Yorba Linda City Council
October 18, 2022

TP-13

4.Dripper tubing can be installed with the water outlets facing upward or downward.

Lace dripper outlets in such a manner as to form a triangular pattern between parallel tubing laterals. In irregular areas, some water outlets may end up too close to fixed improvements and may have to be capped off with a dripper plug ring.

5.Connect dripper tubing to barbed fittings by pushing on and over both barbs until the tubing has seated against another piece of tubing or has butted against another portion of the barbed fitting. For water pressures in excess of the 45 psi, use stainless steel clamps as noted in paragraph 8, “pipe Clamping’ on all barbed fittings.

6.When design operating pressure exceeds 45 psi, stainless steel pipe clamps shall be used. Slip clamps over tubing before slipping tubing over insert barbed fitting, place clamp between the first and second ridge of the barbed fittings and crimp the “ear” of the clamp tightly. Crimp the “ear” twice to ensure proper seating.

7.Install a pressure regulator below grade, downstream, and in line with the remotecontrol valve. Whenever possible, place the pressure regulator in the same valve box to allow for periodic inspection. Place the regulator with the arrow (molded into the side of the body) pointing in the direction of the flow of water. Provide straight piping on the outlet side of regulator for a dimension not less than three lengths of the overall body dimension.

8.Install the basket filter, horizontally level, below grade and before or after the remote-control valve as indicated in the installation details. The position of the disc filter in the valve box shall be centered to allow for removal of the filter element for periodic servicing. Refer to the installation details for the size of the valve box.

9.Install the air/vacuum relief valve below grade and at the highest elevation within each zone. Depending on the site conditions and tubing layout, more than one air/vacuum relief valve into a ½” x ¾” SCH 40 PVC reduction bushing and thread this assembly to a 180° 2-way adapter tee with a ¾” (MPT) outlet. Place the valve within a round valve box with a locking cover and a 1 cu. Ft., ¾” gravel sump as noted on the details. Additional blank tubing may be necessary when placing dripper tubing on mounds or berms with more than a 3’ elevation difference. Blank tubing shall be connected perpendicular to the dripper tubing with barbed tees from the lowest elevation of dripper tubing to the highest point of the mound berm where the air/vacuum relief valve is located. This air/vacuum relief lateral serves to collect and transport trapped air bubbles located at the highest point in the system. Locate an air/vacuum relief lateral for each berm within the system.

10. Prior to backfilling and before connection of the line flushing valves, flush the entire system to remove any dirt or sediment that may have entered the system during the installation.

11. Install the line flushing valve horizontally level and below grade at the

TP-14
hydraulic termination point(s) in each system. Locate in a valve box with the dome-shape of the valve facing upward. Include a minimum of 1 cu. Ft. of ¾” crushed rock in the bottom of the valve box per construction detail.

12. Prior to backfilling, open the remote-control valve and operate each circuit to check for leakage around both barbed and threaded PVC fittings. Make necessary corrections to stop leaks.

Re-test those systems where leaks were corrected before commencing backfilling operations.

Irrigation heads shall be installed as indicated on the Plans. Riser nipples shall be of the same size as the riser opening in the sprinkler body. Install all assemblies specified herein according to the perspective detail Plans or Specifications, using best standard practices.
801-5.4 Installation of Valves, Valve Boxes, and Special Equipment.

Automatic control valves, and gate valves shall be installed in the approximate locations indicated on the Drawings. Valves shall be installed in shrub areas whenever possible. Install all valves as indicated in the detail Drawings. Valves to be installed in valve boxes shall be installed one valve per box.
801-5.5.1 General.

Irrigation heads shall be installed as indicated on the Drawings. Riser nipples shall be of the same size as the riser opening in the sprinkler body. Install all assemblies specified herein according to the respective detail Drawings or Specifications, using best standard practices.
801-5.6 Automatic Control System Installation.

All Automatic Irrigation valves shall be connected to the existing irrigation controller.

Three (3) sets of laminated 11”x17” new controller charts and 8.5”x11” data sheets shall be provided for all irrigations systems.
801-5.7.3 Sprinkler Coverage Test.

Coverage testing shall be performed for overhead irrigation.

Adjust valves, align heads, and check the coverage of each system prior to coverage test.

If it is determined by the Engineer that additional adjustments or nozzle changes will be required to provide proper coverage, make all necessary changes or adjustments prior to any planting. The entire system shall be operating properly before any planting operations commence.

Do not allow or cause any of the work of this Section to be covered up or enclosed until it has been observed, tested and accepted by the Engineer. Notify the Engineer a

TP-15
minimum of 48 hours in advance where and when the work is ready for testing. When the sprinkler system is completed, perform a coverage test of each system in its entirety to determine if the water coverage for the planted areas is complete and adequate in the presence of the Engineer.

Irrigation drip line to be installed per plans. The contractor shall be responsible for making field adjustments to provide proper drip coverage. Install drip line below finish grade per manufacturer’s instructions. Immediately after installing drip line, flush system to the satisfaction of the Engineer. Drip line coverage to be observed, tested, and approved by the Engineer prior to burying with top soil. Notify the Engineer a minimum of 48 hours in advance where and when the work is ready for testing. 801-5.7.4 Operational Test.

Furnish all materials and perform all work required to correct any inadequacies of coverage due to deviations from the Plans, or where the system has been willfully installed as indicated on the Drawings when it is obviously inadequate, without bringing this to the attention of the Engineer. This test shall be accepted by the Engineer and accomplished before starting any planting. Final inspection will not commence without record Drawings as prepared by the Contractor. During the maintenance period adjust and maintain the irrigation system in a fully operational condition providing complete irrigation coverage to all intended plantings. Clean-up shall be made as each portion of the work progresses. Refuse and excess dirt shall be removed from the site, all walks and paving shall be broomed, and any damage sustained on the work of others shall be repaired to original conditions.
801-6 MAINTENANCE AND PLANT ESTABLISHMENT.

Landscape maintenance and plant establishment period shall be a minimum of Ninety (90) working days after “Date of Acceptance of Installation” of all planting areas.

Request in writing from the Engineer, notification of the date of the start of the maintenance and planting establishment period. At the acceptance of all planting areas, request in writing from the Engineer notification of the date of the completion of the maintenance period. The maintenance period shall not officially begin or end without written notification from the Engineer. Construction fencing shall remain until after the maintenance period is complete or as directed by the Engineer. Maintain all planted areas on a continuous basis as they are completed during the progress of the work and during the establishment and maintenance period, and shall continue to maintain them until final acceptance in accordance with the following. • Water, weed, fertilize, edge, prune, spray as necessary to promote a healthy growing condition. Maintain lawn at a mowing height recommended by the city. All planted areas shall be kept free of debris and weeds. Keep project neat and attractive throughout the maintenance period.
• Apply herbicides for weed control, as needed or directed by City, in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions and applicable laws and regulations. Pre-emergent herbicide shall be required in all planter, shrub and ground cover areas. Remedy damage resulting from the use of herbicides.
• Exterminate rodents and insects as required and in accordance with applicable

TP-16
laws and regulations. Remedy damage from use of insecticides. • Adjust the irrigation system to sufficiently saturate root zone without rotting trees, shrubs, and ground cover.
• Repair or replace any damaged item caused by vehicles, vandals, rabbits, rodents, bicycles, or foot traffic during the maintenance period. • Fertilize with “JTM Complete” at 30 lbs./1,000 s.f. at the beginning and end of the maintenance period (twice) or as indicated by the agronomic soils test.

All inspections herein specified shall be made by the City. Request inspection at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the time the inspection is required. Requested inspections, subsequently canceled without twenty-four (24) hours-notice, will be billed to the Contractor.

Inspection is required for, and not necessarily limited to, the following parts of the work. • Incorporation of soil amendments and fine grading.
• Prior to digging plant pits for shrubs.
• During backfilling of plant pits with amended backfill. • Final inspection at the end of the maintenance period. • Irrigation Inspection / Coverage Test prior to planting. 801-8 PAYMENT.

Payment for Mobilization shall be made at the contract unit price per lump sum (LS) and shall be considered full compensation for furnishing labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and for doing all work involved in furnishing and installing, complete in place, as shown on the plans, as specified in the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions, and as directed by the Engineer, and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.

Payment for Site Demolition (To include: Removal of existing concrete header, tree/palm removal, tree stump removal, removal and disposal of all site debris, clearing and grubbing all turf grass, shrubs, ground cover, and the irrigation system as shown on the planting plan) shall be made at the contract unit price per lump sum (LS) for Clearing and Grubbing and Removal and disposal of Existing Trees, and shall be considered full compensation for furnishing labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and for doing all work involved in furnishing and installing, complete in place, as shown on the plans, as specified in the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions, and as directed by the Engineer, and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.

Payment for Dust Control shall be made at the contract unit price per lump sum (LS) and shall be considered full compensation for furnishing labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and for doing all work involved in furnishing and installing, complete in place, as shown on the plans, as specified in the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions, and as directed by the Engineer, and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.

TP-17
Payment for Soil Preparation & Fine Grading shall be made at the contract unit price per square foot (SF) and shall be considered full compensation for furnishing the agronomic soils report, all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and for doing all work involved in furnishing and installing, complete in place, as shown on the plans, as specified in the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions, and as directed by the Engineer, and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.

Payment for Weed Abatement shall be made at the contract unit price per square foot (SF) and shall be considered full compensation for furnishing labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and for doing all work involved in furnishing and installing, complete in place, as shown on the plans, as specified in the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions, and as directed by the Engineer, and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.

Payment for Landscape Boulders shall be made at the contract unit price per lump sum (LS) and shall be considered full compensation for furnishing labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and for doing all work involved in furnishing and installing, complete in place, as shown on the plans, as specified in the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions, and as directed by the Engineer, and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.

Payment for Rock Cobble – Mexican Sunburst Pebble (6” – 8”) (To include: cobble & woven weed barrier) shall be made at the contract unit price per square foot (SF) and shall be considered full compensation for furnishing labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and for doing all work involved in furnishing and installing, complete in place, as shown on the plans, as specified in the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions, and as directed by the Engineer, and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.

Payment for 24” Box Trees shall be made at the contract unit price per each (EA) and shall be considered full compensation for furnishing labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and for doing all work involved in furnishing and installing, complete in place, as shown on the plans, as specified in the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions, and as directed by the Engineer, and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.

Payment for 15 Gallon Shrub shall be made at the contract unit price per each (EA) and shall be considered full compensation for furnishing labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and for doing all work involved in furnishing and installing, complete in place, as shown on the plans, as specified in the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions, and as directed by the Engineer, and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.

Payment for 5 Gallon Shrub shall be made at the contract unit price per each (EA) and shall be considered full compensation for furnishing labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and for doing all work involved in furnishing and installing, complete in place, as shown on the plans, as specified in the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions, and as directed by the Engineer, and no additional

TP-18
compensation will be allowed therefor.

Payment for 1 Gallon Shrub shall be made at the contract unit price per each (EA) and shall be considered full compensation for furnishing labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and for doing all work involved in furnishing and installing, complete in place, as shown on the plans, as specified in the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions, and as directed by the Engineer, and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.

Payment for Wood Mulch – 3” Depth shall be made at the contract unit price per cubic yard (CY) and shall be considered full compensation for furnishing labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and for doing all work involved in furnishing and installing, complete in place, as shown on the plans, as specified in the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions, and as directed by the Engineer, and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.

Payment for Irrigation System shall be made at the contract lump sum (LS) price and shall be considered full compensation for furnishing labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and for doing all work involved in furnishing and installing, complete in place, including but not limited to, pipes and fitting, irrigation pipes, irrigation controllers, basket strainers, master valves, flow sensors, fertilizer systems, gate valves, quick coupling valves, remote control valves, remote control drip zone valves, valve boxes, control wiring, sprinkler equipment, drip pipe and fittings, flush valves, irrigation heads, flushing and testing, pipeline pressure test, operational test, recycled labels, tags, and signs, and maintain existing facilities as shown on the plans, as specified in the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions, and as directed by the Engineer, and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.

Payment for Ninety (90) Day Maintenance Period shall be made at the contract lump sum (LS) price and shall be considered full compensation for furnishing labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and for doing all work involved in furnishing and installing, complete in place, as shown on the plans, as specified in the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions, and as directed by the Engineer, and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.
801-9 GUARANTEE.

The guarantee shall be valid unless existing equipment utilized on the project fails within the guarantee period. Should any problem with the irrigation system be discovered within the guarantee period the Contractor shall correct it within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of written notice from City (and at no additional expense to City). When the nature of the repairs, as determined by the City, constitute an emergency (i.e. broken pressure line) the City may proceed to make repairs at the Contractor's expense.

Any and all damages to existing improvement resulting either from faulty materials or workmanship, or from the necessary repairs to correct same, shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the owner by the Contractor, all at no additional cost to the City. Guarantee shall be submitted on Contractors own letterhead as follows:

GUARANTEE FOR SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM

TP-19
We hereby guarantee that the sprinkler irrigation system we have furnished and installed is free from defects in materials and workmanship, and the work has been completed in accordance with the Drawings and Specifications, ordinary wear and tear and unusual abuse, or neglect excepted. We shall repair or replace any defective material during the period of one year after date of filing of the Notice of Completion and also repair or replace any damage resulting from the repairing or replacing of such defects at no additional cost to the owner. We shall make such repairs or replacements within 10 calendar days following written notification by the owner. In the event of our failure to make such repairs or replacements within the time specified after receipt of written notice from owner, we authorize the owner to proceed to have said repairs or replacements made at our expense and we will pay the costs and charges therefore upon demand.

