Madera City Council
November 1, 2023

WHEREAS, AB 1012 has been enacted into State law in part to provide for the “timely use” of Federal and State funding; and
WHEREAS, the City of Madera is able to apply for and receive Federal and State funding under Federal transportation legislation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Madera desires to ensure that its projects are delivered in a timely manner to preclude the Madera Region from losing those funds for non-delivery; and WHEREAS, it is understood by the City of Madera that failure for not meeting project delivery dates for any phase of a project may jeopardize Federal or State funding to the Region.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA HEREBY resolves, finds, determines and orders as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct.

2. The City of Madera hereby agrees to ensure that all project delivery deadlines for all project phases will be met or exceeded.

3. The City of Madera understands that failure to meet project delivery deadlines may be deemed as sufficient cause for the Madera County Transportation Commission Policy Board to terminate an agency’s project and reprogram Federal/State funds as deemed necessary.

4. The City of Madera directs its management and engineering staffs to ensure all CMAQ projects are carried out in a timely manner as per the requirements of AB 1012 and the directive of the City Council of the City of Madera.

5. The project list for nominations for the 2023 Cycle of CMAQ funds allocated by the MCTC for the Regional Competitive Grant Program and Carbon Reduction Program attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit “A” is approved.

6. The City Engineer is authorized to submit the project applications to the Madera County Transportation Commission for review, prioritizing and funding approval.

7. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption. * * * * * * * * * * *
Exhibit A
PROJECT LIST FOR THE CMAQ REGIONAL COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM – 2023 Cycle and

CARBON REDUCTION PROGRAM (CRP)
Project Description
Projected Cost
Effectiveness
($/lb. reduced)*
CMAQ
(Max 88.
53%)
Local Match
(Min 11.
47%)
Total
Alley Paving Northeast Quadrant < 2$ $830,000 $110,000 $940,000 Alley Paving Southeast Quadrant < 2$ $830,000 $110,000 $940,000 Alley Paving Northwest Quadrant < 2$ $640,000 $85,000 $725,000 Alley Paving Southwest Quadrant < 2$ $640,000 $85,000 $725,000 Shoulder Paving – Various Locations
Owens Street between Sherwood and
Adell; Clark Street east of Country Club
Drive; E Street between Clinton and 9th
$2 - $100 $500,000 $65,000 $565,000
Clinton Street from Tozer to Sunrise
Rotary Sports Complex** >$200 $175,000 $25,000 $200,000 Pedestrian Facilities – Howard
Road/Granada Drive abutting Town &
Country Park**
>$200 $150,000 $20,000 $170,000
Pedestrian Facilities – D Street
D Street between from Sherwood to
James Way and Clark to Asti; Clark Street
from D Street to 580 feet to the east**
>$200 $140,000 $20,000 $160,000
Pedestrian Facilities – Tulare Street
Sidewalks, Kennedy to Cleveland >$200 $300,000 $40,000 $340,000 Pedestrian Facilities – Grove
Street/Maple Street Sidewalks >$200 $350,000 $50,000 $400,000 Pedestrian Facilities – Pine Street Sunset
Avenue to 4th Street >$200 $320,000 $45,000 $365,000
Almond Avenue from Pine Street to
Granada Drive >$200 $955,000 $125,000 $1,080,000
TOTAL $5,830,000 $780,000 $6,610,000
* As calculated at time of report. May be revised higher or lower with updated technical information on the estimated emission reductions.
**These projects will be submitted under both the CMAQ and CRP grants. The local match will be higher at 20 percent as required by CRP.

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by:
_________________________________
Council Meeting of: November 1, 2023
Agenda Number: B-7
Keith Helmuth, P.E., Department Director
_________________________________
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:

Accepting Remaining Off-Site Improvements for the Varbella Estates II Subdivision RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution:

1. Accepting remaining off-site improvements for the Varbella Estates II Subdivision

2. Authorize the filing of the Notice of Acceptance for said off-site improvements SUMMARY:

The Subdivider, DMP Development Corporation, a California Corporation, and Valley Land Development, a California Limited Liability Company (collectively Subdivider), have completed the remaining off-site public improvements in accordance with the approved Improvement Agreement (Agreement) and improvement plans. The Subdivider has paid all required fees and submitted a warranty bond for the completed improvements. It is recommended that the City Council (Council) accept the remaining improvements that have been completed for the Varbella Estates II Subdivision (Subdivision).

DISCUSSION:

The Subdivision is a two-phased residential development between Pecan Avenue and Gary Lane and Stadium Avenue and Monterey Street (See Attachment 2 for that area encompassing Phase II). Council approved the Final Map on October 21, 2020. On November 17, 2021, Council accepted a portion of the improvements that included streets interior to the subdivision. The Subdivider has recently completed the remaining off-site public improvements in accordance with the Agreement and improvement plans. Approval of the resolution will result in acceptance of specific improvements listed below as defined by the Agreement:
 Pecan Avenue- Street improvements including paving, landscaped median, curb & gutter, sidewalk, streetlights and undergrounding of utilities between Monterey Street and a point approximately 700 feet west of Monterey Street.  Monterey Street - Street improvements between Pecan Avenue and Gary Lane.

It is appropriate for the City to accept the completed improvements as the previously mentioned improvements have been implemented in accordance with City Specifications and conform to current City Standards and as required by the Conditions of Approval for the Subdivision. The improvements proposed for acceptance as part of the action represent the second and final acceptance of improvements associated with the Subdivision.

Acceptance of the public improvements required of the Subdivider is permitted per Section 10-

2.712.3 of the Madera Municipal Code. The Subdivider has previously paid all required fees and provided payment and performance bonds sufficient to cover uncompleted work. Performance bonds are returned following acceptance in accordance with 10-2.708.7.1 of the Madera Municipal Code.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Acceptance of this subdivision will result in the transfer of maintenance and resulting costs from the Subdivider to the City.

ALTERNATIVES:

Should the City not accept the completed improvements, the developer may not request reimbursement for those improvements eligible for reimbursement through the Development Impact Fee Program.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution
a. Exhibit A: Notice of Acceptance

2. Project Location Map
Attachment 1
Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 23 - ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA,

CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING REMAINING OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE

VARBELLA ESTATES II SUBDIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A

NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR SUCH IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the Subdivider, DMP Development Corporation, a California Corporation, and Valley Land Development, a California Limited Liability Company (collectively Subdivider), has requested acceptance of the remaining off-site improvements for the Varbella Estates II Subdivision, and has submitted the required Warranty Bond; and WHEREAS, the off-site improvements consist primarily of street improvements on Pecan Avenue and Monterey Street; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has certified to this Council that the required remaining offsite improvements for Varbella Estates II Subdivision, have been completed.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA HEREBY finds, orders, and resolves as follows:

2. The above recitals are true and correct.

3. The subdivider has completed the final off-site improvements for Varbella Estates II Subdivision, within the following right-of way:
 Pecan Avenue- Street improvementsincluding paving, landscaped median, curb & gutter, sidewalk, streetlights and undergrounding of utilities between Monterey Street and a point approximately 700 feet west of Monterey Street.  Monterey Street - Street improvements between Pecan Avenue and Gary Lane.

4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a Notice of Acceptance as required by Section 10-2.712.2 of the Madera Municipal Code. * * * * *
Exhibit A
Notice of Acceptance
Recording Requested By:

City of Madera
When Recorded, Return To:

City Clerk
City of Madera
205 W. 4th Street
Madera, CA 93637
______________________________________________________________________________________ Fee Waived Per Section 27383 of the Government Code

NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE

OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on November 1, 2023, the City Council of the City of Madera confirmed the satisfactory completion of the remaining off-site improvements as shown on the plans for Varbella Estates II Subdivision, described as:
 Pecan Avenue- Street improvements including paving, landscaped median, curb & gutter, sidewalk, streetlights and undergrounding of utilities between Monterey Street and a point approximately 700 feet west of Monterey Street.  Monterey Street - Street improvements between Pecan Avenue and Gary Lane.

Dated: ___________
By: _________________
Alicia Gonzales
City Clerk
Attachment 2
Project Location Map
0 a::
::;
::,
0 (/) ~
CITY OF :MADERA
ENGINEERING DEPARl'l!ENT
428 E. YOSEMIIE
MADERA, CA 93636
MILANO LANE _
·- - ----------, ---. , .... ,--------,------1 (/) """4~~ '>- - w - I---+----;; a::
r--i1---+-~ w r
1---+---fl ~
I--+-~ ~ - ~
~,-7 -=· .
--,
-,-
. ~ ~.
.._ PROJECT
~ LOCATION . .,
7 DR BY: RR
CH BY:
•

VARBELLA ESTATES II
TRACT 20- S- 0 1
DATE: -, -:I / """'I Q,-,/2=-c-l
SCALE: NTS
SHT ....L. DF ....L.

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by:
_________________________________
Council Meeting of: November 1, 2023
Agenda Number: B-8
Giachino Chiaramonte, Chief of Police
_________________________________
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:

Community Correction Partnership 2023/24 Budget
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolutions:

1. Accepting $185,128 from the Community Corrections Partnership to pay for a Police Officer under the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) and amending the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Madera and County of Madera to reflect the total agreement amount of $327,428

2. Appropriating $185,128 in the City’s Fiscal Year 2023/24 Adopted Budget for the salary and benefits of one Police Officer in the SIU
SUMMARY:

The City and the County of Madera (County) entered an agreement on December 3, 2013, to allocate funds from the Community Corrections Partnership’s (CCP) budget to fund a full-time Police Officer for assignment to SIU. The City recently requested the CCP fund an additional Police Officer in SIU for $185,128. This request was approved at the CCP’s July 26, 2023 meeting.

DISCUSSION:

Signed into law in 2011, Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109) shifted the responsibility of monitoring lowlevel offenders from the jails to local jurisdictions. The goal was to reduce the number of inmates in State prisons. The State reassigned funds from the jails to local community corrections and county programs to assist with the new law's requirements.

Per the existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), CCP has provided $142,300 to fund one Police Officer in the SIU task force. Due to the influx of the SIU caseload primarily pertaining to AB 109 defenders, the City requested that the CCP fund the fully loaded salary of a second Police Officer. This request was approved at the CCP committee meeting on July 26, 2023. With the addition of a second Police Officer, the existing MOU between the City and County must be amended, including the update. The amendment to the agreement is attached as Exhibit A.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The City’s adopted Fiscal Year 2023/24 budget did not anticipate the increased allocation. The requested action would also amend the City’s annual budget to reflect the additional $185,128 in revenue and associated expenditures. The line-item detailed budget amendment is attached as Exhibit B.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council (Council) may deny the funds, canceling the need to update the current agreement with Madera County. In addition, Council may request staff return with additional information.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution accepting the funds from CCP and amending the MOU a. Exhibit A: First Amendment to the MOU

2. Resolution amending the City’s budget
a. Exhibit B: Budget amendment
RESOLUTION NO. 23-______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA
ACCEPTING $185,128 FROM THE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

PARTNERSHIP TO PAY FOR A POLICE OFFICER UNDER THE SPECIAL

INVESTIGATIONS UNIT AND AMENDING THE MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF MADERA AND COUNTY OF
MADERA TO REFLECT THE TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT OF $327,428 WHEREAS, On December 3, 2013, the City of Madera (City) and the County of Madera (County) entered an agreement to fund the salary of an officer conducting enforcement related to Assembly Bill 109; and
WHEREAS, the City of Madera requested additional funds from the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) to cover the salary and benefits of a second Police Officer totaling $185,128; and
WHEREAS On July 26, 2023, during its committee meeting, CCP approved the City’s request; and
WHEREAS, the total amount of the agreement shall be increased by $185,128, totaling an annual appropriation of $327,428; and
WHEREAS, the City and County have drafted an Amendment to the MOU that is in the best interest of both parties; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA hereby resolves, finds, determines, and orders as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct.

2. The City Council accepts the funds for $185,128 for a total agreement amount of $327,428.

3. The First Amendment to the MOU with the County, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is approved.

4. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption. * * * * * * * *

EXHIBIT A

FIRST AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF

MADERA AND COUNTY OF MADERA
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“First Amendment”) is made and entered into effective July 1, 2023, (“Effective Date”), by and between the City of Madera, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and County of Madera, a political subdivision of the State of California (“County”)

RECITALS
WHEREAS, On December 3, 2013, the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“Agreement”) with the County of Madera for Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) to fund one Madera Police Officer; and
WHEREAS, the CCP committee has authorized additional funding to cover the salary and benefits of another Madera Police Officer; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement to reflect the increased funding amount and to update language that has become obsolete among the two parties.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the covenants, conditions, and promises hereinafter contained to be kept and performed by the respective parties, it is mutually agreed as follows:

1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

2. Amendment to Section 1: Section 1 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

1. SCOPE. COUNTY, by this MOU, authorizes expenditure of Community Corrections Partnership funds for Fiscal Year 2013-2014 in an amount not to exceed One Hundred Forty Two Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($142,300.00). Such funds shall be paid to CITY for purposes of funding one (1) full-time sworn police officer for assignment to MADNET or MADGET for fiscal year 2013-2014. Payment shall be made at the end of each quarter for services provided during that quarter, upon acceptance and approval of CITY's invoice to COUNTY detailing those services. Invoices shall be delivered or mailed to COUNTY at its address for notices in Paragraph 11 of this agreement. This funding is intended to be inclusive of all of CITY's costs of employment of such police officer, including, but not limited to: hiring, training, wages and benefits.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, starting Fiscal Year 2023-2024 COUNTY, by this MOU, authorizes expenditure of Community Corrections Partnership funds for Fiscal Year 2023/2024 in an amount not to exceed Three Hundred Twenty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Eight Dollars ($327,428). Such funds shall be paid to CITY for purposes of funding (2) full-time sworn police officer for assignment to Special Investigations Unit (“SIU”) for fiscal year 2023/2024.

Payment shall be made at the end of each quarter for services provided during that quarter, but due no earlier than the effective date of the First Amendment upon acceptance and approval of CITY’s invoice to COUNTY detailing those services. Invoices shall be delivered or mailed to COUNTY at its address for notices in Paragraph 11 of this agreement. This funding is intended to be inclusive of all of CITY’s costs of employment of such police officer, including, but not limited to: hiring, training, wages and benefits.

3. Amendment to Section 2: Section 2 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

2. TERM. The term of this MOU shall commence July 1, 2023, and shall be in effect through June 30, 2024. Thereafter, this MOU shall renew for successive periods of one year without further action of the parties unless terminated at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the then-current term.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties acknowledge that funding for the police officer position(s) contemplated by this MOU is dependent upon continued AB 109 funding, which funding may be changed by the Legislature.

In the event of such funding change, this MOU may be terminated by COUNTY upon thirty (30) days’ notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment at Madera, California, the day and year first above written.

CITY OF MADERA COUNTY OF MADERA
By. ______________________________
Santos Garcia, Mayor
Date: ____________________
By. ______________________________
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Date: ____________________
ATTEST:
______________________________
ATTEST:
______________________________
Alicia Gonzales, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
County Counsel
RESOLUTION NO. 23-______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA
APPROPRIATING $185,128 IN THE CITY’S ADOPTED BUDGET FOR SALARY

AND BENEFITS OF ONE OFFICER IN THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT WHEREAS, the City of Madera has an Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2023/24; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the Adopted Budget to reflect the acceptance of $185,128 to cover the salary and benefits of a police officer; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Adopted Budget is required to appropriate funds as the additional revenue was not anticipated during budget development and approval.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA hereby resolves, finds, determines, and orders as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct.

2. Funds shall be appropriated in the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Adopted Budget in the amount of $185,128 into the CCP account to fund the salary and benefits of a police officer.

3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the resolution to the Director of Financial Services who is authorized to take such action as necessary to implement the terms of this resolution.

4. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption. * * * * * * * *

ORG OBJECT
FUND CODE CODE DESCRIPTION (+) (-)
Community Corrections Partnership
1020 10202020 4659 Refunds and Reimbursements 142,300
1020 10202020 5000 Salaries/Full Time 122,112
1020 10202020 5110 Salaries/Uniform 2,034
1020 10202020 5300 Public Employee Retirement 41,822
1020 10202020 5302 Long Term Disabiltiy 265
1020 10202020 5303 Life Insurance 82
1020 10202020 5304 Worker's Compensation 11,193
1020 10202020 5305 Medicare Tax 1,972
1020 10202020 5306 Unfunded Accrued Retirement Liability 46,604 1020 10202020 5309 Unemployment Insurance 134
1020 10202020 5310 Section 125 Benefits 53,084
1020 10202020 8200 Transfer Out 137,002
4781 47810410 4434 Grants 327,428
4781 47810410 4355 Transfer In 137,002
4781 47810410 5000 Salaries/Full-Time 244,960
4781 47810410 5110 Salaries/Uniform 3,051
4781 47810410 5300 Public Employee Retirement 56,243
4781 47810410 5302 Long Term Disability 427
4781 47810410 5303 Life Insurance 132
4781 47810410 5304 Workers Compensation 25,099
4781 47810410 5305 Medicare Tax 3,479
4781 47810410 5306 Unfunded Accrued Retirement Liability 46,604 4781 47810410 5309 Unemployment Insurance 260
4781 47810410 5310 Section 125 Benefits 84,175
TOTALS 743,732 743,732

EXHIBIT B
CITY OF MADERA FISCAL YEAR 2023/24 BUDGET APPROPRIATION

FOR FUNDS PROVIDED BY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIP 1 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by:
_________________________________
Council Meeting of: November 1, 2023
Agenda Number: B-9
Giachino Chiaramonte, Chief of Police
_________________________________
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:

California Department of Justice Tobacco Grant Program
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution accepting the California Department of Justice Tobacco Grant Program in the amount of $42,227
SUMMARY:

On October 12, 2023, the California Department of Justice (CDOJ) notified the City that it was a recipient of the California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act Grant Program in the amount of $42,227 for the next three fiscal years.

DISCUSSION:

Approved by California voters in 2016, Proposition 56 increased taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products in April 2017. The initiative allocates a portion of annual revenue to the CDOJ to provide funds to agencies as they work to reduce illegal tobacco sales. For Fiscal Year 2023/24, approximately $24.6 million was made available for disbursement.

