Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 1 0 0
35 GRANT ST & CHERRY LN Unsignalized 2.14 1 1 0 0 0
36 WALNUT AVE & MAPLE ST Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 0 0 1
37 MEADOW ST & CAMBRIDGE AVE Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 0 0 1 38 THOMPSON ST & POLK ST Unsignalized 2.02 5 2 0 1 2
39 BAKER ST & TRUMAN LN Unsignalized 2.02 5 1 0 1 3
40 ELM AVE & CHERRY LN Unsignalized 1.82 4 3 0 0 1
41 POLK ST & CALIFORNIA ST Unsignalized 1.62 3 0 1 0 2
42 ELM AVE & SIXTH ST Unsignalized 1.62 3 3 0 0 0
43 WARTHAN ST & POLK ST Unsignalized 1.42 2 0 0 2 0
44 IVY AVE & FIFTH ST Unsignalized 1.42 2 0 1 1 0
45 ELM AVE & GRANT ST Unsignalized 1.42 2 0 1 0 1
46 MONTEREY AVE & HARVARD AVE Unsignalized 1.42 2 0 0 0 2 47 SUNSET ST & CAMBRIDGE AVE Unsignalized 1.42 2 1 0 0 1 48 DURIAN AVE & SIXTH ST Unsignalized 1.40 7 4 0 1 2
49 HALIBURTON WAY & COX LN Unsignalized 1.22 1 0 1 0 0
50 WARTHAN ST & TACHE ST Unsignalized 1.22 1 0 0 0 1
Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three collision types Table 17. Priority Intersections with Primary Collision Factor based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Primary Collision Factors # Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Improper
Turning
Auto
ROW
Unsafe
Starting or
Backing
Other
1 ELM AVE & SEVENTH ST Unsignalized 44.02 11 1 5 0 5
2 ELM AVE & FIFTH ST Unsignalized 41.78 10 1 5 2 2
3 ELM AVE & CAMBRIDGE AVE Unsignalized 40.58 4 2 0 0 2
4 ELM AVE & FIRST ST & VAN NESS ST Unsignalized 39.65 9 1 4 1 3 5 LONGHOLLOW WAY & POPPY

MEADOW CT
Unsignalized 38.25 2 1 0 0 1
6 DURIAN AVE & THIRD ST Unsignalized 38.25 2 1 0 0 1
7 ELM AVE & PHELPS AVE & OIL CITY
RD Signal 27.45 9 0 1 1 7
8 FOREST AVE & FIFTH ST Unsignalized 7.79 14 1 9 2 2
9 ELM AVE & FOURTH ST Unsignalized 5.36 12 5 1 0 6
10 POLK ST & GARFIELD ST Unsignalized 5.25 11 3 2 0 6
131
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

87 # Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Improper
Turning
Auto
ROW
Unsafe
Starting or
Backing
Other
11 GLENN AVE & THIRD ST Unsignalized 3.56 3 0 2 0 1
12 DURIAN AVE & FIFTH ST Unsignalized 3.54 8 2 2 3 1
13 ELM AVE & THIRD ST Unsignalized 3.43 7 0 2 2 3
14 ELM AVE & PACIFIC ST Unsignalized 2.94 5 2 0 2 1
15 ALPINE AVE & JAYNE AVE Unsignalized 2.94 5 0 3 0 2
16 FOREST AVE & SACRAMENTO ST Unsignalized 2.83 4 2 0 0 2 17 POLK ST & HACHMAN ST Unsignalized 2.83 4 1 0 1 2
18 POLK ST & SIXTH ST & HAWTHORNE
AVE
Unsignalized 2.74 4 2 0 1 1
19 ELM AVE & LUCILLE AVE Unsignalized 2.34 2 2 0 0 0
20 LOUISIANA ST & HOUSTON ST Unsignalized 2.34 2 1 0 0 1 21 THOMPSON ST & VALLEY ST Unsignalized 2.34 2 0 0 0 2
22 WARTHAN ST & VALLEY ST Unsignalized 2.34 2 1 0 0 1
23 GLENN AVE & PINE ST Unsignalized 2.34 2 1 0 0 1
24 ELM AVE & SECOND ST Unsignalized 2.34 2 0 1 0 1
25 ELM AVE & WALNUT AVE Unsignalized 2.22 6 2 1 0 3
26 ELM AVE & POLK ST Signal 2.20 11 1 5 0 5
27 CHARDONNAY LN & BURGANDY
WAY
Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 1 0 0
28 HALIBURTON WAY &

BOARDAGARY LN
Unsignalized 2.14 1 1 0 0 0
29 COYOTE SPRINGS ST & WILLOW

SPRINGS AVE
Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 0 0 1
30 LOUISIANA ST & PLEASANT ST Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 0 1 0 31 ALFRED ST & POLK ST & IVY AVE Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 0 0 1 32 MONROE ST & SUNSET ST & CEDAR
AVE
Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 1 0 0
33 CEDAR AVE & THIRD ST Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 1 0 0
34 FILLMORE ST & BAKER ST Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 0 0 1
35 GRANT ST & CHERRY LN Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 0 0 1
36 WALNUT AVE & MAPLE ST Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 0 0 1
37 MEADOW ST & CAMBRIDGE AVE Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 0 1 0 38 THOMPSON ST & POLK ST Unsignalized 2.02 5 2 0 0 3
39 BAKER ST & TRUMAN LN Unsignalized 2.02 5 3 1 1 0
40 ELM AVE & CHERRY LN Unsignalized 1.82 4 0 0 0 4
41 POLK ST & CALIFORNIA ST Unsignalized 1.62 3 0 1 0 2
42 ELM AVE & SIXTH ST Unsignalized 1.62 3 0 2 0 1
43 WARTHAN ST & POLK ST Unsignalized 1.42 2 0 0 0 2
44 IVY AVE & FIFTH ST Unsignalized 1.42 2 0 0 0 2
45 ELM AVE & GRANT ST Unsignalized 1.42 2 0 1 0 1
132
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

