Agenda packet — Huntington Park City Council, March 1, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF

HUNTINGTON PARK
City Council
Regular Meeting
Agenda
Tuesday, March 1, 2022
6:00 p.m.

City Hall Council Chambers
6550 Miles Avenue, Huntington Park, CA 90255
Graciela Ortiz
Mayor
Eduardo "Eddie" Martinez Karina Macias
Vice Mayor Council Member
Marilyn Sanabria Manuel "Manny" Avila
Council Member Council Member
All agenda items and reports are available for review in the City Clerk's Office and www.hpca.gov. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk located at 6550 Miles Avenue, Huntington Park, California 90255 during regular business hours, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday - Thursday, and at the City Hall Council Chambers during the meeting.

Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification, accommodation, aid or service by contacting the City Clerk's Office either in person at 6550 Miles Avenue, Huntington Park, California or by telephone at (323) 584-6230.

Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

PLEASE SILENCE ALL CELL PHONES AND OTHER ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT WHILE COUNCIL IS IN SESSION. Thank you.

PLEASE NOTE-The numerical order of items on this agenda is for convenience of reference.

Items may be taken out of order upon request of the Mayor or Members of the City Council. Members of the City Council and the public are reminded that they must preserve order and decorum throughout the Meeting. In that regard, Members of the City Council and the public are advised that any delay or disruption in the proceedings or a refusal to obey the orders of the City Council or the presiding officer constitutes a violation of these rules. • The conduct of City Council meetings is governed by the portion of the California Government Code commonly known as the "Brown Act" and by the Huntington Park City Council Meeting Rules of Procedure.
• The City Council meeting is for conducting the City's business, and members of the audience must obey the rules of decorum set forth by law. This means that each speaker will be permitted to speak for three minutes to address items that are listed on the City Council agenda or topics which are within the jurisdictional authority of the • No profanity, personal attacks, booing, cheering, applauding or other conduct disruptive to the meeting will be permitted. Any person not adhering to the Rules of Procedure or conduct authorized by the Brown Act may be asked to leave the Council Chambers.
• All comments directed to the City Council or to any member of the City Council must be directed to the Mayor (or Chairperson if Mayor is absent).

We ask that you please respect the business nature of this meeting and the order required for the proceedings conducted in the Council Chambers.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Hybrid virtual/in-person meetings are held pursuant to AB361 because state and local officials are recommending measures to promote social distancing. If you would like to comment on any listed Agenda Items or Non-Agenda Items, please email the City Clerk's office at [email protected] or Esarmiento @hpca.gov or by telephone, by calling (323) 584- 6297, up to one (1) hour, prior to the start of the meeting. Public Comments will then be read during public comment and made part of the record. Below is the virtual link and toll free phone number to participate in the meeting.

JOIN VIRTUALLY AT:
https://zoom.us/i/97897123169?pwd=NkhsNEFacUZCMmJyVFRkOFBsQXZMdz09 OR PARTICIPATE BY PHONE AT:

Toll Free: 669-900-9128,
Meeting ID: 978 9712 3169, then #
Password: 632516
ATTENDEES WILL BE MUTED UNTIL THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PERIOD IS OPENED. If you are joining by phone, press *9 to be placed in the queue to speak and *6 to unmute your line.

Comments from the public are limited to 3 minutes per speaker.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
March 1, 2022 Page 2 of 6
In the interest of Public Health and Safety in order to minimize the spread of the COVID 19 virus, you are strongly encouraged to observe the City Council meetings on the City of Huntington Park's website at www.hpca.gov or virtually via the Zoom link provided above.

The City of Huntington Park thanks you in advance for your cooperation.

For both open and closed session, each speaker will be limited to three minutes per Huntington Park Municipal Code Section 2-1.207. Time limits may not be shared with other speakers and may not accumulate from one period of public comment to another or from one meeting to another. This is the only opportunity for public input except for scheduled public hearing items.

All comments or queries shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any specific member thereof. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(a)(2), the Ralph M. Brown Act, no action or discussion by the City Council shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except to briefly provide information, ask for clarification, provide direction to staff, or schedule a matter for a future meeting.

Additions/Deletions to Agenda
Items of business may be added to the agenda upon a motion adopted by a minimum two- thirds vote finding that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the City or Agency subsequent to the agenda being posted. Items may be deleted from the agenda upon the request of staff or Council.

Important Notice
The City of Huntington Park shows replays of City Council Meetings on Local Access Channel 3 and over the Internet at www.hpca.gov. NOTE: Your attendance at this public meeting may result in the recording and broadcast of your image and/or voice.

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
Mayor Graciela Ortiz
Vice Mayor Eduardo "Eddie" Martinez
council Member Karina Macias
Council Member Marilyn Sanabria
Council Member Manuel "Manny" Avila

INVOCATION

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PRESENTATION(S)

1. RECOGNITION OF ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
March 1, 2022 Page 3 of 6

PUBLIC COMMENT
Hybrid virtual/in-person meetings are held pursuant to AB361 because state and local officials are recommending measures to promote social distancing, any emailed public comment will be read into the record at this time.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3(a) Members of the public will have an opportunity to address the City Council on items listed on this agenda. For items on this agenda each speaker will be limited to three minutes per Huntington Park Municipal Code Section 2-1.207. Time limits may not be shared with other speakers and may not accumulate from one period of public comment to another or from one meeting to another.

STAFF RESPONSE

RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION

CLOSED SESSION

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Construction Industry Force Account Council v. City of Huntington Park Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20STCPO3947

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)
Consideration of initiation in one potential case

CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time the Council votes on the motion unless members of the Council, staff, or the public request specific items to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.

OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES
RECOMMENDED THAT CITY COUNCIL:

Approve Minute(s) of the following City Council Meeting(s):
1-1. Regular City Council Meeting held February 15, 2022

FINANCE

2. CHECK REGISTERS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
March 1, 2022 Page 4 of 6
RECOMMENDED THAT CITY COUNCIL:

Approve Accounts Payable and Payroll Warrant(s) dated March 1, 2022;

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR

REGULAR AGENDA

PARKS AND RECREATION

3. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DODGERS

DREAMTEAM PROGRAM GRANT FROM THE LOS ANGELES DODGERS
FOUNDATION FOR THE 2022 BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL SEASON AT SALT LAKE PARK.

RECOMMENDED THAT CITY COUNCIL:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-07, Authorizing the acceptance of the Dodgers RBI Grant from the Los Angeles Dodgers Foundation for the 2022 Baseball season at Salt Lake Park; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute all related grant documents.

PUBLIC WORKS

4. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTALLY

PREFERABLE PURCHASING AND PRACTICES POLICY AS A CONDITION TO

RECEIVE STATE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND

RECOVERY GRANTS
RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL:

1. Consider adoption of an Environmentally Preferable Purchasing and Practices (EPPP) Policy as a condition to receive State Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) grants.

CONSIDERATION SETTING APRIL 19, 2022 FOR THE ADOPTION OF LOCAL

ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL:

1. Set April 19, 2022 to adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan; and

2. Authorize staff to post the draft Local Roadway Safety Plan on the City's website and distribute to community stakeholders for comment.

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE DESIGN-

BUILD OF FIRE PROTECTION ALARM SERVICES AT THIRTEEN CITY

FACILITIES

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
March 1, 2022 Page 5 of 6
RECOMMENDED THAT CITY COUNCIL:

1. Authorize staff to publish and solicit a Request for Bid (RFB) from a State of California licensed C-16 - Fire Protection Contractor, per California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 8, Article 3 to design, fabricate/manufacture and install a fire protection alarm system at thirteen City facilities.

7. CONSIDERATION APPROVAL TO SOLICIT CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES AS PART OF THE OVERSIGHT OF CIP 2021-01 SB1 CDBG STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT FY 21/22 RECOMMENDED THAT CITY COUNCIL:

1. Authorize staff to publish and solicit a Request for Proposal (RFP) from qualified firms to provide Construction Management and Inspection Services (CM/CI) for CIP 2021-01 SB1 CDBG Street Reconstruction Project FY 21/22.

END OF REGULAR AGENDA
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS (Information only)

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Council Member Manuel "Manny" Avila
Council Member Marilyn Sanabria
Council Member Karina Macias
Vice Mayor Eduardo "Eddie" Martinez
Mayor Graciela Ortiz

ADJOURNMENT
The City of Huntington Park City Council will adjourn to a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 6:00 P.M.
1, Eduardo Sarmiento, hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State f California that the foregoing agenda was posted at City of Huntington Park City Ha nd made available at www.hpca.gov not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Date this 25th day of February 2022.

Eduardo Sarmiento, City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
March 1, 2022 Page 6 of 6
ITEM NO. 1

MINUTES
Regular Meeting of the
City of Huntington Park City Council
Tuesday, February 15, 2022
The City Council hybrid virtual/in-person meetings are held pursuant to AB361 because state and local officials are recommending measures to promote social distancing conducted this meeting in accordance with
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Park, California was called to order at 6:03 p.m. on Tuesday, February 1, 2022, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 6550 Miles Avenue, Huntington Park, California; Mayor Graciela Ortiz presiding.

PRESENT: Councilmember(s): Manuel "Manny" Avila, Marilyn Sanabria, Karina Macias, Vice-Mayor Eduardo "Eddie" Martinez and Mayor Graciela Ortiz CITY OFFICIALS/STAFF: Ricardo Reyes, City Manager Ricardo Reyes; Cesar Roldan, Director of Public Works; Raul Alvarez Assistant City Manager; Eduardo Sarmiento, City Clerk; Cosme Lozano, Chief of Police, Director of Finance & Administrative Services - Absent; Steve Foster, Director of Community Development; Sergio Infanzon, Director o Communications; Araceli Almazan, City Attorney, Cynthia Norzagarav Director of Park:
& Recreation.

INVOCATION
Invocation was led by Mayor Graciela Ortiz.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by City Manager Ricardo Reyes

PRESENTATION(S)

1. RECOGNITION OF JOB FAIR CONTRIBUTORS/PARTICIPANTS

PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following members of the public submitted public comments:

1. Farshad Azaroush

2. Iman Khan
(Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk's office or can be accessed by clicking the following link. 02-15-22 Regular City Council Meeting)

STAFF RESPONSE
Mayor Otriz thanked community members for providing public comment and asked the City Manager to provide a response to the public comments.

City Manager Reyes deferred to Community Development Director Steve Forster for a response to the public comments.

Community Development Director Forster shared information related to the City's in lieu parking fee for newly constructed projects.

Mayor Ortiz agreed that the in lieu fees can be looked into, but she highlighted that the speakers were referring to residential in that particular area and mentioned it's next to a city parking lot. She added that this street in particular is highly impacted due to issues with parking, because there are condominiums in the front, apartments on the side, a one way street after Saturn, so she is not sure how residential would fit there or meet the parking requirements. She suggested Director Forster reach out to the individuals to explain the effects of this kind of project in that area, and how the concept would be problematic in her opinion.

Director Forster acknowledged the Mayor's comments and shared that he would explain that to the individuals.
(Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk's office or can be accessed by clicking the following link. 02-15-22 Regular City Council Meeting)

CLOSSED SESSION
City Attorney Almazan announced it is now appropriate that City Council recess into closed session to discuss the matters listed under the close session portion of the agenda.

Mayor Graciela Ortiz recessed to closed session at 6:20 p.m.

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)
Consideration of initiation in one potential case

3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICPATED LITIGATION Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)

4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)
Mayor Graciela Ortiz reconvened to open session at 7:51 p.m. with all Councilmembers present.

CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
City Attorney Araceli Almazan announced the minutes should reflect that with all five members of the City Council present, all four (4) items listed on the close session agenda

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 15, 2022 Page 2 of 8
were discussed. With regard to item one (1) and four (4) Council was briefed, but no final action was taken. In regard to items two (2) and three (3) Council was briefed, direction was provided, and stated she had no additional information to report. This concluded the closed session report.

CONSENT CALENDAR

OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Prior to the vote Vice Mayor Martinez pointed out an error in the staff report for item two (2) on the consent calendar and asked that it be corrected to reflect Eduardo Sarmiento as the City Clerk not the City Manager.

Mayor Ortiz asked the Council members who initialed the vote if they were ok with a friendly amendment to include the correction to the staff report.

Both Councilmembers agreed to the friendly amendment and included the correction as part of their motion.

MOTION: Councilmember Sanabria moved to approve the consent calendar with the correction to the City Council Meeting minutes of January 18, 2022, seconded by Councilmember Macias. Motion carried by unanimous consent.

AYES: Council Member(s): Avila, Sanabria, Macias, Vice Mayor Martinez, and Mayor Ortiz
NOES: None

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES
Approve Minute(s) of the following City Council Meeting(s):
1-1. Regular City Council Meeting held February 1, 2022

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE

CITY TO CONTINUE ITS TELECONFERENCED OPEN MEETINGS PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361
RECOMMENDED THAT CITY COUNCIL:

Adopt Resolution No. 2022-06 to Authorize the City of Huntington Park to Conduct Teleconferenced Open Meetings in Accordance with Assembly Bill 361.

FINANCE

3. CHECK REGISTERS
RECOMMENDED THAT CITY COUNCIL:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 15, 2022 Page 3 of 8
Approve Accounts Payable and Payroll Warrant(s) dated February 15, 2022;

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR

REGULAR AGENDA

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL TO AWARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE PRELIMINARY ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES MOTION: Councilmember Sanabria moved to award a professional service agreement (PSA) as it relates to Preliminary Architectural Services for the Salt Lake Park Recreation Building, to Crane Architectural Group as a responsive and responsible proposer for a not-to-exceed amount of $32,200; and authorize the City Manager to execute the PSA, seconded by Councilmember Macias. Motion carried by unanimous consent.

AYES: Council Member(s): Avila, Sanabria, Macias, Vice Mayor Martinez, and Mayor Ortiz
NOES: None

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL TO AWARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE WASTE MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS SERVICES MOTION: Councilmember Sanabria moved to award a professional service agreement (PSA) as it relates to Waste Management Analysis, to integrity Waste Management as the sole responsive and responsible proposer for a not-to-exceed amount of $43,260; and authorize the City Manager to execute the PSA, seconded by Councilmember Macias. Motion carried by unanimous consent.

AYES: Council Member(s): Avila, Sanabria, Macias, Vice Mayor Martinez, and Mayor Ortiz
NOES: None

CITY MANAGER

6. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AMERICAN RECOVERY PLAN ACT

SPENDING PROPOSAL
Prior to the opening of item six (6) Councilmember Macias recused herself from the item.

MOTION: Councilmember Sanabria moved to approve the attached American Recovery Plan Act Spending Proposal; and authorize the City Manager to effectuate the distribution of funds according to the American Recovery Plan Act

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 15, 2022 Page 4 of 8
Spending Proposal, seconded by Councilmember Avila. Motion carried by unanimous consent with Councilmember Macias being recused from the item.

AYES: Council Member(s): Avila, Sanabria, Vice Mayor Martinez, and Mayor Ortiz
NOES: None
RECUSED: Councilmember Macias
At the conclusion of item six (6) Councilmember Macias rejoined the Council meeting.

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPSED AGREEMENT WITH TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR FINANCIAL, CIVIC SERVICES, AND

WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE LICENSES AND

IMPLEMENTATION
MOTION: Mayor Ortiz moved to approve the attached Software as a Service Agreement with Tyler Technologies Inc.; and authorize the City manager to negotiate final terms and execute all applicable documents, seconded by Councilmember Macias. Motion carried by unanimous consent.

AYES: Council Member(s): Avila, Sanabria, Macias, Vice Mayor Martinez, and Mayor Ortiz
NOES: None

PUBLIC WORKS

8. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE INSTALLATION OF WATER

METERS AT THE PUBLIC WORKS YARD AND CHELSEA CIRCLE PARK MOTION: Councilmember Sanabria moved to Approve Inframark's two proposals for a total amount of $33,440 payable from Water Fund Account No. 681-8030- 461.56-41 for the installation of water meters at the Public Works Yard and Chelsea Circle Park; and authorize the City Manager to execute all pertinent proposals, seconded by Councilmember Macias. Motion carried by unanimous consent.

AYES: Council Member(s): Avila, Sanabria, Macias, Vice Mayor Martinez, and Mayor Ortiz
NOES: None

9. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL TO SOLICIT CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES AS PART OF THE
OVERSIGHT OF CIP 2017-03 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
CYCLE III PROJECT NO. ATPL-5150(015)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 15, 2022 Page 5 of 8
MOTION: Councilmember Sanabria moved to authorize staff to publish and solicit a Request for Proposal (RFP) from qualified firms to provide Construction Management and Inspection Services, seconded by Councilmember Macias.

Motion carried by unanimous consent.

AYES: Council Member(s): Avila, Sanabria, Macias, Vice Mayor Martinez, and Mayor Ortiz
NOES: None

10. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR CIP 2021-02 CPS AND ARS PROJECT
MOTION: Councilmember Sanabria moved to award the construction contract to United Storm Water, Inc. for the fabrication and installation of CIP 2021-02 CPS and ARS Project as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for an amount of $258,087.50 payable from Account No. 111-8031-433.76-17; and allow for a 10% contingency in the amount of $25,808.75 payable from Account No. 111-8031- 433.76-17; and appropriate a total of $158,896.25 from the unspent Measure W funds from fiscal year 2020-21 to Account No. 111-8031-433.76-17; and authorize the City Manager to execute the construction contract agreement and all applicable change orders, seconded by Councilmember Macias. Motion carried by unanimous consent.

AYES: Council Member(s): Avila, Sanabria, Macias, Vice Mayor Martinez, and Mayor Ortiz
NOES: None

11. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE

PREPARATION OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATE FOR CIP 2018-11 ATP CYCLE IV PROJECT NO. ATPL-5150(014)
MOTION: Councilmember Sanabria moved to Award the preparation of Plans, Specifications, and Estimate for CIP 2018-11 ATP Cycle IV Project No. ATPL- 5150(014) to West & Associates, Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of $239,500 payable from Account No. 202-8080-431.76-21.; and authorize the City Manager to execute the professional services agreement, seconded by Councilmember Macias. Motion carried by unanimous consent.

AYES: Council Member(s): Avila, Sanabria, Macias, Vice Mayor Martinez, and Mayor Ortiz
NOES: None

12. PROJECT FY 21/22

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 15, 2022 Page 6 of 8
Prior to the opening of item twelve (12) Councilmember Macias recused herself from the item.

MOTION: Councilmember Sanabria moved to authorize staff to publish and solicit a Request for Proposal (RFP) from qualified firms to provide labor compliance services for CIP 2021-01 SB1 CDBG Street Reconstruction Project FY 21/22, seconded by Councilmember Avila. Motion carried by unanimous consent with Councilmember Macias being recused from the item.

AYES: Council Member(s): Avila, Sanabria, Vice Mayor Martinez, and Mayor Ortiz
NOES: None
RECUSED: Councilmember Macias
At the conclusion of item 12 Councilmember Macias rejoining the Council meeting.

END OF REGULAR AGENDA

DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
Community Development Director Steve Forster shared that free COVID-19 testing is still available at Raul Perez Park. He also shared that Huntington Park will be conducting its homeless count beginning February 23, 2022. He closed by sharing that a draft of the first time home buyer program.

Communications Director Sergio Infanzon shared that the latest first time home buyer workshop was a success. He also shared that today a job training workshop on how to build a resume. He added that the next job fair will be held February 24, 2022 from 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. at Keller Park. He then announced that the City is having a housing workshop regarding tenants' rights on February 22, 2022 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Sanabria. He closed by asking everyone to save the date for the State of the City Address on Saturday March 12, 2022.

Public Works Director Cesar Roldan shared that the Los Angeles County Sanitation District has almost completed its work on Florence and Salt Lake, and provided details of the projects next steps.

City Manager Ricardo Reyes thanked Council for its support on item seven (7) regarding Tylor Technologies and the positive benefits that it will have. (Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk's office or can be accessed by clicking the following link. 02-15-22 Regular City Council Meeting)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 15, 2022 Page 7 of 8

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Council Member Manuel Avila did not provide any comments.

Council Member Marilyn Sanabria thanked staff and gave a special thanks to Sergio for the coordination of the Spay and Neuter clinic. She also thanked Mr.

Council Member Karina Macias thanked staff for their work. She reminded all seniors about the food pantry on February 17, 2022 from 1p.m. to 3 p.m. at the Community Center.

Vice Mayor Eduardo "Eddie" Martinez thanked staff for all their efforts and keeping us safe. He also congratulated the Los Angeles Rams and Ram fans for their Super Bowl Victory.

