Agenda packet — Escondido City Council, May 25, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

205
Item8.
*WTP-Water Treatment Plant / WWTP-Wastewater Treatment Plant / MFRO-Membrane Filtration Reverse Osmosis Facility 206
Item8.

STAFF REPORT

May 25, 2022
File Number 0480-70

SUBJECT

ESCONDIDO FLOOD MITIGATION AND URBAN GREENING GRANT FOR THE EAST VALLEY PARKWAY

AND MIDWAY DRAINAGE PROJECT

DEPARTMENT
Development Services

RECOMMENDATION
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-66 authorizing a grant application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (“HMGP”) and CalOES Prepare California Match program for design and construction of the Midway/East Valley Drainage project and declaring the City Engineer as the responsible representative of the City of Escondido in the grant application process.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services, Julie Procopio) Presenter: Julie Procopio, Interim Director of Developmental Services

FISCAL ANALYSIS
Included in the FY17/18, FY18/19, FY19/20, FY20/21 and FY21/22 CIP budgets, are funds to evaluate the FEMA floodplain areas along East Valley Parkway and Midway Drive. The preliminary drainage study determined that the cost of improving the seven drainage systems in this area is estimated at $34.7 - million. If the project is selected for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding, this funding could cover up to 75% of the project costs. In addition, CalOES has a program , Prepare California Match, that could cover the required 25% match. Cal OES requires that the City commit to providing matching funds for the FEMA grant, in the case that the project is not selected for the Prepare California program. The total City match is estimated $8.7-million. The preliminary CIP budget, which was presented to the City Council on May 11, 2022, identifies a funding source for these matching funds (Drainage Fees and TransNet), if needed.

BACKGROUND
The FEMA HMGP was created to provide funds to help communities reduce or mitigate future d isaster losses. The program uses a Benefit -Cost analysis tool to identify projects that provide benefits, in the form of a reduction in anticipated damages and societal impacts, that exceed the improvement costs.

In the areas along East Valley Parkway between Ash and Citrus, and Midway Drive between Bear Valley Parkway and Lincoln Avenue, over 600 homes, several commercial structures, and public roads, lie within the 100-year floodplain and are subject to regular flooding. The Escondido Creek has adequate capacity 207
Item9.

to convey the 100 -year event, as a result of a project completed in the 1970's by the US Army Corps of Engineers. However, the storm drain systems that connect to the creek lack adequate capacity. Localized flooding occurs during major storm events resulting in damage and road closures. Rain patrols are required to be deployed to protect the public and minimize losses. On average, five (5) times each year rain patrol activities require deployment of sandbags to minimize damage to structures and diversion of traffic on major roadways away from flooded areas.

High priority facilities, including six schools, the East Valley Community Center which is an evacuation center for emergencies, and a high priority gas main included in SDG&E's gas reli ability program, are within the areas inundated by the 100 -year event. Major roadways, including East Valley Parkway, Midway, Lincoln, Washington and Mission that convey between 7,800 and 20,200 average daily vehicles also lie within the inundation area an d are subject to closure during significant rain events. These roadways carry utilities essential to the operation of the City, including a 36" water main, 21" sewer main, multiple 8-15" sewer and water mains, and multiple underground electric, communication and gas lines.

A preliminary drainage study determined that installation of an improved storm drain system 4.5-miles in length would be necessary to convey the anticipated runoff. A preliminary alignment plan has been developed and is included as Attachment 1. In addition to storm drains, the project also includes tree wells at drain inlets and neighborhood tree planting.

In order to meet FEMA criteria, the project would be divided into two phases. Phase I will consist of environmental clearance, engineering design, and other pre -construction activities, estimated to cost $2,450,000. The City’s share of the matching cost for the first phase are estimated at $620,000 which is available in the project budget. After completion of the design, the cost of the project and funding options for the second phase will be discussed before applying for Phase II funding. Phase II will include construction and post construction activities, estimated to be $32,250,000.

Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 2022-66 authorizing a grant application to the FEMA HMGP and CalOES Prepare California Match program for design and construction of the Midway/East Valley Drainage project and declaring Julie Procopio, the City Engineer, as the responsible representative for the City of Escondido in the grant application process

RESOLUTIONS
a. Resolution No. 2022-66

ATTACHMENTS
a. Attachment “1”, Preliminary Alignment Plan

208
Item9.

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-66

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE CITY

ENGINEER AS THE RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE FOR

THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO IN THE GRANT PROCESS FOR

ESCONDIDO FLOOD MITIGATION AND URBAN

GREENING PROGRAM

WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) have provided funds for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (“HMGP”); and
WHEREAS, City of Escondido desires to apply to FEMA and Cal OES to receive HMGP funds and Prepare California Match program funds for the City of Escondido Flood Mitigation and Urban Greening Program (“Project”).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Escondido, California:

1. That the above recitations are true.

2. That the City Council declares the City Engineer, Julie Procopio, the responsible representative for the City of Escondido in the grant application process and delegates the authority for execution and submission of grant forms and documents to the City Engineer.

3. That the City Council approves Resolution No. 2022-66. 209
Item9.

ESCONDIDO CREEK

EAST MISSION AVENUE

EAST WASHINGTON AVENUE

NORTH MIDWAY DRIVE
HONDA
DRIVE

MONTEMAR AVENUEPITMAN STREET

BEGONIA
STREET
7'x5.75' RCB
7'x13.75' RCB
66" (5.5') RCP
6'x13.25' RCB
30" (2.5') RCP
36" (3') RCP
7'x13.5' RCB

EL NORTE

EAST LINCOLN AVENUE

IRIS WAY
LA
7'x7' RCB
7'x10' RCB

CAMELLIA STREET

PARKWAY
IMPROVEMENT LEGEND:

REACH 1 - 443 FEET OF 7'x5.75' RCB &
1,181 FEET OF 7'x13.75'' RCB
REACH 2 - 289 FEET OF 7'x13.75' RCB &
999 FEET OF 7'x7' RCB &
20 FEET OF 7'x10' RCB
REACH 4 - 2,077 FEET OF 66" (5.5') RCP STORM DRAIN
REACH 5 - 1,556 FEET OF 6'x13.25' RCB
REACH 6 - 1,053 OF 30" (2.5') RCP STORM DRAIN &
96 FEET OF 36" (3') RCP STORM DRAIN
NORTH
EXHIBIT "A"

MAYWOOD WASH
5/24/2021
REV 8/17/2021

NOT TO SCALE
* THIS EXHIBIT IS DIAGRAMMATIC AND FOR

ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSE ONLY
Resolution No. 2022-66
Exhibit "A"

Page 1 of 3 ends

210
Item9.

BEAR VALLEY PARKWAY

VALLEY PARKWAYEL NORTE PARKWAY

ESCONDIDO CREEK

NORTH CITRUS AVENUE
CAMDEN
GLENN

OAK HILL DRIVE
IMPROVEMENT LEGEND:

UPPER REACH - 1,925 FEET OF 66" (5.5') RCP STORM DRAIN
LOWER REACH - 3,159 FEET OF 108" (9.0') RCP STORM DRAIN NORTH
EXHIBIT "B"

CITRUS WASH
5/24/2021

NOT TO SCALE
* THIS EXHIBIT IS DIAGRAMMATIC AND FOR

ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSE ONLY
Resolution No. 2022-66
Exhibit "A"

Page 2 of 3 ends

Item9.

IMPROVEMENT LEGEND:

MIDWAY DRIVE
MIDDLE REACH - 884 FEET OF TWO 6.5'x5' RCB STORM DRAIN

NORTH ROSE STREET
NORTH ROSE STREET - 1,795 FEET OF TWO 8'X4.5' RCB STORM DRAIN EAST GRAND AVENUE - 602 FEET OF TWO 11'x4.5' RCB STORM DRAIN LOWER REACH - 1,140 FEET OF TWO 11.5'x6.5' RCB STORM DRAIN UPPER REACH - 3,101 FEET OF TWO 13'x3.5' RCB STORM DRAIN

EAST WASHINGTON AVENUE

NORTH ROSE STREET

EAST GRAND AVENUE

OAK HILL DRIVE

BEAR VALLEY PARKWAY

NORTH MIDWAY DRIVE

SOUTH MIDWAY DRIVE

VALLEY PARKWAY

CAMELLIA STREET

ESCONDIDO CREEK
NORTH

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT "C"

SOUTH MIDWAY WASH
7/27/2021
* THIS EXHIBIT IS DIAGRAMMATIC AND FOR

ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSE ONLY
Resolution No. 2022-66
Exhibit "A"

Page 3 of 3 ends

Item9.

STAFF REPORT

May 25, 2022
File Number 0480-70

SUBJECT

2022 LIBRARY BROADBAND GRANT - $68,709.61

DEPARTMENT

Library

RECOMMENDATION

Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-68 authorizing the Deputy City Manager/Director of Communications & Community Services to accept $68,709.61 from the CA State Library Broadband Grant and execute documents necessary to receive and spend funds.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Library Department: Joanna Axelrod)

Presenter: Dara Bradds, Library Director

FISCAL ANALYSIS

No matching funds are required so this will have no impact on the General Fund.

PREVIOUS ACTION

None.

BACKGROUND

The City of Escondido (“City”) has been part of the State Library’s High -Speed Broadband in California Libraries program since it began in 2014. Now in its seventh year of funding, grants are meant to help support the connectivity through technology hardware funding, network consulting, st aff training, and more.

The ability to provide consistent, reliable, secure high-speed broadband internet access to our community is a key tenant of the service provision of the Escondido Public Library. This purchase will provide a new firewall and network switches for the public network. The firewall purchase is to bring the Library in line with City Hall following a recent upgrade there, to ensure compatibility and interoperability of hardware and staff skills. The new firewall also provides enhanced performance and security for the public network and its patro ns. The switches are to replace current aging infrastructure that is already well beyond its 213
Item10.

intended supportability, to ensure smooth operations and continuous availability of this same library public network. These components will form the basis for a solid public network that will serve the public for years to come.

RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution No. 2022-68

ATTACHMENTS
A. Attachment “1” Budget Adjustment
214
Item10.

FM\105 (Rev.11/06)

C I T Y O F E S C O N D I D O

BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST
Date of Request: 5/16/22 For Finance Use Only
Log #
Fiscal Year ear
Department: Library
Division:

Project/Budget Manager: Joanna Axelrod 4871
Name Extension
Council Date (if applicable): 5/25/22
(attach copy of staff report)
_____ Budget Balances
_____ General Fund Accts
_____ Revenue
_____ Interfund Transfers
_____ Fund Balance
Project/Account Description Account Number Amount of Increase Amount of Decrease Grant from California State
Library
4121-401-NEW $68,709.61
High-Speed Broadband in CA
Libraries Grant
401-NEW $68,709.61
Explanation of Request:

Grant funding from California State Library to support the purchase of a few firewall and switches for the library's public broadband internet network.

APPROVALS

Department Head Date City Manager Date

Finance Date City Clerk Date
Distribution (after approval): Original: Finance
DocuSign Envelope ID: CA78FECB-C3BE-4AAA-837E-B9F2BF7F8913 5/16/2022
5/16/2022
Attachment "1"
215
Item10.

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-68

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DEPUTY

CITY MANAGER/DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS &

COMMUNITY SERVICES, TO ACCEPT, ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY, $68,709.61 FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE

LIBRARY BROADBAND GRANT AND EXECUTE

DOCUMENTS TO RECEIVE AND SPEND THESE FUNDS

WHEREAS, the California State Library initiated the High -Speed Broadband in California Libraries Project to bring high-speed broadband to all California public libraries by connecting them to the California Research and Education Network ( “CalREN”) – a high -capacity 3,800 -mile fiber -optic-based network designed to meet the unique requirements of over 20 million users; and WHEREAS, the City of Escondido (“City”) has been part of the High-Speed Broadband in California Libraries Project since it began in 2014; and
WHEREAS, the California State Library has awarded the City $68,709,61 to purchase a new firewall and network switches in order to sustain the connection to CalREN; and WHEREAS, the ability to provide consistent, reliable, secure high-speed broadband internet access to the community is a key tenant of the service provision of the Escondido Public Library.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Escondido, California:

1. That the above recitations are true.

2. That the City Council authorizes the Deputy City Manager/Director of Community Services to accept $68,709.61 from the CA State Library and execute documents to receive and spend these funds.

216
Item10.

ORDINANCE NO. 2022-08

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF

POLICE, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, TO

ENTER INTO AND SIGN SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER

AGREEMENTS

The City Council of the City of Escondido, California does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council makes the following findings:
a) Government Code Section 40602 requires that the Mayor shall sign all warrants drawn on the city treasurer, all written contracts and conveyances made or entered into by the city, and all instruments requiring the city seal, unless the legislative body has provided by ordinance that such instruments be signed by an officer other than the mayor.
b) In the interests of efficiency and in compliance with Government Code Section 40602, the City Council desires to authorize the Chief of Police to enter into and sign on behalf of the City, without the prior approval of the City Manager or City Council, all contracts for School Resource Officer services, including all accompanying documents necessary for implementation of such contracts, for a period of one year from the effective date of this ordinance.

SECTION 2: P roper notices of a public hearing have been given and public hearings have been held before the City Council on this issue.

SECTION 3. The City Council has duly reviewed and considered all evidence submitted at said hearing, including, without limitation:
a. Written information;
217
Item11.

STAFF REPORT

May 25, 2022
File Number 1050-70

SUBJECT

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

DEPARTMENT

Development Services

RECOMMENDATION

Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022 -64, approving the Local Roadway Safety Plan (“LRSP”) and authorizing the City Engineer to submit application s for Highway Safety Improvement Program (“HSIP”) grant funding.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services Department: Julie Procopio)

Presenters: Edd Alberto, Traffic Engineer and Craig Williams, Associate Engineer

FISCAL ANALYSIS

The cost of preparation of the LRSP was paid for through a $72,000 HSIP grant from Caltrans with $18,000 in matching funds from the City.

PREVIOUS ACTION

On September 23, 2020, the City Council authorized the acceptance of grant funding to prepare a LRSP.

BACKGROUND
What is a Local Roadway Safety Plan?
A Local Road Safety Plan ( “LRSP”) provides a framework for identif ication, analysis, and prioritization of roadway safety improvements on local roads. The LRSP was developed using the process outlined by Caltrans to provide a systematic approach to providing safety improvements. The plan is data driven, using a comprehensive analysis of five years of collision data for the years of 2016-2020. The collision analysis provides various citywide collision statistics, such as collisions per year; collisions involved with vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, or property; types of injury collisions; and collision causes. The process results in a list of improvements and actions that address the areas of highest need, as supported by the data. 218
Item12.

The process to identify the highest priority locations began with an analysis of the collision data to determine high -frequency crash locations. These crash locations were then monetized by applying a ‘crash cost ’ that considers the severity of each crash. The crash cost s have been determined by the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”), and represent crash statistics nationwide . These costs are shown in Table 1 below.

The number and severity of crashes at each location were calculated to determine the list of 30 Hot Spot intersections. The locations were then evaluated and appropriate countermeasures were assigned to address collision types. The 30 Hot Spot intersections are shown in Attachment 1.

Countermeasures Designed to Improve Safety
In addition to the crash -cost calculations discussed above, the FHWA has developed a series of proven improvements that have been shown to reduce the likelihood or severity for vario us types of crashes.

These countermeasures, if applied to intersections with certain types of crashes, are each assigned Crash Reduction Factors, which are used as part of the equation to determine a calculated Benefit-Cost ratio.

For intersections identified in the LRSP, the predominant types of countermeasures included:

Signalized Intersection Improvements
 Improve signal visibility for motorists
o Providing better visibility of intersection signals aids the drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming intersection. Types of signal improvements include new LED lighting, signal back plates, retro -reflective tape outlining the back plates, or visors to increase signal visibility, larger signal heads, relocation of the signal heads, or additional signal heads.

 Provide ‘Protected’ left turns
o Left turns are widely recognized as the highest -risk movements at signalized intersections. Providing protected left-turn phases (i.e., the provision for a specific phase for a turning movement that employs a “green arrow” ) for signalized intersections with Table 1: Crash Cost
Crash Severity Location Type Crash Cost
Fatal / Severe Injury
Signalized Intersection $ 1,590,000
Non-Signalized Intersection $ 2,530,000
Roadway $ 2,190,000
Other Visible Injury All $ 142,300
Complaint of Pain All $ 80,900
Property Damage Only All $ 13,300
Source: Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners, Appendix D (Version 1.5, April 2020) 219
Item12.

existing left turn pockets significantly improve s the safety for left -turn maneuvers by removing the need for the drivers to navigate through gaps in oncoming vehicles. Where left turn pocket s are not protected, the pedestrian and bicyclist crossing phase can conflict with these left turn maneuvers. Drivers focused on navigating the gaps of oncoming cars may not anticipate and/or perceive the non-motorized road users.

 Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
o A pedestrian countdown signal contains a timer display and counts down the number of seconds left for a pedestrian to finish crossing the street. Countdown signals can re-assure pedestrians who are in the crosswalk when the flashing "DON ’T WALK" interval appears that they still have time to finish crossing. These signals also have been shown to encourage more pedestrians to use the pushbutton rather than jaywalk and can encourage drivers to yield to pedestrians.

 Install pedestrian crossings
o Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Nearly one -third of all pedestrian -related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. Crashes often involve a turning veh icle, a pedestrian either running across the intersection or darting out in front of a vehicle whose view was blocked just prior to the impact, or because of a driver violation (e.g., failure to yield right-of-way).

 Implement a Leading Pedestrian Intervals
o A Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) gives pedestrians a ‘head-start’ to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. LPIs provide (1) increased visibility of crossing pedestrians; (2) reduced conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles; (3) Increased likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians; and (4) enhanced safety for pedestrians who may be slower to start into the intersection.

Non-signalized Intersection Improvements
 install signals
o Traffic signals have the potential to reduce the most severe type crashes , but will likely cause an increase in rear-end collisions. A reduction in overall injury severity is likely the largest benefit of traffic signal installation.

The collision types and characteristics of each location were assessed by the project team to determine applicable countermeasures. Locations with similar countermeasures were grouped into projects.

Funding and Implementation of Proposed Improvements
A key grant program that is designed to address traffic safety needs is the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). On May 9, 2022, Caltrans announced the next HSIP call-for-projects. Grant applications 220
Item12.

are due on September 12, 2022. The LRSP has ide ntified three projects for which staff recommends application to HSIP in this cycle, totaling $3.7 million in projects. If selected for grant funding, the HSIP will cover 85% of the cost of the project and the City would be required to provide matching funds of 15%.

The preliminary CIP budget, presented to the City Council on May 11, 2022, includes the match funding.

The HSIP uses a Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) to prioritize projects for funding. The BCR provides a score that accounts for the crash severity cost; a crash reduction factor for each countermeasure; crash frequency; and the benefit for the years of service life for the countermeasure. Projects with a higher BCR would generally be more competitive candidates for HSIP funding. Table 2 shows the projects identified in the LRSP that staff recommends application to HSIP for grant funding. These three projects include 22 of the 30 hot spot intersections. Project #2 and #3 include a countermeasure to implement left -turn phasing.

These two projects will fund eight of the ten intersections from the City’s Traffic Signal Priority List for modification to add left-turn phasing.

Table 2: LRSP Projects (HSIP Candidate Projects)
Project
#
Potential
Funding Countermeasures Project Locations
1 Cycle 11
 Improve Signal Visibility for
Motorists
 Install Pedestrian Countdown
Signals (to improve pedestrian
crossing safety)
 Implement Leading Pedestrian
Interval (to improve pedestrian
crossing safety)
 Centre City Pkwy & El Norte Pkwy (#1)
 Midway Dr & Valley Pkwy (#2)
 Centre City Pkwy & Valley Pkwy (#3)
 Centre City Pkwy & Felicita Ave (#11)
 Valley Pkwy & Quince St (#13)
 Mission Ave & Ash St (#14)
 El Norte Pkwy & Broadway (#21)
 Valley Pkwy & 9th Ave (#22)
 Mission Ave & Quince St (#23)
 Grand Ave & Juniper St (#24)
 Centre City Pkwy & Country Club Ln (#27)
 Midway Dr & Grand Ave (#30)
2 Cycle 11
 Improve Signal Visibility for
Motorists
 Provide ‘Protected’ Left Turns
 Implement Leading Pedestrian
Interval (to improve pedestrian
crossing safety)

 Washington Ave & Quince St (#4)
 Mission Ave & Fig St (#7)
 Washington Ave & Rose St (#10)
 Centre City Pkwy & 9th Ave (#12)
3 Cycle 11
 Improve Signal Visibility for
Motorists
 Provide ‘Protected’ Left Turns
 Install Pedestrian Crossings
 Quince St & 9th Ave (#5)
 Valley Pkwy & Fig St (#6)
 Mission Ave & Metcalf St (#15)
 Centre City Pkwy & Iris Ln (#17)
 Mission Ave & Rock Springs Road (#25)
 Escondido Blvd & Grand Ave (#31)

221
Item12.

The LRSP has identified two additional projects that do not appear to be good candidates for HSIP funding due to low project cost and low BCR , shown in Table 3 below. For Project 4, staff recommends funding the cost of the improvements with TransNet funds . The necessary funds for Project 4 have been recommended in the Traffic Signal Improvements project included in the preliminary CIP budget presented to City Council on May 11, 2022. For Project 5, staff is investigating other grant funding programs that we expect will be released shortly, including most notably the Safe Streets for All program.