88 # Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Improper
Turning
Auto
ROW
Unsafe
Starting or
Backing
Other
46 MONTEREY AVE & HARVARD AVE Unsignalized 1.42 2 0 0 0 2 47 SUNSET ST & CAMBRIDGE AVE Unsignalized 1.42 2 1 0 0 1 48 DURIAN AVE & SIXTH ST Unsignalized 1.40 7 1 1 3 2
49 HALIBURTON WAY & COX LN Unsignalized 1.22 1 0 0 0 1
50 WARTHAN ST & TACHE ST Unsignalized 1.22 1 1 0 0 0
Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three primary collision factors Table 18 and Table 19 provide information for the top eight roadway segments (based on crash severity score), including roadway classification, crash severity score, and total number of crashes by collision type or primary collision factor.

Table 18. Priority Roadways Segments with Collision Type based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Types # Location Classification
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Collision Type
Rear
End
Vehicle/
Pedestrian
Side-
swipe Other
1 E Polk St (N Hayes St to N Pine
St) Arterial/Collector 35.27 3 2 0 0 1
2 E Polk St (S Warthan St to S
Hachman St) Arterial/Collector 35.27 3 2 0 0 1
3 W Elm Ave (N 7th St to Cheney
Ln) Arterial/Collector 33.33 3 0 0 0 3
4 W Elm St (W Polk St to Pacific St) Arterial/Collector 33.33 3 0 0 0 3 5 W Elm St (W Pleasant St to W
Lucille Ave) Arterial/Collector 32.93 1 0 0 0 1
6 W Jayne Ave (S Calaveras Ave
to west of S Alpine Ave) Arterial/Collector 6.47 12 8 0 2 2 7 W Jayne Ave (east of S
Calaveras Ave to S Alpine Ave) Arterial/Collector 6.47 12 8 0 2 2 8 W Jayne Ave (east of S Alpine
Ave to west of S El Dorado Ave) Arterial/Collector 5.77 9 5 0 0 4 Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three collision types Table 19. Priority Roadways Segments with Primary Collision Factors based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Primary Collision Factors
# Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Improper
Turning
Auto Right
of Way
Unsafe
Starting or
Backing
Other
1 E Polk St (N Hayes St to N Pine
St) Arterial/Collector 35.27 3 1 0 1 1
2 E Polk St (S Warthan St to S
Hachman St) Arterial/Collector 35.27 3 1 0 1 1
3 W Elm Ave (N 7th St to Cheney
Ln) Arterial/Collector 33.33 3 3 0 0 0
133
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

89 # Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Improper
Turning
Auto Right
of Way
Unsafe
Starting or
Backing
Other
4 W Elm St (W Polk St to Pacific St) Arterial/Collector 33.33 3 3 0 0 0 5 W Elm St (W Pleasant St to W
Lucille Ave) Arterial/Collector 32.93 1 1 0 0 0
6 W Jayne Ave (S Calaveras Ave
to west of S Alpine Ave) Arterial/Collector 6.47 12 3 0 0 9 7 W Jayne Ave (east of S
Calaveras Ave to S Alpine Ave) Arterial/Collector 6.47 12 3 0 0 9 8 W Jayne Ave (east of S Alpine
Ave to west of S El Dorado Ave) Arterial/Collector 5.77 9 1 0 1 7 Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three primary collision factors

Education Strategies
Education strategies for Coalinga are targeted at unsafe speed, distracted driving, and pedestrian awareness. Unsafe speed was the primary collision factor in one of the nine severe injury crashes and the primary collision factor in 21 crashes overall. One of the highest complaints from the City’s call-in line is speeding in neighborhoods. In the stakeholder focus groups, distracted driving was noted as a large issue, even if it did not show up in the crash data. Pedestrian crashes are an emphasis area, given the overrepresentation of pedestrians in fatal and severe crashes.

The Safe Roads Save Lives campaign is a marketing effort led by the Fresno COG, with the goals of:
▪ Educate all road users on safe transportation
behaviors
▪ Increase safety for people walking and biking
▪ Highlight behaviors that cause the most crashes in
Fresno County—speeding and distracted driving
The campaign Includes branding, social media strategies, print materials, radio and video resources, school resources, and a campaign website. Coalinga may find these materials helpful, especially those related to speeding, distracted driving, and watching out for pedestrians.

The following activities are recommended for Coalinga as they move forward on implementing the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign:
▪ Identify staff appropriate to attend a presentation by Fresno COG staff about the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign . Appropriate staff members include staff associated with transportati on engineering and planning, communications, traffic enforcement, school transportation, and other jurisdictional staff who work with the roadway system. 134
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

90 ▪ Work with school districts to distribute print materials and offer school -related transportation resources. Ensure that school communications are in both English and Spanish. ▪ Work with public information or communications staff to spread Safe Roads Save Lives materials throughout Coalinga through the following channels:
o Repost and link to Fresno COG posts that refer to the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign. o Have print materials (flyers, bumper stickers, pins, and postcards) available at events and community festivals.
o Print posters for posting at governmental buildings such as City Hall, libraries, DMVs, and other facilities that the public regularly uses.
o Work with the Fresno COG to identify a radio station to air a Safe Roads Save Lives radio public service announcement (PSA).
o Have a direct link to Safe Roads Save Lives campaign website from the city website.

