CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR
AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
MEETINGAGENDA
March 3, 2022
6:00 PM
The Mission of the City of Coalinga is to provide for the preservation of the community character by delivering quality, responsive City services, in an efficient and cost-effective manner, and to develop, encourage, and promote a diversified economic base in order to ensure the future financial stability of the City for its citizens.
Notice is hereby given that the City Council will hold a Regular Meeting, on March 3, 2022 in the City Council Chambers, 155 West Durian Avenue, Coalinga, CA. Persons with disabilities who may need assistance should contact the City Clerk at least 24 hours prior to the meeting at 935-1533 x113. Anyone interested in translation services should contact the City Clerk at least 24 hours prior to the meeting at 935-1533 x113.
The Meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. and the Agenda will be as follows:
1. CALL TO ORDER
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Changes to the Agenda
3. Council's Approval of Agenda
2. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND PROCLAMATIONS
1. Presentation of a Plaque in Honor of the Police Department's Assistance on the Creek Fire, Presented by Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims
2. Update on Highway 33 Improvement Project - Caltrans
3. CITIZEN COMMENTS
This section of the agenda allows members of the public to address the City Council on any item within the jurisdiction of the Council. Members of the public, when recognized by the Mayor, should come forward to the lectern, identify themselves and use the microphone. Comments are normally limited to three (3) minutes. In accordance with State Open Meeting Laws, no action will be taken by the City Council this evening and all items will be referred to staff for follow up and a report.
Citizen Comments submitted in writing to the City Clerk by 5:00pm on the day of the City Council meeting shall be distributed to the City Council and included in the record, however they will not be read.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing #2 regarding Public Input on the Redrawing of District Boundaries and Consideration of Sample Maps
Marissa Trejo, City Manager
2. Introduce and Waive the First Reading of Ordinance No. 850 Approving a City Initiated Zoning Text Amendment (No. ZTA 21-02) Amending the Planning and Zoning Code related to Towing and Impound Yards, Dry Cleaning Establishments and Various Clarification and Cleanup Language related to Various Commercial Uses and their Associated Development Regulations
Sean Brewer, Assistant City Manager
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve MINUTES - February 17, 2022 (Amended)
2. Check Register: 01/01/2022 - 01/31/2022
3. Approve Loan Forgiveness Program for Coalinga Residents Hired as Police Officers with Coalinga Police Department
4. Direct Staff to Bring Council Cost Estimates and Proposed Locations for a Dog Park
5. Direct Staff to Bring Council Cost Estimates for Installing Cement or Decorative Rock throughout Sunset Street Parkway
6. Adopt Resolution No. 4070 Approving Caltrans Proposed Project (06-0X290) on Highway 33
7. Adopt Resolution No. 4071 Formally Adopting the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan Approved at a Noticed Public Hearing on February 17, 2022
8. Adopt Resolution No. 4072 Approving the City of Coalinga’s Local Road Safety Plan Included in the Multijurisdictional Local Safety Plan
6. ORDINANCE PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS
1. Appoint New Planning Commissioner to the Planning Commission Sean Brewer, Assistant City Manager
2. Discussion, Direction and Potential Action related to the 2023 Water Year in Response to the USBR Initial Allocation Announcement
Sean Brewer, Assistant City Manager
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. City Manager's Announcements
2. Councilmembers' Announcements/Reports
3. Mayor's Announcements
8. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
9. CLOSED SESSION
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS – Government Code 54957.6.
CITY NEGOTIATORS: City Manager Marissa Trejo and City Attorney Mario Zamora.
EMPLOYEE (ORGANIZATION): General and Nonrepresented Employees
10. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
Closed Session: A "Closed" or "Executive" Session of the City Council, Successor Agency, or Public Finance Authority may be held as required for items as follows: personnel matters; labor negotiations; security matters; providing instructions to real property negotiators; legal counsel regarding pending litigation; and protection of records exempt from public disclosure.
Closed session will be held in the Administration Building at 155 W. Durian Avenue and any announcements or discussion will be held at the same location following Closed Session.
11. ADJOURNMENT
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Public Hearing #2 regarding Public Input on the Redrawing of District Boundaries and Consideration of Sample Maps
Meeting Date: March 3, 2022
From: Marissa Trejo, City Manager
Prepared by: Marissa Trejo, City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
Public Hearing #2 to receive input from the Community regarding the Redrawing of District Boundaries for City-wide Elections, receive a report from Demographer Dave Ely and consideration and direction regarding sample maps.
II. BACKGROUND:
Every ten (10) years, cities with by-district election systems must use new census data to review and, if needed, redraw district lines to reflect how local populations have changed. This process, called redistricting, ensures all districts have nearly equal population. The redistricting process for the City of Coalinga must be completed by April 17, 2022.
The City adopted its current district boundaries on June 14, 2018, when the City Counciladopted Ordinance No. 811. The first election under the districts was November 2018. The current district boundaries are based on 2010 census data as required by law. The districts must now be redrawn using the 2020 census data and in compliance with the FAIR MAPS Act, which was adopted by the California legislature as AB 849 and took effect January 1, 2020.
Under the Act, the Council shall draw and adopt boundaries using the following criteria in the listed order of priority (Elections Code 21621(c)):
1. Comply with the federal requirements of equal population and the Voting Rights Act
2. Geographically contiguous
3. Undivided neighborhoods and "communities of interest" (social-economic geographic areas that should be kept together)
4. Easily identifiable boundaries
5. Compact (do not bypass one group of people to get to a more distant group of people)
6. Shall not favor or discriminate against a political party Once the prioritized criteria are met, other traditional districting principles can be considered, such as:
1. Minimize the number of voters delayed from voting from 2022 to 2024
2. Respect voters' choices / continuity in office
3. Future population growth
By law, the City must hold at least four (4) Public Hearings that enable community members to provide input on the drawing of district maps:
At least one (1) hearing must occur before the City draws draft maps At least two (2) hearings must happen after the drawing of the draft maps The fourth (4th) hearing can happen either before or after the drawing of the draft maps City Staff or consultants may hold a public workshop instead of one of the required public redistricting hearings
To increase the accessibility of these hearings, cities and counties must ake the following steps:
At least one (1) hearing must occur on a Saturday, Sunday, or after 6:00pm on a weekday If a redistricting hearing is consolidated with another local government meeting, the redistricting hearing portion must begin at a pre-designated time
Local public redistricting hearing should be made accessible to people with disabilities The purpose of this Public Hearing is to inform the public about the districting process and to hear from the community on what factors should be taken into consideration while creating district boundaries. The public is requested to provided input regarding communities of interest and other local factors that should be considered while drafting district maps. A community of interest under the relevant Elections Code 21621(c) is "a population that shares common social or economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation." Possible features defining community of interest might include, but are not limited to:
A. Schoolattendance areas;
B. Natural dividing lines such as major roads, hills, or highways; C. Areas around parks and other neighborhood landmarks; D. Common issues, neighborhood activities, or legislative/election concerns; and E. Shared demographic characteristics, such as:
(1) Similar levels of income, education, or linguistic insolation; (2) Languages spoken at home; and
(3) Single-family and multi-family housing unit areas.
III. DISCUSSION:
Next Steps
Public Hearing #2, scheduled for March 3, 2022, to seek additional public input and provide direction on criteria to be considered while drafting district maps. Following that hearing, draft district maps and proposed election sequencing will be posted to the City's website and available at City Hall.
Public Hearing #3 is scheduled for Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 6:00pm and Public Hearing #4 is scheduled for Thursday, April 7 at 6:00pm to consider draft maps. Demographer Dave Ely will be available for questions during these Public Hearings.
Boundaries cannot be adopted earlier than August 1, 2021 and must be adopted before April 17, 2022.
However, the U.S. Census Bureau has indicated they will not release data before September 30, 2021. To date, the Bureau has not released the data.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
Expenses related to redistricting willcome from the General Fund and is included in the current budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
Coalinga_Public_Hearing_#2_022322.pdf Presentation
PH_NOTICE_#2_English_030322.pdf Public Hearing Notice - English PH_NOTICE_#2_Spanish_030322.pdf Public Hearing Notice - Spanish samples_h2.pdf Sample Maps
Governed by:
• U.S. Constitution
• Federal Voting Rights Act
• California Elections Code• California Constitution• Case Law Coalinga City Council Redistricting
Federal Laws:
1. Each council district shall contain a nearly equal
population (Less than10% Deviation is presumptively valid); and
2. Each council district shall be drawn in a manner that complies with the Federal Voting Rights Act. No council district shall be drawn with race as the predominate factor in violation of the principles established by the United States Supreme Court in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), and its progeny.
California Criteria for Cities (to the extent practicable and in the following order of priority):1. Geographically contiguous (areas that meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous. Areas that are separated by water and not connected by a bridge, tunnel, or ferry service are not contiguous).
2. Undivided neighborhoods and "communities of interest" (Socio-economic geographic areas that should be kept together for purposes of its effective and fair representation).
3. Easily identifiable boundaries.4. Compact (do not bypass one group of people to get to a more distant group of people).
5. Prohibited: “Shall not favor or discriminate against a political party.” • Neighborhoods and Communities of Interest – preserve communities sharing common interests
• Neighborhoods, Cities• Example of Common Interests
• Land Use patterns (suburban, industrial, commercial)
• Cultural and Language characteristics
• Income Level• Educational Background; Employment and Economic patterns• Crime, schools, other common issues • Obtain public testimony and consider census data, City neighborhood information, planning information, etc.
CITY COUNCIL
REDISTRICTING
PUBLIC HEARING
Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community
Regarding the Redrawing of Election District Boundaries.
This will be the second in a series of four public hearings to obtain public input on the future of redrawing the City Council Election District Boundaries. The Community’s
input is extremely important to this process.
The Hearing is open to the public and any person present will have the opportunity to be heard.
Date and Time
Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 6:00pm
Coalinga City Council Chambers
155 W. Durian Avenue, Coalinga, CA 93210
For further information regarding this matter,
please contact the Office of the City Clerk
Call: (559) 935-1533 x 113
Email: [email protected]
AUDIENCIA PÚBLICA DE
REDISTRIBUCIÓN DE DISTRITOS
DEL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL
Audiencia pública para recibir aportes de la comunidad sobre el rediseño de los límites de los distritos electorales.
Esta será la segunda de una serie de cuatro audiencias públicas para obtener opiniones del público sobre el futuro de la redefinición de los límites del distrito electoral del concejo municipal. El aporte de la comunidad es extremadamente
importante para este proceso.
La audiencia está abierta al público y cualquier persona presente tendrá la oportunidad de ser escuchada.
Fecha y Hora
Jueves, marzo 3, 2022 a las 6:00pm
Cámaras del concejo de la ciudad de Coalinga
155 W. Durian Avenue, Coalinga, CA 93210
Para obtener más información sobre este asunto,
comuníquese con la oficina de la secretaria municipal de la ciudad Llamé al: (559) 935-1533 x 113
Correo Electrónico: [email protected]
5 1
3 4
2 W Lucille Ave Hill View Ln S Monterey Ave S Joaqu ni St S Coalinga St Pacific St McCol um Ln W
Elm
Ave Cheney Ln Walker Ln
Fisher Ln S Princeton Ave W Polk St S C ni dy Ln N Princeton Ave N Fresno St Tyler St Jackson St Monroe St Madison St W Jefferson St Fresno St W Adams St
Pinto St
Bordagaray Ln Curtiss LnLouisiana St E Houston St
E Polk St N 7th St
W Durian Ave Sunset St N 6th St
N 5th St
E Cedar Ave S 5th St
N 4th St
E Durian Ave N 3rd St
N 2nd St N Monterey Ave N College Ave W Yale Ave N Monterey St N Coalinga St California St Harvard Ave Stanford Ave Cornell Ave Dartmouth Ave E ml Ave Sunset Ave Cambridge Ave Van Ness St
Baker St N Buchanan St Lincoln St Falcon Way E Elm Ave S Merced Ave Warthan St Lucille Ave Bordeaux Ln Cabernet Way E Tache Way E Pleasant St S 4th St
E Valley St N Hayes StE Glenn AveE Forrest Ct N Pine St Pine St
S 1st St E Coolidge St H N Garfield St arrison St Corvinia Way Chianti Cir E Bennet St E Kinney St E Roosevelt St
E Sullivan St
Copper Canyon St
Jewel Flower Ln
Riverglen Way
Saltbrush Ave Willow Springs Ave Sadd el back St Echo Canyon Juniper Ridge Blvd Enterprise Pkwy
N Grant St Truman St E Cherry Ln N Maple Rd N School Rd E Locust Ave Fo sl om St Madra Ct W San Madele Ave Casa Buena Ln Portola Ct Adobe Ct el Rancho Blvd
Cabrillo Dr Patsy Way
Sunflower St
Janay Ct
Buena Vista Dr Malibu Dr W Phelps Ave Laguna Ct S ei rra Vista Ln Jayne Ave
Phelps Ave
State Rte 33 W Gale Ave Cody St
Coalinga City Council
0 .25 .5 .75
Miles
Sample 1
1 2
3 4
5 District Population Deviation % Deviation Latino White Black American Indian Asian
Hawaiian
Pacific
Islander
Other Race
Multi
Minority
Race
1 2803 -93 -3.2% 55.4% 35.8% 2.2% 2.1% 2.7% 0.1% 1.3% 0.5% 2782 2 2765 -131 -4.5% 66.8% 25.9% 3.7% 1.3% 1.2% 0.0% 0.8% 0.3% 2749 3 2923 27 0.9% 69.0% 19.4% 4.3% 0.7% 5.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.6% 2911 4 2988 92 3.2% 71.9% 20.7% 2.3% 1.3% 2.3% 0.2% 1.1% 0.2% 2977 5 3000 104 3.6% 63.9% 27.7% 3.7% 1.3% 2.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 6171 District Latino White Black American
Indian Asian
Hawaiian
Pacific
Islander
Other Race
Multi
Minority
Race
Latino White Black Asian All Other
1 51.5% 38.8% 2.4% 2.3% 3.4% 0.0% 1.2% 0.4% 43.7% 52.6% 1.3% 0.7% 1.8% 2 62.7% 29.8% 3.8% 1.6% 1.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.2% 45.5% 49.9% 3.4% 1.1% 0.5% 3 64.6% 22.6% 5.1% 0.7% 5.9% 0.3% 0.5% 0.4% 51.3% 37.9% 5.5% 3.5% 1.8% 4 66.9% 24.8% 2.6% 1.1% 2.7% 0.2% 1.5% 0.3% 51.1% 36.6% 5.5% 2.6% 4.4% 5 62.0% 29.1% 4.3% 1.4% 2.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.6% 61.1% 28.0% 2.4% 3.5% 5.4% District Less than
$35K
$35K to
$74,999
$75K to
$149,999
$150K or
More
Income
Below
Poverty
No High
School
Diploma
No College
Degree
Any
College
Degree
Owner
Occupied
Housing
English
Only Spanish Asian Language
Other
Language
1 24.2% 22.9% 42.1% 10.9% 18.9% 17.3% 55.1% 27.6% 62.7% 80.1% 17.9% 1.4% 0.6% 2 40.6% 25.0% 21.9% 12.4% 20.5% 29.2% 41.3% 29.5% 42.5% 74.0% 23.8% 1.4% 0.8% 3 21.9% 36.5% 30.1% 11.5% 20.0% 16.9% 65.4% 17.7% 54.6% 45.2% 52.3% 1.3% 1.2% 4 42.5% 27.2% 17.8% 12.5% 24.7% 31.3% 43.9% 24.7% 40.2% 57.4% 39.7% 1.7% 1.2% 5 31.7% 27.5% 26.6% 14.2% 19.8% 40.0% 51.6% 8.4% 78.1% 47.0% 49.3% 2.4% 1.2% Household Income
2020 Census State Adjusted Population
Coalinga City Council Districts- Sample 1
2020 Census
Unadjusted
Education Level
2019 American Community Survey Socio-economic Characteristics 2020 Census State Adjusted Voting Age Population 2019 Tabulation Citizen Voting Age Population Language Spoken at Home
Population
5 2
4 3
1 W Lucille Ave Hill View Ln S Monterey Ave S Joaqu ni St S Coalinga St Pacific St McCol um Ln W
Elm
Ave Cheney Ln Walker Ln
Fisher Ln S Princeton Ave W Polk St S C ni dy Ln N Princeton Ave N Fresno St Tyler St Jackson St Monroe St Madison St W Jefferson St Fresno St W Adams St
Pinto St
Bordagaray Ln Curtiss LnLouisiana St E Houston St E Polk St N 7th St W Durian Ave Sunset St N 6th St
N 5th St
E Cedar Ave S 6th St
S 5th St
N 4th St
E Durian Ave N 3rd St
N 2nd St N Monterey Ave N College Ave W Yale Ave N Monterey St N Coalinga St California St Harvard Ave Stanford Ave Cornell Ave Dartmouth Ave E ml Ave Sunset Ave Cambridge Ave Van Ness St
Baker St N Buchanan St Lincoln St Falcon Way E Elm Ave S Merced Ave Warthan St Lucille Ave Bordeaux Ln Cabernet Way E Tache Way E Pleasant St S Alfred St S 4th St
E Valley St N Hayes StE Glenn AveE Forrest Ct N Pine St Pine St
S 1st St E Coolidge St H N Garfield St arrison St Corvinia Way Chianti Cir E Bennet St E Kinney St E Roosevelt St
E Sullivan St
Copper Canyon St
Jewel Flower Ln
Riverglen Way
Saltbrush Ave Willow Springs Ave Sadd el back St Echo Canyon Juniper Ridge Blvd Enterprise Pkwy
N Grant St Truman St E Cherry Ln N Maple Rd N School Rd E Locust Ave Fo sl om St Madra Ct Casa Buena Ln Portola Ct Adobe Ct el Rancho Blvd
Cabrillo Dr Patsy Way
Sunflower St
la Cuesta Ave Buena Vista Dr W Phelps Ave Laguna Ct S ei rra Vista Ln Jayne Ave
Phelps Ave
State Rte 33 W Gale Ave Cody St
Coalinga City Council
0 .25 .5 .75
Miles
Sample 2
1 2
3 4
5 District Population Deviation % Deviation Latino White Black American Indian Asian
Hawaiian
Pacific
Islander
Other Race
Multi
Minority
Race
1 2803 -93 -3.2% 55.4% 35.8% 2.2% 2.1% 2.7% 0.1% 1.3% 0.5% 2782 2 2790 -106 -3.7% 64.5% 26.5% 4.7% 1.2% 1.9% 0.2% 0.8% 0.2% 2775 3 2898 2 0.1% 71.3% 18.7% 3.4% 0.8% 4.6% 0.1% 0.6% 0.6% 2885 4 2988 92 3.2% 71.9% 20.7% 2.3% 1.3% 2.3% 0.2% 1.1% 0.2% 2977 5 3000 104 3.6% 63.9% 27.7% 3.7% 1.3% 2.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 6171 District Latino White Black American
Indian Asian
Hawaiian
Pacific
Islander
Other Race
Multi
Minority
Race
Latino White Black Asian All Other
1 51.5% 38.8% 2.4% 2.3% 3.4% 0.0% 1.2% 0.4% 43.7% 52.6% 1.3% 0.7% 1.8% 2 59.5% 31.4% 4.9% 1.4% 1.7% 0.3% 0.8% 0.1% 44.9% 50.1% 3.3% 1.3% 0.9% 3 67.7% 21.1% 4.0% 0.9% 5.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 52.6% 36.9% 5.9% 3.4% 1.3% 4 66.9% 24.8% 2.6% 1.1% 2.7% 0.2% 1.5% 0.3% 51.1% 36.6% 5.5% 2.6% 4.4% 5 62.0% 29.1% 4.3% 1.4% 2.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.6% 61.1% 28.0% 2.4% 3.5% 5.4% District Less than
$35K
$35K to
$74,999
$75K to
$149,999
$150K or
More
Income
Below
Poverty
No High
School
Diploma
No College
Degree
Any
College
Degree
Owner
Occupied
Housing
English
Only Spanish Asian Language
Other
Language
1 24.2% 22.9% 42.1% 10.9% 18.9% 17.3% 55.1% 27.6% 62.7% 80.1% 17.9% 1.4% 0.6% 2 36.7% 24.9% 24.4% 14.0% 20.5% 25.5% 43.7% 30.8% 45.4% 74.3% 23.5% 1.4% 0.8% 3 26.5% 36.6% 27.2% 9.7% 20.1% 21.8% 62.3% 15.9% 51.1% 45.4% 52.0% 1.3% 1.2% 4 42.5% 27.2% 17.8% 12.5% 24.7% 31.3% 43.9% 24.7% 40.2% 57.4% 39.7% 1.7% 1.2% 5 31.7% 27.5% 26.6% 14.2% 19.8% 40.0% 51.6% 8.4% 78.1% 47.0% 49.3% 2.4% 1.2% Household Income
2020 Census State Adjusted Population
Coalinga City Council Districts- Sample 2
2020 Census
Unadjusted
Education Level
2019 American Community Survey Socio-economic Characteristics 2020 Census State Adjusted Voting Age Population 2019 Tabulation Citizen Voting Age Population Language Spoken at Home
Population
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Introduce and Waive the First Reading of Ordinance No. 850 Approving a City Initiated Zoning Text Amendment (No. ZTA 21-02) Amending the Planning and Zoning Code related to Towing and Impound Yards, Dry Cleaning Establishments and Various Clarification and Cleanup Language related to Various Commercial Uses and their Associated Development Regulations
Meeting Date: March 3, 2022
From: Marissa Trejo, City Manager
Prepared by: Sean Brewer, Assistant City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce and Waive the First Reading of Ordinance No. 850 Approving of a City Initiated Zoning Text Amendment (No. ZTA 21-02) Amending the Planning and Zoning Code Related to towing and impound yards, dry cleaning establishments and various clarification and cleanup language related to various commercial uses and their associated development regulations.
II. BACKGROUND:
On December 2, 2021, the City Council voted to initiate a zoning text amendment to update the City’s planning and zoning regulations related to towing and impound facilities and dry-cleaning establishments. In addition, when a zoning text amendments are initiated and processed, staff likes to address areas of the code where text in the zoning code need clarification and/or deletion to ensure consistency in the codes application and intent of the regulation for consideration by the Commission and Council. These additional items staff is proposing to address are related to service stations and car washes, general offices and telecommunication land uses.
On February 22, 2022 the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing to the consider the zoning text amendments and approved Resolution No. 022P-002 recommending approval to the City Council.
III. DISCUSSION:
The proposed text amendment incorporates changes in definitions, permitted uses, and additional development regulations to ensure that the application of the zoning code is meeting the intent and purpose of the City’s zoning regulation in relation to the general plan.
Tow and Impound
Towing and impound establishments are defined as establishments primarily engaged in towing light or heavy motor vehicles, both localand long distance. These establishments may provide incidental services, such as vehicle storage and emergency road repair services. This classification does not include automobile/dismantling. This falls under salvage yards.
Currently, Towing and Impound uses are permitted in the city but only in the Manufacturing Business Heavy (MBH) zoning district. The issue is that there are only (2) parcels in the City that are zoned in that district and that is the existing garlic plant and the land directly to the south. Council directed staff to consider amending the land use table to allow towing and impound establishments in the Manufacturing Business Light (MBL) districts subject to a conditional use permit (CUP) to expand their ability to locate in Coalinga since the code is currently restrictive to this land use. With the CUP requirement this would allow staff and the commission the ability to condition the project to ensure land use compatibility and apply transitional standards when needed.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Including Towing and Impound as a permitting use in the MBL subject to a conditional use permit.
Dry Cleaning Facilities
The City currently has (2) definitions that address dry cleaning facilities:
Industry, limited. Establishments engaged in light industrialactivities taking place primarily within enclosed buildings and producing minimal impacts on nearby properties. This classification includes operations such as manufacturing finished parts or products primarily from previously prepared materials; commercial laundries and dry-cleaning plants; mobile home manufacturing; monument works; printing, engraving and publishing; computer and electronic product manufacturing; furniture and related product manufacturing; and industrial services. This classification includes the cultivation, processing, extraction, manufacturing, testing, distribution, and transportation of cannabis and cannabis products.
Personal services. Provision of recurrently needed services of a personal nature. This classification includes barber and beauty shops, massage parlors, tattoo parlors, seamstresses, tailors, dry cleaning agents (excluding large-scale bulk cleaning plants), laundromats, shoe repair shops, self-service laundries, photocopying and photo finishing services, and travelagencies.
Industry limited talks about dry cleaning plants where personal services allows for dry cleaning agents but excludes large-scale plants. It does not particularly speak to whether smallequipment would be permitted in a commercial location that include pick-up and drop-off. City Council directed staff to develop language that would clarify land use permissibility for dry cleaning establishments and further clarify smaller operation (outlet or agent) verses a larger scale facility.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Staff developed three (3) new definitions for dry-cleaning establishments as wellas updated the land use table to incorporate their permitted uses:
Dry-cleaning Agency: For drop off and pick up only, no laundry or dry-cleaning equipment on premises.
Retail Drycleaner: Dry cleaning establishment where the dry cleaning and laundry equipment is permitted on the premises and such services are performed on articles brought in directly from the customer to the establishment. This includes delivery of the articles to the retailcustomer where the dry-cleaning establishment directly processes such articles for such customer.
Wholesale Dry-cleaning: A dry-cleaning establishment that has equipment on the premises, but on a much larger scale. This classification is for the establishments that process articles for several customers and do not have customer pickup.
As a result of the updated definitions, staff has incorporated these three land use classifications into the land use table where they best fit based on their operational intensity. These can be found in the draft ordinance in Sections 4 and 6.
Cleanup Language and Clarification to Existing Land Uses andAdditional Development Regulations
When a zoning text amendment is proposed or initiated, staff likes to look at some areas of the code where it has been difficult to apply the strict regulation in addition to balancing the intent of the code and its application of the regulations. There were a few areas where staff has discovered these issues and has provided some language changes to clarify the regulatory intent.
Service Stations with Vehicle Washing Facilities: Staff has updated the code to clarify that car washes can typically be accessory to service stations. Therefore, when a service station is permitted, a car wash facility should be permitted so long as they are accessory. This application is applied in the General Commercial Zoning District (CG) since car washing facilities, stand alone, are permitted in the (CR) Commercial Retail Center and (CS) Service Commercial Zone.
General Of ice and Telecommunication (Facilities within Buildings): With the ever-changing landscape of telecommunications and need for broadband infrastructure, limiting facilities within buildings to radio and television studios in MX and CS Zones restricts the enhancement of broadband within the community. In order to contribute to easing regulation on broadband expansion, permitting facilities within buildings (switches, wiring, and various electronic equipment) in the mixed-Use (MX) and Service Commercial (CS) zones would expand the areas for broadband infrastructure in the city with the requirement that a central office be located on the premises for public access.
In addition, with the limited nature of office space in Coalinga, and the intent of the City to encourage business development, the regulations of limiting office space in the (CS – Service Commercial) zone as accessory to a principalcommercial use is limiting and has created several non-conforming uses in areas developed for office space. Staff is recommending removing these regulations to limit non-conforming uses and improve office space opportunity in the City with no impact.
A copy of the draft ordinance is attached for the Planning Commissions review and consideration as requested by the City Council.
General Plan/Zoning Consistency: The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the general plan policies and implementation measures including zoning consistency for commercialand industrial uses. These changes further enhance the general plan and intent of the zoning code.
Public Notification: On February 10, 2022 joint public hearing notices were posted and emailed to local paper in accordance with localand state regulations.
Environmental Determination: This text amendment has been reviewed in accordance with CEQA and staff has determined that this ordinance change would not have a detrimentaleffect on the health, safety and welfare of the community and fall under Section 15061(b)(3) - General Rule Exemption. In addition, CEQA will be further reviewed during the permitting process as a Conditional Use Permit will be required for the newly incorporated land uses (dry cleaners and towing/impound).
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
None determined at this time.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
The following standard findings must be made for each Zoning Ordinance amendment:
1. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
2. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent and compatible with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan, and the other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. If applicable, the site is physically suitable (including, but not limited to access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physicalconstraints) for the requested zoning designations and anticipated land uses/developments.
4. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
Ordinance_No._850_Dry_Cleaners_and_Tow_Yards.docx Ordinance No. 850 - Zoning Text Amendment ORDINANCE NO. 850
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COALINGA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TABLE 2.7 OF COALINGA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9-5.402 RELATED TO TOWING AND IMPOUND YARDS AND
AMENDING THE PLANNING AND ZONING CODE RELATED TO DRY CLEANING FACILITIES AND VARIOUS
DELETIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS TO ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR COMMERICAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES.
WHEREAS, Title 9 of the Coalinga Municipal code establishes regulations, requirements and standards including but not limited to: controlling the uses of land, the density of population, the uses and locations of structures, the height and bulk of structures, open spaces surrounding buildings, the areas and dimensions of lot areas and building sites, the location, size, and illumination of signs, and requiring the provision of usable open space, screening and landscaping, off-street parking and loading facilities, and;
WHEREAS, the City wishes to update Title 9 of the Municipal Code to update regulations related to towing and impound yards, dry cleaning establishments and various deletions/modifications of code that aligns with the intent of the zoning regulations; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COALINGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that all the facts, findings, and conclusions set forth above in this Ordinance are true and correct.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the land use classification Table 2.7 of Section 9-
5.402 to Article 4 of Chapter 2 in Title 9 of the Coalinga Municipal Code related to Towing and Impound permitted uses:
Use Classification MBL MBH Additional Regulations
Towing and Impound No CUP Yes
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adds the following definitions to section Article 2 of Chapter 1 in Title 9 of the Coalinga Municipal Code:
Dry Cleaning Establishments
Drycleaning Agency: For drop off and pick up only, no laundry or drycleaning equipment on premises.
Retail Drycleaner: Dry cleaning establishment where the dry cleaning and laundry equipment is permitted on the premises and such services are performed on articles brought in directly from the customer to the establishment. This includes delivery of the articles to the retail customer where the drycleaning establishment directly processes such articles for such customer.
Wholesale Drycleaning: A drycleaning establishment that has equipment on the premises, but on a much larger scale. This classification is for the establishments that process articles for several customers and do not have customer pickup.
Service station. Establishments primarily engaged in retailing automotive fuels or retailing these fuels in combination with activities, such as, but not limited to, providing repair services; selling automotive oils, replacement parts, and accessories; providing food services; and ancillary services such as automotive vehicle washing.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby adds the following land use classification under “commercial uses” to Table 2.5 of Section 9-2.302 to Article 3 of Chapter 2 in Title 9 of the Coalinga Municipal Code related to Dry Cleaning Establishments:
Use Classification CG CR CS MX Additional
Regulations
Dry Cleaning
Agency
YES YES YES YES
Retail Drycleaner CUP CUP CUP CUP Exhaust fan or
ventilation to be
located within
12’ of the
drycleaning
machine
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby adds the following land use classification under “commercial uses” to Table 2.5 of Section 9-2.302 to Article 3 of Chapter 2 in Title 9 of the Coalinga Municipal Code related to Services Stations:
Use
Classification
CG CR CS MX Additional Regulations
Service Stations CUP (7) CUP CUP CUP Section 9-5.107, Auto Service Stations and Car Washing; (CG) Limited to establishments with a
gross floor area of 5,000 square feet or less.
SECTION 6. The City Council hereby adds the land following use classification under “industrial uses” in Table 2.7 of Section 9-2.402 to Article 4 of Chapter 2 in Title 9 of the Coalinga Municipal Code related to Wholesale Dry-Cleaning Facilities:
Use Classification MBL MBH Additional Regulations
Wholesale Dry-Cleaning CUP CUP
SECTION 7. The City Council hereby modifies the following land use classification under “commercial uses” and “industrial uses” to Table 2.5 of Section 9-2.302 to Article 3 of Chapter 2 in Title 9 of the Coalinga Municipal Code office and telecommunication uses:
Use Classification CG CR CS MX Additional
Regulations
General Offices YES CUP YES (3) YES
Walk-in Clientele YES CUP YES (3) YES
Facilities within
Buildings
YES NO YES (6) YES Section 9-5.125,
Telecommunication
Facilities.
(CS, MX) Limited to
radio and television
studios.
3. Offices are permitted only as an accessory to a primary commercial use. Conditional Use Permit approval is required for office, business, or professional uses greater than 5,000 square feet in size per lot or integrated commercial development.
6. Permitted so long as a central office (general office) is located on the premises for public access.
7. Washing Facilities shall be permitted ancillary (accessory) to a Service Station that is the primary use.
SECTION 8. Severability Clause:
Should any section, clause, or provision of this Ordinance be declared by the Courts to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole, or parts thereof, other than the part so declared to be invalid.
SECTION 9. Effective Date:
This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its passage and adoption pursuant to California Government Code Section 36937 and shall supersede any conflicting provision of any City of Coalinga ordinance.
SECTION 10. Certification:
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _______________, 2022. ________________________________
Mayor/Mayor Pro-Tem, City of Coalinga
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk/Deputy City Clerk
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Approve MINUTES - February 17, 2022 (Amended)
Meeting Date: March 3, 2022
From: Marissa Trejo, City Manager
Prepared by: Shannon Jensen, City Clerk
I. RECOMMENDATION:
II. BACKGROUND:
III. DISCUSSION:
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
MINUTES_Amended_For_Approval_021722.pdf Minutes - February 17, 2022 Minutes – February 17, 2022
MINUTES
AMENDED
CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR
AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
MEETING AGENDA
February 17, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER 6:00PM
Council Members Present: Ramsey, Singleton, Adkisson, Ramirez, Horn Others Present: City Manager Marissa Trejo, Assistant City Attorney Sebastian Silveira, Interim Chief of Police Jose Garza, Assistant City Manager Sean Brewer, Fire Chief Greg DuPuis, Administrative Analyst Mercedes Garcia, Larry Miller, Public Works and Utilities Coordinator, and City Clerk Shannon Jensen
Council Members Absent: None
Others Absent: Financial Services Director Jasmin Bains and City Treasurer Dawn Kahikina Changes to the Agenda: City Manager Marissa Trejo announced the following changes to the Agenda:
1. Item No. 2.1 from the Regular Agenda will be pulled;
2. Item 4.2 will be moved to the beginning of the Agenda just before Awards, Presentations, Appointment and Proclamations; and
3. Regular and Special Agendas will be combined with Item 5.1 from the Special Agenda becoming 5.11 on the Regular Agenda.
Motion by Adkisson, Second by Ramirez to Approve the Changes to the Agenda and to Approve the Agenda for the meeting of February 17, 2022. Motion Approved by Roll-Call 5/0 Roll-Call Vote.
2. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND PROCLAMATIONS
1. Multi-Jurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
Item No. 2.1 was pulled from the Agenda during Changes to the Agenda.
2. Certificate of Appreciation from Kenneth (Kenny) Smith Jr.
Councilman Adkisson presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Kenneth (Kenny) Smith Jr. for all his efforts to help clean up the City of Coalinga. Mr. Smith announced the next clean up event will be held Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:00am at the Coalinga Elk’s Lodge.
Minutes – February 17, 2022
3. CITIZEN COMMENTS
The following individual(s) spoke under Citizen Comments:
Nathan Vosburg urged the Council to reach out to Fresno Council of Governments (COG) about the County’s responsibility to clean up the trash and graffiti on and around the buildings off Interstate 5.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Council Consideration and Adoption of the City of Coalinga 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Larry Miller, Public Works & Utilities Coordinator
Public Works & Utilities Coordinator Larry Miller presented the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan and outlined the different water stages. The City is currently between stages 2 and 3, or Water Stage 2.5.
Mayor Ramsey opened the Public Hearing for comment.
Nathan Vosburg suggested the Council spend ARPA Funds or water conservation funds to purchase smart meters for a water users. Water leaks and more easily identified with the smart meters which would allow residents to address these leak issues. Mr. Vosburg is in favor of the City’s water contingency plans.
Mr. Miller stated the City has already applied for funding to purchase additional meters.
Mayor Ramsey closed the Public Hearing.
Motion by Adkisson, Second by Horn to Approve the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Motion Approved by 5/0 Roll-Call Vote.
2. Public Hearing #1 regarding Public Input on the Redrawing of District Boundaries Marissa Trejo, City Manager
Dave Ely of Compass Demographics gave a brief presentation of the redistricting process. The City Council will hold Public Hearings at the next three meetings scheduled for March 3rd, March 17th, and April 7th.
Mayor Ramsey opened the Public Hearing for comment. Hearing none, Mayor Ramsey closed the Public Hearing.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve MINUTES – February 3, 2022
2. Adopt Resolution No. 4062 Approving the Emergency Operations Plan – Updated 2022
3. Approve Municipal Solid Waste Franchise Agreement of Refuse Rates Increase and Adopt Resolution No. 4063 Approving New Refuse Rates effective July 1, 2022 Councilman Horn pulled Item No. 5.3 stating a possible conflict of interest and requested this item be voted on separately from the other items on the Consent Calendar.