DELETED

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JAMIE LAI, P.E., DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER PREPARED BY: REGINA HU, P.E., PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER
SUBJECT: REDUCTION OF SURETY BONDS FOR TRACT 18123 (SHEA HOMES “SAFFRON”)

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to:
(1) Release 75 percent of the Rough Grading Bond;
(2) Release 75 percent of the Faithful Performance/ Labor and Materials Bond for On-site Storm Drain Improvement; and
(3) Release 60 percent of the Faithful Performance/ Labor and Materials Bond for On-site Street Improvements.

BACKGROUND
Developer: SHEA HOMES
Number of Parcels: 23 numbered lots
Acreage: 12.10 Net Acres (13.10 Gross Acres)
Zoning: R-PD (1.77 du/ac)
Single Family Residential – Planned Development
The project site is located along Bastanchury Road and is bounded by Lakeview Avenue on the north, Casa Loma Avenue to the west, Eureka Avenue to the east, as illustrated in (Attachment 1).

On July 19, 2022, the City Council entered into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Shea Homes for Tract No. 18123. The developer posted bonds as required by Municipal Code Section 17.16.040 and the Subdivision Map Act to ensure completion of improvements. The bonds provide the security instrument to ensure the improvements meet the satisfaction of the City Engineer and conform with the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and accepted plans.

R E D U C T I O N O F S U R E T Y B O N D S F O R T R A C T 1 8 1 2 3 ( S H E A H O M E S “ S A F F R O N ” )
P a g e | 2
The developer (Shea Homes) has requested a bond reduction to reflect the percentage of work that has been completed.

DISCUSSION
Public Works performed a field inspection and has determined the portion of improvements substantially completed are in accordance with the accepted improvement plans. Table 1 below summarizes the original and remaining amounts of the bonds after requested release.

The remaining amounts are sufficient to complete the improvements should the developer (Shea Homes) fail to perform per the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 75 percent of the Rough Grade Bond will be released. Developer has rough graded all 23 lots, but the remaining 25 percent surety bond will ensure precise grade will be completed to the City’s satisfaction after home sales.
75 percent of the On-site Storm Drain Improvement Bonds will be released. Developer has completed all subsurface storm drain improvements, but the remaining 25 percent surety bond will ensure Best Management Practice (BMP) bioretention systems are landscaped and function as intended through the warranty period.
60 percent of the On-site Street Improvement Bonds will be released. Developer has completed the majority of the street, asphalt pavement, gutter, driveways, sidewalk, and retaining walls. The remaining 40 percent will ensure the remainder of street improvements are completed to the City’s satisfaction including punchlist items and warranty period.

The Off-site Street Improvement and Monument Bond amounts will remain the same. No bond reduction requests have been made.

Table 1: Surety Release Summary
Bond Bond No. Surety
Amount
Amount
Remaining
Rough Grading Bond CMS345872 $328,000.00 $82,000
On-site Storm Drain Improvements
Performance Bond 0235930 $690,000.00 $172,500
Labor & Materials Bond 0235930 $690,000.00 $172,500
On-site Street Improvements
Performance Bond 0244640 $491,000.00 $196,400
Labor & Materials Bond 0244640 $491,000.00 $196,400

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact to the City caused by releasing the developer-provided sureties as listed above.

R E D U C T I O N O F S U R E T Y B O N D S F O R T R A C T 1 8 1 2 3 ( S H E A H O M E S “ S A F F R O N ” )
P a g e | 3

ALTERNATIVES
Do not release the project sureties. This alternative is not recommended as the work performed was found to be in substantial compliance with the terms of the subdivision improvement agreement, conditions of approval, and the accepted improvement plans.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map

City of Yorba Linda
Public Works
7/19/2022
ATTACHMENT 1
Vicinity Map
Source: City of Yorba Linda, 2021 Vicinity Sites Page 293 of 374

CITY OF YORBA LINDA

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: October 12, 2022
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Director
David Brantley, AICP
APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2022, PLANNIING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES A motion by Commissioner Singh, Second by Commissioner Bernstein approving the September 28, 2022, Planning Commission meeting minutes. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Pease, Bernstein, Darnell, Masterson, Singh
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CONTINUED REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2022-27 SHA A motion by Commissioner Singh, Second by Chair Pro Tem Pease to adopt Resolution No. 5526 revoking Conditional Use Permit 2022-27 Sha. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Pease, Bernstein, Darnell, Masterson, Singh
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CONTINUED ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2022-20 LOUGHRAN
A motion by Commissioner Bernstein, Second by Commissioner Masterson to continue Conditional Use Permit 2022-20 Loughran to a date certain of October 26, 2022. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Singh, Darnell, Bernstein, Masterson, Pease
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RE-APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 2019-14 YORBA CANYON SHOPPING CENTER A minute motion by Chair Pro Tem Pease, Second by Commissioner Singh to re-approve Design Review 2019-14 Yorba Can Shopping Center, with conditions. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Pease, Bernstein, Darnell, Masterson, Singh
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

2 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 2022-02 LUKE
A motion by Commissioner Bernstein, Second by Commissioner Masterson to adopt Resolution No. 5527 approving Lot Line Adjustment 2022-02 Luke. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Pease, Bernstein, Darnell, Masterson, Singh
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:39 p.m. to the October 26, 2022, Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m.

CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARCIA BROWN, CMC, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND AGENCY REPORTS

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report.

DISCUSSION
City Council members serve on a number of outside committees and agencies. Attached are updates received recently from these agencies.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Reports from City Council Organizations, Agencies and Committees

OCTOBER 18, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 10 – COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND AGENCY REPORTS

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED AFTER POSTING OF AGENDA

Laboratory Report, October 20, 2022 Attachment No. 1
Vectors of the Month
Invasive Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus
Detections of invasive mosquitoes, the
yellow fever mosquito, Aedes aegypti, and
the Asian tiger mosquito, Aedes albopictus,
have increased since their discovery in
Orange County during 2015. Collections
have been highest in yards with backyard
ornamental plants and small containers with
water. One or both of these invasive
mosquitoes have been established in the
U.S. for years and have now been found in
12 California counties.

Both species are primarily associated
with urban areas and are dependent on
humans not only for their breeding sources,
but often as a source for their blood meals.

Adult mosquitoes are relatively small and
are black with white stripes. Females (males
do not bite) are active during the day and
will readily bite indoors and outdoors in
shaded areas around the home. Once
established, they can become a severe
nuisance to both people and pets, and are
potential vectors of several mosquito-borne
diseases, such as yellow fever, dengue,
chikungunya, and dog heartworm.

Larvae of Aedes aegypti and Aedes
albopictus usually do not develop in typical
open water sources characteristic of most of
our local mosquitoes; instead, they breed in
water held in both natural and artificial
containers. The range of sources include
leaf axils, tree holes, discarded tires, flower
pots, buckets, cemetery urns, discarded
cups/cans, and occasionally larger sites,
such as storm drains and even septic tanks.

Their eggs can survive desiccation for long
periods of time,
facilitating their spread to new locations with
the movement of contaminated containers,
or their ability to re-emerge after control
efforts.

The yellow fever mosquito, Aedes
aegypti, originated in tropical Africa and
spread around the tropical and sub-tropical
world with the movement of people and
commerce. It likely reached the Americas by
the 1600s and has been responsible for
outbreaks of yellow fever, as its common
name implies, in Africa and in many parts of
the New World. The Asian tiger mosquito,
Aedes albopictus, on the other hand,
originated in Southeast Asia and did not
reach the Americas until the 1980s. In both
instances, the spread of these species has
been facilitated by the worldwide movement
of goods and people; both are now found in
Europe as well.

Historically, the failure of either mosquito
to become established locally in prior years
may be related to our dry climate and lower
humidity levels that reduce survival of adult
mosquitoes. However, this scenario has
been breached because human
development has progressively changed
arid regions of the American southwest into
a well-irrigated, pseudo-rain forest system
with suitable conditions throughout many
arears of California. No longer confined to
regions of the United States with high
summer humidity, these mosquitoes are
appearing in many arid regions of the U.S.

Laboratory Report, October 20, 2022 Attachment No. 1
Because of their ability to live in close proximity to humans, the most effective method to control these invasive Aedes mosquitoes is to prevent containers around the home from collecting water. To stop their spread in Orange County, the District is requesting residents to do their part by following these steps:
• CALL and REPORT any sightings of small, black-and-white mosquitoes, or if you are being bitten by mosquitoes during the day! Residents can contact the Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control District at 714-971-2421, or online at www.ocvector.org. • DUMP and DRAIN all stagnant water around your home. Eliminate plant saucers and other unnecessary containers; thoroughly scrub outdoor pet water dishes weekly to remove eggs. • DO NOT transport or share plant stems rooted in water, or keep outdoor buckets full of water.
• USE INSECT REPELLENT containing EPA-registered active ingredients such as DEET, Picaridin, or oil of lemon eucalyptus to avoid bites.

Figure 1. Aedes aegypti. Note the black Figure 2. Aedes albopictus. Note black and and white color pattern on body and legs. white color pattern on body and legs.

Laboratory Report, October 20, 2022 Attachment No. 2
Why are some people mosquito magnets and others unbothered? A medical entomologist points to metabolism, body odor and mindset Published: September 9, 2022 8.34am EDT
Mosquitoes need to feed on blood in order to reproduce. But how do they choose whom to feed on? boonchai wedmakawand/Moment via GettyImages It’s rare to attend an outdoor party in warm weather without hearing people complain about mosquitoes. They swat away, sit in campfire smoke, cover up with blankets and eventually just give up and go indoors. On the other end of the spectrum, there are plenty of people who don’t seem bothered by mosquitoes in the slightest.

As a medical entomologist who’s worked with mosquitoes for more than 40 years, I’m often asked why some people seem to be mosquito magnets while others are oblivious to these blood-feeding pests buzzing all around them.

Most mosquito species, along with a host of other arthropods – including ticks, fleas, bedbugs, blackflies, horseflies and biting midges – require the protein in blood to develop a batch of eggs. Only the female mosquito feeds on blood. Males feed on plant nectar, which they convert to energy for flight.

Blood-feeding is an incredibly important part of the mosquito’s reproductive cycle. Because of this, a tremendous amount of evolutionary pressure has been placed on female mosquitoes to identify potential sources of blood, quickly and efficiently get a full blood meal, and then stealthily depart the unlucky victim. If you check some, or all, of the mosquito’s search boxes, then you may find that you are a mosquito magnet.

Sensing CO2 and scent signals
Depending on when during the day they are active, mosquitoes use sight, sound and olfactory cues to identify a potential source of blood. Most night-active species rely on olfactory or receptor cues. The most important chemical cue is the carbon dioxide that all vertebrates, including humans, release with each breath and through their skin.

Mosquitoes are very sensitive to CO2 and can sense a CO2 source that is many meters away. Receptor cells on the mosquito’s antennae and legs bind CO2 molecules and send an electrical signal to the brain. When more molecules hit their receptors, the higher the CO2 concentration and the closer they are to the host.

However, there are many nonliving carbon dioxide sources such as cars, boats, planes and trains. To separate living from nonliving sources of CO2, mosquitoes rely on the secondary olfactory cues that living animals produce.

Metabolic processes like breathing and moving generate these scent cues, including lactic acid, ammonia and fatty acids that act as additional olfactory clues that help female mosquitoes zero in on their next blood meal.

Laboratory Report, October 20, 2022 Attachment No. 2
So, carbon dioxide production is the first mark of a mosquito magnet. Because the production of CO2 and secondary attractants is linked to metabolic rate, the higher the metabolic rate, the more attractants are produced.

Metabolic rate can be genetically determined, but it also increases as the result of physical activity.

The human mosquito magnets you can spot at summer parties may have a genetically high metabolic rate or may be more physically active than other attendees. They may also be undertaking other activities that increase their metabolic rate, such as the consumption of alcohol. Increased metabolic rate is why runners attract more mosquitoes during their cooldown stretching exercises. Pregnant women, perhaps due to their increased metabolic rate, attract a disproportionately large number of mosquitoes as well.

Natural body odors are also important cues used by mosquitoes to select a host. For example, some species of Anopheles mosquitoes are attracted to specific components of foot odor. These mosquitoes transmit human malaria and feed indoors in the middle of the night. By feeding on a sleeping person’s feet, the mosquitoes avoid the head, where most of the CO2 is produced, and reduce the chance of waking the victim.

Visual cues
Mosquitoes active during the day and at dawn and dusk also use visual signals to identify a host. Mosquitoes usually fly close to the ground. From this vantage point they view their potential hosts against the horizon. Dark colors stand out and light colors blend in, so the way a person is dressed will determine the number of mosquitoes they attract. Wearing lighter colors may not just help keep you cool, but will help you evade a mosquito’s notice.

Mosquitoes can visually detect motion, again by contrasting a silhouette against the horizon. This is why people who walk near a saltmarsh in the middle of the day after a large emergence of saltmarsh mosquitoes are inundated by mosquitoes that visually detect their presence.

Psychological factors
There is also a psychological component to mosquito activity. Some people simply do not notice the mosquitoes around them. A single mosquito flying around some people will elicit a strong response – you’ve probably seen someone go nuts trying to track down the droning sound of one mosquito in order to finish off the tiny bloodsucker.

Other individuals are not bothered and do not notice the mosquitoes that are attracted to them, even when the insects are feasting on their blood. Some mosquitoes specialize on feeding on parts of the body that are difficult to see and difficult to swat. For example, Aedes aegypti is a mosquito species that prefers to feed on humans, mostly around the ankles.

Whether or not you’re a mosquito magnet, their bites feel just as itchy!

Transportation Corridor Agencies
For the October 13, 2022, Meeting

BOARD MEETING HIGHLIGHTS

F/ETCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Peggy Huang, Chair,

YORBA LINDA
Joseph Muller, Vice Chair,

DANA POINT
Trevor O’Neil,

ANAHEIM
Farrah Khan,
IRVINE
Scott Voigts,

LAKE FOREST
Patricia Kelley,

MISSION VIEJO
Mark A. Murphy,
ORANGE
Anthony Beall,

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
John Taylor,

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
David Penaloza,

SANTA ANA
Austin Lumbard,
TUSTIN
Donald P. Wagner,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 3RD DIST.