The City previously received the grant in 2021 with a total award amount of $286,314 over four years, an average of $71,578 per year. The previous grant provided funding for one Neighborhood Preservation Specialist and sunsets at the end of the current fiscal year. With the recent award totaling $42,227, or approximately $14,075 per year, the CDOJ has provided funding to cover overtime for officers conducting retail inspections and participating in educational events for youth.

Grantees may use grant funds to enforce a local ordinance or State law related to the illegal sale and marketing of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, to minors and youth, including, but not limited to:
 Retailer compliance checks
 Retailer training programs
 Public education outreach
 Parent engagement and education
 Tobacco retail license compliance
 Preventing and deterring use of tobacco products on school premises The City was awarded a total of $42,227. The funds are distributed over three fiscal years as follows:

Table 1: Award Amount for 3 years in the amount of $42,227 Category of Expenditure
Fiscal Budget Year
2024/25 2025/26 2026/27
Personal Services $11,739 $11,739 $11,739
Operating Expenses and Equipment $1,900 $1,700 $1,400
Administrative Costs (Not to Exceed 5%) $681 $672 $657
Total per fiscal year $14,320 $14,111 $13,796
The funds will cover overtime for officers working retail compliance checks, inspections, and youth educational events. In addition, the grant provides funds for educational pamphlets and signs, and administrative costs for preparation of required reporting and accounting.

Unfortunately, the reduction of over $57,500 per year is expected to have a detrimental impact on the City’s ability to proactively target illegal sales of tobacco products that the community has come to expect.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The requested action would not impact the City’s current budget as this grant provides funding for the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Budget. However, with the reduced funding, unless additional grant funding is secured or the City’s service delivery model is recalibrated, the General Fund may have to absorb the cost of retaining the NPS position in future budget years.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council (Council) may deny the grant funds, halting most of the department’s ability to perform special activities related to the illegal sales of tobacco products. Furthermore, the Council may request staff return with additional information.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution accepting the grant funds

2. Grant award letter
RESOLUTION NO. 23-______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA

ACCEPTING THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TOBACCO GRANT PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $42,227
WHEREAS, the City of Madera Police Department is responsible for the safety of the citizens of the community; and
WHEREAS, the Madera Police Department has a desire to prevent the illegal sale and marketing of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, to minors; and WHEREAS, The City of Madera (City) applied for the 2023/24 California Department of Justice (CDOJ) Tobacco Grant (Grant); and
WHEREAS, On October 12, 2023 the City was notified that it was a recipient of the grant; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to accept the grant in the amount of $42,227 to cover overtime costs of special enforcement, administrative costs to service the grant and purchase educational materials.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA hereby resolves, finds, determines, and orders as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct.

2. The Chief of Police is authorized to execute any documents related to the receipt of funding.

3. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption. * * * * * * * *
Rob Bonta
Attorney General

DIVISION OF OPERATIONS

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF

GRANT SERVICES BRANCH

TOBACCO GRANT PROGRAM
P.O. Box 160187
Sacramento, CA 95816‐0187
Telephone: (916) 210‐6422
E‐Mail Address: [email protected]
October 11, 2023
Giachino Chiaramonte, Commander
Madera Police Department
330 South C Street
Madera, CA 93638
Re: Tobacco Grant Award Notification Fiscal Year 2023‐24 (RFP: DOJ‐PROP56‐2023‐24‐1) Dear: Commander Chiaramonte
Congratulations! On behalf of the California Department of Justice (DOJ), Tobacco Grant Program, I am pleased to inform you that your agency’s grant application for the fiscal year 2023‐24 grant cycle has been approved for grant funds authorized under the California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016. The total amount of your agency’s grant award is $42,227.

The Tobacco Grant Program’s award process is highly competitive, and for the 2023‐24 grant cycle, the Department received over $48 million in requests. As noted in the application materials, grant funding prioritized support for local retailer enforcement and education efforts, including enforcement of flavored tobacco bans. Consequently, some awards were approved with modifications based upon funding priorities.

To accept the 2023‐24 grant award, please complete and return the following by email within 15 calendar days of the date of this letter:

1. Signed Letter of Intent (template attached), affirming either:
a. Your agency will seek a resolution from the governing body to accept the award (if your agency has a governing body); or
b. No governing body exists and no resolution is required.

15. Summary of Award (template attached)
Please email the signed Letter of Intent and Summary of Award as indicated above to [email protected] with the subject line including the name of your agency: “FY 23‐ 24_Letter of Intent_Madera Police Department.” Upon receipt of this information, the Department will provide your agency with additional documents for execution/use (e.g.,

CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
October 11, 2023

Memorandum of Understanding, Grantee Handbook, etc.). These documents will contain more information about the process for reimbursement and other important details. Activities for reimbursement under this grant may commence November 1, 2023.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter or the required follow up information, please email [email protected].

Sincerely,

STACY HEINSEN
Manager, Tobacco Grant Program
For ROB BONTA
Attorney General
Attachments:

Letter of Intent
Summary of Award
Budget Detail

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by:
_________________________________
Council Meeting of: November 1, 2023
Agenda Number: B-10
Giachino Chiaramonte, Chief of Police
_________________________________
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:

Donation from the United Police Canine Partnership
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution accepting a donation of $9,500 for the City’s Detection K-9 Labrador from the United Police Canine Partnership non-profit organization SUMMARY:

The United Police Canine Partnership (UPCP) donated $9,500 for a detection K-9 Labrador to the Police Department. City policy requires Council to formally accept donations over $1,000 in value.

The requested action would accept the donation of the detection K-9 and shift the responsibility of the animal to the City’s K-9 program. This would increase the City’s K-9 unit from 2 dogs to 3.

Two dogs are for detection, while the other is an apprehension dog.

DISCUSSION:

The UPCP is a non-profit foundation that supports law enforcement K-9 programs throughout the State. The foundation provides law enforcement agencies with equipment to start and sustain a successful K-9 program. The UPCP recently expressed their desire to donate a detection K-9, adding a detection Labrador. Said dog is instrumental to the success of the City’s K-9 program as it relates to community involvement. This objective is particularly true as legislation and policing tactics are beginning to pivot from apprehension of K-9s, or in layman’s terms, traditional bite dogs, to tracking, trailing, and detection dogs. This would add a second detection dog to the City.

Detection K-9s are used to search for drug paraphernalia and weapons on a person’s property and are commonly used for community policing. Unlike apprehension K-9s, detection K-9s can be petted by community members. Furthermore, detection dogs serve as a barrier of protection between danger and our officers. The K-9s alert our officers to proceed with caution when they detect the presence of drugs and/or weapons. While detection K-9s have police duties, they are expected to be involved in community events such as school site visits, parades, and holiday gatherings. With the ability to be approached by community members, detection K-9s serve as a magnet for the youth. Building relationships between the youth and Police Officers is crucial in establishing an open line of communication that promotes positive habits during adolescence and beyond.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The Police Department has already received the detection K-9 and is recommending accepting the donation to offset the City’s expenses by $9,500. The dogs arrive untrained, and the City is responsible for covering the cost of training and monthly recurring training. The one-time training costs $5,000, with monthly recurring training costing $250. In addition, each Officer assigned to a K-9 receives a stipend of $162.75 biweekly for a yearly cost of $4,231. The cost to the City is approximately $21,731 for the first year. However, if the donation is accepted, the City’s total cost would be reduced to $12,231.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may deny the donation from UPCP, and request staff identify an alternative funding source. In addition, Council can request staff return with additional information pertaining to the non-profit or the City’s K-9 program.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution accepting donation from UPCP

2. Letter from UPCP
RESOLUTION NO. 23-______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA
ACCEPTING A DONATION OF A DETECTION K-9 LABRADOR FROM THE

UNITED POLICE CANINE PARTNERSHIP
WHEREAS, the City of Madera (City) received a donation of a detection K-9 from United Police Canine Partnership (UPCP); and
WHEREAS, City policy requires the City Council to formally accept donations greater than $1,000; and
WHEREAS, the City believes the donation will positively impact community partnerships as the detection K-9 will participate in events such as school site visits and large community gatherings; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to accept the donation and include the detection K-9 in its existing K-9 program.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA hereby resolves, finds, determines, and orders as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct.

2. The donation provided by the United Police Canine Partnership is accepted.

3. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption. * * * * * * * *
United Police Canine Partnership
Date: 8/24/23
Agency: Madera Police Department
Mailing Address: 330 S. C Street Madera, Ca 93638
Madera Police Department,
Thank you for allowing our foundation to purchase a Detection K9 Labrador for your K-9 program. We appreciate your service and dedication to your community.

I just wanted to provide you with a brief overview of our Non-Profit.

The United Police Canine Partnership is a 501(c)(3) foundation that supports law enforcement K-9 programs throughout the state of California. We provide law enforcement agencies with necessary equipment to start and sustain a successful K-9 Program.

We are very excited for your new K9 handler and your department.

Our foundation understands the need and advantages that a K9 brings to a community. We wish you the best and stay safe. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out.

Representative's
Representative's
Name:

Signature:

Ryan
~
Vasquez
~
Title: President Date: 08/24/2023
II l(t Tt:U vu t. lC

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by:
_________________________________
Council Mee�ng of: November 1, 2023
Agenda Number: C-1
Michael Lima, Director of Financial Services
_________________________________
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:

Consider an Ordinance to Update Certain Fines Detailed in the Madera Municipal Code RECOMMENDATION:

Waive full reading and introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Madera amending Sec�ons 1-9.06(A) and (B), 3-2.08, 5-3.31, and 5-4.06 (I) of the Madera Municipal Code to update various fines
SUMMARY:

The California Government Code (Government Code) allows for ci�es to enact ordinances that define what is a public nuisance within that community. The Government Code also allows ci�es to set civil penal�es up to certain limits. The City has u�lized the language in the Government Code to establish various fine amounts in the Madera Municipal Code. As many of these fine amounts have not been adjusted in several years, staff is proposing to adjust them to improve their deterrent value.

Ordinances go into effect on the 31
st day a�er the second reading.

DISCUSSION:

California Government Code Sec�ons 36901, 38771, and 38773.5(a) gives the City the authority to establish ordinances that define a public nuisance for the community, provide for the recovery of reasonable atorney’s fees in any ac�on to abate a public nuisance and impose fines for viola�ons of these ordinances. The Government Code also specifies that the fine cannot be more than $1,000 for misdemeanors and $500 for administra�ve cita�ons for infrac�ons. The City has u�lized this Government Code language to establish several public nuisance ordinances and associated fines for infrac�ons against those ordinances in the Madera Municipal Code (MMC).

As part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 Budget process, staff reviewed the fines to determine if they were sufficient to con�nue serving as a deterrent to public nuisance behavior. One component of that review was no�ng the last �me the fine had been adjusted, taking into account how infla�on can reduce deterrent effect, and determining whether intervening updates in the law would warrant addi�onal refinement. Based on this, staff recommends upda�ng four types of fines within the MMC.

They are listed below, followed by a synopsis of each.

1. Administrative Citation Fines – MMC Section 1-9.06 (A) and (B)

2. Emergency Services Fines – MMC Section 3-2.08

3. Construction/Demolition Debris Disposal Violations – MMC Section 5-3.31

4. Sewage Disposal Enforcement – MMC Section 5-4.06 (I)

1. Administrative Citation Fines – MMC Section 1-9.06 (A) and (B) Sec�on 1-9 of the MMC sets up an administra�ve cita�on program to provide a method of enforcing viola�ons of the Municipal Code. A por�on of that sec�on (Sec�on 1-9.06) sets fines that are assessed through that program. These fines are subject to California Civil Code Sec�on 2929.3, which prescribes a maximum fine of $1,000. The MMC’s fines for this program have not been increased since 2014.

Staff is recommending that the fines be adjusted by $25 per fine category, with the excep�on of third/subsequent cita�ons for viola�ons not automa�cally or expressly deemed infrac�ons under the Municipal Code (which are already at the $1,000 maximum). Table 1 summarizes the current fines and the proposed fines.

2. Emergency Services Fines – MMC Section 3-2.08
MMC Sec�on 3.2 establishes an Emergency Services func�on within the City and defines the roles for that func�on. At the end of the Sec�on, a fine is defined for anyone who either hinders an Emergency Services member from performing their du�es, undertakes an act in the service of this func�on which is otherwise forbidden by law or regula�on, or impersonates a member the Emergency Services func�on. The fine is defined as “…not to exceed $500….” This language was last updated in 1972, and the fine amount has become less of a deterrent over the last 50+ plus years due to infla�onary effects.

Table 1: Existing vs. proposed fines
Code Enforcement Fine Current
Rate
Proposed
Rate
First Administra�ve Cita�on – Viola�on not automa�cally or expressly deemed infrac�on (i.e., misdemeanors).
$100 $125
Second Administra�ve Cita�on – Viola�on not automa�cally or expressly deemed infrac�on (i.e., misdemeanors).
$500 $525
Third Administra�ve Cita�on – Viola�on not automa�cally or expressly deemed infrac�on (i.e., misdemeanors).
$1,000 $1,000
First Administra�ve Cita�on – Viola�on automa�cally or expressly deemed infrac�on.
$75 $100
Second Administra�ve Cita�on – Viola�on automa�cally or expressly deemed infrac�on.
$200 $225
Third Administra�ve Cita�on – Viola�on automa�cally or expressly deemed infrac�on.
$500 $500
As fine is associated with a misdemeanor, it can be increased to $1,000. Consequently, staff is recommending that the language “a fine of not to exceed $500” be removed and replaced with “a fine of $1,000.” This language also acknowledges intervening refinements in the law since the last update.

3. Construction/Demolition Debris Disposal Violations – MMC Section 5-3.31 MMC Sec�on 5-3.30 creates requirements for the disposal of construc�on and demoli�on debris. An administra�ve penalty for viola�ng MMC Sec�on 5.3-30 of “…up to $1,000 for each project” is detailed in MMC Sec�on 5-3.31. This sec�on was last updated in 2008.

Staff is recommending that the language “The amount of the penalty may be up to $1,000 for each project” be removed and replaced with “The amount of the penalty shall be $1,000 for each project.” This language also acknowledges intervening refinements in the law since the last update.

4. Sewage Disposal Enforcement – MMC Section 5-4.06 (I) MMC Title V, Chapter 4 details various requirements and regula�ons for u�lizing the City’s sewage disposal system. The penal�es for viola�ng these requirements and regula�ons are detailed in MMC Sec�on 5-4.06. Subsec�on I of Sec�on 5-4.06 defines a viola�on of the sewage disposal regula�ons by any individual as a misdemeanor; punishable by jail �me or a fine “…not to exceed $500.” This sec�on was last modified in 2012.

As a misdemeanor, the fine could be set at $1,000. However, due to the period of �me since the last update, staff is recommending that the language “…or by a fine not to exceed $500…” be changed to “or by a fine of $1,000….” This language also acknowledges intervening refinements in the law.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Assuming viola�on levels remain constant, the proposed increases are es�mated to generate approximately $15,000. These addi�onal revenues were not included in the FY 2023/24 Adopted Budget.

ALTERNATIVES:

Council may:
 Reject all proposed fee increases and adjustments.
 Approve a different amount than what is recommended for approval.  Reject some recommended rates and approve others at recommended rates.  Reject some recommended rates and approve others at a different amount than what is recommended for approval.

If all proposed ac�ons are rejected, the City will not earn the addi�onal $15,000 of revenue an�cipated from the recommended ac�ons. Addi�onally, the City may have some legal issue should the fines with the unclear language be contested. The effect of taking any of the other alterna�ve ac�on will depend on which ac�on and which rate is adopted.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA
AMENDING SECTIONS 1-9.06(A) AND (B), 3-2.08, 5-3.31, AND 5-4.06(I) OF

THE MADERA MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE VARIOUS FINES
WHEREAS, the City of Madera has the authority, under its police power, to enact regulations for the public peace, morals, and welfare of the city, Cal. Const. Art. XI, section 7; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Madera finds that certain conditions constitute a public nuisance and are a threat to the public peace, safety and welfare of the City; and WHEREAS, by declaring that violations of the Madera Municipal Code constitute a public nuisance, the City Council has determined that by violating the City’s laws contained in the Madera Municipal Code, a person or entity creates a threat or danger to the public health, safety or welfare as a public nuisance; and
WHEREAS, Sections 36901, 38771 and 38773.5(a) of the California Government Code authorize the City of Madera to enact ordinances declaring what constitutes a public nuisance, the procedures for abating nuisance conditions, providing for the recovery of costs and attorney fees to abate the nuisance, providing for the collection of civil penalties; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that ensuring compliance with the Madera Municipal Code and other regulations vital to the protection of the public’s health, safety and quality of life throughout the City is an important public service; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that an effective code compliance program eliminates and prevents the spread of blight, deterioration and crime, makes neighborhoods safer and more livable, and promotes economic development and pride in the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that an effective code compliance program requires the drafting and adoption of regulations that can be effectively applied by City personnel in a fair and expedient manner; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the public interest to adopt this ordinance in order to facilitate the City’s ability to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public through the use of updated administrative citations to promote nuisance abatement as set forth in the Madera Municipal Code and in other applicable laws, rules and regulations, and to address the effects of inflation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to update the administrative citation penalties.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA does ordain as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

2. Subsections 1.9-06(A) and (B) of the Madera Municipal Code is hereby amended to read (new text is identified in bold italics, deleted text in strikethrough):
§ 1-9.06 FINES ASSESSED
(A) With the exception of violations that are automatically or expressly deemed infractions under the Municipal Code, the amount of the fine assessed for each administrative citation issued for the same violation(s) within one year shall be as follows:
(1) First administrative citation -- $100 $125;
(2) Second administrative citation -- $500 $525;
(3) Third or subsequent administrative citation -- $1,000. (B) For violations of the Municipal Code that are automatically or expressly deemed infractions, the amount of fine assessed for each administrative citation issued for the same violation within one year, shall be as follows:
(1) First administrative citation -- $75 $100;
(2) Second administrative citation -- $200 $225;
(3) Third or subsequent administrative citation -- $500.

3. Section 3.2-08 of the Madera Municipal Code is hereby amended to read (new text is identified in bold italics, deleted text in strikethrough):
§ 3-2.08 PUNISHMENT OF VIOLATIONS.