Minutes – February 17, 2022
4. Adopt Resolution No. 4064 Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Grant Application to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District for Police Vehicles under the Public Benefit Grant Program
5. Adopt Resolution No. 4065 Amending the Police Sergeant Job Description
6. Adopt Resolution No. 4066 Amending the Police Corporal Job Description
7. Approve Contract Renewal with Coalinga State Hospital for Ambulance Services
8. Consider and Award Contract for 7th Street and Mountainview Street Rehabilitation Project
9. Approve Tactical Diversion Task Force Agreement between the Coalinga Police Department and DEA Tactical Diversion Squad
10. Approve Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Coalinga and the Coalinga Police Officers’ Association and Approve the February 17, 2022 Side Letter
11. The City of Coalinga acting as the Board of Directors of the Coalinga GSA Adopt Resolution No. 4069 Adopting the Pleasant Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan to allow the Pleasant Valley GSA to submit to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) on behalf of the Pleasant Valley GSA
Motion by Singleton, Second by Ramirez to Approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 5.1 through 5.2 and 5.4 through 5.11. Motion Approved by Roll-Call 5/0 Roll-Call Vote.
Motion by Adkisson, Second by Singleton to Approve Consent Calendar Item No. 5.3. Motion Approved 4/0 Roll-Call Vote. (Horn – Abstained)
6. ORDINANCE PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS
1. Discussion, Direction and Potential Action regarding Reserve Police Officer Program and Adopt Resolution No. 4067 Amending the Police Officer (Reserve) Job Description and Adopt Resolution No. 4068 Approving the Reserve Police Pay Scale
Jose Garza, (i)Chief of Police
Interim Chief of Police gave a brief overview of the item.
Motion by Horn, Second by Adkisson to Approve Resolution No. 4067 Amending the Reserve Police Officer Job Description and to Approve Resolution No. 4068 Approving the Reserve Police Officer Pay Scale. Motion Approved by 5/0 Roll-Call Vote.
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Manager’s Announcements:
None
Council Member’s Announcements:
Councilman Ramirez requested the City provide gloves and other Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to the volunteers assisting with the cleanup events being put on by Mr. Smith Jr.
Minutes – February 17, 2022
Mrs. Trejo stated we could bring back a Future Agenda Item, however we could not discuss it at this time since it was not agendized.
Mr. Smith Jr. stated that American Wheel and Tire is taking tires at no cost and O’Reilly Auto Parts is taking the oil.
Mayor Pro-Tem Singleton congratulated the High School Varsity Basketball team for their win. The team will be playing in Bakersfield on Friday and he wishes them well.
Mayor’s Announcements:
Mayor Ramsey urged the community to help with Mr. Smith Jr.’s efforts to clean up the City on Saturday at 8:00am the Elk’s Lodge.
8. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilman Adkisson requested a Future Agenda Item to address the weeds growing in planter boxes that were included in the recent improvements along Sunset Street.
Mr. Brewer stated staff will be interviewing for groundskeepers next Thursday.
Councilman Adkisson requested something be planted in these areas versus just clearing the weeds.
Mr. Brewer indicated there is no irrigation in the spaces which would make it difficult to plant, but he will research it.
Councilman Adkisson requested a Future Agenda Item to place restraining orders on problematic gang members to ban them from the City.
Councilman Ramirez requested a Future Agenda Item to provide gloves and other Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to the volunteers assisting with the cleanup events being put on by Mr. Smith Jr.
Councilman Ramirez requested a Future Agenda Item for the City to explore developing our own dog park.
Mayor Ramsey requested a Future Agenda Item to present certificates to our Nation Champion Cheerleaders at a future meeting.
Councilman Ramirez requested a Future Agenda Item to present certificates to the Junior Oilers who are twotime undefeated National Champions.
Mrs. Trejo stated we would need the names of all those to be presented with certificates by 10:00am Wednesday, February 23, 2022 in order for them to be added to the March 3, 2022 agenda.
9. CLOSED SESSION
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – LITIGATION (Gov. Code Section 54956.9(d)(4).): One (1) Case.
Minutes – February 17, 2022
10. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
No reportable action was taken in closed session.
11. ADJOURNMENT 6:42 PM
Ron Ramsey, Mayor
Shannon Jensen, City Clerk
Date
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Check Register: 01/01/2022 - 01/31/2022
Meeting Date: March 3, 2022
From: Marissa Trejo, City Manager
Prepared by: Yasmin Gonzalez, Financial Services Supervisor I. RECOMMENDATION:
II. BACKGROUND:
III. DISCUSSION:
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
Check_Register_Cover_Sheet_for_Council-_01-2022.pdf Check Register Cover Sheet - January 2022 Expense_Approval_Rpt-01-2022.pdf Check Register - January 2022 EXPENSES: 1/1/2022 through 1/31/2022
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE:
Month Ending: 1/31/2022 Registers: # 67709 - #67947 $ 1,643,921.98 PAYROLL:
Pay Period Ending: 1/2/2022 Payroll Check # 18505-18509 $ 4,559.03 Pay Date: 1/7/2022 Direct Deposit $ 170,693.35
Payroll Total: $ 175,252.38
Pay Period Ending: 1/16/2022 Payroll Check # 18510-18515 $ 10,343.36 Pay Date: 1/21/2022 Direct Deposit $ 173,634.20
Cash Outs/Separations: 1/21/2022 Payroll Check # 18516-18518 $ 8,458.16 Payroll Total: $ 192,435.72
TOTAL CHECK REGISTERS THROUGH: 1/31/22 $ 2,011,610.08
CHECK REGISTER
COUNCIL MEETING OF
March 3, 2022
2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 1 of 35
Expense Approval Report
Coalinga, CA By Payment Number
Payment Dates 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
67709 1/4/2022 PG&E 1533-5 1722 301,683.16
0003477 705841037 7th & Elm FD Horn 101-416-72020 31.75 0003477 7053841272 300 W Elm FD Lights 101-416-72020 2,295.20 0003477 795617993 240 N 6th St 101-432-72020 1,628.42
0003477 7053841516 PD/Jail/City Hall 101-432-72020 6,923.30 0003477 7053841771 27500 Phelps Ave Ste 1 101-435-72020 91.70 0003477 7053841899 27500 Phelps Ave Ste 19 101-435-72020 14.14 0003477 7053841565 NW Cor Phelps-Airport Lights 101-435-72020 1,200.28 0003477 7053841177 300 Coalinga Plaza FP (9/1/21-9/30/21) 101-440-72011 13.16 0003477 7053841177 300 Coalinga Plaza FP (8/1/21-8/31/21) 101-440-72011 13.99 0003477 7053841177 300 Coalinga Plaza FP (Adjustments) 101-440-72011 -36.49 0003477 7053841177 300 Coalinga Plaza FP (7/1/21-7/31/21) 101-440-72011 12.64 0003477 7053841921 Sunset & Washington-Wtr Ftn 101-440-72011 24.64 0003477 7053841050 5th & Cedar Tower Clock 101-440-72011 42.79 0003477 7054189141 Sunset & 5th Ave 101-440-72011 9.92
0003477 7053841936 408 S 5th Lynch Park 101-440-72011 13.62 0003477 7053841439 Phelps & La Cuesta 110-424-72021 11.20 0003477 7058903139 Tache Way & Warthan St 110-424-72021 11.36 0003477 7053841349 160 W Elm 110-424-72021 22.88
0003477 3443128775 TR 5208 Spano Ent Posa Chanet 110-424-72021 11.44 0003477 7053841619 Monterey & Tyler 110-424-72021 10.17 0003477 7053841023 Monterey & Tyler Clock 110-424-72021 9.94 0003477 7053841485 Washington & Fresno 110-424-72021 10.30 0003477 7053841004 160W Elm Arpt 3144 Term Bldg 110-424-72021 -6,070.61 0003477 7053841204 SE Crn 1st & Forest Landscap Trees 110-424-72021 9.86 0003477 7053841661 Forest & 5th 110-424-72021 7.94
0003477 7054518044 Coolidge N Hachman 110-424-72021 8.62 0003477 7050007234 Coolidge N Hachman 110-424-72021 8.62 0003477 7053841909 200 El Rancho Blvd Irrigation Crtl 110-424-72021 9.86 0003477 7053841206 Crn Posa & San Sim Lift Station 110-424-72021 9.92 0003477 7053841842 350 El Rancho Blvd Irrigation Ctrl 110-424-72021 9.86 0003477 7053841791 745 W Forest Ave Landscape 110-424-72021 9.86 0003477 7053841848 SE Juniper Rdg Sprinklers 110-424-72021 23.60 0003477 7053841501 410 El Rancho Blvd 110-424-72021 25.18 0003477 7053841535 160 W Elm Street Light Inv Proj 110-424-72021 -2,529.48 0003477 7053841365 Longhollow & Echo Canyon 110-424-72021 20.31 0003477 3443128041 TR 5246 Phase II Stallion Spr 110-424-72021 131.63 0003477 7053841014 160W Elm Arpt 3144 Term Bldg 110-424-72021 19.21 0003477 3289090333 260 1/2 Cambridge Ave 110-424-72021 227.83 0003477 7053841505 Cambridge & Elm Hwy 198 110-424-72021 242.17 0003477 7053841429 TR 5339 Dorothy Allen Est 110-424-72021 335.34 0003477 7053841555 TR 5451 Warthan & Meadows 110-424-72021 786.50 0003477 7053841016 160W Elm Arpt 3144 Term Bldg 110-424-72021 829.46 0003477 7053841002 160W Elm Arpt 3144 Term Bldg 110-424-72021 943.32 0003477 7053841022 160W Elm Arpt 3144 Term Bldg 110-424-72021 94.73 0003477 3443128411 TR 5208 Spano Ent Posa Chanet 110-424-72021 100.23 0003477 7055365996 Elm & Second 110-424-72021 102.10
0003477 7053841534 160 W Elm Street Light Inv Proj 110-424-72021 85.32 0003477 7053841536 160 W Elm Street Light Inv Proj 110-424-72021 87.00 0003477 7058160009 N/S of Phelps Ave (West of Posa Chanet 110-424-72021 88.54 0003477 3443128591 City Sunset St Project PM#30257800 110-424-72021 88.78 0003477 3443128925 TR 5140 Sandalwood Const Jayne & Wil 110-424-72021 163.39 0003477 7053841244 TR 5344 Promontory Point 110-424-72021 174.84 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 2 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
0003477 7053841026 160W Elm Arpt 3144 Term Bldg 110-424-72021 181.74 0003477 7053841004 160W Elm Arpt 3144 Term Bldg 110-424-72021 123.78 0003477 7053841694 160 W Elm 110-424-72021 28.81
0003477 7053841397 Cambridge & Elm Hwy 198 110-424-72021 133.62 0003477 7053841008 160W Elm Arpt 3144 Term Bldg 110-424-72021 2,644.44 0003477 7053841881 140 E Durian Prkg Lot Lights 110-424-72021 18.14 0003477 7053841990 160 W Elm 110-424-72021 19.21
0003477 7055180510 Forest Ave Btwn 3rd St & 5th St 110-424-72021 34.07 0003477 7053841979 City Yard 110-424-72021 191.03
0003477 7053841538 160 W Elm Street Light Inv Proj 110-424-72021 41.32 0003477 705381308 Van Ness & Elm 110-424-72021 38.60
0003477 9713313248 25 1/2 W polk Traffic Control 110-424-72021 82.67 0003477 7050256422 6th & Durian 110-424-72021 79.46
0003477 3249826069 TR 4492 Fox Hollow II 110-424-72021 68.63 0003477 7053841379 Polk & Forest Ave 110-424-72021 66.55 0003477 7051816617 Jayne Ave Willow Springs 110-424-72021 64.83 0003477 1638874976 25 1/2 W Polk 110-424-72021 60.16
0003477 7053841535 160 W Elm Street Light Inv Proj 110-424-72021 57.67 0003477 7053841157 240 W Elm Storage Bldg 110-424-72021 78.74 0003477 7053841253 Cambridge & Joaquin 110-424-72021 194.45 0003477 7053841913 N/S Valley St Lights 110-424-72021 43.11 0003477 3443128372 TR 5246 Phase I Stallion Sprg Sac & Frs 110-424-72021 48.67 0003477 3443128611 TR 4492 Fox Hollow II @ Frst & Cox 110-424-72021 45.75 0003477 7053841526 25034 Palmer Ave (8/2/21-8/31/21) 501-503-72020 83,294.18 0003477 7053841684 NW NW 11 20 15 Water Dept 501-503-72020 39.52 0003477 7053841615 SW SW SW 18 20 16 Reservoir 501-503-72020 23.50 0003477 7053841518 NW NW 31 20 16 Chlorine Booster 501-503-72020 17.48 0003477 7056027714 NE 11 20 15 501-503-72020 68.22
0003477 7053841131 SW Crn Gale & Derrick Wtr Mtr 501-503-72020 9.86 0003477 7053841864 NE SW 31 20 15 Water Ctrl 501-503-72020 21.83 0003477 7053841171 SW SW 7 20 15 Booster Station 501-503-72020 186.13 0003477 7053841036 NE SW 26 19 15 Booster Station 501-503-72020 2,445.30 0003477 7053841526 25034 Palmer Ave (7/1/21-8/1/21) 501-503-72020 105,658.93 0003477 7053841526 25034 Palmer Ave (9/1/21-9/30/21) 501-503-72020 79,344.47 0003477 7053841979 City Yard 501-508-72020 191.04
0003477 7053841657 Behind 595 Roosevelt Alley Light 502-510-72020 46.98 0003477 7053841312 Thompson Btwn Valley & Polk 502-510-72020 44.46 0003477 7053841102 N end of Malple St 502-510-72020 46.22 0003477 7053841574 Coalinga Alley Madison & Mont 502-510-72020 61.85 0003477 7053841066 NE Crn Harvard & College 502-510-72020 51.89 0003477 7053841361 Alley S Pleasant & E Warthan 502-510-72020 52.39 0003477 7053841697 Baker Alley 502-510-72020 94.22
0003477 7053841466 Fres Alley Tyler & Polk 502-510-72020 82.85 0003477 7053841123 Cherry Ln 502-510-72020 70.91
0003477 7053841979 City Yard 502-510-72020 191.04
0003477 7053841358 College Alley S Side Cat Pro 502-510-72020 61.27 0003477 7053841783 California Alley 502-510-72020 64.70 0003477 7053841243 Pine Alley 502-510-72020 72.66
0003477 7052100780 NE SE 33 20 15 WWP 503-520-72020 14,128.23 0003477 7056603692 SE 33 20 15 WWP 503-520-72020 1,769.50 0003477 7053841367 Sewer Lift Station Kim 503-521-72020 36.72 0003477 7053841979 City Yard 503-521-72020 191.04
0003477 7053841194 Sewer Lift Pump Echo 503-521-72020 289.59 0003477 7053841328 Sewer Lift Pump P/L 503-521-72020 155.08 0003477 7053841845 Sewer Lift Station Polk 503-521-72020 115.37 67717 1/5/2022 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 2,578.82 02539 0003479 metlife Jan 1 2022 950-000-32350 2,578.82
Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 3 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
67727 1/6/2022 Amazon Capital Services, Inc. 61.70 02388 1CH4-TTHL-HRLF 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 61.70 67728 1/6/2022 American Office Solutions, LLC 6,199.25 02386 18611 2/22 ADMIN IT Monthly Contract 101-401-88040 55.77 18611 2/22 CD IT Monthly Contract 101-404-88040 71.37
18611 2/22 ADMIN IT Monthly Contract 101-405-88040 55.77 18611 2/22 FIN IT Monthly Contract 101-406-88040 12.47
18611 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract 101-408-88040 36.39
18611 2/22 PD IT Monthly Contract 101-413-88040 1,722.19 18611 2/22 FD IT Monthly Contract 101-416-88040 466.77
18611 2/22 PW IT Monthly Contract 107-422-88040 74.12
18611 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract 107-422-88040 1.43
18611 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract 117-416-88040 8.56
18611 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract 501-406-88040 2.85
18611 2/22 FIN IT Monthly Contract 501-406-88040 166.24 18611 2/22 PW IT Monthly Contract 501-503-88040 111.18
18611 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract 501-503-88040 4.28
18611 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract 501-508-88040 4.99
18611 2/22 PW IT Monthly Contract 501-508-88040 74.12
18611 2/22 FIN IT Monthly Contract 502-406-88040 145.46 18611 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract 502-406-88040 2.85
18611 2/22 PW IT Monthly Contract 502-510-88040 185.30
18611 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract 502-510-88040 4.99
18611 2/22 FIN IT Monthly Contract 503-406-88040 83.12
18611 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract 503-406-88040 1.07
18611 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract 503-520-88040 2.14
18611 2/22 PW IT Monthly Contract 503-520-88040 148.24
18611 2/22 PW IT Monthly Contract 503-521-88040 148.24
18611 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract 503-521-88040 0.71
18611 2/22 FIN IT Monthly Contract 504-406-88040 8.31
18611 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract 504-406-88040 0.36
18611 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract 820-610-88040 0.71
18631 2/22 ADMIN IT Monthly Contract - Backup 101-401-88040 28.81 18631 2/22 CD IT Monthly Contract - Backup 101-404-88040 38.41 18631 2/22 ADMIN IT Monthly Contract - Backup 101-405-88040 28.81 18631 2/22 FIN IT Monthly Contract - Backup 101-406-88040 5.18 18631 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract - Backup 101-408-88040 19.59 18631 2/22 PW IT Monthly Contract - Backup 107-422-88040 34.57 18631 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract - Backup 107-422-88040 0.77 18631 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract - Backup 117-416-88040 4.61 18631 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract - Backup 501-406-88040 1.54 18631 2/22 FIN IT Monthly Contract - Backup 501-406-88040 69.13 18631 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract - Backup 501-503-88040 2.30 18631 2/22 PW IT Monthly Contract - Backup 501-503-88040 51.85 18631 2/22 PW IT Monthly Contract - Backup 501-508-88040 34.57 18631 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract - Backup 501-508-88040 2.69 18631 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract - Backup 502-406-88040 1.54 18631 2/22 FIN IT Monthly Contract - Backup 502-406-88040 60.49 18631 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract - Backup 502-510-88040 2.69 18631 2/22 PW IT Monthly Contract - Backup 502-510-88040 86.42 18631 2/22 FIN IT Monthly Contract - Backup 503-406-88040 34.57 18631 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract - Backup 503-406-88040 0.58 18631 2/22 PW IT Monthly Contract - Backup 503-520-88040 69.13 18631 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract - Backup 503-520-88040 1.15 18631 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract - Backup 503-521-88040 0.38 18631 2/22 PW IT Monthly Contract - Backup 503-521-88040 69.11 18631 2/22 FIN IT Monthly Contract - Backup 504-406-88040 3.46 18631 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract - Backup 504-406-88040 0.19 18631 2/22 HR IT Monthly Contract - Backup 820-610-88040 0.38 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 4 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
18632 2/22 FD Server Backup 101-416-88040 165.08
18633 2/22 PD IT Monthly Contract - Backup 101-413-88040 1,781.25 67732 1/6/2022 Aramark 1068 67.50
503000446932 12/21 BLDG Employee Uniforms (Coverall&Mat) W1 101-432-84030 13.50 503000446932 12/21 PW Employee Uniforms (Coverall & Mat) W12 502-510-70100 54.00 67733 1/6/2022 AT&T 3310 02094 1,598.90
000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 101-408-72030 33.28 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 93910633 101-413-72030 946.28 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 101-432-72030 8.81 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 101-432-72030 97.89 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 101-432-72030 97.89 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 107-422-72030 1.31 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 107-422-72030 9.79 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 117-416-72030 7.83 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 501-406-72030 117.47 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 501-406-72030 2.61 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 501-503-72030 14.68 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 501-503-72030 3.92 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 501-508-72030 4.57 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 502-406-72030 102.79 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 502-406-72030 2.61 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 502-510-72030 24.47 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 502-510-72030 4.57 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 503-406-72030 0.98 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 503-406-72030 58.74 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 503-520-72030 9.79 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 503-520-72030 1.96 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 503-520-72030 19.58 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 503-521-72030 0.65 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 93910633 503-521-72030 19.58 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 504-406-72030 0.33 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 504-406-72030 5.87 000017554965 12/21 Internet Svc Acct 9391063310 820-610-72030 0.65 67735 1/6/2022 Billingsley Tire Service 1112 6,424.34
264529 12/21 PD Vehicle Maintenance #26 101-413-84060 3,100.56 264530 12/21 PD Vehicle Maintenance #27 101-413-84060 3,303.78 264600 1/22 PD Tire Repair for Unit #C17 101-413-84060 20.00 67736 1/6/2022 California Business Machines 377.59 1142 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement COUNCIL 101-401-84010 2.35 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement PW 101-404-84010 4.23 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement CD 101-404-84010 14.62 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement CITY MGR 101-405-84010 35.35 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement FINANCE 101-406-84010 3.80 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement HR 101-408-84010 24.99 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement HR 101-408-84010 4.19 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement PD 101-413-84010 71.90 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement FD 101-416-84010 16.34 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement HR 107-422-84010 0.98 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement PW 107-422-84010 10.57 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement HR 117-416-84010 5.88 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement HR 501-406-84010 1.94 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement FINANCE 501-406-84010 50.64 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement HR 501-503-84010 2.94 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement WP 501-503-84010 9.05 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement PW 501-508-84010 2.11 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement HR 501-508-84010 3.43 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement FINANCE 502-406-84010 44.31 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 5 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement HR 502-406-84010 1.96 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement PW 502-510-84010 8.46 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement HR 502-510-84010 3.43 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement HR 503-406-84010 0.73 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement FINANCE 503-406-84010 25.32 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement WWP 503-520-84010 5.91 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement HR 503-520-84010 1.47 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement PW 503-520-84010 10.57 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement PW 503-521-84010 6.37 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement HR 503-521-84010 0.49 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement FINANCE 504-406-84010 2.53 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement HR 504-406-84010 0.24 287927 12/21 Copier Maint. Agreement HR 820-610-84010 0.49 67739 1/6/2022 City of Coalinga 1207 11,441.76
0003475 90-11379-001 Animal House-Fresno/Coalinga Rd 101-413-72010 52.81 0003475 70-08484-001 302 W Elm-Firehouse 101-416-72010 1,241.21 0003475 70-08558-001 160 W Elm-Old City Hall 101-432-72010 22.43 0003475 70-08559-001 160 W Elm-Annex 101-432-72010 74.55 0003475 70-08563-002 155 W Durian-Bldg 101-432-72010 1,537.90 0003475 90-10883-001 27500 W Phelps-AP Access Road 101-435-72010 42.66 0003475 90-11992-001 Airport-Median 2 101-435-72010 55.28 0003475 90-10892-002 Coalinga AP Res 101-435-72010 74.38 0003475 90-11993-001 Airport-Median 3 101-435-72010 42.66 0003475 90-11994-001 Airport-Median 4 101-435-72010 42.66 0003475 90-11991-001 Airport-Median 1 101-435-72010 42.66 0003475 90-10891-001 27500 W Phelps-AP Spencer House 101-435-72010 85.20 0003475 45-11979-001 Centennial Park Landscaping 101-440-72011 542.06 0003475 84-12000-001 Sandalwood Park 3 101-440-72011 1,095.14 0003475 42-11981-001 W Gale & Hwy 198 101-440-72011 37.22 0003475 70-08679-001 Sunset/6th-Ventera 101-440-72011 39.07 0003475 71-08739-001 200 E Pacific 101-440-72011 497.72 0003475 71-11970-001 Forest/Pacific 101-440-72011 37.22 0003475 44-11880-001 Centennial Park 101-440-72011 521.74 0003475 82-10406-001 E Polk/Warthan Crk Lot 101-440-72011 68.63 0003475 01-11879-001 Plaza Park 101-440-72011 70.48
0003475 84-11980-001 Jayne Ave Landscaping 101-440-72011 29.83 0003475 51-04490-001 E Aport/Elm Lots 101-440-72011 29.83 0003475 70-08545-001 6th/Elm-Parking 101-440-72011 64.17 0003475 51-04491-001 E Elm Trees 101-440-72011 29.83
0003475 51-12025-001 E Elm/Van Ness Trees 107-422-72010 29.83 0003475 01-11986-001 Elm/4th Landscaping 107-422-72010 29.83 0003475 41-03193-001 Princeton/Wash Lot 107-422-72010 37.22 0003475 84-10736-001 Sandalwood/Longhollow 107-422-72010 34.34 0003475 84-10692-001 Juniper Rdg/Jayne 107-422-72010 34.34 0003475 52-11634-001 Cherry Ln-Median 4 107-422-72010 33.53 0003475 52-11631-001 Cherry Ln-Median 1 107-422-72010 33.53 0003475 52-06069-001 Van Ness/Second St Lot 107-422-72010 33.53 0003475 01-00006-001 200 E Elm-Trees 107-422-72010 29.83 0003475 22-11239-001 Creek Side Lot 107-422-72010 29.83 0003475 42-03294-001 Sunset/Fifth Lot 107-422-72010 29.83 0003475 82-11910-001 Hwy 198/Lucille-Landscaping 107-422-72010 29.83 0003475 70-11963-001 Cedar/Fifth Clock 107-422-72010 29.83 0003475 62-08395-001 Forest/Second St 107-422-72010 29.83 0003475 51-04426-001 Baker/Rotary Lot 107-422-72010 29.83 0003475 52-11633-001 Cherry Ln-Median 3 107-422-72010 39.07 0003475 84-11908-001 Copper/Canyon-Landscaping 107-422-72010 40.92 0003475 70-11988-001 Elm/6th Landscaping 107-422-72010 42.76 0003475 41-03130-001 Monterey/Monroe 107-422-72010 536.52 0003475 41-03184-001 W Joaquin/Wash Lot 107-422-72010 451.53 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 6 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
0003475 84-10691-003 Juniper/Jayne 107-422-72010 251.25 0003475 61-06870-001 Lynch Park-Triangle 107-422-72010 57.54 0003475 42-03438-001 Van Ness/Ash St. Lot 107-422-72010 57.54 0003475 45-04297-002 Posa Chanet Blvd 107-422-72010 188.72 0003475 52-11632-001 Cherry Ln-Median 2 107-422-72010 40.92 0003475 84-10693-001 Juniper Rdg/Jayne 107-422-72010 177.35 0003475 82-10397-001 1075 W Elm/Pacific/Lucille 107-422-72010 119.26 0003475 45-04295-002 Phelps/La Cuesta 107-422-72010 119.26 0003475 44-04178-001 San Simeon/Posa Chanet 107-422-72010 119.26 0003475 70-11990-001 Elm/6th Landscaping 2 107-422-72010 48.31 0003475 22-08436-001 Forest/First Lot 107-422-72010 29.83 0003475 01-11987-001 Elm/4th Landscaping 2 107-422-72010 46.46 0003475 32-01424-001 Hillview/Monterey 107-422-72010 44.61 0003475 70-08463-001 290 W Elm-Museum 107-422-72010 173.90 0003475 22-08117-001 Hayes Lot 107-422-72010 122.96
0003475 82-11346-001 Waste Water Plant 503-520-72010 1,656.14 0003475 82-10306-001 Meter Shop 503-521-72010 33.53
0003475 82-10304-001 Service Yard 503-521-72010 191.82
67744 1/6/2022 Coalinga Area Chamber 1,775.00 1220
0003478 1/22 CC Annual Chamber Dinner - A. Adkisson 101-401-86010 81.25 0003478 1/22 CC Annual Chamber Dinner - E. Adkisson 101-401-86010 81.25 0003478 1/22 CC Annual Chamber Dinner - R. Singleton 101-401-86010 81.25 0003478 1/22 CC Annual Chamber Dinner - N. Singleton 101-401-86010 81.25 0003478 1/22 CC Annual Chamber Dinner - J. Horn 101-401-86010 81.25 0003478 1/22 CC Annual Chamber Dinner - L. Horn 101-401-86010 81.25 0003478 1/22 CC Annual Chamber Dinner - R. Ramsey 101-401-86010 81.25 0003478 1/22 CC Annual Chamber Dinner - TBD 101-401-86010 81.25 0003478 1/22 CC Annual Chamber Dinner - TBD 101-401-86010 81.25 0003478 1/22 CC Annual Chamber Dinner - TBD 101-401-86010 81.25 0003478 1/22 ADMIN Annual Chamber Dinner - M. Trejo 101-405-86010 81.25 0003478 1/22 ADMIN Annual Chamber Dinner - C. Trejo 101-405-86010 81.25 0003478 1/22 PD Annual Chamber Dinner - D. Blevins 101-413-86010 81.25 0003478 1/22 PD Annual Chamber Dinner - S. Blevins 101-413-86010 81.25 0003478 1/22 FD Annual Chamber Dinner - S. DuPuis 101-416-86010 81.25 0003478 1/22 FD Annual Chamber Dinner - G. DuPuis 101-416-86010 81.25 6469 1/22 ADMIN 2022 Chamber of Commerce Associate 101-405-86030 475.00 67746 1/6/2022 Coalinga Hardware 1224 51.31
806191 12/21 FD Extentsion Cord 101-416-84060 37.26
806268 1/22 FD Mount Adapter 101-416-70440 14.05
67747 1/6/2022 Cook's Communications 1243 980.55
149760 12/21 PD Vehicle Repair & Maintenance 101-413-84060 980.55 67748 1/6/2022 Criscom Public Relation, Inc. 8,000.00 02315 270495 12/21 CC Lobbying & Econ Development Service 101-401-88100 400.00 270495 12/21 PW Lobbying & Econ Development Service 107-422-88100 600.00 270495 12/21 WP Lobbying & Econ Development Service 501-503-88100 600.00 270495 12/21 PW Lobbying & Econ Development Service 501-508-88100 600.00 270495 12/21 PW Lobbying & Econ Development Service 502-510-88100 600.00 270495 12/21 WWP Lobbying & Econ Development Service 503-520-88100 600.00 270495 12/21 PW Lobbying & Econ Development Service 503-521-88100 600.00 270512 1/22 CC Lobbying & Econ Development Service 101-401-88100 400.00 270512 1/22 PW Lobbying & Econ Development Service 107-422-88100 600.00 270512 1/22 WP Lobbying & Econ Development Service 501-503-88100 600.00 270512 1/22 PW Lobbying & Econ Development Service 501-508-88100 600.00 270512 1/22 PW Lobbying & Econ Development Service 502-510-88100 600.00 270512 1/22 WWP Lobbying & Econ Development Service 503-520-88100 600.00 270512 1/22 PW Lobbying & Econ Development Service 503-521-88100 600.00 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 7 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
67749 1/6/2022 Dana Safety Supply 02581 4,403.23
764283 12/21 PD Vehicle Parts 101-413-84060 947.70
764284 12/21 PD Vehicle Parts 101-413-84060 766.03
764286 12/21 PD Vehicle Graphic & Install 101-413-84060 2,689.50 67750 1/6/2022 Department of Toxic Substances Control 2,093.36 1291 21SM0767 (7/1/21-9/30/21) DTSC Fees (Asbesote Site) 815-609-88100 2,093.36 67751 1/6/2022 Fastenal Company 1356 201.45
CALEM38547 10/21 FD Station Supplies 101-416-70450 201.45 67752 1/6/2022 Gimme Love Animal Shelter 1,800.00 02192 418 12/21 AC Shelter Service for December 2021 101-415-88100 1,800.00 67753 1/6/2022 Home Depot Credit Services 320.68 1474
9904099 11/21 PD Miscellanous Supplies 101-413-70440 320.68 67754 1/6/2022 J's Communications, Inc. 1,180.00 1501
61616 9/21 FD Radio Maintenance 101-416-84030 320.00
61792 10/21 PD Radio Maintenance 101-413-84020 180.00
61894 10/21 PD Reinstatement of FCC Licensing 101-413-86030 680.00 67755 1/6/2022 KINGS COUNTY TROPHY 1563 10.73
8117 1/22 PD Plate 101-413-70440 10.73
67756 1/6/2022 L.N. Curtis & Sons 1571 344.58
INV556490 12/21 FD New York Roof Hook 101-416-84060 344.58 67757 1/6/2022 Lowe's Companies, Inc. 9,999.48 02582
50443 1/22 FD Kitchen Remodel 101-416-84030 9,999.48
67758 1/6/2022 Office Depot 1695 84.58
218009276001 12/21 PD Office Supplies 101-413-70010 55.82 218009334001 12/21 PD Office Supplies 101-413-70010 28.76 67759 1/6/2022 O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. 1692 304.09
4316-395191 12/21 FD Engine 1 Parts 101-416-84060 8.16
4316-395301 12/21 FD Engine 1 Parts 101-416-84060 23.95 4316-395305 12/21 FD Engine 1 Parts 101-416-84060 244.04 4316-395856 12/21 PD Vehicle Maintenance 101-413-84060 27.94 67760 1/6/2022 PG&E 1721 140.10
0003476 12/21 Frame Park Electricity (5120357172-7) 101-440-72011 122.17 0003480 12/21 PD Camera Dtwn at 5th/Elm (2751740765-9) 101-413-72020 17.93 67761 1/6/2022 PG&E Payment Processing Center 11,605.20 1708 98050-123121 12/21 PW Gas Transmission - Reservation 502-510-80020 8,287.18 98050-123121 12/21 PW Gas Transmission - Volumetric 502-510-80020 3,318.02 67762 1/6/2022 Raul Herrera 1755 600.00
COALFD-DEC-2021 12/21 HR Polygraph - D. Burke & S. Bell 101-408-89050 400.00 COALPD-DEC10-202 12/21 HR Polygraph - J. Garza 101-408-89050 200.00 67763 1/6/2022 SCI Consulting Group 1812 16,285.68
SBS10060 12/21 CD Cannabis Monitoring & Compliance Oct-De 101-404-88180 16,285.68 67764 1/6/2022 SWCA Environmental Consultants 198.25 02099 137847 12/21 PW ATP4 - Trails Master Plan Seg 3,4 & 9 305-422-98982 198.25 67765 1/6/2022 SWRCB 1886 10,602.00
SW-0223176 12/21 WP Annual Permit Fee (10/1/21-9/30/22) 501-503-92090 10,602.00 67766 1/6/2022 Verizon Wireless Services, LLC 1,382.15 1973 9895423186 12/21 PD MDT Air Card (471865000-00002) 101-413-72030 38.01 9895435122 12/21 Coalpd Lt08 538-4038 101-413-72030 38.01 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 8 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
