Wheatland City Council
February 10, 2026

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
February 10, 2026 at 6:00 PM
Wheatland Community Center: 101 C Street, Wheatland, CA 95692 City Council meetings are held in-person and are no longer available via ZOOM.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact City Hall at (530) 633-2761 or (530) 633-9102 (fax). Requests must be made as early as possible and at least one full business day before the start of the meeting.

1. OPENING MATTERS

1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

2. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, the public is permitted to address the City Council on non-agendized items.

COMMENTS SHOULD NOT EXCEED THREE (3) MINUTES. In accordance with State Law, however, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Council may respond to statements made or questions asked or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Any member of the public may contact the City Clerk’s Office related to the proper procedure to place an item on a future City Council agenda. The exceptions under which the Council MAY discuss and/or act on items not appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code §54954.2(b) (1) (2) (3)

3. CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1 Minutes - January 27, 2026

3.2 Investment Report for the Quarter Ended December 31, 2025

3.3 Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Approving Appointments to the Feather River Air Quality Management District Board of Directors

3.4 Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Adopting the Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan

4. PUBLIC HEARING

5. PRESENTATIONS
1 6. REGULAR CALENDAR

6.1 Authorization to Execute Agreement with HdL Coren & Cone for Property Tax Management and Information Services

6.2 Resolution Directing Preparation of the Engineer’s Report for the Wheatland-Premier Grove Landscaping and Lighting District

6.3 Annual Review of City of Wheatland’s Investment Policy

6.4 Update on Wheatland Aquatic Center Funding

7. REPORTS

8. CLOSED SESSION

9. ADJOURN

AGENDA POSTING CERTIFICATION
I, Josie Camacho, City Clerk for the City of Wheatland, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I caused the above agenda to be posted at City of Wheatland City Hall at 111 C Street, Wheatland, CA 95692 and on the City website at www.wheatland.ca.gov.

Date: February 5, 2026 /s/ Josie Camacho, City Clerk
2 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
January 27, 2026 at 6:00 PM
Wheatland Community Center: 101 C Street, Wheatland, CA 95692

1. OPENING MATTERS

1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call - 6:00 p.m. - All present.

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance - Performed.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT - None.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1 Minutes - January 13, 2026
Motion to approve made by Councilmember Teter, Seconded by Councilmember B. Abe Ayes: Teter, B. Abe, J. Abe, McIntosh, Coe
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
Motion passes 5-0-0-0

4. PUBLIC HEARING - None.

5. PRESENTATIONS - None.

6. REGULAR CALENDAR

6.1 Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Execution of Agreements Between Olivehurst Public Utility District and City of Wheatland Regarding Provision of Regional Wastewater Treatment Services – Res. 26-03
Motion to approve made by Councilmember Teter, Seconded by Councilmember B. Abe Ayes: Teter, B. Abe, J. Abe, McIntosh, Coe
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
Motion passes 5-0-0-0
3 Section 3, Item # 3.1

6.2 Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Amendment to Contract with Interwest Consulting Group for Preparation of the Wheatland General Plan Update. - Res. 26-04
Motion to approve made by Councilmember Teter, Seconded by Councilmember B. Abe Ayes: Teter, B. Abe, J. Abe, McIntosh, Coe
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
Motion passes 5-0-0-0

7. REPORTS

8. CLOSED SESSION - 7:08 p.m.

8.1 Public Employment (California Government Code Section 54957) Title: City Manager Reconvened at 7:39 p.m. with no reportable action.

9. ADJOURN - 7:40 p.m.

MINUTES CERTIFICATION
I, Josie Camacho, City Clerk for the City of Wheatland, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the above minutes are a true depiction of all actions taken at the City Council meeting held on the first date above written at Wheatland Community Center, 101 C Street, CA.

Date: January 28, 2026 /s/ Josie Camacho, City Clerk
4 Section 3, Item # 3.1
City Council Meeting Staff Report
Meeting Date: February 10, 2026
SUBJECT:

Investment Report for the Quarter Ended December 31, 2025 PREPARED BY: Susan Mahoney, Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended December 31, 2025.

DISCUSSION:

The City’s Investment objectives are governed by State law and the City’s adopted Investment Policy.

The Quarterly Investment Report provides information regarding the City’s investments in accordance with the Investment Policy.

The attached report is a summary of all cash and investment activity for the quarter ending December 31, 2025. The City follows the practice of combining cash and investments for all funds. Except for the Pool Operations Fund, interest earned on combined cash and investments is allocated quarterly to the various funds based on the respective fund’s cash balance. Interest earned on the cash balance in the Pool Operations Fund is calculated solely on LAIF (State of California Local Agency Investment Fund) earnings.

Cash - Total cash for all funds increased $502,397 in the quarter ending December 31, 2025. This increase is mainly due to the Yuba Water District reimbursement of Regional Sewer Project expenses and Supplemental Law Enforcement revenue.

Interest Earnings - Total interest earnings for the quarter were $185,825; a decrease of $6,298 over the same quarter in 2024. Most of the City’s idle cash is invested in LAIF. The LAIF interest rate for the quarter ending December 31 was 4.20%, down from 4.34% in September 2025. The average rate of return for the City’s investments in CDs and federal securities was 4.23% for the quarter.

Investment Activity - The City uses a laddered investment strategy with a current maximum duration of four years. During the quarter two CDs matured, one CD was purchased, and one medium-term note was purchased. As interest rates continue to drop, the City will invest the majority of matured CDs in LAIF as their rates will be higher than market rates. Details are included in the accompanying report.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This report is for information only.

ATTACHMENT:

A. Quarterly Investment Report as of December 31, 2025. 5 Section 3, Item # 3.2
Attachment 'A'
6 Section 3, Item # 3.2
7 Section 3, Item # 3.2
8 Section 3, Item # 3.2
City Council Meeting Staff Report
Meeting Date: February 10, 2026
SUBJECT: Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Approving Appointments to the Feather River Air Quality Management District Board of Directors PREPARED BY: Bill Zenoni, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Wheatland City Council consider adoption of a resolution approving appointments to the Feather River Air Quality Management District Board of Directors for the 2026 calendar year.

DISCUSSION:

The Feather River Air Quality Management District is a bi-county District that was formed in 1991 to administer local, state and federal air quality management programs for Yuba and Sutter counties. The mission of the Feather River Air Quality Management District is to promote and improve the air quality of Yuba and Sutter counties.

The Feather River Air Quality Management District is governed by a nine-member Board of Directors.

One member is appointed from each city and two members are appointed from each county. On even numbered years, an additional member is appointed from Sutter County and on odd numbered years, an additional member is appointed from Yuba County. Annually, each city approves the appointment of the directors of the other participating cities (Marysville, Yuba City and Live Oak).

The Wheatland City Council, on January 13, 2026, approved the appointment of Brian Abe and John Abe as the representative Feather River Air Quality Management District board member and alternate respectively for the City of Wheatland for the 2026 calendar year. The District is now requesting that the Wheatland City Council approve the appointments made by the cities of Marysville, Yuba City and Live Oak. Those three municipalities will in turn consider approval of the board appointments for the other three cities, including Wheatland.

The Feather River Air Quality Management District Board of Directors appointments presented for the Wheatland City Council approval are:

City of Marysville
Councilmember Stuart Gilchrist (Director)
Councilmember Bruce Buttacavoli (Alternate)
City of Yuba City
Councilmember Mike Pasquale (Director)
Councilmember Wade Kirchner (Alternate)
City of Live Oak
9 Section 3, Item # 3.3
Councilmember Aaron Pamma (Director)
Councilmember Jeremy Chapdelaine (Alternate)
FISCAL IMPACT:

None
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution
B. Letter from Feather River Air Quality Management District 10 Section 3, Item # 3.3
RESOLUTIUON NO. 26-XX
Attachment ‘A’
RESOLUTION NO. 26-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEATLAND APPROVING

APPOINTMENTS TO THE FEATHER RIVER AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
WHEREAS, the Feather River Air Quality Management District is a bi-county District that was formed in 1991 to administer local, state and federal air quality management programs for Yuba and Sutter counties; and
WHEREAS, the Feather River Air Quality Management District is governed by a ninemember Board of Directors; and WHEREAS, the Wheatland City Council, on January 13, 2026, approved the appointment of Brian Abe and John Abe as the representative Feather River Air Quality Management District board member and alternate respectively for the City of Wheatland for the 2026 calendar year; and
WHEREAS, the Feather River Air Quality Management District has requested that the Wheatland City Council approve the board member appointments made by the cities of Marysville, Yuba City and Live Oak.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wheatland as follows:

1. The following appointments to the Feather River Air Quality Management District Board of Directors are approved for the 2026 calendar year:

City of Marysville
Councilmember Stuart Gilchrist (Director)
Councilmember Bruce Buttacavoli (Alternate)
City of Yuba City
Councilmember Mike Pasquale (Director)
Councilmember Wade Kirchner (Alternate)
City of Live Oak
Councilmember Aaron Pamma (Director)
Councilmember Jeremy Chapdelaine (Alternate)
11 Section 3, Item # 3.3
RESOLUTIUON NO. 26-XX
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Wheatland at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of February 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

The foregoing resolution is hereby approved.
________________________
Robert Coe, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Josie Camacho, City Clerk
12 Section 3, Item # 3.3
Attachment 'B'
13 Section 3, Item # 3.3

CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 10, 2026
SUBJECT: Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Adopting the Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan
PREPARED BY: Dane H. Schilling, City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:

City staff recommends that the Wheatland City Council adopt a resolution adopting the Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan.

DISCUSSION:

In 2022 the agencies of Yuba County, Sutter County, Yuba City, Marysville, Wheatland and Live Oak collaborated to submit a joint regional application to the Safe Streets and Roads for All program (SS4A) seeking funds for the creation of a Regional Safety Action Plan (“RSAP”) to access roadway safety for all agencies in Yuba and Sutter Counties with Yuba County offering to be the lead agency for the group.

The goal of the RSAP is to create a unified vision and strategy to improve roadway safety, in partnership with local communities, to prevent traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries for all. This can be accomplished by gathering traffic and collision data, various planning documents, community input and local agency input as a basis for developing a regional plan.

In February 2023, the Yuba-Sutter participants were notified that $800,000 in funding had been awarded by the California Department of Transportation for the RSAP. Fehr & Peers was selected as the best qualified consultant to lead the group into developing the RSAP. The group of agencies began meeting in the Spring of 2024 and other interested parties such as law enforcement officials, special interest groups, school officials were invited into the working groups.

On February 25, 2025, the Wheatland City Council received a presentation from RSAP consultants preparing the Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan. The presentation was given just as the community engagement phase of the effort was beginning. Several workshops were held in various locations in Yuba and Sutter Counties, and input was also solicited through social media platforms.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact expected with the proposed action. However, the adoption of this plan will make the City eligible for certain grant funding opportunities it would not otherwise be eligible for.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution w/Exhibit
14 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Attachment ‘A’
RESOLUTION NO. 26-___
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEATLAND ADOPTING THE YUBASUTTER REGIONAL SAFETY ACTION PLAN - JANUARY 2026 WHEREAS, in 2022 the agencies of Yuba County, Sutter County, Yuba City, Marysville, Wheatland and Live Oak collaborated to submit a joint regional application to the Safe Streets and Roads for All program (SS4A) seeking funds for the creation of a Regional Safety Action Plan (“RSAP”) to access roadway safety for all agencies in Yuba and Sutter Counties (“Project”); and WHEREAS, in February 2023, the Yuba-Sutter participant agencies were notified that $800,000 in funding had been awarded by the California Department of Transportation for the Project. The group of agencies selected a consultant and began meeting in the Spring of 2024 with other interested parties such as law enforcement officials, special interest groups, and school officials in working groups; and
WHEREAS, On February 25, 2025, the Wheatland City Council received a presentation from RSAP consultants preparing the plan just as the community engagement portion of the work was getting underway; and
WHEREAS, the RSAP consultants, under the supervision of the group of member agencies including the City of Wheatland’s City Engineer, have published a final report entitled Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan, dated January 2026.

NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the City of Wheatland, State of California, that the City Council adopts the report entitled YubaSutter Regional Safety Action Plan, dated January 2026.

The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of Wheatland on this 10th day of February 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
15 Section 3, Item # 3.4
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved.
______________________________
Bob Coe, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Josie Camacho, City Clerk
16 Section 3, Item # 3.4

YUBA-SUTTER
Regional Safety Action Plan
Final Draft January 2026
Made possible by a Safe Streets 4 All Planning Grant
Exhibit 'A'
17 Section 3, Item # 3.4
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
A: Policy Benchmarking & Additional Policy Considerations B: Community Engagement Materials & Feedback
C: Safety Corridor Background & Technical Methodology
D: Safety Countermeasure Toolbox
Acknowledgments What’s In This Plan
CHAPTER 2 Community Engagement
CHAPTER 3 Regional Crash Analysis
CHAPTER 4 Regional Implementation Plan

APPENDICES
Yuba County City of Marysville City of Wheatland
Sutter County City of Yuba City City of Live Oak
This study applies a systemic safety approach that identifies certain features on particular roadways that are correlated with specific crash types and frequencies. This broad approach is necessitated by the inherent nature of covering an entire region’s facilities in one study and the limited scope/budget available to prepare roadway safety plans. Limited time is available to perform field observations throughout the study area to contextualize the data, and therefore, it is beyond the scope of work to perform in-depth “hot spot” evaluations at all locations.

The analysis and recommendations in this report are conceptual in nature based upon limited information, and before implementing any changes, or using any of its information for design or construction, more detailed analysis should be conducted to make sure that the design or construction documents reflect specific, detailed, local, and field conditions.

Adrian Engel, P.E.

Registered Professional Engineer
CHAPTER 5 Yuba County Safety Analysis
CHAPTER 6 Marysville Safety Analysis
CHAPTER 7 Wheatland Safety Analysis
CHAPTER 8 Sutter County Safety Analysis
CHAPTER 9 Yuba City Safety Analysis
CHAPTER 10 Live Oak Safety Analysis
Note: Chapters 5 through 10 serve as standalone documents. 18 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Regional Safety Action Plan 5
CHAPTER 1
Introduction This Plan and Our Region
Yuba and Sutter Counties and four incorporated cities, Marysville, Wheatland, Yuba City, and Live Oak, are committed to prioritizing transportation safety and eliminating traffic-related deaths and serious injuries on their roadways.

The development of this Regional Safety
Action Plan (RSAP) was led by a joint effort
of County, City, and partner agencies in the
Yuba-Sutter region. By combining efforts, the
Yuba-Sutter region can provide leadership in
roadway safety and more effectively spearhead
the implementation of roadway safety policy,
projects, and programs. This RSAP covers the
two counties and four incorporated cities in
them: Yuba County, Marysville, Wheatland,
Sutter County, Yuba City, and Live Oak.

Yuba County and Sutter County are situated
in the Sacramento Valley. The counties have
a combined total population of over 180,000,
with people concentrated in Yuba City and
Marysville. Roadway safety is a pressing issue
facing the region today. In 2021, the Office of
Traffic Safety ranked Yuba County eighth of 58
counties statewide based on the total number
of crashes resulting in injury and fatality, third
for crashes involving pedestrians, and fifth for
crashes involving motorcycles. Sutter County
ranked sixth for total number of crashes
resulting in injury and fatality, third for crashes
involving bicyclists under the age of 15, and
seventh for crashes where a party involved had
been drinking.

The beginning chapters of the document
cover the regional aspects of the plan,
including project vision and goals, potential
countermeasures, and a Safety Action Plan
that will act as a roadmap for Yuba-Sutter and
its member agencies to implement this RSAP.

The second portion of the plan contains six
jurisdiction-specific chapters, each of which
includes crash analysis, focus areas, priority
projects, and project lists.

Project team conducting walk audits
19 Section 3, Item # 3.4
6 Yuba-Sutter 7

1. Introduction
Regional Safety Action Plan
Safe System Approach
The Safe System Approach acknowledges
that mistakes are inevitable while also
asserting that severe injuries and fatalities
are avoidable on our roadways. According to
the World Health Organization, the goal of a
Safe System is to ensure that if crashes occur,
they “do not result in serious human injury.”1
The Safe System Approach to road safety
started internationally as part of the Vision Zero
proclamation that death and serious injury on
the roadway system is unacceptable.2 3
As shown in Figure 1.1, the Safe System
Approach is founded on several principles,
including acknowledging that humans make
mistakes and humans are vulnerable. As a
result, a proactive, redundant system is needed
to prevent death and serious injuries.4 Countries
that have adopted the Safe System Approach
have had success reducing highway fatalities,
with reductions in fatalities between 50%
and 70%.5 The Safe System Approach is the
foundation for the National Safety Strategy
released by the United States Department
of Transportation (USDOT) in 2022. In 2022,
Caltrans also adopted both a Safe System
Approach and a Vision Zero goal as part
of their Strategic Highway Safety Plan to
eliminate all traffic fatalities and serious injuries
by 2050.

1. World Health Organization (2011). Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/roadsafety/ decade_of_action/plan/plan_en.pdf, p. 9

2. Johansson, R. (2009). Vision Zero - Implementing a policy for traffic safety. Safety Science, 47, 826-831

3. Tingvall, C., & Haworth, N. (1999). An Ethical Approach to Safety and Mobility. Paper presented at the 6th ITE International Conference Road Safety and Traffic Enforcement. 6-7 September 1999, Melbourne, Australia

4. Belin, M.-Å., Tillgren, P., & Vedung, E. (2012). Vision Zero - a road safety policy innovation. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 19, 171-179.

5. World Resources Institute (2018). Sustainable and Safe: A Vision and Guidance for Zero Road Deaths. Retrieved from https:// www.wri.org/publication/ sustainable-and-safe-vision-and-guidance-zero-road-deaths.

6. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Road to Zero Coalition, Road to Zero Safe System Working Group. Retrieved from https:// www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/safe-systems.

7. World Health Organization (2011). Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. Retrieved from https:// www.who.int/ roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/ plan_en.pdf.

8. Federal Highway Administration (2020). Integrating the Safe System Approach with the Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Report No. FHWA-SA-20-018. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/docs/fhwasa2018.pdf.

To anticipate human mistakes, a Safe System
seeks to6:
• Separate users in a physical space (e.g.,
sidewalks, dedicated bicycle facilities)
• Separate users in time (e.g., pedestrian
scramble, dedicated signal turn phases)
• Alert users to potential hazards
• Accommodate human injury tolerance
through interventions that reduce speed
and/or impact force
Creating a Safe System means shifting a
major share of the responsibility for preventing
crashes from road users to those who design
the road transport system. “Individual road
users have the responsibility to abide by laws
and regulations”7 and do so by exhibiting
due care and proper behavior on the
transportation system. While road users are
responsible for their own behavior, this is a
shared responsibility with those who design,
operate, and maintain the transportation
network including the automotive industry, law
enforcement, elected officials, and government
bodies.8 In a Safe System, roadway system
designers and operators take on the highest
level of ethical responsibility.

WHAT
A Safe System aims to eliminate fatal and
serious injuries for all road users.

WHY
A Safe System acknowledges the vulnerability
of the human body.

WHO
A Safe System requires a partnership between
cities, counties, Caltrans, police, and road
users.

References
Figure 1.1: Safety System Elements and Principles
,
20 Section 3, Item # 3.4
8 Yuba-Sutter 9

1. Introduction
Regional Safety Action Plan
Guiding Principles: Safety Is Our Highest Priority.

Existing Policy Landscape
In recent years, leaders at the federal and state
levels have taken bold and consistent steps to
acknowledge the persistent and unacceptable
level of severe injuries and fatalities on our
roadways, commit to eliminating these
occurrences, and follow international best
practices and public health fundamentals to
form a new safety paradigm in the US. This
has specifically involved embracing the Vision
Zero goal of safe mobility for all and adopting
the Safe System Approach as the way to
get there. The Safe System Approach is a
significant evolution in how roadway safety is
conceptualized.

This Safety Action Plan has been developed
to align with the pivot to the Safe System
Approach. This chapter summarizes the
primary reference documents and policy
considerations that influenced the direction,
decisions, and priorities in this RSAP.

This Plan focuses on addressing crash risk
through an assessment of vehicle speed, mass,
and exposure that is inherently proactive
and systemic. This Plan presents a holistic
assessment of the needs and opportunities for
enhancing safety consistent with a systemic
risk factors, from systematically addressing
socioeconomic and land use, features of the
built environment, and passive and active
safety tools. Finally, this Plan aspires to make
safety the default choice: the easy choice
for people as they move about and the easy
choice for roadway design decisions. This
Plan identifies the opportunities to streamline
decision making to prioritize safety and improve
internal alignment in programs, practices,
and policies consistent with the Safe System
Approach.

National Roadway Safety Strategy
The United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT) incorporated the Safe
System Approach as part of its most recent
National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS),
adopted in January 2022. This NRSS is the
first national commitment to the goal of zero
fatalities on America’s roadways, and names
the Safe System Approach as the way to
accomplish that goal. Federal transportation
officials have since unveiled a number of
policies and programs geared towards the
application and implementation of the Safe
System Approach at the state and local levels.

Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant
program was established by the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law in 2022, centered around
USDOT’s National Roadway Safety Strategy
and its goal of zero deaths and serious injuries
on America’s roadways. It provides $5 billion
in grant funding over its five-year duration
(2022 - 2026) to develop and implement safety
plans and projects. The SS4A grant program
provides funding for local agencies to create
Comprehensive Safety Action Plans (CSAPs).

It also provides funding to implement safety
projects, but only to those agencies that have
an adopted CSAP or equivalent.

Federal Policy Considerations

1. Traffic deaths and serious injuries are a preventable public health issue that must be addressed.

2. Safety is a shared responsibility.

3. Actions towards Vision Zero will be data-driven based on available crash data and risk factors (e.g., exposure, likelihood, and severity).

4. Evaluation will be ongoing. Regular data collection and analysis will help measure performance against Regional Safety Action Plan objectives.

Commitment & Vision
Our Commitment
The Yuba-Sutter Region will work collaboratively to
eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2050.

Our Vision
The Yuba-Sutter Region will have a multimodal and
sustainable transportation system where users of all ages and abilities can travel conveniently, reliably, and free from harm.
21 Section 3, Item # 3.4
10 Yuba-Sutter 11

1. Introduction
Regional Safety Action Plan
Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy
The Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy,
created by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) in 2024, provides guidance in
contextualizing and assessing infrastructurebased countermeasures and strategies on their alignment with the principles of the Safe
System Approach.

The Hierarchy classifies countermeasures into
four tiers, from most to least aligned with Safe
System principles. Crucially, the Hierarchy
prioritizes improvements and countermeasures
that make physical changes to the system for
the whole population as more effective than
measures that rely on roadway users and
individual decisions.

Safe System Approach for Speed Management
The FHWA’s 2023 report on the Safe System
Approach for Speed Management provides
targeted recommendations around speed
management. The report notes the need for
agencies to place safety and the prevention
of injury crashes (as opposed to throughput
or travel times) as the highest priority when
it comes to speed setting on roadways, and
highlights the need to change the physical
design and context of the roadway beyond
merely changing regulatory speed limits in
order to achieve target speeds. The report
outlines a five-stage framework to speed
management consistent with the Safe System
Approach.

More Effective
Easier To Implement

1. Remove Severe Conflicts
Removing severe conflicts, by separating
users with different speeds or directions,
such as using separated bike lanes.

2. Manage Vehicle Speeds
Reducing vehicle speeds and thereby
reduces the severity of crashes that do
occur. Countermeasures that reduce
prevailing speeds can include lane
narrowing and median islands.

3. Manage Conflicts In Time
Managing conflicts in time, which would
separate users in time at shared spaces,
like giving pedestrians a head start at
intersections.

4. Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
Increasing attentiveness and awareness,
which involves alerting users to conflicts
and potential risks, can involve such
countermeasures as intersection
daylighting and warning signage.

Primer on Safe System Approach for Pedestrians
and Bicyclists
The Primer, released by the FHWA in 2021,
emphasizes the importance of protecting
pedestrians and bicyclists, as vulnerable
users, under the Safe System Approach. The
Primer details the considerations surrounding
pedestrians and bicyclists under each of the
five elements of the Safe System Approach
and provides strategies and actions that
can be taken at the federal, state, and local
levels towards implementing the Safe System
Approach. Also included is an appendix on
benchmarking policies, programs, and practices
for Safe System consistency.

If struck by a person driving at... Percent of people struck who will survive... 20mph 90%
30mph 60%
40mph 20%
Speed Management and Roadway Safety
22 Section 3, Item # 3.4
12 Yuba-Sutter 13

1. Introduction
Regional Safety Action Plan
Regional and Local Policy
Considerations
Fully committing to Vision Zero and following
the Safe System approach requires a
fundamental pivot that involves infusing safety
into all programs, policies, and practices within
the agency as well as reconsidering existing
agency approaches, budgets, and priorities
where they conflict with Safe System principles.

The Project Team developed a benchmarking
tool for Federal Highway Administration as part
of the Primer on the Safe System Approach
for Pedestrians and Bicyclists where agencies
can assess their standing on current safety
policy and work against industry best practices.

A combination of General Plans, Local Road
Safety Plans, Standard Plans & Specifications,
and Active Transportation Plans/Bicycle Master
Plans were reviewed for the six jurisdictions
to identify opportunities to improve how
processes prioritize safety.

Safety as A Public Health Concern
This RSAP draws from emerging best practices
which identifies and prioritizes strategies
focused on addressing the potential for
injury from the force generated by moving
vehicles or individuals in a crash. The Safe
Systems Pyramid, shown below, draws
from public health principles to emphasize
that interventions with the broadest reach
and lowest individual effort are the most
effective. This framework serves as a guide for
prioritizing roadway design and operational
Pedestrians in Live Oak City
The General Plans include policies to prioritize
safety in roadway projects or enhance safety
while making other transportation system
improvements. General Plans also bolster a
Safe System by addressing the socioeconomic
factors that have an impact on roadway
safety. Older Improvement Standards and
Specifications for some jurisdictions should be
updated to focus on reducing the likelihood and
severity of crashes (e.g., speed management).

Over half of the jurisdictions have Active
Transportation Plans/Bicycle Master Plans
that identify recommendations for facilities
with physical separation between vehicles and
bicyclists/pedestrians. Yuba City, Marysville, and
Yuba County already have Local Road Safety
Plans. Many safety planning benchmarks are
current efforts with this RSAP, but others will
require additional work beyond the plan. For
a detailed listing of relevant local policies, see
Appendix A.
strategies that maximize safety impacts while
fostering collaboration beyond traditional
safety-focused efforts. It highlights the role of
agency partners and community stakeholders
in the RSAP and addresses upstream, systemic
issues to tackle root causes more holistically.

The Safe System Pyramid guided the selection
and prioritization of implementation strategies
in Chapter 4.

Safe System Pyramid

1. Education
Driver Education Programs, Slow Down Campaigns

2. Active Measures
Signals and signs, in-vehicle crash warnings, seatbelts, helmets

3. Latent Safety Measures
Signal timing, leading pedestrian intervals, air bags, automated emergency braking

4. Built Environment
Roundabouts, curb extensions, raised crosswalks, sidewalks, bikeways

5. Socioeconomic Factors
Affordable housing near transit, zoning reform
Population
Health
Impact
Individual
Effort
23 Section 3, Item # 3.4
14 Yuba-Sutter 15

2. Community Engagement
Regional Safety Action Plan
CHAPTER 2
Community Engagement
The project team engaged with organizational partners around the region and the community at large, seeking insight to ensure that the resulting Regional Safety Action Plan (RSAP) creates a vision for improving the region’s roadways that aligns with the community’s values.

Our Community Engagement Journey Towards Vision Zero

1. United for Vision Zero
Establish a multi-agency task force
to align strategies, share data, and
guide Vision Zero efforts.

2. Map the Insights
Launch a project website and web
map to gather location-based
public input.

4. From Talk to Action
Translate data and public feedback
into targeted strategies and
implementation priorities.

3. Listen to Communities
Host pop-ups and listening sessions
to collect community insights and
ground-truth safety needs.
1 2
3 4
24 Section 3, Item # 3.4
16 Yuba-Sutter 17

2. Community Engagement
Regional Safety Action Plan
Project Website & Interactive Web Map
A website was developed for the Plan to
collect public feedback, consisting of project
information, an interactive web map, and a
project calendar. In the web map, visitors could
identify specific locations within the region
where they had roadway safety concerns by
leaving comments and tag them by mode of
travel (i.e. walking, biking, driving, etc.). The
web map was open for public response from
November 2024 to June 2025, and made
available in English, Spanish, and 10 other
languages. The web map received a total of 49
comments. A map and log of all comments are
included in Appendix B.
49 Total Comments
Vision Zero Task Force
A Task Force was convened for the
development of this Regional Safety
Action Plan (RSAP) which comprised staff
representatives from the partner jurisdictions’
agencies as well as community organizations
such as Blue Zones and the Yuba Area Bike
Advocates. The Task Force is responsible for
the Action Plan’s development, implementation,
and monitoring phases.

Over the course of the development of this
RSAP, the Task Force met three times. The
first meeting included an introduction on the
Safe System Approach and Vision Zero and
preliminary discussions on funding, regional
coordination, and how best to address the
needs of the public. During the second meeting,
the Task Force discussed results of the crash
data analysis along with the locations with
disproportionately high injuries and fatalities
and suggested other locations to consider
based on their local knowledge. They also
shared information about ongoing safety
related projects or policies taking place within
their jurisdiction or by their organization.

During the third meeting, the groups discussed
the results of the public facing community
engagement along with focus areas…and
choosing solutions to fit the contexts of the
Yuba-Sutter region.

United for Vision Zero Map the Insights
14 Walking Safety Comments
Unsafe crossings, poor lighting,
and no ADA access.
15 Biking Safety Comments
Unsafe crossings, poor lighting,
and no ADA access.
20 Driving Safety Comments
Unsafe crossings, poor lighting,
and no ADA access.

The Task Force included staff or members
from the following agencies and
organizations:
• Yuba County Public Works
• City of Wheatland Engineering
Department
• Sutter County Public Works
• Yuba City Public Works
• City of Yuba City Public Works
• Marysville Joint Unified School District
• Yuba County Sheriff
• Sutter County Police Department
• Yuba City Police Department
• Sacramento Area Council of
Governments
• Yuba Area Bike Advocates
• Blue Zones Yuba-Sutter
Task Force meeting
25 Section 3, Item # 3.4
18 Yuba-Sutter 19

2. Community Engagement
Regional Safety Action Plan
In-Person Outreach
Task Force and online engagement were supplemented with in-person events around the region to raise awareness and gather public input. At each pop-up event and listening session, project staff was available to inform the public about this Plan and its purpose. Residents were encouraged to share their safety concerns through interactive activities, direct conversations with the project team, and add comments on the web map. Lawn signs and posters that directed community members to project resources were strategically posted in high-traffic areas throughout the community.

Pop-Ups
To meet people where they are and optimize
engagement, project staff participated at three
community events. These events provided the
opportunity for the engagement of a broader
cross-section of the public than that which
would attend a typical project-specific public
meeting. At the first pop-up event in January
2025, the team distributed informational
takeaway cards and engaged attendees in
conversations about the project while they
were in line for food at a Yuba-Sutter Food
Bank distribution site. The outreach team later
joined a Group Walking event with Blue Zones,
a community-based organization, where they
discussed the project and safety concerns with
other attendees. During the third event, the
team shared project information and gathered
input at the Family Skate Night, which took
place at the Tri-Counties Community Center.

From Talk to Action
Speeding is a primary concern.

Residents consistently identified vehicle speeding as a top safety issue across neighborhoods.

Pedestrian crossing safety is a major theme.

Many comments focused on the need for safer crossings, particularly near schools.

Infrastructure improvements are widely requested.

Community members called for enhanced sidewalks, traffic calming measures, and improved lighting—especially in residential and downtown areas.

Listening Session
In May, the team hosted four listening sessions,
one in each of the four partner cities during
evenings. These meetings were conducted in
an open-house style, with informational and
interactive boards set up around the room for
attendees to interact with. For each jurisdiction,
one board displayed crash trends and crash
hotspot maps and a second board listed the
safety corridors identified by the project team
for potential improvements and again solicited
feedback on the community’s agreement on
those corridors being given higher priority,
as well as provide an opportunity for them
to propose other locations. All boards were
translated into Spanish. Boards utilized are in
Appendix B.

Food bank pop up
Project team distributing flyers
Project team collecting feedback
Marysville listening session
Wheatland listening session
United for Vision Zero
Key Takeaways
26 Section 3, Item # 3.4
20 Yuba-Sutter 21

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
CHAPTER 3
Regional Safety Analysis
This chapter summarizes key findings from the region’s crash data, including the identification of high-injury safety corridors and region-wide focus areas.

Together, these components highlight crash trends across the Yuba-Sutter region and inform the systemic safety strategies presented in Chapter 4.

About the Data
Crash analysis for 2018 to 2023
for Yuba-Sutter Region was carried
out using crash data obtained
from the California Highway
Patrol’s Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
database. The analysis includes
all crashes that led to injury and
excludes property-damage-only
crashes. Data collected includes the
type of crash, primary cause, and
at-fault party, etc.

While crash databases such as
the SWITRS, accessed through
the Transportation Injury Mapping
System (TIMS), remain the best
source of crash data, they have
been found to have certain reporting
biases, including:
• Crashes involving people
walking, on bicycles, or on
motorcycles are less likely to
be reported than crashes with
people driving.
• Younger victims are less likely to
report crashes.
• Alcohol-involved crashes may
be underreported.

Bicyclist using crosswalk at signalized intersection
27 Section 3, Item # 3.4
22 Yuba-Sutter 23

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
About KSI Crashes
Severe injuries resulting from a traffic crash
can result in a number of catastrophic impacts,
including permanent disability, lost productivity
and wages, and ongoing healthcare costs.

These injuries can include: • Broken or fractured bones • Dislocated or distorted limbs • Severe lacerations • Severe burns • Skull, spinal, chest or abdominal injuries • Unconsciousness at or when taken from the crash scene
Throughout this analysis, the acronym KSI is used to
denote crashes where someone was killed or severely
injured.

Summary of KSI Crashes
886 of the region’s 5,362 crashes resulted in
a victim being Killed or Severely Injured (KSI).

There was a disproportionately greater share
of KSI crashes that involved pedestrians when
compared to all crashes. 101 (11 percent of
KSI crashes compared to 6 percent) involved
pedestrians, and 48 KSI crashes (5 percent)
involved bicyclists.
4881
186 295
Injury Crashes
737
48 101
KSI Crashes
Vehicle-Only Crash
Bicycle-Involved Crash
Pedestrian-Involved Crash
Figure 3.3
Crash Mode Share by Severity

KSI CRASHES IN THE YUBA-SUTTER REGION
Distracted Driving: The Safe System
Approach addresses human mistakes such
as loss of attention, distracted driving,
and aggressive driving by designing road
infrastructure and traffic systems that anticipate
these errors. The goal is to minimize their
consequences by creating multiple layers of
protection that prevent severe crashes even
when mistakes occur. These protections include
improved visibility, in-vehicle technology, traffic
calming measures, lane departure warnings, and
physical barriers that separate traffic flows.
28 Section 3, Item # 3.4
24 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 25

1. Introduction
Crash Data Fact Sheet
What are the different crash types?
Broadside: also known as a T-bone crash, occurs when the front of one vehicle strikes the side of another. These crashes can be severe due to limited protection on vehicle sides. It is the most common type of crash in the Yuba-Sutter region.

Rear End: happens when one vehicle hits the back of another, typically due to sudden stops or following too closely at an unsafe speed. It is the second most common type of crash in the region.

Vehicle/Pedestrian: involves a vehicle striking a pedestrian. In the YubaSutter region, this crash type had the highest rate of KSI outcomes, due to the vulnerability of pedestrians.

Hit Object: occurs when a vehicle collides with a fixed object like a tree, pole, or barrier. These crashes often involve just one party. Hit object crashes make up the largest share of KSI crashes in the region.

Head-On: occurs when two vehicles collide front-to-front, usually on undivided roads. These are among the most dangerous crash types and represent the second highest share of KSI crashes in the region.

Overturned: occurs when a vehicle flips onto its side or roof, often due to sharp turns or high speeds. Overturned crashes can be especially hazardous for occupants.

Sideswipe: occurs when two vehicles traveling in the same or opposite directions brush against each other, often during lane changes or merging.

Primary Crash Factor
Determining the cause of a crash is not always
straightforward, as multiple contributing factors
may be involved. The primary crash factor
(PCF), is the element identified by the reporting
officer as most responsible for the incident.

Below are some of the most common crash
factors observed in the Yuba- Sutter region: • Unsafe Speed: refers to motorists operating a vehicle at a speed that
exceeds what is considered safe given
roadway conditions, including weather,
traffic volume, and road characteristics.

Even when it is not cited as the primary
cause of a crash, speed contributes to the
resulting severity of crashes.
• Improper Turning: refers to any turn
made that violates traffic regulations or
safety guidelines. This includes executing
an illegal turn, failing to use a turn signal,
or making a turn that interrupts traffic
flow.
• Vehicle Right-of-Way Violation: occurs
when a driver fails to properly yield to
another vehicle who has the legal right to
proceed.
• Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence:
involves operating a motor vehicle or
bicycle while impaired by alcohol or drugs.

Impaired driving significantly increases
collision risk by reducing reaction time,
impairing judgment, and affecting motor
coordination.
• Traffic Signals and Signs: indicates
failure to comply with traffic control
devices, including stop signs and traffic
signals. Typical violations include running
red lights and failing to stop at limit lines.
• Wrong Side of Road: involves a vehicle
driving on the incorrect side of the road.
• Following Too Closely: indicates
tailgating or not maintaining a safe
distance from the vehicle ahead.
• Pedestrian Violation: refers to when
pedestrians fail to follow traffic laws,
such as crossing outside of designated
pedestrian crosswalks or against signals.

Pedestrian violations sometimes indicate
inadequate pedestrian infrastructure
surrounding the crash area.

Who’s at fault?
The “at-fault” party refers to the individual
determined to be primarily responsible for
the crash. In most instances, it is the operator
of a motor vehicle making the driving error.

In vehicle/pedestrian crashes, it could be a
pedestrian who violated rules of the road by
walking in areas not designated for pedestrian
use. However, pedestrian violations may
be overrepresented due to a lack of clear
information related to crash circumstance,
such as a lack of crosswalks and the increased
likelihood that the pedestrian party may be
unable to provide their side of the incident at
the time of the crash.

Time of Day and Lighting Conditions
Crashes are divided into four categories based
on lighting conditions: • Daylight • Dusk and dawn • Dark/nighttime, working streetlights present
• Dark/nighttime, streetlights not present or
working.

Knowing the lighting condition of crashes helps
reveal where improvements such as increased
lighting can help with reducing crash risks.

Driving Under the Influence
This category summarizes the share of crashes
that involved a driver or bicyclist impaired by
alcohol and/or drugs.

The region’s crash history includes several categories, as explained below. 29 Section 3, Item # 3.4
26 Yuba-Sutter 27

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Regional Crash Analysis
Figure 3.1 Injury Crashes by Year
Figure 3.2 KSI Crashes by Year
814 837 791 864 747 828
33 26 19
26 39
43 53 42 38
46 56
60 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
116 116 125 138 127 115
9 4 4
8 10 13 16 14 18
17 18 18
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
5,362

INJURY CRASH TOTAL
886

KSI CRASH TOTAL
Crash Summary
Between 2018 and 2023, the Yuba-Sutter
region (encompassing Yuba County and Sutter
County) saw 5,362 crashes that led to some
degree of injury. 186 crashes (3 percent)
involved bicyclists and 295 (5 percent) involved
pedestrians.
886 of the region’s 5,362 crashes resulted in
a victim being Killed or Severely Injured (KSI).

A disproportionately greater share of KSI
crashes involved pedestrians when compared
to all crashes. 101 (11 percent of KSI crashes
compared to 6 percent of all crashes) involved
pedestrians, and 48 KSI crashes (5 percent)
involved bicyclists. Broadside crashes emerged
as the most common type of crash, with
speeding as the top primary cause of crashes.

CRASH HEAT MAP OF THE YUBA-SUTTER REGION
Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
30 Section 3, Item # 3.4
28 Yuba-Sutter 29

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Figure 3.4
Share of Injury Crashes by Crash Type, 2018 - 2023
Figure 3.5
Share of Injury Crashes by Primary Crash Factor (PCF), 2018 - 2023 Injury Crash
KSI Crash
Crashes by Crash Type
Broadside (27 percent), rear end (24 percent),
and hit object (19 percent) emerged as the
most common types of crashes throughout the
region, accounting for 70 percent of crashes.

Crashes by Primary Crash Factor (PCF)
Unsafe speed (25 percent), improper turning
(22 percent), vehicle right of way violation (16
percent), and driving or bicycling under the
influence (12 percent) were the most common
reported primary causes of crashes, accounting
for 75 percent of crashes.

Figure 3.6
Crashes by Time of Day & Lighting, 2018 - 2023
Dusk - Dawn
Daytime
Night Time, Streetlights Working
Night Time, Streetlights Not
Present or Not Working
Figure 3.7
DUI Crashes, 2018 - 2023
Other Crash
DUI Crash
67%
4%
14%
15%
Injury Crashes
13%
87%
Injury Crashes
54%
4%
16%
26%
KSI Crashes
25%
75%
KSI Crashes
Crashes by Time of Day and Lighting Condition
Overall, most crashes occurred in the daylight
(67 percent), 4 percent occurred during dusk
and dawn, 14 percent occurred in the dark
where streetlight was present, and 15 percent
in the dark with no lighting. 54 percent of KSI
crashes happened in the daytime, 4 percent
occurred during dusk and dawn, and 16
percent occurred in the dark with streetlight
present. A disproportionately greater share of
KSI crashes occurred during nighttime in areas
that lacked lighting, at 26 percent compared to
15 percent of all injury crashes.

Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
13 percent of all crashes involved a DUI charge.

Notably, this share was larger for KSI crashes,
at 25 percent.
27%
24%
19%
9% 7% 7%
5%
1%
19%
11%
26%
13%
5%
14%
10%
1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Broadside Rear End Hit Object Overturned Sideswipe Head-On Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other
25%
22%
16%
12%
7%
4% 2% 2%
10%
17%
25%
9%
23%
3%
7%
2%
6%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Unsafe
Speed
Improper
Turning
Vehicle
Right of
Way
Violation
Driving or
Bicycling
Under the
Influence
Traffic
Signals and
Signs
Wrong Side
of Road
Other Than
Driver (or
Pedestrian)
Pedestrian
Violation
Other
31 Section 3, Item # 3.4
30 Yuba-Sutter 31

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Railroad Crash Summary RAILROAD-RELATED CRASHES IN THE YUBA-SUTTER REGION The railroad crash data analyzed covers the same time span as the roadway crash data: 2018 through 2023. There were eight railroad crashes that occurred in the same time period. Six crashes were within unincorporated Yuba County, five of them being on private roads and one being on Virginia Road southeast of Ostrom. There were two crashes within unincorporated Sutter County, one on Paseo Road and the other one on Clark Road south of Live Oak.

Of the crashes reported, two resulted in fatalities, two involved serious injuries, and two involved no injuries. Each crash report includes a narrative field that provides additional context. In six of the eight cases, the narrative stated: “Stopped on Crossing.” The remaining two crashes also attributed fault to the road user, though with different wording.

About the Data
Railroad crash data was sourced from the
U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), from the
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Incident Data.

According to the USDOT, a highway-rail
grade crossing crash is defined as any impact
between on-track railroad equipment and a
highway user (e.g., automobile, pedestrian,
etc.) occurring at a designated highwayrail grade crossing. These incidents are documented by FRA personnel when such
crashes occur.

Incident information captured includes:
• Crash cause category (e.g., human factors,
track issues, signal failures, mechanical
problems)
• Casualty data (total killed and injured)
• Damage estimates
• Crash type (e.g., derailment)
• Track type (e.g., main line, yard)
• Track characteristics including
signalization and method of operation
(e.g., direct train control, yard/restricted
limits)
Rail Crossing Rules and Regulations
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices provides standards and
specifications for all official traffic control
devices in California (California MUTCD Part
8, Traffic Control for Rail and Light Rail Transit
Crossings, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safetyprograms/camutcd).

The California Public Utilities Commission,
which oversees the design, construction,
and maintenance of rail crossings, hosts
a webpage with the rules, guidance, and
references for these high-risk areas: https://
www.cpuc.ca.gov/crossings/
The CPUC also recently updated their
Guidance on Pedestrian Treatments for
Rail Crossings, which includesgeometric
design considerations and design elements
such as markings, signage, channelization,
and warning devices.
32 Section 3, Item # 3.4
32 Yuba-Sutter 33

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Safety Corridors
Safety corridors are defined as the roadways with the highest number and risk of crashes resulting in severe injury or death. This section discusses the methodology used to identify them.

Policy Background: Assembly Bill 43
Assembly Bill (AB) 43 is state traffic safety
legislation aimed at reducing road fatalities
by giving local governments more flexibility in
setting speed limits. AB 43 enables jurisdictions
to consider pedestrian and cyclist safety, school
zones, and crash history when setting speed
limits. If a jurisdiction, after completing an
engineering and traffic survey, finds that the
speed limit on a roadway segment is higher
than reasonable or safe, they may declare a
default speed limit that has been reduced an
additional five miles per hour if that segment
is designated as a safety corridor. A safety
corridor is a roadway segment within an overall
roadway network where the highest number
of serious injury and fatality crashes occur; AB
43 stipulates that a jurisdiction’s set of safety
corridors must account for at least 25 percent
of all killed or seriously injured (KSI) crashes and
must comprise 20 percent of its streets or less.

More information on AB 43 can be found in
Appendix A.

Methodology
The methodology developed for this safety
corridor identification is based on best practices
identified from a review of Safe Systemfocused Vision Zero programs, as well as the recent California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices definition of Safety Corridors.

Safety corridors were designated based on
crash frequency and contextual risk factors
such as crash severity and mode, proximity to
schools, the presence of vulnerable populations,
etc. This methodology adopts a proactive,
systemic safety analysis rather than relying
solely on historical crash data. It incorporates
known risk factors from national and statelevel research. A network of safety corridors was developed using the 5-year crash dataset
for 2018-2023 from the Transportation Injury
Mapping System (TIMS), Safe Transportation
Research and Education Center database.

Other data sources such as the USDOT
Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) and
Wejo speed data were used to incorporate
contextual data into the network. For a full
description of the technical methodology, see
Appendix B.

YUBA-SUTTER REGIONAL SAFETY CORRIDORS
33 Section 3, Item # 3.4
34 Yuba-Sutter 35

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Focus Areas
Focus areas were identified to represent the most significant patterns behind injury crashes—especially KSI crashes—in the region. Six such focus areas, denoted ‘A’ through ‘F’, were identified across the region, with each one applicable to several or all of the jurisdictions covered by this RSAP.

The following pages contain
cutsheets that present each
focus area, along with the
following information: • Description and
associated information
about each focus area
• Number of crashes
associated, including
number of KSI crashes
among those (note
that focus areas are
not mutually exclusive;
crashes can fall under
multiple, and totals will
exceed 100%)
• A map identifying
locations of crashes
within the focus area
Engineering countermeasures
that can potentially
address these crashes are
also presented in each
jurisdictions’ chapter.

Yuba-Sutter Region Focus Areas:

FOCUS AREA A
Crashes on State Highways Serving as Main Streets

FOCUS AREA B
Right-of-Way Issues at Intersections

FOCUS AREA C
Driving Under the Influence

FOCUS AREA D
Crashes Involving People Walking and Biking

FOCUS AREA E
Improper Turning Away from Intersections

FOCUS AREA F
Hit Object
34 Section 3, Item # 3.4
36 Yuba-Sutter 37

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
State Routes 20, 49, 65, 70, 99, and 113
traverse through the region and serve as
key corridors within Yuba and Sutter County
jurisdictions. Due to their high volumes
and travel speeds, these highways present
elevated safety risks and are frequently the
sites of crashes. 39 percent of all crashes and
42 percent of KSI crashes in the Yuba-Sutter
region occurred on state highways. Sections of
highways that function as Main Streets in more
populous areas often see conflicts between
829 (15%) Total Crashes 80 (9%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

FOCUS AREA A
Crashes on State Highways Serving as Main Streets
different modes of transportation—40 percent
of all highway crashes (16% overall) occurred
in such areas throughout the region. Speeds
exceeding 60 mph were a factor in 40 percent
of “main street” highway crashes, and in 10
percent of bicycle- and pedestrian-related
incidents on these highways.

Countermeasures that can improve
safety along highway main streets focus on
slowing vehicle speeds, organizing traffic flow,
and reducing conflict points between drivers,
pedestrians, and bicyclists.

STATE HIGHWAYS AS MAIN STREET CRASHES
Wheatland
35 Section 3, Item # 3.4
38 Yuba-Sutter 39

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Complete Streets on the State Highway System
Caltrans Complete Street Contextual Design Guidance (DIB94) The Yuba-Sutter region includes a mix of rural communities, suburban neighborhoods, and semi-urban downtown centers, many of which are bisected by state highways. These state routes frequently serve as community main streets in areas with growing residential development, schools, transit use, and walkable town centers. However, these corridors often lack adequate facilities for people walking, biking, or accessing transit, leading to serious safety risks, particularly for vulnerable road users.

Through the published Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance (Design Bulletin 94), Caltrans has provided new flexibility in the design of complete streets projects on the State Highway system.

The guidance includes considerations for changing speed limits, constructing appropriate bike facilities, and increasing shoulder widths – all context-sensitive solutions appropriate to better serving travelers of all ages and abilities.

Project Criteria
A project must meet the following criteria to follow this new guidance:
• Located in an urban area, suburban area, or rural main street • Posted speed limit does not exceed 45 MPH
• Includes a bike, pedestrian, or transit facility.

Suggested Guidance
Some of the guidance suggested by DIB 94 is as follows:
• Design Contexts: Reallocate roadway space to enhance safe and efficient connectivity for communities, regardless of travel mode. To accommodate bicycle and pedestrian facilities, use strategies such as narrowing or removing travel lanes, adjusting median or turn lane widths, and reducing or eliminating on-street parking.
• Vehicle Speeds: Traffic calming and speed management strategies are tools to achieve safe and predictable speed transitions. Proposed speed limits should be based on place type, helping avoid sharp accelerations or decelerations along transitions such as from a rural area into a commercial district where pedestrians are more likely to be present. • Roadway Cross-sections: Cross-sectional design should consider factors such as place type, operating speed, and current and potential users when establishing or modifying lane widths and preferred sidewalk and bikeway widths. Considering the community context and place type is key to aligning the class and location of treatments such as bicycle facilities for optimal safety and connectivity.
• Crosswalks: The placement and frequency of crosswalks should support pedestrian safety and visibility, particularly near schools, transit stops, and community destinations.

Where does this apply in Yuba-Sutter?
Several corridors in the region not only meet the DIB 94 eligibility criteria but also reflect ongoing safety concerns and latent demand for safer multimodal travel, particularly for non-motorized users.

Examples include:

SR 20 through Marysville and Yuba City
This route traverses central business districts
and neighborhoods with significant pedestrian
activity. Speed limits are typically 35–45 MPH,
and these corridors serve local bus routes but
lack safe crossing opportunities and continuous
bike facilities.

SR 70 through Linda and Olivehurst
This route serves as a main spine for residential
communities and local schools. SR 70 has
multiple driveways, cross streets, and transit
stops—features typically found in a rural main
street context. Current roadway geometry
and traffic volumes, however, present safety
challenges especially for pedestrians and
cyclists, especially at uncontrolled crossing
points.

SR 99 in Yuba City
This route is a key corridor with significant
pedestrian activity, transit stops, and adjacent
commercial and residential areas. It lacks
consistent or protected bicycle facilities, often
depending on narrow shoulders or intermittent
bike lanes. This route also experiences land
use transitions that would benefit from more
predictable speed profiles.

SR 99 in Live Oak
This state highway cuts through small-town
centers where pedestrian activity is high,
but facilities are lacking or outdated and are
candidates for safety enhancements, including
sidewalk improvements, safer crossings, and
improved visibility for vulnerable road users.

In each of these locations, existing land use, speed profiles, and community access needs, make the roadway a good candidate for design treatments as outlined in DIB 94. Several sites identified in this plan’s crash analysis have shown repeated collisions on these highway segments, underscoring the need for safety improvements catered towards low-speed, multimodal infrastructure.

The design flexibilities provided under DIB 94 offer local agencies and Caltrans a valuable opportunity to modernize transportation infrastructure in a way that is both efficient and responsive to local context. Designing with this guidance in mind allows for rural and suburban settings like Yuba and Sutter Counties to design solutions that better match the context of the communities they serve. 36 Section 3, Item # 3.4
40 Yuba-Sutter 41

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Improper turning is one of the primary causes
of crashes and accounts for 1,153 crashes
(nearly 22 percent) of all and 223 (25 percent)
of KSI crashes in the Yuba-Sutter region. Of
those 1,153 crashes,
740 occurred away from the intersection of
two roadways, accounting for 14 percent of
the region’s crashes. Crashes with a primary
collision factor of improper turning that aren’t
occurring at intersections of roadways include a
wide range of actions, such as mis-attributing a
turn into a driveway. In the moments leading up
to these collisions, 43 percent of at-fault parties
made an unsafe turning action (e.g. making
abrupt lane changes) and 25 percent ran off
1,005 (20%) Total Crashes 94 (11%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

FOCUS AREA B
Right of Way Issues at Intersections
the road. This crash type is strongly related to
roadway departure on highways and county
roads where speeds exceed 55 MPH.
32 percent of this crash category led to an
object being hit and 17 percent to the vehicle
overturning, the majority of which occur
outside of city limits in more rural parts of the
region. Countermeasures for this focus area
include a combination of signage, roadway
enhancements, and visibility improvements
such as rumble strips, curve warning signs,
guardrails, and additional shoulder space,
which can help prevent dangerous turning
maneuvers and roadway departures by guiding
drivers and providing recovery space.

RIGHT OF WAY ISSUES AT INTERSECTIONS CRASHES
37 Section 3, Item # 3.4
42 Yuba-Sutter 43

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Driving under the influence (DUI) is a significant
contributor to injury crashes, especially and
disproportionately to KSI crashes. 26 percent
of KSI crashes involves alcohol impairment.

Friday, Saturday, and Sunday see higher crash
frequency from 6pm to 3am, compared to other
times of day and days of the week.

Within cities, there are higher concentrations
of DUI crashes on arterial and collector roads
along commercial areas, where there is also a
707 (13%) Total Crashes 227 (26%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

FOCUS AREA C
Driving Under the Influence
higher share of DUI crashes involving bicyclists
and pedestrians—even with crosswalks
present. In the unincorporated areas, 63
percent of DUI crashes occurred on rural roads,
and 44 percent resulted in a hit object crash.

Narrow two-lane corridors such as SR-113,
and curved road segments also host sites
of DUI crashes. Countermeasures for DUIs
are typically programs that target education
and enforcement rather than engineering or
infrastructure changes.

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE CRASHES
38 Section 3, Item # 3.4
44 Yuba-Sutter 45

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
People walking and riding bicycles are
considered vulnerable roadway users. Although
crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians
make up less than nine percent of all crashes,
they account for nearly seventeen percent of all
KSI crashes in the region.

Sutter County’s KSI crashes are concentrated
within Yuba City, while Yuba County’s crashes
are dispersed throughout Marysville and
the unincorporated communities of Linda
and Olivehurst. There are higher rates of KSI
crashes involving bicylists and pedestrians
on wide four-lane arterials along commercial
480 (9%) Total Crashes 149 (17%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

FOCUS AREA D
Crashes Involving People Walking and Biking
areas, sometimes with two-way left turn
medians or median islands. Mid-block crashes
occurred more often in areas where pedestrian
crossings are sparse, mainly in unincorporated
areas. Additionally, 24 percent of KSI crashes
involving bicyclists and pedestrians occurred
within a quarter-mile of a school and 25
percent ran off the road. Countermeasures for
crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians
that occurred within a quarter-mile of a school
typically offer vulnerable road users with
dedicated, protected space and increased
visibility, like bikeways and lighting.

CRASHES INVOLVING PEOPLE WALKING AND BIKING
39 Section 3, Item # 3.4
46 Yuba-Sutter 47

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Improper turning is one of the primary causes of
crashes and accounts for 1,153 crashes (nearly
22 percent) of all and 223 (25 percent) of KSI
crashes in the region. Of those 1,153 crashes,
740 occurred away from an intersection,
accounting for 14 percent of the region’s
crashes. In addition, 32 percent of crashes with
improper turning as the primary factor and
occurring away from intersections led to hit
object and 17 percent to overturned, both crash
types happening almost exclusively outside of
city limits. This indicates roadway departure
on highways and county roads where speeds
exceed 55MPH. In the moments leading up to
this focus area, 43 percent of at-fault parties
740 (14%) Total Crashes 172 (19%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

FOCUS AREA E
Improper Turning Away from Intersections
made an unsafe turning action (e.g. making
abrupt lane changes) and 25 percent ran off
the road.

A combination of signage, roadway
enhancements, and visibility improvements,
such as rumble strips, curve warning signs,
guardrails, and delineators, can help prevent
unsafe turning and mitigate roadway
departures by guiding drivers and providing
recovery space. Pairing these countermeasures
with speed limit reductions can reduce
crash severity by lowering the kinetic energy
transferred during high-speed impacts, helping
prevent serious injuries.

IMPROPER TURNING AWAY FROM INTERSECTIONS CRASH MAP

IMPROPER TURNING AWAY FROM INTERSECTION CRASHES
40 Section 3, Item # 3.4
48 Yuba-Sutter 49

3. Regional Safety Analysis
Regional Safety Action Plan
Overall, 1,004 of crashes resulted in hit object,
making up 19 percent of the region’s crashes.

However, this type of crash accounted for 26
percent of KSI crashes. 95 percent of all hit
object crashes involved only one party.
896 crashes, or 89 percent, of hit object crashes
occurred outside of city limits. Out of those,
68 percent occurred on non-state facilities. In
unincorporated Sutter County, many of these
hit object crashes occurred on two-lane rural
county roads—typically narrow lanes without
shoulders, most of which have posted speed
limits of 55MPH and up. In unincorporated Yuba
County, many non-state-highway hit object
crashes occurred in and near residential areas,
mainly Linda and Olivehurst, where some roads
range from two- to four-lanes and often have
on-street parking.
1,004 (19%) Total Crashes 229 (26%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

FOCUS AREA F
Hit Object
Most of the objects hit were fixed objects (83
percent), such as trees and utility poles, nine
percent were other objects such as items
dropped from a vehicle, and two percent were
animals.

Countermeasures like clear zone improvements
and widened shoulders help prevent crashes
with objects and provide recovery space, while
rumble strips and reflectors enhance driver
awareness and guidance, especially in lowvisibility conditions. Speed limit reductions are especially critical, as lower speeds directly
reduce the kinetic energy transferred during a
crash, which in turn lowers the risk of severe
injury or fatality.

HIT OBJECT CRASHES
41 Section 3, Item # 3.4
50 Yuba-Sutter 51

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan
CHAPTER 4
Regional Implementation Plan
This section presents a toolbox of safety countermeasures that can be deployed to address crash trends and the systemic factors behind them. Systemic improvements, both engineering and programmatic/nonengineering related, were identified for implementation.

Engineering & Programmatic
Countermeasures
What Are Engineering Countermeasures?
Engineering countermeasures are physical,
infrastructure-based improvements that can
be made to roadways to reduce likelihood of
crashes.

What Are Programmatic/Non-engineering
Countermeasures?
Programmatic/Non-engineering
countermeasures introduce education,
enforcement, and other policy instruments
as means of encouraging safer roadways
through user behavior, and they can be used to
tackle traffic safety problems such as alcohol
and drug impaired driving, distracted driving,
speeding, and pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

Example: Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Example: OTS Go Safely California campaign resources 42 Section 3, Item # 3.4
52 Yuba-Sutter 53

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan
Engineering Countermeasures
Engineering countermeasures are presented in a toolbox in Appendix D, which includes descriptions of the countermeasures, its applicable tier(s) in the Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy, estimated high-level cost, and opportunities for quick-build versions. Countermeasures that are part of FHWA’s list of Proven Safety Countermeasures and/or in the 2020 Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) are also noted. Both distinctions can be advantageous for use in Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding applications.

As practitioners select countermeasures for specific projects, they should consider crash history, contextual factors, design features, costs, and a range of other issues. In each jurisdictions’ chapter in subsequent sections of this Plan, countermeasures from this toolbox are paired with focus areas to provide a systemic approach to addressing crash trends.

Example Countermeasure - Roundabout
Roundabouts represent a proactive approach to improving intersection safety and efficiency within the Yuba-Sutter region. Their design aligns with the goals of the Regional Safety Action Plan by reducing severe crashes, enhancing traffic flow, and accommodating diverse users. Implementing roundabouts in strategic rural and urban locations can serve as a cost-effective and sustainable measure to advance both safety and mobility outcomes identified in the plan.

Roundabout
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
A roundabout is a circular intersection where traffic flows in one direction around a central island, and vehicles must yield at entrance lanes. Unlike conventional intersections, roundabouts eliminate severe conflicts from crossing and left-turn movements. The design of a roundabout forces drivers to slow down, which narrows the range of vehicle speeds and reduces the severity of crashes. Additionally, pedestrians only need to cross one direction of traffic at a time, minimizing their exposure to vehicles.

Cost $$$
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID S16/NS04
Example Engineering Countermeasure
Programmatic Countermeasures
Programmatic countermeasures can also be effective in reducing the likelihood and severity of crashes. Programmatic countermeasures include education, enforcement, and other strategies.

Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, 11th Edition, published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 2023, provides a range of information on example traffic safety programs, including examples and effectiveness rankings.

What’s Included?
• Speed limit decrease opportunities, especially near
schools or in downtowns
• Enforcement based on crash history
• High-visibility DUI enforcement
• DUI prevention through partnerships with public
health agencies
• Education and public awareness campaigns
targeted at speeding, DUIs, and increasing
awareness of people walking and biking
• Automated enforcement with red-light cameras or
speed cameras
More information on these and other programs can be
found in Appendix D.

Local Efforts
Locally, several safety programs have already been
implemented. CHP has previously been awarded
grants from the California Office of Traffic Safety to
perform targeted enforcement in high-frequency
crash areas. Marysville has recently performed a
round of DUI enforcement. Live Oak is in the process
of performing engineering and traffic studies to
implement lower speed limits in key areas.

There have been several other efforts through Blue
Zones and First Five Sutter County as well as other
local groups that have conducted education and
outreach related to active transportation. Additionally, several of the jurisdiction’s Health Departments have
funding for bike helmet give-aways.

Speed Limit Modification
Description
California Assembly Bill (AB) 43 was
passed in 2021 to provide a means
to lower speed limits on corridors
that meet certain criteria. AB 43
focused on giving local jurisdictions
more flexibility in setting speed limits,
especially regarding vulnerable road
users:
• Speed Limit Reduction: Reduction
of additional 5 mph based
on several factors, including
designation of Safety Corridors,
as described in Chapter 3
• Prima Facie Speed Limits: Options
for 15 and 25 mph in certain
areas such as school zones
depending on context
• Business Activity Districts: Option
for 20 or 25 mph speed limits
Effectiveness and Cost
Cost: $
Example Programmatic Countermeasure
43 Section 3, Item # 3.4
54 Yuba-Sutter 55

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan
Implementation Plan
This section presents the Action Plan for the Yuba-Sutter Region partner agencies. Yuba-Sutter is committed to providing regional leadership to improve roadway safety and working to eliminate fatalities and severe injuries on the roadway network. The Action Plan is comprised of strategies to facilitate successful implementation and evaluate and communicate progress.

Consistency with the Safe System
This Plan builds on existing safety practices
to ensure consistency with the Safe System
Approach. The Plan establishes a framework
for the Region to guide transportationrelated implementation moving forward to be aligned with the Safe System Approach. This
includes rethinking how the jurisdictions in
the Yuba-Sutter Region prioritize projects and
allocate funding to address safety concerns
systematically and proactively. The Plan also
includes guidance for developing projects by
reviewing them through a safety-first lens. All
transportation projects should be reviewed to
ensure severe crash risks are minimized for
vulnerable road users.

Infrastructure
A priority corridor list was prepared for each
jurisdiction based on the locations of the safety
corridor network that had the highest number
of severe and fatal crashes, community input,
location of sensitive land uses, as well as
review of the jurisdiction’s other infrastructure
needs and priorities. See identified projects in
each jurisdiction’s section.

Prioritization
The FHWA Safe System Roadway Design
Hierarchy provides guidance on how to
prioritize projects when reviewing development
applications and making land use and
transportation planning decisions. Projects
identified in the project list, as well as any
future projects, should prioritize higher tiers
with the goal of first removing severe conflicts.

Project priorities should include those with
the greatest potential of reducing crash risk
(exposure, likelihood, and severity).

Policies and Practices
In addition to infrastructure projects, the
success of this RSAP is dependent on
changes to the policies and practices that
institutionalize the Safe System Approach for
the region’s partner agencies in. As a result of
the benchmarking assessment described in
Appendix A and recommendations from the
Task Force, the Action Plan contains strategies,
institutional improvements, and new standard
practices that center safety in the day-to-day
operations of the Yuba-Sutter counties and
local agencies. For example, rolling safety
projects into existing capital improvement
projects by consolidating safety improvements
with maintenance efforts such as roadway
resurfacing can be cost efficient and expedite
project implementation and delivery. YubaSutter’s commitment to the goals of this RSAP emphasize that safety considerations are
prioritized in projects over other competing
factors.

Oversight, Coordination, and Partnership
The Action Plan also provides for oversight
and accountability towards the commitment
to safety. Yuba-Sutter will continue the
momentum from the Task Force that convened
during the creation of this plan. Having
the leadership and oversight of this group
will help maintain buy-in and support from
elected officials and the community as YubaSutter encourages Caltrans to implement countermeasures on state-owned facilities
identified in the RSAP.

Continued communication and transparency
with community members can allow for greater
trust and support of the RSAP’s goals. The
Action Plan also contains policies that promote
community education to develop collective
awareness around safety, target educational
campaigns towards identified emphasis areas,
and create a culture that supports both policy
and infrastructure changes.

Partner agencies must work together to carry
out the projects and policies listed in each
jurisdiction chapter and assume a shared
responsibility for the implementation of the
Plan.

Yuba-Sutter’s city councils and county boards
of supervisors should receive regular updates
on if their jurisdictions are on track to meet
the Vision Zero goal. The future success of
this plan will require a comprehensive effort
across government and the community,
including partnerships with neighborhoods and
community based organizations to encourage
engagement and support.

Implementation Phasing & Sequencing
Implementing countermeasures, policies,
and projects identified in the Plan typically
requires an ongoing, long-term commitment.

To facilitate the evaluation and prioritization
of funding, it is desirable to consider the
implementation of safety projects through
different time horizons.

Jurisdictions should seek overlapping
opportunities where safety improvements
will be implemented as part of an upcoming
effort such as the repaving program or CIP.

Implementation should also happen proactively
as part of any development impact review
process to ensure that new developments
align with the Safe System Approach and
meet safety requirements. All transportation
construction projects should be reviewed
to ensure they align with the Safe System
Approach and follow recommendations in this
Plan.
44 Section 3, Item # 3.4
56 Yuba-Sutter 57

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan
Caltrans Project Implementation
Caltrans Project Delivery
Once the Regional Safety Action Plan (RSAP) is
adopted, projects taking place on the California
State Highway System (SHS), such as
Highways 20, 70, and 99, will involve Caltrans.

Project delivery with Caltrans is a structured,
multi-phase approach designed to ensure
projects are safe, efficient, and aligned with
statewide mobility goals.

Following project identification from the
planning process, Caltrans or one of the cities
or counties involved with the RSAP will prepare
a Project Initiation Document (PID). This
document outlines the project’s purpose, scope,
schedule, and estimated cost, and serves as
the foundation for securing funding. The PID
includes analysis of key issues such as traffic
operations, environmental impacts, multimodal
considerations, and community involvement.

It is essential for programming the project into
the State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) or Regional Transportation Improvement
Program (RTIP), which commits funding from
sources like the State Highway Account.

Projects may be developed directly by Caltrans
as part of the State Highway Operation and
Protection Program (SHOPP) which focuses
on maintenance of existing facilities but will
incorporate feasibility, safety, and multimodal
elements as identified by various planning
processes. Alternatively, the local agencies may
implement projects on the SHS through the
encroachment permit process for smaller, less
complex projects or through the formal Project
Study Report approval process for larger
projects.

Following programming, the project enters
the development phase, which includes
environmental studies, securing necessary
approvals and permits, acquiring rights of
way, and completing detailed design plans.

Caltrans then prepares and advertises the
construction contract. Once a contractor is
selected, the project moves into construction
and contract administration, where Caltrans
oversees the execution of the work to ensure
compliance with specifications, timelines, and
safety standards. The final step is project
close-out, which includes documentation, final
inspections, and transitioning the project into
operational status.

Throughout this process, Caltrans coordinates
closely with local agencies, especially when
projects are locally sponsored or require
regional input. This collaboration ensures that
projects reflect community needs and are
delivered efficiently and equitably.

More information on project delivery can be
found from the link here:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/project-delivery
Caltrans Project Delivery can be reached at:
• [email protected]
• (916) 653-2451
North Region Projects Viewer
The North Region Projects Viewer is a publicly available map-based web application that displays Caltrans projects occurring within the Caltrans North Region, consisting of Caltrans Districts 1, 2, and 3, under six project phase categories: Complete, Construction, Maintenance, Planned, Programmed and Emergency. Members of the public may use this tool to view projects and track their progress. The application can be accessed from the link here: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/239772ff383d416483addc029ae9c6fa 45 Section 3, Item # 3.4
58 Yuba-Sutter 59

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan
Performance Measures
This Plan is a policy document and requires regular updates and monitoring to evaluate its efficacy and to ensure the Region is on track to achieve zero KSI crashes by 2050. Each jurisdiction in the Yuba-Sutter Region will monitor the following performance measures on an annual basis and make additional adjustments to the Plan as needed to meet the zero goal. The goal of monitoring is to understand if the measures are effective at reducing crashes as the region works toward zero fatalities and serious injuries. Additionally, ongoing monitoring will help to identify locations with high propensity for KSIs based on exposure, likelihood, and severity. Historic crash patterns can inform these considerations, but design decisions will be proactive and based on reducing safety risk. Every five years, the Yuba-Sutter Region will update their Safety Action Plan to reevaluate the crash data and performance measures. Performance measures will be added or removed to meet the goal of reducing fatal and severe injury crashes to zero.

Plan Implementation Metrics
The number of roadway miles and intersections improved
The percentage of streets where the operating speed matches the target speed The number of projects implemented with the systemic deployment of countermeasures Policy and Programmatic Changes
The provision of continuous sidewalks, low stress bicycle facilities, and traffic calming improvements alongside land use zoning changes
Set contextually appropriate target speeds and prioritize and implement speed management strategies to meet those targets
Standardize the selection and implementation of pedestrian and bicycle improvements based on contextual factors such as speed and volume
The prioritization of projects for transportation connections to communities of persistent poverty and underserved populations along Walk and Roll Routes and key transit corridors The collaboration with transit, land use, and social service partners for strategies at the base of the Safe Systems Pyramid
The review and reprioritization of the city’s and county’s annual CIP budget to shift funding toward proactive and opportunistic opportunities to efficiently address safety priorities The collaboration with agency partners to make meaningful progress on cross-jurisdictional efforts The creation of a rapid response program to evaluate roadway design and context of crash locations after KSI crashes
Crash Statistics
The number of KSI crashes on Safety Corridors
The number of crashes where the crash type was identified as unsafe speed The number of DUI-related crashes
The number of youth bicyclist-involved crashes
Funding

FEDERAL FUNDING
Funding
Source Program Purpose
Safe Streets and
Roads for All
(SS4A) Grant
Program
The Safe Streets & Roads for All (SS4A) grant program is a Federal grant program established by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law centered around the Department of Transportation’s National Roadway Safety Strategy and its goal of zero deaths and serious injuries on America’s roadways. It provides $5 billion in grant funding over 5 years to develop safety action plans and implement safety projects.

Congestion
Mitigation and
Air Quality
(CMAQ)
Improvement
Program
The FAST Act continued the CMAQ program to provide a flexible funding source to State and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (nonattainment areas) and for former nonattainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas).

Rebuilding
American
Infrastructure
with
Sustainability
and Equity
(RAISE)
This program supports surface transportation infrastructure projects that will improve safety; environmental sustainability; quality of life; mobility and community connectivity; economic competitiveness and opportunity including tourism; state of good repair; partnership and collaboration; and innovation.

Reconnecting
Communities
and
Neighborhoods
Program
The Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods program combines the Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) and Neighborhood Access and Equity (NAE) discretionary grant programs into a single funding opportunity. The program funds projects that address the impact of transportation infrastructure, such as freeways and railroads, that form barriers for travel in communities.

The program funds the removal, retrofit, mitigation, or replacement of the infrastructure in question.

Community
Development
Block Grant
(CDBG) Program
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is a flexible program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs. Communities often use CDBG funds to construct and repair streets and sidewalks.

Below are federal and state funding sources applicable to the future implementation of this Plan. 46 Section 3, Item # 3.4
60 Yuba-Sutter 61

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan

STATE FUNDING
Funding Source Program Purpose
Highway Safety
Improvement Program
(HSIP)
California’s Local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with nationally recognized crash reduction factors (CRFs). Local HSIP projects must be identified on the basis of crash experience, crash potential, crash rate, or other data-supported means.

Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
ATP is a statewide competitive grant application process with the goal of encouraging increased use of active modes of transportation. The ATP consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SR2S), into a single program with a focus to make California a national leader in active transportation. The ATP is administered by the Division of Local Assistance, Office of State Programs.

SB-1 Transportation
Funding
The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is the biennial fiveyear plan for future allocations of certain state transportation funds for state highway improvements, intercity rail, and regional highway and transit improvements.

Caltrans Sustainable
Transportation
Planning Grant
Program
This program is intended to encourage local and regional planning that furthers state goals, including, but not limited to, the goals and best practices cited in the Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines adopted by the California Transportation Commission.

California Office of
Traffic Safety (OTS)
OTS administers traffic safety grants in the following areas: Alcohol Impaired Driving, Distracted Driving, Drug-Impaired Driving, Emergency Medical Services, Motorcycle Safety, Occupant Protection, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, Police Traffic Services, Public Relations, Advertising, and Roadway Safety and Traffic Records.

Affordable Housing
and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC)
The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program makes it easier for Californians to drive less by making housing, jobs, and key destinations accessible by walking, biking, and transit. 47 Section 3, Item # 3.4
62 Yuba-Sutter 63

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan
Action Plan
The following pages present safety strategies organized into three priorities:
integrate the Safe System Approach in policy and practice; systemically and proactively address common crash focus areas; educate all roadway users.

Priority A: Integrate Safe System in Policy and Practice These strategies aim to infuse roadway safety concepts, especially the Safe System Approach, as part of routine practices and design decisions.

Action 1
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Maintain the Vision Zero Task Force and advance safety
plans and projects; coordinate on funding opportunities. • Yuba County Public Works Department & Sheriff’s Department • Sutter County Public Works Department & Sheriff’s Department • City of Marysville Public Works Department
• City of Wheatland Engineering Department
• City of Yuba City Public Works Department
• City of Live Oak Public Works Department
• Caltrans
• California Highway Patrol
• Partner Organizations (Blue Zones, YABA, etc.)
Number of meetings with Vision Zero Task Force. Number of federal, state, regional, and local funding opportunities applied for regionally.

Action 2
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Prioritize safety in funding decisions, such as during regular updates to local capital improvement plans.
• Yuba County Public Works Department
• Sutter County Public Works Department
• City of Marysville Public Works Department
• City of Wheatland Engineering Department
• City of Yuba City Public Works Department
• City of Live Oak Public Works Department
Evaluation
Metric
Documented roadway safety considerations during decision-making processes for major plan updates, including local Capital Improvement Plans, local General Plan Updates, and SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

Ongoing
Ongoing
Action 3
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Integrate safety improvements into regular maintenance
based on countermeasures from this plan. Find opportunities for partnership through infrastructure project bundling. • Yuba County Public Works Department
• Sutter County Public Works Department
• City of Marysville Public Works Department
• City of Wheatland Engineering Department
• City of Yuba City Public Works Department
• City of Live Oak Public Works Department
• Caltrans
Percent of regular maintenance projects that infuse roadway safety countermeasures from this Plan. Number of infrastructure projects bundled.

Action 4
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Evaluate and implement lower speed limits in business
districts, school areas, and other areas that have a high concentration of vulnerable road users, as eligible through AB 43.
• Yuba County Public Works Department
• Sutter County Public Works Department
• City of Marysville Public Works Department
• City of Wheatland Engineering Department
• City of Yuba City Public Works Department
• City of Live Oak Public Works Department
• Local School Districts
Number of qualifying roadways with lower speed limits.

Ongoing
Long Term
48 Section 3, Item # 3.4
64 Yuba-Sutter 65

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan
Action 5
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Update street design standards to include designs that
reduce kinetic energy and reflect Complete Streets principles based on state and national guidance (e.g. National
Association of City Transportation Officials).
• Yuba County Public Works Department
• Sutter County Public Works Department
• City of Marysville Public Works Department
• City of Wheatland Engineering Department
• City of Yuba City Public Works Department
• City of Live Oak Public Works Department
Design standards updated.

Action 6
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Work with emergency responders to identify barriers and improve response times, as necessary.
• Yuba County
• Sutter County
• City of Marysville
• City of Wheatland
• City of Yuba City
• City of Live Oak
• Local Emergency Responders
Annual meetings with emergency response agencies to review the previous year’s emergency response metrics and methods for improvement.

Short Term
Ongoing
Action 1
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Advance design concepts and apply for grant funding or
identify other financing methods for three priority corridors every five years.
• Yuba County Public Works Department
• Sutter County Public Works Department
• City of Marysville Public Works Department
• City of Wheatland Engineering Department
• City of Yuba City Public Works Department
• City of Live Oak Public Works Department
Number of projects advanced through design or grant applications.

Action 2
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Install low-cost safety improvements at six regional locations per year—including new road markings, signs, and minor signal modifications—that address the focus areas in this plan. • Yuba County Public Works Department
• Sutter County Public Works Department
• City of Marysville Public Works Department
• City of Wheatland Engineering Department
• City of Yuba City Public Works Department
• City of Live Oak Public Works Department
Number of low-cost projects that address focus areas implemented regionally per year.

Priority B: Systemically and Proactively Address Common Crash Focus Areas These strategies target key areas for improvement identified through crash analysis, including intersection control and vulnerable users.

Ongoing
Short Term
49 Section 3, Item # 3.4
66 Yuba-Sutter 67

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Regional Safety Action Plan
Action 3
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Complete three projects that improve bicycle and pedestrian safety near schools and community destinations such as
parks and downtown business areas within five years.
• Yuba County Public Works Department
• Sutter County Public Works Department
• City of Marysville Public Works Department
• City of Wheatland Engineering Department
• City of Yuba City Public Works Department
• City of Live Oak Public Works Department
Number of bicycle and pedestrian projects implemented.

Action 1
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Launch high-visibility multilingual education PSA campaigns against speeding, distracted driving, impaired driving, and other high-risk behaviors, with a focus on safety corridors.

The campaigns should have both digital and in-person
components for greatest reach into the communities.
• Yuba County Public Works Department
• Sutter County Public Works Department
• City of Marysville Public Works Department
• City of Wheatland Engineering Department
• City of Yuba City Public Works Department
• City of Live Oak Public Works Department
• Local law enforcement agencies
• California Higway Patrol
Estimated number of people reached.

Priority C: Educate All Roadway Users
These strategies represent a variety of educational and outreach programs and strategies that encourage behavior change in road users.

Short Term
Short Term
Action 2
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Deter impaired driving by targeting education and outreach at alcohol-serving establishments. Develop a public promotional campaign encouraging the use of taxis, rideshares, on-demand transit, and other services as alternatives to impaired driving. • Local Police Departments
• Yuba County Sheriff
• Sutter County Sheriff
• California Highway Patrol
• Local Businesses
• Yuba-Sutter Transit
Number of establishments reached. Number of programs established.

Action 3
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Improve data collection and reporting on speed, impairment, cell phone use, and distraction for KSI crashes.
• Local Police Departments
• Yuba County Sheriff
• Sutter County Sheriff
• California Highway Patrol
Share of crash records including this data.

Long Term
Long Term
50 Section 3, Item # 3.4
68 Yuba-Sutter

4. Regional Implementation Plan
Our commitment: Yuba-Sutter will periodically review the effectiveness of the strategies to identify those that would be helpful to expand and those that could be replaced. Each strategy includes an implementation timeline and evaluation metric(s), and identifies the parties and partnerships needed to be successful.

Action 4
Timeline
Responsible
Agency
Evaluation
Metric
Partner with community-based organizations such as YABA, Blue Zones, and Civic Thread on educational campaigns
focused on vulnerable road users, such as Safe Routes to School and early driver education.
• Yuba County
• Sutter County
• City of Marysville
• City of Wheatland
• City of Yuba City
• City of Live Oak
• Local community-based organizations (CBOs)
• Local School District
Number of joint campaigns betweeen local agencies and CBOs.

Long Term
51 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Yuba County
2 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 3
Introduction
Yuba County is rich in history, natural beauty,
and agricultural significance. Covering
approximately 644 square miles, Yuba County
is geographically diverse, with the western
portion consisting of fertile valley land ideal
for farming, while the eastern portion has the
rugged terrain of the Sierra Nevada foothills.

The county is home to the Yuba River, Feather
River, and Bear River, which contribute
to its scenic landscapes and recreational
opportunities.

Agriculture plays a vital role in Yuba County’s
economy, with crops such as rice, peaches, and
walnuts being widely cultivated. The county
also has a strong presence of cattle ranching
and dairy farming. Additionally, Yuba County
is known for its biodiversity, boasting a high
number of native plant species.

CHAPTER 5
Yuba County Crash Analysis This Plan and Our Region
The county is connected to the greater
Sacramento Region by a network of state
facilities that carry high volumes of traffic.

State Route (SR) 70 runs north-south through
the county seat of Marysville, SR 20, provides
east-west access, and SR 65 connects to Beale
Air Force Base and the City of Wheatland to
Roseville, and Rocklin in Placer County.

Yuba County is home to several fairly populous
unincorporated communities that fall under
county jurisdiction. These communities include
Linda, Olivehurst, Arboga, Plumas Lake, Loma
Rica, Browns Valley, and Oregon House, among
others.

Project team conducting walk audits
52 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Yuba County
4 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 5
Communities of Concern
Sociodemographic data sources are helpful
to better understand the community, as well
as when applying for state and federal grant
funding to implement infrastructure projects.

Figure 5.1 shows locations in Yuba County that
meet the criteria for two community metrics
relevant to grant applications:
• Caltrans Transportation Equity Index
(EQI) Transportation-Based Priority
Populations: 7 percent of Yuba County’s
population meets Caltrans’ threshold for
Transportation-Disadvantaged status,
compared to 16 percent statewide.
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty and
Historically Disadvantaged Communities:
41 percent of Yuba County’s population
lives in areas of persistent poverty and
historically disadvantaged communities,
compared to 28 percent statewide.

In CalEnviroScreen, which evaluates
environmental burdens including air pollution,
traffic density, and health vulnerabilities, Yuba
County received a score of 20, where the state
had a score of 23, indicating parity between
Yuba County and the state as a whole.

Figure 5.1: Caltrans Transportation Equity Index & USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty y y py
T
·65
·70
·20
·99
Yu b a Cou n ty
Ca l tra n s Tra n spor ta ti on E q u i ty I n d ex
( E Q I ) Tra n spor ta ti on - B a sed Pr i or i ty
Popu l a tion s
U SD OT Area s o f Pers i s ten t Pover ty
an d H i stor i ca l l y D i sad van taged
Com m u n i ti es (AP P H D C )
Legend
Caltrans Transportation Equity
Index (EQI) Transportation-Based
Priority Populations
USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
and Historically Disadvantaged
Communities (APPHDC)
·20
Dr
Edward
A 40-year-old male,
relies on carpooling
and walking for his
daily commutes, facing
challenges associated
with poverty, including
limited transportation
options and unsafe
walking conditions. His
day includes traveling
for work and social
activities, as well as
returning home on foot.

A
T
West Linda
53 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Yuba County
6 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan7
Plans
Yuba County has previously made
commitments to roadway safety, as outlined
in the Yuba County General Plan and recently
completed Local Roadway Safety Plan. Refer
to Appendix A for a list of policies and goals
supporting improving roadway safety.

Projects
There are numerous improvement projects
currently underway or planned within
unincorporated Yuba County.

The following roadway safety-related projects
are planned on state facilities owned and
operated by Caltrans: • Install centerline or shoulder rumble strips on State Route 20 at various locations
throughout Yuba County.
• Upgrade crosswalk to ladder type at
various locations on SR 65 and 70 in
southwest Yuba County.
• Upgrade guardrail, signs, Transportation
Management System elements; install
sidewalks, curb and gutter, lighting, and
acceleration and deceleration lanes;
rehabilitate pavement and drainage
systems along SR 65 between SR 70 and
South Beale Road.
• Upgrade crosswalk to ladder type on
SR 70 near Algodon Road and south of
Plumas Lake Boulevard.

The following safety-related projects are
being designed or in construction on county
roadways: • Addition of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and
bike lanes along Arboga Road, Grand
Avenue, Jay Street, Cottonwood Avenue,
Garden Avenue, and Vine Avenue in
West Linda, in addition to storm drains on
Garden Avenue.
• Curb, gutter, sidewalk, bike lanes, and
storm drain along 13 roads in Olivehurst:

Second Ave, Third Ave, Fourth Ave, Fifth
Ave, Sixth Ave, Eighth Ave, Ninth Ave,
Tenth Ave, Eleventh Ave, Western Ave,
Beaver Lane, Canal Street, and Tulsa
Avenue.
• Streetscape improvements on Feather
River Boulevard from Arboga Road to
Alicia Avenue, including new sidewalks,
crosswalks, Class II bike lanes, storm
drains, striping, signage, curbs, gutters,
American Disability Act compliant ramps,
LED street lights, and improved transit
stops.

The following recently completed projects in
Yuba County enhance safety for roadway users,
particularly pedestrians, bicyclists, and children: • Bike path on the western edge of the Plumas Lake community
• Safe Routes to School: Sidewalks,
crosswalks, bike lanes, curbs, and gutters
on 11th Avenue in Olivehurst
54 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Yuba County
8 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 9
Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
264 294 324 339
273
317
10 7
7 8
15 13
21 13
10 22
16 19
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
45 45
64 62 60
51 6 2
0 3 4
5 11
5 7
13 7
7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
1,972

INJURY CRASH TOTAL
397

KSI CRASH TOTAL
Crash Summary
This section summarizes key findings from
the county’s crash data obtained from the
California Highway Patrol’s Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
database, for the years 2018 to 2023. The
analysis includes all crashes that led to injury
and excludes property-damage-only crashes.

Within the six-year period Yuba County saw
a total of 1,972 crashes that led to some
degree of injury. 82 crashes (four percent of all
injury crashes) involved bicyclists and 148 (six
percent) involved pedestrians. 438 crashes
resulted in a victim being Killed or Severely
Injured (KSI).

Figure 5.2
Injury Crashes by Year, 2018 - 2023
Figure 5.3
KSI Crashes by Year, 2018 - 2023
KSI = Killed or Severely Injured
Figure 5.4: Yuba County Crash Heat Map
55 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Yuba County
10 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 11
About KSI Crashes
Severe injuries resulting from a traffic crash
can result in a number of catastrophic impacts,
including permanent disability, lost productivity
and wages, and ongoing healthcare costs.

These injuries can include:
• Broken or fractured bones
• Dislocated or distorted limbs
• Severe lacerations
• Severe burns
• Skull, spinal, chest or abdominal injuries
• Unconsciousness at or when taken from
the collision scene
Throughout this analysis, the acronym KSI is
used to denote crashes where someone was
killed or severely injured.

KSI Summary
There is a disproportionately greater share
of bicycle and pedestrian crashes among KSI
crashes, as compared to all injury crashes.

Out of 397 KSI crashes, 20 (five percent of
KSI crashes) involved bicyclists, and 50 (13
percent) involved pedestrians. There was a
total of 102 fatalities: 83 vehicle drivers or
passengers, 14 pedestrians, and five bicyclists.

Figure 5.6: Yuba County KSI Crashes
Figure 5.5
Crash Mode Share by Severity
1811
60101
327
20 50
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
56 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Yuba County
12 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 13
Crashes by Crash Type
Overall, hit object (29 percent), broadside (21
percent), and rear-end (20 percent), were the
most common crash types in Yuba County.

Similarly, among KSI crashes, hit object (32
percent) was also the most common type of
crash, followed by overturned (15 percent) and
head-on (15 percent).

Crashes by Primary Crash Factor
Improper turning (28 percent) was the leading
reported primary cause of crashes resulting in
injury, followed by unsafe speed (25 percent)
and Vehicle Right of Way Violation (14
percent).

Improper turning (33 percent) was the leading
reported primary cause of KSI crashes followed
by Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence (22
percent) and Unsafe Speed (17 percent).

Crashes by Time of Day and Lighting Condition
Overall, most crashes occurred in the daylight
(63 percent), 4 percent occurred during dusk
and dawn, 12 percent occurred in the dark
where streetlight was present, and 21 percent
in the dark with no lighting. 49 percent of KSI
crashes happened in the daytime, 4 percent
occurred during dusk and dawn, and 13
percent occurred in the dark with streetlight
present. A disproportionately greater share of
KSI crashes occurred during nighttime in areas
that lacked lighting, at 33 percent compared to
21 percent of all injury crashes.

Driving Under the Influence
15 percent of all crashes resulting in injury
involved someone driving under the influence of
alcohol or drugs. Notably, this share was larger
for KSI crashes, at 22 percent.

Figure 5.10
DUI Crashes
Other Crashes
DUI Crashes
Figure 5.9
Crashes by Time of Day & Lighting
Figure 5.7 Share of Injury Crashes by Crash Type
Figure 5.8 Share of Injury Crashes by Primary Crash Factor 29%
21% 20%
12%
7% 6% 5%
1%
32%
12%
9%
15% 15%
5%
11%
1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Hit Object Broadside Rear End Overturned Head-On Sideswipe Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other
28%
25%
14% 14%
4%
2%
13%
33%
17%
7%
22%
8%
5%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Improper
Turning
Unsafe Speed Vehicle Right of
Way Violation
Driving or
Bicycling Under
the Influence
Wrong Side of
Road
Pedestrian
Violation
Other
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
63%
4%
12%
21%
49%
4%
13%
33%
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
15%
85%
22%
78%
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Daytime
Night Time, Streetlights Working
Night Time, Streetlights Not Present
or Working
Dusk & Dawn
57 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Yuba County
14 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 15
Safety corridors are the roadway segments
within Yuba County that had the highest
number of crashes resulting in severe injury or
death (KSI) in the six-year study period. Priority
safety corridors are the safety corridors that
experienced the highest rate of KSI crashes,
are adjacent to sensitive land uses, and have
high potential for severe crashes and thus,
should be prioritized for improvements. The
following is a list of Yuba County’s priority
safety corridors as identified through a safety
corridor systemic analysis, task force input, and
community feedback. Figure 5.11 displays Yuba
County’s network of safety corridors, which are
shown in orange. Priority corridors are shown
in red. Refer to Appendix C for a more detailed
explanation of the safety corridor identification
technical methodology.
• SR 70 from Yuba River to SR 65 Junction
• SR 65 from Morrison Rd/Rancho Rd to
Wheatland city limits
• North Beale Rd/Lindhurst Ave from SR 70
to Erle Rd
• Simpson Ln from Yuba River to
Hammonton-Smartsville Rd
• Hammonton-Smartsville Rd from
Simpson Ln to Avondale Ave/Rupert Ave
• Grove Ave from Hammonton Smartsville
Rd to Shoreline Dr
• Olivehurst Ave from Powerline/Chestnut
roundabout to Lindhurst Ave
• McGowan Pkwy from Arboga Rd to
Rancho Rd
• Plumas Arboga Rd from SR 70 to Forty
Mile Rd
• Forty Mile Rd from Rancho Rd to Plumas
Arboga Rd
Safety Corridor Inset:

Safety Corridors
Figure 5.11: Yuba County Safety Corridors
Priority Safety Corridors were identified to
provide the list of locations for actionable next
steps with additional study. Studies could
include recommended engineering safety
countermeasures with targeted improvements
to address crash history or focused programs
identified in the Action Plan chapter.
58 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Yuba County
16 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 17
Community Snapshot
Edward’s daily routine highlights the
transportation struggles faced by individuals
living in poverty, as shown in Figure 5.12.

Without access to a personal vehicle, he relies
on carpooling with co-workers to travel nearly
10 miles to his job and later to a nearby bar
and grill for socializing. His return home is on
foot, covering about a mile. This walk, however,
is fraught with safety hazards. The route
along Alicia Avenue lacks sidewalks, has poor
lighting, and offers limited safe crossing points,
making it a dangerous journey.

Although a majority of Yuba County residents
(84 percent) primarily rely on cars for
transportation, a significant portion still travel
on foot (11 percent). Edward’s experience
underscores the broader challenges of
inadequate infrastructure and limited mobility
options in underserved communities, and
how pedestrians should be given greater
consideration when planning and implementing
safety improvements.

This community snapshot features Edward, a fictional character created to illustrate the daily transportation challenges faced by someone without a personal vehicle in unincorporated Yuba County. The experiences of this character are based on census data as well as local lived experiences.

Figure 5.12: Yuba County Community Snapshot
·65
·99
Yuba County Yuba-Sutter Safety Action Plan Community Snapshots Edward
A 40-year-old male,
relies on carpooling
and walking for his
daily commutes, facing
challenges associated
with poverty, including
limited transportation
options and unsafe
walking conditions. His
day includes traveling
for work and social
activities, as well as
returning home on foot.

Edward does not have
access to a vehicle and
either walks or carpools
throughout his day. His day
starts after getting picked
up by a carpool of coworkers, which takes him to
his job nearly 10 miles away.

After work, Edward
and some co-workers
carpool to a favorite bar
and grill that is not too
far from Edwards house.

After socializing, Edward
walks one mile home,
facing difficulties due to
a lack of sidewalks, poor
lighting, and limited
crossing opportunities
along Alicia Avenue.

A
Legend
Home location
Destinations
Walking
Carpooling
Safety Corridor
Highways
A B C
West Linda
C
B
C
B
59 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Yuba County
18 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 19
Focus Areas
Six focus areas were identified through a systemic analysis of crash records to represent the most significant patterns behind injury crashes—and especially KSI crashes—in the region. These focus areas are identified with the letters “A” through “F” and each one is applicable to one, several, or all of the communities covered by this RSAP. Following each crash focus area is a set of potential countermeasures that should be considered for implementation to improve safety outcomes.

Appendix D contains a more detailed summary of each countermeasure.

Yuba County’s traffic safety challenges can be understood through a subset of these focus areas:

FOCUS AREA C
Driving Under the Influence

FOCUS AREA D
Crashes Involving People Walking and
Biking

FOCUS AREA B
Improper Turning Away from
Intersections

FOCUS AREA B
Hit Object
60 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Yuba County
20 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 21
Driving under the influence (DUI) is a significant
contributor to injury crashes, especially and
disproportionately to KSI crashes. Alcohol
impairment was involved in 15 percent (of
Yuba County’s total crashes but accounted for
23 percent of all Yuba County’s KSI crashes.

Figure 5.12 displays all DUI crashes within
unincorporated Yuba County.

Two-thirds of DUI crashes were concentrated
in the southwest portion of the county—many
of them in and near Linda, West Linda, and
Olivehurst—on Hammonton Smartville Road,
North Beale Road, State Routes 65 and
70, Arboga Road, Feather River Boulevard,
Olivehurst Avenue, and Forty Mile Road. The
rest of the crashes were dispersed widely
north of the Yuba River, on SR 70 and SR
49, and Marysville Road, mostly. Local law
enforcement and public works staff identified
the Amphitheater and Casino as probable
influences. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday see
higher crash frequency around 6pm to 3am,
compared to other times of day and days of the
week. Most DUI crashes occurred on county
and state roads where there are posted speed
limits of 55 MPH.

Hit object was the most common type of crash
to result from DUI crashes and accounted
for 48 percent (142 crashes) of them and 42
percent of KSI crashes (40 crashes). These
DUI-hit object crashes were spread across the
county in a pattern similar to that of all DUI
crashes.

The most effective countermeasures for DUI
crashes fall under non-engineering programs
that target education and enforcement.

FOCUS AREA C
Driving Under the Influence
293 (15%) Total Crashes 92 (23%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
Figure 5.12: Crashes Involving Driving Under the Influence 61 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Yuba County
22 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 23
Pedestrians and bicyclists are vulnerable
roadway users. Although crashes involving
people walking and biking make up only
eight percent of all crashes, they account for
nearly eighteen percent of all KSI crashes
in unincorporated Yuba County. Figure 5.13
displays all crashes that involved people
walking and biking.

These crashes are concentrated in the
unincorporated communities of West Linda,
Linda, and Olivehurst. There are higher rates of
KSI crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians
on arterials such as McGowan Parkway,
Feather River Boulevard, North Beale Road,

FOCUS AREA D
Crashes Involving People Walking and Biking
160 (8%) Total Crashes 70 (18%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
and Forty Mile Road. There are numerous
crashes on arterial segments where retail
businesses and homes are present along either
side of the road:
• Feather River Boulevard, between Alicia
Avenue and SR 70
• North Beale Road, between Silverwood
Street and Hammonton Smartville Road
Mid-block crashes occurred in some areas
where pedestrian crossings are sparse—
particularly on Lindhurst Avenue and
Hammonton Smartville Road.

Bicyclist-Involved Crash
Pedestrian-Involved Crash
Figure 5.13: Crashes Involving People Walking and Biking 62 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Yuba County
24 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 25
Potential Countermeasures
Add Sidewalk
Separated Bikeway Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lanes
Shared-Use Path
Green Conflict Striping
High-Visibility Crosswalk
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Co-Locate Bus Stops and Pedestrian
Crossings
Leading Pedestrian Interval and
Pedestrian Recall
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Curb Extensions
The following countermeasures reduce risks for
crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists by
making them more visible to drivers, providing
safer and more frequent opportunities to
cross busy roads, and creating dedicated or
protected spaces for their use.
63 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Yuba County
26 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 27
Improper turning remains one of the leading
primary contributors to crashes and accounts
for 552 of Yuba County’s crashes. Moreover,
most of them occurred away from an
intersection, rather than at them. Of those
552 crashes, 383 took place away from an
intersection, making up 19 percent of the
county’s crashes. 99 (25 percent) of Yuba
County’s improper-turning KSI crashes occurred
away from an intersection. Figure 5.14 displays
the locations of these crashes.
58 percent of these crashes led to hit object
and 22 percent to overturned. 70 percent were
traveling at speeds exceeding 50 MPH. In
the moments leading up to them, 44 percent
of parties that were at fault made an unsafe
turning action and 27 percent ran off the

FOCUS AREA E
Improper Turning Away from Intersections
road. This pattern could suggest that highspeed unsafe lane changes, erratic steering, or distracted driving on roads may have led to
these crashes.

SR 70 experienced the highest frequency of
improper turning crashes occurring away
from intersections. These crashes were
highly concentrated along SR 70 between
the northwest limits of Linda and Olivehurst
Avenue and moderately concentrated on SR
70 north of Marysville as well as Hammonton
Smartville Road. The remaining crashes were
mostly dispersed on corridors within the vicinity
of Linda, Oliveshurst, and Wheatland, such as
Feather River Boulevard, in addition to more
rural roads such as SR 20, Marysville Road/
Willow Glen Road, and Loma Rica Road.
383 (19%) Total Crashes 99 (25%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
Figure 5.14: Improper Turning Crashes Away from Intersections 64 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Yuba County
28 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 29
A combination of signage, roadway
enhancements, and visibility improvements,
such as rumble strips, curve warning signs,
guardrails, and delineators, can help prevent
unsafe turning and roadway departures by
guiding drivers and providing recovery space.

These countermeasures, especially when
paired with speed limit reductions, reduce
crash severity by lowering the kinetic energy
transferred during high-speed impacts, helping
prevent serious injuries.

Potential Countermeasures
Curve Advance Warning Sign Chevron Signs on Horizontal Curves Delineators, Reflectors, and/or Object
Create/Increase Clear Zone Speed Limit Reduction
Rumble Strips
Safety Edge Widen/Pave Shoulder
Guardrail
65 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Yuba County
30 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 31
Hit-object crashes emerged as the most
prevalent crash type in unincorporated Yuba
County. This crash type composes 566 (29
percent) of the county’s crashes overall, and
129 (32 percent) of the county’s KSI crashes.

As expected, 96% of all hit-object crashes
involved only one party. Figure 5.15 displays
all hit object crases between 2018 and 2023 in
unincorporated Yuba County.

Two-thirds of this type of crash occurred on
non-state facilities. Many of these county road
hit object crashes occurred in rural eastern
Yuba County on narrow, tree-lined roadways
and near residential areas, mainly Linda and
Olivehurst, where roads are two to four lanes
and many have on-street parking. Leading up
to the crashes, 40 percent of at-fault vehicles
made some unsafe turning movement, such as
abrupt lane changes or erratic steering wheel
maneuvers, and 30 percent ran off the road.

FOCUS AREA F
Hit Object
566 (29%) Total Crashes 129 (32%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
A smaller share of vehicles were proceeding
straight (19 percent). As a result, most of the
objects hit were fixed objects (80 percent), such
as trees and utility poles on the side of the road;
10 percent were other objects such as items
dropped from a vehicle or a parked vehicle; and
two percent were animals.

Similar to the improper turning crash focus
area, a significant amount of hit object crashes
took place on SR 70, especially between
the northwest limits of Linda and the SR 70
and SR 65 merge. Hit object crashes were
also frequently reported along Hammonton
Smartville Road, SR 20, Marysville Road/
Willow Glen Road, and Loma Rica Road.

Within the unincorporated communities, hit
object crashes were prominent along North
Beale Road and Feather River Boulevard and in
the northern portion of Plumas Lake.

Figure 5.15: Hit Object Crashes
66 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Yuba County
32 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 33
Countermeasures like guardrails, clear
zone improvements, and widened or paved
shoulders can help prevent crashes with
objects and provide recovery space. Rumble
strips, safety edge treatments, and delineators
or reflectors enhance driver awareness and
guidance, especially in low-visibility conditions.

Speed limit reductions are especially critical, as
lower speeds directly reduce the kinetic energy
transferred during a crash, which in turn lowers
the risk of severe injury or fatality.

Potential Countermeasures
Delineators, Reflectors, and/or Object Speed Limit Reduction Create/Increase Clear Zone
Rumble Strips
Safety Edge Widen/Pave Shoulder
Guardrail
67 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Wheatland
2 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 3
Introduction
Wheatland is located in southern Yuba County,
about 40 miles north of Sacramento. The Beale
Air Force Base, Toyota Amphitheatre, and Hard
Rock Hotel & Casino are located nearby. It is the
gateway city to Camp Far West, a regionally
significant recreation area. Wheatland is a
small but growing community with a population
of approximately 3,700 residents. The city’s
roadway network is centered around State
Route 65/D Street, a vital north-south corridor
that bisects town and connects Wheatland to
other parts of the region, such as Marysville
and the greater Sacramento area. Adjacent to
this road is the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR).

Spenceville Road is another key corridor,
extending from the middle of town to the east,
and provides access to the Camp Far West
Reservoir and Beale Air Force Base via the
Vassar Lake Gate.

Wheatland is a predominantly residential
community, with about half of the city’s
population living on either side of State Route
65 and UPRR tracks. All of the schools are
situated on the west side and the primary retail
destinations on the east or along the highway.

Wheatland Elementary School and Virginia
School are accessed off Olive Street near SR
65, and Wheatland Union High School and
Bear River Middle School via Wheatland Road.

The historic downtown core is a compact,
walkable district east of the highway that
features a collection of well-preserved 19thand early 20th-century buildings that house local businesses. Most residents must cross
SR 65 multiple times per day either by driving,
biking, or walking to access their destinations.

CHAPTER 7
Wheatland Crash Analysis
Communities of Concern
Sociodemographic data sources are helpful
to better understand the community, as well
as when applying for state and federal grant
funding to implement infrastructure projects.

Figure 7.1 shows locations in Wheatland that
meet the criteria for two community metrics
relevant to grant applications:
• Caltrans Transportation Equity Index
(EQI) Transportation-Based Priority
Populations: 2 percent of Wheatland’s
population meets Caltrans’ threshold for
Transportation-Disadvantaged status,
compared to 16 percent of Californians.
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty and
Historically Disadvantaged Communities:
none of Wheatland qualifies as an
area of persistent poverty or historically
disadvantaged community, compared to
28 percent statewide.

In CalEnviroScreen, which evaluates
environmental burdens including air pollution,
traffic density, and health vulnerabilities,
Wheatland received a score of 22, where
the state had a score of 23, indicating parity
between Wheatland and the state as a whole.
68 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Wheatland
4 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 5
Plans
The City of Wheatland has already made
commitments to improving roadway safety
through policies set in the Wheatland General
Plan:
• 2.A.10: The City shall give priority to
street and highway improvements that
increase safety, minimize maintenance
costs, and increase the efficiency of the
street system.
• 2.C.2: The City shall promote street, alley,
and sidewalk maintenance to encourage
their safe use.
• 2.C.4: The City shall require ADA
compliance for existing and proposed
street sidewalks.
• 2.C.5: The City shall promote elderly
friendly roadways, including the use of
bikeways for golf carts and motorized
wheelchairs.

Projects
There are numerous improvement projects
currently underway or planned within
Wheatland. There is a series of safety
improvements planned on state facilities
owned and operated by Caltrans along State
Route 65 between Evergreen Drive and State
Street, including rehabilitating pavement,
adding bike lanes, upgrading facilities to
comply with Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) standards, constructing a multi-use path,
and enhancing existing crosswalks.

There are newly installed traffic signals at the
State Route 65 and McDevitt Drive intersection.

In addition, improvements are planned at the
intersections of SR 65 & Oakley Lane and SR
65 & Dairy Lane. While both these intersections
are located in unincorporated Yuba County,
they are frequently traveled by Wheatland
residents, with members of the community
expressing concern during the community
engagement process.

Typical Intersection in Wheatland
·65
M a l on e Ave
Sp en cevi l l e R d
H wy 65
Wheatl an d
Tr i p D es ti n a ti on s for E Q I R es i d en ts
0 - 500
50 1 - 1 , 000
1 , 00 1 - 2 , 37 9
Segm en t Vo l u m e o f E Q I R es i d en t Tr i p s
50 800
1 ,550
2,300
Ca l tra n s Tra n spor ta ti on E q u i ty I n d ex ( E Q I ) Tra n spor ta ti on - B a sed Pr i or i ty Pop u l a ti on s ·65
M a l on e Ave
Sp en cevi l l e R d
H wy 65
Wheatl an d
Ca l tra n s Tra n spor ta ti on E q u i ty I n d ex
( E Q I ) Tra n spor ta ti on - B a sed Pr i or i ty
Popu l a tion s
U SD OT Area s o f Pers i s ten t Pover ty
an d H i stor i ca l l y D i sad van taged
Com m u n i ti es (AP P H D C )
Legend
Caltrans Transportation Equity
Index (EQI) Transportation-Based
Priority Populations
USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
and Historically Disadvantaged
Communities (APPHDC)
Legend
Trip Destination for EQI Residents
0 - 500
501 - 1,000
1,001 - 2,379
Segment Volume of EQI Trips
50 800
1,550
2,300
Caltrans Transportation Equity Index (EQI)
Transportation-Based Priority Populations
Figure 7.1: Caltrans Transportation Equity Index & USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty 69 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Wheatland
6 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 7
Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
13 13 14 13
11 1
1 1
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
1 1
0 1
2 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
73 INJURY CRASH TOTAL
2 KSI CRASH TOTAL
Crash Summary
This section summarizes key findings from the
city’s crash data obtained from the California
Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System (SWITRS) database, for the
years 2018 to 2023. The analysis includes
all crashes that led to injury and excludes
property-damage-only crashes.

Within the six-year period, Wheatland saw a
total of 73 crashes that led to some degree of
injury. One crash involved a bicyclist and two
involved pedestrians. In total, there were two
crashes that involved at least one person that
was killed or severely injured (KSI).

There was a concentration of crashes on D
Street/ SR 65 between Main Street and State
Street where cars traveling northbound rearended other vehicles as the posted speed limit drops from 55 MPH to 35 MPH, right before the
signal at Main Street.

Figure 7.2
Injury Crashes by Year, 2018 - 2023
Figure 7.3
KSI Crashes by Year, 2018 - 2023
KSI = Killed or Severely Injured
Figure 7.4:

Wheatland Crash Heat Map
70 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Wheatland
8 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 9
About KSI Crashes
Severe injuries resulting from a traffic crash
can result in a number of catastrophic impacts,
including permanent disability, lost productivity
and wages, and ongoing healthcare costs.

These injuries can include:
• Broken or fractured bones
• Dislocated or distorted limbs
• Severe lacerations
• Severe burns
• Skull, spinal, chest or abdominal injuries
• Unconsciousness at or when taken from
the collision scene
Throughout this analysis, the acronym KSI is
used to denote crashes where someone was
killed or severely injured.

KSI Crash Summary
In the six-year period, there were two crashes
within Wheatland that resulted in severe injury;
there were no fatalities. Both crashes involved
only vehicles, with no pedestrians or cyclists
affected.

Figure 7.5
Crash Mode Share by Severity
70 12
2 Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Vehicle-Only Crashes
Bicycle-Involved Crashes
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
Figure 7.6: Wheatland KSI Crashes
71 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Wheatland
10 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 11
Crashes by Crash Type
Overall, rear-end crashes were the most
common type of crashes in Wheatland, making
up 62 percent of all crashes resulting in injury.

Most of Wheatland’s crashes occurred on
SR 65, the main corridor in town. Rear-rend
crashes were most common approaching Main
Street, as the speed limit changes from 55 MPH
to 35 MPH.

Crashes by Primary Crash Factor
Unsafe speed (53 percent) was the leading
reported primary cause of crashes in
Wheatland. The remaining crashes were
attributed to several other factors, such as
vehicle right of way violation, improper turning,
and driving under the influence, etc. Unsafe
speed and improper turning were the causes
behind one KSI crash each.

Figure 7.10
DUI Crashes
Other Crashes
DUI Crashes
Crashes by Time of Day and Lighting Condition
Overall, most crashes occurred in the daylight
(80 percent), 10 percent occurred in the dark
where streetlight was present, and 10 percent
happened in the dark with no lighting. All
crashes that took place under no lighting
conditions occurred on SR 65, except for
one at the Spenceville Road and Boyd Lane
intersection. Both KSI crashes occurred in
daylight.

Driving Under the Influence
7 percent of crashes (5 crashes) involved
someone driving under the influence of alcohol
or drugs. No KSI crashes involved a DUI.

Figure 7.9
Crashes by Time of Day & Lighting
Figure 7.7 Share of Injury Crashes by Crash Type
Figure 7.8 Share of Injury Crashes by Primary Crash Factor 62%
10% 10%
5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 0%
50% 50%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Rear End Head-On Broadside Hit Object Sideswipe Overturned Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other Not Stated
53%
7% 5% 5% 3%
26%
50%
0%
50%
0% 0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Unsafe Speed Vehicle Right of
Way Violation
Improper Turning Driving or
Bicycling Under
the Influence
Traffic Signals and
Signs
Other
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
80%
7%
10%
10%
100%
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
7%
93%
100%
Injury Crashes
KSI Crashes
Daytime
Night Time, Streetlights Working
Night Time, Streetlights Not Present
or Working
Dusk & Dawn
72 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Wheatland
12 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 13
Safety corridors are the roadway segments
within Wheatland that had the highest
number of crashes resulting in severe injury or
death (KSI) between 2018 and 2023. Priority
safety corridors are the safety corridors that
experienced the highest rate of KSI crashes, are
adjacent to sensitive land uses, and have high
potential for severe crashes and thus, should be
prioritized for improvements.

The following is a list of Wheatland’s priority
safety corridors as identified through a safety
corridor systemic analysis, task force input,
and community feedback. Figure 7.11 displays
Wheatland’s network of safety corridors, which
are shown in orange. Priority corridors are
shown in red. Refer to Appendix C for a more
detailed explanation of the safety corridor
identification technical methodology.
• SR 65 beyond the city limits, from Dry
Creek Levee Road to Bear River
• Main Street from SR 65 to Spenceville
Road
• Spenceville Road from Main Street to east
of McCurry Street
Priority Safety Corridors were identified to
provide the list of locations for actionable next
steps with additional study. Studies could
include recommended engineering safety
countermeasures with targeted improvements
to address crash history or focused programs
identified in the Action Plan chapter.

Safety Corridors Figure 7.11:

Wheatland Safety Corridors
SR 65/Oakley Lane and SR 65/Dairy Road
Although these two intersections lie outside
Wheatland’s city limits, they are included in
Wheatland’s safety considerations due to
significant safety concerns from Wheatland
residents. Improvements at these sites are
expected to enhance safety and mobility for the
Wheatland community.
• SR 65 & Dairy Road
• SR 65 & Oakley Lane
73 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Wheatland
14 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 15
Community Snapshot
Wheatland is a small city where many
destinations are within walking or biking
distance. However, infrastructure challenges
limit the feasibility and safety of active
transportation. Veronica, a 66-year-old
resident managing heart disease, is seeking to
incorporate more physical activity into her daily
routine. While walking and biking offer clear
health benefits, she finds the current roadway
conditions discouraging and unsafe, particularly
due to the railroad tracks and lack of shoulders
along Spenceville Road. Addressing these
barriers is essential to supporting healthier,
more active lifestyles for residents like Veronica.

Figure 7.12 outlines the travel mode choices
made by Veronica and challenges that come
with them.

Although a majority of trips are made by car
(75 percent), a significant portion still travel by
foot (18 percent). This mode share should be
given greater consideration when planning and
implementing safety improvements.

This community snapshot features Veronica, a fictional character created to illustrate the daily transportation challenges faced by a resident in Wheatland. The experiences of this character are based on census data as well as local lived experiences.

Figure 7.12: Wheatland Community Snapshot
Wheatland Yuba-Sutter Safety Action Plan Community Snapshots ·65
Malone Ave
Spenceville Rd
Hwy 65
Veronica
A 66-year-old woman
with adult children, faces
health challenges due to
her heart disease as she
attempts to incorporate
more physical activity into
her daily life.

Veronica drives nearly ¾
of a mile to the Wheatland
Community Center for a
social outing. She would
bike but she does not like
crossing D Street and the
railroad tracks.

After the Community Center,
Veronica swings by the Post
Office which is less than
1/5th of a mile away, an easily
walkable or bikeable distance.

Veronica drives the short ½
mile home, once again an
easily walkable or bikeable
distance.

For recreation, Veronica goes
on a 20-mile bike ride with
friends, but during the ride
she faces difficulties biking
along Camp Beale Highway
and struggles crossing D
Street at Main Street.

Legend
Home location
Destinations
Biking
Driving
Safety Corridor
Highways
C
A B D
C
A
B
D
74 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Wheatland
16 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 17
Focus Areas
State Route 65 is a north-south corridor that
serves as a connector for local traffic as well
as those passing through Wheatland to get to
other parts of the region. This arterial highway
bisects the city and is a road residents must
cross to get to destinations from one side of
town to the other. Between 2018 and 2023, 33
of 73 crashes within Wheatland occurred along
the segment of State Route 65 that serves as a
main street.

Crossing SR 65 presents significant challenges
for people walking, biking, and driving due to
limited and inadequate infrastructure. There are
few signalized intersections, so people needing
to cross SR 65 at non-signalized intersections
33 (45%) Total Injury Crashes 0 (0%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS

FOCUS AREA A
Crashes on State Highways Serving as Main Streets
have to contend with the high-speed vehicles
with little traffic control. Crosswalks only exist
at the two signalized intersections along SR
65 in the downtown core, and sidewalks are
narrow and nonexistent at some locations
along and around the highway, making it a
hostile experience for people traveling on foot.

In addition, the railroad tracks adjacent to
SR 65 present an uncomfortable crossing
experience for pedestrians and bicyclists.

The combination of high-speed traffic and more
active downtown environment can worsen the
likelihood and severity of conflicts. In particular,
crashes were more common in transition zones,
Six focus areas were identified through a systemic analysis of crash records to represent the most significant patterns behind injury crashes—and especially KSI crashes—in the region. These focus areas are identified with the letters “A” through “F” and each one is applicable to one, several, or all of the communities covered by this RSAP. Following each crash focus area is a set of potential countermeasures that should be considered for implementation to improve safety outcomes.

Appendix D contains a more detailed summary of each countermeasure.

Wheatland’s traffic safety challenges can be understood through a subset of these focus areas:

Some of these focus areas pertain to the crashes just outside Wheatland’s northern city limits, particularly where Oakley Lane and Dairy Road intersect Highway 65. These locations remain significant safety concerns for Wheatland residents.

FOCUS AREA A
Crashes on State Highways Serving as
Main Streets

FOCUS AREA B
Right-of-Way Issues at Intersections

FOCUS AREA D
Crashes Involving People Walking and
Biking
75 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Wheatland
18 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 19
Potential Countermeasures
areas near the edge of a town or city where
drivers are moving from higher-speed rural or
highway environments into lower-speed urban
settings.

Most of the crashes in this focus area (26 out
of the 33 crashes) occurred in transition zones,
with 13 crashes (50 percent) primarily caused
by unsafe speed and 18 crashes (69 percent)
that resulted in rear end crashes. Clusters
of these transition zone crashes occurred
between McDevitt Drive and the Dry Creek
Levee Road on the northern end of the city, and
between Main Street and State Street at the
southern end.

The following countermeasures can improve
safety along highway main streets by slowing
vehicle speeds and reducing conflict points
between drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

Treatments like bike lanes, sidewalks, medians,
and lighting enhance visibility and protection
for vulnerable users, while speed management
and intersection controls help lower the
likelihood and severity of crashes.

Figure 7.13: Crashes on State Highways Serving as Main Streets Buffered Bike Lanes
Add Sidewalk
Separated Bikeways
Raised Median
Roundabout
Flashing Yellow Turn Phase
Speed Limit Reduction
Lane Narrowing
Speed Sensitive Rest in Red Signal
Advance Stop Bar
All-Way Stop Control
Traffic Signal
Road Diet
Slow Turn Wedge
All-Red Signal Time
Street Lighting
Speed Feedback Sign
Retroreflective Tape on Signals
76 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Wheatland
20 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 21
In Wheatland, right-of-way violations at
intersections led to six crashes during the study
period, with four of them resulting in broadside
crashes. The leading causes were drivers failing
to yield to vehicles with the right-of-way when
making left turns and neglecting to stop at stop
signs.

Half of the crashes occurred when at-fault
parties from side streets attempted left turns
onto the main road, misjudging the time
available to complete the maneuver safely;
these took place at Wheatland Road & Oakley
Lane, State Route 65 & 2nd Street, and SR 65 &
State Street intersections. The two crashes that
occurred at the E St & 3rd St and C St & 4th
Street ensued when at-fault parties proceeded
straight through the all-way stop intersections
without stopping.

FOCUS AREA B
Right-of-Way Issues at Intersections
6 (8%) Total Injury Crashes 0 (0%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
SR 65/Oakley Lane and SR 65/Dairy Road
In addition to the six crashes that occurred
within city limits, there were four crashes
attributed to right-of-way violations where
Oakley Lane and Dairy Road intersect SR 65,
just outside of the city. Two of them resulted in
KSI broadside crashes after the at-fault parties
failed to yield when making left turns onto SR

65. Due to the severity of crash outcomes and
ongoing community concerns, these locations
warrant consideration for targeted safety
improvements by the county.

The following countermeasures can reduce
crash risks and severity by making intersections
more predictable and managing speed.

Intersection controls such as roundabouts
and protected left turns clarify priority, and
treatments such as lane narrowing and
intersection tightening further slow vehicles
down, reducing impact upon collision.

Potential Countermeasures
Figure 7.14: Crashes with Right-of-Way Issues at Intersections Roundabout
Raised Median
Intersection Reconstruction and
Tightening
Centerline Hardening
Slow Turn Wedge
Neighborhood Traffic Circle
Flashing Yellow Turn Phase
Through Bike Lane at Intersection
Traffic Signal
Protected Left Turns
Advance Stop Bar
All-Red Signal Time
77 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Wheatland
22 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 23
Figure 7.15: Crashes Involving People Walking and Biking Pedestrians and bicyclists are among the
most vulnerable users of our roadways, often
navigating environments not designed with
their safety in mind. In Wheatland, three
crashes occurred that involved a pedestrian or
bicyclist.

Two of the incidents occurred along Spenceville
Road, a two-lane corridor that is generally
unwelcoming to those traveling on foot or
by bicycle, with narrow shoulders and few
pedestrian facilities. One crash took place at
the intersection with McCurry Street, where
a pedestrian was struck while attempting to
cross the wide side street. The second crash
on Spenceville Road involved a bicyclist near
Olive Street, who was sideswiped while
making a left turn, a maneuver made especially

FOCUS AREA D
Crashes Involving People Walking and Biking
3 (4%) Total Crashes 0 (0%) KSI Crashes

INJURY CRASH STATISTICS
Potential Countermeasures
Bicyclist-Involved Crash
Pedestrian-Involved Crash
hazardous by the absence of protected turning
space and the speed of surrounding traffic.

The third incident occurred at the intersection
of Evergreen Drive and Rose Avenue, where
a pedestrian was hit by a northbound vehicle
while attempting a right turn from the east leg
of the intersection.

The following countermeasures help make
vulnerable users more visible and provide them
with dedicated, protected space: high-visibility
crosswalks and signal enhancements such as
pedestrian hybrid beacons help pedestrians
cross safely by reducing exposure time and
improving driver awareness. For bicyclists,
buffered bike lanes and separated bikeways
create safer conditions for turning and through
movements, especially along corridors like
Spenceville Road.

Add Sidewalk
Bike Lane
Separated Bikeway
Buffered Bike Lanes
Shared-Use Path
Green Conflict Striping
High-Visibility Crosswalk
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Co-Locate Bus Stops and Pedestrian
Crossings
Leading Pedestrian Interval and
Pedestrian Recall
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Curb Extensions
78 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Wheatland
24 Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan 25
The East Wheatland Expressway will be a new
roadway that provides an alternative to SR 65
to people wanting to reach local destinations
such as Beale Air Force Base, industrial
facilities, and Camp Far West. The expressway
would split off from SR 65 north of the town of
Sheridan, extending north to Spenceville Road
Once completed, the East Wheatland Expressway will divert traffic from State Route 65 through Wheatland. With reduced traffic on SR 65, more safety countermeasures recommended in this plan can be implemented downtown.
and connecting to Jasper Lane just east of
Wheatland. It would require a new bridge over
the Bear River. The proposed project would
address ongoing issues with traffic congestion
on SR 65 through downtown Wheatland,
thus likely decreasing collision likelihood in
downtown.

East Wheatland Expressway

EAST WHEATLAND EXPRESSWAY (EWX)
Project Description
Project Need
The EWX is a new local transportation facility that will connect northern Placer County to southern Yuba County
over the Bear River. The southern connection is near the town of Sheridan, extending north to Spenceville Road just east of the City of Wheatland and south of Beale AFB. The proposed project will address a wide range of safety and traffic concerns, as well as support economic vitality and affordable housing.

Project Details
Project Milestone: PSR-PDS Complete
Project Cost: $110 Million*
*2024 dollars
Reliable Access - Access through the City of Wheatland and to Beale Air Force Base from the south, is currently limited to one crossing of the Bear River along SR-65. This limitation creates a challenging safety issue for emergency vehicle response time and as well as response times to the Base.

Adequate Evacuation Routes - Yuba County and Nevada County Emergency Evacuation Plans both identify SR-65 as a key evacuation route, however, the existing two-lane bridge over the Bear River would experience heavy congestion in the event of an evacuation.

This was proven during the 2017 evacuation of the City of Oroville.

High Accident Rates - Per Caltrans data, the fatality and injury rate for the section of SR-65 from Riosa Rd in Sheridan to Main Street in Key Features
Provides a key local connection while also serving as
Phase 1 of a future SR-65 realignment around
Wheatland (Wheatland Bypass).

Will clear full width of state required right of way for portions that can be utilized for the future Wheatland
Bypass.
79 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Appendix A
Policy Benchmarking & Additional
Policy Considerations
80 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Leaders publicly commit to a “Zero” goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a specific timeframe, and exhibit buy-in for the Safe System approach through media, public events, and support for related policies and programs.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x
Develop a safety plan aligned with the Safe System approach that establishes a "Zero" goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries and identifies concrete actions to help Yuba/Sutter achieve zero including designation of lead agency, timeline, and funding. Safety plan should include an assessment of the local challenges that have hindered safety interventions in the past and create a roadmap for addressing them.

Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x
Establish key safety performance indicators and implement a monitoring process to evaluate progress and intervene if county/region is not on track. Yuba-Sutter Region "For the success of the LRSP, it is crucial to monitor and evaluate the 4 E’s strategies continuously. Monitoring and evaluation help provide accountability, ensure the effectiveness of the countermeasures for each emphasis area, and help make decisions on the need for new strategies. The process would help the County make informed decisions regarding the implementation plan’s progress and accordingly, update the goals and objectives of the plan."Current effort with RSAP.

Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly ava
8 - Implementation and Evaluation
80 x
Convene and/or participate in an inter-agency committee, task force, implementation group, or working group that is charged with a Safety Action Plan’s development, implementation, and monitoring. The group should include a representative from every agency or department that plays a critical role in advancing each Safe System element. It may be desireable to identify a staff coordinator to manage the agency’s safety program.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Provide training to Yuba/Sutter staff, directors, elected officials, and community stakeholders on the Safe System approach.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Establish an ongoing Safe Routes to Schools program and funding mechanism. Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region; School Districts xEngage with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups. Incorporate information received from the engagement and collaboration into the safety plan.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Establish a website to inform the public about Yuba/Sutter's safety program goals and progress and the effectiveness of implemented safety projects.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Yuba County LRSP website established Yuba County LRSP website https://www.yubacountysafetyplan.com/ x Provide public safety materials in common languages spoken by Yuba/Sutter residents whose first language is not English.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Apply a proactive and transparent approach to data-driven safety analysis, including the use of systemic profiles, emphasis areas based on roadway or contextual contributing factors, mode-specific conditions assessments (e.g., bicycle network stress or distance between marked crossings), and equity considerations.

Yuba-Sutter Region
"The Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a localized data-driven traffic safety plan that provides opportunities to address unique roadway safety needs and reduce the number of collisions." Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly ava
1 - Project Background;5 - Emphasis Areas
14, 53 x
Establish a process for citizens to report safety hazards or request safety interventions and a datadriven approach for evaluating the reports/requests. Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region xFocus network screening and benefit/cost calculations on fatal and serious injuries, instead of all collisions, to identify the core safety issues for human vulnerability.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Detailed KSI analysis was done. Current effort with RSAP. Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly ava 4 - Collision Data and Analysis
33 x
Maintain a GIS inventory and actively work to improve accuracy of crash data and roadway data such as missing sidewalks, bikeways, intersection controls, etc.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Use innovative data collection and analysis approaches, such as crowdsourcing or video detection data, to identify emphasis areas related to near misses or crashes previously unreported by vulnerable communities.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Develop a project evaluation framework that prioritizes funding based on fatal and serious injury crash reduction opportunities, especially for equity populations. Audit the region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for opportunities to enhance safety benefits and remove safety risks of funded projects.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
Action CD18.1 - "The traffic impact fees will be used to fund improvements that will be needed in the future as development occurs."The General Plan references a traffic impact fee program, but it did not specify a framework that prioritizes funding based on fatal and serious injury crash reduction opportunities, especially for equity populations. Current effort with RSAP.

Yuba County General Plan https://cms7files. Community Development 77 x Safety Planning
and Culture
Leadership and
commitment
Meaningful Engagement
Data and analysis
Funding
Link Chapter/
Section Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Yuba County Source Yuba County Policy Benchmarking
81 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Link Chapter/
Section Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Yuba County Source Apply for grant programs to fund safety projects. Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Funding sources identified in LRSP
Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly ava
8 - Implementation and Evaluation
78 x
Institutionalize safety considerations in all project types to systematically fund projects through operations and maintenance efforts (such as repaving projects).

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
"Funding is a critical component of implementing any safety project. While the HSIP program is a common source of funding for safety projects, numerous other funding sources could be pursued for such projects (See Table 22)" Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly ava
8 - Implementation and Evaluation
77 x
Development review Conduct safety impact assessments of new developments to identify mitigation and cost sharing opportunities. Yuba County Action CD 16.2 - "The County will continue to require specific plans to identify funding for transportation facilities needed to serve development within each subject specific plan." The General Plan did not specify safety impact assessments for mitigation.

Yuba County General Plan https://cms7files. Community Development 73 x Identify underserved communities through data. This should include data that identifies underserved communities and/or reflects the impact of crashes on underserved communities, prioritization criteria that consider equity, or a description of meaningful engagement and collaboration with appropriate stakeholders.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
"Commit to equity in all aspects of Safe System, including data analysis that acknowledges and addresses reporting biases, project prioritization efforts that promote projects in historically underinvested communities, and implementation strategies that follow data-driven approaches."Current effort with RSAP.

Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly ava 2 - Safety Partners 19 x Incorporate equity considerations in implementation and assessment plans, such as goals related to safety improvements for populations that are traditionally underserved.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
"Commit to equity in all aspects of Safe System, including data analysis that acknowledges and addresses reporting biases, project prioritization efforts that promote projects in historically underinvested communities, and implementation strategies that follow data-driven approaches."Current effort with RSAP.

Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly ava 2 - Safety Partners 19 x Meaningfully engage populations that are traditionally underserved in shared decision-making for safety efforts.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
"Commit to equity in all aspects of Safe System, including data analysis that acknowledges and addresses reporting biases, project prioritization efforts that promote projects in historically underinvested communities, and implementation strategies that follow data-driven approaches."Current effort with RSAP.

Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly ava 2 - Safety Partners 19 x Perform outreach through educational programs, with a focus on the behaviors and target audiences most linked to death and serious injuries. Utilize partnerships with community-based organizations and advocacy groups.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
LRSP mentions multiple education initiatives and efforts to promote safer road user behavior.Current effort with RSAP.

Yuba County LRSP *Not publicly available online x
Use demonstration projects to raise awareness of new designs, encourage support among stakeholders for safety projects requiring capacity trade-offs, and solicit feedback from the public. Demonstration projects also provide opportunity to measure safety effects and encourage innovation and design flexibility.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Investigate and document the impacts of traffic safety enforcement and traffic safety surveillance on minority communities. Take steps to mitigate disproportionate impact of enforcement on disadvantaged populations.

Yuba County x
Reallocate enforcement activities to target those behaviors and locations most linked to death and serious injury. Yuba County x Research Develop and implement strategies for robust demographic data collection in crash reporting. Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x Systemically install proven countermeasures to separate users in space, separate users in time, and increase attentiveness and awareness, such as: protected signal phases, clear zones, and vertical and horizontal separation for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region Goal: A transportation system that is safe for bicycle use, with reduced numbers of bicycle-related collisions Yuba County Bikeway Master Plan Update
https://cms7files.

Goals, Policies, and Actions
26 x
Complete infrastructure connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists and make progress toward providing separation where needed based on crash exposure, crash history, characteristics of the roadway, and adjacent land uses associated with higher levels of use.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
Policies 19.4, 19.5, 19.6, 19.8, 20.7 aim to create networks of safe trails/ped infrastructure and bike paths Yuba County General Plan https://cms7files. Community Development 62, 63 x Safe Users
Education
Enforcement
Collision avoidance
Funding
Equity first
82 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Link Chapter/
Section Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Yuba County Source Systemically install proven countermeasures to manage motor vehicle speed and collision angles, such as roadside appurtenances, roundabouts, refuge islands, hardened center lines, and road diets.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Evaluate intersection design and control decisions in the planning or scoping stage for opportunities to better prioritize reducing kinetic energy transfer, following new FHWA guidance. Yuba County xDesignate functional class and modal priority for roadways to pinpoint the most effective safety countermeasures and streamline tradeoff decisions - evaluated at a network scale for network-based priorities.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
Policy 19.7 - "The County’s improvement standards and street classification system will be designed to accommodate the full range of locally available travel modes. Intersection dimensions and turning radii should be minimized in areas where high pedestrian and bicycle activity is expected." Yuba County General Plan https://cms7files. Community Development 79 x Ensure safety for all users is prioritized, and accessibility maintained, during construction and road maintenance projects. Yuba County x Innovation
Provide infrastructure for smarter roadways and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in support of data collection and analysis, as well as proactive system management. Consider long-term network priorities and immediate pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility needs when citing EV charging stations.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Enable infrastructure-to-vehicle communication to provide warnings to drivers that support safer driving behavior. Yuba County xProvide supportive infrastructure for dynamic curbside management and autonomous vehicles to enable active safety technology. Yuba County x Fleet Management
Support safer operations of county and commercial vehicles through a transition plan of county's vehicle fleet to lower-mass and safety feature enhanced vehicles; heavy vehicle route restrictions to avoid high-pedestrian areas; and curbside management programs to limit user conflicts around stopped or loading vehicles.

Yuba County x
Autonomous Vehicle
Data
Collect data about the involvement of AVs in crashes for future data analysis, and to inform design and policies. Yuba County x Design and operations
Adopt roadway design standards that are focused on speed management, such as target speed-based design, for residential and arterial roadways. Adjust roadway geometries for context-appropriate speeds.

Yuba County
Policy CD19.8 - "The County will seek funding for and, as feasible, install traffic-calming measures, such as planted medians, landscaped planter strips, landscaped traffic circles, and other designs in areas with excessive or high-speed traffic, as appropriate. The County will not support street closures, half closures, or other measures that limit connectivity as a way to calm traffic."Policy 20.2 - "New developments in the Valley Growth Boundary shall arrange roads in an interconnected block pattern, so that local pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile traffic do not have to use Arterials to circulate within the neighborhood."The county also has standard plans & specifications: https://www.yuba.org/departments/community_development/public_works/standard_plans/index.php Yuba County General Plan https://cms7files. Community Development 79, 81 x Enforcement Deploy speed safety cameras, with a focus on equitable fee structures. Where not permitted, monitor changes in state legislation that may allow for this in the future. Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x Follow speed limit setting methodologies that determine appropriate or target speeds based on land use context, roadway context, and/or modal priority - accounting for the human body’s ability to tolerate crash forces rather than the historic behavior of road users. Consider utilizing innovative data sources to systemically assess prevailing versus target speeds and develop a plan to lower speeds in areas with a large discrepancy.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Provide speed management training to staff focused on fatality and serious injury minimization. Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region xEmploy collision reporting practices that promote complete and accurate data collection and documentation of road user behavior and infrastructure.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Establish a feedback loop such that key insights from crash investigations are shared with roadway designers and/or influence outreach and education. Consider the creation of an inter-agency rapid response team to immediately investigate the sites of collisions and make recommendations for nearterm safety enhancements.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Share data across agencies and organizations, including first responders and hospitals, to develop a holistic understanding of the safety landscape and improve accuracy. Yuba-Sutter Region xConnect with victims' families and the advocacy community to offer support and resources, and encourage partnerships with outreach and education.

Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Safe Vehicles
Supportive
infrastructure
Safe Speeds
Policy and training
Post Crash Care
Crash investigation
Partnerships
Safe Roadways
Kinetic energy reduction
Policies and tradeoffs
83 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Leaders publicly commit to a “Zero” goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a specific timeframe, and exhibit buy-in for the Safe System approach through media, public events, and support for related policies and programs.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Develop a safety plan aligned with the Safe System approach that establishes a "Zero" goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries and identifies concrete actions to help Yuba/Sutter achieve zero including designation of lead agency, timeline, and funding. Safety plan should include an assessment of the local challenges that have hindered safety interventions in the past and create a roadmap for addressing them.

Yuba-Sutter Region
Vision Zero Statement mentions striving towards eliminating all traffic fatalities and severe injuries.

City of Marysville LRSP
Not available online
x
Establish key safety performance indicators and implement a monitoring process to evaluate progress and intervene if city is not on track. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Convene and/or participate in an inter-agency committee, task force, implementation group, or working group that is charged with a Safety Action Plan’s development, implementation, and monitoring The group should include a representative from every agency or department that plays a critical role in advancing each Safe System element. It may be desireable to identify a staff coordinator to manage the agency’s safety program.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Provide training to Yuba/Sutter staff, directors, elected officials, and community stakeholders on the Safe System approach. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region xEstablish an ongoing Safe Routes to Schools program and funding mechanism. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region; School Districts No Safe Routes to Schools Program x Engage with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups. Incorporate information received from the engagement and collaboration into the safety plan.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Establish a website to inform the public about Yuba/Sutter's safety program goals and progress and the effectiveness of implemented safety projects. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Provide public safety materials in common languages spoken by Yuba/Sutter residents whose first language is not English. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Apply a proactive and transparent approach to data-driven safety analysis, including the use of systemic profiles, emphasis areas based on roadway or contextual contributing factors, mode-specific conditions assessments (e.g., bicycle network stress or distance between marked crossings), and equity considerations.

Yuba-Sutter Region
Marysville LRSP Emphasis Area: Making Safety Improvements at the Highest Incident Location City of Marysville LRSP
Not available online
2 x
Establish a process for citizens to report safety hazards or request safety interventions and a datadriven approach for evaluating the reports/requests. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xFocus network screening and benefit/cost calculations on fatal and serious injuries, instead of all collisions, to identify the core safety issues for human vulnerability. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Report identifies and ranks the top collision rate locations within the City, assesses the collision patterns and contributing factors at the highest ranking locations, and recommends countermeasures for those locations.

City of Marysville LRSP Not
available online
3 x
Maintain a GIS inventory and actively work to improve accuracy of crash data and roadway data such as missing sidewalks, bikeways, intersection controls, etc. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Use innovative data collection and analysis approaches, such as crowdsourcing or video detection data, to identify emphasis areas related to near misses or crashes previously unreported by vulnerable communities.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Develop a project evaluation framework that prioritizes funding based on fatal and serious injury crash reduction opportunities, especially for equity populations. Audit the region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for opportunities to enhance safety benefits and remove safety risks of funded projects.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Apply for grant programs to fund safety projects. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region HSIP funding opportunity mentioned. City of Marysville LRSP Not available 9 x Institutionalize safety considerations in all project types to systematically fund projects through operations and maintenance efforts (such as repaving projects). Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Development review Conduct safety impact assessments of new developments to identify mitigation and cost sharing opportunities. Marysville x Identify underserved communities through data. This should include data that identifies underserved communities and/or reflects the impact of crashes on underserved communities, prioritization criteria that consider equity, or a description of meaningful engagement and collaboration with appropriate stakeholders.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Incorporate equity considerations in implementation and assessment plans, such as goals related to safety improvements for populations that are traditionally underserved. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Meaningfully engage populations that are traditionally underserved in shared decision-making for safety efforts. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Benchmark Page
Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Equity first
Chapter/
Section Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Marysville Source Link Safety Planning
and Culture
Leadership and
commitment
Meaningful
Engagement
Data and analysis
Funding
Core Element Category
Marysville Policy Benchmarking
84 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Benchmark Page
Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Chapter/
Section Core Element Category Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Marysville Source Link Perform outreach through educational programs, with a focus on the behaviors and target audiences most linked to death and serious injuries. Utilize partnerships with community-based organizations and advocacy groups.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Educational measures identified in plan. City of Marysville LRSP Not available online
x
Use demonstration projects to raise awareness of new designs, encourage support among stakeholders for safety projects requiring capacity trade-offs, and solicit feedback from the public. Demonstration projects also provide opportunity to measure safety effects and encourage innovation and design flexibility.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Investigate and document the impacts of traffic safety enforcement and traffic safety surveillance on minority communities. Take steps to mitigate disproportionate impact of enforcement on disadvantaged populations.

Marysville x
Reallocate enforcement activities to target those behaviors and locations most linked to death and serious injury. Marysville "Where possible increase frequency and visual presence of patrol activity in highspeed incident areas." City of Marysville LRSP Not available online

11.2 37 x
Research Develop and implement strategies for robust demographic data collection in crash reporting. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region x Systemically install proven countermeasures to separate users in space, separate users in time, and increase attentiveness and awareness, such as: protected signal phases, clear zones, and vertical and horizontal separation for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region BP Plan identifies safety countermeasures for bicycle and pedestrian travel. Marysville Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan https://www.fraqmd.org/files/486e35bb9/Final+++Marysville-Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-Plan-2016-A x Complete infrastructure connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists and make progress toward providing separation where needed based on crash exposure, crash history, characteristics of the roadway, and adjacent land uses associated with higher levels of use.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region
Policies and goals were set to improve mobility via bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

Marysville Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan https://www.fraqmd.org/files/486e35bb9/Final+++Marysville-Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-Plan-2016-A x Systemically install proven countermeasures to manage motor vehicle speed and collision angles, such as roadside appurtenances, roundabouts, refuge islands, hardened center lines, and road diets. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region xEvaluate intersection design and control decisions in the planning or scoping stage for opportunities to better prioritize reducing kinetic energy transfer, following new FHWA guidance. Marysville xDesignate functional class and modal priority for roadways to pinpoint the most effective safety countermeasures and streamline tradeoff decisions - evaluated at a network scale for network-based priorities.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Ensure safety for all users is prioritized, and accessibility maintained, during construction and road maintenance projects. Marysville x Innovation
Provide infrastructure for smarter roadways and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in support of data collection and analysis, as well as proactive system management. Consider long-term network priorities and immediate pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility needs when citing EV charging stations.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Enable infrastructure-to-vehicle communication to provide warnings to drivers that support safer driving behavior. Marysville xProvide supportive infrastructure for dynamic curbside management and autonomous vehicles to enable active safety technology. Marysville x Fleet Management
Support safer operations of city and commercial vehicles through a transition plan of city's vehicle fleet to lower-mass and safety feature enhanced vehicles; heavy vehicle route restrictions to avoid high-pedestrian areas; and curbside management programs to limit user conflicts around stopped or loading vehicles.

Marysville x
Autonomous Vehicle
Data
Collect data about the involvement of AVs in crashes for future data analysis, and to inform design and policies. Marysville x Design and operations
Adopt roadway design standards that are focused on speed management, such as target speedbased design, for residential and arterial roadways. Adjust roadway geometries for contextappropriate speeds. Marysville Roadway design measures to manage speed were listed. City of Marysville LRSP Not available online 11.2 37 x Enforcement Deploy speed safety cameras, with a focus on equitable fee structures. Where not permitted, monitor changes in state legislation that may allow for this in the future. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region x Follow speed limit setting methodologies that determine appropriate or target speeds based on land use context, roadway context, and/or modal priority - accounting for the human body’s ability to tolerate crash forces rather than the historic behavior of road users. Consider utilizing innovative data sources to systemically assess prevailing versus target speeds and develop a plan to lower speeds in areas with a large discrepancy.

Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Provide speed management training to staff focused on fatality and serious injury minimization. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region Action item: Continue to conduct training targeted at responding to speed related collisions.

City of Marysville LRSP
Not available online

11.2 37 x
Safe Users
Education
Enforcement
Safe Roadways
Collision avoidance
Kinetic energy reduction
Policies and tradeoffs
Safe Vehicles
Supportive
infrastructure
Safe Speeds
Policy and training
85 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Benchmark Page
Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Chapter/
Section Core Element Category Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Marysville Source Link Employ collision reporting practices that promote complete and accurate data collection and documentation of road user behavior and infrastructure. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region xEstablish a feedback loop such that key insights from crash investigations are shared with roadway designers and/or influence outreach and education. Consider the creation of an inter-agency rapid response team to immediately investigate the sites of collisions and make recommendations for nearterm safety enhancements. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region xShare data across agencies and organizations, including first responders and hospitals, to develop a holistic understanding of the safety landscape and improve accuracy. Yuba-Sutter Region xConnect with victims' families and the advocacy community to offer support and resources, and encourage partnerships with outreach and education. Marysville; Yuba-Sutter Region x Post Crash Care
Crash investigation
Partnerships
86 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Leaders publicly commit to a “Zero” goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a specific timeframe, and exhibit buy-in for the Safe System approach through media, public events, and support for related policies and programs.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Develop a safety plan aligned with the Safe System approach that establishes a "Zero" goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries and identifies concrete actions to help Yuba Sutter achieve zero including designation of lead agency, timeline, and funding. Safety plan should include an assessment of the local challenges that have hindered safety interventions in the past and create a roadmap for addressing them.

Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x
Establish key safety performance indicators and implement a monitoring process to evaluate progress and intervene if city is not on track. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xConvene and/or participate in an inter-agency committee, task force, implementation group, or working group that is charged with a Safety Action Plan’s development, implementation, and monitoring. The group should include a representative from every agency or department that plays a critical role in advancing each Safe System element. It may be desireable to identify a staff coordinator to manage the agency’s safety program.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Provide training to Yuba Sutter staff, directors, elected officials, and community stakeholders on the Safe System approach. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xEstablish an ongoing Safe Routes to Schools program and funding mechanism. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region; School Districts No current SRTS program. xEngage with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups. Incorporate information received from the engagement and collaboration into the safety plan.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Establish a website to inform the public about Yuba Sutter's safety program goals and progress and the effectiveness of implemented safety projects. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xProvide public safety materials in common languages spoken by Yuba Sutter residents whose first language is not English. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region xApply a proactive and transparent approach to data-driven safety analysis, including the use of systemic profiles, emphasis areas based on roadway or contextual contributing factors, mode-specific conditions assessments (e.g., bicycle network stress or distance between marked crossings), and equity considerations.

Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x
Establish a process for citizens to report safety hazards or request safety interventions and a datadriven approach for evaluating the reports/requests. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region xFocus network screening and benefit/cost calculations on fatal and serious injuries, instead of all collisions, to identify the core safety issues for human vulnerability. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xMaintain a GIS inventory and actively work to improve accuracy of crash data and roadway data such as missing sidewalks, bikeways, intersection controls, etc. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region xUse innovative data collection and analysis approaches, such as crowdsourcing or video detection data, to identify emphasis areas related to near misses or crashes previously unreported by vulnerable communities.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Develop a project evaluation framework that prioritizes funding based on fatal and serious injury crash reduction opportunities, especially for equity populations. Audit the region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for opportunities to enhance safety benefits and remove safety risks of funded projects.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Apply for grant programs to fund safety projects. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region xInstitutionalize safety considerations in all project types to systematically fund projects through operations and maintenance efforts (such as repaving projects). Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Related policy: "2.A.10. The City shall give priority to street and highway improvements that increase safety, minimize maintenance costs, and increase the efficiency of the street system" Wheatland General Plan
https://e4ki
3oz9tby.exactdn.com/wpcontent/uploads/General-PlanTransportat ion and Circulation Element 2-5 x ? Funding
Core Element Category Benchmark Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Chapter/
Section
State of Current Practice in
Wheatland Jurisdictional Responsibility Source Link
Safety Planning
and Culture
Leadership and
commitment
Meaningful
Engagement
Data and analysis
Wheatland Policy Benchmarking
87 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Core Element Category Benchmark Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Chapter/
Section
State of Current Practice in
Wheatland Jurisdictional Responsibility Source Link
Development review Conduct safety impact assessments of new developments to identify mitigation and cost sharing opportunities. Wheatland; Yuba County Related policy: "2.A.6. The City shall require an analysis of the effects of traffic from proposed major development projects. Each such project shall construct or fund improvements necessary to mitigate the effects of traffic from the project. Such improvements may include a fair share of improvements that provide benefits to others." Wheatland General Plan
https://e4ki3oz9tby.exactdn.com/wpcontent/uploads/General-PlanPolicyDocumentAdopted-7- Transportation and Circulation Element
2-5 x ?
88 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Core Element Category Benchmark Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Chapter/
Section
State of Current Practice in
Wheatland Jurisdictional Responsibility Source Link
Identify underserved communities through data. This should include data that identifies underserved communities and/or reflects the impact of crashes on underserved communities, prioritization criteria that consider equity, or a description of meaningful engagement and collaboration with appropriate stakeholders.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Incorporate equity considerations in implementation and assessment plans, such as goals related to safety improvements for populations that are traditionally underserved. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xMeaningfully engage populations that are traditionally underserved in shared decision-making for safety efforts. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xPerform outreach through educational programs, with a focus on the behaviors and target audiences most linked to death and serious injuries. Utilize partnerships with community-based organizations and advocacy groups.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Use demonstration projects to raise awareness of new designs, encourage support among stakeholders for safety projects requiring capacity trade-offs, and solicit feedback from the public. Demonstration projects also provide opportunity to measure safety effects and encourage innovation and design flexibility.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Investigate and document the impacts of traffic safety enforcement and traffic safety surveillance on minority communities. Take steps to mitigate disproportionate impact of enforcement on disadvantaged populations.

Wheatland; Yuba County x
Reallocate enforcement activities to target those behaviors and locations most linked to death and serious injury. Wheatland; Yuba County x Research Develop and implement strategies for robust demographic data collection in crash reporting. Wheatland; Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region x Systemically install proven countermeasures to separate users in space, separate users in time, and increase attentiveness and awareness, such as: protected signal phases, clear zones, and vertical and horizontal separation for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Complete infrastructure connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists and make progress toward providing separation where needed based on crash exposure, crash history, characteristics of the roadway, and adjacent land uses associated with higher levels of use.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Systemically install proven countermeasures to manage motor vehicle speed and collision angles, such as roadside appurtenances, roundabouts, refuge islands, hardened center lines, and road diets. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region xEvaluate intersection design and control decisions in the planning or scoping stage for opportunities to better prioritize reducing kinetic energy transfer, following new FHWA guidance. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region xDesignate functional class and modal priority for roadways to pinpoint the most effective safety countermeasures and streamline tradeoff decisions - evaluated at a network scale for network-based priorities.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Ensure safety for all users is prioritized, and accessibility maintained, during construction and road maintenance projects. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region x Innovation
Provide infrastructure for smarter roadways and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in support of data collection and analysis, as well as proactive system management. Consider long-term network priorities and immediate pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility needs when citing EV charging stations.

Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Enable infrastructure-to-vehicle communication to provide warnings to drivers that support safer driving behavior. Yuba-Sutter Region xProvide supportive infrastructure for dynamic curbside management and autonomous vehicles to enable active safety technology. Wheatland; Yuba County x Fleet Management
Support safer operations of city and commercial vehicles through a transition plan of city's vehicle fleet to lower-mass and safety feature enhanced vehicles; heavy vehicle route restrictions to avoid high-pedestrian areas; and curbside management programs to limit user conflicts around stopped or loading vehicles.

Wheatland; Yuba County x
Autonomous Vehicle
Data
Collect data about the involvement of AVs in crashes for future data analysis, and to inform design and policies. Wheatland; Yuba County x Safe Vehicles
Supportive
infrastructure
Safe Roadways
Collision avoidance
Kinetic energy reduction
Policies and tradeoffs
Safe Users
Education
Enforcement
Equity first
89 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Core Element Category Benchmark Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Chapter/
Section
State of Current Practice in
Wheatland Jurisdictional Responsibility Source Link
Design and operations
Adopt roadway design standards that are focused on speed management, such as target speedbased design, for residential and arterial roadways. Adjust roadway geometries for contextappropriate speeds. Wheatland; Yuba County Wheatland has street design criteria, last revised in 2011 https://www.wheatl
and.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/Complete-WheatlandPublic-WorksStandards-8-12-2011R.pdf x
Enforcement Deploy speed safety cameras, with a focus on equitable fee structures. Where not permitted, monitor changes in state legislation that may allow for this in the future. Wheatland; Yuba County x Follow speed limit setting methodologies that determine appropriate or target speeds based on land use context, roadway context, and/or modal priority - accounting for the human body’s ability to tolerate crash forces rather than the historic behavior of road users. Consider utilizing innovative data sources to systemically assess prevailing versus target speeds and develop a plan to lower speeds in areas with a large discrepancy.

Wheatland; Yuba County x
Provide speed management training to staff focused on fatality and serious injury minimization. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region xEmploy collision reporting practices that promote complete and accurate data collection and documentation of road user behavior and infrastructure. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region xEstablish a feedback loop such that key insights from crash investigations are shared with roadway designers and/or influence outreach and education. Consider the creation of an inter-agency rapid response team to immediately investigate the sites of collisions and make recommendations for nearterm safety enhancements.

Wheatland; Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region
x
Share data across agencies and organizations, including first responders and hospitals, to develop a holistic understanding of the safety landscape and improve accuracy. Yuba County; Yuba-Sutter Region xConnect with victims' families and the advocacy community to offer support and resources, and encourage partnerships with outreach and education. Wheatland; Yuba-Sutter Region x Safe Speeds
Policy and training
Post Crash Care
Crash investigation
Partnerships
90 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Leaders publicly commit to a “Zero” goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a specific timeframe, and exhibit buy-in for the Safe System approach through media, public events, and support for related policies and programs.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Develop a safety plan aligned with the Safe System approach that establishes a "Zero" goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries and identifies concrete actions to help Yuba/Sutter achieve zero including designation of lead agency, timeline, and funding. Safety plan should include an assessment of the local challenges that have hindered safety interventions in the past and create a roadmap for addressing them.

Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x
Establish key safety performance indicators and implement a monitoring process to evaluate progress and intervene if jurisdiction is not on track. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Convene and/or participate in an inter-agency committee, task force, implementation group, or working group that is charged with a Safety Action Plan’s development, implementation, and monitoring. The group should include a representative from every agency or department that plays a critical role in advancing each Safe System element. It may be desireable to identify a staff coordinator to manage the agency’s safety program.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Provide training to Yuba/Sutter staff, directors, elected officials, and community stakeholders on the Safe System approach.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Establish an ongoing Safe Routes to Schools program and funding mechanism. Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region; School Districts x Engage with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups. Incorporate information received from the engagement and collaboration into the safety plan.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Establish a website to inform the public about Yuba/Sutter's safety program goals and progress and the effectiveness of implemented safety projects.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Provide public safety materials in common languages spoken by Yuba/Sutter residents whose first language is not English.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region
x
Apply a proactive and transparent approach to data-driven safety analysis, including the use of systemic profiles, emphasis areas based on roadway or contextual contributing factors, mode-specific conditions assessments (e.g., bicycle network stress or distance between marked crossings), and equity considerations.

Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x
Establish a process for residents to report safety hazards or request safety interventions and a datadriven approach for evaluating the reports/requests. Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x Focus network screening and benefit/cost calculations on fatal and serious injuries, instead of all collisions, to identify the core safety issues for human vulnerability.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Maintain a GIS inventory and actively work to improve accuracy of crash data and roadway data such as missing sidewalks, bikeways, intersection controls, etc.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region
x
Use innovative data collection and analysis approaches, such as crowdsourcing or video detection data, to identify emphasis areas related to near misses or crashes previously unreported by vulnerable communities.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region
x
Develop a project evaluation framework that prioritizes funding based on fatal and serious injury crash reduction opportunities, especially for equity populations. Audit the region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for opportunities to enhance safety benefits and remove safety risks of funded projects.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Apply for grant programs to fund safety projects. Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x Institutionalize safety considerations in all project types to systematically fund projects through operations and maintenance efforts (such as repaving projects).

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region
x
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Safety Planning
and Culture
Leadership and
commitment
Meaningful Engagement
Data and analysis
Funding
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice Source,
Chapter/Section,
Page Number
Link
Sutter County Policy Benchmarking
91 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice Source,
Chapter/Section,
Page Number
Link
Development review Conduct safety impact assessments of new developments to identify mitigation and cost sharing opportunities. Sutter County Policy "M 1.2. Consider all transportation improvements as opportunities to enhance safety, access, and mobility for all travelers including people with special needs, recognizing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system."Implementation: "M 2-E Condition new development to finance and construct appropriate circulation improvements necessary to mitigate a project’s transportation impacts including pedestrian and bicycle mobility, safety, and level of service-related impacts. Collect the fair share cost of required circulation improvements through established fees, and/or construction estimates of needed improvements, as appropriate, where construction is not practical at the time of development." Sutter County General Plan, Chapter 6 pg 9
https://www.sutterc
ounty.org/government/countydepartments/developmentservices/planningservices/generalplan ?
Identify underserved communities through data. This should include data that identifies underserved communities and/or reflects the impact of crashes on underserved communities, prioritization criteria that consider equity, or a description of meaningful engagement and collaboration with appropriate stakeholders.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Incorporate equity considerations in implementation and assessment plans, such as goals related to safety improvements for populations that are traditionally underserved.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Meaningfully engage populations that are traditionally underserved in shared decision-making for safety efforts.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Perform outreach through educational programs, with a focus on the behaviors and target audiences most linked to death and serious injuries. Utilize partnerships with community-based organizations and advocacy groups.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Use demonstration projects to raise awareness of new designs, encourage support among stakeholders for safety projects requiring capacity trade-offs, and solicit feedback from the public. Demonstration projects also provide opportunity to measure safety effects and encourage innovation and design flexibility.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Investigate and document the impacts of traffic safety enforcement and traffic safety surveillance on minority communities. Take steps to mitigate disproportionate impact of enforcement on disadvantaged populations.

Sutter County x
Reallocate enforcement activities to target those behaviors and locations most linked to death and serious injury. Sutter County x Research Develop and implement strategies for robust demographic data collection in crash reporting. Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x Systemically install proven countermeasures to separate users in space, separate users in time, and increase attentiveness and awareness, such as: protected signal phases, clear zones, and vertical and horizontal separation for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Complete infrastructure connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists and make progress toward providing separation where needed based on crash exposure, crash history, characteristics of the roadway, and adjacent land uses associated with higher levels of use.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Systemically install proven countermeasures to manage motor vehicle speed and collision angles, such as roadside appurtenances, roundabouts, refuge islands, hardened center lines, and road diets.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Evaluate intersection design and control decisions in the planning or scoping stage for opportunities to better prioritize reducing kinetic energy transfer, following new FHWA guidance. Sutter County x Use functional class and modal priority for roadways to pinpoint the most effective safety countermeasures and streamline tradeoff decisions (evaluated at a network scale for network-based prioritization).

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Ensure safety for all users is prioritized, and accessibility maintained, during construction and road maintenance projects. Sutter County x Innovation
Provide infrastructure for smarter roadways and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in support of data collection and analysis, as well as proactive system management. Consider long-term network priorities and immediate pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility needs when citing EV charging stations.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Equity first
Safe Users
Education
Enforcement
Safe Roadways
Collision avoidance
Kinetic energy reduction
Policies and tradeoffs
92 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice Source,
Chapter/Section,
Page Number
Link
Enable infrastructure-to-vehicle communication to provide warnings to drivers that support safer driving behavior. Sutter County x Provide supportive infrastructure for dynamic curbside management and autonomous vehicles to enable active safety technology. Sutter County x Fleet Management
Support safer operations of county and commercial vehicles through a transition plan of county's vehicle fleet to lower-mass and safety feature enhanced vehicles; heavy vehicle route restrictions to avoid high-pedestrian areas; and curbside management programs to limit user conflicts around stopped or loading vehicles.

Sutter County x
Autonomous Vehicle
Data
Collect data about the involvement of AVs in crashes for future data analysis, and to inform design and policies. Sutter County x Design and operations
Adopt roadway design standards that are focused on speed management, such as target speedbased design, for residential and arterial roadways. Adjust roadway geometries for contextappropriate speeds. Sutter County Sutter County Improvement Standards last revised in 2010. Could update to focus on speed management. Sutter County Improvement Standards, Chapter 4: Streets https://www.sutterc ounty.org/home/sh owpublisheddocum ent/2598/63755485 6376670000
x
Enforcement Deploy speed safety cameras, with a focus on equitable fee structures. Where not permitted, monitor changes in state legislation that may allow for this in the future. Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x Follow speed limit setting methodologies that determine appropriate or target speeds based on land use context, roadway context, and/or modal priority - accounting for the human body’s ability to tolerate crash forces rather than the historic behavior of road users. Consider utilizing innovative data sources to systemically assess prevailing versus target speeds and develop a plan to lower speeds in areas with a large discrepancy.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Provide speed management training to staff focused on fatality and serious injury minimization. Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x Employ collision reporting practices that promote complete and accurate data collection and documentation of road user behavior and infrastructure.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Establish a feedback loop such that key insights from crash investigations are shared with roadway designers and/or influence outreach and education. Consider the creation of an inter-agency rapid response team to immediately investigate the sites of collisions and make recommendations for nearterm safety enhancements.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Share data across agencies and organizations, including first responders and hospitals, to develop a holistic understanding of the safety landscape and improve accuracy. Yuba-Sutter Region x Connect with victims' families and the advocacy community to offer support and resources, and encourage partnerships with outreach and education.

Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Safe Vehicles
Supportive
infrastructure
Safe Speeds
Policy and training
Post Crash Care
Crash investigation
Partnerships
93 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Leaders publicly commit to a “Zero” goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a specific timeframe, and exhibit buy-in for the Safe System approach through media, public events, and support for related policies and programs.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Commitment through City LRSP. Current effort with RSAP. x Develop a safety plan aligned with the Safe System approach that establishes a "Zero" goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries and identifies concrete actions to help Yuba Sutter achieve zero including designation of lead agency, timeline, and funding. Safety plan should include an assessment of the local challenges that have hindered safety interventions in the past and create a roadmap for addressing them.

Yuba-Sutter Region
LRSP was finalized in October 2023, and integrates the Safe System Approach concepts into the development of the plan. Also current effort with RSAP.

Yuba City Local Roadway Safety Plan https://cms3 Ch. 3 18 x
Establish key safety performance indicators and implement a monitoring process to evaluate progress and intervene if city is not on track. Yuba-Sutter Region LRSP identifies what implementation of the plan entails. Also current effort with RSAP.

Yuba City Local Roadway Safety Plan Ch. 7 102
x
Identify a staff coordinator to manage the agency’s safety program and convene an inter-agency working group that discusses safety projects and initiatives. The working group includes a representative from every agency or department that plays a critical role in advancing each Safe System element. Actively work to identify and overcome barriers to coordination across departments and agencies.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region
Stakeholder group was formed to ensure a local persepective was maintained in the LRSP planning effort. LRSP implementation entails identifying a roadway safety champion who is the plan's main advocate and is the city's point of contact for safety efforts. Also current effort with RSAP.

Yuba City Local Roadway Safety Plan
Ch. 3, Ch. 7 20, 94
x
Provide training to Yuba Sutter staff, directors, elected officials, and community stakeholders on the Safe System approach. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region LRSP encourages outreach and education be done to inform users of safe roadway use.Also current effort with RSAP.

Yuba City Local Roadway Safety Plan
x
Establish an ongoing Safe Routes to Schools program and funding mechanism. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region; School Districts Safe Routes to School Program implemented. Yuba City Safe Routes To School Plan https://cms3.revize.com/revize/yubacity/Document%20Center/Departments/Public%20Works/E x Engage with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups. Incorporate information received from the engagement and collaboration into the safety plan
Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP
Establish a website to inform the public about Yuba Sutter's safety program goals and progress and the effectiveness of implemented safety projects. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Provide public safety materials in common languages spoken by Yuba Sutter residents whose first language is not English. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region xApply a proactive and transparent approach to data-driven safety analysis, including the use of systemic profiles, emphasis areas based on roadway or contextual contributing factors, modespecific conditions assessments (e.g., bicycle network stress or distance between marked crossings), and equity considerations.

Yuba-Sutter Region
LRSP applies a data-driven approach to safety analysis.Also current effort with RSAP. Ch. 5 x
Establish a process for citizens to report safety hazards or request safety interventions and a datadriven approach for evaluating the reports/requests. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region LRSP Implementation Action: Include a safety data reporting option in the 'Report an Issue' section of the My Yuba City mobile app" Roadway Safety Plan Ch. 7 94 x Focus network screening and benefit/cost calculations on fatal and serious injuries, instead of all collisions, to identify the core safety issues for human vulnerability. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xMaintain a GIS inventory and actively work to improve accuracy of crash data and roadway data such as missing sidewalks, bikeways, intersection controls, etc. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter RegionUse innovative data collection and analysis approaches, such as crowdsourcing or video detection data, to identify emphasis areas related to near misses or crashes previously unreported by vulnerable communities.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Develop a project evaluation framework that prioritizes funding based on fatal and serious injury crash reduction opportunities, especially for equity populations. Audit the region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for opportunities to enhance safety benefits and remove safety risks of funded projects.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Apply for grant programs to fund safety projects. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Yuba City LRSP identifies funding opportunities. y
Roadway Safety Plan
x
Institutionalize safety considerations in all project types to systematically fund projects through operations and maintenance efforts (such as repaving projects). Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Circulation Element guiding policy: "Develop a system of sidewalks and bikeways that promote safe walking and bicycle riding for transportation and recreation." Yuba City General Plan 5-18
x
Development
review
Conduct safety impact assessments of new developments to identify mitigation and cost sharing opportunities. Yuba City; Sutter County x Source Link Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Chapter/ Section Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Yuba City Safety Planning
and Culture
Leadership and
commitment
Data and analysis
Funding
Meaningful
Engagement
Yuba City Policy Benchmarking
94 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Source Link Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Chapter/ Section Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Yuba City Clearly define equity in the safety plan and include equity considerations throughout the emphasis areas and strategies. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xIncorporate equity considerations in implementation and assessment plans, such as goals related to safety improvements for populations that are traditionally underserved. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP xMeaningfully engage populations that are traditionally underserved in shared decision-making for safety efforts. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP x Equity first
95 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Source Link Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Chapter/ Section Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Yuba City Perform outreach through educational programs, with a focus on the behaviors and target audiences most linked to death and serious injuries. Utilize partnerships with community-based organizations and advocacy groups.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region
LRSP Countermeasure: Establish and enforce communications and outreach supporting enforcement. Also current effort with RSAP.

Yuba City Local Roadway Safety Plan Ch. 5 74
x
Use demonstration projects to raise awareness of new designs, encourage support among stakeholders for safety projects requiring capacity trade-offs, and solicit feedback from the public. Demonstration projects also provide opportunity to measure safety effects and encourage innovation and design flexibility.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region
Implementation Action: "Rolling out safety projects as pilots presents the opportunity for the City to gather valuable public and stakeholder feedback to make improvements and adjustments before moving on with similar projects." Yuba City Local Roadway Safety Plan Ch. 7 96
x
Investigate and document the impacts of traffic safety enforcement and traffic safety surveillance on minority communities. Take steps to mitigate disproportionate impact of enforcement on disadvantaged populations.

Yuba City x
Reallocate enforcement activities to target those behaviors and locations most linked to death and serious injury. Yuba City LRSP suggested countermeasures focused on deterrence through enforcement for alcohol and drug-impaired driving. Ch. 5 74 x
Research Develop and implement strategies for robust demographic data collection in crash reporting. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region x Systemically install proven countermeasures to separate users in space, separate users in time, and increase attentiveness and awareness, such as: protected signal phases, clear zones, and vertical and horizontal separation for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region

1. City of Yuba City General Plan contains policies regarding bicycle safety, and calls out specific projects such as the provision of bicycle paths or lanes on bridges and overpasses2. Planned installation of over 190 sharrows per Yuba City website City of Yuba City General Plan; Yuba City website https://www.yubacity.net/city_hall/departments/parks___recreation/recreation x
Complete infrastructure connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists and make progress toward providing separation where needed based on crash exposure, crash history, characteristics of the roadway, and adjacent land uses associated with higher levels of use.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region
LRSP makes countermeasure recommendations based on common collision sites and other variables Yuba City also completed a Bicycle Master Plan in 2011.

Yuba City Bicycle Master Plan https://cms3.revize.com/revize/yubacity/Document%20Cent x
Systemically install proven countermeasures to manage motor vehicle speed and collision angles, such as roadside appurtenances, roundabouts, refuge islands, hardened center lines, and road diets. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Yuba City LRSP identified that unsafe speed was a common primary collision factor, and suggested road diets among other proven countermeasures.

Yuba City Local Roadway Safety Plan Ch. 6 72
x
Evaluate intersection design and control decisions in the planning or scoping stage for opportunities to better prioritize reducing kinetic energy transfer, following new FHWA guidance. Yuba City xDesignate functional class and modal priority for roadways to pinpoint the most effective safety countermeasures and streamline tradeoff decisions - evaluated at a network scale for network-based priorities.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Ensure safety for all users is prioritized, and accessibility maintained, during construction and road maintenance projects. Yuba City x Innovation
Provide infrastructure for smarter roadways and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in support of data collection and analysis, as well as proactive system management. Consider long-term network priorities and immediate pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility needs when citing EV charging stations.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region x
Enable infrastructure-to-vehicle communication to provide warnings to drivers that support safer driving behavior. Yuba-Sutter Region xProvide supportive infrastructure for dynamic curbside management and autonomous vehicles to enable active safety technology. Yuba City x Fleet Management
Support safer operations of city and commercial vehicles through a transition plan of city's vehicle fleet to lower-mass and safety feature enhanced vehicles; heavy vehicle route restrictions to avoid high-pedestrian areas; and curbside management programs to limit user conflicts around stopped or loading vehicles.

Yuba City x
Data Collect data about the involvement of AVs in crashes for future data analysis, and to inform design and policies. Yuba City x
Safe Users
Education
Enforcement
Safe Roadways
Collision avoidance
Kinetic energy
reduction
Policies and
tradeoffs
Safe Vehicles
Supportive
infrastructure
96 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in
Standard or
Policy, but Not
in Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Source Link Page Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Chapter/ Section Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Yuba City Design and
operations
Adopt roadway design standards that are focused on speed management, such as target speedbased design, for residential and arterial roadways. Adjust roadway geometries for contextappropriate speeds. Yuba City LRSP Implementation Action: "Create new standards for typical maintenance that reflect LRSP project goals." Yuba City Local Roadway Safety Plan Ch. 7 96 x Enforcement Deploy speed safety cameras, with a focus on equitable fee structures. Where not permitted, monitor changes in state legislation that may allow for this in the future. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region x Follow speed limit setting methodologies that determine appropriate or target speeds based on land use context, roadway context, and/or modal priority - accounting for the human body’s ability to tolerate crash forces rather than the historic behavior of road users. Consider utilizing innovative data sources to systemically assess prevailing versus target speeds and develop a plan to lower speeds in areas with a large discrepancy.

Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region Is Yuba City doing anything on this front? x Provide speed management training to staff focused on fatality and serious injury minimization. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region xEmploy collision reporting practices that promote complete and accurate data collection and documentation of road user behavior and infrastructure. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region xEstablish a feedback loop such that key insights from crash investigations are shared with roadway designers and/or influence outreach and education. Consider the creation of an inter-agency rapid response team to immediately investigate the sites of collisions and make recommendations for nearterm safety enhancements. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region xShare data across agencies and organizations, including first responders and hospitals, to develop a holistic understanding of the safety landscape and improve accuracy. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region xConnect with victims' families and the advocacy community to offer support and resources, and encourage partnerships with outreach and education. Yuba City; Yuba-Sutter Region x Safe Speeds
Policy and training
Post Crash Care
Crash investigation
Partnerships
97 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Leaders publicly commit to a “Zero” goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a specific timeframe, and exhibit buy-in for the Safe System approach through media, public events, and support for related policies and programs.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X Develop a safety plan aligned with the Safe System approach that establishes a "Zero" goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries and identifies concrete actions to help Yuba Sutter achieve zero including designation of lead agency, timeline, and funding. Safety plan should include an assessment of the local challenges that have hindered safety interventions in the past and create a roadmap for addressing them.

Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X
Establish key safety performance indicators and implement a monitoring process to evaluate progress and intervene if city is not on track. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP XConvene and/or participate in an inter-agency committee, task force, implementation group, or working group that is charged with a Safety Action Plan’s development, implementation, and monitoring. The group should include a representative from every agency or department that plays a critical role in advancing each Safe System element. It may be desireable to identify a staff coordinator to manage the agency’s safety program.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X Provide training to Yuba Sutter staff, directors, elected officials, and community stakeholders on the Safe System approach. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP XEstablish an ongoing Safe Routes to Schools program and funding mechanism. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region; School Districts No current SRTS program. XEngage with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups. Incorporate information received from the engagement and collaboration into the safety plan.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X Establish a website to inform the public about Yuba Sutter's safety program goals and progress and the effectiveness of implemented safety projects. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP XProvide public safety materials in common languages spoken by Yuba Sutter residents whose first language is not English. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region XApply a proactive and transparent approach to data-driven safety analysis, including the use of systemic profiles, emphasis areas based on roadway or contextual contributing factors, mode-specific conditions assessments (e.g., bicycle network stress or distance between marked crossings), and equity considerations.

Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X
Establish a process for citizens to report safety hazards or request safety interventions and a datadriven approach for evaluating the reports/requests. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region XFocus network screening and benefit/cost calculations on fatal and serious injuries, instead of all collisions, to identify the core safety issues for human vulnerability. Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP XMaintain a GIS inventory and actively work to improve accuracy of crash data and roadway data such as missing sidewalks, bikeways, intersection controls, etc. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region XUse innovative data collection and analysis approaches, such as crowdsourcing or video detection data, to identify emphasis areas related to near misses or crashes previously unreported by vulnerable communities.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X
Develop a project evaluation framework that prioritizes funding based on fatal and serious injury crash reduction opportunities, especially for equity populations. Audit the region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for opportunities to enhance safety benefits and remove safety risks of funded projects.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X Apply for grant programs to fund safety projects. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region XInstitutionalize safety considerations in all project types to systematically fund projects through operations and maintenance efforts (such as repaving projects). Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X Development review Conduct safety impact assessments of new developments to identify mitigation and cost sharing opportunities. Live Oak; Sutter County X Identify underserved communities through data. This should include data that identifies underserved communities and/or reflects the impact of crashes on underserved communities, prioritization criteria that consider equity, or a description of meaningful engagement and collaboration with appropriate stakeholders.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X Incorporate equity considerations in implementation and assessment plans, such as goals related to safety improvements for populations that are traditionally underserved. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP XMeaningfully engage populations that are traditionally underserved in shared decision-making for safety efforts. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X Chapter/
Section
Page
Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Equity first
Meaningful
Engagement
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Live Oak Source Link Safety Planning
and Culture
Leadership and
commitment
Data and analysis
Funding
Live Oak Policy Benchmarking
98 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Chapter/
Section
Page
Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Live Oak Source Link Perform outreach through educational programs, with a focus on the behaviors and target audiences most linked to death and serious injuries. Utilize partnerships with community-based organizations and advocacy groups.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region Current effort with RSAP X Use demonstration projects to raise awareness of new designs, encourage support among stakeholders for safety projects requiring capacity trade-offs, and solicit feedback from the public. Demonstration projects also provide opportunity to measure safety effects and encourage innovation and design flexibility.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X
Investigate and document the impacts of traffic safety enforcement and traffic safety surveillance on minority communities. Take steps to mitigate disproportionate impact of enforcement on disadvantaged populations.

Live Oak; Sutter County X
Reallocate enforcement activities to target those behaviors and locations most linked to death and serious injury. Live Oak; Sutter County X Research Develop and implement strategies for robust demographic data collection in crash reporting. Live Oak; Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region X Systemically install proven countermeasures to separate users in space, separate users in time, and increase attentiveness and awareness, such as: protected signal phases, clear zones, and vertical and horizontal separation for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X
Complete infrastructure connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists and make progress toward providing separation where needed based on crash exposure, crash history, characteristics of the roadway, and adjacent land uses associated with higher levels of use.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region
"Policy CIRC-2.1: The City will seek funding for, and include pedestrian and bicycle improvements in Capital Improvements Planning, as feasible. " Live Oak 2030 General Plan
https://ww
w.liveoakcity.org/home/showpublisheddocume
CIRC 26 X
Systemically install proven countermeasures to manage motor vehicle speed and collision angles, such as roadside appurtenances, roundabouts, refuge islands, hardened center lines, and road diets. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region XEvaluate intersection design and control decisions in the planning or scoping stage for opportunities to better prioritize reducing kinetic energy transfer, following new FHWA guidance. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region XDesignate functional class and modal priority for roadways to pinpoint the most effective safety countermeasures and streamline tradeoff decisions - evaluated at a network scale for network-based priorities.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X
Ensure safety for all users is prioritized, and accessibility maintained, during construction and road maintenance projects. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X Innovation
Provide infrastructure for smarter roadways and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in support of data collection and analysis, as well as proactive system management. Consider long-term network priorities and immediate pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility needs when citing EV charging stations.

Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X
Enable infrastructure-to-vehicle communication to provide warnings to drivers that support safer driving behavior. Yuba-Sutter Region XProvide supportive infrastructure for dynamic curbside management and autonomous vehicles to enable active safety technology. Live Oak; Sutter County X Fleet Management
Support safer operations of city and commercial vehicles through a transition plan of city's vehicle fleet to lower-mass and safety feature enhanced vehicles; heavy vehicle route restrictions to avoid high-pedestrian areas; and curbside management programs to limit user conflicts around stopped or loading vehicles.

Live Oak; Sutter County X
Autonomous Vehicle
Data
Collect data about the involvement of AVs in crashes for future data analysis, and to inform design and policies. Live Oak; Sutter County X Design and operations
Adopt roadway design standards that are focused on speed management, such as target speedbased design, for residential and arterial roadways. Adjust roadway geometries for contextappropriate speeds. Live Oak; Sutter County X Enforcement Deploy speed safety cameras, with a focus on equitable fee structures. Where not permitted, monitor changes in state legislation that may allow for this in the future. Live Oak; Sutter County X Follow speed limit setting methodologies that determine appropriate or target speeds based on land use context, roadway context, and/or modal priority - accounting for the human body’s ability to tolerate crash forces rather than the historic behavior of road users. Consider utilizing innovative data sources to systemically assess prevailing versus target speeds and develop a plan to lower speeds in areas with a large discrepancy.

Live Oak; Sutter County X
Provide speed management training to staff focused on fatality and serious injury minimization. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X Supportive
infrastructure
Safe Users
Education
Enforcement
Safe Roadways
Collision avoidance
Kinetic energy reduction
Policies and tradeoffs
Safe Vehicles
Safe Speeds
Policy and training
99 Section 3, Item # 3.4
Not a Current
Practice
Codified in Standard
or Policy, but Not in
Practice
Codified and
Occasional
Practice
Codified and
Usual Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Chapter/
Section
Page
Number
Assessed Level of Commitment/Implementation
Core Element Category Benchmark Jurisdictional Responsibility State of Current Practice in Live Oak Source Link Employ collision reporting practices that promote complete and accurate data collection and documentation of road user behavior and infrastructure. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region XEstablish a feedback loop such that key insights from crash investigations are shared with roadway designers and/or influence outreach and education. Consider the creation of an inter-agency rapid response team to immediately investigate the sites of collisions and make recommendations for nearterm safety enhancements.

Live Oak; Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region
X
Share data across agencies and organizations, including first responders and hospitals, to develop a holistic understanding of the safety landscape and improve accuracy. Sutter County; Yuba-Sutter Region XConnect with victims' families and the advocacy community to offer support and resources, and encourage partnerships with outreach and education. Live Oak; Yuba-Sutter Region X Post Crash Care
Crash investigation
Partnerships
100
Section 3, Item # 3.4
Additional Local Policy Considerations
Beyond the policies considered in the Safe System Policy Benchmarking assessment, there are a range of transportation, land use, and housing policies in the Yuba-Sutter region partner agencies’ General Plans they may, directly or indirectly, influence roadway safety outcomes. The following goals and policies bolster a Safe System by addressing the built environment or socioeconomic factors that have an impact on roadway safety, such as influencing types and amounts of vehicle travel, thus reducing exposure.

Yuba County 2030 General Plan
RELEVANT CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICIES:

Policy CD19.6: New developments shall provide attractive streetscapes with street trees and sidewalks, planting strips, transit shelters, benches, and pedestrian-scale lighting, as required by County standards, as well as safe and frequent crosswalks along roadways, particularly in areas expected to have higher pedestrian traffic.

Policy CD19.8: The County will seek funding for and, as feasible, install traffic-calming measures, such as planted medians, landscaped planter strips, landscaped traffic circles, and other designs in areas with excessive or high-speed traffic, as appropriate. The County will not support street closures, half closures, or other measures that limit connectivity as a way to calm traffic.

RELEVANT LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS:

Goal CD1: Provide for efficient valley development patterns Goal CD2: Promote growth and reinvestment in existing developed unincorporated communities Goal CD4: Accessible, convenient, and successful community retail, service, and employment centers
Goal CD5: Valley Neighborhoods provide a long-term, high quality of life for the County’s existing and future residents
Goal CD6: Provide higher-density housing, neighborhood services, and retail in pedestrian- friendly Neighborhood Centers
Goal CD7: Revitalize Yuba County’s Mixed-Use Corridors to better serve existing Valley Neighborhoods
Goal CD8: Promote high-quality neighborhood design that ensures pedestrian comfort and convenience
RELEVANT HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS:

Goal H-1: Provide adequate sites to meet housing needs among all income groups. 101
Section 3, Item # 3.4
Goal H-2: Assist in the provision of affordable housing for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.

Goal H-3: Remove constraints to the availability and affordability of housing for all income groups.

Goal H-5: Preserve affordable housing.

Goal H-6: Ensure equal housing opportunity for all county residents.

Marysville 2050 General Plan
Draft not available online as of June 2025.

Live Oak 2030 General Plan
RELEVANT CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICIES:

Policy CIRC-2.1: The City will seek funding for and include pedestrian and bicycle improvements in Capital Improvements Planning, as feasible.

Policy CIRC-2.2: The City and Redevelopment Agency will prioritize transportation investments that better connect neighborhoods to major destinations, with safer and more convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and transit stops and routes.

Policy CIRC-2.4: The City will seek funding for and, as feasible, install traffic-calming measures, such as planted medians, landscaped planter strips, landscaped traffic circles, and other designs in areas with excessive traffic, as appropriate.

Policy CIRC-3.5: In areas with high pedestrian activity, streets should be relatively narrow and curb radii should be designed to promote pedestrian safety and convenience, while also ensuring adequate emergency access.

Sutter County 2030 General Plan
RELEVANT MOBILITY ELEMENT POLICIES:

Policy M 1.2: Consider all transportation improvements as opportunities to enhance safety, access, and mobility for all travelers including people with special needs, recognizing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system.

Policy M 1.3: Rights-of-Way. Secure adequate right-of-way to allow for the planning, design, and operation of transportation systems that provide safe access for all users.

Policy M 5.1: Prepare a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that supports implementation of a comprehensive, safe, and convenient system of commuter and recreational routes for pedestrians and cyclists.
102
Section 3, Item # 3.4
RELEVANT LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS:

Goal LU 1: Promote the efficient and sensitive use of lands to protect and enhance Sutter County’s quality of life and meet the needs of existing and future residents and businesses.

Goal LU 4: Facilitate orderly, well-planned, sustainable, and efficient growth that balances aesthetic, considerations.

Goal LU 8: Facilitate well planned large-scale mixed-use residential, industrial, and commercial development, bringing housing and jobs to South Sutter County consistent with the terms of advisory Measure M.

RELEVANT HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS & POLICIES:

Goal H 1: Provide for an adequate supply of new housing to meet the needs of present and future Sutter County residents incorporating a variety of housing types and densities that accommodate all income groups.

Policy H 1.1: Adequate Supply of Land Suitable for Housing. Identify and maintain an adequate supply of residential land with appropriate zoning classifications, land use designations, development standards, infrastructure, and public services to accommodate the County’s fair share of regional housing needs, including housing for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.

Goal H 2: Facilitate the development of affordable housing to meet the housing needs of lowerincome households in the County.

Goal H 3: Remove governmental constraints, address accessibility needs, and provide a regulatory framework to encourage a variety of housing types that accommodate all income groups.

Goal H 4: Provide housing for special needs groups, including persons with disabilities, seniors, farmworkers, persons experiencing homelessness, and extremely low-income households.

Goal H 6: Promote equal housing opportunities and affirmatively further fair housing for all residents of Sutter County.

Wheatland General Plan
RELEVANT CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICIES:

Policy 2.A.10: The City shall give priority to street and highway improvements that increase safety, minimize maintenance costs, and increase the efficiency of the street system.

Policy 2.A.6: The City shall require an analysis of the effects of traffic from proposed major development projects. Each such project shall construct or fund improvements necessary to mitigate the effects of traffic from the project. Such improvements may include a fair share of improvements that provide benefits to others.
103
Section 3, Item # 3.4
RELEVANT LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS:

Goal 1.B: To provide adequate land in a range of residential densities to accommodate the housing needs of all income groups expected to reside in Wheatland.

Goal 1.C: To provide for new residential development in planned neighborhoods that are designed to promote walking, bicycling, and transit use.

Goal 1.G: To support development of employment uses to meet the present and future needs of Wheatland residents for jobs and to maintain Wheatland’s economic vitality.

Goal 4.A: Provide for the city’s regional share of new housing for all income groups Goal 4.C: Meet the special housing needs of homeless persons, seniors, large families, disabled persons, and farmworkers.

Yuba City General Plan
RELEVANT CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICIES:

Policy 5.2-I-7: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Policy 5.2-I-21: Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management. Include roundabouts, traffic circles, and other traffic calming devices among these measures.

Policy 5.4-I-1: Establish a network of on- and off-roadway bicycle routes and encourage their use for commute, recreational, and other trips. Design bike routes with the safety of cyclists as a priority.

Policy 5.4-I-4: Provide bicycle lanes with a minimum width of five feet (six feet along all parkways) on new streets and existing streets whenever they are widened to more than two travel lanes.

Policy 5.4-I-7: Increase bicycle safety by:
• Sweeping and repairing bicycle lanes and paths on a regular basis; • Ensuring that bikeways are delineated and signed in accordance with Caltrans' standards, and lighting is provided, where needed;
• Providing bicycle paths or lanes on bridges and overpasses; • Ensuring that all new and improved streets have bicycle-safe drainage grates and are free of hazards such as uneven pavement and gravel;
• Provide adequate signage and markings warning vehicular traffic of the existence of merging or crossing bicycle traffic where bike routes and paths make transitions into or across roadways; and
• Work with the Yuba City Unified School District to promote classes on bicycle safety in the schools.

Policy 5.4-I-8: Give bikes equal treatment in terms of provisions for safety and comfort on arterials and collectors as motor vehicles.
104
Section 3, Item # 3.4
Policy 5.4-I-10 Provide for pedestrian-friendly zones in conjunction with the development, redevelopment, and design of mixed-use neighborhood core areas, the Downtown area, schools, parks, and other high use areas by:
• Providing intersection "bump outs" to reduce walking distances across streets in the Downtown and other high use areas;
• Providing pedestrian facilities at all signalized intersections; • Providing landscaping that encourages pedestrian use; • Constructing adequately lit and safe access through subdivision sites. • The following land use policies bolster a Safe System by addressing the built environment or socioeconomic factors that have an impact on roadway safety:

RELEVANT LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES:

Policy 3.4-G-1: Maintain a well-defined compact urban form, with a defined urban growth boundary and urban development intensities on land designated for urban uses.

Policy 3.4-G-2: Promote a balanced land use program that increases the ability of people to live and work in the city.

Policy 3.4-G-3: Promote development patterns that maximize residents’ accessibility to parks, open space, and shopping areas.

Live Oak 2030 General Plan
RELEVANT CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICIES:

Policy CIRC-2.1: The City will seek funding for and include pedestrian and bicycle improvements in Capital Improvements Planning, as feasible.

Policy CIRC-2.2: The City and Redevelopment Agency will prioritize transportation investments that better connect neighborhoods to major destinations, with safer and more convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and transit stops and routes.

Policy CIRC-2.4: The City will seek funding for and, as feasible, install traffic-calming measures, such as planted medians, landscaped planter strips, landscaped traffic circles, and other designs in areas with excessive traffic, as appropriate.

Policy CIRC-3.5: In areas with high pedestrian activity, streets should be relatively narrow and curb radii should be designed to promote pedestrian safety and convenience, while also ensuring adequate emergency access.
105
Section 3, Item # 3.4
Federal and State Safety Policies and
Guidelines
Federal Policy Considerations
The United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) incorporated the Safe System Approach as part of its most recent National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS), adopted in January 2022. This NRSS is the first national commitment to the goal of zero fatalities on America’s roadways, and names the Safe System Approach as the way to accomplish that goal. Federal transportation officials have since unveiled a number of policies and programs geared towards the application and implementation of the Safe System Approach at the state and local levels.

Safe Streets and Roads for All
The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant program was established by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2022, centered around the Department of Transportation’s National Roadway Safety Strategy and its goal of zero deaths and serious injuries on America’s roadways. Over its five-year duration ending in approximately 2026, it will provide $5 billion in grant funding to develop and implement safety plans and projects.

The SS4A grant program provides funding for local agencies to create Comprehensive Safety Action Plans (CSAPs). It also provides funding to implement safety projects, but only to those agencies that have an adopted CSAP or an equivalent. In order to qualify as a CSAP (and allow an agency to be eligible for implementation planning grant funding), a plan must meet a nine-point criteria as set forth by the Department of Transportation. They include an official commitment and goal to eliminate roadway fatalities and serious injuries; the creation of a standing task force or working group that will lead and monitor the implementation of the plan; data-driven safety analysis; public engagement and intergovernmental collaboration; consideration of equity in the planning process; assessment of current policies and guidelines to identify changes that will better prioritize safety; identification of a comprehensive set of projects and strategies that address safety issues; posting of the plan online along with description of how future progress will be measured; and that the plan would be updated every five years.

Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy
The Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy, created by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 2024, provides guidance in contextualizing and assessing infrastructure-based countermeasures and strategies on their alignment with the principles of the Safe System Approach. 106
Section 3, Item # 3.4
The Hierarchy classifies countermeasures into four tiers, from most to least aligned with Safe System principles. These tiers are:

1. Removing severe conflicts, which can act to eliminate high-risk conditions that involve users with different speeds or moving in different directions sharing space. This tier can include countermeasures that remove potential points of conflicts (for example, removing conflicting turning movements), and those that separate vulnerable users from vehicles in space (for example, protecting people biking through a separated bike lane).

2. Reducing vehicle speeds, which reduces the kinetic energy present within systems and thereby reduces the severity of crashes that do occur. As driver behavior, especially when it comes to speed, is highly influenced by roadway features, countermeasures that reduce prevailing speeds can include lane narrowing and features that channelize vehicle traffic such as median islands.

3. Managing conflicts in time, which covers instances (such as intersections) where space needs to be shared between different users, but where they can be separated in time. An example is the Leading Pedestrian Interval, which allows people walking to have a ”head start” interval at a signalized intersection before conflicting vehicle traffic enters the crosswalk.

4. Increasing attentiveness and awareness, which involves alerting users to conflicts and potential risks, can involve such countermeasures as intersection daylighting and warning signage.

Crucially, the Hierarchy prioritizes improvements and countermeasures that make physical changes to the system for the whole population as more effective than measures that rely on roadway users and individual decisions. This is consistent with the Safe System Approach’s central premise that humans make mistakes, and that the roadway system should be designed to accommodate them through redundant and proactive interventions.

In addition to presenting this tiered hierarchy as a framework for understanding countermeasures as they relate to the principles of the Safe System Approach, the guidance also presents examples of both common and novel countermeasures that fall under each tier.

Safe System Approach for Speed Management
Speeding continues to be one of the leading causes of collisions across the country, especially those causing fatalities and severe injuries, and the relationship between higher speeds and increased collision severity is well-documented. The FHWA’s 2023 report on the Safe System Approach for Speed Management provides targeted recommendations around speed management. The report notes the need for agencies to place safety and the prevention of injury collisions (as opposed to throughput or travel times) as the highest priority when it comes to speed setting on roadways, and highlights the need to change the physical design and context of the roadway beyond merely changing regulatory speed limits in order to achieve target speeds.

The report outlines a five-stage framework to speed management that is consistent with the Safe System Approach. The process begins with establishing a vision and building consensus within the community to manage speeds; the creation of a strategic safety plan, such as a Vision Zero plan or Local Roadway Safety Plan, can serve this purpose. Second, speed data should be collected and analyzed, which can help both guide the rest of the process and provide the backing to build public support. Third, locations for speed management should be prioritized proactively, taking into account both collision and speeding history as 107
Section 3, Item # 3.4
well as contextual factors (such as the presence of vulnerable users or traffic generators like schools and commercial areas). Countermeasures can then be selected for prioritized locations. Finally, ongoing monitoring and evaluation should be conducted to ensure efficacy and allow for flexibility and adjustment. The report also provides real-world case studies of how these principles were applied in practice.

Primer on Safe System Approach for Pedestrians and Bicyclists The Primer on Safe System Approach for Pedestrians and Bicyclists, released by the FHWA in 2021, emphasizes the importance of protecting pedestrians and bicyclists, as vulnerable users, under the Safe System Approach. The Primer details the considerations surrounding pedestrians and bicyclists under each of the five elements of the Safe System Approach – Safe Speeds, Safe Roads, Safe Vehicles, Safe Road Users, and Post-Crash Care. It also provides strategies and actions that can be taken at the Federal, state, and local levels towards implementing the Safe System Approach. Also included is an appendix on benchmarking policies, programs, and practices for Safe System consistency. The benchmarking used for City of Sacramento is based on this benchmarking tool.

Other National Guidance
In addition to policy and guidance from Federal agencies, other national-level documents provide additional guidance towards applying and implementing the Safe System Approach for local agencies.

The Safe Systems Pyramid
The Safe Systems Pyramid is a new framework for traffic safety proposed in a 2023 paper which adapts the Health Impact Pyramid framework into the Safe Systems Pyramid for roadway safety practitioners.

Building on established public health practice, the Safe Systems Pyramid illustrates how interventions that have the largest reach and require the least personal effort will be the most impactful.

In addition to identifying the kinetic energy transfer as the cause of injury, the Safe Systems Pyramid also relates energy to exposure. It explains how the many possible safety interventions differ in their effectiveness at reducing risk in the transportation system by prioritizing interventions that reduce exposure to kinetic energy transfer at the system level. Those that require more individual effort, such as driver education programs, have the least impact on improving system-wide safety. Meanwhile, those that change the quality of people’s lives and the built environment in which they travel more broadly, such as affordable housing near transit, zoning reform, traffic calming, and limiting crossing distances at intersections, have the largest impacts on safety.
108
Section 3, Item # 3.4
Source: David Ederer, Rachael Thompson Panik, Nisha Botchwey, and Kari Watkins. The Safe Systems Pyramid: A new framework for traffic safety, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100905. Graphic from Vision Zero Network, https://visionzeronetwork.org/applying-the-health-impact-pyramid-to-roadway-safety/ At the top of the Safe System Pyramid is education, which generally correspond to Tier 4 of the Safe System Hierarchy, and encompasses driver education programs and campaigns – for example, asking drivers to slow down and obey the speed limit. As the authors of the paper note, “the need to urge behavioral change is symptomatic of failure to establish contexts in which healthy choices are default actions,” and education programs are thus considered to be most reliant on individual behavior and least effective in producing improvements.

Below education on the Pyramid are active and latent safety measures, which generally correspond to Tier 3 of the Hierarchy. Active safety measures encompass such countermeasures as warning signals and signs, as well as in-vehicle devices such as seatbelts and collision warnings. These safety measures are effective when used, but rely on individual opt-in (for example, for a driver to react to signage or to a collision warning) to function. Latent safety measures encompass countermeasures such as signal timing modifications such as leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) that create redundancy, as well as vehicle features such as lane departure prevention and automated emergency braking. Latent measures are considered more effective than active measures, as they require less individual opt-in, but their efficacy is still limited by the fact that they are applied individually. For example, while automated braking is superior to a warning signal that warns the driver to manually brake, only those who choose and have the means to drive a vehicle with the feature will have access to this technology.

Further down on the pyramid is the built environment level, which corresponds to Tiers 1 and 2 of the Hierarchy, and refers to physical alterations to the roadway that promotes slower speeds, physically separate vulnerable users, and reduce the number of high-risk conflicts. Such interventions can also improve the experience for walking and biking, and reduce the number of vehicle trips by encouraging mode shift. Unlike the higher levels of the pyramid, changes to the environment creates contexts that 109
Section 3, Item # 3.4
encourage safer user behaviors (for example, narrower lanes that induce lower speeds) and are thus less dependent on active user participation and are more effective.

Finally, the socioeconomic factors level lies at the base of the pyramid. Typically, roadway safety interventions do not go beyond the roadway infrastructure, but today’s safety outcomes are inexorably linked by socioeconomic factors of the places that our roadways serve. Across the country, communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately exposed to the most dangerous roadways that feature high speeds, high traffic volumes, and outdated design and safety features. Moreover, many communities across the country also trapped by a lack of viable alternative transportation options as a result of car dependency, a crisis that is likely going to persist as the national phenomenon of the suburbanization of poverty continues. These are overarching socioeconomic factors that dictate urban form and the built environment, which in turn dictate safety outcomes. This category of interventions is often considered outside the traditional purview of transportation professionals, as they must come in the form of policy around land use, zoning, and economics that go beyond (but work in tandem with) transportation policy. However, they also must be considered when attempting to address roadway safety, as these socioeconomic factors form the root causes of roadway safety issues.

The pyramid should be seen as a structure for prioritizing the roadway design and operations tools that will have the most impact for safety while also collaborating outside the safety silo with other agency and community stakeholders to engage in upstream and more wide-ranging root cause topics.

NCHRP 1036: Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation Guide
The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)’s Report 1036, the Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation Guide, was developed in 2023 as a tool for practitioners to use in the development of roadway cross-sections that better assess the tradeoffs that are involved in the allocation of the limited width of a roadway. The guide begins with the premise that roadway space is scarce, and trade-offs are inevitable, and provides guidance for planning roadway cross-sections that center community priorities for that limited space. The guidelines also infuse Safe System considerations by establishing minimum floors for safety standards, such as the provisions of pedestrian and bike facilities and minimum widths for sidewalks and bike lanes. Finally, the guide discusses approaches for community engagement and operational analysis to facilitate the decision-making process consistent with the goals and minimum standards outlined in the guide. The guide also includes a companion Excel spreadsheet that can be used for new roadway and retrofit planning.

California Policy Considerations
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), like Federal authorities, has also adopted the Safe System Approach and committed to Vision Zero. Similarly, recently legislation at the State level has supported prioritization and cross-department collaboration consistent with the Safe Systems Pyramid strategies and hierarchy. Several State Senate and Assembly Bills and Caltrans Directors’ Policies (DPs) have been essential policy building blocks to support the ongoing Safe System pivot in California. 110
Section 3, Item # 3.4
AB 43
California Assembly Bill (AB) 43 was passed in 2021 to provide additional flexibility to local jurisdictions to set speed limits on their roadways. Specifically, it offers them a means to lower speed limits on additional corridors. Cities now have increasing flexibility to enforce context-sensitive speed limits.

AB 43 features the following five major components, focused on giving local jurisdictions more flexibility in setting speed limits, especially regarding vulnerable road users:
• Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS): An option to extend enforceable time period • Post E&TS: An agency can elect to retain current or immediately prior speed limit • Speed Limit Reduction: Reduction of additional 5 mph based on several factors, including designation of local “Safety Corridors”
• Prima Facie Speed Limits: Options for 15 and 25 mph in certain areas depending on context • Business Activity Districts: Option for 20 or 25 mph
In particular, in this Regional Safety Action Plan, the designation of “Safety Corridors” is applied to roadways where the highest number of serious injury and fatality crashes occur, identifying specific locations or corridor-level segments with high crash occurrences and stratified by mode. AB 43 stipulates that a jurisdiction’s set of safety corridors must account for at least 25 percent of all killed or seriously injured (KSI) crashes and must comprise 20 percent of its streets or less.

If a jurisdiction, after completing an engineering and traffic survey, finds that the speed limit on a roadway segment is higher than reasonable or safe, they may declare a default speed limit that has been reduced an additional five miles per hour if that segment is designated as a safety corridor.

DP 36
In Caltrans Director’s Policy (DP) 36, made effective in 2022, the agency committed to eliminating fatal and serious injury crashes by the year 2050, and committed to achieving this goal through the application of the Safe System Approach.

DP 37
DP 37, issued in 2021, establishes creating complete streets that support people walking, biking, taking transit, and accessing passenger rail. It recognizes these priorities as a means of advancing state goals in climate and the environment, in public health, and in equity and repairing harm to underserved communities. It also recognizes complete streets as valuable community spaces that can boost economic vitality and resiliency. To these ends, it directs that “all transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans will provide comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit or passenger rail unless an exception is documented and approved.” 111
Section 3, Item # 3.4
Caltrans Intersection Safety and Operations Assessment Process (ISOAP) What is ISOAP?
The Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP) is a performance-based, datadriven framework developed by Caltrans to evaluate and select intersection improvement alternatives. It incorporates the Safe System Approach to improve safety and operations for all road users. ISOAP’s purpose is to screen and identify the most viable intersection control and geometric design alternatives, ensuring they fit within the surrounding land use context and available resources. It replaces the prior Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) process, aiming to reduce severe crashes and support Caltrans’ long-term goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries.

Note: ISOAP applications can differ between land development and infrastructure projects (e.g., interchanges, corridor improvements) processed through Caltrans’ standard project development phases (PID and PA/ED).

Safe System Approach
The Safe System Approach is a safety framework used in ISOAP to reduce fatalities and serious injuries.

It accepts that human errors are inevitable and designs road systems to minimize harm.

CORE PRINCIPLES
• Zero Fatalities Goal – Safety is prioritized above all. • Human Error Is Expected – Roads must be forgiving.
• Human Vulnerability – Designs account for physical limits. • Shared Responsibility – Safety is a collective effort. • Redundancy – Multiple safety layers protect users.
• Proactive & Reactive Safety – Prevent crashes and reduce severity.

KEY ELEMENTS
• Safe Road Users – Education and enforcement.
• Safe Vehicles – Crash avoidance technologies.
• Safe Speeds – Lower speeds reduce crash impact.
• Safe Roads – Infrastructure that reduces conflict points. • Post-Crash Care – Emergency response and trauma care.

In ISOAP, this approach guides intersection design by emphasizing conflict reduction, speed management, and multimodal safety.

When is ISOAP Required?
ISOAP is required if a land development project proposes the following improvements to the State Highway System (SHS):
• Connecting a new public road, private road, or high-volume (average daily traffic volumes of 1,000 or greater) driveway to a state highway or a new interchange to a freeway. • Changing the type of traffic control, such as from stop-control to signal-control or from a twoway stop to all-way stop. • Installing a pedestrian hybrid beacon at an intersection. • Making major physical changes to intersection approaches, including at ramp terminals, such as adding a leg to an intersection or widening to provide an additional through or turn lane. 112
Section 3, Item # 3.4
Note that development projects entitled prior to ISOAP adoption are not exempt from the process, unless an ICE evaluation was previously prepared and approved by Caltrans.

Development projects often propose right-turn in/right-turn out driveways on state highways. ISOAP is not required for these driveways if the driveway approach volume is less than 1,000 vehicles per day.

ISOAP Process Summary
STAGE 1: SCREENING AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
This stage identifies viable intersection strategies early in the project development process, typically during the Project Initiation Document (PID) phase.
• Determine ISOAP Applicability: ISOAP is required for new intersections or major modifications (e.g., traffic control changes, new legs, pedestrian hybrid beacons). Exceptions must be approved by Caltrans HQ.
• Define Project Outcomes, Place Type, and Design Vehicle • Outcomes may include safety improvements, multimodal access, or traffic calming. • Place types (urban, suburban, rural) influence design. • Design vehicle selection depends on truck access needs. • Pedestrian and Bicycle Assessment: Evaluate current and future needs using Complete Streets guidance. Consider accessibility, school zones, and senior housing. • Right-of-Way and Operational Feasibility: Use tools like CAP-X and VJust to assess footprint and multimodal capacity. LOS is no longer a primary metric; use Daily Person Hours of Delay (DPHD) or other MOEs.
• Transit and Freight Assessment: Ensure intersection accommodates transit stops, queuing, and turning movements for large vehicles.
• Initial Safety Assessment: Use tools like SPICE, SSI methodology, and crash modification factors to compare strategies.
• Eliminate Infeasible Strategies: Remove options with insurmountable environmental, safety, or cost barriers.
• Document Findings: Complete the Stage 1 ISOAP form/documentation. If only one viable strategy remains, it becomes the recommendation. Otherwise, proceed to Stage 2.

STAGE 2: DETAILED ANALYSIS
• Detailed Safety Analysis: Use the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) to predict crash frequency/severity and calculate safety-related costs.
• Detailed Operational Analysis: Use tools like Synchro, SIDRA, VISSIM, and Highway Capacity Software. Include multimodal data and forecast volumes. • Functional Sketches and Performance Checks: Prepare conceptual layouts showing lanes, pedestrian/bike facilities, and transit stops. Conduct geometric checks (e.g., sight distance, roundabout fastest path).
• Cost Estimate and Right-of-Way Impacts: Include construction, maintenance, and crash costs.

Consider drainage, utilities, and staging impacts.
• Performance-Based Analysis Matrix: Compare strategies using safety, operations, cost, and benefit-cost ratio. Consider equity and Safe System principles. • Document Final Recommendation: Submit the Stage 2 ISOAP form/documentation. The selected strategy may not be the cheapest but must align with safety and community goals. 113
Section 3, Item # 3.4
1 Appendix B: Community Engagement
Materials & Feedback
Community Listening Sessions Summary
Introduction
In close collaboration with local communities, the Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan (YSRSAP) was launched with the primary goal of improving roadway safety throughout the region. This comprehensive initiative is designed to evaluate existing transportation conditions and identify critical safety concerns that affect all road users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public transit riders. By thoroughly assessing the locations and causes of traffic-related hazards, the plan seeks to implement targeted interventions that will lead to safer streets, a reduction in traffic-related injuries and fatalities, and an overall improvement in quality of life for residents.

The development of the YSRSAP was made possible through an $800,000 grant awarded in 2023 to the Yuba County Department of Public Works by the U.S. Department of Transportation. This funding supports a collaborative planning process that includes Yuba County, Sutter County, and the incorporated cities of Marysville, Wheatland, Yuba City, and Live Oak. Central to the planning effort is the commitment to transparency, community involvement, and data-driven decision-making.

To ensure that the plan reflects the perspectives and needs of those who live and travel within the region, the project team organized a series of public listening sessions. These sessions served as a vital platform for community members to engage directly with the planning process, learn about proposed safety strategies, and provide meaningful input that will shape the final recommendations.

Listening Session Overview
From May 1 through May 14, 2025, the YSRSAP project team hosted a total of four in-person community listening sessions across the YubaSutter region. Each session ran from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. and was strategically scheduled and located to maximize accessibility and encourage participation from a diverse cross-section of residents.

Community Meeting
Directional Sign
Marysville Health & Human
Services Center, May 1st
Yuba City Gauche Aquatic Park
Meeting Room, May 7th
114
Section 3, Item # 3.4
2 These listening sessions provided an open and welcoming environment where attendees could learn more about the
safety action plan, meet with members of the project team, and voice their observations, concerns, and ideas about local transportation safety. The input gathered during these
sessions plays an essential role in shaping the priorities of the plan and ensuring that the solutions developed are
responsive to the specific needs of the communities
involved.

The sessions took place at the following locations:
• Thursday, May 1: Marysville Health & Human Services
Building
• Wednesday, May 7: Yuba City Gauche Aquatic Park Meeting Room • Tuesday, May 13: Live Oak Community Center
• Wednesday, May 14: Wheatland Community Center
Each event was promoted through multiple channels, including flyers, local news outlets, social media, and direct outreach to community groups, with the goal of ensuring broad awareness and encouraging robust attendance.

Event Format and Engagement
Each listening session followed a relaxed, open-house format that encouraged free movement and informal dialogue. Upon arrival, attendees were greeted by project team members and offered complimentary items such as bottled water, bicycle safety accessories, and small treats like candy to create a friendly and inclusive atmosphere.

The venue layout included a series of display boards arranged throughout the room, each highlighting different components of the safety action plan. These exhibits covered a wide range of topics, including key goals of the plan, data on current roadway conditions, maps of high-priority safety areas, and preliminary recommendations for improvement. The visual displays were designed to be easy to understand and accessible to a general audience, encouraging thoughtful discussion and feedback.

Live Oak Community Center, May
13th
Wheatland Community Center, May
14th
Awareness Lawn Sign
115
Section 3, Item # 3.4
3 Project team members were stationed at each board to answer questions, explain technical details, and engage in one-on-one conversations. This personal interaction helped foster trust and allowed participants to share firsthand experiences and local insights, which are critical to developing solutions that are both effective and community-centered.

Stations and Board Exhibits
The listening sessions featured several themed stations and informational boards, each addressing a unique aspect of the Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan. The following section provides a detailed overview of the content presented at these stations.

Information Board:
116
Section 3, Item # 3.4
4 Plan Voting Board & Feedback:
117
Section 3, Item # 3.4
5 Marysville Boards & Feedback:
118
Section 3, Item # 3.4
6 Yuba City Boards & Feedback:
119
Section 3, Item # 3.4
7 Live Oak Boards:
120
Section 3, Item # 3.4
8 Wheatland Boards & Feedback:
121
Section 3, Item # 3.4
9 Yuba County Boards & Feedback:
122
Section 3, Item # 3.4
10 Sutter County Boards & Feedback:
123
Section 3, Item # 3.4
11 Interactive Web Map

SOCIAL PINPOINT
124
Section 3, Item # 3.4
12 125
Section 3, Item # 3.4
13 Biking Safety Comments
Nearest Address Comment Screen
name
1130 North Beale Road, Linda
This entire area is unsafe for bikes and peds. Bike infrastructure is unprotected and poorly delineated.

Signal crossings are poorly marked, timed, poor lighting, and poor beg buttons. The traffic is heavy here and there needs to be much more signs, beacons, and protected intersections.

YABA
1800 Erle Road, Linda
Erle Road is unsafe for bicycles and pedestrians due to the 55mph+ speeds and commercial truck traffic traveling at 55mph+. There is no clear recovery zone for the established speed and the bike lane is undesignated and has no clear delineation, protection, or buffer zone.

YABA
1548 Erle Road, Linda
Bicycles traveling between the retail center near Walmart and the Edgewater subdivision along Erle Road face several problems and risks. Erle Road does not have bi-directional bike lanes but instead routes all bike traffic along the north side of the road. The speed limit on Elre Rd is 55+ mph and a designated commercial truck route. The bike lane has no delineation as a bike lane, no safety features such as barriers or buffers. It is actually a shoulder all the way to the Erle Rd overcrossing where it ends. Vehicles use the shoulder as a turn lane onto Lindhurst Avenue northbound. Coming Southbound from Lindhurst, cyclists must share the left turn lane with motorists to go eastbound on Erle Rd from the overcrossing. This keeps cyclists going with the flow of traffic but there are no bicycle delineations, markings, designated areas, or guidance to help motorists understand the road is shared.

YABA
1012 5th Street, Marysville
Bicycles traveling in both directions are forced onto the sidewalk here. This is unsafe for several reasons due to lack of markings, signs, space, and speed differentials. Eastbound cyclists are dumped into J Street going the wrong way off of a sidewalk into right turning southbound traffic, which results in collisions between right turning vehicles and eastbound bicycles.

YABA
468 Bridge Street, Yuba City
Eastbound and westbound traffic at Plumas St are traveling at a higher rate of speed than the 85th percentile because of the perceived speed of the facility over the 5th Street bridge. There have been KSI's at this intersection to include a serious (SI) of a minor child who was walking her bicycle. There is no traffic calming coming off the bridge.

YABA
248 Bridge Street, Yuba City
I was eastbound (against traffic) on my bike because this is the only bike lane connecting to an eastbound crossing of the 5th St bridge. At this curve I was nearly hit head-on by a Yuba City Fire Engine that was driving over the limit line in the bicycle lane. Had I not been paying attention and not moved to the curb I would have been (probably) fatally hit. The driver was not paying attention. The fire engine was not speeding or driving to an emergency. It was simply in the bike lane. There are no barriers for this bike lane but there should be.
635 Sutter Street, Yuba City Southbound Sutter St after coming off of the 5th Street Bridge is an unsafe merge into traffic without a bicycle lane on Sutter Street. YABA
126
Section 3, Item # 3.4
14 Nearest Address Comment Screen
name
641 Sutter Street, Yuba City
This intersection is an unsafe cluster/diversion for cyclists after being routed off the bridge. Cyclists changing direction to northbound from an westbound crossing are forced to cross traffic on the wrong side, against the flow of vehicle traffic where there is no designated bike lane northbound on Sutter Street. To continue westbound, cyclists must transition to an unprotected bike lane on 5th street that ends at Shasta Street.
639 Sutter Street, Yuba City
5th Street Bridge forces bicycles off of 5th Street and relegates them to one side of the bridge for both directions without a safe protected way to continue on 5th Street even though there is a designated bike lane.

YABA
1112 Simpson Lane, Linda
Simpson Lane overcrossing is the only "local (county)" connecting road to Marysville from Linda and the residential areas south of the Yuba River. The only other crossing is at E Street Bridge where Caltrans has provided no safe route. Simpson Lane is a high speed (55 mph +) two-lane commercial truck route facility with inadequate clear recovery, zero traffic controls, zero designated bike or ped facility, and zero lighting or passive speed control signs. This facility is dangerous for all users, especially bicycle and pedestrians trying to access Marysville services.

YABA
505 6th Street, Marysville
6th Street between Yuba Street and J Street is a designated bicycle boulevard. The entire road is shared with bicycles. There are not enough signs and sharrows telling motorists to slow down and to share this road.

YABA
California Highway 70, Linda
There is no designated bicycle lane into Marysville from Linda/Olivehurst. SR70 crossing is completely deficient in bike/ped facilities. Many many bike/ped crossings per day, including motorized wheelchairs within 1-2 feet proximity of high speed semi truck and vehicle traffic on one side and a 30" high rail barrier over the side of the bridge. No lighting, no connectivity for bike/ped/rolling users. No ADA, no signs, no beacons, no safety barriers. Bridge walkway is only 38" wide.

YABA
1277 Simpson Lane, Linda
Very unsafe due to high speed truck and vehicle traffic 60mph and no barrier protection in the clear recovery zone which serves as unofficial bike and ped lane, no lighting, no signs, no delineation, no beacons or traffic calming, no ped crossings, and highway speeds in very close proximity to bicycle traffic. Simpson Lane is the only river crossing into Marysville beside the State Highway at E Street. I ride Simpson Lane and have had several very close calls.
zerovmt
1222 Colusa Avenue, Yuba City No hay suficiente espacio en las calles principales para bicicletas, hace falta un carril especifico para ciclistas. Lisa
127
Section 3, Item # 3.4
15 Walking Safety Comments
Nearest Address Comment Screen
name
1526 Mcgowan Parkway, Arboga I propose to build a sidewalk to be able to walk from the gas station to the Mac Gowan park so people who needs to take the public bus at the bus station can walk safely.

Walking
safely
Arboga Road, Olivehurst
Speed Limit on Arboga Rd between McGowan Pkwy and Ella Ave is currently 55 mph. There is a stop sign at McGowan and a stop sign at Ella. There are six crosswalks and four left turn options in this stretch of road. Speed limit is excessive (but may have been appropriate in the past before housing developments were built). Many drivers seem to drive about 45 mph. Suggestion: reduce speed limit to 45 mph.

Michael
ScullyLinder
1148 North Beale Road, Linda Bike and Peds are at risk in this entire area. Poor lighting, poor signalized intersections, poor delineated markings, lack of signage and beaconized crossings, etc. Very high risk area. YABA 1830 B Street, Marysville
There have been KSI's here involving students due to the amount and high speeds of state highway traffic.

There are not enough traffic calming measures in the school zone. Caltrans Binny Junction project build alternative did not adequately address the KSI's and preventative measures. Caltrans proposes to increase the speed limit to 45mph here.

YABA
12913 Rices Crossing Road, Oregon
House
I propose to build a sidewalk to be able to walk from the gas station to the Mac Gowan park so people who needs to take the public bus at the bus station can walk safely.

Walking
safely
13857 Phoenix Ave, Oregon House
Concerning the section of Rices Crossing Road south of Rices Texas Hill Road: There is no pedestrian lane, nor space for pedestrians, on this section. Could there be better signage to warn drivers, and/or post a speed limit?
Rodney
Carter
9872 Texas Hill Road, Oregon
House
Need an oval walking track so the community has some where safe to walk.

We have the space - 5 acres of community space available Margaret
Fowler
1429 Phillips Road, Yuba City This is a public K-10 school it needs a well established walking path Margaret Fowler
1830 B Street, Marysville Crosswalk for children in front of elementary Bshackle 1222 Colusa Avenue, Yuba City
Marysville Charter kids cross this intersection of a busy highway to go to the center across the street to use as a gym since their school does not have one. I worry how fast people drive on this highway that a kid may get hit. Is there anyway we can make this safer for kids who cross multiple times a day.

Sal
1830 North Beale Road, Linda
The neighborhood is not well lit at all. Very unsafe for walks in the evening. In addition there has been several car break in as well as thefts and with proper lighting some of these crimes would not occur as lighting would be a deterrent.

E.McKnight
1500 North Beale Road, Linda A flashing beacon here will really help getting vehicles to stop and allow me to cross and get to nearby stores across the street. JG
128
Section 3, Item # 3.4
16 Nearest Address Comment Screen
name
2371 North Beale Road, Marysville I feel a flashing beacon here will help me and others cross N. Beale Rd from the apartments and other homes to the nearby plaza. Resident X
3120 Forty Mile Road, Wheatland The intersection of N. Beale Rd and Goldfields Pkwy is really dark. I feel unsafe walking when its dark out. I would like to suggest lighting at the intersection and along N. Beale Rd. Resident X 1526 Mcgowan Parkway, Arboga
I have often seen pedestrians walking on the east side of Forty Mile Rd when there is a concert at the Toyota Amphitheatre. To avoid parking at the Amphitheatre, concert-goers will park at the Hard Rock Cafe and walk. After the concert seems really unsafe considering the lack of lighting.

Mr. W
129
Section 3, Item # 3.4
17 Walking Safety Comments
Nearest Address Comment Screen name
9201c Larkin Road, Live Oak,
California 95953, United States
Cars often drive dangerously beyond the 35 speed limit here, especially when coming northbound into Live Oak on Larkin. There is a speed limit change from 55 to 35mph a little before the River Valley nursing home, but most are going over 55 and continue to go that speed past the nursing home. There is a lot of traffic coming in and out of the nursing home parking lot and speeding on Larkin makes this area very dangerous. I have also seen wreckless speeders crash into the backs of cars that have slowed down or stopped on the road waiting to turn into the homes on Larkin. There are a couple of speed change warning signs and a radar warning, but it seems nobody cares. Maybe a slight speed bump and flashing lights could help?
1764 Tierra Buena Road, Yuba
City Drivers do a rolling stop or at times not stop at all.

California Highway 65,
Wheatland
The bottlenecked traffic that has to get through Wheatland is a safety concern. All of the new homes/apartments =more traffic. In the event of an emergency there is NO way to safely get out. There’s not even passing lanes. Stop being greedy and find a way to re-route the 65 or add lanes.

A concerned
Wheatland
citizen
126 12th Street, Marysville
There is heavy traffic congestion in this area between 07:20 am - 07:45 am. Typically, most people turning left onto B ST, from 12th ST, also need to quickly merge for the upcoming turn on 9th ST. There are merging issues and this contributes to the growing traffic on B ST.

Brittney
3986 Wheatland Road,
Wheatland
Big dip in the road. This has gotten worse and worse over the last couple years. Even traveling at posted speed limit this dip is cause for concern. Please look into repairing it. Darren 985 Hillcrest Avenue, Yuba City Yuba City Hwy 20 at Shasta St intersection, median divide the visibility is extremely poor and very low height. Jo
1222 Colusa Avenue, Yuba City Queens Ave overpass, 2 stoplights cause bottleneck traffic during peak commute hours. This endangers traffic on northbound West Onstott Rd and also the kids E-Learning access On Queens Ave Jo 425 9th Street, Marysville Speed bumps need reflective because they are hard to see Mark Hubble 13623 Rices Crossing Road,
Oregon House
There have been several crashes at the intersection of Marysville Road and Rices Crossing Road, some fatal. I was involved in one of them. Visibility is poor on both approaches to the intersection. The traffic can be heavy. Some drivers approach the intersection at speeds in excess of 55 miles per hour. The speed limit isn't posted there, so drivers can assume it is still 55 miles per hour, as it is on both approaches to the intersection. A few seconds of inattention can therefore result in a violent collision at the intersection. Such collisions have occurred a number of times.

Henry Knapp
231 South Walton Avenue, Yuba
City
There needs to be a turn lane here. Traffic backs up excessively when drivers try to make a left turn into the Berkshire neighborhood. Often times its a full stop in traffic nearly causing collisions. Anonymous 130
Section 3, Item # 3.4
18 Nearest Address Comment Screen name
1289 Lincoln Road, Yuba City
Left turn lane is not long enough. Cars often miss the signal due to access to the turn lane being blocked.

This has resulted in cars using the oncoming traffic lane as a way to bypass traffic that is going straight. I have seen collisions happen here because of this.

Anonymous
Pasado Road, Olivehurst Need to add traffic lights, its almost impossible to turn left on Erle Rd. due to ongoing traffic..

Plumas Arboga Road, Arboga So many accidents at this intersection. Needs a light or lighted stop signs immediately 3992 Wheatland Road,
Wheatland
Seems like a pipe or culvert is broke and the road has settled. Big drop in the road that has continually gotten worse. Ashley Ferreira
1649 Broadway Road, Arboga Trying to navigate through this area during school drop offs & pickup times. The road gets blocked in several directions. Many local residents can not even leave their homes during school hours. carrway 12510 Rices Crossing Road,
Oregon House
"Rices Crossing is narrow in places, and people have run off the side of the road. The biggest concern, however, is emergency egress in case of a wildfire. As a Director of the Dobbins/Oregon House Fire Protection District, I anticipate that emergency egress issues will severely impact the ability of the Fire district to respond to an emergency. See this link for a compilation of letters sent to Yuba County about Rices Crossing Road: https://foothillwatercoalition.org/records/links/24-12-30_wf_letters.html Charles Sharp
1222 Colusa Avenue, Yuba City Hay demaciados carros en esta pequeña ciudad. Deberia haber mas transporte publico Hilda 1548 Erle Road, Linda North bound cars here often make their own lane to make a right turn on to Erle Rd. New striping is necessary also see a lot of kids on bikes on the road on Lindhurst Ave Private 1222 Colusa Avenue, Yuba City
Recorrer la pequeña ciudad de Yuba es todo un reto y toma demaciado tiempo. Hay demaciados semaforos, las glorietas creo pueden ser mejor opcion para las calles principales en vez de tanta luz. De igual manera en zonas residenciales puede funcionar mejor Stop signs y detectores de velocidad en diferentes zonas.

Lisa
1311 Oswald Road, Yuba City
I have seen many many crash’s and also have been a victim of a crash right in the section of the road.

People travel way to fast and many have been killed her due to traffic accidents. They’re should be a light here.
1991 Mcgowan Parkway,
Olivehurst
Crash happened on December 25, 2024. unknown cause however it was a two car collision. This is a four way stop intersection and can sometimes be challenging when school ends for the day and traffic piles up with kids walking home after school.

Olivehurst
Resident
131
Section 3, Item # 3.4
Appendix C
Safety Corridor Background &
Technical Methodology
132
Section 3, Item # 3.4
1 Appendix C: Safety Corridor Background
and Technical Methodology
This section discusses the methodology used for the identification of safety corridors, the roads that had the highest number and risk of crashes resulting in severe injury or death.

Policy Background: Assembly Bill 43
Assembly Bill (AB) 43 is state traffic safety legislation aimed at reducing road fatalities by giving local governments more flexibility in setting speed limits. AB 43 enables cities to consider pedestrian and cyclist safety, school zones, and accident history when setting speed limits. If a jurisdiction, after completing an engineering and traffic survey, finds that the speed limit on a roadway segment is higher than reasonable or safe, they may declare a default speed limit that has been reduced an additional five miles per hour if that segment is designated as a safety corridor. A safety corridor is a roadway segment within an overall roadway network where the highest number of serious injury and fatality crashes occur.

The Safety Corridor Definition Requirements from the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) proposes the following factors to influence collision weighting:
• Crash severity
• Crash mode
• Disadvantaged Community status
• Vulnerable populations: Seniors (age 65+) and youth (under age 15) • School proximity (within 0.25 miles)
Additionally, the AB 43 legislation language states that “a local authority shall not deem more than one-fifth of their streets as Safety Corridors.” Safety Corridors should account for at least 25% of KSI collisions. While the Safety Corridors definition can now be used for identifying AB 43 posted speed reduction locations, the State will likely expand use of this definition to additional safety-related programs, policies, and funding sources.

More information is available here: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safetyprograms/documents/ctcdc/ctcdc-agenda-item-21-16-020223-a11y.pdf Safety Corridors Data
Collision Data
The Safety Corridor/High-Injury Network was developed using the 6-year collision dataset for 2018-2023 from the SWITRS database. This dataset only included injury collisions (i.e. excluding Property Damage Only collisions, where an injury was not reported) and included collisions on surface streets, state facilities, at freeway ramp intersections, and on freeways. 133
Section 3, Item # 3.4
2 Contextual Data
In addition to collision data, the Safety Corridor methodology used the following contextual datasets:
• Yuba County and Sutter County centerline files merged • USDOT Equitable Transportation Community (ETC)
• Transit stops locations
• Big data representing observed vehicle speed, aggregated to the segment level, from Wejo Collision Severity Weighting
Collision weights are derived based on 2022 California Local Road Safety Manual (LRSM) crash costs for each collision severity. This method is similar to the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) weighting method but uses the “Complaint of Pain” severity level as its baseline, because Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions are not included in the Safety Corridor Network.

Cost assumptions from the 2022 Caltrans LRSM are based on costs included in the HSM First Edition, with costs adjusted to 2022 dollars. The HSM uses “comprehensive” or “societal” crash costs to associate costs with each crash severity level. Comprehensive costs include both economic costs and monetized pain and suffering costs. Economic costs are monetary costs associated with emergency services deployment, medical services, productivity loss due to victim injury, insurance and legal costs, costs as a result of congestion impacts as a result of the collision, and property damage costs. Monetized pain and suffering costs are an assumption of the costs associated with lost quality-of-life (or Quality-Adjusted Life Years [QALY]), accounting for reductions in life expectancy and quality of life changes as a result of a crash.

For this analysis, the square root of the cost assumption was used to lower the collision severity weight to give more weight to the contextual factors.

This methodology uses all injury collisions in Safety Corridor development (as opposed to KSI only).

Table 1: Collision Weights
Severity Crash Cost Weight
Fatal and Severe Injury (KSI) $2,363,666.67* 5.1
Evident Injury – Other Visible $159,900 1.4
Possible Injury – Complaint of Pain $90,900 1
*The fatal and severe injury (KSI) collision cost is an average of the location type costs (signalized intersections, non-signalized intersections, roadway).
**Rounded to nearest whole number.
134
Section 3, Item # 3.4
3 Safety Corridors Development Methodology
Risk Factor Methodology
This methodology uses a systemic safety analysis methodology to build a network of Safety Corridors that incorporates a proactive approach, rather than relying only on collision history to identify priority locations. Known roadway and contextual risk factors were also scored for both segment and intersection locations, regardless of that location’s history of injury collisions. Risk factors are based on recommendations within one or more of the following resources:
• Prioritization of Highway Safety Manual (HSM) Data Variables Using Random Forest Algorithm, TRB, 2014
• Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analysis, NCHRP, 2018
• Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis, NCHRP, 2020 • Recommendations for California Statewide Guidance: High Injury Networks, California Strategic Highway Safety Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Challenge Area, 2021 Location factors were applied to the segment or intersection, rather than the collision. Under this option, the cumulative score for a single collision can range from 1 to 11.1. The cumulative score for a single intersection or segment, independent of collisions, can range from 0 to 18. Cumulative scores for collisions and locations were summed when collisions are aggregated to segments and intersections (see following section for more detail). A segment with all location-based risk factors and no injury collision history would score a total of 15. Table 2 presents the variables and their associated scores.

Associating Collisions to Corridors
The following section outlines the major steps of the methodology for associating collisions with roadway segments and intersections.
1) Associating Collisions to Roadway Segments: Collisions were associated to roadway segments using a 45-foot roadway segment buffer. Collisions within 45’ of multiple roadway segments (e.g. at an intersection) were assigned to each segment and were double counted. 2) Calculate Safety Corridor Index: A score for each roadway and/or intersection (known as the Safety Corridor Index) was calculated by aggregating the weighted collision and risk factor sums, which was joined to the network in the previous step.
3) Corridor Building: The top 90th percentile scoring segments were identified and connected to form the network of Safety Corridors. Quarter-mile segments are dissolved together based on proximity. If the distance between 95th percentile scoring segments is a half mile or less and segments have the same roadway name, they were connected. Additionally, if the distance between a 90th percentile scoring segment and the end of the roadway is a half mile or less, the segment was be extended to the end of the roadway. Safety corridors were 0.5 miles and longer as a result of this process.
4) Corridor Check and Refinement: Verify that the Safety Corridor accurately incorporates the 95th percentile scoring segment gap threshold into the final Safety Corridors. 135
Section 3, Item # 3.4
4 Table 2: Safety Corridors Scoring
Variable Value Score
Collision Factors
Collision Severity (factors are mutually exclusive)* – applied to collision Fatal and Severe Injury (KSI) 0 or 1 5.1
Evident Injury – Other Visible 0 or 1 1.4
Possible Injury – Complaint of Pain 0 or 1 1
Additional Factors (factors not mutually exclusive) – applied to collision Mode: involves bicyclist or pedestrian 0 or 1 3
Vulnerable population: Injury and fatality victims
age 65+ or 17 and under 0 or 1 3
Contextual Factors
Location Factors (factors not mutually exclusive) – applied to segment USDOT Equitable Transportation Community
(ETC) Disadvantaged Communities Index
Percentile Rank
0th to 65th 0
65th to 80th 1
>80th percentile 2
Within 1,000’ of a school (public or private) 0 or 1 2
Presence of transit stop (within 500’) 0 or 1 2
Roadway Risk Factors (factors not mutually exclusive) – applied to segment High ADT (segments with 30,000+ ADT)**
0 – 9,000 0
9,001 – 14,999 1
15,000 – 29,999 2
+30,000 3
Observed Speeds***
0 – 20 MPH 0
20 – 30 MPH 1
30 – 40 MPH 2
>40 MPH 3
Roadway Classification Multiplier for Roadway Risk Factors**** Roadway Classification Multiplier
Local 2
Collector 1.5
Arterial 1
Expressway 1
*Scores based on square root of ratios of crash cost.
** Data source: SACSIM Model Volumes
***Data source: 2022 Wejo connected vehicle data
****Multiply the combined score of the volume and speed roadway risk factors by its roadway classification. This is used to identify discrepancies or differences between roadway classifications/design and the actual volume or speed of the facility.
****All roadways with no ADT were assigned ADT based on local expertise and roadway engineering judgment. 136
Section 3, Item # 3.4
2 Yuba-Sutter 3
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Appendix D
Safety Countermeasure Toolbox
This appendix presents a toolbox of safety countermeasures that can be deployed to address crash trends and the systemic factors behind them. Systemic improvements, both engineering and programmatic/nonengineering related, were identified for implementation.

What Are Engineering Countermeasures?
Engineering countermeasures are physical,
infrastructure-based improvements that can
be made to roadways to reduce likelihood of
crashes.

What Are Programmatic/Non-engineering
Countermeasures?
Programmatic/Non-engineering
countermeasures introduce education,
enforcement, and other policy instruments
as means of encouraging safer roadways
through user behavior, and they can be used to
tackle traffic safety problems such as alcohol
and drug impaired driving, distracted driving,
speeding, and pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

Example: Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Example: OTS Go Safely California campaign resources 137
Section 3, Item # 3.4
4 Yuba-Sutter 5
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Engineering Countermeasures
The purpose of this Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox is to establish a shared understanding of key strategies available to address roadway safety issues in the YubaSutter Region that align with the Safe System Approach. The Toolbox describes a variety of countermeasures and how they can be applied to improve safety. It also includes general information about each tool’s application, typical placement contexts, estimated costs, and tiers within the FHWA Safety System Hierarchy.

The countermeasure toolbox includes:

Curb Extensions
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Curb extensions are sidewalk widenings at corners or crosswalks that make it safer and easier for people to cross the street. They shorten the distance pedestrians have to walk and improve visibility between drivers and people crossing—especially when parked cars might block the view. Paint and plastic curb extensions are a quick and low-cost way to try out this safety feature before making it permanent.

Cost $$
Context Urban
LRSM ID NS21PB
Countermeasure description Countermeasure type
FHWA Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy that that helps identify and prioritize strategies to reduce traffic-related injuries and fatalities Countermeasure title
Countermeasure icon
Context to implement
countermeasure
Local Roadway
Safety Manual ID
Cost to implement
countermeasure
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)
proven countermeasure
138
Section 3, Item # 3.4
6 Yuba-Sutter 7
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
A. Bikeways
Bicycle Crossing (Solid Green Paint)
Bicycle Ramp
Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase
Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign
Bike Box
Bike Detection
Bike Lane
Bike-Friendly Grate
Buffered Bike Lane
Door Zone Markings
Extend Green Time For Bikes
Floating Transit Island or Bus Boarding Island
Green Conflict Striping
Mixing Zone
Separated Bikeway
Shared-Use Path
Through Bike Lane at Intersection
Two-Stage Turn Queue Bike Box
B. Pedestrian Facilities
Add Sidewalk
Audible Push Button Upgrade
Co-Locate Bus Stops and Pedestrian Crossings
Curb Extensions
Extend Time Push Button
High-Visibility Crosswalk
Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled
Locations (Signs and Markings Only)
Landscape Buffer
Leading Pedestrian Interval and Pedestrian Recall
Pedestrian Countdown Timer
Pedestrian Detection
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Remove Crossing Prohibition
Restripe Crosswalk
Upgrade Curb Ramp
Widen Sidewalk
Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox List
C. Intersections & Roadways
All-Way Stop Control
Centerline Hardening
Close Slip Lane
Directional Median Openings to Restrict Left Turns
Guardrail
Improved Pavement Friction
Intersection Lighting
Intersection Reconstruction and Tightening
Lane Narrowing
Median Barrier
Median Guardrail
Neighborhood Traffic Circle
Partial Closure/Diverter
Protected Intersection
Raised Crosswalk
Raised Intersection
Raised Median
Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersection
Refuge Island
Road Diet
Roundabout
Rumble Strips
Safety Edge
Slow Turn Wedge
Speed Hump or Speed Table
Splitter Island
Straighten Crosswalk
Superelevation at Horizontal Curve Locations
Traffic Signal
Widen/Pave Shoulder
D. Signals
Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection
All-Red Signal Time
Extend Pedestrian Crossing Time
Flashing Yellow Turn Phase
Pedestrian Scramble
Prohibit Left Turn
Prohibit Right-Turn-on-Red
Prohibit Turns During Pedestrian Phase (Blank-out
Signs)
Protected Left Turns
Retroreflective Tape on Signals
Separate Right-Turn Phasing
Shorten Cycle Length
Signal Interconnectivity and Coordination / Green Wave
Speed Sensitive Rest in Red Signal
Supplemental Signal Heads
Upgrade Signal Head
E. Signing & Striping
Advance Stop Bar
Chevron Signs on Horizontal Curves
Curve Advance Warning Sign
Flashing Beacon as Advance Warning
LED-Enhanced Sign
Painted Centerline and Raised Pavement Markers at
Curves on Residential Streets
Speed Feedback Sign
Speed Legends on Pavement at Neighborhood Entries
Striping Through Intersection
Time-Based Turn Restriction
Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings
Upgrade Signs with Fluorescent Sheeting
Upgrade Striping
Upgrade to Larger Warning Signs
Wayfinding
Yield Markings
Yield To Pedestrians Sign
F. Others
Back-In Angled Parking
Driveway Consolidation
Street Lighting
Clear Zone
Curbside Management
Far-Side Bus Stop
Delineators, Reflectors, and/or Object Markers
Impact Attenuators
Speed Limit Reduction
Relocate Hazardous Utility Poles
Remove Obstructions For Sightlines
Upgrade Lighting to LED
Red Light Camera
Traffic Camera/Closed Circut TV Camera
139
Section 3, Item # 3.4
8 Yuba-Sutter 9
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Bicycle Crossing (Dashed Green Paint)
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

BIKEWAYS
Dashed green paint across an intersection that signifies the bicycle crossing.

Increases the visibility of bicyclists’ anticipated path of travel.

Cost $
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
Bicycle Ramp
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

BIKEWAYS
A ramp, typically at intersections, that connects on-street bike lanes to a shared-use path or sidewalk-level separated bikeway.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

BIKEWAYS
A traffic signal that directs bicycle traffic across an intersection. Separates bicycle movements in time from conflicting motor vehicle, transit, or pedestrian movements. Most applicable for separated bikeway facilities or shared-use paths.

Cost $$$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

BIKEWAYS
A sign placed on roadways categorized as bike routes to indicate that bicyclists may occupy the full travel lane. Intended to encourage motorists to slow and yield to bicyclists until it is safe to pass. Also encourages bicyclists not to ride within the door zone if on-street parking is present.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
140
Section 3, Item # 3.4
10 Yuba-Sutter 11
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Bike Box
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

BIKEWAYS
A bike box is a designated area (often painted green) between the crosswalk and vehicle stop bar at a signalized intersection where bicyclists can wait during a red signal phase. The bike box places bicyclists in a location where they are more visible to motorists and is typically used to facilitate left turn movements.

Cost $
Context Urban
LRSM ID S20PB
Bike Detection
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

BIKEWAYS
Bike detection is technology used at signalized intersections—in the form of of push buttons, in-pavement loops, or video/infrared cameras—to initiate a green light for bicyclists and reduce delay for bicycle travel. Discourages bicyclists from running red lights and increases the convenience of bicycling.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Bike Lane
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

BIKEWAYS
Bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists using pavement markings and signage. The bike lane is located adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and flows in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge, or parking lane.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID R32PB
Bike-Friendly Grate
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

BIKEWAYS
Bike-friendly grates are drainage inlets that have transverse or gridded grates to prevent bike tires from falling through the grate and causing a crash.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
141
Section 3, Item # 3.4
12 Yuba-Sutter 13
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Buffered Bike Lane
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

BIKEWAYS
Buffered bike lanes have a designated painted buffer space, creating addtional horizontal distance from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane. Buffers provide greater space for bicycling without making the bike lane appear so wide that it might be mistaken for a travel lane.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID R32PB
Door Zone Markings
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

BIKEWAYS
These pavement markings denote the door zone of parked vehicles, to raise awareness for both bicyclists and motorists of the conflict area—in which an open car door could obstruct the path of a passing bicyclist.

Cost $
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
Extend Green Time For Bikes
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

BIKEWAYS
A longer green phase when bicyclists are present provides additional time for bicyclists to clear the intersection. It can occur automatically in the signal phasing, or be prompted with bicycle detection. Topography should be considered in clearance time.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID S03
Floating Transit Island or Bus Boarding Island
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

BIKEWAYS
Transit/boarding islands allow bicycles to pass between the sidewalk and transit boarding area, thereby avoiding bus-bike conflicts at the transit stop. Can be used in combination with a bike lane, buffered bike lane, or separated bikeway. The treatment can also reduce vehicle speeds, as the island itself visually narrows the roadway and can have a traffic calming effect with in-lane bus stops.

Cost $$
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
142
Section 3, Item # 3.4
14 Yuba-Sutter 15
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Green Conflict Striping
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

BIKEWAYS
Conflict striping is green pavement markings in a dashed pattern that extend across bike lanes, specifically when approaching an intersection and/ or going through an intersection or major driveway. Improves awareness bicycle-car conflict points.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Mixing Zone
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

BIKEWAYS
A mixing zone is a designated area in an intersection where bicyclists and motorists share the same space, often due to a bike lane transitioning into a shared lane. Lane markings increase awareness for bicyclists and motorists, indicating the intended shared lane.

Cost $
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
Separated Bikeway
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

BIKEWAYS
A separated bikeway, also called protected bike lanes or cycletrack, provides dedicated street space for bicyclists, typically adjacent to outer vehicle travel lanes, with physical separation from vehicle traffic, designated lane markings and signage. Physical separation may consist of plastic posts, parked vehicles, raised median, or a curb (if the separated bike lane is raised to sidewalk level). The separation reduces the risk of severe conflicts between bicycles and vehicles on the road, and also reduces conflicts between people biking and walking as compared to a shared-use path.

Cost $$$
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID R33PB
Shared-Use Path
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

BIKEWAYS
Shared-use paths or trails are off-street facilities that provide exclusive use for nonmotorized travel, including bicyclists and pedestrians. They can be located alongside a roadway (referred to as a Side Path), or exist in a separate right-of-way.

Cost $$$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
143
Section 3, Item # 3.4
16 Yuba-Sutter 17
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Through Bike Lane at Intersection
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

BIKEWAYS
A through bike lane is a striping layout for intersections with a dedicated right-turn pocket, designed to allow for space for bicyclists to travel to the left side of right-turning vehicles.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Two-Stage Turn Queue Bike Box
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

BIKEWAYS
This type of bike box is a designated area painted on the ground on the far side of an intersection. It provides bicyclists with a way to make a left turn at a multi-lane signalized intersection from a bike lane or separated bikeway on the far right side of the roadway. In this way, bicyclists are given the option of not having to mix with left-turning vehicles.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Add Sidewalk
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Sidewalks provide a separated facility for pedestrians, that follows along the roadway but is outside of the traveled way or shoulder.

Cost $$$
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID R34PB
Audible Push Button Upgrade
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Pedestrian push buttons at crosswalks must follow accessibility standards set by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). These buttons should be easy to both see and reach for all pedestrians, including those using wheelchairs or with limited mobility. To support people who are blind or have low vision, accessible pedestrian signals (APS) include features like audible tones, speech messages, and vibrating arrows that indicate when it’s safe to cross.

These features help make crossing streets safer and more inclusive for everyone
Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
144
Section 3, Item # 3.4
18 Yuba-Sutter 19
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Co-Locate Bus Stops and Pedestrian Crossings
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Bus stops should be placed near safe pedestrian crossings so that people using transit can easily and safely cross the street. When crossings are well-designed and close to bus stops, it makes travel more convenient and reduces the risk of crashes involving pedestrians.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Curb Extensions
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Curb extensions are sidewalk widenings at corners or crosswalks that make it safer and easier for people to cross the street. They shorten the distance pedestrians have to walk and improve visibility between drivers and people crossing—especially when parked cars might block the view. Paint and plastic curb extensions are a quick and low-cost way to try out this safety feature before making it permanent.

Cost $$
Context Urban
LRSM ID NS21PB
Extend Time Push Button
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Some crosswalks have a special push button that lets people request extra time to cross the street. This is especially helpful for older adults or anyone who may need a bit more time. These buttons are often placed near places like senior centers, medical offices, or assisted living communities.

Cost $
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
High-Visibility Crosswalk
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
High-visibility crosswalks use bold, striped patterns—often called “ladder markings”—made from durable, reflective materials like thermoplastic instead of traffic paint. These markings make crosswalks easier for drivers to see, especially at night or in bad weather, and serve as a clear signal that pedestrians may be present crossing the street.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID S18/NS20
145
Section 3, Item # 3.4
20 Yuba-Sutter 21
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing at
Uncontrolled Locations (Signs and Markings Only)
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Marked pedestrian crossings at intersections or along streets give people a clear, designated place to cross. This helps reduce the risk of crashes by making it more likely that drivers will expect and see pedestrians. Features like crosswalk striping and signs alert drivers to slow down and watch for people crossing.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID R35PB
Landscape Buffer
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Adding a landscaped buffer between the road, sidewalks, and/or bikeways creates more space between drivers and people walking or biking. This separation not only makes everyone feel safer, but it also encourages drivers to slow down, which helps reduce the severity of crashes.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Leading Pedestrian Interval and Pedestrian Recall
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
At busy intersections with lots of turning vehicles and pedestrian activity, a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) gives people walking a 3–7 second head start to begin crossing before cars get a green light. This helps pedestrians become more visible in the crosswalk. Pedestrian recall automatically activates the walk signal during every light cycle so pedestrians don’t have to press a button to get a walk signal.

Cost $
Context Urban
LRSM ID S21PB
Pedestrian Countdown Timer
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Countdown pedestrian signals show how many seconds are left to finish crossing the street. These timers help people walking make safer decisions about when to cross. These timers are now required on all new traffic signals that include signalized pedestrian crossings.

Cost $$
Context Urban
LRSM ID S17PB
146
Section 3, Item # 3.4
22 Yuba-Sutter 23
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Pedestrian Detection
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
These sensors can detect when a person is at an intersection waiting to cross, then automatically trigger the “WALK” signal without the person needing to press a button. This helps reduce unsafe crossings and ensures that pedestrians get enough time to cross the street safely.

Cost $$
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) is a special type of crossing signal used on roadways with higher volumes and speeds at mid-block crosswalks or unsignalized intersections. It stays off (dark) until a person presses a button or is detected waiting to cross. Then, it lights up with a sequence of yellow and red lights to alert drivers to stop and let the pedestrian cross safely.

Cost $$$
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID NS23PB
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
A Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) is a special flashing light that pedestrians can activate when they want to cross the street. It’s paired with signs to alert drivers that someone is crossing. The bright, flashing lights make the crosswalk more visible and remind drivers to yield to people walking.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID NS22PB
Remove Crossing Prohibition
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Removing crossing restrictions and adding marked crosswalks makes it easier and safer for people to cross the street. Instead of forcing pedestrians to take longer, less direct routes—or cross during unsafe traffic movements—this approach provides clear, designated places to cross.

Cost $
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
147
Section 3, Item # 3.4
24 Yuba-Sutter 25
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Restripe Crosswalk
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Crosswalks need to be repainted regularly to stay visible to drivers and pedestrians. Over time, markings can fade due to weather and traffic. When repainting, using high-visibility designs—like ladder markings—can make crosswalks easier to see and help improve safety for everyone.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Upgrade Curb Ramp
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Tactile warning surfaces and properly designed curb ramps are essential for helping people who are blind, have low vision, or are using a mobility device safely navigate street crossings. Curb ramps must meet national standards like the Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) and follow local design rules to ensure they are safe and accessible for everyone.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Widen Sidewalk
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Widening sidewalks creates more comfortable and safer spaces for people walking, especially in busy areas. It also provides enough room for people using wheelchairs or other mobility devices. By giving pedestrians more space, it reduces the chance that they’ll need to walk in the street, which helps prevent crashes with vehicles.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
All-Way Stop Control
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
An all-way stop-controlled intesection requires all vehicles to stop before crossing an intersection. This reduces the risk of severe conflicts by eliminating high speed movements through an intersection. The MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) includes information on when and how to implement “All-Way” Or “Multi-Way” stop control intersections.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
148
Section 3, Item # 3.4
26 Yuba-Sutter 27
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Centerline Hardening
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Centerline hardening involves placing plastic bollards and/or rubber curbs along a roadway’s centerline. When used at intersections, they can be effective at requiring motorists to make left-turn movements at angles closer to 90-degrees, thereby slowing vehicle turning speeds and improving motorists’ visibility of the crosswalks. When used along a roadway segment, they can be effective access control preventing undesirable left-turns and/or U-turns between intersections.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Close Slip Lane
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
A close slip lane modifies the corner of an intersection to remove the sweeping right turn lane for vehicles. This results in shorter crossings for pedestrians, reduced speed for turning vehicles, and better sight lines.

Cost $$$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Directional Median Openings to Restrict Left
Turns
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
A directional median opening restricts specific turning movements, such as allowing a left-turn from a major street but not from a minor street. This improves safety by reducing the number of conflict points.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Guardrail
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
A guardrail redirects a vehicle away from embankment slopes or fixed objects and dissipates the energy of an errant vehicle. Guardrails are installed to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes when the crash severity of striking the guardrail is less severe than going down an embankment.

Cost $$
Context Rural

LRSM ID N/A
149
Section 3, Item # 3.4
28 Yuba-Sutter 29
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Improved Pavement Friction
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
High-friction surface treatments improve a vehicle’s ability to stay on the roadway, as well as to stop over a shorter distance. These treatments can be used to help address roadway departure crashes and/or crashes on approaches to unsignalized intersections.

Cost $$
Context Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Intersection Lighting
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Extra lighting at intersections and crosswalks makes it easier for drivers to see people walking, biking, or driving—especially at night or in dim conditions. However, it’s important to design the lighting carefully. If it creates glare or lights up pedestrians from behind, it can actually make them harder for drivers to see.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Intersection Reconstruction and Tightening
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Skewed intersections have a greater likelihood of collisions due to restricted sight lines and high speed turn movements. “Squaring up” the intersection as close to 90 degrees as possible helps reduce the likelihood of collisions.

The process requires intersection reconstruction and approach realignment to provide better visibility for all road users. It also reduces high speed turns, reduces length exposure for vehicles and/or bikes passing through the intersection, and reduces pedestrian crossing length.

Cost $$$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Lane Narrowing
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Lane narrowing reduces the width of the marked vehicle lanes to encourage motorists to travel at slower speeds. Lane narrowing can also help reallocate existing roadway space to other road users.

Cost $
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
150
Section 3, Item # 3.4
30 Yuba-Sutter 31
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Median Barrier
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
A median barrier in the center of the roadway physically separates opposing vehicular traffic. Median barriers can also help control access to and from side streets and driveways, reducing the number of conflict points.

Cost $$$
Context Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Median Guardrail
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Median guardrails are safety concrete barriers placed in the middle of roadways. While they might not stop all crashes caused by vehicles leaving the roadway, they can help prevent those crashes from turning into dangerous head-on collisions by keeping vehicles from crossing into oncoming traffic.

Cost $$
Context Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Neighborhood Traffic Circle
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Neighborhood traffic circles are similar to roundabouts, but are stopcontrolled on some or all approaches. Typically, they supplement existing stop-controlled intersections with a circular island in the center that is designed to slow traffic and reduce conflict points (such as conflicting leftturn movements).

Cost $
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
Partial Closure/Diverter
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
A partial closure or diverter restricts vehicle through movements, while still allowing bicyclists and pedestrians to proceed through an intersection in all directions.

Cost $
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
151
Section 3, Item # 3.4
32 Yuba-Sutter 33
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Protected Intersection
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Protected intersections use corner islands, curb extensions, and colored paint to delineate bicycle and pedestrian movements, and physically separate bicycles from pedestrians and moving vehicles. The delineations/ separations reduce the likelihood of conflicts, reduce driving speeds and shorten crossing distances for pedestrians.

Cost $$$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Raised Crosswalk
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
A raised pedestrian crosswalk is elevated above the road, either by a few inches, or at sidewalk level. This type of crosswalk and increases pedestrian visibility and slows motorists.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Raised Intersection
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
A raised intersection bring vehicles up to the sidewalk level. This serves as a traffic calming measure by slowing drivers and increasing awarenss of the pedestrian activity.

Cost $$$
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
Raised Median
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Raised medians are curbed sections in the center of the roadway that create physical separation between opposing vehicular traffic. They can also help control access to and from side streets and driveways, reducing conflict points.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
152
Section 3, Item # 3.4
34 Yuba-Sutter 35
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersection
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
These are geometric designs that alter how left-turn movements occur.

They can simplify decisions and minimize the potential for left-turn related crashes. Two designs that rely on U-turns to complete certain left-turn movements are known as the restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) and the median U-turn (MUT) intersections. Both designs require some out-ofdirection travel for vehicles.

Cost $$$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Refuge Island
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
A refuge island is a raised, curbed median in the center of the roadway that provides a place for pedestrians to wait until there is a gap in traffic to finish crossing the intersection. This reduces pedestrians’ exposure to traffic by allowing them to cross the intersection in multiple stages. Pedestrian refuge areas constructed from paint and plastic may be implemented as part of a low-cost/quick build project.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID NS19PB
Road Diet
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
A road diet reconfigures roadway space originally dedicated to vehicle travel lanes and creates room for bicycle facilities, wider sidewalks, and/or center turn lanes. This reduces vehicle speeds and creates designated space for all road users.

Cost $$
Context Urban
LRSM ID R14
Roundabout
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
A roundabout is a circular intersection where traffic flows in one direction around a central island, and vehicles must yield at entrance lanes. Unlike conventional intersections, roundabouts eliminate severe conflicts from crossing and left-turn movements. The design of a roundabout forces drivers to slow down, which narrows the range of vehicle speeds and reduces the severity of crashes. Additionally, pedestrians only need to cross one direction of traffic at a time, minimizing their exposure to vehicles.

Cost $$$
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID S16/NS04
153
Section 3, Item # 3.4
36 Yuba-Sutter 37
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Rumble Strips
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Rumble strips are grooves added to the roadway surface that produce noise and vibrations inside a vehicle, alerting drivers when they cross the centerline or edge line. Helps drivers stay in their lane, especially if they are distracted or drowsy. Also warns drivers of lane boundaries in poor visibility conditions like rain, fog, snow, or dust.

Cost $
Context Rural
LRSM ID R30/R31
Safety Edge
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
A safety edge slopes the shoulder pavement edge at a 30-35 degree angle, making it easier for drivers to reenter the roadway after leaving the paved roadway. It’s designed to reduce the severity of crashes when a vehicle veers off the road and encounters a pavement-shoulder drop-off.

This treatment can be incorporated as a standard practice in overlay or resurfacing projects.

Cost $
Context Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Slow Turn Wedge
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
A slow turn wedge uses paint and delineators to extend the curb at intersections. This helps slow turns by restricting the turning radii of turning vehicles, expanding the field of vision for drivers, and increasing the visibility of pedestrians.

Cost $
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
Speed Hump or Speed Table
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
A speed hump or speed table is a raised area of pavement designed to slow down vehicles. Typically, speed humps and speed tables are wider and less abrupt than speed bumps, providing a gentler way to reduce vehicle speeds in residential areas or near schools. They help improve safety by encouraging drivers to maintain lower speeds.

Cost $
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
154
Section 3, Item # 3.4
38 Yuba-Sutter 39
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Splitter Island
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
A splitter island is a raised area that separates the two directions of travel on the minor street approach at an unsignalized intersection or roundabout.

It helps channelize traffic in opposing directions and improves the visibility of the intersection for approaching drivers. Additionally, it provides a refuge for pedestrians crossing the street.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Straighten Crosswalk
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Straightening crosswalks improves sight lines, making pedestrians more visible to oncoming drivers. It can also shorten the crossing distance, reducing the time pedestrians need to cross an intersection.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Superelevation at Horizontal Curve Locations
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Superelevation is the banking, or angling, of pavement on the approach to and through a horizontal curve, designed to help drivers negotiate the curve by counteracting lateral forces. However, this design can also inadvertently encourage higher speeds. When selecting appropriate superelevation, consider the target or desired speed for the roadway and relevant design guidance.

Cost $$
Context Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Traffic Signal
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Traffic signals at intersections manage traffic flow by assigning right-ofway to different movements at specific times. For instance, protected leftturn signal phasing is more effective at preventing severe left-turn collisions compared to permitted left-turn signal phasing. Additionally, traffic signals significantly enhance safety for pedestrians crossing large intersections.

Cost $$$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
155
Section 3, Item # 3.4
40 Yuba-Sutter 41
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Widen/Pave Shoulder
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Widened and paved shoulders create space for pedestrians and bicyclists, allow drivers to safely recover from lane departures, and provide room for inoperable vehicles to pull out of the travel lane. Adding a paved shoulder to an existing road can help reduce run-off-road crashes. This improvement is beneficial for high-risk rural roads without paved shoulders.

Cost $$
Context Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

SIGNALS
The Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection system helps make intersections safer by adjusting when the yellow light turns on. It detects where cars are and how fast they’re going. Then, the signal controller decides whether to activate or delay the yellow light. This helps drivers avoid the tricky situation where they’re not sure if they should stop or keep going when the light changes. The goal is to reduce broadside collisions at signalized intersections.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
All-Red Signal Time
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNALS
Including a phase of all-red signals gives drivers and bicyclists a few extra seconds to safely get through an intersection before other traffic is allowed to move. This added time at the end of a signal phase helps reduce the risk of collisions, especially for people who are already in the intersection when the light changes.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Extend Pedestrian Crossing Time
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNALS
Extending the pedestrian walk signal time beyond the minimum required by national guidelines gives people more time to cross the street. This is especially helpful for vulnerable groups, like children, older adults, and people with disabilities, who may need extra time to cross safely.

Cost $
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
156
Section 3, Item # 3.4
42 Yuba-Sutter 43
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Flashing Yellow Turn Phase
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

SIGNALS
A flashing yellow turn arrow tells drivers they can make a permissive turn.

They must wait for a clear gap in oncoming traffic before turning. This signal is used only when no pedestrians are crossing. When pedestrians are present, the signal should use a protected-only turn phase, where turning vehicles must wait for a green arrow to ensure pedestrian safety.

Cost $$
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
Pedestrian Scramble
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

SIGNALS
A pedestrian “WALK” phase, called a pedestrian scramble or all-way walk, stops all vehicle traffic at an intersection. This gives pedestrians the chance to cross in any direction, including diagonally, all at once. It removes conflicts by completely separating turning cars from crossing pedestrians in time. It can be especially effective in busy areas with lots of foot traffic.

Cost $$
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
Prohibit Left Turn
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNALS
Left turns may be restricted at certain intersections to improve safety. This is especially important where turning vehicles might conflict with pedestrians in the crosswalk or where there’s heavy oncoming traffic. These restrictions can be enforced using signs or raised center medians that physically prevent the turn.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Prohibit Right-Turn-on-Red
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNALS
Prohibiting right turns on red should be considered at locations with unusual layouts, such as skewed intersections, or where there are pedestrian scrambles or leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs). Preventing right turns on red in these situations can reduce the risk of crashes between turning vehicles and pedestrians, as well as crashes with vehicles traveling through the intersection from the cross street.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
157
Section 3, Item # 3.4
44 Yuba-Sutter 45
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Prohibit Turns During Pedestrian Phase (Blankout Signs) Description
Safe System Hierarchy

SIGNALS
Prohibiting left and right turns while pedestrians are crossing helps prevent conflicts between turning vehicles and people in the crosswalk. These turn restrictions are often shown using special electronic signs, called blank-out signs, which light up only when the restriction is active.

Cost $
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
Protected Left Turns
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

SIGNALS
Adding protected left-turn phases at intersections reduces broadside crashes and pedestrian crashes. These signals give drivers a dedicated green arrow so they don’t have to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic, or worry about people crossing the street at the same time.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Retroreflective Tape on Signals
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNALS
Retroreflective borders are bright, reflective outlines added around traffic signals to make them easier to see—especially for older drivers or those with color vision difficulties. These borders help drivers quickly recognize which light is on. They’re also useful during power outages, because they reflect headlights and make the signal visible even when it’s not working.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Separate Right-Turn Phasing
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

SIGNALS
A green arrow for right turns phase helps prevent conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists who may be crossing the street on the right side of the intersection.

Cost $$$
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
158
Section 3, Item # 3.4
46 Yuba-Sutter 47
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Shorten Cycle Length
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNALS
The traffic signal cycle length—how long it takes to go through all the green, yellow, and red lights—can greatly affect how easy and pleasant it is to walk, bike, drive, or take transit. When signals stay red for too long, especially at several intersections in a row, it can make even short trips feel slow and frustrating. Shorter signal cycles, ideally between 60 and 90 seconds, are better for urban areas because they help keep people moving and make streets more welcoming for everyone.

Cost $
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
Signal Interconnectivity and Coordination / Green
Wave
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

SIGNALS
Improving how traffic signals are timed can make streets safer. One approach is called a “green wave,” where signals are coordinated to let people driving and people on bikes move smoothly through several intersections without stopping at a set desired speed, typically lower than the speed limit and in line with typical bicycle travel speeds. The slow green wave can be accompanied by signs that alert the drivers and help slow down cars, which can reduce the risk of severe collisions.

Cost $$
Context Urban
LRSM ID S03
Speed Sensitive Rest in Red Signal
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

SIGNALS
At certain times—like late at night—some traffic signals stay red until a vehicle approaches. These signals are designed to reward drivers who follow the speed limit. If a car is going too fast, the light stays red until the driver comes to a stop. But if the car is going at or below the speed limit, the light turns green before the car arrives, allowing it to pass through smoothly.

This encourages safe driving and can be combined with electronic speed signs that warn drivers if they’re going too fast.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID R26
Supplemental Signal Heads
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

SIGNALS
Supplemental signal heads are extra traffic lights placed in addition to the main signal. They help drivers see the signal more clearly, especially when the intersection is hard to see—like when it’s hidden behind vertical curve or around a horizontal curve.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID S02
159
Section 3, Item # 3.4
48 Yuba-Sutter 49
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Upgrade Signal Head
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

SIGNALS
Upgrading signal heads means replacing smaller 8-inch traffic lights with larger 12-inch ones, as recommended by California’s MUTCD. The larger signal heads are easier for drivers to see, especially from a distance. This helps drivers notice intersections sooner and respond more safely to traffic signals.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID S02
Advance Stop Bar
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNING & STRIPING
An advanced stop bar is a transverse pavement marking placed upstream of a crosswalk to indicate the required vehicle stop location. It minimizes crosswalk encroachment and can be widened or set further back at locations with frequent violations.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID S20PB
Chevron Signs on Horizontal Curves
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNING & STRIPING
Post-mounted chevrons are traffic signs placed along curves to provide continuous visual guidance. They enhance curve visibility, alert drivers to the change in alignment, and help maintain proper lane tracking through the curve.

Cost $
Context Rural
LRSM ID R23
Curve Advance Warning Sign
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNING & STRIPING
A curve advance warning sign alerts drivers to an upcoming horizontal curve and may include an advisory speed plaque. It provides advance notice to reduce speed and improve curve navigation. For enhanced effectiveness, it is often paired with chevrons, delineators, or flashing beacons to increase driver awareness and guidance through the curve.

Cost $
Context Rural
LRSM ID R24
160
Section 3, Item # 3.4
50 Yuba-Sutter 51
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Flashing Beacon as Advance Warning
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

SIGNING & STRIPING
A flashing beacon is a blinking light paired with signage used as advanced warning to alert drivers to an upcoming intersection or crosswalk. This tool increases driver awareness and provides additional time to slow down or yield to pedestrians, enhancing safety at conflict points.

Cost $$
Context Rural
LRSM ID S10
LED-Enhanced Sign
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNING & STRIPING
An LED-enhanced sign integrates flashing or steady LED lights into the sign’s border or message to improve visibility. These signs are especially effective at locations with limited sight distance or a history of driver noncompliance, such as at STOP signs. The enhanced visibility helps draw driver attention and improve compliance with traffic control devices.

Cost $
Context Urban or Rural
LRSM ID NS08
Painted Centerline and Raised Pavement Markers
at Curves on Residential Streets
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNING & STRIPING
Installing a centerline with raised pavement markers on curves along residential streets enhances lane guidance and helps reduce the risk of head-on collisions. The tactile and visual feedback from the markers improves driver awareness, especially at night or in low-visibility conditions.

Cost $
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
Speed Feedback Sign
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNING & STRIPING
A speed feedback sign displays a driver’s current speed alongside the posted speed limit, encouraging voluntary speed reduction. It serves as a real-time visual cue to promote speed awareness and compliance, particularly in areas with speeding concerns.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
161
Section 3, Item # 3.4
52 Yuba-Sutter 53
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Speed Legends on Pavement at Neighborhood
Entries
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNING & STRIPING
Speed legends are numerals painted directly on the roadway surface to indicate the posted speed limit. Typically placed near speed limit signs, they reinforce speed awareness and improve compliance, especially at transistions to slower streets.

Cost $
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
Striping Through Intersection
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNING & STRIPING
Clear pavement markings within complex intersections help guide motorists through lane assignments and turning movements. This treatment is especially effective at locations where lane designations are unclear due to horizontal offsets or multiple turning lanes.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Time-Based Turn Restriction
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNING & STRIPING
Restricts left turns or right turns during certain time periods when there may be increased potential for conflict (e.g., peak periods, school hours).

Cost $
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNING & STRIPING
Upgrading intersection pavement markings, such as stop ahead markings, centerlines, and stop bars, improves visibility for drivers approaching and entering intersections.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
162
Section 3, Item # 3.4
54 Yuba-Sutter 55
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Upgrade Signs with Fluorescent Sheeting
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNING & STRIPING
Upgrading signs with fluorescent sheeting enhances nighttime visibility by reflecting headlight beams more effectively, making warnings clearer for drivers.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Upgrade Striping
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNING & STRIPING
Restriping lanes with reflective materials such as thermoplastic and pavement markers improves visibility and helps clarify lane assignments, especially where lane configurations change.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Upgrade to Larger Warning Signs
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNING & STRIPING
Upgrading to larger warning signs improves visibility and makes information easier to read—especially for older drivers.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Wayfinding
Description
Safe System Hierarchy

SIGNING & STRIPING
A network of directional signs highlighting nearby destinations and pedestrian or bicycle facilities can reduce erratic driving and guide users away from crossings with poor visibility or limited safety features.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
163
Section 3, Item # 3.4
56 Yuba-Sutter 57
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Yield Markings
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNING & STRIPING
Yield lines, also known as shark’s teeth, are pavement markings placed 20 to 50 feet before multi-lane pedestrian crossings. They improve pedestrian visibility and help reduce the risk of multiple-threat crashes, where one vehicle stops for a pedestrian but another in an adjacent lane does not.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Yield To Pedestrians Sign
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available

SIGNING & STRIPING
“Yield Here to Pedestrians” signs alert drivers to pedestrian crossings and are required when advance yield lines are used. Additional smaller, flexible, warning signs can also be placed on the roadway centerline to enhance visibility.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Back-In Angled Parking
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available
OTHER
Back-in angled parking requires motorists to reverse into an angled onstreet parking spot and drive forward when exiting. This method increases the visibility of passing bicyclists and vehicles when exiting a spot.

Additionally, it allows trunk unloading to occur on the curb rather than in the street, reducing exposure.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Clear Zone
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
OTHER
A clear zone is an unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway.

The width of the clear zone is informed by roadway context, desired vehicle speeds, and agency design standards.

Cost $$
Context Rural

LRSM ID N/A
164
Section 3, Item # 3.4
58 Yuba-Sutter 59
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Curbside Management
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
OTHER
Curbside management helps prioritize and align different uses of the space along curbs that would otherwise be in conflict with one another. This includes the location of bus stops, bicycle infrastructure, space for freight deliveries, passenger pick-ups/drop-offs, green stormwater infrastructure, public spaces, and parking spaces.

Cost $
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
Delineators, Reflectors, and/or Object Markers
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available
OTHER
Delineators, reflectors, and object markers are visual cues installed in a roadway, intended to warn drivers of an approaching curve or fixed object that cannot easily be removed. They are generally less costly than signage.

Cost $
Context Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Driveway Consolidation
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
OTHER
Consolidating driveways reduces conflict points between vehicles entering/ exiting the roadway and pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles traveling along the roadway. Particular attention should be considered to driveways within 250 feet of intersections.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Far-Side Bus Stop
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
OTHER
Far-side bus stops are placed just after an intersection, so the bus crosses the street before picking up or dropping off passengers. This setup helps in a few ways: it keeps traffic moving more smoothly, makes it easier for pedestrians to be seen by drivers when crossing the street, and can help buses stay on schedule. It also encourages people to cross behind the bus, which is usually safer.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
165
Section 3, Item # 3.4
60 Yuba-Sutter 61
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Impact Attenuators
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
OTHER
Impact attenuators are safety devices placed on roads to help stop or slow down vehicles that accidentally leave their lane. Instead of crashing into something hard like a concrete wall or a bridge pillar, the vehicle hits the attenuator, which absorbs the impact and reduces the damage. These devices are often used in places where it’s not possible to remove the dangerous object, so they act as a protective crash cushion.

Cost $$
Context Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Red Light Camera
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
OTHER
Red light cameras help enforce traffic laws by taking a photo of any vehicle that drives through an intersection after the light has turned red.

These cameras work automatically, and the photos they take are used by authorities to issue tickets to drivers who run red lights.

Cost $$
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
Relocate Hazardous Utility Poles
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
OTHER
Removing utility poles from the roadside can help reduce the risk of serious crashes. If it’s not possible to remove the poles completely, it can still help to move them farther away from the road’s edge, or away from outside of curves where vehicles may be more likely to depart the roadway.

Cost $$
Context Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Remove Obstructions For Sightlines
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
Low-Cost / Quick-Build
Alternative Available
OTHER
Removing visual obstacles near intersections helps drivers and pedestrians see each other more easily. This might include painting red curbs to stop cars from parking too close to corners (a practice known as “daylighting”), trimming overgrown trees or bushes, or moving signs or other objects that may block the view.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural
LRSM ID NS11
166
Section 3, Item # 3.4
62 Yuba-Sutter 63
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Speed Limit Reduction
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
OTHER
Lower speeds help reduce the risk and severity of crashes. New industry standards for speed limits consider factors like roadway characteristics, adjacent land use context, as well as the presence of people walking and biking.

Cost $
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
Street Lighting
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
OTHER
Adding street lighting helps drivers see better at night or in low-light conditions, and makes it easier to spot other people, vehicles, or objects on the road.

Cost $$
Context Urban
LRSM ID R01
Upgrade Lighting to LED
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
OTHER
LED street lights are brighter and more effictient than olderr high-pressure sodium lights. Upgrading street lights improves visibility—especially at crosswalks—by providing better color contrast and lighting a wider area. As a result, it becomes easier for drivers to see people walking.

Cost $$
Context Urban

LRSM ID N/A
Traffic Camera/Closed Circut TV Camera
Description
Safe System Hierarchy
OTHER
Real-time traffic cameras enable live monitoring and integration with law enforcement and emergency service systems for faster rescue and investigation.

Cost $$
Context Urban/Rural

LRSM ID N/A
167
Section 3, Item # 3.4
64 Yuba-Sutter 65
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Rail Crossing Engineering Countermeasures
Uncontrolled Railroad Crossings
For uncontrolled railroad crossings, consider these countermeasures:

Install Active Warning Systems
Automatic gates and flashing lights
are proven to significantly reduce crash
frequency at crossings by alerting drivers and
preventing crossing when trains approach.

Pavement markings and advanced warning
Advance pavement markings and signage
improve driver awareness.

Relocate/clear roadside features
Remove or relocate roadside hazards near
crossings to improve sight lines.

Consider grade separation
Where feasible, build overpasses or
underpasses.

Controlled Railroad Crossings
For controlled railroad crossings, consider these countermeasures:

Install gates
Consistent with engineering requirements,
install gates and ensure functionality of
warning systems.

Improve lighting and pavement markings
Use brighter, reflective pavement markings
and lighting to enhance nighttime visibility.

Preemption of Traffic Signals
Integrate railroad crossing signals with
adjacent traffic signals to clear queues before
a train arrives.

Pedestrian Gates or Swing Gates
In areas with higher foot traffic, install
pedestrian gates prior to railroad crossing to
prevent pedestrians from entering the track
area during train approaches.

The Yuba-Sutter region is traversed by several active and historical rail lines, primarily operated by Union Pacific Railroad. These lines run through key communities such as Marysville, Wheatland, Yuba City, Olivehurst, and Plumas Lake. These communities and others experience safety concerns related to railroad crossings with local roads, particularly in rural locations with less safety infrastructure. The following countermeasure suggestions could separate users in time and/or enhance awareness of these sensitive crossings.
168
Section 3, Item # 3.4
66 Yuba-Sutter 67
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Roundabout Countermeasure
Roundabouts have been increasing in popularity in the U.S. for decades due to their safety and operational benefits. Several concerns and benefits of roundabouts are provided below.

Safety
Roundabouts reduce the number of intersection crossing conflict points compared to typical intersections, reducing the likelihood of crashes, as shown below. By creating a curved movement in the intersection, roundabouts slow down the speed of vehicles, which lessens both the likelihood and severity of crashes when they do occur. Additionally, the types of crashes that occur in a roundabout (e.g., sideswipes) are typically less severe than those of typical intersections (e.g., broadside/T-bone crashes) because the different crash angles reduce the kinetic energy involved in a crash.

Operations and Costs
Although roundabouts have higher upfront
costs compared to traffic signals, they are
cheaper to maintain over their usable lifetime.

Unlike traffic signals, which create stop-and-go
traffic patterns, roundabouts allow continuous
movement, reducing congestion, delay, and
idling time.

In rural areas, where visibility and road
conditions can be compromised by nearby
canals and agricultural activity, roundabouts
can help manage traffic more predictably and
safely than stop signs or signals.

Driver Familiarity
U.S. drivers are typically accustomed to
traditional traffic signals so the transition to
roundabouts may initially cause confusion.

However, experiences from around California
show that adaptation can be quick given
proper education and roundabout design. Once
drivers adapt, roundabouts can significantly
reduce delays and improve traffic flow.

Space Constraints
If available right-of-way is limited, traffic
signals do typically require less space than
roundabouts. However, compact roundabout
designs tailored to fit tighter intersections can
be implemented and still provide safety benefits
compared to traditional signals
In rural areas in Yuba and Sutter County, a
common concern is the ability of roundabouts
to accommodate heavy vehicles like semitrucks, farm tractors, and trailers. However, modern roundabout designs can include truck
aprons and a wider turning radius to allow
such vehicles to pass through at manageable
speeds with minor issues.

Space Constraints
If available right-of-way is limited, traffic
signals do typically require less space than
roundabouts. However, compact roundabout
designs tailored to fit tighter intersections can
be implemented and still provide safety benefits
compared to traditional signals
In rural areas in Yuba and Sutter County, a
common concern is the ability of roundabouts
to accommodate heavy vehicles like semitrucks, farm tractors, and trailers. However, modern roundabout designs can include truck
aprons and a wider turning radius to allow
such vehicles to pass through at manageable
speeds with minor issues.

Space Constraints
Busy intersections near schools, parks, and
shopping centers raise concerns about
pedestrian and cyclist safety in roundabouts.

Roundabouts have been shown to reduce
crash likelihood and severity for people walking
and biking by slowing vehicle speeds and
reducing conflict points. Features like splitter
islands and clearly marked crosswalks allow
pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a
time, reducing exposure and improving visibility.

Cyclists benefit from lower vehicle speeds and
the option to either merge with traffic or use
designated bike paths around the roundabout.

Trucks in Roundabout
Source: Virginia Department of Transportation
169
Section 3, Item # 3.4
68 Yuba-Sutter 69
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Programmatic Countermeasures
Programmatic countermeasures include education, enforcement, and other strategies that influence crash likelihood and severity. Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, 11th Edition, published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 2023, served as a resource for the programmatic countermeasures presented in this section. Below is the effectiveness ratings based on NHTSA.

Crash History-Based Enforcement
Description
Called an Enforcement Priorities Mandate,
use crash history and emphasis area
corridors to direct enforcement efforts,
with a focus on driving under the influence,
distracted driving, and dangerous driving.

This may require additional funding for
California Highway Patrol, County Sheriff,
and Local Police Departments.

Resources
Evidence-Based Behavior Change
Campaigns to Improve Traffic Safety
Toolkit (AAA Foundation, https://
aaafoundation.org/evidence-basedbehavior-change-campaigns-to-improvetraffic-safety-toolkit/) Countermeasures that Work, 11th Edition
Public Health Partnerships on DUI
Prevention
Description
Prevention and education policies focus on
mobilizing and educating the community
and intervening before driving under the
influence takes place. According to NHTSA
research, alcohol problem assessment and
treatment programs, as well as alcohol
intervention in settings such as a doctor’s
office, are highly effective strategies
for improving safety outcomes. Health
departments could partner with partner
agency police and sheriff departments to
share information and conduct screenings.

Resources
Behavior Change Campaigns to Improve
Traffic Safety Toolkit
Countermeasures that Work, 11th Edition
Education & Public Awareness
Campaigns Targeted at Speeding,
Driving Under the Influence, and
Increasing Awareness of People
Walking and Biking
Description
Coordinating with public communications
staff/public information officers from
each jurisdiction to use existing social
media accounts (e.g. Facebook, NextDoor,
Twitter, etc.) can help establish an
ongoing public education campaign
focused on safe and responsible driving,
discouraging drinking and driving, and
increasing awareness of pedestrians and
bicyclists. Campaigns could also involve
collaborating with local radio station to
disseminate safety messages in English,
Spanish, and Punjabi.

Continue existing safety education
campaign targeting safe speeds. This
could include yard signs, wall boards/
posters along high-injury corridors and
neighborhoods, ads on bus exteriors, radio
ads, etc. Safe Speeds is also applicable to
those who bike and scooter.

Potential partners include local Health
Departments, community-based
organizations like Blue Zones, local media
outlets, and OTS Go Safely California
Campaign.

Resources
The OTS Go Safely California campaign
has free resources for local agencies to
use in implementing public awareness
campaigns.

Pair Education with Engineering
Countermeasures
Description
Educational materials can be used
to teach people how to use new and
unfamiliar safety countermeasures,
such as roundabouts or protected
bikeways. These materials can consist
of informational signs or demonstration
videos, and should be presented in
multiple languages, including English,
Spanish, and Punjabi. The California Office
of Traffic (OTS) has grants to support
these educational campaigns.

Resources
City of Sacramento Bicycling videos:

The City of Sacramento has used
demonstration videos to engage residents
in bicycling safety procedures. The videos
feature a series of safety improvements
such as protected bike lanes, bike boxes,
and bike signals, and inform residents how
to use these new roadway features, both
as a bicyclist and a driver.

OTS Go Safely California campaign resources
Demonstrated to be effective by several high-quality evaluations with consistent results
Demonstrated to be effective in certain situations
Likely to be effective based on balance of evidence from high-quality evaluations or other sources
Effectiveness still undetermined as different methods of implementation produce different results
Limited or no high-quality evaluation evidence
Cost: Varies
Effectiveness and cost information is not
available for this countermeasure
Cost: $$$
Effectiveness and cost information is not
available for this countermeasure
170
Section 3, Item # 3.4
70 Yuba-Sutter 71
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
High-Visibility Enforcement for DUI
Description
Deterrence policies, such as high
visibility enforcement, focus on raising
the actual and perceived risk of high-risk
behaviors. County sheriffs and local police
departments should implement high
visibility enforcement for DUIs to deter and
increase awareness of the risks of this
behavior.

High visibility enforcement for driving
under the influence, such as publicized
sobriety checkpoints and saturation
patrols, has been found to be effective
to improve safety outcomes. Officers can
focus their efforts along corridors with a
history of speeding-related crashes since
they must observe driving behavior on the
road.

Integrated enforcement would include
coordination with Public Awareness
Campaigns. For example, widespread
dissemination of multi-lingual educational
messaging and promotion of safe rides
home opportunities in advance of major
DUI enforcement efforts.

Resources
Massachusetts Saving Lives –
Enforcement Strategies, https://solutions.
edc.org/solutions/prevention-solutions
This program combines community
engagement events, high-visibility
enforcement including sobriety
checkpoints, and media communication to
discourage DUI.

Safe Route to School Program
Description
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs
aim to create safer, more accessible
options for children to walk and bike
to school. Per the US Department of
Transportation, 10% to 14% of all car trips
during the morning rush hour nationwide
are for school-related traffic, emphasizing
the need for safer travel environments.

Beyond safety, encouraging active travel
supports healthier lifestyles and can
contribute to better student well-being
and academic performance.

SRTS programs achieve these outcomes
through a combination of infrastructure
and programmatic strategies.

Infrastructure improvements, such
as sidewalks, crosswalks, and traffic
calming, reduce collision risk and make
walking and biking more comfortable.

Complementary education, enforcement,
and encouragement activities promote
safe travel behaviors and build community
support.

Resources
Countermeasures that Work, 11th Edition
Yuba City Safe Routes to School Plan
FHWA Safe Routes to School Online
Guide, http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/
Cost: $$
High-Visibility Enforcement for
Other Key Issues
Description
In the High-Visibility enforcement
model, law enforcement targets highcrash or high-violation locations for enhanced enforcement, and publicizes
the enforcement widely to maximize
general deterrence of key issues including
speeding, cell phone use, and lack of
yielding at pedestrian crossings. If done
well, such a campaign should be perceived
as fair, as drivers are being put on notice
that the enforcement is occurring, and
that it is being done to improve safety. The
objective is to convince the driving public
that speeding is likely to be detected and
therefore not worth the risk of receiving
fines, points, or other punishment.

Enforcement actions for violations
should be consistent with local and State
statutes, and taken in the interest of
preventing traffic crashes.

Effective communications and outreach
have long been deemed an essential part
of successful enforcement programs.

Key objectives of these communications
are to provide information about the
program and expected safety benefits, to
incorporate public input, and to increase
community support.

Cost: $$$
Safe Ride Home Program
Description
Develop partnerships between the
partner agencies’ public works and police
departments, Transportation Network
Company (TNC) operators, and local
businesses to offer promotional codes
for free or discounted rides home from
establishments or events throughout the
reservation to reduce the potential for DUI,
drowsy driving, or distracted driving. This
program could be especially important
during weekends, holidays, and other
special events.

Resources
Portland Bureau of Transportation Safe
Ride Home Program, https://www.
portlandoregon.gov/transportation/76611
PBOT partnered with the Portland Police
Bureau, TriMet, Old Town Hospitality
Group, and Portland cab companies Radio
Cab, Broadway Cab, New Rose City Cab
and United Independent Cab, as well as
transportation network companies Lyft
and Uber to provide promo codes for
discounted rides. The program is funded
by a 50-cent fee charged for every taxi
and TNC ride in Portland.

Cost: $$
Cost: $$
171
Section 3, Item # 3.4
72 Yuba-Sutter 73
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Regional Safety Action Plan
Speed Limit Modification
Description
California Assembly Bill (AB) 43 was
passed in 2021 to provide a means
to lower speed limits on corridors that
meet certain criteria. AB 43 focused on
giving local jurisdictions more flexibility in
setting speed limits, especially regarding
vulnerable road users:
• Speed Limit Reduction: Reduction of
additional 5 mph based on several
factors, including designation of Safety
Corridors, as described in Chapter 3
• Prima Facie Speed Limits: Options for
15 and 25 mph in certain areas such
as school zones depending on context
• Business Activity Districts: Option for
20 or 25 mph speed limits
Automated Enforcement
Description
Automated enforcement, such as redlight cameras or speed cameras, target the specific drivers who are behaving
dangerously. Such enforcement is already
allowed in all of or at least in several cities
in California. Automated speed detection
devices can identify speeding violations
and provide citations. Such enforcement
is currently allowed on a pilot basis in six
cities in California and may be allowed to
be implemented in all cities in the future.

A strictly data-driven approach to
automated enforcement might place
red-light or speed cameras in locations
with the highest number of crashes.

However, given that many low-income
neighborhoods have historically received
fewer infrastructure investments,
which often results in a higher rate of
crashes, this approach could lead to a
disproportionate burden of enforcement.

Therefore, automated enforcement
should be implemented evenly across a
jurisdiction at problem locations.

Cost: $
Cost: Varies
172
Section 3, Item # 3.4

CITY COUNICL MEETING STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 10, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Execute Agreement with HdL Coren & Cone for Property Tax Management and Information Services
PREPARED BY: Susan Mahoney, Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to enter into an agreement with HdL Coren & Cone (HdLCC) for property tax management and information services.

DISCUSSION:

Property tax revenue is 46% of the City’s General Fund revenue. Yuba County is responsible for assessing, collecting, and distributing property taxes to cities, counties, special districts, and school districts (collectively called “revenue districts”) within the County. Distribution is based on a complex formula established by the State. Yuba County contracts with Megabyte Systems to compute the amount to distribute to the revenue districts. All parcels in the County are assigned to a Tax Rate Area (TRA). A TRA is a geographic area within the County with a unique combination of revenue districts.

In 2013, the City annexed land areas known as Hop Farm, Johnson Rancho, and Nichols Grove. The annexation agreement with Yuba County includes the following tax sharing agreements:
 Property tax increment in those areas will be shared 50/50 with the County. Tax increment is the increase in property tax revenue above the amount collected (base amount) on the date of the agreement.
 Sales tax generated in those areas will be shared 87.5% City and 12.5% County.

I have contacted the Yuba County Auditor-Controller to determine if the tax sharing agreements have been applied to the TRA’s assigned to the annexed areas. He has assured me that the tax sharing agreements have been forwarded to Megabyte Systems but cannot provide assurance the agreements have been applied.

HdLCC has the experience and expertise to monitor all the City’s property tax revenue including the tax increment on the annexed land. In addition to recovering misallocated property tax revenue, HdLCC will provide the City with information regarding market trends, budget forecasting, and individual parcel data. The attached proposal includes their full scope of services.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The annual fee for this service is $6,810 plus 25% of any tax revenues recovered. The annual fee is adjusted annually by the California Consumer Price Index. The fee will be paid out of the General Fund. 173
Section 6, Item # 6.1
ATTACHMENTS:

A. HdL Coren & Cone Proposal for Property Tax Management and Information Services 174
Section 6, Item # 6.1
City of
Wheatland

PROPOSAL FOR PROPERTY TAX MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION SERVICES December 10, 2025

SUBMITTED BY
HdL Coren & Cone
120 S. State College Blvd., Ste 200
Brea, CA 92821
hdlcompanies.com

CONTACT
Paula Cone
T: 714.879.5000
E: [email protected]
Attachment 'A'
175
Section 6, Item # 6.1
Proposal for Property Tax Management and Information Services for the City of Wheatland 2
I. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL...............................................................................................................................................................03 II. QUALIFICATIONS...............................................................................................................................................................................04 III. KEY PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................................................06 IV. REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................................................................08 V. SCOPE OF SERVICES .........................................................................................................................................................................09 VI. FEES........................................................................................................................................................................................................14 VII. SAMPLE REPORT PACKAGE............................................................................................................................................................15

TABLE OF CONTENTS
176
Section 6, Item # 6.1
Proposal for Property Tax Management and Information Services for the City of Wheatland 3

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
December 10, 2025
City of Wheatland
Susan Mahoney, Finance Director
111 "C" Street
Wheatland, CA 95692
Dear Ms. Mahoney
Thank you for your interest in our Property Tax Services. In response, enclosed is our firm’s proposal to provide property tax management, audit and information services for the City of Wheatland.

Founded in 1992, HdL Coren & Cone (HdLCC) developed the first computer software in California for tracking county, city and special district property tax revenues. HdLCC was the first in the State to go beyond using parcel data for allocation audits by developing specialized reports and models to assist government agencies by using the data for parcel administration, focused economic development strategies and revenue projections. The staff consists of 14 highly qualified analysts, auditors and information systems technology professionals.

HdLCC currently provides ongoing services to over 280 California agencies. The Company maintains annual property tax records for Yuba County back to 1999. HdLCC’s experienced team has worked with a number of key county staff and is thoroughly familiar with county property tax procedures in California.

Specific advantages that HdLCC has for performance of the services being sought by the City of Wheatland include:
• HdLCC maintains property tax data for 44 California counties, including all agencies within those counties. The size of the database plus a sophisticated computer system uniquely qualifies HdLCC to provide the most comprehensive property tax analysis available in California.
• All HdLCC staff works from our centrally located headquarters in Brea, California. The decision to operate out of a single location allows the Company to minimize overhead costs and thereby lower service fees, maximize coordination of client services, protect the Company’s substantial databases and allows for immediate response to requests for information or assistance.

We look forward to reviewing this proposal with you in greater detail and demonstrating how our services and software products can benefit the City of Wheatland.

Sincerely,
Paula Cone, President
HdL Coren & Cone
I
177
Section 6, Item # 6.1
Proposal for Property Tax Management and Information Services for the City of Wheatland 4

II QUALIFICATIONS
A. Company History and Qualifications
HdL Coren & Cone (HdLCC) was founded in 1992 and developed California’s first computerized property tax management program. In addition, the firm provides clients with parcel tax administration and successor agency consulting. HdLCC is a California “C” Corporation which has been serving cities and special districts for over 30 years.

All HdLCC staff work from our centrally located headquarters in Brea, California. The decision to operate out of a single location allows the company to minimize overhead costs and thereby lower service fees, maximize coordination of client services, protect the company’s substantial databases and allows for immediate response to requests for information or assistance.

HdLCC provides property tax management services to over 270 California public agencies. The company consists of a team of seasoned professionals with decades of experience in every aspect of local government including finance, management, auditing, economic development, redevelopment and legislative advocacy. This ensures prompt and knowledgeable response to inquiries and provides for relevant and timely information on issues impacting the City’s property tax.

HdLCC maintains property tax data from 44 California counties, including all cities and successor agency project areas in those counties. Our data resources include 15-30 years of historical data in most counties and the company maintains more than twenty years of annual property tax records for Yuba County.

FOUNDED
1992
Property taxes in California have evolved into an extremely complex system that requires experience and expertise to fully monitor. There are two broad categories of property (real and personal), three tax rolls (secured, unsecured and state assessed), and numerous peculiarities such as possessory interest and the distribution of tax revenue from private aircraft. The revenues generated by the property tax system need to be distributed to a myriad of taxing entities including cities, counties, schools, special districts and successor agencies. The company's extensive property tax information systems allow us to perform tax audits and provide information and analysis from a city's property tax data to city staff quickly and accurately.

The firm’s staff have performed thousands of secured and unsecured property tax audits for client agencies over the past twenty-five years and recovered millions of dollars in misallocated property tax revenue. Our management team and staff pride themselves on being highly responsive to client needs and cordial in our contacts with county staff.

This philosophy has served our clients and the company well. This is evident by the fact that 65% of our property tax audit and information services clients have been using our services for more than 10 years and 55% of our clients have been under contract for more than 15 years.

HdLCC is a Corporate Partner of the League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties and works extensively with the State Association of County Auditors, California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) anticipation and planning of programs to strengthen local government revenues, and monitoring of legislative actions which impact local governments.
178
Section 6, Item # 6.1
Proposal for Property Tax Management and Information Services for the City of Wheatland 5

II QUALIFICATIONS
B. The HdLCC Advantage
The HdLCC Advantage includes:

Exceptional Personnel: HdLCC’s service team is comprised of individuals with extensive experience in property tax assessment, administration, auditing, economic development and financial management. All the firms’ key personnel have worked in or with public agencies and thoroughly understand their challenges and needs. This ensures prompt and knowledgeable response to inquiries and provides for relevant and timely information.

HdLCC employs a staff of three full-time information technology professionals with expertise in applications development, network design and maintenance, database management and technical support. These staff members continually work on developing and enhancing the firm’s technological capabilities.

Comprehensive Audits: HdLCC’s audit team has developed specialized databases and audit techniques and is thoroughly familiar with the County of Yuba. This familiarity, and excellent working relationships with County departments, will allow Wheatland to recover misallocated property tax revenue in a timely manner.

Accurate Forecasting: HdLCC has developed a comprehensive, detail-oriented forecast tool that includes the major components necessary for crafting an accurate budget forecast for property tax revenue. The forecasts provided include a 1-year and 5-year forecast and allow for interaction by staff with data entry points for developing a more precise estimate. Our base estimates are within 1-2% of actual receipts for more than 85% of our clients.

Insightful Reports and Timely Services: HdLCC’s analysis is performed in context with the surrounding region to better inform our clients of the real estate trends we are seeing and the similarities and differences with other agencies for comparative purposes. The service includes a custom newsletter that can be shared with Council, staff and the community.

Easy-to-Use Software: HdLCC will provide Wheatland’s staff with access to the firm’s web-based property tax software which affords city staff a user-friendly tool for parcel look-up and will display parcel ownership, valuation, sales and building/land characteristic information and links with the County GIS maps. 179
Section 6, Item # 6.1
Proposal for Property Tax Management and Information Services for the City of Wheatland 6

III KEY PERSONNEL
HdLCC staff consists of 14 highly qualified analysts, auditors and information systems technology professionals.

Below is a current listing of our key staff:

David Schey – Vice President
David has over 30 years of experience with HdLCC since joining the firm in 1994. His prior experience includes service as Planning Director, Community Development Director and Deputy Director of Redevelopment as well as having provided development and consulting services to municipal clients. As a principal with HdLCC, David has provided client services in connection with tax allocation bonds; property tax and tax increment issues; tax sharing calculation; and analysis of legislative actions. David has spoken at numerous conferences and seminars sponsored by the California Redevelopment Association and the League of California Cities. In addition to his professional work in connection with local government, David served for over six years as a member and chairman of both the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission. Education: Bachelor of Arts, University of California; Los Angeles, California; Bachelor of Arts, California State University; Long Beach, California; Master of Public Administration, University of Southern California; Los Angeles, California.

Paula Cone - President
After spending 24 years in municipal government in finance and city management, Mrs. Cone completed the development of the first cost-effective and accurate program for identifying, monitoring, auditing and correcting property tax misallocations. In addition, HdLCC provides real estate trending information that has become integral to cities and special districts understanding the impact of changes within their jurisdictions and that translation to revenues received. HdL Coren & Cone provides property tax management, audit and analytical services to more than 270 cities and special districts in 44 counties in California. She oversees the day-to-day operation in the company's property tax management, client support, budget forecast projections and client interface. Ms. Cone earned her Bachelor's degree from California State University at Long Beach. She is former Parks and Recreation Director and Assistant City Manager of the City of Lawndale.

Nichole Cone – Vice President
Nichole has over 20 years of property tax analytical and processing experience, and specializes in understanding the data received from Assessor & Auditor, used for secured and unsecured parcel audits, and property tax analysis. Ms. Cone joined HdLCC in 1992. She oversees the acquisition and processing of county assessor and auditor controller data into HdLCC’s database. Preparation and production of property tax reports and client data sets are also under Ms. Cone’s direction. She oversees the staff responsible for the HdLCC Comprehensive Annual Financial Report product and fields many of the general day to day client inquires. Ms. Cone was instrumental in our system redesign which closely mirrors the systems used by counties.

Education: Bachelor of Arts, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, California. 180
Section 6, Item # 6.1
Proposal for Property Tax Management and Information Services for the City of Wheatland 7

III KEY PERSONNEL
Darren Hernandez – Principal
Darren joined HdL Coren & Cone as a Principal in January 2021 following a long career in public service. Prior to joining HdLCC, he served with the City of Santa Clarita for seventeen years, first as Director of Administrative Services and subsequently as Deputy City Manager. Among the projects Darren coordinated for Santa Clarita, some include the creation of a citywide Open Space Preservation District; creation of the Santa Clarita Public Library; creation of a citywide Landscape Maintenance District; and coordination of sixteen annexations of unincorporated territory including negotiation of property tax transfer agreements between the city and Los Angeles County. He also served as a member of the Oversight Board of the Successor Agency. Education: Bachelor of Arts, State University of New York at New Paltz, he studied public finance as a graduate student at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University.

Joel Hermann – IT Director
In addition to Mr. Hermann supervising and directing our IT staff, and oversight of the HdLCC network and client web application, he designs, implements, and maintains several of HdLCC’s data entry, processing and mining applications. He and his staff also administer City and Special District direct assessments processing for placement on the annual tax roll. He works closely with client City and Special District staff and provides technical support for our client applications. Joel studied Computer Science at the University of California – Riverside, and Data Science at Western Governors University. 181
Section 6, Item # 6.1
Proposal for Property Tax Management and Information Services for the City of Wheatland 8

IV REFERENCES
HdLCC Property Tax Services
HdLCC currently provides property tax services in 44 counties, to over 270 cities and special districts.

Town of Loomis – Client Since 2025
Project Description: Property tax management, audit, and information services Contact: Ted Williams, Finance Director, 916.824.1512
Email: [email protected]
City of Rocklin – Client Since 2005
Project Description: Property tax management, audit, and information services Contact: Daniel Choe, Deputy Director of Administrative Services, 916.625.5565 Email: [email protected]
City of Yuba City – Client Since 1998
Project Description: Property tax management, audit, and information services Contact: Diona Pope, Finance Director, 530.822.4615
Email: [email protected]
85% HdLCC’s budget estimates are within

1.5% of actual receipts for more than
85% of our clients.
182
Section 6, Item # 6.1
Proposal for Property Tax Management and Information Services for the City of Wheatland 9

V SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. Property Tax Services
Using HdLCC's custom software, a data set of all parcels in the City or Agency will be established. This data is prepared from the Yuba County Lien Date Rolls that is purchased annually in July. HdLCC updates the original County roll with any transfers in ownership, which have occurred between the lien date and the current month and updates the ownership information (name and mailing address), date of transfer, sale price, and document (deed) number monthly.

1. Audit Method and Approach
To achieve the highest audit and recovery results, HdLCC employs the following audit techniques and programs:
a. Identification and Correction of Errors
HdLCC has the technology, methodology and trained staff to analyze all secured parcels and unsecured assessments within the City to identify costly errors resulting in the misallocation of property taxes.

The company has the ability to audit the secured and unsecured property tax rolls two ways, first reviewing the entire county to find parcels miscoded to other jurisdictions; and second, reviewing the parcels within the city, county or agency to ensure that each is coded to the appropriate taxing entity. To date, we have recovered in excess of $100 million in net revenue for our client agencies in 44 counties statewide. Our advanced technology, accuracy and track record have placed us in a unique position to be hired by cities to find additional revenues after audits have been performed by prior consultants. In addition, by filing audit results with the County Assessor in a timely manner, we can assure that the repetitive errors from previous years will not continue.

Upon approval of the contract, the company will perform an analysis of the Assessor Rolls to identify all parcels on both the secured and unsecured tax rolls and verify that parcel assessed valuations and the resulting taxes are correctly allocated to the City. This analysis is accomplished through the use of specialized computer software, assessor maps, city GIS maps, city records, other pertinent documents, and field investigations. The review will include the lien date secured and unsecured data for the current tax year as well as historical data back for a total of two (2) tax years and be performed no less than every other year. b. Reports and Analytical Services
HdLCC furnishes a variety of reports detailing property and revenue trends for the entire city and for custom defined geographic areas. These reports can be used for budgeting purposes, planning, economic development and public information. Among the reports available are top 25, 50, 100-property owner/taxpayer listings, multiple ownership properties, non-owner occupied parcels, identification of property ownership transfers for tracking of reassessments. We also provide the City with quarterly reports of successful, pending and historical assessment appeals.

HdL Coren & Cone will reconcile the annual Auditor/Controller Assessed Valuations Report and will furnish a breakdown of assessed values within the City.

The identification of escaping revenue through the use of property tax data sets has been a targeted focus for HdLCC during the past 30 years. With the reduction of tax revenues through legislated Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF), cities, counties, agencies and special districts have been focusing on ways to increase the limited resources already stretched thin.
183
Section 6, Item # 6.1
Proposal for Property Tax Management and Information Services for the City of Wheatland 10

V SCOPE OF SERVICES
The company will provide the following reports based on the current year lien date rolls and will provide the reports annually, quarterly or monthly as appropriate: Reports are also available from prior years if requested. • A five-year history of the values within the City, and custom (city defined) geographic areas;
• A listing of the largest value changes, positive and negative between tax years;
• An annual parcel listing of properties with parcel number changes between tax years identifying parcel splits and combines; • A listing of the major property owners for the City including the combined assessed values of their property and property use code designation;
• A listing and summary of property transfers which occurred since the lien date ordered by month;
• A listing of parcels that have not changed ownership since the enactment of Proposition 13;
• A comparison of property within the City by county use-code designation;
• A multiple year comparison of growth by use code designation over a 5-year period;
• A listing by parcel of new construction activity to identify nonresidential parcels with new construction activity and to provide reports for use in the City's preparation of Proposition 4 and 111 State Appropriation Limit calculations;
• Calculate an estimate of property tax revenue anticipated to be received for the current fiscal year by the City based upon the initial information provided by the County and subject to modification.

This estimate shall not be used to secure the indebtedness of the City.
• Analyses based on geo areas designated by the City to include assessed valuations and square footage computations for use in economic analysis and community development planning.
• Tracking of Proposition 8 reductions and restorations • Median sale price data for current year and prior years for comparison
• Five-year budget projections for the city general fund, Successor Agency, special districts, and Vehicle License Fee in Lieu revenues.

This report is interactive for tax modeling.
• Newsletter summary for public and elected distribution. 184
Section 6, Item # 6.1
Proposal for Property Tax Management and Information Services for the City of Wheatland 11

V SCOPE OF SERVICES
c. Information Provided Quarterly or Monthly
• A listing of property transfers that have occurred since the last report will be available through the software provided and updated on a monthly basis. This data will include the new owner/seller of the property, new mailing address if not the situs address, the date of sale, the sale price when verified, document number, and transaction type.
• The average and median single family sale price report is sent to all clients quarterly and includes the same data for all client agencies within the same County. d. Property Tax Application and Database
HdLCC provides a web-based software application to clients as a user-friendly tool to access the City’s property tax data. HdLCC provides updates to the data portion of the product on a monthly basis to reflect changes in ownership, updated appeals filings, and deed recordings.

As modifications and enhancements are made to the program, clients receive the enhanced version of the software at no additional cost.

Training will be provided to city staff within the first two months after the execution of the agreement for property tax management and audit services and is available annually for new staff members or staff requiring a refresher course. If additional training sessions are required, the fees in the compensation section under hourly fees will be charged.

The help manual available within the program is easy to navigate and user friendly. HdLCC staff is available Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. to answer questions and assist staff on the use of the software.

Assistance is available either by phone or via email.

The City will be granted a site license for the application, providing no limit to the number of users. HdLCC will not charge an annual maintenance fee for the software program. Periodically, as the program changes and product enhancements are developed, upgrades or new releases of the software are issued at no additional cost to the client.
185
Section 6, Item # 6.1
Proposal for Property Tax Management and Information Services for the City of Wheatland 12

V SCOPE OF SERVICES
e. Proposed Work Plan/Staffing Schedule
The methodology that the company follows in identifying, correcting and recovering property tax errors includes the following:

Task I Establishment of County Data Set
Task II Identify and Correct Errors
Task III Prepare Reports
Task IV Ongoing Analysis
During the term of the contract, we serve as the resource staff to the City on questions relating to property tax. This includes being "on-call" to assist with any property tax issues. On-going consultation would include, but not be limited to inquiries resolved through use of the City data base. All requests for information based upon the County’s property tax data sets are provided without additional costs. Special reports, additional research, or requests requiring additional computer programming may entail some additional costs. Attendance at City meetings will be billed at our hourly rates. Optional services will only be provided upon written notice to proceed by the City.

Timeline for Property Tax Analysis and Audit Services
• County assessment rolls are purchased annually in July. • The property data program will be available for access via the internet within 30 days of the execution of the agreement. Parcel data will be updated monthly to include the most current ownership information due to parcel transfers.
• The first secured audit will be performed and submitted to the Assessor no later than 60 days from the date of the contract. Future audits will be performed no less than once every two years and submitted no later than March 1st.
• The unsecured audits for the City will be completed and submitted to the County Assessor for corrective action within 120 days of receipt of county rolls. The City will receive file copies of submittals simultaneous with submissions to the County Assessor.
• Data collection from the county assessor's and auditor controller's offices for reports is performed in August and September each year and preliminary reports will be delivered to the City prior to the end of January annually.
• The final tax ratio percentages are available from the auditor controller's office annually in February/March. Final reports will be prepared and delivered prior to the end of April annually. f. Legislative Updates
HdLCC monitors and reports on issues related to property tax and coordinates with City Staff in connection with passed and potential property tax legislation and regulations. 186
Section 6, Item # 6.1
Proposal for Property Tax Management and Information Services for the City of Wheatland 13

V SCOPE OF SERVICES
g. Consultation
Annual reports presented by a principal or associate of the firm to any City staff member interested in the detailed analysis including property tax revenue estimates performed by HdLCC of the City’s annual property assessed values released by the assessor. Since property data is not confidential, these reports can be shared with staff. Understanding the budget implications of the data released in late summer and presented in late Fall is timely for mid-year budget reviews.

HdLCC also serves as the City’s property tax staff for consultation and questions related to budgeting, revenue collection, the mechanics of property tax allocation and potential changes in the legislation that may impact local agencies. Training is provided free of charge on the use of the web-based software which is updated monthly with ownership changes and appeal information where available. 187
Section 6, Item # 6.1
Proposal for Property Tax Management and Information Services for the City of Wheatland 14

VI FEES
Based on the number of parcels within Wheatland (1,456), our standard fixed fee (the “Base Fixed Fee”) for property tax services is $1,702.50 per quarter, ($6,810 per year). The Base Fixed Fee shall be adjusted annually by the California Consumer Price Index (CCPI) California All Urban Consumers index for all items as determined by the California Department of Industrial Relations as measured from February to February.

In addition to the Base Fixed Fee, we will receive a contingent fee of 25% of net tax revenues recovered for the City through the audits we perform. Net tax revenues mean the taxes received by the City through our audit efforts.

Work that is requested by the City that is beyond the scope of services in this proposal shall be charged on a time and material basis. No work shall be performed without prior written approval by the City. Fees for these services are as follows:

Hourly Rate
Partner $250
Principal $225
Programmer $200
Associate $175
Senior Analyst $125
Analyst $90
Administrative $70
A. Property Tax Services
B. Additional Services
188
Section 6, Item # 6.1
Proposal for Property Tax Management and Information Services for the City of Wheatland 15

SAMPLE REPORT PACKAGE
Historical Reports.

Assessed Value History
Sales Value History
Growth Comparisons.

Top 40 Secured Value Changes
Use Category Summary
Growth by Use Category
Property Tax Dollar Breakdown
Proposition 8 Recapture History
Top Ten Property Taxpayers
Reports for Revenue Projections.

Property Tax Revenue Summary
5 Year Budget Estimate
VII
189
Section 6, Item # 6.1
Secured
Nonunitary
Unsecured
2015/16 TO 2019/20 ASSESSED VALUES

THE CITY OF WHEATLAND
- 2015/16 - 2016/17 - 2017/18 - 2018/19 - 2019/20
$120,000,000 $240,000,000 City County
Percent Change
$60,000,000 $180,000,000 $0
Land
$69,900,184 I
$71,874,443 2.8% I 4.2%
$76,221,001 6.0% I 4.6%
$79,727,612 4.6% I 5.0%
$83,519,758 4.8% I 6.2%
Improvements
$169,863,374 I
$177,332,674 4.4% I 7.6%
$197,690,740 11.5% I 7.1%
$212,988,401 7.7% I 7.0%
$223,745,032 5.1% I 7.0%
Personal Property
$4,751,001 I
$5,212,178 9.7% I-19.4%
$5,263,438 1.0% I 1.9%
$5,785,162 9.9% I 2.9%
$6,878,810 18.9% I 10.1%
Exemptions
$10,062,485 I
$10,737,302 6.7% I 8.1%
$18,048,564 68.1% I 6.5%
$19,267,565 6.8% I 5.9%
$19,992,099 3.8% I 2.9%
$80,000,000 $160,000,000 $240,000,000 $320,000,000 City County Gross Assessed
$244,514,559 I
$254,419,295 4.1% I 4.4%
$279,175,179 9.7% I 6.1%
$298,501,175 6.9% I 6.2%
$314,143,600 5.2% I 7.0%
Net Taxable Value
$234,452,074 I
$243,681,993 3.9% I 4.0%
$261,126,615 7.2% I 6.0%
$279,233,610 6.9% I 6.2%
$294,151,501 5.3% I 7.5%
This report is not to be used in support of debt issuance or continuing disclosure statements without the written consent of HdL, Coren & Cone
Data Source: Yuba County Assessor 2015/16 To 2019/20 Combined Tax Rolls Prepared On 12/10/2025 By MW

PROPRIETARY
AND

CONFIDENTIAL
190
Section 6, Item # 6.1
2019/20 TOP 40 NET TAXABLE SECURED VALUE CHANGES

THE CITY OF WHEATLAND
Current Net
Taxable Value
Net Taxable
Parcel Use Category Owner Situs Value Change Value Change from Prior Year 015-360-052-000 Agricultural Bear River Walnut Ranch Llc 2071 Spenceville Rd $8,889,420 +$4,403,228 +98% 015-640-009-000 Commercial Plunkett Real Estate Properties Llc 1928 Hwy 65 $1,535,100 +$1,005,100 +190% 015-630-073-000 Commercial Sierra Central Credit Union 503 Mcdevitt Dr $541,890 +$292,941 +118% 015-714-004-000 Residential Ramirez Perez Jose Santos And Diera Ramirez Patricia 111 Hudson Ct $270,000 +$202,328 +299% 015-323-002-000 Residential Walsh Pamela J And Christopher T Joint Trust704 Main St $265,200 +$180,122 +212% 015-770-050-000 Residential Thatcher Ron Martell 806 Rich Pl $313,000 +$177,406 +131% 015-360-029-000 Agricultural Akt Wheatland Ranch Llc 2343 Spenceville Rd $1,155,257 +$163,422 +16% 015-651-007-000 Residential Ross Michael 701 Lofton Rd $262,000 +$156,032 +147% 015-711-007-000 Residential Abe Henry; Abe Genises 171 Hudson Way $306,000 +$155,875 +104% 015-770-028-000 Residential Vidot Michael A; Vidot Angela M 803 Rich Pl $331,500 +$154,991 +88% 015-703-002-000 Residential Heathcock Billie F 156 Johnson St $301,920 +$152,898 +103% 015-770-027-000 Residential Sawicki Jeffrey; Accinelli Katherine M 805 Rich Pl $320,000 +$150,632 +89% 015-511-010-000 Residential Gaither Casey S Et Al Joint Trust 315 G St $275,000 +$150,517 +121% 015-322-001-000 Residential Mcgarry Daniel Lawrence 411 E St $275,000 +$148,760 +118% 015-780-012-000 Residential Rose Joshua Daniel And Brianna Joint Trust 718 Spruce Ave $311,100 +$145,520 +88% 015-242-006-000 Residential Bradley Starr Kayla K; Starr Andrew B 404 Mesa St $245,000 +$145,497 +146% 015-192-007-000 Residential Hiner Joseph H Iii 110 Main St $216,500 +$141,890 +190% 015-243-011-000 Residential Tilton Douglas W And Fang Yinyin Joint Trust 401 4Th St $303,960 +$141,625 +87% 015-630-008-000 Residential Hamilton Thomas And Marshall Peggy Joint Trust 505 Hamon Ct $325,380 +$139,399 +75% 015-232-008-000 Residential Rule Robert Scott And Prinz-Rule Cindy Gail Joint Trust; Prinz Rule Cindy Gail 314 Main St $330,000 +$138,895 +73% 015-201-005-000 Residential Bugayong Leeann 209 Mesa St $235,000 +$127,025 +118% 015-291-008-000 Residential Kern Cody And Gabreal T Joint Trust 514 4Th St $256,020 +$126,020 +97% 015-242-010-000 Residential Newton Simon J 201 C St $210,000 +$121,357 +137% 015-412-006-000 Residential Mercy Housing California 63 Lp 515 Redwood Ave $119,218 +$119,218 +9,999% 015-760-044-000 Residential Palermini Regina Et Al Joint Trust 617 Rose Ave $330,000 +$119,163 +57% 015-202-004-000 Residential Central Valley Capital Iv Lp 207 Olive St $154,020 +$118,535 +334% 015-243-039-000 Residential Brown Cody Matthew And Deborah Ann Cp 401 3Rd St $250,000 +$115,789 +86% 015-683-007-000 Residential Andersen Christopher Erik And Megan K Cp 124 Johnson Ct $339,660 +$112,391 +49% 015-222-007-000 Residential Pearson Kevin Chris 311 Olive St $205,000 +$111,189 +119% 015-284-012-000 Residential Freeman Virgil Jason And Olegario Teresita Joint Trust 510 3Rd St $233,070 +$109,717 +89% 015-204-005-000 Residential Cairnes Ricky D And Kimberly A Cp 214 4Th St $233,580 +$108,638 +87% 015-304-016-000 Residential Garcia Herlberto Pureco 603 3Rd St $210,000 +$108,149 +106% 015-271-012-000 Residential Orteza Art Ventura And Maria Daisy Joint Trust121 D St $299,500 +$107,078 +56% 015-731-008-000 Residential Brackens John L Jr And Mary K Cp 811 Kempton Ct $310,000 +$106,938 +53% 015-734-009-000 Residential Hart Gregory P 810 Griffith Way $183,013 -$121,987 -40% 015-731-003-000 Residential Parker Kimberly 809 Mcdevitt Dr $146,166 -$133,838 -48% 015-360-030-000 Agricultural Akt Wheatland Ranch Llc $3,479,761 -$167,279 -5% 015-770-061-000 Residential Hollowell Diane 709 Harding Pl $86,644 -$203,356 -70% 015-360-038-000 Agricultural Akt Wheatland Ranch Llc 2493 Spenceville Rd $2,647,689 -$316,097 -11% 015-360-053-000 Agricultural Bear River Walnut Ranch Llc 2009 Spenceville Rd $6,954,092 -$2,619,449 -27% This report is not to be used in support of debt issuance or continuing disclosure statements without the written consent of HdL, Coren & Cone Data Source: Yuba County Assessor 2018/19 And 2019/20 Secured Tax Rolls Prepared On 12/10/2025 By MW

PROPRIETARY
AND

CONFIDENTIAL
191
Section 6, Item # 6.1
2019/20 USE CATEGORY SUMMARY

THE CITY OF WHEATLAND

BASIC PROPERTY VALUE TABLE
Category Parcels Assessed Value Net Taxable Value
Residential 1,106 $233,106,512 (74.2%) $220,112,986 (74.8%) Commercial 50 $20,794,033 (6.6%) $14,149,770 (4.8%)
Industrial 5 $1,063,051 (0.3%) $1,063,051 (0.4%)
Agricultural 29 $43,486,464 (13.8%) $43,485,611 (14.8%) Govt. Owned 14 $14,088 (0.0%) $5,292 (0.0%)
Vacant 124 $8,762,964 (2.8%) $8,427,100 (2.9%)
Exempt 35 $0 (0.0%) $0 (0.0%)
SBE Nonunitary [1] $7 (0.0%) $7 (0.0%)
Cross Reference [38] $952,553 (0.3%) $952,553 (0.3%)
Unsecured [81] $5,963,928 (1.9%) $5,955,131 (2.0%)
TOTALS 1,363 $314,143,600 $294,151,501

74.8%
Residential

14.8%
Agricultural

4.8%
Commercial

2.9%
Vacant

2.7%
Others

NET TAXABLE VALUE

74.2%
Residential

13.8%
Agricultural

6.6%
Commercial

2.8%
Vacant

2.5%
Others

ASSESSED VALUE
This report is not to be used in support of debt issuance or continuing disclosure statements without the written consent of HdL, Coren & Cone
Data Source: Yuba County Assessor 2019/20 Combined Tax Rolls Prepared On 12/10/2025 By MW

PROPRIETARY
AND

CONFIDENTIAL
192
Section 6, Item # 6.1
2019/20 GROWTH BY USE CATEGORY

THE CITY OF WHEATLAND
2018/19 to 2019/20 Value Growth by Use Category
Category 2018/19 Net Taxable Value 2019/20 Net Taxable Value $ Change % Change Residential 1,106 $209,002,077 1,106 $220,112,986 (74.8%) $11,110,909 5.3% Agricultural 30 $45,220,477 29 $43,485,611 (14.8%) -$1,734,866 -3.8% Commercial 49 $12,109,886 50 $14,149,770 (4.8%) $2,039,884 16.8% Vacant 51 $5,560,874 124 $8,427,100 (2.9%) $2,866,226 51.5% Unsecured [74] $5,420,303 [81] $5,955,131 (2.0%) $534,828 9.9% Industrial 5 $982,560 5 $1,063,051 (0.4%) $80,491 8.2%
Cross Reference [38] $932,238 [38] $952,553 (0.3%) $20,315 2.2% Govt. Owned 14 $5,188 14 $5,292 (0.0%) $104 2.0%
SBE Nonunitary [1] $7 [1] $7 (0.0%) $0 0.0%
Exempt 35 $0 35 $0 (0.0%) $0 0.0%
TOTALS 1,290 $279,233,610 1,363 $294,151,501 (100.0%) $14,917,891 5.3% Numbers in blue are parcel/assessment counts
$0
$40,000,000
$80,000,000
$120,000,000
$160,000,000
$200,000,000
$240,000,000
Residential Agricultural Commercial Vacant Unsecured Industrial Cross Reference
Use Category
Net Value
Assessed Value by Major Use Category
2018/19
2019/20
This report is not to be used in support of debt issuance or continuing disclosure statements without the written consent of HdL, Coren & Cone Data Source: Yuba County Assessor 2019/20 Combined Tax Rolls Prepared On 12/10/2025 By MW

PROPRIETARY
AND

CONFIDENTIAL
193
Section 6, Item # 6.1

PROPERTY TAX DOLLAR BREAKDOWN

THE CITY OF WHEATLAND
$ 0.00902 Yuba County Water Agency
$ 0.00401 Recldst#2103
$ 1.0000
$ 0.24154 ERAF Share of County Of Yuba
$ 0.2076 County Of Yuba
$ 0.04186 ERAF Share of City Of Wheatland
$ 0.1291 City Of Wheatland
$ 0.1050 Wheatland High School
$ 0.0798 Wheatland Elem School
$ 0.0711 Yuba Community College
$ 0.0477 County Sch Serv
$ 0.0381 Wheatland Cemetery
$ 0.0251 Sutter-Yuba Mosq
ATI (Annual Tax Increment) Ratios for Tax Rate Area 002-000, Excluding Redevelopment Factors & Additional Debt Service This report is not to be used in support of debt issuance or continuing disclosure statements without the written consent of HdL, Coren & Cone Data Source: Yuba County Assessor 2019/20 Annual Tax Increment Tables Prepared On 12/10/2025 By MW

PROPRIETARY
AND

CONFIDENTIAL
194
Section 6, Item # 6.1

THE CITY OF WHEATLAND
2019/20 REVENUE SUMMARY
Wheatland General Fund
Unsecured: 3.6%; Secured: 96.4%
1% Revenue Split
Total Unsecured Secured
Tax Revenue Calculation @ 1% (includes shifts) $416,985 $15,164 $401,821 Unitary Revenue $13,043 $13,043
ESTIMATED 1% REVENUE ALLOCATION $430,028 $15,164 $414,864 Less Admin Fee -$26,506
VLF AA Allocation $358,667

98.0%

2.0%
Wheatland Gen.Fund

96.4%

3.6%
Countywide
Secured Unsecured
Secured & Unsecured 1% Revenue Proportion
Notes: Participates in º Teeter Plan
Revenue split is estimated from countywide roll revenue proportion. º Homeowner exemption revenue is included in this revenue model. º Tax increment revenue from pass-throughs or residual distributions are not included. Also not included are many pooled revenue adjustments, including county administrative fees, supplemental allocations, redemptions for delinquent payments in Non-Teeter cities, tax payer refunds due to successful appeals, and roll corrections. º
Data Source: Yuba County Assessor 2019/20 Combined Tax Rolls This report is not to be used in support of debt issuance or continuing disclosure statements without the written consent of HdL, Coren & Cone Prepared on 12/10/2025 by MW

PROPRIETARY
AND

CONFIDENTIAL
195
Section 6, Item # 6.1

SALES VALUE HISTORY

THE CITY OF WHEATLAND
Single Family Residential Full Value Sales (01/01/2005 - 12/31/2019) Year Full Value Sales Average Price Median Price Median % Change 2005 104 $309,541 $337,500
2006 58 $295,562 $324,500 -3.85%
2007 38 $277,763 $290,250 -10.55%
2008 52 $202,221 $215,000 -25.93%
2009 53 $142,377 $150,000 -30.23%
2010 64 $139,469 $153,500 2.33%
2011 64 $133,156 $148,000 -3.58%
2012 63 $144,975 $150,000 1.35%
2013 58 $166,957 $161,500 7.67%
2014 65 $202,615 $215,000 33.13%
2015 82 $218,232 $234,250 8.95%
2016 52 $236,683 $255,500 9.07%
2017 75 $263,060 $278,000 8.81%
2018 79 $276,373 $300,000 7.91%
2019 75 $304,396 $310,000 3.33%
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019 Median Price Avg Price
Year
Sales Price
* Multiparcel and trust transfers, quitclaim deeds, timeshares, and partial sales are excluded from this analysis.

This report is not to be used in support of debt issuance or continuing disclosure statements without the written consent of HdL, Coren & Cone
Data Source: Yuba County Recorder Prepared On 12/10/2025 By MW

PROPRIETARY
AND

CONFIDENTIAL
196
Section 6, Item # 6.1
PROP 8 POTENTIAL RECAPTURE HISTORY

THE CITY OF WHEATLAND
Single Family Residential Parcels - Compiled Using Parcels Supplied by County Prop 8
Parcel
Count
Potential
Recapture
Roll
Year
% of
All Parcels
Real Value of
Prop 8 Parcels
Inflation
Adjusted Peak
Taxable Values
Prop 8 Parcels that
have Recaptured
Value
Increase in Real
AV Due to
Recaptures
Prop 8 Parcels
that have fully
Recaptured
Increase in Real
AV Due to full
Recaptures
2008 53 12,097,000 17,818,452 5,721,452 5.3% 0 0 3 138,000 2009 446 88,376,000 131,121,328 42,745,328 44.2% 1 0 3 9,200 2010 408 81,422,700 118,970,053 37,547,353 40.5% 0 0 1 80,000 2011 433 73,978,700 120,434,254 46,455,554 43.0% 1 2,000 1 2,000 2012 470 72,167,700 123,746,341 51,578,641 46.6% 1 6,500 3 15,100 2013 447 68,187,300 119,315,013 51,127,713 44.4% 90 3,206,443 416 20,706,818 2014 338 69,633,675 97,676,299 28,042,624 33.6% 41 1,057,803 258 5,442,803 2015 274 61,335,625 83,603,966 22,268,341 27.2% 14 178,856 207 3,088,856 2016 246 57,785,625 77,032,013 19,246,388 24.5% 35 674,553 215 5,121,453 2017 199 51,465,125 66,017,853 14,552,728 19.8% 42 999,839 182 4,656,639 2018 142 41,003,500 50,710,354 9,706,854 14.1% 27 530,192 106 2,016,692 2019 106 31,905,000 40,014,931 8,109,931 10.5%
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019
Recapture Potential
Recaptured Value
Fully Recaptured
Prop 8 History
0 40,000,000
80,000,000
120,000,000
160,000,000
200,000,000
240,000,000
200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019
Potential Recapture
Net AV
Totals for Single Family Residential Parcels
The report identifies parcels that were granted a value reduction and possess value recapture potential per Proposition 8. The reductions were based on market conditions at the time of assessor review. This calculation is derived from historical transfers of ownership, Assessor applied Proposition 8 reductions and trends in the marketplace relative to median and average home sales and is an estimate of the impact of current adjustments to the assessment roll as of the 2020-21 lien date.

The Inflation Adjusted Peak Value is defined as a parcel’s highest value after its most recent sale. If a parcel is assessed for a lower value after its most recent sale, then the sales price becomes the peak value. Peak values are inflated annually according to Proposition 13. Prop 8 Parcels that have recaptured value include both parcels that have been fully recaptured as well as parcels that have only recaptured a portion of the Inflation Adjusted Peak Values. Proposition 8 potential value recapture is shown in the Potential Recapture Column and assumes no future sales transactions. Sale of Proposition 8 parcels resets base value and removes the parcel from the Proposition 8 list.

This report is not to be used in support of debt issuance or continuing disclosure statements without the written consent of HdL, Coren & Cone Data Source: Yuba County Assessor Combined Tax Rolls; Sales Through 10/31/2025 V3.0 Prepared On 12/10/2025 By MW

PROPRIETARY
AND

CONFIDENTIAL
197
Section 6, Item # 6.1
Top Property Owners Based On Net Values

THE CITY OF WHEATLAND
2019/20 TOP TEN PROPERTY TAXPAYERS
Owner Secured Unsecured Combined Primary Use &
Parcels Value Parcels Value Value Primary Agency % of
Net AV
% of
Net AV
% of
Net AV
1) 8 $20,634,849 $20,634,849
Agricultural

7.16% 7.02%
City of Wheatland

BEAR RIVER WALNUT RANCH LLC
2) 10 $13,169,737 $13,169,737
Agricultural

4.57% 4.48%
City of Wheatland

AKT WHEATLAND RANCH LLC
3) 75 $3,739,449 $3,739,449
Vacant

1.30% 1.27%
City of Wheatland

DALE INVESTMENTS LLC
4) 1 $2,848,300 $2,848,300
Agricultural

0.99% 0.97%
City of Wheatland

BVPR LP
5) 11 $2,839,447 $2,839,447
Residential

0.99% 0.97%
City of Wheatland

FRANK DEAN AND FRANCES J WEBB TRUSTEES
6) 11 $2,816,832 $2,816,832
Agricultural

0.98% 0.96%
City of Wheatland

RAJ KUMAR AND NAMARTA SHARMA
7) 1 $2,483,050 $2,483,050
Commercial

0.86% 0.84%
City of Wheatland

SETTLERS VILLAGE CENTER LLC
8) 1 $2,478,600 $2,478,600
Agricultural

0.86% 0.84%
City of Wheatland

LOUIE ANDREW VISMARA SUC TRSTE ETAL
9) 11 $2,447,770 $2,447,770
Vacant

0.85% 0.83%
City of Wheatland

LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY LLC
10) 1 $1,918,931 $1,918,931
Commercial

0.67% 0.65%
City of Wheatland

PARADISE PETRO INC
Top Ten Total 130 $55,376,965 19.22% 0 $0 0.00% $55,376,965 18.83% City Total $288,196,370 $5,955,131 $294,151,501
Top Owners last edited on 12/10/25 by maheaw using sales through 06/30/2020 (Version r.1) This report is not to be used in support of debt issuance or continuing disclosure statements without the written consent of HdL, Coren & Cone Data Source: Yuba County Assessor 2019/20 Combined Tax Rolls and the SBE Non Unitary Tax Roll Prepared On 12/10/2025 By MW

PROPRIETARY
AND

CONFIDENTIAL
198
Section 6, Item # 6.1

REVENUE ESTIMATE - SIMILAR SALES GROWTH NEXT YEAR, THEN LONG-TERM AVERAGE

SAMPLE CITY
2021-22 Through 2025-26 General Fund/VLF Revenue Estimate Based on 2020-21 Values and Estimated Changes General Fund 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26
General Fund and BY Values $4,772,184,638 $4,953,111,627 $5,166,690,117 $5,364,957,827 $5,574,230,520 Real Property Value (Incl. Prop 8 parcels) $4,399,916,128 $4,580,843,117 $4,794,421,607 $4,992,689,317 $5,201,962,010 CPI of Non Prop 8 Parcels (2021-22 @ 1.036%) $41,474,603 82,962,562 89,820,941 94,405,645 99,259,552 Transfer of Ownership Assessed Val. Change $102,491,176 109,321,843 94,047,855 100,829,087 108,546,472 Est. SFR Prop 8 Adj Based on Recent Price $36,961,210 $21,294,085 $14,398,913 $14,037,961 $13,239,780 Estimated Real Property Value $4,580,843,117 $4,794,421,607 $4,992,689,317 $5,201,962,010 $5,423,007,815 Base Year Values $311,277,285 $311,277,285 $311,277,285 $311,277,285 $311,277,285 Secured Personal Property Value (see notes) $6,085,824 $6,085,824 $6,085,824 $6,085,824 $6,085,824 Unsecured Personal Property Value (see notes) $54,905,401 $54,905,401 $54,905,401 $54,905,401 $54,905,401 Nonunitary Utility Value (0.0% growth) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Enter Completed New Construction
Estimated Net Taxable Value $4,953,111,627 5,166,690,117 5,364,957,827 5,574,230,520 5,795,276,325 Estimated Total Percent Change 3.79% 4.31% 3.84% 3.90% 3.97% Revenue Calculations
Net Taxable Value Tax @ 1% $49,531,116 $51,666,901 $53,649,578 $55,742,305 $57,952,763 City Share of 1% Tax @ 13.37525103% $6,624,911 $6,910,578 $7,175,766 $7,455,673 $7,751,328 Aircraft Value Tax @ 1% 85,104 85,104 85,104 85,104 85,104 City Share of Aircraft Tax @ 33.3% $28,368 $28,368 $28,368 $28,368 $28,368 Net GF Estimate $6,653,279 $6,938,946 $7,204,134 $7,484,041 $7,779,695 Taxable Value Revenue Categories
Secured Revenue 6,432,789 6,710,171 6,967,669 7,239,459 7,526,539 Unsecured Revenue 192,122 200,407 208,097 216,215 224,788 Aircraft Revenue $28,368 $28,368 $28,368 $28,368 $28,368 Rev from Taxable Val * $6,653,279 $6,938,946 $7,204,134 $7,484,041 $7,779,695 Unitary Revenue (Budgeted Flat) $249,424 $249,424 $249,424 $249,424 $249,424 Admin Fee (Not Deducted Above) -80,038 -83,364 -86,451 -89,710 -93,153 Enter Supplemental Apportionment Estimate
Enter Delinquent Apportionment Estimate

PROPRIETARY
AND

CONFIDENTIAL
199
Section 6, Item # 6.1

REVENUE ESTIMATE - SIMILAR SALES GROWTH NEXT YEAR, THEN LONG-TERM AVERAGE

SAMPLE CITY
2021-22 Through 2025-26 General Fund/VLF Revenue Estimate Based on 2020-21 Values and Estimated Changes VLFAA 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26
Citywide Net Taxable Value $6,462,022,172 $6,707,536,649 $7,000,377,717 $7,291,298,914 $7,599,306,697 Real Property Value (Incl. Prop 8 parcels) $6,334,552,617 $6,580,067,094 $6,872,908,162 $7,163,829,359 $7,471,837,142 CPI of Non Prop 8 Parcels (2021-22 @ 1.036%) $60,347,141 $120,234,118 $129,743,756 $136,329,144 $143,303,547 Transfer of Ownership Assessed Val Change $136,337,282 $144,978,959 $142,884,638 $153,813,513 $164,725,816 Est. SFR Prop 8 Adj Based on Recent SFR Pri $48,830,054 $27,627,991 $18,292,803 $17,865,125 $16,963,837 Estimated Real Property Value $6,580,067,094 $6,872,908,162 $7,163,829,359 $7,471,837,142 $7,796,830,341 Secured Personal Property Value (see notes) $8,107,762 $8,107,762 $8,107,762 $8,107,762 $8,107,762 Unsecured Personal Property Value (see notes) $118,001,796 $118,001,796 $118,001,796 $118,001,796 $118,001,796 Nonunitary Utility Value (0.0% growth) $1,359,997 $1,359,997 $1,359,997 $1,359,997 $1,359,997 Enter Completed New Construction
Estimated Net Taxable Value $6,707,536,649 $7,000,377,717 $7,291,298,914 $7,599,306,697 $7,924,299,896 Estimated Total Percent Change 3.80% 4.37% 4.16% 4.22% 4.28% Base Value of VLFAA $7,331,344 $7,609,935 $7,942,489 $8,272,897 $8,622,013 Estimated Change to VLFAA $278,591 $332,554 $330,408 $349,116 $369,022 VLFAA Estimate $7,609,935 $7,942,489 $8,272,897 $8,622,013 $8,991,035

PROPRIETARY
AND

CONFIDENTIAL
200
Section 6, Item # 6.1

REVENUE ESTIMATE - SIMILAR SALES GROWTH NEXT YEAR, THEN LONG-TERM AVERAGE

SAMPLE CITY
2021-22 Through 2025-26 General Fund/VLF Revenue Estimate Based on 2020-21 Values and Estimated Changes NOTES:
● The revenue projection assumes 100% payment of taxes. Delinquency is not considered in the projection; however, rates of between 1% and 2.5% are typical. ● CPI of Non-Prop 8 Parcels is calculated at the following rates: 2021-22 @ 1.036%; 2022-23 @ 2.000%; 2023-24 @ 2.000%; 2024-25 @ 2.000%; 2025-26 @ 2.000%; ● Estimated Assessor Prop 8 Adjustments: Prop 8 reductions in value are TEMPORARY reductions applied by the assessor that recognize the fact that the current market value of a property has fallen below its (Prop 13) assessed value. For 2021-22 and later, properties with prior Prop 8 reductions are not included in the CPI increase. They are projected to adjust with median sale prices, with increases possible up to the inflation-adjusted Prop 13 value, or further reductions possible if median sale prices decline further. ● The Prop 8 adjustment in 2021-22 uses general fund 2020 median single-family residence price change (9.1%) to estimate whether properties will enter Prop 8 reduced status or recapture previous reductions. Subsequent Prop 8 adjustments are based on median SFR home price changes, projected as follows: 2022-23: 6.0%; 2023-24: 5.2%; 2024-25: 5.6%; 2025-26: 6.0% ● General Fund Transfer of Ownership Assessed Value Change: For 2021-22, the projected increase from known 2020 transfers within the non-Successor Agency areas of City is used to estimate value growth, with possible adjustments for Prop 8 appeals activity on transferred parcels. For this scenario, the estimated growth from transfers in 2022-23 matches the percentage of real value in 2021-22. For years 2023-24 and later, growth is based on the historical average rate of real property growth due to properties that have transferred ownership. Value growth from transfers is estimated as the following percentages of prior year real property value: 2021-22 @ 2.3%; 2022-23 @ 2.3%; 2023-24 @ 1.9%; 2024-25 @ 2.0%; 2025-26 @ 2.1%; ● VLFAA Transfer of Ownership Assessed Value Change: For 2021-22, the projected increase from known 2020 transfers is used to estimate value growth, with adjustments for possible Prop 8 appeals activity on transferred parcels. For this scenario, the estimated growth from transfers in 2022-23 matches the percentage of real value in 2021-22. For years 2023-24 and later, growth is based on the historical average rate of real property growth due to properties that have transferred ownership. Value growth from transfers is estimated as the following percentages of prior year real property value: 2021-22 @ 2.2%; 2022-23 @ 2.2%; 2023-24 @ 2.1%; 2024-25 @ 2.1%; 2025-26 @ 2.2%; ● Base Year Values Entry: With the dissolution of redevelopment, base year values are unlikely to change and are budgeted flat. ● Secured personal property and unsecured values are projected to grow at the following rates 2021-22 @ 0.0%; 2022-23 @ 0.0%; 2023-24 @ 0.0%; 2024-25 @ 0.0%; 2025-26 @ 0.0%; .

Unsecured escaped assessments may be included in the unsecured value. The value of escaped assessments is generally inconsistent and varies from year to year. ● Completed new construction entry: This data entry point allows for the inclusion of new construction projects completed annually. Due to processing delays we suggest that a time frame of November - October be selected. (e.g. Nov. 2019 - Oct. 2020 for the 2021-22 FY). If completed new construction has resulted in a sale of the property it is likely that the new value will appear in the value increase due to transfers of ownership entry and therefore should not be also included in the completed new construction value. ● Pooled Revenue Sources include supplemental allocations, redemptions for delinquent payments in Non-Teeter cities, tax payer refunds due to successful appeals, roll corrections and other adjustments applied after the release of the roll. The forecasting of these revenues should be conservative. ● General Fund Revenue Estimate does not include any ad valorem voter approved debt service revenue.

Prepared on 10/7/25 Using Sales Through 12/31/20
This report is not to be used in support of debt issuance or continuing disclosure statements without the written consent of HdL Coren & Cone

PROPRIETARY
AND

CONFIDENTIAL
201
Section 6, Item # 6.1

CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 10, 2026
SUBJECT: Resolution Directing Preparation of the Engineer’s Report for the WheatlandPremier Grove Landscaping and Lighting District PREPARED BY: Susan Mahoney, Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution directing the preparation of the Engineer’s Report for the Wheatland-Premier Grove Landscaping and Lighting District (the “District”).

DISCUSSION:

The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 establishes the authority and process for a government agency to create and maintain Landscaping and Lighting Districts. The Wheatland-Premier Grove Landscaping and Lighting District provides funding for the following three benefit zones:

Benefit Zone Services Provided
Zone 1 Wheatland Ranch subdivision Landscaping, irrigation, streetlights, detention basin, park Zone 2 Premier Grove subdivision Streetlights
Zone 3 Park Place subdivision Landscaping, irrigation, streetlights, drainage area, park Each year a budget is established to determine the cost of providing the services and to determine the proportional amount to assess benefiting parcels within the District. This is a three-step process.

Step 1 – Pass a resolution directing the preparation of the Annual Engineer’s Report. The Report establishes a budget for the services funded by the fiscal year 2026-27 assessments and the method of assessment apportionment to parcels within each zone.

Step 2 – Pass a resolution of intention to continue the assessment, preliminary approval of the Engineer’s Report and provide notice of a Public Hearing.

Step 3 – Pass a resolution approving the Engineer’s Report and ordering the levy of the assessment for fiscal year 2026-27.

The attached Resolution directs the preparation of the Engineer’s Report for fiscal year 2026-27 and completes Step 1 of the assessment process. The City contracts with SCI Consulting Group for the preparation of the Engineer’s Report.
202
Section 6, Item # 6.2
FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost of preparing the Engineer’s Report is paid for by the District.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution
203
Section 6, Item # 6.2
RESOLUTIUON NO. 26-___
Attachment ‘A’
RESOLUTION NO. 26-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEATLAND DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF THE ANNUAL ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE

WHEATLAND-PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
WHEREAS, The Wheatland-Premier Grove Landscaping and Lighting District (the “District”) was approved by property owners pursuant to a mailed ballot election conducted in accordance with Article XIIID of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, The City Council hereby proposes to continue to levy annual assessments for the Wheatland-Premier Grove District and to levy and collect assessments against the parcels of land within such District to pay for the costs and expenses of the improvements and maintenance described below, for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2026 and ending June 30, 2027, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, and as provided by Article XIIID of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, The purpose of the District is for the installation, maintenance, and servicing of public improvements, as described below; and
WHEREAS, Within the District, the existing and proposed improvements to be undertaken may be briefly described as follows: the installation, maintenance and servicing of public facilities, including but not limited to, landscaping, sprinkler systems, park grounds, park facilities, landscape corridors, ground cover, shrubs and trees, street frontages, drainage systems, lighting, fencing, entry monuments, other landscaping facilities, graffiti removal and repainting, and labor, materials, supplies, utilities, detention basins, and equipment, as applicable, for property owned or maintained by the City of Wheatland. Installation means the construction of recreational improvements, including, but not limited to, land preparation, such as grading, leveling, cutting and filling, sod, landscaping, irrigation systems, sidewalks and drainage, lights, and detention basins. Maintenance means the furnishing of services and material for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of said improvements, including repair, removal, or replacement of all or part of any improvement; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping; and cleaning, sandblasting and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti. Servicing means the furnishing of electric current or energy for the operation of lighting for any improvements, water for irrigation for any landscaping, and for the maintenance of any other improvements; and
WHEREAS, SCI Consulting Group is hereby designated as Engineer of Work for purposes of these proceedings and is hereby ordered to prepare an Engineer’s Report in accordance with 204
Section 6, Item # 6.2
RESOLUTIUON NO. 26-___
Article 4 of Chapter 1 of the Act and Article XIIID of the California Constitution. Upon completion, the Engineer shall file the Engineer’s Report with the City Clerk for submission to the Council; and WHEREAS, This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wheatland that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Wheatland at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of February 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution is hereby approved.
________________________
Robert Coe, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Josie Camacho, City Clerk
205
Section 6, Item # 6.2

CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 10, 2026
SUBJECT: Annual Review of City of Wheatland’s Investment Policy PREPARED BY: Susan Mahoney, Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION:

Council by motion adopt a Resolution updating the City of Wheatland Investment Policy.

DISCUSSION:

The City’s investment policy is reviewed annually by the Finance Director. Any updates to the policy are brought to Council for approval. The policy was last updated in August 2018. The City’s investment policy must follow the requirements set forth under State Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq, which specifies allowable investments for cities. A city may place additional restrictions on their allowable investments. The chart below shows the investments allowed by the State and those allowed under the City’s existing investment policy.

ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS UNDER

STATE LAW

MAXIMUM

MATURITY
MAXIMUM % OF

PORTFOLIO

COUNCIL AUTHORIZED

INVESTMENTS
Local Agency Bonds 5 years None
U.S. Treasury Obligations 5 years None ✔
State and Local Agency Obligations 5 years None
U.S. Agency Obligations 5 years None ✔
Bankers’ Acceptances 180 days 40% ✔
Commercial Paper – Pooled Funds 397 days 25%
Commercial Paper – Non-Pooled Funds 397 days 25% ✔
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 5 years 30% ✔
Non-negotiable Certificates of Deposit 5 years 20% ✔
Placement Service Deposits 5 years 30%
Repurchase Agreements 1 year None
Reverse Repurchase Agreements 92 days 20%
Medium Term Notes 5 years 30%
Mutual Funds/Money Market Mutual Funds N/A 20% ✔
Collateralized Bank Deposits 5 years None ✔
Mortgage Pass-Through Securities 5 years 20%
County and JPA Pooled Investment Funds N/A None ✔
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) N/A None ✔
Supranational Obligations 5 years 30%
206
Section 6, Item # 6.3
The attached updated City of Wheatland Investment Policy includes a change initiated by the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC). CDIAC serves as the State’s clearinghouse for public debt issuance information. For 2026, CDIAC has updated their local agency investment guidelines to include SB 595 legislation. SB 595 allows a local agency to invest public funds in commercial paper that has a maturity of 397 days or less, revised from 270 days or less. Commercial paper are securities issued by large corporations to obtain funds to meet short term obligations.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact from the adoption of the attached resolution.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution w/Exhibit
207
Section 6, Item # 6.3
RESOLUTIUON NO. 26-___
Attachment ‘A’
RESOLUTION NO. 26-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEATLAND APPROVING THE

UPDATED CITY OF WHEATLAND INVESTMENT POLICY
WHEREAS, the State of California Government Code Section 53600 defines the authorized investments for the investment of surplus funds of local agencies including Cities; and WHEREAS, the City of Wheatland has defined investment goals and policies through the “City of Wheatland Investment Policy” that was last updated and adopted through resolution 22- 18 on August 28, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the previously adopted Investment Police provides for an annual review by the Finance Director and requires that any changes to the policy be approved by the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wheatland as follows:

1. Exhibit ‘A’ attached hereto is hereby adopted as the updated City of Wheatland Investment Policy.

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Wheatland at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of February 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution is hereby approved.
________________________
Robert Coe, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Josie Camacho, City Clerk
208
Section 6, Item # 6.3
Exhibit ‘A’
City of Wheatland, California
Investment Policy
Adopted February 10, 2026
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Wheatland was incorporated in 1874 and is located in the northeastern edge of California’s vast Sacramento Valley. The City operates under a Council-Manager form of government and provides municipal services that include public safety, public works, parks and recreation, water, wastewater, and community development. The City Council consists of five members with the position of Mayor and Vice Mayor chosen by the Council. The Council serves as the policy board for the City.

The City of Wheatland has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize the productive use of assets entrusted to its care and to invest and manage those public funds wisely and prudently with the overriding objectives to preserve principal and provide sufficient liquidity while seeking a marketrate of return. The purpose of this investment policy is to identify various policies and procedures that will foster a prudent and systematic investment program designed to seek the City of Wheatland’s objectives of safety, liquidity, and yield through a diversified investment portfolio. This policy also serves to organize and formalize the City’s investment-related activities, while complying with all applicable statutes governing the investment of public funds.

II. OBJECTIVES
The City’s overall investment program shall be designed and managed with a degree of professionalism worthy of the public trust. The overriding objectives in order of priority shall be:

Safety. Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments will be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio.

Liquidity. The investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating requirements that may be reasonably anticipated.

Yield. Yield should become a consideration only after the basic requirement of safety and liquidity have been met. The investment portfolio will be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints for safety and liquidity needs.

III. SCOPE
This investment policy covers all funds and investment activities under the direct authority of the City, as set forth in the State Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq., with the following exceptions:
 Retirement Plans offered to City Employees including the 457 Deferred Compensation Plan and the 401(a) Defined Contribution Plan are excluded because the Plans are administered by a third-party administrator and held in trust for the exclusive benefit of participants and are not assets of the City.
 Proceeds of debt issuance shall be invested in accordance with the City’s general investment philosophy as set forth in this policy; however, such proceeds are to be invested pursuant to the permitted investment provisions of their specific bond indentures.  Any other funds specifically exempted by the City Council. 209
Section 6, Item # 6.3
2 IV. POOLING OF FUNDS
Except for cash in certain restricted and special funds, the City will consolidate cash and reserve balances from all funds to maximize investment earnings and to increase efficiencies with regard to investment pricing, safekeeping, and administration.

Investment income shall accrue solely to the General Fund except where required by law, or other binding agreement, in which case interest shall accrue to other funds based upon the fund’s proportionate ratio of balances to total pooled cash. Investment income shall be credited quarterly.

V. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
Authority to manage the City’s investment program is derived from California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. The City Council is responsible for the policy level management of City funds, including the adoption and review of this investment policy. The day-to-day management of idle cash and investment transactions is the responsibility of the Finance Director/City Treasurer.

As authorized in Government Code Section 53607, the City Council delegates the authority to invest funds of the City to the Finance Director/City Treasurer and/or any duly appointed Deputy Treasurer. The City Treasurer and any duly appointed Deputy City Treasurer shall make all investment decisions and transactions in accordance with State law and this investment policy.

The Finance Director/City Treasurer has designated the City Manager as Deputy City Treasurer for the purpose of carrying out investment transactions at such times as the Finance Director/City Treasurer is unavailable.

The City shall strive to maintain the level of investment of all idle funds as near 100 percent as possible through daily and projected cash flow determinations. The City’s cash management system should monitor and forecast revenues and expenditures, thus insuring the investment of monies to the fullest extent possible. The Finance Director will be responsible for all transactions undertaken and will establish a system of procedures and controls to regulate the activities of subordinate employees. Such procedures will include explicit delegation of authority to persons responsible for investment transactions. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and procedures determined by the Finance Director to be consistent with this policy.

VI. PRUDENCE
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 53600.3, all persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the City are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the Prudent Investor Standard:
“.…all governing bodies of local agencies or persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of those local agencies investing public funds pursuant to this chapter are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the prudent investor standard. When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the City, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the City.

Within the limitations of this section and considering individual investments as part of an overall strategy, investments may be acquired as authorized by law.” VII. ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Employees and officials involved in the investment process shall at all times comply with each of the following:
210
Section 6, Item # 6.3
3 - Recognize that the process is subject to public review - Act as a custodian of the public trust
- Recognize that their professional duties, loyalties, and responsibility are solely to the City - Submit to the City statements of economic interest under the Political Reform Act (Government Code section 81000 et seq.)
- Not engage in any activity or have any interest that could interfere with unbiased involvement in the investment process (e.g., by impairing their ability to make impartial investment decisions).

VIII. INTERNAL CONTROLS
The Finance Director is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the entity are protected from loss, theft, or misuse. The internal control structure shall be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that (1) the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived; and (2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management.

Criteria for selecting investments in priority order: Safety, Liquidity and Yield.

1. Safety of principal: The safety and risk associated with an investment refers to the potential loss of principal, interest, or a combination of these amounts. The City only utilizes investments that are considered very safe. Safety of principal shall be the foremost objective of this investment policy. Investments shall be made with the aim of avoiding capital losses due to issuer default; broker-dealer default; or market value erosion.

Principal shall be preserved by mitigating:
a. Credit Risk, the risk of loss due to the failure of the issuer of the security, shall be mitigated by investing in only the highest quality securities; by diversifying investments; and by pre-qualifying broker-dealers and public depositories; and b. Market Risk, the risk of loss due to a decline in bond prices because of rising market interest rates, shall be mitigated by structuring the portfolios so that issues mature concurrently with the City’s anticipated cash requirements, thereby eliminating the need to sell securities prematurely on the open market.

2. Liquidity: This refers to the ability to convert an investment to cash at any moment in time with a minimal chance of losing some portion of principal or interest. An adequate percentage of the City’s portfolio shall be maintained in investments that can be converted to cash if necessary to meet disbursement requirements without loss of principal or without incurring penalties.

3. Yield or Return on Investments: This is the potential dollar earnings an investment can provide and sometimes is described as the "rate of return". Yield is a consideration in investment decisions only after the requirements of safety and liquidity have been met.

Quotes: Investing decisions shall be made only upon the receipt of at least three quotes from different sources for investments that meet the current investment need. When purchasing new issue Securities of the U.S. Government and its Agencies, quotes from different brokers are not required.

Maturity of investments: The number of investments with long-term maturities (maturities greater than a year) is to be based on the estimated cash flow needs of the City to assure that liquidity needs are maintained. Maximum maturities are as specified in Government Code Section 53601 and are currently 5 years remaining to maturity at the time of purchase. Maturities exceeding this 211
Section 6, Item # 6.3
4 maximum require authorization by the City Council prior to purchase.

Safekeeping: To protect against potential losses due to failure of individual securities dealers, and to enhance access to securities, interest payments and maturity proceeds, all cash and securities in the City’s portfolio shall be held in safekeeping in the City’s name by a third-party custodian, acting as agent for the City under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and the City. All investment transactions will require a safekeeping receipt or acknowledgment generated from the trade. The custodian shall provide a monthly report to the City listing all securities held in safekeeping with current market data and other information. The Finance Director shall implement procedures to review and reconcile the custodian statements on regular basis. The only exceptions to the foregoing shall be depository accounts and securities purchases made with (i) local government investment pools; (ii) time certificates of deposit, and (iii) money mutual funds since the purchased securities are not deliverable.

Diversification: The purpose of having diversification of investments is to reduce the overall portfolio risks. The portfolio should consist of a mix of various types of securities, issuers, and maturities.

IX. AUTHORIZED TYPES OF INVESTMENTS AND LIMITATIONS
The State of California Government Code Section 53600 et seq. defines the investments allowed for city funds. The City further limits authorized investments to the following:

1. Collateralized Deposits with financial institutions will be collateralized with pledged securities provided that the following criteria is met:
 The maximum maturity does not exceed five years

2. United States Treasuries and other government obligations for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pledged for payment of principal and interest. There is no percentage limitation of the portfolio that can be invested in this category provided that the following criteria is met:
 The maximum maturity is five years

3. Federal Agencies or United States Government-Sponsored Enterprise obligations, participations, or other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States government-sponsored enterprises. Examples of these securities include but are not limited to: Government National Mortgage Association, Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Land Bank and Federal Farm Credit Banks and TVA bonds. There is no percentage limitation on the portfolio that can be invested in this category, provided the following criteria is met:
 No more than 25% of the portfolio may be invested in any Agency/GSE issuer  The maximum maturity does not exceed five years

4. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), the City may invest up to the maximum amount per legal entity that is permitted by California Law.

5. Local Government Investment Pools (LGIP)
 Other LGIPs are permitted provided that the City Council takes a separate action to authorize the LGIP and it is added to this policy

6. Non-Negotiable Certificates of Deposit in state or federally chartered banks, savings & loans, or credit unions, provided that the following criteria is met:
 The amount per institution is limited to the maximum covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the National Credit Union Administration  No more than 20% of the portfolio will be invested in a combination of federally insured and 212
Section 6, Item # 6.3
5 collateralized time deposits
 The maximum maturity does not exceed five years

7. Non-Negotiable Certificates of Deposit in state or federally chartered banks, savings & loans, or credit unions in excess of insured amounts which are fully collateralized with securities in accordance with California law, provided that the following criteria is met:
 No more than 20% of the portfolio will be invested in a combination of federally insured and collateralized time deposits
 The maximum maturity does not exceed five years

8. Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (certificates that can be sold in the secondary market), provided that the following criteria is met:
 The amount of the certificate insured up to the FDIC limit does not require any credit ratings  For any amount above the FDIC insured limit they must be issued by institutions which have short-term debt obligations are rated “A-1” or higher by at least one NRSRO; or longterm obligations are rated in the “A” category or higher by at least one NRSRO  No more than 30% of the total portfolio may be invested in negotiable certificates  No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any issuer  The maximum maturity does not exceed five years

9. Mutual Funds and Money Market Mutual Funds that are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940, provided that the following criteria is met:
 Attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two NRSROs; or
 Have retained an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years’ experience investing in the securities and obligations authorized by California Government Code Section 53601 and with assets under management in excess of $500 million  No more than 20% of the total portfolio may be invested in these securities

10. Bankers’ Acceptances, provided that the following criteria is met:
 They are issued by institutions which have short-term debt obligations rated “A-1” or higher by at least one NRSRO; or long-term debt obligations which are rated in the “A” category or higher by at least one NRSRO
 No more than 40% of the portfolio may be invested in Bankers’ Acceptances  No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any issuer  The maximum maturity does not exceed 180 days

11. Commercial Paper, provided that the following criteria is met:
 The issuer is a corporation organized and operating in the United States with assets in excess of $500 million
 The securities are rated “A-1” or higher by at least one NRSRO  They are issued by corporations having long-term obligations rated in the “A” category or its equivalent or higher, if the issuer has long-term ratings, by at least one NRSRO  Has program-wide credit enhancements which may include, but not limited to, overcollateralization, letters of credit, or a surety bond  No more than 25% of the portfolio may be invested in Commercial Paper  No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any issuer  The maximum maturity does not exceed 270 397 days
X. PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
213
Section 6, Item # 6.3
6 The intent at the time of purchasing investments is that they are to be held until maturity. However, during the life of the investment, if market opportunities allow an investment to be sold at a gain while providing an acceptable yield on the reinvestment of the funds, then an investment may be sold and a new investment made prior to the maturity of the original investment.

XI. MAXIMUM MATURITY
The City will maintain a cash flow analysis to project the City’s need for money. All money not required for immediate use will be invested to the greatest extent possible.

The City will not invest in securities maturing more than five years from the date of trade settlement, unless the City Council has by resolution granted authority to make such an investment at least three months prior to that investment.

XII. QUARTERLY REPORTING
City staff shall provide the City Council with quarterly investment reports that provide a clear picture of the status of the current investment portfolio, and which are in accordance with Government Code Section 53646 (b). The quarterly report shall include the following:

1. A listing of individual securities held at the end of the reporting period.

2. Yield to maturity of all investments listed.

3. Coupon, discount, or earnings rate.

4. Par value, Amortized Book Value and Market Value.

5. A list of cash amounts in each City accounting fund that equals the total amount that the City has invested.

6. Monthly transactions for the period in accordance with California Government Code Section 53607

7. A statement of compliance with investment policy, including a schedule of any transactions or holdings which do not comply with this policy or with the California Government Code, including a justification for their presence in the portfolio and a timetable for resolution

8. A statement regarding whether the portfolio will allow the City to have adequate funds to meet its cash flow requirements for the next six months
XIII. INVESTMENT POLICY ADOPTION AND REVIEW
The City of Wheatland’s investment policy shall be adopted by resolution of the City of Wheatland’s City Council. The policy shall be reviewed annually by the Finance Director/City Treasurer who will make recommendations to the City Council regarding any changes needed to address consistency with the overall objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity and return, and its relevance to current law and financial and economic trends. The Wheatland City Council must approve any modifications made thereto.

Reviewed with no modifications, April 11, 2023.

Reviewed with no modifications, March 26, 2024.

Reviewed with no modifications, February 25, 2025.
214
Section 6, Item # 6.3
City Council Meeting Staff Report
Meeting Date: February 10, 2026
SUBJECT: Update on Wheatland Aquatic Center Funding
PREPARED BY: Bill Zenoni, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Wheatland City Council review the information presented and provide direction to staff on next steps.

DISCUSSION:

The Wheatland City Council, on July 9, 2019, adopted Resolution No. 25-19 accepting a gift of $1.0 million from David Creps to be used for maintaining and operating a community swimming pool within the City of Wheatland. The City executed an agreement with Mr. Creps which provided that the donated funds would be deposited into a separate interest-bearing fund and would be used to maintain and operate a community swimming pool and to operate an aquatic program at the swimming pool which was to be constructed within the City of Wheatland. The agreement further stipulated that the swimming pool would be constructed and begin operation within seven years of the July 2019 agreement (by July 2026), or the $1 million gift plus any earned interest would be returned to the David Creps Revocable Trust.

On October 27, 2020, the City Council approved an agreement with the Melton Design Group for architectural and grant support services for the City’s recreation facility projects. At that time, it was anticipated that the swimming pool project could be eligible for State Proposition 68 grant funding. The Melton Design Group completed the Wheatland Aquatic Center Feasibility Report (copy attached), which was accepted by the City Council on September 28, 2021. That report recommended that the City pursue a phased project that would start with the construction of a single pool designed to allow for recreational use, competitive swimming, diving and water polo to be constructed on a 2.8 acre parcel of land provided by the Wheatland School District under a long-term $1 per year lease agreement. The estimated 2021 cost of that phase of the project was $4.4 million. Subsequent potential phases of the project identified in the Melton Design Group Report included the addition of a shallow childrens and warm-up pool and a beach-entry recreational pool with play equipment and a recreational slide at an additional cost of approximately $6.7 million, for a long-term total project cost of $11.1 million (in 2021 dollars).

For the initial $4.4 million phase of the project, the anticipated sources of funding included:
- $3 million Proposition 68 Rural Recreation and Tourism Program Grant. - $1 million Creps donation (assuming an amendment to the original agreement was approved to allow the use of the donated funds for pool construction rather than pool operations). - $350,000 long-term deferred loan from Yuba Water Agency. 215
Section 6, Item # 6.4
The City submitted an application to the State Department of Parks and Recreation for the Prop 68 grant, and was notified in 2022 that the City was not awarded grant funding. The reason provided was that the number of applications exceeded the grant funding available.

Since that time, staff has been exploring potential funding opportunities for this project. However, there have been no federal or state grant programs offered for an aquatic center which haven’t required a significant (50%) matching contribution.

In addition to the significant cost of constructing a municipal swimming pool, there are ongoing costs to operate and maintain the facility. The Wheatland Aquatic Center Feasibility Report also identified the annual cost of operating and maintaining the pool at $310,000 (operational 4 months per year) to $650,000 (operating 12 months per year). It was estimated that approximately 40 percent of the annual operating costs might be recovered from user fees, with the remaining costs to be funded from other sources. These cost estimates have not been updated since 2021.

The City Council last received an update on the status of the aquatic center funding in January 2024. At that time, staff identified no available grant funding. There was discussion about a possible capital funding campaign to generate donations from local and business donors. However, the chance of generating the large amount of capital required for this project is questionable.

With the July 2026 deadline fast approaching, the Pool Ad Hoc Committee (Mayor Coe and Councilmember Teter) met on January 14, 2026 to discuss the next steps related to the donated funding.

As it does not appear that the City will be able to generate the necessary funding to construct and operate an aquatic center, direction from the City Council is requested. Specifically, in accordance with the terms of Mr. Creps donation agreement, the $1 million donation along with interest earned on those funds ($155,953 as of December 31, 2025) would be returned to the David Creps Revocable Trust.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This is an information item only. There is no fiscal impact at this time ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 25-19

2. Agreement Between City of Wheatland and David Creps

3. Wheatland Aquatic Center Feasibility Report
216
Section 6, Item # 6.4
RESOLUTION NO. 25-19

ACCEPTING A GIFT FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A COMMUNITY

SWIMMING POOL IN THE CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEREAS Me David Creps wishes to make a generous gift of $11,000,000 (one million dollars) to the City of Wheatland for purposes of maintaining and operating a community swimming pool; and
WHEREAS the City Council wishes to accept the gift; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement (Exhibit 1) has been developed by both parties to state clearly the purpose of the gift and the conditions regarding acceptance of the gift;, and WHEREAS, the City Council must formally accept the gift and provide staff direction regarding acceptance of the gift.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Wheatland hereby:

1. Accepts the gift, with great appreciation; and

2. Approves the attached agreement regarding disposition of the gift and directs the Mayor to sign the agreement; and

3. Determines that the acceptance of the gift does not trigger environmental review under the, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because this is merely a financial transaction; and

4. Directs the Finance Director to establish a Fiduciary Fund titled Community Pool Operations and Maintenance; and

5. Directs the' Finance Director to accept the gift and deposit the funds immediately in the City of Wheatland's state Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) account and record the gift in the Community Pool Operations and Maintenance Fund; and

6. Directs the Finance Director to place, within a reasonable time period, all funds in tine Community Pool Operations and Maintenance Fund into investment accounts separate from LAlF and specifically for the fund.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of City of Wheatland, State' of California this 9th day of July 2019, by the following vote:

AYES: Coe, West" Henderson, Pendergraph
NOES:

ABS1AIN:

ABSENT: Mcintosh
Resolution No. 25-19 1
217
Section 6, Item # 6.4
~!"~/
JosepjrHende rson, Mayor
Resolution No. 25-19 2 218
Section 6, Item # 6.4
219
Section 6, Item # 6.4
220
Section 6, Item # 6.4
221
Section 6, Item # 6.4

WHEATLANDAQUATICCENTER

FEASIBILITYSTUDY
MELTONDESIGNGROUP,Inc./ArchPac
CityofWheatland
Preparedby
Sept.23,2021

LANDSCAPEARCHITECTS&PLANNERS
CHICO|SACRAMENTO
MELTONDG.COM (530)899-1616
222
Section 6, Item # 6.4

820 BROADWAY ST CHICO CA 95928 – 530.899.1616
1930 G ST SACRAMENTO CA 95811 – 916.754.2153
MELTONDG.COM
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION and SUMMARY

2. PROJECT LOCATION and SITE ANALYSIS

3. NEEDS ASSESSMENT and PUBLIC OUTREACH

4. MARKET STUDY

5. CONCEPT DESIGN and PROJECT COST
 LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

6. OPERATING ANALYSIS

7. APPENDIX
223
Section 6, Item # 6.4
City of Wheatland
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study

INTRODUCTION
Project Location and Site Analysis
Needs Assessment and Public Outreach
Market Study
Conceptual Design and Costs
Operating Analysis
PROJECT LOCATION and SITE ANALYSIS
NEEDS ASSESSMENT and PUBLIC OUTREACH
WHEATLAND AQUATIC FACILITY INTRODUCTION and SUMMARY
The City of Wheatland is a growing community and understands that with growth comes the need for amenities for its people.  This aquatic complex project has been active for years in the community with both the City, the schools and the public.  One driving force in the project is a donation of one million dollars that by a private trust to the City for the ongoing maintencance of a pool facility.  This donation twilights after 7 years which leaves us 5 years, so with that and the upcoming State Proposition 68 ‐ Rural Recreation and Tourism Program (RRT), the City has the opportunity to develop Phase 1 of an aquatic center.  This fits nicely into the grant intent and on a piece of property between Wheatland Elementary, Bear River Middle School and Wheatland Union High School.  In the vicinity of Wheatland, there are several pools.  Yuba City has Gauche Aquatic Park (GAP), which is the most developed with amenities and serves the most people in the surrounding area.  Olivehurst, Nicholas, Sutter, Lincoln and Live Oak provide nearby smaller pools.

The project site is on Wheatland Elementary School District property and is located east of Wheatland Ranch Road, west of Highway 65 and between the elementary and middle schools.  The site itself will connect the schools to the pool areas and take up approximately one half of an acre.  It currently is a flat, non‐irrigated turf field that is primarily used for recreational soccer.  Vehicle access is through the Bear River parking lot and pedestrian access will be from both schools and the subdivision to the north of the site.  Pedestrian access from WUHS currently does not exist and this access will be assessed as part of the project study.

Utilities are available at the Bear River School site and from Wheatland Ranch Road.  Overall, the site offers a great space that is centrally located and is being offered at the right price.

Currently, there are pools in several of the communities around Wheatland.  Most are aged, small and in need of refurbishing, with the exception of Yuba City's Gauche Facility, which has many of the pool amenities that make up a good aquatic complex.  The Wheatland Community has a need to provide swimming lessons, free play and a competitive pool for both the schools and the public.  Multiple public outreach meetings have occured and the wants and needs of the community were captured and documented in the conceptual plans.

APPROACH ‐ The report will include the following elements:

This document will layout the design of a pool complex on the Wheatland Elementary School District property; a full aquatic design with phases, cost estimates and probable operating costs and revenue generation for the complex.  The City will assess this study to determine whether they want to apply for the upcoming grant in November of 2021.

Melton Design Group, Inc. / Arch Pac Aquatics 1  INTRODUCTION and SUMMARY   Page 1 224
Section 6, Item # 6.4
City of Wheatland
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study

MARKET STUDY
CONCEPT DESIGN and PROJECT COST
The pool concept captures the community's needs; we listened to pool users... from kids to moms and dads, from schools to swimming and diving clubs.  We also considered future users that are moving to the area.  We coordinated with both the WESD and WUHSD to discuss the property use, pool and site design, encroachments, fences and access.  The One Pool Option includes the 8‐lane, 25‐yard pool with diving board, size and depth allowing for water polo, shallow area for lessons and additional recreation area incorporating an obstacle course, rope swing, basketball and 1 meter diving board.  Phase 2 of the pool incorporates the shallow childrens'/warm up pool for kids lessons and a smaller basketball hoop.  Phase 3 includes a beach‐ entry recreating pool incorporating play equipment and a recreational slide to fulfill the needs of the community.  Phase 1 was designed to provide the lowest cost pool version with enough elements to make it fun and cost appropriate, without compromising the configuration of the pool for future uses like water polo.

Estimates ranged from $4.35 million for the one pool option to $5.1 million for two, and to almost $11 million for full build‐out.  In addition to the pools, an administrative building and bath house was proposed to provide pool management and a secure restroom, changing room and shower structure.  A second building was a half indoor/half outdoor mechancial building.  The funding of the project will need to relate to the State Grant.  To do so, we will need to be green, sustainable, promote health and wellness and invite tourism to the community.

The current growth and development in the community and region, and the support of local agencies, demonstrates the ability to support and operate a pool financially and cover future lifecycle costs.  There is a need for and support for high quality pools, event space, passive recreation and quality competition water sports.

The service area of the project was studied to assess and examine all the current pool markets and demographics of the proposed project site, along with creating an inventory of the existing pool systems and programs that are provided by other communites that might compete with the proposed project.  We found that there are many smaller and older pools that provide minimal services and one large pool that has all the services, but a higher cost, and is 15 miles to the north.   We have found that schools in the area need places to swim and compete.  There are other organizations such as the Wheatland Fire Authority, First 5 Organization and Yuba Water Agency that can support the pool and bring swim lessons to the masses.  There is a need for a pool that upgrades the community and fulfills the desire for a larger competitive recreation/lap pool to teach and train our youth and adults.

Primarily, the community wants a competitive pool where they can hold swim meets, play water polo, dive and have fun.  They want to be able to teach the youth how to swim while providing recreation and a fun environment.  In addiition to the swimming aspect, the City sees the oportunity to use this pool site as a gathering space for our children, for six months in spring, summer and fall.  The years to follow the build out will see an increase in population to the tune of approximately a 53% increase.  This is a reasonable expectation given the housing developments that are already planned for coming years, plus we've already seen examples of rapid growth in neighboring Plumas Lake and Lincoln.

Melton Design Group, Inc. / Arch Pac Aquatics 1  INTRODUCTION and SUMMARY   Page 2 225
Section 6, Item # 6.4
City of Wheatland
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study

OPERATING ANALYSIS
The project design was studied in relation to operating costs and revenue generation.  The City had been gifted $1 million in 2019 and there is a 7‐year sunset on that gift.  With the desire for the pools to be big enough for swim meets and water polo, there is an increase in operating costs for such a large pool, specifically in respect to utilities and lifeguard needs, among other things.  With the additional consideration of a heated pool, we are looking at options for keeping the pool open 4, 5, 6 or 12 months out of the year.

Being open less than a full year reduces the operating costs in regard to heating and lifeguards but limits the revenue generating season. The start and end months of the pool operation and the quantity of lifeguards will be a key discussion of the operating budget.

4.  The City should incorporate a SOLAR ARRAY PROGRAM that will offset electrical costs and in the future incorporate electrical heaters to heat the pool instead of the natural gas heaters.

1.  The City proceed with the ONE‐POOL OPTION.  This pool allows for current operations with the ability to grow as the community grows.

2.  Start with being open for a 5‐month season to establish the management of the pool and maximize the Cost‐Revenue ratio, with the option to stretch it out to 6 or 7 months, as the population grows and users increase.

3.  Proceed with a project that is to be designed and built with operations costs in mind.  This means including things like a pool cover that's easy to apply/remove, using LED lighting and using equipment sized appropriately for ease of operation and cost efficiency, for example a variable frequency drive (VFD) pump, which reduced electrical use considerably.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Melton Design Group, Inc. / Arch Pac Aquatics 1  INTRODUCTION and SUMMARY   Page 3 226
Section 6, Item # 6.4
City of Wheatland
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study

EVALUATION
15 5 3
20 4 5
933
15 5 3
551
933
15 5 3
12 4 3
15 5 3
842
12 4 3
10 5 2
TOTAL POINTS AVAILABLE ‐ 170 TOTAL: 145
It is integral to the grant that this pool provides significant physical activity for local and regional users.

1. Central Location to Key Users ‐ Schools and Community

2. Access to All Needed Utilities
RATING 1‐5 / 5 highest / Weight
WHEATLAND AQUATIC FACILITY LOCATION and SITE ANALYSIS
The purpose of this Site Analysis is to clarify why the site was chosen, what the conditions are and what will need to be done for the project to be constructed at this site.  The WSD provided the 3.18 acre site between Bear River Middle School and Wheatland Elementary School.  The High School is also very close, only a few blocks away, and could provide PE classes throughout the spring and fall.  The location allows for a full‐size pool complex, leaving the District with plenty of room to establish more multi‐use fields, track, fitness, etc., as requested.  This is the only site available to the City that is large enough to allow for the future growth of Phase 2 and Phase 3.  WSD is willing to participate in the process; the access through school property is being worked out with the School District.  The site's proximity to the schools, though, as well as being close to the town center and Highway 45, and easy access to utilites, makes this a prime location for the Aquatic Facility.  It's also well suited for the Proposition 68 grant, as the aforementioned proximities help fulfill a basic goal of the grant ‐ to aid in reducing greenhouse gases by reducing travel distances/times.

SITE CRITERIA EVALUATED
At 85 percent of the available points, this rating shows that the site is highly desireable and it is recommended to move forward.

The elements that are scoring low can be modified during site design and construction with minimal cost.

One key element of the site is that we allow for the future use of additional recreation for the school fields.

3. Ease of Access for Vehicles, Bicycles and Pedestrians

4. Acquisition Cost

6. Shared Uses and Costs

5. Zoning compliance

11. Geological Advantages

7. Access to Parking

8. Neighborhood Rejections or Concerns

9. Safety of Neighborhood

10. Site Readiness

12. Citizen and Public Perception
Melton Design Group, Inc. / Arch Pac Aquatics 2  PROJECT LOCATION and SITE ANALYSIS   Page 4 227
Section 6, Item # 6.4
City of Wheatland
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study
Melton Design Group, Inc. / Arch Pac Aquatics 2  PROJECT LOCATION and SITE ANALYSIS   Page 5 228
Section 6, Item # 6.4
City of Wheatland
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study

OUTREACH WORKSHOPS
WHEATLAND AQUATIC FACILITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT and PUBLIC OUTREACH Understanding the importance of engaging the public when considering major projects, we fine‐tuned and confirmed our concept design for the facility through four public input workshops, both in‐person and virtual.

We also had a final design review in front of both School Districts and the Wheatland City Council.  The design also takes into consideration the National Recreation and Parks Association standards, which recommends approximately 15‐25 SF of water surface area per person to accommodate 5% of the local population. With a population estimated to reach 5,791 in 5‐10 years, the recommended water surface area would be 7,239 SF.

This level of use is met by the proposed Two‐Pool Option.  With the proposed One‐Pool Option, the need would be met once a second pool is constructed during Phase 2.

The City of Wheatland community currently travels for their swimming.  As previously stated, the Gauche Aquatic Park (GAP) in Yuba City is the prime choice with the most amenities, providing a lap pool, recreation and slides.  The E. Nicholas and Olivehurst Public Utility District (OPUD) pools are preferred by many for easy access, lower cost and good for the little ones.  After studying all the potential pools and going through the outreach process, a similar pool to the GAP was specified, but with a smaller, more connected feel and additional recreation elements.  This will make the Wheatland pool unique to the area and useful for competitive and functional training and recreation.  Potential users are the schools, swim clubs and general public from Wheatland and surrounding communities.

For each Workshop, the design team presented all aspects of the project to the attendees, so that they could indicate which elements and options they most wanted to see in their ideal aquatic facility.  These workshop results helped focus the design of the Aquatic Center on what matters most to the community.  Our goals in the design were based on providing all types of water play, swimming lessons and competitive opportunities for all ages, while training for water safety, fitness and fun.

GOALS and OBJECTIVES

1.  Educate the community and stakeholders on what is available to them.

2.  Convey the advantages of the proposed project location to the community.

3.  Provide examples of similar area pools and pools that offer new ideas and elements.

4.  Develop a spatial relationship of pools to spectators, access, security and safety.

5.  Create a pool concept that provides water for multiple uses and ages.

6.  Develop community pride and excellence in water sports while providing benefits.

7.  Comply with Proposition 68 requirements regarding Public Outreach.

FINDINGS:  COMMUNITY PRIORITIES

1.  A competitive pool for learning and competing within many disciplines.

2.  Water play and recreation.

3.  Water fitness and instruction for water safety.

4.  Parent comfort, providing shade and visibility of pools and open recreation areas.

5.  Affordable use of the facility and all its features.

6.  Themed play with fun features and sprays for daily summer entertainment.

Melton Design Group, Inc. / Arch Pac Aquatics 3  NEEDS ASSESSMENT and PUBLIC OUTREACH   Page 6 229
Section 6, Item # 6.4
City of Wheatland
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study
Workshop #1
Workshop #2
The first Workshop was offered in‐person and via Facebook Live on April 17, 2021.   The meeting took place in the parking lot of Bear River Middle School adjacent to the site.  This brainstorming session introduced the project to the community and presented a variety of pool types and sizes.  We had photos of all the existing pools in surrounding communities.  Element Boards provided visual displays for many of the options being discussed and helped participants understand what their Aquatic Center could look like and offer.

The second Workshop was a virtual event hosted on April 20, 2021.  This second brainstorming session allowed another opportunity for the community to evaluate and provide input on a variety of pool types, sizes and elements.

Discussion:  The participants engaged in discussions regarding the site, access, parking, effect on neighbors to the north.  There was also a discussion regarding the operation of the site and how it would be maintained.  The site discussion brought up access from all the schools and how close it is for everyone.  We need to get permission for high school kids to cross church property for ease of access during school.  Secondly, attendees discussed the parking and were pleased to see many parking spaces to prevent cars parking in the neighborhood.  Jim Goodwin, City Manager, stated that a Trust Fund  donated $1 million to the City and it would fund operational costs.  The donor was the Creps Family, and the one condition of the Trust is that we build the park within seven (7) years.  Additionally, a local pool contractor present at the meeting expressed his interest in helping design the mechanics of the pool and highlighting the opportunities that are available to us.

Attendance:  Approximately nine (9) people were in attendance.  All participants were adults, neighbors, contractors and relatives of the donor.

Boards Demonstrated the Following:

2.  Site plan showing the surrounding area and access options to the proposed pool site

1.  All pools in the area

3.  Possible pool and recreational designs

4.  Final boards that asked for top five elements
a.  Lap pool for competitions and lessons
b.  Recreational spray pool with a theme
c.  Picnic and viewing area to all pools along with reservations and shade d.  Support building with restroom, shower, changing room e.  Unique water play elements in the pool
Attendance:  Approximately seven (7) people were in attendance.

Discussion:  Element Boards again provided visual displays for options being discussed.  The discussion focused more on the scheduling and programming.  People wanted to understand what would be offered; that it would start small and then grow into a healthy swim program.  Separate therapy pools were discussed; however, we mentioned that they would just be warm pools and an actual therapist would not be provided.  Individuals could do their own excercises in the pool but we could not call it a therapy pool due to insurance requirements.  Other items discussed included safety, bleacher spectating, shade areas for watching, a separate kiddy pool and a splash pad, possibly outside in a non‐paid area.

Melton Design Group, Inc. / Arch Pac Aquatics 3  NEEDS ASSESSMENT and PUBLIC OUTREACH   Page 7 230
Section 6, Item # 6.4
City of Wheatland
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study
Workshop #3
Attendees stressed that we need large grass areas for swim meets with shade elements, as well as BBQs and tables for people to gather at the meet.  Gender neutral spaces, restrooms and dressing areas were requested, along with family changing areas.  The prevailing preferred pool was Sutter Pool, as it's easy to get to and the price is right.  The GAP spray area is well liked, as well as its slides and play area.  Our site can accommodate a smaller slide and we could do a splash area by itself in town to deal with the recreation and summer heat.  A beach‐entry pool with sprays and themed play were preferred.

The Workshop #3 was another virtual event.  It took place on April 21, 2021.

Attendance:  Approximately seven (7) people were in attendance consisting of a young family, aquatic committee members including a representative from the high school swim team, council members and a senior swimmer.

Discussion:  For this third Workshop, the goal was to focus on elements and design suggestions that came from feedback from the first two Workshops.  A large, 8‐lane lap pool was discussed.  With a pool that size, Wheatland schools can have swim meets and be time‐efficient with the eight (8) lanes.  As the City grows, the draw for meets will grow and the pool will be able to handle the additional demands.  Diving and water polo were also requested for the schools.  To qualify as a nationally certified pool to host meets, the competition pool needs official automatic touch pads for keeping and recording stops and  times for the racers.  Recreation space around the pool would also be needed with shade and rentals.  Attendees discussed grass play and seating areas for spike ball and volleyball as well.

Melton Design Group, Inc. / Arch Pac Aquatics 3  NEEDS ASSESSMENT and PUBLIC OUTREACH   Page 8 231
Section 6, Item # 6.4
City of Wheatland
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study
Workshop #4 Little League Baseball and Girls Softball
City Council Presentation
Workshop #4 on May 15, 2021, was back to in‐person and hosted at the park.  The emphasis was on prioritization of park elements from a list that was created during the prior 'focus' Workshop (#3).  The goal for the 50+ attendees was to take the narrowed down list and highlight which items and configuration were the priority and preferred for the community's ideal Aquatic Center.

On June 8, 2021, the Wheatland City Council was presented with a conceptual design that incorporated what was learned from the four Outreach Workshops.  They were given a packet showing the site, the elements and what the public wanted.

3.  What is the annual maintenance and operation budget?  Can we afford the option we have on the plan?  The 6‐month plan keeps the pool(s) open for 6 months of the year with a deficit.  Donations from local pool advocates and the Creps Trust maintenance fund could reduce that.  Reviewing 5‐month and 4‐month plans was discussed to see what it takes to get into the black.

The Council had several ideas/concerns:

Attendance:  50+ Park users of all ages
Discussion:  Attendees were presented with two plans showing a full design of the complex.  Both designs had the same elements but were layed out with different configurations, pools together and pools seperate.  They were asked to put red and green dots on what option they preferred.  The community liked the pools separated so kids not qualified to be in a deeper pool could be in the shallow pool and spectators can be between the pools and keep an eye on their kids.  Additionally, the two pools add the benefit of operating the pools seperately.  One variable would be price to operate two pools vs. one pool and the additional cost of construction.  Photos show the wide range of age and engagement we experienced.  Planning commissioners and little league kids were also involved.  After selections were made, several of the participants mentioned the balance of having the right pools and accessories and making sure the design is layed out so that all the lifeguards, spectators and parents can see the pools and keep track of children.  There was a consensus on having two seperate pools for functionality, which was Option B.

2.  The Council was concerned about where dollars were coming from to build the project.  Options: $3 million from the grant, $2.5 million from other funds, possible preliminary impact fees from development and other donations.  The Council requested a project version be designed to be as close to equal to the grant funds as possible, even it meant having only one pool.

1.  They liked the whole complex design with pools separate or together, but with all the amenities to make it very multi‐use and a good return on investment.

4.  It is important to build what the City can afford.  Everyone liked the design and long‐term planning "but we can't overdo it" (ie. opt for an initial project that's beyond the City's ability to build and maintain it).  As we look at 5‐10 year growth in the community, it's clear this should be a 'phased' project.  Keep it simple and affordable in Phase 1 without compromising the possibilities for future Phases.  The Council directed that a smaller pool be researched with less up‐front costs and possibly less months of operation to meet the budget available.

Melton Design Group, Inc. / Arch Pac Aquatics 3  NEEDS ASSESSMENT and PUBLIC OUTREACH   Page 9 232
Section 6, Item # 6.4
City of Wheatland
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study
Wheatland School District (WSD)
Wheatland Union High School District (WUHSD)

2.  Vehicular Access to the Pool:  The WSD thought the access drive through the Bear River site parking drive could work for pool access if the school was fenced along the north edge of that access and  pedestrian access from the schools to the pool was provided.

3.  Pedestrian Access:  Potentially an easement to allow easy access for the high school to the new pool through Church or Private properties.  Fields, security and access onto school grounds during school was a important discussion.

A virtual meeting was held with the WSD.

Discussion:  Several several items regarding the site were discussed.

Attendance:  Three (3) people were in attendance and Craig Guensler represented the District.

1.  Property Use:  The District provided information that would provide the field property on the south end for the Aquatic Complex at no cost to the City.  It was important to show that the remaining fields provided enough space to have future fields, volleyball and soccer play.  Access along Olive Street was discussed and the District Manager expressed the concern of Virginia School and the access adjacent to their property.  Past discussions have been had regarding the easement on Olive Street and at this time the project does not need the access, but was exploring it for additional accessibility.  At this point, the project does not need access from Olive Street and is not planning any access through Virginia School.

Discussion:  The needs of the high school in regard to the pool and how the school would be able to contribute to the maintenance fees for their use was discussed.  They were enthusiastic but needed to get an understanding of operations and how much time they needed to run their competitive swimming program, water polo and diving.  These would be brand new programs so Athletic Director pointed out the need to gauge the student interest level.  They were also asked to determine if there would be physical education classes that would come to the pool from the high school.

On May 12, 2021 we held a virtual meeting with the District Superintendant, Nicole Newman, and the new Athletic Director.

Melton Design Group, Inc. / Arch Pac Aquatics 3  NEEDS ASSESSMENT and PUBLIC OUTREACH   Page 10 233
Section 6, Item # 6.4
City of Wheatland
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study
Wheatland National Night Out ‐ Wheatland Police Department Attendance:  Approximately 29 people participated in our demonstration at the event.  Participants were a wide range of moms and dads, kids and school teachers, that were excited about the kids learning to swim, as Wheatland has the Sacramento River close by.  Several seniors were there with family and liked the play elements that can be added, like the climbing wall and the rope swing.  The event was very family driven with a strong community engagement.

Discussed:  Phase 1 and the full build‐out of the project were presented with concepts that incorporated all the input from the previous outreach Workshops and Meetings.  The participants were shown site designs, enlargements and elements the public requested.  POOL and OBSTACLE COURSE:  Additionally, we focused on the design of an obstacle course that would be placed in the water.  We took a poll on which course was preferred and the circled sketch in the photo below (drawn by a teen at the event) represents the type of course they liked.  Several kids and parents engaged in the selection and drew pictures of the combinations of the course they would prefer.  The obstacle course was something they had seen on TV and would love to be able to play on and have the water to fall into.  DIVING:  A diving instructor from the neighboring high school discussed using 1‐meter boards primarily, as 3‐meter boards are less common.  Two women that currently do water aerobics added their input on how a standard 4' pool works great for them.  They mentioned that they would only do water aerobics in the warmer months, May‐September.  The public also asked about cost of use and mentioned that they would consider paying for summer memberships.

On August 3, 2021, the Wheatland Police Department and the law enforcement agencies in Yuba and Sutter Counties hosted its annual festival.

Melton Design Group, Inc. / Arch Pac Aquatics 3  NEEDS ASSESSMENT and PUBLIC OUTREACH   Page 11 234
Section 6, Item # 6.4

WHEATLAND AQUATIC FACILITY MARKET STUDY

AREA DEMOGRAPHICS
Geographic Area of Consideration
City of Wheatland
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study
This Market Study establishes what is available in the surrounding areas for similar types of aquatic centers and communities with typical usage and fee schedules for their current operation.  To accomplish this, we looked at the demographics of Wheatland and surrounding areas, evaluated other available aquatic venues and used this information to predict revenue potential, possible fees and programs and options to aid with determining the feasibility of the project.

The area examined for demographics consisted of an approximate 10‐15 mile radius around Wheatland.  We would expect this to be a viable service area for the Aquatic Center and we understand that the draw to Wheatland's facility will come from these areas, while it's also possible that we would lose users to the same facilities.  With the growth of our community, a centrally located public facility would thrive and the proposed project can continue to grow with it.

Melton Design Group, Inc. / Arch Pac Aquatics 4  MARKET STUDY   Page 12 235
Section 6, Item # 6.4
City of Wheatland
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study
Population by Age (2019 Data per CensusReporter.org)

YUBA CITY METRO AREA
Age % of Pop Error Margin Population
0‐9 16.20% ±1.1% 28,364
10‐19 12.90% ±1.2% 22,670
20‐29 14.60% ±1.2% 25,592
30‐39 12.70% ±1% 22,241
40‐49 11.3%† ±1.1% 19,764
50‐59 10.80% ±0.9% 18,916
60‐69 11.70% ±1.1% 20,608
70‐79 6.7%† ±0.8% 11,779
80+ 3.3%† ±0.6% 5,705
TOTAL 175,639

WHEATLAND
Age % of Pop Error Margin Population
0‐9 9.6%† ±2.7% 367
10‐19 12.3%† ±3.7% 470
20‐29 15.3%† ±4.6% 581
30‐39 10.8%† ±3.2% 410
40‐49 14.9%† ±4.1% 568
50‐59 17%† ±4.3% 648
60‐69 9.4%† ±3.3% 357
70‐79 7.1%† ±2.7% 270
80+ 3.7%† ±1.5% 139
TOTAL 3,810

WHEATLAND
Years 1% Growth per
mo.

Growth per
Development
Projections
Population
Total
1 38 0 3,848
2 38 420 4,307
3 43 144 4,494
4 45 450 4,989
5 50 48 5,086
6 51 0 5,137
7 51 0 5,189
8 52 0 5,241
9 52 0 5,293
10 53 500 5,846
6550
7349
8246
* This Table reflects ~53% growth by end of first 10 years "Yuba City Metro Area" encompasses both Cos.
10‐YEAR GROWTH PROJECTIONS
TOTAL at end Year 20 with only 1% growth
TOTAL at end Year 30 with only 1% growth
TOTAL at end Year 40 with only 1% growth
Green Outline = Sutter Co/Black Outline = Yuba Co
Melton Design Group, Inc. / Arch Pac Aquatics 4  MARKET STUDY   Page 13 236
Section 6, Item # 6.4
City of Wheatland
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study

YUBA CITY
Age % of Pop Error Margin Population
0‐9 11.8%† ±2.2% 7,924
10‐19 13.5%† ±2.2% 9,010
20‐29 15.3%† ±2.3% 10,222
30‐39 11.7%† ±1.8% 7,840
40‐49 12.3%† ±2.2% 8,217
50‐59 11.1%† ±1.5% 7,433
60‐69 12.6%† ±1.9% 8,448
70‐79 7.3%† ±1.3% 4,884
80+ 4.5%† ±1.1% 3,031
TOTAL 67,009

OLIVEHURST
Age % of Pop Error Margin Population
0‐9 16%† ±2.2% 2,159
10‐19 11.9%† ±2.3% 1,605
20‐29 16.6%† ±2.1% 2,231
30‐39 15.2%† ±2.1% 2,051
40‐49 11.2%† ±1.7% 1,502
50‐59 12%† ±1.7% 1,618
60‐69 10.2%† ±1.6% 1,373
70‐79 4.8%† ±1.1% 652
80+ 2%† ±0.7% 273
TOTAL 13,464

PLUMAS LAKE
Age % of Pop Error Margin Population
0‐9 20.40% ±2.7% 1,543
10‐19 17.60% ±3.2% 1,330
20‐29 12.50% ±2.9% 950
30‐39 15.50% ±2.2% 1,172
40‐49 15.2 ±2.3% 1,153
50‐59 9.10% ±1.8% 689
60‐69 6.90% ±2.1% 524
70‐79 1.80% ±1.2% 133
80+ 1% ±0.7% 79
TOTAL 7,573
SUTTER
Age % of Pop Error Margin Population
0‐9 10.10% ±3.8% 302
10‐19 16.60% ±4.2% 500
20‐29 16.90% ±4.1% 509
30‐39 5.10% ±2.3% 154
40‐49 17.9 ±3.7% 539
50‐59 12.90% ±3.5% 388
60‐69 10.50% ±3.1% 316
70‐79 7.30% ±2.7% 220
80+ 3% ±1.3% 77
TOTAL 3,005
Melton Design Group, Inc. / Arch Pac Aquatics 4  MARKET STUDY   Page 14 237
Section 6, Item # 6.4
City of Wheatland
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study

MARYSVILLE
Age % of Pop Error Margin Population
0‐9 13.6%† ±2.5% 1,672
10‐19 12.3%† ±3% 1,512
20‐29 18.6%† ±2.9% 2,288
30‐39 16.7%† ±3% 2,055
40‐49 8.2%† ±1.9% 1,009
50‐59 13.2%† ±2.2% 1,629
60‐69 10%† ±1.9% 1,232
70‐79 4.3%† ±1.3% 527
80+ 3.3%† ±1.1% 403
TOTAL 12,327

LINCOLN
Age % of Pop Error Margin Population
0‐9 13.20% ±1.1% 6,262
10‐19 10.70% ±1% 5,053
20‐29 9.2%† ±0.9% 4,370
30‐39 12.40% ±0.9% 5,864
40‐49 12.10% ±0.9% 5,740
50‐59 9.80% ±0.9% 4,651
60‐69 12.70% ±0.9% 6,008
70‐79 13.30% ±0.9% 6,303
80+ 6.60% ±0.7% 3,137
TOTAL 47,388

LIVE OAK
Age % of Pop Error Margin Population
0‐9 16.5%† ±2.7% 1,430
10‐19 18.2%† ±2.6% 1,578
20‐29 13.2%† ±2.6% 1,141
30‐39 12.6%† ±2.5% 1,089
40‐49 11.8%† ±2.1% 1,026
50‐59 12.6%† ±2.2% 1,095
60‐69 8%† ±1.6% 694
70‐79 4.1%† ±1.2% 357
80+ 3.1%† ±0.9% 269
TOTAL 8,679
Melton Design Group, Inc. / Arch Pac Aquatics 4  MARKET STUDY   Page 15 238
Section 6, Item # 6.4
City of Wheatland
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study
Economics ‐ Median Income (2019 Data per CensusReporter.org)

YUBA CITY METRO AREA
Household
Income % of Pop Error Margin Households
Under $50K 40.2%† ±4.6% 24,060
$50K ‐ $100K 31.3%† ±3.9% 18,739
$100K ‐ $200K 22.2%† ±2.9% 13,311
Over $200K 6.3%† ±1.5% 3,756
TOTAL 59,866
Median Household Income: $61,307
Per Capita Income: $28,757

WHEATLAND
Household
Income % of Pop Error Margin Households
Under $50K 25.2%† ±8.1% 354
$50K ‐ $100K 42.4%† ±10.9% 597
$100K ‐ $200K 25.8%† ±8.3% 363
Over $200K 6.6%† ±4.2% 93
TOTAL 1,407
Median Household Income: $75,066
Per Capita Income: $34,653

YUBA CITY
Household
Income % of Pop Error Margin Households
Under $50K 41.8%† ±7.3% 10,194
$50K ‐ $100K 28.1%† ±5.7% 6,853
$100K ‐ $200K 24.6%† ±5.3% 5,996
Over $200K 5.5%† ±2.1% 1,350
TOTAL 24,393
Median Household Income: $61,773
Per Capita Income: $30,262
Wheatland:  As of 2021Q1, total employment for the City of Wheatland, CA was 787 (based on a four‐ quarter moving average).  Over the year ending 2021Q1, employment increased 4%.

The average worker earned $54,259 annually, an increase of 8.4% over the preceding four quarters.

Wheatland Sphere (95674, 95681, 95692, 95903, 95961):  As of 2021Q1, total employment for the City of Wheatland Sphere of influence, CA was 6,871 (based on a four‐quarter moving average).  Over the year ending 2021Q1, employment declined 2.7% in the region.

The average worker earned $50,482 annually, an increase of 6.8% over the preceding four quarters.

EMPLOYMENT/WAGE TRENDS: (per Yuba‐Sutter Economic Development Corporation) EMPLOYMENT/WAGE TRENDS: (per Yuba‐Sutter Economic Development Corporation) Yuba City:  As of 2021Q1, total employment for the City of Yuba City, CA was 22,427 (based on a four‐ quarter moving average).  Over the year ending 2021Q1, employment declined 7.5%.

The average worker earned $48,199 annually, an increase of 9.9% over the preceding four quarters.

EMPLOYMENT/WAGE TRENDS: (per Yuba‐Sutter Economic Development Corporation) Yuba City:  As of 2021Q1, total employment for the City of Yuba City, CA was 22,427 (based on a four‐ quarter moving average).  Over the year ending 2021Q1, employment declined 7.5%.

The average worker earned $48,199 annually, an increase of 9.9% over the preceding four quarters.

Melton Design Group, Inc. / Arch Pac Aquatics 4  MARKET STUDY   Page 16 239
Section 6, Item # 6.4
City of Wheatland
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study

OLIVEHURST
Household
Income % of Pop Error Margin Households
Under $50K 51%† ±7% 2,223
$50K ‐ $100K 28.3%† ±4.9% 1,233
$100K ‐ $200K 19%† ±4.8% 827
Over $200K 1.8%† ±1.3% 80
TOTAL 4,363
Median Household Income: $48,598
Per Capita Income: $21,272

PLUMAS LAKE
Household
Income % of Pop Error Margin Households
Under $50K 18.9%† ±6.5% 419
$50K ‐ $100K 27.3%† ±7% 604
$100K ‐ $200K 46.1%† ±9% 1019
Over $200K 7.7%† ±3.1% 170
TOTAL 2,212
Median Household Income: $101,995
Per Capita Income: $31,875
SUTTER
Household
Income % of Pop Error Margin Households
Under $50K 32.5%† ±10.5% 354
$50K ‐ $100K 38.5%† ±10.5% 419
$100K ‐ $200K 25.6%† ±8.1% 279
Over $200K 3.4%† ±2.7% 37
TOTAL 1,089
Median Household Income: $69,034
Per Capita Income: $28,542
Sutter:  As of 2021Q1, total employment for the Sutter CDP, CA was 816 (based on a four‐quarter moving average).  Over the year ending 2021Q1, employment declined 4.2%.