In the interim, staff recommends design for a signal at Brotherton and Center City Parkway be completed.

While collisions have occurred at S. Escondido and Centre City, the roadway geometry and benefits to pedestrian connectivity make Brotherton a better location for a new signal.

Table 3: LRSP Projects (Non-HSIP Candidate Projects)
Project
#
Potential
Funding Countermeasures Project Locations
4 To be
budgeted
 Improve Signal Visibility for
Motorists
 Install Pedestrian Crossings
 Install Pedestrian Crossings
 El Norte Pkwy & Ash St (#8)
 El Norte Pkwy & Morning View Dr (#18)
5 To be
budgeted  Install traffic signal.  Centre City Pkwy & Escondido Blvd (Brotherton Rd) (#3)
The LRSP identifies proposed improvements for 24 of the 30 Hot Spot locations. These projects address the top 20 ranked locations in the LRSP. In addition, the LRSP recommends further study of six intersections. Further evaluation of these locations will be completed during FY22/23 to determine appropriate countermeasures.

Additional Benefits of the LRSP
In addition to providing a prioritized list of traffic safety improvements, the LRSP provides a five -year snapshot of collision trends citywide. This data can be used to focus education and enforcement activities.

The information provided in the document can assist the Police Department in targeted DUI enforcement and focused pedestrian safety education. In addition, the data can be used to inform the development of other programs such as the Traffic Management Priority List (TMPL), Traffic Signal Priority List (TSPL), and help prioritize partnerships related to Safe Routes to Schools ( SRTS), and other grant funding opportunities.

The LRSP is considered a living document . It will be updated periodically to assess h ow well the implemented strategies have performed and to update the crash data for identifying new trends that might occur throughout the City.

The LRSP was presented to the Transportation and Community Safety Commission on February 24, 2022 where it was recommended to be forwarded to City Council for approval. 222
Item12.

ATTACHMENTS
a. Attachment 1 – 30 Hot Spot Locations and Improvement Recommendations

RESOLUTIONS
a. Resolution 2022-64
b. Resolution 2022-64 - Exhibit A – Local Roadway Safety Plan

223
Item12.

Attachment 1
Intersection Total $ of Crashes Recommended Improvements 1 Centre City Pkwy & El Norte
Pkwy $8,768,300
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Install Pedestrian Countdown Signals
• Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval
2 Midway Dr & Valley Pkwy $7,012,200
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Install Pedestrian Countdown Signals
• Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval
3 Centre City Pkwy & Escondido
Blvd $5,844,900 • Install Traffic Signals
4 Quince St & Washington Ave $5,009,600
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Provide ‘Protected’ Left Turns
• Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval
5 Quince St & 9th Ave $4,795,600
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Provide ‘Protected’ Left Turns
• Install Pedestrian Crossings
6 Valley Pkwy & Fig St $4,684,200
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Provide ‘Protected’ Left Turns
• Install Pedestrian Crossings
7 Mission Ave & Fig St $4,373,900
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Provide ‘Protected’ Left Turns
• Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval
8 El Norte Pkwy & Ash St $4,228,400
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Install Pedestrian Crossings
• Install Pedestrian Crossings
9 Centre City Pkwy & Valley
Pkwy $4,076,000
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Install Pedestrian Countdown Signals
• Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval
10 Washington Ave & Rose St $3,912,300
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Provide ‘Protected’ Left Turns
• Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval
11 Centre City Pkwy & Felicita Ave $3,804,700
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Install Pedestrian Countdown Signals
• Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval
12 Centre City Pkwy & 9th Ave $3,361,200
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Provide ‘Protected’ Left Turns
• Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval
13 Valley Pkwy & Quince St $3,347,900
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Install Pedestrian Countdown Signals
• Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval

224
Item12.

Intersection Total $ of Crashes Recommended Improvements 14 Mission Ave & Ash St $3,259,900
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Install Pedestrian Countdown Signals
• Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval
15 Mission Ave & Metcalf St $3,243,700
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Provide ‘Protected’ Left Turns
• Install Pedestrian Crossings
16 Morning View Dr & Lincoln Ave $3,016,300 • For Future Evaluation 17 Centre City Pkwy & Iris Ln $2,955,800
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Provide ‘Protected’ Left Turns
• Install Pedestrian Crossings
18 Morning View Dr & El Norte
Pkwy $2,900,600
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Install Pedestrian Crossings
• Install Pedestrian Crossings
19 Juniper St & 10th Ave $2,860,700 • For Future Evaluation 20 Grand Ave & Gayland St $2,847,400 • For Future Evaluation 21 Broadway & El Norte Pkwy $2,823,800
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Install Pedestrian Countdown Signals
• Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval
22 Valley Pkwy & 9th Ave $2,813,500
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Install Pedestrian Countdown Signals
• Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval
23 Mission Ave & Quince St $2,805,300
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Install Pedestrian Countdown Signals
• Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval
24 Juniper St & Grand Ave $2,671,200
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Install Pedestrian Countdown Signals
• Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval
25 Mission Ave & Rock Springs
Road $2,654,900
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Provide ‘Protected’ Left Turns
• Install Pedestrian Crossings
26 El Norte Pkwy & Ivy St $2,624,200 • For Future Evaluation 27 Centre City Pkwy & Country
Club Ln $2,596,500
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Install Pedestrian Countdown Signals
• Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval

2 of 3
225
Item12.

Intersection Total $ of Crashes Recommended Improvements 28 Lincoln Ave & Harding St (East) $2,561,700 • For Future Evaluation 29 Juniper St & 11th Ave (North) $2,543,300 • For Future Evaluation 30 Midway Dr & Grand Ave $2,378,400
• Improve Signal Visibility for Motorists
• Install Pedestrian Countdown Signals
• Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval

226
Item12.

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-64

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE LOCAL

ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE

SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANT FUNDING

WHEREAS, as part of a national effort to improve highway safety, the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) developed the Highway Safety Improvement Program (“HSIP”); and WHEREAS, the Caltrans Division of Local Assistance (DLA) announced a Local Roadway Safety Plan (“LRSP”) Call-for-Projects on October 8, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the City was awarded funds to complete a LRSP on December 3, 2019; and WHEREAS, the City has completed the preparation of the LRSP and identified projects eligible for HSIP grant funding; and
WHEREAS, DLA announced HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-Projects on May 9, 2022 , with grant funding applications due September 12, 2022. The HSIP program requires that the City provide matching funds in the amount of 15% of the project cost. The DLA requires an approved LRSP to be eligible for HSIP Cycle 11 grant funding and subsequent funding cycles.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Escondido, California:

1. That the above recitations are true.

2. That the City Council approves the Local Roadway Safety Plan which is attached and incorporated to this Resolution as Exhibit “A.”
227
Item12.

3. That the City Council appoints the City Engineer, or her designee, as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents to the Caltrans Division of Local Assistance including, but not limited to applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for th e completion of the aforementioned Projects identified in the LRSP, as well as conduct requisite City financial management.

228
Item12.

JN 182244 JN 182244 JN 182244 JN 182244
City of Escondido Local
Roadway Safety Plan
FINAL

Prepared for:

City of Escondido

Prepared by:

Michael Baker International

May 2022

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 1 of 70 ends

229
Item12.

JN 182244 JN 182244 JN 182244 JN 182244

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 2 of 70 ends

230
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Page i
Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 5

2. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6

3. Vision & Goals .................................................................................................................................. 7

3.1. Vision ................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2. Goals .................................................................................................................................... 7

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

4.1. First Stakeholder Meeting ................................................................................................... 9

4.2. Second Stakeholder Meeting .............................................................................................. 9

4.3. Transportation and Community Safety Commission Review ........................................... 10

5. Process ........................................................................................................................................... 11

6. City Policies and Transportation Projects ...................................................................................... 12

6.1. City of Escondido General Plan ......................................................................................... 12

6.2. City of Escondido Bicycle Master Plan .............................................................................. 12

6.3. Previous HSIP & ATP Funded Projects............................................................................... 13

6.4. Traffic Management Project List ....................................................................................... 14

6.5. Traffic Engineering Hotline ............................................................................................... 14

6.6. Current Transportation Projects ....................................................................................... 15

7. Crash Data Summary ...................................................................................................................... 16

7.1. General Findings ............................................................................................................... 16

7.1.1. Crashes by Year .................................................................................................... 16

7.1.2. Crash Type Summary ........................................................................................... 20

7.1.3. Cause of Crash Summary ..................................................................................... 22

7.2. Detailed Crash Analysis ..................................................................................................... 24

7.2.1. Crashes by Type ................................................................................................... 24

7.2.2. Crashes by Cause.................................................................................................. 30

7.3. Crash Severity .................................................................................................................... 39

7.3.1. Crash Fatalities ..................................................................................................... 40

7.4. Time of Day Analysis ......................................................................................................... 42

7.5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes ......................................................................................... 43

7.5.1. Pedestrian Involved Crashes ................................................................................ 44

7.5.2. Bicycle Involved Crashes ...................................................................................... 46

7.6. Hot Spot Locations - Intersections .................................................................................... 48

7.7. Hot Spot Locations - Corridors .......................................................................................... 55 Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 3 of 70 ends

231
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Page ii

7.8. Roadway Segment Crash Rate Analysis ............................................................................ 56

8. Emphasis Areas & Countermeasures ............................................................................................. 58

8.1. Emphasis Areas ................................................................................................................. 58

8.2. Countermeasures .............................................................................................................. 58

9. Evaluation & Implementation ........................................................................................................ 66

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 4 of 70 ends

232
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Page iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Citywide Intersection Crash Map ................................................................................................. 18 Figure 2: Citywide Mid-Block Crash Map ................................................................................................... 19 Figure 3: Crash Types ................................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 4: Crash Causes .............................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 5: Broadside Crash Location Map ................................................................................................. 25 Figure 6: Rear-End Crash Location Map................................................................................................... 27 Figure 7: Sideswipe Crash Location Map ................................................................................................. 29 Figure 8: Unsafe Speed Crash Location Map ........................................................................................... 31 Figure 9: Auto Right-of-Way Violation Crash Location Map .................................................................. 33 Figure 10: DUI Crash Location Map ............................................................................................................. 35 Figure 11: Pedestrian Involved Crash Location Map ................................................................................... 37 Figure 12: Bicycle Involved Crash Location Map ..................................................................................... 38 Figure 13: Crash Severity (All Crashes) .................................................................................................... 39 Figure 14: Fatal Crashes by Mode ............................................................................................................ 41 Figure 15: All Crashes by Time of Day ...................................................................................................... 42 Figure 16: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Time of Day .................................................................... 42 Figure 17: Crash Severity of Pedestrian-Involved Crashes ..................................................................... 44 Figure 18: Crash Severity of Bicycle-Involved Crashes ........................................................................... 46

List of Tables
Table 1: List of Stakeholders & Involvement ................................................................................................ 8 Table 2: Recent Traffic Safety Improvements ............................................................................................. 13 Table 3: List of Current City Transportation Projects .................................................................................. 15 Table 4: Reported Number of Crashes by Year and Injury Type ................................................................. 17 Table 5: Top 10 Intersection Crash Locations (2016-2020)......................................................................... 20 Table 6: Top 10 Mid-Block Crash Locations (2016 – 2020) ......................................................................... 20 Table 7: Crash Types by Year ....................................................................................................................... 21 Table 8: Cause of Crashes by Year ............................................................................................................... 22 Table 9: Most Frequent Broadside Crash Locations ................................................................................... 24 Table 10: Most Frequent Rear-End Crash Locations ................................................................................... 26 Table 11: Most Frequent Sideswipe Crash Locations ................................................................................. 28 Table 12: Most Frequent Unsafe Speed Crash Corridor Locations ............................................................. 30 Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 5 of 70 ends

233
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Page iv
Table 13: Most Frequent Auto Right-of-Way Violation Crash Locations .................................................... 32 Table 14: Most Common Locations for DUI Crashes .................................................................................. 34 Table 15: Most Frequent Crash Causes by Mode ....................................................................................... 36 Table 16: Crash Injury Types by Year .......................................................................................................... 39 Table 17: Motor Vehicle Involved With (Year 2016 to 2020) ..................................................................... 40 Table 18: Most Frequent Crash Causes by Mode (3 PM to 6 PM) .............................................................. 43 Table 19: Most Common Pedestrian and Bicycle Involved Crash Locations ............................................... 43 Table 20: Pedestrian Actions ....................................................................................................................... 45 Table 21: Causes of Pedestrian-Involved Crashes ....................................................................................... 45 Table 22: Pedestrian -Involved Crashes by Age Group ............................................................................... 45 Table 23: Pedestrian-Involved Crashes by Speed Limit and Severity ......................................................... 46 Table 24: Bicycle-Involved Crash Cause ................................................................................................... 47 Table 25: Bicyclist -Involved Crashes by Age Group.................................................................................... 47 Table 26: Bicyclist-Involved Crashes by Speed Limit and Severity .............................................................. 48 Table 27: Crash Costs .................................................................................................................................. 48 Table 28: Intersection Hot Spots ................................................................................................................. 49 Table 29: Intersection Hot Spots (without Caltrans) ................................................................................... 51 Table 30: Intersection Hot Spots (without Caltrans and recent/future improvements) ............................ 53 Table 31: Mid-Block Segment Hot Spots (with Caltrans) ............................................................................ 55 Table 32: Mid-Block Segment Hot Spots (no Caltrans) ............................................................................... 55 Table 33: Roadway Segment Crash Rate Analysis ....................................................................................... 57 Table 34: LRSP Emphasis Areas ................................................................................................................... 59 Table 35: Top Intersection Hot Spots & Associated Projects ...................................................................... 65 Table 36: LRSP Implementation Plan ....................................................................................................... 67

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 6 of 70 ends

234
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 5 ends

1. Executive Summary

The City of Escondido (City) has prepared a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) in accordance with CALTRANS LRSP Guidelines to identify, analyze and prioritize roadway safety improvements on the local streets within the City.

This LRSP identifies the top systemic crash patterns and top crash locations throughout the City, based on crash data collected from January 2016 through December 2020. The LRSP also provides the City a toolbox of countermeasures to address the systemic crash patterns and reduce crashes at the City’s top crash locations. In this LRSP, a total of ten (10) projects have been identified for HSIP grant funding. The combination of countermeasures that were selected for each project and location was selected to provide the most competitive applications for HSIP grant funding. Applications to receive HSIP funding for projects identified in this LRSP will need to be submitted in April 2022.

The purpose of this LRSP is to:
 Analyze crash data over a five-year period (January 2016 to December 2020);  Identify the top crash patterns and locations throughout the City;  Recommended safety countermeasures at intersections and roadway segments;  Provide cost estimates of recommended improvements;
 Prioritize projects based on cost-benefit ratios and effectiveness of safety improvements; and  Develop strategies for safety project implementation.

Goals associated with this LRSP include:
 Reduce the number of fatalities and severity of crashes throughout the City;  Reduce excessive speeding behavior contributing to crashes;  Implement proven safety solutions to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes;  Re-evaluate crash trends and associated countermeasures periodically to determine the effectiveness of the improvements.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 7 of 70 ends

235
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 6 ends

2. Introduction

The City prepared this LRSP to identify, analyze and prioritize roadway safety improvements on the local streets throughout the City. This LRSP identifies the top systemic crash patterns and top crash locations throughout the City, based on crash data collected from January 2016 through December 2020. The LRSP also provides the City a toolbox of countermeasures to address the systemic crash patterns and reduce crashes at the City’s top crash locations. The City is committed to improving transportation safety to reduce the risk of death and serious injury that results from incidents on the transportation system. As part of an ongoing effort to improve safety, this LRSP was developed in collaboration with City staff, partner agencies, and organizations.

In 2016, California established the Systematic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) in response to a growing need to address transportation safety at a citywide level. The objective of the SSAR program was to identify low- cost, systemic countermeasures that could be incorporated into an overall master plan of improvements that could be funded through local and grant funding, specifically the Highway Safety Improvement (HSIP) grant program. In 2020, the SSARP process was amended and renamed LRSP. Under this program, LRSP’s are required for HSIP grant funding applications in Year 2022. The City of Escondido received a grant from the state of California to prepare a LRSP. This LRSP report was prepared in compliance with the State and Federal guidelines for eligibility to apply for HSIP funding and provides the necessary data to support current and future applications for the recommended projects identified in this LRSP.

The City strives to improve safety measures on the roadway network per the City’s General Plan Street Network Policy 7.4 “Provide adequate traffic safety measures on all new roadways and stripe to provide adequate traffic safety measures on existing roadways (subject to fiscal and environmental considerations). These measures may include, but are not limited to, appropriate levels of maintenance, proper street design, traffic control devices (signs, signals, striping), street lighting, and coordination with the school districts and other agencies.”

Source: Escondido Business Insight
Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 8 of 70 ends

236
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 7 ends

3. Vision & Goals

3.1. Vision
The vision of this LRSP is to advance road safety throughout the City by reducing fatal and serious injuries while improving the lives of all roadway users. The goal is to reduce traffic deaths and severe injuries through a proactive, preventative approach that prioritizes traffic safety.

3.2. Goals
The vision stated above to “Advance road safety throughout the City by reducing fatal and serious injuries while improving the lives of all roadway users” begins with setting clear and achievable goals, which include:

Goal #1: Reduce the number of fatal crashes to 50% by Year 2050.

Goal #2: Reduce excessive speeding behavior leading to the City’s primary contributing factor in traffic crashes.

Goal #3: Implement proven safety solutions systemically to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes.

Goal #4: Re-evaluate crash trends and associated countermeasures in the LRSP a minimum of every 5 years and engage with the community, stakeholders and City management.

VISION STATEMENT:

To advance road safety throughout
the City by reducing fatal and
serious injuries while improving the
lives of all roadway users.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 9 of 70 ends

237
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 8 ends

4. Safety Partners

Safety partners, also referred to as Stakeholders, are those departments, agencies, and organizations whose input and support are foundational to a successful LRSP. Stakeholders involved in this LRSP included decision makers and partners who can help plan, implement, evaluate and encourage the progress of achieving the safety goals outlined in this LRSP. As shown in Table 1, the following Stakeholders were engaged and participated in the development of the countermeasures and safety projects for this LRSP:

Table 1: List of Stakeholders & Involvement
Stakeholder Involvement / Role
Police Department
Provided valuable input on the crash trends and helped identify emphasis areas that could reduce the need for enforcement and improve safety.

Fire Department Participated in the Stakeholder meetings and provided feedback on the crash data.

Engineering Department Assisted in the review of the crash analysis, helped identify countermeasures, and prioritized study locations for HSIP funding.

City Attorney Participated in the Stakeholder meetings and reviewed the crash data and countermeasures evaluated in the LRSP.

Recreation Department Provided feedback on the crash data and countermeasures related to pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns near local parks.

Information Systems (GIS) Department Coordinated on the GIS database information needed to create the crash maps used in the LRSP.

Escondido Union High School District Participated in the Stakeholder meetings providing input on the transportation safety issues at specific locations near high schools.

Escondido Union School District Participated in the Stakeholder meetings providing input on the transportation safety issues at locations near elementary schools.

North County Transit District (NCTD) Helped identify pedestrian safety concerns near transit stops and along bus routes.

Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Helped identify pedestrian safety concerns near transit stops and along bus routes.

CALTRANS – District 11 Responsible for providing funding for the LRSP effort and reviewing the LRSP Report and HSIP Grant Applications.

