Monterey Park City Council
October 15, 2025

PROPOSAL FOR MONTEREY PARK
Vision Zero Action Plan
City of Monterey Park  TRCALAD009640.2025
 58
16 a. The names and dates of each publication in which a request for DBE participation for this project was placed by the Proposer. Attach copies of advertisements or proofs of publication:

Publications Dates of Advertisement
____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ b. The names and dates of written notices sent to certified DBEs soliciting bids for this project and the dates and methods used for following up initial solicitations to determine with certainty whether the DBE s were interested. Attach copies of solicitations, telephone records, fax confirmations etc.

Names of
DBEs
Solicited
Date of Initial
Solicitation
Follow Up
Methods and
Dates

DBE INFORMATION - GOOD FAITH EFFORTS
Federal-aid Project No. ______________ Bid Opening Date: __________________ CITY OF MONTEREY PARK has established a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal of 5% for this project. The information provided herein shows that a good faith effort was made. Good Faith Efforts documentation must be submitted with the Bid/Proposal or Contractor will be deemed non-responsive to the DBE requirements.

Lowest, second lowest and third lowest Proposers shall submit the following information to document adequate good faith efforts. Proposer s should submit the following information even if the “Local Agency Bidder –DBE Commitment” form indicates that the Proposer has met the DBE contract goal . This will protect the Proposer ’s eligibility for award of the contract if the administering agency determines that the Proposer failed to meet the goal for various reasons, e.g., a DBE firm was not certified at bid o pening, or the Proposer made a mathematical error.

Submittal of only the "Local Agency Bidder DBE Commitment" form may not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that adequate good faith efforts were made.

The following types of actions will be considered as part of the Proposer's Good Faith Efforts to obtain DBE participation:

THIS FORM IS NOT REQUIRED AS KIMLEY-HORN WILL MEET
THE CITY’S 5% DBE GOAL AS INDICATED ON THE LOCAL

AGENCY PROPOSER DBE COMMITMENT FORM
July 22, 2025CIP 96044

PROPOSAL FOR MONTEREY PARK
Vision Zero Action Plan
City of Monterey Park  TRCALAD009640.2025
 59
17 c. The items of work which the Proposer made available to DBE firms, including, where appropriate, any break down of the contract work items (including those items normally performed by the Proposer with its own forces) into economically feasible units to facilitate DBE participation. It is the Proposer's responsibility to demonstrate that sufficient work was made available to facilitate DBE participation as follows (please provide documents that sufficiently evidence the effort):
d. The names, addresses and phone numbers of rejected DBE firms, the reasons for the Proposer's rejection of the DBEs, the firms selected for that work (please attach copies of quotes from the firms involved), and the price difference for each DBE if the selected firm is not a DBE.

1. Names, addresses and phone numbers of rejected DBEs and the reasons for the Proposer's rejection of the DBEs:
_______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

2. Names, addresses and phone numbers of firms selected for the work identified above:
_______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ e. Efforts made to assist interested DBE s in obtaining bonding, lines of credit or insurance, and any technical assistance or information related to the plans, specifications and requirements for the work which was provided to DBEs:

Items of Work Proposer
Normally
Performs Item
(Y/N)
Breakdown of Items Amount
($)
Percentage
Of
Contract

THIS FORM IS NOT REQUIRED AS KIMLEY-HORN WILL MEET
THE CITY’S 5% DBE GOAL AS INDICATED ON THE LOCAL

AGENCY PROPOSER DBE COMMITMENT FORM

PROPOSAL FOR MONTEREY PARK
Vision Zero Action Plan
City of Monterey Park  TRCALAD009640.2025
 60
18 ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ f. Efforts made to assist interested DBE s in obtaining necessary equipment, supplies, materials, or related assistance or services, excluding supplies and equipment the DBEsubcontractor purchases or leases from the prime contractor or its affiliate:
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ g. The names of agencies, organizations or groups contacted to provide assistance in contacting, recruiting and using DBEfirms. Attach copies of requests to agencies and any responses received, i.e., lists, Internet page download, etc.

Name of
Agency/Organization
Method/Date of
Contact
Results
_______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ h. Any additional data to support a demonstration of good faith efforts please include here.
____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Proposers are advised to attach all requested documents to this form.

Include any and all supplemental materials necessary in order to demonstrate Good Faith Efforts.

THIS FORM IS NOT REQUIRED AS KIMLEY-HORN WILL MEET
THE CITY’S 5% DBE GOAL AS INDICATED ON THE LOCAL

AGENCY PROPOSER DBE COMMITMENT FORM

PROPOSAL FOR MONTEREY PARK
Vision Zero Action Plan
City of Monterey Park  TRCALAD009640.2025
 61

LOCAL AGENCY PROPOSER DBE COMMITMENT
This form must be submitted with the proposal.

1. Local Agency City of Monterey Park 2. Contract DBE Goal (%) 5%

3. Project Description Monterey Park Vision Zero Action Plan, CIP 96044

4. Project Location Monterey Park, CA

5. Proposer’s Name Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 6. Prime Certified DBE ☐ 7. Total Contract Award Amount: $

8. Total Dollar Amount for $113,498.34 9. Total Number of ALL Subcontractors 1 ALL Subcontractors

10. Description of Work, Service, or Materials Supplied

11. NAICS
Code

12. DBE
Certification
Number

13. DBE Contact Information
(must be certified prior to submission-include
DBE name, address
and phone number)

14. DBE Dollar Amount
Planning process support to align the plan with regional frameworks and position projects for funding 541614 51737 Lemmon Planning LLC
26855 Live Oak Ln., 4160
Idyllwild, CA 92549
Katherine Lemmon / 213.446.4415
$113,498.34
FOR AGENCY TO COMPLETE 15.Total Claimed DBE Commitment: $113,498.34

11.86%21. Agency Contract Number

22. Federal-Aid Project Number

23. Contract Execution Date
Agency certifies that the DBE certifications have been verified and all information is complete and accurate/unless noted otherwise.

16. Signature of Proposer
( ) -

24. Signature of Agency Representative 25. Date 17. Date 18. Phone Number

26. Agency Representative Name (please print or type) 19. Name of Proposer (please print or type)

27. Agency Representative Title 20. Title of Proposer

28. ( ) -
Phone Number
Distribution: (1) Original - Agency files Local Agency Proposer DBE Commitment (Consultant Contracts) – Rev 012623 15 Senior Vice President
Jean B. Fares, PE
213 354 94029/26/2025
957,140.31

PROPOSAL FOR MONTEREY PARK
Vision Zero Action Plan
City of Monterey Park  TRCALAD009640.2025
 62
Certified Profile
Print
Business & Contact Information
BUSINESS NAME Lemmon Planning LLC
OWNER Ms Katherine Lemmon
ADDRESS 26855 Live Oak Ln
4160
Idyllwild, CA 92549 [map]
PHONE 213-446-4415
EMAIL [email protected]
WEBSITE http://www.lemmonplanning.com
ETHNICITY Caucasian
GENDER Female
COUNTY Riverside (CA)
Certification Information
CERTIFYING AGENCY Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority CERTIFICATION TYPE DBE - Disadvantaged Business Enterprise CERTIFIED BUSINESS DESCRIPTION Transportation Management Consulting Services Commodity Codes
Code Description
NAICS 541614Process, Physical Distribution, and Logistics Consulting Services NAICS 541614Transportation management consulting services Additional Information
WORK DISTRICTS/REGIONS All work districts/regions

CUCP PUBLIC DIRECTORY

CERTIFICATION NUMBER
51737
This profile was generated on 8/13/2025

The entirety of this proposal, including text and images, is the property of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., protected under US copyright law.

Copyright © 2025 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

CONTACT
Jean Fares, PE
[email protected]
213.354.9402
660 South Figueroa Street
Suite 2050
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Staff Report
October 15, 2025
ATTACHMENT 2
Kimley-Horn Cost Proposal

197.39% Overhead% Name
Jean
Fares
Mike
Colety
Jason
Melchor
196.29% Overhead% w/o FCCM Category/Title Project Manager Principal-in- Charge
QC/QA
Manager
10% Fee% Direct Rate $132.88 $133.12 $100.92 $109.24 $87.23 $77.10 $63.26 $54.86 $49.64 $44.02 Billing Rate $434.54 $435.33 $330.03 $357.24 $285.26 $252.13 $206.87 $179.40 $162.33 $143.95 Task 1 43 12 27 24 28 84 218 $ 53,971.77

1.1 2 4 4 10 $ 2,727.73

1.2 36 12 15 24 24 24 135 $ 37,049.32

1.3 5 8 60 73 $ 14,194.72
Task 2 2 5 21 33 110 180 260 611 $ 116,644.64

2.1 2 5 6 8 10 40 40 111 $ 23,046.08

2.2 10 20 20 60 110 $ 20,318.02

2.3 15 15 80 120 160 390 $ 73,280.54
Task 3 15 4 36 15 45 37 220 355 200 60 987 $ 197,967.98

3.1 10 4 16 20 5 5 60 $ 19,003.73

3.2 20 10 5 13 85 210 120 463 $ 89,615.47

3.3 10 16 40 20 20 20 126 $ 24,875.35

3.4 5 5 10 8 90 120 60 40 338 $ 64,473.43
Task 4 17 16 10 47 34 115 185 190 55 669 $ 133,960.03

4.1 2 15 8 20 10 5 60 $ 13,908.15

4.2 5 5 4 15 15 5 49 $ 11,213.32

4.3 2 8 15 60 30 115 $ 21,324.78

4.4 10 15 8 20 20 10 83 $ 19,990.18

4.5 4.5.1 12 5 5 3 30 60 80 40 235 $ 43,644.25

4.5.2 4553 1 5 2 0 6 0 1 5 1 2 7 $ 2 3 , 879.35 Task 5 52 45 9 53 76 140 285 180 15 855 $ 186,414.27

5.1 2 5 30 60 30 127 $ 24,135.67

5.2 15 8 8 10 25 30 10 106 $ 23,680.56

5.3 2 4 40 50 70 166 $ 30,187.32

5.4 10 15 3 15 26 20 60 20 169 $ 39,350.10

5.5 15 15 3 8 12 10 30 10 103 $ 26,922.04

5.6 10 15 3 15 26 30 60 20 5 184 $ 42,138.59
Task 6 27 10 11 22 54 28 158 195 150 30 685 $ 146,376.84

6.1 2 4 5 10 10 31 $ 6,461.83

6.2 10 5 10 10 20 55 $ 12,108.04

6.3 5 5 20 5 5 40 $ 9,445.13

6.4 2 5 8 30 30 75 $ 14,047.79

6.5 10 5 20 10 45 $ 9,098.32

6.6 10 20 40 30 100 $ 19,036.10

6.7 20 10 11 10 15 28 90 80 45 30 339 $ 76,179.63 156 19 141 56 259 175 767 1228 1064 160 4025
$67,788.68 $8,271.23 $46,533.89 $20,005.19 $73,882.00 $44,123.04 $158,670.99 $220,306.42 $172,721.49 $23,032.60 $ 835,335.53 $ 121,804.78
$ 2,000.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 756.22
$ 550.22
$ 113,498.34
$ 957,140.31 TOTAL COST:

Sr.

Professional II

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Vision Zero Action Plan
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Project
Support
TOTAL
HOURS
TOTAL
COST
Sr.

Professional I Professional II Professional I Analyst
Program Management
Project Kick-Off
Progress Meetings
Vision Zero Management
Sr.

Professional III
Vision Zero Baselining
Document Review
Data Collection
Collision and Roadway Analysis
Safe Routes to School Program
Project Management
Existing Conditions and Safety Assessment
Community Stakeholder Engagement
Compilation of Final Action Plan Document
Active Transportation Plan
Technical Advisory Committee
Public and Community Groups Engagement
Existing Conditions Inventory
Identification of Active Transportation Needs and
Project List
Final ATP
Develop Monterey Park Active Transportation Plan
Draft ATP
Complete Streets Plan
Existing Conditions Report
Public Engagement
Walk Audits and Surveys
Draft Corridor Conceptual Designs and
Recommendations
Final Corridor Conceptual Designs and
Recommendations
Vision Zero Action Plan
Vision Zero Goals and Objectives
Emphasis Area
Vision Zero Governance and Task Force
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
Equity Assessment
Best Practices Assessment
Safety Countermeasures Toolbox
Vision Zero Action Plan Report
Lemon Consulting-See attached breakdown

TOTAL HOURS
Subtotal Labor:

Other Direct Costs
Fed Ex/Overnight Delivery
Travel/Mileage
Public Coordinate
Outside Printing

Name
Katie
Lemmon
120.00% Overhead % Category/Title Principal
10% Fee% Direct Rate $100.59 $57.20
Billing Rate $243.43 $138.42
Task 1 25 25 50 $ 9,546.25

1.1 2 2 4 $ 763.70

1.2 15 15 30 $ 5,727.75

1.3 8 8 16 $ 3,054.80
Task 2
Task 3 107 156 263 $ 47,640.53

3.1 3.2

3.3 105 150 255 $ 46,323.15

3.4 2 6 8 $ 1,317.38
Task 4 75 132 207 $ 36,528.69

4.1 21 42 63 $ 10,925.67

4.2 46 77 123 $ 21,856.12

4.3 4.4 4 6 10 $ 1,804.24

4.5 4.5.1 3 5 8 $ 1,422.39

4.5.2 1 2 3 $ 520.27
Task 5 14 42 56 $ 9,221.66

5.1 5.2 7 28 35 $ 5,579.77

5.3 7 14 21 $ 3,641.89

5.4 5.5
Task 6 19 12 31 $ 6,286.21

6.1 2 3 5 $ 902.12

6.2 6.3 14 5 19 $ 4,100.12

6.4 2 2 4 $ 763.70

6.5 6.6

6.7 1 2 3 $ 520.27
240 367 607
$58,423.20 $50,800.14 $ 109,223.34
$ 4,275.00
$ 3,600.00
$ 675.00
$ 113,498.34
Printing
Travel
TOTAL COST:

Subtotal Labor:

Other Direct Costs
Vision Zero Governance and Task Force
Best Practices Assessment
Safety Countermeasures Toolbox
Existing Conditions Report
Public Engagement
Walk Audits and Surveys

TOTAL HOURS
Draft Corridor Conceptual Designs and Recommendations
Final Corridor Conceptual Designs and Recommendations
Vision Zero Action Plan
Vision Zero Goals and Objectives
Emphasis Area
Active Transportation Plan
Public and Community Groups Engagement
Equity Assessment
Vision Zero Action Plan Report
Draft ATP
Identification of Active Transportation Needs and Project List Final ATP
Complete Streets Plan
Safe Routes to School Program
Project Management
Existing Conditions and Safety Assessment
Compilation of Final Action Plan Document
Project Kick-Off
Progress Meetings
Lemmon Consulting
Existing Conditions Inventory
Develop Monterey Park Active Transportation Plan
Community Stakeholder Engagement
Vision Zero Baselining
Vision Zero Management
Technical Advisory Committee

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Vision Zero Action Plan
Project
Manager
Total Hours Total
Costs

Staff Report
October 15, 2025
ATTACHMENT 3
Kimley-Horn Schedule

PROPOSAL FOR MONTEREY PARK
Vision Zero Action Plan
City of Monterey Park ƒ TRCALAD009640.2025 ƒ27
Schedule
Kimley-Horn will complete the Vision Zero Action Plan by Month 12 following Project Kickoff. Vision Zero programs require consistent follow through and public awareness, so our team has included an additional six months of ongoing support for public messaging and implementation activities that will aid further project advancement and establish City messaging processes.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Vision Zero Safety Action Plan Project Schedule Month of NTP Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12 Month 13 Month 14 Month 15 Month 16 Month 17 Month 1 8 Month 19 Month 20 Task Description
1 Program Management
Ongoing Implementation Support

1.1 Progress Meetings
SS4A HSIP Grant Window Starts
SS4A HSIP Grant Window Ends

1.2 Vision Zero Management
2 Vision Zero Baselining

2.1 Document Review

2.2 Data Collection

2.3 Collision and Roadway Analysis
3 Safe Routes to School Program

3.1 Project Management

3.2 Existing Conditions and Safety Assessment

3.3 Community Stakeholder Engagement

3.4 Compilation of Final Action Plan Document
4 Active Transportation Plan

4.1 Technical Advisory Committee

4.2 Public and Community Groups Engagement

4.3 Existing Conditions Inventory

4.4 ,GHQWLƂFDWLRQRI$FWLYH7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ1HHGVDQG3URMHFW/LVW

4.5 Develop Monterey Park Active Transportation Plan

4.5.1 Draft ATP

4.5.2 Final ATP
5 Complete Streets Plan

5.1 Existing Conditions Report

5.2 Public Engagement

5.3 Walk Audits and Surveys

5.4 Draft Corridor Conceptual Designs and Recommendations

5.5 Final Corridor Conceptual Designs and Recommendations

5.6 1HLJKERUKRRG7UDIƂF&DOPLQJ3ODQ
6 Vision Zero Action Plan

6.1 Vision Zero Goals and Objectives

6.2 Emphasis Area

6.3 Vision Zero Governance and Task Force

6.4 Equity Assessment

6.5 Best Practices Assessment

6.6 Safety Countermeasures Toolbox

6.7 Vision Zero Action Plan Report
Legend
Draft Due Final Submission Kickoff Meeting Ongoing Engagement After April Memo or Deliverable Due Walking Tours Project Website/Public Coordinate

Staff Report
October 15, 2025
ATTACHMENT 4
Resolution No. 2022-R36 Complete StreetV Policy

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-R36

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 65040.2 AND 65302.

The City Council of the City of Monterey Park does resolve as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:

A. “Complete Streets” refers to a comprehensive, integrated transportation network with infrastructure and design that allows safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, users and operators of public transit, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, seniors, children, motorists, users of green modes, and movers of commercial goods, and emergency first responders;

B. Planning and coordinated development of Complete Streets infrastructure provides public benefits in the areas of infrastructure cost savings, public health, and environmental sustainability;

C. It is in the public interest to reduce vehicle miles traveled and increasing transportation by walking, bicycling, and public transportation;

D. The Legislative findings set forth in Section 2 of the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358, Leno) is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth. Additionally, the City Co uncil notes that Deputy Directive 64, issued by the California Department of Transportation (“CalTrans”), explains that CalTrans “views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system”;

E. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”), through its Metro Complete Streets Policy, requires that all jurisdictions address complete streets policies at the local level through by adopting a complete streets policy resolution, which should include the “Elements of an Ideal Complete Streets Policy” developed by the National Complete Streets Coalition, a program of Smart Growth America, which is a non-profit, non-partisan alliance of public interest organizations and transportation professionals in existence since 2004 Alternatively, the City may amend its General Plan to with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 to be eligible for Metro Capital Grant funds; and

F. It is in the public interest for the City to adopt a Complete Streets Policy in accordance with California law to help protect public health and safety.

Resolution No. 2022-R36

SECTION 2: The Complete Streets Policy attached as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated by reference, is adopted as City policy (the “Policy”). The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to implement the Policy as desirable or as required by applicable law.

SECTION 3: If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council in tends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 4: The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park and the City Clerk, or his duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTION 5: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and remain effective unless superseded by a subsequent resolution.

SECTION 6: This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 2022.
____________________________
Henry Lo, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Vincent D. Chang, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
TTESTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS :
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ncent D. Chang,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, C

APPRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROVOVOVOOOOOOOOOOVOOOOOOOVOVOVOOOOVOVOOOOOOOVOVOOOOOOOOOOOVOVOOVOOOOVOVOVOOOOVOOOOOOVOOOVOOOOOOOOOVOOOOOOVOOVOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVOOOOOOOOOOOOOVOOOOOVOOOOOOOOOOVOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVVOOOVOOOOOVOOOVVOOOVOOOVVVOOOVVVVVOVVVVVOOVVVVVEDEDEDEEDDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEEEEEEDDDEDDEDEDEEEEDEEEDDEDEDDDEDEDEDEEEEEEEDDEDDEDEEEEEDEEEEDDEDDDEDEDEDEDEEEDEEDEEDEDDDEDEDEDEDEEEDDDDDDEDEEEEDEDDDEDEDEEEEEEEEEDEDDEDEEEEEDEDEEEEDEEEEEEEEEEEEEDEEEDEEEDEEDEEDEEEEEEEEEDEDEEEDEEDEEDEEEEEEEEEEDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDEEEEEEEEEEDEDEEEEEEDDEDEEEEEDDDDEEEEEDEEDDDDDEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDEEEDEEEEDEDDDDDDDDEEEEDDEDDDDDDDEDEEEDDDDDDDDEEEEEDDDDDDEEEEEEDDDDDDDDEEEEDDDDDDEEEEEEDDDDDDEEEEEEDDDEEEEEEEEEEDDDD AS TOT F _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ KKarllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll H. Bergrggrggggggrgggggggrgrgrgggggrgrgrggggggrgggggggrggggggggggggrgrgrgrgggggrgggrggggrgrggggggrgrggggggrgggggggggggrgggggggggrggggrggrgggggggrggggggggggrgggrgggrggggrrgggrgrrgggrgrrggggrrrrgrgrrggrrr erereerrereeerererreerrerreerereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee , CiCCCCCCCC ty A
y
y
,
_____________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ enry y y y yy yyy y y yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy LoLLLLLLLLLoLoLoLLLLLLLLLLLoLLLLLLLLLLoLLLLLLLoLLLLLLo,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, MaMaMaMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMaMaMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM yor

r

Resolution No. 2022-R36

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK )
I, Vincent D. Chang, City Clerk of the City of Monterey Park, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-R36 was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the Monterey Park City Council on the 18th day of May, 2022 by the following vote:

Ayes: Council Members: Yiu, Chan, Liang, Lo
Noes: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: None
Dated this 18th day of May, 2022.
____________________________
Vincent D. Chang, City Clerk
Monterey Park, California
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________ ent ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt DDDDDD.DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Chang, Ciiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttyttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt terey Park, Califoroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Exhibit A
This Complete Streets Policy was adopted by Resolution No. _____ by the City of Monterey Park City Council on May 18, 2022.

COMPLETE STREETS POLICY OF CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

A. Complete Streets Principles

1. Complete Streets Serving All Users and Modes. The City of Monterey Park (“City”) expresses its commitment to creating and maintaining Complete Streets that provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along and across streets (including streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system) through a comprehensive , integrated transportation network that serves all categories of users, including pedestrians, users and operators of public transit, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, seniors, children, motorists, users of green modes, and movers of commercial goods, and emergency first responders.

2. Context Sensitivity. In planning and implementing street projec ts, the City will maintain sensitivity to local conditions in both residential and business districts as well as urban, suburban, and rural areas, and will work with residents, merchants, and other stakeholders to ensure that a strong sense of place ensues.

Improvements that will be considered include sidewa lks, shared use paths, bikeways, paved shoulders, street trees and landscaping, planting strips, accessible curb ramps, crosswalks, refuge islands, pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, bicycle parking facili ties, public transportation stops and facilities, transit priority signalization, and other features assisting in the provision of safe travel for all users.

3. Complete Streets Routinely Addressed by All Departments. All relevant departments and agencies of the City will work towards making Complete Streets practices a ro utine part of everyday operations, approach every relevant project, program, and practi ce as an opportunity to improve streets and the transportation network for all categories of users, a nd work in coordination with other departments, agencies, and jurisdictions to maximize opportunities for Complete Streets, connectivity, and cooperation.

4. All Projects and Phases. Complete Streets infrastructure sufficient to enable reasonably safe travel along and across the right of way for each category of users will be incorporated into all planning, funding, design, approval, and implementation processes for any construction, reconstruction, retrofit, maintenance, operations, alteration, or repair of streets (including streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system), except th at specific infrastructure for a given category of users may be excluded if an exception is approved via the process set forth in section C.1 of this policy.

B. Implementation

1. Design. The City will generally follow it s own accepted or adopted design standards, including those promulgated by the County of Los Angeles and the State of California where appropriate, and will also evaluate using the latest design standards and innovati ve design options, with a goal of balancing user needs.

2. Network/Connectivity. The City will incorporate Co mplete Streets infrastructure into existing streets to improve the safety and convenience of all users, with the particular goal of creating a connected

network of facilities accommodating each category of users and increasing connectivity across jurisdictional boundaries and for anticipated future transportation investments.

3. Implementation Next Steps. The City may take the following specif ic next steps to implement this Complete Streets Policy:

A. Plan Consultation and Consistency: Maintenance, planning, and design of projects affecting the transportation system will be consistent with local bicycle, pedestrian, transit, multimodal, and other relevant guidelines.

B. Stakeholder Consultation: Develop and/or clea rly define a process to allow for stakeholder involvement on projects and plans including, bu t not limited to, local bicycle and pedestrian advisory groups, transit riders and operators, accessibility advisory groups, movers of commercial goods, businesses, residents, emergency respond ers, and/or other stakeholders, as defined necessary to support implementation of this Complete Streets policy.

4. Performance Measures. The City will perform evaluations of how well the streets and transportation network are serving each category of users by collecting baseline data and collecting follow-up data on a regular basis.

C. Exceptions

1. Exception Approvals. Complete Streets principles and practices will be included in street construction, reconstruction, repaving and rehabilitation projects, as well as other plans and manuals, except under one or more of the following conditions:

A. A project involves only ordinary, or emergency maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition, including but not limite d to mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair, pothole rep air, or when interim measures are implemented on temporary detour or haul routes.

B. The City Manager or designee finds that the cost of establishing a bikeway, walkway or transit enhancement as part of a project is excessive and disproportionate.

C. The City Manager or designee determines that cons truction is not practically feasible or cost effective because of significant or adverse en vironmental impacts on neighboring land uses, including impact from right-of-way acquisitions.

D. Unless otherwise determined by the City Council, or by the Director of Public Works, that it is not practically feasible or cost-effective to implement the provisions of this policy.

Exceptions described above will be documented in a memorandum to be included in the project file.

Staff Report
October 15, 2025
ATTACHMENT 5
Resolution No. 2022-R /RFDO5RDG6DIHW\3ODQ

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-R74

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MONTEREY PARK LOCAL ROAD
SAFETY PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH 23 U.S.C. § 148 AND 23 C.F.R. § 924.1, ET SEQ.

The City Council of the City of Monterey Park does resolve as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:

A. A Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) provides a framework for organizing stakeholders to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local and rural roads;

B. The LRSP will promote safety for all road users in the City of Monterey Park;

C. An LRSP will be required for an agency to be eligible to apply for federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds;

D. The LRSP was developed with focus on applying the 5 E’s of traffic safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies) to the traffic safety emphasis areas identified for Monterey Park including distracted driving, bicyclists, pedestrians, aging drivers, and intersections;

E. Upon adoption of the LRSP, the City Manager, or designee, will review the safety improvement countermeasures identified and start to pursue grant funding for the short-term, easier to implement projects. Long-term higher- cost projects will be developed further and included in the City’s 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP);

F. The LRSP is intended to be a living document that is periodically evaluated and updated, allowing for identification of new emphasis areas and safety improvements as traffic patterns, behaviors, and emerging technologies continue to evolve and new projects are constructed; and

G. It is in the public interest for the City to adopt the Local Road Safety Plan to help protect public health and safety.

SECTION 2: Adoption. The LRSP attached as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated by reference, is adopted as the City’s LRSP. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to utilize the LRSP for all lawful purposes including, without limitation, obtaining additional monies from the HSIP.

SECTION 3: Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not

Resolution No. 2022-R74

affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 4: Recordation. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park and the City Clerk, or his duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTION 5: Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 6: Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and remain effective unless superseded by a subsequent resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of September, 2022.
____________________________
Henry Lo, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Vincent D. Chang, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
ay of
Septememememeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemeeeemeeeemeeeeeee ber , 202

2. ________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Henry y yyyyyyyyy y yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo,,,,,,,, MMMMMMaMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM yor

r
ATTESTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS :
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________ Vincenttttttttttttttttttttttttt DC h ang CiCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC t Vincent D. City Cle rk
APPRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROVOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO EDEDEDEDEDEDEDDDDDEDDEDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDEDEDDDDDDDDDDDDEDEDDDDDEDDDDEDDDDEDDEDDDDDDDDDDDEDEDDDEDDDEDEDEDEDEDDDDDEDDEDDDDDDDDDDDEDDDEDEDDDDDEDDEEEDEDDDDDEDDDEDEEEDEDDDEDDDEEEDDDDEDDDDEEEEDEDDDDDEEEDDDDDDDDEEDDDEDDDEEEEDEDEDDEDEEEDDDDEDEDEEEDDEDDDEDEEEDEDDDDDDDEDEEEDEEEDDEEEDDDDDDDEEEDDDEDEEEEDDDDEEEDDDEDEEEEEDDDDEEEEEDDDDDDEEEEEEEDDDDDDEEEEDDDDEDEEEEEDDDEEDEEEDDDEEEEEDDDDDDEEEDDEEEDDDEEDDD AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS TOTOTOTTTTTTOTOTTTTTTTTTTTTOTOTTTTTTTTTOTTTTTTTTOTOTOTTOTTTTTTOTTTTOTOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTOTOTOTOTTTTTTTOTOTTTTTTOTOTOTOTTTTTTOTTOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTOTTTTTOTTTTTTTOTTTTTTOTOTTTOOOTOTOTTOOOTTOOOOOOTOTTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTOOOOOTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFORM:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Karl HH. Bergerr,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, CCCCCCCCCCCCiCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC tytytytytytyytytytytytytytytyytytytyyytytytytytyyytytyytytyytytytytytytyytytyytyytyytytyttyyyyytyyyyyytyytytyyttytyyyyytytttyyyttytyttytytyytttyyyttttyytttyytttytyttyttytttyytttytttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt Attorney Vincent D. CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCChahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ngggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, CiCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC t

Resolution No. 2022-R74

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK )
I, Vincent D. Chang, City Clerk of the City of Monterey Park, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-R74 was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the Monterey Park City Council on the 7 th day of September, 2022 by
the following vote:

Ayes: Council Members: Yiu, Chan, Liang, Lo
Noes: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: None
Dated this 7
th day of September, 2022.
_______________________
Vincent D. Chang, City Clerk
Monterey Park, California
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ent D. Chang, Cityyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy C terey Park, Californinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn a

ES-1
([KLELW$

ES-2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Vision and Goals ....................................................................................................................................... 2

3. Process ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Guiding Manuals .................................................................................................................................. 4

3.1.1 Local Roadway Safety Manual ..................................................................................................... 5

3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual ................................................................................................................ 5

3.2 Analysis Techniques ............................................................................................................................ 6

3.2.1 Collision Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 6

3.2.2 Network Screening Analysis ......................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Future Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 7

4. Safety Partners ......................................................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Stakeholder Meeting #1....................................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Field Tour Stakeholder Workshop ....................................................................................................... 8

4.3 Stakeholder Meeting #2....................................................................................................................... 8

5. Existing Efforts .......................................................................................................................................... 8

6. Data Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 11

6.1 Roadway Network ............................................................................................................................. 11

6.2 Collision Data .................................................................................................................................... 11

7. Crash Safety Trends ............................................................................................................................... 15

7.1 All Collisions ...................................................................................................................................... 15

7.2 Fatalities & Severe Injuries ................................................................................................................ 16

7.3 Injury Levels ...................................................................................................................................... 16

7.4 Cause of Collision .............................................................................................................................. 17

7.5 Vulnerable Users ............................................................................................................................... 17

7.5.1 Pedestrian Collisions .................................................................................................................. 17

7.5.2 Bicycle Collisions ........................................................................................................................ 18

7.6 Other Significant Trends ............................................................................................................. 20

7.7 Collision Network Screening Analysis Results ............................................................................ 20

8. Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Areas ..................................................................................... 33

8.1 Best Practices Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 33

8.2 Emphasis Areas ................................................................................................................................ 36

8.2.4 Emphasis Area #1: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists) ..................................... 36

ES-3

8.2.1 Emphasis Area #2: Aging Drivers ............................................................................................... 37

8.2.2 Emphasis Area #3: Intersection Improvements .......................................................................... 37

8.2.3 Emphasis Area #4: Aggressive Driving ...................................................................................... 38

9. Countermeasure Toolbox........................................................................................................................ 39

9.1 Infrastructure Improvements ............................................................................................................. 39

9.1.1 Countermeasure Selection Process ........................................................................................... 39

9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies ....................................................................................................... 40

9.2 City-wide Countermeasure Toolbox .................................................................................................. 66

10. Funding Sources & Next Steps ............................................................................................................. 69

10.1 Funding ............................................................................................................................................ 69

10.1.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program .................................................................................... 69

10.1.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program .................................................................................. 69

10.1.3 California SB 1 .......................................................................................................................... 70

10.1.4 California Office of Traffic Safety Grants .................................................................................. 70

10.1.5 SCAG Sustainable Communities Program ............................................................................... 71

10.1.6 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program ............................................................ 71

10.1.7 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act .................................................................................... 71

10.2 Implementation Plan ........................................................................................................................ 72

10.2.1 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 72

10.2.2 Analysis Update ........................................................................................................................ 72

10.2.3 Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 72

10.3 Next Steps ....................................................................................................................................... 73

ES-4

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 : Functional Classification & Signalized Intersections ..........................................12 Figure 2: All Collisions (2017-2021) .......................................................................................13 Figure 3: Fatal & Severe Injury Collisions (2017-2021) .........................................................14 Figure 4: Collision Type by Year (2017-2021) ........................................................................15 Figure 5 – Collisions by Injury Levels (2017-2021) ...............................................................16 Figure 6 – Pedestrian & Bicycle Collisions (2017-2021) .......................................................19 Figure 7 – Collision Network Screening Analysis Results (2017-2021) ...............................21

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Review of Existing City Plans ................................................................................. 9 Table 2 – Review of Existing City Projects ............................................................................10 Table 3 – Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions Categorized by Modes Involved ..................16 Table 4: - Cause of Collisions (2017-2021) ............................................................................17 Table 6– Analysis Rankings: Intersections (Top 10 Per Type) ...........................................28 Table 6 – Analysis Rankings: Segments (Top 10 Per Type) ................................................30 Table 7 – Summary of Program, Policies, and Practices ....................................................33 Table 8 - Citywide Safety Countermeasure Toolbox ............................................................67

ES-5
Executive Summary
The City of Monterey Park Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas include type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, as well as city-wide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation network allows for opportunities to:

1. Identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users,

2. Improve safety at specific high-crash locations, and

3. Develop safety measures using the four E’s of safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response to encourage safer driver behavior and better severity outcomes.