Mayor Ortiz thanked Community Development Director Steve Forster and Public Works Director Cesar Roldan for taking point on Los Angeles County sanitation issue, and the City Manager for following up. She also thanked the Police Department and all departments for being ready to respond to any unruly Super Bowl celebrations. She closed by sharing information about a large competition among South East city schools "Love Your School Be in School" week and encouraged everyone to thank kids for being in school.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting in memory of an energetic business owner and community member Mr. Rene Ray Ramirez at 8:14 p.m. The next City of Huntington Park City Council meeting will be held on Tuesday March 1, 2022 at 6:00 pm Respectfully submitted,
She Se
-
Eduardo Sarmiento
City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 15, 2022 Page 8 of 8
ITEM NO. 2
City of Huntington Park
List of Funds
Description
General Fund
Special Revenue Welfare Inmate
Prevention Intervention
Greenway Linear Park Project
Measure M
Employees Retirement Fund
OPEB
Sales Tax - Transit Proposition A
Sales Tax - Transit Proposition C
State Gasoline Tax Fund
Office of Traffic & Safety
Cal Cops Fund
Air Quality Improvement Trust
Office of Criminal Justice
Bureau of Justice Fund
Police Forfeiture Fund
Parking System Fund
Art in Public Places Fund
233 Bullet Proof Vest Grant
239 •ederal Community Development Block Grar
242 UD Home Prograr
275 Successor Agency
283 Sewer Maintenance Fund
285 Solid Waste Management Fund
287 Solid Waste Recycle Grant
334 Ped/Bike Path Fund
475 Public Financng Authority
535 Street Lighting and Landscape
681 Water Department Fund
741 Fleet Maintenance
745 Self-Insurance Fund
City of Huntington Park
Demand Register
WR 3/1/2022
Payee Name Invoice Number Account Number Description Transaction Amount ACTIVE NETWORK, LLC 1000140443 111-6010-451.74-10 ONLINE REGISTRATION SOFTWARE 11,362.00 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES,INC $11,362.00
74821 111-7022-421.56-41 SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD 7,961.10 ALVAREZ-GLASMAN & COLVIN $7,961.10
2021-10-20100 111-0220-411.32-70 LEGAL SVCS OCT 2021 54,492.58 2021-10-20101 111-0220-411.32-70 LEGAL SVCS OCT 2021 386.00 2021-10-20102 111-0220-411.32-70 LEGAL SVCS OCT 2021 17,274.23 2021-10-20103 111-0220-411.32-70 LEGAL SVCS OCT 2021 2,947.50 2021-10-20104 111-0220-411.32-70 LEGAL SVCS OCT 2021 513.00 2021-10-20105 111-0220-411.32-70 LEGAL SVCS OCT 2021 2,111.54 $77,724.85
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC. 1CHL-C193-CVY6 111-6010-451.61-25 OFFICE SUPPLIES- PARKS 606.32 1HXN-T9C7-WY6M 111-8020-431.61-20 TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIES-P 292.13 14TG-JY9R-CXRX 239-0272-463.57-91 CDBG FOOD PANTRY SUPPLIES 74.91 16HL-XG4V-FYFY 239-0272-463.57-91 CDBG FOOD PANTRY SUPPLIES 140.07 1739-43HC-Y7MX 239-0272-463.57-91 CDBG FOOS PANTRY SUPPLIES 1,987.01 1D3Q-LJX7-7DYQ 239-0272-463.57-91 CDBG FOOD PANTRY SUPPLIES 131.52 1PWR-W7XC-CQ77 239-0272-463.57-91 CDBG FOOD PANTRY SUPPLIES 328.80 1QMP-C7WQ-4XDM 239-0272-463.57-91 CDBG FOOD PANTRY SUPPLIES 1,366.90 1YK1-1HVD-1WD6 239-0272-463.57-91 CDBG FOOD PANTRY SUPPLIES 305.83 1YL6-4FX4-7K3H 239-0272-463.57-91 CDBG FOOD PANTRY SUPPLIES 628.00 1XYG-J7JF-DRJ7 239-6060-490.61-60 CDBG AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM 947.14 $6,808.63
ANIMAL FRIENDS PET HOTEL 352586 111-7010-421.61-20 76.00 $76.00
ARROYO BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS 2565 111-7010-421.56-41 EMPLOYEE BACKGROUND 550.00 ARTIFICIAL ICE EVENTS, LLC $550.00
52312 111-6010-451.73-10 ICE SKATING RINK 13,768.88
$13,768.88
AT&T 000017715939 111-7010-421.53-10 PD PHONE SERVICE 532.30 AT&T PAYMENT CENTER 12/28-1/27 SVCS $532.30
111-7010-421.53-10 PD PHONE SERVICES 2,019.99
217122-3/7/22 111-9010-419.53-10 CITY WIDE PHONE SERVICES 33.78 217122-3/7/22 111-9010-419.53-10 CITY WIDE PHONE SERVICES 2/7/22-3/7/22 111-9010-419.53-10 CITY WIDE PHONE SERVICES 33.78 217122-3/7/22 111-9010-419.53-10 CITY WIDE PHONE SERVICES 33.78 2/7/22-3/7/22 111-9010-419.53-10 CITY WIDE PHONE SERVICES 102.77 217122-3/7122 111-9010-419.53-10 CITY WIDE PHONE SERVICES 198.39 217122-3/7122 111-9010-419.53-10 CITY WIDE PHONE SERVICES 82.15 02042022 121-7040-421.56-14 PD INMATE PHONE SERVICE 137.34 $2,675.76
AY NURSERY INC. 116671 535-8090-452.61-20 TREES FOR THE PARK 761.25 $761.25
BRINK'S INCORPORATED 4542509 111-9010-419.33-10 BANK SVCS: TRANSPORTATION 290.43 1 of 7
City of Hun..ngton Park
Demand Register
WR 3/1/2022
Payee Name Invoice Number Account Number Description Transaction Amount BRINKS INCORPORATED 4542510 111-9010-419.33-10 BANK SVCS: MONEY PROCESS 56.80 $347.23
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND 12312021 741-8060-431.42-05 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK 1,322.00 12312021 741-8060-431.43-20 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK 521.14 $1,843.14
CALIFORNIA PARK&RECREATION SOCIETY 12172021 111-6010-451.59-15 CPRS MEMBERSHIP 165.00 $165.00
CENTRAL FORD 384968 219-8085-431.43-21 STEERING SHOCK-SHUTTLES 118.67 384993 219-8085-431.43-21 STEERING SHOCK-SHUTTLES 59.34 384999 219-8085-431.43-21 STEERING SHOCK SHUTTLE 04 456.04 384937 741-8060-431.43-20 HUB BEARING NUTS 38.81
384949 741-8060-431.43-20 IGNITION SWITCH PD UNIT 70.24 384989 741-8060-431.43-20 CORE FOR UNIT 349 235.74
385017 741-8060-431.43-20 SWITCH FOR UNIT 918 51.48
385040 741-8060-431.43-20 A/C ACCUMULATOR 139.51
385075 741-8060-431.43-20 SEAT BELT REPAIR 352.23
385116 741-8060-431.43-20 DOOR LOCK SWITCH 36.87
385152 741-8060-431.43-20 TRANSMISSION MOUNT-PD 38.08
385248 741-8060-431.43-20 WATER PUMP 141.27
385258 741-8060-431.43-20 BODY WEATHERSEALS 345.18
385274 741-8060-431.43-20 COOLANT RADIATOR HOSE 207.58
385303 741-8060-431.43-20 A/C COMPRESSOR 415.34
385310 741-8060-431.43-20 POWER STEERING PD UNIT 420.60 385333 741-8060-431.43-20 REAR BRAKES FOR PD UNITS 206.14 385399 741-8060-431.43-20 TIMING COVER SEAL 17.79
385464 741-8060-431.43-20 RUBBER INSULATOR PD UNIT 68.22 385480 741-8060-431.43-20 A/C PRESSURE HOSE LINE 218.74 385570 741-8060-431.43-20 DIFFERENCIAL OIL PD UNIT 104.38 385578 741-8060-431.43-20 LOWER CONTROL ARM BOLTS 51.55 $3,793.80
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 106964801020122 111-7010-421.53-10 PD ICI SYSTEM 696.86 2/7-3/6 SVCS 111-7010-421.53-10 PD INTERNET 1,9000
212-3/1 SVCS 111-9010-419.53-10 CITY HALL INTERNET
0389644013122 121-7040-421.56-14 PD TV SERVICES 295.13
$4,640.99
CINTAS CORPORATION NO 3 4109189268 741-8060-431.56-41 UNIFORM DRY CLEANING 358.89 4109868300 741-8060-431.56-41 UNIFORM DRY CLEANING 358.89 4110559375 741-8060-431.56-41 UNIFORM DRY CLEANING 343.83 $1,061.61
CITY AND COUNTY ENGINEERS ASSOC. 02012022 111-8020-431.64-00 2022 ANNUAL DUES FOR CCEA 50.00 $50.00
CLINICAL LAB OF SAN BERNARDINO, INC 2200260 681-8030-461.56-41 WATER QUALITY TESTING 262.25 $262.25
COMMUNITY VETERINARY HOSPITAL 353798 111-7010-421.61-20 MEDICAL SCS FOR K9 187.00 2 of 7
City of Huntington Park
Demand Register
WR 3/1/2022
Payee Name Invoice Number Account Number Description Transaction Amount COMMUNITY VETERINARY HOSPITAL 459668 111-7010-421.61-20 MEDICAL SVCS FOR K9 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 74122468 111-2030-413.56-41 EMPLOYEES PHYSICAL BUNDLE CONTRERAS GARDEN SUPPLY 02032022 741-8060-431.43-20 GARDENING SUPPLIES CR&R INCORPORATED 000113485 111-8027-431.56-59 WATER & RECYCLING SVCS DATAPROSE, INC. DP2200311 681-3022-415.53-20 WATER BILLS & POSTAGE DP2200311 681-3022-415.56-41 WATER BILLS & POSTAGE 950.63 $2,899.04
DELTA DENTAL BE004815766 111-0000-217.50-20 DELTA CARE MONTH BENEFITS 8,593.25 DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY BE004813380 111-0000-217.50-20 DELTA CARE MONTH BENEFITS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 559584 111-7030-421.56-41 FINGERPRINT APPS DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER LCW68 152-6010-451.73-10 INSTLL ANTI-CLIMBING EQUP DOOLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. 62232 225-7120-421.74-10 DEPARTMENT AMMUNITION 62233 225-7120-421.74-10 DEPARTMENT AMMUNITION
$2,255.21
DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 2009331253 111-8095-431.61-50 PAINT FOR GRAFFITI 154.86 2009334552 111-8095-431.61-50 PAINT FOR GRAFFITI 902.30 $1,057.16
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT. L0908045584 111-9017-413.52-90 ]UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CHARGE] 2,037.00 $2,037.00
ESTELA RAMIREZ 01312022 111-6060-466.33-20 AEROBIC BODY INSTRUCTOR 252.00 $252.00
EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES LLC HPE02012022 111-0000-362.20-15 HP EXPRESS PROPERTY LEASE -2,000.00 HPE02012022 111-0000-362.20-15 HP EXPRESS VEHICLE LEASE -500.00 HPE02012022 219-0000-340.30-00 HP EXPRESS FARES -2,509.00 HPE02012022 219-8085-431.56-43 HP EXPRESS JAN 2021 33,778.13 DAR02012022 219-8085-431.56-45 DIAL A RIDE SVCS FEB 2022 71,783.33 HPE02012022 220-8085-431.56-43 HP EXPRESS JAN 2021 33,778.14 HPE02012022 222-8010-431.56-43 HP EXPRESS JAN 2021 33,778.13 $168,108.73
FEDEX 7-482-25571 111-7010-421.61-20 SHIPPING CHARGES 8.52 $8.52
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0974379 111-8022-419.43-10 HAND TORCH 114.29 1018045 111-8022-419.43-10 TOILET REPAIR-COURTHOUSE 394.52 $508.81
GATEWAY URGENT CARE CENTER 16480 111-2030-413.56-41 TREADMILL STRESS TEST 200.00 $200.00
• 3 of 7
City of Huhungton Park
Demand Register
WR 3/1/2022
Payee Name Invoice Number Account Number Description Transaction Amount GLOBALSTAR USA 000000026440257 111-7010-421.53-10 PD PHONE SERVICE CHARGE 537.44 $537.44
GLORIA'S RESTAURANT, INC. 12152021 239-0280-490.51-03 SENIOR MEAL PROGRAM 14,500.00 $14,500.00
GRAINGER 9201255453 741-8060-431.43-20 BATTERY CHARGER 1,211.90 9204123542 741-8060-431.43-20 AUTOMOTIVE CIRCUIT 196.80 9209081893 741-8060-431.43-20 EXTENSION CORD 191.37
$1,600.07
HASA, INC. 794477 681-8030-461.41-00 SODIUM HYPOCLORITE WELLS 794478 681-8030-461.41-00 SODIUM HYPOCLORITE WELLS
797712 681-8030-461.41-00 SODIUM HYPOCLORITE WELLS
797714 681-8030-461.41-00 SODIUM HYPOCLORITE WELLS
797725 681-8030-461.41-00 SODIUM HYPOCLORITE WELLS
HDL COREN & CONE SIN014371 111-9010-419.56-41 PROPERTY TAX JAN-MARCH HERNANDEZ SIGNS, INC. 4413 111-6010-451.61-20 SNEEZE GAURDS 5153 111-8022-419.43-10 SNEEZ GUARDS-COUNCIL 5,457.38
$5,733.01
HOME DEPOT - PUBLIC WORKS 1370447 111-8020-431.43-10 MATERIALS FOR SKATE RINK 1,399.97 1370448 111-8020-431.43-10 MATERIALS FOR SKATE RINK
1034595 111-8022-419.43-10 SUPPLIES FOR COURTHOUSE
1064648 111-8022-419.43-10 CUTTING BLADE-COURTHOUSE
2380123 111-8022-419.43-10 LAMPS FOR COURTHOUSE
2522878 111-8022-419.43-10 SUPPLIES FOR COURTHOUSE
5511595 111-8022-419.43-10 LAMPS FOR COURTHOUSE
7270335 111-8022-419.43-10 LAMP FOR COURTHOUSE
3370496 111-8024-421.43-10 PD DOUDLE DOOR REPAIR
5063152 111-8095-431.61-50 SPARY PAINT FOR GRAFFITI
$3,242.81
ICRA 02172022 745-9031-413.52-30 SETTLE LIABILITY CLAIM $80,099.80
INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERS 26623 221-8010-431.76-12 DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SVCS 26622 222-8010-431.76-06 PROJECT FOR SLAUSON AVE
INTEGRITY WASTE ENVIRON CONSULTANTS 111-8027-431.56-41 SOLID WASTE AUDITING SVCS J316 BUILDER 111-7024-421.56-41 JANITORAL SVCS JAN 2022 520-1 111-7024-421.56-41 SUPPLIES FOR JANITORIAL
N 111-8020-431.56-41 JANITORAL SVCS JAN 2022
520-1 111-8020-431.56-41 SUPPLIES FOR JANITORIAL 419.07 N 111-8022-419.56-41 JANITORAL SVCS JAN 2022 4,305.23
520-1 111-8022-419.56-41 SUPPLIES FOR JANITORIAL 931.27 111-8023-451.56-41 11,472.56
4 of 7
City of Huntington Park
Demand Register
WR 3/1/2022
Payee Name Invoice Number Account Number Description Transaction Amount J316 BUILDER 520-1 111-8023-451.56-41 SUPPLIES FOR JANITORIAL 2,607.54 $25,575.54
JDS TANK TESTING & REPAIR INC 741-8060-431.43-20 DESIGNATED OPERATOR JAN 135.00 $135.00
JERRY'S AUTO BODY, INC. 32431 741-8060-431.43-20 REPAIR UNIT 904 1,594.59 $1,594.59
JOSE PEREZ 24736 111-0000-321.10-00 BUSINESS LICENSE FEE 256.89 $256.89
JTB SUPPLY COMPANY INC 109964 221-8012-429.61-20 CONTRACTURAL SVCS 475.00 109964 221-8014-429.61-20 TRAFFIC SIGNAL CAMERAS 2,221.00 $2,696.00
KAJIWARA COMMUNICATIONS HP0011 111-9010-419.56-41 CONSULTING SERVICES JAN 7,983.75 $7,983.75
L.E.A.P.S.PX 432 111-7010-421.59-30 BASIC ACADEMY EQUIPMENT 321.06 $321.06
LEGAL SHIELD 0143713 111-0000-217.60-50 IDENTITY THEFT PROTECTION 28.90 $28.90
LOLY'S BRIDAL 21121-19828 681-0000-228.70-00 WATER DEPOSIT REFUND 200.00 $200.00
MAUREEN KANE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 0752 111-1010-411.59-15 DEVELOPMENT COURSE 1,600.00 $1,600.00
MERRIMAC ENERGY GROUP 2217183 741-8060-431.62-30 FUEL PURCHASE 28.054.38 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC $28,054.38
900 222-8010-431.56-41 ENGINEERING SVCS 6,488.00
NATIONAL TRAINING CONCEPTS, INC. $6,488.00
22-028 111-7010-421.59-20 TRAINING REGISTRATION 630.00
$630.00
NATIONWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 32102 111-8031-433.56-41 STREET SWEEPING SVCS 3,032.00 32103 220-8070-431.56-41 BUS STOP MAINT. SVCS 18,795.50 32102 221-8010-431.56-41 STREET SWEEPING SVCS 49,625.96 $71,453.46
NEW CHEF FASHION INC. 1024176 111-7030-421.61-20 EMPLOYEE UNIFORM 110.23 $110.23
|NICK ALEXANDER RESTORATION 3934 741-8060-431.43-20 REPAIR UNIT 349 365.37 3935 741-8060-431.43-20 DRIVERS SEAT REPAIR 365.37
3944 741-8060-431.43-20 DRIVER SEAT REPAIR 425.00
$1,155.74
NORTH STAR LAND CARE 1601-255 535-8090-452.56-60 TREE TRIMMING SVCS 80,587.00 1601-279 535-8090-452.56-60 TREE MAINTENENCE 30,960.00
O'REILLY AUTO PARTS $111,547.00
2959-103852 741-8060-431.43-20 TAILGATE HANDLE COVER 21.61 2959-103863 741-8060-431.43-20 BRAKE UNITS FOR ALL UNITS 126.74 2959-104298 741-8060-431.43-20 TAILGATE HANDLE 42.14
2959-106375 741-8060-431.43-20 RADIATOR 174.14
5 of 7
City of Huhungton Park
Demand Register
WR 3/1/2022
Payee Name Invoice Number Account Number Description Transaction Amount O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 2959-106443 741-8060-431.43-20 CIRCUIT BRAKER 36.37 2959-106756 741-8060-431.43-20 REAR BRAKES-PD UNITS 208.33 2959-106759 741-8060-431.43-20 REAR BRAKES 156.60
2959-106858 741-8060-431.43-20 SHOP SUPPLIES 27.52
2959-107010 741-8060-431.43-20 AVC HOSE PD UNIT 349 122.13 2959-107216 741-8060-431.43-20 MULTIPLE VEHICLE ITEMS 282.21 5655-282729 741-8060-431.43-20 COOL TAPE RETURN -44.08
5655-283026 741-8060-431.43-20 BATTERY FOR MULTILE UNITS 290.79 5655-283058 741-8060-431.43-20 BRAKE ROTOR 355.27
5655-283807 741-8060-431.43-20 ELECTRICAL TAPE 88.14
5655-283844 741-8060-431.43-20 BREAK PADS PD UNIT 349 163.60 5655-283906 741-8060-431.43-20 SHOP SUPPLIES 30.93
5655-283909 741-8060-431.43-20 CONCRETE CUTTING MACHINE 11.88 5655-283946 741-8060-431.43-20 PART FOR PD UNIT 915 71.56 5655-283975 741-8060-431.43-20 SUSPENSION LINK 115.81
5655-284470 741-8060-431.43-20 FRONT BRAKE PADS 177.28
5655-284472 741-8060-431.43-20 OIL - PD UNITS & SHUTTLES 86.23 $2,545.20
PENSKE CHEVROLET 269895 741-8060-431.43-20 MIRROR REPAIR UNIT 347 61.52 $61.52
PURCHASE POWER 02112022 111-7040-421.56-41 POSTAGE FEES 562.28 $562.28
SONSRAY MACHINERY, LLC PS0007426-1 741-8060-431.43-20 PARTS FOR REPAIR UNIT 412 1,956.53 PS0008392-1 741-8060-431.43-20 PARTS FOR REPAIR UNIT 411 1,222.28 $3,178.81
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1/6-2/3 111-7024-421.62-10 ELECTRICAL SVCS- 6542 MILES AVE 5,789.97 1/5-2/2 111-8010-415.62-10 ELECTRICAL SVCS- CITY PARKING LOTS 296.67 02042022 221-8014-429.62-10 ELECTRICAL SVCS- 55 ST PACIFIC BLVD 60.97 02032022 535-8016-431.62-10 ELECTRICAL SVCS- 6621 WILSON AVE 65.95 $6,213.56
SPARKLETTS 19438227020922 111-7010-421.56-41 WATER DELIVERY PD 532.46 $532.46
SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC 1/9-2/8 SVCS 111-6010-451.56-41 WALKIE TALKIE SVCS - PARKS 298.34 $298.34
STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 003789170002 111-0000-217.50-70 STANDARD ADDITIONAL LIFE INSURANCE 1,206.08 $1,206.08
STARSTAR COMMUNICATIONS LLC SUBC00007925 111-9010-419.53-10 VOIP SERVICES 10,657.15 $10,657.15
SUPERION, LLC 344518 111-9010-419.33-10 FINANCIAL SYSTEM PAYMENT 12,888.20 $12,888.20
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 02072022 111-7010-415.56-10 CITATION SURCHARGE-JAN 21,810.29 $21,810.29
T-MOBILE USA 12/21-1/20 111-0110-411.53-10 PHONE CHARGES - COUNCIL 193.45 6 of 7
City of Huntington Park
Demand Register
WR 3/1/2022
Payee Name Invoice Number Account Number Description Transaction Amount T-MOBILE USA 12/21-1/20 111-0210-413.53-10 PHONE CHARGES - ADMIN 128.20 12/21-1/20 111-1010-411.53-10 PHONE CHARGES - FINANCE 38.69 12/21-1/20 111-3010-415.53-10 PHONE CHARGES - CITY CLERK 28.55 02132022 111-5055-419.53-10 CE PHONES SVCS 456.80
02132022 111-6010-451.56-41 MOBILE SERVICES FOR PARKS 298.56 01212022 111-8010-431.53-10 PHONE CHARGES - PW 773.80
01212022 111-8095-431.53-10 PHONE CHARGES - PW 208.08
01212022 681-8030-461.53-10 PHONE CHARGES - PW 154.76
$2,280.89
THORSON MOTOR CENTER 433105 741-8060-431.43-20 DOOR REFLECTOR 29.78 433106 741-8060-431.43-20 COOLANT RESERVOIR 301.58
$331.36
THREE G'S PLUMBING 22413 111-8022-419.43-10 MAIN LINE SEWER REPAIR 975.00 22414 111-8022-419.43-10 REPAIR LEAK IN COURTHOUSE 1,002.38 $1,977.38
UNITED INDUSTRIES 220316 111-8010-431.61-20 GLOVES-PW 195.60 $195.60
WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF 12312021 681-8030-461.41-00 GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION 88.346.62 $88,346.62
WAUSAU TILE, INC. 637957 111-8010-431.61-20 TRASH LINER REPLACEMENTS 946.91 637957 285-8050-432.61-20 TRASH LINER REPLACEMENTS 1,004:55 $1,951.46
WEST GOVERNMENT SERVICES 845806556 111-7030-421.56-41 ONLINE SOFTWARE SUBSCRIP. 779.74 845890076 111-7030-421.56-41 ONLINE SOFTWARE SUBSCRIP. 71.59 $851.33
WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY 38863C 111-7024-421.56-41 EXTERMINATOR SVCS JAN 22 53.50 38863C 111-8020-431.56-41 EXTERMINATOR SVCS JAN 22 73.60 38863C 111-8022-419.56-41 EXTERMINATOR SVCS JAN 22 53.45 38863C 111-8023-451.56-41 EXTERMINATOR SVCS JAN 22 377.35 38863C 535-8090-452.43-20 EXTERMINATOR SVCS JAN 22 139.50 $697.40
WEX BANK 78283869 741-8060-431.62-30 FUEL PURCHASE FOR DEPT. VEHICLE | 323.55 $323.55
$903,363.71
7 of 7
ITEM NO. 3

CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK
Parks and Recreation Department
City Council Agenda Report
March 1, 2022
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Park
6550 Miles Avenue
Huntington Park, CA 90255
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DODGERS

DREAMTEAM PROGRAM GRANT FROM THE LOS ANGELES DODGERS
FOUNDATION FOR THE 2022 BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL SEASON AT SALT LAKE PARK.

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT CITY COUNCIL:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-07, Authorizing the acceptance of the Dodgers RBI Grant from the Los Angeles Dodgers Foundation for the 2022 Baseball season at Salt Lake Park; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute all related grant documents.

BACKGROUND
The Dodgers Dreamteam Program, (Formerly the RB! Program) is a baseball and softball youth development program of the Los Angeles Dodgers Foundation (LADF) that aims to: increase participation in the sport and use it as an engagement tool to increase access to education, literacy, health, wellness and recreational resources in underserved communities. The Dodgers Dreamteam program utilizes a bigger than baseball approach and focuses on youth development as it engages communities and families in programming. The resources provided as part of the grant include: uniform jerseys, pants, socks, hats, practice t-shirts, gloves, bats, tees, catcher's gear, baseballs, softballs, workshops, skills training, financial assistance to offset umpire and field maintenance costs, financial assistance to offset staffing of a Dreamteam Coordinator to focus on this grant, an online registration tool, marketing materials, support from LADF and access to education and health resources for the youth and their families. This is an "Invitation Only" grant and fortunately, it will be the third year that we are invited to apply and receive this grant.

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DODGERS

DREAMTEAM PROGRAM GRANT FROM THE LOS ANGELES DODGERS
FOUNDATION FOR THE 2022 BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL SEASON AT SALT LAKE PARK.

March 1, 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

FISCAL IMPACT/FINANCING
There is no fiscal impact. It will be the responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Department to ensure that all data is submitted and grant requirements are fulfilled.

CONCLUSION
Upon City Council approval of the recommended actions, staff will proceed with implementation of the grant and program.

Respectfully submitted,

RICARDO REYES
Interim City Manager
pollen Nor

CYNTHIA NORZAGARAY
Director of Parks and Recreation

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Resolution No. 2022-07, authorizing the acceptance of the Dodgers Dreamteam Grant from the Los Angeles Dodgers Foundation for the 2022 baseball and softball season at Salt Lake Park.

ATTACHMENT "A"
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-07
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
3 OF HUNTINGTON PARK AUTHORIZING THE

ACCEPTANCE OF THE DODGERS DREAMTEAM
4 PROGRAM GRANT FROM THE LOS ANGELES

DODGERS FOUNDATION
5 WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Park is eligible to apply and receive funding 6 for certain recreation programs;
7 WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Park has received a grant from the Dodgers 8 Dreamteam Program grant from the Los Angeles Dodgers Foundation for the 2022 baseball and softball season at Salt Lake Park;
9 10 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK AS FOLLOWS:
11 SECTION 1. The City Council adopts the above recitals as its findings. 12 13 SECTION 2. The City Manager of the City of Huntington Park is authorized to accept the Grant awarded to the City by the Los Angeles Dodgers Foundation and the 14 Dodgers Dreamteam Program.
15 SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by 16 the City Council and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. 17 18 SECTION 4. The City Manager of the City of Huntington Park is authorized to execute all documents, including contracts, subcontracts, funding agreements, 19 agreement extensions, renewals, and/or amendments required by the Dodgers Dreamteam Program and the Los Angeles Dodgers Foundation to implement the 20 program for the 2022 baseball and softball season at Salt Lake Park, in a form 21 acceptable to the City Attorney. In addition, the City Manager may direct City staff as deemed necessary to implement the grant successfully and in a timely manner per 22 grant requirements.
23 SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, 24 which shall be effective upon its adoption.
25 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1st day of March 2022. 26 27
28 1
1 2
Graciela Ortiz, Mayor
3 ATTEST:
4 5
Eduardo Sarmiento
6 City Clerk
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
2 ITEM NO. 4

CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK
Public Works Department
City Council Agenda Report
March 1, 2022
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Park
6550 Miles Avenue
Huntington Park, CA 90255
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTALLY

PREFERABLE PURCHASING AND PRACTICES POLICY AS A CONDITION TO

RECEIVE STATE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY GRANTS
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT CITY COUNCIL:

1. Consider adoption of an Environmentally Preferable Purchasing and Practices (EPPP) Policy as a condition to receive State Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) grants.

BACKGROUND
At the January 18, 2022 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized staff to submit the Legacy Disposal Site Abatement Partial Grant Program and the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program FY 2021-22 to CalRecycle. All CalRecycle grant applicants are required to have in place an adopted and implemented Environmentally Preferable Purchasing and Practices (EPPP) Policy. The due date to submit the EPPP is March 8, 2022.

The policy must address both environmental preferable purchasing and practices. The goal is to purchase green products and make a good faith effort to recycle when applicable. One aspect of EPPP is buying products with recycled content. Less energy is typically required to make a product with recycled content, even when transportation is considered, so buying products with recycled content offers greater environmental benefits as compared to products made from raw materials. Also, buying products that are reusable or recyclable extends the use of the materials they contain and contributes to a truly cyclical and sustainable materials flow.

Some additional practices that CalRecycle encourages organizations to include in their EPPP Policies include:
• Buildings and Grounds

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTALLY

PREFERABLE PURCHASING AND PRACTICES POLICY AS A CONDITION TO

RECEIVE STATE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY GRANTS
March 1, 2022

Page 2 of 3 ends

• All building and renovations follow the green building practices for design, construction and operation, where appropriate, as described in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System
Continual Improvement
Training is provided to new and existing employees.
• Organization regularly evaluates and/or improves implementation of EPPP policy.

LEGAL REQUIREMENT
California, Public Contract Code section 12200:

This policy states a commitment to reducing solid waste, to promote reuse and recycling, and to support business development in California. State agencies are instructed, with the assistance of the State Agency Buy Recycled Campaign (SABRC), to purchase recycled and remanufactured products. The 11 product categories outlined in SABRC are anti-freeze, compost, glass, oils, paint, paper, plastic, printing paper, metal, tires, and tire- derived products.

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing is the procurement of goods and services that have a reduced impact on human health and the environment as compared to other goods and services serving the same purpose (Public Contract Code §12400-12404).

FISCAL IMPACT
A 500/ream of 100% recycled paper costs $10.99. A 500/ream of 50% recycled paper costs $15.09. A 500/ream of 30% recycled paper costs $9.39. Multipurpose paper (non- recycle) costs $6.99. The fiscal impact associated with this adoption may cost the City an additional 20% and 30% when purchasing recycled paper and other recycled products.

CONCLUSION
Upon Council's direction, staff will proceed with actions as directed.

Respectfully submitted,

RICARDO REYES
City Manager
Evan Poldam

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTALLY

PREFERABLE PURCHASING AND PRACTICES POLICY AS A CONDITION TO

RECEIVE STATE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY GRANTS
March 1, 2022

Page 3 of 3 ends

CESAR ROLDAN
Director of Public Works
ATTACHMENTS):

A. Draft EPPP Policy
ATTACHMENT "A"
Title:

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PURCHASING Approved By: City Council meeting of 3/1/22

AND PRACTICES POLICY (GREEN PURCHASING)
Effective Date: March 1, 2022 Page No. 1 of 7
Purpose
The City of Huntington Park (City) is a consumer of goods and services and the purchasing decisions of our employees and contractors can positively or negatively affect the environment.

By including environmental considerations in our procurement decisions, along with our traditional concerns with price, performance and availability, we will remain fiscally responsible while promoting practices that improve public health and safety, reduce pollution, and conserve natural resources. The purpose of this document is to establish the framework for establishing an environmentally based purchasing program for the City.

Board Policy
On March 1, 2022, the City Council adopted a Citywide Environmentally Preferable Purchasing and Practices (EPPP) Policy instructing all departments to implement the Policy for energy conservation and environmental stewardship. To implement the City's "green" initiatives, County departments will be tasked to:
• Institute practices that reduce waste by increasing product efficiency and effectiveness; • Purchase products that minimize environmental impacts, toxics, pollution, and hazards to worker and community safety to the greatest extent practicable, and • Purchase products that include recycled content, are durable and long-lasting, conserve energy and water, use agricultural fibers and residues, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, use unbleached or chlorine free manufacturing processes, and use wood from sustainable harvested forests.

To meet the City Council's policy objectives, we must develop and implement procedures for the procurement of environmentally preferable (or "green)" and energy efficient products and services.

Purchasing objectives will include acquisitions that:
• Conserve natural resources;
Minimize environmental impacts such as pollution and use of water and energy; • Eliminate or reduce toxics that create hazards to workers and our community; • Support strong recycling markets;
• Reduce materials that are put into landfills;
• Increase the use and availability of environmentally preferable products that protect the environment;
• Encourage manufacturers and vendors to reduce environmental impacts in their production and distribution systems; and
• Create a model for successfully purchasing environmentally preferable products that encourages other purchasers in our community to adopt similar goals.

Title:

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PURCHASING

AND PRACTICES POLICY (GREEN PURCHASING)
Effective Date: March 1, 2022 Page No. 2 of 7
The City's Finance Department will have overall responsibility for the purchasing of recycled paper and applicable supplies, though other Departments will share in the responsibility to ensure compliance with the policy. Public Works will establish appropriate assessing cost effectiveness
recommendations related to acquisition strategies and maintaining data and issuing reports related to the City's progress in environmental purchasing. These areas are further detailed in the attached procedures.

PURCHASING PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS
Defining Environmentally Preferable Products
All products for which the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has established minimum recycled content standard guidelines, such as those for printing paper, office paper, janitorial supplies, construction, landscaping, miscellaneous, and non-paper office products, shall contain the highest post-consumer content practicable, but no less than the minimum recycled content standards established by the U.S. EPA Guidelines.

In general, environmentally preferable products and services are those that would have a reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared with competing products and services. More specifically, this comparison would include consideration of all phases of the product's life cycle, including raw materials acquisition, production, manufacturing, packaging, distribution, operation, maintenance and disposal, including potential for reuse or ability to be recycled.

In practice, the objective is to purchase products that have reduced environmental impact because of the way they are made, used, transported, stored, packaged and disposed of. The objective is to look for products that do not harm human health, are less polluting and that minimize waste, maximize use of bio-based or recycled materials, conserve energy and water, and reduce the consumption or disposal of hazardous materials. When determining whether a product is environmentally preferable, the following standards should be considered:
v Biobased / Made from renewable materials
• Biodegradable / Compostable
• Carcinogen-free / Low toxicity
• Bioaccumulative toxic (PBT)-free • Recycled content, Reusable • Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-free • Reduced packaging, Refurbished • Heavy metal free (i.e., no lead, / Reduced greenhouse gas mercury, cadmium) emission
• Low volatile organic compound / Energy, Resource and Water (VOC) content efficient
Title:

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PURCHASING

AND PRACTICES POLICY (GREEN PURCHASING)
Effective Date: March 1, 2022 Page No. 3 of 7
Purchasing Environmentally Preferable Products
Purchasing Responsibilities - General
In coordination with the City's Finance Department:
- Working with other governmental purchasing groups and agencies, such as U.S.

Communities, NACO and CSAC to determine appropriate standards for green purchasing. - Assigning staff to evaluate various green products and to provide guidance and assistant to City departments.
- Developing and implementing a 5-year plan to phase in various categories of purchased goods under the green program umbrella. Relative easy to implement items (e.g., paper, cleaning supplies, etc.) will be implemented very early in the program. - Heading up teams to evaluate various types of products where the cost differential is great and/or the products are not considered good substitutes. - Assessing and making recommendations on the use of price preferences. - Maintaining data and issuing reports related to the City's progress in environmental purchasing.
- Establishing central purchasing agreements with a catalogue of environmentally friendly and energy efficient products and to modify our existing agreement data bases for the easy identification of green products.

In establishing citywide commodity agreements, the City will specify the requirement for environmentally preferable products applicable, and will evaluate product alternatives where appropriate. This evaluation would include: consideration of total costs expected during the time a product is owned, including, but not limited to, acquisition, extended warranties, operation, supplies, maintenance, disposal costs and expected lifetime of a products) as compared to other alternatives.

In the evaluation and/or award process:
• Products that are durable, long lasting, reusable or refillable will be preferred whenever feasible.
• Wherever possible, suppliers of electronic equipment, including but not limited to computers, monitors, printers, and copiers, shall be requested to take back equipment for reuse or environmentally •safe recycling when the City discards or replaces such equipment; and
• All suppliers shall be required, where applicable, to use and recycle packaging material used for product delivery.

Title:

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PURCHASING

AND PRACTICES POLICY (GREEN PURCHASING)
Effective Date: March 1, 2022 Page No. 4 of 7
City Department Responsibility - General
Under the delegated authority of the Finance Department, departmental buyers are responsible to evaluate short-term and long-term costs in comparing product alternatives.

Departments shall be required to:

1. Purchase Recycled-Content Bond Paper.

2. Purchase Energy Efficient products in order to conserve electrical power, reduce peak power consumption, lower energy costs, provide market leadership and support energy- efficient purchasing.

3. Review and use "green" product alternatives.

Remanufactured Products
The City shall purchase re-manufactured products such as laser toner cartridges, furniture, and equipment whenever practicable, but without reducing safety, quality or effectiveness.

Energy and Water Conserving Equipment
Where applicable, energy-efficient equipment shall be purchased with the most up-to-date energy efficiency functions. This includes, but is not limited to, high efficiency space heating systems and high efficiency space cooling equipment.

When practicable, the Ciyy shall replace inefficient lighting with energy efficient equipment.

Energy Star®
Energy Star is a labeling program derived from a partnership between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). All products displaying the Energy Star label meet Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) standards. Typically, this means that labeled products are in the top 25 percent of all similar products when ranked by energy efficiency, and use 25 to 50 percent less energy than their traditional counterparts.

Solicitation for Equipment or Products
Wherever practicable, when equipment or product purchases where FEMP recommended standards or Energy Star labeled products are available, City departments are expected to include an Energy-efficiency requirement component to their solicitation to purchase those products that meet the recommended standards. Examples of these products include computers, monitors, printers, photocopiers, etc.

Title:

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PURCHASING

AND PRACTICES POLICY (GREEN PURCHASING)
Effective Date: March 1, 2022 Page No. 5 of 7
Sample Solicitation Language
"Notice to Bidder: In line with the City policy for the procurement of energy-efficient equipment and products, preference will be given to those products that meet the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) standards or possess an Energy Star® label."
For energy consuming products where there are no FEMP recommended criteria or Energy Star label, departments must consider the purchase products that conserve electrical power and/or natural gas to the maximum extent possible, based on minimum life-cycle costs.

Cost Analysis
Even where energy-efficient products have a higher purchase price than their less efficient counterparts, these products usually save money because they use less energy, often have a longer life, and typically incur less maintenance cost.

These savings, such as from lower energy bills, are achieved throughout the entire lifetime of the product. Thus, when deciding how much money an Energy Star labeled product will save, it is necessary to consider both initial cost (the purchase price) and the costs that will be incurred throughout the life of the product (such as energy and maintenance costs). This is known as Life Cycle Cost.

Benefits
The benefits of purchasing Energy Stat labeled and FEMP recommended products include:
• Reduced energy costs without compromising quality or performance • Significant return on investment
• Extended product life and decreased maintenance
Products purchased by the City, and for which the U. S. EPA Energy Star certification is available shall meet Energy Star certification, when practicable. When Energy Star labels are not available, energy efficient products shall be purchased that are in the upper 25% of energy efficiency as designated by the Federal Energy Management Program.

The City shall purchase water-saving products whenever practicable.