Escondido Education COMPACT Participated in the Stakeholder meetings and provided feedback on the crash data and helped identify appropriate countermeasures.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 10 of 70 ends

238
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 9 ends

4.1. First Stakeholder Meeting
On Tuesday, August 31, 2021, the first stakeholder meeting was conducted for the LRSP. The purpose of the stakeholder meeting was to confirm the crash data findings, discuss hot spot locations, and obtain input from the participants on their experiences and knowledge of the area in terms of traffic safety concerns.

Representatives from the following City Departments and organizations participated in the stakeholder meeting:
 City of Escondido – Engineering Department
 City of Escondido – Police/Traffic Division
 City of Escondido – City Attorney
 City of Escondido – Recreation Department
 City of Escondido – Information Division (GIS)
 Escondido Union High School District (EUHSD)

 Escondido Union School District (Elementary)
 North County Transit District (NCTD)
 Caltrans – District 11
 Escondido Education COMPACT
 Michael Baker International (consultant)

At the stakeholder meeting, an overview of the LRSP process and goals was presented. Findings of the crash analysis were then presented and discussed. Intersection and mid-block roadway segment hot spot locations were identified based on the highest number of crashes and potential costs associated with each crash type and location.

Participants were encouraged to provide input on the crash data and hot spot locations presented. Examples of this input include: The Escondido Police Department provided input on how the pedestrian and bicycle- involved crashes are reported. For example, if school-aged children are riding scooters or skateboards and crash into a vehicle, it’s reported by the officer as a pedestrian-involved crash. The Police Department mentioned that Washington Avenue from Broadway to Ash Street is a corridor where a high volume of incidents have been reported. The School District commented that motorists use the center two-way-left-turn lane (TWLTL) on Mission Avenue to bypass vehicles blocking the travel lane while waiting to pick-up or drop-off their children at Mission Middle School. It was also stated that Mission Middle School, Pioneer Elementary School, Juniper Elementary School and LR Green Elementary School experience pedestrian crossing hazards, speeding, illegal turning movements, and aggressive driving near these schools and along the school frontage. These concerns were reviewed and appropriate countermeasures were applied to the extent feasible to address these safety concerns.

4.2. Second Stakeholder Meeting
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021, the second stakeholder meeting was conducted for the LRSP. The purpose of the second stakeholder meeting was to present the proposed countermeasures for the top 35 intersections and 10 segments that have the highest volume of crashes reported and gain feedback from the safety partners.

 City of Escondido – Fire Department
 Escondido Union School District (Elementary)
 North County Transit District (NCTD)
 Escondido Education COMPACT
 Michael Baker International

The School District and Escondido Education COMPACT provided feedback on the countermeasures that related to pedestrian safety, such as the refuge islands, marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections, and the installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs). Pedestrian and bicycle-related countermeasures Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 11 of 70 ends

239
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 10 ends

were recommended at locations near schools, parks and locations where pedestrian-involved crashes have occurred.

4.3. Transportation and Community Safety Commission Review The Transportation and Community Safety Commission (TCSC) is an advisory body to the City Council, the Director of Engineering Services, the Traffic Engineer and the Police Traffic Division. The TCSC reviews traffic matters and provides recommendations related to pedestrian safety, roadway improvements, enforcement of traffic regulations, and student safety round school site. The TCSC reviewed the crash data reported in the LRSP on November 7, 2021. The Final LRSP will be presented to TCSC in February 2022 for review and approval.

Projects have been prioritized for funding through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) managed by Caltrans. Applications to receive HSIP funding for projects identified in this LRSP will need to be submitted in April 2022.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 12 of 70 ends

240
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 11 ends

5. Process

An LRSP provides a framework for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements on local roads. The LRSP development process follows a well-defined process laid out by Caltrans in the Local Roads Safety Manual, but the content is tailored to the issues and needs on the roadway network within the City of Escondido. The process results in a prioritized list of issues, risks, actions, and proven countermeasures that can be used to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on local roads. The development of this LRSP involved the following process:

STEP #1 – IDENTIFY STAKEHOLDERS
Identified Stakeholders to provide input and feedback on the safety plan.

STEP #2 – ANALYZE CRASH DATA
Obtained crash data from Crossroads and evaluated to most common crash types and causes in the City. The top 35 intersections and top 10 roadway segments were identified and then ranked by crash cost.

STEP #3 – IDENTIFY COUNTERMEASURES
Based on the crash trends and data for each of the top crash locations, appropriate countermeasures were selected to address safety concerns.

STEP #4 – IMPLEMENT SOLUTIONS
Submit for HSIP and other grant program funding. Once funding is secured, construct and monitor crash history with improvements. Regularly monitor Implementation Plan and update LRSP every 5 years.

Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 13 of 70 ends

241
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 12 ends

6. City Policies and Transportation Projects

Prior to the development of this LRSP, the City addressed transportation safety through a number of previous and existing plans, projects and programs that are discussed in this section.

6.1. City of Escondido General Plan
The City’s General Plan was adopted May 23, 2012 and presents strategies to address existing and future roadway and transportation safety conditions in the City to promote growth and improve the quality of life in Escondido. Its Mobility and Infrastructure Element (Chapter III) includes policies and recommendations related to transportation safety. The following goals and policies currently promote transportation safety throughout the City:

Regional Transportation Planning Goal #1 – Provide an accessible, safe, convenient, and integrated multi-modal network that connects all users and moves goods and people within the community and region efficiently.

Complete Streets Policy 2.1 – Ensure that the existing and future transportation system is inter-connected and serves multiple modes of travel, such as walking, biking, transit, and driving for safe and convenient travel.

Complete Streets Policy 2.2 – Provide a safe, efficient and accessible transportation network that meets the needs of users of all ages including seniors, children, disabled persons, and adults.

Pedestrian Network Policy 3.3 – Maintain a pedestrian environment that is accessible to all and that is safe, attractive, and encourages walking.

Pedestrian Network Policy 3.8 – Repair sidewalk and pedestrian paths in the public-right-of-way that impede pedestrian travel and maintain the pedestrian network in a manner that facilitates accessibility and safety.

Pedestrian Network Policy 3.9 – Support “safe routes to schools” programming and partner with schools, non- profit organizations, and transit agencies with the goal of encouraging more children to walk and bike to school in a safe environment.

Bicycle Network Policy 4.1 – Maintain and implement a Bicycle Master Plan that enhances existing bicycle routes and facilities; defines gaps and needed improvements; prescribes an appropriate Level of Service; outlines standards for their design and safety; describes funding resources; and involves the community.

Street Network Policy 7.4 – Provide adequate traffic safety measures on all new roadways and strive to provide adequate traffic safety measures on existing roadways (subject to fiscal and environmental considerations).

These measures may include, but not be limited to, appropriate levels of maintenance, proper street design, traffic control devices (signs, signals, striping), street lighting, and coordination with the school districts and other agencies.

Traffic Calming Policy 9.1 – Reduce congestion in areas surrounding schools, parks, and other activity centers by applying effective traffic management solutions.

6.2. City of Escondido Bicycle Master Plan
The City’s 2012 Bicycle Master Plan developed a plan for an interconnected network of on- and off-street bicycle facilities that serve all of Escondido’s neighborhoods, and provides connections to transit centers, shopping districts, parks and other local amenities. The goal of the plan is to maximize the efficiencies offered by multi- modal connections between mass transit and bikeways, and to promote a viable alternative to automobile travel in a climate particularly conducive to bicycle transportation. The Bicycle Master Plan should be updated Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 14 of 70 ends

242
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 13 ends

periodically in efforts to obtain future funding for non-motorized projects and support active transportation throughout the City. The three key objectives of the Bicycle Master Plan include:
1) to evaluate the existing bicycle network in the City and identify gaps, deficiencies and bicyclists needs; 2) to establish goals, objectives and policies that are consistent with and expand upon the City’s General Plan’s Mobility and Infrastructure Element; and
3) to develop a feasible bikeway plan with proposed projects that will provide safe, efficient and convenient bicycle travel in Escondido and to provide connection to regional destinations.

6.3. Previous HSIP & ATP Funded Projects
The City successfully applied for and received HSIP grant funding for safety improvements from Cycles 5, 6 and

9. In addition, the City successfully applied for and received grant funding through the Active Transportation Program (ATP). A list of HSIP and ATP funded projects that have recently been completed or are currently in design are listed in Table 2.

Table 2: Recent Traffic Safety Improvements
Project Location Year Project Description Status
East Valley Pkwy – Beven Dr to Northern
City Limits
HSIP
Cycle 5
2014
Install sidewalk/pathway; add lighting; and
improve signal hardware Completed
El Norte Pkwy / Fig St
HSIP
Cycle 6
2013
Install new traffic signal Completed
Valley Pkwy / Date St
HSIP
Cycle 6
2013
Install new traffic signal Completed
Bear Valley Pkwy / Mary Lane HSIP Cycle 7
2015
Signal modification to provide protected left-
turn phasing In Design
Felicita Ave / Juniper St and Felicita Ave /
Escondido Blvd
HSIP 8
2016
Signal modification to provide protected left-
turn phasing In Design
Juniper St Safe Routes To School ATP
2017
Widen Juniper St from Felicita Ave to
Nutmeg, add missing sidewalk, add bike lanes
etc.

In Design
Quince/Tulip Creek Crossings ATP
2017
Install new traffic signal at Tulip, Convert
RRFB into signal at Quince St In Construction
Creek Trail Crossings ATP
2016
Improvements to 7 St crossings from Juniper
St to Citrus Ave In Construction
Missing Link Bikeway ATP
2014
Bikeway / Cycle-track along Valley Pkwy from
Quince St to Broadway/Woodward Complete
Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 15 of 70 ends

243
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 14 ends

Project Location Year Project Description Status
Transit Center Pedestrian Bridge 2016 Widen bridge and extend sidewalk west from Transit Center Complete
El Norte Pedestrian Signal ATP
2015
Escondido Creek Trail crossing of East El
Norte Pkwy Complete
Traffic Signal Communication Upgrades
HSIP
Cycle 9
2020
Install traffic signal interconnect system to
allow for improved safety operations and
optimized signal coordination.

In Design

6.4. Traffic Management Project List
Transportation and Community Safety Commission (TCSC) approved a policy to evaluate and prioritize proposed projects using a Traffic Management Project List (TMPL) on January 9, 2014. As stated in the policy, a list of projects needs to be evaluated by staff and presented to TCSC for consideration each year. The TCSC provides direction to staff as to which projects should be selected for further evaluation and design. A scoring system has been developed to evaluate and prioritize projects. Project are assigned points based on the road condition, road usage, anticipated effectiveness of the solution, and problem severity. Projects with the higher total accumulated points have a higher priority on the TMPL. The 2021/2022 TMPL includes six (6) different projects citywide including:

1.) Mission Middle School Mid-Block Crosswalk Improvements – Score of 19 Points

2.) Crosswalk Improvements at Oak Hill Elementary School Frontage – Score of 18 Points

3.) North Broadway Elementary School Improvements – Score of 18 Points

4.) Crosswalk Improvements at Hidden Valley Middle School Frontage – Score of 17 Points

5.) Felicita Road Mid-Block Crosswalk Improvements – Score of 15 Points

6.) Crosswalk Improvements at Tulip Street and 15 th Avenue (Felicita Elementary School) – Score of 14 Points
The top four (4) priority projects with the highest scores were recommended by City staff and approved by TCSC on April 8, 2021 for further assessment and detailed design considering an estimated $50,000 budget.

6.5. Traffic Engineering Hotline
Residents can contact the City with any traffic related questions or concerns through the City’s website, via email, via phone, or in-person at City Hall. The preferred option is for the public to use the Report It! App to report an issue. Each request is reviewed, evaluated and a response will be provided to everyone. If improvements or action is required, staff will prepare a work order or forward the request to other departments (such as public works or code enforcement or Police Department) for action. Critical actions will be prioritized.

Several funding sources will be considered based on the types of actions required for location. For example, request may lead to location being evaluated and placed on signal priority list, or TMPL. Actions may include red-curbing or striping changes or additional signage.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 16 of 70 ends

244
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 15 ends

6.6. Current Transportation Projects
In addition to the previous traffic-safety related projects listed in the previous section, the City is currently moving forward with other transportation improvement projects to improve safety, refer to Table 3.

Table 3: List of Current City Transportation Projects
Project Location Funding Project Description Status
Bear Valley Pkwy / Mary Lane HSIP Signal modification to provide protected left- turn phasing in east-west approach. In Design
Juniper St / Felicita Ave HSIP Signal modification to provide protected left- turn phasing at all approaches. In Design
Escondido Blvd / Felicita Ave HSIP Signal modification to provide protected left- turn phasing in north-south approaches. In Design
El Norte Pkwy / Nutmeg St Developer Signal modification Under Construction
Country Club Lane / Gary Lane Developer Install new traffic signal Under Construction
Country Club Lane / Nutmeg St Developer Install new traffic signal Under Construction
Country Club Lane / Golden Circle Dr Developer Install new one-lane roundabout Under Construction
Escondido Creek Trail (between Juniper St
and Citrus Ave) ATP
Install six (6) Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFB) and one (1) pedestrian signal
along the trail.

Under
Construction
Country Club Lane / Firestone Dr Developer Install one (1) new RRFB In Design Rock Springs Road / Lincoln Ave Developer Install new traffic signal In Design Rock Springs Road / Mission Ave Developer Signal Modification In Design Escondido Creek Crossing at Quince St & Tulip
St ATP Install Pedestrian Signals Under
Construction
Felicita Ave / Park Dr Developer Install Roundabout In Design Barham Dr at Meyers Ave Developer Install new traffic signal In Design Grand Ave Streetscape Improvements City of
Escondido
Street narrowing, streetscape
improvements, and traffic circles
Under
Construction
Palomar Heights Mixed-Use Development Developer
Install new traffic signal at Valley Pkwy / Ivy
St and modify 3 existing signals at Valley
Pkwy / Valley Blvd, Valley Pkwy / Grand Ave,
and Grand Ave / Fig St.

In Design

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 17 of 70 ends

245
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 16 ends

7. Crash Data Summary

The initial step in the development of the LRSP was to conduct crash data research and database development.

Crash data was provided by the City for a five-year period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020. Data from both the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and the City’s local Crossroads database was vetted, but the Crossroad data was determined to be more complete, with no date gaps or issues with geo- locations. During this 5-year period, a total of 4,332 crashes were reported along local roadways and along the state-owned Highway 78 surface streets, which includes Broadway from Lincoln Avenue to Washington Avenue, Washington Avenue from Broadway to Ash Street, Ash Street from Washington Avenue to Grand Avenue, San Pasqual Valley Road between Grand Avenue and City Limits south of Oak Hill Drive. Roughly 6% (or 266) of citywide crashes occurred along the Highway 78 route through the City.

The crash analysis focused on crashes that occur on public roadways and intersections within the City’s right-of- way. Crashes not considered in this analysis were those that occur on non-public rights-of-way, such as private roads or private drives, within parking lots or parking garages, or within shopping centers. Crashes that are recorded as property damage may include, but are not limited to, damage to telephone poles, fences, street signs, signal poles or equipment, guard posts, trees, livestock, dogs, etc.

Interstate 15 is a major north-south state highway that cuts through the City of Escondido. Crashes recorded on Interstate 15 were not included or evaluated in this report since the HSIP funding is designated to “local” roadways rather than major state highways. Highway 78 is a major east-west state highway that traverses through the City of Escondido. Crashes on Highway 78 that traverses through the City Limits were included in the overall volume of crashes reported in this document, and in various sets of analyses. However, the Caltrans intersections and roadway segments along the Highway 78 route were not included in the final list of top 30 intersections and top 10 segments since HSIP funding will not be pursued for Caltrans’ locations.

7.1. General Findings

7.1.1. Crashes by Year
The number of fatal crashes, injury crashes, property damage only crashes, total fatalities, and total injuries for the five-year analysis period are highlighted in Table 4, including the averages over the analysis period.

As shown, there was a clear reduction in reported crashes during the year 2020. This decline in reported crashes is likely a direct result of the novel coronavirus state-mandated stay-at-home orders beginning March 2020 and continuing through June 2021, and the reduction of overall travel that subsequently occurred. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) reported a 44% reduction of vehicle-miles-traveled on freeways, a 41% reduction of daily traffic volumes on local roadways, and traffic speed increase of 30 MPH during peak periods, between mid-March and mid-April 2020, compared to 2019. As of May 2021, countywide traffic continues to be 10% below pre-pandemic levels.1

1 https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/how-the-pandemic-changed-san-diego-traffic/2641180/ Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 18 of 70 ends

246
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 17 ends

Table 4: Reported Number of Crashes by Year and Injury Type Category
Year
Total Average Per
Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Fatal Crashes 8 8 4 7 6 33 7
Severe Injury Crashes 21 13 18 21 22 95 19
Other Visible Injury
Crashes 237 251 244 270 196 1,198 240
Complaint of Pain
Crashes 376 419 423 344 316 1,878 376
Property Damage Only
Crashes 192 212 217 257 250 1,128 226
Total Crashes 838 903 906 899 790 4,332 867
Total Fatalities 9 9 5 8 9 40 8
Total Injuries 968 1,012 964 948 792 4,684 937

Figure 1 illustrates an overall view of the concentration of crashes during the five-year time period at intersections. All crashes were mapped using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) based on the Crossroads database. Intersection crashes identified in this report include crashes that occurred at the intersection and crashes that occurred within 125 feet of that intersection. For purposes of this crash analysis, we assumed that crashes occurring within 125 feet of the intersection are most likely related to vehicles stopped at the intersection waiting for the signal to turn green or making a turn movement.

Figure 2 illustrates an overall view of the mid-block crashes throughout the City during the five-year time period.

Crashes that occurred mid-block (outside of the 125-foot radius of an intersection) were mapped within the limits of a roadway segment.

The top 10 intersections with the highest concentration of crashes are presented in Table 5 and the top 10 roadway segments with the highest concentration of mid-block crashes are listed in Table 6.

According to the 2018 data from Caltrans, the City ranked 8th highest for alcohol involved crashes, 9th highest for fatal and injury crashes, 12th highest for pedestrian involved crashes, and 15th highest for speed related crashes when compared to 59 similar sized cities within California. The City is ranked 5 th out of 59 similar cities for DUI arrests. Total traffic citations issued within the City decreased from 7,415 in 2019 to 4,175 in 2020. This decrease is primarily due to the Coronavirus Pandemic where less drivers were on the road. The lower volume of traffic citations seems to correlate to the lower volume of crashes as there is a decrease in total crashes in 2020 (790 crashes) compared to 2019 (899 crashes).

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 19 of 70 ends

247
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 18 ends

Figure 1: Citywide Intersection Crash Map

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 20 of 70 ends

248
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 19 ends

Figure 2: Citywide Mid-Block Crash Map

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 21 of 70 ends

249
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 20 ends

Table 5: Top 10 Intersection Crash Locations (2016-2020)

Intersection
Total Number
of Crashes
1 Centre City Pkwy & El Norte Pkwy 49
2 Washington Ave & Quince St 40
3 Washington Ave & Rose St 38
4 Valley Pkwy & Fig St 35
5 Centre City Pkwy & Valley Pkwy 31
6 Washington Ave & Ash St* 30
7 Lincoln Ave & Ash St 29
8 Valley Pkwy & Ash St 29
9 Mission Ave & Fig St 28
10 Broadway & Mission Ave* 28
*Caltrans facility.

Table 6: Top 10 Mid-Block Crash Locations (2016 – 2020)

Mid-Block Segments
Total Number of
Crashes
1 Morning View Dr El Norte Pkwy To Lincoln Ave 29
2 Valley Pkwy Rose St to Midway Dr 29
3 Ash St* Washington Ave To Valley Pkwy* 21
4 Valley Pkwy Midway Dr to Quarry Glen Lane 19
5 Valley Center Road Lake Wohlford Road To Northern City Limits 13 6 Broadway Crest St To Mission Ave 12
7 El Norte Pkwy Morning View Dr To Las Villas Way 12
8 Valley Pkwy Harding St To Rose St 11
9 Mission Ave Metcalf St To Rock Springs Road 10
10 Washington Ave Escondido Blvd To Broadway 10
*Caltrans facility.

