Compton City Council
June 20, 2023

Members of the public may address the City Council on any item shown on the agenda or matter of the Council’s authority after completion of “Request to Address the Council Form” available in the lobby of the Council Chambers or in the City Clerk’s office. This form must be completed 15 minutes prior to the scheduled meeting time. Pursuant to Section 54957.5 of the California Government Code, Any writings (Except for those writings which are exempt from disclosure) which are
distributed to all or a majority of the members of the City Council are available for public inspection in the lobby of the City Council Chambers and in the office of the City Clerk during regular business hours.

COMPTON CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
06/20/2023
PUBLIC MEETING 5:30 PM

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
205 SOUTH WILLOWBROOK AVENUE
COMPTON, CALIFORNIA 90220

HEARING(S)
PUBLIC HEARING: @5:45 P.M. FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 BUDGET
PUBLIC HEARING: @5:50 P.M. TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON HOME-

AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN (HOME-ARP)

OPENING

MOMENT OF SILENCE

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL
-2- City Council Agenda
6/20/2023 5:30:00 PM

COMMENDATORY RESOLUTIONS/PRESENTATIONS

1. DAVIS MIDDLE SCHOOL - COUNCILMAN BOWERS

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS AND NON-AGENDA MATTERS

REGULAR AGENDA

CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

2. CREDIT CARD QUARTERLY REPORTS - (Receive and File)

NEW BUSINESS

3. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMPTON LEVYING A MUNICIPAL TAX RATE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 (First Reading)

4. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMPTON ADOPTING THE CITY OF COMPTON’S LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)

5. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMPTON

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A MULTI-YEAR

AGREEMENT AND ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER TO CIVIX FOR LEASE ACCOUNTING STANDARD IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES ($57,842.23)

6. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMPTON

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACT WITH AND ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER TO MDJ MANAGEMENT, LLC SITE RECONSTRUCTION AND UPGRADED SECURITY FEATURES AT 404 NORTH ALAMEDA STREET ($1,863,266)

COUNCIL COMMENTS

ADJOURNMENT
NEXT REGULAR MEETING: 6/27/2023 5:30 PM PM.

Visit our website at http://www.comptoncity.org
Date Vendor Amount Services
9/8/2022 Starbucks Store 12.90$ Coffee Purchase while City Manager was at a conference in Long Beach 9/13/2022 The Green Olive 109.46$ Refreshments for Closed Session 9/14/2022 Citywide Towing 2,000.00$ Impound / Storage fee for stolen city truck 9/14/2022 CBCF (Congressional Black Conference) 407.60$ Registration fee - 51st Annual Legislative Conference (Washington, DC) - L. Darden 9/14/2022 CBCF (Congressional Black Conference) 407.60$ Registration fee - 51st Annual Legislative Conference (Washington, DC) - E. Sharif 9/15/2022 American Airlines 330.60$ Flight to attend CBCF - Ticket for L. Darden (LA to DC) 9/15/2022 United Airlines 317.60$ Flight returning from CBCF - Ticket for L. Darden (DC to LA) 9/15/2022 Priceline - American Airlines 83.00$ Modification to Flight for L. Darden 9/15/2022 Southwest Airline 82.02$ Flight to attend CBCF - Ticket for E. Sharif (LA to DC) 9/15/2022 Alaska Airlines 378.60$ Flight returning from CBCF - Ticket for E. Sharif (DC to LA) 9/15/2022 United Airlines 317.60$ Flight to attend CBCF - Ticket for A. Spicer (DC to LA) 9/15/2022 Jet Blue 239.61$ Flight to attend CBCF - Ticket for A. Spicer (LA to DC) 9/16/2022 Hilton Hotel 1,287.62$ Hotel stay for CBCF attendee - E. Sharif 9/20/2022 Apple Spice Junction 82.61$ Refreshments for Closed Session 9/27/2022 El Pollo Loco 47.90$ Refreshments for Closed Session 10/2/2022 Grand Hyatt Washington 1,626.55$ Hotel stay for CBCF attendee - L. Darden 7,731.27$ Total of Charges

2. BANKT�EWEST

BNP PARIBAS

BANKCARD CENTER
PO BOX 4021
ALAMEDA CA 94501-0421
1 11h I 11111 lhl (,I l'I 'Ill I l'I I II I I I I ,I 'I 'II" l'I I I II',, 11 I 1111 ,I I

CITY OF COMPTON

THOMAS THOMAS
205 S WILLOWBROOK AVE
COMPTON CA 90220 3134
Rl09
2Sl<i6
,,, 1•111111,, ,, I• I l•I, I It,,, ,, .. 111,,1 Ill• I' I '111111111,, I•' 11 I' I Prepared For:

Account Number:

Statement for Period:

Pay

CITY OF COMPTON

XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-
09/0512.2 b 10/04/22
Summary of Account Activity
Previous Balance
Payments
Other Credits
Purchases & Other Charges
Balance Transfer/ Checks
Cash Advances
Fees Charged
Interest Charged
New Balance Total
Credit Limit
Credit Available
Past Due Am ount
Amount Over Limit
Statement closing dale
Days in billing cycle
QUESTIONS?
Call Customer Service

TTY/TDD
Lost or Stolen Card
.
+
+
+
+
+
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$7, 731.27
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$7.731.27
$50,000.00
$42,199.00
$0.00
$0.00
10/04/2022
30 (800) 996 -2638
(800) 659-5495
(800) 996-2638
Payment Information
Account Number
New Balance
Min imum Payment Due
Payment Due Date
Please return !his portion with yc,.x payment.

Amo unt Endosed
Make checks payable lo:

Bankcard Center $
Pnnt enango or J<IOross or pnone number(s) bofOw·
lel<hss
Crty Staie
Home Phone
cen Phooo
Payment Information
New Balance
Minimum Payment Due
Payment Due Date

XXXX-XXXX-XXXX
$7,731.27
$232.00
November 1, 2022
$7,731.27
$232.00
November 1, 2022
Late Payment Warning: If we do not receive your minimum payment by the date listed above, you may have to pay up to a $41.00late fee.

Minimum Payment Warning: If you make only the minimum
payment each period, you will pay more in interest and ii will take you longer to pay off your balance. For example:

If you make ro You wlR pay off the Aro you will end up addlUonal charges using !tis card and balance shown on this payilg an estimated each month you pay ... statement In about... lot� of ...

Only the minimum 13 years $1 2450.00 payment
$265.00 3 years $9545.00
(Savings= $2905 .00)
If you would like information about credit counseling services, call 1-888-844-6177 or visit
www.bankofthewest.com/creditcounseling.

Please send billing inquiries and correspondence to
P.O. Box 2078, Omaha. NE 68103-2078
Please see reverse side for important information
5203 0001 H41t

BANKTWEWEST

BNP PARIBAS
001 7 4 221004 0 PAGE 1 of 3

1 0 1265 0000 8208 25146

Date Vendor Amount Services
10/4/2022 Panda Express 69.73$ Refreshments for Closed Session - Paid for by City Manager 10/6/2022 CA. Dept of Industrial Relations 450.00$ Expediting fee for elevator at Dollarhide - General Services 10/6/2022 CA. Dept of Industrial Relations 1,350.00$ Expediting fee for elevator at Dollarhide - General Services 10/6/2022 CA. Dept of Industrial Relations 31.05$ Convenience fee for online payment - General Services 10/6/2022 CA. Dept of Industrial Relations 10.35$ Convenience fee for online payment - General Services 10/6/2022 Grand Hyatt Washington (685.12)$ Credit Issued 10/11/2022 Smart & Final 84.02$ Employee Meeting 10/12/2022 Smart & Final 6.09$ Employee Meeting 10/12/2022 Smart & Final (5.99)$ Credit Issued 10/12/2022 El Pollo Loco 72.74$ Refreshments for Closed Session - Paid for by City Manager 10/13/2023 Panda Express (2.79)$ Easysaving Credit 10/20/2022 Nita's Corn & Nacho 900.00$ Refreshments for Halloween Event 10/24/2022 Clinical Lab of San Bernardino 7,575.00$ Expediting outstanding payment for State & Federal Mandates 10/25/2022 El Pollo Loco 8.59$ Refreshments for Closed Session - Paid for by City Manager 10/26/2022 Chipotle 61.52$ Refreshments for Closed Session - Paid for by City Manager 11/4/2023 Late Payment 30.00$ Late Payment for this time frame 11/4/2023 Interest Charges 158.62$ Interest charge on purchases 10,619.09$ Total of Charges
(693.90)$ Credits
188.62$ Late Fees / Interest
278.73$ Paid by City Manager (Smart & Final Charges & Interest / Late Fee)

Date Vendor Amount Services
11/3/2022 InSite Solutions, LLC 2,545.95 $ Expediting ordering process for botts' dots - mitigating street takeovers 11/5/2022 Late Charge Refund (30.00)$
12/4/2022 Late Payment Fee 41.00$
12/4/2022 Interest Charge 261.28$
2,545.95 $ Total of Charges

30.00$ Refunds
302.28$ Interest and Late Fees

Date Vendor Amount Services
11/14/2022 Payment Received (7,731.27)$ Received for November posted to December Statement 11/14/2022 Finance Charge Previous Cy (68.56)$ Received for November posted to December Statement 11/14/2022 Preevious Cycle Late Fee (41.00)$ Received for November posted to December Statement 12/5/2022 Late Fee Refund (41.00)$ Credit Issued 12/10/2022 National Car Rental 191.82$ Rental Vehicle for Compton Christmas Parade 12/10/2022 National Car Rental 191.82$ Rental Vehicle for Compton Christmas Parade 12/10/2022 National Car Rental 191.82$ Rental Vehicle for Compton Christmas Parade 12/10/2022 National Car Rental 191.82$ Rental Vehicle for Compton Christmas Parade 12/10/2022 National Car Rental 172.82$ Rental Vehicle for Compton Christmas Parade 12/10/2022 National Car Rental 215.70$ Rental Vehicle for Compton Christmas Parade 12/10/2022 National Car Rental 191.82$ Rental Vehicle for Compton Christmas Parade 12/10/2022 National Car Rental 215.70$ Rental Vehicle for Compton Christmas Parade 12/10/2022 National Car Rental 191.82$ Rental Vehicle for Compton Christmas Parade 12/10/2022 National Car Rental 191.82$ Rental Vehicle for Compton Christmas Parade 12/13/2022 El Pollo Loco 63.99$ Refreshments for Closed Session - Paid for by City Manager 12/14/2022 Party City 57.33$ Decoration purchase - All Employee Meetings 12/14/2022 Smart & Final 78.62$ Employee Meeting 12/14/2022 Smart & Final 191.89$ Employee Meeting 12/15/2022 Ferraro's on the Hill 1,247.60$ Refreshments for All Employee Meeting 12/20/2022 Panda Express 11.03$ Refreshments for Closed Session - Paid for by City Manager 12/21/2022 Chipotle 52.86$ Refreshments for Closed Session - Paid for by City Manager 12/27/2022 Document Division 80.00$ Notarize services 1/4/2023 Interest Charges 195.91$
3,730.28$ Total of Charges
127.88$ Paid by City Manager - total for closed session refreshments 195.91$ Interest and Late Fees

Date Vendor Amount Services
1/4/2023 US Mayors 1,500.00$ Registration Fee - 91st Annual Winter Conference - E.Sharif (Mayor) 1/4/2023 Ferraro's on the Hill 60.00$ Refreshments for Closed Session - Paid for by City Manager 1/5/2023 Jet Blue 329.42$ Roundtrip flight to attend 91st Annual Winter Conference - E. Sharif (Mayor) 1/5/2023 Western City Magazine 300.00$ Recruitment advertising 1/17/2023 El Pollo Loco 8.81$ Refreshments for Closed Session - Paid for by City Manager 1/18/2023 Chipotle 39.30$ Refreshments for Closed Session - Paid for by City Manager 1/20/2023 Hilton Garden Inn 432.22$ Hotel stay for 91st Annual Winter Conference attendee - E.Sharif 2/1/2023 Payment Received (3,926.19)$
2/4/2023 Interst Fee 215.41$
2,669.75$ Total of Charges
108.11$ Paid by City Manager - total for closed session refreshments 215.41$ Interest Fees

Date Vendor Amount Services
2/7/2023 El Pollo Loco 40.75$ Refreshments for Closed Session - Paid for by City Manager 2/9/2023 Zoom 14.53$ Monthly Zoom Fee - HR Department 2/14/2023 Apple Spice Junction 55.06$ Refreshments for Closed Session - Paid for by City Manager 2/16/2023 Tiffany's Catering 518.35$ Refereshments for Black History Month Event 3/4/2023 Late Fee 30.00$
3/4/2023 Interest Charge 164.48$
628.69$ Total of Charges

95.81$ Paid by City Manager - total for closed session refreshments 194.48$ Intereste Fees & Late Charges

Date Vendor Amount Services
3/5/2023 Zoom 17.35$ Monthly Zoom Fee - HR Department 3/6/2023 Zoom 78.10$ Monthly Zoom Fee - City Manager 3/13/2023 Payment (472.00)$
3/14/2023 Western City Magazine 300.00$ Recruitment advertising 3/17/2023 Payment (10,810.71)$
3/17/2023 Payment Reversal 10,810.71$ Administrative issue with vendor - Bank of the West Payment made on April statement
3/28/2023 Western City Magazine 300.00$ Recruitment advertising 3/30/2023 Brown and Caldwell 200.00$ Recruitment advertising 3/30/2023 Brown and Caldwell 200.00$ Recruitment advertising 3/30/2023 Brown and Caldwell 200.00$ Recruitment advertising 3/30/2023 Brown and Caldwell 200.00$ Recruitment advertising 3/30/2023 Brown and Caldwell 200.00$ Recruitment advertising 3/30/2023 Western City Magazine 300.00$ Recruitment advertising 3/30/2023 Western City Magazine 300.00$ Recruitment advertising 3/30/2023 Western City Magazine 300.00$ Recruitment advertising 3/30/2023 Western City Magazine 300.00$ Recruitment advertising 3/30/2023 Western City Magazine 300.00$ Recruitment advertising 3/30/2023 Western City Magazine 300.00$ Recruitment advertising 4/3/2023 Western City Magazine 300.00$ Recruitment advertising 3/4/2023 Interest Fees 197.85$
3/27/2023 Returned Payment Fee 30.00$
14,606.16$ Total of Charges
227.85$ Interest Fees

June 20, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CONTROLLER
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMPTON LEVYING A MUNICIPAL TAX RATE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024

SUMMARY
The purpose of this Ordinance is to authorize the levy of the assessed valuation municipal tax rate for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

BACKGROUND
The City has levied a municipal tax (parcel tax) for many years in line with Section 1402, 1600 and 1601 of the City Charter to pay for the City’s obligations under the Employees’ Retirement Plan managed by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). The municipal tax is collected by the Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller on behalf of the City. The Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller has based assessed values at market values and it is necessary to set the municipal tax at a rate based on market value. The tax rate will remain at 0.451632, the same as the prior fiscal year.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller requires that the municipal tax rate ordinance be passed each year by the City Council even though the municipal tax rate remains unchanged. This agenda item is required to comply with the County requirements.

FISCAL IMPACT
The passing of the attached Ordinance will ensure that the City’s retirement fund continues to receive the municipal parcel tax revenues in line with the requirements of the City Charter for the purposes stipulated by the Charter. The municipal parcel tax generates approximately $30 million per year.

ALTERNATIVE
The City’s General Fund would have to pay the cost of the retirement obligations resulting in severe financial consequences to other City programs and services.

3.3. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

SHARON RAHBAN NAVIZADEH,

CITY CONTROLLER
APPROVED FOR FORWARDING:

THOMAS THOMAS

CITY MANAGER
ORDINANCE NO. __________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMPTON LEVYING A MUNICIPAL TAX RATE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
WHEREAS, the City has levied a municipal tax (parcel tax) for many years in line with Section 1402, 1600, and 1601 of the City Charter to pay for the City’s obligations under the Employees’ Retirement Plan managed by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS); and
WHEREAS, the municipal tax is collected by the Los Angeles County Auditor- Controller on behalf of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller has based assessed rates at market values and it is necessary to set the municipal tax at rate based on market value; and WHEREAS, it is required that the City certify the municipal tax rate every year.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMPTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1.That there is hereby levied a municipal tax upon the equalized assessment of the taxable property in the City of Compton at a market valuation of the following rates (per cent):

Taxation District #1……………………………………0.451632
(Old City of Compton, Annexations 1 to 3 inc; 5 to 10 inc; 13 to 32 inc; 106, 107 111 to 122 inc; 125 to 133 inc; 136 to 139 inc; 141 to 143 inc; 145, 147, 149, 151, 152, 153A, 155, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 168, 172A, 173B)
Rosecrans Redevelopment Project…………………0.451632
Walnut Industrial Redevelopment Project………….0.451632
Section 2.That said rate is made up as follow:

Employment Retirement (Debt Service)……………0.451632
Section 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance by the City Council and shall cause this Ordinance to be published as required by law.

Section 4.That pursuant to Section 611 of the Compton Charter, this Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption of the City Council.

Section 5.That the Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this Ordinance.

ADOPTED this ____________ day of _____________, 2023.
________________________________

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF COMPTON
2 Ordinance No. ___________

ATTEST:
___________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF COMPTON

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss

CITY OF COMPTON )
I, Vernell McDaniel, City Clerk of the City of Compton, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was adopted by the City Council of the City of Compton, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting thereof held on this ___________ day of ________________, 2023.

That said Ordinance was adopted by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS-
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS-
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS-
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS-
____________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF COMPTON
June 20, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMPTON ADOPTING THE CITY OF COMPTON’S LOCAL
ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP).

SUMMARY
This resolution of the City Council of the City of Compton adopts the Compton Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).

BACKGROUND
Federal regulations require each state has a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). An SHSP is a statewide data driven traffic safety plan that coordinates the efforts of a wide range of organizations to reduce traffic accident fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. In coordination with federal, state, local and private sector safety stakeholders, the SHSP establishes goals, objectives, and emphasis areas. The SHSP addresses the 4Es of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services.

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

Preparing an LRSP facilitates the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a prioritized list of improvements and actions that can demonstrate defined needs and contribute to the statewide plan. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates agency responsiveness to safety challenges.

An LRSP also provides a framework for organizing stakeholders to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local and rural roads. The process of developing an LRSP was tailored to local protocols, needs, and issues.

Additionally, in future Highway Safety Improvement Projects (HSIP) Calls-for- Projects, an LRSP will be preferred or required for an agency to be eligible to apply for federal HSIP funds.

4.4.4. Staff Report – Local Roadway Safety Plan
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan Approval
June 20, 2023

The LRSP evaluates the overall system to determine what improvements can be made to increase vehicle and pedestrian safety. The LRSP was designed as a living document that can be updated to reflect changing needs and priorities.

Caltrans has made funding available to local agencies for the development of their LRSP’s in advance of the HSIP calls that will require an LRSP to apply. On October 1, 2020, the City of Compton was awarded $72,000 from Caltrans, with a required $8,000 (10%) local match, based on the Caltrans award formula that considers the City’s population, centerline miles and lane miles.

On November 2, 2021, the Public Works Engineering Department solicited Request for Proposals (RFP’s) from qualified consultants to develop the City’s Local Safety Road Plan (LRSP).

The Request for Proposal (RFP) sought to secure the most qualified consultant to prepare a LRSP that aligns with the California State Highway Safety Plan and the Federal Highway Safety Plan and serve as an important tool for saving lives and reducing injuries on the City’s local roadways.

On December 2, 2021, the City received a total of six proposals that were ranked by staff. The top 3 firms were selected based on their responsiveness, qualifications, work experience, professional expertise, and costs. The top three proposals are listed below:

Rank Firm Location Fee
1 Kimley-Horn Los Angeles, CA $71,914.60
2 KOA Monterey Park, CA $78,449.16
3 Willdan Industry, CA $78,000.00
The proposal review committee consisted of Public Works, City Manager’s Office and our consulting staff. The committee reviewed the materials in the proposals submitted by the consultant and ranked the most qualified proposals.

After careful consideration, the proposal submitted by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. was deemed the lowest responsive bidder to prepare the City’s Local Safety Road Plan. Kimley-Horn is a full-service engineering, planning and environmental consulting firm providing a comprehensive range of services to public and private clients throughout the United States. The preparation of the plan began on March 17, 2022.

The services that were provided by Kimley-Horn included, but was not limited to the tasks below:

Staff Report – Local Roadway Safety Plan
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan Approval
June 20, 2023

Task 1 Identify Working Group
i. Consultant identified and engaged stakeholders to develop a working group, stakeholders included first responders
(Local, County, State law enforcement and medical groups), transportation authorities, local school districts, business groups, residents, and etc. Consultant coordinated and led stakeholder meetings at least twice during the LRSP
development for the following: 1). Identified high need areas and stakeholder priorities, established LRSP vision and goals, and reviewed potential solutions and countermeasures; and 2) Prioritized project implementation plans, and reviewed and commented on the final LRSP.

Task 2 Analyze Safety Data
i. Consultant reviewed existing data, programs, policies, and activities; and provided a brief summary of current efforts to address transportation safety.
ii. Consultant was not expected to collect new data as part of his work effort. Data and summaries that were currently available, included but was not limited to the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (WITRS), and the Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to develop the LRSP.

The data analysis documented findings which included
trends/patterns in crash type, driver factors, roadway features, vehicle factors, and/or environmental conditions.

Task 3 Develop Countermeasures
i. Consultant worked with City and stakeholders to identify emphasized areas and to establish goals and specific
countermeasures to address safety issues. Areas were
consistent with trends identified as part of the data analysis.

Countermeasures included the 4Es of highway safety –
engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency
response. Countermeasures were developed to specifically address emphasized areas. Consultant established
measurable objectives and goals.
ii. A variety of resources were available for selecting effective and validated countermeasures strategies, including: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Proven Countermeasures,
Highway Safety Manual (HSM), National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) Countermeasures that work, Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse, and etc. The consultant encouraged other effective countermeasures.

Staff Report – Local Roadway Safety Plan
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan Approval
June 20, 2023

Task 4 Development of Final LRSP
i. Consultant developed the final LRSP using the information from previous tasks. The plan included implementation
strategies as well as a methodology for periodic review and updated once the initial plan had been approved.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
On February 1, 2022, pursuant to Resolution No. 25,604, City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with and establish a purchase order for Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to prepare a Local Roadway Safety Plan for the Public Works Engineering Department and authorize the establishment of a purchase order in the amount of $71,914.60.

On May 9, 2023, Kimley-Horn and Associated submitted the final Local Roadway Safety Plan to the City for adoption. Therefore, in order to adopt the Compton Local Roadway Safety Plan, City Council’s authorization is necessary.

ALTERNATIVE
There are no other alternatives being recommended at this time. The study is important because, in addition to trauma of injury and loss of life, economic losses in the City of Compton due to traffic injuries on City streets were over $692 million from 2015 through 2020, according to the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and Caltrans HSIP Cost Parameters.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached Resolution.

JOHN D. STRICKLAND, JR.

PROJECT MANAGER
APPROVED FOR FORWARDING:

THOMAS THOMAS

CITY MANAGER
RESOLUTION NO. _____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMPTON

ADOPTING THE CITY OF COMPTON LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
WHEREAS, this resolution adopts the Compton Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP); and
WHEREAS, federal regulations require each state has a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP); and
WHEREAS, an SHSP is a statewide data driven traffic safety plan that coordinates the efforts of a wide range of organizations to reduce traffic accidents fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads; and WHEREAS, in coordination with federal, state, local and private sector safety stakeholders, the SHSP establishes goals, objectives, and emphasis areas; and WHEREAS, the SHSP addresses the 4Es of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services; and
WHEREAS, while the SHSP is used as a statewide approach for improving roadway safety, a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is a means for providing local road owners with an opportunity to address unique safety needs in their jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the process of preparing a LRSP creates a framework to systemically identify and analyze safety problems and recommend safety improvements; and WHEREAS,preparing an LRSP facilitates the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a prioritized list of improvements and actions that can demonstrate defined needs and contribute to the statewide plan; and WHEREAS,the LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates agency responsiveness to safety challenges; and WHEREAS, an LRSP also provides a framework for organizing stakeholders to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local and rural roads and the process of developing an LRSP was tailored to local protocols, needs, and issues; and
WHEREAS, in future Highway Safety Improvement Projects (HSIP) Calls-for- Projects, an LRSP will be preferred or required for an agency to be eligible to apply for federal HSIP funds; and
WHEREAS,the LRSP evaluated the overall system to determine what improvements could be made to increase vehicle and pedestrian safety and the LRSP was designed as a living document that can be updated to reflect changing needs and priorities; and
WHEREAS,Caltrans made funding available to local agencies for the development of their LRSP’s in advance of the HSIP calls that will require an LRSP to apply; and
WHEREAS,on October 1, 2020, the City of Compton was awarded $72,000 from Caltrans, with a required $8,000 (10%) local match, based on the Caltrans award formula that considers the City’s population, centerline miles and lane miles; and WHEREAS,on November 2, 2021, the Public Works Engineering Department solicited Request For Proposals (RFP’s) from qualified consultants to develop the City’s Local Safety Road Plan (LRSP); and
Resolution No. __________

WHEREAS, the Request For Proposal (RFP) seeked to secure the most qualified consultant to prepare a LRSP that aligns with the California State Highway Safety Plan and the Federal Highway Safety Plan and serve as an important tool for saving lives and reducing injuries on the City’s local roadways; and
WHEREAS,on December 2, 2021, the City received a total of six proposals that were ranked by staff and the top 3 firms were selected based on their responsiveness, qualifications, work experience, professional expertise, and costs.

WHEREAS,the top three proposals are listed below:

Rank Firm Location Fee
1 Kimley-Horn Los Angeles, CA $71,914.60
2 KOA Monterey Park, CA $78,449.16
3 Willdan Industry, CA $78,000.00; and
WHEREAS,the proposal review committee consisted of Public Works, City Manager’s Office and our consulting staff. The committee reviewed the materials in the proposals submitted by the consultant and ranked the most qualified proposals; and WHEREAS,the proposal submitted by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. was deemed the lowest responsive bidder to prepare the City’s Local Safety Road Plan; and WHEREAS,Kimley-Horn is a full-service engineering, planning and environmental consulting firm providing a comprehensive range of services to public and private clients throughout the United States; and
WHEREAS,the services that were provided by Kimley-Horn included, but was not limited to the tasks below:

Task 1 Identify Working Group
i. Consultant identified and engaged stakeholders to develop a working group, stakeholders included first responders
(Local, County, State law enforcement and medical groups), transportation authorities, local school districts, business groups, residents, and etc. Consultant coordinated and led stakeholder meetings at least twice during the LRSP
development for the following: 1). Identify high need areas and stakeholder priorities, established LRSP vision and goals, and reviewed potential solutions and countermeasures; and 2).

Prioritized project implementation plans, and reviewed and commented on the final LRSP.

Task 2 Analyze Safety Data
i. Consultant reviewed existing data, programs, policies, and activities; and provided a brief summary of current efforts to address transportation safety.
ii. Consultant was not expected to collect new data as part of this work effort. Data and summaries that were currently available, included but was not limited to the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (WITRS), and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to develop the LRSP. The data analysis
documented findings which included trends/patterns in crash type, driver factors, roadway features, vehicle factors, and/or environmental conditions.

Resolution No. __________

Task 3 Develop Countermeasures
i. Consultant worked with City and stakeholders to identify emphasized areas and to establish goals and specific countermeasures to address safety issues. Areas were consistent with trends identified as part of the data analysis. Countermeasures included the 4Es of highway safety – Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response. Countermeasures were developed to
specifically address emphasized areas. Consultant established measurable objectives and goals.
ii. A variety of resources were available for selecting effective and validated countermeasure strategies, including: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Proven Countermeasures, Highway Safety Manual (HSM), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Countermeasures that work, Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse, and etc. The consultant encouraged other effective countermeasures.

Task 4 Development of Final LRSP
i. Consultant developed the final LRSP using the information from previous tasks. The plan included implementation strategies as well as a methodology for periodic review and update once the initial plan had been approved.

WHEREAS,on February 1, 2022, pursuant to Resolution No. 25,604, City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with and establish a purchase order for Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to prepare a Local Roadway Safety Plan for the Public Works Engineering Department and authorized the establishment of a purchase order in the amount of $71,914.60; and WHEREAS,on May 9, 2023, Kimley-Horn and Associated submitted the final Local Roadway Safety Plan to the City for adoption.

WHEREAS,in order to adopt the Compton Local Roadway Safety Plan, City Council’s authorization is necessary.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMPTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.That the City Council hereby adopts the Compton Local Roadway Safety Plan.

SECTION 2.That copies of this Resolution shall be filed in the offices of the City Manager, City Controller, City Clerk, City Attorney and the Public Works Engineering Department.

SECTION 3.That the Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this Resolution.

ADOPTED this _________ day of _____________, 2023.
________________________________

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF COMPTON
Resolution No. __________

ATTEST:
____________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF COMPTON

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF COMPTON: ss
I, Vernell McDaniel, City Clerk of the City of Compton, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Compton, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, at a regular meeting thereof, held on the ____________ day of ________________, 2023.

