In the course of negotiating the Second Amendment, the City expressed concern about a potential for ambiguity as to whether an un-cured default of the Agreement by Athens would also work a termination of the "evergreen provision(s)" of the Second Amendment. The City proposed language revisions to Section 11 of the Second Amendment to clarify that, notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement, any un-cured default of the Agreement by Athens shall constitute grounds for immediate termination of the Agreement as well as the immediate termination of any an all pending or already-accrued Automatic Extensions.
In response, Athens took the position that further clarifying language was not needed in the Second Amendment itself because Original Agreement, Exhibit B, Section B.14(C), provides rights of immediate termination upon uncured default. Athens further agreed that such immediate termination of accrued or future Automatic Extensions of the "evergreen provision(s)" of the Second Amendment was intended in the event of an un-cured Athens default pursuant to the terms of the Original Agreement.
By this Side Letter the parties understand and agree as follows: the City's right to terminate the Agreement, as expressed in the Original Agreement, Exhibit B, Section B.14(C), supersedes the effect of the "evergreen provision(s)" of the Second Amendment such that an event of un-cured default by Athens (as a default is defined in the Agreement, Exhibit B, Section B.14(C)) will (i) at the City's option, result in a termination of the Agreement, including the "evergreen provision(s)" of the Second Amendment, regardless of whether an evergreen extension has accrued or not, and (ii) waive all notice requirements set forth in Section 11 of the Second Amendment.
By executing this Side Letter, the parties thereto, acknowledge and agree to the interpretation set forth hereinabove.
THE FOREGOING IS HEREBY
ACKNOWLEDGED & AG~~-
--""'----------, on behalf of
Ar a k el i an Enterprises, Inc. dba Athens Services
[Signatures Continue to Next Page]
01240.0001/484692.3
Item #21. Page 263
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 699
Gary Clifford
George Kieffer
Chris Jeffers
June 26, 2018
Chris Jeffers, ty a ger, on behalf
of the City of Glendora
APPROVED AS TO FORM & CONTENT:
By:~ ~L.---
William W. Wynder,ity Attorney
01240.0001/484692.3
Item #21. Page 264
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 700
EXHIBIT C
RATE AND FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2018
I. Residential Properties
A. Basic Rates Net Rate Citl!'. Fees Total Rate
Single Dwelling Unit 29.51 3.25 32.76
Duplex 57.99 6.38 64.36
Triplex 86.52 9.52 96.04
Per Apartment 19.39 2.13 21.52
Apartment Scout 29.70 3.27 32.97
Residential Curb Scout 54.72 6.02 60.74
Residential Yard Scout 66.02 7.26 73.28
Bin 1.5 Yard lX 133.46 14.68 148.14
Bin 3 Yard lX 174.79 19.23 194.01
Bin 3 Yard 2X 278.15 30.60 308.74
Bin 3 Yard 3X 376.43 41.41 417.83
Bin 3 Yard 4X 471.61 51.88 523.49
Bin 3 Yard 5X 558.50 61.44 619.94
Bin 3 Yard 6X 614.03 67.54 681.58
Scout Bin 1.5 Yard lX 169.92 18.69 188.61
Scout Bin 1.5 Yard 2X 273.67 30.10 303.77
Scout Bin 3 Yard lX 211.30 23.24 234.54
Scout Bin 3 Yard 2X 351.09 38.62 389.71
Scout Bin 3 Yard 3X 440.81 48.49 489.30
B. Non-Basic Rates
Bin Apartment Rental 47.97 5.28 53.25
Scout Bin Apartment Rental 80.82 8.89 89.71
Curb Manure 23.61 2.60 26.21
II. Non-Residential Properties
A. Basic Rates
Bin 1.5 Yard lX 132.43 14.57 147.00
Bin 1.5 Yard 2X 206.91 22.76 229.67
Bin 1.5 Yard 3X 268.93 29.58 298.51
Bin 1.5 Yard 4X 327.98 36.08 364.06
Bin 1.5 Yard 5X 382.00 42.02 424.03
Bin 1.5 Yard 6X 447.17 49.19 496.35
Bin 3 Yard lX 173.81 19.12 192.93
Bin 3 Yard 2X 277.15 30.49 307.63
· Bin 3 Yard 3X 376.38 41.40 417.78
Bin 3 Yard 4X 471.53 51.87 523.40
Bin 3 Yard 5X 558.42 61.43 619.85
Bin 3 Yard 6X 657.64 72.34 729.99
Scout Bin 1.5 Yard lX 168.92 18.58 187.50
Scout Bin 3 Yard lX 210.26 23.13 233.39
Scout Bin 3 Yard 2X 350.07 38.51 388.58
Scout Bin 3 Yard 3X 467.91 51.47 519.38
Scout Bin 3 Yard 4X 607.73 66.85 674.58
Scout Bin 3 Yard 5X 747.55 82.23 829.78
Scout Bin 3 Yard 6X 857.17 94.29 951.45
Item #21. Page 265
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 701
B.
Ill.
Non-Basic Rates
Roll-off - Mixed Waste 763.46 83.98 847.44
10 Yard C&D (3 ton limit+ actual cost over 3 tons) 626.39 68.90 695.29 20 Yard C&D (4 ton limit+ actual cost over 4 tons) 721.76 79.39 801.15 30 Yard C&D (5 ton limit+ actual cost over 5 tons) 817.13 89.88 907.01 Organics Waste Contamination Fee 250.00 27.50 277.50
CC 1 Can 44.02 4.84 48.86
CC 2 Can 70.06 7.71 77.77
CC 3 Can 95.19 10.47 105.66
CC4 Can 119.18 13.11 132.28
CC 5 Can 141.08 15.52 156.60
CC 6 Can 163.09 17.94 181.03
3 Yard Temporary Bin 164.25 18.07 182.32
Extra Dump 58.71 6.46 68.16
Plastic Liners 29.64 3.26 32.90
Bin Lock Lids 32.61 3.59 36.20
Storage Box Delivery 118.53 13.04 131.57
Stand By 112.61 12.39 125.00
Bin Wash Out 66.37 7.30 73.67
Bin Go Back 66.37 7.30 73.67
Relocate Roll-off 65.18 7.17 72.35
Roll-off Dead Run 106.66 11.73 118.40
Demurrage per Day 14.22 1.56 15.78
Compactor Wash Out 219.27 24.12 243.39
Storage Box Rental 118.53 13.04 131.57
Residential Go Back 23.71 2.61 26.32
Residential Go Back Dead Run 23.71 2.61 26.32
Bin Exchange 75.85 8.34 84.20
Bin Exchange with Metal Lids 88.90 9.78 98.67
Transportation Services 130.38 14.34 144.72
Other Rate Provisions
A. Commencing September 1, 2014, and continuing through August 31, 2024, the ratepayers for the Residential Properties Basic Rate for single dwelling units shall receive an annual $10.75 credit from Athens Services, credited to the customers in quarterly installments and reflected in the customer's quarterly invoice. For clarity, this annual credit shall terminate on August 31, 2024, notwithstanding any extension of the Term of this Agreement.
B. Commencing September 1, 2014, and continuing until August 31, 2019, Athens Services shall pay to the City a monthly Environmental Administrative Fee in the amount of $28,755.00; provided, however, that effective September 1, 2018, the Environmental Administration Fee shall be increased as described in Exhibit D, except that the one-time extraordinary rate adjustment of 6.73% effective July 1, 2019, described in Section D2 of Exhibit D, shall not apply to the Environmental Administrative Fee.
C. Commencing September 1, 2019, and continuing through the end of the Term of this Agreement, including any extensions thereto, Athens Services shall pay to the City a monthly Environmental Administrative Fee in the amount of $47,655.00; provided, however, that commencing September 1, 2020, and each September 1 thereafter, the Environmental Administration Fee shall be increased as described in Exhibit D.
D. Commencing July 1, 2015, and continuing through the end of the Term of this Agreement, including any extensions thereto, subject to City Council approval, the Franchise Fee, which is passed through to Customers, shall be established at eleven percent (11 %) of the net rates charged by Athens Services.
E. The hourly rate for driver and collection vehicle to assist in emergencies shall be $125, plus actual processing and disposal costs."
Item #21. Page 266
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 702
EXHIBITD
RA TE ADJUSTMENT
SECTION Dl -ANNUAL MAXIMUM RATE ADJUSTMENTS
Section D 1.1 Adjustment Request
Athens Services may request an adjustment to the maximum permitted rates annually, to be effective each July 1. Athens Services shall submit its request in writing, to be received by City in person or via certified mail, by the preceding March 1. The request shall be based on the method of adjustment described in this Section Dl of Exhibit D. Failure to submit a written request by March 1 shall result in Athens Services waiving the right to request such an increase for that year.
Annual adjustment to the maximum rates calculated in accordance with this Section D 1 is subject to the approval of the City Manager, or his or her designee.
Section D 1.2 Cost Components
The approved Athens Services compensation consists of the following cost components, each adjusted by the change in the corresponding rate adjustment factor.
Rate Adjustment Factors and Initial Weightings
Cost Component
Landfill Disposal
All Other
Total
Initial Weighting
13%
87%
100%
Rate Adjustment Factor
Actual per ton gate rate charged to Athens
Services by the Landfill
Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (Los Angeles-Long BeachAnaheim, CA, All items, Not Seasonally Adjusted, CUUSA421 SAO ("CPI")
Item #21. Page 267
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 703
Section D 1.3 Rate Adjustment Steps
All rates will be adjusted using the weighted changes of the cost components identified above.
Step One - Calculate the percentage increase or decrease in each rate adjustment factor listed in Section D 1.2 as follows:
Landfill Disposal Factor - Measured as the change in the landfill gate rate to be charged on the effective date of the rate adjustment as compared to the gate rate charged the previous July 1. As long as Athens Services uses the San Bernardino County landfill system to dispose of the City of Glendora's waste, the landfill gate rate shall be the contract rate paid by Athens Services for the use of the San Bernardino County landfills.
CPI Factor - The change in CPI shall be measured as the annual average indices for the twelve (12) months ended the April immediately preceding the effective date of the rate adjustment (May through April) versus the annual average indices for the twelve months ended the April twelve (12) months before that date (May through April) for All Urban Consumers in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim area, or an equivalent index approved by mutual agreement in the event the CPI as described above is no longer published.
Step Two - Multiply the percentage changes for each rate adjustment component by that component's weighting and add these resulting percentages together to get the total weighted percent change to the rates.
Step Three - Add to the total weighted percent change from Step Two the greater of: (a) the lesser of (i) 1.0%, or (ii) the amount by which 5.0% exceeds the total weighted percent change from Step Two; or (b) 0.0%. Purely as an example, and not by way of limitation, if the total weighted percent change were 3.5%, then the rate adjustment would be calculated as 3.5% plus
1.0%, or 4.5%. As another example, if the total weighted percent change were 4.6%, then the rate adjustment would be calculated as 4.6% plus 0.4%, or 5.0%. · As another example, if the total weighted percent change were 5.3%, then the rate adjustment would be calculated as 5.3% plus 0.0%, or 5.3%.
Step Four - Multiply the rate adjustment from Step Three by the existing rates to calculate the increase or decrease to the maximum rates. Add the rate increase or decrease to the existing rates to derive the newly adjusted rates.
Step Five - Recalculate weightings for the following year based upon these changes. 2 Item #21. Page 268
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 704
Section D 1.4 Example Rate Adjustment Calculation
Step One: Calculate percentage change In Indices
A B C
Percent Change In
Row Adjustment Factor Index Old Index Value New Index Value Index ((Column Bl Column A)-11
1 Landfill Disposal (1) $ 28.86 $ 29.44 2.01%
2 All Other (2) 236.648 240.001 1.42%
Step Two: Determine components
D E F
Cost Component Percent Change In Total Weighted
Row Adjustment Factor Index Weighting (3) Index (from Column Change (Columns Ox C\ El
3 Landfill Disposal (11 13.00% 2.01% 0.26%
4 All Other (2) 87.00% 1.42% 1.24%
5 Total 100.00% 1.50%
s tep Three: Determ ne If 1o/c o I s app, lid e to T ota IWlh elRI te dP ercentage Change Row G
6 Total Weighted % Change 1.50%
7 APPlv1% or Lesser% 1.00%
8 Total % Chanoe 2.50%
Step Four: Apply percentage change to all rates (example rates shown below)
H I J K
Example Rate Current Customer Total Percentage Rate Increase or Decrease Adjusted Rate Row Change (from (Column H x Column I) (Column H +Column J) Categories Rate f'nl .. mn C::\ 9 Single Dwelling Units $ 24.90 2.50% $ 0.63 $ 25.53
10 Res. Bin 1.5yd. Ix week $ 112.60 2.50% $ 2.82 $ 115.42 11 Com. Bin 1.5 yd. Ix week $ 111.73 2.50% $ 2.80 $ 114.53 12 Scout Bin 1.5 yd. 1 x week $ 142.51 2.50% $ 3.57 $ 146.08 13 Com. !Can $ 37.14 2.50% $ 0.93 $ 38.07
14 Locking Lid $ 12.00 2.50% $ 0.30 $ 12.30
15 Roll-Off Box $ 644.43 2.50% $ 16.11 $ 660.54
16 3 vd. Temp Service $ 138.57 2.50% $ 3.47 $ 142.04
17 Extra dump $ 49.54 2.50% $ 1.24 $ 50.78
StePFlve: Re-welaht cost components
L M N 0 p
Change In Cost Adjusted Cost Cost Components
Cost Component Percent Change In Component Weightings Component Rewelghted to Equal Row Adjustment Factor Index Weightings (Column Index (Column E) (Column L x Column M) Weightings (Column 100%(Columno D) Row divided by L+ Column N) Column O Total)
18 Landfill Disposal (1) 13.00% 2.01% 0.26% 13.26% 13.06% 19 All Other (2) 87.00% 1.42% 1.24% 88.24% • 86.94%
20 Total 100.00% 101.50% 100.00%
(11Actual change in gate rate charged to Athens Services. (2) Consumer Price Index for Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA, All items, Not Seasonally Adjusted, CUUSA421 SAO. (3) First year based on percentages provided in this Section D1. After the first adjustment, this column comes from Column P of the previous year's rate adjustment worksheet.
Section D 1.5 Rate Reductions
In the event the rate calculation results in a reduction, the City may implement the reduction whether or not Athens Services has submitted a request. If for any reason a calculated rate reduction is not implemented, future rate increases shall be offset by the amount of the waived reduction.
3 Item #21. Page 269
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 705
SECTION D2-EXTRAORDINARY RATE ADJUSTMENT REQUEST
Athens Services may request an adjustment to maximum rates in the event of extraordinary changes in the cost of providing service under this agreement. Extraordinary rate adjustments may be requested no more than once per year.
For each request for an adjustment to the maximum rates that Athens Services may charge customers brought pursuant to this section, Athens Services shall prepare a schedule documenting the extraordinary costs. Such request shall be prepared in a form acceptable to City with support for assumptions made by Athens Services in preparing the estimate.
City may request appropriate supporting information in connection with the City's review of Athens Services' rate adjustment request. City shall review Athens Services' request and, in City's sole judgment and absolute, unfettered discretion, make the final determination as to whether an adjustment to the maximum rates will be made, and, if an adjustment is permitted, the appropriate amount of the adjustment.