7.1.2. Crash Type Summary
Table 7 includes a summary of the types of crashes that occurred during the analysis period. The three most common types of crashes were Broadside (34%), Rear-End (27%), and Sideswipe (11%), which combined comprise 72% of the total crashes, as shown in Figure 3. A description of each of these crash types is provided below:

1. Broadside – crashes that occur when the front of one vehicle strikes the side of another vehicle. These are also called T-bone or side impact crashes. These are typically caused by one driver’s negligence, which may include running a red light and failing to yield right-of-way.

2. Rear-End – crashes that occur when a vehicle is struck from behind by the front of another vehicle. These types of crashes generally occur due to distracted, aggressive, drunk driving or driver fatigue.

3. Sideswipe – crashes that occur when the side of one vehicle makes contact with the side of another vehicle, either traveling in the same or opposite direction. The vehicles can be either traveling in the same direction or going in opposite directions and are often times called “blind spot accidents”. These typically occur when one vehicle drifts into the adjacent travel lane due to factors such as blind spots, distracted driving, fatigued drivers, road rage and failure to yield right-of-way.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 22 of 70 ends

250
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 21 ends

Table 7: Crash Types by Year
Crash Type
Year
Total Percent 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Broadside 307 307 291 297 272 1,474 34%
Rear-End 218 254 247 238 189 1,146 27%
Sideswipe 83 102 97 98 108 488 11%
Hit Object 85 87 85 78 94 429 10%
Head-On 48 59 71 82 48 308 7%
Vehicle - Pedestrian 53 56 67 42 40 258 6%
Overturned 5 10 9 9 13 46 1%
Other 30 27 39 49 24 169 4%
Not Stated 5 1 - 6 2 14 0%
Total 834 903 906 899 790 4,332 --

Figure 3: Crash Types

Broadside
34%
Head-On
7%
Hit Object
10%
Not Stated
0%
Other
4%
Overturned
1%
Rear-End
27%
Sideswipe
11%
Vehicle -
Pedestrian
6%
Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 23 of 70 ends

251
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 22 ends

7.1.3. Cause of Crash Summary
Table 8 summarizes the causes of the crashes that occurred during the analysis period for each year and Figure 4 graphically shows the breakdown for all crashes. The three most common causes were Unsafe Speed (20%), followed closely by Auto Right-of-Way Violation (19%), and Driving Under Influence (DUI) (16%). A description of each of these crash causes is provided below:
 Unsafe speed – crashes that are caused by motorists driving in excess of the posted speed limit or driving too fast for the roadway conditions. According to the Escondido Police Department, ‘too fast for roadway conditions’ crashes, are often reported as an Unsafe Speed Crash. These crashes can be a result of motorists following too closely to the vehicle in front of them, distracted driving, or vehicles that collide with a stopped vehicle in front of them.
 Auto Right-of-Way Violation – crashes that are caused by motorists failing to allow another vehicle (or pedestrian or bicyclist) to proceed before them in a traffic situation in accordance with the California Vehicle Code, such as assuming right-of-way while turning left at a green light (as opposed to a green arrow).
 DUI – crashes that are caused by motorists who operate a vehicle while their blood alcohol concentration levels exceed the allowable limits per the California Vehicle Code or impaired by drugs.

DUIs are not considered in the evaluation of safety improvements but are included in the non- engineering emphasis areas such as Enforcement and Education.  Other Hazardous Movement – crashes that are related to basic driver techniques and actions that have the potential to endanger the driver as well as others on the road. Examples include reckless driving, lane weaving, and slow vehicles not driving on the far-right lane.

Table 8: Cause of Crashes by Year
Crash Cause
Year
Total Percent 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Unsafe Speed 171 198 192 185 131 877 20%
Auto R/W Violation 188 171 168 171 137 835 19%
Driving Under Influence 122 150 142 153 146 713 16%
Traffic Signals and Signs 115 112 112 99 105 543 13%
Improper Turning 82 101 113 110 112 518 12%
Other Hazardous Movement 21 19 43 35 30 148 3%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 21 33 26 21 24 125 3%
Wrong Side of Road 20 30 18 22 13 103 2%
Pedestrian Violation 20 20 17 12 12 81 2%
All Others* 53 52 61 77 64 307 7%
Unknown 25 17 22 21 19 104 2%
Total 834 903 906 899 790 4,332 --
*All Others includes hazardous parking, improper passing, not stated, other than improper turning, other than driver, ped r/w violation, impeding traffic, other equipment, ped or other under influence, and other.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 24 of 70 ends

252
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 23 ends

Figure 4: Crash Causes

20%
19%
16%
13%
12%
3%
3%
2%
2%
7%
2%
Unsafe Speed
Auto R/W Violation
DUI
Traffic Signals & Signs
Improper Turning
Other Hazardous Movements
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Wrong Side of Road
Pedestrian Violation
Other
Unknown
Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 25 of 70 ends

253
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 24 ends

7.2. Detailed Crash Analysis

7.2.1. Crashes by Type
This section evaluates trends associated with the three most common crash types of crashes that occurred within the five-year study period. Analysis of which included Broadside, Rear-End, and Sideswipe accidents.

Analysis and interpretation of this data will determine patterns for of where specific crash types occur. The analysis identify where the most common locations of these crash types citywide.

Broadside Crashes
A Broadside crash occurs when the front of one vehicle strikes the side of another vehicle. Broadside crashes typically occur at intersections and can be a result of drivers failing to yield or obey stop-controls, where a gap in traffic is misjudged, or a turning vehicle fails to yield the right-of-way to another vehicle.

When evaluating the cause of common Broadside crashes, it is important to consider the following physical conditions at the intersection and signal operations:
 What is the intersection control? – Signalized, unsignalized or a roundabout  What is the signal phasing? – Permissive or protected left-turn phasing  Are clear lines of sight available or are there sight distance issues?  What is the traffic speed and the posted speed limit? What are vehicle speeds?  Are there other roadway elements that might contribute to or worsen driving behaviors such as failure to yield and/or where gaps in traffic are mis-judged?
Within the study area, 1,487 Broadside crashes occurred. Ten of the crashes resulted in fatalities, 27 resulted in severe injury, 505 resulted in other visible injury, and 798 resulted in complaint of pain while the remaining 147 Broadside crashes were property damage only. Table 9 lists the intersections where the highest number of Broadside crashes were reported, which considers the number of Broadside crashes within a 125-foot radius of the intersection.

Table 9: Most Frequent Broadside Crash Locations

Intersection
Number of
Broadside Crashes
1 Centre City Pkwy & Escondido Blvd 24
2 Washington Ave & Rose St 23
3 Centre City Pkwy & El Norte Pkwy 22
4 Valley Pkwy & Fig St 21
5 Harding St & Mission Ave 19
6 Quince St & Washington Ave 18
7 Centre City Pkwy & Valley Pkwy 18
8 Centre City Pkwy & 2nd Ave 16
9 Mission Ave & Rock Springs Road 15
10 Escondido Blvd & Grand Ave 15

Figure 5 depicts the location, severity and intensity of Broadside crashes. As shown, the Broadside crashes are concentrated at major signalized intersections such as Centre City Parkway & Escondido Boulevard, Washington Avenue & Rose Street, and Centre City Parkway & El Norte Parkway. The map focuses on identifying locations with 11 or more Broadside crashes to highlight the priority areas within the City.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 26 of 70 ends

254
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 25 ends

Figure 5: Broadside Crash Location Map

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 27 of 70 ends

255
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 26 ends

Rear-End Crashes
A crash is classified as a Rear-End crash when one vehicle crashes into the vehicle directly in front of it. Rear-End crashes often occur under congested conditions where motorists do not react in time to a slowing of traffic downstream, or in cases where drivers are distracted or tailgating under uncongested conditions.

When evaluating the cause of common Rear-End crashes, it is important to consider the following physical conditions and signal operations:
 What is the intersection control? – signalized, unsignalized, roundabout  What is the signal phasing? – permissive or protected left-turn phasing  Are dedicated right-turn or left turn lanes provided?  Are there multiple driveways along a corridor where vehicles are frequently entering and exiting that result in a disruption in the traffic flow?
 Are vehicles queuing at an intersection such that they spill out of a turn lane into the adjacent through lane?
 What is the traffic speed and posted speed limit? Is speeding a concern? Is speeding observed? Everyone has concerns but is concern identified as valid?
Within the City limits, 1,146 Rear-End crashes occurred in the five-year study period. One of the crashes resulted in a fatality, six resulted in severe injury, 166 resulted in other visible injury, and 589 resulted in complaint of pain, while the remaining 384 Rear-End crashes were property damage only. Table 10 lists the intersections where the highest number of Rear-End crashes were reported, which considers the number of Rear-End crashes within 125 feet of the intersection.

Table 10: Most Frequent Rear-End Crash Locations
Intersection Number of Rear-
End Crashes
1 El Norte Pkwy & Centre City Pkwy 18
2 Ash St & Washington Ave * 16
3 Broadway & El Norte Pkwy 15
4 Valley Pkwy & Ash St * 15
5 Mission Ave & Centre City Pkwy 15
6 Valley Pkwy & El Norte Pkwy 13
7 Valley Pkwy & Midway Dr 13
8 Centre City Pkwy & Felicita Ave 12
9 Valley Pkwy & Citrus Ave 9
10 Broadway & Lincoln Ave * 9

*Caltrans facility

Figure 6 illustrates the location, severity and intensity of Rear-End crashes within the City. As illustrated below, Rear-End crashes occurred at major signalized intersections such as El Norte Parkway & Centre City Parkway, Ash Street & Washington Avenue, and Broadway & El Norte Parkway. The map focuses on identifying locations with 6 or more Rear-End crashes to highlight the priority areas within the City.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 28 of 70 ends

256
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 27 ends

Figure 6: Rear-End Crash Location Map

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 29 of 70 ends

257
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 28 ends

Sideswipe Crashes
Sideswipe crashes occur when the side of one vehicle makes contact with the side of another vehicle, either traveling in the same or opposite directions. They typically occur when one vehicle moves out of a travel lane before it is safe to do so. In many cases, the cause of a Sideswipe crash is the result of a driver who is distracted, over-correcting the steering wheel, or impaired by drugs or alcohol rather than the result of the roadway conditions.

When evaluating the cause of common Sideswipe crash locations, it is important to consider the following physical roadway conditions:
 What is the roadway alignment? – Straight, curved, vertical or horizontal alignment?  What is the travel lane width and number of travel lanes?  Are there friction factors such as on-street parking and raised medians?  What is the distance between stop controls? – greater than ¼ mile Within the study area, a total of 488 Sideswipe crashes occurred. One of the crashes resulted in a fatality, six resulted in severe injury, 72 resulted in other visible injury, and 128 resulted in complaint of pain while the remaining 281 Sideswipe crashes were property damage only. Table 11 below lists the intersections where the highest number of Sideswipe crashes were reported, which considers the number of Sideswipe crashes within 125 feet of the intersection.

Table 11: Most Frequent Sideswipe Crash Locations
Intersection Number of
Sideswipe Crashes
1 Via Rancho Pkwy & I-15 NB Ramp * 7
2 Ash St & Lincoln Ave 5
3 Mission Road & Auto Park Way 4
4 Mission Ave & Quince St 4
5 Mission Ave & Midway Dr 3
6 Grand Ave & Rose St 3
7 Broadway & Washington Ave * 3
8 Centre City Pkwy & Washington Ave 3
9 Grand Ave & Fig St 3
10 Washington Ave & Quince St 3
* Caltrans facility .

Figure 7 depicts the location, severity and intensity of Sideswipe crashes. As shown, the highest concentration of Sideswipe crashes occurs at Via Rancho Parkway & I-15 Northbound Ramp and Ash Street & Lincoln Avenue. The map shows the majority of Sideswipe crashes are evenly distributed throughout the City with most intersections only reporting 1 to 2 crashes. The same scenario was found when evaluating the mid-block Sideswipe locations, which were not highly concentrated on a few roadway segments but spread evenly throughout the City. For purposes of this analysis, the intersections where the highest Sideswipe crashes occurred were identified in Table 11 to help determine appropriate countermeasures at these locations.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 30 of 70 ends

258
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 29 ends

Figure 7: Sideswipe Crash Location Map

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 31 of 70 ends

259
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 30 ends

7.2.2. Crashes by Cause
The following sections analyze the three most common crash causes in further depth, which include Unsafe Speed, Auto Right-of-Way Violations, and Driving Under the Influence (DUI).

Unsafe Speed Crashes
Of the 4,332 reported crashes, the attributed cause of the crash was Unsafe Speed for 877 of those crashes (20%). Crashes where unsafe speed was the attributed crash cause were examined further based on location.

Unsafe Speed crashes are primarily caused by motorists following too closely to the vehicle in front of them, the result of distracted driving, or vehicles crashing into a stopped vehicle in front of them.

When evaluating the cause of common Unsafe Speed crash locations, it is important to consider the following physical roadway conditions:
 What is the roadway alignment? – Straight, curved, vertical or horizontal alignment?  What is the travel lane width and number of travel lanes?  Are there friction factors such as on-street parking and raised medians?  What is the distance between stop controls? – greater than ¼ mile  Are there other roadway elements that might contribute to or worsen driving behaviors such as failure to yield when turning left or right and/or where gaps in traffic is mis-judged?

Table 12 lists the roadway segments where the highest number of Unsafe Speed crashes were reported, which considers the number of mid-block Unsafe Speed crashes. As shown, Ash Street from Washington Avenue to Valley Parkway and Centre City Parkway from Mission Avenue to Washington Avenue both have seven Unsafe Speed crashes reported along these segments.

Table 12: Most Frequent Unsafe Speed Crash Corridor Locations Roadway Segment Number of Unsafe
Speed Crashes
1 Ash St From Washington Ave To Valley Pkwy * 7
2 Centre City Pkwy From Mission Ave To Washington Ave 7 3 Valley Center Road From Lake Wohlford Road To Northern City Limits 6 4 Valley Pkwy From Rose St To Paramount St 6
5 Centre City Pkwy From Gannon Place To Valley Pkwy 6
6 Morning View Dr From El Norte Pkwy To Lincoln Ave 5
7 Valley Pkwy From Eureka Dr To Beven Dr 4
8 Valley Pkwy From Midway Dr To Quarry Glen 4
9 Mission Ave From Beech St To Ash St 4
10 Centre City Pkwy From Las Villas Way To Decatur Way 3 *Caltrans facility.

Figure 8 illustrates the Unsafe Speed mid-block crashes reported within the City. As shown, many of the Unsafe Speed crashes are located along Valley Parkway and other major arterials such as Ash Street and Centre City Parkway.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 32 of 70 ends

260
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 31 ends

Figure 8: Unsafe Speed Crash Location Map

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 33 of 70 ends

261
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 32 ends

Auto Right-of-Way Violation Crashes
A total of 835 crashes were attributed to Auto Right-of-Way Violation, which equates to 19% of the total reported crashes. In accordance with the California Vehicle Code, these are crashes that are caused by motorists failing to allow another vehicle (or pedestrian or bicyclist) to proceed before them in a traffic situation.

When evaluating the cause of common Auto Right-of-Way Violation crash locations, it is important to consider the following physical roadway conditions and signal operations:
 What is the intersection control? – Signalized, unsignalized with stop/yield-controlled, roundabout  What is the signal phasing? – Permissive or protected left-turn phasing  Are there concerns with sight distance as motorists turn left or right onto a roadway?  Are there other roadway elements that might contribute to or worsen driving behaviors such as failure to yield when turning left or right and/or where gaps in traffic is mis-judged? Table 13 below lists the intersections where the highest number of Auto Right-of-Way Violation crashes were reported, considering both the crash severity and the number of Auto Right-of-Way Violation crashes within 125 feet of the intersection. As shown in the table, Centre City Parkway & Escondido Boulevard has the highest number of Auto Right-of-Way Violation crashes in the City with a total of 25.

Table 13: Most Frequent Auto Right-of-Way Violation Crash Locations Intersection Number of Auto
R/W Crashes
1 Centre City Pkwy & Escondido Blvd 25
2 Harding St & Mission Ave 13
3 Quince St & Washington Ave 13
4 Washington Ave & Rose St 12
5 Rock Springs Road & Lincoln Ave 11
6 Escondido Blvd & Grand Ave 11
7 Washington Ave & Begonia St 10
8 Centre City Pkwy & El Norte Pkwy 9
9 Mission Ave & Fig St 9
10 Grand Ave & Rose St 8
In Figure 9 , the Auto Right-of-Way Violation crash locations are spread throughout the City. The highest concentration of crashes occurred at Centre City Parkway & Escondido Boulevard with one fatality and one severe injury reported. The map shows locations with six or more Auto Right-of-Way Violation crashes to highlight the priority areas within the City.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 34 of 70 ends

262
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 33 ends

Figure 9: Auto Right-of-Way Violation Crash Location Map

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 35 of 70 ends

263
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 34 ends

DUI Crashes
Of the 4,332 reported crashes, DUIs were a factor in 713 of those crashes (16%). According to the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) collision ranking in 2018, the City of Escondido is ranked 8 out of 59 throughout San Diego County in terms of alcohol-involved crashes. While DUI crashes cannot be fully resolved through countermeasures or design changes, educational programs and enforcement can be increased to reduce DUI crashes. DUIs are not considered in the evaluation of safety improvements but are included in the non- engineering emphasis areas such as Enforcement and Education.

Table 14 lists the most common roadways where DUI-related crashes occurred between 2016 and 2020. Lincoln Avenue from Harding Street to Mill Street is reported to have the highest concentration of DUI crashes. The roadways listed are all thoroughfares with high volumes that run through differing land uses, including restaurants, retail, and residential.

Table 14: Most Common Locations for DUI Crashes
Roadway Segment Number of
DUI Crashes
1 Lincoln Ave From Harding St To Mill St 6
2 Morning View Dr From El Norte Pkwy To Lincoln Ave 4
3 Valley Pkwy From Roadliner Ave To Midway Dr 4
4 Juniper St From Washington Ave To Clark St 3
5 17th Ave From Encino Dr To Landee Dr 3
6 Rock Springs Road From Crystal Springs Ln To Lincoln Ave 3 7 Valley Center Road From Lake Wohlford Road To Northern City Limits 2 8 Lake Wohlford Road From Lake Wohlford Court To Oakvale Road 2 9 Valley Pkwy From Beven Dr To Wohlford Dr 2
10 Nutmeg St From Sonia Place To Sunset Heights Road 2

Figure 10 illustrates the location, severity and intensity of DUI crashes within the City. As illustrated on the map, DUI crashes occurred at major signalized intersections such as El Norte Parkway & Ash Street, SR-78 & Broadway, and Washington Avenue & Beech Street. The map focuses on identifying intersection and mid-block locations with DUI crashes within the City.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 36 of 70 ends

264
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 35 ends

Figure 10: DUI Crash Location Map

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 37 of 70 ends

265
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 36 ends

Variation of Crash Causes Based on Non-Motorized Modes
As discussed previously, the top three reported crash causes in the City of Escondido for all crashes over the past five years have been Unsafe Speed, Auto Right-of-Way Violations, and DUI. Since crash causes often vary by mode, Table 15 summarizes the crash causes for pedestrian- and bicycle-involved collisions. As shown, pedestrian violation is the most reported cause of pedestrian-involved collisions. Pedestrian violations may include crossing against a “Don’t Walk” signal, crossing at mid-block (non-intersection/jaywalking), or interfering with traffic at controlled intersections by crossing at an inappropriate time. Additionally, Auto Right-of-Way Violations were the primary cause of bicycle-involved crashes. Motorists are required to yield right-of-way to bicyclists at intersections, however, the bicyclist may not be visible to the motorist resulting in a bicycle-involved collision.

Table 15: Most Frequent Crash Causes by Mode
Crash Cause Percent of Pedestrian-
Involved Crashes
Percent of Bicycle-
Involved Crashes
Percent of All
Reported Crashes
Pedestrian Violation 32% 1% 2%
Other Hazardous Movement 31% 3% 3%
Ped R/W Violation 8% -- --
Improper Turning 6% 13% 12%
Auto R/W Violation 4% 21% 19%
Traffic Signals and Signs 3% 8% 13%
Driving Under Influence 2% 1% 17%
Unsafe Speed 2% 7% 20%
Wrong Side of Road -- 33% 2%

Figure 11 shows the location, crash severity and cause of pedestrian-involved crashes throughout the City.