With this LRSP, the City continues its safety efforts by identifying areas of emphasis and systemic
recommendations to enhance safety.

The City’s vision is to enhance the transportation network and reduce traffic fatalities and serious injury related crashes, and the goals for the City of Monterey Park include the following:

Goal #1: Identify areas with a high risk for crashes.

Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process.

Goal #3: Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid- and long-term.

Goal #4: Define safety projects for HSIP and other
program funding consideration.

This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of crash data
(January 1, 2017 – December 31, 2021) and roadway
improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern.

Further, the collision history was analyzed to identify locations with elevated risk of collisions either through their collision histories or their similarities to other locations with more active collision patterns. Using a network screening 3,624 5-year
collisions
10Fatalities
34 Serious
Injuries
31%
Occurred at
Signalized
Intersections
52%
Occurred at
Unsignalized
Intersections

21.3%
Due to
Agressive
Driving

15.9% Aging Drivers

6.6%
Involving
Pedestrians &
Bicyclists
Source: Monterey Park Collision Database (2017- 2021)

ES-6

process, locations were identified within the City that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements. Using historic collision data, collision risk factors for the entire network were derived. The outcomes informed the identification and prioritization of engineering and non- infrastructure safety measures to address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle collisions with active transportation users. Active transportation includes any self-power mode of transportation, including walking or bicycling.

Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals developed at the onset of the planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis.

Emphasis Area #1: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists) Emphasis Area #2: Aging Drivers
Emphasis Area #3: Intersection Improvements
Emphasis Area #4: Aggressive Driving
The following 10 locations were chosen to be representative of the corridor and intersection configurations throughout the City.

1. Roadway Segment: Newmark Ave – Ramona Ave to Garfield Ave

2. Signalized Intersection: Garfield Ave & Garvey Ave

3. Unsignalized Intersection: Newmark Ave & Orange Ave

4. Unsignalized Intersection: New Ave & Hershey Ave

5. Roadway Segment: Atlantic Blvd – Garvey Ave to Emerson Ave

6. Unsignalized Intersection: Atlantic Blvd & Mabel Ave

7. Roadway Segment: Monterey Pass Rd – Vagabond Dr to Davidson Dr

8. Signalized Intersection: Atlantic Blvd & 1
st St

9. Signalized Intersection: Atlantic Blvd & Riggin St

10. Signalized Intersection: Atlantic Blvd & Brightwood St These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, stakeholder engagement, the observed crash patterns, and their different characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits. Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment. These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure, and to potentially phase improvements over the longer-term. The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history, allowing for proactive safety enhancements that can prevent future safety challenges from developing.

Additionally, this information can be used to help the City apply for grants and other funding

ES-7

opportunities to implement these safety improvements. These opportunities were assembled into the “countermeasure toolbox” shown below.

ES-8

Citywide Countermeasure Toolbox
ID Potential Countermeasures Where to apply?
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
S02 Improve signal hardware: back-plates with
retroreflective borders

Signalized intersections with significant broadside
and rear-end collisions due to signal visibility
15% $12,000 per intersection
S03 Re-evaluate signal timing for westbound left turn
to provide sufficient time for trucks
Signalized intersections with a significant collision
history related to clearance intervals, high-risk
movements, and signal timing coordination.
15% $5,000 per intersection
S04 Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for
high-speed approaches
Signalized intersections with significant right-angle
and rear-end collisions due to unsafe stopping
during yellow phases
40% $30,000 per intersection
S07 Install protected left turn phasing on north bound
approach
Signalized intersections that have an existing left
turn pocket and permissive left turn or no left turn
protection.
30% $40,000 per intersection
S10 Install flashing beacons as advance warning for
signalized intersections
Locations with sight distance issues 30% $3,000 per beacon S21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI) with new controller
Signalized Intersections – especially those with
high pedestrian activity
60% $30,000 per intersection
NS05 Convert intersection to mini-roundabout Unsignalized intersections with crashes at various points of contact
30% $100,000 per location
NS06 Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs at
unsignalized intersections
Unsignalized intersections with crash history
showing running stop signs 15% $1,500 per sign
NS08 Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled
Intersections
Unsignalized intersections with crash history
showing running stop signs 15% $3,000 per beacon
NS10 Install transverse striping on approaches Unsignalized intersections with crash history showing running stop signs
20% $10,000 per location

ES-9

ID Potential Countermeasures Where to apply?
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
NS11 Sight Distance Evaluation on westbound right
turn
Unsignalized intersections that with significant
collision patterns due to restricted sight distance.
20% $3,000 per intersection
NS21PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety
features)
Unsignalized intersections with high pedestrian
activity
35% $20,000 per location
R23 Install chevron signs on horizontal curves Roadway segments that have a significant amount of collision activity at sharp curves.
40% $1,500 per sign
R24 Install flashing beacons on curve chevron
signage
Roadway segments that have a significant
amount of collision activity at sharp curves.
25% $4,500 per sign
R25 Install curve advance warning signs (flashing
beacon)
Roadway segments that have a significant
amount of collision activity at sharp curves.
30% $5,000 per sign
R26 Install dynamic/variable speed warning sign Roadway segments with a significant number of collisions due to unsafe speeds.
30% $16,000 per sign
R27 Install delineators, reflectors and/or object
markers
Locations with crash history with a high number of
crashes at night or with careless driving
15% $75 per linear foot
R28 Install safety edges

Roadway segments with collisions that resulted in
run-off-road right/left, head-on, or opposite-
direction-sideswipe.
25%

$8,000

per mile
R35PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with
enhanced safety features)
Intersections with high number of pedestrian
activity
35%

$9,500

per curb ramp

ES-10

Near-term action items were identified to accelerate the City’s achievement of the goals and vision of this LRSP. The City can:
x Actively seek other funding opportunities to improve safety for all modal users, x Collaborate with established safety partners & neighboring municipalities as improvements are made to create a cohesive transportation network, and x Iteratively evaluate existing and proposed transportation safety programs and capital improvements to design a safer transportation network in Monterey Park.

The City will regularly monitor and update the analysis performed in this plan. A full plan update will completed five years from the City Council’s adoption of this plan which will maintain eligibility for HSIP funding.

1 1. Introduction
Located in Los Angeles County about 8 miles east of Downtown Los Angeles, the City of Monterey Park is a suburban city with a population of 60,269 according to the 2020 census. Monterey Park is a small city with shopping, food, entertainment, and outdoor recreation. Based on University of California Berkeley’s Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Vehicle Operation Cost Parameters, Monterey Park’s economic losses due to traffic injuries amounted to approximately $430M from 2017 to 2021. This report identifies factors associated with the most vehicle crashes particular to the City and proposes matching countermeasures to reduce or eliminate those crashes.

This Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas include the type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and city-wide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation network allows for the following opportunities:

1. Identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users,

2. Improve safety at specific high-crash locations, and

3. Develop safety measures using the four E’s of safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response) to encourage safer driver behavior and better severity outcomes.

Monterey Park has taken steps to enhance all modal safety throughout the City and with this LRSP, Monterey Park is continuing to prioritize safety in its planning processes. The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) most recently ranked Monterey Park 21 out of 105 peer cities for traffic injuries after normalizing for population and VMT in 2019. With number one (1) in the OTS crash rankings considered the highest, or “worst,” this positions the City at slightly below average for roadway safety performance. This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of crash data from Crossroads, a software for reporting and analytics of traffic collisions and citations, from January 1, 2017 – December 31, 2021 and roadway improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern.

The intent of the LRSP is to:
x Create a greater awareness of road safety and risks
x Reduce the number of fatal and severe-injury crashes
x Develop lasting partnerships
x Support for grant/funding applications, and
x Prioritize investments in traffic safety.

2 2. Vision and Goals
The Monterey Park LRSP evaluates the transportation network as well as non-infrastructure programs and policies within the City. Mitigation measures are evaluated using criteria to analyze the safety of road users (drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians), the interaction of modes, the influences on the roadway network from adjacent municipalities, and the potential benefits of safety countermeasures. Through historical data and trends, proactive identification and safety opportunities can be identified and implemented without relying solely on a reaction and response to crashes as they occur.

As cities across the country have implemented LRSPs and systemically addressed the conditions leading to fatal and severe-injury crashes, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has found that LRSPs effectively improve safety. LRSPs provide a locally developed and customized roadmap to directly address the most common safety challenges in the given jurisdiction. This project’s vision, goals, and objectives have been established to reflect discussions with Monterey Park staff, various stakeholders identified by City staff, and a review of existing plans/policies in the area.

VISION: To enhance the transportation network for all users to move towards zero traffic fatalities and serious injuries

Goal #1: Identify areas with a high risk for crashes.

Objectives:
x Identify intersections and segments that would most benefit from mitigation. x Identify areas of interest with respect to safety concerns for vulnerable users (pedestrians and bicyclists).

Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process.

Objectives:
x Demonstrate the systemic process’ ability to identify locations with higher risk for crashes based on present characteristics closely associated with severe crashes. x Demonstrate, through the systemic process, the gaps and data collection activities that can be improved upon.

Goal #3: Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid- and long-term.

Objectives:
x Identify safety countermeasures for specific locations (case studies). x Identify safety countermeasures that can be applied city-wide.

3 Goal #4: Define safety projects for future Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP) and other program funding consideration.

Objectives:
x Create the outline for a prioritization process that can be used in this and forth-coming cycles to apply for funding.
x Use the systemic process to create Project Case Studies. x Use Case Studies to apply for HSIP and other funding consideration. x Demonstrate the correlation between the proposed safety countermeasures with the Vision Zero Initiative and the California State Highway Safety Plan.

4 3. Process
The primary goal for the City of Monterey Park and their safety partners is to provide safe, sustainable, and efficient mobility choices for their residents and visitors. Through the development and implementation of this LRSP, the City will continue its collaboration with safety partners to identify and discuss safety issues within the community.

Guidance on the LRSP process is provided at both the national (FHWA) and state (Caltrans) level, and both agencies have developed a general framework of data and recommendations for a LRSP.

FHWA encourages the following:
x The establishment of a working group (stakeholders) to participate in developing an LRSP x A review of crash, traffic, and roadway data to identify areas of concern x The identification of goals, priorities, and countermeasures to recommend improvements at spot locations, systemically, and comprehensively
Caltrans guidance follows a similar outline with the following steps:
x Establish leadership
x Analyze the safety data
x Determine emphasis areas
x Identify strategies
x Prioritize and incorporate strategies
x Evaluate and update the LRSP
This LRSP documents the results of data and information obtained, including the preliminary vision and goals for the LRSP, existing safety efforts, initial crash analysis, and developed emphasis areas. The LRSP recommendations consider the four E's of traffic safety defined by the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response.

3.1 Guiding Manuals
This section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within Monterey Park at a systemic level. This report identifies specific locations within the City that will benefit from safety enhancements and derives crash risk factors based on historic crash data using a network screening process. The outcome will inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures by addressing certain roadway characteristics and related driving behaviors contributing to crashes. This process uses the latest national and state best practices for statistical roadway analysis described.

5 3.1.1 Local Roadway Safety Manual
The Local Roadway Safety Manual: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.5, April 2020) encourages local agencies to pursue a proactive approach when identifying and analyzing safety issues and preparing to compete for project funding opportunities. A proactive approach is the analyzation of safety in an entire roadway network through either a one-time network wide analysis or a routine analysis of the roadway network.1 According to the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), “the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California’s federal safety funding intended for local safety improvements.” To provide the most beneficial and competitive funding approach, the analysis leading to countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments and maintain consideration of roadway characteristics and traffic volumes. The result should reflect a list of locations that are most likely to benefit from cost-effective countermeasures, preferably prioritized by benefit/cost ratio. The manual suggests using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures to identify and rank locations using both crash frequency and crash rates.

These findings should then be screened for crash type and severity patterns to determine the cause of crashes and the potential effective countermeasures. Qualitative analysis should include field visits and a review of existing roadway characteristics and devices. The specific roadway context can then be used to assess conditions that may decrease safety at the site and at systematic levels.

Countermeasure selection should be supported using Crash Modification Factors (CMFs). These factors are a peer reviewed product of research quantifying the expected rate of crash reduction expected from a given countermeasure. If more than one countermeasure is under consideration, the LRSM provides guidance on appropriate application of CMFs.

3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published in 2010, presents a variety of methods for quantitatively estimating crash frequency or severity at a variety of locations. 2 This four-part manual is divided
into the following parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals, B) Roadway Safety Management Process, C) Predictive Method, D) Crash Modification Factors.

In Chapter 4 of Part B in the HSM, the “Network Screening Process” is a tool for an agency to analyze the entire network and identify/rank locations that are most likely or least likely to realize a reduction in the frequency of crashes.

1 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 5. 2 AASHTO, Highway Safety Manual, 2010, Washington D.C., http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/About.aspx

6 The HSM identifies five steps in this process:3

1. Establish Focus: Identify the purpose or intended outcome of the network screening analysis. This decision will influence data needs, the selection of performance measures and the screening method that can be applied.

2. Identify Network and Establish Reference Populations: Specify the types of sites or facilities being screened (i.e., segments, intersections, geometrics) and identify groupings of similar sites or facilities.

3. Select Performance Measures: There are a variety of performance measures available to evaluate the potential to reduce crash frequency at a site. In this step, the performance measure is selected as a function of the screening focus and the data and analytical tools available.

4. Select Screening Method: There are three principal screening methods described in this chapter (i.e., ranking, sliding window, peak searching). Each method has advantages and disadvantages; the most appropriate method for a given situation should be selected.

5. Screen and Evaluate Results: The final step in the process is to conduct the screening and analysis and evaluate the results.

The HSM provides several statistical methods for screening roadway networks and identifying high risk locations based on overall crash histories.

3.2 Analysis Techniques

3.2.1 Collision Analysis
The initial steps of a collision analysis involve establishing sub-populations of roadway segments and intersections that have similar characteristics. For this LRSP, intersections were grouped by their control type (signalized and unsignalized), and segments were grouped by their roadway category (primary arterial, secondary arterial, collector, local). Individual collision rates were then calculated for each sub-population. The population level collision rates were used to assess the number of collisions at a specific location. These sub-populations were also used to determine typical collision patterns to highlight locations where an unusual number of specific collision types occurred.

3.2.2 Network Screening Analysis
The network screening process lists intersections and roadway segments by the number of collisions over the analysis period and identifies areas with a higher number of a given collision type than would be expected for the location.

The different collisions were organized by the following categories:

3 AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual. 2010. Washington, DC. Page 4-2.

7 1. Collision injury (fatal, serious injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, property damage only),

2. Collision type (broadside, rear-end, sideswipe, head-on, hit object, overturned, bicycle, pedestrian, other),

3. Environmental factors (lighting, wet roads), and

4. Driver behavior (impaired, aggressive, and distracted driving).

3.3 Future Analysis
The City can plan to conduct regular collision monitoring as described in Section 10.2. The City will then refresh the analysis and update the LRSP every 5 years to maintain eligibility for HSIP funding, as described in Section 10.2.

8 4. Safety Partners
Local stakeholders were included in the development of this report to ensure the local perspective was maintained at the forefront of planning efforts. A stakeholder group of City staff and external partners consisted of representatives from the City economic development staff, the Monterey Park Police Department, Fire Department, Public Works, Alhambra School District, East LA College, and LA Community College District.

The local stakeholders were called together to offer insight on the safety issues present in the City’s transportation network. After the initial network screening and safety analysis, the stakeholder group met to discuss potential countermeasures and challenge areas through a field visit. The summary of the field visit meeting are outlined below.

4.1 Stakeholder Meeting #1
The first stakeholder meeting was conducted virtually on June 21, 2022. At the meeting, stakeholders were introduced to the project and provided an overview of the data used, the required outputs, and the potential outcomes of the study.

In addition to the overview, stakeholders were asked to provide local insight and knowledge at ten “case study” locations that were identified after the initial network screening and crash analysis process.

4.2 Field Tour Stakeholder Workshop
On July 7, 2022, the project team visited each of the 10 locations to identify potential issues that are contributing to the collision patterns. Potential countermeasures were identified and discussed.

4.3 Stakeholder Meeting #2
The second stakeholder meeting was conducted virtually on July 27, 2022. During this meeting case study locations were presented to the stakeholders with a list of observations and potential countermeasures. Emphasis/challenge areas were discussed, specifically aggressive driving and impaired driving as a major factor in collisions throughout the City.

Stakeholder feedback was reviewed and incorporated into the study process for the development of the LRSP.

5. Existing Efforts
Existing plans, policies, and projects that were recently completed, planned, or on-going were compiled at the start of the LRSP process to gain perspective on the existing efforts for transportation-related improvements within the City. High-level key points regarding transportation improvements and safety-related topics were identified to inform decision making in this LRSP.

Table 2 outlines the relevant existing City plans and their improvements and funding sources.

9 Table 3 outlines the relevant existing City projects and their timelines.

Table 1 – Review of Existing City Plans
Document Name Transportation Policies/Improvements
General Plan
x The City of Monterey Park General Plan is a planning document which serves as a guide to the long-term physical development of the community in a series of six chapters called elements which cover land use, economic development, circulation, housing, safety and community services, and resources.

Pedestrian Linkages
Plan
x This plan provides a direction for future public investment, private development, and community action in downtown Monterey Park.
x This plan focuses on a positive trajectory in terms of public amenities, transportation infrastructure, new and existing development, and community cohesion.

Climate Action Plan
x The goal of this plan is to set forth a comprehensive strategy to address GHG emissions related to land use patterns, transportation, building design, energy use, water demand, and waste generation.

San Gabriel Valley
Regional Bicycle
Master Plan
x This plan is intended to guide the development and maintenance of a comprehensive bicycle network and set of programs within the cities of Baldwin Park, El Monte, Monterey Park, San Gabriel and South El Monte for the next 20 years.

The Garfield Village
Specific Plan
x This will be a guide for property owners and businesses to help improve their properties and buildings.
x This plan will guide how buildings, streets, sidewalks, and public spaces are designed and will improve parking, vehicle circulation and transit access.

City of Monterey Park
Pedestrian Safety
Assessment
(performed by UC
Berkeley)
x 2010 report analyzed pedestrian safety in the City and identified area of opportunity and enhancement
x Areas of enhancement included crosswalk installation, speed limits, and pedestrian safety audits
x Areas of opportunity included pedestrian improvements to Garvey & Garfield Avenues, Atlantic Bl north of Garvey Avenue, and areas near East LA College

10 Table 2 – Review of Existing City Projects
Project Name Timeline Transportation Policies/Improvements Slurry Seal Project Summer 2022-
ongoing
Enhance appearance and drivability of the street and protect the base of the roadway from water damage and weathering Southern California
Edison Pole
Replacement
Ongoing Replacement of SCE owned old steel streetlight poles with new concrete poles and light fixtures
N. Atlantic Boulevard
Sewer Main
Improvements
Summer 2022 –
Fall 2022
Replacement of sewer mains, primarily along N Atlantic Blvd and Garvey Ave
Street Rehabilitation
at Various Locations
August 2022-
December 2022
Removal of existing pavement and the application of Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix and AC Overlay on various city streets on the southwest side
Slurry Seal Project July 2022-
August 2022
Enhance the appearance and drivability of the street and protect the base of the roadway from water damage and
weathering
HSIP Cycle 9 Ongoing
Install signal hardware improvements to the lenses, back- plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number, as well as installation of pedestrian countdown signal heads. Implementation on various signalized
intersections along Garfield Ave between northern and
southern city limits.

ATP Project Ongoing
The proposed project involves pedestrian safety
improvements around school sites at various locations
Citywide. The proposed improvements include installation of crosswalk, pedestrian crossing signage, rapid flashing
beacon signs, construction of ADA curb ramps, sidewalk, curb and gutter, overhead pedestrian flashing beacon
system, installation of red curb, pavement markers, signage and striping. The work locations around schools sites are at the following intersections:

Monterey Pass Road
Undergrounding
District
2027 Undergrounding utilities along Monterey Pass Road from Garvey Ave to Vagabond Dr
Sidewalk
Replacement Project FY 2022-2023 Citywide sidewalk replacement project to eliminate tripping hazards for pedestrians
Citywide Bond
Improvement Project Ongoing
$21 million in bond money to pave roads throughout the City and improve sidewalks, ADA ramps, crosswalks, and other infrastructure improvements.

11 6. Data Summary
This section describes the data sources used for the analysis process of this LRSP.

6.1 Roadway Network
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Road System (CRS) GIS database was used to build the base roadway network used for this analysis. Intersections and roadway segments were divided into control and classification categories so that each set could have its own crash rates and be compared with similar facilities or control type. Functional Classifications were imported from the city’s General Plan and confirmed by city staff. Information on intersection traffic control was provided by the city and included in the analysis network. The collision analysis requires each intersection to be classified by type: Signalized or Unsignalized.

Figure 1 illustrates the City of Monterey Park’s roadway functional classification and intersection control type, respectively, as used for this study.

6.2 Collision Data
Collision data was collected from Crossroads software for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021, displayed in Figure 2. Five years of data are utilized instead of the standard three years to provide more history to evaluate trends or patterns. Analysis of the raw collision data is the first step in understanding the specific and systemic challenges faced throughout the city. Analyzing the five years of data provided insight on the collision trends and patterns detailed in Section 7. The locations of fatal and severe injury collisions are displayed in Figure 3.

12 Figure 1 : Functional Classification & Signalized Intersections

13 Figure 2: All Collisions (2017-2021)

14 Figure 3: Fatal & Severe Injury Collisions (2017-2021)

15 7. Crash Safety Trends
The analysis was conducted using a network screening process for the City-maintained roadway system based on collision records spanning from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021.

This section contains the results of the analysis, which included the evaluation of Monterey Park’s fatal and serious injury (generally denoted as K+SI) collisions, statewide K+SI collisions, pedestrian collisions, bicycle collisions, collision severity levels, and collision causes.

7.1 All Collisions
This report utilized collision data for a five-year period to provide a better understanding of trends and to reflect the patterns in crashes that have occurred on city streets. Data used for this report was extracted from Crossroads Software on June 2, 2022 and was current as of that date.

Collision data from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2021 as reported to Crossroads from the local enforcement indicated that during this time there were 3,624 collisions recorded within Monterey Park.

During this time, the most common occurring collision types were Sideswipes (28%) and Broadsides (27%). The total number of collisions decreased throughout the study period, with an increase during the last year, 2021, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Collision Type by Year (2017-2021)

Source: Monterey Park Crossroads Database (2017-2021)

0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
No. of Collisions
Sideswipe
Broadside
Rear-End
Hit Object
Head-On
Vehicle - Pedestrian
Other
Not Stated
Overturned

16 7.2 Fatalities & Severe Injuries
During the study period, 20 fatal collisions and 34 severe injury collisions occurred during the study period, as seen in Figure 3. Table 3 outlines the fatal collisions categorized by modes involved.

Table 3 – Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions Categorized by Modes Involved (2017- 2021)
Involved With # of Severe Injury
Collisions
# of Fatal
Collisions
Bicycle 2 1
Fixed Object 7 1
Other Motor Vehicle 7 1
Non-Collision 1 0
Other Object 1 1
Parked Motor Vehicle 6 1
Pedestrian 10 5

7.3 Injury Levels
As shown in Figure 5, 70% of the collisions reported during the time-period resulted in property damage only. Fatalities and severe injuries totaled 1.2% of all collisions.

Figure 5 – Collisions by Injury Levels (2017-2021)

Source: Monterey Park Crossroads Database (2017 – 2021)

70%
19%
9%

0.9% 0.3%
Property Damage Only
Complaint of Pain
Other Visible Injury
Severe Injury
Fatal

17 7.4 Cause of Collision
The highest recorded cause of collisions in Monterey Park during the study period is Improper Turning at 20.81%, followed by Automobile Right-of-Way Violation at 15.58% and Unsafe Speed at 15.47%. Table 4 shows the distribution of collision cause.

Table 4: - Cause of Collisions (2017-2021)
Primary Collision Factor No. of Collisions %
Improper Turning 749 20.8%
Auto R/W Violation 561 15.6%
Unsafe Speed 557 15.5%
Unknown 447 12.4%
Other Improper Driving 319 8.9%
Traffic Signals and Signs 191 5.3%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 187 5.2%
Driving Under Influence 179 5.0%
Other Hazardous Movement 130 3.6%
Pedestrian Violation 63 1.8%
Unsafe Lane Change 47 1.3%
Improper Passing 41 1.1%
Wrong Side of Road 41 1.1%
Other Than Driver 25 0.7%
Following Too Closely 19 0.5%
Ped R/W Violation 17 0.5%
Hazardous Parking 7 0.2%
Not Stated 5 0.1%
Impeding Traffic 5 0.1%
Other Than Driver or Ped 4 0.1%
Other 3 0.1%
Lights 1 0.03%
Brakes 1 0.03%
Other Equipment 1 0.03%
Source: Monterey Park Crossroads Database (2017 – 2021)

7.5 Vulnerable Users

7.5.1 Pedestrian Collisions
176 pedestrian involved collisions occurred during the study period, resulting in 5 fatal collisions, 10 severe injuries, and 151 collisions with some form of reported injury or pain. Figure 6 shows the locations of pedestrian collisions during the study period.

18 7.5.2 Bicycle Collisions
During the study period, 64 collisions involving bicycles were reported. There was 1 fatal injury, 2 resulted in severe injuries, and 54 resulted in some form of reported injury or pain. Figure 6 shows the location of bicycle collisions during the study period.

19 Figure 6 – Pedestrian & Bicycle Collisions (2017-2021)

20 7.6 Other Significant Trends
In addition, the following trends were observed:
x 27% of collisions occurred at night or during the dusk/dawn hours. x Drivers aged 16-20 were at fault in 15.7% of all collisions. x Drivers aged 65+ were at fault in 12.8% of all collisions.

7.7 Collision Network Screening Analysis Results
Figure 7 below show the results of the collision network screening analysis, with the number of collisions at both intersections and mid-block roadway segments.

21 Figure 7 – Collision Network Screening Analysis Results (2017-2021)

22 Table 6 and 7 show the number of crashes occurring at the top ten locations in Monterey Park by crash type for the locations that will be studied further in the Report, and highlights locations in which the probability of those crash types exceeding the threshold proportion is greater than 33%.

The tables are ordered by the number of collisions that occurred at that segment or intersection.

To be statistically significant, only locations where more than two collisions occurred are represented. At locations with two or less collisions, random chance can account for crash history as much or more than specific roadway characteristics.

After this analysis was completed, the locations were ranked against other similar locations within the City by their categories according to the expected proportion of that crash type within Monterey Park. Locations with higher-than-expected crashes of that type were identified by the probability that random chance would not account for exceedances.

Additionally, it should be noted that the columns for Collision Severity, Type, Involved With, and Behavior are additional characteristics of the collisions and should not be counted as a separate collision.

The following provides an example of how to read Tables 6 and 7.

Table Definitions:
x Total Collisions: Number of collisions observed at the intersection or segment from January of 2017 through December of 2021.
x Local Critical Crash Rate (CCR) Differential: The Critical Crash Rate specific to the intersection or segment. This is the difference between local (actual) crash rate and the critical crash rate, which is how many collisions per million vehicle miles are expected for a location of this type and volume. This tells us how many more collisions are occurring more than is expected. Locations with positive values have more collisions than expected, while locations with negative values have less collisions than expected.

x
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO): This method assigns weighting factors to crashes based on injury level (severe, injury, property damage only) to develop a property damage only score. In this analysis, the injury crash costs were calculated for each location (based on the latest Caltrans injury costs) and then normalized by dividing by the value of a property damage only collision. Fatal and severe injury collisions are estimated at $2.19 million, Other Visible Injury (OVI) collisions at $142,300, Complaint of Pain (COP) collisions at $80,900, and Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions at $13,300.
x Severity: The number of severe injury and fatal collisions that occurred at this location in the study period.
x Fatality: The number of fatal collisions that occurred at this location in the study period.

23 x Broadside, Sideswipe, Rear-End, Head-On, Hit Object, Overturned, Other, Pedestrian, Bicycle: The number of these types of collisions that occurred at this location in the study period.
x Other: The number of miscellaneous collision types (mostly single vehicle) that occurred at this location in the study period.
x Aggressive, Dark, Wet: The number of the collisions with this factor identified as the cause of collision.