Doug Chaffee,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 4TH DIST.

Lisa Bartlett,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 5TH DIST.

Ryan Chamberlain, Ex-Officio
Member, CALTRANS DIST. 12

SJHTCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Will O’Neill, Chair,

NEWPORT BEACH
Janine Heft, Vice Chair,

LAGUNA HILLS
Richard Hurt,

ALISO VIEJO
Arlis Reynolds,

COSTA MESA
Richard Viczorek,

DANA POINT
Farrah Khan,
IRVINE
Fred Minagar,

LAGUNA NIGUEL
Cynthia Conners,

LAGUNA WOODS
Patricia Kelley,

MISSION VIEJO
John Taylor,

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
David Penaloza,

SANTA ANA
Donald P. Wagner,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 3RD DIST.

Lisa Bartlett,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 5TH DIST.

Ryan Chamberlain, Ex-Officio
Member, CALTRANS DIST. 12
73/133/241/261 TOLL ROADS
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REMINDS DRIVERS “IT’S TIME TO GET
ON THE ROAD AGAIN”
The Transportation Corridor Agencies’ (TCA) Community Engagement team has been active in member cities as part of the Communications and Public Engagement pillar of the Agencies’ seven-year Strategic Plan, adopted earlier this year by the Joint Boards of Directors.

Since the beginning of 2022, the Community Engagement team has hosted booths at regional, city and chambers of commerce events; attended member city state of the city events; and provided monthly updates about the Agencies and The Toll Roads at various community meetings.

The Community Engagement team has also given presentations throughout Orange County highlighting the Strategic Plan and upcoming Capital Improvement Plan projects, including the 241/91 Express Connector.

Community Engagement will continue to visit member cities and share news about The Toll Roads during the next several months as staff continues with the theme of “it’s time to get on the road again.”

DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL PEERS LEARN ABOUT CASHLESS

TOLLING FROM TCA
As a testament to TCA’s leadership and innovation in the tolling industry, staff recently met with both domestic and international peers to share the Agencies’ experiences converting to all-electronic toll collection, which TCA completed nearly 10 years ago.

Staff recently met with the Kansas Turnpike Authority as they plan for their cashless conversion scheduled for 2024.

In 2025, Malaysia is moving to all-electronic tolling on their highways. To prepare, a delegation of Malaysian transportation officials – led by Senior Minister of Infrastructure Development Cluster Fadillah bin Yusof – visited the 241 Toll Road on September 22 to learn how TCA successfully migrated to a cashless tolling model.

The delegation was greeted by TCA Acting CEO Valarie McFall and Chief Toll Operations Officer Vincent Valdez, who led a tour of the Tomato Springs Mainline Toll Point on the 241 Toll Road. Valdez led a detailed tour of the facility, explained about cashless tolling technology and answered questions regarding customer service and transactions.

TCA continues to be at the forefront of tolling innovation and assists other agencies – and countries – in their tolling initiatives.

AGENCIES INPUT REFLECTED IN NEWLY-SIGNED AB 2594
AB 2594 by Assembly Member Ting was signed on September 30 by Governor Newsom. While this bill initially would have had numerous unintended consequences on TCA’s tolling operations and its customer service policies, amendments were proposed and accepted that brought the rest of the state up to the Agencies’ standards in these areas.

This successful outcome was achieved through the work of staff, state legislative advocates and fellow tolling agencies as well as the support of the TCA Joint Boards of Directors. This was a great win for the Agencies.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JAMIE LAI, P.E., DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER PREPARED BY: TONY WANG, P.E., TRAFFIC ENGINEERING MANAGER SUBJECT: APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve and adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) as a guideline for seeking future highway safety improvements grant opportunities.

BACKGROUND
The City of Yorba Linda’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) (Attachment 1) is a comprehensive plan that creates a framework to systemically identify and analyze traffic safety related issues and recommend projects and countermeasures. The LRSP aims to reduce fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions through a prioritized list of improvements that can enhance safety on local roadways.

City staff submitted an application to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for funding related to the LRSP, which was approved on October 1st, 2020. Staff subsequently received an allocation apportionment from the District Local Assistant Engineer in an amount of $63,000. On May 4th, 2022, after a qualitative selection process was conducted, the City Council approved an award of a professional services agreement to the transportation consultant firm TJKM for the development of the LRSP. The consultant has coordinated with City staff throughout the development of the LRSP and the finalized document was recently completed.

DISCUSSION
The LRSP takes a proactive approach to addressing safety needs. It is viewed as a guidance document that can be a source of information and ideas. It will also serve as a living document, one that is routinely reviewed and updated by City staff and their safety partners to reflect evolving collision trends and community needs and priorities. With the LRSP as a guide, the City will be able to apply for grant funds, such as the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and other future grant funding opportunities for projects that require a plan like the LRSP as a requirement to the grant.

L o c a l R o a d w a y S a f e t y P l a n
P a g e | 2
In addition to City staff, stakeholders such as Yorba Linda Traffic Commission, Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Orange County Fire Authority, Placentia Yorba Linda School District, Yorba Linda Country Riders, and Orange County Bicycle Coalition have been included in the process of the LRSP preparation. Two stakeholders’ meetings were held on November 16, 2021, and May 26, 2022, respectively. In addition, community outreach was conducted using an online interactive map tool on the City’s website.

The Traffic Commission reviewed and unanimously approved the LRSP at its regular meeting on September 22, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact.

ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may choose to not approve the LRSP. However, staff does not recommend this alternative as the city may become ineligible to apply future State and Federal highway safety improvements grants.

ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1: Local Roadway Safety Plan

Final Report
September 2022
City of Yorba Linda, California

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

City of Yorba Linda
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Final Report
September 2022
Yorba Linda, CA

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables................................................................................................................................................................................... ii Figures................................................................................................................................................................................. ii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 4 What is a LRSP? ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Process ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Study Area.................................................................................................................................................................. 4

2. Safety Partners.......................................................................................................................................................... 6

3. Existing Planning Efforts........................................................................................................................................ 9

4. Collision Data Collection and Analysis ..........................................................................................................14 Data Collection.......................................................................................................................................................15 Collision Data Analysis Results .........................................................................................................................16 Preliminary Analysis..............................................................................................................................................17

5. Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions....................................................................................................................22 Roadway Segment Collision Analysis.............................................................................................................23 Intersection Collision Analysis ..........................................................................................................................25 Geographic Collision Analysis...........................................................................................................................27 Collision Severity Weight....................................................................................................................................33 High Injury Network .............................................................................................................................................34 Summary...................................................................................................................................................................38

6. Emphasis Areas.......................................................................................................................................................39 The 4 E’s of Traffic Safety....................................................................................................................................39 Existing Traffic Safety Efforts .............................................................................................................................40 Factors Considered in the Determination of Emphasis Areas ..............................................................40

7. Countermeasure Identification.........................................................................................................................48 Draft Countermeasure Toolbox........................................................................................................................48 Other Countermeasures......................................................................................................................................51

8. Safety Projects ........................................................................................................................................................52 High-Collision Network Projects......................................................................................................................52

9. Evaluation and Implementation.......................................................................................................................57 Implementation......................................................................................................................................................58 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................................................59 LRSP Update............................................................................................................................................................59

ii
TABLES
Table 1: Collisions by Severity and Facility Type .............................................................................................. 17 Table 2: EPDO Score used in HSIP Cycle 10....................................................................................................... 33 Table 3: High Injury Intersections .......................................................................................................................... 36 Table 4: High Injury Corridors ................................................................................................................................. 37 Table 5: Existing Traffic Safety Efforts................................................................................................................... 40 Table 6: Emphasis Area 1 Strategies ..................................................................................................................... 41 Table 7: Emphasis Area 2 Strategies ..................................................................................................................... 42 Table 8: Emphasis Area 3 Strategies ..................................................................................................................... 43 Table 9: Emphasis Area 4 Strategies ..................................................................................................................... 44 Table 10: Emphasis Area 5 Strategies................................................................................................................... 45 Table 11: Emphasis Area 6 Strategies................................................................................................................... 46 Table 12: Emphasis Area 7 Strategies................................................................................................................... 47 Table 13: Countermeasures Selected for City of Yorba Linda..................................................................... 48 Table 14: Safety Projects - City of Yorba Linda................................................................................................. 54 Table 15: Potential Funding Sources .................................................................................................................... 57

FIGURES
Figure 1: Yorba Linda LRSP Study Area ..................................................................................................................5 Figure 2: Zoom Meeting from Stakeholder Meeting #1..................................................................................6 Figure 3: Yorba Linda LRSP Project Website.........................................................................................................7 Figure 4: Interactive Map Comment Responses..................................................................................................8 Figure 5: Public Comments on Traffic Safety........................................................................................................8 Figure 6: All Injury Collisions on Yorba Linda Roadways (2016 – 2020).................................................. 15 Figure 7: Collisions by Severity (2016-2020)...................................................................................................... 16 Figure 8: Five Year Collision Trend ........................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 9: Intersection vs Roadway Collisions – All Collisions ...................................................................... 18 Figure 10: Collision Type – All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions........................................................................ 18 Figure 11: Violation Categories: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions.............................................................. 19 Figure 12: Motor Vehicle Involved with: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions.............................................. 19

iii
Figure 13: Lighting Conditions: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions............................................................... 20 Figure 14: Weather Conditions: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions .............................................................. 20 Figure 15: Time of Day: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions .............................................................................. 21 Figure 16: Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions City of Yorba Linda (2016-2020).................................... 22 Figure 17: Collision Type vs. Severity: Roadway Segment F+SI Collisions ............................................. 23 Figure 18: Collision Type vs. Violation Category: Roadway Segment F+SI Collisions ....................... 23 Figure 19: Collision Type vs. Motor Vehicle Involved With: Roadway Segment F+SI Collisions.... 24 Figure 20: Collision Type vs. Lighting: Roadway Segment F+SI Collisions............................................. 24 Figure 21: Collision Type vs. Severity: Intersection F+SI Collisions ........................................................... 25 Figure 22: Collision Type vs. Violation Category: Intersection F+SI Collisions ..................................... 25 Figure 23: Collision Type vs. Motor Vehicle Involved With: Intersection F+SI Collisions ................. 26 Figure 24: Collision Type vs. Lighting: Intersection F+SI Collisions .......................................................... 26 Figure 25: City of Yorba Linda Nighttime Collisions (2016-2020) ............................................................. 28 Figure 26: City of Yorba Linda Broadside Collisions (2016-2020).............................................................. 29 Figure 27: City of Yorba Linda DUI Collisions (2016-2020).......................................................................... 30 Figure 28: City of Yorba Linda Hit Object Collisions (2016-2020) ............................................................. 31 Figure 29: City of Yorba Linda Automobile Right of Way Collisions (2016-2020)............................... 32 Figure 30: City of Yorba Linda Severity Index.................................................................................................... 34 Figure 31: City of Yorba Linda High Injury Network....................................................................................... 35

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Matrix of Planning Goals, Policies, and Projects Appendix B: Consolidated Collision Database
Appendix C: HSIP Eligible Countermeasures
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Appendix E: B/C Ratio Calculation - LRSM (2020)

Local Roadway Safety Plan 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Yorba Linda’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a comprehensive plan that creates a framework to systemically identify and analyze traffic safety related issues and recommend projects and countermeasures. The LRSP aims to reduce fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions through a prioritized list of improvements that can enhance safety on local roadways.

The LRSP takes a proactive approach to addressing safety needs. It is viewed as a guidance document that can be a source of information and ideas. It can also be a living document, one that is routinely reviewed and updated by City staff and their safety partners to reflect evolving collision trends and community needs and priorities. With the LRSP as a guide, the City will be able to ready to apply for grant funds, such as the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
The Introduction presents the project, describes how this report is organized, summaries the vision and goals, the study area for the LRSP, details how the report is organized, and introduces the safety partners.

CHAPTER 2 – SAFETY PARTNERS
Involvement of safety partners is critical in the success of the LRSP. For the City of Yorba Linda, this included the Yorba Linda Traffic Commission, Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Orange County Fire Authority, Placentia Yorba Linda School District, Yorba Linda Country Riders, and Orange County Bicycle Coalition. This chapter summarizes the involvement of the stakeholders in the LRSP process, as well as the results of the community outreach using an online interactive map tool.

CHAPTER 3 – EXISTING PLANNING EFFORTS
This chapter summarizes existing City and regional planning documents and projects that are relevant to the LRSP. It ensures that the recommendations of the LRSP are in line with existing goals, objectives, policies, or projects. This chapter summarized the following documents: City of Yorba Linda General Plan - Circulation Element (2016), General Plan Riding, Hiking and Bikeway Trails Component (2005), Yorba Linda Town Center Specific Plan (2011), Savi Ranch Mobility Feasibility Study (2018), Yorba Linda School Zone Safety Assessment (2015), HSIP Cycle 8 Set Aside Pedestrian Improvements (2016), Orange County Safe Routes to School Action Plan (under development), OC Foothills Bikeways Strategy (2016), OC Active Orange County’s Bike and Ped Plan (2019), The Orange County Loop 70/30 Plan (2015), SCAG 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program, and SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies (2016).

Local Roadway Safety Plan 2
CHAPTER 4 – COLLISION DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This chapter summarizes data analysis approach and presents preliminary as well as detailed collision analysis and findings in the study area. This analysis of F+SI collisions is performed by facility type (intersection and roadway segment). Collision data was obtained and analyzed for a five-year period from 2016 to 2020 from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and the University of California at Berkeley SafeTREC’s Transportation Injury Mapping Service (TIMS).