As compensation for providing Organic Waste services, as provided in Section 3.R. of this Agreement, and residential Green Waste services, as provided in Section 3.S. of this Agreement, Athens Services shall be granted two (2) separate one-time extraordinary rate adjustments of 6.73% each, effective July l, 2018, and July 1, 2019, respectively; provided, however, that such extraordinary rate adjustments shall not apply to the construction and demolition roll off rates set forth in Exhibit C. 4 Item #21. Page 270
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 706
EXHIBITF
SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES SERVICE LEVELS
Glendora Unified School District
Location/ Equipment Equipment Equipment Service
Address Type Quantity Size Frequency Period
Glendora USD Administration Office Mixed Waste Bin 3 3 Yard 5 10 Months 500 N Loraine Mixed Waste Bin 3 3 Yard 3 June-July
Goddard School Mixed Waste Bin 4 3 Yard 5 10 Months
859 E Sierra Madre Mixed Waste Bin 4 3 Yard 2 June-July Sandburg School Mixed Waste Bin 3 3 Yard 5 10 Months
819 W Bennett Ave Mixed Waste Bin 3 3 Yard 2 June-July
Sandburg School - BASEBALL Mixed Waste Bin 2 3 Yard 5 10 Months 819 W Bennett Ave Mixed Waste Bin 2 3 Yard 1 June-July
LaFetra School Mixed Waste Bin 2 3 Yard 5 10 Months
547 W Bennett Ave Mixed Waste Bin 2 3 Yard 2 June-July
Cullen School Mixed Waste Bin 3 3 Yard 5 10 Months
440 N Live Oak Ave Mixed Waste Bin 3 3 Yard 2 June-July Sutherland School Mixed Waste Bin 3 3 Yard 5 10 Months
1330 Amelia Ave Mixed Waste Bin 3 3 Yard 2 June-July
Glendora High School Mixed Waste Bin 5 3 Yard 5 10 Months 1600 E Foothill Mixed Waste Bin 5 3 Yard 2 June-July
Whitcomb- Center Campus Mixed Waste Bin 1 3 Yard 5 10 Months 350 W Mauna Loa Ave Mixed Waste Bin 1 3 Yard 2 June-July Whitcomb -Woodshop Mixed Waste Bin 1 3 Yard 5 10 Months 350 W Mauna Loa Ave Mixed Waste Bin 1 1.5 Yard 1 June-July Glendora USD - Warehouse Mixed Waste Bin 2 3 Yard 5 10 Months 517 E Lemon Mixed Waste Bin 2 3 Yard 3 June-July
Glendora USD - Maintenance Mixed Waste Bin 1 3 Yard 5 10 Months 521 E Lemon Mixed Waste Bin 1 3 Yard 3 June-July
Williams School Mixed Waste Bin 1 3 Yard 5 10 Months
301 S Loraine Mixed Waste Bin 1 3 Yard 2 June-July
Stanton School Mixed Waste Bin 2 3 Yard 5 10 Months
725 S Vecino Mixed Waste Bin 2 3 Yard 2 June-July
Item #21. Page 271
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 707
Charter Oak Unified School District
Location/ Equipment Equipment Equipment Service
Address Type Quantity Size Frequency Period
Sunflower Campus Mixed Waste Bin 2 3 Yard 5 12 Months
1505 Sunflower Ave
Washington School Mixed Waste Bin 1 2 Yard 5 12 Months
325 W Gladstone Mixed Waste Bin 1 3 Yard 5 12 Months
Willow School Mixed Waste Bin 1 3 Yard 5 12 Months
1427 S Willow Ave
Azusa Unified School District
Location/ Equipment Equipment Equipment Service
Address Type Quantity Size Frequency Period
Sierra High School Mixed Waste Bin 3 3 Yard 5 12 Months 1134 S Barranca Ave Mixed Waste Roll-off 1 40 Yard On Call 12 Months Item #21. Page 272
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 708
Item #21. Page 273
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 709
Item #21. Page 274
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 710
Item #21. Page 275
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 711
Item #21. Page 276
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 712
Item #21. Page 277
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 713
Item #21. Page 278
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 714
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS DATE: AUGUST 23, 2022
FROM: CITY CLERK DISTRICT(S): CITYWIDE
SUBJECT: FILL UNSCHEDULED VACANCIES ON THE WATER COMMISSION (OFFICE NOS. 3 AND 4; TERMS EXPIRE: JUNE 30, 2025).
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:
1. Provide direction on appointing applicants to fill unscheduled vacancies on the Water Commission (Office Nos. 3 and 4; Terms Expire: June 30, 2025).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Clerk’s Department received a notice of resignation from Water Commissioner John Fields that he would be stepping down effective July 26, 2022, which creates a vacancy in Office No. 4 (Attachment A). At the July 28, 2022 Water Commission Meeting, Commissioner Ryan Shaw announced that he would be stepping down from the Water Commission Office No. 3. Both office terms are set to expire on June 30, 2025.
A notice of unscheduled vacancy (Attachment B) was prepared and posted pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code § 54974 to the City’s website, bulletin boards and City Hall marquee on July 29, 2022 with an application deadline of August 11, 2022 at 5:00 p.m.
At the close of the application deadline, the following applicants have requested City Council consideration for appointments:
APPLICANTS STATUS
Pat Cici On File
Randy Schlosser On File
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY / PREVIOUS ACTIONS
CA Govt Code § 54974 regulates the process utilized by cities to fill unscheduled vacancies on the City Council appointed commissions and boards and requires the following:
(a) Whenever an unscheduled vacancy occurs in any board, commission, or committee for which the legislative body has the appointing power, whether due to resignation, death, termination, or other causes, a special vacancy notice shall be posted in the office of the clerk of the local agency, on either the local agency’s Internet Web site or at the library designated pursuant to Section 54973, and in other places as directed by the legislative body, not earlier than 20 days before or not later than 20 days after the vacancy occurs. Final appointment to the board, commission, or committee shall not be made by the legislative body for at least 10 working days after the posting of the notice in the clerk’s office.
Item #22. Page 1
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 715
Staff Report Page 2 of 3
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the legislative body may, if it finds that an emergency exists, fill the unscheduled vacancy immediately. A person appointed to fill the vacancy shall serve only on an acting basis until the final appointment is made pursuant to this section.
The City has three applications currently on file for the Water Commission. City staff has notified each applicant to determine interest in being considered to fill unscheduled vacancies.
NAME APPLICATION
DATE
INTERVIEW
DATE
STATUS
Cici, Pat 5/20/2020 6/9/2020 Interest
Schlosser, Randy 5/21/2020 6/9/2020 Interest
McLaughlin, Martin 5/20/2020 6/9/2020 Not Interested
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this report is to inform the City Council that resignations were received from two Water Commissioners. Water Commissioner John Fields (Attachment A) effective July 26, 2022 creating an unscheduled vacancy in Office No. 4. and Commissioner Ryan Shaw announced that he would be stepping down from the Water Commission Office No. 3 at the July 28, 2022 Water Commission Meeting. Both office terms are set to expire on June 30, 2025. Pursuant to Cal.
Gov't Code § 54974 on July 29, 2022 the City Clerk’s Department posted a Notice of Unscheduled Vacancies (Attachment B) to City’s website, City Hall marquee, and bulletin boards.
In addition, there was sufficient time for the City Clerk’s Department to schedule said notice to be published in the San Gabriel Valley Examiner and included in several social media posts.
POSTED PUBLISHED
Notice of Unscheduled Vacancies July 28, 2022 August 4, 2022 At the close of the application deadline, no new applications were received and 3 applications where on file from the previous Water Commission recruitment. City staff has reached out to applicants on file and notified them of the unscheduled vacancies and of the 3 applicants the following have requested to be considered for appointment: Pat Cici, and Randy Schlosser.
As a reminder Cal. Gov't Code § 54974 requires that final appointments relating to unscheduled vacancies cannot be made by the legislative body for at least 10 working days after the posting of the notice in the City Clerk’s office, which means that appointments to fill unscheduled vacancies could not occur until Thursday, August 11, 2022.
Next Steps:
Staff requests City Council direction on next steps. Three options have been outlined below.
Options:
Option 1: Direct City Clerk to extend application deadline and continue recruitment efforts.
Option 2: Since no new applications have been received and the applicants on file were interviewed in June 2020, waive formal interview and balloting process and appoint Pat Cici and Randy Schlosser to fill the unscheduled vacancies on the Water Commission. (Office Nos. 3 and 4; Unexpired terms ends June 30, 2025) Item #22. Page 2
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 716
Staff Report Page 3 of 3
Option 3: Since there are sufficient valid applications on file, direct City Clerk to schedule a Special Meeting for September 13, 2022 to start at 5 pm to conduct interviews with the two existing applicants and conduct balloting procedure to fill the unscheduled vacancy on the Water Commission, Office Nos. 3 and 4 (Unexpired terms ends June 30, 2025).
Option 4: Provide direction to staff.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommendations in this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
There are no CEQA impacts associated with the recommendations in this report.
Prepared By Elvia Dominguez, Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager Concurs With Not Applicable
Reviewed By Kathleen Sessman, City Clerk/Communications Director Certified to Availability of Funds Marie Ricci, Administrative Services Director/City Treasurer Approved By Adam Raymond, City Manager
Legal Review William W. Wynder, City Attorney
CEQA Review Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resignation Letter from J. Fields
B. Notice of Unscheduled Vacancies
C. Cici, Pat dated 5.20.20
D. Schlosser, Randy dated 5.21.20
Item #22. Page 3
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 717
From: Mr John Fields <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 2:15 PM
To: Benjamin Joseph Armel <[email protected]>; Chisom Obegolu <[email protected]>; Justin Nakano <[email protected]>; Richard Hansen <[email protected]>; Ryan Shaw <[email protected]>; Elvia Dominguez <[email protected]>; Karen Davis <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>; Alison Sweet <[email protected]>; Ivy Gonzalez <[email protected]>; Maliha Ansari <[email protected]>; Dale Wert <[email protected]>
Subject: Water Commission
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good Afternoon Mayor Davis, Chair Nakano, fellow commissioners, and dedicated staff:
As some of you know, I'm still working full-time at Kaiser Permanente in the public affairs department and as we slowly emerge from the pandemic, there is an increasing number of evening events of which I'm required to attend. The last few meetings of the commission have coincided with two of these events and a health issue prevented me from attending one other meeting. In addition, our water commission is almost entirely composed of active or retired professionals in the water industry, which is a great benefit to the commission and the City. I believe 100% of the commission should be composed of such well informed and experienced individuals.
All this to say, I have made the decision to step down from the water commission, effective immediately.
On the bright side, I will be retiring next year, after working full-time for over 43 years. I hope to re-enter community service at that time, when I have more time and better control of my personal schedule.
I appreciate all the help and assistance I have been provided by fellow commissioners and by our wonderful staff over the last several years.
Thank you,
John
Item #22. Page 4
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 718
NOTICE OF UNSCHEDULED VACANCY
on the
WATER COMMISSION
_____________________________________________
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code§ 54974 the following unscheduled vacancy exists on the following legislative body in the City of Glendora:
WATER COMMISSION
A resignation was announced on July 27, 2022 for Office No. 4 and July 28, 2022 for Office No. 3 of the Water Commission. The unexpired terms will end June 30, 2025.
ABOUT THE WATER COMMISSION:
Water Commission: Members serve a 4-year term. This Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council on policies and programs related to water rates, conservation efforts and financial matters. Members must be customers of the City’s water division of the Public Works Department. This Commission meets on a quarterly basis.
Pursuant to City Resolution, members are required to complete AB1234 Ethics Training and Brown Act Training and are required to attend meetings on a regular basis.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN, that the final appointment to an unscheduled vacancy on a board/commission, shall not be made by the City Council for at least 10 working days after the posting of the notice by the City Clerk’s office. That date will be Friday, August 11, 2022.
APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE: Applications are available via the City’s website at www.cityofglendora.org or at the City Clerk’s Office, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except holidays. Completed application forms must be filed with the City Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 11, 2022. Please call the City Clerk’s Office at (626) 914-8210 for more information.
Date for interviews and/or appointments will be scheduled at a later date. Applicants will be contacted to schedule interview times following the recruitment deadline.
Kathleen R. Sessman, MMC
City Clerk/Communications Director
CERTIFICATION
I, Kathleen R. Sessman, City Clerk of the City of Glendora, hereby certify that I posted a copy of this Notice on the bulletin board outside the City Hall Council Chamber, 116 E. Foothill Boulevard on July 29, 2022.
Kathleen R. Sessman, MMC
City Clerk/Communications Director
Item #22. Page 5
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 719
Item #22. Page 6
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 720
/s/PAC
/s/PAC
/s/PAC
/s/ Pat Cici Jr
/s/ Pat Cic Jr
/s/PAC
Item #22. Page 7
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 721
/R.M. Schlosser
Item #22. Page 8
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 722
Item #22. Page 9
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 723
/s/RMS
/s/RMS
/s/RMS
/s/RMS
Item #22. Page 10
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 724
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS DATE: AUGUST 23, 2022
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DISTRICT(S): CITYWIDE
SUBJECT: RECEIVE, REVIEW AND CERTIFY THE 2022 CITY OF GLENDORA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (STRATEGIC PLAN ITEM 46 - IMCIF)
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:
1. Receive, review and certify the 2022 City of Glendora Local Road Safety Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federalaid program whose purpose is to significantly reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.
HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving safety, and if awarded, HSIP funds can pay for up to 100% of the cost of implementing FHWA proven countermeasures to improve road safety on the City’s local roads.
A completed Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is a requirement for grant funding from HSIP. Proposed project applications for HSIP funding are evaluated and prioritized statewide in descending order based on their estimated Benefit/Cost Ratios (BCRs). In 2021, the City of Glendora (City) received funds from the State of California (State) via the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to develop a LRSP. The resulting LRSP contains a prioritized list of locations and countermeasures for which to apply for HSIP funding, and will be valid for a period of 5 years.
The application due date for the current round of HSIP funding is Monday, September 12, 2022. Prior to applying for HSIP funding, it is strongly recommended by Caltrans that the LRSP be approved by the City Council. Staff recommends that City Council receive, review and certify the 2022 City of Glendora Local Road Safety Plan (Attachment A), and the recommended prioritization of items for HSIP applications.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY / PREVIOUS ACTIONS
On September 14, 2021, City Council adopted Resolution 2021-42 authorizing the City Manager to execute Administering Agency-State Master Agreement for State-Funded Projects No. 07-5204S21, and Program Supplement No. 000000X50 to the Master Agreement. These allowed the City to utilize State funding through Caltrans to help pay for the development of a LRSP, with the City required to fund a minimum of 10% of the project. The total estimated cost for the project was $53,500, with the State providing $48,000.
On November 9, 2021, City Council awarded an agreement to General Technologies and Solutions LLC (GTS) to develop the LRSP for an amount not to exceed $53,438.
DISCUSSION
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federalaid program whose purpose is to significantly reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.
HSIP requires a data-drive, strategic approach to improving safety, and if awarded, HSIP funds can pay for up to 100% of the cost of implementing FHWA proven countermeasures to improve road safety on the City’s Item #23. Page 1
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 725
Staff Report Page 2 of 4
local roads. HSIP application cycles are once every two years, and a completed Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is a requirement for grant funding from HSIP. The LRSP will also help support other grant applications, such as the recently created United States Department of Transportation Safe Street and Roads for All (SS4A) grant program.
Utilizing State funds to offset 90% of costs, the City contracted with GTS to assist in developing the LRSP.
Development took place from November 2021 to June 2022, and involved a collaborative process with stakeholders from the City Police and Public Works Departments, the Los Angeles County Fire and Public Works Departments, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), and ActiveSGV, a nonprofit organization. There was also an extensive public involvement process including an interactive website and a survey. The LRSP contains a citywide analysis of road safety Issues in the City of Glendora, and a systematic analysis of collisions that occurred in the City during a five-year period, from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The analysis does not include collisions that occurred on Interstate 210 and State Route 27, which are Caltrans facilities and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the LRSP.
Patterns revealed through analysis of the collision data helped identify high-injury intersections and corridors in the City, and rank them according to their Equivalent Property Damage Rating (EPDO) using the methodology provided by the FHWA. The image below shows a heat map using all collision data over the analyzed time period.