Title:

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PURCHASING

AND PRACTICES POLICY (GREEN PURCHASING)
Effective Date: March 1, 2022 Page No. 6 of 7
Note: Nothing contained in this policy shall be construed as requiring a department to procure products that do not perform adequately for their intended use, exclude adequate competition, or are not available at a reasonable price in a reasonable period of time.

Landscaping
Workers and contractors providing landscaping services for the City shall be encouraged to employ sustainable landscape management practices whenever possible, including, but not limited to, integrated pest management, , grass-cycling, drip irrigation, composting, and procurement and use of mulch and compost that give preference to those produced trom regionally generated plant debris and/or food waste programs.

Plants should be selected to minimize waste by choosing species that are appropriate to the micro- climate species that can grow to their natural size in the space allotted them and perennials rather than annuals for color. Native and drought-tolerant plants that require no or minimal watering once established are preferred.

Hardscapes and landscape structures constructed of recycled content materials are encouraged.

Toxins and Pollutants
To the extent practicable, no cleaning or disinfecting products (i.e. for janitorial use) shall contain ingredients that are carcinogens, mutagens, or teratogens. These include chemicals listed by the U.S. EPA or the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on the Toxics Release Inventory and those listed under Proposition 65 by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

When maintaining buildings, the City shall use the lowest amount of VOCs (volatile organic compounds), highest recycled content, and low or no formaldehyde when purchasing materials such as paint, carpeting, adhesives, furniture and casework.

The City shall reduce or eliminate its use of products that contribute to the formation of dioxins and furans. This includes, but is not limited to:
• Purchasing paper, paper products, and janitorial paper products that are unbleached or that are processed without chlorine or chlorine derivatives, whenever possible. • Eliminating the purchase of products that use polyvinyl chloride (PVC) such as, but not limited to, office binders, furniture and flooring, whenever practicable.

Agricultural Bio-Based Products
Paper, paper products and construction products made from non-wood, plant-based contents such as agricultural crops and residues are encouraged whenever practicable.

Title:

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PURCHASING

AND PRACTICES POLICY (GREEN PURCHASING)
Effective Date: March 1, 2022 Page No. 7 of 7
Balancing Environmentally Considerations with Performance, Availability and Financial Cost City is committed to procuring environmentally preferable goods and services wherever they meet performance standards and requirements of the City at a competitive cost. Nothing in this policy shall be construed as requiring a purchaser or contractor to procure products that do not perform adequately for their intended use, exclude adequate competition, or are not available at a reasonable price or in a reasonable period of time.

However, when comparing product costs, the City does not focus exclusively on the quoted vendor pricing but also the costs over the life of the product, which includes the initial cost along the lite of the poor with maintenance, operating, insurance, disposal, recycle or replacement, and potential liability costs. Examining life cycle costs will save money by ensuring we are quantifying the total cost of ownership before making purchasing decisions.

Conservation and Waste Reduction
Wherever practicable and cost-effective, departments are responsible to institute practices that reduce waste and result in the purchase of fewer products without reducing safety or workplace quality.

Examples would include:

Using electronic communication instead of printed,
r Using double-sided photocopying and printing,
Using washable and reusable dishes and utensils,
Using rechargeable batteries,
Streamlining and computerizing forms,
Using "on-demand" printing of documents and reports as they are needed, • Leasing long-life products when service agreements support maintenance and repair rather than new purchases,
• Choosing durable products rather than disposable,
Buying in bulk, when storage and operations exist to support it, Re-using products such as, but not limited to, file folders, storage boxes, office supplies, and furnishings.

Departmental Responsibilities
in their procurement decisions as well procurements made by their contractors and consultants, promoting the purchase and use environmentally preferable products whenever cost effective, and to the extent practicable for all work completed on behalf of the City.

ITEM NO. 5

CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK
Public Works Department
City Council Agenda Report
June 15, 2021
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Park
6550 Miles Avenue
Huntington Park, CA 90255
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:

CONSIDERATION SETTING APRIL 19, 2022 FOR THE ADOPTION OF LOCAL

ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT CITY COUNCIL:

1. Set April 19, 2022 to adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan; and

2. Authorize staff to post the draft Local Roadway Safety Plan on the City's website and distribute to community stakeholders for comment.

BACKGROUND
To qualify for future funding through future highway safety improvement program (HSIP) mitigation grants, the City prepared a data-driven systemic safety analysis via the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). In addition to funding qualification, the plan will also be used by the City to program future Capital Improvement projects and identify intended funding sources for those. The City received funding for the preparation of its LRSP.

Preparation included data review analysis, and the development of vision statements, goals, and identification of areas of emphasis. Public input is a large component of the LRSP.

The LRSP systematically identifies and analyzes safety obstacles in our community and provides recommendations on safety enhancement measures that mitigate the City's traffic and safety concerns. Preparing a LRSP facilitates the development of a prioritized list of improvements and actions that focus on improving the City's specific traffic safety needs while helping achieve statewide safety measures. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing our needs and demonstrates our responsiveness to safety challenges.

The City's Traffic Safety Committee (TS) was presented with the LRSP for preliminary review at the February 3, 2022 meeting. The intent is for the additional distribution of the LRSP to other stakeholders while accomplishing the public outreach component of the report. Stakeholders include the Traffic Safety Committee members, Huntington Park CONSIDERATION SETTING APRIL 19, 2022 FOR THE ADOPTION OF LOCAL

ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
March 1, 2022

Page 2 of 3 ends

Police Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department, Los Angeles Unified School District and other interested parties. The LRSP normally addresses the 5Es of safety strategies: Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Emergency Response and Emerging Technologies.

LEGAL REQUIREMENT
Overall, the LRSP should summarize the needs identified, the safety goal, emphasis areas, and a prioritized list of improvements or activities. Additionally, the plan identifies responsibilities and resources to carry out the plan. Items that may also be documented include the stakeholders and process used to develop the plan, successes realized through similar past or current efforts, and obstacles or challenges related to implementation. Staff will monitor the plan to evaluate effectiveness and relevance over time and will adjust the plan periodically or as needed. Once completed, the LRSP will be a living document that will be regularly updated with current data and the program will be continually reviewed and updated to reflect changing local needs and priorities.

In order to apply for the HSIP funds, an agency must have completed their LRSP. The LRSP must be updated and validated at least every five years. When an agency submits an HSIP funding application, the agency must self-certify that an LRSP has been completed. The agency must provide a copy of the safety plan upon request. It is strongly recommended that the LRSP and its update be approved by the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this authorization.

CONCLUSION
Upon Council's direction, staff will proceed with actions as directed.

Respectfully submitted,

RICARDO REYES
City Manager
Civer Plda

CESAR ROLDAN
Director of Public Works
ATTACHMENT(S):

CONSIDERATION SETTING APRIL 19, 2022 FOR THE ADOPTION OF LOCAL

ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
March 1, 2022

Page 3 of 3 ends

A. Draft Local Roadway Safety Plan
ATTACHMENT "A"
FINAL
Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) Project
for
City of Huntington Park
• Pacific Blvd
Vernon
Slauson Ave
Slauson Ave
Los Angeles Next
Maywood
Vernon
Clarendon Ave
Marbr
Gage Ave S
Randolph St
zoe Ave Bel
Los Angeles Gage Ave
County California Ave
Ls Florence Ave
Walnut St
S. Alameda St Santa Fe Ave Pacific Bivd California St Florence Ave Live Oak St
Mountain View Ave Flower St Cudahy
Hope st Salt Lake Ave
Grand Ave
Los Angeles Olivest
Hist
County Broadway St
Park.

Santana St
South Gate
PREPARED FOR:

City of Huntington Park
Department of Public Works
6900 Bissell St
Huntington Park, CA
PREPARED BY:

MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9 : T3-102
Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering - ITS - Transportation Planning - CEM 23282 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 120
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Tel: (949)707-1199 28 Years of Excellence
December 30, 2021
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
SAFETY PLANS:

City of Huntington Park, CA Your Map to Safer Roadways

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CITY COUNCIL
Mayor: Graciela Ortiz
Vice Mayor: Eduardo Martinez
Council Member: Karina Macias
Council Member: Marilyn Sanabria
Council Member: Manuel Avila

PARTNERS
City Departments: Public Works, Planning, Police & Fire Los Angeles Unified School District
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) The Greater Huntington Park Area Chamber of Commerce
General Public of The City of Huntington Park

CITY STAFF
City Manager: Ricardo Reyes
Assistant City Manager: Raul Alvarez
Director of Public Works: Cesar Roldan
Chief of Police: Cosme Lozano
Fire Chief: Scott Haberle
City Engineer: Yunus Rahi
City Traffic Engineer: Dennis Barnes
Interim Director of Community Development: Steve Forster Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer foodways
Executive Summary
The objective of the City of Huntington Park Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is to establish a safe transportation environment that has safer roads, safer people, safer speeds, and safer vehicles. As part of this safety plan for the City of Huntington Park, Minagar & Associates, Inc. identified, prioritized, and analyzed roadway safety improvements on the City of Huntington Park's intersections and roadway segments. This safety plan also provides the proposed countermeasures that address collision patterns for both intersections and roadway segments, to ultimately reduce collisions in the City's high collision From December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2020, there has been a total of 878 collisions reported on the ransportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) which included 18 fatalities and 1,179 injured victims. Th nost common types of collision were broadside, rear end, and vehicle/pedestrian. Primary Collisio Factor (PCF) violations that caused most of the collisions were Automobile Right of Way, Unsafe Speed, and Traffic Signals and Signs. Victims were mostly drivers and passengers in addition to some pedestrians and bicyclists. There was a high number of 185 collisions involved with pedestrians of which 8 collisions were fatal. The highest number of victims happened to be in the age range of 20 to 24 years old.

A Local Road Safety Plan is a major element to ameliorate transportation and traffic safety within a City.

This LRSP was prepared and developed in compliance with the State and Federal guidelines for eligibility to apply for the funding of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). In addition to the provided countermeasures for collision patterns, this Safety Plan also provides the corresponding cost estimates and benefit to cost ratios, to support applications for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

LOCAL ROAD
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Mop to Safer Roadways
Statement of Protection of Data From Discovery and Admissions Per Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code [23 U.S.C. §148(h) (4)] REPORTS DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS, SURVEYS, AND INFORMATION- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.

M MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways
Table of Contents

1. Introduction... ..1

2. Vision and Goals 2

3. Safety Partners .. ....3

3.1 Safety Leadership ...3

3.2 Stakeholders.. ...4

4. Process... ....5

4.1 Systemic Approach ...5

4.2 Public Outreach.. ...6

5. Existing Efforts.. ...7

6. Data Analysis and Summary ...8

6.1 Overall Summary. ...8

6.2 Victim Summary. 15

6.3 Pedestrian Crash Summary..... 19

6.4 Motorcycle Collision Map & Data ..... 21

6.5 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Summary Data & Maps.. 22

7. Emphasis Areas.. 24

7.1 High Collision Intersections ... 25

7.2 High Collision Roadway Segments ..26

7.3 Broadside Collisions Due to Automobile Right of Way 27

7.4 Rear End Collisions Due to Unsafe Speed. 28

7.5 Vehicle and Pedestrian Collisions Due Pedestrian Right of Way and Pedestrian Violation . 29

8. High Collision Locations Identification, Pattern Analysis, and Recommended Improvements .. ..30

8.1 High Collision Intersections .. ...32

8.1.1 Intersection 1: California Ave and Florence Ave 34

8.1.2 Intersection 2: Gage Ave & Pacific Blvd.... .35

8.1.3 Intersection 3: Gage Ave & State St.. 36

8.1.4 Intersection 4: Miles Ave/Soto St & Slauson Ave.. 37

8.1.5 Intersection 5: Gage Ave & Miles Ave .. 38

8.1.6 Intersection 6: Gage Ave & Santa Fe Ave . 39

8.1.7 Intersection 7: Pacific Blvd & Slauson Ave. 40

8.1.8 Intersection 8: Gage Ave & Rugby Ave.. 41

8.1.9 Intersection 9: Florence Ave & State St.. . 42

8.1.10 Intersection 10: Alameda St & Randolph St . 43

8.1.11 Intersection 11: Hope St & State St. 45

8.1.12 Intersection 12: Randolph St & Santa Fe Ave 46

8.1.13 Intersection 13: Florence Ave & Santa Fe Ave 47

8.1.14 Intersection 14: Saturn Ave & Miles Ave.. 48

8.2 High Collision Roadway Segments ......... 49

8.2.1 Roadway Segment 1: Pacific Blvd from Slauson Ave to Belgrave Ave 50

8.2.2 Roadway Segment 2: Alameda St from E 67th St to Hawkins Cir. 50

8.2.3 Roadway Segment 3: Slauson Ave from Miles Ave/Soto St to Bickett St 51

8.2.4 Roadway Segment 4: Slauson Ave from Alameda St to Santa Fe Ave... 51

8.2.5 Roadway Segment 5: Slauson Ave from Bickett St to State St/Boyle Ave.. 52

8.2.6 Roadway Segment 6: Pacific Blvd from Gage Ave to Clarendon Ave... ...52

LOCAL ROAD
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1 High Collision Intersections ........ 54

9.1.1 Intersection 1: California Ave/Salt Lake Ave & Florence Ave .. 54

9.1.1.1 Intersection 1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis.. .. 56

9.1.2 Intersection 2: Gage Ave & Pacific Blvd ..57

9.1.2.1 Intersection 2 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis .. 59

9.1.3 Intersection 3: Gage Ave & State St . 60

9.1.3.1 Intersection 3 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis. .. 62

9.1.4 Intersection 4: Miles Ave/Soto St & Slauson Ave... .. 63

9.1.4.1 Intersection 4 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis.. 65

9.1.5 Intersection 5: Gage Ave & Miles Ave .. 66

9.1.5.1 Intersection 5 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis. .. 68

9.1.6 Intersection 6: Gage Ave & Santa Fe Ave 69

9.1.6.1 Intersection 6 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis. 71

9.1.7 Intersection 7: Pacific Blvd & Slauson Ave.... .72

9.1.7.1 Intersection 7 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis.. . 74

9.1.8 Intersection 8: Gage Ave & Rugby Ave.. ... 75

9.1.8.1 Intersection Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis.. ... 77

9.1.9 Intersection 9: Florence Ave & State St. ..78

9.1.9.1 Intersection 9 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis. 80

9.1.10 Intersection 10: Alameda St & Randolph St.. .81

9.1.10.1 Intersection 10: Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis 83

9.1.11 Intersection 11: Hope St & State St. .. 84

9.1.11.1 Intersection Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis. .. 86

9.1.12 Intersection 12: Randolph St & Santa Fe Ave .. 87

9.1.12.1 Intersection Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis 89

9.1.13 Intersection 13: Florence Ave & Santa Fe Ave. .90

9.1.13.1 Intersection Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis ..92

9.1.14 Intersection 14: Saturn Ave & Miles Ave.. ..93

9.1.14.1 Intersection Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis . 95

9.2 High Collision Roadway Segments ...... . 96

9.2.1 Roadway Segment 1: Pacific Blvd from Slauson Ave to Belgrave Ave . 96

9.2.1.1 Roadway Segment 1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis... .98

9.2.2 Roadway Segment 2: Alameda St from E 67th St to Hawkins Cir .... .. 99

9.2.2.1 Roadway Segment 2 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis... .. 101

9.2.3 Roadway Segment 3: Slauson Ave from Miles Ave/Soto St to Bickett St .. 102

9.2.3.1 Roadway Segment 3 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis.. ..104

9.2.4 Roadway Segment 4: Slauson Ave from Alameda St & Santa Fe Ave .. 105

9.2.4.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis ... . 107

9.2.5 Roadway Segment 5: Slauson Ave from Bickett St to State St/Boyle Ave. .. 108

9.2.5.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis. ..110

9.2.6 Roadway Segment 6: Pacific Blvd from Gage Ave to Clarendon Ave ..111

9.2.6.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis .. 113
12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Rondways
List of Tables
Table 1: Number of Collisions per Day of Week per Time.. ..13 Table 2: City of Huntington Park Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox... ..31 Table 3: List of High Collision Intersections ...... .. 32 Table 4: Intersection Number of Collisions and Ranking in the City of Huntington Park.. ..33 Table 5: Intersection 1 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor . 34 Table 6: intersection 2 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor. ...35 Table 7: Intersection 3 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor ...36 Table 8: Intersection 4 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor. ...37 Table 9: Intersection 5 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor. ...38 Table 10: Intersection 6 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor.... ... 39 Table 11: Intersection 7 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor. ...40 Table 12: Intersection 8 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor.. 41 Table 13: Intersection 9 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor. 42 Table 14: Intersection 10 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor 43 Table 15: Intersection 11 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor 45 Table 16: Intersection 12 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor 46 Table 17: Intersection 13 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor . 47 Table 18: Intersection 14 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor ..48 Table 19: List of High Collision Roadway Segments .. 49 Table 20: Roadway Segment Number of Collisions and Ranking in the City of Huntington Park. . 49 Table 21: Roadway Segment 1 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor 50 Table 22: Roadway Segment 2 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor .50 Table 23: Roadway Segment 3 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor 51 Table 24: Roadway Segment 4 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor 51 Table 25: Roadway Segment 5 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor. 52 Table 26: Roadway Segment 6 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor 52 Table 27: Intersection 1 Cost Estimate... 56
Table 28: Intersection 2 Cost Estimate.. .. 59
Table 29: Intersection 3 Cost Estimate.. 62
Table 30: Intersection 4 Cost Estimate.. 65
Table 31: Intersection 5 Cost Estimate. 68
Table 32: Intersection 6 Cost Estimate. 71
Table 33: Intersection 7 Cost Estimate. .74
Table 34: Intersection 8 Cost Estimate. 77
Table 35: Intersection 9 Cost Estimate... 80
Table 36: Intersection 10 Cost Estimate 83
Table 37: Intersection 11 Cost Estimate 86
Table 38: Intersection 12 Cost Estimate 89
Table 39: Intersection 13 Cost Estimate 92
Table 40: Intersection 14 Cost Estimate. 95
Table 41: Roadway Segment 1 Cost Estimate.... ... 98
Table 42: Roadway Segment 2 Cost Estimate.... ... 101
12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
SAFETY PLANS:

City of Huntington Park, CA Your Map to Safer Roadways
Table 43: Roadway Segment 3 Cost Estimate.. .. 104
Table 44: Roadway Segment 4 Cost Estimate. ..107
Table 45: Roadway Segment 5 Cost Estimate. .. 110
Table 46: Roadway Segment 6 Cost Estimate. ..113
List of Figures
Figure 1: Local Road Safety Plan - Your Map to Safer Roadways... ...1 Figure 2: City of Huntington Park Display of Collisions by Point (December 31, 2015 - December 31, 2020) Figure 3: City of Huntington Park Display of Collisions by Cluster (December 31, 2015 - December 31, 2020) ...10
Figure 4: City of Huntington Park Number of Collisions by Collision Severity... . 11 Figure 5: Number of Collisions by Type of Collision... ... 12 Figure 6: Number of Collisions by (PCF) Primary Collision Factor Violation. .. 14 Figure 7: Number of Victims by Victim Degree of Injury .. 15 Figure 8: Number of Victims by Victim Role ... .. 16
Figure 9: Number of Victims by Victim Safety Equipment .. 17 Figure 10: Number of Victims by Victim Gender and Age. ..18 Figure 11: City of Huntington Park Number of Collisions by Type of Violation .. 19 Figure 12: City of Huntington Park Number of Collisions by Pedestrian Action .. ..20 Figure 13: City of Huntington Park Number of Collisions by Lighting . ..20 Figure 14: City of Huntington Park Number of Collisions by Weather. ..20 Figure 15: City of Huntington Park Motorcycle Collision Map.. . 21 Figure 16: City of Huntington Park Active Transportation Heat Map 22 Figure 17: City of Huntington Park Active Transportation Program Specific Collision Map. . 23 Figure 18: Intersection 1 Collision Diagram (22 Collisions) 54 Figure 19: Intersection 2 Collision Diagram (20 Collisions) ...57 Figure 20: Intersection 3 Collision Diagram (17 Collisions) .. 60 Figure 21: Intersection 4 Collision Diagram (15 Collisions) 63 Figure 22: Intersection 5 Collision Diagram (14 Collisions) 66 Figure 23: Intersection 6 Collision Diagram (14 Collisions) 69 Figure 24: Intersection 7 Collision Diagram (14 Collisions) .. 72 Figure 25: Intersection 8 Collision Diagram (14 Collisions) .. 75 Figure 26: Intersection 9 Collision Diagram (13 Collisions) . . 78 Figure 27: Intersection 10 Collision Diagram (12 Collision). 81 Figure 28: Intersection 11 Collision Diagram (12 Collisions). 84 Figure 29: Intersection 12 Collision Diagram (12 Collisions).. 87 Figure 30: Intersection 13 Collision Diagram (12 Collisions). 90 Figure 31: Intersection 14 Collision Diagram (12 Collisions). 93 Figure 32: Roadway Segment 1 Collision Diagram (5 Collisions) ..96 Figure 33: Roadway Segment 2 Collision Diagram (4 Collisions) 99 Figure 34: Roadway Segment 3 Collision Diagram (4 Collisions) .. 102 Figure 35: Roadway Segment 4 Collision Diagram (3 Collisions) . 105 Figure 36: Roadway Segment 5 Collision Diagram (3 Collisions) .. 108 Figure 37: Roadway Segment 6 Collision Diagram (2 Collisions) ..111 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map lo Safer Roachvays
List of Acronyms
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials B/C Ratio Benefit-Cost Ratio
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAMUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices City City of Huntington Park
CMF Crash Modification Factor
CRF Crash Reduction Factor
DUI Driving Under the Influence
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
HSM Highway Safety Manual
LRSM Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5, April 2020) LRSP Local Roadway Safety Plan
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System
TMC Turning Movement Count
5ES The 5Es of Traffic Safety: Education, Engineering, Enforcement, Emergency Medical Services, Emerging Technologies
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
SAFETY PLANS:

City of Huntington Park, CA Your Map to Safer Roadways

1. Introduction
The City of Huntington Park is taking the initiative to improve the City's traffic safety by implementing a Local Roadway Safety Plan that aims to reduce traffic collisions by analyzing the factors that previously impacted prominent intersections and roadway segments in the City. This report documents the City of Huntington Park's work to assess and improve transportation safety.

In this Safety Plan, a systemic approach was utilized to identify and analyze collision patterns that had impacted high collision intersections Exaluate and THE LRSP Undate
and roadway segments. For each high collision location, whether it was DEVELOPMENT

PROCESS
an intersection or a roadway segment, a table with the number of collisions and the corresponding primary collision factor has been Errablish
provided to identify the prominent collision factors. As part of the Leadership collision analysis, collision diagrams have been provided for high collision Analyze Sefsty Deis
intersections and roadway segments in the City of Huntington Park.

Following the understanding and acknowledgement of collision patterns, countermeasures for each of the identified high collision intersections and roadway segments, were developed to potentially reduce traffic collisions in the future and ameliorate active transportation within the City. Furthermore, this Local Roadway Safety Plan includes collision data for high collision locations between December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2020, the analysis of collision data, and the proposed countermeasures for collision patterns. Depicted below in Figure 1 is a Local Road Safety Plan provided by the Federal Highway Administration.

START HERE!
LOCAL ROAD Identity Stakeholders
SAFETY PLANS: M
You Mop to Safer Roadways Benchant
No matter what your resources, a Locol
Road Salety Plan will guide you to
data-driven solutions and safer roads.

Chevion signs Choose Proven Solutions
crashes By 2550
Chevrons Roundrous. angela, Crosswals
Use Safety Data
Croshes
of Americans live
Implement Solutions
Many sance • SAN NOND BATEY PLANE
Mata than
75% of on road:
are maintained

SHA SA, SO
Figure 1: Local Road Safety Plan - Your Map to Safer Roadways Source: Federal Highway Administration
1 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

2. Vision and Goals
The objective of this plan is to strive towards a safer transportation environment by eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries while assuring efficient and equitable mobility for all road users. The City of Huntington Park plans to implement systemic countermeasures to target factors affecting citywide prominent intersections and roadway segments. This safety plan aims to reduce the risk of tragedies by taking a proactive, preventative approach that prioritizes traffic safety.

Vision Zero is an initiative approach to eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries. Road users will sometimes make mistakes however, the road system, traffic control devices, and traffic laws should be designed to VISION minimize those unavoidable mistakes and reduce their probability to ZERO
result in severe injuries or fatalities. Transportation and traffic engineers are expected to improve the general traffic environment by ameliorating do existing traffic geometries and laws based on a good engineering NO MORE TRA FIC. DEATHS judgement. However, the roadway users of the City of Huntington Park are still responsible for their mistakes and should follow all traffic laws.

Source: www.archive.kpcc.ora
Vision Zero unifies diverse stakeholders who
address the factors causing complexity when it TRADITIONAL APPROACH VISION ZERO comes to traffic safety. It recognizes that many
Traffic deaths are INEVITABLE Traffic deaths are PREVENTABLE factors contribute to safe mobility including PERFECT human behavior Integrate HUMAN FAILING in approach. roadway design, speeds, behaviors, technology, Prevent COLLISIONS Prevent FATAL AND SEVERE CRASHES INDIVIDUAL resporiselity SYSTEMS approsch
1 and enforced laws. Moreover, vision zero's goal is
Sarrig lives is EXPENSIVE Saving lives is NOT EXPENSIVE to achieve zero fatalities and severe injuries.

One of the City's visions is to collaborate with source www. wisionzeronetwrokore local agencies to promote a culture of
continuous transportation safety improvement
by coordinating with the Huntington Park Police
Department, Los Angeles County Department of SAFETY FIRST * DA 2 Public Health, and Los Angeles Unified School
District. Source: US. Department of Transportation
The aforementioned vision shall eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries by achieving the following goals:
• Obtain accurate collision databases, systematically identify and prioritize the City's highest collision locations based on a 5-year collision history.

Engage with the local community, stakeholders, and City management to better understand factors that are affecting the traffic safety within the City of Huntington Park.

Analyze and implement countermeasures utilizing strategies across all traffic safety disciplines, engineering, enforcement, education, emergency medical services, and emerging technologies. • Strive to reduce the City's primary contributing factors in traffic collisions by ensuring the automobile right of way, maintaining a safe speed, and clear traffic signals and signs. 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

LOCAL ROAD
inal Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP
SAFETY PLANS:
ity of Huntinaton Park. C Your Map to Safer Roadways

3. Safety Partners
To promote and create a safe transportation environment, collaboration across agencies known as safety partners is a necessity. Safety partners are the agencies, departments, and organizations whose input and support are foundational to a successful Local Roadway Safety Plan.

The safety leadership team is primarily comprised of City Departments that have key roles in the development, implementation, and operation of safety projects, programs, and policies. The safety leadership team is ultimately responsible for developing, adopting, and implementing the safety plan and program. The stakeholder team is different from the leadership team. It comprises partner agencies and organizations who collaborate with the City and contribute to and assist with developing and implementing the plan. These agencies and their roles in the plan's development and implementation are provided below:

3.1 Safety Leadership
I. City Council
The legislative body which is ultimately responsible for approving and adopting the final plan, setting safety policies, and approving budget and funding levels.

Il. Public Works
Public Works is the lead City Department in developing and producing the Safety Plan and its periodic updates. The Public Works Department is responsible for assembling other City departments and collaborating with Stakeholders. Public Works is responsible for capital project implementation. The City's Public Works staff may also lead or collaborate in education campaigns.

III. Community Development
The Community Development Department supports implementing the plan through its progress.

Community Development assigns conditions of approval and mitigation measures to new development applications in collaboration with Public Works.

IV. Huntington Park Police Department
The City's Police Department collaborates with and assists the City's Community Development Department in developing and producing the plan and its periodic updates. The Police Department maintains collision records and is responsible for carrying out enforcement practices and activities. The City's Police Department may also lead or collaborate in education campaigns.

V. Los Angeles County Fire Department
The City's Fire Department serves in a support role in developing and producing the plan. 3 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

3.2 Stakeholders
I. Los Angeles Unified School District
Collaboration with the Los Angeles Unified School District is important in order to maintain and promote safety for all students within the City of Huntington Park.

Il. Huntington Park Police Department
Roadways and functional areas of intersections require communication and collaboration. Collaboration with the Huntington Park Police Department over the course of the safety plan is needed to ensure that local safety goals and policies are met.

III. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments. It coordinates regional transportation programs anc projects and regional funding allocations. SCAG provides feedback on developing the plan and updates in context to regional planning activities and potential funding allocations.

IV. The Greater Huntington Park Area Chamber of Commerce The Greater Huntington Park Area Chamber of Commerce coordinates engagement with City businesses.

The Chamber and City businesses provide feedback on recommended strategies and countermeasures to addressing traffic safety issues. Feedback from the business community can provide valuable insight on the benefits and impacts of safety measures.

V. General Public of The City of Huntington Park
The general public provides feedback and insight on recommended emphasis areas, high incident locations, collision factors, countermeasures, and implementation. Although collision records and statistics are foundational to this plan, public feedback is a critical supplement to that data. This feedback provides the safety plan with a holistic view of safety issues and a recommendation for what types of countermeasures are and are not desired by the community. 4 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Poodways

4. Process (6)
Evaluate and

THE LRSP
Update
This section describes the steps involved in preparing the safety plan, DEVELOPMENT

PROCESS
including a systemic approach that involves the analysis of collision data to identify high crash locations and prioritize countermeasures. 0 Identify Establish
Strategies Leadership

4.1 Systemic Approach Determine Analyze
Emphasis Safety Data
Areas
The systemic approach in preparing the safety plan comprises the following steps:

I. Develop Plan Goals and Objectives
Review the City's existing planning documents to ensure the LRSP visions and goals align with the planning efforts and that the potential 5 Es: Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Emergency Medical Services, and Emerging Technologies are consistent with local traffic safety and policies.

Il. Analyze Collision Data
Obtain the latest 5-year collision data and analyze the collision factors. Determine high collision intersections and roadway segments and identify significant risk factors.

IlI. Determine Focus Areas and Identify Crash Reduction Measures Identify emphasis areas and recommend feasible countermeasures at high collision locations. Evaluate Crash Modification Factor (CMF) and Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) and the effectiveness of each countermeasure.

IV. Prioritize countermeasures/projects
Conduct Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) analysis on all countermeasures and projects. Prioritize projects that are most beneficial to the City's roadway and intersection safety using BCR.