28 Table 5– Analysis Rankings: Intersections (Top 10 Per Type) Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Signalized Intersections
Garfield Ave & W Garvey Ave 63 0.10 173 0 0 3 16 44 17 21 20 0 2 0 1 2 3 23 1 4 0 3 S Atlantic Blvd & W Garvey Ave 53 -0.02 138 0 0 4 9 40 14 18 15 3 2 0 1 0 3 19 0 1 0 2 W Riggin St & S Atlantic Blvd 51 0.01 116 0 0 2 9 40 10 11 21 3 1 1 0 5 1 18 2 0 0 3 1st St & S Atlantic Blvd 50 3.93 314 0 1 3 14 32 19 6 15 1 5 0 4 0 0 16 2 1 0 4 N Atlantic Blvd & W Emerson
Ave 43 0.07 161 0 0 8 8 27 16 10 9 4 0 0 0 4 3 13 0 2 1 1 Garfield Ave & Hellman Ave 38 0.25 83 0 0 2 5 31 8 8 10 4 4 1 0 3 0 13 0 6 0 0 Garfield Ave & E Newmark Ave 33 -0.06 113 0 0 3 10 20 12 10 5 1 1 0 0 4 1 9 1 1 0 0 New Ave & Garvey Ave 32 -0.10 92 0 0 2 8 22 7 13 9 1 1 0 1 0 0 12 0 0 0 1 S Atlantic Blvd & Brightwood
St 31 -0.12 260 0 1 1 11 18 3 6 15 2 4 0 0 2 3 17 0 1 0 2 Atlantic Blvd & Hellman Ave 31 0.38 90 0 0 5 2 24 12 6 7 4 1 0 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 2 Unsignalized
Intersections
S Atlantic Blvd & W Mabel Ave 19 0.00 257 1 0 5 5 8 1 3 6 2 5 2 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 S Moore Ave & W Garvey Ave 19 12.63 54 0 0 1 5 13 6 5 1 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 Gerhart Ave & W Riggin St 17 0.39 47 0 0 1 4 12 6 5 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 6 0 1 1 0 S Orange Ave & E Newmark
Ave 17 0.29 210 1 0 2 2 12 8 4 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 1

29 Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
N Garfield Ave & Garcelon Ave 17 -0.02 206 0 1 1 3 12 6 5 3 0 1 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 Newmark Ave & Nicholson Ave 17 0.45 42 0 0 1 3 13 8 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 New Ave & Hershey Ave 16 0.07 180 0 1 0 0 15 2 8 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 N Baltimore Ave & W Garvey
Ave 15 0.01 50 0 0 2 3 10 2 5 5 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0
N Nicholson Ave & E Emerson
Ave 15 0.85 35 0 0 0 4 11 4 2 3 2 1 0 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 1
N Alhambra Ave & E Emerson
Ave 15 0.26 59 0 0 3 3 9 6 2 3 1 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 2

1. Local Critical Crash Rate
Differential

2. Equivalent Property Damage
Only Crashes

30 Table 6 – Analysis Rankings: Segments (Top 10 Per Type) Facility Limits
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Primary Arterial
Garfield Ave E Newmark Ave - Ramona Ave 34 1.68 103 0 0 4 6 24 11 13 7 0 1 0 2 0 0 7 1 3 0 2 S Atlantic Blvd W 1st St - Pomona Fwy Off
Ramp 31 1.04 96 0 0 2 9 20 6 5 15 0 3 0 2 0 0 17 0 2 0 3 N Atlantic Blvd W Emerson Ave - Hellman Ave 29 1.07 79 0 0 2 6 21 5 12 6 1 0 0 4 1 1 3 0 2 0 4 N Atlantic Blvd W Garvey Ave - W Emerson
Ave 21 0.51 398 1 1 3 4 12 3 6 7 1 1 0 0 3 0 5 2 0 0 1
S Atlantic Blvd El Portal Pl - Cadiz St 13 0.21 212 0 1 1 5 6 4 2 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 S Atlantic Blvd Brightwood St - W Floral Dr 11 -0.14 51 0 0 2 4 5 5 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 New Ave E Emerson Ave - Hershey Ave 9 0.24 19 0 0 0 2 7 1 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 S Atlantic Blvd El Mercado Ave - Harding Ave 6 -0.31 36 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Garfield Ave Roca Way - El Repetto Dr 6 -0.28 16 0 0 0 2 4 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 2 S Atlantic Blvd Sevilla St - El Repetto Dr 6 -0.33 11 0 0 0 1 5 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Minor Arterial
Monterey Pass Rd Fremont Ave - Vagabond Dr 15 0.40 54 0 0 3 2 10 3 6 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0

31 Facility Limits
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Monterey Pass Rd Vagabond Dr - Davidson Dr 15 -0.17 59 0 0 3 3 9 9 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 W Ramona Blvd Centre Plaza Dr - Casuda
Canyon Dr 10 1.18 25 0 0 1 1 8 3 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Corporate Center
Dr
Davidson Dr - Casuda Canyon
Dr 7 0.13 22 0 0 1 1 5 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
W Ramona Blvd Corporate Center Dr - MP Golf
Club Entrance 6 0.19 30 0 0 2 1 3 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 E Hellman Ave N Orange Ave - New Ave 5 0.07 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Collector
N Alhambra Ave Garvey Ave - E Emerson Ave 7 0.82 22 0 0 1 1 5 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 W Newmark Ave Garfield Ave - S Ramona Ave 6 1.42 184 0 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 E Newmark Ave S Pomelo Ave - New Ave 3 0.06 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Local
Marguerita Ave Garvey Ave - W Mabel Ave 9 26.2 24 0 0 0 3 6 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Lincoln Ave Hellman Ave - Emerson Ave 6 6.01 30 0 0 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 N Chandler Ave Garvey Ave - Emerson Ave 6 5.90 16 0 0 1 0 5 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hershey Ave N Orange Ave - New Ave 5 3.90 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 Gladys Ave E Emerson Ave - Driveway 5 8.90 5 0 0 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 N Lincoln Ave Garvey Ave - E Emerson Ave 5 4.51 15 0 0 1 0 4 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 S Ynez Ave Garvey Ave - W Newmark Ave 5 3.60 15 0 0 0 2 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

32 Facility Limits
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
S Mc Pherrin Ave Garvey Ave - W Newmark Ave 3 8.67 167 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 N Nicholson Ave Garvey Ave - E Hellman Ave 3 1.61 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Moore Ave W Emerson Ave - Hellman
Ave 3 1.57 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

1. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential

2. Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes

33 8. Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Areas

8.1 Best Practices Evaluation
Table 8 identifies existing plans and policies that were recently completed, or are planned, or on-going within the City of Monterey Park. The intent of this review is to provide an idea of the types of strategies in place or encouraged by the City that may impact the safety analysis process. It will also identify opportunity areas where the City could adopt non-infrastructure countermeasures. This table also ties each topic and enhancement to the emphasis areas that are laid out in Section 8.2.

Table 7 – Summary of Program, Policies, and Practices
Topic Initiatives/ Current Status Opportunities for
Implementation or Enhancement

COMMITTEES / ROLES
Does the City have an
Active Transportation
Coordinator?
City Engineer performs this role Formalize duties in City Engineer positions
Does the City have a
Safety or Active
Transportation Advisory
Committee?
Traffic commission serves this role Continue to identify traffic safety issues and meet on regular basis
Does the City have an
Active Transportation
Safety Education
Program?
No
Implement an Active
Transportation Safety Education
program

POLICY / PLANS
Does the City have a
Complete Streets Plan?
The City has adopted a complete
streets policy and will plan to
develop guidelines
Implement a Complete Streets
Plan to formalize complete streets
policies. ‘Complete Streets’ are
streets that are designed and
operated to enable safe usage and
support mobility for all users.

Develop guidelines for
implementation going forward.

Does the City assess
Traffic Impact Fees?
The City has development impact
fees, but nothing specific to traffic
Continue to assess Development
Impact Fees and use proceeds for
traffic safety improvements
Does the City have a Safe
Routes to School
program?
No
Implement a Safe Routes to
School program to reflect changing
trends
Does the City implement
Traffic Calming Policies? No Formalize Traffic Calming Policies and implement where appropriate

34 Does the City regularly
conduct Speed Surveys? Yes
Continue to conduct speed
surveys every 7 years as required
by the CA MUTCD
Does the City utilized
Warrants for Stop Signs
and Signals?
Yes Continue to utilize warrants for
stop signs and signals
Is the City planning for
Density and Walkable
Areas?
City has some dense and walkable
areas, no formal policy
Consider updating general plan
and zoning to allow for high
density and additional mixed-use
developments
Does the City have
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) or
Vehicle Miles Travelled
(VMT) Reduction
policies?
SGVCOG is developing a regional
program/ Traffic city guidelines
allows for VMT
Continue implementing TDM and
VMT policies
Does the City perform
Traffic Crash Monitoring?
Monterey Police department
performs monitoring.

Regularly monitor crash data to
identify any trends or hotspots
Does the City have an
Active Transportation
Master Plan?
City does not have an Active
Transportation Master Plan
Consider creating an Active
Transportation Master Plan
Does the City have
MUTCD-compliant
Pedestrian Signal
Timing?
LA County implements pedestrian
signal timing
Continue to implement MUTCD
compliant pedestrian signal timing
where appropriate
Does the City implement
Crosswalks at high
pedestrian locations?
City has crosswalks at high
pedestrian locations
Continue to implement crosswalks
at high pedestrian volume
locations as trends change
What type of traffic
enforcement does the
City conduct?
Monterey Park PD conductions
regular traffic enforcement
Continue to enforce traffic laws in
collision and aggressive driving
hotspots
What is the City's Bicycle
Policy? City uses SGVCOG master plan Formalize bicycle policies in City’s transportation element
What types of transit
does the City have?
Fixed route local bus service
(Monterey Park Spirit Bus) and
Metro
Coordinate with transit agencies to
identify any transit-related
improvements to traffic safety
What types of wayfinding
does the City have?
Some wayfinding exists at city
entrances
Identify areas where wayfinding
signage could contribute to
increased roadway safety

DATA COLLECTION / INVENTORY
Does the City have an
Inventory of Pedestrian
Signs and Signals?
City does not currently have an
inventory
Create GIS database of pedestrian
signals and signs

35 Does the City have an
Inventory/Mapping of
Active Transportation
Routes?
SCAG has an inventory of active
transportation routes, including
bicycle lanes and pedestrian paths
Continue to regularly update
inventory; assemble in GIS if
appropriate
Does the City utilize
Crossroads Database for
collisions?
City utilizes Crossroads database Continue to utilize Crossroads database and regularly update
Does the City have Active
Transportation Volume
Counting?
City currently does not have active
transportation volume counting
Implement Active Transportation
Volume counting at key locations
to gauge active transportation
usage

COORDINATION / FEEDBACK
What ways can citizens
give feedback about
roadway safety?
GOMPK and traffic commission-
traffic complaint form
Continue to solicit citizen feedback
on traffic safety and transportation
planning efforts
What types of
Coordination with other
City organization does
your department
perform?
City coordinates with PD and fire
departments
Continue coordinating with
development department and other
City departments
What types of School
Engagement does the
City perform?
PD coordinates with school
districts
Continue to identify areas of
coordination with local schools
What types of Law
Enforcement/Emergency
Service Engagement
does the City perform?
City engages with police and fire
department
Continue to identify areas of
coordination with police and fire
department

36 8.2 Emphasis Areas
Emphasis areas repreesent crash factors that are common in the City and provide the opportunity to reduce the largest number of traffic injuries with strategic investment. Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals of this planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis.

8.2.4 Emphasis Area #1: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists) Description: Pedestrians and bicyclists are classified by Caltrans as vulnerable users, meaning they possess the highest potential for severe harm during a crash. These groups need appropriate infrastructure to travel to key destinations such as schools, workplaces, and core commercial areas. The City’s Circulation element lays out plans and standards for non-motorized transportation. Of the 240 crashes involving vulnerable road users, 6 resulted in a fatal injury and 12 resulted in a severe injury. The City should aim to implement countermeasures to further protect these users from injury.

Goals for Emphasis Area #1:
x Improve active transportation infrastructure by adding pedestrian facilities, bike lanes, and other amenities to make it safer for employees and community members to get to key destinations such as school, commercial centers, transit centers, and recreation areas x Encourage healthier lifestyles through active transportation infrastructure x Apply for HSIP and other funding to implement countermeasures to address vulnerable road user crashes
Strategies for Emphasis Area #1:
x Provide outreach, education, and enforcement to encourage more separation between vehicular and pedestrian traffic
x Install high-visibility crosswalk markings at the intersection of key destinations x Ensure all signalized intersections have completed crosswalks x Provide dedicated pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to and from bus stops x Install adequate street lighting
x Widen street shoulders
x Provide signage (e.g., pedestrian crossing ahead) to help drivers expect to slow down for pedestrians and bikes
x Install bicycle lanes along key corridors
x Install bicycle storage facilities in public areas, such as parks and schools, to encourage bicycle use

37 x Implement recommendations from Safe Routes to School plan and consider opportunities for more systemic implementation where appropriate.
x Install curb extensions
x Install ADA ramps
x Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) with new controller x Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations x Establish rotating enforcement targets for high visibility campaigns x Incorporate GIS bicycle facilities into interactive map on City website x These strategies will be implemented by the City, law enforcement, and community organizations, such as CalWalks, and Active SGV. Funding sources for these strategies may include OTS, NHTSA, and SB1 grant programs.

8.2.1 Emphasis Area #2: Aging Drivers
Description: Collisions involving aging drivers, as defined by the Caltrans SHSP, includes instances where the driver of the motor vehicles is 65 years or older. During the period of 2017- 2021, 16% of the collisions in the City involved aging drivers.

Goal for Emphasis Area #2:
x Reduce the number of crashes involving aging drivers
x City will evaluate progress of the goal every two years and make any necessary changes to implementation strategies
Strategies for Emphasis Area #2:
x Education campaign to target aging drivers with messages regarding road safety, common mistakes and challenges
x Increased enforcement near hotspots of aging drivers
x Increased communication with community organizations

These strategies will be implemented by the City, law enforcement, and community organizations, such as CalWalks and Active SGV. Funding sources for these strategies may include OTS, NHTSA, and SB1 grant programs.

8.2.2 Emphasis Area #3: Intersection Improvements
Description: Collisions involved at intersections, interchanges, and other roadway access.

About 82% of total of collisions took place at or near intersections. 46.2% of the fatal and severe injury collisions in Monterey Park involved intersections, compared to 23.8% statewide.

38 Goal for Emphasis Area #3:
x Reduce the number of crashes at intersections, interchanges, and other roadway access.
x Identify hot spots and prioritize locations for intersection improvements. x Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to address collisions at intersections for improvement.

Strategies for Emphasis Area #3:
x Engineering improvements are not limited but could include backplates with reflective borders, left-and right turn lanes at two-way controlled intersections, and protected left- turn movements.

These strategies can be implemented by the City with assistance from emergency services and community organizations. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, OTS, and SB1 grant programs.

8.2.3 Emphasis Area #4: Aggressive Driving
Description: Aggressive driving, as defined by the Caltrans SHSP, includes several behaviors including speeding, tailgating, and ignoring traffic signals and signs. Aggressive driving behaviors (unsafe speed or following too closely) accounted for 21 percent of collisions. 1 percent of these collisions resulted in a severe injury, 9 percent of these collisions resulted in some other form of injury.

Goal for Emphasis Area #4:
x Reduce the number of crashes due to aggressive driving in the City x Identify hot spots and priority corridors for aggressive driving x Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to address aggressive driving

Strategies for Emphasis Area #4:
x Educational campaign to target aggressive drivers
x Increased law enforcement presence near aggressive driving hotspots x Increased coordination with law enforcement and other community organizations

These strategies will be implemented by the City, while partnering with Caltrans, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), California Highway Patrol (CHP), and other community partners. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, Active Transportation Program (ATP), OTS, SB 1, and SS4A grant programs.

39 9. Countermeasure Toolbox
This section provides information on general identified issues, crash reduction factors, improvements, and countermeasures identified for the City of Monterey Park, as well as for specific project locations identified as part of this analysis. Countermeasures for each of the Safety Project Case Studies are based on data analysis, stakeholder input, and site visits.

9.1 Infrastructure Improvements

9.1.1 Countermeasure Selection Process
Part D of the HSM provides information on CMFs for roadway segments, intersections, interchanges, special facilities, and road networks. CMFs are used to estimate the safety effects of highway improvements, specifically to compare and select highway safety improvements. A CMF less than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to reduce crashes. A CMF greater than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to increase crashes. A Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) is directly connected to the CMF and is “mathematically defined as (1 – CMF) (the higher the CRF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes)

4.” CMFs can help decision makers
weigh potential alternative projects, but are only one measure of a project's value and should be considered part of a larger decision making process. Furthermore, it is important to note that not all CMFs are as reliable as others. The FHWA maintains a federal depository of CMFs and includes a star rating system to help users determine which CMFs are bolstered by the best and most thorough research. Key factors to consider when applying CMFs include:

1. Selection of an appropriate CMF;

2. Estimation of crashes without treatment;

3. Application of CMFs by type and severity; and,

4. Estimation of the combined effect for multiple treatments.

Examples of Safety Countermeasures can be found through several sources. This Report utilizes the countermeasures found in the California LRSM and the CMF Clearinghouse (CMF CH) website. Countermeasures for each of the Safety Project Case Studies are based on the data analysis and site visits. Additional countermeasures were identified for the high-level issues on a city-wide level and are discussed in Section 9.2.

4 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 27.

40 9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies
From the city-wide analysis, eleven (10) project case study locations were selected for further evaluation and countermeasure development. For each of these locations, Safety Project Case Studies were developed to provide a balanced understanding of common safety patterns at a variety of location types that can be used to associate countermeasures with specific roadway configurations and conditions. These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, stakeholder engagement, the observed crash patterns, and their different characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits.

A Safety Project Case Study was developed for each of the following locations:

1. Signalized Intersection: Monterey Park Pkwy & Vincent Ave

2. Signalized Intersection: Garfield Ave & Garvey Ave

3. Unsignalized Intersection: Newmark Ave & Orange Ave

4. Unsignalized Intersection: New Ave & Hershey Ave

5. Roadway Segment: Atlantic Blvd – Garvey Ave to Emerson Ave

6. Unsignalized Intersection: Atlantic Blvd & Mabel Ave

7. Roadway Segment: Monterey Pass Rd – Vagabond Dr to Davidson Dr

8. Signalized Intersection: Atlantic Blvd & 1
st St

9. Signalized Intersection: Atlantic Blvd & Riggin St

10. Signalized Intersection: Atlantic Blvd & Brightwood St The following pages summarize conditions at each location, and potentially beneficial countermeasures. Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment. These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure, and to potentially phase improvements over the longer-term.

These case study sheets can also be used to position the City for future grant funding opportunities.

The potential benefit of each countermeasure was calculated using each countermeasure’s Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) and the latest Caltrans injury level cost data. Fatal and severe injury collisions are estimated at $2.19 million, Other Visible Injury collisions at $142,300, Complaint of Pain collision at $80,900, and Property Damage Only collisions at $13,300. The 5-year benefit is extrapolated out to a 20-year safety benefit.

The 20-year safety benefit was then compared to the 20-year cost estimates, which is used to calculate a benefit-cost ratio. The benefit-cost ratio can be used to compare different countermeasures for their effectiveness and competitiveness for grant funding.

Case Study Sheet: Location #1
Project Location, Description & Maps
Segment: Newmark Ave: Ramona Ave to Garfield Ave
Example of Similar Segments: Chandler Ave: Newmark Ave to Garvey Ave; Lincoln Ave: Emerson Ave to Garvey Ave

RROADWAYY

SEGMENT
STOP
Project Name: Monterey Park LRSP
Agency Name: City of Monterey Park
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 6
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
1 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (50%)
Rear-end (16%)
Sideswipe (16%)
Vehicle-Pedestrian (16%)
Dark Collisions 2
Impaired Collisions 0
Collision Data
Average Daily Traffic
(ADT)
7,399
Lighting Well-lit
Median Single dashed yellow
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
30 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
510
Field Visit Notes
• High no. of collisions around CVS driveway on Newmark • Limited visibility from driveway, looking west, due to parked cars • Speeding, more common eastbound
• Eastbound speeds generally higher than westbound, possibly due to vehicles having more distance to speed up from the intersection to the west
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Implement no
parking any time
zone (signage and
red curb) just west
of CVS driveway on
Newmark, in
eastbound direction
15%
(NS06) $367,965 $3,000 122.66
Install edge-lines
striping to separate
parking lanes from
travel lanes
25%
(R28) $613,275 $3,000 204.43
Install ‘stop ahead’
signage at Ramona
Ave & Newmark Ave
intersection
15%
(NS06) $367,965 $1,500 245.32
Case Study Sheet: Location #1

Case Study Sheet: Location #2
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Garfield Ave and Garvey Ave
Example of Similar Intersections: Atlantic Blvd and Garvey Ave; Atlantic Blvd and Riggin St

SSIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION
Project Name: Monterey Park LRSP
Agency Name: City of Monterey Park
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 63
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
0 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Sideswipe (33%)
Rear-end (32%)
Broadside (27%)
Dark Collisions 16
Impaired Collisions 8
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 51,092
Crosswalk Condition Good
Control Type Signal
Lighting Well-lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
30 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
58 2 3
Field Visit Notes
• High volumes of pedestrians on northbound/southbound crosswalks • Issues with northbound/southbound right-turning drivers due to high ped volumes • Elderly pedestrians
• High no of broadside collisions in intersection
• Rear ends and sideswipes around intersection
• Several right-turn sideswipes in intersection
• Deteriorated bus pad on southeast corner
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install retroreflective
backplates
15%
(S02)
$345,975 $12,000 28.83
Review and adjust
signal timing
15%
(S03)
$345,975 $7,667 45.13
Case Study Sheet: Location #2

Countermeasure Evaluation (continued)
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Modify signal
phasing to
implement a
Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
60%
(S21PB) $202,140 $7,667 26.36
Install/upgrade
pedestrian crossing
(including audible
pedestrian signals)
35%
(R35PB) $117,915 $9,500 14.16
Install advanced
dilemma zone
detection system
40%
(S04) $922,600 $40,000 3.84
Repair/move bus
stop on southeast
corner
- varies varies varies
Case Study Sheet: Location #2

Case Study Sheet: Location #3
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Newmark Ave and Orange Ave
Example of Similar Intersections: Newmark Ave and Alhambra Ave; Graves Ave and Russell Ave

FFOUR-WAY-STOP

INTERSECTION
STOP
Project Name: Monterey Park LRSP
Agency Name: City of Monterey Park
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 17
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
1 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (47%)
Sideswipe (24%)
Vehicle-Pedestrian (12%)
Dark Collisions 1
Impaired Collisions 1
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 13,399
Crosswalk Condition Good
Control Type Stop sign
Lighting Poorly-lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
30 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
15 2 0
Field Visit Notes
• Cut-through traffic
• High speeds
• Vehicles not completely stopping at stop signs
• May be hard to notice stop sign at low volumes
• Marketplace development south on Orange Ave
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install ‘stop ahead’
signage
15%
(NS06) $419,400 $6,000 69.90
Install Flashing
Beacons at Stop-
Controlled
Intersections
15%
(NS08) $419,400 $12,000 34.95
Install transverse
rumble stripes on
approaches
20%
(NS10) $559,200 $10,000 55.92
Case Study Sheet: Location #3

Countermeasure Evaluation (continued)
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install continental
cross-walks
35%
(NS21PB)
$816,305 $20,000 40.82
Install
dynamic/variable
speed warning signs
30%
(R26) $838,800 $64,000 13.11
Install edge-lines to
delineate parking
lanes from travel
lanes
25%
(R28) $699,000 $3,800 183.95
Targeted
enforcement - Varies Varies varies
Case Study Sheet: Location #3

Case Study Sheet: Location #4
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: New Ave and Hershey Ave
Example of Similar Intersections: Garfield Ave and Garcelon Ave

OONE-WAY-STOPP

INTERSECTION
STOP
Project Name: Monterey Park LRSP
Agency Name: City of Monterey Park
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 16
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
1 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Sideswipe (44%)
Rear-end (25%)
Broadside (13%)
Dark Collisions 6
Impaired Collisions 2
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 3
Total Entering Vehicles 20,227
Crosswalk Condition Good
Control Type Stop sign
Lighting Poorly-lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
35 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
16 0 0
Field Visit Notes
• High speeds from freeway traffic
• High no. of collisions with parked vehicles
• Parking allowed only south of Hershey as lane widens
• Former marked crosswalk across New at Hershey removed in late 2000’s Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install striping and
delineators/bollards
north of Hershey to
encourage
movement to left
edge of outside lane
as parking begins
south of Hershey
15%
(R27)
$358,425 $41,250 8.69
Install striping to
separate parking
lanes from travel
lanes
25%
(R28)
$597,375 $5,000 119.48
Case Study Sheet: Location #4

Case Study Sheet: Location #5
Project Location, Description & Maps
Segment: Atlantic Blvd: Garvey Ave to Emerson Ave
Example of Similar Segments: Atlantic Blvd: Emerson Ave to Hellman Ave; Garfield Ave: Emerson Ave to Hampton Ave

RROADWAYY

SEGMENT
Project Name: Monterey Park LRSP
Agency Name: City of Monterey Park
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 21
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
2 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear-end (33%)
Sideswipe (29%)
Broadside (14%)
Vehicle-Pedestrian (14%)
Dark Collisions 8
Impaired Collisions 1
Collision Data
Average Daily Traffic
(ADT)
32,011
Lighting Well-lit
Median Two-way left turn lane
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
30 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
18 3 0
Field Visit Notes
• High no. of pedestrian collisions
• High no. of left turn conflicts at southern end
• Audible pedestrian signals at mid-block signalized intersection • Bus stop over area
• Protected-permissive left turn signal heads in northbound and southbound directions at mid-block signal
• Major north-south corridor between I-10 and SR-60
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Protected left turn
signals in
northbound and
southbound
directions at mid-
block signal
30%
(S07)
$1,587,030 $40,000 39.68
Install ‘signal ahead’
signage
30%
(S10) $1,587,030 $6,000 264.51
Install/upgrade
pedestrian crossing
(audible pedestrian
signal with multiple
languages; ‘use
crosswalk’ signage,
re-stripe crosswalk)
35%
(R35PB) $11,537,655 $19,000 97.45
Case Study Sheet: Location #5
• High volumes on weekends
• Businesses attract high volumes in afternoons and on
weekends
• Driveway on east side of mid-block signal serves as main driveway for Ralphs
• High no. of parked vehicles in southbound direction during busy periods

Case Study Sheet: Location #6
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Atlantic Blvd and Mabel Ave
Example of Similar Intersections: Garfield Ave and Newmark Ave Project Name: Monterey Park LRSP
Agency Name: City of Monterey Park
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022

OONE-WAY-STOPP

INTERSECTION
STOP

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 19
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
1 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear-end (37%)
Hit-object (26%)
Sideswipe (16%)
Dark Collisions 9
Impaired Collisions 5
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 3
Total Entering Vehicles 31,437
Crosswalk Condition None
Control Type Stop sign
Lighting Well-lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
35 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
19 0 0
Field Visit Notes
• Curve catches drivers off guard, especially in northbound direction • High no. of collisions northbound as curve begins, especially fixed-object collisions • Northbound vehicles lose control as curve begins and leave the roadway, causing property damage • Limited visibility northbound due to curve; vehicles may not see signal to the north Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install flashing
beacons as signal
advance warning
30%
(S10) $1,023,720 $3,000 341.24
Install chevron signs
on horizontal curves
40%
(R23)
$1,364,960 $7,500 181.99
Install curve advance
warning signs
25%
(R24)
$853,100 $1,500 568.73
Install curve advance
warning signs
(flashing beacon)
30%
(R25) $1,023,720 $10,000 102.37
Case Study Sheet: Location #6

Countermeasure Evaluation (continued)
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install
dynamic/variable
speed warning signs
30%
(R26) $1,023,720 $16,000 63.98
Install reflective
pavement markings
15%
(R27)
$511,860 $75,000 6.82
Install edge-lines
striping
25%
(R28)
$853,100 $1,900 449.00
Case Study Sheet: Location #6

Case Study Sheet: Location #7
Project Location, Description & Maps
Segment: Monterey Pass Rd: Vagabond Dr to Davidson Dr
Example of Similar Segments: Monterey Pass Rd: Fremont Ave to Vagabond Dr

RROADWAYY

SEGMENT
Project Name: Monterey Park LRSP
Agency Name: City of Monterey Park
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 15
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
0 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (60%)
Sideswipe (33%)
Rear-end (7%)
Dark Collisions 2
Impaired Collisions 1
Collision Data
Average Daily Traffic
(ADT)
16,829
Lighting Well-lit
Median Two-way left turn lane
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
40 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
14 0 1
Field Visit Notes
• Industrial; high truck volumes, passing through or using driveways & curb space • Trucks parked or moving in roadway cause vehicles to perform unsafe maneuvers • 40 mph speed limit; vehicles going 50 mph
• Cut-through traffic during peak periods due to proximity & similarity to nearby freeway routes Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install edge-line
striping and median
striping
25% $197,325 $14,000 14.09
Targeted speed
enforcement - Varies Varies Varies
Case Study Sheet: Location #7

Case Study Sheet: Location #8
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Atlantic Blvd and 1st St
Example of Similar Intersections:

SSIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION
Project Name: Monterey Park LRSP
Agency Name: City of Monterey Park
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 50
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
1 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (38%)
Rear-end (30%)
Sideswipe (12%)
Dark Collisions 9
Impaired Collisions 1
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 5,734
Crosswalk Condition Fair
Control Type Signal
Lighting Well-lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
35 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
50 0 0
Field Visit Notes
• East LA College nearby
• Permissive-only left turn phasing in east/west directions (1st St and SR-60 off-ramp) • Left-turning eastbound traffic on 1st St is hesitant to complete turn due to limited visibility of oncoming traffic and uncertainty of movements of oncoming traffic exiting the freeway • High no. of rear-end collisions on Atlantic Bl
• Congestion on Atlantic Bl during peak periods
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Implement signal
coordination/synchr
onization along
Atlantic Bl
15%
(S02)
$626,265 $38,335 16.34
Implement split
phasing in E/W
directions
30%
(S07)
$1,252,530 $40,000 31.31
Case Study Sheet: Location #8

Case Study Sheet: Location #9
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Atlantic Blvd and Riggin St
Example of Similar Intersections: Garfield Ave and Garvey Ave; Atlantic Blvd and Garvey Ave

SSIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION
Project Name: Monterey Park LRSP
Agency Name: City of Monterey Park
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 53
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
0 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear-end (40%)
Sideswipe (23%)
Broadside (21%)
Dark Collisions 11
Impaired Collisions 2
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 47,070
Crosswalk Condition Fair
Control Type Signal
Lighting Well-lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
35 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
47 5 1
Field Visit Notes
• East LA College nearby
• High pedestrian volumes
• High bus volumes
• Buses stopped on Atlantic Bl south of Riggin St
reduce visibility in conflict zones
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install
retroreflective
backplates
15%
(S02)
$235,695 $12,000 19.64
Implement signal
coordination/synchr
onization on Atlantic
Bl
15%
(S04)
$235,695 $38,335 6.15
Case Study Sheet: Location #9
• Congestion on Atlantic Bl at peak periods
• High no. of pedestrian collisions
• High no. of rear-end collisions

Countermeasure Evaluation (continued)
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Modify signal
phasing to
implement a
Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
60%
(S21PB) $942,780 $7,667 122.97
Install advanced
dilemma zone
detection
40%
(S04) $365,640 $40,000 9.14
Case Study Sheet: Location #9

Case Study Sheet: Location #10
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Atlantic Blvd and Brightwood St
Example of Similar Intersections: Atlantic Blvd and El Repetto Dr; Garfield Ave and El Repetto Dr

SSIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION
Project Name: Monterey Park LRSP
Agency Name: City of Monterey Park
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 31
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
1 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear-end (48%)
Sideswipe (19%)
Hit-object (13%)
Dark Collisions 9
Impaired Collisions 2
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 34,520
Crosswalk Condition Good
Control Type Signal
Lighting Well-lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
40 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
26 2 3
Field Visit Notes
• East LA College nearby
• High traffic from ELAC
• High left turn volumes from Brightwood
• Permissive-only left turn phasing in all directions
• High no. of rear-end collisions, especially southbound • Steep roadway grade on Brightwood, west of intersection, sloping downward in the eastbound direction
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install
retroreflective
backplates
15%
(S02) $519,240 $12,000 43.27
Implement signal
coordination/
synchronization
along Atlantic Bl
15%
(S03)
$519,240 $38,335 13.54
Install protected
left-turn phasing or
split phasing on E/W
Brightwood St
movements
30%
(S07)
$1,038,480 $40,000 25.96
Install edgelines
striping on
Brightwood St
25%
(R28)
$865,400 $5,000 173.08
Case Study Sheet: Location #10
• Atlantic Bl slopes downward in the southbound direction, north of the intersection, leading to high speeds
• Bike collisions
• No parking on Atlantic Bl north of intersection

Countermeasure Evaluation (continued)
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install advanced
dilemma zone
detection systems
40%
(S04)
$1,384,640 $40,000 34.62
Case Study Sheet: Location #10

67 Table 8 - Citywide Safety Countermeasure Toolbox
ID Potential Countermeasures Where to apply?
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
S02 Improve signal hardware: back-plates with
retroreflective borders

Signalized intersections with significant broadside
and rear-end collisions due to signal visibility
15% $12,000 per intersection
S03 Re-evaluate signal timing for westbound left turn
to provide sufficient time for trucks
Signalized intersections with a significant collision
history related to clearance intervals, high-risk
movements, and signal timing coordination.
15% $5,000 per intersection
S04 Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for
high-speed approaches
Signalized intersections with significant right-angle
and rear-end collisions due to unsafe stopping
during yellow phases
40% $30,000 per intersection
S07 Install protected left turn phasing on north bound
approach
Signalized intersections that have an existing left
turn pocket and permissive left turn or no left turn
protection.
30% $40,000 per intersection
S10 Install flashing beacons as advance warning for
signalized intersections
Locations with sight distance issues 30% $3,000 per beacon S21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI) with new controller
Signalized Intersections – especially those with
high pedestrian activity
60% $30,000 per intersection
NS05 Convert intersection to mini-roundabout Unsignalized intersections with crashes at various points of contact
30% $100,000 per location
NS06 Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs at
unsignalized intersections
Unsignalized intersections with crash history
showing running stop signs 15% $1,500 per sign
NS08 Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled
Intersections
Unsignalized intersections with crash history
showing running stop signs 15% $3,000 per beacon
NS10 Install transverse striping on approaches Unsignalized intersections with crash history showing running stop signs
20% $10,000 per location
NS11 Sight Distance Evaluation on westbound right
turn
Unsignalized intersections that with significant
collision patterns due to restricted sight distance.
20% $3,000 per intersection

68 ID Potential Countermeasures Where to apply?
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
NS21PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety
features)
Unsignalized intersections with high pedestrian
activity
35% $20,000 per location
R23 Install chevron signs on horizontal curves Roadway segments that have a significant amount of collision activity at sharp curves.
40% $1,500 per sign
R24 Install flashing beacons on curve chevron
signage
Roadway segments that have a significant
amount of collision activity at sharp curves.
25% $4,500 per sign
R25 Install curve advance warning signs (flashing
beacon)
Roadway segments that have a significant
amount of collision activity at sharp curves.
30% $5,000 per sign
R26 Install dynamic/variable speed warning sign Roadway segments with a significant number of collisions due to unsafe speeds.
30% $16,000 per sign
R27 Install delineators, reflectors and/or object
markers
Locations with crash history with a high number of
crashes at night or with careless driving
15% $75 per linear foot
R28 Install safety edges

Roadway segments with collisions that resulted in
run-off-road right/left, head-on, or opposite-
direction-sideswipe.
25%

$8,000

per mile
R35PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with
enhanced safety features)
Intersections with high number of pedestrian
activity
35%

$9,500

per curb ramp

69 10. Funding Sources & Next Steps

10.1 Funding
Competitive funding resources are available to assist in the development and implementation of safety projects in Monterey Park. The City should continue to seek available funding and grant opportunities from local, state, and federal resources to accelerate their ability to implement safety improvements throughout Monterey Park. This section provides a high-level introduction to some of the main funding programs and grants for which the City can apply.