Emergency Services
Emergency service organizations depend on safe roadways and efficient communication processes to reach and effectively respond to emergencies. Each type of emergency services organization that serves Coalinga – law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services (EMS), California Highway Patrol – work independently and collaboratively to develop procedures that allow them to respond to incidents in their own jurisdictions as well as support others as needed. The following recommendations may help improve emergency services response as the various organizations update procedures and policies and continue to partner on roadway safety efforts:
▪ All roadway safety projects should be vetted by emergency service organizations to ensure that their design does not hamper access.
▪ As new emergency service and response procedures are developed, roadway safety improvement opportunities should be identified and implications of changes to response times should be considered.
▪ Coalinga staff should participate in periodic coordination calls between emergency response agencies to gather and share recent observations about crashes and hot spots, to understand emergent safety issues that may not have led to policy reports or yet be available through statewide crash reporting systems.

135
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

91 Enforcement
Enforcement strategies can include programs or campaigns specifically focused on changing road user behavior through more visible and active enforcement of existing traffic laws, as well as focusing enforcement in areas that have historically been shown to have higher- than-average crash rates. Typically, the effectiveness of enforcement strategies is temporal, meaning they are effective at changing behavior for a discrete period of time – during and shortly after the increased enforcement activities.

The following enforcement strategies should be considered for Coalinga:
▪ Schedule heightened speed (or other behavior) enforcement checks during strategic times of the year, such as when students return to school or the beginning of fog season. Coalinga currently conducts heightened enforcement events and has found them effective. ▪ Focus speed enforcement efforts in locations with high crash rates. ▪ Use automatic enforcement, such as red-light cameras or speed feedback signs, especially in school zones. Coalinga does have traffic cameras with license plate readers it can use. ▪ Deploy speed feedback signs in areas with high crash rates or speeding citations.

The effectiveness of each strategy should be measured and evaluated, considering the number of staff hours and amount of resources needed. The results should be reviewed and used to refine future enforcement activities.

Enforcement strategies should be undertaken with due caution to avoid inequitable enforcement activities and evaluated to determine the strategy’s impact. More details about equitable enforcement can be found on page 8 (Introduction).

136
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

3.0 CITY OF COALINGA

92 EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
A key part of achieving the City’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the City’s goals. The City will develop a process to regularly collect data and information around the performance measures that can be used to assess changes city-wide and at the top priority locations.

As feasible, it is recommended that the City of Coalinga update this LRSP every three to five years using updated crash data and the performance measures. Comparing the performance measures related to investments made with the crash data should provide a clear indication of the impact of the City’s and safety partner’s efforts. Future LRSPs may provide new emphasis areas and top priority locations that reflect progress made and new priorities based on trends in the data.

Activities for implementing the plan include:
▪ Identifying countermeasures and strategies for priority locations based on the crash data. ▪ Utilizing the Fresno COG Regional Safety Plan to implement regional strategies and share best practices.
▪ Exploring funding opportunities to implement priority strategies. ▪ Identifying key staff and activities to support the regional Safe Roads Save Lives campaign. ▪ Identifying enforcement strategies to implement and evaluate. ▪ Regularly coordinating with safety partner agencies to assess progress, identify opportunities to implement countermeasures and strategies, and identify opportunities for citizen involvement. ▪ Regularly collecting and organizing data to support evaluation of the LRSP. 137
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

93 4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH
The City of FIrebaugh has an approximate population of 7,980.21 The average daily vehicle miles traveled is 33,939, and the City maintains approximately 22 total roadway centerline miles. The main arterial roadways that connect the City to other jurisdictions include N Street, which runs northwest to southeast, 12th Street/W Nees Avenue, which runs west from N Street, and 13th Street, which runs east from N Street.

Based on the review of crash data conducted as part of the LRSP, pedestrians are overrepresented in fatal and severe injury crashes. The three collision types reported in fatal and severe injury crashes were vehicle-pedestrian, head on, and hit object crashes. The primary collision factors reported for fatal and severe injury crashes include pedestrian violation and other improper driving. Among all reported crashes, the most commonly reported primary collision factor is automobile right of way. High priority countermeasures to address these collision types and primary collision factors are shown in Table 23. The LRSP provides potential engineering, education, emergency services, and enforcement strategies tailored to Firebaugh’s crash history and local priorities, as well as performance measures to evaluate progress.

VISION AND GOALS
The City’s vision for roadway safety is:

The City’s goals in support of the vision are:

1. Have zero fatal and severe injury crashes on the City roadways by 2026.

2. Systemically implement safety countermeasures proven to reduce fatal and severe crashes across the City’s public roadways.

3. Enhance pedestrian facilities and crossings within the City limits and collaborate with Caltrans on modifications proposed to state route roadways within the City limits.