It shall be a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not to exceed $500 $1,000, or by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both, for any person during an emergency to:
(A) Willfully obstruct, hinder, or delay any member of the Emergency Services Organization in the enforcement of any lawful rule or regulation issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter or in the performance of any duty imposed upon him or her by virtue of this chapter;
(B) To do any act forbidden by any lawful rules or regulations issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, if such act is of such a nature as to give, or be likely to give, assistance to the enemy, or to imperil the lives or property of inhabitants of the city, or to prevent, hinder, or delay the defense or protection thereof; or (C) To wear, carry, or display without authority any reasons of identification specified by the emergency services agency of the state.

4. Section 5.3-31 of the Madera Municipal Code is hereby amended to read (new text is identified in bold italics, deleted text in strikethrough):
§ 5-3.31 PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
Any property owner, developer, or individual who does not comply with any requirement of the construction and demolition debris recycling provisions of this chapter may be assessed an administrative penalty for non-compliance pursuant to Chapter 9 of this code. The amount of the penalty assessed may be up to shall be $1,000 for each project. Each day that a violation continues shall be deemed a new and separate offense. Without full payment of fees, final occupancy, acceptance of subdivision, or sign off on demolition permit will not be granted.

5. Subsection 5.4-06 (I) of the Madera Municipal Code is hereby amended to read (new text is identified in bold italics, deleted text in strikethrough):
§ 5-4.06 ENFORCEMENT
…
(I) Misdemeanor. Any person violating any of these regulations shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not to exceed six months, or by a fine of $500 $1,000 or by both such imprisonment and fine. Every day such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense.

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by: Council Meeting of: November 1, 2023
Agenda Number: ___________
_________________________________
Keith Helmuth, P.E., Department Director
________________________________
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:

Transfer of Ownership of Real Property Located at 715 Stadium Road (APN: 012-220-051) that serves as a temporary ponding basin
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution:

1. Approving the Agreement for Transfer of Real Property located at 715 Stadium Road (APN:
012-220-051)

2. Accepting Quitclaim Deed
SUMMARY:

This Agreement for Transfer of Real Property (Agreement) is for the acquisition of an approximately 1.03-acre parcel (APN: 012-220-051). The subject site is on the northeast intersection of Stadium Road and Almond Avenue and is developed with a temporary stormwater drainage basin since 1986.

DISCUSSION:

The proposed acquisition is for land initially developed as a temporary storm drainage basin for the Capistrano Phase I & II subdivisions, located immediately to the east and north of the basin site. While the original owner and subdivider of the Capistrano Phase I & II still owns the property and has been found to be willing to maintain the basin when requested by the City, the City inquired if he would be willing to part with it. By doing so, the City would assume responsibility.

D-1
As part of private development, the City reviews drainage plans to ensure that stormwater is captured. Unfortunately, permanent public facilities are not always available, thus developers are required to construct temporary basins. Upon the completion of permanent facilities, temporary facilities may be abandoned. In this case, it could be said that the owner could have had a reasonable expectation that the City would have constructed permanent ponding facilities that would have allowed the basin to be retired and closed. Regardless of the owner’s willingness to maintain, there have been times when the basin’s condition has represented a concern to the City relative to its ability to accommodate storm drainage and its appearance. As a result, staff and the owner have been open to transfer of the parcel to the City for several years. Under this new dynamic, the City would have unimpeded access to the basin to address drainage concerns and, in general, consistently maintain the appearance from the adjacent streets. Thus, it staff’s recommendation that the basin be transferred to the City.

If approved, the title to the property would be transferred to the City at no cost. The City would then assume liability and maintenance responsibilities for the basin moving forward.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Taking ownership of this basin will represent an increase in maintenance activities related to the basin. It is expected that the initial clean-up will require City resources; however, future maintenance would be less intense. Funding would be derived from the Drainage Operations Fund.

ALTERNATIVES:

Not approve or postpone the acquisition of the property. This would result in a continuation of the current situation.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Project Location Map

2. Resolution
Exhibit A - Agreement for Transfer of Real Property
Exhibit A – Legal Description
Exhibit B - Quitclaim Deed & Certificate of Acceptance
Exhibit A - Legal Description
Exhibit C – Drainage Facilities Covenant
Attachment 1
Project Location Map
Attachment 2
Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 23- .

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY AT 715 STADIUM ROAD FOR APN: 012-220-051 AND ACCEPT

QUITCLAIM DEED
WHEREAS, Valley Vanguard Properties, Inc. (Seller) owns a 1.03-acre parcel located at 715 Stadium Road, APN 012-220-051 (Subject Property); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is part of Capistrano Phase I & II subdivisions, and is required to be used as a temporary stormwater retention basin until development allowed for the subdivision to be connected to the City’s storm drainage system; and WHEREAS, despite the passage of time development has not resulted in the availability of a connection to the City’ storm drainage system, and Seller has been responsible for the basin since constructed; and
WHEREAS, the City now wishes to accept ownership of the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the City and Seller have agreed to a purchase price of $0 for the Subject Property, with the City to assume maintenance and other responsibilities on a go-forward basis; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is more specifically described in the legal description included within the Quitclaim Deed attached to and included as Exhibit A to the Agreement for Transfer of Real Property at 715 Stadium Road, Madera, California (APN:012-220-051); and WHEREAS, the City now desires to approve an agreement with Seller to acquire the Subject Property.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA hereby resolves, finds, determines and orders as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct.

2. The City Council approves the Agreement for Transfer of Real Property at 715 Stadium Road, Madera, California (APN:012-220-051) (Agreement) attached hereto as Exhibit A, including Exhibits A to C referenced in and attached to the Agreement.

3. The City Clerk is authorized to prepare the Certificate of Acceptance for the Quitclaim Deed.

4. The City Clerk is authorized to file the Quitclaim Deed with the Madera County Recorder’s Office.

5. The City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney are authorized collectively to make any technical and clerical corrections or clarifications to this Resolution and to the Agreement and related documents.

6. This resolution is subject to any required findings of conformity with the General Plan.

7. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption. ********

EXHIBIT A
Agreement for Transfer of Real Property
AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY AT 715 STADIUM ROAD, MADERA, CALLIFORNIA (APN: 012-220-051)
THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is executed at Madera, California, on _______________, 2023 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF MADERA, municipal corporation (“City”) and the VALLEY VANGUARD PROPERTIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION (“Seller”). City and Seller are referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
RECITALS:

A. Seller owns that certain real property located at the northeast corner of Stadium Road and Almond Ave in the City of Madera, County of Madera, State of California (Assessor Parcel No. 012-220-051), more particularly described in attached Exhibit “A,” together with all improvements located thereon (collectively, “Property”).

B. The Property is currently being utilized and maintained by Seller for use as a temporary stormwater retention basin.

C. City wishes to acquire the Property from Seller, and Seller is agreeable to conveying its interest in the Property to City under the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

D. The Parties agree that it would be in the best interest of the general public to transfer ownership of the Property to City, for City to operate and maintain.

AGREEMENT:

1. Conveyance: As of November 1, 2023, and subject to City’s approval, in consideration of the public benefit, Seller hereby conveys the Property to City by Quitclaim Deed in the form attached as Exhibit “B” (“Quitclaim Deed”).

The Quitclaim Deed shall be delivered to City of Madera Engineer’s Office (“Engineer’s Office”) by November 30, 2023, to be recorded with the Madera County Recorder’s Office. A Preliminary Title Report has already been obtained by the City which lists all plotted easements. (“Preliminary Title Report”).

2. Payments: Transfer of ownership of this property shall be done at a cost of zero ($0.00) dollars.

3. Taxes: Seller shall be responsible for any unpaid taxes prior to July 1, 2023 (“Back Taxes”), as well as the amount of taxes due on the Property from July 1, 2023, until November 30, 2023. (“Current Taxes”) Seller shall pay for the property taxes in full and present City with proof of payment prior to recordation with the Madera County Recorder’s Office. Seller may, at their discretion, request a refund from the Madera County Recorder’s Office, for the balance of taxes after the date of execution and transfer of ownership to the City.

4. Transfer of Covenant: City shall assume all maintenance responsibilities, liability, and other obligations, as outlined in “Covenant Drainage Facilities (Subdivision Agreement) CAPISTRANO SUBDIVISION, PHASE I”, more particularly described in attached Exhibit “C”, upon recordation of deed.

5. Warranties: Except for any express representations and warranties set forth in this Agreement, the sale of this property as provide for herein is made on a strictly “as is” “where is” basis as of the closing date, and seller makes no warranty or representation, express or implied, or arising by operation of law, including, but in no way limited to, any warranty of quantity, quality, condition, habitability, merchantability, suitability or fitness for a particular purpose of the property, and any improvements located thereon or any soil conditions related thereto.

6. Encumbrances: Prior to City’s approval of Agreement, Seller shall provide City with complete copies of all documents in Seller’s possession regarding all leases, rental agreements, service contracts, and other agreements pertaining to the use or operation of the Property (“Contracts”) which Seller, to the best of its knowledge, represents and warrants are the only such agreements that effect the use and operation of the Property and which shall not survive the recordation of the Quitclaim Deed.

7. Indemnification: Seller expressly and unequivocally agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its governing board, commissions, elected and appointed officials, employees, agents, volunteers, and authorized representatives, and each of them from all claims, causes of action, and liability (including attorney’s fees and litigation costs) related to any personal injury or property damage suffered in, on, or about the Property or relating thereto, arising out of the acts and/or omissions of Seller or Seller Indemnified Parties and occurring prior to the date of recordation of the Quitclaim Deed and including any breach of Seller’s representations and warranties in this Agreement.

8. Right to Enter: As of the Execution Date, City and its contractors and agents shall have the right to enter the Property to conduct such tests and investigations as City deems necessary including, but not limited to, engineering, feasibility studies, soils tests, environmental studies, and other investigations as City in its sole discretion may desire, to permit City to determine the suitability of the Property. As a condition to City’s entry and inspection hereunder, City shall keep the Property free and clear of all materialmen's liens, lis pendens, or any other liens arising out of the entry and any such work or investigations.

9. Hazardous Materials: To the best of Seller’s knowledge, there are no environmental, health or safety hazards on, under or about the Property, including but not limited to soil conditions. Seller has received no written notice from any third parties, prior owners of the Property, or any federal, state, or local governmental agency indicating that any hazardous waste remedial or clean-up work will be required on the Property.

10. Negation of Partnership: Seller shall not become or be deemed a partner or joint venturer with City or in any other relationship with City by reason of the provisions of this Agreement. City shall not for any purpose be considered an agent, officer, or employee of Seller.

It is understood that City, in City's performance of all duties under this Agreement, has no authority to bind Seller to any agreements or undertakings with respect to any persons or entities with whom City deals in the course of their business. Seller shall not for any purpose be considered an agent, officer, or employee of City. It is understood that Seller, in Seller's performance of all duties under this Agreement, has no authority to bind City to any agreements or undertakings with respect to any persons or entities with whom Seller deals in the course of their business.

11. Modification: This Agreement and the Quitclaim Deed set forth the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties and may be modified only by amendment in writing executed by the Parties.

12. Binding Effect: The covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement are binding on the Parties and their legal representatives, successors, and assigns.

13. Notices: All notices herein provided to be given, or which may be given, by either Party to the other shall be deemed to have been fully given when made in writing and personally served or deposited with the United States Postal Service, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows:

To City: City of Madera
City Engineer
205 W. Fourth Street
Madera, CA 93637
To Seller: Valley Vanguard Properties, Inc.
801 E. Portsmouth Dr
Fresno, CA 93730
The address to which the notices shall be mailed to either Party may be changed by written notice given by such Party to the other, but nothing shall preclude the giving of any such notice by personal service.

14. Governing Law; Venue: The Parties agree that the provisions of this Agreement shall be construed pursuant to the laws of the State of California. If either City or Seller initiates an action to enforce the terms of this Agreement or declare rights hereunder, including actions on any bonds and/or surety agreements, the venue thereof shall be the County of Madera, State of California, it being understood that this Agreement is entered into, and will be performed, within the County of Madera.

15. Construction: The Parties acknowledge that each Party and its counsel have reviewed and revised this Agreement, and that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendments or exhibits to this Agreement.

16. Recitals: Each of the recitals is incorporated in this Agreement by reference as if fully set forth in this Agreement at length, is deemed to be the agreement and a reflection of the intent of the Parties and is relied upon by the Parties in agreeing to the provisions of this Agreement and in interpreting its provisions.

17. Headings: Paragraph headings in this Agreement are used solely for convenience and shall be wholly disregarded in the construction of this Agreement.

18. Covenant of Further Assurances: The Seller and City shall take all other actions and execute all other documents that are reasonably necessary to effectuate this Agreement.

19. Authorization: Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of either Party represents and warrants that he/she is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of that Party, and that this Agreement is binding upon both Parties in accordance with its terms.

20. Time is of Essence: City and Seller specifically agree that time is of the essence.

Unless otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, any reference in this Agreement to time for performance of obligations or to elapsed time shall mean Pacific Standard Time and time periods shall mean consecutive calendar days, months, or years, as applicable.

The Parties have executed this Agreement on the Execution Date.

SELLER: BUYER:

VALLEY VANGUARD PROPERTIES, INC.,
A California Corporation
By: _______________________________
Mitch Covington
Chief Executive Officer
Dated:_______________________, 2023

CITY OF MADERA,
a municipal corporation
By:_______________________________
Santos Garcia, Mayor
Dated:_______________________, 2023
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Alicia Gonzales, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Exhibit A
Legal Description
For APN/Parcel ID(s): 012-220-051
______________________________________________________________________________ The land referred to in this report is situated in the City of Madera, the County of Madera, State of California, and is described as follows:

Lot A of Madera Bonita Village, in the City of Madera, County of Madera, State of California, according to the Map thereof recorded in Book 30, Pages 114 and 115 of Maps, Madera County Records.

Assessor's Parcel Numbers(s): 012-220-051
Exhibit B
Quitclaim Deed
RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF:

City of Madera
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Madera
205 W. Fourth Street
Madera, CA 93637
Attn: City Clerk
The undersigned Grantor(s) declare(s) that the DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS: $ _0_ County $ __ City $ __
____ Computed on the consideration or value of property conveyed; ____ Computed on the consideration or value less encumbrance remaining at time of sale.
_X_ Ciy is Exempt Gov’t Agency (Gov’t Code Sec. 27383)
Space above line for Recorder’s Use
APNs: 012-220-051

QUITCLAIM DEED
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, VALLEY VANGUARD PROPERTIES, INC, a California Corporation (“Grantor”), hereby REMISES, RELEASES, AND FOREVER QUITCLAIMS to the CITY OF MADERA, a municipal corporation (“Grantee”), that certain real property located in the City of Madera, County of Madera, State of California as legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“Property”).

Grantee acknowledges that it is accepting the Property in an “AS IS” condition in reliance of its own investigation and without representations and warranties except as otherwise specifically set forth in that certain “AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS STADIUM BASIN, MADERA, CALIFORNIA (‘Agreement’)”.

Upon recordation of this Quitclaim Deed and Agreement, Grantor shall have no financial responsibility for the Property except as provided for in the Agreement. Grantee shall have a power of termination (Civil Code § 885.010 et seq.) over the Property unless the Grantor gives prior written approval of the Grantee’s sale, exchange, or other transfer of the Property.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused this instrument to be executed on its behalf by its respective officers or agents hereunto as of ____________, 2023.

VALLEY VANGUARD PROPERTIES, INC.,
California Corporation
By _____________________________________
Mitch Covington
Chief Executive Officer

EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
For APN/Parcel ID(s): 012-220-051
______________________________________________________________________________ The land referred to in this report is situated in the City of Madera, the County of Madera, State of California, and is described as follows:

Lot A of Madera Bonita Village, in the City of Madera, County of Madera, State of California, according to the Map thereof recorded in Book 30, Pages 114 and 115 of Maps, Madera County Records.

Assessor's Parcel Numbers(s): 012-220-051
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California
County of
On this the _______________ before me, _________________________________________________, Date Here Insert Name and Title of the Officer
Personally appeared ___________________________________________________________________ Name(s) of Signer(s)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of
the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature of Notary Public
Place Notary Seal/Stamp Above

OPTIONAL
Completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document.

Description of the Attached Document
Title or Type of Document: ______________________________________________________________ Document Date: _________________________________________ Number of Pages: _____________ Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: ______________________________________________________ Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)
Signers Name: ___________________________
Corporate Officer – Title(s): _________________
Partner Limited General
Individual Attorney in Fact
Trustee Guardian or Conservator
Other:

Signer is Representing:

Signers Name: ___________________________
Corporate Officer – Title(s): _________________
Partner Limited General
Individual Attorney in Fact
Trustee Guardian or Conservator
Other:

Signer is Representing:

Exhibit C
Drainage Facilities Covenant

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by: Council Meeting of: November 1, 2023
_________________________________ Agenda Number: ___________ Keith Helmuth, P.E., Department Director
_________________________________
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:

Initiating Annexation Proceedings of properties into the City of Madera Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Zones of Benefit 1 & 51
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolutions to:

1. Initiate Proceedings Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the Annexation of Property into the City’s LMD Zone of Benefit 1, to Review the Assessments for Fiscal Year 2024/25, and Setting a Public Hearing

2. Initiate Proceedings Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the Annexation of Properties into the City’s LMD Zones of Benefit 51, to Review the Assessments for Fiscal Year 2024/25, and Setting a Public Hearing SUMMARY:

As part of the entitlement approval process, the following projects included a requirement to annex into one of the City’s existing LMD Zone of Benefit for perpetual maintenance of landscaping:
 Full Throttle Suspension - On February 19, 2019, the City approved Conditional Use Permits 2019-03 & 2019-04, and Site Plan Review 2019-05. Applicable Zone of Benefit - 1  Sherwood Apartments - On November 12, 2019, the City approved Precise Plan 2019-07.

Applicable Zone of Benefit - 51
 Grove Gardens - On May 12, 2020, the City approved General Plan Amendment 2020-02, Rezone 2020-01, Precise Plan 2020-03, and Variance 2020-02. Applicable Zone of Benefit - 51  Bellava Apartments - On October 8, 2019, the City approved Rezone 2019-04 and Precise Plan 2019-04. Applicable Zone of Benefit - 51
D-2
 Cal-Pacific Supply - On February 9, 2021, the City approved Site Plan Review 2020-16.