10.1.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federal program that apportions funding as a lump sum for each state, which is then divided among apportioned programs. These flexible funds can be used for projects to preserve or improve safety conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, facilities for non-motorized transportation, and other project types. Safety improvement projects eligible for this funding include:
x New or upgraded traffic signals
x Upgraded guard rails
x Pedestrian warning flashing beacons
x Marked crosswalks
x Other projects listed in the Caltrans Local Road Safety Manual California’s local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with national recognized crash reduction factors. Normally HSIP call-for-projects is made at an interval of one to two years. The applicant must be a city, a county, or a tribal government federally recognized within the State of California.

Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level can be found online at:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/. California specific HSIP information – including dates for upcoming call for projects - can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.html.

HSIP Cycle 11 applications are due in September 2022.

10.1.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program
Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a statewide funding program, created in 2013, consolidating several federal and state programs. The ATP funds projects that encourage increased mode share for walking and bicycling, improve mobility and safety for non-motorized users, enhance public health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Projects eligible for this funding include:
x Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects
x Bicycle and pedestrian planning projects (e.g., safe routes to school) x Non-infrastructure programs (education and enforcement)

70 This program funding is provided annually. The ATP call for projects typically comes out in the spring. Information on this program and cycles can be found online at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/.

10.1.3 California SB 1
The California SB 1 is a landmark transportation investment to rebuild California by fixing neighborhood streets, freeways, and bridges in communities across California and targeting funds toward transit and congested trade and commute corridor improvements.

California’s state-maintained transportation infrastructure will receive roughly half of SB 1 revenue: $26 billion. The other half will go to local roads, transit agencies and an expansion of the state’s growing network of pedestrian and cycle routes. Each year, this new funding will be used to tackle deferred maintenance needs both on the state highway system and the local road system, including:
x Local Street and Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation: $1.5 billion o This funding is dedicated to improve local road maintenance, rehabilitation, and/or safety through projects such as restriping and repaving. x Bike and Pedestrian Projects: $100 million
o This will go to cities, counties, and regional transportation agencies to build or convert more bike paths, crosswalks, and sidewalks. It is a significant increase in funding for these projects through the ATP.
x Local Planning Grants: $25 million

10.1.4 California Office of Traffic Safety Grants
This program has funding for projects related to traffic safety, including transportation safety education and encouragement activities. Grants applications must be supported by local crash data (such as the data analyzed in this report) and must relate to the following priority program areas:
o Alcohol Impaired Driving
o Distracted Driving
o Drug-Impaired Emergency Medical Services
o Motorcycle Safety
o Occupant Protection
o Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
o Police Traffic Services
o Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing Program
o Roadway Safety and Traffic Records

71 10.1.5 SCAG Sustainable Communities Program
This program is an innovative vehicle for promoting local jurisdictional efforts to test local planning tools. The Sustainable Communities Program (SCP) provides direct technical assistance to SCAG member jurisdictions to complete planning and policy efforts to implement the regional Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS). Grants are available in the following three categories:
x Integrated Land Use
o Sustainable Land Use Planning
o Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
o Land Use & Transportation Integration
x Active Transportation
o Bicycle Planning
o Pedestrian Planning
o Safe Routes to School Plans
x Green Region
o Natural Resource Plans
o Climate Action Plans (CAPs)
o Green House Gas (GHG) Reduction programs

10.1.6 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program This program has allocated $1B annually for the next 4 years for local cities, counties, MPOs, and other roadway owners (excepting state DOTs) for safety improvement grants for safety planning, education, enforcement, and roadway improvements. This program is not benefit / cost based.

Evaluation criteria are oriented to the project’s alignment with the Safe Systems approach. There is a 20% local match requirement (can be in-kind contribution via staff billable hours). Planning grants are open to any eligible agency and Implementation grants are open to agencies with a completed safety plan such as a Local Roadway Safety Plan. Planning grants are expected to range from $100K to $1M and Implementation grants are expected to range from $1M to $20M.

Grant applications are due in September 2022. Implementing a Local Road Safety Plan and the City’s adoption of a Vision Zero resolution makes the City eligible to apply for SS4A implementation grants.

10.1.7 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
In November 2021, the President signed into law the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In addition to the SS4A grant program described above, this law provides billions of dollars in additional funding for improvements and investment in the transportation sector nationwide. The law provides $30 billion in funding over 5 years for competitive RAISE grants for transportation projects, as well as additional funding for repair and environmental mitigation projects. As these grant programs continue to be developed, City can position itself by identifying potential projects and programs to pursue.

72 10.2 Implementation Plan
Once the Local Roadway Safety Plan has been completed, the City can plan to regularly review and monitor collision data for trends and changes. The City can also plan to prioritize and implement certain improvements that were identified in this plan.

10.2.1 Monitoring
The City can plan to regularly monitor the success of the LRSP and its related implementations by performing the following steps. This before and after analysis can be performed every second year. The City can also meet with the Sheriff department quarterly to discuss roadway safety issues and compare to the latest collision analysis.
x Pull yearly collision data from Crossroads database to determine year-over-year trend x Utilize Crossroads or GIS software to review the number of collisions occurring at specific locations. Locations where improvements have been made should receive priority for monitoring.
x Based upon changes in collision activity, determine efficacy of improvements and adjust strategies going forward

10.2.2 Analysis Update
The City can plan to update the analysis every two years as part of a monitoring program, as described in Section 10.2.1. Every 4 years the City will perform a major update to the analysis and the Local Roadway Safety Plan by performing the following steps. This update will maintain eligibility for the HSIP grant funding for the City. This analysis should continue to focus on both systemic and location-specific safety needs.

1. Obtain updated Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) collision data from the Crossroads database

2. Use Excel software to update the collision trend analysis completed in Section 7, continue to compare new collision to historic trends

3. Update the roadway shapefile with any new or upgraded roadways

4. Update the intersection shapefile with any new or upgraded intersections

5. Re-run the GIS collision tool to determine the number of collisions at intersections and roadways within the updated study period. The City can plan to run the collision tool for all collisions, as well as the collision types identified in Section 3.2.2 Network Screening Analysis.

6. Update the collision analysis performed in this report, including the collision analysis tables shown in Section 7.7 Collision Network Screening Analysis Report

7. Review the Collision Toolbox to determine if any additional countermeasures should be considered for implementation in the City

10.2.3 Implementation Strategies
The opportunities identified in this report provide systemic and location-specific countermeasures that can be implemented within the City. Implementation will be dictated by funding and available resources, this

73 guidance is preliminary and subject to change. Over the near-term and mid-term, the City can concentrate its efforts on the following emphasis areas. x Vulnerable Road Users (P edestrians and Bicyclists)
x Aggressive Driving
x Aging Drivers
x Intersection Improvements
Analysis conducted at the citywide level indicated that these factors were some of the most frequent influences contributing to collisions within the City. The countermeasure opportunities previously discussed in this report for both systemic and project-specific improvements can be used as a basis for developing projects at locations where addressing these focus areas would be of the most benefit.

Projects that address these focused areas citywide can be developed with a high benefit-to-cost ratio (by applying City-wide collision rates), allowing competitive projects to be developed even at sites with little to no direct collision history, but with conditions that might contribute to future collisions. For location-specific improvements, the City can utilize benefit-cost ratio calculations to help prioritize projects as funding and resources become available. The countermeasure toolbox in Table 8 also identified a potential prioritization timeline for each improvement, based on cost, effectiveness and feasibility.

This project prioritization process will help the City be ready for the funding opportunities identified in Section 10.1. Project prioritization will also help to guide the projects as they are taking into the design and construction project. Coordination with City departments will be key in the completion of these implementations.

The City can also plan to implement the non-engineering improvements identified throughout this report, including actions related to Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services. These actions will require coordination with internal and external stakeholders, such as City departments, law enforcement, local government organizations, and local community organizations. Early buy-in and engagement from these stakeholders will be key to the success of these actions.

To aid in these actions, the City can assemble a ‘Task Force’ of representatives from different City departments, such as Public Works, Development Services, and Public Safety. This task force will be instrumental in the monitoring, analysis update, project development and project implementation outlined in this plan.

10.3 Next Steps
The City has completed this LRSP to guide the process of future transportation safety improvements for years to come. In addition to the actions identified in the Implementation Plan, the City can perform the following to guide the success of this LRSP and the safety efforts overall. x Develop investment program to help achieve the City’s Vision Zero goals x Work with state and partner agencies on implementation of large-scale programs and policies x Incorporate safety analysis findings in future updates of safety programs x Monitor statewide safety priorities, guidance, and funding opportunities

Staff Report
October 15, 2025
ATTACHMENT 6
Resolution No. 2022-R75 Vision Zero Policy

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-R75

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A VISION ZERO POLICY.

The City Council of the City of Monterey Park does resolve as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:

A. According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration each year approximately 40,000 people are killed in traffic collisions in the United States;

B. In a study comparing 19 peer nations the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that the United States has the highest traffic death rate per person;

C. In the City of Monterey Park, from 2017 to 2021, 20 people died and 34 suffered severe life changing injuries as a result of traffic related incidents.

The City has an average of four deaths and seven severe injuries per year; Of the people who died in traffic crashes during this period, two thirds were walking or riding a bicycle;

D. 40% of the pedestrians or bicyclists who died in crashes from 2017 to 2021 were 59 years old or older

E. One death on City streets is one too many. The City Council dedicated to strategies that aim to reduce and eliminate deaths and serious injuries on City streets;

F. Seniors, children, people with disabilities, people in low income communities, people walking and people bicycling face a disproportionate risk of traffic injuries and fatalities;

G. Vision Zero is a public health based traffic safety strategy to reduce and eventually eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries using a data driven multi-disciplinary and safe systems approach that also increases safe healthy equitable mobility for all;

H. Vision Zero recognizes that while human error will always occur a combination of engineering education and enforcement measures can reduce collisions and can prevent collisions from causing death or severe injuries;

I. The California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) adopted the goal of moving toward zero deaths with a focus on using proven effective strategies and countermeasures;

Resolution No. 2022-R75

J. It is in the public interest for the City to adopt a Vision Zero Policy to help protect public health and safety; and

K. City declares that Vision Zero is the citywide guiding principle for transportation planning, the design of streets and sidewalks and the maintenance of the public rights of way.

SECTION 2: Policy; Next Steps. The City Council establishes the following Vision Zero Policy:

A. The Monterey Park Vision Zero Task Force (the “Task Force”) is created.

Members of the Task Force will be selected by the City Manager.

B. Prioritize the development of safe roadways and the highest level of safety for all road users through new policies, systems and infrastructure improvements for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.

C. Create an Action Plan in a manner that promotes equity, community engagement and transparency by presenting it to Council for acceptance and approval and providing Council with regular updates on its development and implementation.

D. Identify and secure grant funding to implement the Vision Zero action plan, including funding for pedestrian and traffic safety projects and public education as identified in the Action Plan and funding for Capital Improvement Programs that support Vision Zero policies

SECTION 3: Authorization. The City Manager is authorized to implement the Vision Zero Policy set forth in Section 2. Among other things, the City Manager is directed to implement the steps needed to consider adjusting speed limits within the City’s jurisdiction in accordance with AB 43 (Friedman, 2021).

SECTION 4: Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 5: Recordation. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park and the City Clerk, or his duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTION 6: Electronic Signatures . This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will

Resolution No. 2022-R75

be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 7: Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and remain effective unless superseded by a subsequent resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7
th day of September, 2022.

____________________________
Henry Lo, Mayor
ATTEST:

________________________________
Vincent D. Chang, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK )

I, VINCENT D. CHANG, City Clerk of the City of Monterey Park, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-R75 was duly regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park at a meeting held on the 7 th day of September 2022,
by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: Yiu, Chan, Liang, Lo
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None

Dated this 7th day of September 2022

Vincent D. Chang, City Clerk
Monterey Park, California

Staff Report
October 15, 2025
ATTACHMENT 7
LACMTA Safe Street 4 All Funding Agreement

AWARD NUMBER: 693JJ32340090 AGMT# 9200000000SS4A04
FIS NUMBER: 700507 SAM UEI: L972KD6E7JH4
CFDA: 20.939 SAM SEARCH: 10/12/2023

SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL PROGRAM

FUNDING AGREEMENT

This Funding Agreement for Safe Streets and Roads for All Program Funds (the “Agreement”) is dated for reference purposes only October 12, 2023, and is by and between the City of Monterey Park (the “Agency”) and the Los Angeles County Metropolita n Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”).

RECITALS

A. Section 24112 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58, November 15, 2021; also referred to as the “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law”) established the new Safe Streets and Roads for All (“SS4A”) discretionary program that supports the development, completion, or supplementation of a comprehensive safety action plan (“Action Plan”) that identifies the most significant roadway sa fety concerns in a community and the implementation of projects and strategies to address roadway safety issues.

B. On June 23, 2022, th e LACMTA Board adopted the Metro Street Safety, Data Sharing and Collaboration Policy and Action Plan to establish partnerships with Agencies as they design and implement safer and complete streets, and authorized staff to seek external funding to elaborate on and implement the policy and Acti on Plan and assist local jurisdictions in developing and funding vital street and road safety proj ects throughout Los Angeles County.

C. On February 1, 2023, the United Stat e s D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s portation (the “USDOT”) announced the grant awards under the fiscal year (FY) 2022 SS4A program. The awards include $21,494,665 to support projects to be implemented by LACMTA or their subrecipients.

D. On August 22, 2023, a grant agreement by and between the USDOT, the Federal Highway Administration (the “FHWA”), and the LACMTA was executed designating LACMTA as the recipient of FY 2022 SS4A funds to support the LACMTA Action Plan, which in part provides $984,000 in funding to the Agency for the Monterey Park Vision Zero Action Plan (the “Project”).

E. As the recipient of SS4A funds, the LACMTA as a pass-through entity shall negotiate and execute Agreements with agencies as subrecipients and shall monitor the activities with respect to performance of work and compliance, by providing technical assistance, financial management, internal controls, and oversight.

F. The total cost for the Project described in the Scop e of Work (the “SOW”), attached as Exhibit “A”, hereto is estimated to be $1,230,000 (“Estimated Cost”).