V. Prepare the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Prepare the LRSP that includes effective and efficient measures and the implementation plan. Identify priority projects for state or federal programming, grant funding opportunities, and implementation. 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (RSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Saler Roadways

4.2 Public Outreach
The purpose of public outreach is to acquire the community's concerns that are related to the safety of traffic. Such concerns include speeding, jay walking, traffic signs and signals, pedestrian and bicycle safety on collector roads, and arterial streets. Public outreach is an essential tool to identify and summarize high collision locations and collision factors based on the community's concerns in addition to the collision analysis.

The target audience for the public outreach of this safety plan is the residents of the City of Huntington Park which include the following:
• Huntington Park City Council
• Huntington Park Public Works Department
• Huntington Park Community Development Department
• Huntington Park Police Department
• Los Angeles County Fire Department
• Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) • The Greater Huntington Park Area Chamber of Commerce
• General Public of the City of Huntington Park
6 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

LOCAL ROAD
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) SAFETY PLANS:

City of Huntington Park, CA Your Map to Safer Roadways

5. Existing Efforts
This section summarizes the findings from various planning documents for the City of Huntington Park.

The purpose of reviewing existing planning efforts is to ensure the RSP goals and objectives along with the recommended improvements are aligned with recent planning efforts for transportation safety.

The City of Huntington Park has identified several goals, policies from the following documents:
• General Plan 2030 (2019)
The goals and policies identified in the Mobility and Circulation element of the General Plan serve as a guide in the existing and future improvements to the City's roadway and transportation facilities and infrastructure. New project developments in the City and in the surrounding communities wil! require additional demands on the City's roadways in the future therefore, the purpose of this element is to provide a development plan of a safe and efficient circulation system for the City of Huntington Park. • Bicycle Transportation Master Plan (2014)
This Bicycle Master Plan has been prepared to identify a shared vision, supported by strategies and actions, for improving conditions for bicycling for all user groups and abilities within the City of Huntington Park. The BTA's purpose is to establish a bicycle transportation system that is designed and developed to achieve the functional commuting needs of the employee, student, business person, and shopper as the foremost consideration in route selection, to have the physical safety of the bicyclist and bicyclist's property as a major planning component, and have the capacity to accommodate bicyclists of all ages and skills.
• Complete Streets Plan (2016)
The vision for this plan was to enhance the environment for all road users and balance future policies and investments to reflect local values and conditions. The primary goal of the Huntington Park Complete Streets Plan was to identify challenges people HUNTINGTON PARK faced in getting around the city, particularly by walking and COMPLETE STREETS ANY IS
biking. This plan aimed to provide a range of options that could improve the transportation environment for all road users. • The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2019) Prepared by SCAG this plan recommends improving the conditions of existing roads and adding more sidewalks, bike lanes, and restoring, maintaining and expanding transit. DATA MAR BOOK

HUNTINS TOM BASK
12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roacways
• Safe Routes to School Recommendations (2019)
The City of Huntington Park identified walking and bicycling as a community Huntington Park Safe Routes to School
priority therefore, the City published a Safe Routes to School Action Plan. For Recommendations Report
this plan, the City ameliorated the existing active transportation within the City by promoting safe walking, biking, and rolling to schools. • Draft Environmental Impact Report
This draft Environmental Impact Report analyzes the potential impacts associated with the adoption and subsequent implementation of the Mobility and Circulation Element in the City of Huntington Park General Plan 2030. This report takes into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.

6. Data Analysis and Summary
This section summarizes the results of a citywide collision analysis for the time period between December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2020. The purpose of studying the collision patterns and trends is to identify the factors that caused collisions to occur within the study timeframe. The focus is to identify high crash locations in the City in order to target the factors that are affecting the prominent crash locations.

6.1 Overall Summary
According to the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) map on the University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), during the period of December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2020, there were 878 collisions in total within the City of Huntington Park. 18 victims were killed, and 1,179 victims were injured. There were 153 pedestrian collisions (17.4% of total), 96 bike collisions (10.9%), 32 motorcycle collisions (3.6%), and 2 state highway collisions (0.2%).

Figure 2 displays a map of collisions by point where as Figure 3 displays a map of collisions by cluster. 8 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways
a Pacific Bivo 491h 51-
E-62
S. Alameda St Vernon
Vernon
21t1 51
98th S
Slauson Ave E17th St
@ Miles Ave soto St E-50th
Maywood
Los Angeles
Clarendon Ate
• Randolph Stres.

Gage Ave
Park
Gage Ave Bell
Saturn Ave California Ave
Florence Ave
Walnut St Florence Ave
Los Angeles Pacific Bivd
County Live Oak St
S. Alameda St Cudahy
Hope St
* 1 - Interstate
2 - Other Fwy or Expwy
3 - Other Principal Arterial
4 - Minor Arterial
5 - Major Collector
6 - Minor Colector
7 - Local
Collisions South Gate
Figure 2: City of Huntington Park Display of Collisions by Point (December 31, 2015 - December 31, 2020) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 12/30/2029
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:
four Motto Safer Roadways
49th-S7
Pacific Bive
St
S. Alameda
Vernon
Soto St Vernon 54tt SH
Slausen Ave 7tr 5t
Maywood
Miles Ave
Los Angeles
Clarendon Ave
Gage Ave Randolph Stite
Gage Ave Bell
Saturn Ave
Los Angeles California Ave
Florence Ave County
Walnut St
> 18 Santa Fe Ave Pacific Bivd Florence Ave
S. Alameda St
Hope St Cudahy
14 Cluster of Collisions Scale 1 - Interstate droidi
2 - Other Fwy or Expwy
10 3 - Other Principal Arterial
4 - Minor Arterial
5 - Major Colector
6 - Minor Callector
< 2 7 - Local South Gate
Figure 3: City of Huntington Park Display of Collisions by Cluster (December 31, 2015 - December 31, 2020) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 10 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways
Number of Collisions by Collision Severity
878 Collisions
800
600
26%
67% No. of Collisions 400
200
1 - Fatal 2 - Injury (Severe) 4 - Injury (Complaint
3 - insible ther cf Pain:

Collision Severity
• 1 - Fatal • 2 - injury (Severe) • 3 - Injury (Other Visible) • 4 - Injury (Complaint of Pain) Collision Severity Count %
1 - Fatal 17 1.94%
2 - Injury (Severe) 44 5.01%
3 - Injury (Other Visible) 227 25.85%
4 - Injury (Complaint of Pain) 590 67.20%
Total 878 100%
Figure 4: City of Huntington Park Number of Collisions by Collision Severity Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) generated several graphs to detail City of Huntington Park's collisions in the 5-year period. Figure 4 displays the number of collisions by collision severity. From 2015 to 2020, there were 17 fatal collisions, which counted for 1.94 % of total collisions; 44 injury (severe) collisions, 5.01% of total collisions; 227 injury (other visible) collisions (25.85% of total collisions); and 590 injury (complaint of pain) collisions, which took the highest percentage of total collisions in the city (67.20%). 11 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways
Number of Collisions by Type of Collision
878 Collisions
400
14% 9%
No. of Collisions 200
20%
42%
111087167 Head
Type of Collision
• - - Not Stated 4 - Head-On • 8 - Sideswipe
C - Rear End • D - Eroadside • E - Hit Object
F - Overturned G - Vehicle Pedestrian BH- Other
Type of Collision Count %
- - Not Stated 2 0.23%
A - Head-On 69 7.86%:

B - Sideswipe 9.45%
C - Rear End 179 20.39%
D - Broadside 367 41.80%
E - Hit Object 28 3.19%
F- Overturned 0.34% |
G- Vehicle/Pedestrian 127 14.46%
H- Other 20 2.28%6
Total 878 .. 100%
Figure 5: Number of Collisions by Type of Collision
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) From 2015 to 2020, City of Huntington Park's types of collision were reported by University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). There were 367 broadside collisions during the selected period of time. This was the most common type of collision, which was 41.80% of total collisions in the City of Huntington Park. Rear End was the second common type, which had 179 collisions (20.39%).

Third common type of collision was vehicle/pedestrian collision which counted for 127 vehicle/pedestrian collisions (14.46%). There were 83 sideswipe collisions (9.45%). There was a total of 69 (7.86%) Head-On collisions. Hit Object collisions counted for 28 collisions (3.19). Other types of collision counted for 20 collisions (2.28%). Overturned collisions counted for 3 collisions (0.34%), and Not Stated collisions counted for 2 collisions (0.23%).
12 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways
Table 1: Number of Collisions per Day of Week per Time
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Number of Collisions per Day of Week per Time
878 Collisions
25:00 - Unkrown

21.0015.59 16 15 13 10 15 13

19.00~20.59 14 16 29
10 15:00~17.59
59:00~11:59 16 22 16 14 13
20 06:00-08.59 15 15 19 10 9
03:00-05.59 5 7 3
,
00:00~02:59
1 - Monday = - Tuesdzy 5 - irednesday * - Thursday 5 - Friday S - Saturday 7 - Sunday Collisions in the City of Huntington Park were listed for eight (3-hour time periods) for each day of the week.

On Mondays, 51 collisions occurred between 6:00 AM - 2:49 PM. The highest number of collisions within a single 3-hour time period was 21 collisions and occurred between 3:00 PM and 5:59 PM. 30 collisions occurred between 6:00 PM and 11:59 PM.

On Tuesdays, there were 53 collisions from 6:00 AM to 2:59 PM. The highest number of collisions within a single 3-hour time period was 29 collisions and occurred between 3:00 PM to 5:59 PM, and 34 collisions occurred between 6:00 PM and 11:59 PM.

On Wednesdays, there were 65 collisions from 6:00 AM to 2:59 PM. The highest number of collisions within a single 3-hour time period was 25 collisions and occurred between 12:00 PM to 2:59 PM, and 23 collisions occurred between 6:00 PM and 11:59 PM.

On Thursdays, there were, 58 collisions from 6:00 AM to 2:59 PM. The highest number of collisions within a single 3-hour time period was 26 collisions and occurred between 3:00 PM to 5:59 PM. 36 collisions occurred between 6:00 PM and 11:59 PM.

On Fridays, there were 58 collisions from 6:00 AM to 2:59 PM. 18 collisions occurred between 3:00 PM and 5:59 PM. The highest number of collisions within a single 3-hour time period was 29 collisions and occurred between 6:00 PM to 8:59 PM. 10 collisions occurred between 9:00 PM and 11:59 PM.

On Saturdays, there were 42 collisions from 6:00 AM to 2:59 PM. There were 19 collisions between 3:00 PM to 5:59 PM, The highest number of collisions within a single 3-hour time period was 24 collisions and occurred between 6:00 PM to 8:59 PM. 15 collisions between 9:00 PM to 11:59 PM.

On Sundays, the highest number of collisions within a single 3-hour time period was 28 collisions and occurred between 3:00 PM to 5:59 PM. 41 collisions occurred between 6:00 AM to 2:59 PM, 9 collisions occurred between 6:00 PM to 8:59 PM, and 13 collisions occurred between 9:00 PM to 11:59 PM. 13 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safe Roadways
Number of Collisions by PCF Violation
PCF Violation Count %
862 Collisions
00 - Unknown 36 4.18%
11 (1.28%) | / 36 (4.18%) 01 - Driving or Bicycling
Under the Influence of 46 5.34%
129(14.97%) 46 (5.34%) Alcohol or Drug
02 - Impeding Traffic 1 0.12%
50 (5.80%) 147(17.05%)
03 - Unsafe Speed 147 17.05%
65(7.54%) 32 (3.71%) 04 - Following Too Closely 0.819)
94(10.90%) 05 - Wrong Side of Road 32 3.71%
210(24.36%)
PCF Violation 06 - Improper Passing 0.35%
07 - Unsafe Lane Change 9 1.04%
• 00 - Unknown 08 - Improper Turning 94 10.90%
01 - Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug 02 - Impeding Traffic 09 - Automoblle Right of
21D 24.36%6
03 - Unsafe Speed Way
04 - Following Too Closely 10 - Pedestrian Right of Way 65 7.549 05 - Wrong Side of Road 11 - Pedestrian Violation
06 - Improper Passing 50! 5.80%
07 - Unsafe Lane Change 12 - Traffic Signals and Signs 129 14.97% 08 - Improper Turning 15 - Brakes 0.126
09 - Automobile Right of Way 1
16 - Other Equipment 0.12%
10 - Pedestrian Right of Way
11 - Pedestrian Violation 17 - Other Hazardous
10 1.16%6
Violation
@ 12 - Traffic Signals and Signs
15 - Brakes 18 - Other Than Driver (or
5 0.58%
16 - Other Equipment Pedestrian)
21 - Unsafe Starting or
18 - Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian) 11 1.28%
Backing
21 - Unsafe Starting or Backing
22 - Other improper Driving 0.58%
22 - Other Improper Driving
Figure 6: Number of Collisions by (PCF) Primary Collision Factor Violation Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) According to University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), the Primary Collision Factor (PCF) violation that caused the most collisions in the City of Huntington Park was Automobile Right of Way which resulted in 210 collisions (24.36%). The second collision type that had the most collisions after automobile right of way was Unsafe Speed with a total number of 147 collisions (17.05%). The third collision factor was Traffic Signals and Signs with a total number of 129 collisions (14.97%). There were 94 collisions (10.90%) as a result of Improper Turning. 65 collisions (7.54%) occurred as a result of not giving the Pedestrian Right of Way and 50 collisions (5.80%) occurred as result of Pedestrian Violation. Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug caused 46 collisions (5.34%). Unknown violations caused 36 collisions (4.18%). Wrong Side of Road violations caused 32 collisions (3.71%). Unsafe Starting or Backing caused 11 collisions (1.28%), Other Hazardous violations caused 10 collisions (1.16%), Unsafe Lane Change caused 9 collisions (1.04%), and Following Too Closely caused 7 collisions (0.81%). 3 collisions occurred as a result of Improper Passing (0.35%).

Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian) PCF violation resulted in 5 collisions (0.58%). 1 collision (0.12%) occurred as a result of Impeding Traffic and 1 collision (0.12%) occurred as a result of an Other Equipment PCF violation.
14 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

6.2 Victim Summary
Number of Victims by Victim Degree of Injury
1197 Victims
1000
750
No. of Collisions 500
250
1-Kilied 5 - Suspected 6 - Suspected Minor 7 - Possible Injury Serious injury injury
Victim Degree of Injury
• 1 - Killed 5 - Suspected Serious Injury • 6 - Suspected Minor Injury • 7 - Possible Injury Victim Degree of Injury Count
1 - Killed 18 1.50%
5 - Suspected Serious Injury 50 4.18%
6 - Suspected Minor Injury 263 21.97%
7 - Possible Injury 865 72.35%
Total 1,197 100%
Figure 7: Number of Victims by Victim Degree of Injury
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) According to University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). There were 1197 victims of traffic collisions in the City of Huntington Park from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2020. 18 victims were killed (1.50%), 50 victims were reported with suspected serious injury (2.90%), 263 were reported with suspected minor injury (21.97%), and 866 victims were reported with possible injury (72.35%).
15 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFELY PLANS
our Map to Safer Roadway
Number of Victims by Victim Role
1797 Victims
600
8%
400
46%
200
7 - Driver 2- Passenger 3 - Pedestrian 4 - Bicyclist 5 - Oter 6- NOn- injured Party
Victim Role
• 1 - Driver 1 2 - Fassenge: ® J - Pedestrian
• 4 - Elcyclist • 5 - Other • 5 - Non-Injured Party
Victim Role Count %
T - Driver 551 45.03%
2 - Passenger 375 31.33%
3 - Pedestrian 169 14.1296
4 - Bicyclist 96 8.02%
5 - Other 6 0.50%
Total 1197 100%
Figure 8: Number of Victims by Victim Role
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) According to University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), of the collision victims, there were 551 drivers (46.03), 375 passengers (31.33%), 169 pedestrians (14.12%), 96 bicyclists (8.02%), and 6 other (0.50%).
16 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Huntington Park, CA
Number of Victims by Victim Safety Equipment 1
1197 Victims
1(0.08%)
2 (0.17%) 220(18.38%)
109(9.11%)
11 (0.92%) 1 (0.08%)
466 (38.93%)
387(32.33%)
Victim Safety Equipment /
• - or blank - Not State: A - None in Vehicle
* L - Air Bag Deplove
• N- Cther
V - Driver, Motorcycle Heimet Not Used
Victim Safety Equipment
Count %
- or blank - Not Stated 220 18.38%
A - None in Vehicle 1 0.08%
L - Air Bag Deployed 387 32.33%
M - Air Bag Not Deployed 466 38.93%
N - Other 11 0.92%
P - Not Required 109 9.119
V - Driver, Motorcycle Helmet 0.17%
2 Not Used
y - Passenger, Motorcyde

0.08%
Helmer Used
Total 1197 100%
Figure 9: Number of Victims by Victim Safety Equipment
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 17 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways
Number of Victims by Victim Gender and Age
1197 Victims
200
150
No. of Victims 100
но.. .
14 cr younger 30 - 34 35-39 508 - 54 55 or oider
Age
Victim Gender
• Male • Female • Not Stated
Figure 10: Number of Victims by Victim Gender and Age
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) For the total of 1197 victims during the 5-year period:
• 49% of them were females
• 48% were males
• 3% were not stated
• The highest number of female victims (93) happened to be in the age range of 20 - 24 years old • The highest number of male victims (77) happened to be in the age range of 25 - 29 years old • 115 victims were 14 years old or younger
• 113 victims were between the ages of 15 - 19 years old • The highest number of male and female victims was 168 ranging between 20 - 24 years old • 147 victims were between 25-29 years old
• 110 victims were between 30 - 34 years old
• 80 victims were between 35 - 39 years old
• 81 victims were between 40 - 44 years old
• 49 victims were between 45 - 49 years old
• 70 victims were between 50 - 54 years old
• 61 victims were between 55 - 59 years old
53 victims were between 60 - 64 years old
33 victims were between 65 - 69 years old
22 victims were between 70 - 74 years old
• 19 victims were between 75 - 79 years old
• 11 victims were between 80 - 84 years old
• 7 victims were 85 years old or older
• 38 victims were of unknown age
18 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
SAFETY PLANS:

City of Huntington Park, CA Your Map to Safer Roadways

6.3 Pedestrian Crash Summary
Number of Collisions by Type of Violation Speeding on the highway / Driving at a dangerously high speed given
181 Collisions
Driver 5:2760
Not Listed: 21453: vis tilly, traffic, and highsay
13(7.18%) 12(6.63%) measurements or eiing at a speed
that endangers people er property
23153: 21801:
4(2.21%) 2(1.10%) Pedestrian fal ure to y els right-of- way at traffic signal/Faire of
21956 Not Listed
7(3.87... pedestrian to yield right of way to
4424 Pedestrien 2:35 vehicles already in intersection 5 276:
21955: Failure to obey crosswak symbols cor
Pedestrian
11 (б... Driver finish crossing befre courteden

25.97%

60.71738 21950: ends
21954 77(42.
24(13.. 232 Drie alive reto way to 4 22:2
Driver
pedestrians on sidewals
21456:
5 (2.76%) Driver fa lure to stop at a step sign
Driver before a limit line a crossak or 42213
22-30
22350 intersecion entrance. Failure to
Party Vitation Classification stop at limitine befcre ra road Bicyclists • Driver • Other • Pedest an 20 Use sating eating a • Urciear Driver + 2219
Unknown Otners Not Listed vehicle cha highway
Diting under the influence of
/Party Unclear 23/53 alcohol er drugs, resulting in injury to 4 22* Violation Type of
another cerson
Classification Violation Description Count y s6
Driven fature to yeld right-c*way to Unsafe turning or moving right o Driver 2:050 pedestrians at a marked or 77 425495 Undear 22:07 left en a roadvay Turning without 3 1,66:
unmarkec crosswak sign: ing
Pedest an fal lure to y eld right-of- 2 0 rie fair to tighter ty 2105g way to vehices when crossing 24:326 Drier 2 110%
Pedestrian when making a let tum cr U-tum
outside of a marked or unmarked
ccsswalk
Failure to stop for a vehicle that has
Not L'sted Not Listed Vielation code was not included ir 13 7182 Driver 2r930 already stoped to permit the collsen pedestrian crossing when 2 1:04
Failure to stoo at a limit ine cr approaching from behind (Driver 2+53 crossiali at a red light Falre te 12 6.634 2 1103 yieid right-of way to pedestrian when Orners Others 21905(1) 26703(1) turning cn a red ignt
Pedestrian fa lure to cross at Unclear 1. 0.55:
the roadway (with some exceptions)
Pedestrian 2:055 cresswalks between adjacent traft: 11 6.05%3 signa controlledintersections
Opening the door of a vehicle on the
Pedestrian failure to walk close to side of moving traffic unsafely as to the edge of the road way when there Unknown 22517 interfere with traffi: or leaving the 1 0556) is no sidewali present/ Pedestrian
Pedestrian 21156 falure to walk on the left-hard edge 7 3.87% bor open for a longer period of of the roadway when cutside of a time than is necessary business orresidest district unless Total 181 100%
crossing's not possibie
Figure 11: City of Huntington Park Number of Collisions by Type of Violation Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 19 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Saler Roadways
Number of Collisions by Pedestrian Action
Pedestrian Action Count
18i Collis ons
200
.. Not Stated 1 0550
3 - Crossing in Crosswaka:
3 100 intersection 103|58.0153
No C- Crossing in Crosswak Not
16K at intersection 1.56%
so frand D- Crossing hot in Crosscal 29|16.02%
E-in Road including Shoulder 28 15.47%3
F- Not in Road 15 B.2553
Total 181 100%
Pedestrian Action
• - - Not Stated A - No Pedestrian involved
• B- Crossing in Crosswalk at intersection C- Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection. @ D - Crossing Ne: /n Crosswai • E - in Road, Including Snoulder F- Not in Road C- Approaching Leaving School Bus
Figure 12: City of Huntington Park Number of Collisions by Pedestrian Action Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Number of Collisions by Lighting
18: Collisions Lighting Count
150
A - Daylight 10859675
B-Dus - Dawn 3.87°|
3SN cation. C- Dark- Soree: Lights 63| 34.3105|
D- Dark-No Street Lighos 1.65%
Total 181| 100%
4 - Davlight B - Dust: - * - Dark - D - Dart - E - Dark- Davis Sorge: Linha No Streat Streat Lights
Wights Not
Functioning
Lighting
B A - Daylight
• C - Dark - Street Lights
• E - Dark - Street Lights Nat Functioning
Figure 13: City of Huntington Park Number of Collisions by Lighting Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Number of Collisions by Weather
Weather Count
i - Ciez- 170 93.929
(B- Goudy 3.31%
C-Paining 2.72%
8 130
Total 181 100%
Weather
= Nor State • B - Closay • : - Rain ng: • D - Snowing
- Mind
Figure 14: City of Huntington Park Number of Collisions by Weather Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 20 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

LOCAL ROAD
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Yout Map to Safer Roadways

6.4 Motorcycle Collision Map & Data
The Motorcycle Collision Map below displays Fatal, Injury (Severe), Injury (Other Visible), and Injury (Complaint of Pain) motorcycle collisions that occurred in the City of Huntington Park depicting if there was alcohol involvement with the collisions or not.

Bivd
F 55th St
E Slausan Ave King
Curacao
user Ave
Alameds Randoiph St S Hoyle Are
Randoiph St Maywood Ave
wingto •Etage ave
Park
Halmes Ave Sal! Lake Ave
Miles Aye Saturn sve
alo Giro Bell Ave
11 L
Florence A 08
S Alameda St Santa Fe Ave Pacific Blvd Seville Ave
hklin D.
velt Park
Alcohol Involvement "alnut Park Salt Lake Ave
Collision Severity
No Yes
Fatal
Santa Ana St
injury (Severe)
Santa Ana St
Injury (Other Visible! Sonn
injury (Complaint of Pain)
Aicohol Involvement Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Total Yes 4
NO 2 13 22 47
Total 5 13 22 45
Figure 15: City of Huntington Park Motorcycle Collision Map Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) According to University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Motorcycle Collision Map, 45 motorcycle collisions occurred in the City of Huntington Park between 2015 and 2020. 4 of the collisions had alcohol involvement (3 Fatal and 1 Severe Injury) and the remaining 41 collisions did not have alcohol involvement. Out of 41 non-alcoholic involvement collisions, 5 collisions were identified as Fatal, 5 were Severe Injury, 13 were Visible Injury, and 22 were Complaint of Pain.
21 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (RSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFELY PLANS:

Your Mop to Safer Roadwars

6.5 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Summary Data & Maps From 2015 to 2020 there has been 185 pedestrian collisions and 131 bicycle collisions. Out of the 185 pedestrian collisions, 8 were fatal, 16 were severe injury, 56 were visible injury, and 105 were complaint of pain. Out of the 131 bicycle collisions, 0 were fatal, 5 were severe injury, 62 were visible injury, and 64 were comlaint of pain. The following figure displays the City's ATP heat map. * of Collisions
- >= 14
The heat map
intensity scale is
conetan:
throughout the
state.

Figure 16: City of Huntington Park Active Transportation Heat Map Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 22 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roodways
BNSE COS angton Blud
Angeles
E 37th. St tine mod al
E 39th St
15 EVernon Ave Bardini Bivd. E 26th St
Vernon S Soto St
E Vernon Ave E 44th St
Long Beach Ave S: Downey Rd
Seville A E 46t St
Leonis Bid
S Maywood Ave District Bivd
E 50th St
Santa Fe Aver E 49th St
Fruitiand Ave
E 32nd St Fruittand Ave
E 53
E 54th E 53rd St
Alcon Ave verett Ave
Loma Vista Ave armedita Ave E 55th St
đ đo E57 F 56th St
- Pooli, 00
E 57th S1
Slauson Ave Pin
E 58th St
Belg đđ t. đođo Maywood
Holmes Ave A. $. S.
đo E 61st St
...*
Randsiph 3
Bell
d Gage Avi
.А.
бо
Bell Ave
d A.

Walnutst
Flower St Live Oak S
Floren
Grand Ave Hope St
leau St Crockel! Blyd Olivet Hortle Ave
Broad k.A. 1. 0đ.

Linerty Biva Santa Ana St
Collision Severity Collision Type
Bicycle Pedestrian Both Post Si
Fatal Independence Ave Otis St Salt Lake Avo
South Gate
injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible) đo
injury (Complaint of Pain) Flestone BI
Figure 17: City of Huntington Park Active Transportation Program Specific Collision Map Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 23 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS
Your Mop to Safer Roadway

7. Emphasis Areas
The project team identified five major emphasis areas for the City by utilizing the aforementioned analysis that included primary collision factors. The Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) addresses the "5 Es" of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies. Each emphasis area utilizes the 5 Es addressed by SHSP, the following emphasis areas are discussed and analyzed in this section.

1. High Collision Intersections

2. High Collision Roadway Segments

3. Broadside Collisions Due to Automobile Right of Way

4. Rear End Collisions Due to Unsafe Speeds

5. Vehicle and Pedestrian Collisions Due to Pedestrian Right of Way & Pedestrian Violation. 24 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

LOCAL ROAD
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) SAFETY PLANS:

City of Huntington Park, CA Your Map to Safer Roadways

7.1 High Collision Intersections
Evaluate and
The most prominent emphasis area is high collision intersections since THE LRSP Update

DEVELOPMENT
most of the collisions in the City of Huntington Park occurred on PROCESS intersections. Each intersection has its own unique geometry therefore, an analysis of each of the prominent fourteen (14) intersections in the City Identify Strategie: Leadership
of Huntington Park was concluded to understand the factors leading to (2) Desertine
Emphasis Selery Data
collisions.

Education
• Conduct public information and education
"Approach The Intersection Safety & Slowly"
campaign for safety laws regarding a safe
approach to an intersection.

Education

ROAD TO
Raise awareness of the necessity of abiding by
the traffic safety laws. SAFETY
Engineering
• Identify and rank high collision intersections within the City every two to three years.

Consider information obtained from public input and feedback regarding unreported collisions to supplement crash data.
• Evaluate the primary factors leading to collisions at high collision roadway segments.

Develop and implement countermeasures to tackle those factors.

Engineering • Assess and report collision patterns before and after implementation of countermeasures and adjust as necessary.

Maintain roadway signing and striping.
: consider improving night time lighting.

Enforcement
• Prioritize patrol patterns at high risk intersections to monitor traffic law violations which include right of way violations, traffic signals and signs, unsafe speed, and DUI.

Enforcement • When laws are enforced and awareness of abiding by traffic safety laws is raised, intersection collisions will reduce abundantly.

Emergency Medical Services
• Consider targeted training for responding to specific high collision intersections and immediate treatment of predominant injuries at those locations.

Emergency
Services
Emerging Technologies
• Upgrade to new methods of integrating multisource transportation data for developing different measurements of traffic safety for road users and identify safety issues associated with emerging electrical and automated vehicles.

Emerging
Technologies
25 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roudways

7.2 High Collision Roadway Segments
Applying safety improvements to high collision roadway segments is also a THE LRSE

DEVELOPMEN
necessity. Each roadway segment has its own unique geometry therefore, an PROCESS analysis of each of the prominent six (6) roadway segments in the City of Leadership
Huntington Park was concluded to understand the factors leading to collisions that occurred.

Education
• Conduct public information and education campaign for BE safety laws regarding safe speed, improper turning, unsafe SAFE. lane change, and driving on the wrong side of the road.

Education
Raise awareness of the necessity of abiding by the traffic DRIVE safety laws. SMART.

Source: Beverly Samperio, The Arrow
Engineering
• Identify and rank high collision roadway segments within the City every two to three years. Consider information obtained from public input and feedback regarding unreported collisions to supplement crash data.

Evaluate the primary factors leading to collisions at high collision roadway segments. • Develop and implement countermeasures to tackle those factors.

Engineering • Assess and report collision patterns before and after implementation of countermeasures and adjust as necessary.
• Maintain roadway signing and striping.

Consider improving night time lighting.

Enforcement
• Prioritize patrol patterns at high collision roadway segments to monitor traffic law violations which include unsafe speed and improper turning. • When laws are enforced and awareness of abiding by traffic safety laws is raised, Enforcement
roadway segment collisions will reduce abundantly.

Emergency Medical Services
• Consider targeted training for responding to specific high collision roadway segments and immediate treatment of predominant injuries at those locations. lergency
Services
Emerging Technologies
• Upgrade to new methods of integrating multisource transportation data for developing different measurements of traffic safety for road users and identify safety issues associated with emerging electrical and automated vehicles.