Item #23. Page 2
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 726
Staff Report Page 3 of 4
Further analysis, including field reconnaissance combined with information provided by stakeholders, resulted in the development of proven countermeasures that are recommended for implementation in the City to improve safety both systematically and at specific locations. Recommended countermeasures include engineering improvements, as well as strategies for education, enforcement, and emergency management. It is important to note that while all listed countermeasures are recommended for implementation, only engineering countermeasures are eligible for HSIP funding. Applications for the current HSIP cycle (Cycle 11) are due September 12, 2022. Proposed project applications for HSIP funding are evaluated and prioritized statewide on their estimated Benefit/Cost Ratios (BCRs). Projects with the highest BCRs are selected for funding and a cutoff line is established when available funding capacity is reached. The cutoff for BCR thus depends on the overall application pool received, and so varies from cycle to cycle, but in the previous cycle (Cycle 10), the cutoff BCR was 12.0, and the average BCR of selected applications was 24.3.
Staff and GTS are recommending the six engineering countermeasures below for submittal during the current HSIP cycle. Staff recommends a focus on intersections at this time, as they generally have the highest single point collision density. The locations were selected based on a combination of their BCR/likelihood of funding, the cost/value of the respective countermeasure, and its likelihood to provide systemic, long-term benefits. The map and table below show the recommended countermeasures.
Location Countermeasure
Total
Expected
Benefit
Preliminary
Estimated
Project Cost
BC
R
Gladstone St. & Barranca Ave. Protected left-turn phase $5,701,197 $200,000 28.5 Baseline Rd. & Grand Ave. Convert pedestal signal to
mast-arm $4,160,761 $200,000 20.8
Gladstone St. & Sunflower Ave. Protected left-turn phase $4,019,859 $200,000 20.1 Route 66 & Barranca Ave. Convert pedestal signal to
mast-arm $3,411,411 $200,000 17.1
Juanita Ave. & Sunflower Ave. Protected left-turn phase $2,749,614 $200,000 13.7 Gladstone St. & Valley Center Ave. Protected left-turn phase $2,684,729 $200,000 13.4 Item #23. Page 3
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 727
Staff Report Page 4 of 4
Prior to applying for HSIP funding, it is strongly recommended by Caltrans that the LRSP be approved by the City Council. Based on this, staff recommends that City Council receive, review and certify the 2022 City of Glendora Local Road Safety Plan, and the prioritization of project applications based upon BCR.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City Council’s approval of the LRSP has no direct fiscal impact. Total costs for the development of the LRSP by GTS were $53,438, with $48,000 provided by State funds, and the remainder by Proposition C Transit Fund 211.
Per the Caltrans Local Road Safety Manual (Version 1.5, April 2020), federal funding can pay for up to 100% of the cost of the proposed countermeasures. In cases where awarded HSIP funding may be less than 100%, the City would have to contribute the balance, which may be in staff time.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.
Prepared By Dinh Anh Mai, Associate Civil Engineer
Concurs With Not Applicable
Reviewed By Alison Sweet, Public Works Director
Certified to Availability of Funds Marie Ricci, Administrative Services Director/City Treasurer Approved By Adam Raymond, City Manager
Legal Review William W. Wynder, City Attorney
CEQA Review Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS:
A. City of Glendora Local Road Safety Plan
B. Presentation
Item #23. Page 4
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 728
City of Glendora
Local Road
Safety Plan
Draft
210909
Item #23. Page 5
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 729
Acknowledgements
A special thanks to all the safety partners who contributed to this plan:
City of Glendora
City of Glendora Community Services Commission
City of Glendora Police Department
ActiveSGV
Los Angeles County Fire Division 2
Los Angeles County Public Works
Metro
San Gabriel Valley COG
Item #23. Page 6
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 730
3 Executive Summary
In 2021, the City of Glendora was awarded a state grant from Caltrans to develop a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). The LRSP is a requirement for grant funding from Cycle 11 of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The application due date will be Monday, September 12, 2022. The LRSP development process took place from November 2021 to June 2022.
Development of the LRSP was a collaborative process involving stakeholders from the City administration, the Glendora police, the Los Angeles County fire department, Los Angeles County Public Works, Metro, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), and Acti veSGV (a nonprofit organization). A Working Group consisting of members from these stakeholder organizations was formed. In addition, there was an extensive public involvement process including an interactive website and a survey.
The LRSP contains a citywide analysis of road safety issues in the City of Glendora and a systematic analysis of collisions that occurred in the City during a five-year period, from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020. The analysis does not include crashes that occurred on Interstate 210 and State Route 57, which are Caltrans facilities.
Patterns revealed through analysis of the crash data informed the identification of highinjury intersections and high-injury corridors in the City, to be prioritized for safety measures.
Further analysis, combined with information provided by stakeholders, resulted in the development of proven countermeasures that are recommended to be implemented to improve safety at specific locations, as well as systemically, in the City of Glendora.
Recommended countermeasures include engineering improvements, as well as strategies for education, enforcement, and emergency management.
The California Strategic Highway Safety Plan identifies 16 Challenge Areas on which to focus resources and efforts for road safety. Through input from the LRSP Working Group meetings, the following SHSP Challenge Areas were identified as being particularly important for Glendora.
1. Active Transportation: Pedestrians & Bicyclists
2. Impaired Driving
3. Intersections
4. Speed Management/Aggressive Driving
The countermeasures recommended as engineering strategies for specific intersections and corridors in the City of Glendora are listed in Tables 1 and 2 below. Non-signalized intersections are indicated with “(NS)”. Systemic improvements are noted with “[SI]”.
Item #23. Page 7
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 731
4 Table 1. Priority Intersections and Recommended Countermeasures Primary Road Secondary Road Recommended Countermeasures Foothill Blvd Barranca Ave
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Police enforcement [SI]
Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches [SI] High visibility crosswalks [SI]
Note intersection was upgraded mid 2019 / Along FLM Corridor Gladstone St Barranca Ave
Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) [SI] Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches [SI] High visibility crosswalks [SI]
Lone Hill Ave Gladstone St
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Police enforcement [SI]
High visibility crosswalks [SI]
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Gladstone St Sunflower Ave
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Pedestrian scramble
Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) [SI] Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches [SI] Baseline Rd Grand Ave
Police enforcement [SI]
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) [SI] Fleetwood Pl (NS) Grand Ave
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
Dawson Ave (NS) Glendora Ave
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Add intersection lighting (NS.I.)
Consider adding bike lanes
Bennett Ave (NS) Wabash Ave
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (new signs and markings only)
Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Route 66 Barranca Ave
Police enforcement [SI]
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted)
Saratoga Ln (NS) Amelia Ave
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
Juanita Ave Sunflower Ave
Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) [SI] Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
High visibility crosswalks [SI]
Gladstone St Valley Center Ave
Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) [SI] High visibility crosswalks [SI]
Add intersection lighting (S.I.)
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Item #23. Page 8
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 732
5 Table 2. Priority Corridors and Recommended Countermeasures Primary Road Begin – End Segment Recommended Countermeasures Lone Hill Ave
Route 66 –
Gladstone St
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) Enhance Bike Facilities
Gladstone St
Sunflower Ave –
Lone Hill Ave
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Enhance Bike Facilities
Grand Ave
Baseline Rd –
Arrow Hwy
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) Sunflower Ave
Gladstone St –
Arrow Hwy
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Route 66
Glendora Ave –
Loraine Ave
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Install Bike Facilities
Gladstone
Barranca Ave –
Grand Ave
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Add segment lighting
Install Bike Facilities
Barranca Ave
Baseline Rd –
Gladstone St
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Add segment lighting
Install Bike Facilities
Route 66
Loraine Ave –
Amelia Ave
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Install bike facilities
Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) Foothill Blvd
Citrus Ave –
Grand Ave –
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) Gladstone St
Glendora Ave
Sunflower Ave
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) Item #23. Page 9
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 733
6 Systemic Engineering Countermeasures
In addition to the countermeasures recommended for specific intersections and corridors, the following engineering countermeasures were recommended for system-wide implementation.
1. Upgrade signing and striping
2. High-visibility pedestrian crosswalks
3. Install bike lanes
4. Signal upgrades (to include converting signals to mast arm from pedestal-mounted)
5. Provide Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection for high-speed approaches Systemic Non-engineering Countermeasures
In addition to the engineering countermeasures, this LRSP includes countermeasures in the areas of education, enforcement, and emergency response that were identified as appropriate for the City of Glendora in the LRSP Working Group meetings.
Education
• Continue bicycle, pedestrian, and FLM safety campaigns • Continue Safe Routes to School maps and outreach at schools • Social media blasts with quick education tools for all users • Dangers of speeding/speed management campaigns
• Partnering with agencies such as LA County Health, Bicycle Coalitions, and others for public education
Enforcement
• Targeted speed enforcement (school zones, areas of concern) • DUI saturation patrols
• Increasing number of traffic enforcement officers (possible through grants/OTS funding) • Distracted driving enforcement
Emergency Response
• Review existing emergency vehicle pre-emption at signalized intersections • Evaluate improvements to roadways to increase access and potentially shorten response times
This LRSP is considered a living document. It is intended to guide the City’s safety actions for the next five years, and to be updated as needed.
Item #23. Page 10
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 734
Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................................................3
1. Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................................................8
2. Background..............................................................................................................................................................................................9
2.1. Purpose and Need........................................................................................................................................................................9
2.2. Guiding Documents and Principles................................................................................................................................9
2.2.1. California Strategic Highway Safety Plan............................................................................................................9
2.2.2. Los Angeles County Vision Zero...............................................................................................................................10
2.2.3. City of Glendora General Plan....................................................................................................................................10
2.2.4. Safe System Approach.....................................................................................................................................................11
2.2.5. Standards and Guidance...............................................................................................................................................12
2.3. Methodology .......................................................................................................................................................................................12
3. Safety Partners/Stakeholders......................................................................................................................................................14
3.1. LRSP Stakeholder Working Group Members...........................................................................................................14
3.2. LRSP Stakeholder Working Group Meetings ..........................................................................................................14
3.3. SHSP Challenge/Emphasis Areas.....................................................................................................................................15
3.4. Vision and Goals...........................................................................................................................................................................15
4. Analysis of Safety Data.....................................................................................................................................................................16
4.1. Recent/Planned Safety Projects........................................................................................................................................16
4.2. Collision Data.................................................................................................................................................................................16
4.2.1. Summary of Findings.......................................................................................................................................................16
4.2.2. Brief Roadway and Land Use Characteristics.................................................................................................17
4.2.3. Citywide Crash Analysis .................................................................................................................................................21
4.2.4. Locations of Crashes.......................................................................................................................................................40
4.2.5. EPDO Ratings of Intersections and Corridors................................................................................................45
4.3. Field Reconnaissance ............................................................................................................................................................. 48
5. Public Outreach................................................................................................................................................................................... 49
5.1. Public Website and Survey................................................................................................................................................... 49
6. Identification of Strategies............................................................................................................................................................52
6.1. Engineering Strategies ............................................................................................................................................................52
6.1.1. Countermeasures for High-injury Intersections and Corridors............................................................52
6.1.2. Systemic Engineering Countermeasures ..........................................................................................................58
6.2. Systemic Non-Engineering Countermeasures ......................................................................................................58
6.2.1. Education..................................................................................................................................................................................58
6.2.2. Enforcement..........................................................................................................................................................................58
6.2.3. Emergency Response......................................................................................................................................................58
7. Prioritization of Strategies .............................................................................................................................................................59
7.1. Funding Sources...........................................................................................................................................................................59
7.2. Prioritized Projects.....................................................................................................................................................................59
8. Evaluation Process..............................................................................................................................................................................62
9. Next Steps.................................................................................................................................................................................................63
10. References............................................................................................................................................................................................. 64 Appendix A: Equity Analysis ..............................................................................................................................................................65 Item #23. Page 11
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 735
8 1. Introduction
The Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) for the City of Glendora, California is the outcome of a systematic approach to analyze and identify traffic safety problems and provide prioritized solutions for the City’s unique road safety needs. Through this systematic framework, the plan provides proven countermeasures that the City can implement to reduce and prevent traffic injuries and fatalities on local roads. The recommended countermeasures were identified through a planning process that included participation by key stakeholders, public outreach, and data analysis. The resulting countermeasures are intended to address the unique safety needs of this community. The countermeasures include engineering strategies (modifications to traffic signals, striping, signs, and other infrastructure) and also non-engineering strategies (enforcement and education). Most of the countermeasures are associated with specific locations (intersections and corridors) while some represent citywide improvements.
In addition to providing the City with a strategy for the reduction of traffic injuries and fatalities, this plan will allow eligibility for project funding through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The LRSP identifies the unique road safety issues of this community, while also contributing to the success of the statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) by reducing injuries and fatalities at the local level.
The LRSP was developed following the process established by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), outlined in Figure 1.
Figure 1. LRSP Development Process
Item #23. Page 12
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 736
9 2. Background
2.1. Purpose and Need
Glendora, California (2020 Census population: 52,558) is located in eastern Los Angeles County, in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. The City’s population grew by 5% from 2010 to 2020. Although the land in Glendora is almost completely developed, more population growth can still be expected with the upcoming completion of the Foothill Gold Line light rail service, as well as overall growth in the Los Angeles metro area.
During the 5-year period between January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020, there were 2,746 reported crashes on local roads in the City of Glendora (excluding those occurring on Interstate 210 and State Route 57, which are Caltrans facilities). Two crashes resulted in fatalities and 38 (1.4%) resulted in severe injuries. As population continues to grow, the importance of mitigating traffic collisions will continue to be paramount. Moreover, countermeasures identified by the FHWA have been shown to address the most common collision factors identified (unsafe speed, right-of-way violation, and improper turning), as well as other less common collision factors.
2.2. Guiding Documents and Principles
2.2.1. California Strategic Highway Safety Plan
The FHWA requires each state to have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The California 2020-2024 SHSP provides a framework for the reduction of fatal and severe injury collisions.
This LRSP will complement California’s SHSP, with a focus on the following recommended SHSP challenge areas:
High Priority Areas
• Active Transportation: Pedestrians & Bicyclists
• Impaired Driving
• Intersections
• Lane Departures
• Speed Management/Aggressive Driving
Focus Areas
• Aging Drivers (equal to>65)
• Commercial Vehicles
• Distracted Driving
• Driver Licensing
• Emergency Response
• Emerging Technologies
• Motorcyclists
• Occupant Protection
• Work Zones
• Young Drivers (15–20)
Item #23. Page 13
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 737
10 2.2.2. Los Angeles County Vision Zero
Vision Zero is an international movement that aims to eliminate traffic-related fatalities.
First implemented in Sweden in the 1990s, Vision Zero emphasizes a new approach to traffic safety, acknowledging that people make mistakes and focusing on system-wide practices, policies, and designs to reduce collision severity. Agencies that adopt a Vision Zero initiative commit to the systematic elimination of traffic deaths and severe injuries for all roadway users. To achieve success, this approach requires data-driven decision making, an understanding of health equity, multi-disciplinary collaboration within and outside of government, and regular communication with the public.
Los Angeles County Vision Zero is a county-wide initiative to eliminate traffic-related fatalities. Although the Vision Zero Plan is focused on reducing traffic deaths and severe injuries on unincorporated County roadways, the plan also includes a wide range of action items that will have a regional impact across jurisdictional boundaries once they are implemented. This presents an opportunity for cross-jurisdictional collaboration and partnership. Therefore, the strategies outlined in this LRSP were developed in alignment with the actions listed in the Vision Zero Plan for Los Angeles County.
2.2.3. City of Glendora General Plan
Glendora’s General Plan, known as “Community Plan 2025,” is the primary land use policy document for the community. Required by state law, the General Plan serves as a blueprint for future development and creates a vision how Glendora will develop in the years to come. This LRSP incorporates policies from the General Plan relating to traffic circulation and road safety. The goals and policies from the Glendora General Plan relevant to transportation safety are listed in Table 3. In addition, in a future General Plan update, the opportunity exists to include revised policies that are favorable to the implementation of the recommendations contained in this LRSP.