That said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS-
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS-
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS-
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS-
___________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF COMPTON
`
ES-1

`
ES-2

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Vision and Goals ....................................................................................................................................... 2

3. Process ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Guiding Manuals .................................................................................................................................. 4

3.1.1 Local Roadway Safety Manual ..................................................................................................... 5

3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual ................................................................................................................ 5

3.2 Analysis Techniques ............................................................................................................................ 6

3.2.1 Collision Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 6

3.2.2 Network Screening Analysis ......................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Future Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 7

4. Safety Partners ......................................................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Stakeholder Meeting #1....................................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Field Tour Stakeholder Workshop ....................................................................................................... 8

4.3 Stakeholder Meeting #2....................................................................................................................... 8

5. Existing Efforts .......................................................................................................................................... 8

6. Data Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 11

6.1 Roadway Network ............................................................................................................................. 11

6.2 Collision Data .................................................................................................................................... 11

7. Crash Safety Trends ............................................................................................................................... 15

7.1 All Collisions ...................................................................................................................................... 15

7.2 Fatalities & Severe Injuries ................................................................................................................ 16

7.3 Injury Levels ...................................................................................................................................... 16

7.4 Cause of Collision .............................................................................................................................. 16

7.5 Vulnerable Users ............................................................................................................................... 17

7.5.1 Pedestrian Collisions .................................................................................................................. 17

7.5.2 Bicycle Collisions ........................................................................................................................ 17

7.6 Other Significant Trends ............................................................................................................. 20

7.7 Collision Network Screening Analysis Results ............................................................................ 20

8. Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Areas ..................................................................................... 55

8.1 Best Practices Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 55

8.2 Emphasis Areas ................................................................................................................................ 58

8.2.1 Emphasis Area #1: Intersection Improvements .......................................................................... 58

8.2.2 Emphasis Area #2: Aggressive Driving ...................................................................................... 58 `
ES-3

8.2.3 Emphasis Area #3: Young Drivers .............................................................................................. 59

8.2.4 Emphasis Area #4: Pedestrians ................................................................................................. 59

9. Potential Improvements and Countermeasure Toolbox ......................................................................... 61

9.1 Infrastructure Improvements ............................................................................................................. 61

9.1.1 Countermeasure Selection Process ........................................................................................... 61

9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies ....................................................................................................... 62

9.2 City-wide Countermeasure Toolbox .................................................................................................. 84

10. Funding Sources & Next Steps ............................................................................................................. 87

10.1 Funding ............................................................................................................................................ 87

10.1.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program .................................................................................... 87

10.1.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program .................................................................................. 87

10.1.3 California SB 1 .......................................................................................................................... 88

10.1.4 California Office of Traffic Safety Grants .................................................................................. 88

10.1.5 SCAG Sustainable Communities Program ............................................................................... 89

10.1.6 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program ............................................................ 89

10.1.7 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act .................................................................................... 89

10.2 Implementation Plan ........................................................................................................................ 90

10.2.1 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 90

10.2.2 Analysis Update ........................................................................................................................ 90

10.2.3 Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 91

10.3 Next Steps ....................................................................................................................................... 91

`
ES-4

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Functional Classification & Signalized Intersections ................................ ..........12 Figure 2 - All Collisions (2016-2020) ................................ ................................ ......................13 Figure 3 - Fatal & Severe Injury Collisions (2016-2020) ................................ ........................14 Figure 4 - Collision Type by Year (2016-2020) ................................ ................................ .......15 Figure 5 – Collisions by Injury Levels (2016-2020) ................................ ............................... 16 Figure 6 – Pedestrian Collisions (2016-2020) ................................ ................................ ........18 Figure 7 – Bicycle Collisions (2016-2020) ................................ ................................ .............19 Figure 8 – Collision Network Screening Analysis Results (2016-2020) ............................... 21

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Review of Existing City Plans ................................ ................................ ................. 9 Table 2 – Review of Existing City Projects ................................ ................................ ............10 Table 3 – Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions Categorized by Modes Involved ...................16 Table 4 - Cause of Collisions (2016-2020) ................................ ................................ .............17 Table 6– Analysis Rankings: Intersections ................................ ................................ ...........28 Table 7 – Analysis Rankings: Segments ................................ ................................ ..............51 Table 8 – Summary of Program, Policies, and Practices ................................ .....................55 Table 9 - Citywide Safety Countermeasure Toolbox ................................ ............................85

`
ES-5

Executi ve Summary
The City of Compton Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas include type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationship s between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high -risk locations, as well as city -wide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation network allows for opportunities to:

1. Identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users,

2. Improve safety at specific high-crash locations, and

3. Develop safety measures using the four E’s of safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response to encourage safer driver behavior and better severity outcomes.

With this LRSP, the City continues its safety efforts by identifying areas of emphasis and systemic
recommendations to enhance safety.

The City’s vision is to enhance the transportation network and reduce traffic fatalities and serious injury related crashes, and the goals for the City of Compton include the following:

Goal #1: Identify areas with a high risk for crashes.

Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process.

Goal #3: Define safety improvement for the near -,mid-
and long -term, including projects for HSIP and other
program funding consideration.

Goal #4: Identify emphasis areas to prioritize
countermeasure application.

This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of crash data
(January 1, 201 6 – December 31, 20 20) and roadway
improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern.

Further, the collision history was analyzed to identify locations with elevated risk of collisions either through their collision histories or their similarities to other locations with more active collision patterns. Using a network screening process, locations were identified within the City that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements. Using historic collision data, collision risk factors for the entire network were 6,376 5-year
collisions
53Fatalities
98 Serious
Injuries
44%
Occurred at
Signalized
Intersections
48%
Occurred at
Unsignalized
Intersections
33%
Due to
Agressive
Driving
4% Aging Drivers

6.2%
Involving
Pedestrians &
Bicyclists
Source: Compton Collision Database (2017- 2021)
`
ES-6

derived. The outcomes informed the identification and prioritization of engineering and non - infrastructure safety measures to address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle collisions with active transportation users. Active transportation includes any self-power mode of transportation, including walking or bicycling.

Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals developed at the onset of the planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis.

Emphasis Area #1: Aggressive Driving
Emphasis Area #2: Intersection Improvements
Emphasis Area #3: Young Drivers
Emphasis Area #4: Pedestrians
The following 1 0 locations were chosen to be representative of the corridor and intersection configurations throughout the City.

1. Roadway Segment: Acacia Ave – Compton Bl to Myrrh St

2. Signalized Intersection: Central Ave & Compton Blvd

3. Roadway Segment: Caldwell St – Northwood Ave to Hillford Ave

4. Roadway Segment: Carob St – Acacia Ave to Wilmington Ave

5. Unsignalized Intersection: S Atlantic Ave & Atlantic Dr/El Rancho Mobile Home Park

6. Signalized Intersection: Long Beach Blvd & Compton Blvd

7. Signalized Intersection: Long Beach Blvd & Rosecrans Ave

8. Signalized Intersection: Alameda St & Elm St

9. Roadway Segment: Willowbrook Ave: Rosecrans Ave to Winona Ave

10. Roadway Segment: El Segundo Blvd: Santa Fe Ave to Peach St These location s were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, stakeholder engagement, the observed crash patterns, and their different characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost -effective safety benefits. Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment. These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate counterm easure, and to potentially phase improvements over the longer-term. The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history, allowing for proactive safety enhancem ents that can prevent future safety challenges from developing.

Additionally, this information can be used to help the City apply for grants and other funding opportunities to implement these safety improvements. These opportunities were assembled into the “countermeasure toolbox” shown below.

ES-7

Citywide Countermeasure Toolbox
ID Potential Countermeasures Where to apply?
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
S02 Improve signal hardware: back-plates with
retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and
number

Signalized intersections with significant broadside
and rear-end collisions due to signal visibility
15% $12,000 per intersection
S03 Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red,
yellow, or operation)
Locations that have a pattern of crash at multiple
signalized intersections
15% $7,000 per intersection
S07 Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane
already exists)
Signalized intersections that have current
permissive left-turn or no left-turn protection that
have a significant amount of angle crashes
30% $8,000 per intersection
S21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI) with new controller
Signalized Intersections – especially those with
high pedestrian activity
60% $8,000 per intersection
NS01 Add Intersection Lighting (N.S.I) Non-signalized intersections that have a significant number of night-time crashes
40% 28,000 per intersection
NS05mr Convert intersection to mini-roundabout Intersections with lower vehicle speeds, with posted speed limits of 30 mph or less
30% $100,000 per location
NS06 Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs at
unsignalized intersections
Unsignalized intersections with crash history
showing running stop signs 15% $2,000 per sign
NS08 Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled
Intersections
Unsignalized intersections with crash history
showing running stop signs 15% $5,000 per beacon
NS14 Install raised median on approaches (N.S.I) Unsignalized intersections where related or nearby turning movements affect the safety and
operation of an intersection
25% $220 per LF for a 10
R01 Add Segment Lighting Roadway collisions with patterns of nighttime crashes
35% $900,000 per mile

ES-8

ID Potential Countermeasures Where to apply?
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
R22 Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting (regulatory or warning)
Roadway segments with trends of head on,
nighttime, non-intersection, run-off road, and
sideswipe.
15% $1,500 per sign
R26 Install dynamic/variable speed warning sign Roadway segments with a significant number of collisions due to unsafe speeds.
30% $16,000 per sign
R28 Install edge-lines and centerlines

Roadway segments with collisions that resulted in
run-off-road right/left, head-on, or opposite-
direction-sideswipe.
25%

$70,000

per mile
R32PB Install bike lanes Locations with a high number of bicycle collisions 35% $50,000 per mile R33PB Install separated bike lanes Locations with a high number of bicycle collisions and/or high bicycle traffic volumes, where
45% $50,000 per mile
R35PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with
enhanced safety features)
Locations with a high number of bicycle collisions
and/or high bicycle traffic volumes, where
35%

$15,000

per crossing

ES-9

Near-term action items were identified to accelerate the City’s achievement of the goals and vision of this LRSP. The City can:
• Actively seek other funding opportunities to improve safety for all modal users, • Collaborate with established safety partners & neighboring municipalities as improvements are made to create a cohesive transportation network, and • Iteratively evaluate existing and proposed transportation safety programs and capital improvements to design a safer transportation network in Compton.

The City will regularly monitor and update the analysis performed in this plan. A full plan update will completed five years from the City Council’s adoption of this plan which will maintain eligibility for HSIP funding.

1 1. Introduction
Located in Los Angeles County about 11 miles south of Downtown Los Angeles , the City of Compton is a suburban city with a population of 95,804 according to the 2020 census. Compton is a growing city with shopping, food, entertainment, and outdoor recreation. Based on University of California Berkeley’s Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Vehicle Operation Cost Parameters, Compton’s economic losses due to traffic injuries were over $692M from 2015 to 2020. This report identifies factors associated with the most vehicle crashes particular to the City and proposes matching countermeasures to reduce or eliminate those crashes.

This Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas include the type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high -crash locations, high-risk locations, and city -wide trends and patt erns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation network allows for the following opportunities:

1. Identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users,

2. Improve safety at specific high-crash locations, and

3. Develop safety measures using the four E’s of safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response) to encourage safer driver behavior and better severity outcomes.

Compton has taken steps to enhance all modal safety throughout th e City and with this LRSP, Compton is continuing to prioriti ze safety in its planning processes. The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) most recently ranked Compton 48 out of 102 peer cities for traffic injuries after normalizing for population and VMT in 2018. With number one (1) in the OTS crash rankings considered the highest, or “worst,” this positions the City at slightly below average for roadway safety performance. This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of crash data from Crossroads, a software for re porting and analytics of traffic collisions and citations, from January 1, 201 6 – December 31, 2020 and roadway improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern.

The intent of the LRSP is to:
• Create a greater awareness of road safety and risks
• Reduce the number of fatal and severe-injury crashes
• Develop lasting partnerships
• Support for grant/funding applications, and
• Prioritize investments in traffic safety.

2 2. Vision and Goals
The Compton LRSP evaluates the transportation network as well as non-infrastructure programs and policies within the City. Mitigation measures are evaluated using criteria to analyze the safety of road users (drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians), the interaction of modes, the influences on the roadway network from adjacent municipalities, and the potential benefits of safety countermeasures. Through historical data and trends, proactive identification and safety opportunities can be identified and implemented without relying solely on a reaction and response to crashes as they occur.

As cities across the country have implemented LRSPs and systemically addressed the conditions leading to fatal and severe-injury crashes, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has found that LRSPs effectively improve safety. LRSPs provide a locally developed and customized roadmap to directly address the most common safety challenges in the given jurisdiction. This project’s vision, goals, and objectives have been established to reflect discussions with Compton staff, various stakeholders identified by City staff, and a review of existing plans /policies in the area.

VISION: To enhance the transportation network for all users to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries

Goal #1: Identify areas with a high risk for crashes.

Objectives:
• Identify intersections and segments that would most benefit from mitigation. • Identify areas of interest with respect to safety concerns for vulnerable users (pedestrians and bicyclists).

Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process.

Objectives:
• Demonstrate the systemic process’ ability to identify locations with higher risk for crashes based on present characteristics closely associated with severe crashes. • Demonstrate, through the systemic process, the gaps and data collection activities that can be improved upon.

Goal #3: Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid- and long-term.

Objectives:
• Identify safety countermeasures for specific locations (case studies). • Identify safety countermeasures that can be applied city-wide.

3 Goal #4: Define safety projects for future Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP) and other program funding consideration.

Objectives:
• Create the outline for a prioritization process that c an be used in this and forth -coming cycles to apply for funding.
• Use the systemic process to create Project Case Studies. • Use Case Studies to apply for HSIP and other funding consideration. • Demonstrate the correlation between the proposed safety countermeasures with the Vision Zero Initiative and the California State Highway Safety Plan.

4 3. Process
The primary goal for the City of Compton and their safety partners is to provide safe, sustainable, and efficient mobility choices for their residents and visitors. Through the development and implementation of this LRSP, the City will continue its collaboration with safety partners to identify and discuss safety issues within the community.

Guidance on the LRSP process is provided at both the national (FHWA) and state (Caltrans) level, and both agencies have developed a general framework of data and recommendations for a LRSP.

FHWA encourages the following:
• The establishment of a working group (stakeholders) to participate in developing an LRSP • A review of crash, traffic, and roadway data to identify areas of concern • The identification of goals, priorities, and countermeasures to recommend improvements at spot locations, systemically, and comprehensively
Caltrans guidance follows a similar outline with the following steps:
• Establish leadership
• Analyze the safety data
• Determine emphasis areas
• Identify strategies
• Prioritize and incorporate strategies
• Evaluate and update the LRSP
This LRSP documents the results of data and information obtained, including the preliminary vision and goals for the LRSP, existing safety efforts, initial crash analysis, and developed emphasis areas. The LRSP recommendations consider the f our E's of traffic saf ety defined by the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response.

3.1 Guiding Manuals
This section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within Compton at a systemic level. This report identifies specific locations within the City that will benefit from safety enhancements and derives crash risk factors based on historic crash data using a network screening process. The outcome will inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures by addressing certain roadway characteristics and related driving behaviors contributing to crashes. This process uses the latest national and state best practices for statistical roadway analysis described.

5 3.1.1 Local Roadway Safety Manual
The Local Roadway Safety Manual: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.5, April 2020) encourage s local agencies to pursue a proactiv e approach when identifying and analyzing safety issues and preparing to compete for project funding opportunities. A proactive approach is the analyzation of safety in an entire roadway network through either a one -time network wide analysis or a routine analysis of the roadway network.1 According to the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), “ the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California’s federal safety funding intended for local safety improvements.” To provide the most beneficial and competitive funding approach , the analysis leading to countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments and maintain consideration of roadway characteristics and traffic volumes. The result should reflect a list of locations that are most likely to benefit from cost -effective countermeasures, preferably prioritized by benefit/cost ratio. The manual suggests using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures to identify and rank locations using both crash frequency and crash rates.

These findings should then be screened for crash type and severity patterns to determine the cause of crashes and the potential effective countermeasures. Qualitative analysis should include field visits and a review of existing roadway characteristics and devices. The specific roadway context can then be used to assess conditions that may decrease safety at the site and at systematic levels.

Countermeasure selection should be supported using Crash Modification Factors (CMFs). These factors are a peer reviewed product of research quantifying the expected rate of crash reduction expected from a given countermeasure. If more than one countermeasure is under consideration, the LRSM provides guidance on appropriate application of CMFs.

3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual
The American Association of Stat e Highway and Transportation Officials ( AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published in 2010, presents a variety of methods for quantitatively estimating crash frequency or severity at a variety of locations. 2 This four-part manual is divided into the following parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals, B) Roadway Safety Management Process, C) Predictive Method, D) Crash Modification Factors.

In Chapter 4 of Part B in the HSM, t he “Network Screening Process” is a tool for an agency to analyze the entire network and identify/rank locations that are most likely or least likely to realize a reduction in the frequency of crashes.

1 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 5. 2 AASHTO, Highway Safety Manual, 2010, Washington D.C., http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/About.aspx

6 The HSM identifies five steps in this process:3

1. Establish Focus: Identify the purpose or intended outcome of the network screening analysis. This decision will influence data needs, the selection of performance measures and the screening method that can be applied.

2. Identify Network and Establish Reference Populations: Specify the types of sites or facilities being screened (i.e., segments, intersections, geometrics) and identify groupings of similar sites or facilities.

3. Select Performance Measures: There are a variety of performance measures available to evaluate the potential to reduce crash frequency at a site. In this step, the performance measure is selected as a function of the screening focus and the data and analytical tools available.

4. Select Screening Method: There are three principal screening methods described in this chapter (i.e., ranking, sliding window, peak searching). Each method has advantages and disadvantages; the most appropriate method for a given situation should be selected.

5. Screen and Evaluate Results: The final step in the process is to conduct the screening and analysis and evaluate the results.

The HSM provides several statistical methods for screening roadway networks and identifying high risk locations based on overall crash histories.

3.2 Analysi s Techniques

3.2.1 Collision Analysis
The initial steps of a collision analysis involve establishing sub-populations of roadway segments and intersections that have similar characteristics. For this LRSP, intersections were grouped by their control type ( signalized and unsignalized), and segments were grouped by their roadway category (primary arterial, secondary arterial, collector, local). Individual collision rates were then calculated for each sub-population. The population level collision rates were u sed to assess the number of collisions at a specific location. These sub -populations were also used to determine typical collision patterns to highlight locations where an unusual number of specific collision types occurred.

3.2.2 Network Screening Analy sis
The network screening process lists intersections and roadway segments by the number of collisions over the analysis period and identifies areas with a higher number of a given collision type than would be expected for the location.

The different collisions were organized by the following categories:

3 AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual. 2010. Washington, DC. Page 4-2.

7 1. Collision injury (fatal, serious injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, property damage only),

2. Collision type (broadside, rear-end, sideswipe, head-on, hit object, overturned, bicycle, pedestrian, other),

3. Environmental factors (lighting, wet roads), and

4. Driver behavior (impaired, aggressive, and distracted driving).

3.3 Future Analysis
The City can plan to conduct regular collision monitoring as described in Section 10.2. The City will then refresh the analysis and update the LRSP every 5 years to maintain eligibility for HSIP funding, as described in Section 10.2.

8 4. Safety Partners
Local stakeholders were included in the development of this report to ensure the local perspective was maintained at the forefront of planning efforts. A stakeholder group of City staff and external partners consisted of representatives from the City planning division, traffic and lighting division, the Compton Fire Department, and Law Enforcement.

The local stakeholders were called together to offer insight on the safety issues present in the City’s transportation network. After the initial network screening and safety anal ysis, the stakeholder group met to discuss potential countermeasures and challenge areas through a field visit. The summary of the field visit meeting are outlined below.

4.1 Stakeholder Meetin g #1
The first stakeholder meeting was conducte d virtually on May 12, 2022 . At the meeting, stakeholders were introduced to the project and provided an overview of the data used, the required outputs, and the potential outcomes of the study.

In addition to the overview, stakeholders were asked to provid e local insight and knowledge at ten “case study” locations that were identified after the initial network screening and crash analysis process.

4.2 Field Tour Stakeholder Workshop
On July 12, 2022, the project team visited each of the 10 locations to identify potential issues that are contributing to the collision patterns. Potential countermeasures were identified and discussed.

4.3 Stakeholder Meeting #2
The second stakeholder meeting was conducted virtually on August 8, 2022. During this meeting case study locations were planned to be presented to the stakeholders with a list of observations and potential countermeasures. Feedback received back from the stakeholders was reviewed and incorporated into the study process for the development of the LRSP. This information was also sent out to those who could not make the meeting.

5. Existing Efforts
Existing plans, policies, and projects that were recently com pleted, planned, or on -going were compiled at the start of the LRSP process t o gain perspective on the existing efforts for transportation-related improvements within the City. High -level key points regarding transportation improvements and safety-related topics were identified to inform decision making in this LRSP.

Table 1 outlines the relevant existing City plans and their improvements and funding sources.

Table 2 outlines the relevant existing City projects and their timelines.

9 Table 1 – Review of Existing City Plans
Document Name Transportation Policies/Improvements
General Plan
• The City of Compton General Plan is a planning document which serves as a guide to the long-term physical development of the community in a series of nine chapters called elements which cover land use, housing, circulation, public safety, health, air quality, economic development, urban design, conservation, open space, and recreation.

City of Compton
Bicycle Master Plan
• This plan provides a direction to improve the bicycling environment in Compton by developing a direction to enhance bicycle planning for the future and ensuring guidelines for California Active Transportation program are met. • This plan focuses on a positive trajectory in terms of developing a more viable transportation through citywide network of bicycle paths, lanes, and routes.

Compton Station
Specific Plan
• This plan provides a vision to build a Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan to enhance the Compton Transit Station to develop a vibrant mixed-use village with access to better public spaces.
• The plan proposed five new land use districts which include neighborhood commercial, downtown core, downtown transition, urban flexible, and residential urban.

10 Table 2 – Review of Existing City Projects
Project Name Timeline Transportation Policies/Improvements HSIP Cycle 8
Improvements:

Compton Blvd
between Willowbrook
Avenue and Central
Avenue
TBD
Install bike lanes and lighting along the corridor and
enhance pedestrian crossings at fifteen (15) intersections.

HSIP Cycle: Twenty
(20) intersections TBD
Install Pedestrian Countdown Heads at 20 intersections
Citywide

Freeway On/Off
Ramp Pavement
Rehabilitation
(Central Ave,
Wilmington Ave,
Santa Fe, Alondra
Blvd)
TBD
The project will address potholes and street issues at major on and off ramp locations
Compton Blvd and
Wilmington Ave Over
Compton Creek
Bridge Replacement
Projects
TBD
Replace the bridges on Compton Blvd and Wilmington Ave
over the Compton Creek and considering addition of bike facilities.

Wilmington Ave Safe
Streets Pedestrian /
Bicycle Improvement
Project (Design
Phase) - Rosecrans
Ave to Greenleaf
Blvd
Completed
The project will address the need to provide safe crossings for students and residents at each intersection and
improvements to access the Compton Creek Bike Path.

Compton Blvd Street
(Design Services) Completed
Full reconstruction of selected residential streets. The project is currently in design phase.

Metro Rapid Bus
Stations Completed
Installation of Metro Rapid bus station amenities along Atlantic Blvd at three locations with the City limits.

Crane Ave
Reconstruction Completed
Removal and replacement of sidewalks and driveways
between Rosecrans and Compton Blvd. Replacement of
road surface between Rosecrans to Alondra Blvd.

11 6. Data Summary
This section describes the data sources used for the analysis process of this LRSP.

6.1 Roadway Network
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Road System (CRS) GIS database was used to build the base roadway network used for this analysis. Intersections and roadway segments were divided into control and classification categories so that each set could have its own crash rates and be compared with similar facilities or control type. Functional Classifications were imported from the city’s General Plan and confirmed by city staff. Information on intersection traffic control was provided by the city and included in the analysis network. The collision analysis requires each intersection to be classified by type: Signalize d or Unsignalized.

Figure 1 illustrates the City of Compton’s roadway functional classification and intersection control type, respectively, as used for this study.

6.2 Collision Data
Collision data was collected from Crossroads software for the period from January 1, 201 6 through December 31, 2020, displayed in Figure 2. Five years of data are utilized instead of the standard three years to provide more history to evaluate trends or patterns. Analysis of the raw collision data is the first step in understanding the specific and systemic challenges faced throughout the city. Analyzing the five years of data provided insight on the collision trends and patterns detailed in Section 7. The locations of fatal and severe injury collisions are displayed in Figure 3.

12 Figure 1 - Functional Classification & Signalized Intersections

13 Figure 2 - All Collisions (2016-2020)

14 Figure 3 - Fatal & Severe Injury Collisions (2016-2020)

15 7. Crash Safety Trends
The analysis was conducted using a network screening process for the City-maintained roadway system based on collision records spanning from January 1, 20 16 through December 31, 2020.

This section contains the results of the analysis, which included the evaluation of Compton’s fatal and serious injury (generally denoted as K+SI) collisions, statewide K+SI collisions, pedestrian collisions, bicycle collisions, collision severity levels, and collision causes.

7.1 All Collisions
This report utilized collision data for a five-year period to provide a better understanding of trends and to reflect the patterns in crashes that have occurred on city streets. Data used for this report was extracted from Crossroads Software on November 15, 2021 and was current as of that date.

Collision data from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2020 as reported to Crossroads from the local enforcement indicated that during this time there were 6,376 collisions recorded within Compton.

During this time, the most common occurring collision types were Broadsides (28%) and Sideswipes (25%). The total number of collisions varied throughout the study period, with a constant number of collisions from 2017 to 2018 and a considerable drop in 2020, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 - Collision Type by Year (2016-2020)

Source: Compton Crossroads Database (2016-2020)

0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Vehicle - Pedestrian
Sideswipe
Rear-End
Overturned
Other
Not Stated
Hit Object
Head-On
Broadside
Blanks/Not Stated

16 7.2 Fatalities & Severe Injuries
During the study period, 53 fatal collisions and 98 severe injury collisions occurred during the study period , as seen in Figure 3. Table 3 outlines the fatal and severe injury collisions categorized by modes involved.

Table 3 – Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions Categorized by Modes Involved (2016- 2020)
Involved With # of Fatal
Collisions Involved With # of Severe Injury
Collisions
Pedestrian 20 Motor Vehicle 53
Motor Vehicle 19 Pedestrian 23
Bicycle 8 Bicycle 10
Fixed Object 6 Fixed Object 12

7.3 Injury Levels
As shown in Figure 5, 73% of the collisions reported during the time-period resulted in property damage only. Fatalities and severe injuries totaled 3% of all collisions.

Figure 5 – Collisions by Injury Levels (2016-2020)

Source: Compton Crossroads Database (2017 – 2021)

7.4 Cause of Collision
The highest recorded cause of collisions in Compton during the study period is Improper Turning at 22%, followed by Unsafe Speed at 18% and Auto Right of Way Violation at 15%. Issues with Drivers Ignoring Traffic Signals and Signs also had a substantial impact on the City, comprising 10% of the collisions. Table 4 shows the distribution of collision cause. 73%
19%
5%
2% 1%
Property Damage Only
Complaint of Pain
Other Visible Injury
Severe Injury
Fatal

17 Table 4 - Cause of Collisions (2016-2020)
Primary Collision Factor No. Of Collisions %
Improper Turning 1392 21.83%
Unsafe Speed 1146 17.97%
Auto R/W Violation 974 15.28%
Unknown 900 14.12%
Traffic Signals and Signs 620 9.72%
Following Too Closely 338 5.30%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 256 4.02%
Unsafe Lane Change 219 3.43%
Other Improper Driving 127 1.99%
Pedestrian Violation 78 1.22%
Ped R/W Violation 66 1.04%
Improper Passing 64 1.00%
Wrong Side of Road 55 0.86%
Other Hazardous Movement 53 0.83%
Driving Under Influence 41 0.64%
Other Than Driver 33 0.52%
Blanks/Not Stated 4 0.06%
Other 4 0.06%
Hazardous Parking 2 0.03%
Lights 2 0.03%
Other Equipment 1 0.02%
Ped or Other Under Influence 1 0.02%
Source: Compton Crossroads Database (2016 – 2020)

7.5 Vulnerable Users

7.5.1 Pedestrian Collisions
250 pedestrian involved collisions occurred during the study period, resulting in 20 fatal collisions, 23 severe injuries, and 182 collisions with some form of reported injury or pain. Figure 6 shows the locations of pedestrian collisions during the study period.

7.5.2 Bicycle Collisions
During the study period, 144 collisions involving bicycles were reported. There was 8 fatal injury, 10 resulted in severe injuries, and 97 resulted in some form of reported injury or pain. Figure 7 shows the location of bicycle collisions during the study period.

18 Figure 6 – Pedestrian Collisions (2016-2020)

19 Figure 7 – Bicycle Collisions (2016-2020)

20 7.6 Other Significant Trends
In addition, the following trends were observed:
• 38% of collisions occurred at night or during the dusk/dawn hours. • Drivers aged 16-20 were at fault in 7% of all collisions. • Drivers aged 65+ were at fault in 4% of all collisions.

7.7 Collision Network Screening Analysis Results
Figure 8 below show the results of the collision network screening analysis, with the number of collisions at both intersections and mid-block roadway segments.

21 Figure 8 – Collision Network Screening Analysis Results (2016-2020)

22 Table 6 and 7 show the number of crashes occurring at the top ten locations in Compton by crash type for the locations that will be studied further in the Report, and highlights locations in which the probability of those crash types exceeding the threshold proportion is greater than 33%.

The tables are ordered by the number of collisions that occurred at that segment or intersection.

To be statistically significant, only locations where more than two collisions occurred are represented. At locations with two or less collisions, random chance can account for crash history as much or more than specific roadway characteristics.