CHAPTER 5 - EMPHASIS AREAS
Emphasis areas are a focus of the LRSP that are identified through the various collision types and factors resulting in F+SI collisions within the City of Yorba Linda. The eight emphasis areas for Yorba Linda are:
• Improve Intersection Safety
• Reduce Broadside Collisions
• Reduce Nighttime Collisions
• Reduce Automobile Right-of-Way Violations
• Reduce Unsafe Speed Collisions
• Reduce DUI Collisions
• Reduce Younger Driver Collisions
CHAPTER 6 – COUNTERMEASURE IDENTIFICATION
Engineering countermeasures were selected for each of the high-risk locations and for the emphasis areas. These were based off of approved countermeasures from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) used in HSIP grant calls for projects. The intention is to give the City potential countermeasures for each location that can be implemented either in future HSIP calls for projects, or using other funding sources, such as the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

Non-engineering countermeasures were also selected using the 4 E’s strategies, and are included with the emphasis areas.

CHAPTER 7 – SAFETY PROJECTS
A set of four safety projects were created for high-risk intersections and roadway segments, using HSIP approved countermeasures. These safety projects are:
• Project 1 - Systemic Improvements at Signalized Intersections: Improve signal hardware, improve signal timing, and install raised pavement markers and striping. • Project 2 - Systemic Improvements at Signalized Intersections: Install flashing beacons as advance warning, and modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI). • Project 3 - Spot-Location Improvements at Signalized Intersections: Add intersection lighting, provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists), and convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted).

Local Roadway Safety Plan 3
• Project 4 - Systemic Improvements at Unsignalized Intersections: Add intersection lighting, install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs, and upgrade intersection pavement markings. • Project 5 - Spot Improvements at Unsignalized Intersections: Install signals, install flashing beacon as advanced warning, and install transverse rumble strips on approaches. • Project 6 - Systemic Improvements at Roadway Segments: Install/upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning), install dynamic/variable speed warning signs, and install delineators, reflectors, and/or object markers. • Project 7 - Systemic Improvements at Roadway Segments: Add segment lighting, install curve advance warning signs, and add edge lines and centerlines.

CHAPTER 8 – EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The LRSP is a guidance document that is recommended to be updated every two to five years in coordination with the safety partners. The LRSP document provides engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical service related countermeasures that can be implemented throughout the City to reduce F+SI collisions. After implementing countermeasures, the performance measures for each emphasis area should be evaluated annually. The most important measure of success of the LRSP should be reducing F+SI collisions throughout the City. If the number of F+SI collisions does not decrease over time, then the emphasis areas and countermeasures should be re-evaluate.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 4

1. INTRODUCTION
What is a LRSP?
The Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a localized data-driven traffic safety plan that provides opportunities to address unique highway safety needs and reduce the number of F+SI collisions.

The LRSP creates a framework to systemically identify and analyze traffic safety-related issues, and recommend safety projects and countermeasures. The LRSP facilitates the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration, resulting in the development of a prioritized list of improvements that can qualify for HSIP funding.

The LRSP is a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and is viewed as a living document that can be constantly reviewed and revised to reflect evolving trends, and community needs and priorities.

Process
The systemic approach in preparing the LRSP involves the following steps:
• Develop plan goals and objectives
• Analyze collision data
• Meet with stakeholders/safety partners
• Determine focus areas and identify crash reduction strategies • Prioritize countermeasures/projects
• Prepare the LRSP
Study Area
The City of Yorba Linda, located in Orange County, California, covers a total area of 19.9 square miles and is located approximately 37 miles southeast of Los Angeles. The City’s estimated population is 68,336 (US Census 2020). State Route (SR) 90 and SR 91 are major thoroughfares that connect the city with the rest of Orange County, Los Angeles County, and the Inland Empire.

The nearest cities include Brea to the north, Placentia to the west, Anaheim to the south, and Corona to the east. The study area is mapped in Figure 1 on the following page.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 5
Figure 1: Yorba Linda LRSP Study Area

Local Roadway Safety Plan 6

2. SAFETY PARTNERS
Safety partners are vital to the development and implementation of an LRSP. For the City of Yorba Linda, these include City staff, Yorba Linda Traffic Commission, Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Orange County Fire Authority, Placentia Yorba Linda School District, Yorba Linda Country Riders, and Orange County Bicycle Coalition. Many of these groups/agencies attended two virtual stakeholder meetings, which were held on November 16, 2021, and May 26, 2022 to review project goals and findings, and to solicit feedback from the group.

Figure 2: Zoom Meeting from Stakeholder Meeting #1
This stakeholder outreach was supplemented by a project website with an interactive map tool platform that was posted to the City’s website. The interactive map was used to solicit input from Yorba Linda residents and stakeholders outside the confines of traditional meetings.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 7
Figure 3: Yorba Linda LRSP Project Website
The interactive map tool was published on July 22, 2021 and public comments were closed on January 30, 2022. During this period 108 public comments were submitted regarding traffic safety issues. The most common commented on traffic safety issue was pedestrian safety, with 28 comments. The most common street with pedestrian safety issues were Village Center Drive, Lakeview Avenue, Yorba Linda Boulevard, and Fairmont Boulevard. Bicycle Safety was the second most common commented on traffic safety issues, with 24 comments. The intersections of Village Center Drive and Lakeview Avenue was the most commented on location with bicycle safety issues. Other traffic safety issues include, speeding, stop sign/red light violations, and pavement conditions and curve unsafe. The results of the interactive map are shown on the following page in Figure 4, and summarized in Figure 5.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 8
Figure 4: Interactive Map Comment Responses
Figure 5: Public Comments on Traffic Safety
24 22
28 16
14 9
14 2
7 10
0 4
0 0
5 10
15 20
25 30

Local Roadway Safety Plan 9

3. EXISTING PLANNING EFFORTS
This chapter summarizes the planning documents, projects underway, and studies reviewed for the City of Yorba Linda LRSP. The purpose of this memorandum is to ensure the LRSP vision, goals, and E’s strategies of traffic safety (Education, Enforcement, Engineering, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS)) are aligned with prior planning efforts, planned transportation projects, and noninfrastructure programs. The documents reviewed are listed below:
• City of Yorba Linda General Plan - Circulation Element (2016) • General Plan Riding, Hiking, and Bikeway Trails Component (2005) • Yorba Linda Town Center Specific Plan (2011)
• Savi Ranch Mobility Feasibility Study (2018)
• Yorba Linda School Zone Safety Assessment (2015)
• HSIP Cycle 8 Set Aside Pedestrian Improvements (2016) • Orange County Safe Routes to School Action Plan (under development) • OC Foothills Bikeways Strategy (2016)
• OC Active Orange County’s Bike and Ped Plan (2019)
• The Orange County Loop 70/30 Plan (2015)
• SCAG 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program
• SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategies (2016) The following sections include brief descriptions of these documents and how they inform the development of the LRSP. A detailed list of relevant projects, goals, policies and programs is provided in Appendix A.

CITY OF YORBA LINDA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT (2016) The General Plan presents a consolidated framework of decisions for guiding where and how development should occur in Yorba Linda. The Circulation Element details the policy, programs and goals of the circulation system in Yorba Linda. A multi-modal transportation system that safely and efficiently serves residents, businesses, and visitors, and provides access to neighborhoods, communities, and regional centers is essential for upholding Yorba Linda’s quality of life and implementing the vision for the community’s future. This plan will assist the LRSP in ensuring the identified goals and countermeasures are aligned with the existing policies and goals of the City.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 10
GENERAL PLAN RIDING, HIKING AND BIKEWAY TRAILS COMPONENT (2005) The City of Yorba Linda has a goal of providing a comprehensive riding, hiking, and bikeway trail system. The General Plan states that the City of Yorba Linda views the trails system within the City as a linkage between recreational opportunities and nodes of employment or commercial uses with emphasis on interfacing with the trail systems of adjacent cities, Orange County, Chino Hills State Park, and the region. The General Plan acknowledges that missing links and incomplete connections exist in the trails system as identified in the 1972 Master Plan, and states that the City’s goal is to complete these missing links to create a comprehensive, continuous trails system. This plan will help the LRSP in supporting the recommended safety projects along with the mobility and transportation needs of the City.

YORBA LINDA TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN (2011)
The Yorba Linda Town Center Specific Plan details the plan to implement the vision as detailed by the Blue Ribbon Committee for the Town Center Specific Plan Area. The Yorba Linda Town Center Specific Plan Area is bounded by Imperial Highway to the west, Yorba Linda Boulevard to the south, Lakeview Avenue to the east and Lemon Drive to the north. The heart and backbone of the study area is Main Street, which runs north and south between Imperial Highway and Lemon Drive. This plan will assist the LRSP in ensuring the identified goals and countermeasures are aligned with the existing plans of the City, including planned
improvements in the area.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 11
SAVI RANCH MOBILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY (2018)
In 2015, the City of Yorba Linda approved the Consolidated Summary Report – Savi Ranch Land Use and Mobility Vision Plan.

This document was prepared with the collaborative effort with the community, businesses and property owners to envision the next 30 years for Savi Ranch. The goal was to set forth a range of land uses that provides flexibility to adapt to changing market trends, position Savi Ranch as a regional destination, and provide longterm economic stability. A number of road widening, access improvements, and active transportation improvement plans are outlined in the report. The plan will assist the LRSP in ensuring identified countermeasures in the Savi Ranch area are consistent with the City’s plans.

YORBA LINDA SCHOOL ZONE SAFETY ASSESSMENT (2015)
Yorba Linda School Zone Safety Assessment assessed school area facilities in residential neighborhoods at 14 locations selected for further study. The 14 locations selected for review included elementary, middle, combined (elementary and middle), high, and private schools, all within the City limits. This assessment outlined various countermeasure and improvements for all the 14 Yorba Linda School Zones. These countermeasures will inform the LRSP countermeasures and ensure the strategies are aligned across current City plans and goals.

HSIP CYCLE 8 SET ASIDE PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS (2016)
The City of Yorba Linda applied for and was awarded a grant in HSIP cycle 8 for $249,700 to install 52 signalized intersections along various streets. The grant updated existing pedestrian signal heads to be ADA compliant, updated existing pedestrian heads with new countdown sequence modules, and push buttons with large button activators. Major streets include Imperial Highway, Bastanchury Road, Yorba Linda Avenue, Orangethorpe Avenue, Rose Drive, Prospect Avenue, and Fairmont Boulevard. This grant will help inform future HSIP grants for the City.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 12

ORANGE COUNTY SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ACTION PLAN (UNDER DEVELOPMENT) In Orange County, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) are currently working to complete a Safe Routes to School Action Plan for the various schools in Orange County. The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Action Plan will support and expand the current SRTS work underway by countywide stakeholders and outline specific ways to improve traffic safety and support more walking and bicycling. This could be through education, partnerships, programs and infrastructure improvements. The action plan will establish a countywide program structure that will support SRTS programs in school districts countywide, define roles and next steps for ongoing and potential stakeholders, and identify potential funding sources for specific action items. The SRTS Action Plan and LRSP efforts are mutually supportive of each other, and will inform one another.

OC FOOTHILLS BIKEWAYS STRATEGY (2016)
The Bikeway Strategy seeks to ensure that the bikeways in Orange County are connected and comprehensive for several regional trips as well as local bike trips. Two of the corridors identified in the plan run through Yorba Linda: Corridor B, Lakeview to San Diego Creek, and Corridor K, the Bastanchury Corridor. In addition to infrastructure improvements, the plan also identifies several programmatic recommendations. The infrastructure and programmatic recommendations will inform the LRSP and ensure the improvements, policies, and programs identified in the LRSP are aligned with existing strategies.

OC ACTIVE ORANGE COUNTY’S BIKE AND PED PLAN (2019)
OC Active: Orange County’s Bike + Ped Plan is the first Countywide Active Transportation Plan (ATP) for Orange County.

The ATP establishes a vision and roadmap to implementation for pedestrian and bicyclist facilities with the County. This plan allows local cities and the County of Orange to use this document as a foundation to apply for state funding to plan and implement local bicycle and pedestrian projects. The Plan hopes to ensure crosssector collaboration, engage communities to advance improvements, and pursue funding of improvements. The
projects, policies, and programs identified in this plan will inform the LRSP E’s strategies.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 13
THE ORANGE COUNTY LOOP 70/30 PLAN (2015)
The OC Loop is a vision for 66 miles of seamless connections and an opportunity for people to bike, walk, and connect to some of California most scenic beaches and inland reaches. About 88% of the OC Loop is already in place and is used by thousands of people. Currently, nearly 58 miles use existing off-street trails along the San Gabriel River, Coyote Creek, Santa Ana River, and the Costal/Beach Trail. This plan lays out the missing segments and how to complete the Loop.

SCAG 2019 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM
The Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) is a federally mandated four year program for all surface
transportation projects that will receive federal funding or are subject to a federally required action. The SCAG 2019 FTIP is a comprehensive listing of such transportation projects proposed over fiscal years (FY) 2018/19–2023/24. While there are not specific project detailed for Yorba Linda and other cities in the area, the plan contains policies reiterating the regions commitment to active transportation and traffic safety. It will provide a framework for the LRSP to ensure the policy and goals are aligned with the FTIP.

SCAG REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ SUSTAINABLE
COMMUNITIES STRATEGIES (2016)
The SCAG RTP/SCS details a regional transportation plan for all six counties in Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) planning area: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The Plan generally provides a framework to include sustainability as key principle in future development and seeks to increase mobility in the region. The plan does not contain any specific plans or policies directly related to Yorba Linda but will provide a framework for the LRSP to ensure the policy and goals are aligned with the sustainable
communities’ strategies.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 14

4. COLLISION DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This chapter summarizes the results of a citywide collision analysis for collisions that have occurred in the City of Yorba Linda between January 2016 and December 2020, as part of the LRSP. A fiveyear city-wide collision data set was retrieved from TIMS and SWITRS.