Table 3. General Plan Goals and Policies
Goal CIR-1: Safety for motorists and pedestrians on local roadways Policy CIR-1.1 Determine appropriate design of local roadway system considering all potential users including automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian users.
Policy CIR-1.2 Based on traffic counts, add audible and “countdown” signals to enhance pedestrian safety.
Policy CIR-1.3
Initiate public education programs that address the following components:
- Pedestrian rights, legal movements.
- Location of bike lanes and routes.
- Youth involvement/programs with Police (e.g. bike rodeos, etc.).
Policy CIR-1.4 Improve public directional and safety signage.
Policy CIR-1.5 Enforce speeds and traffic laws on all City streets.
Policy CIR-1.6 Employ traffic calming measures where appropriate to deter speeding.
Policy CIR-1.7 Explore opportunities to fund sidewalk safety enhancements through the Safe Routes to School program.
Item #23. Page 14
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 738
11 For example, Policy SAF-11.1 could be revised to mention the implementation of LRSP countermeasures specifically.
2.2.4. Safe System Approach
The Safe System Approach focuses on designing transportation systems in a way that anticipates human error and accommodates human tolerances with a goal of reducing fatal and serious injuries. Although human behavior is still part of the picture, the Safe System Approach places emphasis on vehicle and roadway design.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) defines the Safe System Approach and framework as the following:
The Safe System approach differs from conventional safety practice by being humancentered, i.e. seeking safety through a more aggressive use of vehicle or roadway design and operational changes rather than relying primarily on behavioral changes – and by fully integrating the needs of all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, older, younger, disabled, etc.) of the transportation system. Safe Systems provide a safety-net for the user by:
1. Anticipating Human Error – A Safe System is designed to anticipate and accommodate errors by drivers and other road users.
Example: Even a momentary distraction can prevent a driver from seeing vulnerable road users or vice-versa. Separating vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists, from traffic wherever possible reduces the likelihood that such predictable errors will lead to a deadly collision.
Example: On rural highways, the application of rumble strips can recapture the driver’s attention when they drift out of the lane due to distraction or fatigue. In newer vehicles, lane-keeping technologies can provide similar benefit.
2. Accommodating Human Injury Tolerance – A Safe System is designed to reduce or eliminate opportunities for crashes resulting in forces beyond human endurance.
Example: Where pedestrians and vehicles need to occupy the same space – such as urban crosswalks – reducing vehicle speeds through the use of lower speed limits combined with road design changes can reduce the likelihood of fatal collisions with pedestrians or bicyclists.
Example: Breakaway designs on traffic control devices installed in the right-of-way can reduce the force of impact when struck by an errant vehicle.
Table 3. General Plan Goals and Policies (continued)
Goal SAF-11: Reduced traffic safety hazards
Policy SAF-11.1
Minimize the potential for accidents involving railways, automobiles, pedestrians, and cyclists by working closely with the Glendora Police Department, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, California Highway Patrol, and all applicable transportation and/ or railroad companies to identify safety problems and implement corrective measures.
Policy SAF-11.2 Use technology to improve safety at grade crossings that cause the least environmental harm (e.g., automated horn systems).
Policy SAF-11.3 Ensure new infrastructure and development projects are designed according to accepted traffic engineering principles.
Item #23. Page 15
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 739
12 2.2.5. Standards and Guidance
In the development of the City of Glendora LRSP, the following standards and guidelines were followed:
• Caltrans. Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners. Version 1.5, April 2020.
• Caltrans. California Safe Roads: 2020-2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan. • Federal Highway Administration. Developing Safety Plans: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners. 2012.
• Federal Highway Administration. Local and Rural Road Safety Briefing Sheets: Local Road Safety Plans.
• American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO). Highway Safety Manual, 1st Edition, 2014 supplement.
• Caltrans. California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), Revision 5, 2014.
2.3. Methodology
The LRSP methodology followed the FHWA’s LRSP development process, as shown in Figure 2, and also followed the methods outlined in the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual document.
The primary steps used to create this plan were as follows:
1. Identify Stakeholders
A LRSP Working Group was formed, consisting of representatives from engineering, law enforcement, emergency management, City officials, and others (see Ch. 3 for more information).
2. Use Safety Data
Collision data for the past 5 years (2016–2020) were analyzed to identify trends (see Ch. 4 for the full analysis).
3. Choose Proven Solutions
For specific locations and for the City as a whole, FHWA Proven Countermeasures and Caltrans safety countermeasures were chosen to address the identified safety problems (see Ch. 6).
4. Implement Solutions
Specific projects were identified and prioritized for specific locations and for the entire system (see Ch. 7).
Item #23. Page 16
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 740
13 Figure 2. FHWA LRSP development infographic (source: FHWA) Item #23. Page 17
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 741
14 3. Safety Partners/Stakeholders
3.1. LRSP Stakeholder Working Group Members
The LRSP Working Group was formed by the City of Glendora and included representatives from all key stakeholder organizations. Thanks to their knowledge of the community and expertise in their fields, this group was able to capture the safety needs, goals, and priorities of the City, including safety countermeasures.
3.2. LRSP Stakeholder Working Group Meetings
Three meetings were held as part of the LRSP process. They are listed below along with the agenda topics.
Kick-off meeting, November 30, 2021, 2:00 p.m. (virtual) • Introduction, project background, project approach, data request, project management.
Stakeholder Working Group meeting #1, March 9, 2022, 7:00 p.m. (virtual) • Introduction to the LRSP, survey, preliminary collision analysis findings, preliminary mapping findings, OTS record comparison, project website, City vision and goals, open discussion.
Stakeholder Working Group meeting #2, May 4, 2022, 3:00 p.m. (virtual) • Recap, project outreach, collision mapping findings, strategies/countermeasures, challenge areas, systematic improvements, non-engineering strategies, open discussion.
The LRSP Stakeholder Working Group
included the following representatives:
• City of Glendora
• City of Glendora Community Services
Commission
• City of Glendora Police Department
• ActiveSGV
• Los Angeles County Fire Division 2
• Los Angeles County Public Works
• Metro
• San Gabriel Valley COG
Figure 3. Stakeholder Working Group Organization Logos
Item #23. Page 18
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 742
15 3.3. SHSP Challenge/Emphasis Areas
The California Strategic Highway Safety Plan identifies 16 Challenge Areas on which to focus resources and efforts for road safety. Through input from the LRSP Working Group meetings, the following SHSP Challenge Areas were identified as being particularly important for Glendora.
5. Active Transportation: Pedestrians & Bicyclists
• Ped: motor vehicle is involved in a crash with a pedestrian • Bike: motor vehicle is involved in a crash with a bike
6. Impaired Driving
• Crashes where any evidence of drug or alcohol use by the driver is present
7. Intersections
• Crashes occurring at an intersection
8. Speed Management/Aggressive Driving
• Includes driving too fast, tailgating, and other reckless driving maneuvers
3.4. Vision and Goals
LRSP Vision:
Create a transportation network that provides a comfortable environment for all users and all modes, promotes traffic safety, and meets the needs of the community.
LRSP Goals:
1. Have zero fatal and severe injury collisions on the City roadways
2. Reduce the number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions on City roadways
3. Partner with traffic safety stakeholders (fire, police, schools, parks, etc.) to exchange information and ideas specific to enhancing roadway safety performance through engineering, enforcement, and educational strategies
4. Improve available collision data
5. Utilize community and traffic safety stakeholder input to identify opportunities to improve roadway safety
6. Reduce the number of broadside collisions
7. Systemically implement safety countermeasures proven to reduce Improper Turning Item #23. Page 19
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 743
16 4. Analysis of Safety Data
4.1. Recent/Planned Safety Projects
In HSIP grant cycle 9 (2018), the City of Glendora received $250,000 in federal funds to install curb extensions, high-visibility crosswalks, enhanced crosswalk signage and pavement markings, street lighting, flashing beacons at stop signs, pedestrian countdown signals, lead ped intervals, and no-passing centerlines in the vicinity of five public and private elementary schools, including Cullen Elementary, Sellers Elementary, La Fetra Elementary, Hope Lutheran School, and Stanton Elementary. The total project cost was $523,900.
In addition, various traffic signals throughout the City have been upgraded.
4.2. Collision Data
4.2.1. Summary of Findings
This section provides a summary of the findings from the analysis performed for this LRSP.
4.2.1a. All Road Users
• Crash data was analyzed for the 5-year period between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020 for all reported crashes in the City, excluding those occurring on Interstate 210 and State Route 57 segments, which are Caltrans facilities. • In the 5 years of crash data analyzed, there were 2,746 total reported crashes in the City.
Two crashes resulted in fatalities and 38 (1.4%) resulted in severe injuries. • The four most frequently stated crash types overall were:
▷ Broadside at 27% of reported crashes,
▷ Rear-End at 24% of reported crashes,
▷ Sideswipe at 17% of reported crashes, and
▷ Hit Object at 8% of reported crashes.
▷ For 16% of crashes, the crash type was not stated.
• The most frequently stated crash types among fatal and severe injury crashes were:
▷ Broadside at 45% of reported fatal and severe injury crashes, ▷ Head-On at 8% of reported fatal and severe injury crashes, ▷ Hit Object at 8% of reported fatal and severe injury crashes, and ▷ Rear-End at 8% of reported fatal and severe injury crashes. • Improper Turning was the most frequently cited collision factor among fatal and severe injury crashes, representing 8 (20%) of those crashes. This violation is cited when vehicles make unsafe or prohibited turning movements.
• The months with the highest number of reported crashes (for the 5-year period of 2016 – 2020) were:
▷ December at 268 reported crashes
▷ January at 255 reported crashes
▷ May at 245 reported crashes
▷ August at 239 reported crashes.
Item #23. Page 20
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 744
17 • The weekday (Monday through Friday) hours with the highest frequency of reported crashes were 2:00 – 3:00 p.m. and 3:00 – 4:00 p.m. The weekend (Saturday and Sunday) hours with the highest frequency of reported crashes were 1:00 – 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 – 4:00 p.m.
• Clear weather was the most frequently cited weather condition, recorded in 73% of reported crashes. Of fatal and severe injury crashes, 87.5% occurred in clear weather conditions. Only 2.5% of fatal and severe injury crashes occurred during rainy conditions. • Dry roads were the most frequently cited road surface condition, recorded in 79% of reported crashes. Of fatal and severe injury crashes, 87.5% occurred on dry road surfaces.
Of the fatal and severe injury crashes, 2.5% occurred on wet road surfaces. • Crashes in dark conditions accounted for 23% of reported crashes but 40% of fatal and severe injury crashes.
• Among reported crashes, the share involving driving under the influence (of alcohol) was 7%, none of which were fatal crashes. Of the severe injury collisions, alcohol was a factor in 16%.:
4.2.1a. Bicyclists and Pedestrians
• A total of 58 bicycle-involved crashes were reported in the City between 2016 and 2020, of which 5 (13%) resulted in a severe injury. A total of 56 reported crashes involved a pedestrian between 2016 and 2020, of which 5 (13%) resulted in a severe injury. Bicycle crashes and pedestrian crashes are disproportionately severe relative to vehicular crashes (1% of vehicular crashes resulted in severe injury). • About half of the reported bicycle crashes involved bicycles and vehicles moving in different directions. Bicycles “proceeding straight being hit by vehicles making a right turn” comprised 21% of reported bicycle crashes and bicycles “proceeding straight being hit by vehicles making a left turn” comprised 12%.
• Among the crashes where the bicyclist was identified as the party most at fault, the top three primary collision factors were “Other Hazardous Movement”, “Wrong Side of the Road”, and “Unsafe Speed”. Of the collisions where the vehicle driver was identified as the party most at fault, the top primary collision factor was “automobile right-of-way”, followed by “improper turning”.
• Amgong the crashes where pedestrian was identified as the party most at fault, the top primary collision factor was “pedestrian violation.” Where drivers were identified as the party most at fault, the top primary collision factor was “pedestrian right-of-way violation.”
• The year 2016 had the highest number of reported pedestrian-involved crashes (16), while bicycle crashes were steady at about 12 per year for the 5-year analysis period.
4.2.2. Brief Roadway and Land Use Characteristics
This section provides a quick overview of existing roadway and land use characteristics in the City of Glendora.
4.2.2a. Roadway Characteristics
Glendora’s roadway system is largely comprised of two-lane streets and four-lane divided roadways. Existing roadway classifications and number of lanes are presented in Table 4, Figure 4, and Figure 5 on the following pages, per the circulation element of the City’s General Plan (known as “Glendora Community Plan 2025”).
Item #23. Page 21
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 745
18 4.2.2b. Land Use Characteristics
Glendora is almost completely developed, with the two predominant land uses being residential (42% of the total City land) and conservation open space (37% of the total City land). The City’s land use map (illustrated in Figure 6) shows several distinct areas including conservation open space, hillside low density neighborhoods, low- to medium-density residential neighborhoods, mixed uses (the downtown Village and Route 66), as well as some commercial, industrial, community facilities, and other land uses.
A significant amount of higher-density infill development is planned within the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan area as the City implements new land use policies that take advantage of transit infrastructure and create more pedestrian-oriented land uses near the colleges and in the downtown Village.
Figure 4 shows the land uses in Glendora according to the City’s General Plan.
4.2.2c. Roadway Classifications
Table 4 shows the categorization of major, collector, and secondary roads according to the City’s General Plan.
Item #23. Page 22
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 746
19 Live Oak Avenue 2 lanes Collector
Sunflower Avenue 4-lane divided Secondary
Elwood Avenue 2 lanes Collector
Loraine Avenue 4-lane divided Secondary
Valley Center Avenue 2 lanes Collector
Lone Hill Avenue: north of Route 66 2 lanes Collector
Lone Hill Avenue: Route 66 to Gladstone 4-lane divided Major - 6 Lone Hill Avenue: south of Gladstone 4-lane divided Major - 4 Amelia Avenue: north of Route 66 2 lanes Collector
Amelia Avenue: south of Route 66 4-lane divided Secondary Table 4. Roadway Classifications (Source: Circulation Element, Glendora Community Plan 2025)
Roadway Number of Lanes Classification
East - West Roadways
Sierra Madre Avenue 2 lanes Collector
Leadora Avenue 2 lanes Collector
Comstock Ave: Loraine Avenue to Valley Center 2 lanes Collector Bennett Avenue 2 lanes Collector
Foothill Boulevard: Citrus Avenue to Glendora 4-lane divided Secondary Foothill Boulevard: east of Glendora Street 2 lanes Collector Ada Avenue 2 lanes Collector
Route 66 4-lane divided Major - 4
Auto Centre Drive 4-lane divided Secondary
Gladstone Street 4-lane divided Secondary
Baseline Avenue 4-lane divided Secondary
Arrow Highway 4-lane divided Major - 4
North - South Roadways
Citrus Avenue 4-lane undivided Secondary
Barranca Avenue: north of Leadora Avenue 2 lanes Collector Barranca Avennue: south of Leadora Avenue 4-lane undivided Secondary Grand Avenue: north of Sierra Madre Avenue 2 lanes Collector Grand Avenue: south of Gladstone 4-lane divided Major - 4 Glendora Avenue: Sierra Madre Ave to Ada Ave 2 lanes Collector Glendora Avenue: Ada Avenue to Arrow Highway 4-lane divided Secondary Cullen Avenue 2 lanes Collector
Bonnie Cove Avenue 2 lanes Collector
Item #23. Page 23
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 747
20 Figure 4. Land Use (Source: Circulation Element, Glendora Community Plan 2025) Item #23. Page 24
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 748
21 4.2.3. Citywide Crash Analysis
This section presents the citywide crash analysis illustrating patterns and trends. The analysis focuses on identifying behavioral and roadway patterns associated with injury and fatal crash outcomes. By analyzing reported crashes, systemic trends across locations can be identified. Findings from this analysis will help inform safety countermeasures selected in subsequent project tasks.