After this analysis was completed, the locations were ranked against other similar locations within the City by their categories according to the expected proportion of that crash type within Compton. Locations with higher -than-expected crashes of that type were identified by the probability that random chance would not account for exceedances.

Additionally, it should be noted that the columns for Collision Severity, Type, Involved With, and Behavior are additional characteristics of the collisions and should not be counted as a separate collision.

The following provides an example of how to read Tables 6 and 7.

Table Definitions:
• Total Collisions: Number of collisions observed at the intersection or segment from January of 2017 through December of 2021.
• Local Critical Crash Rate (CCR) Differential: The Critical Crash Rate specific to the intersection or segment. This is the difference between local (actual) crash rate and the critical crash rate, which is how many collisions per million vehicle miles are expected for a location of this type and volume. This tells us how many more collisions are occurring more than is expected. Locations with positive values have more collisions than expected, while locations with negative values have less collisions than expected.

• Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO): This method assigns weighting factors to crashes based on injury level (severe, injury, property damage only) to develop a property damage only score. In this analysis, the injury crash costs were calculated for each location (based on the latest Caltrans injury costs) and then normalized by dividing by the value of a property damage only collision. Fatal and severe injury collisions are estimated at $2.19 million, Other Visible Injury (OVI) collisions at $142,300, Complaint of Pain (COP) collisions at $80,900, and Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions at $13,300.
• Severity: The number of severe injury and fatal collisions that occurred at this location in the study period.
• Fatality: The number of fatal collisions that occurred at this location in the study period.

23 • Broadside, Sideswipe, Rear-End, Head-On, Hit Object, Overturned, Other, Pedestrian, Bicycle: The number of these types of collisions that occurred at this location in the study period.
• Other: The number of miscellaneous collision types (mostly single vehicle) that occurred at this location in the study period.
• Aggressive, Dark, Wet: The number of the collisions with this factor identified as the cause of collision.

28 Table 5– Analysis Rankings: Intersections (Collisions Greater than 3 Locations Per Type)

Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Signalized Intersections
S Wilmington Ave & W Artesia Blvd 102 1.12 212 0 0 3 16 83 28 43 22 4 2 2 1 0 0 41 7 0 2 5 Atlantic Ave & E Alondra Blvd 84 0.92 705 0 3 5 16 60 25 16 17 16 1 0 1 6 2 23 4 0 0 2 S Wilmington Ave & W Alondra Blvd 65 0.31 344 0 1 4 15 45 14 13 30 4 2 0 0 3 0 31 6 1 1 3 N Wilmington Ave & W Rosecrans
Ave 65 0.14 314 0 1 3 11 50 7 18 28 4 1 0 1 5 2 26 6 0 0 3 S Central Ave & W Compton Blvd 62 0.76 143 0 0 1 14 47 17 12 22 6 3 0 0 1 0 22 6 0 1 2 S Wilmington Ave & W Greenleaf
Blvd 61 0.42 498 2 0 4 14 41 25 9 13 12 0 0 1 1 1 19 4 1 0 3 N Long Beach Blvd & E Rosecrans
Ave 61 0.00 146 0 0 2 13 46 18 10 21 1 3 0 2 6 1 21 4 0 0 4 S Central Ave & W Alondra Blvd 60 0.30 334 0 1 3 16 40 21 13 15 6 1 0 0 4 1 22 3 1 0 1 S Long Beach Blvd & E Compton Blvd 53 0.02 793 2 2 2 13 34 21 9 17 1 1 0 0 2 3 26 4 0 0 3 S Bullis Rd & E Compton Blvd 53 0.38 313 0 1 1 17 34 29 7 7 6 2 1 0 0 1 29 8 0 0 1 N Bullis Rd & E Rosecrans Ave 53 0.18 119 0 0 1 11 41 19 19 9 4 2 0 0 2 1 23 2 0 0 2 N Compton Ave & el Segundo Blvd 53 0.44 218 0 0 5 23 25 33 3 8 3 2 1 0 0 0 32 2 0 0 1 Central Ave & E Artesia Blvd 53 18.09 118 0 0 2 9 42 13 17 15 3 2 0 2 1 0 16 5 0 0 1

29 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
N Wilmington Ave & W Compton
Blvd 49 0.02 466 1 1 4 10 33 15 14 17 1 0 0 0 1 2 21 4 1 0 2 N Santa Fe Ave & E Palmer St 49 0.55 150 0 0 2 16 31 29 4 6 2 1 0 1 4 3 25 4 0 0 2 S Willowbrook Ave & E Alondra Blvd 47 0.65 168 0 0 3 18 26 31 1 7 3 2 1 0 2 0 22 3 0 1 1 N Willowbrook Ave & E Rosecrans
Ave 46 0.32 155 0 0 5 12 29 27 3 7 5 1 0 1 2 0 20 4 0 1 3 S Gibson Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 45 1.63 304 0 1 3 13 28 16 5 13 6 2 0 0 0 0 19 9 1 0 3 N Wilmington Ave & el Segundo
Blvd 45 -0.06 91 0 0 0 9 36 10 10 18 6 0 0 0 0 0 18 5 0 0 0 S Willowbrook Ave & E Compton
Blvd 44 0.41 99 0 0 1 9 34 21 9 10 0 2 0 1 1 0 25 4 0 0 3 N Central Ave & W Rosecrans Ave 43 0.16 425 1 1 2 7 32 10 10 16 3 2 0 0 3 0 13 7 1 0 1 N Harris Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 42 0.74 118 0 0 1 13 28 12 8 17 2 1 1 0 1 0 26 4 0 0 1 S Alameda St & E Compton Blvd 41 0.29 85 0 0 3 3 35 7 5 19 3 3 0 2 2 0 23 2 0 0 4 Santa Fe Ave & E Artesia Blvd 40 -0.09 269 0 1 2 9 28 14 12 9 2 1 1 0 1 1 18 4 0 0 3 Santa Fe Ave & E Greenleaf Blvd 39 -0.01 446 1 1 3 10 24 17 6 6 6 1 0 1 1 0 19 3 0 0 2 N Santa Fe Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 39 -0.08 89 0 0 1 8 30 9 8 18 2 1 0 1 0 1 18 3 1 0 4 S Long Beach Blvd & E Alondra Blvd 38 -0.12 88 0 0 2 6 30 10 9 15 1 2 0 1 0 1 21 3 0 0 1 N Acacia Ave & W Compton Blvd 38 0.15 296 0 1 5 9 23 7 4 16 1 1 0 2 5 5 11 1 0 1 1 S Alameda St & E Artesia Blvd 36 -0.16 101 0 0 2 9 25 12 6 9 5 1 0 0 1 1 20 0 0 0 2 Santa Fe Ave & E Compton Blvd 36 -0.07 86 0 0 2 6 28 10 10 11 3 1 0 0 0 1 18 3 1 0 0 S Alameda St & E Greenleaf Blvd 34 0.48 248 1 0 0 10 23 13 2 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 21 3 0 0 3 N Bradfield Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 34 -0.01 119 0 0 3 11 20 5 7 12 2 4 0 0 2 1 16 1 0 0 1

30 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
S Wilmington Ave & W Victoria St 33 -0.10 401 1 1 1 6 24 8 6 11 2 2 1 1 1 0 15 1 0 0 1 S Alameda St & Auto Dr N 32 0.14 62 0 0 1 4 27 15 4 7 4 1 0 1 0 1 12 0 0 0 1 S Long Beach Blvd & E Myrrh St 31 -0.14 394 0 2 0 7 22 10 11 6 3 0 0 1 0 0 7 2 0 0 2 S Alameda St & E Alondra Blvd 30 0.09 269 0 1 3 9 17 13 4 7 3 1 1 1 0 0 17 1 0 0 1 S Tamarind Ave & E Alondra Blvd 28 0.03 63 0 0 1 5 22 9 8 4 4 1 0 2 1 1 10 4 0 0 1 S Wilmington Ave & W Caldwell St 27 -0.16 245 1 0 4 3 19 9 9 3 2 2 0 0 1 0 8 2 0 0 1 Santa Fe Ave & E Alondra Blvd 27 -0.20 42 0 0 0 3 24 8 5 11 2 1 0 0 0 0 15 3 0 0 0 N Aranbe Ave & W Compton Blvd 27 0.03 97 0 0 3 8 16 4 8 5 5 1 0 0 5 2 9 1 0 0 3 N Aranbe Ave & W Rosecrans Ave 27 -0.09 63 0 0 0 7 20 11 8 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 0 1 5 N Oleander Ave & W Compton Blvd 26 -0.01 254 1 0 3 7 15 13 6 3 1 0 0 1 2 1 8 2 1 1 1 N Alameda St & el Segundo Blvd 26 0.19 92 0 0 1 11 14 16 0 4 2 0 1 1 2 0 9 3 0 0 0 S Wilmington Ave & W Walnut St 25 -0.16 60 0 0 1 5 19 12 4 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 14 2 0 0 1 N Santa Fe Ave & E Pine St 25 0.11 219 0 1 1 4 19 8 5 4 3 1 0 0 3 1 9 3 0 1 1 S Acacia Ave & W Alondra Blvd 24 0.00 83 0 0 4 4 16 9 5 5 3 0 0 0 2 1 10 1 0 0 1 N Central Ave & el Segundo Blvd 24 0.32 59 0 0 1 5 18 8 5 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 1 N Long Beach Blvd & E Greenleaf
Blvd 23 -0.20 59 0 0 0 7 16 9 6 2 5 1 0 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 0 N Acacia Ave & W Rosecrans Ave 23 -0.16 237 0 1 1 8 13 8 3 10 2 0 0 0 1 0 12 2 0 0 2 N Wilmington Ave & W Stockwell St 23 0.30 411 1 1 1 10 10 7 0 9 5 1 0 0 3 1 11 3 0 0 0 S Center Ave & W Alondra Blvd 22 -0.05 384 0 2 2 3 15 6 8 1 4 0 0 0 3 0 7 1 0 0 2 Santa Fe Ave & E Myrrh St 22 -0.14 563 0 3 1 8 10 12 4 4 0 2 0 0 1 1 13 2 0 1 0 N Dwight Ave & W Compton Blvd 22 -0.13 67 0 0 2 5 15 7 2 5 4 0 0 1 2 0 8 4 0 0 0

31 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
S Alameda St & E Manville St 21 1.62 214 0 1 2 2 16 8 4 5 1 0 1 1 0 0 9 2 0 0 1 S Poinsettia Ave & E Alondra Blvd 21 -0.07 46 0 0 0 5 16 9 4 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 S Bradfield Ave & E Alondra Blvd 21 -0.16 562 2 1 1 8 9 8 5 1 1 0 0 0 3 3 7 2 0 2 0 N Bradfield Ave & E Compton Blvd 21 -0.07 81 0 0 3 6 12 9 3 5 2 0 0 0 0 3 12 2 0 0 0 S Wilmington Ave & W Laurel St 20 -0.21 50 0 0 1 4 15 5 6 1 4 2 1 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 0 N Long Beach Blvd & E Pine St 20 -0.28 65 0 0 2 5 13 5 6 7 2 0 0 0 1 1 9 0 0 0 0 S Parmelee Ave & W Rosecrans Ave 19 -0.25 242 0 1 3 6 9 5 1 6 3 1 0 0 2 1 10 1 0 0 0 N Oleander Ave & W Rosecrans Ave 19 -0.21 387 1 1 1 6 10 1 8 5 1 3 0 0 3 0 7 3 0 0 0 S Oleander Ave & W Alondra Blvd 18 -0.11 187 1 0 0 1 16 5 4 2 5 2 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 2 N Long Beach Blvd & E Palmer St 17 -0.31 57 0 0 2 4 11 7 5 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 7 3 0 1 1 N Mayo Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 17 -0.27 186 0 1 0 1 15 3 2 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 1 S Central Ave & W Caldwell St 16 -0.31 46 0 0 1 4 11 4 3 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 10 1 1 0 1 S Alameda St & E Myrrh St 16 0.54 46 0 0 1 4 11 7 1 4 1 1 0 1 0 1 7 2 0 0 0 N Dwight Ave & W Rosecrans Ave 16 -0.31 36 0 0 0 4 12 2 3 5 3 1 0 0 1 1 7 0 0 0 1 N Long Beach Blvd & E Tucker St 15 -0.35 60 0 0 1 7 7 5 2 4 0 1 0 0 4 0 4 2 0 0 0 N Long Beach Blvd & E Arlington St 15 -0.35 25 0 0 0 2 13 1 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 1 0 0 S Wilmington Ave & W Artesia Blvd 14 -0.35 24 0 0 0 2 12 2 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 1 N Tajauta Ave & W Compton Blvd 14 -0.30 39 0 0 1 3 10 3 3 4 3 1 0 0 1 0 8 3 1 1 0 N Pannes Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 14 -0.34 207 0 1 2 2 9 2 3 3 3 0 0 1 4 0 5 1 0 1 2 N Central Ave & Littleton St 14 13.23 44 0 0 1 4 9 2 1 9 2 0 0 0 0 1 8 1 0 0 1 S Willowbrook Ave & W Alondra
Blvd 13 -0.29 37 0 0 2 1 10 5 2 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 1

32 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
S Harris Ave & E Alondra Blvd 13 -0.03 37 0 0 2 1 10 2 5 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 N Wilmington Ave & W 139th St 13 -0.31 177 0 1 0 0 12 4 4 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 6 2 0 0 0 S Central Ave & Greenleaf Blvd 12 -0.37 22 0 0 1 0 11 2 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 S Willowbrook Ave & E Myrrh St 12 0.34 27 0 0 0 3 9 4 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Wadsworth Ave & W Compton
Blvd 12 -0.34 17 0 0 0 1 11 3 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 2 N Alameda St & E Rosecrans Ave 12 -0.37 22 0 0 0 2 10 1 5 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 1 Atlantic Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 12 -0.40 17 0 0 0 1 11 6 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 0 Central Ave & E Albertoni St 12 0.27 186 0 1 0 2 9 3 5 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 S Willowbrook Ave & W Greenleaf
Blvd 11 -0.26 35 0 0 2 1 8 1 2 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0
S White Ave & E Alondra Blvd 11 -0.37 41 0 0 2 2 7 4 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 2 6 1 1 0 1 S Aprilia Ave & W Compton Blvd 11 -0.36 26 0 0 0 3 8 1 2 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 1 N Matthisen Ave & W Rosecrans Ave 11 -0.37 16 0 0 0 1 10 4 0 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 6 2 1 0 0 Plaza Dr & E Greenleaf Blvd 10 -0.33 35 0 0 1 3 6 4 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 S Aprilia Ave & W Alondra Blvd 10 -0.33 25 0 0 0 3 7 3 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 2 N Wilmington Ave & W 131st St 10 -0.38 30 0 0 1 2 7 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 N Slater Ave & el Segundo Blvd 10 -0.38 25 0 0 0 3 7 4 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 1 S Santa Fe Ave & Ramp 9 -0.41 14 0 0 0 1 8 4 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 S Alameda St & E Compton Blvd 9 -0.45 34 0 0 1 3 5 3 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 2 N Santa Fe Ave & E Tucker St 9 -0.37 193 0 1 0 4 4 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 Grandee Ave & el Segundo Blvd 9 -0.39 29 0 0 1 2 6 3 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0

33 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
N Parmelee Ave & el Segundo Blvd 9 -0.39 193 1 0 0 4 4 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 S Wilmington Ave & W Carob St 8 -0.43 8 0 0 0 0 8 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 S Central Ave & W 156th St 8 -0.42 192 0 1 1 2 4 4 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 1 N Mayo Ave & E Compton Blvd 8 -0.41 8 0 0 0 0 8 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Wilmington Ave & W Poplar St 8 -0.44 33 0 0 1 3 4 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 N Central Ave & W Piru St 7 -0.45 22 0 0 1 1 5 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 N Bullis Rd & E Pine St 7 -0.31 12 0 0 0 1 6 0 3 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 N Wilmington Ave & W 130th St 7 -0.45 334 0 2 0 0 5 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 S Long Beach Blvd & S Temple Ave 6 -0.47 16 0 0 0 2 4 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Willowbrook Ave & E Compton
Blvd 6 -0.47 16 0 0 1 0 5 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0
N Central Ave & E 139th St 6 0.93 204 1 0 3 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 S Alameda St & E 134th St 6 -0.39 16 0 0 0 2 4 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Central Ave & E Walnut St 6 0.12 11 0 0 0 1 5 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 W Victoria St & Unnamed St 4 -0.49 19 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Alameda St & E Artesia Blvd 4 -0.51 19 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Alameda St & E Alondra Blvd 4 -0.51 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 N Wilmington Ave & W 131st St 4 2.27 14 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Alameda St & On-ramp 3 -0.55 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Caswell Ave & W Alondra Blvd 3 -0.54 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Willowbrook Ave & W Myrrh St 3 -0.54 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 N Central Ave & E 149th St 3 -0.54 13 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

34 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
N Alameda St & Palmer St 3 -0.55 18 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Aprilia Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 3 1.18 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Alameda St & E 133rd St 3 -0.53 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 Unsignalized Intersections
N Alameda St & E Elm St 42 1.76 623 2 1 3 12 24 24 3 5 3 2 0 0 2 1 20 2 0 1 1 Redondo Beach Blvd & E Compton
Blvd 34 2.59 288 0 1 2 14 17 16 7 3 7 1 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 2 S Acacia Ave & W Artesia Blvd 24 0.33 218 0 1 1 4 18 5 4 8 2 4 0 0 0 0 13 4 0 1 1 S Bullis Rd & E Alondra Blvd 23 0.11 237 1 0 2 6 14 15 5 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 4 1 0 0 0 N Santa Fe Ave & E Elm St 22 0.19 404 0 2 3 5 12 13 0 4 2 0 1 0 3 1 4 2 0 0 1 S Atlantic Ave & Atlantic Dr/El
Rancho Mobile Home Park 21 21.53 542 0 3 0 6 12 6 4 4 5 1 0 0 0 2 4 3 0 3 3 N Long Beach Blvd & E Golden St 20 0.00 368 1 1 0 4 14 3 7 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 5 2 1 0 0 N Long Beach Blvd & E Elm St 19 0.05 217 0 1 2 3 13 8 2 6 2 0 0 0 1 2 4 1 0 0 1 N Kemp Ave & W Rosecrans Ave 19 0.03 233 0 1 2 6 10 2 3 7 4 0 1 1 2 1 9 0 0 1 0 S Frailey Ave & E Alondra Blvd 18 0.42 38 0 0 0 4 14 5 6 4 1 2 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 2 3 N Bullis Rd & E Kay St 18 0.66 48 0 0 2 2 14 3 8 5 2 0 0 0 1 2 6 1 1 0 2 S Long Beach Blvd & E Cypress St 17 -0.02 42 0 0 1 3 13 2 5 3 2 2 0 3 0 0 3 3 1 1 1 N Matthisen Ave & W Compton Blvd 17 0.09 41 0 0 2 1 14 7 2 5 2 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 0 1 0 N Alameda St & E Palmer St 17 0.57 236 0 1 2 7 7 6 2 6 2 0 0 0 0 1 10 1 0 0 0 W Victoria St & W Victoria St 16 0.32 36 0 0 1 2 13 9 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 S Wilmington Ave & W Manville St 16 -0.02 214 0 1 2 3 10 6 4 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 1

35 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
S Long Beach Blvd & E Caldwell St 16 0.00 194 0 1 1 1 13 3 4 5 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Lime Ave & E Alondra Blvd 16 0.04 31 0 0 0 3 13 6 3 1 2 3 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 N Long Beach Blvd & E Ezmirlian St 16 -0.05 358 0 2 1 1 12 3 5 4 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 N Santa Fe Ave & E Oaks St 16 0.15 26 0 0 0 2 14 7 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 N Alameda St & E Pine St 16 0.80 41 0 0 0 5 11 7 4 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 8 2 0 1 1 N Wilmington Ave & W 137th St 15 0.03 25 0 0 1 0 14 2 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 N Nestor Ave & W Compton Blvd 14 0.00 54 0 0 1 6 7 4 1 4 3 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 N Willow Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 14 0.23 222 1 0 3 3 7 4 2 4 1 0 0 3 0 3 5 3 0 0 0 S Central Ave & W Reeve St 13 0.01 38 0 0 0 5 8 6 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Acacia Ave & W Myrrh St 13 0.36 197 0 1 1 2 9 3 4 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 N Wilmington Ave & W Palmer St 13 0.00 48 0 0 1 5 7 5 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 S Tajauta Ave & W Spruce St 13 12.77 23 0 0 0 2 11 1 2 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 1 1 N Willowbrook Ave & E Elm St 13 0.38 33 0 0 1 2 10 3 5 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 4 1 0 0 0 N Short Ave & E Poppy Ave 13 2.86 33 0 0 0 4 9 4 5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 6 1 1 0 0 S Bullis Rd & E Cypress St 12 0.15 37 0 0 1 3 8 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 S Long Beach Blvd & E Laurel St 12 -0.09 27 0 0 0 3 9 2 4 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 N Central Ave & E 144th St 12 -0.02 215 1 0 3 2 6 7 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 N Paulsen Ave & W Cherry St 12 2.59 27 0 0 1 1 10 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 S Castlegate Ave & E Alondra Blvd 11 -0.07 180 0 1 0 1 9 2 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 Alley & W Alondra Blvd 11 0.32 26 0 0 0 3 8 5 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 S Essey Ave & E Alondra Blvd 11 -0.07 26 0 0 0 3 8 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0

36 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
S Burris Ave & E Compton Blvd 11 -0.04 185 1 0 0 2 8 2 2 5 2 0 0 0 1 1 4 3 0 0 0 N Aranbe Ave & W School St 11 2.32 26 0 0 1 1 9 6 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 N Mayo Ave & E Palmer St 11 0.55 16 0 0 0 1 10 0 5 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 2 0 N Acacia Ave & W Elm St 11 0.14 21 0 0 0 2 9 4 2 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 N Wilmington Ave & W Cressey St 11 -0.06 26 0 0 0 3 8 4 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 N Bullis Rd & E Ezmirlian St 11 0.25 35 0 0 2 1 8 4 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 N Wilmington Ave & W 133rd St 11 -0.05 46 0 0 2 3 6 2 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 unnamed St & el Segundo Blvd 11 2.32 26 0 0 1 1 9 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 N Oleander Ave & W Magnolia St 10 2.04 10 0 0 0 0 10 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 N Willow Ave & E Palmer St 10 0.46 194 0 1 1 2 6 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 N Oleander Ave & W Elm St 10 0.36 15 0 0 0 1 9 0 5 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Chester Ave & E Elm St 10 0.36 45 0 0 2 3 5 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 S Williams Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 10 9.48 10 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 N Wilmington Ave & W Plum St 10 -0.08 20 0 0 0 2 8 3 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 N Santa Fe Ave & E Peck St 10 -0.03 20 0 0 1 0 9 4 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 N Wilmington Ave & W 136th St 10 -0.08 20 0 0 0 2 8 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Grandee Ave & W 132nd St 10 2.04 40 0 0 2 2 6 2 3 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 S Oleander Ave & W Greenleaf Blvd 9 0.19 29 0 0 0 4 5 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 S Mayo Ave & E Greenleaf Blvd 9 1.15 14 0 0 0 1 8 4 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 S Sportsman Dr & Atlantic Ave 9 0.00 352 0 2 0 3 4 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 S Northwood Ave & W Alondra Blvd 9 -0.04 19 0 0 0 2 7 2 4 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

37 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
S Long Beach Blvd & E Marcelle St 9 -0.11 183 0 1 0 2 6 2 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Crane Ave & E Alondra Blvd 9 -0.08 14 0 0 0 1 8 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Harris Ave & E Linsley St 9 0.71 9 0 0 0 0 9 2 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 S Tamarind Ave & E Myrrh St 9 0.05 39 0 0 1 4 4 5 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 S Rose Ave & E Compton Blvd 9 -0.09 29 0 0 1 2 6 3 1 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 S Poinsettia Ave & E Compton Blvd 9 -0.09 19 0 0 0 2 7 3 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 S Thorson Ave & E Compton Blvd 9 -0.07 29 0 0 1 2 6 2 1 2 3 1 0 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 1 N Locust Ave & E Compton Blvd 9 -0.07 9 0 0 0 0 9 2 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 N Chester Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 9 0.00 33 0 0 2 1 6 0 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 N Culver Ave & W Rosecrans Ave 9 -0.12 14 0 0 0 1 8 1 2 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 N Long Beach Blvd & E Kay St 9 -0.15 29 0 0 0 4 5 3 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 N Paulsen Ave & W 139th St 9 8.38 14 0 0 0 1 8 2 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 N Wilmington Ave & W 138th St 9 -0.10 24 0 0 0 3 6 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 N Wilmington Ave & W 132nd St 9 -0.10 34 0 0 1 3 5 1 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 S Acacia Ave & W Manville St 8 0.06 13 0 0 0 1 7 1 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Santa Fe Ave & off-ramp 8 -0.12 181 1 0 1 0 6 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 S Long Beach Blvd & E Bennett St 8 -0.13 340 1 1 0 1 5 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 S Alameda St & E Johnson St 8 0.55 182 1 0 0 2 5 3 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 S Willowbrook Ave & E Caldwell St 8 0.13 13 0 0 0 1 7 5 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Plaza Entrance & E Alondra Blvd 8 -0.13 23 0 0 1 1 6 2 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 S Tamarind Ave & E Indigo St 8 0.20 18 0 0 0 2 6 3 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0

38 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
N Wadsworth Ave & W Compton
Blvd 8 -0.16 340 1 1 0 1 5 1 4 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
S Pannes Ave & E Compton Blvd 8 -0.10 13 0 0 0 1 7 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 Atlantic Ave & E San Vincente St 8 0.88 23 0 0 0 3 5 1 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 N Poinsettia Ave & E Palmer St 8 0.28 172 0 1 0 0 7 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 N Bowen Ave & E Palmer St 8 -0.02 8 0 0 0 0 8 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 N Wilmington Ave & W Brazil St 8 0.02 18 0 0 0 2 6 4 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Acacia Ave & W Cedar St 8 0.20 28 0 0 1 2 5 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 N Nestor Ave & W Rosecrans Ave 8 -0.17 196 0 1 2 1 4 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 N Aranbe Ave & W Cressey St 8 0.20 18 0 0 0 2 6 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 N Wilmington Ave & W 134th St 8 -0.12 38 0 0 1 4 3 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 N Long Beach Blvd & E Stockton Ave 8 -0.17 13 0 0 0 1 7 1 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 N Alameda St & E Weber Ave 8 0.19 33 0 0 1 3 4 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 S Burris Ave & E Greenleaf Blvd 7 -0.08 32 0 0 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 S Clymar Ave & W Alondra Blvd 7 -0.11 17 0 0 0 2 5 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 S Wilmington Ave & W Tichenor St 7 -0.15 7 0 0 0 0 7 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Ave & El Rancho Mobile
Home Park 7 -0.07 12 0 0 0 1 6 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 Off-ramp & E Alondra Blvd 7 -0.05 7 0 0 0 0 7 1 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 S Alameda St & E Raymond St 7 -0.14 12 0 0 0 1 6 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 S Long Beach Blvd & E Elizabeth St 7 -0.15 37 0 0 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Grandee Ave & W Alondra Blvd 7 -0.11 17 0 0 0 2 5 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

39 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
S Kemp Ave & W Alondra Blvd 7 -0.11 22 0 0 0 3 4 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 S Center Ave & W Cypress St 7 0.15 180 0 1 1 0 5 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 S Wilmington Ave & W 156th St 7 -0.15 200 1 0 2 2 2 3 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 S Pannes Ave & E Myrrh St 7 0.12 7 0 0 0 0 7 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Willow Ave & E Compton Blvd 7 -0.14 334 2 0 0 0 5 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 S Barron Ave & W Palm St 7 1.22 7 0 0 0 0 7 0 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 S Willowbrook Ave & E Palm St 7 0.63 27 0 0 1 2 4 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 N Bowen Ave & E Compton Blvd 7 -0.13 12 0 0 0 1 6 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 S Amantha Ave & W Compton Blvd 7 -0.15 27 0 0 1 2 4 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 N Maie Ave & W Compton Blvd 7 -0.15 32 0 0 1 3 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Barron Ave & W Compton Blvd 7 -0.14 181 1 0 0 2 4 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 N Central Ave & E 150th St 7 -0.14 12 0 0 0 1 6 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Matthisen Ave & W Compton Blvd 7 -0.14 32 0 0 1 3 3 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 N Acacia Ave & W Palmer St 7 0.15 17 0 0 1 0 6 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 N Wilmington Ave & W Arbutus St 7 -0.14 17 0 0 0 2 5 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 N Aranbe Ave & W Arbutus St 7 1.22 27 0 0 1 2 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 N Spring Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 7 -0.16 176 0 1 0 1 5 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 McKinley Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 7 -0.17 22 0 0 1 1 5 3 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Plaza Entrance & E Rosecrans Ave 7 -0.17 12 0 0 0 1 6 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 N Paulsen Ave & W Plum St 7 1.22 27 0 0 1 2 4 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 N Mona Blvd & E Mealy St 7 -0.06 171 1 0 0 0 6 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0

