18.O.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2026-157 4
1111
2222
3333
4444
5555
6666
7777
8888
9999
10101010
11111111
12121212
13131313
14141414
15151515
16161616
17171717
18181818
19191919
20202020
21212121
22222222
23232323
24242424
25252525
26262626
27272727
28282828 State of California )
County of Riverside )
City of Hemet )
I, Rosalia A. Butler, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hemet, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Hemet City Council on the 8th day of September, 2026, and was passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
_____________________________
Rosalia A. Butler, MMC, City Clerk
18.O.
City of Hemet
City Council Meeting
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council Meeting - Sep 08 2026
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Noah Rau, Interim City Manager
Elodie Klug, Deputy City Clerk;
☐ Receive and File ☒ Consent Calendar ☐ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing TITLE:
Extension of Planning Commission Seat Three Appointment Recruitment RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:
Authorize the extension of the recruitment period for the Planning Commissioner Seat Three appointments and direct staff to reopen the application period through September 30, 2026.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The previous Planning Commission Seat Three recruitment has expired. Staff recommends reissuing the recruitment to broaden the applicant pool. Applications will be accepted through September 30, 2026.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
The Planning Commission consists of five members appointed by the City Council. Pursuant to Section 7.2 of the City Council Protocols adopted December 10, 2024, each Commission seat is assigned to a Council Member by District, with the respective Council Member reviewing applications and recommending an applicant for their assigned seat. The recommendation is then presented to the City Council for consideration of appointment.
The previous recruitment period for the unscheduled vacancy of Seat Three has expired, and sufficient time has elapsed to warrant reopening the recruitment. Reissuing the recruitment will provide an opportunity to broaden the pool of qualified applicants for the City Council’s consideration; the recruitment flyer is referenced in Attachment 1.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
18.P.
On August 12, 2025, the Hemet City Council appointed Claudia Barahona to the Planning Commission to fill the unscheduled vacancy in Seat Three and to serve the remaining term until April 1, 2027.
STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:
GOAL THREE: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
To connect and participate in a constant dialogue between members of the community, City staff, and elected officials to promote togetherness and positivity.
Objective 1: Deliver messaging to the Community that connects, is consistent, and relevant.
Objective 2: Increase transparency for the public.
Objective 3: Increase the community's pride within the City.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ALTERNATIVE(S):
Provide direction to make additional advertising efforts to solicit applications for the Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment 1: City of Hemet Planning Commission Recruitment Flyer
18.P.
(951) 765-2395 [email protected] hemetca.gov
SUPPORT YOUR COMMUNITY BY ADVISING ON IMPORTANT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MATTERS THAT SHAPE THE
CITY.
SUPPORT YOUR COMMUNITY BY ADVISING ON IMPORTANT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MATTERS THAT SHAPE THE
CITY.
Advisory
Body Application
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
The City of Hemet is currently conducting a recruitment to fill an unscheduled vacancy on the Planning Commission - Term Expiring in April, 2027.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
The City of Hemet is currently conducting a recruitment to fill an unscheduled vacancy on the Planning Commission - Term Expiring in April, 2027.
RECRUITMENT WILL REMAIN OPEN UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30, 2026.
PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT
ONLINE AT HEMETCA.GOV/ADVISORYBODYAPPLICATION.
PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT
ONLINE AT HEMETCA.GOV/ADVISORYBODYAPPLICATION.
Questions? Contact the City Clerk's Office for more information. Interviews will be scheduled and coordinated through the City Clerk's Office following the application deadline.
Questions? Contact the City Clerk's Office for more information. Interviews will be scheduled and coordinated through the City Clerk's Office following the application deadline.
Rosalia A. Butler, MMC
City Clerk
Rosalia A. Butler, MMC
City Clerk
CITY OF HEMET
NOTICE OF RECRUITMENT FOR UNSCHEDULED
VACANCY
CITY OF HEMET
NOTICE OF RECRUITMENT FOR UNSCHEDULED
VACANCY
PLANNING COMMISSION
18.P.
City of Hemet
City Council Meeting
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council Meeting - Sep 08 2026
Department: Public Works
Submitted by: Noah Rau, Interim City Manager
Jilleen Ferris, Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer; ☐ Receive and File ☐ Consent Calendar ☒ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing TITLE:
A Resolution Adopting the City of Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP), CIP 2402 RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolution (Attachment No. 1):
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-144 – A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HEMET, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE CITY OF HEMET COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION
PLAN (CSAP)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Draft Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) is a citywide strategic planning document developed under a Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant. It analyzes five years of collision data (2020–2024), identifies a High Injury Network, incorporates extensive public and stakeholder engagement, and prioritizes engineering, operational, education, enforcement, and policy strategies to reduce and ultimately eliminate fatal and severe injury collisions. The Plan also includes School Mobility Assessments for all public schools in the City.
Adoption of the CSAP fulfills all eight required SS4A components, positions the City to pursue future SS4A Implementation Grants and other safety funding, and advances the City’s Vision Zero goal.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the CSAP.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act established the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) discretionary grant program to support regional, local, and Tribal initiatives focused on reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries. The program provides funding for the preparation of Comprehensive Safety Action Plans and subsequent implementation projects consistent with the U.S.
Department of Transportation's National Roadway Safety Strategy.
19.A.
In June 2023, City staff submitted an application to prepare a citywide Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. Following coordination with the U.S. Department of Transportation regarding regional planning efforts, the City was notified on December 20, 2023 that its application had been selected for funding.
On July 9, 2024, the City Council approved the grant agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation. The required local match was programmed through the City's Measure A Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and included as Capital Improvement Project (CIP) No. 2402. On April 8, 2025, the City Council awarded a professional services agreement to Chen Ryan Associates, Inc. (CRA) to prepare the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan.
Development of the CSAP included extensive technical analysis, stakeholder coordination, and community engagement. A Project Task Force consisting of representatives from City departments, Caltrans, Riverside County, WRCOG, Riverside Transit Agency, Hemet Unified School District, Riverside University Health System, community organizations, and residents met throughout the planning process to provide guidance and review key project milestones. Public outreach included three community workshops, multiple community pop-up events, and bilingual engagement efforts designed to reach residents throughout the community.
Completed in July 2026, the Draft CSAP, included as Attachment 2, analyzes five years of collision data (2020-2024), identifies the City's High Injury Network, evaluates transportation equity considerations, and recommends engineering, education, enforcement, emergency response, and policy strategies to improve safety throughout the community. The Plan identifies 47 priority project areas across the City, including 20 high-priority projects supported by conceptual exhibits and planning-level cost estimates, establishes a framework for monitoring implementation, and includes School Mobility Assessments for every public school within the City.
DISCUSSION:
The CSAP establishes the City's long-term strategy for improving transportation safety through a proactive, data-driven approach. Rather than responding only after serious collisions occur, the Plan identifies roadway characteristics and systemic risk factors associated with severe crashes, allowing the City to prioritize improvements before additional collisions occur.
The Plan satisfies all eight required elements of the federal SS4A program, making Hemet eligible to pursue future SS4A Implementation Grants and strengthening the City's competitiveness for other transportation safety funding programs, including the Active Transportation Program (ATP), Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), and other state and federal grant opportunities.
The Plan has already demonstrated immediate value. Prior to formal adoption, the City leveraged the CSAP and the School Mobility Assessments for Tahquitz High School, Rancho Viejo Middle School, and Cawston Elementary School to support the recently submitted ATP Cycle 8 grant application for the Cawston Avenue Safety Improvements Project. Similarly, recommendations developed through the CSAP formed the basis of the City's previously submitted SS4A Implementation Grant application for the Mustang Way/Sanderson Avenue corridor. It is worth noting that the Draft CSAP, School Mobility Assessments and related project materials can be found on the City's Comprehensive Safety Action Plan project webpage:
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) webpage
19.A.
Adoption of the CSAP does not authorize construction of any individual project, amend the General Plan, or modify land use designations or zoning. Rather, the Plan establishes a long-range framework for future transportation safety investments. Individual projects identified in the CSAP will continue to undergo separate design, environmental review, public outreach, funding, and City Council approval prior to implementation.
On August 18, 2026, the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Comprehensive Safety Action Plan, provided feedback and unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the Plan. During its review, continued interest was expressed in improving intersection operations, traffic signal coordination, and overall traffic flow within the City. While these operational considerations are not the primary focus of the CSAP, the Plan identifies related intersection and traffic signal improvements among its recommended safety countermeasures. In addition, the City’s recently approved Capital Improvement Program includes CIP 2517, which provides a framework and funding to advance traffic signal coordination and related intersection improvements, including along State Street and other critical corridors.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
This item has previously been considered by the City Council as follows:
May 14, 2024 – Approved Measure A 5-Year CIP update including maximum match funding of $160,000 for the CSAP project.
July 9, 2024 – Approved agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation for SS4A funding to develop a comprehensive safety action plan.
August 13, 2024 – Adopted annual update to the City’s 5-Year Capital Improvement Program, including the project as CIP 2402.
April 8, 2025 – Awarded professional services agreement to Chen Ryan Associates, Inc. to prepare the CSAP (CIP 2402).
May 12, 2026 – Adopted Resolution 2026-060 establishing the Vision Zero initiative and aspiring data-driven commitment to eliminate severe and fatal traffic collisions by 2031.
STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:
GOAL THREE: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
To connect and participate in a constant dialogue between members of the community, City staff, and elected officials to promote togetherness and positivity.
Objective 1: Deliver messaging to the Community that connects, is consistent, and relevant.
Objective 2: Increase transparency for the public.
Objective 3: Increase the community's pride within the City.
GOAL FIVE: ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
To identify the work needed inside the City organization to effectively provide services to the community and ensure financial stability.
Objective 1: Operate in a financially sustainable manner.
Objective 2: Evaluate existing practices to ensure continuity with industry best practices.
Objective 3: Provide Council with policies that are consistent while lessening liabilities.
Objective 4: Increase employee retention by training and creating a positive workplace.
Objective 5: Streamline fire prevention coordination efforts.
19.A.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no additional fiscal impact associated with adoption of the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. Preparation of the Plan was funded through the previously awarded federal Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant and the previously appropriated local match under CIP 2402. Adoption of the CSAP does not authorize construction of any individual project or commit the City to future expenditures. Implementation of individual projects will remain subject to future City Council approval, available funding, and Capital Improvement Program prioritization.
ALTERNATIVE(S):
1. Decline to adopt the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan.
2. Provide alternative direction to the Interim City Manager.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment No. 1 - Resolution 2026-144 CSAP
Attachment No. 2 - Hemet CSAP - DRAFT Report July 2026 With Appendices
19.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2026-144 1
1111
2222
3333
4444
5555
6666
7777
8888
9999
10101010
11111111
12121212
13131313
14141414
15151515
16161616
17171717
18181818
19191919
20202020
21212121
22222222
23232323
24242424
25252525
26262626
27272727
28282828
CITY OF HEMET
HEMET, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-144
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE HEMET
COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN (CSAP)
The City Council of the City of Hemet, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act established the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) discretionary grant program to support local initiatives that reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries; and WHEREAS, the City of Hemet successfully secured SS4A grant funding to prepare a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (“CSAP” or the “Plan”) to improve transportation safety throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2024, the City Council approved the grant agreement with the United States Department of Transportation for development of the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2025, the City Council awarded a professional services agreement to Chen Ryan Associates, Inc. to prepare the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, preparation of the CSAP included technical analysis of roadway safety conditions, evaluation of five years of collision data, identification of the City's High Injury Network, transportation equity analysis, School Mobility Assessments for all
19.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2026-144 2
1111
2222
3333
4444
5555
6666
7777
8888
9999
10101010
11111111
12121212
13131313
14141414
15151515
16161616
17171717
18181818
19191919
20202020
21212121
22222222
23232323
24242424
25252525
26262626
27272727
28282828
public schools within the City, stakeholder coordination, and extensive public outreach; and
WHEREAS, the Plan establishes a long-term, data-driven framework for improving transportation safety by identifying prioritized engineering, education, enforcement, emergency response, and policy strategies intended to reduce fatal and serious injury traffic collisions throughout the City; and WHEREAS, the Plan fulfills the eight required components of the Safe Streets and Roads for All program and positions the City to pursue future federal, state, and regional transportation safety funding opportunities; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-060 establishing the City's Vision Zero initiative and setting a goal of eliminating fatal and severe injury traffic collisions by 2031, and the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan serves as the implementation framework supporting that policy direction; and WHEREAS, adoption of the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan does not authorize construction of any individual project, amend the City's General Plan, modify land use designations or zoning, or commit the City to future capital expenditures.
Individual projects identified within the Plan will remain subject to future design, environmental review, funding availability, and City Council approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Comprehensive Safety Action Plan on August 18, 2026, received public testimony, provided comments, and recommended that the City Council adopt the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the staff report, considered all public testimony, and determined that adoption of the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan is in
19.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2026-144 3
1111
2222
3333
4444
5555
6666
7777
8888
9999
10101010
11111111
12121212
13131313
14141414
15151515
16161616
17171717
18181818
19191919
20202020
21212121
22222222
23232323
24242424
25252525
26262626
27272727
28282828
the best interest of the City of Hemet and will further the City's commitment to improving transportation safety for all roadway users; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies), because the Plan is a planning document that identifies and evaluates potential future transportation safety improvements without authorizing or committing the City to any specific construction project or physical change to the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds that adoption of the Plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies).
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the Plan, attached hereto as Attachment No. 1.
SECTION 4. Adoption of the Plan establishes a long-term policy framework to guide future transportation safety improvements and funding opportunities. Adoption of the Plan does not constitute approval or authorization of any individual capital improvement project, nor does it obligate the City to construct any project identified therein.
19.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2026-144 4
1111
2222
3333
4444
5555
6666
7777
8888
9999
10101010
11111111
12121212
13131313
14141414
15151515
16161616
17171717
18181818
19191919
20202020
21212121
22222222
23232323
24242424
25252525
26262626
27272727
28282828
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, whereupon it shall take effect immediately.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 2026. ___________________________
Linda Krupa, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
________________________ __________________________
Steven Graham Pacifico, City Attorney Rosalia A. Butler, MMC, City Clerk State of California )
County of Riverside )
City of Hemet )
I, Rosalia A. Butler, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hemet, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Hemet City Council on the 8th day of September, 2026, and was passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
_____________________________
Rosalia A. Butler, MMC, City Clerk
19.A.
Hemet
Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan
July 2026 DRAFT
19.A.
Acknowledgements
Task Force Members
Linda Krupa, Mayor (District 5)
Emery Papp, City of Hemet Community Development Deputy Director Glen Brock, Hemet Police Department Captain
Matthew Chavez, Hemet Police Department Sergeant
Cameron Phillips, Hemet Fire Department Interim Fire Chief Kristian Ticas, City of Hemet Community Solutions Coordinator Gregg Holyoak, City of Hemet Public Works Operations Manager Kurt Mikolaycik, City of Hemet Public Works Facilities Maintenance Supervisor Darrin Watters, Hemet Unified Deputy Superintendent
Mike Sattley, Hemet Unified Director of Facilities & Planning Cyndi Lemke, Hemet Resident
Christine Formica, Hemet Resident
Mallory Cremin, Hemet Resident
Christopher Tzeng, Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Program Manager - Planning, Transportation & Planning
Jennifer Nguyen, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Director of Planning Albert Vergel de Dios, Caltrans District 8 District Local Assistance Engineer Valerie Rodrigues, Riverside University Health System-Public Health (RUHS-PH) Program Coordinator II James Salvador, Valley-Wide Parks & Rec, Director of Planning and Public Works John Merrill, County of Riverside
Project Team
City of Hemet
Noah Rau, Interim City Manager
Jilleen Ferris, Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer Jennifer Cortes, Communications and Events Coordinator
Eric McBride, Executive Analyst
Eric Bunge, Executive Analyst
Consultant Team
CR Associates
STC Traffic, Inc.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan ii
19.A.
Contents
Executive Summary 1
Chapter 1: Introduction 5
1.1 Safe System Approach Overview 8
1.2 Hemet's Safety Commitment Resolution 10
1.3 Vision Statement and Goals 11
Chapter 2: Public and Stakeholder Engagement 12
2.1 Project Task Force 14
2.2 Public Workshops 17
Chapter 3: Safety Analysis 21
3.1 Collision Injury Severity 23
3.2 Collision by Type of Impact 24
3.3 Collision by Time of Day 26
3.4 Intersection and Segment Collision Frequency 27
3.5 High Injury Network 32
3.6 Systemic and High Risk Environments 35
Chapter 4: Equity Analysis 39
4.1 Demographics 40
4.2 Disadvantaged Community Measures 44
Chapter 5: Countermeasures 51
Chapter 6: Project Recommendations 56
6.1 Project Prioritization 59
6.2 High Priority Projects 62
Chapter 7: Policy Analysis and Recommendations 114
Chapter 8: Monitoring and Evaluation 119
8.1 Monitoring Countermeasure Implementation 120
8.2 Safety Benchmarking with Future Collision Data 121
8.3 Monitoring Before and After Conditions 123
8.4 Annual Stakeholders Meeting and Summary Report 124
Appendices 125
A SS4A Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet
B Hemet City Council Vision Zero Resolution
C Public Workshop Summaries
D Safety Analysis Report
E Countermeasure Toolbox
F High Priority Project Cost Estimates
G Medium and Long Range Project Descriptions
H Mustang/Sanderson Plan View Concepts for Full Corridor Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan iii
19.A.
Figures
Figure 3.1 Collisions by Mode Categories and Location 22 Figure 3.2 Collisions by Injury Severity 23
Figure 3.4 Vehicular-Only Collisions by Type of Impact – Severe and Fatal Outcomes 24 Figure 3.3 Vehicular-Only Collisions by Type of Impact 24 Figure 3.5 Severe and Fatal Collisions by Time of Day 26 Figure 3.6 Vehicular-Only Injury Collisions (2020–2024) 28 Figure 3.7 Pedestrian-Involved Injury Collisions (2020–2024) 31 Figure 3.8 Bicyclist-Involved Injury Collisions (2020–2024) 33 Figure 3.9 High Injury Network 34
Figure 4.1 Youth and Senior Population 40
Figure 4.2 Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool 46 Figure 4.3 CalEnviroScreen 46
Figure 4.4 Healthy Places Index 49
Figure 4.5 Caltrans Transportation Equity Index 49
Figure 4.6 Equity Need Areas 50
Figure 6.1 Hemet CSAP Project Areas 58
Tables
Table 3.1 Collisions by Mode 22
Table 3.2 Most Common Vehicular-Only Collisions Intersection Locations 27 Table 3.3 Most Common Pedestrian-Involved Collision Intersection Locations 30 Table 3.4 Most Common Bicyclist-Involved Collision Intersection Locations 32 Table 3.5 Violation Causes for Leading Collision Types at Intersections 36 Table 3.6 Violation Causes for Leading Collision Types at Midblock Locations 37 Table 4.1 Percentage Share of Hemet and Riverside County’s Population that is BIPOC 41 Table 4.2 Household Vehicle Ownership 42
Table 6.1 Project Prioritization Results 60
Table 7.1 Traffic Signal Specific Recommendations 118
Table 8.1 Severe and Fatal Collision Characteristics Monitoring 122 Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan iv
19.A.
Executive
Summary
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 1
19.A.
The Safety Action Plan follows the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (U.S. DOT) Safe Streets for All (SS4A) program’s guidance for the content of such reports (presented in Chapter 1), a requirement to ensure Hemet’s eligibility for SS4A grant funding for future transportation safety projects. This Safety Action Plan is a demonstration of Hemet’s policy commitment toward Vision Zero, which is the goal to take the measures necessary to eliminate trafficrelated deaths and serious injuries. The Safety Action Plan identifies this goal, and four others:
safe and connected infrastructure for all users, speed management with improved traffic operations, shovel-ready project recommendations and expanded safety education through community partnerships.
Under SS4A requirements, Safety Action Plans must have adequately engaged with the public and local stakeholders throughout the plan process. For Hemet’s Safety Action Plan, this included in-person workshops, where a diverse and multi-generational public provided thoughtful input, relaying their experience with local traffic safety issues and issue locations, and their feedback on components of the study such as the Safety Assessment, countermeasure selection and project prioritization. A Task Force comprised of representatives from Hemet City staff, Hemet Police and Fire Departments, Hemet Unified School District, Caltrans District 8, Western Riverside Council of Governments, County of Riverside, Riverside Transit Agency, and the Green Coalition of Hemet and San Jacinto convened on multiple occasions over the span of the project to help guide the development of the Safety Action Plan. They contributed to shaping plan elements such as the Safety Assessment, collaborated on the plans vision and goals, helped identify issues and locations for recommendations, and provided feedback on the draft Action Plan. All public engagement activities are summarized in Chapter 2.
The Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action
Plan (Safety Action Plan) is a strategic
planning report that analyzes the causes
and attributes of recent traffic collision
history, examines the safety risks of
the local transportation environment
and recommends countermeasures to
prevent future severe injury and fatal
traffic collisions on local roadways.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 2
Executive Summary
19.A.
The report contains a detailed Safety
Assessment (Appendix D and summarized
in Chapter 3), which analyzed the attributes,
causes and injury severities of collisions
involving all modes of transportation
occurring between January 2020 and
December 2024. The assessment informed
the identification of a High Injury Network
(HIN), which is a subset of Hemet roadways
that are the least safe in the city based
on injury collision concentration and
patterns. The HIN was subsequently used
to identify project areas for countermeasure
recommendations.
Some of the key findings of the Safety Assessment included:
◆ Pedestrians and bicyclists are extremely vulnerable to severe injury or worse compared to vehicular parties involved in collisions.
Ɣ About 25% of all pedestrian-involved collisions and 15% of all bicyclist-involved collisions resulted in a fatal or severe injury. In contrast, parties sustained fatal or severe injuries in just 6% of all vehicular-only collisions.
Ɣ About 14% of all pedestrian-involved collisions resulted in a fatality, a rate of fatality ten times higher than in vehicular-only collisions.
◆ Broadsides and rear-ends were the most common collision types of vehicular-only collisions. ◆ Broadsides and hit object collisions were the most common collision types in severe and fatal vehicular-only collisions.
◆ About three-quarters (76%) of all pedestrian-involved severe and fatal collisions occurred between during evening and overnight periods, when visibility conditions are impacted by darkness.
◆ The Sanderson Avenue & Mustang Way intersection had three vehicular-only severe or fatal collisions, more severe or fatal collisions than any other intersection in the City ◆ Two intersections had four or more pedestrian-involved collisions. They were:
Ɣ Lyon Avenue & Florida Avenue (five collisions)
Ɣ Sanderson Avenue & Stetson Avenue (four collisions, including two severe or fatal collisions) ◆ Two intersections had four bicyclist-involved collisions, no other locations had more than two. Those locations were San Jacinto Street & Acacia E Avenue, and Sanderson Avenue & Stetson Avenue.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
High Injury Network
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 3
Executive Summary
19.A.
Social equity need was evaluated in Chapter 4, where
the socio-economic characteristics of Hemet were
analyzed and the relationship of several measures of
equity need to local severe and fatal injury collisions was examined. The Safety Action Plan assessed the
Climate and Environmental Justice Screening Tool,
CalEnvrioScreen, Healthy Places Index and Caltrans’
Transportation Equity Index.
Referencing guidance from resources including the
U.S. DOT/FHWA’s 28 Proven Safety Countermeasures
and Caltrans’ 2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual,
safety countermeasures were identified that treat the
causes of eight different types of collisions: rear-ends, broadsides, sideswipes, head-ons, Driving Under the
Influence, pedestrian-vehicle and bicyclist-vehicle.
The Countermeasure Toolbox (Appendix E and briefly
summarized in Chapter 5) describes the effectiveness of over 50 countermeasures – including potential treatments at intersections, traffic signals, midblock segments and along rural roads.
In Chapter 6, forty-seven (47) project areas were
identified around the City which covered the HIN
and all City-operated signalized intersections.
The needs, safety issues, opportunities and
challenges, and any previously identified mobility
recommendations from other Hemet projects and
studies were considered when determining the
recommended countermeasures for each project
area. The project areas were ultimately prioritized
using criteria that considered crash injury history,
safety risk, equity need, and community need,
among other inputs. The twenty highest scoring
projects from the prioritization ranking process
were selected, with each high priority project
receiving detailed project descriptions, conceptual exhibits and preliminary cost estimates. The content from these high priority project sheets will be used to help Hemet pursue grant funding for the implementation of those projects.
Monitoring and transparency are essential to ensuring accountability toward achieving Vision Zero goals. In Chapter 8, the Safety Action Plan includes monitoring recommendations to follow the progress of countermeasure implementation, including qualitative and quantitative supplemental before/after assessments of implemented Safety Action Plan projects, and guidance for the continued periodic monitoring of collision data using benchmarks established from the period of data used in the Safety Assessment.
Conceptual exhibit from Mustang Way/
Sanderson Avenue high priority project
Except from Countermeasure Toolbox
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 4
Executive Summary
19.A.
Chapter 1:
Introduction
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 5
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
1.1 Safe System Approach Overview
The SS4A grant program follows the Safe System Approach, a more contemporary, holistic transportation safety policy paradigm. The Safe System Approach strives towards the elimination of traffic fatalities and severe injuries through the advancement of safer transportation design practices, mitigating the causes of collisions in high risk environments proactively and emphasizing the social importance of transportation safety. The recommendations of this Safety Action Plan, presented in the later chapters of this report, observe that guidance.