9895435122 12/21 Sim card for Traffic Camera 385-6390 101-413-72030 20.30 9895435122 12/21 PD D. Blevins 341-0159 101-413-72030 20.30 9895435122 12/21 PD D. Blevins 341-0457 101-413-72030 20.30 9895435122 12/21 PD D. Blevins 341-0602 101-413-72030 20.30 9895435122 12/21 PD D. Blevins 446-5369 101-413-72030 30.83 9895435122 12/21 PD D. Blevins 446-5077 101-413-72030 30.83 9895435122 12/21 Copdmdt 11 612-3540 101-413-72030 38.01 9895435122 12/21 S Young 974-4689 101-413-72030 40.94
9895435122 12/21 UC Investigations 209-620-2635 101-413-72030 40.94 9895435122 12/21 M. Boulos 401-9945 101-413-72030 38.01 9895435122 12/21 D. Blevins 341-7512 101-413-72030 40.94 9895435122 12/21 Copdmdt 16 612-3607 101-413-72030 38.01 9895435122 12/21 Coalpd Lt13 538-4473 101-413-72030 38.01 9895435122 12/21 Coalpd Lt12 538-4345 101-413-72030 38.01 9895435122 12/21 Coalpd Lt15 365-9537 101-413-72030 38.01 9895435122 12/21 M. Boulos 401-9891 101-413-72030 38.01 9895435122 12/21 M. Buolos 383-4710 101-413-72030 38.01 9895435122 12/21 Coalpd Lt11 538-4304 101-413-72030 38.01 9895435122 12/21 Rouch 974-6734 101-413-72030 47.39
9895435122 12/21 Copdmdt 07 612-3444 101-413-72030 38.01 9895435122 12/21 Copdmdt 09 612-3468 101-413-72030 38.01 9895435122 12/21 Unlimited Text 15GB 101-413-72030 78.00 9895435122 12/21 Copdmdt 10 612-3536 101-413-72030 38.01 9895435122 12/21 Animal Control 388-1787 101-415-72030 38.01 9895765653 11/21 FD Vehicle Data (542044026-00003) 101-416-72030 230.88 9895765654 11/21 FD IPad Mobile Data (542044026-00004) 101-416-72030 190.05 67768 1/6/2022 West Hills Oil, Inc. 1993 16,323.92
72641 12/21 FD Fuel for December 2021 101-416-70160 9,834.88 72642 12/21 ADMIN Fuel for December 2021 101-405-70160 123.36 72643 12/21 PD Fuel for December 2021 101-413-70160 6,365.68 67769 1/6/2022 Westside Supply 1997 150.63
14242 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway Decoration 101-401-88220 150.63 67770 1/13/2022 CB&T COLUMBUS BANK & TRUST 438.41 1176
0003501 Unreimbursed Medical 950-000-34500 438.41
67771 1/13/2022 City Employee Contrib. Assoc. 80.00 1205 0003487 CECA Dues 950-000-33000 80.00
67772 1/13/2022 COALINGA FIREFIGHTERS 980.00 1223
0003489 Fire Union Dues 950-000-33300 900.00
0003494 Fire Union Dues 950-000-33300 80.00
67773 1/13/2022 COALINGA PEACE OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION 905.76 1228 0003492 Mastagni Law Firm 950-000-33200 297.50
0003495 CPOA Dues 950-000-33200 297.50
0003496 PORAC Dues 950-000-33200 310.76
67774 1/13/2022 Employment Development Dept. 337.29 1331 0003488 EDD Overpayment 950-000-34050 337.29
67775 1/13/2022 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1384 225.00
0003490 FTB Sacramento 950-000-34010 225.00
67776 1/13/2022 ICMA 457 RETI 1487 REMENT TRUST 10,366.75 0003481 457 ICMA EE$ / ER% 950-000-32100 2,281.21
0003482 457 ICMA $$ Gen 950-000-32100 345.00
0003483 457 ICMA % General 950-000-32100 7,740.54
Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 9 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
67777 1/13/2022 LEGAL SHIELD 1586 148.19
0003491 Pre-Paid Legal Shield 950-000-34060 148.19
67778 1/13/2022 New York Life Insurance 02043 535.01
0003493 New York Life 950-000-32400 535.01
67779 1/13/2022 SEIU Local 521 - Dues W/H 685.76 1820
0003497 SEIU COPE 950-000-33000 30.00
0003498 SEIU Dues 950-000-33000 655.76
67780 1/13/2022 American Office Solutions, LLC 1,881.25 02386 18012 10/21 PD IT Monthly Contract - Backup 101-413-88040 1,781.25 18398 11/21 PD Jail Door Repair 101-413-84030 100.00
67781 1/13/2022 Aramark 1068 866.08
503000441089 12/21 SVC Employee Uniforms & First Aid Kit W12/2 101-431-70100 14.00 503000441089 12/21 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid Kit W12/2 107-422-70100 42.62 503000441089 12/21 WP Employee Uniforms & First Aid Kit W12/2 501-503-70100 30.95 503000441089 12/21 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid Kit W12/2 501-508-70100 42.63 503000441089 12/21 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid Kit W12/2 502-510-70100 42.63 503000441089 12/21 WWP Employee Uniforms & First Aid Kit W12/ 503-520-70100 30.94 503000441089 12/21 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid Kit W12/2 503-521-70100 42.62 503000441089 12/21 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid Kit W12/2 503-521-70440 16.34 503000441089 12/21 SS Employee Uniforms & First Aid Kit W12/22 504-535-70100 14.41 503000446939 12/21 SVC Employee Uniforms & First Aid W12/29 101-431-70100 14.03 503000446939 12/21 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid W12/29 107-422-70100 42.48 503000446939 12/21 WP Employee Uniforms & First Aid W12/29 501-503-70100 31.00 503000446939 12/21 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid W12/29 501-508-70100 42.49 503000446939 12/21 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid W12/29 502-510-70100 42.49 503000446939 12/21 WWP Employee Uniforms & First Aid W12/29 503-520-70100 31.01 503000446939 12/21 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid W12/29 503-521-70100 42.48 503000446939 12/21 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid W12/29 503-521-70440 16.34 503000446939 12/21 SS Employee Uniforms & First Aid W12/29 504-535-70100 14.44 503000446941 12/21 PD Jail Blankets Cleaning Service W12/29 101-413-70380 244.68 503000450505 1/22 BLDG Employee Uniforms (Coverall & Mat) W1 101-432-84030 13.50 503000450505 1/22 PW Employee Uniforms (Coverall & Mat) W1/5 502-510-70100 54.00 67783 1/13/2022 Avenal Lumber & Hardware 17.04 1088
147470 12/21 WP Rope Starter Kit 501-503-70140 17.04
67784 1/13/2022 Axon Enterprise, Inc. 02384 22,791.91
INUS013145 9/21 PD Body Cam 105-413-98041 22,791.91
67785 1/13/2022 BEEHIVE TRUCK & AUTO 1102 114.00
0003515 1/22 PW Propane for Patch Truck 107-422-70130 114.00 67786 1/13/2022 Billingsley Tire Service 1112 1,129.22
264721 12/21 PD Vehicle Maintenance for Unit #C24 101-413-84060 1,129.22 67787 1/13/2022 Blais & Associates, Inc. 1115 3,438.75
122021COA01 1/22 PW East Polk Active Transportation 107-422-88130 26.25 122021COA02 1/22 WP Derrick Reservoir Rehab 501-503-88130 52.50 122021COA03 12/21 WP Grant Research & Consulting Support 501-503-88130 672.00 122021COA03 12/21 PW Grant Research & Consulting Support 501-508-88130 672.00 122021COA03 12/21 PW Grant Research & Consulting Support 502-510-88130 672.00 122021COA03 12/21 WWP Grant Research & Consulting Support 503-520-88130 672.00 122021COA03 12/21 PW Grant Research & Consulting Support 503-521-88130 672.00 67788 1/13/2022 Bureau of Reclamation 17,963.72 1133
0003510 1/22 WP December 2021 Trinity PUD Assessment 19 501-503-80010 29.40 0003510 1/22 WP December 2021 CVPIA Restoration 196AF 501-503-80010 4,402.16 0003510 1/22 WP December 2021 Estimate -213AF 501-503-80010 -20,039.04 0003510 1/22 WP December 2021 Actual 196AF 501-503-80010 18,439.68 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 10 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
0003510 1/22 WP March 2022 Estimate 213AF 501-503-80010 15,131.52 67789 1/13/2022 California Building Standards Commission 45.90 1141 0003513 1/22 BLDG Standards Reports 2nd Qtr(10/1-12/31/2 101-000-10500 51.00 0003513 1/22 Less 10% Retainer 101-400-48200 -5.10
67790 1/13/2022 Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC 4,815.84 1192 93256439 12/21 WP Chemical Alum 501-503-70240 4,815.84
67791 1/13/2022 CIT 1202 1,139.85
39124422 1/22 Avaya COUNCIL 101-401-72030 25.04
39124422 1/22 Avaya Com Dev 101-404-72030 75.15
39124422 1/22 Avaya City Mgr 101-405-72030 75.15
39124422 1/22 Avaya Finance 101-406-72030 5.97
39124422 1/22 Avaya HR 101-408-72030 38.33
39124422 1/22 Avaya Police 101-413-72030 288.09
39124422 1/22 Avaya Animal Control 101-415-72030 25.05
39124422 1/22 Avaya Fire Dept 101-416-72030 300.67
39124422 1/22 Avaya HR 107-422-72030 1.50
39124422 1/22 Avaya HR 117-416-72030 9.02
39124422 1/22 Avaya HR 501-406-72030 3.01
39124422 1/22 Avaya Finance 501-406-72030 80.17
39124422 1/22 Avaya PW 501-503-72030 14.28
39124422 1/22 Avaya HR 501-503-72030 4.51
39124422 1/22 Avaya HR 501-508-72030 5.26
39124422 1/22 Avaya PW 501-508-72030 14.28
39124422 1/22 Avaya Finance 502-406-72030 70.14
39124422 1/22 Avaya HR 502-406-72030 3.01
39124422 1/22 Avaya PW 502-510-72030 14.28
39124422 1/22 Avaya HR 502-510-72030 5.26
39124422 1/22 Avaya HR 503-406-72030 1.13
39124422 1/22 Avaya Finance 503-406-72030 40.07
39124422 1/22 Avaya PW 503-520-72030 14.28
39124422 1/22 Avaya PW 503-521-72030 14.28
39124422 1/22 Avaya HR 503-521-72030 0.75
39124422 1/22 Avaya HR 504-406-72030 0.38
39124422 1/22 Avaya Finance 504-406-72030 4.01
39124422 1/22 Avaya PW 504-535-72030 3.78
39124422 1/22 Avaya HR 820-610-72030 0.75
39124422 1/22 Avaya HR 820-610-72030 2.25
67793 1/13/2022 Coalinga Area Chamber 1220 650.00
0003508 1/22 CC Annual Chamber Dinner - (TBD) 101-401-86010 81.25 0003508 1/22 CC Annual Chamber Dinner - (TBD) 101-401-86010 81.25 0003508 1/22 CC Annual Chamber Dinner - (TBD) 101-401-86010 81.25 0003508 1/22 FIN Annual Chamber Dinner - J. Bains 101-406-86010 12.19 0003508 1/22 PD Annual Chamber Dinner - (TBD) 101-413-86010 81.25 0003508 1/22 PD Annual Chamber Dinner - (TBD) 101-413-86010 81.25 0003508 1/22 FD Annual Chamber Dinner - (TBD) 101-416-86010 81.25 0003508 1/22 FD Annual Chamber Dinner - (TBD) 101-416-86010 81.25 0003508 1/22 FIN Annual Chamber Dinner - J. Bains 107-422-86010 4.06 0003508 1/22 FIN Annual Chamber Dinner - J. Bains 501-406-86010 24.38 0003508 1/22 FIN Annual Chamber Dinner - J. Bains 502-406-86010 20.31 0003508 1/22 FIN Annual Chamber Dinner - J. Bains 503-406-86010 15.44 0003508 1/22 FIN Annual Chamber Dinner - J. Bains 504-406-86010 0.81 0003508 1/22 FIN Annual Chamber Dinner - J. Bains 820-610-86010 4.06 67794 1/13/2022 Coalinga Hardware 1224 106.33
805927 12/21 PW Battery for Digital Pressure Gauge 501-508-70140 15.52 806171 12/21 PW Bulbs 101-440-84050 24.84
806171 12/21 PW Concrete Mix for Signs 107-422-70130 6.60 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 11 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
806180 12/21 PW Sledge Hammer for Truck #26 501-508-70060 20.70 806180 12/21 PW Sledge Hammer for Truck #26 502-510-70060 20.70 806310 1/22 PD Paint 101-413-70440 17.97
67795 1/13/2022 Dana Safety Supply 02581 217.95
765552 12/21 PD Vehicle Graphics 101-413-84060 217.95
67796 1/13/2022 Division of Administrative Services 144.14 1298 0003512 1/22 SMIP Report 2nd Qtr (10/1/21-12/31/21) 101-000-10400 151.73 0003512 1/22 Less 5% Withheld 101-400-48200 -7.59
67797 1/13/2022 Dorothy June Baker 02574 184.49
6883 1/22 PW Small Chainsaw Repairs 101-440-70060 184.49 67798 1/13/2022 Farwest Corrosion 1355 8,881.08
0371603-IN 12/21 WP Cathodic Protection for Basin 1,2 & 3 501-503-84020 8,881.08 67799 1/13/2022 Fresno County Department of Public Health 729.00 1402 222580 12/21 WP Permit Fees 501-503-92090 729.00
67800 1/13/2022 Geotab USA, Inc. 02379 98.75
IN293661 12/21 PW GPS Sweepers & ATV's 101-440-88100 59.25 IN293661 12/21 PW GPS Sweepers & ATV's 504-535-88100 39.50 67801 1/13/2022 Granite Construction Company 136.31 1446 2153458 12/21 PW Sand 501-508-70130 136.31
67802 1/13/2022 Hanford Veterinary Hospital 338.92 1453 1201521 12/21 PD Vet Exam for K-9 Eli 101-413-92211 338.92 67803 1/13/2022 Interstate Gas Services, Inc. 2,220.00 1494 7021630 1/22 WP Water & Natural Gas Consulting for Dec 21 501-503-88100 740.00 7021630 1/22 PW Water & Natural Gas Consulting for Dec 21 502-510-88100 1,480.00 67804 1/13/2022 KINGS COUNTY TROPHY 1563 10.73
8130 1/22 PD Door Sign 101-413-70440 10.73
67805 1/13/2022 Michael K. Nunley & Associates, Inc. 38,772.92 02329 10086 1/22 WP Watershed Sanitary Survey 501-503-88100 3,503.04 10087 1/22 WP AWIA Emergency Response Plan 501-503-88100 2,325.74 10107 1/22 PW La Questa Lift Station Rehab 503-521-98994 723.06 10149 1/22 WP TTHM Reduction Project 501-503-98441 295.10 10150 1/22 WP Emergency Disinfection Plan 501-503-88100 326.77 10151 1/22 WP Coalinga Derrick Reservoir 501-503-98441 14,407.13 10186 1/22 WP Coalinga Derrick Reservoir 501-503-98441 6,297.50 9918 12/21 WP Coalinga ERP 501-503-88100 7,630.50
9978 11/21 PW La Questa Lift Station Rehab 503-521-98994 648.90 9988 11/21 WP Coalinga Derrick Reservoir 501-503-98441 2,615.18 67806 1/13/2022 Mountain Valley Pest Control, Inc. 91.00 1661 110014 12/21 PD Pest Control Service 101-413-88100 56.00 110018 1/21 PW Pest Control Services 503-521-84030 35.00 67807 1/13/2022 NTU Technologies, Inc. 40,376.18 1690
11790 12/21 WP Chemical Zinc 501-503-70220 40,376.18
67808 1/13/2022 Office Depot 1695 64.81
215945993001 12/21 PW Office Supplies 501-508-70010 21.61 215945993001 12/21 PW Office Supplies 502-510-70010 21.60 215945993001 12/21 PW Office Supplies 503-521-70010 21.60 67809 1/13/2022 O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. 1692 366.11
4316-388789 10/21 PW Battery for Truck #78 107-422-84060 44.69 4316-388789 10/21 PW Battery for Truck #78 501-508-84060 44.68 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 12 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
4316-388789 10/21 PW Battery for Truck #78 503-521-84060 44.68 4316-394080 12/21 WP Battery for 6" Water Pump 501-503-70140 131.40 4316-395834 12/21 ADMIN Wiper Blades 101-405-84060 33.67 4316-396320 1/22 SS Reflective Tape & Wiper Fluid 504-535-84060 45.48 SC03930029 10/21 PD Late Fee 101-413-84060 0.46
SC03930029 10/21 FD Late Fee 101-416-84060 0.46
SC03930029 10/21 PW Late Fee 101-440-84060 0.47
SC03930029 10/21 PW Late Fee 107-422-84060 0.47
SC03930029 10/21 PW Late Fee 501-508-84060 0.47
SC03930029 10/21 PW Late Fee 502-510-84060 0.47
SC03930029 10/21 PW Late Fee 503-521-84060 0.47
SC03930029 10/21 SS Late Fee 504-535-84060 0.46
SC03947480 11/21 PD Late Fee 101-413-84060 2.22
SC03947480 11/21 FD Late Fee 101-416-84060 2.22
SC03947480 11/21 PW Late Fee 101-440-84060 2.22
SC03947480 11/21 PW Late Fee 107-422-84060 2.23
SC03947480 11/21 PW Late Fee 501-508-84060 2.23
SC03947480 11/21 PW Late Fee 502-510-84060 2.22
SC03947480 11/21 PW Late Fee 503-521-84060 2.22
SC03947480 11/21 SS Late Fee 504-535-84060 2.22
67811 1/13/2022 Pace Supply Corp. 02554 71.92
197219219 10/21 WP 10" Gasket for ByPass 501-503-70140 71.92 67812 1/13/2022 RMA Geoscience, Inc. 1771 3,596.50
13252 12/21 ATP3 Sidewalk Gap Closure 305-422-98970 1,664.50 13255 12/21 PW Paving Various Dirt Alleys 305-422-98940 1,932.00 67813 1/13/2022 RSG, Inc. 02048 862.50
I008205 12/21 RDA SA Admin Services 820-610-88100 430.00 I008239 12/21 Housing Successor Services 815-609-88100 320.00 I008248 12/21 Housing Annual Report 815-609-88100 112.50 67814 1/13/2022 San Joaquin Valley Chapter International Code Cou 1801 n 75.00 0003514 1/22 CD ICC Chapter Annual Membership - J. Self 101-404-86030 75.00 67815 1/13/2022 San Luis & Delta-Mendota 9,534.20 1804
0003509 1/22 WP December 2021 Estimate -306AF 501-503-80010 -30,710.16 0003509 1/22 WP Febuary 2022 Estimate 205AF 501-503-80010 20,573.80 0003509 1/22 WP December 2021 Actual 196AF 501-503-80010 19,670.56 67816 1/13/2022 Shar-Craft, Incorporated 1826 650.28
53307 12/21 WP Packing for Pumps 501-503-70140 650.28
67817 1/13/2022 Sirchie 1843 43.57
0526440-IN 1/22 PD Evidence Tape 101-413-90070 43.57
67818 1/13/2022 Sparkletts 1858 35.09
9412248 120121 12/21 WP Bottled Water 501-503-72010 35.09 67820 1/13/2022 Thomson Reuters/Barclays 537.21 1920
845647993 1/22 PD Online/Software Subscription Charges 101-413-86030 537.21 67821 1/13/2022 Trans Union, LLC 1931 75.22
12127910 12/21 PD Backgrounds 101-413-88100 75.22
67822 1/13/2022 Tri-City Engineering 1935 19,355.00
2770-39 12/21 PW City Engineer Support 107-422-88100 191.25 2770-39 12/21 PW Gas Main Caltrans Encroachment Permit 502-510-88100 156.25 2790-20 1/22 PW W. Coalinga Multi-Use Trail (10, 11 &12) 305-422-98980 3,042.50 2836-14 11/21 PW Phelps Ave Improv Federal Compliance - C 127-422-98901 302.50 2845-08 1/22 CD Coalinga Pacific Apt - Eng Fees 101-404-86500 4,700.00 2848-10 1/22 PW Van Ness Storm Drain Improv -Wash/Van N 144-422-98986 875.00 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 13 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
2857-17 10/21 PW Elm/Cambridge Signalization - CM 140-422-98881 703.75 2859-12 1/22 PW Polk St Improv (Elm-Monterey) STBG 305-422-98996 1,156.25 2860-04 1/22 PW Coalinga Alley Paving Ph2 Federal Complian 305-422-98998 300.00 2879-13 1/22 PW Sunset St Improv - CM 111-422-98910 600.00 2880-12 1/22 PW Polk St Improv 5th Elm Federal Compliance 305-422-98930 450.00 2887-02 11/21 PW SWRCB Trash Provisions Reporting 501-508-88100 656.25 2890-08 12/21 WP SCADA WTP Improv 501-503-98441 255.00
2904-08 1/22 PW SLurry Seal, Cape Seal 110-424-98401 482.50 2906-07 1/22 PW ATP Cycle 3 - Sidewalk Cap Closure 305-422-98970 1,570.00 2918-04 1/22 PW Paving Various Dirt Alleys CMAQ - CM 305-422-98940 1,561.25 2927-01 12/21 PW Fresno Street Improv - CM 111-422-98971 871.25 2927-02 1/22 PW Fresno St Repaving (Washington-Harvard) 111-422-98971 281.25 2929-02 12/21 CD CDA-M21-01 Cannabis Facility (9840 Cody) 101-404-86500 300.00 2929-03 1/22 CD CDA-M21-01 Cannabis Facility -9840 Cody S 101-404-86500 900.00 67824 1/13/2022 Unwired Broadband 02185 251.99
INV01228344 1/22 WP Internet Service 501-503-72030 251.99 67825 1/13/2022 USABluebook 1964 844.80
811155 12/21 WWP V-Belts for Blower Motors 503-520-70140 844.80 67826 1/13/2022 Verizon Wireless Services, LLC 1,290.75 1973 9896288524 12/21 CC Council Member 401-5885 (516264995-00 101-401-72030 38.01 9896288524 12/21 CC Council Member 401-5863 (516264995-00 101-401-72030 38.01 9896288524 12/21 CC Council Member 401-5850 (516264995-00 101-401-72030 38.01 9896288524 12/21 CC Council Member 401-5853 (516264995-00 101-401-72030 38.01 9896288524 12/21 CC Council Member 401-5846 (516264995-00 101-401-72030 38.01 9896288524 12/21 CD John Self 100% 630-2536 (516264995-000 101-404-72030 50.25 9896288524 12/21 Transit M.Garcia 246-6243 (516264995-00002 101-405-72030 33.37 9896288524 12/21 SVC - Pedro 100% 698-4142 (516264995-0000 101-431-72030 50.30 9896288524 12/21 AP 381-1120 Acct 516264995-00002 101-435-72030 39.59 9896288524 12/21 PW 381-1988 40% Acct 516264995-00002 501-406-72030 20.10 9896288524 12/21 PW Director 20% 341-4461 (516264995-0000 501-503-72030 7.21 9896288524 12/21 WP Primary 383-4514 Acct 516264995-00002 501-503-72030 50.25 9896288524 12/21 WP Router-1 383-4004 Acct 516264995-0000 501-503-72030 57.77 9896288524 12/21 WP iPad-2 383-4121 Acct 516264995-00002 501-503-72030 45.02 9896288524 12/21 WP iPad-1 978-2846 Acct 516264995-00002 501-503-72030 45.05 9896288524 12/21 WP On-call 341-9613 Acct 516264995-00002 501-503-72030 50.25 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 5 34% 401-9321(516264995-00 501-508-72030 19.64 9896288524 12/21 PW Director 20% 341-4461 (516264995-0000 501-508-72030 7.21 9896288524 12/21 PW Tablet 34% 240-3695 Acct 516264995-000 501-508-72030 12.92 9896288524 12/21 PW Stand by 34% 383-4014 (516264995-0000 501-508-72030 17.08 9896288524 12/21 PW Superv 34% 974-1257 Acct 516264995-00 501-508-72030 17.49 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 6 34% 401-9323(516264995-00 501-508-72030 19.64 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 1 34% 401-9110(516264995-00 501-508-72030 19.64 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 2 34% 401-9271(516264995-00 501-508-72030 19.64 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 3 34% 401-9312(516264995-00 501-508-72030 19.64 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 4 34% 401-9315(516264995-00 501-508-72030 19.64 9896288524 12/21 PW 381-1988 35% Acct 516264995-00002 502-406-72030 17.59 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 2 33% 401-9271(516264995-00 502-510-72030 19.06 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 4 33% 401-9315(516264995-00 502-510-72030 19.06 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 5 33% 401-9321(516264995-00 502-510-72030 19.06 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 6 33% 401-9323(516264995-00 502-510-72030 19.06 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 1 33% 401-9110(516264995-00 502-510-72030 19.06 9896288524 12/21 Field Supervisor 50% Acct 516264995-00002 502-510-72030 25.73 9896288524 12/21 PW Tablet 33% 240-3695 Acct 516264995-000 502-510-72030 12.54 9896288524 12/21 PW Stand by 33% 383-4014 (516264995-0000 502-510-72030 16.58 9896288524 12/21 PW Superv 33% 974-1257 Acct 516264995-00 502-510-72030 16.98 9896288524 12/21 PW Director 20% 341-4461 (516264995-0000 502-510-72030 7.21 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 3 33% 401-9312(516264995-00 502-510-72030 19.06 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 14 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
9896288524 12/21 PW 381-1988 23% Acct 516264995-00002 503-406-72030 11.56 9896288524 12/21 WWP Wifi 383-4044 Acct 516264995-00002 503-520-72030 42.37 9896288524 12/21 PW Director 20% 341-4461 (516264995-0000 503-520-72030 7.21 9896288524 12/21 WWP 341-3958 Acct 516264995-00002 503-520-72030 12.47 9896288524 12/21 PW Superv 33% 974-1257 Acct 516264995-00 503-521-72030 16.98 9896288524 12/21 PW Stand by 33% 383-4014 (516264995-0000 503-521-72030 16.58 9896288524 12/21 PW Tablet 33% 240-3695 Acct 516264995-000 503-521-72030 12.54 9896288524 12/21 PW Director 20% 341-4461 (516264995-0000 503-521-72030 7.21 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 2 33% 401-9271(516264995-00 503-521-72030 19.06 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 3 33% 401-9312(516264995-00 503-521-72030 19.06 9896288524 12/21 Field Supervisor 50% Acct 516264995-00002 503-521-72030 25.73 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 4 33% 401-9315(516264995-00 503-521-72030 19.06 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 1 33% 401-9110(516264995-00 503-521-72030 19.06 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 5 33% 401-9321(516264995-00 503-521-72030 19.06 9896288524 12/21 PW UB Tablet 6 33% 401-9323(516264995-00 503-521-72030 19.06 9896288524 12/21 PW 381-1988 2% Acct 516264995-00002 504-406-72030 1.00 67830 1/13/2022 West Hills Mac 1991 hine Shop, Inc. 727.20 047638 11/21 WWP Vault Box for School Farm 503-520-84020 727.20 67831 1/13/2022 West Hills Oil, Inc. 1993 5,379.56
72644 12/21 PW Fuel for December 2021 101-440-70160 443.78 72644 12/21 PW Fuel for December 2021 107-422-70160 125.20 72644 12/21 WP Fuel for December 2021 501-503-70160 96.08 72644 12/21 PW Fuel for December 2021 501-508-70160 443.79 72644 12/21 PW Fuel for December 2021 502-510-70160 443.79 72644 12/21 PW Fuel for December 2021 503-521-70160 443.78 72646 12/21 FIN Fuel for December 2021 501-406-70160 283.72 72646 12/21 FIN Fuel for December 2021 502-406-70160 248.26 72646 12/21 FIN Fuel for December 2021 503-406-70160 163.14 72646 12/21 FIN Fuel for December 2021 504-406-70160 14.19 72647 12/21 PW Fuel for December 2021 101-440-70160 327.55 72647 12/21 PW Fuel for December 2021 501-508-70160 327.56 72647 12/21 PW Fuel for December 2021 502-510-70160 327.56 72647 12/21 PW Fuel for December 2021 503-521-70160 327.56 72648 12/21 SVC Fuel for December 2021 101-431-70160 55.28 72648 12/21 SS Fuel for December 2021 504-535-70160 1,308.32 67833 1/13/2022 Westside Supply 1997 159.95
14228 12/21 PW Water Parts 501-508-70140 34.38
14228 12/21 PW Sewer Line Parts 503-521-70140 61.57
P211231 12/21 PW Cylinder Rental 501-508-70140 40.00
S211231 12/21 SVC Cylinder Rental 101-431-70150 24.00
67834 1/13/2022 2000 Willdan 1,820.00
00335654 12/21 CD Pacific Estates Plan Check Fee 101-404-88120 1,820.00 67835 1/20/2022 American Office Solutions, LLC 1,078.17 02386 18448 11/21 FD Training Officer Laptop Maintenance 101-416-84010 1,078.17 67836 1/20/2022 Ascent Aviation Group, Inc. 50.13 1074
M264795 1/22 AP Card Reader Fee 101-435-84030 50.13
67837 1/20/2022 AT&T 1079 33.78
0003517 1/22 PW Lift Station (238 851-0691 691 6) 503-521-72030 33.78 67838 1/20/2022 AT&T 2005 02069 3,014.28
000017628494 12/21 PD 559-935-6008 101-413-72030 21.47
000017628494 12/21 PD Business Alarm 559-935-0359 101-413-72030 22.49 000017628494 12/21 PD Multi-line 559-935-8497 101-413-72030 893.37 000017628494 12/21 PD Crime Tip Line 559-935-3206 101-413-72030 22.69 000017628494 12/21 PD Chief 559-935-4210 101-413-72030 43.29 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 15 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
000017628494 12/21 PD Multi-line 559-935-8496 101-413-72030 893.37 000017628494 12/21 FD 559-935-1651 101-416-72030 104.23 000017628494 12/21 Graffiti Hotline 559-935-3282 101-432-72030 20.83 000017628494 12/21 Bldg. Maint. 559-935-3050 101-432-72030 34.68 000017628494 12/21 City Hall Modem 559-934-1306 101-432-72030 43.29 000017628494 12/21 Admin Fax 559-935-0789 101-432-72030 230.65 000017628494 12/21 City Hall Main 559-935-1532 101-432-72030 257.46 000017628494 12/21 AP Weather 559-935-5960 101-435-72030 83.25 000017628494 12/21 AP Maint. 559-935-8594 101-435-72030 20.83 000017628494 12/21 WP 559-935-1889 501-503-72030 22.49
000017628494 12/21 WP Alarm 559-935-3022 501-503-72030 64.11 000017628494 12/21 PW Yard 559-935-1185 502-510-72030 147.48 000017628494 12/21 Sewer Plant 559-935-2275 503-520-72030 20.83 000017628494 12/21 Echo Canyon Lift Station 559-935-1875 503-521-72030 22.49 000017628494 12/21 New Lift Station 559-935-1896 503-521-72030 22.49 000017628494 12/21 WWP Lift Station 559-935-5518 503-521-72030 22.49 67840 1/20/2022 AT&T 2006 02097 131.54
000017628522 12/21 PD Dispatch 559-935-1525 101-413-72030 65.76 000017628522 12/21 Courthouse 559-935-1560 101-432-72030 43.29 000017628522 12/21 PW 559-935-5004 107-422-72030 5.63
000017628522 12/21 PW 559-935-5004 501-508-72030 5.62
000017628522 12/21 PW 559-935-5004 502-510-72030 5.62
000017628522 12/21 PW 559-935-5004 503-521-72030 5.62
67841 1/20/2022 AT&T 4050 02080 1,157.10
000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 101-408-72030 24.09 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 101-413-72030 684.80 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 101-432-72030 6.38 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 101-432-72030 70.84 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 101-432-72030 70.84 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 107-422-72030 0.94 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 107-422-72030 7.08 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 117-416-72030 5.67 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 501-406-72030 1.89 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 501-406-72030 85.01 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 501-503-72030 2.83 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 501-503-72030 10.63 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 501-508-72030 3.31 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 501-508-72030 7.08 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 502-406-72030 74.39 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 502-406-72030 1.89 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 502-510-72030 3.31 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 502-510-72030 17.71 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 503-406-72030 0.71 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 503-406-72030 42.51 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 503-520-72030 1.42 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 503-520-72030 14.17 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 503-521-72030 14.17 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 503-521-72030 0.47 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 504-406-72030 0.24 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 504-406-72030 4.25 000017624444 1/22 Internet Svc Acct 9391064050 820-610-72030 0.47 67843 1/20/2022 AT&T 4711 02056 301.86
000017624582 1/22 PD DOJ Line (9391064711) 101-413-72030 301.86 67844 1/20/2022 Billingsley Tire Service 1112 1,159.26
264388 12/21 FD Oil Change for Unit #M251 117-416-84060 166.64 264693 12/21 FD Oil Change for Unit #7208 117-416-84060 256.44 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 16 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
264754 12/21 FD Maintenance Service for Truck #7209 117-416-84060 736.18 67845 1/20/2022 Brian Corley 02504 4,035.24
22-010101 1/22 WP P10 Motor Megged Test 501-503-84020 750.00 22-010102 1/22 WP A2 Floc Starter Replacement 501-503-84020 974.16 22-010601 1/22 WP Install Alum Injector Alarm 501-503-84020 2,311.08 67846 1/20/2022 Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC 4,624.46 1192 93265375 12/21 WP Chemical Alum 501-503-70240 4,624.46
67847 1/20/2022 City of Sanger 1212 132.75
IGT50-Coalinga 11/21 FD IGT Consulting for November 2021 117-416-88100 132.75 67848 1/20/2022 Coalinga Hardware 1224 278.04
804335 9/21 PD Dog Food for K-9 Eli 101-413-92211 55.89 805941 12/21 WWP Cat Litter & Towels 503-520-70140 40.35 806156 12/21 WWP PVC Fittings 503-520-70140 11.12
806170 12/21 WWP Hand Soap 503-520-70140 58.98
806290 1/22 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway Supplies 101-401-88220 15.71 806395 1/22 WP Flex Seal & Hose Mender 501-503-70140 40.53 806436 1/22 FD Wall Outlet 101-416-84030 33.12
806437 1/22 PW Highway Lift Station 503-521-84030 12.41 85973 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway Supplies 101-401-88220 9.93 67849 1/20/2022 Department of Agriculture 648.80 1284
153467 1/22 FD State Administrative Fee (ALLO) 101-416-84060 648.80 67850 1/20/2022 Department of Justice 1288 1,280.00
553587 12/21 PD Livescans 101-413-88100 1,280.00
67851 1/20/2022 Eric Beasley 02584 555.78
9151 1/22 FD Chief Officer 3A & Meal Reimb - E. Beasley 101-416-86010 555.78 67852 1/20/2022 Fastenal Company 1356 476.97
CALEM39354 1/22 FD Station Supplies 101-416-70450 476.97 67853 1/20/2022 Hach Company 1451 912.36
12812665 12/21 WP 5500 Mono/Ammonia Reagents 501-503-70202 472.64 12816730 12/21 WP Sample Cells 501-503-70202 214.62
12819041 12/21 WP CL17 Reagents 501-503-70202 225.10
67854 1/20/2022 Hanson Bridgett LLP 1454 1,702.80
1309045 12/21 IRS VCP/ICMA Outside Attorney Fees 101-401-88020 1,702.80 67855 1/20/2022 KRC Safety Co., Inc. 1565 968.37
53028 1/22 PW Street Signs 107-422-70130 968.37
67856 1/20/2022 L.N. Curtis & Sons 1571 848.07
INV559769 1/22 FD Turnout Pants - EMS 117-416-70102 399.05 INV559787 1/22 FD Turnout Coat - EMS 117-416-70102 449.02 67857 1/20/2022 Law Dog K9 02173 8,000.00
1115 12/21 PD Dual Purposed K-9 Nitro 101-413-92211 8,000.00 67858 1/20/2022 Leaf 1583 855.46
12740690 1/22 CC Copier Lease 101-401-84010 27.26
12740690 1/22 CD Copier Lease 101-404-84010 27.26
12740690 1/22 CM Copier Lease 101-405-84010 27.26
12740690 1/22 FIN Copier Lease 101-406-84010 5.23
12740690 1/22 HR Copier Lease 101-408-84010 67.12
12740690 1/22 HR Copier Lease 101-408-84010 27.26
12740690 1/22 PD Copier Lease 101-413-84010 244.83
12740690 1/22 FD Copier Lease 101-416-84010 113.83
12740690 1/22 HR Copier Lease 107-422-84010 2.63
Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 17 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
12740690 1/22 HR Copier Lease 117-416-84010 15.79
12740690 1/22 HR Copier Lease 501-406-84010 5.26
12740690 1/22 FIN Copier Lease 501-406-84010 69.78
12740690 1/22 HR Copier Lease 501-503-84010 7.90
12740690 1/22 WP Copier Lease 501-503-84010 27.24
12740690 1/22 HR Copier Lease 501-508-84010 9.21
12740690 1/22 HR Copier Lease 502-406-84010 5.26
12740690 1/22 FIN Copier Lease 502-406-84010 61.05
12740690 1/22 PW Copier Lease 502-510-84010 27.24
12740690 1/22 HR Copier Lease 502-510-84010 9.21
12740690 1/22 FIN Copier Lease 503-406-84010 34.89
12740690 1/22 HR Copier Lease 503-406-84010 1.97
12740690 1/22 WWP Copier Lease 503-520-84010 27.24
12740690 1/22 HR Copier Lease 503-520-84010 3.95
12740690 1/22 HR Copier Lease 503-521-84010 1.32
12740690 1/22 HR Copier Lease 504-406-84010 0.66
12740690 1/22 FIN Copier Lease 504-406-84010 3.49
12740690 1/22 HR Copier Lease 820-610-84010 1.32
67860 1/20/2022 Life Assist, Inc. 1593 2,152.58
1162289 1/22 FD Medical Supplies 117-416-75000 781.08
1162390 12/21 FD Medical Supplies 117-416-75000 528.70
1167373 1/22 FD Medical Supplies 117-416-75000 404.18
1167744 1/22 FD Medical Supplies 117-416-75000 438.62
67861 1/20/2022 Moreno's Plumbing 1655 220.00