40 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
N Willowbrook Ave & W Douglas St 7 -0.05 171 1 0 0 0 6 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 N Bradfield Ave & E Kay St 7 1.22 12 0 0 0 1 6 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 N Long Beach Blvd & E Peck St 7 -0.18 180 0 1 1 0 5 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 N Willowbrook Ave & E Winona Ave 7 -0.05 12 0 0 0 1 6 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Wilmington Ave & W 134th Pl 7 -0.15 17 0 0 0 2 5 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 S Wilmington Ave & Greenleaf Dr 6 -0.18 6 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 S Center Ave & W Greenleaf Blvd 6 -0.01 184 0 1 1 1 3 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 S Tamarind Ave & E Bennett St 6 0.04 21 0 0 1 1 4 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 S Temple Ave & E Greenleaf Blvd 6 0.10 6 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Willowbrook Ave & E Bennett St 6 0.61 16 0 0 0 2 4 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 S Temple Ave & E Caldwell St 6 0.04 6 0 0 0 0 6 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Willowbrook Ave & E Tichenor St 6 0.61 21 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Central Ave & Plaza Entrance 6 -0.16 175 1 0 0 1 4 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Muriel Ave & E Elizabeth St 6 0.95 6 0 0 0 0 6 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 S Acacia Ave & W Cocoa St 6 0.04 16 0 0 0 2 4 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Washington Ave & E Alondra Blvd 6 -0.10 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 S Holly Ave & E Myrrh St 6 0.04 26 0 0 1 2 3 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 S Central Ave & W 154th St 6 -0.17 175 0 1 0 1 4 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Central Ave & W 153rd St 6 -0.16 170 1 0 0 0 5 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Santa Fe Ave & E Laurel St 6 -0.16 175 0 1 0 1 4 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Central Ave & W 152nd St 6 -0.16 25 0 0 2 0 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

41 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
S Sloan Ave & E Compton Blvd 6 -0.16 190 1 0 0 4 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 S Essey Ave & E Compton Blvd 6 -0.15 21 0 0 0 3 3 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Kemp Ave & W Compton Blvd 6 -0.09 26 0 0 1 2 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 N Culver Ave & W Compton Blvd 6 -0.16 6 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 0 N Central Ave & E 148th St 6 -0.17 16 0 0 0 2 4 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 N Bullis Rd & E Elm St 6 -0.03 6 0 0 0 0 6 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 N Bradfield Ave & E San Vincente St 6 0.24 21 0 0 1 1 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 N Bradfield Ave & E Pixley St 6 0.24 6 0 0 0 0 6 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 N Bullis Rd & Marguerita Dr 6 -0.03 31 0 0 0 5 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N McDivitt Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 6 -0.18 170 0 1 0 0 5 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 N Sloan Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 6 -0.18 26 0 0 1 2 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 N Central Ave & E 142nd St 6 -0.18 180 0 1 0 2 3 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 N Crane Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 6 -0.18 21 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 N Poinsettia Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 6 -0.18 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 N Matthisen Ave & W Cherry St 6 0.95 6 0 0 0 0 6 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 N Paulsen Ave & W Cressey St 6 0.95 21 0 0 0 3 3 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 2 0 N Bullis Rd & E Queensdale St 6 -0.04 21 0 0 1 1 4 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 N Bullis Rd & E Orchard St 6 -0.05 170 0 1 0 0 5 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 N Anzac Ave & W 131st St 6 1.39 11 0 0 0 1 5 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 N Central Ave & W 131st St 6 -0.11 21 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 N Central Ave & W 132nd St 6 -0.18 31 0 0 1 3 2 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

42 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
N Dalhart Ave & el Segundo Blvd 6 -0.16 16 0 0 0 2 4 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 S Acacia Ave & W Apra St 4 0.04 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Northwood Ave & W Greenleaf
Blvd 4 -0.14 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
S Grandee Ave & W Caldwell St 4 -0.19 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 S Alameda St & E Bennett St 4 0.02 9 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Oleander Ave & W Bennett St 4 0.40 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 S Sportsman Dr & Atlantic Ave 4 -0.19 182 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 S Northwood Ave & W Caldwell St 4 -0.19 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Hillford Ave & W Caldwell St 4 -0.19 168 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 S Willowbrook Ave & E Johnson St 4 0.20 14 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 S Aprilia Ave & W Claude St 4 0.40 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 S Temple Ave & E Schinner St 4 0.66 14 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 S Willowbrook Ave & W Caldwell St 4 -0.15 4 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 S Mayo Ave & E Alondra Blvd 4 -0.21 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 S Chester Ave & E Alondra Blvd 4 -0.21 173 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 S Butler Ave & E Alondra Blvd 4 -0.22 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Atlantic Dr & E Caldwell St 4 0.03 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Gunlock Ave & W Raymond St 4 0.40 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Willowbrook Ave & W Claude St 4 0.04 14 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 S Poinsettia Ave & E Marcelle St 4 0.40 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Entrance Res. & W Alondra Blvd 4 -0.20 14 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0

43 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
S Pannes Ave & E Alondra Blvd 4 -0.22 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 S Muriel Ave & E Alondra Blvd 4 -0.22 24 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 E Elizabeth St & E Alondra Blvd 4 -0.22 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Off-ramp & E Alondra Blvd 4 -0.18 14 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Pearl Ave & E Alondra Blvd 4 -0.16 173 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 S Thorson Ave & E Myrrh St 4 -0.10 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Willowbrook Ave & W Indigo St 4 0.12 19 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 S Bullis Rd & E Myrrh St 4 -0.20 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 S Oleander Ave & W Myrrh St 4 2.90 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Aprilia Ave & W 152nd St 4 0.66 9 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 S Rose Ave & E Laurel St 4 0.66 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 S Alameda St & E Laurel St 4 0.02 9 0 0 0 1 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 S Holly Ave & E Laurel St 4 0.40 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 S Barron Ave & W Almond St 4 0.66 9 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Willowbrook Ave & Plaza 4 0.12 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Tajauta Ave & W 151st St 4 0.40 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Oleander Ave & W Palm St 4 0.40 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Chester Ave & E Compton Blvd 4 -0.21 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Pearl Ave & E Compton Blvd 4 -0.21 177 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 S Ward Ave & E Compton Blvd 4 -0.21 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Holly Ave & E Compton Blvd 4 -0.21 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

44 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
N Paulsen Ave & W Compton Blvd 4 -0.21 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 N Dwight Ave & W School St 4 0.40 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Acacia Ave & W School St 4 -0.11 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 N Culver Ave & W School St 4 0.40 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Willowbrook Ave & E Palmer St 4 0.06 173 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Holly Ave & E San Vincente St 4 0.03 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 N Matthisen Ave & W Arbutus St 4 0.40 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Sloan Ave & E Elm St 4 -0.11 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Tajauta Ave & W Poplar St 4 -0.11 4 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 N Spring Ave & E Elm St 4 -0.11 14 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 N Tamarind Ave & E Elm St 4 -0.11 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 W Pacific Ave & W Cedar St 4 0.40 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Aranbe Ave & W Cedar St 4 0.40 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Burris Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 4 -0.22 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 N Matthisen Ave & W Spruce St 4 0.40 4 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 N Aranbe Ave & W Spruce St 4 0.40 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 S Keene Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 4 -0.22 9 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Locust Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 4 -0.22 14 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 S Cookacre Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 4 -0.21 14 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 N Culver Ave & W Douglas St 4 0.40 9 0 0 0 1 3 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Alameda St & E Mealy St 4 -0.21 173 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

45 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
N Oleander Ave & W Peach St 4 0.40 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N McDivitt Ave & E Tucker St 4 0.40 9 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Oleander Ave & W Pear St 4 0.40 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 S Cookacre Ave & E McMillan St 4 0.00 19 0 0 1 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 S Gibson Ave & E McMillan St 4 0.14 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 N Tamarind Ave & E Oris St 4 0.66 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Long Beach Blvd & E Oaks St 4 -0.22 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Central Ave & W 134th St 4 2.90 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 N Short Ave & E Arlington St 4 0.40 14 0 0 1 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Grandee Ave & W 134th St 4 0.40 4 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 N Bradfield Ave & E Orchard St 4 0.40 19 0 0 1 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Peach St & E Pine St 4 0.66 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Alhambra Ave & E Pine St 4 0.40 168 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 N Compton Ave & W 132nd St 4 0.07 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 N Short Ave & E Stockton Ave 4 0.40 4 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Grandee Ave & W 131st St 4 0.40 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Cuzco Ave & E Greenleaf Blvd 3 -0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Entrance & W Carob St 3 0.30 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 S California Ave & E Greenleaf Blvd 3 -0.23 167 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Entrance Community College & E
Greenleaf Blvd 3 -0.23 18 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 S Acacia Ave & W Carob St 3 0.30 167 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

46 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
S Wadsworth Ave & W Billings St 3 0.30 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Willowbrook Ave & W Greenleaf
Blvd 3 -0.23 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
S Whitemarsh Ave & W Greenleaf
Blvd 3 -0.21 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S Wilmington Ave & W Bennett St 3 -0.24 18 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Hillford Ave & W 166th St 3 0.30 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Pearl Ave & E Greenleaf Blvd 3 -0.23 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Dwight Ave & W Caldwell St 3 -0.23 167 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 S Gunlock Ave & W Caldwell St 3 -0.23 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 McKinley Ave & W Caldwell St 3 -0.23 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Long Beach Blvd & E Glencoe Ave 3 -0.24 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Atlantic Dr & E Greenleaf Blvd 3 -0.02 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Exmoor Ave & S Exmoor Ave 3 -0.23 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Whitemarsh Ave & W Caldwell St 3 -0.23 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Unnamed St & W Caldwell St 3 -0.23 8 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Temple Ave & E Bennett St 3 0.12 13 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Poinsettia Ave & E Bennett St 3 0.30 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 S Caswell Ave & W Claude St 3 0.30 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Unnamed St & W Tichenor St 3 -0.24 8 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 S Willowbrook Ave & W Tichenor St 3 -0.10 13 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Mayo Ave & E Caldwell St 3 -0.18 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

47 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
S Petrolia Ave & E Alondra Blvd 3 -0.24 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Alameda St & E Reeve St 3 -0.24 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 S Amantha Ave & W Reeve St 3 0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 S Acacia Ave & W Claude St 3 0.12 8 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S White Ave & E Caldwell St 3 -0.18 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 S Temple Ave & E Tichenor St 3 0.30 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Taper Ave & W Cypress St 3 0.30 13 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corlett Ave & W Cypress St 3 0.30 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Acacia Ave & W Reeve St 3 0.12 13 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Willowbrook Ave & E Raymond St 3 0.00 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 S Sloan Ave & E Alondra Blvd 3 -0.24 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Oleander Ave & W Raymond St 3 0.30 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 S Harlan Ave & W Alondra Blvd 3 -0.23 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Dwight Ave & W Alondra Blvd 3 -0.23 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Entrance & W Alondra Blvd 3 1.81 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Burris Ave & E Alondra Blvd 3 -0.24 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Stoneacre Ave & E Alondra Blvd 3 -0.24 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 S Mayo Ave & E Cypress St 3 0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 S Crane Ave & E Cypress St 3 0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Ward Ave & Unnamed St 3 0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 S Bradfield Ave & Unnamed St 3 0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

48 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
S Pannes Ave & E Cypress St 3 0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Bowen Ave & E Cypress St 3 0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 S Central Ave & W 155th St 3 -0.24 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Tajauta Ave & W 154th St 3 -0.19 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Willowbrook Ave & W Laurel St 3 0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Center Ave & W Laurel St 3 -0.18 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Pannes Ave & E Laurel St 3 0.30 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 N Crane Ave & E Compton Blvd 3 -0.24 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Goleta St & W Compton Blvd 3 -0.24 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Kemp Ave & W Magnolia St 3 0.12 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Wilmington Ave & W Magnolia St 3 -0.17 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Oleander Ave & Alley 3 0.30 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Matthisen Ave & W School St 3 0.12 18 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 N Bradfield Ave & E San Marcus St 3 -0.13 8 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Matthisen Ave & W Palmer St 3 0.12 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Oleander Ave & W Palmer St 3 0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 N Acacia Ave & W Arbutus St 3 -0.18 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Hillford Ave & W Poplar St 3 -0.18 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 N Oleander Ave & W Arbutus St 3 0.30 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Locust Ave & E San Vincente St 3 -0.18 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 N Oleander Ave & W Poplar St 3 0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

49 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
N Acacia Ave & W Poplar St 3 -0.19 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 N Alameda St & E Poplar St 3 -0.24 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 N Bradfield Ave & E Bales St 3 -0.11 13 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Cliveden Ave & W Spruce St 3 0.30 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 N Bullis Rd & E Pattie Ct 3 -0.21 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Mayo Ave & E Elm St 3 -0.19 13 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Culver Ave & W Cedar St 3 0.30 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Alameda St & E Maple St 3 -0.24 330 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 N Alameda St & E Spruce St 3 -0.24 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 N Wilmington Ave & W Spruce St 3 -0.24 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Frailey Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 3 -0.22 23 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Res. Entrance & W Rosecrans Ave 3 -0.24 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 N Bradfield Ave & E Saunders St 3 -0.11 13 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 S Thorson Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 3 -0.24 13 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Rose Ave & E Rosecrans Ave 3 -0.24 18 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 N McDivitt Ave & E Peck St 3 0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 N Willow Ave & E Peck St 3 0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 N Van Ness Ave & E Kay St 3 0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Matthisen Ave & W Plum St 3 0.12 8 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 N Aranbe Ave & W Plum St 3 -0.19 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Unnamed St & E McMillan St 3 -0.04 13 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

50 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
N Aranbe Ave & W Peach St 3 -0.19 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Bradfield Ave & E Ezmirlian St 3 0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Aranbe Ave & W Pear St 3 -0.19 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 N Central Ave & W 137th St 3 -0.24 13 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Paulsen Ave & E Hatchway St 3 1.81 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Oleander Ave & E Oris St 3 0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Corlett Ave & Littleton St 3 -0.23 18 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 N Alameda St & E Oaks St 3 -0.19 13 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Unnamed St & E Weber Ave 3 0.30 8 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Bradfield Ave & E McMillan St 3 0.12 8 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 Alley & E Oaks St 3 0.30 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Parmelee Ave & W 135th St 3 -0.03 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grandee Ave & W 134th Pl 3 0.12 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Paulsen Ave & W Shauer St 3 0.30 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 N Bradfield Ave & E Killen Pl 3 0.12 13 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Short Ave & E Pine St 3 0.12 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Alameda St & E Euclid Ave 3 -0.19 8 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Parmelee Ave & W 131st St 3 0.03 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Alameda St & E 125th St 3 -0.24 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential

2. Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes

51 Table 6 – Analysis Rankings: Segments (Collisions Greater than 3 Locations Per Type) Facility Limits
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Principal
Arterial
Santa Fe Ave E Alondra Blvd-E Caldwell
St 8 0.49 23 0 0 0 3 5 1 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
N Long Beach
Blvd
E Compton Blvd-E Palmer
St 7 0.53 32 0 0 1 3 3 1 2 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
W Alondra
Blvd
S Oleander Ave-S Center
Ave 6 0.37 16 0 0 0 2 4 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
N Santa Fe Ave E Tucker St-E Oaks St 5 0.87 15 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 W Alondra
Blvd S Center Ave-S Coral Ave 4 0.26 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 N Alameda St E Rosecrans Ave-E Oaks St 4 0.46 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 W Rosecrans
Ave
Central Ave-S Parmelee
Ave 4 0.18 19 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
W Rosecrans
Ave
N Aranbe Ave-N Matthisen
Ave 4 0.32 24 0 0 1 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
N Central Ave E El Segundo Blvd-E 131st
St 4 0.08 19 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0
W Alondra
Blvd S Keene Ave-S Aprilia Ave 3 0.16 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 S Long Beach
Blvd E Myrrh St-E Cypress St 3 0.05 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 S Long Beach
Blvd E Laurel St-E Myrrh St 3 0.05 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 W Compton
Blvd N Nestor Ave-N Central Ave 3 0.06 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

52 Facility Limits
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
W Compton
Blvd
N Wilmington Ave-N Kemp
Ave 3 0.15 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
N Santa Fe Ave E Palmer St-E Elm St 3 0.14 13 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 W Rosecrans
Ave
N Wilmington Ave-N Kemp
Ave 3 0.07 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
W Rosecrans
Ave
N Oleander Ave-N Aranbe
Ave 3 0.11 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Minor Arterial
E Artesia Blvd S Acacia Ave-S Alameda St 7 0.02 12 0 0 0 1 6 1 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 S Wilmington
Ave W 156th St-W Alondra Blvd 6 0.33 16 0 0 0 2 4 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 S Wilmington
Ave W Carob St-W Walnut St 5 0.15 10 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 W Greenleaf
Blvd
S Center Ave-S Wilmington
Ave 5 0.79 5 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
W Caldwell St S Northwood Ave-S Hillford
Ave 4 0.30 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
N Willowbrook
Ave E Palmer St-E Elm St 4 2.43 4 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 N Willowbrook
Ave
W Douglas St-W Winona
Ave 4 0.51 19 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
W Greenleaf
Blvd
S Oleander Ave-S Center
Ave 3 0.20 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0
W Caldwell St S Center Ave-S Wilmington
Ave 3 0.05 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
N Willowbrook
Ave
E Rosecrans Ave-E Winona
Ave 3 0.01 18 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

53 Facility Limits
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Major
Collector
S Acacia Ave W Compton Blvd-W Myrrh
St 6 1.52 11 0 0 0 1 5 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
S Butler Ave S Harris Ave-E Alondra Blvd 3 0.76 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Local
El Segundo
Blvd Santa Fe Ave- Peach St 7 54.7
5 17 0 0 0 2 5 1 2 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 0
W Carob St S Acacia Ave-Wilmington
Ave 6 3.61 18
0 0 1 0 2 3 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
E Tucker St N Van Ness Ave-N Long
Beach Blvd 6 7.88 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 N Parmelee
Ave W 131st St-el Segundo Blvd 6 3.57 16 0 0 0 2 4 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 W Artesia Blvd S Acacia Ave-S Acacia Ave 5 0.96 5 0 0 0 0 5 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 W Walnut St S Acacia Ave-S Wilmington
Ave 5 -

0.19 19
3 0 1 2 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
W Mahalo Pl Central Ave-Kona Dr 4 4.79 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 S Atlantic Dr E Caldwell St-E Greenleaf
Blvd 4 5.25 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
E Weber Ave Santa Fe Ave-Unnamed St 4 27.4
0 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S Mayo Ave E Compton Blvd-E Laurel St 3 7.65 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 N Rose Ave E Elm St-E Rosecrans Ave 3 4.93 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 McKinley Ave E 139th St-E Rosecrans Ave 3 3.91 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

54 Facility Limits
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
W 131st St Grandee Ave-N Compton
Ave 3 4.90 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
W 131st St N Wilmington Ave-Grandee
Ave 3 3.53 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E Euclid Ave Santa Fe Ave-Unnamed St 3 18.4
5 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

55 8. Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Areas

8.1 Best Practices Evaluation
Table 7 identifies existing plans and policies that were recently completed, or are planned, or on-going within the City of Compton. The intent of this review is to provide an idea of the types of strategies in place or encouraged by the City that may impact the safety analysis process. It will also identify opportunity areas where the City could adopt non-infrastructure countermeasures. This table also ties each topic and enhancement to the emphasis areas that are laid out in Section 8.2.

Table 7 – Summary of Program, Policies, and Practices
Topic Initiatives/ Current Status Opportunities for
Implementation or Enhancement

COMMITTEES / ROLES
Does the City have an
Active Transportation
Coordinator?
No Formalize duties in City Engineer
positions
Does the City have a
Safety or Active
Transportation Advisory
Committee?
No Identify traffic safety issues and
meet on regular basis
Does the City have an
Active Transportation
Safety Education
Program?
No
Implement an Active
Transportation Safety Education
program

POLICY / PLANS
Does the City have a
Complete Streets Plan? No
Implement a Complete Streets
Plan to formalize complete streets
policies. ‘Complete Streets’ are
streets that are designed and
operated to enable safe usage and
support mobility for all users.

Develop guidelines for
implementation going forward.

Does the City assess
Traffic Impact Fees? Yes
Continue to assess Development
Impact Fees and use proceeds for
traffic safety improvements
Does the City have a Safe
Routes to School
program?
Yes
Implement a Safe Routes to
School program to reflect changing
trends
Does the City implement
Traffic Calming Policies? Yes Formalize Traffic Calming Policies and implement where appropriate

56 Does the City regularly
conduct Speed Surveys? Yes
Continue to conduct speed
surveys every 7 years as required
by the CA MUTCD
Does the City utilized
Warrants for Stop Signs
and Signals?
Yes Continue to utilize warrants for
stop signs and signals
Is the City planning for
Density and Walkable
Areas?
Downtown Specific Plan
Consider updating general plan
and zoning to allow for high
density and additional mixed-use
developments
Does the City have
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) or
Vehicle Miles Travelled
(VMT) Reduction
policies?
No Implement TDM and VMT policies
Does the City perform
Traffic Crash Monitoring? No Regularly monitor crash data to identify any trends or hotspots
Does the City have an
Active Transportation
Master Plan?
No Consider creating an Active
Transportation Master Plan
Does the City have
MUTCD-compliant
Pedestrian Signal
Timing?
Yes
Continue to implement MUTCD
compliant pedestrian signal timing
where appropriate
Does the City implement
Crosswalks at high
pedestrian locations?
Yes
Continue to implement crosswalks
at high pedestrian volume
locations as trends change
What type of traffic
enforcement does the
City conduct?
Sheriff Department
Continue to enforce traffic laws in
collision and aggressive driving
hotspots
What is the City's Bicycle
Policy? Bicycle master Plan
Continue to implement bicycle
master plan and update plan as
needed
What types of transit
does the City have?
Renaissance Transit System and
Dial A Ride Service
Coordinate with transit agencies to
identify any transit-related
improvements to traffic safety
What types of wayfinding
does the City have?
Currently have grants to install
wayfinding signage
Identify areas where wayfinding
signage could contribute to
increased roadway safety

DATA COLLECTION / INVENTORY
Does the City have an
Inventory of Pedestrian
Signs and Signals?
No Create GIS database of pedestrian
signals and signs

57 Does the City have an
Inventory/Mapping of
Active Transportation
Routes?
No
Implement regular updated
inventory; assemble in GIS if
appropriate
Does the City utilize
Crossroads Database for
collisions?
No Utilize Crossroads database and
regularly update
Does the City have Active
Transportation Volume
Counting?
No
Implement Active Transportation
Volume counting at key locations
to gauge active transportation
usage

COORDINATION / FEEDBACK
What ways can citizens
give feedback about
roadway safety?
City App, City’s Website, and
social media platforms
Continue to solicit citizen feedback
on traffic safety and transportation
planning efforts
What types of
Coordination with other
City organization does
your department
perform?
Gateway Cities
Continue coordinating with
development department and other
City departments
What types of School
Engagement does the
City perform?
None Identify areas of coordination with
local schools
What types of Law
Enforcement/Emergency
Service Engagement
does the City perform?
Gun Buy Back, Catalytic Converter
Program
Continue to identify areas of
coordination with police and fire
department

58 8.2 Emphasis Areas
Emphasis areas represent crash factors that are common in the City and provide the opportunity to reduce the largest number of traffic injuries with strategic investment. Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals of this planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis.

8.2. 1 Emphasis Area # 1: Intersection Improvements
Description: Collisions involved at intersections, interchanges, and other roadway access.

About 93% of total of collisions took place at or near intersections. 37.8% of the fatal and severe injury collisions in Compton involved intersections, compared to 23.6% statewide.

Goals for Emphasis Area #1:
• Reduce the number of crashes at intersections, interchanges, and other roadway access. • Identify hot spots and prioritize locations for intersection improvements. • Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to address collisions at intersections for improvement.

Strategies for Emphasis Area #1:
• Engineering improvements are not limited but could include backplates with re flective borders, left-and right turn lanes at two-way controlled intersections, and protected left-turn movements.

These strategies can be implemented by the City with assistance from emergency services and community organization. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP,OTS, and SB1 grant programs.

8.2. 2 Emphasis Area # 2: Aggressive Driving
Description: Aggressive driving, as defined by the Caltrans SHSP, includes several behaviors including speeding, tailgating, and ignoring traffic signals and signs. Aggressive driving behaviors (unsafe speed or following too closely) accounted for 33 percent of collisions. 2 percent of these collisions resulted in a severe injury, 97 percent of these collisions resulted in some other form of injury.

Goal for Emphasis Area #2:
• Reduce the number of crashes due to aggressive driving in the city • Identify hot spots and priority corridors for aggressive driving • Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to address aggressive driving

Strategies for Emphasis Area #2:
• Educational campaign to target aggressive drivers
• Increased law enforcement presence near aggressive driving hotspots • Increased coordination with law enforcement and other community organizations

These strategies will be implemented by the City, while par tnering with Caltrans, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), California Highway Patrol (CHP), and other community partners. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, Active Transportation Program (ATP), OTS, SB 1, and SS4A grant programs.

59 8.2. 3 Emphasis Area # 3: Young Drivers
Description: 7% of all collisions within the study period occurred with drivers between 16 and 20 years old. 0.02 % of these collisions resulted in fatalities and in severe injuries. 97% resulted in some other form of injury.

Goal for Emphasis Area #3:
• Reduce the number of collisions to drivers 25 years of age or younger. • Promote safe behavior that further reduce fatalities and injuries among young drivers. • Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to improve the education and skills of young drivers.

Strategies for Emphasis Area #3:
• Identify hot spots and identify types of crashes involving young drivers. • Develop and implement programs that provide education and awareness through high school and driver’s education programs.

These strategies can be implemented by the City with assistance from emergency services and community organizations. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, OTS, and SB1 grant programs.

8.2. 4 Emphasis Area # 4: Pedestrians
Description: Pedestrians and bicyclists are classified by Caltrans as vulnerable users, meaning they possess the highest potential for severe harm during a crash. These groups need appropriate infrastructure to travel to key destinations such as schools, workplaces, and core commercial areas. The City’s Circulation element lays out plans and standards for non- motorized transportation. Of the 394 crashes involving vulnerable road users, 28 resulted in a fatal injury and 33 resulted in a severe injury. The City should aim to implement countermeasures to further protect these users from injury.

Goal for Emphasis Area #4:
• Reduce the number of collisions involving vulnerable road users. • Identify hot spots and priority corridors for vulnerable road user collisions. • Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to address pedestrian and bicyclist collisions
Strategies for Emphasis Area #4:
• Implement pedestrian and bicycle countermeasures/improvements at key locations • Install active transportation counters to identify high volume locations and implement infrastructure improvements at these locations
• Establish education and training programs to improve vulnerable road user safety citywide.

These strategies will be implemented by the City, while partnering with Caltrans, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), California Highway Patrol (CHP), and other

60 community partners. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, A ctive Transportation Program (ATP), OTS, SB 1, and SS4A grant programs.

61 9. Potential Improvements and Countermeasure Toolbox This section provides information on general identified issues, crash reduction factors, improvements, and countermeasures identi fied for the City of Compton, as well as for specific project locations identified as part of this analysis. Countermeasures for each of the Safety Project Case Studies are based on data analysis, stakeholder input, and site visits.

9.1 Infrastructure Imp rovements

9.1.1 Countermeasure Selection Process
Part D of the HSM provides information on CMFs for roadway segments, intersections, interchanges, special facilities, and road networks. CMFs are used to estimate the safety effects of highway improvements, specifically to compare and select highway safety improvements. A CMF less than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to reduce crashes. A CMF greater than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to increase crashes. A Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) is directly connected to the CMF and is “mathematically defined as (1 – CMF) (the higher the CRF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes) 4.” CMFs can help decision makers weigh potential alternative projects, but are only one measure of a project's value and should be considered part of a larger decision making process. Furthermore, it is important to note that not all CMFs are as reliable as others. The FHWA maintains a federal depository of CMFs and includes a star rating system to help users determine which CMFs are bolstered by the best and most thorough research. Key factors to consider when applying CMFs include:

1. Selection of an appropriate CMF;

2. Estimation of crashes without treatment;

3. Application of CMFs by type and severity; and,

4. Estimation of the combined effect for multiple treatments.

Examples of Safety Countermeasures can be found through several sources. This Report utilizes the countermeasures found in the California LRSM and the CMF Clearinghouse (CMF CH) website. Countermeasures for each of the Safety Project Case Studies are based on the data analysis and site visits. Additional countermeasures were identified for the high-level issues on a city-wide level and are discussed in Section 9.2.

4 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 27.

62 9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies
From the city -wide analysis, eleven (10) project case st udy locations were selected for further evaluation and countermeasure development. For each of these locations, Safety Project Case Studies were developed to provide a balanced understanding of common safety patterns at a variety of location types that can be used to associate countermeasures with specific roadway configurations and conditions. These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, stakeholder engagement, the observed crash patterns, and their different characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits.

A Safety Project Case Study was developed for each of the following locations:

1. Roadway Segment: Acacia Ave – Compton Bl to Myrrh St

2. Signalized Intersection: Central Ave & Compton Blvd

3. Roadway Segment: Caldwell St – Northwood Ave to Hillford Ave

4. Roadway Segment: Carob St – Acacia Ave to Wilmington Ave

5. Unsignalized Intersection: S Atlantic Ave & Atlantic Dr/El Rancho Mobile Home Park

6. Signalized Intersection: Long Beach Blvd & Compton Blvd

7. Signalized Intersection: Long Beach Blvd & Rosecrans Ave

8. Signalized Intersection: Alameda St & Elm St

9. Roadway Segment: Willowbrook Ave: Rosecrans Ave to Winona Ave

10. Roadway Segment: El Segundo Blvd: Santa Fe Ave to Peach St The following pages summarize conditions at each location, and potentially beneficial countermeasures. Countermeasures were subjected to a ben efit/cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment. These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure, and to potentially phase improvements over the longer -term.