4. Participate in regional activities to promote roadway safety as a priority investment.

21 2018 population. Source: California Department of Finance Create a roadway network that provides a comfortable environment for all modes of transportation within the City.
138
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

94 SAFETY PARTNERS
A variety of agency staff and community partners were involved throughout the development of this LRSP and played an integral role in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing the existing conditions analysis. Many of the strategies identified in this plan will require coordination with these partners and their support of the City’s effort to create a culture of roadway safety. Firebaugh’s goals reflect the importance of participating in regional activities to promote roadway safety. While additional partners may be identified in the future, those involved in development of the LRSP include:
▪ Firebaugh Fire Department
▪ Firebaugh Police Department
▪ Firebaugh Public Works Department
▪ Firebaugh-Las Deltas Unified School
District
▪ Fresno Council of Governments

PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance measures are used to track progress and a key element of making data-informed decisions.

Performance measures that support the City’s vision, goals, and emphasis areas include:
▪ Annual number of crashes (city-wide and at each of the top twenty priority locations) ▪ Annual number of fatal and severe injury crashes (city-wide and at each of the top twenty priority locations)
▪ Annual number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes (city-wide and at each of the top twenty priority locations)
▪ Annual number of head on crashes (city-wide)
▪ Annual number of hit object crashes (city-wide)
▪ Annual number of crashes at intersections (city-wide) ▪ Investments made in roadway safety countermeasures (e.g. dollars spent, grants pursued, partnerships developed)
▪ Investments made in education and enforcement strategies (e.g. dollars spent, grants pursued, partnerships developed)
▪ Coordination with other local agencies and/or safety partners (e.g. meetings held, projects pursued)
▪ Coordination on crash data processes and reporting (e.g. meetings held, changes made) As part of plan implementation, the City will identify a process for annually tracking these performance measures to support future updates to this roadway safety plan. 139
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

95 DATA SUMMARY
The primary data sets used to inform the technical analyses for the City’s local road safety plan were crash data and roadway network information. As noted below, future updates could incorporate traffic volume data if widely available for locations across the City. In addition, feedback from a publicly available survey was documented for consideration in identifying issues and improvement strategies.

Public Survey Feedback
Toole Design Group worked with Fresno COG to develop an online survey and interactive webmap to provide the opportunity for public engagement on the LRSP. The goal was to collect both general and geographically specific feedback on safety problems, desired safety improvements in jurisdictions that are part of the MLRSP, as well as voluntary demographic information for Title IV reporting. Both activities were open from August 16, 2021 to September 20, 2021 and sought public feedback on spatial patterns of traffic safety concerns and desired improvements.

As the primary open public engagement opportunity during MLRSP development, the survey and interactive webmap served a crucial role in illuminating the community’s traffic safety concerns and desired traffic safety improvements. Below is a summary of key findings from the online survey and interactive webmap specific to Firebaugh. More information on the methodology and overall findings of the survey are provided in Appendix A.

▪ The survey asked respondents to provide input on the top road safety improvements needed in their communities. While the survey prompted participants to pick three improvements, some selected more than three responses. A total of 35 responses were received for Firebaugh from 11 participants, with the most common desired improvement types including:
o Maintenance of existing roads and streets (7 responses) 11 PEOPLE

RESPONDED
2 LOCATIONS

IDENTIFIED
Live and
work/study in
Firebaugh
55%
Live in
Firebaugh and
work/study
outside of
Firebaugh
36%
Work/study in
Firebaugh and
live outside of
Firebaugh
9%

WHERE PARTICIPANTS

WORK AND LIVE

MOST COMMON

SAFETY CONCERNS
• Speeding or aggressive
driving
• Crashes or near misses
happen here
• Lack of safe places to
walk, bike, or wait for
the bus
140
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

96 o Pedestrian crossing improvements (5 responses)
o Traffic signals (5 responses)
o Rural road improvements to prevent run-off-road crashes (4 responses) o Speed enforcement (4 responses)
▪ Participants dropped points in the webmap in specific locations across Fresno County where they experienced road safety concerns. When leaving a point, participants could select from a list of traffic safety concerns and the kinds of travel impacted, with the ability to select as many responses as applicable. A text box gave participants the option to note what they think would make the location safer. A total of 2 locations were noted in Firebaugh, noting the following traffic safety concerns:
o Speeding or aggressive driving (2 responses)
o Crashes or near misses happen here (1 response)
o Lack of safe places to walk, bike, or wait for the bus (1 response) ▪ The survey asked participants where they live and work or study, with the option to select from a list of jurisdictions or outside of Fresno County. The participants who selected Firebaugh included:
o 6 who live and work/study in Firebaugh
o 4 who live in Firebaugh and work/study outside of Firebaugh o 1 who works/studies in Firebaugh and lives outside of Firebaugh Crash Data
Kittelson worked with Fresno COG to assemble crash data for the City of Firebaugh using the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database, supplemented with location information from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database maintained by SafeTREC at the University of California, Berkeley. Throughout this report, crashes are associated with a jurisdiction based on the reporting officer’s assessment of location.

The crash database represents the time period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019 and includes reported crashes that occurred on public streets. Within the assembled regional crash database, a total of 130 reported crashes are located in City of Firebaugh. Crash severity is coded according to the highest degree of injury exhibited, and the data used for this analysis includes the following coded severity levels (listed in descending order):
▪ Fatal: death from injuries sustained in the crash.
▪ Severe Injury: Injuries include, for example, broken bones, severe lacerations, or other injuries that go beyond the reporting officer’s assessment of “other visible injuries.” ▪ Other visible injury: An injury, other than those described above, that is evident to observers at the scene of the crash. For example, bruises or minor lacerations. 141
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

97 ▪ Complaint of pain: Internal or other non-visible injuries. For example, a person limps or seems incoherent.
▪ Property damage only (PDO): No injuries sustained.