п¹» î ±º îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
Ùò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ¸¿­ ¿¹®»»¼ ¬± °®±ª·¼» ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»¼ ´±½¿´ ³¿¬½¸ ±º üîìêôððð ø¬¸»Ô±½¿´ Ó¿¬½¸ ÷ô ¿­ ¼»­½®·¾»¼ ·² ¬¸» Ú·²¿²½·¿´ д¿² ¬¸¿¬ ·­ ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ¿­ Û¨¸·¾·¬Þ ô ¿²¼ ¿²§ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ º«²¼·²¹ ®»¯«·®»¼ ¬± ½±³°´»¬» ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ò
Øò ÔßÝÓÌß ¿­­«³»­ ²± ®»­°±²­·¾·´·¬§ º±® ¬¸» º«²¼·²¹ ±º ¿²§ °±®¬·±² ±º ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ò ÔßÝÓÌß ·­ ±²´§ ¿½¬·²¹ ¿­ ¿ °¿­­ó¬¸®±«¹¸ ½±²¼«·¬ º±® ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ò ×ò ̸» ß¹»²½§ «²¼»®­¬¿²¼­ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ú«²¼­ °®±ª·¼»¼ ¸»®»·² ³«­¬ ¾» »¨°»²¼»¼ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» Ì»®³ ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ¿­ ­°»½·º·»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ïíòï ¿²¼ ¬¸¿¬ ·¬ ³«­¬ ¸¿ª» ±¾¬¿·²»¼ ¿²§ »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ½´»¿®¿²½» ®»¯«·®»¼ ¾§ º»¼»®¿´ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ¬± «­» ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ú«²¼­ò Öò ̸» °¿®¬·»­ ¼»­·®» ¬± »¨»½«¬» ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ­± ÔßÝÓÌß ³¿§ °¿­­ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ú«²¼­ ®»½»·ª»¼ º®±³ ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ù®¿²¬ ¬± ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ¬± ­¿¬·­º§ ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ «²¼»® î ÝÚÎ îððòííî ¿²¼ ¿®» ­«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¬¸» ¬»®³­ ¿²¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ­°»½·º·»¼ ·² ﮬ × ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» Ú»¼»®¿´ ´¿©­ ¿²¼ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ®»º»®»²½»¼ ·² ﮬ ×× ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò
ÒÑÉô ÌØÛÎÛÚÑÎÛô ¬¸» °¿®¬·»­ ¸»®»¾§ ¿¹®»» ¿­ º±´´±©­æ
̸» ¬»®³­ ¿²¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ¿²¼ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» Ú»¼»®¿´ ´¿©­ ¿²¼ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ½±²­·­¬ ±º ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ¿²¼ »¿½¸ ·­ ·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼ ¾§ ®»º»®»²½» ¸»®»·² ¿­ ·º º«´´§ ­»¬ º±®¬¸ ¸»®»·²æ ïò ﮬ × Ì»®³­ ¿²¼ ݱ²¼·¬·±²­
îò ﮬ ×× ß°°´·½¿¾´» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ô¿©­ ¿²¼ λ¹«´¿¬·±²­
íò Û¨¸·¾·¬ ß Í½±°» ±º ɱ®µ
ìò Û¨¸·¾·¬ Þ Ú·²¿²½·¿´ д¿²
ëò Û¨¸·¾·¬ Ý Í«¾®»½·°·»²¬ Ю±½«®»³»²¬ Ý»®¬·º·½¿¬·±²
ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» ì ±º îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
ÐßÎÌ ×
ÌÛÎÓÍ ßÒÜ ÝÑÒÜ×Ì×ÑÒÍ
ïò Ì·¬´» ±º ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ ø¬¸» þЮ±¶»½¬þ÷æ Ó±²¬»®»§ п®µ Ê·­·±² Æ»®± ß½¬·±² д¿² îò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ½±³°´»¬» ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ ¿­ ¼»­½®·¾»¼ ·² ¬¸» ͽ±°» ±º ɱ®µô ¿²¼ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ù®¿²¬ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ±º ¬¸» ÚØÉß ¿²¼ ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò ̸» ͽ±°» ±º ɱ®µ º±® ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ ·­ ·²½´«¼»¼ ©·¬¸ ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ¿­ Û¨¸·¾·¬ ßò ̸» ͽ±°» ±º ɱ®µ ·²½´«¼»­ ¿ ¼»­½®·°¬·±² ±º ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ ¿²¼ ¿ ¼»¬¿·´»¼ ¼»­½®·°¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ©±®µ ¬± ¾» ½±³°´»¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ·²½´«¼·²¹ô ©·¬¸±«¬ ´·³·¬¿¬·±²ô Ю±¶»½¬ ³·´»­¬±²»­ ½±²­·­¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ­»¬ ­½¸»¼«´»ò ɱ®µ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ¼»´·ª»®»¼ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸¿¬ ­½¸»¼«´» «²´»­­ ±¬¸»®©·­» ¿¹®»»¼ ¬± ¾§ ¬¸» °¿®¬·»­ ·² ©®·¬·²¹ò ׺ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ·­ ½±²­·­¬»²¬´§ ¾»¸·²¼ ­½¸»¼«´» ·² ³»»¬·²¹ ³·´»­¬±²»­ ±® ·² ¼»´·ª»®·²¹ ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ô ¬¸»² ÔßÝÓÌß ©·´´ ¸¿ª» ¬¸» ±°¬·±² ¬± ¬»®³·²¿¬» ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ º±® ¼»º¿«´¬ ¿­ ¼»­½®·¾»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ïéò íò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ¸¿­ º±«® øì÷ §»¿®­¿º¬»® ¬¸» ß¹®»»³»²¬ ·­ »¨»½«¬»¼ ¬± »¨°»²¼ ¬¸» º«²¼­ «²´»­­ ±¬¸»®©·­» ¿«¬¸±®·¦»¼ ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌßò
ìò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»­ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ß½¬·±² д¿² ©·´´ ¾» ³¿¼» °«¾´·½´§ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´»ô ¿²¼ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ¿¹®»»­ ¬¸¿¬ ·¬ ©·´´ °«¾´·­¸ ¬¸» º·²¿´ ß½¬·±² д¿² ±² ¿ °«¾´·½´§ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ©»¾­·¬»ò ëò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ·­ ®»¯«·®»¼ ¬± ½±³°´§ ©·¬¸ ¿´´ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» Ú»¼»®¿´ ´¿©­ ¿²¼ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ¿­ ®»º»®»²½»¼ ·² ﮬ ××ò
êò Ò±²ó½±³°´·¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¬»®³­ ¿²¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ±® ¿°°´·½¿¾´» Ú»¼»®¿´ ´¿©­ ¿²¼ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ®»º»®»²½»¼ ·² ﮬ ×× ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ³¿§ ®»­«´¬ ·² ®»³»¼·¿´ ¿½¬·±²ô ¬»®³·²¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ÍÍìß ¹®¿²¬ô ¼·­¿´´±©·²¹ ½±­¬­ ·²½«®®»¼ º±® ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ô ®»¯«·®·²¹ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ¬± ®»º«²¼ ¬± ¬¸» ÚØÉß ¬¸» ÍÍìß ¹®¿²¬ º«²¼­ô ¿²¼ ®»°±®¬·²¹ ¬¸» ²±²ó½±³°´·¿²½» ·² ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ó ¹±ª»®²³»²¬ó©·¼» ·²¬»¹®·¬§ ¿²¼ °»®º±®³¿²½» ­§­¬»³ò
éò ÏËßÎÌÛÎÔÇ ÐÎÑÙÎÛÍÍ ÎÛÐÑÎÌ×ÒÙ ÎÛÏË×ÎÛÓÛÒÌÍ
éòï ̸» ß¹»²½§ ³«­¬ ½±³°´»¬» ¿²¼ ­«¾³·¬ ©»´´ ¼±½«³»²¬»¼ ¯«¿®¬»®´§ °®±¹®»­­ ®»°±®¬­ò Ю±¹®»­­ ®»°±®¬ ¼¿¬¿ ³«­¬ ¾» ­«¾³·¬¬»¼ ¬± ÔßÝÓÌß ©·¬¸·² ïë ¼¿§­ ¿º¬»® ¬¸» »²¼ ±º »¿½¸ ¯«¿®¬»® º±® ¬¸» ½¿´»²¼¿® §»¿®ò ß¹»²½·»­ ¿®» ®»¯«·®»¼ ¬± «­» ¬¸» ÍÍìß Ï«¿®¬»®´§ Ю±¹®»­­ λ°±®¬ ¬»³°´¿¬» º±® ­«¾³·­­·±²­ ¬± ÔßÝÓÌßò ̸» ¼«» ¼¿¬»­ ¿®» ¿­ º±´´±©æ ø·÷ Ï«¿®¬»® ïæ Ö¿²«¿®§ ï Ó¿®½¸ íïó Ü«» ß°®·´ ïëò
ø··÷ Ï«¿®¬»® îæ ß°®·´ ï Ö«²» íðó Ü«» Ö«´§ ïëò
ø···÷Ï«¿®¬»® íæ Ö«´§ ï Í»°¬»³¾»® íðó Ü«» ѽ¬±¾»® ïëò
ø·ª÷ Ï«¿®¬»® ìæ ѽ¬±¾»® ï Ü»½»³¾»® íïó Ü«» Ö¿²«¿®§ ïëò
éòî ÔßÝÓÌß ©·´´ ³»¿­«®» ¹®¿²¬ °»®º±®³¿²½» ¿¹¿·²­¬ ¬¸» ­¬¿¬»¼ Ю±¶»½¬ ­½±°»ô ­½¸»¼«´»ô ¾«¼¹»¬ô ¿²¼ ¼»´·ª»®¿¾´»­ ·² ¬¸» ͽ±°» ±º ɱ®µ ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² ¬¸» ß¹®»»³»²¬ò б±® °»®º±®³¿²½» ³¿§ ¾» ¹®±«²¼­ º±® ¬»®³·²¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ß¹®»»³»²¬ ¿²¼ ®»ª±½¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¹®¿²¬ º«²¼­ò ̸» º·®­¬ ®»°±®¬­ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ¼«» ¬± ÔßÝÓÌß ©·¬¸·² ïë ¼¿§­ º±´´±©·²¹ ¬¸» º·®­¬ º«´´ ¯«¿®¬»® ¿º¬»® ¬¸» ¼¿¬» ±º »¨»½«¬·±² ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò
ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» ë ±º îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
èò ÎÛÏËÛÍÌ ÚÑÎ ÎÛ×ÓÞËÎÍÛÓÛÒÌ
èòï ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ½±²¬®·¾«¬» ¿¬ ´»¿­¬ ¬¸» ­¬¿¬«¬±®·´§ ±® ±¬¸»® ®»¯«·®»¼ ´±½¿´ ½±²¬®·¾«¬·±² ±º ³¿¬½¸·²¹ º«²¼­ ø±¬¸»® ¬¸¿² Ú»¼»®¿´ Ú«²¼­ ¿²¼ ¿²§ ±¬¸»® ËÍÜÑÌ º«²¼­÷ô ·º ¿²§ ·­ ­°»½·º·»¼ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ±® ¿²§ ¿¬¬¿½¸³»²¬­ ¸»®»¬±ô ¬±©¿®¼ ¬¸» ¿½¬«¿´ ½±­¬­ ±º ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ò
èòî Ò±¬ ³±®» º®»¯«»²¬´§ ¬¸¿² ¯«¿®¬»®´§ô ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ©·´´ °®»°¿®» ¿²¼ ­«¾³·¬ ¬± ¬¸» ÔßÝÓÌß ¿ ½»®¬·º·»¼ ®»¯«»­¬ º±® ®»·³¾«®­»³»²¬ ±² ¬¸» ¿°°®±ª»¼ ÍÍìß Î»·³¾«®­»³»²¬ λ¯«»­¬ Ú±®³ ¿½½±³°¿²·»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ÍÍìß Ï«¿®¬»®´§ Ю±¹®»­­ λ°±®¬ô º±® ¿´´±©¿¾´» Ю±¶»½¬ ½±­¬­ ·²½«®®»¼ ¿²¼ °¿·¼ º±® ¾§ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ½±²­·­¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ ­ ÍÑÉò ß¼ª¿²½» °¿§³»²¬­ ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß ¿®» ²±¬ ¿´´±©»¼ò
èòí Û¿½¸ λ¯«»­¬ º±® λ·³¾«®­»³»²¬ ­¸¿´´ ®»°±®¬ ¬¸» ¬±¬¿´ ±º »´·¹·¾´» Ю±¶»½¬ »¨°»²¼·¬«®»­ô ·²½´«¼» ¿ ­«°°±®¬·²¹ ­«³³¿®§ ±º »¨°»²­»­ ¬¸¿¬ ·²½´«¼»­ ¿ ¼»¬¿·´»¼ ¾®»¿µ±«¬ ±º ¿´´ ½±­¬­ ·²½«®®»¼ ø·ò»ò ¼·®»½¬ ´¿¾±®ô º®·²¹» ¾»²»º·¬­ô ½±²¬®¿½¬ ½±­¬­ô ·²¼·®»½¬ ½±­¬­ô ±¬¸»® ¼·®»½¬ ½±­¬­÷ô ­°»½·º§ ¬¸» °»®½»²¬¿¹» ¿²¼ ¿³±«²¬ ±º ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ ­¸¿®» ¿²¼ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿®» ±º ½±­¬­ô ¿²¼ ·²½´«¼» ¿²§ ·²ª±·½»­ °¿·¼ ¿´±²¹ ©·¬¸ °®±±º ±º °¿§³»²¬ ø·ò»ò ½¸»½µ ­¬«¾­ô ®»½»·°¬­÷ò èòì ׺ ¿°°´·½¿¾´»ô ¬¸» º·®­¬ λ¯«»­¬ º±® λ·³¾«®­»³»²¬ ­¸¿´´ ¿´­± ¾» ¿½½±³°¿²·»¼ ¾§ ¿ ®»°±®¬ ¼»­½®·¾·²¹ ¿²§ ¬¿­µ­ ­°»½·º·»¼ ·² ¬¸» ÍÑÉ ¼±½«³»²¬ ©¸·½¸ ©»®» ¿½½±³°´·­¸»¼ °®·±® ¬± ¬¸» Ûºº»½¬·ª» Ü¿¬» ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ô ©¸·½¸ ½±­¬­ ½±«´¼ ¾» ½®»¼·¬»¼ ¬±©¿®¼ ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»¼ Ô±½¿´ Ó¿¬½¸ °®±ª·¼»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ÔßÝÓÌß ¸¿­ °®±ª·¼»¼ °®·±® ©®·¬¬»² ¿°°®±ª¿´ º±® ­«½¸ »¨°»²¼·¬«®»­ ¬± ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ò
èòë ÔßÝÓÌß ©·´´ ®»¬¿·² ¬»² °»®½»²¬ øïðû÷ ±º »¿½¸ ·²ª±·½» ¿³±«²¬ «²¬·´ ÔßÝÓÌß ¸¿­ »ª¿´«¿¬»¼ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ­ °»®º±®³¿²½» ¿½½±®¼·²¹ ¬± ¬¸» ½®·¬»®·¿ ­°»½·º·»¼ ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¼¿¬¿ °®±ª·¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ¿²¼ ¸¿­ ¼»¬»®³·²»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¿´´ ½±²¬®¿½¬ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ «²¼»® ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ­¿¬·­º¿½¬±®·´§ º«´º·´´»¼ò ̸·­ ·²½´«¼»­ ½±²º·®³¿¬·±² ¬¸¿¬ ¿´´ °®±°±­»¼ »²¸¿²½»³»²¬­ ¬± »¨·­¬·²¹ ­«¾®»¹·±²¿´ °´¿²­ ¿®» ½±³°´»¬»¼ô ¿²¼ñ±® ¬¸» °®±°±­»¼ ß½¬·±² д¿² ·­ ³¿¼» °«¾´·½´§ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ¿²¼ ·­ °«¾´·­¸»¼ ±² ¿ °«¾´·½´§ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ©»¾­·¬»ò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ·²ª±·½» ÔßÝÓÌß º±® ®»·³¾«®­»³»²¬ ±º ¬¸» ïðû ®»¬»²¬·±² ­»°¿®¿¬»´§ò èòê ̸» ß¹»²½§ ©·´´ ®»¯«»­¬ ®»·³¾«®­»³»²¬ º±® ½±­¬­ ¬¸¿¬ ¿®» ¿´´±©¿¾´» «²¼»® ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ½±­¬ °®±ª·­·±²­ ±º Ì·¬´» î ±º ¬¸» ݱ¼» ±º Ú»¼»®¿´ λ¹«´¿¬·±²­øî ÝòÚòÎò÷ ﮬ îððô Í«¾°¿®¬ Ûòô ¿²¼ ­¸±«´¼ ½±²­«´¬ ©·¬¸ ÔßÝÓÌß ­ ÍÍìß Ð®±¹®¿³ Ó¿²¿¹»® º±® ¯«»­¬·±²­ ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ²±²ó®»·³¾«®­¿¾´» »¨°»²­»­ò
èòé ̱¬¿´ °¿§³»²¬­ ­¸¿´´ ²±¬ »¨½»»¼ ¬¸» Ú«²¼·²¹ ß³±«²¬ ­°»½·º·»¼ ·² ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò Ò± λ¯«»­¬ º±® λ·³¾«®­»³»²¬ ©·´´ ¾» °®±½»­­»¼ ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß º±® »¨°»²­»­ ·²½«®®»¼ ¿º¬»® ¬¸» Ì»®³·²¿¬·±² Ü¿¬» ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò
èòè ׺ ¿²§ ¿³±«²¬­ °¿·¼ ¬± ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ¿®» ¼·­¿´´±©»¼ ±® ²±¬ ®»·³¾«®­»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ÚØÉß º±® ¿²§ ®»¿­±²ô ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ®»³·¬ ¬± ÔßÝÓÌß ¬¸» ¼·­¿´´±©»¼ ±® ®»·³¾«®­»¼ ¿³±«²¬ø­÷ ©·¬¸·² í𠼿§­ º®±³ ®»½»·°¬ ±º ÔßÝÓÌß­ ²±¬·½»ò ß´´ °¿§³»²¬­ ³¿¼» ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß ¸»®»«²¼»® ¿®» ­«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¬¸» ¿«¼·¬ °®±ª·­·±²­ ½±²¬¿·²»¼ ¸»®»·² ¿²¼ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ù®¿²¬ò èòç ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ½±³°´§ ©·¬¸ ¿²¼ »²­«®» ¬¸¿¬ ©±®µ °»®º±®³»¼ «²¼»® ¬¸·­ ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» ê ±º îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
ß¹®»»³»²¬ ·­ ¼±²» ·² ½±³°´·¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¿´´ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» °®±ª·­·±²­ ±º º»¼»®¿´ô ­¬¿¬»ô ¿²¼ ´±½¿´ ´¿©­ô ­¬¿¬«¬»­ô ±®¼·²¿²½»­ô ®«´»­ô ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ¿²¼ °®±½»¼«®¿´ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ©·¬¸±«¬ ´·³·¬¿¬·±²ô Ú»¼»®¿´ ß½¯«·­·¬·±² λ¹«´¿¬·±²­ øÚßÎ÷ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ¿²¼ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ±º ÔßÝÓÌßò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»­ ®»­°±²­·¾·´·¬§ º±® ±¾¬¿·²·²¹ ½±°·»­ ±º ¿²¼ ½±³°´§·²¹ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¬»®³­ ±º ¬¸» ³±­¬ ®»½»²¬ º»¼»®¿´ô ­¬¿¬»ô ±® ´±½¿´ ´¿©­ ¿²¼ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ¿²¼ ÔßÝÓÌß ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿²§ ¿³»²¼³»²¬­ ¬¸»®»¬±ò
èòïð ß´´ ®»¯«»­¬­ º±® ®»·³¾«®­»³»²¬ ³«­¬ º·®­¬ ¾» ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ÍÍìß Ð®±¹®¿³ Ó¿²¿¹»® °®·±® ¬± ­«¾³·­­·±² º±® °¿§³»²¬ò Ѳ½» ¿°°®±ª»¼ô ®»¯«»­¬­ º±® ®»·³¾«®­»³»²¬ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ¬®¿²­³·¬¬»¼ ¬± ÔßÝÓÌß ­ ß½½±«²¬­ п§¿¾´» Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ «­·²¹ ±²» ±º ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ¬©± ±°¬·±²­æ
Ñ°¬·±² ï÷ Û󳿷´æ
ß½½±«²¬­Ð¿§¿¾´»àÓ»¬®±ò²»¬
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
Ñ°¬·±² î÷ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼ Ó¿·´æ
Ô±­ ß²¹»´»­ ݱ«²¬§ Ó»¬®±°±´·¬¿² Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ß«¬¸±®·¬§ ÐòÑò Þ±¨ ëïîîçê
Ô±­ ß²¹»´»­ô Ýß çððëïóðîçê
߬¬»²¬·±²æ ß½½±«²¬­ п§¿¾´»ô ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
çò ÍÌßÎÌ ßÒÜ ÛÒÜ ÜßÌÛ ÑÚ ÎÛ×ÓÞËÎÍßÞÔÛ ßÝÌ×Ê×Ì×ÛÍ
˲´»­­ ©®·¬¬»² ²±¬·º·½¿¬·±² ·­ ±¬¸»®©·­» °®±ª·¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ÔßÝÓÌßô ¬¸» ­¬¿®¬ ¼¿¬» ±º ®»·³¾«®­¿¾´» ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ·­ ß«¹«­¬ îîô îðîíô ¬¸» ¼¿¬» ¬¸» ËÍÜÑÌô ÚØÉßô ¿²¼ ÔßÝÓÌß »¨»½«¬»¼ ¿² ¿¹®»»³»²¬ ¼»­·¹²¿¬·²¹ ÔßÝÓÌß ¿­ ¬¸» ®»½·°·»²¬ ±º ÚÇ îðîî ÍÍìß º«²¼­ ¬± ­«°°±®¬ ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ò ß½¬«¿´ ®»·³¾«®­»³»²¬ ±º »´·¹·¾´» ©±®µ ½¿²²±¬ ±½½«® «²¬·´ ÔßÝÓÌß ¿²¼ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ »¨»½«¬» ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò ̸» »²¼ ¼¿¬» ±º ®»·³¾«®­¿¾´» ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ·­ ¬¸» Ì»®³·²¿¬·±² Ü¿¬» ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò
ïðò Ü×ÍÞËÎÍÛÓÛÒÌ ÑÚ ÚËÒÜÍ
ïðòï ̱ ¬¸» »¨¬»²¬ ÔßÝÓÌß ®»½»·ª»­ Ú»¼»®¿´ Ú«²¼­ °«®­«¿²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ù®¿²¬ô ÔßÝÓÌß ­¸¿´´ º±®©¿®¼ Ú»¼»®¿´ Ú«²¼­ ·² ¿² ¿³±«²¬ ²±¬ ¬± »¨½»»¼ üçèìôððð ø¬¸» Ú«²¼·²¹ ß³±«²¬ ÷ ¬± ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ­«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¬¸» ¬»®³­ ¿²¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ±º ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ù®¿²¬ ¿²¼ ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò
ïðòî п§³»²¬­ ¬± ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ©·´´ ¾» °®±½»­­»¼ ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß ©·¬¸·² ¿ ®»¿­±²¿¾´» ¬·³» °»®·±¼ô ¾«¬ ·² ²± »ª»²¬ ³±®» ¬¸¿² ­·¨¬§ øêð÷ ½¿´»²¼¿® ¼¿§­ ¿º¬»® ®»½»·°¬ ±º ¿ λ¯«»­¬ º±® λ·³¾«®­»³»²¬ ³»»¬·²¹ ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ±º Í»½¬·±² è ¿¾±ª»ò ïðòí ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ­«¾¶»½¬ ¬±ô ¿²¼ ­¸¿´´ ½±³°´§ ©·¬¸ô ¿´´ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ±º ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ù®¿²¬ ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ±º ¬¸» ˲·¬»¼ ͬ¿¬»­ Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ô¿¾±® øËÍÜÑÔ÷ô ËÍÜÑÌô ÚØÉßô ¿²¼ ÔßÝÓÌß ¿­ ®»¯«·®»¼ ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß ¬± º«´º·´´ ·¬­ ®»­°±²­·¾·´·¬·»­ ¿­ ¬¸» ¹®¿²¬»» «²¼»® ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ù®¿²¬ ¿²¼ ¿­ ¬¸» °¿­­ó¬¸®±«¹¸ ¿¹»²½§ò ïðòì Ü·­¾«®­»³»²¬­ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ³¿¼» ±² ¿ ®»·³¾«®­»³»²¬ ¾¿­·­ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» °®±ª·­·±²­ ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò
ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» é ±º îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
ïðòë ÔßÝÓÌß ©·´´ ³¿µ» ¿´´ ¼·­¾«®­»³»²¬­ »´»½¬®±²·½¿´´§ «²´»­­ ¿² »¨½»°¬·±² ·­ ®»¯«»­¬»¼ ·² ©®·¬·²¹ò Ü·­¾«®­»³»²¬­ ª·¿ ß«¬±³¿¬»¼ Ý´»¿®·²¹ ر«­» øßÝØ÷ ©·´´ ¾» ³¿¼» ¿¬ ²± ½±­¬ ¬± ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ³«­¬ ½±²º·®³ ¬¸»§ ¿®» ®»¹·­¬»®»¼ ·² ¬¸» ÔßÝÓÌß °¿§³»²¬ ­§­¬»³ ¬± ®»½»·ª» ßÝØ °¿§³»²¬­ ±® ³«­¬ ½±³°´»¬» ¬¸» ßÝØ º±®³ ¿²¼ ­«¾³·¬ ­«½¸ º±®³ ¬± ÔßÝÓÌß ¾»º±®» ®»·³¾«®­»³»²¬ °¿§³»²¬­ ½¿² ¾» ³¿¼»ò
ïðòê Û¨°»²­»­ ¬¸¿¬ ¿®» ²±¬ ·²ª±·½»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ¬»®³·²¿¬·±² ¼¿¬» ­°»½·º·»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ïíòï ¾»´±© ¿®» ²±¬ »´·¹·¾´» º±® ®»·³¾«®­»³»²¬ò
ïïò ßÔÔÑÉßÞÔÛ ÝÑÍÌÍ
ïïòï ß´´±©¿¾´» Ю±¶»½¬ ½±­¬­ ©·´´ ¾» ¿½½»°¬»¼ ±²´§ ·º ¬¸»§ ³»»¬ ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ±º î ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ îððô Í«¾°¿®¬ Ûò
ïïòî ß´´±©¿¾´» Ю±¶»½¬ ½±­¬­ ©·´´ ¾» ¿½½»°¬»¼ ±²´§ º±® °´¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ ¼»³±²­¬®¿¬·±² ±º ¿² ß½¬·±² д¿²ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ½±­¬­ ¬± ¼»ª»´±°ô ½±³°´»¬»ô ±® ­«°°´»³»²¬ ¿² ß½¬·±² д¿²ô ¿²¼ ­«°°´»³»²¬¿´ °´¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ñ±® ¼»³±²­¬®¿¬·±² ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ¬¸¿¬ ·²º±®³ ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ±º ¿ ²»© ±® »¨·­¬·²¹ ß½¬·±² д¿²ò
ïïòí ׳°´»³»²¬¿¬·±² ½±­¬­ ­¸¿´´ ²±¬ ¾» ½±²­·¼»®»¼ »´·¹·¾´» ½±­¬­ º±® ®»·³¾«®­»³»²¬ô ©¸·½¸ ·²½´«¼» ·²º®¿­¬®«½¬«®»ô ¾»¸¿ª·±®¿´ô ¼»­·¹²ô ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô ¿²¼ñ±® ±°»®¿¬·±²¿´ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ·² ¿² ß½¬·±² д¿²ò
ïïòì ײ¼·®»½¬ ½±­¬­ ­¸¿´´ ²±¬ ¾» ½±²­·¼»®»¼ »´·¹·¾´» ½±­¬­ º±® ®»·³¾«®­»³»²¬ «²´»­­ ¿´´ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ¿®» ³»¬ ¾§ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§æ ·÷ °®±ª·¼» »ª·¼»²½» ±º ¿ º»¼»®¿´´§ ¿°°®±ª»¼ ݱ­¬ ß´´±½¿¬·±² д¿² ¿²¼ ·²¼·®»½¬ ®¿¬»ô ½±²­·­¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ±º î ÝòÚòÎ îððòìïìå ··÷ ­«¾³·¬ ¿ ©®·¬¬»² ®»¯«»­¬ ¬± ÔßÝÓÌßå ¿²¼ ···÷ ®»½»·ª» ¿ ©®·¬¬»² ¿°°®±ª¿´ º®±³ ÔßÝÓÌß °®·±® ¬± ·²½«®®·²¹ ¬¸» »¨°»²¼·¬«®»ò
ïîò ÔßÝÓÌß ÝÑÍÌÍ
ïîòï ÔßÝÓÌß ©·´´ ²±¬ ½¸¿®¹» ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ º±® ¿¼³·²·­¬®¿¬·²¹ ¬¸»­» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ú«²¼­ò ïíò ÌÛÎÓ
ïíòï ̸» ¬»®³ ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ­¸¿´´ ½±³³»²½» ±² ¬¸» ¼¿¬» ±º ¬¸» ÔßÝÓÌß­ ÝÛÑ ±® ¬¸»·® ¼»­·¹²»» ­ ­·¹²¿¬«®» ø Ûºº»½¬·ª» Ü¿¬» ÷ ¿²¼ ­¸¿´´ ¬»®³·²¿¬» º±«® øì÷ §»¿®­ ¿º¬»® ¬¸» Ûºº»½¬·ª» Ü¿¬» ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ø¬¸» Ì»®³·²¿¬·±² Ü¿¬» ÷ô «²´»­­ »¨¬»²¼»¼ ¾§ ¿ ©®·¬¬»² ¿°°®±ª¿´ º®±³ ¬¸» ÔßÝÓÌßô ±® ¬»®³·²¿¬»¼ »¿®´·»® ¿­ °®±ª·¼»¼ ¸»®»·²ô ø·÷ ¬¸» ¿¹®»»¼ «°±² ͽ±°» ±º ɱ®µ ¸¿­ ¾»»² ½±³°´»¬»¼å ø··÷ ¿´´ ¼»´·ª»®¿¾´»­ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² °«¾´·­¸»¼ ¿²¼ ³¿¼» °«¾´·½´§ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´»å ø···÷ ¿´´ ÔßÝÓÌß ¿«¼·¬ ¿²¼ ®»°±®¬·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ­¿¬·­º·»¼å ¿²¼ ø·ª÷ ¬¸» º·²¿´ ¼·­¾«®­»³»²¬ ±º ¬¸» Ú«²¼­ ¸¿­ ¾»»² ³¿¼» ¬± ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ò ïíòî ͸±«´¼ ÔßÝÓÌß ¼»¬»®³·²» ¬¸»®» ¿®» ·²­«ºº·½·»²¬ Ú«²¼­ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» º±® ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬å ÔßÝÓÌß ³¿§ ¬»®³·²¿¬» ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ¾§ ¹·ª·²¹ ©®·¬¬»² ²±¬·½» ¬± ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ¿¬ ´»¿­¬ ¬¸·®¬§ øíð÷ ¼¿§­ ·² ¿¼ª¿²½» ±º ¬¸» »ºº»½¬·ª» ¼¿¬» ±º ­«½¸ ¬»®³·²¿¬·±²ò ׺ ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ·­ ¬»®³·²¿¬»¼ °«®­«¿²¬ ¬± ¬¸·­ ­»½¬·±²ô ÔßÝÓÌß ©·´´ ²±¬ ®»·³¾«®­» ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ¿²§ ½±­¬­ ·²½«®®»¼ ¿º¬»® ¬¸» »ºº»½¬·ª» ¼¿¬» ±º ­«½¸ ¬»®³·²¿¬·±²ò
ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» è ±º îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
ïíòí ß³»²¼³»²¬­ ¬± ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ·² ©®·¬·²¹ »¨»½«¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» °¿®¬·»­ò Ò± ½¸¿²¹»­ ¬± ¬¸» ø·÷ ¿©¿®¼ ¿³±«²¬ô ø··÷ Ю±¶»½¬ Ú«²¼·²¹ô ø···÷ ¬¸» ÍÑÉô ±® ø·ª÷ ¬»®³·²¿¬·±² ¼¿¬» ±º ­¸¿´´ ¾» ¿´´±©»¼ ©·¬¸±«¬ ¿ ©®·¬¬»² ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ô ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¿²¼ ­·¹²»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ÔßÝÓÌß Ý¸·»º Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ѻº·½»® ±® ¬¸»·® ¼»­·¹²»» ¿²¼ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ò ïìò Ú×ÒßÒÝ×ßÔ ÎÛÝÑÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ßËÜ×Ì ÎÛÏË×ÎÛÓÛÒÌÍ
ïìòï ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ­«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¿²¼ ­¸¿´´ ½±³°´§ ©·¬¸ ¿´´ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ±º ÔßÝÓÌßô ¬¸» ÚØÉßô ¬¸» ËÍÜÑÌô ¿²¼ ¬¸» ËÍÜÑÔ ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ Ю±¶»½¬ ®»°±®¬·²¹ô ¿«¼·¬ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ¿²¼ ­·¬» ª·­·¬­ò
ïìòî ÔßÝÓÌßô ¿²¼ñ±® ·¬­ ¼»­·¹²»»ô ­¸¿´´ ¸¿ª» ¬¸» ®·¹¸¬ ¬± ½±²¼«½¬ ¿«¼·¬­ ±º ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ô ¿­ ¼»»³»¼ ¿°°®±°®·¿¬»ô ­«½¸ ¿­ º·²¿²½·¿´ ¿²¼ ½±³°´·¿²½» ¿«¼·¬­å ·²¬»®·³ ¿«¼·¬­å °®»ó ¿©¿®¼ ¿«¼·¬­ô °»®º±®³¿²½» ¿«¼·¬­ ¿²¼ º·²¿´ ¿«¼·¬­ò ÔßÝÓÌß ³¿§ ½±³³»²½» ¿ º·²¿´ ¿«¼·¬ ©·¬¸·² ¬©»´ª» ³±²¬¸­ ±º ®»½»·°¬ ±º ¿² ¿½½»°¬¿¾´» º·²¿´ ·²ª±·½»ò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ¿¹®»»­ ¬± »­¬¿¾´·­¸ ¿²¼ ³¿·²¬¿·² °®±°»® ¿½½±«²¬·²¹ °®±½»¼«®»­ ¿²¼ ½¿­¸ ³¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ®»½±®¼­ ¿²¼ ¼±½«³»²¬­ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ Ù»²»®¿´´§ ß½½»°¬»¼ ß½½±«²¬·²¹ Ю·²½·°´»­ øÙßßÐ÷ò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ®»·³¾«®­» ÔßÝÓÌß º±® ¿²§ »¨°»²¼·¬«®» ²±¬ ·² ½±³°´·¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¬»®³­ ¿²¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò ß²§ «­» ±º ¬¸» Ú«²¼­ ©¸·½¸ ·­ »¨°®»­­´§ °®±¸·¾·¬»¼ «²¼»® ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ¿² ·²»´·¹·¾´» «­» ±º ¬¸» Ú«²¼­ ¿²¼ ³¿§ ¾» ¼·­¿´´±©»¼ ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß ¿«¼·¬ò Ú·²¼·²¹­ ±º ¬¸» ÔßÝÓÌß ¿«¼·¬ ¿®» º·²¿´ò ɸ»² ÔßÝÓÌß ¿«¼·¬ º·²¼·²¹­ ®»¯«·®» ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ¬± ®»¬«®² ³±²·»­ ¬± ÔßÝÓÌßô ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ®»¬«®² ­«½¸ ³±²·»­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸·®¬§ øíð÷ ¼¿§­ ¿º¬»® ¬¸» º·²¿´ ¿«¼·¬ ·­ ­»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ò ÔßÝÓÌß ­¸¿´´ ³¿µ» ¿´´ ®»¿­±²¿¾´» »ºº±®¬­ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ·²·¬·¿¬·²¹ ´·¬·¹¿¬·±²ô ·º ²»½»­­¿®§ô ¬± ®»½±ª»® Ú»¼»®¿´ º«²¼­ ·º ¼»¬»®³·²»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸±­» º«²¼­ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ­°»²¬ º®¿«¼«´»²¬´§ô ©¿­¬»º«´´§ô ±® ·² ª·±´¿¬·±² ±º Ú»¼»®¿´ ´¿©­ô ±® ³·­«­»¼ ·² ¿²§ ³¿²²»® «²¼»® ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò
ïìòí ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ µ»»° ®»½±®¼­ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ô ©·¬¸±«¬ ´·³·¬¿¬·±²ô ¿½½±«²¬·²¹ ®»½±®¼­ô ©®·¬¬»² °±´·½·»­ ¿²¼ °®±½»¼«®»­ô ½±²¬®¿½¬ º·´»­ô ±®·¹·²¿´ »­¬·³¿¬»­ô ½±®®»­°±²¼»²½»ô ½¸¿²¹» ±®¼»® º·´»­ ø·²½´«¼·²¹ ¼±½«³»²¬¿¬·±² ½±ª»®·²¹ ²»¹±¬·¿¬»¼ ­»¬¬´»³»²¬­÷ô ·²ª±·½»­ô ¿²¼ ¿²§ ±¬¸»® ­«°°±®¬·²¹ »ª·¼»²½» ¼»»³»¼ ²»½»­­¿®§ ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß ¬± ­«¾­¬¿²¬·¿¬» ½¸¿®¹»­ ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ ¿²¼ ½±²º·®³ ½±³°´·¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» Ú»¼»®¿´ ´¿©­ ¿²¼ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ®»º»®»²½»¼ ·² ﮬ ×× ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò ̸» ®»½±®¼­ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ±°»² ¬± ·²­°»½¬·±² ¿²¼ ­«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¿«¼·¬ ¿²¼ ®»°®±¼«½¬·±² ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß ¿«¼·¬±®­ ±® ¿«¬¸±®·¦»¼ ®»°®»­»²¬¿¬·ª»­ ¬± ¬¸» »¨¬»²¬ ¼»»³»¼ ²»½»­­¿®§ ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß ¬± ¿¼»¯«¿¬»´§ °»®³·¬ »ª¿´«¿¬·±² ±º »¨°»²¼»¼ ½±­¬­ò Í«½¸ ®»½±®¼­ ­«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¿«¼·¬ ­¸¿´´ ¿´­± ·²½´«¼»ô ©·¬¸±«¬ ´·³·¬¿¬·±²ô ¬¸±­» ®»½±®¼­ ¼»»³»¼ ²»½»­­¿®§ ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß ¬± »ª¿´«¿¬» ¿²¼ ª»®·º§ ¼·®»½¬ ¿²¼ ·²¼·®»½¬ ½±­¬­ ø·²½´«¼·²¹ ±ª»®¸»¿¼ ¿´´±½¿¬·±²­÷ ¿­ ¬¸»§ ³¿§ ¿°°´§ ¬± ½±­¬­ ¿­­±½·¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ô ¿²¼ ¬¸±­» ¼»»³»¼ ²»½»­­¿®§ ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß ¬± »ª¿´«¿¬» ¿²¼ ª»®·º§ ½±³°´·¿²½» ©·¬¸ Ú»¼»®¿´ ´¿©­ ø·²½´«¼·²¹ Ì·¬´» Ê×ô ßÜßô ¿²¼ ÜÞÛ÷ò ̸»­» ®»½±®¼­ ³«­¬ ¾» ®»¬¿·²»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ º±® ¬¸®»» §»¿®­ º±´´±©·²¹ º·²¿´ °¿§³»²¬ «²¼»® ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò
ïìòì ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ½±³°´§ ©·¬¸ ¿´´ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» °®±ª·­·±²­ ¹±ª»®²·²¹ ¬¸» ÚØÉß ­ ¿½½»­­ ¬± ®»½±®¼­ô ¿½½±«²¬­ô ¼±½«³»²¬­ô ·²º±®³¿¬·±²ô º¿½·´·¬·»­ô ¿²¼ ­¬¿ººô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ½±³°´§·²¹ ©·¬¸ ¿²§ °®±¹®¿³ ±® ½±³°´·¿²½» ®»ª·»©­ô ¿²¼ñ±® ½±³°´¿·²¬ ·²ª»­¬·¹¿¬·±²­ ½±²¼«½¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ÚØÉßò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ­«¾³·¬ ¬¸» ³¿¬»®·¿´ º±® ®»ª·»© «°±² ®»¯«»­¬ ¬± ÚØÉßô ±® ·¬­ ¼»­·¹²»» ·² ¿ ¬·³»´§ô ½±³°´»¬»ô ¿²¼ ¿½½«®¿¬» ©¿§ò
ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» ç ±º îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
ïìòë ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ½¿«­» ¿´´ ½±²¬®¿½¬±®­ ¿²¼ ­«¾½±²¬®¿½¬±®­ ¬± ½±³°´§ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ±º Í»½¬·±²­ ïìòí ¿²¼ ïìòì ¿¾±ª»ò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ½¿«­» ¿´´ ½±²¬®¿½¬±®­ ¿²¼ ­«¾½±²¬®¿½¬±®­ ¬± ½±±°»®¿¬» º«´´§ ·² º«®²·­¸·²¹ ±® ·² ³¿µ·²¹ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ¬± ÔßÝÓÌß ¿²¼ ÚØÉß ¿´´ ®»½±®¼­ ¼»»³»¼ ²»½»­­¿®§ ¾§ ¿«¼·¬±®­ ±® ¿«¬¸±®·¦»¼ ®»°®»­»²¬¿¬·ª»­ ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ò ïìòê ÔßÝÓÌß ±® ¿²§ ±º ·¬­ ¼«´§ ¿«¬¸±®·¦»¼ ®»°®»­»²¬¿¬·ª»­ô «°±² ®»¿­±²¿¾´» ©®·¬¬»² ²±¬·½» ­¸¿´´ ¾» ¿ºº±®¼»¼ ¿½½»­­ ¬± ¿´´ ¬¸» ®»½±®¼­ ±º ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ¿²¼ ·¬­ ½±²¬®¿½¬±®­ ¿²¼ ­«¾½±²¬®¿½¬±®­ ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ ¿²¼ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ¿´´±©»¼ ¬± ·²¬»®ª·»© ¿²§ »³°´±§»» ±º ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ¿²¼ ·¬­ ½±²¬®¿½¬±®­ ¿²¼ ­«¾½±²¬®¿½¬±®­ ¬¸®±«¹¸ º·²¿´ °¿§³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» »¨¬»²¬ ®»¿­±²¿¾´§ °®¿½¬·½¿¾´»ò
ïìòé ÔßÝÓÌß ±® ¿²§ ±º ·¬­ ¼«´§ ¿«¬¸±®·¦»¼ ®»°®»­»²¬¿¬·ª»­ô «°±² ®»¿­±²¿¾´» ©®·¬¬»² ²±¬·½»ô ­¸¿´´ ¸¿ª» ¿½½»­­ ¬± ¬¸» ±ºº·½»­ ±º ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ¿²¼ ·¬­ ½±²¬®¿½¬±®­ ¿²¼ ­«¾½±²¬®¿½¬±®­ô ­¸¿´´ ¸¿ª» ¿½½»­­ ¬± ¿´´ ²»½»­­¿®§ ®»½±®¼­ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ®»°®±¼«½¬·±² ¿¬ ²± ½¸¿®¹» ¬± ÔßÝÓÌßô ¿²¼ ­¸¿´´ ¾» °®±ª·¼»¼ ¿¼»¯«¿¬» ¿²¼ ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» ©±®µ­°¿½» ·² ±®¼»® ¬± ½±²¼«½¬ ¿«¼·¬­ ·² ½±³°´·¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¬»®³­ ¿²¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò ïìòè ײ ¿¼¼·¬·±² ¬± ÔßÝÓÌß ­ ±¬¸»® ®»³»¼·»­ ¿­ °®±ª·¼»¼ ·² ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ô ÔßÝÓÌß ­¸¿´´ ©·¬¸¸±´¼ ¬¸» Ú«²¼­ ¿²¼ñ±® ®»½±³³»²¼ ²±¬ ¬± ¿©¿®¼ º«¬«®» ¹®¿²¬­ ¬± ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ·º ¬¸» ÔßÝÓÌß ¿«¼·¬ ¸¿­ ¼»¬»®³·²»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ º¿·´»¼ ¬± ½±³°´§ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ͽ±°» ±º ɱ®µ ø­«½¸ ¿­ ³·­«­·²¹ Ú«²¼­ ±® º¿·´«®» ¬± ®»¬«®² Ú«²¼­ ±©»¼ ¬± ÔßÝÓÌß ¿²¼ ÚØÉß ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¿«¼·¬ º·²¼·²¹­÷ ¿²¼ñ±® ·­ ­»ª»®»´§ ±«¬ ±º ½±³°´·¿²½» ©·¬¸ ±¬¸»® ¬»®³­ ¿²¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ¿­ ¼»º·²»¼ ¾§ ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¬¸» ¿½½»­­ ¬± ®»½±®¼­ °®±ª·­·±²­ ±º ­»½¬·±² ïìòí ¿²¼ ïìòìò
ïìòç ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ½»®¬·º§ ³±²¬¸´§ ·²ª±·½»­ ¾§ ®»ª·»©·²¹ ¿´´ ½±²¬®¿½¬±® ¿²¼ ­«¾½±²¬®¿½¬±® ½±­¬­ ¿²¼ ³¿·²¬¿·²·²¹ ·²¬»®²¿´ ½±²¬®±´ ¬± »²­«®» ¬¸¿¬ ¿´´ »¨°»²¼·¬«®»­ ¿®» ®»¿­±²¿¾´»ô ¿´´±½¿¾´»ô ¿²¼ ¿´´±©¿¾´» «²¼»® ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ½±­¬ °®±ª·­·±²­ ±º î ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ îððô Í«¾°¿®¬ Ûò
ïìòïð ɸ»²»ª»® °±­­·¾´»ô ·² »¨»®½·­·²¹ ·¬­ ¿«¼·¬ ®·¹¸¬­ «²¼»® ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ô ÔßÝÓÌß ­¸¿´´ ®»´§ ±² ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ­ ±©² ®»½±®¼­ ¿²¼ ¿«¼·¬ ©±®µ ¬± ³·²·³·¦» ¼·®»½¬ ¿«¼·¬ ±º ½±²¬®¿½¬±®­ô ­«¾½±²¬®¿½¬±®­ô ½±²­«´¬¿²¬­ô ¿²¼ ­«°°´·»®­ò ïìòïï ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ±¾¬¿·² ¬¸» ­»®ª·½»­ ±º ¿² ·²¼»°»²¼»²¬ ¿«¼·¬±® ¬± ½±²¼«½¬ ¿ ­·²¹´» ¿«¼·¬ ±º ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ »¿½¸ §»¿® ·² ½±²º±®³¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» °®±ª·­·±²­ ±º î ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ îððô Í«¾°¿®¬ Úò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ­«¾³·¬ ¿ ½±°§ ±º »¿½¸ ­·²¹´» ¿«¼·¬ ¬± ¬¸» ÔßÝÓÌß ©·¬¸·² í𠼿§­ ±º ·¬­ ½±³°´»¬·±²ò
ïëò ÛÈÐÛÒÜ×ÌËÎÛ ßÒÜ Ü×ÍÐÑÍ×Ì×ÑÒ ÑÚ ÚËÒÜÍ
ïëòï ̸» »¨°»²¼·¬«®» ¿²¼ ¼·­°±­·¬·±² ±º ¬¸» Ú«²¼·²¹ ß³±«²¬ ¾§ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ­«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¿²¼ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¬»®³­ ¿²¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ô ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ù®¿²¬ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ±º ÔßÝÓÌß ¿²¼ ¬¸» ÚØÉßò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ²±¬ «¬·´·¦» ¬¸» Ú«²¼·²¹ ß³±«²¬ ·² ¿²§ ©¿§ ±® ±² ¿²§ °®±¶»½¬ ±¬¸»® ¬¸¿² ¬¸¿¬ ­°»½·º·»¼ ·² ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ¿²¼ ·² ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ù®¿²¬ò
ïëòî ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ®»­°±²­·¾´» º±® ¿²§ ¿²¼ ¿´´ ½±­¬ ±ª»®®«²­ ¿²¼ñ±® ±°»®¿¬·²¹ ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» ï𠱺 îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
¼»º·½·¬­ º±® ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ò
ïëòí Ë°±² ½±³°´»¬·±² ±º ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ ¼»­½®·¾»¼ ·² ¬¸» ÍÑÉ ¿²¼ ¼·­°±­·¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ïð °»®½»²¬ ®»¬»²¬·±²ô ¿²§ «²«­»¼ Ú«²¼·²¹ ß³±«²¬ ­¸¿´´ ®»ª»®¬ ¾¿½µ ¬± ¬¸» ÚØÉßò ïëòì ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ¿¼¼®»­­ ¿´´ ½±®®»­°±²¼»²½» ¬± ¬¸» ÚØÉß ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ¬¸·­ Ю±¶»½¬ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ÔßÝÓÌß ­ ÍÍìß Ð®±¹®¿³ Ó¿²¿¹»®ò
ïëòë ̸» °®±¹®¿³³»¼ ¾«¼¹»¬ ø¬¸» þÚ·²¿²½·¿´ д¿²þ÷ ­°»½·º§·²¹ ¬¸» ­±«®½»­ ¿²¼ ¿³±«²¬­ ±º º«²¼­ ¬± ¾» «­»¼ ¬± °¿§ º±® ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ ·­ ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ¬± ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ¿­ Û¨¸·¾·¬ Þ ò
ïëòê Ò± ³¿¬»®·¿´ ½¸¿²¹»­ô ¿­ ¼»¬»®³·²»¼ ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß ·² ·¬­ ®»¿­±²¿¾´» ¼·­½®»¬·±² ¿²¼ ­«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¬¸» º·²¿´ ¼·­½®»¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ÚØÉßô ¬± ¬¸» Ú·²¿²½·¿´ д¿² ±® ¬¸» ÍÑÉ ­¸¿´´ ¾» º«²¼»¼ ±® ¿´´±©»¼ ©·¬¸±«¬ ¿² ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¿²¼ ­·¹²»¼ ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß ­ ÝÛÑ ±® ¬¸»·® ¼»­·¹²»» ¿²¼ ¿² ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ù®¿²¬ »ª·¼»²½·²¹ ¬¸» ÚØÉß ­ ¿½½»°¬¿²½» ±º ­«½¸ ³¿¬»®·¿´ ½¸¿²¹»ò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ¹·ª» ¿¼ª¿²½» ©®·¬¬»² ²±¬·½» ¬± ÔßÝÓÌß ±º ¿´´ °®±°±­»¼ ½¸¿²¹»­ ¬± ¬¸» Ú·²¿²½·¿´ д¿² ±® ÍÑÉ ¬¸¿¬ ·¬ ±®·¹·²¿´´§ ­«¾³·¬¬»¼ ¬± ÔßÝÓÌßò
ïêò Ì×ÓÛÔÇ ËÍÛ ÑÚ ÚËÒÜÍ
ïêòï ̸» ß¹»²½§ ³«­¬ ¼»³±²­¬®¿¬» ¬·³»´§ «­» ±º ¬¸» Ú«²¼­ ¾§æ øª÷ Û¨»½«¬·²¹ ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ©·¬¸·² ²·²»¬§ øçð÷ ¼¿§­ ±º ®»½»·ª·²¹ º±®³¿´ ¬®¿²­³·¬¬¿´ ±º ¬¸» ß¹®»»³»²¬ º®±³ ÔßÝÓÌßò
øª·÷ Ó»»¬·²¹ ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ ³·´»­¬±²»­ ¼«» ¼¿¬»­ ¿­ ¿¹®»»¼ «°±² ¾§ ¬¸» ÔßÝÓÌß ¿²¼ ß¹»²½§ ·² ¬¸» ß¹®»»³»²¬ ø­»» Û¨¸·¾·¬ ßô ÍÑÉ÷ò øª··÷ Û¨°»²¼·²¹ ¬¸» Ú«²¼­ ¹®¿²¬»¼ «²¼»® ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ º±® ¿´´±©¿¾´» ½±­¬­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ¬»®³ ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò
ïéò ÜÛÚßËÔÌ
ïéòï Ü»º¿«´¬ «²¼»® ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ·­ ¼»º·²»¼ ¿­ ±²» ±® ³±®» ±º ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹æ ø·÷ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ º¿·´­ ¬± ½±³°´§ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¬»®³­ ¿²¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ­°»½·º·»¼ ·² ﮬ × ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ô ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¾´» Ú»¼»®¿´ ´¿©­ ¿²¼ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ®»º»®»²½»¼ ·² ﮬ ×× ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ô ±® ¬¸» ÍÑÉ ½±²¬¿·²»¼ ¸»®»·²å ø··÷ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ·­ ½±²­·­¬»²¬´§ ¾»¸·²¼ ­½¸»¼«´» ·² ³»»¬·²¹ ³·´»­¬±²»­ ±® ·² ¼»´·ª»®·²¹ ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬å ø···÷ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ º¿·´­ ¬± °»®º±®³ ­¿¬·­º¿½¬±®·´§ ±® ³¿µ»­ ¿ ³¿¬»®·¿´ ½¸¿²¹»ô ¿­ ¼»¬»®³·²»¼ ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß ¿¬ ·¬­ ­±´» ¼·­½®»¬·±²ô ¬± ¬¸» Ú·²¿²½·¿´ д¿²ô ¬¸» ͽ±°» ±º ɱ®µô ±® ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ Ú«²¼·²¹ ©·¬¸±«¬ ÔßÝÓÌß ­ ¿²¼ ÚØÉß ­ °®·±® ©®·¬¬»² ½±²­»²¬ ±® ¿°°®±ª¿´ ¿­ °®±ª·¼»¼ ¸»®»·²å ±®ô ø·ª÷ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ·­ ·² ¼»º¿«´¬ ±º ¿²§ ±¬¸»® ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ±º ÔßÝÓÌß ±® ¬¸» ÚØÉßò
ïèò ÎÛÓÛÜ×ÛÍ
ïèòï ײ ¬¸» »ª»²¬ ±º ¿ Ü»º¿«´¬ ¾§ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ô ÔßÝÓÌß ­¸¿´´ °®±ª·¼» ©®·¬¬»² ²±¬·½» ±º ­«½¸ Ü»º¿«´¬ ¬± ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ©·¬¸ ¿ íð󼿧 °»®·±¼ ¬± ½«®» ¬¸» Ü»º¿«´¬ò ײ ¬¸» »ª»²¬ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ º¿·´­ ¬± ½«®» ¬¸» Ü»º¿«´¬ ±® ½±³³·¬ ¬± ½«®» ¬¸» Ü»º¿«´¬ ¿²¼ ½±³³»²½» ¬¸» ­¿³» ©·¬¸·² ­«½¸ íð󼿧 °»®·±¼ ¬± ¬¸» ­¿¬·­º¿½¬·±² ±º ÔßÝÓÌßô ÔßÝÓÌß ­¸¿´´ ¸¿ª» ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ®»³»¼·»­æ ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» ïï ±º îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
ø·÷ ÔßÝÓÌß ³¿§ ¬»®³·²¿¬» ¬¸·­ ¿¹®»»³»²¬å
ø··÷ ÔßÝÓÌß ³¿§ ³¿µ» ²± º«®¬¸»® ¼·­¾«®­»³»²¬­ ±º Ú«²¼­ ¬± ¬¸» ß¹»²½§å ø···÷ÔßÝÓÌß ³¿§ ®»½±ª»® º®±³ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ¿²§ Ú«²¼­ ¼·­¾«®­»¼ ¬± ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ¿­ ¿´´±©»¼ ¾§ ´¿© ±® ·² »¯«·¬§å ¿²¼ñ±®
ø·ª÷ ß²§ ®»³»¼·»­ ¬¸» ÚØÉß ³¿§ ¸¿ª» «²¼»® ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ù®¿²¬ò ïèòî Ûºº»½¬·ª» «°±² ®»½»·°¬ ±º ©®·¬¬»² ²±¬·½» ±º ¬»®³·²¿¬·±² º®±³ ÔßÝÓÌß °«®­«¿²¬ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ïèòïô ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ²±¬ «²¼»®¬¿µ» ¿²§ ²»© ©±®µ ±® ±¾´·¹¿¬·±² ©·¬¸ ®»­°»½¬ ¬± ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ «²´»­­ ­± ¼·®»½¬»¼ ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß ·² ©®·¬·²¹ò ß²§ Ú«²¼­ »¨°»²¼»¼ ¿º¬»® ¬»®³·²¿¬·±² ­¸¿´´ ¾» ¬¸» ­±´» ®»­°±²­·¾·´·¬§ ±º ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ò
ïèòí ̸» ®»³»¼·»­ ¼»­½®·¾»¼ ¸»®»·² ¿®» ²±²ó»¨½´«­·ª»ò ÔßÝÓÌß ­¸¿´´ ¸¿ª» ¬¸» ®·¹¸¬ ¬± »²º±®½» ¿²§ ¿²¼ ¿´´ ®·¹¸¬­ ¿²¼ ®»³»¼·»­ ¸»®»·² ±® ©¸·½¸ ³¿§ ¾» ²±© ±® ¸»®»¿º¬»® ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ¿¬ ´¿© ±® ·² »¯«·¬§ò
ïçò ÍÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ëíííø¾÷ ÎÛÏË×ÎÛÓÛÒÌÍ
ïçòï Ú±® °«®°±­»­ ±º ­¿¬·­º§·²¹ ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ±º Í»½¬·±² ëíííø¾÷ ±º ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ì®¿²­·¬ ß½¬ô ¾§ ­·¹²·²¹ ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ½»®¬·º·»­ ·¬­ ¿½½»°¬¿²½» ±º ¬¸» ¬»®³­ ¿²¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ±º ¿´´ °®±¬»½¬·ª» ¿®®¿²¹»³»²¬­ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ¬± ¿´´ ½¿°·¬¿´ ¿²¼ ±°»®¿¬·²¹ ¿­­·­¬¿²½» °®±¶»½¬­ ¿²¼ ±º ¿²§ ±¬¸»® Í»½¬·±² ëíííø¾÷ °®±¬»½¬·±²­ ½»®¬·º·»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ËÍÜÑÔ ¿­ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ¬± ¿²§ º»¼»®¿´ º«²¼·²¹ ®»½»·ª»¼ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿²§ ­°»½·º·½ ¬»®³­ ¿²¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² ËÍÜÑÔ ­ ½»®¬·º·½¿¬·±² ´»¬¬»® º±® ¬¸» ÚØÉß ¹®¿²¬ò
ïçòî ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ·²¼»³²·º§ô ¼»º»²¼ô ¿²¼ ¸±´¼ ¸¿®³´»­­ ¬¸» ÔßÝÓÌß ¿²¼ ·¬­ »³°´±§»»­ô ±ºº·½»®­ ¿²¼ ¿¹»²¬­ º±® ¿²§ ½´¿·³­ °®±°»®´§ ¾®±«¹¸¬ ¾§ °«¾´·½ ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² »³°´±§»»­ ·² ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ­ ­»®ª·½» ¿®»¿ ±® ¾§ ·¬­ ­«¾½±²¬®¿½¬±®­ °«®­«¿²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Í°»½·¿´ É¿®®¿²¬§ô ±® ¿²§ ±¬¸»® Í»½¬·±² ëíííø¾÷ ¿®®¿²¹»³»²¬­ô ¬¸¿¬ ³¿§ ¾» º·´»¼ ¿¹¿·²­¬ ÔßÝÓÌß ¿²¼ ¬¸¿¬ ³¿§ ¿®·­» º®±³ ¿²§ ±® ¿´´ ±º ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ù®¿²¬ ¿©¿®¼»¼ ¬± ÔßÝÓÌß ±² ¾»¸¿´º ±º ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ º±® ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ò
îðò ßÜÜ×Ì×ÑÒßÔ ÌÛÎÓÍßÒÜ ÝÑÒÜ×Ì×ÑÒÍ
îðòï ̸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ô ¿´±²¹ ©·¬¸ ·¬­ ߬¬¿½¸³»²¬­ô ½±²­¬·¬«¬»­ ¬¸» »²¬·®» «²¼»®­¬¿²¼·²¹ ¾»¬©»»² ¬¸» °¿®¬·»­ô ©·¬¸ ®»­°»½¬ ¬± ¬¸» ­«¾¶»½¬ ³¿¬¬»® ¸»®»·²ò ̸» ß¹®»»³»²¬ ­¸¿´´ ²±¬ ¾» ¿³»²¼»¼ô ²±® ¿²§ °®±ª·­·±²­ ±® ¾®»¿½¸ ¸»®»±º ©¿·ª»¼ô »¨½»°¬ ·² ©®·¬·²¹ ­·¹²»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» °¿®¬·»­ ©¸± ¿¹®»»¼ ¬± ¬¸» ±®·¹·²¿´ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ±® ¬¸» ­¿³» ´»ª»´ ±º ¿«¬¸±®·¬§ò îðòî ײ ¬¸» »ª»²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸»®» ·­ ¿²§ ½±«®¬ °®±½»»¼·²¹ ¾»¬©»»² ¬¸» °¿®¬·»­ ¬± »²º±®½» ±® ·²¬»®°®»¬ ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ô ¬± °®±¬»½¬ ±® »­¬¿¾´·­¸ ¿²§ ®·¹¸¬­ ±® ®»³»¼·»­ ¸»®»«²¼»®ô ¬¸» °®»ª¿·´·²¹ °¿®¬§ ­¸¿´´ ¾» »²¬·¬´»¼ ¬± ·¬­ ½±­¬­ ¿²¼ »¨°»²­»­ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ®»¿­±²¿¾´» ¿¬¬±®²»§­ º»»­ò îðòí Ò»·¬¸»® ÔßÝÓÌß ²±® ¿²§ ­«¾­·¼·¿®§ ±® ¬¸»·® ®»­°»½¬·ª» ¼·®»½¬±®­ô ±ºº·½»®­ô ¿¹»²¬­ô ±® »³°´±§»» ¬¸»®»±º ­¸¿´´ ¾» ®»­°±²­·¾´» º±® ¿²§ ¼¿³¿¹» ±® ´·¿¾·´·¬§ ±½½«®®·²¹ ¾§ ®»¿­±² ±º ¿²§¬¸·²¹ ¼±²» ±® ½±³³·¬¬»¼ ¬± ¾» ¼±²» ¾§ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ «²¼»® ±® ·² ½±²²»½¬·±² ©·¬¸ ¿²§ ©±®µ °»®º±®³»¼ ¾§ ±® ­»®ª·½» °®±ª·¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ô ·¬­ ±ºº·½»®­ô ¿¹»²¬­ô »³°´±§»»­ô ½±²¬®¿½¬±®­ ¿²¼ ­«¾½±²¬®¿½¬±®­ «²¼»® ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ º«´´§ ·²¼»³²·º§ô ¼»º»²¼ ø©·¬¸ ½±«²­»´ ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß÷ ¿²¼ ¸±´¼ ÔßÝÓÌßô ¿²¼ ·¬­ ­«¾­·¼·¿®·»­ ¿²¼ ¬¸»·® ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» ïî ±º îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
®»­°»½¬·ª» ¼·®»½¬±®­ô ±ºº·½»®­ô ¿¹»²¬­ ¿²¼ »³°´±§»»­ ¸¿®³´»­­ º®±³ ¿²¼ ¿¹¿·²­¬ ¿²§ ­«·¬­ ¿²¼ ½¿«­»­ ±º ¿½¬·±²­ô ½´¿·³­ô ´±­­»­ô ´·¿¾·´·¬§ô ¼¿³¿¹»­ô ½±­¬­ ¿²¼ »¨°»²­»­ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ©·¬¸±«¬ ´·³·¬¿¬·±²ô ¿²§ ½±­¬­ ±® ´·¿¾·´·¬§ ±² ¿½½±«²¬ ±º ¾±¼·´§ ·²¶«®§ô ¼»¿¬¸ ±® °»®­±²¿´ ·²¶«®§ ±º ¿²§ °»®­±² ±® º±® ¼¿³¿¹» ¬± ±® ´±­­ ±º °®±°»®¬§ô ¿²§ »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ±¾´·¹¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ¿²§ ´»¹¿´ º»»­ ·² ¿²§ ©¿§ ¿®·­·²¹ ±«¬ ±º ¿½¬­ ±® ±³·­­·±²­ ¬± ¿½¬ ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ ±® ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ô ©·¬¸±«¬ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ÔßÝÓÌß º·®­¬ °¿§ ­«½¸ ½´¿·³ò ̸» ±¾´·¹¿¬·±²­ ­»¬ º±®¬¸ ·² ¬¸·­ ­»½¬·±² ­¸¿´´ ­«®ª·ª» ¬»®³·²¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò
îðòì Ò»·¬¸»® °¿®¬§ ¸»®»¬± ­¸¿´´ ¾» ½±²­·¼»®»¼ ·² ¼»º¿«´¬ ·² ¬¸» °»®º±®³¿²½» ±º ·¬­ ±¾´·¹¿¬·±² ¸»®»«²¼»® ¬± ¬¸» »¨¬»²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» °»®º±®³¿²½» ±º ¿²§ ­«½¸ ±¾´·¹¿¬·±² ·­ °®»ª»²¬»¼ ±® ¼»´¿§»¼ ¾§ «²º±®»­»»² ½¿«­»­ ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿½¬­ ±º Ù±¼ô ¿½¬­ ±º ¿ °«¾´·½ »²»³§ô ¿²¼ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬ ¿½¬­ ¾»§±²¼ ¬¸» ½±²¬®±´ ¿²¼ ©·¬¸±«¬ º¿«´¬ ±® ²»¹´·¹»²½» ±º ¬¸» ¿ºº»½¬»¼ °¿®¬§ò Û¿½¸ °¿®¬§ ¸»®»¬± ­¸¿´´ ¹·ª» ²±¬·½» °®±³°¬´§ ¬± ¬¸» ±¬¸»® ±º ¬¸» ²¿¬«®» ¿²¼ »¨¬»²¬ ±º ¿²§ ­«½¸ ½·®½«³­¬¿²½»­ ½´¿·³»¼ ¬± ¼»´¿§ô ¸·²¼»®ô ±® °®»ª»²¬ °»®º±®³¿²½» ±º ¿²§ ±¾´·¹¿¬·±²­ «²¼»® ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò îðòë ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ½±³°´§ ©·¬¸ ¿²¼ »²­«®» ¬¸¿¬ ©±®µ °»®º±®³»¼ «²¼»® ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ·­ ¼±²» ·² ½±³°´·¿²½» ©·¬¸ Ù»²»®¿´´§ ß½½»°¬»¼ ß½½±«²¬·²¹ Ю·²½·°´»­ øÙßßÐ÷ô ¿´´ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» °®±ª·­·±²­ ±º º»¼»®¿´ô ­¬¿¬»ô ¿²¼ ´±½¿´ ´¿©­ô ­¬¿¬«¬»­ô ±®¼·²¿²½»­ô ®«´»­ô ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ô ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ¿²¼ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ±º ÔßÝÓÌßò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»­ ®»­°±²­·¾·´·¬§ º±® ±¾¬¿·²·²¹ ½±°·»­ ±º ¿²¼ ½±³°´§·²¹ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¬»®³­ ±º ¬¸» ³±­¬ ®»½»²¬ º»¼»®¿´ô ­¬¿¬»ô ±® ´±½¿´ ´¿©­ ¿²¼ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ô ¿²¼ ÔßÝÓÌß ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿²§ ¿³»²¼³»²¬­ ¬¸»®»¬±ò
îðòê ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ²±¬ ¿­­·¹² ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ô ±® ¿²§ °¿®¬ ¬¸»®»±ºô ©·¬¸±«¬ °®·±® ¿°°®±ª¿´ ±º ¬¸» ÔßÝÓÌß Ý¸·»º Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ѻº·½»® ±® ¬¸»·® ¼»­·¹²»»ô ¿²¼ ¿²§ ¿­­·¹²³»²¬ ©·¬¸±«¬ ­¿·¼ ½±²­»²¬ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ª±·¼ ¿²¼ «²»²º±®½»¿¾´» ¿¬ ¬¸» ±°¬·±² ±º ÔßÝÓÌßò îðòé Í«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¿´´ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ô ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ù®¿²¬ô ¿²¼ ¿´´ ±¬¸»® ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ±º ÔßÝÓÌß ¿²¼ ÚØÉßô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ©·¬¸±«¬ ´·³·¬¿¬·±² ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ ±º ½±³°»¬·¬·ª» °®±½«®»³»²¬ ±º ­»®ª·½»­ ¿²¼ ¿­­»¬­ô ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ³¿§ ½±²¬®¿½¬ ©·¬¸ ±¬¸»® »²¬·¬·»­ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ·¬­ ¿ºº·´·¿¬»­ ·² ¿ °®±¶»½¬ ³¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ®±´»ô ¬± ·³°´»³»²¬ ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò
îðòè ̸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ¹±ª»®²»¼ ¾§ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ ´¿©ò ׺ ¿²§ °®±ª·­·±² ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ·­ ¸»´¼ ¾§ ¿ ½±«®¬ ±º ½±³°»¬»²¬ ¶«®·­¼·½¬·±² ¬± ¾» ·²ª¿´·¼ô ª±·¼ô ±® «²»²º±®½»¿¾´»ô ¬¸» ®»³¿·²·²¹ °®±ª·­·±²­ ­¸¿´´ ²»ª»®¬¸»´»­­ ½±²¬·²«» ·² º«´´ º±®½» ©·¬¸±«¬ ¾»·²¹ ·³°¿·®»¼ ±® ·²ª¿´·¼¿¬»¼ ·² ¿²§ ©¿§ò
îðòç ̸» ½±ª»²¿²¬­ ¿²¼ ¿¹®»»³»²¬­ ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ­¸¿´´ ·²«®» ¬± ¬¸» ¾»²»º·¬ ±ºô ¿²¼ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ¾·²¼·²¹ «°±²ô »¿½¸ ±º ¬¸» °¿®¬·»­ ¿²¼ ¬¸»·® ®»­°»½¬·ª» ­«½½»­­±®­ ¿²¼ ¿­­·¹²­ò îðòïð ̸» ß¹»²½§ ©·´´ ¿¼ª·­» ÔßÝÓÌß °®·±® ¬± ¿²§ µ»§ Ю±¶»½¬ ­¬¿ºº·²¹ ½¸¿²¹»­ò îðòïï ̸» ß¹»²½§ ·² ¬¸» °»®º±®³¿²½» ±º ¬¸» ©±®µ ¼»­½®·¾»¼ ·² ¬¸·­ ¿¹®»»³»²¬ ·­ ²±¬ ¿ ½±²¬®¿½¬±® ²±® ¿² ¿¹»²¬ ±® »³°´±§»» ±º ÔßÝÓÌßò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ¿¬¬»­¬­ ¬± ²± ±®¹¿²·¦¿¬·±²¿´ ±® °»®­±²¿´ ½±²º´·½¬­ ±º ·²¬»®»­¬ ¿²¼ ¿¹®»»­ ¬± ²±¬·º§ ÔßÝÓÌß ·³³»¼·¿¬»´§ ·º ¿ ½±²º´·½¬ô ±® ¬¸» ¿°°»¿®¿²½» ¬¸»®»±ºô ¿®·­»­ò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ ²±¬ ®»°®»­»²¬ ·¬­»´º ¿­ ¿² ¿¹»²¬ ±® »³°´±§»» ±º ÔßÝÓÌß ¿²¼ ­¸¿´´ ¸¿ª» ²± °±©»®­ ¬± ¾·²¼ ÔßÝÓÌß ·² ½±²¬®¿½¬ ±® ±¬¸»®©·­»ò ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» ïí ±º îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
îðòïî ̸» ß¹»²½§ ¿¹®»»­ ¬± ½±³°´§ ©·¬¸ ¿´´ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» Ú»¼»®¿´ ´¿©­ ¿²¼ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ®»º»®»²½»¼ ·² ﮬ ×× ±º ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ·²½´«¼·²¹ô ¾«¬ ²±¬ ´·³·¬»¼ ¬±ô ¬¸» ˲·º±®³ ß¼³·²·­¬®¿¬·ª» λ¯«·®»³»²¬­ øìç ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ ïè÷ô ݱ­¬ Ю·²½·°´»­ô ¿²¼ ß«¼·¬ λ¯«·®»³»²¬­ º±® Ú»¼»®¿´ ß©¿®¼­ øî ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ îðð÷å Ò¿¬·±²¿´ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ б´·½§ ß½¬ øÒÛÐß÷ øìî ËòÍòÝò ìíîï »¬ ­»¯ò÷å ¿²¼ Þ«·´¼ ß³»®·½¿ô Þ«§ ß³»®·½¿ ß½¬ øÞ×Ôô ¼·ªò Ù éðçðïóîé÷ò îðòïí ̸» ß¹»²½§ ¿¹®»»­ ¬¸¿¬ º»¼»®¿´ ´¿©­ ¿²¼ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ½±²¬®±´ Ю±¶»½¬ ¿©¿®¼ ¿²¼ ·³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±²ò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ¿´­± ¿¹®»»­ ¬¸¿¬ º»¼»®¿´ ¼·®»½¬·ª»­ ¿­ ¼»º·²»¼ ·² øﮬ ××ô ß°°´·½¿¾´» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ô¿©­ ¿²¼ λ¹«´¿¬·±²­÷ ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ô ­»¬ º±®¬¸ º»¼»®¿´ ¬»®³­ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ¬± ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ô »¨½»°¬ ¬± ¬¸» »¨¬»²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ÚØÉß ¼»¬»®³·²»­ ±¬¸»®©·­» ·² ©®·¬·²¹ò ̸» ß¹»²½§ «²¼»®­¬¿²¼­ ¿²¼ ¿¹®»»­ ¬¸¿¬ «²´»­­ ÚØÉß ¸¿­ ±ºº»®»¼ »¨°®»­­ ©®·¬¬»² ¿°°®±ª¿´ ±º ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» °®±½»¼«®» ±® ½±«®­» ±º ¿½¬·±² ¼·ºº»®·²¹ º®±³ ¿ °®±½»¼«®» ±® ½±«®­» ±º ¿½¬·±² ­»¬ º±®¬¸ ·² ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¾´» º»¼»®¿´ ¼·®»½¬·ª»ô ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ³¿§ ·²½«® ¿ ª·±´¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¬»®³­ ±º ·¬­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ·º ·¬ ·³°´»³»²¬­ ¿² ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» °®±½»¼«®» ±® ½±«®­» ±º ¿½¬·±² ²±¬ ¿°°®±ª»¼ò îðòïì ̸» ß¹»²½§ «²¼»®­¬¿²¼­ ¿²¼ ¿¹®»»­ ¬¸¿¬ º»¼»®¿´ ´¿©­ô ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ô ¿²¼ ¼·®»½¬·ª»­ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ¬± ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ ¿²¼ ¬± ·¬­»´º ¿­ ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿²¬ º±® º»¼»®¿´ º«²¼­ ±² ¬¸» ¼¿¬» ±² ©¸·½¸ ¬¸» ÚØÉß ¿«¬¸±®·¦»¼ ±ºº·½·¿´ ¿©¿®¼­ ±º º»¼»®¿´ ¿­­·­¬¿²½» º±® ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ ³¿§ ¾» ³±¼·º·»¼ º®±³ ¬·³» ¬± ¬·³»ò Ò»© º»¼»®¿´ ´¿©­ô ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ¿²¼ ¼·®»½¬·ª»­ ³¿§ ¾»½±³» »ºº»½¬·ª» ¿º¬»® ¬¸» ¼¿¬» ±² ©¸·½¸ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ »¨»½«¬»­ ¬¸» ß¹®»»³»²¬ º±® ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ ¿²¼ ³·¹¸¬ ¿°°´§ ¬± ¬¸¿¬ ß¹®»»³»²¬ò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ¿¹®»»­ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ³±­¬ ®»½»²¬ ±º ­«½¸ º»¼»®¿´ ´¿©­ô ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ¿²¼ ¼·®»½¬·ª»­ ©·´´ ¹±ª»®² ¬¸» ¿¼³·²·­¬®¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ ¿¬ ¿²§ ¬·³»ô »¨½»°¬ ¬± ¬¸» »¨¬»²¬ ÚØÉß ¼»¬»®³·²»­ ±¬¸»®©·­» ·² ©®·¬·²¹ò
îðòïë ̸» ß¹»²½§ «²¼»®­¬¿²¼­ ¬¸¿¬ ·¬ ©·´´ ³¿µ» ®»º»®»²½» ¬± ¬¸» Ý¿¬¿´±¹ ±º Ú»¼»®¿´ ܱ³»­¬·½ ß­­·­¬¿²½» øÝÚÜß÷ ²«³¾»® º±® ¬¸» Í¿º» ͬ®»»¬­ ¿²¼ α¿¼­ º±® ß´´ Ю±¹®¿³ øîðòçíç÷ ·² ¿´´ ·¬­ ½±®®»­°±²¼»²½»ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¯«¿®¬»®´§ °®±¹®»­­ ®»°±®¬­ô ·²ª±·½»­ô ¿²¼ ­·²¹´» ¿«¼·¬ ®»°±®¬­ò
îðòïê Ò±¬·½»­ ©·´´ ¾» ¹·ª»² ¬± ¬¸» °¿®¬·»­ ¿¬ ¬¸» ¿¼¼®»­­ ­°»½·º·»¼ ¾»´±© «²´»­­ ±¬¸»®©·­» ²±¬·º·»¼ ·² ©®·¬·²¹ ±º ½¸¿²¹» ±º ¿¼¼®»­­ò ß²§ ²±¬·½» ®»¯«·®»¼ ±® °»®³·¬¬»¼ ¬± ¾» ¼»´·ª»®»¼ ¸»®»«²¼»® ­¸¿´´ ¾» ¼»»³»¼ ¬± ¾» ¼»´·ª»®»¼ «°±² ®»½»·°¬ ¾§ ¬¸» ½±®®»½¬ ¿¼¼®»­­ ¾§ ˲·¬»¼ ͬ¿¬»­ ³¿·´ô °±­¬¿¹» °®»°¿·¼ô ½»®¬·º·»¼ô ±® ®»¹·­¬»®»¼ ³¿·´ô ®»¬«®² ®»½»·°¬ ®»¯«»­¬»¼ô ±® ¾§ Ú»¼»®¿´ Û¨°®»­­ ±® ±¬¸»® ®»°«¬¿¾´» ±ª»®²·¹¸¬ ¼»´·ª»®§ ­»®ª·½» ¿¼¼®»­­»¼ ¬± ¬¸» °¿®¬·»­ ¸»®»¬± ¿­ º±´´±©­æ
ÔßÝÓÌßù­ ß¼¼®»­­æ ß¹»²½§ ß¼¼®»­­æ
ÔßÝÓÌß Ý·¬§ ±º Ó±²¬»®»§ п®µ
Ѳ» Ù¿¬»©¿§ д¿¦¿ íîð Éò Ò»©³¿®µ ߪ»ò
Ó¿·´ ͬ±° ççóîíóí Ó±²¬»®»§ п®µô Ýß çïéëì
Ô±­ ß²¹»´»­ô Ýß çððïî ߬¬»²¬·±²æ Æ·¿¼ Ó¿¦¾±«¼·
߬¬»²¬·±²æ Ϋ¾»² Ý»®ª¿²¬»­ Û³¿·´æ ¦³¿¦¾±«¼·à³±²¬»®»§°¿®µò½¿ò¹±ª Û³¿·´æ ½»®ª¿²¬»­®à³»¬®±ò²»¬ и±²»æ êîêóëíîóîðïè
и±²»æ îïíóëìéóìíîí
ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» ïì ±º îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
ÐßÎÌ ××
ßÐÐÔ×ÝßÞÔÛ ÚÛÜÛÎßÔ ÔßÉÍ ßÒÜ ÎÛÙËÔßÌ×ÑÒÍ
Þ§ »²¬»®·²¹ ·²¬± ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ô ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ¿­­«®»­ ¿²¼ ½»®¬·º·»­ô ©·¬¸ ®»­°»½¬ ¬± ¬¸»­» ÍÍìß º«²¼­ô ¬¸¿¬ ·¬ ©·´´ ½±³°´§ ©·¬¸ ¿´´ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» Ú»¼»®¿´ ´¿©­ô ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ô »¨»½«¬·ª» ±®¼»®­ô °±´·½·»­ô ¹«·¼»´·²»­ô ¿²¼ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ¿­ ¬¸»§ ®»´¿¬» ¬± ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¬·±²ô ¿½½»°¬¿²½»ô ¿²¼ «­» ±º Ú»¼»®¿´ º«²¼­ º±® ¬¸·­ Ю±¶»½¬ò л®º±®³¿²½» «²¼»® ¬¸·­ ¿¹®»»³»²¬ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ¹±ª»®²»¼ ¾§ ¿²¼ ·² ½±³°´·¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ô ¿­ ¿°°´·½¿¾´»ô ¬± ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ò ̸» ¿°°´·½¿¾´» °®±ª·­·±²­ ¬± ¬¸·­ ¿¹®»»³»²¬ ·²½´«¼»ô ¾«¬ ¿®» ²±¬ ´·³·¬»¼ ¬±ô ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹æ Ù»²»®¿´ Ú»¼»®¿´ Ô»¹·­´¿¬·±²
¿÷ Ú»¼»®¿´ Ú¿·® Ô¿¾±® ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ ß½¬ îç ËòÍòÝò îðïô »¬ ­»¯ò ¾÷ Ø¿¬½¸ ß½¬ ë ËòÍòÝò ïëðïô »¬ ­»¯ò
½÷ ˲·º±®³ λ´±½¿¬·±² ß­­·­¬¿²½» ¿²¼ λ¿´ Ю±°»®¬§ ß½¯«·­·¬·±² б´·½·»­ ß½¬ ±º ïçéð ìî ËòÍòÝò ìêðïô »¬ ­»¯ò
¼÷ Ò¿¬·±²¿´ Ø·­¬±®·½ Ю»­»®ª¿¬·±² ß½¬ ±º ïçêê ó Í»½¬·±² ïðê ëì ËòÍòÝò íðêïðè »÷ ß®½¸»±´±¹·½¿´ ¿²¼ Ø·­¬±®·½ Ю»­»®ª¿¬·±² ß½¬ ±º ïçéì ëì ËòÍòÝò íïîëðïô »¬ ­»¯ò º÷ Ò¿¬·ª» ß³»®·½¿² Ù®¿ª»­ Ю±¬»½¬·±² ¿²¼ λ°¿¬®·¿¬·±² ß½¬ îë ËòÍòÝò íððïô »¬ ­»¯ò ¹÷ Ý´»¿² ß·® ß½¬ô ÐòÔò çðóïìèô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ ìî ËòÍòÝò éìðïô »¬ ­»¯ò ¸÷ Í»½¬·±² ìðì ±º ¬¸» Ý´»¿² É¿¬»® ß½¬ô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ íí ËòÍòÝò ïíìì ·÷ Í»½¬·±² é ±º ¬¸» Û²¼¿²¹»®»¼ Í°»½·»­ ß½¬ô ÐòÔò çíóîðëô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ ïê ËòÍòÝò ïëíê ¶÷ ݱ¿­¬¿´ Ʊ²» Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ß½¬ô ÐòÔò çîóëèíô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ ïê ËòÍòÝò ïìëïô »¬ ­»¯ò µ÷ Ú´±±¼ Ü·­¿­¬»® Ю±¬»½¬·±² ß½¬ ±º ïçéí ó Í»½¬·±² ïðîø¿÷ ìî ËòÍòÝò ìðïî¿ ´÷ ß¹» Ü·­½®·³·²¿¬·±² ß½¬ ±º ïçéë ìî ËòÍòÝò êïðïô »¬ ­»¯ò ³÷ ß³»®·½¿² ײ¼·¿² λ´·¹·±«­ Ú®»»¼±³ ß½¬ô ÐòÔò çëóíìïô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ ²÷ Ü®«¹ ß¾«­» Ѻº·½» ¿²¼ Ì®»¿¬³»²¬ ß½¬ ±º ïçéîô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ îï ËòÍòÝò ïïðïô »¬ ­»¯ò ±÷ ̸» ݱ³°®»¸»²­·ª» ß´½±¸±´ ß¾«­» ¿²¼ ß´½±¸±´·­³ Ю»ª»²¬·±²ô Ì®»¿¬³»²¬ ¿²¼ λ¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±² ß½¬ ±º ïçéðô ÐòÔò çïóêïêô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ ìî ËòÍòÝò ìëìïô »¬ ­»¯ò °÷ Í»½¬·±²­ ëîí ¿²¼ ëîé ±º ¬¸» Ы¾´·½ Ø»¿´¬¸ Í»®ª·½» ß½¬ ±º ïçïîô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ ìî ËòÍòÝò îçð¼¼ ¬¸®±«¹¸ îçð¼¼óî
¯÷ ß®½¸·¬»½¬«®¿´ Þ¿®®·»®­ ß½¬ ±º ïçêè ìî ËòÍòÝò ìïëïô »¬ ­»¯ò ®÷ б©»® д¿²¬ ¿²¼ ײ¼«­¬®·¿´ Ú«»´ Ë­» ß½¬ ±º ïçéèô ÐòÔò ïððóìî ó Í»½¬·±² ìðí ìî ËòÍòÝò èíéí
­÷ ݱ²¬®¿½¬ ɱ®µ ر«®­ ¿²¼ Í¿º»¬§ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ ß½¬ ìð ËòÍòÝò íéðïô »¬ ­»¯ò ¬÷ ݱ°»´¿²¼ ß²¬·óµ·½µ¾¿½µ ß½¬ô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ ïè ËòÍòÝò èéì ¿²¼ ìð ËòÍòÝò íïìë «÷ Ò¿¬·±²¿´ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ б´·½§ ß½¬ ±º ïçêç ìî ËòÍòÝò ìíîïô »¬ ­»¯ò ª÷ É·´¼ ¿²¼ ͽ»²·½ 窻®­ ß½¬ô ÐòÔò çðóëìîô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ ïê ËòÍòÝò ïîéïô »¬ ­»¯ò ©÷ Ú»¼»®¿´ É¿¬»® б´´«¬·±² ݱ²¬®±´ ß½¬ô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ íí ËòÍòÝò ïîëïóïíéê ¨÷ Í·²¹´» ß«¼·¬ ß½¬ ±º ïçèì íï ËòÍòÝò éëðïô »¬ ­»¯ò
§÷ ß³»®·½¿²­ ©·¬¸ Ü·­¿¾·´·¬·»­ ß½¬ ±º ïççð ìî ËòÍòÝò ïîïðïô »¬ ­»¯ò ¦÷ Ì·¬´» ×È ±º ¬¸» Û¼«½¿¬·±² ß³»²¼³»²¬­ ±º ïçéîô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ îð ËòÍòÝò ïêèï ¬¸®±«¹¸ ïêèí ¿²¼ ïêèë ¬¸®±«¹¸ ïêèé
¿¿÷ Í»½¬·±² ëðì ±º ¬¸» λ¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±² ß½¬ ±º ïçéíô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ îç ËòÍòÝò éçì ¾¾÷ Ì·¬´» Ê× ±º ¬¸» Ý·ª·´ η¹¸¬­ ß½¬ ±º ïçêì ìî ËòÍòÝò îððð¼ô »¬ ­»¯ò ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» ïë ±º îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
½½÷ Ì·¬´» ×È ±º ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ю±°»®¬§ ¿²¼ ß¼³·²·­¬®¿¬·ª» Í»®ª·½»­ ß½¬ ±º ïçìç ìð ËòÍòÝò ïïðï óïïðìô ëìïô »¬ ­»¯ò
¼¼÷ Ô·³·¬¿¬·±² ±² Ë­» ±º ß°°®±°®·¿¬»¼ Ú«²¼­ ¬± ײº´«»²½» Ý»®¬¿·² Ú»¼»®¿´ ݱ²¬®¿½¬·²¹ ¿²¼ Ú·²¿²½·¿´ Ì®¿²­¿½¬·±²­ íï ËòÍòÝò ïíëî
»»÷ Ú®»»¼±³ ±º ײº±®³¿¬·±² ß½¬ ë ËòÍòÝò ëëîô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ ºº÷ Ó¿¹²«­±²óͬ»ª»²­ Ú·­¸»®§ ݱ²­»®ª¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ß½¬ ïê ËòÍòÝò ïèëë ¹¹÷ Ú¿®³´¿²¼ Ю±¬»½¬·±² б´·½§ ß½¬ ±º ïçèï é ËòÍòÝò ìîðïô »¬ ­»¯ò ¸¸÷Ò±·­» ݱ²¬®±´ ß½¬ ±º ïçéî ìî ËòÍòÝò ìçðïô »¬ ­»¯ò
··÷ Ú·­¸ ¿²¼ É·´¼´·º» ݱ±®¼·²¿¬·±² ß½¬ ±º ïçëê ïê ËòÍòÝò êêïô »¬ ­»¯ò ¶¶÷ Í»½¬·±² ç ±º ¬¸» 窻®­ ¿²¼ Ø¿®¾±®­ ß½¬ ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ù»²»®¿´ Þ®·¼¹» ß½¬ ±º ïçìê íí ËòÍòÝò ìðï ¿²¼ ëîë
µµ÷ Í»½¬·±² ìøº÷ ±º ¬¸» Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ß½¬ ±º ïçêê ìç ËòÍòÝò íðí ´´÷ ݱ³°®»¸»²­·ª» Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ λ­°±²­»ô ݱ³°»²­¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ Ô·¿¾·´·¬§ ß½¬ ±º ïçèð øÝÛÎÝÔß÷ô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ ìî ËòÍòÝò çêðïô »¬ ­»¯ò
³³÷ Í¿º» Ü®·²µ·²¹ É¿¬»® ß½¬ ìî ËòÍòÝò íð𺠬± íðð¶óîê
²²÷É·´¼»®²»­­ ß½¬ ïê ËòÍòÝò ïïíïóïïíê
±±÷ ͱ´·¼ É¿­¬» Ü·­°±­¿´ ß½¬ô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» λ­±«®½» ݱ²­»®ª¿¬·±² ¿²¼ λ½±ª»®§ ß½¬ ±º ïçéê ìî ËòÍòÝò êçðïô »¬ ­»¯ò
°°÷Ó·¹®¿¬±®§ Þ·®¼ Ì®»¿¬§ ß½¬ ïê ËòÍòÝò éðíô »¬ ­»¯ò
¯¯÷ ̸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ú«²¼·²¹ Ì®¿²­°¿®»²½§ ¿²¼ ß½½±«²¬¿¾·´·¬§ ß½¬ ±º îððêô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ øЫ¾ò Ôò ïðç îèîô ¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ ¾§ ­»½¬·±² êîðî ±º Ы¾´·½ Ô¿© ïïð îëî÷ ®®÷ Ý¿®¹± Ю»º»®»²½» ß½¬ ±º ïçëì ìê ËòÍòÝò ëëíðë
­­÷ Í»½¬·±² èèç ±º ¬¸» Ö±¸² Üò ӽݿ·² Ò¿¬·±²¿´ Ü»º»²­» ß«¬¸±®·¦¿¬·±² ß½¬ º±® Ú·­½¿´ Ç»¿® îðïçô Ы¾ò Ôò ïïëóîíî
Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ñ®¼»®­
¿÷ Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ñ®¼»® ïïîìê Û¯«¿´ Û³°´±§³»²¬ Ñ°°±®¬«²·¬§
¾÷ Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ñ®¼»® ïïççð Ю±¬»½¬·±² ±º É»¬´¿²¼­
½÷ Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ñ®¼»® ïïçèè Ú´±±¼°´¿·² Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬
¼÷ Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ñ®¼»® ïîíéî ײ¬»®¹±ª»®²³»²¬¿´ λª·»© ±º Ú»¼»®¿´ Ю±¹®¿³­ »÷ Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ñ®¼»® ïîëìç Ü»¾¿®³»²¬ ¿²¼ Í«­°»²­·±²
º÷ Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ñ®¼»® ïîèçè Ú»¼»®¿´ ß½¬·±²­ ¬± ß¼¼®»­­ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ö«­¬·½» ·² Ó·²±®·¬§ б°«´¿¬·±²­ ¿²¼ Ô±©óײ½±³» б°«´¿¬·±²­
¹÷ Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ñ®¼»® ïíïêê ׳°®±ª·²¹ ß½½»­­ ¬± Í»®ª·½»­ º±® л®­±²­ ©·¬¸ Ô·³·¬»¼ Û²¹´·­¸ Ю±º·½·»²½§
¸÷ Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ñ®¼»® ïíçèë ß¼ª¿²½·²¹ ο½·¿´ Û¯«·¬§ ¿²¼ Í«°°±®¬ º±® ˲¼»®­»®ª»¼ ·÷ ݱ³³«²·¬·»­ ̸®±«¹¸ ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ù±ª»®²³»²¬
¶÷ Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ñ®¼»® ïìððë Û²­«®·²¹ ¬¸» Ú«¬«®» ·­ Ó¿¼» ·² ß´´ ±º ß³»®·½¿ ¾§ ß´´ ±º µ÷ ß³»®·½¿ ­ ɱ®µ»®­
´÷ Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ñ®¼»® ïìððè Ì¿½µ´·²¹ ¬¸» Ý´·³¿¬» Ý®·­·­ ¿¬ ر³» ¿²¼ ß¾®±¿¼ Ù»²»®¿´ Ú»¼»®¿´ λ¹«´¿¬·±²­
¿÷ ˲·º±®³ ß¼³·²·­¬®¿¬·ª» λ¯«·®»³»²¬­ô ݱ­¬ Ю·²½·°´»­ô ¿²¼ ß«¼·¬ λ¯«·®»³»²¬­ º±® Ú»¼»®¿´ ß©¿®¼­ î ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ­ îððô ïîðï
¾÷ Ò±²ó°®±½«®»³»²¬ Í«­°»²­·±² ¿²¼ Ü»¾¿®³»²¬ î ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ­ ïèðô ïîðð ½÷ ײª»­¬·¹¿¬·ª» ¿²¼ Û²º±®½»³»²¬ Ю±½»¼«®»­ ïì ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ ïí ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» ïê ±º îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
¼÷ Ю±½»¼«®»­ º±® °®»¼»¬»®³·²¿¬·±² ±º ©¿¹» ®¿¬»­ îç ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ ï »÷ ݱ²¬®¿½¬±®­ ¿²¼ ­«¾½±²¬®¿½¬±®­ ±² °«¾´·½ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ±® °«¾´·½ ©±®µ º·²¿²½»¼ ·² ©¸±´» ±® °¿®¬ ¾§ ´±¿²­ ±® ¹®¿²¬­ º®±³ ¬¸» ˲·¬»¼ ͬ¿¬»­ îç ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ í º÷ Ô¿¾±® ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ °®±ª·­·±²­ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ¬± ½±²¬®¿½¬­ ¹±ª»®²·²¹ º»¼»®¿´´§ º·²¿²½»¼ ¿²¼ ¿­­·­¬»¼ ½±²­¬®«½¬·±² ø¿´­± ´¿¾±® ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ °®±ª·­·±²­ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ¬± ²±²ó½±²­¬®«½¬·±² ½±²¬®¿½¬­ ­«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¬¸» ݱ²¬®¿½¬ ɱ®µ ر«®­ ¿²¼ Í¿º»¬§ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ ß½¬÷ îç ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ ë
¹÷ Ѻº·½» ±º Ú»¼»®¿´ ݱ²¬®¿½¬ ݱ³°´·¿²½» Ю±¹®¿³­ô Û¯«¿´ Û³°´±§³»²¬ Ñ°°±®¬«²·¬§ô Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ô¿¾±® øÚ»¼»®¿´ ¿²¼ º»¼»®¿´´§ ¿­­·­¬»¼ ½±²¬®¿½¬·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­÷ ìï ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ­ êðô »¬ ­»¯ò
¸÷ Ò»© λ­¬®·½¬·±²­ ±² Ô±¾¾§·²¹ ìç ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ îð
·÷ Ò±²¼·­½®·³·²¿¬·±² ·² Ú»¼»®¿´´§ ß­­·­¬»¼ Ю±¹®¿³­ ±º ¬¸» Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ûºº»½¬«¿¬·±² ±º Ì·¬´» Ê× ±º ¬¸» Ý·ª·´ η¹¸¬­ ß½¬ ±º ïçêì ìç ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ îï
¶÷ ˲·º±®³ ®»´±½¿¬·±² ¿­­·­¬¿²½» ¿²¼ ®»¿´ °®±°»®¬§ ¿½¯«·­·¬·±² º±® Ú»¼»®¿´ ¿²¼ Ú»¼»®¿´´§ ¿­­·­¬»¼ °®±¹®¿³­ ìç ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ îì
µ÷ Ò±²¼·­½®·³·²¿¬·±² ±² ¬¸» Þ¿­·­ ±º Í»¨ ·² Û¼«½¿¬·±² Ю±¹®¿³­ ±® ß½¬·ª·¬·»­ λ½»·ª·²¹ Ú»¼»®¿´ Ú·²¿²½·¿´ ß­­·­¬¿²½» ìç ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ îë
´÷ Ò±²¼·­½®·³·²¿¬·±² ±² ¬¸» Þ¿­·­ ±º Ø¿²¼·½¿° ·² Ю±¹®¿³­ ¿²¼ ß½¬·ª·¬·»­ λ½»·ª·²¹ ±® Þ»²»º·¬·²¹ º®±³ Ú»¼»®¿´ Ú·²¿²½·¿´ ß­­·­¬¿²½» ìç ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ îé ³÷ ÜÑÌ ­ ·³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±² ±º ÜÑÖ ­ ßÜß Ì·¬´» ×× ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ½±³°´·¿²½» °®±½»¼«®»­ º±® ¿´´ °®±¹®¿³­ô ­»®ª·½»­ô ¿²¼ ®»¹«´¿¬±®§ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ®»´¿¬·²¹ ¬± ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² «²¼»® îè ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ íë
²÷ Û²º±®½»³»²¬ ±º Ò±²¼·­½®·³·²¿¬·±² ±² ¬¸» Þ¿­·­ ±º Ø¿²¼·½¿° ·² Ю±¹®¿³­ ±® ß½¬·ª·¬·»­ ݱ²¼«½¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ìç ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ îè ±÷ Ü»²·¿´ ±º °«¾´·½ ©±®µ­ ½±²¬®¿½¬­ ¬± ­«°°´·»®­ ±º ¹±±¼­ ¿²¼ ­»®ª·½»­ ±º ½±«²¬®·»­ ¬¸¿¬ ¼»²§ °®±½«®»³»²¬ ³¿®µ»¬ ¿½½»­­ ¬± ËòÍò ½±²¬®¿½¬±®­ ìç ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ íð °÷ Ù±ª»®²³»²¬©·¼» λ¯«·®»³»²¬­ º±® Ü®«¹óÚ®»» ɱ®µ°´¿½» øÚ·²¿²½·¿´ ß­­·­¬¿²½»÷ ìç ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ íî
¯÷ ÜÑÌ ­ ·³°´»³»²¬·²¹ ßÜß ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ º±® ¬®¿²­·¬ ­»®ª·½»­ ¿²¼ ¬®¿²­·¬ ª»¸·½´»­ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¬¸» ÜÑÌ ­ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ º±® ¿½½»­­·¾´» ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² º¿½·´·¬·»­ ·² ﮬ íéô ß°°»²¼·¨ ß ìç ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ­ íé ¿²¼ íè
®÷ ﮬ·½·°¿¬·±² ¾§ Ü·­¿¼ª¿²¬¿¹»¼ Þ«­·²»­­ Û²¬»®°®·­»­ ·² Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ú·²¿²½·¿´ ß­­·­¬¿²½» Ю±¹®¿³­ ìç ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ îê Ѻº·½» ±º Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ¿²¼ Þ«¼¹»¬ Ý·®½«´¿®­
¿÷ ß²§ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ÑÓÞ Ý·®½«´¿® ¾¿­»¼ «°±² ¬¸» ­°»½·º·½ ÚÇ îðîî Í¿º» ͬ®»»¬­ ¿²¼ α¿¼­ º±® ß´´ Ù®¿²¬ λ½·°·»²¬­ ¿²¼ Í«¾®»½·°·»²¬­ò
Ø·¹¸©¿§ Ú»¼»®¿´ Ô»¹·­´¿¬·±²
¿÷ ß¹®»»³»²¬­ ®»´¿¬·²¹ ¬± ¬¸» «­» ±º ¿½½»­­ ¬± ®·¹¸¬­ó±ºó©¿§ó·²¬»®­¬¿¬» ­§­¬»³ô îí ËòÍòÝò ïïï
¾÷ д¿²²·²¹ô îí ËòÍòÝò ïíì ¿²¼ ïíë ø»¨½»°¬ º±® °®±¶»½¬­ ¬¸¿¬ ¿®» ²±¬ ®»¹·±²¿´´§ ­·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¼± ²±¬ ®»½»·ª» º«²¼·²¹ «²¼»® Ì·¬´» îí ±® ݸ¿°¬»® ëí ±º Ì·¬´» ìç÷ ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» ïé ±º îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
½÷ ̱´´­ô îí ËòÍòÝò íðï ø¬± ¬¸» »¨¬»²¬ ¬¸» ®»½·°·»²¬ ±® ­«¾®»½·°·»²¬ ©·­¸»­ ¬± ¬±´´ ¿² »¨·­¬·²¹ º®»» º¿½·´·¬§ ¬¸¿¬ ¸¿­ ®»½»·ª»¼ Ì·¬´» îí º«²¼­ ·² ¬¸» °¿­¬÷å »¨½»°¬ ¿­ ¿«¬¸±®·¦»¼ ¾§ îí ËòÍòÝò ïîç ¿²¼ ïêêò
¼÷ Ûºº·½·»²¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ λª·»©­ ó îí ËòÍòÝò ïíç
»÷ б´·½§ ±² ´¿²¼­ô ©·´¼´·º» ¿²¼ ©¿¬»®º±©´ ®»º«¹»­ô ¿²¼ ¸·­¬±®·½ ­·¬»­ ó ìç ËòÍòÝò íðí Ú»¼»®¿´ Ø·¹¸©¿§ λ¹«´¿¬·±²­
¿÷ д¿²²·²¹ îí ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ ìëð ø»¨½»°¬ º±® °®±¶»½¬­ ¬¸¿¬ ¿®» ²±¬ ®»¹·±²¿´´§ ­·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¼± ²±¬ ®»½»·ª» º«²¼·²¹ «²¼»® Ì·¬´» îí ±® ݸ¿°¬»® ëí ±º Ì·¬´» ìç÷ ¾÷ Ò¿¬·±²¿´ Ø·¹¸©¿§ ͧ­¬»³ Ü»­·¹² ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ îí ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ êîë ½÷ Ô±½¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ا¼®¿«´·½ Ü»­·¹² ±º Û²½®±¿½¸³»²¬­ ±² Ú´±±¼ д¿·²­ îí ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ êëð Í«¾°¿®¬ ß
¼÷ Ó¿²«¿´ ±² ˲·º±®³ Ì®¿ºº·½ ݱ²¬®±´ Ü»ª·½»­ îí ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ êëë »÷ Ô»²¹¬¸ô É·¼¬¸ ¿²¼ É»·¹¸¬ Ô·³·¬¿¬·±²­ îí ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ êëè º÷ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ׳°¿½¬ ¿²¼ λ´¿¬»¼ Ю±½»¼«®»­ îí ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ ééï ¹÷ п®µ­ô λ½®»¿¬·±² ß®»¿­ô É·´¼´·º» ¿²¼ É¿¬»®º±©´ λº«¹»­ô ¿²¼ Ø·­¬±®·½ Í·¬»­ øÍ»½¬·±² ìøº÷÷ îí ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ ééì
¸÷ л®³·¬¬·²¹ λ¯«·®»³»²¬­ «²¼»® ¬¸» Ò¿¬·±²¿´ б´´«¬¿²¬ Ü·­½¸¿®¹» Û´·³·²¿¬·±² ͧ­¬»³ ìð ÝòÚòÎò ﮬ ïîî
ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» ïè ±º îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
ÛÈØ×Þ×Ì ß
ÍÝÑÐÛ ÑÚ ÉÑÎÕ
Ó±²¬»®»§ п®µ Ê·­·±² Æ»®± ß½¬·±² д¿²
Ü»ª»´±° ¿ °´¿² ¬¸¿¬ ·¼»²¬·º·»­ °®·±®·¬·»­ ¿²¼ ­¬®¿¬»¹·»­ ¬± ¸»´° ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¿½¸·»ª» ·¬­ ¹±¿´ ±º ¦»®± ¬®¿ºº·½ º¿¬¿´·¬·»­ ¿²¼ ­»ª»®» ·²¶«®·»­ò
̸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ó±²¬»®»§ п®µ ¾»¹¿² ·¼»²¬·º§·²¹ ­¿º»¬§ °®·±®·¬·»­ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ½®»¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» Ô±½¿´ α¿¼©¿§ Í¿º»¬§ д¿² ·² îðîîô ©¸·½¸ ¿²¿´§¦»¼ ½±´´·­·±² ¬®»²¼­ ¿²¼ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ¿ ¬±±´¾±¨ ±º °±¬»²¬·¿´ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬­ ¬± ®»¼«½» ·²¶«®·»­ ¿²¼ º¿¬¿´·¬·»­ ±² Ý·¬§ ®±¿¼©¿§­ò ß­ °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸¿¬ »ºº±®¬ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¿¼±°¬»¼ ¿ Ê·­·±² Æ»®± ®»­±´«¬·±² ·² îðîîò ß­ ¿ ½±²¬·²«¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸·­ °®±½»­­ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ·²¬»²¼­ ¬± ½±³°´»¬» ¿ Ê·­·±² Æ»®± ß½¬·±² д¿²ò
̸» д¿² ©·´´ ·¼»²¬·º§ °®·±®·¬·»­ ¿²¼ ­¬®¿¬»¹·»­ ¬± ¸»´° ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¿½¸·»ª» ·¬­ ¹±¿´ ±º ¦»®± ¬®¿ºº·½ º¿¬¿´·¬·»­ ¿²¼ ­»ª»®» ·²¶«®·»­ò ̸» д¿² ©·´´ ¾» ½»²¬»®»¼ ±² ­¬¿µ»¸±´¼»® ¿²¼ ½±³³«²·¬§ »²¹¿¹»³»²¬ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿¹»²½§ ­¬¿ººô »´»½¬»¼ ¿²¼ ½±³³«²·¬§ ´»¿¼»®­ô ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¹»²»®¿´ °«¾´·½ò ̸» д¿² ©·´´ ±«¬´·²» ¿½¬·±²¿¾´» ­¬®¿¬»¹·»­ ¿²¼ ¸·¹¸´·¹¸¬ °±´·½§ ¿²¼ ¼»­·¹² ­±´«¬·±²­ò Û²¹¿¹»³»²¬ ­¬®¿¬»¹·»­ ©·´´ ¾» ¼»ª»´±°»¼ ¿­ °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸·­ д¿² ¬± »³°¸¿­·¦» °¿®¬·½·°¿¬·±² ·² ¼·­¿¼ª¿²¬¿¹»¼ ½±³³«²·¬·»­ò ̸» д¿² ©·´´ ¿´­± °®±ª·¼» ¿ ­°»½·¿´ º±½«­ ±² ­¬®¿¬»¹·»­ º±® Í¿º» ᫬»­ ¬± ͽ¸±±´ô ß½¬·ª» Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ݱ³°´»¬» ͬ®»»¬­ò ̸» Í¿º» ᫬»­ ¬± ͽ¸±±´ ½±³°±²»²¬ ©·´´ ¾®·²¹ °¸§­·½¿´ô »¼«½¿¬·±²¿´ô ¿²¼ ¾»¸¿ª·±®¿´ ­¿º»¬§ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬­ ¬± ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ­¬®»»¬­ ²»¿® ïî Ý·¬§ ­½¸±±´­ò ̸» д¿² ©·´´ ·³°´»³»²¬ ­¿º»¬§ »¼«½¿¬·±² ·² ­½¸±±´ ½±³³«²·¬·»­ ¬± ½®»¿¬» ¿ ½«´¬«®» ±º ­¿º»¬§ ¿³±²¹­¬ ¬¸» ½·¬§ù­ §±«²¹»­¬ ®»­·¼»²¬­ò
̸» ß½¬·ª» Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ½±³°±²»²¬ ©·´´ °®±ª·¼» ¿ ­»¬ ±º ¬±±´­ ¿²¼ ­¬®¿¬»¹·»­ ¬± ³¿µ» ¬¸» ­¬®»»¬­ ³±®» ·²ª·¬·²¹ô ­¿º»ô ¿²¼ ½±³º±®¬¿¾´» º±® °»¼»­¬®·¿²­ ¿²¼ ¾·½§½´·­¬­ò ͬ®¿¬»¹·»­ ©·´´ ¾» °®·±®·¬·¦»¼ º±® ¬¸±­» ·³°´»³»²¬¿¾´» ·² ¬¸» ­¸±®¬ó¬»®³ ¿²¼ ¬¸±­» ¬¸¿¬ ¿®» °¿®¬ ±º ¿ ´±²¹ó¬»®³ ª·­·±²ò
̸» ݱ³°´»¬» ͬ®»»¬­ ½±³°±²»²¬ ©·´´ ¿²¿´§¦» ³«´¬·³±¼¿´ ½±²²»½¬·ª·¬§ ¿²¼ »­¬¿¾´·­¸ ²»© ¹«·¼»´·²»­ ¿²¼ °»®º±®³¿²½» ³»¿­«®»­ ¬± ·¼»²¬·º§ ¾¿®®·»®­ ¬± »¯«·¬¿¾´» ¿½½»­­·¾·´·¬§ ¿²¼ ³±¾·´·¬§ ¬¸¿¬ ½¿² ¾» ¿¼¼®»­­»¼ ¾§ ½®»¿¬·²¹ ³±®» ­¸¿®»¼ «­» ½±®®·¼±®­ò ̸» д¿² ©·´´ ¿´­± ¿·³ ¬± »²­«®» ½±³°´»¬» ­¬®»»¬­ ¿®» ·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼ ·²¬± ¬¸» Ý·¬§ù­ ®±¿¼©¿§ ¼»­·¹² ¹«·¼»´·²»­ ¿²¼ ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» °®±½»­­»­ò
л®º±®³¿²½» Ó»¿­«®»­ ø½±³°´»¬·±² ±º °®±¶»½¬÷
¿÷ л®½»²¬ ±º Ú«²¼­ ¬± ˲¼»®­»®ª»¼ ݱ³³«²·¬·»­æ Ú«²¼·²¹ ¿³±«²¬ ø±º ¬±¬¿´ °®±¶»½¬ ¿³±«²¬÷ ¾»²»º·¬·²¹ «²¼»®­»®ª»¼ ½±³³«²·¬·»­ô ¿­ ¼»º·²»¼ ¾§ ËÍÜÑÌò ¾÷ Ô»­­±²­ Ô»¿®²»¼ ¿²¼ λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­æ Ü»­½®·°¬·±² ±º ´»­­±²­ ´»¿®²»¼ ¿²¼ ¿²§ ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­ ®»´¿¬·²¹ ¬± º«¬«®» °®±¶»½¬­ ±º ­¬®¿¬»¹·»­ ¬± °®»ª»²¬ ¼»¿¬¸ ¿²¼ ­»®·±«­ ·²¶«®§ ±² ®±¿¼­ ¿²¼ ­¬®»»¬­ò
ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» ïç ±º îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
Ì·³»´·²»
Ó·´»­¬±²» ͽ¸»¼«´» Ü¿¬»
д¿²²»¼ Ü®¿º¬ ß½¬·±² д¿² ݱ³°´»¬·±² Ü¿¬»æ ïîñíïñîðîì
д¿²²»¼ ß½¬·±² д¿² ݱ³°´»¬·±² Ü¿¬»æ íñíïñîðîë
д¿²²»¼ ß½¬·±² д¿² ß¼±°¬·±² Ü¿¬»æ ëñíïñîðîë
д¿²²»¼ ÍÍìß Ú·²¿´ λ°±®¬ Ü¿¬»æ éñíïñîðîë
Ü»´·ª»®¿¾´»­
¿÷ ׳°´»³»²¬ ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ ½±²­·­¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ͽ±°» ±º ɱ®µ ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ù®¿²¬ ø·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿²§ ¿³»²¼³»²¬­ ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ÔßÝÓÌß ¿²¼ ¬¸» ÚØÉß÷ô ¿²¼ ·² ½±³°´·¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¿´´ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» º»¼»®¿´ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ò
¾÷ Í«¾³·¬ ¿´´ ®»¯«·®»¼ ®»°±®¬­ ¿²¼ ½»®¬·º·½¿¬·±²­ ¿­ ¼»¬¿·´»¼ ·² ¬¸·­ ß¹®»»³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¿­ ®»¯«»­¬»¼ ¾§ ÔßÝÓÌß ¿²¼ ÚØÉßò
½÷ Ю±°±­»¼ »²¸¿²½»³»²¬­ ¬± »¨·­¬·²¹ ­«¾®»¹·±²¿´ °´¿²­ ¿®» ½±³°´»¬»¼ô ¿²¼ñ±® ¬¸» °®±°±­»¼ ß½¬·±² д¿² ·­ ³¿¼» °«¾´·½´§ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ¿²¼ ·­ °«¾´·­¸»¼ ±² ¿ °«¾´·½´§ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ©»¾­·¬»ò
ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» î𠱺 îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
ÛÈØ×Þ×Ì Þ
Ú×ÒßÒÝ×ßÔ ÐÔßÒ
̸» ¬±¬¿´ ½±­¬ ±º ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ ·­ üïôîíðôðððò ̸» º±´´±©·²¹ ·­ ¿ ¼»­½®·°¬·±² ±º ¬¸» º«²¼·²¹ ½¿¬»¹±®§ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ½±®®»­°±²¼·²¹ º«²¼·²¹ ¿³±«²¬­ ¿²¼ ­±«®½» ¬± ·³°´»³»²¬ ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ò Ý¿¬»¹±®§ ÚØÉß Ù®¿²¬ Ô±½¿´ Ó¿¬½¸
д¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ Ü»³±²­¬®¿¬·±² üçèìôððð üîìêôððð
ͱ«®½»­ ±º Ú»¼»®¿´ Ú·²¿²½·¿´ ß­­·­¬¿²½»
Ú«²¼·²¹ Ç»¿® Ú«²¼·²¹ ͱ«®½» ß³±«²¬
ÚÇîðîî Í¿º» ͬ®»»¬­ ¿²¼ α¿¼ º±® ß´´ üçèìôððð
Ô±½¿´ Ó¿¬½¸
̸» ß¹»²½§ ­¸¿´´ «­» Ò±²óËÍÜÑÌ º«²¼­ ¬± ³¿¬½¸ ¬¸» ¹®¿²¬ò ÚËÒÜ×ÒÙ ÍÑËÎÝÛÍ ÌÑÌßÔ øü÷ ÚÛÜÛÎßÔ øü÷ ÔÑÝßÔ øü÷
ïò ÍÍìß øîðîî ß©¿®¼÷ó д¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ Ü»³±²­¬®¿¬·±² üçèìôððð üçèìôððð îò Ó±²¬»®»§ п®µ Ô±½¿´ Ó¿¬½¸ üîìêôððð üîìêôððð
̱¬¿´ üïôîíðôððð üçèìôððð üîìêôððð
ïððû èðû îðû
ÛÔ×Ù×ÞÔÛ ÛÈÐÛÒÍÛÍ ÌÑÌßÔ øü÷ ÚÛÜÛÎßÔ øü÷ ÔÑÝßÔ øü÷
ïò л®­±²²»´ üïìéôêðð üïïèôðèð üîçôëîð
îò Ú®·²¹» Þ»²»º·¬­ üïíôîèì üïðôêîé üîôêëé
íò ݱ²¬®¿½¬«¿´ üïôðïçôçïê üèïëôçíí üîðíôçèí
ìò Ѭ¸»® Ü·®»½¬ ݸ¿®¹»­ üìçôîðð üíçôíêð üçôèìð
̱¬¿´ üïôîíðôððð üçèìôððð üîìêôððð
ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