These case study sheets can also be used to position the City for future grant funding opportunities.

The potential benefit of each countermeasure was calculated using each countermeasure’s Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) and the latest Caltrans injury level cost data. Fatal and severe injury collisions are estimated at $2.19 million, Other Visible Injury collisions at $142,300, Complaint of Pain collision at $80,900, and Property Damage Only collisions at $13,300. The 5-year benefit is extrapolated out to a 20-year safety benefit.

The 20-year safety benefit was then compared to the 20 -year cost estimates, which is used to calculate a benefit -cost ratio. The benefit -cost ratio can be used to compare different countermeasures for their effectiveness and competitiveness for grant funding.

Case Study Sheet: Location #1
Project Location, Description & Maps
Segment: Acacia Ave: Compton Blvd to Myrrh St
Example of Similar Segments: Compton Blvd: Wilmington Ave to Aranbe Ave

ROADWAY

SEGMENT
Project Name: Compton LRSP
Agency Name: City of Compton
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Date: January 2023

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 6
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
0 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Sideswipe (50%)
Rear-End (17%)
Vehicle-pedestrian (17%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 0
Collision Data
Average Daily Traffic
(ADT)
6,000
Lighting Well-lit
Median Solid double yellow line
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
No posted speed limit –
prima facie 25 mph speed
limit
Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
4 2 0
Field Visit Notes
• High no. of parked car collisions
• Courthouse and city hall area attracts people
looking to park or drop off/pick up others
• Generally low vehicles volumes
• 1-hour parking in the turnout at the northern end is
heavily used, as well as street curb space
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
R28: Install edge-
lines and centerlines 25% $36,850 $17,500 2.11
R35PB:

Install/upgrade
pedestrian crossing
(with enhanced
safety features)
35% $4,655 $15,000 0.31
Case Study Sheet: Location #1
• Turnout has very narrow space for non-parked
vehicles
• Marked & signed mid-block crosswalk, painted
white, with no other warning devices in place
• New Compton High School to the south
Case Study Sheet: Location #2
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Central Ave and Compton Blvd
Example of Similar Intersections: Central Ave and Rosecrans Ave; Santa Fe Ave and Rosecrans Ave Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Date: January 2023

SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION
Project Name: Compton LRSP
Agency Name: City of Compton
Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 62
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
0 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear-end (35%)
Broadside (26%)
Sideswipe (19%)
Dark Collisions 18
Impaired Collisions 2
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 24,940
Crosswalk Condition Good
Control Type Signal
Lighting Well-lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
40 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
61 1 0
Field Visit Notes
• High no. of rear-end, broadside, and sideswipe
collisions
• Good lighting
• Housing development under construction in
northeast corner
• Median project in development on Compton Blvd
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
S07: Provide
protected left turn
phase (left turn lane
already exists)
30% $570,000 $8,000 71.25
S03: Improve signal
timing (coordination,
phases, red, yellow,
or operation)
15% $285,000 $7,000 40.71
Case Study Sheet: Location #2
• Bike lanes on Central Ave
• Protected-permissive left turn phasing in all
directions
• Parking permitted on northwestern curb of
Compton Blvd near intersection
• High speeds
Countermeasure Evaluation (continued)
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ration
S02: Improve signal
hardware: lenses,
back-plates with
retroreflective
borders,
mounting, size, and
number
15% $285,000 $12,000 23.75
R26: Install
dynamic/variable
speed warning signs
30% $570,000 $32,000 17.81
S21PB: Modify signal
phasing to
implement a
Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
60% $48,540 $8,000 6.07
R35PB:

Install/upgrade
pedestrian crossing
(with enhanced
safety features)
35% $28,315 $80,000 0.35
Case Study Sheet: Location #2
Case Study Sheet: Location #3
Project Location, Description & Maps
Segment: Caldwell St: Northwood Ave to Hillford Ave
Example of Similar Segments: Tajauta Ave: Spruce St to Poplar St Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Date: January 2023

ROADWAY

SEGMENT

STOP STOP
Project Name: Compton LRSP
Agency Name: City of Compton
Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 4
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
0 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Sideswipe (50%)
Broadside (25%)
Rear-End (25%)
Dark Collisions 2
Impaired Collisions 0
Collision Data
Average Daily Traffic
(ADT)
11,875
Lighting Well-lit
Median Dashed single yellow line
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
No posted speed limit –
prima facie 25 mph
speed limit
Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
4 0 0
Field Visit Notes
• 25 mph limit, unsigned
• Speeding observed here
• Stop-controlled intersections
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
R26: Install
dynamic/variable
speed warning signs
30% $36,240 $32,000 1.13
R28: Install edge-
lines and centerlines 25% $30,200 $28,000 1.08
NS05mr: Convert
intersection to mini-
roundabout
30% $36,240 $100,000 0.36
R01: Add segment
lighting 35% $42,280 $360,000 0.12
Case Study Sheet: Location #3
• No speed humps on Caldwell St due to status as
collector
• Speed humps on nearby non-collector streets
Case Study Sheet: Location #4
Project Location, Description & Maps
Segment: Carob St: Acacia Ave to Wilmington Ave
Example of Similar Segments: Manville St: Acacia Ave to Wilmington Ave; Kona Dr: Central Ave to Mahalo Pl Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Date: January 2023

ROADWAY

SEGMENT
STOP
Project Name: Compton LRSP
Agency Name: City of Compton
Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 6
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
1 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Head-on (50%)
Sideswipe (17%)
Rear-end (17%)
Hit object (17%)
Dark Collisions 1
Impaired Collisions 2
Collision Data
Average Daily Traffic
(ADT)
1,000
Lighting Well-lit
Median None
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
30 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
6 0 0
Field Visit Notes
• Industrial, truck traffic
• One lane in each direction
• No striping (including no yellow striping to separate directions of travel)
• No parking any time on entire street (signed only,
no red curb), not well followed or enforced
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
R26: Install
dynamic/variable
speed warning signs
30% $717,510 $32,000 22.42
R28: Install edge-
lines and centerlines 25% $597,925 $91,000 6.57
Case Study Sheet: Location #4
• Wide street
Case Study Sheet: Location #5
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Atlantic Ave and Atlantic Dr/El Rancho Mobile Home Park Example of Similar Intersections: Wilmington Ave & 138th St; Long Beach Bl & Cypress St Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Date: January 2023
Project Name: Compton LRSP
Agency Name: City of Compton TWO-WAY-STOP

INTERSECTION
STOP
Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 21
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
3 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (29%)
Head-on (19%)
Sideswipe (19%)
Dark Collisions 9
Impaired Collisions 0
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 13,715
Crosswalk Condition None
Control Type Stop signs on minor approaches
Lighting Poorly-lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
35 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
19 0 2
Field Visit Notes
• No parking (red curb) on most of Atlantic Ave between Alondra Blvd and Atlantic Dr, not well enforced • Speeding
• Stop sign on northbound Atlantic Dr, otherwise uncontrolled • Many left turns, right turns, and U-turns in all directions • No raised median near Atlantic Dr and Mobile Home Park intersections; left turns permitted Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
NS01: Add
intersection lighting 40% $2,886,000 $28,000 103.07
NS14: Install raised
median on
approaches
25% $1,803,750 $22,000 81.99
Case Study Sheet: Location #5
Case Study Sheet: Location #6
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Long Beach Blvd and Compton Blvd
Example of Similar Intersections: Long Beach Blvd and Alondra Blvd; Santa Fe Ave and Compton Blvd Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Date: January 2023

SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION
Project Name: Compton LRSP
Agency Name: City of Compton
Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 53
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
3 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (40%)
Rear-end (32%)
Sideswipe (17%)
Dark Collisions 14
Impaired Collisions 4
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 51,548
Crosswalk Condition Fair
Control Type Signal
Lighting Well-lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
40 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
47 3 3
Field Visit Notes
• Park nearby
• High no. of broadside and rear-end collisions
• Protected-only left turn phasing in all directions
• Busy intersection
• 35 mph limit on Long Beach Blvd, 30 mph limit on
Compton Blvd
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
S02: Improve signal
hardware: lenses,
back-plates with
retroreflective
borders,
mounting, size, and
number
15% $937,410 $12,000 78.12
R35PB:

Install/upgrade
pedestrian crossing
(with enhanced
safety features)
35% $163,065 $60,000 2.72
Case Study Sheet: Location #6
• Observed one vehicle traveling at 50 mph on Long
Beach Blvd
• Street takeovers
Case Study Sheet: Location #7
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Long Beach Blvd and Rosecrans Ave
Example of Similar Intersections: Santa Fe Ave and Rosecrans Ave; Long Beach Blvd and Alondra Blvd Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Date: January 2023

SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION
Project Name: Compton LRSP
Agency Name: City of Compton
Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 61
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
0 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear-end (34%)
Broadside (30%)
Sideswipe (18%)
Dark Collisions 17
Impaired Collisions 2
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 61,718
Crosswalk Condition Fair
Control Type Signal
Lighting Well-lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
40 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
54 6 1
Field Visit Notes
• High no. of broadside and rear-end collisions
• Protected-only left turn phasing in all directions
• Busy intersection
• Street takeovers
• Rosecrans Ave county rehab project in development
• High traffic entering driveway on Rosecrans Ave in the northwestern corner; conflicts with bus stop Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
S02: Improve signal
hardware: lenses,
back-plates with
retroreflective
borders,
mounting, size, and
number
15% $321,705 $12,000 26.81
R35PB:

Install/upgrade
pedestrian crossing
(with enhanced
safety features)
35% $167,720 $60,000 2.80
Case Study Sheet: Location #7
Case Study Sheet: Location #8
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Alameda St and Elm St
Example of Similar Intersections: Alameda St and Weber Ave; Alameda St and El Segundo Blvd Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Date: January 2023

SIGNALIZED &

UNSIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION
Project Name: Compton LRSP
Agency Name: City of Compton
STOP
Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 42
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
3 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (57%)
Rear-end (12%)
Head-on (7%)
Sideswipe (7%)
Dark Collisions 14
Impaired Collisions 0
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 6
Total Entering Vehicles 30,718
Crosswalk Condition Good
Control Type Signalized at Alameda West,
stop-controlled at Alameda East
Lighting Well-lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
40 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
39 2 1
Field Visit Notes
• High no. of broadside collisions, especially at east
intersection
• West intersection is signalized, east intersection is not • East intersection has stop signs in all directions except eastbound; may cause confusion but is important
because of the proximity of the west intersection
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
NS06:

Install/upgrade
larger or additional
stop signs or other
intersection
warning/regulatory
signs
15% $586,035 $8,000 73.25
NS08: Install
Flashing Beacons at
Stop-Controlled
Intersections
15% $586,035 $10,000 58.60
Case Study Sheet: Location #8
• Street rehab & signage project is in development; both intersections will be redone
• Industrial/truck-heavy area to the north
• Alameda corridor
Case Study Sheet: Location #9
Project Location, Description & Maps
Segment: Willowbrook Ave: Rosecrans Ave to Winona Ave
Example of Similar Segments: Willowbrook Ave: 130th St to Lucien St; Willowbrook Ave: Bennett St to Greenleaf Blvd Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Date: January 2023

ROADWAY

SEGMENT
STOP
Project Name: Compton LRSP
Agency Name: City of Compton
Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 3
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
0 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Sideswipe (33%)
Vehicle-bicycle (33%)
Other (33%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 0
Collision Data
Average Daily Traffic
(ADT)
11,875
Lighting Fair
Median Dashed single yellow line
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
25 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
2 0 1
Field Visit Notes
• Narrow street with one lane in each direction and parking only on side of street adjacent to residences • One-way street in the past
• 25 mph limit; speeding observed, up to 45 mph
• Parallel Willowbrook Ave may confuse drivers in regard to navigation Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
R22: Install/Upgrade
signs with new
fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory or
warning)
15% $35,475 $3,000 11.83
R28: Install edge-
lines and centerlines 25% $59,125 $59,500 0.99
Case Study Sheet: Location #9
Case Study Sheet: Location #10
Project Location, Description & Maps
Segment: El Segundo Blvd: Santa Fe Ave to Peach St
Example of Similar Segments: Acacia Ave: Alondra Blvd to Raymond St; Caldwell St: Wilmington Ave to Exmoor Ave Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Date: January 2023
Project Name: Compton LRSP
Agency Name: City of Compton ROADWAY

SEGMENT
STOP

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 7
Fatal and Severe
Injury Collisions
0 Top 3 Collision
Types (%)
Head-on (29%)
Rear-end, sideswipe, hit object,
vehicle-pedestrian, parked car (14%)
Dark Collisions 3
Impaired
Collisions
1 Collision Data
Average Daily Traffic
(ADT)
1,000
Lighting Well-lit
Median Solid double yellow line,
dashed single yellow line
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
25 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
5 2 0
Field Visit Notes
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
R33PB: Install
Separated Bike
Lanes
45% $72,810 $5,000 14.56
R32PB: Install bike
lanes 35% $56,630 $5,000 11.33
R28: Install edge-
lines and centerlines 25% $57,075 $7,000 8.15
Case Study Sheet: Location #10
• Permissive-only left turn phasing in all directions
• Faded striping on El Segundo Blvd
• Borders city of Lynwood (Santa Fe Ave is the border, with Compton to the west and Lynwood to the east) • Bott’s dots used in place of striping on Santa Fe Ave

84 9.2 City -wide Countermeasure Toolbox
This evaluation considered citywide trends to identify countermeasures that would likely provide the most benefit with widespread implementation. Table 8 outlines the citywide safety project opportunities, which is also referred to as the “Countermeasure Toolbox”. Within the toolbox, the description of the countermeasure along with its Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) ID number is listed. The next column, Crash Reduction Factor (CRF), are “multiplicative factors used to estimate the expected reduction in number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site (the higher the CRF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes).” Fo r each of these countermeasures, a planning level benefit/cost analysis was completed.

Applying the benefit/cost at the citywide level was estimated assuming some randomness in crash distribution. The location characteristics, such as whether there is a traffic signal, and the type of crashes, were used at the citywide level to calculate an average cost of crashes that the countermeasure might reduce. The benefit per location was then factored out to a 20 -year lifecycle savings, with an Opinion of Project Probable Cost (OPCC) for the initial installation costs and a per-year maintenance cost estimate. The cost shown in Table 8 should be considered initial planning costs using 2022 dollars and not assumed final.

85 Table 8 - Citywide Safety Countermeasure Toolbox
ID Potential Countermeasures Where to apply?
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
S02 Improve signal hardware: back-plates with
retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and
number

Signalized intersections with significant broadside
and rear-end collisions due to signal visibility
15% $12,000 per intersection
S03 Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red,
yellow, or operation)
Locations that have a pattern of crash at multiple
signalized intersections
15% $7,000 per intersection
S07 Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane
already exists)
Signalized intersections that have current
permissive left-turn or no left-turn protection that
have a significant amount of angle crashes
30% $8,000 per intersection
S21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI) with new controller
Signalized Intersections – especially those with
high pedestrian activity
60% $8,000 per intersection
NS01 Add Intersection Lighting (N.S.I) Non-signalized intersections that have a significant number of night-time crashes
40% 28,000 per intersection
NS05mr Convert intersection to mini-roundabout Intersections with lower vehicle speeds, with posted speed limits of 30 mph or less
30% $100,000 per location
NS06 Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs at
unsignalized intersections
Unsignalized intersections with crash history
showing running stop signs 15% $2,000 per sign
NS08 Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled
Intersections
Unsignalized intersections with crash history
showing running stop signs 15% $5,000 per beacon
NS14 Install raised median on approaches (N.S.I) Unsignalized intersections where related or nearby turning movements affect the safety and
operation of an intersection
25% $220 per LF for a 10’
median
R01 Add Segment Lighting Roadway collisions with patterns of nighttime crashes
35% $900,000 per mile
R22 Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting (regulatory or warning)
Roadway segments with trends of head on,
nighttime, non-intersection, run-off road, and
sideswipe.
15% $1,500 per sign

86 ID Potential Countermeasures Where to apply?
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
R26 Install dynamic/variable speed warning sign Roadway segments with a significant number of collisions due to unsafe speeds.
30% $16,000 per sign
R28 Install edge-lines and centerlines

Roadway segments with collisions that resulted in
run-off-road right/left, head-on, or opposite-
direction-sideswipe.
25%

$70,000

per mile
R32PB Install bike lanes Locations with a high number of bicycle collisions 35% $50,000 per mile R33PB Install separated bike lanes Locations with a high number of bicycle collisions and/or high bicycle traffic volumes, where
45% $50,000 per mile
R35PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with
enhanced safety features)
Locations with a high number of bicycle collisions
and/or high bicycle traffic volumes, where
35%

$15,000

per crossing

87 10. Funding Sources & Next Steps

10.1 Funding
Competitive funding resources are available to assist in the development and implementation of safety projects in Compton. The City should continue to seek available funding and grant opportunities from local, state, and federal resources to accelerate their ability to implement safety improvements throughout Compton. This section provides a high-level introduction to some of the main funding programs and grants for which the City can apply.

10.1.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federal program that apportions funding as a lump sum for each state, which is then divided among apportioned programs. These flexible funds can be used for projects to preserve or improve safety conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any pub lic road, facilities for non -motorized transportation, and other project types. Safety improvement projects eligible for this funding include:
• New or upgraded traffic signals
• Upgraded guard rails
• Pedestrian warning flashing beacons
• Marked crosswalks
• Other projects listed in the Caltrans Local Road Safety Manual California’s local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with national recognized crash reduction factors. Normally HSIP call-for-projects is made at an interval of one to two years. The applicant must be a city, a county, or a tribal government federally recognized within the State of California.

Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level can be found online at:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/. California specific HSIP information – including dates for upcoming call for projects - can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.html.

10.1.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program
Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a statewide funding program, created in 2013, consolidating several federal and state programs. The ATP funds projects that encourage increased mode share for wa lking and bicycling, improve mobility and safety for non -motorized users, enhance public health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Projects eligible for this funding include:
• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects
• Bicycle and pedestrian planning projects (e.g., safe routes to school) • Non-infrastructure programs (education and enforcement)

88 This program funding is provided annually. The ATP call for projects typically comes out in the spring. Information on this program and cycles can be foun d online at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/.

10.1.3 California SB 1
The California SB 1 is a landmark transportation investment to rebuild California by fixing neighborhood streets, freeways, and bridges in communities across California and targeting funds toward transit and congested trade and commute corridor improvements.

California’s state -maintained transportation infrastructure will receive roughly half of SB 1 revenue: $26 billion. The other half will go to local roads, transit agencies and an expansion of the state’s growing network of pedestrian and cycle routes. Each year, this new funding will be used to tackle deferred maintenance needs both on the state highway system and the local road system, including:
• Local Street and Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation: $1.5 billion o This funding is dedicated to improve local road maintenance, rehabilitation, and/or safety through projects such as restriping and repaving. • Bike and Pedestrian Projects: $100 million
o This will go to cities, counties, and regional transportation agencies to build or convert more bike paths, crosswalks, and sidewalks. It is a significant increase in funding for these projects through the ATP.
• Local Planning Grants: $25 million

10.1.4 California Office of Traffic Safety Grants
This program has funding for projects related to traffic safety, including transportation safety education and encouragement activities. Grants applications mu st be supported by local crash data (such as the data analyzed in this report) and must relate to the following priority program areas:
o Alcohol Impaired Driving
o Distracted Driving
o Drug-Impaired Emergency Medical Services
o Motorcycle Safety
o Occupant Protection
o Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
o Police Traffic Services
o Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing Program
o Roadway Safety and Traffic Records

89 10.1.5 SCAG Sustainable Communities Program
This program is an innovative vehicle for promoting local jurisdictional efforts to test local planning tools. The Sustainable Communities Program ( SCP) provides direct technical assistance to SCAG member jurisdictions to complete planning and policy effor ts to implement the regional Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS). Grants are available in the following three categories:
• Integrated Land Use
o Sustainable Land Use Planning
o Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
o Land Use & Transportation Integration
• Active Transportation
o Bicycle Planning
o Pedestrian Planning
o Safe Routes to School Plans
• Green Region
o Natural Resource Plans
o Climate Action Plans (CAPs)
o Green House Gas (GHG) Reduction programs

10.1.6 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program This program has allocated $1B annually for the next 4 years for local cities, counties, MPOs, and other roadway owners (excepting state DOTs) for safety improvement grants for safety planning, education, enforcement, and roadway improvements. This program is no t benefit / cost based.

Evaluation criteria are oriented to the project’s alignment with the Safe Systems approach. There is a 20% local match requirement (can be in -kind contribution via staff billable hours). Planning grants are open to any eligible agen cy and Implementation grants are open to agencies with a completed safety plan such as a Local Roadway Safety Plan. Planning grants are expected to range from $100K to $1M and Implementation grants are expected to range from $1M to $20M.

Grant applications are due in September 2022.

10.1. 7 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
In November 2021, the President signed into law the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In addition to the SS4A grant program described above, this law provides billions of dollars in additional funding for improvements and investment in the transportation sector nationwide. The law provides $30 billion in funding over 5 years for competitive RAISE grants for transportation projects, as well as additional funding for repair and environmental mitigation projects. As these grant programs continue to be developed, City can position itself by identifying potential projects and programs to pursue.

90 10.2 Implementation Plan
Once the Local Roadway Safety Plan has been completed, the City can plan to regularly review and monitor collision data for trends and changes. The City can also plan to prioritize and implement certain improvements that were identified in this plan.

10.2.1 Monitoring
The City can plan to regularly monitor the success of the LRSP and its related implementations by performing the following steps. This before and after analysis can be performed every second year. The City can also meet with the Sheriff department quarterly to discuss roadway safety issues and compare to the latest collision analysis. • Pull yearly collision data from Crossroads database to determine year-over-year trend • Utilize Crossroads or GIS software to review the number of collisions occurring at specific locations. Locations where improvements have been made should receive priority for monitoring.
• Based upon changes in collision activity, determine efficacy of improvements and adjust strategies going forward

10.2.2 Analysis Update
The City can plan to update the analysis every two years as part of a monitoring program, as described in Section 0. Every 4 years the City will perform a major update to the analysis and the Local Roadway Safety Plan by performing the following steps. This update will maintain eligibility for the HSIP grant funding for the City. This analysis should continue to focus on both systemic and location-specific safety needs.

1. Obtain updated Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) collision data from the Crossroads database

2. Use Excel software to update the collision trend analysis completed in Section 7, continue to compare new collision to historic trends

3. Update the roadway shapefile with any new or upgraded roadways

4. Update the intersection shapefile with any new or upgraded intersections

5. Re-run the GIS collision tool to determine the number of collisions at intersections and roadways within the updated study period. The City can plan to run the collision tool for all collisions, as well as the collision types identified in Section 3.2.2 Network Screening Analysis.

6. Update the collision analysis performed in this report, including the collision analysis tables shown in Section 7.7 Collision Network Screening Analysis Report

7. Review the Collision Toolbox to determine if any additional countermeasures should be considered for implementation in the City

91 10.2.3 Implementation Strategies
The opportunities identified in this report provide systemic and location-specific countermeasures that can be implemented within the City. Implementation will be dictated by funding and available resources, this guidance is preliminary and subject to change. Over the near-term and mid-term, the City can concentrate its efforts on the following emphasis areas. • Intersection Improvements
• Pedestrians
• Young Drivers
• Aggressive Driving
Analysis conducted at the citywide level indicated that these factors were some of the most frequent influences contributing to collisions within the City. The countermeasure opportunities previously discussed in this report for both systemic and project-specific improvements can be used as a basis for developing projects at locations where addressing these focus areas would be of the most benefit. Projects that address these focused areas citywide can be developed with a high benefit-to-cost ratio (by applying City-wide collision rates), allowing competitive projects to be developed even at sites with little to no direct collision history, but with conditions that might contribute to future collisions. For location-specific improvements, the City can utilize benefit-cost ratio calculations to help prioritize projects as funding and resources become available. The countermeasure toolbox in Table 8 also identified a potential prioritization timeline for each improvement, based on cost, effectiveness and feasibility.

This project prioritization process will help the City be ready for the funding opportunities identified in Section 10.1. Project prioritization will also help to guide the projects as they are taking into the design and construction project. Coordination with City departments will be key in the completion of these implementations.

The City can also plan to implement the non-engineering improvements identified throughout this report, including actions related to Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services.

These actions will require coordination with internal and external stakeholders, such as City departments, law enforcement, local government organizations, and local community organizations. Early buy-in and engagement from these stakeholders will be key to the success of these actions.

To aid in these actions, the City can assemble a ‘Task Force’ of representatives from different City departments, such as Public Works, Development Services, and Public Safety. This task force will be instrumental in the monitoring, analysis update, project development and project implementation outlined in this plan.

10.3 Next Steps
The City has completed this LRSP to guide the process of future transportation safety improvements for years to come. In addition to the actions identified in the Implementation Plan, the City can perform the following to guide the success of this LRSP and the safety efforts overall.

92 • Work with state and partner agencies on implementation of large -scale programs and policies
• Incorporate safety analysis findings in future updates of safety programs • Monitor statewide safety priorities, guidance, and funding opportunities

June 20, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CONTROLLER
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMPTON

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A MULTI-YEAR

AGREEMENT AND ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER TO CIVIX FOR LEASE ACCOUNTING STANDARD IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES ($57,842.23)

SUMMARY
Adoption of the attached resolution will authorize the City Manager to accept the proposal, execute an agreement, and establish a purchase order to Civix for Lease Accounting Implementation Software Services for an amount of Fifty-Seven-Thousand Eight- Hundred-Forty-Two Dollars and Twenty-Three Cents ($57,842.23).

BACKGROUND
The City is required to implement GASB 87 which is a recent Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) accounting pronouncement which changes the way that local governments must account for and report all leases (regardless of whether the City is either a Lessee or Lessor). The new GASB 87 accounting standard requires that the right to use an asset through a lease agreement be recognized as an asset of the City itself. It prescribes a complex valuation method for the asset value. It also requires the reporting of lease-option dates and reporting the likelihood that the City will exercise the lease- options as well. This accounting pronouncement is due for implementation by the City by the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Audit report completion date.

In order to fully implement this accounting standard and to continue to properly maintain sufficient organization, accounting, and reporting for its leases moving forward, the City must go through a process to review all active leases where the City is Lessor or Lessee.

Additionally, complex present-value calculations must be performed in a timely manner in order to properly implement the accounting standard by the necessary due date. At this time, the City does not have sufficient qualified staff to perform the technical tasks necessary to properly implement this new accounting standard by the needed time.

Further, the City received audit finding # 2014-048, #2014-116B, and #2018-028 in it’s Single Audit Report of FY2018, which has rolled forward to its FY2020 Single Audit Report, which reads as follows:
2014-048 – Internal Control over Accounts Receivable (SD)

5.5.5.5.5.5.5. Staff Report – Resolution Authorizing Agreement and Authorizing P.O. to Civix June 20, 2023

Recommendation: The City should track business licenses, rents and leases, and other miscellaneous reoccurring revenue to ensure timely collection. The City should also utilize its accounting system’s accounts receivable module. It will allow the City to review, reconcile, and monitor its accounts receivable balances throughout the fiscal year for financial reporting and budgeting purposes.
2014-116B – Information (SD)
Related Finding(s): SCO Finding 15, 16
Recommendation: We recommend that the City assign a higher priority to, and direct more resources towards completing, its audited financial statements by the deadline of no later than six months after fiscal year-end.
2018-028 – Accrued Liabilities (MW)
Recommendation: The City should implement and maintain procedures to identify and record accrued liabilities. This may require additional software or training on the use of current software.

These findings are shown in the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Single Audit which is available on the City’s website. These audit findings exhibit the City’s need to proactively apply professional and qualified expertise so that accounting records can be properly maintained.

Failure to timely and accurately implement this accounting pronouncement in time for the delivery of the FY2021-2022 Financial Statement Audit report will directly translate to an additional auditor qualified opinion (meaning that certain figures presented are deemed by the auditor as unreliable or inconsistent with the way that other cities are reporting them) that will be placed on the City’s audited financial statements. An auditor qualified opinion will reduce City opportunities for outside financing as well as have other detrimental effects.

Additionally, the State of California State Auditor’s Department issued an Audit report to the City in October of 2022. This report had findings and recommendations for various areas of improvement needed for the City. One of the recommendations included in this report was (on page 6 of the report) the following,
“By December 2024, Compton should resolve all of the audit findings it has received that predate its fiscal year 2020-21 audited financial statements and any findings from subsequent audit reports, including findings related to improving financial controls.”
In order to proactively remedy the State of California’s Auditor’s recommendation above, it is imperative that the City obtain the necessary resources to implement GASB 87 timely and accurately, otherwise more audit findings and a qualified opinion will be received.

Staff Report – Resolution Authorizing Agreement and Authorizing P.O. to Civix June 20, 2023

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
In order to remain in compliance with the State of California Auditor’s October 2022 recommendations for the deliverable of a catching up on all audits and removing all audit findings, City staff has issued a request for proposal on January 11, 2023. The request for proposal (RFP) was published in the Compton Bulletin, City website, and on the California Society of Municipal Finance Officer (CSMFO)’s RFP website, which is a website frequently reviewed by vendors who provide financial services to municipalities and local governments within California.