4.2.3a. Crash Data
The crash database used for the analysis was provided by the City of Glendora and comprised of the most recent five years of reported crashes representing January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020.
4.2.3b. All Road Users
This section analyzes reported crashes across motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Trends and findings are presented based on:
1. Crash Severity
2. Crash Type
3. Primary Collision Factor
4. Month
5. Time of Day and Day of Week
6. Weather Conditions
7. Road Surface
8. Lighting Conditions
9. Alcohol and Drug Involvement
10. Crashes by Year
Following this analysis, bicycle and pedestrian crashes are discussed separately.
Item #23. Page 25
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 749
22 Fatal Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Property
Damage
Only
Total
# % # % # % # % # % # %
Pedestrian
Involved 0 0% 5 13% 22 9% 17 4% 12 0.6% 56 2%
Bicycle
Involved 0 0% 5 13% 32 14% 11 3% 10 0.5% 58 2%
Single Vehicle,
Fixed Object, or
Other
2 100% 28 74% 180 77% 395 93% 2027 99% 2632 96%
2016 5 13% 41 18% 114 27% 451 22% 611 22%
2017 7 18% 46 20% 113 27% 482 24% 648 24%
2018 2 100% 10 26% 36 15% 76 18% 506 25% 630 23%
2019 9 24% 75 32% 64 15% 395 19% 543 20%
2020 7 18% 36 15% 56 13% 215 10% 314 11%
Total Reported
Crashes 2 38 234 423 2049 2746
Table 5. Road Users Involved and Crash Severity, Glendora (2016 - 2020)
1. Crash Severity
Crashes are classified by severity based on the most severe outcome associated with the crash. The classification categories by descending order of severity are fatal, severe injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain injury and property damage only (PDO). Table 5 presents crashes by severity and by the road users involved (e.g., pedestrian bicyclist, motor vehicle) and also shows year-to-year trends by crash severity, with percentages by year.
Among reported crashes, 40 (1.5%) resulted in either a severe injury or a fatality. The share of injuries and fatalities among pedestrian- and bicyclist-involved crashes is higher than among crashes overall. Pedestrians and bicyclists were each involved in 2% of crashes overall, but were involved in 13% of fatal and injury crashes.
Item #23. Page 26
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 750
23 2. Crash Type
Fatal and severe injury crash data differs from the number of total reported crashes by type, as can be seen in Figure 5, which shows the numbers and percentages of crashes by reported crash type and severity. The colors on the bar chart indicate crash severity. The percentage labels at the ends of the bars indicate the percent of total crashes represented by each crash type.
The three most frequent crash types were:
• Broadside at 27% of reported crashes,
• Rear-end at 24% of reported crashes, and
• Sideswipe at 17% of reported crashes.
Broadside collisions are also the most frequent crash type for fatal and severe injury crashes (45% of reported fatal and severe injury crashes), followed by “head-on” collisions, “hit object” collisions, and rear-end collisions (at 8% of reported fatal and severe injury crashes).
It is worth noting that a significant number of collisions (about 16%) are missing the crash type.
Item #23. Page 27
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 751
24 3. Primary Collision Factor
Figure 6 shows the number of crashes categorized by the associated primary collision factors. The percentage labels at the ends of the bars indicate the percent of fatal and severe injuries for which each collision factor was reported as the primary.
Improper turning, auto right-of-way violation, and unsafe speed were the most frequently cited collision factors among (known and stated) fatal and severe crashes (with 8, 7 and 4 crashes respectively, corresponding to 20%, 18%, and 10% shown in Figure 6).
Unsafe speed was the most frequently cited collision factor overall, with 471 reported crashes.
Figure 6. Primary Collision Factor, Glendora (2016 – 2020) 18%
0%
8%
0%
0%
0%
20%
3%
10%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
3%
8%
13%
0%
10%
0%
0%
5%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Auto R/W Violation
Brakes
Driving Under Influence
Following Too Closely
Hazardous Parking
Improper Passing
Improper Turning
Lights
Not Stated
Other Equipment
Other Hazardous Movement
Other Improper Driving
Other Than Driver
Ped R/W Violation
Pedestrian Violation
Traffic Signals and Signs
Unknown
Unsafe Lane Change
Unsafe Speed
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Wrong Side of Road
Blank
Fatal + Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only Item #23. Page 28
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 752
25 Total Crashes by Mode Fatal Injury Crashes by Mode Severe Injury Crashes by Mode Month Ped
Crashes
Bike
Crashes
Auto /
Other
Crashes
TOTAL Ped
Crashes
Bike
Crashes
Auto /
Other
Crashes
TOTAL Ped
Crashes
Bike
Crashes
Auto /
Other
Crashes
TOTAL
January 12 7 236 255 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 4
February 2 2 210 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3
March 6 4 221 231 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
April 1 5 204 210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
May 3 6 236 245 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
June 5 3 220 228 0 0 1 1 1 0 6 7
July 2 5 204 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
August 4 7 228 239 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4
September 3 5 226 234 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
October 4 7 189 200 0 0 1 1 0 1 4 5
November 5 4 202 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
December 9 3 256 268 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3
Total 56 58 2632 2746 0 0 2 2 5 5 28 38
Table 6. Total, Fatal, and Severe Injury Crashes by Mode and Month of the Year, Glendora (2016 – 2020)
4. Month
Table 6 illustrates reported crashes involving bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles only by month. Fatalities and severe injury collisions by mode and month are also shown.
In general, vehicular crashes were evenly distributed with December being the highest month. Pedestrian crashes were highest in December and January, while bicycle crashes were highest in January, August, and October.
The two fatalities occurred in June and October and neither of these involved pedestrians or bicycles.
Item #23. Page 29
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 753
26 5. Time of Day and Day of Week
Table 7 shows reported crashes by time of day and day of week and Figure 7 presents the share of reported crashes by mode and time of day. The weekday (Monday through Friday) hours with the highest frequency of reported crashes were 2:00 – 3:00 p.m. and 3:00 – 4:00 p.m. On weekends (Saturday and Sunday) about 42% of crashes occurred between 5:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. and the hours with the highest frequency of reported crashes were 1:00 – 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 – 4:00 p.m.
Figure 7 shows that bicycle and motor vehicle crashes peak between noon and 3:00 p.m. whereas crashes involving pedestrians peak later (6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.).
Time Mon. Tue. Wed. Thu. Fri. Sat. Sun.
12:00 AM - 01:00:00 AM 1 5 6 6 7 12 12
01:00 AM - 02:00:00 AM 5 3 2 2 3 11 5
02:00 AM - 03:00:00 AM 4 2 0 2 2 7 7
03:00 AM - 04:00:00 AM 5 1 1 3 5 6 4
04:00 AM - 05:00:00 AM 1 1 3 3 2 4 1
05:00 AM - 06:00:00 AM 2 8 2 6 6 3 4
06:00 AM - 07:00:00 AM 2 12 8 11 6 5 6
07:00 AM - 08:00:00 AM 18 22 14 17 18 6 1
08:00 AM - 09:00:00 AM 28 44 36 19 25 8 3
09:00 AM - 10:00:00 AM 20 28 16 22 18 11 9
10:00 AM - 11:00:00 AM 23 25 29 24 14 17 6
11:00 AM - 12:00:00 PM 25 29 25 27 18 18 8
12:00 PM - 01:00:00 PM 34 37 17 42 26 21 18
01:00 PM - 02:00:00 PM 22 40 26 32 30 21 22
02:00 PM - 03:00:00 PM 36 42 31 31 33 21 13
03:00 PM - 04:00:00 PM 25 39 35 35 32 22 20
04:00 PM - 05:00:00 PM 30 28 23 35 28 14 15
05:00 PM - 06:00:00 PM 30 29 25 28 27 23 12
06:00 PM - 07:00:00 PM 20 27 25 17 27 26 9
07:00 PM - 08:00:00 PM 11 18 23 11 14 21 15
08:00 PM - 09:00:00 PM 9 18 10 19 25 16 17
09:00 PM - 10:00:00 PM 7 9 12 13 7 14 3
10:00 PM - 11:00:00 PM 7 8 2 11 5 8 7
11:00 PM - 12:00:00 AM 1 6 5 4 11 15 11
Blank (No Time Reported) 22 25 25 17 23 26 18
TOTAL 388 506 401 437 412 356 246
Table 7. Reported Crashes by Hour and Day of Week, Glendora (2016 – 2020) Item #23. Page 30
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 754
27 Figure 7. Share of Crashes by Mode and Time of Day, Glendora (2016 – 2020) Item #23. Page 31
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 755
28 6. Weather Conditions
Figure 8 shows that crashes which occurred in clear weather accounted for 73% of total reported crashes. 88% of fatal and severe injury crashes and 83% of other injury crashes occurred in clear weather. Both fatal crashes occurred in clear weather. The percentages at the ends of the bars in the chart indicate the percentage of total crashes.
Figure 8. Crashes by Weather and Severity, Glendora (2016 – 2020) 73%
8%
15%
0%
4%
0%
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Clear
Cloudy
Not Stated
Other
Raining
Wind
Fatal / Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only Item #23. Page 32
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 756
29 7. Road Surface
Figure 9 presents reported crashes by road surface conditions.
Crashes that occurred on dry roads made up 79% of total reported crashes, but account for 88% of fatal and severe injury crashes. Both fatal crashes occurred on dry road surface.
Figure 9. Crashes by Road Surface and Severity, Glendora (2016 – 2020) 79%
16%
0%
5%
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Dry
Not Stated
Snowy or Icy
Wet
Crashes by Road Surface and Severity
Fatal / Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only Item #23. Page 33
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 757
30 8. Lighting Conditions
Figure 10 presents reported crashes by lighting conditions and severity.
Crashes that occurred in the daylight account for 62% of total reported crashes and those in the dark for about 23% of total reported crashes (about 16% of the records did not state the lighting conditions).
While both fatal crashes occurred during daylight, about 40% of severe crashes occurred in dark conditions.
Figure 10. Crashes by Lighting Conditions and Severity, Glendora (2016 – 2020) 62%
2%
18%
0%
3%
16%
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Daylight
Dark - No Street Lights
Dark - Street Lights
Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning
Dusk - Dawn
Not Stated
Fatal / Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only Item #23. Page 34
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 758
31 9. Alcohol and Drug Involvement
Figure 11 presents the percentage of crashes involving alcohol by severity. Among all reported crashes, the share involving some level of alcohol was 7%. However, among severe injury crashes the share involving some level of alcohol was 16%.
The total number of reported crashes involving alcohol by severity are shown in Figure 12.
Figure 11. Percent of Crashes Involving Alcohol by Severity, Glendora (2016 – 2020) Figure 12. Number of Alcohol Involved Crashes by Severity, Glendora (2016 – 2020) 0%
16%
7%
4%
7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
0 6
16 19
143
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Item #23. Page 35
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 759
32 10. Crashes by Year
Figure 13 presents reported crashes by severity by year. While 2017 had the highest number of total collisions, 2018 had the most fatalities and severe injuries (2 fatalities and 10 severe injuries).
2020 had the lowest number of reported total crashes. This can be attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic which reduced vehicular travel for most of the year.
Figure 13. Crashes by Year, Glendora (2016 – 2020)
5 7 12 9 7
155 159
112 139
92 451
482
506
395
215
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Fatal / Severe Injury Other Injury Property Damage Only Item #23. Page 36
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 760
33 4.2.3c. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes
Pedestrians and bicyclists are considered vulnerable road users as they are prone to injury in any vehicular collision, primarily because there is little or no external protective device that could absorb the impact of a road crash.
This section presents the trends and findings for pedestrian and bicycle crashes based on the primary collision factors, movements preceding collision, and lighting conditions.
Primary Collision Factors: Pedestrian Crashes
Table 8 presents the primary collision factors most frequently associated with pedestrian crashes in the City, broken down by parties at fault.
Among the crashes where a pedestrian was identified as the party most at fault, the top primary collision factor was “pedestrian violation”. Among total reported pedestrian crashes, the top primary collision factor was “pedestrian right-of-way violation”.
Primary Collision Factor TOTAL (%) Pedestrian at
Fault (%) Driver at Fault (%)
Auto R/W Violation 5 9% 0 0% 5 11%
Hazardous Parking 1 2% 0 0% 1 2%
Not Stated 4 7% 3 27% 1 2%
Other Hazardous Movement 1 2% 0 0% 1 2%
Ped R/W Violation 22 39% 1 9% 21 48%
Pedestrian Violation 7 13% 6 55% 1 2%
Traffic Signals and Signs 4 7% 0 0% 4 9%
Unknown 5 9% 0 0% 4 9%
Unsafe Speed 1 2% 0 0% 1 2%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 1 2% 1 9% 0 0%
Blank 5 9% 0 0% 5 11%
TOTAL 56 100% 11 100% 44 100%
Table 8. Pedestrian Crashes - Primary Collision Factors, Glendora (2016 – 2020) Item #23. Page 37
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 761
34 Primary Collision Factors: Bicyclist Crashes
Table 9 provides insight into the reported primary collision factors associated with bicycle crashes in the City, broken down by parties at fault.
Among the crashes where the bicyclist was identified as the party most at fault, the top two primary collision factors were “other hazardous movement” and “wrong side of the road”.
Among the crashes where the driver was identified as the party most at fault, the top two primary collision factors were “auto right of way violation” and “improper turning”.
Primary Collision
Factor Total (%) Bicyclist at Fault (%)
Driver at Fault
(%)
Other /
Unknown (%)
Auto R/W Violation 10 17% 0 0% 9 23% 1 %25
Improper Passing 1 2% 0 0% 1 3% 0 %0
Improper Turning 9 16% 1 7% 8 20% 0 %0
Lights 1 2% 1 7% 0 0% 0 %0
Not Stated 5 9% 0 0% 4 10% 1 %25
Other Hazardous
Movement 6 10% 4 29% 2 5% 0 %0
Other Than Driver 2 3% 0 0% 0 0% 2 %50
Pedestrian
Violation 2 3% 0 0% 2 5% 0 %0
Traffic Signals and
Signs 5 9% 2 14% 3 8% 0 %0
Unknown 2 3% 0 0% 2 5% 0 %0
Unsafe Speed 3 5% 2 14% 1 3% 0 %0
Wrong Side of
Road 8 14% 3 21% 5 13% 0 %0
Blank 4 %7 1 %7 3 %8 0 %0
TOTAL 58 %100 14 %100 40 %100 4 %100
Table 9. Bicyclist Crashes - Primary Collision Factors, Glendora (2016 – 2020) Item #23. Page 38
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 762
35 Movements Preceding Collision: Pedestrian Crashes
Figure 14 highlights pedestrian-involved crashes by pedestrian action preceding a crash by severity. As noted earlier, no fatal pedestrian-involved crashes were reported.
About 41% (23) of the collisions involving pedestrians occurred while crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection. Of these collisions, 52% (12 crashes) involved vehicles turning left preceding the crash and 17% (4 crashes) involved vehicles proceeding straight.
Figure 14. Pedestrian Crashes by Pedestrian Action and Severity, Glendora (2016 – 2020) 41%
7%
5%
11%
23%
14%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Crossing In Crosswalk At Intersection
Crossing In Crosswalk Not At Intersection
Crossing Not In Crosswalk
In Road
Not In Road
Not Stated / Other
Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Other (mis-classified) Item #23. Page 39
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 763
36 Movements Preceding Collision: Bicyclist Crashes
Table 10 provides the most frequent combinations of bicycle/vehicle movements preceding collision. Bicycle collisions with left and right turning vehicles constitute the highest combination. However, among the severe injury crashes, 3 (60%) involved a bicycle collision with a vehicle proceeding straight.
