Agenda packet — Escondido City Council, August 24, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

CITY of ESCONDIDO

Council Meeting Agenda
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2022
4:00 PM - Closed Session - Cancelled
5:00 PM - Regular Session
Escondido City Council Chambers, 201 North Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025

WELCOME TO YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
We welcome your interest and involvement in the legislative process of Escondido. This agenda includes information about topics coming before the City Council and the action recommended by City staff.

MAYOR
Paul McNamara

DEPUTY MAYOR
Tina Inscoe (District 2)

COUNCILMEMBERS
Consuelo Martinez (District 1)
Joe Garcia (District 3)
Michael Morasco (Disctrict 4)

CITY MANAGER
Sean McGlynn

CITY ATTORNEY
Michael McGuinness

CITY CLERK
Zack Beck

HOW TO WATCH
The City of Escondido provides three ways to watch a City Council meeting:

In Person On TV Online

201 N. Broadway Cox Cable Channel 19 and U-verse Channel 99 www.escondido.org

1 Wednesday, August 24, 2022

HOW TO PARTICIPATE
The City of Escondido provides two ways to communicate with the City Council during a meeting:

In Person In Writing

Fill out Speaker Slip and Submit to City Clerk https://escondido-ca.municodemeetings.com

ASSISTANCE PROVIDED
If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact our ADA Coordinator at 760-839-4869.

Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable to city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired – please see the City Clerk.

2 Wednesday, August 24, 2022

REGULAR SESSION
5:00 PM Regular Session

MOMENT OF REFLECTION
City Council agendas allow an opportunity for a moment of silence and reflection at the beginning of the evening meeting. The City does not participate in the selection of speakers for this portion of the agenda, and does not endorse or sanction any remar ks made by individuals during this time. If you wish to be recognized during this portion of the agenda, please notify the City Clerk in advance.

FLAG SALUTE
The City Council conducts the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of every City Council meeting.

CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call: Garcia, Inscoe, Martinez, Morasco, McNamara

PROCLAMATIONS
National Preparedness Month, September 2022

PRESENTATIONS
Pilot Agtech Incubator - 455 N Quince St.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
In addition to speaking during particular agenda items, the public may address the Council on any item which is not on the agenda provided the item is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. State law prohibits the Council from discussing or taking action on such items, but the matter may be referred to the City Manager/staff or scheduled on a subsequent agenda. Speakers are limited to only one opportunity to address the Council under Oral Communications.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are not discussed individually and are approved in a single motion. However, Council members always have the option to have an item considered separately, either on their own request or at the request of staff or a member of the public.

1. AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION, MAILING, AND POSTING (COUNCIL/RRB) -

2. APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER (COUNCIL)
3 Wednesday, August 24, 2022

Request approval for City Council and Housing Successor Agency warrant numbers 365882 – 366074 dated August 10, 2022.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Finance Department: Christina Holmes)

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of August 10, 2022

4. AUTHORIZING GRANT APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SAFE STREETS FOR

ALL PROGRAM AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-116 authorizing an application to the Department of Transportation for the Safe Streets for All Program for traffic and approving an amendment to the Local Roadway Safety Plan to meet grant criteria.

Staff Recommendation: Receive and File (Development Services: Andrew Firestine, Director of Development Services)
Presenter: Eddmond Alberto, City Traffic Engineer
a. Resolution 2022-116

5. 2022 SAFE SAN DIEGO GRANT PROGRAM AWARD ACCEPTANCE AND BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Request the City Council accept a SAFE San Diego Grant Award in the amount of $2,000 to purchase supplies for the Escondido Community Emergency Response Team (“CERT”). It is also req uested that Council authorize the Fire Chief or his designee to execute, on behalf of the City, all documents required for the management of this grant and that Council authorize the necessary budget adjustment to establish a new project number to track these grant funds.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Emergency Management: Jeff Murdock, Emergency Disaster Preparedness Manager)
Presenter: Jeff Murdock, Emergency Disaster Preparedness Manager

6. SANDAG SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM GRANT AGREEMENT FOR THE 2022 GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022 -123 authorizing the Mayor to execute, on behalf of the City, the Smart Growth Inceptive Program Grant (“SGIP”) Agreement.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services: Andrew Firestine, Director of Development Services)
Presenter: Veronica Morones, Senior Planner
a. Resolution No. 2022-123

CONSENT RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (COUNCIL/RRB)
4 Wednesday, August 24, 2022

The following Resolutions and Ordinances were heard and acted upon by the City Council/RRB at a previous City Council/Mobilehome Rent Review meeting. (The title of Ordinances listed on the Consent Calendar are deemed to have been read and further reading waived.)

7. REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2022-10 RETAINING THE POSTED SPEED LIMITS ON SEVEN (7) STREET SEGMENTS; AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2022-12 DETERMINING GRAND

AVENUE FROM CENTRE CITY PARKWAY TO SOUTH JUNIPER STREET TO BE A BUSINESS ACTIVITY DISTRICT AND DECLARE A PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT OF 25 MPH. a. Ordinance No. 2022-10
b. Ordinance No. 2022-12

PUBLIC HEARINGS

8. AN AMENDMENT TO THE ESCONDIDO MUNICI PAL AND ZONING CODES TO CREATE OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL 9 (PLANNING CASE NO. PL22- 0363)
Request that the City Council consider the introduction and adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-19, approving an amendment to the Escondido Municipal and Zoning Codes to create objective development standards for the local implementation of Senate Bill 9.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services: Andrew Firestine, Director of Development Services)
Presenter: Sean Nicholas, Principal Planner
a. Ordinance No. 2022-19 (Introduction)

CURRENT BUSINESS

9. BID AWARD FOR THE GRAPE DAY PARK MASTER PLAN AND AQUATIC CENTER DESIGN Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-111, authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the City, to execute a Consulting Agreement with LPA, Inc. in the amount of $1,040,400, for the completion of a Grape Day Park Master Plan and design of an Aquatic Center (“Project”) on Woodward Avenue.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Communications and Community Services: Joanna Axelrod) Presenter: Danielle Lopez, Assistant Director of Community Services a. Resolution No. 2022-111

WORKSHOP

10. TRANSPORTATION SAFETY UPDATE
5 Wednesday, August 24, 2022

Request that the City Council receive a presentation and hold a workshop to discuss transportation safety.

Staff Recommendation: Receive and File (Development Services/ Engineering, Edd Alber to), (Police Department/ Interim Chief of Police, Dave Cramer)

FUTURE AGENDA

11. FUTURE AGENDA
The purpose of this item is to identify issues presently known to staff or which members of the City Council wish to place on an upcoming City Council agenda. Council comment on these future agenda items is limited by California Government Code Section 54954.2 to clarifying questions, brief announcements, or requests for factual information in connection with an item when it is discussed.

Staff Recommendation: None (City Clerk's Office: Zack Beck)

COUNCILMEMBERS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND OTHER REPORTS
CITY MANAGER’S WEEKLY ACTIVITY REPORT
The most current information from the City Manager regarding Economic Deve lopment, Capital Improvement Projects, Public Safety, and Community Development. This report is also available on the City’s website, www.escondido.org.

ADJOURNMENT

SUCCESSOR AGENCY
Members of the Escondido City Council also sit as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, Escondido Joint Powers Financing Authority, and the Mobilehome Rent Review Board.

UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE
Wednesday, September, 14, 2022 4:00 & 5:00 PM Regular Meeting, Council Chambers Wednesday, September, 21, 2022 4:00 & 5:00 PM Regular Meeting, Council Chambers 6 7
Item1.

STAFF REPORT

August 24, 2022
File Number 0400-40

SUBJECT

APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER (COUNCIL)

DEPARTMENT
Finance

RECOMMENDATION
Request approval for City Council and Housing Successor Agency warrant numbers 365882 – 366074 dated August 10, 2022.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Finance Department: Christina Holmes)

FISCAL ANALYSIS
The total amount of the warrants for the period of August 4 – August 10, 2022, is $1,178,796.07.

BACKGROUND

The Escondido Municipal Code Section 10-49 states that warrants or checks may be issued and paid prior to audit by the City Council, provided the warrants or checks are certified and approved by the Director of Finance as conforming to the current budget. These warrants or checks must then be ratified and approved by the City Council at the next regular Council meeting.

8 Item2.

August 10, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 1 of 6

REGULAR SESSION
5:00 PM Regular Session

MOMENT OF REFLECTION
City Council agendas allow an opportunity for a moment of silence and reflection at the beginning of the evening meeting. The City does not participate in the selection of speakers for this portion of the agenda, and does not endorse or sanction any remarks made by individuals during this time. If you wish to be recognized during this portion of the agenda, please notify the City Clerk in advance.

FLAG SALUTE
The City Council conducts the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of every City Council meeting.

CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call: Garcia, Inscoe, Martinez, Morasco, McNamara

PRESENTATIONS
Clean Energy Alliance Update
Economic Development Data Dashboard Overview

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Joseph Kern – Expressed concern regarding housing in Escondido.

Nancy Burian – Expressed concern regarding businesses operating on the sidewalk.

Kate Zlotnick-Hess – Expressed opposition to short-term rentals.

Michael Hess – Expressed opposition to short-term rentals.

Jennifer Hepstein – Expressed concern regarding reproductive rights.

Vinson B – Expressed concern regarding homelessness.

Clint Morin – Expressed opposition to short-term rentals. 9 Item3.

August 10, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 2 of 6

Roberta Effenberger – Expressed opposition to short-term rentals.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion: Martinez; Second: Morasco; Approved: 5-0

1. AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION, MAILING, AND POSTING (COUNCIL/RRB) –

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meetings of July 13, 2022 and July 20, 2022 and Special meeting of July 27, 2022.

3. APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER (COUNCIL) –
Request approval for City Council and Housing Successor Agency warrant numbers:
365164 – 365460 dated July 20, 2022
365461 – 365643 dated July 27, 2022
Staff Recommendation: Approval (Finance Department: Christina Holmes)

4. FIREHOUSE SUBS PUBLIC SAFETY FOUNDATION GRANT AWARD AND BUDGET ADJUSTMENT - Request the City Council to accept a Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Grant Award in the amount of $16,147.42 to purchase two Bullard QXT Thermal Imaging Cameras with Truck Mounts. It is also requested that Council authorize the Fire Chief or his designee to execute, on behalf of the City, all documents required for the management of this grant and that Council authorize the necessary budget adjustment to establish a new proj ect number to track these grant funds.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Fire: Rick Vogt, Fire Chief) Presenter: John Tenger, Deputy Fire Chief

5. TREASURER’S INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2022 - Request the City Council approve the Quar terly Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2022.

Staff Recommendation: Approve (Douglas Shultz, City Treasurer)

6. ESTABLISHING THE PROPERTY TAX RATE AND FIXED CHARGE ASSESSMENTS FOR GENERAL

OBLIGATION BONDED INDEBTEDNESS -
It is requested that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-112 to establish the property tax rate and fixed charge assessments for bonded indebtedness for Fiscal Year 2022/23.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Finance: Christina Holmes, Director of Finance) 10 Item3.

August 10, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 3 of 6

Presenter: Michelle Collett, Revenue Manager
Resolution No. 2022-112

7. REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS PURSUANT TO AB 361
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022 -117 by making the requisite findings and permit the City Council and its standing committees the flexibility to use modified Brown Act procedures for teleconferencing into meetings during this emergency period.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Michael R. McGuinness, City Attorney and Zack Beck, City Clerk)
Presenter: Michael R. McGuinness, City Attorney
a. Resolution No. 2022-117

CONSENT RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (COUNCIL/RRB)
The following Resolutions and Ordinances were heard and acted upon by the City Council/RRB at a previous City Council/Mobilehome Rent Review meeting. (The title of Ordinances listed on the Consent Calendar are deemed to have been read and further reading waived.)

PUBLIC HEARINGS

8. SHORT-FORM RENT INCREASE APPLICATION FOR CAREFREE RANCH MOBILEHOME PARK (FILE NO. 0697-20-10306)
Request the City Council review Carefree Ranch Mobilehome Park short-form application and if desired, adopt the Rent Review Board Resolution No. RRB 2022-103.

Staff Recommendation: Consider the short-form rent increase application submitted by Carefree Ranch Mobilehome Park and if approved, adopt Rent Review Board Resolution No.

RRB 2022-103 (City Manager Office: Robert Van De Hey) Presenter: Holly Nelson, Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager a. Resolution No. RRB 2022-103

Jim Younce (Park Representative) – Expressed support for this item.

Lester Dale Anderson (Resident Representative) – Expressed opposition to this item.

Motion: Garcia; Second: Morasco; Approved: 5-0.

CURRENT BUSINESS
11 Item3.

August 10, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 4 of 6

9. REDUCTION AND RETENTION OF SPEED LIMITS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY

DISTRICT FOR GRAND AVENUE
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022 -113 amending the traffic schedule for the speed zone at two locations; introduce Ordinance No. 2022-10 retaining the posted speed limits on seven (7) street segments; and introduce Ordinance No. 2022-12 determining Grand Avenue from Centre City Parkway to South Juniper Street to be a Business Activity District and declare a prima facie speed limit of 25 MPH.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services: Julie Procopio, City Engineer) Presenter: Eddmond Alberto, City Traffic Engineer
a. Resolution 2022-113
b. Ordinance 2022-10R
b. Ordinance 2022-12
Motion: Inscoe; Second: Garcia; Approved: 5-0

10. CITY TREASURER COMPENSATION AND VACANCY STANDARDIZATION BALLOT MEASURE Request the City Council consider and take preferred action.

Staff Recommendation: None
Presenter: Gary McCarthy, Assistant City Attorney
a. Resolution No. 2022-114
b. Ordinance No. 2022-19
Robroy Fawcett – Expressed concern about the City Treasurer’s Salary.

Ed Gallo – Expressed support for this item.

Motion: Morasco; Second: Garcia; Approved: 5-0

11. TERM LIMITS BALLOT MEASURE FOR ALL ELECTED OFFICES IN THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO Request the City Council consider and introduce Ordinance No. 2022 -20 and adopt Resolution No. 2022-115 to place a ballot measure to set term limits for all elected offices in the City of Escondido on the November 8, 2022, consolidated general election. 12 Item3.

August 10, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 5 of 6

Staff Recommendation: None
Presenters: Gary McCarthy, Assistant City Attorney
a. Ordinance No. 2022-20
b. Resolution No. 2022-115
Motion: Morasco; Second: Garcia; Approved: 5-0

FUTURE AGENDA

12. FUTURE AGENDA
The purpose of this item is to identify issues presently known to staff or which members of the City Council wish to place on an upcoming City Council agenda. Council comment on these future agenda items is limited by California Government Code Section 54954.2 to clarifying questions, brief announcements, or requests for factual information in connection with an item when it is discussed.

Staff Recommendation: None (City Clerk's Office: Zack Beck) Morasco – Review of Short-Term Rentals. Clarification on California Law compared to City Law regarding street vendors.

McNamara – Presentation on what the MOU is between City and EUSD, EUHSD regarding Active Shooter Response.

COUNCILMEMBERS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND OTHER REPORTS
Martinez – Attended a CCAE / Council Subcommittee. Attended a San Diego County Water Authority Board Meeting.

Inscoe – Attended a CCAE / Council Subcommittee.

Garcia – Met with the Escondido Chamber of Commerce. Attended National Night Out. Met with Congressman Issa
Morasco – Attended National Night Out at East Valley Community Center. Met with State Senator Brian Jones. Met with proponent for infill housing on South Escondido Blvd.

McNamara – Met with Congressman Issa. Attended a LAFCO Board Meeting. Thanked ABC10 for promoting Escondido.
13 Item3.

August 10, 2022 Escondido City Council Minutes Page 6 of 6

CITY MANAGER’S WEEKLY ACTIVITY REPORT
The m ost current information from the City Manager regarding Economic Development, Capital Improvement Projects, Public Safety, and Community Development. This report is also available on the City’s website, www.escondido.org.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Eric McGill – Expressed concern regarding housing in Escondido.

Jonathan Chavez – Expressed concern regarding housing in Escondido.

Kwame X – Expressed concern regarding housing in Escondido.

Victoria Barman – Expressed concern regarding housing in Escondido.