The LRSP focuses on systemically identifying and analyzing traffic safety issues to recommend appropriate safety strategies and improvements. This chapter starts with an analysis of citywide collisions of all severity, including Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions, retrieved from TIMS and SWITRS. Further on, a detailed analysis was conducted for high-injury collisions, including F+SI collisions that have occurred on Yorba Linda’s roadways. After this data was separated, a comprehensive evaluation was conducted based on factors such as collision severity, type of collision, primary collision factor, lighting, weather, and time of the day. The following is a brief overview of the sections:

1. Data Collection

2. Collision Data Analysis

3. Fatal and Severe Injury Collision Analysis

4. Geographic Collision Analysis

5. High Injury Network

6. Summary
Figure 6 illustrates all the injury collisions that have occurred in Yorba Linda from January 2016 to December 2020.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 15
Figure 6: All Injury Collisions on Yorba Linda Roadways (2016 – 2020) Data Collection
Collision data helps understand different factors that might be influencing collision patterns and various factors leading to collisions in a given area. For the purpose of this analysis, a five-year jurisdiction-wide collision data, from 2016 to 2020 was retrieved from TIMS and SWITRS. The collision data was analyzed and plotted in ArcMap to identify high-risk intersections and roadways segments.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 16
Collision Data Analysis Results

COLLISION CLASSIFICATION
There were a total of 893 collisions
reported citywide from 2016 to 2020.

Out of these 559 collisions (63%) were
PDO collisions, 190 collisions (21%) led
to complaint of pain injury, and 115
collisions (13%) led to a visible injury.

There were 29 F+SI collisions, 22
collisions (2%) led to a severe injury,
and seven collisions (1%) led to a
fatality. Figure 7 illustrates the
classification of all collisions based on
severity.

The analysis first includes a comparative evaluation between all collisions and F+SI collisions, based on various factors including but on limited to the collision trend, primary collision factor, collision type, facility type, motor vehicle involved with, weather, lighting, and time of the day.

Further on, a comprehensive analysis is conducted for only F+SI collisions. F+SI collisions cause the most damage to those affected, infrastructure and the aftermath of these collisions lead to great expenses for jurisdiction administration. The LRSP process thus focuses on these collision locations to proactively identify and counter their respective safety issues. The collision data was segregated by facility type, i.e. based on collisions occurring on intersections and roadway segments. For the purposes of the analysis, a collision was designated to have occurred at an intersection if it occurred within 250 feet of it. The reported collisions categorized by facility type and collision severity are presented in Table 1.

Figure 7: Collisions by Severity (2016-2020)
Fatal
1%
Severe Injury
2%
Visible Injury
13%
Complaint of
Pain
21% Property
Damage
Only (PDO)
63%

Local Roadway Safety Plan 17
Table 1: Collisions by Severity and Facility Type
Collision Severity Roadway Segment Intersection Total
Fatal 3 4 7
Severe Injury 1 21 22
Visible Injury 28 87 115
Complaint Of Pain 35 155 190
Property Damage Only (PDO) 127 432 559
TOTAL 194 699 893
Preliminary Analysis

YEARLY TRENDS
For all collisions, the number of reported collisions decreased from 2016 to 2020. The highest number of collisions (217 collisions) were observed in 2016 and the lowest number of collisions (110) were observed in 2020. A total of 29 F+SI collisions occurred in the City of Yorba Linda during the study period. They were observed to be the lowest (two collision) in 2019, and the highest in 2016 (12 collisions). Figure 8 illustrates the five-year collision trend for all collisions, F+SI collisions and also PDO collisions.

Figure 8: Five Year Collision Trend
12 6 6 2 3
217
196 202
168
110
0 50
100
150
200
250
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Property Damage Only (PDO) F+SI Grand Total

Local Roadway Safety Plan 18
ROADWAY SEGMENT VS. INTERSECTION
When evaluating the roadway geometry, it was
observed that the majority of collisions occurred at
intersections. In the City of Yorba Linda, 78% of all
collisions (699 collisions) occurred at intersections
whereas 22% (194 collisions) occurred on roadway
segments. This classification by facility type can be
observed in Figure 9.

COLLISION TYPE
The most commonly occurring collision type was broadside collisions (26%) and hit object collisions (24%). The collision type for F+SI collisions follow a similar trend. For F+SI collisions, the most commonly occurring collision type was broadside collisions (34%) and hit object collisions (24%). Figure 10 illustrates the collision type for all collisions as well as F+SI collisions.

Figure 10: Collision Type – All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions 7%
14%
23%
26%
24%
1% 3% 1% 1%
10%
3%
7%
34%
24%
3%
14%
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Total F+SI
22%
78%
Roadway Segment Intersection
Figure 9: Intersection vs Roadway
Collisions – All Collisions

Local Roadway Safety Plan 19

VIOLATION CATEGORY
The most common violation category for all collisions was observed to be unsafe speed (21%) and improper turning collisions (19%). For F+SI collisions, driving under the influence (DUI) (28%), automobile right of way (21%) and improper turning (17%) were observed to be the most common violation categories. Figure 11 illustrates the violation category for all collisions and F+SI collisions.

Figure 11: Violation Categories: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions

MOTOR-VEHICLE INVOLVED WITH
When considering all collisions, 59% occurred between two motor vehicles. The remaining collisions include motor vehicle involved with fixed object/other object (26%) and motor vehicle involved with parked motor vehicle (8%). For F+SI collisions, 45% of the collisions involved another motor vehicle, 28% involved a fixed object/other object, and 14% involved a pedestrian. Figure 12 illustrates the percentage for all collisions as well as F+SI collisions.

Figure 12: Motor Vehicle Involved with: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions 12%
21%
4%
19%
15%
1%
11%
4%
12%
28%
14%
0%
17%
21%
3%
14%
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Total
F+SI
2%
59%
1%
8%
2%
26%
1%
14%
45%
0% 0%
10%
28%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Pedestrian Other Motor
Vehicle
Motor Vehicle
on other
Roadway
Parked Motor
Vehicle
Bicycle Fixed Object/
Other Object
Other

Local Roadway Safety Plan 20

LIGHTING
For collisions of all severity, 62% of collisions occurred in daylight and 34% of collisions occurred in the dark on streets with street lights. For F+SI collisions, 45% of collisions occurred in daylight and 52% of collisions occurred in the dark on streets with street lights. Figure 13 illustrates the lighting condition for all collisions and F+SI collisions.

Figure 13: Lighting Conditions: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions

WEATHER
For all collisions, 87% of the collisions occurred during clear weather conditions. F+SI collisions follow similar trends, with 93% of the collisions having occurred during clear weather conditions.

Figure 14 illustrates the percentage distribution of weather conditions during occurrence of collisions of all severity as well as F+SI collisions.

Figure 14: Weather Conditions: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions 62%
2%
34%
2%
45%
3%
52%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Daylight Dusk-Dawn Dark - Street Lights Other
Total F+SI
87%
10%
2% 1%
93%
7%
0% 0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Clear Cloudy Raining Other
Total F+SI

Local Roadway Safety Plan 21

TIME OF THE DAY
For collisions of all severity, the maximum number of collisions occurred between 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. (10%), while the minimum number of collisions occurred between 3:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. (1%). For all F+SI collisions, maximum number of collisions occurred between 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Figure 15 illustrates the percentage of collisions occurring during the day for all collisions as well as F+SI collisions.

Figure 15: Time of Day: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions -2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Total F+SI

Local Roadway Safety Plan 22

5. FATAL AND SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS
The detailed collision analysis is effective for identifying high-risk locations by evaluating a shorter list of collisions that have led to a fatality or a severe injury. Roadway segment and intersection F+SI collisions have been further analyzed taking into account the following collision attributes:
• Collision Type and Severity
• Collision Type and Violation Category
• Collision Type and Motor Vehicle Involved With
• Collision Type and Lighting
Figure 16 illustrate all the F+SI collisions that have occurred in the City of Yorba Linda between 2016 and 2020. A total of four F+SI collisions occurred on roadway segments, while 25 F+SI collisions occurred at intersections.

Figure 16: Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions City of Yorba Linda (2016-2020)

Local Roadway Safety Plan 23
Roadway Segment Collision Analysis

COLLISION TYPE AND SEVERITY
For F+SI collisions that occurred on roadway segments, the highest percentage of fatal collisions were observed to be hit-object collisions. 50% of collisions that led to a fatality or severe injury were hit object collisions. Figure 17 illustrates this distribution of collision type vs. severity.

Figure 17: Collision Type vs. Severity: Roadway Segment F+SI Collisions

COLLISION TYPE AND VIOLATION CATEGORY
For F+SI collisions that occurred on roadway segments, broadside collisions were mainly caused due to unsafe speed violations. All hit-object collisions were observed to be caused due to DUI.

Figure 18 illustrates this distribution of collisions.

Figure 18: Collision Type vs. Violation Category: Roadway Segment F+SI Collisions 25%
50%
25%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Broadside Hit Object
Fatal Severe Injury
25% 25%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Broadside Hit Object
DUI Unsafe Speed

Local Roadway Safety Plan 24

COLLISION TYPE AND MOTOR VEHICLE INVOLVED WITH
For F+SI collisions that occurred on roadway segments, the hit object collisions occurred due to the motor vehicle being involved with a fixed object or other object. Broadside collisions mainly occurred between two motor vehicles. Figure 19 illustrates this distribution.

Figure 19: Collision Type vs. Motor Vehicle Involved With: Roadway Segment F+SI Collisions

COLLISION TYPE AND LIGHTING
For F+SI collisions that occurred on roadway segment locations in Yorba Linda, broadside and hit object collisions all occurred at locations that were dark with no street lights. Figure 20 illustrates the distribution of the collision type vs. lighting.

Figure 20: Collision Type vs. Lighting: Roadway Segment F+SI Collisions 50% 50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object
Broadside Hit Object
50% 50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Broadside Hit Object
Dark - with street lights

Local Roadway Safety Plan 25
Intersection Collision Analysis

COLLISION TYPE AND SEVERITY
For F+SI collisions that occurred on intersections, the highest percentage of fatal collisions were observed to be vehicle/pedestrian collisions. 32% of collisions that led to a severe injury were broadside collisions. Figure 21 illustrates this distribution of collision type vs. severity.

Figure 21: Collision Type vs. Severity: Intersection F+SI Collisions

COLLISION TYPE AND VIOLATION CATEGORY
For F+SI collisions that occurred at intersections, broadside collisions were the most common collisions type, primarily caused by traffic signals and signs violations and automobile right of way violations. Figure 22 illustrates this distribution of collisions.

Figure 22: Collision Type vs. Violation Category: Intersection F+SI Collisions 0% 0% 0% 0%
4%
0%
12%
0%
12%
4%
8%
32%
16%
4% 4% 4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Fatal Severe Injury
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
DUI Unsafe Speed Improper Turning Automobile Right of Way Pedestrian Right of Way Traffic Signals and Signs Other

Local Roadway Safety Plan 26

COLLISION TYPE AND MOTOR VEHICLE INVOLVED WITH
For F+SI collisions that occurred at intersections, broadside collisions occurred primarily between two motor vehicles. Head-on collisions also primarily occurred between two motor vehicles.

Figure 23 illustrates this distribution.

Figure 23: Collision Type vs. Motor Vehicle Involved With: Intersection F+SI Collisions

COLLISION TYPE AND LIGHTING
For F+SI collisions that occurred at intersection locations in Yorba Linda, rear-end collisions occurred at locations that were dark with street lights. All sideswipe collisions occurred during daylight. Vehicle/pedestrian collisions have been observed to occur both during daylight as well as at locations that were dark with no street lights. Figure 24 illustrates the distribution of the collision type vs. lighting.

Figure 24: Collision Type vs. Lighting: Intersection F+SI Collisions 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Pedestrian Other Motor Vehicle Bicycle Fixed Object Other 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Daylight Dusk - Dawn Dark - Street Lights

Local Roadway Safety Plan 27
Geographic Collision Analysis
This section describes a detailed geographic collision analysis performed for injury collisions occurring at roadway segments and intersections in the City of Yorba Linda. The above collision analysis was used to identify five main collision factors that highlight the top trends among collisions in Yorba Linda. These five collision factors were identified to be nighttime collisions, broadside collisions, DUI collisions, hit object collisions, and automobile right of way collisions.

NIGHTTIME COLLISIONS
52% of collisions of F+SI collisions in Yorba Linda were nighttime collisions. Figure 25 shows the distribution of nighttime collisions throughout the City of Yorba Linda between 2016 and 2020.

Yorba Linda Boulevard, Valley View Avenue, and La Palma Avenue have a higher concentration of nighttime collisions, compared to other Yorba Linda roads.

BROADSIDE COLLISIONS
34% of F+SI collisions were broadside collisions. Figure 26 shows the distribution of broadside collisions throughout the City of Yorba Linda between 2016 and 2020. Valley View Avenue, Van Buren Street, and Prospect Avenue have a higher concentration of broadside collisions, compared to other Yorba Linda roads.

DUI COLLISIONS
28% of F+SI collisions were due to DUI violations. Figure 27 shows the distribution of DUI collisions throughout the City of Yorba Linda between 2016 and 2020. La Palma Avenue, Yorba Linda Boulevard, and Yorba Ranch Road have a higher concentration of DUI collisions, compared to other Yorba Linda roads.

HIT OBJECT COLLISIONS
For F+SI collisions in the City of Yorba Linda, 24% of collisions were hit object collisions. Figure 28 shows the distribution of hit object collisions throughout the City of Yorba Linda between 2016 and 2020. La Palma Avenue, Lakeview Avenue, and Imperial Highway have a higher concentration of hit object collisions, compared to other Yorba Linda roads.