Bicycle Movement
Preceding Collision
Vehicle Movement
Preceding Collision Total Crashes (%) Severe Injury Crashes (%) Proceeding Straight Making Right Turn 12 (21%) 0 (0%)
Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn 7 (12%) 0 (0%)
Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight 9 (16%) 3 (60%) Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road 1 (2%) 0 (0%)
Proceeding Straight Passing Other Vehicle 2 (3%) 0 (0%) Making Right Turn Proceeding Straight 3 (5%) 0 (0%)
Entering Traffic Proceeding Straight 3 (5%) 0 (0%)
Other Unsafe Turning Proceeding Straight 1 (2%) 1 (20%) Making Left Turn Stopped In Road 2 (3%) 0 (0%)
Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight 3 (5%) 0 (0%)
Traveling Wrong Way Making Right Turn 1 (2%) 0 (0%)
Traveling Wrong Way Making Left Turn 1 (2%) 0 (0%)
Traveling Wrong Way Entering Traffic 1 (2%) 0 (0%)
Others / Not Stated 12 (21%) 1 (20%)
TOTAL 58 (100%) 5 (100%)
Table 10. Bicycle and Vehicle Movements Preceding Collisions, Glendora (2016 – 2020) Item #23. Page 40
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 764
37 Lighting
Lighting is a concern for the safety of people walking and biking. Figure 15 depicts the distribution of pedestrian crashes, bicycle crashes, and total crashes for various lighting conditions.
Darkness was a factor for 34% of reported pedestrian crashes, and 21% of reported bicycle crashes. In addition, 23% of total reported crashes had darkness as a factor.
Figure 15. Crash Count by Mode and Lighting Conditions, Glendora (2016 – 2020) Dark - No Street Lights 3 2 51
Dark - Street Lights 15 7 486
Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning 0 0 4
Dusk - Dawn 1 3 78
Daylight 36 46 1696
Not Stated 1 0 431
Pedestrian Bicycle TOTAL
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Pedestrian
Bicycle
TOTAL
Item #23. Page 41
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 765
38 Trends by Year
Figure 16 highlights pedestrian-involved and bicyclist-involved crashes by year. 2016 had the highest number of reported pedestrian-involved crashes. The number of pedestrian crashes showed a downward trend from 2018 to 2020.
Bicycle crashes seem to be trending at about 12 per year.
Figure 16. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes per Year, Glendora (2016 – 2020) 16 12
14 9
5 11
12 11
12 12
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Pedestrian Crashes Bicycle Crashes
Item #23. Page 42
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 766
39 4.2.3d. Comparison with Statewide Averages
A comparison with statewide averages was conducted using the most recent statewide report, the 2017 Annual Report of Fatal and Injury Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes, prepared by the California Highway Patrol (CHP). A summary of this comparison with statewide crashes is provided below:
• In 2017, statewide, the most common type of crash for fatal crashes was “broadside”, which accounted for 1,210 (22%) fatal crashes out of the total 5,474 fatal crashes that occurred. The most common movement preceding crashes was “proceeding straight”, which accounted for 3,173 (58%) of fatal crashes. In Glendora, two fatal collisions were reported in the 5-year analysis period, the first involving a motorcycle hitting a fixed object (primary collision factor was listed as Improper Turning) and the second involving a broadside collision (primary collision factor was listed as Auto Right-ofway Violation. • In 2017, statewide, the most common type of crash for injury crashes was “rear end”, which accounted for 150,070 (41%), followed by “broadside” crashes, which accounted for 98,477 (27%) of the total 363,002 injury crashes that occurred. In Glendora, the most common types of crash for injury crashes were both “broadside” and “rear end” collisions, which accounted for 41% and 25% of injury crashes respectively. While the proportion of rear end crashes is lower than the statewide averages, the proportion of broadside crashes is much higher.
• Statewide averages show that “unsafe speed”, “automobile right-of-way”, and “improper turning” were the top primary collision factors in fatal and severe injury crashes at 31%, 16%, and 14% respectively. In Glendora, the top primary crash factor for injury and fatal collisions was “improper turning”, which accounted for 20% of all crashes, followed by “automobile right-of-way” (18%) and “unsafe speed” (10%). • Statewide, pedestrian collisions made up 3% of overall crashes and 8% of injury and fatal crashes. In Glendora, pedestrian-involved collisions made up 2% of overall crashes and 13% out of all severe injury and fatal crashes.
• Statewide, bicycle collisions made up 3% of overall crashes and 7% of injury and fatal crashes. In Glendora, bicycle collisions made up 2% of all crashes and 13% out of all severe injury and fatal crashes.
• The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) rankings for the most recent year available, 2019, were also reviewed. These rankings compare safety performance in similarsized cities to help identify emerging or on-going traffic safety focus areas. Glendora is categorized in Group C, a group of 105 cities with populations between 50,00 and 100,000. In general, Glendora ranks above the average except when it comes to speedrelated crashes (#41), total fatal and injury crashes (#42), and Bicyclist crashes (#54).
4.2.3e. Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Crash Rankings
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) rankings for the most recent year available, 2019, were also reviewed. These rankings compare similar sized cities safety performance to help identify emerging or on-going traffic safety focus areas. Glendora is grouped in Group C with 105 cities with populations between 50,00 and 100,000.
Per OTS, the crash rankings using the Empirical Bayesian Ranking Method which weights different statistical categories including observed crash counts, population, and vehicle miles traveled. The resulting crash counts used for the rankings reflect unrecognized or unmeasurable influential factors for each jurisdiction as well as population and vehicle Item #23. Page 43
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 767
40 miles traveled to account for traffic exposure. SWITRS is the source for the crash data used in the analysis, with population data from the California Department of Finance, and daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT) from Caltrans. DVMT is an estimate of the total number of miles all vehicles traveled on the jurisdiction’s streets on an average day during that year.
Table 11 shows the 2019 OTS Crash Rankings for the City of Glendora. The first number in the ranking is the City’s ranking in that category, the second is the total number of cities in the City’s group. Number 1 in the rankings is the highest, or “worst”, ranking. The composite ranking provides an aggregate of several other rankings to give an indication of overall traffic safety.
The City’s highest (or “worst”) rankings were for speed related crashes (#41), total fatal and injury crashes (#52), Bicyclist crashes (#54), and Bicyclist crashes under 15 years old (#57).
For all other categories the City ranked in the top half of similar jurisdictions.
4.2.4. Locations of Crashes
Crash data for the five-year period examined was analyzed with GIS software, allowing the locations of crashes to be mapped. The figures on the following pages show the locations of crashes in the City of Glendora.
Figure 17 shows a “heat map” indicating total collision density. The locations of severe injury and fatal crashes are shown in Figure 18. The locations of crashes involving pedestrians are shown in Figure 19, and the locations of crashes involving bicyclists are shown in Figure 20.
TYPE OF CRASH VICTIMS KILLED & INJURED OTS RANKING
Total Fatal and Injury 216 52/105
Alcohol Involved 11 90/105
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 0 69/105
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 3 66/105
Motorcycles 3 92/105
Pedestrians 8 80/105
Pedestrians < 15 0 90/105
Pedestrians 65+ 1 68/105
Bicyclists 11 54/105
Bicyclists < 15 1 57/105
Composite 76 72/105
TYPE OF CRASH FATAL & INJURY CRASHES OTS RANKING
Speed Related 40 41/105
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 16 66/105
Hit and Run 6 79/105
TYPE OF ARRESTS ARRESTS OTS RANKING*
DUI Arrests 160 85/105
Table 11. Glendora OTS 2019 Crash Rankings (Source: California Office of Traffic Safety, 2022)
Item #23. Page 44
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 768
41 Figure 17. Total collision density
Item #23. Page 45
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 769
42 Figure 18. Severe and fatal injury locations
Item #23. Page 46
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 770
43 Figure 19. Pedestrian collision locations
Item #23. Page 47
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 771
44 Figure 20. Bicycle collision locations
Item #23. Page 48
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 772
45 4.2.5. EPDO Ratings of Intersections and Corridors
Utilizing the collision data for the five-year timeframe examined, the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) rating was calculated for high-injury intersections and corridors in the City of Glendora. This was calculated using the methodology provided by the FHWA.
The equivalent property damage only (EPDO) method is documented in the Highway Safety Manual. In this method, weighting factors related to the societal costs of fatal, injury, and property damage-only crashes are assigned to crashes by severity to develop an equivalent property damage-only score that considers frequency and severity of crashes.
The locations and EPDO ratings of the top 12 high-injury intersections are shown in Figure
21. The locations and EPDO ratings of the top 10 high-injury corridors are shown in Figure 22.
Item #23. Page 49
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 773
46 Figure 21. Top 12 high-injury intersections and EPDO ratings Item #23. Page 50
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 774
47 Figure 22. Top 10 high-injury corridor EPDO ratings
Item #23. Page 51
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 775
48 4.3. Field Reconnaissance
A field visit was performed in April 2022 to analyze the roadways throughout the City of Glendora and observe traffic conditions. The following are some general notes based on what was observed during the visit:
• Each of the high-injury intersections was visited, and the team observed what was causing collisions based on major collision factors.
• It was noticed that majority of intersections do not have protected left-turn signal phases.
• There are locations where near school crosswalks can be treated with high visibility crosswalks throughout the city.
• There are many bicycle facilities in the City where signs are not visible. There facilities can be improved by better signage or by upgrading bike route to class II bike lanes.
Item #23. Page 52
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 776
49 5. Public Outreach
5.1. Public Website and Survey
A project website was created on the Social Pinpoint platform to inform the public about the LRSP and provide a platform for input. The website included an online interactive map, where stakeholders could submit comments about road safety conditions associated with specific travel modes and locations; and a survey intended to collect data regarding road safety conditions and needs in Glendora.
Publicization of the website was undertaken by the City’s social media team. The website was open for receiving comments from March 15 to April 26, 2022. The website received 101 comments provided by 80 stakeholders, and 32 survey responses. 62% of the comments perceived were related to driving. Figure 23 displays the homepage for the website, found at https://safetyplan.mysocialpinpoint.com/glendora.
Visitors to the page were invited to provide comments on an interactive project map and share their thoughts through a project survey.
Figure 23. Screenshot from public website
Item #23. Page 53
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 777
50 The interactive map feature on the website allowed the public to drag icons to a location within the City and leave a comment regarding driving, pedestrian, or bicycle suggestions at that location. Figure 24 shows the interactive map feature from the website.
Some of the top locations for public comment, along with the common comment themes, are listed below:
• South Glendora Avenue at West Baseline Road: Multiple complaints of speeding, inadequate sidewalks, and lack of bike lanes in a 1,000-foot radius around this intersection. • South Lone Hill Avenue, directly south of the intersection with East Foothill Boulevard:
Need for speed limit enforcement.
• Amelia Avenue at Duell Street (near Sutherland Elementary School): Multiple comments on school-related traffic safety issues.
Figure 25 shows a word cloud generated from the public comment input. The comments on the interactive map were integrated into the recommendations in this LRSP. The modes associated with the comments are shown in Figure 26.
Figure 24. Interactive map
Item #23. Page 54
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 778
51 Figure 25. Word cloud generated from public comments Figure 26. Mode associated with public comments
Item #23. Page 55
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 779
52 6. Identification of Strategies
Through coordination and feedback from the City of Glendora, the LRSP Working Group, and public outreach, the safety projects and strategies in this section were identified for this LRSP. Development of the recommended countermeasures was coordinated with the City.
In Section 6.1, this LRSP lists recommended countermeasures for specific corridors and intersections, as well as systemic safety strategies. In addition, systemic non-engineering strategies (Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Response) are listed in Section 6.2.
6.1. Engineering Strategies
6.1.1. Countermeasures for High-injury Intersections and Corridors This section contains identified countermeasures to be implemented at specific locations in response to the identified road safety problems.
The Highway Safety Improvement Program provides grant funding to implement engineering countermeasures. The HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-Projects was announced on Monday, May 9, 2022. The application due date will be Monday, September 12, 2022.
High-injury intersections, with associated crash data, are listed in Table 12. Recommended countermeasures for the high-injury intersections are listed in Table 13.
High-injury corridors, with associated crash data, are listed in Table 14. Recommended countermeasures for the high-injury corridors are listed in Table 15.
Intersections and corridors are ranked by their EPDO rating and labeled with these rank numbers for ease of identifying them on the maps and tables. Non-signalized intersections are indicated with “(NS)”. Systemic improvements are noted with “[SI]”. Countermeasures are also identified by their numbers according to the Local Road Safety Manual.
Item #23. Page 56
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 780
53 Table 12. High-injury Intersections
EPDO
Rank
City
Intersection
MitigatioWns
Secondary
Road EPDO Total Crashes
Common Crashes/Issues
Top Collision
Factor Top Collision Type Night Wet Ped
Crossing Not
in X-walk
Bike
Involv.
w/ Fixed
Object
DUI
1 Foothill Blvd Barranca Ave 354 36 Auto R/W
Violation (13) Broadside (21) 9 1 1 1 0 3 4
2 Gladstone St Barranca Ave 319 26 Auto R/W
Violation (9) Broadside (18) 13 3 0 0 1 1 2
3 Lone Hill Ave Gladstone St 315 32 Unsafe Speed (7) Broadside (13) 9 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 Gladstone St Sunflower
Ave 250 31 Auto R/W
Violation (11) Broadside (14) 10 6 0 0 0 2 1
5 Baseline Rd Grand Ave 233 49 Unsafe Speed (9) Sideswipe (16) 12 3 0 0 0 4 4 6 Fleetwood Pl
(NS) Grand Ave 220 6 Auto R/W
Violation (3)
Broadside (2),
Head On (2) 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
7 Dawson Ave
(NS) Glendora Ave 205 6 Auto R/W Violation (2)
Broadside (2),
Sideswipe (2) 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
8 Bennett Ave
(NS) Wabash Ave 200 6 Auto R/W Violation (3) Broadside (5) 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 9 Route 66 Barranca Ave 191 27 Unsafe Speed (8) Rear-end (16) 7 1 0 0 0 4 4 10 Saratoga Ln
(NS) Amelia Ave 190 1 Unknown (1) Other (1) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 Juanita Ave Sunflower
Ave 154 15 Traffic Signals and
Signs (5) Broadside (8) 3 0 0 0 0 1 1
12 Gladstone St Valley Center
Ave 150 16 Improper Turning
(5) Broadside (7) 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
Item #23. Page 57
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 781
54 Table 13. High-injury Intersections with Recommended Countermeasures EPDO
Rank Primary Road Secondary Road
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Recommended Countermeasures Reasoning
1 Foothill Blvd Barranca Ave
- Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
- Police enforcement [SI] 4 collisions caused by DUI
40% S04: Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches [SI]
25% S18PB: High visibility crosswalks [SI]
2 Gladstone St Barranca Ave
30% S07: Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) [SI] 18 broadside collisions 40% S04: Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches [SI] 4 rear-end collisions
25% S18PB: High visibility crosswalks [SI]
3 Lone Hill Ave Gladstone St
- Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
- Police enforcement [SI] 7 unsafe speed collisions
25% S18PB: High visibility crosswalks [SI]
15% S02: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number 9 rear-end collisions 4 Gladstone St Sunflower Ave
- Upgrade signing and striping [SI] Class III Bike Route 40% S19PB: Pedestrian scramble
55% S11: Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) 6 wet road collisions 30% S07: Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) [SI] 14 broadside collisions 40% S04: Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches [SI] 6 rear-end collisions
5 Baseline Rd Grand Ave
- Police enforcement [SI] 4 DUI collisions and 9 unsafe speed collisions - Upgrade signing and striping [SI] 16 sideswipe collisions 30% S08: Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) [SI] 15 rear-end collisions 6 Fleetwood Pl
(NS) Grand Ave
- Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
35% NS21PB: Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) 1 severe injury with ped 7 Dawson Ave
(NS) Glendora Ave
- Upgrade signing and striping [SI] Class III Bike Route 40% NS01: Add intersection lighting 1 night collision
- Consider adding bike lanes 1 bike collision
8 Bennett Ave
(NS) Wabash Ave
- Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
25% NS21PB: Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (new signs and markings only) 1 pedestrian collision
35% NS22PB: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) 9 Route 66 Barranca Ave
- Police enforcement [SI] 4 collisions caused by DUI and 8 unsafe speed collisions - Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
30% S08: Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) 16 rear-end collisions Item #23. Page 58
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 782
55 EPDO
Rank Primary Road Secondary Road
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Recommended Countermeasures Reasoning
10 Saratoga Ln
(NS) Amelia Ave
- Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
35% NS21PB: Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) 1 bike collision
11 Juanita Ave Sunflower Ave
30% S07: Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) [SI] 8 broadside collisions - Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
25% S18PB: High visibility crosswalks [SI]
12 Gladstone St Valley Center
Ave
30% S07: Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) [SI] 7 broadside collisions 25% S18PB: High visibility crosswalks [SI]
40% S01: Add intersection lighting 2 night collisions
- Upgrade signing and striping [SI] Class III Bike Route [SI] = Systemic Improvement
(NS) = Non-signalized
Table 13. High-injury Intersections with Recommended Countermeasures (continued) Item #23. Page 59
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 783
56 Table 14. High-injury Corridors
EPDO
Rank Primary Road Begin – End Segment EPDO Total Crashes Common Crashes/Issues
Top Collision
Factor
Top Collision
Type Night Wet Ped
Crossing
Not in
X-walk
Bike
Involv.
w/ Fixed
Object
DUI
1 Lone Hill Ave Route 66 –
Gladstone St 1108 229 Unsafe Speed (86)
Rear-end
(105) 61 14 3 2 1 12 8
2 Gladstone St Sunflower Ave –
Lone Hill Ave 971 104 Auto R/W Violation (26)
Broadside
(47) 31 9 0 0 1 3 2
3 Grand Ave Baseline Rd –
Arrow Hwy 870 138 Unsafe Speed (30)
Broadside
(41) 38 6 3 1 0 10 10
4 Sunflower Ave Gladstone St –
Arrow Hwy 713 66 Auto R/W Violation (15)
Broadside
(27) 21 7 0 0 0 5 8
5 Route 66 Glendora Ave –
Loraine Ave 695 132 Unsafe Speed (35)
Rear-end
(46) 38 9 1 0 1 11 9
6 Gladstone St Barranca Ave –
Grand Ave 686 64 Traffic Signal
and Signs
(15),
Unsafe Speed
(15)
Broadside
(27) 28 4 0 0 1 2 5
7 Barranca Ave Baseline Rd –
Gladstone St 659 52 Broadside (28) 26 4 0 0 1 4 4
8 Route 66 Loraine Ave –
Amelia Ave 636 108 Auto R/W Violation (17)
Rear-end
(38) 26 11 1 0 3 15 4
9 Foothill Blvd Citrus Ave –
Grand Ave 594 91 Unsafe Speed (28)
Broadside
(39) 21 5 2 0 2 6 6
10 Gladstone St Glendora Ave –
Sunflower Ave 500 91 Auto R/W Violation (23)
Broadside
(34) 32 11 1 0 0 9 9
Item #23. Page 60
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 784
57 Table 15. High-injury Corridors with Recommended Countermeasures EPDO
Rank Primary Road Begin – End Segment CRF Recommended Countermeasures Reasoning 1 Lone Hill Ave
Route 66 –
Gladstone St
15% R27: Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers 15% R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
35% R35PB: Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) 3 pedestrian collisions
55% R21: Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) 14 wet road condition collisions 35% R32PB: Enhance Bike Facilities 1 bike collision / Class III Bike Route 2 Gladstone St
Sunflower Ave –
Lone Hill Ave
15% R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
35% R32PB: Enhance Bike Facilities 1 bike collision / Class III Bike Route 3 Grand Ave Baseline Rd –
Arrow Hwy
15% R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
- Police enforcement [SI] 7 unsafe speed collisions
35% R35PB: High visibility crosswalks [SI]
4 Sunflower Ave
Gladstone St –
Arrow Hwy
15% R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
5 Route 66
Glendora Ave –
Loraine Ave
15% R27: Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers 15% R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
35% R32PB: Install Bike Facilities 1 bike collision
6 Gladstone St
Barranca Ave –
Grand Ave
15% R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
35% R01: Add segment lighting 28 night collisions
35% R32PB: Install Bike Facilities 1 bike collision
7 Barranca Ave
Baseline Rd –
Gladstone St
15% R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
35% R01: Add segment lighting 26 night collisions
35% R32PB: Install Bike Facilities 1 bike collision
8 Route 66
Loraine Ave –
Amelia Ave
15% R27: Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers 15% R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
35% R32PB: Install bike facilities 3 bike collisions/ Class III Bike Route 55% R21: Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) 11 wet road collisions 9 Foothill Blvd
Citrus Ave –
Grand Ave
15% R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
35% R35PB: Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) 2 pedestrian collisions
35% R32PB: Install bike facilities Roadway is part of planned first/last mile bike lanes 10 Gladstone St
Glendora Ave –
Sunflower Ave
15% R27: Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers 15% R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI]
55% R21: Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) 11 wet road condition collisions / Class III Bike Route [SI] = Systemic Improvement
Item #23. Page 61
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 785
58 6.1.2. Systemic Engineering Countermeasures
In addition to the countermeasures recommended for specific intersections and corridors, the following engineering countermeasures were recommended for system-wide implementation.
1. Upgrade signing and striping
2. High-visibility pedestrian crosswalks
3 .Install bike lanes
4. Signal upgrades (to include converting signals to mast arm from pedestal-mounted)
5. Provide Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection for high-speed approaches
6.2. Systemic Non-Engineering Countermeasures
In addition to the engineering countermeasures outlined in the previous sections, this LRSP includes countermeasures in the areas of education, enforcement, and emergency response that were identified as appropriate for the City of Glendora in the LRSP Working Group meetings. These countermeasures are listed below.
6.2.1. Education
• Continue bicycle, pedestrian, and FLM safety campaigns • Continue Safe Routes to School maps and outreach at schools • Social media blasts with quick education tools for all users • Dangers of speeding/speed management campaigns
• Partnering with agencies such as LA County Health, Bicycle Coalitions, and others for public education
6.2.2. Enforcement
• Targeted speed enforcement (school zones, areas of concern) • DUI saturation patrols
• Increasing number of traffic enforcement officers (possible through grants/OTS funding) • Distracted driving enforcement
6.2.3. Emergency Response
• Review existing emergency vehicle pre-emption at signalized intersections • Evaluate improvements to roadways to increase access and potentially shorten response times
Item #23. Page 62
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 786
59 7. Prioritization of Strategies
7.1. Funding Sources
The Highway Safety Improvement Program provides grant funding to implement engineering countermeasures. The HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-Projects was announced on Monday, May 9, 2022. The application due date will be Monday, September 12, 2022. HSIP funds can pay for preliminary engineering, right of way (must be less than 10% of construction costs), and construction. Proposed projects are evaluated based on the Benefit/Cost Ratios (BCRs). All applications without fatal flaws are prioritized in descending order, statewide, by the BCRs.
The Active Transportation Program (ATP) funds projects that further ATP goals, which relate to increasing active transportation mode share and safety. Infrastructure projects can be funded, as well as plans and non-infrastructure projects. Applications are scored on several criteria, including an emphasis on safety.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) L continues the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) to provide a funding to local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
In some cases, projects that improve safety may also meet the criteria for CMAQ funding.
The California Office of Traffic Safety provides funding for non-engineering projects to improve safety, such as educational programs.
In addition, the City of Glendora can look for opportunities to incorporate safety enhancements within the Capital Improvement Program. However, this funding source is very limited.
7.2. Prioritized Projects
An essential part of the LRSP process is the prioritization of strategies. This section presents the identified engineering countermeasures for intersections and priorities ranked according to priority. The countermeasures were evaluated and prioritized based on benefit-to-cost ratios following the methodology prescribed in the current Caltrans Local Road Safety Manual and using the HSIP Analyzer for BCR applications provided by Caltrans.
The prioritization of engineering countermeasures for the top ten high-injury intersections is shown in Table 16, and the prioritization of engineering countermeasures for the top ten high-injury corridors is shown in Table 17.
Item #23. Page 63
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 787
60 Table 16. Prioritized Engineering Countermeasures for High-injury Intersections EPDO
Rank Primary Road Secondary Road Recommended Countermeasures Time
Range
(Years)
Preliminary
B/C Ratio
Total Expected
Benefit
Preliminary
Estimated
Project Cost
HSIP Funding
Reimbursement
Ratio
1 Foothill Blvd Barranca Ave
Upgrade signing and striping [SI] - - $20,000 100%
S04: Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches [SI] 5-10 - - $100,000 100% S18PB: High visibility crosswalks [SI] <5 3.6 $90,851 $25,000 100% 2 Gladstone St Barranca Ave
S07: Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) [SI] <5 28.5 $5,701,197 $200,000 100% S04: Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches [SI] 10+ - - $100,000 100% S18PB: High visibility crosswalks [SI] <5 50.0 $1,250,215 $25,000 100% 3 Lone Hill Ave Gladstone St
Upgrade signing and striping [SI] <5 - - $20,000 100%
S18PB: High visibility crosswalks [SI] <5 0.0 $0 $25,000 100% S02: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number <5 56.3 $1,408,629 $25,000 100% 4 Gladstone St Sunflower Ave
Upgrade signing and striping [SI] <5 - - $20,000 100%
S19PB: Pedestrian scramble <5 0.0 $0 $60,000 100%
S11: Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) 5-10 65.8 $3,288,777 $50,000 100% S07: Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) [SI] <5 20.1 $4,019,859 $200,000 100% S04: Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches [SI] 5-10 - - $100,000 100% 5 Baseline Rd Grand Ave Upgrade signing and striping [SI] <5 - - $20,000 100% S08: Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) [SI] <5 20.8 $4,160,761 $200,000 100% 6 Fleetwood Pl
(NS) Grand Ave
Upgrade signing and striping [SI] <5 - - $20,000 100%
NS21PB: Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) 5-10 18.9 $1,420,722 $75,000 100% 7 Dawson Ave
(NS) Glendora Ave
Upgrade signing and striping [SI] <5 - - $20,000 100%
NS01: Add intersection lighting <5 90.9 $4,546,309 $50,000 100% Consider adding bike lanes 5-10 - - $50,000 90%
8 Bennett Ave
(NS) Wabash Ave
Upgrade signing and striping [SI] <5 - - $20,000 100%
NS21PB: Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (new signs and markings only) <5 1.3 $31,798 $25,000 100%
NS22PB: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) <5 35.9 $1,795,117 $50,000 100% 9 Route 66 Barranca Ave
Upgrade signing and striping [SI] <5 - - $20,000 100%
S08: Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) <5 17.1 $3,411,411 $200,000 100% 10 Saratoga Ln
(NS) Amelia Ave
Upgrade signing and striping [SI] <5 - - $20,000 100%
NS21PB: Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) <5 159.1 $3,978,021 $25,000 100% 11 Juanita Ave Sunflower Ave
S07: Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) [SI] <5 13.7 $2,749,614 $200,000 100% Upgrade signing and striping [SI] <5 - - $20,000 100%
S18PB: High visibility crosswalks [SI] <5 0.0 $0 $10,000 100% 12 Gladstone St Valley Center
Ave
S07: Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) [SI] <5 13.4 $2,684,729 $200,000 100% S18PB: High visibility crosswalks [SI] <5 0.0 $0 $10,000 100% S01: Add intersection lighting <5 8.5 $169,188 $20,000 100% Upgrade signing and striping [SI] <5 - - $10,000 100%
Item #23. Page 64
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 788
61 Table 17. Prioritized Engineering Countermeasures for High-injury Corridors EPDO
Rank
Primary Road
(Begin – End
Segment)
Recommended Countermeasures
Time
Range
(Years)
Preliminary
B/C Ratio
Total Expected
Benefit
Preliminary
Estimated Project
Cost
HSIP Funding Reimbursement
Ratio
1 Lone Hill Ave
(Route 66 –
Gladstone St)
R27: Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers 305.9 $4,588,779 $15,000 100% R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI] 5-10 30.6 $4,588,779 $150,000 100% R35PB: Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) <5 131.4 $3,285,919 $25,000 90% R21: Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) 5-10 121.3 $18,189,753 $150,000 100% R32PB: Enhance Bike Facilities 5-10 12.3 $2,766,085 $225,000 90% 2 Gladstone St
(Sunflower Ave
– Lone Hill Ave)
R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI] 5-10 28.9 $4,338,893 $150,000 100% R32PB: Enhance Bike Facilities 5-10 0.1 $19,285 $225,000 90% 3 Grand Ave
(Baseline Rd –
Arrow Hwy)
R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI] 5-10 24.0 $3,594,015 $150,000 100% R35PB: Enhance Bike Facilities <5 127.4 $3,184,811 $25,000 90% 4 Sunflower Ave
(Gladstone St –
Arrow Hwy)
R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI] <5 42.5 $3,184,811 $75,000 100% 5 Route 66
(Glendora Ave –
Loraine Ave)
R27: Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers <5 191.4 $2,871,662 $15,000 100% R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI] 5-10 19.1 $2,871,662 $150,000 100% R32PB: Install Bike Facilities 5-10 1.7 $385,388 $225,000 90% 6 Gladstone St
(Barranca Ave –
Grand Ave)
R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI] <5 40.9 $3,066,090 $75,000 100% R01: Add segment lighting <5 142.8 $10,710,257 $75,000 100% R32PB: Install Bike Facilities <5 27.7 $3,185,250 $115,000 90% 7 Barranca Ave
(Baseline Rd –
Gladstone St)
R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI] <5 39.3 $2,946,216 $75,000 100% R01: Add segment lighting <5 141.4 $10,601,666 $75,000 100% R32PB: Install Bike Facilities <5 27.7 $3,185,250 $115,000 90% 8 Route 66
(Loraine Ave –
Amelia Ave)
R27: Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers <5 90.3 $2,256,435 $25,000 100% R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI] 5-10 10.0 $2,256,435 $225,000 100% R32PB: Install bike facilities 10+ 1.2 $404,420 $350,000 90% R21: Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) 5-10 36.8 $8,273,595 $225,000 100% 9 Foothill Blvd
(Citrus Ave –
Grand Ave)
R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI] 5-10 17.7 $2,649,978 $150,000 100% R35PB: Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) <5 18.2 $454,452 $25,000 90% R32PB: Install bike facilities 5-10 2.0 $454,452 $225,000 90% 10 Gladstone St
(Glendora Ave –
Sunflower Ave)
R27: Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers <5 117.9 $1,768,316 $15,000 100% R22: Upgrade signing and striping [SI] 5-10 11.8 $1,768,316 $150,000 100% R21: Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) 5-10 43.2 $6,483,823 $150,000 100% Item #23. Page 65
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 789
62 8. Evaluation Process
To evaluate the success of this plan, measures of success were identified. Each of these measures is associated with one of the goals of the plan.
1. Goal: Have zero fatal and severe injury collisions on City roadways ▷Measure of Success: Progress toward this goal will be measured by the annual numbers of fatal and severe injury collisions on local roadways in the City of Glendora.
A trend toward zero will indicate movement toward success in achieving the goal.
2. Goal: Reduce the number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions on City roadways ▷Measure of Success: Progress toward this goal will be measured by the annual numbers of collisions that involve pedestrians and cyclists on City roads. A downward trend will indicate movement toward success.