The RFP yielded four responses. The candidates were Civix, Visual Lease LLC, IGM Technology, and Lease Query. A total of four City staff interviewed the candidates and rated them. The candidate with the highest rating was Civix, which was given based on the candidate’s cost proposal, time needed to provide the deliverables, and firm qualifications. A listing of candidates, their ranking, and cost are listed below:

1. Civix ($57,842.23 over five years)

2. IGM ($60,967.87 over five years)

3. Lease Query ($32,350 over five years)

4. Visual Lease ($32,500 over five years)
After City staff checked their references, staff decided to recommend Civix as the front- runner of the RFP process for these services. Factors such as price, completeness of the proposals and interviews provided, as well as City staff comfort with the reliability of continuous vendor staffing and vendor expertise contributed to the rankings above. City Staff deemed that Lease Query and Visual Lease were bidders that were not sufficiently responsive to the RFP for insufficient responses to requested services and requests for personnel information. Visual Lease’s quote did not include the needed services to review the details of each lease contract; assess all leases greater than twelve months (and shorter than twelve months, if an option to extend is provided); review other agreements not currently classified as a lease that may require reporting as a lease under GASB 87.

Lease Query did not comply with the requirement to identify the principal supervisor and management staff, including engagement partners, managers, other supervisors and specialists, who would be assigned to the engagement in their proposal. Civix also had the lowest cost per their proposal over the life of a five-year contract.

Additionally, staff evaluated the fees on an apples-to-apples basis over a five-year period as follows:

Staff Report – Resolution Authorizing Agreement and Authorizing P.O. to Civix June 20, 2023

Firm Name Service Cost-Type
Year 1
Amount
(US$)
Year 2 (5%
escalation)
Year 3 (5%
escalation)
Year 4 (5%
escalation)
Year 5 (5%
escalation) TOTAL COST
Civix
Software
License, ect. Annually 7,500.00$ 7,875.00 8,268.75 8,682.19 9,116.30 41,442.23$ Implementation One-Time Cost 16,400.00 - - - - 16,400.00 Total Maximum Price 23,900.00$ 7,875.00 8,268.75 8,682.19 9,116.30 57,842.23$ IGM
Technology
Software
License, ect. Annually 8,500.00$ 8,925.00 9,371.25 9,839.81 10,331.80 46,967.87$ Implementation One-Time Cost 14,000.00 - - - - 14,000.00 Total Maximum Price 22,500.00$ 8,925.00 9,371.25 9,839.81 10,331.80 60,967.87$

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for these services is not to exceed Fifty-Seven-Thousand Eight-Hundred Forty- Two Dollars and Twenty-Three Cents ($57,842.23), over a five year period, per the proposal from Civix.

A purchase order for Twenty-Three Thousand Nine-Hundred Dollars ($23,900.00), which is for the first year of services, is also being requested to be authorized to be issued out of the following account. Funds have already been budgeted in the Controller Department’s FY2022-2023 Budget. The remaining funds will be budgeted in future years’ budgets:

Account Code Account Name Amount
1001-650-000-4222 General Fund $23,900.00
Software
Once the software and services are implemented, then the accounting and reporting on City Leases, including those where the City is either the Lessor or the Lessee, will be up- to-date with governmental accounting standards and can avoid future audit findings and a future qualified opinion on the City’s audited financial statements.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution.

APPROVED FOR FORWARDING:

SHARON RAHBAN NAVIZADEH

CITY CONTROLLER FORWARDED TO CITY MANAGER
Staff Report – Resolution Authorizing Agreement and Authorizing P.O. to Civix June 20, 2023

Attachment: Proposed Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMPTON

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A MULTI-YEAR

AGREEMENT AND ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER TO CIVIX FOR LEASE ACCOUNTING STANDARD IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES ($57,842.23) WHEREAS, The State of California State Auditor’s Department issued an Audit report to the City in October of 2022. This report had findings and recommendations for various areas of improvement needed for the City. One of the recommendations included in this report was (on page 6 of the report) the following,
“By December 2024, Compton should resolve all of the audit findings it has received that predate its fiscal year 2020-21 audited financial statements and any findings from subsequent audit reports, including findings related to improving financial controls.”

WHEREAS, The City is required to implement GASB 87 which is a recent Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) accounting pronouncement which changes the way that local governments must account for and report all leases for whether the City is either a Lessee or Lessor. This accounting pronouncement is due for implementation by the City by the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Audit report completion date and implementation is required for all future periods.

WHEREAS, In order to fully implement this accounting standard and to continue to properly maintain sufficient organization, accounting, and reporting for its leases moving forward, the City must go through a process to review all active leases where the City is Lessor or Lessee. Additionally, complex calculations must be performed in a timely manner in order to properly implement the accounting standard by the necessary due date. City staff does not have sufficient qualified staff to perform the implementation at this time.

WHEREAS, The City received audit finding # 2014-048, #2014-116B, and #2018-028 in it’s Single Audit Report of FY2018, which has rolled forward to its FY2020 Single Audit Report. These audit findings exhibit the City’s need to proactively apply professional and qualified expertise so that accounting records can be properly maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards, which incorporate GASB accounting pronouncements.

WHEREAS, In order to remain in compliance with the State of California Auditor’s October 2022 recommendations for the deliverable of a catching up on all audits and removing all audit findings, City staff has issued a request for proposal on January 11, 2023.

The RFP yielded four responses. After City staff checked their references, staff decided to recommend Civix as the front-runner of the RFP process for these services. Factors such as price, completeness of the proposals and interviews provided, as well as City staff comfort with the reliability of continuous vendor staffing and vendor expertise contributed to the rankings above. City Staff deemed that Lease Query and Visual Lease were bidders that were not sufficiently responsive to the RFP for insufficient responses to requested services and requests for personnel information. Civix also had the lowest cost per their proposal.

WHEREAS, The cost for these services is not to exceed Fifty-Seven Thousand Eight- Hundred Forty-Two Dollars and Twenty-Three Cents ($57,842.23), per the proposal from Civix.

WHEREAS, A purchase order for Twenty-Three Thousand Nine-Hundred Dollars ($23,900.00) is also being requested to be authorized to be issued out of the following account. Funds have already been budgeted in the Controller Department’s FY2022-2023 Budget:

Resolution No. __________

2 Account Code Account Name Amount
1001-650-000-4222 General Fund $23,900.00
Software
WHEREAS, It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution to approve the agreement and to authorize the City Manager to open a purchase order to Civix for Lease Accounting Standard Implementation services.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMPTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into a professional services agreement with Civix in the amount not to exceed Fifty-Seven Thousand Eight- Hundred Forty-Two Dollars and Twenty-Three Cents ($57,842.23) Lease Accounting Standard Implementation services.

SECTION 2. That the amount of Twenty-Three-Thousand Nine-Hundred Dollars ($23,900.00) will be available in the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget allocated from account number 1001-650-000-4222 General Fund, Software account and that the remainder of the amount of the contract will be available in future years’ budgets.

SECTION 3. That a purchase order shall be issued to Civix from Account Number 1001-650-000-4222 in the amount of Twenty-Three Thousand Nine-Hundred Dollars ($23,900.00).

SECTION 4. That a copy of this Resolution shall be filed in the offices of the City Clerk, City Attorney, City Manager, and City Controller.

SECTION 5.That the Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this Resolution.

ADOPTED this ____________ day of _____________, 2023.
________________________________

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF COMPTON
ATTEST:
________________________________

CLERK OF THE CITY OF COMPTON

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss

CITY OF COMPTON )
Resolution No. __________

3 I, Vernell McDaniel, City Clerk of the City of Compton, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Compton, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting thereof held on this ___________ day of ________________, 2023.

That said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS -
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS -
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS -
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS -
____________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF COMPTON

Rev 20220622

CONTRACT FOR SOFTWARE LICENSES, SERVICES, AND SUPPORT
This contract for software licenses, services, and support (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between City of Compton located at 205 Willowbrook Ave, Compton CA 90220 (“Licensee”) and GCR Inc. dba Civix, located at 3300 West Esplanade Avenue, Suite 400, Metairie, Louisiana 70002 (“Civix”) effective as of the Effective Date.

WHEREAS, Licensee desires Civix to provide a license to the Licensed Programs and associated hosting, support and other professional Services in connection with the use of the Licensed Programs; In consideration of the mutual promises and agreements of the Parties herein, the Parties agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1 - DEFINITIONS

1.1 “Agreement” is defined in the Preamble.

1.2 “Anniversary Date” means the date that is 1 year after the Effective Date, and each anniversary thereafter.

1.3 “Authorized Users” means Licensee’s employees, agents, subcontractors, contractors, outsourcing vendors, consultants and others who have a need to use and copy the Licensed Material.

1.4 “Contract Year” means (a) for the first Contract Year, the period from the Effective Date until but not including the first Anniversary Date, and (b) for each following Contract Year, the period from the end of the prior Contract Year until but not including the next Anniversary Date.

1.5 “Effective Date” means the first day of the calendar month following the date of the last Party’s signature on this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, if the last Party’s signature on this Agreement occurs on the first day of a calendar month, the Effective Date will still be the first day of the next calendar month.

1.6 “Fees” means the fees identified in Attachment A (Software and Fees), and any other fees that may become due under this agreement.

1.7 “Hosting” is defined in Section 3.1 (Hosting Services).

1.8 “Civix” is defined in the Preamble.

1.9 “Initial Term” is defined in Attachment A (Software and Fees).

1.10 “Initiation Date” means the first day of the first calendar month following the Effective Date.

1.11 “License” means a nonexclusive, worldwide, and nontransferable license.

Rev 20220622

1.12 “Licensed Material” means the Licensed Programs, their derivatives, and their documentation provided or made available to Licensee pursuant to this Agreement.

1.13 “Licensed Programs” means the software program(s) identified in Attachment A (Software and Fees) as licensed to Licensee.

1.14 “Licensee” is defined in the Preamble.

1.15 “Party” means either Licensee or Civix.

1.16 “Parties” means Licensee and Civix collectively.

1.17 “Renewal Term” is defined in Section 10.1 (License Term).

1.18 “Services” is defined in Section 6.1 (Scope of Work).

1.19 “Term” is defined in Section 10.1 (License Term).

1.20 “TM” means Time and Materials.

1.21 “SaaS” means Software as a Subscription.

ARTICLE 2 – LICENSE

2.1Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Civix hereby grants to Licensee a License to use the Licensed Material solely for Licensee’s internal business purposes.

2.2Authorized Users. The License is extended to Licensee’s Authorized Users. Licensee will be responsible for the Authorized Users, and any acts or omissions of any Authorized User which if done by Licensee would constitute a breach of this Agreement by Licensee, will be deemed a breach of this Agreement by Licensee.

2.3Ownership. Licensee acknowledges, agrees, and understands that Civix is the sole and exclusive owner of the Licensed Material, its right, title, and interest, and any improvements thereto.

2.4Prohibited Uses. Licensee shall not do, shall not permit any third party to do, and shall use commercially reasonable efforts to prohibit any Authorized Users or other third parties from doing any of the following: (a) using any Licensed Material in a manner that violates this Agreement or any applicable laws and regulations, or to send unsolicited bulk email or “spam”, (b) reverse engineering, translating, decompiling or disassembling the object code of the Licensed Material, or (c) copying, modifying, creating derivative works of, sublicensing, selling, leasing, loaning, renting, distributing, conveying, pledging as security, or otherwise encumbering the Licensed Material.

2.5No Implied Licenses. No different, other or further right or license, other than what is granted in this Agreement, is intended or granted by this Agreement, whether by express or implied means or by Rev 20220622
estoppel, and this Agreement does not assign any right, title or interest in any of the Licensed Materials. All rights and interests not expressly granted under this Agreement are reserved to Civix.

2.6Additional Modules. By written notice to Civix, Licensee may add additional software programs or modules identified on Attachment A (Software and Fees) to the Licensed Programs; if Licensee provides such notice, the Parties will execute an amendment updating Attachment A (Software and Fees).

ARTICLE 3 – HOSTING

3.1Hosting Services. Throughout the Term, Civix shall provide hosting services as set forth in Attachment B (Hosting) (“Hosting”).

ARTICLE 4 - WARRANTY

4.1Warranty. Civix shall faithfully perform the Services using the degree of care, skill, training, diligence and judgment ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by competent members of the profession which Civix practices or industry or business in which Civix works. Civix warrants that the Licensed Programs will perform substantially in accordance with and in the manner described by related documentation, training manuals, and by Licensed Program functional design specifications.

4.2Correction. Civix agrees to promptly re-perform, repair or replace, at Licensee’s option and at Civix’s cost and expense, any Licensed Program or Service which fails to conform to such warranties.

Correction of any error in the manner described above shall constitute complete fulfillment of all obligations and liabilities of Civix for nonconforming Licensed Program or Services, whether the claims of the Licensee are based in contract, warranty, tort (including, but not limited to, negligence and strict liability), or otherwise.

This exclusive remedy is Licensee’s sole remedy for any failure of Civix to comply with its warranty obligations. The warranty period shall end 30 days from the delivery of the Licensed Program or completion of the Services, as applicable.

ARTICLE 5 – APPLICATION SUPPORT & UPGRADES

5.1Application Support Services. Throughout the Term, Civix shall provide application support and upgrade services for Licensed Programs. In general, the application support services consist of (a) prompt customer support on-site or by telephone, fax or email; and (b) Licensed Programs updates, new releases, and enhancements reflecting on-going development at Civix and as made generally available to Civix’s customers of the Licensed Programs, as described in Attachment C (Support).

5.2Licensee Cooperation. Licensee acknowledges that Civix’s ability to provide application support and upgrade services is dependent on the cooperation of Licensee and the quantity of information that Licensee can provide. Licensee will use commercially reasonable efforts to reproduce all reported problems and gather troubleshooting information as requested by Civix. If Licensee cannot reproduce such problems or gather requested information, Licensee will provide Civix temporary login access on Licensee’s system to identify and address reported problems. Civix will have no responsibility for failure to provide application support and services as a result of Licensee’s failure to cooperate with Civix.

Rev 20220622

5.3Troubleshooting of Non-Civix Problems. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that Civix will be entitled to invoice, as additional services at Civix’s then-prevailing rates, currently outlined in Attachment A, as Fees, time and efforts spent providing support for reported problems which are not as the result of a fault in the Licensed Programs, including but not limited to problems caused by (a) incorrect or inaccurate data entered by or on behalf of Licensee, (b) data deleted erroneously by Licensee, (c) new installations post-go live as the result of new hardware acquired by Licensee, or (d) accurate reports which were asserted to be erroneous.

ARTICLE 6 – SERVICES

6.1Scope of Work. Civix shall perform the services and provide Software and the deliverables as described in Attachment A (Software and Fees) and Attachment C (Support), collectively referred to as Services (“Services”).

6.2Change Orders. Either Party shall have the right to request, in writing, changes in the Services.

Civix shall not perform any such change in the Services unless compensation, schedule and scope of work are mutually agreed by the Parties in writing.

6.3Schedule. The Services shall commence upon or about the Effective Date or such later date the Parties mutually agree upon. Civix agrees to diligently perform the Services and exercise commercially reasonable efforts to meet any estimated schedule set forth in Attachment C (Support). Notwithstanding the above, it is expressly understood and agreed that Civix shall not be liable as a guarantor of the estimated schedule.

6.4Acceptance. Except where this Agreement provides different criteria, Services will be accepted if they have been performed in accordance with the specifications applicable to the Services. Upon notification by Civix that a Service (or associated deliverable) has been completed and is available for review and acceptance, Licensee will use commercially reasonable efforts to review within 7 business days after the notification, but in no event later than 10 business days after the notification. Civix will correct any unaccepted Services as described in ARTICLE 4 (WARRANTY). If no notification is delivered to Civix within the foregoing period, the Service will be deemed accepted. All accepted and deemed accepted Services remain subject to the terms of ARTICLE 4 (WARRANTY).

ARTICLE 7 – COMPENSATION

7.1Fees Generally. Licensee agrees to pay Civix the Fees in accordance with the payment terms set forth in Schedule A (Software and Fees). Licensee’s Fees include access to, and use of, Licensed Programs, Licensed Programs updates/upgrades, Hosting, Services, and Licensed Material.

7.2Taxes. The Fees are exclusive of any tariff, duty, or tax, however designated, levied, or based including, without limitation, any taxes based on: (i) this Agreement; (ii) the Licensed Programs, Hosting or Services; (iii) the Licensed Material; or (iv) any materials or supplies furnished by Civix per this Agreement.

Licensee is responsible for all applicable tariffs, duties or taxes applicable to this Agreement.

ARTICLE 8 – INDEMNIFICATION AND LIABILITY
Rev 20220622

8.1Intellectual Property Indemnification. Civix warrants that it is authorized to grant Licensee the right to use the Licensed Material as defined in this Agreement. Licensee shall advise Civix promptly in writing of any notice or claim of infringement or of the commencement of any suit or action for infringement of a third party’s intellectual property, and which claim or suit or action is based upon the use of the Licensed Material in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. If the use by the Licensed Material is in accordance with this Agreement, Civix will, upon receipt of notice hereinabove required, undertake at its own expense the defense of any such suit or action for infringement based upon such use by Licensee.

Civix shall have charge and direction of the defense of such suit or action, and Licensee agrees that it will render Civix all reasonable assistance that may be required by Civix in the defense of such suit or action.

Licensee shall have the right to be represented therein by an advisory counsel of its own selection at its own expense. Civix will seek to resolve the claim in consultation with Licensee, either by means of alternative arrangements for the services and Licensed Material, or by obtaining permission to use the intellectual property in question. If Civix fails to obtain permission for the continued use the intellectual property in question, or fails to provide a suitable replacement with equal or greater functionality, Civix may terminate this Agreement and refund any fees paid by Licensee related to such intellectual property for future use. Neither Civix nor Licensee shall settle or compromise any such claim or suit or action without consent of the other if the settlement or compromise obliges the other to make any payment or part with any property, or to assume any obligation or grant any licenses or other rights, or be subject to any injunction by reason of such settlement or compromise. Civix will have no obligation to indemnify Licensee for any claims of infringement which are (a) as the result of Licensee’s use of the Licensed Material in violation of this Agreement, (b) as the result of Licensee’s or a third party’s modification of the Licensed Material, (c) as the result of Licensee’s combination of the Licensed Material with any other hardware or software not authorized by Civix for use with the Licensed Material in writing or disclosed in the documentation as for use with the Licensed Material.

8.2Consequential Damages Waiver. Neither Party shall, under any circumstances or in any event, be liable to the other Party for any special, punitive, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages of any nature, including, without limitation, loss of actual or anticipated profits or revenues; loss of production, by reason of shutdown, non-operation, or otherwise; increased expense of manufacturing or operation; loss of use; increased financing costs; or cost of capital.

8.3Limit of Liability. Notwithstanding anything set forth in this Agreement, Civix’s maximum liability in the aggregate for any claim arising under or otherwise related to this Agreement shall in no event exceed the amount of monies received by Civix under this Agreement in the 12 months prior to such claim.

ARTICLE 9 – CONFIDENTIALITY

9.1Confidentiality Generally. Licensee acknowledges, agrees, and understands that the Licensed Material contains certain information that is and must be kept confidential. To ensure the protection of such information, and to preserve any confidentiality necessary under intellectual property law, including trade secret laws, Licensee agrees not to disclose the Licensed Material to anyone unless allowed by Civix or required to do so by law. Licensee’s confidentiality obligation does not extend to (a) information that is known to Licensee prior to obtaining the same from Civix; (b) information that is, at the time of disclosure by Civix, then in the public domain; or (c) information that is obtained by Licensee from a third party who did not receive same directly or indirectly from Civix and who has no obligation of secrecy with respect thereto. To the extent any Authorized Users have access to Licensed Material for the benefit of Licensee, Rev 20220622
such Authorized Users will be obligated to agree to protect the confidentiality of the Licensed Material to the same extent this Agreement obligates Licensee to protect the confidentiality of the Licensed Material and Licensee will ensure that such Authorized Users are bound by such confidentiality obligations.

Licensee agrees to be liable for any breaches of such Authorized Users of the confidentiality of the Licensed Material.

ARTICLE 10 – TERM AND TERMINATION

10.1License Term. This Agreement will commence on the Effective Date and shall remain in full force through the Initial Term, unless earlier terminated in accordance with this Agreement. Upon expiration of the Initial Term, this Agreement shall automatically renew for successive 1-year terms (each a “Renewal Term”) unless a party provides written notice on non-renewal at least 30 days prior to expiration of the then- current (Initial or Renewal) Term. The Initial Term and Renewal Term(s) shall be collectively referred to as the “Term”.

10.2Termination/Suspension for Default. In the event of any material breach of this Agreement, the non-breaching Party may terminate this Agreement by giving 30 days' prior written notice to the breaching Party; provided, however, that this Agreement shall not terminate if the breaching Party has cured the breach prior to the expiration of such 30-day period and the Agreement continues to remain in effect.

However, if the breaching Party believes that it has performed its best efforts and has cured the breach, and the issuing Party is unreasonable in granting acceptance of the cure, then such dispute shall be resolved in accordance with this Agreement under the dispute resolution provisions of this Agreement. In lieu of termination, the non-breaching Party may suspend performance under this Agreement by such written notice until the breaching Party has cured the breach.

10.3Termination for Insolvency. If (a) insolvency, receivership or bankruptcy proceedings are instituted by or against a Party and are not terminated within 30 days, (b) a Party makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors or (c) a Party admits an inability to pay its debts as they come due, then in any such event the other Party may in its sole discretion terminate this Agreement without notice.

10.4Termination of License. Upon any expiration or termination of this Agreement, the License will terminate, and Licensee shall immediately: a) return the Licensed Materials to Civix or destroy all Licensed Materials in its possession; and b) give Civix written certification that through its best efforts and to the best of its knowledge, Licensee has complied with all of its obligations under this paragraph.

10.5Survival. Except as set forth to the contrary herein, the Parties understand and agree that all terms and conditions of this Agreement, which by reasonable implication contemplate continued performance or compliance beyond the termination of this Agreement (by expiration of the term or otherwise) shall survive such termination and shall continue to be enforceable as provided herein.

ARTICLE 11 – MISCELLANEOUS

11.1Governing Law. This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, excluding any choice of law provisions that may direct the application of any laws of any other jurisdiction. Subject to Section 11.2 (Mediation), the exclusive venue for any dispute or controversy between the Parties will be the state and federal courts located in Wilmington, Delaware, United Rev 20220622
States. The Parties hereby irrevocably consent to jurisdiction and venue in such courts for this purpose, and the Parties waive objection to the jurisdiction and venue being in such courts.

11.2Mediation. If during the course of this Agreement the Parties are unable to resolve any dispute or controversy arising out of or relating to the Agreement, such claims shall first be subject to non-binding mediation as a condition precedent to the initiation of any legal action (either court action or arbitration).

Unless the Parties mutually agree otherwise in writing, the Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures of the American Arbitration Association in effect at the time of the demand for mediation shall be applied at the mediation. Any such mediation will be located in Wilmington, Delaware, United States.

Demand for mediation shall be made in writing. The Parties agree to share equally the mediator’s fee and any filing fees. Any agreement reached in mediation shall be enforceable and binding upon both Parties.

Each Party agrees to bear its own attorneys’ fees associated with the mediation.

11.3Assignment. Neither Party shall assign any interest in this Agreement by assignment, transfer, or novation, without prior written consent of the other Party; provided, however, that Civix may assign this Agreement (a) to any affiliate of Civix or (b) in connection with an assignment of all or substantially all of Civix’s assets to which this Agreement relates. This provision shall not be construed to prohibit a Party from assigning to any banking, trust company, or other financial institution any money due or to become due from approved contracts without such prior written consent. Notice of any such assignment or transfer shall be furnished to the other Party.

11.4Force Majeure. Neither Licensee nor Civix shall be considered in default in the performance of the obligations hereunder, except with respect to payment of monies hereunder, if such performance is prevented or delayed because of unavailability of labor, war, hostilities, revolution, civil commotion, acts of terrorism, strike, epidemic, accident, fire, wind, flood; or because of any act of God; or for any cause, whether similar or dissimilar, now or hereafter existing, beyond the reasonable control of the Party affected.

The Party suffering a delay in its performance caused by an above described occurrence shall give notice thereof to the other Party as soon as reasonably possible thereafter, and shall use reasonable efforts to overcome such delay. In the event of such an occurrence, the Parties shall consult to determine how to overcome the effect on the Project and shall mutually agree to any equitable adjustment to the compensation due Civix hereunder.

11.5Export. Licensee agrees to abide by any restrictions or conditions respecting the export, re-export, or other transfer of the Licensed Material disclosed and/or licensed to Licensee in accordance with this Agreement that are in effect now or are hereafter imposed by the United States Government, and will not export, re-export, or otherwise transfer the Licensed Material, except in full compliance with all relevant U.S. laws and regulations.

11.6Specific Performance. The provisions of this Agreement are necessary for the protection of the business and goodwill of the Parties and are considered by the Parties to be reasonable for such purpose.

The Parties agree that any breach of this Agreement will cause substantial and irreparable injury, for which monetary damages would not be an adequate remedy, and, therefore, in the event of any such breach, in addition to other remedies which may be available, the Parties shall have the right to seek specific performance and other injunctive and equitable relief, in accordance with the provisions of applicable Delaware law. The Parties further agree that, in the event injunctive relief is sought and to the extent permitted by Delaware law, neither Party should be required to post a bond in order to receive such equitable relief from the issuing Delaware Court. Notwithstanding this agreement, in the event that the Rev 20220622
issuing Court nonetheless requires that a bond be posted, the Parties mutually agree that a bond not exceeding $500.00 is sufficient.

11.7Miscellaneous. This Agreement is the entire agreement of the Parties on the subject matter hereof. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements and understandings (whether written or oral) between the Licensee and Civix with respect to the subject matter hereof. In addition, this Agreement may not be modified or amended unless agreed by the Parties, reduced to writing, and signed by both the Licensee and Civix. Further, if any part of this Agreement is adjudged invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining parts shall not be affected and shall remain in full force and effect. Headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not affect the interpretation thereof.

Rev 20220622
IN WITNESS hereof, the Parties have executed this Agreement to be effective on the Effective Date set forth above.

City of Compton Civix
Signature: Signature:

Name: Thomas Thomas Name:

Title: City Manager Title:

Date: Date:

The following attachments constitute a part of this Agreement and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Attachment A – Software License and Support Fees
Attachment B – Hosting
Attachment C – Support
Attachment D – Statement of Work
Rev 20220622

ATTACHMENT A

SOFTWARE LICENSE AND SUPPORT FEES
Total Hours Hourly Rate US $ Amount US $
ABRM GASB Software License
including unlimited users, leases
and entities
Annual $7,500.00*
Partners Managers Supervisory
Staff
Other (specify)
Implementation & Training: 42 hours
All lease evaluation, recommendation,
analysis and data entry as described in
Scope of Work b): 40 hours
Standard .csv export of data for import
into external systems
$200/hr
$200/hr
Included
$8,400.00
$8,000.00**
Included
Subtotal: $23,900.00
Out of Pocket Expenses:

Transportation Other
All implementation and training is
planned to be remote. Onsite work can
be scheduled as needed at additional
expense.

N/A N/A
Total All- Inclusive Maximum
Price for the Services:
$23,900.00
Optional:

Debt Module License
Debt Module Implementation &
Training 16 hours
Annual
One-time
$2,500.00***
$3,200.00
Summary of annual fees:

Investment Analysis
Year 1 $23,900
Year 2 $7,875.00
Year 3 $8,268.75
Year 4 $8,682.19
Year 5 $9,116.30
Total $57,842.23
Annual Support Hours Cap: 80 hours. Licensee’s annual Fees and included annual application support allotment applies to each Contract Year and shall not include unused application support time from prior Contract Years.

Payment Terms
Licensee agrees to pay Civix the Fees in accordance with the payment terms set forth below:
Annual Fees: Due immediately upon signature for Year 1, and annual thereafter upon Anniversary Date
Rev 20220622
Fixed Price Services:
oAll services are fixed unless otherwise noted
oDue and payable upon the following:
Contract Award or Notice to Proceed (NTP): 40%
COTS Install and Setup Completion: 20%
UAT Preparation Completion: 30%
Go Live: 10%
Time & Material Services (if not Fixed Price): Billed monthly in arears Additional services ordered during the Term will be invoiced monthly at the above rate following the month services were rendered.

Initial Term
The Initial Term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall remain in full force until Lessee’s 5th Anniversary Date.

Additional Terms and Conditions
Licensee may request additional services via this agreement based on the current hourly rates.

Labor Category Hourly Rate
Senior Product $195.00
Product $150.00
Project $175.00
Technical $150.00
Rev 20220622

ATTACHMENT B

HOSTING
Civix agrees to provide Licensee with access to the Software during the Term through a hosted computing environment. Hosting of the Software is provided through the Amazon Web Services (AWS) Cloud.

AWS Cloud
Working with AWS, Civix has developed innovative automations that ensure unique security controls are implemented by default, allowing for streamlined governance across multiple users.

AWS Cloud is designed to host sensitive data, regulated workloads, and address the most stringent U.S. government security and compliance requirements – including the FedRAMP baseline and other compliance regimes. AWS meets the requirements of the most security-sensitive organizations with support for 98 security standards and compliance certifications — more than any other cloud offering.