п¹» îï ±º îï
ßÙÓÌý çîððððððððÍÍìßðì
ÛÈØ×Þ×Ì Ý
ÍËÞÎÛÝ×Ð×ÛÒÌ ÐÎÑÝËÎÛÓÛÒÌ ÝÛÎÌ×Ú×ÝßÌ×ÑÒ
ß­ ¿ ½±²¼·¬·±² º±® ®»½»·ª·²¹ ½»®¬¿·² ­«¾®»½·°·»²¬ º»¼»®¿´ º«²¼­ º®±³ ¬¸» Ô±­ ß²¹»´»­ ݱ«²¬§ Ó»¬®±°±´·¬¿² Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ß«¬¸±®·¬§ øÓ»¬®±÷ô ̸» ß¹»²½§ ½»®¬·º·»­ ¬¸¿¬ °®±½«®»³»²¬ °®±½»¼«®»­ ©·´´ »²­«®» ¿² ±°»² ½±³°»¬·¬·ª» °®±½»­­ ¿²¼ ©·´´ ½±²º±®³ ¬± ¿°°´·½¿¾´» º»¼»®¿´ ´¿©ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ìç ÝÚΠﮬ ïè ø­°»½·º·½¿´´§ Í»½¬·±² ïèòíê÷ò Ú«®¬¸»®³±®»ô ­±´·½·¬¿¬·±² ¼±½«³»²¬­ ©·´´ ²±¬ ¾» ®»´»¿­»¼ ¬± ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ±® ·²¼·ª·¼«¿´ °®±½«®»³»²¬ ½±²¬®¿½¬­ ©·´´ ²±¬ ¾» »¨»½«¬»¼ «²¬·´ ¿ Ó»¬®± ®»°®»­»²¬¿¬·ª» ¸¿­ ®»ª·»©»¼ ¿´´ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» °®±½«®»³»²¬ °®±½»¼«®»­ ¿²¼ ¼±½«³»²¬­ ¬± »²­«®» ½±³°´·¿²½»ò Ó»¬®± ©·´´ ¾» ²±¬·º·»¼ ±º ¬¸» ½±²¬®¿½¬ ±® ±°¬·±² ¿©¿®¼ ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¬¸» ²¿³» ±º ¬¸» ­«½½»­­º«´ ¾·¼¼»®ô ¬¸» ¬±¬¿´ ¼±´´¿® ª¿´«» ±º ¬¸» ½±²¬®¿½¬ ±® ±°¬·±² ¿²¼ ¬¸» ½±²¬®¿½¬ ±® ±°¬·±² ¿©¿®¼ ¼¿¬» ©·¬¸·² ¬¸®»» ¾«­·²»­­ ¼¿§­ ±º ¬¸» ¿©¿®¼ò
ܱ½ ×Üæ ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè

ÔßÝÓÌß ¿¹®»»³»²¬
º·´»
ï¾ï¼íçºð»íì½¼ºé¿ìî½èêºê»º¾»¼ìïﺻêï¿è½ëè
ÓÓ ñ ÜÜ ñ ÇÇÇÇ
Í·¹²»¼
̸·­ ¼±½«³»²¬ ©¿­ ®»¯«»­¬»¼ º®±³ ¿°°ò½±²¬®¿½¬­¿º»ò½±³
ïï ñ íð ñ îðîí
îïæììæðî ËÌÝ
Í»²¬ º±® ­·¹²¿¬«®» ¬± Õ¿®´ Þ»®¹»® øµ¾»®¹»®à¾©­´¿©ò½±³÷ ¿²¼ ײ»¦ ß´ª¿®»¦ ø·¿´ª¿®»¦à³±²¬»®»§°¿®µò½¿ò¹±ª÷ º®±³
¸½¸±à³±²¬»®»§°¿®µò½¿ò¹±ª
×Ðæ ïðìòïéíòîîèòïçì
ïï ñ íð ñ îðîí
îïæìêæîê ËÌÝ
Ê·»©»¼ ¾§ Õ¿®´ Þ»®¹»® øµ¾»®¹»®à¾©­´¿©ò½±³÷
×Ðæ ïëîòíçòîîçòïðï
ïî ñ ðï ñ îðîí
ðîæîîæîë ËÌÝ
Ê·»©»¼ ¾§ ײ»¦ ß´ª¿®»¦ ø·¿´ª¿®»¦à³±²¬»®»§°¿®µò½¿ò¹±ª÷
×Ðæ êíòîððòîíìòïìð
ïî ñ ðï ñ îðîí
ïèæðìæìê ËÌÝ
Í·¹²»¼ ¾§ Õ¿®´ Þ»®¹»® øµ¾»®¹»®à¾©­´¿©ò½±³÷
×Ðæ éêòçðòïêéòíç
ïî ñ ðì ñ îðîí
ïçæëëæëè ËÌÝ
Í·¹²»¼ ¾§ ײ»¦ ß´ª¿®»¦ ø·¿´ª¿®»¦à³±²¬»®»§°¿®µò½¿ò¹±ª÷
×Ðæ êíòîððòîíìòïìð
̸» ¼±½«³»²¬ ¸¿­ ¾»»² ½±³°´»¬»¼ò
ïî ñ ðì ñ îðîí
ïçæëëæëè ËÌÝ