3. Goal: Exchange information and ideas specific to enhancing roadway safety performance through engineering, enforcement, and educational strategies ▷Measure of Success: Success will be indicated by a satisfactory number of useful exchanges of information and ideas.
4. Goal: Improve available collision data
▷Progress toward this goal will be measured by the availability of improved collision data beyond what is currently available.
5. Goal: Utilize community and traffic safety stakeholder input to identify opportunities to improve roadway safety
▷Measure of Success: Progress toward this goal will be measured by the annual number of broadside collisions on City roads. A downward trend will indicate movement toward success.
6. Goal: Reduce the number of broadside collisions
▷Measure of Success: Progress toward this goal will be measured by the number of opportunities to improve roadway safety that are identified using community and traffic safety stakeholder input.
7. Goal: Systemically implement safety countermeasures proven to reduce Improper Turning
▷Measure of Success: Progress toward this goal will be measured by the number of safety countermeasures proven to reduce Improper Turning that are implemented on City roads.
Item #23. Page 66
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 790
63 9.Next Steps
The City of Glendora will present the Local Road Safety Plan to the City Council for adoption on [insert date]. This LRSP will be a living document that can be updated as needed.
Progress toward the goals will be monitored. The LRSP will guide the City’s roadway safety efforts for the next five years.
Item #23. Page 67
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 791
64 10. References
American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO). Highway Safety Manual, 1st Edition, 2014 supplement.
California Transportation Commission. “Active Transportation Program (ATP).” https://catc. ca.gov/programs/active-transportation-program
Caltrans. California Safe Roads: 2020-2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan. https://dot. ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/shsp/-2024-2020shspreport-march-2021-a11y.pdf Caltrans. California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), Revision 5, 2014.
Caltrans. “Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).” https://dot.ca.gov/ programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvementprogram Caltrans. Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners. Version 1.5, April 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/local-assistance/documents/ hsip/2020/lrsm2020.pdf
Federal Highway Administration. “Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program.” https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/cmaq. cfm
Federal Highway Administration. Developing Safety Plans: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa12017/fhwasa12017.pdf Federal Highway Administration. “Local and Rural Road Safety Briefing Sheets: Local Road Safety Plans.” https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa14088/ Federal Highway Administration. “Network Screening with Crash Data – Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO).” https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/ fhwasa14072/sec4.cfm
Glendora, City of. Glendora General Plan. https://www.cityofglendora.org/departmentsservices/planning/applications-documents/general-plan-specific-plans/glendora-generalplan Institute of Transportation Engineers. “Safe System.” https://www.ite.org/technicalresources/topics/safe-systems/ Los Angeles County. “Vision Zero.” https://pw.lacounty.gov/visionzero/ U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov
Vision Zero. “What is Vision Zero?” https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-visionzero/ Item #23. Page 68
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 792
65 Appendix A: Equity Analysis
For this LRSP, underserved communities in the City of Glendora were identified using GIS data provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Census Bureau.
Underserved communities are identified consistently with the Office of Management and Budget’s Interim Guidance for the Justice40 Initiative and the Historically Disadvantaged Community designation. Underserved communities, identified at the census tract level, are provided via an interactive mapping tool by the U.S. Department of Transportation at the following link:
https://usdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/99f9268777ff4218867ceedfabe58a3a Of the 12 high-injury intersections for which countermeasures are identified in this LRSP, 6 are in underserved areas according to the data cited above. Of the 10 high-injury corridors for which countermeasures are identified, 6 within or partly within underserved areas. The locations of the high-injury intersections and corridors, along with the underserved areas, are shown in Figure 27 on the following page.
An initial assessment of the equity impact of the proposed countermeasures indicates that the countermeasures, once implemented, will have a positive impact on the surrounding communities. This assessment includes all of the countermeasures in this LRSP that are located within underserved areas. The proposed countermeasures are expected to have a positive effect on safety for all road users, including bicyclists and pedestrians, as outlined in the preceding sections.
As an example, pedestrian- or bicycle-related improvements are recommended for 5 of the 6 intersections identified for countermeasures that are in underserved areas. These countermeasures include crosswalks, bike lanes, and a pedestrian scramble.
Item #23. Page 69
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 793
66 Figure 27. Underserved areas and high-injury intersections and corridors Item #23. Page 70
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 794
RECEIVE, REVIEW AND CERTIFY THE 2022 CITY
OF GLENDORA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
(STRATEGIC PLAN ITEM 46 - IMCIF)
Public Works, Engineering
City Council
August 23, 2022
Michael Mai, Associate Civil Engineer CityOfGlendora.org Item #23. Page 71
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 795
2 Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Item #23. Page 72
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 796
3 Safety Data Analyses
Crash Type Crash
Severity
Primary
Collision
Factor
Month
Weather
Conditions
Time of Day,
Day of Week
Road
Surface
Lighting
conditions
Crash by
Year
Alcohol & Drug
Involvement
Item #23. Page 73
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 797
4 Prioritized Projects
Location Countermeasure
Gladstone St. &
Barranca Ave.
Protected left-turn
phase
Baseline Rd. &
Grand Ave.
Convert pedestal
signal to mast-arm
Gladstone St. &
Sunflower Ave.
Protected left-turn
phase
Route 66 &
Barranca Ave.
Convert pedestal
signal to mast-arm
Juanita Ave. &
Sunflower Ave.
Protected left-turn
phase
Gladstone St. &
Valley Center Ave.
Protected left-turn
phase
Item #23. Page 74
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 798
5 FISCAL IMPACT
- Approval of LRSP has no Fiscal Impact.
- Total cost of developing the LRSP report was $53,438, with $48,000 provided by State funds. - HSIP funding may pay up to 100% of the proposed countermeasures.
Item #23. Page 75
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 799
6 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Receive, review and certify the 2022 City of Glendora Local Road Safety Plan.
That the City Council:
Item #23. Page 76
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 800
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS DATE: AUGUST 23, 2022
FROM: HUMAN RESOURCES DISTRICT(S): CITYWIDE
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A
TENTATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GLENDORA POLICE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (PMA) FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM OF JULY 1, 2022 - JUNE 30, 2025
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:
1. Adopt a City Council Resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GLENDORA POLICE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (PMA) FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM OF JULY 1, 2022 - JUNE 30, 2025.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Glendora Police Management (GPMA) has a current Tentative Agreement with the City that is set to expire January 31, 2024. The association reached out to the City to start negotiations early, and in compliance with the Myers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), representatives from the City and the GPMA began negotiations toward a successor agreement.
Through amicable and productive meetings, the parties were able to reach a tentative successor agreement. Terms of the agreement are summarized below:
Term: July 1, 2022-June 30, 2025
Wage Adjustments:
o Position base salary adjustments July 1, 2022, between 7.8% and 9.6% o All members July 1, 2023: 4%
o All members July 1, 2024: 4%
Flexible Benefits: Increase from $1,400 + 1.5% of base salary to a flat amount of $1,700 per month
Longevity Pay: Fifteen or more years of service increased from $400/month to $500/month
Special Assignment Pay: Temporary 5% when regularly assigned to Administration
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY / PREVIOUS ACTIONS
On August 14, 2018, the Council approved a two-year term Memorandum of Understanding from July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2020, with the Glendora Police Management Association.
On July 20, 2020, the Council approved a successor two-year Tentative Agreement from July 1, 2020, through January 31, 2024 with the Glendora Police Management Association.
Item #24. Page 1
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 801
Staff Report Page 2 of 3
DISCUSSION
Below are the agreed upon deal points of the Tentative Agreement:
Contract Term
Three (3) year contract term: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2025.
This term aligns with Glendora Police Association.
Wages
Effective the first full payroll period commencing on or after:
o July 1, 2022, base salaries to be increased as follows:
Sergeant base salary to be adjusted by 7.8%.
Lieutenant base salary to be adjusted by 8.1%.
Captain base salary to be adjusted by 9.6%.
The proposed adjustments in year 1 are intended to address the ongoing compaction issues between each of the ranks that has existed for more than a decade. These changes will establish a uniform salary schedule for future growth for police management. o July 1, 2023, base salaries to be increased by 4% COLA. o July 1, 2024, base salaries to be increased by 4% COLA.
Years 2 and 3 proposed increases are in line with the POA, which maintain fairness and equity among all public safety members.
Flexible Benefits
Effective the first full payroll period commencing on or after July 1, 2022, PMA members will be allotted a flexible benefit amount of one thousand seven hundred dollars ($1,700) per month.
o All other conditions in Article 11 – Flexible Benefit Plan shall apply including any and all amounts in excess of $1,005 monthly shall not be convertible to cash.
As medical premiums continue to increase the City recognizes the importance of flexible benefit amounts that align with the changes in insurance cost for employees and their families. Flat amount contributions over percentage-based calculations allow the City to correctly calculate the cash in lieu benefits when calculating an employee’s overtime pay under FLSA and in compliance with the 2017 Flores ruling.
Longevity Pay
Employees are eligible for Longevity Pay of $500 per month upon completion of fifteen (15) years of continuous full-time employment with the City of Glendora Police Department.
Special Assignment Pay
Sergeants and Lieutenants regularly assigned to Administration shall receive additional salary compensation of 5%. There will be no retention pay once the assignment has ended.
All other terms and conditions shall remain the same.
Item #24. Page 2
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 802
Staff Report Page 3 of 3
FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of the proposed three-year term Tentative Agreement with the Glendora Police Managers’ Association is estimated to cost approximately $678,056 for the term of the contract.
Each item is detailed below:
July 1, 2022 Base Salary Adjustments with benefits $ 648,959 Flexible Benefit $ 10,436
Longevity $ 14,400
5%Special Assignment Pay for Administration $ 4,261
Total Contract Cost $ 678,056
Average Annual Cost $ 226,019
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.
Prepared By Christi Giannone, Senior Human Resources Analyst Concurs With Not Applicable, Not Applicable
Reviewed By Marie Ricci, Administrative Services Director/City Treasurer Certified to Availability of Funds Marie Ricci, Administrative Services Director/City Treasurer Approved By Adam Raymond, City Manager
Legal Review William W. Wynder, City Attorney
CEQA Review Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Public Notice
B. Resolution
C. Tentative Agreement
Item #24. Page 3
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 803
This notice is posted pursuant to City Council minute action taken at the August 26, 2014 Regular Joint meeting requiring posting a week before item is scheduled to be considered by City Council.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Glendora Police Management Association
Tentative Agreement
The staff report and proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Glendora and the Glendora Police Management Association which will be considered at the August 23, 2022 City Council meeting is accessible on the City’s Website and in the City Clerk’s Office. If you have any questions, please contact Human Resources at (626) 852-4821.
Click to access Draft Staff report and Agreement.
Glendora City Council meetings are held in the Glendora Council Chamber, 116 E. Foothill Boulevard, Glendora, CA.
Thank you
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
Posted: August 16, 2022 through August,23 2022
Item #24. Page 4
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 804
RESOLUTION CC 2022-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A TENTATIVE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GLENDORA POLICE MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION (PMA) FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM OF JULY 1, 2022- JUNE 30, 2025
THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Glendora, California
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDORA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2018 the Glendora City Council approved a two year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Glendora Police Management Association (PMA) and,
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2020 the Glendora City Council approved a successor two-year Tentative Agreement from July 1, 2020, through January 31, 2024 with the PMA and, WHEREAS, representatives of the City of Glendora and PMA have meet and negotiated regarding various terms and conditions of a Tentative Agreement (TA) for a successor MOU attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and, WHEREAS, representatives from PMA and the City in compliance with the MyersMilias-Brown Act (MMBA) will continue to negotiate changes to a successor MOU and return to Council at a future date.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDORA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council approves the Tentative Agreement between the City of Glendora and PMA attached hereto as Exhibit A and authorize the City Manager and Administrative Services Director to sign the agreement.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and shall enter the same in the Book of Original Resolutions.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to email a copy of this resolution to the Human Resources Department.
APPROVED and PASSED this ____ day of August, 2022.
City Council of Glendora, CA
BY:
KAREN DAVIS
Mayor
Item #24. Page 5
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 805
Resolution CC Page 2 of 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
WILLIAM W. WYNDER
City Attorney
CERTIFICATION
I, Kathleen R. Sessman, City Clerk of the City of Glendora, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Glendora at a regular meeting held on the ___ day of August, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Dated:
KATHLEEN R. SESSMAN
City Clerk/Communications Director
Item #24. Page 6
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 806
1 of 3
TENTATIVE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 3505.1
BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF GLENDORA & THE GLENDORA POLICE
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (PMA)
That certain MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“MOU”) by and between the CITY OF GLENDORA, a general law city & municipal corporation (“City” or “Glendora”), and Glendora Police Management Association (“association”) (collectively the “parties”) was scheduled to expire on or about June 30, 2022. On or about August 2, 2022, the parties reached a tentative agreement on select terms for a successor Memorandum of Understanding (the “New MOU”), the deal points of which are set forth below and affirmed by the parties by and through the execution of this formal written Tentative Agreement between the parties’ labor representatives.
This Tentative Agreement represents a joint recommendation from the negotiation teams of both City and Association to City’s City Council. This Tentative Agreement, however, shall not become effective until accepted, approved, and adopted by City’s City Council as specified in California Government Code § 3505.1, which provides:
“If a tentative agreement is reached by the authorized representatives of the public agency and a recognized employee organization or recognized employee organizations, the governing body shall vote to accept or reject the tentative agreement within 30 days of the date it is first considered at a duly noticed public meeting. A decision by the governing body to reject the tentative agreement shall not bar the filing of a charge of unfair practice for failure to meet and confer in good faith. If the governing body adopts the tentative agreement, the parties shall jointly prepare a written memorandum of understanding.” (Emphasis added.)
All terms and conditions of the MOU and the Side Letter shall be maintained unless expressly modified or changed herein and until a New MOU is fully negotiated, reduced to a writing, accepted, approved and adopted by City’s City Council.
TENTATIVE AGREEMENT DEAL POINTS
Contract Term
Three (3) year contract term: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2025.
Wages
Effective the first full payroll period commencing on or after:
o July 1, 2022, base salaries to be increased as follows:
Sergeant base salary to be adjusted by 7.8%.
Lieutenant base salary to be adjusted by 8.1%.
Captain base salary to be adjusted by 9.6%.
o July 1, 2023, base salaries to be increased by 4% COLA. o July 1, 2024, base salaries to be increased by 4% COLA.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB460A69-677D-48AD-8471-E29503553E59 Item #24. Page 7
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 807
2 of 3
Flexible Benefits
Effective the first full payroll period commencing on or after July 1, 2022, PMA members will be allotted a flexible benefit amount of one thousand seven hundred dollars ($1,700) per month.
o All other conditions in Article 11 – Flexible Benefit Plan shall apply including any and all amounts in excess of $1,005 monthly shall not be convertible to cash.
Longevity Pay
Employees are eligible for Longevity Pay of $500 per month upon completion of fifteen (15) years of continuous full-time employment with the City of Glendora Police Department.
Special Assignment Pay
Sergeants and Lieutenants regularly assigned to Administration shall receive additional salary compensation of 5%. There will be no retention pay once the assignment has ended.
All other terms and conditions shall remain the same.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB460A69-677D-48AD-8471-E29503553E59 Item #24. Page 8
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 808
3 of 3
The parties agree to this tentative agreement (TA) on this 23rd day of August, 2022.
CITY OF GLENDORA
Dated: By:
Adam Raymond
City Manager
Dated: By:
Marie Ricci
Administrative Services Director/City Treasurer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
William Wynder
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathleen R. Sessman
City Clerk/Communications Director
GLENDORA POLICE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (PMA)
Dated: By:
Tim Crawford
PMA President
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB460A69-677D-48AD-8471-E29503553E59 Aug 4, 2022 | 8:08 AM PDT
Aug 4, 2022 | 8:11 AM PDT
Item #24. Page 9
Meeting Date: 8/23/2022 / Packet Page #: 809