AWS Security
For decades, Civix has grown and evolved to meet the needs of a public sector that faces significant challenges, including cybersecurity. Keeping data secure while anticipating and mitigating threats is at the heart of everything we do. Our software solutions are built on a foundation of best practices that include:
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Standards: Aims to align with the most stringent cybersecurity frameworks in the U.S. federal government. Defense-in-Depth Strategies: Implements specific countermeasures in layers to defend against cyber threats and vulnerabilities.
Zero Trust Architecture: Prevents any user or device, inside or outside a network, from accessing an IT system until authenticated and continuously verified through a robust Identity and Access Management program that allows access to only necessary, specified resources. Automated Provisioning: Facilitates end-to-end automation based on specifications, policies, and analytics – without the need for human intervention and opportunities for human error. 24/7/365 Continuous Monitoring: Partners with Optiv, a leading managed security service provider (MSSP), to deliver around-the-clock security monitoring services that ensure preventive and ongoing real-time operational measures.
Best-in-Breed Security Tools: Taps into the power of best-of-breed security tools, such as AWS, CloudFlare, CrowdStrike, Optiv, Qualys, and MimeCast.

AWS Layers of Protection
Rooted in defense-in-depth strategies, Civix’s approach to cybersecurity implements countermeasures in layers to create an aggregated security posture. Drawing on best practices and insights from leading InfoSec experts, our model ensures the most appropriate technologies are applied at every layer.

When it comes to public sector cybersecurity, there isn’t a single solution for defending against attacks.

Cyber threats are continuously evolving, and thus, so is our cybersecurity program. We constantly realign with federal standards and industry best practices, push the bounds of innovation, and invest in partnerships to keep critical infrastructure systems and data secure.

Further information: https://aws.amazon.com/stateandlocal/?hp=tile&tile=industries&wwps-cards.sort- by=item.additionalFields.sortDate&wwps-cards.sort-order=desc Service Level Agreement (“SLA”)

1.Uptime Target. Subject to specifically mentioned exceptions, Civix shall use commercially reasonable efforts to cause the Software to be available through the Hosting 99.5% of the time (“Service Level Target”), as measured on a monthly basis. In the event the Software and Hosting do not meet the Rev 20220622
Service Level Target, Licensee may be eligible to receive a Service Credit in accordance with the procedures described below.

2. “Service Interruption” is defined as either the total loss of Licensee availability to the Software, or the degradation of a specific element or component the Software to an extent by which the Software is not functional for their intended purpose, subject to the exceptions described below.

3.Exceptions. Any interruptions to the Service(s) caused by or during any of the following events or circumstances shall not constitute a Service Interruption hereunder and shall not to be considered and/or included in, or for the purpose of, calculating any Service Credits available under this SLA:
a. During any period where Licensee’s payment of Fees is more than 60 days past due or where Civix has suspended the Agreement for late payment;
b. Incidents outside Civix’s reasonable control, including those described in Section 10.4 of the Agreement;
c. Scheduled maintenance of the Hosting and Software for which Civix has notified Licensee; d. Incidents caused by equipment, software or other technology provided by Licensee or by a third party on behalf of Licensee;
e. Incidents caused by a violation of this agreement, negligence or willful misconduct by Licensee or Licensee agents or employees.

4.Credit Request. If Licensee experiences a Service Interruption, to receive consideration for a Service Credit, Licensee must provide written notice to Civix within 30 days of such Service Interruption. The request should include, at a minimum, the date, time and duration of the Service Interruption. In instances of uncertainty or dispute as to whether an actual Service Interruption has occurred, Civix shall make a final determination with respect to such uncertainty and/or dispute, in good faith, based on its review of data provided by system logs, monitoring reports and configuration records, which Civix shall make available to Licensee at Licensee’s request.

5.Service Credits. For each month, Civix will calculate the percentage of time where the Software was available through the Hosting with no Service Interruptions for which the Licensee has requested credit pursuant to Section 4 of this Service Level Agreement (“Uptime”). For each percent (1.0%) which the Uptime falls below the Service Level Target, Licensee will be entitled to a one-fifth of one percent (0.2%) reduction in the next Annual Fees (each such reduction, a “Service Credit”). For example, if the Uptime for a month were 97.5%, 2.0% below the Service Level Target, Licensee would be entitled to a 0.4% Service Credit on the next Annual Fees.

6.Service Credit Maximum. The parties acknowledge and agree that (a) the maximum Service Credit Licensee may receive for Service Interruptions as described in this SLA shall be no more than 5% of the next Annual Fees, and (b) the Service Credits prescribed under this SLA shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for any and all such Service Interruptions, in each case notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this SLA or elsewhere in this Agreement.

Rev 20220622

ATTACHMENT C

SUPPORT
The software covered by this support agreement includes the Licensed Programs plus any future versions of the Licensed Programs offered by Civix as an incremental upgrade. Future expansion of the system that requires modifications outside the support of the base system is not covered under this agreement.

Software Support Policy Descriptions
In accordance with the terms of this Agreement, Civix will furnish the following support services for the Licensed Programs.

Enhanced Technical Support
Civix has a dedicated 24/7/365 support portal for logging help desk tickets either via a product email address or directly within the support portal. In addition, Civix has a dedicated telephone support phone line (504) 304-0781. A Power User is defined as a trained, advanced user who can troubleshoot basic issues without assistance. Licensee is limited to two (2) designated Power Users at any one time, who will act as the support liaison between the Licensee and Civix. Licensee agrees that support may be provided through electronic communications or telephone support.

Timeliness of Incident Resolution
Civix shall use commercially reasonable efforts to provide modifications or additions to correct errors in the Software reported by Licensee. The level of support that Civix can provide is dependent upon the cooperation of Licensee and the quantity of information that Licensee can provide. Licensee agrees that efforts beyond the Annual Support Hours Cap set forth in Attachment A per Contract Year would not be commercially reasonable.

If the Licensee cannot reproduce a problem or if Civix cannot successfully gather adequate troubleshooting information, Civix will require temporary login access on the licensee’s system to identify and address the problem. This communication capability shall be accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

New Releases
Incremental upgrade releases (not requiring modifications outside the support of the base system) and documentation will be made available for all purchased modules during the term of the Agreement.

Program Enhancements
Enhancement releases (not requiring modifications outside the support of the base system) for the software will be made available for all purchased modules during the term of the Agreement.

Installation Assistance
Support for the proper installation of the current release of the software, and any subsequent patches or updates described above will be made available through remote assistance.

Online Training
Online user training will be made available to Licensee through a web-based interface for up to eight (8) hours each agreement year in order to provide refresher training and support the training of new staff members.

Rev 20220622

ATTACHMENT D

STATEMENT OF WORK

SOFTWARE, SERVICES & ASSUMPTIONS

SOFTWARE
Public Business & Revenue Manager (PBRM) is a broad application providing a range of functionality from core operational processes to the facilitation of data-driven executive decisions. PBRM helps determine revenue streams, ensure accurate billing, reduce inefficiencies, and automate data exchanges.

With predictive and prescriptive capabilities, airports can model adverse conditions, forecast their impact, and use analytics to choose the best recovery strategies. Detailed functionality includes:

Agreement & Company Management
Agreement & Company Management module enables airport staff to administer all aspects of the airport’s relationship with entities that have a business relationship with the airport relative to revenue and non- revenue lease provision details, amendments, billing rates and billing rules, insurance and surety compliance information, and contact management.

GASB 87
GASB 87 training is included in standard ABRM implementation through three previously recorded group training sessions.
The airport is responsible for performing all GASB 87 configuration Licensed Functionality is for one (1) public entity or division (i.e. an airport). Additional entities may be licensed under a separate agreement or addenda for additional fees.

SERVICES
Implementation to include the above referenced modules.

General Assumptions
1) Unless otherwise noted:
a) Pricing will be honored for 90 days from date of proposal 2) Data Migration and Conversion
a) Unless otherwise notes:
i) For new installations (not applicable to upgrade clients), data migration from existing systems into PBRM is the responsibility of the Licensee. However, Civix will assist with this effort by providing Excel templates to import company, contact and some contract information, while the agreement provisions will need to be set up manually.
ii) Licensee will perform all data cleansing and correction.

Project Management & Planning Assumptions
1) The Civix Project Manager has the authority to control and execute the Project Management Plan to keep the project on schedule and within budget.
2) Target dates reflect an approximate project start date. All dates will proportionally shift based on the actual start date of the project.
3) Project schedule recognizes all national holidays (Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas), but exclude vacation days by Licensee or Civix. 4) Licensee is expected to provide timely responses, approvals, and/or deliverables as indicated in Civix’s Project Management Plan. Delays in receiving such responses might hold up progress and lead to overall schedule delays and additional cost to Licensee. 5) Licensee is expected to attend and provide input at certain key meetings for the purposes of moving the project forward. Delays in attendance might hold up progress and lead to overall schedule delays and additional cost to Licensee.
6) For all hosted solutions, test and production systems will both be cloud hosted. 7) Civix is dependent on Licensee to carry out any required/requested acceptance testing within the agreed-upon timeframes.

Proposal Criteria Civix
Gravit
y
Lease
Query
Visual
Lease
Civi
x Gravity
Lease
Query
Visual
Lease
Civi
x Gravity
Lease
Query
Visual
Lease
Civi
x Gravity
Lease
Query
Visual
Lease Civix Gravity
Lease
Query
Visual
Lease
Abse
nt
1 The proposal/presentation outlines an approach that is tailored based on obtaining an understanding of the City of Compton activities, operating systems, personnel and special needs.
0-5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4.75 4.5 4
2 The proposal/presentation outlines the firm's processes for ensuring an efficient and effective process.0-5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 4.5 4.5 5 3 The proposal showcases the firm’s commitment to
providing quality services by voluntarily adhering to
higher standards of quality.
0-5
4 The proposal/presentation outlines the firm's processes for ensuring on-going access to qualified staff.0-5
5 Is the platform user friendly and appear to be easy to navigate 0-5
6 The proposal/presentation highlights the firms’
commitment to professional training and staff continuity. 0-5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4.67 4.25 4 3.75 7 The proposal/presentation outlines qualifications,
industry experience, and strengths for all partners. 0-5 5 5 2 5 5 5 5 2 5 4 4 3 4 3 3 5 4.75 3.5 3.5 8 The proposal/presentation specifies the strengths of assigned team members as well as their years of prior
experience in the area of Municipal Government
engagement.
0-5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 5 4.5 4.25 3.75
9 The proposal/presentation identifies how the firm will comply with applicable industry regulations0-5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4.33 4.25 4 3.75 10 The proposal/presentation provides the firm's
background, client base, licensing information and years in business.
0-5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4.67 4.25 4.25 3.75
23 22.75 21.25 21.519 21 22 19 20 2323 24 25 22 23
5 4 4.5 4.5 4.25
Team Knowledge and Experience 24 25 21 20
4 4 4 4 4 4

3.5 4
4 5 5 4 4 5 5 4
4 4 4 4 4.33 4.755 5 5 4 4

4.67 4.25 4.25 4.25
5 5 1 3 4 5
3 4 4 3 4 45 5 5 4 4
Approach to service Quality
5 5 5 5
Rating Sheet for GASB 87 Implementation Services RFP
Rater #1 Rater #2 Rater #3 Rater #4 Average Rating

Proposal Criteria Civix
Gravit
y
Lease
Query
Visual
Lease
Civi
x Gravity
Lease
Query
Visual
Lease
Civi
x Gravity
Lease
Query
Visual
Lease
Civi
x Gravity
Lease
Query
Visual
Lease Civix Gravity
Lease
Query
Visual
Lease
Rating Sheet for GASB 87 Implementation Services RFP
Rater #1 Rater #2 Rater #3 Rater #4 Average Rating
Value Added Services
11 It is evident that the firm understands our business and our challenges. The firm is committed to being our
business advisor, beyond the audit engagement
0-5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.67 4.5 4 4
12 Does the platform offer efficient notification systems 0-5 33 3 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 5 3.67 4 3.5 4.5 13 Does the platform offer other modules to enhance other areas of needed organization for accounting records such as bonds
0-5 4 4 4 2 5 5 5 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 5 4 4.25 3.75 3.5
14 Does the firm offer sufficient staff training services 0-5 55 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 3 3 3 5 4.33 4.25 4.25 4.75 15 Does the platform offer a method for staff to review formulas and work being done by firm's staff0-5 4 5 3 3 5 5 5 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4.25 3.5 3.25 Scope and Pricing of the Engagement
16 The proposal/presentation clearly provides a framework for the scope, timing, steps and resources to complete the engagement.
0-5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 4 4 3 3 4 4.67 4.5 4.25 4
17 The proposal specifies the price for the engagement and how it will be billed. 0-5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 4 4 4 4.33 4.75 4.5 4.5 18 The proposal addresses all items requested by us
whether verbally or in the RFP 0-5 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4.33 4.25 4 3.5 19 The proposed fee is reasonable based on the
experience, unique value and knowledge the firm brings
to the engagement.
0-5 2 4 5 1 2 3 5 4 4 3 5 3 4 3 5 2.33 3.75 4 3.75
20 Provision of 3 minimum references 0-5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 Score criteria should be based on a 1-5 scale. (5-
Excellent, 4-Good, 3-Average, 2-Below Average, and 1-
Unsatisfactory
80 83 79 77 75.7583 68 76 67 67 6478 89 92 95 69Total Points 100 87 91 81

Proposal Criteria Civix
Gravit
y
Lease
Query
Visual
Lease
Civi
x Gravity
Lease
Query
Visual
Lease
Civi
x Gravity
Lease
Query
Visual
Lease
Civi
x Gravity
Lease
Query
Visual
Lease Civix Gravity
Lease
Query
Visual
Lease
Rating Sheet for GASB 87 Implementation Services RFP
Rater #1 Rater #2 Rater #3 Rater #4 Average Rating
Excellent: Applicant fully addresses all aspects of the criterion, convincingly demonstrates that it will meet the Government's performance requirements, and demonstrates no weaknesses
Good: Applicant fully addresses all aspects of the criterion, convincingly demonstrates a likelihood of meeting the Government's
requirements, and demonstrates only a few minor weaknesses.

Adequate: Applicant addresses all aspects of the criterion and demonstrates the ability to meet the Government's performance requirements. The Application may contain significant weaknesses and/or a number of minor weaknesses.

Poor: Applicant does not address all aspects of the criterion nor is evidence presented indicating the likelihood of successfully meeting the Government's requirements. Significant weaknesses are demonstrated and clearly outweigh any strengths presented.

Unacceptable: Applicant does not address all aspects of the criterion and the information presented indicates a strong likelihood of failure to meet City’s requirements.

June 20, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMPTON

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH AND ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER

TO MDJ MANAGEMENT, LLC FOR SITE RECONSTRUCTION AND
UPGRADED SECURITY FEATURES AT 404 NORTH ALAMEDA
STREET ($1,863,266)

SUMMARY
Adoption of the attached resolution will authorize the City Manager to accept the proposal, enter into a construction contract with and issue a purchase order to MDJ Management, LLC in the amount of One Million Eight Hundred Sixty-Three Thousand Two-Hundred and Sixty-Six Dollars ($1,863,266) for the installation of security services and site reconstruction at 404 North Alameda Street.

BACKGROUND
The City of Compton owns property located at 404 North Alameda Street which is currently occupied by the Community Improvement Services Department (“CISD”). The CISD is comprised of Code Enforcement, Parking Enforcement, and Security Services Divisions. These divisions utilize city-vehicles during the course of their duties which are stored at this location.

This property requires reconstruction of the existing perimeter wall that is showing significant signs of deterioration and will require demolition. The City is requesting to install a new wall with an extended height for increased safety and reinforced security.

These features will help to mitigate the risk of theft of new and existing City vehicles and property.

On January 19, 2023, City of Compton staff and MDJ Management, LLC, a state-licensed building contractor inspected and evaluated the facility and recommended repairs. After reviewing the condition of the perimeter wall and the multiple deficiencies that were noted, staff agreed that any temporary repairs to the wall would be inefficient.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Staff worked with MDJ Management, LLC to prepare a recommendation to rehabilitate, reconstruct and install security upgrades at the 404 North Alameda site. MDJ

6.6.6.6. Staff Report – Authorizing P.O. to MDJ Management, LLC for Security Services at 404 N. Alameda June 20, 2023 Page 2 of 2
Management, LLC has provided a proposal for the rehabilitation of the entire perimeter security wall, demolition of a 2,300 square foot dormant building, lighting improvements, installation of new security cameras and removal of existing asphalt and repavement of the facility parking lot.

The proposal in the amount of One Million Eight Hundred Sixty-Three Thousand Two- Hundred and Sixty-Six Dollars ($1,863,266) is for the installation of security services and site reconstruction at 404 North Alameda Street.

The scope of work for this project is as follows:

Perimeter Wall Security
Demolition of existing security wall
Installation of new security wall with reinforced footing per structural engineers specifications
Ten (10) foot tall Concrete Masonry Units (CMU) wall reinforced with vertical and horizontal rebar throughout
All CMU cells concrete filled
Five (5) foot “No Climb” fencing on top of CMU wall
Installation of new security wall extending beyond Security Services lot Reinforced footing per structural engineers specifications Installation of four (4) new K12 anti-ram and anti-climb sliding gates Installation of one (1) new pedestrian metal gate to match look and design of sliding gates.

Site Work in Security Services Lot
Demolition of 2,300 sq. foot existing building in parking lot Area Lighting and Security Cameras in Security Services Lot Installation of new light poles to light up entire facility Light array and photo metric to determine ideal location and ensure no dark areas. Installation of new camera security system
Removal of all asphalt and concrete
Regrade entire site
Installation of new asphalt for lot
Installation of new striping stalls secured parking and traffic control Services Included in the Agreement are as follows:
Plans provided for the site layout
Structural plans for the foundation of security wall
Civil Plans for the grading and asphalt of site
ACC and Engineering will be providing clarification on drawings to the contractor and making any corrections as necessary
Response to the plan check comments
Construction administration will include submittals/shop drawing reviews and responses to contractor RFI’s and interpretation of drawings and punch list.

Staff Report – Authorizing P.O. to MDJ Management, LLC for Security Services at 404 N. Alameda March 21, 2023 Page 3 of 3
The estimated project duration for the reconstruction is approximately four (4) to six (6) months once the proposal is accepted and the deposit is received.

Because MDJ Management, LLC is offering pricing to the City through its Sourcewell contracts, staff has determined that formal bidding procedures are not required for these services.

Sourcewell was formerly known as the National Joints Powers Alliance (NJPA).

Participation in Sourcewell is available at no-cost, no obligation, and no liability to public agencies, school districts, state colleges and universities, and local governments. In recent years, membership in the 40-year old organization has grown rapidly as more publicly fund agencies opt to satisfy their own RFP process by using Sourcewell’s rigorous vetting in their competitive process and combined membership buying power to save time and money.

Sourcewell follows the competitive contracting law process to solicit, evaluate, and award cooperative purchasing contracts for goods and services. Sourcewell saves purchasers money by offering better pricing, less time is spent reviewing bids and it combines the purchasing power of more than 50,000 organizations. Sourcewell members currently purchase more than $3.5 billion annually through the awarded contractors. Government agencies save money because of the purchasing scale advantage they gain from being part of the cooperative membership.

FISCAL IMPACT
Increase in Revenue appropriations:

Account Code Account Name Amount
2810-000-000-3565 American Rescue Plan Fund $670,000.00 Other Federal Grant Revenue
Increase Expenditure appropriations:

Account Code Account Name Amount
1004-610-000-4269 American Rescue Plan Fund $670,000.00 Other Professional Services
A purchase order for One Million Eight Hundred Sixty-Three Thousand Two-Hundred and Sixty-Six Dollars ($1,863,266) is also being requested to be authorized to be issued out of the following account:

Account Code Account Name Amount
1004-610-000-4269 American Rescue Plan Fund $1,863,266
Other Professional Services
Staff Report – Authorizing P.O. to MDJ Management, LLC for Security Services at 404 N. Alameda June 20, 2023 Page 4 of 2

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution.

ANTHONY WARD

COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
APPROVED FOR FORWARDING:

THOMAS THOMAS

CITY MANAGER
RESOLUTION NO. ___________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMPTON

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACT WITH AND ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER TO MDJ

MANAGEMENT, LLC FOR SITE RECONSTRUCTION AND UPGRADED
SECURITY FEATURES AT 404 NORTH ALAMEDA STREET ($1,863,266)

WHEREAS,the City of Compton owns property located at 404 North Alameda Street which is currently occupied by the Community Improvement Services Department; and
WHEREAS,the department is comprised of Code Enforcement, Parking Enforcement, and Security Services divisions. Each division utilizes city-vehicles to carry out their assigned duties which are primarily stored at this location; and WHEREAS, the existing perimeter wall structure shows significant signs of deterioration and requires demolition. Installation of a new wall with extended height for increased safety and reinforced security features will help mitigate the risk of theft of new and existing City vehicles and property; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2023, City of Compton staff and MDJ Management, LLC, a state-licensed building contractor inspected the facility, evaluated the recommended repairs. After reviewing the condition of the perimeter wall and the multiple deficiencies that were noted, staff agreed that any temporary repair to the wall would be inefficient; and
WHEREAS, staff worked with MDJ Management, LLC to prepare a recommendation to rehabilitate reconstruct and install security upgrades at the 404 North Alameda site. MDJ Management, LLC has provided a proposal for the rehabilitation of the entire perimeter security wall, demolition of a 2,300 square foot dormant building, lighting improvements, installation of new security cameras and removal of existing asphalt and repavement of the facility parking lot; and WHEREAS, the estimated project duration for the reconstruction is approximately four (4) to six (6) months once the proposal is accepted and the deposit is received; and WHEREAS, because MDJ Management, LLC is offering pricing to the City through its Sourcewell contracts, staff has determined that formal bidding procedures are not required for these services; and
WHEREAS, Sourcewell was formerly known as the National Joints Powers Alliance (NJPA). Participation in Sourcewell is available at no-cost, no obligation, and no liability to public agencies, school districts, state colleges and universities, and local governments. In recent years, membership in the 40-year old organization has grown rapidly as more publicly fund agencies opt to satisfy their own RFP process by using Sourcewell’s rigorous vetting in their competitive process and combined membership buying power to save time and money; and
WHEREAS, Sourcewell follows the competitive contracting law process to solicit, evaluate, and award cooperative purchasing contracts for goods and services.

Sourcewell saves purchasers money by offering better pricing, less time is spent reviewing bids and it combines the purchasing power of more than 50,000 organizations.

Sourcewell members currently purchase more than $3.5 billion annually through the awarded contractors. Government agencies save money because of the purchasing scale advantage they gain from being part of the cooperative; and

WHEREAS, the proposal in the amount of One Million Eight Hundred Sixty-Three Thousand Two-Hundred and Sixty-Six Dollars ($1,863,266) is for the procurement of the installation of security services and site reconstruction at 404 North Alameda Street; and WHEREAS,funds will be appropriated as follows:

Increase in Revenue appropriations:

Account Code Account Name Amount
2810-000-000-3565 American Rescue Plan Fund $670,000.00 Other Federal Grant Revenue
Increase Expenditure appropriations:

Account Code Account Name Amount
1004-610-000-4269 American Rescue Plan Fund $670,000.00 Other Professional Services
A purchase order for One Million Eight Hundred Sixty-Three Thousand Two-Hundred and Sixty-Six Dollars ($1,863,266) is also being requested to be authorized to be issued out of the following account:

Account Code Account Name Amount
1004-610-000-4269 American Rescue Plan Fund $1,863,266
Other Professional Services
WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $1,863,266.00 will be available in Account No. 1004-610-000-4269

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMPTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.That the City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into a construction contract with and issue a purchase order to MDJ Management, LLC in the amount of One Million Eight Hundred Sixty-Three Thousand Two-Hundred and Sixty-Six Dollars ($1,863,266).

SECTION 2.That funds for this expenditure will be available in the 2022-2023 Fiscal Year budget in Account Number 1004-610-000-4269.

SECTION 3.That a copy of this Resolution shall be filed in the offices of the City Manager, City Attorney, City Controller, City Clerk, and the Public Works Department.

SECTION 4.That the Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this Resolution.

ADOPTED this ________ day of _______________, 2023.
________________________________

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF COMPTON
ATTEST:
____________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF COMPTON

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF COMPTON: ss
I, Vernell McDaniel, City Clerk of the City of Compton, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting thereof held on the ______ day of ____________________, 2023
That said Resolution was adopted by the following vote to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS-
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS-
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS-
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS-
____________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF COMPTON
Work Order Signature Document
EZIQC Contract No.: CA-R8-GB13-123021-MDJ
New
Work Order
111841.00
Modify an Existing Work Order
Work Order Title:

Work Order Number.: Work Order Date:

X
03/27/2023
Contractor Name:

Contact:

Phone:

Contact:

Phone:

Matt McMillon
310-490-1521
Owner Name:

Compton - Community Security Services
City of Compton
Thomas Thomas
310-605-5621
MDJ Management
Work to be Performed
Work to be performed as per the Final Detailed Scope of Work Attached and as per the terms and conditions of Sourcewell EZIQC Contract No CA-R8-GB13-123021-MDJ.

Brief
Work Order Description:

Will not apply:Liquidated Damages Will apply:

Estimated Completion Date:

Estimated Start Date: T
ime of Performance
X
Work Order Firm Fixed Price: $1,863,265.36
Owner Purchase Order Number:

Approvals
Date DateMDJ ManagementCity of Compton

2.00

3/27/2023
Work Order Signature Document

3.00 Detailed Scope of Work
Matt McMillonTo: From: Thomas Thomas
MDJ Management
531 Main St #611
El Segundo, CA 90245
310-490-1521
City of Compton
205 S. Willowbrook Ave.

Compton, CA 90220
310-605-6260
Work Order Number:

March 27, 2023Date Printed:
111841.00
Compton - Community Security ServicesWork Order Title:

Brief Scope:

Revised FinalPreliminary X
The following items detail the scope of work as discussed at the site. All requirements necessary to accomplish the items set forth below shall be considered part of this scope of work.

See attached
Subject to the terms and conditions of ezIQC Contract CA-R8-GB13-123021-MDJ.

MDJ Management Date
DateCity of Compton

3/27/2023
Scope of Work
MDJManagement, LLCLicense#1044711DIR#1000061313531MainSt. #611El SegundoCA90245310-490-1521 JobName: ComptonSecurityServicesSiteWorkLocation: 404SAlamedaSt, LosAngeles, CA90013Customer: Cityof Compton SubmissionDate: 3/23/23
DesignandBuildScopeof WorkandROMPricing
Perimeter SecurityWall● Demolitionof existingsecuritywall● Installationof newsecuritywall○ Reinforcedfootingper structural engineersspecifications○ 10’ tall CMUwall■ Reinforcedwithvertical andhorizontal rebar throughout■ All CMUcellsconcretefilled○ 5’ NoClimbfencingontopof CMUwall● Installationof newsecuritywall extendingbeyondSecurityServiceslot○ Reinforcedfootingper structural engineersspecifications○ 10’ tall CMUwall■ Reinforcedwithvertical andhorizontal rebar throughout■ All CMUcellsconcretefilled● Installationof (4) newK12anti-ramandanti-climbslidinggates● Installationof (1) newpedestrianMetal gatetomatchlookanddesignof slidinggates SiteWorkinSecurityServicesLot● Demolitionof 2,300sqft existingbuildinginparkinglot● Existingbuildingtobeconsideredpositivefor leadpaint andasbestoscontainingmaterials○ Demolitionof buildingtobecompletedbycertifiedhazmat demolitioncompany AreaLightingandSecurityCamerasinSecurityServicesLot● Installationof new400ampmainpanel onwall of existingbuilding● Installationof newlight polestolight upentirefacility 1of 2

○ Light arrayandphotometrictodetermineideal locationsandensureno“dark”areas○ Installationof 8light poleswithLEDfixtures■ LocationsTBDthroughcollaborationwithclient● Installationof LEDlight fixturesmountedonexistingbuilding● Installationof newcamerasecuritysystem○ Camerastypestoinclude:■ Licenseplatereader■ HighDefinitionCameras○ DVRrecorder Asphalt● Removal of all asphalt andconcrete● Regradeentiresitewithproper drainage● Installationof newasphalt for lot● Installationof newstripingfor parkingandtrafficcontrol CLARIFICATIONSANDEXCLUSIONS:● PriceIncludescompletedesignpackageincluding:○ AguidetotheOwner tounderstandtheoverall basicdesignrequirementsof theproject andtoidentifyeachspecificdesigncomponent relatedtocodeandconstructionitems.■ TheProject Engineer shall providethosedetailsduringthedesignphaseof theproject ensuringthat theyareincompliancewithall applicablecodes, regulatingauthorities, andtheguidelinesestablishedintheDPMCProceduresfor ArchitectsandEngineersManual.○ ServicesincludedinthisAgreement areasfollows:■ Plansprovidedfor thesitelayout■ Structural plansfor thefoundationof securitywall■ Civil Plansfor thegradingandasphalt of site■ ACC&Engineeringwill beProvidingclarificationondrawingstothecontractor andmakinganycorrectionsasnecessary.■ Turnaroundis6-7weeksfromtheacceptanceof thisproposal anddeposit payment.■ Respondtoplancheckcomments.■ ConstructionAdministrationwill includesubmittals/shopdrawingsreview,responsestocontractor RFI's, andinterpretationof drawingsandpunchlist.● Exclusions○ ExistingSecurityServicesBuildingNot inScope○ ExistingVeteransBuildingNot inScope● Pricetoincludeall labor (Normal WorkingHours- PrevailingWage), materials, andequipment tocompletethisscopeof work● ProjectedProject Duration:○ 4-6months 2of 2
Submittedby:

MatthewMcMillonPresident [email protected] 3of 2

4.00 Contractor's Price Proposal - Summary
Owner PO #:

Compton - Community Security Services
1 11841.00
CA-R8-GB13-123021-MDJIQC Master Contract #:

Work Order #:

Title:

Re:

March 27, 2023Date:

Proposal Value:

Contractor: MDJ Management
$1,863,265.36
$173,677.20Building Demolition
$40,109.30General
$467,575.85Lighting and Security
$439,642.92Parking Lot
$742,260.09Security Fencing
Proposal Total
Thisl total represents the correct total for the proposal. Any discrepancy between line totals, sub-totals and the proposal total is due to rounding.
$1,863,265.36
The Percentage of NPP on this Proposal: %

3/27/2023
Contractor's Price Proposal - Summary

5.00 Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail
Compton - Community Security Services
111841.00
CA-R8-GB13-123021-MDJIQC Master Contract #:

Work Order #:

Owner PO #:

Title:

Re:

March 27, 2023Date:

Proposal Value:

Contractor: MDJ Management
$1,863,265.36
(Excludes)Equip. MaterialLabor
Line TotalDescriptionUOMMod.ItemSect.