AUTOMOBILE RIGHT OF WAY COLLISIONS
For F+SI collisions in the City of Yorba Linda, 22% of collisions were due to automobile right-ofway violations. Figure 29 shows the distribution of automobile right of way collisions throughout the City of Yorba Linda between 2016 and 2020. Yorba Linda Boulevard, Valley View Avenue, and Savi Ranch Parkway have a higher concentration of automobile right of way collisions, compared to other Yorba Linda roads.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 28
Figure 25: City of Yorba Linda Nighttime Collisions (2016-2020)

Local Roadway Safety Plan 29
Figure 26: City of Yorba Linda Broadside Collisions (2016-2020)

Local Roadway Safety Plan 30
Figure 27: City of Yorba Linda DUI Collisions (2016-2020)

Local Roadway Safety Plan 31
Figure 28: City of Yorba Linda Hit Object Collisions (2016-2020)

Local Roadway Safety Plan 32
Figure 29: City of Yorba Linda Automobile Right of Way Collisions (2016-2020)

Local Roadway Safety Plan 33
Collision Severity Weight
A collision severity weight was used to identify the high severity collision network, using the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) method. The EPDO method accounts for both the severity and frequency of collisions by converting each collision to an equivalent number of PDO collisions. The EPDO method assigns a crash cost and score to each collision according to the severity of the crash weighted by the comprehensive crash cost. These EPDO scores are calculated using a simplified version of the comprehensive crash costs per HSIP Cycle 10 application. The weights used in the analysis are shown below in Table 2.

Table 2: EPDO Score used in HSIP Cycle 10
Collision Severity EPDO Score
F+SI Combined 165*
Visible Injury 11
Possible Injury 6
PDO 1
*This is the score used in HSIP Cycle 10 for collisions on roadways segments, to simplify the analysis this study uses the same score for all F+SI collisions regardless of location The EPDO scores for all collisions can then be aggregated in a variety of ways to identify collision patterns, such as location hot-spots. The weighted collisions for the City of Yorba Linda were geolocated onto Yorba Linda’s road network. Figure 30 shows the location and geographic concentration of collisions by their EPDO score.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 34
Figure 30: City of Yorba Linda Severity Index
High Injury Network
Following the detailed collision analysis, the next step was to identify the high-risk roadway segments and intersections in the City of Yorba Linda. The methodology for scoring the high injury locations is the same method used in the severity weight section. Figure 31 shows the top eight high-collision roadway segments, and top 19 high-collision intersections.

For the purposes of the high collision network analysis, intersections include collisions that occurred within 250 feet of it and roadways include all collisions that occurred along the roadway except for collisions that occurred directly at an intersection, or collisions that are assigned a zero value in distance from intersection value column in the SWITRS. This may lead to double counting of collisions when developing the high injury network. However, the analysis is done this way to follow HSIP guidance for including collisions in intersection related applications and roadway segment applications, to allow the City to apply for such funds with ease.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 35
Figure 31: City of Yorba Linda High Injury Network

INTERSECTION RANKING
There is 19 intersections that were identified as high injury intersections. A total of 21 F+SI collisions occurred at these intersections. The intersection of Imperial Highway and Yorba Linda Boulevard has the highest EPDO score.

Table 3 lists the EPDO score of the top 10 identified high-risk intersections along with the type of collisions and the number of F+SI collisions that occurred at these locations.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 36
Table 3: High Injury Intersections
ID Intersection
Total F+SI NightTime
BroadSide DUI Hit
Object EPDO
Score
Collisions
1 Imperial Hwy and Yorba Linda
Blvd 12 2 5 8 3 0 400
2 Van Buren St and Yorba Linda
Blvd 6 2 5 0 2 1 364
3 Imperial Hwy and Valley View 9 1 2 6 0 0 238
4 Bastanchury Rd and Valley
View 9 1 2 5 0 0 223
5 La Palma Ave and Gypsum
Canyon Rd 6 1 1 2 0 0 205
6 Prospect Ave and Imperial Hwy 5 1 2 2 1 0 199
7 Lakeview and Buena Vista 5 1 4 2 0 2 189
8 Eureka Ave and Imperial Hwy 2 1 0 1 0 1 176
9 Richfield Rd and Yorba Linda
Blvd 2 1 0 0 0 0 171
10 Valley View and Drake St/
Lakeview Ave 2 1 1 2 0 0 171
11 Yorba Linda and Kellog Dr 2 1 1 1 0 0 171
12 Fairmont Blvd and Big Spring
Dr 2 1 2 0 1 1 171
13 Esperanza Rd and Yorba Ranch
Rd 2 1 0 1 1 0 171
14 Hidden Hills Rd and
Stonewood Dr 1 1 0 1 0 0 165
15 Welsh Pony Ln and Red Roan
Rd 1 1 1 0 0 0 165
16 Avenida Del Rey and Via Del La
Plz 1 1 0 0 0 0 165
17 Ohio St and Scenic View Dr 1 1 0 0 0 1 165
18 Casa Oro Dr and Casa
Hermosa Dr 1 1 0 0 1 0 165
19 Fairmont Blvd and Lorca Ln 1 1 1 0 1 0 165

Local Roadway Safety Plan 37

ROADWAY SEGMENT RANKING
A total of eight corridors were identified as high injury corridors. There were a total 13 F+SI collisions on these corridors. The corridor with the highest amount of F+SI collisions is Yorba Linda Boulevard and La Palma Avenue with 3 F+SI collisions.

Table 4 lists the EPDO score of the top eight identified high-collision corridors along with the number of F+SI collisions and total collisions.

Table 4: High Injury Corridors
ID Corridors
Total F+SI
Night
-time
Broadside DUIHit
Object Length
(miles)
EPDO
Collisions Score
A Yorba Linda Blvd: Fairmont Blvd to
N Jefferson St
28 3 9 9 3 2 2.74 685
B La Palma Ave: Western City Limits
to Cam De Bryant
18 3 4 4 3 4 2.6 610
C Imperial Hwy: Prospect Ave to
Yorba Linda Blvd
17 2 2 2 1 0 1.6 450
D Bastanchury Rd: Imperial Hwy to
Humboldt Ln
9 1 2 2 1 1 1.5 228
E Fairmont Blvd: Cordova Ln to
Esperanza Rd
8 1 5 1 2 4 0.3 222
F Lakeview Ave: Flora Dr to Buena
Vista Ave
5 1 2 0 0 2 0.3 199
G Hidden Hills: Esperanza Rd to
Mission Hills Ln
3 1 3 0 2 3 1 187
H Yorba Ranch Rd: Esperanza Rd to
Yorba Linda Blvd
2 1 1 9 2 1 1.1 176

Local Roadway Safety Plan 38
Summary
About 52% of F+SI collisions have occurred at night. Yorba Linda Boulevard, Valley View Avenue, and La Palma Avenue have a higher concentration of nighttime collisions, compared to other roads in Yorba Linda. This may indicate that lighting at these locations should be evaluated to ensure lumen levels are adequate. Many different factors can contribute to nighttime collisions, such as low lighting levels that can be targeted with appropriate countermeasure, but extraneous factors can also contribute to nighttime injury such as driving under influence, sleep, and fatigue.

Improvements such as installing new lighting, upgrading existing lighting to a higher lumen, installing larger signal heads, installing and upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting, and installing pedestrian improvements with lighting elements such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB’s) and HAWKs can help make these locations safer for all road users.

For F+SI collisions in the City of Yorba Linda, 34% of collisions were broadside collisions. This calls for evaluating broadside collisions along the high injury network and other locations throughout the City with similar characteristics. Improvements at these location may consist of improved signal hardware/larger signal heads, provide protected left turn phase, convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted), raised medians at the approach to intersections, and others.

The next steps include identifying strategies corresponding to the 4 E’s of safety to comprehensively make the roadways of the City of Yorba Linda safer for all modes of transportation.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 39

6. EMPHASIS AREAS
Emphasis areas are focus areas for the LRSP that are identified through the comprehensive collision analysis of the identified high injury locations within the City of Yorba Linda. Emphasis areas help in identifying appropriate safety strategies and countermeasures with the greatest potential to reduce collisions occurring at these high injury locations. This technical memorandum summarizes the top seven emphasis areas identified for the City of Yorba Linda. These emphasis areas were derived from the consolidated high injury collision database (Appendix A) where top injury factors were identified by combing the data manually.

Based on the systemic safety analysis and identified high-injury intersections and roadway segments, the top risk factors are as follows –
• Improve Intersection Safety
• Reduce Broadside Collisions
• Reduce Nighttime Collisions
• Reduce Automobile Right-of-Way Violations
• Reduce Unsafe Speed Collisions
• Reduce DUI Collisions
• Reduce Younger Driver Collisions
The 4 E’s of Traffic Safety
LRSP utilizes a comprehensive approach to safety incorporating “4 E’s of traffic safety”:

Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and EMS. This approach recognizes that not all locations can be addressed solely by infrastructure improvements.

Some of the common violation types that may require a comprehensive approach are speeding, failure-to-yield to pedestrians, red light running, aggressive driving, failure to wear safety belts, distracted driving, and driving while impaired. When locations are identified as having these types of violations, coordination with the appropriate law enforcement agencies is needed to arrange visible targeted enforcement to reduce the potential for future driving violations and related crashes and injuries.

To improve safety, education efforts can also be used to supplement enforcement. Additionally, education efforts can supplement enforcement to improve the efficiency of each. Education can also be employed in the short-term to address high crash locations until the recommended infrastructure project can be implemented, addressed under Engineering improvements, and countermeasures. Similarly, EMS entails strategies around supporting organizations that provide rapid response and care when responding to collisions causing injury, by stabilizing victims and transporting then to facilities.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 40
Existing Traffic Safety Efforts
The City of Yorba Linda has already implemented safety strategies corresponding to the 4 E’s of traffic safety. The strategies detailed in this memorandum can supplement these existing programs and concentrate on high injury collision locations and crash types. The current initiatives are summarized in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Existing Traffic Safety Efforts
Program/Document Description E’s Addressed
OCTA Bike and Walk
Safety Programs
OCTA has a number of resources for bike and walk safety including hosting virtual bike and pedestrian safety classes and online published material.

Education
Yorba Linda School Zone
Safety Assessment
Yorba Linda School Zone Safety Assessment assessed school area facilities in residential neighborhoods at 14 locations selected for further study.

Engineering
Bike and Pedestrian
Safety Enforcement
Operation Program
Orange County Sheriff’s Department provides contract police services for the City of Yorba Linda. The program periodically conducts bike and pedestrian safety enforcement operations which focus enforcement on collision factors involving motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

Enforcement
Factors Considered in the Determination of Emphasis Areas This section presents comprehensive collision data analysis of collision type, collision factors, facility type, roadway geometries, analyzed for the various identified emphasized areas. Emphasis areas were determined by factors that led to the highest amount of injury collisions, with a specific emphasis on F+SI collisions. This section also presents comprehensive programs, policies, and countermeasures to reduce collisions in specific emphasis areas.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 41
EMPHASIS AREA 1 – INTERSECTION SAFETY
A total of 164 reported injury collisions occurred on the high injury network in the City of Yorba Linda. 124 (76%) of these collisions occurred at intersections, including 19 F+SI collisions. The following collision data is based on only intersection injury collisions that occurred on the high injury network in the City of Yorba Linda, followed by strategies to make these locations safer in Table 6.
40%
Broadside collisions
21%
Traffic signals and signs
violation
20%
Rear-end collisions
Table 6: Emphasis Area 1 Strategies
Objective: To reduce the number of F+SI collisions at intersections Strategies Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations

EDUCATION
Conduct public information and education campaign for intersection safety laws regarding traffic signals, stop signs, and turning left or right.

Number of
education
campaigns
City/School
District/Police
Department

ENFORCEMENT
Targeted enforcement at high-risk intersections to monitor traffic law violations right-of-way violations, speed limit laws, and other violations that occur at intersections.

Number of
tickets issued
Police
Department

ENGINEERING
• S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
• S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
• S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) • S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
• NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
• NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
Number of
intersections
improved
City
EMS
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems.

EMS vehicle
response
time
City/Emergency
Department

Local Roadway Safety Plan 42
EMPHASIS AREA 2 – BROADSIDE COLLISIONS
A total of 164 reported injury collisions occurred on the high injury network in the City of Yorba Linda. 63 (38%) of these collisions were broadside collisions, including eight F+SI collisions. The following collision data is based on only broadside injury collisions that occurred on the high injury network in the City of Yorba Linda, followed by strategies to make these locations safer in Table 7.
43%
Automobile right-of-way
collisions
32%
Traffic signal or signs
violation
51%
Occurred on Imperial
Hwy or Yorba Linda Blvd
Table 7: Emphasis Area 2 Strategies
Objective: To reduce the number of F+SI broadside collisions Strategies Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations

EDUCATION
Conduct public information and education campaign for intersection safety laws regarding traffic lights, stop signs, and turning left or right.

Number of
education
campaigns
City/ School
District/ Police
Department

ENFORCEMENT
Targeted enforcement at high-risk locations.

Number of
citations
and/or
warnings
issued
Police
Department

ENGINEERING
• S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
• S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
• S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) • S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
• S16/NS04/NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout
• NS02, Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) • NS03, Install signals
• NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
• NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
• NS08, Install flashing beacons at stop controlled intersections Number of
locations
improved to
mitigate
night-time
collisions
City
EMS
Improve resource of deployment for emergency responses to collision sites.