Applicable Zone of Benefit - 51
 Madera Industrial WHSE - On August 10, 2021, the City approved Site Plan Review 2021-24.

Applicable Zone of Benefit – 51
 Sugar Pine Village – On January 8, 2019, the City approved Precise Plan 2018-07. Applicable Zone of Benefit – 51
 Naz Sixplex – On November 12, 2019, the City approved Site Plan Review 2019-24 and Variance 2019-06. Applicable Zone of Benefit - 51
DISCUSSION:

As a condition of acceptance, the previously described properties are required to be annexed into one of the City’s LMD Zones of Benefit. All property owners have signed a Landowner’s Consent for annexation into their respective LMD Zone of Benefit, annexation into a City LMD zone covers the cost of shared landscaping in the City right-of-way within each project’s respective Zone of Benefit. Typically, common landscaping includes but is not limited to, shared landscaping, maintaining masonry walls, storm water holding ponds, and roundabouts.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Properties will be responsible for participating in the cost of maintaining existing and proposed landscaping within the subject zone. As such, there are no financial impacts to the General Fund so long as assessments are adjusted in a timely manner. The amount of each assessment is as follows:

Table 1: Assessment Amounts
Property Assessor’s Parcel # Annual Assessment
per Parcel
Full Throttle Suspension 013-050-006 $325.00
Sherwood Apartments 003-240-015 $98.56
Grove Gardens (16) 012-026-001 $56.00
Grove Gardens (18) 012-402-006 $162.54
Bellava Apartments 003-093-006 $9.92
Bellava Apartments 003-093-008 $0.00
Cal-Pacific Supply 009-350-024 $76.48
Cal-Pacific Supply 009-350-025 $76.48
Cal-Pacific Supply 009-350-026 $76.48
Cal-Pacific Supply 009-350-029 $344.42
Madera Industrial Whse 009-330-011 $870.00
Sugar Pine Village 011-143-006 $42.00
Sugar Pine Village 011-143-007 $133.00
Naz Sixplex 010-132-001 $15.86
ALTERNATIVES:

Not adopt resolution initiating annexation proceedings. If Council does not proceed with annexation proceedings into the existing LMD zones, the goal of spreading costs to as many eligible parcels as possible will be negatively impacted.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Zone Location Map

2. Resolution – Initiation of Proceedings for Annexation into Zone of Benefit 1 Exhibit A – Zone of Benefit 1 Zone Location Map
Exhibit B – Property to be Annexed into Zone of Benefit 1 Diagram Exhibit C – Assessment Amounts
Exhibit D – Annexation Consent and Protest Waiver, Full Throttle Suspension

3. Resolution – Initiation of Proceedings for Annexation into Zone of Benefit 51 Exhibit A – Zone of Benefit 51 Zone Location Map
Exhibit B – Property to be Annexed into Zone of Benefit 51 Diagram Exhibit C – Assessment Amounts
Exhibit D – Annexation Consent and Protest Waiver - Sherwood Apartments Exhibit E – Annexation Consent and Protest Waiver - Grove Gardens Exhibit F – Annexation Consent and Protest Waiver - Bellava Apartments Exhibit G – Annexation Consent and Protest Waiver - Cal-Pacific Supply Exhibit H – Annexation Consent and Protest Waiver - Madera Industrial WHSE Exhibit I – Annexation Consent and Protest Waiver - Sugar Pine Village Exhibit J – Annexation Consent and Protest Waiver - Naz Sixplex Attachment 1
Zone Location Map

Attachment 2
Resolution for Initiation of Proceedings for Annexation into Zone of Benefit 1 RESOLUTION NO. 23-_____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA,

CALIFORNIA INITIATING PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 FOR THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY INTO

CITY OF MADERA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (LMD) ZONE OF BENEFIT 1, TO REVIEW THE IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (“Act”) provides and establishes procedures for annexing properties to an existing Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District; and
WHEREAS, the City of Madera LMD (District) was formed by Resolution No. 91-67, approved June 17, 1991, pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972), herein the “Act” to levy and collect assessments to cover the cost of maintaining all landscaping, and irrigation systems within the District public right-ofway; and WHEREAS, not only will annexing this new development into the existing District ensure that all benefitting parcels share equally in the costs to maintain the improvements, but consolidating the benefitting developments into a single assessment district will facilitate their management by the City; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings for the annexation of the aforementioned tracts and public lands to the District are authorized by and will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 (commencing with Section 22500) of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 22608, resolutions, reports, notices of hearing, and the right of majority protest may be waived with the written consent of all landowners of the territory to be annexed; and
WHEREAS, Full Throttle Suspension is the landowner of the property proposed for annexation and generally located on Falcon Drive, just North of Avenue 16, as further described or depicted on Exhibit A (“Subject Property”) and diagrammed in Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, Full Throttle Suspension has provided a petition for annexation and written consent to waiver of resolutions, reports, notices of hearing, and the right of majority protest regarding the Subject Property, as well as consenting to the amount of the proposed levy for the current fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, as a result, no report by the City Engineer is required to be prepared and filed with the City Clerk which outlines the land to be annexed, etc.; and WHEREAS, this City Council now desires to proceed to adopt this Resolution of Intention to declare its intent to annex the Subject Property into LMD Zone of Benefit 1, and to set and specify the levy and collection of assessments, and to set a time and place for a public hearing relating to the annexation of the subject property into LMD Zone of Benefit 1.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA HEREBY, finds, orders, and resolves as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct.

2. The City Council proposes to annex the Subject Property into LMD Zone of Benefit 1 of City of Madera City of Madera Landscape Maintenance District formed by the City Council for the City of Madera per Resolution No. 91-67, approved June 17, 1991, pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code and pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Section 22500 and following, Streets and Highways Code). The property proposed to be annexed is identified on Exhibit “A” and diagrammed in Exhibit B.

3. The Subject Property proposed to be annexed and to be specifically charged for the improvements shall include all of the land identified on Exhibit “A” and shall be designated part of LMD Zone of Benefit 1

4. The improvements which are provided for the properties within City of Madera Landscape Maintenance District, and which shall be provided for the property within LMD Zone of Benefit 1 by and through the assessments levied annually thereon shall include the following:
a. The installation or planting of landscaping, including, but not limited to, street trees, parkways, and median islands; and
b. The installation or construction of irrigation systems; and c. The maintenance and servicing of any of the foregoing.

5. The City Engineer of the City of Madera is hereby designated the engineer for the annexation proceedings. The City Council finds that the landowner has presented a written consent, and that the engineer is not required to prepare and file with the City Clerk a report in accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 1 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the annexation proceedings, consistent with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

6. The City Engineer is hereby directed to review, and modify the assessments levied against parcels previously within LMD Zone of Benefit 1 district boundaries in accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 1 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the annexation proceedings, as required by Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The proposed assessments upon the lots and parcels of land are set forth in Exhibit “C.”

7. Notice is given that on December 20, 2023, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., in the regular meeting place of the City Council being the Council Chambers located at 205 W.

Fourth Street, Madera, California 93637, a public hearing will be held where this City Council will consider the authorization for the annexation of the Subject Property into City of Madera Landscape Maintenance District Zone of Benefit 1, the proposed assessment of the levy with the Subject Property and all other matters as set forth in this Resolution of Intention. Pursuant to the petition, all of the landowner(s) within the Subject Property have waived all applicable resolutions, reports, notices of hearing, and the right of majority protest.

At such public hearing, the testimony or protest of all interested persons for or against the annexation of the Subject Property or the imposition of levy of assessments within the Subject Property will be heard.

8. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption. * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Exhibit A
Zone of Benefit 1
Zone Location Map

Exhibit B
Property to be Annexed into Zone of Benefit 1 Diagram

Exhibit C
Assessment Amounts
Property Assessor’s Parcel # Assessment per Parcel
Full Throttle Suspension 013-050-006 $325.00
Exhibit D
Annexation Consent and Protest Waiver - Full Throttle Suspension

FTS Enterprises Inc
3551 W. Ashlan Ave
Fresno, CA 93722
RE: Petition (Including Consent and Waiver) Requesting Annexation To Madera Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Zone No. 1, Full p Suspension Dear City Council of the City of Madera:

The undersigned landowner does hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the following statements are all true and correct:

1. The undersigned is authorized to represent the landowner identified below and is its designated representative to request and petition the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Madera (the “City”) for annexation to Madera Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Zone No 1 (“Zone. 1”) pursuant to the provisions of Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (“Act”), commencing at California Streets and Highways Code section 22500 et seq., and to authorize certain other consents and waivers contained herein. The boundaries of the territory to be annexed are described on Exhibit “A” hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.

2. The landowner hereby certifies that as of the date indicated opposite of the undersigned’s signature, the landowner listed herein is the owner of the property within the proposed annexation boundary of Zone No. 1. (the “Property”), which Property’s boundary is further described in Exhibit “A” hereto.

3. The landowner, pursuant to Sections 22607 and 22585 et seq. of the Act, hereby requests that proceedings be commenced:
(a) To annex the Property to Zone No. 1 for the purposes including the following:
 The installation or planting of landscaping, including, but not limited to, street trees, parkways, and median islands;
 The installation or construction of irrigation systems;  Special amenities including, but not limited to, maintaining masonry walls, storm water holding ponds, and roundabouts; and
 The maintenance and servicing of any of the foregoing. (b) To authorize the levy of assessments on the Property in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment of Zone No. 1 to finance the above-mentioned services, incidental expenses and fees; and
(c) To authorize the issuance of bonds for Zone No. 1, if applicable.

4. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, and specifically Section 22608 for annexation proceedings, resolutions, report, notices of hearing, and right of majority protest shall be waived with written consent of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed, the landowner (i) expressly waives the resolutions, report, notices of hearing, and right of majority protest, and consents to a public hearing and adoption of a Resolution by the City Council ordering annexation and levy of the Property; and (ii) expressly waives any requirement to have a ballot and majority protest proceeding per Government Code Section 53753 or as may be permitted by the Act.

6. The landowner expressly waives all applicable waiting periods for the election and waives the requirement for analysis, engineer’s report, etc., and consents to not having such materials provided to the landowner, and expressly waives any requirements as to the form of the ballot.

8. The landowner acknowledges and agrees that the initial annual levy for the Zone No. 1, is currently $325 per parcel, and that the levy may be adjusted by the City in the future consistent with the Act.

9. The undersigned warrants it is the owner of one hundred percent (100%) of the Property. The undersigned warrants that there are no liens or encumbrances on the Property in the favor of any lender, including but not limited to any deeds of trust, mortgages, leases, or liens of a similar nature.

11. The undersigned agrees to execute such additional or supplemental agreements as may be required by the City to provide for any actions and conditions under this petition, including any amount of cash deposit required to pay for the City’s costs related to annexing into Zone No. 2.

12. The undersigned agrees to cooperate with the City, its attorneys and consultants and provide all information and disclosures required by the City regarding the assessment to purchasers of the Property or any part of it.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand this ____ day of ______________________ 2022.

OWNER: OWNER:

Frank Bertao Joseph Bertao

By: _________________________ By: _________________________ Frank Bertao Joseph Bertao
Owner: Owner
The address of the above owner for receiving notices is:

To:

With a copy to:

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MADERA THIS ______ DAY OF ________________________, 2022.
______________________________
Alicia Gonzales, City Clerk

EXHIBIT A
Legal Description

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of Madera, County of Madera, State of California, described as follows:

PARCEL B OF PARCEL MAP NO. 07-P-04, IN THE CITY OF MADERA, COUNTY OF MADERA, COUNTY OF MADERA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED JUNE 19, 2007, IN BOOK 57, PAGES 40 AND 41 OF PARCEL MAPS, MADERA COUNTY RECORDS.

APN: 013-050-006
Attachment 3
Resolution for Initiation of Proceedings for Annexation into Zone of Benefit 51 RESOLUTION NO. 23-_____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA,

CALIFORNIA INITIATING PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 FOR THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY INTO

CITY OF MADERA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (LMD) ZONE OF BENEFIT 51, TO REVIEW THE IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (“Act”) provides and establishes procedures for annexing properties to an existing Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District; and
WHEREAS, the City of Madera Landscape Maintenance District (District) was formed by Resolution No. 91-67, approved June 17, 1991, pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972), herein the “Act” to levy and collect assessments to cover the cost of maintaining all landscaping, and irrigation systems within the District public right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, not only will annexing this new development into the existing district ensure that all benefitting parcels share equally in the costs to maintain the improvements, but consolidating the benefitting developments into a single assessment district will facilitate their management by the City; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings for the annexation of the aforementioned tracts and public lands to the District are authorized by and will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 (commencing with Section 22500) of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 22608, resolutions, reports, notices of hearing, and the right of majority protest may be waived with the written consent of all landowners of the territory to be annexed; and
WHEREAS, Sherwood Apartments, Grove Gardens, Bellava Apartments, Cal-Pacific Supply, Madera Industrial WHSE, Sugar Pine Village, and Naz Sixplex are the landowners of the properties proposed for annexation and located at multiple locations as further described or depicted on EXHIBIT A (“Subject Property”) and diagrammed in Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, Property owners have provided a petition for annexation and written consent to waiver of resolutions, reports, notices of hearing, and the right of majority protest regarding their Subject Property, as well as consenting to the amount of the proposed levy for the current fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, as a result, no report by the City Engineer is required to be prepared and filed with the City Clerk which outlines the land to be annexed, etc.; and WHEREAS, this City Council now desires to proceed to adopt this Resolution of Intention to declare its intent to annex the Subject Properties into LMD Zone of Benefit 51, and to set and specify the levy and collection of assessments, and to set a time and place for a public hearing relating to the annexation of the Subject Properties into LMD Zone of Benefit 51.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA HEREBY, finds, orders, and resolves as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct.

2. The City Council proposes to annex the Subject Properties into LMD Zone of Benefit 51 of City of Madera City of Madera Landscape Maintenance District formed by the City Council for the City of Madera per Resolution No. 91-67, approved June 17, 1991, pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code and pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Section 22500 and following, Streets and Highways Code). The property proposed to be annexed is identified on Exhibit “A” and diagrammed in Exhibit “B”.

3. The Subject Properties proposed to be annexed and to be specifically charged for the improvements shall include all of the land identified on Exhibit “A” and shall be designated part of LMD Zone of Benefit 51

4. The improvements which are provided for the properties within City of Madera Landscape Maintenance District, and which shall be provided for the properties within LMD Zone of Benefit 51 by and through the assessments levied annually thereon shall include the following:
a. The installation or planting of landscaping, including, but not limited to, street trees, parkways, and median islands; and
b. The installation or construction of irrigation systems; and c. The maintenance and servicing of any of the foregoing.

5. The City Engineer of the City of Madera is hereby designated the engineer for the annexation proceedings. The City Council finds that the landowners have presented a written consent, and that the engineer is not required to prepare and file with the City Clerk a report in accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 1 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the annexation proceedings, consistent with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

6. The City Engineer is hereby directed to review, and modify the assessments levied against parcels previously within LMD Zone of Benefit 51 district boundaries in accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 1 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the annexation proceedings, as required by Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The proposed assessments upon the lots and parcels of land are set forth in Exhibit “C.”

7. Notice is given that on December 20, 2023, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., in the regular meeting place of the City Council being the Council Chambers located at 205 W.

Fourth Street, Madera, California 93637, a public hearing will be held where this City Council will consider the authorization for the annexation of the Subject Property into City of Madera Landscape Maintenance District Zone of Benefit 51, the proposed assessment of the levy with the Subject Property and all other matters as set forth in this Resolution of Intention. Pursuant to the petition, all of the landowner(s) within the Subject Property have waived all applicable resolutions, reports, notices of hearing, and the right of majority protest.

At such public hearing, the testimony or protest of all interested persons for or against the annexation of the Subject Property or the imposition of levy of assessments within the Subject Property will be heard.

8. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption. * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Exhibit A
Zone of Benefit 51 Location Map

Exhibit B
Properties to be Annexed into Zone of Benefit 51 Diagram

Exhibit C
Assessment Amounts
Property Assessor's Parcel #
Annual
Assessment
per Parcel
Sherwood Apartments 003-240-015 $98.56
Grove Gardens (16) 012-026-001 $56.00
Grove Gardens (18) 012-402-006 $162.54
Bellava Apartments 003-093-006 $9.92
Bellava Apartments 003-093-008 $0.00
Cal-Pacific Supply 009-350-024 $76.48
Cal-Pacific Supply 009-350-025 $76.48
Cal-Pacific Supply 009-350-026 $76.48
Cal-Pacific Supply 009-350-029 $344.42
Madera Industrial Whse 009-330-011 $870.00
Sugar Pine Village 011-143-006 $42.00
Sugar Pine Village 011-143-007 $133.00
Naz Sixplex 010-132-001 $15.86
Exhibit D
Annexation Consent and Protest Waiver - Sherwood Apartments

Exhibit E
Annexation Consent and Protest Waiver - Grove Gardens

Exhibit F
Annexation Consent and Protest Waiver - Bellava Apartments

Exhibit G
Annexation Consent and Protest Waiver - Cal-Pacific Supply

Exhibit H
Annexation Consent and Protest Waiver - Madera Industrial WHSE

Exhibit I
Annexation Consent and Protest Waiver - Sugar Pine Village

Exhibit J
Annexation Consent and Protest Waiver - Naz Sixplex

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by:
_________________________________
Council Meeting of: November 1, 2023
Agenda Number: E-1
Keith Helmuth, City Engineer
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:

Discussion Regarding the Methodology Currently Utilized in the Consideration of Crosswalks RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council review this report and provide feedback regarding the Methodology utilized in the consideration of crosswalks.

SUMMARY:

The intent of this report is to discuss the methodology utilized by staff to, with a reasonable basis, assert how a crosswalk would perform its function of providing a safer crossing than that which existed prior to its installation.