At the foundation of the Safe System Approach are these core principles:
◆ Death and serious injuries are unacceptable: prevention of the types of crashes that result in death and severe injuries should be a higher priority than non-life-threatening crashes. ◆ Humans make mistakes: transportation system design should always anticipate the likelihood that human decision-making errors will lead to crashes. ◆ Humans are vulnerable: human-centric design and scaling are essential in transportation to ensure that when crashes occur, they are at impact
levels the human body can withstand without
sustaining severe injury.
◆ Responsibility is shared:
all participating stakeholders
in a transportation system
(roadway users, equipment
manufacturers, public
administrators, planning
and design practitioners,
etc.) are accountable for
upholding traffic safety
through their roles.
◆ Safety is proactive: safety
countermeasures should
also be applied preemptively
to locations with safety risk
characteristics, rather than
solely reacting in response to crash
history.
◆ Redundancy is crucial: multiple
elements that provide redundancy
help reduce overall risk because
other parts of the system will
provide backup when one part fails.
Source: U.S. DOT Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)
RESPONSIBILITY IS SHARED
SAFETY IS PROACTIVE
HUMANS ARE VULNERABLE
DEATH/SERIOUS INJURY IS UNACCEPTABLE
R
E
D
U
N
DANCY IS CRUCIAL
HUMANS MAKE
MISTAK
E
SAFE
S
SYSTEM
APPROACH
Safe
Vehicles
Safe Road
Users
Post-Crash
Care
Safe
Roads
Safe
Speeds
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 8
Chapter 1: Introduction
19.A.
19.A.
The core principles of the Safe System Approach are in contrast from preceding road safety paradigms. Those differences are shown in the comparison below.
1.2 Hemet's Safety Commitment Resolution
On May 12, 2026, Hemet City Council unanimously adopted a policy commitment toward Vision Zero (Resolution No. 2026-060). The Resolution signifies the City of Hemet’s adoption of the goal to reduce or eliminate traffic-related deaths and serious injuries by 2031 and endorses Vision Zero as a comprehensive approach to achieving this goal.
Appendix B includes the complete text of Resolution No. 2026-060 – the City’s Vision Zero Resolution.
Source: U.S. DOT Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)
Prevent death
and serious injuries
Design for human
mistakes/limitations
Reduce system
kinetic energy
Shared
responsibility
Proactively identify
and address risks
Traditional Safe System
Whereas traditional road
safety strives to modify
human behavior and prevent
all crashes, the Safe System
Approach also refocuses
transportation system design
and operation on anticipating
human mistakes and lessening
impact forces to reduce crash
severity and save lives.
Prevent
Crashes
Improve
human behavior
Control
speed
Individuals
are responsible
React based
on crash history
The Traditional Road Safety Paradigm
Versus the Safe System Approach
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 10
Chapter 1: Introduction
19.A.
1.3 Vision Statement and Goals
Goals
◆ Reduce Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes:
Implement data-driven strategies and
targeted improvements to eliminate
severe crashes, with a focus on high-injury
locations and systemic safety needs.
◆ Build Safe and Connected Infrastructure
for All Users: Enhance streets to safely
accommodate all modes of travel through
improved crosswalks, bikeways, lighting,
intersection design, and access to schools,
neighborhoods, and commercial areas.
◆ Manage Speed and Improve Operations:
Advance context-sensitive speed
management strategies, improve traffic
signal coordination (including key corridors
such as Stetson Avenue and Sanderson
Avenue), and upgrade traffic control devices
to reduce conflicts and improve safety.
◆ Advance Ready-to-Implement Projects
and Funding: Develop a pipeline of
prioritized, shovel-ready projects and
pursue grant opportunities to accelerate
implementation, particularly in high-need
and underserved areas.
◆ Promote Education, Partnerships, and
Accountability: Expand safety education
programs for all roadway users (including
youth and e-bike users), strengthen
partnerships with schools and local
businesses, and establish measurable
performance targets to track progress.
Vision Statement
A Hemet where everyone can
travel safely – walking, biking,
driving, or taking transit –
without fear of serious injury or
loss of life.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 11
Chapter 1: Introduction
19.A.
Chapter 2:
Public and
Stakeholder
Engagement
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 12
19.A.
19.A.
The goals of the Safety Action Plan’s public engagement strategy were to:
◆ Increase the public’s awareness of the Safety Action Plan process and generate participation.
◆ Collect community observations and lived experiences to supplement the safety analysis. ◆ Solicit input to help shape and prioritize safety recommendations. ◆ Inform the development of implementation actions.
◆ Gather feedback on the draft plan.
Public outreach events for the Safety Action Plan were conducted over a period spanning late Summer 2025 through Spring 2026.
2.1 Project Task Force
The Project Task Force played a pivotal role in guiding the development of the Safety Action Plan. They contributed to shaping plan elements such as the Safety Analysis, the Plan’s vision statement and goals, helped identify issues and locations for recommendations, and provided feedback on the draft Plan. The Task Force participants also leveraged their respective networks to expand awareness of the Safety Action Plan to a broader audience.
Three Task Force meetings were held at key junctures in the project schedule, each virtually via the Microsoft Teams platform. In addition to City of Hemet staff and at-large members of the community, the Project Task Force also included representatives from the following agencies and organizations:
Stakeholders
Hemet Police
and Fire
Departments
Hemet Unified
School District
Caltrans
District 8
Western Riverside
Council of
Governments
County of
Riverside
Riverside Transit
Agency
Green Coalition
of Hemet and
San Jacinto
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 14
Chapter 2: Public and Stakeholder Engagement
19.A.
The activities of all Task Force meetings are described in the following section (complete summaries of each public and stakeholder engagement event, including each Task Force meeting are in Appendix C).
Task Force Meeting 1
The first Task Force meeting was held on October 30, 2025. It provided participants an overview of the Safety Action Plan, its purpose and essential components, and background information on the U.S. DOT’s SS4A program. This initial meeting also clarified the roles and expectations of the Task Force participants.
The meeting included a presentation of the findings of the Safety Analysis and Equity Analysis (required Safety Action Plan components, and the subjects of Chapter 3 and 4 in this Plan, respectively), and an update on the progress of the school area walk audits that were conducted for the Safe Routes to School Action Plan.
In the second half of the meeting, facilitators led the group in a couple of brainstorming exercises: 1) to develop a vision statement and goals for the Safety Action Plan (introduced in Chapter 1), and 2) to share their perspectives on traffic safety issues affecting users of different transportation modes throughout the community. This activity was conducted with city maps over Miro, a web-based collaboration platform that enables users to place graphic objects and notes on exhibits within a virtual whiteboard. Important local issues identified by the Task Force included insufficient street lighting, sidewalk gaps near schools, and the need for improved safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The discussion points contributed by these local stakeholders helped ensure that facilitators from the project team were prepared to discuss a variety of location-specific safety issues ahead of the first workshop that was held the following month.
Task Force participants
had the opportunity
to interactively share
observations on location
specific safety for multiple
transportation modes in
Miro, a virtual platform
for brainstorming and
collaboration.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 15
Chapter 2: Public and Stakeholder Engagement
19.A.
Task Force Meeting 2
The second Task Force meeting happened on March 23, 2026. In this meeting, facilitators introduced the traffic safety countermeasures to be included in the Safety Action Plan’s countermeasure toolbox (Chapter 5 of this report) and the framework for how those countermeasures were identified. The informational content proposed for the countermeasure toolbox was also presented to the Task Force for feedback.
The second half of the meeting
introduced the Safety Action
Plan project areas which were
identified, the Plan's project
prioritization criteria and examples
of the types of countermeasures
that would be proposed with the
project areas. One of the Safety
Action Plan’s project prioritization
criterion is public and stakeholder
input. Votes for which project
areas should be highest priority
were collected from the Task
Force participants in the days after the meeting and later incorporated into the scoring of that prioritization criteria. At the second public workshop, participants were also given the opportunity to vote for their preferred high priority project areas.
Task Force Meeting 3
The third and final Task Force meeting occurred on July 13, 2026. At this meeting, feedback on the Draft Safety Action Plan was received from the Task Force and meeting facilitators discussed the framework for monitoring and evaluating the progress of the Safety Action Plan, following adoption.
Task Force participants had the opportunity to interactively vote for project areas that they felt were the most important.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 16
Chapter 2: Public and Stakeholder Engagement
19.A.
2.2 Public Workshops
Public workshops were in-person events. Each began with a brief presentation and then followed with programming providing opportunities for small groups of participants to engage interactively with exhibits and facilitators. Spanish-fluent facilitators were present and contributed at all three workshops. Facilitators from the project team took notes of any input received from the community at the workshops. Complete summaries of each event are in Appendix C.
Public Workshop 1
The first public workshop took place on the evening of Thursday, November 13, 2025. The event was held at the Hemet Public Library in the large community room. This workshop introduced the project to the public, presented the findings of the Safety Analysis, and provided an update on the progress of the school area walk audits being done in conjunction with the Safe Routes to School Action Plan. Members of the community were also given an opportunity to help shape the Plan’s vision statement, goals, and to contribute their input on specific safety issues and locations of concern in breakout groups with facilitators. A diverse, multi-generational group of participants attended this event, including students and senior citizens. One City Council member attended, as did numerous City staff.
Following a brief overview presentation, guests joined a table with a facilitator. To help stimulate conversation, facilitators
asked what the most important safety
issues were to them. A workshop
exhibit listing some notable issues
at each table served as prompts for
discussion. The most common issues
raised by the participants in this
exercise included insufficient lighting
and speeding traffic.
A large city map was also placed in the
center of each table, and participants
were encouraged to suggest, place
stickers or write on the map in
locations that had especially unsafe
conditions for transportation. During
this activity, participants shared their experiences interacting with traffic, locations where they felt vulnerable and unsafe, and provided other transportation safety insights.
Members of the project team engaged with a group of
Hemet residents at the first public workshop
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 17
Chapter 2: Public and Stakeholder Engagement
19.A.
19.A.
Public Workshop 3
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 19
Chapter 2: Public and Stakeholder Engagement
19.A.
Safety Action Plan Presence at Standing
Community Events ("Pop-ups")
The Safety Action Plan also made efforts to engage the public at standing community events, where facilitators were present at pop-up booths. The benefit of pop-up style engagement is that it reaches larger and more diverse audiences than standalone public workshops. Many of the people engaged at pop-up events contribute valuable insight, though they might not have had the flexibility or willingness to attend a standalone public workshop event. Popup events can also generate better geographic diversity in participants, when the standing community events are localized to neighborhoods.
The Safety Action Plan had a pop-up presence at four standing public events:
◆ National Night Out (August 5, 2025)
◆ Hemet Movie in the Park (August 29, 2025)
◆ Rancho Del Sol Rodeo (September 13, 2025), and
◆ Chalktober Art Festival & Trunk-or-Treat (October 18, 2025) All four of these events occurred in the early stages of the project schedule, and thus the effort was oriented toward obtaining feedback from the public on safety priority issues and locations where safety issues occur. At each event, the pop-up booth featured a large map exhibit and facilitators would take notes on the feedback received from the public. Among the safety issues highlighted by the public at these events were: speeding, running stop signs and traffic signals, lack of sidewalks, and lack of street lighting.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 20
Chapter 2: Public and Stakeholder Engagement
19.A.
Chapter 3:
Safety Analysis
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 21
19.A.
19.A.
3.1 Collision Injury Severity
Figure 3.2 shows the frequency of collisions by worst-case injury severity involving each mode. The total instances are labeled, while the percentage share of each severity category by mode is represented in the y-axis (the height of the bars in the bar graph). 24 26
2 84
23 12
587
76 55
975
67 30
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain 975
Vehicular-Only (1,670 total) Pedestrian-Involved (192 total) Bicyclist-Involved (99 total) Fatal and severe injuries are far more likely to result when pedestrians and bicyclists are parties involved in collisions. Fatalities are ten times more likely to occur in pedestrianinvolved collisions than vehicular-only collisions (about 14% of all crashes involving that mode, compared to 1.4%). The total fatal collisions for these two modes are nearly equal, despite vehicular-only collisions being over eightfold more common.
Vehicular parties are less susceptible to serious injuries than pedestrians or bicyclists because the interiors of automobiles can withstand impact force that an unprotected human body is incapable of and because they are equipped with safety features. This is evident as minor injuries being the worst outcome (complaint of pain) constitute almost 60% of all vehicular-only collisions, a far higher percentage than pedestrian-involved and bicyclist-involved collisions.
Figure 3.2 Collisions by Injury Severity
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 23
Chapter 3: Safety Analysis
19.A.
3.2 Collision by Type of Impact
Figure 3.3 summarizes vehicular-only collisions by the type of impact and includes the overall share of those collision types by the two locational environments, intersection and midblock. Figure 3.4 provides the same information but only for severe and fatal vehicularonly collisions. 600
700
800
500
400
300
200
100
0 Broadside Rear-End Hit Object Head-On Sideswipe Overturned Other Not Stated Intersection Midblock
63.6%
17.1%
17.5%
6.0%
7.0%
6.7%
4.5%
9.9%
0.8%
5.5%
0.5%
0.9%
0.1%
14.9%
45.0%
35 40
45 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Broadside Rear-End Hit Object Head-On Sideswipe Overturned Other Intersection Midblock 6.8% 5.1% 2.0%
20.4%20.4%20.4%
66.1%
22.4%
12.2%
6.8%
13.6%
1.7%
2.0%
Figure 3.3 Vehicular-Only Collisions by Type of Impact
Figure 3.4 Vehicular-Only Collisions by Type of Impact – Severe and Fatal Outcomes Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 24
Chapter 3: Safety Analysis
19.A.
19.A.
3.3 Collision by Time of Day
Figure 3.5 summarizes the time of day (in six-hour periods) when severe or fatal collisions occur most often by mode of collisions.
15 12
1 23
3 3
39 9
2 31
25 60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Overnight
(00:01-05:59)
Morning
(06:00-11:59)
Afternoon
(12:00-17:59)
Evening
(18:00-23:59)
Vehicular-only (108 total) Pedestrian-Involved (49 total) Bicyclist-Involved (14 total) 8 Over half of the pedestrian-involved (51%) and bicyclist-involved collisions (57%) resulting in severe or fatal injuries occur in the evening/late period (from 6:00pm to midnight). When combining the overnight period with evening, the share of severe and fatal collisions increases to over three-quarters (76%) for pedestrian-involved collisions and nearly two-thirds for bicyclist-involved collisions (64%). These two periods, though briefly overlapping with parts of the commute peak periods, are primarily off-peak for travel demand and generally coincide with when ambient conditions are dark. This finding underscores the vulnerability of pedestrian and bicyclist travel during periods of darkness, when their visibility to motorists is poor. This issue is exacerbated by the lack of street lighting on many parts of the transportation network. Almost one-third of all pedestrian-involved severe or fatal collisions occurred in dark conditions with no street lights.
Vehicular-only collisions are most prevalent during the afternoon period, which includes much of the PM commute peak period – typically, the most active travel period on weekdays.
Vehicles are equipped with superior illumination which improves sight distance judgement and their visibility to other motorists, which may partially explain why severe and fatal vehicular-only collisions do not have the same evening and overnight proportions as pedestrian-involved and bicyclist-involved collisions.
Figure 3.5 Severe and Fatal Collisions by Time of Day
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 26
Chapter 3: Safety Analysis
19.A.
19.A.
Figure 3.6 Vehicular-Only Injury Collisions (2020–2024) 28 Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Chapter 3: Safety Analysis
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Figure 3.7 Pedestrian-Involved Injury Collisions (2020–2024) 31 Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Chapter 3: Safety Analysis
19.A.
19.A.
Figure 3.8 Bicyclist-Involved Injury Collisions (2020–2024) 33 Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Chapter 3: Safety Analysis
19.A.
Figure 3.9 High Injury Network
34 Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Chapter 3: Safety Analysis
19.A.
3.6 Systemic and High Risk Environments
To assess what types of collisions and features of the roadway occur disproportionately in Hemet, collision types, violation causes, and roadway environments were examined systemically using multiple variables and pivot tables. This approach was used to help identify locations which have the potential to cause injury due to their characteristics, but may not have a prevalent collision history. This proactive analytical approach was used to identify countermeasure recommendations (Chapter 6) to help prevent future collisions.
It complements the HIN, which identifies the need for countermeasures in locations with significant recent collision history.
3.6.1 Violation Causes for Intersection Collisions
Table 3.5 presents the leading violation causes for the three most common types of vehicular-only collisions (broadsides, rear-ends, and head-ons), and for pedestrian-involved collisions and bicyclist-involved collisions. The frequencies of these collision types and their violation causes are distributed by 19 different intersection environments, using traffic control and intersection size as the classification variables. The bottom row of the table summarizes the rate of collisions per each intersection environment. Intersection environments that are greater than 0.7 collisions per intersection are above the citywide average. The citywide average is derived from the total number of intersection-defined collisions (1,255) divided by the estimated 1,729 intersections with at least one publicly-maintained roadway.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 35
Chapter 3: Safety Analysis
19.A.
As reported in earlier Figure 3.3, broadside crashes were by far the most frequent collision type. Broadsides occurred most often because of red-light signal (CA Vehicle Code 21453(a)) and stop sign (CA Vehicle Code 21802(a)) violations.
Two-by-two side-street stop intersections were the most frequent environment for broadside collisions (106 total). However, when averaging the collision frequency by the number of intersections of that environment in the City, there were more collisions per location at other environments (signals of any size, and four-by-two stop-controlled intersections – both allway and side-street stop locations of that size). Rear-end collisions, the second most common collision type, were primarily attributed to speeding violations (CA Vehicle Code 22350). Rearends were notably common at four-by-two signalized intersections.
Vehicle-pedestrian collisions were most common at signalized intersections, especially fourby-two intersections. There were about twice as many instances of a motorist's failure to yield to the pedestrian crossing in the crosswalk with the right of way (CA Vehicle Code 21950(a)), then the inverse of a pedestrian’s failure to yield to a motorist with the right of way (CA Vehicle 21954(a)).
Source: CR Associates
Traffic Control Type
Roundabout
Geometric Size (Number of Lanes x Number of Lanes) 2x2 3x2 4x2 4x3 4x4 2x2 3x2 4x2 4x3 4x4 2x2 3x2 3x3 4x2 5x2 2x2 3x2 4x2 2x2 Broadside 29 10 137 19 56 100 1 12 211 5 1 102 6 5 694
21453(a) - Failure to Stop at Red Light 17 1 75 12 34 1 3 143 21802(a) - Failure to Stop at Stop Sign 1 10 106 3 18 138 21801(a) - Failure to Yield When Making Left-Turn or U-Turn 7 3 23 2 3 1 22 1 41 2 2 107 Other 3 4 27 4 14 84 1 11 78 1 1 35 4 3 270
Not Stated 2 2 12 1 5 4 1 5 4 36
Rear-End 11 1 71 7 17 18 2 30 1 24 1 2 1 5 191
22350 - Unsafe Speed 8 54 5 15 11 2 24 1 17 1 1 4 143
21703 - Following Too Closely 1 1 8 1 4 2 17
22107 - Unsafe Turn 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 9
Other 2 8112 2 4 1 21
Not Stated 1 1
Vehicle - Pedestrian 3 1 28 3 10 8 3 25 13 2 3 99
21950(a) - Failure to Yield to Pedestrian in Crosswalk 1 1 17 1 7 3 8 3 1 42 21954(a) - Pedestrian Failure to Yield to Motorist 1 1 1 2 8 7 2 22 21461 - Driver Failure to Obey Signal or Sign 1 3 3 7
Other 6 1 4 1 7 1 1 1 22
Not Stated 1 1 2 2 6
Head-On 4 4 17 5 8 6 15 1 15 1 76
21801(a) - Failure to Yield When Making Left-Turn or U-Turn 2 3 7 4 3 3 1 7 30 22107 - Unsafe Turn 1 3 1 1 4 1 11
21453(a) - Failure to Stop at Signal 1 3 2 6
Other 14115 8 4 24
Not Stated 21 11 5
Vehicle - Bicycle 11 7 12 1 4 15 11 1 2 64
21650.1 - Bicyclist Riding on Wrong Side of Road 5 2 1 1 3 2 16 22107 - Unsafe Turn 1 5 2 8
22450 - Failure to Stop at Limit Line 4 1 1 6
Other 8 3 5 1 3 6 2 1 29
Not Stated 12 1 1 5
Hit Object 1 15 1 2 4 25 2 7 6 3 66
Sideswipe 3 13 1 4 2 12 9 2111 49
Overturned 21 4 2 9
Other 1 12 2 6
Unknown 1 1
Total Collisions 50 18 300 36 105 151 2 21 0 1 339 9 1 179 1 20 2 19 1 1,255 Number of Intersections in City 13 4 47 6 10 80 1 9 1 1 1,125 13 1 104 1 285 4 21 3 1,729 Collisions per Intersection by Type 3.8 4.5 6.4 6.0 10.5 1.9 - 2.3 - - 0.3 0.7 - 1.7 - 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.7 Signal All-Way Stop Side-Street Stop Unsigned / Unmarked Total
Table 3.5 Violation Causes for Leading Collision Types at Intersections Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 36
Chapter 3: Safety Analysis
19.A.
3.6.2 Violation Causes for Midblock Collisions
Table 3.6 presents the leading violation causes for the three most common types of vehicular-only collisions (rear-end, broadside and hit object), plus pedestrian-involved collisions and bicyclist-involved collisions. The frequencies of these collision types and violation causes are distributed by roadway size and speed, using number of through lanes and posted speed limit as the classification variables.
There were 705 collisions by any mode occurring at midblock defined locations occurring along 280 miles of publicly maintained roadway. The bottom rows in the matrix indicate the mileage of each environment in the City and a collision per mile rate per environment.
Table 3.6 Violation Causes for Leading Collision Types at Midblock Locations Source: CR Associates
Number of Through Lanes
5-Lane
Posted Speed Limit (mph) 25 30 35 40 45 50 25 30 35 40 45 50 25 30 35 40 45 50 45 Rear-End 20 28 19 10 15 1 2 1 1 1 13 61 22 43 23 260
22350 - Unsafe Speed 6 15 13 8 13 1 2 1 11 45 18 35 19 187 22107 - Unsafe Turn 6 10 3 2 1 1 2142 32
21703 - Following Too Closely 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 12
Other 522 1 16141 23
Not Stated 1 5 6
Broadside 10 17 12 3 2 1 1 6 23 11 9 4 99
21804(a) - Did not Yield When Entering Roadway 3 6 4 1 3 12 7 3 39 22107 - Unsafe Turn 2 6 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 19
21801(a) - Failure to Yield When Making Left-Turn or U-Turn 1 3 3 2233 17 Other 322 1 3123 17
Not Stated 1 1 41 7
Vehicle/Pedestrian 13 14 10 2 2 2 1 4 18 14 10 3 93
21954(a) - Pedestrian Failure to Yield to Motorist 7 10 7221 1 2 12 9 2 2 57 21955 - Pedestrian Not Crossing at Intersection 111 1 4 22107 - Unsafe Turn 1 1 11 4
Other 331 1 221 13
Not Stated 2 1 1 1316 15
Hit Object 13 9 5 10 4 1 1 1 1 1 19 8 9 4 86
22107 - Unsafe Turn 6 6 4 5 3 1 1 8573 49
22350 - Unsafe Speed 3 1 2 1 1 1 2111 14
23152(a) - Driving Under the Influence 2 1 3
Other 1 1 11 4
Not Stated 1 3 2 82 16
Vehicle/Bicyclist 34511 19433 34
21650.1 - Bicyclist Riding on Wrong Side of Road 1 1 142 9 21804(a) - Did not Yield When Entering Roadway 2 2 1 1 6 22107 - Unsafe Turn 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Other 1 2 1212 9
Not Stated 22 4
Sideswipe 755114 1 3 10 3 8 8 1 57
Head-On 5794 4 1 2223 39
Overturned 5 14 8 4 37 32
Other 11 1 2 5
Total Collisions 76 85 67 35 4 40 0 5 0 4 1 4 2 28 146 63 87 57 1 705 Mileage of Roadway in City 183.8 19.0 17.9 11.0 4.9 7.7 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.5 2.9 1.0 7.9 4.4 6.4 9.8 0.2 280.3 Collisions per Mile 0.4 4.5 3.7 3.2 0.8 5.2 - - 0.0 4.0 1.7 - 0.7 28.0 18.5 14.3 13.6 5.8 - 2.5 2-Lane 4-Lane
Total
3-Lane
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 37
Chapter 3: Safety Analysis
19.A.
As shown, the most common midblock collision type is rear-end collisions. Rear-ends occurred mostly along four-lane, higher posted speed limit roadways (35 mph and 45 mph being the most frequent environment). Most were attributed to the at-fault motorist driving at unsafe speeds (CA Vehicle Code 22350). Where speed surveys have been previously conducted within Hemet along 35 to 45 mph roadways, 85th percentile observed speeds were typically higher than posted speed limits by about 5 to 10 miles per hour.
Broadside collisions are the second most common collision type, and the most common violation resulting in these collisions was a result of the at-fault motorist who did not yield when entering roadways (CA Violation Code 21804(a)). This violation occurred most often on four-lane roadways with posted speeds at 30 mph and above.
Pedestrian failure to yield to the motorist with right-of-way was the most frequent violation (CA Vehicle Code 21954(a)) in pedestrian-involved collisions at midblock locations. This violation led to collisions most often on roadways with posted speed limits of 30 mph or greater, with about half the instances occurring on four-lane roadways and half occurring on two-lane roadways.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 38
Chapter 3: Safety Analysis
19.A.
Chapter 4:
Equity Analysis
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 39
19.A.
Equity considerations are one of the eight necessary components of a Safety Action Plan.
These were integrated into many relevant phases of the development of the Safety Action Plan, including stakeholder engagement, policy formulation, project development and prioritization, as well as ongoing monitoring. Furthermore, they are fundamental criteria for many competitive grant programs including Caltrans' Active Transportation Program.
4.1 Demographics
As of 2026, Hemet's estimated population is slightly under 91,000. There are about 32,000 households in the City, with an average household size of 2.7. Demographic factors such as vulnerable age groups, race and ethnicity composition, and household poverty rates and other indicators of low wealth are influential metrics in determining eligibility for many grant programs that can be used to fund safety countermeasure projects.
Population by Age
Youth and senior populations have more limited mobility options than the general adult population, making them more reliant on alternatives to driving. Other modes of transportation, such as walking and bicycling, where rates of severe and fatal injuries are much higher per collision than vehicular-only collisions. These age groups are also more vulnerable to severe injuries or worse compared to middle aged adults because of their physical and physiological attributes, which are either less developed (youth) or declining (seniors). These two factors underscore the importance of providing walking and bicycling safety countermeasures in areas near where these groups congregate, such as schools and senior centers.
Citywide, Hemet has a slightly higher share of senior population (about 5% more) than Riverside County and a roughly similar share of youth population. 70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Youth Adult Senior
24%
60%
16%
24%
55%
21%
Hemet Riverside County
Figure 4.1 Youth and Senior Population
Source: 2023 American Community Survey (5-Year Estimate) Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 40
Chapter 4: Equity Analysis
19.A.
Race & Ethnicity
Black, Indigenous or other Persons of Color (BIPOC) populations comprise almost threequarters of Hemet’s total population (73.5%). As shown in Table 4.1, this percentage is a higher share than Riverside County as a whole. Over half of Hemet's population are Hispanic or Latino. To better engage with this demographic for whom many may be more comfortable conversing in Spanish than English, the Safety Action Plan public engagement process included Spanish translations of communications and visual materials and Spanish fluent facilitators at public workshops and pop-up events.
Table 4.1 Percentage Share of Hemet and Riverside County’s Population that is BIPOC Race or Ethnicity BIPOC
Category Hemet Riverside County
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 53.8% 51.9%
White or European-American* 26.5% 30.2%
Black or African-American* 6.9% 5.9%
Asian* 6.4% 7.0%
Two or more Races* 4.5% 3.5%
Some other Race 1.4% 1.1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander* 0.5% 0.3% American Indian and Alaska Native * 0.1% 0.3%
BIPOC Total 73.5% 69.8%
*Excludes Hispanic/Latino ethnicities of that race, who are categorized in Hispanic or Latino (of any race) Source: 2023 American Community Survey (5-Year Estimate) Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 41
Chapter 4: Equity Analysis
19.A.
Income and Poverty
Approximately 16% of City of Hemet residents are below the poverty threshold which is proportionally a higher rate than Riverside County as a whole (11%). Inflation-adjusted (2023) median annual household income is $53,623 in Hemet, significantly lower than Riverside County's $89,672 median household income.
Household Vehicle Ownership
Vehicle ownership per household can be influenced by household size, wealth, the financial burden of transportation, and one’s accessibility to destinations by other modes. Fewer vehicles available to a household can signify more reliance on other modes of transportation, such as walking and bicycling. The preceding Safety Analysis chapter provided strong evidence that these modes are more susceptible to fatality and severe injury when collisions occur.
As shown in Table 4.2, Hemet has a considerably higher percentage of no vehicle households (nearly double Riverside County). Hemet also has a lower average vehicles per household (1.9) as compared to Riverside County (2.2). Hemet's household vehicle ownership indicators are consistent with the city's rates of poverty and median household income relative to Riverside County.
Table 4.2 Household Vehicle Ownership
Vehicle Ownership Hemet Riverside
County
Percentage of No-Vehicle Households 8.8% 4.8%
Average Vehicles per Household 1.9 2.2
Source: 2023 American Community Survey (5-Year Estimate) Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 42
Chapter 4: Equity Analysis
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
CalEnviroScreen
CalEnviroScreen version 4.0 is the latest iteration of the California Communities Environmental Health Screening measure. It was developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), a department within the California Environmental Protection Agency.
CalEnviroScreen is used by the State of California to help define disadvantaged communities to guide state investments toward improving public health and quality of life.
CalEnviroScreen scoring is based on multiple variables within two main categories: pollution burden and population/socioeconomic burden. Many communities continue to bear a disproportionate burden of pollution not only from multiple nearby sources, but also from pollution in multiple media (e.g., air or water). Some of these communities experience the additional burden of socioeconomic stressors and health conditions that render them more vulnerable to the impacts of pollution. The measure combines measures of pollution burden and public health into a score, which is ultimately used to rank census tracts statewide by percentile. Census tracts which are in the top 25% statewide (highest burden) are designated as disadvantaged communities.
As shown in Figure 4.3, there is one census tract in Hemet that meets CalEnviroScreen's criteria for disadvantaged community. That census tract is located within Hemet's Greater Downtown neighborhood.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 45
Chapter 4: Equity Analysis
19.A.
Figure 4.2 Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool
Figure 4.3 CalEnviroScreen
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 46
Chapter 4: Equity Analysis
19.A.
Healthy Places Index
Healthy Places Index (HPI) measures 23 different indicators of health and well-being that can be grouped into eight "policy action" categories: economic status, education status, social status, transportation options, clean environment, healthcare access, housing quality and neighborhood quality. From its full set of criteria, HPI produces a composite score for all census tracts in the state and a percentile ranking. Similar to CalEnviroScreen, HPI rankings in the bottom 25% are considered disadvantaged.
Figure 4.4 shows parts of Hemet which meet HPI's criteria of disadvantaged. The disadvantaged areas include most of the city north of Stetson Avenue.
Caltrans Transportation Equity Index
Caltrans’ Transportation Equity Index (EQI) is a statewide measure which identifies areas where disadvantaged populations experience the highest burden from negative characteristics of transportation. Indicators measured in the EQI include proximity and exposure to heavy traffic volumes, proximity to locations with high injury collision histories, and accessibility to trip destinations. The inequities captured in EQI identify places at a higher risk and exposure to being injured in a traffic collision. Unlike the previous metrics described, the EQI’s units of geography are applied to census blocks, which are smaller in area than census tracts.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 47
Chapter 4: Equity Analysis
19.A.
19.A.
Figure 4.4 Healthy Places Index
Figure 4.5 Caltrans Transportation Equity Index
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 49
Chapter 4: Equity Analysis
19.A.
Equity Need Areas
The four disadvantaged community measures
were overlaid to show the extent of coverage
in the city that is disadvantaged, and which
parts of the city meet multiple disadvantaged
community measures. These areas represent
the parts of the city with the highest equity
need. As shown, only one small cluster of census
blocks in Hemet South near Acacia Avenue
and San Jacinto Street are captured by all four
metrics. Vast parts of the city are identified by
at least two measures. Parts of Hemet North,
Greater Downtown, Hemet South and East
Florida Corridor are captured by three.
Figure 4.6 Equity Need Areas
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan | Draft 50
Chapter 4: Equity Analysis
19.A.
Chapter 5:
Countermeasures
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 51
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Chapter 6:
Project
Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 56
19.A.
Project Area Development and Countermeasure Identification The identification Safety Action Plan project areas and their countermeasures included the following objectives:
◆ Full coverage of the High Injury Network
◆ Consistence with General Plan-identified mobility network roadway classifications and planned bicycle network
◆ Incorporation of previously planned, though unfunded safety infrastructure projects ◆ Identification of systemic project recommendations for all city-controlled signalized intersections
◆ Recommendation of feasible countermeasures at the locations of severe and fatal collisions in the city, which address the primary causes of those collisions ◆ Ensuring project areas were substantive in size (e.g., spanning multiple city blocks and intersections)
This resulted in the development of 47 project areas around the city. Forty-two (42) are corridor projects which cover the High Injury Network, and five are citywide systemic project recommendations. Four of the five the systemic project recommendations are for the city’s 52 city-controlled traffic signals, and one is a residential traffic calming project. The combined road mileage of all Safety Action Plan project areas is 46.5 miles. The 42 project areas and 52 city-controlled traffic signals are shown in Figure 6.1.
The needs, safety issues, opportunities and challenges for each project area was assessed to help determine recommended countermeasures. Collision history in each project area was examined to determine the prevailing types of collisions and their causes. These helped inform some of the chosen countermeasures. The countermeasures for some project areas also corresponded to mobility recommendations identified in the General Plan. Those included raised medians for classifications with divided roadways and bike lanes where identified in the General Plan's planned bicycle network.
Some countermeasures were chosen to ensure streets within a project area included a minimum standard of essential infrastructure. This influenced recommendations such as sidewalks - recommended where roadways front urban land uses, street lighting, high visibility crosswalks and advanced stop bars at all traffic-controlled crossing locations.
Where streets have long distances between traffic-controlled crossings, new street crossing locations with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons were also recommended.
Recommendations for city-controlled traffic signals included updated signal hardware for improved visibility and treatments like protected left-turn phases, to improve the safety of left-turn movements, where needed.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 57
Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
19.A.
Figure 6.1 Hemet CSAP Project Areas
58 Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
19.A.
6.1 Project Prioritization
The prioritization process included seven criteria with point values that add up to a maximum of 18 points. The maximum points available for criteria ranged from four (4) points to one (1) point. The project prioritization criteria and their point values are as follows:
◆ High Injury Network (HIN) Score (0 to 4 points) – Each project area was awarded points based on the scores it attained from the “sliding scale” analysis method used to determine the HIN in the Safety Analysis Report. For this criterion, projects received prioritization points ranging from 4 for “Very High” HIN sliding scale method scores to 0 points for “Very Low” HIN sliding scale method scores.
◆ Systemic Environment / Crash Injury History (0 to 4 points) – Points were awarded to project areas that were either identified in the Safety Analysis as a high-risk systemic environment based on infrastructure characteristics or have had a substantial injury collision history. This criterion gave equal recognition to systemic environment hotspots and injury collision history to provide both a proactive response (anticipating safety interventions in locations with high-risk characteristics where collisions haven’t yet happened) and a reactive response (improving safety in locations with a history of collisions). Points awarded for this criterion ranged from 4 for very high risk and/or high injury collision history to 0 points for very low risk and/or very low injury collision history. ◆ Adjacent to Schools (0 or 3 points) – Project areas received 3 points for this criterion if it was adjacent to a K-12 public school. If a project area was any further distance from a school, it did not receive points.
◆ Pedestrian and Bicyclist-Involved Collisions (0 to 2 points) – Project areas received points for this criterion if pedestrian-involved or bicyclist-involved collisions occurred within the project area. Two (2) points were awarded for multiple collisions involving these modes and 1 point if only a single collision involving these modes occurred within a project area. ◆ Public Input (0 to 2 points) – Attendees at the second Safety Action Plan public workshop (held on April 7th) and Task Force participants were given the opportunity to vote for three project areas of their preference for prioritization. The votes were tabulated and project areas which received multiple votes from the public received 2 points, project areas which received a single vote received 1 point.
◆ Staff Input (0 or 2 points) – Project areas were awarded 2 points based on Hemet staff’s professional judgement. This criterion was used to ensure the Safety Action Plan’s high priority projects were worthy selections with transformative recommendations. ◆ Equity Need (0 to 1 point) – One (1) point was awarded for this criterion if the project area overlapped with any one of the composite measures of equity examined in the Equity Assessment (presented in Chapter 4). The measures included the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, CalEnviroScreen, Healthy Places Index and the Caltrans Transportation Equity Index.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 59
Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
6.2 High Priority Projects
Twenty (20) high priority projects and their recommendations are presented on the following pages in further detail, with conceptual exhibits, maps, and engineering plan view drawings within a part of the project area. The engineering detail for the high priority cost estimates is provided in Appendix F.
All remaining projects identified in the Safety Action Plan (Medium to Long-Range projects and projects along State Routes) are described without supporting exhibits in Appendix G.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 62
Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
HIGH
PRIORITY PROJECT
Project DescriptionRaised medians and speed feedback signage will be installed to encourage slower vehicular speeds and remind motorists to maintain speeds closer to the posted speed limit.A Class IV separated bicycle facility on Sanderson Avenue between Stetson Avenue and Westside Drive will improve cycling conditions. A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon at Morgan Hill Road & Mustang Way, and a Lead Pedestrian Interval at Sanderson Avenue & Mustang Way will improve visibility and safety of pedestrians accessing West Valley High School. A sidewalk gap will be filled on the west side of Sanderson Avenue. Continental-style pattern crosswalks and advanced stop bars are recommended at all existing trafficcontrolled street crossings.
Cost Estimate
$9,803,000
Recommendations and Modifications◆
Typical Cross-section
Construct a raised median along Mustang Wy between Cawston Ave and Sanderson Ave, and Sanderson Ave between Stetson Ave and Westside Dr, where striped median is located ◆ Install a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon signal, a high visibility crosswalk and yield markings, on the west leg of Morgan Hill Rd & Mustang Wy ◆ Add Lead Pedestrian Interval to the Sanderson Ave & Mustang Wy signal◆ Install Class IV bicycle facilities on Sanderson Ave between Stetson Ave and Westside Dr, by narrowing the outside travel lanes
Stripe a two-stage left-turn bike box in front of the westbound outside lane of Mustang Wy at Sanderson Ave
Stripe high visibility conflict treatments at driveways and major intersection approaches
◆ Install buffers and high visibility conflict treatments on existing Class II bicycle facilities on Mustang Wy
◆ Install speed limit feedback signage at existing locations with posted speed limit signs
Mustang Way / Sanderson Ave(Cawston Ave-Stetson Ave to Sanderson Ave-Domenigoni Pkwy) 66 Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
19.A.
19.A.
HIGH
PRIORITY PROJECT
Project DescriptionVehicular safety will be improved by installing speed feedback signage to encourage slower speeds and remind motorists to maintain speeds closer to the posted speed limit. Chicanes are also recommended in select locations where they can be installed with minimal parking loss to provide additional traffic calming. The City boundary with unincorporated Riverside County runs along part of this project extent, some recommendations will require coordination with the County.This project also recommends infill of all sidewalk gaps along this corridor. Continental-style pattern crosswalks and advanced stop bars are recommended at all other existing traffic-controlled street crossings.
Recommendations and Modifications◆ Construct chicanes along San Jacinto St between Central Ave and Mayberry Ave, and between Whittier Ave and Via Monte Ave
◆ Install speed limit feedback signage at existing locations with posted speed limit signs
◆ Construct sidewalk on east side of San Jacinto St along multiple segments (map on next page indicates locations)
◆ Stripe high visibility crosswalks and advanced stop bars at all existing crosswalk locations, where they do not exist (map on next page indicates locations) San Jacinto St(Florida Ave to Val Monte Dr)
Typical Cross-section Typical Cross-section
Cost Estimate
$1,328,000
68 Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Cost Estimate
$4,573,000
Project DescriptionVehicular safety along this part of the High Injury Network will be improved by installing a raised median between Elk Street and Buena Vista Street.A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon installed near Sapphire Place will provide a more direct pedestrian crossing between commercial land uses on either side of Stetson Avenue between Gilbert Street and State Street. Continental-style pattern crosswalks and advanced stop bars are recommended at all existing traffic-controlled street crossings. This project also recommends infill of two sidewalk gaps, each about a block long. Recommendations along the City boundary (Stetson Avenue between Santa Fe Street and Evelyn Way), which includes one sidewalk gap location, will require coordination with the County.
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT
Recommendations and Modifications◆ Construct a raised median between Elk St & Buena Vista St, where striped median is located
◆ Install a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon signal with median refuge, a high visibility crosswalk and yield markings, on the east side of Sapphire Pl ◆ Construct sidewalk on north side of Stetson Ave between Stater Brothers driveway and Buena Vista St, and south side of Stetson Ave between Santa Fe St and Evelyn Wy ◆ Stripe high visibility crosswalks and advanced stop bars at all existing crosswalk locations, where they do not exist (map on next page indicates locations) Stetson Ave(Elk St to Evelyn Way)
Typical Cross-section Typical Cross-section
72 Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Cost Estimate
$2,852,000
Project DescriptionInstallation of lighting throughout the project corridor, including enhanced pedestrian-scale street lighting near Hemet’s Downtown attractions (between Latham Avenue and Florida Street), will improve visibility.Raised medians are recommended between Menlo Avenue and Devonshire Avenue to encourage slower vehicular travel speeds and provide additional separation between opposing directions of traffic. Continental-style pattern crosswalks and advanced stop bars are recommended at all other existing traffic-controlled street crossings. A corner radius reduction of the southeast corner of State Street & Meier Street will shorten the east leg pedestrian crossing.
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT
Recommendations and Modifications◆ Construct a raised median between Menlo Ave and Devonshire Ave, where center-left turn lane is located
◆ Install street lighting between Menlo Ave and Devonshire Ave◆ Install pedestrian-scale street lighting between Latham Ave and Florida Ave◆ Reduce of corner radius of south east corner of State St & Meier St to shorten east leg pedestrian crossing
◆ Stripe high visibility crosswalks and advanced stop bars at all existing crosswalk locations, where they do not exist (map on next page indicates locations) State St(Menlo Ave to Florida Ave)
Typical Cross-section Typical Cross-section
75 Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Cost Estimate
$1,050,000
Project DescriptionStreet lighting is recommended throughout the project corridor to improve safety and visibility. A Rectangular-Rapid Flashing Beacon crossing treatment is recommended for the existing east-leg uncontrolled crosswalk on the east leg of Franklin Street & Acacia Ave, near Hemet Elementary School. Continental-style pattern crosswalks and advanced stop bars are recommended at all other existing traffic-controlled street crossings.
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT
Recommendations and Modifications◆ Install a Rectangular-Rapid Flashing Beacon crossing on the east leg of Franklin St & Acacia Ave
◆ Install street lighting between Buena Vista St and San Jacinto St◆ Stripe high visibility crosswalks and advanced stop bars at all existing crosswalk locations, where they do not exist (map on next page indicates locations) Acacia Ave(Buena Vista St to San Jacinto St)
Typical Cross-section Typical Cross-section
78 Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Cost Estimate
$1,670,000
Project DescriptionA new signal is recommended at Lyon Avenue & Devonshire Avenue, which is currently an all-way stopcontrolled intersection. Speed humps recommended along Devonshire Avenue between Brandon Way and Lyon Avenue to provide traffic calming. Bike lanes recommended from Kirby Street to Lyon Avenue. Two new RRFB crossings, one at Quembie Ann Way and another at Calle Nogales, will provide more direct opportunities for pedestrians to cross Devonshire Avenue without having to detour to the nearest traffic-controlled crossings, which are a quarter mile from those locations. Continental-style pattern crosswalks and advanced stop bars are recommended at all other existing traffic-controlled street crossings.
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT
Recommendations and Modifications◆ Install speed humps in various midblock locations between Brandon Wy and Lyon Ave
◆ Install buffered bike lanes between Kirby St and Lyon Ave Stripe high visibility conflict treatments at driveways and intersection approaches
◆ Install Rectangular-Rapid Flashing Beacon crossings on the west leg of Quembie Ann Wy & Devonshire Ave, and the east leg of Calle Nogales & Devonshire Ave ◆ Stripe high visibility crosswalks and advanced stop bars at all existing crosswalk locations, where they do not exist (map on next page indicates locations) Devonshire Ave(Sanderson Ave to Lyon St)
Typical Cross-section Typical Cross-section
81 Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Cost Estimate
$5,723,000
Project DescriptionRaised medians recommended to encourage slower speeds and provide additional separation between traffic. Installation of bike lanes between Florida Avenue and Acacia Avenue and southbound between Tanya Avenue and Stetson Avenue will provide continuous bicycle facilities. Sidewalk infill is recommended on the east side of Sanderson Avenue, between the southern Lowe’s driveway and Johnston Avenue, and the west side of Sanderson Avenue between Tanya Avenue and Stetson Avenue. Street lighting is recommended between Wentworth Drive and Stetson Avenue, to improve safety and visibility. Continental-style pattern crosswalks and advanced stop bars are recommended at all existing traffic-controlled street crossings.
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT
Recommendations and Modifications◆ Construct a raised median between Acacia Ave and Stetson Ave, where striped medians and center-left turn lanes are located
◆ Install buffered bike lanes between Florida Ave and Acacia Ave, and southbound between Tanya Ave and Stetson Ave
Stripe high visibility conflict treatments at driveways and intersection approaches
Add striped buffers to existing bike lane segments along corridor ◆ Construct sidewalk on east side of Sanderson Ave between Lowe’s southern driveway and Johnston Ave, and west side of Sanderson Ave between Tanya Ave and Stetson Ave ◆ Stripe high visibility crosswalks and advanced stop bars at all existing crosswalk locations, where they do not exist (map on next page indicates locations) Sanderson Ave(Florida Ave to Stetson Ave)
Typical Cross-section Typical Cross-section
84 Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Project Description
Vehicular safety along this part of the High Injury Network will be improved by installing a raised median north of Devonshire Avenue and speed feedback signage in select locations to remind motorists to maintain speeds closer to the posted speed limit.A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon crossing halfway between Devonshire Avenue and Florida Avenue will provide a more direct pedestrian crossing between commercial land uses on either side of Sanderson Avenue. Bike lanes south of Devonshire Avenue and two sidewalk infill segments will eliminate gaps in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure along the extents of the corridor. All existing crosswalks will be upgraded to high visibility continental-style patterns.
Recommendations and Modifications◆ Construct a raised median between Menlo Ave and Devonshire Ave, where striped median is located
◆ Install a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon signal with median refuge, a high visibility crosswalk and yield markings, midblock between Devonshire Ave and Florida Ave ◆ Stripe buffered bike lanes between Devonshire Ave and Florida Ave, by narrowing the outside travel lanes to the City’s 12’ minimum standard. Stripe a two-stage left-turn bike box in front of the eastbound outside lane of Florida Ave
Stripe high visibility conflict treatments at driveways and major intersection approaches
◆ Install speed feedback signage at existing locations with posted speed limit signs
◆ Stripe high visibility crosswalks and advanced stop bars at all existing crosswalk locations, where they do not exist (map on next page indicates locations)
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT
Sanderson Ave (Menlo Ave to Florida Ave)
Typical Cross-section Typical Cross-section
Cost Estimate
$3,549,000
87 Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Project Description
A raised median will be installed between Stetson Avenue and Chambers Street, and speed feedback signage will be installed in select locations to remind motorists to maintain speeds closer to the posted speed limit. A Lead Pedestrian Interval treatment at the State Street & Chambers Street signalized intersection will improve visibility and safety of pedestrians accessing Diamond Valley Middle School and McSweeny Elementary School. Sidewalk infill is recommended on the east side of State Street between Thornton Avenue and Chambers Street. Continentalstyle pattern crosswalks and advanced stop bars are recommended at all other existing traffic-controlled street crossings.
Recommendations and Modifications◆ Construct a raised median between Stetson Ave and Chambers St, where center-left turn lanes are located
◆ Construct sidewalk on east side of State St, between Thornton Ave and Chambers St
◆ Install speed limit feedback signage at existing locations with posted speed limit signs
◆ Add Lead Pedestrian Interval to the State St & Chambers St signal◆ Stripe high visibility crosswalks and advanced stop bars at all existing crosswalk locations, where they do not exist (map on next page indicates locations)
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT
State St (Stetson Ave to Chambers St)
Typical Cross-section Typical Cross-section
Cost Estimate
$2,648,000
90 Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Project Description
A raised median is recommended along the entire extents of this project area to encourage slower vehicular travel speeds and provide additional separation between opposing directions of traffic. Street lighting is also recommended along the entire project corridor, to improve safety and visibility.
Recommendations and Modifications◆ Construct a raised median between Chambers St and Domenigoni Pkwy, where center-left turn lanes are located
◆ Install street lighting between Chambers St and Domenigoni Pkwy
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT
State St (Chambers St to Domenigoni Pkwy)
Typical Cross-section Typical Cross-section
Cost Estimate
$7,631,000
93 Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Project Description
A raised median is recommended along the entire extents to encourage slower speeds and provide separation between traffic. Street lighting is recommended along the entire project corridor, to improve safety and visibility. A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon installed near Desert Palms RV Park driveway will provide a more direct pedestrian crossing between commercial land uses on either side of State Street between Esplanade Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue. Sidewalk is recommended on the east side of State Street, between Esplanade Avenue and Crows Nest Place, to complete a gap in the sidewalk network. Coordination will be necessary for the sidewalk and raised median along the boundary with the City of San Jacinto.
Recommendations and Modifications◆ Construct a raised median between Esplanade Ave and Menlo Ave, where center-left turn lanes are located
◆ Install street lighting between Esplanade Ave and Menlo Ave◆ Install a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon signal with median refuge, a high visibility crosswalk and yield markings, south of Desert Palms RV Park driveway ◆ Construct sidewalk on west side of State St between Esplanade Ave and Crows Nest Pl
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT
State St (Esplanade Ave to Menlo Ave)
Typical Cross-section Typical Cross-section
Cost Estimate
$5,509,000
96 Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Project Description
The conversion of two intersections to all-way stop control from side-street stop control along the project corridor (Kirby Street & Commonwealth Avenue and Kirby Street & Eaton Avenue), will help reduce travel speeds and provide additional locations for pedestrians to cross Kirby Street. The addition of bike lanes between Commonwealth Avenue and Menlo Avenue and several sidewalk infill segments will eliminate gaps in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure along the extents of the corridor. Curb extensions are recommended at Kirby Street & Menlo Avenue to reduce crossing distances on the west crosswalk leg. Continental-style pattern crosswalks and advanced stop bars are recommended at all other existing traffic-controlled street crossings.
Recommendations and Modifications◆ Add all-way stop control to Kirby St & Commonwealth Ave and Kirby St & Eaton Ave intersections (converting from side-street stop control) Stripe high visibility crosswalks and advanced stop bars at new trafficcontrolled legs of these intersections ◆ Install buffered bike lanes between Commonwealth Ave and Menlo Ave, by narrowing the outside travel lanes
Stripe high visibility conflict treatments at driveways and intersection approaches
◆ Construct curb extensions on northwest and southwest corners of Kirby St & Menlo Ave intersection
◆ Construct sidewalk on Kirby St along multiple segments (map on next page indicates locations)
◆ Stripe high visibility crosswalks and advanced stop bars at all existing crosswalk locations, where they do not exist (map on next page indicates locations)
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT
Kirby St (Esplanade Ave to Menlo Ave)
Typical Cross-section Typical Cross-section
Cost Estimate
$2,595,000
99 Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Project Description
A Class IV separated bicycle facility, part of a larger envisioned bikeway project along Menlo Avenue, will improve cycling conditions. Recommendations also include a Rectangular-Rapid Flashing Beacon crossing at Gilbert Street, to reduce the distance between traffic-controlled crossings on Menlo Avenue (Gilbert Street, is situated halfway between the signals at Palm Avenue and State Street). Sidewalk infill is recommended to eliminate the sidewalk gaps between Traci Street and State Street on the south side of Menlo Avenue and Sonrisa Street and State Street on the north side of Menlo Avenue. Continental-style pattern crosswalks and advanced stop bars are recommended at all other existing traffic-controlled street crossings.
Recommendations and Modifications◆ Install Class IV bicycle facilities on Menlo Ave between Mazana Dr and State St◆ Stripe high visibility conflict treatments at driveways and intersection approaches
◆ Construct sidewalk on south side of Menlo Ave between Traci St and State St, and north side of Menlo Ave between Sonrisa St and State St ◆ Stripe high visibility crosswalks and advanced stop bars at all existing crosswalk locations, where they do not exist (map on next page indicates locations)
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT
Menlo Ave (Mazana Dr to State St)
Typical Cross-section Typical Cross-section
Cost Estimate
$4,119,000
102
Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Project Description
A Class IV separated bicycle facility, part of a larger envisioned bikeway project along Menlo Avenue, will improve cycling conditions for all ages and abilities within this project area. Recommendations also include a Rectangular-Rapid Flashing Beacon crossing at between State Street and Buena Vista St. Street lighting is recommended in the project area, between Haley Way and Girard Street. Recommendations also include sidewalk infill at all sidewalk gap locations along this corridor and for continental-style pattern crosswalks with advanced stop bars at all existing traffic-controlled street crossings.
Recommendations and Modifications◆ Install Class IV bicycle facilities on Menlo Ave between State St and Girard St Stripe high visibility conflict treatments at driveways and intersection approaches
◆ Construct sidewalk on Menlo Ave along multiple segments (map on next page indicates locations)
◆ Install street lighting between Haley Wy and Girard St◆ Stripe high visibility crosswalks and advanced stop bars at all existing crosswalk locations, where they do not exist (map on next page indicates locations)
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT
Menlo Ave (State St to Girard St)
Typical Cross-section Typical Cross-section
Cost Estimate
$4,584,000
105
Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Project Description
A Lead Pedestrian Interval treatment at the Cawston Street & Menlo Avenue signalized intersection will improve the visibility and safety of pedestrians accessing Cawston Elementary School. Bike lanes are recommended from Esplanade Avenue to Florida Avenue, these and several sidewalk infill segments will eliminate gaps in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure along the extents of the corridor. Continentalstyle pattern crosswalks with advanced stop bars at all existing trafficcontrolled street crossings. Street lighting is also recommended along the entire project corridor, to improve safety and visibility.
Recommendations and Modifications◆ Install bike lanes between Esplanade Ave and Florida Ave between Devonshire Ave and Florida Ave, narrow the outside travel lanes to fit bike lanes
between Menlo Ave and Devonshire Ave, widen the southbound side of the roadway and narrow the northbound outside travel lane
Stripe high visibility conflict treatments at driveways and intersection approaches
◆ Construct sidewalk along multiple segments (map on next page indicates locations)
◆ Install street lighting between Esplanade Ave and Florida Ave◆ Stripe high visibility crosswalks and advanced stop bars at all existing crosswalk locations, where they do not exist (map on next page indicates locations)
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT
Cawston Ave (Esplanade Ave to Florida Ave)
Typical Cross-section Typical Cross-section
Cost Estimate
$6,388,000
108
Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Project Description
Raised medians are recommended between Cawston Avenue and Kirby Street to encourage slower vehicular travel speeds and provide additional separation between opposing directions of traffic. Sidewalk infill is recommended on the north side of Stetson Avenue between Cawston Avenue and Sanderson Avenue. Street lighting is recommended throughout the project corridor to improve safety and visibility. Continental-style pattern crosswalks and advanced stop bars are recommended at all other existing traffic-controlled street crossings.
Recommendations and Modifications◆ Construct a raised median between Cawston Ave and Kirby St, where center-left turn lanes are located
◆ Construct sidewalk on north side of Stetson Ave, between Cawston Ave and Sanderson Ave
◆ Install street lighting between Cawston Ave and Kirby St◆ Stripe high visibility crosswalks and advanced stop bars at all existing crosswalk locations, where they do not exist (map on next page indicates locations)
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT
Stetson Ave (Cawston Ave to Kirby St)
Typical Cross-section Typical Cross-section
Cost Estimate
$5,073,000
111
Chapter 6: Project Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Chapter 7:
Policy
Analysis and
Recommendations
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 114
19.A.
Hemet’s current transportation policies, plans, and guidelines relevant to traffic safety were reviewed and their relationship to the Safety Action Plan goals (Chapter 1) evaluated, as is required by SS4A guidelines. This assessment helped determine the following policy recommendations which could use augmentation. These recommendations are listed relative to each goal:
Goal 1: Reduce Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes
◆ Policy 1.1 High-Injury Network Prioritization - Prioritize safety improvements on corridors and intersections with a history of fatal and serious injury crashes, particularly along high-priority corridors such as Stetson Avenue, Sanderson Avenue, Devonshire Avenue, Kirby Street, State Street, Menlo Avenue, and San Jacinto Street (south of Florida Avenue).
Coordinate with Caltrans to improve traffic safety on Florida Avenue and San Jacinto Street (north of Florida Avenue).
◆ Policy 1.2 Safe System Approach - Incorporate Safe System principles into roadway planning, design, operations, and maintenance to reduce the likelihood and severity of crashes for all roadway users, including the implementation of systemic safety countermeasures and targeted lighting improvements in high-risk locations. ◆ Policy 1.3 Intersection Safety Enhancements - Implement intersection improvements such as turn lanes, signal timing modifications, upgraded signal phasing, enhanced visibility, access management, and striping improvements to improve safety and reduce conflicts. ◆ Policy 1.4 Access Management - Minimize direct driveway access points and conflict areas along major corridors and state highways to improve roadway safety and operational efficiency.
◆ Policy 1.5 Freight and Through-Traffic Management - Route regional truck and throughtraffic away from residential neighborhoods and local streets toward designated major arterials to reduce exposure to high-speed and heavy vehicle traffic.
Goal 2: Build Safe and Connected Infrastructure for All Users ◆ Policy 2.1 Complete Streets Implementation - Design, retrofit, and maintain streets to safely accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, persons with disabilities, seniors, school-aged children, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), and motorists. ◆ Policy 2.2 Multimodal Connectivity - Expand and enhance the City’s bicycle, pedestrian, trail, transit, and NEV networks to improve connectivity between neighborhoods, schools, parks, transit stops, employment centers, and regional destinations. ◆ Policy 2.3 Traditional Grid and Neighborhood Connectivity - Support the continuation of the City’s traditional grid street system and connected street network to improve accessibility, disperse traffic, and facilitate walking and bicycling.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 115
Chapter 7: Policy Analysis and Recommendations
19.A.
◆ Policy 2.4 Safe Routes to Key Destinations - Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle improvements near schools, parks, downtown, transit facilities, medical facilities, and commercial areas to improve safety and accessibility for vulnerable users. Incorporate pedestrian-scale lighting into sidewalks, shared-use paths, bicycle facilities, and transit access routes to improve visibility, comfort, and personal safety for all users. ◆ Policy 2.5 Transit-Oriented and Mixed-Use Development - Encourage mixed-use and transit-supportive development patterns that reduce vehicle trip lengths, increase walkability, and improve access to alternative transportation options.
Goal 3: Manage Speed and Improve Operations
◆ Policy 3.1 Context-Sensitive Speed Management - Support context-sensitive roadway design and speed management strategies that balance mobility with safety, particularly in residential neighborhoods, school areas, downtown corridors, and areas with high pedestrian activity.
◆ Policy 3.2 Traffic Signal Coordination and Operations - Coordinate traffic signal timing, spacing, and progression to improve corridor operations, reduce congestion, and minimize crash potential.
◆ Policy 3.3 Transportation System Management - Implement Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to improve roadway efficiency, reduce vehicle conflicts, and encourage alternative travel modes.
◆ Policy 3.4 Operational Safety Improvements - Prioritize low-cost operational improvements such as striping modifications, signal upgrades, turn lane enhancements, lighting, signing, and traffic calming before pursuing major roadway widening projects. ◆ Policy 3.5 Smart Transportation Technologies - Support the deployment of intelligent transportation systems, traffic signal communications, adaptive signal operations, emergency vehicle preemption, radar feedback signs, and other emerging technologies to improve safety and operations.
Goal 4: Advance Ready-to-Implement Projects and Funding ◆ Policy 4.1 Capital Improvement Prioritization - Prioritize Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects that improve traffic safety, reduce severe crash risk, close multimodal network gaps, and support Vision Zero goals.
◆ Policy 4.2 Grant Readiness and Funding Coordination - Pursue federal, state, regional, and local funding opportunities for safety projects, including grants related to Complete Streets, Safe Routes to School, HSIP, SS4A, ATP, and traffic signal modernization. ◆ Policy 4.3 Traffic Signal Master Planning - Develop and maintain a citywide Traffic Signal Master Plan and Traffic Signal Asset Management Plan to guide phased safety and operational improvements.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 116
Chapter 7: Policy Analysis and Recommendations
19.A.
◆ Policy 4.4 Development Contributions - Require new development to contribute its fair share toward transportation safety improvements, traffic signal upgrades, and multimodal infrastructure through established funding mechanisms such as DIF, TUMF, and fair-share programs.
◆ Policy 4.5 Regional Coordination - Coordinate with Caltrans, RCTC, WRCOG, Riverside County, and neighboring jurisdictions to advance regionally significant transportation safety projects and corridor improvements.
Goal 5: Promote Education, Partnerships, and Accountability ◆ Policy 5.1 Community Safety Education - Support ongoing public education and outreach programs focused on safe driving, walking, bicycling, school travel safety, and awareness of vulnerable roadway users.
◆ Policy 5.2 Interagency Collaboration - Coordinate with schools, transit agencies, emergency responders, public health organizations, Caltrans, County of Riverside and community stakeholders to advance shared transportation safety goals. ◆ Policy 5.3 Data-Driven Decision Making - Use collision data, speed surveys, roadway characteristics, and community input to identify safety priorities and evaluate the effectiveness of implemented improvements.
◆ Policy 5.4 Safety Standards and Guidelines - Maintain and periodically update roadway, bikeway, and traffic signal standards and guidelines to reflect current best practices, state requirements, and evolving safety technologies.
◆ Policy 5.5 Monitoring and Reporting - Monitor progress toward reducing fatal and serious injury crashes and periodically report on implementation progress, project delivery, and safety performance outcomes.
Traffic signal policy recommendations are shown in Table 7.1.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 117
Chapter 7: Policy Analysis and Recommendations
19.A.
19.A.
Chapter 8:
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 119
19.A.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Safety Action Plan monitoring and evaluation should consist of the following tasks on an annual or as-needed basis:
◆ Tracking countermeasures implemented citywide
◆ An update of key metrics from the Safety Analysis Report ◆ Maintenance of an online collision data dashboard
◆ An update of the Safety Analysis systemic and high-risk environment tables (Table 3.5 and Table 3.6)
◆ Supplemental before/after assessments of implemented Safety Action Plan projects, and ◆ A meeting to brief stakeholders on safety progress
These activities should be summarized in an annual public-facing progress report.
8.1 Monitoring Countermeasure
Implementation
To measure the influence of the Safety Action Plan on the reduction of collisions in the city, tracking of countermeasures implemented citywide since its adoption will be necessary.
During the Plan’s existing conditions process many different types of transportation infrastructure assets were inventoried citywide, providing a foundation for this task.
Annual monitoring should also include periodically updating the Safety Action Plan’s highpriority project rankings. As high priority projects are implemented, new project areas beyond the initial top tier will subsequently become high ranking. Annual review of the progress toward priority project implementation is one way to ensure accountability toward the Safety Action Plan and Vision Zero safety goals established by the City Council resolution.
It is also essential to monitor countermeasures implemented independently of the Plan’s larger bundled projects. For example, countermeasures recommended in a project area could end up being implemented as part of other programmed improvements (Capital Improvement Program or developer exactions, for example). Tracking countermeasure implementation will ensure project descriptions, cost estimates, and feasibility assessments for remaining Safety Action Plan projects are up to date. Reliable asset inventory management, along with strong coordination and communication between relevant City of Hemet departments, is critical to effective monitoring.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 120
Chapter 8: Monitoring and Evaluation
19.A.
Monitoring will also need to consider countermeasures implemented around the city that were not identified in Plan projects. For example:
◆ State Assembly Bill (AB) 43 will provide Hemet opportunities to lower posted speed limits on many roadways throughout the city – not just in project areas. ◆ Pedestrian and bicycle facility projects will also be implemented citywide through future efforts not related to the Safety Action Plan and will do so in areas not limited to the High Injury Network and project areas.
Tracking these types of changes in the city will assist with before and after analysis described in a later section of this chapter. Additionally, it will make it seamless for Hemet to integrate Safety Action Plan recommendations into later studies and other long-range plans.
8.2 Safety Benchmarking with Future
Collision Data
Achieving Hemet’s Vision Zero goal to eliminate roadway deaths and severe injuries by 2031 will involve regular monitoring of collision occurrences to measure progress towards this ultimate benchmark. As each full year’s quantity of collision data becomes available, key metrics from the Safety Analysis Report (Appendix D) will be updated. Data should be updated on a rolling five-year basis as maintaining a five-year analysis period increases the quantity of data points (diminishing the likelihood of statistical outliers) and will facilitate consistent comparisons with the initial Safety Analysis Report, which included data from 2020 to 2024. Most statistics from that report were analyzed as either frequencies or percentages. To facilitate future annual monitoring, any metrics of interest which originated in the Safety Analysis Report will be treated as frequencies instead of percentages and the frequencies will be divided by 5 (converted to average collisions per year over five years) to establish a standard baseline. As each update occurs, the new average per year will be calculated and compared to the baseline.
Table 8.1 shows potential metrics to monitor regularly and their converted baseline values.
These include severe and fatal collisions by travel mode, and by collisions by type of impact for vehicular-only and bicyclist-involved collisions.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 121
Chapter 8: Monitoring and Evaluation
19.A.
19.A.
An ArcGIS-online hosted collision data dashboard with data filtering and querying capabilities was developed for internal collaboration on the Safety Action Plan project. It should be refreshed annually to maintain the latest five years of collision data, and can reference or highlight performance relative to the monitoring benchmarks, and show types of transportation infrastructure and progress on Safety Action Plan projects and countermeasure implementation. The dashboard could potentially be set up to be publicly accessible and enhanced to be more public facing or may be kept internal to disseminate safety progress internally within the city and among key stakeholders.
8.3 Monitoring Before and After Conditions
Two approaches will be used to assess before and after conditions of implemented Safety Action Plan projects. The first method will be to annually refresh the systemic and high-risk environment tables (presented in Table 3.5 and Table 3.6, also in Appendix D), on a rolling five-year basis using collisions per year. The second approach will be to conduct before and after studies where certain countermeasures were implemented. These two approaches will:
◆ Determine if collision rates have decreased in high-risk roadway environments where countermeasures have been implemented.
◆ Enable continued monitoring of the effectiveness of safer environments, such as roundabouts, raised medians, or speed feedback signage.
To facilitate regular comparisons after roadway environments have changed, collision per intersection by type and midblock collisions per mile will need to be converted to collisions per year per environment type, to adjust for the quantity of environments that will change in the city during this ongoing monitoring process.
To conduct before and after studies, data collection will occur in project areas prior to the implementation of the Safety Action Plan projects to obtain baseline measures of vehicular traffic speeds, traffic volumes, and if relevant to the project, pedestrian and bicycle counts.
Approximately six months to a year after the project has been implemented (allowing enough time for transportation habits and behaviors to get accustomed to the changes in the roadway environment), the same data will be collected in the same locations to assess changes resulting from the project to determine if traffic speeds are slower, and if there have been any notable changes in usage. Volumes and counts from this data collection will be used to adjust traffic collision risk by exposure factors. For example, if a similar number of bicyclist-involved collisions are occurring, but with a higher volume of bicyclists using the facility, this would be a noteworthy observation. Qualitative observations of safety issues and conditions before the project will be noted prior to Safety Action Plan project implementation, and those observations will be checked six months to a year later to determine if any identified safety issues are still pervasive. Information obtained from these supplemental assessments will be used to evaluate whether the types of countermeasures recommended originally in the plan are adequate or need adjustment.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 123
Chapter 8: Monitoring and Evaluation
19.A.
8.4 Annual Stakeholders Meeting and
Summary Report
Each year, after completion of the annual safety benchmarking, the City of Hemet should convene a group of stakeholders for a meeting similar in programming to those held in the Project Task Force. Stakeholders should include representation from the Task Force, which included members of law enforcement, Hemet Unified School District, community organizations and others.
The annual meeting should include a presentation on the annual safety benchmarking, an update on Safety Action Plan projects and/or other countermeasures that have been implemented, and findings or any other analysis conducted as part of a before/after conditions assessment.
Following the presentation, the meeting should include a facilitated group discussion, which can cover any relevant issues or topics related to the efficacy of the Safety Action Plan, or in response to the monitoring presentation. For example, the group discussion can be used as a platform for stakeholders to provide more input, share new observations of safety issues, discuss/evaluate the use of other possible countermeasures going forward, and discuss if project priorities should be revisited.
Following the annual stakeholders meeting, an annual progress report will be finalized which should include findings of the annual safety assessment, progress on countermeasure implementation, summaries on any before/after assessments, and an overview of the annual stakeholder meeting activities and meeting summary.
The annual report would be presented to Hemet City Council and made accessible to the public.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 124
Chapter 8: Monitoring and Evaluation
19.A.
Hemet
Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan
Appendices
19.A.
Appendix A
SS4A SelfCertification
Eligibility
Worksheet
19.A.
SS4A Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet | Page 1 of 5 Safe Streets and Roads for All
Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet
All applicants should follow the instructions in the NOFO to correctly apply for a grant. See the SS4A website for more information.
Table 1 of the SS4A NOFO describes seven components of an Action Plan, which correspond to the questions in this worksheet. Applicants should use this worksheet to determine whether their existing plan(s) contains the required components to be considered an eligible Action Plan for SS4A.
This worksheet is required for all SS4A Implementation Grant applications and any Planning and Demonstration Grant applications to conduct Supplemental Planning/Demonstration Activities only. Please complete the form in its entirety, do not adjust the formatting or headings of the worksheet, and upload the completed PDF with your application.
Eligibility
An Action Plan is considered eligible for an SS4A application for an Implementation Grant or a Planning and Demonstration Grant to conduct Supplemental Planning/Demonstration Activities if the following two conditions are met:
You can answer “YES” to Questions 3, 6, and 8 in this worksheet; and You can answer “YES” to at least three of the five remaining Questions, 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7.
If both conditions are not met, an applicant is still eligible to apply for a Planning and Demonstration Grant to fund the creation of a new Action Plan or updates to an existing Action Plan to meet SS4A requirements.
Applicant Information
Lead Applicant: ______________________________________________ UEI: ____________________________________ Action Plan Documents
In the table below, list the relevant Action Plan and any additional plans or documents that you reference in this form. Up to three plans or documents may be included. Please provide a hyperlink to any documents available online or indicate that the Action Plan or other documents will be uploaded in Valid Eval as part of your application. Note that, to be considered an eligible Action Plan for SS4A, the plan(s) coverage must be broader than just a corridor, neighborhood, or specific location.
Document Title Link Date of Most
Recent Update
City of Hemet DJBVYNK4LEK8
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) Not available 2026 City of Hemet Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Not available 2019 City of Hemet Circulation Element https://www.hemetca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4520/4_Circulation_web-4-11-2017 2012
19.A.
SS4A Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet | Page 2 of 5 Action Plan Components
For each question below, answer “YES” or “NO.” If “YES,” list the relevant plan(s) or supporting documentation that address the condition and the specific page number(s) in each document that corroborates your response. This form provides space to reference multiple plans, but please list only the most relevant document(s).
1. Leadership Commitment and Goal Setting
Are BOTH of the following true?
A high-ranking official and/or governing body in the jurisdiction publicly committed to an eventual goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries; and The commitment includes either setting a target date to reach zero OR setting one or more targets to achieve a reduction in roadway fatalities and serious injuries by a specific date.
Note: This may include a resolution, policy, ordinance, executive order, or other official announcement from a high-ranking official and the official adoption of a plan that includes the commitment by a legislative body.
YES
NO
If “YES,” please list the relevant document(s) and page number(s) that corroborate your response.
Document Title Page Number(s)
2. Planning Structure
To develop the Action Plan, was a committee, task force, implementation group, or similar body established and charged with the plan’s development, implementation, and monitoring? Note: This should include a description of the membership of the group and what role they play in the development, implementation, and monitoring of the Action Plan.
YES
NO
If “YES,” please list the relevant document(s) and page number(s) that corroborate your response.
Document Title Page Number(s)
✔
Hemet CSAP - Hemet City Council Vision Zero Resolution Appendix B ✔
Hemet CSAP- Public and Stakeholder Engagement Chapter 2 (p. 12-14) Hemet CSAP - Public Workshop Summaries Appendix C
19.A.
SS4A Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet | Page 3 of 5
3. Safety Analysis
Does the Action Plan include ALL of the following?
Analysis of existing conditions and historical trends to provide a baseline level of crashes involving fatalities and serious injuries across a jurisdiction, locality, Tribe, or region; Analysis of the location(s) of crashes, the severity, contributing factors, and crash types; Analysis of systemic and specific safety needs, as needed (e.g., high-risk road features, specific safety needs of relevant road users, or post-crash care and emergency response); and, A geospatial identification (geographic or locational data using maps) of higher risk locations.
YES
NO
Note: Availability and level of detail of safety data may vary greatly by location. The Fatality and Injury Reporting System Tool (FIRST) provides county- and city-level data. When available, local data should be used to supplement nationally available data sets.
If “YES,” please list the relevant document(s) and page number(s) that corroborate your response.
Document Title Page Number(s)
4. Engagement and Collaboration
Did development of the Action Plan include ALL of the following activities? Engagement with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups;
Incorporation of information received from the engagement and collaboration into the plan; and Coordination that included inter- and intra-governmental cooperation and collaboration, as appropriate.
YES
NO
Note: This should include a description of public meetings, participation in public and private events, and proactive meetings with stakeholders.
If “YES,” please list the relevant document(s) and page number(s) that corroborate your response.
Document Title Page Number(s)
✔
Hemet CSAP - Safety Analysis Report Appendix D
Hemet CSAP - Safety Analysis Chapter 3
✔
Hemet CSAP - Public and Stakeholder Engagement Chapter 2 Hemet CSAP - Public Workshop Summaries Appendix C
City of Hemet 6th Cycle Housing Element Appendix C
19.A.
SS4A Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet | Page 4 of 5
5. Policy and Process Changes
Are BOTH of the following true?
The plan development included an assessment of current policies, plans, guidelines, and/or standards to identify opportunities to improve how processes prioritize safety; and The plan discusses implementation through the adoption of revised or new policies, guidelines, and/or standards.
Note: This may include existing and/or recommended Complete Streets policy, guidelines for community engagement and collaboration, policy for prioritizing areas of greatest need, local laws (e.g., speed limit), design guidelines, and other policies and processes that prioritize safety.
YES
NO
If “YES,” please list the relevant document(s) and page number(s) that corroborate your response.
Document Title Page Number(s)
6. Strategy and Project Selections
Does the plan identify a comprehensive set of projects and strategies to address the safety problems in the Action Plan, with information about time ranges when projects and strategies will be deployed, and an explanation of project prioritization criteria?
Note: This should include one or more lists of community-wide multi-modal and multi-disciplinary projects that respond to safety problems and reflect community input, indication of expected time ranges to complete each project, and a description of how your community will prioritize projects in the future.
YES
NO
If “YES,” please list the relevant document(s) and page number(s) that corroborate your response.
Document Title Page Number(s)
✔
Hemet CSAP - Policy Analysis Chapter 7
City of Hemet Circulation Element 4-6 thru 4-11
✔
Hemet CSAP - Project Recommendations Chapter 6
Hemet CSAP - Medium and Long Range Project Descriptions Appendix G
19.A.
SS4A Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet | Page 5 of 5
7. Progress and Transparency
Does the plan include BOTH of the following?
A description of how progress will be measured over time that includes, at a minimum, outcome data.
The plan is posted publicly online.
Note: This should include a progress reporting structure and list of proposed metrics.
YES
NO
If “YES,” please list the relevant document(s) and page number(s) that corroborate your response.
Document Title Page Number(s)
8. Action Plan Date
YES
NO
Was at least one of your plans finalized and/or last updated between 2021 and May , 2026? Note: Updates may include major revisions, updates to the data used for analysis, status updates, or the addition of supplemental planning documents, including but not limited to an ADA Transition Plan, one or more Road Safety Audits conducted in high-crash locations, or a Vulnerable Road User Plan.
If “YES,” please list your most recent document, date of finalization, and page number(s) that corroborate your response.
Document Title Date of Most
Recent Update Page Number(s)
✔
Hemet CSAP - Monitoring and Evaluation Chapter 8
City of Hemet Circulation Element 4-46 thru 4-49
✔
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) 2026 1
19.A.
Appendix B
Hemet City
Council Vision
Zero Resolution
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Appendix C
Public Workshop
Summaries
19.A.
Task Force Meeting #1
19.A.
Task Force Meeting #1 (Virtual – Teams)
Thursday 10/30/2025 @ 1:30pm - 3:00pm
Attendance:
Name Title Organization
Noah Rau Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Hemet Eric McBride Executive Analyst City of Hemet
Jennifer Cortes Communications and Events Coordinator City of Hemet Emery Papp Deputy Director of Community Development City of Hemet Gregg Holyoak Streets Supervisor/Operations Manager City of Hemet Kurt Mikolaycik Facilities Maintenance Supervisor City of Hemet Kristian Ticas Community Solutions Coordinator City of Hemet Glen Brock Police Captain Hemet Police Department
Ryan Webb Interim Fire Chief Hemet Fire Department
Linda Krupa City Council Member (District 5) City of Hemet Cyndi Lemke Former Planning Commission Chair and Active Community Member
City of Hemet
Mallory Cremin Hemet Resident Green Coalition of Hemet San Jacinto
Alberto Vergel De Dios District 8 Local Assistant Caltrans Christopher Tzeng Program Manager - Planning WRCOG
John Merrill County CSAP Project Manager County of Riverside Mauricio Alvarez Planning Manager Riverside Transit Agency Monique Chen Project Manager, Principal CRA
Jenny An School Mobility Assessment and Outreach
Lead, Senior Planner
CRA
Shasha Jovanovic Safety Analysis Lead, Senior Transportation Planner
CRA
Xochitl Sosa Transportation Planner CRA
Philip Wragg Subconsultant – Planning Group Manager STC Traffic Meeting Presentation:
19.A.
See attached PFD
Notes
Hemet secured funding and activated CSAP
CSAP will improve traƯic safety and quality of life for Hemet residents CRA will prepare one grant application to kick start implementation process Collision data summary:
Data on whether bicyclists or pedestrians were wearing bright or fluorescent clothing at night was not included in the collision records. The dataset includes all publicly maintained roads, including state highways, but excludes private roadways such as those within gated communities. Instances of missing data may occur when collisions take place outside the city limits, especially on streets located along the city boundary.
Hemet indicated the raised median along Florida Avenue was installed in 2020.
This is at the beginning period of the CSAP data, which runs between 1/1/2020 and 12/31/2024.
Discussion regarding pedestrian collisions in the middle of the roadway, Activity Feedback
Activity 1 – Vision Statement
19.A.
Activity 1 – Project Goals Brainstorm
Improve infrastructure to support safe travel
Create a pipeline of “shovel-ready” projects for near- term implementation Stop signs to be more visible
Collaboration opportunities for local businesses to support the City Identify ways to reduce severe/fatal accidents
Safe crosswalks
Identify grant opportunities to fund projects
Improve safety
Develop a speed management policy and implement context-sensitive speed limit reductions
Update our traƯic signals with coordination for the Stetson corridor and Sanderson Corridor
Road improvements to improve safety
Support safer access to commercial areas
Establish measurable performance targets
Update signal infrastructure for timing
Create more left turn pockets
Increase safety in areas with high accident rates
Community can safely walk and bicycle to school, work and shopping. Having designated Quiet Streets for bicycle traƯic across the City, N-S and E-W
19.A.
Make roads safer for bicyclists
Create education programs
Improve lighting at as many locations as possible
Identify diƯerent lighting options including solar options for nighttime wayfinding Education programs for all modes of travel
Update road infrastructure in collision hot spots with installations for additional stop signs, cross walks, bike lanes as needed
Control students near crosswalks at schools
Ebike safety plan
Activity 2 – Miro Board
19.A.
Pedestrians not crossing at intersections
Entrance and Exit for Tahquitz High school have congestion issues during school arrival and dismissal
Cawston/Eaton-During school exit severe intersection congestion with students and vehicles
Pedestrian crosswalk at Florida & Elk
Updating traƯic signal detection systems
State Street has no sidewalks or bike lanes by McSweeney property. We need a safe bicycle and pedestrian path or bypass for this major N-S corridor.
19.A.
Truck traƯic from the new Kirby Warehouse, onto Acacia, though many trucks use other streets to avoid traƯic.
It would be great to have bike ways from West Valley HS to Hemet High, as many games, and activities for students moving between locations. Bike lanes with painted lines are better than 3d guards, since keeping bike lanes clean of large debris is important for riding safety. Separate bike paths are even better for both pedestrians and cyclists.
A bike path would be good all the way from Domenigoni to Stetson, then East on Stetson for kids riding to schools and cyclists getting to and from Domenigoni pkwy.
19.A.
It could connect to the proposed bike path in McSweeney Farms. I think it would be amazing to have a bike path in the low part where Thornton Avenue ends (just East of the golf course) and continuing all the way up to Idyllwild. Beyond the scope of this probably, but I'm still hopeful that we'll get a Vines to Pines bike path someday (from Temecula to Idyllwild).
I would like to propose the City making a separate bike/walkway around the McSweeny fenced area. There is NO room for pedestrians except in the road, so a diagonal path From Chambers to Domenigoni and Searl Pkwy, to the Western Science Center, where the other path ends. Then students and pedestrians have a safe route to avoid that part of State Street. Some high school students and athletes could use it to get from West Valley HS to Hemet High, too.
19.A.
Stetson and Sanderson traƯic corridors. Update traƯic signal detection and add coordination.
19.A.
Several severe injury accidents in front of Fire Station 3 In'N'Out Burger drive through line is dangerous, the way it blocks the right lane. Can they move the drive through line into the parking lot somehow? Four way stop sign at Gilbert & Latham
Quick merge, high traƯic area
A four way stop sign Meridian & Lincoln instead of 2 way or make current stop signs more visible.
I agree. If you're new to the area, it's easy to miss this. Also getting harder to get onto Park Avenue from Lincoln. But not sure I want a stop sign on Park.
19.A.
Lights not synced. Stopping at every one makes people frustrated - more likely to run the yellow lights.
Q&A and Open Discussion
Recent school-area improvements, including upgrades to drop-oƯ and pick-up circulation, may have already had a positive impact on the collision data Ribbon cutting ceremony on November 17, 2025
The equity assessment will be made available on the project website, hosted on the City’s site.
19.A.
Task Force Meeting #2
19.A.
Task Force Meeting #2 (Virtual – Teams)
Monday 03/23/2026 @ 1:00pm - 2:30pm
Attendance:
Name Title Organization
Noah Rau Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Hemet Jennifer Cortes Communications and Events Coordinator City of Hemet Emery Papp Deputy Director of Community Development City of Hemet Gregg Holyoak Streets Supervisor/Operations Manager City of Hemet Kurt Mikolaycik Facilities Maintenance Supervisor City of Hemet Kristian Ticas Community Solutions Coordinator City of Hemet Alberto Vergel De Dios District 8 Local Assistant Caltrans Christine Formica Hemet Resident
Jennifer Nguyen Director of P Riverside Transit Agency
Raquel Larez Associate Engineer County of Riverside
Mike Sattley Facilities & Planning Director HUSD
Monique Chen Project Manager, Principal CRA
Shasha Jovanovic Safety Analysis Lead, Senior Transportation Planner
CRA
Xochitl Sosa Transportation Planner CRA
Meeting Presentation:
See attached PFD
Notes
Provided update on schedule and deliverables
Confirmed upcoming workshop date/time:
Planning Commission Meeting @ 6 PM
Hemet Public Library
Shared draft countermeasure development and toolbox
Defined draft safety project identification
19.A.
Provided project prioritization criteria
Activity Feedback
Identify Project Recommendations: Grab a start and place it on top of the projects that are most important to you.
Warren Rd and Devonshire Ave (2)
Warren Rd and Corte del Mar
Myers St and Devonshire Ave
Cawston Ave and Eaton Ave
Cawston Ave and Devonshire Ave (2)
Sanderson Ave and Devonshire Ave
Sanderson Ave and Florida Ave
Sanderson Ave and Stetson Ave
Sanderson Ave and Domenigoni Pkwy
19.A.
Kirby St and Florida Ave
State St and Menlo Ave
State S t and Oakland Ave
State St and Thornton Ave (2)
State St and Domenigoni Pkwy
San Jacinto St and Florida Ave
San Jacinto St and Acacia Ave
Florida Ave and Acacia Ave
Mustang Way and Morgan Hill Rd
Stetson Ave and Palm Ave
Stetson Ave and Buena Vista
Stetson Ave and Santa Fe St
Stetson Ave and San Jacinto St
Stetson Ave and Girard St
Q&A and Open Discussion
A question was raised regarding the eƯectiveness of the green conflict paint treatment at Florida Avenue and Palm Avenue and Chambers Street and State Street. Both were installed in late 2023. A review of collision data (2020-2024) indicates that there was one bicycle-related collisions at Florida and Palm which occurred in 2021. Ultimately, it was determined that there was not suƯicient collision data to evaluate the treatment's eƯectiveness at these specific locations. However, a countermeasure database was created documenting Crash Reduction Factors, where available. The Hemet CSAP team is working collaboratively with Riverside County to coordinate on safety improvements that may extend into or aƯect the County's jurisdiction, helping to ensure a consistent and coordinated approach across agency boundaries.
19.A.
Public Workshop #1
19.A.
3900 5th Avenue, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92103 619-795-6086 www.CRAmobility.com
Hemet CSAP Workshop #1
November 13, 2025
6:00 PM – 8:00 PM
Hemet Public Library
Team members in attendance: Noah Rau (Hemet), Eric McBride (Hemet), Jennifer Cortes (Hemet), Monique Chen (CRA), Sasha Jovanovic (CRA), Jonathan Sanchez (CRA), Cristian Belmudez (CRA), Zeltzin Angon (CRA), and Xochitl Sosa (CRA)
Overview
The Hemet CSAP community workshop provided an opportunity for residents to share input on their priority transportation needs and identify locations where roadway and public-use infrastructure require improvement. A total of 11 participants attended the workshop.
The meeting began with an overview of the project, including the safety analysis and mobility assessments completed to date. After the presentation, participants joined two interactive engagement activities: a mapping exercise to pinpoint specific issues and opportunities, and a prioritization activity to help identify which needs should be addressed first.
Meeting Presentation: See attached PFD.
19.A.
Engagement Activities
Identifying Traffic Safety Issue Locations
During the mapping exercise, participants labeled locations where they felt unsafe walking, biking, driving, or accessing transit using red stickers. Green stickers were used to highlight places they considered safe. To provide additional clarity, each sticker included a mode-specific icon, allowing participants to indicate whether their comment related to walking, bicycling, driving, or transit access.
Participants were also encouraged to document their experiences and preferences on the physical maps. Our team has consolidated the notes in the table below, with reference to the location of that specific note.
Location Comments
Esplanade Ave & Alabaster Dr Unsafe vehicle infrastructure Multi agency intersection
4-way stop
Devonshire Ave & Warren Dr Unsafe vehicle infrastructure Too congested
Lanes merge into one lane heading
north towards Devonshire Ave
Warren Rd Unsafe vehicle infrastructure
Unsafe pedestrian infrastructure
Unsafe bicycle infrastructure
Not enough street lighting near new
development
Devonshire Ave & Cawston Ave Unsafe vehicle infrastructure Congested traffic flow
Stetson Ave & Cawston Ave Safe vehicle infrastructure
Mustang Way & Sanderson Ave Unsafe vehicle infrastructure Making a left onto Sanderson Ave
Stetson Ave & Seven Hills Dr Unsafe vehicle infrastructure Drivers are not paying attention
Not enough lighting from Sanderson Ave
to Kirby St
Florida Ave between Kirby St & Lyon Ave Unsafe vehicle infrastructure Hard/dangerous left turn out of In-N-Out
19.A.
Location Comments
Need protected left turn lane
Menlo Ave & Kirby St Unsafe vehicle infrastructure
Menlo Ave & State Street Unsafe vehicle infrastructure
Hard to see pedestrians
Spring Charter School Unsafe vehicle infrastructure
Pick-up and drop-off issues
Parents park/block traffic at nearest
signal
Diamond Valley Unsafe vehicle infrastructure
Need separated bicycle facility
Jacob Wiens Elementary School Unsafe vehicle infrastructure Cornell St between Florida Ave & Park Ave Unsafe vehicle infrastructure Sanderson Ave Unsafe vehicle infrastructure
Speeding
Cypress St Unsafe vehicle infrastructure
Double parking, revving, and speeding
Lots of kids walk in this area
Needs speed bumps
Kirby St Safe vehicle infrastructure
Good street scape
Florida Ave Unsafe vehicle infrastructure
Not enough space to make U-turns
Florida Ave & Sanderson Ave Unsafe pedestrian infrastructure Lack of safety
Excessive drug use by the Quick Quack
carwash
Florida Ave & Yale St Unsafe pedestrian infrastructure
Park Ave & Dartmouth St Unsafe pedestrian infrastructure Florida Ave & Dartmouth St Safe pedestrian infrastructure Good street environment for bicycling
Florida Ave & Lake St Safe pedestrian infrastructure
New sidewalks
19.A.
Location Comments
Sanderson Ave & Stetson Ave Unsafe pedestrian infrastructure No sidewalk
Domenigoni Pkwy Safe bicycle infrastructure
Lengthen bike path
State St Unsafe bicycle infrastructure
No lighting
19.A.
19.A.
Transportation Safety Prioritization Activity
Next, participants took part in a prioritization activity, where each person placed three dots on the transportation issues they believed were most important to address. The full list of elements evaluated in this exercise is provided below.
Several participants were particularly enthusiastic and added written notes directly onto the activity sheets. These additional comments are documented below and grouped by the relevant transportation element.
Transportation Topics Comments Count
Lack of sidewalks near schools 2
Safety for people walking and biking to
and from school
West Valley High School 6
Safety for bicycle riders 5
Driving under the influence 2
Safety/comfort at bus stops 1
Speeding on busy roads Cypress St at park area 9
Insufficient lighting Mary Henley Park 11
Access and Connectivity to Community
Destinations
4 Other Turn access through median on
Florida (left only)
2
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Photos from the Workshop
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Public Workshop #1
November 13, 2025
19.A.
Agenda
1. Introductions2. Project Overview3. Collision Analysis 4. School Walk Audits 5. Activity #1: Establish a Vision Statement and Project Goals
6. Next Steps
19.A.
Project Overview
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) established the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) discretionary program with $5 billion in appropriated funds over 5 years, 2022-2026.
The SS4A program funds regional, local, and Tribal initiatives through grants to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries.A CSAP is required for USDOT CSAP Implementation Grants and increases competitiveness for other funding sources.
19.A.
Eight Components in a CSAP
Leadership Commitment
and Goal Setting Planning Structure Engagement and Collaboration Safety Analysis Equity Considerations Policy and Process Changes Strategy and Project Selections Progress and Transparency
19.A.
Project Purpose
Identify Key Transportation Safety Issues both citywide and around schoolsEstablish Vision Zero CommitmentDevelop an Equity-Focused Comprehensive Safety Action PlanInitiate Implementation Efforts
19.A.
Project Schedule
19.A.
Public Engagement
Four Pop-Up Events
o #1 National Night Out (August 5th)o #2 Movie Night (August 29th)o #3 Rancho Del Sol (September 13th) o #4 Chalktober (October 18th)
19.A.
Public Engagement
Movie Night Chalktober Rancho Del Sol
19.A.
Public Engagement
19.A.
Public Engagement
Established a Task ForceThree Task Force Meetings
o 1st meeting was held on October 30th
Three In-Person Workshops
Check out the project website!
https://ca- hemet.civicplus.com/1340/Comprehensive-SafetyAction-Plan-CSAP
19.A.
Collision Analysis Overview
19.A.
Collision Overview
19.A.
Collisions by Mode and by Location
65.4%
51.6%
64.6%
34.6%
48.4%
35.4%
0 800600400
200
1,200
1,000
Bicyclist-Involved Pedestrian-Involved Vehicular-Only
Intersection (1,255 total) Midblock (705 total)
Mode Category Total
Vehicular-only 1,670 (85%)Pedestrian-Involved 192 (10%)Bicyclist-Involved 99 (5%)Total 1,960* *Includes one pedestrian-bicyclist-involved collision, counted in each mode category
19.A.
Collisions Severity by Mode
10%
0%
60%
50%40%
30%
20%
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Vehicular-Only (1,670 total) Pedestrian-Involved (192 total) Bicyclist-Involved (99 total)
19.A.
Vehicular Only Collisions by Type of
Impact
0 800700600500400300200100
Not Stated Other Overturned Sideswipe Head-On Hit Object Rear-End Broadside Intersection Midblock
50 4540353025201510
Other Overturned Sideswipe Head-On Hit Object Rear-End Broadside Intersection Midblock
All Injury Collisions Severe & Fatal Collisions
19.A.
Bicyclist-Involved Collisions by
Type of Impact
0 605040302010
Other Overturned Sideswipe Head-On Hit Object Rear-End Broadside Intersection Midblock
76543210
Sideswipe Rear-End Other Hit Object Head-On Broadside
Intersection Midblock
All Injury Collisions Severe & Fatal Collisions
19.A.
Severe and Fatal Collisions by
Mode by Time of Day
13.9%
21.3%
36.1%
28.7%
24.5%
6.1%
18.4%
51.0%
7.1%
21.4% 14.3%
57.1%
50 4540353025201510
Evening/Late (18:00-23:59) Afternoon (12:00-17:59) Morning (06:00-11:59) Overnight (00:01-05:59) Vehicular-Only Pedestrian-Involved Bicyclist-Involved
19.A.
Vehicular-Only Collisions
Ran
k Location
Total
Collisi
ons
Severe
and
Fatal
Collisi
ons
Traffic Control Intersection Size
2x2 Side-Street Stop 0 33 N. Gilbert St & W. Latham Ave 1 2 State St & Florida Ave 4x3 Signal 0 21
t3 Warren Rd & W. Florida Ave 4x4 Signal 2 19
2x2 Signal 0 19 S. Buena Vista St & Stetson Ave t3
5 Kirby St & W. Florida Ave 4x4 Signal 0 15
6 S. Sanderson Ave & Mustang Wy 4x2 Signal 3 14
4x4 Signal 0 13 S. Sanderson Ave & W. Stetson Ave 7
8 N. Cornell St & E. Florida Ave 4x2 Side-Street Stop 0 12 2x2 Side-Street Stop 2 11 9 Myers St & W. Devonshire Ave t10 Cawston Ave N & W. Devonshire Ave 3x2 Signal 2 11t10 S. Hamilton Ave & W. Florida Ave 4x2 Side-Street Stop 0 11 4x4 Signal 0 11 S. Sanderson Ave & Domenigoni Pkwy T10
19.A.
Pedestrian-Involved Collisions
Ran
k Location
Total
Collisi
ons
Severe
and
Fatal
Collisi
ons
Traffic Control Intersection Size
4x2 Signal 0 5 1 Lyon Ave & W. Florida Ave
2 S. Sanderson Ave & W. Stetson Ave 4x4 Signal 42
t3
900' east of Sanderson Ave & W. Florida Ave (Driveway) 4x2 Side-Street Stop 0 2 t3 Kirby St & W. Menlo Ave 4x2 All-Way Stop 20
t3 Kirby St & W. Florida Ave 4x4 Signal 22
4x4 Signal 0 2 S. Gilbert St & W. Thornton Ave t3
t3 Inez St & W. Florida Ave 4x2 Side-Street Stop 1 2
4x2 Signal 0 2 S. Santa Fe St & E. Florida Ave t3
t3 N. San Jacinto St & E. Oakland Ave 4x2 Signal 21t3 S. San Jacinto St & E. Morton Pl 2x2 Side-Street Stop 0 2 4x2 Signal 1 2 Columbia St & E. Florida Ave t3
t3 S. Sanderson Ave & Tanya Ave/W. Johnston Ave 4x2 Signal 20t3 S. Kirby St/Seven Hills Dr & W. Stetson Ave 4x4 Signal 22 4x2 Signal 0 2 t3 Gilmore St & W. Florida Ave
t3 770' south of W. Esplanade Ave & S. State St (Driveway) 4x4 Signal 22t3 S. Sanderson Ave & 540' south of W. Florida Ave (Driveway) 4 x2 Side-Street Stop 2 2
19.A.
Bicyclist-Involved Collisions
Ran
k Location
Total
Collisi
ons
Severe
and
Fatal
Collisi
ons
Traffic Control Intersection Size
t1 S. San Jacinto St & Acacia E. Ave 2x2 All-Way Stop 41t1 S. Sanderson Ave & W. Stetson Ave 4x4 Signal 41t3 760' west of Kirby St & W. Florida Ave (Driveway) 4x2 Side-Street Stop 0 2t3 Kirby St & W. Menlo Ave 4x2 All-Way Stop 20 t3 Kirby St & W. Devonshire Ave 4x2 Side-Street Stop 1 2 t3 N. Thompson St & E. Latham Ave 2x2 Side-Street Stop 0 2t3 S. Sanderson Ave & Wentworth Dr 4x2 Signal 21
19.A.
High Injury Network (all modes)
High Injury Network Miles (%) of City Roadways
Percent of Severe and Fatal Collisions by
Mode Captured
Composite HIN Mode-specific HIN
Vehicular-Only 78% 73% 28.0 (10%)
Pedestrian-Involved 82% 63% 12.2 (4%)
Bicyclist-Involved 86% 79% 15.3 (5%)
Composite (All Modes) 80% n/a 38.1* (13%)
19.A.
Collisions
19.A.
Collisions
19.A.
Injury Network
19.A.
SRTS Action Plans
19.A.
Understand how
Students are
Walking and Rolling
Identify City Public
Right-of-Way
Improvements
19.A.
School
ProfilePrioritized Projects
Data Collection,
Survey Results
Demand,
Facility, Quality,
Connectivity, and
Safety Analysis
Potential
Improvements
Walk Audit
Pick-Up orDrop-Off Observation
Action Plan
19.A.
What have we observed?
Students often cross at unmarked crosswalks and tend to “dart” across the street There is limited bicycle infrastructure to connect schools to neighborhoods and parksDrivers often speed and pull around quickly to avoid school trafficInformal pick-up and drop-off areas tend to create challenges for walking, rolling, and driving
19.A.
Group Activities & Report Back
19.A.
Next Steps…
Finalize Vision Statement and Project GoalsCountermeasure ToolkitImprovement Projects DevelopmentProject Prioritization 2nd set of Task Force Meeting and Public Workshop (Spring 2026)
19.A.
Questions and Comments
Contact:
Noah Rau, P.E.
Public Works Director / City EngineerCity of Hemet(951) 765-2360 [email protected]
19.A.
19.A.
Public Workshop #2 / Planning Commission Hearing
19.A.
Hemet CSAP Workshop #2 / Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday 04/07/2026
6:00 PM – 8:30 PM
Attendance:
Name Contact
Jordan Walton [email protected]
Akyilah Michel [email protected]
Krystal Michel [email protected]
Ofelia Dilley [email protected]
John Wuerth [email protected]
Gabriel Viramontes [email protected]
Jacob Beamesderfer [email protected]
Monquie Alaniz-Flejter [email protected]
Emery Papp [email protected]
Meeting Overview:
For the second public workshop, the Hemet CSAP Team presented at the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, April 7, to provide an overview of the project scope, goals and objectives, data collection methodology, draft safety recommendations, and project prioritization approach. A total of nine participants attended the workshop.
The meeting began with an overview of the project, a summary of community outreach efforts, an introduction to the countermeasure toolbox, a review of the draft safety recommendations, and an explanation of the proposed prioritization criteria. Following the presentation, participants were invited to walk through four interactive stations and provide feedback on key elements of the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan:
Station #1 – Hemet Collision Overview: Participants reviewed the city's collision trends, high-injury network, and key safety findings identified through the data analysis.
Station #2 – Example Countermeasures: Participants learned about potential engineering, education, enforcement, and policy countermeasures that could be implemented to address the identified safety issues.
19.A.
Station #3 – Draft Projects and Prioritization Criteria: Participants reviewed the draft recommended safety projects and the criteria used to prioritize projects for implementation.
Station #4 – "Pick Your Top Three" Safety Projects: Participants participated in an interactive exercise to identify the three projects they believed should be the highest priorities for implementation.
Meeting Q&A
Commissioner Viramontes
When you get the data analysis, does it share the time of day when most accidents happen? Is it during rush hours, early morning or late at night? Yes, all collision data during the analysis timeframe (1/1/2020 and 12/31/2024) were analyzed including rush hours, early morning s and late nights. Each collision record shows time of the day when such collision occurred.
Where do you think the biggest problem lies?
TraƯic safety issues are influenced by a variety of factors – speeding is one of many causes.
The presentation identifies high pedestrian involved collisions at midblock and intersections, do you know why that is?
One contributing factor is the lack of convenient crossing opportunities. In many areas of the city, marked pedestrian crossings at signalized or stop-controlled intersections are spaced more than one-half mile apart. As a result, pedestrians may choose to cross at unmarked midblock locations rather than detour to the nearest designated crossing. This highlights the need to improve crossing frequency and accessibility, particularly along corridors with high pedestrian activity.
Commissioner Hill
What data collected regarding cell phone use while driving, or demographic data? While the collision data include demographic characteristics of parties involved, it is diƯicult to determine whether cell phone use contributed to a collision. Drivers
19.A.
rarely report being distracted by a cell phone when providing statements for police reports, and this information is not consistently documented.
Commissioner Wuerth
There seems to be opportunity to use AI for this project, was there any AI data collection methods you used?
Very interesting suggestion, but AI data collection methods were not utilized here.
Collision data was collected through Crossroads and TIMS. There has been discussion about a truck route study with smart traƯic systems. Is there a reason we are limiting the smart traƯic systems to key corridors? Is this a cost restraint?
The corridors were based oƯ the high injury network database, ex. Sanderson Ave and Stetson Ave. These are of priority right now but open to discussion plans for low priority streets following this project. The recommended countermeasures include opportunities to implement systemic improvements to traƯic signal hardware, software, and communications throughout the city. Recommendations may be location-specific, targeting sites with a history of collisions, or systemic in nature, addressing roadway characteristics associated with elevated crash risk. This proactive approach helps reduce the potential for future collisions not only at known high-crash locations but also at similar locations across the city.
Chair Beamesderfer
What is Vision Zero?
Vision Zero is a strategy that aims to eliminate traƯic fatalities and serious injuries while providing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all roadway users. It is based on the Safe System Approach, which recognizes that people make mistakes and focuses on designing and operating the transportation system to minimize the likelihood and severity of crashes. The Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan is being developed with funding from the federal Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant program, which supports communities in implementing Vision Zero and Safe System principles.
How is the amount of funding requested from the state determined?
19.A.
The Comprehensive Safety Action Plan is not tied to a single funding source. Rather, it is intended to identify and prioritize projects that can be competitive for multiple state and federal grant programs, including the Active Transportation Program (ATP), Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), and Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Implementation Grants. Funding requests will be developed on a project-byproject basis using planning-level cost estimates prepared as part of the CSAP, allowing the City to pursue the most appropriate funding opportunities as they become available.
Are roundabouts a safer approach and will these be implemented into the recommendations?
Roundabouts are recognized as an eƯective safety countermeasure because they reduce vehicle speeds and eliminate many of the conflict points associated with traditional signalized or stop-controlled intersections, resulting in fewer severe collisions. As part of the CSAP, roundabouts will be considered where appropriate; however, their feasibility depends on site-specific factors such as roadway geometry, right-of-way availability, traƯic operations, adjacent land uses, and construction costs.
Public Comment
Item 10b, the safety analyst report makes one thing obvious, our current approach is not working. The data shows nearly 2,000 injury-related crashes in 5 years but that number does not capture what happens on our streets everyday. The report notes that darkness is a major factor in fatal pedestrian crashes, with almost 80% happening at night. But here is the reality, if a road is designed like a highway, people will drive it like a highway no matter how many lights you add. I hope the commission will look beyond just lighting improvements. We need real traƯic calming as part of the safe systems approach and we need to take a hard look at our intersections.
The report highlights how dangerous permissive left turns are especially on high-speed roads like Sanderson. A more straightforward fix would be converting those to left turn signals so drivers have a dedicated green arrow instead of guessing when it safe to go. Right turn on red is also a real problem. A statewide study from 2011 to 2022 found over 39,000 crashes and 217 fatalities from it in California and more than half of those involve a pedestrian or cyclist, the Commission should look into that. And then the sidewalks. I’ve
19.A.
lived here long enough to know that in the high-need areas, the report identifies the sidewalk are a mess. You’ve got people in wheelchairs and families with strollers forced into the street to avoid broken or non-existent sidewalks. You can not walk down a street like Florida Avenue for too long without walking on an unmarked path or needing to cross the highway to get to a slightly better path on the other side. This happens not just on Floria Avenue but all over town. That is not only a safety problem, it is a long-standing gap in basic infrastructure. Using the federal SS4A grant to build a continuous, reliable sidewalk network will make this a more functional city.
I understand this is a work study item so the commission is not taking a final vote tonight, but as you develop your input and prepare to recommend a Vision Zero Policy to the City Council, please prioritize consistency and predictability over raw speed. Let us stop designing our streets mainly for through traƯic and start building a city that is safe, acceptable, and eƯicient for every resident.
Activity Board
The last of the four stations asked participants to participate in a board activity by placing three dots on locations that were of priority to them. The following segments were identified as areas of priority:
19.A.
Warren Rd north of Devonshire Ave
Warren Rd and Devonshire Ave (3)
Warren Rd and Stetson Ave
Cawston Ave and Devonshire Ave
Sanderson Ave and Devonshire Ave
Florida Ave from Sanderson Ave to Kirby St (6)
Sanderson Ave and Acacia Ave
Sanderson Ave and Stetson Ave
Sanderson Ave and Mustang Way (3)
Kirby St from Florida Ave to Stetson Ave
State St and Mendlo Ave
State St from Mendlo Ave to Devonshire Ave
State St and Florida Ave (3)
State St and Stetson Ave (2)
State St and Chambers St (2)
State St and Domenigoni Pkwy
San Jacinto St and Florida Ave
Participants joining the meeting online were also able to provide input using our virtual Miro board.
19.A.
Myers St and Devonshire Ave
Cawston Ave and Devonshire Ave
Cawston Ave and Floria Ave
Additional Notes:
Warren Rd and Devonshire Ave
o TraƯic conditions: very high wait times, very wide right of way, no markings at roadway, illegal maneuvering to bypass traƯic
o Concern regarding nearby housing developments that could lead to more traƯic
19.A.
Mustang Way and Sanderson Ave
o The light signal is permissive requiring long cue times Sanderson Ave and Florida Ave
o Strong concern regarding the intersection next to In-and-out o Queue line overflows onto Florida Ave
Juanita St and Florida Ave
o Recommendation to add high visibility crosswalk and other pedestrian amenities
o Pedestrians wait time to cross is also too long
State St from Esplanade Ave to Menlo Ave
o Recommend more sidewalk infill and pedestrian separations between the road and sidewalk
Recommendation to prioritize pedestrian improvements on Cypress Ave There are no stop lights on Buena Vista St
Overall problem with people using stop signs as suggestion and not completely stopping
Warren Rd will be expanding to a 4-lane road changing signaling methods along this corridor
State St and Sanderson Ave
o Interest in incorporating pedestrian focused improvements State St and Florida Ave (traveling south)
o Consistent unprotected left turn collisions
o “As a driver I avoid state and go around using Menlo as an alternative” “I have witnessed pedestrian involved collision at West Valley”
19.A.
Along Menlo Ave to Oakland Ave
o Encourage biking improvements along the corridor for better east to west connectivity
Draft a bike path above Domenigoni Pkwy
19.A.
Public Workshop #2 – Planning Commission
April 7, 2026
19.A.
Agenda
1. Project Overview2. Public Outreach and Engagement3. Collision Analysis Summary4. Countermeasure Development and Toolbox
5. Safety Projects Identification6. Prioritization Criteria7. Next Steps
19.A.
Project Overview
19.A.
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
(CSAP) Overview
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) established the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) discretionary program with $5 billion in appropriated funds over 5 years, 2022-2026. The SS4A program funds regional, local, and Tribal initiatives through grants to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries.
A CSAP is required for USDOT CSAP Implementation Grants and increases competitiveness for other funding sources.
19.A.
Project Vision Statement and Goals
Vision Statement
A Hemet where everyone can travel safely – walking, biking, driving, or taking transit – without risk or fear of serious injury or loss of life.
Project Goals
Reduce Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes Build Safe and Connected Infrastructure for All Users Manage Speed and Improve Operations Advance Ready-to-Implement Projects and Funding Promote Education, Partnerships, and Accountability
19.A.
Eight Components in a CSAP
Leadership Commitment
and Goal Setting Planning Structure Engagement and Collaboration Safety Analysis Equity Considerations Policy and Process Changes Strategy and Project Selections Progress and Transparency 2 of 3 2 of 3
√
√ 70% In
progress
50%
19.A.
Project Schedule
19.A.
Public Outreach and
Engagement
19.A.
Public Engagement
Four Pop-Up Events
o #1 National Night Out (August 5th)
o #2 Movie Night (August 29th)
o #3 Rancho Del Sol (September 13th)
o #4 Chalktober (October 18th)
19.A.
Public Engagement
Chalktober Rancho Del Sol Movie Night
19.A.
Public Engagement
19.A.
Public Engagement
Three Task Force Meetings (two completed) Three Workshops o First – 11/13/2025o Second – 4/7/2026 (Planning
Commission)
o Third – Spring/Summer 2026
Check out the project website!
https://ca-hemet.civicplus.com/1340/Comprehensive-SafetyAction-Plan-CSAP
19.A.
Collision Analysis Summary
19.A.
Collisions by Mode and by Location
65.4%
51.6%
64.6%
34.6%
48.4%
35.4%
0 800600400
200
1,200
1,000
Bicyclist-Involved Pedestrian-Involved Vehicular-Only
Intersection (1,255 total) Midblock (705 total)
Total Mode Category
1,670 (85%) Vehicular-only
192 (10%) Pedestrian-Involved
99 (5%) Bicyclist-Involved
1,960* Total
*Includes one pedestrian-bicyclist-involved collision, counted in each mode category
19.A.
Collisions Severity by Mode
24 84
587
975
26 23
76 67
2 12
55 30
10%
0%
60%50%40%
30%
20%
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Vehicular-Only (1,670 total) Pedestrian-Involved (192 total) Bicyclist-Involved (99 total)
19.A.
High Injury Network (all modes)
Percent of Severe and Fatal Collisions by
Mode Captured Miles (%) of City
Roadways High Injury Network
Composite HIN Mode-specific HIN
78% 73% 28.0 (10%) Vehicular-Only82% 63% 12.2 (4%) Pedestrian-Involved 86% 79% 15.3 (5%) Bicyclist-Involved80% n/a 38.1* (13%) Composite (All Modes)
19.A.
Collisions
19.A.
Collisions
19.A.
Draft Countermeasure
Development and Toolbox
19.A.
Countermeasure Identification Approach
Focused on crash types resulting in severe or fatal collisions o Rear-end, broadside/angle, sideswipes, head-on, D.U.I., hit object/roadway departure, vehicle-pedestrian, vehicle-bicyclist
Select countermeasures which address those crash types from countermeasure literature sources
Organized countermeasure database by location or treatment type o Signal, intersection, segment, neighborhood traffic calming, rural environment, miscellaneous
19.A.
Countermeasure Toolbox by Crash Type
Vehicle-to-Vehicle Only Collisions 1,670* (85%)
Rear-End Broadside Hit Object Head-On Sideswipe
793 (48%) 451 (27%) 152 (9%) 115 (7%) 106 (6%)
* Between 1/1/2020 and 12/31/2024
19.A.
Countermeasure Toolbox by Crash Type
Pedestrian-Involved Collisions 192*
(10%)
* Between 1/1/2020 and 12/31/2024
Bicycle-Involved Collisions 99*
(5%)
19.A.
Countermeasure Sources Referenced
USDOT FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures USDOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System USDOT FHWA Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System NHTSA Countermeasures that Work Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual USDOT FHWA Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse Hemet Systemic Safety Analysis Report (2019) Riverside County Vision Zero Action Plan (ongoing project)
19.A.
Countermeasure Database (by location or treatment type)
19.A.
Draft Countermeasure Toolbox (samples)
19.A.
Draft Countermeasure Toolbox (samples)
19.A.
Draft Safety Projects
Identification
19.A.
Approach to Project Identification(1 of 2)
Ensure the High Injury Network is
covered
19.A.
Approach to Project Identification (2 of 2)
Objective was to have larger
corridor-sized project areas
o Some very large corridors were
segmented
19.A.
Draft Safety Projects
40+ projects were identified
19.A.
Draft Safety Projects
CSAP will prioritize these locations
and develop project sheets for the 20 highest ranking projects Corridor upgrades Standalone intersection
improvements
Systemic improvements Neighborhood enhancements Programmatic recommendations
19.A.
Draft Prioritization Criteria
19.A.
Prioritization Criteria
All block segments and intersections scored in the City, with these four (4) criteria:
o High Injury Network Scoreo Systemic Environment or Injury Collision History
o Equity Needo Vulnerable User Collisions
Scores calculated for assembled
projects
o Public and Task Force Input o Staff Input (applied to assembled project areas)
19.A.
Next Steps…
Refine and Finalize Countermeasure Toolbox Refine Strategies, Countermeasures and Projects Finalize Project Prioritization Develop Project Sheets for High-Priority Projects 3rd set of Task Force Meeting and Public Workshop (Spring/Summer 2026) o Next topic: Review high-priority projects and Draft Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
19.A.
Your input will help inform the
project prioritization process -please select your top three (3) safety projects.https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVGljg0ZE=/?share_link_id=13233458025Thank you for your participation!!
19.A.
19.A.
Pop Up #1
National Night Out
19.A.
Event Summary
City of Hemet National Night Out
Pop Up #1 - Round One
Pop-Up Event Outreach Summary
Name of Event: National Night Out
Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025
Time: from 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Event Location: Hemet Public Library at 200 N. Harvard Street, Hemet, CA 92543 Team Members in
Attendance:
Philip Wragg, STC Traffic, Inc.
Binyam Gebregergs, STC Traffic, Inc.
Estimated Attendance
at Event: ~ 1000 | percentage of participation: ~10%
# of Stakeholders
Engaged: ~ 60-80 at booth, 20 direct conversations
# of Mapping Comments
Received: 58
Estimated Collateral
Distributed: 10 pens, 5 bottle openers
Summary
Reoccurring Themes Speeding
Running red lights
Ignoring stop signs
A lack of sidewalks
Safety around schools are really important
There is speeding around schools
Jaywalking is problem
Locations that
participants highlighted
as areas of concern (See
interactive mapping
exercise)
1. Warden + Devonshire
2. Carmelita + Florida SB – signal phasing
3. Lack of stop sign on Palm/Fruitvale
4. Speeding at Charleton, Steiner, Lincoln Ave
5. Florida + Gibel
6. San Jacinto Esplanade
7. Acacia + Marian Helen – mission sidewalks
8. Seniors crossing at Kirby + Acacia
9. Homeless at Florida and Sanderson
19.A.
Event Day Notes: Well-attended event featuring a variety of engaging demonstrations, including a K-9 unit display, a martial arts presentation by the World Black Belt Center, police drone and motor unit showcases, and a dramatic “Jaws of Life” vehicle rescue demonstration by the Hemet Fire Department.
Interactive Mapping Exercise:
19.A.
3 Photos:
19.A.
Pop Up #2
Movie in the Park
19.A.
Event Summary
City of Hemet Movie in the Park
Pop Up #2
Pop-Up Event Outreach Summary
Name of Event: Hemet Movie in the Park
Date: Friday, August 29, 2025
Time: from 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Event Location: Mary Henley Park, 801 S Kirby St Hemet CA 92545 Team Members in
Attendance:
Pamela Arciniega and Joey Watson, CRA
Jennifer Cortez, City of Hemet
Estimated Attendance
at Event: ~ 1,200 | percentage of participation: ~6%
# of Stakeholders
Engaged: ~ 35-40 at booth
# of Mapping Comments
Received: 31
Estimated Collateral
Distributed: 20 slinkies, 10 sunglasses, 25 bike lights, 3 towels, 10 frisbees Summary
Reoccurring Themes Homelessness/ stranger danger
Speeding
Sidewalk obstructions
Blocked crosswalks
Running red lights
Ignoring stop signs
A lack of sidewalks
Congestion
Lack of lighting
Recommendations Traffic calming
Wider sidewalks
More street lighting
More enforcement
Signage
More intersection control
Speed bumps on Dorthin
19.A.
More crosswalk markings
Locations that
participants highlighted
as areas of concern (See
interactive mapping
exercise)
1. Kirby at Johnson – observed collisions and near-misses
2. Kirby at Acacia
3. Kirby at Florida
4. Kirby at Stetson – collision
5. Dorthin And State – no stops sign
6. Florida Street – traffic and congestion
7. Hemet Mall – trash and homeless presence
8. Domenigoni Pkwy – collisions and speeding
9. Collision on Menlo and State St vehicle-scooter
10. Speeding on Franklin
11. Acacia Ave – lots on congestion
12. Academy of innovation – rolling through stop signs
13. Sanderson at Artesia – near misses
Event Day Notes: The Movie in the Park was a well-attended event. The Riverside County Department of Animal Services, Cotton Candy Cheif, Morning Glory Coffee, and Ice Cream Truck were in attendance. The event was centered on the Mega Outdoor Movie “Garfield” screening hosted by the City of Hemet. The event was attended by City of Hemet community members, Hemet Police Department, children, and families. Community members enjoyed taking a video at the popular 360 station.
School attendees: Acacia MS – 6
Academy of Innovation – 1
Bautista Creek ES -1
Hemet ES – 1
Jacob Wiens – 1
Western Sci Ctr – 1
Interactive Mapping Exercise:
19.A.
3 Photos:
19.A.
Pop Up #3
Rancho Del Sol
19.A.
Event Summary
City of Hemet Rancho Del Sol
Pop Up #3
Pop-Up Event Outreach Summary
Name of Event: Rancho Del Sol
Date: Saturday, September 13, 2025
Time: from 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Event Location: 625 W Espanade Ave, Hemet
Team Members in
Attendance:
Pamela Arciniega, CRA
Phil Wragg, Binyam Gebregergs, Dave DiPierro
Jennifer Cortes
Estimated Attendance
at Event: ~ 45 | percentage of participation: ~60%
# of Stakeholders
Engaged: ~ 25 at booth
# of Mapping Comments
Received: ~ 20
Estimated Collateral
Distributed: 25 items, 360 camera
Summary
Reoccurring Themes Ignoring stop signs
A lack of sidewalks
Homelessness/ stranger danger
Speeding
Sidewalk obstructions
Blocked crosswalks
Running red lights
Congestion
Lack of lighting
Recommendations More intersection control
Wider sidewalks
More street lighting
Traffic calming
More enforcement
Signage
19.A.
More crosswalk markings
Locations that
participants highlighted
as areas of concern (See
interactive mapping
exercise)
Event Day Notes: Rancho Del Sol was a paid event and rodeo was scheduled for the evening.
Participation seemed low and it was a hot day
School attendees:
Interactive Mapping Exercise:
Photos:
19.A.
3
19.A.
19.A.
5
19.A.
Pop Up #4
Chalktober Art Festival and Trunk or Treat
19.A.
Event Summary
City of Hemet Chalktober Art Festival & Trunk-or-Treat
Pop Up #4
Pop-Up Event Outreach Summary
Name of Event: Chalktober Art Festival & Trunk-or-Treat Date: Saturday, October 18, 2025
Time: Chalktober Art Festival from 12:00 pm to 5 pm
Trunk or Treat from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm
Event Location: 300 E. Latham Ave, Hemet
Team Members in
Attendance:
Pamela Arciniega, CRA
Phil Wragg, Binyam Gebregergs, STC
Jennifer Cortes, City
Estimated Attendance
at Event: ~ 500 | percentage of participation: ~60%
# of Stakeholders
Engaged: ~ 60 at booth
# of Mapping Comments
Received: ~ 60
Estimated Collateral
Distributed: 10 bags of candy, 25 items, 360 camera
Summary
Reoccurring Themes Drivers often ignore stop signs
There are a lack of sidewalks that limit walking
Homelessness/ stranger danger are real concerns around schools Speeding occurs all over the City
Sidewalk obstructions limit walking
People often block crosswalks which force pedestrians into travel lanes Drivers often run red lights
Congestion is a concern
There is a lack of lighting which raises visibility concerns It’s undesirable/unsafe near parking areas
There is a lack of trees and landscaping along the street There is a lack of bike lanes and riding of sidewalks Recommendations More intersection controls
Wider sidewalks
19.A.
More street lighting
More traffic calming
More enforcement
More signage
More crosswalk markings and crosswalks
Include speed bumps
Add advance stop bars at the intersection stop signs
Locations that
participants highlighted
as areas of concern
(See interactive mapping exercise)
Event Day Notes: The event featured chalk art, live music, food trucks, pumpkin decorating, and face painting
School parent
attendees:
Received feedback from the parents of West Valley HS, Hemet HS, Bautista Creek ES, Jacob Weins ES, McSweeney ES, Harmony ES, and Acacia MS. These parents were also given the parent survey to scan.
Interactive Mapping Exercise:
Chalktober Art Festival – 11:30 am to 4:30 am
19.A.
3 Trunk-or-Treat evening event – 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm
Photos:
19.A.
19.A.
Appendix D
Safety Analysis
Report
19.A.
Prepared For Prepared By
City of Hemet
445 E. Florida Avenue
Hemet, CA 92543
CR Associates
3900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92103
Prepared For Prepared By
HEMET COMPREHENSIVE
SAFETY ACTION PLAN
October 2025
Final Safety Analysis Report
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page i
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Overview........................................................................................... 1 Report Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 2
2.0 Collision Descriptive Statistics......................................................................................................3 Data Preparation Methods........................................................................................................................ 3 Defining Mode Category and Location of Collisions ................................................................................ 3 Collision Injury Severity.............................................................................................................................. 5 Collision by Type of Impact........................................................................................................................ 6 Collisions by Time of Day........................................................................................................................... 9 Collisions by Lighting Conditions............................................................................................................... 9
3.0 Intersection and Segment Collision Frequency ......................................................................... 11 Vehicular-Only Collisions .........................................................................................................................11 Pedestrian-Involved Collisions ................................................................................................................13 Bicyclist-Involved Collisions.....................................................................................................................16 High Injury Network..................................................................................................................................18
4.0 Systemic/High Risk Road Environment Features ...................................................................... 25 High Injury Risk Environments for Intersection Collisions.....................................................................26 High Injury Risk Environments for Midblock Collisions..........................................................................27 High Injury Risk Environments and the High Injury Network.................................................................30
5.0 Next Steps .................................................................................................................................. 32
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page ii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 - Collisions by Mode Categories and Location ......................................................................................... 5 Figure 2.2 - Collisions by Injury Severity..................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2.3 - Vehicular-Only Collisions by Type of Impact ........................................................................................... 7 Figure 2.4 - Vehicular-Only Collisions by Type of Impact – Severe and Fatal Outcomes ........................................ 7 Figure 2.5 - Bicycle-Involved Collisions by Type of Impact ........................................................................................ 8 Figure 2.6 - Bicycle-Involved Collisions by Type of Impact – Severe and Fatal Outcomes...................................... 8 Figure 2.7 - Severe and Fatal Collisions by Time of Day ........................................................................................... 9 Figure 2.8 - Pedestrian-Involved Collisions by Lighting Conditions ........................................................................10 Figure 2.9 - Bicyclist-Involved Collisions by Lighting Conditions.............................................................................10 Figure 3.1 - City of Hemet Vehicular-Only Injury Collisions (2020–2024) ............................................................12 Figure 3.2 - City of Hemet Pedestrian-Involved Injury Collisions (2020–2024) ...................................................15 Figure 3.3 - City of Hemet Bicyclist-Involved Injury Collisions (2020–2024) ........................................................17 Figure 3.4 - Vehicular-Only Collisions High Injury Network......................................................................................20 Figure 3.5 - Pedestrian-Involved Collisions High Injury Network.............................................................................21 Figure 3.6 - Bicyclist-Involved Collisions High Injury Network.................................................................................23 Figure 3.7 - Composite (All Modes) High Injury Network .........................................................................................24 Figure 4.1 - Systemic Characteristics Matrix for Intersection Collisions ................................................................26 Figure 4.2 - Systemic Characteristics Matrix for Midblock Collisions.....................................................................28 Figure 4.3 - High Risk Environments and the High Injury Network.........................................................................31 List of Tables
Table 2.1 - Collisions by Mode Categories ................................................................................................................. 4 Table 3.1 - Most Common Vehicular-Only Collisions Intersection Locations .........................................................11 Table 3.2 - Most Common Pedestrian-Involved Collision Intersection Locations..................................................14 Table 3.3 - Most Common Bicyclist-Involved Collision Intersection Locations ......................................................16 Table 3.4 - High Injury Network Mileage and Severe/Fatal Collision Coverage.....................................................22 Table 4.1 - Rate of Intersection Collisions by Intersection Type .............................................................................27 Table 4.2 - Rate (per Mile) of Midblcock Collisions by Roadway Type....................................................................29
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 1
1.0 Introduction
The Safety Analysis Report is one of the essential components of a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP). This report examines the characteristics of recent collision history in the City of Hemet, occurring between January 2020, and December 2024. It summarizes and analyzes statistics related to each collision’s notable attributes (party characteristics, injury severity, type of impact, primary collision factors, etc.), ranks the locations in the City with the most collisions and injury frequency, and identifies roadway infrastructure profiles in the City where collisions occur disproportionately.
The information derived from this report was used to identify a High Injury Network (HIN) to help guide future countermeasure prioritization.
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Overview
A CSAP is a locally specific document used to guide jurisdictions pursuing a policy commitment toward reducing and eventually eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries. CSAPs are made within the framework and guidance of the U.S. Department of Transportation administered Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program. The SS4A program oversees about $5 billion of funding between 2022 and 2026. The funding is separated into two pools, one which funds the development of CSAP plans and another to fund the implementation of traffic safety countermeasure projects.
SS4A requires a CSAP to be eligible for receiving from the latter pool of grant funding. Besides the completion of a safety analysis, CSAPs must include or accomplish the following objectives:
Leadership Commitment and Goal Setting: Establishment of a policy commitment from the City’s governing body to reduce and eventually eliminate fatal and severe traffic collisions with timeline or target reduction specificity.
Planning Structure: Establishment of a task force to assist with the development of the plan. Engagement and Collaboration: Involvement of the public and relevant stakeholders in the development of the plan, and incorporation of their input. Equity Considerations: Effort made to be inclusive of politically and economically disadvantaged populations in the public engagement process, an assessment of the jurisdiction’s conditions of structural inequality, and fair consideration of these groups in project recommendations.
Policy and Process Changes: Assess and refine the City’s current transportation safety policies.
Strategy and Project Selections: Identification of infrastructural, behavioral, and/or operational safety projects informed by the analysis of data, stakeholder input and equity considerations, with prioritization and implementation phasing. Progress and Transparency: Method to analyze progress over time and a means to ensure ongoing transparency with the public.
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 2
Report Structure
Following the introduction, the report includes the following sections:
Section 2.0: Collision Descriptive Statistics: a summary and analysis of notable collision attributes by collision location type and travel modes involved in collisions. Section 3.0: Intersection and Segment Collision Frequency: Ranking of locations in the City with the most collisions by modes and by injury. Identifies an HIN in response to recent history severe and fatal vehicular-only collisions, and pedestrian and bicycle injury collisions. Section 4.0: Systemic/High Risk Road Environment Features: An assessment of most common vehicle code violations resulting in leading crash types across different sets of roadway conditions, including roadway size, posted speed limit, and type of traffic control.
Supplements the HIN with an overlay of intersection and midblock infrastructure safety hotspots, based on systemic analysis.
Section 5.0: Next Steps: Overview of how the safety analysis relates to the forthcoming activities and components of the CSAP.
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 3
2.0 Collision Descriptive Statistics
The safety analysis examined the characteristics of police-reported injury collisions occurring on Hemet public roadways between January 2020 and December 2024. The collisions in this study exclude those which resulted in property damage only. A main justification for not including property damage only collisions is that because of their large quantity, their obscure findings related to reducing fatalities and severe injuries, which is the main objective of a CSAP. From this point onward in the report, references to “collisions” mean collisions resulting in an injury.
Data for this study originated from two sources: California’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and Crossroads data, maintained by the Hemet Police Department. Prior to crash analysis, the data was examined for locational accuracy, attribute consistency, cleaned and assigned with definitions.
Data Preparation Methods
Reconciliation of SWITRS and Crossroads Datasets
SWITRS data was retrieved from University of California Berkeley SafeTREC’s Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) website, where users can download geographically referenced (geocoded) injury collision history throughout the state. In total, there were 1,746 geocoded records in their dataset between the years 2020 and 2024. The Crossroads data contained a larger population of data (1,928 injury collision records) from the same period of years; however, its records were not geocoded. While most of the data overlapped, some records were only contained in one of the two datasets. The two datasets were reconciled, to ensure the most possible records were available for the safety analysis. Collisions identified in Crossroads which were not included in TIMS’s dataset, were geocoded using the locational attributes in the data (primary road, secondary road, distance from intersection and offset direction). Both sources use the same standardized data attributes, so the combination of these two datasets did not pose any issues for the analysis. The reconciliation of these two data sources led to the identification of 1,990 injury collision records.
Excluded Cases and Verification of Data’s Locational Accuracy The accuracy of the geocoded locations were verified by confirming the collision’s locational attributes to its location overlaid on a map. This review identified 35 collision records with incorrectly geocoded locations, which were edited to their correct location. Thirty (30) records were removed from the analysis because the crashes either occurred beyond the City boundary or occurred on private property or had indecipherable locational attributes. The removal of these records resulted in a final total of 1,960 injury collisions in the data used for the analysis.
Defining Mode Category and Location of Collisions
Crashes were classified into one of three categories: pedestrian-involved collisions, bicycling-involved collisions, and vehicular-only collisions.
This was determined primarily by the Pedestrian Collision and Bicycle Collision attribute in the fields of the database, which if “yes” in one or the other, indicated the collision involved a pedestrian or a bicyclist. If both attributes were null, then collisions were assumed to be vehicular-only. These initial category assignments were verified with comparisons to other attributes, such as Motor Vehicle Involved With (which includes categories for pedestrians and bicyclists, along with other motor vehicle, parked motor vehicle, fixed object, other object, etc.) and party types/party vehicle types to ensure the mode category for each collision was correct and consistent. One record was reassigned
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 4
into a pedestrian-involved collision despite having a null value in the primary attribute. Another collision was verified to be between a bicyclist and pedestrian. This collision was assigned to both categories where collisions by mode are analyzed. This results in mode-specific totals adding to one collision greater than the 1,960 total.
Table 2.1 summarizes the frequencies of the three mode categories of collisions. As shown, vehicular-only collisions were over eight times more common than pedestrian-involved collisions.
Pedestrian-involved collisions were twice as common as bicyclist-involved collisions.
Table 2.1 - Collisions by Mode Categories
Mode Category Total
Vehicular-only 1,670 (85%)
Pedestrian-Involved 192 (10%)
Bicyclist-Involved 99 (5%)
Total 1,960*
*Includes one pedestrian-bicyclist-involved collision, counted in each mode category
Defining the Location of Collisions
All collision records were assigned to one of two location categories: intersection or midblock.
Location assignments were based on the intersection offset distance indicated in each record’s attributes. Collision point data within 50 feet of a GIS intersection node was categorized as an intersection collision. All remaining collisions were categorized as midblock collisions, unless their location was physically within 50 feet of an intersection by aerial imagery. The 50-foot offset distance is within the threshold identified by Caltrans’ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which permits collisions up to 250-feet from an intersection to be used in the determination of Benefit/Cost ratios for intersection countermeasures.
Driveway locations with intersection-like characteristics (typically not well captured or identified by GIS data) were also defined as intersections. The judgment used to flag driveway locations as intersections included if the driveway was attached to an intersection footprint (in contrast to a driveway that is from a curb cut), if the driveway had traffic control features (traffic signals, stop signs and/or stop bars) and/or if there were features such as dedicated turn pockets to facilitate turns into or out of the driveway. Absent of those conditions, if there were clusters of collisions occurring in one driveway location (provisionally defined as midblock), a case-by-case judgment was made.
All collisions in locations which did not meet the above criteria were defined as midblock collisions.
This would include collision locations occurring at some minor driveways.
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 5
Figure 2.1 summarizes the locational split of collisions in each mode category.
Intersections are where most collisions occur (1,255 of the 1,960 total collisions, or almost twothirds). For motorists and bicyclists, intersections are where they are engaged in most conflicts with other traffic. Interactions with cross-street traffic, performing turns and maneuvering in positions to make turns mostly occur at intersections (these latter activities sometimes coincide with loss of attention to surroundings or impulsive decision making). This is borne out in the locational split of vehicular-only collisions, where 65% occurred at intersections, and for bicyclist-involved collisions, where the ratio was nearly identical.
Pedestrian-involved collisions, however, are less skewed toward intersections. Of the 192 pedestrian-involved collisions, only 52% occurred in this environment. This somewhat even split is indicative of pedestrians being less reliant on intersections for navigation. Pedestrians commonly cross streets in midblock locations (for example, when intersections are spaced far apart or when in low traffic environments). The midblock environment would also identify pedestrian-involved collisions occurring when motorists are entering sidewalk space (for example, turning into or out of minor driveways, or roadway departure), these are occasional vulnerabilities that exist for pedestrians without their even setting foot in the road.
Collision Injury Severity
Figure 2.2 shows the frequency of collisions by worst-case injury severity involving each mode. The total instances are labeled, while the percentage share of each severity category by mode is represented in the y-axis (the height of the bars in the bar graph). 65.4% 51.6%
64.6%
34.6%
48.4%
35.4%
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Vehicular-Only Pedestrian-Involved Bicyclist-Involved
Intersection (1,255 total) Midblock (705 total)
Figure 2.1 - Collisions by Mode Categories and Location
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 6
Figure 2.2 - Collisions by Injury Severity
While there are more fatal and severe vehicular-only collisions in absolute total (108) than those that are pedestrian-involved (49) and bicyclist-involved (14), fatal and severe injuries are far more likely to result when pedestrians and bicyclists are parties involved in collisions. Twenty-five percent (25%) of pedestrian-involved collisions and 15% of bicyclist-involved collisions result in fatal or severe outcomes, while only 6% of vehicular-only collisions reach that level of severity. When counting fatalities only, there are more pedestrian-involved collisions (26) resulting in fatality than vehicularonly (24), despite the latter mode’s much larger total frequency of collisions. Fatalities are ten times more likely to occur in pedestrian-involved collisions than vehicular-only collisions (about 14% to
1.4%).
Vehicular parties are less susceptible to serious injuries because the interior of automobiles can withstand impact force that the human body is incapable of and vehicles are equipped with safety features. This is evident as minor injuries being the worst outcome (complaint of pain) constitute almost 60% of all vehicular-only collisions, a far higher percentage than pedestrian-involved and bicyclist-involved collisions.
Collision by Type of Impact
Figure 2.3 summarizes vehicular-only collisions by the type of impact and includes the overall share of those collision types by the two locational environments, intersection and midblock. Figure 2.4 provides the same information but only for severe and fatal vehicular-only collisions. 24 84 587 975 26 23 76 67 2 12
55 30
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Vehicular-Only (1,670 total) Pedestrian-Involved (192 total) Bicyclist-Involved (99 total)
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 7
Figure 2.3 - Vehicular-Only Collisions by Type of Impact Figure 2.4 - Vehicular-Only Collisions by Type of Impact – Severe and Fatal Outcomes As shown, broadside impacts are the most frequent collision type at intersections (and the second most at midblock), unsurprising given the variety of conflicts possible when cross-street traffic interfaces at-grade. This collision type maintains similar proportions when only examining collisions with severe and fatal outcomes, underscoring the heightened injury risk associated with perpendicular impacts.
Rear-ends are most common when collisions occur at midblock locations (and the second most common type at intersections) but, in contrast to broadsides, are less likely to result in severe injury and fatality. Rear-ends, while 45% of all midblock collisions, decline to 12% of all midblock severe and fatal collisions (a similar decrease is evident for rear-ends at intersections). Instead, hit object, head-on and overturn collisions have disproportionately higher severe and fatal outcomes relative to the overall frequency of those collision types. The latter categories produce more impact force than rear-ends (often parties in rear-end collisions are simultaneously traveling in the same direction, which reduces the force of impact). 63.6% 17.5% 6.0%
7.0%
4.5%
0.8%
0.5%
0.1%
17.1%
45.0%
14.9%
6.7%
9.9%
5.5%
0.9%
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Broadside Rear-End Hit Object Head-On Sideswipe Overturned Other Not Stated Intersection Midblock
66.1%
6.8%
13.6%
6.8%
5.1%
1.7%
20.4%
12.2%
22.4%
20.4%
2.0%
20.4%
2.0%
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
Broadside Rear-End Hit Object Head-On Sideswipe Overturned Other Intersection Midblock
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 8
Figure 2.5 shows bicyclist-involved collisions by type of impact and includes the share of those collision types by intersection and midblock. Figure 2.6 provides the same information but only for severe and fatal bicyclist-involved collisions.
Figure 2.5 - Bicycle-Involved Collisions by Type of Impact Figure 2.6 - Bicycle-Involved Collisions by Type of Impact – Severe and Fatal Outcomes For bicyclist-involved collisions, broadsides are the most common type of collision by a wide margin at both intersections and midblock. Broadsides were also the most frequent type of collision for the 14 severe and fatal bicyclist-involved collisions. In total, there were nine broadside severe and fatal collisions (accounting for 75% severe and fatal collisions at intersections, and half of severe and fatal collisions at midblock). Because bicyclists are physically vulnerable in a way vehicular parties are not, there are no similar patterns to vehicular-only collisions with regard to “less severe” collision types.
Pedestrian-involved collisions are not analyzed in this section because collisions involving pedestrians are not assigned a type of impact category in the data other than “vehicle-pedestrian”. 79.7% 6.3% 1.6% 1.6%1.6%9.4% 51.4% 17.1% 2.9% 5.7%11.4% 2.9%8.6% 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Broadside Rear-End Hit Object Head-On Sideswipe Overturned Other Intersection Midblock
66.7%
100.0%100.0%
33.3%
100.0%100.0%100.0%
0 2
4 6
8 Broadside Head-On Hit Object Other Rear-End Sideswipe Intersection Midblock
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 9
Collisions by Time of Day
Figure 2.7 summarizes the time of day (in six-hour periods) when severe or fatal collisions occur most often by mode of collisions.
Figure 2.7 - Severe and Fatal Collisions by Time of Day Over half of the pedestrian-involved (51%) and bicyclist-involved collisions (57%) resulting in severe or fatal injuries occur in the evening/late period (from 6:00pm to midnight). When combining the overnight period with evening, the share of severe and fatal collisions increases to over threequarters (76%) for pedestrian-involved collisions and nearly two-thirds for bicyclist-involved collisions (64%). These two periods, though briefly overlapping with parts of the commute peak periods, are primarily off-peak for travel demand and generally coincide with when ambient conditions are dark.
This finding underscores the vulnerability of pedestrian and bicyclist travel during periods of darkness, when their visibility to motorists is poor.
Vehicular-only collisions are most prevalent during the afternoon period, which includes much of the PM commute peak period – typically, the most active travel period on weekdays. Vehicles are equipped with superior illumination which improves sight distance judgement and their visibility to other motorists, which may partially explain why severe and fatal vehicular-only collisions do not have the same evening and overnight proportions as pedestrian-involved and bicyclist-involved collisions.
Collisions by Lighting Conditions
The following tables show lighting conditions and pedestrian and bicyclist-involved collisions. Lighting conditions can be due to weather conditions and time of day. As was evident in the previous section, pedestrian and bicyclist-involved severe and fatal collisions disproportionately occur in the evening and overnight periods.
Figure 2.8 examines pedestrian-involved collision occurring across different lighting conditions.
13.9%
21.3%
36.1%
28.7%
24.5%
6.1%
18.4%
51.0%
7.1%
21.4% 14.3%
57.1%
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
Overnight (00:01-05:59) Morning (06:00-11:59) Afternoon (12:00-17:59) Evening/Late (18:00-23:59) Vehicular-Only Pedestrian-Involved Bicyclist-Involved
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 10
Figure 2.8 - Pedestrian-Involved Collisions by Lighting Conditions As shown, severe and fatal outcomes in pedestrian-involved collisions disproportionately occur when it is dark. Nearly 80% of severe and fatal pedestrian-involved collisions happened outside of daylight conditions, despite daylight conditions being slightly more common for pedestrian-involved collisions overall (51%). About one-third of all severe and fatal pedestrian-involved collisions happened in locations without street lighting during darkness, which suggests there are limitations for improving pedestrian visibility with typical vehicular-oriented street lighting.
Figure 2.9 summarizes bicyclist-involved collisions during different lighting conditions.
Figure 2.9 - Bicyclist-Involved Collisions by Lighting Conditions Like pedestrian-involved collisions, bicyclist-involved collisions with severe and fatal outcomes also occur disproportionately at dark times. About three-quarters of all bicyclist-involved collisions are during daylight conditions, but only 43% of collisions with severe and fatal outcomes happen during daylight.
51.0%
31.8%
14.6%
2.6%
20.4%
42.9%
32.7%
4.1%
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dark - No Street Lights Dusk - Dawn All Collisions Severe and Fatal Only
74.7%
19.2%
4.0%
1.0%1.0%
42.9%42.9%
14.3%
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dark - No Street
Lights
Dark - Street Light Dusk - Dawn
All Collisions Severe and Fatal Only
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 11
3.0 Intersection and Segment Collision
Frequency
This section details the highest collision frequency intersections and segments in Hemet by transportation mode for collisions occurring between January 2020 and December 2024. Collision frequencies and severities were then used to develop High Injury Networks (HIN), which are presented in Section 3.4.
Vehicular-Only Collisions
Table 3.1 ranks the intersections in the City with the most vehicular-only collisions during the studied five-year period.
Table 3.1 - Most Common Vehicular-Only Collisions Intersection Locations Rank Location
Total
Collisions
Severe and
Fatal
Collisions
Traffic Control Intersection
Size
1 N. Gilbert St & W. Latham Ave 33 0 Side-Street Stop 2x2 2 State St & Florida Ave 21 0 Signal 4x3
t3 Warren Rd & W. Florida Ave 19 2 Signal 4x4
t3 S. Buena Vista St & Stetson Ave 19 0 Signal 2x2
5 Kirby St & W. Florida Ave 15 0 Signal 4x4
6 S. Sanderson Ave & Mustang Wy 14 3 Signal 4x2
7 S. Sanderson Ave & W. Stetson Ave 13 0 Signal 4x4
8 N. Cornell St & E. Florida Ave 12 0 Side-Street Stop 4x2 9 Myers St & W. Devonshire Ave 11 2 Side-Street Stop 2x2 t10 Cawston Ave N & W. Devonshire Ave 11 2 Signal 3x2
t10 S. Hamilton Ave & W. Florida Ave 11 0 Side-Street Stop 4x2 t10 S. Sanderson Ave & Domenigoni Pkwy 11 0 Signal 4x4
All vehicular-only collisions in the City are mapped and symbolized by frequency in Figure 3.1.
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 12
Figure 3.1 - City of Hemet Vehicular-Only Injury Collisions (2020–2024)
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 13
The intersection of N. Gilbert Street and W. Latham Avenue had 33 collisions, by far the most citywide. The intersection is two-lane by two-lane, with side-street stop control placed on Gilbert Street. This is an unusual environment for it to be the intersection with most vehicular-only collisions in a city, when there are numerous larger, higher speed, higher traffic volume intersections in Hemet.
This location as an outlier can be attributed to it being not ideal for side-street stop control. Latham Avenue is an east-west collector street with no traffic control for a half mile between Palm Avenue and State Street (a quarter mile in either direction from Gilbert Street). Conditions like these encourage faster speeds on Latham Avenue than its posted 30-mph speed limit. Gilbert Street, though not officially a collector, continuously traverses Hemet north to south in a manner like a collector street would (it is even signalized at Florida Avenue, one block to the south). There are no other nearby parallel streets providing this degree of connectivity. To motorists on Gilbert Street, it is not intuitive that Latham Avenue would also not stop at this intersection approach (the likely reason there is supplemental Cross Traffic Does Not Stop signage). Another major contributing issue is the poor sight distance of the cross-street traffic (at faster speeds and which do not stop) when approaching the stop from either direction on Gilbert Street. Providing validity to sight distance being a problem is that all but two of the collisions occurred during the day, when headlights would not normally be in use.
South Sanderson Avenue & Mustang Way had three severe and fatal collisions, more than any other intersection in Hemet. This signalized intersection is protected-permissive, meaning it allows permissive left-turns from all approaches during certain signal phases. Permissive left-turns enable left turns to be made outside of the exclusive left-turn phase, if the opposite direction is clear. This conflicting movement is allowed in certain environments to increase vehicular throughput where demand is high. When traffic speeds are faster this maneuver is more difficult to execute, as it is more likely a motorist can misjudge their window of opportunity with opposing traffic. Collision impacts and injuries are more severe when the speeds of the vehicles involved are faster. On Sanderson Avenue, posted speed limit is 45 mph and the 85th percentile speeds are 51 mph, which are very high for environments allowing permissive left-turn movements.
Pedestrian-Involved Collisions
Table 3.2 (following page) lists the intersections in Hemet with the most pedestrian-involved collisions between 2020 and 2024. Lyon Avenue and W. Florida Avenue had five pedestrian-involved collisions, more than any intersection in Hemet. South Sanderson Avenue and W. Stetson Avenue had four collisions, and no other location had more than two. The top two locations are signalcontrolled and adjacent to retail shopping centers, which experience a combination of high traffic and frequent pedestrian activity. Also noteworthy are that many shopping center driveways themselves ranked among the intersections in the City with multiple pedestrian-involved collisions.
Multiple pedestrian-involved collisions at Lyon Avenue and W. Florida Avenue were motorist at-fault, with the driver attempting to turn right on a red light while violating the pedestrian’s right-of-way during the crossing phase. Right-turn-on-red maneuvers are a significant hazard in places with a lot of pedestrian activity because the driver’s attention is diverted from pedestrians during the crossing phase toward traffic on the cross-street as they are attempting to find gaps in traffic to complete their turn.
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 14
Table 3.2 - Most Common Pedestrian-Involved Collision Intersection Locations Rank Location Total
Collisions
Severe and
Fatal
Collisions
Traffic
Control
Intersectio
n Size
1 Lyon Ave & W. Florida Ave 5 0 Signal 4x2
2 S. Sanderson Ave & W. Stetson Ave 4 2 Signal 4x4
t3 900' east of Sanderson Ave & W. Florida Ave
(Driveway)
2 0
Side-Street
Stop
4x2
t3 Kirby St & W. Menlo Ave 2 0 All-Way Stop 4x2
t3 Kirby St & W. Florida Ave 2 2 Signal 4x4
t3 S. Gilbert St & W. Thornton Ave 2 0 Signal 4x4
t3 Inez St & W. Florida Ave 2 1
Side-Street
Stop
4x2
t3 S. Santa Fe St & E. Florida Ave 2 0 Signal 4x2
t3 N. San Jacinto St & E. Oakland Ave 2 1 Signal 4x2
t3 S. San Jacinto St & E. Morton Pl 2 0
Side-Street
Stop
2x2
t3 Columbia St & E. Florida Ave 2 1 Signal 4x2
t3 S. Sanderson Ave & Tanya Ave/W. Johnston Ave 2 0 Signal 4x2 t3 S. Kirby St/Seven Hills Dr & W. Stetson Ave 2 2 Signal 4x4 t3 Gilmore St & W. Florida Ave 2 0 Signal 4x2
t3 770' south of W. Esplanade Ave & S. State St
(Driveway)
2 2 Signal 4x4
t3 S. Sanderson Ave & 540' south of W. Florida Ave
(Driveway)
2 2
Side-Street
Stop
4 x2
All pedestrian-involved collisions in Hemet are mapped and symbolized by frequency in Figure 3.2.
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 15
Figure 3.2 - City of Hemet Pedestrian-Involved Injury Collisions (2020–2024)
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 16
Bicyclist-Involved Collisions
Table 3.3 lists the intersections in Hemet which had multiple bicyclist-involved collisions between 2020 and 2024.
Table 3.3 - Most Common Bicyclist-Involved Collision Intersection Locations Rank Location Total
Collisions
Severe and
Fatal Collisions Traffic Control Intersection Size
t1 S. San Jacinto St & Acacia E. Ave 4 1 All-Way Stop 2x2 t1 S. Sanderson Ave & W. Stetson Ave 4 1 Signal 4x4
t3 760' west of Kirby St & W. Florida Ave (Driveway) 2 0 Side-Street Stop 4x2 t3 Kirby St & W. Menlo Ave 2 0 All-Way Stop 4x2
t3 Kirby St & W. Devonshire Ave 2 1 Side-Street Stop 4x2 t3 N. Thompson St & E. Latham Ave 2 0 Side-Street Stop 2x2 t3 S. Sanderson Ave & Wentworth Dr 2 1 Signal 4x2
There are two intersections which had four bicyclist-involved collisions during this period: S. San Jacinto Street & Acacia E. Avenue, and S. Sanderson Avenue & W Stetson Avenue. No other location had more than two bicyclist-involved collisions
Two of the four collisions at San Jacinto Street & Acacia Avenue were driver at-fault collisions, where the motorist did not yield to the bicyclist who had the right-of-way at an all-way stop intersection. At Sanderson Avenue and Stetson Avenue, bicyclists were at fault in all collisions, including two collisions which were instances of riding on the wrong side of the street.
Figure 3.3 shows all bicyclist-involved collisions in Hemet between 2020 and 2024.
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 17
Figure 3.3 - City of Hemet Bicyclist-Involved Injury Collisions (2020–2024)
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 18
High Injury Network
Mode specific HINs were developed based on this study’s data replicating the one mile “sliding window” methodology popularized by Safe Streets Research, LLC. This technical approach has been applied by many other agencies in systemic safety studies for the development of their respective HINs.
High Injury Network Methodology
Separate, mode-specific HINs were developed with vehicular-only collisions, pedestrian-involved collisions, and bicycling-involved collisions. These three networks were then overlaid to make a Composite HIN.
This methodology weighs severe injury or fatal collision of any mode three points each. Collisions of the “other visible injury” severity (one category in magnitude lower than “severe injury”) were weighted a single point per instance only in the development of the pedestrian and bicycle-specific HINs. Other visible injury vehicular-only collisions were omitted from scoring for the vehicular HIN because of their high saturation (there were 587 vehicular-only collisions of this severity).
Roadway corridors were divided into 0.1-mile increments and sliding window measures of one-mile in length (represented by the “window” in the graphic diagram) along the corridor were generated to quantify the collisions captured within, with those points then attributed to the central increment within the window. This approach measured both intersection and midblock collisions.
To prevent measurement bias against increment locations near the City boundary, collision data up to one mile outside of the City was obtained from TIMS (one of the two original sources of collision data used in this study) for the exact same five-year period and, if the mode and severity met the points criteria, were included in the calculations.
A minimum point value
was selected to identify
HIN segments to identify
the highest injury
roadways. The network
included additional
segments which did not
meet the minimum point
values to refine the
appearance of the
networks where it made
intuitive sense.
Diagram of sliding increment/window methodology used in development of the HIN.
Source: Safe Streets Research and Consulting
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 19
High Injury Network Results
The HIN roads identified based on the criteria for vehicular-only collisions are shown in Figure 3-4.