EMS vehicle
response time
at night
City/Emergency
Department

Local Roadway Safety Plan 43
EMPHASIS AREA 3 – NIGHTTIME COLLISIONS
A total of 164 reported injury collisions occurred on the high injury network in the City of Yorba Linda. Of these 58 (35%) collisions occurred at nighttime, including 12 F+SI collisions. The following collision data is based on only nighttime injury collisions that occurred on the high injury network in the City of Yorba Linda, followed by strategies to make these locations safer in Table

8. 41%
Broadside collisions
26%
DUI collisions
28%
Hit object collisions
Table 8: Emphasis Area 3 Strategies
Objective: To reduce the number of F+SI collisions that occur at nighttime Strategies Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations

EDUCATION
Conduct public information and education campaign for safety laws regarding and the larger risk of collisions during the nighttime.

Number of
outreach
events and
safety
campaigns
City/School
District/Police
Department

ENFORCEMENT
Targeted enforcement at high-risk locations to monitor collisions that occur at nighttime.

Number of
citations
issued
Police
Department

ENGINEERING
• S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size and number
• S10, Install flashing beacon as warning
• NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
• R01, Add segment lighting
• R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
• R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers • R26, Install dynamic/ variable speed warning signs
• R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers Number of
locations
improved
City
EMS
Improve resource deployment for emergency responses at collision sites.

EMS vehicle
response
time
City/Emergency
Department

Local Roadway Safety Plan 44
EMPHASIS AREA 4 – AUTOMOBILE RIGHT OF WAY COLLISONS
A total of 164 reported injury collisions occurred on the high injury network in the City of Yorba Linda. 37 (22%) of these collisions were automobile right of way violations, including five F+SI collisions. The following collision data is based on only automobile right of way injury collisions that occurred on the high injury network in the City of Yorba Linda, followed by strategies to make these locations safer in Table 9.
95%
Involved another motor
vehicle
73%
Broadside collisions
32%
Occurred on Yorba Linda
Blvd
Table 9: Emphasis Area 4 Strategies
Objective: To reduce the number of automobile right-of-way collisions Strategies Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations

EDUCATION
Conduct public information and education campaign for intersection safety laws regarding traffic lights, stop signs, and turning left or right.

Number of
education
campaigns
City/School
District/Police
Department

ENFORCEMENT
Targeted enforcement at locations with most automobile right of way collisions.

Number of
citations
issued
Police
Department

ENGINEERING
• S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
• S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
• S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) • S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
• S16/NS04/NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout
• NS02, Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) • NS03, Install signals
• NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
• NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
• NS08, Install flashing beacons at stop controlled intersections • NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) Number of
locations
improved
City
EMS
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems.

EMS vehicle
response
time
City/Emergency
Department

Local Roadway Safety Plan 45
EMPHASIS AREA 5 – UNSAFE SPEED COLLISONS
A total of 164 reported injury collisions occurred on the high injury network in the City of Yorba Linda. 30 (18%) of these collisions were unsafe speed collisions, including one F+SI collision. The following are major findings based on unsafe speed injury collisions that occurred on the high injury network in the City of Yorba Linda followed by strategies to make these locations safer in Table 10.
80%
Rear-end collisions
27%
Collisions occurred on
Yorba Linda Blvd
57%
Automobile Right-of-Way
violations
Table 10: Emphasis Area 5 Strategies
Objective: To reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions that are a result of unsafe speed Strategy Performance
Measure Agencies/Organizations

EDUCATION
Conduct public information and education campaign for
safety laws regarding unsafe speed and its dangers.

Number of
education
campaigns
City/ School District/Police
Department

ENFORCEMENT
Targeted enforcement at high-risk locations to monitor
unsafe speed.

Number of
tickets issued Police Department

ENGINEERING
• NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
• R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting (regulatory or warning)
• R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object
markers
• R26, Install dynamic/ variable speed warning signs
• R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines
• R36PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with
enhanced safety features)
• Decrease width of travel lanes.
• Simplify turn configurations.
• Decrease curb radius of intersections.

Number of
locations
improved
City
EMS
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems. EMS vehicle response time
City/ Emergency
Department

Local Roadway Safety Plan 46
EMPHASIS AREA 6 – DUI COLLISONS
A total of 164 reported injury collisions occurred on the high injury network in the City of Yorba Linda. 21 (13%) of these collisions were DUI collisions, including six F+SI collisions. The following collision data is based on only DUI injury collisions that occurred on the high injury network in the City of Yorba Linda, followed by strategies to make these locations safer in Table 11. 76%
DUI collisions
occurred at night
9%
DUI collisions party at
fault was a driver over 50
years old
57%
DUI collisions party at fault
was a driver younger than
30 years old
Table 11: Emphasis Area 6 Strategies
Objective: Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions that are a result of driving under the influence from older drivers
Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations

EDUCATION
Conduct public information and education campaign for safety laws regarding driving under the influence and publicize alternatives.

Number of
education
campaigns
City/Police
Department

ENFORCEMENT
Targeted enforcement at high-risk locations to monitor driving under the influence.

Number of
tickets issued Police Department

ENGINEERING
• S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
• S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) • S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
• NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
• NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
• R01, Add segment lighting
• R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
• R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers Number of
locations
improved
City
EMS
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems. EMS vehicle response time
City/ Emergency
Department

Local Roadway Safety Plan 47
EMPHASIS AREA 7 – YOUNGER ADULT PARTY AT FAULT COLLISIONS A total of 164 reported injury collisions occurred on the high injury network in the City of Yorba Linda. The following is a review of the demographic data, specifically age group, provided in the party data of the collisions occurring on the high injury network. 63%
Fatal or severe collisions party at
fault was age 29 or younger
Table 12: Emphasis Area 7 Strategies
Objective: Reduce the number of younger adult fatal and severe injury collisions Strategy
Performance
Measure Agencies/Organizations

EDUCATION
Target education programs for younger
adults. Distribute brochures/fliers with basic
red light running, speeding, distracted driving,
aggressive driving, and stop sign violations
information at driver training programs.

Include statistics of younger adult larger risks
of fatalities.

Number of
education
campaigns
City/ School District/ Police
Department

Local Roadway Safety Plan 48

7. COUNTERMEASURE IDENTIFICATION
This section summarizes the process of selecting countermeasures on Yorba Linda streets as part of the analysis for the LRSP. Countermeasures were selected for each of the identified high-risk intersections and roadway segments based on extensive review of existing conditions at the site and characteristics of identified collisions on the High Injury Network.

Identified collision factors and existing conditions were cross referenced with the Caltrans LRSM identified countermeasures that are HSIP approved. Countermeasures that best fit the site and had the highest opportunity for systemic implementation were selected. Countermeasures were selected not only for each high-risk location, but also for each identified citywide Emphasis Area.

Draft Countermeasure Toolbox
Table 13 provides a description of each countermeasure along with the crash reduction factor (CRF), federal funding eligibility, and opportunity for systemic implementation. An excerpt of the LRSM, detailing each available HSIP countermeasure referenced in the recommendations tables, is included as Appendix D.

Table 13: Countermeasures Selected for City of Yorba Linda Code Countermeasure
Name
Countermeasure Description CRF Federal
Funding
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity
S01 Add intersection
lighting Provision of lighting at intersection. 40% 90% Medium S02
Improve signal
hardware: lenses, backplates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and
number
Includes New LED lighting, signal back
plates, retro-reflective tape outlining the
back plates, or visors to increase signal
visibility, larger signal heads, relocation
of the signal heads, or additional signal
heads.
15% 90% Very High
S03
Improve signal timing
(coordination, phases,
red, yellow, or
operation)
Includes adding phases, lengthening
clearance intervals, eliminating or
restricting higher-risk movements, and
coordinating signals at multiple
locations.
15% 50% Very High
S07
Provide protected left
turn phase (left turn
lane already exists)
Left turns are widely recognized as the
highest-risk movements at signalized
intersections. Providing Protected leftturn phases for signalized intersections with existing left turn pockets
significantly improve the safety for leftturn maneuvers by removing the need for the drivers to navigate through gaps
30% 90% High

Local Roadway Safety Plan 49
Code Countermeasure
Name
Countermeasure Description CRF Federal
Funding
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity
in oncoming/opposing through
vehicles.

S08
Convert signal to mast
arm (from pedestalmounted)
Providing better visibility of intersection
signs and signals aids the drivers’
advance perception of the upcoming
intersection. Visibility and clarity of the
signal should be improved without
creating additional confusion or
distraction for drivers.
30% 90% Medium
S09
Install raised pavement
markers and striping
(Through Intersection)
Adding clear pavement markings can
guide motorists through complex
intersections. When drivers approach
and traverse through complex
intersections, drivers may be required to
perform unusual or unexpected
maneuvers.
10% 90% Very High
S10
Install flashing beacons
as advance warning
(S.I.)
Increased driver awareness of an
approaching signalized intersection and
an increase in the driver's time to react.
30% 90% Medium
S11
Improve pavement
friction (High Friction
Surface Treatments)
Improving the skid resistance at
locations with high frequencies of wet
road crashes and/or failure to stop
crashes.
55% 90% Medium
S12 Install raised median
on approaches (S.I.)
Raised medians next to left turn lanes at
intersections offer a cost effective
means for reducing crashes and
improving operations at higher volume
intersections.
25% 90% Medium
S21PB
Modify signal phasing
to implement a
Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
Addition of LPI gives pedestrians the
opportunity to enter an intersection
three-seven seconds before vehicles are
given a green indication; only minor
signal timing alteration is required.
60% 90% Very High
NS01 Add intersection
lighting (NS.I.) Provision of lighting at intersection. 40% 90% Medium NS03 Install signals Installs a traffic signal at an unsignalized intersection if warrants are met. 30% 90% Low
NS06
Install/upgrade larger
or additional stop
signs or other
intersection warning/
regulatory signs
Replaces existing or installs new larger
signs to assist the driver in perceiving
an intersection from a greater distance,
particularly at night.
15% 90% Very High

Local Roadway Safety Plan 50
Code Countermeasure
Name
Countermeasure Description CRF Federal
Funding
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity
NS07
Upgrade intersection
pavement markings
(NS.I.)
Typical improvements include "Stop
Ahead" markings and the addition of
centerlines and stop bars.
25% 90% Very High
NS09 Install flashing beacons
as advance warning
Adds a flashing beacon to a warning
sign to call driver attention to
intersection control signs.
30% 90% High
NS10
Install transverse
rumble strips on
approaches
Transverse rumble strips provide an
auditory and tactile sensation for each
motorist approaching the intersection.
20% 90% High
NS11
Improve sight distance
to intersection (Clear
Sight Triangles)
Improves sight distance by removing
restrictions, such as vegetation, parked
vehicles, signs, buildings, etc.
20% 90% High
NS13
Install splitter-islands
on the minor road
approaches
Splitter islands can provide a positive
separation between turning vehicles on
a through road and vehicles stopped on
the minor road approach. Also allows
for an extra stop sign at an intersection.
40% 90% Medium
R01 Add Segment Lighting Provision of lighting along roadways. 35% 90% Medium R21
Improve pavement
friction (High Friction
Surface Treatments)
Improving the skid resistance at
locations with high frequencies of wet
road crashes and/or failure to stop
crashes.
55% 90% High
R22
Install/Upgrade signs
with new fluorescent
sheeting (regulatory or
warning)
Additional or new signage can address
crashes caused by lack of driver
awareness or compliance of roadway
signing.
15% 90% Very High
R24 Install curve advance
warning signs
Placed in advance of curves with an
unacceptable level of crashes to warn
drivers of an impending sharp curve.
25% 90% Very High
R26
Install
dynamic/variable
speed warning signs
Includes the addition of dynamic speed
warning signs (also known as Radar
Speed Feedback Signs).
30% 90% High
R27
Install delineators,
reflectors and/or
object markers
Installation of delineators, reflectors,
and/or object markers are intended to
warn drivers of an approaching curve or
fixed object that cannot easily be
removed.
15% 90% Very High

Local Roadway Safety Plan 51
Code Countermeasure
Name
Countermeasure Description CRF Federal
Funding
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity
R28 Install edge-lines and
centerlines
Any road with a history of run-off-road
right, head-on, opposite-directionsideswipe, or run-off-road-left crashes is a candidate for this treatment -install
where the existing lane delineation is
not sufficient to assist the motorist in
understanding the existing limits of the
roadway. Depending on the width of
the roadway, various combinations of
edge line and/or center line pavement
markings may be the most appropriate.
25% 90% Very High
Other Countermeasures
Bulb outs/curb extensions. Curb extensions (also called bulb-outs) extend the sidewalk into the parking lane to narrow the roadway and provide additional pedestrian space at key locations; they can be used at corners and at mid-block. Curb extensions enhance pedestrian safety by increasing pedestrian visibility, shortening crossing distances, slowing turning vehicles, and visually narrowing the roadway.

Speed Feedback Signs. Speed feedback signs, also known as dynamic speed displays, provide drivers with feedback about their speed in relationship to the posted speed limit. When appropriately complemented with police enforcement, speed feedback signs can be an effective method for reducing speeds at a desired location.

In Road Yield/Stop Signs. In-street pedestrian crossing signs (MUTCD R1-6 or R1-6a) are placed within the roadway, either between travel lanes or in a median. The sign may be used to remind road users of laws regarding right-of-way at an unsignalized pedestrian crossing. This countermeasure is used with other crosswalk visibility enhancements to indicate optimal or preferred locations for people to cross and to help reinforce the driver requirement to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians at crossing locations.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 52

8. SAFETY PROJECTS
High-Collision Network Projects
This chapter summarizes the process of selecting safety projects as part of the analysis for the City of Yorba Linda’ LRSP. The next step after the identification of high-risk locations, emphasis areas, and applicable countermeasures was to identify location specific safety improvements for all highrisk roadway segments and intersections.

Specific countermeasures and improvements were selected from the 2020 LRSM, where:
• S refers to improvements at signalized locations,
• NS refers to improvements at non-signalized locations, and • R refers to improvements at roadway segments.