BACKGROUND:

Requests for new crosswalk locations are a relatively common occurrence. The underlying requests are typically based on concern or, in many cases the fear that someone will eventually be hurt at the proposed location unless a crosswalk is installed. Occasionally, the basis for the request is related to a recent accident or an observed near miss. Upon receipt of a request, it is incumbent on the City to determine the proper response. Unfortunately, statistics may not support the belief that a location will be safer following the installation of a crosswalk. The response is based on a number of criteria that assist staff in selecting the proper response. That criterion includes:
 Number of travel lanes to be crossed
 Distance to nearest other crossing location
 Speed limit
 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) – the number of vehicles crossing the proposed crosswalk in an average day
 Accident History
The table below is an excerpt from Guidelines for the Installation of Marked Crosswalks published by the Traffic Engineering Division of the Virginia Department of Transportation in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This table is an updated graphic from Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations published by the FHWA. The table represents a tool used in determining the improvements associated with a new crosswalk if a crosswalk is determined to be appropriate for the location under review. It does not represent the sole determining factor in whether a crosswalk should be installed. It represents one resource to be considered. As seen in the table, the type of improvement depends on the combination of speed, ADT, and number of lanes at the location under review. The improvements may vary from a standard crosswalk (no additional improvements) to a crosswalk that may include special markings and signage, flashing lights, pedestrian refuge, or even a protected pedestrian crossing signal where cars must stop at a red light.

DISCUSSION:

Staff’s experience and review over the course of several years has encountered numerous statistics that attempt to quantify the appropriateness of new crosswalks and their potential for providing a safer crossing of previously unmarked locations. In general, the statistics indicate that a marked crosswalk, in many situations, can expect a higher crash rate in comparison to an unmarked location. There seems to be no definitive consensus amongst traffic engineers as to why this is the case, though one potential explanation is that pedestrians may be less vigilant of driver reactions and intent when using a crosswalk.

The exhibit below from Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations published by the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration on September 2005 illustrates crash rates for various types of crossings. For two-lane roadways, the pedestrian crash rate is generally considered about equal for marked versus unmarked locations.

For multi-lane streets with higher traffic counts the data shows that the crash rate is higher where marked verses unmarked crosswalks exist. The difference in crash rates varies in significance, with the most significant variations occurring on streets where there are no raised medians. It should be noted that this exhibit does not include speed limit as a factor.

Recently, the Police Department performed enforcement activities at crosswalks, during which they recorded 32 violations of the crosswalks by drivers while pedestrians were in the crosswalk.

They also reported instances of pedestrians entering crosswalks when they should have yielded to vehicles.

San Diego Methodology
The City of San Diego to date is one of the few cities with a policy in place in regard to qualifying a location for crosswalks. The methodology (See Attachment 1 for San Diego’s guidelines) is outlined in their Council Policy 200-07 which was adopted in 1990 and updated in 2015 assigns point warrants and basic warrants to be met similarly to how the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) does for the application of Traffic Signals. There are 6 warrants in their analysis of a location for a crosswalk, including:
 Pedestrian Volume Warrant
 Approach Speed Warrant
 Nearest Controlled Crossing
 Visibility Warrant
 Illumination Warrant
 Accessibility Warrant
The point warrants have a total possible score of 38 points. To qualify for an installation of a marked crosswalk, a location must meet each of the basic warrants and score a minimum of 16 points in the point warrants. A summary of each of the point warrants and the allocation of points is presented below.

In conclusion, the decision to install a crosswalk is not a simple or trivial one. As described herein, staff uses an informal methodology in which the locations are analyzed for more than just an acknowledgment that pedestrians crossed what might be considered an unsafe location. Other factors are explored to find the location that best fits and could be improved to ensure the crosswalk does more than make the pedestrian feel safer. Ultimately, it is staff’s goal to ensure that a crosswalk, if installed, is as safe or safer than the situation in which no crosswalk was available. If considered less safe, the crosswalk should be installed only if additional safety improvements are installed.

At present, staff is utilizing an informal methodology that it considers best practice for the review of proposed crosswalks. Staff is considering implementing a formal methodology and is requesting Council input.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund.

ALTERNATIVES:

No action/alternative at this time.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – San Diego Crosswalk Guidelines
Attachment 1
San Diego Crosswalk Guidelines
Prepared by:

Prepared for:

City of San Diego
City of San Diego
Pedestrian Crosswalk Guidelines
2015
Page i
City of San Diego
Pedestrian Crosswalk Guidelines

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ iii

1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose of the Report...................................................................................................................... 1 Setting and Background Information............................................................................................... 1 Community Outreach....................................................................................................................... 2 Report Overview.............................................................................................................................. 2

2. CROSSWALK WARRANTS AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES .................................................................. 3 Pedestrian Risk Model ..................................................................................................................... 3 Uncontrolled Crosswalk Warrants and Implementation................................................................. 5 Pedestrian Treatments at Controlled Intersections ...................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A – PEDESTRIAN RISK MODEL...........................................................................................A‐1 Study Intersections and Unit of Analysis ..................................................................................... A‐2 Data Collection............................................................................................................................. A‐6 Statistical Analysis........................................................................................................................ A‐8 Pedestrian Risk Model Results................................................................................................... A‐12 APPENDIX B – CONTINENTAL CROSSWALK STANDARD DETAIL ..........................................................B‐1

Table of Contents
Page ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure A‐1: Pedestrian Risk Model Study Intersections......................................................................... A‐3 Figure A‐2: Eight Units of Analysis at each Study Intersection.............................................................. A‐5 Figure B‐1: Continental Crosswalk Standard Detail................................................................................B‐2

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2‐1:   Pedestrian Risk Model Independent Variables........................................................................ 4 Table 2‐2:   Point Warrants......................................................................................................................... 8 Table 2‐3:   Crossing Treatment Thresholds for Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks.................................10 Table 2‐4:   Crossing Treatments for Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks if Warrants are Met.................11 Table 2‐5:   Uncontrolled Intersection and Mid‐Block Crossing Treatments........................................... 12 Table 2‐6:   Treatments at Controlled Intersections ................................................................................ 16 Table A‐1:   Thirty‐Seven Study Intersection Locations.......................................................................... A‐4 Table A‐2:   Interpretation of Alpha‐Number Codes in Figure 3‐2 ......................................................... A‐5 Table A‐3:   Dependent Variable and Descriptive Statistics.................................................................... A‐6 Table A‐4:   Independent Variables and Descriptive Statistics............................................................... A‐7 Table A‐5A:   Pearson Correlation Test Results......................................................................................... A‐9 Table A‐5B:   Pearson Correlation Test Results....................................................................................... A‐10 Table A‐6:   Pedestrian Collision Risk Model......................................................................................... A‐13

Page iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of San Diego’s Pedestrian Crosswalk Guidelines seeks to improve pedestrian safety with enhanced street crossings.   These guidelines serve to accomplish the following safety improvements for pedestrians in the City of San Diego:
 More pedestrian crossings will qualify for marked crosswalks.  More marked crosswalks will have features like traffic calming or flashing beacons.

The California Vehicle Code specifies that crosswalks can be either unmarked or marked.  The Pedestrian Crosswalk Guidelines provides a systematic approach to evaluate pedestrian crossing locations for the installation of marked crosswalks and additional pedestrian safety treatments.   The creation of a pedestrian risk model assisted in the development of the uncontrolled crosswalk warrant system, crossing treatment thresholds, and crossing treatment categories, presented in Chapter 2.

Pedestrian Risk Model
A pedestrian risk model was developed to assess built environment and behavioral factors thought to influence a pedestrian’s risk while crossing roadways.  The model used 14 years of pedestrian‐related collision data (1999 – 2012) from the City of San Diego, representing over 7,000 total pedestrian‐related collisions.

The model identified variables with a statistically significant relationship to pedestrian risk.

The following variables are associated with increased pedestrian risk:  ADT, posted speed limit, crosswalk condition, marked crosswalks, and locations where pedestrian crossing is restricted but evidence shows pedestrians are illegally crossing.   Variables associated with decreased pedestrian risk include the following:  the presence of pedestrian warning signage, the presence of pedestrian signal heads, population levels, and employment levels.

Uncontrolled Crosswalk Warrant and Implementation
The uncontrolled crosswalk warrant recommendations provide guidance for evaluating uncontrolled locations for the installation of marked crosswalks and additional pedestrian safety treatments.   This warrant system builds on the previous warrant system in the 1990 Council Policy 200‐07, and was developed using results from the pedestrian risk model.  Similar to the existing warrant system, the recommended system contains both Basic Warrants and Point Warrants.

A proposed location must satisfy each of the Basic Warrants and score a minimum of 16 points out of 38 possible points in the Point Warrant system to qualify for a marked crosswalk.  Under the previous Point Warrant system, a location needed to score a minimum of 16 points out of 34 possible. In addition, the “Pedestrian Volume Warrant” threshold was reduced; a new “Latent Pedestrian Demand Warrant” was created and may be used in lieu of the “Pedestrian Volume Warrant”; individual “General Condition Warrant” point values were increased from

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page iv
two points to three points, and the general conditions were consolidated from seven into six.

Finally, the “Gap Time Warrant” scoring was revised to follow a bell‐shaped distribution rather than a linear distribution.   This warrant system elevates the pedestrian to a more balanced status with vehicles, bicycles, and other modes of transportation.  It is expected to result in an increase in the number of locations qualifying for marked crosswalks.

If a location meets each of the Basic Warrants and scores a minimum of 16 points in the Point Warrants it qualifies for a marked crosswalk.   However, before the installation of a marked crosswalk can be approved, additional treatments must be installed.   A table identifies the category of crossing treatment that is needed based on vehicle volumes, vehicle speeds, and crossing distance.  Another table lists the crossing treatments available to choose from within each category.  Treatment descriptions are provided in a supplemental table.

A final table identifies potential treatments to consider at controlled intersections, including a description and general guidance regarding their installation or use.

1. INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Report
The Pedestrian Crosswalk Guidelines (the
Guidelines) presents an update to the City’s
existing policy warrants for the installation
of marked crosswalks.   The updated policy
warrants provide a more current procedure
for assessing pedestrian crossing
improvements at uncontrolled and
controlled locations across the City.

This document summarizes the process
used to develop the Guidelines, including:

Setting and Background Information
The Guidelines serve as an update to the
City of San Diego’s current pedestrian
crosswalk warrants as set forth in the 1990
Council Policy 200‐07.

There have been significant advances in
both technology and practice aimed at
improving pedestrian safety since the City’s
last guidelines were adopted.  Additionally,
current state and national guidance
provides improved direction for local
governments.    The Guidelines serve to
incorporate these changes and provide
recommendations for improving pedestrian
crosswalk safety in San Diego.
 Identification of new and
innovative traffic control
devices and techniques
 Creation of a pedestrian risk
model
 Update of marked crosswalk
warrants
 Creation of a procedure for
evaluating crossing
treatment options

1. INTRODUCTION

Community Outreach
Two community workshops were held over
the course of this study.   Additional
outreach was provided through a Project
Working Group (PWG) and a project
webpage.

The workshops provided members of the
public an opportunity to learn about the
study, view working documents and ask
questions.    Another focus was to learn
about community members’ concerns and
issues related to pedestrian safety within
their community.

The PWG, consisting of pedestrian safety
professionals, pedestrian advocates, and
stakeholders in the community, was
established to serve as a community
advisory group.   PWG members were
consulted regarding study site selection,
data collection, and additional community
outreach.

A project webpage
was hosted on the
City’s website to
provide community
members an online
source to learn
about the project,
about ways to get
involved, view
working documents
and workshop
materials, and
provide comments or ask questions.

Project webpage:
(http://www.sandiego.gov/tsw/projects/pe
destriansafetystudy.shtml)
Report Overview
Chapter 2 summarizes key findings from a
pedestrian risk model developed using data
collected at 60 study sites across the City of
San Diego, representing a variety of
roadway environments and crossing
locations.   The model is presented in its
entirety in Appendix A.  The model analyzes
the significance of four variable types
believed to influence pedestrian risk:

1. Driver & Pedestrian Behavior

2. Roadway Design

3. Intersection Design

4. Population Characteristics
Chapter 2 also presents Basic and Point
Warrants for evaluating the installation of
marked crosswalks at uncontrolled
locations, along with guidance for enhanced
crossing treatments depending on vehicle
volumes, speeds, and crossing distances.

2. CROSSWALK WARRANTS AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES
Crosswalks are defined in the California Vehicle Code Section 275 as:
(a)   That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street.
(b)   Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.

This chapter presents pedestrian crossing warrants and treatment recommendations, which were developed based on a review of best practices across the country, as well as an examination of pedestrian risk using a locally‐specified statistical model to illuminate relationships between pedestrian risk and driver behavior, roadway environment, intersection characteristics and population characteristics.    This chapter first summarizes the pedestrian risk model, and then presents the warrants, concluding with crossing treatment recommendations.

Pedestrian Risk Model
A pedestrian risk model was developed to assess the roadway environment and other behavioral factors thought to influence a pedestrian’s risk of collision while crossing a roadway.

The purpose of the risk model is to provide information for updating the City’s marked crosswalk policy.   This chapter includes a brief description of the model, while full documentation of the model is presented in Appendix A.

The model drew from 14 years of pedestrian‐related collision data (1999 – 2012) collected in the City of San Diego, representing over 7,000 total pedestrian‐related collisions.  The model evaluated increases and decreases to pedestrian risk while controlling for other variables. A limitation of the project is that all of the variables are compared concurrently in the model without regard to the type of controls present at the crossings.  While separating the variables by type of control and other common characteristics may shed further light upon the results, this study was limited to the analysis of all variables combined, with the exception of the transit variable.   The results are statistically significant for the conclusions drawn from the analysis.

The variables are intended to describe the causal factors of pedestrian risk and are divided into four groups:
 Driver Behavior
 Roadway Environment
 Intersection Characteristics
 Population Characteristics

2. CROSSWALK WARRANTS AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES

Table 2‐1 presents each of the independent variables comprising the four categories listed above.

The model found a number of variables with a statistically significant relationship associated with increase to pedestrian risk and decrease to pedestrian risk.

Table 2-1: Pedestrian Risk Model Independent Variables
Driver Behavior Roadway Environment Intersection
Characteristics
Population
Characteristics
 85% Traffic Speed  Parking Lane Width
 Sidewalk Width
 Buffer Width
 Bike Parking
 Bike Lane Width
 Posted Speed Limit
 Approach Side
 Informal Crossing
 Obstruction
Presence
 Bus Stop Presence
 Bikeway Type
 Bikeway Color
 Pedestrian Signage
 # of Lanes
 Average Daily
Traffic (ADT)
 Vehicle Gap
 Crossing Distance
 Pedestrian Signal
Button
 Advanced Stop
Presence
 Signalized
 Curb Ramp Type
 Truncated Dome
Color
 Crosswalk Color
 Pedestrian Signal
Head
 Median Refuge
Width
 Crosswalk Style
 Crosswalk
Condition
 Population within
500 feet of study
intersection
 Employment within
500 feet of study
intersection
 Median household
income within 500
feet of study
intersections
Source:  Chen Ryan Associates; SafeTREC (February, 2015) The following variables are associated with an increase in pedestrian risk: ADT, posted speed limit, crosswalk condition, marked crosswalks, and locations where pedestrian crossing is restricted but evidence shows pedestrians are crossing illegally.

Variables such as ADT and posted speed limit are already considered when determining whether a marked crosswalk is warranted.  Crosswalk condition shows that it is essential that crosswalks be well maintained. Crosswalks in poor maintenance condition fail to gain the driver’s attention that they are intended to command.

Several studies such as the Herms Pedestrian Crosswalk Study, and the 2005 report titled “Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines” by Charles V. Zeeger, et al. recommend caution when marking crosswalks at uncontrolled locations. Crosswalks are typically marked white or yellow.  Using

2. CROSSWALK WARRANTS AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES

yellow for marking crosswalks in school areas is mandated by the California Vehicle Code and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD).   The risk model results validate the conclusions of previous studies and recommend an engineering warrant approach to the installation of all marked crosswalks.

Locations where pedestrian restrictions have been placed to prevent pedestrians from crossing are identified in the risk model as having a higher propensity for pedestrian collisions.  These results highlight the need for pedestrians to be educated on the high risk of injury from crossing at locations where drivers are not expecting pedestrians.

The following variables are associated with a decrease in pedestrian risk: presence of pedestrian warning signage, presence of pedestrian signal heads, population levels, and employment levels.

Locations where pedestrian warning signage was present in advance of the crosswalks showed lower pedestrian risk.   This finding validates the need to maintain at least the minimum advance warning signage that supplements marked crossings following the standards in the CA MUTCD.  When a location is controlled with a traffic signal and has a pedestrian signal head, pedestrian risk is lower; however, vehicle turning movements may impact pedestrian risk at these locations and turning movements should be closely evaluated when determining signal phasing and turning restrictions.  Population and employment levels were evaluated based on census tract data. This analysis showed that high population and employment density locations had lower pedestrian risk near the study locations.

In addition to the pedestrian risk model analysis, an isolated variable analysis was conducted which looked at each variable individually without the impacts of all other variables.  Through this analysis, the presence of a bus stop was found to be associated with an increase in pedestrian risk.   This variable has been included as a factor to be considered in the marked crosswalk warrants.

The remainder of this chapter presents methods for determining whether a marked crosswalk is warranted at a proposed uncontrolled pedestrian crossing location, as well as any additional treatments that may be required with the installation of a marked crosswalk.   Pedestrian crossing treatment toolboxes for both uncontrolled and controlled crossings are also provided in this section.

Uncontrolled Crosswalk Warrants and Implementation
This section presents guidance for assessing uncontrolled intersections and mid‐block locations for potential installation of marked crosswalks and additional pedestrian safety treatments.

This warrant system builds on the warrant system in Council Policy 200–07, and incorporates findings from the pedestrian risk model.  This warrant system is more flexible and also includes new factors to improve alignment with regional smart growth goals, complete streets

2. CROSSWALK WARRANTS AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES

principles, and community members’ overall desire to make streets and roadways more walkable.   It elevates the status of pedestrians to be more in balance with vehicles, bicycles, and other modes of transportation.  It is expected to result in more proposed marked crosswalk locations meeting the warrants.   The warrant system also provides a comprehensive list of treatments that can improve safety at marked crosswalk locations and provide an enhanced walking environment across the city.

Engineering judgment should be used to apply these guidelines or adjust them to fit individual field site conditions.   These guidelines are not intended to be a substitute for engineering knowledge, experience or judgment.

Overview of Evaluation Process
This report proposes a warrant system (Basic Warrants and Point Warrants) to assess the installation of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled crossing locations.   The warrants and treatment evaluation are described below.