Emerging
Technologies
26 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

7.3 Broadside Collisions Due to Automobile Right of Way Broadside collisions ranked the highest type of collisions with a total count of two hundred ten (210) collisions. Eighty percent (80%) of broadside collisions THE LRSP

DEVELOPMENT
occurred due to the primary collision factor, automobile right of way. Most PROCESS broadside and automobile right of way collisions occurred on intersections. Due to the abundant correspondence between broadside and automobile right of way collisions both broadside and automobile right of way collisions were Safety Deta
analyzed simultaneously.

Education
• Conduct public information and education campaign for safety laws regarding yielding to an automobile that has the right of way. FAILURE TO YIELD
Education
• Raise awareness of the necessity of abiding by the traffic safety laws to avoid broadside collisions that occur mostly Source: Johnstone & Gabhart Lawfirm due to not giving an automobile the right of way.

Engineering
Identify locations where broadside collisions due to automobile right of way are occurring within the City every two to three years.
• Consider information obtained from public input and feedback regarding unreported collisions to supplement crash data.
• Develop and implement countermeasures to tackle broadside collisions due to automobile right of way.

Engineering
• Assess and report collision patterns before and after implementation of countermeasures and adjust as necessary.

Maintain roadway signing and striping.

Consider improving night time lighting.

Enforcement
• Prioritize patrol patterns at high collision intersections where broadside collisions due to automobile right of way are occurring mostly to monitor traffic law violations which include the failure of not yielding to an automobile when it has the right of way.

Enforcement
When laws are enforced and awareness of abiding by traffic safety laws and signs is raised, broadside collisions due to automobile right of way will reduce abundantly.

Emergency Medical Services
• Consider targeted training for responding to high collision intersections where broadside collisions due to automobile right of way are occurring mostly and immediate Emen treatment of predominant injuries at those locations.

Emerging Technologies
• Upgrade to new methods of integrating multisource transportation data for developing different measurements of traffic safety for road users and identify safety issues associated with emerging electrical and automated vehicles.

Emerging
Technologies
27 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

7.4 Rear End Collisions Due to Unsafe Speed
Rear End collisions ranked the second highest type of collisions with a total THE LASP

DEVELOPMENT

PROCESS
count of one hundred seventy-nine (179) collisions. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of rear end collisions occurred due to the primary collision factor, unsafe tradership
speed. Most rear end and unsafe speed collisions occurred on intersections while some unsafe speed collisions occurred on roadway segments. Due to the Seesy Deta ample correspondence between rear end and unsafe speed collisions both rear end and unsafe speed collisions were analyzed simultaneously.

Education
• Conduct public information and education campaign for SLOW DOWN SPEED MATTERS safety laws regarding maintaining a safe speed by driving at the posted speed limit.

Education •
Raise awareness of the necessity of maintaining a safe WEVE YBOR SAFETE. speed while driving to avoid the consequences of rear end collisions. SPEED
30 Engineering
• Identify locations where rear end collisions due to unsafe Source. Atlanta Bircle Coalition
speed are occurring within the City every two to three years. • Consider information obtained from public input and feedback regarding unreported collisions to supplement crash data.

Engineering • Develop and implement countermeasures to tackle rear end collisions due to unsafe speed.
• Assess and report collision patterns before and after implementation of countermeasures and adjust as necessary.

Enforcement
• Prioritize patrol patterns at high speed locations specifically where rear end collisions due to unsafe speed are occurring to monitor traffic law violations which include the Enforcement failure of not maintaining a safe speed while operating a vehicle. • When laws are enforced and awareness of abiding by speed traffic safety laws and signs is raised, rear end collisions due to unsafe speed will reduce abundantly.

Emergency Medical Services
• Consider targeted training for responding to high speed locations specifically where rear end collisions are mostly occurring due to unsafe speed and immediate treatment of predominant injuries at those locations.

Emerging Technologies
• Upgrade to new methods of integrating multisource transportation data for developing different measurements of traffic safety for road users and identify safety issues Emerging associated with emerging electrical and automated vehicles.

Technologies
28 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Saler Roadways

7.5 Vehicle and Pedestrian Collisions Due to

THE LRSP

DEVELOPMENT
Pedestrian Right of Way and Pedestrian Violation PROCESS Vehicle and Pedestrian collisions ranked the third highest type of collisions with a total count of one hundred twenty-seven (127) collisions. Forty-one percent (41%) of vehicle and pedestrian collisions occurred due to the primary collision factor, pedestrian right of way while twenty-eight percent (28%) occurred due to the primary collision factor, pedestrian violation.

Most vehicle and pedestrian collisions occurred on intersections. Vehicle and pedestrian collisions along with pedestrian right of way and pedestrian violation collisions were analyzed simultaneously due to the ample correspondence between them.

Education
• Conduct public information and education campaign for safety laws and safety concepts regarding a safe active Education transportation system in the City.
• Raise awareness to the drivers to always watch for
pedestrians and yield to them when they are permitted to utilize a pedestrian crosswalk even if the driver's
corresponding traffic signal light is green.

Raise awareness of the necessity of abiding by crossing a pedestrian crosswalk when permitted and not walking or Source: Los Angeles Times crossing in a roadway that has traffic (jaywalking).

Engineering
• Identify locations where most vehicle and pedestrian
collisions are occurring.

Source: www.travelwithcareauburn.com
Consider information obtained from public input and feedback regarding unreported collisions to supplement crash data.

Engineering • Develop and implement countermeasures to tackle vehicle and pedestrian collisions. • Assess and report collision patterns before and after implementation of countermeasures and adjust as necessary.

Enforcement
Prioritize patrol patterns at high vehicle and pedestrian collision locations to monitor traffic law violations such as not yielding to a pedestrian and jaywalking. • When laws are enforced and awareness of abiding by pedestrian traffic safety laws is Enforcament
raised, vehicle and pedestrian collisions will reduce abundantly.

Emergency Medical Services
• Consider targeted training for responding to high vehicle and pedestrian collision locations and immediate treatment of predominant injuries at those locations.

Services
Emerging Technologies
• Upgrade to new methods of integrating multisource transportation data for developing different measurements of traffic safety for road users and identify safety issues Emerging associated with emerging electrical and automated vehicles.

Technologies
29 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

8. High Collision Locations Identification, Pattern Analysis, and Recommended Improvements
Minagar & Associates, Inc. has developed a list of fifty (50) intersections with the corresponding number of collisions and Victim Degree of Injury, the list is provided in Appendix A. However, as stated on Page 22 in the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, Version 1.5, April 2020, a list of the top 10 (or 20) intersections and roadway segments in a City should be developed; therefore, fourteen (14) intersections and six (6) roadway segments were identified as high collision locations. As part of the quantitative analysis, high collision intersections and roadway segments were identified and prioritized using the Crash Frequency methodology as described in the Local Roadway Safety Manual. Crash Frequency is defined as the number of crashes occurring within a determined study area. Minagar & Associates, Inc. took a further step and included the number of victims and their corresponding degree of injury for each intersection and roadway segment. As part of the qualitative analysis, Minagar & Associates, Inc. conducted a field assessment in the City of Huntington Park on November 1, 2021. The ield visit mission, to study the characteristics and geometry of the existing roadway infrastructure, wa complished successfully and conceptual plans were developed. For each of the identified high collisio locations (intersections and roadway segments), prominent locations in the City were identified and ranked based on the following criteria:

1. Number of Collisions

2. Victim Degree of Injury

2.1. Killed

2.2. Suspected Serious Injury

2.3. Suspected Minor Injury

2.4. Possible Injury
Number of Collisions
Victim
Degree
of Injury
Suspected
Killed Minor Suspected Possible
Minor
Injury Injury
injury
Upon identifying and ranking prominent intersections and roadway segments, collisions were analyzed by identifying the Primary Collision Factor (PCF) that lead to the occurrence of each collision. Upon completion of the analysis, recommendations were developed as safety mitigation measures to 30 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

LOCAL ROAD
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
SAFETY PLANS:

City of Huntington Park, CA Your Mop to Safer Roadways
potentially mitigate similar collisions in the future. Countermeasures have been proposed in complaince with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTD).

It is important to utilize Crash Modification Factor (CMF) when identifying potential systemic safety improvements. The CMF method is found in Part D of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM). CMFs are defined as the ratio of effectiveness of expected crashes with treatment in comparison to expected crashes without treatment.

Furthermore, A CMF is a multiplicative factor used to determine the expected number of crashes after implementing the proposed countermeasures to ensure efficiency of utilizing and implementing the proposed countermeasures. Countermeasures with CMFs less than one are expected to reduce crashes.

On the other hand, countermeasures with CMFs greater than one are expected to increase crashes.

CMFs are calculated as follows:

Expected Crashes
CMF < 1.0 Expected to reduce crashes
CMF = WITH Treatment. CMF = 1.0 Expected to have no impact on safety Expected Crashes
CMF > 1.0 Expected to increase crashes
WITHOUT Treatment
A Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) is similar and related to a CMF but stated in different terms. A CRF is defined as a percentage of crash reduction that might be expected after the implementation of a given countermeasure at a specific site. CREs are calculated as follows:

CRF = (1 - CMF) x 100
Appropriate CMFs shall be used with caution. CMFs should be selected from the HSM Part D, the LRSM, or from the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse website (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org). The following table displays the engineering countermeasure toolbox, it provides LRSM countermeasure identification or CMF ID, countermeasure name, crash type, CMF, CRF, and HSIP funding eligibility.

Table 2: City of Huntington Park Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox Crash Type HSIP
LRSM
Countermeasure Name Ped Funding
No. 11] All Night
and Eligibility
Bike
502 Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-
plates with retroreflective borders, x 0.85 15% 100%
mounting, size, and number
S03 Improve signal timing (coordination, 0.85 15% 50%
phases, red, yellow, or operation)
S10 Install flashing beacons as advance warning x 0.70 30% 100% CMF ID: Change permissive left turn phasing to 0.67 33% 100% 9892 protected/permissive
521PB14 Modify signal phasing to implement a

0.4 60% 100%
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
31 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS
out Map to Safer Roadwoy
NS06 Install/upgrade larger or additional stop 0.85 15% 100% signs or other intersection
warning/regulatory signs
NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement markings 0.75 25% 100% NS14 Install raised median on approaches 0.75 25% 90%
R-OS I5) Other safety improvements (signing and 0.85 15% 100% striping)
[1] Local Roadway Safety Manual Countermeasure Identification Number • S: Signalized Intersection
• NS: Non-Signalized Intersection
• R: Roadway Segment
[2] Crash Modification Factor
[3] Crash Reduction Factor
[4] Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse Countermeasure Identification Number [5] Other safety improvements (signing and striping

8.1 High Collision Intersections
High collision intersections are critical intersections that require the most analytical focus since it is anticipated that many collisions will occur within a high collision intersection based on its crash history.

Table 3 displays the fourteen (14) most prominent intersections in terms of number of collisions in the City of Huntington Park. Table 4 displays the fourteen (14) prominent intersections with their ranking methodology. Minagar & Associates, Inc. has developed a list of fifty (50) intersections with the corresponding number of collisions and Victim Degree of Injury, the list is provided in Appendix A.

However, as stated on Page 22 in the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, Version 1.5, April 2020, a list of the top 10 (or 20) intersections and roadway segments in a City should be developed; therefore, fourteen (14) intersections and six (6) roadway segments were identified as high collision locations.

Table 3: List of High Collision Intersections
Intersection
Ranking Intersection Control Number of
Number* Collisions**
1 California Ave/Salt Lake Ave & Florence Ave Signalized 22 2 Gage Ave & Pacific Blvd Signalized 20
3 Gage Ave & State St Signalized 17
* In Miles Ave/Soto St & Slauson Ave Signalized 15
Gage Ave & Miles Ave Signalized 14
Gage Ave & Santa Fe Ave Signalized 14
7 Pacific Blvd & Slauson Ave Signalized 14
8 Gage Ave & Rugby Ave Signalized 14
Florence Ave & State St Signalized 13
10 Alameda St & Randolph St Unsignalized 12
11 Hope St & State St Signalized 12
12 Randolph St & Santa Fe Ave Signalized 12
Florence Ave & Santa Fe Ave Signalized 12
Saturn Ave & Miles Ave Signalized 12
* Intersection Ranking Number is based on the number of contiguous collisions in each intersection within a distance of 250 feet. ** Total Number of Collisions during the 5-year period between December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2020. 32 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways
Table 4: Intersection Number of Collisions and Ranking in the City of Huntington Park Victim Degree of Injury
Intersection Intersection Number of Killed Suspected Suspected Possible Ranking Collisions** Serious Minor Injury
Number* Injury Injury
1 California Ave/Salt Lake Ave & 22 0 1 7 21
Florence Ave
2 Gage Ave & Pacific Blvd 20 0 8 19
3 Gage Ave & State St 17 0 3 16
4 Miles Ave/Soto St & Slauson Ave 15 1 6 12
5 Gage Ave & Miles Ave 14 2 3 11
6 Gage Ave & Santa Fe Ave 14 2 2 12
Pacific Blvd & Slauson Ave 14 1 3 16
8 Gage Ave & Rugby Ave 14 1 3 15
9 Florence Ave & State St 13 3 13
10 Alameda St & Randolph St 12 2 3 10
11 Hope St & State St 12 0 3 14
12 Randolph St & Santa Fe Ave 12 13
Florence Ave & Santa Fe Ave 0 2 18
Saturn Ave & Miles Ave 7 21
* Intersection Ranking Number is based on the number of contiguous collisions in each intersection within a distance of 250 feet. ** Total Number of Collisions during the 5-year period between December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2020. 33 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

8.1.1. Intersection 1: California Ave and Florence Ave
Table 5: Intersection 1 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
8 Unsafe Speed
Traffic Signals and Signs
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol
Wrong Side of the Road
Automobile Right of Way
1 Pedestrian Right of Way
1 Other than Driver (or Pedestrian)
1 Unknown
Total 22
Pattern: Eastbound and Westbound drivers are mostly at fault, failing to maintain a safe speed and stop at the traffic signal.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Replace or upgrade signal back-plates with retroreflective border.

2. Install brand new 12" signal heads.

3. Install signal ahead sign (W3-3) supplemented with a flashing beacon.

4. Install R2-1 (35 MPH).

5. Repaint intersection pavement marking.

6. Restripe intersection traffic striping within 300 ft radius of intersection center.

7. Replace controller with 2070 and battery backup.

8. Install new 4" conduit.

9. Install new wiring.

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Recommendations:

10. Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).

According to the Transportation Impact Analysis Report included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (July 2021) for the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Project, this intersection is identified as one of the key intersections due to the potential adverse impact the future rail would have on the subject intersection.

How will these recommendations improve this intersection? A clear retroreflective border provides a better visibility of intersection traffic signals as the driver tends to approach the intersection. When compared to 8" signal heads, 12" signal heads also provide a better visibility of the intersection's traffic signals to the approaching driver. Installing a signal ahead sign supplemented with a flashing beacon will serve as an advance warning that a traffic signal is ahead. The speed limit sign is designated to inform the driver not to exceed the speed limit. When drivers drive at the designated safe speed, collisions will reduce abundantly. Repainting pavement and striping enhances safety by offering more visibility of pavement markings and lane boundaries. The 2070 signal controller supports a variety of applications through modular design, it would upgrade this existing intersection to a higher performance platform without replacing cabinet hardware. A battery backup increases the public safety and reduces traffic congestion by allowing traffic lights to function even during a power failure. New 4" conduit and new wiring provide a waterproof and long life conduit wiring system. A leading pedestrian interval gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 34 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

LOCAL ROAD
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways
seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. Therefore, a leading pedestrian interval enhances the safety of pedestrians by reducing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.

8.1.2 Intersection 2: Gage Ave & Pacific Blvd
Table 6: Intersection 2 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
4 Traffic Signals and Signs
Pedestrian Violation
3 Pedestrian Right of Way
3 Improper Turning
2 Unsafe Speed
Automobile Right of Way
Wrong Side of the Road
1 Other Equipment
Total 20
Pattern: Broadside collisions due to drivers not abiding by traffic signals and signs. Some pedestrians are not given the right of way while others are violating the automobile right of way.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Review and update signal clearance timing as necessary.

2. Replace or upgrade signal back-plates with retroreflective border.

3. Install brand new 12" signal heads.

4. Repaint intersection pavement marking.

5. Restripe intersection traffic striping within 300 ft radius of intersection center.

6. Split phase based on 8-hour turning movement counts.

7. Replace controller with 2070 and battery backup.

8. Install new 4" conduit.

9. Install new wiring.

10. Replace video detection cameras.

Pedestrian Recommendations:

11. Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).

How will these recommendations improve this intersection? Certain timing, phasing, and control strategies can produce safer traffic travelling situations. A clear retroreflective border provides a better visibility of intersection traffic signals as the driver tends to approach the intersection. When compared to 8" signal heads, 12" signal heads also provide a better visibility of the intersection's traffic signals to the approaching driver. Repainting pavement and striping enhances safety by offering more visibility of pavement markings and lane boundaries. Split phasing eliminates conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians. The 2070 signal controller supports a variety of applications through modular design, it would upgrade this existing intersection to a higher performance platform without replacing cabinet hardware. A battery backup increases the public safety and reduces traffic congestion by allowing traffic lights to function even during a power failure. New 4" conduit and new wiring provide a waterproof and long life conduit wiring system. High performance 35 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways
video detection cameras help monitor the traffic and help determine the lights' timing. A leading pedestrian interval gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. Therefore, a leading pedestrian interval enhances the safety of pedestrians by reducing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.

8.1.3 Intersection 3: Gage Ave & State St
Table 7: Intersection 3 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
5 Automobile Right of Way
Traffic Signals and Signs
Improper Turning
Pedestrian Right of Way
Unknown
Unsafe Speed
1 Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Total 17
Pattern: Broadside collisions due to drivers not yielding to oncoming traffic when making a left turn on Gage Ave & State St.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Review and update signal clearance timing as necessary.

2. Install "Left Turn Yield on Green" (R10-12) on traffic signals.

3. Replace or upgrade signal back-plates with retroreflective border.

4. Install brand new 12" signal heads.

5. Repaint intersection pavement marking.

6. Restripe intersection traffic striping within 300 ft radius of intersection center.

7. Install new loops.

8. Replace/Upgrade signage to prohibit turns by trucks.

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Recommendations:

9. Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).

LOCAL ROAD
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

8.1.4 Intersection 4: Miles Ave/Soto St & Slauson Ave
Table 8: Intersection 4 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
Unsafe Speed
Automobile Right of Way
Improper Turning
Traffic Signals and Signs
1 Wrong Side of the Road
1 Other Improper Driving
Total 15
Pattern: Broadside and rear-end collisions due to drivers driving at an unsafe speed. Broadside collisions are also occurring due to road users not giving automobile the right of way.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Install R2-1 (25 MPH)

2. Review and update traffic signal clearance timing.

3. Replace or upgrade signal back-plates with retroreflective border.

4. Install brand new 12" signal heads.

5. Convert to protected permissive phasing based on 8-hour turning movement counts.

6. Repaint intersection pavement marking.

7. Restripe intersection traffic striping within 300 ft radius of intersection center.

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Recommendations:

8. Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).

How will these recommendations improve this intersection? The speed limit sign is designated to inform the driver not to exceed the speed limit. When drivers drive st the dies can proace sated cali ray i duct bus. clear retain intive baser prandes better visibility of intersection traffic signals as the driver tends to approach the intersection. When compared to 8" signal heads, 12" signal heads also provide a better visibility of the intersection's traffic signals to the approaching driver. Protected permissive phasing increases the efficiency of traffic flow by permitting left turning movements through gaps in the opposing traffic. Repainting pavement and striping enhances safety by offering more visibility of pavement markings and lane boundaries.

A leading pedestrian interval gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. Therefore, a leading pedestrian interval enhances the safety of pedestrians by reducing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. 37 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

8.1.5 Intersection 5: Gage Ave & Miles Ave
Table 9: Intersection 5 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
5 Pedestrian Right of Way
2 Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Other Hazardous Violation
Unsafe Speed
Traffic Signals and Signs
1 Automobile Right of Way
1 Pedestrian Violation
1 Unknown
Total 14
Pattern: Drivers are not yielding to pedestrians.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Replace or upgrade signal back-plates with retroreflective border.

2. Install brand new 12" signal heads.

3. Install signal ahead sign (W3-3) supplemented with a flashing beacon.

4. Install no turn on red during school and peak hours sign (R10-11 & R10-20aP).

5. Replace controller with 2070 and battery backup.

6. Convert to protected permissive phase based on 8-hour turning movement counts.

7. Repaint intersection pavement marking.

Pedestrian Recommendations:

8. Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).

Protected permissive phasing increases the efficiency of traffic flow by permitting left turning movements through gaps in the opposing traffic. Repainting pavement and striping enhances safety by offering more visibility of pavement markings and lane boundaries. A leading pedestrian interval gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. Therefore, a leading pedestrian interval enhances the safety of pedestrians by reducing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.
38 12/30/2021
M MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

LOCAL ROAD
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Sater Roadways

8.1.6 Intersection 6: Gage Ave & Santa Fe Ave
Table 10: Intersection 6 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
5 Automobile Right of Way
3 Unsafe Speed
3 Improper Turning
1 Traffic Signals and Signs
1 Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug 1 Unknown
Total 14
Pattern: Drivers are failing to give automobile right of way and maintain a safe speed. Drivers are also making improper turns.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Replace or upgrade signal back-plates with retroreflective border.

2. Install brand new 12" signal heads.

3. Install R2-1 (30 MPH).

4. Replace video detection cameras.

5. Repaint intersection pavement marking.

6. Restripe intersection traffic striping within 300 ft radius of intersection center.

7. Prohibit right-turns by trucks.

Notes:

1. Minagar & Associates, Inc. conducted a truck turning template for this intersection and it was concluded that according to the truck turning templates provided in Appendix B, trucks do not have the sufficient spacing to make a right turn. Therefore, it is recommended to prohibit right turning for trucks at this intersection.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

8.1.7 Intersection 7: Pacific Blvd & Slauson Ave
Table 11: Intersection 7 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
5 Unsafe Speed
3 Traffic Signals and Signs
2 Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol
1 Wrong Side of Road
1 Unsafe Lane Change
1 Automobile Right of Way
1 Pedestrian Right of Way
Total 14
Pattern: Drivers are failing to maintain a safe speed and abide by traffic signals and signs High Collision Recommendations:

1. Replace or upgrade signal back-plates with retroreflective border.

2. Install brand new 12" signal heads.

3. Install R2-1 (35 MPH).

4. Install R2-1 (25 MPH).

5. Convert to protected permissive phasing based on 8-hour turning movement counts.

6. Replace video detection cameras.

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Recommendations:

7. Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).

How will these recommendations improve this intersection? o approach the intersection. When compared to 8" signal heads, 12" signal heads also provide a bette to inform the driver not to exceed the speed limit. When drivers drive at the designated safe speed, collisions will reduce abundantly. Protected permissive phasing increases the efficiency of traffic flow by permitting left turning movements through gaps in the opposing traffic. High performance video detection cameras help monitor the traffic and help determine the lights' timing. A leading pedestrian interval gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. Therefore, a leading pedestrian interval enhances the safety of pedestrians by reducing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.
40 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Saler Roadways

8.1.8 Intersection 8: Gage Ave & Rugby Ave
Table 12: Intersection 8 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
4 Traffic Signals and Signs
4 Unknown
3 Unsafe Speed
1 Pedestrian Violation
1 Other Hazardous Material
1 Unsafe Starting or Backing
Total 14
Pattern: Drivers are failing to yield to oncoming traffic and are not maintaining a safe speed.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Replace or upgrade signal back-plates with retroreflective border.

2. Install brand new 12" signal heads.

3. Install R2-1 (30 MPH).

4. Install R2-1 (25 MPH).

5. Review and update traffic signal clearance timing (increase all red to 2 seconds).

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

8.1.9 Intersection 9: Florence Ave &: State St
Table 13: Intersection 9 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
7 Unsafe Speed
3 Improper Turning
1 Automobile Right of Way
1 Pedestrian Right of Way
1 Traffic Signals and Signs
Total 13
Pattern: Drivers are not maintaining a safe speed and are making improper turning.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Review and update signal clearance timing as necessary.

2. Replace or upgrade signal back-plates with retroreflective border.

3. Install R2-1 (35 MPH).

4. Install R2-1 (30 MPH).

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Recommendations:

5. Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) How will these recommendations improve this intersection? Certain timing, phasing, and control strategies can produce safer traffic travelling situations. A clear retroreflective border provides a better visibility of intersection traffic signals as the driver tends to approach the intersection. The speed limit sign is designated to inform the driver not to exceed the speed limit. When drivers drive at the designated safe speed, collisions will reduce abundantly. A leading pedestrian interval gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. Therefore, a leading pedestrian interval enhances the safety of pedestrians by reducing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. 42 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
SAFETY PLANS:

City of Huntington Park, CA Your Map to Safer Roadways

8.1.10 Intersection 10: Alameda St & Randolph St
Table 14: Intersection 10 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
8 Traffic Signals and Signs
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol
1 Pedestrian Right of Way
1 Improper Turning
Total 12
Pattern: Northbound and Southbound drivers are mostly at fault failing to stop or yield to the Eastbound and Westbound traffic on Randolph Street.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Remove existing traffic control device.

2. Remove existing crosswalk.

3. Install raised median.

4. Install "One Way" sign R6-1 (R).

5. Install "Right Turn Only" sign below existing R1-1 sign.

6. Install type | 18'-0" arrow.

7. Install type IV (R) arrow.

8. Remove pedestrian ramp.

9. Install "No Pedestrian Crossing" sign (R9-3a) & "Use Crosswalk" plaque (R9-3bp)

10. Install "Keep Clear" legend.

11. Install white traffic striping.

12. Repaint intersection pavement.

13. Restripe intersection traffic striping within 300 ft radius of intersection center.

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Recommendations:

14. Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) According to the Transportation Impact Analysis Report included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (July 2021) for the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Project, this intersection is identified as one of the key intersections due to the potential adverse impact the future rail would have on the subject intersection.

How will these recommendations improve this intersection? All twelve (12) collisions occurred on the eastern section of the intersection because northbound and southbound drivers were mostly at fault by failing to stop or yield to eastbound and westbound traffic therefore, the eastern section of the intersection is mainly emphasized. Minagar & Associates, Inc. recommends installing a raised median along Randolph St to prevent northbound and southbound Alameda St drivers from driving straight (north or south) onto the intersection. In other words, northbound and southbound Alameda St drivers will have the only option of turning right onto Randolph St and not proceeding straight. Two signs in addition to the raised median would prevent the northbound and southbound Alameda St drivers from driving straight into the raised median. The first is the "One Way" sign, it shall serve as an indication that this street (Randolph St) is one way. The second is the "Right Turn Only" sign, it shall inform the driver that 43 M MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:
ton Map to Safe Roadways
only a right turn can be made. Furthermore, three elements would prevent northbound and southbound drivers from driving straight, those are the raised median, "One Way" sign, and "Right Turn Only" sign. As part of changing the intersection's geometry and installing a raised median, existing traffic control devices such as signs, pavements, and striping need to be removed accordingly. Conversely, proposed traffic control devices such as signs, pavements, and striping need to be installed accordingly. Due to the future West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Project which is forecasted to open in year 2041, the pedestrian crosswalk as well as the pedestrian ramp along Alameda St on the eastern section of the intersection shall be removed to eliminate potential fatalities as a result of pedestrians utilizing the subject crosswalk. Installing "No Pedestrian Crossing" sign and "Use Crosswalk" plaque informs the pedestrian with the intent to cross to not cross the subject crosswalk and instead use the crosswalk along Alameda St on the western section of the intersection. Installing a "Keep Clear" pavement legend can improve the traffic flow by not blocking the intersection as westbound Randolph St drivers approach the intersection. The installation of the white striping as a continuous striping lane would enhance safety to the traveling eastbound Randolph St traffic and the northbound Alameda St right turning traffic. Repainting pavement and striping enhances safety by offering more visibility of pavement markings and lane boundaries. A leading pedestrian interval gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. Therefore, a leading pedestrian interval enhances the safety of pedestrians by reducing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. 44 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (URSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

8.1.11 Intersection 11: Hope St & State St
Table 15: Intersection 11 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
5 Automobile Right of Way
2 Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Pedestrian Right of Way
Traffic Signals and Signs
1 Other Hazardous Violation
1 Unknown
Total 12
Pattern: Road users are not giving the automobile the right of way and other drivers are not maintaining a safe speed.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Review and update signal clearance timing as necessary.

2. Install "Left Turn Yield on Green" (R10-12) on traffic signals.

3. Install R2-1 (35 MPH).

4. Replace or upgrade signal back-plates with retroreflective border.

5. Upgrade 8" signal heads to 12" signal heads.

6. Split phase based on 8-hour turning movement counts.

7. Replace controller with 2070 and battery backup.

8. Install new wiring.

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Recommendations:

9. Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).

How will these recommendations improve this intersection? Certain timing, phasing, and control strategies can produce safer traffic travelling situations. A "Left Turn Yield on Green sign will act as a cautious element that informs the driver to yield when turning left to enhance safety when the driver turns left. The speed limit sign is designated to inform the driver not to exceed the speed limit. When drivers drive at the designated safe speed, collisions will reduce abundantly. A clear retroreflective border provides a better visibility of intersection traffic signals as the driver tends to approach the intersection. When compared to 8" signal heads, 12" signal heads also provide a better visibility of the intersection's traffic signals to the approaching driver. Split phasing eliminates conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians. The 2070 signal controller supports a variety of applications through modular design, it would upgrade this existing intersection to a higher performance platform without replacing cabinet hardware. A battery backup increases the public safety and reduces traffic congestion by allowing traffic lights to function even during a power failure. New 4" conduit and new wiring provide a waterproof and long life conduit wiring system. A leading pedestrian interval gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. Therefore, a leading pedestrian interval enhances the safety of pedestrians by reducing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.
45 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

8.1.12 Intersection 12: Randolph St & Santa Fe Ave
Table 16: Intersection 12 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
4 Traffic Signals & Signs
3 Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol
2 Automobile Right of Way
1 Pedestrian Right of Way
1 Unsafe Speed
1 Unknown
Total 12
Pattern: Drivers are not abiding by traffic signals and signs and are not giving automobile right of way.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Review and update signal clearance timing as necessary.

2. Install R2-1 (35 MPH).

3. Replace or upgrade signal back-plates with retroreflective border.

4. Install brand new 12" signal heads.

5. Repaint intersection pavement.

6. Restripe intersection traffic striping within 300 ft radius of intersection center.

7. Replace controller with 2070 and battery backup.

8. Install new 4" Conduit.

9. Install new wiring.

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Recommendations:

10. Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).

According to the Transportation Impact Analysis Report included in the Draft Environmental Impact report (EIR) (July 2021) for the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Project, this intersection i:
identified as one of the key intersections due to the potential adverse impact the future rail woul have on the subject intersection.

How will these recommendations improve this intersection? Certain timing, phasing, and control strategies can produce safer traffic travelling situations. The speed limit sign is designated to inform the driver not to exceed the speed limit. When drivers drive at the designated safe speed, collisions will reduce abundantly. A clear retroreflective border provides a better visibility of intersection traffic signals as the driver tends to approach the intersection. When compared to 8" signal heads, 12" signal heads also provide a better visibility of the intersection's traffic signals to the approaching driver. Repainting pavement and striping enhances safety by offering more visibility of pavement markings and lane boundaries. The 2070 signal controller supports a variety of applications through modular design, it would upgrade this existing intersection to a higher performance platform without replacing cabinet hardware. A battery backup increases the public safety and reduces traffic congestion by allowing traffic lights to function even during a power failure. New 4" conduit and new wiring provide a waterproof and long life conduit wiring system. A leading pedestrian interval gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. Therefore, a leading pedestrian interval enhances the safety of pedestrians by reducing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.
46 12/30/2021
M MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

8.1.13 Intersection 13: Florence Ave & Santa Fe Ave
Table 17: Intersection 13 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
4 Automobile Right of Way
Traffic Signals and Signs
Unknown
1 Unsafe Speed
1 Improper Turning
1 Pedestrian Right of Way
Total 12
Pattern: Failure to give automobile right of way and abide by traffic signals and signs.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Review and upgrade signal clearance timing as necessary.

2. Install R2-1 (35 MPH).

3. Replace or upgrade signal back-plates with retroreflective border.

4. Repaint intersection pavement.

5. Restripe intersection traffic striping within 300 ft radius of intersection center.

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Recommendations:

6. Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).

It is to be noted that 50% of this intersection is shared with the County of Los Angeles; therefore, Los Angeles County coordination is needed to upgrade to LA County standard.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (RSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Mop to Safer Roadways

8.1.14 Intersection 14: Saturn Ave & Miles Ave
Table 18: Intersection 14 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
5 Traffic Signals and Signs
Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Automobile Right of Way
Pedestrian Right of Way
Pedestrian Violation
Total 12
Pattern: Drivers are not abiding by traffic signals and are not maintaining a safe speed.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Review and upgrade signal clearance timing as necessary.

2. Install "Left Turn Yield on Green" (R10-12) on traffic signals.

3. Install R2-1 (35 MPH).

4. Replace or upgrade signal back-plates with retroreflective border.

5. Install no turn on red during school and peak hours sign (R10-11 & R10-20aP).

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Recommendations:

6. Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).

Your Map lo Safer Roadways

8.2 High Collision Roadway Segments
High collision roadway segments are critical segments that require focus since it is anticipated that many collisions will occur within a high collision roadway segment based its crash history. The following table displays the six (6) most prominent roadway segments in the City of Huntington Park. As stated on

Page 22 ends

20) intersections and roadway segments in a City should be developed; therefore, fourteen (14) intersections and six (6) roadway segments were identified as high collision locations.

Table 19: List of High Collision Roadway Segments
Roadway
Segment Roadway Segment** Number of Collisions***
Ranking
Number*
1 Pacific Blvd from Slauson Ave to Belgrave Ave 5
2 Alameda St from E 67th St to Hawkins Cir 4
3 Slauson Ave from Miles Ave/Soto St to Bickett St 4
4 Slauson Ave from Alameda St to Santa Fe Ave 3
Slauson Ave from Bickett St to State St/Boyle Ave 3
Pacific Bld from Gage Ave to Clarendon Ave 2
* Roadway Segment Ranking Number is based on the number of collisions that occurred on a roadway segment. ** The average length of a roadway segment in the City of Huntington Park is approximately 1,000 feet. *** Total Number of Collisions during the 5-year period between December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2020.

Table 20: Roadway Segment Number of Collisions and Ranking in the City of Huntington Park Roadway
Segment Victim Degree of Injury
Ranking Roadway Segment Number of Suspected Suspected Possible Number* Collisions** Killed Serious Minor
Injury
Injury Injury
1 Pacific Blvd from Slauson Ave to 5 10
Belgrave Ave
2 Alameda St from E 67th St to Hawkins 4 2 0 4
Cir
3 Slauson Ave from Miles Ave/Soto St 4 0 2 2
to Bickett St
4 Slauson Ave from Alameda St to Santa 3 1 0 2
Fe Ave
5 Slauson Ave from Bickett St to State 3 0 0 5
St/Boyle Ave
Pacific Blvd from Gage Ave to 2 0 0 1 1
Clarendon Ave
* Roadway Segment Ranking Number is based on the number of collisions that occurred on a roadway segment. ** Total Number of Collisions during the 5-year period between December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2020. 49 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Mop to Saler Roadways

8.2.1 Roadway Segment 1: Pacific Bivd from Slauson Ave to Belgrave Ave Table 21: Roadway Segment 1 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
Improper Turning.

Automobile Right of Way:
1 Unknown
Total 5
Pattern: This roadway segment is a two-way roadway with a two-way left turn lane (TWLT) left turn center lane which is causing collisions to occur as a result of mistakes committed by drivers.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Remove roadway segment center lane traffic striping.

2. Install double yellow traffic striping.

3. Install type IV (L) arrow.

4. Install speed limit pavement marking (25).

How will these recommendations improve this roadway segment? Many collisions occurred as a result of drivers making left turns. Is it recommended that traffic limitations to be set on some of the left turning approaches to reduce broadside collisions. The proposed geometric change is shown on the conceptual plan for this intersection. The speed limit pavement marking is designated to inform the driver not to exceed the speed limit. When drivers drive at the designated safe speed, collisions will reduce abundantly.

8.2.2 Roadway Segment 2: Alameda St from E 67th St to Hawkins Cir Table 22: Roadway Segment 2 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
Wrong Side of Road
Other Hazardous Violation:
1 Pedestrian Violation
1 Driving or Bieyeling Under the Influence of Alcohot or Drug Total 4
Pattern: Predominately, drivers either drove on the wrong side of the road or stopped on the road.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Install R2-1 (40 MPH).

2. Install speed limit pavement marking (40).

How will these recommendations improve this roadway segment? The speed limit sign and pavement marking is designated to inform the driver not to exceed the speed limit. When drivers drive at the designated safe speed, collisions will reduce abundantly. 50 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

8.2.3 Roadway Segment 3: Slauson Ave from Miles Ave/Soto St to Bickett St Table 23: Roadway Segment 3 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
3 Unsafe Speed
1 Unknown
Total 4
Pattern: Drivers are not maintaining a safe speed.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Install R2-1 (35 MPH).

2. Install speed limit pavement marking (35).

8.2.4 Roadway Segment 4: Slauson Ave from Alameda St to Santa Fe Ave Table 24: Roadway Segment 4 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
2 Unsafe Lane Change
1 Improper Turning
Total 3
Pattern: Rear end collisions as a result of drivers changing lanes and colliding into parked vehicles.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Install R2-1 (35 MPH).

2. Install speed limit pavement marking (35).

3. Repaint pavement marking.

How will these recommendations improve this roadway segment? The speed limit sign and pavement marking is designated to inform the driver not to exceed the speed limit. When drivers drive at the designated safe speed, collisions will reduce abundantly. Repainting pavement marking enhances safety by offering more visibility of pavement markings. 51 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (RSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

8.2.5 Roadway Segment 5: Siauson Ave from Bickett St to State St/Boyle Ave Table 25: Roadway Segment 5 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
2 Automobile Right of Way
1 Unsafe Speed
Total 3
Pattern: Drivers are either not waiting for a safe gap by stopping on the stop bar or speeding.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Remove existing damaged stop sign

2. Install a new R1-1 stop sign.

3. Install R2-1 (35 MPH).

4. Install speed limit pavement marking (35).

5. Repaint pavement marking.

6. Restripe traffic striping.

How will these recommendations improve this roadway segment? The replacement of the existing damaged stop sign with a brand new stop sign will enhance safety by allowing more visibility to the driver. The speed limit sign and pavement marking is designated to inform the driver not to exceed the speed limit. When drivers drive at the designated safe speed, collisions will reduce abundantly. Repainting pavement marking and traffic striping enhances safety by offering more visibility of pavement markings and traffic striping.

8.2.6 Roadway Segment 6: Pacific Blvd from Gage Ave to Clarendon Ave Table 26: Roadway Segment 6 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
1 Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Total 2
Pattern: Driver did not maintain a safe speed.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Install speed limit pavement marking (25).

How will these recommendations improve this roadway segment? The speed limit pavement marking is designated to inform the driver not to exceed the speed limit.

When drivers drive at the designated safe speed, collisions will reduce abundantly. 52 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9. Collision Diagrams, Preliminary Conceptual Plans for Recommended Improvements at High Collision Intersections and High Collision Roadway Segments, Cost Estimates, and Benefit Cost Ratios
At each of the aforementioned high collision intersections and roadway segments, the collision patterns have been evaluated and countermeasures to those patterns have been developed through a preliminary conceptual plan and the preliminary cost of those measures has been estimated. This section of this report summarize those results.

This Local Safety Plan is funded through a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). HSIP grant funding is prioritized and awarded based on the grant funding's economic effectiveness, which is established by a benefit to cost ratio. Under the current HSIP call for projects, the minimum Benefit to Cost Ratio is 3.5. A summary of the benefit to cost ratios is provided in this section. Project cost estimates are calculated on a line item basis using the Caltrans Contract Cost Database. In some cases, recent construction bids and benefit values are calculated based on Caltrans established countermeasure values.

Depending on the City's priorities, it is highly recommended that multiple projects as provided below are grouped into one HSIP application to maximize potential funding allocations. 53 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1 High Collision Intersections

9.1.1 Intersection 1: California Ave/Salt Lake Ave & Florence Ave Salt Lake Ave
Florence Ave
Fatal Crash
injury Crash 17
Mapped 17
Not Drawn 5
Total 22
→ Straight * Pedestrian
SE
* Left Turn 2 Bicycle
Right Tum E Object California Ave
* U-Turn • Fatal Crash
-=* Overturned • injury Crash
* Ran Off Road
+ stopped
2 Parked
Figure 18: Intersection 1 Collision Diagram (22 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 54 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

REPLACE OR UPGRADE SIGNAL BACK-PLATES WITH RETROREFLECTIVE BORDER. 2 INSTALL BRAND NEW 12" SIGNAL HEADS.

INSTALL SIGNAL AHEAD SIGN (W3-3) SUPPLEMENTED WITH A FLASHING BEACON.

REPAINT INTERSECTION PAVEMENT MARKING.

RESTRIPE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC STRIPING WITHIN 300" RADIUS OF INTERSECTION CENTER.

REPLACE CONTROLLER WITH 2070 AND BATTERY BACKUP.

INSTALL NEW 4" CONDUIT.

INSTALL NEW WIRING (NOT SHOWN).

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLISTS RECOMMENDATIONS:

SALT LAKE AVENUE
10 MODIFY SIGNAL PHASING TO IMPLEMENT A LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI).

OXIC
4,09

FLORENCE AVE
EXISTING SIGNS:

SPEED
LIMIT
35 W10-1 W15-1 R2-1

CALIFORNIA AVE
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

SPEED
LIMIT
35 W3-3
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Huntington Park

TA TRAFFIC OMMUELECTRICAL EMONTERMO TRANSPORTATION PLURING Intersection 1: Florence Ave and California Ave/Salt Lake Ave - Recommended Improvements Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 11/9/2021 High Collision Locations
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.1.1 Intersection 1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 27: Intersection 1 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding Eligibility
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total LRSM CM No. LRSM CM No. LRSM CM NO. 05**
(510)* (502)* (521PB)*
1 Flashing beacon EA $17,250.00 $34,500.00 100% 0% 0% 0% 2 Upgrade signal backplate EA $316.00 $5,056.00 0% 100% 0% 0% з install brand new 12" signal heads EA 14 $1,150.00 $16,100.00 0% 100% 0% 0% 4 install signs EA $575.00 $2,300.00 0% 0% 0% 100%
5 Repaint intersection pavement marking SOFT 673 $14.00 $9,422.00 0% 0% 0% 100% Restripe intersection traffic striping LF 7096 $3.50 S24,836.00 0% 0% 0% 100% 7 2070 controller EA $6,500.00 $6,500,00 0% 0% 0% 50%
Battery backup and cabinet EA 1 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 0% 0% 0% 50% 9 4" conduit LF 528 $16.00 $8,448.00 0% 0% 0% 50%
10 Signal wiring LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 0% 0% 0% 50% 11 mplement a Leading Pedestrian Interval LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 0% 0% 100% 0% Weighted Average (%) 27% 17% 2% 54%
* Sigalaed Counterme asure identification of Local Roadway safery Manual Version 3-5, pr: 222. ** Os: Other Safety-Related improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Total Construction Cost: 20% $25. 232.40 Total Construction Cost (including Contengencies): $151,995 00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $151,395 which does not include the design and engineering costs. The estimated benefit of these improvements is $1,409,288 based on the Highway Safety Benefit- Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 9.31.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 9.31 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $1,404,980
Travel Time $3,822
Vehicle Operating Cost $ 397
Emissions $ 89
Total Benefits $ 1,409,288
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $151,395
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $1,409,288
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $1,257,893
Benefit / Cost Ratio 9.31
56 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.2 Intersection 2: Gage Ave &. Pacific Blvd
Gage Ave
Fatal Crash
Injury Crash 17
Mapped 17
Not Drawn 3
Total 20
* Straight * Pedestrian
* Left Turn oft: Bicycle Pacific Blvd
7 Right Turn & Object
& U-Turn • Fatal Crash
-* Overturned a injury Crash
* Ran Off Road
#* Stopped
2a Parked
Figure 19: Intersection 2 Collision Diagram (20 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 57 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

REVIEW AND UPDATE SIGNAL CLEARANCE TIMING AS NECESSARY.

REPLACE OR UPGRADE SIGNAL BACK-PLATES WITH RETROREFLECTIVE BORDER.

INSTALL BRAND NEW 12" SIGNAL HEAD.

REPAINT INTERSECTION PAVEMENT MARKING.

EX SIGN R2-1 26 RESTRIPE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC STRIPING WITHIN 300' RADIUS OF INTERSECTION CENTER.

SPLIT PHASE.

REPLACE CONTROLLER WITH 2070 AND BATTERY BACKUP.

INSTALL NEW 4" CONDUIT.

INSTALL NEW WIRING (NOT SHOWN).

REPLACE VIDEO DETECTION CAMERAS.

PEDESTRIAN RECOMMENDATIONS:

I MODIFY SIGNAL PHASING TO IMPLEMENT A LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI).

GAGE AVE
000-2
PACIFIC BLND.

EXISTING SIGNS:

SPEED SPEED

LIMIT LIMIT
25 30
R2-1 R2-1
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

City of Huntington Park
Intersection 2: Gage Ave and Pacific Bld - Recommended Improvements 23382 MILL ORIZXCAME Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 11/9/2021 High Collision Locations
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.2.1 Intersection 2 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 28: Intersection 2 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding Eligibility
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total LRSM CM No. LRSM CM No.

Os**
(S02)* (521PB)*
Upgrade signal backplate EA 14 $316.00 $4,424.00 100% 0% 0% 2 Install brand new 12" signal heads EA $1,150.00 $3,450.00 100% 0% 0% Repaint intersection pavement marking SOFT 869 $14.00 $12,166.00 0% 0% 100% 4 Restripe intersection traffic striping 7244 $3.50 $25,354.00 0% 0% 100% 2070 controller EA 1 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 0% 0% 50%
Battery backup and cabinet EA 1 $6,000.00 $6.000.00 0% 0% 50% 4" condult 455 $16.00 $7,280.00 0% 0% 50%
Signal wiring 15 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 0% 0% 50%
Video detection camera EA $15,000.00 $50,000.00 0% 0% 50% 10 impiement a Leading Pedestrian Interval LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 0% 100% 0% Weighted Average (%) 6% 2% 92%
Total ($) $138,174.00
* Signalized Countermeasure Identification of Local Roadway Safety Manual [Version 1.5, April 2020) ** OS: Other Safety-Re lated Improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Total Construction Cost: 20% $27,634.BD Total Construction Cost (Including Contengencies): $165,809.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $165,809 which does not include the design and engineering costs. The estimated benefit of these improvements is $1,782,409 based on the Highway Safety Benefit- Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 10.75.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 10.75 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $1,777,517
Travel Time $4,368
Vehicle Operating Cost $454
Emissions $71
Total Benefits $1,782,409
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $165,809
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $1,782,409
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $1,616,600
Benefit / Cost Ratio 10.75
59 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.3 Intersection 3: Gage Ave & State St
State St
Gage Ave
Fatal Crash
Injury Crash 15
Mapped 15
Not Drawn 2
Total 17
→ Straight 55 Pedestrian
* Left Turn GRb Bicycle
*Right Turn 5 Object
* U-Tur • Fatal Crash
-* Overturned o. Injury Crash
~* Ran Off Road
#* Stopped
* Parked
Figure 20: Intersection 3 Collision Diagram (17 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 60 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

REVIEW AND INCREASE SIGNAL CLEARANCE TIMING AS NECESSARY.

INSTALL "LEFT TURN YIELD ON GREEN" (R10-12) ON TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

REPLACE OR UPGRADE SIGNAL BACK-PLATES WITH RETROREFLECTIVE BORDER.

INSTALL BRAND NEW 12" SIGNAL HEADS.

REPAINT INTERSECTION PAVEMENT MARKING.

RESTRIPE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC STRIPING WITHIN 300' RADIUS OF INTERSECTION CENTER.

INSTALL NEW LOOPS (NOT SHOWN).

REPLACE/UPGRADE SIGNAGE TO PROHIBIT TURNS BY TRUCKS.

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLISTS RECOMMENDATIONS
MODIFY SIGNAL PHASING TO IMPLEMENT A LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI).

GAGE AVE
EXISTING SIGNS:

SPEED SPEED 3X4-

LIMIT LIMIT
30 35
R2-1 R2-1
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

STATE ST

LEFT TURN
YIELD

ON GREEN
R10-12
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Huntington Park
Intersection 3: Gage Ave and State St - Recommended Improvements Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 12/30/2021 MORAMBLE CARDESS High Collision Locations
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL-ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS
our Map to Safer Roadway

9.1.3.1 Intersection 3 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 29: Intersection 3 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding Eligibility
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total LRSM CM NO. LRSM CM NO. ($02)* (S21PB)*
1 anstall signs EA $575.00 $4,025.00 0% 0% 100%
2 Upgrade signal backplate EA 12 $316.00 $3,792.00 100% 0% 0% 3 Install brand new 12" signal heads EA 12 $1,150.00 $13,800.00 100% 0% 4 Repaint intersection pavement marking SOFT 374 $14.00 $5,236.00 0% 0% 5 Restripe Intersection traffic striping LF 6536 $3.50 $22,876.00 0% 0% 100% 6 Install new loops LS 1 $24,000.00 $24,000.00 0% 0% 100% 7 Implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval LS 1 $3,000.00 S3,000.00 0% 100% 0% Weighted Average (%) 23% 4% 73%
Total ($) $76,729.00
* Signalized Countermeasure Identification of Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5, April 2020) +* OS: Other Safety-Related Improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Total Construction Cost: 20% $15,345.80 Totai Construction Cost (Includine Contengencies): $92,075.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $92,075 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $1,264,327 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 13.73.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 13.73 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $1,261,295
Travel Time $2,730
Vehicle Operating Cost $283
Emissions $18
Total Benefits $1,264,327
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) |$92,075
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $1,264,327
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $1,172,252
Benefit / Cost Ratio 13.73
62 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

LOCAL ROAD
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
SAFETY PLANS:

City of Huntington Park, CA Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.4 Intersection 4: Miles Ave/Soto St & Slauson Ave
Soto St -
Slauson Ave
Fatal Crash
Injury Crash 11
Mapped
Not Drawn 4
Total 15
- Straight * Pedestrian Miles Ave
4 Left Turn oFt Bicycle
* Right Tur 8 Object
* U-Turn • Fatal Crash
2* Overturned b injury Crash
*Ran Off Road
#* Stopped
2* Parked
Figure 21: Intersection 4 Collision Diagram (15 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 63 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

INSTALL R2-1(25 MPH)
REVIEW AND UPDATE SIGNAL CLEARANCE TIMING AS NECESSARY.

REPLACE OR UPGRADE SIGNAL BACK-PLATES WITH RETROREFLECTIVE BORDER.

INSTALL BRAND NEW 12" SIGNAL HEADS.

CONVERT TO PROTECTED PERMISSIVE PHASING BASED ON 8-HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS.

REPAINT INTERSECTION PAVEMENT MARKING.

RESTRIPE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC STRIPING WITHIN 300' RADIUS OF INTERSECTION CENTER.

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLISTS RECOMMENDATIONS:
8 MODIFY SIGNAL PHASING TO IMPLEMENT A LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI).

EX SIGN R2-125 MPH:

SOTO ST

SLAUSON AVE
EXISTING SIGNS:

SPEED SPEED

SPEED LIMIT

LIMIT LIMIT
25 35 25
ГУБУ
S4-3P
S4-2P.

TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS
SPEED
LIMIT
25 MILES AVE

12.1 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

City of Huntington Park
Intersection 4: Miles Ave/Soto St & Slauson Ave - Recommended Improvements 1302 MALL CATKOME Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 12/30/2021 BAT 122
High Collision Locations
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.4.1 Intersection 4 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 30: Intersection 4 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding Eligibility
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total LRSM CM No. LRSM CM No. CMFID No. 05**
(S02)* (S21PB)* 9892**
Install signs EA $575.00 $1,150.00 0% 0% 0% 100%
2 Upgrade signal backplate EA 20 $316.00 $6,320.00 100% 0% 0% 0% 3 install brand new 12" signal heads EA 18 $1,150.00 $20,700.00 100% 0% 0% 0% 4 Install protected permissive phasing EA $50,000.00 $100,000.00 0% 0% 100% 0% Repaint intersection pavement marking SQFT 190 $14.00 $2,660.00 0% 0% 0% 100% Restripe intersection traffic striping 6373 $3.50 $22,305.50 0% 0% 0% 100% 7 implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 0% 100% 0% 0% Weighted Average (%) 17% 2% 64% 17%
Total ($) $156,135.50
* Signalized Countermeasure identification of Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5, April 2020) ** Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse Countermeasure Identification Number *** OS: Other Safety-Related Improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Total Construction Cost: 20% $81,227.10 Total Construction Cost (including Contengencies): $187,363 00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $187,363 which does not include the design and engineering costs. The estimated benefit of these improvements is $1,658,070 based on the Highway Safety Benefit- Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 8.85.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 8.85 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $1,653,624
Travel Time $3,975
Vehicle Operating Cost $413
Emissions $58
Total Benefits $1,658,070
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $187,363
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $1,658,070
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $1,470,707
Benefit / Cost Ratio 8.85
65 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.5 Intersection 5: Gage Ave & Miles Ave
Gage Ave
Fatal Crash
Miles Ave
Injury Crash 2
Mapped 12
Not Drawn 2
Total 14
→ Straight Pedestran
* Left Turn * Bicycle
* Right Tum 8 Object
* U-Turn • Fatal Crash
- * Overturned • injury Crash
~ Ran Off Road
*Stopped
5* Parked
Figure 22: Intersection 5 Collision Diagram (14 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 66 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

REPLACE OR UPGRADE SIGNAL BACK-PLATES WITH RETROREFLECTIVE BORDER.

INSTALL BRAND NEW 12" SIGNAL HEADS.

INSTALL SIGNAL AHEAD SIGN (W3-3) SUPPLEMENTED WITH A FLASHING BEACON.

INSTALL NO TURN ON RED DURING SCHOOL AND PEAK HOURS SIGN (R10-11 & R10-20aP).

REPLACE CONTROLLER WITH 2070 AND BATTERY BACKUP.

CONVERT TO PROTECTED PERMISSIVE PHASE BASED ON 8-HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS.

REPAINT INTERSECTION PAVEMENT MARKING.

PEDESTRIAN RECOMMENDATIONS:
8) MODIFY SIGNAL PHASING TO IMPLEMENT A LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI).

EX SION R2-100 MPL
I TO
1x2

GAGE AVE
LED
EXISTING SIGNS:

SPEED
LIMIT
30 R2-1
EX: 57634 R2-1(3071
1 TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

ON RED MILES AVE

MON-FRI
7AN-9AM -
4PM-7PM
W3-3
R10-11
R10-20aP
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

City of Huntington Park
Intersection 5: Gage Ave and Miles Ave - Recommended Improvements Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 12/30/2021 AMANGA CA SOSS High Collision Locations
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Saler Roadways

9.1.5.1 Intersection 5 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 31: Intersection 5 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding Eligibilty
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total URSM CM NO, LASM CM NO ERSM CM NO, CAMF ID NO. O5... (510)" (S02)" ($21 P8) * 9892**
1 Flashing beacon EA 1 $17,250.00 $17,250.00 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Upgrade signal backplate 17 $316.00 $5,372.00 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% install brand new 12" signal heads 17 $1,150.00 $19,550.00 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 4 install signs 58 SS 5 $575.00 $2,875.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 2070 controller $6,500.00 $6,500.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 50%
Battery backup and cabinet $6,000.00 $6,000.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 7 Install protected permissive phasing EA $50,000.00 $100,000.00 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 8 Repaint intersection pavement marking SOFT 60 $14.00 $840.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Weighted Average (%) 11% 15% 2% 62% 10%
Total ($) $161,387.00
*Signaized Countermeasure Identification of Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5, April 2020) ** Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse Countermeasure Identification Number *** OS: Other Safety-Related Improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Total Construction Cost: 20% $32 277 40 Tota! Construction Cost (including Contengencies): S193,665.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $193,665 which does not include the design and engineering costs. The estimated benefit of these improvements is $1,175,258 based on the Highway Safety Benefit- Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 6.06.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 6.06, the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $1,175,258
Travel Time $2,457
Vehicle Operating Cost $255
Emissions
Total Benefits $1,177,980
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $193,665
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $1,177,980
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $984,315
Benefit / Cost Ratio 6.06
68 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.6 Intersection 6: Gage Ave & Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Ave
Gage Ave
Fatal Crash
Injury Crash
Mapped
Not Drawn 1
Total 14
→ Straight i Pedestrian
* Left Turn * Bicycle
7 Right Turn El Object
* U-Turn • Fatal Crash
→ Overturned • injury Crash
→* Ran Off Road
#stopped
S* Parkedi
Figure 23: Intersection 6 Collision Diagram (14 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 69 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

REPLACE OR UPGRADE SIGNAL BACK-PLATES WITH RETROREFLECTIVE BORDER.

INSTALL BRAND NEW 12" SIGNAL HEADS.

INSTALL R2-1 (30 MPH).

REPLACE VIDEO DETECTION CAMERAS.

REPAINT INTERSECTION PAVEMENT MARKING.

RESTRIPE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC STRIPING WITHIN 300' RADIUS OF INTERSECTION CENTER.

PROHIBIT RIGHT-TURNS BY TRUCKS.
1P a
GAGE AVE 0X2
02 EXISTING SIGNS: ENDA
-SCHOOL

SPEED SPEED

LIMIT LIMIT
35 25
-S4-3P
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

SPEED
LIMIT
30 R2-1
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Intersection 6: Gage Ave and Santa Fe Ave - Recommended Improvements City of Huntington Park Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 12/30/2021
High Collision Locations
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.6.1 Intersection 6 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 32: Intersection 6 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding Eligibility
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total LRSM CM No.

Os**
(S02)*
Upgrade signal backplate EA 18 $316.00 $5,688.00 100% 0% Install brand new 12" signal heads EA 18 $1,150.00 $20,700.00 100% 0% Install signs EA $575.00 $3,450.00 0% 100%
4 Video detection camera EA 2 $15,000.00 $30,000.00 0% 50% Repaint intersection pavement marking SOFT 2393 $14.00 $33,502.00 0% 100% :

Restripe intersection traffic striping LF 6280 $3.50 $21,980.00 0% 100% Weighted Average (%) 23% 77%
Total ($) $115,320.00
* Signalized Countermeasure identification of Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5, April 2020) ** OS: Other Safety-Re lated Improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Total Construction Cost: 20% $23,064.00 Total Construction Cost (including Contengencies): $188,384.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $138,384 which does not include the design and engineering costs. The estimated benefit of these improvements is $1,181,835 based on the Highway Safety Benefit- Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 8.54.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 8.54 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $1,179,781
Travel Time $1,820
Vehicle Operating Cost $189
Emissions $44
Total Benefits $1,181,835
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $138,384
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $1,181,835
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $1,043,451
Benefit / Cost Ratio 8.54
71 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.7 Intersection 7: Pacific Blvd & Slauson Ave
Slauson Ave
Fatal Crash
Injury Crash 11
Mapped
Not Drawn 3
Total 14
→ Straight 55 Pedestrian
* Left Turn cb Bicycle Pacific Blvd
*7 Right Turn 2 Object
* U-Turn • Fatal Crash
-=* Overturned • injury Crash
~* Ran Off Road
+ Stopped
= Parked
Figure 24: Intersection 7 Collision Diagram (14 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 72 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

REPLACE OR UPGRADE SIGNAL BACK-PLATES WITH RETROREFLECTIVE BORDER.

INSTALL BRAND NEW 12" SIGNAL HEADS.

INSTALL R2-1 (35 MPH).

INSTALL R2-1 (25 MPH).

CONVERT TO PROTECTED PERMISSIVE PHASING BASED ON 8-HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS.

REPLACE VIDEO DETECTION CAMERAS.

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLISTS RECOMMENDATIONS:
• MODIFY SIGNAL PHASING TO IMPLEMENT A LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI).

EX SIGN FUN 195

SLAUSON AVE
EXISTING SIGNS:

SPEED SPEED

LIMIT LIMIT
35 25
R2-1 (35 MPH) R2-1 (25 MPH)
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

SPEED SPEED PACIFIC BLVD

LIMIT LIMIT
3 35 25
R2-1 (35 MPH) R2-1 (25 MPH)
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Huntington Park
Intersection 7: Pacific Bld & Slauson Ave - Recommended Improvements 23282 wee creck cent Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 12/30/2021 SUITE 130 High Collision Locations

LOUNA MILE CANES
тв: зни, 387.2100
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.7.1 Intersection 7 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 33: Intersection 7 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding Eligibilty
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total LRSM CM No. CMF ID No.