The corresponding number refers to the countermeasure number in the LRSM (2022). The countermeasures were grouped into safety projects for high-risk intersections and roadway segments. A total of eight safety projects were developed. All countermeasures were identified based on the technical teams’ assessment of viability that consisted of extensive analysis, observations, and City staff input. The most applicable and appropriate countermeasures as identified have been grouped together to form projects that can help make high-risk locations safer.

Table 14 lists the safety projects for high-risk intersections and roadway segments, along with total base planning level cost (2022 dollar amounts) estimates, and the resultant preliminary Benefit-Cost (B/C) Ratio. The “Total Benefit” estimates were calculated for the proposed improvements being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis. This “Total Benefit” is divided by the “Total Cost per Location” estimates for the proposed improvements, giving the resultant B/C Ratio. The B/C Ratio Calculation follows the methodology as mentioned in the LRSM (2020).

Appendix E lists the detailed methodology to calculate B/C Ratio, the complete cost, benefit and B/C Ratio calculation spreadsheet.

The next step in the process will be to prepare grant ready materials for HSIP Cycle 11 applications.

However, it should be noted that while the LRSP projects were based on high-risk locations, HSIP applications can be expanded to include other locations across the city.

About 52% of F+SI collisions have occurred at night. Yorba Linda Boulevard, Valley View Avenue, and La Palma Avenue have a higher concentration of nighttime collisions, compared to other roads in Yorba Linda. This has indicated that lighting at these locations needs to be evaluated to ensure lumen levels are adequate. Improvements such as installing new lighting, upgrading existing lighting to a higher lumen, installing larger signal heads, installing and upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting, and installing pedestrian improvements with lighting elements such as RRFBs and HAWKs can help make these locations safer for all road users.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 53
For F+SI collisions in the City of Yorba Linda, 34% of collisions were broadside collisions. This has called for evaluating broadside collisions along the high injury network and other locations throughout the City with similar characteristics. Improvements at these location can consist of improved signal hardware, provide protected left turn phase, convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted), raised medians at the approach to intersections, and others. 28% of F+SI collisions were due to DUI violations. La Palma Avenue, Yorba Linda Boulevard, and Yorba Ranch Road have a higher concentration of DUI collisions, compared to other Yorba Linda roads. Viable safety projects to address these collisions (in addition to educational and enforcement measures) include improving signal hardware, installing raised pavement markers, installing flashing beacons, adding intersection lighting, installing/upgrading larger or additional STOP signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs, installing delineators, reflectors, and object markers, and installing transverse rumble strips on approach.

For F+SI collisions in the City of Yorba Linda, 24% of collisions were hit object collisions. La Palma Avenue, Lakeview Avenue, and Imperial Highway have a higher concentration of hit object collisions, compared to other Yorba Linda roads. Viable safety projects to address these include lighting, install/upgrading signs with new fluorescent sheeting, curve advance warning signs, installing delineators, reflectors, and object markers, and install edge lines/centerlines.

For F+SI collisions in the City of Yorba Linda, 22% of collisions were due to automobile right of way violations. Yorba Linda Boulevard, Valley View Avenue, and Savi Ranch Parkway have a higher concentration of automobile right-of-way collisions, compared to other Yorba Linda roads. Viable safety projects to address these include installing signals, flashing beacons, transverse rumble strips on approaches, install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection regulatory/warning signs, upgrading intersection pavement markings, and adding intersection lighting.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 54
Table 14: Safety Projects - City of Yorba Linda
# Location CM 1 CM 2 CM 3 Cost Per
Location
B/C
Ratio
Project 1 Systemic Improvements At Signalized Intersections 1 Imperial Hwy and Yorba Linda Blvd S02 S03 S09 $41,650

60.00 2 Van Buren St and Yorba Linda Blvd S02 S03 S09 $33,908 3 Imperial Hwy and Valley View S02 S03 S09 $29,540
4 Bastanchury Rd and Valley View S02 S03 S09 $38,976
5 La Palma Ave and Gypsum Canyon Rd S02 S03 S09 $28,000 6 Prospect Ave and Imperial Hwy S02 S03 S09 $29,064
7 Eureka Ave and Imperial Hwy S02 S03 S09 $32,172
8 Richfield Rd and Yorba Linda Blvd S02 S03 S09 $43,239 9 Valley View and Drake St/Lakeview Ave S02 S03 S09 $37,114 10 Yorba Linda and Kellogg Dr S02 S03 S09 $27,916
TOTAL $251,489
S02 Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number S03 Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S09 Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) Project 2 Systemic Improvements at Signalized Intersections 1 Imperial Hwy and Yorba Linda Blvd S10 S21PB $79,800
2 Van Buren St and Yorba Linda Blvd S10 $36,400 178.71
3 Valley View and Drake St/Lakeview Ave S21PB $7,000
TOTAL $123,200
S10 Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.)
S21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Project 3 Spot-Location Improvements at Signalized Intersections 1 Van Buren St and Yorba Linda Blvd S01 $8,680

43.17 2 Richfield Rd and Yorba Linda Blvd S08 $51,800
TOTAL $60,480
S01 Add intersection lighting
S07 Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) S08 Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted)

Local Roadway Safety Plan 55
Project 4 Systemic Improvements At Unsignalized Intersections 1 Lakeview and Buena Vista NS01 NS06 NS07 $130,550

50.72 2 Fairmont Blvd and Big Spring Dr NS01 NS06 NS07 $51,030 3 Esperanza Rd and Yorba Ranch Rd NS01 NS06 NS07 $160,174 4 Hidden Hills Rd and Stonewood Dr NS01 NS07 $73,592
5 Welsh Pony Ln and Red Roan Rd NS01 NS06 NS07 $101,164 6 Avenida Del Rey and Via Del La Plz NS01 NS06 NS07 $93,828 7 Ohio St, White Oak Dr and Scenic View Dr NS01 NS06 NS07 $99,848 8 Casa Oro Dr and Casa Hermosa Dr NS01 NS06 NS07 $122,472 9 Fairmont Blvd and Lorca Ln NS01 NS06 NS07 $82,292
TOTAL $756,512
NS01 Add intersection lighting (NS.I.)
NS06 Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
Project 5 Spot Improvements at Unsignalized Intersections 1 Lakeview and Buena Vista NS03 NS09 $787,500

4.16 3 Esperanza Rd and Yorba Ranch Rd NS03 NS09 $613,300 TOTAL $1,400,800
NS03 Install Signals
NS09 Install flashing beacons as advance warning
NS10 Install transverse rumble strips on approaches

Local Roadway Safety Plan 56
Project 6 Systemic Improvements at Roadway Segments
1 Yorba Linda Blvd: Fairmont Blvd to N
Jefferson St R22 R26 R27 $183,181

39.07 2 La Palma Ave: Western City Limits to Cam
De Bryant R22 R26 R27 $146,020
3 Imperial Hwy: Prospect Ave to Yorba Linda
Blvd R22 R26 $67,978
4 Bastanchury Rd: Imperial Hwy to Humboldt
Ln R22 R26 R27 $164,197
5 Fairmont Blvd: Cordova Ln to Esperanza Rd R22 R26 R27 $118,846 6 Lakeview Ave: Flora Dr to Buena Vista Ave R22 R27 $72,040 7 Hidden Hills: Esperanza Rd to Mission Hills
Ln R22 R26 R27 $71,578
8 Yorba Ranch Rd: Esperanza Rd to Yorba
Linda Blvd R22 R27 $141,106
TOTAL $1,011,066
R22 Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) R26 Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
R27 Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers Project 7 Systemic Improvements At Roadway Segments
1 Fairmont Blvd: Cordova Ln to Esperanza Rd R24 $85,302

19.44 2 Lakeview Ave: Flora Dr to Buena Vista Ave R01 $328,370 3 Hidden Hills: Esperanza Rd to Mission Hills
Ln R01 R24 $378,266
4 Imperial Hwy: Prospect Ave to Yorba Linda
Blvd R28 $89,838
5 Bastanchury Rd: Imperial Hwy to Humboldt
Ln R28 $61,180
6 La Palma Ave: Western City Limits to Cam
De Bryant R24 $3,500
TOTAL $946,456
R01 Add Segment Lighting
R24 Install curve advance warning signs
R28 Install edge-lines and centerlines

HSIP APPLICATIONS
The next step will be to prepare HSIP grant ready materials, so that the City may submit them for HSIP Cycle 11 funding in 2022. As per previous HSIP funding cycles, projects with a higher benefit to the community have a higher probability of receiving funding successfully.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 57

9. EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
This chapter describes the steps the City may take to evaluate the success of this plan and steps needed to update the plan in the future. The LRSP is a guidance document and requires periodic updates to assess its efficacy and re-evaluate potential solutions. It is recommended to update the plan every two to five years in coordination with the identified safety partners. This document was developed based on community needs, stakeholder input, and collision analysis conducted to identify priority emphasis areas throughout the City. The implementation of strategies under each emphasis area would aim to reduce F+SI collisions in the coming years.

Funding is a critical component of implementing any safety project. While the HSIP program is a common source of funding for safety projects, there are numerous other funding sources that could be pursued for such projects. Potential funding sources are listed below in Table 15.

Table 15: Potential Funding Sources
Funding Source Funding
Agency
Amount
Available
Next
Estimated
Call For
Projects
Applicable
E’s Notes
Active
Transportation
Program
Caltrans,
California
Transportation
Commission
~$223
million per
year
2022 Engineering,
Education
Can use used for most
active transportation
related safety projects as
well as education
programs
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program
Caltrans TBD Early 2022 Engineering Most common grant
source for safety projects
Surface
Transportation
Block Group
Program
FHWA
(Administered
through OCTA)
Varies by FY TBD Engineering Typically used for roadway projects
Congestion
Mitigation and Air
Quality
FHWA
(Administered
through OCTA)
Varies by FY TBD Engineering Focused on projects that
improve air quality
Office Of Traffic
Safety Grants
California Office
of Traffic Safety
Varies by
grant
Closes
January 31st
annually
Education,
Enforcement,
Emergency
Response
10 grants available to
address various
components of traffic
safety
Affordable
Housing and
Sustainable
Communities
Program
Strategic Growth
Council and
Dept. of Housing
and Community
Development
~$405
million 2022 Engineering, Education
Must be connected to
affordable housing
projects; typically focuses
on bike/ped infrastructure/
programs

Local Roadway Safety Plan 58
Funding Source Funding
Agency
Amount
Available
Next
Estimated
Call For
Projects
Applicable
E’s Notes
Urban Greening
California
Natural
Resources
Agency
$28.5 million 2022 Engineering
Focused on
bike/pedestrian
infrastructure and greening
public spaces
Local Streets and
Road Maintenance
and Rehabilitation
CTC (distributed
to local
agencies)
$1.5 billion
statewide
N/A;
distributed
by formula
Engineering Typically pays for road
maintenance type projects
Raise Grant USDOT ~$1 billion 2022 Engineering Typically used for larger infrastructure projects
Safe Streets and
Roads for All
(SS4A)
USDOT
$5 billion
over five
years
2022 Engineering
Provides grants for
planning and infrastructure
to address roadway safety
Sustainable
Transportation
Equity Project
California Air
Resources Board
~$19.5
million
TBD; most
recent call
in 2020
Engineering,
Education
Targets projects that will
increase transportation
equity in disadvantaged
communities
Transformative
Climate
Communities
Strategic Growth
Council ~$90 million
TBD; most
recent call
in 2020
Engineering
Funds community-led
projects that achieve major
reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions in
disadvantaged
communities
Implementation
The LRSP document provides 4 E’s related countermeasures that can be implemented throughout the City to reduce F+SI collisions. It is recommended that the City of Yorba Linda implement the selected projects high-collision locations in coordination with other projects proposed for the City’s infrastructure development in their future Capital Improvement Plans.

The success of the LRSP can be achieved by fostering communication among the City and the safety partners.

Local Roadway Safety Plan 59
Monitoring and Evaluation
For the success of the LRSP, it is crucial to monitor and evaluate the 4 E-strategies continuously.

Monitoring and evaluation help provide accountability, ensures the effectiveness of the countermeasures for each emphasis area, and help making decisions on the need for new strategies. The process would help the City make informed decisions regarding the implementation plan’s progress and accordingly, update the goals and objectives of the plan.

After implementing countermeasures, the strategies should be evaluated annually as per their performance measures. The evaluation should be recorded in a before-after study to validate the effectiveness of each countermeasure as per the following observations:
• Number of F+SI collisions
• Number of police citations
• Number of public comments and concerns
Evaluation should be conducted during similar time periods and durations each year. The most important measure of success of the LRSP should be reduction in F+SI collisions throughout the City. If the number of F+SI collisions doesn’t decrease initially, then the countermeasures should be evaluated as per the other observations, as mentioned above. The effectiveness of the countermeasures should be compared to the goals for each emphasis area.

LRSP Update
The LRSP is a guidance document and is recommended to be updated every two to five years after adoption. After monitoring performance measures focused on the status and progress of the 4 E’s strategies in each emphasis area, the next LRSP update can be tailored to resolve any continuing safety problems. The City of Yorba Linda’s Public Works Department will be accountable for the progress of the plan goals. An annual stakeholder meeting with the safety partners is also recommended to discuss the progress for each emphasis area and oversee the implementation plan. The document should then be updated as per the latest collision data, emerging trends, and the 4 E’s strategies’ progress and implementation.

A
Appendix A
Matrix of Planning Goals, Policies, and Projects

Local Roadway Safety Plan B
Appendix B
Consolidated Collision Database

Local Roadway Safety Plan C
Appendix C
HSIP Eligible Countermeasures

Local Roadway Safety Plan D
Appendix D
Countermeasure Toolbox

Local Roadway Safety Plan E
Appendix E
B/C Ratio Calculation - LRSM (2020)