Basic Warrants – Requirements contained in each of the six (6) Basic Warrants (pedestrian volume or latent pedestrian demand, approach speed, distance to nearest controlled crossing, visibility, illumination, and accessibility) must be met in order for a currently uncontrolled location to be considered for the installation of a marked crosswalk.

Point Warrant – If the requirements contained in each of the Basic Warrants are met, the uncontrolled location is then evaluated using the Point Warrants.  The Point Warrants have separate categories, with 38 possible points available.  An uncontrolled location needs 16 points or more to qualify for the installation of a marked crosswalk.

Additional Treatments – Before a marked crosswalk can be approved, additional crossing treatments need to be installed.  Table 2‐3 identifies categories for crossing treatments that that are based on thresholds considering vehicle volumes, vehicle speeds, and crossing distances.  Table 2‐4 lists the crossing treatments for each category.

Inputs to Evaluation of Uncontrolled Crossing Locations The following data inputs are required to evaluate an uncontrolled location for installation of a marked crosswalk:
 Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes or
Latent Pedestrian Demand
 85th Percentile Speed
 Vehicular Approach Visibility
 Presence of Lighting
 Accessibility
 Nearest Controlled Crossing Distance
 Surrounding Land Uses
 Presence of Bus Stop
 Additional Extenuating Factors

2. CROSSWALK WARRANTS AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES

Basic Warrants
In order for a proposed uncontrolled location to qualify for a marked crosswalk and supplemental treatments, a location must meet each of the following Basic Warrants.

1. Pedestrian Volume Warrant
Pedestrian volumes must be equal to or greater than ten (10) pedestrians per hour during the peak pedestrian hour.  Children under 13, elderly over 64 years and/or disabled persons count as 1.5 pedestrians.  Alternatively, this warrant can be satisfied using Latent Pedestrian Demand if conditions (a), (b), or (c) under Table 2‐2, 2‐2.1b are met.

2. Approach Speed Warrant
The 85th percentile approach speed must be equal to or lower than 40 MPH.   This warrant does not apply when a pedestrian hybrid beacon or a pedestrian traffic signal will be installed.

3. Nearest Controlled Crossing
The proposed location must be further than 250 feet from the nearest controlled crossing location (measured from the nearest edge of the proposed marked crosswalk to the closest edge of the controlled crossing).

4. Visibility Warrant
The motorist must have an unrestricted view of all pedestrians at the proposed location for the distance required by the following table (stopping sight distance is to be interpolated when 85th percentile speed is between 5 mph increments):
85th Percentile Speed
(MPH)
Stopping Sight Distance
(feet)
25 150
30 200
35 250
40 300
Source: Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Table 201.1(March 7, 2014)

5. Illumination Warrant
The proposed location must have existing lighting.

6. Accessibility Warrant
The proposed location must have existing accessibility to disabled pedestrians or have accessibility improvements programmed.

2. CROSSWALK WARRANTS AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES

Point Warrants
The Point Warrant has a total possible score of 38 points.   As stated above, to qualify for installation of a marked crosswalk, a location must meet each of the Basic Warrants and score a minimum of 16 points in the Point Warrants.  A summary of each of the Point Warrants and the allocation of points is presented in Table 2‐2.   A discussion of each of the Point Warrant variables follows the table.

Table 2-2: Point Warrants
2‐2.1a Pedestrian Volume Warrant
Number of Pedestrians (Peak Hour) Points Total Available Points
10 – 25 4
26 – 50 8 10
51+ 10
2‐2.1b Latent Pedestrian Demand Warrant (in lieu of Pedestrian Volume Warrant) Condition Points Total Available
Points
(a)  The proposed crosswalk is in a commercial, mixed land use, or high density residential area.
3 (b)  A pedestrian or shared use path is interrupted by a restricted crossing. 3 10 (c)  A pedestrian attractor/generator is directly adjacent to the proposed crosswalk as defined in the explanatory notes below. 4
2‐2.2 General Condition Warrant
Condition Points Total Available
Points
(a) The nearest controlled crossing is greater than 300 feet from the proposed crosswalk. 3
18 (b) The proposed crosswalk will position pedestrians to be better seen by motorists. 3
(c) The proposed crosswalk will establish a mid‐block crossing between adjacent signalized intersections or it will connect an existing pedestrian path.
3 (d) The proposed crosswalk is located within ¼ mile of pedestrian attractors/generators as defined in the explanatory notes below. 3 (e) An existing bus stop is located within 100 feet of the proposed crosswalk. 3
(f) Other factors. 3

2. CROSSWALK WARRANTS AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES

Table 2-2: Point Warrants (continued)
2‐2.3 Gap Time Warrant
Average Number of Vehicular Gaps per 5‐Minute Period Points Total Available Points
0 – 0.99 0
10 1 – 1.99 1
2 – 2.99 8
3 – 3.99 10
4 – 4.99 8
5 – 5.99 1
6 or over 0
Total Available Points 38
Table 2‐2 Explanatory Notes:
2‐2.1a Pedestrian Volume Warrant
The Pedestrian Volume Warrant assigns point values based on pedestrian crossing volumes at the proposed crosswalk.  Children under 13, elderly over 64 years and/or disabled persons count as 1.5 pedestrians. 2‐2.1b Latent Pedestrian Demand Warrant (in lieu of Pedestrian Volume Warrant) The Latent Pedestrian Demand Warrant may be used in lieu of the Pedestrian Volume Warrant. 2‐2.2 General Condition Warrant
The General Condition Warrant presents six (6) unique categories. A location can score either zero (0) or three (3) points for each unique category, making a total 18 possible points available.  The general conditions include the following:
(a) The nearest controlled crossing is greater than 300 feet from the proposed crosswalk.

The distance should be measured from the proposed location of the crosswalk to the nearest controlled intersection, i.e. stop sign, traffic signal, etc. (b) The proposed crosswalk will position pedestrians to be better seen by motorists.

This condition should be considered at locations where one leg of the intersection provides better sight distance than the other legs.
(c) The proposed crosswalk will establish a mid‐block crossing between adjacent signalized intersections.

This warrant refers to a condition where there is a high pedestrian attractor/generator nearby, and adequate crossing can be provided that could help channelize a recognized heavy flow of mid‐block pedestrians.
(d) The proposed crosswalk is located within ¼ mile of the following pedestrian attractors/generators as defined below:
‐ International Border Crossing
‐ Major Multi‐Modal Transit Centers (>10,000 boardings per day) ‐ Transit Stops (>1,000boardings per day)
‐ Elementary/Middle/ High Schools
‐ Universities and Colleges
‐ Neighborhood Civic Facilities (Libraries, Post Office & Religious Facilities)

2. CROSSWALK WARRANTS AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES

‐ Neighborhood and Community Retail
‐ Pedestrian Intensive Beaches
‐ Parks & Recreation (excludes non‐useable open space)
‐ Mixed Land Uses (housing near employment and/or commercial) (e) A bus stop is located within 100 feet of the proposed crosswalk.

This warrant is applicable if there is a bus stop within 100‐feet of the proposed crosswalk. (f) Other factors.

Other factors allow for extenuating circumstances not covered in the proposed warrants.  This is to be evaluated using engineering judgment.
2‐2.3 Gap Time Warrant
Gap time is the time needed for a pedestrian to cross the travelled lanes of a roadway at an average walking speed without the need for a driver to yield.  The number of usable gaps (or gaps that exceed the minimum time needed to cross) are counted during the peak vehicular hour and averaged per five‐minute period.

Crossing Treatments
If the proposed crossing location meets the criteria set by both the Basic and Point Warrants, the next step is to evaluate the most appropriate crossing treatment(s) to be installed with the marked crosswalk.   Table 2‐3 provides thresholds for determining whether additional treatments are required prior to installing a marked crosswalk.  The thresholds are based on vehicle volumes, vehicle speeds, and pedestrian crossing distance at the proposed location.

Location types are divided into categories A, B, C and D, and are used to determine the appropriate treatment for the proposed location.

Source: City of San Diego (February, 2015)
Crossing Treatments
Table 2‐4 presents treatment requirements for the categories shown in Table 2‐3.   As new devices or treatments are proven, they may be considered in lieu of these treatments, with the City Engineer’s approval.

Table 2-3: Crossing Treatment Thresholds for Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks if Warrants are Met Crossing
Distance2
Roadway ADT
(vehicles per day)
< 1,500 1,501 – 5,000 5,001 – 12,000 12,001 – 15,000 > 15,000 < 40’ A B B C C D1
40’ to 52’ A B C C D1 D
> 52’ A B C1 C D1 D D

1.  For streets with more than one lane at an approach or posted speed limit 30 mph or greater.

2.  Crossing distance can be measured to a pedestrian refuge island if one is present.

2. CROSSWALK WARRANTS AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES

Table 2-4: Crossing Treatments for Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks if Warrants are Met Category Crossing Treatments
A
The following is required:
 (W11‐2) Pedestrian Warning Signage with the corresponding (W16‐7P) arrow plaque B
At least one of the following is required:
 (R1‐6) State Law – Yield to Pedestrian sign if median is present  Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
 Raised crosswalk or other traffic calming treatments if the City of San Diego’s Traffic Calming Guidelines are met
C
At least two of the following are required:
 Radar Speed Feedback Signs
 Striping changes such as narrower lanes, painted medians, road diets, or other speed reducing treatments.
 RRFBs
 Staggered crosswalks and pedestrian refuge island
 Horizontal deflection traffic calming treatments1 if the City of San Diego’s Traffic Calming Guidelines are met
D
A Traffic Signal is required if the CA MUTCD warrants are met and it is recommended by a traffic engineering study.  Otherwise at least one of the following is required:
 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon if the CA MUTCD warrants are met  Horizontal deflection traffic calming treatment1 with RRFBs if the City of San Diego’s Traffic Calming Guidelines are met

1.  Horizontal deflection treatments include, but are not limited to:  roundabouts, pedestrian refuge islands, and pedestrian bulb‐outs.

Source: City of San Diego (February, 2015)
Continental Crosswalks
The continental crosswalk, which is a high visibility crosswalk, is the City’s standard crosswalk design for all marked crosswalk locations.  Continental crosswalks have been shown to be more visible to approaching motorists and have been shown to improve yielding behavior.

Continental crosswalks, along with the treatments identified in Table 2‐4 will enhance the pedestrian environment at marked crosswalks.

Table 2‐5 provides a toolbox of crossing treatments including a graphic example and definition of the treatments.

2. CROSSWALK WARRANTS AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES

Table 2-5: Uncontrolled Intersection and Mid-Block Crossing Treatments Treatment Description When to Use
(Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon)
Photo: Mike Cynecki (2009), from
pedbikesafe.org
A pedestrian hybrid beacon is a
special type of beacon used to
warn and control traffic at an
unsignalized, marked crossing
location. Pedestrian hybrid
beacons should only be used in
conjunction with a marked
crosswalk. The alternating red
flashers allow vehicles to stop and
then proceed if the pedestrian has
already passed them, reducing
motorist delay.

Reference CA MUTCD Chapter 4F
Best suited for uncontrolled
crossing locations on multi‐lane,
higher speed or volume roadways
where there is a need to provide
pedestrian crossings without
excessive delay to motor vehicles.

Examples of these locations
include school crossings, access to
parks and senior centers, or
neighborhood street crossings.

Applicable Crossing Treatment
Categories:

D
Rectangular Rapid Flash
Beacon (RRFB)
The Rectangular Rapid Flash
Beacon (RRFB) is a pedestrian
crossing warning sign
supplemented with flashing
beacons that provide a high‐
visibility strobe‐like warning to
drivers when activated.

Pedestrians activate the beacon
through pushbuttons or other
detectors, which then begin
flashing the lights, alerting drivers
of a pedestrian. Signs are placed on
both sides of a crosswalk, to face
each direction of traffic.

RRFBs should be used to
supplement standard crossing
warning signage and markings at
locations without YIELD, STOP, or
traffic signal controls. RRFBs
should be reserved for locations
with significant pedestrian safety
issues. RRFBs are best suited for
two‐lane streets.

Applicable Crossing Treatment
Category:

B, C and D
Curb Extensions (Pop‐outs) Intersection pop‐outs are curb extensions that narrow the street
at intersections by widening the
sidewalks at the point of crossing.

They are used to make pedestrian
crossings shorter and reduce the
width of long, straight streets.

Intersection pop‐outs must
accommodate cyclists, transit
vehicles and emergency response
vehicles. Pop‐outs improve
pedestrian visibility to the driver,
create shorter pedestrian crossing
widths, and may reduce vehicle
speeds.

Reference City of San Diego Traffic
Calming Guidelines
Locations with useable space next
to the curb, like that provided by
on‐street parking.

Applicable Crossing Treatment
Categories:

B, C, and D

2. CROSSWALK WARRANTS AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES

Table 2-5: Uncontrolled Intersection and Mid-Block Crossing Treatments Treatment Description When to Use
High Visibility Marked
Crosswalks
High visibility crosswalks
(Continental) instill increased
awareness in motorists and
pedestrians at established
pedestrian crossing locations.

Reference CA MUTCD Fig.3B‐19
All marked crosswalks in the City of
San Diego are to be installed as
Continental style crosswalks, see
Appendix B for standard detail.

Applicable Crossing Treatment
Categories:

A, B, C and D
Raised Pedestrian Crossings1
Photo: Dan Burden, from
pedbikesafe.org
Raised crosswalks are similar to
speed tables; however, they
provide a marked pedestrian
crossing.   This device can be used
at intersections or midblock
locations.    Raised crosswalks can
be combined with pop‐outs or
chokers to decrease the distance a
pedestrian is required to cross.

Reference City of San Diego Traffic
Calming Guidelines
Best suited for mid‐block crossings
on local and collector roads where
speeding vehicles may cause risk to
pedestrians.

Applicable Crossing Treatment
Categories:

B, C and D
Staggered Crosswalks The staggered crosswalk is split by a median and is offset on either
side of the median. This
configuration forces pedestrians to
turn in the median and face
oncoming traffic before crossing
the second half of the road.

Best suited for uncontrolled mid‐
block crossing locations on multi‐
lane, high‐speed or high‐volume
roadways.

Applicable Crossing Treatment
Categories:

C and D

1 Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC, 2013.

2. CROSSWALK WARRANTS AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES

Table 2-5: Uncontrolled Intersection and Mid-Block Crossing Treatments Treatment Description When to Use
Grade Separated Pedestrian
Crossing
Grade separated pedestrian
crossings are typically pedestrian
bridges.   New pedestrian bridges
must be wheelchair accessible with
ramps, rest pads and handrails.

Where possible, it is helpful to
utilize differences in terrain and
elevation to construct pedestrian
bridges over sunken roadways.

Criteria for the installation of
pedestrian separation structures
are covered by Council Policy
Number 800‐01.   Such structures
are particularly useful either at
intersections or mid‐block
locations having high
concentrations of pedestrians and
vehicles, both subject to
unreasonable delays or risk of
accidents. Such locations
traditionally occur near
universities, industrial plants,
government buildings, major
shopping centers, large hospitals,
recreation facilities and other
major pedestrian generators.

Applicable Crossing Treatment
Categories:

This treatment is not noted in
Table 2‐4 and should be evaluated
on a case‐by‐case basis as
applicable.

In‐Roadway Warning Lights In‐Roadway Warning Lights are installed in the roadway surface to
warn drivers that they are
approaching a condition that may
require decreased speeds and/or
coming to a stop. Such conditions
could include marked school
crosswalks, marked midblock
crosswalks, marked crosswalks at
uncontrolled approaches, marked
crosswalks in advance of
roundabouts, and other roadway
situations involving pedestrian
crossings.

Reference CA MUTCD Chapter 4N
This treatment is not noted in
Table 2‐4.   RRFBs have a
demonstrated record of high
performance at lower cost, less
maintenance, and faster
installation time.

The policy recommends RRFBs as
the preferred alternative.

2. CROSSWALK WARRANTS AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES

Table 2-5: Uncontrolled Intersection and Mid-Block Crossing Treatments Treatment Description When to Use
Parking Restrictions Parked vehicles at an intersection can create a visual barrier between
motor vehicle traffic and crossing
pedestrians, especially children
and pedestrians in wheelchairs.

Parking should be evaluated and
restricted as needed to improve
drivers’ line of sight of crossing
pedestrians.

All marked crosswalk locations.

This treatment is not noted in
Table 2‐4 and should be evaluated
on a case by case basis as visibility
is needed.

Pedestrian Refuge Islands Pedestrian refuge islands are used on wide streets to shorten a
pedestrian’s crossing distance and
provide pedestrians with a refuge.

This allows the pedestrian to cross
one direction of traffic at a time.

After the pedestrian crosses one
direction of traffic, they may wait
in the refuge median area before
crossing the other direction of
traffic.   The refuge median should
have a minimum width of 6’.

Reference City of San Diego Traffic
Calming Guidelines
Locations where the crossing
distance is greater than 52 feet or
multi‐lane, higher speed or volume
roadways where there is a need to
provide a pedestrian refuge.

Applicable Crossing Treatment
Categories:

B, C and D
Source:  Chen Ryan Associates and SafeTREC (February, 2015) Pedestrian Treatments at Controlled Intersections
Crosswalks at Controlled Locations
Traffic control devices (traffic signals or all‐way stop signs) facilitate both motorists’ and pedestrian’s movements at controlled intersections.   Council Policies 200‐06 and 200‐08 provide guidance regarding the types and uses of various traffic control methods and devices.

Additional features or treatments may be applied to controlled intersections to improve pedestrian safety by increasing motorists’ visibility or awareness of crossing pedestrians, or to manage vehicle speeds.  This section provides examples of potential crossing treatments and general guidance regarding their installation or use.   A list of potential treatments for consideration at controlled intersections is provided in Table 2‐6.

2. CROSSWALK WARRANTS AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES

Table 2-6: Treatments at Controlled Intersections
Treatment Description When to Use
Marked Crosswalks Marked crosswalks indicate the
preferred location for pedestrians
to cross a roadway, and also alert
motorists to anticipate
pedestrians.   All crosswalks at
traffic signals in the City shall be
Continental crosswalks.

Reference CA MUTCD Section
3B.18 and Chapter 2 Warrants of
this document.

Across the legs of all signalized
intersection approaches that
pedestrians are allowed to cross.

Pedestrian Timing Traffic signal Flash Don’t Walk
timing should use a pedestrian
travel speed in accordance with
the CA MUTCD guidelines.   When
special land uses, such as senior
centers or schools, are within 100’
of the intersection, slower walking
speeds should be considered.

Across all legs of signalized
intersections that pedestrians are
allowed to cross.

Leading Pedestrian Interval The Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) is a period of time, usually
from three to five seconds, when
pedestrians are allowed to cross
but adjacent vehicles have a red
light. While turning vehicles are
restricted from entering the
intersection, pedestrians get a
WALK signal, allowing them to
establish their presence in the
crosswalk.

On a case‐by‐case basis at
signalized intersection legs with
high levels of pedestrian crossings
and conflicting vehicle turning
movements.

Curb Extensions (Pop‐Outs) Intersection pop‐outs are curb extensions that narrow the street
at intersections by widening the
sidewalks at the point of crossing.

They are used to make pedestrian
crossings shorter and reduce the
width of long, straight streets.

Intersection pop‐outs must
accommodate cyclists, transit
vehicles and emergency response
vehicles. Pop‐outs improve
pedestrian visibility to the driver,
create shorter pedestrian crossing
widths, and may reduce vehicle
speeds.   Reference City of San
Diego Traffic Calming Guidelines
Locations with useable space next
to the curb, like that provided by
on‐street parking.

2. CROSSWALK WARRANTS AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES

Table 2-6: Treatments at Controlled Intersections
Treatment Description When to Use
Exclusive Pedestrian Phasing The exclusive pedestrian phasing is also known as a “pedestrian
scramble.”  A pedestrian scramble
phase restricts all vehicle traffic
from entering the intersection,
allowing pedestrians to cross an
intersection in every direction,
including diagonally, at the same
time.

On a case‐by‐case basis where the
prohibition of vehicles turning
across an active crosswalk would
be most effective to improve
pedestrian safety without
substantially increasing
congestion.

Advance Limit Line Advance limit lines indicate a place for vehicles to stop that is set back
from the marked crosswalk.

Reference CA MUTCD Section
3B.16
Across the legs of all controlled
intersection approaches where
pedestrian crossings are
permitted, and where there is no
conflict with loop detectors or any
other traffic signal equipment.

Pedestrian Countdown
Signals
Pedestrian countdown signal heads
help pedestrians understand how
much time they have left to cross.

The MUTCD advises use of the
international pedestrian symbol
(displayed in the image to the left)
in conjunction with countdown
indicators for new installations 2 .

Pedestrian signal heads should be
clearly visible to the pedestrian at
all times when crossing or waiting
to cross.

Across all legs of signalized
intersections that pedestrians are
allowed to cross.

Right‐Turn on Red Restriction This treatment restricts right‐turn movements at red lights for
specific intersection approaches.

Restrictions can be permanently
implemented or limited to only
peak periods.

Signalized intersection legs with
high levels of conflict between
pedestrians and right‐turning
vehicle movements.

2 Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC, 2009.

2. CROSSWALK WARRANTS AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES

Table 2-6: Treatments at Controlled Intersections
Treatment Description When to Use
Adjustment to Signal Phasing Permitted left turn signal phasing can be converted to either
protected or split phasing to
reduce the number of left‐turn
conflicts with crossing pedestrians.

Signalized locations with permitted
left turn phasing in which there are
high levels of conflict between
crossing pedestrians and left‐
turning vehicle movements.

Passive Pedestrian Detection
Photo: Spie.org
Remote detection may extend the
intersection walk time phase
allowing slower pedestrians who
may still be in the crosswalk
additional time to finish their
crossing.

On a case‐by‐case basis at
locations in which slower
pedestrians are present such as
schools, hospitals and near
retirement communities.

Source:  Chen Ryan Associates, SafeTREC (February, 2015)

Page A‐1
APPENDIX A – PEDESTRIAN RISK MODEL

APPENDIX A – PEDESTRIAN RISK MODEL
Page A‐2
Study Intersections and Unit of Analysis
The pedestrian collision database used in this analysis was provided by the City of San Diego.

The analysis spans 14 years of pedestrian‐related collisions collected across the City of San Diego (1999 – 2012).   There were over 7,000 pedestrian‐related collisions over this 14 year period.

Sixty sites were originally identified to be studied.  Of the 60 study sites, 37 were found to provide the characteristics that would best fit the methodology for developing the model.  The results of this model are relevant to crossings at intersections and midblock.

The study intersections were selected to reflect variation in intersection control types (signalized or unsignalized), roadway environments (width and speeds), and collision fault.

Figure A‐1 shows the final set of 37 study site locations, while Table A‐1 lists the locations, the community planning area where it falls, and the type of control at each study site location.

In order to gain the most information from a limited number of study intersections, the unit of measure was reduced to the approach/departure for each crossing which provides eight units of analysis for each intersection when an intersection has four legs.   Using this method increases the potential number of study cases from 37 to 296.

Figure A‐2 displays the specific locations where vehicle and pedestrian volumes, intersection approach attributes, and crosswalk attribute data were collected for study intersections.

Table A‐2 provides an interpretation of each alpha‐numeric identifier in Figure A‐2.  The final database used for this analysis had 268 observations.
·|}þ163
·|}þ125
·|}þ94 ·|}þ15
§¨¦8
·|}þ52
§¨¦5
§¨¦805
§¨¦805
·|}þ54
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
·|}þ125
7 5
8 3
1 6
9 4
2 12
22 28
10 29
23 19
11 16
13 27
30 36
26 33
31 18 17
34 35
24 32
25 37
20 21
14 15
Figure A-1
Pedestrian Risk Model Study Intersections
²
San Diego Pedestrian Crosswalk Guidelines
02 1 Miles
APPENDIX A – PEDESTRIAN RISK MODEL
Page A‐4
Table A-1: Thirty-Seven Study Intersection Locations
Map ID Intersection Community Planning Area Traffic
Control
1 Greenford Drive & Mira Mesa Boulevard Mira Mesa Signalized 2 I‐5 SB Ramps & La Jolla Village Drive University Signalized 3 Torrey Pines Road & Herschel Avenue La Jolla Unsignalized 4 La Jolla Boulevard & Forward Street La Jolla Unsignalized 5 Mission Boulevard & Diamond Street Pacific Beach Unsignalized 6 Mission Boulevard & Garnet Street Pacific Beach Signalized 7 Dawes Street & Garnet Avenue Pacific Beach Unsignalized 8 Everts Street & Garnet Avenue Pacific Beach Unsignalized 9 Mission Boulevard & Hornblend Street Pacific Beach Unsignalized 10 Mission Boulevard & Thomas Street Pacific Beach Unsignalized 11 Ashford Street & Mesa College Drive Clairemont Mesa / Linda Vista Signalized 12 Linda Vista Road & Signalized Pedestrian Crossing
(between Ulric Street and Comstock Street) Linda Vista Signalized 13 College Avenue & Montezuma Road College Area Signalized 14 34th Street & Adams Avenue Normal Heights Unsignalized 15 Sunset Cliffs Boulevard & Brighton Avenue Ocean Beach Unsignalized 16 Rosecrans Street & Midway Drive Midway‐Pacific Highway Signalized 17 San Diego Avenue & Old Town Avenue Old Town San Diego Signalized 18 First Avenue & Washington Street Uptown Signalized
19 36th Street & El Cajon Boulevard Normal Heights / City Heights Unsignalized 20 Highland Avenue & Orange Avenue City Heights Unsignalized 21 Centre Street & University Avenue Uptown Unsignalized 22 Alabama Street & University Avenue Greater North Park Unsignalized 23 Pershing Avenue & University Avenue Greater North Park Unsignalized 24 Marlborough Street & University Avenue City Heights Signalized 25 Menlo Avenue & University Avenue City Heights Unsignalized 26 52nd Street & University Avenue City Heights Signalized 27 54th Street & University Avenue City Heights / Eastern Area Signalized 28 Sixth Avenue & Spruce Street Uptown / Balboa Park Unsignalized 29 Sixth Avenue & Fir Street Uptown / Balboa Park Unsignalized 30 Euclid Avenue & Federal Avenue Eastern Area Signalized 31 Sixth Avenue & Broadway Downtown Signalized
32 Fifth Avenue & Market Street Downtown Signalized
33 Euclid Avenue & Naranja Street Encanto Neighborhoods Signalized 34 30th Street & National Avenue Southeastern San Diego Signalized 35 32nd Street & National Avenue Southeastern San Diego Signalized 36 Harbor Drive & Sampson Drive Barrio Logan Signalized 37 Churrituck Drive & Palm Avenue Otay Mesa‐Nestor Unsignalized Source:  SafeTREC, Chen Ryan Associates (February, 2015)

APPENDIX A – PEDESTRIAN RISK MODEL
Page A‐5
Figure A‐2: Eight Units of Analysis at each Study Intersection Table A-2: Interpretation of Alpha-Number Codes in Figure 3-2 Study Unit
Behavioral Roadway Environment
Vehicle
Volumes
Pedestrian
Volumes
Collision
Locations
Approach
Attributes
Crosswalk
Attributes
South Leg Approach‐side Crosswalk A1 P1 Ca1 Aa1 Cr1
North Leg Approach‐side Crosswalk A2 P2 Ca2 Aa2 Cr2
West Leg Approach‐side Crosswalk A3 P3 Ca3 Aa3 Cr3
East Leg Approach‐side Crosswalk A4 P4 Ca4 Aa4 Cr4
South Leg Departing‐side Crosswalk D2 P1 Cd2 Ad2 Cr1
North Leg Departing‐side Crosswalk D1 P2 Cd1 Ad1 Cr2
West Leg Departing‐side Crosswalk D4 P3 Cd4 Ad4 Cr3
East Leg Departing Side Crosswalk D3 P4 Cd3 Ad3 Cr4
Source: SafeTREC, Chen Ryan Associates (February, 2015) APPENDIX A – PEDESTRIAN RISK MODEL
Page A‐6
Data Collection
The dependent variable used in the analysis is “pedestrian risk”, which is calculated by dividing pedestrian collision frequency by the annual pedestrian crossing volume.   The independent variables intended to describe potential causal factors are divided into four groups:
 Driver Behavior
 Roadway Environment
 Intersection Characteristics
 Population Characteristics
Table A‐3 presents summary statistics for the dependent variable, pedestrian risk, as well as the variables used to calculate pedestrian risk, which are pedestrian collisions and annual pedestrian volumes.

Table A‐4 presents summary statistics for the independent variables covering driver behavior, roadway environments, intersection characteristics, and population characteristics.  The mean, standard deviation and variance are not calculated for categorical variables, only the continuous variables.

Table A-3: Dependent Variable and Descriptive Statistics Variables Minimum Maximum   Mean Standard
Deviation Variance
Number of Pedestrian‐Vehicle
Collisions at Half Crosswalk   0 7 0.29 0.75 0.57
Annual Pedestrian Volume 2.14E+03 1.74E+06 2.08E+05 3.01E+05 9.06E+10 Pedestrian Risk 0 3.00E‐04 4.20E‐06 2.08E‐05 4.32E‐10
Source: SafeTREC, Chen Ryan Associates (February, 2015)

APPENDIX A – PEDESTRIAN RISK MODEL
Page A‐7
Table A-4: Independent Variables and Descriptive Statistics Variable
Category Variable Minimum   Maximum Mean StandardDeviation Variance Driver
Behavior
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 113 137,578 8,334 1,909 3.64E+08 85% Traffic Speed (MPH) 0 55 16.91 17.03 290.00
Vehicle Gap (sec) 0 8.18 0.49 1.28 1.64
Roadway
Environment
Parking Lane Width (ft) 0 15 4.94 3.37 11.36
Sidewalk Width (ft) 0 18 6.21 2.33 5.43
Buffer Width (ft) 0 18 3.33 3.55 12.61
# of Bike Parking   0 15 0.72 2.21 4.92
Bike Lane Width (ft) 0 12 0.4 1.56 2.44
Posted Speed (MPH) 25 45 28.47 5.02 25.18
Approach Side  (# of
locations)
Approach Side 133
Departure Side 135
Informal Crossing (# of
locations)
Not Present 184
Demonstrated 62
Not Passable 4
Passable 18
Obstruction Presence (# of
locations)
Not Present 218
Present 50
Bus Stop Presence (# of
locations)
Not present 210
present 58
Bikeway Type (# of
locations)
Not Present 222
Buffered Bike
Lane 1
Bike Lane 17
Shared 28
Bikeway Color (# of
locations)
Not Present 236
Painted 32
Pedestrian Sign (# of
locations)
Not Present 230
Present 38
# of Lanes 1 5 1.75 0.95 0.90
Intersection
Characteristics
Crossing Distance (ft) 21 114 59.98 19.48 379.66
Median Refuge Width (ft) 0 10 0.86 2.23 5.01
Signalized (# of locations)
Un‐Signalized 133
Signalized 135
Crosswalk Style (# of
locations)
Not Present 112
Ladder 30
Standard 126
Curb Ramp Type (# of
locations)
Not Present 22
Apex 238
Perpendicular 8
Truncated Dome Color (# Not Present 132
APPENDIX A – PEDESTRIAN RISK MODEL
Page A‐8
Table A-4: Independent Variables and Descriptive Statistics Variable
Category Variable Minimum   Maximum Mean StandardDeviation Variance of locations) Yellow 136
Crosswalk Color (# of
locations)
Not Present 112
Decorative Pavers 8
White 122
Yellow 26
Pedestrian Signal Head (#
of locations)
Not Present 143
Present 125
Pedestrian Signal Button
(# of locations)
Not Present 161
Present 107
Advanced Stop Presence
(# of locations)
Not Present 208
Stop Bar 60
Crosswalk Condition (# of
locations)
Not Present 112
Freshly Painted 104
Poor 50
Heavily worn 2
Population
Characteristics1
Population within 500 foot
buffer 0 786.56 237.08 206.44 42,618.86
Employment within 500
foot buffer 2.71 1,210.78 176.48 254.92 64,983.60
Median household income
within 500 foot buffer $21,792 $114,223 $48,100 1.86E+04 3.45E+08 Source: SafeTREC, Chen Ryan Associates (February, 2015) Notes:

1. The study intersections were used to create a 500 foot street network buffer emanating from the intersection point.   The population characteristic variables were obtained from the 2010 census and aggregated to census tracts.  The population data by census tract polygon were apportioned to the study area street network buffer polygon.

Statistical Analysis
In order to choose the most appropriate model, a dispersion test was conducted to determine how the data is dispersed.   If the data is over‐dispersed, the Negative Binomial distribution would be selected. If the data is under‐distributed, the Conway‐Maxwell Poisson distribution would be chosen.  According to the descriptive statistics described in Table A‐3, the mean and the variance of pedestrian collision frequency are 0.29 and 0.57 respectively. This indicates that the data is over‐dispersed and therefore the Negative Binomial regression is more appropriate.

To reduce potential bias due to co‐linearity, pairs of variables were tested by the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient.   The correlation coefficients are listed in Table A‐5.

Based on the results presented in Table A‐5, pairs of variables with coefficient absolute values of >0.6 were not included in the same model.

APPENDIX A – PEDESTRIAN RISK MODEL
Page A‐9
Table A-5A: Pearson Correlation Test Results

Approach
Side Signal ADT
Annual
Ped.

Volume
Informal
Crosswalk
Parking
Width
Sidewalk
Width
Obst.

Present
Buffer
Width
Bus
Stop
Present
Bike
Park
Bike
Lane
Width
Bikeway
Type
Bikeway
Color
Approach Side

Signalized

0.01 ADT
0 0.05
Annual Ped. Vol.
0 0.28*** ‐0.09
Informal
Crosswalk 0 0.05 0.09

0.28**
*
Parking Width
‐0.01 ‐0.31*** ‐0.1 0.08 0.01
Sidewalk Width
‐0.03 0.1 0.09 0.13* 0.07 0.06
Obstruction
Presence ‐0.1 0.26*** 0.05 ‐0.05 0.09 ‐0.20** 0.06
Buffer Width
‐0.03 ‐0.24***
‐

0.21**
*

0.22**
* 0.05

0.28**
* ‐0.04
‐

0.34**
*
Bus Stop Presence
‐0.05 0.03 0.03 ‐0.04 0.15* ‐0.05 0.07

0.24**
* 0.02
Bike Parking

0.05 ‐0.06 ‐0.05 ‐0.05 ‐0.02

0.27**
* 0.06 0.01 0.06 0
Bike Lane Width
‐0.03 0.09 0.03 ‐0.02 0.09 ‐0.08 0 0.20**
‐

0.22**
* 0.1 0.13*
Bikeway Type
‐0.03 0.01 0 ‐0.11 0.02
‐

0.33**
* ‐0.06 0.19** ‐0.07 0.11 0.01

0.34**
*
Bikeway Color
‐0.04 ‐0.03 ‐0.01 ‐0.08 0.12
‐

0.26**
* ‐0.01 0.19** ‐0.07 0.18** 0.14*

0.57**
*

0.74**
*
Crosswalk Style

0.06 0.61*** 0.05 0.07 0.07 ‐0.17** 0.03

0.23**
* ‐0.20** 0.07 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.07
Curb Ramp Type
0 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.12 ‐0.01 0.04 ‐0.07 ‐0.05 0.18** ‐0.09 0.05 0.03 0.14* Truncated Dome
Color 0 0.12* 0.19**
‐

0.23**
* 0 ‐0.1 0.08 0.12*
‐

0.21**
* 0.04 ‐0.02 0.12* ‐0.05 0.04
Crossing Distance
0 0.42*** 0.19** ‐0.09 0.05
‐

0.37**
* 0.09

0.37**
*
‐

0.34**
* 0.16* ‐0.05

0.32**
*

0.28**
*

0.21**
*
Crosswalk Color
0 ‐0.22*** 0.02 0.16** 0.06 0.15* 0.07 ‐0.14*

0.22**
* ‐0.15* ‐0.14* ‐0.09 0.01 ‐0.08
Ped. Signal Head

0.01 0.93*** 0.07

0.31**
* 0.03
‐

0.33**
* 0.02

0.28**
*
‐

0.27**
* 0.04 ‐0.04 0.11 0.04 0
Ped. Signal

0.02 0.80*** 0.11 0.11 0.09
‐

0.34**
* ‐0.03

0.29**
*
‐

0.32**
* 0.09 ‐0.15* 0.17** 0.11 0.08
Median Refuge
Width 0 ‐0.03 0 ‐0.08 ‐0.17** 0.03 0.11 0.04 ‐0.16** ‐0.06

0.23**
*

0.28**
* 0.1 0.08
Advanced Stop
Presence 0 ‐0.11 ‐0.04

0.28**
* 0.05

0.21**
* 0.02 ‐0.1 0.13* ‐0.16** 0.01 ‐0.17**
‐

0.34**
*
‐

0.34**
*
Crosswalk
Condition 0 0.56*** ‐0.07 0.1
‐

0.24**
* ‐0.18** ‐0.02 0.06
‐

0.26**
* 0 0 0.15* ‐0.03 0
Ped. Signage
‐0.02 ‐0.22*** 0.06 ‐0.12* 0.16** 0.12* 0.05 0.04 ‐0.04 0.06 0.14* 0.12 0.01 0.11 X85 Speed
0 0

0.27**
* ‐0.16* 0.04
‐

0.22**
* 0.05 0.14* ‐0.01

0.29**
* ‐0.01 0.09

0.26**
* 0.20**
Lanes 0.31**
* 0.32***

0.23**
* ‐0.03 0.16**
‐

0.44**
* 0.05

0.25**
*
‐

0.21**
* 0.20** ‐0.11 0.12*

0.22**
* 0.20**
APPENDIX A – PEDESTRIAN RISK MODEL
Page A‐10
Table A-5B: Pearson Correlation Test Results
Crosswalk
Style
Curb
Ramp
Type
Truncated
Dome Color
Crossing
Distance
Crosswalk
Color
Ped
Signal
Head
Ped
Signal
MedianR
efugeWi
dth
Advanced
Stop
Presence
Condition Ped Sign X85
Speed
Approach Side
Signalized
ADT
Annual Ped. Vol.

Informal Crosswalk
Parking Width
Sidewalk Width
Obstruction
Presence
Buffer Width
Bus Stop Presence

Bike Parking
Bike Lane Width

Bikeway Type
Bikeway Color
Crosswalk Style
Curb Ramp Type

0.07 Truncated Dome
Color 0.15* 0.20**
Crossing Distance

0.32*** ‐0.03 0.11
Crosswalk Color
‐0.55*** ‐0.08 ‐0.11 ‐0.17**
Ped. Signal Head

0.67*** 0.05 0.08 0.44*** ‐0.32***
Ped. Signal

0.67*** 0.09 0.20*** 0.44*** ‐0.37*** 0.86***
Median Refuge
Width 0.04 0.03 0.12 0.19** ‐0.12* ‐0.03 ‐0.02
Advanced Stop
Presence ‐0.29*** ‐0.21*** ‐0.20** ‐0.21*** 0.36*** ‐0.20** ‐0.27*** ‐0.1 Crosswalk
Condition 0.41*** 0.1 0.09 0.20** ‐0.45*** 0.52*** 0.51*** 0.24*** ‐0.13* Ped. Signage
‐0.08 0.11 ‐0.07 ‐0.09 ‐0.05 ‐0.24*** ‐0.17** 0.36*** ‐0.24*** 0.02 X85 Speed

0.09 ‐0.07 0.07 0.30*** 0.02 ‐0.01 0.04 0.1 ‐0.24*** 0.02 0.23*** Lanes

0.28*** 0.06 0.11 0.57*** ‐0.11 0.33*** 0.34*** 0.06 ‐0.29*** 0.11 0.08 0.51*** Source: SafeTREC, Chen Ryan Associates (February, 2015) APPENDIX A – PEDESTRIAN RISK MODEL
Page A‐11
The purpose of this analysis is to identify factors that exhibit a statistically significant relationship with pedestrian collision risk at the half crosswalk study unit.  After screening for the inter‐correlation between variables, the remaining independent variables related to driver behavior, roadway environment, and intersection characteristics were entered into a Negative Binomial regression model.  Equation (1) shows the model structure:
ݕ ௜ൌ݁ሺఉబାఉభ௫೔భାఉమ௫೔మାఉయ௫೔యା⋯ ሻ (1)
Where,
ݕ= ௜   collision rate at a half crosswalk ‘i’. The collision rate is calculated by dividing half crosswalk collision frequency by pedestrian annual volume at the crosswalk; ݔ= ௝௜  quantitative measure of each characteristic j associated with half crosswalk ‘i’; and ߚ= ௝   coefficient corresponding to ݔ ௝௜to be determined by negative binomial regression.

After estimating a model with all of the remaining variables, the variables were selected based on a Backward Elimination process.  This is the simplest of all variable selection procedures and can be easily implemented without special software.  In situations where there is a complex hierarchy, backward elimination can be run manually while determining which variables are eligible for removal.  The process is as follows:

1. Start with all the predictors in the model

2. Remove the predictor with highest p‐value greater than 0.1

3. Run the model and go to 2

4. Stop when all p‐values are less than 0.1
APPENDIX A – PEDESTRIAN RISK MODEL
Page A‐12
Pedestrian Risk Model Results
This model has eleven statistically significant explanatory factors (p‐value < 0.1).

Equation (2) shows the model formula:
ݕ ௜ൌ ܧܺܲሺെ19.43 ൅ 0.57ݔ௜ଵ ൅ 0.86ݔ௜ଶ ൅ 1.40ݔ௜ଷ ൅ 1.05ݔ௜ସ െ 0.0025ݔ௜ହ ൅ 0.74ݔ൅ ଺௜

2.31ݔ ଻௜െ 1.28ݔ௜଼ െ 1.31ݔ௜ଽ െ 0.0018ݔ௜ଵ଴ ൅ 0.08ݔ௜ଵଵሻ        (2) Where,
ݕ=௜   collision rate at a half crosswalk i. The collision rate is calculated by dividing the half crosswalk collision frequency by the annual pedestrian volume at the crosswalk. ݔ௜ଵ=   Ln of ADT associated with half crosswalk i,
ݔ௜ଶ=   the color of half crosswalk i, white,
ݔ௜ଷ=   the color of half crosswalk i, yellow,
ݔ௜ସ=   the condition of half crosswalk i, medium,
ݔ௜ହ= employment within 500 feet of the study intersection, ݔ=଺௜   informal crossing associated with half crosswalk i, demonstrated informal crossing, ݔ=଻௜   informal crossing associated with half crosswalk i, not passable, ݔ௜଼=   pedestrian related signage presence on the approach associated with half crosswalk i, present,
ݔ௜ଽ=   pedestrian signal head presence at half crosswalk i, present, ݔ௜ଵ଴=   population within 500 feet of the study intersection, ݔ௜ଵଵ= posted speed for the approach associated with half crosswalk i.

To display the impacts of independent variables, the change in y resulting from a change in x from its minimum value to maximum value is listed in Table A‐6.  The base condition is when all numeric variables are equal to their mean values and all categorical variables are equal to 1.

Then each variable is changed from its minimum to maximum value while all other variables remain the same. The corresponding change in y shows the impact.

APPENDIX A – PEDESTRIAN RISK MODEL
Page A‐13
Table A-6: Pedestrian Collision Risk Model
Variable Coefficient SE Z‐test P‐value Xmina Xmaxb Y(Xmin) c Y(Xmax)d %
raisee
Ln(ADT) 0.5664 0.1702 3.328 0.000875 Ln(113.3) Ln(137578.0) 4.49E‐08 2.51E‐06 5,484 Crosswalk color, white 0.8576 0.4504 1.904 0.056886 Unmarked White crosswalk 2.97E‐07 7.01E‐07 136
Crosswalk color, yellow 1.4020 0.6819 2.057 0.039725 Unmarked Yellow crosswalk 2.97E‐07 1.21E‐06 306
Crosswalk condition,
medium 1.0480 0.4426 2.368 0.017887 Othercondition
Medium
condition 1.04E‐07 2.97E‐07 185
Employment within 500
feet ‐0.0025 0.0009 ‐2.66 0.007811 2.7 1,210.8 4.57E‐07 2.28E‐08 ‐95 Informal crossing,
demonstrated crossing 0.7436 0.4434 1.677 0.093511
Passable
or no
median
Demonstrated
crossing 2.97E‐07 6.25E‐07 110
Informal crossing, not
passable 2.3080 1.2230 1.886 0.059247
Passable
or no
median
Median not
passable 2.97E‐07 2.99E‐06 905
Pedestrian related signs
presence ‐1.2770 0.5742 ‐2.224 0.026121 Notpresent
Present 1.07E‐06 2.97E‐07 ‐72
Pedestrian signal head
presence ‐1.3120 0.4433 ‐2.961 0.00307 Notpresent
Present 1.10E‐06 2.97E‐07 ‐73
Population within 500 feet ‐0.0018 0.0010 ‐1.763 0.077839 0 786.6 4.51E‐07 1.13E‐07 ‐75 Posted speed 0.0782 0.0365 2.143 0.0321 25 45 2.27E‐07 1.08E‐06 378 Source: SafeTREC (February, 2015)
Notes:
a) The minimum value of the predictor.
b) The maximum value of the predictor.
c) The value of y when using the minimum value of the corresponding predictor and mean values for other numerical predictors and 1 for other categorical predictors.
d) The value of y when using the maximum value of the corresponding predictor and mean values for other numerical predictors and 1 for other categorical predictors.
e)   The percentage increase in pedestrian collision frequency when the value of the predictor is increased from the minimum value to the maximum value.

According to the estimated coefficients, the following seven variables are associated with an increase in pedestrian collision risk at crosswalks:   ADT, posted speed limit, crosswalks in poor condition, marked crosswalks (white and yellow), “demonstrated informal crossing,” or locations where pedestrian crossing is restricted but evidence shows pedestrians are crossing illegally, and impassible medians.

APPENDIX A – PEDESTRIAN RISK MODEL
Page A‐14
 ADT – An increase in vehicle ADT is associated with higher pedestrian risk.   When keeping all other variables the same, half crosswalks with the highest ADT can have a significantly higher  collision risk for pedestrians than crosswalks with the lowest ADT.  Posted Speed Limit – Compared with locations displaying lower posted speed limits, those with higher posted speed limits are associated with higher pedestrian risk.  When keeping all other variables the same, marked crosswalks with a posted speed limit of 45 mph on the approach can have a pedestrian collision risk significantly higher than crosswalks with a posted speed of 25 mph.  This confirms that more attention should be given when marking crosswalks on roadways with higher posted speed limits, and also that additional treatments should be considered.
 Crosswalk in Poor Condition – Crosswalks observed to be in poor condition can be more risky to pedestrians.  Poorly maintained crosswalks may pose a significant risk factor to pedestrians.  In response, it is recommended that the maintenance division within the city provide enhanced maintenance at all crosswalk locations in the city, particularly at uncontrolled locations.
 Marked Crosswalks (White and Yellow) – Marked Crosswalks are associated with higher pedestrian collision risk than unmarked crosswalks.  This finding is consistent with the City of San Diego’s 1970 crosswalk study, the 2005 report titled “Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines” by Charles V. Zegeer, et. al., and other studies that have been done in the last few years.   A cautious and careful warrant approach to the installation of all new marked uncontrolled crosswalks, as well as consideration of other enhancement measures, is the appropriate approach to mitigate this factor.  Demonstrated Informal Crossing – Compared to approaches either without medians or with passable medians, crosswalks with demonstrated informal crossings (locations where pedestrians are restricted from crossing or are not provided legal crossing, but evidence shows signs that pedestrians are crossing) tend to pose a higher risk for pedestrians.
 Approach Median Access Restriction (Not Passable) – Compared to approaches either without medians or with passable medians, crosswalks associated with impassible medians (e.g., divided by a metal fence) tend to pose a higher risk for pedestrians.

The following four variables are associated with a decrease in pedestrian collision risk at crosswalks: presence of pedestrian warning signage, presence of pedestrian signal heads, population levels, and employment levels.
 Pedestrian Warning Sign Presence – Crosswalks with pedestrian warning signs on the associated approach tend to pose a lower risk for pedestrians than those without pedestrian warning signs.
 Pedestrian Signal Head Presence – Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads experience lower pedestrian collision risk than those without.

APPENDIX A – PEDESTRIAN RISK MODEL
Page A‐15
 Population within 500 feet of Study Intersection – Areas with higher population levels are associated with lower levels of pedestrian risk (pedestrian collision per pedestrian volume).
 Employment within 500 feet of Study Intersection – Areas with higher employment levels are associated with lower levels of pedestrian risk (pedestrian collision per pedestrian volume).

Page B‐1
APPENDIX B – CONTINENTAL CROSSWALK STANDARD DETAIL

FLARE TYP.

TYPICAL CONTINENTAL CROSSWALK MARKINGS
2' 3'
F 111111 2

LIMIT LINE AT

CONTROLLED

CROSSINGS
LEGEND

CONSTRUCTION LINE
= CURB & GUTTER
CROSSWALK BAR (24" WIDE)
GENERAL NOTES:

1. ALL MARKED CROSSWALKS SHALL HAVE CONTINENTAL MARKINGS UNLESS APPROVED OTHERWISE.

2. MARKED CROSSWALK LOCATIONS CONSISTING OF BRICK PAVERS OR OTHER DECORATIVE PAVING SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A LIMIT LINE ONLY.

3. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A MARKED CROSSWALK ACROSS EACH LEG WHERE PEDESTRIANS ARE PERMITTED TO CROSS.

4. CONTINENTAL CROSSWALK MARKINGS SHALL BE ALIGNED PARALLEL TO THE DIRECTION OF VEHICULAR TRAVEL.

5. LIMIT LINES SHALL BE INSTALLED A MINIMUM OF 4 FEET IN ADVANCE OF MARKED CROSSWALKS FOR THE APPROACH LANES AT ALL CONTROLLED CROSSINGS.

6. MARKED CROSSWALKS SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET IN WIDTH. PLACEMENT OF CONTINENTAL

CROSSWALKS SHALL COMPLY WITH ACCESSIBILITY REGULATIONS PER THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) STANDARDS.

7. THE CROSSWALK BETWEEN A DUAL RAMP CORNER AND A SINGLE RAMP CORNER SHALL BE AT LEAST 10 FEET WIDE AND SATISFY THE MINIMUM OF 2 FEET BEYOND THE FLARE REQUIREMENT FOR THE SINGLE RAMP.

8. CONTINENTAL CROSSWALK BARS SHALL BE UNIFORM WITHIN THE SAME CROSSING. NO PARTIAL BARS SHALL BE INSTALLED.

9. A CROSSWALK BAR SHALL BE CENTERED IN THE CENTER OF THE CROSSING.

10. CROSSWALK MARKINGS SHALL BE CALIFORNIA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (CA-MUTCD) RETROREFLECTIVITY COMPLIANT AND SKID RESISTANT.

SHEET 1 OF 3

REVISION BY APPROVED DATE
ORIGINAL JF J. NAGELVOORT 02/15

CITY OF SAN DIEGO - STANDARD DRAWING

RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO

SIANDARDS COMMBTEE
2/5/2015
COORDINATOR E. 56523 DATE

CONTINENTAL CROSSWALK

MARKINGS LAYOUT AND NOTES DRAWING
NUMBER SDM-116
CASE 1 - SINGLE RAMP ORTHOGONAL CASE 2 - SINGLE RAMP SKEWED •
CASE 3 - DUAL RAMP ORTHOGONAL CASE 4 - DUAL RAMP SKEWED HUM
1 FT LEGEND

CONSTRUCTION LINE
= CURB & GUTTER
CROSSWALK BAR (24" WIDE)
SHEET 2 OF 3
COORDINATOR g C.F. 56523 DATE

CONTINENTAL CROSSWALK

MARKINGS LAYOUT AND NOTES DRAWING
NUMBER SDM-116

REVISION BY APPROVED DATE
ORIGINAL JF J. NAGELVOORT 02/15

CITY OF SAN DIEGO - STANDARD DRAWING
RECOMMENDED BY THE arr OF SAN DIEGO

STANDARDS COMMITTEE
2/5/2015
JiiIIIlI

CITY OF SAN DIEGO - STANDARD DRAWING

CONTINENTAL CROSSWALK

MARKINGS LAYOUT AND NOTES

REVISION BY APPROVED DATE
ORIGINAL JF J. NAGELVOORF 02/15

RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO

STANDARDS COMMITTEE
2/5/2015

COORDINATOR DATE

DRAWING
NUMBER SDM-116
CASE 5 - DUAL AND SINGLE RAMP ORTHOGONAL
i i
CASE 6 - DUAL AND SINGLE RAMP SKEWED
LEGEND

CONSTRUCTION LINE
= CURB & GUTTER
CROSSWALK BAR (24" WIDE)
SHEET 3 OF 3
Madera City Council Agenda
11/01/23
Agenda Item E-2
Madera County EDC City Council Update
(Report by Darren Rose, EDC Executive Director)
Madera County Economic Development
Commission
Council Update November 2023
Executive Director, Darren Rose

HIGHLIGHTS
• MARKETING
• LEAD GENERATION/TRACKING
• PROJECTS

MARKETING

SITE SELECTORS /BROKERS VIRTUAL

MEETINGS
• 3-5 one-hour meetings quarterly
E- BIZ
• Monthly Electronic Newsletter
• Over 1,200 Subscribers

TRADE SHOWS
• USA Select- May 2023
• ICSC Las Vegas- May 2023 & October 2023
Commercial Space
• Over 1 million sq. ft. retail space – Vacancy 3.7%
• Over 8 million sq. ft. industrial space – Vacancy 2.2% Unemployment
• California Unemployment Rate: 5.1%
• Current Madera County Unemployment Rate: 7.0%
• Central Valley Unemployment Rate: 7.3%
Business Licenses
• 3,202 renewals issued for business licenses this fiscal year • 145 were new applicants
Lead Generation / Tracking
Completed and Returned Requests for Proposals
• MCEDC Website- #1 Lead Generator
• California Central Valley EDC
• GO - Biz
• Broker Request
• Site Selection Companies

PROJECTS
• WHSE Partners
• In N Out
• Dutch Bros
• California Custom Processing
• Madera Marketplace Shopping Center
• Country Club Shopping Center
• AG Machining
• AmondWorld
• North Fork Mono Resort
Thank You for Your Time

QUESTIONS