002239 1/22 AP Sewer Line Unclogged 101-435-84030 220.00 67862 1/20/2022 Mountain Valley Pest Control, Inc. 181.00 1661 110015 12/21 WWP Pest Control Services 503-520-84030 30.00 110016 12/21 WP Pest Control Services 501-503-84030 45.00 110017 12/21 FD Pest Control Services 101-416-84050 28.00 110019 12/21 BLDG Pest Control Services 101-432-84030 28.00 110020 12/21 AP Pest Control Services 101-435-84030 50.00 67863 1/20/2022 Office Depot 1695 436.32
189412544001 8/21 CC Duster/Paper/Rubberbands/Flip Pad/Highlig 101-401-70010 61.97 189412544001 8/21 CD Duster/Paper/Rubberbands/Flip Pad/Highli 101-404-70010 61.96 189412544001 8/21 AD Duster/Paper/Rubberbands/Flip Pad/Highli 101-405-70010 54.07 189412544001 8/21 HR Paper 101-408-70010 23.34
189412544001 8/21 PW Duster/Paper/Rubberbands/Flip Pad/Highli 107-422-70010 11.73 189412544001 8/21 FD Paper 117-416-70010 5.49
189412544001 8/21 FIN Paper 501-406-70010 1.83
189412544001 8/21 WP Duster/Paper/Rubberbands/Flip Pad/Highli 501-503-70010 13.55 189412544001 8/21 PW Duster/Paper/Rubberbands/Flip Pad/Highli 501-508-70010 14.01 189412544001 8/21 FIN Paper 502-406-70010 1.83
189412544001 8/21 PW Duster/Paper/Rubberbands/Flip Pad/Highli 502-510-70010 14.01 189412544001 8/21 FIN Paper 503-406-70010 0.69
189412544001 8/21 WWP Duster/Paper/Rubberbands/Flip Pad/Hig 503-520-70010 12.18 189412544001 8/21 PW Paper 503-521-70010 0.46
189412544001 8/21 FIN Paper 504-406-70010 0.23
189412544001 8/21 RDA Paper 820-610-70010 0.46
217504965001 1/22 PD Office Supplies 101-413-70010 64.49 218272693001 1/22 FIN Office Supplies 101-406-70010 2.82 218272693001 1/22 FIN Office Supplies 501-406-70010 37.61 218272693001 1/22 FIN Office Supplies 502-406-70010 32.91 218272693001 1/22 FIN Office Supplies 503-406-70010 18.80 218272693001 1/22 FIN Office Supplies 504-406-70010 1.88 67865 1/20/2022 PG&E 1533-5 1722 64,721.01
0003516 7053841272 300 W Elm FD Lights 101-416-72020 1,256.18 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 18 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
0003516 705841037 7th & Elm FD Horn 101-416-72020 24.99 0003516 795617993 240 N 6th St 101-432-72020 684.88
0003516 7053841516 PD/Jail/City Hall 101-432-72020 3,591.13 0003516 7053841899 27500 Phelps Ave Ste 19 101-435-72020 11.03 0003516 7053841565 NW Cor Phelps-Airport Lights 101-435-72020 859.40 0003516 7053841771 27500 Phelps Ave Ste 1 101-435-72020 138.22 0003516 7053841921 Sunset & Washington-Wtr Ftn 101-440-72011 25.23 0003516 7053841050 5th & Cedar Tower Clock 101-440-72011 35.74 0003516 7053841177 300 Coalinga Plaza: Pedestal Frame Par 101-440-72011 11.15 0003516 7053841936 408 S 5th Lynch Park 101-440-72011 12.81 0003516 7054189141 Sunset & 5th Ave 101-440-72011 621.15 0003516 705381308 Van Ness & Elm 110-424-72021 38.84
0003516 7050256422 6th & Durian 110-424-72021 79.65
0003516 1638874976 25 1/2 W Polk 110-424-72021 56.55
0003516 7053841157 240 W Elm Storage Bldg 110-424-72021 79.56 0003516 7053841979 City Yard 110-424-72021 246.13
0003516 7053841535 160 W Elm Street Light Inv Proj 110-424-72021 57.87 0003516 7053841505 Cambridge & Elm Hwy 198 110-424-72021 242.74 0003516 7053841253 Cambridge & Joaquin 110-424-72021 194.62 0003516 7053841026 160W Elm Arpt 3144 Term Bldg 110-424-72021 182.87 0003516 7053841244 TR 5344 Promontory Point 110-424-72021 175.14 0003516 3289090333 260 1/2 Cambridge Ave 110-424-72021 142.83 0003516 7053841008 160W Elm Arpt 3144 Term Bldg 110-424-72021 2,648.07 0003516 7053841002 160W Elm Arpt 3144 Term Bldg 110-424-72021 944.56 0003516 7053841429 TR 5339 Dorothy Allen Est 110-424-72021 335.93 0003516 7053841534 160 W Elm Street Light Inv Proj 110-424-72021 84.03 0003516 7053841555 TR 5451 Warthan & Meadows 110-424-72021 787.28 0003516 7053841016 160W Elm Arpt 3144 Term Bldg 110-424-72021 830.41 0003516 3443128925 TR 5140 Sandalwood Const Jayne & Wil 110-424-72021 120.33 0003516 7053841913 N/S Valley St Lights 110-424-72021 43.17 0003516 7055365996 Elm & Second 110-424-72021 102.44
0003516 3443128411 TR 5208 Spano Ent Posa Chanet 110-424-72021 100.36 0003516 7053841022 160W Elm Arpt 3144 Term Bldg 110-424-72021 95.32 0003516 7058160009 N/S of Phelps Ave (West of Posa Chanet 110-424-72021 89.09 0003516 3443128591 City Sunset St Project PM#30257800 110-424-72021 88.91 0003516 7053841538 160 W Elm Street Light Inv Proj 110-424-72021 41.37 0003516 7053841536 160 W Elm Street Light Inv Proj 110-424-72021 87.11 0003516 3249826069 TR 4492 Fox Hollow II 110-424-72021 68.70 0003516 7053841379 Polk & Forest Ave 110-424-72021 66.67 0003516 3443128611 TR 4492 Fox Hollow II @ Frst & Cox 110-424-72021 45.79 0003516 3443128372 TR 5246 Phase I Stallion Sprg Sac & Frs 110-424-72021 48.72 0003516 7053841397 Cambridge & Elm Hwy 198 110-424-72021 133.85 0003516 3443128041 TR 5246 Phase II Stallion Spr 110-424-72021 131.78 0003516 7053841004 160W Elm Arpt 3144 Term Bldg 110-424-72021 124.18 0003516 9713313248 25 1/2 W polk Traffic Control 110-424-72021 85.37 0003516 7051816617 Jayne Ave Willow Springs 110-424-72021 65.23 0003516 7053841842 350 El Rancho Blvd Irrigation Ctrl 110-424-72021 9.20 0003516 7053841439 Phelps & La Cuesta 110-424-72021 10.06 0003516 7053841791 745 W Forest Ave Landscape 110-424-72021 9.20 0003516 7053841023 Monterey & Tyler Clock 110-424-72021 9.20 0003516 7053841204 SE Crn 1st & Forest Landscap Trees 110-424-72021 9.20 0003516 7053841206 Crn Posa & San Sim Lift Station 110-424-72021 9.20 0003516 7053841909 200 El Rancho Blvd Irrigation Crtl 110-424-72021 9.20 0003516 7054518044 Coolidge N Hachman 110-424-72021 8.63 0003516 7050007234 Coolidge N Hachman 110-424-72021 8.63 0003516 7053841661 Forest & 5th 110-424-72021 7.99
0003516 7053841485 Washington & Fresno 110-424-72021 9.21 0003516 7055180510 Forest Ave Btwn 3rd St & 5th St 110-424-72021 34.29 0003516 7053841619 Monterey & Tyler 110-424-72021 9.21
Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 19 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
0003516 7053841848 SE Juniper Rdg Sprinklers 110-424-72021 23.10 0003516 7053841349 160 W Elm 110-424-72021 22.90
0003516 7053841501 410 El Rancho Blvd 110-424-72021 25.05 0003516 7053841990 160 W Elm 110-424-72021 19.23
0003516 7053841014 160W Elm Arpt 3144 Term Bldg 110-424-72021 19.23 0003516 7053841365 Longhollow & Echo Canyon 110-424-72021 19.10 0003516 7053841881 140 E Durian Prkg Lot Lights 110-424-72021 17.37 0003516 3443128775 TR 5208 Spano Ent Posa Chanet 110-424-72021 11.45 0003516 7058903139 Tache Way & Warthan St 110-424-72021 11.43 0003516 7053841694 160 W Elm 110-424-72021 28.84
0003516 7053841526 25034 Palmer Ave 501-503-72020 30,924.00 0003516 7053841036 NE SW 26 19 15 Booster Station 501-503-72020 2,347.80 0003516 7053841171 SW SW 7 20 15 Booster Station 501-503-72020 248.15 0003516 7053841864 NE SW 31 20 15 Water Ctrl 501-503-72020 19.98 0003516 7056027714 NE 11 20 15 501-503-72020 48.08
0003516 7053841615 SW SW SW 18 20 16 Reservoir 501-503-72020 20.79 0003516 7053841684 NW NW 11 20 15 Water Dept 501-503-72020 33.19 0003516 7053841131 SW Crn Gale & Derrick Wtr Mtr 501-503-72020 9.20 0003516 7053841518 NW NW 31 20 16 Chlorine Booster 501-503-72020 15.61 0003516 7053841979 City Yard 501-508-72020 246.13
0003516 7053841123 Cherry Ln 502-510-72020 60.50
0003516 7053841574 Coalinga Alley Madison & Mont 502-510-72020 54.31 0003516 7053841358 College Alley S Side Cat Pro 502-510-72020 48.60 0003516 7053841979 City Yard 502-510-72020 246.13
0003516 7053841361 Alley S Pleasant & E Warthan 502-510-72020 43.96 0003516 7053841697 Baker Alley 502-510-72020 79.70
0003516 7053841657 Behind 595 Roosevelt Alley Light 502-510-72020 41.60 0003516 7053841243 Pine Alley 502-510-72020 64.24
0003516 7053841783 California Alley 502-510-72020 53.66 0003516 7053841066 NE Crn Harvard & College 502-510-72020 42.63 0003516 7053841312 Thompson Btwn Valley & Polk 502-510-72020 39.15 0003516 7053841102 N end of Malple St 502-510-72020 39.41 0003516 7053841466 Fres Alley Tyler & Polk 502-510-72020 73.75 0003516 7056603692 SE 33 20 15 WWP 503-520-72020 1,793.62 0003516 7052100780 NE SE 33 20 15 WWP 503-520-72020 11,112.08 0003516 7053841328 Sewer Lift Pump P/L 503-521-72020 123.63 0003516 7053841194 Sewer Lift Pump Echo 503-521-72020 253.59 0003516 7053841845 Sewer Lift Station Polk 503-521-72020 84.54 0003516 7053841367 Sewer Lift Station Kim 503-521-72020 28.55 0003516 7053841979 City Yard 503-521-72020 246.13
67872 1/20/2022 Price Paige & Company 1,500.00 1733
20773 12/21 FIN FY 2021 Capital Assets 101-406-88030 160.00 20773 12/21 FY 2021 Long-Term Debt Accounting 150-751-96501 231.00 20773 12/21 FY 2021 Long-Term Debt Accounting 150-755-96504 231.00 20773 12/21 FY 2021 Long-Term Debt Accounting 150-757-96505 238.00 20773 12/21 FIN FY 2021 Capital Assets 501-406-88030 240.00 20773 12/21 FIN FY 2021 Capital Assets 502-406-88030 80.00 20773 12/21 FIN FY 2021 Capital Assets 503-406-88030 232.00 20773 12/21 FIN FY 2021 Capital Assets 504-406-88030 8.00 20773 12/21 RDA FY 2021 Capital Assets 820-610-88030 80.00 67873 1/20/2022 Quadient Finance USA, Inc. 900.00 02318 123121 12/21 FIN Postage 501-406-70030 360.00
123121 12/21 FIN Postage 502-406-70030 315.00
123121 12/21 FIN Postage 503-406-70030 207.00
123121 12/21 FIN Postage 504-406-70030 18.00
67874 1/20/2022 San Joaquin Valley Unified 40.00 1802
329539 1/22 AP Annual Burn Permit #125190 101-435-92090 40.00 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 20 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
67875 1/20/2022 Shell Energy North American (US), LP 250,343.46 1830 3534464 12/21 Natural Gas Deliveries 502-510-80030 250,343.46 67876 1/20/2022 Sparkletts 1858 242.28
9412248 010122 1/22 WP Bottled Water 501-503-72010 54.53 9689215 010622 1/22 BLDG Water Delivery 101-432-72010 93.03 9689215 010622 1/22 PW Water Delivery 502-510-70440 47.36 9689215 010622 1/22 PW Water Delivery 503-521-70440 47.36 67877 1/20/2022 Telstar Instruments, Inc. 1,161.62 1898 110526 1/22 WP Bellows Pump 501-503-84020 1,161.62
67878 1/20/2022 Thatcher Company, Inc. 2,891.43 1902
2021250101272 12/21 WP Chemical Chlorine 501-503-70230 5,070.93 CM0000297 12/21 WP Container Refund 501-503-70230 -2,179.50 67879 1/20/2022 Tri-City Engineering 1935 13,448.75
2902-10 1/22 FD Parking Lot Improvements 117-416-84050 8,968.75 2934-01 12/21 ADMIN Animal Shelter Boundry Map 101-415-98020 4,480.00 67880 1/20/2022 Tyler Technologies, Inc. 6,373.75 1943
025-362699 12/21 FIN Insite Transaction Fees (10/1-12/31/21) 501-406-92090 2,549.50 025-362699 12/21 FIN Insite Transaction Fees (10/1-12/31/21) 502-406-92090 2,230.81 025-362699 12/21 FIN Insite Transaction Fees (10/1-12/31/21) 503-406-92090 1,465.96 025-362699 12/21 FIN Insite Transaction Fees (10/1-12/31/21) 504-406-92090 127.48 67881 1/20/2022 USABluebook 1964 140.15
827690 12/21 WWP Dessicator Plate 503-520-70140 140.15
67882 1/20/2022 Verizon Wireless Services, LLC 1,846.42 1973 9890986914 10/21 Coalpd Lt15 365-9537 101-413-72030 38.01 9890986914 10/21 PD D. Blevins 341-0457 101-413-72030 20.30 9890986914 10/21 Unlimited Text 15GB 101-413-72030 78.00 9890986914 10/21 Rouch 974-6734 101-413-72030 47.39
9890986914 10/21 D. Blevins 341-7512 101-413-72030 40.94 9890986914 10/21 S Young 974-4689 101-413-72030 40.94
9890986914 10/21 UC Investigations 209-620-2635 101-413-72030 40.94 9890986914 10/21 M. Buolos 383-4710 101-413-72030 38.01 9890986914 10/21 M. Boulos 401-9945 101-413-72030 38.01 9890986914 10/21 Coalpd Lt13 538-4473 101-413-72030 38.01 9890986914 10/21 Coalpd Lt12 538-4345 101-413-72030 38.01 9890986914 10/21 Coalpd Lt11 538-4304 101-413-72030 38.01 9890986914 10/21 M. Boulos 401-9891 101-413-72030 38.01 9890986914 10/21 Copdmdt 11 612-3540 101-413-72030 38.01 9890986914 10/21 Copdmdt 16 612-3607 101-413-72030 38.01 9890986914 10/21 Sim card for Traffic Camera 385-6390 101-413-72030 20.30 9890986914 10/21 Copdmdt 10 612-3536 101-413-72030 38.01 9890986914 10/21 Copdmdt 09 612-3468 101-413-72030 38.01 9890986914 10/21 PD D. Blevins 341-0602 101-413-72030 20.30 9890986914 10/21 PD D. Blevins 341-0159 101-413-72030 20.30 9890986914 10/21 PD D. Blevins 446-5369 101-413-72030 30.83 9890986914 10/21 Coalpd Lt08 538-4038 101-413-72030 38.01 9890986914 10/21 Copdmdt 07 612-3444 101-413-72030 38.01 9890986914 10/21 PD D. Blevins 446-5077 101-413-72030 30.83 9890986914 10/21 Animal Control 388-1787 101-415-72030 38.01 9893198978 11/21 PD D. Blevins 341-0602 101-413-72030 20.30 9893198978 11/21 PD D. Blevins 341-0159 101-413-72030 20.30 9893198978 11/21 Unlimited Text 15GB 101-413-72030 78.00 9893198978 11/21 D. Blevins 341-7512 101-413-72030 40.94 9893198978 11/21 UC Investigations 209-620-2635 101-413-72030 40.94 9893198978 11/21 S Young 974-4689 101-413-72030 40.94
9893198978 11/21 PD D. Blevins 341-0457 101-413-72030 20.30 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 21 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
9893198978 11/21 Rouch 974-6734 101-413-72030 47.39
9893198978 11/21 PD D. Blevins 446-5369 101-413-72030 30.83 9893198978 11/21 Sim card for Traffic Camera 385-6390 101-413-72030 20.30 9893198978 11/21 M. Buolos 383-4710 101-413-72030 38.01 9893198978 11/21 PD D. Blevins 446-5077 101-413-72030 30.83 9893198978 11/21 M. Boulos 401-9945 101-413-72030 38.01 9893198978 11/21 M. Boulos 401-9891 101-413-72030 38.01 9893198978 11/21 Coalpd Lt15 365-9537 101-413-72030 38.01 9893198978 11/21 Coalpd Lt13 538-4473 101-413-72030 38.01 9893198978 11/21 Coalpd Lt11 538-4304 101-413-72030 38.01 9893198978 11/21 Coalpd Lt08 538-4038 101-413-72030 38.01 9893198978 11/21 Copdmdt 16 612-3607 101-413-72030 38.01 9893198978 11/21 Coalpd Lt12 538-4345 101-413-72030 38.01 9893198978 11/21 Copdmdt 07 612-3444 101-413-72030 38.01 9893198978 11/21 Copdmdt 11 612-3540 101-413-72030 38.01 9893198978 11/21 Copdmdt 10 612-3536 101-413-72030 38.01 9893198978 11/21 Copdmdt 09 612-3468 101-413-72030 38.01 9893198978 11/21 Animal Control 388-1787 101-415-72030 38.01 67886 1/20/2022 West Hills Oil, Inc. 1993 1,093.79
72645 12/21 WP Fuel for December 2021 501-503-70160 875.03 72645 12/21 WWP Fuel for December 2021 503-520-70160 218.76 67887 1/20/2022 Westside Supply 1997 48.00
W211231 12/21 WP Equipment/Cylinder Rental 501-503-82030 32.00 WW211231 12/21 WWP Equipment/Cylinder Rental 503-520-82030 16.00 67888 1/27/2022 CB&T COLUMBUS BANK & TRUST 384.57 1176
0003538 Unreimbursed Medical 950-000-34500 384.57
67889 1/27/2022 City Employee Contrib. Assoc. 80.00 1205 0003524 CECA Dues 950-000-33000 80.00
67890 1/27/2022 COALINGA FIREFIGHTERS 980.00 1223
0003526 Fire Union Dues 950-000-33300 900.00
0003531 Fire Union Dues 950-000-33300 80.00
67891 1/27/2022 COALINGA PEACE OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION 852.48 1228 0003529 Mastagni Law Firm 950-000-33200 280.00
0003532 CPOA Dues 950-000-33200 280.00
0003533 PORAC Dues 950-000-33200 292.48
67892 1/27/2022 Employment Development Dept. 345.61 1331 0003525 EDD Overpayment 950-000-34050 345.61
67893 1/27/2022 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1384 225.00
0003527 FTB Sacramento 950-000-34010 225.00
67894 1/27/2022 ICMA 457 RETI 1487 REMENT TRUST 11,693.67 0003518 457 ICMA EE$ / ER% 950-000-32100 2,293.84
0003519 457 ICMA $$ Gen 950-000-32100 360.00
0003520 457 ICMA % General 950-000-32100 9,039.83
67895 1/27/2022 LEGAL SHIELD 1586 148.19
0003528 Pre-Paid Legal Shield 950-000-34060 148.19
67896 1/27/2022 New York Life Insurance 02043 516.56
0003530 New York Life 950-000-32400 516.56
67897 1/27/2022 SEIU Local 521 - Dues W/H 656.49 1820
0003534 SEIU COPE 950-000-33000 30.00
0003535 SEIU Dues 950-000-33000 626.49
Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 22 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
67898 1/27/2022 Angelica Corporation 1056 495.32
7000226750 11/21 FD Linens 117-416-75020 495.32
67899 1/27/2022 Aramark 1068 676.62
503000450511 1/22 SVC Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/5 101-431-70100 13.99 503000450511 1/22 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/5 107-422-70100 41.06 503000450511 1/22 WP Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/5 501-503-70100 30.93 503000450511 1/22 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/5 501-508-70100 41.06 503000450511 1/22 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/5 502-510-70100 41.06 503000450511 1/22 WWP Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/5 503-520-70100 30.92 503000450511 1/22 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/5 503-521-70100 41.05 503000450511 1/22 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/5 503-521-70440 16.34 503000450511 1/22 SS Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/5 504-535-70100 14.40 503000454944 1/22 BLDG Employee Uniforms (Coverall & Mat) W1 101-432-84030 13.50 503000454944 1/22 PW Employee Uniforms (Coverall & Mat) W1/1 502-510-70100 54.00 503000454954 1/22 SVC Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/12 101-431-70100 13.99 503000454954 1/22 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/12 107-422-70100 41.06 503000454954 1/22 WP Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/12 501-503-70100 30.93 503000454954 1/22 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/12 501-508-70100 41.06 503000454954 1/22 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/12 502-510-70100 41.06 503000454954 1/22 WWP Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/12 503-520-70100 30.92 503000454954 1/22 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/12 503-521-70100 41.05 503000454954 1/22 PW Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/12 503-521-70440 16.34 503000454954 1/22 SS Employee Uniforms & First Aid W1/12 504-535-70100 14.40 503000459522 1/22 BLDG Employee Uniforms (Coverall & Mat) W1 101-432-84030 13.50 503000459522 1/22 PW Employee Uniforms (Coverall & Mat) W1/1 502-510-70100 54.00 67901 1/27/2022 AutoZone, Inc. 02082 13.49
5919434029 1/22 WP Wiper Blades for Truck #61 501-503-84060 13.49 67902 1/27/2022 Billingsley Tire Service 1112 2,086.90
264976 1/22 FD Oil Change for #7207 117-416-84060 336.27 265148 1/22 FD DEF Pump Repair for #7206 117-416-84060 1,750.63 67903 1/27/2022 Black Water Consulting Engineers, Inc. 6,256.50 02542 4937 1/22 WP Coalinga 2020 UWMP 501-503-88100 32.50
4944 1/22 WP Oil King Booster Station (Reimburseable) 501-503-88100 2,695.00 4952 1/22 WP Engineer's Technical Report 501-503-88100 3,529.00 67904 1/27/2022 Brian Corley 02504 6,296.19
22-011001 1/22 WP Rosemount Meter for Filter Beds 1 & 2 501-503-84020 6,296.19 67905 1/27/2022 City of Sanger 1212 265.50
IGT51-Coalinga 12/21 FD IGT Consulting for December 2021 117-416-88100 265.50 67906 1/27/2022 Clovis Polycon, Inc. 1217 3,379.70
51983 1/22 PW Gas Repair Parts 502-510-70140 1,034.91
52022 1/22 PW 3/4" Gas Valves 502-510-70140 2,344.79
67907 1/27/2022 Coalinga Hardware 1224 464.11
799334 2/21 PW Concrete Mix for Man Hole Repair 503-521-70130 96.77 800490 3/21 PW Meter Install 501-508-70140 10.31
800764 4/21 PW Street Sign Install 107-422-70130 24.85
801209 4/21 PW Reb Curb Paint Roller 107-422-70190 11.38 804287 9/21 PW Yellow Hydrant Paint 501-508-70140 303.69 806527 1/22 PW Install Bolts for Bench at Sandalwood 101-440-84050 7.00 806562 1/22 PW Parts for Irrigation Control behind CH 107-422-84050 10.11 67908 1/27/2022 Cook's Communications 1243 62.50
150065 1/22 FD Radio Programming 101-416-84070 62.50
67909 1/27/2022 DataProse, Inc. 1271 11,129.69
3P57911 12/21 FIN Water Restriction Notice 501-406-70040 240.82 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 23 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
3P57911 12/21 FIN Water Restriction Notice 502-406-70040 210.72 3P57911 12/21 FIN Water Restriction Notice 503-406-70040 138.47 3P57911 12/21 FIN Water Restriction Notice 504-406-70040 12.03 3P58031 12/21 FIN MVD - SB 1383 Notice 501-406-70040 309.97 3P58031 12/21 FIN MVD - SB 1383 Notice 502-406-70040 271.23 3P58031 12/21 FIN MVD - SB 1383 Notice 503-406-70040 178.23 3P58031 12/21 FIN MVD - SB 1383 Notice 504-406-70040 15.50 3P58056 12/21 FIN Shut off Reinstatement Notice 501-406-70040 284.36 3P58056 12/21 FIN Shut off Reinstatement Notice 502-406-70040 248.82 3P58056 12/21 FIN Shut off Reinstatement Notice 503-406-70040 163.51 3P58056 12/21 FIN Shut off Reinstatement Notice 504-406-70040 14.22 DP2104914 11/21 Postage 501-406-70030 109.35
DP2104914 10/21 Postage 501-406-70030 699.50
DP2104914 12/21 Postage 501-406-70030 229.35
DP2104914 11/21 Postage 501-406-70030 207.26
DP2104914 11/21 Postage 501-406-70030 895.22
DP2104914 12/21 SB 1383 501-406-70040 40.38
DP2104914 12/21 Natural Gas Tips 501-406-70040 40.12
DP2104914 10/21 NCOALINK 501-406-70040 7.80
DP2104914 10/21 October 2021 Regular Bills 501-406-70040 441.32 DP2104914 11/21 November 2021 2nd Past Due Notice 501-406-70040 61.10 DP2104914 11/21 November 1st Past Due Notice 501-406-70040 115.56 DP2104914 11/21 Addition Impressions 501-406-70040 0.04 DP2104914 12/21 NCOALINK 501-406-70040 4.00
DP2104914 12/21 Decmeber 2021 1st Past Due Notice 501-406-70040 127.93 DP2104914 12/21 Watering Restriction 501-406-70040 40.38 DP2104914 11/21 November 2021 Regular Bills 501-406-70040 444.20 DP2104914 11/21 NCOALINK 501-406-70040 3.60
DP2104914 10/21 Search & Viewbill 501-406-70040 27.61
DP2104914 12/21 Search & Viewbill 501-406-70040 8.00
DP2104914 11/21 Search & Viewbill 501-406-70040 27.79
DP2104914 11/21 Search & Viewbill 501-406-70040 7.23
DP2104914 11/21 Monthly Service Fee 501-406-70040 30.00 DP2104914 11/21 NCOALINK 501-406-70040 8.60
DP2104914 12/21 Shut Off Reinstatement 501-406-70040 40.38 DP2104914 10/21 Postage 502-406-70030 612.07
DP2104914 11/21 Postage 502-406-70030 783.31
DP2104914 12/21 Postage 502-406-70030 200.68
DP2104914 11/21 Postage 502-406-70030 95.68
DP2104914 11/21 Postage 502-406-70030 181.35
DP2104914 12/21 NCOALINK 502-406-70040 3.50
DP2104914 10/21 Search & Viewbill 502-406-70040 24.16
DP2104914 11/21 Search & Viewbill 502-406-70040 24.32
DP2104914 12/21 Watering Restriction 502-406-70040 35.33 DP2104914 12/21 Shut Off Reinstatement 502-406-70040 35.33 DP2104914 11/21 NCOALINK 502-406-70040 3.15
DP2104914 11/21 November 1st Past Due Notice 502-406-70040 101.11 DP2104914 11/21 Addition Impressions 502-406-70040 0.04 DP2104914 11/21 November 2021 2nd Past Due Notice 502-406-70040 53.46 DP2104914 12/21 SB 1383 502-406-70040 35.33
DP2104914 11/21 Monthly Service Fee 502-406-70040 26.25 DP2104914 11/21 November 2021 Regular Bills 502-406-70040 388.67 DP2104914 12/21 Natural Gas Tips 502-406-70040 35.11
DP2104914 11/21 NCOALINK 502-406-70040 7.53
DP2104914 11/21 Search & Viewbill 502-406-70040 6.33
DP2104914 12/21 Search & Viewbill 502-406-70040 7.00
DP2104914 10/21 NCOALINK 502-406-70040 6.83
DP2104914 12/21 Decmeber 2021 1st Past Due Notice 502-406-70040 111.94 DP2104914 10/21 October 2021 Regular Bills 502-406-70040 386.16 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 24 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
DP2104914 11/21 Postage 503-406-70030 514.75
DP2104914 11/21 Postage 503-406-70030 62.88
DP2104914 10/21 Postage 503-406-70030 402.21
DP2104914 12/21 Postage 503-406-70030 131.88
DP2104914 11/21 Postage 503-406-70030 119.17
DP2104914 10/21 October 2021 Regular Bills 503-406-70040 253.76 DP2104914 11/21 NCOALINK 503-406-70040 4.95
DP2104914 11/21 Addition Impressions 503-406-70040 0.02 DP2104914 11/21 NCOALINK 503-406-70040 2.07
DP2104914 12/21 NCOALINK 503-406-70040 2.30
DP2104914 11/21 Search & Viewbill 503-406-70040 4.16
DP2104914 11/21 November 2021 Regular Bills 503-406-70040 255.41 DP2104914 11/21 November 1st Past Due Notice 503-406-70040 66.45 DP2104914 12/21 Decmeber 2021 1st Past Due Notice 503-406-70040 73.56 DP2104914 10/21 Search & Viewbill 503-406-70040 15.88
DP2104914 11/21 Search & Viewbill 503-406-70040 15.98
DP2104914 11/21 Monthly Service Fee 503-406-70040 17.25 DP2104914 12/21 Natural Gas Tips 503-406-70040 23.07
DP2104914 12/21 SB 1383 503-406-70040 23.22
DP2104914 12/21 Shut Off Reinstatement 503-406-70040 23.22 DP2104914 12/21 Watering Restriction 503-406-70040 23.22 DP2104914 11/21 November 2021 2nd Past Due Notice 503-406-70040 35.13 DP2104914 12/21 Search & Viewbill 503-406-70040 4.60
DP2104914 10/21 NCOALINK 503-406-70040 4.49
DP2104914 11/21 Postage 504-406-70030 5.47
DP2104914 12/21 Postage 504-406-70030 11.46
DP2104914 11/21 Postage 504-406-70030 44.76
DP2104914 11/21 Postage 504-406-70030 10.37
DP2104914 10/21 Postage 504-406-70030 34.98
DP2104914 11/21 November 2021 2nd Past Due Notice 504-406-70040 3.05 DP2104914 10/21 October 2021 Regular Bills 504-406-70040 22.07 DP2104914 11/21 November 1st Past Due Notice 504-406-70040 5.77 DP2104914 12/21 Decmeber 2021 1st Past Due Notice 504-406-70040 6.39 DP2104914 12/21 Watering Restriction 504-406-70040 2.02 DP2104914 12/21 Shut Off Reinstatement 504-406-70040 2.02 DP2104914 12/21 SB 1383 504-406-70040 2.02
DP2104914 12/21 Natural Gas Tips 504-406-70040 2.00
DP2104914 11/21 Monthly Service Fee 504-406-70040 1.50
DP2104914 11/21 Search & Viewbill 504-406-70040 1.39
DP2104914 11/21 November 2021 Regular Bills 504-406-70040 22.22 DP2104914 11/21 NCOALINK 504-406-70040 0.42
DP2104914 12/21 Search & Viewbill 504-406-70040 0.41
DP2104914 10/21 NCOALINK 504-406-70040 0.38
DP2104914 11/21 Search & Viewbill 504-406-70040 0.36
DP2104914 12/21 NCOALINK 504-406-70040 0.20
DP2104914 10/21 Search & Viewbill 504-406-70040 1.38
DP2104914 11/21 NCOALINK 504-406-70040 0.18
67917 1/27/2022 Elecsys International, LLC 130.00 02289 SIP-E149303 1/22 PW Rectifier Data for January 2022 502-510-72030 130.00 67918 1/27/2022 Fastenal Company 1356 682.62
CALEM39352 12/21 PW Sand Bags 107-422-70130 682.62
67919 1/27/2022 FedEx 1360 80.38
7-608-55172 12/21 CD Overnight Fee 101-404-70030 40.19
7-608-55172 12/21 FIN Overnight Fee 501-406-70030 16.08 7-608-55172 12/21 FIN Overnight Fee 502-406-70030 14.07 7-608-55172 12/21 FIN Overnight Fee 503-406-70030 9.24
7-608-55172 12/21 FIN Overnight Fee 504-406-70030 0.80
Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 25 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
67920 1/27/2022 Fresno County Clerk 1399 50.00
0003551 1/22 CD CUP 21-11 (Tire Repair Facility Expansion) 101-404-86500 50.00 67921 1/27/2022 Frisch Engineering, Inc. 02091 9,292.50 9877-2011b 1/22 WP SCADA Upgrade 501-503-98441 9,292.50 67922 1/27/2022 Grainger 1445 105.49
9182419375 1/22 WP Paper Towels 501-503-70140 105.49
67923 1/27/2022 Griswold, Lasalle, Cobb, Dod, & Gin, LLP 12,917.32 1450 66070 12/21 Receivership 900 E. Polk City Attorney Fees 101-401-88010 526.28 66071 12/21 City Clerk City Attorney Fees 101-401-88010 808.76 66071 12/21 City Clerk City Attorney Fees 501-503-88010 58.33 66072 12/21 CC City Attorney Fees 101-401-88010 2,346.00 66073 12/21 CM City Attorney Fees 101-401-88010 1,166.66 66074 12/21 PW City Attorney Fees 101-401-88010 3,037.92 66074 12/21 PW City Attorney Fees 501-503-88010 1,367.05 66075 12/21 FIN City Attorney Fees 501-406-88010 16.67
66075 12/21 FIN City Attorney Fees 502-406-88010 14.58
66075 12/21 FIN City Attorney Fees 503-406-88010 9.58
66075 12/21 FIN City Attorney Fees 504-406-88010 0.84
66076 12/21 LR City Attorney Fees 101-401-88010 250.15
66077 12/21 CBC vs USBR City Attorney Fees 101-401-88010 25.00 66078 12/21 PD City Attorney Fees 101-401-88010 770.83
66079 12/21 SGMA Compliance City Attorney Fees 501-503-88100 2,518.67 67924 1/27/2022 Jasmin Bains 1515 121.00
8798 1/22 FIN CMSFO Training Meals - J. Bains 101-406-86010 18.15 8798 1/22 FIN CMSFO Training Meals - J. Bains 107-422-86010 6.05 8798 1/22 FIN CMSFO Training Meals - J. Bains 501-406-86010 36.30 8798 1/22 FIN CMSFO Training Meals - J. Bains 502-406-86010 30.25 8798 1/22 FIN CMSFO Training Meals - J. Bains 503-406-86010 22.99 8798 1/22 FIN CMSFO Training Meals - J. Bains 504-406-86010 1.21 8798 1/22 FIN CMSFO Training Meals - J. Bains 820-610-86010 6.05 67925 1/27/2022 Life Assist, Inc. 1593 4,190.26
1168962 1/22 FD Medical Supplies 117-416-75000 144.28
1169057 1/22 FD Medical Supplies 117-416-75000 1,147.24 1169749 1/22 FD Medical Supplies 117-416-75000 442.44
1170529 1/22 FD Medical Supplies 117-416-75000 370.52
1171093 1/22 FD Medical Supplies 117-416-75000 2,085.78 67926 1/27/2022 Linde Gas & Equipment Inc. 318.96 02570 68141691 12/21 FD Oxygen 117-416-75000 318.96
67927 1/27/2022 Mid Valley Disposal, Inc. 148,093.08 1647 0003549 11/21 Mid Valley Insert 101-400-41080 -75.88
0003549 11/21 20% Printing & Mailing Utility Bills- Oct 21 101-400-41080 -851.31 0003549 11/21 20% Franchise Fee 101-400-41080 -37,462.13 0003549 11/21 Mid Valley Billing - Franchise Fee - Nov 21 101-400-41080 -828.21 0003549 11/21 Regular Utility Billing for November 2021 504-530-88170 187,310.61 67928 1/27/2022 O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. 1692 164.70
4316-393778 12/21 PD Battery for Unit #C31 101-413-84060 311.03 CM0000298 12/21 PD Battery for Unit #C31 CR 101-413-84060 -146.33 67929 1/27/2022 P.F. PETTIBONE & CO. 1706 662.95
180698 6/21 CC Minutes Books & PC Minutes Books (2) 101-401-70010 662.95 67930 1/27/2022 PG&E 1721 81,396.13
90624-123121 12/21 PW Gas Delivery SE 31 20 15HWY(700175090 502-510-80020 81,396.13 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 26 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
67931 1/27/2022 Profence, Inc. 02516 1,231.90
2439 6/21 WP Security Fence Safety Loops 501-503-84030 1,231.90 67932 1/27/2022 Richard A. Blak, PH. D. 1764 475.00
0003552 12/21 HR Psych Eval - J. Garza 101-408-89060 475.00 67933 1/27/2022 Save Mart Supermarkets 1810 228.75
0420211202091515 12/21 PD Inmate Meals 101-413-70380 108.71 0420211219090324 12/21 PD Inmate Meals 101-413-70380 104.04 0420211228073646 12/21 CC Breakroom Supplies 101-401-70010 2.67 0420211228073646 12/21 CD Breakroom Supplies 101-404-70010 2.67 0420211228073646 12/21 ADMIN Breakroom Supplies 101-405-70010 2.67 0420211228073646 12/21 FIN Breakroom Supplies 101-406-70010 2.67 0420211228073646 12/21 HR Breakroom Supplies 101-408-70010 1.36 0420211228073646 12/21 PW Breakroom Supplies 107-422-70010 0.58 0420211228073646 12/21 FD Breakroom Supplies 117-416-70010 0.32 0420211228073646 12/21 FIN Breakroom Supplies 501-406-70010 0.11 0420211228073646 12/21 WP Breakroom Supplies 501-503-70010 0.68 0420211228073646 12/21 PW Breakroom Supplies 501-508-70010 0.72 0420211228073646 12/21 FIN Breakroom Supplies 502-406-70010 0.11 0420211228073646 12/21 PW Breakroom Supplies 502-510-70010 0.72 0420211228073646 12/21 FIN Breakroom Supplies 503-406-70010 0.04 0420211228073646 12/21 WWP Breakroom Supplies 503-520-70010 0.61 0420211228073646 12/21 PW Breakroom Supplies 503-521-70010 0.03 0420211228073646 12/21 FIN Breakroom Supplies 504-406-70010 0.01 0420211228073646 12/21 RDA Breakroom Supplies 820-610-70010 0.03 67935 1/27/2022 Sequoia Equipment Co., Inc. 404.10 1823 001-1128336 12/21 PW Backhoe #77 Repair 503-521-84020 404.10 67936 1/27/2022 Specialty Fleet Sales, LLC 129,474.56 02585 21163 1/22 PW Bucket Truck 110-424-98040 129,474.56
67937 1/27/2022 SWCA Environmental Consultants 11,420.13 02099 138561 12/21 PW CMAQ Trail Project (1, 2, 13 & 14) -ES 305-422-98974 7,105.04 138993 1/22 PW CMAQ Trail Project (1, 2, 13 & 14) -ES 305-422-98974 4,315.09 67938 1/27/2022 Teledyne Instruments, Inc. 8,155.69 1897 S020514451 1/22 WWP Refrigerated Composite Samplier 503-520-98040 8,155.69 67939 1/27/2022 The Hanford Sentinel 1907 384.00
64664 1/22 PW 7th Street Improvements (Forest to Elm) 111-422-98997 384.00 67940 1/27/2022 TRI Air Testing 1934 218.00
148437 1/22 FD Air Quality Testing 101-416-75060 218.00 67941 1/27/2022 Tri-City Engineering 1935 6,721.25
2826-09 11/21 PW ATP4 Trail Imrovements 305-422-98982 426.25 2893-11 1/22 PW 7th Street Improvements (Forest to Elm) 111-422-98997 6,295.00 67942 1/27/2022 U.S. Bank Corporate Payment Center 7,478.70 1944 USBCDJAN22-01 12/21 CD City Manager Computer 101-405-70010 45.07 USBCDJAN22-01 12/21 CD City Manager Computer 101-405-84010 1,000.00 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC Packing Tape 101-401-70010 7.30
USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 317.08 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 525.32 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 11.55 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 1.01 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 43.89 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 40.78 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 448.47 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 116.86 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 120.51 Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 27 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 100.00 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 25.10 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 184.93 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 200.00 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 238.62 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 631.91 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway CR 101-401-88220 -1.01 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway CR 101-401-88220 -5.36 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 39.17 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CC 2021 Christmas Gift Giveaway 101-401-88220 91.64 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 CD Packing Tape 101-404-70010 7.30
USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 ADMIN Packing Tape 101-405-70010 7.30 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 ADMIN Webcam for M. Trejo 101-405-70010 63.55 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 ADMIN Training Code Enforcement - J. Chavez 101-405-86010 71.30 USBCMJAN22-01 1/22 ADMIN Chief's Breakfast 101-405-86010 15.78 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 ADMIN Chief's Breakfast 101-405-86010 18.91 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 HR Packing Tape 101-408-70010 3.72
USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 HR Chief of Police Job Posting 101-408-89010 515.71 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 AP Annual Operation Permit 2021-2022 101-435-92090 1.51 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 AP Annual Operation Permit 2021-2022 101-435-92090 63.00 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 PW Packing Tape 107-422-70010 1.61
USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 FD Packing Tape 117-416-70010 0.88
USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 FIN Packing Tape 501-406-70010 0.29 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 WP Packing Tape 501-503-70010 1.90
USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 PW Packing Tape 501-508-70010 1.97
USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 FIN Packing Tape 502-406-70010 0.29 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 PW Packing Tape 502-510-70010 1.97
USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 FIN Packing Tape 503-406-70010 0.11 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 WWP Packing Tape 503-520-70010 1.68 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 PW Packing Tape 503-521-70010 0.07
USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 FIN Packing Tape 504-406-70010 0.04 USBCMJAN22-01 12/21 RDA Packing Tape 820-610-70010 0.07 USBFDJAN22-01 12/21 FD Microsoft Renewal 101-416-75060 198.00 USBFDJAN22-01 12/21 FD Chief's Conference Hotel 101-416-86010 524.28 USBFDJAN22-02 1/22 FD EMTP Renewal - D. Kosmosky 117-416-86040 48.00 USBPDJAN22-01 12/21 PD Lords Uniforms & Tuxedos 101-413-70101 50.03 USBPDJAN22-01 12/21 PD Metro Uniform & Accessory 101-413-70101 119.08 USBPDJAN22-01 12/21 PD Amazon - Exit Sign CR 101-413-70440 -11.76 USBPDJAN22-02 12/21 PD Amazon - EasyIdea Premiom ID Card & BL 101-413-70101 65.37 USBPDJAN22-02 1/22 PD Peerless Network - PRI Service 101-413-72030 221.19 USBPDJAN22-02 12/21 PD Journey Team LLC 101-413-88040 498.00 USBPDJAN22-02 1/22 PD Archive Social - Renewal 101-413-88040 219.00 USBPWJAN22-01 12/21 PW Irrigation Timer for City Hall Accident 101-440-84050 167.67 USBPWJAN22-01 12/21 PW Parking for Backflow Cert - R. Smith 501-508-86010 10.00 USBPWJAN22-01 12/21 PW Lodging for Backflow Cerf - R. Smith 501-508-86010 346.70 USBWPJAN22-01 12/21 WP Logmein Phone Service 501-503-72030 61.34 67946 1/27/2022 USABluebook 1964 85.89
813163 12/21 WWP Lab Filter Flask 503-520-88080 85.89
67947 1/27/2022 WageWorks 1983 75.00
INV3247546 11/21 FSA Monthly Fee 950-000-34610 75.00
DFT0003779 1/7/2022 Newport Trust Company 1677 232.50
0003484 457 Newport $$ 950-000-32100 232.50
DFT0003780 1/7/2022 Newport Trust Company 2,323.82 1677 0003485 457 Newport % 950-000-32100 2,323.82
Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 28 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
DFT0003781 1/7/2022 Newport Trust Company 1,630.75 1677 0003486 457 Newport EE$ / ER% 950-000-32100 1,630.75
DFT0003782 1/7/2022 State Disbursement Unit 1869 407.99 0003499 SDU Fresno County 950-000-34010 407.99
DFT0003783 1/7/2022 State Disbursement Unit 1869 64.84
0003500 SDU Kings County DCSS 950-000-34010 64.84
DFT0003784 1/7/2022 SDI 02078 2,546.71
0003502 SDI 950-000-31500 2,546.71
DFT0003785 1/7/2022 SDI (Mgr) 02077 368.50
0003503 Mgr SDI 950-000-31500 368.50
DFT0003786 1/7/2022 Employment Development Dept. 8,512.80 1331 0003504 State WH 950-000-31200 8,512.80
DFT0003787 1/7/2022 United States Treasury 59,237.03 1957 0003505 Fed W/H 950-000-31100 20,292.39
0003505 Social Seccurity 950-000-31300 31,562.82
0003505 Medicare 950-000-31400 7,381.82
DFT0003788 1/7/2022 United States Treasury 1957 -7.66
CM0000296 Social Seccurity 950-000-31300 -6.20
CM0000296 Medicare 950-000-31400 -1.46
DFT0003790 1/21/2022 Newport Trust Company 1677 232.50
0003521 457 Newport $$ 950-000-32100 232.50
DFT0003791 1/21/2022 Newport Trust Company 2,277.25 1677 0003522 457 Newport % 950-000-32100 2,277.25
DFT0003792 1/21/2022 Newport Trust Company 1,504.20 1677 0003523 457 Newport EE$ / ER% 950-000-32100 1,504.20
DFT0003793 1/21/2022 State Disbursement Unit 1869 407.99 0003536 SDU Fresno County 950-000-34010 407.99
DFT0003794 1/21/2022 State Disbursement Unit 1869 64.84 0003537 SDU Kings County DCSS 950-000-34010 64.84
DFT0003795 1/21/2022 SDI 02078 2,768.82
0003539 SDI 950-000-31500 2,768.82
DFT0003796 1/21/2022 SDI (Mgr) 02077 333.84
0003540 Mgr SDI 950-000-31500 333.84
DFT0003797 1/21/2022 Employment Development Dept. 10,232.76 1331 0003541 State WH 950-000-31200 10,232.76
DFT0003798 1/21/2022 United States Treasury 65,664.47 1957 0003542 Fed W/H 950-000-31100 24,066.55
0003542 Social Seccurity 950-000-31300 33,713.28
0003542 Medicare 950-000-31400 7,884.64
DFT0003799 1/21/2022 SDI 02078 146.28
0003543 SDI 950-000-31500 146.28
DFT0003800 1/21/2022 Employment Development Dept. 877.72 1331 0003544 State WH 950-000-31200 877.72
DFT0003801 1/21/2022 United States Treasury 1957 4,981.43 0003545 Fed W/H 950-000-31100 2,925.73
0003545 Social Seccurity 950-000-31300 1,666.04
Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 29 of 35
Payment Amount
Payment Number
Payment Date
Account Number
Vendor #
Payable Number Description Vendor Name Item Amount
0003545 Medicare 950-000-31400 389.66
DFT0003802 1/24/2022 SDI 02078 15.52
0003546 SDI 950-000-31500 15.52
DFT0003803 1/24/2022 Employment Development Dept. 93.13 1331 0003547 State WH 950-000-31200 93.13
DFT0003804 1/24/2022 United States Treasury 1957 526.34 0003548 Fed W/H 950-000-31100 310.44
0003548 Social Seccurity 950-000-31300 174.98
0003548 Medicare 950-000-31400 40.92
DFT0003805 1/28/2022 SDI 02078 3.30
0003555 SDI 950-000-31500 3.30
DFT0003806 1/28/2022 United States Treasury 1957 45.90
0003556 Social Seccurity 950-000-31300 37.20
0003556 Medicare 950-000-31400 8.70
Grand Total: 1,643,921.98
Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 30 of 35
Report Summary
Fund Summary
Fund Payment Amount
101 - GENERAL FUND 115,249.26
105 - COPS GRANT FUND 22,791.91
107 - GAS TAX FUND 6,933.52
110 - LTF - ARTICLE VIII FUND 139,440.12
111 - SB1-ROAD REHAB MAINT ACCT FUND 8,431.50
117 - IGT-INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFER 20,730.40
127 - MEASURE C-FLEXIBLE FUNDING 302.50
140 - GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 703.75
144 - STORM DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL 875.00
150 - COALINGA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTH 700.00
305 - CALTRANS GRANTS FUND 23,721.13
501 - WATER ENTERPRISE FUND 495,822.93
502 - GAS ENTERPRISE FUND 361,678.47
503 - SEWER ENTEPRISE FUND 55,556.41
504 - SANITATION ENTERPRISE FUND 189,199.40
815 - LOW/MOD HOUSING ASSET FUND 2,525.86
820 - RORF-REDEV OBLIG RETIREMT FUND 527.69
950 - PAYROLL TRUST & AGENCY FUND 198,732.13
Grand Total: 1,643,921.98
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Payment Amount
101-000-10400 SMIP Payable 151.73
101-000-10500 State Bldg. Standards Ad 51.00
101-400-41080 Mid Valley Franchise Fee -39,217.53
101-400-48200 Administrative Fees -12.69
101-401-70010 Office Supplies 734.89
101-401-72030 Telephone 215.09
101-401-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 29.61
101-401-86010 Training, Travel, & Confe 1,056.25
101-401-88010 City Attorney Fees 8,931.60
101-401-88020 Outside Attorney Fees 1,702.80
101-401-88040 Computer Programming 84.58
101-401-88100 Professional Services 800.00
101-401-88220 Special Events Expense 3,368.44
101-404-70010 Office Supplies 71.93
101-404-70030 Postage & Freight Out 40.19
101-404-72030 Telephone 125.40
101-404-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 46.11
101-404-86030 Subs., Dues, & PublicaƟo 75.00
101-404-86500 Planning-Reimbursable F 5,950.00
101-404-88040 Computer Programming 109.78
101-404-88120 Reimburseable Bldg Plan 1,820.00
101-404-88180 Cannabis Professional Se 16,285.68
101-405-70010 Office Supplies 172.66
101-405-70160 Gasoline & Diesel 123.36
101-405-72030 Telephone 108.52
101-405-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 1,062.61
101-405-84060 Vehicle Parts, Repairs & 33.67
101-405-86010 Training, Travel, & Confe 268.49
101-405-86030 Subs., Dues, & PublicaƟo 475.00
101-405-88040 Computer Programming 84.58
101-406-70010 Office Supplies 5.49
101-406-72030 Telephone 5.97
101-406-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 9.03
101-406-86010 Training, Travel, & Confe 30.34
101-406-88030 Accounting/Auditing 160.00
Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 31 of 35
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Payment Amount
101-406-88040 Computer Programming 17.65
101-408-70010 Office Supplies 28.42
101-408-72030 Telephone 95.70
101-408-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 123.56
101-408-88040 Computer Programming 55.98
101-408-89010 Personnel Advertising 515.71
101-408-89050 Polygraphs 600.00
101-408-89060 Psychological Evaluation 475.00
101-413-70010 Office Supplies 149.07
101-413-70101 Uniforms-Safety Equipm 234.48
101-413-70160 Gasoline & Diesel 6,365.68
101-413-70380 Inmate Food/Jail Supplie 457.43
101-413-70440 Miscellaneous Supplies 348.35
101-413-72010 Water, Gas, SanitaƟon & 52.81
101-413-72020 Electric 17.93
101-413-72030 Telephone 7,098.27
101-413-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 316.73
101-413-84020 Major Equip. Repairs & 180.00
101-413-84030 Buildings Repairs & Mai 100.00
101-413-84060 Vehicle Parts, Repairs & 13,350.61
101-413-86010 Training, Travel, & Confe 325.00
101-413-86030 Subs., Dues, & PublicaƟo 1,217.21
101-413-88040 Computer Programming 6,001.69
101-413-88100 Professional Services 1,411.22
101-413-90070 Investigative Expenses 43.57
101-413-92211 K9 Program Expense 8,394.81
101-415-72030 Telephone 139.08
101-415-88100 Professional Services 1,800.00
101-415-98020 Buildings & Bldg. Improv 4,480.00
101-416-70160 Gasoline & Diesel 9,834.88
101-416-70440 Miscellaneous Supplies 14.05
101-416-70450 Station Supplies 678.42
101-416-72010 Water, Gas, SanitaƟon & 1,241.21
101-416-72020 Electric 3,608.12
101-416-72030 Telephone 825.83
101-416-75060 Mandated Annual Servic 416.00
101-416-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 1,208.34
101-416-84030 Buildings Repairs & Mai 10,352.60
101-416-84050 Grounds Repairs & Main 28.00
101-416-84060 Vehicle Parts, Repairs & 1,309.47
101-416-84070 Misc. Repairs & Maint. 62.50
101-416-86010 Training, Travel, & Confe 1,405.06
101-416-88040 Computer Programming 631.85
101-431-70100 Uniforms 56.01
101-431-70150 Vehicle Parts & Supplies 24.00
101-431-70160 Gasoline & Diesel 55.28
101-431-72030 Telephone 50.30
101-432-72010 Water, Gas, SanitaƟon & 1,727.91
101-432-72020 Electric 12,827.73
101-432-72030 Telephone 982.85
101-432-84030 Buildings Repairs & Mai 82.00
101-435-72010 Water, Gas, SanitaƟon & 385.50
101-435-72020 Electric 2,314.77
101-435-72030 Telephone 143.67
101-435-84030 Buildings Repairs & Mai 320.13
101-435-92090 Taxes, Licenses, & Fees 104.51
101-440-70060 Small Tools & Equipment 184.49
101-440-70160 Gasoline & Diesel 771.33
Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 32 of 35
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Payment Amount
101-440-72011 Water/Electric - City Plot 3,985.46
101-440-84050 Grounds Repairs & Main 199.51
101-440-84060 Vehicle Parts, Repairs & 2.69
101-440-88100 Professional Services 59.25
105-413-98041 COPS Grant Equipment E 22,791.91
107-422-70010 Office Supplies 13.92
107-422-70100 Uniforms 167.22
107-422-70130 Street Materials 1,796.44
107-422-70160 Gasoline & Diesel 125.20
107-422-70190 Street Stripe Paint 11.38
107-422-72010 Water/Electric - City Plot 3,182.93
107-422-72030 Telephone 26.25
107-422-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 14.18
107-422-84050 Grounds Repairs & Main 10.11
107-422-84060 Vehicle Parts, Repairs & 47.39
107-422-86010 Training, Travel, & Confe 10.11
107-422-88040 Computer Programming 110.89
107-422-88100 Professional Services 1,391.25
107-422-88130 Grant WriƟng/ApplicaƟo 26.25
110-424-72021 Street Light Electricity 9,483.06
110-424-98040 Major Machinery & Equi 129,474.56
110-424-98401 Slurry Seal, Cape Seal 482.50
111-422-98910 Sunset St. Improvement 600.00
111-422-98971 Fresno Street Improvem 1,152.50
111-422-98997 7th Street Improvement 6,679.00
117-416-70010 Office Supplies 6.69
117-416-70102 Uniforms 848.07
117-416-72030 Telephone 22.52
117-416-75000 Medical Equipment & Su 6,661.80
117-416-75020 EMS-Linens 495.32
117-416-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 21.67
117-416-84050 Grounds Repairs & Main 8,968.75
117-416-84060 Vehicle Parts, Repairs & 3,246.16
117-416-86040 Required CerƟficaƟon Tr 48.00
117-416-88040 Computer Programming 13.17
117-416-88100 Professional Services 398.25
127-422-98901 Phelps Ave. Improvemen 302.50
140-422-98881 HSIPL Elm/Cambridge Si 703.75
144-422-98986 Van Ness Storm Drain Ph 875.00
150-751-96501 Fiscal Agent Fees-1998 A 231.00
150-755-96504 Fiscal Agent Fees-2000 R 231.00
150-757-96505 Fiscal Agent Fees-2012 238.00
305-422-98930 Polk St. Improv-5th to El 450.00
305-422-98940 2016 Alley Paving Projec 3,493.25
305-422-98970 ADA Improv-ATP Cycle 0 3,234.50
305-422-98974 CMAQ-NW Trail Seg 1, 2, 11,420.13
305-422-98980 CMAQ-Trail Seg 10/11/1 3,042.50
305-422-98982 Trail Improv-ATP Cycle 4 624.50
305-422-98996 Polk St. Rehab Phase 2 El 1,156.25
305-422-98998 CMAQ Alley Paving Phas 300.00
501-406-70010 Office Supplies 39.84
501-406-70030 Postage & Freight Out 2,516.76
501-406-70040 Printing & Binding 2,311.19
501-406-70160 Gasoline & Diesel 283.72
501-406-72030 Telephone 310.26
501-406-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 127.62
501-406-86010 Training, Travel, & Confe 60.68
501-406-88010 City Attorney Fees 16.67
Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 33 of 35
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Payment Amount
501-406-88030 Accounting/Auditing 240.00
501-406-88040 Computer Programming 239.76
501-406-92090 Taxes, Licenses, & Fees 2,549.50
501-503-70010 Office Supplies 16.13
501-503-70100 Uniforms 123.81
501-503-70140 Utility Parts & Supplies 1,016.66
501-503-70160 Gasoline & Diesel 971.11
501-503-70202 Lab Supplies 912.36
501-503-70220 Chemicals Zinc Ortho 40,376.18
501-503-70230 Chemicals Chlorine 2,891.43
501-503-70240 Chemicals Aluminate Sul 9,440.30
501-503-72010 Water, Gas, SanitaƟon & 89.62
501-503-72020 Electric 304,776.22
501-503-72030 Telephone 706.33
501-503-80010 Water Purchases 27,497.92
501-503-82030 Equipment Rental 32.00
501-503-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 47.13
501-503-84020 Major Equip. Repairs & 20,374.13
501-503-84030 Buildings Repairs & Mai 1,276.90
501-503-84060 Vehicle Parts, Repairs & 13.49
501-503-88010 City Attorney Fees 1,425.38
501-503-88040 Computer Programming 169.61
501-503-88100 Professional Services 24,501.22
501-503-88130 Grant WriƟng/ApplicaƟo 724.50
501-503-92090 Taxes, Licenses, & Fees 11,331.00
501-503-98441 Water Revenue Bond Pr 33,162.41
501-508-70010 Office Supplies 38.31
501-508-70060 Small Tools & Equipment 20.70
501-508-70100 Uniforms 167.24
501-508-70130 Street Materials 136.31
501-508-70140 Utility Parts & Supplies 403.90
501-508-70160 Gasoline & Diesel 771.35
501-508-72020 Electric 437.17
501-508-72030 Telephone 212.66
501-508-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 14.75
501-508-84060 Vehicle Parts, Repairs & 47.38
501-508-86010 Training, Travel, & Confe 356.70
501-508-88040 Computer Programming 116.37
501-508-88100 Professional Services 1,856.25
501-508-88130 Grant WriƟng/ApplicaƟo 672.00
502-406-70010 Office Supplies 35.14
502-406-70030 Postage & Freight Out 2,202.16
502-406-70040 Printing & Binding 2,022.32
502-406-70160 Gasoline & Diesel 248.26
502-406-72030 Telephone 272.42
502-406-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 112.58
502-406-86010 Training, Travel, & Confe 50.56
502-406-88010 City Attorney Fees 14.58
502-406-88030 Accounting/Auditing 80.00
502-406-88040 Computer Programming 210.34
502-406-92090 Taxes, Licenses, & Fees 2,230.81
502-510-70010 Office Supplies 38.30
502-510-70060 Small Tools & Equipment 20.70
502-510-70100 Uniforms 383.24
502-510-70140 Utility Parts & Supplies 3,379.70
502-510-70160 Gasoline & Diesel 771.35
502-510-70440 Miscellaneous Supplies 47.36
502-510-72020 Electric 1,829.08
Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 34 of 35
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Payment Amount
502-510-72030 Telephone 546.10
502-510-80020 PG&E Wholesale Transp 93,001.33
502-510-80030 Gas Purchases for Resale 250,343.46
502-510-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 48.34
502-510-84060 Vehicle Parts, Repairs & 2.69
502-510-88040 Computer Programming 279.40
502-510-88100 Professional Services 2,836.25
502-510-88130 Grant WriƟng/ApplicaƟo 672.00
503-406-70010 Office Supplies 19.64
503-406-70030 Postage & Freight Out 1,447.13
503-406-70040 Printing & Binding 1,328.95
503-406-70160 Gasoline & Diesel 163.14
503-406-72030 Telephone 155.70
503-406-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 62.91
503-406-86010 Training, Travel, & Confe 38.43
503-406-88010 City Attorney Fees 9.58
503-406-88030 Accounting/Auditing 232.00
503-406-88040 Computer Programming 119.34
503-406-92090 Taxes, Licenses, & Fees 1,465.96
503-520-70010 Office Supplies 14.47
503-520-70100 Uniforms 123.79
503-520-70140 Utility Parts & Supplies 1,095.40
503-520-70160 Gasoline & Diesel 218.76
503-520-72010 Water, Gas, SanitaƟon & 1,656.14
503-520-72020 Electric 28,803.43
503-520-72030 Telephone 144.08
503-520-82030 Equipment Rental 16.00
503-520-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 49.14
503-520-84020 Major Equip. Repairs & 727.20
503-520-84030 Buildings Repairs & Mai 30.00
503-520-88040 Computer Programming 220.66
503-520-88080 Laboratory 85.89
503-520-88100 Professional Services 1,200.00
503-520-88130 Grant WriƟng/ApplicaƟo 672.00
503-520-98040 Major Machinery & Equi 8,155.69
503-521-70010 Office Supplies 22.16
503-521-70100 Uniforms 167.20
503-521-70130 Street Materials 96.77
503-521-70140 Utility Parts & Supplies 61.57
503-521-70160 Gasoline & Diesel 771.34
503-521-70440 Miscellaneous Supplies 112.72
503-521-72010 Water, Gas, SanitaƟon & 225.35
503-521-72020 Electric 1,524.24
503-521-72030 Telephone 350.17
503-521-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 8.18
503-521-84020 Major Equip. Repairs & 404.10
503-521-84030 Buildings Repairs & Mai 47.41
503-521-84060 Vehicle Parts, Repairs & 47.37
503-521-88040 Computer Programming 218.44
503-521-88100 Professional Services 1,200.00
503-521-88130 Grant WriƟng/ApplicaƟo 672.00
503-521-98994 La Questa LiŌ StaƟon Re 1,371.96
504-406-70010 Office Supplies 2.16
504-406-70030 Postage & Freight Out 125.84
504-406-70040 Printing & Binding 115.53
504-406-70160 Gasoline & Diesel 14.19
504-406-72030 Telephone 16.08
504-406-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 6.92
Expense Approval Report Payment Dates: 1/1/2022 - 1/31/2022 2/16/2022 8:21:56 AM Page 35 of 35
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Payment Amount
504-406-86010 Training, Travel, & Confe 2.02
504-406-88010 City Attorney Fees 0.84
504-406-88030 Accounting/Auditing 8.00
504-406-88040 Computer Programming 12.32
504-406-92090 Taxes, Licenses, & Fees 127.48
504-530-88170 Mid Valley SanitaƟon Se 187,310.61
504-535-70100 Uniforms 57.65
504-535-70160 Gasoline & Diesel 1,308.32
504-535-72030 Telephone 3.78
504-535-84060 Vehicle Parts, Repairs & 48.16
504-535-88100 Professional Services 39.50
815-609-88100 Professional Services 2,525.86
820-610-70010 Office Supplies 0.56
820-610-72030 Telephone 4.12
820-610-84010 Office Equip. Repairs & 1.81
820-610-86010 Training, Travel, & Confe 10.11
820-610-88030 Accounting/Auditing 80.00
820-610-88040 Computer Programming 1.09
820-610-88100 Professional Services 430.00
950-000-31100 Federal Withholding 47,595.11
950-000-31200 State Income Tax Withh 19,716.41
950-000-31300 FICA Withheld 67,148.12
950-000-31400 Medicare Insurance Wit 15,704.28
950-000-31500 State Disability Insuranc 6,182.97
950-000-32100 Employee Deferred Com 30,261.44
950-000-32350 ER Long Term Disability 2,578.82
950-000-32400 Life Insurance 1,051.57
950-000-33000 CLOCEA Dues Withheld 1,502.25
950-000-33200 CPOA Dues Withheld 1,758.24
950-000-33300 Fire Assoc. Dues Withhel 1,960.00
950-000-34010 Other W/H Garnishment 1,395.66
950-000-34050 Garnishment Service Fe 682.90
950-000-34060 Prepaid Legal Services 296.38
950-000-34500 Unreimbursed Med/Dep 822.98
950-000-34610 AFLAC AdministraƟon Fe 75.00
Grand Total: 1,643,921.98
Project Account Summary
Project Account Key Payment Amount
**None** 1,643,921.98
Grand Total: 1,643,921.98
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Approve Loan Forgiveness Program for Coalinga Residents Hired as Police Officers with Coalinga Police Department
Meeting Date: Thursday, March 3, 2022
From: Marissa Trejo, City Manager
Prepared by: Marissa Trejo, City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
This item was requested as a future agenda item by Councilman Adkisson. City Manager recommends.
II. BACKGROUND:
Currently, the City of Coalinga has multiple Police Officer vacancies. Agencies throughout California are struggling to hire Police Officers. Councilman Adkisson's idea with this program is to encourage local Coalinga residents to become Police Officers to serve their own community in hopes this will not only help recruit Police Officers, but also help retain Police Officers long term as Coalinga is already their home.
III. DISCUSSION:
In order to try to recruit Coalinga residents to become Police Officers, Councilman Adkisson has requested a future agenda item which would provide student loan forgiveness.
Program Guidelines:
Coalinga residents who enroll in a police academy and obtain a Basic POST Certificate who are then hired by the City of Coalinga as a Police Officer may have their student loans forgiven based on the following schedule:
$3,000 payable to the loan provider on behalf of the Police Officer after successfully completing one year of service to the City of Coalinga, passing probation, and obtaining at minimum overall rating of competent on the annual performance evaluation;
$3,000 payable to the loan provider on behalf of the Police Officer after successfully completing two years of service to the City of Coalinga and obtaining a minimum overall rating of competent on the annual performance evaluation;
$3,000 payable to the loan provider on behalf of the Police Officer after successfully completing three years of service to the City of Coalinga and obtaining a minimum overall rating of competent on the annual performance evaluation;
$3,000 payable to the loan provider on behalf of the Police Officer after successfully completing four years of service to the City of Coalinga and obtaining a minimum overall rating of competent on the annual performance evaluation.
The loan forgiveness maximum is $12,000 which should be a sufficient amount for a Coalinga citizen to obtain in order to fully fund the cost of the Police Academy and other associated costs such as commuting.
To be eligible for loan forgiveness, Police Officers would need to provide acceptable proof to the City Manager verifying that they were residents of the City of Coalinga prior to enrolling in the Police Academy and that they started the Police Academy after this program was approved by the Coalinga City Council.
Participants are required to secure their own loans. The City will not be a party on the loan or responsible for loan repayment.
If a Coalinga resident obtains a loan and a Basic POST Certificate, there is no guarantee of an employment offer from the City of Coalinga.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
Do not approve.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
The total fiscal impact would be up to $12,000 per hired Police Officer who meets the criteria. The cost would come from the General Fund and is not budgeted. However, the true cost will likely be offset by reduced employee turnover.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
NoAttachments Available
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Direct Staff to Bring Council Cost Estimates and Proposed Locations for a Dog Park
Meeting Date: Thursday, March 3, 2022
From: Marissa Trejo, City Manager
Prepared by: Marissa Trejo, City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
This item was requested as a Future Agenda Item by Councilman Ramirez. There is no staff recommendation.
II. BACKGROUND:
III. DISCUSSION:
This item would direct staff to prepare proposed locations and estimates for a dog park.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
Do not direct staff to bring back estimates and site proposals.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
NoAttachments Available
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Direct Staff to Bring Council Cost Estimates for Installing Cement or Decorative Rock throughout Sunset Street Parkway
Meeting Date: March 3, 2022
From: Marissa Trejo, City Manager
Prepared by: Sean Brewer, Assistant City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
This is a future agenda item requested by Councilman Adkisson. There is no staff recommendation.
II. BACKGROUND:
III. DISCUSSION:
This item directs staff to bring back cost estimates to have cement or decorative rock installed throughout Sunset Street Parkway.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
Do not direct staff to bring back cost estimates.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
NoAttachments Available
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Adopt Resolution No. 4070 Approving Caltrans Proposed Project (06-0X290) on Highway 33
Meeting Date: March 3, 2022
From: Marissa Trejo, City Manager
Prepared by: Sean Brewer, Assistant City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
City Manager and Assistant City Manager recommend Adopting Resolution Approving Caltrans Proposed Project (06-0X290)
II. BACKGROUND:
This is the second in a series of presentations to the City Council (Council) by Caltrans. The first meeting occurred on February 18, 2021.
Caltrans is currently designing improvements on SR 33 within the City. The project limits are from the intersection of Merced Avenue (PM 14.7) to Los Gatos Creek South Channel Bridge (PM 16.7). As noted at the June 2, 2021 and February 3
rd Council meetings, Caltrans is proposing complete streets elements be constructed downtown within this Project.
This second meeting (3/3/2022) willallow Council the opportunity to formally consider Caltrans proposed plan, make recommendations to be included in the plan and approve if Council determines the proposal to be in the interest of and benefit of the City of Coalinga.
III. DISCUSSION:
The complete street elements advance our goal to engage the community and collaborate with local officials and incorporate active transportation to our local state highways that serve as main streets in our small rural and disadvantage communities. The project fulfills the City of Coalinga needs as identified by the City of Coalinga Active Transportation Plan to increase walking, biking, and the use of public transportation to improve air quality and enhance the safety of schoolchildren and their families who travel to and from school.
Furthermore, the bicycle lanes, and the enhanced crosswalks will promote riding and walking since the center of the city is within a 5-minute bike ride and 10-minute walking from most places.
Caltrans noted that the project is anticipated to cost $13.5 million, which includes $5.2 million for complete street enhancements as described below. The project scope is described below.
The scope of the Project includes:
Complete Street elements from the intersection of Elm Street and 5th Street (PM 15.7) to Cambridge Avenue (PM 16.6) in the Downtown Area (slightly less than 1 mile in length) include:
Road reduction (road diet)
Center turning lane
On-street parking
Pedestrian refuge islands
Curb extension bulb out at the sidewalks
New sidewalk to eliminate gaps
Green striping at conflict zones
One new transit bus stop
Enhanced cross walks and additionalcross walks
Rectangular rapid flashing beacons
Class II buffered and Class II bike lanes
Bike parking
Class II buffered bike lanes and Class II bike lanes are proposed for the rest of the project limits except between Merced Avenue and Thompson Street and between Forrest Avenue and Elm Avenue where the existing pavement is too narrow to accommodate. The incorporation of the bike lane will eliminate on-street parking.
Reconstruction of 6.3 miles of existing pavement
Installation and/or upgrade of 61 curb ramps
High visibility crosswalk striping
Installation of traffic signalcomponents
New sidewalks to eliminate gaps
Rectangular rapid flashing beacons
A complete street is a transportation facility that is planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe and inclusive mobility for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit vehicles, truckers, and motorists, appropriate to the function and context of the facility. Every complete street looks different, according to its context, community preferences, the types of road users, and their needs.
The purpose of this meeting is to provided Council the opportunity to consider approval of Caltrans proposal of a road diet to reduce the number of travel lanes. Council willalso have a greater opportunity to address specific design criteria that might normally be accommodate under a workshop setting.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
Do not support the project and do not approve Resolution No. 4070 - Staff does not recommend.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
There will not be a fiscal impact to the City General Fund associated directly with this project nor is it anticipated the project itself will have an impact as the project is managed and funded by Caltrans.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
Resolution_No._4070_-_Support_of_HWY33_Project.docx Resolution No. 4070 - HWY33 Improvement Project RESOLUTION NO. 4070
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COALINGA,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING CALTRANS PROPOSED COMPLETE STREETS AND ROADWAY REHABILITATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (06-
0X290)
WHEREAS, Caltrans is currently in the project and environmental document approval (PA&ED) stage for the Downtown Coalinga Complete Streets and Roadway Rehabilitation Project (06-0X290); and
WHEREAS, Caltrans has assigned $14.5 million toward to this Project; and WHEREAS, time is of the essence to ensure moving forward to completion of this Project; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the proposed project includes complete street improvements (road diet) that reduces the number of through travel lanes from 4 to 3 lanes along with buffered bike lanes from 5th Street to just north of Cambridge Avenue and will Class II buffered bike lanes and Class II bike lanes are proposed for the rest of the project limits except between Merced Avenue and Thompson Street and between Forrest Avenue and Elm Avenue where the existing pavement is too narrow to accommodate. The incorporation of the bike lane will eliminate various areas of on-street parking.