Building Demolition
01 56 16 00 0003 6 Mil, Plastic Sheeting, Applied To Walls1 $4,079.91SF Installation =x x 4,079.91
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

0.45 1.1003 8,240.00
for containment of demolition
01 74 19 00 0016 40 CY Dumpster (5 Ton) "Construction Debris"Includes delivery of dumpster, rental cost, pick-up cost, hauling, and disposal fee. Non-hazardous material. 2 $4,489.09EA
Installation =x x 4,489.09
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
679.98 1.1003 6.00
for remaining debris
01 74 19 00 0019 15 CY Low-Boy Dumpster Mixed RecyclableFor mixed dirt, rock, concrete brick or asphalt with no trash or organics. Includes service to deliver and pick-up dumpster, hauling, rental and disposal fee.
3 $10,004.29EA
Installation =x x 10,004.29
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
699.41 1.1003 13.00
for walls and stucco due to weight
02 82 33 00 0074 >500 To 2,500 SF, Gypsum Wall Board (Or Backer Board) With Ceramic Tile And Mastic, Asbestos Abatement And Disposal
4 $49,392.03SF
Installation =x x 49,392.03
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

20.04 1.1003 2,240.00
for 8' interior walls
02 82 33 00 0082 >2,500 To 10,000 SF, Stucco, Asbestos Abatement And Disposal5 $45,349.96SF Installation =x x 45,349.96
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

17.92 1.1003 2,300.00
2300 SF of building - Removal of exterior building
02 82 33 00 0087 >500 To 2,500 SF, Spray On Acoustical Ceiling, Asbestos Abatement And Disposal
6 $24,117.48SF
Installation =x x 24,117.48
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

9.53 1.1003 2,300.00
2300 SF of building - Removal of Ceiling
02 82 33 00 0101 >500 To 2,500 SF, Single Layer Or First Of Multiple Layers, Floor Tile, Asbestos Abatement And Disposal
7 $15,816.81SF
Installation =x x 15,816.81
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

6.25 1.1003 2,300.00
2300 SF of building - Removal of flooring
02 82 33 00 0125 >500 To 2,500 SF, Mastic, Asbestos Abatement And DisposalApplies to bottom layer only if multiple layers.
8 $5,187.91SF
Installation =x x 5,187.91
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

2.05 1.1003 2,300.00
2300 SF of building - Removal of mastic
02 82 33 00 0169 >1,000 To 5,000 SF, Shingles And Felt Roofing, Asbestos Abatement And DisposalSingle or first of multiple layers.
9 $14,197.17SF
Installation =x x 14,197.17
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

5.61 1.1003 2,300.00
2300 SF of building - Removal of roof

3/27/2023
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail Continues..

Work Order Title:

Work Order Number: 111841.00
Compton - Community Security Services
Building Demolition
02 89 00 00 0022 5 Stage Portable Personnel Decontamination Wash FacilityIncludes connection to negative air system.
10 $1,042.55EA
Installation =x x 1,042.55
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
947.51 1.1003 1.00
for abatement requirements
$173,677.20Subtotal for Building Demolition
General
01 22 16 00 0002 Reimbursable FeesReimbursable Fees will be paid to the contractor for eligible costs as directed by Owner. Insert the appropriate quantity to adjust the base cost to the actual Reimbursable Fee. If there are multiple Reimbursable Fees, list each one separately and add a comment in the "note" block to identify the Reimbursable Fee (e.g. sidewalk closure, road cut, various permits, extended warranty, expedited shipping costs, etc.). A copy of each receipt shall be submitted with the Price Proposal.
11 $40,109.30EA
Installation =x x 40,109.30
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

1.00 1.1000 36,463.00
Bond = $1,823,156 x 2%
$40,109.30Subtotal for General
Lighting and Security
01 22 23 00 0352 3/4 CY Hydraulic Excavator With Full-Time Operator12 $26,058.33MO Installation =x x 26,058.33
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
23,682.93 1.1003 1.00
for trenching and backfilling
01 22 23 00 0352 0066 For Equipment Without Operator, Deduct13 -$4,855.26MOD Installation =x x -4,855.26
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
-17,650.66 1.1003 0.25
01 22 23 00 1026 5,000 LB Telescopic Boom, Hi-Reach, Rough Terrain Construction Forklift With Full-Time Operator
14 $5,883.78WK
Installation =x x 5,883.78
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
5,347.43 1.1003 1.00
for use to install light poles
01 71 13 00 0004 First 25 Miles, Equipment Delivery, Pickup, Mobilization And Demobilization Using A Tractor Trailer With Up To 53' BedIncludes loading, tie-down of equipment, delivery of equipment, off loading on site, rigging, dismantling, loading for return and transporting away. For equipment such as bulldozers, motor scrapers, hydraulic excavators, gradalls, road graders, loader-backhoes, heavy duty construction loaders, tractors, pavers, rollers, bridge finishers, straight mast construction forklifts, telescoping boom rough terrain construction forklifts, telescoping and articulating boom man lifts with >40' boom lengths, etc.
15 $2,056.72EA
Installation =x x 2,056.72
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
934.62 1.1003 2.00
Trench Equipment and equipment to install Poles
01 74 19 00 0016 40 CY Dumpster (5 Ton) "Construction Debris"Includes delivery of dumpster, rental cost, pick-up cost, hauling, and disposal fee. Non-hazardous material. 16 $748.18EA
Installation =x x 748.18
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
679.98 1.1003 1.00
for demolition of exiting equipment

3/27/2023
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail Continues..

Work Order Title:

Work Order Number: 111841.00
Compton - Community Security Services
Lighting and Security
01 74 19 00 0019 15 CY Low-Boy Dumpster Mixed RecyclableFor mixed dirt, rock, concrete brick or asphalt with no trash or organics. Includes service to deliver and pick-up dumpster, hauling, rental and disposal fee.
17 $36,169.36EA
Installation =x x 36,169.36
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
699.41 1.1003 47.00
700 CY of Dirt from Trenching, and 16 CY of dirt for post bases 03 11 13 00 0055 >36" To 48" Diameter Column Metal Formwork18 $15,197.87LF Installation =x x 15,197.87
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
107.91 1.1003 128.00
8'' total with 8 posts for Pole Base and Anchor Bolt Footings 03 15 19 00 0022 1" Diameter x 36" Length, Plain Steel, J-Type Cast In Place Anchor Bolt19 $1,490.07EA Installation =x x 1,490.07
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

42.32 1.1003 32.00
Used for Pole Bases
03 21 11 00 0052 #6, Grade 60, Columns, Steel Reinforcement Bar20 $591.52LF Installation =x x 591.52
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

2.24 1.1003 240.00
Used for Pole Bases
03 31 13 00 0014 Direct Chute, Place 3,000 PSI Concrete Pile Caps21 $7,778.50CY Installation =x x 7,778.50
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
220.92 1.1003 32.00
4 CY of concrete for Pole Bases per pole
26 05 19 16 0297 #10 AWG, Type THHN-THWN, 600 Volt, Copper, Single Stranded Cable, Installed In Conduit
22 $6,820.91MLF
Installation =x x 6,820.91
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
1,033.19 1.1003 6.00
Wiring from Hand Hole to Fixtures
26 05 19 16 0299 #6 AWG, Type THHN-THWN, 600 Volt, Copper, Single Stranded Cable, Installed In Conduit
23 $13,818.95MLF
Installation =x x 13,818.95
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
2,093.21 1.1003 6.00
Wiring from Panel and between Fixtures
26 05 33 13 1802 2" Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Conduit With Coupled End, Direct Burial
24 $12,847.98LF
Installation =x x 12,847.98
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

7.12 1.1003 1,640.00
Underground Conduit Runs
26 05 33 13 1815 2" Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Conduit 90 Degree Elbow, Direct Burial
25 $1,374.23EA
Installation =x x 1,374.23
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

52.04 1.1003 24.00
Underground Conduit Runs
26 05 33 13 1828 2" Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Conduit 45 Degree Elbow, Direct Burial
26 $908.41EA
Installation =x x 908.41
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

51.60 1.1003 16.00
Underground Conduit Runs
26 24 16 00 0168 600 Ampere Rating, 277/480 Volt, 4 Wire, 3 Phase, >400 To 600 Ampere Main Breaker, 54 Circuit Capacity Assembled Panelboard With Forty-Two 20 Ampere Breakers
27 $13,422.08EA
Installation =x x 13,422.08
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
12,198.56 1.1003 1.00
400Amp Panel mounted on side of Building

3/27/2023
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail Continues..

Work Order Title:

Work Order Number: 111841.00
Compton - Community Security Services
Lighting and Security
26 24 19 00 0806 400 Amperes Switch Rating, Fusible Disconnect Switch With 400 Amperes Fuse Clips
28 $4,588.16EA
Installation =x x 4,588.16
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
4,169.92 1.1003 1.00
Disconnect Switch
26 56 13 00 0193 25' High, 4" OD, 11 Gauge, Round Straight, Steel Area Light Pole, Anchor Base
29 $17,737.54EA
Installation =x x 17,737.54
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
2,015.08 1.1003 8.00
New Light Poles
26 56 19 00 0012 100 LEDs, 111 Watt, Wall Mount, Full Cutoff, LED Wall Pack (CREE® BetaLED® Edge® SEC-EDG)
30 $6,997.20EA
Installation =x x 6,997.20
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
1,589.84 1.1003 4.00
LED Light Fixtures Mounted on Existing Building
26 56 19 00 0193 100 LEDs, 111 Watt, Arm Mount, Rectangular, LED Area Fixture (CREE® BetaLED® Edge® ARE-EDG)
31 $38,673.25EA
Installation =x x 38,673.25
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
1,673.71 1.1003 21.00
Connections and Light Fixtures
26 56 19 00 0248 60 LEDs, 68 Watt, Surface Mount, Rectangular, LED Canopy Fixture (CREE® BetaLED® Edge® CAN-EDG)
32 $2,687.44EA
Installation =x x 2,687.44
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
1,221.23 1.1003 2.00
Canopy LED Fixtures Mounted on Existing Building
27 15 13 00 0504 4-Pair Solid STP, 22 AWG, Category 7, Indoor Telecommunications Plenum Cable, Installed In Conduit
33 $55,942.74MLF
Installation =x x 55,942.74
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
7,263.31 1.1003 7.00
Camera Underground Wiring
28 21 31 00 0029 DVR (Digital Video Recorder) - iSCSI, Bosch DVA 12T-12050RA34 $25,474.50EA Installation =x x 25,474.50
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
23,152.32 1.1003 1.00
Camera DVR Recorder
28 21 31 00 0210 23X, Environmental Pendant Mount, Color/Black And White, Spectra® IV, Pan/Tilt Camera Dome System (Pelco SD4CBW-PG-E)
35 $63,430.56EA
Installation =x x 63,430.56
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
3,202.69 1.1003 18.00
High Definition Pole Mounted Cameras
28 21 31 00 0289 22X, Environmental Pendant Mount, Color, Stainless Steel Spectra® IV IP Network, Camera Dome System (Pelco SD4NC22-PSGE1)
36 $9,015.26EA
Installation =x x 9,015.26
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
4,096.73 1.1003 2.00
License Plate Reader Cameras
28 21 31 00 0866 Test And Certification Of Surveillance Camera System37 $1,438.42HR Installation =x x 1,438.42
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
261.46 1.1003 5.00
Camera Tech for Testing
28 21 31 00 0868 Programming Of Surveillance Camera System38 $1,726.10HR Installation =x x 1,726.10
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
313.75 1.1003 5.00
Camera Tech for Programming

3/27/2023
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail Continues..

Work Order Title:

Work Order Number: 111841.00
Compton - Community Security Services
Lighting and Security
31 05 16 00 0002 #2 Stone Aggregate Fill (1-1/2" To 2-1/2" Clean)39 $34,222.01CY Installation =x x 34,222.01
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

43.93 1.1003 708.00
700 backfill for trenches. 8 CY for base for light pole bases 31 23 16 13 0002 12" Wide or Less, Excavation for Trenching by Machine in Soil40 $24,169.19CY Installation =x x 24,169.19
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

10.46 1.1003 2,100.00
Trenching for Poles
31 23 16 13 0010 Backfilling or Placing Subbase for Trenches with Imported or Stockpiled Materials by Machine
41 $8,618.65CY
Installation =x x 8,618.65
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

3.73 1.1003 2,100.00
backfill trenches. 700 CY of base (6" deep), then 1400 CY of space with stockpiled material. 31 23 16 13 0013 Compaction of Fill or Subbase for Trenches by Vibratory Plate, Air Tamper, Etcetera
42 $16,636.54CY
Installation =x x 16,636.54
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

7.20 1.1003 2,100.00
compaction of backfill base and stockpiled dirt
31 23 16 13 0016 Load Excess Material by Machine for Removal from Excavation for Trenching43 $4,990.96CY Installation =x x 4,990.96
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

6.48 1.1003 700.00
remove and haul away 700 CY of dirt from trenching
31 23 16 36 0009 Excavation For Building Foundations And Other Structures By Hand in Soil44 $3,270.80CY Installation =x x 3,270.80
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
123.86 1.1003 24.00
3 CY of dirt to be removed per post for footings and bases 31 23 16 36 0019 Backfilling Around Building Foundations And Other Structures By Hand45 $519.25CY Installation =x x 519.25
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

58.99 1.1003 8.00
Placing subase for 8 light poles. 1 Cy per pole.
33 71 19 13 0011 14" x 20" x 12", Electric Pull Boxes, Precast Concrete46 $6,344.26EA Installation =x x 6,344.26
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
960.99 1.1003 6.00
Electrical Boxes
34 41 13 00 0362 #6 pull box lid (Concrete, Bolt down) (Christy N36T)47 $781.39EA Installation =x x 781.39
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
118.36 1.1003 6.00
Electrical Box Lids
$467,575.85Subtotal for Lighting and Security
Parking Lot
01 22 23 00 0178 10' Wide Paving Machine With Full-Time Operator48 $15,110.65WK Installation =x x 15,110.65
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
13,733.21 1.1003 1.00
to pave new parking lot
01 22 23 00 0219 3 Ton, Double Smooth Drums, Ride-On Self-Propelled Vibratory Roller With Full-Time Operator
49 $5,484.67WK
Installation =x x 5,484.67
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
4,984.70 1.1003 1.00
for finish work of new parking lot

3/27/2023
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail Continues..

Work Order Title:

Work Order Number: 111841.00
Compton - Community Security Services
Parking Lot
01 22 23 00 0329 140 HP, D6 Bulldozer With Full-Time Operator50 $9,720.85WK Installation =x x 9,720.85
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
8,834.73 1.1003 1.00
for rough and finish grading of lot
01 74 19 00 0019 15 CY Low-Boy Dumpster Mixed RecyclableFor mixed dirt, rock, concrete brick or asphalt with no trash or organics. Includes service to deliver and pick-up dumpster, hauling, rental and disposal fee.
51 $36,938.92EA
Installation =x x 36,938.92
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
699.41 1.1003 48.00
20 (300 CY) for removal of dirt. 28 (427 CY -3850 SY @ 4") for existing pavement removal 02 41 13 13 0020 >3" To 6" By Machine, Break-up And Remove Bituminous Paving52 $84,723.10SY Installation =x x 84,723.10
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

20.00 1.1003 3,850.00
3850 SY of parking lot
31 23 16 33 0002 Bulk Excavation by Dozer in Soil53 $13,291.44CY Installation =x x 13,291.44
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

9.43 1.1003 1,281.00
12" of excavation for grading and leveling entire area
31 23 16 33 0007 Spreading, Shaping, and Rough Grading Imported or Stockpiled Material for Bulk Excavation by Machine
54 $8,203.20CY
Installation =x x 8,203.20
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

5.82 1.1003 1,281.00
12" of excavation for grading and leveling entire area
31 23 16 33 0009 Cutting, Shaping and Rough Grading Existing Elevations For Bulk Excavation by Machine
55 $9,119.36CY
Installation =x x 9,119.36
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

6.47 1.1003 1,281.00
12" of excavation for grading and leveling entire area
31 23 16 33 0016 Finish Grading for Bulk Excavation by Machine56 $2,711.14SY Installation =x x 2,711.14
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

0.64 1.1003 3,850.00
3850 SY of parking lot
31 23 16 33 0018 Compaction of Fill or Subbase for Bulk Excavation by MachinePer Lift57 $2,795.86SY Installation =x x 2,795.86
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

0.66 1.1003 3,850.00
3850 SY of parking lot
31 23 16 33 0020 Loading Excess Material For Removal From Bulk Excavation58 $1,825.40CY Installation =x x 1,825.40
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

5.53 1.1003 300.00
expect 300 CY of material to be removed
32 11 16 16 0009 4" Crushed Aggregate Base Course For Roadways And Parking Areas59 $32,660.76SY Installation =x x 32,660.76
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

7.71 1.1003 3,850.00
3850 SY of parking lot
32 11 26 19 0002 Bituminous Stabilized Base Course3/4" ASTM C33.60 $50,746.13CY Installation =x x 50,746.13
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
108.01 1.1003 427.00
3850 SY of parking lot @ 4" thick

3/27/2023
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail Continues..

Work Order Title:

Work Order Number: 111841.00
Compton - Community Security Services
Parking Lot
32 12 13 13 0006 Tack Coat, 0.11 Gallon/SY61 $3,770.18SY Installation =x x 3,770.18
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

0.89 1.1003 3,850.00
3850 SY of parking lot
32 12 13 19 0003 Surface Prime Coat, 0.30 Gallon/SY62 $6,862.57SY Installation =x x 6,862.57
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

1.62 1.1003 3,850.00
3850 SY of parking lot
32 12 16 13 0009 4" Thick Bituminous Hot Mix Binder CourseIncludes placement, rolling, finishing and sweeping.
63 $139,708.39SY
Installation =x x 139,708.39
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

32.98 1.1003 3,850.00
3850 SY of parking lot
32 12 36 13 0015 >1,000 To 5,000 SY, Medium Fine Screenings - PMCRS-2h, Asphalt Emulsion Seal Coat (Chip Seal)
64 $15,970.30SY
Installation =x x 15,970.30
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

3.77 1.1003 3,850.00
3850 SY of parking lot
$439,642.92Subtotal for Parking Lot
Security Fencing
01 22 23 00 0278 700 LB Capacity, 36" Wide, Skid-Steer Loader With Full-Time Operator65 $43,324.07MO Installation =x x 43,324.07
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
19,687.39 1.1003 2.00
For demolition of existing wall and footing. For digging new wall footing. For help lifting Block onto scaffolding due to 10' height. 2 month rental, should be used nearly every day. Adjusted to take into account some days no in use.
01 22 23 00 0278 0066 For Equipment Without Operator, Deduct66 -$9,667.50 Installation =x x -9,667.50
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
-17,572.48 1.1003 0.50
01 22 23 00 0292 Hydraulic Hammer Attachment For Skid-Steer Loaders67 $2,049.64WK Installation =x x 2,049.64
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
931.40 1.1003 2.00
for excavation of footings
01 22 23 00 0299 Backhoe Attachment For Skid-Steer Loaders68 $873.79MO Installation =x x 873.79
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
794.14 1.1003 1.00
for excavation of footings
01 54 23 00 0014 Heavy Duty Masonry Scaffolding With Bracing Accessories - Area Based On 2' Wide Sections (CCF / Month)
69 $47,775.38CCF
Installation =x x 47,775.38
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
100.51 1.1003 432.00
900 LF x 12' tall x 4' wide = 43200 CF
01 54 23 00 0019 Up To 20' Height Heavy Duty Masonry Scaffolding Initial Erection And Final Dismantling, Per CCF Of Scaffolding And Accessories.
70 $34,252.25CCF
Installation =x x 34,252.25
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

72.06 1.1003 432.00
900 LF x 12' tall x 4' wide = 43200 CF

3/27/2023
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail Continues..

Work Order Title:

Work Order Number: 111841.00
Compton - Community Security Services
Security Fencing
01 71 13 00 0004 First 25 Miles, Equipment Delivery, Pickup, Mobilization And Demobilization Using A Tractor Trailer With Up To 53' BedIncludes loading, tie-down of equipment, delivery of equipment, off loading on site, rigging, dismantling, loading for return and transporting away. For equipment such as bulldozers, motor scrapers, hydraulic excavators, gradalls, road graders, loader-backhoes, heavy duty construction loaders, tractors, pavers, rollers, bridge finishers, straight mast construction forklifts, telescoping boom rough terrain construction forklifts, telescoping and articulating boom man lifts with >40' boom lengths, etc.
71 $1,028.36EA
Installation =x x 1,028.36
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
934.62 1.1003 1.00
delivery and pickup of skid steer
01 74 19 00 0016 40 CY Dumpster (5 Ton) "Construction Debris"Includes delivery of dumpster, rental cost, pick-up cost, hauling, and disposal fee. Non-hazardous material. 72 $2,244.55EA
Installation =x x 2,244.55
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
679.98 1.1003 3.00
for construction debris, wrought iron fencing and gates, forms, ... 01 74 19 00 0019 15 CY Low-Boy Dumpster Mixed RecyclableFor mixed dirt, rock, concrete brick or asphalt with no trash or organics. Includes service to deliver and pick-up dumpster, hauling, rental and disposal fee.
73 $19,239.02EA
Installation =x x 19,239.02
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
699.41 1.1003 25.00
for CMU wall demolition (3600 SF @ 8") 88 CY, concrete wall foundation (1800 SF @ 3') 200 CY, asphalt removal (555 SF @ 4") 7 CY, and trench dirt removal 300 CY. 595 CY Divided by 15 CY per low boy = 39 dumpsters. Some of the dirt can be used to backfill, QTY lowered to account for this. 02 41 13 13 0040 >3" To 6" By Hand, Break-up And Remove Bituminous Paving74 $2,967.84SF Installation =x x 2,967.84
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

4.86 1.1003 555.00
185 LF 3' wide break up and removal of existing asphalt 02 41 16 13 0020 Sorting Of Material Debris For Recycling Prior To Hauling Off75 $3,592.70CCF Installation =x x 3,592.70
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

9.07 1.1003 360.00
to sort rebar from concrete prior to dumpsters hauling away. 5400 SF of debris 8" thick 02 41 16 13 0020 0004 For Up To 500, Add76 $640.46 Installation =x x 640.46
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

2.72 1.1003 214.00
02 41 16 13 0050 16" Thick Reinforced Concrete Block Foundation Wall Demolition77 $19,924.23SF Installation =x x 19,924.23
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

10.06 1.1003 1,800.00
foundation for existing CMU wall 600 Feet long
02 41 19 13 0028 Demolish 6" Thick Reinforced Concrete Block Exterior Wall78 $24,915.19SF Installation =x x 24,915.19
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

6.29 1.1003 3,600.00
600' existing sting CMU wall
03 11 13 00 0003 Continuous Footings Foundation Wood Formwork79 $20,439.17SF Installation =x x 20,439.17
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

6.88 1.1003 2,700.00
formwork for footing for security wall
03 21 13 00 0068 #5, Grade 60, Footings, Galvanized Steel Reinforcement Bar80 $10,160.17LF Installation =x x 10,160.17
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

1.71 1.1003 5,400.00
rebar for reinforrcement

3/27/2023
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail Continues..

Work Order Title:

Work Order Number: 111841.00
Compton - Community Security Services
Security Fencing
03 31 13 00 0018 Direct Chute, Place 3,000 PSI Concrete Continuous Footings81 $70,989.16CY Installation =x x 70,989.16
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
215.06 1.1003 300.00
concrete footing for new wall
04 05 16 26 0009 Grout Concrete Block Cores- 8" Block, Grout Fill Block Solid (0.258 CF/SF)82 $65,060.74SF Installation =x x 65,060.74
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

6.57 1.1003 9,000.00
900 LF 10' tall
04 05 19 26 0037 #5, Grade 60, Horizontal Placed, Galvanized Steel Masonry Reinforcement Bar83 $23,172.32LF Installation =x x 23,172.32
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

2.34 1.1003 9,000.00
every 12". 900 LF x 10" tall
04 05 19 26 0049 #5, Grade 60, Vertical Placed, Galvanized Steel Masonry Reinforcement Bar84 $26,638.26LF Installation =x x 26,638.26
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

2.69 1.1003 9,000.00
every 12". 900 LF x 10" tall
04 22 23 13 0019 8" x 8" x 16", Cored, Normal Weight, Concrete Block85 $118,931.43SF Installation =x x 118,931.43
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

12.01 1.1003 9,000.00
900 LF 10' tall
04 22 23 13 0019 0024 For Stacked Bond, Add86 $27,529.51 Installation =x x 27,529.51
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

2.78 1.1003 9,000.00
31 05 16 00 0002 #2 Stone Aggregate Fill (1-1/2" To 2-1/2" Clean)87 $1,208.40CY Installation =x x 1,208.40
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

43.93 1.1003 25.00
aggregate for base of footings
31 23 16 13 0003 Over 12" Wide, Excavation for Trenching by Machine in Soil88 $2,280.92CY Installation =x x 2,280.92
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

6.91 1.1003 300.00
trenching for footings
31 23 16 13 0010 Backfilling or Placing Subbase for Trenches with Imported or Stockpiled Materials by Machine
89 $102.60CY
Installation =x x 102.60
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

3.73 1.1003 25.00
placing base in trench for footings
31 23 16 13 0010 0066 For >20 To 50, Add90 $51.44
Installation =x x 51.44
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

1.87 1.1003 25.00
31 23 16 13 0013 Compaction of Fill or Subbase for Trenches by Vibratory Plate, Air Tamper, Etcetera
91 $198.05CY
Installation =x x 198.05
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

7.20 1.1003 25.00
compaction of base for footings
31 23 16 13 0013 0071 For >20 To 50, Add92 $99.03
Installation =x x 99.03
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

3.60 1.1003 25.00

3/27/2023
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail Continues..

Work Order Title:

Work Order Number: 111841.00
Compton - Community Security Services
Security Fencing
31 23 16 13 0016 Load Excess Material by Machine for Removal from Excavation for Trenching93 $2,138.98CY Installation =x x 2,138.98
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

6.48 1.1003 300.00
removal of excess dirt for footings
32 31 13 13 0076 2" Outside Diameter Galvanized Steel Post, 7' To 10' In Length94 $6,959.93LF Installation =x x 6,959.93
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

11.02 1.1003 574.00
posts for no climb fence 82 posts 7' tall
32 31 13 13 0076 0137 For Each Top Rail Fitting, Add95 $121.80EA Installation =x x 121.80
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

1.35 1.1003 82.00
32 31 13 13 0168 2" Galvanized Steel Rail, 0.09" Wall Thickness, Tie Wires And Fittings96 $5,556.57LF Installation =x x 5,556.57
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

7.71 1.1003 655.00
rails for no climb fence
32 31 13 13 0256 5' Non-Climbable Fabric Galvanized Chain Link #9 Gauge, 3/8" Mesh97 $29,750.35LF Installation =x x 29,750.35
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

41.28 1.1003 655.00
no climb fence
32 31 17 00 0018 10' High x 4' Wide SECURIFOR 4-D Panel Gates, Powder Coated Black With Posts And FastnersIncludes drilling 12" diameter hole in soil, posts set in concrete
98 $10,673.91LF
Installation =x x 10,673.91
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
9,700.91 1.1003 1.00
1 new pedestrian gate to match vehicle gates
32 31 17 00 0023 10' High x 16' Wide SECURIFOR 4-D Panel Gates, Powder Coated Black With Posts And FastnersIncludes drilling 12" diameter hole in soil, posts set in concrete
99 $122,463.43LF
Installation =x x 122,463.43
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
27,825.01 1.1003 4.00
4 new No Ram No Climb Vehicle sliding gates
32 31 19 00 0006 6' Wrought Iron Fence, Verticals At >2-1/2" To 3" On Center100 $3,717.08LF Installation =x x 0.00
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

92.87 1.1003 0.00
Demolition x x = 3,717.08 16.32 1.1003 207.00
removal of existing fence
32 31 19 00 0016 6' Single Wrought Iron Gate, Hardware And Associated Trim101 $856.86LF Installation =x x 0.00
FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total
120.46 1.1003 0.00
Demolition x x = 856.86 22.25 1.1003 35.00
removal of existing fence
$742,260.09Subtotal for Security Fencing
Proposal Total
This total represents the correct total for the proposal. Any discrepancy between line totals, sub-totals and the proposal total is due to rounding.
$1,863,265.36
The Percentage of NPP on this Proposal: %