Juliana Musheyev – Expressed concern regarding housing in Escondido.

Chris McClure – Expressed concern regarding housing in Escondido.

Teresa Exceline – Expressed concern regarding housing in Escondido.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor McNamara adjourned the meeting at 7:08 p.m.
14 Item3.

STAFF REPORT

August 24, 2022
File Number 1050-30

SUBJECT

AUTHORIZING GRANT APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SAFE STREETS FOR

ALL PROGRAM AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

DEPARTMENT
Development Services Department; Engineering Division

RECOMMENDATION
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-116 authorizing an application to the Department of Transportation for the Safe Streets for All Program for traffic and approving an amendment to the Local Roadway Safety Plan to meet grant criteria.

Staff Recommendation: Receive and File ( Development Services : Andrew Firestine, Director of Development Services)
Presenter: Eddmond Alberto, City Traffic Engineer

FISCAL ANALYSIS
It is anticipated that a 20% local match of approximately $300,000.00 will be required to fulfill the grant requirements. The adopted FY22/23 CIP budget has adequate funding for this match with $1,162,255 in TransNet funds programmed in the Local Roadway Safety Implementation CIP project.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On September 23, 2020, the City Council authorized the acceptance of grant funding to prepare a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) . On May 25, 2022, the City Council approved Resolution 2022-64 adopting the LRSP and authorizing the City Engineer to apply for HSIP grant funds for projects identified in the LRSP.

BACKGROUND
On May 16, 2022, The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced a grant program for communities of all sizes to apply for $1 billion in Federal Fiscal Year 2022 funding to help ensure safe streets and roads for all and address the national roadway safety crisis. The new Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) discretionary grant program provides dedicated funding to support regional, local, and Tribal plans, projects, and strategies that will prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. The SS4A program supports D OT’s comprehensive approach to significantly red uce serious injuries and deaths on our Nation’s highways, roads, and streets and is part of DOT’s work toward a long-term goal of reaching zero 15 Item4.

roadway fatalities. This funding is intended to address the nationwide trend in driver behavior that has led to traffic fatalities to be at the highest level they have been in over a decade.

On June 7, 2022, the SS4A program issued a notice of funding opportunity. The primary goal of the SS4A grants is to improve roadway safety by supporting communities in developing comprehensive safety action plans based on a Safe System Approach and implementing projects and strategies that significantly reduce or eliminate transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries involving pedestrians; bicyclists; public transportation, personal conveyance, and micromobility users, commercial vehicle operators; and motorists.

The SS4A grant program was created by Congress under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which directed DOT to support local initiatives to prevent death and serious injury on roads and streets. The law also directed DOT, when selecting projects under the program, to consider other factors in addition to safety, including equitable investment in the safety needs of underserved communities.

Authority for Grant Application:

Staff recommends application to the SS4A program to install a traffic signal at Centre City Parkway and Brotherton Road, and the adjacent frontage roadways. The LRSP included a list of the top 30 collision intersections ranked by crash severity cost, for the five-year analysis period of 2016-2020. The intersection of Centre City Parkway and S. Escondido Blvd. was ranked as the third highest in collision cost, at an amount of $5,877,900. Staff believes that the best way to address safety at this intersection is to prohibit left turns across Centre City Parkway at S. Escondido Blvd. and to re -route traffic to a fully signalized intersection at Brotherton Rd. The proximity of the frontage roads makes it necessary to also signalize the frontage roads. Staff believes that this is a high priority improvement that is a good candidate for the SS4A program because it will remove uncontrolled conflicting turning movements at S. Escondido Blvd. In addition, a traffic signal at Brotherton Road will provide pedestrian connectivity across Centre City Parkway. There are also several residential development projects in the vicinity of Brotherton Road that will benefit from the controlled crossing. Staff additionally requests that if the project is selected for funding that, the City Engineer be authorized to submit grant agreements, forms and othe r documents necessary to implement the grant as allowed by law.

Amendments to the Local Roadway Safety Plan:

Eligibility to apply for SS4A grant funding requires the local agency to develop a comprehensive safety action plan. This action plan is similar to the HSIP requirements for the LRSP. As City Council has recently approved the LRSP, staff has attended several webinars regarding the process for SS4A funding and has determined that the LRSP requires minor modifications to meet the requirement s of the SS4A comprehensive action plan.

16 Item4.

The following amendments were made to the LRSP:
 Added Section 4.4 noting the public forums to share traffic safety efforts during the LRSP process. (Page 10 of Resolution 2022-116 Exhibit A)
 Added Section 4.5 disc ussing upcoming public outreach opportunities. (Page 10 of Resolution 2022-116 Exhibit A)
 Updated Project 5 to include traffic signal improvement for Centre City Parkway and Brotherton Road with modifications to the Centre City Parkway and S. Escondido Blvd. intersection. (Page 64 of Resolution 2022-116 Exhibit A)
 Added new Project 6 for pedestrian crossing safety improvements, using countermeasures from the Local Roadway Safety Manual , with focus on high collision intersections/segments in disadvantaged communities. The project includes an overlay of collision locations over disadvantaged community census tracts. (Pages 65-69 of Resolution 2022-116 Exhibit A)

RESOLUTIONS
a. Resolution 2022-116
b. Resolution 2022-116 – Exhibit A – Amended Local Roadway Safety Plan

17 Item4.

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-116

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LOCAL

ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE

SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS FOR SAFE STREETS AND

ROADS FOR ALL GRANT FUNDING

WHEREAS, as the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) has a goal of zero deaths and serious injuries on the nation’s roadways; and
WHEREAS, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law established the new Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) discretionary program to fund local initiatives through grants to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries; and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2022 USDOT issued a notice of funding opportunity; and WHEREAS, SS4A funding eligibility requires the City to have an approved comprehensive action plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) on May 25, 2022; and WHEREAS, the LRSP has been amended to meet the USDOT checklist for consistency with the comprehensive action plan requirements; and
WHEREAS, the SS4A program provides funding of 80% of the project cost and matching funds have been programmed in the CIP budget for implementation of the LRSP.

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

1. That the above recitations are true.
18 Item4.

2. That the City Council approves the amended Local Roadway Safety Plan to be consistent with the Safe Streets And Roads For All Action Plan, which is attached and incorporated to this Resolution as Exhibit “A.”

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 United States Department of Transportation as allowed by law, including, but not limited to , applications, agreements and payment requests, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned Projects identified in the LRSP, as well as conduct requisite City financial management.

4. That the City Council approves Resolution No. 2022-116, amending the Local Roadway Safety Plan and authorizing the submission of applications for Safe Streets and Roads for All grant funding. 19 Item4.

JN 182244

Ci ty of Escondido Local
Roadway Safety Plan
(Amended for SS4A)
P
repared for:

City of Escondido
P
repared by:

M
ichael Baker International
+ S
upplements by City Staff
M
ay 2022
(amended September 2022)
Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 1 of 75 ends

20 Item4.

JN 182244

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 2 of 75 ends

21 Item4.

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

4.4. Roadway Safety Public Forum Outreach ........................................................................... 10

4.5. Upcoming Outreach Opportunities ................................................................................... 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 Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 3 of 75 ends

22 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Page ii

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

7.7. Hot Spot Locations - Corridors .......................................................................................... 55

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 ........................................................................................................ 71

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 4 of 75 ends

23 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 5 of 75 ends

24 Item4.

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 ...................................................................... 70 Table 36: LRSP Implementation Plan ....................................................................................................... 72

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 6 of 75 ends

25 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 7 of 75 ends

26 Item4.

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 in corporated 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 8 of 75 ends

27 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 9 of 75 ends

28 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 8 ends

4. Safety Partners

Safety partners, also referred to as Stakeholders, are those departments, agencies, organizations and public partners 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 Partner Organization Stakeholders, who represent their public constituents 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 10 of 75 ends

29 Item4.

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 particip ants 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 in put 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 Miss ion 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. The se 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 (disadvantaged
youth support organization)
• Michael Baker International (consultant)

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 Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 11 of 75 ends

30 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 10 ends

installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons ( RRFBs). Pedestrian and bicycle -related countermeasures were recommended at locations near schools, parks and locations w here 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 Eng ineer 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 was presented to TCSC in February 2022 for review and approval. Projects were prioritized for funding through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) managed by Caltrans.

Applications to receive HSIP Cycle 11 funding for projects identified in the LRSP will be submitted in September 2022.

4.4. Roadway Safety Public Forum Outreach
In addition to the stakeholder organization meetings, additional outreach efforts throughout the process shared the City’s traffic safety efforts with the public:
• Washington Park Traffic Safety Public Forum (November 2021) • Transportation Safety Workshop - Council Chambers – (November 2021) • Ongoing efforts and opportunities for public input:
o Council meetings (ongoing)
o Transportation and Community Safety Commission meetings – public forum o Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) funded Police Department Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety education o OTS Selective Traffic Enforcement
o Walk Audits
o Safe Routes to School Education efforts,
o Social media
o Report-It! mobile app
o LRSP online
o Service requests – calls, email, social media, in person inquiries at City Hall – these range from red curb requests, reporting traffic signal issues, to requests for pedestrian crossing improvements, such as ADA accommodations, school crossings, park crossings, etc.

4.5. Upcoming Outreach Opportunities
In late 2022, the City will be launching a Comprehensive Active Transportation Strategy (CATS). This effort will examine transportation options citywide to reduce barriers to mobility options and seek opportunities for improvements. This effort will include significant outreach for public input, and will include extensive use of social media venues to gather perspectives of how people want to and need to travel throughout the City.

Travel equity will be a focus, looking at travel needs according to various equity assessments (income, age, ability, opportunity, etc.). The effort will be combined with a comprehensive evaluation of the City’s 350 mile roadway network, with a focus on opportunities to ‘right -size’ the City’s streets. Ultimately, the plan is to produce a Comprehensive Active Transportation Strategy, but also an updated Circulation Element, with an emphasis on both vehicular as well as multi-modal travel opportunities.

The CATS will evaluate how ‘vulnerable users’ travel, their origin-destinations, and how the city transportation network can improve to meet their needs.

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 12 of 75 ends

31 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 13 of 75 ends

32 Item4.

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 equitable 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.

In addition to the policies listed in the General Plan, the City is examining opportunities to update longstanding Traffic Engineering Policies, such as speed limits, crosswalk warrants, median openings, etc.

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 Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 14 of 75 ends

33 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 13 ends

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 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 t hat 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
Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 15 of 75 ends

34 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 14 ends

Project Location Year Project Description Status
Missing Link Bikeway ATP
2014
Bikeway / Cycle-track along Valley Pkwy from
Quince St to Broadway/Woodward Complete
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 provide s 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 sol ution, 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, v ia 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 acti ons 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 16 of 75 ends

35 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 17 of 75 ends

36 Item4.

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 with in shopping centers. Crashes that a re 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-s outh 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 3 0 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 18 of 75 ends

37 Item4.

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 w ere 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 19 of 75 ends

38 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 18 ends

Figure 1: Citywide Intersection Crash Map

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 20 of 75 ends

39 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 19 ends

Figure 2: Citywide Mid-Block Crash Map

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 21 of 75 ends

40 Item4.

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 crash es were Broadside (3 4%), Rear -End (2 7%), 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 crash es. 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 22 of 75 ends

41 Item4.

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 Type s

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 23 of 75 ends

42 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 24 of 75 ends

43 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 25 of 75 ends

44 Item4.

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 numb er 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 B roadside 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 26 of 75 ends

45 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 25 ends

Figure 5: Broadside Crash Location Map

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 27 of 75 ends

46 Item4.

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 R ear-End crashes, it is important to consider the following p hysical 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 R ear-End crashes within the City. As illustrated below , R ear-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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 28 of 75 ends

47 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 27 ends

Figure 6: Rear- End Crash Location Map

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 29 of 75 ends

48 Item4.

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 direction s. 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 roa dway 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 t o help determine appropriate countermeasures at these locations.

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 30 of 75 ends

49 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 29 ends

Figure 7: Sideswipe Crash Location Map

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 31 of 75 ends

50 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 32 of 75 ends

51 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 31 ends

Figure 8: Unsafe Speed Crash Location Map

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 33 of 75 ends

52 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 32 ends

Auto Right-of-Way Violation Crashes
A total of 8 35 crashes were attributed to A uto Right-of-Way V iolation, 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 thr oughout the City . The highest concentration of crashes occu rred 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 34 of 75 ends

53 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 33 ends

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

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 35 of 75 ends

54 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 34 ends

DUI Crashes
Of the 4,332 reported crashes, DUIs w ere 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 36 of 75 ends

55 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 35 ends

Figure 10: DUI Crash Location Map

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 37 of 75 ends

56 Item4.

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 p edestrian- and bicycle-involved collisions. As shown, pedestrian violation is the most reported cause of pedestrian -involved collisions . Pedes trian violation s 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 b icycle-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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 38 of 75 ends

57 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 37 ends

Figure 11: Pedestrian Involved Crash Location Map

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 39 of 75 ends

58 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 38 ends

Figure 12: Bicycle Involved Crash Location Map

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 40 of 75 ends

59 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 41 of 75 ends

60 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 42 of 75 ends

61 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 43 of 75 ends

62 Item4.

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 numb er 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 44 of 75 ends

63 Item4.

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 vul nerable 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 45 of 75 ends

64 Item4.

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 action s 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 46 of 75 ends

65 Item4.

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 u nknown (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 2 3 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 47 of 75 ends

66 Item4.

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 o f 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 48 of 75 ends

67 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 49 of 75 ends

68 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 50 of 75 ends

69 Item4.

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 intersectio ns, 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 s cheduled 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 51 of 75 ends

70 Item4.

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 Si gnalized $2,900,600 0.30
21 Juniper St & 10th Ave 0 1 1 2 2 6 Unsi gnalized $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 & 9th 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 Unsi gnalized $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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 52 of 75 ends

71 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 53 of 75 ends

72 Item4.

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 & 10th 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 & 9th 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 54 of 75 ends

73 Item4.

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 75 ends

74 Item4.

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 & 10th 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 & 9th 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 56 of 75 ends

75 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 57 of 75 ends

76 Item4.

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 meth od 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 58 of 75 ends

77 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 59 of 75 ends

78 Item4.

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 ide ntify 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 counterme asures 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 60 of 75 ends

79 Item4.

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)
Project 6: Improve Pedestrian Crossing
Safety

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 61 of 75 ends

80 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 62 of 75 ends

81 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 63 of 75 ends

82 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 64 of 75 ends

83 Item4.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 65 of 75 ends

84 Item4.

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:
• Centre City Pkwy & Escondido Blvd
• Centre City Pkwy & Brotherton Rd

Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$9,327,800 $1,500,000 6.22

Centre City Pkwy & Escondido Blvd Centre City Pkwy & Brotherton Rd *New traffic signal at Centre City Pkwy & Brotherton Rd with modifications to geometry at Centre City Pkwy & Escondido Blvd.