Figure 12 shows the location, crash severity and cause of bicycle-involved crashes. As shown on both maps, Auto Right-of-Way Violation is the cause for pedestrian and bicycle involved crashes specifically along major corridors such as Mission Avenue, Washington Avenue, and Valley Parkway.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 38 of 70 ends

266
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 37 ends

Figure 11: Pedestrian Involved Crash Location Map

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 39 of 70 ends

267
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 38 ends

Figure 12: Bicycle Involved Crash Location Map

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 40 of 70 ends

268
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 39 ends

7.3. Crash Severity
Table 16 shows the summary of crash severity by year and Figure 13 visually displays the crash severity for all crashes over the analysis period. Severe injuries include traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries that result in partial or total paralysis, loss of an arm, leg, eyesight, or hearing and injuries that result in permanent damage to an organ or loss of function of an organ.

Of the total 4,332 reported crashes, 1% (33) resulted in fatalities, 2% (95) resulted in severe injury, 28% (1,210) resulted in other visible injury, and 43% (1,900) resulted in complaint of pain. Additionally, 26% (1,140) of crashes resulted in property damage only.

Table 16: Crash Injury Types by Year
Crash Severity Types Year Total Percent 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Fatal 8 8 4 7 6 33 1%
Severe Injury 21 13 18 21 22 95 2%
Other Visible Injury 237 251 244 270 196 1,198 28%
Complaint of Pain 376 419 423 344 316 1,878 43%
Property Damage Only 192 212 217 257 250 1,128 26%
Total 834 903 906 899 790 4,332 --

Figure 13: Crash Severity (All Crashes)

Table 17 below summarizes the types of object each motor vehicle crash was involved with by year and by crash severity (fatal crashes and severe injury crashes). As shown, most crashes involved another motor vehicle. While only 6% of all crashes involved a pedestrian, 30% of fatal crashes involved a pedestrian.

Complaint of Pain
43%
Fatal
1%
Other Visible
Injury
28%
Property Damage
Only
26%
Severe Injury
2%
Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 41 of 70 ends

269
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 40 ends

Table 17: Motor Vehicle Involved With (Year 2016 to 2020) All Crashes
Involved Year Total Percent 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Other Motor Vehicle 566 593 608 587 489 2,843 66%
Parked Motor Vehicle 66 100 97 115 108 486 11%
Fixed Object 78 76 82 78 88 402 9%
Pedestrian 47 56 63 45 40 251 6%
Bicycle 45 40 36 43 27 191 4%
Non - Collision 8 11 10 14 22 65 2%
Other Object 13 13 7 5 8 46 1%
Motor Vehicle on Other Roadway 2 11 2 9 8 32 1%
Blank 9 2 1 2 0 14 0%
Animal 0 1 0 1 0 2 0%
Total 834 903 906 899 790 4,332 ---
Fatal Crashes
Involved Year Total Percent
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Other Motor Vehicle 3 5 3 2 1 14 42%
Pedestrian 3 1 1 2 3 10 30%
Fixed Object 1 1 0 2 0 4 12%
Non – Collision 0 0 0 0 1 1 3%
Other Object 1 0 0 0 0 1 3%
Parked Motor Vehicle 0 1 0 0 0 1 3%
Total 8 8 4 7 6 33 ---
Severe Injury Crashes
Involved Year Total Percent 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Other Motor Vehicle 11 8 10 5 6 40 42%
Pedestrian 4 3 4 7 7 25 26%
Fixed Object 3 2 1 3 3 12 13%
Bicycle 2 0 2 2 3 9 9%
Parked Motor Vehicle 1 0 1 4 1 7 7%
Non - Collision 0 0 0 0 2 2 2%
Total 21 13 18 21 22 95 ---

7.3.1. Crash Fatalities
Locations where crashes resulted in fatalities were examined further to determine any potential trends. Figure 14 shows the location of the fatalities by travel mode (bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle). Fatalities involving motor vehicles generally occurred along the following corridors: Washington Avenue from Juniper Street to Ash Street, Centre City Parkway from El Norte Parkway to Felicita Avenue, Ash Street from El Norte Parkway to Valley Parkway, and at intersections along Ash Street/San Pasqual Valley Road (SR-78).

As shown, pedestrian fatalities occurred near the intersections of local roadways along Ash Street/San Pasqual Valley Road (SR-78) from Oak Hill Drive to Washington Avenue (3 pedestrian fatalities) and Centre City Parkway from Lincoln Parkway (SR-78) to El Norte Parkway (2 pedestrian fatalities).

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 42 of 70 ends

270
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 41 ends

Figure 14: Fatal Crashes by Mode

Note: Figure excludes
other motor vehicle and
fixed object fatal crashes.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 43 of 70 ends

271
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 42 ends

7.4. Time of Day Analysis
Figure 15 shows the breakdown of crashes by 3-hour time periods throughout the day. As would be expected, the period from 6 AM to 6 PM experienced the greatest number of crashes (970), as this time period is consistent with when most traffic occurs on local roads. A further breakdown shows that the highest number of crashes occurred during the 3-hour period from 3 PM to 6 PM. This is a somewhat expected finding since the evening peak commuting time periods generally fall between 3 PM and 6 PM.

Figure 15: All Crashes by Time of Day

Pedestrian and bicycle crashes are also most likely to occur from 3 PM to 6 PM, as shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Time of Day

Midnight
to 3 AM
3 AM to 6
AM
6 AM to 9
AM
9 AM to
Noon
Noon to 3
PM
3 PM to 6
PM
6 PM to 9
PM
9 PM to
Midnight
5-year Total 250 160 525 533 719 970 706 466
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Collisions by Time of Day (2016-2020)
Midnight
to 3 AM
3 AM to 6
AM
6 AM to 9
AM
9 AM to
Noon
Noon to 3
PM
3 PM to 6
PM
6 PM to 9
PM
9 PM to
Midnight
5-year Total 6 12 61 49 77 113 81 43
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Collisions by Time of Day (2016-2020)
Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 44 of 70 ends

272
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 43 ends

As shown in Table 18, the leading cause for pedestrian-involved crashes from 3 PM to 6 PM are pedestrian violations with 41%. For bicycle-involved crashes, the leading cause is bicyclists riding on the wrong side of the road (33%) and auto right-of-way violations (29%). Educational programs can be useful in reducing the number of pedestrian and bicycle involved crashes.

Table 18: Most Frequent Crash Causes by Mode (3 PM to 6 PM) Crash Cause Percent of Pedestrian-
Involved Crashes
Percent of Bicycle-
Involved Crashes
Percent of All
Reported Crashes
Pedestrian Violation 41% -- 2%
Other Hazardous Movement 26% -- 3%
Ped R/W Violation 7% -- --
Improper Turning 7% 9% 10%
Auto R/W Violation 3% 29% 25%
Traffic Signals and Signs -- 5% 10%
Driving Under Influence 2% -- 10%
Unsafe Speed -- 5% 25%
Wrong Side of Road -- 33% 3%

7.5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes
Bicyclists and pedestrians are among the most vulnerable roadway users and are more likely to sustain severe injuries when involved in a collision with a motor vehicle. Understanding the cause, severity, and location of crashes involving these vulnerable roadways users is imperative to reducing the number of bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities and injuries on the City’s roads. Table 19 lists the top 10 intersections where the highest concentration of pedestrian and bicycle involved crashes occurred.

Table 19: Most Common Pedestrian and Bicycle Involved Crash Locations Intersection Number of Crashes
Pedestrian Bicycle Total
1 Ash St & Valley Pkwy * 7 3 10
2 Midway Dr & Valley Pkwy 6 2 8
3 Valley Pkwy & Fig St 6 2 8
4 Valley Pkwy & Rose St 8 0 8
5 Mission Ave & Escondido Blvd 2 5 7
6 9th Ave & Quince St 4 2 6
7 Mission Ave & Quince St 4 2 6
8 El Norte Pkwy & Escondido Blvd 6 0 6
9 Escondido Blvd & Felicita Ave 1 4 5
10 Quince St & Washington Ave 2 3 5
*Caltrans facility.

As shown in the Table 19, Ash Street at Valley Parkway is reported to have seven pedestrian-involved crashes and three bicycle-involved crashes which is the highest in the City. The shopping centers surrounding this intersection suggest increased pedestrian activity. Further analysis of reported bicycle and pedestrian crashes is presented in the subsequent sections below.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 45 of 70 ends

273
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 44 ends

7.5.1. Pedestrian Involved Crashes
Within the five-year analysis period (January 2016 to December 2020), 251 pedestrian-involved crashes were reported, which included 9 fatal crashes (4%) and 25 severe injury crashes (10%). Figure 17 shows the percentage of injury types for all pedestrian involved crashes during the analysis period.

Figure 14 shows the location of nine crashes that resulted in pedestrian fatalities during the study period. Two fatal crashes occurred along Centre City Parkway north of Mission Avenue, the SR-78 portion of Washington Avenue, and the SR-78 portion of Ash Street, totaling six fatal pedestrian-involved crashes. The remaining occurred along Valley Parkway, Felicita Avenue, and Grand Avenue. A total of 13 pedestrians were killed in these nine crashes.

In particular, two pedestrian fatalities occurred at Oak Hill Drive & San Pasqual Valley Road. According to the Crossroads data, one of the fatalities was due to a distracted driver causing the driver to run off the road hitting the pedestrian on the side of the road. The other pedestrian fatality at this location was due to the driver hitting the pedestrian in the road. Both of these crashes occurred at night.

One pedestrian fatality and two severe injuries involving pedestrians occurred at the intersection of Escondido Boulevard at Felicita Avenue. According to the Crossroads data, the pedestrian was fatally struck by a vehicle while crossing the intersection outside of the crosswalk. Two pedestrians were severely injured while crossing the same intersection in the crosswalk during the day. One pedestrian was hit by a driver making an eastbound to southbound right turn and the other pedestrian was hit by a driver making a westbound to southbound left- turn.

Figure 17: Crash Severity of Pedestrian-Involved Crashes

Table 20 shows the percent of the identified pedestrian actions at crashes involving pedestrians. Reported pedestrian actions generally involved crossing in crosswalk while at the intersection (48%) or crossing the street not in a crosswalk (28%). Pedestrians crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection includes marked or unmarked crosswalks where curb ramps are provided on either side of the intersection. The “Not in Road” pedestrian action refers to pedestrians that are either on a sidewalk or on the shoulder when hit by a vehicle.

Fatal
4%
Severe Inj
10%
Complaint of
Pain
40%
Other Visible
Injury
46%
Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 46 of 70 ends

274
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 45 ends

Table 20: Pedestrian Actions
Pedestrian Action Count Percent
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection 120 48%
Crossing Not in Crosswalk 71 28%
Not in Road 30 12%
In Road 26 10%
Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection 4 2%

As previously discussed in Section 2.2.2 of this document and shown below in Table 21, the three most common reported causes of pedestrian-involved crashes were pedestrian violation (32%), other hazardous movement (31%), and unknown (9%). “Unknown” indicates that the cause of the crash could not be determined by the reporting officer. A review of the crash reports for the “Unknown” crashes cause found that many of these are hit and runs or crashes that occurred at night.

Table 21: Causes of Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
Cause Count Percent
Pedestrian Violation 79 32%
Other Hazardous Movement 77 31%
Unknown 22 9%
Ped R/W Violation 21 8%
Improper Turning 15 6%
Auto R/W Violation 10 4%
Traffic Signals and Signs 8 3%
Driving Under Influence 6 2%
Unsafe Speed 4 2%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 5 2%

Table 22 shows the breakdown of pedestrian-involved crashes by the age group of the pedestrian. As shown, the majority of pedestrians fall within the age of 15 to 64 years old (76%).

Table 22: Pedestrian -Involved Crashes by Age Group
Age Group of the Pedestrian Count Percent
Younger than 5 Years 2 1%
5-14 Years 29 11%
15-24 Years 55 22%
25-44 Years 72 28%
45-64 Years 65 26%
65-74 Years 19 8%
75 and older 11 4%

Table 23 shows the breakdown of pedestrian-involved crashes by speed limit and severity. As shown, the majority of crashes at each severity level occur on roadways with a speed limit of 35 MPH.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 47 of 70 ends

275
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 46 ends

Table 23: Pedestrian-Involved Crashes by Speed Limit and Severity Speed
Limit
Severity
Total Percent Complaint of
Pain Fatal Other Visible
Injury
Property
Damage Only
Severe
Injury
35 MPH 56 4 71 5 11 147 59%
25 MPH 14 1 12 3 30 12%
45 MPH 10 3 11 1 25 10%
Other 8 7 2 2 19 8%
30 MPH 4 6 3 13 5%
65 MPH 2 2 2 1 7 3%
15 MPH 3 -- 2 -- -- 5 2%
40 MPH 1 3 4 2%
60 MPH -- -- -- -- 1 1 <1%

7.5.2. Bicycle Involved Crashes
During the analysis period, 191 bicycle-involved crashes were reported, of these crashes, two were fatalities (1%) and an additional 183 injuries (96%). Figure 18 shows the injury types for all bicycle involved crashes during the analysis period.

Figure 18: Crash Severity of Bicycle-Involved Crashes

As discussed previously, the most common reported cause of bicycle-involved crashes was wrong side of road (33%) which could indicate cyclists riding on the wrong side of the road, auto right-of-way violation (21%) which refers to the motorist in a vehicle not yielding the right-of-way to the bicyclists, and improper turning (13%) referring to when the bicyclists does not use the appropriate turning signals (by hand) to turn left or right or change lanes. Table 24 presents a list of all the bicycle-involved crash causes and the breakdown by percentage.

Fatal
1% Severe Injury
5%
Complaint
of Pain
32%
Other Visible
Injury
59%
Propery Damage
Only
3%
Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 48 of 70 ends

276
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 47 ends

Table 24: Bicycle-Involved Crash Cause
Bicycle-Involved Crash Cause Count Percent
Wrong Side of Road 61 33%
Auto R/W Violation 39 21%
Improper Turning 25 13%
Traffic Signals and Signs 15 8%
Unsafe Speed 14 7%
Impeding Traffic 5 3%
Improper Passing 2 1%
Driving Under Influence 2 1%
Not Stated 2 1%
Other Hazardous Movement 6 3%
Other Improper Driving 3 2%
Other Than Driver 2 1%
Pedestrian Violation 1 1%
Unknown 8 4%
Unsafe Lane Change 1 1%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 1 1%

Table 25 shows the breakdown of bicyclist-involved crashes by the age group of the bicyclist. As shown, the majority of bicyclists fall within the age of 15 to 64 years old accounting for 85% of the crashes. The age group with the highest percentage of bicycle-involved crashes were 45 to 64 years old (32%).

Table 25: Bicyclist -Involved Crashes by Age Group
Age Group of the Bicyclist Count Percent
Younger than 5 Years 0 0%
5-14 Years 13 6%
15-24 Years 50 23%
25-44 Years 66 30%
45-64 Years 70 32%
65-74 Years 19 9%
75 and older 1 0%

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 49 of 70 ends

277
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 48 ends

Table 26 shows the breakdown of bicyclist-involved crashes by speed limit and severity. As shown, the majority of crashes at each severity level occur on roadways with a speed limit of 35 MPH.

Table 26: Bicyclist-Involved Crashes by Speed Limit and Severity Speed
Limit
Severity
Total Percent Complaint of
Pain Fatal Other Visible
Injury
Property
Damage Only
Severe
Injury
15 MPH 1 -- -- -- -- 1 <1%
25 MPH 5 -- 16 -- 2 23 12%
30 MPH 4 -- 9 -- -- 13 7%
35 MPH 42 2 58 4 6 112 59%
40 MPH 1 -- 2 -- -- 3 2%
45 MPH 2 -- 16 -- 1 19 10%
50 MPH -- -- 1 -- -- 1 <1%
65 MPH 1 -- 3 1 -- 5 3%
Other 5 -- 8 1 -- 14 7%

7.6. Hot Spot Locations - Intersections
Intersection ‘hot spots’ are identified as locations both with high crash frequency and severity of crashes. Hot spots were identified as the locations with both the greatest frequency and the greatest severity when compared to other crash locations. This was determined by reviewing the number of crashes at each intersection and assigning a cost associated with the severity of each crash consistent with Appendix D: Benefit/Cost Ratio Calculations, from the Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.5, April 2020).

Table 27 shows the cost assumptions utilized in the analysis. This process assigns a greater weight to crashes that resulted either in severe injuries or fatalities and a lower weight on crashes that resulted in property damage only.

Table 27: Crash Costs
Crash Severity Location Type Crash Cost
Fatal / Severe Injury
Signalized Intersection $ 1,590,000
Non-Signalized Intersection $ 2,530,000
Roadway $ 2,190,000
Other Visible Injury All $ 142,300
Complaint of Pain All $ 80,900
Property Damage Only All $ 13,300
Source: Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners, Appendix D (Version 1.5, April 2020)

The following tables also present crash rates for the top hot spot intersections. The crash rates are provided for information purposes as this metric is not a factor in the HSIP benefit/cost ratio evaluation or the HSIP application. The calculation of crash rates is a standard traffic engineering industry method used to normalize the total number of crashes at an intersection compared to the total volume of traffic. The equation to determine a crash rate is as follows:

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 50 of 70 ends

278
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 49 ends

Crash Rate
(per 1 Million
Entering Vehicles)
=
Number of Crashes x 1,000,000
Traffic Volume Entering the Intersection Daily x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years

In order to calculate the crash rates, the number of crashes for each corridor were obtained from the 5-year data set and the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were obtained from a Travel Forecast Model prepared for the City of Escondido by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The SANDAG model included ADT volumes from the base year 2012 and forecast year 2035. To estimate the year 2021 ADT volumes, a growth rate for each segment was calculated using the base 2012 ADT volumes and forecast 2035 ADT volumes and applied this growth rate to calculate the 2021 ADTs within the City.

Tables 28-30 present a ‘filtering’ of the City’s Hot Spots, with Table 28 showing the top intersections, including Caltrans facilities, as well as intersections that have received improvements since the pre-determined crash analysis period of 2016 through 2020. Table 29 extracts the Caltrans projects, and Table 30 also extracts recently improved or near-term scheduled improvements. The point of this study and this ‘filtering’ is to show intersections that are the best candidates for HSIP funding, so this list doesn’t include projects that are not eligible.

Table 28: Intersection Hot Spots
Intersection
Number of Crashes
Intersection
Control
Type
Crash Cost Crash
Rate
Fatal Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain PDO Total

1 Centre City Pkwy & El
Norte Pkwy 0 3 12 27 8 50 Signalized $8,768,300 0.54
2 Escondido Blvd & Felicita
Rd 1 2 10 12 4 29 Signalized $7,217,000 0.42
3 Midway Dr & Valley Pkwy 0 3 8 12 10 33 Signalized $7,012,200 0.61 4 Centre City Pkwy &
Escondido Blvd 1 1 11 14 0 27 Unsignalized $5,877,900 0.50 5 Quince St & Washington
Ave 0 1 14 16 10 41 Signalized $5,009,600 0.90
6 Quince St & 9th Ave 0 2 7 7 4 20 Signalized $4,795,600 0.54 7 Valley Pkwy & Fig St 0 1 10 20 4 35 Signalized $4,684,200 0.87 8 Mission Ave & Fig St 0 1 10 16 5 32 Signalized $4,373,900 0.57 9 El Norte Pkwy & Ash St 2 0 5 4 1 12 Signalized $4,228,400 0.17 10 Centre City Pkwy & Valley
Pkwy 0 1 8 16 4 29 Signalized $4,076,000 0.38
11 Mission Ave & Broadway
St * 0 0 13 25 4 42 Signalized $3,925,600 0.47
12 Washington Ave & Rose
St 0 0 13 25 3 41 Signalized $3,912,300 1.14
Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 51 of 70 ends

279
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 50 ends

Intersection
Number of Crashes
Intersection
Control
Type
Crash Cost Crash
Rate
Fatal Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain PDO Total

13 Centre City Pkwy &
Felicita Ave 1 0 6 16 5 28 Signalized $3,804,700 0.34
14 Centre City Pkwy & 9th
Ave 0 1 8 7 5 21 Signalized $3,361,200 0.28
15 Valley Pkwy & Quince St 1 0 8 7 4 20 Signalized $3,347,900 0.36 16 Mission Ave & Ash St 0 1 7 8 2 18 Signalized $3,259,900 0.35 17 Mission Ave & Metcalf St 0 1 3 15 1 20 Signalized $3,243,700 0.56 18 Morning View Dr &
Lincoln Ave 0 1 2 3 2 8 Unsignalized $3,016,300 0.90
19 Centre City Pkwy & Iris Ln 0 1 6 6 2 15 Signalized $2,955,800 0.28 20 Morning View Dr & El
Norte Pkwy 0 1 4 9 1 15 Signalized $2,900,600 0.30
21 Juniper St & 10 th Ave 0 1 1 2 2 6 Unsignalized $2,860,700 0.46 22 Grand Ave & Gayland St 0 1 1 2 1 5 Unsignalized $2,847,400 0.28 23 Broadway St & El Norte
Pkwy 0 0 10 16 8 34 Signalized $2,823,800 0.35
24 Valley Pkwy & 9 th Ave 0 1 5 6 2 14 Signalized $2,813,500 0.21 25 Mission Ave & Quince St 0 1 4 7 6 18 Signalized $2,805,300 0.34 26 Washington Ave & Elm St
(East) * 0 1 1 1 1 4 Unsignalized $2,766,500 0.12
27 Broadway St & Leslie Ln 1 0 1 0 1 3 Unsignalized $2,685,600 0.19 28 Juniper St & Grand Ave 0 1 4 6 2 13 Signalized $2,671,200 0.59 29 Mission Ave & Rock
Springs Road 0 0 9 16 6 31 Signalized $2,654,900 0.66
30 El Norte Pkwy & Ivy St 0 1 0 1 1 3 Unsignalized $2,624,200 0.04 31 Centre City Pkwy &
Country Club Ln 0 1 3 7 1 12 Signalized $2,596,500 0.18 32 Lincoln Ave & Harding St
(East) 0 1 2 8 3 14 Unsignalized $2,561,700 0.39
33 Juniper St & 11th Ave
(North) 0 1 0 0 1 2 Unsignalized $2,543,300 0.15
Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 52 of 70 ends

280
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 51 ends

Intersection
Number of Crashes
Intersection
Control
Type
Crash Cost Crash
Rate
Fatal Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain PDO Total

34 Mission Ave & Centre City
Pkwy ** 0 0 9 13 9 31 Signalized $2,452,100 0.28
35 Midway Dr & Grand Ave 0 1 1 7 6 15 Signalized $2,378,400 0.56 36 Escondido Blvd & Grand
Ave 0 0 8 15 1 24 Signalized $2,365,200 0.93
Note: PDO = Property Damage Only
*Caltrans facility.