City Council Staff Report

Date: October 15, 2025
Agenda Item Number: 9.E.

To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Shawn Igoe, Public Works Director
Subject: Emergency Resolution Termination

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and filing this staff report summarizing the status of the windstorm and firestorm local emergency;

2. Appropriating $129,000 from Development Impact Fund 231 for CIP 95064;

3. Adopting a resolution terminating the local emergency; and

4. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the extension under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), and 15378 exempt activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, activities where there is possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment, and activities that do not constitute a “project” as defined, respectively. This activity reflects administrative changes and policy making. Accordingly, this activity is exempt from further review.

Executive Summary:

N/A

Background:

On January 21, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-R3 declaring a local emergency due to windstorm and firestorm events beginning on January 7, 2025, as reflected in the Governor’s Executive Order dated January 12, 2025.

At its January 21, 2025, meeting, the City Council authorized the City Manager to take necessary measures to protect public health, safety, and general welfare including urgency abatement and direct negotiation of contracts pursuant to Public Contract Code §§ 20168 and 22050 and the Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) for the immediate completion of

various projects including, without limitation, those listed on the capital improvement plan (“CIP”). While the conditions resulting from the declared emergency remain (and, indeed, additional factors such as the 2028 Olympics and federal immigration enforcement are contributing to cost increases and labor shortages), the City Manager and Public Works Director determined that it may be in the public interest to now terminate the emergency.

Consequently, it is recommended City Council adopt a resolution terminating the local emergency.

The City took immediate action to secure contracts for various construction projects and ensure protection of public health, safety, and general welfare. Since the City Council’s adoption of Resolution No. 2025-R3 the City contracted for more than 20 projects. It is estimated that the City saved approximately $500,000 in costs by rapidly securing these contracts during the declared emergency. Despite these savings, the Public Works Director (“Director”) asks for a $129,000 budget appropriation to complete the most recent of these projects (George Elder Pool Improvements).

Strategic Plan Goal:

The proposed actions meet the City’s goal to maintain, build and modernize infrastructure and facilities to support the current and future needs of our City and community.

Fiscal Impact:

The costs for awarded contracts are budgeted within the City’s FY 25-26 CIP. An appropriation of $129,000 from Development Impact Fund 231 is requested for CIP 95064.

Attachments:

1. Resolution - Terminating windstorm local emergency

Staff Report
October 15, 2025

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution Terminating Windstorm Local
Emergency

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL

TERMINATING THE LOCAL EMERGENCY RESULTING FROM
THE JANUARY 2025 WINDSTORM AND FIRESTORM EVENTS

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Monterey Park as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds as follows:

A. Pursuant to Resolution No. 2025-R3 (“Emergency Resolution”) the City Manager exercised emergency powers to mitigate the effects of the January 2025 Palisades Fire, Eaton Canyon Fire, and windstorm conditions (“LA Emergency”) and local emergency as declared by the City Manager effective January 16, 2025 (“Local Emergency”);

B. The City took immediate action to secure contractors needed to complete CIP projects as many of these projects involve improvements to critical infrastructure within the City including, without limitation, water infrastructure necessary for firefighting;

C. Since the adoption of Resolution 2025-R3 the City awarded approximately 20 different contracts to reduce costs and facilitate delivery of various construction projects; and

D. The circumstances necessitating the declaration of an emergency no longer exist and the local emergency is terminated, effective immediately.

SECTION 2: Ratification. The City Council received regular reports regarding the Local Emergency and is fully informed regarding all actions undertaken by the City Manager to protect public health and safety. Accordingly, the City Council ratifies and reaffirms the City Manager’s and City Attorney’s exercise of emergency powers since January 2025 to protect public health and safety.

SECTION 3: Termination of Local Emergency. The Local Emergency resulting from the windstorm and firestorm events beginning on January 7, 2025, as reflected in the Governor’s Executive Order dated January 12, 2025 (and the 22 executive orders issued since that date) is terminated.

SECTION 3: Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 4: Recordation. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTION 5: Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of October, 2025.

________________________________
Elizabeth Yang, Mayor

ATTEST:

______________________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

___________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

City Council Staff Report

Date: October 15, 2025
Agenda Item Number: 11.A.

To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Timothy Hou, Director of Community Development
Joseph Torres, Economic Development Manager
Subject: Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) No. 1 2025 Annual Report and 2026 Proposed Budget

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and filing the 2025 Annual Report with the City Clerk;

2. Approving the proposed Business Improvement District assessment and budget for the 2026 program year; and

3. Taking such additional related action that may be desirable.

Executive Summary:

The Downtown BID was established in 1986 and is required by California law to submit an annual report to the City Clerk detailing its activities, expenditures for the current program year, and proposed budget for the following program year. Additionally, Downtown BID assessments must be renewed annually. Per the Government Code § 54954.6, an ongoing assessment, if imposed at the same or lower amount as any previous year, does not require a public hearing or resolution to adopt and may be approved by minute order.

Background:

The Economic and Business Development Commission (“EBDC”) is presenting its 2025 Business Improvement District No. 1 (“Downtown BID”) Annual Report outlining activities and expenditures for 2025 and the proposed assessment for 2026. The EBDC recommends maintaining the current assessment levels for 2025 due to uncertainties in the economy and significantly decreased expenses, mainly from street cleaning.

The EBDC consists of five members appointed by the City Council and serves as an advisory board to the City Council, offering insights into the needs of Downtown BID businesses, and is responsible for making a recommendation on the Downtown BID’s annual report.

In compliance with California law, the EBDC is presenting its 2025 Annual Report, outlining

activities and expenditures for the 2025 program year and the proposed assessment, programs, and budget for 2026. The EBDC recommends maintaining the current assessment levels for the 2026 program year due to uncertainties in the economy and significantly decreased expenses from street cleaning costs.

Significant expenditures in 2025 included the installation of winter holiday decorations on Garvey Avenue, janitorial services for the Downtown BID area, and the Taste of Downtown MPK promotion program to increase foot traffic. The Downtown BID’s 2025 total revenue is estimated at $74,556, and total expenditures for 2025 are estimated at $47,074.

The following are key goals for the Downtown BID’s 2026 calendar year program and budget:
• Continue the same level of janitorial services and street maintenance within the Downtown BID area at a cost 32% lower than in 2024.
• Install, remove, and store winter holiday lights and decorations along Garvey Avenue. • Actively engage with the City on initiatives and discussions regarding projects benefiting the Downtown BID area (e.g., parking, wayfinding signage, and other business- impacting initiatives).
• Identify strategies and tactics for the 2026 calendar year to promote the Downtown BID, help businesses thrive, and enhance its attractiveness.

The EBDC is proposing the following 2026 program year estimated budget:

Budget Item Description 2026 Estimated Budget
Administration Postage $400.00
Business Cards $150.00
Office Supplies $300.00

BID Promotion Incentives, marketing, & promotions $20,000.00

Holiday Decoration Holiday lights & decorations $10,000.00

Custodial Contract Maintenance of the BID area $20,736.00

TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES $51,586.00

2026 Estimated Revenue $74,500.00
2026 Estimated Reserves $270,000.00

It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the Downtown BID 2025 Annual Report and approve the 2026 Downtown BID annual assessment by minute order.

Strategic Plan Goal:

The Downtown BID annual assessment meets the 2025-2026 Strategic Plan Goal of strengthening our local economy and housing opportunities by supporting and promoting the

businesses in the Downtown BID area.

Fiscal Impact:

Monies received are for a special assessment district and do not affect the City’s general fund.

Attachments:

1. 2025 BID Annual Report

ATTACHMENT
2025 BID Annual Report

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1

2025 ANNUAL REPORT

JANUARY 2025 – DECEMBER 2025

DOWNTOWN
Garvey – Garfield

VISION STATEMENT

The Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) No. 1
was established to improve and preserve the business
community in the heart of the City.

The Downtown area of the City is an important destination point for the business community and residents of Monterey Park. Through continued efforts in organization, beautification, promotion, and revitalization, the City leaders and its business community will work together to preserve and improve the quality of life for future generations.

Economic & Business Development Commission Members:

Julio Garcia, Chairperson
Zhen Wu, Vice Chair
Josephine Louie
Amy Newman
Albert Young

OVERVIEW

In May 2025, the City of Monterey Park consolidated the Business Improvement Advisory Committee (BIDAC) and the Economic Development Advisory Commission (EDAC) into the Economic & Business Development Commission (EBDC) to streamline efforts and provide a comprehensive approach to economic development.

The BID’s budget runs on the calendar year, and one of the primary responsibilities of the EBDC is to make recommendations to the City Council on the methods and ways by which revenues derived from the BID annual assessment are used for the betterment of the BID businesses and area and to advance the goals outlined in the Annual Report.

The EBDC consists of five members appointed by the City Council for one year and may serve for up to eight (8) years if reinstated by a Council member. Each City Council member appoints one Committee member. The EBDC meets quarterly and as needed, and hosts an annual meeting of the BID members-at- large at the end of the year, when needed, before the following year’s assessments.

HISTORY

Comprised of approximately 343 small businesses, the Monterey Park Business Improvement District No. 1 encompasses the area extending along Garvey Avenue from Ramona Avenue to Nicholson Avenue and on Garfield Avenue from south of Newmark Avenue to Emerson Avenue (Exhibit A: BID District No. 1 Map).

The Monterey Park City Council established the BID in 1986 at the request of local businesses and the Downtown Merchants Association (DMA) under the California Streets and Highway Code Section 36500 et seq.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

This section of the Annual Report reflects the activities during 2025 to promote or enhance the BID area and its businesses.

Holiday Promotion
The BID installed holiday decorations along Garvey Avenue and the medians from the first week of December through the first week of January to provide a bright seasonal atmosphere for downtown shoppers. Although displayed in the current year, the payment for the installation and removal of these decorations is budgeted and processed in the subsequent calendar year (i.e., the payment made now covers the previous December’s display).

Janitorial Services
Since 2020, the BID’s street maintenance and janitorial services have been included in the City’s maintenance contract to help lower the BID’s costs. Effective in June 2025, CCS Facility Services assumed the City contract from Valley Maintenance through June 30, 2028. This change secured the same level of service for the BID area – four days a week, including quarterly sidewalk pressure washing – while achieving a significant 32% reduction in cost, saving the BID almost $10,000 annually for the next three years. (Exhibit B: 2026 Proposed Budget).

Taste of Downtown MPK Promotion
Since its launch in November 2024, the BID-funded Taste of Downtown MPK app has effectively stimulated economic activity for BID businesses. With an initial investment of $7,800 in award redemptions, the promotion has generated over $75,000 in economic activity as of September 2025. Furthermore, the app has exceeded its initial adoption goal of 1,000 users by attracting over 1,600 residents and visitors.

BUDGET

2026 Program Year
The Annual Report contains an estimated BID budget for January 1, 2026, to December 31, 2026, and is tied to the programs and activities scheduled during the calendar year.

The former BIDAC budgeted approximately $56,000 in revenue from the BID for the program year 2025.

The approved budget and actual expenditures for the program year 2025 reflect that expenditures stayed within the approved budget with some overall savings of $12,341.00, mainly from the reduction in street maintenance cost due to the new contract with CSS Facility Services. (Exhibit C: 2025 Budget/Actual Expenses). The former BIDAC voted to keep the BID assessment fee unchanged for 2025. For the EBDC’s proposed BID budget for the program year 2026, the EBDC voted to again keep the BID assessment fee unchanged due to significantly decreased expenses, mainly from street cleaning, and uncertainties in the economy (Exhibit B: 2026 Proposed Budget and Exhibit D: Assessment Fee Schedule).

GOALS for 2026
This section of the Annual Report shows the EBDC’s intended programs or activities for 2026.

 Continue the same level of janitorial services and street maintenance within the BID area at a cost 32% lower than the previous year.
 Install, remove, and store Christmas Holiday lights and decorations along Garvey Avenue.  Engage with the City on initiatives and discussions regarding City projects benefitting the BID area (e.g., parking structure discussions, wayfinding signage, security initiatives).  Conduct a special EBDC meeting in November 2025 to identify strategies and tactics for the 2026 calendar year to promote the BID, help BID businesses thrive, and enhance the attractiveness of the Downtown District.

Exhibits:

A: BID Area Map
B: 2026 Proposed Budget
C: 2025 Budget/Actual Expenses
D: 2026 Assessment Fee Schedule

EXHIBIT A

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 MAP

EXHIBIT B
Business Improvement District No. 1

2026 Proposed Budget

Budget Item Description 2026 Budget 2025 Budget
Administration Postage $400.00 $400.00
Business Cards $150.00 $150.00
Office Supplies $300.00 $300.00

BID Promotion Incentives, marketing, & promotions $20,000.00 $12,000.00

Holiday Decoration Holiday decorations & installation $10,000.00 $9,425.00

Custodial Contract Maintenance of the BID area $20,736.00 $23,322.00 Pressure Washing $0.00 (included) $7,360.00

TOTAL: $51,586.00 $52,957.00

EXHIBIT C

Business Improvement District No. 1

2025 Budget / Actual Expenses
Beginning Fund Reserves Balance as of September 2024: $204,068.00

Budget Item Description Budget Actual Exp. as of
8/2025
2025 Estimates to
Close
Administration Postage $400.00 $0.00 $0.00
Business Cards $150.00 $0.00 $0.00
Office Supplies $300.00 $0.00 $0.00

BID Promotion Taste of Downtown MPK $12,000.00 $11,990.00 $11,990.00

Holiday Decoration Holiday decorations &
installation
$9,425.00 $9,425.00 $9,425.00

Custodial Contract BID area maintenance $23,322.00 $15,067.00 $21,979.00 Pressure washing $7,360.00 $3,680.00 $3,680.00

TOTAL: $52,957.00 $40,162.00 $47,074.00

2025 Revenue as of 09/2025 $55,916.00 $74,556.00

2025 Reserves as of 09/2025 $239,689.00 $239,689.00

EXHIBIT D

2026 BID Fee Schedule (same as last year)

Business Type Fee Employee/Seat Formula

Retail $105.17 $13.52
Service (Includes Financial) $105.17 $13.52
Restaurant
Without ABC $105.17 $ 6.57 (1)
With ABC $105.17 $ 7.87 (2)
Professional (inc. Insurance) $105.17 $13.52
Theater $105.17
Wholesale $105.17
Manufacturing $105.17
Contractor $105.17
Commercial Rental $23.00 + .006574 sq. ft. (3)
Residential Rental $23.00 (4)
Hotel $23.00 per unit
Laundromat $105.17

1) 20 seats or less, no seat assessment fees. Over 20 seats, $6.57 per seat starting with Seat

21. Eg. For 50 seats, total charge is $105.17 (base fee) + $197.10 (30 seats x $6.57) = $302.27.

2) 20 seats or less, no seat assessment fees. Over 20 seats, $7.87 per seat starting with Seat

21. Eg. For 50 seats, total charge is $105.17 (base fee) + $236.10 (30 seats x $7.87) = $341.27.

3) Base fee is $23.00 per unit. For every additional sq. ft. over 2,000; multiply excess by $.006574. Eg. 2,500 sq. ft., total charge is $23.00 + $3.29 (500 sq. ft. x $0.006574) = $26.29 (calculations are rounded up)

4) If you own 1-3 units, there is no charge. If you own more than 3 units, you pay $23.00 per unit more than 3 units. Eg. You own 5 units. You pay $23.00 x 2 (5 units – 3 units) = $56.00

City Council Staff Report

Date: October 15, 2025
Agenda Item Number: 11.B.

To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Diana Garcia, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Consideration to reappoint Joseph Leon to the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District as the City of Monterey Park's representative

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Reappointing Joseph Leon as the City Representative on the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District Board of Trustee for a specified term of either two or four years; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines (the “common sense” exemption), this action is not a project for purposes of CEQA review because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment

Executive Summary:

The City of Monterey Park is located within the boundaries of the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District. The District is governed by a 27-member Board of Trustees, consisting of an appointed representative from each city plus the County of Los Angeles. The City Council has the authority to appoint an individual to serve as the Monterey Park representative on the Board of Trustees. The current term for the City representative, Joseph Leon, concludes on December 31, 2025. To ensure there is uninterrupted representation, action is needed for the next term of office.

Background:

Representatives of the Mosquito & Vector Control District attend a monthly meeting of the Board on the second Friday of each month at 7:00 p.m. at the district headquarters located in West Covina, California. Under the Health and Safety Code § 2022(b), the person appointed by City Council to be a member of the Board of Trustees shall be a voter and resident of the appointing city that is within the District. Additionally, pursuant to the Health and Safety Code §2024(a), the term of the office for a member of the Board of Trustees shall be for a term of two or four years, at the discretion of the appointing authority.

Joseph Leon has been the City's representative on the Board since January 2010. The City Council last appointed him to a two-year term at its November 1, 2023 regular City Council meeting. The San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District respectfully requests that the City Council reappoint Mr. Leon to the Board for a term of either two or four years.

Strategic Plan Goal:

N/A

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact.

Attachments:

1. Resolution - Appointment to SGVMVCD

Staff Report
October 15, 2025

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution

Resolution No.

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

PARK APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BOARD OF

TRUSTEES OF THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR

CONTROL DISTRICT

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Monterey Park as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds as follows:

A. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 2022, each city within the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District shall appoint one (1) person to serve as a member of the District’s Board of Trustees.

B. The appointed person must be a resident and voter of the City of Monterey Park.

C. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 2024, the term of office for each member of the Board of Trustees shall be two (2) or four (4) years, at the discretion of the appointing authority, beginning at noon on the first Monday in January.

D. The City Council of the City of Monterey Park desires to appoint a representative to serve as Trustee on the Board of the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District for the upcoming term.

E. The City Council hereby appoints Joseph Leon, a resident and registered voter of the City of Monterey Park, to serve as the City’s representative on the Board of Trustees of the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District.

F. The term of office shall be for X years, commencing January 202X.

G. The City Clerk is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District as official notification of this appointment.

SECTION 2: Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 3: Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

Resolution No.

SECTION 4: Recordation. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTION 5: Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of October, 2025.

________________________________
Elizabeth Yang, Mayor

Attest:

__________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

Approved as to Form:

__________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney