Agenda packet, first session — Santa Fe Springs City Council, April 16, 2024 (part 1 of 3)

Agenda

04.16.2024 - AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING.PDF
Meeting Materials

04.16.2024 - AGENDA PACKET - CITY COUNCIL MEETING.PDF

1. Documents:

2. Documents:

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

MEETINGS OF THE PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY,

WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY, HOUSING SUCCESSOR,

SUCCESSOR AGENCY, AND CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2024
AT 6:00 P.M.

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11710 TELEGRAPH ROAD
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670

CITY COUNCIL
Jay Sarno, Mayor
William K. Rounds, Mayor Pro Tem
Juanita Martin, Councilmember
Annette Rodriguez, Councilmember
Joe Angel Zamora, Councilmember

CITY MANAGER CITY ATTORNEY
René Bobadilla, P.E. Ivy M. Tsai

CITY STAFF
Assistant City Manager Nicholas Razo
Fire Chief Chad Van Meeteren
Police Chief Aviv Bar
Director of Community Services Maricela Balderas
Director of Finance Lana Dich
Director of Parks & Recreation Gus Hernandez
Acting Director of Planning Cuong H. Nguyen
Director of Police Services Dino Torres
Director of Public Works James Enriquez
City Clerk Janet Martinez
April 16, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 2 of 8

NOTICES
This City Council Meeting (“Council”) will be held in person and will meet at City Hall – City Council Chambers, 11710 E. Telegraph Road, Santa Fe Springs, California. The meeting will be live streamed on the City’s YouTube Channel and can be accessed on the City’s website via the following link:
https://santafesprings.org/city_council/city_council_meetings/index.php Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the ADA, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Clerk’s Office. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.

SB 1439: Effective January 1, 2023, City Council Members are subject to SB 1439 and cannot participate in certain decisions for a year after accepting campaign contributions of more than $250 from an interested person. The Council Member would need to disclose the donation and abstain from voting.

Public Comments: The public is encouraged to address City Council on any matter listed on the agenda or on any other matter within its jurisdiction. If you wish to address the City Council on the day of the meeting, please fill out a speaker card provided at the door and submit it to City Clerk staff. You may also submit comments in writing by sending them to the City Clerk's Office at [email protected]. All written comments received by 12:00 p.m. the day of the City Council Meeting will be distributed to the City Council and made a part of the official record of the meeting. Written comments will not be read at the meeting, only the name of the person submitting the comment will be announced. Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future City Council meeting.

Please Note: Staff reports and supplemental attachments are available for inspection at the office of the City Clerk in City Hall, during regular business hours 7:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m., Monday – Thursday. Telephone: (562) 868-0511.

April 16, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 3 of 8

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

INVOCATION

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

INTRODUCTIONS

PRESENTATIONS

1. ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – HISTORICAL & COMMUNITY

PRESERVATION (COMMUNITY SERVICES)

2. “THE BEST OF SFS” – RECOGNIZING GLORIA MAGHAME FOR EXCEPTIONAL

COMMUNITY SERVICE (COMMUNITY SERVICES)

3. RECAP OF EASTER EGGSTRAVAGANZA AND RECOGNITION OF SPONSORS

AND SUPPORTERS (PARKS & RECREATION)

4. PROCLAIMING APRIL 26, 2024 AS NATIONAL ARBOR DAY (PUBLIC WORKS)

CHANGES TO AGENDA

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA & NON-PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS At this time, the general public may address the City Council on both non-agenda and nonpublic hearing agenda items. Comments relating to public hearing items will be heard during the public hearing. Please be aware that the maximum time allotted for members of the public to speak shall not exceed three (3) minutes per speaker. State Law prohibits the City Council from taking action or entertaining extended discussion on a topic not listed on the agenda. Please show courtesy to others and direct all of your comments to the City Council.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS ON ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST

PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY, HOUSING

SUCCESSOR, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

PUBLIC HEARING

5. PUBLIC HEARING FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1137 AMENDING CHAPTER 150 OF THE CODE OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

RELATING TO BUILDING REGULATIONS (PUBLIC WORKS)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

April 16, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 4 of 8
1) Open the Public Hearing and receive the written and oral staff report and comments from the public regarding the proposed ordinance; and 2) Find and determine that the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), which indicates that CEQA only applies to projects that have a “significant effect on the environment” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21068 and in CEQA Guidelines Section 15382; and 3) Waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1137: AN ORDINANCE OF THE

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS AMENDING THE CITY OF SANTA FE
SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE BY MODIFYING CHAPTER 150 (BUILDING REGULATIONS) BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2023 LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUILDING CODE (TITLE 26), ELECTRICAL CODE (TITLE 27), PLUMBING CODE (TITLE 28), MECHANICAL CODE (TITLE 29),
RESIDENTIAL CODE (TITLE 30), EXISTING BUILDING CODE (TITLE 33), WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS THERETO; and
4) Take such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

6. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

ADOPTING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR BUILDING AND SAFETY PLAN CHECK AND

PERMIT FEES (PUBLIC WORKS)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Open the Public Hearing and hear from anyone wishing to speak on this matter; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. 9905 setting Building and Safety plan check and permit fees.

OLD BUSINESS – NONE
REGULAR BUSINESS – NONE

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. Any items a Councilmember wishes to discuss should be designated at this time. All other items may be approved in a single motion. Such approval will also waive the reading of any Ordinance.

PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

7. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 19, 2024 PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

MEETINGS (CITY CLERK)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Public Financing Authority:

April 16, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 5 of 8
1) Approve the minutes as submitted.

8. MONTHLY REPORT ON THE STATUS OF DEBT INSTRUMENTS ISSUED

THROUGH THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (PFA) (FINANCE)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Public Financing Authority:
1) Receive and file the report.

WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY

9. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 19, 2024 WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY MEETINGS (CITY CLERK)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Water Utility Authority:
1) Approve the minutes as submitted.

10. MONTHLY REPORT ON THE STATUS OF DEBT INSTRUMENTS ISSUED

THROUGH THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY (WUA) (FINANCE)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Water Utility Authority:
1) Receive and file the report.

HOUSING SUCCESSOR

11. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 19, 2024 HOUSING SUCCESSOR MEETINGS (CITY CLERK)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Housing Successor:
1) Approve the minutes as submitted.

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

12. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 19, 2024 SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETINGS (CITY CLERK)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Successor Agency:
1) Approve the minutes as submitted.

April 16, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 6 of 8

CITY COUNCIL

13. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 19, 2024 SPECIAL AND REGULAR CITY COUNCIL

MEETINGS (CITY CLERK)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Approve the minutes as submitted.

14. CITY HALL ROOF REPLACEMENT – FINAL PAYMENT (PUBLIC WORKS) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Approve the Final Payment to Best Contracting Services, Inc., of Gardena, California for $39,084.30 (Less 5% Retention) for the subject project; and 2) Approve the final contract amount with Best Contracting Services in the amount of $1,728,273.66, including the aggregate change order amount of $236,975.30; and
3) Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

15. SHOEMAKER AVENUE AND BROADWAY AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS – AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS
(PUBLIC WORKS)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Approve the Plans and Specifications for the Shoemaker Avenue and Broadway Avenue Street Improvement Projects; and
2) Authorize the City Engineer to advertise for construction bids; and 3) Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

16. POLICE SERVICES STAGING FACILITY STORM DAMAGE – EMERGENCY

REPAIRS UPDATE (PUBLIC WORKS)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Pursuant to Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code Section 34.23 and California Public Contract Code Section 22050, by a four-fifths vote authorize continuing the repairs without competitive bidding; and
2) Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

17. APPROVE THE 2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (PUBLIC WORKS)
April 16, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 7 of 8
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Approve the 2024 Citywide Engineering and Traffic Survey (Attachment B) which will retain existing speed limits throughout the City for an additional 7 years; and
2) Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

18. PROFESSIONAL GRANT CONSULTING SERVICES FOR ECRG ROUND 2 COMMUNITY-WIDE ASSESSMENTS (CWA) – AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE

A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) (PLANNING)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Authorize the Acting Director of Planning to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Professional Grant Consulting Services for ECRG Round 2 CommunityWide Assessments (CWA); and 2) Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS
COUNCIL COMMENTS/AB1234 COUNCIL CONFERENCE REPORTING
Council member announcements; requests for future agenda items; conference/meetings reports. Members of the City Council will provide a brief report on meetings attended at the expense of the local agency as required by Government Code Section 53232.3(d).

CLOSED SESSION – CONTINUED (IF NECESSARY)

1. CLOSED SESSION

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6) Agency Designated Representatives: City Manager
Employee Organizations: Santa Fe Springs City Employees’ Association, Santa Fe Springs Firefighters’ Association, Santa Fe Springs Management and Confidential Employees’ Association, and Santa Fe Springs Executive Management Association

2. CLOSED SESSION

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: Excess Parcel Nos. 77679-01-01, 77680-01-01, 77681-01-01, 77682-01- 01, 79985-01-01, 79986-01-01, 79987-01-01, 79988-01-01, 79990-01-01, 79991-01- 01, 79992-01-01, and 79993-01-01
Agency negotiator: City Manager
Negotiating parties: Caltrans
Under negotiations: Price and Terms
April 16, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 8 of 8

3. CLOSED SESSION

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: 11760 Telegraph Road, Santa Fe Springs
Agency Negotiator: City Manager
Negotiating Parties: United States Postal Service
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms

4. CLOSED SESSION REPORT

ADJOURNMENT
I, Fernando N. Muñoz, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Santa Fe Springs hereby certify that a copy of this agenda has been posted no less than 72 hours at the following locations; City’s website at www.santafesprings.org; Santa Fe Springs City Hall, 11710 Telegraph Road; Santa Fe Springs City Library, 11700 Telegraph Road; and the Town Center Plaza (Kiosk), 11740 Telegraph Road.
_____________________________________________
Fernando N. Muñoz, Deputy City Clerk

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

MEETINGS OF THE PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY,

WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY, HOUSING SUCCESSOR,

SUCCESSOR AGENCY, AND CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2024
AT 6:00 P.M.

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11710 TELEGRAPH ROAD
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670

CITY COUNCIL
Jay Sarno, Mayor
William K. Rounds, Mayor Pro Tem
Juanita Martin, Councilmember
Annette Rodriguez, Councilmember
Joe Angel Zamora, Councilmember

CITY MANAGER CITY ATTORNEY
René Bobadilla, P.E. Ivy M. Tsai

April 16, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 3 of 8

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

INVOCATION

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

INTRODUCTIONS

PRESENTATIONS

1. ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – HISTORICAL & COMMUNITY

PRESERVATION (COMMUNITY SERVICES)

2. “THE BEST OF SFS” – RECOGNIZING GLORIA MAGHAME FOR EXCEPTIONAL

COMMUNITY SERVICE (COMMUNITY SERVICES)

3. RECAP OF EASTER EGGSTRAVAGANZA AND RECOGNITION OF SPONSORS

AND SUPPORTERS (PARKS & RECREATION)

4. PROCLAIMING APRIL 26, 2024 AS NATIONAL ARBOR DAY (PUBLIC WORKS)

CHANGES TO AGENDA

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS ON ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST

PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY, HOUSING

SUCCESSOR, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

PUBLIC HEARING

5. PUBLIC HEARING FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1137 AMENDING CHAPTER 150 OF THE CODE OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

RELATING TO BUILDING REGULATIONS (PUBLIC WORKS)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

6. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

ADOPTING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR BUILDING AND SAFETY PLAN CHECK AND

OLD BUSINESS – NONE
REGULAR BUSINESS – NONE

PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

7. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 19, 2024 PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

MEETINGS (CITY CLERK)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Public Financing Authority:

April 16, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 5 of 8
1) Approve the minutes as submitted.

8. MONTHLY REPORT ON THE STATUS OF DEBT INSTRUMENTS ISSUED

THROUGH THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (PFA) (FINANCE)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Public Financing Authority:
1) Receive and file the report.

WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY

9. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 19, 2024 WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY MEETINGS (CITY CLERK)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Water Utility Authority:
1) Approve the minutes as submitted.

10. MONTHLY REPORT ON THE STATUS OF DEBT INSTRUMENTS ISSUED

THROUGH THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY (WUA) (FINANCE)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Water Utility Authority:
1) Receive and file the report.

HOUSING SUCCESSOR

11. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 19, 2024 HOUSING SUCCESSOR MEETINGS (CITY CLERK)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Housing Successor:
1) Approve the minutes as submitted.

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

12. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 19, 2024 SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETINGS (CITY CLERK)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Successor Agency:
1) Approve the minutes as submitted.

April 16, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 6 of 8

CITY COUNCIL

13. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 19, 2024 SPECIAL AND REGULAR CITY COUNCIL

MEETINGS (CITY CLERK)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Approve the minutes as submitted.

16. POLICE SERVICES STAGING FACILITY STORM DAMAGE – EMERGENCY

18. PROFESSIONAL GRANT CONSULTING SERVICES FOR ECRG ROUND 2 COMMUNITY-WIDE ASSESSMENTS (CWA) – AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE

CLOSED SESSION – CONTINUED (IF NECESSARY)

1. CLOSED SESSION

2. CLOSED SESSION

3. CLOSED SESSION

4. CLOSED SESSION REPORT

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members

FROM: René Bobadilla, P.E., City Manager
BY: James Enriquez, P.E., Director of Public Works / City Engineer

SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1137 AMENDING CHAPTER 150 OF THE CODE OF

SANTA FE SPRINGS RELATING TO BUILDING REGULATIONS
DATE: April 16, 2024
RECOMMENDATIONS:

It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Open the Public Hearing and receive the written and oral staff report and comments from the public regarding the proposed ordinance; and
2) Find and determine that the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), which indicates that CEQA only applies to projects that have a “significant effect on the environment” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21068 and in CEQA Guidelines Section 15382; and
3) Waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1137: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY

OF SANTA FE SPRINGS AMENDING THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE BY MODIFYING CHAPTER 150 (BUILDING REGULATIONS) BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2023 LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUILDING CODE (TITLE 26), ELECTRICAL CODE (TITLE 27), PLUMBING CODE (TITLE 28), MECHANICAL CODE (TITLE 29), RESIDENTIAL CODE (TITLE 30), EXISTING BUILDING CODE (TITLE 33), WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS THERETO; and
4) Take such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of this item will not have an impact on the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 City budget.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2024
Public Hearing to Consider the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 1137 Amending Chapter 150 Of The Code of Santa Fe Springs Relating to Building Regulations

Page 2 of 4 ends

BACKGROUND
Historically, the City of Santa Fe Springs has adopted the Los Angeles County Building Codes by reference. These codes contain essential amendments and additions to the State Building Codes. Included in these amendments are the important chapters for grading, seismic requirements and substandard properties. The State of California adopts and publishes State Building Codes and mandates they become effective throughout the State 180 days after publication.

On July 1, 2022, the California Building Standards Commission published Title 24 the “California Building Standards Code.” These codes became effective on January 1, 2023.

On October 18, 2022, the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors introduced an Ordinance adopting by reference the 2022 California Building, Residential, Existing Building, Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing Codes with local amendments that created the 2023 Los Angeles County Codes. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted the Ordinance on November 15, 2022.

Staff is recommending adoption of the attached ordinance to codify important updates to the previously adopted codes. The attached ordinance would supersede previously adopted Ordinance No. 1116.

The introduction and First Reading of the above-entitled Ordinance was approved at the Regular City Council Meeting on March 19, 2024. The Hearing Notice was published as legally required. The Proof of Publication is included in Attachment C.

ANALYSIS
State law requires local governments to enforce California Title 24 (the State’s Building Codes which originate from the International Code Council and the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials). Most jurisdictions in Los Angeles County wait to comply with this requirement until the County of Los Angeles adopts the Building Codes and all of the associated local amendments. Then, these jurisdictions adopt the County Building Codes. Attachment “B” includes the County amendments to California’s Codes.

While jurisdictions can establish their own administration of the codes, jurisdictions are only allowed to amend the technical requirements of the State Codes based on local climatic, topographical, or geological conditions, and only if the requirement is more restrictive than the current State Code. Findings must be made for each amendment to the State Codes, and a copy of these findings must be filed with the Building Standards Commission. No local amendment is enforceable unless filed with the California Building Standards Commission. See Attachment “B” for County amendment findings, these findings are also applicable for the city.

Page 3 of 4 ends

If the City chooses to adopt California Codes without Los Angeles County Amendments, this option will leave the City of Santa Fe Springs Construction Codes less restrictive than the current practice in terms of life and safety during an earthquake or similar disaster.

ENVIRONMENTAL
Adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The adoption of the proposed ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of the proposed Ordinance does not have such potential, and therefore is not a project subject to CEQA.

DISCUSSION
The structure of Title XV, Chapter 150 (General Provisions) of the Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code has been updated to enhance clarity and improved the organization, making it easier for users to find information when searching.

Each Part of the Title 24 California Code of Regulations which require permit issuance is adopted by a separate section within the Title XV Chapter 150 (General Provisions) of the Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code to ensure appropriate administration of those codes, enforcement, fee collection and permit issuance.

Certain sections of the previous Chapter 150 (General Provisions) related to drainage plan review by the City Engineer independent to the codes being adopted by reference have been renumbered to keep consistent flow of the Los Angeles County Codes adopted by reference.

Certain sections of the Chapter 150 redundant with the adopted codes content with more advanced and up to date provisions, and certain sections that are making reference to certain building codes which were in effect in 1960’s to codes that are no longer in effect and replaced with more up to date and current codes by the State had been repealed.

SUMMARY/NEXT STEPS
Upon City Council approval of the recommended actions, the ordinance will go into effect 30 days after adoption.

Page 4 of 4 ends

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Attachment A – Ordinance No: 1137
B. Attachment B – Findings and Los Angeles County Ordinance adopting and amending the 2022 California Codes and creating the 2023 Los Angeles County Codes.

Due to the size of the Los Angeles County Ordinance, these documents can be viewed at the following links for convenience only. A physical copy of each Code to be adopted or amended by this Ordinance, including both the State Codes and the County Codes, will be on file with the City Clerk and/or the Building Official pursuant to Government Code section 50022.6.

Building Code http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/173612.pdf Residential Code http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/173615.pdf Electrical Code http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/173568.pdf Plumbing Code http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/173643.pdf Mechanical Code http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/173614.pdf Existing Building Code
http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/173617.pdf California Codes can be viewed at https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes C. Attachment C – Proof of Publication of Hearing Notice ITEM STATUS:

APPROVED:

DENIED:

TABLED:

DIRECTION GIVEN:

APPROVED:

ITEM NO.:

Ordinance No. 1137 Page 1 of 9
ORDINANCE NO. 1137

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS AMENDING THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE BY MODIFYING CHAPTER 150 BUILDING REGULATIONS BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2023 LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUILDING CODE (TITLE 26), ELECTRICAL CODE (TITLE 27), PLUMBING CODE (TITLE 28), MECHANICAL CODE (TITLE 29), RESIDENTIAL CODE (TITLE 30), EXISTING BUILDING CODE (TITLE 33), WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS

AND DELETIONS THERETO
WHEREAS, California law requires that on January 1, 2023, all portions of the 2022 California Code of Regulations Title 24 will be effective within the City; and WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958 et seq. and 18941.5 authorize cities and counties to modify the California Building Standards Code by adopting more restrictive standards and modifications is such standards and modifications are accompanied by expressed findings that such modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Fe Springs desires to adopt by reference the 2023 Edition of Los Angeles County Code Title 26 (Building), Title 27 (Electrical), Title 28 (Plumbing), Title 29 (Mechanical), Title 30 (Residential), and Title 33 (Existing Building Codes), , which Los Angeles County adopted by reference to the California Building Code (2022 Edition), the California Electrical Code (2022 Edition), the California Plumbing Code (2022 Edition), the California Mechanical Code (2022 Edition), the California Residential Code (2022 Edition), California Existing Building Codes (2022 Edition), and amended based on findings that the amendments are reasonably necessary; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Fe Springs finds that proposed changes and modifications, made by the County of Los Angeles, to the building standards contained in the 2022 California Building, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Residential, and Existing Building Codes are reasonably necessary due to local climatic, geological, and/or topographical conditions as set forth in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the City shall file the amendments, additions or deletions with California Building Standards Commission.

APPROVED:

ITEM NO.:

Ordinance No. 1137 Page 2 of 9

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings:

A. The City Council has duly considered Climatic Conditions, Topographic Conditions, and Geological Conditions and all information presented to it, including written staff reports and any testimony provided at the public hearing, with all testimony received being made a part of the public record.

B. This Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because is falls within the common sense exemption, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(15) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), which indicates that CEQA only applies to projects that have a “significant effect on the environment” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21068 and in CEQA Guidelines Section 15382. The adoption of this Ordinance will not have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 2. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the City of Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code by adopting by reference and amending where necessary 2023 Edition of Los Angeles County Code Title 26 (Building), Title 27 (Electrical), Title 28 (Plumbing), Title 29 (Mechanical), Title 30 (Residential), and Title 33 (Existing Building Codes). Therefore, Sections 150.001 through 150.011 of Chapter 150 of the Code of Santa Fe Springs are hereby deleted and replaced by new Sections 150.001 through 150.013 as set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 3. This Ordinance supersedes Ordinance No. 1116.

SECTION 4. Any provision of the Code of Santa Fe Springs inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, phrase, or clause of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, phrase or clause thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, phrases, or clauses may be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION 6. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage by City Council after its passage the City Clerk of the City of Santa Fe Springs shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and to its approval by the Mayor and City Council, shall cause the same to be filed with the California Building Standards Commission at 2525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 130, Sacramento, CA 95833.

APPROVED:

ITEM NO.:

Ordinance No. 1137 Page 3 of 9
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of April 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Jay Sarno, Mayor
ATTEST:

Fernando Muñoz, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED:

ITEM NO.:

Ordinance No. 1137 Page 4 of 9

EXHIBIT A
CHAPTER 150: BUILDING REGULATIONS
General Provisions
150.001 BUILDING CODE ADOPTED.
(A) Chapters 1 through 35, 66, 67, 96, 98, 99 and Appendices C, F, H, I, J, and O of Title 26, Los Angeles County Building Code, as amended and in effect on or before January 1, 2023, adopting the 2022 California Building Code, are hereby adopted by reference pursuant to the provisions of Sections 50022.1 through 50022.10 of the Government Code, and made a part of this code with the same force and effect as though set out herein in full, including all of the regulations, revisions, conditions and terms contained therein, except as revised by Section 150.002. (B) Title 26 of the Los Angeles County Code, together with any and all amendments thereto proposed by the city, shall collectively be known as the City of Santa Fe Springs Building Code and may be cited as Section 150.001 of the City of Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code.
150.002 BUILDING CODE AMENDED.
(A) Section 202 of the Building Code is amended to read:

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 150.001, the Building Code is amended by amending the following definitions in Section 202 thereof to read:
202. Definitions.

In addition to the definitions specified in Chapter 2 of this Code, the following certain terms, phrases, words, and their derivatives shall be construed as specified in this section. Terms, phrases, and words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and the feminine the masculine. In the event of conflicts between these definitions and definitions that appear elsewhere in this code, these definitions shall govern and be applicable.
“Board of Supervisors” shall mean the City of Santa Fe Spring City Council. “Building Department” shall mean the Building and Safety Division of the City of Santa Fe Springs Public Works Department.
“County,” “County of Los Angeles,” or “unincorporated territory of the County of Los Angeles” may mean City of Santa Fe Springs or Los Angeles County depending on the context.
“Electrical Code” shall mean the Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Santa Fe Springs.

APPROVED:

ITEM NO.:

Ordinance No. 1137 Page 5 of 9
“Existing Building Code” shall mean the Existing Building Code as adopted by the City of Santa Fe Springs.
“Fire Code” shall mean the Fire Code as adopted by the City of Santa Fe Springs. “Mechanical Code” shall mean the Mechanical Code as adopted by the City of Santa Fe Springs.
“Plumbing Code” shall mean the Plumbing Code as adopted by the City of Santa Fe Springs.
“Residential Code" shall mean the Residential Code as adopted by the City of Santa Fe Springs.
(B) Section 107.19 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new 107.19 to read:
107.19 Exemption of Emergency Fallout Shelters from Permit Fees Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Building, Plumbing and Electrical Codes of the city as adopted in this chapter, no fees shall be required for the issuance of building, plumbing and electrical permits to perform work regulated by any of such codes in a structure designed and used exclusively as an emergency fallout shelter.
150.003 BUILDING CODE FEES.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 150.001, fees for plan check, inspection, and other building code fees shall be as set by resolution of the City Council. 150.004 RESIDENTIAL CODE ADOPTED.
(A) Section 1206 (Sound Transmission) of Chapter 12, Chapters 67, 69, 96, 98, 99, and appendix J of Title 26 of the Los Angeles County Building Code are adopted by reference as amended by the City of Santa Fe Springs Building Code and incorporated into this Section 150.004 as if fully set forth below and shall be known as Section 1206 of Chapter 12, Chapters 67, 69, 96, 98, 99, and appendix J of the City of Santa Fe Springs Residential Code.
(B) Chapters 1 through 10, 44, and Appendix AH, AQ, AS, and AZ of Title 30, Los Angeles County Residential Code, as amended and in effect on or before January 1, 2023, adopting the 2022 California Residential Code, are hereby adopted by reference pursuant to the provisions of Sections 50022.1 through 50022.10 of the Government Code, and made a part of this c with the same force and effect as though set out herein in full, including all of the regulations, revisions, conditions and terms contained therein.

APPROVED:

ITEM NO.:

Ordinance No. 1137 Page 6 of 9
(C) This section shall be known as the City of Santa Fe Springs Residential Code and may be cited as Section 150.004 of the City of Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code. 150.005 EXISTING BUILDING CODE ADOPTED.
(A) Los Angeles County Existing Building Code Chapters 1 through 5, 15, 16, and Appendix A, Chapters A1, A3, A4, and A5 of Title 33, Los Angeles County Existing Building Code, as amended and in effect on or before January 1, 2023, adopting the 2022 California Existing Building Code, is hereby adopted by reference pursuant to the provisions of Sections 50022.1 through 50022.10 of the Government Code, and made a part of this codeode with the same force and effect as though set out herein in full, including all of the regulations, revisions, conditions and terms contained therein. (B) This section shall be known as the City of Santa Fe Springs Existing Building Code and may be cited as Section 150.005 of the City of Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code. 150.006 ELECTRICAL CODE ADOPTED.
(A) Los Angeles County Electrical Code Articles 80 through 90, Chapters 1 through 9, and Annexes A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, of Title 27, Los Angeles County Electrical Code, as amended and in effect on or before January 1, 2023, adopting the 2022 California Electrical Code, except as otherwise provided in said Title 27, is hereby adopted by reference pursuant to the provisions of Sections 50022.1 through 50022.10 of the Government Code, and made a part of this code with the same force and effect as though set out herein in full, including all of the regulations, revisions, conditions and terms contained therein.
(B) This section shall be known as the City of Santa Fe Springs Electrical Code and may be cited as Section 150.006 of the City of Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code. 150.007 ELECTRICAL CODE FEES.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 150.006, fees for plan check, inspection, and other electrical code fees shall be as set by resolution of the City Council. 150.008 MECHANICAL CODE ADOPTION.
(A) Los Angeles County Mechanical Code Chapters 1 through 17 and Appendices B, C, and D of Title 29, the Los Angeles County Mechanical Code, as amended and in effect on or before January 1, 2023, adopting the 2022 California Mechanical Code, is hereby adopted by reference pursuant to the provisions of Sections 50022.1 through 50022.10 of the Government Code, and made a part of this code with the same force and effect as though set out herein in full, including all of the regulations, revisions, conditions and terms contained therein.

APPROVED:

ITEM NO.:

Ordinance No. 1137 Page 7 of 9
(B) This section shall be known as the City of Santa Fe Springs Mechanical Code and may be cited as Section 150.008 of the City of Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code. 150.009 MECHANICAL CODE FEES.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 150.008, fees for plan check, inspection, and other mechanical code fees shall be as set by resolution of the City Council. 150.010 PLUMBING CODE ADOPTED.
(A) Los Angeles County Plumbing Code Chapters 1 through 17, and Appendices A, B, D, H, I, and J of Title 28, Los Angeles County Plumbing Code, as amended and in effect on or before January 1, 2023, adopting the 2022 California Plumbing Code, is hereby adopted by reference pursuant to the provisions of Sections 50022.1 through 50022.10 of the Government Code, and made a part of this code with the same force and effect as though set out herein in full, including all of the regulations, revisions, conditions and terms contained.
(B) This section shall be known as the City of Santa Fe Springs Plumbing Code and may be cited as Section 150.010 of the City of Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code. 150.011 PLUMBING CODE FEES.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 150.010, fees for plan check, inspection, and other Plumbing Code fees shall be as set by resolution of the City Council. 150.012 DRAINAGE PLAN REQUIRED.
(A) For proposed developments requiring either a building permit or grading plan approval, a drainage plan or a drainage element to the grading plan as required by the City Engineer shall be prepared by a civil engineer registered in the state and shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permit or prior to the approval of any grading plan.
(B) Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the engineer for the developer or owner shall certify that:
(1) Surface water will not be diverted from one property to another over which water would not naturally flow.
(2) Storm water will not be gathered by artificial means and be discharged onto lower property in greater volume or concentration than water would naturally be discharged unless a natural drainage course or storm drain is available as an outlet. (3) Concentration of surface water into a single channel will not be discharged onto lower property.

APPROVED:

ITEM NO.:

Ordinance No. 1137 Page 8 of 9
(4) Ditches or other artificial structures will not be constructed to drain water that accumulates in ponds or sumps for discharge onto lower property owned by others. (5) There will be no obstruction to the flow of surface water from higher property that naturally drains across or onto lower property.
150.013 FEES FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW.

In addition to any fees required by the County Building Laws, a plan checking fee for each drainage plan or grading plan checked for drainage shall be paid to the city as set by City Council resolution.

APPROVED:

ITEM NO.:

Ordinance No. 1137 Page 9 of 9

EXHIBIT B
Findings of the Los Angeles County Ordinances adopting and amending the 2022 California Codes and creating the 2023 Los Angeles County Codes.

Due to the size of the Los Angeles County Ordinance, the findings set forth in the documents linked below are incorporated hereto as if fully set forth herein. A physical copy of each Code, including both the State Codes and the County Codes, will be on file with the City Clerk and/or the Building Official pursuant to Government Code section 50022.6.

Building Code http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/173612.pdf Residential Code http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/173615.pdf Electrical Code http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/173568.pdf Plumbing Code http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/173643.pdf Mechanical Code http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/173614.pdf Existing Building Code http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/173617.pdf California Codes can be viewed at https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes 16 ONLINE AT LOSCERRITOSNEWS.NET TO ADVERTISE CALL 562-407-3873 APRIL 5, 2024

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1137: APPROVING AN

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS AMENDING THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE BY MODIFYING CHAPTER 150 (BUILDING REGULATIONS) BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2023 LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUILDING CODE (TITLE 26), ELECTRICAL CODE (TITLE 27), PLUMBING CODE (TITLE 28), MECHANICAL CODE (TITLE 29), RESIDENTIAL CODE (TITLE 30), EXISTING BUILDING CODE (TITLE 33), WITH

CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS THERETO
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Fe Springs will hold a Public Hearing to consider the following:

PROJECT: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1137: APPROVING AN

PROJECT SITE: Citywide, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
APPLICANT: City of Santa Fe Springs
THE HEARING will be held on Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 6:00 p.m.

CEQA STATUS: Adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The adoption of the proposed ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of the proposed Ordinance does not have such potential, and therefore is not a project subject to CEQA.

ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend the Public Hearing before the City Council and express their opinion on the subject item(s) listed above. It should be noted that if you challenge the aforementioned item(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the office of the City Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.

PUBLIC COMMENTS may be submitted in writing to the City Clerk at [email protected].

Please submit your written comments by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the City Council Meeting. You may also contact the City Clerk's Office at (562) 868-0511.

FURTHER INFORMATION on the above-described projects and environmental document may be obtained at the City of Santa Fe Springs Planning Department, 11710 Telegraph Road, California or by contacting James Enriquez, Director of Public Works, at (562) 868-0511, Extension 7611, or e-mail at [email protected].

Published at Los Cerritos Community News 4/5/24

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS ADOPTING A

FEE SCHEDULE FOR BUILDING AND SAFETY PLAN CHECK AND PERMIT FEES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Fe Springs will hold a Public Hearing to consider the following:

PROJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

ADOPTING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR BUILDING AND SAFETY PLAN CHECK AND PERMIT FEES PROJECT SITE: Citywide, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
APPLICANT: City of Santa Fe Springs
THE HEARING will be held on Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 6:00 p.m.

CEQA STATUS: Adoption of this resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The adoption of the proposed ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of the proposed Ordinance does not have such potential, and therefore is not a project subject to CEQA.

PUBLIC COMMENTS may be submitted in writing to the City Clerk at [email protected].

Please submit your written comments by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the City Council Meeting. You may also contact the City Clerk's Office at (562) 868-0511.

Published at Los Cerritos Community News 4/5/24
ITEM # 6

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: René Bobadilla, P.E., City Manager
BY: James Enriquez, P.E., Director of Public Works / City Engineer SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE

SPRINGS ADOPTING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR BUILDING AND

SAFETY PLAN CHECK AND PERMIT FEES
DATE: April 16, 2024
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Open the Public Hearing and hear from anyone wishing to speak on this matter; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 9905 setting Building and Safety plan check and permit fees.

FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of this item will have a positive impact on the City’s revenues and will not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing such services.

BACKGROUND
The City’s current Building and Safety plan check and permit fees were adopted in 2016.

There have been no fee increases for the last eight years, while the fees for Los Angeles County, which has provided Building and Safety services to the City since its incorporation, have been updated every year with CPI increases. City staff and consultants conducted a fee study analysis (Exhibit “A”) and the objective was to ensure that fees adequately offset the City’s cost of providing services. The proposed fee increase results in an average fee increase of 30% relative to the most recently adopted fee schedule from 2016. The CPI increase for All Urban Consumers for Los AngelesLong Beach-Anaheim from March 2016 to March 2024 is 32.8% (328.232 / 247.113).

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2024
Adoption of Resolutions Establishing Building & Safety Plan Check and Permit Fees

Page 2 of 2 ends

ANALYSIS
Staff is proposing a fee schedule in the attached Resolution (Exhibit B) in line with the services provided as per the Building, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Energy, CalGreen, Accessibility Code requirements. The proposed fees will be in effect through June 30th, 2025; thereafter, fees for the services provided will be updated per CPI with the annual adjustment of fees as prescribed in Section 3 of the Resolution, not to exceed the estimated reasonable costs of providing services. This will ensure fees keep pace with inflation and eliminate the need for large increases in the future.

ENVIRONMENTAL
Adoption of the Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The adoption of the proposed fees in the Resolution is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of the proposed fees does not have such potential, and therefore is not a project subject to CEQA.

SUMMARY/NEXT STEPS
Upon City Council approval of Resolution No. 9905, the fees set forth therein will be in effect 60 days after its adoption.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Attachment A – Resolution No. 9905
B. Attachment B – Proof of Publication of Hearing Notice APPROVED:

ITEM NO.:
1 RESOLUTION NO. 9905

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

ADOPTING BUILDING AND SAFETY PLAN CHECK AND PERMIT FEES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Fe Springs adopted Resolution No. 9520 on July 28, 2016 to update the Building and Safety Plan Check and Permit Fees; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution and the laws of the State of California, the City is authorized to adopt and implement rates, fees, and charges for municipal services; provided, however, that such rates, fees, and/or charges do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing such services; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 66016 requires notice to be given and data be made available at specified times prior to the adoption of new rates, fees, and charges, or prior to adoption of increases in existing rates, fees, and charges; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 66018 requires notice to be published in accordance with Government Code section 6062a and data be made available concerning rates, fees, and charges prior to conducting a public hearing with respect to the adoption of new rates, fees, and charges, or the adoption of increases in rates, fees, and charges for which no other procedure is provided by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 66016 and 66018, the City Council has held at least one public hearing, as part of a regularly scheduled meeting; and
WHEREAS, City staff has developed a proposed revised Fee and Penalty Schedule based on certain new or increased costs for operating expenses based on a fee study that was conducted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adjust the rates, fees and charges, and to implement the proposed new rates, fees, and charges, for various services provided by the Building and Safety Division of Public Works Department as set forth herein; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the above recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2. REASONABLE COST FINDING. The City Council hereby finds and determines that based upon the data, information, analysis, and documentation in Exhibit “A” concerning the rates, fees, and charges described in Exhibit “B,” attached hereto and 2 incorporated herein by this reference, the rates, fees, and charges set forth in Exhibit “B” do not exceed the established reasonable cost of providing the service for which the rates, fees, or charges are levied.

SECTION 3. FEE SCHEDULE ADOPTION. The rates, fees, and charges set forth in Exhibit “B” are hereby adopted and approved as the rates, fees, and charges for the services identified for each such rate, fee, and/or charge.

SECTION 4. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF FEES. The amount of each fee, rate, and charge set forth in Exhibit B, Building & Safety Fee Schedule, starting July 1, 2025, will be annually adjusted as follows: Calculate the percentage movement between February of the previous year and February of the current year in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban consumers in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA areas, as published by the United States Government Bureau of Labor Statistics. Adjust each fee by said percentage amount, provided, however, that no adjustment decreases any fee, and no fee exceeds the reasonable cost of providing services. When it is determined that the amount reasonably necessary to recover the cost of providing services is in excess of this adjustment, staff may present fee proposals to City Council for approval.

SECTION 5. REPEAL. All provisions of previously adopted resolutions establishing, or that are otherwise inconsistent with, any of the rates, fees, charges, or fines set forth in Exhibit “A” are hereby repealed.

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. The development-related fees, as defined by the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code § 66000 et seq.), set forth in Exhibit “A” adopted or increased by this resolution shall take effect 60 days after its adoption.

SECTION 7. CERTIFICATION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall enter the same in the book of original resolutions.

APPROVED and ADOPTED this 16th day of April, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Jay Sarno, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Fernando Muñoz, Deputy City Clerk
3 Exhibit “A”
4 5
EXHIBIT “B”
Proposed Fee Schedule for Building and
Safety Division
Through June 30, 2025
# Fee Name Fees
1 Permit Issuance Fee each $43.62
2 Building Permit Fees Per Attached Table 1A
3 Grading Permit and Plan Check Fees (Single
Lot)
Per Attached Table 1B and 1C
4 Grading Permit and Plan Check Fees for the
review of grading plans submitted in connection
with parcel maps, tract maps, conditional use
permits, multi lots developments
Per Attached Table 1D
5 Electrical Permit & Plan Check Fees Per Attached Electrical Code Fee Table
6 Mechanical Permit & Plan Check Fees Per Attached Mechanical Code Check Fee Table
7 Plumbing Permit & Plan Check Fees Per Attached Plumbing Code Fee Table
8 Building Plan Check Fees Per Building Code Section 107.2 9 Preliminary plan review for conceptual
approval, code application/interpretation prior
to submittal of permit application (two staff-hour
minimum)
$346.04
10 Additional fee beyond minimum, per hour or
fraction thereof
$173.02
11 Investigation fee for work done without a
required permit shall be equal to the permit fee,
but not less than
$532.16
12 For inspection of the demolition of a building or
structure including sewage system termination
$258.33
13 For inspections for which no fee is specifically
indicated, per hour.
$155.10
14 For additional review required by complexity of
plans or changes, additions, or revisions of
approved or resubmitted plans or reports, per
hour
$173.02
15 For services required beyond the first and
second check of plans or reports, due to
changes, errors, or omissions, per hour (except
reviews subject to Table 1C)
$173.02
6 16 For the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy $159.82 17 For the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy
$240.03
18 For each extension of a Temporary Certificate
of Occupancy
$159.82
Assignment of house numbers
19 First House number $974.04
20 Each additional house number $11.15
21 House number change base fee $1,058.99
22 Each additional house number $20.11
23 All other fees arising under the building,
electrical, mechanical, and plumbing code
except where a different fee has been adopted
by this resolution
Per the relevant sections of the
Building, Electrical, Mechanical
and Plumbing Code
24 For a site inspection not otherwise covered
herein by a fee and which is regulated by A City
Ordinance
$665.68
25 For inspection of any use, occupancy or
change in use or occupancy Group R or U
Occupancy
$345.56
Occupancy groups other than R or U Affected
floor area:

26 Up to 5,000 square feet $851.67
27 5,001 to 100,000 square feet $1,703.94
28 above 100,000 square feet $2,582.64
29 For inspection of structures or devices
regulated by Chapter 66, the first inspection of
the first structure or device
$258.33
30 and for each additional structure or device $41.56
21 Geotechnical report, and plan review (review of
initial and two addenda reports)
The fee shall be 0.50% of the
valuation of the proposed
structure but no less than
minimum fee and no more than
the maximum fee.
32 the minimum fee shall be $1,608.34
33 the maximum fee shall be $10,369.07
34 Review of Geotechnical addenda beyond third
review (per hour)
$267.04
7 35 For processing and recording a Notice of
Violation pursuant to Section 103.4.
$554.81
36 For processing and recording a Rescission of
Notice of Violation pursuant to Section 103.4
$477.26
For investigation of alternate materials and
methods of construction

37 For the initial filing fee $346.04
38 For each hour or fraction thereof, in excess of
two
$173.02
39 Plan maintenance fee 2% of building permit fee (Based on valuation of work) but no less
than minimum and no more than
maximum fee
40 Minimum $15.63
41 Maximum $665.68
42 Request for hearing before Building Board of
Appeals
$679.38
TABLE 1A - VALUATION Fees
1 $0 to including $700 $68.95
2 More than $700 to and including $25,000 $103.48
3 plus, for each additional $1000 or fraction
thereof more than $1000
$26.65
4 $25,001 to and including $50,000 $744.80
5 plus, for each additional $1000 or fraction
thereof more than $25,000
$20.48
6 $50,001 to and including $100,000 $1,264.97
7 plus, for each additional $1000 or fraction
thereof more than $50,000
$15.50
8 More than $100,000 $2,036.66
9 plus, for each additional $1000 or fraction
thereof
$10.54
10 Plan Check Fees shall be 85% as per Building
Code Section 107.2

11 Table 1A fees increase for all construction work
required to comply with the rules and
regulations adopted by the Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission of
the State of California. The increase in fee shall
be included in the building permit fee for the
purpose of determining the plan checking fee.
10%
8 12 Table 1A fees increase for all construction work
required to comply with Title 24, California
Code of regulations, Section 101 et seq. the
State’s disabled access and adaptability
requirements. The increase in fee shall be
included in the building permit fee for the
purpose of determining the plan checking fee.
5%
13 Table 1A fees increase for all construction work
required to comply with Title 24, California
Code of regulations, Calgreen California Green
Building Standards Code requirements. The
increase in fee shall be included in the building
permit fee for the purpose of determining the
plan checking fee.
5%
TABLE 1B Grading Permit Fees Fees
1 1-50 cubic yards (0.8-38 m3) $255.90
2 51-1,000 cubic yards (39-764.6 m3) $380.46
3 Plus /100 cubic yards (76.5 m3) or fraction
thereof more than 100 cubic yards (76.5 m3)
$128.79
4 1,001-10,000 cubic yards (765.3-7,645.5 m3) $1,540.62 5 Plus /1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m3) or fraction
thereof more than 1,000 cubic yards (76.5 m3)
$108.20
6 10,001-100,000 cubic yards (7,646.3-76,455
m3)
$2,513.21
7 Plus /1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m3) or fraction
thereof more than 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5
m3)
$69.07
8 100,001 cubic yards (76456 m3) or more $8,731.77
9 Plus /10,000 cubic yards (764.6 m3) or fraction
thereof more than 100,000 cubic yards (76455
m3)
$172.05
TABLE 1C Grading Plan Check Fees Fees
10 1-1,000 cubic yards (1 m3 - 764.6 m3) $452.80
11 Plus /100 cubic yards (76.5 m3) or fraction
hereof more than 100 cubic yards (76.5 m3)
$154.00
12 1,001-10,000 cubic yards (765.3-7,645.5 m3) $1,842.68 9 13 Plus /1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m3) or fraction
thereof more than 1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m3)
$127.83
14 10,001-100,000 cubic yards (7,646.3-7,455
m3)
$2,992.42
15 Plus /1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m3) or fraction
thereof more than 10,000 cubic yards (764.6
m3)
$75.36
16 100,001-500,000 cubic yards (76,456-382,275
m3)
$9,794.86
17 Plus /10,000 cubic yards (7645.5 m3) or
fraction thereof more than 100,000 cubic yards
(76,455 m3)
$208.53
18 500,001 cubic yards (382278 m3) or more $18,132.60
19 Plus /10,000 cubic yards (7645.5 m3) or
fraction thereof more than 500,000 cubic yards
(382,275 m3)
$189.26
TABLE 1D Subdivision Grading Plan Check
Fees
Fees
1 1-10,000 cubic yards $11,650.32
2 10,001-100,000 cubic yards $11,650.32
3 Plus, over 10,000 cubic yards 19.59%
4 100,001-500,000 cubic yards $32,250.73
5 Plus, over 100,000 cubic yards 5.56%
6 500,001-1,000,000 cubic yards $58,236.39
7 Plus, over 500,000 cubic yards 4.11%
8 1,000,001 and up $82,247.42
9 Plus, over 1,000,000 cubic yards 1.75%
10 Revisions - Fee is based on per hour $239.53
11 The fee for the first five plan reviews is based
on the estimated yardage. After the fifth
submittal the fee shall be
10% of the original fee for each
submittal
12 Permit fees Permit fees shall be per Table 1-
B
13 Hydrology Report Review $4,727.43
14 Revisions to approved Hydrology Study (fee
per submittal).
$1,077.28

STATE FEES
1 Building Standards Administration Special
Revolving Fund (BSASRF or Green Fees)
Per California Building Standards
Commission Fee Schedule, 95%
of the collected fees are paid
quarterly to CBSC
10 2 SMIP Fees (STRONG MOTION

INSTRUMENTATION AND SEISMIC HAZARD

MAPPING FEE)
Per California Department of
Conservation Fee Schedule, 95%
of the collected fees are paid
quarterly to State of California
Department of Conservation
11 Electrical Code Fees Table Fees

SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULE
(Note: the following do not include permit issuing fee.)

NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
The following fees shall include all wiring and
electrical equipment in or on each building, or
other electrical equipment on the same
premises constructed at the same time.

1 For new multifamily residential buildings
(apartments and condominiums having three
(3) or more living units not including garages,
carports, and other noncommercial
automobiles storage areas constructed at the
same time, per square foot
$0.12
2 For garages, carports, and other accessory
buildings used in conjunction with multifamily
residential buildings
Branch Circuit Fee or Unit Fee
Schedule
3 For new single and two-family residential
buildings not including garages, carports and
other minor accessory buildings constructed
at the same time, per square foot
$0.25
4 For garages, carports and other minor
accessory buildings constructed at the same
time as the single or two-family residential
buildings a fee will not be required. For other
types of residential occupancies and
alterations, additions and modifications to
existing residential buildings, use
Branch Circuit Fee or Unit Fee
Schedule
Private Swimming Pools
5 For new private, residential, inground
swimming pools for single, or multifamily
occupancies, including a complete system of
necessary branch circuit wiring, bonding,
grounding, underwater lighting, water
pumping and other similar electrical
equipment directly related to the operation of
a swimming pool, each
$128.19
6 For other types of swimming pools,
therapeutic whirlpools, spas, hot tubs and
alterations to existing swimming pools, each
$86.26
Carnivals and Circuses
Carnivals, circuses or other traveling shows
or exhibitions utilizing transportable-type
rides, booths, displays and attractions, each

12 7 For electric generators and electrically driven
rides, each
$61.55
8 For mechanically driven rides and walkthrough attractions or displays having electric lighting each
$25.81
9 For a system of area and booth lighting, each $25.81
For permanently installed rides, booths,
displays, and attractions, use UNIT FEE

SCHEDULE

Temporary Power Service
10 For a temporary service power pole or
pedestal, including all pole or pedestal
mounted receptacle outlets and
appurtenances, each
$68.95
11 For a temporary distribution system and
temporary lighting and receptacle outlets for
construction sites, decorative lighting,
Christmas tree sales lots, firework stands,
sales booths, additional pole, etc., each
$33.80
(Note: Where appropriate either fee schedule
may be used.)

Branch Circuit Fees (Alternate to Unit Fees)
Branch circuit fees apply to new branch circuit
wiring and the lighting fixtures, switches and
receptacles which are supplied by these
branch circuits, including their outlets.

12 For 15 or 20 amperes 120-volt lighting or
general use receptacles:
$27.39
13 For 15 or 20 ampere 208 volt to 277-volt
lighting, each
$43.14
Exception: An individual multiwire branch
circuit supplying one appliance may be
counted as one circuit.

Unit Fees (Alternate to Branch Circuit Fees)
Receptacle, Switch, Lighting, or other.
14 For receptacle, switch, lighting, or other
outlets at which current is used or controlled
except services, feeders and meters:
$3.39
15 Lighting Fixtures, sockets, or other lamp
holding devices:
$2.30
16 For pole or platform mounted lighting fixtures,
each
$4.00
17 For theatrical-type lighting fixtures or
assemblies, each
$4.00
Residential Appliances of Three Horsepower
13 or Less:
18 For fixed residential appliances or receptacle
outlets for same, including wall-mounted
electric ovens, counter-mounted cooking
tops, electric ranges, self- contained room,
console, or through-wall air conditioners,
space heaters, food waste grinders,
dishwashers, washing machines, water
heaters, clothes dryers, or other motoroperated appliances, not exceeding three (3) horsepower (HP) in rating, each
$16.84
Note: For other types of air conditioners and
other motor-driven appliances having larger
electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus.

Other Appliances of Three Horsepower or
Less:

19 For any appliance installed in a nonresidential occupancy and not exceeding three (3) horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KW), or
kilovolt-ampere (KVA) in rating, including
medical and dental devices, food, beverage,
and ice cream cabinets, illuminated
showcases, drinking fountains, vending
machines, laundry machines, or other similar
types of equipment, each
$24.48
(Note: 1. As used in the above sentence,
"non-residential occupancy" includes but is
not limited to hotels and motels. 2. For other
types of air conditioners and other motor
driven appliances having larger electrical
ratings, see Power Apparatus.)

Power Apparatus:

For motors, generators, transformers,
rectifiers, synchronous converters,
capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners
and heat pumps, cooking or baking
equipment, and other apparatus, with a rating
as follows:

Rating in horsepower (HP), kilowatts (KW),
kilovolt amperes (KVA), or kilovolt-amperesreactive (KVAR).

20 Rating over 3 and not over 10, each $31.50
21 Rating over 10 and not over 50, each $72.82
22 Rating over 50 and not over 100, each $136.19
14 23 Rating over 100, each $225.12
(Note: 1. For equipment or appliances having
more than one motor, transformer, heater,
etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be
used. 2. These fees include all switches,
circuit breakers, contactors, thermostats,
relays and other directly related control
equipment.)

Busways
24 For cable trays, trolley and plug-in type
busways, each 100 feet or fraction thereof
$41.44
Note: An additional fee will be required for
lighting fixtures, motors and other appliances
that are connected to trolley and plug-in type
busways. No fee is required for portable tools.

Signs, Outline Lighting, and Marquees:
25 For signs, outline lighting systems, or
marquees supplied from one branch circuit,
each
$61.55
26 For additional branch circuits within the same
sign, outline lighting system, or marquee,
each
$20.35
Services, Switchboards, Switchboard
Sections, Motor Control Centers and
Panelboards:

27 For services, switchboards, switchboard
sections, motor control centers and
panelboards of 600 volts or less and not over
399 amperes in rating, each
$61.55
28 For services, switchboards, switchboard
sections, motor control centers and
panelboards of 600 volts or less and 400
amperes to 1,000 amperes in rating, each
$120.56
29 For services, switchboards, switchboard
sections, motor control centers and
panelboards over 600 volts or over 1000
amperes in rating, each
$256.63
Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits and
Conductors:

15 30 For electrical apparatus, conduits and
conductors for which a permit is required but
for which no fee is herein set forth (Note: This
fee is not applicable when a fee is paid for one
or
more services, outlets, fixtures, appliances,
power apparatus,
busways, signs or other equipment.)
$103.36
31 For each extra inspection resulting from
defective workmanship or materials, each
$52.35
32 For inspection of electrical equipment for
which no fee is herein set forth and for
emergency inspections for the time
consumed:
$173.02
33 For any single hazardous location area, as
defined by the provisions of Chapter 5 of the
California Electrical Code, larger than 2,000
sq. ft or an aggregate area consisting of
smaller hazardous location areas totaling
over 2,000 sq. ft., a surcharge in addition to
any other applicable fees each
$345.81
34 For investigation and review of test reports
from local testing laboratories
$399.48
35 The plan check fee shall be equal to seventy
percent (70%) of the required electrical permit
fee provided however, the minimum fee shall
be
$346.04
36 For additional review required by complexity
of plans, or revisions of approved plans or
reports, or for services beyond the first and
second plan check, due to changes, errors or
omissions, per hour
$173.02
16 Mechanical Code Fees Table Fees
For the installation, alteration or
relocation of each refrigeration
compressor or absorption unit, and for
each fuel burning furnace, heater,
boiler and vented decorative appliance
including vents attached thereto:

1 Up to and including 100,000 BTU $42.89
2 More than 100,000 BTU and up to and
including 500,000 BTU
$82.63
3 More than 500,000 BTU $206.95
4 For each air inlet and air outlet served
by any air-conditioning system
$6.66
5 Or when the number of air inlets and
outlets are unknown, for each 1,000
square feet or fraction thereof of
conditioned area
$58.76
NOTE: An air-conditioned system
includes heating and/or cooling.

6 For the installation, relocation or
replacement of each appliance vent
installed and not included in an
appliance permit
$20.35
For the installation or alteration of each
air handling unit for air conditioning
including ducts attached thereto:

Up to and including 2,000 CFM
7 Each unit up to 10 $20.35
8 Each unit over 10 $6.30
9 More than 2,000 CFM and up to and
including
$61.55
10 More than 10,000 CFM, each $103.48
11 For each evaporative cooler other than
portable type
$34.66
For ventilation fans which serve a
single register:

12 Each fan up to 10 $25.32
13 Each fan over 10 $8.84
17 14 For each ventilation system which is
not a portion of any air-conditioning
system for which a permit is required
elsewhere in this Code
$103.48
15 For the installation of each commercial
kitchen hood, spray booth or product
conveying duct system, including the
fans and ducts attached thereto
$103.48
16 For the installation of each fire damper $16.72
17 For the alteration of an existing duct
system for which a permit is not
required elsewhere in this Code
$42.89
For investigation of alternate materials
and methods of construction For the
initial filing fee
$346.04
For each hour or fraction thereof, in
excess of two
$173.02
18 The Plan Check fee shall be equal to
fifty percent (50%) of the required
mechanical permit fee provided
however, the minimum fee shall be
$346.04
19 For additional review required by
complexity of plans, or revisions of
approved plans or reports, or for
services beyond the first and second
plan check, due to changes, errors, or
omissions, per hour
$173.02
If any of the following systems is
included in the work proposed, a
surcharge to plan review fees shall be
collected for each of these systems as
follows:

20 (i) A commercial type I or II hood $399.48
21 (ii) Garage ventilation systems $399.48
22 (iii) Stairs pressurization systems $399.48
23 (iv) Product conveying systems $399.48
18 Plumbing Code Fees Table Fees
1 For each plumbing fixture or trap or set
of fixtures on one trap (including
drainage vent, water piping and
backflow prevention devices therefor),
(hose bibbs are considered fixtures)
$25.81
2 For each permanent-type dishwasher
whether individually trapped or not
$25.81
3 For future stacks or branches, each
waste inlet
$14.06
4 For each roof drain $25.81
5 For each drainage or sewer backwater
valve
$74.03
6 For each industrial waste pretreatment
interceptor, including its trap and vent,
excepting kitchen-type grease
interceptors functioning as fixture traps
$25.81
7 For each swimming pool drainage trap
and receptor, whether connected to a
building drain or a building sewer
(water supply for pool not included)
$25.81
For each gas piping system on any one
meter or alteration, extension, or retest
of existing gas piping system:

Low pressure system:
8 5 outlets or less $25.81
9 For each additional outlet over five $6.54
Medium or high-pressure system:
10 Each system $106.14
11 Additional fee for each outlet $6.54
12 For each gas meter not under control
and maintenance of the serving gas
supplier
$25.81
13 For each gas pressure regulator other
than appliance regulators
$25.81
14 For each water heater and/or vent $25.81
15 For repair or alteration of drainage
and/or vent piping, each fixture
$25.81
19 16 For each piece of water-treating
equipment
$25.81
17 For each water pressure regulator $25.81
For potable water not covered
elsewhere in fee schedule:

18 1-1/2 inch and smaller $25.81
19 2 inches to 3 inches $80.10
20 Over 3 inches $173.02
21 For replacing water piping in a building,
(1) each fixture, each water treating
device and each piece of water-using
or dispensing equipment, or (2) each
branch or riser that has none of the
above items connected thereto
$10.67
22 For sprinkling systems on any one
meter, each backflow prevention
device therefor
$25.81
23 For each backflow-prevention device
on unprotected water supplies, pools,
tanks, vats, etc. (including incidental
water piping)
$25.81
24 For each trap primer $25.81
25 For each solar potable water-heating
system, including water heater and
vent
$86.26
26 For investigation of alternate materials
and methods of construction For the
initial filing fee
$346.04
27 For each hour or fraction thereof, in
excess of two
$173.02
28 For the connection of a house sewer to
a public sewer, or for the extension of
a house lateral onto a lot for future use
(separate permit required for each
such connection or extension)
$74.03
29 For each house sewer manhole $74.03
30 For each installation of a section of
house sewer for future use
$47.86
31 For the connection of each additional
building or additional work to a house
sewer
$47.86
20 32 For the connection of a house sewer to
a private sewage disposal system
$47.86
33 For each private sewage disposal
system (septic tank and seepage pits
or pits and/or drain field)
$152.06
34 For each grey water system (storage
tanks and disposal/irrigation fields)
$152.06
35 For each cesspool, overflow seepage
pit, percolation test pit, swimming pool
drywell, or drain field extension or
replacement
$74.03
36 For disconnection, abandonment,
alteration or repair of any house sewer
or private sewage disposal system or
part thereof
$74.03
37 The Plan Check fee shall be equal to
fifty percent (50%) of the required
mechanical permit fee provided
however, the minimum fee shall be
$346.04
38 For additional review required by
complexity of plans, or revisions of
approved plans or reports, or for
services beyond the first and second
plan check, due to changes, errors, or
omissions, per hour
$173.02
If any of the following systems is
included in the work proposed, a
surcharge shall be collected for each of
these systems as follows:

39 (1) Combination waste and vent
system
$399.48
40 (2) Gas system containing an
earthquake actuated shut-off valve
$132.92
41 (3) Chemical waste system $80.10
42 (4) Rainwater system $266.08
43 (5) Grey water system $266.08
16 ONLINE AT LOSCERRITOSNEWS.NET TO ADVERTISE CALL 562-407-3873 APRIL 5, 2024

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1137: APPROVING AN

CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS THERETO
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Fe Springs will hold a Public Hearing to consider the following:

PROJECT: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1137: APPROVING AN

PROJECT SITE: Citywide, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
APPLICANT: City of Santa Fe Springs
THE HEARING will be held on Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 6:00 p.m.

PUBLIC COMMENTS may be submitted in writing to the City Clerk at [email protected].

Please submit your written comments by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the City Council Meeting. You may also contact the City Clerk's Office at (562) 868-0511.

Published at Los Cerritos Community News 4/5/24

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS ADOPTING A

FEE SCHEDULE FOR BUILDING AND SAFETY PLAN CHECK AND PERMIT FEES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Fe Springs will hold a Public Hearing to consider the following:

PROJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

PUBLIC COMMENTS may be submitted in writing to the City Clerk at [email protected].

Please submit your written comments by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the City Council Meeting. You may also contact the City Clerk's Office at (562) 868-0511.

Published at Los Cerritos Community News 4/5/24
FOR ITEM # 7, PLEASE SEE ITEM # 13
ITEM # 8

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: René Bobadilla, P.E., City Manager
BY: Lana Dich, Director of Finance & Administrative Services SUBJECT: MONTHLY REPORT ON THE STATUS OF DEBT INSTRUMENTS

ISSUED THROUGH THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS PUBLIC

FINANCING AUTHORITY (PFA)
DATE: April 16, 2024
RECOMMENDATION(S):

It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Receive and file the report.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Santa Fe Springs Public Financing Authority (PFA) is a City entity that has periodically issued debt for the benefit of the Santa Fe Springs community. The following is a brief status report on the debt instruments currently outstanding that were issued through the PFA.

Consolidated Redevelopment Project 2006-A Tax Allocation Bonds Financing proceeds available for appropriation at 3/31/2024 None Outstanding principal at 3/31/2024 $35,908,028
Bond Repayment
The former Community Development Commission (CDC) issued a number of tax allocation bonds before it was dissolved by State law effective February 1, 2012 which are administered by the City acting as Successor Agency under the oversight of the appointed Oversight Board. The Successor Agency no longer receives tax increment.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2024
Monthly Report on the Status of Debt Instruments Issued through the City of Santa Fe Springs Public Financing Authority (PFA)

Page 2 of 3 ends

Instead, distributions from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) are received based on approved obligations. It is anticipated that sufficient allocations from the RPTTF will continue to be made to the Successor Agency to meet ongoing debt service obligations.

Unspent Bond Proceeds
Under an approved Bond Expenditure Agreement, unspent bond proceeds of the former CDC in the amount of approximately $19 million were transferred to the City in July 2014.

The funds are to be spent in accordance with the original bond documents. The unspent proceeds continue to be a source of funding within the City’s capital improvement program (CIP).
2016 Bond Refunding
In July 2016, the Successor Agency issued its 2016 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, which paid off several bond issuances of the former CDC. The bonds were originally issued through the Public Financing Authority and included the 2001 Series A, 2002 Series A, 2003 Series A, the current interest portion of the 2006 Series A, and 2006 Series B bond issuances.
2017 Bond Refunding
In December 2017, the Successor Agency issued its 2017 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, which paid off the 2007 Tax Allocation Bonds of the former CDC. The 2007 Bonds were originally issued through the Public Financing Authority.

ANALYSIS
The report is presented for informational purposes only.

ENVIRONMENTAL
N/A

SUMMARY/NEXT STEPS
The Successor Agency will continue to request sufficient distributions from the RPTTF to make required bond payments through maturity on September 1, 2028.

ATTACHMENT(S):

None.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2024
Monthly Report on the Status of Debt Instruments Issued through the City of Santa Fe Springs Public Financing Authority (PFA)

Page 3 of 3 ends

ITEM STATUS:

APPROVED:

DENIED:

TABLED:

DIRECTION GIVEN:

FOR ITEM # 9, PLEASE SEE ITEM # 13
ITEM # 10

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: René Bobadilla, P.E., City Manager
BY: Lana Dich, Director of Finance & Administrative Services SUBJECT: MONTHLY REPORT ON THE STATUS OF DEBT INSTRUMENTS

ISSUED THROUGH THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS WATER UTILITY

AUTHORITY (WUA)
DATE: April 16, 2024
RECOMMENDATION(S):

It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Receive and file the report.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Santa Fe Springs Water Utility Authority (WUA) is a City entity that has issued debt for the benefit of the Santa Fe Springs community. The following is a brief status report on the debt instruments currently outstanding that were issued through the WUA.

Water Revenue Bonds, 2013
Financing proceeds available for appropriation at 3/31/2024 None Outstanding principal at 3/31/2024 $6,890,000
Water Revenue Bonds, 2018
Financing proceeds available for appropriation at 3/31/2024 None Outstanding principal at 3/31/2024 $610,000
In May 2013 the Water Utility Authority issued the 2013 Water Revenue Bonds in the amount of $6,890,000. The bonds refunded the existing 2003 Water Revenue Bonds CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2024
Monthly Report on the Status of Debt Instruments Issued through the City of Santa Fe Springs Water Utility Authority (WUA)

Page 2 of 2 ends

(issued through the Public Financing Authority) and provided additional funds for water improvement projects in the amount of $2,134,339. The funds were restricted for use on water system improvements. In August 2013 the Water Utility Authority Board appropriated the proceeds for the Equipping Water Well No. 12 Project and all proceeds were since used on this project.

In January 2018 the Water Utility Authority issued the 2018 Water Revenue Bonds in the amount of $1,800,000. The bonds refunded the existing 2005 Water Revenue Bonds (issued through the Public Financing Authority). No additional funds were raised through the issuance of the 2018 Water Revenue Bonds.

The WUA was formed in June of 2009. Water revenue bonds issued prior to this date were issued through the City of Santa Fe Springs Public Financing Authority.

ANALYSIS
The report is presented for informational purposes only.

ENVIRONMENTAL
N/A

SUMMARY/NEXT STEPS
The WUA budget includes sufficient appropriations and adequate revenues are expected to be collected to meet the debt service obligations associated with the 2013 and 2018 Water Revenue Bonds.

ATTACHMENT(S):

None.

ITEM STATUS:

APPROVED:

DENIED:

TABLED:

DIRECTION GIVEN:

FOR ITEM # 11, PLEASE SEE ITEM # 13
FOR ITEM # 12, PLEASE SEE ITEM # 13
ITEM # 13

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: René Bobadilla, P.E., City Manager
BY: Fernando N. Muñoz, CMC, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: MINUTES OF THE MARCH 19, 2024 SPECIAL AND REGULAR CITY

COUNCIL MEETINGS
DATE: April 16, 2024
RECOMMENDATION(S):

It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Approve the minutes as submitted.

FISCAL IMPACT
N/A

BACKGROUND
Staff has prepared minutes for the following meeting:
 Special City Council Meeting of March 19, 2024
 Regular City Council Meeting of March 19, 2024

ANALYSIS
N/A

ENVIRONMENTAL
N/A

DISCUSSION
N/A
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2024
Minutes of the March 19, 2024 City Council Meetings Page 2 of 2

SUMMARY/NEXT STEPS
N/A
ATTACHMENT(S):

A. March 19, 2024 Special Meeting Minutes
B. March 19, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes
ITEM STATUS:

APPROVED:

DENIED:

TABLED:

DIRECTION GIVEN:

APPROVED:

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETINGS OF THE

CITY COUNCIL
March 19, 2024

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Sarno called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m.

ROLL CALL
Members present: Councilmembers Martin, Rodriguez, Zamora, Mayor Pro Tem Rounds, and Mayor Sarno.

Members absent: None

PUBLIC COMMENTS
There was no one wishing to speak during public comments.

CITY COUNCIL

1. CLOSED SESSION

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: 11760 Telegraph Road, Santa Fe Springs
Agency negotiator: City Manager
Negotiating Parties: United States Postal Service
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
Mayor Sarno recessed the meeting at 5:03 p.m.

Mayor Sarno reconvened the meeting at 5:59 p.m.

2. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney, Ivy M. Tsai provided a closed session report: Direction was given to staff and no reportable action was taken.

ADJOUNRMENT
Mayor Sarno adjourned the meeting at 5:59 p.m.
_____________________
Jay Sarno
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________
Fernando N. Muñoz Date
Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED:

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE

CITY COUNCIL
March 19, 2024

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Sarno called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.

ROLL CALL
Members present: Councilmembers/Directors: Martin, Rodriguez, Zamora, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Rounds, and Mayor/Chair Sarno.

Members absent: None

INVOCATION
Councilmember Zamora led the invocation.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Boy Scouts Troop 5530 and Cub Scouts Pack 553 led the pledge of allegiance.

INTRODUCTIONS
Mayor Sarno introduced the following members from the Chamber of Commerce:

1. Ross Gile – DigiCal Web Designs and Embroider Goods, Inc.

2. Mark Gutierrez – GILMAR Automotive Group

3. Rick Landis – Santa Fe Springs Swap Meet

4. Kathie Fink – SFS Chamber CEO

PRESENTATIONS

1. IN MEMORIAM OF NICKIE STRADLEY FOR EXCEPTIONAL COMMUNITY SERVICE

AND POSITIVE IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY (COMMUNITY SERVICES)

2. RECAP OF SHAMROCK 5K AND RECOGNITION OF SPONSORS (PARKS &

RECREATION)

CHANGES TO AGENDA
No changes.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
There was no one wishing to speak during public comments.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS ON ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST
Director of Parks & Recreation, Gus Hernandez introduced the Easter bunny to promote the Easter Eggstravaganza on March 30, 2024.

Minutes of the March 19, 2024 Public Financing Authority, Water Utility Authority, Housing Successor, Successor Agency, and City Council Meetings

Page 2 ends

PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY, HOUSING

SUCCESSOR, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, AND CITY COUNCIL

PUBLIC HEARING

3. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 155.620, 155.628, 155.640, 155.715, 155.865, AND 155.866, AND ADD NEW SECTIONS 155.005 AND 155.006, TO CHAPTER 155 (ZONING) OF TITLE 15 (LAND USE) OF THE CODE OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, AND DETERMINE THAT

THE ACTION IS EXEMPT UNDER CEQA (PLANNING)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Open the Public Hearing and receive the written and oral staff report and any comments from the public regarding the proposed Zone Text Amendment related to code clean up and streamlining efforts; and
2) Find and determine that the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), which indicates that CEQA only applies to projects that have a “significant effect on the environment” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21068 and in CEQA Guidelines Section 15382; and
3) Find and determine that the proposed Zone Text Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and program of the City’s General Plan; and 4) Waive further reading and introduce Ordinance No. 1135 by title, adopting a Zone Text Amendment to amend Sections 155.620, 155.628, 155.640, 155.715, 155.865, and 155.866, and add new Sections 155.005 and 155.006, to Chapter 155 (Zoning) of Title 15 (Land Use) of the Code of Santa Fe Springs; and 5) Take such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Mayor Sarno opened the public hearing at 6:34 p.m.

There was no one wishing to speak.

Mayor Sarno closed the public hearing at 6:34 p.m.

It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Rounds, seconded by Councilmember Rodriguez, to find and determine that the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), which indicates that CEQA only applies to projects that have a “significant effect on the environment” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21068 and in CEQA Guidelines Section 15382, and find and determine that the proposed Zone Text Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and program of the City’s General Plan, and waive further reading and introduce Ordinance No. 1135 by title, adopting a Zone Text Amendment to amend Sections Minutes of the March 19, 2024 Public Financing Authority, Water Utility Authority, Housing Successor, Successor Agency, and City Council Meetings

Page 3 ends

155.620, 155.628, 155.640, 155.715, 155.865, and 155.866, and add new Sections 155.005 and 155.006, to Chapter 155 (Zoning) of Title 15 (Land Use) of the Code of Santa Fe Springs, and take such additional, related, action that may be desirable, by the following vote:

Ayes: Martin, Rodriguez, Zamora, Rounds, Sarno
Nayes: None

Absent: None
Recused: None

4. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT (“ZTA”) TO AMEND CHAPTER 154 (SUBDIVISIONS) FOR AN URBAN LOT SPLIT AND CHAPTER 155 (ZONING) FOR THE CREATION OF TWO (2) RESIDENTIAL

UNITS PER LOT, OF THE SANTA FE SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE, ALL PURSUANT TO SENATE BILL 9 AND DETERMINATION THAT THE ACTION IS EXEMPT UNDER

CEQA (PLANNING)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Open the Public Hearing and receive the written and oral staff report and any comments from the public regarding the proposed zone text amendments related to urban lot split and the creation of two (2) residential units per lot, and thereafter close Public Hearing; and
2) Find and determine that this Project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n), the adoption of an ordinance by a city implementing the provisions of Government Code Sections 66411.7 and 65852.21 to regulate Senate Bill (SB) 9; and 3) Find and determine that the proposed Zone Text Amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and program of the City’s General Plan; and 4) Find and determine that the proposed Zone Text Amendments are consistent with the State’s Senate Bill (SB) 9; and
5) Waive further reading and introduce Ordinance No. 1136 by title, adopting Zone Text Amendments to ensure that the City’s Zoning Ordinance is aligned with the State’s SB 9 regulation; and
6) Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

Mayor Sarno opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m.

There was no one wishing to speak.

Mayor Sarno closed the public hearing at 6:36 p.m.

It was moved by Councilmember Zamora, seconded by Councilmember Martin, to find and determine that this Project is exempt from California Environmental Minutes of the March 19, 2024 Public Financing Authority, Water Utility Authority, Housing Successor, Successor Agency, and City Council Meetings

Page 4 ends

Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n), the adoption of an ordinance by a city implementing the provisions of Government Code Sections 66411.7 and 65852.21 to regulate Senate Bill (SB) 9, and find and determine that the proposed Zone Text Amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and program of the City’s General Plan, and find and determine that the proposed Zone Text Amendments are consistent with the State’s Senate Bill (SB) 9, and waive further reading and introduce Ordinance No. 1136 by title, adopting Zone Text Amendments to ensure that the City’s Zoning Ordinance is aligned with the State’s SB 9 regulation, and take such additional, related action that may be desirable, by the following vote:

Ayes: Martin, Rodriguez, Zamora, Rounds, Sarno
Nayes: None

Absent: None
Recused: None

REGULAR BUSINESS

5. RESOLUTION NOS. SA-2024-002 & 9902 – DECLARATION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY– EIGHT (8) PARCELS (APNS: 8011-018-900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, AND 8011-019-911), LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BLOOMFIELD AVENUE AND TELEGRAPH ROAD; AND TWENTY-EIGHT (28) PARCELS (APNS: 8011-002-901, 902 & 903, AND 8011-003-955, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, 964, 965, 966, 967, 968, 969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 977, 978 & 979), LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF TELEGRAPH ROAD WITH

ADDITIONAL FRONTAGE ON ROMANDEL AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF SANTA FE

SPRINGS, AND FINDING THE ACTIONS EXEMPT FROM CEQA (PLANNING) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Find that the declaration of City-owned land is exempt from environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (General Rule Common Sense Exemption) and Section 15312, Class 12 (Surplus Government Property Sales); and
2) Adopt Resolution No. 9902, declaring those certain real properties owned by the City as surplus land and no longer necessary for City’s use; and owned by the city as surplus land and not necessary for public city’s use pursuant to AB 14865 (Surplus Land Act); and
3) Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Successor Agency:
1) Find that the declaration of Successor-owned land is exempt from environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (General Rule Common Sense Exemption) and Section 15312, Class 12 (Surplus Government Property Sales); and
2) Adopt Resolution No. SA-2024-002, declaring those certain real properties owned by Minutes of the March 19, 2024 Public Financing Authority, Water Utility Authority, Housing Successor, Successor Agency, and City Council Meetings

Page 5 ends

the Successor as surplus land and no longer necessary for its use; and 3) Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

It was moved by Councilmember Rodriguez, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Rounds, that the City Council find that the declaration of City-owned land is exempt from environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (General Rule Common Sense Exemption) and Section 15312, Class 12 (Surplus Government Property Sales), and adopt Resolution No. 9902, declaring those certain real properties owned by the City as surplus land and no longer necessary for City’s use; and owned by the city as surplus land and not necessary for public city’s use pursuant to AB 14865 (Surplus Land Act), and take such additional, related action that may be desirable, by the following vote:

Ayes: Martin, Rodriguez, Zamora, Rounds, Sarno
Nayes: None

Absent: None
Recused: None
It was moved by Board Member Rodriguez, seconded by Vice Chair Rounds, that the Successor Agency find that the declaration of Successor-owned land is exempt from environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (General Rule Common Sense Exemption) and Section 15312, Class 12 (Surplus Government Property Sales), and adopt Resolution No. SA-2024-002, declaring those certain real properties owned by the Successor as surplus land and no longer necessary for its use, and take such additional, related action that may be desirable, by the following vote:

Ayes: Martin, Rodriguez, Zamora, Rounds, Sarno
Nayes: None

Absent: None
Recused: None

Such approval will also waive the reading of any ordinance.

PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

6. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 20, 2024 PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

MEETINGS (CITY CLERK)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Public Financing Authority:
1) Approve the minutes as submitted.

7. MONTHLY REPORT ON THE STATUS OF DEBT INSTRUMENTS ISSUED THROUGH

THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (PFA) (FINANCE)
Minutes of the March 19, 2024 Public Financing Authority, Water Utility Authority, Housing Successor, Successor Agency, and City Council Meetings

Page 6 ends

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Public Financing Authority:
1) Receive and file the report.

WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY

8. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 20, 2024 WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY MEETINGS (CITY CLERK)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Water Utility Authority:
1) Approve the minutes as submitted.

9. MONTHLY REPORT ON THE STATUS OF DEBT INSTRUMENTS ISSUED THROUGH

THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY (WUA) (FINANCE) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Water Utility Authority:
1) Receive and file the report.

10. STATUS UPDATE OF WATER-RELATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (PUBLIC WORKS)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Water Utility Authority:
1) Receive and file the report; and
2) Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

HOUSING SUCCESSOR

11. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 20, 2024 HOUSING SUCCESSOR MEETINGS (CITY CLERK)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Housing Successor:
1) Approve the minutes as submitted.

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

12. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 20, 2024 SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETINGS (CITY CLERK)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Successor Agency:
1) Approve the minutes as submitted.

CITY COUNCIL
Minutes of the March 19, 2024 Public Financing Authority, Water Utility Authority, Housing Successor, Successor Agency, and City Council Meetings

Page 7 ends

13. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 20, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS (CITY CLERK) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Approve the minutes as submitted.

14. FIRE STATION HEADQUARTERS ROOF REPLACEMENT – FINAL PAYMENT (PUBLIC WORKS)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Approve the Final Payment to Rite-Way Roof Corporation of Fontana, California for $104,596 (Less 5% Retention) for the subject project; and 2) Approve the final contract amount with Rite-Way Roof Corporation in the amount of $718,227, including the aggregate change order amount of $112,475; and 3) Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

15. POLICE SERVICES STAGING FACILITY STORM DAMAGE – EMERGENCY

16. RESOLUTION NO. 9900 – SUMMARY VACATION OF A PORTION OF

CHARLESWORTH ROAD WEST OF ALBURTIS AVENUE AND DETERMINING THAT

THE VACATION IS EXEMPT UNDER CEQA (PUBLIC WORKS)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Find and determine that the proposed street vacation as described in the City Engineer’s Report and on Attachment A is excess right-of-way and is not required for street or highway purposes; and
2) Find and determine that the proposed street vacation will not cut off all access to adjoining properties and will not affect any public service easement; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. 9900 determining that the vacation of a portion of Charlesworth Road is exempt from CEQA and ordering the vacation of a portion of Charlesworth Road, West of Alburtis Avenue; and
Minutes of the March 19, 2024 Public Financing Authority, Water Utility Authority, Housing Successor, Successor Agency, and City Council Meetings

Page 8 ends

4) Authorize the City Manager to execute the quitclaim deed to the Los Nietos School District; and
5) Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

17. RESOLUTION NO. 9901 – INTENT TO VACATE KOONTZ AVENUE SOUTH OF

FLORENCE AVENUE (PUBLIC WORKS)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Adopt Resolution No. 9901 declaring City Council’s intention to vacate Koontz Avenue South of Florence Avenue and setting a time and place for a public hearing; and 2) Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

18. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 150 OF THE CODE OF SANTA FE SPRINGS RELATING

TO BUILDING REGULATIONS (PUBLIC WORKS)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Introduce for first reading by title only and waive further reading of Ordinance No. 1137: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS AMENDING THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE BY MODIFYING CHAPTER 150 (BUILDING REGULATIONS) BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2023 LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUILDING CODE (TITLE 26), ELECTRICAL CODE (TITLE 27), PLUMBING CODE (TITLE 28), MECHANICAL CODE (TITLE 29), RESIDENTIAL CODE (TITLE 30), EXISTING BUILDING CODE (TITLE 33), WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS THERETO; and
2) Schedule a public hearing on April 2, 2024, to consider adoption and second reading of the Ordinance No. 1137; and
3) Take such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

19. RESIDENTIAL STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECT (PHASE 3) –

AWARD OF TASK ORDER FOR DESIGN SERVICES (PUBLIC WORKS)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Award a Task Order to PSOMAS of Santa Ana, California in the amount of $294,650 for the Residential Street Lighting System Upgrade Project (Phase 3); and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute a Task Order for On-Call Professional Engineering Services with PSOMAS; and
3) Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

Minutes of the March 19, 2024 Public Financing Authority, Water Utility Authority, Housing Successor, Successor Agency, and City Council Meetings

Page 9 ends

20. TRANSFER OF LAKELAND AND LAUREL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPERTY TO

THE CITY TO CORRECT VESTING OF TITLE AND FACILITATE SALE TO HABITAT

FOR HUMANITY LOS ANGELES (CITY ATTORNEY)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Approve a Joint Resolution of The City Council of The City of Santa Fe Springs, The City Council Acting As The Successor Agency to The Community Development Commission of The City of Santa Fe Springs, And Acting As The Successor Agency to The Santa Fe Springs Redevelopment Agency Approving The Transfer of Certain Property Set Aside For Affordable Housing to The City of Santa Fe Springs to Fulfill The City Obligations For A Purchase And Sale Agreement With Habitat For Humanity of Greater Los Angeles And Directing The Executive Director/City Manager to Execute The Deeds And All Necessary And Related Documents to Complete The Transfer And Finding This Action Exempt From The California Environmental Quality Act.

21. LIBRARY INNOVATION LAB GRANT ACCEPTANCE (COMMUNITY SERVICES) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Approve acceptance of the Library Innovation Lab Grant (grant); and 2) Authorize the Director of Community Services to execute all documents related to the grant for the Santa Fe Springs City Library.

It was moved by Councilmember Martin, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Rounds, to approve the consent calendar, by the following vote:

Ayes: Martin, Rodriguez, Zamora, Rounds, Sarno
Nayes: None

Absent: None
Recused: None

APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS
No appointments were made.

COUNCIL COMMENTS/AB1234 COUNCIL CONFERENCE REPORTING
Mayor Pro Tem Rounds introduced Police Chief Aviv Bar, and commented on the presentation for Nickie Stradley. He thanked the audience for attending, and also remarked about the renovations in the council chambers.

Councilmember Rodriguez wished former employee Jasmine Duque a speedy recovery.

She commented on the presentation to Nickie Stradley, and the Shamrock 5K Fun Run.

Lastly, shanked Public Works staff for their efforts during the recent storms, and also thanked the SFS Women’s Club for their involvement in Quartermania.

Councilmember Martin spoke about the Shamrock 5K Fun Run, and highlighted the great relationship with the Chamber of Commerce.

Minutes of the March 19, 2024 Public Financing Authority, Water Utility Authority, Housing Successor, Successor Agency, and City Council Meetings

Page 10 ends

Councilmember Zamora commented on the presentation to Nickie Stradley and the recovery of Jasmine Duque. He thanked the Chamber of Commerce members for attending the council meetings and asked for material to be distributed in Spanish to assist families with ADU requirements. He requested to revisit the advisory committee policies on excused absences, and provided kudos to Public Works for their work during the recent storms.

Mayor Sarno agreed with Councilmember Zamora about the need to revisit excused absences and welcomed Police Chief Aviv Bar.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Sarno adjourned the meeting at 6:53 p.m. in memory Tina Van Meeteren. _____________________
Jay Sarno
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________
Fernando N. Muñoz Date
Deputy City Clerk
ITEM # 14

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: René Bobadilla, P.E., City Manager
BY: James Enriquez, P.E., Director of Public Works / City Engineer SUBJECT: CITY HALL ROOF REPLACEMENT – FINAL PAYMENT
DATE: April 16, 2024
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Approve the Final Payment to Best Contracting Services, Inc., of Gardena, California for $39,084.30 (Less 5% Retention) for the subject project; and 2) Approve the final contract amount with Best Contracting Services in the amount of $1,728,273.66, including the aggregate change order amount of $236,975.30; and 3) Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City Hall Roof Replacement project is an approved Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project, funded by the Utility Users Tax (UUT) in the amount of $2,005,000.

The total project cost breakdown is estimated as follows:

ITEM ESTIMATED AMOUNT
Construction (Including Contingency) $ 1,728,274.00
Design $ 20,726.00
Engineering $ 40,000.00
Inspection $ 115,000.00
Estimated Total Project Cost: $ 1,904,000.00
The project is estimated to close with a surplus of $101,000. Surplus funds will be made CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2024
City Hall Roof Replacement – Final Payment

Page 2 of 3 ends

available to fund other capital improvement projects.

The attached payment detail represents the Final Payment (less 5% Retention) due, per the terms of the contract, for the work completed and found to be satisfactory. The retention will be released following the mandatory waiting period following the filling of the Notice of Completion with the LA County Registrar-Recorder.

BACKGROUND
The City Hall roof sustained substantial damage due to exposure to weather elements, causing the deterioration of the roofing material and creating numerous leaks into the facility. The City Hall roof exceeded its service life and required replacement. The scope of work consisted of the complete removal of the existing built-up roofing systems (approximately 23,350 square feet), installation of a specified TREMCO (or equal) roofing system with appurtenances, including any sub-roof plywood replacement as needed, installation of new roof ladders, and replacement of all deteriorated drain covers.

To minimize the impact on City Hall patrons, City Council, and staff, the Contractor constructed the project in three phases. All of the work was completed in each phase before proceeding to the next phase. All hot moping was performed on the Fridays when City Hall was closed and/or Saturdays/Sundays. The contractor’s activities were confined to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. The contractor furnished/installed mobile air conditioning units, and fans in City Hall during each phase of the project. The abovementioned conditions imposed on the contractor increased the overall construction costs.

On July 18, 2023, the City Council approved the award of a contract to Best Contracting Services Inc., for $1,512,816 for the construction of the City Hall Roof Replacement project. Construction was completed and staff authorized change orders in the aggregate amount of $236,975.30 (15.7% of the original contract amount) for a final contract amount of $1,728,273.66. The authorized change orders resulted from unforeseen conditions and the need for additional roof repairs at the Police Services Staging Facility and Municipal Service Yard Carport. The final contract amount also includes adjustments to final quantities for the unit-priced items as measured during construction.

ANALYSIS
Not applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL
Not applicable.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2024
City Hall Roof Replacement – Final Payment

Page 3 of 3 ends

DISCUSSION
The City Hall Roof Replacement project improved the condition of the existing building’s roof and fixed water intrusions to the building’s interior. The rehabilitated roofs will reduce maintenance costs for the City.

SUMMARY/NEXT STEPS
Upon the approval of the City Council of the recommended actions, the Public Works Department will coordinate with the Finance Department to issue a final payment to Best Contracting Services and proceed to close the project.

ATTACHMENT:

A. Attachment A – Final Payment Detail
ITEM STATUS:

APPROVED:

DENIED:

TABLED:

DIRECTION GIVEN:

ATTACHMENT A
Contractor: Final Payment: $ 201,190.91
Item
No. Quantity Units Unit Price Total Quantity Amount Quantity Amount

1. Mobilization 1 L.S. $ 21,833.00 $ 21,833.00 10% $ 2,183.30 100% $ 21,833.00

2. Remove Exisitng Builtup Roofing System approximately 23,350 SF and furnish/install specified TREMCO (or equal) roofing system with apputenances, at the City Hall Roof Replacement.
1 L.S. $ 1,373,840.00 $ 1,373,840.00 0% $ - 100% $ 1,373,840.00

3. Remove and replace sub-roof wood deck materials as required. 4,500 S.F. $ 6.90 $ 31,050.00 64.00 $ 441.60 1,381.50 $ 9,532.36

4. Install two new ladders (O'keeffe's Inc. Model Number: 504) at specified locations, per specifications. 2 L.S. $ 15,795.00 $ 15,795.00 0% $ - 100% $ 15,795.00

5. Repair skylight - Replacing cracked glass pane with new glass pane and new aluminum strip around glass panes. 1 L.S. $ 8,930.00 $ 8,930.00 0% $ - 100% $ 8,930.00

6. Clean exiting metal roofing panels with wire brush etc, apply corrosion inhibitor on cleaned metal planels, applyapproved paint.

Approx. 6,300 SQ.FT. 1 L.S. $ 61,368.00 $ 61,368.00 0% $ - 100% $ 61,368.00 Contract Total: $ 1,512,816.00 $ 2,624.90 $ 1,491,298.36 CCO 1 Install new roof pplatform for future use. 1 L.S. $ 6,150.90 0% $ - 100% $ 6,150.90 CCO 2 Remove and replace existing rooted roof wood frame platform. 1 L.S. $ 6,146.66 0% $ - 100% $ 6,146.66
CCO 3 Roof penetrations. 1 L.S. $ 3,425.25 0% $ - 100% $ 3,425.25 CCO 4 New roof at Police Statging Facility. 1 L.S. $ 191,884.00 100% $ 191,884.00 190% $ 364,579.60 CCO 5 Roof platform modifications. 1 L.S. $ 774.49 0% $ - 100% $ 774.49 CCO 6 Extend roof drainage pipes beyond metal siding wall. 1 L.S. $ 2,323.00 0% $ - 100% $ 2,323.00 CCO 7 Furnish and install new electrical. 1 L.S. $ 9,000.00 0% $ - 100% $ 9,000.00 CCO 8 Furnish and install 100-FT of new walkpads at the Police Staging Facility. 1 L.S. $ 4,643.30 100% $ 4,643.30 100% $ 4,643.30 CCO 9 Furnish and paint underside of 16 sheets of plywood at the Police Staging Facility. 1 L.S. $ 2,470.89 100% $ 2,470.89 100% $ 2,470.89 CCO 10 Furnish and install a new platform, pelican hood and metal pan. 1 L.S. $ 10,156.81 100% $ 10,156.81 100% $ 10,156.81 Contract Change
Order Total: $ 236,975.30 $ 209,155.00 $ 409,670.90
Total Items Completed
this Period: $ 211,779.90
Total Items Completed
to Date: $ 1,900,969.26
$ 1,900,969.26
Gardena, CA 90248
Contract Change Orders
Description
Contract Completed This Period
Payment Detail: Best Contracting Services, Inc.

CITY HALL ROOF REPLACEMENT 19027 S. Hamilton Ave.

Completed To Date
Contract Work
Total Completed Items to Date:

ATTACHMENT A
Contractor: Final Payment: $ 201,190.91
Item
No. Quantity Units Unit Price Total Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Gardena, CA 90248
Description
Contract Completed This Period
Payment Detail: Best Contracting Services, Inc.

CITY HALL ROOF REPLACEMENT 19027 S. Hamilton Ave.

Completed To Date
Invoice Due Date Invoice Pay Date Amount
09/13/2023 25606 09/20/2023 09/28/2023 $ 33,790.90 642,027.05 $ 10/03/2023 25956 10/04/2023 10/13/2023 $ 23,296.00 442,623.98 $ 11/15/2023 26442 11/29/2023 12/08/2023 $ 16,720.03 317,680.51 $ 12/08/2023 26738 01/24/2023 02/01/2023 $ 10,652.54 202,398.35 $ 03/21/2024 23163 04/17/2024 04/25/2024 $ 10,589.00 201,190.91 $ Amount
$ 201,190.91
$ 10,589.00
Robert Garcia
James Enriquez, PE
Recommended by Project Manager: Robert Garcia #2232 4/1/24 Account
Finance Please Pay: PW220005
5% Retention Completed this Period: 270010
$ 202,398.35
Progress Payment No 2: 442,623.98 $
Progress Payment No 3: $ 317,680.51
CONTRACT PAYMENTS: Invoice Date Invoice No.

Warrant Billing Period
Approved by PW Director/City Engineer:

Retention Amount
Total Items Completed to Date: $ 1,900,969.26
$ 95,048.46
Final Payment: $ 201,190.91
Progress Payment No 1: $ 642,027.05
Less 5% Retention:

Progress Payment No 4:

ITEM # 15

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: René Bobadilla, P.E., City Manager
BY: James Enriquez, P.E., Director of Public Works / City Engineer SUBJECT: SHOEMAKER AVENUE AND BROADWAY AVENUE STREET
IMPROVEMENTS – AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR

CONSTRUCTION BIDS
DATE: April 16, 2024
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Approve the Plans and Specifications for the Shoemaker Avenue and Broadway Avenue Street Improvement Projects; and
2) Authorize the City Engineer to advertise for construction bids; and 3) Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Shoemaker Avenue (Los Nietos Road to Cul-de-sac) and Broadway Avenue (550′ South of Washington Boulevard) Street Improvement projects are approved Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Bond Funded projects with an original budget of $505,000 and $325,000, respectively. It is important to note, that although design costs for the project will be covered under the current project funding, an additional appropriation of funds will be necessary to complete the project due to the inflation in construction costs.

Staff will be recommending an appropriation of funds at the time of the Award of Contract, when actual construction costs are determined.

The cost estimates for the projects are derived from the most current costs for similar types of construction projects in the area. The total estimated project costs are as follows:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2024
Shoemaker Avenue and Broadway Avenue Street Improvements – Authorization to Advertise

Page 2 of 3 ends

Shoemaker Ave
Item: Estimated Project Costs
Construction $ 688,100.00
Design $ 54,574.00
Engineering $ 30,000.00
Inspection $ 30,000.00
Contingency $ 103,326.00
Total Estimated Project Cost: $ 906,000.00
Broadway Ave
Item: Estimated Project Costs
Construction $ 428,400.00
Design $ 46,825.00
Engineering $ 30,000.00
Inspection $ 30,000.00
Contingency $ 64,775.00
Total Estimated Project Cost: $ 600,000.00

BACKGROUND
On June 6, 2023, the City Council authorized the Interim Director of Public Works to execute two Task Orders for On-Call Professional Engineering Services with BKF Engineers and Onward Engineering for the designs of the commercial street projects.

The Consultants prepared the project plans, specifications, and engineering estimates with staff oversight.

The street improvement projects are located on Shoemaker Avenue from Los Nietos Road to the end of the cul-de-sac and Broadway Avenue from Washington Boulevard to the southern city boundary (approximately 550 Feet). Exhibit A, denotes the two street improvement project segments. The Shoemaker Avenue project consists of the removal of eleven inches of existing asphalt and base and the placement of fiber-reinforced asphalt concrete pavement over a cement-treated base. The Broadway Avenue project consists of the removal of three inches of existing asphalt pavement and the placement of fiber-reinforced asphalt concrete pavement. Additionally, the projects include the removal and replacement of curb & gutter, sidewalks, curb ramps, and driveways, as needed.

The project plans and specifications are complete, and the Public Works Department is ready to advertise the construction bids for this project, upon approval from City Council.

A copy of the project plans and specifications will be on file with the City Clerk.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2024
Shoemaker Avenue and Broadway Avenue Street Improvements – Authorization to Advertise

Page 3 of 3 ends

ANALYSIS
The proposed new paving sections will eliminate potholes, support heavy repetitive loads generated by trucks/vehicles, increase pavement service life, and allow for a smooth riding roadway.

ENVIRONMENTAL
Not applicable.

DISCUSSION
Both commercial street improvement projects will improve the structural condition of the existing street segments, enhance traffic operations, and reduce future maintenance costs.

SUMMARY/NEXT STEPS
Upon City Council’s approval of the recommended actions, City staff will advertise the project for construction bids.

ATTACHMENT:

A. Exhibit 1 – Project Location Maps
ITEM STATUS:

APPROVED:

DENIED:

TABLED:

DIRECTION GIVEN:

EXHIBIT A - SHOEMAKER AVE

EXHIBIT

A - BROADWAY AVE
ITEM # 16

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

EMERGENCY REPAIRS UPDATE
DATE: April 16, 2024
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Pursuant to Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code Section 34.23 and California Public Contract Code Section 22050, by a four-fifths vote authorize continuing the repairs without competitive bidding; and
2) Take such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

FISCAL IMPACT
The extent of the storm damage and the cost to repair the facility is unknown at this time.

Staff solicited contractor proposals to complete the demolition work in order to expose the damage so that it may be fully assessed. A purchase order was executed with Restoration Unlimited as noted below. Staff will report at a future City Council meeting as further information develops and the complete scope of the repairs is determined and priced.

Expenses encumbered to date related to this emergency repair include:
 Purchase Order #2240222: $43,610.60 for testing and construction demolition with Restoration Unlimited (Santa Fe Springs, CA)

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2024
Police Services Staging Facility Storm Damage – Emergency Repairs Update

Page 2 of 3 ends

BACKGROUND
The severe storms that hit Southern California the week of February 4, 2024, resulted in historic rainfall totals throughout the region, prompting Governor Newsom to proclaim a state of emergency in various counties, including Los Angeles. The County of Los Angeles followed with the proclamation of a local state of emergency.

The intense and prolonged rainfall caused significant flooding of the City’s Police Services Staging Facility located adjacent to the Municipal Services Yard. Flooding was experienced in both the Men’s and Women’s Locker Rooms and Restroom/Showers as well as the adjacent gym. The flooding rendered these areas uninhabitable and in need of repairs before the space can be reoccupied.

Public Works maintenance staff worked throughout the storms to sweep and vacuum the water to minimize the extent of the flooding, but were ultimately unable to keep up with the volume of water entering the building from the rear wall adjacent to the railroad rightof-way. Eventually, maintenance crews ceased water removal and began removing gym equipment and mats so that the source of the flooding could be more easily identified.

Although one location was identified where the majority of the water was entering the building, the extent of the flooding has saturated the walls in a significant portion of the facility. Under the City Manager’s authority pursuant to Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code Section 34.23, staff continues to negotiate with contractors to provide varied services to repair the damage.

The first step in the repair process requires demolition work to assess the full extent of the damage and expose the source of the flooding in order to develop a repairs to prevent future flooding.

Staff has contracted with Restoration Unlimited (Santa Fe Springs, CA) for the initial testing and demolition work. Sampling for preconstruction testing was conducted on March 6. Based on testing results, demolition was started on March 18, exposing the likely source of the rainwater intrusion. Staff is currently soliciting proposals from waterproofing contractors. Waterproofing must be completed before restoration work to prevent further water damage. A Right-of-Entry permit will be required from BNSF Rail Road in order to complete the waterproofing work.

ENVIRONMENTAL
Not applicable.

DISCUSSION
Staff has been in close communication with the City of Whittier’s City Manager and police administration since the flooding began. Given the extent of the flooding, the City of Whittier provided notice on February 7, 2024, that they will temporarily vacate the facility CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2024
Police Services Staging Facility Storm Damage – Emergency Repairs Update

Page 3 of 3 ends

until permanent repairs can be completed. Limited staff and equipment will be temporarily relocated to the City’s Police Services Building on Jersey Avenue and the majority of the patrol operations will be moved to the Whittier Police Station. The Police Staging building was vacated on February 26, 2024.

Repairs are currently estimated to take 3 to 5 months to complete. It should also be noted that this assumes the repairs are completed as an emergency, without competitive bidding. Competitive bidding would require the solicitation of services by an architect to develop plans and specifications. The solicitation process and the time to develop documents could add an additional year to the schedule.

SUMMARY/NEXT STEPS
Upon the approval of the City Council of the recommended actions, City staff will continue to coordinate the emergency repairs of the facility. Pursuant to the Public Contract Code Section 22050, staff will provide updated reports at subsequent City Council meetings as the situation develops, more information is gathered, and a plan of action for the repairs is determined and scheduled.

ATTACHMENTS:

None.

ITEM # 17

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: René Bobadilla, P.E., City Manager
BY: James Enriquez, P.E., Director of Public Works / City Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVE THE 2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
DATE: April 16, 2024
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Approve the 2024 Citywide Engineering and Traffic Survey (Attachment B) which will retain existing speed limits throughout the City for an additional 7 years; and 2) Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

FISCAL IMPACT
A Task Order for On-call professional Engineering Services was issued to Minagar & Associates, Inc., for the preparation of the Engineering and Traffic Surveys and Certified Extensions at the estimated cost of $21,546.58. This amount was available in the adopted FY 2023-24 Budget and no additional appropriation is necessary.

BACKGROUND
An Engineering and Traffic Survey (ETS) is the required study that is used to establish speed limits on city streets in order that the established speed limits can be enforced through the use of electronic devices. Section 40802 of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) requires that a new ETS be prepared every 7 years or that the current ETS be extended for an additional 7 years when certain conditions are met. The City’s consultant, Minagar and Associates, has prepared a new ETS for 18 street segments and conducted analyses to warrant the required conditions for the extension of speed limits for 99 street segments.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2024
Approve Engineering and Traffic Survey to extend speed limits

Page 2 of 2 ends

ANALYSIS
The latest edition of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) lists the required criteria for a valid ETS. The new ETS was prepared in accordance with the requirements. The new ETS studied 18 street segments and verified conditions for an additional 99 segments, as listed in Attachment A and in the ETS report. The ETS recommends the retention of existing speed limits on all 117 street segments within the City for an additional 7 years.

ENVIRONMENTAL
Not Applicable.

DISCUSSION
The approval of this report will allow the Whittier Police Department to enforce existing speed limits in the City through the use of electronic devices.

SUMMARY/NEXT STEPS
Upon City Council approval of the recommended actions, the new ETS and Certified Extension will be forwarded to the Whittier Police Department.

ATTACHMENT:

A. Attachment A – Engineering and Traffic Survey Street Segment List B. Attachment B – 2024 Citywide Engineering and Traffic Survey 2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 6 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Summary of Proposed Speed Limits
Maintain Existing Posted Speed Limit (18 Segments)
1 - Ann St. Santa Fe Springs Rd. to Greenleaf Ave. 35 MPH 2 - Borate St. Marquardt Ave. to Easterly Terminus 30 MPH 3 - Clark St. Norwalk Blvd. to Easterly Terminus 35 MPH 4 - Freeway Dr. Excelsior Dr. to Alondra Blvd. 40 MPH
5 - Iseli Rd. Stage Rd. to Rosecrans Ave. 25 MPH
6 - Jordan Cir. McCann Dr. to McCann Dr. 25 MPH
7 - Maryton Ave. / Dinard Ave. Rosecrans Ave. to Rosecrans Ave. 30 MPH 8 - Orr & Day Rd. Florence Ave. to Mondon Ave. 30 MPH
9 - Orr & Day Rd. Florence Ave. to Telegraph Rd. 35 MPH 10 - Orr & Day Rd. Telegraph Rd. to Pioneer Blvd. 35 MPH 11 - Painter Ave. Telegraph Rd. to Los Nietos Rd. 30 MPH 12 - Pike St. NW Terminus to SE Terminus 30 MPH
13 - Pioneer Blvd. Telegraph Rd. to Alburtis Ave. 35 MPH 14 - Pioneer Blvd. Alburtis Ave. to Orr & Day Rd. 35 MPH 15 - Pioneer Blvd. Orr & Day Rd. to Los Nietos Rd. 40 MPH 16 - Radburn Ave. Borate St. to Gannet St. 35 MPH
17 - Romandel Ave. Freeman Ave. to Los Nietos Rd. 35 MPH 18 - Washington Blvd. Norwalk Blvd. to Broadway Ave. 40 MPH Extend Currently Adopted Speed Limits (99 Segments)
1 - Adler Dr. Shoemaker Ave. to Leffingwell Ave.
2 - Alburtis Ave. Telegraph Rd. to Pioneer Blvd.
3 - Allport Ave. Slauson Ave. to Washington Blvd.
4 - Alondra Blvd. Shoemaker Ave. to Valley View Ave.
5 - Ann St. Sorensen Ave. to Santa Fe Springs Rd.
6 - Anson Ave. / Gannet St. Borate St. to Valley View Ave. 7 - Arctic Cir. Shoemaker Ave. to Molette St.
8 - Arlee Ave. Pioneer Blvd. to Charlesworth Rd.
9 - Beasor Dr. Slauson Ave. to Burke St.
10 - Bell Ranch Dr. Norwalk Blvd. to McCann Dr.
11 - Best Ave. Rosecrans Ave. to Pumice St.
12 - Bloomfield Ave. Imperial Hwy. to Lakeland Rd.
13 - Bloomfield Ave. Lakeland Rd. to Telegraph Rd.
14 - Boer Ave. Norwalk Blvd. to Washington Blvd.
15 - Broadway Ave. Norwalk Blvd. to Washington Blvd.
16 - Burke St. Norwalk Blvd. to Dice Rd.
17 - Burke St. Dice Rd. to Sorensen Ave.
18 - Burke St. Sorensen Ave. to Easterly Terminus
19 - Carmenita Rd. Alondra Blvd. to Excelsior Dr.
20 - Carmenita Rd. Rosecrans Ave. to Foster Rd.
21 - Carmenita Rd. Foster Rd. to Imperial Hwy.

ATTACHMENT A
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ 7 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
22 - Carmenita Rd. Florence Ave. to Lanett Ave.
23 - Chetle Ave. Slauson Ave. to Rivera Rd.
24 - Cornet St. Alondra Blvd. to Molette St.
25 - Dice Rd. Los Nietos Rd. to Slauson Ave.
26 - Excelsior Dr. Carmenita Rd. to Marquardt Ave.
27 - Excelsior Dr. Bloomfield Ave. to Shoemaker Ave.
28 - Firestone Blvd. Bloomfield Ave. to Carmenita Rd.
29 - Firestone Blvd. Carmenita Rd. to Alondra Blvd.
30 - Firestone Blvd. Marquardt Ave. to Valley View Ave. 31 - Florence Ave. Santa Ana Fwy to Pioneer Blvd.
32 - Florence Ave. Pioneer Blvd. to Norwalk Blvd.
33 - Florence Ave. Norwalk Blvd. to Carmenita Rd.
34 - Forest St. Florence Ave. to Clark St.
35 - Foster Rd. Carmenita Rd. to Marquardt Ave.
36 - Freeman Ave. Telegraph Rd. to Los Nietos Rd.
37 - Freeway Dr. Alondra Blvd. to Valley View Ave.
38 - Fulton Wells Ave. Lakeland Rd. to Florence Ave.
39 - Geary Ave. Telegraph Rd. to Smith Ave.
40 - Greenleaf Ave. Telegraph Rd. to Los Nietos Rd.
41 - Greenleaf Ave. Los Nietos Rd. to NCL
42 - Greenstone Ave. Lakeland Rd. to Southerly Terminus 43 - Hathaway Dr./ Ontiveros Pl. Florence Ave. to Mora Dr. 44 - Hawkins St. Norwalk Blvd. to Easterly Terminus
45 - Imperial Hwy. Bloomfield Ave. to Shoemaker Ave.
46 - Jersey Ave. Telegraph Rd. to Pioneer Blvd.
47 - John St. Los Nietos Rd. to Sorensen Ave.
48 - Lakeland Rd. Norwalk Blvd. to BNSF Railroad
49 - Lakeland Rd. BNSF Railroad to Carmenita Rd.
50 - Larwin Cir. Marquardt Ave. to Marquardt Ave.
51 - Laurel Ave. Lakeland Rd. to Northerly Terminus
52 - Leffingwell Ave. Imperial Hwy. to Orden Dr.
53 - Los Nietos Rd. Pioneer Blvd. to Norwalk Blvd.
54 - Los Nietos Rd. Norwalk Blvd. to Santa Fe Springs Rd. 55 - Los Nietos Rd. Santa Fe Springs Rd. to Painter Ave. 56 - Marquardt Ave. Freeway Dr. to Coyote Creek Channel 57 - Marquardt Ave. Rosecrans Ave. to Coyote Creek Channel 58 - Marquardt Ave. Rosecrans Ave. to Imperial Hwy.
59 - Matern Pl. Telegraph Rd. to Geary Ave.
60 - McCann Dr. Norwalk Blvd. to Santa Fe Springs Rd.
61 - Meyer Rd. Shoemaker Ave. to Mayberry Park
62 - Molette St. Shoemaker Ave. to Arctic Cir.
63 - Mora Dr. Slusher Dr. to Norwalk Blvd.
64 - Norwalk Blvd. Lakeland Rd. to Florence Ave.
65 - Norwalk Blvd. Florence Ave. to Telegraph Rd.
66 - Norwalk Blvd. Telegraph Rd. to Los Nietos Rd.
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ 8 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
67 - Norwalk Blvd. Los Nietos Rd. to Perkins Ave.
68 - Norwalk Blvd. Washington Blvd. to ≈160' s/o Boer
69 - Orden Dr. Leffingwell Ave. to Easterly Terminus
70 - Pacific St. Norwalk Blvd. to Pike St.
71 - Painter Ave. Lakeland Rd. to Telegraph Rd.
72 - Painter Ave. Los Nietos Rd. to Reis St.
73 - Pioneer Blvd. Lakeland Rd. to Telegraph Rd.
74 - Pioneer Blvd. Los Nietos Rd. to Rivera Rd.
75 - Rivera Rd. Sorensen Ave. to Chetle Ave.
76 - Santa Fe Springs Rd. Telegraph Rd. to Los Nietos Rd. 77 - Santa Fe Springs Rd. Los Nietos Rd. to Union Pacific Railroad 78 - Shoemaker Ave. Excelsior Dr. to Firestone Blvd.
79 - Shoemaker Ave. Adler Dr. to Imperial Hwy.
80 - Shoemaker Ave. Lakeland Rd. to Telegraph Rd.
81 - Shoemaker Ave. Imperial Hwy. to Lakeland Rd.
82 - Slauson Ave. Norwalk Blvd. to Sorensen Ave.
83 - Slauson Ave. Sorensen Ave. to Santa Fe Springs Rd. 84 - Slusher Dr. Heritage Park Dr. to Southerly Terminus 85 - Smith Ave. Arlee Ave. to Norwalk Blvd.
86 - Sorensen Ave. Santa Fe Springs Rd. to Slauson Ave. 87 - Sorensen Ave. Slauson Ave. to Washington Blvd.
88 - Spring Ave. Excelsior Dr. to Northerly Terminus
89 - Spring Ave. Freeway Dr. to Excelsior Dr.
90 - Springdale Ave. Florence Ave. to Clark St.
91 - Stage Rd. Rosecrans Ave. to Valley View Ave.
92 - Sunshine Ave. Greenstone Ave. to Shoemaker Ave.
93 - Telegraph Rd. WCL to Pioneer Blvd.
94 - Telegraph Rd. Pioneer Blvd. to Norwalk Blvd.
95 - Telegraph Rd. Norwalk Blvd. to Greenleaf/Shoemaker 96 - Telegraph Rd. Greenleaf/Shoemaker to Gunn Ave.
97 - Valley View Ave. Rosecrans Ave. to Alondra Blvd.
98 - Valley View Ave. Alondra Blvd. to Firestone Blvd. (s/o I-5) 99 - Washington Blvd. Broadway Ave. to ECL
March 12, 2024
2024 Citywide Engineering
and Traffic Survey (E&TS)
City of Santa Fe Springs, CA
PREPARED FOR:

PREPARED BY:

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
Public Works Department
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ITS - Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering - Transportation Planning - Homeland Security - CEM 23282 Mill Creek Drive, East Tower, Suite 120
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING

AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
PREPARED FOR:

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
PREPARED BY:

MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering - ITS - Transportation Planning - CEM MARCH 12, 2024

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)
I, Fred Minagar do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey for the City of Santa Fe Springs was performed under my supervision. I certify that I am both experienced in performing surveys of this type and am duly registered in the State of California as a professional Civil Engineer. The survey has been conducted in strict compliance with guidelines contained in the most current versions of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) Rev. 7, effective Mar. 10, 2023. Data contained in this report represents a true and accurate description of existing traffic conditions collected and measured in the field on City of Santa Fe Springs roadways. _____________________________________________________
Fred Minagar, MS, RCE, PE, Registration No. 53466
Project Manager
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ 4 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 – Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 5 2 – Background/Discussion ...................................................................................................10 3 – Current Regulations..........................................................................................................11 4 – Speed Zoning Principles ..................................................................................................12 5 - Methodology ......................................................................................................................14 6 – Engineering & Traffic Survey Results and Recommendations......................................22 7 – Applicable Vehicle Codes.................................................................................................23 8 - References .........................................................................................................................34

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Map of Recommended Speed Limits
Appendix B: Summary of Recommended Changes to Posted Speed Limits Appendix C: Roadway Segment Analysis of Factors Not Readily Apparent and Traffic Data Summary Sheets
Appendix D: Radar Speed Survey Sheets
Appendix E: 24-Hour Machine Counts (ADT) Traffic Volume Data Appendix F: Speed Gun Calibration Certification
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ 5 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1 – Executive Summary
This report reviews the establishment and potential revision of posted speed limits for eighteen (18) street segments on fourteen (14) citywide streets within the City of Santa Fe Springs, California, and discusses the findings of the Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) conducted by Minagar & Associates, Inc. which was used to determine these results. This E&TS Report was requested by and prepared for the City of Santa Fe Springs as a record of existing conditions on the selected roadways, and to provide the City with a basis for updating and validating its currently posted speed limits on citywide streets. Per the City’s request, only segments with a significant increase (10% or higher) in Average Daily Traffic (ADT) since the last E&TS were assessed in this study.

Engineering and Traffic Surveys are required by the State of California to establish intermediate speed limits on local streets and to enforce those limits using radar or other speed measuring devices. In accordance with the latest relevant sections of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD Rev. 7, effective Mar. 10, 2023), and Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA MUTCD, 11th Edition, Dec. 2023), the E&TS must consider, at a minimum, the following contributing factors toward the establishment of appropriate posted speed limits:
1) Analysis of prevailing speeds, as determined by traffic engineering measurements 2) Analysis of collision records for the most recent available January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2022 period
3) Other highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to drivers.

When qualifying an appropriate speed limit, local
authorities may consider factors such as roadway design speed, safe stopping sight distance, superelevation,
shoulder conditions, profile conditions, intersection
spacing and offsets, commercial driveway
characteristics, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, the 10- MPH pace range of prevailing traffic, roadside
development and environment, parking practices, and
the density of adjacent residential and/or business
frontage.

The findings of this E&TS conclude that all 18 out of the 18 radar surveyed street segments are recommended to remain at their currently established posted speed limit as documented, and would not require any changes to the existing posted regulatory signage or speed limit pavement markings.

The following list summarizes the findings of the E&TS and the resulting recommendation for the 18 analyzed segments.

The findings of this E&TS reveal
that 18 out of the 18 surveyed
street segments are
recommended to remain at their
currently established posted
speed limit as documented, and
would not require any changes
to the existing posted
regulatory signage or speed
limit pavement markings.
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ 6 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ 9 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

A summary of the recommended speed limit recommendations for each segment is provided in Appendix B, along with a table listing the 99 segments to be extended with their existing speed limit, accompanied by respective traffic volume data and accident analysis.

Roadway segment analysis of factors not readily apparent and traffic data summary certification sheets justifying posted speed limits for all 18 street segments are provided in Appendix C.

Additional supporting documentation of the survey’s methodology are provided in the following sections of this report, including project background, current speed regulations, speed zoning principles, survey methodology, daily traffic volume counts, and radar spot speed survey data upon which the overall conclusions of this engineering and traffic survey and recommended posted speed limits are based.

Radar speed survey sheets, 24-hour machine tube counts (ADT) data, speed gun calibration certificates are provided in Appendices D, E, and F respectively. 2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 10 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2 – Background/Discussion
The California Manual on Traffic Uniform Control Devices (CAMUTCD) states that local agencies should conduct engineering studies at least once every 7 or 14 years, in compliance with Section 40802 of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) to reevaluate non-statutory speed limits on segments of their roadways that have undergone significant changes since the last review. Speed limits are used to both regulate and guide motorists’ speed choices, and are visibly posted on the roadside as a tool to reduce the dangers that drivers might otherwise impose on road users by driving at unsafe speeds.

It is a common assumption that the posting of a speed limit sign will lead to a motorist driving at that speed; however, historical evidence and research shows that the majority of drivers will travel at roadway speeds which seem the most reasonable given the prevailing driving conditions.

Speed regulations construed as unreasonable have the potential to be disregarded by an unsafe majority of motorists; therefore, a “reasonable” speed limit is commonly one that conforms to the actual behavior of the general motoring public. Based upon this concept, the California Vehicle Code (CVC) provides the Basic Speed Law which states that:
“No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than what is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.” The purpose of controlling speed limits using law enforcement is not to burden motorists with unreasonable laws, but to give motorists a clear indication of the maximum driving speed that is reasonable and prudent under typical driving conditions, and reflects surrounding roadway and roadside conditions which may not be apparent to drivers. Speed limits established on the basis of an E&TS provide law enforcement officers with a means to regulate the top fringe of drivers who are disposed to reckless and unreliable driving behaviors, have faulty judgment, or will otherwise not conform to the Basic Speed Law and to what the majority of drivers find to be reasonable and prudent.
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ 11 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3 – Current Regulations
Under California law, the maximum speed limit for any passenger vehicle is 65 miles per hour (mph). All other speed limits are called prima facie limits, which “at first sight”, are safe and prudent under normal conditions. Specific prima facie limits established by California law include:
■ 70 mph - May be posted by the governing authority on the basis of an engineering and traffic study and consultation with the California Highway Patrol (CHP). ■ 65 mph - On all streets and highways, unless otherwise posted or if prevailing conditions meet the criteria for a lower prima facie speed limit, as described below. ■ 55 mph - On two-lane undivided highways (i.e., highways not physically divided and have no more than one lane per each direction, excluding passing lanes). ■ 25 mph - When approaching or passing a posted “SCHOOL” zone, when children are going to and from school; in a “business district” or “residence district,” as defined by the CVC; or when passing a “senior center” facility.
■ 15 mph - In any alley; or when approaching a “blind” highway intersection or rail-highway grade crossing uncontrolled by traffic control devices (i.e., limited sight distance in advance of the uncontrolled intersection or crossing, as defined by the CVC).

In addition to the above prima facie speed limits, a local authority may declare and establish intermediate prima facie speed limits upon the basis of an Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) in increments of 5 miles per hour up to 60 mph, or a maximum speed limit of 65 mph, whichever is found to be most appropriate in facilitating the orderly movement of traffic and is also reasonable and safe. E&TS provide an analysis of roadway conditions, accident records, and the prevailing speed of drivers representatively traveling the highway under study. Since unjustified speed limits can be difficult to enforce, the E&TS is essential in preventing the establishment of speed limits which are below or above what is safe, and/or what the majority of drivers consider to be reasonable for the prevailing roadway, roadside and traffic conditions.

The California Vehicle Code (CVC) states that the use of radar or other speed measuring device to enforce speed limits which have not been justified based on an E&TS constitutes a “speed trap,” notwithstanding certain qualifying conditions. An E&TS is valid for up to seven (7) years if the speed measuring devices used for speed enforcement are certified and properly calibrated, and the enforcing officer has completed the required operating courses for the speed-measuring device used, per CVC 40802(c)(2)(B)(i)(I). If an E&TS was conducted more than seven years prior to the date of the alleged violation, but a registered engineer evaluates the section of the highway and determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, it is valid for up to 14 years.

Given the above requirements, the California Vehicle Code prohibits authorities from securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle based on a speed trap. Conversely, drivers who do not comply with speed limits which have been lawfully justified and posted are subject to enforcement action. See Section 7 for CVC divisions and articles pertaining to this E&TS. 2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ 12 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
4 – Speed Zoning Principles
Driver behavioral research has
been conducted over several
decades and finds that the
average driver chooses their
driving speed based on the
appearance of the highway itself
and the prevailing traffic
conditions. Thus, the CVC and
CAMUTCD require that speed
limits be established in accordance with appropriate engineering practice and methods. The CAMUTCD provides standards, guidance and support for the preparation of engineering and traffic surveys, and requires that, at a minimum, the three following factors be considered in determining appropriate speed limits to facilitate the safe, sensible and orderly flow of traffic:
■ Prevailing speeds
■ Collision records
■ Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver Prevailing Speeds
Measuring the typical speed, or prevailing speed, of existing traffic flow allows the selection of an effective speed limit based on the presumption that the majority of motorists drive at speeds that are generally safe and reasonable. Prevailing speeds are determined by conducting a radarbased spot speed survey along a particular segment and direction along a roadway to measure a sample number of vehicle speeds during generally free-flow traffic conditions. For this E&TS, radar speed surveys were conducted to collect a minimum of 100 speed samples during morning and afternoon time periods (9:00 AM – 4:00 PM).

The resulting measured speed data is organized and analyzed to extract various speed characteristics and driver trends, such as the ten-mile pace range, average speed traveled, and the 85th percentile speed. The most significant speed attribute obtained from the survey is the 85th percentile speed, or critical speed, and is defined as one (1) standard deviation above 50th percentile (average speed), or simply the free-flow speed at or below which 85% of the motorists were surveyed to be traveling. Since only 15% of the motorists exceed this value, the 85th percentile speed is normally used as an initial (presumptive) value for the updated posted speed limit, and adjusted downward or upward as other conditions necessitate. Based on current CAMUTCD guidelines and California state law, when a speed limit is to be posted, it shall be established at the nearest 5-MPH increment to the surveyed 85th percentile speed, except under the following optional conditions in which it may otherwise establish:
■ The posted speed may be reduced by 5 MPH from the nearest 5-MPH increment to the 85th percentile speed upon due consideration for additional factors not readily apparent to the typical driver which have been appropriately justified and documented in the E&TS, and approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer (see CVC §627 and 22358.5). 2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 13 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
■ For cases which require rounding up the field-surveyed 85th percentile speed to the nearest 5-MPH increment (e.g., 38 MPH rounded up to 40 MPH), the selected speed limit may instead be rounded down to the nearest 5-MPH increment below the surveyed 85th percentile speed, if no further reduction is used (see CVC §21400(b)).

In accordance with CVC §40802, a “speed trap” does not apply to active and posted school zones or “local streets” as defined in the current California Road System (CRS). A local authority may therefore post an appropriately established prima facie speed limit on such roadways without requiring a recent engineering and traffic survey or determination based on the procedures set forth in §22352, §22354, §22357 or 22358.3 of the code.

Collision Records
The most recent collision data was also considered in setting appropriate speed limits. Drivers may underestimate the effects of higher speeds on crash probability and severity. An aboveaverage collision rate, particularly due to unsafe speeding related incidents, might suggest existence of conditions which are not readily apparent to motorists; this should be considered when reevaluating the appropriate speed limit for the roadway segment.

Conditions Not Readily Apparent to Motorists
Each street segment was additionally evaluated to identify and document any roadway, roadside, traffic and other significant features which may not be readily apparent to motorists and may justify selecting a posted speed limit based on a five mile-per-hour reduction from the nearest 5-MPH increment to the 85th percentile speed. Such conditions would exist where the combined influence of one or more of these factors could result in uncharacteristic or unexpected driving conditions, and in turn, affect the ability of drivers to properly judge the safest and most appropriate travel speed for a particular situation or location.

Examples of such factors include: shoulder conditions (e.g., on-street parking, closely-spaced and/or blind driveway traffic), sight distance and/or geometric constraints (e.g., narrow streets, horizontal roadway curvature, hilly grades), pedestrian and bicyclist safety (e.g., mid-block crosswalks, bike lanes and routes), uniformity and consistency between contiguous speed zones (e.g., length of the speed zone, spacing and frequency of traffic-controlled intersections, speed zone transitions on “boundary line” streets), and land use conditions adjacent to the roadway (e.g., residential and business districts, commercial driveways, senior centers, etc.).

The CVC stipulates that, in the absence of other factors, physical conditions such as roadway width, curvature, grade and surface pavement conditions are considered to be readily apparent and are the responsibility of the driver to perceive and react to without requiring a special downwardly zoned posted speed limit, per CVC Section 22358.5. Valid consideration of one or more of the above conditions determined as not readily apparent to motorists, however, provides the required justification to allow for a 5-mile per hour (MPH) reduction from the nearest 5-MPH increment to the 85th percentile where engineering judgment presents evidence and documentation that an adjustment for these factors is needed to match the existing conditions with the traffic safety needs of the community and road users. 2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 14 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
5 - Methodology
Data Collection
In accordance with discussions with city staff, the scope of the study consisted of 18 roadway segments on 14 citywide streets within the City of Santa Fe Springs. Study segments were determined by city staff, generally on the basis of previous zone designations established by the previous 2016 speed survey.

Procedure
The primary goal of this E&TS is to determine the suitability of currently-posted speed limits in the City of Santa Fe Springs, and resolve to either change or maintain as-is the designated speed limits along each of the surveyed speed zones. To make these determinations, the study compiled information both in the field and from City records on prevailing motorist speeds, recent collision history, comparative collision rates for similar roadway types, and any significant roadside conditions not evident to motorists. References under which this study was conducted include sections of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) provided in Section 7 of this report and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) developed by Caltrans in cooperation with the USDOT/Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Speed Zoning
The principal method utilized in this E&TS was speed zoning, a process which uses prevailing speeds of drivers as a guide to establish reasonable speed limits for highway sections where original statutory speed limits set by State ordinance may be considered less suitable for the local conditions. Establishment of posted speed limits by speed zoning methods allows motorists to be informed of the safe speed limit under which to drive on a particular roadway under normal conditions, and also protects the general public from unreasonable and reckless drivers. Spot radar speed surveys were conducted to determine the prevailing speeds of drivers on each of the 18 segments.

The surveys were performed during normal, non-holiday weekdays in November of 2023 during typical daytime periods. The unimpeded free-flow speeds of individual vehicles were measured during the off-peak time periods (9:00 AM – 4:00 PM) with a minimum survey count of either one hundred (100) or two hundred (200) radar samples (i.e., approximately 50 and 100 per direction for street segments without or with raised medians respectively, or for 2 hours of survey). Detailed radar speed zoning sheets are included in Appendix D.

Following the collection of spot speed survey data, all radar measurements were organized, computed, analyzed and summarized on standard Traffic Survey Forms. Various speed-related characteristics were then determined, including the following:
85th Percentile Speed: The speed at which 85% of surveyed motorists did not exceed (i.e., no more than 15% of traffic exceeded) during the radar 2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 15 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
survey. Also called critical speed, equals one standard deviation from the average speed.
50th Percentile Speed: The speed at which half of surveyed motorists did not exceed during the radar survey. Also called the median speed, by definition 50% of the observed speeds are below the median, and the other half are above the median.
10-MPH Pace: The 10-mile per hour range containing the largest percentage of speed observations; provides an alternative and more readily identifiable measure to the standard deviation to describe the dispersion of speeds within the survey sample. Consistency in travel speeds is evidenced by a pace that usually includes between 70% and 80% of the free-flowing vehicles. Similar reported statistical data includes the percentage of surveyed vehicles over and under the 10-MPH Pace range.

Average Speed: Equals the calculated average speed of all surveyed vehicles.

Also called the mean speed.

The above statistical attributes were obtained for each segment from the speed survey data collected in the field, and then applied using the CAMUTCD guidelines. The recommended speed limit was presumptively determined as the nearest 5-MPH increment to the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic, with a downward 5-MPH adjustment applied if necessary to reflect the presence of conditions not readily apparent to drivers or to match the existing traffic needs of the community.

It is significant to note that former versions of the California MUTCD required that posted speed limits be presumptively set at the nearest 5-MPH increment to the surveyed the 85th percentile speed, and then adjusted by 5 MPH if justifiable and documented in the study. The most current release of the CAMUTCD (Rev. 7, effective Mar. 2023), however, presently allows for speed limits to be set at the lower 5-MPH increment to the surveyed 85th percentile speed in those cases where the nearest 5-MPH increment would normally require rounding up, if no further reduction is used. In order to satisfy local traffic and roadway conditions, local agencies may apply this judgment at its own discretion without any required supporting documentation or reasons in the Engineering and Traffic Survey. The results of the speed zoning analysis are summarized in Table 1.

Collisions Analysis
The collisions analysis compared recent collision history data with expected collision rates for similar roadway types. The analysis was based on a review of reported traffic accidents obtained from the City of Santa Fe Springs, queried for the latest available traffic collision information from the Police Department’s traffic collisions record database for a period of 5 years (60 months) between January 2018 and December 2022. The raw collision data was then screened to 2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ 16 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
consider only speeding-related accidents as the primary collision factor, based on the recommended practice provided in the CAMUTCD and Caltrans’ Traffic Manual. Non-speeding related accident reports were omitted from the analysis since this data does not directly correlate to vehicle speeding and can tend to overstate collision rates, particularly for shorter segments.

Prevailing collision rates for each segment were calculated by first determining the total number of speed-related collisions which have occurred during the selected 60-month period. This, along with the measured 24-hour average daily traffic volume of the segment from machine traffic counts collected in the field (see Appendix E for machine count data sheets) and the known segment length, was used in the standard formula below to determine the calculated collision rate for each segment, expressed in terms of collisions per million vehicle miles traveled:

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 � = 𝑁𝑁 . 𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 ∗ 1,000,000
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ∗ 𝐷𝐷 ∗ 𝑁𝑁 . 𝑜𝑜 𝐷𝐷
where: No. of Collisions Number of speed-related collisions on the segment during the selected analysis period (50.5 months), both directions
1,000,000 Conversion factor for Million-Vehicle-Miles (MVM) ADT Average Daily Traffic (vehicles per day), both directions Distance Roadway segment distance traveled by each vehicle (miles) No. of Days Number of days during the selected analysis period (i.e., 1.00 year = 365 days)
The speed zoning analysis tables for each segment are provided on the following pages and utilize the following abbreviations and terminology.
85th Percentile The speed at or below which 85% of the observed vehicles were surveyed to be traveling at
10-mi. Pace Equals the 10-mile per hour range in which the largest number of vehicles were observed to be traveling
% in 10-mi. Pace The percentage of the total vehicles observed traveling in the 10-mile per hour pace
50th Percentile The speed at which half of the observed speeds were observed below and half were observed above
DEFINITIONS:
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 17 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Table 1: Speed Zoning Analysis Summary
From To Dist.
(mi.) Type LU Posted (mph)
PPSL
(mph)
Rec.
(mph)
Ann St. 5 Santa Fe
Springs Rd. Greenleaf Ave. 0.28 LOC I 29-38 68% 29 39 35 39 35 - Due to current 85th percentile speed, presence of truck traffic
Borate St. 16 Marquardt Ave. Easterly
Terminus 0.43 LOC I 18-27 74% 21 31 30 31 30 - Due to current 85th percentile speed Clark St. 26 Norwalk Blvd. Easterly
Terminus 0.59 LOC I 28-37 71% 26 36 35 36 35 - Due to current 85th percentile speed Freeway Dr. 40 Excelsior Dr. Alondra Blvd. 0.89 LOC I 29-38 68% 30 43 40 43 40 - Due to current 85th percentile speed Iseli Rd. 50 Stage Rd. Rosencranz Ave. 0.15 LOC I 22-31 74% 21 31 25 31 25 - Due to current 85th percentile speed and adjacent land use
Jordan Cir. 53 McCann Dr. McCann Dr. 0.35 LOC I 21-30 78% 19 27 25 27 25 - Due to current 85th percentile speed and low Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Maryton Ave. /
Dinard Ave. 65 Rosecrans
Ave. Rosecrans Ave. 0.45 LOC I 23-32 78% 24 33 30 33 30 - Due to current 85th percentile speed and curvature
Orr & Day Rd. 77 Florence Ave. Mondon Ave. 0.13 MAJ R/C 28-37 75% 29 38 30 38 30 - Due to current 85th percentile
speed, adjacent land use, and
curvature
Orr & Day Rd. 78 Florence Ave. Telegraph Rd. 0.93 MAJ R/C/P 33-42 68% 34 44 35 44 35 - Due to current 85th percentile
speed, adjacent facilities (school
and religious institution) and
Orr & Day Rd. 79 Telegraph Rd. Pioneer Blvd. 0.40 MAJ R 34-43 88% 34 42 35 42 35 - Due to current 85th percentile speed,
adjacent residential land uses, and
presence of driveways
Painter Ave. 82 Telegraph Rd. Los Nietos Rd. 0.17 SEC I/C 28-37 87% 30 36 30 36 30 - Due to current 85th percentile speed Pike St. 84 NW Terminus SE Terminus 0.59 LOC I 24-33 74% 23 32 30 32 30 - Due to current 85th percentile speed and presence of driveways
Pioneer Blvd. 86 Telegraph Rd. Alburtis Ave. 0.43 MAJ R/B 31-40 74% 29 39 35 39 35 - Due to current 85th percentile speed,
curvature, adjacent residential land
uses, and presence of driveways
Pioneer Blvd. 87 Alburtis Ave. Orr & Day Rd. 0.39 MAJ R/O 28-37 84% 28 35 35 35 35 - Due to current 85th percentile speed,
adjacent residential land use, and
presence of driveways
Pioneer Blvd. 88 Orr & Day Rd. Los Nietos Rd. 0.51 MAJ R/P 37-46 73% 37 46 40 46 40 - Due to current 85th percentile speed and collision history
Radburn Ave. 90 Borate St. Gannet St. 0.20 LOC I 24-33 73% 24 33 35 33 35 - Due to current 85th percentile speed Romandel Ave. 92 Freeman Ave. Los Nietos Rd. 0.48 LOC I 21-30 70% 21 32 35 32 35 - Due to current 85th percentile speed Washington Blvd. 117 Norwalk Blvd. Broadway Ave. 0.30 MAJ I/C 29-38 76% 30 40 40 40 40 - Due to current 85th percentile speed

SPEED ZONING ANALYSIS
Analysis/
Justification(s)
85th
Percentile
(mph)
Description
No.
10-mi.

Pace
(mph)
Speed Limit
Change
% in 10-
mi. Pace
Segment
Street
50th
Percentile
(mph)

ROADWAY INFORMATION
Dist. = Distance of segment LU = Land Use
MAJ = Major Arterial (CRS) C = Commercial
SEC = Secondary Arterial (LOC) B = Business
LOC = Local St (CRS) R = Residential
Posted = I = Industrial
PPSL = Presumptive Posted Speed Limit P = Public
Rec. = - = No Change in Speed
Existing Posted Speed Limit
KEY:

Recommended Posted Speed Lim
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ 18 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Table 2 shows the average statewide collision rates obtained from Caltrans’ Collision Data on California State Highways, adjusted to represent proportional rates for speeding-related collisions. These expected rates were used to identify survey segments which exhibit a higherthan-expected collision rate.

Table 2: Expected Statewide Speed-Related Traffic Collision Rates ROADWAY TYPE* (URBAN) EXPECTED ACCIDENT RATE**
2 - 3 Lanes 1.69 collisions per million vehicle miles
4+ Undivided Lanes 0.82 collisions per million vehicle miles 4+ Divided Lanes 0.89 collisions per million vehicle miles Source: 2021 Caltrans Annual Collision Data on California State Highways - Crash Summary for District 7 Agency, Department of Transportation, Division of Research, Innovation, and System Information. Sacramento, California. * Based on FHWA approved 2020 adjusted urban area boundaries which are derived from the 2020 Census urban area boundaries ** Basic Average Accident Rates tabulation data. Number of lanes are for both directions of travel and are applicable for both uni- and bi-directional surveyed roadway segments.

Other collected collision history data is summarized in the following figures. Overall, from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2022, there has been a total of 1,839 total collisions reported on the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), based on Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). This included 27 fatalities and 2,637 other injured victims. The top primary collision factor (PCF) of these collisions was unsafe speed, as shown in the figure below. This PCF was responsible for 659 collisions out of 1,839 total collisions.

Figure 1: Number of Crashes by Primary Crash Factor (PCF) Violation (January 1, 2018 - December 31, 2022)
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 19 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Figure 2: Number of Crashes due to Unsafe Speed by Crash Type (January 1, 2018 - December 31, 2022)
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Figure 3: Number of Crashes due to Unsafe Speed by Crash Severity (January 1, 2018 - December 31, 2022)
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) To evaluate the collision behavior of each street segment, the calculated collision rate for each segment was compared to the average statewide collision rates for streets with comparable characteristics. The results of the accident analysis for the 18 roadway segments are summarized in Table 3.
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 20 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Table 3: Collision Data Summary and Analysis
From To No. of
Lanes 1 Division Expected 4
(A/MVM)
Calculated 5
(A/MVM)
Ann St. 5 Santa Fe Springs Rd. Greenleaf Ave. 2 U E/W 0.28 2,092 1 1.69 0.94 Borate St. 16 Marquardt Ave. Easterly Terminus 2 U NE/SW 0.43 1,637 0 1.69 0.00 Clark St. 26 Norwalk Blvd. Easterly Terminus 2 U N/S 0.59 1,302 0 1.69 0.00 Freeway Dr. 40 Excelsior Dr. Alondra Blvd. 2 U E/W 0.89 2,234 3 1.69 0.83 Iseli Rd. 50 Stage Rd. Rosencranz Ave. 2 U NW/SE 0.15 1,158 0 1.69 0.00 Jordan Cir. 53 McCann Dr. McCann Dr. 2 U NE/SW 0.35 321 0 1.69 0.00 Maryton Ave. / Dinard
Ave. 65 Rosecrans Ave. Rosecrans Ave. 2 U N/S/E/W 0.45 1,123 0 1.69 0.00 Orr & Day Rd. 77 Florence Ave. Mondon Ave. 2 U E/W 0.13 1,355 0 1.69 0.00 Orr & Day Rd. 78 Florence Ave. Telegraph Rd. 4 D NE/SW 0.93 13,826 3 0.89 0.13 Orr & Day Rd. 79 Telegraph Rd. Pioneer Blvd. 4 D NE/SW 0.40 12,980 2 0.89 0.21 Painter Ave. 82 Telegraph Rd. Los Nietos Rd. 4 D E/W 0.17 17,292 0 0.89 0.00 Pike St. 84 NW Terminus SE Terminus 2 U N/S 0.59 1,049 0 1.69 0.00 Pioneer Blvd. 86 Telegraph Rd. Alburtis Ave. 4 D N/S 0.43 6,557 0 0.89 0.00 Pioneer Blvd. 87 Alburtis Ave. Orr & Day Rd. 4 D N/S 0.39 3,992 0 0.89 0.00 Pioneer Blvd. 88 Orr & Day Rd. Los Nietos Rd. 4 D NE/SW 0.51 13,740 3 0.89 0.23 Radburn Ave. 90 Borate St. Gannet St. 2 U NW/SE 0.20 773 0 1.69 0.00 Romandel Ave. 92 Freeman Ave. Los Nietos Rd. 2 U NE/SW 0.48 819 2 1.69 2.79 Washington Blvd. 117 Norwalk Blvd. Broadway Ave. 4 D E/W 0.30 55,329 0 0.89 0.00

COLLISION ANALYSIS
Number of
Collisions 2,3
Collision Rate
ADT
(vpd) No. Length(mi.)
Direction
of Travel

ROADWAY INFORM ATION
Street
Segment Limits Roadway Type
Notes:
[2] Over a 5-year period from 1/1/18 to 12/31/22. Data compiled from U.C. Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). [3] Collisions pertaining to unsafe speed as the primary collision factor. [4] Per Million Vehicle Miles (MVM)
w here:

No. of Collisions = Total number of speed-related collisions recorded on the segment for period of 5.00 years (1825 days) ADT = Average Daily Traffic (vehicles per day, both directions of traffic except for one-sided segments as indicated) Distance = Total length of segment (miles)
No. of Days = 365 days for a duration period of 1.00 years of collision data Bold/Underline = Calculated collision rate is higher than the expected rate for a similar roadway type LEGEND
ADT: Average Daily Traffic (in vehicles per day, both directions of traffic) A/MVM: Accidents Per Million Vehicle Miles
D: Divided
U: Undivided
[1] Includes both directions of traffic on the selected roadw ay segment [5] Collisions per Million Vehicle-Miles of Travel = ADT x Distance x No. of Days No. of Collisions x 1,000,000
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 21 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Survey of Street Segments
Minagar & Associates, Inc. staff also evaluated each of the 18 roadway segments to observe the following existing roadway, roadside and traffic conditions, and identify individual or combined factors which may not be readily apparent to drivers.
■ Segment length
■ Roadway pavement width
■ Number of travel lanes
■ Center median division
■ Type and frequency of traffic controls on the primary road ■ Sight distance and visibility of driveways and side street traffic due to:
o Horizontal curvature
o Vertical alignment and grade shifts
o On-street parking
o Large street trees planted in the median and/or adjacent parkway(s) o Two-way left turn traffic in the center lane
o Offset or skewed intersection approaches
■ Roadway lighting
■ Abutting land use density and property access along the roadway ■ Commercial and residential driveway spacing
■ Bicyclists and bike lanes/routes
■ Heavy vehicle, golf cart, and NEV/LSV traffic
■ Pedestrians, crosswalks, sidewalks, school children walking along roadway due to the absence or discontinuity of sidewalks
These characteristics are described for each segment in the summary sheets provided in Appendix C.
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ 22 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
6 – Engineering & Traffic Survey Results and Recommendations This Engineering & Traffic Survey is intended to establish prima facie speed limits for 118 surveyed roadway segments in the City of Santa Fe Springs, based on a thorough evaluation of the collected data and standard speed zoning practice. Prima Facie speed limits serve to advise drivers and law enforcement of what is the reasonable and prudent speed under normal conditions.

The field radar-measured 85th percentile speed was rounded to the nearest upper or lower 5-MPH increment, as appropriate, and used as the recommended posted speed limit. Where other significant factors were demonstrated, such as an above-average collision rate; traffic, roadway and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver; and/or the need to consider legal prima facie speed limits, the presumptive speed limit was adjusted upward or downward by a 5 mile per hour increment to the final recommended posted speed. In some cases where the roadway segment is located along a “local street” as designated by the California Road System (CRS), several of the existing posted speed limits are proposed to maintain as-is, notwithstanding presumptive posted speed limit, in order to meet the needs of the local community and prevailing road users in accordance with applicable provisions of the CVC (§40802, §22358, §22352, §22354, §22357, and 22358.3) allowing the local authority to do so.

The findings of this E&TS indicate that currently-posted speed limits on 18 of the 18 surveyed segments will not change, and will remain as documented and posted to allow for continued radar enforcement until the next renewal of posted speeds is required during the next validation of this E&TS.

See Appendix B for a summary of the above findings and recommendations for each segment. 2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 23 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
7 – Applicable Vehicle Codes
The following codes were considered relevant in preparing the E&T Survey Report as provided in the 2023 California Vehicle Code (CVC):
■ 235 Business District
A “business district” is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto (a) upon one side of which highway, for a distance of 600 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by buildings in use for business, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, for a distance of 300 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is so occupied. A business district may be longer than the distances specified in this section if the above ratio of buildings in use for business to the length of the highway exists.
(Enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
■ 240 Business and Residence Districts: Determination
In determining whether a highway is within a business or residence district, the following limitations shall apply and qualify the definitions in Sections 235 & 515:
(a) No building shall be regarded unless its entrance faces the highway and the front of the building is within 75 feet of the roadway. (b) Where a highway is physically divided into two or more roadways only those buildings facing each roadway separately shall be regarded for the purpose of determining whether the roadway is within a district. (c) All churches, apartments, hotels, multiple dwelling houses, clubs, & public buildings, other than schools, shall be deemed to be business structures. (d) A highway or portion of a highway shall not be deemed to be within a district regardless of the number of buildings upon the contiguous property if there is no right of access to the highway by vehicles from the contiguous property.
(Enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
■ 515 Residence District
A “residence district” is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district, (a) upon one side of which highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures. A residence district may be longer than one-quarter of a mile if the above ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway exists.
(Enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 24 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
■ 627 Engineering and Traffic Survey
(a) "Engineering and traffic survey," as used in this code, means a survey of highway and traffic conditions in accordance with methods determined by the Department of Transportation for use by state and local authorities. (b) An engineering and traffic survey shall include, among other requirements deemed necessary by the department, consideration of all of the following:
(1) Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements.
(2) Accident records.
(3) Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver.
(c) When conducting an engineering and traffic survey, local authorities, in addition to the factors set forth in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b) may consider all of the following:
(1) Residential density, if any of the following conditions exist on the particular portion of highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district:
(A) Upon one side of the highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is
occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or
business structures.
(B) Upon both sides of the highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.
(C) The portion of highway is longer than one-quarter of a mile but has the ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway described in either subparagraph (A) or (B).
(2) Safety of bicyclists and pedestrians, with increased consideration for vulnerable pedestrian groups including children, seniors, persons with disabilities, users of personal assistive mobility devices, and the unhoused.
(Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 690, Sec. 1. (AB 43) Effective January 1, 2022.) ■ 21400 Uniform Standards
(a) The Department of Transportation shall, after consultation with local agencies and public hearings, adopt rules and regulations prescribing uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices placed pursuant to this code, including, but not limited to, stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, speed restriction signs, railroad warning approach signs, street name signs, lines and markings on the roadway, and stock crossing signs placed pursuant to Section 21364.
(b) The Department of Transportation shall, after notice and public hearing, determine and publicize the specifications for uniform types of warning 2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ 25 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
signs, lights, and devices to be placed upon a highway by a person engaged in performing work that interferes with or endangers the safe movement of traffic upon that highway.
(c) Only those signs, lights, and devices as are provided for in this section shall be placed upon a highway to warn traffic of work that is being performed on the highway.
(d) Control devices or markings installed upon traffic barriers on or after January 1, 1984, shall conform to the uniform standards and specifications required by this section.
(Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 690, Sec. 2. (AB 43) Effective January 1, 2022.) ■ 22349 Maximum Speed Limit
(a) Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may drive a vehicle upon a two-lane, undivided highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour unless that highway, or portion thereof, has been posted for a higher speed by the Department of Transportation or appropriate local agency upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey. For purposes of this subdivision, the following apply:
(1) A two-lane, undivided highway is a highway with not more than one through lane of travel in each direction.
(2) Passing lanes may not be considered when determining the number of through lanes.
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature that there be reasonable signing on affected two-lane, undivided highways described in subdivision (b) in continuing the 55 miles-per-hour speed limit, including placing signs at county boundaries to the extent possible, and at other appropriate locations.
(Amended by Stats. 1999, Ch. 724, Sec. 41. Effective January 1, 2000.) ■ 22350 Basic Speed Law
No person shall drive a vehicle upon a
highway at a speed greater than is
reasonable or prudent having due regard for
weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the
surface and width of, the highway, and in no
event at a speed which endangers the safety
of persons or property.
(Amended by Stats. 1999, Ch. 724, Sec. 41. Effective Jan. 1, 2000.) ■ 22351 Speed Law Violations
(a) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of the basic speed law. (b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is “No Person Shall Drive a
Vehicle Upon a Highway at a
Speed Greater Than is
Reasonable or Prudent...”
Basic Speed Law
California Vehicle Code (CVC)
D11 / Ch7 / Art1 / §22350
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 26 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.
(Enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
■ 22352 Prima Facie Speed Limits
(a) The prima facie limits are as follows and shall be applicable unless changed as authorized in this code and, if so changed, only when signs have been erected giving notice thereof:
(1) Fifteen miles per hour:
(A) When traversing a railway grade crossing, if during the last 100 feet of the approach to the crossing the driver does not have a clear and unobstructed view of the crossing and of any traffic on the railway for a distance of 400 feet in both directions along the railway. This subdivision does not apply in the case of any railway grade crossing where a human flagperson is on duty or a clearly visible electrical or mechanical railway crossing signal device is installed but does not then indicate the immediate approach of a railway train or car.
(B) When traversing any intersection of highways if during the last 100 feet of the driver’s approach to the intersection the driver does not have a clear and unobstructed view of the intersection and of any traffic upon all of the highways entering the intersection for a distance of 100 feet along all those highways, except at an intersection protected by stop signs or yield right-of-way signs or controlled by official traffic control signals.
(C) On any alley.
(2) Twenty-five miles per hour:
(A) When approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching or passing any school grounds which are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a standard “SCHOOL” warning
sign. For purposes of this subparagraph, standard
“SCHOOL” warning signs may be placed at any distance up to 500 feet away from school grounds.
(B) When approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign, while children are going 25 MPH

SPEED LIMIT
"When approaching
or passing a school...
posted with a
standard ‘SCHOOL’
warning sign, while
children are going to
or leaving the
school... during
school hours."
- Prima Facie Speed
Limits: 25mph, California
Vehicle Code (CVC), D11
/ Ch7 / Art1 / §22352
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 27 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching or passing any school grounds which are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a standard “SCHOOL” warning
sign. For purposes of this subparagraph, standard
“SCHOOL” warning signs may be placed at any distance up to 500 feet away from school grounds. (C) When passing
a senior center or other facility primarily used by senior citizens, contiguous to a street other than a state highway and posted with a standard “SENIOR” warning sign. A local authority may erect a sign pursuant to this paragraph when the local agency makes a determination that the proposed signing should be implemented. A local authority may
request grant funding from the Active Transportation
Program pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section
2380) of Division 3 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other grant funding available to it, and use that grant funding to pay for the erection of those signs, or may utilize any other funds available to it to pay for the erection of those signs, including, but not limited to, donations from private sources.
(Amended by Stats. 20121, Ch. 690, Sec. 3 (AB 43) Effective Jan. 1, 2022.) ■ 22357 Increase of Local Speed Limits to 65 Miles Per Hour (a) Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that a speed greater than 25 miles per hour would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon any street other than a state highway otherwise subject to a prima facie limit of 25 miles per hour, the local authority may by ordinance determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, or 60 miles per hour or a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe. The declared prima facie or maximum speed limit shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the street and shall not thereafter be revised except upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey. This section does not apply to any 25-mile-per-hour prima facie limit which is applicable when passing a school building or the grounds thereof or when passing a senior center or other facility primarily used by senior citizens.
(b) This section shall become operative on the date specified in subdivision (c) of Section 22366.
(Repealed (in Sec. 28) and added by Stats. 1995, Ch. 766, Sec. 29. Effective January 1, 1996. This section became operative, by its own provisions, on the date described in Section 22366.) 2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 28 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
■ 22357.1 Decrease Near Children's Playgrounds
Notwithstanding Section 22357, a local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, set a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour on any street, other than a state highway, adjacent to any children’s playground in a public park but only during particular hours or days when children are expected to use the facilities. The 25 mile per hour speed limit shall be effective when signs giving notice of the speed limit are posted.
(Added by Stats. 1989, Ch. 508, Sec. 1.)
■ 22358 Decrease of Local Speed Limits
(a) Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the limit of 65 miles per hour is more than is reasonable or safe upon any portion of any street other than a state highway where the limit of 65 miles per hour is applicable, the local authority may by ordinance determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 60, 55, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30, 25, 20, or 15 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe, which declared prima facie limit shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the street. (b) This section shall become operative on the date specified in subdivision (c) of Section 22366.
(Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 690, Sec. 5 (AB43) Effective Jan. 1, 2022.) ■ 22358.4 Decrease of Local Limits Near Schools or Senior Centers (a) (1) Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour established by paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352 is more than is reasonable or safe, the local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 20 or 15 miles per hour, whichever is justified as the appropriate speed limit by that survey.
(2) An ordinance or resolution adopted under paragraph (1) shall not be effective until appropriate signs giving notice of the speed limit are erected upon the highway and, in the case of a state highway, until the ordinance is approved by the Department of Transportation and the appropriate signs are erected upon the highway. (b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) or any other provision of law, a local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine and declare prima facie speed limits as follows:
(A) A 15 miles per hour prima facie limit in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, when approaching, at a distance of less than 500 feet from, or passing, a school building or the grounds of a school building, contiguous to a highway and posted with a 2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 29 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per hour, while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period.

The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching, at a distance of less than 500 feet from, or passing, school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per hour. (B) A 25 miles per hour prima facie limit in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, when approaching, at a distance of 500 to 1,000 feet from, a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 25 miles per hour, while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching, at a distance of 500 to 1,000 feet from, school grounds that are not
separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other
physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a school warning sign that
indicates a speed limit of 25 miles per hour.
(2) The prima facie limits established under paragraph (1) apply only to highways that meet all of the following conditions:
(A) A maximum of two traffic lanes.
(B) A maximum posted 30 miles per hour prima facie speed limit immediately prior to and after the school zone.
(3) The prima facie limits established under paragraph (1) apply to all lanes of an affected highway, in both directions of travel. (4) When determining the need to lower the prima facie speed limit, the local authority shall take the provisions of Section 627 into consideration.
(5) (A) An ordinance or resolution adopted under paragraph (1) shall not be effective until appropriate signs giving notice of the speed limit are erected upon the highway and, in the case of a state highway, until the ordinance is approved by the Department of Transportation and the appropriate signs are erected upon the highway.
(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), school warning signs indicating a speed limit of 15 miles per hour may be placed at a distance up to 500 feet away from school grounds.
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 30 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), school warning signs indicating a speed limit of 25 miles per hour may be placed at any distance between 500 and 1,000 feet away from the school grounds.
(D) A local authority shall reimburse the Department of Transportation for all costs incurred by the department under this subdivision.
(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 208, Sec. 15. (AB 2906) Effective January 1, 2017.) ■ 22358.5 Downward Speed Zoning
It is the intent of the Legislature that physical
conditions such as width, curvature, grade and
surface conditions, or any other condition readily
apparent to a driver, in the absence of other
factors, would not require special downward
speed zoning, as the basic rule of Section 22350
is sufficient regulation as to such conditions.
(Added by Stats. 1989, Ch. 11.)
■ 22359 Boundary Line Streets
With respect to boundary line streets and
highways where portions thereof are within
different jurisdictions, no ordinance adopted
under Sections 22357 and 22358 shall be
effective as to any such portion until all
authorities having jurisdiction of the portions of
the street concerned have approved the same. This section shall not apply in the case of boundary line streets consisting of separate roadways within different jurisdictions.
(Amended by Stats. 163, Ch. 209.)
■ 22361 Multiple-Lane Highways
On multiple-lane highways with two or more separate roadways different prima facie speed limits may be established for different
roadways under any of the procedures specified
in Sections 22354 to 22359, inclusive.
(Amended by Stats. 1963, Ch. 209.)
■ 40801 Speed Trap Prohibition
No peace officer or other person shall use a
speed trap in arresting, or participating or
assisting in the arrest of, any person for any
alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed
trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed
of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or
prosecution under this code.
(Enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
“No peace officer or
other person shall use a
speed trap in
arresting...any person for
any alleged violation of
this code, nor shall any
speed trap be used in
securing evidence as to
the speed of any
vehicle...”
- Speed Trap Prohibition
California Vehicle Code (CVC)
D17 / Ch3 / Art1 / §40801
“No ordinance...shall be
effective...until all
authorities having
jurisdiction of the portions
of the street concerned
have approved the same.”
(Does not include boundary
line streets consisting of
separate roadways within
different jurisdictions)
- Boundary Line Streets
California Vehicle Code (CVC)
D11 / Ch7 / Art1 / §22359
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 31 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
■ 40802 Speed Traps
(a) A "speed trap" is either of the following:
(1) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.
(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone. (b) (1) For purposes of this section, a local street or road is one that is functionally classified as “local” on the “California Road System Maps,” that are approved by the Federal Highway Administration and maintained by the Department of Transportation. When a street or road does not appear on the “California Road System Maps,” it may be defined as a “local street or road” if it primarily provides access to abutting residential property and meets the following three conditions:
(A) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet.
(B) Not more than one-half of a mile of uninterrupted length.

Interruptions shall include official traffic control signals as defined in Section 445.
(C) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction.
(2) For purposes of this section, “school zone” means that area approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof that is contiguous to a highway and on which is posted a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. “School zone” also includes the area approaching or passing any school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children if that highway is posted with a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign.
(3) For purposes of this section, “senior zone” means that area approaching or passing a senior center building or other facility primarily used by senior citizens, or the grounds thereof that is contiguous to a highway and on which is posted a standard “SENIOR” warning sign, pursuant to Section 22352.
(4) For purposes of this section, “business activity district” means a section of highway described in subdivision (b) of Section 22358.9 2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 32 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
in which a standard 25 miles per hour or 20 miles per hour speed limit sign has been posted pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of that section.
(c) (1) When all of the following criteria are met, paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall be applicable and subdivision (a) shall not be applicable:
(A) When radar is used, the arresting officer has successfully completed a radar operator course of not less than 24 hours on the use of police traffic radar, and the course was
approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(B) When laser or any other electronic device is used to measure the speed of moving objects, the arresting officer has successfully completed the training required in
subparagraph (A) and an additional training course of not less than two hours approved and certified by the
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(C) (i) The prosecution proved that the arresting officer complied with subparagraphs (A) and (B) and that an engineering and traffic survey has been conducted in accordance with
subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2). The prosecution proved that, prior to the officer issuing the notice to appear, the arresting officer established that the radar, laser, or other electronic device conformed to the requirements of
subparagraph (D).
(ii) The prosecution proved the speed of the accused was unsafe for the conditions present at the time of alleged violation unless the citation was for a violation of Section 22349, 22356, or 22406.
(d) The radar, laser, or other electronic device used to measure the speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair and testing or calibration facility.
(2) A "speed trap" is either of the following:
(A) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise
determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be
calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.
(B)
(i) A particular section of a highway or state highway
with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under paragraph (1) of
subdivision (b) of Section 22352, or established
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 33 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if
that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an
engineering and traffic survey conducted within one
of the following time periods, prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit
involves the use of radar or any other electronic
device that measures the speed of moving objects:
(I) Except as specified in subclause (II), seven
years.
(II) If an engineering and traffic survey was
conducted more than seven years prior to the
date of the alleged violation, and a registered
engineer evaluates the section of the
highway and determines that no significant
changes in roadway or traffic conditions have
occurred, including, but not limited to,
changes in adjoining property or land use,
roadway width, or traffic volume, 14 years.
(ii) This subparagraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone, senior zone, business activity
district, or speed limit adopted under Section
22358.7 or 22358.8.
(Amended by Stats. 2022, Ch. 406, Sec. 5. (AB 1938) Effective January 1, 2023.) ■ 40803 Speed Trap Evidence
(a) No evidence as to the speed of a vehicle upon a highway shall be admitted in any court upon the trial of any person in any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle when the evidence is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speedtrap. (b) In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case, that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a speedtrap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802.
(c) When a traffic and engineering survey is required pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802, evidence that a traffic and engineering survey has been conducted within five years of the date of the alleged violation or evidence that the offense was committed on a local street or road as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802 shall constitute a prima facie case that the evidence or testimony is not based upon a speed trap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802.
(Amended by Stats. 1996, Ch. 124, Sec. 147. Effective January 1, 1997.) 2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA
____________________________________________________________________________________ 34 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
8 - References

1. 2023 California Vehicle Codes (CVC)
- Division 1: Words and Phrases Defined. §100-681
- Division 11: Rules of the Road. Chapter 7, Article 1: Generally (Speed Laws). §22348- 22413
- Division 17: Offenses and Prosecution. Chapter 3, Article 1: Prosecutions Under Code. §40800-40808

2. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) Rev. 7, Mar. 2023 - Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as amended for use in California. - Chapter 2B: Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates
- Sections 2B.13 and 2B.18

3. Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA MUTCD, 11th Edition, Dec. 2023)

4. Citywide Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Reports Conducted and Prepared by Minagar & Associates, Inc.

Table 4: Minagar & Associates, Inc.’s 26 Citywide E&TS Projects in Southern California 2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 35 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Appendix A
Map of Recommended Speed Limits
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE
SPRINGS 2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC

SURVEY (E&TS)
MARCH 12,
2024
Proposed Posted Speed Limit
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Appendix B
Summary of Recommended Changes & All
Segments’ Traffic Volume and Collision Data
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

SEGMENT INFORMATION SPEED ZONING

ANALYSIS
Street
No.

Limits Speed Limit (mph)
From To Ex 85th Rec. Change
Ann St. 5 Santa Fe Springs Rd. Greenleaf Ave. 35 39 35 - Borate St. 16 Marquardt Ave. Easterly Terminus 30 31 30 - Clark St. 26 Norwalk Blvd. Easterly Terminus 35 36 35 - Freeway Dr. 40 Excelsior Dr. Alondra Blvd. 40 43 40 -
Iseli Rd. 50 Stage Rd. Rosecrans Ave. 25 31 25 -
Jordan Cir. 53 McCann Dr. McCann Dr. 25 27 25 -
Maryton Ave. / Dinard
Ave. 65 Rosecrans Ave. Rosecrans Ave. 30 33 30 -
Orr & Day Rd. 77 Florence Ave. Mondon Ave. 30 38 30 -
Orr & Day Rd. 78 Florence Ave. Telegraph Rd. 35 44 35 - Orr & Day Rd. 79 Telegraph Rd. Pioneer Blvd. 35 42 35 - Painter Ave. 82 Telegraph Rd. Los Nietos Rd. 30 36 30 - Pike St. 84 NW Terminus SE Terminus 30 32 30 -
Pioneer Blvd. 86 Telegraph Rd. Alburtis Ave. 35 39 35 - Pioneer Blvd. 87 Alburtis Ave. Orr & Day Rd. 35 35 35 - Pioneer Blvd. 88 Orr & Day Rd. Los Nietos Rd. 40 46 40 - Radburn Ave. 90 Borate St. Gannet St. 35 33 35 -
Romandel Ave. 92 Freeman Ave. Los Nietos Rd. 35 32 35 - Washington Blvd. 117 Norwalk Blvd. Broadway Ave. 40 40 40 - Ex: Existing Prima Facie Speed Limit
85th: Eighty-fifth Percentile Survey Speed
Rec.: Recommended Speed Limit
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Traffic Data and Collision Analysis of All Segments
From To No. of
Lanes 1 Division Expected 4
(A/MVM)
Calculated 5
(A/MVM)
Adler Dr. 1 Shoemaker Ave. Leffingwell Ave. 2 U E/W 0.28 1,491 1 1.69 1.31 Alburtis Ave. 2 Telegraph Rd. Pioneer Blvd. 2 U NE/SW 0.28 2,657 0 1.69 0.00 Allport Ave. 3 Slauson Ave. Washington Blvd. 2 U N/S 0.40 1,849 0 1.69 0.00 Alondra Blvd. 4 Shoemaker Ave. Valley View Ave. 4/6 D E/W 1.50 17,477 3 0.89 0.06 Ann St. 5 Santa Fe Springs Rd. Greenleaf Ave. 2 U NW/SE 0.29 2,092 0 1.69 0.00 Ann St. 6 Sorensen Ave. Santa Fe Springs Rd. 2 U NE/SW 0.31 1,032 0 1.69 0.00 Anson Ave. / Gannet
St. 7 Borate St. Valley View Ave. 2 U N/S/E/W 0.66 2,181 0 1.69 0.00 Arctic Cir. 8 Shoemaker Ave. Molette St. 2 U E/W 0.47 972 0 1.69 0.00 Arlee Ave. 9 Pioneer Blvd. Charlesworth Rd. 2 U NE/SW 0.34 1,722 0 1.69 0.00 Beasor Dr. 10 Slauson Ave. Burke St. 2 U NE/SW 0.11 733 0 1.69 0.00 Bell Ranch Dr. 11 Norwalk Blvd. McCann Dr. 2 U E/W 0.70 1,790 0 1.69 0.00 Best Ave. 12 Rosecrans Ave. Pumice St. 2 U N/S 0.27 1,557 0 1.69 0.00 Bloomfield Ave. 13 Imperial Hwy. Lakeland Rd. 4 D N/S 0.99 20,179 0 0.89 0.00 Bloomfield Ave. 14 Lakeland Rd. Telegraph Rd. 4 D N/S 0.69 20,222 3 0.89 0.12 Boer Ave. 15 Norwalk Blvd. Washington Blvd. 2 U NE/SW 0.11 1,526 0 1.69 0.00 Borate St. 16 Marquardt Ave. Easterly Terminus 2 U NW/SE 0.43 1,637 0 1.69 0.00 Broadway Ave. 17 Norwalk Blvd. Washington Blvd. 2 U NE/SW 0.24 8,734 2 1.69 0.52 Burke St. 18 Norwalk Blvd. Dice Rd. 2 U E/W 0.30 1,412 0 1.69 0.00 Burke St. 19 Dice Rd. Sorensen Ave. 2 U E/W 0.29 1,244 0 1.69 0.00 Burke St. 20 Sorensen Ave. Easterly Terminus 2 U E/W 0.26 1,405 0 1.69 0.00 Carmenita Rd. 21 Alondra Blvd. Excelsior Dr. 4/6. D N/S 0.50 27,247 1 0.89 0.04 Carmenita Rd. 22 Rosecrans Ave. Foster Rd. 4 D N/S 0.50 34,521 5 0.89 0.16 Carmenita Rd. 23 Foster Rd. Imperial Hwy. 4 D N/S 0.51 33,232 5 0.89 0.16 Carmenita Rd. 24 Florence Ave. Lanett Ave. 4 D N/S 0.57 25,459 3 0.89 0.11 Chetle Ave. 25 Slauson Ave. Rivera Rd. 2 U N/S 0.37 1,678 0 1.69 0.00

COLLISION ANALYSIS
Number of
Collisions 2,3
Collision Rate
ADT
(vpd) No. Length(mi.)
Direction
of Travel

ROADWAY INFORM ATION
Street
Segment Limits Roadway Type
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
c
From To No. of
Lanes 1 Division Expected 4
(A/MVM)
Calculated 5
(A/MVM)
Clark St. 26 Norw alk Blvd. Easterly Terminus 2 U E/W 0.59 1,302 0 1.69 0.00 Cornet St. 27 Alondra Blvd. Molette St. 2 U N/S 0.25 2,591 0 1.69 0.00 Dice Rd. 28 Los Nietos Rd. Slauson Ave. 2 U N/S 0.69 5,294 3 1.69 0.45 Excelsior Dr. 29 Carmenita Rd. Marquardt Ave. 2 U E/W 0.48 4,675 2 1.69 2.00 Excelsior Dr. 30 Bloomfield Ave. Shoemaker Ave. 4 U E/W 0.50 7,778 0 0.82 0.00 Firestone Blvd. 31 Bloomfield Ave. Carmenita Rd. 2 U NW/SE 1.16 3,027 2 1.69 0.31 Firestone Blvd. 32 Carmenita Rd. Alondra Blvd. 2 U NW/SE 0.63 3,723 0 1.69 0.00 Firestone Blvd. 33 Marquardt Ave. Valley View Ave. 2 U NW/SE 0.55 1,472 0 1.69 0.00 Florence Ave. 34 Santa Ana Fw y. (I5) Pioneer Blvd. 4 D E/W 0.64 44,094 6 0.89 0.12 Florence Ave. 35 Pioneer Blvd. Norw alk Blvd. 4 D E/W 0.52 42,211 5 0.89 0.12 Florence Ave. 36 Norw alk Blvd. Carmenita Rd. 4 D E/W 0.50 33,761 11 0.89 0.36 Forest St. 37 Florence Ave. Clark St. 2 U N/S 0.25 720 0 1.69 0.00 Foster Rd. 38 Carmenita Rd. Marquardt Ave. 2 D E/W 0.49 6,832 0 1.69 0.00 Freeman Ave. 39 Telegraph Rd. Los Nietos Rd. 2 U N/S 0.41 778 0 1.69 0.00 Freeway Dr. 40 Excelsior Dr. Alondra Blvd. 2 U NW/SE 0.89 2,234 0 1.69 0.00 Freeway Dr. 41 Alondra Blvd. Valley View Ave. 2 U NW/SE 0.23 264 0 1.69 0.00 Fulton Wells Ave. 42 Lakeland Rd. Florence Ave. 2 U N/S 0.25 1,378 0 1.69 0.00 Geary Ave. 43 Telegraph Rd. Smith Ave. 2 U N/S 0.42 2,011 0 1.69 0.00 Greenleaf Ave. 44 Telegraph Rd. Los Nietos Rd. 2 D N/S 0.38 12,745 2 1.69 0.23 Greenleaf Ave. 45 Los Nietos Rd. NCL 2 D NE/SW 0.79 10,083 0 1.69 0.00 Greenstone Ave. 46 Lakeland Rd. Southerly Terminus 2 U N/S 0.88 3,091 0 1.69 0.00 Hathaway Dr./
Ontiveros Pl. 47 Florence Ave. Mora Dr. 2 U N/S 0.34 1,480 0 1.69 0.00 Hawkins St. 48 Norw alk Blvd. Easterly Terminus 2 U E/W 0.43 25 0 1.69 0.00 Imperial Hwy. 49 Bloomfield Ave. Shoemaker Ave. 6 D E/W 0.49 42,478 3 0.89 0.08 Iseli Rd. 50 Stage Rd. Rosencranz Ave. 2 U N/S 0.15 1,158 0 1.69 0.00

ROADWAY INFORM ATION COLLISION ANALYSIS
Street
No.

Segment Limits Roadway Type
Direction
of Travel
Length
(mi.)
ADT
(vpd)
Number of
Collisions 2,3
Collision Rate
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

From To No. of
Lanes 1 Division Expected 4
(A/MVM)
Calculated 5
(A/MVM)
Jersey Ave. 51 Telegraph Rd. Pioneer Blvd. 2 U NE/SW 0.27 2,214 0 1.69 0.00 John St. 52 Los Nietos Rd. Sorensen Ave. 2 U NW/SE 0.25 1,571 0 1.69 0.00 Jordan Cir. 53 McCann Dr. McCann Dr. 2 U N/S/E/W 0.35 321 0 1.69 0.00 Lakeland Rd. 54 Norw alk Blvd. BNSF Railroad 2 D E/W 0.65 8,878 1 1.69 0.09 Lakeland Rd. 55 BNSF Railroad Carmenita Rd. 2 D/U E/W 0.85 4,701 0 1.69 0.00 Larwin Cir. 56 Marquardt Ave. Marquardt Ave. 2 U N/S/E/W 0.30 386 0 1.69 0.00 Laurel Ave. 57 Lakeland Rd. Northerly Terminus 2 U N/S 0.42 2,798 0 1.69 0.00 Leffingwell Ave. 58 Imperial Hw y. Orden Dr. 2 U N/S 0.36 2,683 0 1.69 0.00 Los Nietos Rd. 59 Pioneer Blvd. Norw alk Blvd. 4 D/U NW/SE 0.59 9,614 0 0.82 0.00 Los Nietos Rd. 60 Norw alk Blvd. Santa Fe Springs
Rd. 2/4 U NW/SE 0.82 17,786 1 0.82 0.04
Los Nietos Rd. 61 Santa Fe Springs
Rd. Painter Ave. 2 D NW/SE 0.59 15,162 3 1.69 0.18
Marquardt Ave. 62 Freew ay Dr. Coyote Creek
Channel 2 D N/S 0.52 1,365 0 1.69 0.00
Marquardt Ave. 63 Rosecrans Ave. Coyote Creek
Channel 2 U N/S 0.32 1,317 1 1.69 1.30
Marquardt Ave. 64 Rosecrans Ave. Imperial Hw y. 2 D N/S 1.01 3,852 0 1.69 0.00 Maryton Ave. / Dinard Ave. 65 Rosecrans Ave. Rosecrans Ave. 2 U N/S/E/W 0.45 1,123 0 1.69 0.00 Matern Pl. 66 Telegraph Rd. Geary Ave. 2 U N/S/E/W 0.25 1,435 0 1.69 0.00 McCann Dr. 67 Norw alk Blvd. Santa Fe Springs
Rd. 2 U E/W 0.55 2,094 1 1.69 0.48
Meyer Rd. 68 Shoemaker Ave. Mayberry Park 4 D E/SW 0.20 7,313 0 0.89 0.00 Molette St. 69 Shoemaker Ave. Arctic Cir. 2 U E/W 0.42 1,484 0 1.69 0.00 Mora Dr. 70 Slusher Dr. Norw alk Blvd. 2 U E/W 0.36 1,753 0 1.69 0.00 Norwalk Blvd. 71 Lakeland Rd. Florence Ave. 4 D N/S 0.26 20,418 2 0.89 0.21 Norwalk Blvd. 72 Florence Ave. Telegraph Rd. 4 D N/S 0.44 18,496 0 0.89 0.00 Norwalk Blvd. 73 Telegraph Rd. Los Nietos Rd. 4 D N/S 1.00 18,880 0 0.89 0.00 Norwalk Blvd. 74 Los Nietos Rd. Perkins Ave. 4 D N/S 0.16 16,331 0 0.89 0.00 Norwalk Blvd. 75 Washington Blvd. ≈160' s/o Boer 4 D NW/SE 0.16 17,635 3 0.89 0.58

COLLISION ANALYSIS
Street
No.

Segment Limits Roadway Type
Direction
of Travel
Length
(mi.)
ADT
(vpd)
Number of
Collisions 2,3
Collision Rate

ROADWAY INFORM ATION
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
*No ADT Data available due to construction at the time of data collection.

From To No. of
Lanes 1 Division Expected 4
(A/MVM)
Calculated 5
(A/MVM)
Orden Dr. 76 Leffingw ell Ave. Easterly Terminus 2 U E/W 0.40 2,614 0 1.69 0.00 Orr & Day Rd. 77 Florence Ave. Mondon Ave. 2 U N/S 0.23 1,355 0 1.69 0.00 Orr & Day Rd. 78 Florence Ave. Telegraph Rd. 4 D N/S 0.93 13,826 1 0.89 0.04 Orr & Day Rd. 79 Telegraph Rd. Pioneer Blvd. 4 D NE/SW 0.40 12,980 0 0.89 0.00 Pacific St. 80 Norw alk Blvd. Pike St. 2 U E/W 0.19 1,952 0 1.69 0.00 Painter Ave. 81 Lakeland Rd. Telegraph Rd. 2 U N/S 0.69 5,108 0 1.69 0.00 Painter Ave. 82 Telegraph Rd. Los Nietos Rd. 4 U N/S 0.17 17,292 1 0.82 0.19 Painter Ave. 83 Los Nietos Rd. Reis St. 2 U NE/SW 0.41 4,186 0 1.69 0.00 Pike St. 84 NW Terminus SE Terminus 2 U NW/SE 0.59 1,049 0 1.69 0.00 Pioneer Blvd. 85 Lakeland Rd. Telegraph Rd. 4 D N/S 0.95 12,741 6 0.89 0.27 Pioneer Blvd. 86 Telegraph Rd. Alburtis Ave. 4 D N/S 0.43 6,557 0 0.89 0.00 Pioneer Blvd. 87 Alburtis Ave. Orr & Day Rd. 4 D NW/SE 0.39 3,992 0 0.89 0.00 Pioneer Blvd. 88 Orr & Day Rd. Los Nietos Rd. 4 D NE/SW 0.54 13,740 2 0.89 0.15 Pioneer Blvd. 89 Los Nietos Rd. Rivera Rd. 4 U/D N/S 0.23 17,859 1 0.82 0.13 Radburn Ave. 90 Borate St. Gannet St. 2 U N/S 0.20 773 0 1.69 0.00 Rivera Rd. 91 Sorensen Ave. Chetle Ave. 2 U E/W 0.17 3,495 0 1.69 0.00 Romandel Ave. 92 Freeman Ave. Los Nietos Rd. 2 U N/S 0.48 819 0 1.69 0.00 Rosecrans Ave. 93 Best Ave. Valley View Ave. 4 D E/W 0.99 * 5 0.89 N/A Santa Fe Springs Rd. 94 Telegraph Rd. Los Nietos Rd. 4 D N/S 0.62 21,255 1 0.89 0.04 Santa Fe Springs Rd. 95 Los Nietos Rd. Union Pacific
Railroad 4 D NE/SW 0.63 16,299 0 0.89 0.00
Shoemaker Ave. 96 Excelsior Dr. Firestone Blvd. 4/2. U N/S 0.20 11,579 1 0.82 0.24 Shoemaker Ave. 97 Adler Dr. Imperial Hw y. 2 U N/S 0.14 4,637 0 1.69 0.00 Shoemaker Ave. 98 Lakeland Rd. Telegraph Rd. 4 D N/S 0.68 15,641 1 0.89 0.05 Shoemaker Ave. 99 Imperial Hw y. Lakeland Rd. 4 U N/S 1.02 9,654 1 0.82 0.06 Slauson Ave. 100 Norw alk Blvd. Sorensen Ave. 6 D E/W 0.59 31,905 2 0.89 0.06

ROADWAY INFORM ATION COLLISION ANALYSIS
Street
No.

Segment Limits Roadway Type
Direction
of Travel
Length
(mi.)
ADT
(vpd)
Number of
Collisions 2,3
Collision Rate
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

From To No. of
Lanes 1 Division Expected 4
(A/MVM)
Calculated 5
(A/MVM)
Slauson Ave. 101 Sorensen Ave. Santa Fe Springs
Rd. 6 D NW/SE 0.63 30,031 3 0.89 0.09
Slusher Dr. 102 Heritage Park Dr. Southerly Terminus 2 U N/S 0.30 584 0 1.69 0.00 Smith Ave. 103 Arlee Ave. Norw alk Blvd. 2 U E/W 0.35 2,427 0 1.69 0.00 Sorensen Ave. 104 Santa Fe Springs
Rd. Slauson Ave. 2 D N/S 0.91 8,462 0 1.69 0.00
Sorensen Ave. 105 Slauson Ave. Washington Blvd. 4 D N/S 0.91 17,624 0 0.89 0.00 Spring Ave. 106 Excelsior Dr. Northerly Terminus 2 U N/S 0.23 1,674 0 1.69 0.00 Spring Ave. 107 Freew ay Dr. Excelsior Dr. 2 U N/S 0.30 1,070 0 1.69 0.00 Springdale Ave. 108 Florence Ave. Clark St. 2 U N/S 0.25 709 0 1.69 0.00 Stage Rd. 109 Rosecrans Ave. Valley View Ave. 2 U NW/SE 0.58 1,596 0 1.69 0.00 Sunshine Ave. 110 Greenstone Ave. Shoemaker Ave. 2 U E/W 0.17 2,917 0 1.69 0.00 Telegraph Rd. 111 WCL Pioneer Blvd. 6 D NW/SE 0.79 38,894 8 0.89 0.14 Telegraph Rd. 112 Pioneer Blvd. Norw alk Blvd. 6 D NW/SE 0.67 36,554 2 0.89 0.04 Telegraph Rd. 113 Norw alk Blvd. Greenleaf/Shoemak
er 6 D E/W 1.00 25,786 2 0.89 0.04
Telegraph Rd. 114 Greenleaf/Shoemake
r Gunn Ave. 6 D E/W 1.08 26,799 6 0.89 0.11
Valley View Ave. 115 Rosecrans Ave. Alondra Blvd. 4 D N/S 1.00 33,281 4 0.89 0.07 Valley View Ave. 116 Alondra Blvd. Firestone Blvd. (s/o I-5) 4 U N/S 0.43 35,307 1 0.82 0.04
Washington Blvd. 117 Norw alk Blvd. Broadw ay Ave. 4 D NW/SE 0.30 55,329 3 0.89 0.10 Washington Blvd. 118 Broadw ay Ave. ECL 4 D NW/SE 0.82 34,768 4 0.89 0.08

ROADWAY INFORM ATION COLLISION ANALYSIS
Street
No.

Segment Limits Roadway Type
Direction
of Travel
Length
(mi.)
ADT
(vpd)
Number of
Collisions 2,3
Collision Rate
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Appendix C
Roadway Segment Analysis of Factors Not
Readily Apparent and Traffic Data Summary
Sheets
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 1 DATE: 2/22/2024 SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 1:35 PM - 2:20 PM CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 39 MPH
10 MPH Pace 29-38 MPH
Percent in Pace 68%
Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 0
Total Accidents 0
Expected Collision Rate 1.69 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 0.00 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic 2092 Vehicles Per Day
Lane Configuration 1 Lane Per Direction
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment 0.28 Miles
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land U
Recommended Speed Limit 35 MPH
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
Ann St. Santa Fe Springs Rd. to Greenleaf Ave.

Stop - Santa Fe Springs Rd, Greenleaf Ave
None
None
Yes
Few Observed
Railroad Crossing Present
No Stopping Anytime
No
No
Good
Good
No/Yes (Warehouses)
Yes
Industrial
No Change
Due to current 85th percentile speed, presence of truck traffic MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

I, Fred Minagar do herby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey for the City of Solana Beach was performed under my supervision. I certify that I am both experienced in performing surveys of this type and am duly registered in the State of California as a professional engineer. The survey has been conducted in strict compliance with guidelines contained in the most current versions of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Data contained in this report represents a true and accurate description of traffic conditions existing on Solana Beach's streets.

I, Fred Minagar do herby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey for the City of Yucaipa was performed under my supervision. I certify that I am both experienced in performing surveys of this type and am duly registered in the State of California as a professional engineer. The survey has been conducted in strict compliance with guidelines contained in the most current versions of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Data contained in this report represents a true and accurate description of traffic conditions existing on Yucaipa's streets. 2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 16 DATE: 2/21/2024 SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 10:35 AM - 12:00 PM CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 31 MPH
10 MPH Pace 18-27 MPH
Percent in Pace 74%
Posted Speed Limit 30 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 0
Total Accidents 0
Expected Collision Rate 1.69 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 0.00 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
Lane Configuration
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land U
Recommended Speed Limit
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
1637 Vehicles Per Day
Borate St. Marquardt Ave to easterly terminus
1 Lane Per Direction
Stop - Marquardt Ave
No
No
Yes
Partial
Areas of no parking Tuesday 8AM - 12PM, No Stopping Anytime vehicles over 6000 lbs

0.43 Miles
None
Minimal
Good
Good
No/Yes (Warehouses)
Yes
Two (2) Railroad Crossings Present
Industrial
30 MPH
No Change
Due to current 85th percentile speed
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 26 DATE: 2/22/2024 SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 9:00 AM - 10:10 AM CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 36 MPH
10 MPH Pace 28-37 MPH
Percent in Pace 71%
Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 0
Total Accidents 0
Expected Collision Rate 1.69 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 0.00 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
Lane Configuration
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land U
Recommended Speed Limit
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
1302 Vehicles Per Day
Clark St Norwalk Blvd to easterly terminus
1 Lane Per Direction
Stop - Norwalk Blvd, Springdale Ave, Forest St, Bloomfield Ave None
Few observed
No
Yes
Areas of no stopping

0.59 Miles
None
None
Good
Good
Yes/Yes
Yes
Commercial
35 MPH
No Change
Due to current 85th percentile speed
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 40 DATE: 2/21/2024 SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 9:50 AM - 10:25 AM CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 43 MPH
10 MPH Pace 29-38 MPH
Percent in Pace 68%
Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 3
Total Accidents 0
Expected Collision Rate 0.89 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 0.83 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
Lane Configuration
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land U
Recommended Speed Limit
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
Freeway Dr Excelsior Dr to Alondra Blvd
2234 Vehicles Per Day
1 Lane Per Direction
Stop - Alondra Blvd, Excelsior Dr
At Alondra Blvd, Excelsior Dr
Permitted but None Observed
Yes
No

0.89 Miles
None
Minimal
Good
Good
Partial/Yes
Yes
Industrial
40 MPH
No Change
Due to current 85th percentile speed
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 50 DATE: SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 31 MPH
10 MPH Pace 22-31 MPH
Percent in Pace 74%
Posted Speed Limit 25 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 0
Total Accidents 0
Expected Collision Rate 1.69 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 0.00 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
Lane Configuration
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land U
Recommended Speed Limit
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
Iseli Rd Stage Rd to Rosecrans Ave
1158 Vehicles Per Day
1 Lane Per Direction
Stop - Rosecrans Ave, Stage Rd
None
No/No
Yes
Yes

0.15 Miles
None
None
Good
Good
No/No
Yes
Industrial
25 MPH
No Change
Retain currently adopted speed limit due to current 85th percentile speed and adjacent land use
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 53 DATE: 2/22/2024 SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 10:15 AM - 12:20 AM CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 27 MiPH
10 MPH Pace 21-30 MPH
Percent in Pace 78%
Posted Speed Limit 25 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 0
Total Accidents 0
Expected Collision Rate 1.69 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 0.00 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
Lane Configuration
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land Use
Recommended Speed Limit
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
321 Vehicles Per Day
1 Lane Per Direction
Jordon Circle McCann Dr to McCann Dr
None
None
No/No
Yes
Yes

0.35 Miles
None
Two (2) 90 Degree Turns
Good
Good/Fair
No/Yes (Warehouses)
Yes
Industrial
25 MPH
No Change
Due to current 85th percentile speed and low Average Daily Traffic (ADT) MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 68 DATE: 2/21/2024 SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 2:05 PM - 3:35 PM CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 33 MPH
10 MPH Pace 23-32 MPH
Percent in Pace 78%
Posted Speed Limit 30 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 0
Total Accidents 0
Expected Collision Rate 1.69 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 0.00 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
Lane Configuration
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land Use
Recommended Speed Limit
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
1123 Vehicles Per Day
1 Lane Per Direction
Maryton Ave. / Dinard Ave. Rosecrans Ave to Rosecrans Ave Stop - Rosecrans Ave (2)
None
No/No
No
Yes
No Parking Any Time Vehicles over 6000 LBS

0.45 Miles
None
Two (2) 90 Degree Turns, "S" curve on Dinard Ave
Good
Fair
Partial/Yes
Yes
Business
30 MPH
No Change
Due to current 85th percentile speed, curvature
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 77 DATE: 2/1/2024 SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 1:05 PM - 3:10 PM CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 38 MPH
10 MPH Pace 28-37 MPH
Percent in Pace 75%
Posted Speed Limit 30 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 0
Total Accidents 0
Expected Collision Rate 1.69 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 0.00 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
Lane Configuration
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land Use
Recommended Speed Limit
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
1355 Vehicles Per Day
1 Lane Per Direction
Orr & Day Rd. Florence Ave to Mondon Dr
Signal - Florence Ave
At Florence Ave
None observed
No
No
Areas of no stopping anytime

0.13 Miles
None
Slight "C" curve leading into Mondon Dr
Good
Poor
None/Yes
Yes
Residential, Commercial
30 MPH
No Change
Retain currently adopted speed limit due to current 85th percentile speed, curvature, adjacent land use
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 78 DATE: 2/1/2024 SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 11:00 AM - 11:20 AM CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 44 MPH
10 MPH Pace 33-42 MPH
Percent in Pace 68%
Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 3
Total Accidents 18
Expected Collision Rate 0.89 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 0.13 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
Lane Configuration
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land Use
Recommended Speed Limit
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
13826 Vehicles Per Day
2 Lanes Per Direction
Orr & Day Rd. Florence Ave to Telegraph Rd
Signal - Florence Ave, Telegraph Rd
Stop - Clarkman St, Dunning St, Joslin St (sch), Davenrich St At Clarkman St, Dunning St, Joslin St (sch), Davenrich St Permitted but Few Observed
No
Yes

0.93 Miles
None
Minimal
Good
Good
Yes/Yes
Yes
Residential, Civic/Institutional
35 MPH
No Change
Retain currently adopted speed limit due to current 85th percentile speed, Adjacent Land Uses (School, Religious Institution), and Collision History MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 79 DATE: 2/1/2024 SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 11:20 AM - 11:40 AM CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 42 MPH
10 MPH Pace 34-43 MPH
Percent in Pace 88%
Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 2
Total Accidents 7
Expected Collision Rate 0.89 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 0.00 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
Lane Configuration
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land Use
Recommended Speed Limit
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
Telegraph Ave to Pioneer Blvd
12980 Vehicles Per Day
2 Lanes Per Direction
Orr & Day Rd.

Signal - Telegraph Rd
Stop - Whiteland St
At Telegraph Rd, Whiteland St
Permitted but None Observed
No
Yes

0.4 Miles
None
Minimal
Good
Good
Yes/Yes
Yes
Residential
35 MPH
No Change
Retain currently adopted speed limit due to current 85th percentile speed, adjacent residential land uses, and presence of driveways MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 82 DATE: 2/21/2024 SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 3:35 PM - 4:00 PM CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 36 MPH
10 MPH Pace 28-37 MPH
Percent in Pace 87%
Posted Speed Limit 30 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 0
Total Accidents 2
Expected Collision Rate 0.89 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 0.00 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
Lane Configuration
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land Use
Recommended Speed Limit
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
17292 Vehicles Per Day
2 Lanes Per Direction
Painter Ave Telegraph Rd to Los Nietos Rd
Signal - Telegraph Rd
At Telegraph Rd
Permittted but None Observed
No
No

0.17 Miles
None
None
Good
Good
Yes/No
Yes
0 Commercial
30 MPH
No Change
Retain currently adopted speed limit due to current 85th percentile speed MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 84 DATE: 2/22/2024 SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 12:25 PM - 1:25 PM CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 32 MPH
10 MPH Pace 24-33 MPH
Percent in Pace 74%
Posted Speed Limit 30 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 0
Total Accidents 1
Expected Collision Rate 1.69 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 0.00 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
Lane Configuration
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land Use
Recommended Speed Limit
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
1049 Vehicles Per Day
1 Lane Per Direction
Pike St Northwest terminus to southeast terminus
Stop - Norwalk Blvd
None
No/No
Yes
Yes

0.59 Miles
None
Minimal, One (1) 90 Degree Turn
Good
Good
No/Yes
Yes
Industrial
30 MPH
No Change
Due to current 85th percentile speed and presence of driveways MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 86 DATE: 2/21/2024 SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 12:40 PM - 1:25 PM CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 39 MPH
10 MPH Pace 31-40 MPH
Percent in Pace 74%
Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 0
Total Accidents 4
Expected Collision Rate 1.69 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 0.00 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
Lane Configuration
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land Use
Recommended Speed Limit
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
6557 Vehicles Per Day
2 Lane Per Direction
Pioneer Blvd Telegraph Rd to Alburtis Ave
Signal - Telegraph Rd
Stop - Alburtis Ave
At Alburtis Ave
Permitted but None Observed
No
Yes

0.43 Miles
None
"C" Curve
Good
Good
Yes/Yes
Yes
Residential, Business
35 MPH
No Change
Due to current 85th percentile speed, curvature, adjacent residential land uses, and presence of driveways
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 87 DATE: 2/1/2024 SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 12:00 PM - 12:40 PM CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 35 MPH
10 MPH Pace 28-37 MPH
Percent in Pace 84%
Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 0
Total Accidents 4
Expected Collision Rate 1.69 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 0.00 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
Lane Configuration
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land Use
Recommended Speed Limit
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
3992 Vehicles Per Day
2 Lane Per Direction
Pioneer Blvd Alburtis Ave to Orr and Day Rd
Stop - Alburtis Ave, Jersey Ave, Houghton Ave, Orr and Day Rd At Jersey Ave, Houghton Ave
Yes/Yes
No
Yes

0.39 Miles
None
Moderate
Good
Good
Yes/Yes
Yes
Residential
35 MPH
No Change
Due to current 85th percentile speed, adjacent residential land use, and presence of driveways
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 88 DATE: SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 46 MPH
10 MPH Pace 37-46 MPH
Percent in Pace 73%
Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 3
Total Accidents 7
Expected Collision Rate 1.69 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 0.23 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
Lane Configuration
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land Use
Recommended Speed Limit
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
Orr and Day Rd to Los Nietos Rd
13740 Vehicles Per Day
2 Lane Per Direction
Pioneer Blvd
Stop - Orr and Day, Charlesworth Rd
Signal - Broaded St, Los Nietos Rd
At Charlesworth Rd, Broaded St, Los Nietos Rd
Yes/Yes
No
Yes

0.51 Miles
None
None
Good
Good
Partial/Yes
Yes
Residential, Commercial
40 MPH
No Change
Retain currently adopted speed limit due to current 85th percentile speed and collision history
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 90 DATE: 2/21/2024 SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 10:35 AM - 12:45 PM CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 33 MPH
10 MPH Pace 24-33 MPH
Percent in Pace 73%
Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 0
Total Accidents 0
Expected Collision Rate 1.69 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 0.00 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
Lane Configuration
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land Use
Recommended Speed Limit
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
Radburn Ave Borate St to Gannet St
1 Lane Per Direction
Stop - Gannet St, Borate St
773 Vehicles Per Day
No/No
Yes
None

0.2 Miles
None
Yes
No/Yes
None
Good
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

No Change
Due to current 85th percentile speed
Industrial
35 MPH
No
Good
I, Fred Minagar do herby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey for the City of Solana Beach was performed under my supervision. I certify that I am both experienced in performing surveys of this type and am duly registered in the State of California as a professional engineer. The survey has been conducted in strict compliance with guidelines contained in the most current versions of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Data contained in this report represents a true and accurate description of traffic conditions existing on Solana Beach's streets.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 92 DATE: 2/22/2024 SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 2:20 PM - 4:00 PM CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 32 MPH
10 MPH Pace 21-30 MPH
Percent in Pace 70%
Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 0
Total Accidents 0
Expected Collision Rate 1.69 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 2.79 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
Lane Configuration
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land Use
Recommended Speed Limit
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
1 Lane Per Direction
Stop - Los Nietos Rd
819 Vehicles Per Day
No/No
Yes
None

0.48 Miles
None
Yes
Fair
Partial/Yes
Moderate
Fair
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Romandel Ave Freeman Ave to Los Nietos Rd
No Change
Due to current 85th percentile speed
Industrial
35 MPH
Yes
I, Fred Minagar do herby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey for the City of Solana Beach was performed under my supervision. I certify that I am both experienced in performing surveys of this type and am duly registered in the State of California as a professional engineer. The survey has been conducted in strict compliance with guidelines contained in the most current versions of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Data contained in this report represents a true and accurate description of traffic conditions existing on Solana Beach's streets.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
2024 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 117
DATE: 2/21/2024 SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 1:30 PM - 1:50 PM CHECK BY: N Hoang
1 - PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile 40 MPH
10 MPH Pace 29-38 MPH
Percent in Pace 76%
Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed 60
Speed-Related Accidents 5
Total Accidents 21
Expected Collision Rate 1.69 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate 0.17 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
Lane Configuration
Traffic Controls
Crosswalks
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Truck Traffic
On-Street Parking
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Lateral Visibility
Road Conditions
Sidewalk/Driveways
Street Lighting
Other
Adjacent Land Use
Recommended Speed Limit
Speed Limit Change
Justification

CERTIFICATION
RCE #53466 2/28/2024
Fred Minagar State Registration No. Date
Washington Blvd Norwalk Blvd to Broadway Ave
2 Lane Per Direction
55329 Vehicles Per Day
None observed
No
Signal - Broadway Ave, Norwalk Blvd
At Norwalk Blvd, Broadway Blvd

0.3 Miles
None
No
Areas of no stopping anytime
Fair
Yes/Yes
None
Good
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

No Change
Due to current 85th percentile speed
Commercial
40 MPH
Yes
I, Fred Minagar do herby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey for the City of Solana Beach was performed under my supervision. I certify that I am both experienced in performing surveys of this type and am duly registered in the State of California as a professional engineer. The survey has been conducted in strict compliance with guidelines contained in the most current versions of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Data contained in this report represents a true and accurate description of traffic conditions existing on Solana Beach's streets.

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Appendix D
Radar Speed Survey Sheets
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2024 CITYWIDE

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Appendix E
24-Hour Machine Counts (ADT) Traffic Volume Data

Page 1 ends

Santa Fe Springs City CouncilApril 16, 2024

Santa Fe Springs City Council
April 16, 2024