Table 29 adjusts the top 35 intersection hot spot locations by removing intersections that are Caltrans maintained facilities
Table 29: Intersection Hot Spots (without Caltrans)
Intersection
Number of Crashes
Intersection
Control
Type
Crash Cost Crash
Rate
Fatal Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain PDO Total

1 Centre City Pkwy & El
Norte Pkwy 0 3 12 27 8 50 Signalized $8,768,300 0.54
2 Midway Dr & Valley Pkwy 0 3 8 12 10 33 Signalized $7,012,200 0.61 3 Centre City Pkwy &
Escondido Blvd 1 1 11 14 0 27 Unsignalized $5,877,900 0.50 4 Quince St & Washington
Ave 0 1 14 16 10 41 Signalized $5,009,600 0.90
5 Quince St & 9th Ave 0 2 7 7 4 20 Signalized $4,795,600 0.54 6 Valley Pkwy & Fig St 0 1 10 20 4 35 Signalized $4,684,200 0.87 7 Mission Ave & Fig St 0 1 10 16 5 32 Signalized $4,373,900 0.57 8 El Norte Pkwy & Ash St 2 0 5 4 1 12 Signalized $4,228,400 0.17 9 Centre City Pkwy & Valley
Pkwy 0 1 8 16 4 29 Signalized $4,076,000 0.38
10 Washington Ave & Rose
St 0 0 13 25 3 41 Signalized $3,912,300 1.14
11 Centre City Pkwy &
Felicita Ave 1 0 6 16 5 28 Signalized $3,804,700 0.34
12 Centre City Pkwy & 9th
Ave 0 1 8 7 5 21 Signalized $3,361,200 0.28
Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 53 of 70 ends

281
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 52 ends

Intersection
Number of Crashes
Intersection
Control
Type
Crash Cost Crash
Rate
Fatal Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain PDO Total

13 Valley Pkwy & Quince St 1 0 8 7 4 20 Signalized $3,347,900 0.36 14 Mission Ave & Ash St 0 1 7 8 2 18 Signalized $3,259,900 0.35 15 Mission Ave & Metcalf St 0 1 3 15 1 20 Signalized $3,243,700 0.56 16 Morning View Dr &
Lincoln Ave 0 1 2 3 2 8 Unsignalized $3,016,300 0.90
17 Centre City Pkwy & Iris Ln 0 1 6 6 2 15 Signalized $2,955,800 0.28 18 Morning View Dr & El
Norte Pkwy 0 1 4 9 1 15 Signalized $2,900,600 0.30
19 Juniper St & 10 th Ave 0 1 1 2 2 6 Unsignalized $2,860,700 0.46 20 Grand Ave & Gayland St 0 1 1 2 1 5 Unsignalized $2,847,400 0.28 21 Broadway & El Norte
Pkwy 0 0 10 16 8 34 Signalized $2,823,800 0.35
22 Valley Pkwy & 9 th Ave 0 1 5 6 2 14 Signalized $2,813,500 0.21 23 Mission Ave & Quince St 0 1 4 7 6 18 Signalized $2,805,300 0.34 24 Broadway & Leslie Ln 1 0 1 0 1 3 Unsignalized $2,685,600 0.19 25 Juniper St & Grand Ave 0 1 4 6 2 13 Signalized $2,671,200 0.59 26 Mission Ave & Rock
Springs Road 0 0 9 16 6 31 Signalized $2,654,900 0.66
27 El Norte Pkwy & Ivy St 0 1 0 1 1 3 Unsignalized $2,624,200 0.04 28 Centre City Pkwy &
Country Club Ln 0 1 3 7 1 12 Signalized $2,596,500 0.18 29 Lincoln Ave & Harding St
(East) 0 1 2 8 3 14 Unsignalized $2,561,700 0.39
30 Juniper St & 11th Ave
(North) 0 1 0 0 1 2 Unsignalized $2,543,300 0.15
31 Mission Ave & Centre City
Pkwy 0 0 9 13 9 31 Signalized $2,452,100 0.28
32 Midway Dr & Grand Ave 0 1 1 7 6 15 Signalized $2,378,400 0.56 33 Escondido Blvd & Grand
Ave 0 0 8 15 1 24 Signalized $2,365,200 0.93
Note: PDO = Property Damage Only
** Recent improvements have been made at these locations Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 54 of 70 ends

282
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 53 ends

Table 30 summarizes the top intersection hot spot locations, but without Caltrans facilities and intersections where the City has done certain improvements since 2020 (the last year of crash period examined) that would have improved the safety aspects of certain intersections or segments. The City also has projects scheduled, either as City projects or developer-funded projects, that will improve intersections to the point that the crash causal factors identified in the 2016-2020 period are no longer valid. We don’t want these intersections to be within the list of HSIP-eligible intersection, since this represents locations most in need of safety funds to address crash causes from the 2016-20 time period.

Table 30: Intersection Hot Spots (without Caltrans and recent/future improvements) Intersection
Number of Crashes
Intersection
Control
Type
Crash Cost Crash
Rate
Fatal Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain PDO Total

Page 55 of 70 ends

283
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 54 ends

Intersection
Number of Crashes
Intersection
Control
Type
Crash Cost Crash
Rate
Fatal Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain PDO Total

16 Morning View Dr &
Lincoln Ave 0 1 2 3 2 8 Unsignalized $3,016,300 0.90
17 Centre City Pkwy & Iris Ln 0 1 6 6 2 15 Signalized $2,955,800 0.28 18 Morning View Dr & El
Norte Pkwy 0 1 4 9 1 15 Signalized $2,900,600 0.30
19 Juniper St & 10 th Ave 0 1 1 2 2 6 Unsignalized $2,860,700 0.46 20 Grand Ave & Gayland St 0 1 1 2 1 5 Unsignalized $2,847,400 0.28 21 Broadway & El Norte
Pkwy 0 0 10 16 8 34 Signalized $2,823,800 0.35
22 Valley Pkwy & 9 th Ave 0 1 5 6 2 14 Signalized $2,813,500 0.21 23 Mission Ave & Quince St 0 1 4 7 6 18 Signalized $2,805,300 0.34 24 Juniper St & Grand Ave 0 1 4 6 2 13 Signalized $2,671,200 0.59 25 Mission Ave & Rock
Springs Road 0 0 9 16 6 31 Signalized $2,654,900 0.66
26 El Norte Pkwy & Ivy St 0 1 0 1 1 3 Unsignalized $2,624,200 0.04 27 Centre City Pkwy &
Country Club Ln 0 1 3 7 1 12 Signalized $2,596,500 0.18 28 Lincoln Ave & Harding St
(East) 0 1 2 8 3 14 Unsignalized $2,561,700 0.39
29 Juniper St & 11th Ave
(North) 0 1 0 0 1 2 Unsignalized $2,543,300 0.15
30 Midway Dr & Grand Ave 0 1 1 7 6 15 Signalized $2,378,400 0.56 31 Escondido Blvd & Grand
Ave 0 0 8 15 1 24 Signalized $2,365,200 0.93
Note: PDO = Property Damage Only

The project team will determine which of these hot spot locations and crash data would be eligible for HSIP funding based on the current crash trends and the appropriate countermeasures to address the given safety concern. Locations with prior HSIP funding are identified in Table 28 and discussed further in Section 5 of this report.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 56 of 70 ends

284
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 55 ends

7.7. Hot Spot Locations - Corridors
The following hot spot corridors have been identified previously during the review of the top 10 mid-block crash location map (Figure 2) as listed in Tables 31 & 32 from highest to lowest number of crashes. Roadway segments with the same number of crashes were then ordered by the higher crash rate provided in Section 7.8.

Table 31: Mid-Block Segment Hot Spots (with Caltrans)
# Roadway From To Total
Crashes
1 Morning View Dr El Norte Pkwy Lincoln Ave 29
2 Valley Pkwy Rose St Midway Dr 29
3 Valley Pkwy Midway Dr Quarry Glen Ln 19
4 Valley Center Road Lake Wohlford Road Northern City Limits 13 5 * Broadway Crest St Mission Ave 12
6 El Norte Pkwy Morning View Dr Las Villas Way 12
7 Valley Pkwy Harding St Rose St 11
8 Mission Ave Metcalf St Rock Springs Road 10
9 Washington Ave Escondido Blvd Broadway 10
10 Centre City Pkwy Mission Ave Washington Ave 9
* Caltrans facility

Table 32: Mid-Block Segment Hot Spots (no Caltrans)
# Roadway From To Total
Crashes
1 Morning View Dr El Norte Pkwy Lincoln Ave 29
2 Valley Pkwy Rose St Midway Dr 29
3 Valley Pkwy Midway Dr Quarry Glen Ln 19
4 Valley Center Rd Lake Wohlford Rd Northern City Limits 13 5 El Norte Pkwy Morning View Dr Las Villas Way 12
6 Valley Pkwy Harding St Rose St 11
7 Mission Ave Metcalf St Rock Springs Road 10
8 Washington Ave Escondido Blvd Broadway 10
9 Centre City Pkwy Mission Ave Washington Ave 9
10 Grand Ave* Midway Dr Rose St 35
*Grand Ave total includes all crashes in the segment from Rose Street to Midway Drive (1/2 mile) These ten corridors were further examined by calculating average crash rates and comparing those crash rates to those rates for similar facilities.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 57 of 70 ends

285
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 56 ends

7.8. Roadway Segment Crash Rate Analysis
The calculation of crash rates is a standard traffic engineering industry method used to determine the relative safety of a roadway segment by accounting for the exposure to traffic volumes and length of the segment. The equation to determine a crash rate is as follows:

Crash Rate
(per 1 Million
Vehicle Miles
Traveled)
=

Number of Crashes x 1,000,000
Average Daily Traffic Volume x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years x Length of Roadway Segment

In order to calculate the crash rates, the number of crashes for each corridor were obtained from the January 2016 to December 31, 2020 data set and the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were obtained from a Travel Forecast Model prepared for the City of Escondido by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The SANDAG model included ADT volumes from the base year 2012 and forecast year 2035. To estimate the year 2021 ADT volumes, a growth rate for each segment was calculated using the base 2012 ADT volumes and forecast 2035 ADT volumes and applied this growth rate to calculate the 2021 ADTs within the City. The length of the segment in miles was also utilized to calculate the crash rate per million vehicle miles traveled. The crash rates calculated for each corridor were compared to data obtained from the Caltrans 2018 Crash Data on California State Highways , specifically the year 2018 data for District 11 roadways that are categorized into roadway cross-section types. The Caltrans’ average crash rates utilized in this analysis are as follows:
 2 and 3 lane roadways = 0.73
 4+ lane undivided roadways = 1.01
 4+ lane divided roadways = 1.03
Table 33 summarizes the crash rate calculations. As shown, the calculated crash rates for eight of the ten hot spot locations were greater than the crash rates for similar facilities within District 11 (San Diego County).

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 58 of 70 ends

286
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 57 ends

Table 33: Roadway Segment Crash Rate Analysis
Roadway From To
Length of
Segment
(miles)
Average
Daily Traffic
Volume
No. of
Years
of Data
No. of
Crashes
Crash
Rate
(1)
Average Crash
Rate for
Similar
Facilities (2)
Rate /
Average
Morning View Dr El Norte Pkwy Lincoln Ave 0.87 5,200 5 29 3.51 0.73 4.81 Valley Pkwy Rose St Midway Dr 0.51 19,800 5 29 0.84 1.03 0.82 Valley Pkwy Midway Dr Quarry Glen Ln 0.22 22,100 5 19 2.14 1.03 2.08 Valley Center Road Lake Wohlford
Road
Northern City
Limits 0.84 38,700 5 13 0.22 1.03 0.21
*Broadway Crest St Mission Ave 0.09 27,800 5 12 2.63 1.01 2.60 El Norte Pkwy Morning View Dr Las Villas Way 0.22 22,300 5 12 1.34 1.03 1.30 Valley Pkwy Harding St Rose St 0.27 18,100 5 11 1.23 1.03 1.20 Mission Ave Metcalf St Rock Springs Road 0.25 11,100 5 10 1.97 1.03 1.92 Washington Ave Escondido Blvd Broadway 0.25 16,000 5 10 1.37 1.03 1.33 Centre City Pkwy Mission Ave Washington Ave 0.23 24,500 5 9 0.88 1.03 0.85 (1) Crashes per Million Vehicle Miles Traveled
(2) Source: Caltrans 2018 Crash Data on California State Highways; District 11 Rates (2018) in Million Vehicle Miles. Crash rates for similar facilities are based on California District 11 average rates for 2/3 lane (2/3 Ln), 4+ lane undivided (4 + Und), 4+ lane divided (4 + Div) facilities. (3) Crash rates greater than the statewide average are highlighted in blue. * Caltrans facility
Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 59 of 70 ends

287
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 58 ends

8. Emphasis Areas & Countermeasures

8.1. Emphasis Areas
The City’s LRSP is a tool that is intended to assist City staff in most effectively focusing education, enforcement, engineering, and emergency response resources towards the highest priority systemic and location specific crash trends for safety improvements. The crash data combined with professional engineering judgement was used to identify applicable safety projects that have a definite and measurable safety benefit. Using the crash data described in the previous section of this report and input from the Stakeholders, Michael Baker and City staff identified three (3) major emphasis areas for the City.

Table 31 presents the three emphasis areas along with performance measures and strategies to improve safety. DUIs are not considered in the evaluation of safety improvements but are included in the non-engineering emphasis areas such as Enforcement and Education.

8.2. Countermeasures
Based on a thorough review of the crash types and causes at each of the top 35 intersections and top 10 roadway segments with the highest concentration of crashes, the project team selected appropriate countermeasures to reduce the likelihood of future crashes. The Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners, (Version 1.5, April 2020) prepared by Caltrans, with support from FHWA and SafeTREC, was used as a guide for selecting countermeasures and corresponding Crash Reduction Factors (CRF) for this LRSP. CRF’s represent the proportion of crashes that are expected to be eliminated from a location as a result of receiving a specific safety improvement i.e. specific countermeasure.

Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual provides a list of countermeasures that are sorted into 3 categories: Signalized Intersections, Non-Signalized Intersections, and Roadway Segments. Pedestrian and bicycle-related countermeasures have been included in each of these categories. Caltrans has established key requirements and procedures for projects to allow agencies maximum flexibility in combining countermeasures and locations into a single project, while ensuring all projects can be consistently ranked on a statewide basis.

1.) A maximum of three (3) individual countermeasures can be utilized in the Benefit / Cost (B/C) ratio for a project.

2.) If the project involves multiple locations, the locations must have the same safety improvements and thus exactly the same countermeasures.

3.) If a project selects to install a traffic signal i.e. countermeasure NS03 at a location, additional countermeasures cannot be utilized in the B/C ratio calculation for the project.

In this LRSP, a total of ten (10) projects have been identified for HSIP funding. The ten different projects along with the countermeasures, locations, project costs, benefit costs, and B/C ratios associated with each project are provided on the following pages. The combination of countermeasures that were selected for each project and location was selected to provide the most competitive applications for HSIP grant funding. Table 34 provides a list of the top 35 intersections with the corresponding project. Projects were evaluated for the top 10 roadway segments with the highest volume of crashes but were ultimately removed from the list of projects to pursue HSIP grant funding due to low B/C ratios.

Caltrans LRSP
process was
followed in order
to compete for
grant funding that
will help address
roadway safety
needs throughout
the City.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 60 of 70 ends

288
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 59 ends

Table 34: LRSP Emphasis Areas
Emphasis Area General Targets Recommended Strategies Projects Improve Intersection
Safety

1.) Reduce annual intersection-related
fatalities from 6 in Year 2020 to 3 or
fewer in Year 2035 (a 50-percent
reduction).

2.) Reduce annual intersection-related
serious injuries from 22 in Year 2020 to
16 or fewer in Year 2035 (a 25-percent
reduction).

1.) Reduce the number of conflict points and
provide better guidance for motorists at
intersections.

2.) Develop a system to track and evaluate
countermeasure effectiveness at high-crash
intersections.

3.) Create intersection safety checklists for
existing conditions and new design.

Project 3: Add Left Turn Phasing & Marked
Pedestrian Crossings (Signalized)
Project 5: Install Traffic Signal
(Unsignalized)
Increase Non-Motorized
Road User Safety

1.) Reduce annual pedestrian-related
fatalities and serious injuries from 10 (3
fatalities and 7 serious injuries) in Year
2020 to fewer than 7 in Year 2035 (a
30-percent reduction).

2.) Reduce annual bicycle-related serious
injuries from 3 in Year 2020 to 1 or 0 in
Year 2035 (a 33-percent reduction).

1.) Conduct periodic roadway safety
assessments of locations with growing traffic
and pedestrian/bicycle volumes and
locations at greatest risk for
pedestrian/bicycle fatalities and injuries and
share information with other local partners.

2.) Implement effective countermeasures for
problem areas as determined by roadway
safety assessments.

3.) Conduct public education and outreach to
motorists to raise awareness of pedestrian
and bicyclist safety needs.

Project 1: Add Pedestrian Countdown
Head & Lead Pedestrian Interval
(Signalized)
Project 2: Add Left Turn Phasing & Lead
Pedestrian Interval (Signalized)
Project 4: New Marked Pedestrian
Crossings with Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (Unsignalized)

Speed Management

1.) Reduce annual crashes related to
Unsafe Speed from 131 in Year 2020 to
98 or fewer in Year 2035 (a 25-percent
reduction).

2.) Reduce the 85th percentile speeds on
Arterials and Collectors throughout the
City by 5 MPH or more in Year 2035

1.) Change the driving culture by conducting and
supporting public education and outreach
activities that elevate the awareness of the
dangers of aggressive driving.

2.) Communicate the factors associated with
aggressive driving to the transportation
engineering and planning communities.

3.) Increase enforcement targeting aggressive
driving.

Project 5: Install Traffic Signal
(Unsignalized)
Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 61 of 70 ends

289
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 60 ends

PROJECT #1: Add Pedestrian Countdown Signal Head & Lead Pedestrian Interval Countermeasures:

S02
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting and number.

S17PB
Install pedestrian
countdown signal heads.

S21PB
Modify signal phasing to
implement a leading
pedestrian interval.