Roadway Network Data
Kittelson developed a linear referencing system of all public roadways using the Fresno County roadway centerline file. This dataset was updated to develop a measurement system based on the total road length (as determined by roadway name) to locate crashes to a specific mile point along the network.

The master roadway network for the County was used to spatially analyze and prioritize specific locations within each local jurisdiction.

Traffic Volume Data
Traffic volume data was not consistently available at a sufficient level to be able to incorporate into the safety analysis. Future updates to the City’s local road safety plan could incorporate traffic volume data, if available, to understand how crash frequency, severity, and type vary at different levels of traffic.

142
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

98 EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY PERFORMANCE
The findings in this section are based on the crash database, which includes reported crashes from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019. It is organized as follows:
▪ All Road Users
o Severity by Road User
o Year, Month, and Weather
o Collision Type
o Location, Collision Type, and Severity
o Primary Collision Factor
o Lighting
o Time of Day
▪ Pedestrian-involved Crashes
o Year and Month
o Pedestrian Action and Location
o Lighting
▪ Bicyclist-involved Crashes
o Collision Type
o Primary Collision Factor
o Lighting

143
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

99 All Road Users
This section includes analysis and findings for all reported crashes. Subsequent sections focus exclusively on crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists.

SEVERITY BY ROAD USER
Table 20 presents reported crashes, organized by severity level and road user. ▪ There were seven reported pedestrian crashes, of which three were fatal. ▪ There was one reported bicycle crash in the City of Firebaugh. ▪ Most reported crashes were property damage only (PDO)—75 percent of total reported crashes.

Table 20: Crash Severity by Road User Involved
Road Users Involved Fatal
(% of column)
Severe Injury
(% of column)
Visible Injury
(% of column)
Complaint of
Pain
(% of column)
Property
Damage Only
(% of column)
Total
(% of column)
Pedestrian Involved 3 (75%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 2 (11%) 1 (1%) 7 (5%) Bicycle Involved 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%) Vehicle Only or Vehicle-
Fixed Object 1 (25%) 2 (100%) 8 (89%) 15 (83%) 96 (99%) 122 (94%) Reported Crashes 4 (100%) 2 (100%) 9 (100%) 18 (100%) 97 (100%) 130 (100%) Severity Share of Reported
Crashes 3% 2% 7% 14% 75% 100%
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) includes 16 challenge areas to focus statewide resources and efforts. Three such challenge areas were crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists.

The SHSP analyzed the share of fatal and severe injury crashes involving each of these road users. Figure 42 compares crash trends in the City of Firebaugh to the statewide trends reported in the SHSP. ▪ City of Firebaugh has one reported bicycle crash reported as a “complaint of pain” and no reported motorcycle crashes.
▪ Pedestrian crashes represent three of six fatal/severe injury crashes (50 percent) in Firebaugh, a higher share than the statewide average reflected in the SHSP. 144
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

100
Figure 42: Fatal and Severe Injury Crash Shares by Road User Compared to Statewide Trends Source: SHSP, SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

YEAR, MONTH, AND WEATHER
Figure 43 shows year-over-year trends in the data by severity. There are no reported crashes in the data for the year 2015 and two fatal/severe crashes reported for the year of 2016. From the years 2017 to 2019 the average annual number is 26 crashes a year. There appears to be a downward trend in reported crashes between 2017 and 2019. A lack of reporting could contribute to the absence of crashes for analysis in 2015 and the count observed in 2016 (as well the totals in the other years shown).

Figure 43: Year-over-Year Trends in Crash Data by Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle
Crash Share
Firebaugh Statewide Average
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 2016 2017 2018 2019
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
145
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

101
Figure 44 presents the total crashes by month and severity for the crash database. On average, 12 crashes occurred per month. Fluctuations from a single month to the next tend to represent the degree of randomness in crash occurrence and are not necessarily indicative of an overall trend. The number of crashes in September, October, and November each exceed the monthly average.

Figure 44: Crashes by Month and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021
Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
146
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

102
Figure 45 illustrates crashes by month and weather conditions. The most common weather condition, clear weather, is not shown in the chart below to highlight weather’s factor on crash trends. ▪ One crash was recorded to have occurred in foggy conditions, in January. ▪ Crashes occurring in cloudy conditions peak between October and March (peaking at three crashes, or 27 percent of crashes in March) and are lowest during the months of April to September.
▪ No reported crashes occurred during rainy conditions.

Figure 45: Crashes by Month and Weather Condition

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021
Note: Only select conditions shown to improve legibility for less frequent weather conditions.

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Share of Crashes by Weather
Cloudy Fog
147
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

103

COLLISION TYPE
Reported collision type gives an indication of the movements most frequently involved in crashes and in severe outcomes. Figure 46 presents crashes by type and severity. ▪ Among total reported crashes, t he top three most frequent collision types are rear end (38 percent), sideswipe (22 percent), and broadside (9 percent). These three collision types account for 69 percent of reported crashes in the City.
▪ Among fatal and severe injury crashes, three are vehicle/pedestrian crashes (three of six for 50 percent). 22 Among the remaining three, one each was head on, hit object, and not stated.