O5***
(502)* 9892**
1 Upgrade signal backplate EA 20 $316.00 $6,320.00 100% 0% 0% 2 Install brand new 12" signal heads EA 20 $1,150.00 $23,000.00 100% 0% 0% Install signs EA $575.00 $2,300.00 0% 0% 100%
4 Install protected permissive phasing EA 2 $50,000.00 $100,000.00 0% 100% 0% 5 Video detection camera EA $15,000.00 S75,000.00 0% 0% 50% Weighted Average (%) 14% 48% 37%
Total ($) $206,620.00
* Signalized Countermeasure Identification of Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5, April 2020) ** Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse Countermeasure Identification Number *** OS: Other Safety-Related Improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Total Construction Cost: 20% $41,324.00 Total Construction Cost (including Contengencies): $247,944.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $247,944 which does not include the design and engineering costs. The estimated benefit of these improvements is $1,236,593 based on the Highway Safety Benefit- Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 4.99.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 25.81 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $1,232,906
Travel Time $3,276
Vehicle Operating Cost $340
Emissions $71
Total Benefits $1,236,593
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $247,944
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $1,236,593
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $988,649
Benefit / Cost Ratio 4.99
74 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

LOCAL ROAD
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.8 Intersection 8: Gage Ave & Rugby Ave

GOODNEROKEE
Gage Ave
Fatal Crash
Injury Crash 12
Mapped 12 Rugby Ave
Not Drawn 2
Total 14
→ Straight * Pedestrian
* Left Turn ed Bicycle
Right Turn & Object
* U-Turn • Fatal Crash
-* Overturned • injury Crash
- Ran Off Road
** Stopped
2• Parked
Figure 25: Intersection 8 Collision Diagram (14 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 75 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

REPLACE OR UPGRADE SIGNAL BACK-PLATES WITH RETROREFLECTIVE BORDER.

INSTALL BRAND NEW 12" SIGNAL HEADS.

INSTALL R2-1 (30 MPH).

INSTALL R2-1 (25 MPH).

REVIEW AND UPDATE TRAFFIC SIGNAL CLEARANCE TIMING (INCREASE ALL RED TO 2 SECONDS). 3

EX SIGN S43P, R2-1 (25 MPH), & S4-2P)
(X2

GAGE AVE
EXISTING SIGNS:
-SCHOOL
SPEED
LIMIT
125
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

SPEED SPEED

LIMIT LIMIT
30 25
R2-1 (30 MPH) R2-1 (25 MPH)
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ITERATIOCAN LACINAL OVORCEANS SOMEPOLATION PURAND City of Huntington Park Intersection 8: Gage Ave & Rugby Ave - Recommended Improvements 1212 Mul cretx corre Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 11/9/2021 SUITE 133
High Collision Locations
TE gag 3351199
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.8.1 Intersection Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 34: Intersection 8 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding Eligibility
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total LRSM CM No. 05**
(502)*
1 Upgrade signal backplate EA 12 $316.00 $3,792.00 100% 0% 2 Install brand new 12" signal heads EA 10 $1,150.00 $11,500.00 100% 0% 3 Install signs EA 3 $575.00 $1,725.00 0% 100%
Weighted Average (%) 90% 10%
Total (S) $17,017.00
* Signalized Countermeasure Identification of Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5, April 2020) ** Os: Other Safety-Related Improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Total Construction Cost: 20% $3,403.40 Total Construction Cost (including Contengencies): $20,421.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $20,421 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $759,208 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 37.18.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 37.18 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $757,985
Travel Time $1,092
Vehicle Operating Cost $113
Emissions $18
Total Benefits $759,208
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $20,421
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $759,208
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $738,787
Benefit / Cost Ratio 37.18
77 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.9 Intersection 9: Florence Ave & State St
Florence Ave
Fatal Crash
Injury Crash
Mapped 11
Not Drawn 2
Total 13
→ Straight * Pedestrian
* Left Turn * Bicycle
*Right Turn 8 Object
* U-Turn • Fatal Crash State St
-o% Overturned • Injury Crash
* Ran Off Road
#Stopped
* Parked
Figure 26: Intersection 9 Collision Diagram (13 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 78 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

REVIEW AND UPDATE SIGNAL CLEARANCE TIMING AS NECESSARY.

REPLACE OR UPGRADE SIGNAL BACK-PLATES WITH RETROREFLECTIVE BORDER.

INSTALL R2-1 (35 MPH).

INSTALL R2-1 (30 MPH).

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST RECOMMENDATIONS:
§ MODIFY SIGNAL PHASING TO IMPLEMENT A LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI).

FLORENCE AVE
• EXISTING SIGNS:

SPEED
LIMIT
35 R2-1 (35 MPH)
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

SPEED SPEED

LIMIT LIMIT
35 30
R2-1 (35 MPH) 22-1 (30 MPH)
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Huntington Park
Intersection 9: Florence Ave & State St- Recommended Improvements Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 11/9/2021 SUITE 17 High Collision Locations
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.9.1 Intersection 9 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 35: Intersection 9 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding Eligibility
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total LSM CM No. LRSM CM No.

OS**
(S02)* (S21PB)*
Upgrade signal backplate EA 21 $316.00 $6,636.00 100% 0% 0% install signs EA 4 $575.00 $2,300.00 0% 0% 100%
Implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 0% 100% 0% Weighted Average (%) 56% 25% 19%
Total (S) $11,936.00
* Signalized Countermeasure Identification of Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5, Aprii 2020) ** OS: Other Safety-Related improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Total Construction Cost: 20% $2.387.20 Total Construction Cost (including Contengencies): $14,324.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $14,324 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $963,685 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 67.28.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 67.28 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $960,601
Travel Time $2,730
Vehicle Operating Cost $283
Emissions $71
Total Benefits $963,685
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $14,324
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $963,685
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $949,361
Benefit / Cost Ratio 67.28
80 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

LOCAL ROAD
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (RSP)
SAFETY PLANS:

City of Huntington Park, CA Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.10 Intersection 10: S Alameda St & Randolph St
S Alameda St
Randolph St
Randolph St
→ Straight 2 Pedestrian
* Left Turn 3eb Bicycle
* Right Turn al object
Fatal Crash
*U-Turn • Fatal Crash
injury Crash 10
* Overturned o injury Crash Alameda St
Mapped 11
→* Ran Off Road
Not Drawn 1
*Stopped
* Parked Tota! 12
Figure 27: Intersection 10 Collision Diagram (12 Collision) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 81 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
• REMOVE EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE.

REMOVE EXISTING CROSSWALK.
* INSTALL RAISED MEDIAN.

INSTALL ONE WAY" SIGN R6-1(R)
• INSTALL RIGHT TURN ONLY SIGN BELOW EXISTING R1-1 SIGN. • INSTALL TYPE | 18'-0" ARROW.
• INSTALL TYPE IV (R) ARROW.
• REMOVE PEDESTRIAN RAMP.
* INSTALL "NO PEDESTRIAN CROSSING" SIGN (R9-3a) & "USE CROSSWALK" PLAQUE (R9-3bp). * INSTALL "KEEP CLEAR' LEGEND.
• INSTALL WHITE TRAFFIC STRIPING.

S ALAMEDA ST REPAINT INTERSECTION PAVEMENT.
® RESTRIPE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC STRIPING WITHIN 300 RADIUS OF INTERSECTION CENTER.

ALAMEDA ST PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST RECOMMENDATIONS:
® MODIFY SIGNAL PHASING TO IMPLEMENT A LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI).

RANDO LPH ST

RANDOLPH ST

S ALAMEDA ST ALAMEDA ST

TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS
RIGHT
TURN

CHAKAY ONLY
R0-1 (R) Right Tum Only
EXISTING SIGNS:

SPEED

LIMIT ONE MAY
35 AHEAD ON MAX
R2-1 (35 MPH) W11-2
MR C
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Huntington Park
Intersection 10: Alameda St & Randolph St - Recommended Improvements M Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 12/30/2021 DUATZ 139
High Collision Locations
TEL (LA, 782-1186
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.10.1 Intersection 10: Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 36: Intersection 10 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding Eligibility
No. item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total LRSM CM No. LRSM CM NO. LRSM CM NO. LRSM CM NO. (NS14)* (NS06)* (NSO 7)" (S21PB)**
1 install raised median SOFT 892 $44.00 |$39,248.00 90% 0% 0% 0% 2 install signs EA $575.00 $4,500.00 0% 100% 0% 0%
3 Install pavement marking SOFT 157 $14.00 $2,198.00 0% 0% 100% 0% 4 install white traffic striping LF 53 $3.50 $ 185.50 0% 0% 100% 0% 5 Repaint intersection pavement marking sOFT 663 $14.00 $9,282.00 0% 0% 100% 0% Restripe intersection traffic striping LF 7214 $3.50 $25,249.00 0% 0% 100% 0% 7 implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 0% 0% 0% 100% Weighted Average (%) 47% 5% 44% 4%
Total (S) $83,762.50
* Non-Signalized Countermeasure Identification of Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5, April 2020) ** Signalized Countermeasure Identification of Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 15, April 2020) Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Totai Construction Cost: 20% $16,752 50 Total Construction Cost (including Contengencies): $100.515.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $100,515 which does not include the design and engineering costs. The estimated benefit of these improvements is $14,124,588 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 140.52.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 140.52 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $14,116,284
Travel Time $7,962
Vehicle Operating Cost $297
Emissions $44
Total Benefits $14,124,588
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $100,515
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $14,124,588
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $14,024,073
Benefit / Cost Ratio 140.52
83 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.11 Intersection 11: Hope St & State St
35/
State St
Hope St
Fatal Crash
Injury Crash 10
Mapped
Not Drawn 1
Total 12
- Straight I Pedestrian
* Left Turn oPt Bicycle
* Right Tur B Object
* U-Turn • Fatal Crash
-=* Overturned o Injury Crash
~* Ran Off Road
#* Stopped
* Parked
Figure 28: Intersection 11 Collision Diagram (12 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 84 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
y HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 REVIEW AND UPDATE SIGNAL CLEARANCE TIMING AS NECESSARY. 2 INSTALL "LEFT TURN YIELD ON GREEN" (R10-12) ON TRAFFIC SIGNALS. 3 INSTALL R2-1 (35 MPH) .
4) REPLACE OR UPGRADE SIGNAL BACK-PLATES WITH RETROREFLECTIVE BORDER.

UPGRADE 8" SIGNAL HEADS TO 12" SIGNAL HEADS.
6 SPLIT PHASE BASED ON 8-HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS.
• REPLACE CONTROLLER WITH 2070 AND BATTERY BACKUP.

INSTALL NEW WIRING (NOT SHOWN). [
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLISTS RECOMMENDATIONS:
• MODIFY SIGNAL PHASING TO IMPLEMENT A LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI).

HOPE ST 4X5
4×5

STATE ST
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

LEFT TURN SPEED

YIELD LIMIT

ON GREEN
35 R10-12 R2-1
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

City of Huntington Park

TA TRNTUCHASLEGTROAL CHENEZAAO TAANSSORTADON PENSEO
Intersection 11: Hope St& State St- Recommended Improvements Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 12/30/2021 LAURA MELA CA 12853 High Collision Locations
11: 000) 703-4109
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.11.1 Intersection Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 37: Intersection 11 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding Eligiblity
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total LRSM CM No. LRSM CM NO.

Os*=
(502)* (S21PB)*
Upgrade signal backplate EA 10 $316.00 $3,160.00 100% 0% 0% install brand new 12" signal heads EA 8 $1,150.00 $9,200.00 100% 0% 0% Instali signs EA 4 $575.00 $2,300.00 0% 0% 100%
2070 controller EA 1 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 0% 0% 50%
Battery backup and cabinet EA $6,000.00 $6,000.00 0% 0% 50% 6 Signal wiring LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 0% 0% 50%
7 Implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 0% 100% 0% weighted Average (%)| 31% 7% 62%
Total (S)| $40,160.00
* Signalized Countermeasure Identification of Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5, Aprii 2020) ** OS: Other Safety-Related Improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Totel Construction Cost: 20% $8,052.00 Total Construction Cost (including Contengencies): $48,192.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $48,192 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $618,297 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 12.83.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 12.83 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $616,453
Travel Time $1,638
Vehicle Operating Cost $170
Emissions 35
Total Benefits $618,297
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $48,192
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $618,297
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $570,105
Benefit / Cost Ratio 12.83
86 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
SAFETY PLANS:

City of Huntington Park, CA Your Map to Sater Roadways

9.1.12 Intersection 12: Randolph St & Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Ave
(Randolph St
Fatal Crash Randolph st
injury Crash
Mapped
Not Drawn 3
Total 12
→ Straight * Pedestrian
* Left Turn Do Bicycle
7 Right Turn & Object
* U-Turn • Fatal Crash Santa Fe Ave
→ Overturned • injury Crash
Ve Ran Off Road
#*Stopped
* Parked
Figure 29: Intersection 12 Collision Diagram (12 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 87 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIÓNS:

REVIEW AND UPDATE SIGNAL CLEARANCE TIMING AS NECESSARY.

INSTALL R2-1 (35 MPH).

REPLACE OR UPGRADE SIGNAL BACK-PLATES WITH RETROREFLECTIVE BORDER.

INSTALL BRAND NEW 12" SIGNAL HEADS.

REPAINT INTERSECTION PAVEMENT MARKING.

RESTRIPE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC STRIPING WITHIN 300' RADIUS OF INTERSECTION CENTER.

REPLACE CONTROLLER WITH 2070 AND BATTERY BACKUP.

INSTALL NEW 4" CONDUIT.

INSTALL NEW WIRING (NOT SHOWN).
3A- PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLISTS RECOMMENDATIONS:
© MODIFY SIGNAL PHASING TO IMPLEMENT A LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI). 3X4

RANDOLPH ST
EX. SIGN (W15-1)
EX. SIGN (W15-1)]
EXISTING SIGNS:

SPEED
LIMIT
35 W15-1

EX SON 21086 P
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

SPEED,
LIMIT
35 3
R2-1
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Huntington Park
Intersection 12: Randolph St & Santa Fe Ave - Recommended Improvements PATIEN ELECTICA DEARIONS TRANSPORTATON PLANNO Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 11/9/2021
DATE 129 High Collision Locations
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.12.1 Intersection Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 38: Intersection 12 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding Eligibility
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Untt Cost Total LRSM CM No. LRSM CM No.

Os**
(5o2)* (521PB)*
Upgrade signal backplate EA 21 $316.00 $6,636.00 100% 0% 0% install brand new 12" signal heads EA 12 $3,150.00 $13,800.00 100% 0% 0% Repaint intersection pavement marking SOFT 30 $14.00 $420.00 0% 0% 100% 4 Restripe intersection traffic striping 304 $3.50 $1,064.00 0% 0% 100% 5 install signs EA 2 $575.00 $1,150.00 0% 0% 100%
2070 controller EA 1 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 0% 0% 50%
Battery backup and cabinet EA 1 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 0% 0% 50% 4" conduit LF 516 $16.00 $8,256.00 0% 0% 50%
9 Signal wiring LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 0% 0% 50%
10 Implement a Leading Pedestrian interval LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 0% 100% 0% Weighted Average (%) 36% 5% 59%
Total (S) $56,826.00
* Signalized Countermeasure Identification of Lotal Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5, April 2020) ** OS: Other Safety-Related Improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Total Construction Cost: 20% $11,365.20 Total Construction Cost (including Contengencies): $68,192.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $68,192 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $1,898,020 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 27.83.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 27.83 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $1,894,962
Travel Time $2,730
Vehicle Operating Cost $283
Emissions $44
Total Benefits $1,898,020
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $68,192
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $1,898,020
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $1,829,828
Benefit / Cost Ratio 27.83
89 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.13 Intersection 13: Florence Ave & Santa Fe Ave
28T0
2119
Florence Ave
Fatal Crash
Injury Crash 10
Mapped 10
Santa Fe Ave
Not Drawn 2
Total 12
→ Straight * Pedestrian
+ Left Turn ORD Bicycle
* Right Tum i Object
4 U-Turn • Fatal Crash
-** Overturned o injury Crash
→ Ran Off Road
#* Stapped
5 Parked
Figure 30: Intersection 13 Collision Diagram (12 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 90 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:
• REVIEW AND UPDATE SIGNAL CLEARANCE TIMING AS NECESSARY.

INSTALL R2-1 (35 MPH).

REPLACE OR UPGRADE SIGNAL BACK-PLATES WITH RETROREFLECTIVE BORDER.

REPAINT INTERSECTION PAVEMENT MARKING.

RESTRIPE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC STRIPING WITHIN 300' RADIUS OF INTERSECTION CENTER.

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLISTS RECOMMENDATIONS:
• MODIFY SIGNAL PHASING TO IMPLEMENT A LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI).

EX. SIGN R2-1 (35 MPH)

FLORENCE AVE
EXISTING SIGNS:

SPEED EX. SIGN R2-1 (35 MPH)|
LIMIT
35 R2-1
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

SPEED
LIMIT
3 35
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Huntington Park
Intersection 13: Florence Ave & Santa Fe Ave - Recommended Improvements Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 11/9/2021 High Collision Locations
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS
our Mop to Safer Ruadway

9.1.13.1 Intersection Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 39: Intersection 13 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding Eligibility
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total ERSM CM NO. URSM CM NO.

O5**
(S02)* (521PB)*
1 Upgrade signal backplate EA 14 $316.00 $4,424.00 100% 0% 0% 2 Repaint intersection pavement marking SOFT 246 $14.00 $3,444.00 0% 0% 100% Restripe intersection traffic striping 6842 $3.50 $23,947.00 0% 0% 100% Install signs EA 2 $575.00 $1,150.00 0% 0% 100%
Implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 0% 100% 0% Weighted Average (%) 12% 8% 79%
Total ($) $35,955.00
* Signalized Countermeasure Identification of Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5, April 2020) ** Os: Other Safety-Related improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Total Construction Cost: 20% $7,193.00 Total Construction Cost (including Contengencies): $43,158.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $43,158 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $891,205 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 20.65.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 20.65 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $888,758
Travel Time $2,184
Vehicle Operating Cost $227
Emissions $35
Total Benefits $891,205
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $43,158
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $891,205
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $848,047
Benefit / Cost Ratio 20.65
92 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

LOCAL ROAD
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (SP)
SAFETY PLANS:

City of Huntington Park, CA Your Mop to Safer Roadways

9.1.14 Intersection 14: Saturn Ave & Miles Ave
Saturn Ave
Fatal Crash
injury Crash 10
Mapped 10
Not Drawn 2
Total 12
→ Straight * Pedestrian Miles Ave
* Left Turn deb Bicycle
* Right Turn 8 Object
+ U-Turn • Fatal Crash
- Overturned © injury Crash
~* Ran Off Road
*Stopped
5 Parked
Figure 31: Intersection 14 Collision Diagram (12 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 93 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

REVIEW AND UPDATE SIGNAL CLEARANCE TIMING AS NECESSARY.

INSTALL "LEFT TURN YIELD ON GREEN" (R10-12) ON TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

INSTALL R2-1 (25 MPH).

REPLACE OR UPGRADE SIGNAL BACK-PLATES WITH RETROREFLECTIVE BORDER.

INSTALL NO TURN ON RED DURING SCHOOL AND PEAK HOURS SIGN (R10-11 & R10-20aP).

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLISTS RECOMMENDATIONS:

MODIFY SIGNAL PHASING TO IMPLEMENT A LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI).

SATURN AVE
EXISTING SIGNS:

SPEED
LIMIT
25 R2-1
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:
1g

TURN MILES AVE
LEFT TURN ON RED:

SPEED

YIELD LIMIT

ON GREEN HON-FRI
TAM-9AM
25 4PM-7PM
R10-11 EX SIGN R2-1 (25 MPH)
R10-12 R2-1 R10-20aP.

MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Huntington Park
Intersection 14: Saturn Ave & Miles Ave - Recommended Improvements T3-TRATICEM BLECTICAL ENGREE INO TRAHEPCRTATON AWARE 3312 MILL CAFEK CANE Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 11/9/2021 LUTE 1X
LACEMA HALLA, CA BOM High Collision Locations
TQ.: D44 323.1154
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.1.14.1 Intersection Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 40: Intersection 14 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding Eligibility
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total LRSM CM NO, LRSM CM NO. os**
(502)* (521PB)*
1 Upgrade signal backplate EA 12 $316.00 $3,792.00 100% 0% 0% install signs EA 10 $575.00 $5,750.00 0% 0% 100%
3 Implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 0% 100% 0% Weighted Average (%) 30% 24% 46%
Total ($) $12,542.00
* Signalized Countermeasure Identification of Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5, April 2020) ** OS: Other Safety-Related Improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Total Construction Cost: 20% $2.508.40 Tota! Construction Cost (including Contengencies): $15,051.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $15,051 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $1,100,139 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 73.09.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 73.09 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $1,096,753
Travel Time $3,003
Vehicle Operating Cost $312
Emissions $71
Total Benefits $1,100,139
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $15,051
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $1,100,139
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $1,085,088
Benefit / Cost Ratio 73.09
95 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.2 High Collision Roadway Segments

9.2.1 Roadway Segment 1: Pacific Blvd from Slauson Ave to Belgrave Ave Pacific Blvd Southbound
Fatal Crash
Injury Crash 5
Mapped 5
Not Drawn
Total 5
-* Straight * Pedestrian
I Left Turn e0 Bicycle Pacific Blvd Northbound
* Right Turn 8 Object
* U-Turn • Fatal Crash
- * Overturned o injury Crash
~• Ran Off Road
→ Stopped
* Parked
Figure 32: Roadway Segment 1 Collision Diagram (5 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 96 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

REMOVE ROADWAY SEGMENT CENTER LANE TRAFFIC STRIPING.

INSTALL DOUBLE YELLOW TRAFFIC STRIPING
SLAUSON AVE INSTALL TYPE IV (L) ARROW.

INSTALL SPEED LIMIT PAVEMENT MARKING (25).
2300
EXI SIGN R2.1

PACIFIC BLVD
LEx. SIGN ReSi

BELGRAVE AVE
*EXISTING SIGNS:

SPEED

LIMIT S
25 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Huntington Park

IS TRAP TRICAMUEL ECTRICAL ENGIVER UNS TRANSPORTATION PLANNENO Roadway Segment 1: Pacific Bld from Slauson Ave to Belgrave Ave - Recommended Improvements Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 11/9/2021 High Collision Locations
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safe: Roadway

9.2.1.1 Roadway Segment 1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 41: Roadway Segment 1 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Eligibility Os*
1 Traffic striping LF 1416 $3.50 $4,955.00 100%
2 Pavement marking SQFT 148 $14.00 $2,072.00 100%
Weighted Average (%) 100%
Total (S) $7,028.00
* OS: Other Safety-Related Improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Tota! Construction Cost: 20% $1,405.60 Total Construction Cost (Including Contengencies): $8,434.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $8,434 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $259,041 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 30.71.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 30.71 the proposed roadway segment improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $258,111
Travel Time $819
Vehicle Operating Cost $85
Emissions $27
Total Benefits $259,041
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $8,434
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $259,041
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $250,607
Benefit / Cost Ratio 30.71
98 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

LOCAL ROAD
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) SAFETY PLANS:

City of Huntington Park, CA Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.2.2 Roadway Segment 2: S Alameda St from E 67th St to Hawkins Cir S Alameda St Southbound
Fatal Crash 2
injury Crash 0
Mapped 2
Not Drawn
Total 4
→ Straight I Pedestrian S Alameda St Northbound
* Left Turn ** Bicycie
7 Right Turn E Object
Su-Turn • Fatal Crash
→* Overturned © injury Crash
We Ran Off Road
+* Stopped
2 Parked
Figure 33: Roadway Segment 2 Collision Diagram (4 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 99 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 INSTALL R2-1 (40 MPH).

INSTALL SPEED LIMIT PAVEMENT MARKING (40).

OR FEBEE

S ALAMEDA ST
EXISTING SIGNS:

SPEED
LIMIT
40 HAWKINS CIR
R2-1
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

SPEED
LIMIT
40 R2-1
City of Huntington Park
Roadway Segment 2: S Alameda St from E 67th St to Hawkins Cir - Recommended Improvements 23282 MLL CREE ORMS Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 12/30/2021 High Collision Locations
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadway

9.2.2.1 Roadway Segment 2 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 42: Roadway Segment 2 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Eligibility OS*
1 Pavement marking SQFT 78 $14.00 $1,092.00 100%
2 Install signs EA 2 $575.00 $1,150.00 100%
Weighted Average (%) 100%
Total ($) $2,242.00
*OS: Other Safety-Related improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Total Construction Cost: 20% $448.40 Total Construction Cost (Including Contengencies): $2,691.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $2,691 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $7,765,652 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 2885.79.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 2885.79 the proposed roadway segment improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $7,761,901
Travel Time $3,685
Vehicle Operating Cost $65
Emissions
Total Benefits $7,765,652
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $2,691
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $7,765,652
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $7,762,961
Benefit / Cost Ratio 2885.79
101
12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Yout Map to Saler Roadways

9.2.3 Roadway Segment 3: Slauson Ave from Miles Ave/Soto St to Bickett St Slauson Ave Westbound
Slauson Ave Eastbound
Fatal Crash
Injury Crash
Mapped
Not Drawn
Total 4
-* Straight É Pedestrian
4 Left Turn oFt Bicycle
Right Turn B Object
*U-Turn • Fatal Crash
-* Overturned c injury Crash
* Ran Oft Road
+* Stopped
2% Parked
Figure 34: Roadway Segment 3 Collision Diagram (4 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 102
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

INSTALL R2-1 (35 MPH).

INSTALL SPEED LIMIT PAVEMENT MARKING (35).

SOTO ST

BICKET ST

SLAUSON AVE
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

SPEED
LIMIT
35 R2-1 (35 MPH)
City of Huntington Park

TAINTICE VALES NEAL EN BEERNO TRANSPORTATION PLANERS
Roadway Segment 3: Slauson Ave from Miles Ave/Soto St to Bickett St - Recommended Improvements 13282 HELL CREEK CAME Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 11/9/2021 OLATE 120
High Collision Locations
TEL:(00%) 707.1199
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS
our Map lo Saler Roadway

9.2.3.1 Roadway Segment 3 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 43: Roadway Segment 3 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Eligibility OS*
1 Pavement marking SQFT 33 $14.00 $462.00 100%
Install signs EA 1 $575.00 $575.00 100%
Weighted Average (%) 100%
Total (S) $1,037.00
* OS: Other Safety-Related improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Total Construction Cost: 20% $207.40 Total Construction Cost (Including Contengencies): $1,245.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $1,245 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $136,454 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 109.60.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 109.60 the proposed roadway segment improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $136,153
Travel Time $273
Vehicle Operating Cost $28
Emissions $0
Total Benefits $136,454
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $1,245
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $136,453
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $135,209
Benefit / Cost Ratio 109.60
104
12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.2.4 Roadway Segment 4: Slauson Ave from Alameda St & Santa Fe Ave Slauson Ave Wi estbound
Slauson Ave Eastbound
Fatal Crash
injury Crash 2
Mapped
Not Drawn 0
Total 3
→ Straight * Pedestrian
* Left Turn oFt Bicycle
* Right Turn 8 Object
*. U-Turn • Fatal Crash
-* Overturned • injury Crash
→ Ran Off Road
+* Stopped
= Parked
Figure 35: Roadway Segment 4 Collision Diagram (3 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 105
12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

INSTALL R2-1 (35 MPH).

INSTALL SPEED LIMIT PAVEMENT MARKING (35).

REPAINT PAVEMENT MARKING.
1ST ST 2ND ST

SLAUSON AVE

ALAMEDA ST
EXISTING SIGNS:

SPEED REGENT ST SANTA FE AVE
LIMIT
35 TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

SPEED
LIMIT
35 ITS-TRAFFICION/ LELECTRICAU ENONEERNO TRANS City of Huntington Park Roadway Segment 4: Slauson Ave from Alameda St to Santa Fe Ave - Recommended Improvements Date: 11/9/2021 2292 VAL CREASONA Local Roadway Safety Plan
AGURAMLLS, CA S011) High Collision Locations
EL: (940) 783-1189
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.2.4.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis
Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 44: Roadway Segment 4 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Eligibility OS*
1 Pavement marking SOFT 132 $14.00 $1,848.00 100%
2 Install signs EA $575.00 $1,725.00 100%
Weighted Average (%) 100%
Total ($) $3,573.00
* OS: Other Safety-Related improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Total Construction Cost: 20% $714.60 Total Construction Cost (in ciuding Contengencies): $4,288.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $4,288 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $12,942,753 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 3018.37.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 3018.37 the proposed roadway segment improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $12,936,502
Travel Time $6,142
Vehicle Operating Cost $108
Emissions $0
Total Benefits $12,942,753
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $4,288
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $12,942,753
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $12,938,465
Benefit / Cost Ratio 3018.37
107
12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map lo Safer Roadways

9.2.5 Roadway Segment 5: Siauson Ave from Bickett St to State St/Boyle Ave Slauson Ave Westbound
Slauson Ave Eastbound
Fatal Crash
Injury Crash
Mapped
Not Drawn
Total 3
→ Straight A Pedestrian
+ Left Turn Ob Bicycle
* Right Turn * Object
* U-Turn • Fatal Crash
* Overturned o injury Crash
~ Ran Off Road
+ Stopped
3% Parked
Figure 36: Roadway Segment 5 Collision Diagram (3 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 108
12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 REMOVE EXISTING DAMAGED STOP SIGN
2 INSTALL A NEW R1-1 STOP SIGN.
19030 3 INSTALL R2-1 (35 MPH).
• INSTALL SPEED LIMIT PAVEMENT MARKING (35).
6 REPAINT PAVEMENT MARKING.
6 RESTRIPE TRAFFIC STRIPING.