Crash Reduction Factor 15% 25% 25% Expected Life 10 years 20 years 10 years HSIP Funding Eligibility 100% 100% 100% Signalized Intersection Locations:

1.) Centre City Pkwy & El Norte Pkwy

2.) Midway Dr & Valley Pkwy

3.) Centre City Pkwy & Valley Pkwy

4.) Centre City Pkwy & Felicita Ave

5.) Valley Pkwy & Quince St

6.) Mission Ave & Ash St

7.) El Norte Pkwy & Broadway

8.) Valley Pkwy & 9th Ave

9.) Mission Ave & Quince St

10.) Grand Ave & Juniper St

11.) Centre City Pkwy & Country Club Ln

12.) Midway Dr & Grand Ave

Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$24,042,479 $573,400 41.93

Centre City Pkwy & El Norte Pkwy Midway Dr & Valley Pkwy

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 62 of 70 ends

290
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 61 ends

PROJECT #2: Add Left Turn Phasing & Lead Pedestrian Interval Countermeasures:

S02
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting and number.

S07
Provide protected left-
turn phase (where left-
turn lane already exists).

S21PB
Modify signal phasing to
implement a leading
pedestrian interval.

Crash Reduction Factor 15% 30% 60%
Expected Life 10 years 20 years 10 years
HSIP Funding Eligibility 100% 100% 100%
Signalized Intersection Locations:

1.) Washington Ave & Quince St

2.) Mission Ave & Fig St

3.) Washington Ave & Rose St

4.) Centre City Pkwy & 9th Ave

Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$26,379,896 $1,179,600 22.36

Washington Ave & Quince St Mission Ave & Fig St

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 63 of 70 ends

291
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 62 ends

PROJECT #3: Add Left Turn Phasing & Marked Pedestrian Crossings Countermeasures:

S02
Improve signal
hardware: lenses, back
plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting and number.

S07
Provide protected
left-turn phase
(where left-turn
lane already
exists).

S18PB
Install pedestrian
crossing.

Crash Reduction Factor 15% 30% 60%
Expected Life 10 years 20 years 10 years
HSIP Funding Eligibility 100% 100% 100%
Signalized Intersection Locations:

1.) Quince St & 9th Ave

2.) Valley Pkwy & Fig St

3.) Mission Ave & Metcalf St

4.) Centre City Pkwy & Iris Ln

5.) Mission Ave & Rock Springs Road

6.) Escondido Blvd & Grand Ave
Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$35,985,917 $1,968,400 18.28

Quince St & 9th Ave Valley Pkwy & Fig St

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 64 of 70 ends

292
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 63 ends

PROJECT #4: Add Leading Ped Interval & Marked Pedestrian Crossings Countermeasures:

S02
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting and number.

S21PB
Modify signal
phasing to
implement
Leading Ped
Interval
S18PB
Install pedestrian
crossing.

Crash Reduction Factor 15% 60% 60%
Expected Life 10 years 10 years 10 years
HSIP Funding Eligibility 100% 100% 100%
Signalized Intersection Locations:

1.) El Norte Pkwy & Ash St

2.) El Norte Pkwy &
Morning View Dr

Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$4,847,240 $153,300 31.62

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 65 of 70 ends

293
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 64 ends

PROJECT #5: Install Traffic Signal
Countermeasures:

NS03
Install traffic signal.

Crash Reduction Factor 30%
Expected Life 20 years
HSIP Funding Eligibility 100%
Unsignalized Intersection Locations:

1.) Centre City Pkwy & Escondido Blvd
Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$9,327,800 $735,000 12.69

Centre City Pkwy & Escondido Blvd

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 66 of 70 ends

294
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 65 ends

Table 35: Top Intersection Hot Spots & Associated Projects Intersection Total $ of
Crashes
Total # of
Crashes
Intersection
Control Type Project
1 Centre City Pkwy & El Norte Pkwy $8,768,300 50 Signalized Project #1 2 Midway Dr & Valley Pkwy $7,012,200 33 Signalized Project #1 3 Centre City Pkwy & S Escondido Blvd $5,844,900 27 Unsignalized Project #5 4 Quince St & Washington Ave $5,009,600 41 Signalized Project #2 5 Quince St & 9th Ave $4,795,600 20 Signalized Project #3 6 Valley Pkwy & Fig St $4,684,200 35 Signalized Project #3 7 Mission Ave & Fig St $4,373,900 32 Signalized Project #2 8 El Norte Pkwy & Ash St $4,228,400 12 Signalized Project #4 9 Centre City Pkwy & Valley Pkwy $4,076,000 29 Signalized Project #1 10 Washington Ave & Rose St $3,912,300 41 Signalized Project #2 11 Centre City Pkwy & Felicita Ave $3,804,700 28 Signalized Project #1 12 Centre City Pkwy & 9 th Ave $3,361,200 21 Signalized Project #2 13 Valley Pkwy & Quince St $3,347,900 20 Signalized Project #1 14 Mission Ave & Ash St $3,259,900 18 Signalized Project #1 15 Mission Ave & Metcalf St $3,243,700 20 Signalized Project #3 16 Morning View Dr & Lincoln Ave $3,016,300 8 Unsignalized TBD 17 Centre City Pkwy & Iris Ln $2,955,800 15 Signalized Project #3 18 Morning View Dr & El Norte Pkwy $2,900,600 15 Signalized Project #4 19 Juniper St & 10th Ave $2,860,700 6 Unsignalized TBD
20 Grand Ave & Gayland St $2,847,400 5 Unsignalized TBD 21 Broadway & El Norte Pkwy $2,823,800 34 Signalized Project #1 22 Valley Pkwy & 9 th Ave $2,813,500 14 Signalized Project #1 23 Mission Ave & Quince St $2,805,300 18 Signalized Project #1 24 Juniper St & Grand Ave $2,671,200 13 Signalized Project #1 25 Mission Ave & Rock Springs Road $2,654,900 31 Signalized Project #3 26 El Norte Pkwy & Ivy St $2,624,200 3 Unsignalized TBD 27 Centre City Pkwy & Country Club Ln $2,596,500 12 Signalized Project #1 28 Lincoln Ave & Harding St (East) $2,561,700 14 Unsignalized TBD 29 Juniper St & 11 th Ave (North) $2,543,300 2 Unsignalized TBD 30 Midway Dr & Grand Ave $2,378,400 15 Signalized Project #1

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 67 of 70 ends

295
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 66 ends

9. Evaluation & Implementation

This section describes strategies the City may take to evaluate the success of this LRSP and steps needed to update the LRSP in the future. The effectiveness of safety improvements recommended in this LRSP should be evaluated following installation to ensure the project is operating as intended. This document should be considered a living document that is updated every 5 years to assess how well the implemented strategies have performed and update the crash data to identify new trends that might occur throughout the City.

The following strategies should be implemented to ensure the City’s success in improving safety performance in Escondido:
 The City should meet periodically with the Transportation Community Safety Commission to oversee implementation of the safety improvements listed in the LRSP.

 Safety partners such as the Fire Department, Police Department, Recreation Department, and local school districts should meet on a yearly basis to discuss the effectiveness of the safety improvements.

 Develop a spreadsheet or database to track safety project installations and record 3 or more years of “before” and “after” crash information at those locations. Once countermeasures are constructed, schedule and track assessment dates to ensure they happen.

 Field observations should be conducted shortly after the project is completed by the Engineering Department to ensure the project is operating as intended.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 68 of 70 ends

296
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 67 ends

Table 36 summarizes the educational programs and action items recommended to successfully improve safety throughout the City.

Table 36: LRSP Implementation Plan
Project
#
HSIP
Funding
Cycle
Program Action Responsible
Party Timeline
1 Cycle 11 N/A Apply for HSIP Grant Funding City of
Escondido
Year 2022 -
2023
2 Cycle 11 N/A Apply for HSIP Grant Funding City of
Escondido
Year 2022 -
2023
3 Cycle 11 N/A Apply for HSIP Grant Funding City of
Escondido
Year 2022 -
2023
4 N/A N/A Budget funding to pay for this
project not HSIP eligible
City of
Escondido
Year 2022 -
2023
5 N/A N/A Budget funding to pay for this
project not HSIP eligible
City of
Escondido
Year 2022 -
2023

TBD N/A
Locations that have not identified
countermeasures are pending
further evaluation.

City of
Escondido N/A
Safe Routes to
School
Partner with the EUHSD and EUSD to
further support bicycling and
walking.

Engineering
Department
Annually – Up
to 3 years
(Year 2025)

San Diego
County Bicycle
Coalition
Partner with the Coalition to
promote awareness of bicyclists &
and encourage the use of cycling to
schools, businesses and the
community.

Engineering
Department
Annually – Up
to 3 years
(Year 2025)
DUI Prevention
 Conduct DUI checkpoints on
corridors with high concentration
of DUI crashes at least 2x/year.
 Increase awareness of the dangers
of DUI by educating the public and
students with assistance from
City’s Police Dept. and MADD.
 Advertise and provide free transit
service on major holidays to
reduce the risk of DUI.

Police
Department
Annually for
the next 5 years
(Year 2027)

TransNet -
Active
Transportation
Program Grant
 City should identify funding for
ATP projects such as the Escondido
Creek Bikeway Missing Link Project
to encourage the use of bicycling
and walking.
 Further investigate ATP funding
near local schools for safety
improvements such as Mission
Middle School, Pioneer Elementary
School, Juniper Elementary School,
and LR Green Elementary School.

City of
Escondido
Annually for
the next 5 years
(Year 2027)

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 69 of 70 ends

297
Item12.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 68 ends

CONCLUSION
The City prepared this LRSP to identify, analyze and prioritize roadway safety improvements on the local streets throughout the City. This LRSP identifies the top systemic crash patterns and top crash locations throughout the City, based on crash data collected from January 2016 through December 2020. The LRSP also provides the City a toolbox of countermeasures to address the systemic crash patterns and reduce crashes at the City’s top crash locations. This LRSP provides the City with in-depth analysis of crash data that could be useful in determining safety improvements based on current programs outside of the HSIP grant funding process such as TPML, TSPL, and SRTS. In this LRSP, a total of three (3) projects involving 22 intersections have been identified for HSIP funding. The combination of countermeasures that were selected for each project and location was selected to provide the most competitive applications for HSIP grant funding. This document is considered a living document to be updated every 5 years to assess how well the implemented strategies have performed and update the crash data to identify new trends that might occur throughout the City.

Resolution No. 2022.64
Exhibit "A"

Page 70 of 70 ends

298
Item12.

STAFF REPORT

May 25, 2022
File Number 0650-40

SUBJECT

CONSIDERATION OF TERM LIMITS FOR ELECTED MUNICIPAL OFFICES

DEPARTMENT
City Attorney

RECOMMENDATION
Request the City Council consider and provide direction to staff on the preparation of a ballot measure for the November 2022 Gubernatorial G eneral Election to set term limits for all elected city representatives.

Staff Recommendation: None (City Attorney: Michael R. McGuinness) Presenters: Michael Morasco, City councilmember and Michael R. McGuinness, City Attorney

FISCAL ANALYSIS
The San Diego County Registrar of Voters indicates that placement of this measure on the November 2022 Gubernatorial General Election ballot could cost between $48,000 and $78,000. The actual costs will depend on how many jurisdictions participate in the election as the Registrar assigns election costs in a consolidated election through the use of a weighted average method.

PREVIOUS ACTION
None.

BACKGROUND
On April 6, 2022 , Councilmember Morasco requested a Future Agenda item to discuss and consider an amendment to the Escondido Municipal Code to place limits on the terms for the mayor, councilmembers and the city treasu rer who may serve the City of Escondido . Any such amendment would need to be placed on the general election ballot for public vote. At this time there are no limits on the number of terms an elected or appointed representative for the City may serve under the Code. Neither federal nor state law place a limit on the city’s elected’s terms.

299
Item13.

1. In General.

The general concept behind the imposition of term limits on elected officials is that such positions should be of a defined and temporary duration. Advocates for restrictions on the number of terms contend that such rules reduce the unfair political power, including a fundraising advantage, which may be created with long-term politicians. Further, the argument is made that “professional politicians” gain and secure an advantage over lesser known, but equally qualified, candidates through name recognition, access to free publicity, and networking opportunities. Term limit advocates also believe that term limits allow for new ideas by a broader spectrum of members of the public by requiring a regular cyclical turnover of elected officials.

Those who may oppose term limits would argue that such rules create an artificial restriction on voters to elect the most qualified and experienced representative s. Further, the argument against term limits is that elections serve the same purpose by giving voters an opportunity to decide for themselves whether the incumbent is adequately representing their interests. One study in 2018 examining whether electoral incentives affect legislative behavior concluded that (1) legislators were more “productive” when they face re-election including matters such a sponsorship of bills, amount of committee service and absence rates for roll call votes; and (2) term-limited legislators are less fiscally responsible in their final term.1

2. Federal Term Limits.

Term limit debates preceded the United States Constitution and have been debated at the federal level since the inception of this country . Following President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s three terms in office, Congress passed and the states ratified the Twenty-Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Twenty-Second Amendment provides that a person can only be elected to be President of the United States of America two times for a total of eight years. After a state attempted to impose terms limits on its representatives, the United States Supreme Court found that states may not impose qualifications for offices of the United States representative or United States senator in addition to those set forth by the Constitution. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) 514 U.S. 779. Placing term limits on members of Congress requires another amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

3. California Term Limits.

California voters established term limits for state legislative offices in 1990 with the passage of Proposition 140. The Proposition changed the State Constitution and persons elected or appointed after November 5, 1990, holding offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Controller, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Board of Equalization members, and State Senators, were

1 See, https://www.legbranch.org/2018-6-19-how-do-electoral-incentives-affect-legislator-behavior/

300
Item13.

limited to two terms; members of the Assembly limited to three term s. The Governor and all other statewide officers, except the Insurance Commissioner, can serve two terms of four years, with a limit of two terms.

In June 2012, voters approved Proposition 28, which limits legislators to a maximum of 12 years, without regard to whether they serve those years in the State Assembly or the State Senate. Legislators first elected on or before June 5, 2012 are restricted by the previous term limits, approved in 1990.

4. Municipal Term Limits.

State law establishes procedural steps to adopt local government term limits. First, the City Council or City residents may propose by initiative limits on the number of terms a municipality’s electeds may serve.

Second, regardless of the source, any prop osal to limit or change term durations shall not become operative unless the electors of the City at a regularly scheduled election vote and a majority of the votes cast on the question in favor the adoption of the proposal. (Government Code section 36502 (b).) The imposition of term limits must occur prospectively – it cannot impact the current term of elected officials.

5. Municipal Term Limits in San Diego County.

Ten of the eighteen cities in San Diego County do not currently have any term limits. Th e County of San Diego and the three largest cities in the county (San Diego, Chula Vista and Oceanside) have adopted term limits. City of Oceanside voters recently adopted Measure K adopting a limit of three four-year terms for City councilmembers and the Mayor whether consecutive or not. In 2020, the City of Santee adopted term limits whereby the councilmembers are limited to three four -year terms regardless of the district represented, the mayor is limited to no more than two four-year terms, and partial terms in excess of two years are considered a full term.

The following chart describes the current state of term limit jurisdictions throughout San Diego County:

Term Limits City / County
None

Carlsbad
Del Mar
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
Imperial Beach
Lemon Grove
Poway
Solana Beach
Vista
301
Item13.

Two, four-year terms County of San Diego (Board of Supervisors) Santee (mayor only)
Two consecutive, four-year terms Chula Vista
Coronado
City of San Diego
Three, four-year terms La Mesa (consecutive terms)
National City (consecutive terms)
San Marcos (consecutive terms)
Santee (councilmembers only)
Oceanside (whether consecutive or not)

Conclusion.

Term limits typically vary in four basic areas: (1) number of terms; (2) offices subject to the term limit; (3) application to consecutive terms or not; and (4) life -time limits or not. An additional variable can be whether and how partial terms created by appointment or special el ection are treated. Each of these decisions involve policy preferences best determined by the voters.

Regardless of the selection of the variables , an ordinance proposing such limits should be simple and straightforward and as noted above , would only apply prospectively to those terms of office that begin on or after the November 8, 2022 Gubernatorial General Election.

302
Item13.

STAFF REPORT

May 25, 2022
File Number 0650-40

SUBJECT

CONSIDERATION OF CITY TREASURER POSITION AND COMPENSATION

DEPARTMENT
City Attorney

RECOMMENDATION

Request the City Council consider and provide direction to staff on (1) any proposed modifications to the current language in the Escondido Municipal Code relating to the City Treasurer’s position and/or salary including, but not limited to, the potential to achi eve financial savings, and (2) if required, the preparation of a ballot measure for the November 2022 general election related to the City Treasurer position and/or salary.

Staff Recommendation: None (City Attorney: Michael R. McGuinness) Presenters: Michael Morasco, City Councilmember and Michael R. McGuinness, City Attorney

FISCAL ANALYSIS
The San Diego County Registrar of Voters indicates that placement of this ballot measure on the November 2022 Gubernatorial General Election ballot could cost between $45,000 and $75,000. The actual costs will depend on how many jurisdictions participate in the election as the Registrar assigns election costs in a consolidated election through the use of a weighted average method.

Should the matter go before the voters, and there is a reduction in the salary approved by the electorate, any savings achieved by that reduction would not be realized until December 2024 at the end of the current City Treasurer’s term. Nothing prohibits, and the Escondido Municipal C ode specifically allows, the City Treasurer to accept a lower salary than that provided for under existing law.

PREVIOUS ACTION
None.

BACKGROUND
On April 6, 2022, Councilmember Morasco requested a Future Agenda item to discuss and consider potential modifications to the City Treasurer position including whether the position should continue to be an elected position and the amount of compensation for the position provided for in the Escondido 303
Item14.

Municipal Code (“EMC”). Currently the City Treasurer position, including its duties and compensation, is provided for in EMC sections 2-93 through 2-96.4.

1. Elected Position.

State law allows a general law city such as the City of Escondido to appoint a City Treasurer. (Government Code section 36501(c).) When appointed, t he City has the authority and discretion to decide the qualifications for the eligible candidates, what responsibilities to give that position, how to staff the office, and set the amount of compensation for the position provided it is no t in conflict with State law . State law also permits the electorate to adopt an initiative measure to make the City Treasurer an elected position and to fix the compensation for that official. (84 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 13 (2001) (Opinion No. 00 - 905).)
Escondido voters approved Proposition F making changes to the offices of the City Clerk and the City Treasurer. Adopted at the June 1984 election with a vote of 51.56% YES to 48.44% NO , Proposition F repealed all previous ordinances and resolutions regarding the Clerk’s and Treasurer’s positions, recommitted the Clerk and Treasurer as elected positions, limited the budget and staff size of the offices, and set a minimum salary for the positions by requiring that these elected officials receive a salary of at least one half of the highest salary of an appointed department head other than the City Manager.

Two and a half years later, on November 4, 1986, the voters approved Proposition N, the “City Clerk and City Treasurer Accountability Initiative” which amended Proposition F by clarifying ambiguous terms and simplifying regulation of these offices. The vote was 60.65% YES and 39.35% NO. Specifically, Proposition N provided that the Treasurer’s salary shall be fixed by the City Council “annually at no less than one half the highest salary paid to a City department head other than the City Manager, unless a lower salary is requested by the City Treasurer with benefits equal to those provided such appointee.” 1 In 1998, the voters adopted Proposition U which am ended Proposition N by making the City Clerk an appointive position.

Today, the City Treasurer is elected at large with a term of four years. Because the elected position of City Treasurer came about by a vote of the people, any repeal or amendment to the Code must be placed on a ballot for a public vote. (Elections Code section 9222.) Further, EMC section 2-93 specifically provides that “The office of treasurer of the City of Escondido is created as an elected position … unless repealed, or amended by the state legislature or the people of the City of Escondido by public vote.”

1 There is some confusion surrounding the actual language of the proposition. The proposition as submitted to the voters read in relevant part as follows: “…salary annually at no less that one -half the highest salary paid to an appointed City department head other than the City Manager…” However, the word “appointed” is not found in the EMC at section 2 -95 which codified Proposition N nor in Resolution No. 86 -258 which called for the holding of the election on the proposed amends to Proposition F. The word does appear in the redlined version of Proposition F which appeared in the ballot materials. The absence of the word “appointed” is not material to the implementation of the ordinance.
304
Item14.

The current City Treasurer, Douglas W. Shultz, has served in that role since first elected in 2016. In 2020, given the absence of any declared candidates for th e position, and pursuant to Elections Code section 10299, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-121 to appoint Mr. Shultz as City Treasurer effective December 9, 2020. The City Treasurer’s current term expires in December 2024.

2. Duties and Responsibilities.

Pursuant to the Code, the City Treasurer has the following duties and responsibilities:

1. Receive directly or through other departments of the city all monies collected by or on behalf of the city and hold same for deposit or investment;

2. Make disbursements for expenditures authorized by the city council;

3. Perform all other functions necessarily incidental to the proper fulfillment of the treasurer’s duties and responsibilities; and

4. With the City Council, annually select an independent cert ified public accountant to conduct an audit of the internal controls of the office of city treasurer. (EMC sections 2-96.3, 2-96.4.) In addition to the above, State law provides additional duties for a City Treasurer. (Government Code section 41001 -41007; sections 53630 et. seq .) As to the internal functions of the office of the City Treasurer, the official has sole responsibility for management of the office including the appointment of a deputy treasurer, hiring and discharge of employees and developing budgets for operating and capital expenditures. (EMC section 2-96.2.) At this time, the City Treasurer’s Office has the following staff: the City Treasurer, an Accountant I, and a Senior Accounting Assistant . The draft General Fund FY 2022/23 Operating Budget for the City Treasurer’s Office as of May 11, 2022, was $238,080.

The City’s Human Resources Department has studied how other municipalities in San Diego County staff a city treasurer position. In the County, there are 13 public agencies which have typical or statutory city treasurer functions performed by the Director of Finance or Director of Administrative Services .

Escondido is one of five public agencies in the County with an elected City Treasurer. The other cities are Oceanside, Carlsbad, National City, and La Mesa. The County of San Diego also has an elected treasurer referred to as the County Treasurer – Tax Collector.

3. City Treasurer Salary.

As noted above, p ursuant to EMC section 2-95, the City Council is required to fix the treasurer’s salary “annually at no less than one half the highest salary paid to a city department head other than the City Manager, unless a lower salary is requested by the city treasurer, with benef its equal to those provided such appointee.” At this time, Mr. Shultz has a salary of $105,997 and receives benefits consistent with other city employees at that salary range.

A review of the salaries for elected city treasurers in San Diego County reflects that the median salary for that position is $12,840. The following are the current salaries: Oceanside ($24,190); Carlsbad ($12,840); 305
Item14.

National City ($11,031) and La Mesa ($6,948). As a result, Mr. Shultz’s salary has a variance of 87.89% above the median.

Similar to the length of the City Treasurer’s term, State law does not permit the City to directly or indirectly reduce this official’s compensation and/or benefits during a pending term. (80 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 119 (1997) (Opinion No. 97 -103) (employment relationship between elected officials and city is contractual and reduction in compensation during term of office would impair the obligation of a contract or deprive official of vested property right); Betts v. Board of Administration (1978) 21 Cal.3d 859, 863 (compensation and retirement benefits for office of State Treasurer are contractually vested upon acceptance of employment).

CONCLUSION
At this time, City staff seek direction from the City Council on any proposed changes to the EMC related to the City Treasurer’s office which would be brought forward for a public vote at the November 2022 Gubernatorial General Election.

306
Item14.

STAFF REPORT

May 25, 2022
File Number 0440-35

SUBJECT

PENSION OBLIGATION BOND WORKSHOP

DEPARTMENT
Finance

RECOMMENDATION
Request the City Council receive information on Pension Obligation Bonds and authorize staff to return to the City Council on June 22 for approval to move forward with the initial process of seeking court validation to issue bonds.

Staff Recommendation: Receive and File (Finance: Christina Holmes) Presenter: Christina Holmes, Director of Finance

FISCAL ANALYSIS
Ongoing information for budget planning purposes.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On January 26, 2022 City Council received information on the City’s California Employees Retirement System pension obligations.

BACKGROUND
The City of Escondido (“City”) provides retirement benefits to its employees who provide the City services residents rely on, by contracting with the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS).

Retirement benefits are funded by contributions from both employees and the City (“normal” annual service costs) as well as investment earnings. Annual contribution amounts are determined based on a percentage of payroll and in accordance with an actuaria lly based funding policy. The actuarially - determined pension funding plan determines exactly how much should be contributed each year to ensure that the benefits being earned will be securely funded in a systematic fashion. Since actuarial assumptions a re for the long term, demographic and economic assumptions can vary from actual experience. There are many factors considered such as mortality experience, retirement rates, disability incidences, salary growth, investment returns and more. An actuarial plan valuation is therefore prepared each year to true-up contribution levels to better match actual experience. 307
Item15.

CalPERS invests contribution payments with the goal of earning sufficient returns over the long -term to pay defined benefits as promised and co ver CalPERS expenses. Historically, more than 60% of all funds paid to CalPERS retirees comes from investment earnings. The estimated long -term average return expected to be earned on investments is referred to as the “discount rate” . When lower investm ent earnings occur, future contributions must increase to make up the expected difference and an unfunded accrued liability (“UAL”) is created. The UAL represents the shortfall or gap between what is needed to pay retiree benefits versus how much in current assets the City actually has in its accounts with CalPERS.

The UAL is calculated annually and changes depending on the demographic trends of the plan participants.

For many years, due to positive investment returns, CalPERS cities were “superfunded,” m eaning total plan assets exceeded the total CalPERS projected liability . However, during the Great Recession and resulting downturn in the economy, investment returns were impacted negatively nationwide, including CalPERS investments, decreasing the City’s total plan assets and creating an unfunded liability. In addition to the investment losses, adjustments have been made to demographic assumptions such as higher retirement rates, and also the expectation that retired employees are living longer, which have also contributed to the increasing liability.

As noted above, the UAL is the shortfall between what the City has in assets vs. what it will need to fully pay the benefits that it has committed to its employees and retirees. The UAL is essentially the City’s debt owed to CalPERS, and CalPERS charges the City a 6.8% interest rate on this debt with a mandatory payment schedule. Over the last 5 years, the City’s UAL for its CalPERs Miscellaneous and Safety Plans has grown 21%, from $221 million to about $267 million (06/30/20 Actuarial Valuation Report, most recently available). The table below reflects the UAL from the most recent CalPERS actuarial valuation as of June 30, 2020.

City of Escondido UAL Calculation Based on CalPERS 06/30/2020 Valuation Miscellaneous Safety Total
A Entry Age Normal Accrued Liability $459,862,821 $434,370,502 $894,233,323 B Market Value of Assets (MVA) $318,091,829 $309,037,732 $627,129,561 C Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) A - B $141,770,992 $125,332,770 $267,106,762 D Funded Ratio B / A 69.2% 71.2% 70.1%

308
Item15.

CalPERS and the City of Escondido have taken a number of actions to address unfunded liabilities across its member plans with the objective of reaching 100 percent funded status . Since December 2016, CalPERS has been lowering its discount rate in recognition that its assumptions about the rate of return on investments have been overly optimistic. The discount rate was lowered from 7.5% to 7.0% over a 3 - year period beginning with the June 30, 2016 valuation. Without any offsetting action, reducing the discount rate increases costs to member agencies in the short -term. In the long-term, the reduced rate is expected to lower the cost to member agencies as CalPERS is more likely to achieve the investment earnings target. When CalPERS last reduced its discount rate, causing employer liabilities to significantly increase, CalPERS also implemented a “ramp up” strategy to smooth out the increases in UAL contributions. As opposed to a fixed-level payment schedule, CalPERS began using a 25-year amortization schedule where payments are ramped up in the beginning years and ramped down in the ending years.

As a result of these actions, a nnual payments made to CalPERS to amortize the UAL have grown rapidly from $10 million in FY2017/18 to $19.7 million in FY2022/23. The chart below shows the current CalPERS unfunded liability amortization schedule for the Miscellaneous and Safety Plans. The General Fund is responsible for 100% of the Safety Plan and approximately 56% of the Miscellaneous Plan payments. The remaining portion of the Miscellaneous Plan is funded by the Water, Wastewater, and Internal Service Funds.

$-
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
UAL Repayment Schedule
(in millions)
Safety Plan Miscellaneous Plan
309
Item15.

Pension cost increases are one of the largest financial challenge facing most cities throughout the state and are primarily due to factors outside of the cities' control, namely actuarial assumption changes made by CalPERS and below average investment returns. CalPERS and the League of California Cities have detailed various options available to help manage pensions. There is no perfect solution to managing a City’s pension obligations and many agencies employ multiple methods to manage their pension obligations. The most typical options include:

1. Identify new sources of revenue to help defray the costs of the City’s pensions,

2. Using cash reserves to make additional payments to CalPERS or to the City's Section 115 Pension Trust Fund to help stabilize yearly fluctuations in pension rates,

3. Pursue a CalPERS Fresh Start which allows an agency to consolidate multiple amortization bases (different components of the UAL) into one base paid off over a shorter period. While annual payments will increase, the UAL can be paid off earlier and it would save the City money over the long-term, or

4. Restructure the UAL at a lower interest rate, such as a Pension Obligation Bond.

PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS
Pension Obligation Bonds (“POB”) allow an agency the ability to “refinance” some or all of their UAL with CalPERS (the City still needs to pay 100% of the normal cost) that has an effective interest rate of 6.8% with taxable bonds at a lower market rate. The overall strategy of POBs is to achieve interest rate savings (i.e. arbitrage) between the 6.8% and market rate bond issuance.

A POB issuance restructures the City’s UAL obligation to CalPERS into an obligation to investors. The issuance provides a lump sum that is remitted to CalPERS which reduces or temporarily eliminates the City’s UAL obligation to CalPERS and replaces it with an obligation to investors. Instead of paying CalPERS

6.8% on the obligation, POBs are currently being sold to investors at or below 4%.

The City will alwa ys have some version of a UAL with CalPERS because investment earnings will never exactly hit the CalPERS target and actuarial assmptions will change each year. So even if the City paid off the current UAL with CalPERS or issued POBs and paid those off, it does not prevent the addition of some level of UAL in the future. However, once the current UAL or POBs are paid in full, the amount of the UAL that arises in the future should generally, absent large investment losses, be able to be remedied annually, or shortly thereafter, because it would be significantly less.

310
Item15.

Potential Benefits of Pension Obligation Bonds:

There are several potential benefits the City could realize by issuing POBs. These potential benefits include:

1. A tool for fiscal sustainability,
POBs provide the ability to alter the City’s UAL payments in a way that could support long -term financial sustainability, help provide budget predictability and minimize the year over year variability in payments, and provide enhanced resiliency to economic shocks.

2. Budgetary savings,
Using POBs to modify the current CalPERS UAL payment schedule’s peak in projected payments to a more predictable or level structure can create cash flow savings.

3. Interest rate “savings” from arbitrage,
Issuing POBs at market rates that are lower than what CalPERS charges on the UAL creates interest savings through arbitrage. In this example, arbitrage is created by taking advantage of the difference between the CalPERS rate of 6.8% and current market rates. All else being equal, the City would realize a lower cost of debt.

4. Maturity modification, and
A POB may have a shorter or longer repayment period based on market conditions and the financial objectives of the issuer. However, if the POBs are structured with deferred prin cipal amortization or repayment longer than the actuarial amortization period the overall cost of debt may increase. Further lengthening the debt repayment period adds risks and is specifically noted in the Government Finance Officers Association advisory against POBs.

5. Preservation of reserve and service levels.

Potential savings achieved through a POB issuance could reduce the need to use reserves to fund ongoing expenditures or reduce service levels.

Potential Risks of Pension Obligation Bonds:

The Gov ernment Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Advisories identify policies and procedures necessary to minimize a government’s exposure to potential loss in connection with its financial management activities. The GFOA has issued an Advisory that recommends state and local governments do not issue POBs as there are several risks associated with issuing POBs. These potential risks include:

1. It turns a “variable” obligation into a “fixed” obligation, The City’s UAL obligation to CalPERS will change year over yea r. It could increase or decrease based on a variety of factors such as investment returns or actuarial assumption changes. This allows the City to benefit from UAL decreases (i.e. lower payments to CalPERS) but does also mean the City is negatively impacte d by increases (i.e. higher payments to CalPERS). Issuing a POB 311
Item15.

transfers and refinances the obligation due to CalPERS into a fixed obligation due to investors. An obligation due to investors will not increase or decrease over time which can be beneficial under the right conditions as it limits downside risk associated with an increasing UAL. However, it also carries risk as a fixed obligation because it cannot take advantage of a consistently decreasing UAL.

2. Low pension fund returns,
If CalPERS investment earnings are below its current discount rate of 6.8% in a given year, the City’s UAL will increase from the addition of a new amortization base to reflect the investment earnings shortfall. This investment shortfall is applied to the City’s Market Value of Assets (MVA) which will be higher after the issuance of POBs. The new amortization base from the investment shortfall will be larger given the MVA is higher resulting in a larger amortization base than the City would have had before issuing POBs. The City’s funded ratio would still be higher, however.

3. “Too much of a good thing,”
If CalPERS investment returns consistently exceed 6.8% after the City issues a POB, the City’s pension plan could become super -funded (i.e. has placed more money with CalPERS than is necessary to cover its pension obligations). Because the POBs become a fixed obligation, the City would not benefit from these surpluses (required contributions would not decrease as the Normal Cost must always be paid) which means the City loses the benefits of cash it could have used on other city services.

4. Future UAL can still change,
The City will always have some UAL or the potential for some UAL. Issuing POBs does not eliminate the City’s UAL obligations; it merely refinances the City’s UAL obligations as of a point in time. This will occur as a result of things such as CalPERS investment returns, future changes in the CalPERS discount rate, changes in actuarial assumptions, etc.

5. Market timing risks,
Market timing risk is related to the timing of the investment of the bond proceeds. A POB issuance produces a lump sum of proceeds which must be remitted to CalPERS immediately after issuance.

This lump sum concentrates market timing risks rather than spreading it. This is esp ecially a consideration in the current economic environment as equity markets are at all -time highs. If a market crash occurred between the bond sale and CalPERS investment of the bond proceeds, which is typically two weeks apart, the initial investment co st would be lower and could potentially provide higher future returns. However, if a market crash occurred after the initial investment of bond proceeds, it would negatively impact future earnings given the decreased potential for compounded earnings. It w ould also likely result in a new amortization base and increase in UAL all else being equal.

312
Item15.

6. Increased bonded debt and credit risk,
Issuing POBs would reduce the City’s UAL but increases its bonded debt potentially using up debt capacity that could be used for other purposes. Having more bonded debt may also impact the City’s credit rating. S&P Global Ratings views POBs in environments of fiscal distress or as a mechanism for short -term budget relief as a negative credi t factor. That being said, S&P also identifies a large liability to CalPERS as a credit negative and there have been many POB issuers, Chula Vista is a recent example , that did not receive a downgrade in rating associated with the issuance.

7. Judicial validation process, and
The City must proceed through a judicial validation process to issue POBs. This legal filing may be challenged in court proceedings and, if a challenge was successful, prevent the issuance of POBs.

8. Political process.

POBs can be controversial because, among other things, some view them as gambling on future market returns and they’ve received a negative reputation due to well publicized bankruptcies (Detroit, Stockton, and San Bernardino). Stakeholders, constituents, a nd interest groups may be critical of using POBs as an option for managing the City’s pension obligations.

Since February 2019, 36 cities throughout California have issued POBs to refinance their UAL in an attempt to accomplish similar goals. The City of Chula Vista, City of El Cajon , and City of Poway are San Diego County cities that have issued POBs recently.

JUDICIAL VALIDATION PROCESS
Authorizing the judicial validation process is the first step in issuing POBs. While this is the first step in the POB issuance process, it does not obligate the City to issue POBs. California public entities do not have specific authority to refinance pension debt by issuing bonds. Pursuant to the judicial validation process, the Court will issue a judgment confirming that the contract with CalPERS and the pension UAL are each an “obligation imposed by law” under the State Constitution which can be refunded under the provisions of the Government Code. This ruling allows local agencies to refund outstanding debt without additional voter approval. Unless challenged, the judicial validation proceedings are largely administrative and may be managed by special legal counsel.

The validation proceedings take approximately 90 - 120 days. The proceedings typical ly include the following:

1. File Validation Action with San Diego County Superior Court

2. Receive Order for Publication of Summons from the Court

3. Legal publication for 21 consecutive days

4. Waiting period for ex parte (a decision decided by a judge that doesn’t requir e all parties to the dispute to be present) application to file default judgment 313
Item15.

5. Clerk enters default judgement and schedules a hearing (hearing for default judgement and entry of judgment

6. Appeal Period (30 days)
Although the issue has not been litigated e xtensively in California, dozens of prior default (i.e. uncontested) validation judgments have determined that pension liabilities are obligations imposed by law and therefore exempt from the debt limitation requirements set forth in Article XVI, Section 18 of the California Constitution. Staff does not anticipate a judicial validation process for the City of Escondido will proceed differently.

NEXT STEPS
City staff have engaged the services of three consultants that are subject matter experts that will form the financing team and provide objective information on issuing POBs. Assisting staff with the POB analysis and potential debt issuance are CSG Consulting as municipal advisor, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth as judicial validation and bond counsel, and Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. as bond underwriters.

City staff will return to City Council on June 22 with the bond consultant financing team to present a risk analysis and options for the potential issuance of a pension obligation bond for the City of Escondido. City staff will also be requesting City Council’s approval to move forward with the judicial validation process.

314
Item15.

KEY-

CONSENT CALENDAR CURRENT BUSINESS

PUBLIC HEARING WORKSHOP
6/8/2022
CONSENT CALENDAR - (C. MCKINNEY) - AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT FOR EAGLE SCOUT LAKE BRIDGE PROJECT - Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-60, authorizing an amendment in an amount of $120,000.00 to the consulting agreement with Kleinfelder, Inc. for the Eagle Scout Lake Bridge Project (“Project”) in Kit Carson Park. The amendment will provide funding for additional permitting services in support of design and construction of the Project.

PUBLIC HEARING - (C. HOLMES) - ADOPTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 OPERATING BUDGET - It is requested that City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-xx approving the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Annual Operating Budget. It is also requested that City Council adopt Resolution 2022-xx approving the Appropriations Limit (Gann Limit) for Fiscal Year 2022/23.

PUBLIC HEARING - (C. HOLMES) - FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND PROJECT BUDGETS FOR FY 2022/23 - It is requested that City Council approve Resolution 2022-xx adopting the FYs 2022/23-2026/27 Five Year Capital Improvement Program and FY 2022/23 Project Budgets; and Resolution No. 2022-xx adopting the Regional Transportation Improvement Program for FYs 2022/23-2026/27.

CURRENT BUSINESS - (Z. BECK) - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE -Request the City Council receive and file an update from the Boards and Commissions Subcommittee.

CURRENT BUSINESS - (J. PROCOPIO) - ADOPTION ORDINANCE 2022-10 - UPDATES TO CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE SECTION 22358.8 TO RETAIN EXISITING SPEED

LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREET SEGMENTS
6/15/2022
CONSENT CALENDAR - (C. HOLMES) - ISSUANCE OF THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2020-2 (THE VILLAGES) SPECIAL TAX BONDS - It is requested that the City Council, acting as the legislative body of Community Facilities District No. 2020-02 of the City of Escondido (The Villages) (the “District”), adopt Resolution No. 2022-XX (the “Resolution”) to authorize the issuance and sale of Special Tax Bonds, Series 2022 (the “Bonds”) and approve certain documents and the taking of certain other actions in connection therewith.

CONSENT CALENDAR - (J. GOULART) - ANNUAL FUEL PURCHASE - Request the City Council adopt Resolution 2022-67 authorizing the City Council to approve the purchase of unleaded and diesel fuels from SC Fuels.

CONSENT CALENDAR - (J. PROCOPIO) - NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE 2021 STREET REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE PROJECT – PHASE 2 CURRENT BUSINESS - (Z. BECK) - GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION – NOVEMBER 8, 2022 - Request the City Council adopt resolutions calling for and holding a General Municipal Election and requesting consolidation with the November 8, 2022, Statewide General Election.

CURRENT BUSINESS - (C. MCKINNEY) - REPORT ON DRINKING WATER PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS - It is requested that City Council receive and file the Drinking Water Public Health Goals Report, and respond to public comments on the Report.

Page 1 ends

315
Item16.

Escondido City CouncilMay 25, 2022

Escondido City Council
May 25, 2022