Figure 46: Crashes by Collision Type and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

22 Two crashes involving pedestrians were originally coded in the data as head on crashes. Kittelson recoded the collision type for these two to vehicle/pedestrian, given that the other information available in the data indicated each collis ion involved one motor vehicle and one pedestrian.

Rear End
Sideswipe
Broadside
Hit Object
Head-On
Vehicle/Pedestri
an
Other
Overturned
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Crash Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
148
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

104

PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
Reporting officers identify a primary collision factor (PCF) for each collision. It is up to the officer’s judgement and information available at the scene for them to select the factor that is most relevant.

Officers select one from among a list of PCFs based on California Vehicle Code (CVC) and road user behavior. Figure 47 presents the most frequently cited PCFs. ▪ Among total reported crashes, the three most frequently reported PCFs are automobile right of way23 (15 percent), other improper driving1824 (15 percent), and unknown/not reported (13 percent). These three account for 43 percent of reported crashes. ▪ Among the six reported fatal/severe injury crashes, three of the crashes had reported PCFs of pedestrian violation25 (three of six for 50 percent). Two crashes had unknown or unreported PCFs, and the remaining one had a PCF of other improper driving24.

Figure 47: Collision by Reported PCF and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

23 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a driver turning failed to yield right-of-way to oncoming traffic. 24 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating driving from a direct course without reasonable safety or not signaling appropriately.
25 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a pedestrian failure to yield the right of way to other vehicles.

Automobile Right of Way
Other Improper Driving
Unknown
Following Too Closely
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Improper Turning
Unsafe Speed
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Pedestrian Violation
Traffic Signals and Signs
Other Hazardous Violation
Wrong Side of Road
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
Improper Passing
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Crash Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
149
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

105

LIGHTING
Figure 48 shows citywide crashes by reported lighting condition and severity. ▪ Crashes that occurred in daylight conditions make up 72 percent of total reported crashes and account for one of the five fatal/severe injury crashes. ▪ The remaining four fatal/severe injury crashes occurred in the dark with streetlights (three crashes) and in dusk/dawn conditions (one crash).

Figure 48: Crashes by Lighting and Severity

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021
Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Daylight
Dark - Street Lights
Dusk - Dawn
Dark - No Street Lights
Crash Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
150
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

106

TIME OF DAY
Figure 49 shows crashes by time of day. A higher share of crashes occurred during the afternoon with the highest portion occurring in the 5 PM to 6 PM hour.

Figure 49: Crash Share by Time of Day

Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

2% 2%
0%
1% 1%
4% 4%
3%
5%
5%
5%
3%
4%
7%
9%
8%
7%
13%
6%
4%
3% 3%
2% 2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%Crash Share
Hour
151
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

107
Pedestrians
This section focuses exclusively on crashes involving pedestrians. Table 21 shows the distribution of pedestrian crashes by severity. Of the seven reported pedestrian crashes, 43 percent were fatal or resulted in a severe injury. Reported pedestrian crashes make up 50 percent of all reported fatal/severe crashes, compared to 5 percent of total reported crashes.

Table 21: Pedestrian Involved Crashes by Severity
Fatal
(% of Total)
Severe Injury
(% of Total)
Visible Injury
(% of Total)
Complaint of
Pain
(% of Total)
Property
Damage Only
(% of Total)
Total
Pedestrian Involved 3 (43%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 7 (100%) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.

SEVERITY AND MONTH
The reported pedestrian crashes were generally dispersed throughout the 12 months. October recorded the most reported pedestrian crashes, with three crashes. ▪ January had one fatal pedestrian crash.
▪ March had one injury pedestrian crash.
▪ May had one property damage only pedestrian crash.
▪ September had one injury pedestrian crash.
▪ October had a total of three pedestrian crashes: two fatal and one injury.

PEDESTRIAN ACTION AND LOCATION
For pedestrian crashes, data are coded according to the reporting officer’s judgment about the pedestrian’s action and location preceding the crash.
▪ Two fatal crashes occurred as pedestrians were “crossing not in crosswalk.” ▪ One fatal crash, one injury crash, and one PDO crash occurred with the pedestrian action “crossing in crosswalk at intersection” reported.
▪ The pedestrian action “in road, including shoulder” was reported in two injury crashes.

LIGHTING
Two fatal crashes occurred in the dark with streetlights and one fatal crash occurred during dusk – dawn.

One injury crash occurred in the dark with no streetlights. The remaining two injury crashes and PDO crash occurred during daylight.
152
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

108
Bicyclists
One bicycle crash, resulting in injury, was reported between 2015 and 2019. The crash was reported as a vehicle/pedestrian collision with a primary contributing factor of other than driver (or pedestrian), with the bicyclist coded as at fault.26 The crash was reported to have occurred in dusk conditions around 5 PM.

Priority Locations
Kittelson identified priority intersections and segments in Firebaugh using the annualized crash severity scores and excess predicted crashes described in the Data Summary and Analysis Approach sections (see the Introduction).

For intersection locations, the crash severity scores ranged from zero (no reported crashes during the five years) to 43.12. Figure 50 shows the results of the crash severity scoring. Figure 51 shows excess predicted crash scores by percentiles for intersection locations. For the half-mile roadway segments, the crash severity scores ranged from zero to 33.13. Crash severity score results for roadway segments are shown in Figure 52. Excess predicted crash score results are shown in Figure 53. Intersections or segments shown as not falling within one of the percentile breaks indicates there were no reported crashes at that location.

Table 22 presents the top twenty locations with the highest crash severity scores.