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 66 of 75 ends

85 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 65 ends

PROJECT #6: Install Pedestrian Crossing Safety Improvements Countermeasures:
• S17PB Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
• S18PB Install pedestrian crossing
• NS19PB Install raised medians
• NS20PB Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (new signs & markings only) • NS21PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (w/enhanced safety features) • NS22PB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) • NS23PB Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) • R08 Install raised median
• R32PB Install bike lanes
• R33PB Install Separated Bike Lanes
• R34PB Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) • R35PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) • R36PB Install raised pedestrian crossing
• R37PB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) • Other
Locations:

1.) Disadvantaged areas citywide
See the following crash maps that show disadvantaged communities zones within the City. The following are provided:
• Intersection Crashes in Disadvantaged Areas
• Mid-Block Crashes in Disadvantaged Areas
• Pedestrian Involved Crashes in Disadvantaged Areas
• Bicycle Involved Crashed in Disadvantaged Areas

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 67 of 75 ends

86 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 66 ends

Figure 1 9: Intersection Crashes in Disadvantaged Areas

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 68 of 75 ends

87 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 67 ends

Figure 20: Mid-Block Crashes in Disadvantaged Areas

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 69 of 75 ends

88 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 68 ends

Figure 21: Pedestrian Involved Crashes in Disadvantaged Areas

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 70 of 75 ends

89 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 69 ends

Figure 22: Bicycle Involved Crashes in Disadvantaged Areas

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 71 of 75 ends

90 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 70 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 P roject #1 2 Midway Dr & Valley Pkwy $7,012,200 33 Signalized P roject #1 3 Centre City Pkwy & S Escondido Blvd $5,877,900 27 Unsignalized P roject #5 4 Quince St & Washington Ave $5,009,600 41 Signalized P roject #2 5 Quince St & 9th Ave $4,795,600 20 Signalized P roject #3 6 Valley Pkwy & Fig St $4,684,200 35 Signalized Project #3 7 Mission Ave & Fig St $4,373,900 32 Signalized P roject #2 8 El Norte Pkwy & Ash St $4,228,400 12 Signalized P roject #4 9 Centre City Pkwy & Valley Pkwy $4,076,000 29 Signalized P roject #1 10 Washington Ave & Rose St $3,912,300 41 Signalized Project #2 11 Centre City Pkwy & Felicita Ave $3,804,700 28 Signalized P roject #1 12 Centre City Pkwy & 9th Ave $3,361,200 21 Signalized P roject #2 13 Valley Pkwy & Quince St $3,347,900 20 Signalized P roject #1 14 Mission Ave & Ash St $3,259,900 18 Signalized P roject #1 15 Mission Ave & Metcalf St $3,243,700 20 Signalized P roject #3 16 Morning View Dr & Lincoln Ave $3,016,300 8 Unsignalized TB D 17 Centre City Pkwy & Iris Ln $2,955,800 15 Signalized P roject #3 18 Morning View Dr & El Norte Pkwy $2,900,600 15 Signalized P roject #4 19 Juniper St & 10th Ave $2,860,700 6 Unsignalized TBD
20 Grand Ave & Gayland St $2,847,400 5 Unsignalized TB D 21 Broadway & El Norte Pkwy $2,823,800 34 Signalized Project #1 22 Valley Pkwy & 9th Ave $2,813,500 14 Signalized P roject #1 23 Mission Ave & Quince St $2,805,300 18 Signalized Project #1 24 Juniper St & Grand Ave $2,671,200 13 Signalized P roject #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 TB D 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 & 11th Ave (North) $2,543,300 2 Unsignalized TBD 30 Midway Dr & Grand Ave $2,378,400 15 Signalized P roject #1

Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 72 of 75 ends

91 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 71 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 d iscuss 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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 73 of 75 ends

92 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 72 ends

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

Table 3 6: LRSP Implementation P lan
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
6 N/A N/A Funding source to be determined City of
Escondido N/A
N/A N/A Apply for future grant funding
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
City of
Escondido
Annually for
the next 5 years
(Year 2027)
Resolution No. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 74 of 75 ends

93 Item4.

Escondido Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

Page 73 ends

Project
#
HSIP
Funding
Cycle
Program Action Responsible
Party Timeline
School, Juniper Elementary School,
and LR Green Elementary School.

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. 2022-116
Exhibit "A"

Page 75 of 75 ends

94 Item4.

STAFF REPORT

August 24, 2022
File Number 0480-70

SUBJECT
2022 SAFE SAN DIEGO GRANT PROGRAM AWARD ACCEPTANCE AND BUDGET ADJUSTMENT

DEPARTMENT
Emergency Management

RECOMMENDATION
Request the City Council accept a SAFE San Diego Grant Award in the amount of $ 2,000 to purchase supplies for the Escondido Community Emergency Response Team ( “CERT”). It is also requested that Council authorize the Fire Chief or his designee to execute, on behalf of the City, all documents required for the management of this grant and that Council authorize the necessary budget adjustment to establish a new project number to track these grant funds.

Staff Recommendation: Approval ( Emergency Management : Jeff Murdock , Emergency Disaster Preparedness Manager)
Presenter: Jeff Murdock, Emergency Disaster Preparedness Manager

FISCAL ANALYSIS
None.

PREVIOUS ACTION
None.

BACKGROUND
In June of 2022, Emergency Management staff applied for the 2022 SAFE San Diego Grant Program that provides grant funding to Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) in San Diego County whose programs and services support emergency preparedness and safety. A grant from San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) to the Burn Institute has made it possible to support local CERT Programs and is part of SDG&E’s commitment to make our region safer at home, in the workplace and in our neighborhoods.

The award of $2,000 will be used to purchase supplies for the City of Escondido’ s CERT team that is comprised of approximately 75 individuals. Escondido’s CERT team members volunteer their time to educate people about disaster preparedness , share hazards that may impact Escondido and are trained 95 Item5.

in basic disaster response skills such as fire safety, lite search and rescue, team organization and disaster medical operations.

ATTACHMENTS
a. Attachment “1” – Budget Adjustment
96 Item5.

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: July 25, 2022 For Finance Use Only
Log #
Fiscal Year
ear
Department: Emergency Management 601
Division:

Project/Budget Manager: Laura Costello 5408
Name Extension
Council Date (if applicable): 8/24/22
(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 Revenue 4121-451-New Project Number 2,000
Fire Grants 451-New Project Number 2,000
Explanation of Request:

A budget adjustment is needed to spend the 2022 SAFE San Diego Grant Program funds.

APPROVALS

Department Head Date City Manager Date

Finance Date City Clerk Date
Distribution (after approval): Original: Finance
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C27F5-F683-4731-9FE4-B9B62862C2C6 7/26/2022
7/26/2022
Attachment "1"
97 Item5.

STAFF REPORT

August 24, 2022
File Number 0480-70

SUBJECT
SANDAG SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM GRANT AGREEMENT FOR THE 2022 GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

DEPARTMENT
Development Services Department, Planning Division

RECOMMENDATION
Request the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-123 authorizing the Mayor to execute, on behalf of the City, the Smart Growth Inceptive Program Grant (“SGIP”) Agreement.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services: Andrew Firestine, Director of Development Services)
Presenter: Veronica Morones, Senior Planner

FISCAL ANALYSIS
The estimated cost to implement the environmental review for the 2022 General Plan Amendment (“2022 GPA”) work effort is approximately $ 200,000. SANDAG selected the City’s 2022 GPA Environmental Review for partial funding in the amount of $175,000. A total of $25,000 in matching funds in the form of staff time is anticipated.

A budget adjustment is requested to accept grant funds.

PREVIOUS ACTION
None.

BACKGROUND
In January 2022, the Planning Division applied for SANDAG’s Housing Acceleration Grant Program (“HAP”) requesting funding for the environmental review required for the 2022 GPA work effort. SANDAG staff did not recommend the Planning Division’s application for funding under the HAP Grant; however, SANDAG staff transferred the application to the SGIP grant and subsequently recommended it for funding.

The Planning Division’s request for funding was approved by the SANDAG Board of Director’s in May 2022. 98 Item6.

Government Code section 65302 requires a city to update the safety element of its general plan to address information regarding fire hazards and climate adaptation and resiliency. Government Code section 65302 also requires a city to prepare an environmental justice element upon the concurrent revision of two or more general plan elements (i.e., Housing Element and Safety Element updates). The Escondido General Plan’s Community Protection chapter serves as the Safety Element for purposes of meeting statutory requirements contained in Government Code section 65302. Therefore, an update to the City ’s Community Protection chapter of the General Plan and creation of a new general plan element to address environmental justice are required pursuant to state law. The 2022 GPA work effort kicked off in late 2021 and City staff is currently conducting comm unity outreach and engagement activities to inform the amendments.

PROPOSED GRANT-FUNDED PROJECT
Environmental review of proposed changes to the Community Protection chapter and the creation of a new environmental justice element is required for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), prior to adoption of the 2022 GPA. The SGIP award would fund the environmental review for the 2022 GPA. City staff would begin by selecting a qualified environmental consultant through the Request for Proposal (“RFP”) process to analyze and draft the required environmental documents. Staff time used to draft and administer the RFP and manage the chosen consultant would constitute approximately $25,000 worth of matching funds.

Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-123 authorizing the Mayor to execute the SGIP Grant Agreement to accept funds in the amount of $175,000 from SANDAG’s Smart Growth Incentive Program.

RESOLUTIONS
a. Resolution No. 2022-123
b. Resolution No. 2022-123 Exhibit “A”
c. Resolution No. 2022-123 Exhibit “B”

99 Item6.

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-123

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR

TO EXECUTE, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, A SANDAG

SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM GRANT

AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2022

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT , AND RELATED

BUDGET ADJUSTMENT

WHEREAS, the San Diego Association of Governments (“SANDAG”) has $3 million of TransNet funding for Smart Growth Incentive Program (“SGIP”) projects , which was made available to local jurisdictions in San Diego County for use on planning projects meeting certain criteria, specifically those that integrate smart growth place making, access to transit, and environmental justice; and WHEREAS, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved a list of recommended SGIP projects on May 12, 2022, for the fifth competitive grant cycle of TransNet funding for SGIP projects, which included the City’s application requesting funding for the environmental review of the 2022 General Plan Amendment (“2022 GPA”) work effort, consisting of an update to the Community Protection chapter of the General Plan and new environmental justice chapter; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to receive grant funding from SANDAG; and WHEREAS, the City understands that a match of $25,000 is a part of the SGIP award, which is programmed through staff time associated with managing the 2022 GPA environmental review; and WHEREAS, a budget adjustment is approved to account for the $175,000 in grant funds to allow for acceptance of the one-time funding. A copy of the Budget Adjustment is attached as Exhibit “B” and is incorporated by this reference.
100
Item6.

WHEREAS, this action is exempt from the requirements of the California Equality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, as (1) it is not a "project" and has no potential to result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment (14 Cal. Code Regs, § 15378(a)); and, (2) there is no possibility that the action or its implementation would have a significant negative effect on the environment (14 Cal. Code Regs.§ 15061(b)(3)).

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 Mayor or his designee to execute the grant agreement with no exceptions in substantially the same form as attached as Exhibit “ A,” which is incorporated by this reference, and complete all forms related to the Project.

3. That a budget adjustment in the amount of $ 175,000 be approved to accept $ 175,000 in grant funds. A copy of the Budget Adjustment is attached as Exhibit “ B” and is incorporated by this reference.
101
Item6.
1 GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AND

CITY OF ESCONDIDO

REGARDING ESCONDIDO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
TRANSNET SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM – PLANNING CYCLE 5 SANDAG CONTRACT NO. S1021722
THIS GRANT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into effective as of the last signature date, by an between the San Diego Association of Governments (“SANDAG”), 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, California, and City of Escondido, (“Grantee”), 201 N. Broadway Escondido, California. This Agreement expires 14 months after the effective date, unless amended in writing by mutual agreement of the parties.

The following recitals are a substantive part of this Agreement:

A. The SANDAG Board of Directors allocates funds under the TransNet local sales tax program to s
upport local transportation-related infrastructure projects in the San Diego region through a c
ompetitive process.

B. The TransNet Extension Ordinance contains provisions to fund the Smart Growth Incentive P
rogram (SGIP) for which funding began on April 1, 2008. The SGIP encompasses projects that better integrate transportation and land use and recognizes the comprehensive effort to integrate s
mart growth place making, access to transit, and environmental justice.

C. In January 2010, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved Board Policy No. 035: Competitive Grant Program Procedures, which is available in its updated version at www.sandag.org/legal. This Agreement and the Grantee’s performance hereunder are subject to Board Policy No. 035, which includes multiple “use it or lose it” provisions.

D. On November 19, 2021, SANDAG issued a call for projects from local jurisdictions in S
an Diego County wishing to apply for a portion of the TransNet SGIP funds for use on planning pr
ojects meeting certain criteria, and authorizing up to $3 million from the SGIP to be used for planning projects.

E. On May 13, 2022, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved a list of recommended SGIP projects for the fifth competitive grant cycle, and one of those projects is the subject of this Agreement (Project). The Project Scope of Work, Schedule, and Budget are included as Attachment A.

F. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the terms and conditions for SANDAG to provide G
rantee with funding to implement the Project.

G. Although SANDAG will be providing financial assistance to Grantee to support the Project, SANDAG will not take an active role or retain substantial control of the Project. Therefore, this Agreement is characterized as a funding agreement rather than a cooperative agreement.

Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 1 of 23 ends

102
Item6.
2 N
OW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:

I. GRANT AWARD
A. The total amount payable by SANDAG to Grantee pursuant to this Agreement shall be the pr
oportion of actual Project costs allocated to grant funding in Attachment A and shall not exceed t
he grant award of $175,000 (Fund Limit).

B. It is agreed and understood that this Agreement Fund Limit is a ceiling and that SANDAG will only reimburse the allowable cost of services actually rendered as authorized by SANDAG at or below the Fund Limit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Grantee understands that TransNet funds derive f
rom retail transactions and use tax revenues, which fluctuate. The SANDAG funding commitment to SGIP Projects, including this Project, is subject to these fluctuations, which may impact funding av
ailability for this Project.

C. Grantee’s is included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP). The TransNet MPO ID for the Project is ESC54.

II. PROJECT BUDGET
Except to the extent that SANDAG determines otherwise in writing, the Grantee agrees as follows: The Grantee and SANDAG have agreed to a Project Budget that is set forth in Attachment A. The Grantee and/or third-party contractor(s) will incur obligations to the Project only as authorized by the Project Budget. An amendment to the Project Budget requires the issuance of a formal amendment to the Agreement per Board Policy No. 035, unless the re-allocation of funds among budget items or fiscal years does not increase the Fund Limit, does not exceed an aggregate of ten percent for any particular task in Attachment A, does not negatively impact the benefits obtained from the Project, and is consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. Prior written SANDAG Grants Program Manager approval is required for transfers of funds between tasks in Attachment A that meet these eligibility criteria for an administrative amendment by SANDAG staff. All other amendments are subject to approval by a SANDAG Policy Advisory Committee or the SANDAG Board of Directors.

III. MATCHING FUNDS
Grantee agrees to provide matching funds in an amount of $25,000 of the actual cost of the Project, estimated to be 12.5 percent based on the Project Budget. If the actual cost of the Project exceeds the Project Budget, Grantee is responsible for 100 percent of the actual cost greater than the Project Budget.

A. Availability of Grant Funding
Except where expressly allowed in writing herein, credits for matching funds will be made or allowed only for work performed on and after the Notice to Proceed date and prior to t he
t
ermination date of this Agreement, unless expressly permitted by SANDAG in writing.

B. Reduction of Matching Funds
The Grantee agrees that no reduction in the amount of matching funds may be made unless a r
eduction of the proportional share of the grant funding provided by SANDAG under this Agreement also is made.

C. Prompt Payment of Grantee’s Share of Matching Funds
Grantee agrees to complete all actions necessary to provide its share of the Project costs at or before the time the matching funds are needed from Grantee to pay for Project costs. The Grantee Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 2 of 23 ends

103
Item6.
3 agrees to provide not less than its cumulative required match amount of Project costs prior to invoicing SANDAG for reimbursement. Each of Grantee’s invoices must include its matching fund contribution, along with supporting, descriptive and/or explanatory documentation for the matching funds provided.

IV. PROJECT MANAGER
Grantee’s Project Manager is Veronica Morones.

The SANDAG SGIP Program Manager is Tracy Ferchaw.

Project Manager continuity and experience is deemed essential in Grantee’s ability to carry out the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Grantee shall not change the Project Manager without first providing written notice to SANDAG. Grantee shall provide SANDAG with updated contact information in a timely manner if there are any changes to its Project Manager.

V. NOTICE
All notices required to be given, by either party to the other, shall be deemed fully given when made in writing and received by the parties at their respective addresses:

San Diego Association of Governments
Attention: Grants Program Manager
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Grantee:

City of Escondido
Attention: Veronica Morones
201
N. Broadway
Escondido, CA 92025
VI. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
A. Gen
eral
The Grantee agrees to carry out the Project as follows:

1. Project Description
Grantee agrees to perform the work as described in the Scope of Work included in Attachment A.

2. Grantee's Capacity
The Grantee agrees to maintain or acquire sufficient legal, financial, technical, and managerial capacity to: (a) plan, manage, and complete the Project as described in Attachment A and provide for the use of any Project property; (b) carry out any safety and security aspects of the Project; and (c) comply with the terms of the Agreement and all applicable laws, regulations, and policies pertaining to the Project and the Grantee, including but not limited to the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Board Policy No. 035.