The minimum point value for this network was established at 9 points (the equivalent of three severe or fatal collisions within a one mile sliding window). This vehicular HIN consists of about 10% of the Hemet’s approximately 280-plus miles of public roadways by centerline and encompasses almost three-quarters (73%) of the City’s severe and fatal vehicular-only collisions.
The HIN roads identified based on the criteria for pedestrian-involved collisions are shown in Figure 3-5. The minimum point value for this network was established at 7 points (the equivalent of two severe or fatal collisions plus one visible injury collision within a one mile sliding window). Without a severe or fatal collision, reaching the identification threshold would take a minimum of seven visible injury collisions within a one mile sliding window. This network consists of about 4% of City roads and captures about 63% of the City’s fatal and severe pedestrian-involved collisions.
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 20
Figure 3.4 - Vehicular-Only Collisions High Injury Network
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 21
Figure 3.5 - Pedestrian-Involved Collisions High Injury Network
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 22
The HIN roads identified based on the criteria for bicycling-involved collisions are shown in Figure 3-
6. The minimum point value for this network was established at 4 points (the equivalent of one severe or fatal collision and one visible injury collision within a one mile sliding window). Without a severe or fatal collision, reaching the identification threshold would take four visible injury collisions within a one mile sliding window. This network consists of about 5% of City roads and captures 79% of the City’s fatal or severe bicycling-involved collisions.
The Composite HIN, which is a refined overlay of the three mode-specific HINs is shown in Figure 3-7.
The mileage of the HINs and percent of severe and fatal collisions by mode category covered by mode-specific HINs and the Composite HIN is summarized in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 - High Injury Network Mileage and Severe/Fatal Collision Coverage High Injury Network Miles (%) of
City Roadways
Percent of Severe and Fatal Collisions
by Mode Captured
Mode-specific HIN Composite HIN
Vehicular-Only 28.0 (10%) 73% 78%
Pedestrian-Involved 12.2 (4%) 63% 82%
Bicyclist-Involved 15.3 (5%) 79% 86%
Composite (All Modes) 38.1* (13%) n/a 80%
*Mode-specific HINs overlap, so total mileage is not sum The size of the Composite HIN overall is about 38-miles, covering about 13% of all public roadways in the City. The three mode-specific HINs overlap in many locations, so the total HIN mileage does not equal the sum of the three constituent networks.
The Composite HIN covers 80% of fatal and severe collisions involving any of the three modes. The Composite HIN (which includes more than the vehicular-only HIN) increases the percent coverage of vehicular-only severe and fatal collisions to 78% (from 73% originally). It also increases the percentage of pedestrian-involved severe and fatal collisions covered from 63% to 82%, and bicyclist-involved severe and fatal collisions from 79% to 86%. This Composite HIN sufficiently identified locations around the Hemet with a well-documented injury collision history.
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 23
Figure 3.6 - Bicyclist-Involved Collisions High Injury Network
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 24
Figure 3.7 - Composite (All Modes) High Injury Network
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 25
4.0 Systemic/High Risk Road Environment
Features
To assess what types of collisions and features of the roadway occur disproportionately in Hemet, collision types, violation causes, and roadway environments were examined systemically using multiple variables and pivot tables. This approach was used to identify potential risk locations where no collision had occurred during the 5-year analysis period but nevertheless present an elevated likelihood of injury due to their characteristics. This proactive analytical approach can be used in later stages of the CSAP to identify recommendations to help prevent future collisions. It complements the previous section’s HIN’s methodology, which reactively identifies the need for countermeasures in locations with significant recent collision history.
Systemic/High Risk Road Environmental Methodology
Infrastructure characteristics were collected along the City’s publicly maintained roadways and at intersections interfacing with at least one publicly maintained roadway. To identify environments with disproportionately high risk, infrastructure characteristics were gathered Citywide, including on roads and intersections with no recent collision history.
The characteristics used to classify intersections included the type of traffic control and intersection size. Possible types of traffic control at intersections included signals, all-way stops, side street stops, roundabouts, and unsigned/uncontrolled locations. Intersection size was operationalized by the number of through travel lanes (combined directions for each cross street) as roadways approach toward the intersection footprint. If a new travel lane emerged at the departure point of the intersection, it was not counted in the categorization of the intersection’s size. Left-turn and rightturn lanes were also not included in this categorization. Numerous categories can often dilute the density of data points, so it is generally preferred to have fewer consolidated, yet sensible permutations to ensure each is adequately represented with collision data. To account for locations where roadway modifications have taken place in the preceding five years, collision records were attributed to accurately reflect intersection size and traffic control at the time of the collisions by referencing historical aerial images.
For roadway segments, the characteristics gathered included “through” travel lanes (does not include two-way center-left turn lanes or sections with turn pockets) and posted speed limits. This data was supplied from the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan and verified for accuracy prior to analysis. To account for locations where roadway modifications have taken place in the preceding five years, collision records were attributed to accurately reflect roadway size and posted speed limit at the time of the collisions by referencing historical aerial and street view images.
After collecting the characteristics, pivot tables were generated to cross-analyze the three most common vehicular-only collision types, along with all pedestrian-involved and bicycling-involved collisions. The collision frequencies are depicted, broken down by the three most common California Vehicle Code violation categories attributable to those collisions and the two infrastructure variables.
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 26
High Injury Risk Environments for Intersection Collisions Figure 4.1 presents the systemic characteristics matrix for collisions at intersections. The three most common types of vehicular-only collisions (broadsides, rear-ends, and head-ons), and pedestrianinvolved collisions and bicyclist-involved collisions are shown by their most common violation causes.
The frequencies of these collision types and violation causes are distributed by intersection environment, using traffic control and intersection size as the classification variables.
There were 1,255 collisions by any mode occurring at intersection defined locations. The estimated total of Hemet intersections with at least one publicly maintained roadway is 1,729. The bottom rows in the matrix indicate the number of intersections in the City of each environment, and a rate per intersection calculated when the total collision frequency is divided by the number of intersections.
Figure 4.1 - Systemic Characteristics Matrix for Intersection Collisions Source: CR Associates
As reported in Section 2, broadside crashes were by far the most frequent collision type. Broadsides occurred most often because of red-light signal (CA Vehicle Code 21453(a)) and stop sign (CA Vehicle Code 21802(a)) violations.
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 27
Two-by-two side-street stop intersections were the most frequent environment for broadside collisions (106 total). However, when normalizing the collision frequency by the number of intersections of that environment in the City, there were more collisions per location at other environments (signals of any size, and four-by-side stop intersections – both all-way and side-street stop locations of that size). Rear-end collisions, the second most common collision type, was primarily attributed to speeding violations (CA Vehicle Code 22350). Rear-ends were notably common at four-by-two signalized intersections.
Vehicle-pedestrian collisions were most common at signalized intersections, especially four-by-two intersections. There were about twice as many instances of a motorists’ failure to yield to the pedestrian crossing in the crosswalk with the right of way (CA Vehicle Code 21950(a)), then the inverse of a pedestrian’s failure to yield to a motorist with the right of way (CA Vehicle 21954(a)).
The intersection environments with the most collisions by rate are summarized in Table 4.1. As shown, signalized intersections of any size all have rates well above the Citywide average. Collisions at all-way-stop four-by-two intersections, the unsignalized environment with the highest rate, occur at a rate three times higher than the Citywide average.
Table 4.1 - Rate of Intersection Collisions by Intersection Type Intersection
Environment
Collisions
Number of
Intersections
Collisions per
Intersection
4x4 (Signalized) 105 10 10.5
4x2 (Signalized) 292 46 6.3
4x3 (Signalized) 36 6 6.0
3x2 (Signalized) 18 4 4.5
2x2 (Signalized) 50 13 3.8
4x2 (All-Way Stop) 21 9 2.3
All other types 733 1,641 0.4
Citywide 1,255 1,729 0.7
High Injury Risk Environments for Midblock Collisions
Figure 4.2 presents the systemic characteristics matrix for collisions at midblock locations. The three most common types of vehicular-only collisions (rear-end, broadside and hit object), plus pedestrianinvolved collisions and bicyclist-involved collisions are shown by their most common violation causes.
The frequencies of these collision types and violation causes are distributed by roadway size and speed, using number of through lanes and posted speed limit as the classification variables.
There were 705 collisions by any mode occurring at midblock defined locations occurring along 280 miles of publicly maintained roadway. The bottom rows in the matrix indicate the mileage of each environment in the City and a collision per mile rate per environment.
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 28
Figure 4.2 - Systemic Characteristics Matrix for Midblock Collisions Source: CR Associates
As shown, the most common midblock collision type is rear-end collisions. Rear-ends occurred mostly along four-lane, higher posted speed limit roadways (35 mph and 45 mph being the most frequent environment). Most were attributed to the at-fault motorist driving at unsafe speeds (CA Vehicle Code 22350). Where speed surveys have been previously conducted within Hemet along 35 to 45 mph roadways, 85th percentile observed speeds were typically higher than posted speed limits by about 5 to 10 miles per hour.
Broadside collisions are the second most common collision type, and the most common violation resulting in these collisions was a result of the at-fault motorist who did not yield when entering roadways (CA Violation Code 21804(a)). This violation occurred most often on four-lane roadways with posted speeds at 30 mph and above.
Pedestrian failure to yield to the motorist with right-of-way was the most frequent violation (CA Vehicle Code 21954(a)) in pedestrian-involved collisions at midblock locations. This violation led to collisions most often on roadways with posted speed limits 30 mph or greater, with about half the instances occurring on four-lane roadways and half occurring on two-lane roadways.
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 29
The most common roadway types and citywide average for collisions are summarized in Table 4.2.
As shown, the highest collision rates occur along roadway environments that are at least 30 mph and have four or more lanes. The only two-lane environment with above average collision rates is two-lane roadways with a posted speed limit of 50 mph or more.
Table 4.2 - Rate (per Mile) of Midblcock Collisions by Roadway Type Roadway
Environment
Collisions Roadway Mileage Collisions per
Mile
4-lane/30 mph 28 1.0 28.0
4-lane/35 mph 146 7.9 18.5
4-lane/40 mph 63 4.4 14.3
4-lane/45 mph 87 6.4 13.6
4-īIJϯѵ͔͏ϙıŕē 57 9.8 5.8
2-īIJϯѵ͔͏ϙıŕē 40 7.7 5.2
All other types 284 243.1 1.2
Citywide 705 280.3 2.5
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 30
High Injury Risk Environments and the High Injury
Network
Figure 4.3 shows the intersection and midblock infrastructure hotspot environments overlaid on the Composite HIN. The former are associated with high safety risk based on a systemic analysis, while the latter is based on injury collision history. In tandem, these two coverages represent a Safe System Approach that simultaneously identifies where countermeasures are needed to treat the causes of past collision history and where to anticipate potential causes of future collisions.
The high-risk environments include four lane roadways with posted speed limits 30 mph or greater, and two-lane roadways with posted speed limits 50 mph or greater. High risk intersection environments include signalized intersections of any size and four-lane by two-lane all-way stop controlled intersections.
As shown, the Composite HIN and the high injury risk roadway environments mostly overlap. The main differences captured in the latter are evident in the rural parts of Hemet – along State Street south of Thornton Avenue, Esplanade Avenue (west of Cawston Avenue) and Domenigoni Parkway.
These roadways have characteristics associated with high safety risk, though they did not have same concentrated degree of injury collision history as the segments identified HIN.
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 31
Figure 4.3 - High Risk Environments and the High Injury Network
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
Page | 32
5.0 Next Steps
The results of this report, which include the collision descriptive statistics, intersection and segment collision frequency, systemic/high risk road environments, and the High Injury Network will be presented for feedback to a Safety Task Force selected to participate in this project and at the first public workshop being held in the City.
Findings from the Safety Analysis Report, which include the HINs discussed in Section 3.0 and the systemic/high road environment features discussed in Section 4.0 will inform countermeasure identification and eventually prioritization of projects.
Other components of the CSAP, evaluation of Equity Considerations and assessment of the City’s current transportation policies are occurring in parallel to this frame. The findings and data from this report will serve as the baseline for crash reduction “goal setting” and eventual progress monitoring.
19.A.
Hemet Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Final Safety Analysis Report
19.A.
Appendix E
Countermeasure
Toolbox
19.A.
Countermeasure Toolbox
Countermeasure Cause(s)
Rear-end
Broadside / Angle
Sideswipe
Head-on
uence Ʋ Driving Under In
Hit Object / Roadway Departure
Pedestrian-Vehicle
Bicyclist-Vehicle Resource(s)
Intersection Countermeasures
Bike Lane Markings Through Intersection Various ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection SystemConvert Side Street Stop Control Intersection to All-Way Stop Control Various ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.59Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements / Advanced Stop Bars Motorists’ failure to yield at crosswalk
ҝ ҝ
U.S. DOT Proven Safety CountermeasuresU.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (Marked Crosswalks, Advance Yield/Stop Lines) Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.58 and p.93 Curb Extensions Motorists’ failure to yield at crosswalk ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection SystemCurb Radius Reduction Various ҝ ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System U.S. DOT FHWA Bicycling Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection SystemFlashing Beacons at Stop Signs Various ҝ ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.62Install Acceleration / Deceleration Lanes Unsafe speeds ҝ ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.77Install Left / Right Turn Lanes Various ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.68Install Pedestrian Crossing Various ҝ ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.57Install Splitter Islands on Minor Approach Signal and sign violations ҝ ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.65Median Refuge Islands Motorists’ failure to yield at crosswalk ҝ U.S. DOT Proven Safety Countermeasures U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection SystemU.S. DOT FHWA Bicycling Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection SystemCaltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.69 Modify Skewed Intersections Various ҝ ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System
19.A.
Countermeasure Cause(s)
Rear-end
Broadside / Angle
Sideswipe
Head-on
uence Ʋ Driving Under In
Hit Object / Roadway Departure
Pedestrian-Vehicle
Bicyclist-Vehicle Resource(s)
Raised pavement markers and striping through intersection Various ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.50 Unsafe Roundabouts speeds ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ
U.S. DOT Proven Safety Countermeasures
U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System U.S. DOT FHWA Bicycling Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.55 and p.60 Sight Distance Improvements at intersections (“Daylighting”) Various ҝ ҝ ҝ U.S. DOT Proven Safety Countermeasures U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System U.S. DOT FHWA Bicycling Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.55 and p.60 Various Transverse Rumble Strips on Approaches ҝ ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.63 Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrian Sign Motorists’ failure to yield at crosswalk ҝ Vista LRSP p.52 Upgrade Intersection Markings at Unsignalized Intersections Various ҝ ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.69 Signal Countermeasures
Adaptive Signal Control Technology Various ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝAdditional Signal Heads Various ҝ ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.46AI Integrated Detection System Various ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝBackplates with RetroƲ Running red light ective Borders ҝ ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.46Bicycle Signal Heads Various ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Bicycling Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection SystemBike-activated Signal Detection Various ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Bicycling Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection SystemCentral Management System Various ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝImprove Signal Timing Various ҝ ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.47
19.A.
Countermeasure Cause(s)
Rear-end
Broadside / Angle
Sideswipe
Head-on
uence Ʋ Driving Under In
Hit Object / Roadway Departure
Pedestrian-Vehicle
Bicyclist-Vehicle Resource(s)
Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning
Motorists’ failure to stop at signal
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.50
Unsafe turns Install Left-Turn Lane and Add Turn Phase
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.48
Install Pedestrian Signal
Unsafe turns, Motorists’ failure to yield at crosswalk
ҝ
ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.71
Leading Pedestrian Intervals Motorists’ failure to yield at crosswalk ҝ
ҝ
U.S. DOT Proven Safety Countermeasures U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection SystemCaltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.58 Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads Motorists’ failure to yield at crosswalk ҝ
ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.56
Protected Left-turn Phasing
Unsafe turns, Motorists’ failure to yield at crosswalk
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.49
Protected-Permissive Flashing Yellow LeftTurn Signals Unsafe turns ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Safety Evaluation of Flashing Yellow Arrow at Signalized Intersections Realign Signal Heads Various
ҝ
ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.46
Right-turn-on-Red Restrictions Motorists’ failure to yield at crosswalk ҝ
ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System U.S. DOT FHWA Bicycling Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System Signalize Intersection Various
ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.60
Yellow Change Intervals / Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection Running red light ҝ U.S. DOT Proven Safety Countermeasures
Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.47
Segment Countermeasures
Appropriate Speed Limit for All Roadway Users (Lower Speed Limits) Unsafe Speeds ҝ U.S. DOT Proven Safety Countermeasures
NHTSA Countermeasures that Work: p4-11
Bicycle Lane / Class IV Bikeway Various
ҝ U.S. DOT Proven Safety Countermeasures
U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System
19.A.
Countermeasure Cause(s)
Rear-end
Broadside / Angle
Sideswipe
Head-on
uence Ʋ Driving Under In
Hit Object / Roadway Departure
Pedestrian-Vehicle
Bicyclist-Vehicle Resource(s)
U.S. DOT FHWA Bicycling Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (Bicycle Lanes, Separated Bike Lanes) Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.90-91 Corridor Access Management (Driveway Consolidation, Right-in-right-out, etc.) Motorist does not yield when entering roadway
ҝ
U.S. DOT Proven Safety Countermeasures U.S. DOT FHWA Bicycling Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection SystemCaltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.51 Directional Median Openings (to allow and restrict left-turns and U-turns) Various ҝ
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.52
Flashing Beacons as Advanced Warning Running red light
ҝ
ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.50
Pavement Friction Management (High Friction Surface Treatment) Running red light ҝ
ҝ U.S. DOT Proven Safety Countermeasures
Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.51, p.64 and p.82 Pedestrian Median Fencing on Approaches Pedestrian failure to yield to motorist ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.52 and p.76
Raised Medians Various
ҝ Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.51, p.69 and p.75 Sidewalks / Walkways Various
ҝ
U.S. DOT Proven Safety Countermeasures
U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.92
Speed Feedback Signs / Speed Monitoring Trailers Unsafe speeds ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System NHTSA Countermeasures that Work: p4-36
Tra
Ưic Calming Countermeasures
Chicane Unsafe speeds
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System U.S. DOT FHWA Bicycling Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System Choker Unsafe speeds
ҝ
ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System Landscaping Unsafe speeds
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System U.S. DOT FHWA Bicycling Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System Speed Humps Unsafe speeds
ҝ
ҝ
ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System
19.A.
Countermeasure Cause(s)
Rear-end
Broadside / Angle
Sideswipe
Head-on
uence Ʋ Driving Under In
Hit Object / Roadway Departure
Pedestrian-Vehicle
Bicyclist-Vehicle Resource(s)
U.S. DOT FHWA Bicycling Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System Speed Table / Raised Crosswalk Unsafe speeds ҝ ҝ ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System U.S. DOT FHWA Bicycling Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System Various Street Furniture / Walking Environment ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System Rural Countermeasures
Enhanced Delineation for Horizontal Curves Unsafe speeds ҝ U.S. DOT Proven Safety Countermeasures Unsafe Guardrails speeds ҝ U.S. DOT Proven Safety Countermeasures Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.73 Longitudinal Rumble Strips on Two-Lane Roads (center and shoulder) Unsafe speeds ҝ U.S. DOT Proven Safety Countermeasures Miscellaneous Countermeasures
Bicyclist/Motorist Education Various ҝ
NHTSA Countermeasures that Work: p10-31
U.S. DOT FHWA Bicycling Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System High Visibility Enforcement Driving Under InƲuence ҝ NHTSA Countermeasures that Work: p4-31Lighting Improvements Various ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System U.S. DOT FHWA Bicycling Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection SystemCaltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.46, p.59 and p.72 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons Motorists’ failure to yield at crosswalk ҝ ҝ U.S. DOT Proven Safety Countermeasures U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System U.S. DOT FHWA Bicycling Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection SystemCaltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual: p.70 and p.94 Transit Stop Improvements Various ҝ U.S. DOT FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
19.A.
Appendix F
High Priority
Project Cost
Estimates
19.A.
Date: 7/1/2026
Estimator: GO
Block Length 6" Class II Aggregate Base Curb and Gutter Landscape Concrete Cross Gutter (LF) (SF) (NO) (SF) (TON) (SF) (SF) (TON) (CY) (SF) (SF) (LF) (LF) (SF) (NO) ($/LF) ($) (EA) (EA) (EA) (EA) ($) 1 San Jacinto Lucerne Dr Valmonte Dr 521 1645 2 31447 7 4 0 0 0 100 2 0 2 San Jacinto Whittier Dr Lucerene Dr 528 0 0 37525 27 16 0 1350 425 0 2 0 1 3 San Jacinto 1326 Mayberry Ave Whittier Dr 6250 2 59622 33 20 0 1350 425 100 5 0 0 4 San Jacinto Acacia Ave Mayberry Ave 1317 2760 4 61131 28 17 0 1315 240 200 5 0 0 5 San Jacinto Florida Ave Acacia Ave 1431 2573 0 67404 94 56 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 67 Total Quantity = 13228 8 0 02571280 189 113 04015 1090 4000 0 1 0 90 0 0 2 0 Unit Price 12.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 0.75 $ 170.00 $ 1.00 $ 12.00 $ 170.00 $ 150.00 $ 15.00 $ 10.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00 $ 200.00 $ $178,414 $1,500.00 300,000 $ 38,000 $ 28,000 $ 26,000 $ - $ Subtotal Cost 158,736.00 $ 80,000.00 $ - $ - 257,128.00 $ $ - $ 502.03 $ 16,950.00 $ - $ 40,150.00 $ 54,500.00 $ 20,000.00 $ - $ - $ 28,500.00 $ $178,414 - $ - $ 56,000.00 $ - $ - $ 890,880.16 $ Removals and Disposition 53,452.81 $
Drainage/WQ 20,000 $
Project Construction Items Total 964,333 $
Construction Surveying (1.5%) 14,465 $
Traffic Control (2%) 19,287 $
Erosion Control (1%) 9,643 $
Mobilization (3%) 28,930 $
ROW 50,000 $
241,083 $
Total Cost $ 1,327,741.19
Soft Costs (Design, Project Management, Construction Management & Inspection, Administration) @ 25%
Street Light RRFB
TSM
(Traffic Signal
Modification) -
Adjust Signal Heads
Speed
Feedback Signs Total
To: From:
Median Curb Median Infill Bike Lane Bollards Striping Sign Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon CR (Curb Ramp) Slurry Seal 2.5" Overlay 2.5" Coldmill Continuously
Reinforced
Concrete
Pavement
Full Depth AC
Pavement
SW
(Sidewalk Infill)
San Jacinto - Valmonte Dr to Florida AveCorridor Rough Order of Magnitude Cost EstimateCity of Hemet Block # Street
Street Limits
Page :2
19.A.
Date: 7/1/2026
Estimator: GO
Block Length 6" Class II Aggregate Base Curb and Gutter Landscape Concrete Cross Gutter (LF) (SF) (NO) (SF) (TON) (SF) (SF) (TON) (CY) (SF) (SF) (LF) (LF) (SF) (NO) ($/LF) ($) (EA) (EA) (EA) (EA) ($) 1 Stetson Elk St Palm Ave 1383 0 6370 100 75245 226 217 9110 3040 2235 0 5 0 2 Stetson Gilbert St Palm Ave 1346 4 52538 821 0 854 595 8935 2980 2195 200 5 0 3 Stetson Gilbert St State St 1307 5 48129 752 7400 783 546 9122 2065 1955 250 5 1 4 Stetson 1331 Buena Vista St State St 3250 8 4200 66 79191 150 144 4104 1120 1090 400 5 05 Stetson Thompson St Buena Vista St 804 5 28824 450 7500 402 248 0 0 0 250 3 0 6 Stetson Santa Fe Thompson St 522 2 20639 322 3200 283 172 0 0 0 100 0 7 Stetson Evelyn Way Santa Fe 630 2815 2 5110 80 30040 75 48 0 0 0 100 0 Total Quantity = 6065 26 165811 2,590.79 202,576.00 - 2,773.00 1,970.00 31,271.00 9,205.00 7,475.00 1,300.00 - - 23 - 1 0 Unit Price 12.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 0.75 $ 170.00 $ 1.00 $ 12.00 $ 170.00 $ 150.00 $ 15.00 $ 10.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00 $ 100.00 $ $1,500.00 $0 300,000 $ 38,000 $ 28,000 $ 26,000 $ - $ Subtotal Cost 72,780.00 $ 260,000.00 $ 124,358.03 $ 440,434.67 $ 202,576.00 $ - 471,410.00 $ $ 295,500.00 $ 469,065.00 $ 92,050.00 $ 373,750.00 $ 65,000.00 $ - $ - $ 34,500.00 $ $0 300,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,201,423.70 $ Removals and Disposition 192,085.42 $
Drainage/WQ 20,000 $
Project Construction Items Total 3,413,509 $
Construction Surveying (1.5%) 51,203 $
Traffic Control (2%) 68,270 $
Erosion Control (1%) 34,135 $
Mobilization (3%) 102,405 $
ROW 50,000 $
853,377 $
Total Cost $ 4,572,899.58
Street Light SW (Sidewalk Infill)
TSM
(Traffic Signal
Modification) -
Adjust Signal Heads
Total
To: From:
Median Curb Median Infill Bike Lane Bollards Striping Sign Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon CR (Curb Ramp) Slurry Seal 2.5" Overlay 2.5" Coldmill Stetson - Elk St to Evelyn Way
Soft Costs (Design, Project Management, Construction Management & Inspection, Administration) @ 25%
RRFB Speed Feedback Signs
Continuously
Reinforced
Concrete
Pavement
Full Depth AC
Pavement
Corridor Rough Order of Magnitude Cost EstimateCity of Hemet Block # Street
Street Limits
Page :3