Table 22. Top 20 Locations based on Crash Severity Score # Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Severity
Fatal Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain PDO
1 N ST & SAIPAN AVE Unsignalized 43.12 7 1 0 2 0 4
2 N ST & NINTH ST Unsignalized 38.25 2 0 1 0 0 1
3 THIRTEENTH ST FROM P ST TO CITY
LIMITS Segment 33.13 2 1 0 0 0 1
4 N ST FROM SEIERRA AVE TO
NORTH OF SIERRA AVE Segment 33.13 2 0 1 0 0 1
5 THIRTEENTH ST & N ST Signal 28.16 7 1 0 0 3 3
6 TWELFTH ST & N ST Signal 25.71 10 1 0 0 0 9
7 N ST & CLYDE FANNON RD Unsignalized 5.47 7 0 0 0 4 3
8 N ST & ELEVENTH ST Unsignalized 4.36 7 0 0 1 1 5
9 TWELFTH ST & M ST Unsignalized 2.74 4 0 0 1 0 3

26 Other information available about this collision does not indicate that a pedestrian was involved. The reporting officer may have been imprecise in coding the collision type or an error may have been made in entering data from the collision report into the database.
153
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

109
# Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Severity
Fatal Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain PDO
10 N STREET FROM CLYDE FANNON
RD TO CORDEL AVE Segment 2.54 3 0 0 1 0 2
11 CLINE ST & R ST Unsignalized 2.43 2 0 0 0 2 0
12 THIRTEENTH ST & P ST Unsignalized 2.42 7 0 0 0 1 6
13 SAN DIEGO AVE & BULLARD AVE Unsignalized 2.34 2 0 0 1 0 1 14 N ST & FOURTEENTH ST Unsignalized 2.34 2 0 0 1 0 1
15 WASHOE AVE FROM NORTH OF

BULLARD AVE TO SOUTH OF NEES
AVE
Segment 2.34 2 0 0 1 0 1
16 N ST FROM MORRIS KYLE DR TO
CITY LIMITS (SOUTH) Segment 2.34 2 0 0 1 0 1
17 THIRTEENTH ST & O ST Unsignalized 2.22 6 0 0 0 1 5
18 O ST & SIXTEENTH ST Unsignalized 2.14 1 0 0 1 0 0
19 DOS PALOS RD & SIERRA AVE Unsignalized 1.62 3 0 0 0 1 2 20 REV KANTOR ST FROM CLYDE
FANNON RD TO ZOZAYA ST Segment 1.62 3 0 0 0 1 2
Note: PDO = Property Damage Only
154
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
!
!
!
! !
!! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! Firebaugh

SAIPAN AVE

CLYDE FANNON RD

THIRTEENTH ST
P ST

N DOS PALOS RD

CARDELLASTW NEES AVE
N ST

W BULLARD AVE
N
W
ASHOE
AV
E
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Intx_CrashSeverityScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Crash Severity Score
! 95-100th Percentile
! 90-95th Percentile
! 75-90th Percentile
! 50-75th Percentile
! 0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 50
Intersection Crash Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Firebaugh
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.45Miles
155
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!!! !! !! !!! !
! !!
!!!
!! !
!
!! !
! !!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!!!! ! !! !
!! !!!
!
!
!
! !
!! !!
!
!
!!!! ! !
!
!!
! !
!
! !
! !
!!
!
! !
!! !! !
!
! !
!!! ! !! !
!
!!
! ! !
!
! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
Firebaugh

SAIPAN AVE

CLYDE FANNON RD

THIRTEENTH ST
P ST

N DOS PALOS RD

CARDELLASTW NEES AVE
N ST

W BULLARD AVE
N
W
ASHOE
AV
E
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Intx_ExFreqScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Excess Expected Frequency
! 95-100th Percentile
! 90-95th Percentile
! 75-90th Percentile
! 50-75th Percentile
! 0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 51
Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Firebaugh
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.45Miles
156
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Firebaugh

SAIPAN AVE

CLYDE FANNON RD
P ST

N DOS PALOS RD

W NEES AVE
N ST

W BULLARD AVE

N WASHOE AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Rdwy_CrashSeverityScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Crash Severity Scores
95-100th Percentile
90-95th Percentile
75-90th Percentile
50-75th Percentile
0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 52
Roadway Crash Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Firebaugh
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.6Miles
157
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Firebaugh

SAIPAN AVE

CLYDE FANNON RD
P ST

N DOS PALOS RD

W NEES AVE
N ST

W BULLARD AVE

N WASHOE AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\MLRSP_Rdwy_ExFreqScore.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Excess Expected Frequency
95-100th Percentile
90-95th Percentile
75-90th Percentile
50-75th Percentile
0-50th Percentile
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 53
Roadway Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Firebaugh
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.6Miles
158
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

114

EMPHASIS AREAS
Based on key trends in the crash data, emphasis areas for the City of Firebaugh include pedestrian crashes, head on crashes, and hit object crashes. The primary collision factors of automobile right of way and other improper driving are the most commonly cited overall and among fatal and serve injury crashes. Therefore, strategies aimed at encouraging safe driver behaviors is included as an emphasis area. In addition, the data review suggests that the crash data available for the City may be incomplete, which limits the ability to systematically identify locations for improvement. Each of these areas is further discussed below.

Pedestrian Crashes
Pedestrian crashes were identified as a focus area given the overrepresentation of pedestrians in fatal crashes. Half of the six fatal crashes involve a pedestrian, two of which were reported to occur when a pedestrian was “crossing not in a crosswalk” and one of which occurred when a pedestrian was reported as “crossing in crosswalk at intersection.” This suggests opportunities for improvements to pedestrian infrastructure.

Pedestrians are identified as one of the six high priority challenge areas in the California SHSP. The high priority areas represent “the greatest opportunity to reduce fatalities and serious injuries across the state” (Caltrans SHSP).

Head on Crashes
Head on crashes were selected as an emphasis area as one of the two severe injury crashes and two of the 27 other injury crashes were classified as a head on crashes. As discussed below under Engineering Strategies, countermeasures are available targeted at head on crashes.

The California SHSP includes lane departures as one of the six high priorities in California. As indicated in the Caltrans SHSP, “the Lane Departures Challenge Area includes head-on, hit object, and overturned crashes. This includes instances where a vehicle runs off the road or crosses into the opposing lane prior to the crash.” These crashes are a high priority due to their severity level.

159
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

115
Hit Object Crashes
Hit object crashes were selected as an emphasis area due to the severity of the crashes. One of the ten hit object crashes resulted in a fatality and one in other injury. A variety of roadway countermeasures are available targeted at and reducing hit object crashes. As discussed below under Engineering Strategies, countermeasures are available targeted at hit object crashes.

As indicated under head on crashes discussion, the California SHSP includes lane departures – which includes hit object crashes – as one of the six high priorities in California.

Driver Behaviors
The primary collision factors of automobile right of way and other improper driving were cited in one of the two severe crashes and seven of the 27 other injury crashes. These primary collision factors reference a CVC violation where a driver turning failed to yield right-of-way to oncoming traffic or drove from a straight course without reasonable safety or signaling property. The majority of crashes with these PCFs were classified as rear end or sideswipe. A combination of engineering, education and enforcement strategies aimed at encouraging safe driver behaviors can be utilized. Each of these areas is further discussed below.

Improved Data Collection
Improved crash data collection is identified as an emphasis area as a lack of reporting could contribute to the absence of crashes for analysis in 2015 and potentially missing data for 2016 through 2019. High quality data is an essential component of achieving Firebaugh’s goals, namely being able to systematically implement safety countermeasures.

160
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

116

STRATEGIES
The following subsections present engineering, education, emergency services, and enforcement strategies to help improve roadway safety within the City of Firebaugh.

Engineering Strategies
The three fatal and severe injury collision types reported in Firebaugh were vehicle- pedestrian, head on, and hit object crashes. The fatal and severe injury primary collision factors reported were pedestrian violation and other improper driving, and automobile right of way was the most frequently reported primary collision factor. High priority countermeasures to address these collision types and primary collision factors are shown in Table 23.

Table 23. High Priority Countermeasures
Countermeasure Name ID Crashes Addressed
Roadway
Countermeasures
Street Lighting R1 Crashes at night
Remove or Relocate Fixed Objects Outside of Clear
Recovery Zone R2 Hit object
Install Guardrails R4 Hit object
Road Diet R14 Hit object
Widen Shoulder R15 Hit object
Install/Upgrade Signs with New Fluorescent Sheeting R22 Hit object Install Dynamic/Variable Speed Warning Sings R26 Hit object Install Edgelines and Centerlines R28 Hit object
Install Centerline Rumble Strips/Stripes R30 Head on
Install Edgeline Rumble Strips/Stripes R31 Hit object
Install Dynamic Regulatory Speed Warning Signs n/a Hit object Intersection
Countermeasures
Add Intersection Lighting at Intersections S1/NS1 Crashes at night No Right-Turn on Red n/a Vehicle-pedestrian, pedestrian violation
Convert Intersection to Roundabout NS4/NS5 All
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Countermeasures
Install Sidewalk/Pathway R34PB Pedestrian violation
Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing with Enhanced
Features R35PB Vehicle-pedestrian, pedestrian
violation
Install Raised Medians (or Refuge Islands) NS19PB Vehicle-pedestrian, pedestrian violation
Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled
Locations (with Enhanced Safety Features) NS21PB Vehicle-pedestrian Note: The ID number references the Caltrans Manual Local Road Safety Appendix B contains the regional Countermeasures Toolbox which includes more detailed information regarding the countermeasures listed above.
161
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH

117
The following figures and tables provide data on collision types and factors for the intersections and roadways with the highest crash scores. The locations with the highest crash scores may be top priorities for implementing countermeasures and pursuing grants. Firebaugh can use the information about collision type and factors to identify potential countermeasures to apply, using the information in Table 23.

Figure 54 and Figure 55 present the top priority intersections and breakdown of the top collision types and primary collision factors, respectively. Figure 56 and Figure 57 present the top priority roadways and breakdown of the top collision types and primary collision factors, respectively.

162
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Firebaugh

SAIPAN AVE

CLYDE FANNON RD

THIRTEENTH ST
P ST

N DOS PALOS RD

CARDELLASTW NEES AVE
N ST

W BULLARD AVE
N
W
ASHOE
AV
E
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Firebaugh\Intx_CrashType_Firebaugh.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 54
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Collision Types
Jurisdiction Results: Firebaugh
Fresno Council of Governments
[
0 0.45MilesCollision Type
! Vehicle-Pedestrian
! Head On
! Hit Object
163
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

Firebaugh

SAIPAN AVE

CLYDE FANNON RD

THIRTEENTH ST
P ST

N DOS PALOS RD