3. Project Schedule
The Grantee agrees to complete the Project according to the Project Schedule included in Attachment A and in compliance with Board Policy No. 035.

Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 3 of 23 ends

104
Item6.
4 4. Project Implementation and Oversight Requirements
Grantee agrees to comply with the Performance Measures included in Attachment B.

5. Changes to Project Scope of Work
This Agreement was awarded to Grantee based on the application submitted by Grantee with the intention that the awarded funds would be used to implement the Project as described in the project application. Any substantive deviation from Grantee’s Scope of Work during project implementation may require reevaluation or result in loss of funding. If Grantee knows or should have known that substantive changes to the Project will occur or have occurred, Grantee will immediately notify SANDAG in writing. SANDAG will then determine whether the Project is still consistent with the overall objectives of the grant program and whether the changes would have negatively affected the Project ranking during the competitive grant evaluation process.

SANDAG reserves the right to have grant funding withheld from Grantee, or refunded to SANDAG, due to Grantee’s failure to satisfactorily complete the Project or due to substantive changes to the Project not approved in advance by SANDAG.

B. Application of Laws
Should a federal or state law pre-empt or conflict with a local law, policy, or the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the Grantee must comply with the federal or state law and implementing regulations. No provision of this Agreement requires the Grantee to observe or enforce compliance with any provision, perform any other act, or do any other task in contravention of federal, state, territorial, or local law, regulation, or ordinance. If compliance with any provision of this Agreement violates or would require the Grantee to violate any law, the Grantee agrees to notify SANDAG immediately in writing. Should this occur, SANDAG and the Grantee agree that they will make appropriate arrangements to proceed with or, if necessary, terminate the Project or affected portions thereof expeditiously.

C. Changes in Project Performance
The Grantee agrees to notify SANDAG immediately, in writing, of any change in local law, conditions (including its legal, financial, or technical capacity), or any other event, including a force majeure event, that may adversely affect the Grantee's ability to perform the Project in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and as required by Board Policy No. 035. The Grantee also agrees to notify SANDAG immediately, in writing, of any current or prospective major dispute, breach, default, or litigation that may adversely affect SANDAG's interests in the Project; and agrees to inform SANDAG, also in writing, before naming SANDAG as a party to litigation for any reason, in any forum. At a minimum, the Grantee agrees to send each notice to SANDAG required by this subsection to SANDAG’s Grants Program Manager.

D. Compliance Information System (CIS)
If Grantee will utilize persons other than its own employees to carry out work, Grantee and all of its third party contractors and/or subcontractors (hereinafter “subcontractors”) shall report payment details using the SANDAG web-based CIS by the 15th of each month following receipt of payment by SANDAG. CIS allows SANDAG to monitor promptness of payment to subcontractors and will allow Grantee and its subcontractors to manage their own records, maintain accurate contract information, and report payment details online. CIS is mandatory for Grantee and subcontractors to use unless SANDAG instructs otherwise. After execution of this Agreement, Grantee will receive instructions on how to set up its account and enter required subcontractor data into CIS via an internet browser. Grantee must require each of its subcontractors to enter required payment information into CIS. Failure of Grantee or its subcontractors to enter required information and confirm payments on a timely basis will result in delay of payment by SANDAG to Grantee until Grantee has cured any defects or provided the missing information. Should Grantee fail to provide Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 4 of 23 ends

105
Item6.
5 the required information, SANDAG shall have sole discretion regarding whether to withhold payment or terminate this Agreement.

E. Licenses and Permits
Grantee represents and warrants to SANDAG that Grantee and its subcontractors will have all necessary licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are required to legally practice its profession and/or perform services under this Agreement at all times during the term of this Agreement.

F. Standard of Care
Grantee expressly warrants that the work to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in accordance with the applicable standard of care. Where approval by SANDAG, its management, or other representative of SANDAG is indicated in the Scope of Work, it is understood to be conceptual approval only and does not relieve the Grantee of responsibility for complying with all laws, codes, industry standards, and liability for damages caused by negligent acts, errors, omissions, noncompliance with industry standards, or the willful misconduct of the Grantee or its subcontractors.

G. Third- Party Contracting
Although the Grantee may delegate any or almost all Project responsibilities to one or more third- party contractors, the Grantee agrees that it, rather than any third-party contractor, is ultimately responsible for compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and this Agreement. The first invoice utilizing any third-party contractor shall be accompanied by evidence of compliance with the following requirements:

1. Competitive Procurement
Grantee shall not award contracts over $10,000 on the basis of a noncompetitive procurement for work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written approval of SANDAG. Contracts awarded by Grantee, if intended as local match credit, must meet the requirements set forth in this Agreement regarding local match funds. Upon request by SANDAG, Grantee shall submit its Request for Proposals or bid solicitation documents to SANDAG staff for review and comment for consistency with the agreed upon Scope of Work with SANDAG and to ensure a competitive process was used.

If Grantee hires a third-party contractor to carry out work funded under this Agreement, Grantee shall: prepare an Independent Cost Estimate prior to soliciting proposals/bids; publicly advertise for competing proposals/bids for the work; for professional services, use cost as a significant evaluation factor in selecting the third-party contractor; document a record of negotiation establishing that the amount paid by Grantee for the work is fair and reasonable; and pass through the relevant obligations in this Agreement to the contractor.

2. Debarment
Grantee shall execute and cause its third-party contractors to execute debarment and suspension certificates stating they have not been disqualified from doing business with government entities. The documentation showing lack of debarment shall be obtained from the following two websites:
• Grantee will check the System for Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov to verify the prime contractor and all of its subcontractors are not currently debarred or suspended by the federal government.

Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 5 of 23 ends

106
Item6.
6 • Entities in the United States are banned from doing business with companies with ownership based in countries such as Cuba, Sudan and China due to United States trade sanctions. A search on the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) website can ensure Grantee will not be doing business with a vendor that is subject to trade sanctions. This can be done at https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/.

3. Flowdown
Grantee agrees to take appropriate measures necessary, including the execution of a subagreement, lease, third-party contract, or other, to ensure that all Project participants, including alternate payees or third-party contractors at any tier, comply with all applicable federal laws, regulations, policies affecting Project implementation and Agreement requirements. In addition, if an entity other than the Grantee is expected to fulfill any responsibilities typically performed by the Grantee, the Grantee agrees to assure that the entity carries out the Grantee’s responsibilities as set forth in this Agreement.

4. No SANDAG Obligations to Third Parties
In connection with the Project, the Grantee agrees that SANDAG shall not be subject to any obligations or liabilities to any subcontractor, lessee, third-party contractor at any tier or other person or entity that is not a party to the Agreement for the Project. Notwithstanding that SANDAG may have concurred in or approved any solicitation, subagreement, lease, alternate payee designation, or third-party contract at any tier, SANDAG has no obligations or liabilities to any entity other than the Grantee.

5. Equipment Purchases
Grantee shall maintain ownership of any equipment purchased using Agreement funding and shall use such equipment only for the purposes set forth in this Agreement. The parties agree to meet and confer in good faith to ensure the continued use of the equipment for the purposes intended, which may include reimbursement to SANDAG when the fair market value of the equipment at Project completion exceeds $5,000. SANDAG and Grantee further agree that Grantee shall keep an inventory record for each piece of equipment purchased under this Agreement and maintain each piece of equipment in good operating order consistent with the purposes for which they were intended. SANDAG shall have the right to conduct periodic maintenance inspections for the purpose of confirming the existence, condition, and proper maintenance of the equipment.

VII. ETHICS
A. Grantee Code of Conduct/Standards of Conduct
The Grantee agrees to maintain a written code of conduct or standards of conduct that shall govern the actions of its officers, employees, council or board members, or agents engaged in the award or administration of subagreements, leases, or third-party contracts supported with the grant funding.

The Grantee agrees that its code of conduct or standards of conduct shall specify that its officers, employees, council or board members, or agents may neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from any present or potential subcontractor, lessee, or third-party contractor at any tier or agent thereof. The Grantee may set de minimis rules where the financial interest is not substantial, or the gift is an unsolicited item of nominal intrinsic value. The Grantee agrees that its code of conduct or standards of conduct shall also prohibit its officers, employees, board members, or agents from using their respective positions in a manner that presents a real or apparent personal or organizational conflict of interest or personal gain. As permitted by state or local law or regulations, the Grantee agrees that its code of conduct or standards of conduct shall include penalties, sanctions, or other disciplinary actions for violations by its officers, employees, Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 6 of 23 ends

107
Item6.
7 council or board members, or their agents, or its third-party contractors or subcontractors or their agents.

B. Personal Conflicts of Interest
The Grantee agrees that its code of conduct or standards of conduct shall prohibit the Grantee's employees, officers, council or board members, or agents from participating in the selection, award, or administration of any third-party contract or subagreement supported by the grant funding if a real or apparent conflict of interest would be involved. Such a conflict would arise when an employee, officer, board member, or agent, including any member of his or her immediate family, partner, or organization that employs, or intends to employ, any of the parties listed herein has a financial interest in a firm competing for award.

C. Organizational Conflicts of Interest
The Grantee agrees that its code of conduct or standards of conduct shall include procedures for identifying and preventing real and apparent organizational conflicts of interest. An organizational conflict of interest exists when the nature of the work to be performed under a proposed third-party contract or subagreement may, without some restrictions on future activities, result in an unfair competitive advantage to the third-party contractor or subcontractor or impair its objectivity in performing the contract work.

D. SANDAG Code of Conduct
SANDAG has established policies concerning potential conflicts of interest. These policies apply to Grantee. For all awards by SANDAG, any practices which might result in unlawful activity are prohibited including, but not limited to, rebates, kickbacks, or other unlawful considerations.

SANDAG staff members are specifically prohibited from participating in the selection process when those staff have a close personal relationship, family relationship, or past (within the last 12 months), present, or potential business or employment relationship with a person or business entity seeking a contract with SANDAG. It is unlawful for any contract to be made by SANDAG if any individual Board member or staff has a prohibited financial interest in the contract. Staff also are prohibited from soliciting or accepting gratuities from any organization seeking funding from SANDAG. SANDAG’s officers, employees, agents, and board members shall not solicit or accept gifts, gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from consultants, potential consultants, or parties to subagreements. By signing this Agreement, Grantee affirms that it has no knowledge of an ethical violation by SANDAG staff or Grantee. If Grantee has any reason to believe a conflict of interest exists with regard to the Agreement or the Project, it shall notify the SANDAG Office of General Counsel immediately.

E. Bonus or Commission
The Grantee affirms that it has not paid, and agrees not to pay, any bonus or commission to obtain approval of its grant funding application for the Project.

F. False or Fraudulent Statements or Claims
The Grantee acknowledges and agrees that by executing the Agreement for the Project, the Grantee certifies or affirms the truthfulness and accuracy of each statement it has made, it makes, or it may make in connection with the Project, including, but not limited to, the Grantee’s grant application, progress reports and invoices.

Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 7 of 23 ends

108
Item6.
8 VIII. PAYMENTS
A. Method of Payment
The method of payment for this Agreement will be based upon actual, substantiated, and allowable costs described herein.

B. Alternate Payee
If the Grantee designates a party as an Alternate Payee, Alternate Payee is authorized to submit payment requests directly to SANDAG to receive reimbursement for allowable Project costs. This does not alleviate Grantee from all obligations under this Grant Agreement.

C. Invoicing
Grantee or Alternate Payee is required to submit invoices quarterly. Invoices must be accompanied by a quarterly report (template to be provided by SANDAG). SANDAG will make payments for eligible amounts to Grantee or Alternate Payee as promptly as SANDAG fiscal procedures permit upon receipt of Grantee’s or Alternate Payee’s itemized signed invoice(s) and confirmation by the SGIP Program Manager that Grantee is in compliance with the reporting and other requirements in this Agreement. SANDAG shall retain 10 percent from the amounts invoiced until satisfactory completion of the Project. SANDAG shall promptly pay retention amounts to Grantee or Alternate Payee following satisfactory completion of work, receipt of final invoice, and all required documentation.

D. Eligible Costs
The Grantee agrees that Project costs eligible for grant funding must comply with the following requirements, unless SANDAG determines otherwise in writing. To be eligible for reimbursement, Project costs must be:

1. Consistent with the Project Scope of Work, Schedule and Project Budget, and other provisions of the Agreement.

2. Necessary in order to accomplish the Project.

3. Reasonable for the goods or services purchased.

4. Actual net costs to the Grantee (i.e., the price paid minus any refunds, rebates, or other items of value received by the Grantee that have the effect of reducing the cost actually incurred, excluding program income). Project generated revenue realized by the Grantee shall be used in support of the Project. Project generated revenue and expenditures, if any, shall be reported at the end of the Agreement period.

5. Incurred for work performed on or after the SANDAG Notice to Proceed date, and before the termination date, and also must have been paid for by the Grantee.

6. Satisfactorily documented with supporting documentation, which is to be submitted with each invoice. Copies of invoices are required for goods or services provided by third parties.

7. Treated consistently in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and procedures for the Grantee and any third-party contractors and subcontractors, (see Section entitled “Accounting Records”).

8. Eligible for grant funding as part of the grant program through which the funds were awarded.

Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 8 of 23 ends

109
Item6.
9 9. Indirect Costs are only allowable with prior SANDAG approval. Grantee must submit the following documentation as part of the grant application materials: (1) an indirect cost allocation audit approved by a qualified independent auditor or (2) the applicant’s proposed method for allocating indirect costs in accordance with federal guidelines. Indirect cost allocation plans must be reviewed and renewed annually.

E. Excluded Costs
In determining the amount of TransNet Ordinance Assistance SANDAG will provide for the Project, SANDAG will exclude:

1. Any Project cost incurred by the Grantee before the Effective Date of the Agreement or applicable Amendment thereto

2. Any cost that is not included in the Project Budget

3. Any cost for Project property or services received in connection with a subagreement, lease, third-party contract, or other arrangement that is required to be, but has not been, concurred in or approved in writing by SANDAG

4. Any cost ineligible for SANDAG participation as provided by applicable laws, regulations, or policies

5. Any cost incurred for a common or joint purpose benefitting more than one cost objective, and not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefitted, without effort disproportionate to the results achieved (any indirect cost). Typical indirect costs include facilities and administration costs such as heat/air conditioning, lighting, payroll, and the entity’s accounting system. Administrative costs such as clerical and support staff salaries also are most often treated as indirect costs.

The Grantee understands and agrees that payment to the Grantee for any Project cost does not constitute SANDAG’s final decision about whether that cost is allowable and eligible for payment under the Project and does not constitute a waiver of any violation by the Grantee of the terms of this Agreement or Board Policy No. 035. The Grantee acknowledges that SANDAG will not make a final determination about the allowability and eligibility of any cost until the final payment has been made on the Project or the results of an audit of the Project requested by SANDAG or its Independent Taxpayers’ Oversight Committee (ITOC) has been completed, whichever occurs latest. If SANDAG determines that the Grantee is not entitled to receive any portion of the grant funding requested or paid, SANDAG will notify the Grantee in writing, stating its reasons. The Grantee agrees that Project closeout will not alter the Grantee's responsibility to return any funds due to SANDAG as a result of later refunds, corrections, performance deficiencies, or other similar actions; nor will Project closeout alter SANDAG's right to disallow costs and recover funds provided for the Project on the basis of a later audit or other review. Upon notification to the Grantee that specific amounts are owed to SANDAG, whether for excess payments of grant funding, disallowed costs, or funds recovered from third parties or elsewhere, the Grantee agrees to promptly remit to SANDAG the amounts owed, including applicable interest, penalties and administrative charges.

IX. ACCOUNTING, REPORTING, RECORD RETENTION, AND ACCESS A. Project Accounts
The Grantee and/or Alternate Payee agree to establish and maintain for the Project either a separate set of accounts or separate accounts within the framework of an established accounting system that can be identified with the Project. The Grantee and/or Alternate Payee also agree to maintain documentation of all checks, payrolls, invoices, contracts, vouchers, orders, or other accounting documents related in whole or in part to the Project so that they may be clearly Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 9 of 23 ends

110
Item6.
10 identified, readily accessible, and available to SANDAG upon request and, to the extent feasible, kept separate from documents not related to the Project.

B. Reports

1. The Grantee agrees to submit to SANDAG all reports required by law and regulation, policy, this Agreement, or any other reports SANDAG may specify. SANDAG reserves the right to specify that records be submitted in particular formats. Grantee may be required to attend meetings of SANDAG staff and committees, including but not limited to the Regional Planning Committee and the SANDAG Board of Directors, to report on its progress and respond to questions from Board Members or the public.

2. Grantee’s performance shall be monitored for consistency with the Scope of Work. SANDAG will utilize the SGIP Monitoring Checklist (Attachment C) and Performance Measures (Attachment B), to document compliance with this Agreement. Grantee’s performance will be measured against the Performance Measures during the term of this Agreement. If the Grantee does not comply with provisions in this Agreement or achieve minimum performance requirements, SANDAG will issue Grantee a written Notice to Complete a Recovery Plan.

Grantee’s Recovery Plan shall include a detailed description of how Grantee intends to come into compliance with the Performance Measures or provisions in this Agreement. Grantee’s Recovery Plan must include an implementation schedule that reflects achievement of its performance measure minimums or provisions in this Agreement within three months following the issue date of the SANDAG Notice to Complete a Recovery Plan. Grantee must submit its Recovery Plan to the SGIP Program Manager within 30 calendar days following the issue date of the SANDAG Notice to Complete a Recovery Plan. If Grantee’s performance is inconsistent with that proposed in its Recovery Plan, SANDAG in its sole discretion may terminate this Agreement.

3. Grantee must submit quarterly reports and invoices to SANDAG, detailing accomplishments in the quarter, anticipated progress next quarter, pending issues and actions toward resolution, and status of budget, schedule, and Performance Measures.

Grantee will not be paid until all reports are completed and provided to SANDAG in the format SANDAG requires. Furthermore, the Grantee agrees to provide project milestone information (such as presentations to community groups, other agencies, and elected officials, groundbreakings, and ribbon-cuttings) to support media and communications efforts.

Grantee needs to document and track in-kind contributions designated as matching funds as part of project management. Grantee must provide all deliverables identified in the Scope of Work.

4. Press materials shall be provided to SANDAG staff before they are distributed. SANDAG logo(s) should be included in press materials and other project collateral based on logo usage guidelines to be provided by SANDAG. Grantee agrees to provide project milestone information to support media and communications efforts.

5. Grantees are responsible for the following photo documentation:
• Existing conditions photos (as applicable), which should illustrate the current conditions of the project site and demonstrate the need for improved facilities • Project milestone photos (such as workshops, presentations to community groups, other agencies, and elected officials)
• Photos should be high resolution (at least 4 inches by 6 inches with a minimum of 300 pixels per inch) and contain captions with project descriptions, dates, locations, and the names of those featured, if appropriate. Grantees must obtain consent of all persons featured in photos (or that of a parent or guardian of persons under the age of 18) by Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 10 of 23 ends

111
Item6.
11 using the SANDAG Photo and Testimonial Release form to be provided by SANDAG, or a similar release form developed by Grantee and agreed upon by SANDAG.

C. Record Retention
During the course of the Project and for three years thereafter from the date of transmission of the final invoice, the Grantee agrees to maintain, intact and readily accessible, all communications, data, documents, reports, records, contracts, and supporting materials relating to the Project, as SANDAG may require. All communications and information provided to SANDAG become the property of SANDAG and public records, as such, may be subject to public review. Please see SANDAG’s Board Policy No. 015: Records Management Policy, which is available at www.sandag.org/legal, for information regarding the treatment of documents designated as confidential.

D. Meeting Records
Grantee shall provide SANDAG with agendas and meeting summaries for all community meetings.

SANDAG staff may attend any meetings as appropriate.

E. Access to Records of Grantees and Subcontractors
The Grantee agrees to permit, and require its subcontractors to permit, SANDAG or its authorized representatives, upon request, to inspect all Project work, materials, payrolls, and other data, and to audit the books, records, and accounts of the Grantee and its subcontractors pertaining to the Project.

F. Communities Served Data and Reporting
If requested, Grantee shall provide SANDAG with data regarding how the Project’s benefits and burdens were equitably distributed among socio and economic populations in the area affected by the Project, and associated smart growth data, and/or any other relevant information.

X. PROJECT COMPLETION, AUDIT, SETTLEMENT, AND CLOSEOUT
A. Project Completion
Within 90 calendar days following Project completion or termination by SANDAG, the Grantee agrees to submit a final invoice of Project expenses and final reports, as applicable. All payments made to the Grantee shall be subject to review for compliance by SANDAG with the requirements of this Agreement and shall be subject to an audit upon completion of the Project.

B. Project Audit
The Grantee agrees to have financial, performance, and compliance audits performed as SANDAG may require. The Grantee agrees that Project closeout will not alter the Grantee's audit responsibilities. Audit costs are allowable Project costs.

C. Performance Audit
The Grantee agrees to cooperate with SANDAG or ITOC with regard to any performance audit that is performed on the Project.

D. Project Closeout
Project closeout occurs when SANDAG notifies the Grantee that SANDAG has closed the Project, and, if applicable, either forwards the final grant funding payment and or acknowledges that the Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 11 of 23 ends

112
Item6.
12 Grantee has remitted the proper refund. The Grantee agrees that Project closeout by SANDAG does not invalidate any continuing requirements imposed by the Agreement or any unmet requirements set forth in a written notification from SANDAG.

XI. TIMELY PROGRESS AND RIGHT OF SANDAG TO TERMINATE
A. Grantee shall make diligent and timely progress toward completion of the Project within the timelines set forth in the Project Schedule, and consistent with Board Policy No. 035 and any policy amendments thereto.

B. In the event Grantee encounters or anticipates difficulty in meeting the Project Schedule, the Grantee shall immediately notify the SGIP Program Manager in writing, and shall provide pertinent details, including the reason(s) for the delay in performance and the date by which Grantee expects to complete performance or delivery. This notification shall be informational in character only and receipt of it shall not be construed as a waiver by SANDAG of a project delivery schedule or date, or any rights or remedies provided by this Agreement, including Board Policy No. 035 requirements.

C. Grantee agrees that SANDAG, at its sole discretion, may suspend or terminate all or any part of the grant funding if the Grantee fails to make reasonable progress on the Project and/or violates the terms of the Agreement or Board Policy No. 035, or if SANDAG determines that the purpose of the laws or policies authorizing the Project would not be adequately served by the continuation of grant funding for the Project.

D. In general, termination of grant funding for the Project will not invalidate obligations properly incurred by the Grantee before the termination date to the extent those obligations cannot be canceled. If, however, SANDAG determines that the Grantee has willfully misused grant funding by failing to make adequate progress, or failing to comply with the terms of the Agreement, SANDAG reserves the right to require the Grantee to refund to SANDAG the entire amount of grant funding provided for the Project or any lesser amount as SANDAG may determine.

E. Expiration of any Project time period established in the Project Schedule will not, by itself, automatically constitute an expiration or termination of the Agreement for the Project, however, Grantee must request and SANDAG may agree to amend the Agreement in writing if the Project Schedule will not be met. An amendment to the Project Schedule may be made at SANDAG’s discretion if Grantee’s request is consistent with the provisions of Board Policy No. 035.

XII. C IVIL RIGHTS
The Grantee agrees to comply with all applicable civil rights laws, regulations and policies and shall include the provisions of this section in each subagreement, lease, third-party contract or other legally binding document to perform work funded by this Agreement. Applicable civil rights laws, regulations and policies include, but are not limited to, the following:

A. Nondiscrimination
SANDAG implements its programs without regard to income level, disability, race, color, and national origin in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Grantee shall prohibit discrimination on these grounds, notify the public of their rights under these laws, and utilize a process for addressing complaints of discrimination. Furthermore, Grantee shall make the procedures for filing a complaint available to members of the public and will keep a log of all such complaints. Grantee must notify SANDAG immediately if a complaint is lodged that relates to the Project or program funded by this grant. If Grantee receives a Title VI-related or ADA- related complaint, Grantee must notify SANDAG in writing within 72 hours of receiving the complaint so that SANDAG can determine whether it needs to carry out its own investigation.

Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 12 of 23 ends

113
Item6.
13 B. Equal Employment Opportunity
During the performance of this Agreement, Grantee and all of its subcontractors, if any, shall not unlawfully discriminate, harass, or allow harassment, against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex, race, color, ancestry, religious creed, national origin, disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medical condition (cancer), age (over 40), marital status, denial of family and medical care leave, denial of pregnancy disability leave, veteran status, or sexual orientation. Grantee and its subcontractors shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of their employees and applicants for employment are free from such discrimination and harassment.

Grantee and its subcontractors shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (California Government Code Section 12900, et seq.) and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder (California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 7285.0, et seq.). The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing California Government Code Section 12990 (a-f), set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations, are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference and are made a part hereof as if set forth in full. Grantee and its subcontractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement.

XIV. DISPUTES AND VENUE
A. Choice of Law
This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

B. Dispute Resolution Process
In the event Grantee has a dispute with SANDAG during the performance of this Agreement, Grantee shall continue to perform unless SANDAG informs Grantee in writing to cease performance. The dispute resolution process for disputes arising under this Agreement shall be as follows:

1. Grantee shall submit a statement of the grounds for the dispute, including all pertinent dates, names of persons involved, and supporting documentation, to the SGIP Program Manager.

The SGIP Program Manager and other appropriate SANDAG staff will review the documentation in a timely manner and reply to Grantee within 20 calendar days. Upon receipt of an adverse decision by SANDAG, Grantee may submit a request for reconsideration to SANDAG’s Chief Executive Officer or designee. The request for reconsideration must be received within ten calendar days from the postmark date of SANDAG’s reply. The Chief Executive Officer or designee will respond in writing to the request for reconsideration within ten working days.

2. If Grantee is dissatisfied with the results following exhaustion of the above dispute resolution procedures, Grantee shall make a written request to SANDAG for appeal to the SANDAG Regional Planning Committee. SANDAG shall respond to a request for mediation within 30 calendar days. The decision of the Regional Planning Committee shall be final.

C. Venue
If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of San Diego, State of California. In the event of any such litigation between the parties, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred, including reasonable attorney’s fees, litigation and collection expenses, witness fees, and court costs as determined by the court.

Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 13 of 23 ends

114
Item6.
14 XV. ASSIGNMENT
Grantee shall not assign, sublet, or transfer (whether by assignment or novation) this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement.

XVII. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS
A. Generally
With regard to any claim, protest, or litigation arising from or related to the Grantee’s performance in connection with or incidental to the Project or this Agreement, Grantee agrees to defend, indemnify, protect, and hold SANDAG and its agents, officers, Board members, and employees harmless from and against any and all claims, including, but not limited to prevailing wage claims against the Project, asserted or established liability for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to the Grantee’s or its subcontractors’ employees, agents, or officers, which arise from or are connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the negligent, reckless, or willful acts or omissions of the Grantee and its subcontractors and their agents, officers, or employees, in performing the work or services herein, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same, including attorney fees and costs; provided, however, that the Grantee’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the established sole negligence or willful misconduct of SANDAG, its Board of Directors, agents, officers, or employees.

B. Intellectual Property
Upon request by SANDAG, the Grantee agrees to indemnify, save, and hold harmless SANDAG and its Board of Directors, officers, agents, and employees acting within the scope of their official duties against any liability, including costs and expenses, resulting from any willful or intentional violation by the Grantee of proprietary rights, copyrights, or right of privacy, arising out of the publication, translation, reproduction, delivery, use, or disposition of any data furnished under the Project. The Grantee shall not be required to indemnify SANDAG for any such liability caused solely by the wrongful acts of SANDAG employees or agents.

XVIII. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
A. Status of Grantee
Grantee shall perform the services provided for within this Agreement as an independent contractor, and not as an employee of SANDAG. Grantee shall be under the control of SANDAG as to the result to be accomplished and not the means, and shall consult with SANDAG as provided for in the Scope of Work. The payments made to Grantee pursuant to this Agreement shall be the full and complete compensation to which Grantee is entitled. SANDAG shall not make any federal or state tax withholdings on behalf of Grantee. SANDAG shall not be required to pay any workers’ compensation insurance on behalf of Grantee. Grantee agrees to indemnify SANDAG for any tax, retirement contribution, social security, overtime payment, or workers’ compensation payment which SANDAG may be required to make on behalf of Grantee or any employee of Grantee for work done under this Agreement.

B. Actions on Behalf of SANDAG
Except as SANDAG may specify in writing, Grantee shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of SANDAG in any capacity whatsoever, as an agent or otherwise. Grantee shall have no authority, express or implied, to bind SANDAG or its members, agents, or employees, to any obligation whatsoever, unless expressly provided for in this Agreement.

Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 14 of 23 ends

115
Item6.
15 XIX. SEVERABILITY AND INTEGRATION
If any provision of the Agreement is determined invalid, the remainder of that Agreement shall not be affected if that remainder would continue to conform to the requirements of applicable laws or regulations.

This Agreement with its attachments and the resolution from Grantee’s governing body submitted with its application, represents the entire understanding of SANDAG and Grantee as to those matters contained in it. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered herein. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing, signed by SANDAG and the Grantee.

XX. SIGNATURES
The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the last signature date..

SAN

DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF

GOVERNMENTS
CI

TY OF ESCONDIDO

SUSAN HUNTINGTON DATE
Director of Financial Planning, Budgets,
and Grants

DATE PAUL MCNAMARA
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPRO VED AS TO FORM:

Office of General Counsel DATE City Attorney or designee DATE DATE
Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 15 of 23 ends

116
Item6.
16 ATTACHMENT A

SCOPE OF WORK, SCHEDULE, AND PROJECT BUDGET

Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 16 of 23 ends

117
Item6.
17 ATTACHMENT B

PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Instructions
In 2020, the San Diego region permitted 10,883 units of housing. The goal of the SGIP is to fund planning activities that facilitate compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented development, and increase housing and transportation choices. The following form is to be used for satisfying the quarterly reporting requirements and performance measures of the SGIP funded by TransNet. Pursuant to the terms of the Grant Agreement, Grantees will be required to provide quarterly reports and a more detailed Final Progress Report at the end of the grant term. The quarterly report utilizing this form must be submitted to SANDAG within 30 days following receipt of funds and thereafter each quarter until the expiration of the grant. A Grantee will not be eligible for reimbursement from SANDAG unless it has submitted its reports by the timelines required by SANDAG.

Performance Period Quarterly Report Due Date
April-June 2022 July 15, 2022
July-September 2022 October 15, 2022
October-December 2022 January 15, 2023
January-March 2023 April 15, 2023
April-June 2023 July 15, 2023
July-September 2023 October 15, 2023
October-December 2023 January 15, 2024
January-March 2024 April 15, 2024
April-June 2024 July 15, 2024
July-September 2024 October 15, 2024
October-December 2024 January 15, 2025
January-March 2025 April 15, 2025
April-June 2025 July 15, 2025
Unless SANDAG directs otherwise, Grantee must submit its quarterly report to SANDAG using a form that will be sent to Grantees each quarter. This document will show the information that will be required in the quarterly reports from each Grantee and will be followed by the list of performance measures that will be used for the Final Progress Report. This cycle of SGIP grants is focused on planning activities rather than construction, however, the performance measure information in the Final Progress Report will serve as a baseline for future SGIP grant cycles to align with the 2021 Regional Plan and other SANDAG grant programs.

Overview
Provide an overview of the project, including challenges, limiting factors, opportunities and solutions unique to the jurisdiction. The section should also discuss the overall approach, goals and high-level summary of the status of the project.

Project Highlights, Accomplishments and Best Practices
Provide highlights regarding the overall project from the last quarter and any accomplishments resulting from the efforts in implementing the project. This section also may list and explain some of the best practices occurring through the project. This section can highlight the Grantee’s efforts and can include a wide-ranging variety of efforts that facilitate smart growth and transit-oriented development and greenhouse gas reduction such as comprehensive planning efforts, smaller-scale neighborhood planning activities, Complete Streets Design Manuals, Financing Tools, Smart Growth studies, Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zones and Concept Plans, and Mobility Hub plans.

Status of Activities
Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 17 of 23 ends

118
Item6.
18 This section will provide a description of each of the major activities in the Grantee’s project. Based on the description of the activities Grantee committed to perform in its Grant Agreement, Grantee will provide status reports describing progress on milestones and deliverables completed. • Column 1 of the status table is entitled Activity Category. This column will be completed with the relevant activity category (i.e., relationship to regional transit, further planning to support regional mobility hub implementation strategy, Smart Growth policy implementation, smart growth equity, partnerships (if applicable), and sustainability).
• Column 2 will include a brief description of the milestone or deliverable completed. • Columns 3 and 4 will report the amount of money allocated to each activity and how much has been expended per activity as of the end of the quarter.
• Column 5 will describe the overall timing of the project with beginning and anticipated completion dates.
• Column 6 will include a general status (i.e., not yet started, in progress, complete) and anticipated upcoming milestones.
• Column 7 will qualitatively and quantitatively, where possible, describe the impact on housing as a result of the activity. Qualitative data should be based on the performance measure metrics that Grantee will be required to report on at the end of grant term in the Final Progress Report Summary of Work Completed in Prior Quarter

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Activity
Category
Description of
Milestone or
Deliverable
Completed
Dollar
Amount
Allocated to
Activity
Dollar
Amount
Expended
Thus Far
Anticipated
Completion
Date
Status Description of
How Milestone
or Deliverable
Achieves
Progress on a
Performance
Measure

Summary of Smart Growth Indicators
Provide a narrative overview of smart growth indicators and a summary of efforts, activities, studies, and/or other deliverables, as applicable. Grantees may add other smart growth indicators and numerical outcomes and may also discuss any anticipated changes and limiting or confounding factors potentially impacting the effectiveness of the activities. The information collected in this grant cycle may be used as a baseline or context for indicating smart growth implementation at a jurisdictional scale. Baseline year will be the 2021 calendar year and current year will be 2022 for purposes of the Final Progress Report.

Grantees may add any anticipated changes and limiting or confounding factors potentially impacting the effectiveness of the activities. Additionally, Grantees may discuss other indicators of smart growth implementation and numerical outcomes that are based on the performance measure metrics that Grantee will be required to report on at the end of grant term in the Final Progress Report.

Performance Measures Metrics to Be Provided in Final Progress Report Below are examples that could be used, depending on the type of project funded through the SGIP.

Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 18 of 23 ends

119
Item6.
19 • Number of improvements to the mix of land use types (multifamily, single-family, and non-residential) in jurisdiction
• Number of acres Grantee avoided converting from agricultural, natural, or working lands to land eligible for development
• Number of projects providing new or enhanced connectivity to the non-automotive transportation network during the grant term
• Number of improved neighborhood projects with safety features to promote active mobility completed during the grant term
• Number of new linkages to transit and/or pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure created during the grant term
• VMT reduction per capita within the jurisdiction during the grant term • Number of new non-automotive trips generated (total, per capita, or other) during the grant term • Greenhouse gas reduction (total, per capita, or other) achieved by jurisdiction during the grant term • Number of new infrastructure services created in areas of concentrated poverty or similar areas during the grant term
• Number of new housing units created during the grant term in Smart Growth Opportunity Areas and employment centers
• Number of individual persons reached by Grantee using direct engagement with community stakeholders concerning smart growth during the grant term • Number of housing units located on an infill site surrounded by urban uses such as shopping, restaurants, and jobs available to rent or own
Additional Information
Provide any applicable information as necessary to demonstrate the status and impacts of the overall project.

Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 19 of 23 ends

120
Item6.
20 ATTACHMENT C

SGIP MONITORING CHECKLIST
See following pages.

Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 20 of 23 ends

121
Item6.
21 Smart Growth Incentive Program Monitoring Checklist
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has developed a Monitoring Checklist to assist in monitoring each recipient of TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) funds, referred to as a “Grantee.” The Monitoring Checklist is used to assess the performance of the Grantee in providing the project included in the original grant application, and the Grantee’s compliance with the terms of the Grant Agreement. The Monitoring Checklist will be completed by the SGIP Program Manager annually and upon project completion. SANDAG will send a final version of the completed Monitoring Checklist within one week of the date of the review.

I. GRANT AGREEMENT INFORMATION
Agreement No. [Enter grant agreement number]
Grantee Name [Enter Grantee Name]
Project Name [Enter Project Name]
Project Type Choose an item.

Notice to Proceed Date Click or tap to enter a date.

Agreement Expiration Date Click or tap to enter a date.

Grantee Project Manager Name [Enter Grantee Project Manager Name] SANDAG Program Manager Name [Enter SANDAG Program Manager Name] II. REVIEW DETAILS
Date of Review Click or tap to enter a date.

Type of Review Choose an item.

Review Period Start Date: Click or tap to enter a date.

End Date: Click or tap to enter a date.

III. COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT
Each question below is derived from the Grant Agreement and therefore, a question marked “No” indicates the Grantee is out of compliance with the terms of the Grant Agreement.

Topic or Question Response
Project Changes

1. Did the Grantee notify SANDAG in writing if substantive changes to the Project would have or did occur?
Choose an item.

2. I f the Grantee encountered or anticipated difficulty in meeting the Project Schedule, did the Grantee notify SANDAG in writing? Did the notification include the reason(s) for the delay in performance and the date by which Grantee expected to complete performance or delivery?
Choose an item.

3. Was prior written approval obtained for transfers of funds between tasks in the Scope of Work?
Choose an item.

Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 21 of 23 ends

122
Item6.
22 4. I f there were any changes to the Grantee’s Project Manager, did the Grantee provide SANDAG with updated contact information in a timely manner? Choose an item.

Compliance Information System (CIS)

5. Did the Grantee report payment details using the SANDAG web-based CIS by the 15th of each month following receipt of payment by SANDAG? Choose an item.

6. Did the Grantee ensure its third party contractors and/or subcontractors consistently reported payments or confirmed receipt of payment in the CIS? Choose an item.

Third-Party Contracting

7. Did the Grantee provide evidence of a competitive procurement or obtain prior written approval of SANDAG to utilize a noncompetitive procurement for each third party contract over $10,000?
Choose an item.

Payments/Invoicing

8. Did the Grantee submit an invoice each quarter in the required format and on time?
Choose an item.

9. Were the invoices filled out correctly and free of errors? Choose an item.

10. Were all items included in Grantee invoices eligible under the Grant Agreement?
Choose an item.

11. Were sufficient backup materials including required documentation consistently provided with each invoice packet?
Choose an item.

12. If the Grantee invoiced for indirect costs, were they consistent with the Grantee’s indirect cost allocation plan in effect at the time of invoice? Choose an item.

13. Did the Grantee’s invoices include its matching fund contribution, along with supporting, descriptive and/or explanatory documentation for the matching funds provided?
Choose an item.

Reports

14. Did the Grantee submit quarterly reports in the required format and on time? Choose an item.

15. Were report forms filled out correctly and free of errors? Choose an item.

16. Did the reports sufficiently detail accomplishments in the quarter, anticipated progress next quarter, pending issues and actions toward resolution, and status of budget, schedule, and Performance Measures?
Choose an item.

17. Did the Grantee provide project milestone information such as presentations to community groups, other agencies, and elected officials, groundbreakings, and ribbon-cuttings to support media and communications efforts? Choose an item.

18. Did the Grantee provide with its reports photo documentation required by the Grant Agreement, including existing conditions photos and project milestone photos?
Choose an item.

19. Did the Grantee provide SANDAG with agendas and meeting summaries for all community meetings?
Choose an item.

Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 22 of 23 ends

123
Item6.
23 Project Completion and Closeout

20. Did the Grantee complete the Project according to the Project Schedule included in the Grant Agreement?
Choose an item.

21. Did the Grantee meet the Performance Measures included in the Grant Agreement?
Choose an item.

22. Did the Grantee provide all deliverables identified in the Scope of Work? Choose an item.

23. Did the Grantee provide a final invoice of project expenses and final reports within 90 calendar days following Project completion or termination by SANDAG?
Choose an item.

24. Did the Grantee provide adequate match contributions? Choose an item.

25. Did the Grantee meet the project completion deadline required in Board Policy No. 035? Or otherwise obtain approval for a time extension amendment consistent with the Policy?
Choose an item.

IV. SUMMARY AND IDENTIFICATION OF DEFICIENCIES
SANDAG staff reviews any “No” responses to the Compliance Assessment questions, which indicates an area in which the Grantee is deficient in meeting its obligations under the Grant Agreement. Following identification of any deficiency and for projects that are not yet complete, SANDAG will issue Grantee a written Notice to Complete a Recovery Plan. The Grant Agreement contains additional details on the Notice to Complete a Recovery Plan process.

Question No. Explanation

V. GRANTEE SIGNATURES
By signing below, I confirm receipt of this completed Monitoring Checklist.

Project Manager Name (Print) Signature Date

Resolution No. 2022-123
Exhibit A

Page 23 of 23 ends

124
Item6.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 938E89A4-82E5-4423-AA93-931BBAE722E4 10/25/2022
10/25/2022
10/25/2022
10/25/2022

ORDINANCE NO. 2022-10R

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, RETAINING THE EXISTING

SPEED LIMIT ON EIGHT STREET SEGMENTS

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

SECTION 1. The City Council makes the following findings:
a) On October 8, 2021, the State of California approved Assembly Bill 43, which took effect January 1, 2022 and amends the California Vehicle Code as it relates to speed limits. b) California Vehicle Code Section 40802 requires that enforcement of declared prima facie speed limits on a particular section of a highway or state highway be justified by an Engineering and Traffic Survey conducted no more tha n seven years prior to the date of the alleged violation . However, if a registered engineer evaluates the section of the highway and determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred including, but not limited to, changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume, then enforcement of a declared prima facie speed limit on a particular section of a highway or state highway may be justified by an Engineering and Traffic Survey conducted no more than 14 years prior to the date of the alleged violation. c) California Vehicle Code section 22357 provides that w henever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that a speed greater than 25 miles per hour would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would b e reasonable and safe upon any street other than a state highway otherwise subject to a prima facie limit of 25 miles per hour, the local authority may by ordinance determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, or 60 miles per hour or a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate 126
Item7.

ORDINANCE NO. 2022-12

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, TO DETERMINE GRAND

AVENUE FROM CENTRE CITY PARKWAY TO S JUNIPER

STREET AS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY DISTRICT AND DECLARE
THE PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT TO BE 25 MPH

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

SECTION 1. The City Council makes the following findings:
a) On October 8, 2021, the State of California approved Assembly Bill 43, which took effect January 1, 2022, and amends the California Vehicle Code as it relates to speed limits. b) California Vehicle Code Section 22352 defines prima facie speed limits as when signs have been erected giving notice thereof for twenty-five miles per hour on any highway in any business district. c) Section 22358.9 was added to the California Vehicle Code as part of Assembly Bill 43, and allows the following:
(a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, a local authority may, by ordinance, determine and declare a 25 or 20 miles per hour prima facie speed limit on a highway contiguous to a business activity district when posted with a sign that indicates a speed limit of 25 or 20 miles per hour. (2) The prima facie limits established under paragraph (1) apply only to highways that meet all of the following conditions:
(A) A maximum of four traffic lanes.
127
Item7.

STAFF REPORT

August 24, 2022
File Number 0810-20

SUBJECT

AN AMENDMENT TO THE ESCONDIDO MUNICIPAL AND ZONING CODE S TO CREATE OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL 9 (PLANNING CASE NO. PL22- 0363)

DEPARTMENT
Development Services (Planning Division)

RECOMMENDATION
Request that the City Council consider the introduction and adoption of Ordinance No. 2022 -19, approving an amendment to the Escondido Municipal and Zoning Codes to create objective development standards for the local implementation of Senate Bill 9.

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Development Services: Andrew Firestine, Director of Development Services)
Presenter: Sean Nicholas, Principal Planner

FISCAL ANALYSIS
Adoption of the Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”) Implementing Ordinance will have no direct fiscal impact on the City. As proposed, a Major Plot Plan fee will be assessed on every SB 9 application for a two-family dwelling and a Tentative Parcel Map and Parcel Map fee will be assessed on every SB 9 application for an urban lot split. These fees will offset staff resources required to review the applications.

PREVIOUS ACTION
None.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

On January 1, 2022, SB 9 went into effect statewide. SB 9 is part of the State legislature’s effort to increase housing production throughout California, and establishes tw-o (2) major provisions to help accommodate this: it allows for two (2) primary dwelling units to be developed on parcels zoned for single-family residences as the primary use (“two-family dwellings”); and it creates an administrative process to allow for the subdivision of parcels zoned for single-family residences as the primary use (“urban lot splits”).

128
Item8.

Government Code Section 65852.21(b), allows for jurisdictions to adopt local requirements to regulate development of properties pursuant to SB 9, as long as the requirements are objective and not in conflict with the provisions of the bill. The provisions included in the draft implementing ordinance under consideration are intended to provide clarity on the City’s objective development standards related to projects undertaken pursuant to SB 9. They also identify the permitting process for such projects.

Provisions related to two-family dwellings are identified in draft Escondido Zoning Code section 33 -115, and those related to urban lot splits can be found in section 33-116.

Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Escondido Zoning Code amendment on July 12, 2022, and recommended unanimously that City Council approve the proposed changes.

Objective Development Standards

Any development standards established by a local government to implement the provisions of SB 9 must be objective (not subject to discretion) and known in advance, and cannot be more restrictive than those prescribed in the bill. Staff has identified objective development standards including limitations to number of units, unit size, height limitations, and parking requirements, among others, that have been tailored to the extent possible to maintain the character of existing single -family neighborhoods. As such, it is important to note that staff has provided flexibility in certain development standards in order to encourage more -livable dwelling units where impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods can be minimized. All objective standards included in the draft ordinance are consistent with the limitations set forth in SB 9.

Number of Units – SB 9 allows the owner of an existing parcel currently zoned for single-family residential use to apply for an urban lot split resulting in two lots, and to apply to develop two residential units on a single lot. Consistent with SB 9, the draft ordinance allows for ministerial review of those applications, in conjunction with existing laws relating to accessory and junior accessory dwelling units. If an existing parcel is divided pursuant to section 33-116, each lot will be limited to no more than two total units.

Two-Family Dwellings

Unit Size Limitations – SB 9 limits the ability of local jurisdictions to require a unit be less than 800 square feet. This does not prevent applicants from proposing less than 800 square feet for each unit. For the purposes of compatibility with existing neighborhoods, staff has included provisions in the draft ordinance requiring minimum unit size of 400 square feet. In addition, for portions of the community with larger lots 129
Item8.

that propose to utilize the provisions of the ordinance pertaining to two-family dwellings, clear objective standards based primarily on lot area would allow units to be a maximum of 2,000 square feet of living space, provided all provisions of the underlying zoning district are adhered to.

Height Limitations – Similar to recent state -mandated housing le gislation, local provisions and units created consistent with SB 9 are allowed to have a minimum side and rear setback of four (4) feet, and a height of 16 feet. Consistent with those requirements, any development utilizing provisions of the ordinance pertaining to two -family dwellings and having minimum side and /or rear setbacks less than that required in the underlying zone, are limited to a maximum of one-story and 16 feet in height. This is directly consistent with the State requirements. If a proposed development undertaken pursuant to the provisions the ordinance pertaining to two -family dwellings is consistent with the setbacks of the underlying zone, height limitations shall also be permitted to be consistent with those allowed in the underlying zone. Again, the emphasis of this regulation is consistency with State law, while allowing for developments to be in character with the neighboring residential development.

Parking Requirements – SB 9 allows local jurisdictions to require up to one (1) onsite parking space for each dwelling unit created unless proximity requirements to public transportation options are met, in which case no parking can be required. To be consistent with standard parking requirements for a single- family residential development, the draft ordinance requires one parking space for each unit that does not meet the public transportation proximity exclusion. SB 9 is silent regarding whether parking needs to be covered, however to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential developments, the draft ordinance requires the parking space to be covered and to be on the same parcel as the unit which the parking space serves. A maximum of a 450 square foot garage or covere d parking area has been set for any residential unit created pursuant to the implementing ordinance.

Urban Lot Splits

The second change created by SB 9 is the establishment of Urban Lot Splits. Draft Escondido Zoning Code section 33-116 identifies requirements for processing an Urban Lot Split. As ministerial actions, urban lot splits are approved at staff level and do not require a public hearing unless other aspects of the project would require such. Applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act must still be met, but the goal is to streamline the process. Any lot created utilizing section 33-116 must be at least 1,200 square feet in size, and no resulting lot can be less than 40% of the original parcel area. Any parcel created pursuant to section 33-116 cannot be further subdivided in the future. Additionally, any parcel created pursuant to this section is limited to two residential units, consistent with the objective development standards described above. 130
Item8.

As with the draft provisions of section 33-115, requirements set forth in section 33-116 are only applicable in the R-E and R-1 zones, and on parcels in specific plans designated for single-family residential uses as the primary use.

Additional Zoning and Municipal Code Amendments

In order to implement the provisions of SB 9, revisions to other sections of the Escondido Municipal and Zoning Codes have been identified. The revisions to the Zoning Code are required to provide internal consistency and compliance with SB 9. The revisions to the Municipal Code address SB 9 exemptions from right-of-way dedication and installation public improvements. Both revisions are included in strike - thru/underline format in Attachment “1” to this report, and are incorporated into Exhibit “B” to draft City Council Ordinance No. 2022-19.

Applicability of SB 9 Provisions

Draft Escondido Zoning Code sections 33-115 and 33-116 apply to parcels zoned primarily for single-family residential use, including the estate residential (R -E) and single-family residential (R-1) zones, as well as properties in specific plans where the property is intended for development with one single -family residence. The provisions of Sections 33 -115 and 33 -116 do not apply to properties in the agriculture residential (R-A) zone, any multi-family residential zones, or any areas designated for non -residential or mixed-use zoning.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n), adoption of local requirements consistent with the provisions of SB 9 are not subject to CEQA.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment “1”- Draft Zoning and Municipal Code Amendment language

ORDINANCES

1. Ordinance No. 2022-19

2. Ordinance No. 2022-19 Exhibit “A”

3. Ordinance No. 2022-19 Exhibit “B”
131
Item8.

ATTACHMENT “1”

DRAFT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
NE
W ZONING CODE SECTIONS:

Sec. 33-115. Two-family dwellings in single-family residential zones and specific plans
(a) Purpose. The purpose of section 33-115 is to appropriately regulate qualifying Senate Bill 9 two-family dwelling unit developments within single-family residential zones in accordance with California Government Code section 65852.21. (b) For the purposes of this section and section 33- 116 only , the term two -family dwelling shall mean two (2) attached or detached units on single- family zoned properties, as described in subsection ( d), and on properties in specific plans intended for single-family residential use.
(c) Permit required. Two (2) family dwellings shall require processing of a major Plot Plan application as described in division 8 of article 61 of this chapter. (1) The Director of Development Services or their designee (Director) shall review complete applications for compliance with the requirements of this section and the underlying development standards in the zoning district or specific plan in which it is located, and any other applicable objective development standards stated in the Municipal Code. Notwithstanding language in any specific plan to the contrary, provisions of this section shall supersede where any conflict exists. The Director shall ministerial approve complete applications found to be in compliance with these standards.
(2) The Director may deny a complete application if it fails to comply with the requirements of this section, the underlying development standards in the zoning district or specific plan in which it is located , and any other applicable objective development standards stated in the Municipal Code. In addition to the foregoing, the Director may deny an application if such denial is based upon a preponderance of evidence and the written finding of the building official that the proposed two-family dwelling project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(2), upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, an application shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures provided that the structures meet building code safety standards.
(d) Appeals of the Director’s decision shall be governed by section 33-1303.

Attachment 1

Page 1 of 20 ends

132
Item8.

Page 2 of 20 ends

(1) If the development of a two-family dwelling project requires another entitlement pursuant to the Escondido Zoning Code, the two- family dwelling project shall not be approved until that entitlement process is completed and approved. If the entitlement is not approved, the two -family dwelling project cannot be approved unless it is redesigned to eliminate the need for the denied entitlement.

(e) Location.

(1) Except as specified below, two- family dwellings shall be permitted in estate residential (R-E) and single-family residential (R-1) zones, and on properties in specific plans intended primarily for single-family residential use.

(2) Two-family dwellings shall not be permitted in the following locations:

(A) On p roperties that allow as the primary use multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, or mixed uses, regardless of the allowance of single-family residential uses.

(B) On properties described in subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Government Code section 65913.4.

(C) W ithin a historic district or upon property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic resource or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.

(D) On parcels requiring demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:

i. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income.

ii. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.

iii. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.

(E) O n parcels which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application.

Attachment 1

Page 2 of 20 ends

133
Item8.

Page 3 of 20 ends

(F) On parcels with legal nonconforming uses or structures unless development of the two-family dwelling brings the property into conformance.

(f) Objective Development Standards: The development standards set forth below shall apply to all two -family dwellings. Any development standard not explicitly identified below shall be subject to the underlying zoning designation or specific plan, and all applicable provisions of this code, unless superseded by Government Code sections 65852.21, 66411.7, and 66452.6.

(1) Unit Size:

(A) The minimum unit size of any unit created as part of a two -family dwelling shall be 400 square feet.

(B) Except as described below, no new unit constructed as part of a two- family dwelling may exceed 800 square feet.

i. New units may be up to 1,200 square feet if they meet all of the following requirements:

a. The parcel on which the two-family dwelling is located is in the R-E or R-1 zone and has a lot size of at least one and a half (1 ½) times the minimum size otherwise permitted in the zone.

b. No accessory dwelling unit or junior ADU exist on the parcel.

c. A deed restriction is recorded prohi biting the construction of an ADU or junior ADU on the parcel.

d. Existing and new dwelling units shall each have two
covered parking spaces.

e. An attached or detached garage or covered parking
space(s) associated with the 1,200 square foot unit does not exceed 450 square feet.

f. Existing and new dwelling units shall meet the minimum setbacks in the underlying zone.

g. Addition of the new unit does not result in the parcel being out of compliance with the maximum floor area ratio and lot coverage for the underlying zone.

Attachment 1

Page 3 of 20 ends

134
Item8.

Page 4 of 20 ends

ii. New units may be up to 1,500 square feet if they meet all of the following requirements:

a. The parcel on which the two-family dwelling is located is in the R-E zone and has a lot size of one and one half (1 ½) times the minimum size otherwise permitted in the zone, or is in the R-1 zone and has a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet.

b. The unit satisfies all requirements identified in subsections b through g of section 33-115(e)(1)(B)i.

iii. New units may be up to 2,000 square feet if they meet all of the following requirements:

a. The parcel on which the two-family dwelling is located is in the R-E or R-1 zone and has a lot size of at least one acre.

b. The unit satisfies all requirements identified in subsections b through g of section 33-115(e)(1)(B)i.

(C) Any future subdivision of a parcel with a two- family dwelling project shall not cause the parcel to be out of compliance with the provisions of this subsection.

(2) Setbacks and building separation:

(A) Minimum side and rear yard setbacks for a two-family dwelling shall be no less than four feet.

(B) S ection 33 -104(c), projections into setbacks, shall not apply to any projects utilizing sections 33-115 or 33-116.

(C) For two family dwellings constructed on properties which have frontage on streets which have not been dedicated to their ultimate width, setbacks shall be measured from the ultimate right-of-way.

(D) Setback requirements noted above shall not apply to a legally existing detached accessory structure that is utilized as one of the two units associated wit h the two -family dwelling or for a new structure constructed in the same location as a legally existing detached accessory structure.

(E) Detached dwelling units and associated covered parking shall be a minimum of 10 feet from each other unless all structures are single-story Attachment 1

Page 4 of 20 ends

135
Item8.

Page 5 of 20 ends

and not more than 16 feet in height , in which case the minimum separation shall be five feet.

(F) Notwithstanding subsection ( E) above, all dwellings with less than 10 feet of separation shall meet the fire resistive construction requirements contained in the California Residential and Fire codes.

(3) Maximum Height/Stories:

(A) If located within the rear or side yard setback of the underlying zoning district, the two-family dwelling shall be limited to 16 feet and one-story.

(B) If compliant with the setbacks for the underlying zoning district, the two- family dwelling shall comply with the height limitations of the underlying zoning district.

(4) Parking Requirements:

(A) At least one off-street parking space shall be provided for each new unit constructed under the provisions of this section. Said parking spaces shall be covered, and shall not be in tandem with parking spaces for any other unit on the property.

(B) The required parking shall be located onsite with the two-family dwelling the parking is associated with.

(D) The foregoing parking standards shall not be required in either of the following circumstances:

i. The two -family dwelling is located within one -half mile walking distance of either a high- quality transit corridor as defined in subdivision (b) of section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop as defined in section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. The applicant shall be responsible for demonstrating applicability of this section; or

ii. There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the two- family dwelling.

(5) Access and easements

Attachment 1

Page 5 of 20 ends

136
Item8.

Page 6 of 20 ends

(A) Vehicular access from the public right of way shall meet the following requirements:

i. Driveways that provide access to two homes shall have a minimum paved width of 20 feet.

ii. Driveways that provide access to three homes, or that provide access to parking facilities with nine or more parking spaces, shall have a minimum width of 24 feet, unless the parking facility is served by 2 one- way driveways, in which case each driveway shall be at least 12 feet wide.

iii. All driveways shall have a height clearance of at least 13 feet 6 inches, and shall be paved with cement, asphaltic concrete, or other all-weather construction material(s) and to the City Design Standards for Driveway Structural Design.

iv. Access improvements shall be provided in compliance with the City’s adopted standard drawings.

v. Access to lots shall be in conformance with Article 39 of the Escondido Zoning Code. Dead end access shall be no longer than 150-feet in length unless a Fire Department approved turn- around is provided. Fire Department access shall be a minimum of 20 feet in unobstructed width.

(B) Access to lots shall be in conformance with Article 39 of the Escondido Zoning Code. Dead end access shall be no longer than 150- feet in length unless a Fire Department approved turn-around is provided. Fire Department access shall be a minimum of 20 feet in unobstructed width.

(C) Emergency access and easements for the provision of public facilities, utilities, and/or access shall be provided in compliance with applicable sections of the municipal code.

(6) The primary entrance for any new dwelling unit constructed as part of a two- family dwelling shall not be oriented to the side or rear property line unless the structure meets the side or rear setback established by the underlying zoning district.

(7) Each unit in a two-family dwelling shall be placed on a permanent foundation and permanently connected to the public sewer system or an onsite wastewater treatment system approved by the County of San Diego Health Department.

Attachment 1

Page 6 of 20 ends

137
Item8.

Page 7 of 20 ends

(8) Each unit in a two -family dwelling shall include sufficient permanent provision for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitations, including but not limited to washer/dryer hookups and full kitchen facilities.

(9) Both units in a two-family dwelling shall share the same water and sewer utility connections and meter, and shall be subject to connection fees or capacity charges, or both.

(g) Additional Requirements:

(1) Construction of a two-family dwelling project shall not require the demolition of more than 25 percent of the exterior structural walls of an existing dwelling unless the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three (3) years.

(2) Any unit created pursuant to this section shall, if rented, be rented for a term longer than 30 days.

(3) A deed restriction prepared by the City shall be recorded against the subject property prior to issuance of any building permit(s) for a two -family dwelling.

The deed restriction shall run with the land and shall stipulate compliance with the applicable provisions of this section.

(4) New dwelling units constructed as part of a two-family dwelling shall meet the requirements of the California Building, Residential, and Fire codes, as such codes have been adopted and amended by Chapter s 6 and 11 of the Escondido Municipal Code.

(5) Both units in a two -family dwelling project shall utilize the same colors and materials. This requirement applies whether both units are constructed at the same time or if one (1) unit is added to a property that is currently developed with an existing unit.

(6) Solar panels shall be required on new ly constructed units within a two-family dwelling project in compliance with the California Energy Code.

(7) Accessory Dwelling Units:

(A) For the purposes of this subsection, Unit refers to either a primary dwelling unit, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), or a junior ADU.

(B) Inclusive of the two- family dwelling requirements described in this section, any existing parcel may be permitted to construct up to four total units.

Attachment 1

Page 7 of 20 ends

138
Item8.

Page 8 of 20 ends

(D) ADUs and Junior ADUs shall be governed by the provisions of Article

70. Sec. 33-116. Urban lot split
(a) Purpose. The purpose of section 33-116 is to appropriately regulate qualifying Senate Bill 9 urban lot split developments within single-family residential zones in accordance with California Government Code section 66411.7.

(b) For the purposes of this section, two-family dwelling shall have the same meaning as that identified in section 33-115.

(d) Urban lot splits are not permitted on the following parcels:

(1) Those described in section 33-115(d)(2);

(2) Parcels that were created by a prior urban lot split;

(3) Parcels adjacent to those which the owner or someone acting in concert with the owner has previously subdivided through an urban lot split process.

(4) Parcels where subdivision would result in either of the new parcels being out of compliance with the maximum unit sizes identified in sub section 33- 115(e)(1)(C).

(5) Parcels containing more than two units, as that term is described in subsection 33-115(f)(7)(A).

(e) All provisions of the S ubdivision Map Act and Escondido Municipal Code shall apply unless expressly modified in this section.

(1) No dedication of right -of-way or construction of offsite improvements shall be required as a condition of parcel map approval.

(2) If the urban lot split is proposed on a public street that has not been dedicated to its ultimate width, public facilities, utilities, and/or access easements shall be recorded as a condition of parcel map approval.
(f) Development Standards. Parcels shall be subject to all development standards of the zone in which the property is located, except as modified below:

Attachment 1

Page 8 of 20 ends

139
Item8.

Page 9 of 20 ends

(1) Lot size:
(A) Each newly created lot shall be at least 40% of the lot area of the parcel being divided.
(B) Each newly created parcel shall be no smaller than 1,200 square feet. (2) Setbacks, unit size, and parking requirements shall be the same as those in section 33-115(e).
(g) A parcel created by an urban lot split shall be permitted to have a total of two units.

This can be achieved through either a two-family dwelling, a single-family dwelling with an ADU, or a single-family dwelling with a junior ADU. (h) Parcels created by an urban lot split shall not be required, as a condition of ministerial approval, to correct nonconforming zoning conditions. (i) A n application for an urban lot split shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures, provided that the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. (j) Access to lots shall be in conformance with Article 39 of the Escondido Zoning Code. Dead end access shall be no longer than 150- feet in length unless a F ire Department approved turn-around is provided. Fire Department access shall be a minimum of 20 feet in unobstructed width.
(k) Each dwelling unit and parcel shall have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right of way. Accessibility shall be in conformance with the Building Code and Americans with Disability Act, and shall not preclude construction of future public improvements
(l) Easements for the provision of public facilities, utilities, access, and/or emergency access shall be provided as a condition of approval of an urban lot split. (m) Unless specifically exempted pursuant to Government Code section s 66411.7(g)(2) and (3), a n applicant for an urban lot split shall sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split.
(n) Units on parcels created subject to this section shall, if rented, be rented for a term longer than 30 days.
(o) Applications for urban lot splits shall be processed in the same manner as those for tentative parcel maps, and shall be subject to the applicable requirements contained in Chapter 32 of the Escondido Municipal Code.

Attachment 1

Page 9 of 20 ends

140
Item8.

Page 10 of 20 ends

(p) Notes shall be included on the parcel map which reference compliance with sections 33-115 and 33- 116 of the Escondido Zoning Code, and any other provisions of said code related to urban lot splits.
(q) Fees for urban lot split applications shall be the same as those assessed for other tentative parcel map and parcel map applications.
(r) Denial of permit:
(1) The City may deny a request for an urban lot split if the building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the request would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of section 65589.5 the California Government Code, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. (s) Appeals:
(1) Appeals of the director’s decision shall be governed by section 33-1303.

ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS
Sec. 33-8. Definitions.

Urban lot split means the subdivision of any lot in a single- family residential zone or parcels designated for primarily single-family development in a specific plan into two lots.