WHEREAS, priorto completing PA&ED, Caltrans has asked for formal approval by the City to reduce the number of travel lanes and remove on-street parking on Polk Street throughout various blocks to accommodate bike lanes.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COALINGA hereby resolves, finds, determines and orders as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct.
2. The City is in favor of completion of this Project (06- 0X290)
3. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption. * * * * * * * *
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was passed and adopted by the City of Coalinga this 3 rd day of March,
2022.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Signed: ________________________________
ATTEST: Mayor/Mayor Pro-Tem
Signed:
City Clerk/Deputy City Clerk
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Adopt Resolution No. 4071 Formally Adopting the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan Approved at a Noticed Public Hearing on February 17, 2022
Meeting Date: March 3, 2022
From: Marissa Trejo, City Manager
Prepared by: Larry Miller, Public Works & Utilities Coordinator I. RECOMMENDATION:
Counciladoption of Resolution No. 4071 adopting the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan that was originally approved on February 17, 2022.
II. BACKGROUND:
On February 17, 2022, City Council voted to adopt the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan however the resolution was not attached for formalapproval.
III. DISCUSSION:
On February 17 2022, the Council voted to adopt this plan. Authorizing this item means the Resolution will be adopted according to the votes cast at the February 17, 2022 Council Meeting.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
Council may reject the authorization to adopt by resolution according to votes cast during the February 17 th
,
2022 meeting, and instead restart the public hearing process. Staff does not recommend this course of action.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
RESO#4071_2020UWMP.docx Resolution No. 4071 - 2020 UWMP RESOLUTION # 4071
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COALINGA ADOPTING THE 2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN TO BE
SUBMITTED TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES WHEREAS, the California legislature has enacted the Urban Water Management Plan Planning Act, California Water Code Sections 10610-10656, as amended which requires every urban water supplier providing water to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (“Plans”) that has as its primary objective the conservation and efficient use of water, and WHEREAS, the City of Coalinga (“City”), a municipal utility, is an urban water supplier providing water to a population over 17,000; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted a Plan in 2015 in accordance with State requirements; and WHEREAS, the Plans must be reviewed at least once every five years by the City, which must amend the Plans, as necessary, after it has conducted a review; and
WHEREAS, the preparation of the updated Plans has been coordinated with other public agencies to the extent practicable; and
WHEREAS, the Plans must be adopted, after its first made available for public inspection and public hearing is noticed and held, and must be filed with the California Department of Water Resources within thirty days of adoption; and WHEREAS, a noticed public hearing on the draft Plans were held by City Council on February 17, 2022, at which time public comments were heard and considered.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COALINGA THAT:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby adopts the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan of the City of Coalinga, which shall be filed with the City Clerk. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to file the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan of the City of Coalinga with the California Department of Water Resources.
SECTION 2. The Council finds and determines that, under California Water Code Section 10652, the adoption of the Plan and this Resolution does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no environmental assessment is required.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Coalinga held on this 3rd day of March, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
ABSENT:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
_______________________________________
Ron Ramsey, Mayor, City of Coalinga
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Shannon Jensen, City Clerk, City of Coalinga
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Adopt Resolution No. 4072 Approving the City of Coalinga’s Local Road Safety Plan Included in the Multijurisdictional Local Safety Plan Meeting Date: March 3, 2022
From: Marissa Trejo, City Manager
Prepared by: Larry Miller, Public Works & Utilities Coordinator I. RECOMMENDATION:
Counciladoption of Resolution No. 4072 approving the Local Road Safety Plan.
II. BACKGROUND:
The Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MLRSP) was initiated by FCOG and completed by their consultants Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) and Toole Design Group (TDG) to enable ten of the FCOG member agencies 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.
III. DISCUSSION:
The MLRSP document presents an LRSP for each of the above local agencies, including the City of Coalinga. The LRSPs were informed by technical analysis as well as input from key stakeholders and input from the general public. The introductory chapter of the MLRSP describes the process used to develop the plans, the types of strategies identified for each localagency, and FCOG’s regional efforts to improve roadway safety. The next ten chapters of the MLRSP then presents each local jurisdiction’s LRSP. The City of Coalinga's LRSP is included in Chapter 8.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
Do not adopt Resolution No. 4072 approving the Local Road Safety Plan. Staff does not recommend.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact of approval of this document. FCOG funded the preparation of the MLRSP. The Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans will now be requiring a municipality to have an approved LRSP in order to apply for funding through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) starting with the upcoming cycle.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
RESO#4072_MultiJurisdictional_Local_Road_Safety_PLan_(MJLRSP)_030322.pdfResolution No. 4072 - Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan
Fresno-COG-MLRSP_Final-Report-Part-1.pdf MLRSP Document RESOLUTION NO. 4072
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COALINGA APPROVING THE CITY OF COALINGA’S LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN INCLUDED IN THE
MULTIJURISDICTIONAL LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Coalinga (“City”), has the authority to construct and maintain its streets and roads to provide a roadway network that serves the needs of the community through quality infrastructure and environment; and
WHEREAS, Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) initiated the preparation of the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan (MJLRSP) to enable ten of the member agencies to prepare their first Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP); and
WHEREAS, the City has worked with the FCOG and their consultant team to develop a LRSP which analyzes historical crash patterns and trends in order to identity countermeasures to reduce the number and severity of future crashes; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP will increase the City’s eligibility for various transportation grant programs, including the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), and will provide additional guidance for the development of safe streets and roads.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COALINGA THAT, the City Council of the City of Coalinga hereby approves the City of Coalinga’s Local Road Safety Plan as included in the Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety Plan dated January 2022 by FCOG.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Coalinga at a regular meeting held on this 3rd day of March, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
ABSENT:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
_______________________________________
Ron Ramsey, Mayor, City of Coalinga
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Shannon Jensen, City Clerk, City of Coalinga
January 2022
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 highinjury 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 highinjury 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.”
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.
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.
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 collision type or primary collision factor was not listed as Top 3 for a jurisdiction, then the countermeasure was given a low priority.
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 crashesthat 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.
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.
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.
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.
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, vehiclepedestrian, 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.
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)
2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS
15 ▪ Coordination with other local agencies and/or safety partners (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.
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
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 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.
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
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 VehicleFixed 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.
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 share 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
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
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
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
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, the 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
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 way4 (13 percent). These three PCFs account for 56 percent of reported crashes.
▪ The three PCFs most frequent among fatal/severe injury crashes are pedestrian violation5 (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
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
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
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 18
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
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
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
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
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
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
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
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
Clovis
Fresno
BARSTOW AVE
W ASHLAN AVE
SUNNYSIDE AVE
N FOWLER AVE
NEES AVE
SHAW AVE
N TEMPERANCE AVE
W TEAGUE AVE
W BULLARD AVE 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
MILLB
R
O
O
K
AV
N INGRAM AVE
E
ALLUVIAL AVE
FOWLER AVE
N LOCAN AVE
N CEDAR AVE
E GETTYSBURG AVE
N
M
APLE A VE
HARLAN RANCH BLVD
E SHIELDS AVE
HERNDON AVE
E SHAW AVE
N
S
U
N
N
YSIDE 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
E COLEAVE
N
FRIANT
RD
N MINNEWAWA AVE
E HERNDON AVE
WILLOW AVE
W BARSTOW AVE
SHEPHERD AVE
W AUDUBON DR
W ALLUVIAL AVE
E PERRIN AVE
FIFTH ST
N SOMMERVILLE D
R
E CHAMPLAI N DR
W SHAW AVE
N CHESTNUT AVE
N FRES
N
O
S
T
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
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
! !
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
! !
! !
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
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
MILLB
R
O
O
K
AV
N INGRAM AVE
E
ALLUVIAL AVE
N PEACH AVE
FOWLER AVE
N LOCAN AVE
N CEDAR AVE
E GETTYSBURG AVE
N
M
APLE AVE
HARLAN RANCH BLVD
E SHIELDS AVE
HERNDON AVE
E SHAW AVE
N
S
U
N
N
YS
DI E 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
E COLEAVE
N
FRIANT
RD
N MINNEWAWA AVE
E HERNDON AVE
WILLOW AVE
W BARSTOW AVE
SHEPHERD AVE
W AUDUBON DR
W ALLUVIAL AVE
E PERRIN AVE
FIFTH ST
N SOMMERVILLE D
R
E CHAMPLAI N DR
W SHAW AVE
N CHESTNUT AVE
N FRES
N
O
S
T
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
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
MILLB
R
O
O
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
S
U
N
N
Y
S
DI E 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 D
R
E CHAMPLA IN DR
N FRUIT AVE
E CLINTON AVE
N CHESTNUT AVE
N
F
RES
N
O
S
T
GETTYSBURG AVE
E DAKOTA AVE
DE WOLF AVE
N DE WOLF AVE
N WILLOW AVE
E AIRWAYS 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 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
MILLB
R
O
O
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 PLE
AV
E
N ACADEMY AVE
E SHIELDS AVE
HERNDON AVE
N
S
U
N
N
YS
DI E 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 D
R
E CHAMPLA IN DR
N FRUIT AVE
E CLINTON AVE
N CHESTNUT AVE
N
F
RES
N
O
S
T
GETTYSBURG AVE
E DAKOTA AVE
DE WOLF AVE
N DE WOLF AVE
N WILLOW AVE
E AIRWAY S 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
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.
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.
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, vehiclepedestrian, 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
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.
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
MILLB
R
O
O
K
AV
N INGRAM AVE
E
ALLUVIAL AVE
FOWLER AVE
N LOCAN AVE
N CEDAR AVE
E GETTYSBURG AVE
N
M
APLE A VE
HARLAN RANCH BLVD
E SHIELDS AVE
HERNDON AVE
E SHAW AVE
N
S
U
N
N
YSIDE 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
E COLEAVE
N
FRIANT
RD
N MINNEWAWA AVE
E HERNDON AVE
WILLO
W
AV
E
W BARSTOW AVE
SHEPHERD AVE
W AUDUBON DR
W ALLUVIAL AVE
E PERRIN AVE
N SOMMERVILLE D
R
E CHAMPLAI N DR
W SHAW AVE
N CHESTNUT AVE
N FRES
N
O
S
T
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
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
W BULLARD AVE 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
MILLB
R
O
O
K
AV
N INGRAM AVE
E
ALLUVIAL AVE
FOWLER AVE
N LOCAN AVE
N CEDAR AVE
E GETTYSBURG AVE
N
M
APLE A VE
HARLAN RANCH BLVD
E SHIELDS AVE
HERNDON AVE
N
S
U
N
N
Y
SIDE 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
E COLEAVE
N
FRIANT
RD
N MINNEWAWA AVE
E HERNDON AVE
WILLOW AVE
W BARSTOW AVE
SHEPHERD AVE
W AUDUBON DR
W ALLUVIAL AVE
E PERRIN AVE
FIFTH ST
N SOMMERVILLE D
R
E CHAMPLAI N DR
W SHAW AVE
N CHESTNUT AVE
N FRES
N
O
S
T
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
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
MILLB
R
O
O
K
AV
N INGRAM AVE
E
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 RANCH BLVD
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
E COLEAVE
N
FRIANT
RD
E HERNDON AVE
WILLOW AVE
W BARSTOW AVE
SHEPHERD AVE
W AUDUBON DR
W ALLUVIAL AVE
E PERRIN AVE
FIFTH ST
N SOMMERVILLE D
R
E CHAMPLAI N DR
W SHAW AVE
N CHESTNUT AVE
N FRES
N
O
S
T
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.
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
MILLB
R
O
O
K
AV
N INGRAM AVE
E
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 RANCH BLVD
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
E COLEAVE
N
FRIANT
R
D
E HERNDON AVE
WILLOW AVE
W BARSTOW AVE
SHEPHERD AVE
W AUDUBON DR
W ALLUVIAL AVE
E PERRIN AVE
FIFTH ST
N SOMMERVILLE D
R
E CHAMPLAI N DR
W SHAW AVE
N CHESTNUT AVE
N FRES
N
O
S
T
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.
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
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
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
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 PedViolation 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
2.0 CITY OF CLOVIS
51 # Location Classification
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number
of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Unsafe
Speed DUI PedViolation 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.
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
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-thanaverage 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).
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. 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !
!
!! !!! !! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
! !
! ! !
!
! !!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
Coalinga
W POLK ST
N SUNSET ST
E 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
WARTHAM CANYON
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
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
! !!
! !!
!
!
!
!
! !! !!! !!!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!! !!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !!! !!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
! !!
!
! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!!
!
!
! !! !! !!!
! !!
! ! ! ! !!
!
! !! !! !!
! ! !
!! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!
!
!
!
Coalinga
W POLK ST
N SUNSET ST
E 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
WARTHAM CANYON
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
Coalinga
W POLK ST E 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
CANYON RD
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
Coalinga
W POLK ST E 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
C
ALAVERA
S
AVE
N OIL CITY RD
PHELPS AVE
WARTHAM CANYON RD
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
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.
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 vehiclepedestrian 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.
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.
Coalinga
W POLK ST
N SUNSET ST
E 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
WARTHAM CANYON
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 [ Collision Type 0 0.6Miles ! Rear End ! Vehicle-Pedestrian ! Sideswipe Coalinga
W POLK ST
N SUNSET ST
E 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
WARTHAM CANYON
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 BackingCity 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
Coalinga
W POLK ST
N SUNSET ST
E 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
WARTHAM CANYON
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 [ Collision Type 0 0.6Miles ! Rear End ! Sideswipe Priority Roadways
Coalinga
W POLK ST
N SUNSET ST
E 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
WARTHAM CANYON
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
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
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
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
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
Sideswipe 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
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 transportation engineering and planning, communications, traffic enforcement, school transportation, and other jurisdictional staff who work with the roadway system.
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.
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 higherthan-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).
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. 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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 VehicleFixed 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.
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
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
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
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, the 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 collision 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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! Firebaugh SAIPAN AVE
CLYDE FANNON RD
THIRTE
E
N
T
H
S
T
P ST
N DOS PALOS RD
CARDELLA
W NEES AVE
ST
N ST
W BULLARD AVE
N WASHOE AVE
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
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!!! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!!
! ! !!
! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !!
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
Firebaugh
SAIPAN AVE
CLYDE FANNON RD
THIRTEENTH ST
P ST
N DOS PALOS RD
C
ARDELLA
W NEES AVE ST
N ST
W BULLARD AVE
N
WAS
H
O
E AVE
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
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
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
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.
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.
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 vehiclepedestrian, 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.
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.
Firebaugh
SAI
PAN AVE
CLYDE FANNON RD
THIRTE
E
N
T
H
S
T
P ST
N DOS PALOS RD
CARDELLA
W NEES AVE
ST
N ST
W BULLARD AVE
N WASHOE AVE
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 [ Collision Type 0 0.45Miles ! Vehicle-Pedestrian ! Head On ! Hit Object Firebaugh
SAI
PAN AVE
CLYDE FANNON RD
THIRTE
E
N
T
H
S
T
P ST
N DOS PALOS RD
CARDELLA
W NEES AVE
ST
N ST
W BULLARD AVE
N WASHOE AVE
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\Firebaugh\Intx_PCF_Firebaugh.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Primary Collision Factors ! Pedestrian Violation ! Automobile Right of Way ! Other Improper Driving City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 55
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Primary Collision Factors Jurisdiction Results: Firebaugh
Fresno Council of Governments [ 0 0.45Miles
Firebaugh
SAI
PAN 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\Firebaugh\Rdwy_CrashType_Firebaugh.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 56
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Roadway Collision Types
Jurisdiction Results: Firebaugh
Fresno Council of Governments [ Collision Type 0 0.45Miles ! Head On ! Hit Object Priority Roadways
Firebaugh
SAI
PAN 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\Firebaugh\Rdwy_PCF_Firebaugh.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Primary Collision Factors ! Other Improper Driving
Priority Roadways
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 57
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Roadway Primary Collision Factors Jurisdiction Results: Firebaugh
Fresno Council of Governments [ 0 0.45Miles
4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH
122
Table 24 and Table 25 provide information for the top 46 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 24. 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
Vehicle/
Ped Head On Hit Object Other
1 N ST & SAIPAN AVE Unsignalized 43.12 7 0 2 0 5
2 N ST & NINTH ST Unsignalized 38.25 2 0 1 0 1
3 THIRTEENTH ST & N ST Signal 28.16 7 1 0 0 6
4 TWELFTH ST & N ST Signal 25.71 10 0 1 0 9
5 N ST & CLYDE FANNON RD Unsignalized 5.47 7 1 0 0 6
6 N ST & ELEVENTH ST Unsignalized 4.36 7 0 0 0 7
7 TWELFTH ST & M ST Unsignalized 2.74 4 0 0 0 4
8 CLINE ST & R ST Unsignalized 2.43 2 1 0 0 1
9 THIRTEENTH ST & P ST Unsignalized 2.42 7 1 0 1 5
10 SAN DIEGO AVE & BULLARD
AVE Unsignalized 2.34 2 0 0 2 0
11 N ST & FOURTEENTH ST Unsignalized 2.34 2 0 0 0 2
12 THIRTEENTH ST & O ST Unsignalized 2.22 6 0 1 0 5
13 O ST & SIXTEENTH ST Unsignalized 2.14 1 1 0 0 0
14 DOS PALOS RD & SIERRA AVE Unsignalized 1.62 3 0 0 0 3 15 FIFTEENTH ST & R ST Unsignalized 1.22 1 0 0 0 1
16 P ST & CLINE ST Unsignalized 1.22 1 0 0 0 1
17 CLYDE FANNON RD &
MENDOZA DR Unsignalized 1.22 1 0 1 0 0
18 ELEVENTH ST & P ST Unsignalized 0.60 3 0 0 1 2
19 N ST & EIGHTH ST Unsignalized 0.60 3 0 0 1 2
20 SAIPAN AVE & O ST Unsignalized 0.40 2 0 0 0 2
21 N ST & FIFTEENTH ST Unsignalized 0.40 2 0 0 0 2
22 YIP ST & P ST Unsignalized 0.40 2 0 1 0 1
23 CLYDE FANNON RD & P ST Unsignalized 0.40 2 0 0 0 2
24 N ST & MORRIS KYLE DR Unsignalized 0.40 2 0 1 0 1
25 ALDER WAY & OAK ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
26 HELM CANAL RD & BIRCH DR Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1 27 HELM CANAL RD & POPLAR
WAY Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 1 0
28 SAIPAN AVE & CORREGIDOR
AVE Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
29 SAIPAN AVE & GREENACRE
ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
30 SIXTEENTH ST & Q ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
31 THIRTEENTH ST & M ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH
123
# Location Control Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Collision Type
Vehicle/
Ped Head On Hit Object Other
32 FOURTEENTH ST & O ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 1 0 0
33 FOURTEENTH ST & P ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
34 TWELFTH ST & P ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
35 ELEVENTH ST & O ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
36 TENTH ST & O ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
37 NINTH ST & O ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 1 0
38 NINTH ST & P ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
39 EIGHTH ST & P ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 1 0
40 SEVENTH ST & P ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
41 N ST & YIP ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
42 CLINE ST & Q ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 1 0 0
43 CLINE ST & T ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
44 ZOZAYA ST & ALLARDT DR Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
45 ALLARDT DR & MENDOZA DR Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
46 CLYDE FANNON RD &
BORBOA LN Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three collision types Table 25. 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
Pedestrian
Violation Auto ROW
Other
Improper
Driving
Other
1 N ST & SAIPAN AVE Unsignalized 43.12 7 1 0 1 5
2 N ST & NINTH ST Unsignalized 38.25 2 0 1 0 2
3 THIRTEENTH ST & N ST Signal 28.16 7 1 0 1 5
4 TWELFTH ST & N ST Signal 25.71 10 1 2 3 6
5 N ST & CLYDE FANNON RD Unsignalized 5.47 7 0 4 0 7
6 N ST & ELEVENTH ST Unsignalized 4.36 7 0 4 0 7
7 TWELFTH ST & M ST Unsignalized 2.74 4 0 0 1 3
8 CLINE ST & R ST Unsignalized 2.43 2 0 0 0 2
9 THIRTEENTH ST & P ST Unsignalized 2.42 7 0 1 3 4
10 SAN DIEGO AVE & BULLARD
AVE
Unsignalized 2.34 2 0 0 0 2
11 N ST & FOURTEENTH ST Unsignalized 2.34 2 0 0 0 2
12 THIRTEENTH ST & O ST Unsignalized 2.22 6 0 2 2 4
13 O ST & SIXTEENTH ST Unsignalized 2.14 1 1 0 0 0
14 DOS PALOS RD & SIERRA AVE Unsignalized 1.62 3 0 0 0 3 15 FIFTEENTH ST & R ST Unsignalized 1.22 1 0 0 0 1
16 P ST & CLINE ST Unsignalized 1.22 1 0 0 0 1
4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH
124
# Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Pedestrian
Violation Auto ROW
Other
Improper
Driving
Other
17 CLYDE FANNON RD &
MENDOZA DR
Unsignalized 1.22 1 0 0 1 0
18 ELEVENTH ST & P ST Unsignalized 0.60 3 0 0 1 2
19 N ST & EIGHTH ST Unsignalized 0.60 3 0 1 1 2
20 SAIPAN AVE & O ST Unsignalized 0.40 2 0 0 0 2
21 N ST & FIFTEENTH ST Unsignalized 0.40 2 0 0 0 2
22 YIP ST & P ST Unsignalized 0.40 2 0 0 0 2
23 CLYDE FANNON RD & P ST Unsignalized 0.40 2 0 0 0 2
24 N ST & MORRIS KYLE DR Unsignalized 0.40 2 0 1 0 2
25 ALDER WAY & OAK ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
26 HELM CANAL RD & BIRCH DR Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1 27 HELM CANAL RD & POPLAR
WAY
Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
28 SAIPAN AVE & CORREGIDOR
AVE
Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 1 0
29 SAIPAN AVE & GREENACRE ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1 30 SIXTEENTH ST & Q ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 1 0 1
31 THIRTEENTH ST & M ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
32 FOURTEENTH ST & O ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
33 FOURTEENTH ST & P ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 1 0
34 TWELFTH ST & P ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
35 ELEVENTH ST & O ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
36 TENTH ST & O ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
37 NINTH ST & O ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
38 NINTH ST & P ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
39 EIGHTH ST & P ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 1 0
40 SEVENTH ST & P ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
41 N ST & YIP ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
42 CLINE ST & Q ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
43 CLINE ST & T ST Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
44 ZOZAYA ST & ALLARDT DR Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
45 ALLARDT DR & MENDOZA DR Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
46 CLYDE FANNON RD &
BORBOA LN
Unsignalized 0.20 1 0 1 0 1
Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three primary collision factors
4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH
125
Table 26 and Table 27 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 26. 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
Vehicle/
Ped
Head
On
Hit
Object Other
1 Thirteenth St (west of Q St to city limits) Arterial/Collector 33.13 2 0 0 2 0 2 SR 33 (south of N St to Sierra Ave)* Arterial/Collector 33.13 2 0 0 0 2 3 SR 33 (south of N St to Sierra Ave)* Arterial/Collector 32.93 1 0 0 0 1 4 SR 33 (south of Cordel Ave to north of
Clyde Fannon Rd)* Arterial/Collector 2.54 3 0 0 0 3
5 SR 33 (Morris Kyle Dr to north of city
limits)* Arterial/Collector 2.34 2 0 1 0 1
6 N Washoe Ave (south of W Nees Ave
to north of W Bullard Ave) Arterial/Collector 2.34 2 0 0 1 1 7 Rev Kantor St (Clyde Fannon Rd to
Zozaya St) Local 1.62 3 0 0 0 3
8 Corregidor Ave (Saipan Ave to
Cardella St) Local 0.40 2 0 0 0 2
9 Mendoza Dr (Clyde Fannon Rd to
Menodza Dr) Local 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
10 Morris Kyle Dr (N St to Landucci Dr) Local 0.20 1 0 0 0 1 * 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 27. 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
Ped
ViolationAuto ROW
Other
Improper
Driving
Other
1 Thirteenth St (west of Q St to city limits) Arterial/ Collector 33.13 2 0 0 0 2 2 SR 33 (south of N St to Sierra Ave)* Arterial/ Collector 33.13 2 0 0 1 1 3 SR 33 (south of N St to Sierra Ave)* Arterial/ Collector 32.93 1 0 0 1 0 4 SR 33 (south of Cordel Ave to north of
Clyde Fannon Rd)* Arterial/ Collector 2.54 3 0 0 0 3
5 SR 33 (Morris Kyle Dr to north of city
limits)* Arterial/ Collector 2.34 2 0 0 0 2
6 N Washoe Ave (south of W Nees Ave
to north of W Bullard Ave) Arterial/ Collector 2.34 2 0 0 0 2 7 Rev Kantor St (Clyde Fannon Rd to
Zozaya St) Local 1.62 3 0 0 0 3
8 Corregidor Ave (Saipan Ave to
Cardella St) Local 0.40 2 0 0 0 2
9 Mendoza Dr (Clyde Fannon Rd to
Menodza Dr) Local 0.20 1 0 0 0 1
10 Morris Kyle Dr (N St to Landucci Dr) Local 0.20 1 0 0 0 1 * Roadway segment is an at-grade Caltrans facility.
Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three primary collision factors
4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH
126
Education Strategies
Emphasis areas for Firebaugh include pedestrian crashes and driver behaviors, which can serve as focus areas for education strategies. Half the six reported fatal crashes involved pedestrians and 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 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. Firebaugh may find these materials helpful, especially those related to pedestrian safety including speeding and watching out for pedestrians.
The following activities are recommended for Firebaugh 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 transportation engineering and planning, communications, traffic enforcement, school transportation, and other jurisdictional staff who work with the roadway system.
▪ Work with schools 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 Firebaugh 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 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 on the City’s website.
4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH
127
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 Firebaugh – 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.
▪ Firebaugh 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.
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 higherthan-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 Firebaugh:
▪ Add additional crossing guards at high-concern locations. Train community members if needed. ▪ Focus speed enforcement efforts at locations with high speed-related crash rates. ▪ Work with schools to conduct “alternative enforcement,” such as having students write “tickets” that they hand to community members to highlight positive and negative behaviors on the roadways.
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.
4.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH
128
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).
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 Firebaugh 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 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. 129
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
Unincorporated Fresno County has an approximate population of 171,108.27 The average daily vehicle miles traveled is 6,191,770, and the County maintains approximately 3,997 total roadway centerline miles.
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 unincorporated Fresno County were broadside, hit object, and overturned crashes; the top three fatal and severe injury primary collision factors were improper turning, driving under the influence, and unsafe speed. The LRSP provides potential engineering, education, emergency services, and enforcement strategies tailored to the County’s crash history and local priorities, as well as performance measures to evaluate progress.
VISION AND GOALS
The County’s vision for roadway safety is:
The County’s roadway safety goals in support of the vision are:
1. Use a data-driven approach to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce the risk of crashes.
2. Implement proven, low-cost engineering countermeasures systemically to maximize funding opportunities across the large geographic County footprint.
3. Partner with adjacent local agencies to promote roadway safety as a priority investment.
4. Reduce the number of annual fatal and severe injury crashes across all public County roadways.
5. Engage citizens to provide feedback on roadway safety issues across the County.
6. Facilitate roadway safety stakeholder collaboration to identify effective ways to implement nonengineering strategies at key locations.
7. Achieve a reduction in the number of lane departure crashes on public County roadways. 27 2018 population. Source: California Department of Finance Create a roadway network that provides a comfortable environment for all modes of transportation within the City.
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
130
8. Achieve a reduction in the number of broadside crashes on public County roadways.
9. Establish regular communication between first responders and County staff to discuss ideas, trends, and feedback related to emergency service operations on the roadway network.
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 County’s effort to create a culture of roadway safety. Fresno County’s goals reflect the importance of partnering with local agencies, engaging with citizens, and collaborating with safety stakeholders to identify issues and implement solutions. While additional partners may be identified in the future, those involved in development of the LRSP include:
▪ BNSF Railroad
▪ California Highway Patrol
▪ California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc
▪ Central Unified School District
▪ Fresno Council of Governments
▪ Fresno County Administrative Office
▪ Fresno County Divisions of Public
Works and Planning
▪ Fresno County Rural Transit
▪ Fresno County Sheriff’s Office
▪ Fresno County Transportation Authority
▪ Kings Canyon Unified School District
▪ Riverdale Unified School District
▪ Tarpey Neighborhood
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance measures are used to track progress and a key element of making data-informed decisions.
Performance measures that support the County’s vision, goals, and emphasis areas include:
▪ Annual number of crashes (county-wide and at each of the top twenty priority locations) ▪ Annual number of fatal and severe injury crashes (county-wide and at each of the top twenty priority locations)
▪ Annual number of pedestrians and bicycle crashes (county-wide and at each of the top twenty priority locations)
▪ Annual number of broadside crashes (county-wide)
▪ Annual number of lane departure and hit object crashes (county-wide) ▪ Annual number of overturned vehicle crashes (county-wide) ▪ Annual number of crashes with a primary collision factor of unsafe speed (county-wide) ▪ Annual number of crashes with a primary collision factor of driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (county-wide)
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
131
▪ 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)
▪ Opportunities provided for citizen engagement (e.g. meetings held, public campaigns launched) ▪ Coordination between first responders and Fresno County Office of Emergency Services staff (e.g. meetings held, programs implemented, strategies deployed) As part of plan implementation, the County will identify a process for annually tracking these performance measures to support future updates to this roadway safety plan.
DATA SUMMARY
The primary data sets used to inform the technical analyses for the County’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 County. 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 the unincorporated portions of Fresno County. More information on the methodology and overall findings of the survey are provided in Appendix A.
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
132
▪ 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 150 responses were received for Unincorporated Fresno County from 47 participants, with the most common desired improvement types including:
o Maintenance of existing roads and streets (33 responses) o Rural road improvements to prevent run-off-road crashes (29 responses) o Bike lanes/bikeways (18 responses)
o Street lighting (16 responses)
o Traffic signals (15 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 47 locations were identified in Unincorporated Fresno County, with the following traffic safety concerns most common:
o Crashes or near misses happen here (30 responses)
o Aggressive driving or speeding (21 responses)
o Lack of safe places to walk, bike, or wait for bus (15 responses) o Lack of safe opportunities to cross the street (12 responses) o Poor lighting or poor visibility (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. The participants who selected Unincorporated Fresno County included:
o 14 who live and work/study in Unincorporated Fresno County o 25 who live in Unincorporated Fresno County and work/study outside of Unincorporated Fresno County
o 8 who work/study in Unincorporated Fresno County and live outside of Unincorporated Fresno County
47 PEOPLE
RESPONDED
47 LOCATIONS
IDENTIFIED
Live and
work/study in
Fresno County*
30%
Live in Fresno
County* and
work/study
outside of
Fresno County*
53%
Work/study in
Fresno County
and live outside
of Fresno County
17%
WHERE PARTICIPANTS
WORK AND LIVE
MOST COMMON
SAFETY CONCERNS
*Unincorporated Fresno County
• Crashes or near misses
happen here
• Aggressive driving or
speeding
• Lack of safe places to
walk, bike, or wait for
bus
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
133
Crash Data
Kittelson worked with Fresno COG to assemble crash data for Unincorporated Fresno County 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. Some crashes may occur at or near jurisdiction boundaries, especially along state routes bordering incorporated areas of the County.
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 18,314 reported crashes are located in Unincorporated Fresno County. 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.
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 County’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.
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
134
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:
▪ 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
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
135
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 28 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 approximately 1 percent of reported crashes but are involved in 6 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes.
▪ Bicyclists are also overrepresented in fatal and severe injury crashes. Bicyclists are involved in approximately 1 percent of reported crashes but 3 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes.
Table 28: 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 35 (10%) 39 (4%) 42 (2%) 24 (1%) 4 (0%) 144 (1%) Bicycle Involved 14 (4%) 23 (3%) 51 (2%) 29 (1%) 11 (0%) 128 (1%) Vehicle Only or VehicleFixed Object 308 (86%) 830 (93%) 2,348 (96%) 3,566 (98%) 10,990 (100%) 18,042 (98%) Reported Crashes 357 (100%) 892 (100%) 2,441 (100%) 3,619 (100%) 11,005 (100%) 18,314 (100%) Severity Share of
Reported Crashes 2% 5% 13% 20% 60% 100%
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
136
The California 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 58 compares crash trends in Unincorporated Fresno County to the statewide trends reported in the SHSP. Unincorporated Fresno County fatal/severe crashes share for pedestrian, bicycle, and motorcycle were equal to or less than the statewide average fatal/severe crash share.
Figure 58: Unincorporated Fresno Fatal and Severe Crash Shares by Road Users Compared to Statewide Trends Source: City of Fresno, SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle
Crash Share
Unincorporated County Statewide Average
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
137
YEAR, MONTH, AND WEATHER
Figure 59 shows year-over-year trends in the data by severity. The total number of crashes each year has been relatively steady, with an average of 3,663 annual crashes and 250 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 59: 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.. 0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
138
Figure 60 presents the total crashes by month for the crash database. On average, 1,526 crashes occurred per month. The lowest number of crashes were reported in February and January and the highest number of crashes were reported in August and September.
Figure 60: 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. 0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
139
Figure 61 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. ▪ Crashes recorded to have occurred during fog, cloudy conditions, and/or raining conditions are at the lowest share of crashes in the months of June to August and increase through October to March.
▪ Crashes recorded to have occurred in foggy conditions peak in the winter months (November through February). This is the case in January and February as well even though other collision types and total reported crashes in January and February tend to decrease relative to other months in the year.
Figure 61: 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%
35%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Share of Crashes by Weather
Cloudy Fog Raining
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
140
COLLISION TYPE
Reported collision type gives an indication of the movements most frequently involved in crashes and in severe outcomes. Figure 62 reports the most frequent reported collision types by severity. ▪ Among total reported crashes, the top three most frequent collision types are hit object (30 percent), broadside (24 percent), and rear end (21 percent). These three collision types account for 75 percent of reported crashes in the unincorporated county. ▪ Among fatal/severe injury crashes, the top three collision types are broadside (30 percent), hit object (25 percent), and overturned (14 percent) These three collision types account for 69 percent of all fatal/severe injury crashes in the unincorporated county.
Figure 62: Crashes by Collision Type by Severity
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.
Note: “Other injury” includes “Other visible injury” and “Complaint of pain” crashes. “PDO” = property damage only.
Hit Object
Broadside
Rear End
Sideswipe
Overturned
Other
Head-On
Vehicle/Pedestrian
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
141
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 63 presents the most frequently cited PCFs.
▪ Among total reported crashes, the three most frequently reported PCFs are improper turning28 (29 percent), unsafe speed29 (25 percent), and automobile right of way30 (16 percent). These three account for 70 percent of reported crashes.
▪ Among fatal/severe injury crashes, the three most frequently reported PCFs are improper turning28 (27 percent), driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol and drugs31 (21 percent), and unsafe speed29 (15 percent). These three account for 63 percent of reported fatal/severe crashes.
Figure 63: Crashes by Reported PCF
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. 28 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a failure while turning from a direct course without reasonable safety or not signaling appropriately.
29 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating unsafe speeding on a highway. 30 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a driver turning failed to yield right-of-way to oncoming traffic. 31 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating driver was under the influence of alcohol.
Improper Turning
Unsafe Speed
Automobile Right of Way
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Traffic Signals and Signs
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
Unsafe Lane Change
Wrong Side of Road
Unknown
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Improper Passing
Other Hazardous Violation
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Crash Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
142
LIGHTING
Figure 64 shows crashes by reported lighting condition and severity. ▪ Crashes that occurred in daylight conditions make up 63 percent of total reported crashes, and account for 55 percent of fatal and severe injury crashes. ▪ 164 fatal crashes occurred in the dark (46 percent of fatal crashes), of which 145 occurred where there were no streetlights.
Figure 64: Crashes 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%
Daylight
Dark - No Street Lights
Dark - Street Lights
Dusk - Dawn
Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning
Crash Share
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
143
TIME OF DAY
Figure 65 shows crashes by time of day. Crashes appear to have a higher share in two general times of day. The morning appears to show a peak from 5 AM to 9 AM with the highest number of morning crashes in the 7 AM hour. In the afternoon, crashes tend to be more frequent from 12 PM to 7 PM with the peak from 3 PM to 6 PM.
Figure 65: Crash Share by Time of Day
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.
Note: 2% of crashes are unknown time.
2%
2% 2%
2%
2%
4%
5%
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
5%
5%
6%
7% 7%
7%
6%
4%
4% 4%
3%
3%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
Collision Share
Hour
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
144
Pedestrians
This section focuses exclusively on reported crashes involving pedestrians. Table 29 shows the distribution of pedestrian crashes by severity. Of the 144 reported pedestrian crashes, 51 percent resulted in death or severe injury. Pedestrian fatal/severe injury crashes are 6 percent of total reported fatal/severe crashes, compared to1 percent of total reported crashes.