BICKETT ST BOYLE AVE

SLAUSON AVE
EXISTING SIGNS:

SPEED
LIMIT
35 TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

SPEED
LIMIT
35 CO
City of Huntington Park

ATIC CMUELECT CAL ENGINECOND TIANSAR
Roadway Segment 5: Slauson Ave from Bickett St to Boyle Ave - Recommended Improvements 10248L CREAT Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 11/9/2021 LACURAMLLS. CA 928S3 High Collision Locations
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.2.5.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis
Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 45: Roadway Segment 5 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Eligibility 05*
1 Pavement marking SQFT 132 $14.00 $1,848.00 100%
2 Traffic striping LF 39 $3.50 $136.50 100%
3 install signs EA 4 $575.00 $2,300.00 100%
Weighted Average (%) 100%
Total ($) $4,284.50
* OS: Other Safety-Related improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Total Construction Cost: 20% $856.90 Tota! Construction Cost (Including Contengencies): $5,142.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $5,142 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $172,694 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 33.59.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 33.59 the proposed roadway segment improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $172,074
Travel Time $546
Vehicle Operating Cost $57
Emissions $18
Total Benefits $172,694
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $3,869
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $172,694
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $167,552
Benefit / Cost Ratio 33.59
110
12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

LOCAL ROAD
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
SAFETY PLANS:

City of Huntington Park, CA Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.2.6 Roadway Segment 6: Pacific Blvd from Gage Ave to Clarendon Ave Pacific Blvd Southbound
• Lal1?
Fatal Crash 0
Injury Crash
Mapped
Not Drawn
Total 2
→ Straight * Pedestrian
* Left Turn oth Bicycie Pacific Blvd Northbound
7 Right Turn is Object
4: U-Turn • Fatal Crash
-** Overturned o injury Crash
~* Ran Off Road
** Stopped
Ee Parked
Figure 37: Roadway Segment 6 Collision Diagram (2 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 111
12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 INSTALL SPEED LIMIT PAVEMENT MARKING (25).

CLARENDON AVE

PACIFIC BLVD

GAGE AVE
E
EXISTING SIGNS:

SPEED
LIMIT
25 City of Huntington Park
Roadway Segment 6: Pacific Bld from Gage Ave to Clarendon Ave - Recommended Improvements 22202 VAL CREEK DAVE Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 11/9/2021 UHRs. с1.13859 High Collision Locations
TEL: (948) 707-1120
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

9.2.6.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis
Construction Cost Estimate:

The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures.

Table 46: Roadway Segment 6 Cost Estimate
HSIP Funding
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Eligibility Os*
1 Pavement marking SQFT 70 $14.00 $980.00 100%
Weighted Average (%) 100%
Total ($) $980.00
* OS: Other Safety-Related Improvements
Contingencies percentage of the aformentioned Total Construction Cost: 20% $196.00 Total Construction Cost (Including Contengencies): $1,176.00 Total Cost & Benefit
The project's total cost is estimated at $1,176 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $136,454 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 116.03.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 116.03 the proposed roadway segment improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $136,153
Travel Time $273
Vehicle Operating Cost $28
Emissions $0
Total Benefits $136,454
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $1,176
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $136,454
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $135,278
Benefit / Cost Ratio 116.03
113
12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) SAFA RANS:

City of Huntington Park, CA
Your Map to Safer Roadways
Appendix A. List of Fifty (50) Intersections with Corresponding Number of Collisions and Victim Degree of Injury
12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways
Intersection Collisions and Ranking in the City of Huntington Park (December 31, 2015 - December 31, 2020)
Intersection Victim Degree of Injury
Intersection Number of 84*E Suspected Suspected
Ranking Possible
Vumber 11: Location Collisions Killed Serious Minor
Injury
Injury Injury
1 California Ave/Salt Lake Ave & 22 0 1 7 21
Florence Ave
2 Gage Ave & Pacific Bivd 20 0 19
3 Gage Ave & State St 17 0 3 16
4 Miles Ave/Soto St & Slauson Ave 15 0 6 12
5 Gage Ave & Miles Ave 14 0 3 11
6 Gage Ave & Santa Fe Ave 14 0 2 12
Pacific Blvd & Slauson Ave 14 3 16
8 Gage Ave & Rugby Ave 14 15
9 Florence Ave & State St 13 13
10 12
11 Hope St & State St 12 1 14
12 Randolph St & Santa Fe Ave 12 0
13 Florence Ave & Santa Fe Ave 12 0
14 Saturn Ave & Miles Ave 12 0 14
15 Slauson Ave & Santa Fe Ave 11 1 2
16 Randolph St & Rugby Ave 11 0 -
17 Slauson Ave & Malabar St 11 0 12
18 10 5
19 Alameda St & Gage Ave 10 0 3 3
20 Broadway St & State St 10 8
21 0 4 10
22 Gage Ave & Stafford Ave 3
23 Zoe Ave & Alameda St 9 0
24 Slauson Ave & Alameda St 9 2
25 Zoe Ave & Santa Fe Ave 0 1
26 Florence Ave & Mountain View 0 3 10
Ave
27 Gage Ave & Malabar St 8 0
28 California St & State St 13
29 Florence Ave & Pacific BIvd 12
30 Randolph St & Rita Ave 8 0
Florence Ave & Marconi St 8 0 11
32 Walnut St & State St
33 Clarendon Ave & Santa Fe Ave 7
34 Broadway St & California Ave 3
35 Saturn Ave & State St
36 Santa Ana St & State St
37 65'h St & Alameda St
38 Gage Ave & Salt Lake Ave
39 Florence Ave & Bissell St
40 Olive St & State St 6
41 Gage Ave & Wilmington Ave 6
12/30/2021
) MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) LOCAL ROAD
City of Huntington Park, CA SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways
Intersection Victim Degree of Injury
Intersection Number of Suspected Suspected
Ranking Possible
Number 111 Location Collisions Killed Serious Minor
= 1 Injury Injury Injury
42 56t St & Pacific Bivd 6 0 0 7
43 Gage Ave & Bissell St 5 2 1
44 Gage Ave & Newell St 5 1
45 Florence Ave & Alameda St 5 5
46 Florence Ave & Mission PI 5 3
47 Saturn Ave & Seville Ave 5 0 5
48 Gage Ave & Middleton St 5 12
49 Gage Ave & Rita Ave 5 0 8
50 Florence Ave & Marbrisa Ave 5 0 1 4
[1] Intersection Ranking Number is based on the number of contiguous collisions in each intersection within a distance of 250 feet. 12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

LOCAL ROAD
inal Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP
city of Huntington Park, C SAFETY PLANS:

Your Map to Safer Roadways
Appendix B. Truck Turning Templates
12/30/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

HEAVY TRUCK RIGHT TURNING TEMPLÄTE FOR
WB - 67(53-FOOT TRAILER) FOR

1. NORTHBOUND RIGHT TURN

2. EASTBOUND RIGHT TURN

3. SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN

4. WESTBOUND RIGHT TURN

GAGE AVE
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

City of Huntington Park
Intersection 6: Gage Ave and Santa Fe Ave - Truck Right Turning Template Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 11/9/2021
LAOUAAMLLE CA RAIS High Collision Locations
TZL: (483 7671180

HEAVY TRUCK LEFT TURNING TEMPLATE FOR
WB - 67 (53-FOOT TRAILER) FOR

1. NORTHBOUND LEFT TURN

2. EASTBOUND LEFT TURN

3. SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN

4. WESTBOUND LEFT TURN

GAGE AVE
140893

SANTA FE AVE
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Huntington Park
Intersection 6: Gage Ave and Santa Fe Ave - Truck Left Turning Template 37281 Me CHECK CAME Local Roadway Safety Plan Date: 11/9/2021 MONARLIE CARME High Collision Locations
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ITS - Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering - Transportation Planning - Homeland Security - CEM 2019 Winner of the Orange County Engineering Council's Outstanding Service Award 2016 Winner of the ASCE's Outstanding Civil Engineer in the Private Sector Award in the State of California 2016 Winner of the ASCE Los Angeles Section's Outstanding Civil Engineer in the Private Sector Award 2016 Winner of the ASCE Orange County Chapter's Outstanding Civil Engineer in the Private Sector Award ASCE
2016 Certificate of Recognition for Dedication to Support the ELTP Program by Los Angeles County MTA/Metro M Metro
2016 Winner of the Orange County Engineering Council's Outstanding Engineering Service Award 2015 ORANGE COUNTY
Orange County Business Journal's 2015 Excellence in Entrepreneurship Award Nominee BESINESS JOURNAl 2014 Orange County Business Journal's 2014 Excellence in Entrepreneurship Award Nominee ORANGE COENTI 2012 Winner of Cal-EPA/California Air Resources Board's Califomia Environmental Protection Agency Cool California Climate Leader © Air Resources Board
2011 Award of Excellence in Service by Los Angeles County MTA/Metro in the County of Los Angeles Metro
2011 Award of Excellence in Service by Los Angeles County MTA/Metro M in the County of Los Angeles Metro
2010 Award of Excellence in Service by Los Angeles County MTA/Metro M
in the County of Los Angeles Metro
2009 Winner of the ASCE's Outstanding Private Sector Civil Engineering Project ASCI
in Metropolitan Los Angeles
2009 Winner of the Caltrans' 2009 Excellence in Transportation Award in the State of California
2007 Winner of the ASCE's Outstanding Public/Private Sector M ASCE
Civil Engineering Project in Metropolitan Los Angeles Metro 2005 Winner of the APWA's Best Traffic Congestion Mitigation Project of the Year in Southern California
Metro
2004 Top Nominee of Transportation Foundation's Highway Management Program CTF
in the State of California
2003 Winner of the PT's Best Transportation Technology Solutions Award in the United States pti
2002 Winner of the ITS-CA's Best Return on Investment Project Award ITSICA in the State of California
2000 Award of Excellence in Service by Los Angeles County MTA/Metro M in the County of Los Angeles Metro
Traffic Engineering "E.S.

Transportation Planning
ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems)
Civil/Electrical Engineering
Homeland Security
Construction Engineering Management
Celebrating 28 Years of Planning & Engineering
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
23282 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 120 28 Years of
Excellence Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Engineering & Planning Excellence
Tel: (949)707-1199
Web: www.minagarinc.com
ITEM NO. 6

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE DESIGN-BUILD OF

FIRE PROTECTION ALARM SERVICES AT THIRTEEN CITY FACILITIES IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT CITY COUNCIL:

PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
There are currently thirteen City-owned facilities that either do not have or partially do not contain a fire protection alarm system. The integration of fire alarm systems, fire protection, life safety, and other fire protection systems into the design of all building types is essential for safety, property protection and code compliance. The City is seeking bids from qualified consulting professionals for the design-build of a fire-alarm system at thirteen (13) City facilities where a system network does not fully/partially exist.

The following is a tentative schedule:

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE DESIGN-BUILD OF

FIRE PROTECTION ALARM SERVICES AT THIRTEEN CITY FACILITIES March 1, 2022

Page 2 of 3 ends

RFB ISSUED March 4, 2022
MANDATORY PRE-BID MEETING: 9:00 AM March 22,2022
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION DEADLINE: 5:00 PM April 4, 2022 RELEASE OF INFORMATION REQUESTED: 5:00 PM April 11, 2022 PROPOSAL DUE DATE/SUBMISSION DEADLINE: 2:00 PM April 19, 2022 TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL AWARD DATE May 3, 2022
APPROXIMATE NOTICE TO PROCEED DATE May 16, 2022

LEGAL REQUIREMENT
Design-bid procurement process is set forth in California Public Contract Code Section 22160, et seq. One statute that expressly authorizes cities to use design-build allows award based upon "best value and other criteria" such as technical design, construction expertise and life cycle costs (Public Contract Code Section 20175.2(d)(4)(B)). The selected design-build entity completes the project design and prepares construction documents. Once the City Council has approved the design, the design-build contractor builds the project.

The City Clerk's Office shall publish the RFB (Attachment A) in the local newspaper of general circulation, the City's website and other forms of electronic media. The RFB shall describe the project and provides the tasks required from qualified firms to manage the project. The time and location to submit proposals shall also be placed within the published RFB. The RFB shall be published for a minimum period of twenty-one (21) calendar days. Once bids are submitted, reviewed and scored, staff will come back to the City Council with a recommendation to award.

FISCAL IMPACT/FINANCING
At this time, there is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of the solicitation of bids to perform this service. Once bid-proposals are submitted and evaluated, staff will return with a well-defined budget for consideration and approval at a future City Council meeting.

CONCLUSION
Upon Council approval, staff will proceed with the recommended actions.

Respectfully submitted,

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE DESIGN-BUILD OF

FIRE PROTECTION ALARM SERVICES AT THIRTEEN CITY FACILITIES March 1, 2022

Page 3 of 3 ends

RICARDO REYES
City Manager
Ever Plan

CESAR ROLDAN
Director of Public Works

ATTACHMENTS)
A. RFB Design-Build of Fire Protection Alarm Services
ATTACHMENT "A"

CITY OF H ON PARK

GALIFORNIA

CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK

REQUEST FOR BID FOR
Design-Build of Fire Protection Alarm Services
PROPOSAL DUE DATE: TUESDAY, APRIL 19, Z0ZZ, 2:00 P.M.
6550 Miles Ave
Huntington Park, CA 90255
Contact: Cesar Roldan
323.584.6320
[email protected]

CITY OF

HUNTINGTON
PARK
Request for Bid Page |1
Design-Build of Fire Protection Alarm Services
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ... 2
OVERVIEW 2
SCOPE OF SERVICES . 3
A. Task 1 - Design-Build for Fire Protection Alarm Services.. 3

4. KEY PERSONNEL..................... 6

5. CITY'S STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT 6

6. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.. 6
EVALUATION CRITERIA.. 6
SELECTION PROCESS 7
REQUIRED FORMAT FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL 7

10. FEE.. 8

11. QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RFP 9

12. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL PROTOCOL 9

13. PRE-CONTRACTUAL EXPENSES IN RESPONDING TO THE RFP PREPARATION.... 9 Request for Bid Page 12
Design-Build of Fire Protection Alarm Services

1. INTRODUCTION
The City of HUNTINGTON PARK (City) is seeking bids from qualified consulting professionals for the design-build of a fire-alarm system at thirteen (13) City facilities where a system does not exist.

Requesting a fire protection contractor that designs, takes measurements and lay outs, fabricates and installs all types of fire protection systems; including though not limited to all the equipment associated with these systems and electrical alarm systems. Contractor must be a State of California licensed C-16 - Fire Protection Contractor, per California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 8, Article 3. Classifications. Sealed Bids will be received until 2:00 pm on Tuesday, April 19, 2022 from a State Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) registered contractors who holds a Class C- 16 California Contractor License and has a proven record of experience in performing similar services needed to fulfill this contract. This public works project is subject to DIR registration, payment of State prevailing wages, electronic payroll reporting and other DIR Requirements.

2. OVERVIEW
This design-build contract includes, though is not limited to, furnishing all materials, equipment, labor and services associated with the design, fabrication, permitting and construction of a fire protection alarm network that protects non-sprinkled historic City buildings and warehouses. The City does not possess building As-built plans, so the selected consultant must take measurements of all City facilities and perform the design without the use of available plans. This project is subject to the latest edition of the Building Code and Public Contracting Code procurement requirements. • 2019 California Building Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24. International Code Council.
• 2019 California Fire Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24. International Code Council.

A mandatory pre-bid meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.; City of Huntington Park City Hall, 6550 Miles Avenue, Huntington Park, CA 90255. Bidders must attend the pre-bid meeting to be eligible to bid on the project. Bidders will visit all thirteen (13) facilities. This is an opportunity for interested bidders to ask questions and the RFB. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to have acquired full knowledge of the job site, scope of work and any problems or difficulties that may affect the work proposed.

Request for Bid Page |3
Design-Build of Fire Protection Alarm Services

3. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City is seeking a qualified consultant to provide the design-build of a fire-alarm system at thirteen (13) City facilities where a system does not exist. The consultant applying should have significant experience in providing this type of services.
• The City reserves the right to delete specific tasks).

A. Task 1 - Design-Build for Fire Protection Alarm Services • The consultant's bid shall include but not be limited to the following items:
• Prevailing Wage Labor Rates
• System Design Engineering
• Electronic Shop Drawings and Submittals
• Hardcopy System Drawings (upon request) - City Building & Fire Department • Plan Check, Permit and Inspection Fees
• As-Builts and O&M's Upon Completion
• Sales Tax
• (12) Month Warranty on Parts and Equipment
• Standard AVC Insurance Coverage
• Weekend Business Working Hours (Friday thru Sunday)
• Fire Alarm Testing and Inspections
• Onsite System User Training
• System Programming
• HVAC Shutoff Wiring and/or Terminations
• 120VAC Wiring and/or Terminations
• Relays rated greater than 10.0amps (24vd/ac or 120va) • Access Panels
• Sprinkler Flow and Tamper Switches
• Knox Box and/or Tamper Switch
• Elevator Access Panels for Smoke and Heats
• Elevator Control Wiring and/or Terminations
• Structural Backing or Supports
• Coring, Cutting, Patching or Painting
• Fire Stopping and Sealing of Penetrations
• Bid, Payment, or Performance Bonds
• Single Path Communicators) (Cell, Radio, or IP Dialers) Request for Bid Page |4
Design-Build of Fire Protection Alarm Services
Building Smokes Horn Strobes Pull Stations Other Devices / Heats Strobes
Fleet Building 9 12 6
Metro Transit 10 4 7
Street Division 3 2 3
Street Division 2 2 1
Sm Building
Water / Elec Dept 22 12 7 6
Admin Office 15 4 3 4
Park Department 5 2 1
Parks Shed 8 1
Recreation Building 65 34 30 11
City Hall 125 34 51 11 15
Police Station 85 21 30 6 15
Muni Building 5 1 3
Community Center 32 7 4
Options will include the following, though the bidder may present a case for approved alternative:
• Simplex Commercial Fire Alarm
• Notifier by Honeywell Commercial Fire Alarm
• Fire-Lite Alarm System
Installation Method: In Conduit / Open Cable as required By Code The City hereby affirmatively ensures that Minority Business Enterprises and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) shall have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts and will be afforded full opportunity to submit bids in response to this notice and will not be discriminated against. No person will be discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status in any consideration leading to the award of contract. The right is reserved by the City to reject any or all bids, to waive any irregularities or informalities not affected by law, to evaluate the bids submitted and to award the contract according to the bid which best serves the interests of said City.

PER CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE (CLC) THE FOLLOWING IS HEREBY INCORPORATED:

As set forth in CLC section 1771.1(a), all contractors and subcontractors must be currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to CLC section 1725.5 to be qualified to bid, be listed in a bid proposal, or perform any public work for the City. Proof of registration for each contractor and subcontractor listed on the bid is required. As set forth in CLC section 1771.4 (a)(1), notice is given that this project is a public work, subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.

Request for Bid Page |5
Design-Build of Fire Protection Alarm Services
As set forth in CLC section 1773, the City shall obtain the general prevailing rate per diem wages and the general prevailing rate for holiday and overtime work in the locality in which the public work is to be performed for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract from the Director of Industrial Relations. In accordance with labor code section 1773.2, this information is to be included in the bid specifications and in the contract itself.

PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT: This project will be subject to all applicable State Wage Determinations. The Contractor will be responsible for paying wages from the State Wage Determinations for all trades. The wages are set forth in the General Prevailing Wage Rates for this project, available from the California Department of Industrial Relations' Internet web site:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/PWD/index.htm.

In accordance with the provisions of Section 1770 of the Labor Code, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California has ascertained the general prevailing rate of wage:
and employer payments for health and welfare, pension, vacation, travel time and subsistence pay as provided in Section 1773.8, apprenticeship or other training programs authorized by Section 3093, and similar purposes applicable to the work to be done. These rates shall be a part of the Contract and are on file in the office of the City Engineer and will be made available to any interested person on request. The Contractor must ensure that employees and applicants for employment are not discriminated against because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Pursuant to Section 22300 of the California Public Contract Code (Section 10263 of the Public Contract Code for State Agencies), the Contractor may substitute securities for any money held by the Owner to insure performance of the contract. At the request and expense of the Contractor, securities equivalent to the amount withheld shall be deposited with the Owner or with a State or federally chartered banks as an escrow agent, who shall return such securities to the Contractor upon satisfactory completion of the contract. Deposit of securities with an escrow agent shall be subject to written agreement in accordance with the provisions of Section 22300. The Owner shall not certify that the contract has been completed until at least 35 days after filing by the Owner of a Notice of Completion. Securities eligible for investment under this Section shall be limited to those listed in Section 16430 of the California Government Code, bank or savings and loan certificates of deposit, interest bearing demand deposit accounts, standby letters of credit, or any other security mutually agreed upon by the Contractor and the public agency.

Request for Bid Page 16
Design-Build of Fire Protection Alarm Services

4. KEY PERSONNEL
It is imperative that the key personnel providing the consulting services have the background, experience, and qualifications to complete the project. The City reserves the right to approve all key personnel individually for work on this contract. All key staff shall be named in the contract. After the contract is signed, the consultant may not replace key staff unless their employment is terminated or agreed upon by the City. The City must approve replacement staff before a substitute person is assigned to the Project. The City reserves the right to request that the consultant replace a staff person assigned to the contract should the City consider such a replacement to be for the good of the project.

5. CITY'S STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Please see ATTACHMENT 2 - CITY'S STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT.

6. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Please see ATTACHMENT 3 - CITY'S STANDARD INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.

7. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Each proposal shall be evaluated on the basis of the consultant's expertise, experience and training and the expertise of its key personnel along with prior contracting history, approach to the project, cost, proposed schedule and compliance with the RFB requirements including the terms of the attached PSA. Each such factor shall be weighted by the City as follows:
• Expertise, Experience and Training Plus Prior Contracting History (65%) - The expertise, experience and training of the consultant and its key personnel and the previous experience with similar work in similar fields and qualifications and depth of staff that will perform the work on this project. This factor includes evaluation of the consultant's prior contracting history, including the review of the consultant's certifications relating to false claims, debarment and civil litigation.
• Project Approach (25%) - The consultant's responsiveness in developing a comprehensive plan to oversee the completion of the design-build project while meeting regulatory requirements and the City's specific needs.
• Compliance with RFP (10%) - The ability of the consultant to comply with all instructions set forth under this RFP as well as the consultant's ability to agree to all of the terms and conditions of the attached PSA without modification, particularly as relates to indemnification, insurance requirements and standards of care.
* Use of the City of Huntington Park City Seal is prohibited.

Request for Bid Page |7
Design-Build of Fire Protection Alarm Services

8. SELECTION PROCESS
A selection committee comprised of the City staff and/or consultants may review the bid proposals.

Bid proposals will be ranked on qualifications and the selection committee may choose to interview several of the top ranked consultants. However, at its sole discretion the selection committee may dispense with interviews and select a consultant to perform the work. • Negotiations regarding a fair and reasonable price may occur subsequent to consultant selection.

9. REQUIRED FORMAT FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL
All bid proposals shall include the following information and comply with the associated page limit restrictions. Note that 1 page includes the front side of an 8.5"x 11" sheet of paper and the cover does not constitute a page:

Cover Letter: Maximum 1-page cover letter signed by an officer of the firm, binding the consultant to all of the commitments made in the submittal. The letter shall include name, address and phone number of the person authorized to represent the consultant and shall include the following Statement:

I HAVE READ, UNDERSTOOD, AND AGREED TO ALL STATEMENTS IN THIS REQUEST

FOR BID AND ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ALL ADDENDUMS/AMENDMENTS AS WELL AS TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND ATTACHMENTS REFERENCED.

Consultant's Background: Maximum 2-page background on the consultant and its area(s) of professional expertise relevant to this RFB. An additional 1 page may be included to highlight the background of each proposed subconsultant to be used by the consultant and the specific tasks) or functions the subconsultant will perform.

Qualifications and Experience of Consultant's Personnel: Maximum 3-page summary of the relevant work experience, work history, training, education, and special certifications of the consultant's personnel who will be performing the professional services contemplated under this RFB on the consultant's behalf. Briefly discuss the Consultant team's qualification and experience with projects of similar magnitude and nature. Consultants shall provide identical information for all subconsultants performing any of the tasks or services contemplated under this RFB on the consultant's behalf. The summary shall also include the office location of key personnel proposed to work on this contract. Relevant experience can include your company's overall experience, experience with similar projects and the experience of individuals on your proposed team. Show how your experience relates to the demands of this project.

Project Approach: Maximum 2-page of the proposed approach to providing labor compliance for this design-build project. The proposer shall explain the way in which the proposer will timely Request for Bid Page 18
Design-Build of Fire Protection Alarm Services
complete all of the tasks called for under this RFB along with any estimate of the time it will take to complete each task. Include a brief overview of the Consultant's understanding of the project. The content will reflect the particular viewpoint of the Consultant.

Proposed Personnel: Maximum 2-page resume for the project manager and 1-page resume for each of the other key personnel, including subconsultants, which will be performing the majority of the work on this project/contract. Resumes for corporate leadership should not be included unless said individuals will be performing substantial work on this project. The designated Project manager shall be the primary contact with the City during the contract period and shall function in that capacity while employed by the firm. In addition, the City must approve changes of personnel.

References: Each consultant must include at least 3 agency references going back not more than five (5) years from the issuance of this RFB in which the consultant was engaged to perform tasks similar to those requested under this RFB. References should place an emphasis on past projects in which the personnel to be used by consultant for this project were deployed. The references should include the name, title and contract information of the public agency officer or employee responsible for overseeing the consultant's work.

Fee Schedule/Cost Proposal: Maximum 1-page detailed cost estimate for performing specific Tasks identified in the RFB and a schedule of rates for each proposed personnel that may be tasked to complete the project. The Task-specific cost estimate shall include an estimate of the number of hours per staff member by proposed task and clearly identify and hourly rate schedule for proposed staff. The proposal shall include the compensation structure for performing specific services identified in Task 1. The proposal shall also include costs and expenses related to photocopying, postage, travel, etc. (ie. Reimbursement expenses, if any). To the extent that a proposal contemplates the use of the subconsultants to perform any one or more of the above described tasks on the consultant's behalf, the proposal shall include a List of Subconsultants identifying all subconsultants and state the fee for each subconsultant in the Fee Schedule under the appropriate Task under which the service will be provided. In so far as the proposer's proposal contemplates an increase in compensation rates or charges prior to the completion of Task 1, and during the term of the portion of the PSA or any extension term the proposal shall clearly indicate when such increases will take effect and by how much.

10. FEE
The Fee Schedule/Cost Proposal shall be delivered in a separate sealed envelope which is plainly marked on the outside "Design-Build of Fire Protection Alarm Services" and addressed to the above-mentioned location. The envelope shall contain the name and address of the consultant clearly marked on the outside.

Request for Bid Page 19
Design-Build of Fire Protection Alarm Services

11. QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RFP
All questions regarding this RFB must be submitted via email:

Cesar Roldan, Director of Public Works
E-mail: [email protected]
Questions regarding this proposal shall be submitted via email by 5:00 PM, APRIL 4, 2022. In response to all questions received by this date, City may issue an Addendum and/or send out an email to all of the individuals that downloaded the RFB no later than April 11, 2022. The addendum and/or responses will be emailed to all RFP recipients on record.

12. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL PROTOCOL
In order to be considered in the selection process, interested parties shall submit two (2) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy (flash drive) of their Proposals no later than 2:00 PM, APRIL 19, 2022, to:

City of Huntington Park - City Clerk's Office
Attn: Cesar Roldan, Director of Public Works
6550 Miles Avenue
Huntington Park, CA 90255
Late proposals will not be accepted.

13. PRE-CONTRACTUAL EXPENSES IN RESPONDING TO THE RFP PREPARATION The City shall not be liable for any pre-contractual expenses incurred by any consultant or by any selected consultant. Each consultant shall protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all liability, claims, or expenses whosoever incurred by, or on behalf of, the entity participating in the preparation of its response to this RFB. Pre-contractual expenses are defined as expenses incurred by consultants and the selected consultant, if any, in:
• Preparing and submitting information in response to this RFB • Negotiations with the City on any matter related to this procurement • Costs associated with interviews, meetings, travel or presentations • All other expenses incurred by a consultant prior to the date of award and a formal notice to proceed.

The City reserves the right to amend, withdraw and cancel this RFB. The City reserves the right to reject all responses to this request at any time prior to contract execution, or only award a partial contract for a limited scope of work. The City reserves the right to request or obtain additional information about any and all proposals.

ATTACHMENTS:

ATTACHMENT 1 - IMPORTANT DATES
Request for Bid Page | 10
Design-Build of Fire Protection Alarm Services
ATTACHMENT 2 - CITY'S STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT 3 - CITY'S STANDARD INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Request for Bid Page |11
Design-Build of Fire Protection Alarm Services
ATTACHMENT 1 - IMPORTANT DATES
RFB ISSUED March 4, 2022
MANDATORY PRE-BID MEETING: 9:00 AM March 22,2022
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION DEADLINE: 5:00 PM April 4, 2022 RELEASE OF INFORMATION REQUESTED: 5:00 PM April 11, 2022 PROPOSAL DUE DATE/SUBMISSION DEADLINE: 2:00 PM April 19, 2022 TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL AWARD DATE May 3, 2022
APPROXIMATE NOTICE TO PROCEED DATE May 16, 2022
Request for Bid Page |12
Design-Build of Fire Protection Alarm Services
ATTACHMENT 2 - CITY'S STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
(Engagement: [SERVICE BEING PROVIDED])
entered in this I A (hereinster, the s fectve Date), by and between the City oF HUNTINGTON PARK, a California municipal corporation ("CITY") and [NAME OF CONSULTANT], a California Corporation <INSERT OTHER FORM OF ENTITY> (hereinafter, "CONSULTANT"). For the purposes of this Agreement CITY and CONSULTANT are sometimes hereinafter individual referred to as a "Party" and

RECITALS
This AGREEMENT is made and entered into with respect to the following facts:
a to SELY DESCRIBE THE OUTING SERVES BE
consultant to [BRIEFLY
PERFORMED].

WHEREAS, on Effective Date, the CITY entered into a Professional Services Agreement (the "Master Agreement") with [NAME OF CONSULTANT] to provide [SERVICES]; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT represents that it is fully qualified to perform such professional services by virtue of its experience and the training, education and expertise of its principals and employees; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT further represents that it is willing to accept responsibility for performing such services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and
WHEREAS, the execution of this Agreement was approved by the Huntington Part City Council at its Regular Meeting of [DATE]
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of performance by the Parties of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, the CITY and CONSULTANT agree as

Page 1 of 22 ends

Huntington Park City CouncilMarch 1, 2022

Huntington Park City Council
March 1, 2022