Sec. 33-90. Purpose.
(a) Residential zones are established to provide for residential districts of various population densities so that the various types of residential developments may be separated from each other as necessary to assure compatibility of uses within family living areas, including the necessary appurtenant and accessory facilities associated with such areas.
(b) The following classes of residential use zones are established:
(1) The agriculture residential (R-A) zone is established to provide an agricultural setting in which agricultural pursuits can be encouraged and supported within the city. The R-A zone is designed to include single-family detached dwellings and to protect agricultural uses from encroachment by urban uses until residential, commercial or industrial uses in such areas become necessary or desired.
(2) The estate residential (R -E) zone is established to provide a rural setting for family life in single -family detached dwellings. Provisions are made for the Attachment 1

Page 10 of 20 ends

141
Item8.

Page 11 of 20 ends

maintenance of limited agricultural pursuits as well as those uses necessary and incidental to single-family living.
(3) The single-family residential (R -1) zone is established to provide a s uburban setting suitable for family life in single-family, detached dwellings. (4) The mobilehome residential (R-T) zone is established to provide a mobilehome park setting for family life in single-family detached mobilehomes. No land shall be classified into this zone where such classification would create an R-T zone area of less than four hundred thousand (400,000) square feet. (5) The light multiple residential (R-2) zone is established to provide a multifamily setting for family life in low-height, low density dwelling units in close proximity to single-family residential neighborhoods.
(6) The medium multiple residential (R -3) zone is established to provide a multifamily setting for family life in low-height, medium density dwelling units in close proximity to other multifamily neighborhoods.
(7) The high multiple residential (R-4) zone is established to provide a multifamily setting for family life in mid-height, high density dwelling units in close proximity to other multifamily neighborhoods and near the city’s center. (8) The very high multiple residential (R -5) zone is established to provide a multifamily setting for family life in higher -height, very high density dwelling units in close proximity to other multifamily neighborhoods and near the cit y’s center.
(c) Subsection 33- 90(a) notwithstanding, this section also serves to implement provisions of sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 of the Government Code.

Sec. 33-94. Permitted and conditional uses and structures. (Note: the only revisions to this section are as shown on the portion of Table 33-94 below, including the addition of Footnote 2.) Table 33-94
Permitted/Conditional Uses & Structures R-
A
R-
E
R-
1 R-
T
R-
2 R-
3 R-4 R-
5 Residential and Lodging
Single-family dwellings detached P P P P P1 P1 P1
Mobilehome on parcel alone, pursuant to
section 33-111 P P P P
Attachment 1

Page 11 of 20 ends

142
Item8.

Page 12 of 20 ends

Permitted/Conditional Uses & Structures R-
A
R-
E
R-
1 R-
T
R-
2 R-
3 R-4 R-
5 Two-family dwelling units and urban lot
splits
P2 P2
Two-family, three-family, and multiple-
family dwellings P P1 P1 P1
Notes:
1 No vacant or underdeveloped lot or parcel of land in any R-3, R-4, and R-5 zone shall be improved or developed at a density below seventy (70) percent of the maximum permitted density. Exceptions to the minimum density requirement may be granted in writing as part of the plan approval required by section 33-106 provided the development will not preclude the city from meeting its housing needs as described in the housing element of the Escondido general plan. Minimum density requirements shall not apply to property owners seeking to enhance or enlarge existing dwelling units or construct other accessory structures on a site.
2 Pursuant to sections 33-115 and 33-116.

Sec. 33-95. Permitted accessory uses and structures. (Note that tables in this section are not shown; no changes are proposed to those tables.)
(a) Accessory uses and structures are permitted in residential zones, provided they are incidental to, and do not substantially alter the character of the permitted principal use or structure. Such permitted accessory uses and structures include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table 33-95.
(1) When provided by these regulations, it shall be the responsibility of the director to determin e if a proposed accessory use is necessarily and customarily associated with, and is appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to, the principal use, based on the director’s evaluation of the resemblance of the proposed accessory use to those uses specifically identified as accessory to the principal uses and the relationship between the proposed accessory use and the principal use.
(b) The permitted types and quantities of animals allowed in residential zones is listed in Table 33-95a. Other household pets are allowed pursuant to section 33-1116 of Article 57 of this chapter.
(1) At no time shall the keeping of such animals and pets constitute a nuisance or other detriment to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community.

(2) All animal keeping is subject to the animal control and humane treatment standards in Chapter 4 of the Municipal Code (Animal Control) and other regulations found in County and State codes, including, but not limited to, State Health and Safety Code.

Attachment 1

Page 12 of 20 ends

143
Item8.

Page 13 of 20 ends

(3) No more than the quantities of animals specifically listed in Table 33- 95(a) or section 33-1116 shall be kept on any premises, except that offspring may be kept onsite for up to four (4) months from birth.

(4) The number of animals allowed on properties that have been divided pursuant to section 33-116 shall be one half of that otherwise allowed in the underlying zoning district.

Sec. 33-97. Property development standards.
(a) In addition to the property development standards set forth in this chapter, the development standards set forth in this article shall apply to land and structures in residential zones.

(b) Properties developed pursuant to sections 33-115 or 33-116 shall be subject to the development standards contained in those sections. For any development standards not addressed in those sections, the standards contained elsewhere in this chapter shall apply.

Sec. 33-98. Parcel requirements.

Table 33-98a

Zoning
Suffix
Minimum
Lot Area
(square
feet)
Average
Lot Width
(feet)
Minimum Street Lot
Frontage
Population
Density
R-T2 4,500* 55* 35 feet on a line parallel to the
centerline of the street or on a
cul-de-sac improved to city
standards1.

Frontage on a street end that
does not have a cul-de-sac
improved to city standards
shall not be counted in
meeting this requirement
except for panhandle lots.

Panhandle lots pursuant to
Article 56.

Not more than
one single-
family
dwelling may
be placed on
a lot or parcel
of land in this
zone.
3 R-1-6 6,000 60
R-1-7 7,000 65
R-1-8 8,000 70
R-1-9 9,000 75
R-1-10 10,000 80
R-1-12 12,000 85
R-1-15 15,000 90
R-1-18 18,000 95
R-1-20 20,000 100
R-1-25 25,000 110
Attachment 1

Page 13 of 20 ends

144
Item8.

Page 14 of 20 ends

Zoning
Suffix
Minimum
Lot Area
(square
feet)
Average
Lot Width
(feet)
Minimum Street Lot
Frontage
Population
Density

*Mobilehome parks pursuant
to Article 45 allow different lot
requirements. Title 25
provisions apply where
applicable.

R-E-20 20,000 100
20 feet or be connected to a
public street by a permanent
access easement

1. Panhandle lots pursuant to
Article 56.

R-E-25 25,000 110
R-E-30 30,000 125
R-E-40 40,000
150
R-E-50 50,000
R-E-60 60,000
R-E-70 70,000
R-E-80 80,000
R-E-90 90,000
R-E-
100 100,000
R-E-
110 110,000
R-E-
130 130,000
R-E-
150 150,000
R-E-
170 170,000
R-E-
190 190,000
R-E-
210 210,000
R-A-5 217,800
150
60 feet or be connected to a
public street by a permanent
access easement.
1 R-A-10 435,600
Attachment 1

Page 14 of 20 ends

145
Item8.

Page 15 of 20 ends

Zoning
Suffix
Minimum
Lot Area
(square
feet)
Average
Lot Width
(feet)
Minimum Street Lot
Frontage
Population
Density
Panhandle lots pursuant to
Article 56.

Notes:

1. Exception: Access to lots or parcels may be provided by private road easement conforming to the following standards:
(a) The minimum easement widths shall be 20 to 24 feet as determined by the city engineer and fire marshal; subject to the Escondido Design Standards and Standard Drawings; (b) Pavement section widths, grades and design shall be approved by the city engineer; (c) A cul -de-sac or turnaround shall be provided at the terminus to the satisfaction of the planning, engineering and fire departments.

2. Except for land that was being used for mobile homes prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this article, no land shall be classified into this zone where such classification would create an R-T zone area of less than 400,000 square feet.

3. Properties developed pursuant to section 33- 115 and/or 33-116 shall be allowed one two-family dwelling project/Urban Lot Split.

Sec. 33-106. Plan approval required.
(a) Building plan review and building permits are required for the construction or modification of single -family detached dwellings, mobilehomes, and some accessory structures in residential and R -T zones. Application shall be made to the building division for plan review, which is subject to planning division confirmation of zoning compliance. Two-family dwellings and u rban lot splits in single-family residential zones shall be processed pursuant to section 33-115 and 33-116 of this article, respectively.
(b) An appropriate development application for the construction or modification of two- family more than one dwellings on any lot in R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5 zones, multiple- family dwellings, some accessory structures, and nonresidential development in all residential zones is required pursuant to Article 61 of this chapter.

Sec. 33-107. Building requirements, generally.

Table 33- 107 lists building requirements in residential zones (excluding mobilehome parks approved pursuant to Article 45).

Table 33-107
Attachment 1

Page 15 of 20 ends

146
Item8.

Page 16 of 20 ends

Building
Requirements
R-A R-E R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-T*
Building height (feet),
except as otherwise
provided in this chapter
35 35 35 351 351 75 75 35
Maximum building
stories 21 31 41 41
Minimum distance
between residence and
accessory buildings
(feet)
105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Dwelling unit minimum
floor area (square feet)2 850 1,0006 8506 500 400 400 400 700 Maximum percent lot
coverage by primary
and accessory
structures
20% 30% 40% 50% none none none 60%
Maximum floor area
ratio (FAR)3 0.3 0.44 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 none
Minimum square feet
allowed for residential
and parking regardless
of the FAR
1,500 1,500 1,500 2,500 3,500 4,500 5,000 700

Notes:

1. Buildings or structures in excess of one (1) story and located adjacent to single-family zoned land, shall provide a setback equal to the abutting setback required by the single-family zone standards, plus five (5) additional feet for each story over two (2) on the property line(s) abutting the single- family zone(s) as noted in sections 33- 100 and 33- 101. Additionally, building features such as windows, doors, balconies, etc., bulk and scale shall not adversely affect the adjacent single-family property.

2. Area is exclusive of porches, garages, carports, entries, terraces, patios or basements.

3. FAR is the numerical value obtained by dividing the total gross floor area of all buildings on the site by the total area of the lot or premises.

4. Except that the maximum FAR for the RE- 20 zone shall be 0.5; and for the RE -170 and RE-210 zones the maximum FAR shall be 0.3.

5. Pursuant to section 33-103(c), if the residence (or main building) and detached accessory building are both one (1) story in height, then the minimum separation requirement may be reduced to five (5) feet, unless a greater distance is required by local building and fire code requirements for fire separation.

6. Dwelling unit minimum floor area does not apply to units created subject to section 33- 115. * Requirements apply unless superseded by Title 25.

Attachment 1

Page 16 of 20 ends

147
Item8.

Page 17 of 20 ends

Sec. 33-1314. Definition and purpose.
(a) Plot plan means a zoning instrument used primarily to review the location and site development of certain permitted land uses. The plot plan review process is required when any of the following are proposed in a multi -family, commercial, or industrial zone:
(1) A new building, structure, or addition;
(2) A new permitted use of land or existing structure that may require additional off-street parking;
(3) A modification of an existing development affecting the building area, parking (when a reduction in parking spaces is proposed), outdoor uses, or on- site circulation. Changes to parking areas that do not result in a reduction in parking spaces are exempt from plot plan review, but require design review, as provided in section 33-1355(b)(2);
(4) As may otherwise be required by this chapter.

Plot plan review is not required for residential development created by a planned development or residential subdivision of single-family lots. (b) Minor plot plan may include, but shall not be limited to, a change in use with no additional floor area, minor building additions, outdoor storage as an accessory use in the industrial zones, or other site plan changes affecting site circulation and parking, as determined by the director.
(c) Major plot plan may include, but shall not be limited to, new construction, reconstruction and additions of facilities permitted in the underlying zone, or other projects that exceed thresholds for a minor plot plan, as determined by the director.

All two -family dwelling projects proposed pursuant to section 33 -115 shall be subject to the approval of a major Plot Plan.

MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS
Sec. 23-119. Public dedication of rights-of-way required. (a) Subject to the “individualized determination” of section 23-121, any applicant who constructs any new building or dwelling in the city shall grant necessary public dedication or have provided a grant of easement or other appropriate conveyance, as approved by the city attorney. Accessory structures with a valuation less than twenty-three thousand eight hundred twenty -eight dollars ($23,828.00), as determined by building permit valuation, and accessory structures to single-family Attachment 1

Page 17 of 20 ends

148
Item8.

Page 18 of 20 ends

residences shall be exempt from this section. Rights-of-way shall also be provided for any improvements to existing facilities including rights -of-way for storm drains or other required public facilities. All rights-of-way shall be accompanied by a title examination report and be free of all liens and encumbrances. (b) The public dedications required by subsection (a) of this section shall also apply to any person who enlarges or expands any building in the city if the cost of such work exceeds the sum of twenty-three thousand eight hundred twenty-eight dollars ($23,828.00) as determined by building permit valuation. By resolution of city council, said amount may be increased annually consistent with the International Code Council valuation schedule for the appropriate construction type. (c) The required public dedications shall be granted prior to issuance of the building permit for the subject property.
(d) In determining the building permit valuation, the building official shall include the cumulative building permit valuation of multiple building permit applications within a twelve (12) month period to determine whether the development is exempt from this section.
(e) P rojects developed under the provisions of sections 33- 115 and/or 33-116 of the Escondido Zoning Code shall be exempt from the provisions of this section .

Easement(s) may be required for public facilities, utilities, and/or access.

Sec. 23-120. Public improvements required.
(a) Subject to the “individualized determination” of section 23-121, any applicant who constructs any building or dwelling in the city shall construct all necessary public improvements in accordance with city specifications upon the property and along all street frontages adjoining the property upon which such building is constructed unless adequate improvements already exist. Accessory structures with a valuation less than twenty -three thousand eight hundred t wenty-eight dollars ($23,828.00), as determined by building permit valuation, and accessory structures to single- family residences shall be exempt from this section. In each instance, the city engineer shall determine whether the necessary improvements exist and are adequate. Each building permit application shall be so endorsed at the time it is issued. All new and redevelopment projects are subject to undergrounding of overhead utilities.
(b) The improvements required by subsection (a) of this section shall also apply to any person who enlarges or expands any building or dwelling in the city if the cost of such work exceeds twenty -three thousand eight hundred twenty -eight dollars ($23,828.00), as determined by building permit valuation.

Attachment 1

Page 18 of 20 ends

149
Item8.

Page 19 of 20 ends

(c) By resolution of city council, such amount may be increased annually consistent with the International Code Council valuation scheduled for the appropriate construction type. Tenant and façade improvements to any building that do not result in enlargement or expansion of the building area are exempt from public improvements and undergrounding of overhead utilities.
(d) In determining the building permit valuation, the building official shall examine the cumulative building permit valuation of multiple building permit applications within a twelve (12) month period to determine whether the development is exempt from this section.
(e) Projects developed under the provisions of sections 33- 115 and/or 33-116 of the Escondido Zoning Code shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.

Easement(s) may be required for future public facilities, utilities, and/or access.

Sec. 23-47. Undergrounding required.
(a) All development projects within the City of Escondido which are either new subdivisions or subject to section 23- 119 or 23- 120 shall be required to underground all utility distribution facilities, including cable television and other communication facilities.
(b) The developer shall make the necessary arrangements with each of the serving utilities, including those providing cable television, telephone, and other utility services, for the installation of such facilities. All transformers, terminal boxes, meter cabinets, pedestals, concealed ducts, and any other related facilities appurtenant to such underground utilities shall also be placed underground except in circumstances permitting above ground installations pursuant to conditions established by the director of community development.
(c) Projects developed under the provisions of sections 33-115 and/or 33-116 of the Escondido Zoning Code shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.

Easement(s) may be required for future public facilities, utilities, and/or access.

32.204.02. REQUIREMENTS
Before approval of a Final or Parcel Map for a subdivision, the subdivider shall:

A. Grade and improve or agree to grade and improve all land dedicated or to be dedicated for streets or easements, bicycle ways and all private streets and private easements laid out on a Final Map or Parcel Map in such manner and with such improvements as are necessary in accordance with the Escondido City standards; Attachment 1

Page 19 of 20 ends

Escondido City CouncilAugust 24, 2022

Escondido City Council
August 24, 2022