Table 29: Severity by Pedestrians Involved
Fatal
(% of Total)
Severe Injury
(% of Total)
Visible Injury
(% of Total)
Complaint of
Pain
(% of Total)
Property
Damage Only
(% of Total)
Total
Pedestrian Involved 35 (24%) 39 (27%) 42 (29%) 24 (17%) 4 (3%) 144 (100%) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.
SEVERITY AND MONTH
Figure 66 presents pedestrian crashes organized by month and severity with a monthly average of 12 crashes per month. December and February appear to be noticeably lower than the average while the highest number of crashes per month occurred in September. However, these trends should be interpreted with caution: fluctuations from a single month to the next tend may represent a degree of randomness in crash occurrence.
Figure 66: 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 18
20 Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
145
PEDESTRIAN ACTION AND LOCATION
For pedestrian crashes, data are recorded according to the reporting officer’s best judgment about the pedestrian’s action and location preceding the crash. Figure 67 reports these trends in unincorporated Fresno County.
▪ Among fatal/severe injury pedestrian crashes, 68 percent occurred while a pedestrian was in the road (including the shoulder). Pedestrian crashes with this action account for 60 percent of total pedestrian crashes.
▪ The second and third most common pedestrian actions preceding a crash included crossing not in a crosswalk (22 percent) and crossing in crosswalk at intersection (10 percent).
Figure 67: 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 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
In Road, Including Shoulder
Crossing Not in Crosswalk
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection
Not in Road
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
146
LIGHTING
Figure 68 shows pedestrian crashes by reported lighting condition and severity within unincorporated Fresno County. Crashes that occurred in the dark with no streetlights make up 54 percent of total pedestrian crashes and make up 77 percent of fatal/severe injury pedestrian crashes.
Figure 68: 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 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Dark - No Street Lights
Daylight
Dark - Street Lights
Dusk - Dawn
Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
147
Bicyclists
This section focuses exclusively on reported crashes involving bicyclists. Table 30 presents bicyclist-involved crashes in unincorporated Fresno County organized by severity level. Of the 128 bicyclist crashes in the County, 29 percent resulted in fatal/severe injury. Bicyclist fatal/severe injury crashes are 3 percent of total reported fatal/severe crashes, compared to 1 percent of total reported crashes.
Table 30: 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 14 (11%) 23 (18%) 51 (40%) 29 (23%) 11 (9%) 128 (100%) Source: SWITRS, TIMS, Kittelson, 2021.
COLLISION TYPE
Figure 69 presents reported bicycle crashes organized by collision type. ▪ The top two collision types among bicyclist crashes include broadside (31 percent) and rear end (18 percent). Crashes reported as other or not stated account for 16 percent of bicycle crashes. ▪ The top three fatal/severe collision types among bicyclist crashes are other (32 percent), rear end (27 percent), and broadside (16 percent).
Figure 69: Bicycle 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.
Broadside
Rear End
Other
Sideswipe
Overturned
Head-On
Hit Object
Vehicle/Pedestrian
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
148
PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
Figure 70 presents the reported PCF among bicycle crashes. ▪ The most frequently cited PCF was improper turning32, which accounted for 26 percent of total bicycle crashes and 27 percent of total fatal/severe bicycle crashes. ▪ The other two most frequent PCFs among bicycle crashes include automobile right of way33 (18 percent) and unsafe speed34 (13 percent).
Figure 70: Bicycle Crashes 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. 32 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a failure while turning from a direct course without reasonable safety or not signaling appropriately.
33 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating a driver turning failed to yield right-of-way to oncoming traffic. 34 Reported PCF based on CVC violation indicating unsafe speeding on a highway.
Improper Turning
Automobile Right of Way
Unsafe Speed
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
Wrong Side of Road
Traffic Signals and Signs
Unknown
Improper Passing
Other Hazardous Violation
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Lights
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Unsafe Lane Change
Other Improper Driving
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
149
LIGHTING
Figure 71 presents bicycle crashes organized by lighting and severity. ▪ Most bicycle crashes (72 percent of those reported) occur in daylight. ▪ Bicycle crashes occurring in the dark account for 22 percent of reported bicyclist crashes but 41 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes.
Figure 71: 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
Daylight
Dark - No Street Lights
Dusk - Dawn
Dark - Street Lights
Crash Frequency
Fatal/Severe Injury Other Injury PDO
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
150
Priority Locations
Kittelson identified priority intersections and segments in unincorporated Fresno County 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 201.09. Figure 72.1 through Figure 72.4 show the results of the crash severity scoring. Figure 73.1 through Figure 73.4 show excess predicted crash scores by percentiles for intersection locations. For the half-mile roadway segments, the crash severity scores ranged from zero to 145.02. Crash severity score results for roadway segments are shown in Figure 74.1 through Figure 74.4. Excess predicted crash score results are shown in Figure 75.1 through Figure 75.4. Intersections or segments shown as not falling within one of the percentile breaks indicates there were no reported crashes at that location.
Table 31 presents the top twenty locations with the highest crash severity scores.
Table 31. 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 LAC JAC AVE & DINUBA AVE Unsignalized 201.09 15 0 5 3 3 4 2 FRANKWOOD AVE & CENTRAL AVE Unsignalized 164.99 14 0 4 4 3 3 3 ACADEMY AVE & ADAMS AVE Unsignalized 162.93 18 1 3 2 4 8 4 BETHEL AVE & DINUBA AVE Unsignalized 157.25 49 1 2 7 20 19 5 AUBERRY RD & FRAZIER RD Unsignalized 154.92 8 2 2 1 0 3 6 MILLERTON RD FROM MILLERTON LAKE
ACCESS (WEST) TO SKY HARBOUR RD Segment 145.02 21 2 2 3 4 10 7 AUBERRY RD FROM EAST OF OLD
AUBERRY RD TO SOUTH OF OLD
AUBERRY RD
Segment 144.23 18 1 3 5 0 9
8 KINGS CANYON RD WEST OF HILLS
VALLEY RD Segment 141.08 13 1 3 3 4 2
9 KEARNEY BLVD & CORNELIA AVE &
MADISON AVE Unsignalized 139.01 29 0 3 7 6 13
10 CLOVIS AVE & MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE Unsignalized 137.94 19 1 2 8 5 3 11 BETHEL AVE & ROSE AVE Unsignalized 135.54 25 1 2 3 11 8 12 CLOVIS AVE & NEBRASKA AVE Unsignalized 133.24 20 0 3 6 4 7 13 MARKS AVE & JENSEN AVE Unsignalized 132.02 19 2 1 6 3 7 14 AMERICAN AVE & GOLDEN STATE BLVD Unsignalized 128.81 26 2 1 1 8 14 15 FRIANT RD & BELCHER Unsignalized 128.36 15 0 3 4 4 4 16 BETHEL AVE & NEBRASKA AVE Unsignalized 127.34 15 2 1 4 3 5 17 MCMULLIN GRD & MANNING AVE Unsignalized 127.13 19 1 2 4 2 10 18 FRONTIER TRAIL LN & SAMPLE RD Unsignalized 122.99 8 0 3 3 2 0 19 TEMPERANCE AVE & CENTRAL AVE Unsignalized 121.12 13 1 2 1 3 6 20 TEMPERANCE AVE & JENSEN AVE Signalized 120.58 34 0 4 4 11 15 Notes: All unsignalized intersections are classified as rural intersections. PDO = Property Damage Only. !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!!!!!!!!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!
!!
!
!!!!! !!!!!!!
!!! ! ! !! !!!!!!
!!
!!!!! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !! !!! !! !! ! !! !
!
! !! ! ! ! !!! !!
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !! ! ! !
! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!
! !!!!! ! !! !! !
! !! !! !
!
! !!!! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !
! !!! !! !
! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !! ! !!!!
!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!!!!!
!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! !!!!! !! ! !!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!! ! !! !!!!!! !! ! !! !!
! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !!! !! ! !!!!!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !! ! ! !
!! ! !! !!! !!!!! !!! ! !!! ! !
! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !
!
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!!
!!
! !!!!!
!!
!!!! ! ! !! !!
!
! !!! !!!! !!!!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!
! !!!!!!!! !!!!!! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! !!
! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !!! !
!!!!!! !! ! !!! !! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !
! ! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
! !!
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !!!
! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !
!! !
! ! !
!
!
!! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !! !! ! ! !!
!! !
! ! !!!!!
!! !
! !
! ! ! !! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !!
! !
!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!
! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!
!! ! ! ! ! !!
! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
! !
! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !! ! ! ! !
! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !!
! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
! !!! ! ! !!!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !
! ! ! ! !! ! ! !
! !! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !!! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!! !
!
! !
! !! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !!! !!
! !
! ! ! !
!
! !! !
! !
!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !!! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !!! !
! ! !
! !!! !
!
! ! !! !
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !!! ! !
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !!
!
! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !
!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
! !! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!!! ! !
! !
!
!
! ! !! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!!!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !!! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
!! ! ! !
!
! !
! !!!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Clovis
Selma
Mendota
Firebaugh
Sanger
Orange Cove
Kerman
San Joaquin Reedley
Parlier
Kingsburg
Fowler
Fresno
SHAW AVE
S MARKS AVE
E AMERICAN AVE
S MCMULLIN GRD
E BELMONT AVE
N PALM AVE
N
CED
A
R
AVE
N FIR
S
T
S
T
W MANNING AVE
S CEDAR AVE
DUNLAP
R D
E ROSE AVE S BETHEL AVE
E MANNING AVE
N
A
C
A
DEM
Y
AVE
W ASHLAN AVE
E ELKHORN AVE
W HERNDON AVE
S MADERA AVE
S PEACH AVE
N BLACKSTONE AVE
E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVES ACADEMY AVE
W MCKINLEY AVE
N FRI ANT
RD
COLORADO RD
W SHAW AVE
S LASS
E
N
AVE
W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
N DOS PALOS RD
W BELMONT AVE
S FOWLER AVE
ELW OOD R D
W NEES AVE
S JAMES
RD
S DERRICK AVE
E HERNDON AVE
N ST
S HILLS VALLEY RD
MILLERTON RD
LODGE RD
W SHIELDS AVE
W KAMM AVE
N MCCALL AVE
A UBERRY RD
S FAIRFAX AVE
E JENSEN AVE
N SAN DIEGO AVE
S REED AVE
WATTSVALL EY RD
N MADERA AVE
MCK IN L EY G RO VER D
S JAMESON AVE
MAXON RD
W JENSEN AVE
S ALTA AVE
W AMERICAN AVE
S CLOVIS AVE
E TRIMM ERSPRING S
RD
TOLLHOU SE RD
NPIEDRA
RD
N FAIRFAX AVE
RU THHIL L RD
S SAN DIEGO AVE
§¨¦5
∙þ99
∙þ180
∙þ145
∙þ168
∙þ41
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo_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 72.1
Intersection Crash Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 6Miles
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!! ! !
!
!
! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !
! !!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !! !!!!! !
! !!!
!!! !!!!!!
!
!
!
!
! !! !! !
! !!!!!!
!
!!!!!!
!
! !!
!
!
!
! !!! !!!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !!!!
!
! ! ! !! !! !!!!!! ! !!
!
!
!
! !!
!!!! !!!
! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !!!
! !!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !!!!!!!! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !!!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!!! !
! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!
!! !!!! !!
! !!!
!
! !! ! !! !
!
!! !! !!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !!
!!
!
!!!!!!
! !!! !!! !!!!
!
! ! ! !!!!! !!!! !! !!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!
!
!!
! !! !!! !! !! !! ! ! !!! !
!
!
!! !!!
!
!
!
!!
!! !!!!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
! !!
!!!!!! !!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!! ! !!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
! !!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !! ! ! !!
!
!
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
! !!
! !! !! !
!!
! !!!! !! !!
!
!
! !!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!
! !!! ! ! !!! !
! !!!
! !!!! !! !!
! !!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
! !!
!!!!
!
!
! !!
!!
!!! ! !!
!
!
!
!! !! !!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
! !!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!!!! !
!!
!!
!
!
! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !! ! ! !
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
! !!! !
!
!
!
!
!! !!
!!!
! !!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!!!!
!
!
!!!
!!!!
!
!
!
! !!!
! !!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !
!
!
!!
!
! !! ! !! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
Clovis
Sanger
Reedley
Fowler
Fresno
SHAW AVE
E AMERICAN AVE
E BELMONT AVE
N WEST AVE
N PALM AVE
N CEDAR AVE
N FIRST ST
DUN LA P
RD
N ACADEMY AVE
W HERNDON AVE
S PEACH AVE
N FRIANTRD
W SHAW AVE
ELWOOD RDS HILLS VALLEY R D
S MARKS AVE
MIL L
ERTON
RD
LODGE R D
N MCCALL AVE
E JENSEN AVE
S REED AVE WATTSVALLEY RD AUBERRY RD
SAND
CREEK RD
E TRIMMER
S
P
R
I
N G S RD
NPIED RA RD
DI
N
KEYCREEK
RD
R
U TH
HILL
RD
MCKINL EY
G
ROVE
R D
E
K
I
NGS
C
A
N
YON RD
K A SI ERPAS
S
RD
EDIS ON L A K R E D
∙þ180
∙þ41
∙þ99
∙þ168
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo_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 72.2
Intersection Crash Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments [ 0 6Miles
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!!!
! !
!
! !!
! ! !
! !!
! ! ! ! ! !!
! !
!
! !
!!
!
!!! ! ! !!!!!!!! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
!! !! !
!
! ! !!! !
!! ! ! !!
!! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !!!! ! !! !
! !
! ! !! !
!!! ! ! !!
!! ! !
! ! !
! ! !! !
! ! ! !!! ! !!!
! !!!!!! ! !!
! ! ! !! ! !
! !
! ! !! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!!
!
!! !
! !
! !! ! ! !
! !! ! !
! ! !!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
!!! !!! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !!
! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
Mendota
Firebaugh
Kerman
San Joaquin
Fresno
S MCMULLIN GRD
W MANNING AVE
S MADERA AVE
COLORADO RD
W SHAW AVE
S LASSEN AVE
N DOS PALOS RD
W BELMONT AVE
W NEES AVE
S JAMES RD
S DERRICK AVE
N ST
W MCKINLEY AVE
SANTA
FE
GRD
S FAIRFAX AVE
W KAMM AVE
S PLA
CER
AVE
N SAN DIEGO AVE
W PANOCHERD
N MADERA AVE
N RUSSELL AVE
S JAMESON AVE
W JENSEN AVE
S HENDERSON RD
W AMERICAN AVE
S DICKENSON AVE
N LAKE AVE
N FAIRFAX AVE
W SHIELDS AVE
S SAN DIEGO AVE
N
H
U
D
S
O
N
AVE
LITTLE PANOCHE RD
§¨¦5
∙þ145
∙þ99
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo_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 72.3
Intersection Crash Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 4.5Miles
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!!!!!!!!
! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!
!
!!!!! !!!!! !! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!
! !!!! ! !! !!!! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !! !! !!! ! !! !!!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!
!
! ! !
!
!
!! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!!! !
!
! !
! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
Coalinga
Huron
S FRESNO COALINGA RD
E ELKHORN AVE
W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
S
DER
RICK
AVE
S MARKS AVE
S LASSEN AVE
S CEDAR AVE
W JAYNE AVE S EL DORADO AVE
P HELPS AVE
W OAKLAND AVE
LOS GATOS RD
LOST HILLS RD
WARTHAM CANYON RD
§¨¦5
∙þ41
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo_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 72.4
Intersection Crash Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 4.5Miles
!!
!
! !
!
! !!
! !!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!! !
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!! !!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!! !
!
!
!!
!
! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
! ! !!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!! !! !! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!! !
!!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !! ! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! ! !
!!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!
!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!! !! !!!!! !! !! !!! ! !!!!!!! !! ! ! !!! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!!
! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !
! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!
!! !
! !!!! ! ! !!
!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
! !!! ! ! !!! !
! !! ! !! !!!!!
! !!! !! ! ! ! !!
! !!! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !
!!!
!!!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !!!!! !
! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !
! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !!!!! !!! !! !! !! ! !!! !!!!!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !
!
! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !
! !! !
! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !!
! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! !!!! ! !!!!! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!! !!! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !
!!
! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !
!! !
! !!!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!!!
! !! !
! !! !!
!! !! !
!! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !!
!
! !! ! !!!!!!!
!
! !!! !! ! !!! !
!
!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!!!
!
! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! !!!!!!! !!!! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!! !!! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !
!
!!
!
! ! !!! ! ! !! !!!!!! !! ! !! ! !
! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!
!!!!! !!!! !! !!!!!
! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!!! !! !
!! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! !!! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!
!
!!! !! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!! ! !!!! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!!!! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! ! !! ! !!!!!! !!! ! !!!!! !!
!!! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! !! ! !!!!
!!! !!! !!! ! ! !! !
!! !
! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!! !!!! !!!!!!! ! ! !
!!!! !
!!
! !!!!!
!!! ! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!! !!!! !! !!!!! ! !! !!!!!! !! !!!!!! ! !!!! !! !!! !!! !! !!!!!!!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !! !!!! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!! !! ! !!! ! !!! !!! ! ! !!!! !!! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!! !! !!! !! ! ! !!! !! !!!! ! !! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !
!
!!
!
!
! !!!!!!! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !
! ! !!!! ! ! !
!
!! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !!
!
!!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !
! !! ! !
!
!
! ! !! !!
! !!!
!
! !!! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!!!!!!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!!
! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!
!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !
!
! !
!
!! !!! !
!
!
!
! !
!!!
!
!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
! ! !! !! !
!
!! ! ! ! !!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !!! !! ! !
! !!
!
! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
! ! ! !! ! ! !!!
!!
!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!!! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !! !
! !!! !!! ! !! !! !!
!!!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !! ! ! !!!! !! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!
! !! ! !!
! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!
! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !
!! ! ! ! !
! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !
!!! ! !!!! !! !!! !!!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !!! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !!!!!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !! !!
! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !
!! !!!!!! ! !
! !! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !! !
! ! !
! ! !! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! ! !! ! !!
!
!
! !
!
!
Clovis
Selma
Mendota
Firebaugh
Sanger
Orange Cove
Kerman
San Joaquin Reedley
Parlier
Kingsburg
Fowler
Fresno
SHAW AVE
S MARKS AVE
E AMERICAN AVE
S MCMULLIN GRD
E BELMONT AVE
N PALM AVE
N
CED
A
R
AVE
N FIR
S
T
S
T
W MANNING AVE
S CEDAR AVE
DUNLAP
R D
E ROSE AVE S BETHEL AVE
E MANNING AVE
N
A
C
A
DEM
Y
AVE
W ASHLAN AVE
E ELKHORN AVE
W HERNDON AVE
S MADERA AVE
S PEACH AVE
N BLACKSTONE AVE
E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVES ACADEMY AVE
W MCKINLEY AVE
N FRI ANT
RD
COLORADO RD
W SHAW AVE
S LASS
E
N
AVE
W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
N DOS PALOS RD
W BELMONT AVE
S FOWLER AVE
ELW OOD R D
W NEES AVE
S JAMES
RD
S DERRICK AVE
E HERNDON AVE
N ST
S HILLS VALLEY RD
MILLERTON RD
LODGE RD
W SHIELDS AVE
W KAMM AVE
N MCCALL AVE
A UBERRY RD
S FAIRFAX AVE
E JENSEN AVE
N SAN DIEGO AVE
S REED AVE
WATTSVALL EY RD
N MADERA AVE
MCK IN L EY G RO VER D
S JAMESON AVE
MAXON RD
W JENSEN AVE
S ALTA AVE
W AMERICAN AVE
S CLOVIS AVE
E TRIMM ERSPRING S
RD
TOLLHOU SE RD
NPIEDRA
RD
N FAIRFAX AVE
RU THHIL L RD
S SAN DIEGO AVE
§¨¦5
∙þ99
∙þ180
∙þ145
∙þ168
∙þ41
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo_Intx_ExFreq.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 73.1
Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 6Miles
!!
! ! !
!
!!!
! !!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!!!!
!
! !!
!!
!!!
!
!
! !
!!
!!! !
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!! !
!
!
! !
!!!!!!!!
!
!
!! !
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! !! !!!!! !! !
! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! !! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! !! !!!! !! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !!
!
!
!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! !! !
!!!! !! ! ! ! !
!!! !!!
! ! ! ! ! !
!!!
! ! ! ! !! !! !
!! !!!
!! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!! !
! !! ! ! ! !!! !
!
!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !
!!
! ! ! !
!
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !
! !!
!
! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! !!! !! ! ! !!!! !!!!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !
!! !
! !!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!
! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !!!! !! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !!! !! !!! ! !!! !!!!! ! !!!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!!! ! !!!! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!
!!!!!!! ! !
!! ! !
!!!!!! !!! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!!!!! !
!!!!
!!! ! ! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! !!! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!! !!! !!!! !!!!!!! ! ! !!!! !!! !!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !!! ! !!!! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !!!! !!!!!! ! !!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! !!! !!!
! !!! !!! !!!!!!!! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! !!!!! !! !! !!! ! !!! !!! !!! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! !! ! !! !!!!! !!!!! !!! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! !!! ! !!!
!! !!!
!!!!! ! !! !!!! !
!! !! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! !! !!!!! !!! !!!! !!!!!!!!! !!! !! !!! !!! ! !
!! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!
!! ! !
!!!! ! !!!!! ! !! !! !!! !!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! !! !! !
!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !
! !! ! ! !
!
!! !!! !
! !!!!
!!! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!!
!!! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!
!! ! !! !! ! !!!! !! !
!
! !!
!! !!! !
!
!
!
! !
!!!
!
!!! !! ! ! !! !! !!!!! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! !!! !!
!
!! ! ! !!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!! !!! !! ! ! ! !!
! !
!
! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! ! !!
!
! !! ! !! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!! !! !!
!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!
!!!!
!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!! ! !! !!!!!! !! !! ! ! !!! !!!
!
! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !!!!
!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
! !!!!!! !!! !!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!!! !!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !!! ! ! !!! !!! !!! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !
! !!!!! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!!! !! !!!! !!!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!!!!! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !
! !!! !!!!! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !!!!!!!!
!!
!!!
!!!! ! !
!!! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!!! !!! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !! !
! ! !
! !!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! ! !! ! !!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
Clovis
Sanger
Reedley
Fowler
Fresno
SHAW AVE
E AMERICAN AVE
E BELMONT AVE
N WEST AVE
N PALM AVE
N
CED
A
R
AVE
N FIR
S
T
S
T
DUN LA P RD
N
A
C
A
DEM
Y
AVE
W HERNDON AVE
S PEACH AVE
N FRIA
NT
RD
W SHAW AVE ELWOOD RD
S
HILLS
VALLEY
R D
S MARKS AVE
MIL LERTONRD
LODGE R D
N MCCALL AVE
E JENSEN AVE
S REED AVE
WAT
TSVALLEY RD
AUBERRY RD
SANDCREEK RD
E T
RIMMER SPRIN G S
R
D
NPIED RA
RD
DI NKEY CREEK RD
RU THHILL RD
MCKINL EY GROVE R D
E KINGS CANYON RD
K A
SI ERPASS RD EDIS ON L A K
R E D
∙þ180 ∙þ41
∙þ99
∙þ168
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo_Intx_ExFreq.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 73.2
Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 6Miles
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!!
! !
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!! !! !! !!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!!!! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !!!!
!!!!! !!!!
!
!!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !
!
! ! !
! !! !
! !
!
!
!
! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
!
!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
! !! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !!! !! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!
!!! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !!
! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !
! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
! ! ! !
! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!
!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!
! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !! !
!
! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!!
!! ! ! ! ! ! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !
! ! ! !! ! !! ! !
! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! !! !
! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !
!! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !
!! !
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!! ! !! ! !
! !! !
!! !! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !! ! !!! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!!!
! !
!
! !! !
! ! ! !! ! !
!
! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !
! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! !
! !
!! !! ! ! !! !!!
! ! ! ! !!!
! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
! !!!
! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !!!! !!! !!! ! ! !!
! ! ! ! !
! !
!!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
Mendota
Firebaugh
Kerman
San Joaquin
Fresno
S MCMULLIN GRD
W MANNING AVE
S MADERA AVE
COLORADO RD
W SHAW AVE
S LASSEN AVE
N DOS PALOS RD
W BELMONT AVE
W NEES AVE
S JAMES RD
S DERRICK AVE
N ST
W MCKINLEY AVE
SANTA
FE
GRD
S FAIRFAX AVE
W KAMM AVE
S PLA
CER
AVE
N SAN DIEGO AVE
W PANOCHERD
N MADERA AVE
N RUSSELL AVE
S JAMESON AVE
W JENSEN AVE
S HENDERSON RD
W AMERICAN AVE
S DICKENSON AVE
N LAKE AVE
N FAIRFAX AVE
W SHIELDS AVE
S SAN DIEGO AVE
N
H
U
D
S
O
N
AVE
LITTLE PANOCHE RD
§¨¦5
∙þ145
∙þ99
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo_Intx_ExFreq.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 73.3
Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 4.5Miles
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!! !! !! !!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!!
!!
! !
! ! !
!!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! !!
!! !!! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! !!!!! !! !!!!!!! !! !! ! ! !!!!!!! !! ! ! !!!!!!! !! ! ! !! ! !
!
!
!!
! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !!!
!! !
!!!! ! ! ! !!
!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! ! ! !! !!!! !
!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!!! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !! !
!
Coalinga
Huron
S FRESNO COALINGA RD
E ELKHORN AVE
W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
S
DER
RICK
AVE
S MARKS AVE
S LASSEN AVE
S CEDAR AVE
W JAYNE AVE S EL DORADO AVE
P HELPS AVE
W OAKLAND AVE
LOS GATOS RD
LOST HILLS RD
WARTHAM CANYON RD
§¨¦5
∙þ41
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo_Intx_ExFreq.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 73.4
Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 4.5Miles
Clovis
Selma
Mendota
Firebaugh
Sanger
Orange Cove
Kerman
San Joaquin Parlier Reedley
Kingsburg
Fowler
Fresno
SHAW AVE
S MARKS AVE
E AMERICAN AVE
S MCMULLIN GRD
E BELMONT AVE
N PALM AVE
N FIRST ST
N CEDAR AVE
W MANNING AVE
S CEDAR AVE
DUNLAP
R D
E ROSE AVE S BETHEL AVE
E MANNING AVE
N
A
C
A
DEM
Y
AVE
W ASHLAN AVE
E ELKHORN AVE
W HERNDON AVE
S MADERA AVE
S PEACH AVE
S MCCALL AVE
N BLACKSTONE AVE
E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
S ACADEMY AVE
W MCKINLEY AVE
N
F
R
AI N
T
RD
COLORADO RD
W SHAW AVE
S LASS
E
N
AVE
W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
N DOS PALOS RD
W BELMONT AVE
ELW OOD R D
W NEES AVE
S JAMES
RD
S DERRICK AVE
E HERNDON AVE
N ST
S
H LI LS
VALLEYRD
MI LLERTONRD
LODGE RD
W SHIELDS AVE
W KAMM AVE
N MCCALL AVE
AUBERRY RD
S FAIRFAX AVE
E JENSEN AVE
N SAN DIEGO AVE
S REED AVE
WATTSVALL EY RD
MCK IN L EY G RO VER D
S JAMESON AVE
MAXON RD
W JENSEN AVE
S ALTA AVE
W AMERICAN AVE
S CLOVIS AVE
E TRIMM ERSPRING S
RD
TOLLHO USE RD
NPIEDRA RD
N FAIRFAX AVE
RU THHIL L RD
S SAN DIEGO AVE
§¨¦5
∙þ99
∙þ180
∙þ145
∙þ168
∙þ41
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo_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 74.1
Roadway Collision Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 6Miles
Clovis
Sanger
Reedley
Fowler
Fresno
E AMERICAN AVE
E BELMONT AVE
N PALM AVE
N
CED
A
R
AV
E
N FIR
S
T
S
T
DUN LA P RD
N
A
C
A
DEM
Y
AVE
W HERNDON AVE
S PEACH AVE
N
F
R
AI N
T
RD
W SHAW AVE
S MARKS AVE
LODGE R D
N MCCALL AVE
E JENSEN AVE
S REED AVE
WAT
TSVALLEY RD
AUBERRY RD
SANDCREEK RD
E
T
RIMMER SPRIN G
S
R
D
NPIED RA
RD
DI NKEY CRE EK RD
RU THHILL RD
MCKINL EY GROVE R D
E KINGS CANYON RD
KAISER PASS RD
∙þ180 ∙þ41
∙þ99
∙þ168
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo_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 74.2
Roadway Collision Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 6Miles
Mendota
Firebaugh
Kerman
San Joaquin
Fresno
S MCMULLIN GRD
W
M
A
N
N
I
N
GAV
E
S MADERA AVE
COLORADO RD
W SHAW AVE
S LASSEN AVE
N
DOS
PALOS
RD
W BELMONT AVE
W NEES AVE
S JAMES RD
S DERRICK AVE
N ST
W MCKINLEY AVE
SANTA FE GRD
S FAIRFAX AVE
W KAMM AVE
S PLACERAVE
N SAN DIEGO AVE
W PANOCHERD
N MADERA AVE
N RUSSELL AVE
S JAMESON AVE
W JENSEN AVE
S HENDERSON RD
W AMERICAN AVE
S DICKENSON AVE
N LAKE AVE
N FAIRFAX AVE
W SHIELDS AVE
S SAN DIEGO AVE
N HUDSON AVE
LITTLE PANOCHE RD
§¨¦5
∙þ145
∙þ99
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo_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 74.3
Roadway Collision Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments [ 0 4.5Miles
Coalinga
Huron
S FRESNO COALINGA RD
E ELKHORN AVE
W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
S DERRICK AVE
S MARKS AVE
S LASSEN AVE
S CEDAR AVE
W JAYNE AVE S EL DORADO AVE
P
H
E
L
P
S
AV
E
W OAKLAND AVE
LOS GATOS RD
LOST HILLS RD
WARTHAM CANYON
RD
§¨¦5
∙þ41
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo_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 74.4
Roadway Collision Severity Scores
Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments [ 0 4.5Miles
Clovis
Selma
Mendota
Firebaugh
Sanger
Orange Cove
Kerman
San Joaquin Reedley
Parlier
Kingsburg
Fowler
Fresno
SHAW AVE
S MARKS AVE
E AMERICAN AVE
S MCMULLIN GRD
E BELMONT AVE
N PALM AVE
N CEDAR AVE
N FIRST ST
W MANNING AVE
S CEDAR AVE
DUNLAP RD
E ROSE AVE
S BETHEL AVE
E MANNING AVE
N
A
C
A
DEM
Y
AVE
W ASHLAN AVE
E ELKHORN AVE
W HERNDON AVE
S MADERA AVE
S PEACH AVE
N BLACKSTONE AVE
E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
S ACADEMY AVE
W MCKINLEY AVE
N
F
R
AI N
T
RD
COLORADO RD
W SHAW AVE
S LASS
E
N
AVE
W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
N DOS PALOS RD
W BELMONT AVE
S FO
WLER
AV
E
ELW OOD R D
W NEES AVE
S JAMES
RD
S DERRICK AVE
E HERNDON AVE
N ST
S
HILLS
VALLEYRD
MI LLERTONRD
LODGE RD
W SHIELDS AVE
W KAMM AVE
N MCCALL AVE
AUBERRYRD
S FAIRFAX AVE
E JENSEN AVE
N SAN DIEGO AVE
S REED AVE
WATTSVALL EY RD
MCKI NL EY GROVE RD
S JAMESON AVE
MAXON RD
W JENSEN AVE
S ALTA AVE
W AMERICAN AVE
S CLOVIS AVE
E T
RIMMERSPRING S
RD
TOLLHO USE RD
NPIEDRA
RD
N FAIRFAX AVE
RU THHIL L RD
S SAN DIEGO AVE
§¨¦5
∙þ99
∙þ180
∙þ145
∙þ168
∙þ41
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo_RdwyResults_ExFreq.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 75.1
Roadway Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 6Miles
Clovis
Sanger
Reedley
Fowler
Fresno
SHAW AVE
E AMERICAN AVE
E BELMONT AVE
N PALM AVE
N CEDAR AVE
N FIRST ST
DUN
LA P RD
N
A
C
A
DEM
Y
AVE
W HERNDON AVE
S PEACH AVE
N
F
R
AI NT
RD
W SHAW AVE
ELWOOD RD
S MARKS AVE
LODGE R D
N MCCALL AVE
E JENSEN AVE
S REED AVE
WAT
TSVALLEY RD
AUBERRY R D
SANDCREEK RD
E T
RIMMER SPRIN G S
R
D
NPIED RA
RD
DI NKEY CREEK RD
RU THHILL RD
MCKINL EY GROVE R D
E KINGS CANYON RD
K A
SI ERPASS RD EDIS ON LA K
R E D
∙þ180 ∙þ41
∙þ99
∙þ168
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo_RdwyResults_ExFreq.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 75.2
Roadway Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 6Miles
Mendota
Firebaugh
Kerman
San Joaquin
Fresno
W SHAW AVE
S MCMULLIN GRD
W MANNING AVE
S MADERA AVE
COLORADO RD
S LASSEN AVE
N DOS PALOS RD
W BELMONT AVE
W NEES AVE
S JAMES RD
S DERRICK AVE
N ST
W MCKINLEY AVE
SANTA
FE
GRD
S FAIRFAX AVE
W KAMM AVE
S PLA
CER
AVE
N SAN DIEGO AVE
W PANOCHERD
N MADERA AVE
N RUSSELL AVE
S JAMESON AVE
W JENSEN AVE
S HENDERSON RD
W AMERICAN AVE
S DICKENSON AVE
N FAIRFAX AVE
W SHIELDS AVE
S SAN DIEGO AVE
N
H
U
D
S
O
N
AVE
LITTLE PANOCHE RD
§¨¦5
∙þ145
∙þ99
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo_RdwyResults_ExFreq.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 75.3
Roadway Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 4.5Miles
Coalinga
Huron
S FRESNO COALINGA RD
E ELKHORN AVE
W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
S
DER
R
CI K
AVE
S MARKS AVE
S LASSEN AVE
S CEDAR AVE
W JAYNE AVE S EL DORADO AVE
PHELPS AVE
W OAKLAND AVE
LOS GATOS RD
LOST HILLS RD
WARTHAM CANYON RD
§¨¦5
∙þ41
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo_RdwyResults_ExFreq.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 75.4
Roadway Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments Jurisdiction Results: Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 4.5Miles
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
167
EMPHASIS AREAS
Based on key trends in the crash data, emphasis areas for unincorporated Fresno County include pedestrian and bicycle crashes, broadside crashes, hit object crashes and overturned crashes. Due to the prevalence of collision factors citing driving under the influence and unsafe speed, strategies aimed at encouraging safe driver behaviors is included as an emphasis area. 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. Of the 357 fatal crashes, 35 involved a pedestrian and 14 a bicyclist. Of the 892 severe injury crashes, 39 involved a pedestrian and 23 a bicyclist.
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 30 percent of fatal and severe injury crashes. Of the 357 fatal crashes, 105 were broadside crashes. As discussed below under Engineering Strategies, countermeasures are available targeted at broadside crashes.
Hit Object Crashes
Hit object crashes were selected as an emphasis area due to their frequency and severity. They are the most common collision type and represent 25 percent of fatal and severe injury crashes. A variety of roadway countermeasures are available targeted at 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.
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
168
Overturned Crash
Overturned crashes were selected as an emphasis area due to their severity. Overturned crashes account for 14 percent of fatal/severe crashes, including 46 of the 357 fatal crashes. Unsafe speed, poor weather, and darkness are often common factors for overturned vehicle crashes and countermeasures are available to address those as discussed below under Engineering Strategies.
As indicated under hit object crashes discussion, the California SHSP includes lane departures – which includes overturned crashes – as one of the six high priorities in California.
Driver Behavior
Driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol and drugs is the second most common primary collision factor in fatal/severe crashes. Unsafe speed is the most frequently reported PCF among all reported crashes and the third most frequent 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 also 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.
STRATEGIES
The following subsections present engineering, education, emergency services, and enforcement strategies to help improve roadway safety across the County.
Engineering Strategies
The top three fatal and severe injury collision types in Fresno County were broadside, hit object, and overturned crashes; the top three fatal and severe injury primary collision factors were improper turning, driving under the influence, and unsafe speed. High priority countermeasures to address these collision types and primary collision factors are shown in Table 32.
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
169
Table 32. 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, unsafe speed
Install Guardrails R4 Hit object, unsafe speed
Install Raised Median R8 Improper turning
Road Diet R14 Hit object, unsafe speed
Widen Shoulder R15 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 Signs R26 Hit object, unsafe speed Install Edgelines and Centerlines R28 Hit object, unsafe speed Install Edgeline Rumble Strips/Stripes R31 Hit object, unsafe speed Install Variable Message Signs Crashes in poor weather
conditions
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 Provide Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection S4 All
Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning S10/NS9 Broadside, unsafe speed Convert Intersection to Roundabout NS4/NS5 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 crashes
Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing with Enhanced
Features R35PB Pedestrian crashes
Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads S17PB Pedestrian crashes Install Pedestrian Crossing S18PB/NS20PB Pedestrian crashes Modify Signal Phasing to Implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval S21PB Pedestrian crashes
Install Raised Medians (or Refuge Islands) NS19PB Pedestrian crashes Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled
Locations (with Enhanced Safety Features) NS21PB Pedestrian crashes Bike Lane Extension Through Intersections n/a Overrepresented bicycle crashes Bike Boxes n/a Overrepresented bicycle crashes
Notes: The ID number references the Caltrans Manual Local Road Safety There were no high priority intersection countermeasures listed for Fresno County. Intersection countermeasures listed were given a medium priority.
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
170
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. Fresno County can use the information about collision type and factors to identify potential countermeasures to apply, using the information in Table 32.
Figure 76.1 to Figure 76.3 and Figure 77.1 to Figure 77.3 present the top priority intersections and breakdown of the top collision types and primary collision factors, respectively. Figure 78 and Figure 79 present the top priority roadways and breakdown of the top collision types and primary collision factors, respectively.
Clovis
Sanger
Kerman
Fresno
SHAW AVE
W BELMONT AVE
E SHAW AVE
E NORTH AVE S CEDAR AVE
ASHLAN AVE E ASHLAN AVE
E NEES AVE
E BELMONT AVE
N WEST AVE
E BULLARD AVE
N PALM AVE
N CEDAR AVE
N FIRST ST
E TULARE ST
E MCKINLEY AVE
N
A
C
A
DEMY
AVE
W ASHLAN AVE
E ANN A DALE AVE
N CLOVIS AVE
ELWOODRD
N MARKS AVE
W HERNDON AVE
S MADERA AVE
N BLACKSTONE AVE
W MCKINLEY AVE
N FRIANT RD
E KINGS CANYON RD
N GRANTLAND AVE
W SHAW AVE
S ELM
AV
E
P S
M ST
T
E HERNDON AVE
W CALIFORNIA AVE
PITT
MAN
HI LL RD
B ST
G ST
MILLERTON RD
LODG ERD
W SHIELDS AVE
N MCCALL AVE
S
RAINBOW AVE
S MCCALL AVE
N WILLOW AVE
E JENSEN AVE
WATTS
VALLEY
RD
N MADERA AVE
S AMPLE RD
W JENSEN AVE
AUBERRY RD
N LAKE AVE
TOLLHOUSE RD
NPIEDRA RD
S JAMES RD
M AXON RD
E TRIMMER SPRIN GS RD
∙þ180
∙þ145 ∙þ99
∙þ41
∙þ168
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo\Intx_CrashType_FresnoCo.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 76.1
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Collision Types
Jurisdiction Results: Unincorporated Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ Collision Type 0 3Miles
! Broadside
! Hit Object
! Overturned
Selma
Sanger
Orange Cove Reedley Parlier
Kingsburg
Fowler
Fresno
W AMERICAN AVE S MARKS AVE
E AMERICAN AVE
E NORTH AVE
E BELMONT AVE
E TULARE ST S CEDAR AVE
I ST
E ROSE AVE
E ADAMS AVE
S BETHEL AVE
E MCKINLEY AVE
E MANNING AVE
E MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
E ANN A DALE AVE
E ELKHORN AVE
S MENDOCINO AVE
S MCCALL AVE
E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
S ACADEMY AVE
W MCKINLEY AVE
E KINGS CANYON RD
ADAMS AVE
W BELMONT AVE
W CALIFORNIA AVE
W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
P ST
S FOWLER AVE
W OLIVE AVE
W ELKHORN AVE
S CHESTNUT AVE
W JENSEN AVE
M ST
S GOLDEN STATE BLVD
B ST
G ST
S
HILLS
VALLEY
R
D
W MANNING AVE
S ELM AVE
NPIEDRA RD
W KAMM AVE
GEO
R
GE SMITH RD
S RAINBOW AVE
DUNLAP
R
D
S COVE AVE
E JENSEN AVE
S FIG AVE
S REED AVE
S DOWER AVE S JAMESON AVE
S HENDERSON RD
W EXCELSIOR AVE
S ALTA AVE
S DICKENSON AVE
E
S CLOVIS AVE
GOODFELLOW AVE
S AND CREEK RD
RUTH HILL RD
∙þ99
∙þ168
∙þ180
∙þ41
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo\Intx_CrashType_FresnoCo.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 76.2
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Collision Types
Jurisdiction Results: Unincorporated Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ Collision Type 0 3Miles
! Broadside
! Hit Object
! Overturned
Selma
Sanger
Reedley
San Joaquin
Parlier
Kingsburg
Coalinga
Fowler
Huron
Fresno S MARKS AVE
E AMERICAN AVE
S MCMULLIN GRD
W MANNING AVE
S CEDAR AVE
E ROSE AVE
E ADAMS AVE
S BETHEL AVE
E MANNING AVE
SFRESNO COALINGA RD
E ELKHORN AVES MCCALL AVE
E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
S ACADEMY AVE
COLORADO RD S LASSEN
AVE
W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
S FOWLER AVE
S
JAMES
RD
S DERRICK AVE
W KAMM AVE
W JAYNE AVE
S MADERA AVE
S PLA
CER
AVE
S REED AVE
W PANOCHE RD
S EL DORADO AVE
S JAMESON AVE
W AMERICAN AVE
S SAN DIEGO AVE
P HELPS AVE
W OAKLAND AVE
LOS GATOS RD
WARTHAM CANYON RD
§¨¦5
∙þ99
∙þ41
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo\Intx_CrashType_FresnoCo.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 76.3
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Collision Types
Jurisdiction Results: Unincorporated Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ Collision Type 0 4.5Miles
! Broadside
! Hit Object
! Overturned
Clovis
Sanger
Kerman
Fresno
ELWOODR
SHAW AVE D
W BELMONT AVE
E SHAW AVE
E NORTH AVE S CEDAR AVE
ASHLAN AVE
E NEES AVE
E BELMONT AVE
N WEST AVE
N PALM AVE
N
CED
A
R
AVE
N FIRST ST
E SHIELDS AVE
E TULARE ST
E MCKINLEY AVE
N
A
C
A
DEMY
AVE
W ASHLAN AVE
E ANN A DALE AVE
N CLOVIS AVE
N MARKS AVE
W HERNDON AVE
S MADERA AVE
N BLACKSTONE AVE
E ASHLAN AVE
W MCKINLEY AVE
N FRIANT RD
E KINGS CANYON RD
N GRANTLAND AVE
W SHAW AVE
S ELM
AV
E
P S
M ST
T
E HERNDON AVE
W CALIFORNIA AVE
PITT
MAN
HI LL RD
B ST
G ST
MILLERTON RD
LODG ERD
W SHIELDS AVE
N MCCALL AVE
S RAINBOW AVE
S MCCALL AVE
N WILLOW AVE
E JENSEN AVE
WATTS
VAL LEY
RD
N MADERA AVE
S AMPLE RD
W JENSEN AVE
AUBERRY RD
N LAKE AVE
TOLLHOUSE RD
NPIEDRA RD
S JAMES RD
MAXON RD
E TRIMMER SPRIN GS RD
∙þ180
∙þ145 ∙þ99
∙þ41
∙þ168
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo\Intx_PCF_FresnoCo.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Primary Collision Factors
! Improper Turning
! Driving Under the Influence
! Unsafe Speed
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 77.1
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Primary Collision Factors Jurisdiction Results: Unincorporated Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 3Miles
Selma
Sanger
Orange Cove Reedley Parlier
Kingsburg
Fowler
Fresno
W AMERICAN AVE S MARKS AVE
E AMERICAN AVE
E NORTH AVE
E BELMONT AVE
E TULARE ST S CEDAR AVE
H ST
I ST
E ROSE AVE
E ADAMS AVE
S BETHEL AVE
E MCKINLEY AVE
E MANNING AVE
E MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
E ANN A DALE AVE
E ELKHORN AVE
S MENDOCINO AVE
S MCCALL AVE
E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
S ACADEMY AVE
W MCKINLEY AVE
E KINGS CANYON RD
ADAMS AVE
W BELMONT AVE
S ELM AVE
W CALIFORNIA AVE
W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
S FOWLER AVE
W OLIVE AVE
W ELKHORN AVE
S CHESTNUT AVE
W JENSEN AVE
M ST
W MANNING AVE
S GOLDEN STATE BLVD
B ST
G ST
S
HILLS
VALLEY
R
D
NPIEDRA RD
W KAMM AVE
GEO
RGE SMITH RD
DUNLAP
R
D
S
RAINBOW AVE
S COVE AVE
E JENSEN AVE
S FIG AVE
S REED AVE
S DOWER AVE S JAMESON AVE
S HENDERSON RD
W EXCELSIOR AVE
S ALTA AVE
S DICKENSON AVE
E
S CLOVIS AVE
GOODFELLOW AVE
SAND CREEK RD
RUTH HILL RD
∙þ99
∙þ168
∙þ180
∙þ41
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo\Intx_PCF_FresnoCo.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Primary Collision Factors
! Improper Turning
! Driving Under the Influence
! Unsafe Speed
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 77.2
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Primary Collision Factors Jurisdiction Results: Unincorporated Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 3Miles
Selma
Sanger
Reedley
San Joaquin
Parlier
Kingsburg
Coalinga
Fowler
Huron
Fresno S MARKS AVE
E AMERICAN AVE
S MCMULLIN GRD
W MANNING AVE
S CEDAR AVE
E ROSE AVE
E ADAMS AVE
S BETHEL AVE
E MANNING AVE
SFRESNO COALINGA RD
E ELKHORN AVES MCCALL AVE
E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
S ACADEMY AVE
COLORADO RD S LASSEN
AVE
W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
S FOWLER AVE
S
JAMES
RD
S DERRICK AVE
W KAMM AVE
W JAYNE AVE
S MADERA AVE
S PLA
CER
AVE
S REED AVE
W PANOCHE RD
S EL DORADO AVE
S JAMESON AVE
W AMERICAN AVE
S SAN DIEGO AVE
P HELPS AVE
W OAKLAND AVE
L OSG AT OS RD
WARTHAM CANYON RD
§¨¦5
∙þ99
∙þ41
K:\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo\Intx_PCF_FresnoCo.mxd Date: 11/16/2021 Primary Collision Factors
! Improper Turning
! Driving Under the Influence
! Unsafe Speed
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 77.3
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Intersection Primary Collision Factors Jurisdiction Results: Unincorporated Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 4.5Miles
Clovis
Kerman
Fresno
SHAW AVE
W BELMONT AVE
E NORTH AVE S CEDAR AVE
E NEES AVE
E BELMONT AVE
N WEST AVE
N PALM AVE
N CEDAR AVE
N FIRST ST
E SHIELDS AVE
E TULARE ST
H ST
E JENSEN AVE
E MCKINLEY AVE
W ASHLAN AVE
N CLOVIS AVE
N MARKS AVE
S MADERA AVE
W HERNDON AVE
N BLACKSTONE AVE
W MCKINLEY AVE
E KINGS CANYON RD
N GRANTLAND AVE
W SHAW AVE
N
FRIANT RD
P ST
E HERNDON AVE
W OLIVE AVE
M ST
W CALIFORNIA AVE
B ST
W SHIELDS AVE
A
U
BERRY RD
N WILLOW AVE
N MADERA AVE
W JENSEN AVE
N LAKE AVE
S JAMES RD
∙þ180
∙þ145
∙þ168
∙þ99
∙þ41
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo\Rdwy_CrashType_FresnoCo.mxd Date: 1/6/2022 Collision Type
! Broadside
! Hit Object
! Overturned
Priority Roadways
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 78.1
Intersection Top 3 Collision Types
Jurisdiction Results: Unincorporated Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 3Miles
Selma
Sanger
Orange Cove Reedley Parlier
Kingsburg
Fowler
Fresno
W AMERICAN AVE S MARKS AVE
E AMERICAN AVE
E NORTH AVE
E BELMONT AVE
E TULARE ST S CEDAR AVE
H ST
I ST
E ROSE AVE
E ADAMS AVE
S BETHEL AVE
E MCKINLEY AVE
E MANNING AVE
E MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
E ELKHORN AVE
S MENDOCINO AVE
S MCCALL AVE
E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
S ACADEMY AVE
W MCKINLEY AVE
E KINGS CANYON RD
ADAMS AVE
W BELMONT AVE
S ELM AVE
W CALIFORNIA AVE
W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
S FOWLER AVE
W OLIVE AVE
W ELKHORN AVE
S CHESTNUT AVE
W JENSEN AVE
W MANNING AVE
M ST
S GOLDEN STATE BLVD
B ST
G ST
S
H LI LS
VALLEY
R
D
W KAMM AVE
S COVE AVE
S FIG AVE
S REED AVE
S DOWER AVE S JAMESON AVE
S HENDERSON RD
W EXCELSIOR AVE
S ALTA AVE
S DICKENSON AVE
E
S CLOVIS AVE
GOODFELLOW AVE
S AND CREEK RD
∙þ99
∙þ168
∙þ180
∙þ41
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo\Rdwy_CrashType_FresnoCo.mxd Date: 1/6/2022 Collision Type
! Broadside
! Hit Object
! Overturned
Priority Roadways
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 78.2
Intersection Top 3 Collision Types
Jurisdiction Results: Unincorporated Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 3Miles
Selma
Sanger
Reedley
San Joaquin
Parlier
Kingsburg
Coalinga
Fowler
Huron
Fresno S MARKS AVE
E AMERICAN AVE
S MCMULLIN GRD
W MANNING AVE
S CEDAR AVE
E ROSE AVE
E ADAMS AVE
S BETHEL AVE
E MANNING AVE
SFRESNO COALINGA RD
E ELKHORN AVES MCCALL AVE
E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
S ACADEMY AVE
COLORADO RD S LASSEN
AVE
W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
S FOWLER AVE
S
JAMES RD
S DERRICK AVE
W KAMM AVE
W JAYNE AVE
S MADERA AVE
S PLA
CER
AVE
S REED AVE
W PANOCHE RD
S EL DORADO AVE
S JAMESON AVE
W AMERICAN AVE
S SAN DIEGO AVE
P HELPS AVE
W OAKLAND AVE
LOS GATOS RD
WARTHAM CANYON RD
§¨¦5
∙þ99
∙þ41
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo\Rdwy_CrashType_FresnoCo.mxd Date: 1/6/2022 Collision Type
! Broadside
! Hit Object
! Overturned
Priority Roadways
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 78.3
Intersection Top 3 Collision Types
Jurisdiction Results: Unincorporated Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 4.5Miles
Clovis
Sanger
Kerman
Fresno
SHAW AVE
W BELMONT AVE
E SHAW AVE
E NORTH AVE S CEDAR AVE
ASHLAN AVE E ASHLAN AVE
E NEES AVE
E BELMONT AVE
N WEST AVE
E BULLARD AVE
N PALM AVE
N CEDAR AVE
N FIRST ST
E TULARE ST
ELWOODRD
E MCKINLEY AVE
N
A
C
A
DEMY
AVE
W ASHLAN AVE
E ANN A DALE AVE
N CLOVIS AVE
N MARKS AVE
S MADERA AVE
W HERNDON AVE
N BLACKSTONE AVE
W MCKINLEY AVE
N FRIANT RD
E KINGS CANYON RD
N GRANTLAND AVE
W SHAW AVE
S ELM
AV
E
P S
M ST
T
E HERNDON AVE
W CALIFORNIA AVE
PITT
MAN
HI LL RD
B ST
G ST
LODGERD
W SHIELDS AVE
N MCCALL AVE
S
RAINBOW AVE
N WILLOW AVE
E JENSEN AVE
WATTS
VAL LEY
RD
N MADERA AVE
S AMPLE RD
MILLERTONRD
W JENSEN AVE
AUBERRY RD
N LAKE AVE
TOLLHOUSE RD
NPIEDRA RD
S JAMES RD
MAXON RD
E TRIMMER SPRIN GS R D
∙þ180
∙þ145 ∙þ99
∙þ41
∙þ168
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo\Rdwy_PCF_FresnoCo.mxd Date: 1/6/2022 Primary Collision Factors
! Improper Turning
! Driving Under the Influence
! Unsafe Speed
Priority Roadways
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 79.1
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Roadway Primary Collision Factor Jurisdiction Results: Unincorporated Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 3Miles
Selma
Sanger
Orange Cove Reedley Parlier
Kingsburg
Fowler
Fresno
W AMERICAN AVE S MARKS AVE
E AMERICAN AVE
E NORTH AVE
E BELMONT AVE
E TULARE ST S CEDAR AVE
I ST
E ROSE AVE
E ADAMS AVE
S BETHEL AVE
E MCKINLEY AVE
E MANNING AVE
E MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
E ANN A DALE AVE
E ELKHORN AVE
S MENDOCINO AVE
S MCCALL AVE
E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
S ACADEMY AVE
W MCKINLEY AVE
E KINGS CANYON RD
ADAMS AVE
W BELMONT AVE
S ELM AVE
W CALIFORNIA AVE
W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
P ST
S FOWLER AVE
W OLIVE AVE
W ELKHORN AVE
S CHESTNUT AVE
W JENSEN AVE
M ST
S GOLDEN STATE BLVD
W MANNING AVE
B ST
G ST
S
HILLS
VALLEY
R
D
NPIEDRA RD
W KAMM AVE
GEO
R
GE SMITH RD
S
RAINBOW AVE
DUNLAP
R
D
S COVE AVE
E JENSEN AVE
S FIG AVE
S REED AVE
S DOWER AVE S JAMESON AVE
S HENDERSON RD
W EXCELSIOR AVE
S ALTA AVE
S DICKENSON AVE
E
S CLOVIS AVE
GOODFELLOW AVE
S AND CREEK R D
RUTH HILL RD
∙þ99
∙þ168
∙þ180
∙þ41
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo\Rdwy_PCF_FresnoCo.mxd Date: 1/6/2022 Primary Collision Factors
! Improper Turning
! Driving Under the Influence
! Unsafe Speed
Priority Roadways
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 79.2
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Roadway Primary Collision Factor Jurisdiction Results: Unincorporated Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 3Miles
Selma
Sanger
Reedley
San Joaquin
Parlier
Kingsburg
Coalinga
Fowler
Huron
Fresno S MARKS AVE
E AMERICAN AVE
S MCMULLIN GRD
W MANNING AVE
S CEDAR AVE
E ROSE AVE
E ADAMS AVE
S BETHEL AVE
E MANNING AVE
SFRESNO COALINGA RD
E ELKHORN AVES MCCALL AVE
E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
S ACADEMY AVE
COLORADO RD S LASSEN
AVE
W MOUNT WHITNEY AVE
S FOWLER AVE
S
JAMES
RD
S DERRICK AVE
W KAMM AVE
W JAYNE AVE
S MADERA AVE
S PLA
CER
AVE
S REED AVE
W PANOCHE RD
S EL DORADO AVE
S JAMESON AVE
S SAN DIEGO AVE
P HELPS AVE
W OAKLAND AVE
LOS GATOS RD
WARTHAM CANYON RD
§¨¦5
∙þ99
∙þ41
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\26\26012 - Fresno COG Local LRSPs\GIS\Task 4 mxds\FresnoCo\Rdwy_PCF_FresnoCo.mxd Date: 1/6/2022 Primary Collision Factors
! Improper Turning
! Driving Under the Influence
! Unsafe Speed
Priority Roadways
City Limits
County Boundary
Clovis
Selma
Firebaugh
Kerman
Coalinga
Fresno
Figure 79.3
Top Fatal/Severe Injury Roadway Primary Collision Factor Jurisdiction Results: Unincorporated Fresno County
Fresno Council of Governments
[ 0 4.5Miles
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
183
Table 33 and Table 34 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 33. Priority Intersections with Collision Type based on Top 3 Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Types # Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Collision Type
Broadside Hit
Object
Overturned Other
1 LAC JAC AVE & DINUBA AVE Unsignalized 201.09 15 12 0 0 3 2 FRANKWOOD AVE & CENTRAL AVE Unsignalized 164.99 14 10 1 0 3 3 ACADEMY AVE & ADAMS AVE Unsignalized 162.93 18 11 1 0 6 4 BETHEL AVE & DINUBA AVE Unsignalized 157.25 49 44 3 0 2 5 AUBERRY RD & FRAZIER RD Unsignalized 154.92 8 0 6 2 0 6 KEARNEY BLVD & CORNELIA AVE &
MADISON AVE Unsignalized 139.01 29 22 5 0 2
7 CLOVIS AVE & MOUNTAIN VIEW
AVE Unsignalized 137.94 19 16 1 1 1
8 BETHEL AVE & ROSE AVE Unsignalized 135.54 25 20 1 0 4 9 CLOVIS AVE & NEBRASKA AVE Unsignalized 133.24 20 19 0 1 0 10 MARKS AVE & JENSEN AVE Unsignalized 132.02 19 17 1 0 1 11 AMERICAN AVE & GOLDEN STATE
BLVD Unsignalized 128.81 26 20 1 1 4
12 FRIANT RD & BELCHER Unsignalized 128.36 15 0 6 7 2
13 BETHEL AVE & NEBRASKA AVE Unsignalized 127.34 15 13 2 0 0 14 MCMULLIN GRD & MANNING AVE Unsignalized 127.13 19 19 0 0 0 15 FRONTIER TRAIL LN & SAMPLE RD Unsignalized 122.99 8 0 1 4 3 16 TEMPERANCE AVE & CENTRAL AVE Unsignalized 121.12 13 10 3 0 0 17 TEMPERANCE AVE & JENSEN AVE Signal 120.58 34 26 3 0 5 18 HILL AVE & SOUTH AVE Unsignalized 118.78 11 8 0 0 3
19 PALM AVE & ASHLAN AVE Signal 116.62 63 31 3 0 29
20 MCCALL AVE & KINGS CANYON
RD Signal 113.07 26 7 1 1 17
21 ACADEMY AVE & NEBRASKA AVE Unsignalized 107.37 30 26 3 0 1 22 BETHEL AVE Signal 105.38 13 13 0 0 0
23 DICKENSON AVE & KEARNEY BLVD Unsignalized 103.69 31 28 1 0 2 24 CRAWFORD AVE & MANNING AVE Unsignalized 102.08 28 21 1 0 6 25 DE WOLF AVE & MCKINLEY AVE Unsignalized 98.92 27 21 1 0 5 26 ZEDIKER AVE & ROSE AVE Unsignalized 96.98 27 26 0 0 1 27 ACADEMY AVE & MOUNTAIN VIEW
AVE Signal 96.36 31 14 1 0 16
28 AUBERRY RD & MILLERTON RD Unsignalized 95.87 27 7 15 2 3 29 DEL REY AVE & NORTH AVE Unsignalized 95.86 26 21 1 0 4 30 MENDOCINO AVE & DINUBA AVE Unsignalized 92.32 18 13 0 0 5
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
184
# Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Collision Type
Broadside Hit
Object
Overturned Other
31 KINGS CANYON RD & RIO VISTA
AVE Unsignalized 91.21 18 3 1 0 14
32 MCCALL AVE & SOUTH AVE Unsignalized 87.88 12 8 2 0 2 33 DE WOLF AVE & JENSEN AVE Unsignalized 87.85 16 14 1 0 1 34 BUTTONWILLOW AVE & SOUTH AVE Unsignalized 87.65 15 12 0 0 3 35 DEL REY AVE & MCKINLEY AVE Unsignalized 87.58 10 8 0 0 2 36 ACADEMY AVE & ROSE AVE Unsignalized 86.42 19 15 2 0 2 37 DICKENSON AVE & SHAW AVE Unsignalized 86.14 13 9 0 0 4 38 CHESTNUT AVE & CLAYTON AVE Unsignalized 85.14 8 7 1 0 0 39 MCCALL AVE & JENSEN AVE Signal 84.20 21 12 1 0 8
40 ZEDIKER AVE & DINUBA AVE Unsignalized 84.19 12 10 0 0 2 41 LEONARD AVE & SHIELDS AVE Unsignalized 83.90 11 10 1 0 0 42 CLOVIS AVE & DONNER AVE Unsignalized 83.31 9 5 1 0 3 43 LASSEN AVE & JAYNE AVE Unsignalized 83.28 13 9 0 0 4 44 WEST AVE & MANNING AVE Unsignalized 82.48 9 6 0 0 3
45 HIGHLAND AVE & CLARKSON AVE Unsignalized 82.39 9 6 0 0 3 46 CLOVIS AVE & MANNING AVE Unsignalized 81.86 11 8 0 0 3 47 HILL AVE & ADAMS AVE Unsignalized 81.76 10 8 0 0 2
48 LEONARD AVE & MANNING AVE Unsignalized 81.66 10 6 2 0 2 49 NEWMARK AVE & NORTH AVE Unsignalized 81.16 7 3 1 0 3 50 MAROA AVE & SHAW AVE Signal 80.54 45 17 3 0 25
Notes: All unsignalized intersections are classified as rural intersections.
Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three collision types Table 34. 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 DUI Unsafe Speed Other
1 LAC JAC AVE & DINUBA AVE Unsignalized 201.09 15 0 1 3 11 2 FRANKWOOD AVE & CENTRAL
AVE Unsignalized 164.99 14 0 1 0 13
3 ACADEMY AVE & ADAMS AVE Unsignalized 162.93 18 1 6 2 9 4 BETHEL AVE & DINUBA AVE Unsignalized 157.25 49 4 0 3 42 5 AUBERRY RD & FRAZIER RD Unsignalized 154.92 8 2 5 1 0 6 KEARNEY BLVD & CORNELIA AVE
& MADISON AVE Unsignalized 139.01 29 4 0 1 24
7 CLOVIS AVE & MOUNTAIN VIEW
AVE Unsignalized 137.94 19 0 3 2 14
8 BETHEL AVE & ROSE AVE Unsignalized 135.54 25 1 0 0 24 9 CLOVIS AVE & NEBRASKA AVE Unsignalized 133.24 20 1 0 0 19 10 MARKS AVE & JENSEN AVE Unsignalized 132.02 19 2 4 2 11
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
185
# Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Improper
Turning DUI Unsafe Speed Other
11 AMERICAN AVE & GOLDEN STATE
BLVD Unsignalized 128.81 26 2 2 2 20
12 FRIANT RD & BELCHER Unsignalized 128.36 15 8 2 5 0
13 BETHEL AVE & NEBRASKA AVE Unsignalized 127.34 15 2 1 0 12 14 MCMULLIN GRD & MANNING
AVE Unsignalized 127.13 19 1 0 2 16
15 FRONTIER TRAIL LN & SAMPLE RD Unsignalized 122.99 8 6 0 2 0 16 TEMPERANCE AVE & CENTRAL
AVE Unsignalized 121.12 13 3 0 0 10
17 TEMPERANCE AVE & JENSEN AVE Signal 120.58 34 1 1 5 27 18 HILL AVE & SOUTH AVE Unsignalized 118.78 11 1 2 1 7
19 PALM AVE & ASHLAN AVE Signal 116.62 63 5 7 12 39
20 MCCALL AVE & KINGS CANYON
RD Signal 113.07 26 1 2 15 8
21 ACADEMY AVE & NEBRASKA AVE Unsignalized 107.37 30 2 0 0 28 22 BETHEL AVE Signal 105.38 13 0 1 0 12
23 DICKENSON AVE & KEARNEY
BLVD Unsignalized 103.69 31 1 3 0 27
24 CRAWFORD AVE & MANNING
AVE Unsignalized 102.08 28 2 0 5 21
25 DE WOLF AVE & MCKINLEY AVE Unsignalized 98.92 27 0 0 3 24 26 ZEDIKER AVE & ROSE AVE Unsignalized 96.98 27 1 1 2 23 27 ACADEMY AVE & MOUNTAIN
VIEW AVE Signal 96.36 31 0 2 11 18
28 AUBERRY RD & MILLERTON RD Unsignalized 95.87 27 8 2 8 9 29 DEL REY AVE & NORTH AVE Unsignalized 95.86 26 1 3 3 19 30 MENDOCINO AVE & DINUBA AVE Unsignalized 92.32 18 2 0 5 11 31 KINGS CANYON RD & RIO VISTA
AVE Unsignalized 91.21 18 1 0 11 6
32 MCCALL AVE & SOUTH AVE Unsignalized 87.88 12 2 1 3 6 33 DE WOLF AVE & JENSEN AVE Unsignalized 87.85 16 1 0 1 14 34 BUTTONWILLOW AVE & SOUTH
AVE Unsignalized 87.65 15 0 1 1 13
35 DEL REY AVE & MCKINLEY AVE Unsignalized 87.58 10 0 0 1 9 36 ACADEMY AVE & ROSE AVE Unsignalized 86.42 19 2 1 2 14 37 DICKENSON AVE & SHAW AVE Unsignalized 86.14 13 0 1 0 12 38 CHESTNUT AVE & CLAYTON AVE Unsignalized 85.14 8 1 0 0 7 39 MCCALL AVE & JENSEN AVE Signal 84.20 21 1 5 5 10
40 ZEDIKER AVE & DINUBA AVE Unsignalized 84.19 12 0 0 1 11 41 LEONARD AVE & SHIELDS AVE Unsignalized 83.90 11 1 0 0 10 42 CLOVIS AVE & DONNER AVE Unsignalized 83.31 9 0 2 1 6 43 LASSEN AVE & JAYNE AVE Unsignalized 83.28 13 0 0 3 10
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
186
# Location Type
Crash
Severity
Score
Total
Number of
Crashes
Primary Collision Factor
Improper
Turning DUI Unsafe Speed Other
44 WEST AVE & MANNING AVE Unsignalized 82.48 9 1 0 2 6
45 HIGHLAND AVE & CLARKSON
AVE Unsignalized 82.39 9 0 0 1 8
46 CLOVIS AVE & MANNING AVE Unsignalized 81.86 11 0 0 3 8 47 HILL AVE & ADAMS AVE Unsignalized 81.76 10 0 0 4 6
48 LEONARD AVE & MANNING AVE Unsignalized 81.66 10 1 0 0 9 49 NEWMARK AVE & NORTH AVE Unsignalized 81.16 7 1 0 0 6 50 MAROA AVE & SHAW AVE Signal 80.54 45 3 1 11 30
Notes: All unsignalized intersections are classified as rural intersections.
Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three primary collision factors DUI = Driving Under the Influence
Table 35 and Table 36 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 35. 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
BroadsideHit
Object
Overturned Other
1 Millerton Rd (Winchell Cove to
Brighton Crest Dr) Arterial/Collector 145.02 21 0 11 3 7 2 Auberry Rd (Old Auberry Rd to Old
Auberry Rd) Arterial/Collector 144.23 18 0 12 2 4
3 Millerton Rd (Brighton Crest Dr to
Sky Harbour Rd) Arterial/Collector 136.81 10 0 6 1 3
4 Millerton Rd (Via Bellagio to East of
Via Bellaggio)
Arterial/Collector 136.69 14 0 8 1 5
5 Millerton Rd (East of Via Bellaggio
to West of Millerton Rd)
Arterial/Collector 136.49 13 0 8 1 4
6 Millerton Rd (West of Via Bellaggio
to East of Millerton Rd) Arterial/Collector 134.15 11 0 6 1 4 7 N Friant Rd (South of Bluff View Ave
to North of N Friant Rd) Arterial/Collector 111.61 13 1 6 2 4 8 Millerton Rd (East of North Fork Rd
to West of Via Bellaggio) Arterial/Collector 108.80 23 1 9 7 6 9 Millerton Rd (East of Winchell Cove
to Brighton Crest Dr) Arterial/Collector 107.93 14 0 7 1 6 10 E Jensen Ave (East of S
Temperance Ave to West of S De
Wolf Ave)
Arterial/Collector 106.11 10 3 3 0 4
Note: Other crashes include all crashes that are not coded as one of the top three collision types
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
187
Table 36. 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 DUI Unsafe Speed Other
1 Millerton Rd (Winchell Cove to
Brighton Crest Dr) Arterial/Collector 145.02 21 15 1 1 4 2 Auberry Rd (Old Auberry Rd to
Old Auberry Rd) Arterial/Collector 144.23 18 8 6 2 2
3 Millerton Rd (Brighton Crest Dr to
Sky Harbour Rd) Arterial/Collector 136.81 10 6 0 0 4
4 Millerton Rd (Via Bellagio to East
of Via Bellaggio)
Arterial/Collector 136.69 14 9 2 2 1
5 Millerton Rd (East of Via Bellaggio
to West of Millerton Rd)
Arterial/Collector 136.49 13 0 2 1 10
6 Millerton Rd (West of Via Bellaggio
to East of Millerton Rd) Arterial/Collector 134.15 11 5 2 3 1 7 N Friant Rd (South of Bluff View
Ave to North of N Friant Rd) Arterial/Collector 111.61 13 6 4 2 1 8 Millerton Rd (East of North Fork Rd
to West of Via Bellaggio) Arterial/Collector 108.80 23 15 3 2 3 9 Millerton Rd (East of Winchell
Cove to Brighton Crest Dr) Arterial/Collector 107.93 14 10 1 0 3 10 E Jensen Ave (East of S
Temperance Ave to West of S De
Wolf Ave)
Arterial/Collector 106.11 10 3 4 2 1
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 Unincorporated Fresno County are targeted at unsafe speed and driving or bicycling under the influence of drugs or alcohol, given the prevalence of these primary collision factors in fatal and severe injury 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. Unincorporated Fresno
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
188
County may find these materials helpful, especially those related to the dangers of speeding, using the roadway under the influence, and using the roadway in lower visibility conditions.
The following activities are recommended for Unincorporated Fresno County as they move forward on implementing the Safe Roads Save Lives campaign:
▪ Identify a team of staff appropriate to attend a presentation by 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. ▪ Identify a specific staff member to be the County’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 Identify community groups that work with migrant workers throughout the county to understand how materials about the campaign can be best distributed. 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 Unincorporated Fresno County 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 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.
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 Fresno County – 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
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
189
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.
▪ Fresno County 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.
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 higherthan-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 Unincorporated Fresno County:
▪ 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.
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).
5.0 FRESNO COUNTY
190
EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
A key part of achieving the County’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the County’s goals. The County 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 Fresno County 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 County’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.
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Appoint New Planning Commissioner to the Planning Commission Meeting Date: March 3, 2022
From: Marissa Trejo, City Manager
Prepared by: Sean Brewer, Assistant City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Councilappoint one (1) new Planning Commissioner to the Planning Commission due to a recent vacancy.
II. BACKGROUND:
With the recent passing of Commissioner Garza there is currently a vacancy on the Coalinga Planning Commission which will need to be filled. In accordance with Section 2-3.102, members of the Planning Commission shall be appointed by the Council. Any vacancy occurring on the Planning Commission by reason of death, resignation, removal or disqualification shall promptly be filled by the Council for the unexpired term of such member.
In January the Council directed staff to advertise for the vacancy to gather interest in the position. Staff advertised the available position as a public notice as well on social media and website. Staff received 3 applications.
III. DISCUSSION:
Staff received applications from Ken Stoppenbrink, Rocco Papietro, and Richard Hill. Attached are copies of their applications for your review.
Staff advised all applicants that the City Council would be considering an appointment to the Commission at their March 3, 2022 meeting and that it would be appropriate to attend should the Council have any questions.
Once the Council is ready to appoint a candidate, a member of the Council shall make a motion nominating a member of the public to the commission and vote accordingly.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
The Commission may appoint either from the applicant pool or anyone else willing to accept a nomination who meets the qualifications of a Planning Commissioner.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
AT
TACHMENTS: File Name
Description
Commissioner_Applications_2022_Solicitation.pdfCommissionerApplications
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Discussion, Direction and PotentialAction related to the 2023 Water Year in Response to the USBR InitialAllocation Announcement
Meeting Date: March 3, 2022
From: Marissa Trejo, City Manager
Prepared by: Sean Brewer, Assistant City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
There is no recommendation as of the writing of this report since the allocation announcement occurred the same day as the completion of this staff report. Staff will have additional information for discussion at the Council meeting.
II. BACKGROUND:
On February 23, 2022, the USBR announced that the Municipaland Industrial Contractors will be allocated 25% of historical use which is the same initialallocation as the 2022 water year. In addition, contractors will be able to submit public health and safety adjustments within 30 days of the announcement. Staff will discuss this letter at the City Council meeting and next steps.
III. DISCUSSION:
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
NoAttachments Available